Taxi Driver Online

I had lunch today with two other old cabbies; between the three of us we have over 125 years’ service in the Hackney Carriage trade.

And, as you do, we were moaning about this & that being wrong in today’s trade, when the subject of mis-use of Section 52 of The Road Traffic Act 2006 came up and the fact that there is no guidance on its use from the Department of Transport. Or anywhere else for that matter; not even in the Licensing Officer’s bible, that great tome entitled, ‘Button on Taxis’, in which our Jim mentions the amending section . . . and that’s all. No mention about what circumstances it should be used in; nothing at all, just that it amended the relevant section in the LG(MP) Act 1976.

Then my mate Ron had a bit of brainstorm; it’s still working, but at his age the campus mentis is slowly but surely failing. Out of the blue he said, “When the RSA Act 2006 was going through Parliament, there would have been discussions in the House of Commons and The Lords about Section 52 & what it was intended for and the spirit of Section 52. And what was said in debates would have been recorded in Hansard.”

Now I don’t know if the records of those debates can be easily accessed, but I do know that there is no guidance on the use of Section 52. I wonder what weight records of Parliamentary debates via Hansard might give to the correct interpretation & use of Section 52?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Government amendments Nos. 1 to 3.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

I hope that it is not impertinent of me to say thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the ruling that you have just given.

New clauses 6 and 7 deal with taxis and private hire vehicles, sometimes known as minicabs. Both clauses have the same objective: to make travel safer for people who use those modes of transport. Against the background of the Bichard report and the legislation that we have brought forward in that regard, we have considered carefully whether we should use the opportunity presented by the Road Safety Bill to deal with any urgent safety concerns relating to taxi and PHV legislation. The result is these new clauses to deal with two worrying aspects of the legislation that we identified.

New clause 6 addresses our concern about a taxi or PHV driver's right to continue working while appealing against a decision to suspend or revoke his licence, even if he is considered to represent an immediate threat to public safety. The new clause gives local licensing authorities in England and Wales, outside London, a new power which will enable them to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver's licence with immediate effect on safety grounds. That power has been available to the licensing authority in London—Transport for London—for a number of years.

Drivers' automatic right to continue working pending appeal has been a source of justified concern to many taxi and PHV licensing authorities. They want to use their licensing powers to ensure that passengers are safe using local taxi and PHV services. They play a tremendously important role in protecting residents and visitors who use taxis and PHVs in their areas. The new clause will enable them to do so even more thoroughly in some circumstances—for example, when a driver has committed a serious offence or is suffering from a medical condition that makes it unsafe for him to continue working.

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2006-10-09d.50.5&s=immediate+suspension+hackney#g50.6

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

What is the definition of serious in this case?

_________________
Grandad,

In London we talk about football, and ogle (very sexist) women in short skirts walking past.

Clearly you have more intellectual lunches than us.

Did the guys at the next table drop off?

I dont think it was parking on a double yellow

CC

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Was they the same two other cabbies you was having coffee or cokes with in Coventry?

_________________
Note to self: Just because it pops into my head does NOT mean it should come out of my mouth!!

Nah . . . . but the cafe owners hate it when we come in, because we completely clear the cafe of diners within minutes!!

And when new diners come through the door and see us, they turn back round and come back later.

It's nice and peaceful, wherever we eat!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Good memory Ms Toots.

Why do you ask?

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Well perhaps that might help, but I do wish that 'serious offence' could have been expanded upon.

Thanks for that one Captain; it's been saved to VVVID!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

I don't think the suspensions were just about being parked on double yellows either. Double yellow lines are there for a reason, possibly to allow pedestrians a clear view of traffic driving up and down the road. By parking on the double yellows the drivers were blocking this view and thus making it dangerous for the public to cross the road. That is probably classed as "serious".

_________________
Grandad,

There's a mountain of stuff to be read about this on the link you provided.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Not sure about this case but in court a 'serious' offence is one that more times than not leads to a community sentence i.e. unpaid work, curfew, etc.

In other words not a parking ticket.

_________________
IDFIMH

You see the problem, "more times than not" It is down to interpretation or misinterpretation all the while.

_________________
Grandad,

And within the same debate we have these gems;

Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich, Labour)

I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene so early. Given that we are so keen on the safety of drivers and that we are introducing so many sensible amendments, will he explain why there is no discussion of pedicabs, which are highly dangerous, yet seem to be of no concern to anyone? It is quite possible, if one is bored with someone, to put them in a pedicab.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

It would be wrong for me to debate Mr. Speaker's selection of amendments. I know that some hon. Members tabled amendments on pedicabs, but they have not been selected. However, I know that Transport for London intends to bring pedicabs within a regulatory regime. In my view, the proposed arrangements will be adequate to cover the issue. My hon. Friend may have a different view, however, as she does on so many issues that we discuss.

As I was saying, both new clauses are strongly supported by those with responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing and have been welcomed by many in the industry. They are necessary to safeguard the public and I commend them to the House.

Look out Mr GBC; pedicab licensing in London could be coming soon!!

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.

Now we're coming to the Nitty Gritty of Section 52!!

New Clause 6 — Immediate suspension and revocation of drivers' licences
Orders of the Day
House of Commons debates, 9 October 2006, 5:06 pm

From the same debate we have the following;

Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)

We agree with the Government on one of the new clauses, but probably not on the other. New clause 6 introduces new provisions into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. That Act currently allows a local authority or other licensing power or body to exercise the power to revoke, suspend or refuse a licence where the subject is convicted of specific offences or for "any other reasonable cause" that the authority has "grounds" for believing. If I understand the intention behind the new clause, it will allow a local authority or licensing body to revoke or suspend the licence of taxi driver or minicab with immediate effect where it is a "matter of public safety", or on other grounds after 21 days where notice has been served on the driver.

Our question, on which I seek clarification, is this; the Government currently have powers under the 1976 Act to revoke a licence for "any other reasonable cause" and for a "specific conviction." The proposed public safety grounds represent a power that is additional to the Act and it is unclear how this will work in practice.

I assume that a conviction for a serious driving offence would be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that a conviction for an assault such as actual bodily harm or grievous bodily harm against another road user, a pedestrian or a passenger would again be covered under the specific conviction provision. I assume that driving a vehicle without a valid MOT or in an unroadworthy condition as designated by the police or by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency would be covered under the reasonable cause provision. I assume that a deterioration in a given medical condition would be covered by that provision as well.

If the Minister is willing to tell me that my assumptions are incorrect, I will see the need for the new clause. If so, perhaps he will give me three specific examples where public safety needs arise beyond those already dealt with by the 1976 Act. The Minister made much in Committee about powers that were not being enforced at present, and said that we should not introduce more new powers that were unlikely to be enforced. We need clarity from the Government as to exactly how the new clause will work.

There was substantial discussion in Committee of new clause 7 and the Minister has done what he warned us he would do; he has closed what he described as the can of worms. However, as new clause 7 puts into effect for the rest of the country what clause 53 does for London, is it necessary? The 1988 Act is working perfectly well within London. There are vast numbers of contractors supplying private hire services to councils on a contract basis. They are Criminal Records Bureau-checked and their vehicles are checked and comply with safety provisions, but they are not available to the public. There seems to be no reason for the Government to intervene in an Act that is working well. This seems to be another piece of unnecessary legislation.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman is being slightly disingenuous. Were we here today debating an abuse of a vulnerable person by someone driving a private hire vehicle who had not been appropriately checked and who had been allowed to drive because of the contract exemption, I suspect that his argument would be that I should resign my position because I had not taken the opportunity of the Road Safety Bill to close that loophole.

Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)

But as we said in Committee, and as I said in my speech, these people are CRB-checked, so the case the Minister makes does not arise.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

Clearly there are opportunities within the process that someone must go through to have the right to drive a vehicle under the contract exemption that might allow someone who had not been appropriately checked to drive. We had this debate on Second Reading, when the hon. Member for Orpington said that the need for checks would put his constituent, who had a PHV company that was taking advantage of the contract exemption, at a competitive disadvantage, because he would now have to pay for his drivers to be checked. Clearly there is a loophole. I agreed in Committee to look at the matter and to decide whether, in the interests of consistency, we should close the loophole not only in London, as Transport for London had requested, but in the rest of the country. We took the view that we should close it in the rest of the country.

The hon. Gentleman asked me to cite three examples, but I cannot do so. I hope that nobody will ever be in a position to do so, because we have closed the loophole. Serious questions would certainly be asked if we did not do so. Will the change be a major regulatory burden on the industry? No, it will not. I hope that anybody who has used the contract exemption in the past has checked their drivers and gone through the whole process. The fact that they will now have to do so by law is neither here nor there. It should be no additional burden if they have followed best practice in the past. If they have not been doing so, there will be an additional burden, but I argue that it is an appropriate burden for them to carry.

Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)

The Minister is carefully—but not helpfully—intertwining the two clauses. Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 a taxi or minicab driver can be suspended for being convicted of a specific offence or for any other reasonable cause decided by the licensing authority. I would like the Minister to tell us what public safety requires beyond "any other reasonable cause". As yet, he has not told us.

Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)

The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of the new clause and I accept full responsibility for not having explained it. There will be no new powers to suspend or revoke a licence. One would still have to satisfy the grounds for a suspension or revocation of a driver's licence as under the present legislation. The difference is that at the moment if the individual whose licence is suspended appeals against that suspension, they can continue to drive people around while they await the hearing of the appeal. If someone is accused of a serious offence—as serious as rape or some other sexual offence—it would be horrendous if they were allowed to continue to drive a private hire vehicle while waiting for the appeal against suspension to be heard. Under the new clause, when the licensing authority takes the view that the offence is serious, it will be able to suspend the licence.

The argument that was put to us by some taxi drivers was that it might leave them open to false allegations and they might lose their livelihood over a trivial allegation while awaiting the hearing of appeal against suspension. However, in the experience of the use of the power in London, where it has been in place for some time, it has not been abused. Drivers have had their licences suspended pending appeal only in cases in which a serious allegation has been made against them. Given the seriousness of the offences that might be involved, I think that the new clause is a proportionate response to the situation. No driver should lose their livelihood lightly even for a short time, but when someone is accused of an offence of sufficient seriousness to justify the revocation or suspension of their licence, it is appropriate that they should not continue to drive pending an appeal.

I hope that I have at least partially reassured Stephen Hammond and other hon. Members, and that the new clauses will be added to the Bill.

_________________
Kind regards,

Brummie Cabbie.

Type a message, post your news,
Disagree with other members' views;
But please, do have some decorum,
When debating on the TDO Forum.