|
House of COMMONS
MINUTES OF EVIDENCE
TAKEN BEFORE
TRANSPORT COMMITTEE
THE DRAFT LOCAL TRANSPORT BILL
Wednesday 27 June 2007
Q591 Chairman:
Mr Huntington, you know that the so-called taxi industry, sometimes to its detriment, is frequently regarded as a suitable repository of the efforts of people who have lost their jobs in other fields. Certainly outside of the big urban areas, quite often people feel that the ownership of a vehicle and the ability to get more or less from A to B should be sufficient qualification. I can see where we would insist on a certain level - and I think most of us would support that - but who would pay for this function of training? Local authorities might think that it ought to be paid for by the person applying for the right to drive, in the same way that, for example, in London, drivers of black taxi have to spend a lot of money. Individual members spend a lot of time and a lot of money on acquiring very specific skills.
Mr Huntington:
Indeed. They invest a lot of time in that. There is an issue about the length of time that the Knowledge takes to acquire now and I think we need to look at that. Specifically, on your question about the funding regime, we have produced this report - and I would be happy to leave a copy with the clerk - considering the sustainability of funding. The Leech review of skills said there are no free rides in skills and it was up to employers and individuals to take skills more seriously. I think it is very difficult to propose a levy-based system on small companies, sole traders. I think that should be the last resort. However, I think we should have a debate on how funding would take place. As we discuss in our report that we recently produced for the DfT, it could be the training loan scheme. It could be paid by the driver; it could be some quality assurance scheme; it could be some career development loan. I would want to think that a compulsory levy was there as a last resort, but of course you will be familiar, Chairman, in other industries where there is a lot of self-employment there are levies in place for training schemes.
Q592 Chairman:
Could I just give you a potted history of taxis in my constituency. We originally had a small number of quite efficient firms who covered the hours and had a number of vehicles. Then it was decided, under a previous Conservative Government, that anybody virtually who wanted a permit could have one, as long as the local council could not defend the fact that they had enough taxis. The result is very simple. We now have large numbers of vehicles, some which, frankly, are pretty ropey by most standards, and it is increasingly clear that there are so many in my constituency it is very difficult for individual drivers to make a living. They are now driving longer and longer hours for the same amount of money, which frankly is to the detriment of the passengers, and yet I am convinced that unless we were to talk very seriously about a means of funding these changes, very many of them would simply not comply. As fond as Her Majesty's Government is of filling up the prisons, I think even they might baulk at filling it up entirely with taxi drivers.
Mr Huntington:
I agree with you, Chairman, that something does need to be done. We do need to raise the problems of the service. You have asked me to talk about the funding arrangements. We certainly want a debate on that. We are negotiating with the Learning and Skills Council in England to make funding available for self-employed drivers through the train-to-gain scheme. ESOL and basic skills training, I think, under the Government's new arrangements, will continue to be free of charge to the user where they are supported on an individual basis. I think there is room for a driver/operator contribution. I think you do two things, Chairman. You raise the bar to entry by having skills assessments made ab initio. You have ongoing training and you challenge people to get up to that level. That, in itself, should start to improve quality.
Q593 Clive Efford:
I want to clarify your position with regards to the training. Do you see the taxi industry as at the casual labour end that should have ease of entry?
Mr Huntington:
Chairman, I know of Mr Efford's background and he is probably far more expert and knowledgeable, I suspect, of the London Hackney scene than I am. I think it needs to become part of the integrated transport mix. One would not want to regulate casualisation completely out of it because it is the first entry to the labour force for many migrants, for example, who want to get on in life, but it seems to me that we do have to raise expectations of what the service can deliver. Your excellent characterisation of the service was spot-on. There was a Private Eye cartoon in Scenes you Seldom See two weeks back, where the driver is saying to the passenger, "I have always wanted to get into taxi driving." You just never hear this said. We need to encourage that sort of approach and make it a worthwhile career, delivering what in fact it does do, on paper anyway, a vital public service. I think the arrangements in London are slightly different and have to be treated differently.
Q594 Clive Efford:
I did not ask that. I am not sure if we got an answer to the question to say yes, but do you not think that if people are going to enter a profession which is a public service they should make some sort of commitment to it before they are allowed to operate in that field?
Mr Huntington:
Yes, I think they should.
Chairman:
Gentlemen, that has been extremely useful. Thank you very much. I am sorry that you had to wait but, nevertheless, it has been very helpful to us that you have. Thank you very much for your evidence.
_________________
IDFIMH
|
Login
Register
FAQ
)
