Taxi Driver Online

Just when you though things couldn't become any more ridiculous in Edinburgh's black taxi trade, erstwhile RC Convener Chris Wigglesworth sticks his size nines in the mire.

Any want to guess whether the council solicitor ran his eye over this little gem

Wiggies' letter in today's Edinburgh Evening news.

Speak your mind on city black cabs

AS Convener of Edinburgh City Council's Taxi and Private Hire Car Regulatory Committee, I've been reading the lively correspondence about the deregulation of taxis here in Edinburgh.

Since 1997 the Council has had a policy of limiting numbers of taxi licences. The original limit of 1030 has gradually been increased to 1260. That limit was reaffirmed in 2005 following an independent report that there was "no significant unmet demand for taxis in Edinburgh" early that year.

The consultants for the 2005 survey are providing an update on demand based on surveys of taxi stances at peak periods. The council has also approached a number of interested parties for their own views and experiences on the current demand for taxis.

I would be genuinely interested in the views of your readers, - in particular, whether they think they can usually get a taxi when they need one; and fair comments on average waiting times and what is an "acceptable" waiting time for a taxi at a stance or when hailing on the street.

They are welcome to write to me directly as soon as possible. All repeatable comments will be welcome.

Councillor Chris Wigglesworth, City Chambers, High Street, Edinburgh

I just can't wait to bring this dire attempt at a "demand survey" to the notice of the Sheriffs on appeal.

I've sent my letter.

The level of service is quite appalling.

_________________
IDFIMH

----- Original Message -----
From: Lawrence Marshall
To: Jim Taylor ; Donald Anderson
Cc: Chris Wigglesworth ; Gill Lindsay ; Alastair Paisley ; David J Walker ; Elizabeth Maginnis ; Liz O'Malley ; Lorna Shiels ; Michael Dixon ; Shami Khan
Sent: Friday, March 30, 2007 7:06 PM
Subject: RE: Wiggie steps out of line?



Dear Mr Taylor,
I've a lot of time for Chris Wigglesworth as a decent human being. It doesn't help your argument, therefore, that you choose to address him as "Wiggie" in your e-mail heading. I'm sure your mum and dad would not approve! Mine certainly wouldn't.

Lawrence Marshall

Lawrence

I don't think you are quite grasping the seriousness of the situation.

In your previous email you seemed to think that this matter is about demand. It most certainly no longer is. Demand exists as a criterion only at the thin end of the wedge.

This is about the council acting illegally. I would remind you with YOUR acquiescence. YOU are responsible.

In case it had escaped your notice, licence plates are now selling illegally for £50,000. Do you get this? £50,000. This is YOUR policy. YOU are responsible. In a short while this figure will reach the dizzy heights of £100,000 - the point where Dublin was forced to cave in. How are going to resolve matters better then when families are in hock for this huge amount, just because the breadwinner wanted to secure his employment in your restricted market policy.

When the crash comes at that level, where will YOU be Cllr Marshall? Will you clear their debt for them? YOUR policy is unjustifiable, unsustainable and morally bankrupt. YOU are responsible for it.

Folks on the interested parties list have waited 15 years and still NO licence. Let me say that again, 15 years and still NO licence.

41 applicants have been dragged through the courts for having the temerity to apply for a licence to work their own taxi in their own city. The council has treated them illegally. Let me say that again, the council has treated them ILLEGALLY. Lord Johnston has just told you this.

The council used the courts to beat down objectors. Because you are able to squander public money where applicants have to fund themselves. This is the worst excess of this council. YOU are responsible. Is this the kind of local government you think is right and proper?

The council has a Corporate Services Director who seems to believe that he can do whatever he wants, the Law is subservient to him. The Legal Services team has failed to rein him in. The former leader of the Council has been oblivious to all of this, because he trusted the officials to steer a proper legal course. This man's political career is now on the line, not because of anything he did directly, but because the unelected officials have ridden roughshod over the Law and the elected officials on the RC have sat back meekly, accepted their expenses and couldn't be bothered to understand what's going on and do anything about it.

Be clear Cllr marshal, I have told you all what's happening continuously over the last two years. We're now hard up against the elections and you really need to sit up and take notice.

If I demeaned Cllr Wigglesworth it's simply because it is nothing less than he deserved. This man sat on Committee and told the world that the "Jacob survey is flawed". He wanted to go on record. Not only did our supposedly democratic council fail to record this, they didn't tell him either that it wouldn't.

Now we have this same Cllr Wigglesworth, supposedly a man of the cloth, supposedly a man of honour, now telling us that the company responsible for the report which he told us was flawed, has now been commissioned once more, without due tendering process, to provide more information of no significant unmet demand so that licences can be denied again.

This company is renowned throughout the trade for giving councils whatever results are required. They have almost developed a niche market doing this. They received £28,000 for the original report to satisfy vested interests and a clearly megalomaniac Corporate Services Director who rode roughshod over due legal process.

Cllr Marshall, you are surely having a laugh. You're concerned about an epithet made to this man? He is a disgrace as a Councillor, as a man of the cloth, as a man at all. I can't comprehend how our local government system has become suborned by such useless, self serving and ignorant people.

Now, tell me again about how I shouldn't refer to this man as "Wiggie"?

Your situation has collapsed. This has been inevitable. Let me say that again, inevitable. It is your actions which are winning supporters to our ranks who simply want to run their own taxi without propping up the vested interests of those who seek to enslave them to serve their own ends.

You and other members of the committee have a choice. Realise the folly of your situation and respond with positive voluntary action to resolve the deficit of the council's restriction policy or be fully aware that knowledge makes you responsible, accountable and culpable.

However, it's not too late. You can grasp the mettle and make the difference. I think by now you know what needs to be done.

Regards

Jim Taylor

So there's a good chance that Labour might lose power in Edinburgh, they might lose power in the Scots Exec, and all this mush gets the hump with is Mr Jasbar having a pop at old Wiggy.

_________________
IDFIMH

Register of interests.

Treasurer - Capital Rail Action Group
Member: Cockburn Association, Railfuture, Light Rail Transit Association, Socialist Environment Resources Association, Rail, Maritime and Transport Union, London Road Church of Scotland, Scottish Youth Hostels Association, National Committee of Scottish Association for Public Transport


Nuff said, he is a train and bus man.

_________________
IDFIMH

What makes me laugh about this intervention from Wiggie is supposing his little survey gives the opposite result to the updated version (presumably paid for yet again by us) by Jacobs will the council just bucket the updated jacobs. What a waste of time and money he is a disgrace like the whole of that Labour administration.

Jim,
I suppose a lot of this often goes over our heads as it's full of contention from various views within the taxi trade. Being chair of what's now the Regulatory Committee has always been deemed a bit of a poisoned chalice due to the conflicting points of view put forward by several organisations.
For myself, I'd probably lean towards de-regulation of taxi numbers and let the market decide how many taxis are viable. We do it for private hire cars. But that's not the current view in the Council.
In matters legal, councillors do have to take officer advice. We are not experts in this field. And, of course, the Council should take cognisance of legal judgements made against it.
My e-mails to you were probably a plea that people recognise that everyone is human and it's best not to assume the worst in people when trying to put forward an argument - and that applies to the way the Council handles contentious issues as well!

Lawrence

Lawrence

The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.

I have to say that I am at a loss as to the Council's current view and policy on restricting taxi numbers.

Our view is that for many years the Council has allowed itself to be influenced by vested trade interests and is adhering stoically to their restriction policy, which is now clearly unsustainable given the high price individuals are prepared to pay to secure their employment by buying a licence the Act tells us is not transferable.

This policy of artificial restriction of taxis can only collapse under its own weight as proven through the actions of the Council over the last 18 months, and shown by the judgement in the Salteri et al cases. Indeed, the trade is already primed and expecting a period of some form of de-restriction.

I would remind you that, despite the flawed decision of Sheriff Mackey in the 3maxblack case, we accurately predicted the outcome of the Salteri et al cases from the point of the first appeal. We have yet to be proven wrong and have no communications stating otherwise. Our support has grown because of this.

Indeed, the Council's conduct in this matter has been to refuse to answer legitimate requests for information, particularly about the flawed, illegal processes it has undertaken to deny licences. This has served to prejudice my own application.

Despite being fully aware of their deplorable actions, Council officials continue to refuse to address the glaring injustice of the denial of the 41 applications. This is a serious deficit which betrays an error of judgement and which it is imperative be rectified forthwith in accordance with natural justice, which it is incumbent for Council decisions to adhere to.

In respect of the recent appeals in the Court of Session I would like to remind you all that Councillors were informed in March 2005 by the Council solicitor, that by law they had six months in which to determine these licence applications. It was the Council's own mismanagement and total disregard for their duties that placed Council officials in a position where they had to try to bend the law in order to retain the policy of restriction.

You place great emphasis on a survey of demand but, according to David Farmer, head of the Taxi licensing division at the Department of Transport, surveys are only of any use if a Council wishes to retain a policy of restriction. Any Council undertaking a survey of demand will already have predetermined their reason for doing so and that reason is no less than to protect its policy of restriction.

In any event, surveys are a blunt instrument. They are only a snapshot of demand at certain times and places and on any given day and that demand is likely to change as often as the weather. This is why the Scottish Judiciary has now clearly said that Councillors who wish to retain a policy of restriction "must" advise themselves to the level of demand at "every" committee meeting. This is no doubt a near impossible task and financially unachievable bearing in mind such evidence would have to be independently obtained following the usual tendering process.

In the cases of the 41 delayed, denied and withdrawn applications, the Council’s duty was to process them in a timely manner in accordance with statutory legislation, based entirely on the information they had before them when the application was lodged. On officers’ advice, essentially the Head of Corporate Services, Councillors took a conscious decision not to process these applications.

Lawrence, now the court of appeal, in the Lord Johnston et al judgement, has firmly reminded you that you can't play fast and loose with your administration duties.

Councillors clearly intend to base their decision of my application on the narrow consideration of there being no unmet demand, as determined by the awaited Jacobs interim survey. What you are now proposing to do is what the court of appeal has specifically warned you against in their decision of 23rd March 2007.

While I await the outcome of this new interim survey from Jacobs with some interest, based on the Coyle and Salteri et al decisions, it has no legal bearing on my own application, the information coming to hand after my application was lodged.

City of Edinburgh Council was informed by the Court of Session that awaiting the results of a survey was not a "good reason" to neglect their administrative duties in processing all these applications. You all may place your own interpretation on why Council officials advised Councillors to do nothing in respect of these applications, but the body that counts in these matters, has firmly laid down the law to this Council and each of the other sixteen Councils who presently restrict hackney carriage numbers.

Meanwhile, I suspect you realise that the frequency of applications is going to increase and in order to try to sustain your policy of restriction you will have to comply with the judgement in Coyle, Dundee and now Salteri cases. This means you will have to "prove" at every committee meeting that there is no unmet demand in the city of Edinburgh for the services of taxis? In the event that Corporate Services fails to make this clear to Councillors, I would suggest that external legal counsel is engaged to advise on these matters, because it is evident that the advice you have all received so far has been substandard.

I would ask that Councillors bear the above in mind when considering my application. I bring it to the Committee based on the Law and simple logic. The intent to deny is occasioned by the Council’s policy of restriction. However Council’s policy is subservient to, and must comply with, the Law – the strict terms of the Act.

On the wider issue of de-restriction, it is the inevitable result of a policy which is unsustainable due to key factors. £50,000 plate values, and rising; continually increasing driver numbers with limited availability of jobs; vested interest groups hiking rentals; consequent driver job insecurity hiking plate values even higher; the anti-competitive nature of the freedom to operate in their own trade denied to drivers; the consequent upward pressure on tariffs borne by the travelling public to compensate for increased operating costs, which is the direct result of the Council’s restriction policy.

All while future legal challenges are engaged to break this intolerable situation – matters simply getting even worse..

I am sure that you must see the pressing imperative that this situation be resolved without delay.

Jim,
I was aware on an OFT report a couple of years ago which recommended de-regulation of taxi numbers. I've always assumed that the main resistance came from the taxi trade itself - at least here in Edinburgh!

Lawrence

Lawrence

I remember this well. In fact I wrote as damning a piece in the Fairerview rebutting the report. I'm quite proud of it actually. It was written from the tradition of the trade which I was steeped in at that time. However, I now recognise that very tradition is deeply flawed.

When did I have this "Saul on the road to Damascus" conversion? Simply when I researched the scenario and was able to inform myself fully.

What was revealed to me was that the Act laying down the market conditions adopted by the Council was written in the very different economic world of the late 1970's. Then we had widespread government control, even intervention, in commerce. It was accepted as a necessary function of government. But our economy was crippled. Things needed to change.

And they did. Through privatisation Government withdrew from interventionist policies. The market was freed and private enterprise has allowed our economy to flourish. Sure there are still some things wrong, but there is no clamour to return to the old ways.

Meanwhile, the taxi trade in Edinburgh has remained unchanged, it's almost a "Brigadoon" type scenario. The Council instituted the restricted market around 15 years ago and, apart from a couple of releases of plates, has stuck stoically to it ever since. Why? Who knows? Because it's the norm and has been strictly defended by Corporate Services and Councillors who merely considered the matter sorted and on the back burner?

But it should have been modernised too. It should have changed in approach to ensure that the customers have the best possible service while satisfying the rights of drivers to operate their own taxis.

Perhaps the reason it hasn't changed is the strength of the lobby of vested interest groups, primarily owners. The Council gifted them Incorporation, presumably on some spurious argument about passing plates down among family groups. However, this allowed the licence plates to trade and therefore accrue a value.

Initially trading at £20,000, over the last three or four years these are now "selling" for £50,000. The rate of increase is around £125 per week, an astonishing return which will be maintained only in a restricted market. This is unjustifiable, unsustainable and morally bankrupt, particularly when a vulnerable public can't get reasonable access to a taxi on busy weekend nights. The need for Taxi Marshals shows this.

Because of the restriction, coupled with the ever increasing number of drivers coming into the trade and the restriction in the number of available shifts, owners are having a field day. Rentals are being hiked inexorably, now topping £350 per week (somewhere slightly below this level is more common, for the moment) and plate values are rising on the back of this - £10,000 alone since the 3maxblack case. (It's worth noting that continued adherence to restriction will cause licence plate "values" to rocket to ever more giddy heights.)

Higher rentals mean higher tariffs for the customer, more hours worked by the driver with clear implications for public safety, and more drivers forced to "hock" the family silver, pressured to buy into the "scam" in order to secure their own employment - placing them and their families in a precarious financial situation at least until they've repaid the loan for the huge plate "value" which the Act says doesn't exist, recently confirmed by Donald Anderson, doesn't. It's a dangerous game here.

In Dublin this game was played until plates were selling for £100,000, whereupon it crashed. This will happen here ultimately, sooner rather than later. We would argue it's now time for the Council to take the bull by the horns and deal with the situation now, before we have a Dublin style cave-in, at a much higher level, when the financial pain is much greater.

Incidentally it's worth pointing out the difference between the Dublin situation and Edinburgh's. Dublin effectively "de-regulated" not simply de-restricted. It was ill thought through, there were no quality controls which allowed every man and his dog to take a taxi licence (I believe many were taken just so that access could be gained to bus lanes) and the whole situation was a shambles.

Here in Edinburgh, this couldn't happen. We already have quality controls in place, we would argue for even more. We suggested some to Donald at our recent meeting. I could re-iterate them again if you are interested. This means that any increase in taxi licence plates through de-restriction in Edinburgh would be met from within the existing driver pool.

Effectively the number of shifts worked would be roughly the same, the difference being that more vehicles would be single-shifted. Any overlap would be catered for by drivers working through the peak periods to make up any initial deficit in their earnings. This will impact as a better service for customers at peak periods. A clear benefit to the public of de-restriction, and clearer streets for the police interest.

Of course, you may consider that all you need do is monitor the situation and arrange for plates to be added at intervals to ensure that the belt does not tighten again, keeping plate values down and rentals reasonable.

But this approach is flawed in a free market, where demand affecting supply is by far the most efficient mechanism to bring about a match. Indeed Court decisions point to the fact that the Council would need to keep itself fully informed continually with independently supplied information, on a monthly basis, in order to deny licences based on demand information. This is prohibitively expensive and unwieldy. In any case, why bother, when the free market supply and demand mechanism can more readily achieve the same result.

We have made representations to the OFT in respect of these matters. I expect them to form some part of the new report later this year. Following the original report we now have over 70% of UK local authorities de-restricted. This report will place the consumer first and encourage more to do so. However it will be more extensive, addressing the matter through free market theory in accordance with UK and European economic and trading laws.

The key to all of this Lawrence, is that de-restriction is inevitable. It is widely regarded as such throughout the taxi trade in the rest of Scotland and the UK. Aberdeen and Dundee have recently taken the plunge.

Indeed, the trade here in Edinburgh has never been more aware of the issues. It is now primed for change. The only exceptions are those vested interest owners, with a 1 : 3 ratio to drivers, seeking to protect plate "values".

There has never been a better opportunity to modernise the trade along free market thinking.

Regards

Jim

Keep banging on Mr Jasbar, you will succeed, I have no doubt.

And also keep banging on about the premium.

_________________
IDFIMH

That's the problem - the regulators regard the trade as one homogenous mass, whereas in reality it's the vested interests he's referring to - the rest of the trade keep their head down.

'cept Jim and Skull of course

_________________
Taxi Driver Online
www.taxi-driver.co.uk