PLEASE INSERT YOUR AUTHORITY ADDRESS AND DETAILS....
Date 24 April 2014
Dear …………………….
Deregulation Bill 2013/14- Proposed Clauses 8, 9 and 10 amending the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
I write to you with regards to the proposed amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 set out in the Deregulation Bill 2013/14. As you may be aware this Bill is currently passing through the Parliamentary process and we are urging you to support us in our opposition to these proposals.
The proposals are of great concern for many Local Authorities across the country. This concern is also echoed by many Taxi Trade Associations and the Police Commissioners in many areas.
The Meeting of Minds Group which includes the National Association of Licensing & Enforcement Officers [NALEO], The National Taxi Association [NTA], The National Private Hire Association [NPHA], Unite the Union, and the GMB held a meeting in Bolton on 15th April 2014. The delegates at that meeting included MP's, The Law Commission, The Local Government Association, the Police Crime Commissioner for Greater Manchester and Elected Members as well as Licensing and Enforcement Officers. To assist you, a copy of the Minutes of the Meeting held on the 15 April 2014 are attached.
Local Licensing Authorities are charged with ensuring as far as reasonably practicable “Public Safety”. This is a constant thread throughout all threads of licensing legislation such as the Licensing Act 2003, Gambling Act 2005 and also the licensing of Sex Establishments, Street Traders and many others. The proposed amendments referred to are designed to affect hackney carriage and private hire licensees throughout England and Wales.
Licensing Authorities take this role very seriously and impose strict standards, conditions and policies to assist us in carrying out this role. It has taken us many years to get where we are now and this could all be undone overnight through adopting changes to legislation that take the control / and power to set local standards away from the Local Authorities.
It is my/our opinion that standards / decisions should be left in the hands of those locally elected members (Councillors) who are put in power through a democratic process by the residents of the district, town or city of each area.
In brief terms the three proposals are set out in Clauses (paragraph’s) 8, 9 and 10 of the Deregulation Bill;
Section 8 – Private Hire Vehicles: Circumstances in which driver’s licence required to drive a licensed private hire vehicle; Section 9 – Taxi and private hire vehicles: Duration of licences; Section 10 – Private hire vehicles: Sub-contracting between operators
I have set out below in very brief terms the concerns around the three individual proposals.
Section 8 – In simple terms this lessening of the legislation will allow anyone with an ordinary driving licence to drive a private hire vehicle when it is off duty.
This is seen by all concerned as a real backward step and is one that would cause a huge amount of concern and make enforcement of the legislation extremely difficult if not impossible.
The current situation is that only a licensed driver can drive a licensed vehicle whether that is for hire or reward or social domestic and pleasure purposes, this applies to hackney carriages as well as private hire, and this was upheld in the High Court in the following case Leslie Benson v Clinton Andrew Boyce [1997] EWHC Admin 35 (20 January, 1997).
This amendment is nothing short of a charter for drivers to abuse the system. It will be impossible to know when a vehicle is not working, or when the driver is not working, or indeed who is actually driving the vehicle. It will look like a private hire vehicle, so there is no need to state the obvious. You will also note from the attached minutes that all attendees agreed that this leaves the travelling public in a very vulnerable position.
This clause, if enacted as set out, will inevitably create a significant risk to public safety and especially to the users of such services which often include some of the most vulnerable members of our society.
Section 9 – proposes to amend the standard duration of driver’s licences (private hire and hackney carriages) to three years and the standard for private hire operator’s licence to five years. Again there are significant concerns. This should be left for local determination. We strongly believe that locally elected members should be allowed to determine local conditions / standards etc. including the duration / term of a licence and can see no reason to move away from the current legislative position. If there were to be a perceived need the currently proposed clause appears badly drafted and in need of amendment.
Section 10 – proposes changes to allow private hire operators to sub contract bookings to other operators licensed in a different district (Authority)
Although it is understood that businesses do cross Authority borders and this amendment may well be intended to aid business growth. The concern is that this will become confusing for the members of the public.
Licensing/Enforcement Officers would have no clear line of enquiry for complaints made against drivers of companies not based in their particular jurisdictions. In the event of complaints and enquiries who is responsible for the work (job) carried out? Would this be the company/person taking the original booking or the company / person who undertook the journey / job? Who would be the legal owner of that work?
We once again ask you to oppose these amendments when the time comes There is a Westminster Debate on 29th April at 2.30 pm. Your support would be very much appreciated not only by we the requestors but also by the majority of your constituents who would, we are sure wish to have confidence in the bona fide licensed trades members.
There is currently legislation in place that covers these areas already, this current legislation has been subject of a comprehensive review by the Law Commission on behalf of the Government and the full report and recommendations are due to be published in May 2014.
There does not see any clear reason why these three clauses are so vitally important that they need to be taken in isolation ahead of the wholesale proposals imminently due from the Law Commission. These clauses appear to have been rushed and at best are ill thought out.
It is strongly felt that they should not be enacted and that the best course of action should be refer these matters for inclusion in the ongoing comprehensive Law Commission Review currently under way and which is due to report in May 2014, less than one month away.
Yours sincerely,
_________________ Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that. George Carlin
|