Taxi Driver Online

Anyone care to comment on Mr Kavanagh's opening statement to the select committee? Are his comments fact or fiction, selective or comprehensive, misleading or accurate? Here's the unedited version of what he had to say.

There is three key recommendations of which we are all aware and what we’ve done is what I hope is a serious critique of their findings, looking at their own statistics but also provide our alternative.

If we look first of all at the quantity, the recommendations around removing the controls on Quantities of taxis in an area, we’ve found from the OFT’s own Statistics that restricted areas have lower waiting times than de-restricted areas.

Areas with restrictions have lower fares than areas that have de restricted and most crucially, I believe areas that retain restrictions in the control of Taxi numbers have significantly more vehicles taxi and private hire collectively than de restricted areas and I’ll perhaps in questions answer why I believe that is the case.

We can also add that on all the customer surveys that the OFT uses the customer responds far more positively in all areas in restricted areas than de restricted areas. So its very strange in our view that the recommendation is to remove quantity controls when on all their own measures restricted areas, areas that I will prefer to describe as areas of managed growth score far higher.

I believe the biggest flaw of all in this OFT study, which originally was going to take twelve-months but actually went on for fifteen months. Is the fact that there has been no, and I stress, no assessment whatsoever of the impact on the Private hire trade, in the areas that have de-restricted.

I find this curious, astonishing when we take into account that two months into the study the OFT widened broadened its remit from just looking at the Taxi trade to acknowledging that there was such an inter related nature between the two sides of the trade, that they needed to do so. There is no assessment whatsoever of the impact on telephone bookings of the private hire trade in all the 900 pages of the document.

Bearing in mind that a larger proportion of de-limited areas are rural, compared to restricted areas, is that such a big surprise?

But the bus-man misses the point, if they suddenly made de-limited areas restricted, is he really saying that waiting times would improve?

_________________
IDFIMH

And his evidence for the fares are where?

In my manor, of the 13 councils in Sussex, the dearest six councils restrict taxi numbers.

Isn't it funny how the bus-man mentions the combined HC/PH fleet when it suits him, but forgets when it doesn't?

The fact that restricted areas have a high amount of PH, is because the HC trade can't cope with the demand.

_________________
IDFIMH

He keeps on about 'managed growth' but doesn't explain what he means.

Does he mean something like the plate issue, 25 miles away in Brighton?

There they surveyed in Sept 2002. The first time for over 10 years.

The council issued 19 plates, but because of the 'managed sloth' licensing procedure, even now 17 months later, not all of those plates have been issued.

_________________
IDFIMH

Sussex,

Your last statement is only partially correct, restricted areas would not have high numbers of private hire if councils issued hackney plates instead of permitting a monopoly.

Captain Cab

The managed growth policy, will cost the 89% of the cab trade that dont currently survey, £4.5 million pounds in England and Wales during the first year.

The cost will be borne by the trade regardless of your local authorities desire or the local trades desires.

Well, according to his own flawed response, it will mean PHs going HC and removing their radios, and then HCs that work independent, will put radios back in their vehicles.

In short, no change in the number of vehicles with radios.

But in fairness, that was their view a few weeks ago, now it could be anything.

_________________
IDFIMH

When I say they can't cope, I mean that the fact that PH exist at all (apart from exec cars), is purely down to them being able to find work.

If the HC trade was free and open (now that phrase rings a bell), then PH would struggle to find work, unless they cuts their prices.

_________________
IDFIMH

Nor is there any assessment of the impact of telephone bookings carried out by hackney carriages, all in all we have a flawed survey system that only takes account of demand from ranks. It does not take account of the majority of the work carried out by a hackney in the 21st century.

Yet these surveys are what we are all going to get through controlled growth.

Hmmm, is this a contridiction? coindinence or something more sinister?

final question, was this guy on oath?

Captain Cab

lol it gets better, I probably dont have time right now but tomorrow I'll post some of Mr Kavanaghs contradictions to his own opening statement.

Best wishes

John Davies.
Manchester.

Well taking into account the T&G's submission to DfT, then anything that comes out of Mr Kavanagh's gob is to be treated with ut-most caution.

When it comes to spin, then Mr Alistair Campbell would be proud of him.

_________________
IDFIMH

Private Hire Monthly.

In my own area, Gateshead fares are cheaper than Newcastle (restricted),
Durham(restricted), Chester-le-Street (restricted), Sunderland (restrcted),
South Tyneside (restricted), Airport (restrcted). And comparible with North Tyneside (restrcted), Derwentside (rural), Castle Morpeth (rural), Tynedale (rural).

South Tyneside are restrcted but have plates available due to a non-transferable ruling and by-law, Derwentside, Castle Morpeth and Tynedale have a low take up rate for plates and although H/C plates are available some still licence P/H.

Sussex Man should probably return to his fairness argument when arguing for delimitation, its a much better argument as it is difficult to disagree.

B. Lucky

You know fine well what he means Sussex, you obviously don't agree with the idea that people should be issued with plates at all, unless of course you get one yourself.

The process the T&G call "Managed Growth" is simple.

Step 1 - The Licensing Authority commission an independant un-met demand survey, and offer recomendations as to how many extra vehicles are required (in their opinion) to meet any demand, if in fact they deem that the un-met demand is signifigant.

Step 2 - Consultation with the trade, representatives would debate the issues raised by the independant survey. Most councils I know have a regular meeting policy with trade representatives from both sides reguarly.

Step 3 -Debate within the Licensing Committee, including an opportunity for any differing views from the trade to be voiced through representatives.

Step 4 - Implimentation of decision.

The T&G believe that "Managed Growth" should lead to plates being issued gradually to avoid any massive influx, and that plates be issued ONLY to people who intend to use the plates themselves by demonstrating an ability to finance a vehicle.

In my opinion "Managed Growth" is self-explanitory, you allow the numbers in the trade to grow but do it in such a way as to minimilise the effect on the existing trade.

B. Lucky

Whar you have described is not managed groth and is infact not lawful.

first of all with a report there may be no growth at all,

seccondly if a report says significant unmet demand, plates cannot be witheld to claimants upto that demand,

finaly Mick, plates to only those that will use them?

how the hell do you know?

if this is the T and G pol;icy its cumbersome, unlawfull and ill thought out.