Taxi Driver Online

Well this is quite interesting for licensing anoraks

And purely coincidental as regards the endless articles about the PHV age rules. Presumably.

And although the article is illustrated by a photo of the yellow HCs (hopefully an old one...), presumably this isn't just about them.

Not sure what to think of this, though. If it was up to me elected politicians (including councillors) would have nothing to do with this sort of stuff. But, in the meantime, it might help stuff like this if they did get more involved. On the other hand, their involvement could potentially cause problems, or make a bad situation worse

But, in essence, this is all presumably related to the (supposedly) non-political nature of licensing committees, quasi-judicial processes etc


Derby leaders slam 'ridiculous' plan to block them from taxi talks

https://www.derbytelegraph.co.uk/news/d ... n-10870111

Concerns have been raised over potential 'political bias' in such meetings

https://i2-prod.derbytelegraph.co.uk/ar ... 489225.jpg

Councillors have slammed “ridiculous” plans to block them from crucial talks with taxi drivers amid fears of “political bias”.

Blagreaves councillor Sara Bolton last year called for elected members to hold future meetings with drivers after believing Derby City Council had “lost its way” with the taxi trade.

But after authority officers reviewed the situation, a new council report proposed that “no members of the licensing committee shall attend such trade-specific engagement meetings”.

It was suggested that future meetings would see drivers meet only with senior council officers – with no councillors at the table.

Officers state this will “maintain absolute impartiality, fairness, and transparency in the council’s licensing functions”.

The report said: “Committee member attendance at meetings between the trade and officers may be perceived as interference with a regulatory process, compromises the impartiality of such members and would result in potential disqualification from decision-making.”

However, the proposal was rejected and slammed as “ridiculous” by Labour councillors of the licensing committee during a meeting last Thursday (March 12).

Cllr Bolton was very critical of the report and called the proposals “a real shame”.

She said: “It feels as if, reading the report, the officers don’t want councillors there because we ‘interfere’. The councillors are not welcome at these meetings.

“But we have a job to do. We are elected by our people in our wards and by the city. We need to know what’s going on.”

Fellow Labour councillor Martin Rawson also strongly condemned the plan to limit talks between officers and taxi drivers only.

He said: “This really does seem ridiculous to me. What the paper is saying is that members of this committee can’t have any conversational dialogue with members of the trade.

“A core part of our role is understanding the issues and the concerns that the trade have. They need to be brought to our attention.”

A legal officer told councillors at the meeting the report aligns with Local Government Association guidance.

Conservative councillor and chair of the licensing committee, Cllr Alison Holmes said: “We don’t have to have trade meetings at all. It is not a statutory requirement.”

Fellow Conservative councillor Jamie Mulhall added: “I think I will be voting in favour of the recommendations.

“I think it is important to remind everybody that I think officers of this council are trying to remove the chance for any political bias that might exist.”

But the proposal was rejected by a majority of councillors.

But, I mean, I assume no-one on here read the committee meeting transcript about the Fife Council fare decision. This was the input (or at least, the input that made any sense) from one councillor, who was the former chair, and has I think been on the committee for about 150 years. This is how fare levels are decided. After about six months of consultation, negotiations and number crunching, this is about the level of councillor insight and understanding

By the way, that yellow Peugeot in the photo with the number plate showing was almost 22 years old and had done 474,239 miles when it was last MoTd three years ago

Although in its latter years in particular it wasn't doing a lot of miles, so maybe had left the trade by that time.

https://www.check-mot.service.gov.uk/re ... calls=true

Absolute madness, and councillors should reject the proposal from officers.

Councillors talking to the trade doesn't mean they should always accept what the trade says and wants, but FFS the taxi/PH trade deserves to be heard by those that control their lives.


Well done to those councillors.

_________________
IDFIMH

Shame on you.

Just because there isn't a section of an act that mandates such meetings, it doesn't follow that they are therefore banned.

I think that particular councilor needs to look up the word 'democracy' in the dictionary.

_________________
IDFIMH

Everyone has bias; the issue for councillors is to set that bias aside and decide based on what they hear and read.

Both from officers and taxi/ph drivers.

But if this councillor, or any other councillor for that matter, believes they can't set aside bias, then don't meet with drivers.

Leave those meetings for councillors with open minds.

_________________
IDFIMH

What about political bias of Council officers who do not tell the truth every time to elected members and often tell blatant lies. I think we all have experienced this.

Trust no-one, Heathcote

Particularly on here