Alex wrote:
A New Taxi Bill
Why New Taxi Law?
Existing law elderly
Legislation enacted in the 19th century for horse drawn carriages and their drivers is indeed elderly, in fact it is obsolete and hardly suitable for the 21st century.
Quote:
HC/PH Split confusing and impractical
If Mr Button means it is confusing for the public, then I would tend to agree but it is far from confusing to those who actually work in the taxi trade.
Quote:
Law confused in many areas
It’s not surprising the law is confused when you get local councillors and licensing officers interpreting the law as they wish it to be interpreted and not how the law is meant to be interpreted. Perhaps when you try and marry 19th century legislation meant for horse drawn carriages with today’s modern technology then it is understandable that confusion is inevitable. Legislation is meant to keep up with progress not the other way around?
Quote:
That the vehicle and driver must be safe and suitable for the purpose and both should be licensed separately.
Isn’t' that the case at present? In fact that has always been the case and probably always will be the case.
Quote:
There should be national minimum standards for both vehicle and driver, but the local authorities should be able to set higher standards if they wish.
There should be no local authority involvement and there should be no need to set standards any higher than other forms of Transport. If that means bringing other forms of transport up to the standard of Taxi vehicles and drivers then so be it. On the other hand, if taxi driver standards are seen to be below those of other forms of transport such as buses, then naturally taxi standards will have to be raised? The same burden of standards should be applied right across the board.
I don't see any reason why standards in transport should differ from one type of transport to another.
Quote:
Both the vehicle and driver must be inspected/checked regularly.
Is this an admission that councils don't currently inspect and check drivers and vehicles regularly?
It is a common fact that councils don’t have the manpower to inspect and check vehicles on a regular basis and that is why when isolated spot checks are carried out by VOSA etc it becomes a big deal when numerous faults are found on a large percentage of those vehicles captured in the net. This is just another reason why licensing should be taken out of council control.
Quote:
There should be no limit on the number of vehicle, driver or operator licenses that an authority can grant.
That is already the case in over 70% of authorities in England and Wales and all it would need is the removal of section 16. Considering I advocate removing the power of licensing from councils then the above is academic.
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/2
Drivers hours should be regulated.
I don't think so. However desirable that may sound to some, there is no justification for placing such a regulation on self employed Taxi drivers and if there is then I would like to hear it?
Quote:
Different types of vehicle should be licensable - both wheelchair accessible and non wheelchair accessible, together with "specialised" vehicles such as limousines (both stretched and non-stretched) and executive vehicles.
One would assume under a new taxi bill that European policy would play a major role in determining what type of vehicle should be licensed. Considering that every other European country except parts of the UK, license most types of vehicles as taxis, then we should be no different. The fact that 99.9% of European taxi drivers do not use specialised wheelchair accessible vehicles such as the type made by LTI is also a significant factor based on
"choice and cost". The
two c’s should be the overriding factor when considering Taxi vehicle use, especially as far as Taxi owners are concerned. Therefore the new buzz words of
“Choice and Cost” are the two main elements of vehicle licensing that Taxi drivers should impress on the Government of the day. The
two c’s as they shall be known from now on must be given equal weight as every other considerations amounting to the implementation of any disabled policy. The fact of the matter is this, “wheelchair public hire” is extremely limited and the majority of licensed taxi vehicles will be hard pressed to pick up even one wheelchair bound passenger in the space of twelve months. Therefore such figures must seriously raise the question as to why councils are paranoid about introducing a blanket policy on wheelchair accessible vehicles. The bottom line is this, the “Secretary of state for Transport” should get her finger out and decide how to implement any new policy on disabled vehicles because it is patently obvious that she isn’t going to sanction a policy which amounts to every vehicle being Wheelchair accessible so that just leaves her with the uncomplicated task of telling licensing bodies that there should be a mixture of both types of vehicles. The problem she obviously has is the fear of telling places like London, Manchester and Liverpool that their policy of mandatory purpose built WAVS is contrary to the Governments new regulations of mixed fleets.
We are already aware Mrs Minister, that it is not the policy with which you have a problem but its wording. For the simple reason once the policy regulation is on the statute then it will be legally binding on every licensing authority in the country. And if you say the policy is mixed fleets, then there is no exception, not unless you make one? Quote:
All non-specialised vehicles should be allowed to ply for hire and respond to hailings - perhaps only wheelchair accessible ones can use ranks, but others can park where lawful to park and be approached without the need for any advance bookings.
I was under the impression Mr Button wanted a one tier system, well this to me sounds distinctly like a two tier system. There is no room in a new taxi act for backward thinking, either a vehicle is licensed as a taxi to perform the functions of a taxi or it is licensed as something else. There is no halfway house. You can’t tell taxi saloon drivers that they cant use a taxi rank because their vehicles don’t accommodate a wheelchair. How many wheelchair users turn up at cab ranks on a daily basis, hardly any? Most of the UK is predominantly saloon car orientated and wheelchair accessible vehicles are a minority. No matter how well meaning the suggestion, it is nevertheless impractical.
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/3
"Specialised" vehicles could not ply for hire or respond to hailings, but would benefit from less identification and higher fares.
Again, part and parcel of the above is totally impractical for the same reasons given to the previous idea.
Quote:
Fares should be regulated for all vehicles up to a maximum that can be charged, but discounts can be offered in any way or situation; specialised vehicles can charge higher fares.
I totally disagree and so does the OFT. Fares on Trains, boats, buses and planes and every other form of transport aren't subject to regulation, so why should taxis? It is common knowledge that Taxis do not get any type of Government subsidy whatsoever, perhaps if they did then there might be a case for outside interference in taxi fares but until that time comes the best way forward for self employed cabbies is to set their own fares just like every other form of transport. Taxis should be allowed to take the private hire fare route and that advocated by the OFT. If need be fares can be displayed on the outside of the Taxi so people can see what they have to pay and registered with the local licensing authority whatever that might be?
Quote:
All vehicles should be fitted with calibrated and sealed meters to prevent overcharging.
Most taxis already are but first it needs to be decided if all taxis should require a meter? Perhaps it might be wise to give drivers the option?
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/4
All vehicles available for hire on the street/public place should be required to take journeys within the district unless there is a reasonable excuse.
I don't subscribe to this because no other form of transport has this regulation and it shouldn't be an offence for a cabdriver to refuse to take someone if they don't want to, regardless of having to prove reasonable cause for a refusal. Every cab driver is self employed and they like every other self employed person should be afforded the same rights on whether or not to take a contract. Therefore a taxi drivers right not to take a contract while driving and plying for hire should be extended to standing and plying for hire.
Quote:
All vehicles should be able to travel anywhere in England and Wales at the same maximum fares.
Under my perfect world fares would not be governed by any licensing body, so the above would not apply. I think what Mr Button meant to say was that “all vehicles “must” travel anywhere in England and Wales for the flat rate fee if undertaking such a hire regardless of how uneconomical that journey might be? Any contract of hire under my desired method would see a special rate of fare for certain excessive mileages negotiated or built into the fare chart as a percentage levy at the discretion of the driver and agreed by the passenger.
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/5
A clean sweep of all legislation regarding the creation of taxi ranks should be made, and all taxi ranks created under a single piece of legislation. This would allow enforcement by local authority parking attendants for non-taxi traffic. Wherever possible, already identified passenger transport locations, such as bus stops, should be designated as part-time taxi ranks, for use when demand is highest, usually after buses have ceased operating.
The formulation of many taxi ranks have nothing whatsoever to do with some local councils, instead they come under the domain of county councils. True the initial request has a pecking order but in many cases the buck stops at the county council. In other words whether or not you get a cab rank is sometimes down to the country council. I agree that cabs should be able to stand and ply for hire anywhere and in any street, providing the standing place is not prohibited by law.
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/6
All vehicles available for hire on the street/public place should be readily identified as such, by means of plates, roof signs, body signs, colours or liveries as the local authority think fit.
I think that goes with the territory of being a taxi but the types of markings need agreeing on and maybe from area to area? Who knows?
Quote:
Vehicles that are never available for hire on the street/public place (i.e. the "specialised" vehicles) need not be identified as above, but must contain/carry specified information (equivalent at the minimum to plate and driver badge information) which is available for inspection by hirers, police and council officers.
I think by this he means the vehicle can be used for social, domestic, and pleasure purposes etc? Any new legislation is going to have to combine both the working environment and social use.
Quote:
Desirable Requirements for Any Taxi Licensing Regime/7
Licensing districts outside of London should be based upon local authority areas (district councils, metropolitan district councils, unitary authorities, Welsh Counties and County Boroughs) with no subdivision into zones.
I'm afraid councils are definitely out, they have a track record of manipulating the Taxi trade and using it as a political football. Time and time again they have demonstrated their ineptitude of taxi licensing law. Whatsmore time and time again they have illegally tried to make legislation by the back door. I'm afraid we don't need that type of interference from belligerent individuals who think they are above the law. What we need is a set of rules and regulations that can only be changed by parliament just like every other form of transport and at least then we will know where we stand.
We don't want union reps saying “we have x amount of councillors in our back pocket and can therefore influence decisions”. Union members influencing councillors at the detriment to others would be a thing of the past.
Quote:
Enforcement/policing should be by local authority officers and police constables.
Like I said there would be no local council involvement so any policing would be done by the new taxi body in conjunction with other law enforcement bodies which one assumes would include VOSA. However, considering that every law enforcement body and especially the police have a dismal track record of enforcement then I suggest these so called enforcement bodies are made to take a mandatory course on Taxi law and enforcement.
Quote:
Both the local authority and the CPS should be able to prosecute.
Substitute local authority for the new licensing regime which the logical suggestion would be the Traffic commissioner. Both those bodies mentioned above currently have the legal status to prosecute.
Quote:
License fees should be set local on the basis of full cost recovery.
License fees should be set in the same way buses and bus drivers are licensed, which would mean an instant reduction of at least 50% under today’s current fees.
Quote:
Benefits of single tier licensing/1
Simplicity and clarity are the principal benefits to all parties - users, trade and councils.
The main benefit of a single tier system is equality. A great many in the hackney carriage trade would tell you there is no benefit to all parties in fact they have already stated this. Therefore I don't think a one line passage is going to persuade the restricted hackney carriage trade that a one tier system is beneficial to them, not least without you actually telling them why?
Quote:
Every vehicle would be a 'taxi', and could be used in whatever way the owner/driver wished - standing or plying for hire or pre-booking. The question is whether that could be achieved, whilst maintaining public safety and also protecting those involved in the industry from unlicensed competition.
How can you have unlicensed competition if every vehicle plying for hire and reward needs a taxi license? Under these proposals there would be no private hire legislation in force and one assumes you would therefore make private hire illegal. I was wondering how this would be achieved considering the many different aspects of private hire but I presume that will be written into the new bill. Will it?
Quote:
The existing problems of enforcement seen to favour one part of trade over another would disappear.
I think you mean non enforcement or perhaps the acquiescence of councils such as Manchester who go out of their way to assist private hire operators in breaking the law.
Quote:
Benefits of single tier licensing/2
The public would know that any licensed and externally identified vehicle could be used safely and lawfully to transport them in any situation.
Isn't that supposed to be the case now?
Quote:
Benefits of single tier licensing/3
Overall it would be surprising if any new legislation increased significantly the number of vehicle in use. At present, where HC numbers are not limited, HC and PHV use market forces to determine the number of vehicles that can be supported by the demand for their services. Single tier licensing would encompass all existing vehicles, so the number should stay roughly the same. In areas where HC numbers are limited, PHVs tend to be more numerous, but again, the combination of both types of vehicle provides the service demanded by the public. Single tier licensing would therefore seem to have no more impact on overall vehicle numbers than in non-limited areas above.
I would forget about vehicles and concentrate on drivers because there is no chicken and egg scenario in this situation because without doubt the driver comes first and vehicle a remote second but what we want to see is lots of driver quality control and I don't know whether any new bill will cater for what I and many others see as stringent quality control?
Considering this report or document whatever you wish to call it was submitted as an agenda for change and then discussed for several hours, I feel that it hasn't really scratched the surface on what we as cab drivers expect in a new licensing act. The first thing we as cab drivers should be concerned about is our identity? We need to look at our self employed status in line with other industries and especially the transport industry and see where we stand? In any new legislation we want what is best for us because that’s what every other tom, dick and harry wants. Its Alright having safeguards for passengers but those safeguards shouldn't encroach on our right as self employed persons to be the masters of our own destiny. That's why in any new act first and foremost we want unambiguous rules and regulations that are compatible with the rules and regulations found in every other act relating to the workplace and workers rights.
I don't see anything in these proposals that safeguards the human rights of the taxi driver, all I see is the same old penalties that have been around since 1847. Quite frankly although the idea is sound the application leaves an awful lot to be desired and I can honestly say if the DfT does decide to bring forward a new Taxi bill then I doubt very much that the proposals highlighted in this document will be intact once it reaches the stage of a green paper.
I think people should treat these proposals with objectivity and ask yourself in what way do they benefit me because at the end of the day it is you who is providing the service and not some licensing authority.
These views are my own and have nothing whatsoever to do with the views of those connected with TDO who I am sure have their own personal opinion on Taxi legislation. It would be nice to see a new act but I personally cannot see it happening but you never know?
Regards
JD
Login
Register
FAQ
