We explained that the true meaning of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (76 Act) as was the will and intention of parliament was localism, not only in the costs associated with license fees but conditions set for drivers, vehicles and operators as suited each authority when they adopted the 76 Act.
Indeed, the very issue that plagues authorities in Wales today was discussed at length and can be read in the Hansard reports available online which I will include extracts, links to the Hansard and which column to find the discussions that I quote.
Lord Airedale on the 21st of June 1976 raised his concern that a vehicle licensed in one area could not pick up passengers in another area which is the issue today known as cross border hiring, his example of what was Clause 66 in the draft Bill (now Section 75 of the 76 Act) was as follows.
Now we come to the third element: if a vehicle is not made available for hire within the district. Think of the mischief that that could cause! Somebody in Basingstoke marries somebody who lives in Aldershot. They have the wedding in Aldershot. There is a huge coming and going of friends and relations between Aldershot and Basingstoke. Somebody hires a car from Basingstoke, and it goes to Aldershot. They say, " Now will you take somebody else back to Basingstoke? ". The answer is " No ". It cannot be done; it does not come within this subsection because they are not allowed to make the vehicle available for hire within the district. So, what happens? The car from Basingstoke has to go back empty from Aldershot, and another car has to be hired in Aldershot to go to Basingstoke. It comes back empty to Aldershot.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/197 ... Provisions)Bill?highlight=lord%20airedale#contribution-35b79c26-5189-4d51-ab7a-fa0946b772cc (Column 91)
The answer to this question came on the 13th of July 1976 where Lord Harris of Greenwich replied to the question raised by saying…
We recognised that it would not be right that the operations of legitimate and respectable private hire organisations should be hindered by restrictions introduced partly to protect the interests of the travelling public and partly to reduce unlawful and misleading activities by less reputable organisations. It was seen that the introduction of licensing control certainly would have a serious effect on the legitimate activities of the private hire trade if simple licensing on a district level were to be introduced without some modification recognising the essentially mobile nature of the hire car and its driver. Licensing appropriate to the hackney carriage because of that vehicle's unique privilege of plying for hire in the district is clearly not appropriate to the private hire car booked in advance for hiring.
The first part of the Amendment provides that the licensed private hire vehicle in respect of which a vehicle licence issued by a district council under Part II is in force may be fully used as a private hire vehicle in any other controlled district. It may also of course be used in any district not subject to control. Such a vehicle may, in any other district, collect, set down or pass in transit, and that I think was one of the anxieties which in particular was expressed during the Committee stage. We would not agree of course that a vehicle not licensed anywhere, that is to say a vehicle operated from an uncontrolled area, should enjoy so wide a privilege. I think that is self-evident. The relaxation contained in this part of the Amendment is quite wide and I hope your Lordships will agree that it deals adequately and fairly with the problem which was discussed when this matter last came before your Lordships.
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/197 ... Provisions)Bill?highlight=local%20government%20miscellaneous%20provisions%20act%201976#contribution-8dabc090-45b7-4b62-ab8b-d2276b24a0e0 (Column 244)
While Lord Airedale wished to clarify some points further, he acknowledged at Column 246 of the same days debate (the same link as above) that…
As the Minister pointed out, the first paragraph of the Amendment deals merely with vehicles operating from one controlled area and giving them free passage in other controlled areas.
This is in fact where the term “the right to roam” was born meaning that a vehicle may pick up, pass through, or drop off in any other district regardless of the 76 Act being adopted in those districts or not.
However, if you continue to read Hansard on the 26th of July 1976 Lord Harris of Greenwich confirms the meaning of which Section 75 (1)(a) of the 76 Act truly means when he says…
This would be a return to the present uncontrolled situation which has itself caused Parliament to add Part II to the Bill. For such a journey, the hirer would be liable to find himself driven in an untested, unlicensed, inadequately maintained, or insured vehicle, by a driver of whom nothing is known. That would be the position if the Amendment were carried and, frankly, this is wholly contrary to the general intention of this Part of the Bill. The Bill already provides Clause 75(1)(a) that any vehicles, whether or not licensed, may bring a passenger into a controlled district under a contract made outside it and provided that the vehicle is not made available for hire in the district. This is to allow businesses operated from outside the controlled district to perform journeys into or through controlled districts without the need of licences, and it safeguards the right of vehicles from uncontrolled districts to perform hirings into controlled districts.
(Our emphasis)
https://hansard.parliament.uk/Lords/197 ... Provisions)Bill?highlight=private%20hire#main-content (column 1119)
Login
Register
FAQ
