|
Here is my response which I've asked the leader of the Conservative group on the council, Cllr Iain Whyte, to circulate for me.
Dear Cllr Whyte
Deputation of City Cabs and Central to the full council meeting
I refer to the report which has been circulated to councillors prior to tomorrow's meeting which argues to retain the current restriction policy for taxi licences. I would be grateful if you could circulate this to councillors by email prior to the meeting to assist with their deliberations.
I have tried to access Corporate Service's report on the matter but can't download it from the council's web site. In the absence of being able to critique that, assessing the report of the vested interests, which lays out the argument to maintain the restriction policy, allows a clear rebuttal of much that will be contained in Jim Inch's report.
Clearly the report seeks to support maintaining restriction and the status quo. Please note the following:-
There is no mention of the vested interest selling of licence plates for the current level of £54,000, despite plates not being transferable according to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982.
The report omits to outline the high rentals charged by plate owners, which impact directly on cost to customers.
The report makes no mention of the increasing shortage of available drives which facilitates the above.
The report mentions the Interested Parties List and advocates that any licences issued should be made to those on the list. It fails to address the fact that the list is an anachronism, which has no basis or provision in Law. Also that the council can no longer issue licences to those on the list in isolation. Any attempt to do so will encourage other applications which will need to be considered on an equal footing.
The report highlights that since 1990 taxi licences have increased from 1030 to 1266, a 23% increase. In that time PH has swelled by more than 300%. Restriction has transferred work from the more regulated taxi service to the less regulated PH.
The report fails to deal with the current situation where the council is facing court action over its conduct regarding the commissioning of surveys. This legal action will place the Jacobs 2005 survey and the Interim survey of 2007 in the dock and subject to the closest scrutiny. The premise will be postulated that both surveys were contrived by the council in order to justify and maintain the policy of restriction.
Please note that the 2005 survey was placed before the scrutiny panel, the 2007 survey was not. Also that elected council officials have gone on record in both instances to say that the surveys were "flawed", yet they were still used by the council to "plausibly deny" licences.
The taxi companies' report fails to point out that over 72% of other UK authorities operate a policy of de-restriction, Aberdeen the latest convert in Scotland.
The report seeks to alarm councillors by suggesting that standards in a de-restricted market have to fall. This is nonsense. It is the regulatory framework which has maintained the quality of Edinburgh's taxi fleet. And that framework will continue after any de-restriction.
(Note: - I currently drive a vehicle that is around 8 years old. My intention is to single-shift a new E7, which I intend to replace after 5 years)
The impact of de-restriction on city centre congestion, and any consequent impact on pollution is a red herring. In Dublin the taxi market was de-regulated completely with licences being granted to all and sundry. The effect was a vast increase in taxi numbers. This can not happen in Edinburgh because the existing regulatory framework will limit availability according to the number of drivers, which is restricted by the quality controls already in place, and which should be enhanced.
Substantially, but not exclusively, any new licences will be operated by drivers working essentially the same hours, but in their own vehicles - not those of current owners. There will therefore be no mass increase in the number of vehicles operating at any given time, except that the new licences will be subject to market forces and will likely be operated when the work is readily available, principally at the peak times where customers currently have such a poor service level.
De-restriction in other areas has shown that taxi service levels increase in areas away from the city centre, in the suburbs, where the market is currently dominated by Private Hire and customers have no prospect of street hailing or rank accessibility.
Any movement from Private Hire to the more regulated taxi service surely has to be perceived as a real benefit, particularly given the external influences recently reported to be gaining a foothold in Private Hire.
When the report contends that de-restriction will result in a reduction and loss of income and "... discourage the investment required to ensure a sufficiently modern taxi fleet", isn't this tantamount to a threat? As previously stated, my intent is to operate my own vehicle to the highest standards. Nothing less.
The report mentions legal actions by Max Black 666. It can't even get the name of the LLP right. Nor does it outline the other applicants going through legal process. Nor the other applications waiting to be heard. Nor the applications that will follow, because keeping the shutters down will not prevent other applications, and continued legal process. In short, the problem of licence applications does not go away with a continued policy of restriction and exacerbates the current problems of hiked driver's rentals and inflated plate premiums..
The two companies have offered to provide ongoing data in respect of the call market to assist the council in assessing demand on a continuous basis. This has two flaws.
First, it is 5 years too late. This offer should have been made after the Halcrow report in 2002, not five years down the line when, in order to deny licences, the council has only a "flawed" 2005 survey and a dodgy, clearly hastily contrived 2007 interim survey that covers less than 3 x 100 ths of one per cent of the taxi market, while ignoring private hire and all other competing transport groups.
Second, the report highlights how these companies that would be providing the data are firmly entrenched in the pro-restriction argument. How could they possible be trusted to present objective data free from their intrinsic vested interest of restricting taxi licences and ensuring that their absurd plate values and consequent high rental levels are maintained?
In section 6.2 of the report, the authors write, "One further important consideration which arises on de-restriction is the potential entitlement of taxi operators to claim compensation for the loss of value in the taxi business. Any move to de-restrict may infringe the existing licence holder's human rights so giving rise to an entitlement to claim compensation."
I suggest that this is tantamount to a threat by these two taxi companies. Also that it is a spurious, scurrilous one which has no credibility in Law.
The council has made it quite clear, through former council leader, Donald Anderson, that taxi licences are the property of the council and have "no intrinsic value". However, the policy of restriction, coupled with the policy to permit "Incorporation" of taxi licences has encouraged the sale and transferability of licences, contrary to the letter and spirit of the 1982 Act. This has brought the belief that taxis are operated "as a business" and that the business has a value, currently the £54,000 the licences are being traded for. However, remove the licence and the "business" is worthless.
In short, there is no prospect that the council could be sued, in the event it chose to change policy to one of de-restriction, for those who paid such a huge sum for something they could never own it is a case of caveat emptor, buyer beware. They "bought in" to the trade knowingly, bought into a labour pool increasing because of the restriction of taxi licences which they could exploit for financial gain - the risk was entirely theirs, and theirs alone.
It should be noted that this report was written entirely from the vested interest of current owners with only scant regard for the needs of the travelling public or drivers. De-restriction is a policy aimed at the interest of that travelling public, a fact highlighted by the position of the OFT, the Scottish Consumer Council and other consumer bodies. It should be intrinsic on councils to consider the needs of the travelling public before all else.
Finally, the current restriction policy has created an internecine war within the taxi trade. It has placed driver against owner and licence applicants against the council. It is a war that can not end while the iniquities of taxi licence restriction persist. The council's restriction policy encourages council actions that negate the letter and spirit of the Law, manifested by the chicanery perpetrated by Corporate Services to protect the restriction policy through contrived demand information and abuse of the court system in an attempt to deter and defeat legitimate applications for licences made under the protection of the 1982 Act.
It is supported by standard council process which denies the rights of applicants to a fair hearing before the Regulatory Committee, that hears applications only from the pre-determined position of refusal to grant, intended denial from the outset.
This is because to grant would be to renege on council "policy", to overturn it, and the RC does not have the power to do so. It is this pre-determined "intent" to deny that affords the appeal ground that the council acts "contrary to natural justice".
Council policy in this instance subverts an applicants right to apply under the Act. This is the tension between the Law and council policy that is scheduled to be tested in the forthcoming 666maxblack and maxblackhack licence appeals.
Thanks for your assistance with this matter.
|
Login
Register
FAQ
