|
Is "cash for questions" alive and kicking?
Lord Faulkner is a Labour peer who has a long standing background in Public Relations. In 2005 Faulkner was exposed as having connections with a company that lobbied on behalf of three giant American casino operators. Insignificant perhaps until you realise that Faulkner was a key member of the joint Lords and Commons committee that last year examined the government’s plans for gambling reform and gave them the go-ahead with only minor changes
Faulkner was a paid employee of Incepta, a public relations and marketing company, which he declared in the Lords register of interests. What he didn't declare was that "Incepta" owned Citigate Public Affairs, the lobbying firm that worked for the three US gambling companies.
Faulkner, is recognised as being one of the founders of the modern lobbying system in Britain, he sold his public affairs firm to Incepta in 1997. This later became Citigate Public Affairs.
The three casino operators Caesars Entertainment, MGM Mirage and Kerzner International all become clients of Citigate when Faulkner’s committee started to scrutinise the gambling legislation.
When questioned about his conflict of interest Faulkner said he was “a strategy adviser” for Incepta but did not do any lobbying. He was “vaguely aware” Citigate is now employed by the three big casino operators.
Faulkner also said “I don’t do any lobbying work for Incepta at all. I’m just retained by the holding company. I don’t have any connections with Citigate any more.”
When asked if he was aware that Citigate had won contracts for the three American companies, he said: “Vaguely, but again it wouldn’t be something I would get involved in.”
I suppose there isn't much point in being in PR if your not going to use your influence in obtaining the best result for your client. Was Faulkner using his influence and should he have disclosed the conflict of interest between his paid retainer and the legislation his committee was scrutinising?
There is a twist to the Incepta saga because we find another politician on their payroll namely Francis Maude MP. Assuming this is the same company that lined Mr Faulkner's pockets, In his register of interests Maude lists himself as being a "non-executive chairman from 1 March 2004" of Incepta Group PLC.
You might wonder what all this has to do with the Taxi trade? Well it turns out that Mr Faulkner is now batting for LTI. He submitted an amendment that reads as though it came straight out of the LTI book of best practice. If the amendment would have been passed it would have meant everyone being forced to drive the LTI Icon or its second cousin the Metrocab, or something very similar.
Here is the amendment to the Road Safety bill put forward by Faulkner.
..........................................................................................
Lord Faulkner of Worcester moved Amendment No. 61:
After Clause 43, insert the following new clause—
"HACKNEY CARRIAGES: SUPPLEMENTARY LICENSING CONDITIONS
(1) In section 6(6) of the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (32 & 33 Vict, c. 115) (definition of "matter of fitness" for purposes of grant of hackney carriage licence) after paragraph (b) insert—
"(c) the matters set out in subsection (6A) of this section.
(6A) The matters referred to in subsection (6)(c) are that any vehicle licensed as a
hackney carriage under this section shall—
(a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
(b) be used for no other purpose,
(c) have hinged doors,
(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane."
(2) In section 47 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c. 57) (licensing of hackney carriages), before subsection (1) insert—
"(A1) A district council may grant a licence for a hackney carriage only if the conditions in subsection (A2) are satisfied.
(A2) The conditions are that any vehicle licensed as a hackney carriage under this section shall—
](a) have been constructed specifically for use as a hackney carriage,
(b) be used for no other purpose,
(c) have hinged doors,
(d) have access for disabled passengers at the side, and
(e) have a rear window consisting of a single pane.""
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the law governing hackney carriages and taxis across the United Kingdom. The law is derived from a number of Acts of Parliament, some very ancient. The earliest that I am aware of are the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869, which the first part of this amendment seeks to amend. The amendment deals with the safety hazards created by hackney carriages that load wheelchair users from the rear, those that have split rear windscreens and those with sliding doors. It also insists that all taxis in the UK are purpose-built and not converted vans. I shall deal briefly with each issue.
Numerous local authorities already ban taxi vehicles into which wheelchair users are loaded from the rear; they include major cities such as London, Edinburgh, Manchester, Liverpool and Sheffield. The main reason for my amendment is safety. Where taxis are lined up bumper to bumper at a railway station or airport rank, there is no space to pull forward safely. To load from the back they would have to put their nose into the flow of traffic and create a hazard. It is not surprising, therefore, that charities such as RADAR, the Spinal Injuries Association and the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents—I declare an interest as a former president—all support that view.
It has also been supported in two Early-Day Motions in another place and by fire brigades, which report that they often find it difficult to extract wheelchair users in rear-loading vehicles involved in rear-end shunts.
Rear windscreens are a road safety issue. Many converted-van taxis have split rear windscreens and provide rear access through van-type doors. They have a central pillar in the rear windscreen that restricts the driver's rear view and creates a large blind spot where children could be hidden and consequently hit when the vehicle is reversing. It also leads to drivers colliding with parked cycles and motorcycles hidden in the blind spot when they are reversing. The amendment insists that all hackney carriages should have a one-piece, single-pane rear windscreen.
On hinged versus sliding doors, the amendment would adopt the same practice as exists in the city of New York, where sliding doors on taxis for non-disabled passengers were outlawed by Mayor Giuliani in 1996 and all vehicles with sliding doors had to be converted to use swing doors. Passengers who get out of vehicles through sliding doors on to a road are often at risk, as drivers coming up from behind will often not notice that a sliding door is opening. The first thing that they see is a leg or body emerging from the vehicle. Swing-hinged doors provide a visible barrier and create space for the passenger to exit.
I should say a word about why all taxis should be purpose built. The iconic London black cab is the ideal for others to emulate. If all hackney carriages looked like those, the travelling public would be less confused and much safer. I beg to move.
Viscount Simon: My Lords, my noble friend has introduced his amendment exceedingly well. I have only one further thing to add: I support it.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend for moving his amendment. We certainly agree with his main proposition that accessibility for disabled people is an important factor in taxi provision. That is why my honourable friend the Minister in another place has made clear our expectation that, within the next decade, vehicles will comply in those terms in prescribed areas. We say "in prescribed areas" because there is a difference between taxis used in urban areas and those used in rural ones.
I accept that we want disabled access but we may be prepared to tolerate different forms of that in different parts of the country. I fear that my noble friend is proposing that the black cab should be a universal model for taxis in all areas, which would have significant implications for the employment, use and provision of taxis in many parts of the country. Whole livelihoods would be destroyed if all taxis had to be black cabs. The technical specifications of the black cab are extremely significant, onerous and expensive. The noble Lord will know the cost of a black cab. A lot of taxis across the country provide an exceptional service to the many citizens who depend upon them but are run by people who could not invest in a black cab.
I shall give one obvious illustration: one specification of black cab design is that they should have the extraordinary and hugely admired limited turning circle. Drivers of ordinary vehicles are left in glorious envy of that feature when they see London taxis and other vehicles spin on the proverbial sixpence. But turning-circle specifications are not needed on cabs in other parts of the country. They are needed in some cities, which is why we see the so-called London cab in Manchester, Leeds and elsewhere, but a turning circle is of limited concern to users in many other places.
I understand that my noble friend seeks to ensure that the taxi trade serves citizens to the best of its ability. There is no doubt that we will insist on that. My honourable friend the Minister in the other place has indicated that he works to a timescale for compliance in that respect. But that is vastly different from an amendment that would produce a universal design concept. Although the black cab is the glory of London and greatly used in some of our other major cities, it is scarcely the basis for the design of taxis for hire across much of the United Kingdom.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I am most grateful to my noble friend for his considered reply to this very short debate. It is too late at night, and too late in the Bill, for a lengthy debate about the role of the hackney cab in the United Kingdom.
I am glad that he pays tribute to the status of the London cab, as it is much admired by cities elsewhere in the world. I was also reassured by my noble friend's remarks about provision for disabled passengers. I will read very carefully what he has said but I do not wish to press the amendment at this stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
.........................................................
|
Login
Register
FAQ
