|
6th July 2007
Dear Cllr Keir and all Regulatory Committee members
I write to Cllr Keir and each member of the committee individually.
I thank you Cllr Keir for your reply to my email of 25th June which you made through Robert Millar. I accept that you are fully aware of his answer, that you acknowledge and agree with it and that you, and Committee members severally and individually, accept responsibility for it.
In your reply, you have stated that you, and each member of the Regulatory Committee, have been made fully aware of all matters relating to the licence appeals. I therefore accept that you all agree with the council's conduct of the current licence application appeals and accept responsibility for it.
Can you all confirm to me that you have each seen, read, understood and agreed with the council's counter writ to the appeals compiled by solicitor for the council, Mark Mohammed?
Should Corporate Services not have furnished you with a copy of this document, which apparently has your tacit approval unless advised otherwise, or be unwilling to do so, then I would be pleased to provide you with it.
Can you each advise me that this briefing extended your understanding that the appeals will effectively place "on trial" the validity of the Jacobs survey 2005 which former Convener Wigglesworth will be invited into the witness box to explain why he stated at a public meeting, in front of witnesses, that the survey was "flawed", then 34 licences were refused on the basis of this admittedly flawed survey - as well as other matters relating to the council's conduct pertaining to the two applications being appealed.
This will change forever councillor's expectation and understanding that Corporate Services will shield them from the consequences of the decisions they take.
Was it explained to you all that when this flawed survey of demand receives the scrutiny of the Court, and is dismissed for the sham it was, then the whole basis of the Council's anti-competitive licence restriction policy is shattered and each element of it will fall in a domino effect?
Can you confirm that this briefing also extends to all the issues concerning the arguments for de-limitation of taxi licences in Edinburgh and state what your individual position on the council's policy in this respect is?
Will each Committee member advise me how this market restricting policy sits with each of their political parties' widely recognised adoption of free market economic principles?
Will you each confirm that you are aware that the council's policy to maintain a list of parties interested in applying for a taxi operator's licence, a list which has been closed to new applicants for many years, has no legal standing in Law - there being no provision for such a list in the governing legislation - and that the council has no right to issue from it in isolation. If, because of advice given you by Corporate Services, you hold this not to be the case then I would welcome you advising me, however isn't this matter is about to be put to the test?
Also that should the council attempt to issue from this "list" in isolation it will mean that, with no significant unmet demand no longer being applicable, applications may be made by anyone wishing to apply and that their applications will have equal standing with any applications from those on the list.
Given that all members of the Regulatory Committee are now fully informed of the situation regarding the appeals, isn't it reasonable to regard that the council's conduct of the appeals is undertaken with each member's express approval?
Should this not be the case however, any member of the committee may advise me to the contrary.
Meanwhile Cllr Keir, may I draw your attention to the matter raised in the email of the 25th which you have selectively ignored and which I reiterate, this time under Freedom of Information, as is necessary.
In that email I asked, "Please also advise me of the latest up to date taxi demand survey information obtained by the council, along with details of any proposed interim or full surveys."
I would add that my request for this information include all survey material gained by the council since the last survey information in March, namely for April, May, June and the current month of July.
In relation to future interim and full demand surveys I specifically request the following:.
1 What plans are in place for such a survey.
2 Has such a survey been put out to tender? What plans are in place to do so? What tender list has/will be compiled?
3 If no tendering process has been entered into, is it the intention of the council to return to the Jacobs Consultancy for the next Survey of Demand?
Finally, may I advise the members that the council has been dragged through the courts for two years on taxi licensing issues. It has been handed defeat after defeat because the courts already recognise the abhorrent way that Corporate Services conducts council business in respect of taxi licensing.
I would remind councillors that when the Salteri et al appeals came before the court of session, because of the prohibitive legal costs involved, Salteri was NOT legally represented. Corporate Services' advice to pursue the cases led to the council being defeated by a legally unrepresented opponent. The council was defeated because, on the advice of the Corporate Services Director, the council deliberately pursued its legal action in the hope an financially impoverished licence applicant would be forced to back down. However, the council's "bully boy" tactics failed to impress the Appeal Judges.
(Incidentally, the real injustice here is that based on the Salteri decision, the remainder of the 40 licence applications, with the same criteria, were unlawfully denied or "encouraged" to cancel their applications and receive a refund of a portion of the application fee. This remains a gross injustice, an affront against democracy, and the direct responsibility of the previous committee and Corporate Services.)
It has been able to do so because the council has a bottomless pocket of tax and licence payers money to use against those who are financially restricted. It is the strategy of Corporate Services to conduct these matters in this way. With these current cases, this reprehensible course of action is being accepted and continued by present members of the Committee. Do councillors believe that it is right to use public funds in this way? Isn't it clear that these matters should be fully investigated in a public Inquiry?
I thank the members for their consideration of this email and accept that their individual non-response will confirm their position as stated above. I would also remind you that it is the knowledge held by public servants which makes them accountable and responsible.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
