house of commons transport committee · 2011-07-18 · hc 720 published on 19 july 2011 by...

HC 720 Published on 19 July 2011

by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

£15.50

House of Commons

Transport Committee

Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform

Seventh Report of Session 2010–12

Volume I: Report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence

Additional written evidence is contained in Volume II, available on the Committee website at www.parliament.uk/transcom

Ordered by the House of Commons to be printed 12 July 2011

The Transport Committee

The Transport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration, and policy of the Department for Transport and its Associate Public Bodies.

Current membership

Mrs Louise Ellman (Labour/Co-operative, Liverpool Riverside) (Chair) Steve Baker (Conservative, Wycombe) Jim Dobbin (Labour/Co-operative, Heywood and Middleton) Mr Tom Harris (Labour, Glasgow South) Julie Hilling (Labour, Bolton West) Kwasi Kwarteng (Conservative, Spelthorne) Mr John Leech (Liberal Democrat, Manchester Withington) Paul Maynard (Conservative, Blackpool North and Cleveleys) Gavin Shuker (Labour/Co-operative, Luton South) Iain Stewart (Conservative, Milton Keynes South) Julian Sturdy (Conservative, York Outer) The following were also members of the committee during the Parliament. Angie Bray (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Lilian Greenwood (Labour, Nottingham South) Kelvin Hopkins (Labour, Luton North) Angela Smith (Labour, Penistone and Stocksbridge)

Powers

The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk.

Publication

The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at http://www.parliament.uk/transcom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some or all written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence may be published on the internet only.

Committee staff

The current staff of the Committee are Mark Egan (Clerk), Marek Kubala (Second Clerk), David Davies (Committee Specialist), Tony Catinella (Senior Committee Assistant), Edward Faulkner (Committee Assistant), Stewart McIlvenna (Committee Support Assistant) and Hannah Pearce (Media Officer).

Contacts

All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Transport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6263; the Committee’s email address is [email protected]

1

Contents

Report Page

Summary 3

1 Introduction 5 Taxis and private hire vehicles: a quick guide 5 Cross-border hire: issues raised with us 6 Is new legislation necessary? 7

2 Principles to underpin new legislation 10 Listen to users 10 Keep it simple 10 Keep it local 10

Local transport plans 10 Standards 11 Enforcement 12 Licensing districts 13

3 Solving the cross-border hire problems 14

4 Conclusion 15

Conclusions and recommendations 16

Formal Minutes 18

Witnesses 19

List of printed written evidence 19

List of additional written evidence 20

List of unprinted evidence 21

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament 22

3

Summary

Our inquiry focused on issues relating to taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) operating outside of the district in which they were licensed. The principal Acts covering taxis and PHVs date back to 1847 and 1976 respectively. The cross-border hire issues raised with us, and the increasingly complex case law in this area, lead us to conclude that the case for a thorough overhaul of this legislation is irresistible. We are not persuaded that the Government is right to refer the matter to the Law Commission: we recommend that the Government should engage with the trade, local authorities and users about the objectives of future legislation and commit to reform the law in this Parliament. We suggest that this could be done by means of a legislative reform order.

We recommend that the following principles should underpin new legislation:

• Listen to the views of users, particularly vulnerable groups;

• Keep it simple: combine the legislation on taxis and PHVs in one Act. The distinction between taxi and PHV services could be maintained by providing for two types of vehicle licence under the Act; and

• Keep it local: Taxis and PHVs should feature more prominently in local transport plans. We recommend that there are strong arguments for national licensing standards in relation to some issues, such as CRB checks, but others matters are best determined at a local level and licensing should remain a local function.

We make recommendations about making enforcement easier and the potential to create larger licensing districts and we also suggest how cross-border issues could be resolved by permitting local authorities to take action against out-of-town drivers and operators where there is evidence, for example, that they have worked, or sought to work, for a specified period of time in that district.

5

1 Introduction 1. Taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) are a vital but often overlooked part of the public transport system. They serve a number of functions in different areas, from getting people home from bars and nightclubs in the early hours of the morning to taking people to and from stations and airports.1 They are not just services for the affluent and can be essential forms of transport for people who cannot afford to run a car.2 In some parts of the country, and at some times of day, taxis and private hire vehicles are the only form of public transport available.3 Nevertheless, taxis and private hire vehicles are not always recognised as a form of public transport, are omitted from many local transport plans, and barely rate a mention in discussions of Government transport policy.

2. We decided to undertake this inquiry in November 2010 after we heard about disputes in different parts of the country involving taxis and private hire vehicles licensed in one district operating in other areas. We asked for evidence on any issues of concern relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles but the overwhelming majority which we received concerned cross-border hire.4 This issue was the focus of our two oral evidence sessions on 18 January and 15 March and is the subject of this report. We are grateful for both the oral and written evidence we received.

Taxis and private hire vehicles: a quick guide

3. Taxis—described in legislation as ‘hackney carriages’—operate from ranks, usually situated in city and town centres, and can be hailed in the street (known as ‘plying for hire’). PHVs—sometimes known as minicabs—must be pre-booked and cannot use taxi ranks. Taxis can accept pre-bookings and effectively operate as PHVs but it is illegal for PHVs to ply for hire. The Department told us that “there are some 75,000 licensed taxis and 150,000 PHVs across some 300 licensing authorities in England and Wales”.5

4. The legal framework within which taxis and PHVs operate is complex. The two types of service in England and Wales are covered by separate Acts—the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 for taxis (the “1847 Act”) and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 for PHVs and to some extent taxis as well (the “1976 Act”)—but there are separate Acts for both services in London6 and the Plymouth City Council Act applies to PHVs in that city.7 In this report we concentrate on taxis and PHVs in England and Wales, outside London and Plymouth, although we heard from London witnesses about the situation there.

1 Ev w57-60, 81-82.

2 Ev w71 paragraph 3.4 and 64 paragraph 3.1.

3 For example Q106.

4 For other issues, particularly to do with London and the Equality Act 2010 see for example Ev w17-20, 38-39, 46-53, 60-63 and 67-70.

5 Ev 38, paragraph 8.

6 The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 for taxis and the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

7 For Plymouth see Ev w41-43.

6

5. Taxis and PHVs are licensed by district councils and other forms of second tier local authorities. Both require two licences—for the car and the driver—but, in addition, PHV operators must be licensed. Local authorities have considerable discretion in setting licensing conditions. The Department for Transport has published voluntary guidance on licensing best practice and we were told that the department “takes every opportunity to urge licensing authorities to adhere to it”.8 Local authorities are legally obliged to ensure that money raised from licensing taxis and PHVs is spent on their control and supervision;9 some witnesses questioned whether councils always complied with this.10

Cross-border hire: issues raised with us

6. Several forms of the cross-border hire issue were raised with us. The first involved PHV firms licensed in one district operating routinely in another area. Sefton-based PHV firm Delta Taxis operates throughout Merseyside using “a fleet spread out across the whole of our multi-borough zone that can respond to telephone requests quite literally within seconds”.11 Without referring to Delta Taxis directly, Unite the Union’s Tommy McIntyre complained about “a particular company” which, although based in Sefton, did 55% of its work in Liverpool. He said “they are not actually paying any money whatsoever towards the licensing regime in Liverpool”.12 Numerous similar examples were provided to us, often involving PHVs licensed by rural authorities operating principally in a near-by town or city.13 For example, Gavin Sokhi of Skyline Taxis drew attention to the situation in Milton Keynes, where he claimed “drivers from other licensing authorities are being licensed at lesser standards and then working in [the city]”.14

7. A second issue concerns the activities of the former Berwick District Council (now subsumed into Northumberland County Council) which licensed a number of taxis which were operated as PHVs elsewhere in the UK. The GMB said:

Anyone could have driven a Berwick taxi and that taxi could have been a modernised death-trap, and nobody would have been able to do a thing about it, as some of these vehicles were permanently working hundreds of miles away from their licensing authority.15

David Wilson, the former licensing officer at Berwick, refuted the suggestions that the licensing standards at Berwick were low and that the local authority did not engage in enforcement activity.16 He said that, in the local authority’s view, the legislation did not permit a licence to be refused on the grounds that a taxi was going to be operated as a PHV


9 Section 70, 1976 Act.

10 For example Q10 and Ev 44-45.

11 Ev 42.

12 Q42.

13 For example Ev w3-6, 26-29, 31, 35, 39-41, 54-57, 78-79, 82-84, 87-89.

14 Q16.

15 Ev 51, paragraph 2.1. Also see Ev w20-22, 30-31, 32-33.

16 Q69 and see Ev 69-71.

7

in another locality.17 This issue has been subject to litigation and the court has held that a taxi licence should not ordinarily be granted if the taxi is going to be used in this way.18

8. We did not hear of any other examples of the “Berwick” problem, but the GMB raised the issue of Adur Council licensing a PHV operator in Brighton. In GMB’s view, Adur had “licensing criteria of a lower standard to that in Brighton and Hove” and Adur’s decision has enabled a PHV firm to “integrate vehicles into their fleet which are licensed to a lesser standard, drivers who have no knowledge of Brighton and Hove, and/or drivers who can’t be bothered to meet the high entry criteria demanded by the local licensing authority”.19 Adur and Worthing Councils said there were legitimate reasons for differences in standards between local authorities and pointed out that the law on whether local authorities could license PHV operators in a different district was a “grey area”.20

9. Finally, the prohibition on sub-contracting of jobs by PHV firms was raised with us, particularly by Tyneside-based Blue Line Taxis, whose litigation established the current case law in this area.21 The 1976 Act prohibits PHV operators from transferring work to an operator in a different district but this prohibition does not apply to London PHVs.22 Blue Line Taxis said:

If we accept a booking as a North Tyneside Council operator we cannot lawfully request assistance from a Newcastle operator even when it would be entirely in the best interests of our customer for us to do so and despite there being no credible purpose behind the laws which prevents us from doing so. Nor can we transfer a booking from our own North Tyneside office to our Newcastle office.23

The Department noted that sub-contracting could be useful in “emergency situations” such as when a car breaks down on an airport pick-up. It described the illegality of sub-contracting as “anomalous” and said it wished to address the issue when PHV legislation was next reviewed.24

Is new legislation necessary?

10. The issues raised with us about cross-border hiring, and the increasingly complex pattern of case law on taxi matters, raise questions about the legislation applying to taxis and PHVs and the differences in licensing standards between different local authorities. The National Taxi Association said it did “not believe that there is any pressing need or indeed any at all for a change in legislation” applying to taxis. It drew attention to other elderly pieces of legislation which it argued were generally thought to be working well.25

17 Q70.

18 Ev 67 paragraph 3.3. The relevant case is Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler [2010] EWHC 2430 (Admin).

19 Ev 52, paragraphs 3.3-34 and see Q6.

20 Ev w88.

21 Ev 58, paragraph 4. The case is Shanks vNorth Tyneside Borough Council [2010] EWHC Admin 533.

22 Ev 39-40, paragraphs 29 and 31.


24 Ev 40, paragraphs 30-31.


8

This was a minority view. Most other witnesses argued that the legislation applying to both taxis and PHVs was in need of reform.26

11. There were numerous suggestions of relatively modest changes to the legislation to clear up specific areas of ambiguity. Unite, for example, proposed a new clause to be added to the 1976 Act which would require PHVs to return to their home district after completing a job in another area. This “simple change”, based on Scottish legislation,27 would put an end to PHVs waiting for jobs outside of their home area.28 David Wilson sent us a schedule of changes to the 1976 Act which he recommended to address all of the issues relating to cross-border hiring and enforcement raised by local authorities.29 The Minister suggested that the Berwick issue could be dealt with by establishing a linkage between the licensing district of a taxi driver operating as a PHV and that of the PHV operator for which he or she is working.30

12. Other witnesses took the view that the two principal Acts needed to be radically overhauled or replaced altogether. James Button, the author of a textbook on taxi law, said:

The existing law is not fit for purpose. The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 predates motor vehicles and telephones; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 predates mobile telephones and the internet. Modern systems are not covered; business finds it constrictive, preventing business expansion; the public (the users) are confused; and ultimately, the purpose of licensing of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, which is to protect public safety, can be thwarted.31

Liverpool City Council explained how the use of GPS technology by PHV operators enabled them to “control hundreds, even thousands, of vehicles efficiently by identifying a vehicle which is near to a booking request and dispatching that vehicle via a computer terminal located in each vehicle”.32 The National Private Hire Association made a similar point about how modern technology had outpaced the terms of the legislation and argued that it did not want “to spend the next 20 or 30 years wasting time and costs in the Administrative Court trying to make sense” of the 1976 Act.33 Similar sentiments have been expressed by judges who have heard cases brought under the 1976 Act in particular.34

13. The Minister, Norman Baker MP, conceded that taxi legislation was “complicated”, “archaic” and had “been built on, higgledy-piggledy, over the years”.35 He also drew our attention to another flaw in the 1976 Act, following a finding of the district auditor in

26 For example Ev w1, 2, 28 paragraph 2.1, 31, 32 paragraph 1, 34 paragraph 3(ii), 37 paragraph 7 and 41 paragraph

20. For support for the NTA see Ev w29-30.

27 Q25 and Qq218-19.

28 Q2 and Ev 81, paragraphs 2.3-2.4. This proposal was supported by Liverpool City Council, see Ev 55, paragraph 4. Also see Ev 50, 53 paragraph 8.3.

29 Ev 69, paragraph 6.5 and Ev 72-78.

30 Q205.

31 Ev w77.

32 Ev 56, paragraphs 7-10.

33 Ev w44-45. Also see Ev w84 paragraph 5.1 and Ev w88.

34 See Ev 46, 67 paragraph 2.1.

35 Qq199, 201.

9

respect of Guildford Borough Council that fees for drivers’ and operators’ licences cannot legally cover enforcement activity.36 Mr Baker told us that he had asked the Law Commission to consider looking at the legislation and that, if this suggestion was accepted, the Commission might report back “with an idea of what we might sensibly do” within 12 to 18 months.37

14. In our view, the case for a thorough overhaul of the legislation relating to taxis and private hire vehicles is irresistible. The legislation relating to taxis is hopelessly out of date, with its references to horse-drawn vehicles, “stage coaches” and the regulation of the “placing of cheek strings to the carriages”.38 Both principal Acts take no account of modern developments, such as the widespread use of mobile telephones and the internet, which have transformed the interaction between customers and operators and eroded the traditional distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles. The proliferation of case law to resolve ambiguities in the legislation demands Government attention.

15. It remains to be seen whether the Law Commission will wish to take up the Government’s suggestion that it study taxi and PHV legislation. However, we are concerned that in referring the issue to the Commission the Government has not properly appreciated the pressing need to reform legislation which is proving increasingly contentious and hard to implement effectively. Nor are we persuaded that the Commission is the right body to look at the law in an area where the policy context is so sensitive. As our inquiry has shown, there are plenty of ideas circulating for reforming the legislation and numerous suggestions of how taxis and private hire vehicles should be organised. We recommend that, instead of referring reform of taxi and PHV legislation to the Law Commission, the Government should engage with the trade, local authorities and users about the objectives of future legislation on taxis and private hire vehicles and commit to overhaul that legislation during the course of this Parliament. Once these objectives are decided, the detailed work to frame legislation and guide it through Parliament should begin. This need not involve primary legislation: we consider that the swifter legislative reform order procedure could be used in this case.

36 Q203 and Annual Audit Letter, Guildford Borough Council, Audit 2009/10, Audit Commission, Nov 2010, p9 and see

Ev w47.

37 Qq199-200.

38 Section 68 of the 1847 Act. Section 38 explicitly distinguishes between hackney carriages and stage coaches.

10

2 Principles to underpin new legislation 16. In this chapter we set out the three broad principles which we think should underpin new legislation on taxis and PHVs.

Listen to users

17. We were struck during our inquiry by how difficult it is to find out what users of taxis and PHVs want from these services or whether they have been inconvenienced by the cross-border issues raised by some witnesses. We received little evidence from the consumer perspective. Although the National Association of Taxi Users (NATU) gave oral evidence, and argued that users were “confused” by the distinction between taxis and PHVs, it is a new organisation which has yet to build up a substantial membership.39

18. The absence of a consumer voice in the debate about taxi and PHV legislation puts an additional onus on the Government to ensure that users’ interests are reflected in decisions about reform. We recommend that, in developing proposals for changing the legislation applying to taxis and PHVs, the Government should commission authoritative research into consumers’ opinions. Particular attention should be paid to the views of vulnerable groups, such as disabled people, who are often most reliant on taxis and PHVs.

Keep it simple

19. Various views were expressed about whether or not it was still sensible to maintain separate legal regimes for taxis and PHVs.40 In our view, there remains a clear distinction between the two types of service but we see little reason for them to be the subject of separate Acts, particularly given that many firms operate both taxis and PHVs in their fleets. We recommend that Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 should be replaced by a single Act or legislative reform order, covering both taxis and PHVs. The distinction between taxi and PHV services could be maintained by providing for two types of vehicle licence under the Act. The separate legislation for PHVs in London and Plymouth should be maintained only if there are specific local justifications for doing so.

Keep it local

Local transport plans

20. The Minister told us that taxis and PHVs had a role to play in local transport plans, citing the importance of assisting people complete journeys from rail stations to their destinations in order to encourage a shift away from car usage.41 There was widespread

39 Qq 166-68, 173, Ev 62 and see www.taxiuser.com.

40 Foe example see Qq 101-2, 136-37 and Ev w7 paragraph 8.

41 Q221.

11

agreement with this view.42 Philip Soderquest of Northumberland Council described taxis and PHVs as “a huge part of the local transport infrastructure” in the county.43 However, Damien Edwards of Liverpool City Council commented that taxis and PHVs had historically been the “poor relations” in transport planning and John Austin of NATU said “we found a number of LTPs which regard taxis and private hire as part of the public transport system and to be planned and taken account of accordingly: others do not”.44

21. Although some local transport plans include taxis and PHVs, others do not.45 The Department’s guidance on local transport plans makes no mentions of taxis or PHVs, save to suggest that local firms should be consulted when such plans are drawn up.46 The guidance provided on the licensing of taxis and PHVs goes no further than to suggest some issues relating to these services which local transport plans could contain.47 We recommend that the Government provide clearer guidance to local authorities on how taxis and PHVs should be included in local transport plans.

Standards

22. An issue we explored in some detail was the rationale for differences in licensing standards between local authorities, given suggestions that this contributed to cross-border hire problems.48 David Wilson called for national standards for drivers and vehicles which would “in effect, be a national licence”. He said “we have national licences for everything else. If you drive an HGV, you don’t obtain a licence from your local council. You obtain it from the DVLA and you can drive an HGV anywhere in this country”.49 However, most witnesses preferred to retain licensing as a local function.50 For example, Myles Bebbington, the licensing manager for South Cambridgeshire District Council, argued that there were valid reasons for differences between vehicle licensing conditions in urban and rural areas because of the different types of driving undertaken by cars in those areas.51 The Minister said he did not think differences in standards between local authorities were likely to be problematic and that removing functions from local authorities “would go against the grain of the Government’s general drift”.52

23. There are strong arguments in favour of national standards in relation to issues which directly relate to public safety, such as the level of CRB check drivers require, the roadworthiness of vehicles and drivers whose licences have been revoked being licensed

42 For example Qq114-16 and 196.

43 Q117.

44 Qq115, 196.

45 The local transport plans for Merseyside and West Yorkshire, for example, cover taxis and PHVs in some detail.

46 Guidance on Local Transport Plans, DfT, July 2009.

47 Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance, DfT, March 2010, paragraphs 96-97.

48 See paragraph 8.

49 Q69. And see Qq168-71 (NATU and TravelWatch NorthWest).

50 For example Qq 75, 155 and Ev w21 paragraph 9 and 33 paragraph 14. But also see Ev w34 paragraph 5(iii).

51 Ev 49.

52 Q207.

12

shortly afterwards by a different district.53 We recommend that new legislation in this area should provide for this. There are no good arguments for local variations in these areas and, in our view, taxi and PHV passengers ought to be confident that wherever they travel their safety is protected to the same degree. However, some aspects of licensing, such as whether or not drivers should be subject to a knowledge test and what form such a test might take, are essentially local matters which depend on the nature of the district.54 We agree with the Minister that the licensing of taxis and PHVs should remain a local function, not least because of the likely cost and complexity of instituting a national system.

Enforcement

24. Some local authorities raised with us difficulties in enforcing standards in relation to drivers or vehicles licensed by other districts.55 Councillor Cec Tallack, the leader of Milton Keynes Council, said it was “inequitable” for Milton Keynes residents to pay for enforcement activity against out-of-town cars whose drivers and operators paid licensing fees to another authority.56 He also drew attention to difficulties caused by differing practices in the licensing of drivers who had infringed the law: he argued that Milton Keynes Council took a tougher line than its neighbouring authorities.57 This was disputed by one such authority, South Northamptonshire, which also said that its officials had been carrying out enforcement activity in Milton Keynes since 2005.58 We were also told of other arrangements whereby local authorities could engage in enforcement activity in neighbouring districts or in relation to out-of-town cars, such as a joint initiative involving Merseyside councils.59

25. If our proposal for national standards in relation to matters directly relating to public safety is accepted, there should be no difficulty in local authorities carrying out enforcement activity against cars and drivers irrespective of where they are licensed. Precisely how enforcement activity is organised is a matter for local authorities but we acknowledge that the current requirement for ring fencing income from licensing may constrain innovative practices, such as contributing to enforcement activity in a different district. We recommend that any legal barriers to co-operation between local authorities and innovation in organising and funding enforcement activity in relation to taxis and PHVs should be reviewed as part of the process of legislative reform.

26. Offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire, must be dealt with in court. Prosecutions are not numerous. Liverpool City Council undertook 18 prosecutions for plying for hire by PHVs in 2009 and 40 in 2010.60 Northumbria Police said that it had

53 For example Qq 72-73, 152, Ev 52 paragraph 4.3, Ev w8-9 paragraphs 21-28, 15 paragraphs 3 and 8, 23 paragraph

1.4, 37 paragraph 10, 64 paragraphs 3.4 and 5.1 and 73 paragraphs 7 and 10.

54 For example, Q98.

55 For example, see Ev w32, paragraph 6.

56 Ev 79-80 3(b)-(c).

57 Q96.

58 Ev w84-86.


60 Ev 57. Also see evidence from Merseyside Police, Ev w89.

13

evidence of just three such prosecutions in north east England during this time.61 Some witnesses suggested that fixed penalty notices could be used for dealing more efficiently with taxi and PHV offences.62 We are sympathetic to the argument that offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire, should be dealt with by fixed penalty notices rather than court action and we recommend that the Government should move in this direction when it comes to reform the legislation in this area.

Licensing districts

27. It was suggested that one solution to cross-border hire disputes would be to licence vehicles to operate over a larger geographic area.63 This approach has been adopted in London, where taxis and PHVs are licensed by Transport for London to operate across the entire Greater London region. Brian Whitehead of the RMT argued that this had simply moved cross-border disputes out to the borders of Greater London.64 Paul Brent of the National Taxi Association suggested that with larger districts taxis and PHVs would flock to the most profitable areas, such as city centres, leaving other parts of the district bereft of cars.65

28. Kris Beuret of NATU said “one of the problems at the moment is that so much taxi thinking is done at the district level and most transport planning [is] at the next tier up. So you often find complete disregard of taxis as the essential cement ... of the public transport system”.66 This is a sensible assessment which points to the desirability of aligning licensing districts with local transport planning areas. In general terms, it might be preferable for taxis and PHVs to be licensed to operate across all of the boroughs of a conurbation rather than to be constrained by borough boundaries which are often somewhat artificial. However, in other areas the status quo may be optimal. This is properly a matter for local authorities and different arrangements will suit different areas. We recommend that new legislation should permit existing licensing districts to be combined where local authorities decide it is best to do so.

61 Ev w89.

62 See Ev w8 paragraph 19, 23 paragraph 1.5, 66 paragraph 53 and 81; but also Qq 73 and 209.

63 For example, Q171 and Ev 55 paragraphs 9 and 13.

64 Qq142, 144.

65 Qq147-48. Also see Qq 11, 113, 124.

66 Q196.

14

3 Solving the cross-border hire problems 29. We have concluded that taxis and PHVs should continue to be licensed at a local level, although with national standards relating to matters directly affecting public safety. In addition, local authorities should integrate planning on taxi and PHV issues—such as where to site ranks and whether or not to restrict the numbers of licences issued—into their local transport planning. In this context it is likely to be undesirable for cars or drivers licensed in one district to operate principally in another area. This could undermine local transport plans and be problematic for users if, for example, cars principally designed for rural or long-distance travel were mostly undertaking urban journeys. This is not to suggest that taxis and PHVs must stay exclusively within their licensing districts: consumers often request cross-border journeys and no witness suggested that they should be prohibited.67 However, local authorities which wish to prevent taxis and PHVs from other districts operating predominantly in their areas should have the option of doing so.

30. We recommend that it should be permissible for taxi and PHV licences to include a condition that the vehicle must principally be operated in the licensing district. A similar provision should also be permitted in relation to driver licences. This would enable licensing authorities to take action against drivers or operators who principally operate out-of-town. In addition, new legislation should permit local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices to out-of-town drivers where there is evidence, for example, that they have worked, or sought to work, for a specified period of time in that district. Local authorities should also be enabled to prosecute operators in other districts which are routinely sending cars to work in their area.

31. Local authorities have different views on the seriousness of cross-border hire issues. We expect that some will decide not to use these powers or will take a light touch approach to enforcement. In some areas, however, it is clear that local authorities are strongly of the view that local control of taxis and PHVs is essential and the powers we have suggested are likely to be welcomed. If these powers are introduced as we suggest they should be accompanied by guidance from the Department about their use. In our view it is essential that local authorities justify their approach to the use of these controls in local transport plans, alert drivers and operators in neighbouring districts to their intention to use such powers; and provide adequate warnings to drivers and operators before issuing fixed penalty notices or initiating prosecutions.

67 For example Qq 21, 131 and Ev 81 paragraph 2.4.

15

4 Conclusion 32. Our inquiry has demonstrated the clear need for the Government to bring taxi and PHV legislation into the twenty-first century. Without reform the legislation will continue to struggle to deal with modern developments, such as the internet and mobile telephony, leading to increasingly complex case law and further tensions and difficulties with cross-border hire. The principles for new legislation which we have proposed above attempt to strike a balance between protecting public safety on a consistent basis across England and Wales and the desirability of maintaining local control over taxis and PHVs, particularly given the Government’s commitment to localism. It is essential that the taxi and PHV trades are involved in discussions about legal reform but, even more importantly, the Government must ensure that users are involved and that their views and concerns are paramount. Local authorities must include taxis and PHVs in local transport plans, using such plans to justify their approaches to licensing and enforcement.

33. We welcome the Minister’s commitment to reform taxi and PHV legislation, which he has recently described as “a mess”.68 However, we are not satisfied that passing the issue to the Law Commission to study is appropriate or necessary. New policy thinking is required from the Government, now not in two years time. We call on the Government to set out its policy proposals before the end of the year, with a view to holding a consultation exercise in 2012, introducing draft legislation in 2013–14 and taking an Act or legislative reform order through Parliament before the next general election.

68 HC 872-iv, Q364.

16

Conclusions and recommendations

Introduction

1. In our view, the case for a thorough overhaul of the legislation relating to taxis and private hire vehicles is irresistible. (Paragraph 14)

2. We recommend that, instead of referring reform of taxi and PHV legislation to the Law Commission, the Government should engage with the trade, local authorities and users about the objectives of future legislation on taxis and private hire vehicles and commit to overhaul that legislation during the course of this Parliament. Once these objectives are decided, the detailed work to frame legislation and guide it through Parliament should begin. This need not involve primary legislation: we consider that the swifter legislative reform order procedure could be used in this case. (Paragraph 15)

Principles to underpin new legislation

3. We recommend that, in developing proposals for changing the legislation applying to taxis and PHVs, the Government should commission authoritative research into consumers’ opinions. Particular attention should be paid to the views of vulnerable groups, such as disabled people, who are often most reliant on taxis and PHVs. (Paragraph 18)

4. We recommend that Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 should be replaced by a single Act or legislative reform order, covering both taxis and PHVs. (Paragraph 19)

5. We recommend that the Government provide clearer guidance to local authorities on how taxis and PHVs should be included in local transport plans. (Paragraph 21)

6. There are strong arguments in favour of national standards in relation to issues which directly relate to public safety, such as the level of CRB check drivers require, the roadworthiness of vehicles and drivers whose licences have been revoked being licensed shortly afterwards by a different district. We recommend that new legislation in this area should provide for this. (Paragraph 23)

7. We agree with the Minister that the licensing of taxis and PHVs should remain a local function, not least because of the likely cost and complexity of instituting a national system. (Paragraph 23)

8. We recommend that any legal barriers to co-operation between local authorities and innovation in organising and funding enforcement activity in relation to taxis and PHVs should be reviewed as part of the process of legislative reform. (Paragraph 25)

9. We are sympathetic to the argument that offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire, should be dealt with by fixed penalty notices rather than court action and we recommend that the Government should move in this direction when it comes to reform the legislation in this area. (Paragraph 26)

17

10. We recommend that new legislation should permit existing licensing districts to be combined where local authorities decide it is best to do so. (Paragraph 28)

Solving the cross-border hire problems

11. We recommend that it should be permissible for taxi and PHV licences to include a condition that the vehicle must principally be operated in the licensing district. A similar provision should also be permitted in relation to driver licences. (Paragraph 30)

12. In addition, new legislation should permit local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices to out-of-town drivers where there is evidence, for example, that they have worked, or sought to work, for a specified period of time in that district. Local authorities should also be enabled to prosecute operators in other districts which are routinely sending cars to work in their area. (Paragraph 30)

13. In our view it is essential that local authorities justify their approach to the use of these controls in local transport plans, alert drivers and operators in neighbouring districts to their intention to use such powers; and provide adequate warnings to drivers and operators before issuing fixed penalty notices or initiating prosecutions. (Paragraph 31)

Conclusion

14. We call on the Government to set out its policy proposals before the end of the year, with a view to holding a consultation exercise in 2012, introducing draft legislation in 2013–14 and taking an Act or legislative reform order through Parliament before the next general election. (Paragraph 33)

18

Formal Minutes

Tuesday 12 July 2011

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman, in the Chair

Steve Baker Jim Dobbin Mr Tom Harris Julie Hilling

Kwasi Kwarteng Mr John Leech Paul Maynard Iain Stewart

Draft Report (Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform), proposed by the Chair, brought up and read.

Ordered, That the draft Report be read a second time, paragraph by paragraph.

Paragraphs 1 to 33 read and agreed to.

Summary agreed to.

Resolved, That the Report be the Seventh Report of the Committee to the House.

Ordered, That the Chair make the Report to the House.

Ordered, That embargoed copies of the Report be made available, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order No. 134.

Written evidence was ordered to be reported to the House for placing in the Library and Parliamentary Archives.

[Adjourned till Tuesday 6 September at 10.00 a.m.

19

Witnesses

Tuesday 18 January 2011 Page

Tommy McIntyre, National Taxi Representative, and John Neal, Unite Transport Researcher, Unite the Union, Mick Rix, National Officer, and Michael Hildreth, Secretary, GMB Professional Drivers, Taxis & Private Hire, GMB, and Gavin Sokhi, Skyline Taxis Ev 1

Ian Shanks, Partner, Blue Line Taxis, Mr David B Wilson, Paul McLaughlin, Company Secretary, Delta Taxis, Richard Jarman, Company Secretary, South Sefton Hackney Drivers’ Association, and John Griffin, Chairman, Addison Lee Ev 9

Mr Myles Bebbington, Licensing Officer, Damien Edwards, Licensing Officer, Liverpool City Council, Councillor Cec Tallack, Leader, Milton Keynes Council, and Philip Soderquest, Public Safety and Enforcement Manager, Northumberland County Council Ev 15

Tuesday 15 March 2011

Brian Whitehead, Regional Organiser, and Eddie Lambert, Former Chair, London Taxi Brach, RMT, Paul Brent, Chairman, and Tim Gray, Company Secretary, National Taxi Association, and Steve Wright MBE, Chairman, Licensed Private Hire Car Association Ev 22

Kris Beuret OBE, Chair, and John Austin, Vice Chair, National Association of Taxi Users, and John Moorhouse, Company Secretary, and Paul Fawcett, Advisory and Research Consultant, TravelWatch NorthWest Ev 28

Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, and Rachael Watson, Team Leader, Taxis and Accessibility, Department for Transport Ev 32

List of printed written evidence

Page

1 Department for Transport Ev 38

2 Delta Taxis Ev 40, Ev 46

3 Skyline Taxis Ev 47

4 Myles Bebbington Ev 48

5 National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) Ev 49

6 GMB Ev 50, Ev 54

7 TravelWatch NorthWest Ev 54

8 Liverpool City Council Licensing Unit Ev 55, Ev 57

9 Blue Line Taxis Ev 58

10 South Sefton Hackney Driver's Association Ev 59

20

11 National Association of Taxi Users (NATU) Ev 62

12 David B Wilson Ev 68, Ev 69, Ev 72, Ev 90

13 Milton Keynes Council Ev 79

14 Unite Ev 81

15 Northumberland County Council Ev 84

16 Licensed Private Hire Car Association Ev 86

17 National Taxi Association Ev 88

List of additional written evidence

(published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/transcom)

1 Ed Bridges Ev w1

2 Peoplemovers East Anglia Ltd Ev w1

3 Hugh Bayley MP Ev w2

4 Bromyard Tenbury Taxis Ev w2

5 Juan Sanzo Ev w3

6 Stamper's Taxis Ev w3

7 Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Taxi Licensing Officers Group Ev w6

8 Watford Borough Council Ev w14

9 Mick Groom Ev w17

10 Darlington Borough Council Licensing Committee Ev w20

11 SHDA (Stockton Hackney Drivers’ Association) Ev w21

12 Plymouth Licensed Taxi Association Ev w22

13 Cambridge City Licensed Taxis Ltd Ev w26

14 Peterborough City Council Ev w27

15 Sefton Licensed Operators and Proprietors Association of Sefton Ev w29

16 Carlisle Taxi Association Ev w29

17 Middlesbrough Council Ev w30

18 Joint written evidence from Brighton and Hove Streamline Taxi Cabs Limited, City Cabs (Brighton) Ltd, Brighton & Hove Radio Cabs Limited and of their Hackney Carriage (Taxi) and Private Hire drivers Ev w31

19 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council Ev w32

20 Borough of Poole, Passenger Transport & Accessibility Team Ev w33

21 Coventry City Council Ev w35

22 Dave Walls Ev w35

23 National Association of Licensing & Enforcement Officers (NALEO) Ev w36

24 London Suburban Taxi-drivers’ Coalition Ev w38

25 Reading Borough Council Ev w39

26 Norwich Hackney Trade Association Ev w40

27 National Private Hire Association Ev w41, Ev w46

28 Guide Dogs for the Blind Association Ev w52

29 Reigate and Banstead Borough Council Ev w54

30 Manchester Airport Group Ev w57

21

31 Transport for London Ev w60

32 Hasan Syed Ev w63

33 Local Government Regulation Ev w64

34 The London Taxi Company Ev w67

35 RAC Foundation Ev w70

36 Christopher R Wildman Ev w72

37 James Button Ev w76

38 North Tyneside Council Ev w77

39 Mid Sussex District Council Ev w78

40 City of London Corporation Ev w79

41 Skippy’s Taxi Ev w80

42 Independent Wirral Hackney Drivers Association Ev w80

43 David Horne Ev w81

44 Allan Anslow Ev w82

45 South Northamptonshire Council Ev w84

46 Thames Valley Police Ev w86

47 Wealden District Council Ev w87

48 Adur and Worthing Councils Ev w88

49 Merseyside Police Ev w89

50 Northumbria Police Ev w89

51 The Scottish Government Ev w90

List of unprinted evidence

The following written evidence has been reported to the House, but to save printing costs has not been printed and copies have been placed in the House of Commons Library, where they may be inspected by Members. Other copies are in the Parliamentary Archives (www.parliament.uk/archives), and are available to the public for inspection. Requests for inspection should be addressed to The Parliamentary Archives, Houses of Parliament, London SW1A 0PW (tel. 020 7219 3074; email [email protected]). Opening hours are from 9.30 am to 5.00 pm on Mondays to Fridays.

1 Background papers from the SHDA (Stockton Hackney Drivers’ Association)

2 Background papers from the GMB, Britain’s General Union

3 Background papers from David B Wilson

4 Annexes to their written evidence from the National Private Hire Association

5 Report and survey submitted by the Institute of Licensing

6 Submission from the Institute of Professional Drivers and Chauffeurs

22

List of Reports from the Committee during the current Parliament

Session 2010–12

Seventh Report Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform HC 720

Sixth Report The Coastguard, Emergency Towing Vessels and the Maritime Incident Response Group

HC 948

Fifth Report Keeping the UK moving: The impact on transport of the winter weather in December 2010

HC 794

Fourth Report The cost of motor insurance HC 591

Third Report Transport and the economy HC 473

Second Report Financial Scrutiny of the Department for Transport HC 683

First Report Drink and drug driving law HC 460

Fourth Special Report Transport and the economy: Government response to the Committee’s Third Report of Session 2010–12

HC 962

Third Special Report The performance of the Department for Transport: Government response to the Committee’s Fourth Report of Session 2009–10

HC 549

Second Special Report Update on the London Underground and the public-private (PPP) partnership agreements: Government response to the Committee’s Seventh Report of Session 2009–10

HC 467

First Special Report The major road network: Government response to the Committee’s Eighth Report of Session 2009–10

HC 421

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SO] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_o001_michelle_110118 - TPH OE1 - FINAL.xml

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev 1

Oral evidenceTaken before the Transport Committee

on Tuesday 18 January 2011

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair)

Julie HillingKelvin HopkinsKwasi KwartengMr John Leech

________________

Examination of Witnesses

Witnesses: Tommy McIntyre, National Taxi Representative, Unite the Union, John Neal, Unite TransportResearcher, Mick Rix, National Officer, Commercial Services Sector, GMB, Michael Hildreth, Secretary,Professional Drivers Taxis & Private Hire, GMB, and Gavin Sokhi, Skyline Taxis, gave evidence.

Chair: Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome tothis meeting of the Transport Select Committee. Iwould like to declare that I am a member of Unite.Are there any other declarations?Gavin Shuker: Chair, I would like to declare that Iam a member of Unite.Kelvin Hopkins: I would like to declare that I am amember of the GMB.

Q1 Chair: I would like to ask you if you couldidentify yourselves. Could you just give your nameand the organisation you are representing? This is forclarity of our records. Could I start at the end here?Michael Hildreth: Michael Hildreth, GMB.Mick Rix: Mick Rix, GMB.John Neal: John Neal, Unite.Tommy McIntyre: Tom McIntyre, Unite.Gavin Sokhi: Gavin Sokhi, Skyline Taxis andPrivate Hire.

Q2 Chair: Thank you very much. We have a numberof questions that we will put to you. In some cases,we may ask individual witnesses for their views. Ifanybody else wishes to speak, if you would justindicate, we will do our best to give everyone theopportunity to speak on all of the issues here. I wouldlike to start off by asking the Unite representatives ifyou could explain the background to your campaignon cross-border hire. Could you tell the Committee,as briefly as you can, what the issues are and why youare involved in this? Mr McIntyre, would you liketo start?Tommy McIntyre: Certainly, Chair. It’s going tosound so simple. We want to change one line in a law,and it is as simple as that. People are making out thatwe are trying to stop freedom of choice for peoplewho can ring for a cab and where they can ring for acab from. Absolutely not. I make it clear at the outsetthat Unite is a union and our members have noproblem whatsoever with people ringing for a cabfrom wherever they want. For argument’s sake, inLiverpool, if they decide they want to ring somebodyin Milton Keynes and order a cab, that’s fine. Thatcab or private hire vehicle can come down and do thework. There’s absolutely no problem.

Paul MaynardGavin ShukerIain StewartJulian Sturdy

The problem is with vehicles waiting from adjacentareas, from areas or boroughs outside the city. It is assimple as that. What we are saying is that, if you ordera cab, the cab can come along and pick you up. Cabsand private hire from outside the area should not sitin adjacent areas; it makes a farce of the whole laws.It makes one ask why we bother licensing locally. Asfar as we are concerned as a union, this is down tochildren and vulnerable adults. As it is now, peoplegetting in a cab, for argument’s sake in London, wouldexpect that that is a London cab they are getting into.I think that’s quite right myself. There should not bevehicles from adjacent areas sitting there. It isabsolutely as simple as that, Chair.

Q3 Chair: Could you explain to us why that is aproblem? We have Delta Taxis appearing before uslater this morning. On your evidence, you are askingfor their form of business in fact to be stopped orconstrained in some way. I am asking why. We knowwhat you want to achieve. It is clear in your evidence,but why?Tommy McIntyre: Again, it is simple, Chair. Undersection 37 of the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act, itmakes it quite clear that a taxi can only ply for hirein its area. It makes it quite clear. The law states that.

Q4 Chair: But what is the problem?Tommy McIntyre: The problem is just that, Chair. Ifyou are licensed in an area, surely the people in thatarea believe that you are in that area when you arelicensing or hiring the vehicle.

Q5 Chair: Could any witnesses perhaps amplifythat? What is the problem about this?Mick Rix: The problem we have is that whereauthorities are issuing licences for vehicles and driversoutside of their areas, with the recent case that hastaken place, there is no enforcement on those people.That is the major problem that takes place. We needto completely understand that there are two distinctmarkets that take place within the taxi trade. There arepeople who are advocating plying for trade in areaswhere they are unlicensed, basically to move to a

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_o001_michelle_110118 - TPH OE1 - FINAL.xml

Ev 2 Transport Committee: Evidence

18 January 2011 Tommy McIntyre, John Neal, Mick Rix, Michael Hildreth and Gavin Sokhi

single-tier system, where there are two very distinctand separate markets.All we are asking for is this. Since the 1976 Act wasintroduced, for 30 years there were very few problemsof people plying for trade outside of the areas wherethey were licensed. In the last five years, there havebeen a number of authorities that are issuing licencesfrom as far afield as Berwick in Northumberland topeople that are in Paignton in Devon. With the bestwill in the world, there is no proper enforcement onthose areas.

Q6 Chair: What is the impact of this lack ofenforcement? Is it a problem for the consumer, for thepassengers? Is it a problem for the companies and thedrivers? What is the nature of the problem this iscausing?Mick Rix: If you cannot check the vehicles to ensurethat they are the standard to which the authority saysthey are, that could lead to differences. Consumerswill get a raw deal on that, and, basically, what ishappening is that people are shopping around to lowerstandards within the trade, which is affectingconsumers at the end of the day.Chair: Lower standards.

Q7 Gavin Shuker: Although different licensingauthorities, from the outset, look as though they wouldhave similar standards that they would expect, couldyou explain briefly why those standards are notinterchangeable? Can anyone on the panel help?Michael Hildreth: Basically, each licensing authoritycan put in place conditions that they see fit that suittheir area. That is why you have the differences allover the country.

Q8 Gavin Shuker: How vast are those differences,in your opinion?Michael Hildreth: They are very vast.

Q9 Gavin Shuker: Could you give us an example?Michael Hildreth: For example, in some areas youwill have no vehicle age limits. In other areas, say, thearea where I come from, which is Brighton, they willhave age limits in place to maintain a high standardof vehicle.Tommy McIntyre: Can I quote from a LACORSdocument that has just come out now? They had aboard meeting on 4 December and their answer to thison cross-border hiring, in reply to what you say, wasthat, as a result of this problem of cross-border hiring,because some councils have lower standards andconditions—indeed, they don’t test the drivers andhave lower licensing fees—they see that this is whythere is a problem. Then they refer to the Departmentfor Transport, saying that they have looked at thedifferent standards and come out with a best practice.Unfortunately, the bottom line in it says that manycouncils have not followed the Department forTransport’s recommendations. So they see exactlywhat you are talking about.

Q10 Gavin Shuker: If those standards were enforcedacross every licensing authority, would you still have

an issue with cross-border hiring, just to understandthe scope of your complaint?John Neal: Yes, I think so. Obviously, with regard tothe travelling public, we are trying to establishwhether there is a difference in standards with regardto health and safety concerns. But, to answer yourquestion directly, for the trade, it is about establishinga fair playing field. Currently, what we hear from ourmembers is that it’s not out there at the moment. Youhave the hackney carriage licensed taxi drivers,who’ve spent a lot of time getting the knowledge andthings like that within their local area. Also, you havethe additional private hire vehicle operators within alicensed area that are also having to compete, as thesort of problem we are proposing, with other privatehire vehicle companies that are coming into their area.It wouldn’t just end there because we believe thereshould be a fair playing field.Gavin Sokhi: I was just going to add on theknowledge test and local area knowledge that, if youare licensed outside that area, you have no localknowledge. The customer rings and expects you tohave that. Again, you have different service levels andyou end up having a two-tier system.Mick Rix: There is one further point to follow on fromthat. Local authorities also want local transport plans.There could be a major effect on local transport plansand also on the type of vehicle that they may requireto have in certain areas. It can have an enormouseffect on certain parts of the population in terms ofplanning and what certain areas require in terms ofvehicles.

Q11 Mr Leech: Mr McIntyre, I can understand yourargument for wanting to make the change and,certainly, on the comment that Mr Rix made aboutBerwick Council licensing taxis that were operatingin Paignton, clearly that is ridiculous and theenforcement of those taxis would be incrediblydifficult. But in certain areas, and I will use my ownconstituency as an example, my constituency bordersboth Stockport on one side and Trafford on the otherside, and there are private hire operators who arebased in Manchester but incredibly close to the borderwith Stockport or the border with Trafford on theother side. Surely, in terms of customers who mightlive on the Stockport side of the border as opposedto the Manchester side of the border, they may bedisadvantaged in certain circumstances if a taxi baseis very close to their house but on the wrong side ofthe border. Wouldn’t it be better to have an area withinwhich a base could operate as opposed to necessarilyjust the local authority?Tommy McIntyre: I suppose then we would just movefrom an area to a bigger area. Wouldn’t we just bemoving the problem out? Any reputable big firm youare talking about operates the way we are talkingabout. They actually remove the cars. If you order,like you say, in Stockport, that kind of thing, they cango across that area quite quickly and pick up a fareafter you have rung up. There is no big andcumbersome thing over the fact that they are going todo it. We are arguing that it is quite within their rightsto do it, but the vehicle from another area should notbe sitting there waiting for that job. That is all. A

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG01Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_o001_michelle_110118 - TPH OE1 - FINAL.xml



hackney carriage can’t do it, never has been able todo it, and there’s never been a problem with that.Hackneys accept the fact that once you’ve droppedthe job off you return to your area of licence unlessyou get another job while you’re there. If you getanother radio job, you can pick the other radio job up.That’s no problem. Do you see what I am saying? Allwe are saying is that the vehicles should not sit outsidetheir area. Where the actual firm works, where theycover, where they canvass and that kind of thing, theycan do all that; we have no problem with any of that.It is just the fact that the vehicles are sitting outsidetheir area and, by virtue of the very fact that they sitoutside their area people, believe that they are therefor immediate hire.

Q12 Mr Leech: Would you accept that there is a bigdifference between a licensing authority in the north-east licensing private hire vehicles operating in thesouth-west, as opposed to my constituency where oneside of the road is in another authority, and a vehiclewouldn’t be allowed to be parked on one side of theroad but would be allowed to be parked on theManchester side of the road? Surely there has to be acompromise position for situations where operatorsare right on the border of local authority operations.Tommy McIntyre: What you have just explained isthat, because what you are talking about has beengoing on in a local way, it has spread, though, hasn’tit, to exactly what you say, to theBerwick-upon-Tweed and the Stockton scenario?They’ve expanded it, haven’t they, and they’ve madea farce of the whole thing?

Q13 Mr Leech: That is why I am asking whetherthere would be a compromise position whereby,hypothetically, an operator who is licensed inManchester would only be able to operate within acertain distance from where that base is, and if thatcrossed a border they would be allowed to sit acrossthat border but they wouldn’t be allowed to go andwork in Paignton, for instance.Mick Rix: The problem that exists in what you aretrying to reasonably explain could be a situation thatcame up in the recent case of Stockton-on-TeesBorough Council v Fidler, which ruled that the localenforcement authority where the enforcement takesplace, where another vehicle and driver from anotherarea were plying for trade in that area, could notenforce the standards that were applicable to that area.So, yes, it can take place because the courts have ruledthat it can take place, but the anomaly now is thatthe local enforcement authorities cannot enforce thestandards that apply for that place. There is a loweringof standards that the local enforcement authorities cando nothing about. That is the problem which may gosome way to explain why we may have someantipathy towards the point that you may be making,because there could be lower standard vehiclescoming into that area.

Q14 Mr Leech: Would you accept that, if weovercome the issue of the enforcement, having a localarea in which a private hire operator could operate

would be a reasonable compromise, if we could getthe enforcement right?Mick Rix: I would say at the moment I have a degreeof scepticism about that because of what is currentlytaking place. However, I have always got an openmind and obviously changes have been mooted in therecent months about authorities merging anddepartments merging within authorities, creatinglarger areas. I suppose, from what you weredescribing, it could be possible, but there would haveto be really stringent enforcement and people need tohave that power to carry out those enforcements,which currently, it has been ruled, they can’t.

Q15 Chair: You would see that as a possibility butthe enforcement issue is the key point there.Mick Rix: Yes.

Q16 Iain Stewart: Is the issue we are consideringsimply one of particular firms seeking to exploitdifferences between local authorities in terms of pricedifference and enforcement standards, or have youuncovered any evidence that suggests that localauthorities themselves are deliberately setting lowertariffs or standards in the hope of attracting firmsparticularly to register with them rather than theirnatural local authority?Gavin Sokhi: In Milton Keynes—it is slightlydifferent to up north, Newcastle and whatnot. We havethe trade in Milton Keynes, and drivers from otherlicensing authorities are being licensed at lesserstandards and then working in Milton Keynes. It onlyhappens because the local dialling code stretchesfurther than the boundary.Back to Mr Leech’s point, your merging idea is great,but from our point of view we are in the same boatalready. They are travelling in, doing their journeys,and hanging around town. Taxi enforcement cannotenforce drivers from other authorities. So we end uppaying more money to enforce them or trying toenforce those drivers. Even if, for example, a driveris found plying for hire, the local authority never getsback the full cost of taking that driver to court. Inturn, this puts up our costs, while these other operatorscarry on working for free.

Q17 Iain Stewart: Forgive me, I perhaps did notexpress my question clearly. I am trying to establishwhether local authorities are an innocent bystander inthis. They have set their tariffs for their own areawithout any deliberate attempt to say, “If our feeswere 20% lower than the neighbouring authority, wewould get a whole load of extra income.” Is there anyevidence that local authorities themselves areattempting to pinch different trade and then we wouldhave a lowering of standards and costs?Michael Hildreth: We have evidence of one licensingauthority down in the south of England, where I amfrom, Wealden licensing authority, and through aFreedom of Information request we found out thatthey are licensing eight or nine different companiesin different authorities all within the southern region.Obviously, by doing that they have no controls; theydon’t go and check these people. The worst case is inHaywards Heath where they have issued a private hire




operator’s licence to a private hire company thatoperates out of the station. You have two examples ofhackney carriages at this station licensed by MidSussex and private hire vehicles licensed by Wealden.I suppose, for want of a better expression, they haveused it as a cash cow to raise money for their authoritywithout being able to check that everything is okay.

Q18 Iain Stewart: May I just follow that up? Do youbelieve that is an isolated example or have you aconcern that it might be more widespread?Michael Hildreth: That is one example. There is thefamous example of Berwick, where they againlicensed vehicles that operate quite a long way awayfrom home, i.e. the north-east, and, again, there are nochecks. It was a cash cow again. I think at the heightthey licensed 750 hackneys, of which, I believe, about80 worked in Berwick and all the rest worked aroundthe country. Credit to Northumberland—I think theyhave got it down to about 50% of that figure now—but Berwick were another example that were issuinglicences without taking responsibility for the controlsof those vehicles.

Q19 Chair: Are Northumberland County Councildealing with this problem now? It is a unitaryauthority, isn’t it?Michael Hildreth: I understand that they are. I had aquick read of their report and, like I said, it is duecredit to Northumberland that they have reduced thenumber of hackneys from a figure at one time of 700down to about 350 at the moment. Hopefully, they areon the right track to taking them back into their ownarea and controlling their own area.

Q20 Julian Sturdy: First, can I follow up on somequestions Mr Stewart asked? You have highlightedcertain areas in the written evidence given to theCommittee already where the issue is arising. Is thishappening in a handful of areas that you havehighlighted or do you believe that it is widespreadacross the country but it just isn’t coming to the fore?I am one of the MPs for York, which is a small unitaryauthority, and so it is a small licensing area. CertainlyI have not had it brought to my attention in my areawhere, as I say, we are a small licensing areasurrounded by other licensing areas. Is there any otherevidence from other areas?Michael Hildreth: We have put forward the ones weknow of to the Committee. I think that the issue hereis that, if nothing is done, this could be repeated allover the country. It needs to be changed, otherwiseyou could have authorities issuing hackney plates allover the country and then we will be in a right oldmess, basically.Mick Rix: The point that we were making is that for30 years of the Act most of the authorities were actingin a very reasonable and respectable way, carrying outthe spirit of the 1976 Act. There were one or twoproblems within that period of time, but mainly theseproblems have begun to surface in the last five yearswithin certain specific areas.

Q21 Julian Sturdy: Thank you for that. This followson a little bit from what Mr Leech was asking earlier

on as well. Given the area I represent, which is a smallarea, we get a lot of people who will be getting taxisin my authority but travelling outside. Is the problemthat, if those taxis travel outside of one area, they arelooking for a return fare?Mick Rix: There is nothing wrong with a taxi workingcross-border with a fare and there is nothing wrongwith having a pre-booked fare coming back.

Q22 Julian Sturdy: I understand what you aresaying about a pre-booked fare, but, if it is notpre-booked and they are looking for a return farebecause they have travelled quite a distance outsidetheir licensing area, which in London and the biggersuburban areas isn’t potentially a problem becauseyou have a much bigger licensing area, in a smalllicensing area there might be an issue. Do you thinkthat is potentially a problem?Mick Rix: The main problem is when someone isspending many hours in that other area for which theyare not licensed, plying for trade. That is where theproblem is.

Q23 Chair: Is this an issue for private hire that youare talking about rather than hackney carriages?Mick Rix: Yes.Tommy McIntyre: As I replied earlier on, Chair,hackneys now and always have had to return acrossto their area of licence, so they don’t sit outside theirarea. They know quite well that, if they do, they willbe summonsed for doing just that. In reply to thequestion you asked about whether it is isolated or not,here are all the replies that MPs returned to Unite theUnion, saying that their constituents are havingexactly the same problem as we are having.

Q24 Julian Sturdy: So you have evidence to say itis widespread?Tommy McIntyre: I am quite happy to leave themwith the Committee. They are all replies fromindividual MPs saying, “What more can we do tohelp?”

Q25 Kelvin Hopkins: As my colleague, GavinShuker, said earlier on, one approach would be to haverigorous national standards, so that there wouldn’t bea question of different standards in differentauthorities, which seems a sensible way forward. Theother thing, again, is that, having a larger licensingarea and a consortium of local authorities, theoverwhelming majority of journeys would then bewithin that area, so you would not be crossing borders.You could then have a restriction on picking up cabfares outside that area because it would only affect avery small number of journeys. The great majoritywould be within that area, particularly in the bigconurbations. Even in my own local area, in Lutonand Dunstable, they comprise a contiguousconurbation but one is in Central Bedfordshire andone is in Luton Borough. That, logically, should beone area. Those approaches seem to me to be sensibleand I wondered if you wanted to expand a bit moreon those possibilities.Tommy McIntyre: The GMB replied before and wewould back them totally on the fact that we will talk




to anybody over anything on it. Everybody doesn’thave all the good ideas, do they? The problem, as wesaid earlier on with what has gone on in Berwick, isthat it has just become absolutely ludicrous now. Theonly people who are making money now are lawyers,who will say to anybody, “Let’s take them to court onit.” What we are saying is: can we just change onesimple thing about the return to your area?It is actually in statute law in Scotland now. In the1982 Civic Government Act, it states that a privatehire in that area must return to its area of licence. Idon’t know any big problems they have had with that.I can accept the fact, Chair, if we look at the realworld and we realise that if what we are saying is sobad, then the courts are going to be overrun withpeople being taken to court and so on. Could we atthis stage suggest more of a spot fine for this kind ofthing? I realise, although it is an awful lot to mymembers, it really isn’t in the court system. In the bigscheme of things, it’s not that much. If we could comeup with something where we could turn round and saythere would be an unlimited fine and that fine was togo to the council for looking after what was going on,I think they would control their areas then.Again, if I could refer back to that LACORSdocument, they have actually been doing this now.The local councils authority, I think it is, isn’t it, wholook after LACORS, have been promoting this inregard to smoking and that kind of thing in the lastfew years, rather than it going to court? They reckonthat would be a way forward. They suggest that intheir document, which again I would be quite happyto leave for the Committee.

Q26 Paul Maynard: You have mentioned that,clearly, your members are disquieted about thesecircumstances. Can you just give an indication of whatthe impact of the changes and the competition hasbeen on your members’ earnings within, say,Liverpool City or Milton Keynes, and the impact ontheir earning levels? What have the financial andnumerical consequences been? Also, Mr Rix, youmentioned earlier that it meant a raw deal forconsumers. Could you expand on that a little in whatway it represents a raw deal?Mick Rix: First, I was talking in terms of wherepeople were being licensed from other areas andplying for their trade in another area where they hadhigher standards, vehicle checks, or the age of thevehicle and things like that. They are done for veryspecific reasons, because local authorities attractpeople into their towns and cities for various reasonsand they have local transport plans. Of course, goodauthorities insist on the age and the roadworthiness ofvehicles, because if you want to attract people cominginto towns and cities then the consumer should havethat good deal. I am aware we have people shoppingaround to lower standards. That is where the consumerwill, unknowingly, be getting into a taxi that theythink is licensed in their area and will have thosestandards, and yet it will not. Yet they may be payingthe same price for catching that cab at the same tariffsthat apply to the area that they are not licensed from.That is where people are getting a raw deal. It is a

very wrong option and it is an abuse that needs tobe stopped.

Q27 Paul Maynard: What are the financialconsequences for the hackney carriage drivers?Gavin Sokhi: With regard to private hire drivers inMilton Keynes, our drivers generally go out to earn£100 to £150 a day. They can make a good living andpay their costs. If we say we have around 350 to 400drivers working cross-border licensing in SouthNorthants Council, working in Milton Keynes, theyare, on average, taking £10 million a year fromMilton Keynes trade and paying nothing towards thetrade. So that is £10 million straight out of the pocketof local drivers who are licensed in Milton Keynes.If you then look at it from the council’s point of view,they are having to enforce these drivers at a cost,which pushes our costs up, but they are also losingout on the revenue gained by licensing these drivers,which equates to around £100,000 to £150,000 a year.We have been charged more by the council, so thatthey can enforce other drivers, whereas if they werereceiving this revenue standards could be increasedfurther. Again, it goes back to the fact that peoplecoming to Milton Keynes expect a certain service. Itgoes with the image of the city and we can keep thatimage and standard high, whereas, attracting in otherauthorities’ drivers, people presume it is aMilton Keynes car. When it comes down tocomplaints, they complain to Milton Keynes Council.Milton Keynes Council then have to pass it on andforward it on to the next authority.

Q28 Paul Maynard: If we were to take Liverpoolas an example, has the number of hackney carriagedrivers declined?Tommy McIntyre: No, but can I refer back again tothe LACORS document? They looked at this and saidthat the amount of hours drivers are having to drive isnow becoming unacceptable. What you are saying is,“Have your wages gone down?” What happens in thecab and private hire trade is that, if your wages godown, you have to work more hours.

Q29 Paul Maynard: Has it reached a point wherepeople are leaving the industry yet?Tommy McIntyre: That’s a difficult one becausewhere do they go? Most of these people are unskilled;they are cab drivers. It’s not as though there is—

Q30 Paul Maynard: I accept there is a separateargument about their skill levels, but have anyhackney carriage drivers in Liverpool stoppedworking as hackney carriage drivers on account of thisstructural problem?Tommy McIntyre: No, but what I am saying to you isthe fact that what happens is the driver remains doingthe job, but in this case they quote a driver who, afterworking 14 hours, killed a pedestrian by falling asleepat the wheel. Is this what we want to happen? That’swhat I am saying. They don’t go away; what actuallyhappens is we have to work more hours. It’s the oldanalogy of the pie, isn’t it? There are only so manypieces of the pie.




Q31 Paul Maynard: Playing devil’s advocate, howwould you respond to the accusation that it is all abouta dispute between hackney carriage drivers and theprivate hire market, because you are offering two verydifferent products, as I understand it, given theinvestment hackney carriage drivers have to make, yetthe public might not appreciate that difference?Tommy McIntyre: Good God, absolutely not. Let memake it perfectly clear now. I negotiate in an awfullot of places in this country for fares and what we willset for the tariff. I would never like to go in there justas the union rep for the cabs. We complement oneanother—what private hire charge and what thehackney charge. If that was to go away, I think thatwould be really detrimental. You see where I amcoming from? I actually think we keep the fares downbecause we work well together that way.

Q32 Chair: Mr Sokhi, did you want to come in onthis?Gavin Sokhi: No.

Q33 Kwasi Kwarteng: I have looked through yourwritten evidence and, sure, I think there should benational standards applied; I completely understandthat argument. But the word that comes across a lot inthis is the “low” standards, yet there is no realdescription of what these “low” standards are. Couldyou give me a bit more colour on that, perhaps, MrRix?Mick Rix: When we were talking about standards, wewere referring to vehicles. Certain authorities will setcertain standards for their vehicles, and it could be onage. Some authorities may not be as stringent on someof those because of the different market that they maybe in. It could be very much of a rural or semi-ruralarea, so it may be that other people may be doingother things within their trade.The point that we are making is that people arecircumventing the current licensing authority in whichthey are plying their trade and getting a licence fromelsewhere. They can get a lower standard vehicle,which impacts on to the local areas where they mayhave higher standards—they may have had to paymore money for a plate and there may be morestringent requirements as well in keeping thatlicence—and someone is coming from another area,on a lower standard, plying for trade in that area.

Q34 Kwasi Kwarteng: When you are talking aboutstandards, you are talking about the standard of thevehicle?Mick Rix: Vehicles, and it could also be theknowledge that the driver is required to have.

Q35 Kwasi Kwarteng: So it is a general thing.Mick Rix: There are numerous issues. It could be theknowledge that the driver has to have and it is alsothe standard of the vehicle as well.

Q36 Mr Leech: I just want to come back to MrMcIntyre again. I am sorry if I come across as pickingon you.Tommy McIntyre: I’m big enough.

Mr Leech: Is your proposed change enforceable,because my understanding—and please correct me ifI am wrong—is that, if a private hire driver takessomeone from Manchester over the border toStockport and then there is another job coming backfrom Stockport to Manchester, under your proposalthat driver would have to go back to Manchesterbefore going back to Stockport? Is that correct?Tommy McIntyre: No, absolutely not.

Q37 Mr Leech: Can you explain how it would workthen, please?Tommy McIntyre: Absolutely.

Q38 Chair: Yes, please. In that situation, how wouldyour proposal actually work in practice?Tommy McIntyre: All we are saying is that thatvehicle shouldn’t stop there. I have tried to say fromday one that we are not trying to restrict the travellingpublic. My wife or anybody else’s wife can order acab from wherever they want to. For argument’s sake,if I was in Liverpool and I am dropping off inManchester, if I haven’t got a fare, then I would haveto return back. But if, while I was going toManchester, over the radio system I got another job,fine; there is absolutely no problem with that. Whatwe are talking about is the guy or the girl, when theyhave finished doing the job, sitting in a neighbouringborough, in some cases for several hours.

Q39 Mr Leech: That’s the issue about whether or notit is enforceable. How do you prove that Mr X hastaken a job from Manchester to Stockport and he justhappens to be waiting for the next fare which isn’t foranother 10 minutes, so he is just waiting on the streetfor that next fare back? How do you actually enforcethat change?Tommy McIntyre: It’s so simple now with the eventof sat-navs and the way satellites work these days. Allthe data heads in a cab or private hire vehicle showwhere that vehicle was sent to and, indeed, will showif he is booked to do anything else. All licensingofficers are trained to be able to get in that vehicleand read that machine. That is exactly where it wouldcome from. An enforcement officer would look in andsay, “You are sitting here. You have been here for halfan hour or whatever. You haven’t got a job. Why areyou sitting here?”

Q40 Mr Leech: The answer could be, “Well, I amactually on my break. I just happen to be here onmy break.”Tommy McIntyre: “Take your break in your ownarea”, I would have said.Gavin Sokhi: From an operator’s point of view, wetrack our drivers. Every piece of information fromwhen they have received the job, picked up the joband cleared it with the customer, to the time they aresitting waiting for the next job is logged. You find90% of companies nowadays use similar systems andthe local enforcement officers are well aware of whichsystems and software packages we use. They come in.If they are checking on drivers, for example, if theybelieve they have been plying for hire, they ask fortheir records; they ask for a detailed report. We can




give them GPS maps, etc., etc. From that point ofview, it can be enforced because they can request it,receive it on e-mail and view it in a few minutes.Mick Rix: I think the point you are driving at is this.Could it be seen as right to stop any unscrupulous actthat an individual might make? The answer isprobably not. But the issue here is, if it was possibleto enforce, at the moment, because of the Stocktoncase, the enforcement officers in that local area canhave no impact on drivers licensed outside of thatarea. That is one of the things that has to change.Perhaps one of the other issues that has to change isto look at some form of national standard of trainingand qualification for enforcement officers, so thatthere can be some greater understanding within theseareas.

Q41 Mr Leech: What impact would this proposedchange in legislation have on the cost of enforcement?Would enforcement costs increase?Tommy McIntyre: No, they would actually decrease.

Q42 Mr Leech: Why is that?Tommy McIntyre: Let’s take Liverpool again. TheChair mentioned a particular company earlier on. Iwon’t mention it but people know the companyI would be referring to. In an open radio show withme they said that 55% of their work was in Liverpool,not in the area they are in. You can accept from that,if 55% of their work is in Liverpool, the licenceenforcement teams in Liverpool are looking after aneighbouring borough’s cars. Do you understand whatI mean? They are coming across the licensing inSefton in this case and they are actually operating inLiverpool. They are not paying any moneywhatsoever towards the licensing regime in Liverpool,but our cabs in Liverpool have to pay the bill to foottheir cars.Michael Hildreth: Can I just say one thing when youare talking about costs? As you probably know, thetaxi industry is self-financing and ring-fenced, so thegood news would be that the costs would come backinto the taxi trade.

Q43 Mr Leech: I was going to make that pointactually. But coming on to my last question, is therean argument, therefore, to say that if you pick up jobsin different authorities you should be licensed in allthose authorities that you pick up jobs from?Mick Rix: We would argue that, because of the pointwe are making, where people are plying for trade forthe major part of their working time, then, yes, theyshould have a licence for that area they are workingin to stop some of these anomalies. The thing that wewould like to see is standards being driven upwards,because at the end of the day if standards are increasedand driven upwards then the consumer gets the benefitof that.There is an image about the trade and people do notoften talk about the trade itself. This is a veryimportant trade. A lot of people earn their living fromit and the fact of the matter is that we don’t want abad image because that will drive people away fromusing the trade. It is important that there are goodstandards and it is important that there are applicable

and enforceable standards to stop some of theseabuses.With a few of the anomalies that are taking placewhere people are circumventing it, it is very easy toget back to the situation where we were five years agowhere most people were trying to do things on aproper level playing field and dealing with the twodistinct markets within the trade in a fair andreasonable manner. But the point that we have madeabout empowering and training enforcement officerson some form of national standard will be of greatbenefit to the trade and everyone.

Q44 Kwasi Kwarteng: From my point of view I amjust interested in the point of view of the consumer.Obviously you have your own interests and you arelooking after your own members, but as far as theconsumer is concerned how is he or she going tobenefit from what you call the raising of standards?What is going to happen in the future that is nothappening now, or what more is going to happen inthe future that is not happening now under the regimethat you propose? I am not sure in my own head howthis new world that you picture is going to be differentfrom what we have now.Chair: What are the benefits to the consumer?Mick Rix: The issue that we were describing is thatin a lot of authorities at this moment in time licencesare being issued in the correct and proper manner.Also, local authorities set local transport plans. Also,local authorities set standards for the knowledge oftheir drivers and also the standards of their vehicles.Some authorities don’t apply in a rigorous way someof those standards in all areas. If you have higherquality vehicles and better knowledge of drivers inthat respect, then of course the consumer is going tobenefit from that.

Q45 Kwasi Kwarteng: Just to boil down what youare saying, you are saying that as a consumer I amgoing to be more likely to get to where I want tobecause the driver has the knowledge and the car willbe better, I will be more comfortable and I will havea better experience?Mick Rix: You will have a better experience. It is notjust representing the interests of our members. Wewant to attract people to use our trade.

Q46 Kwasi Kwarteng: You think more people willuse the trade.Mick Rix: I think a lot of people would feel moresecure as well, yes.Tommy McIntyre: Unite have been highly involvedfor some three years now in upskilling and trainingcab and private hire drivers in NVQ Level 2, and webelieve this is paramount for our trade. They havegone from horse and cart, if you like, to these fantasticvehicles, but nobody bothered training the driversbecause we are all self-employed. But, luckilyenough, with the help of the Government and thefunding for it, we have upskilled ourselves. I think itis 3,700 now. Okay, the number throughout thecountry is fantastic, but it will be done and when youspeak to the travelling public after drivers have beentrained it’s very good to listen to.




Q47 Chair: But we are trying to identify how thechange that you are proposing would improveexperiences for the passengers.Tommy McIntyre: In that area?

Q48 Chair: Anywhere.Tommy McIntyre: The simple answer I would give tothat would be the fact that the person would have theknowledge that in that area, “This is a local driver Iam getting.” This is a guy who would have beentrained, as I say, in the knowledge.

Q49 Chair: But what assurance would there be thatthat would mean an improvement?

Q50 Kwasi Kwarteng: I am sorry, but can I just bea devil’s advocate? I use cabs all the time, certainlyin my constituency, and I would not be able to tellyou what make of car they were. Generally, I get towhere I want to; generally, they use sat-nav. Iwouldn’t be able to tell you where they were licensed.I just use a cab and I get from A to B, and thatexperience is pretty much the same every time I useit. When you say to us that this will be a much betterexperience, I am still trying to get my head round that.I am not denying what you are saying, but I am justtrying to understand how a better trained car driver isgoing to make my experience better. That’s all I’msaying.Tommy McIntyre: Could I just go on a bit with myanswer? Our licensing officer is here so you will beable to ask him the same question later on, if he seesany difference. But certainly from our side, talking topeople, they say, “It was brilliant. I got in the cab andthe driver started talking about architecture and thingslike that”, when they were going through the city.“Did you realise what this building was or what thatbuilding was?”Kwasi Kwarteng: I travel at night.Tommy McIntyre: They have lights on thesebuildings.Chair: Can we keep the answers short?Kwasi Kwarteng: I just want to get from A to B. Idon’t really want an architectural experience.

Q51 Chair: Mr Sokhi, I think you want to come in,don’t you?Gavin Sokhi: I just wanted to make the point on theknowledge. In Milton Keynes, obviously the test is onMilton Keynes and it is very strict, and if you failyour test you have to wait a certain period to retakeit. If you get licensed in your neighbouring borough,in South Northants, they have a knowledge test of 12questions on Towcester, which is 15 miles away fromMilton Keynes. They have no knowledge ofMilton Keynes. They are licensed there and then thevery next day they are then working inMilton Keynes. If a local elderly customer says, “Takeme down the road to Watling Vale Health Centre”,they can punch that in the sat-nav, but there is no localknowledge there. Again, if that customer then wantsto complain locally, they then push towardsNorthampton.

Q52 Iain Stewart: I would like to turn briefly to theenforcement point and particularly Mr Sokhi’scomment about the use of new technology, sat-navs,to log journeys made. I am just wondering if apossible solution to this issue might be a requirementon firms to collate electronically the data of all thejourneys that their drivers use, and if it is shown thata certain percentage of their business is outwith theirhome authority then there should be some requirementfor them to pay an additional levy to thoseneighbouring authorities. I would just be interested inthe panel’s views as to whether that might be apractical solution.Gavin Sokhi: The main software companies areproviding taxi companies like ourselves with softwarefrom which you can run any kind of report you like,from individual pick-ups to the zones you pick upfrom. You can find out anything, from percentages tohow many people you picked up from Sainsbury’stoday, to how many jobs you ran five minutes late on,for example. You can pull any type of report from thesystem; so those stats are easily available.

Q53 Iain Stewart: But at the moment that is justused from an operational point of view, I wouldimagine, by each firm. I am trying to work out if therewas some statutory requirement for that data to bepassed on. Is that a way of differentiating betweenfirms which are actively registered in one authorityand doing most of their business elsewhere, asopposed to other firms who would operate primarilyin their own area and have a small percentage ofjourneys cross-border?John Neal: It is a really interesting suggestion but itwouldn’t necessarily highlight the problem for the restof the taxi trade. The information might be there froma company perspective on paying levies anddistributing the money around perhaps in a more fairway for businesses, but it wouldn’t necessarily bethere for workers in that way. It wouldn’t necessarilycorrect the unfairness within the market in terms ofallowing one section of the taxi trade to compete inone way and the rest of the section to be regulated inanother way. If you are going to be devil’s advocateto the whole thing, then you would let the taxi tradesjust go everywhere and you would have completechaos, and the people who have the knowledgewouldn’t have to work within the regulation that theydo. We wouldn’t want a system like that because itcould introduce a lot of problems and increaseproblems with regard to a black market or somethinglike that because it would throw the licensing schemeinto chaos, I think.

Q54 Paul Maynard: I have listened very carefullyand I just wonder whether any of you can answer thisquestion. Why, when in the post-war period we havehad a massive amount of centralisation of bureaucraticprocedures and increasing nationalisation of consumerstandards in particular, has taxi licensing remained theprovince of local government, which has such adifferentiation of standards? Why has there never beenpressure on any Government to take the step tonationalise these standards?




Mick Rix: Because it is localised markets. It isbasically as simple as that. It cannot be compared toan HGV driver or a coach driver, for example. Theseare local markets, distinct to local areas, and that isone of the reasons why it comes under localauthorities.

Q55 Paul Maynard: But I have to say when I amtravelling between Blackpool and Manchester on theM61, I pass taxis from across the north-west going upand down the motorway networks there. In this dayand age, it isn’t a localised market. It’s an increasinglymobile market where taxi drivers are going wayoutside their local area. So does it need to remain theprovince of local Government?Mick Rix: I think you are highlighting an issue in amarket that has probably increased in the last 20 yearsas people have become more mobile, and that is whereyou see people on the motorway travelling distancesmaybe because of airport fares and things like thatmainly, so people are going for a distinct thing. Theseare normally pre-booked anyway.I don’t think there is an issue about looking at someform of national standard for enforcement officers forpeople who are operating over large distances anddoing single journeys or even a return journey, comingback from another area. This market has increased inthe last 20 years and there is a lot of this taking place,and I don’t think it would be unreasonable of us tolook at perhaps a standard for that issue. But the mainpoint we are talking about here is that there are localauthorities that are applying the standards and thereare some local authorities that are not applying thestandards. We don’t really need to change everything.It is giving people the ability to enforce and perhaps


Witnesses: David B Wilson, Licensing Consultant and former Licensing Manager of Berwick-upon-TweedBorough Council, Ian Shanks, Partner, Blue Line Taxis, Paul McLaughlin, Company Secretary, Delta Taxis,Richard Jarman, Company Secretary, South Sefton Hackney Drivers’ Association, and John Griffin,Chairman, Addison Lee, gave evidence.

Chair: Good morning, gentlemen, and welcome to theTransport Select Committee. Can I ask you please togive your name and the organisation you arerepresenting? This is for our records.Ian Shanks: I am Ian Shanks, Blue Line Taxis,Newcastle-upon-Tyne.David Wilson: David Wilson, Licensing Consultantand formerly Licensing Manager atBerwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council.Paul McLaughlin: Paul McLaughlin from DeltaTaxis on Merseyside.Richard Jarman: Richard Jarman from South SeftonHackney Carriage Drivers’ Association.John Griffin: John Griffin, Chairman of Addison Lee.

Q60 Chair: Thank you very much. Mr McLaughlin,you tell us that most of your business is in Liverpoolrather than in Sefton and it is growing, so why aren’tyou licensed in Liverpool rather than Sefton?Paul McLaughlin: The company was established in1968 when my mother and father lived in Crosby and

look at some of the other areas where we need to bringin some of the changes like the example that you havespoken about.

Q56 Chair: Just a final one: does sat-nav and othernew technology replace the need for local knowledge?Tommy McIntyre: Absolutely not.

Q57 Chair: Just quick answers anyone. Can anyonetell me why it doesn’t?Michael Hildreth: Definitely not.

Q58 Chair: Why not? Why doesn’t it?Michael Hildreth: As an example, at Brighton station,I am sitting there in my taxi. Someone comes up andjust says, “Can you take me to the hotel next to theroundabout opposite there that’s white?” Unless theyhave a defined post code or a street, they are not goingto find it.

Q59 Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Sokhi, do youwant the last word?Gavin Sokhi: I would just say, whatever the softwareand the way it works, that the drivers are given thepick-up and the destination address. They use theirsat-nav, it’s linked in, they don’t have to type anythingin, and it takes them straight to that destination. Bysaying you need a knowledge test is limiting the tradein the sense that, if drivers are unemployed, they haveto take a knowledge test and maybe stay unemployedfor a further three or four months until they can passthe test, whereas if sat-nav is involved they could startworking sooner.Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen.

started the taxi firm from their house eight yearsbefore licensing started for private hire vehicles. Once1976 came, they changed their fleet from a mixedhackney carriage/private hire fleet to private hire onlyas a commercial decision because they believed thatprivate hire, as a model, fitted the requirements oflocal consumers.Once we outgrew our premises in Sefton, by 1995, wewere looking for new premises and we did consider avariety of sites throughout Merseyside. The one thatwe chose, which was in Bootle, was a strategicinvestment area which many of our staff already livedlocal to and, with local employment policies that wehave, it made sense to try and stay as close to wherewe had been for the previous 30 years. We moved—

Q61 Chair: Mr McLaughlin, I don’t want a longdetailed answer. I am just trying to understand whyit was.Paul McLaughlin: Historically, we have been therefor 40 years.



18 January 2011 David B Wilson, Ian Shanks, Paul McLaughlin, Richard Jarman and John Griffin

Q62 Chair: It is a historical matter. Do you acceptthat your activities have affected taxis in Liverpooladversely?Paul McLaughlin: I think they have affected thehackney industry per se, but the individuals withinthat industry haven’t been affected in the same wayas you might think. There was a rather importantquestion asked about the livelihood that Mr Maynardmade earlier. He asked the question whether anyhackney drivers had left the industry and the answerfrom the Unite the Union was no. I strongly disputethat. There are hundreds and hundreds of drivers whohave left the hackney carriage industry to work witha different business model. Those drivers are joiningDelta on an almost daily basis and they do a differentstyle of working within exactly the same area.

Q63 Chair: Mr Jarman, how have your membersbeen affected by cross-border hire?Richard Jarman: We have been swamped by MrMcLaughlin’s business for a long time now. Werecently had a survey that reported, I think, inSeptember of last year, to see whether we were goingto continue a limitation on taxi numbers in Sefton.The survey company gave us a mark of 2 out of 80,80 requiring the issue of new plates. I think this isalmost entirely due to the success of my friend’scompany, so we are particularly afraid of any change.I know that I might be called a Luddite but I am justbeing very, very cautious. If we have to accept moreof these vehicles I don’t quite know what is going tohappen to us. Having said that, there are people thatdisagree with that analysis of course.

Q64 Chair: Mr Shanks, what effect has theprohibition on subcontracting of bookings to a privatehire operator in a different district had on you?Ian Shanks: A little bit like Mr McLaughlin here, weare 57 yards the other side of a boundary and 75% to80% of our business is in Newcastle where we aren’tlicensed, and it causes a huge amount of difficulties.Again, we have been through various High Courtcases and we just want national standards with localcontrol. We would like the Committee here to look attrying to roll out what we have in London, because ifit is good enough for one-third of this country’s trade,we would like it for the other two-thirds.

Q65 Chair: Mr Griffin, would widespreadsubcontracting be likely to lead to the biggest privatehire firms controlling a network of smaller operators?John Griffin: We can subcontract nationally if wechoose to, and we do. If we have a pick-up in thenorth of England, we have reciprocal arrangementswith other companies in the north and we will usethem because it is sensible to do so. What I wouldlike to say is that during these discussions what weare missing out here is a very important ingredient,which is the impact as a transport industry we haveon pollution. It is very important to understand that.Drivers driving around empty, going back to baseswhere they are polluting the environment, is a veryserious issue. In London alone there are 4,000premature deaths entirely related to pollution frommotor cars. We have to look at revisiting the whole

licensing strategy and the impact it has on our societyin pollution terms.What we should be considering is having a nationalstandard, controlled by local interests, but we shouldhave the vehicles tested in Ministry of Transport—MOT—stations. They should be trained up to do thework. They would be delighted to have it. They wouldcharge more for it. It would work. I believe that wejust need to revisit the whole thing because the waythat we are approaching it is becoming so Dickensian.Everything I hear today underlines that.What are we dealing with here? If we are dealing withservice to the public, then a person driving backempty to a location for some spurious reason does notin any way contribute to that. We need to look at that.We need to look at the impact that person drivingempty back to base has on our atmosphere. We needto address that. We have a responsibility to do that.That is very important and it should be number oneon the agenda here today.From my point of view, we are not in any wayoffended by what is going on in the provinces. It isnot what concerns us. We have an open house inLondon which works very well. The service is verygood; it means we compete very fairly. Everybody isunder the same restrictions, has to meet the samecriteria and it works. Nationally there is no reasonwhy that shouldn’t work. There is no reason why weshould go back to these archaic conditions. Everythingthat we do in London works and I recommend the restof the country takes it on board.The idea that one authority is trying to find somemagical financial interest in lowering the standards forfinancial gain is unacceptable. Let’s tell these people,“This is the standard. Comply with it. Do whatever ittakes to make sure it happens”, and after that letanybody who wants to pick up anybody, as long as heis licensed and he has the credentials to do so, do it.Don’t restrict him.

Q66 Kwasi Kwarteng: There are two issues here.There is one about the standards in terms of a nationalstandard and then there is the separate issue of wherepeople operate. What you are saying is you wouldhave a national standard and allow everyone tooperate anywhere.John Griffin: Absolutely.

Q67 Kwasi Kwarteng: But a lot of other people aresuggesting that there should be some sort of locallicensing.John Griffin: Why?

Q68 Kwasi Kwarteng: From a personal point ofview, I am inclined to agree with you, but I want toput that case forward. People would say that there isa certain way that a local authority works in terms oftransport with localised licences. You have no truckwith that argument.John Griffin: None at all. That is where we are andthat is where we need to leave from. We need to putthat behind us. We need to revisit the whole strategy.What are we trying to achieve here? Are we taking asledgehammer to crack a nut? Is this a problem?Where is the evidence for this problem? The evidence




we see before us is that there is a great deal ofpollution being gathered and drivers are beingdisadvantaged because they could earn money theyare denied. The whole thing is a nonsense; it really is.It’s pathetic.We need to look at the whole strategy. There arevested interests here and those vested interests haveto be told, “We have bigger interests than you.” Wehave this whole question of pollution; we have theservice to the public and the levels of that. All of thatis an issue.Kwasi Kwarteng: Your position is very clear. Thankyou very much.

Q69 Iain Stewart: I would like to ask the panel,particularly Mr Wilson, the question I asked theprevious panel. What evidence do you have thatparticular local authorities are, if you like, touting forbusiness and lowering their fees and standards in thehope of attracting licences from neighbouringauthorities to be used as a revenue stream forthemselves?David Wilson: First, I would like to thank you forasking the question because I did wish to have theopportunity of responding to that inquiry earlier. I cancertainly speak on behalf of Berwick, as was. Berwicknever did anything to attract anybody from anywhereto its area. The trade came knocking on Berwick’sdoor and had knocked on lots of doors, makingparticular inquiries over difficulties in how to licensea Polish driver in another authority’s area.Berwick was small; in fact it was the second smallestdistrict council in the country. It had a small fleet. Wehad small overheads as a council and, consequently,as it is a restricted fee recovery, we had low fees.There have been suggestions that standards were lowand suggestions were made that we didn’t do anyenforcement, all of which I would say is untrue. Wehad fees that recovered the cost of the service. Thestandards, I would suggest, were set appropriately. Ithink there is a big difference. There is lots of talk ofhigh standards, but nowhere in the legislation does itsay councils should have high standards. Thelegislation refers to standards being necessary andreasonable. I think there is a situation where certaincouncils, whether it is members or officers, aspire toset the highest standards and I question whether someof those standards are absolutely necessary andwhether they add anything to anybody’s benefit.What is necessary is to set standards, and I wouldsuggest national standards, and there should be amandatory and not a minimum standard becauseotherwise you will have a situation where councilsseek to aspire and set the highest standards in an area.There should be a national standard for both vehiclesand drivers. Then, very much like the Licensing Actwhere there is a personal licence holder for liquorlicensing, a driver could be licensed to drive anyprivate hire vehicle. It wouldn’t matter that he wasdriving a vehicle licensed by another authoritybecause the standards would be the same. It would, ineffect, be a national licence.We have national licences for everything else. If youdrive an HGV, you don’t obtain a licence from yourlocal council. You obtain it from the DVLA and you

can drive an HGV anywhere in this country, anywherein Europe. There needs to be a national standard butit needs to be an appropriate standard; and it’s thesame with vehicles.Paul McLaughlin: Could I add something more onthe standards, using Liverpool and Sefton as a pointof comparison? You will have read in the LiverpoolCity Council submission that Liverpool operateshigher standards than some authorities. They werecareful not to mention Sefton but they might have.We’d be forgiven for inferring they might have beenreferring to the neighbouring authority to which theywere losing drivers. In the case of Sefton incomparison with Liverpool, I think it is important tomention CRB Enhanced 2 on both sides of the border;the medical is exactly the same standard. There ispractically no difference, except for the knowledgetest.If you look at how the customers have responded tothose standards, of course the area we operate in—Merseyside—is 200 square miles of people alldescending on one tiny city centre, which is a quarterof a square mile. Everybody then comes back out ofthat quarter of a square mile city centre. It isreasonable to assume that, if thousands of people areusing Delta to go into that city centre, when they comeback they have the option of using a locally licensedcab or they can ring the firm that took them in there.Because the amount of work we are doing has becomeso apparent now, over the recent years, out of the 8.5million bookings we do, 1.25 million bookings lastyear were within one quarter of a square mile. I wouldargue that we couldn’t have generated the custom for1.25 million people to be asking us to pick them up ifwe hadn’t maintained standards.

Q70 Iain Stewart: I can understand that there is adifference in looking at neighbouring authorities in acity or urban conurbation, but can I return to the issueof Berwick? For Berwick to be licensing taxis andcabs in South Devon, several hundred miles away,didn’t any alarm bells ring and say, “Why on earth arethose firms wanting an authority at the other end ofthe country?”David Wilson: Within the High Court case there wereseveral examples given of vehicles that were allegedlylicensed and used a great distance away. There wasnever one in Paignton or anywhere else in Devon.There was one in Mid Wales, which was licensed withthe agreement of the local authority there. There wasone licensed in Surrey by an accident managementcompany, which provided the vehicle to a driver inBerwick. The position is not always being presentedas it is.Certainly once the authority and principally I, in theposition I was in, had made the decision that therewas nothing within the legislation to empower me onbehalf of the authority to refuse to grant a licence—that we did not have a discretion—you find yourselfin the position where your hands are rather tied, andno matter what your personal views may be, if as anofficer of the local authority your position is that thelaw is this, you are obliged to follow what you believethe law to be and not to be acting in any wayunlawfully. The matter ended up in the High Court




and I would suggest that neither Berwick norNewcastle were triumphant in the ligation.There is a decision by the judge that Berwick did havea discretion, which I hadn’t appreciated we had. But,by the same account, Newcastle’s assertions that wewere bound to refuse was rejected by the court aswell. The conclusion was that there is a discretion, weshould exercise it judicially and councils should notbe routinely licensing vehicles that are workingremotely from the area of the council. I think I amprobably one of the few people in the country andcertainly associated with the trade in any way, shapeor form who agrees with that judgment. I wish I hadhad the judge’s foresight of legal interpretationbeforehand.But certainly a substantial distance away wasproblematic and it brings us on to the issue ofenforcement. Licensing fees are not a cash cow. Weinvested the revenue that was gained by these extralicences in enforcement activities. We had anenforcement vehicle—it was high-visibility marked—and we covered the area in which we had vehicleslicensed, I confess, with the exception of Mid Wales.We never went there but it was a vehicle that wasused on school contracts and was looked after by theauthority there. I never personally visited East Ridingbefore I left the council upon unification. But acrossthe rest of the north-east we regularly did enforcementone day a week, three weeks out of the month. Alicensing officer, together with a VOSA qualifiedvehicle examiner, went out and checked vehicles.There is an issue in the legislation that licensingofficers do not have the power to stop vehicles but,realistically, if you are driving a high-visibilitymarked vehicle, you flash your headlights at thevehicle in front, which is a licensed taxi, and they tendto stop, having been given notice that if they fail todo so you will consider prosecuting them for failingto follow a direction of an officer. We never had anyvehicle that didn’t stop and we had very high levelsof vehicle compliance. We rarely suspended licencesbecause they complied.

Q71 Chair: Mr Shanks, do you have anything youwant to add to that? A lot of the Berwick registeredvehicles operated on Tyneside.Ian Shanks: We operate a large number ofBerwick-upon-Tweed vehicles inNewcastle-upon-Tyne. You mentioned costs before. IfI use the Ford Galaxy as an example, North Tynesideinsist that you take a seat out of a Galaxy for somereasons. A lot of drivers went to other authoritiesbecause they were permitted to use vehicles in theformat that they were designed for, rather than carryout modifications. For instance, in North Tyneside, ifyou buy yourself a Jag, you have to shave the foamout to gain the correct level of headroom in the back,and it is just affecting customers’ comfort. But inBerwick, again, they didn’t. So that is why a lot ofdrivers went to Berwick-upon-Tweed. It wasn’tnecessarily about profiteering and making money; itwas about vehicle standards.

Q72 Mr Leech: I asked a question to the previouspanel in relation to requiring a licence for all the areas

that you operate. I am guessing that all of you wouldnot be in favour of the idea of having to have a licencefor every local authority that you operated in.Richard Jarman: We would like a quid pro quo toany amendment to the legislation locally: theopportunity to do what the hackneys in London do.You get a licence for the Borough of Sefton, forexample, and there is absolutely no reason why youshouldn’t go on to obtain the knowledge test for theBorough of Knowsley or Liverpool City. I think thatwould give us some level playing field with the sizeof the private hire fleet. I can’t see any reason whythat couldn’t be accommodated at all.Paul McLaughlin: I would like to respond to that. Inhis summing-up in a court case over the use of adedicated line in a supermarket that went cross-border,I believe it was Lord Justice Kennedy who said thatin order to stay within the current legislation all thevehicles would have to have duplicate plates on, thedriver would have to wear duplicate badges and theoperator would have to have duplicate officers withbadges. That can never have been what Parliamenthad intended and that is why it needed an overhaul toavoid this ridiculous situation where, technically, tooperate like that, that is what you would have to do.David Wilson: It appears to me that, as we have threedistinct licences, particularly with regard to privatehire in any event, if the operator’s base is licensedwith the council within the area that the base issituated, the vehicles are to a national standard andthe drivers are licensed to a national standard, you’vegot your three licences. You don’t need to get intomultiple licences within different areas. You cure theproblem. The vehicle and driver licences are, if youlike, portable. With regard to the premises licence, theoperator’s licence, you are licensed with the authorityfor the area in which it is in. If an operator chooses toopen another base in another part of the country, theylicense with the local authority there. But I don’t seewhy there is such an issue about which council’s plateis on the back of a vehicle; it shouldn’t be importantin this day and age. What that does create is a needfor a greater ability to enforce and regulate.We are working with legislation principally from1976, and in section 68 there is the power of a localauthority officer or any police constable to inspect thevehicle and, if the vehicle doesn’t comply, to suspendthe licence. They do not have the power toimmediately remove the plate. They can give a noticerequiring it to be returned to you within seven days,which seems to be ineffective, and there should be theability to remove it straightaway. If the vehicle is notfit to be used, take the plate off it.There should be the ability for an enforcement officer,in any council area, to stop any vehicle that is in theirarea. It merely requires an amendment to section 68to say, if there is a licensed vehicle in your area andit’s not roadworthy in the MOT sense—if you like,the construction and use sense—you can immediatelysuspend the licence and remove the plate. If thevehicle doesn’t comply because it’s not displaying thecorrect signage according to local authorityconditions, I would suggest that needs to be dealt withby the local authority where the vehicle is licensed.




We can’t expect any licensing officer to be aware ofthe conditions of the other 315 councils.

Q73 Chair: So you are looking at a different levelof enforcement?David Wilson: I am looking at splittingroadworthiness and other licensing conditions.Roadworthiness is a national issue.Richard Jarman: This is a very important point,Chair. My friends in the union were asking not onlyfor the creation of a new offence but the creation of afixed penalty notice system. Nearly all of the fixedpenalty notice systems operated by councils are in factcivil enforcement. There is no criminal record. Fixedpenalty notices issued by the police are issued bytrained police officers and not enforcement officers. Ithink there is a great distinction between the trainingrequired. But the inference in the request for fixedpenalty notices in the taxi trade is simply the inabilityto obtain convictions in a legitimate manner.A fixed penalty notice system is applicable when it isclearly demonstrable that an offence has beencommitted. In the case of the proposed offences, it isalmost impossible to demonstrate that in the fixedpenalty sense. It is not a photograph of a vehicleparked in contravention to a parking regulation. It isa question of whether a vehicle is travellingsomewhere at a particular period of time and for whatparticular reason. There must be knowledge imputedto the driver and knowledge imputed to the operatorin that case. I do not think it is appropriate for a fixedpenalty at all. It is particularly not appropriate forpoints. Points are there for a dangerous situation or aroad traffic offence, such as speeding or a bald tyre orsomething of that nature.Chair: I think you have made your point, Mr Jarman.

Q74 Mr Leech: Mr Wilson, the point you made justbefore Mr Jarman suggests to me that the cost ofenforcement in big conurbations, city centres, wouldincrease significantly, potentially. That cost ofenforcement would ultimately fall upon the driverswho are paying for licences within that area. If whatyou were suggesting were to be implemented, surelythere would need to be a complete overhaul about howthey costed licences within areas.David Wilson: The issue of fees is another one ofthese. It is a massive problem and solutions arecertainly not obvious or straightforward. I wouldsuggest there is a need for some form of nationally setfees. There are massive issues with regard to localauthorities setting fees: what is ring-fenced, what theycan charge for and what they can’t, and how theyaccount for it. By virtue of the provisions in theauditing of annual accounts of councils, there arechallenges up and down the country with councilshaving to refund money that they were not entitled to,either to individual licence holders or puttingsubstantial sums back into their taxi accounts. So theremust be a better system.I’m afraid I don’t have any immediate or obviousanswer as to how to achieve the fairness that isnecessary and that you are specifically looking for. Iagree that the authority that is doing the majority ofthe enforcement ought to receive the bulk of the fees.

I don’t have any particular issue about that. I wonderwhether that is something that is capable of beingachieved by using some form of civil penalty, so thatthose who are not complying pay for the enforcement,irrespective of whether it is a vehicle or a driverlicence in that council area or any other council area.I don’t have the figures to be able to do any formof analysis, but it is something that does need to beaddressed and it will probably be addressed better,nationally, rather than locally.

Q75 Kwasi Kwarteng: Just to clarify a couple ofthings, it seems to me that a couple of you certainlyare suggesting that there should be no room for localcouncils to be issuing licences. You are talking abouta national standard. You essentially want to see aworld in which we have national standards and thatpeople can compete for business across a wide area.Do you think the existence of the fact that there is abig lobby saying that it should all depend on the localcouncil is just “vested interest” type arguments? Isthis an argument just about trying to protect driverswithin a certain locality? Is that your feeling?Paul McLaughlin: It’s certainly my feeling. Wetalked about consumer choice and we think of theconsumer as being just the passenger. But in the caseof a private hire agency we don’t get a single pennyfrom any passenger. Our entire funds come fromdrivers and I see all of our private hire drivers as ourconsumers. Many drivers who are licensed byneighbouring authorities would love the choice to beable, on a whim, to decide, “I’ll try Delta for a weekor I’ll try Alpha”, who might be licensed byKnowsley. But they are tied in to a selection ofoperators locally and that would seem unfortunate.It is a double-edged sword. Many of the drivers whoare already at Delta might decide that they are nothappy with Delta’s provision any more and they mightwant to work for a different operator two miles fromwhere they live, but they could not do that unless theyre-badge and re-plate their vehicle. Subcontracting, ashappens in London, would resolve that completelybecause as long as you were a licensed driver youcould work for a licensed operator, as you can doacross the 30 areas within London.David Wilson: I am certainly not suggesting that theonly solution is to create a new taxi licensing authorityto license vehicles, drivers, operators across the wholeof the country. I think that would be a tremendousexpense and probably unnecessary.

Q76 Chair: So you are not agreeing with that?David Wilson: I am not agreeing that it’s necessary.It’s an option. I don’t say it shouldn’t be done, butit is an option. There are licensing officers in localauthorities who are perfectly capable of doing the joband administering a national scheme but dealing withit locally with their local trade. We have the GamblingAct and the Licensing Act 2003. They are nationalschemes, with national standards, delivered locally.

Q77 Kwasi Kwarteng: The outcome is the same.David Wilson: The outcome is the same, but you don’thave to create a new structure to do it. It is alreadythere.




Q78 Julian Sturdy: I have a question to MrMcLaughlin and Mr Shanks. Under the proposals putforward by Unite, which we have just heard in theprevious session, do you think accessibility to taxiswould be affected and, if so, why?Paul McLaughlin: Accessibility would beimmediately affected. You will have read in my reportI refer to this phrase “waiting in the wings”. Ofcourse, a hackney carriage and its mode of operationrequires it to be in full public view. That needs to beon centre stage. Waiting in the wings isn’t clutteringup the stage but it is there on standby for animmediate demand response. It is because of thisdemand response that we are able to deliver vehicleswithin seconds, right across the whole of Merseyside.That is one form of accessibility. But, also, the onlyway to operate efficiently is using modern technologyto complement all of your fleet so that you can run asone big efficient fleet. As soon as you break that intosmall territories you have to put extra expenses on.Making your service accessible to low incomefamilies, you cannot do that with half a dozen smallfleets when you can with a large fleet such as AddisonLee, Blue Line or Delta. That is how it would affectaccessibility.We have also got this idea of enforcement that hasbeen mentioned about whether you can really enforcea vehicle not heading back to base. I would hate tothink that one of our drivers who had gone to London,who wanted to have a sleep, was forced to drive backto his own territory before he is allowed to have arest. That would seem dangerous.Also, thinking about it realistically, if you are notallowed to stop, what you will find is that a driver willjust continue to drive round and round the block untila booking comes in, because it might not be availablenow, but with the technology that is available thestatistics that are provided to drivers will let driversknow not only how many bookings there are now buthow many you can anticipate in the next hour, basedon historical data that is collated over the last 20years. It would be devastating to the environment andit would inhibit. In fact, the only advantage it wouldserve would be the financial interests of the hackneydrivers who hadn’t yet left the industry.Ian Shanks: Paul has covered virtually everything Iwas going to say, but basically we have some simplestatistics. I would say for every 5,000 dead miles, ifwe keep returning to our bases, it is burning 2.1 tonnesof fuel unnecessarily. Other than that, I think Paul hascovered everything.John Griffin: Let me just say that we don’t have aproblem in London. I recommend that you look atwhat London is doing, and it works. It has upgradedthe level of service we provide to our customers; it isnot unwieldy; we go along with it; and it’s notcontentious. I am listening here to something quitehorrendous and I was talking to one or two of thechaps yesterday. It’s a nightmare really and I think itneeds to be addressed.What I would like to say, because I am in some smallrespect representing my trade here in London, is thatthis inquiry and the evidence you have taken heretoday is relating to cross-border hiring. This is not aninquiry addressing the issues of licensing and tax and

private hire vehicles, which I perfectly respect. I don’thave a problem with it.

Q79 Chair: Mr Griffin, you are not correct. We putout terms of reference on which we sought evidence,which was quite wide, and we invited people tosubmit evidence on any issues they thought relevantin relation to vehicle private hire.John Griffin: I accept that. What we have seen heretoday is the fact that it has mainly and properlyaddressed cross-border hiring. We are about to gofurther into Liverpool City Council, Milton Keynes,Northumberland Council, who, I am sure, will havestrong views on it as well. I don’t have a question onthat, but you have to understand the heading on thismemorandum is: “Issues relating to the licensing oftaxis and private hire vehicles.” That is not going tohappen today. I am not griping about it because whatyou are doing is important, but from a trade point ofview, as a representative, I have just got to make thepoint. If you want me to return at some later date todiscuss the position in London, I would be delightedto come before you and give evidence.

Q80 Chair: Mr Griffin, we did put out a call forevidence and anyone is able, in fact, to give usevidence.Richard Jarman: In relation to what my friend herehas just touched upon and you have alluded to, youdid ask for evidence about taxi regulation in generaland one of the major problems that exists is rankprovision. I put a section in my submission relating toranks. A local authority may appoint a rank if it has alot of taxis and commercial activity in one particularplace. There are continual problems withover-ranking. If you are going to amend the law,would you please consider asking or requiring localauthorities to provide a reasonable provision where itwas reasonably required? It can be flexible. It couldbe for a night-time economy. There are problems inSouthport. Every time there is a taxi rank required,Southport are worried because they lose £3,000 a yearfor a meter.Chair: Thank you, Mr Jarman; we’ve got that point.Everyone’s written evidence is there as part of theinquiry. This is the first of two sessions of the inquiryand we asked you to respond to the questions we haveput in this particular session. There is another session.

Q81 Kelvin Hopkins: Everything I have heard thismorning suggests to me that we should have nationaldriver and vehicle licensing, and the only licensingwhich should be local would be premises, which isunderstandable, with parking and the appropriatefacilities.Is there not an incentive for local authorities to collectlicensing fees because they need the money, but to cutback on the regulation, especially when they are underthe cosh financially as at the moment? I can see asituation where local authorities will be squeezingtheir funding for regulation and policing and but stillcollecting the licensing fees. I can’t see a role for localauthorities outside licensing premises.Paul McLaughlin: I would like to respond to that inrespect of licensing. It is quite ironic when you talk




about cash cows with councils. In the Berwick case,they have a ring-fenced account and the money isspent just on licensing of taxi drivers. It is the samein Sefton. It did not used to be. When I heard thatBirmingham had been profiteering off their driversand the District Auditor forced them to return themoney by way of reduced fees, I wrote to SeftonCouncil to start the ball rolling in Sefton. Because ofthe excellent co-operation we have with thestakeholder members within Sefton across both sidesof the trade—the hackney carriage and the privatehire—through negotiations, Sefton agreed to makesure they weren’t losing any funds into general funds.It is actually Liverpool that seems to be doing that.We have been trying to get evidence to see what ishappening to the money and where you have thecomplication is that Sefton has licensing enforcementofficers that deal only with taxis. In Liverpool, thelicensing enforcement officers deal with licensing ofeverything: gambling, the insect place at the AlbertDock, dangerous animals and casinos—anything youcan think of that requires a licence. So it is very hardto work out how much of the taxi driver’s money isbeing spent on enforcing licensing and how much isbeing bled into general funds and disappearing. Youhave co-operation across the boundaries.Chair: Mr McLaughlin, can you keep your commentsrelatively short? You have made the point there.

Q82 Kelvin Hopkins: What you are saying seems toreinforce my argument that there should be a nationallicensing of drivers and vehicles and only locallicensing of premises. But the only problem I can seeis that, then, you don’t have any regulation of thenumbers of vehicles operating in particular areas—that is one thing—and how they operate. I havealways been interested in this balance between thehackney carriages and private hire. I sympathise morewith the hackney carriages and am more worriedabout the private hire, because we know of certainabuses. I have certainly had experience of chargingand dubious practices for private hire but not forhackney carriages.Paul McLaughlin: In what respect, sorry?

Q83 Kelvin Hopkins: Arbitrary faring. Time andagain, I am asked locally, “What do you usually pay?”for a particular journey. In a taxi, in a hackney


Witnesses: Myles Bebbington, Licensing Officer, Cambridgeshire, Damien Edwards, Licensing Officer,Liverpool City Council, Councillor Cec Tallack, Leader Milton Keynes Council, and Philip Soderquest,Public Safety and Enforcement Manager, Northumberland County Council, gave evidence.

Chair: Good morning, gentlemen. Would you pleaseidentify yourselves by name and the organisation youare representing?Myles Bebbington: Myles Bebbington, LicensingOfficer from Cambridgeshire.Damien Edwards: Damien Edwards. I am a LicensingOfficer from Liverpool City Council.Councillor Tallack: Cec Tallack. I am the leader ofMilton Keynes Council.

carriage, you know what you are going to pay becauseit is clearly indicated. In private hire, time and again,the drivers says, “What are you going to pay me?What do you usually pay?” It’s all rather dubious andI want to say, “What is the charge?” I want to knowhow much it is.John Griffin: You should have done that at the pointyou made the booking.Chair: Wait a minute. Let’s get some order here. MrHopkins, what is the question you are putting to thepanel?

Q84 Kelvin Hopkins: This is just an example. Myquestion is: what is wrong with this national schemewith local premises licensing and leaving everythingelse, if you like, to the market?Chair: I am going to ask you for very clear and asshort as possible answers on the national and localissues.Richard Jarman: Unite have put in their request thatthey support surveys. In 1847, 1976 and 1985, therewas no statistical method of getting the truth. It isthere now. Can we have a survey?Chair: I am just looking for a short response on thenational issue.Richard Jarman: Statistical surveys.Paul McLaughlin: I believe you should let marketforces decide, the same as you would in any otherindustry. If there is not enough money to be made asa plasterer, you would move to a different industry.Taxis should find their own level.Chair: Mr Wilson, I just want very short answersbecause we’ve got a lot more questions.David Wilson: I have a very short answer to MrHopkins’ question concerning fares. As a nationalstandard, you would require every vehicle to have ameter and then you don’t have any dispute. As forthe cost of enforcement, I am afraid to say from pastexperience that licensing officers are not paid as wellas police officers. They are a cheaper form ofenforcement for vehicles.Chair: Mr Shanks, did you want to answer?Ian Shanks: No, that’s fine. National standards is fineby me because I think it is the inconsistency of localauthorities that has caused the problem anyway.Chair: Thank you very much. Thank you foranswering our questions.

Philip Soderquest: Philip Soderquest. I am a PublicSafety Enforcement Manager with NorthumberlandCounty Council.

Q85 Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Edwards, whyis Liverpool City Council trying to restrictcross-border hire?Damien Edwards: Liverpool City Councilexperiences lots and lots and lots of vehicles visiting



18 January 2011 Myles Bebbington, Damien Edwards, Councillor Cec Tallack and Philip Soderquest

its city every weekend night. The problem I have isthat my enforcement staff try to regulate the activitiesof all of those vehicles. It finds within that regulationprocess that it picks up those vehicles that are visitingour city, picking up illegally. So there is an issue withthe number of vehicles coming into the city and thepublic expecting sometimes those vehicles—privatehire—to take them home by not pre-booking, in otherwords immediate hire. My issue is quite clear.Because of the number of vehicles that visit the Cityof Liverpool and those vehicles waiting within theCity of Liverpool, that presents a problem in so far asthe public are attracted to those vehicles thinking theyare available for public hire. I can and do prosecutethose vehicles, so the issue is real to me. People arewilling to get into private hire vehicles that are notpre-booked, which is an illegal act. This amendmentwould assist my officers in removing that difficulty inso far as the public can’t always see the differencebetween a hackney carriage and a private hire vehicle.They just want to get home.

Q86 Chair: Why can’t you, as the licensingauthority, enforce the law by stopping people beingable to use private hire vehicles that they haven’tpre-booked?Damien Edwards: The only way in which I can obtainevidence essentially to get a successful prosecution isto put someone in the vehicle and hire it on the street.That is what I do. I have undercover officers. I haveundercover police who hire private hire vehicles onthe street. It is impractical to suggest that I could goround every single vehicle and put people in them tosee if they are available for hire, but we do regularlyprosecute successfully private hire vehicles.

Q87 Chair: What is the extent of the problem? Wehave had evidence this morning where one taxicompany from outside Liverpool has said thatvirtually it is their policy to “wait in the wings”. Ithink that was the phrase they used. What is the extentof this problem?Damien Edwards: It is not the waiting in the wingswhich worries me. It is the actual presentation of thevehicles in the heart of the city, on the main roads, ona Saturday or Sunday night, in the public areas. Weall know what city centres look like in the early hoursof weekend mornings, and private hire vehiclespresent themselves quite clearly waiting for people totake the opportunity to use those vehicles as publichire vehicles rather than private hire vehicles. It is avery big problem.

Q88 Mr Leech: Mr Edwards, is there any evidencethat this is more of a problem with private hirevehicles that aren’t licensed in Liverpool?Damien Edwards: No, I wouldn’t suggest that. I haveprosecuted vehicles from Liverpool for picking upillegally, yes. Quite clearly, I do that. But I haveprosecuted an awful lot of private hire vehicles fromadjoining authorities and further afield.

Q89 Mr Leech: So it is a problem with certainprivate hire vehicles or private hire drivers being

prepared to flout the regulations whether they arelicensed in Liverpool or not?Damien Edwards: Yes.

Q90 Mr Leech: You seem to be using that as areason for why Liverpool Council were supportingUnite’s campaign.Damien Edwards: The basis being that, if myenforcement officers can approach vehicles that arestationary in quite prominent and open places, thenwe can move those vehicles on and remove that riskand that presentation to the public.

Q91 Mr Leech: But only for vehicles that are outsidethe area. It doesn’t solve the problem of Liverpoollicensed vehicles still picking people up withouthaving been pre-booked.Damien Edwards: No.

Q92 Chair: Is there in fact a problem of private hirevehicles licensed in Liverpool picking up withoutpre-booking? Is there a problem or is the problemsolely to do with the out of Liverpool—Damien Edwards: No, they will pick up as well asadjoining authorities.

Q93 Chair: Is that a significant problem?Damien Edwards: It is a significant problem acrossthe board. I am not trying to suggest it is onlycross-border hiring issues in terms of other authority’svehicles adjoining Liverpool. Liverpool vehicles willalso pick up, but the realistic physical presentation ofthis is that an officer will go down a major street inLiverpool and find 10 or 15 vehicles, some fromLiverpool and others from adjoining authorities, allwaiting.

Q94 Chair: Could you give us an idea of the numberof incidents involving the number of vehicles forprivate hire licensed in Liverpool picking up withoutpre-booking and the number of vehicles licensedoutside of Liverpool picking up without pre-booking?Damien Edwards: I have just had recently 28successful prosecutions.

Q95 Chair: Against which type?Damien Edwards: Half, if not more than half of those,are adjoining authorities but a significant part of themare Liverpool, yes. I can forward the figures on tothis Committee, obviously, but I would suggest thatprobably in the region of eight or nine are Liverpooland 20 are adjoining authorities.

Q96 Iain Stewart: I would like to put a suggestionto this panel that I made to one of the earlier panelsabout utilising new technology, with sat-navs thatmost operators use, and adjusting the regulations in away that operators would be required to submit ananalysis of all their operators’ journeys to show whatpercentage of bookings and journeys both started andfinished in an authority that was not the one in whichthey are licensed, and if a certain proportion of thosefares were out of area then there should be somerequirement to pay an additional levy to those




neighbouring authorities. I would be interested in yourviews as to whether that is, first, practical or desirable.Councillor Tallack: Could I pick up on that one, Iain?I think it would be extremely desirable because inMilton Keynes we have exactly the problem that isbeing described where about a third of our private hirevehicles operate and they are not licensed with us;they are licensed with a neighbouring authority. Theissue is twofold, and that is the first one. Clearly, weare paying for enforcement on vehicles that are notpaying a licence to us and that is a cost upon ourcouncil taxpayer and your suggestion would be veryhelpful in that regard.The other issue, though, which hasn’t been picked up,is that we do a lot of enforcement and we do a lot ofprosecution. We take people into the Milton Keynesmagistrates’ court and drivers get fined. The difficultyis that if those vehicles are registered inMilton Keynes they then come back to Milton KeynesCouncil, where the Licensing Regulation Committeetakes a very tough line on the continued licence ofdrivers who have infringed the law. Drivers who arelicensed with a different authority, of course, are leftfor that authority to deal with. The real differential isthe fact that we prosecute people and, yes, they get afine from the magistrates’ court, but the realdisincentive is the local authority removing theirlicence from them. If it is a Milton Keynes vehicle,we can do that through cases have that gone throughthe Milton Keynes courts, but, of course, if it is avehicle that is licensed with another authority, it isthen down to that authority to be as stiff or lenientas that authority chooses. If we are tougher than ourneighbours, all we are providing is an incentive forpeople to move to the authority that is likely to takethe most lenient approach on the matter.Myles Bebbington: Perhaps I could offer somethingon that. We are an authority that surrounds a verycompact city. Is your question aimed purely at privatehire vehicles, because the situation would balanceitself out in our area in the fact that a number ofhackney carriage vehicles which legitimately pick upjourneys from within the city boundary terminate theirjourneys often outside of the city in our area? Thereis some degree of merit in the proposal, but it issomething that will have to be thought through in alevel playing field across all aspects.

Q97 Iain Stewart: I don’t have an issue withjourneys that start in one area and finish in another. Itis those journeys where they start and finish outwiththe licensed area. Many firms will do cross-borderjourneys as a small part of their business. That is notthe issue. It is those firms which deliberately registerwith one authority and ply for their trade exclusivelyelsewhere.Philip Soderquest: Technology does have a part toplay in this; but, again, you are placing significantresponsibility upon the licensing authority to verifyand vet those records on a regular basis, and,obviously, technological advances will change fromtime to time.Also, when you are looking at the difference in privatehire, there is a current requirement obviously to recordthose journeys, as the operator, in terms of inviting

the booking. There is no similar requirement withinhackney carriages; that doesn’t exist at the moment.If the proposal is that there is a similar request forhackney carriages, there may well be some merit. Butagain we then come to, I suppose, the application forlicences. If you look at the hackney carriageproprietor’s licence and you look at the Berwickdecision, the question there is about the intended useof that vehicle. What you are proposing is that youmake an assessment of the business potentially wherethe business is driven from. Is it within the authoritywhere it is based or is it outside? But the currentlicensing arrangement will say you assess anentitlement to licence or consider the use of thatparticular vehicle before granting a licence, asopposed to across the use of the whole fleet, as itwere. When you get into the technology side, againyou are going to have to drill down quite significantlyinto each and every individual vehicle to say, “Wasthat one particular vehicle used within or outside fora predominant use or for otherwise?” But I will comeback and say there is merit in technology, which isobviously not recognised currently.

Q98 Gavin Shuker: I just want to look at a fewissues relating to the fact that you represent localauthorities. First of all, why do local authorities oftenset high standards while neighbouring authorities willset lower ones? What are the factors that go intodeciding how you set your standards?Myles Bebbington: Perhaps I can come back on that.There are a number of contributory factors to that.Some are actively seen. If you are working in a citycentre, taking Luton as an example, you see everyFriday and Saturday night a hub of taxis. There is anindustry there that you can witness directly and thatcan have a knock-on effect of public awareness. Quiteoften, possibly within rural authorities, it is notsomething you see on a day-to-day basis. Peopleoperate their one-man-band operations, the area isvery spread, and you don’t see something on a regularbasis to the public eye and to the council’s eye.Our authority has worked, over the last few years, towork with our neighbouring authority to ensurecompliance and to be as close as we can in theconditions that we adopt. We currently only have onestumbling point, which is a knowledge test. It is verydifficult to adopt a knowledge test in a rural areawhich is 350 square miles. It is easier done, arguably,in a small compact area that is probably only three,four, or five square miles across. It is the way theindustry has developed to a degree and the way it isperceived by the public. If you see 40 to 50 taxis satoutside, it is there in front of you.Philip Soderquest: I think in terms of the expression“high standards”, there has to be a question of whohas defined what is a high standard and what is a lowstandard. My personal experience is that as a licensingauthority we try to set standards which are appropriateand necessary for protecting public safety andensuring vehicles are roadworthy, and ensuring thatthe drivers who carry out the work are fit and properpersons. So, yes, we will apply certain standard testsin terms of a CRB and medical, etc. which I think arereasonable. I would not express them as being high




standards. I would just say I think they arereasonable standards.When it comes to vehicles, it is possibly, again, not aquestion of what a high standard is. It is probably thevariation of standards. Again, we probably only havetwo or three purpose-built or manufactured taxis. Therest of the trade—the majority of the trade—is usinga saloon vehicle, a traditional family vehicle. Again,what licensing authorities are trying to do is to lookat this, take their role very seriously and think, “Thisvehicle is being used to transport the public. There isa fare being paid for here, so we don’t need just thebasics of the vehicle. There is some expected higherstandard.” That is a consideration, but, also, as hasbeen mentioned previously, there are things likeemission standards. Do we go for Euro standards interms of the emissions, in terms of the carbon issue?Do we look at NCAP ratings in terms of safety,because, ultimately, the vehicle is being used totransport the public at a cost? I would not necessarilysay it is a high standard. We are trying to think whatis a reasonable standard. I think the issue is probablymore about the variation of standards, as opposed toone being high and one being low.Councillor Tallack: Every local authority sets its ownstandards and the nature of local authorities and,indeed, the nature of localism is such that, when youhave a debate locally, different localities will come todifferent decisions. You have to accept that. It doescause a problem, particularly with outside operators,if the standards are radically different. But, as you say,the local authority has to decide whether it wants ahigh standard of vehicle and driver or is prepared toaccept a lower standard. It does become a problemwhen two neighbouring authorities have very differentstandards, but I don’t think that local authorities needto apologise for the fact that those decisions aretaken locally.

Q99 Gavin Shuker: Just on that, it would strike meas sensible to have as much parity between matchinglocal authorities for the local authorities themselves.Are there restrictions currently within the legislationthat prevent you from working closely together aslocal authorities?Councillor Tallack: No, and indeed we do. In fact,one of the factors that affects our view of what ourstandards ought to be are the standards adopted by ourneighbours, for precisely those reasons.Myles Bebbington: The problem with that is that youmay get two authorities or even three authoritieswithin a given area roughly, broadly speaking, on thesame standards. But then you can have a case where,over a distance, that dissipates. So 100 miles away itis something totally different.

Q100 Chair: Have you had situations where localauthorities have widely differing standards and thedriver might seek to be registered with an authoritythat requires a lower standard?Philip Soderquest: Obviously, Northumberland wasestablished in April 2009 following local governmentreorganisation and that brought together six formerdistrict councils. Even within that small locality—it isabout 3,000 square miles—we had six different sets

of standards across the hackney carriage fleet andacross the private hire fleet, whether that be based oncolour, age, policy or otherwise. There are differences,yes, and it does create problems.It has been said before that, potentially, this is wherethe trade look at local authorities and say, “Why canone authority deem that to be acceptable but anotherauthority don’t view that as being acceptable?”Potentially, this is where the trade may look and think,“There is a lesser standard in authority X. I can usethat vehicle potentially as a hackney carriage orotherwise to fulfil private hire bookings. It is a legaland lawful activity. Why shouldn’t I do it?”

Q101 Kelvin Hopkins: I have two questions. First ofall, from what Councillor Tallack was saying, thereseems to be an incentive to private hire cars—if theyare going to tout for hackney carriage businessillegally by picking up people on the street—to do itin another authority where they won’t lose theirlicence, where they will only get a fine. Whereas, ifthey do it in their own authority they could potentiallylose their licence as well. That is what you are saying,I think. That is one thing.Another point Mr Edwards is suggesting, and, indeed,where private hire cars are attempting to pick up fromthe street, suggests there are not enough taxis. I mustsay I have never been absolutely convinced that weneed two categories of vehicles anyway. Is it the casethat in other countries there is just “the taxi trade” andthere isn’t a private hire trade? I have heard some ofthem before, but if you could make the case for havinga private hire trade as well as a taxi trade, a hackneycarriage trade, could you make those arguments justvery briefly again and convince me that we do needtwo categories of vehicles and we should not just havehackney carriages?Chair: Is it time to change the legislation and stopthe distinction between hackney and private hire?Councillor Tallack: My view is that that would bevery helpful, because the public don’t understand thedifference. The problem is that the public get intoprivate hire vehicles precisely because they don’tunderstand the difference. Late at night, the peoplewho are looking for a way of getting home areinfrequent users of taxis because they are people whohave usually gone to an entertainment district, wouldnormally travel by buses which have stopped orprivate cars which they haven’t taken because theyhave had something to drink. There is no reason whywe should expect them to understand the differencebetween going to a hackney rank and waiting for thehackney to arrive and telephoning a private hire car.In my view it would help the situation enormouslyif all forms of taxis could do both forms of findingtheir customer.

Q102 Chair: Mr Edwards, what is your view?Should there be a change to stop there being adistinction?Damien Edwards: No, I don’t agree with thatsummary. I think that local authorities are best placedto work out the demands and needs of local residentsand there is a need for both public and private hire theway it is now. The two need to co-exist and need to




be developed. At the moment Liverpool obviously hasa purpose-built hackney carriage fleet, which makes amajor provision in respect of disability. I would notlike anything to change that ability to deliver that kindof accessibility to the disabled. At the same time, Iunderstand that people want to use private hire in theway that they currently do and I wouldn’t want thatto be removed. The two levels of service delivery areequally as important and should be maintained.Myles Bebbington: I think it merits investigation.However, in a rural authority, I have hundreds ofdrivers who never go near a city centre. You haveheard today evidence on the hot spots on a Fridayand Saturday night and the way people perceive thedifferent trades. But we have a vast number of driverswho specialise in corporate work, purely airport runs,chauffeuring-type work. If there was to be onestandard public service vehicle across the country,consideration has to be given to that area of the trade.If there is a public service vehicle and that publicservice vehicle must be wheelchair accessible, andthere are various edicts from on high as to how thesevehicles shall operate and shall look, there is a largearea of the trade that does not get involved in the pubto club type private hire work that you are talkingabout.

Q103 Chair: So you would not agree with changingthe legislation?Myles Bebbington: I think it merits investigation, butit is an investigation that has to be entered into withyour eyes open. There is a wider aspect to private hireand hackney carriage than just the city centre.Chair: Dr Kwarteng, is it on that point?

Q104 Kwasi Kwarteng: It was on a point that MrEdwards made just before Mr Bebbington gave hissubmission, specifically about the role of the localauthority. You mentioned that disabled access wassomething you promoted. My question is a little bitmore general than that. Why should local authoritiesbe allowed to regulate the number of taxis licensed ina district and how does that benefit the consumer? Youtouched upon that but I just want to see if you canexpand on that.Damien Edwards: It is about local needs and localdemands. Liverpool regulates the number of hackneycarriages it has. It is pretty much simple reasoning. Itcreates a larger availability at night time.

Q105 Kwasi Kwarteng: That wouldn’t be provided?Damien Edwards: That wouldn’t be provided if youtook the limits off. If you took the limits off, myperception would be that a lot of drivers would gohome at eight o’clock. It might be a lone experience;I don’t know. But, with double-shifting, which is whathappens when you have a regulated fleet of a certainnumber because drivers do split their vehicle shifts,you get a large number of people working at night. InLiverpool’s case, it works that regulation locally,setting the numbers, creates a larger number ofvehicles available at night.

Q106 Kwasi Kwarteng: What you are saying is thatwithout your involvement the consumer could get aworse service?Damien Edwards: I have a fear that the consumerwould end up having less hackney carriage vehicleswithout my involvement, yes.Philip Soderquest: Just to comment on that, we canbe too simplistic when we look at limiting numbers.There is an ability to look at unmet need and regulatethe numbers. Current guidance or best guidance is thatyou look at it as part of the overall transport plan. Itis not done in isolation. You look at what is yourtransport infrastructure within any given one location.Again, if I look at Northumberland, Northumberlandis heavily reliant upon taxis and private hire vehiclesbecause it doesn’t have an intensive publicinfrastructure. It doesn’t have metros or late nightbuses, etc., etc., if you compare that with places likeNewcastle City Council, which has extensive busroutes, trains coming into the city centre, etc. So ithas to be part of your local transport plan becausethere may be reasons why you physically want toreduce the number of vehicles coming into the towncentre.

Q107 Chair: It is all to do with the localcircumstances.Councillor Tallack: I would like to disagree verystrongly with that. Milton Keynes was limited until2002, when the council removed the limit. Theavailability of hackney carriages has increasedtremendously since then. The problem with limitationis that the people who have licences tend to go for theprime business by going to the station during workinghours, getting business customers who might tip welland so on. We were finding that when we were talkingabout late in the evening and so on there were just nohackney carriages on the ranks. That situationchanged, and changed pretty quickly, after we did iteight years ago and I certainly wouldn’t want to goback to that previous situation.

Q108 Mr Leech: If Unite’s plan on their cross-borderpick-ups was introduced, what would the impact beon the work of your enforcement officers? Whatwould the impact be on cost of enforcement andwould it be enforceable?Damien Edwards: I would envisage it would be anenforceable regime, yes. To approach vehicles and askthem to move on is not, I would think, an oneroustask. It wouldn’t cost that much, to be honest, in termsof shifts. Our officers are out at night anyway. I don’tthink it would impact in Liverpool to implement thatparticular amendment. It would save me having to setup joint operations with other agencies to goundercover. It would benefit Liverpool in terms of itsenforceable activity to have a simpler, morestraightforward resolution of the problem that ispresented by vehicles standing on the street plyingfor hire.

Q109 Chair: How much undercover work is beingdone?




Damien Edwards: Currently, it is every other weekthat we try and get out with the police and doundercover work.

Q110 Mr Leech: But would it take away resourcesfrom doing that undercover work and checkingwhether drivers are picking up people illegally inorder to get them to be moving people on who shouldnot be in that area?Damien Edwards: We would have to do both,wouldn’t we? We would have to continue with ourundercover operations on a lesser standard, a lesserscale, but I think we can present more officers becauseof that on the street to deal with the issue of simplymoving vehicles on, rather than having to present awhole raft of evidence to the court in terms ofinsurance offences, in terms of being in the vehicle,talking about conversations. It would be a lot easierjust to have a simple moving on element to thelegislation.Philip Soderquest: I suppose it is one of these thingsthat until it happens you don’t know. But I wouldsuggest that if there was an offence created of“waiting in the wings”, which is the expression thatwas used, the question is, would the operators thencomply with that? Would you get natural compliancewith that, and in turn would you then see a reductionin your need for enforcement? Again, it probablycomes back to what sanctions would exist if theoffender continually breached that by allowing thevehicles to stand.What is being said is that vehicles can be tracked andidentified where they are waiting; therefore theoperator knows where they are. If that is happeningon a regular basis, is the sanction against the driver orthe operator? If it is against the operator, then I wouldsuggest it would be in the operator’s own interest toensure compliance with that particular piece oflegislation. It is a probably a case of seeing how thatwould evolve over time in terms of compliance.Damien Edwards: Non-compliance is a driver issue.Operators do not want their drivers to pick upillegally. Operators do not want their drivers to takework that is not given to them by an operator. It is adriver issue and, quite rightly, if a driver incurs a fixedpenalty or a byelaw offence for that, then the poweris there for the local authority to remove, suspend orrevoke that licence as it wishes.Myles Bebbington: As a local authority outside of acity centre, the question was about how it wouldimpact on enforcement. As the legislation stands atthe moment, the enforcement would still primarily liewith the district that is being affected; so, infundamental terms, it wouldn’t change anything.Liverpool is still having to deal with private hirevehicles coming from outside of the area.The next question was about “waiting in the wings”.I think it would be a solicitor’s cash cow because howdo you prove someone is waiting in the wings? Allthat will happen is, rather than proving plying for hire,which has been indicated to you is a relativelystraightforward offence—you walk up, you get in, youask to go from A to B and if they commit the offence,it is there—you will end up just chasing vehiclesaround all night.

Chair: We have had evidence today from an operatorwho says that that is what they do, presumably aspolicy.Myles Bebbington: Yes.

Q111 Julian Sturdy: We have heard a lot aboutcross-border hire already from the different panels.While you are all here, I just wanted to go on to aslightly different tack, if I could, with your experiencein licensing and enforcement. Do you have or haveyou had any issues with unlicensed vehiclesmasquerading as taxis? Is that an issue in the pastand now?Damien Edwards: No, I haven’t, and you are hitting,I think, a very important point. Because we regulateour vehicles the way we do and we look at illegalplying for hire so consistently, we don’t, but my fearis that, if we ever let go of that enforcement role, thenit could evolve that people will start using vehiclesillegally, they will start using unlicensed vehicles andgo out driving unlicensed vehicles.Philip Soderquest: It is a source of complaint, thereis no doubt about that. But the difficulty is trying tocarry out an operation which would then allow you tobook or hire an unlicensed vehicle. If you are goingthrough, let’s say, an operator, an owner, who has bothlicensed and unlicensed vehicles, he is more likelythan not to supply you with a licensed vehicle if youare just making a booking. Again, I would tend tosuggest that, yes, it happens and there is probably atrade between known operators and consumers,knowing that they are using an illegal taxi, but tryingto catch one in the street is a very difficult activity,especially when you are talking about rural areas suchas ourselves, which is 2,800 square miles.

Q112 Julian Sturdy: You think it is potentially goingon a lot more because it is very difficult to detect.Philip Soderquest: There is a possibility of that. Wehave two or three repeat complaints, but trying tocatch them in the act is proving very difficult. If youtry and do a test purchase, how do you know whichvehicle you are trying to test purchase against? As Isay, I think they tend to supply the vehicle to anexisting customer or a known customer as opposed tojust plying for hire within our locality, not necessarilyin some of the more urban areas.

Q113 Chair: Would a solution to this problem behaving licensing areas wider than individual localauthorities, say, a Merseyside area or a GreaterManchester area or something similar to that? I wouldlike to ask Councillor Tallack and Mr Edwards if theythink that would be a solution to the cross-borderhiring issue.Councillor Tallack: It might be. It depends upon whatthose areas are because there is always a cross-border.However, certainly our issue relates to the fact thatMilton Keynes is under-bounded—i.e. part of our realurban area is in another authority—and it especiallyapplies to people operating out of that area. Peoplethink it is part of Milton Keynes, but it is not part ofour administration. Clearly, providing thoseboundaries outside urban areas, it might well work inthat way.




Damien Edwards: I am not so sure it would work.Previous witnesses have said that if you set aboundary it just becomes a bigger, geographicallylarger problem. It will always be the case thatLiverpool and any other major city will be the starattraction for all the neighbouring authorities. I don’tknow if that would benefit a Merseyside licence or aGreater Manchester licence. I don’t think it would beof benefit in this respect.Philip Soderquest: I think I would endorse that. Therewill always be a cross-boundary issue. You justpotentially move that boundary to somewhere else.Within the Berwick judgment it talked very muchabout the term “remote”. What is “remote”? Do youthen change what is remote from a larger licensingarea to a different licensing area?There has been a lot said on national standards, whichwould give you a national approach but somethingthat was capable of being delivered at a local level bythe existing licensing authorities. The only word ofcaution I would exercise is that there has been ananalogy drawn with the Licensing Act and personallicence holders being able to use their licence up anddown the country, etc., which, yes, works well. Themajor failing, though, of that particular system, andany national system, is the lack of a national database.That is a huge issue within the Licensing Act 2003.You can be licensed in one authority where you liveand use your licence in a competing authority. That,however, is not recognised in the national database oflicences. If there is some consideration or thought ofa national approach, national standards or nationaldriver licensing, as it were, there has to be a nationaldatabase which local authorities can check against toensure that that person is licensed within a localauthority.

Q114 Chair: Should taxis be more important parts oflocal transport plans?Philip Soderquest: Yes.

Q115 Chair: Nods don’t go on the record. If peopleare saying “yes”—Damien Edwards: But they’ve always been the poorrelation—haven’t they?—and it’s only of late that—

Q116 Chair: You think they should be—Damien Edwards: local transport plans have hadmighty visions of integrated transport, incorporatingtrains, buses, taxis and private hire.

Q117 Chair: Is that a “yes”?Damien Edwards: That’s a “yes”.Councillor Tallack: I would argue that they are but,of course, that is open to interpretation, isn’t it?Philip Soderquest: I think the answer is “yes”, as Ialluded to before. If you are looking at capping thenumbers of taxis, it is not a simplistic thing. It has tobe part of your local transport plan. WithinNorthumberland, we haven’t limited the numbers. Wedo have an open trade; we have fair trade andcompetition. But we don’t have a massive publictransport infrastructure so taxis—private hire—especially within remote rural areas, are a huge partof the local transport infrastructure, because it is notprovided by other national providers.Chair: Thank you very much, gentlemen, for comingand answering our questions.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [SE] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG02Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_o002_michelle_110315 - TPH OE2 - FINAL.xml


Tuesday 15 March 2011

Members present:

Mrs Louise Ellman (Chair)

Steve BakerKwasi KwartengMr John Leech

________________


Witnesses: Brian Whitehead, Regional Organiser, RMT, Eddie Lambert, Former Chair London Taxi Branch,RMT, Paul Brent, Chairman, National Taxi Association, Tim Gray, Company Secretary, National TaxiAssociation, and Steve Wright MBE, Chairman, Licensed Private Hire Car Association, gave evidence.

Q118 Chair: Good morning, gentlemen. Welcome tothe Transport Committee. I apologise for keeping youwaiting for a few minutes. Could you start, please, byidentifying yourselves with your name and theorganisation you represent? This is for our records.Could I start at the end here?Brian Whitehead: Brian Whitehead, RMT.Eddie Lambert: Eddie Lambert, RMT.Tim Gray: Tim Gray, National Taxi Association.Paul Brent: Paul Brent, National Taxi Association.Steve Wright: Steve Wright, Licensed Private HireCar Association.

Q119 Chair: Thank you very much. Mr Whitehead,could I ask you first, what restrictions, if any, do youthink should be put on private hire vehicles operatingoutside their home area?Brian Whitehead: I think they should return back totheir area immediately unless they have a pre-bookedfare because any other system can be abused andcannot be policed.

Q120 Chair: You think that should be an automaticthing; they should go back.Brian Whitehead: Yes.

Q121 Chair: Does anyone else have any views onthat—on private hire?Steve Wright: It’s absolutely thinking from the darkages, with respect. We live in an age where we haveenvironmental and safety considerations. In London,where we have got rid of this type of restrictivepractice with a modern Act of legislation, we have avery, very good system.

Q122 Mr Leech: Can I ask Mr Whitehead how youwould expect this to be policed to make sure that aprivate hire vehicle would return to its home districtbefore taking another fare?Brian Whitehead: Simply by the enforcement systemthat we have now, but actually using it. It is not beingused at the moment. You can go to London any timeyou like in the evenings, because it is predominantlyan evening problem, and you will see private hirevehicles ranked up, which is illegal.

Q123 Mr Leech: How realistic is it, do you think,that local licensing authorities would be able to dealwith the issue if they were mandated to do that?

Paul MaynardIain Stewart

Brian Whitehead: If it was based on a system whereit could be cost-effective for them in that any fines orlevies they imposed would make it neutral so that itwas not an outlay for the council, then they wouldenforce it. The problem we have at the moment is thatwe have people coming in, crossing the borders,sitting around, taking up parking spaces, annoyingresidents by sitting outside residences. How do youpolice it? At the moment it says they should pick oneup and go back, but who is to say which one they pickup, where they are going to take them and if they everend up back in their own area.

Q124 Mr Leech: If this was introduced, the obviousareas where this would have a big impact would betown and city centres in the weekend evenings, Isuspect. Would you take the same view on taxi firmsthat were based very close to borders? For instance, Irepresent a constituency that has Trafford on one sideand Stockport on the other, and if a taxi firm wasbased right on the boundary between the Manchesterauthority and the Stockport authority, or Manchesterand Trafford, do you think it would be reasonable forthose taxi firms to have to apply the same rules as youare suggesting for the city centres?Brian Whitehead: Where do you draw the line? It isall right saying you will live on the boundary, so youmake the boundary bigger, but there is always goingto be another boundary, isn’t there? You are alwaysgoing to have another boundary. So how far do youkeep going and going and going so that it becomestotally unenforceable or licensable because it iscovering the whole country, if you don’t want aboundary? With private hire, as with anything, if youare on the border and someone over that side of theroad wants you, all they’ve got to do is pick up thephone and call you, and you come. There is norestriction on that. What we are saying is that, onceyou go into someone else’s area, you should go back.Otherwise, you have paid the licence fee, the licencecomes with all the safeguards about monitoring, beinga good proprietor and everything else, but you are inanother area where no one has control, no one knowswhat you are doing and there is no way of comingback.

Q125 Mr Leech: Just one last question, Chair. Hasthe RMT made an assessment of what impact yourproposed change in the regulations would have in



15 March 2011 Brian Whitehead, Eddie Lambert, Paul Brent, Tim Gray and Steve Wright MBE

terms of the number of staff that local enforcementteams would require to be able to police a change?Brian Whitehead: No, we haven’t; I’ll be totallyhonest about that. We haven’t done that, because partof our problem is that, every night of the week inLondon, we are having a problem as it is withenforcement.

Q126 Mr Leech: Would you accept, though, that itwould have a big impact in terms of the number ofstaff that would be required to deal with the issue?Brian Whitehead: It could have; I accept it couldhave. But what we are saying is that the staff we havenow don’t seem to be enforcing.

Q127 Iain Stewart: Could I just probe you a littlefurther on your suggestion that there is a requirementto return to the home licensing authority? Surely thereis a difference between accepting a fare in one placethat is a return fare to the home area, and having afare that starts and finishes in another authority.Following on from Mr Leech’s example, would yoursuggestion allow that scenario to give a fare thatstarted in Stockport, came to Manchester and then areturn fare from Manchester to somewhere inStockport? Would that be acceptable in your solution?Brian Whitehead: Again, how would you do that? Idon’t know if it is a solution, but the way I look at itis, how would you police that? If you drive intoanother area and you drop off, if you haven’t got apre-booked fare, what you are saying is you can hangaround and wait for someone to come and pay.

Q128 Iain Stewart: But it could be a pre-bookedfare.Brian Whitehead: It would have to be a pre-bookedfare. How long would you wait before it becomescost-effective? If you are waiting too long, it isn’tcost-effective. Most private hires that I have used arewhen I’ve gone long-distance. I have said, “I want togo from here to here.” They have quoted me a price,and I have said, “That’s a bit dear.” They have said,“Well, we can’t get a fare back so you are paying forthat.” That is part of the deal that you get when youdo it. When I do airport runs and things like that, partof what I pay is because they are coming back.

Q129 Iain Stewart: So your solution would be torequire every cab to return empty to its own authority.Brian Whitehead: If they have pre-booked fares, theycan come back with that fare. But how long are yougoing to go into an area and just sit around for? Howdo they get a pre-booked fare coming back?

Q130 Chair: Is your issue about taxis waiting whenthey haven’t got a pre-booked fare?Brian Whitehead: Yes.

Q131 Chair: That is the problem, not when there issomething pre-booked.Brian Whitehead: No. If they have a pre-booked fare,I have no problem with that whatsoever. It is if youhave a taxi that is not licensed in that area, it doesn’thave an operator’s licence for that area, and it is goinginto that area and just sitting around. It is going to

take up parking spaces and everything else. We haveno control over what that private hire vehicle does bysitting there. If it doesn’t have a pre-booked fare, itshould come back.Chair: Mr Maynard, was your question on that pointor was it different?Paul Maynard: I was going to go on to somethingelse.

Q132 Chair: I think the question from Mr Leech washow that could be policed and how somebody wouldknow. How could it be enforced?Brian Whitehead: By the local licensing authority.

Q133 Chair: Mr Wright, do you have any view onthat one?Steve Wright: I sat before this Committee in 1993 andadvocated a sensible Act for London, which is exactlywhat we have got. Now 40% of the private hire andtaxi industry operates in London, without theseridiculous local controls. It has produced a safe,modern, less polluting taxi and private hire systemthan anywhere else in the country. On the private hireside, the private hire regulations have done that, and itis absolutely ridiculous. I spoke with Minister GlendaJackson prior to the Act to demonstrate why vehiclesshould not, for environmental reasons, be runningback empty. It reduces provision and it increasespollution to make these restrictive practices. InLondon, the 35 boroughs are covered by the LondonAssembly and it all works perfectly well. There aren’tthe problems. There is no ranking in London. It is acommon thing for the trade unions to say ranking istaking place in London. No prosecutions againstprivate hire ranking in London have ever taken place.It’s a myth. They deem cars parked up in a row to bea rank, which is not the case.

Q134 Chair: Mr Brent, do you have a view on thisone and how this could be done?Paul Brent: Personally, I feel that they should returnto base and it is being abused. I feel that GreaterLondon is always looked at as a model and should becontained in London for London. It took them 22years to catch up with the rest of the country with theMiscellaneous Provisions Act, and 23 years if youlook at the Plymouth Act.Yes, I do agree with what Mr Wright says on somethings in his submission. When people are looking atgetting taxis from point A to point B, the safety issuedefinitely comes into it. But, if you go out into thesticks, when taxis go into other people’s areas and justwait and wait and wait, and get a job from one areato another area and don’t even return to their ownarea, which was the submission from Liverpool wherepredominantly the companies are working in anothercity, the person that is getting all the revenue for thatis the one who is issuing the licences. In the Deltasituation, all or a percentage of the vehicles wereworking in Liverpool. They were doing nothingwrong in law, but is that the correct way to operatea business when the vehicles or the drivers cannotbe checked?




Q135 Paul Maynard: Is there any meaningfuldifference to the passenger in the 21st centurybetween a private hire vehicle and a licensed hackneycab, and if so, what is that difference?Steve Wright: I can answer that. A licensed taxi is farmore expensive. It is cruising the streets, polluting theenvironment, whereas the private hire industry is amodern, less costly form of transport. In London, inthe 10 years we have had the Act, our fleet is twoyears younger and far more environmentally friendlyas a result of the lack of stupid restrictive practices inthe industry, nationally. It works. It is good for thepublic. The touting and the illegal activity inLondon1 have reduced by about 80% as a result ofit. There is still work to do and there is more work todo with enforcement, but from the public’s point ofview, the private hire service is without problem.I ran a private hire operation for many, many years inHarrow, and our vehicles would return to within threeor four miles of our office. It is a myth to say that wewould be parking cars all over the place. They comeback to the local area and park up, and they do thatfor environmentally friendly reasons.Brian Whitehead: I think there is a big difference. Ifyou look at the types of vehicles used and thedifferences and the availability for disabledpassengers, there is a massive difference. It is aboutcomfort, and it is not about restrictions but what youget out of a licensed hackney carriage compared towhat you get out of a private hire. Yes, private hirevehicles are a lot cheaper to run. For £12,000, you canbuy a brand new four-door saloon and go out and useit for private hire, whereas it is a minimum of £28,000for a hackney carriage which will take disabledpassengers and everything else. Therefore, there is adifference in price there that puts the fare up. But, ifyou look at the difference in fares, there is not thatmuch difference between private hire and hackneycarriage. In fact, if you come out of a nightclub inLondon in the evenings any time after midnight, youwill find that sometimes you can get a hackneycarriage cheaper on the meter than you can withsomeone who is—and I will say it—touting andranking up outside nightclubs. If you go to nightclubs,there is just row after row of private hire vehiclessitting there and not one of them has a pre-bookedcall. They are sitting there waiting for a call, and thatis why hackney carriages are having to cruise around,because there is nowhere for them to park becausepeople are coming in and doing that.

Q136 Paul Maynard: From the point of view of theconsumer, there is no obvious distinction between thetwo types of taxi. With the example you have cited,coming out of a nightclub, there are taxis outside, theconsumer doesn’t distinguish necessarily betweenlicensed hackney cabs and private hire vehicles, andindeed, as you have just said, the fares are oftenindistinguishable. Why, therefore, are we puttingsignificant effort into this system of dual regulationfor two different types of operation which areeffectively performing the same service for thecustomer?1 Note by witness: The reduction of 80% relates to sexual

assaults by illegal touts.

Brian Whitehead: They are a totally different service.Paul Maynard: But driving me around—

Q137 Kwasi Kwarteng: With respect, you have saidthat there is not much difference in price. As far asthe consumer coming out of the nightclub or whateverit is at night is concerned, they just want to get home.You have said that they are using the private hirevehicles, because if they weren’t using them, thevehicles wouldn’t be there. So I am very confused, asI am sure other members are on the Committee, as towhat the actual difference is. What is your argument?Why are these private hire vehicles so bad?Brian Whitehead: I am not saying they are so bad,but if you look at certain statistics, like crime, andwhat goes on, such as assaults, whether they aresexual or it is violence in a cab, and compare privatehire and hackney carriages, there is a vastdifference—a massive difference. If you also look atthe safety specifications of the two vehicles, there is abig difference. Hackney carriages are built to differentstandards from an ordinary four-door saloon forprivate hire use.People who come out of a nightclub just want to gethome straightaway. The ranking in the majority ofplaces is away from the front entrance of thatnightclub, but if you come out of there you will seeprivate hire, parked on double yellow lines, waiting topick people up. What happens is that people come outand there will be people there saying, “Do you wanta cab? Come over here.” They’ll put them in that andoff they go. That is the problem. People are underthe impression—

Q138 Kwasi Kwarteng: You are saying that iswrong.Brian Whitehead: Yes, I am, because it is illegal. Itis illegal.

Q139 Chair: Let’s bring Mr Wright in. It is illegal,isn’t it, for private hire to approach people withouthaving been booked?Steve Wright: Of course it is. What this gentleman isdoing is rather misleading you, because he is sayingthat this is the private hire industry. These are touts.He is comparing the price of a taxi to the price of atout. It is a fact that private hire vehicles, on average,pre-booked through an office, are 25% cheaper than ataxi. End of story. That is a fact. It is quite wrong tosay that private vehicles are dearer and it is actuallymisleading you on that. You cannot compare theillegal cabs to the legitimate, pre-booked industry. Healso talked about the assaults that take place in privatehire vehicles. They don’t take place in private hirevehicles at all; they take place in illegal cabs. Theydon’t take place in private hire vehicles. The PublicCarriage Office has no records of any assaultswhatsoever in the 4 million passenger journeys aday2 in a pre-booked private hire vehicle. They takeplace with the touts.

2 Note by witness: This should be a week. This information isbased on a conversation with the TFL Taxi & Private HireDirectorate in late 2010.




Q140 Chair: You are saying the problem is with thetouts who are acting illegally, not with the legitimateprivate hire.Steve Wright: There is a problem with the touts, andhe is comparing the Private hire to the touts.

Q141 Kwasi Kwarteng: It is interesting that you aresaying this. My experience in London is that therewas a very restrictive system and it became lessrestrictive. Just from anecdotal experience, no one Ihave spoken to—people I know, my friends who workand live here, who use taxis all the time—has eversaid, “We’ve got to go back to the old system.” Noone has ever said that, which seems to me that they’vegot something right. If it works in London, I don’tunderstand why that can’t be applied in other regions.Brian Whitehead: Because London is being used asone licensing authority.

Q142 Chair: Mr Whitehead, can you tell us whyLondon is different?Brian Whitehead: It is not different. It is being usedas one licensing authority. Again, you are going toget a situation where adjacent licensing authorities aregoing to be coming over and undermining that system.That is what we are on about. It is where you drawthe line. Where does that licensing authority stop? Atthe moment you’ve got a licensing authority inLondon that covers all the boroughs. Outside of that,you then have other authorities, and you are gettingthe same problem on the boundaries now of cross-border vehicles coming in.Kwasi Kwarteng: Just to come back to that, the issueis that people like yourself were making these exactarguments before when we had this chopped-upsystem within London. You were making exactly thesame points that you are making now. What happenedwas that we had one big authority in London and itwas a vast improvement. That is all I am putting toyou, and you are making exactly the same argumentsthat you would have made 20 years ago aboutLondon taxis.

Q143 Chair: Mr Whitehead, are you saying thatthese problems remain, but it is in a differentboundary?Brian Whitehead: Yes.

Q144 Chair: It is still a border issue, but it is on adifferent border.Brian Whitehead: Every time you create a border—it doesn’t matter how artificially you create it—if youare going to move a border out to try to stop thesituation and you make that one area, you are stillgoing to get that area where it balances out againstanother border. So it is always going to happen.Chair: That’s okay. It is just so that we understandwhat the issues are.

Q145 Paul Maynard: I was interested to read inyour evidence about the case of Grassbys inBasingstoke, where they operate in Basingstoke butare registered in London, so that they are exempt fromthe congestion charge. That raised a question in mymind. Why isn’t every taxi firm registered in London

in order to gain exemption from the congestioncharge? Surely, most south-east taxi firms wouldrather register themselves somewhere that grantedthem an exemption. You mentioned that the bordershave to be set somewhere. Isn’t the logical conclusionof your argument a national licensing system?Brian Whitehead: You are back to the same thingthen: how do you police it? At the moment you haveseparate laws that cover London from the rest of thecountry, with every county doing their own thing anddoing it in different ways. If you are going to do whatyou are suggesting and go national, you are still goingto have London by itself because it is covered by Actsof Parliament rather than the Acts of local councils.

Q146 Paul Maynard: Without getting into a debate,one would presume new legislation would be nationalrather than local, but if the only argument againstnational licensing is who enforces it, how would yourespond to my argument that we have national lawsalready that local government enforce at a local level?Why would national licensing not work in thiscountry, because we live in an age where we all travelfar more? We travel further than we did in the 1840swhen hackney licensing was first introduced; we areno longer just travelling within a small town. Why isnational licensing not the way to go forward?Brian Whitehead: Again, it is people knowing wherethey are going; it is their local knowledge, whether itis through a hackney carriage licence and localknowledge, or even if it is local private hire. It is stillabout local. Most taxi journeys are not miles andmiles long; they are only a few miles.

Q147 Chair: Mr Brent, what is your view on nationallicensing rather than local licensing?Paul Brent: If I could just rewind a little bit to MrLeech, you live in Stockport, I take it. I come fromTrafford. If we were to have a Greater Manchesterplate, where would the boundaries be then? Does thatmean to say that Liverpool, which would have aMerseyside plate, would be able to sit on our side ofthe fence, if you like, and vice versa? Greater London,with their Acts and everything, is for the whole ofGreater London. If the people from outside were allto register in London, then most of the cabs would bein London. Let’s just get back to the people. If wehave a Greater Manchester plate, what would happenif everybody went into the centre of Manchester?People in Hazel Grove and places like that wouldn’tbe getting a taxi home because there would be no taxisthere. Take Macclesfield, or even some parts ofCheshire, such as the Wirral; there is just nobodythere.

Q148 Chair: Are you saying there that one problemof bigger areas is that the very local needs might notbe addressed?Paul Brent: Everybody would start cherry-picking. Ifyou had national legislation, most of the cabs wouldbe in the big cities.

Q149 Mr Leech: Is there any evidence of cherry-picking in London in certain areas where you aregoing to pick up the fares, so that everyone goes to




those locations and leaves some of the—there is noremote area in London—less busy parts of Londonwithout access?Steve Wright: I can answer this question because Iwas an operator in London for 30 years, both beforeand after the Act. There was absolutely no changeafter the 1998 Act in the demographics of where thevehicles were. It is an argument that was put beforethis Committee and others at the Department forTransport prior to the 1998 Act that is absolute fiction.It has not made an iota of difference to the provisionof taxis. There are still over 2,000 operators inLondon. There has been consolidation, because someof the poorer operators have gone because of the Act,but the number of vehicles and drivers has grown, andthe choice and the service have improved. What thathas meant is a far more environmentally friendlyservice in London that is completely regulated. Weheard all this before, “This would happen, that wouldhappen, the other would happen.” It is fiction. Itnever happened.

Q150 Chair: Does anybody have a different view onwhat has actually happened?Eddie Lambert: Speaking as a London cab driver,there are areas outside the central area that do get verybadly serviced by the cab trade—very badly. Youoften hear this myth, really, “I won’t go south of theriver.” There are occasions when drivers don’t wantto go south of the river. It is not because they’ve gota problem with taking the passenger out there; it’s the15, 20 or 25 minutes coming back when they are notgoing to get any work. That is why they don’t wantto go south of the river. It is not the job out; it is thedown time coming back where they won’t get a fare.That is part of the reason.I want to challenge Mr Wright on saying there are nosexual assaults in private hire. Very recently, there wasa Camden Town private hire driver done for sexualassault on a young lad under social services care. Acouple of drivers from Stratford have been done forrape in E15 over a period of years. To say there hasbeen none is a fabrication.

Q151 Iain Stewart: I wonder if I could approach thenational standard argument from another angle, andthat is, are you concerned about any local licensingauthorities who set standards below an acceptablelevel? Particularly, do you have a view if there areany authorities attempting to gain additional revenueby undercutting neighbouring authorities? Does thatexist or is that not a factor?Tim Gray: Sir, I have some knowledge of the scenarioin Berwick because I am from the north-east. Theywere certainly generating a huge amount of incomeby massively increasing the amount of licences thatthey issued, and we had them operating all overNewcastle, in the Rhondda, even in London. Theywere considered to be somewhat soft touches overCRB checks, vehicle checks and things like that. Soyou do get that.What I am not sure about, Sir, is whether you aresaying, with a national standard, you would have whatwould essentially be a national one-tier system: therewould be no distinction between hackney carriage and

private hire. Is that what is in our minds or in theminds of the Committee?Chair: We are asking you. We are exploring a numberof things, and that is one of the issues I think we mightbe interested in. But maybe Mr Stewart still wants topursue this particular one.

Q152 Iain Stewart: You mentioned the example ofBerwick, which we have heard from other witnesses.Is that an isolated example or is it more prevalentout there?Eddie Lambert: I live in Peterborough. King Cabshave moved out of town to Yaxley, just over theborder, so they can operate under Huntingdonconditions. Peterborough has a purpose-built policy,like London: all black cabs, all high cost. The policyin Huntingdon is four-door saloons, with no age limit.But they do the majority of their work in Peterboroughnow, as they did before, because that is originallywhere they built up their base. They have moved overthe border so they can benefit from the cheaperlicensing and vehicle costs.Tim Gray: The standards really do vary massively. Ihave had a case where I was dealing with a taxi appealin Newcastle where a chap was found not to be fit andproper. He walked in wearing his badge fromDerwentside, another authority, where he hadobviously been found to be fit and proper. That is anexample of the variations there can be.

Q153 Chair: How many examples are there wherethere have been problems because of a variation instandards?Tim Gray: The problem I have is that I can’t speak atall for London, because obviously we don’t operatethere in any big way. I hear what Mr Wright saysabout that. I have seen intense problems in my areawith the variations in the standards. I say again thatBerwick was the classic example, because what youhad there was a private hire operator who simplywanted to cut his own costs and achieve otherbenefits, going to what became simply a flag ofconvenience. It was impossible to enforce anythingthat they did in Newcastle because they were licensedin Berwick, and Berwick, of course, didn’t wantanything to do with them. Indeed, Berwick, when theywere licensing them, were telling them that theycouldn’t actually operate in Berwick.

Q154 Chair: Could you give us any idea of theextent of this problem and any more examples ofwhat happened?Tim Gray: I can’t in the sense, Madam, that I amtalking as a lawyer rather than somebody who has theknowledge on the ground, but I am sure that therehave been other authorities to which people would gobecause they have an easier regime. I know, forinstance, in my area that we have a particular issueover the local airport. There are various differentplates that are represented there, and let’s say someare more rigorous than others. You are not going to getthe same standard. You may be saying that a nationallicensing system would give the same standard, but Igo back to the whole issue of enforcement, which iswhat has worried me all the way along the line.




I hear what Mr Wright says about London, but thatjust isn’t going to work in the provinces. We haveseen the difficulty over enforcement with that Berwickscenario. Cross-border hiring has been a big thing inour area because of the activities of a local firm, theleader of which is one of the leading cases denyingcross-border hiring. We have seen all of that, and thatis illegal. I come back to what we say in oursubmission, which is that the present system worksperfectly well. There are two tiers, yes there are, buta national standard will never work because you willget different levels of enforcement still around thecountry. You can’t deal with it all centrally, I am sure.

Q155 Mr Leech: In your view, if we were to havenational standards, do you think it would drivestandards up or drive standards down to the lowestcommon denominator?Tim Gray: I think it depends, Sir, on where you setthe standards or who sets the standards. Obviously,you can set a universal standard, but my worry is howsomebody who sets a standard, say, in London isgoing to enforce that standard in Newcastle or inManchester or wherever. I see this as being somethingthat simply has to be a local issue, because there aredifferent localities which have different features andobviously different demands. I do go along with theso-called honeypot argument, that people are going toflock to the places that are really very busy, becausewe are finding that already in the north-east withauthorities that have become unitary authorities.

Q156 Mr Leech: Does anyone have a particular viewthat it would either drive up standards or lowerstandards?Chair: And could you address the issue ofenforcement outside London? I want to talk aboutoutside London now.Steve Wright: We have member operators outsideLondon, and I happen to live outside London. I willgive you a classic example outside London. If I booktwo vehicles, one was a hackney carriage that wasfilthy and the driver didn’t know where he was going.From the same company, a private hire vehicle came,it was cleaner, newer, and the driver knew where hewas going. You get those sorts of anomalies right theway across these things because of plates that havebeen bought and territories that have been owned bysomebody for a period of time. Standards have justrisen and risen and risen in London. If you go outsideand look at the age of the average private hire vehiclein London, it is two or three years lower than the taxis.The reason it has been successful is because therehaven’t been the ridiculous constraints.Outside London, you have ridiculously lax regulationsand also ridiculously onerous regulations. Thecombination of those things, border by border,borough by borough, over 350 local authorities, hascreated the need for things like Berwick to happen. Itshould all be swept away and market forces shouldtake place.

Q157 Chair: You are saying it is lax and it is onerousat the same time. These seem to be in conflict.Steve Wright: Yes. That is the way it is.

Kwasi Kwarteng: Some of them are lax and some ofthem are onerous.

Q158 Mr Leech: Would you not say that part of theissue is having better co-ordination between localauthorities that border other local authorities, so that,coming back to the comment that I made at thebeginning, Manchester, Stockport and Trafford haveroughly similar regulations, and there is no advantageto someone going to Trafford as opposed toManchester because it is cheaper and less onerous?Steve Wright: London has 35 local authoritiesembraced in one Act that covers it. I would see thatthese things need to be regional, and, where regionalworking co-operation has taken place, all theproblems that we are discussing here have meltedaway. There are local authorities such as Humbersideand Yorkshire that have merged together theirprocurement for taxi and private hire. They havesaved cost and they have improved provision. It is thefact that there are 350 different sets of regulations andrules that causes the variation of standards and thevariation of regulations across the whole country.Chair: These are very contentious issues, aren’t they?We are in an age of localism as well, which is anotherissue on this.

Q159 Paul Maynard: If we were to have a nationallicensing system, you expressed a concern that taxiswould go to where the business was, and you impliedthat that would therefore be a problem. Am Imisunderstanding the nature of taxi provision in thatit is a service provided to consumers and that whereconsumers have the greatest demand that is where theservice should be provided? Is that correct?Eddie Lambert: That is inevitably going to happen.

Q160 Paul Maynard: So why would it be a problemif there were more taxis where there was moredemand and fewer taxis where there was less demand?Tim Gray: Because there may well, Sir, not be anytaxis where there is less demand.

Q161 Paul Maynard: Would they not be able to thenbook a private hire vehicle?Tim Gray: I think the same economic constraints asthere would be from the point of view of a taxi driverwould affect a private hire driver in much the sameway. If there is no business that is viable, and you aretalking largely about rural areas, I don’t think anybodyis going to be very interested in it.

Q162 Iain Stewart: I would like to put to the panela potential solution that I suggested to previouswitnesses, and that is to utilise new technology. Myunderstanding is that the vast majority of hackneycabs and private hire vehicles use sat-nav technology.For companies that are licensed in one authority butdo a fair proportion of their journeys in anotherauthority, should there not be a requirement that foreach company the data is downloaded and aggregated,and if they do a certain percentage of their businessoutside their home authority they would be requiredto pay some additional levy? Do you think that wouldbe practical?




Brian Whitehead: You are talking about a vehicletracking system.Iain Stewart: Yes.

Q163 Chair: Mr Whitehead, do you have a view onthat?Brian Whitehead: I am not too sure how you woulddo that and how you would transfer data andeverything else on that. The whole thing, for me, isthat a local authority at the moment licenses itshackney carriages and gives private hire for what itbelieves it needs for the area, including those withspecial needs in that geographical area. If you startmaking that area larger, for earnings reasons and thosereasons alone, people will generally migrate to thetown centres and to the places where they can earnbecause they are now licensed to go into those placeswhere they weren’t before, and because there weren’tthat many in that area they could make a living. Nowthat area is bigger, they can make a living by movingover there and leaving this area blank, and that is whatis going to happen. It happened with bus deregulationand there was—

Q164 Chair: Mr Gray, do you have a view on that?Tim Gray: The technology of course is there and itwould be fair to say that, in the Shanks case, I thinkit was Lord Justice Latham who made this pointbefore he, of course, found that there was illegalcross-border hiring anyway. But the fact is that it isnot the technology. It is the question of theenforcement. Somebody has to regulate these people.At the moment the rule is that there have to be inprivate hire three licences—an operator’s licence, avehicle licence and a driver’s licence—and they allhave to be issued by the same authority. As long asthat continues and there is no doubt as to who is going


Witnesses: Kris Beuret OBE, Chair, National Association of Taxi Users, John Austin, Vice Chair, NationalAssociation of Taxi Users, John Moorhouse, Company Secretary, TravelWatch NorthWest, and Paul Fawcett,Advisory and Research Consultant, TravelWatch NorthWest, gave evidence.

Q165 Chair: Good morning. Could I ask you, please,to identify yourselves with your name andorganisation? This is for our records. I will start at theend here.John Moorhouse: My name is John Moorhouse. I amCompany Secretary of TravelWatch NorthWest.Paul Fawcett: I am Paul Fawcett. I am the ResearchAssistant at TravelWatch NorthWest.Kris Beuret: I am Kris Beuret. I am the Chair of theNational Association of Taxi Users, a consumer grouprecently established.John Austin: I am John Austin, the Vice Chair of theNational Association of Taxi Users.

Q166 Chair: I would like to start off by asking theNational Association of Taxi Users if you could tellus how many users you represent and how you getyour information.Kris Beuret: We recently launched ourselves at aconference only in December last year and we did that

to be capable of enforcing it, those vehicles can gowhere they want.Steve Wright: I would like to come back on a coupleof points. First of all, with regard to localism, wewould see regional large authorities such as London.We would see local authorities working together tomake one set of standards collectively, as hashappened in London, where 35 local authorities areunder the one auspice, and we would see that as thesame model but being more regional. The problem isthat, when it is crook by hamlet, you know, village byvillage type regulations, you get all this protectionismand cross-border stuff. It just isn’t happening inLondon.The second point I would make about the RMT thingis that the particular assault that he referred to issubject to a police inquiry so that is in process at themoment. A company like Addison Lee has done 27million journeys in London with never a singlecomplaint or a prosecution against a driver foranything3. So I think we need to put that intocontext.Chair: Thank you. I think that we are going to moveon to the next set of witnesses.Eddie Lambert: Can I just query the Addison Leereference? One of their drivers was very recently donefor manslaughter, where he deliberately ran over ahomeless person in Old Burlington Street, London. Tosay that none of their drivers has ever been done is,once again, fabrication.Chair: Thank you. We will leave it there. Thank youvery much for a lively session. Thank you verymuch, gentlemen.

3 Note by witness: May I clarify my statement: “A companylike Addison Lee has done 27 million journeys in Londonwith never a single serious complaint or a prosecution againsta driver for anything within a journey involving passengers.”

at the instigation, really, of a lot of organisations. Imyself was a member of the Disabled PersonsTransport Advisory Committee, which is now nolonger working. A lot of disability organisationswanted to do something for consumers. Also, a lot ofwomen’s groups, and generally the work we havedone over the many years, have flagged up the needfor a consumer group to represent taxi users. We didgo to Passenger Focus. They had recently taken onbuses as well as trains. They felt that that was enoughfor the moment, but they do support this initiative.We would hope that one day that would merge withPassenger Focus, but meanwhile we are here becausewe feel there is an urgent need to represent the needsof taxi users.

Q167 Chair: How many users would you say yourepresent? How do people know that you exist andhow to approach you?



15 March 2011 Kris Beuret OBE, John Austin, John Moorhouse and Paul Fawcett

Kris Beuret: We have only recently launched the webpage last month. We are getting more and more peopleusing the web page and we are in the process ofgetting various people to amalgamate with us,including the National Association of LicensingOfficers, who we hope will support us.

Q168 Chair: You have been here during thediscussions this morning and we have heard a lot ofissues about cross-border hire. What are your viewson that? Do you think there is a problem with privatehire based in one area going into another and waitingfor business before coming back?Kris Beuret: What we know from our members is thatthere is massive confusion about taxis. Localauthorities spend a lot of time printing pamphlets,trying to explain to people about all these boundaryissues, about the difference between private hire andhackneys and so on. Long term, we would advocate anational licensing system which we think wouldovercome a lot of these problems, not necessarilyenforced nationally, but certainly set standardsnationally.

Q169 Chair: How would it be enforced then?Kris Beuret: It is already enforced, but the confusionis that—

Q170 Chair: How would a national system beenforced?Kris Beuret: It would be enforced locally.John Austin: It would be enforced locally by, wesuggest, either local districts or counties and unitaries.But we believe it should be planned on a regional ora county basis rather than being looked at purely atthe district level.

Q171 Chair: TravelWatch NorthWest, what are yourviews on the cross-border hire issues you have heardus discussing?John Moorhouse: I think we would very much agreewith our colleagues here. We think the aim should beto go towards national licensing to overcome thesecross-boundary problems. It may be that an initialstage may be wider licensing areas than you have atthe moment. I know you will still have boundarysituations, but at least you will be minimising those.You would have fewer of them than you have at themoment. I think a national system would enable localenforcement, and you would then have a positionwhere, because the taxi would have a national licence,the enforcement would simply be of any taxi in thatparticular area at that time.

Q172 Chair: How would consumers benefit from anational system that didn’t look at local issues?Kris Beuret: It would be certainty about whatstandards to accept. At the moment, if people try andhail a taxi, say, in Manchester, if they are behavinglegally, they have to say, if they are a private hire foranother area, “Sorry, we can’t pick you up.” Peopledon’t understand why that is. They are totally baffledby it.John Moorhouse: There is an issue about theperception of taxis. Most people who use taxis don’t

really understand the difference between private hireand hackney. They are, as Kris has said, veryunder-represented. There is certainly an issue aboutthe need for more consumer representation. There isthe need for the taxi passengers to be aware of howthey can take an issue forward if they need to do so,because at the moment I don’t think that is the case.

Q173 Paul Maynard: Would you agree that thedebate over the past two decades regarding taxilicensing and taxi legislation has been driven entirelyby the taxi industry itself rather than by those whoactually use taxis? Would that be a faircharacterisation?Kris Beuret: That is why we have set ourselves up.John Austin: We believe that the needs of taxi usershave not been fully taken into account. We alsobelieve that the taxi and private hire industry has notbeen taken account of as much as it should be in localtransport plans and therefore it has not beenconsidered as much as it should be as part of a publictransport system.

Q174 Paul Maynard: Do you believe that publicpolicy making has been driven by that same focus ontaxi providers rather than taxi users?Kris Beuret: Certainly, the work we have done inlocal authorities shows that you often go tocommittees and in the public gallery there is the trade.Obviously, councillors do their best to representconsumers and so does NALEO, the professionalorganisation, but, nevertheless, it is the consumervoice that is frequently absent. Through my companyI have done a lot of surveys which particularly haverepresented the views of disabled people. They verymuch explain experiences of discrimination; theirvoice is frequently not heard. That is why the NationalAssociation of Taxi Users is particularly anxious toinvolve disabled people, who are themselves a marketfor taxis.

Q175 Paul Maynard: I actually wanted tospecifically address the issue of disabled passengersbecause—Paul Fawcett: Can I just come in there and make theobservation that there is a lot of confusion about thedifference between private hire and hackneycarriages? Hackney carriages are very often limited innumbers and this has been a brake on the introductionof taxi buses—a very big brake, really—because, untilMr Moorhouse and I appeared before this Committee10 years ago, the private hire fraternity were not ableto run taxi buses. We made that point very strongly,and we are glad to see that in the Local Transport Act2008 it was taken up. So it is now possible for bothto operate as taxi buses.Kris Beuret: We feel that, if a national standard wereto develop, it would be very good to have a nationalstandard of training for taxi drivers, because, as youheard earlier, one of the problems is that these taxidrivers have to do local tests and, like a bus driver,they can’t go from one area of the country to anotherand just—




Q176 Chair: What about the local knowledge? Areyou discounting that?John Austin: We believe that local knowledge isimportant, but its importance will diminish over timewith new technology. We live in a fast-increasingchanging age and local knowledge will become muchless important in the next five or six years, I wouldhave thought.

Q177 Mr Leech: I asked the previous panel whetherthey thought that a national scheme would drive uplicence standards or reduce them to the lowestcommon denominator. As users, do you think it wouldimprove standards or make them worse?Kris Beuret: National standards would have to be set,and we would certainly hope that it would improve,particularly, the lowest common denominator, ofwhich there are many pretty awful examples.

Q178 Mr Leech: My understanding from speakingto a couple of licensing authorities who have higherstandards is that they would argue that they set higherstandards than what would be considered to be thenorm. Is there not a danger that the standards wouldactually be too low if we have national standards?John Moorhouse: I think you would have to have anational view of that, wouldn’t you?

Q179 Chair: If you are advocating a differentsystem, you have to have reason—Kris Beuret: What I thought—Chair: Just a moment. We are speaking to MrMoorhouse. You would have to have reason to believethat it would be better, not just go in on a hope,wouldn’t you? If you are advocating a change, youneed to have grounds to think it will improve things.John Moorhouse: Absolutely. I am not sure about themechanics of how it would come about, but certainly,if you are going to introduce national licensing, thento go along with that you would have to have propernational standards and that would have to be laiddown to apply everywhere. I am sure that then,however it was done, you would look at what are thebest standards and best practice that are happeningnow in each local area and take that as yourbenchmark. I must admit I wouldn’t want to get intothe mechanics of it.

Q180 Mr Leech: Moving on from that then, youwere advocating national standards but you wereadvocating local enforcement. Is there a danger that,if you leave it to local enforcement, the actualenforcement of the standards would be dictated by anumber of factors relating to how locally they wereenforced?John Austin: I think you would need to have nationalstandards of the enforcement levels, to be honest, sothat they would be done locally but they would be toa national standard. One area in which standardsmight well be increased by a national system is in thestandards of drivers. I think it would assist in rootingout ones that get through perhaps poorer qualityassessment systems in some existing licensingauthorities.

Q181 Mr Leech: Is there a danger that some localauthorities will end up spending exorbitant amountsof money on enforcing those national standards? Forinstance, coming back to my example of Manchester,Trafford and Stockport, I would imagine, if there wasnational licensing, we would end up havingManchester having to do an awful lot of theenforcement for the whole of Greater Manchester aslots of private hire vehicles were coming into thecentre of Manchester all the time.John Moorhouse: Presumably they should beenforcing those standards now.

Q182 Mr Leech: So Stockport would be responsiblefor Stockport private hire cabs in Manchester.John Moorhouse: I would see that, in a futurescenario, the enforcement will be done for all taxisoperating within that area by the appropriate localauthority. If you had a national licensing system, thenit wouldn’t be for individual local authorities. It wouldbe for the local authority where the vehicles areoperating. Again, it would be a question of how youwould do that. At the moment you can’t do that. If youhave a taxi operating in Manchester which is licensedoutside Manchester, you can’t enforce standards. Ithink I am right in saying that.

Q183 Chair: How would a national standard dealwith a situation where someone got in a taxisomewhere and said, “I want to go to that whitebuilding that is somewhere around the city centre”? Alocal driver might well know what they are talkingabout. If you had something with national standards,where nobody needed to have any particular localknowledge, they could not deal with that, could they?Sat-nav wouldn’t tell them that.John Moorhouse: That is a good point, but in practiceyou would find that most people would predominantlyoperate in their local area, and I think it would be theexception. If an operation was outside that area, thenyou would expect them to give the right kind ofservice and people operating those cars would have tohave that knowledge.

Q184 Iain Stewart: I would like to pick up a pointthat was made by the RMT representatives in theprevious panel, and that is the difference betweenlicensed cabs and private hire vehicles in terms ofprovision for disabled users. From your perspective,in the private hire market, is there a sufficient supplyof vehicles that can cater for the needs of disabledpassengers or is there a shortfall?Paul Fawcett: This is a problem that we have comeacross when discussing the provision of taxi buses,because they will hold a special restrictive PSVoperator’s licence issued by the Traffic Commissioner,not by a local authority or a district authority, andtherefore national standards would apply. Very, veryfew taxis would be able to operate as a taxi bus after2012, because all PSVs would have to be DDAcompliant. It is a real problem when you have morethan one licensing authority and more than oneenforcement authority. They contradict each other toan alarming extent, really.




Kris Beuret: Can I just say something about theaccess? The majority of disabled people do not needa wheelchair accessible taxi. There are different needsfor different vehicle designs for disabled people. Ireally do believe that the market is growing to takecare and provide that range of provision.We did some work recently in Amber Valley, whichhas a vast rural hinterland, and we found that,gradually evolving, the market is providing largervehicles, which sometimes are good for taxi workwith people with lots of luggage, sometimes fornightclubs for groups of young people, and at othertimes for wheelchair access and other things. Ifconsumers could understand the taxi system better andhad more power, and if the taxi system worked moresmartly—loads of them aren’t on radio circuits even—and they stopped sitting in ranks hoping for a fareoutside Birmingham station, and being happy to sitthere for hours, we think that it would be a very goodindustry to play its part in the public transport mix.

Q185 Chair: What about the consumer that comesoff a train and looks for a taxi? Are you seriouslysaying that all the systems should be based ontechnology and the basic thing of somebody comingoff a train looking for a taxi should be a verydifficult situation?Kris Beuret: There will always be taxis at stations,because they are needed. What we are saying is themarket would be more informed about where else togo.

Q186 Kwasi Kwarteng: Forgive me, a lot of thisdebate seems mediaeval to me. I remember reading inthe history books about when they had 350 differentcurrencies in Germany and all that sort of thing, anda lot of this talk reminds me of that. I appreciate thatyou represent consumers and you feel that thereshould be national standards. Are there a significantnumber of people in your body who are arguing theopposite of having national standards, who are saying,“No, we want to keep the current system as it is, withlots of different local authorities exercisingjurisdiction”? Are there a significant number of peoplethat you represent who are making that argument?Kris Beuret: No. I have to say we are still buildingup our base, but no. Everybody sees this as a sensibleway forward.

Q187 Kwasi Kwarteng: Is this an argument that youhave heard among consumers?Chair: When you say “everybody”, who do youmean? You are building up your base. You have notbeen in existence very long. Are these your opinions?Kwasi Kwarteng: I am asking about consumers, withrespect, Chair.Chair: Yes, but I think these are your opinions, notthe consumers’ views.Kris Beuret: We have published a manifesto on theweb page and we are getting all sorts of commentsback. The people who identify themselves asconsumers are not disagreeing with this.

Q188 Paul Maynard: Can I return to the issue ofdisabled passengers once again? Would you consider

me to be mistaken in my belief that licensed hackneycabs are better providers for the disabled than privatehire vehicles? An argument that often gets cited to meis that, because of the extra space and size of alicensed hackney cab, a typical black cab, and becauseof the supposed extra training of the licensed cabdriver, they are somehow better placed to provide forthat sector of the market. Is that, in your viewrepresenting consumers, a correct argument to cite?Kris Beuret: What I think, and there is quite a lot ofevidence for this, is that it varies. You can’t generaliseand say hackneys are better than private hire. Disabledpeople really do build up trade for an operator, eitherprivate hire or hackney, who take care of them andwho understand how to treat them. There are otherswho are very bad at understanding. That is back totraining as well. But I don’t think you can generalise.

Q189 Paul Maynard: Would you, therefore, agree ordisagree that any moves towards national licensing,deregulation or a gradual disintegration of theboundaries between licensed hackney cabs and privatehire vehicles—any of that—would actually put at riskdisabled passengers’ access to adequate taxi services?Kris Beuret: We think it would improve.Paul Maynard: You think it would improve.

Q190 Chair: Mr Fawcett, do you have any viewson that?Paul Fawcett: I am coming to it from the consumer’spoint of view, who is looking for a taxi bus where aregistered local service has been withdrawn. There isa market that will emerge for more consumer-friendlyvehicles to carry more than just four passengers. Thetaxi bus regulations relate to vehicles with eight orless passenger seats. The Local Transport Act 2008did make provision for these vehicles to be operatedby community transport associations as well. So Ithink a market will emerge for the slightly biggerMPV, if you like, in the private hire vehicle world.

Q191 Paul Maynard: How many taxi buses operateat the moment in the north-west, roughly?Paul Fawcett: One, I think.

Q192 Paul Maynard: Which is?Paul Fawcett: I have identified less than 10 in thewhole country. It is very difficult to persuade the taxitrade to take the idea of carrying passengers withseparate fares seriously.

Q193 Paul Maynard: Which is the one in thenorth-west?Paul Fawcett: It was Allerdale. Whether it is stillrunning or not I am not sure.

Q194 Paul Maynard: So it has not been a greatsuccess, you would suggest?Paul Fawcett: The problem there was that they hada private hire vehicle licence, and the taxi licensingauthority had to amend that licence to make it aspecial restrictive hackney licence where they couldoperate as a taxi bus but they could not go on ranksand they could not ply for hire. Now the Act has sweptthat away, but they haven’t taken advantage of it.




Q195 Paul Maynard: Is there anything more that theGovernment could do to encourage the greater use oftaxi buses or their further introduction?Paul Fawcett: They should have more prominence inlocal transport plans. Also, local transport authoritiesshould encourage private hire and hackney operators,although the distinction is merging now as we haveseen, to tender for taxi bus operations where the mainoperations have been withdrawn or deregistered.

Q196 Chair: Would you like to see taxis and privatehire figure more prominently in local transport?Paul Fawcett: Yes. They are public transport.John Austin: The situation at the moment is highlyvariable. We found a number of LTPs which regardtaxis and private hire as part of the public transport


Witnesses: Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport, and Rachael Watson,Department for Transport, gave evidence.

Q197 Chair: Good morning and welcome to theTransport Select Committee. I think, Minister, this isyour first appearance in front of us.Norman Baker: It is indeed.

Q198 Chair: We are pleased that you are here todayand we are pleased that you are here to discuss taxis.Perhaps I can start off by asking you how high upyour agenda are issues to do with taxis?Norman Baker: Very high up this morning.Chair: I am glad to hear that.Norman Baker: It is an important part of myportfolio, and I recognise that there are significantissues to do with, not least of all, the issues which Ithink you want to explore this morning. Perhaps topre-empt one of your questions, when I came into postand had a look at the legislation, it did seem to me tobe slightly archaic. Obviously, the legislation inrelation to taxis and private hire vehicles has beenaround now for many years, going back to Victoriantimes and the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act. OurVictorian forebears managed to leave us with a verygood legacy, but, a bit like the Victorian sewers, now150 to 160 years on, it perhaps needs a little bit ofattention.

Q199 Chair: You have told us that you are lookingat reviewing taxi legislation. Could you tell ussomething about the areas you are considering andwhen any such legislation is likely to be broughtforward?Norman Baker: I have asked the Law Commission infact whether they would consider this as one of theirproject areas to look at, which is, hopefully, aninteresting and successful way of dealing with thismatter, because it is quite complicated. You have fourdifferent pieces of legislation. You have one relatingto taxis outside London and one in London. You thenhave private hire vehicles outside London and inLondon. So the legislation is quite complicated. It hasbeen built on, higgledy-piggledy, over the years.

system and to be planned and taken account ofaccordingly; others do not. We do think that, withlarge cuts in public expenditure and the amountavailable for subsidising bus services, there is goingto be a real need for taxi buses in rural areas andperhaps some suburbs, where they might work betterthan buses on main corridors. The Commission forIntegrated Transport had a major report, I think threeor four years ago, about recommending widespreadfacilitation of taxi buses in England.Kris Beuret: One of the problems at the moment isthat so much taxi thinking is done at the district leveland most transport planning at the next tier up. So youoften find complete disregard of taxis as the essentialcement often of the public transport system.Chair: Thank you very much for coming andanswering our questions. Thank you.

Obviously, it is a largely devolved matter in terms oflicensing functions, and therefore the ability to predictwhether or not a particular problem which arises canbe solved by the legislation in place is uncertain. Thatis why there is a need to look at this.Obviously, we want the Law Commission to acceptthe suggestion I put to them that this is a good areafor a case study and they should come back with anidea of what we might sensibly do. I am alsogenuinely interested in what the Committee has to sayon this matter, and I am actually very pleased that youare looking at this area, because I think it is an areawhere, in the Department, I certainly have an openmind on what the answers are. It is very useful thatyou have taken evidence from a wide range of peopleand will come up with a report which I will look atvery carefully. If the Law Commission doesn’t in duecourse want to take that forward, then obviously wewill have a look at what you said and see how thatfits into a possible legislative framework.

Q200 Chair: What is the timing likely to be? Is thisopen-ended when you have referred this to them?Norman Baker: We don’t have a definite date bywhich we have asked them to respond, but I wouldexpect them to respond reasonably speedily as towhether they want to undertake such a piece of workor not. If they do, I would imagine it would take 12to 18 months to complete.

Q201 Chair: Could you give us an idea of the areasthat you are looking at? Some of the areas that havebeen brought to us are issues to do with national andlocal schemes, cross-border hire issues andenforcement issues. Are those the areas that you arelooking at?Norman Baker: Yes, loosely. I don’t come with anypreconceptions except to say that I do accept that thearrangements are quite varied across the country andthe legislation is quite archaic. There will be one ortwo recent judgments, of which you may be aware,



15 March 2011 Norman Baker MP and Rachael Watson

which have in a sense altered the balance of what theDepartment previously thought was the case. There isthe Stockton judgment in particular, obviously, butthere is also the district auditor’s involvement atGuildford. So there are one or two issues where wehave to look afresh at where we are.

Q202 Chair: When the Law Commission do comeforward with some ideas, would those be discussedwith the trade and members of the public? Wouldthere be an opportunity for that?Norman Baker: Yes. As I say, we are looking to goforward on a proper consultative basis, so if the LawCommission gets to that stage, I would want them tomake their thoughts known to those who have anactive interest in the trade itself, perhaps also to theconsumer interest, to whom you have been speakingthis morning, and also to yourselves, obviously.

Q203 Kwasi Kwarteng: To what extent do you thinkwhat has happened in London could be used as amodel for the rest of the country? Do you have a viewon that?Norman Baker: There is an issue in London aboutthe ability to subcontract. In other words, and I don’tknow if you are familiar with this, if someone who isa regular person with whom a London private hirecompany will deal arrives at Manchester, there is anissue about this ability to subcontract and have aManchester organisation deal with that. There is alsoan issue about using other firms outside if, forexample, your vehicle breaks down. The Londonlegislation allows that sort of arrangement to takeplace; it does work in reverse. So there is a gap in thelegislation, in my view, in that particular regard.It is also the case that the Private Hire Vehicles(London) Act 1998, I think it is, is just generally moremodern than the 1976 Act, which applies to the rest ofEngland. The enforcement issue—the Guildford issue,Chair, that I referred to a moment ago—was a districtauditor discovering that the enforcement provisions inthe 1976 Act relate to vehicles but therefore not todrivers and operators, whereas the London legislationis not deficient in the same way. There are elementsof the London legislation—

Q204 Kwasi Kwarteng: But, broadly, do you thinkthe 1998 Act with respect to London has worked well?Norman Baker: Yes, broadly speaking, although Imust say in my portfolio I don’t cover London. Thatis Theresa Villiers. But, broadly, I think so.Kwasi Kwarteng: You would have a view on that.Norman Baker: Yes.

Q205 Mr Leech: We have heard from a number ofwitnesses and written evidence in relation to certainprivate hire firms being licensed in places likeBerwick but operating in completely different parts ofthe country. Do you feel that is a situation that canallow for decent enforcement of private hireregulations?Norman Baker: The issue of enforcement is in factan important one and it is clearly difficult to believethat Berwick, although Berwick no longer exists inthe same way as a district council, can sensibly

regulate drivers in Paignton. There is an issue aboutwhether that is a practical way forward or not andwhether that leads to a lack of enforcement, as Ibelieve it might do. One of the answers to that maybe to have an arrangement whereby there is a muchtighter link between the private hire operator, to whichthe driver has a relationship, and the location of thatprivate hire operator than exists at the moment. As Iunderstand it, a properly licensed Berwick taxi drivercan, in terms of pre-bookings, align themselves witha private hire operator in Paignton, Manchester,Birmingham or anywhere else. It may be the case that,if you required a linkage to be established betweenthe private hire operator’s district and the licensingdistrict of the taxi driver, then that might solve someof those problems.

Q206 Mr Leech: How could that be done? One ofthe possible solutions would be to say that, if youbecome a licensed operator and the licence came fromBerwick, you had to work within a certaingeographical area of Berwick. But that would notaddress the issue that we have had from Liverpoolwhereby we have Delta taxis that are licensed inSefton but are operating predominantly in Liverpool.Do you see that as an issue that could be resolved, ordo you see a big distinction between the Berwick andPaignton model and the Sefton and Liverpool model?Norman Baker: I think they are quite different,because the Berwick-Paignton problem relates to taxidrivers who are licensed as taxi drivers but then usingthe ability which they have in the legislation toundertake pre-bookings, whereas the Sefton-Liverpoolproblem, as I understand it, is a matter of private hirevehicles across borders. So there is a differentproblem.The Berwick issue is an enforcement issue, as I thinkyou rightly drew attention to, which I think would besignificantly improved by the linkage which Idescribed that might be introduced. With regard to theSefton-Liverpool problem, it depends what theproblem is that you are seeking to solve. I don’t thinkthere is an enforcement issue there. As I understandit, there is actually some good working between thedifferent licensing authorities in Liverpool and Sefton.So it is not an enforcement issue. The issue thererelates to other matters in terms of the impact on taxidrivers in Liverpool, which I think Unite feel stronglyabout, or whether it relates to what might be regardedas—I am not saying this is my view but it has beensuggested it might be—unfair competition because,for example, the insurance companies tend to provideinsurance at a cheaper rate for drivers and companiesbased in Sefton than they do in Liverpool. They arethe sorts of issues and they are quite different issuesfrom the Berwick-Paignton ones.

Q207 Mr Leech: A number of our witnesses havesuggested that a national licensing scheme should beintroduced. Do you think there is a danger that thiscould drive down standards, or would it raisestandards across the board?Norman Baker: I suppose the answer to that dependson what the national standards are. But I am not surethat standards are the problem. I have asked officials




to look into this, because one of the concerns whichinitially was expressed to me was that there was adifference in standards which apply to the licensingregime in different areas such that it encouragedpeople to register themselves or license themselves inareas where they wouldn’t otherwise do so. I have notseen much evidence of that, to be honest with you.Yes, there are different standards in terms of, say, thepercentage of windows that are tinted and that sort ofthing, and yes, Berwick was cheaper in order to securea licence than it was elsewhere, but I don’t think thedifference in standards is such as to cause the problemwhich exists. I spoke to Unite yesterday. They wereconcerned not so much about the difference instandards but about the insurance issue to which Ihave just referred. Those sorts of issues, I think, aremore pertinent in terms of costs.Am I in favour of national standards? I want to seewhat you have to say about that as a Committee, butlicensing is a local function and I think it would goagainst the grain of the Government’s general drift totake powers away from local councils and standardisethem. There may be a case in one or two specificmatters for having a national standard. That might bethe case where we haven’t already, but I certainlythink a move towards national standards in awholesale way would be regressive and would notnecessarily drive up standards at all.

Q208 Mr Leech: What about with enforcement,because, from the consumers’ point of view, they wantto know that standards are being enforced? Is thereany evidence that the enforcement of standards ispatchy and very different from local authority tolocal authority?Norman Baker: There is clearly an issue, comingback to the different problems, between Berwick andPaignton. There may be an issue there because it isunrealistic to expect Berwick to patrol what ishappening in Paignton. I don’t think there is an issue,as far as I am aware, between Sefton and Liverpoolin terms of enforcement. But, ultimately, localauthorities are sovereign bodies. They are elected,they have their own accountability and they areresponsible for enforcement on that, as well asknowing how many kebab shops there are and whattime they shut. There is a whole range of things theyare responsible for in licensing terms. Because onelocal authority may be less efficient at enforcementthan another is not a reason to change thearrangements whereby these matters are handledlocally.

Q209 Paul Maynard: One of the areas we have beendiscussing today has been the impact of any proposedchanges on the disabled passenger. Do you have anythoughts on how you can not just protect but enhancethe accessibility of taxis for disabled people?Norman Baker: Yes. We have been working on thatin the Department. As you know, at the moment thereare options for local licensing authorities to controlthe number of taxis which are allowed to operate in aparticular area. We have been looking at an idea thatwe might require those licensing authorities to have acertain percentage of vehicles which are accessible for

disabled passengers, as a way of perhaps encouragingauthorities to go down that track. Of course, thisGovernment have put in place—and the lastGovernment did as well—mechanisms to ensure thatall vehicles are fully accessible by particular dates,whether that is on buses, taxis or rail vehicles, andthat continues4.Beyond that, and this is an enforcement matter, to pickup Mr Leech’s point before, there is an issue as towhether or not we might look at—and I just say “lookat” because we haven’t made a commitment on this—the issue of making fixed penalty arrangements morecommon in terms of enforcing some of these matters,which might be more immediate, more effective, andit might save money. You could take an issue such as,for example, a refusal of a driver to carry a guide dog,and subject that to a fixed penalty arrangement. Thatmight be a far more effective way of dealing withthat issue than the present arrangement, which wouldinvolve a huge kerfuffle through the courts.

Q210 Paul Maynard: We have also receivedevidence today regarding the concept of a taxi bus,which I gather was introduced under the previousTransport Act, licensed by local traffic commissioners.Currently, as far as we can make out, there is only onein operation, in Allerdale, and we are not even certainthat that remains in operation. Does the Governmenthave any plans to encourage greater use of taxi buses,particularly given what is happening in rural areas tobus services?Norman Baker: You may have seen that I tabled aministerial statement just a few days ago which in factallocated £10 million to rural local authorities in orderto encourage community transport. That sort ofconcept would come under the community transportfield because it is my view that it is unrealistic toexpect local authorities to subsidise services usingdouble-decker buses down country lanes, let aloneexpect a commercial company to provide thoseservices. We need to find a way of avoiding isolationin rural areas. I think the way of avoiding isolation isto be far more inventive about the sorts of vehicleswhich we have down there. So I think that sort ofmodel, including the old postbus which has operatedin some parts of the country, does find a way ofpreventing isolation in rural areas at an affordablecost.There is also the Local Sustainable Transport Fund,which again I launched as part of the White Paper onLocal Transport, which has £560 million available tolocal authorities over a four-year period, which is asignificant amount of money, more than the lastGovernment did in the same four-year period. Localauthorities are able, under that arrangement—theWhite Paper—to identify local priorities. If theybelieve that their local priority is to make sure that4 Note by witness: This answer suggests that there are central

requirements in place to make all taxis fully accessible by aparticular date. This is not the case. The position onaccessible taxis is that whilst the Department’s Best PracticeGuidance urges licensing authorities to consider policieswhich enhance provision for people with disabilities, theactual decision on whether to make a requirement in anyparticular district rests with local licensing authorities. Wehave no plans to change that.




there is a connection available for particularly isolatedrural areas, then, obviously, that sort of scheme willbe eligible for the fund.

Q211 Iain Stewart: Returning to the cross-borderhire issue, do you see a potential for using newtechnology to help guide regulation in this area, withmost bookings being done through a computer systemand all the sat-nav technology, if a firm was based inone licensing area but the aggregate of its journeyswas showing that they were primarily trading inanother authority? Do you think the Governmentwould consider using that sort of information as abasis for changing the licensing system?Norman Baker: I am conscious that the advance oftechnology produces many opportunities for greaterinformation-gathering and, indeed, potentially evenmore public control than hitherto has existed.Certainly, the existence of sat-nav technology shouldmean that, where there are not specific tests for taxidrivers carried out by a licensing authority as part ofthe licensing conditions for the driver, and somelicensing authorities do and others do not require thattopographical test, then obviously the presence of sat-nav technology potentially means that people arebetter informed and better able to serve theircustomers than would otherwise be the case.I do caution that people should not always assume thatsat-navs are correct. Apart from the obvious problemsof roadworks and sending vehicles downinappropriate roads, there was a case in myconstituency where one of my constituents wasencouraged to take the next left, duly did so at a levelcrossing and ended up on a railway line. Peopleshould use sat- navs and technology generally withcaution. It is not a substitute for common sense.

Q212 Chair: Do you value local knowledge: the kindof knowledge that can’t come from a sat-nav, a localdriver knowing about local facilities and being able todeal with generalised queries from customers?Norman Baker: Yes, absolutely. I think that is veryimportant. One of the reasons why, in my view, peopleare happier than they were with the railway system insome regards is because the level of interaction ofcustomer knowledge and approach from staff on therailways has improved in recent years. I have beenpushing at the Bus Forum, which I chair every sixmonths, for bus operators to take a similar view interm of what the driver does. Many drivers are verygood, of course, but some drivers still see themselvessimply as drivers and don’t regard it as important tohave a customer-facing approach, which I think theyneed to have, particularly with the one-personoperation that we have on buses nearly everywherethese days. I think the same thing applies to taxidrivers. The person who is in the cab or private hireshould feel that the person driving the cab or thevehicle is there to help them and is not simply anautomaton taking them from A to B.Obviously, local people also have knowledge aboutshortcuts which may not be obvious from a sat-nav.They may have knowledge about particular roadworksat a particular time. They may say, “You don’t wantto go there. That restaurant shut last week,” or

whatever else they may have in their heads. I certainlythink there is no substitute for personal knowledge. Irecall when I was at school many years ago I was toldthat the calculator, which was just about starting inthose days, was there as a help and not a substitutefor mental arithmetic, and, if the calculator said 2 plus2 was 8.3, you shouldn’t necessarily believe it.

Q213 Kwasi Kwarteng: That is a very charmingreminiscence. With respect to local knowledge, doyou feel that the local knowledge of a borough or anarea is something which should be enforced at a locallevel? I have an anecdote of my own. I am luckyenough to be a Member of Parliament for a singleborough and I am amazed at how many places in theborough are unknown to the taxi drivers. Do you thinkthat is an issue that can be addressed by nationalstandards or is it something that you feel should be apurely local matter?Norman Baker: It could be addressed by nationalstandards. Anything can be addressed by nationalstandards. But I am very loth to start imposing onlocal authorities a particular way of acting. OtherGovernments in the past, with the best of motives,have identified a problem and thought that the waythey should deal with it is to create something fromthe centre and impose that on local areas. That canwork, but it can also provide inflexibility and perverseconsequences which aren’t always, therefore,welcome. So I am not in favour of trying to imposethese things. I would hope that local authorities wouldrecognise the value of having cab drivers or privatehire vehicle drivers who actually knew their wayaround and they ought to factor that in themselves, inthe interests of supporting their own communities.Where we come in—which we have done—is topublish the best practice guidance, which is a way ofsaying to local authorities, “From the centre, this iswhat we think is good practice, and it would besensible if you had a look at that and questionedwhether or not, if you are not applying it, why not? Isthere a good reason not to?” There may be a goodreason not to in certain circumstances and that is whynational standards are not always appropriate, but thisis something that the local authorities, I hope, willlook at and they will base their decisions on that.

Q214 Mr Leech: Is there any evidence that localauthorities aren’t anywhere near that best practice?Norman Baker: I have not seen evidence of localauthorities culpably failing in their licensingresponsibilities.

Q215 Chair: Do you monitor the best practiceguidance?Norman Baker: We monitor it in the sense that weget complaints from members of the public onoccasion. We obviously also talk to the trade. Myofficials regularly talk to the trade and talk to locallicensing authorities. We don’t monitor it in a formalway, but we, I hope, are able to pick up problems bythe myriad contacts that we have.




Q216 Chair: Have you picked up the Berwicksituation and the problems there and cross-borderhire problems?Norman Baker: Yes. We were aware, before yourinquiry started, both of the Berwick-Paignton problemand the Sefton-Liverpool one.

Q217 Chair: Do you think there is a justification fordistinguishing between hackneys and private hire?Norman Baker: Yes, I do, because I think theyperform different functions, in the sense that, forexample, you can flag down a taxi, and obviously youcan’t flag down a private hire vehicle, or you shouldnot be able to. Secondly, a taxi diver is obliged to takeyou somewhere within, I think it is 12 miles inLondon, and within the district in which he islicensed. A private hire vehicle isn’t obliged to dothat. A taxi has a meter; private hire vehicles don’talways have meters. There is an arrangement thereand a contract between you and a private hireoperator, which doesn’t apply in regard to taxis in thesame way. Private hire vehicles such as stretchlimousines and novelty vehicles of other sortssometimes have very particular functions which don’tapply to taxis. So they perform different functions,and, having thought about this previously, I amcontent that it is sensible to have two-tierarrangements for the two types of vehicles.

Q218 Chair: It has been suggested to us that, ifprivate hire vehicles go to do work outside the area inwhich they are licensed, they should have to return tothe original area, unless there is a pre-booking, ratherthan staying in the other area waiting to find out ifthere is any business. Is that something that wouldappeal to you?Norman Baker: I will give you my view in a moment.I am not ducking it, but I am genuinely interested ifthe Committee reaches a view on that matter. My ownpersonal view, for what it is worth, is that we have todecide whether there is a problem with the presentarrangements, particularly the Sefton-Liverpoolpresent arrangements. Is it working against theinterests of the passenger? That is the first question. Iam not sure it is. It may be argued that they don’tknow what conditions apply exactly or thearrangements for the vehicles are slightly different,and they may be slightly inconvenienced by that. Iam not personally convinced by that, although I amopen-minded as to whether evidence comes forwardto demonstrate that.The issue then comes down to whether it is unfairpractices in terms of the taxi trade and whether taxidrivers themselves in one area or, indeed theenforcement authority, are discriminated againstunfairly because of the arrangements. I am notconvinced of that either, but, again, I am open-mindedabout it. If you send people back and people arerequired to return right away, that becomes quitedifficult to enforce. I did actually look at the positionin Scotland in preparation for coming along to youthis morning. In Scotland there is a requirement toreturn. The advice from my officials who haveinvestigated is that the Scottish authorities sometimesdo find it quite difficult to enforce that condition.

There is an enforcement problem which is created bythe requirement to return back to base. It is also thecase that, if you return back to base, there may be acarbon implication, which I am not keen to generate.There is also an issue as to how long someone canwait in an area. Is it legitimate to stop for a sandwichand then get a booking that way? I just think it raisesa number of issues which, in practical terms, makes itquite difficult to deal with.There is also the issue of dead mileage. If you end uphaving to travel long distances, that puts up the costto the driver because he or she is paying for fuel thatotherwise wouldn’t be used. I don’t think it is quite assimple as just saying they should return. There are allsorts of consequences which arise from it.

Q219 Mr Leech: You have half answered myquestion in terms of how difficult it might be toenforce a change, if it was decided that change wasnecessary, but is there any evidence from Scotlandthat enforcement has become more costly because ofthis rule?Norman Baker: I don’t know whether it is morecostly or not. The advice I received from Scotland wassimply that the terms they had set were not quite asclear in the legislation as perhaps has been presentedto you. They are not quite as pristine anduncontroversial in terms of application as it mighthave been thought and there are enforcementproblems in determining when somebody hasoffended against that particular condition. I don’tknow whether it is more costly. I imagine that dependson how much, in terms of resources, they put towardsdealing with it and to what extent they turn a blindeye.

Q220 Chair: Do you think that the legislation onLondon taxis and private hire should be appliednationally?Norman Baker: I think that was the first question towhich I responded. The private hire vehicle legislationin London is clearly more up to date and therefore isin a better state—frankly, a better and fit condition—than the private hire legislation from 1976 whichapplies in the rest of England. There is a case, if youare starting from a blank piece of paper, that youwould seek to update the 1976 Act, yes.

Q221 Chair: How would you like to see taxis andprivate hire incorporated more fully into localtransport plans? Is that something which you thinkis important?Norman Baker: I do think they have a role to play,and certainly the Department—and this comes withinmy portfolio area—has been looking at the concept ofend-to-end journeys. I am very keen that we establishan ability for someone to have confidence that theycan use something other than their own private car toget from their front door to the door they want toarrive at somewhere else.What was quite clear from the work we have done inthe Department is that people are confident that, ifthey turn up at a railway station with a ticket and soon, they will get from A to B on the railway. They aremuch less confident about the last mile or two beyond




the railway station to get to their final destination.That leads to some people driving entire distancesfrom, say, here to Norwich and beyond, because theycan’t deal with the last two miles from Norwich. Thatis clearly not sensible if we are going to try toencourage a modal shift to rail, which we want to doin terms of reducing carbon, and it is not sensible ifwe have failed, therefore, to deal with the last twomiles of the journey. Taxis have a role to play in that,as do buses and cycle hire facilities. All those thingshave an answer to help us.One of the things which we are doing, in conjunctionwith ATOC, is looking to put in every railway stationinformation which gives people confidence when they

move towards the exit of the station what happensnext. There will be a physical map there in everystation which will have details of the area around thestation. It will also have information about taxi ranks,bus stops, cycle hire facilities and so on. We are alsolooking at whether in principle—and this is earlystages yet—smart card technology, which I am verykeen to see rolled out, might also be accepted at somepoint by operators of taxis. So we need to see whetheror not we can link in, in a way that the public findattractive, different modes of transport to encouragethe whole journey experience to be better.Chair: Thank you very much for answering ourquestions.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SE] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG03


Written evidence

Written evidence from the Department for Transport (TPH 05)

1. The Department for Transport has responsibility for the legislative framework governing taxis and privatehire vehicles in England and Wales. (The Scottish Executive is responsible for Scotland and DoE(NI) forNorthern Ireland.)

Introduction

2. There are two distinct types of exclusive driver and car hire services:

Taxis(legally referred to as hackney carriages), which ply for hire from ranks and can be hailed in the street; and

Privatehire vehicles (PHVs—sometimes known as minicabs) which must be booked through a licensed operator—normally by telephone or by calling in person at an office.

3. The taxi licensing regime involves two types of licence—a driver licence and a vehicle licence.

4. The PHV licensing regime involves three types of licences—a driver licence, a vehicle licence and anoperator licence. (In the case of PHV licensing, if an individual intends to set up as a one-person-operatorusing his own vehicle and arranging and carrying out his own hirings, he would need to acquire an operatorlicence, a vehicle licence and a driver licence.)

5. There is a degree of overlap in terms of taxis undertaking pre-booked hirings, but the trades are subjectto distinctive licensing and regulatory regimes reflecting the permitted methods of hiring.

Role of the Secretary of State

6. The role of the Secretary of State is to provide the overall legal framework for taxis and PHVs and toinitiate changes to it as necessary—as either policy, or the world in which it operates, changes and develops,and to consider the modes within the context of wider public transport provision. The Department is the focalpoint within central Government for the taxi/PHV trades and regulators.

7. The Department also provides Best Practice Guidance for taxi and PHV licensing authorities. The firstversion was published in 2006; it was prepared in response to a recommendation from the Office of FairTrading which took the view that the standards adopted by licensing authorities varied greatly and Guidancecould be helpful in encouraging a greater degree standardisation around the country.

8. There are some 75,000 licensed taxis and 150,000 PHVs across some 300 licensing authorities in Englandand Wales.

An Overview of the Four Licensing Regimes

9. The legislative framework governing taxis and PHVs has given rise to four distinct licensing systems:

(i) Taxi licensing in England and Wales outside London (the principal Act is the Town Police ClausesAct 1847);

(ii) Taxi licensing in London (the principal Act is the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869);

(iii) PHV licensing in England and Wales outside London (the principal Act is the Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976); and

(iv) PHV licensing in London (the principal Act is the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998).

10. These four different licensing regimes which are administered under legislation dating back to the earlypart of the 19th century have generated a highly complex legislative landscape. This is particularly soagainst the background of many years of case law to establish exactly what certain elements of thelaw actually mean.

Licensing Standards and Policies

11. The primary legislation governing taxis and PHVs is largely of an enabling nature and, consequently,local licensing authorities use the discretion available to formulate their own policies tailored to their ownassessment of local conditions and circumstances.

12. With regard to drivers, the primary legislation in most cases states a length of time which an applicantmust have held a full ordinary driver licence before being eligible for a taxi or PHV driver licence. However,the licensing authority must then satisfy itself that an applicant is fit and proper to be a taxi or PHV driver.This is where licensing authorities have discretion. The assessment process will typically include a criminalrecord check, a medical check, a topographical knowledge test and perhaps a special driving test. It is up toindividual licensing authority to decide what constitutes fit and proper; what elements should be assessed andto what standard.

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG03


13. Similarly, with regard to vehicle licensing, it is up to licensing authorities to decide which vehicles theyare prepared to accept for licensing. Taking accessibility as an example, some licensing authorities require alltaxis to be wheelchair accessible, others require some of the taxi fleet to be wheelchair accessible (a popularapproach is to remove a quantity restriction but impose a higher quality threshold for any additional taxis) andsome licensing authorities allow saloon car taxis, with any wheelchair accessible vehicles being licensed simplybecause the owner wants to use such a vehicle for commercial reasons.

14. The Department provides Best Practice Guidance for licensing authorities to assist them in drawing upsuitable licensing policies. The underlying message in the Guidance is that licensing authorities should notover-regulate; they should bear in mind the costs associated with any requirements they impose and shouldensure that their requirements are commensurate with the objectives which they want to achieve.

15. The Guidance is voluntary rather than mandatory but the Department takes every opportunity to urgelicensing authorities to adhere to it.

16. There is a right of appeal to the courts for applicants outside London who are refused a licence. InsideLondon there is provision for reconsideration by the licensing authority before going to the courts.

Operational Policies

17. As well as providing a framework for the granting of licences, the primary legislation also sets out theparameters within which licensed drivers and operators can provide a service.

(i) Cross-border Hirings

18. Although licensing is undertaken (outside London) at district level, people’s travel patterns are notlimited by local authority boundaries and there is, inevitably, much demand for journeys which go beyonddistrict boundaries.

19. The extent to which both taxis and PHVs can provide a service which takes them beyond—or whollyoutside—their own licensing area has been the subject of much case law over many years.

20. In the case of taxis, the law is clear that they can only ply or stand for hire within their own licensingarea. This could be the whole of the licensing authority’s area or, where an area is divided into smaller zones,it could be in one or more of those zones.

21. However, recent case law, Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler (2010) EWHC 2430 (Admin) hasestablished that a taxi can undertake a pre-booked hiring anywhere in the country. The Department recognisesthat this judgment has generated a degree of concern from people who consider that it undermines the territorialnature of the legislation.

22. In particular, the judgment raised concerns about the extent to which licensing authorities can engage inenforcement activity against hackney carriages which are working in their district despite being licensedelsewhere. Licensing authorities have expressed concerns about the passenger safety implications associatedwith this pattern of operation.

23. In the case of PHVs, case law has established that an operator licensed and located in district A canarrange a hiring involving a journey which goes into district B, or which is wholly within district B, so longas he uses for that journey a driver and a vehicle licensed by the same licensing authority as granted hisoperator’s licence.

24. The Department has received representations from people who are concerned about the way in whichsome drivers are routinely waiting in a different district to that for which they are licensed in order to beallocated by their operator over the radio a job which involves a journey wholly in that district.

25. This is lawful, but it has attracted a good deal of criticism from the indigenous trade (both taxi andPHV) which objects to the influx.

26. The representations propose amending the legislation such that PHVs which go into a neighbouringdistrict to undertake or complete a hiring must return to their home district before being assigned another jobby the operator.

27. The Department takes the view that this is an issue which should more appropriately be considered inthe context of a wider review of the legislation, rather than in isolation.

(ii) Sub-contracting

28. There is a problem associated with the sub-contracting of bookings across district boundaries.

29. Case law has established that it is unlawful for an operator licensed under section 55 of the 1976 Act tosub-contract a booking to an operator who is licensed under the same legislation but in a different district.

30. The Department has received representations to the effect that this is particularly restrictive. Operatorstend to build up contacts around the country, particularly through national associations and trade groups, but

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG03


they cannot make use of these contacts for working purposes. Ideally they would like to be able to sub-contractbookings in emergency situations eg for an airport pick-up when the vehicle on their own circuit breaks down.

31. This is particularly anomalous when viewed against the background of the newer London legislation.The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows an operator licensed under section 3 of the 1998 Act tosub-contract a booking not only to another operator licensed in London—but also to any operator licensedunder the1976 Act. This is a clear discrepancy in the treatment of operators inside and outside London andone which the Department intends to address when it next undertakes a review of the legislation.

(iii) Fares

32. The law allows licensing authorities to set fares for taxis; the vast majority do so in the interests ofconsumer protection. A passenger seeking an immediate hiring, particularly one who is visiting an unfamiliartown, is in a particularly vulnerable position with regard to unscrupulous behaviour. A tariff fixed by thelicensing authority and the existence of a taximeter (optional, but invariably fitted) provides the passenger withadequate protection.

33. When a taxi driver is plying for hire and accepts a journey where the destination is within the licensingarea, he must adhere to the tariff fixed by the licensing authority. However, if the taxi driver opts to accept ahiring which goes beyond the district boundary (which he is not compelled to accept) he can negotiate a farewith the passenger. In this way, the driver is compensated for the dead mileage he will incur in returning tohis own district where he can once again ply for hire.

34. There is no provision in legislation for the fixing of PHV fares by licensing authorities. Each operatorsets the rate for that operation on a commercial basis. The rationale for this is that, because a passenger mustalways book a PHV through a licensed operator, the contract is actually being made with the operator and thepassenger can ask at the time of booking how much the journey will cost. And, because of the pre-bookingrequirement, there is a presumption that PHV passengers are in a better position than taxi passengers to shoparound for a suitable price.

35. The Office of Fair Trading recommended in 2003 that there was scope for more price competition in thetaxi and PHV sector. In particular they thought that taxi drivers should be regarding the tariff set by the councilas the maximum that could be charged rather than the automatically applicable fare ie there was scope foroffering fares which were less than that set by the licensing authority (more so in the pre-booked taxi sectorthan in rank or street hailings).

(iv) Taxi Touting

36. We are aware that taxi touting is a particular source of concern to licensing authorities, and to many inthe licensed trade who adhere to the laws within which they are permitted to operate. Taxi touting involves anindividual proactively asking someone if they want a cab. It is an offence for a taxi driver to tout (he mustwait to be approached); it is an offence for a PHV driver to tout (he must be allocated a journey by hisoperator) and it is an offence for a completely unlicensed individual with an ordinary car to go out touting.

37. The Department receives representations from time to time about this, mainly from the London licensedtaxi trade who regard taxi touting as a particularly frustrating activity. And, of course, there are substantialpublic safety concerns associated with touting.

38. Licensing authorities are responsible for enforcement of the taxi touting law.

December 2010

Written evidence from Delta Taxis (TPH 06)

Please accept this submission from Delta Taxis, which is the trading name of Delta Merseyside Ltd (a limitedcompany in England and Wales No. 4271743). It relates to your current enquiry into the licensing of HackneyCarriage and Private Hire Vehicles. To avoid any confusion please note that throughout this document we usethe following terms of reference...

— Hackney Carriage—drivers or vehicles licensed under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847

— Private Hire—drivers or vehicles licensed under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)Act 1976

— Taxi—a generic term encompassing both hackney carriage and private hire drivers / vehicles

The issues surrounding this review are intensely complex, and having digested this document, members mayfeel it worthwhile to visit our Control Centre. To arrange such a visit, or indeed if you have any further queries,please do not hesitate to contact me via the above address / telephone numbers.



Introduction

Established in 1968, Delta Taxis is one of the world’s busiest and fastest growing taxi offices. A whollyPRIVATE HIRE operation, the graph overleaf shows our annual bookings for the past ten years (the 2010figure is a projection based on the 10% growth we have so far generated this year).



9,000,000

8,000,000

7,000,000

6,000,000

5,000,000

4,000,000

3,000,000

2,000,000

1,000,000

0

2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Delta Taxis - Annual Bookings 2001 - 2010

By comparison, our current 8.6 Million annual telephone bookings is 72% higher than Addison Lee ofLondon and over 40% higher than the taxi giants of Australia (Silvertops and Yellowcabs).

We operate from a bespoke £3.5 Million Control Centre, within the controlled district of Sefton, and inkeeping with the 1976 Act, we have only ever used private hire drivers and vehicles licensed by the sameSefton authority.

Our 1,700 drivers are supported by 186 permanent control centre employees, a professional team made upof call takers, supervisors, managers, administration staff, radio engineers, IT support graduates and headsof department.

By nature, passenger journeys are of course dictated by GEOGRAPHICAL BOUNDARIES and notPOLITICAL BOUNDARIES, so you can see from the adjoining map how our catchment area has developedinto a single populated zone comprised of two and half local authorities... Liverpool, Knowsley and SouthSefton.

With only 800,000 people estimated to reside within this Multi-Borough zone, it’s somewhat remarkablethat they telephone over eight and a half million taxis from just the one, Sefton-based company—the equivalentof every man, woman and child within our catchment area ordering over ten taxis a year from Delta. Weattribute this unparalleled popularity to high quality service and a very competitive fare structure.

For three and a half decades, the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 has legally entitledevery taxi company to have vehicles “WAITING IN THE WINGS” wherever their customers might telephonefor a taxi. Nobody has used this privilege to greater effect than Delta, and having combined this entitlementwith millions of pounds worth of training and technology, we now have a fleet spread out across the whole ofour Multi-Borough zone that can respond to telephone requests quite literally within seconds, making us thepinnacle of demand/response public transport. Our commercial competitors now seek to remove this privilegeby amending the Act.

Cross-border Clash Point

Liverpool not only has one of the world’s busiest taxi offices (Delta) on its doorstep, it also houses England’slargest hackney carriage fleet (outside of London). With 1,417 hackney carriage vehicles and over 2,600hackney carriage drivers all competing for fares within the same zone as Delta Taxis, it’s hardly surprising thatthe national campaign to stop cross-border hiring originated at the Northwest branch of Unite the Union. TheirOctober/November 2009 newsletter (overleaf), proudly announces when Unite secured the backing to take theirfight to a national level.



The local campaign originated far earlier in 2006. Liverpool Licensing Committee reports LAS/6T/06 andLAS/16T/07 submitted by Liverpool Licensing officer Damien Edwards confirm a recommendation forLiverpool’s Licensing manager to write to the Department for Transport and Members of Parliamenthighlighting the increase in “Out of Town” private hire activity (by “Out of Town” the report refers to legitimatefirms such as ourselves carrying out legitimate Liverpool bookings via a call centre located outside of theLiverpool boundary). The report goes on to recommend that Liverpool request an amendment to the LocalGovernment Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 to “Ensure the immediate return of licensed private hirevehicles to within the district council boundary of the licensing authority which has granted the vehicle licence,after completion of a hiring.”

Such an amendment would effectively hamstring our operation, as a fully functional demand / responseprovision is by nature completely reliant upon having your drivers and vehicles “waiting in the wings” ofyour prospective customers. This worrying development therefore sparked a series of correspondence betweenourselves and the then leader of Liverpool City Council, Warren Bradley. During our written exchanges (whichwe are more than happy to make available) Councillor Bradley complained of drivers licensed via neighbouringauthorities unlawfully plying for hire, draining staff resources and causing congestion in the city centre. Heexplained that the request for the City Council to assist in amending the legislation came from the locallylicensed trade and it was not considered necessary to consult with our company. Talks between us broke downhowever once rumours emerged that Mr. Bradley’s own family owned some of the limited edition Liverpoollicensed Hackney Carriage plates (reputed to be valued at £58,000.00 each). We emailed Mr Bradley on 28



November 2007 asking that he confirm or dismiss the rumours and again on 5 December 2007 but still awaithis response.

The negative bias our company experienced was not just at a party political level, it also transpired that evenLiverpool’s licensing officers weren’t averse to overstating the case of unlawful activity from “out of towndrivers”. When we asked them how many proven cases there had been of Sefton licensed private hire driversillegally plying for hire within the Liverpool boundary between October 2006 and October 2007, Liverpool’sprincipal licensing enforcement officer declared 28 cases. When asked to provide proof of these cases he lateramended his figure down to 12, before conceding it was actually five. Interestingly enough, Liverpool’s ownlocally licensed private hire drivers were caught six times during the same period illegally plying for hirewithin Liverpool.

All of this led us to question the true motives behind Liverpool’s proposed legal amendment. We soon foundthe answer in Unite the Union’s National Cross Border Hiring Campaign Petition leaflets, which began bymaking readers aware of the “serious problem of cross-border hiring of private hire vehicles from neighbouringboroughs”. The campaign leaflets went on to profess “not only does this affect the livelihoods of the legitimatetaxi and private hire trade in your borough, it also means that the burden of enforcement falls onto locallicence payers.”

How does one define “local” in terms of taxi livelihoods? Countless taxi drivers licensed by Liverpool don’tactually live in Liverpool, and Delta has nearly a thousand drivers who live and work within Liverpool whilstholding a Sefton licence. Local trade protection is therefore a somewhat spurious justification for cross borderlegal amendments, which leaves us with licensing fees and the burden of enforcement...

Licensing Fees

In May 2010 we submitted Freedom of Information requests to ascertain the number of taxi licences in forcefor Liverpool and Sefton. The table below shows the results, along with some rather interesting financialimplications.

MAY 2010—TAXI LICENCE NUMBERS AND FINANCIAL IMPLICATIONS

Liverpool Sefton

Licences 2644 417Issued

Hackney Carriage Annual Fee £50.00 £19.20Drivers

INCOME £132,200.00 £8,006.40Licences 1417 270Issued

Hackney Carriage Annual Fee £160.00 £120.00Vehicles

INCOME £226,720.00 £32,400.00Licences 1452 2978Issued

Private Hire Drivers Annual Fee £50.00 £19.20INCOME £72,600.00 £57,177.60Licences 1373 2690Issued

Private Hire Vehicles Annual Fee £160.00 £110.00INCOME £219,680.00 £295,900.00

TOTAL £651,200.00 £393,484.00INCOME

We can see that despite Liverpool holding only 8% more licences than Sefton (6,886 compared with 6,355),they were raking in an astonishing 65% more than their neighbour in fees (£651,200 compared with£393,484.00) Liverpool Council and Unite the Union were both keen to blame the anomaly on their beingover-burdened with the enforcement of “out of town” taxis; such claim underpinning their argument for sending“out-of towners” back to where they were licensed. What they neglect to mention is other more importantfactors, which committee members should be appraised of. To begin with, Sefton operates a completelytransparent and ring-fenced financial account for its taxi licence fees, with any excess generated being fedstraight back to the local trade. We have tried without success to establish whether Liverpool’s accounting isso transparent and in the absence of any evidence, we strongly suspect that it isn’t. Sefton’s taxi licence feespay for officers to deal exclusively with taxi issues. In stark contrast, Liverpool’s taxi licence fees pay forofficers to deal with the licensing of taxis, casinos, public houses, night clubs, restaurants, take-aways,dangerous animals etc.

In consideration of alleged cross-border problems, members should also be aware that Liverpool appointsSefton’s officers as its agents, to carry out enforcement within Liverpool (and vice-versa) so both teams can



share the burden of enforcement across both sides of the political boundary. This makes perfect sense as thereare 6,355 Sefton licence holders spilling into Liverpool and 6,866 Liverpool licence holders spilling into Sefton.We therefore conclude that the licence fee issue is no more than a diversion from where the real analysisshould be taking place, that being how any amendments to the current legislation might impact on publictransport aspirations...

Public Transport Aspirations

Safe

One might reasonably expect a legal requirement for all taxis to maintain records of the journeys theyundertake with members of the public, yet in England and Wales such protection is afforded solely to thepassengers of private hire vehicles. In contrast, we understand that in countries such as Australia, taxi driversare not permitted to work independently without journey records, they must all belong to umbrella organisationsthat store not only their pre-booked telephone contracts, but also every street hiring they undertake. Such dataproves invaluable for after-sales enquiries or indeed criminal investigations of a more serious nature. Our firstrecommendation therefore is for committee members to consider extending the keeping of journey recordsacross both sides of the trade.

Green

The vast majority of Liverpool licensed hackney carriage drivers remain within their Borough boundary,with many habitually returning to the very same rank on completion of each hiring. This time-honouredtradition is expensive, inefficient and needlessly harmful to the environment. Our organisation has demonstratedhow hundreds of individual drivers can be orchestrated within the current private hire legislation to be one,super-efficient, multi-zone fleet with a level of passenger occupancy unrivalled anywhere else in the world.Forcing vehicles to return empty to the area that issued their licence, as requested by our commercialcompetitors, would be nothing short of environmental suicide. Two small isolated fleets continuing to hometheir way back to their own respective areas can never work as efficiently as one large multi-zone fleet. Insteadof carving areas up into smaller territories, booking agents should be able to combine nationally. As a privatehire operator licensed under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, the current legislationonly permits us to share our bookings with private hire operators licensed by the same local authority. The“right to share bookings” works nationally for hackney carriage drivers licensed under the Town Police ClausesAct 1847. We therefore propose legislative amendments that would enable private hire companies to sharetheir bookings cross-border, so that passengers can benefit from larger, more efficient booking networks thatoperate nationwide.

Accessible

Passengers should be able to base their taxi choice on service and price, not the colour of a taxi plate. Manylow income families within Liverpool simply cannot afford the inflated prices charged by locally-licensedhackney carriage vehicles. Their “head back empty” mentality coupled with decades of protectionist politicalagendas (such as quantity control restrictions) have finally driven their pricing structure beyond the means ofmany vulnerable local residents. Delta’s operation provides a cheaper alternative, giving public transport accessto people who might otherwise remain housebound. We couldn’t maintain the same pricing structure if ourlarge multi-zone fleet was broken up by legal amendment into smaller, less efficient fleets. Cheap, accessiblefares are completely reliant on fleets being larger and smarter, with complete cross-border cooperation.

Sustainable

In this current age of austerity, it’s worth reminding members that Taxis remain the only non-subsidisedpublic transport. In our self-sufficient world, high salary support staff are only sustainable with large andefficient multi-zone fleets. The anti-cross-border proposals currently sought by our commercial adversarieswould cause our fleet to disintegrate, and along with it the business model that currently sustains countlessqualified support personnel.

Competition

It is imperative that free markets prevail so that healthy competition continues to secure high levels ofcustomer service with widely accessible fare structures. If drivers licensed by Liverpool are permitted to “waitin the wings” of their prospective telephone customers in Liverpool then we believe the very same privilegeshould be afforded to drivers licensed by other authorities. Liverpool Council’s suggested amendment wouldhand a commercial advantage to the drivers paying licence fees into their own coffers, which is rather worrying.It’s not as if their residents might benefit from any additional protection, the conditions of fitness required byall Merseyside Councils in respect of drivers and vehicles remains pretty much the same, with local knowledgetests being the only tangible variation. Due to the increasing proliferation of route guidance technologyhowever, local knowledge tests seem increasingly meaningless, with VRQ and NVQ qualifications(standardised throughout the land) now considered by many to be much more relevant to the modern trade.



As things stand currently, drivers enjoy a level playing field regardless of where their licence was issued,with just the one unfortunate exception. Due to a legal technicality, supermarkets may only provide free-phonesfor their customers that are connected to companies licensed within the same borough. This preposteroussituation was comment on by Lord Justice Kennedy...

“The facts of this case make it clear that in fairness to private hire operators, the provisions of this statuteshould be reconsidered by the legislature as a matter of some urgency. In 1999 it is absurd that a licensedoperator who operates in the area of one district council in a large conurbation commits an offence if heinstalls a small sub-office, or perhaps even a dedicated telephone line, in an area controlled by an adjoiningdistrict council because he therefore makes provision for the invitation of bookings in the second area. Tokeep within the law he must then obtain a whole series of fresh licences—operator licence, vehiclelicences, driver licences—for the second area. This cannot be what Parliament originally envisaged. Asthe cost of licences varies, we understand, from one district to another, it is not easy to see precisely howthe problem should be resolved. But clearly if operators, their drivers and cars are properly licensed inrespect of one area which is responsible for overseeing their activities, they should not have to be re-licensed elsewhere. The problem is to some extent the result of improved technology since the statute waspassed. But the law needs to reflect the current state of technology and not be 23 years behind it.”

11 years on and still, supermarket free-phones remain bound by law to local (often more expensive) privatehire service providers. Millions of shoppers circumvent this flaw by using their own mobile telephone to ordertheir preferred taxi but an appropriate amendment should be considered to address this issue.

Equal Opportunities

The statute also affects call centre operatives who may for whatever reason elect to work from home. Ifpersonal mobility restrictions inhibited one of our telephone operator applicants from physically getting to ourControl Centre, technology allows them to work remotely from their home. Current taxi legislation howeverdictates that they must reside within Sefton. Naturally, this presents our company with something of adilemma... do we discriminate against disabled applicants because they live on the wrong side of a politicalboundary, or do we commit the offence of handing bookings that were entered by a Liverpool-based agent toa Sefton-licensed driver. And what if an existing staff member moves house from Sefton to Liverpool… mustthey forfeit their job to comply with the law? Such ramifications could never have been intended by Parliament.We can only hope that committee members will acknowledge the overwhelming need for completemodernisation of the legislature, not by strengthening local authority boundaries, but by DISSOLVING them.

Recommendations

In summary, we therefore recommend the following:

(a) Amendments requested by Liverpool Council and Unite the Union for vehicles to be forced back totheir licensing area on completion of a hiring should be immediately dismissed as anti-competitiveprotectionism that would have a major detrimental impact on the environment and local serviceprovision

(b) In the interests of public protection the keeping of all taxi journey records should be made mandatoryfor both sides of the trade and not just private hire

(c) The right to share bookings across district boundaries, currently enjoyed by hackney carriageoperations, should be made available to private hire companies also, creating nationwide cross-border networks

(d) Dedicated telephone lines should be permitted cross-border to allow Supermarkets a wider choice ofservice provision for their clients

(e) Control Centre call takers should be permitted to work remotely from any home regardless of wherethey live

On behalf of our directors, employees, drivers and fleet owners, we thank you for your consideration of thiscomplex matter and look forward to hosting a visit for any of your members should you deem it appropriate.

December 2010

Supplementary evidence from Delta Taxis (TPH 06a)

I recently filed a Freedom of Information request with Liverpool’s Senior Information Officer (Mr KevinSymm) as follows...

“Throughout the whole of 2010, how many vehicles were approached by Liverpool enforcement officers(or their agents) within the Liverpool local authority boundary in respect of plying for hire test purchases(that being when officers or their agents attempt to hire vehicles from the street which are not licensed toply for hire under the 1847 Town Police Clauses Act). Of those approached, how many were licensedprivate hire vehicles, what was their issuing authority and which ones resulted in a successfulprosecution?”



This data was requested in order to accurately compare the perception of “illegal plying for hire withinLiverpool” with the reality. We also remained hopeful that the data might provide some assurance thatLiverpool’s officers were targeting all suspect drivers even-handedly and not, as has been suggested by somedrivers, concentrating extensively on drivers licensed by neighbouring authorities.

Unfortunately, as it turns out, no such assurance is possible, as we now understand from Liverpool’s firstresponse that drivers who refuse to be illegally hired are not recorded. Also, their response did not confirm, asrequested, details of those drivers who were recorded for accepting an illegal hiring, resulting in my filing animmediate complaint and in due course I received the attached second response...

In summary, this second response confirms that throughout the whole of 2009 and 2010 there were 58prosecutions secured against drivers for illegally plying for hire within Liverpool. Compare if you will, these58 illegal incidents with what we estimate to be somewhere in the region of 94 million legitimate taxi bookingshired correctly throughout Merseyside over the same time period. Such statistics fully support our contentionthat illegal plying for hire has been grossly overstated by our commercial competitors in order to justify theirproposed suffocating amendments which would severely constrain our service provision. Furthermore, one ofthe main reasons illegal plying for hire in Liverpool is so miniscule compared with legitimate hirings, is thatcustomers there currently enjoy access to a veritable smorgasbord of licensed vehicles from surrounding areas.If companies such as ours were suddenly forced to pull all 1,700 vehicles out of town every time they becameavailable, passengers who after many decades had come to rely on our service would suddenly find themselvesstranded, and in desperation would no doubt resort to any illegal, unlicensed drivers / vehicles offering to takethem home. Far from reducing illegal activity, the proposed amendments of Liverpool City Council and Unitethe Union would have entirely the opposite effect, placing vast numbers of the travelling public at risk.

We re-iterate, the best way forward is to introduce similar legislation to London. Their 1998 Act has servedthe area well and its up-to-date subcontracting would enable areas such as Merseyside to finally cast aside thehistoric shackles of local authority division and conflict.

March 2011

Written evidence from Skyline Taxis (TPH 11)

Thank you for taking the time to read this letter. I am writing to you regarding the problems with crossborder hiring.

The definition of cross border hiring sees private hire vehicles taking a fare to another borough and then notreturning to the borough in which they are licensed with and continuing to take fares in another borough. Alsothese particular drivers and companies do not contribute anything to the local authority in which they crossboarder hiring in and work freely. Generally a busy City like Milton Keynes will have a tight hold on thetaxi & private hire trade, ensuring operators and drivers provide a high standard of service and operate withinthe law. Smaller towns do not have such provisions, the demand for the trade is low in comparison—the localauthority receive less income, generally fees are lower and the conditions placed on drivers/operators are lessonerous. One of the main reasons for cross boarder trading is to avoid the high standards set by such as busyarea, avoid paying the higher fees and to benefit from the high demand.

Specifically, the controlled district of Milton Keynes is seeing private hire vehicles licensed by SouthNorthampton Council permanently basing themselves in Milton Keynes (it should be noted that this is partlydue to the fact that their control office, although based in and licensed by South Northampton Council, fallswithin the Milton Keynes telephone area code—public think they are local and are calling a licensed MiltonKeynes Company).

There is much unrest among Milton Keynes licensed drivers whose livelihoods have been seriously affected,they have seen local authority fees increase significantly and local authority service levels drop as they aretrying to control another authority’s drivers. South Northants licensed drivers are also constantly seen plyingfor street work illegally which, in turn, puts extra strain and financial burden on our local authority who areattempting to police vehicles not within their jurisdiction. Drivers licensed by South Northants do not sit aknowledge test covering Milton Keynes, face less stringent driver and vehicle checks then those licensed byMilton Keynes and are subject to cheaper fees and insurance. Standards set by local authorities are there for areason! Cross boarder hiring ignores such standards and provides a lower sometimes dangerous service.

There are approximately five Taxi and Private Hire (Minicab) Companies Licensed by South NorthantsCouncil operating cross boarder within Milton Keynes. Each driver earns approximately £100 per day, withalmost 400 drivers working cross boarder in Milton Keynes that equates to over £10,000,000 per annum ofpotential earnings taken away from Milton Keynes licensed drivers. Each driver would pay the local authorityapproximately £250 per annum which is over £100,000 per annum of revenue away from Milton KeynesCouncil. Companies such as Speedline currently operate around 400 cars all licensed by South-NorthantsCouncil, paying all fees to South-Northamptonshire Council whilst 95% of their bookings is cross borderhiring in Milton Keynes!

The current legislation is widely open to interpretation. The Department for Transport Road Safety Act2006 guidance notes agrees that the law on cross border hiring is complex but that private hire vehicles should



only operate within the area for which they are licensed. If the council and its legal advisors think no changescan be made to the local government miscellaneous and provisions act, then the hackney drivers would still berequired to carry a bale of hay and a bucket of water as was the requirement by law in 1926 when this actcame into force. Amendments have been made to the act as can be seen in the overhaul of the act in 1976.

Solution

— To have a nationwide standard for driver, vehicle and operator, such as an Enhanced CRB, ageof vehicles/emissions. Local Authorities could then control local concerns such as knowledgetests, etc.

— If 50% or more of a drivers/company’s bookings are in a different authority from the one they arelicensed in then they should be licensed by both.

These simple solutions would:

— Raise the overall standard of the trade and encourage al authorities to have the same rules andstandards—transparency…

— Encourage drivers to be licensed by one authority (the correct one) rather than have to pay twoauthorities.

— The correct authority would receive the correct revenue and have the revenue it needs to regulatethe drivers/operators.

— Drivers and Operators would be happier knowing everyone is paying the same, rather than payingthe local authority to regulate other authority’s drivers/operators.

— Local public can be confident in the trade as there would be a standard for all rather than a twosometimes three tier system.

— All companies can then compete fairly governed by the same rules and regulations.

We have struggled with this situation now for nearly 10 years, we hope this is now taken seriously.

December 2010

Written evidence from Myles Bebbington (TPH 14)

I submit this letter as an individual and is not necessarily the views of South Cambridgeshire District Council(SCDC) or the Institute of Licensing, no comments views or opinions should be interpreted otherwise than asthose of my own.

My role is that of Licensing Manager for South Cambridgeshire District Council and Vice Chairman of theInstitute of Licensing, I have been involved in Taxi licensing since 1995.

South Cambridgeshire is a largely rural authority with over 102 villages and no identifiable town centre andno taxi ranks. The district totally surrounds Cambridge City Council, a licensing authority in its own right.

We currently have a licensed fleet of approximately 550 Private Hire vehicles, 9 (nine) Hackney Carriages,700 licensed drivers and 135 licensed operators, many of which are owner operators. It is estimated that around150 to 200 vehicles undertake work for larger operators and therefore work consistently in or around the cityboundaries on a regular basis. The remaining vehicles are often linked to companies that either work in theirown villages or concentrate on chauffer or contact type work

Due to the geographical nature of the two authorities many of our drivers reside within the city boundariesand a number of operators work from within the city boundaries and have licenses with both authorities.

There is little incentive for proprietors to licence hackney carriages within the SCDC area due to the lackof ranks, town centre focal points and fare restrictions compared to Private Hire.

Our problems over cross border hirings are two fold in that they are:

1. Cambridge City Hacks plying for hire within SCDC area, this occurs primarily after a legal journeyfrom within the city boundaries to a destination within SCDC whereby the driver will then switch thefor hire signs on hoping for a journey back in the direction of Cambridge City, or,

2. SCDC Private Hire vehicles cruising or sitting at certain easily seen locations within the Cityboundaries giving the impression that they may be available for hire, or after dropping a customer off,not moving away promptly.

Issue 1, City Hacks with “for hire” signs lit. This is an offence under the TPCA Act 1847 but due to thevagaries of boundaries between authorities, in many cases would be arguably unreasonable to prosecute against.In addition many drivers simply put on their signs by force of habit and experience has shown that only aminority intentionally put their signs on with the view of picking up a fare. However, the impression given tothe public is not good and does nothing to raise the profile of the trade.



Issue 2 SCDC Private Hire in neighboring authority—This is a considerable issue for a number of reasons,whilst enforcement operations have shown that the majority of private Hire drivers abide by the law, the factremains that a city centre such as Cambridge is a major source of income for the taxi trade in generalparticularly late evenings and Friday/Saturday nights. It is quite common to see hackney Carriages ranking upon approved ranks and Private Hire vehicles licensed by SCDC sat nearby awaiting jobs. This leads to frictionbecause the Hackney trade perceive the SCDC drivers to be “whipping” their trade. It can often be seen that amember of the public will approach a PH vehicle, obviously have a discussion with the driver, then get in thevehicle and leave. Whether this was a prebooked journey is difficult to ascertain but the trade view is that suchactions are often illegal.

The view of the Hackney trade is simple in that, a licensed vehicle from another district should not work intheir area, a view not supported by recent case law, but from the licensed trade an understandable oneparticularly when they are paying a premium to be a Hackney carriage in a given area and they can only sitand watch the public getting into vehicles that are undercutting them continuously.

South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge City have for the most part worked to ensure that many of thelicensing processes and conditions are similar and therefore there is no great discrepancy within our conditions,however, their remains a difference in the testing of vehicles to reflect the nature of work generally undertakenby vehicles in a city location, ie small journeys often in speed restricted areas with speed humps etc that createmore wear and tear compared with the majority of our vehicles that undertake rural work and airport type workusing dual carriageways and motorways.

Despite this, there is still a demand for drivers and vehicles to be licensed with SCDC rather than CambridgeCity, usually based on overall cost, and the way in which each authority approaches the licensing processadministratively, quite simply it is easier to make an appointment and physically get to the SCDC offices ! andwe are cheaper

In general due to the wording of current legislation aimed at cost recovery only it is comparatively cheaperto obtain a licence with SCDC than Cambridge City, as our numbers have increased over recent years ( approx250 vehicles and 400 drivers in five years) and our neighbours have remained static or reduced slightly ourlicence fees have unintentionally become financially attractive to the trade to licence with SCDC rather thanCambridge City.

Current legislation is archaic and restrictive and whilst there have been headline cases such Berwick that getheadlines, the Committee needs to be aware that the problems created by the two pieces of legislation andsubsequent case law pervade right across the country even where neighbouring authorities try and work togetherto minimise disparity.

My view is that a total review of legislation is required and the concept of licensing in its entirety shouldbe addressed. I would be happy to be involved in giving evidence or assisting ion working towards a fairerlegislation that provides consistency on a national basis. I would hope that the Transport Committeeacknowledges the need for change rather than the need to introduce minor changes to try and address a headline.

December 2010

Written evidence from RMT (National Union of Rail, Maritime & Transport Workers) (TPH 17)

Introduction

The National Union of Rail, Maritime and Transport Workers (RMT) welcomes the opportunity to submitevidence to the Transport Committee Inquiry into Issues Relating to the Licensing of Taxis & Private Hirevehicles.

The RMT has over 80,000 members in the transport and offshore energy sector including over 600 membersin the taxi-trade throughout the UK.

Following consultations with our members we have established we have been advised of a number ofdifficulties regarding the current licensing arrangements and in particular cross-border hire problems caused byprivate hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which they are licensed.

Two key examples of cross-border problems include those experienced between Berwick upon TweedBorough Council and Newcastle City Council, and also those experienced within the area of Basingstoke andDeane District Council where London licensed PHVs operate.

Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council and Newcastle City Council

After a recent test case in the North East of England drivers could apply for a hackney carriage licence toBerwick upon Tweed Borough Council. This then entitled these drivers to act as a PHV within the NewcastleCity Area, but not to act as taxis. The precedent set was that any person could apply for a hackney licence andwork anywhere in the UK as a PHV driver. This would obviously lead to a massive reduction in accountability



and regulation, where the local authority would have no means of regulating either the vehicle or the driver1

operating within its boundaries.

The problems with cross border hiring are compounded by a variety of decisions taken in the courts includingthe most recent judgment on the 8 October 2010 in the case of Stockton on Tees Borough Council v Fidler,Hussain and Zamanian. This case concluded that it was not illegal for hackney carriages to operate outsidetheir area, but it raised the question as to whether Berwick council should have issued licenses for vehicles notworking in that authority.

Basingstoke and Deane District Council

In Basingstoke there is a PHV company called “Grassbys”. They used to operate as a local company licensedby the Basingstoke and Deane District Council. Some time ago they were bought by a London based company.So instead of the vehicles being licensed in Basingstoke, they are licensed in London, yet operate inBasingstoke. The advantage to this for the company is that the PHV drivers are therefore exempt from theCongestion Charge so when travelling from Basingstoke to Central London they do not incur this expense.This example demonstrates that due to lack of enforcement PHV companies will choose which authority toapproach to be licensed regardless of the authority within which they intend to operate.

Other issues relating to taxi and private hire vehicles include the use of “mobile pick-ups” for private hirevehicles, and the use of inaccurate information.

For example, Solihull Council recently outraged taxi drivers by creating marshalled “mobile pick-ups” forprivate hire vehicles in the town. These “mobile pick-ups” are operating in a manner equivalent to an immediatehiring, the purpose of a taxi rank. This further highlights the lack of regulation (or enforcement of theregulations governing) of the PHV industry, and raises serious questions when compared to the heightenedenforcement of the taxi industry with the imposition of an unrealistic life span on purpose built taxis and theirsubjection to two MOT tests per annum.

Additionally, as highlighted in the case of David Drew v Fenland District Council there remain issuesregarding the renewal/suspension of licenses whereby insufficient and inaccurate information relating to penaltypoints is used by local authorities to strip taxi drivers of their licenses.

In conclusion, RMT believes that no vehicle, taxi or otherwise, should be available for an immediate hiringoutside the area for which they were originally licensed. There would, however, have to be some qualificationto this regulation in that certain journeys from one location to another require a return at some time. This mightapply to journeys to airports or elsewhere. However, this would not be an immediate hiring.

However, the key issue surrounds the enforcement of regulations regarding PHV operations. A pre-bookingwith a PHV operator, and whether it is within the licensed area of the PHV, seems to be determined by thelocation of the office where the booking was received and the boundary in which the collection was arranged.The boundary within which the PHV licence is valid is not treated as a key determining factor and RMTbelieves it should be on the basis of regulating both the vehicle and the driver.

Appropriate arrangements for the enforcement of PHV regulations need to be implemented as a matter ofurgency in order to ensure regulation and accountability, and ultimately safety, in the industry.

December 2010

Written evidence from the GMB, Britain’s General Union (TPH 20)

Executive Summary

1. GMB is the UK’s third largest trade union, and as a general trade union, has over 610,000 membersemployed within every sector of the economy. The Union represents thousands of members who are employedas professional drivers, many of whom drive taxis and private hire vehicles.

2. GMB has a wealth of knowledge and experience of the issues related to the licensing of taxis and privatehire vehicles, and our members within the trade have long-standing concerns, in particular, about issues relatedto cross-border hiring. We therefore welcome this inquiry and the opportunity it presents for the Union tosubmit evidence in support of our view that urgent action is needed to address the abuses of the current system,which are endemic throughout the trade.

3. The “1976 Act” makes provisions for licensed taxis, licensed private hire (PH) vehicles, licensed taxi andPH drivers, and licensed PH operators. In differing parts of England and Wales, each one of these differentelements of the trade has abused the provisions in the 1976 Act by working predominantly, if not permanently,1 Button on Taxis—Licensing Law and Practice: Tottel Publishing (2009) Button reports that many Newcastle upon Tyne drivers

applied for Hackney Carriage licenses within the Berwick upon Tweed Borough Council area. There was an increase of licensesfrom 46 in April 2006 to 672 by August 2008. Berwick is a small town and would be unable to sustain a viable presence ofover 600 hackney carriages. This means that the licensing of hackney carriages in Berwick was a means to another end and ashackney carriages may work in any other area but purely on the basis of a pre-booked journey avoided the need for any licensingwithin the area where they would ostensibly operate.



outside of their licensing district, thereby effectively circumventing both the licensing controls and the checksand balances of the locally elected licensing authorities.

4. Examples of abuse of the 1976 Act are numerous. In the main body of our submission below, GMB willoutline a clear case of abuse by each section of the trade referred to in paragraph 3 above (taxi, PH vehicle,taxi and PH drivers, PH operator), and we will also give an example of a complete failure of control by alocally elected licensing authority. We also draw attention to the issue of volunteer vehicles and drivers. Theseexamples are just the tip of the iceberg, and GMB believes that if Parliament does not take action soon to stopthe damage being done to the national taxi and private hire trade, then these examples will become the norm.

5. GMB would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee, at the hearings which weunderstand will take place early in 2011. This would allow the Committee to hear detailed accounts from ourrepresentatives working within the industry of the effect of these abuses, on the integrity of the licensingsystem and the taxi and private hire industry, on the livelihoods of our members working within the trade, and,most importantly, on the customers who are ultimately the lifeblood of the trade.

1. Introduction

1.1 The Taxi and Private Hire Provisions, in the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act(“the 1976 Act”), allow democratically elected licensing authorities, in England and Wales (excluding Londonand Plymouth) to set conditions/by-laws for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) and private hire vehicles (PH),in response to the needs of their electorate and the issues which affect the areas to which they represent.

1.2 Since the introduction of the 1976 Act there have been in excess of twenty four High Court hearings inrelation to the issue of Cross Border Hiring, whereby a driver, vehicle or operator has been working outsideof the area to which they are licensed. In almost all of those judgements, the judges have indicated their viewthat the law isn’t working, and that Parliament should look again at this Act.

1.3 The 1976 Act makes provisions for licensed taxis, licensed private hire vehicles (PH), licensed taxi andPH drivers, and licensed PH operators. In differing parts of England and Wales, each one of these differentelements of the trade has abused the provisions in the 1976 Act by working predominantly, if not permanently,outside of their licensing district, thereby effectively circumventing both the licensing controls and the checksand balances of the locally elected licensing authorities.

1.4 Examples of abuse of the 1976 Act are numerous. Below, GMB will outline a clear case of abuse byeach section of the trade referred to in paragraph 1.3 above (taxi, PH, taxi and PH drivers, PH operator), andalso an example of a complete failure of control by a locally elected licensing authority.

2. Example: Taxi

2.1 Before becoming part of the Northumberland Unitary Authority, Berwick licensing authority licensedtaxis that never entered the licensing authority of Berwick. The drivers never met licensing officials, and thevehicles were never checked by any Berwick authorised testers. In short, anyone could have driven a Berwicktaxi, and that taxi could have been a motorised death-trap, and nobody would have been able to do a thing aboutit, as some of these vehicles were permanently working hundreds of miles away from their licensing authority.

2.2 Since the Northumberland Unitary Authority came into being, nothing has changed. The recent courtcase involving Stockton (which at least tried to end this abuse) confirmed that there was nothing the courtscould do to rectify this mess. So, we are left with a situation whereby every taxi in the country could licensein Northumberland, a license easily gained by poor standards of taxis and drivers (i.e. no knowledge test, poorvehicle standards), and work wherever they so wish, in the full knowledge that nobody has any powers tocheck who they are, or what they are driving.

2.3 Other concerns arising out of this example are the increase in unlicensed street hirings (as the vehiclehas taxi on, yet isn’t licensed in the pick-up area) and higher fares due to the drivers not having taken anylocal knowledge test.

3. Example: Private Hire (PH) Vehicle

3.1 We believe that our colleagues from the trade union Unite may outline in their written evidence one ofthe biggest examples of cross-border abuse. This is taking place on Merseyside, where thousands of PH vehiclesare working predominantly outside of their licensing area.

3.2 On a slighter lesser scale (in terms of the number of PH vehicles involved), but nevertheless ofsignificance to GMB, we would like to outline the abuse that is having a detrimental effect on our memberslicensed in Brighton & Hove. Elected Councillors in Brighton & Hove have always ensured their local taxiand private hire fleets were maintained to very high standards, and an equally high standard set for theirlicensed taxi and PH drivers.

3.3 Bordering Brighton & Hove is the licensing district of Adur, which has licensing criteria of a lowerstandard to that in Brighton & Hove (i.e. lower vehicle standards, easy to pass knowledge test, no DSA ‘taxi’



test, no BTec qualification). For reasons known only to themselves, Adur have given an operator’s license toan operator based in Brighton & Hove.

3.4 This operator, who also has a licensed Brighton & Hove operator’s license, can now integrate vehiclesinto their fleet which are licensed to a lesser standard, drivers who have no knowledge of Brighton & Hove,and/or drivers who can’t be bothered to meet the high entry criteria demanded by the local licensing authority.

3.5 This has led to a situation whereby an element of the Brighton & Hove taxi trade are now lobbying forlower vehicle and driver standards, to enable them to compete on a level playing field with Adur vehicles anddrivers, when we should all be looking to improve the service and standards we offer customers, not the reverse.

3.6 Customers also lose out because they are being picked up by people who haven’t got a clue where theyare going, and they are also being misled by the operator who is supplying them with an Adur vehicle anddriver, when they have telephoned a Brighton & Hove based operator fully expecting a Brighton & Hovelicensed vehicle and driver.

4. Example: Taxi and PH drivers

4.1 As outlined in the previous examples, drivers can license their vehicles and themselves in one licensingarea, yet never set foot in it. So, any licensing criteria set down by the local licensing authority can simplybe ignored.

4.2 This is bad enough, but there are a number of occasions when a driver has had his license revoked byone licensing authority only for him to be re-licensed by another area, thus allowing him, via the cross-borderabuse, to go back to work from where he has just been banned from. There is nothing legally in place to stopsuch a driver working in the area where he has had his license revoked, and a driver banned by one authoritycould still legally work in that authority. This is clearly unacceptable.

4.3 A particular nasty example of this was when a Leeds licensed private hire driver had his license revokedafter being caught illegally picking up customers from Leeds railway station, and playing pornographic DVDsto those customers, who happened to be licensing staff. This individual simply went to Pendle licensingauthority, gained a taxi driver’s license there, and as there is nothing from stopping him from doing so, toGMB’s best knowledge he is likely to still be working in Leeds.

5. Example : PH Operator

5.1 Directly outside of Haywards Heath railway station (Mid-Sussex licensing authority), right beside thetaxi rank, is a licensed PH operator’s booking office using private hire vehicles licensed by Wealden licensingauthority. This has led to years of conflict between taxi drivers licensed by Mid-Sussex who have a knowledgeof the area, and high standards of vehicles, and private hire vehicles from Wealden who have neither.

5.2 Customers exit the station and expect a vehicle to be driven by a driver who knows where they aregoing, at a price set by the local licensing authority. They don’t expect, nor deserve, a driver who hasn’t a cluewhere they are going and one that hasn’t been checked or approved by the local council.

5.3 Our members in Haywards Heath, joined by our members in Brighton and Hove, ask why they bothermeeting high standards, only for drivers and vehicles using operators licensed outside of the area, with lowerstandards of vehicle, taking their work. Surely we should all be aiming for high standards, not moving on adownward spiral for survival?

6. Example: Complete Failure of Licensing Authority

6.1 There are too many examples of this to list in the space available, so we focus on one of the worst,following on from a previous example, Wealden, referred to in paragraph 5.1 above.

6.2 This particular Council has taken upon itself to become a licensing hub for much of the south of England.As a result of evidence gained from the submission of information requests, made under the Freedom ofInformation Act by one of our members, it transpires that Wealden has licensed in excess of thirty private hireoperators in eight licensing authorities outside of their own area, and they have never been to any of thelicensing premises to check the books, as they are required to under the 1976 Act.

6.3 Basically, Wealden is using their abuse of the 1976 Act as a cash cow to raise revenue, and it’s the restof southern England that’s paying the price, and a high one at that.

7. Volunteer Vehicles and Drivers

7.1 There is one further type of abuse that is causing real hardship to the legitimate licensed taxi and privatehire trade, and quite frankly, putting some of the most vulnerable members of the public at risk. This is thegrowth of Volunteer vehicles and drivers.

7.2 The Volunteer drivers and vehicle “industry” is spreading like an epidemic throughout the country, andis leading many in the legitimate trade into bankruptcy. Volunteer drivers have no checks on them, no CRB,



no medical, no knowledge or driving standard checks. Their vehicles have no taxi tests, and have no standardsto meet other than a one-off annual MOT.

7.3 Yet, despite these lack of controls and standards, these unlicensed volunteer vehicles and drivers arebeing used by councils the length and breadth of the country, because they are cheap. However, the reasonthey are cheap is because anyone can become a volunteer driver. Come out of prison, do a council contract! Itis perverse that councils are saying to the legitimate taxi and private hire trade that they must adhere to certainstandards, yet then give work to volunteers because they are cheaper than the legitimate trade.

7.4 It’s important to note that these unlicensed, unchecked, volunteer vehicles and drivers are often ferryingthe most vulnerable people about. These passengers can include the elderly and infirm, children with specialneeds, and adults with learning difficulties. Surely councils should be looking after the most vulnerablemembers of the public, not scrimping on their safety?

8. Conclusion

8.1 In conclusion, GMB believes that the above examples are just the tip of a substantial iceberg, and thatthey point conclusively to the abject failure of certain sections of the 1976 Act. In our view, they clearlyillustrate the urgent need for a “root and branch” review of that Act.

8.2 GMB sincerely hopes that the Transport Select Committee will note the huge problems being faced bythe licensed taxi and private hire trade. We believe that there is a pressing need to raise standards and ensurethat these are consistently applied. If no serious action is taken by Parliament to address the issues which arethe subject of this Inquiry, the result can only be a continuing and serious deterioration in standards. This willput the livelihoods of our members in further jeopardy, increase the risk to customers, and lead ultimately to aloss of confidence amongst the public in the taxi and private hire trade.

8.3 In our view, amendments to the 1976 Act are required which will lead to all vehicles and drivers onlybeing able to take work within the area in which they are licensed. In the case of taxis, that means plying, andin the case of private hire that means waiting for a radio/phone booking. This wouldn’t mean that taxis andprivate hire vehicles couldn’t take work to destinations outside of their licensing district, just that once free ofcustomers they should head back to their own area to continue work.

8.4 If such amendments were implemented, then we could eventually see the end of the current crazysituations whereby:

— hundreds of taxis are licensed in areas in which they never work;

— thousands of private hire vehicles license in areas with low standards, in order to compete unfairlywith those in the trade who aim for high standards of customer safety and service;

— errant drivers, having been banned from working in one area by the local council, simply goelsewhere to gain a new license, and continue working as if nothing happened;

— private hire operators open booking offices outside of their licensing area, to the detriment of thelocal taxi and private hire trade; and

— councils issue private hire operator’s licenses to applicants from outside of their own licensing area.

8.5 GMB’s view is that it’s essential for the guiding principle which was the original basis of the 1976Act—local accountability—to be reinforced. We believe that it is not appropriate for adjoining councils, or insome cases distant councils, to decide the level of standards required for the taxi and private hire trade inanother locality. It is for the locally elected councillors to set the standards, in consultation with the local taxiand private hire trade within that particular area.

8.6 To reinforce this important point, we refer the Committee to the comments made by Norman Baker MP,Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport, in a recent speech to the National TaxiAssociation:

“Better taxi services can never be delivered through a one size fits all approach. Every local communityis different. So if they are to be efficient and profitable then taxi services must obviously meet the specificneeds of specific local communities. So what I really want to see is local regulation that allows youto flourish.”

and

“Passengers expect drivers to be able to communicate. They expect drivers to know where they are goingand they expect to be safe during the journey…… it is in your interests for your licensing authority toundertake a rigorous assessment of taxi driver licence applicants. It gives passengers the confidence theyneed to use taxis.”

8.7 GMB would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Select Committee, at the hearingswhich we understand will take place early in 2011. This would allow us to elaborate upon this written evidence,which we believe would be to the benefit of this Inquiry and the Select Committee’s consideration of the issues.

December 2010



Supplementary evidence from the GMB, Britain’s General Union (THP 20a)

INFORMATION ON HOW THE BERWICK LICENSING REGIME WORKED

1. A pdf file containing Berwick’s Hackney Carriage Register (made available in the ParliamentaryArchives).

This register shows that Berwick licensed a number of Hackney Carriages located a considerable distanceaway, which we believe made enforcement of its licensing conditions effectively impossible. We re-iterate ourview that it is not in the public interest for measures to be “side-stepped” which are put in place with theintention of protecting the consumer, who is entitled to expect that these vehicles and drivers are properlyregulated by their licensing authority.

The relevant entries in the register are:

No on register Location Distance from Berwick (miles)

H1064, H1071, H1770 Chester 248H1113 Halifax 182H1117 Epsom 369H1128 Manchester 210H1132, H1134, H1148 Paignton 452H1813, H1814, H1816, H1817, H1856 Cottingham (Near Hull) 188

2. A pdf file containing the Minutes of a meeting of Berwick’s Licensing Committee on 6 March 2006(made available in the Parliamentary Archives).

We believe the minutes show, very importantly, that Berwick allowed testing stations to self-authorise fromany area, when in fact they should have authorised them. The Licensing Officers also proposed and had agreedby Councillors that they did not need to inspect a vehicle (Minute 558–8). This approach corresponds with theclarification in our earlier email that the drivers only ever licensed once in person, and were then dealt withby post.

January 2011

Written evidence from TravelWatch NorthWest (TPH 21)

1. TravelWatch NorthWest (TWNW) is an independent Community Interest Company representing users ofall forms of public transport in NW England. We consider that hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) and privatehire vehicles (PHVs) are integral components of public transport provision.

2. However the general prohibition from their charging separate fares, albeit relaxed2 in a limited numberof prescribed circumstances, does not remove the significantly constraining requirement that such separatefares, unlike bus fares, are subject to VAT.

3. Whilst taxis can ply for hire on streets and at ranks, nowadays many of their intending passengers havemobile phones which can be used to “hail a cab”. This makes the justification for maintaining a legal distinctionbetween taxis and PHVs, which can only be pre-booked, rather debatable.

4. Neither does there seem to be any strong rationale for the situations in which:

— Local Licensing Authorities are able to restrict3 the number of taxis, but not of PHVs, both ofwhich they licence, and

— Small passenger carrying vehicles (SPCVs) with eight or less passenger seats can be used variouslyunder a restricted PSV Operators’ Licence issued by the Traffic Commissioners or a Taxi/PHVLicence issued by a Local Licensing Authority.

5. The creation of a single category of SPCV Licence issued by the same Licensing Authority (possibly theTraffic Commissioners) might help to untangle the present complicated and restricting legislation.

Taxi Buses

6. TWNW was pleased to see an extension to PHVs of the relaxation4 allowing the carriage of passengersat separate fares on registered local services provided by taxi operators who can obtain a Special RestrictedPSV Operator Licences.5

7. With the probability that reductions in BSOG and concessionary travel reimbursement will lead toderegistrations of what were previously commercially registered local services and the uncertainty of Local2 Transport Act 1985 and Local transport Act 2008.3 Taxi Licensing Authorities may restrict the number of licensed taxis where there they can show that there is no unmet demand”.4 of the provisions in theTransport Act 1985 made by the Local Transport Act 20085 issued by Traffic Commissioners (Local Transport Act 2008)



Transport Authorities being able to afford to secure their replacement, the possibility of taxi buses beingprocured at less expense to fill this gap should be pursued.

Taxi Bus trials.

8. The trial, announced by DfT in summer 2010, of taxi buses in rural areas could well be extended to otherappropriate areas, such as suburbs deprived of evening and Sunday services. Services can now be registeredmore flexibly than previously. TWNW would be pleased to assist in monitoring any such trials in the NW.

Cross Boundary issues.

9. Taxis and PHVs are currently licensed by over 300 District and Unitary Authorities. They could also belicensed (as are PSVs) by the Traffic Commissioners or by larger City Region Combined Authorities asprovided for by the Democracy and Local Government Act 2009 and/or the current Localism Bill. Bothstrategies would create a single Licensing Authority for all SPCVs—TWNW prefers the former suggestion buteither would help address the Boundary issues illustrated in the following case study.

Case Study—Manchester Airport

10. The Airport is in West Cheshire. Taxis arriving there to set down passengers from another licensing area,such as one of the ten metropolitan boroughs in Greater Manchester, cannot then go on to Airport ranks andpick up a return load of passenger(s) departing the Airport.

11. This is a wasteful and unsustainable use of a valuable transport resource.

Quality and Safety

12. Standards vary between Local Licensing Authorities. Larger licensing areas might help to address thisissue. The use of Special Restricted PSV Operators’ Licenses to provide taxi buses is allowed by the TrafficCommissioners on the grounds that “taxis and PHVs are subject to equivalent but not identical”6 quality andsafety controls to PSVs.

13. If the Traffic Commissioners were to fulfil this role they would need their present resources7 (whichare woefully inadequate to monitor just PSV Quality and Performance) vastly increased.

14. TWNW would be prepared to expand on these observations either orally or in writing, and to assist withany taxi bus trials in the NW.

December 2010

Written evidence from Liverpool City Council Licensing Unit (TPH 26)

Summary

To provide information to the Select Committee on the activities and work patterns of private hire vehicleslicensed by adjoining district councils to Liverpool City Council.

1. Liverpool City Council notes and supports the concerns of the Liverpool licensed taxi trade over thecurrent practice of private hire vehicles licensed by adjoining authorities waiting within the City of Liverpoolboundary in anticipation of receiving pre booked hiring’s.

2. Liverpool City Council notes the disproportionate enforcement activity employed by Liverpool CityCouncil in inspecting and regulating the activities of private hire vehicles licensed by adjoining authoritieswhile they are predominantly working within the Liverpool City boundary.

3. Liverpool City Council continues to prosecute private hire vehicles drivers licensed by adjoining districtcouncils who continue to wait within the City of Liverpool and are prepared to be hired without pre booking.

4. Liverpool City Council has written to the Department for Transport and Members of Parliament,highlighting the increase in “Out of Town” private hire activity. Liverpool City Council has requested thatamendment be sought to the Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 to “Ensure the immediatereturn of licensed private hire vehicles to within the district council boundary of the licensing authority whichhad granted the vehicle licence, after the completion of a hiring”.

Background.

1. Private Hire vehicles are required by the provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)Act, 1976, to be licensed by a local authority.6 “Guide to the Transport Act 1985” DfT 1986.7 effectively VOSA’s resources



2. The 1976 Act imposes a requirement that a person “operating” private hire vehicles (ie in the course ofbusiness, making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings) must be licensed by the authority inwhich they operate. The vehicle must be licensed as being safe and suitable for the purpose and the driver isrequired to be licensed after satisfying the authority that they are a fit and proper individual. Where an authorityhas granted such licences a private hire vehicle may be used for private hire work anywhere in the countrywithout requiring a further licence from any other authority.

3. The High Court has repeatedly confirmed that provided the private hire operator is licensed by the localauthority in whose area he/she “operates” (that is, in the course of business make provision for the invitationor acceptance of bookings) then he/she may accept contracts of private hire from any person in any areaprovided that the private hire vehicle and driver used to fulfil the contract are correctly licensed by the samelicensing authority as the operator.

4. The Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act, when implemented in 1976, created a new type oflegal hire trade in the form of Private Hire. The intention of the Act was to control an unregulated hire businessand to compliment the existing Public Hire trade (Hackney Carriages). It was intended that private hire activityby pre booking would complement the taxicab trade and at the same time promote higher standards of provisionin the previously unlicensed activity of private hire.

5. A well regulated and effective Liverpool hackney carriage industry had always existed and providedpublic vehicle hire services to the public. This trade was developed after the introduction of the Town PoliceClauses Act of 1847. To a large extent the legislation governing the public hire trade has remained the samesince 1847 with some changes taking place, most notably, the change in a Local Authority’s ability to limitnumbers of taxicab vehicle licences issued. Liverpool currently licence 1,426 taxicab vehicles and after Londonand Birmingham has the third largest fleet in England and Wales.

6. The Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976 made provision to ensure a District Councilcould not limit the number of private hire vehicle licences issued. This has resulted in a large increase, overtime, in the number of private hire vehicles which operate along side taxicab vehicles. Liverpool currentlylicence 1,368 private hire vehicles.

7. In 1976 the ability to operate a large number of private hire vehicles was limited by the use of landlinetelephones as a booking method and the interaction of a licensed operator with a driver via a radio set. Thismeant that, in the main, the drivers would tend to operate locally and close to the Operator’s office. Today, theintroduction of GPS, (Global Positioning Systems), has enabled private hire operators to control hundreds,even thousands, of vehicles efficiently by identifying a vehicle which is near to a booking request anddispatching that vehicle via a computer terminal (Data Head) located in each vehicle. A hirer can use atelephone, a mobile phone, they can text or use a computer to hire a vehicle. This accessibility to technologyand its application was not envisaged by the Act of 1976.

8. The impact of GPS technology has resulted in an exponential increase in the number of private hirevehicles which can be operated efficiently by a private hire company. Where as in 1976 it was impractical fora private hire company to operate large numbers of vehicles on a system, a company can now, with the use oftechnology, operate any number of vehicles over a considerable area.

9. As such it is clearly obvious that a private hire company operating a fleet approaching 1,000 vehicles willspread its influence and attract business beyond any one district council boundary.

10. It is now common place for members of the public to call a private hire company in the expectation thata licensed private hire vehicle and driver will attend in good time and that the journey is completed withoutincident. Their choice of company will be mainly based on previous experience ie that the vehicle will turnup, be clean and the charge is reasonable. The fact that the company are not licensed in the same area of thehirer will generally be of no concern.

11. The increase in improved technology has led to large private hire companies licensed in adjoining districtcouncils to expand their cover to the City of Liverpool. Liverpool is the major Merseyside generator of hirebusiness by night time economy, retail, business and tourist demand. This means that private hire vehicleslicensed by other Councils wait within the Liverpool boundary until a computer booking is dispatched to thelicensed vehicle by a licensed operator. This practice is referred to by the hire trade as “Cross Border Hiring”and is entirely legal under the current legislative provisions. However at times of low demand the private hirevehicles remain static for periods. Taxicab drivers in Liverpool perceive this activity as unreasonable andexpect all private hire vehicles to return to the district council area which had issued the vehicle licence oncompletion of a hiring. This requirement is of course, the legal duty placed upon licensed hackney carriages.It should be noted that many pre-booked calls assigned to a private hire vehicle are dispatched when the vehicleis mobile. Again, this is legal but private hire drivers who choose to accept on-street hiring’s without a pre-booking continue to be prosecuted by enforcement officers, as this activity is completely illegal.

12. It should be noted that each district council sets minimum standards for drivers and vehicles. It isgenerally believed that the standards required by Liverpool are higher than those in some authorities. As aresult some would-be private hire drivers may seek to be licensed outside Liverpool knowing that they willstill be able to work legally within the LCC area.



13. Enforcement Officers employed by Liverpool City Council regularly investigate and prosecute illegalpublic hire activity. Ongoing operations continue to find private hire drivers licensed by neighbouring districtcouncils willing to accept immediate hiring’s. In these cases drivers are prosecuted through the courts andfound, in most cases, guilty of illegal activity, ie engaging in public hire where no licence has been issued todo so. Equally private hire drivers are reported for insurance offences linked to having no appropriate licenceissued by a district council. Lately those vehicles found to be engaging in public hire and thus found to beoperating without insurance cover, are immediately “seized” by Merseyside Police under powers linked toinsurance offences. It is clear that members of the public are attracted to private hire vehicles that are staticand request their use on an immediate hire basis.

14. Enforcement officers, via a Merseyside local authority agreement, also regulate the activity, whenappropriate; of private hire vehicles licensed by other district councils when parked in the City of Liverpoolawaiting pre-booked hiring’s from a licensed operator. This activity includes vehicle inspection and licencechecks to ensure that no licensing contraventions are being committed.

15. The legal practice of private hire vehicles licensed by other district councils waiting within the City ofLiverpool in anticipation of receiving pre-booked calls means that “Out of Town” private hire companies canplace private hire vehicles within quick response times of Liverpool residents and business. This activitytherefore has a direct commercial impact upon the work load which may become available to both hackneycarriages and private hire vehicles licensed by Liverpool City Council.

16. Hackney carriage drivers licensed by Liverpool City Council feel that work which should be availableto Liverpool licence holders is being permitted by “out of date legislation” to be carried out by licensedvehicles from other district councils.

17. The legislation regulating the activity of all licensed taxicab and private hire vehicles is contained withintwo principal Acts. The control of taxicabs is generally delivered through the Town Police Clauses Act of1847. The control of private hire vehicles is generally delivered through the Local Government MiscellaneousProvisions Act of 1976.

18. Any change which will have an impact on the activity of private hire vehicles would have to be addressedby amendment to the current Local Government Miscellaneous Provisions Act 1976. The provisions of the 1976Act permit private hire vehicles licensed by adjoining district councils to wait within the City of Liverpool. As“cross border hiring’s” from the three adjoining Authorities to Liverpool impact upon the Liverpool licensedtaxicab and private hire trade an amendment to the current legislation would be the only form of relief to haltprivate hire vehicles licensed by other district councils waiting within the City. The ability to “move on” privatehire vehicles waiting within the City of Liverpool by requiring them to return to the District Council areawhich had licensed them would set a level playing field for both taxi and private hire drivers and would reducea source of illegal public hire activity.

December 2010

Supplementary evidence from Liverpool City Council (TPH 26a)

I refer to your letter dated 7 March 2011 and would submit the following statistical breakdown in relation toprosecutions for unlicensed plying for hire undertaken by Liverpool City Council Licensing Enforcement Staff.

Total number of prosecutions undertaken by Liverpool City Council Licensing Enforcement Officers inrelation to all private hire vehicles plying for hire without a license to do so (Public Hire) and associatedoffences within the City of Liverpool during January 2011.

District Council Number of prosecutions

Liverpool 1Sefton 2Knowsley 2Total 5

Total number of prosecutions undertaken by Liverpool City Council Licensing Enforcement Officers inrelation to all private hire vehicles plying for hire without a license to do so (Public Hire) and associatedinsurance offences with the City of Liverpool during 2010.


Liverpool 10Knowsley 6Sefton 15St Helens 2Chester 1Wirral 6Total 40



Total number of prosecutions undertaken by Liverpool City Council Licensing Enforcement Officers inrelation to all private hire vehicles plying for hire without a license to do so (Public Hire) and associatedinsurance offences within the City of Liverpool during 2009.


Liverpool 6Knowsley 1Sefton 11Total 18

March 2011

Written evidence from Blue Line Taxis (TPH 28)

1. My brother and sister and I are the partners in a business of private hire and hackney carriage operatorsrunning a fleet of cars on Tyneside under the name of “Blue Line”. The business was established in Wallsendon Tyne in 1958 by our late father. We hold private hire vehicle operators’ licences from North Tyneside andNewcastle City Councils.

2. In common with other operators outside London our private hire vehicle business is regulated by theLocal Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. The Act is regarded by most people who come intocontact with it as being out of date and High Court Judges have said for many years that it should be reformedby Parliament.

3. In essence, we want Parliament to replace the 1976 Act with an Act equivalent to the Private Hire Vehicles(London) Act 1998 which regulates the London private hire trade.

4. Such an Act would have the particular advantage for firms like ours of legalising sub-contracting ofbookings from an operator in one local authority area to an operator in another local authority area—thepractice is often referred to as “cross border hiring”. This entirely innocent and hitherto widely practised systemof operating was declared to be illegal in 2001 by the High Court in the case of Shanks v North TynesideBorough Council. Preventing cross border hiring has the effect of restricting the development of well fundedand efficient operators. It means, for example, that an operator licensed in North Tyneside cannot co-operatewith an operator in Newcastle to utilise vehicles which would otherwise be making return journeys withoutpassengers. The legal restriction forces vehicles to make wasted journeys and leads to customers beinginconvenienced without providing any benefit at all to the public.

5. Cross border hiring is lawful if it is carried out by a London operator but a criminal offence if we do it.

6. The restriction imposed by the 1976 Act has led to provincial private hire vehicle operators making useof hackney carriages licensed outside the area of their own local authorities in order to circumvent therestrictions of the 1976 Act. The restrictions do not affect hackney carriages.

7. The Licensing Authorities are unhappy about the use of hackney carriages in this way but are largelypowerless to prevent it. But the practice has only arisen because of the artificial and pointless restrictionsimposed by the 1976 Act on the use of private hire vehicles.

8. Our business is located in the Tyneside conurbation which covers the areas of at least five separate localauthorities. Inevitably our vehicles regularly cross back and forward over the boundaries between the fiveauthorities. If, in the course of a journey, our vehicle suffers a breakdown we are not allowed by law to askanother operator to assist us by picking up our stranded passenger—unless that other operator is licensed bythe same authority as us. If we accept a booking as a North Tyneside Council operator we cannot lawfullyrequest assistance from a Newcastle operator even when it would be entirely in the best interests of ourcustomer for us to do so and despite there being no credible purpose behind the laws which prevents us fromdoing so. Nor can we transfer a booking from our own North Tyneside office to our Newcastle office.

9. No such restriction would affect a London operator—indeed the 1998 Act specifically permits a Londonoperator to sub-contract to an operator in a different London council area or to any provincial operator licensedunder the 1976 Act including, for example, a Newcastle operator.

10. The passage of the London Act in 1998 demonstrates that parliament was satisfied that cross borderhiring was a safe and legitimate activity—further we ourselves carried millions of passengers without anycustomer complaint whilst running our cross border hiring business from licensed offices in Newcastle andNorth Tyneside before being forced to give up by the decision in the 2001 case.

11. We wish to be able to lawfully resume our pre 2001 cross border hiring business.

12. It is self evident that the changes we are proposing would produce environmental benefits for the publicat large as well as improvements in our business efficiency and in the service we give to our customers.

December 2010



Written evidence from South Sefton Hackney Driver's Association (TPH 32)

1. Only hire by physically requesting (hailing) a taxi was controlled until 1976. This is also described ashire at once or as soon as possible—“public hire”. Journeys booked in other ways (“private” hire) wereuncontrolled until 1976.

2. A journey booked in advance, “Please take Miss Alice Keppel to Windsor Great Park on Thursdayafternoon”, is now controlled by the 1976 Act. There is no distinction however, between: “Please take MissKeppel as soon as you get here” and “Please take Miss Keppel tomorrow”.

3. A private hire contract is distinguished by its manner of request (by telephone) not it’s functionality. MissKeppel may wait the same length of time when walking to hail a cab as after telephoning.

4. Public hire has always been licensed by area of operation. The functionality of this being the driver’slocal knowledge; and (in the 19th century at least) the then demographics.

5. There has never been any attempt to suggest that a transport journey is limited by a local politicalboundary; excepting only the making of a contract for the “public hire” by a taxi, the length and direction ofthe journey being a matter of agreement. In London a driver may expand knowledge and acquire a licencefor an enlarged area in which he can ply for hire, why not eg, on Merseyside? Local authorities shouldfacilitate this.

6. The reason for the starting point of the “private hire” journey not being limited by geography is that thereis time to consider a route. Commercial commonsense is that a vehicle should not have to start its journeyonly in one locality, especially if charged for only from the point at which passengers embark elsewhere.

7. The rationale therefore of limiting a transport business to a local political boundary is one of driver’sknowledge, but only where immediate “public hire” transport is requested and limited by the driver’s localknowledge.

8. In Sefton the 1976 Act has always been understood to allow a public hire vehicle to operate inside itslicensed area as a hackney and as a PHV outside its licensed area. Also that a PHV could work anywhere butonly through an operator licensed by the same authority as the vehicle. In the early 1990s Liverpool citycouncil prosecuted a Sefton MBC PHV driver for working (through an operator), and waiting for work, whilein Liverpool city. Liverpool lost. In Sefton the PHV companies expected this; experience and a reading of theAct supported the outcome. It is elsewhere that the 1976 Act was not understood, or accepted.

9. It was not until the local authority in “Berwick” [2008 EWHC 2368 (Admin)] sought advice to cock asnook at life that the hackney carriage provisions were exploited by a licensing body for wider if uncertainreasons. A resulting court action caused Berwick to publish a new policy. This recognises that a local authoritycan and should take account of the effects of its policy on other areas. In the case of licensing a taxi and itsoperation this seems to be regarded as a novel idea? [“Berwick’s” idea exploited the provision that a hackneyworking as a PHV does not need to work for an operator with the same area licence and that in freely issuinglicences they could eg therefore be used as a PHV in Penzance.]

10. This action was followed by one brought by “Stockton” [2010 EWHC 2430 (Admin)]; both cases readtogether confirm the intent of legislation: that a hackney is restricted to its licensed area when carrying out“public hire” functions only; the enforcement lobby seemingly failed to understand the 1976 Act.

11. Is there any rational reason why a PHV firm cannot sub-contract to another firm licensed elsewhere;Miss Keppel can ask her travel agent to arrange a PHV at Ascot, or ask her local hackney firm to so, but shecannot ask her local PHV firm in her home area of Windsor to make the arrangements.

12. The practice of hackneys undertaking pre booked (PHV type) contracts anywhere has been followed byhackney cabs in Sefton in any event.

13. Liverpool City hackney firms have contracts with Sefton MBC, as well as with others in the privatesphere in the Sefton borough.

14. Hackney cab firms pass jobs between each other at times.

15. Sefton PHV firms carry out contract work for Liverpool City council.

16. The vehicles from both trades carry out work that is booked other than by public hire in each otherslicensed area, as envisaged by the legislation; neither “recent” case has altered this practice.

17. Any change in current law and practice requiring PHVs (or hackneys carrying out pre-booked contracts)to work from a political boundary will adversely affect the Sefton hackney trade.

18. Most Liverpool licensed hackneys when returning to Liverpool through Sefton during the evening appearto do so with their “Hire” light on.

19. Mode of hire apart the difference between the trades is that a PHV operator is licensed; that was notthought necessary for hackneys in 1976, this remains the case except that simply by requiring a hackneyworking as a PHV to have an operator whose licensor is that of the vehicle will avoid the “Berwick” scenario.



The practice of a hackney being able to return for a fare on its own account should remain, to protect the smallone/two person firm or husband and wife team.

20. Locally there may be pressure on the Liverpool regulators who have to pay for failed litigation torestrict the choice of hackney vehicle. It is believed that local licence fees will have to pay for that (hundredsof thousands).

21. In short there is no reason to organise transport so as to follow a local political boundary; it is tried inScotland by PHV regulation, where anecdotal reports indicate unenforceability in any event.

22. It is quite clear that local authorities can co-operate if they need to. It could be made easier for this byestablishment of local areas of interest where demographics require. There are existing “taxi zones” but theseare primarily based on historic political boundaries and are of regulatory (in) convenience only, they couldsensibly be directed toward areas where cross border activity is significant and as in the case of Sefton wherethe demographics (and demand) show a clear affinity with its neighbour.

23. It is of economic interest for Sefton hackneys to have fewer PHVs to compete with; it is not logical toachieve this by local electoral boundaries, the licence holders very often don’t live in the licensed area inany event.

24. Individual drivers suffer because fleets depend mainly on fixed income from vehicles—“rental” forworking for the firm or operator. Oversupply is not controlled by availability of trade; drivers are squeezed byreduction in takings—unacceptable elsewhere.

25. This reference to the select committee primarily arose through “Unite” protesting at the level of privatehire work undertaken by Sefton MBC PHV licensed vehicles in Liverpool city; the firm to which its primaryire is directed admits to exercising a monopoly (appropriate consideration could be given to this?); seeAppendix 5 at page 68 paragraphs 11.97 to 11.105 of:http://modgov.sefton.gov.uk/moderngov/CeListDocuments.aspx?CommitteeId=124&MeetingId=2966&DF=04%2f09%2f2006&Ver=2

This is a four year old document; however, the firm mentioned now has 1,700 vehicles, the majority working/operated outside the borough of Sefton, predominately in Liverpool city.

26. There are 271 Sefton MBC licensed hackneys of which about 120 almost exclusively work in theSouthport area of north Sefton, 150 remaining near the border with Liverpool city.

27. Areas that maintain a limit on hackney numbers do so by undertaking a statistical study, or survey,periodically. In Sefton it was recently found that on a scale (devised by the survey company) of 1 to 80, theSefton fleet was at 2; 80 being at the end of the scale requiring more vehicles.

28. These studies are paid for by a small levy on licence fees (Sefton MBC operates a large surplus); thestudies could extend to PHVs. These could be monitored across the local political boundary into areas whichinclude actual operation. A mechanism to monitor the statistical and factual validity of such studies would besimilarly self funding. Presently only the “public hire” function of a hackney is measured.

29. At least any over supply, and other methods of hire could then be quantified. It is with the use of thesemechanisms that a simple statistical check could become available to measure supply and stability for individualdrivers, and the public, preventing oversupply, and possibly facilitating numerical control.

Section B, Pages 4–6

Other areas of concern

26. Bad law

(a) A long lead time is essential, this consultation is too short, and one that has just ended on theconversion of vehicles was too short. Consultation will carry the trade and get a better result. Do notdraft proposals as presumptions.….we then get something that may work?

(b) Any change recommended following this exercise should similarly be given time for consideration;many trade groups have no secretariat or funding.

27. Rank provision

(a) Presently ranks may be appointed, section 63 of the 1976 Act. This should be amended to read “shallbe appointed where reasonably required, having regard to the use of a locality, and maybe appointedfor certain periods of the day only, commensurate with commercial usage and activity”.

(b) Authorities issuing licences will thereby take responsibility to facilitate their use.

(c) Power should be taken to require retail and leisure developments to provide statutory ranks.Developers locally kindly provide facilities, these are better when statutory; they can be moved onrequest, or removed on a change or modification of planning consent.

(d) Section 110(5) of the County of Merseyside Act provides that “for the purpose of section 53 of the1847 Act ‘street’ shall include any air or sea terminus, and approaches thereto, any car park, any hotel



forecourt and any unenclosed land within 6 metres of a street”—with a saving against a hackney“standing for hire” in a local authority metered spot!

(e) This provision of section 110(5) the County of Merseyside Act 1980 should be adopted universally,to avoid PHVs forming ranks as public hire vehicles.

28. Travel Interchanges

(a) Ranks should be provided at all travel interchanges, rail, bus, coach, port, and air, for all localhackneys, if there are none or too few in the area of the facility then licensing authorities should berequired to stipulate/cooperate and decide which authorities’ vehicles should be licensed for thatfacility; this problem occurs primarily at provincial airports.

(b) There should be no toll or charge, for any rank. Any existing contractual monopoly should cease atthe expiration of the current period.

29. Two trades?

(a) It seems the suggestion of a one tier system is to be brought up again. Objection has been successfulin the past to merging PHV and hackney trades, with the “public hire” aspect limited to areas of testedknowledge. The trades’ opinion of this proposal is known.

(b) In this scenario one vehicle performs “public hire” (without re-defining the phrase) functions in areasfor which the driver is licensed and PHV functions anywhere, through an operator.

(c) However, a purpose built vehicle was developed to protect the driver. There have been about 40 “taxi/PHV” driver murders in the last 15 years, but only one of a driver in a vehicle with a separatecompartment—this was a firearm offence which a compartment would not prevent. The purpose builtvehicle has many other attributes which we support, it should remain, we need a basic vehicle, theTX1 engine, for example, was ideal, it is reliable, replacement has proved costly. We need no moreexpense, particularly in the present climate.

(d) If there were a change to one regime the purpose built vehicle should be mandatory. Additionally thepractice of holding periodic, statistically valid, studies, or surveys, for numerical control should beuniversal, at least provincially. Results should bind the licensing authority. This control should applyto both trades if they remain separate.

30. Equality Act:

(a) We all want disabled custom. Criminalising the manner of carriage is totally unacceptable however.

(b) DfT has admitted that there are no figures to show which, if any, wheelchairs are at a disadvantagecarried in existing vehicles and none to show which wheelchairs can be restrained. Nevertheless thereare proposals to compel the redesign of purpose built cabs at a time when the cost to the tradeis unacceptable.

(c) The purpose built vehicle familiar to all is described in 29(c) above and has developed as safetyprotection for the driver; it is co-incidental that it could have differently opening doors to facilitate awheelchair. But for this chance evolution it would not occur to regulators that, in the UK alone, ahackney is wheelchair friendly.

(d) Incurring large expense to use converted vans whose parts and converters will not last the requiredvehicle lifetime is called into question. These vehicles should remain purely optional only.

31. Enforcement

(a) Officers recently opined that contesting an action risks punitive “costs”, that these are now relevantto achieving justice is objectionable especially at this level. That an authority should use counsel atthe defendant’s expense in a magistrate’s court matter is unacceptable, particularly in a licensingmatter which may be of no significant criminality to the wider public. Local authorities may appearby authorised officers in these matters in any event.

(b) The use of fixed penalty tickets would be unacceptable, affordable adjudications are the priority. Weneed to revert to an affordable remit to concerned magistrates, and less offences being enacted!

(c) Issuing fixed penalties is a “tick box” exercise for an enforcement officer. Presently even if there isan “exercise” to catch out of area cabs plying for hire each prosecution must be specifically authorised.It is difficult to see why the criteria in section 10 of the Prosecution of Offences Act 1985 should notapply, which would approximate to local policy in Sefton.

(d) A fixed penalty system would transform enforcement from a co-operative to a combatative regime.

32. Section 61 of the 1976 Act (as amended by section 52 of the Road Safety Act 2006)

Misuse of this section causes concern, driver licence suspension before appeal for a parking matter doesnot need elaboration?



33. Advertisements

Section 31 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows use of the word “taxi” in reference toa hackney carriage only; the section should be of national application.

34. Safety

Safety is best achieved by use of the purpose built vehicle. Universality, may be prohibitively expensive,in relation to PHV capital costs, note the volume of saloon (PHV) incidents however. Paragraphs 29(c)and 30(c) above refer.

35. Local authority governance

(a) Sefton MBC has a joint trade committee; it meets regularly with officials and has minuted discussion.There is an annual formal meeting with elected members.

(b) Councillors are anxious to discharge their statutory functions under the legislation, are open mindedand conscientious, an exchange of views is welcomed. This model is commended.

December 2010

Written evidence from the National Association of Taxi Users (NATU) (TPH 33)

The National Association of Taxi Users (NATU) has been recently established as a consumer organizationto represent the interests of taxi users. Until now there has been no such representation although much needed.A number of triggers have led to the founding of NATU including a research Paper commissioned by theConsumer Association in 2009, the recent abolition of the Disabled Persons Transport Committee and theWorboys London Taxi serial rape case. NATU is supported by a wide range of associated groups includingorganizations representing disability, public transport and sustainable transport interests.

NATU held a Conference in December 2010 which speakers from the local authorities licensing officers’organisation (NALEO), Passenger Focus, Rape Concern, the European Union and a range of other consumerinterests spoke about the problems experienced by taxi users. Delegates at the Conference concluded bysupporting the aims of NATU and agreeing that such consumer representation was much needed.8

NATU has been founded by a group of concerned taxi users who have nominated Kristine Beuret9 as theirSpokesperson pending the establishment of a formal constitution.

A. Introduction

1. NATU understand that the Transport Committee in holding an inquiry into issues relating to the licensingof taxis and private hire vehicles are particularly interested in cross-border hire problems caused by privatehire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which they are licensed. NATU dohave a view on this (see below) but we are also pleased to read that that the Committee will consider otherissues relating to taxi and private hire vehicles, including matters concerning passenger safety which are ofgreat concern to consumers. Taxis are used by some of the most vulnerable groups (as well as the affluent)and in fact taxi users represent a better cross section of society than any other method of public transport andthe only mode where ridership is growing.10

2. A selection of letters and extracts from comments made by taxi users from Birmingham, Leicester,Liverpool, Doncaster, Sheffield and Derby is shown below to give a flavour of the range of concerns that ledto the formation of NATO.

Confusion “I would take more taxis but I’m afraid I won’t have enough money to pay thefare.”

Money “The driver started the meter before I even got in the taxi.”“The fare seems to vary even for the same journey.”

Complaints “I would like to complain but I didn’t want to ask for his name.”8 The proceedings of this Conference held at the Coventry Motor Museum are available on the NATU web page www.taxiuser.com.

NATU could only afford to invite 40 delegates to this Conference resulting in many others asking to be sent the proceedingsand kept in touch with future activities.

9 Kristine Beuret OBE, MSc, FCILT, FCIHT, FTPS is the Director of Social Research Associates a social enterprise companyspecialising in research into social aspects of transport. Kris was the advisor to the Transport Select Committee for their Hearingon Taxis and Private Hire in 1998 and has served on a variety of DfT support groups including the Technology Foresight Groupand DPTAC. For many years she was the Chief Examiner for the Chartered Institute of Logistics and Transport. She is currentlya member of the Independent Transport Commission, an advisor to the UK Transport Research Council Advisory Council andChair of the Transport Associates Network. This month Kris has been awarded an honorary Fellowship of the Transport PlanningSociety. Kris has also supported many local authorities as an expert witness in taxi court cases or in providing advice to LicensingCommittees including providing evidence from surveys of general users in Newcastle, Blackburn and Doncaster and of disabledusers in Leicester, Amber Valley and Sheffield.

10 Consumer Focus (2008) Taxis and Consumers; The Need for Change



Disability “The drivers ask me about my disability—they think it’s being friendly.”“There’s no proper place for the taxi to stop at the shopping centre—you have to getout illegally—Last time I got out at the entrance, the driver got a parking ticket.”“When I phone up for a black cab they pretend there isn’t one there = the driversdon’t like getting the ramps out.”“I only found out there was a seat that swings out last week—no one explained itwhen I got the taxicard.”“He pretended my guide dog couldn’t go in the taxi because he had asthma.”

Routing “The taxis can’t go down the one way system so they have to go round the longway and all the time the meter is ticking on.”

Criminality “We found out that the man driving picking up our son from school was a convictedcriminal.”

Vehicle condition “The cab was a wreck and stank of smoke.”“There were holes in the seats.”

Drivers and “I ask him to take me to the hotel and he got lost trying to find it. We ended backknowledge where we started and when I said I was getting another taxi it led to a big row with

other drivers in the rank.”

B. Cross-border Hire Problems Caused by Private Hire Vehicles Picking Up Passengers on aLarge Scale Outside of the Area in Which They Are Licensed

3. Much of our later evidence concerns the difficulty experienced by taxi users in understanding thedifference between hackney taxis (which can be hailed) and private hire or minicabs (which need to beprebooked). In order to overcome this confusion many licensing authorities have published pamphlets andissued posters to explain the difference and underpinned this by specific rules about the appearance of the twotiers. These rules vary from one authority to another sometimes involving very distinctive colours (eg asrecently attempted in Birmingham) and vehicle specifications for both tiers; whilst others advocate a low profilefor private hire to deter hailing (eg London). The general view is that people get to know their local systemand thus do not mistake an illegal ‘taxi’ for a licensed vehicle.

4. If this local control is lost by private hire registering in one place but working elsewhere then there canbe no local rules about the appearance of private hire vehicles and the existing work of local authorities inexplaining the local difference between hackneys, private hire and illegal saloons would be undermined. Inaddition the link between local control of driver standards would also be lost and NATU’s view is that thiswould represent a real threat to standards, enforcement and security.

5. Nevertheless, NATU consider that some local boundaries are too small for efficient taxi operation andwelcome the move towards licensing by larger County unitary local authorities and regret the decision in someof these new authorities to continue the licensing function at the District level. The wisdom of shifting thelicensing function to the County level was also the conclusion of research commissioned from Social ResearchAssociates by Consumer Focus who submitted this view as evidence during consultation on the LocalGovernment Bill 2009.11 Licensing at the County level would also avoid the problem of hackney taxis basedin the suburbs or rural areas being unable to pick up in town centres for return trips. Such empty runningresults in unnecessary fuel consumption and continuing enforcement problems. A further advantage of County-wide licensing is that it would allow flexibility for drivers to meet demand especially at busy times such as intown centres during clubbing hours. Some city drivers would see this as “creaming off” trade but NATU thinkit would allow full time professional drivers to operate efficiently and reduce the pressure on late night demandwhich itself attracts illegal and or part-time activity.

6. Finally on the point of boundaries, NATU would not wish to deter hackney or private hire taxis fromobtaining genuine return trips—for example back to their home licensing area from an airport drop off. Thecurrent illegality of this practice results in rows with passengers such as recently at Newquay airport when sixpassengers were forced to get out of a taxi which was not part of the company holding the airport contract andchased up the car park. NATU support brokerage services which enable the more sustainable use of taxis fortwo way trips.

C. Quality Control

7. Much of the following section contains our evidence for the need for better quality control of taxis bothhackney and private hire. This is both a good in itself from the consumer use perspective but also a way ofensuring that those entering the trade are fully trained and committed to the job rather than seeing it as a wayof earning a quick return at minimum investment. NATU see taxis as an integral part of the public transportmenu and thus needing to meet the same level of standards as buses and trains. As things stand this is far fromthe situation and checks by the police repeatedly show an alarming picture of poor vehicle maintenance andillegal drivers without work permits or claiming benefits.12

11 Consumer Focus (2009)12 For example in Woking in November out of 27 taxis stopped, 7 drivers were found to be claiming benefits and one was an

illegal immigrant. Similarly a survey of taxis by insurance com



Drivers

8. Local authorities all have systems for checking the suitability of drivers for work as taxi drivers andpenalties for failure to maintain standards. These systems vary from one authority to another and betweenhackney and private hire with stricter conditions usually applied to hackneys. NATU are very concerned aboutthe adequacy of these systems. For example, in the West Midlands 209 people with previous convictionsincluding indecent assault and drug dealing have been granted taxi licences despite criminal records checksbeing carried out. One Wolverhampton man had committed more than 30 offences between 1985 and 2005,yet was granted a taxi driver licence in 2006. Police authorities have revealed that 250 crimes have been carriedout by licensed taxi drivers in the past three years, including rape and threats to murder.13 Criminal recordchecks are inadequate—in NATU’s view the statute of limitation should not apply to people with a record ofsexual crimes. In addition even within seven years it is not unusual for a refusal to grant a licence by localauthorities to be overturned by magistrates on appeal from the driver. NATU consider that no one with a recordof sexual crime however long ago should drive taxis where often vulnerable adults or children travel alone. Inaddition there should also be a code of behaviour which bans any sexual talk or activity between drivers andpassengers in taxis. This would protect both drivers and passengers.

Training

9. Poor standards of training are endemic in the taxi industry. Various attempts had been made over recentyears to address this situation and NVQ courses developed which some local authorities and taxi companieshave supported. However, many of these courses are of poor quality without the need for the demonstration ofpractical skills. In some cases drivers do not even attend the classes but simply pay a fee for the certificate,others had simply been asked to tick boxes. Some of the evidence for this has been supplied by driversthemselves who were disgusted with the experience and NATU have copies of such correspondence andinadequate course material.

10. Another important aspect of training is customer care and disability awareness. As things stand there isa wealth of evidence showing inappropriate handling and treatment of disabled passengers14 including therecent tragic case of the death of a wheelchair passenger who was wrongly secured.15

11. Conclusion: There is a clear need for better and universal training for drivers which includes practicaldemonstration of handling customer care including disability awareness and also an element of examination.As with other quality improvements it is reasonable for the taxi trade to pay for the cost of qualification andindicative of a further commitment to the provision of a proper professional service. The view of NATU is thattaxis provision is no different to bus driving in terms of the need for training and thus it should not be a choicebut a requirement.

D. Vehicle Design and Accessibility

12. The issue of the best type of vehicles to be licensed as taxis has been hotly debated especially in termsof accessibility for disabled people. In UK there are 10 million disabled people: one in 20 are children, one inseven of working age and one in two pensioners. Numbers, especially of the latter are rising due to the agingpopulation and for all disabled people taxis are very important because:

— They provide on demand door to door transport.

— They operate in both remote rural and inner city areas.

— They offer an alternative to driving as older people self-regulate or give up.

— They provide an option that is often cheaper than running and maintaining a car.

— There is close contact with the driver.

— They are a safe and secure transport option.

Yet there are impediments to taxi use in particular;

— Many older people overestimate the cost of taxis.

— Many taxis are difficult to get in and out of with comfort and dignity.

— Waiting areas for taxis are often ill equipped and uncomfortable and kerbside infrastructure,information and waiting areas need to be improved.

— Not all drivers understand how to help disabled and older passengers.

— The term “accessible” taxi means different things in different areas and to different people.13 Crime Stoppers, January 2010 newsletter14 For example reports of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee Taxi sub group, Amber Valley Taxi Study

(SRA.2008), Sheffield City Council Taxi Demand Study (Mouchel, 2010) and Leicester Disabled Taxi Mystery Shopping Survey(2004).

15 http://birminghamnewsroom.com/?p=7601 Following the tragic death in February 2009 of a 14-year-old Birmingham girl whosewheelchair was not properly secured during a taxi ride home from hospital, young disability Champions in Birmingham havebeen instrumental in creating a national campaign to ensure that young wheelchair users stay safe when travelling by publictransport, particularly taxis. Returning an accidental verdict on the tragic death, Birmingham coroner Aiden Cotter called forcompulsory use of restraints and recommended that disability discrimination training form part of the terms of taxi drivers’licences.



— Not enough licensed taxis are available in the locations and at the times needed by disabled people.

Demand is being suppressed in some areas by lack of availability and this is impacting on the ability ofdisabled people to have equal access to jobs etc.

13. The legislation which has been developed to address some of these issues includes the 1995 DisabilityDiscrimination Act which gave powers to make regulations setting access standards for all licensed hackneytaxis. However investigation shows that there were technical and economic difficulties in applying theseregulations and further consultation in 2009 showed that there is no agreement on what should be done. Oneoption is to leave it to local authorities to decide but this has not been supported even by local authoritiesthemselves.

14. However, there have been some advances such as the Duty for taxi drivers to carry assistance dogs, anda Duty to ensure that disabled people are not discriminated against or treated less favourably. In additionlicensing authorities are required to review “policies, practices and procedures” that make it impossible orunreasonably difficult for disabled people to use their services and it could be argued that failure to introducea policy of licensing accessible taxis constitutes a breach of the law.

The most recent legislation is the 2010 Equality Act Designated Vehicle Section which has the potential toimprove the numbers of accessible vehicles and the willingness of drivers to provide help. The Act introducesthe concept of “designated vehicles” and the need to keep a list of these as well as placing a Duty on thedrivers of such vehicles to provide physical assistance to passengers in wheelchairs (unless the driver is exemptdue to a physical condition). The 2010 Equality Act also targets areas which have a quantity control policyand only a small proportion of wheelchair accessible taxis; in these areas the licensing authority will not beable to refuse to grant a licence for a wheelchair accessible vehicle for the purpose of controlling taxi numbersuntil a certain proportion of taxis locally is wheelchair accessible and the Government will be consulting onwhat that proportion should be. NATU welcome this development.

European legislation had so far failed to reach agreement on taxi policy especially in relation to commonstandards for vehicles but there are new plans for moving forward contained in the just published “EuropeanDisability Strategy 2010—2020 and the Commission is considering a European Disability Act by 2012 whichcould include standards for taxis.

15. To Summarise:

— Many local authorities are not taking either the needs of elderly and disabled people into accountin developing their transport policies and specifically not acknowledging the importance of taxisfor elderly and disabled people. This is in part due to confusion about what to do about wheelchairaccessibility and disagreement amongst disabled people themselves about vehicle preference. Theimplication of this is that there is an urgent need to involve disabled and elderly people indeveloping policy and identifying discrimination.

— The current situation is a postcode lottery for elderly and disabled people.

— There is no common definition or standards for an accessible vehicle.

— Without strong monitoring and enforcement with more systematic training, older and disabledpeople will not get a fair deal.

E. Fares and Costs

The level of hackney taxi fares is set by local authorities and NATU think this is the right way in the lightof local knowledge. However, there is a need for the Government to consider the role of taxis in a wider senseas providers of public transport when other modes are unavailable to users such as where support is withdrawnfrom previously supported bus services or where disabled people cannot use buses or trains and hence theconcessions available. In these cases NATU advocates a taxi card scheme for disabled users such as thatavailable in London and a few other local authority areas.

F. Conclusion

The taxi industry is the “Cinderella” mode of public transport. Although there are good examples of provisionin most areas there are serious failures of quality and much that needs to be done to properly integrate taxitravel into the transport system.

As local authorities develop their Local Transport Plans (due in April 2011), the Transport Committee havean opportunity to give a lead on the importance of taxis.

Government should also take a stronger line on the need for improvements in legal requirements for trainingand entry standards for drivers and operators including enforcement of the Statutory Duties contained in the2010 Equality Act and other relevant legislation.



Last year there was talk of setting up a number of pilot Taxi Demonstration Towns and NATU suggest thisidea be developed with the aim of producing a good practice guide bringing together the piecemeal documentscurrently available.

December 2010

Written evidence from David B Wilson (TPH 36)

1.0 Putting Legislation into its True Historical Context

1.1 Until 1831, when the London Hackney Carriage Act 1831 was enacted in relation to hackney carriages inthe area now known as Greater London, there was no regulation anywhere in England and Wales inrespect of any services that would now be recognised as those provided by hackney carriages and / orprivate hire vehicles.

1.2 Outside of London, the licensing of hackney carriages became possible in 1847 by the incorporation intoLocal Acts of the relevant provisions of a Clauses Act, namely the Town Police Clauses Act 1847.

1.3 The reorganisation of local government in 1974 and thereafter, including that creating new unitaryauthorities in 2009, brought smaller administrative areas together as larger ones, save that in relation tohackney carriage licensing, such areas became individual hackney carriage zones within the area of thesuccessor council unless, in accordance with the provisions of section 180 and Schedule 14 of the LocalGovernment Act 1972, the council amalgamated its hackney carriage zones and extend hackney carriagelicensing to any areas to which the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 had not previously applied.

1.4 The countrywide licensing of hackney carriages in England and Wales, which began in London in 1831,was only completed when section 15 of the Transport Act 1985 extended hackney carriage licensing underthe Town Police Clauses Act 1847 across the whole of England and Wales, outside of London to whichthere has always been separate provision since 1831.

1.5 The introduction of regulation of the previously unlicensed private hire trade did not commence in 1976with the enacting of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, but in 1975 whenPlymouth City Council enacted a Local Act, namely the Plymouth City Council Act 1975.

1.6 Part II of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, which was based on the provisionsof the Plymouth City Council Act 1975, provided district councils in England and Wales with the abilityto adopt and apply the provisions of Part II of the Act in only those areas in which hackney carriageswere regulated by the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. As a consequence, the 1976 Act would never becapable of being applied to London, unless expressly amended to allow its adoption by either Transportfor London (the successor authority to the Public Carriage Office) or individually by each of the Londonborough councils.

1.7 For Part II of the 1976 Act to apply across the whole of every district council area in England and countyborough council area in Wales, every council, whose area included an area to which hackney carriagelicensing was not extended before the council adopted the 1976 Act, would, in addition to adopting PartII of the Act, have to pass a further resolution, under section 45(4) of the 1976 Act, to extend its applicationto those areas, once hackney carriage licensing had been extended to any such areas.

1.8 Whilst it would have been possible and, it may be suggested, much quicker and simpler to amend the1976 Act to make provision for it to be applied to London, those responsible for bringing private hirelicensing to London opted to introduce new legislation that endeavoured to embrace the technologicaldevelopments that had taken place since 1975; and to address other deficiencies that had by then beenidentified in the 1976 Act. Private hire licensing for London was secured by the enacting of a PrivateMembers Bill, namely the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.

1.9 In summary, before 1831 anyone could engage in any activity, now recognised as being those of hackneycarriage and private hire, anywhere in the whole country. Since 1831 there has been hackney carriagelicensing in London. In 1847 hackney carriage licensing started to be introduced to the rest of Englandand Wales. As legislation only regulated the hackney carriage industry, anyone could lawfully engage inprivate hire, until legislation was enacted in 1976 that enabled councils to regulate that industry. Hackneycarriages, which were specifically licensed to “stand and ply for hire”, always had an “inherent right” toundertake pre-booked work and, as confirmed in the recent case of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council vFidler and others [2010] EWHC 2430 (Admin), retain that right to this day.



2.0 The Need for Legislative Reform

2.1 The need for legislative reform of private hire licensing was highlighted by Lord Justice Kennedy as longago as 1999 when, in his judgment in Murtagh and Carter (trading as Rubery Rednal Cars) v BromsgroveDistrict Council (1999) Independent, 20 November, (QBD), he said:

“The facts of this case make it clear that in fairness to private hire operators the provisions of this statute[Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976] should be reconsidered by the legislature as amatter of some urgency.

In 1999 it is absurd that a licensed operator in the area of one district council in a large conurbationcommits a criminal offence if he installs a small sub-office, or perhaps even a dedicated telephone line,in an area controlled by an adjoining district council because he thereby makes provision for the invitationof bookings in the second area. To keep within the law he must then obtain a whole series of freshlicences—an operator’s licence, drivers’ licences and vehicle licences—for the second area.

This cannot be what Parliament originally envisaged. As the cost of licences varies, we understand, fromone district to another, it is not easy to see precisely how the problems should be resolved, but clearly ifoperators, their drivers and their cars are properly licensed in respect of one area which is responsible foroverseeing their activities, they should not have to be re-licensed elsewhere. The problem is to someextent the result of improved technology since the statute was passed, but the law needs to reflect thecurrent state of technology and not be 23 years behind it.”

3.0 The Consequences of Failing to Reform Legislation Since 1999

3.1 As a result of the failure to reform legislation, since the need to do so urgently was highlighted by LordJustice Kennedy in 1999, private hire businesses have challenged the legislation to achieve theircommercial, operational and, more recently, environmental, objectives.

3.2 Whilst not a cross-border hire case, the case of Brentwood Borough Council v Gladen [2004] EWHC2500 (Admin) was pivotal in the subsequent cross-border hire cases of R (on behalf of Newcastle CityCouncil) v Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) and the even more recentcase of Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and others [2010] EWHC 2430 (Admin).

3.3 In the Newcastle v Berwick case, the issues were whether a council could and should licence a hackneycarriage that was going to be exclusively or predominantly used remotely from the area of the council forprivate hire purposes. The court held that in the excise of its discretion, a council should not ordinarilylicence a hackney carriage that was going to be used in such a way. However, at paragraph 39 of hisjudgment, Mr Christopher Symons QC, also acknowledged the need for “flexibility” when a proprietorwished to use their vehicle “in a number of different authorities’ areas”.

3.4 The Stockton v Fidler case was likewise concerned with hackney carriages licensed by Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council, which were being used exclusively for private hire purposes remotely from theBorough of Berwick-upon-Tweed, as it was then. Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council attempted to stop aprivate hire operator from using Berwick hackney carriages by prosecuting him and the drivers of twosuch vehicles. Upon the hearing of the appeal by the Divisional Court, Lord Justice Munby held that ahackney carriage, no matter where it is licensed, has an inherent right to undertake pre-booked hiringsanywhere in England and Wales.

3.5 Another case, yet to be even commenced in the magistrates’ court, that will inevitably find its way to theDivisional Court, is that between Blue Line Taxis (Newcastle) Ltd and Newcastle City Council regardingthe council’s conditions of licence prohibiting a private hire operator from using out-of-town hackneycarriages.

3.6 The failure to reform legislation has not only resulted in more complex and time-consuming litigationraising more questions than it answers, but has:

— unnecessarily constrained business growth and prosperity;

— prevented businesses from fully embracing technological developments to provide a more efficientand cost effective service to customers; and

— caused perfectly good vehicles, driven by appropriately licensed drivers, to unnecessarily travelbillions of miles, wasting fuel and polluting the planet with many millions of tonnes of CO2

exhaust emissions.

4.0 The Perceived Problems

4.1 There are two sectors that regard cross-border hire as a problem, namely:

— the hackney carriage and/or private hire trade in an area in which out-of-town vehicles, whetherthey are hackney carriages and/or private hire vehicles, are regularly working, because the localtrade believe they are losing trade; and

— the councils of such areas, because they believe their high local standards are being underminedby the out-of-town trade over which they believe they have little or no control.



5.0 An Objective View of the Perceived Problems

5.1 The hackney carriage businesses and/or private hire operators that engage in cross-border hire do so inresponse to consumer demand and/or to overcome the practices of some councils that unnecessarily restrictand constrain their businesses.

5.2 Some councils aspire to set the highest standards for the vehicles and drivers they licence, which resultsin them setting standards that are unnecessary and unreasonable. All councils should aspire to set the mostappropriate standards, having carried out an objective risk assessment of the evidence available to them.

5.3 For example, the neighbouring authorities of Newcastle City Council and North Tyneside Council withinthe Tyne and Wear conurbation have different specifications for the vehicles they will licence as privatehire vehicles. North Tyneside Council has recently agreed to licence vehicles with anti-glare (tinted) glass,having had evidence presented to it to show that not a single crime, out of 17.5 million recorded crimes,had been identified as being contributed to by the presence of such glass in a hackney carriage or privatehire vehicle. On the other hand, Newcastle City Council continues to refuse to licence vehicles with suchglass, but will licence multipurpose vehicles and minibuses to carry the number of passengers for whichsuch a vehicle was designed to carry. However, North Tyneside Council requires seats to be removed orseating to be reconfigured by rotating the middle row of seats to create conference style seating, despitethe fact that such changes may not be approved by the manufacturer and are not subject to specific testingby the council or VOSA.

5.4 If there were nationally applied standards for vehicles and drivers, with nationally set fees, no councilwould ever have reason to fear that a vehicle from outwith its own area was of an inferior standard to itsown “high standards” or that a driver was not a “fit and proper person”.

5.5 The vehicle and driver standards for London would seem to be the most up-to-date and appropriatestandards to apply across the whole of the rest of England and Wales, albeit without the London-basedtopographical skills test.

5.6 With satellite navigation systems already having the ability to receive up-to-the-minute traffic information,and to navigate an alternative route to avoid accidents and congestion, it may be that a nationally set testwould not need to include a topographical skills test. If a topographical skills test of any kind was to berequired as a national standard, it might reasonably require a candidate to demonstrate an ability to usestreet maps and road atlases, as well as demonstrating an ability to use satellite navigation equipment.

5.7 A test of a candidate’s knowledge of:

— the laws that regulate the hackney carriage and private hire industries;

— customer service and disability awareness;

— their ability to write a receipt; and

— their ability to calculate a fare and the change to be given.

would probably better serve the hackney carriage and private hire trades, and the public.

5.8 If private hire driver licences were issued to a national standard, a licence could entitle a driver to drivea private hire vehicle licensed by any council. As is the case under the Licensing Act 2003 in relation tothe granting of personal licences to authorise a person to sell alcohol, a private hire vehicle driver licencecould be issued by the council for the area in which the driver resided or, if he did not reside in any sucharea, by any council to which he applied.

5.9 Whilst councils are generally determined to retain local control and the ability to set local standards, it issuggested that there is no genuine need for such controls when setting an appropriate standard for privatehire vehicles and drivers.

5.10 What will still be necessary at the local level is for councils to set local standards concerning theappearance of such private hire vehicles, because they may not resemble a hackney carriage by virtue ofsection 48(1)(ii) of the 1976 Act.

6.0 Legislative Reform

6.1 It is easy to assert that the only way to effectively reform the existing legislation is to replace it in itsentirety with new. Indeed, for a long time, I was of that view.

6.2 It may even be suggested that legislative reform is unnecessary, because standardisation might be achievedby prescribing matters in the Best Practice Guidance issued from time-to-time by the Department forTransport, but councils ignore what it says, if they do not agree with it.

6.3 Legislative reform may be quickly and effectively achieved by making a number of amendments to theexisting legislation, which would ideally provide for the Secretary of State to make regulations concerningsuch matters as vehicle standards/specification; driver standards and testing; and the fees to be chargedby councils.

6.4 Whilst the issue of fees charged by some council might be capable of being addressed by The RegulatoryAuthorities (Level of Charges) Bill that is currently being promoted by Mr Christopher Chope MP as aPrivate Members Bill, if it is ever enacted, it would be preferable if fees were set nationally.



6.5 Amendments to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 could address all theproblems perceived by councils; and deliver the commercial, operational and environmental objectivesthe private hire trade has now been endeavouring to deliver for many years by:

— empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations to set a national standard/specification forprivate hire vehicles;

— empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations to set a national standard for the licensingof private hire vehicle drivers;

— permitting a licensed private hire vehicle driver to drive a private hire vehicle licensed by anycouncil in England and Wales;

— permitting a private hire operator to sub-contract a private hire booking to any other private hireoperator licensed in England and Wales (including London) or to an operator in Scotland;

— empowering an authorised officer of any council to stop any hackney carriage or private hirevehicle in that council’s area to ascertain the roadworthiness of the said vehicle and, if he is notsatisfied it is roadworthy, to suspend the vehicle licence under section 68 of the 1976 Act; and toverify the identity of the driver and that he is licensed to drive the said vehicle;

— empowering an authorised officer anywhere in England and Wales to stop any hackney carriage orprivate hire vehicle licensed by the council by whom he is so authorised to ascertain theroadworthiness of the said vehicle and, if he is not satisfied it is roadworthy, to suspend the vehiclelicence under section 68 of the 1976 Act; to ascertain whether it complies with the council’sconditions of licence and, if it does not, he may suspend the vehicle licence under section 60 ofthe 1976 Act; and to verify the identity of the driver and that he is licensed to drive the saidvehicle; and

— empowering the Secretary of State to make regulations to set the fees to be charged by councilson the making of an application for (rather than on only grant of) a hackney carriage proprietor’slicence; hackney carriage driver’s licence; private hire vehicle licence; private hire vehicle driver’slicence; private hire operator’s licence; and any associated or incidental fees.

7.0 Benefits of the Suggested Legislative Reform7.1 Cross-border hire would no longer be perceived as being wrong, because private hire vehicle and driver

standards will be set nationally; and council authorised officers will have greater powers to stop and checkvehicles and their drivers.

7.2 Private hire operators outside of London will have the same ability as operators within London to sub-contract a private hire booking to an operator licensed anywhere in England and Wales (including London)or to an operator in Scotland.

7.3 The public will receive a more efficient and cost effective service from vehicles that do not unnecessarilytravel empty, wasting fuel and polluting the planet with CO2 exhaust emissions.

7.4 Standardising private hire vehicle driver licensing across England and Wales would reduce costs to drivers,because they would not need licences from a number of councils; and reduce the administrative burdenon councils.

7.5 Legislative reform would also enable officers to spend more of their time on compliance and enforcement,which generally serves to raise standards amongst the trades; and provides more visible protection tothe public.

December 2010

Supplementary evidence from David B Wilson (TPH 36a)

1.0 Berwick Hackney Carriage Register

1.1 The issue raised by GMB Union in relation to the Berwick hackney carriage register is expressed:

This register shows that Berwick licensed a number of Hackney Carriages located a considerable distanceaway, which we believe made enforcement of its licensing conditions effectively impossible. We re-iterateour view that it is not in the public interest for measures to be “side-stepped” which are put in place withthe intention of protecting the consumer, who is entitled to expect that these vehicles and drivers areproperly regulated by their licensing authority.

The relevant entries in the register are:

Distance fromNo. on register Location Berwick (miles)

H1064 Chester 248H1071,H1770H1113 Halifax 182



Distance fromNo. on register Location Berwick (miles)

H1117 Epsom 369H1128 Manchester 210H1132 Paignton 452H1134H1148H1813 Cottingham 188H1814 (Near Hull)H1816H1817H1865

1.2 David Wilson responds as follows:

— As Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council was dissolved at midnight on 31 March 2009, thehackney carriage register that has been produced is that of Northumberland County Council forthe Berwick hackney carriage zone, because it is dated 15 June 2010.

— In the circumstances, questions relating to the appropriateness of granting such licences might havebeen better directed to Northumberland County Council, but I shall nonetheless endeavour torespond to the matters raised by GMB Union and to assist Members of the Transport SelectCommittee.

— From experience as both licensing manager of Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council andsubsequently as a licensing consultant, I believe that neither council has granted any hackneycarriage proprietor’s licence without having due regard to the judgment in R (on behalf ofNewcastle City Council) v Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin).

— In respect of the three vehicles identified as being licensed in Chester, one (H1770) appears tohave been wrongly addressed as “Chester” whereas it is apparent from the remainder of the addressthat it ought to have been “Chester-le-Street”, being a town in a county (Durham) neighbouringNorthumberland. The other two vehicles are clearly those of an accident management company,who may have provided the vehicles for use by persons plying for hire in the Berwick hackneycarriage zone.

— With the exception of the vehicles licensed by someone in Cottingham in the East Riding ofYorkshire, all the other vehicles appear to have been licensed by companies that were engaged inproviding hire vehicles to licensed drivers. In the circumstances, each of those vehicles, if onlylicensed post judgment, will only have been licensed, if Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council orNorthumberland County Council were satisfied that such intended usage was consistent with, andpermitted by the said judgment.

— Whilst I do not have access to the licensing records of the former Berwick-upon-Tweed BoroughCouncil, I remain certain that Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council never licensed a vehicle inPagination, Devon. I confirm, as per my oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee on 18January 2011, that Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council did licence a vehicle for an accidentmanagement company based in Surrey, which may well have been that in Epsom, which I knowwas used by a person residing and working within the Borough of Berwick-upon-Tweed. Likewise,in my oral evidence, I confirmed that Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council had licensed vehiclesand drivers for a firm in the “East Riding”.

2.0 Berwick Testing Stations

2.1 The issue raised by GMB Union in relation to testing stations authorised by Berwick-upon-TweedBorough Council is expressed:

We believe the minutes [of the meeting of Licensing Committee on 6 March 2006] show, very importantly,that Berwick allowed testing stations to self-authorise from any area, when in fact they should haveauthorised them. The Licensing Officers also proposed and had agreed by Councillors that they did notneed to inspect a vehicle (Minute 558–8). This approach corresponds with the clarification in our earlieremail that the drivers only ever licensed once in person, and were then dealt with by post.

2.2 David Wilson responds as follows:

— The Minutes of the Meeting of Licensing Committee on 6 March 2006 evidence an extensivereview of existing policies in relation to hackney carriage and private hire licensing.

— Prior to my taking up the post with Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council on 1 June 2004, thelicensing function had be shared amongst an number of officers in the Legal and DemocraticServices who undertook the work in addition to their primary role. The post was created in responseto the enacting of the Licensing Act 2003, which transferred the licensing of the retail sale andsupply of alcohol to councils.



— During 2004 and much of 2005, the focus of my post had been to prepare for, and to implementthe Licensing Act 2003. During that time, I came to appreciate that there were deficiencies in thepolicies and / or procedural operation of the hackney carriage and private hire licensing function.

— Many of the issues I had by then identified were addressed in various reports presented to LicensingCommittee for consideration on 6 March 2006. I have obtained a copy of those reports and provideherewith a copy of the report relating to “vehicle inspection of hackney carriages and private hirevehicles—tests and fee”.16 What the report, which I authored, does not highlight is the fact thatnot all of the previously authorised garages were VOSA authorised MOT testing stations andconsequently, anecdotally at least, it was reported to me that one of the garages performed braketests by driving vehicles across the garage forecourt and braking. It was suggested that, if thevehicle did not crash into the wall, it passed the brake test! Whilst I do not believe that to havebeen true, I do believe the garage in question only used a brake force meter, which merely assessedthe overall braking performance of the braking system, rather than that of individual wheels.

— With regard to the removal of the requirement for a vehicle inspection, this was the removal of arequirement for an inspection by an officer of vehicles over five years of age, which was onlynecessary because the Council had a five year age policy. The officer inspection was in additionto the testing of the vehicle at a garage. As a result of the changes implemented by LicensingCommittee on 6 March 2006, all vehicles were subjected to tests at VOSA authorised testingstations, by VOSA authorised MOT testers. Prior to that date, there had been nothing to preventtests from being carried out by unqualified personnel.

— It should also be noted that the report merely advocated removing the absolute requirement forevery vehicle over five years of age to be visually inspected by an officer. The removal of therequirement did not prevent the use of the statutory powers under section 50(1) of the LocalGovernment (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 to require a vehicle to be presented forinspection and testing at any age.

— Finally, with regard to the issue of postal applications, it is true that there was no requirement fora vehicle to be presented to an officer of the Council on initial application or at renewal. After all,vehicles were then being examined and tested by VOSA authorised MOT testers, at VOSAauthorised MOT testing stations to MOT standards, subject to the additional matters to be checkedfor a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle licence. Coincidentally, a similar system is operatedin London where vehicles are inspected and tested on behalf of Transport for London, rather thanby its officers.

March 2011

16 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives



Fur

ther

supp

lem

enta

ryev

iden

cefr

omD

avid

BW

ilson

(TP

H36

b)

SUM

MA

RY

OF

TH

ER

EA

SON

SFO

RR

EQ

UE

STIN

GL

EG

ISL

AT

IVE

RE

FOR

MO

FTA

XI

LIC

EN

SIN

GFO

RE

NG

LA

ND

AN

DW

AL

ES

(OU

TSI

DE

OF

LO

ND

ON

)

Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

Inab

ility

ofco

unci

lsto

prov

ean

adop

tion

ofPa

rtII

ofth

eR

epla

ceth

ew

ordi

ngof

the

adop

tion

prov

isio

ns(s

ectio

n45

)T

heun

cert

aint

yth

atcu

rren

tlyex

ists

with

inm

any

coun

cils

1976

Act

and

/or

that

itw

asad

opte

dth

roug

hout

the

ofth

e19

76A

ct,

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

will

beer

adic

ated

,m

eani

ngth

atth

eyca

nbr

ing

who

leof

aco

unci

l’s

area

.s.

45(A

)T

hepr

ovis

ions

ofth

isPa

rtof

this

Act

shal

lap

ply

pros

ecut

ions

whe

nap

prop

riat

ean

dge

nera

llyla

wfu

llyA

sa

resu

lt,so

me

coun

cils

are

relu

ctan

tto

brin

gth

roug

hout

the

area

ofev

ery

dist

rict

coun

cil

inE

ngla

ndan

dad

min

iste

rth

elic

ensi

ngre

gim

e.pr

osec

utio

nsun

der

the

Act

and

othe

rs,

havi

ngdo

neso

,W

ales

who

sear

ealie

sou

tsid

eth

ear

eas

tow

hich

the

have

been

forc

edto

aban

don

them

.A

regu

lato

rysc

hem

e,M

etro

polit

anPu

blic

Car

riag

eA

ct18

69an

dth

ePl

ymou

thth

atre

lies

upon

crim

inal

isin

gth

atw

hich

was

prev

ious

lyC

ityC

ounc

ilA

ct19

75ap

ply.

lega

lw

ithou

ta

licen

ce,

mus

tbe

enfo

rcea

ble,

ifit

isgo

ing

tow

ork.

Cou

ncils

appl

ydi

ffer

ent

stan

dard

san

dgr

ant

licen

ces

with

Am

end

the

1976

Act

toin

clud

epr

ovis

ions

for

the

Secr

etar

yC

omm

onst

anda

rds

wou

ldap

ply

acro

ssE

ngla

ndan

dW

ales

diff

eren

tco

nditi

ons

for

vehi

cle,

driv

eran

dop

erat

orof

Stat

eto

mak

ere

gula

tions

that

coun

cils

shal

lha

vere

gard

inre

latio

nto

such

mat

ters

asap

plic

atio

npr

oced

ures

;th

elic

ence

s.to

,w

ithte

rms

toth

eef

fect

that

:fit

ness

and

prop

riet

yof

driv

ers;

and

the

type

and

natu

reof

s.45

(B)(

1)T

heSe

cret

ary

ofSt

ate

mus

tis

sue

guid

ance

asco

nditi

ons

atta

ched

toth

eth

ree

diff

eren

tty

pes

oflic

ence

s.to

—In

effe

ct,

this

prop

osal

adop

tsth

eap

proa

chta

ken

(a)

the

man

ner

inw

hich

dist

rict

coun

cils

are

toex

erci

seth

eir

succ

essf

ully

inco

nnec

tion

with

the

licen

sing

ofpr

emis

esfu

nctio

nsun

der

this

Part

ofth

isA

ct;

and

for

the

reta

ilsa

leof

alco

hol

and

the

prov

isio

nof

regu

late

d(b

)in

part

icul

ar,

the

prin

cipl

esto

beap

plie

dby

dist

rict

ente

rtai

nmen

tan

dla

teni

ght

refr

eshm

ent

unde

rth

eco

unci

lsin

exer

cisi

ngth

eir

func

tions

unde

rth

isPa

rtof

this

Lic

ensi

ngA

ct20

03,

whi

chap

proa

chw

assi

mila

rly

adop

ted

Act

.in

the

Gam

blin

gA

ct20

05in

rela

tion

toth

elic

ensi

ngof

(2)

But

the

Secr

etar

yof

Stat

em

ayno

tis

sue

the

said

prem

ises

for

gam

blin

g.gu

idan

ceun

less

adr

aft

ofit

has

been

laid

befo

re,

and

appr

oved

byre

solu

tion

of,

each

Hou

seof

Parl

iam

ent.

(3)

The

Secr

etar

yof

Stat

em

ay,

from

time

totim

e,re

vise

the

said

guid

ance

.(4

)A

revi

sed

vers

ion

ofth

egu

idan

cedo

esno

tco

me

into

forc

eun

tilth

eSe

cret

ary

ofSt

ate

lays

itbe

fore

Parl

iam

ent.

(5)

Whe

reei

ther

Hou

se,

befo

reth

een

dof

the

peri

odof

40da

ysbe

ginn

ing

with

the

day

onw

hich

are

vise

dve

rsio

nof

the

guid

ance

isla

idbe

fore

it,by

reso

lutio

ndi

sapp

rove

sth

atve

rsio

n—



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

(i)

the

Secr

etar

yof

Stat

em

ust,

unde

rsu

bsec

tion

(3),

mak

esu

chfu

rthe

rre

visi

ons

toth

egu

idan

ceas

appe

arto

him

tobe

requ

ired

inth

eci

rcum

stan

ces,

and

(ii)

befo

reth

een

dof

the

peri

odof

40da

ysbe

ginn

ing

with

the

date

onw

hich

the

reso

lutio

nis

mad

e,la

ya

furt

her

revi

sed

vers

ion

ofth

egu

idan

cebe

fore

Parl

iam

ent.

(6)

Inre

ckon

ing

any

peri

odof

40da

ysfo

rth

epu

rpos

esof

subs

ectio

n(5

),no

acco

unt

isto

beta

ken

ofan

ttim

edu

ring

whi

ch—

(i)

Parl

iam

ent

isdi

ssol

ved

orpr

orog

ued,

or(i

i)bo

thH

ouse

sar

ead

jour

ned

for

mor

eth

anfo

urda

ys.

(7)

The

Secr

etar

yof

Stat

em

ust

arra

nge

for

any

guid

ance

issu

edor

revi

sed

unde

rth

isse

ctio

nto

bepu

blis

hed

insu

chm

anne

ras

heco

nsid

ers

appr

opri

ate.

s.45

(B)(

2)In

exer

cisi

ngth

eir

func

tions

unde

rth

isPa

rt,

adi

stri

ctco

unci

lsh

all

doso

inac

cord

ance

with

the

guid

ance

issu

edby

the

Secr

etar

yof

Stat

eun

der

subs

ectio

n(B

)(1)

.

The

irra

tiona

lity

ofth

ere

quir

emen

tfo

rve

hicl

e,dr

iver

and

Am

end

the

1976

Act

,so

that

ave

hicl

eor

driv

erlic

ense

dby

Adr

iver

licen

sed

byan

yco

unci

lw

illbe

able

todr

ive

aop

erat

orlic

ence

sto

all

have

been

issu

edby

the

sam

ean

yco

unci

lm

ayun

dert

ake

wor

kbo

oked

with

any

priv

ate

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

licen

sed

byan

yco

unci

l;an

dun

dert

ake

coun

cil.

hire

oper

ator

,by

amen

ding

sect

ion

46(1

)w

ithte

rms

toth

ew

ork

book

edw

itha

priv

ate

hire

oper

ator

licen

sed

with

the

Whi

lst

acce

ptin

gth

atit

isap

prop

riat

efo

ran

oper

ator

tobe

effe

ctth

at:

dist

rict

coun

cil

for

the

area

inw

hich

the

oper

ator

’slic

ense

dby

the

coun

cil

inw

hose

area

they

are

situ

ated

,th

es.

46(1

)E

xcep

tas

auth

oris

edby

this

Part

ofth

isA

ct—

prem

ises

are

situ

ated

anyw

here

inE

ngla

ndan

dW

ales

.re

quir

emen

tfo

rve

hicl

ean

ddr

iver

tobe

also

licen

sed

by(a

)no

pers

onbe

ing

the

prop

riet

orof

any

vehi

cle,

not

bein

gT

hein

cons

iste

ncie

sof

para

grap

hs(b

)an

d(c

)w

illbe

the

sam

eco

unci

las

the

oper

ator

,pr

even

tsdr

iver

s,a

hack

ney

carr

iage

[or

Lon

don

Cab

]in

resp

ect

ofw

hich

are

mov

ed,

albe

itat

the

cost

ofpr

even

ting

anyo

ne,

but

apa

rtic

ular

lyin

thos

ear

eas

whi

char

em

ajor

conu

rbat

ions

,ve

hicl

elic

ence

isin

forc

e,sh

all

use

orpe

rmit

the

sam

eto

belic

ense

dpr

ivat

ehi

redr

iver

from

driv

ing

alic

ense

dpr

ivat

efr

omm

ovin

gfr

omon

eop

erat

orto

anot

her,

whe

ther

that

beus

edin

aco

ntro

lled

dist

rict

asa

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

with

out

hire

vehi

cle.

perm

anen

tlyor

attim

esof

peak

dem

and.

.ha

ving

for

such

ave

hicl

ea

curr

ent

licen

ceis

sued

byan

yC

urre

ntly

,pa

ragr

aph

(c)

ofse

ctio

n46

(1)

seem

sto

perm

itdi

stri

ctco

unci

lun

der

sect

ion

48of

this

Act

;th

epr

opri

etor

ofa

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

tope

rmit

(b)

nope

rson

shal

lin

aco

ntro

lled

dist

rict

act

asa

driv

erof

som

eone

—an

dm

ost

com

mon

lya

spou

se,

part

ner

orfa

mily

any

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

with

out

havi

nga

curr

ent

licen

cem

embe

r—to

driv

eth

eir

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle,

aslo

ngas

itis

issu

edby

any

dist

rict

coun

cil

unde

rse

ctio

n51

ofth

isA

ct;

not

“for

the

purp

ose

ofan

yhi

ring

”,w

here

aspa

ragr

aph

(b)

(c)

nope

rson

bein

gth

epr

opri

etor

ofa

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

expr

essl

ypr

ohib

itsan

ype

rson

from

driv

ing

apr

ivat

ehi

relic

ense

dun

der

this

Part

ofth

isA

ctsh

all

empl

oyas

the

vehi

cle,

unle

ssth

eyho

lda

priv

ate

hire

driv

er’s

licen

ce.

driv

erth

ereo

ffo

rth

epu

rpos

eof

any

hiri

ngpe

rmit

any

pers

onw

hodo

esno

tha

vea

curr

ent

licen

ceis

sued

byan

ydi

stri

ctco

unci

lun

der

the

said

sect

ion

51to

driv

eth

eve

hicl

e;



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

(d)

nope

rson

shal

lin

aco

ntro

lled

dist

rict

oper

ate

any

vehi

cle

asa

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

with

out

havi

nga

curr

ent

licen

ceun

der

sect

ion

55of

this

Act

from

the

dist

rict

coun

cil

for

that

dist

rict

;(e

)no

pers

onlic

ense

dun

der

the

said

sect

ion

55sh

all

ina

cont

rolle

ddi

stri

ctop

erat

ean

yve

hicl

eas

apr

ivat

ehi

reve

hicl

e-

(i)

iffo

rth

eve

hicl

ea

curr

ent

licen

ceun

der

the

said

sect

ion

48is

not

info

rce;

or(i

i)if

the

driv

erdo

esno

tha

vea

curr

ent

licen

ceun

der

the

said

sect

ion

51.

No

righ

tto

appe

alto

am

agis

trat

es’

cour

t(i

nste

adof

the

Am

end

the

1976

Act

,so

that

itex

pres

sly

prov

ides

ari

ght

ofA

nab

ility

toap

peal

toa

mag

istr

ates

’co

urt

will

becr

own

cour

t)ag

ains

tth

ere

fusa

lto

gran

tor

dete

rmin

ean

appe

alto

am

agis

trat

es’

cour

tin

resp

ect

ofa

refu

sal

togr

ant

cons

iste

ntw

ithev

ery

othe

rri

ght

ofap

peal

prov

ided

for

byap

plic

atio

nfo

ra

hack

ney

carr

iage

prop

riet

or’s

licen

ce.

aha

ckne

yca

rria

gepr

opri

etor

’slic

ence

,by

amen

ding

the

Act

.su

bsec

tion

(3)

ofse

ctio

n47

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

All

part

ies

will

bene

fitfr

omth

ere

duce

dco

sts

invo

lved

ins.

47(3

)A

nype

rson

aggr

ieve

dby

the

refu

sal

ofa

dist

rict

anap

peal

toa

mag

istr

ates

’co

urt,

whi

chis

also

likel

yto

beco

unci

lto

gran

ta

hack

ney

carr

iage

prop

riet

or’s

licen

ceor

byab

leto

hear

and

dete

rmin

eth

eap

peal

mor

equ

ickl

yth

anan

yco

nditi

ons

atta

ched

tosu

cha

licen

cem

ayap

peal

toa

wou

ldus

ually

bepo

ssib

lein

the

crow

nco

urt.

mag

istr

ates

’co

urt.

Inco

nsis

tent

,ir

ratio

nal

and

unsa

feve

hicl

esp

ecifi

catio

nsse

tA

men

dth

e19

76A

ct,

soth

atit

inco

rpor

ates

the

spec

ifica

tion

Hig

her

spec

ifica

tion

vehi

cles

,w

hich

are

now

com

mon

lyby

coun

cils

.fo

rL

ondo

npr

ivat

ehi

reve

hicl

es,

byin

sert

ing

ane

wfit

ted

with

anti-

glar

egl

ass,

will

beco

me

mor

ew

idel

yus

edSo

me

coun

cils

refu

seto

licen

ceve

hicl

esw

ithtin

ted

glas

s;pa

ragr

aph

(c)

tose

ctio

n48

(1)

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

byth

etr

ade

and

that

bene

fits

the

envi

ronm

ent

and

the

requ

ire

seat

sto

bere

mov

edor

seat

ing

tobe

reco

nfigu

red;

s.48

(1)(

a)(v

i)on

eth

atm

eets

any

requ

irem

ents

pres

crib

edby

publ

ic.

and

requ

ire

foam

tobe

shav

edfr

omse

atcu

shio

ns.

regu

latio

nsm

ade

unde

rse

ctio

n7(

2)(c

)of

the

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

that

are

desi

gned

and

man

ufac

ture

dto

carr

y6,

7V

ehic

les

(Lon

don)

Act

1998

,or

8pa

ssen

gers

will

beab

leto

carr

yth

atnu

mbe

rof

The

regu

latio

nsth

atha

vebe

enm

ade

unde

rth

esa

idpo

wer

pass

enge

rs,

with

out

thei

rsa

fety

bein

gco

mpr

omis

edby

are

thos

eco

ntai

ned

inSc

hedu

le1

toT

hePr

ivat

eH

ire

coun

cils

havi

ngse

ats

mod

ified

,re

mov

edor

re-p

ositi

oned

Veh

icle

s(L

ondo

nPH

VL

icen

ces)

Reg

ulat

ions

2004

.w

here

they

wer

ene

ver

inte

nded

tobe

.



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

The

wid

era

nge

offe

esse

tby

diff

eren

tco

unci

lsfo

rA

men

dth

e19

76A

ct,

soas

tose

tfe

eat

the

sam

ele

vel

asD

rive

rsan

dpr

ivat

ehi

reop

erat

ors

wou

ldno

long

erbe

gran

ting

aha

ckne

yca

rria

gedr

iver

’san

d/

orpr

ivat

ehi

reth

eyar

ew

ithin

Lon

don,

byam

endi

ngth

ew

ordi

ngof

attr

acte

dto

cert

ain

coun

cils

,be

caus

eth

eyha

dlo

wer

fees

.ve

hicl

edr

iver

’slic

ence

.su

bsec

tion

53(2

)w

ithte

rms

toth

eef

fect

that

:C

ounc

ilsw

ould

nolo

nger

bevu

lner

able

toth

etr

ade

As

the

legi

slat

ion

does

not

prov

ide

for

coun

cils

tore

cove

rs.

53(2

)N

otw

ithst

andi

ngth

epr

ovis

ions

ofth

eA

ctof

1847

,a

mak

ing

form

alob

ject

ions

toth

ean

nual

acco

unts

ofth

eco

sts

ofan

ythi

ngot

her

than

adm

inis

trat

ion,

i.e.

itdo

esdi

stri

ctco

unci

lm

ayde

man

dan

dre

cove

rfo

rth

egr

ant

toan

yco

unci

l,be

caus

eth

ey(r

ight

lyor

wro

ngly

)be

lieve

dth

atno

tco

ver

the

cost

sof

driv

eren

forc

emen

t,on

ew

ould

pers

onof

alic

ence

todr

ive

aha

ckne

yca

rria

ge,

orpr

ivat

eth

eyha

dbe

enun

law

fully

over

char

ged.

expe

ctal

lco

unci

lsto

bech

argi

nga

roug

hly

sim

ilar

fee

for

hire

vehi

cle,

asth

eca

sem

aybe

,su

cha

fee

asth

eyco

nsid

erth

esa

me

adm

inis

trat

ive

proc

ess.

reas

onab

lew

itha

view

tore

cove

ring

the

cost

sof

issu

ean

dad

min

istr

atio

npr

escr

ibed

byre

gula

tions

mad

eun

der

sect

ion

13(2

)of

the

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

(Lon

don)

Act

1998

and

may

rem

itth

ew

hole

orpa

rtof

the

fee

inre

spec

tof

apr

ivat

ehi

reve

hicl

ein

any

case

inw

hich

they

thin

kit

appr

opri

ate

todo

so.

The

regu

latio

nsth

atha

vebe

enm

ade

unde

rth

esa

idpo

wer

are

thos

eco

ntai

ned

inpa

ragr

aph

5of

The

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

(Lon

don

PHV

Dri

ver’

sL

icen

ces)

Reg

ulat

ions

2003

.

Inab

ility

tosu

b-co

ntra

cta

priv

ate

hire

book

ing

toan

Am

end

the

1976

Act

,so

that

isha

sth

esa

me

effe

ctas

Veh

icle

sw

illbe

depl

oyed

mor

eef

fect

ivel

y,th

ereb

yop

erat

orin

anot

her

area

.se

ctio

n5

ofth

ePr

ivat

eH

ire

Veh

icle

s(L

ondo

n)A

ct19

98,

byre

duci

ng‘d

ead

mile

age’

,re

duci

ngfu

elus

age,

and

redu

cing

As

are

sult,

ever

yop

erat

orin

Lon

don

has

anun

fair

inse

rtin

ga

new

sect

ion

56(2

A)

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

CO

2em

issi

ons.

com

mer

cial

adva

ntag

eov

erop

erat

ors

inth

ere

stof

s.56

(2A

)“a

noth

erop

erat

or”

mea

nsan

oper

ator

licen

sed

Kee

pth

eco

sts

char

ged

toth

epu

blic

aslo

was

poss

ible

,E

ngla

ndan

dW

ales

who

are

proh

ibite

dfr

omsu

b-an

ywhe

rein

Eng

land

and

Wal

esun

der

sect

ion

55of

this

beca

use

vehi

cles

will

wor

km

ore

effic

ient

ly;

and

impr

ove

cont

ract

ing

toan

yone

othe

rth

anan

oper

ator

licen

sed

byA

ct,

orse

ctio

n3

ofth

ePr

ivat

eH

ire

Veh

icle

s(L

ondo

n)A

ctth

ere

spon

sive

ness

ofth

ese

rvic

epr

ovid

edto

the

publ

ic.

the

sam

eco

unci

las

them

selv

es.

1998

;or

anop

erat

orin

Scot

land

.

No

expr

ess

pow

erto

atta

chco

nditi

ons

toa

hack

ney

Am

end

the

1976

Act

,so

that

itex

pres

sly

prov

ides

for

As

mos

tco

unci

lsha

vere

ject

edth

ear

gum

ents

ofth

eca

rria

gedr

iver

’slic

ence

.co

nditi

ons

tobe

atta

ched

toa

hack

ney

carr

iage

driv

er’s

Dep

artm

ent

for

Tra

nspo

rt,

mos

tha

ckne

yca

rria

gedr

iver

sD

espi

teth

ere

bein

gno

expr

ess

pow

erto

doso

,th

elic

ence

,by

inse

rtin

ga

new

subs

ectio

n(1

B)

tose

ctio

n59

and

are

only

regu

late

dby

stat

ute

and

loca

lby

elaw

s,w

hich

tend

Dep

artm

ent

for

Tra

nspo

rtha

sar

gued

that

itis

poss

ible

toam

endi

ngsu

bsec

tion

(2)

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

tobe

out-

of-d

ate;

diffi

cult

and

cost

lyto

chan

ge;

and

doso

.M

ost

coun

cils

opt

not

toat

tach

cond

ition

s,be

caus

es.

59(1

B)

Adi

stri

ctco

unci

lm

ayat

tach

toth

egr

ant

ofa

inca

pabl

eof

addr

essi

nga

mat

ter

that

isun

ique

toan

they

fear

aco

stly

lega

lch

alle

nge.

licen

ceto

driv

ea

hack

ney

carr

iage

such

cond

ition

sas

they

indi

vidu

alap

plic

ant.

may

cons

ider

reas

onab

lyne

cess

ary.

An

expr

ess

abili

tyto

atta

chco

nditi

ons

toa

licen

cew

ould

s.59

(2)

Any

appl

ican

tag

grie

ved

byth

ere

fusa

lof

adi

stri

ctad

dres

sal

lth

ose

mat

ters

;an

dm

ayle

ssen

the

coun

cil

togr

ant

adr

iver

’slic

ence

onth

egr

ound

that

heis

adm

inis

trat

ive

burd

enon

coun

cils

and

the

cost

toth

etr

ade

not

afit

and

prop

erpe

rson

toho

ldsu

cha

licen

ce;

oran

yof

annu

allic

ensi

ng.

cond

ition

sat

tach

edto

the

gran

tof

adr

iver

’slic

ence

;m

ayap

peal

toa

mag

istr

ates

’co

urt.



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

No

righ

tto

refu

seto

rene

wa

driv

er’s

licen

ce(a

lthou

ghA

men

dth

e19

76A

ct,

soth

atit

expr

essl

yex

tend

sth

epo

wer

sT

heab

ility

for

aco

unci

lto

refu

seto

rene

wa

driv

er’s

ther

eis

the

pow

erto

susp

end

and

revo

ke)

with

out

the

righ

tto

refu

sal

tore

new

,by

amen

ding

subs

ectio

ns(2

A)

and

(2B

)lic

ence

,w

ithou

tth

edr

iver

havi

nga

righ

tto

cont

inue

toto

cont

inue

toex

erci

seth

eri

ghts

ofth

elic

ence

pend

ing

anof

sect

ion

61w

ithte

rms

toth

eef

fect

that

:ex

erci

seth

eri

ghts

ofth

elic

ence

pend

ing

anap

peal

,is

aap

peal

.s.

61(2

A)

Subj

ect

tosu

bsec

tion

(2B

)of

this

sect

ion,

apo

wer

coun

cils

ough

tto

have

topr

otec

tth

epu

blic

insu

spen

sion

,re

voca

tion

orre

fusa

lto

rene

wth

elic

ence

ofa

appr

opri

ate

case

s.dr

iver

unde

rth

isse

ctio

nta

kes

effe

ct.

..

.s.

61(2

B)

Ifit

appe

ars

that

the

inte

rest

sof

publ

icsa

fety

requ

ire

the

susp

ensi

on,

revo

catio

nor

refu

sal

tore

new

the

licen

ceto

have

imm

edia

teef

fect

,an

dth

eno

tice

give

nto

the

oper

ator

unde

rsu

bsec

tion

(2)

ofth

isse

ctio

nin

clud

esa

stat

emen

tth

atth

atis

soan

dan

expl

anat

ion

why

,th

esu

spen

sion

,re

voca

tion

orre

fusa

lto

rene

wta

kes

effe

ctw

hen

the

notic

eis

give

nto

the

driv

er.

No

righ

tto

susp

end,

revo

keor

refu

seto

rene

wan

Am

end

the

1976

Act

,so

that

itex

pres

sly

exte

nds

the

pow

ers

The

abili

tyfo

ra

coun

cil

tosu

spen

d,re

voke

orto

refu

seto

oper

ator

’slic

ence

with

out

the

righ

tto

cont

inue

toex

erci

seto

prev

ent

anop

erat

orco

ntin

uing

toex

erci

seth

eri

ghts

ofre

new

anop

erat

or’s

licen

ce,

with

out

the

oper

ator

havi

nga

the

righ

tsof

the

licen

cepe

ndin

gan

appe

al.

the

licen

cepe

ndin

gan

appe

al,

byin

sert

ing

new

subs

ectio

nsri

ght

toco

ntin

ueto

exer

cise

the

righ

tsof

the

licen

ceSa

vefo

rab

ility

tore

fuse

tore

new

with

out

the

righ

tto

(2A

)an

d(2

B)

into

sect

ion

62w

ithte

rms

toth

eef

fect

that

:pe

ndin

gan

appe

al,

isa

pow

erco

unci

lsou

ght

toha

veto

cont

inue

toex

erci

seth

eri

ghts

ofth

elic

ence

pend

ing

ans.

62(2

A)

Subj

ect

tosu

bsec

tion

(2B

)of

this

sect

ion,

apr

otec

tth

epu

blic

inap

prop

riat

eca

ses.

appe

al,

this

wou

ldbr

ing

Eng

land

and

Wal

esin

line

with

susp

ensi

on,

revo

catio

nor

refu

sal

tore

new

the

licen

ceof

anth

epr

ovis

ions

inL

ondo

n,pr

ovid

edby

sect

ion

17of

the

oper

ator

unde

rth

isse

ctio

nta

kes

effe

ctat

the

end

ofth

ePr

ivat

eH

ire

Veh

icle

s(L

ondo

n)A

ct19

98.

peri

odof

21da

ysbe

ginn

ing

with

the

day

onw

hich

notic

eis

give

nto

the

oper

ator

unde

rsu

bsec

tion

(2)

ofth

isse

ctio

n.s.

62(2

B)

Ifit

appe

ars

that

the

inte

rest

sof

publ

icsa

fety

requ

ire

the

susp

ensi

on,

revo

catio

nor

refu

sal

tore

new

the

licen

ceto

have

imm

edia

teef

fect

,an

dth

eno

tice

give

nto

the

oper

ator

unde

rsu

bsec

tion

(2)

ofth

isse

ctio

nin

clud

esa

stat

emen

tth

atth

atis

soan

dan

expl

anat

ion

why

,th

esu

spen

sion

,re

voca

tion

orre

fusa

lto

rene

wta

kes

effe

ctw

hen

the

notic

eis

give

nto

the

oper

ator

.



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

Inab

ility

ofau

thor

ised

offic

ers

ofot

her

coun

cils

toin

spec

tA

men

dth

e19

76A

ctso

that

itpr

ovid

esfo

ran

auth

oris

edT

heex

tend

edpo

wer

sof

insp

ectio

nan

dsu

spen

sion

ough

tve

hicl

es;

and

the

inab

ility

tore

mov

ean

dre

tain

alic

ence

offic

erof

any

coun

cil

tosu

spen

dth

elic

ence

and

toha

veal

way

sbe

enav

aila

ble

toau

thor

ised

offic

ers

ofal

lpl

ate

imm

edia

tely

upon

susp

ensi

onof

alic

ence

unde

rim

med

iate

lyre

mov

alan

dre

tain

the

plat

eby

revi

sing

the

coun

cils

,bu

ton

lyin

rela

tion

toth

ose

mat

ters

that

are

sect

ion

68.

prov

isio

nsof

sect

ion

68,

with

term

sto

the

effe

ctth

at:

conc

erne

dw

ithro

adw

orth

ines

s.T

heex

istin

gw

ordi

ngis

The

fact

that

ave

hicl

eca

non

lybe

insp

ecte

dby

as.

68A

nyA

nau

thor

ised

offic

erof

the

any

coun

cil

inim

prec

ise

inth

atth

ere

isno

defin

ition

ofth

ew

ord

cons

tabl

eor

anau

thor

ised

offic

erof

the

coun

cil

that

ques

tion

oran

yco

nsta

ble

shal

lha

vepo

wer

atal

lre

ason

able

“fitn

ess”

,w

hich

has

resu

lted

inso

me

coun

cils

susp

endi

nglic

ense

da

vehi

cle

prev

ents

the

effe

ctiv

een

forc

emen

tof

times

toin

spec

tan

dte

st,

for

the

purp

ose

ofas

cert

aini

ngits

ave

hicl

efr

omus

age

beca

use

ofve

rym

inor

cosm

etic

publ

icsa

fety

stan

dard

sou

tsid

eth

ear

eaof

the

coun

cil

that

fitne

ss,

road

wor

thin

ess

any

hack

ney

carr

iage

orpr

ivat

ehi

resc

ratc

hing

belo

wa

door

lock

,w

hich

inno

way

licen

sed

the

vehi

cle.

vehi

cle

licen

sed

byan

ydi

stri

ctco

unci

l,or

any

taxi

met

erco

mpr

omis

espu

blic

safe

ty.

The

inab

ility

toim

med

iate

lyre

mov

ean

dre

tain

apl

ate

affix

edto

such

ave

hicl

e,an

dif

heis

not

satis

fied

asto

the

Afa

ilure

toco

mpl

yw

ithco

nditi

ons

oflic

ence

rela

ting

tom

eans

that

anun

licen

sed

vehi

cle

(hac

kney

carr

iage

orfit

ness

road

wor

thin

ess

ofth

eha

ckne

yca

rria

geor

priv

ate

hire

mat

ters

such

asliv

ery

and

roof

sign

sm

aybe

deal

tw

ithpr

ivat

ehi

reve

hicl

e)w

illco

ntin

ueto

appe

arto

the

publ

icve

hicl

eor

asto

the

accu

racy

ofits

taxi

met

erhe

may

byen

tirel

yap

prop

riat

ely

unde

rth

ese

ctio

n60

pow

ers

ofto

belic

ense

d,w

hich

mus

tin

crea

seth

epo

ssib

ility

that

ano

tice

inw

ritin

gre

quir

eth

epr

opri

etor

ofth

eha

ckne

ysu

spen

sion

byth

edi

stri

ctco

unci

lth

atlic

ense

dth

eve

hicl

e,dr

iver

will

cont

inue

tous

eth

eve

hicl

eas

ifit

wer

eca

rria

geor

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

tom

ake

itor

itsta

xim

eter

even

ifsu

chac

tion

isba

sed

upon

info

rmat

ion

rece

ived

licen

sed.

avai

labl

efo

rfu

rthe

rin

spec

tion

and

test

ing

atsu

chfr

oman

offic

erof

anot

her

coun

cil.

reas

onab

letim

ean

dpl

ace

asm

aybe

spec

ified

inth

eno

tice

and

susp

end

the

vehi

cle

licen

cean

dre

mov

ean

dre

tain

the

plat

eun

tilsu

chtim

eas

such

auth

oris

edof

ficer

orco

nsta

ble

isso

satis

fied.

Prov

ided

that

,if

the

auth

oris

edof

ficer

orco

nsta

ble

isno

tso

satis

fied

befo

reth

eex

pira

tion

ofa

peri

odof

two

mon

ths,

the

said

licen

cesh

all,

byvi

rtue

ofth

isse

ctio

n,be

deem

edto

have

been

revo

ked

and

subs

ectio

ns(2

)an

d(3

)of

sect

ion

60of

this

Act

shal

lap

ply

with

any

nece

ssar

ym

odifi

catio

ns.



Pro

blem

Solu

tion

Ben

efits

The

wid

era

nge

offe

esse

tby

diff

eren

tco

unci

lsfo

rA

men

dth

e19

76A

ct,

soas

tose

tfe

esat

the

sam

ele

vels

asPr

opri

etor

s(a

nddr

iver

s)an

dpr

ivat

ehi

reop

erat

ors

wou

ldgr

antin

gha

ckne

yca

rria

gepr

opri

etor

’slic

ence

san

dpr

ivat

eth

eyar

ew

ithin

Lon

don,

byre

plac

ing

the

who

leof

sect

ion

nolo

nger

beat

trac

ted

toce

rtai

nco

unci

ls,

beca

use

they

had

hire

vehi

cle

licen

ces.

70w

ithte

rms

toth

eef

fect

that

:lo

wer

fees

.B

ecau

seco

unci

lsar

epe

rmitt

edto

reco

ver

all

the

cost

ss.

70(1

)N

otw

ithst

andi

ngth

epr

ovis

ions

ofth

eA

ctof

1847

,a

Cou

ncils

wou

ldno

long

erbe

vuln

erab

leto

the

trad

ere

latin

gto

vehi

cle

licen

sing

,si

tuat

ions

doar

ise

whe

reby

adi

stri

ctco

unci

lm

ayde

man

dan

dre

cove

rfo

rth

egr

ant

toan

ym

akin

gfo

rmal

obje

ctio

nsto

the

annu

alac

coun

tsof

coun

cil

crea

tes

ave

ryco

mpl

exan

dbu

reau

crat

icpr

oces

spe

rson

ofa

hack

ney

carr

iage

prop

riet

or’s

licen

ce,

ora

coun

cil,

beca

use

they

(rig

htly

orw

rong

ly)

belie

ved

that

that

requ

ires

man

yst

aff

toad

min

iste

ran

dis

acco

rdin

gly

priv

ate

hire

vehi

cle

licen

ce,

asth

eca

sem

aybe

,su

chfe

eas

they

had

been

unla

wfu

llyov

erch

arge

d.ve

ryex

pens

ive

(i.e

.po

ssib

lyas

muc

has

seve

ntim

esth

epr

escr

ibed

byre

gula

tions

mad

eun

der

sect

ion

7(2)

(c)

ofth

efe

ech

arge

din

Lon

don)

,w

here

asot

her

coun

cils

char

gePr

ivat

eH

ire

Veh

icle

s(L

ondo

n)A

ct19

98an

dm

ayre

mit

the

low

erfe

es,

beca

use

they

have

effic

ient

and

effe

ctiv

ew

hole

orpa

rtof

the

fee

inan

yca

sein

whi

chth

eyth

ink

itad

min

istr

atio

nan

den

forc

emen

tpr

oces

ses.

appr

opri

ate

todo

so.

The

regu

latio

nsth

atha

vebe

enm

ade

unde

rth

esa

idpo

wer

are

thos

eco

ntai

ned

inpa

ragr

aph

6of

The

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

(Lon

don

PHV

Lic

ence

s)R

egul

atio

ns20

04.

The

wid

era

nge

offe

esse

tby

diff

eren

tco

unci

lsfo

rA

men

dth

e19

76A

ct,

soas

tose

tfe

esat

the

sam

ele

vels

asC

ounc

ilsw

ould

nolo

nger

bevu

lner

able

toth

etr

ade

gran

ting

priv

ate

hire

oper

ator

licen

ces.

they

are

with

inL

ondo

n,by

repl

acin

gth

ew

hole

ofse

ctio

nm

akin

gfo

rmal

obje

ctio

nsto

the

annu

alac

coun

tsof

Whi

lst

itis

argu

ably

clea

rw

hat

cost

elem

ents

ofth

e70

with

term

s(i

nad

ditio

nto

thos

ere

ferr

edto

abov

ein

coun

cil,

beca

use

they

(rig

htly

orw

rong

ly)

belie

ved

that

licen

sing

func

tion

coun

cils

can

char

gein

rela

tion

todr

iver

rela

tion

tove

hicl

elic

ence

fees

)to

the

effe

ctth

at:

they

had

been

unla

wfu

llyov

erch

arge

d.an

dve

hicl

elic

ensi

ng,

the

posi

tion

isle

sscl

ear

inre

latio

ns.

70(2

)A

dist

rict

coun

cil

may

dem

and

and

reco

ver

for

the

toop

erat

orlic

ensi

ng.

gran

tto

any

pers

onof

apr

ivat

ehi

reop

erat

or’s

licen

cesu

chIt

appe

ars

all

that

can

bech

arge

dis

the

cost

sof

issu

ean

dfe

eas

pres

crib

edby

regu

latio

nsm

ade

unde

rse

ctio

n3(

3)(b

)ad

min

istr

atio

n;an

dsu

chco

sts

asre

late

tove

hicl

eof

the

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

(Lon

don)

Act

1998

and

may

enfo

rcem

ent.

How

ever

,in

real

ity,

such

enfo

rcem

ent

isre

mit

the

who

leor

part

ofth

efe

ein

any

case

inw

hich

they

likel

yto

bere

late

to,

and

bech

arge

able

toa

vehi

cle

thin

kit

appr

opri

ate

todo

so.

licen

ce.

The

regu

latio

nsth

atha

vebe

enm

ade

unde

rth

esa

idpo

wer

are

thos

eco

ntai

ned

inpa

ragr

aph

6of

The

Priv

ate

Hir

eV

ehic

les

(Lon

don)

(Ope

rato

rs’

Lic

ence

s)(A

men

dmen

t)R

egul

atio

ns20

03.

Con

sequ

entia

lam

endm

ents

Itis

ackn

owle

dged

that

itw

illbe

nece

ssar

yto

mak

eT

heam

endm

ents

sugg

este

dhe

rein

wou

ldal

low

the

trad

eco

nseq

uent

ial

amen

dmen

tsth

roug

hout

Part

IIof

the

1976

topr

ospe

rby

mak

ing

the

mos

tef

fect

ive

and

effic

ient

use

Act

,bu

tth

em

atte

rsof

grea

test

sign

ifica

nce

are

deta

iled

ofve

hicl

ean

ddr

iver

sfo

rth

ego

odof

the

plan

et,

whi

lst

here

in.

impr

ovin

gco

nsis

tenc

yan

den

forc

eabi

lity

acro

ssth

ew

hole

ofE

ngla

ndan

dW

ales

.

Mar

ch20

11

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [O] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_w023_michelle_TPH 36c - David B Wilson.xml


Written evidence from Milton Keynes Council (TPH 39)

On behalf of this Council, I submit the following information and observations to assist the Committee inits deliberations.

1. Hackney and Private Hire Vehicles—General1.(a) Figures 09/10

Milton Keynes Council currently licence 203 hackney carriage vehicles and 659 private hire vehicles.

Licensed drivers total: 1034 (some drivers have both types of licence).

Operators for Private Hire: 69.

1.(b) Milton Keynes (new town area) has a highway network based on a gird system where most of theroads are designated as “Clearways”. They cannot be used to “ply for hire” by hackney carriages. Thehackney carriage drivers therefore have to trade mainly from designated taxi ranks, particularly atMilton Keynes Railway Station. They service the night time economy working from ranks within theCentral Milton Keynes “city centre” area ie night club/bar venues.

Milton Keynes Council has a policy of no limit on the number of hackney carriage vehicles that canbe licensed. This approach is in accordance with advice from the Office of Fair Trading and preventsartificial trading barriers. Many local authorities have policies in place that artificially cap the numberof hackney carriage plates issued. As the local authority has no powers to make those who leave thetrade surrendering their licence, this means the holder can sell it on often giving an unearned windfallof many thousands of pounds to the holder. It also means that the local authority cannot license newapplicants as the only way to enter is to pay this ransom. Authorities who limit numbers have to payfor unmet demand surveys to justify this approach.

1.(c) There are considerable tensions within the hackney carriage/private hire sectors in Milton Keynesbecause both parties are seeking business from the same customers. This results in claims of allegedillegal ranking up, plying for hire (blagging). The situation is exacerbated by private hire drivers fromthe adjacent administrative areas to Milton Keynes operating illegally on occasions with the tacitagreement of their operators.

There is tension between Milton Keynes Council licensed private hire and the hackney carriage tradeover perceptions relating to private hire drivers waiting for pre-booked fares that give the impressionthat a “Plying for Hire” offence is being committed.

2. Cross Border Activity2.(a) There are several private hire operators based just over our Council boundary in South

Northamptonshire. The largest of these is just 600 yards away and directs some 350 vehicles towardsMilton Keynes. They are based there for a number of reasons some of which relate to local authoritydiscretion. All the companies advertise as serving Milton Keynes through the use of multi-mediachannels. This approach inevitably attracts a lot of custom from our residents, and visitors as we haveare a far larger population—237,000. They have both Milton Keynes postcodes and telephonenumbers. We are aware that 95% of the largest company’s bookings are for work within the districtof Milton Keynes. This approach creates friction between operators as they have to be very aggressivein their marketing and pricing. However it could be argued that the customer benefits from thisapproach which is commonplace in other areas of business. The hackney carriage trade generally donot adopt such techniques and rely on traditional metered fares and that fact they can ply for hirerather than be prebooked.

2.(b) Of the circa 1,200 private hire vehicles covering Milton Keynes 29% (350) are licensed by SouthNorthamptonshire Council the majority of their licensed drivers do operate legally but a significantproportion of our enforcement officer’s resources is spent monitoring the South Northamptonshirevehicles because of the level of complaints from our licensed drivers alleging suspected illegal activity;in the main “plying for hire”. These offences are at times difficult to prove beyond reasonable doubtas the South Northamptonshire Council licensed vehicles are waiting for a fare allocation in the MiltonKeynes area.

A legal requirement to return to their own licensing authority boundary after completing a pre-bookedjourney would go some way to dealing with the issue.

3. In Terms of Enforcement Activity3.(a) Between 2002–08 a total of 58 drivers were prosecuted of which 33 (56%) were South

Northamptonshire Council licensed drivers.

During 2009–10 a total of 36 drivers were prosecuted of which 21(60%) were from SouthNorthamptonshire.

3.(b) Police Checks—Vehicle Test Failures

Between 2007–10 total of 157 vehicles failed 42(27%) were South Northamptonshire licensedVehicles.

cobber Pack: U PL: COE1 [E] Processed: [14-07-2011 16:46] Job: 011170 Unit: PG03Source: /MILES/PKU/INPUT/011170/011170_w023_michelle_TPH 36c - David B Wilson.xml


3.(c) Costs: The cost of properly resourcing comprehensive enforcement activity is considerable and we areonly able to recover monies from South Northamptonshire operators and drivers when our legalproceedings have been successful. It is inequitable that Milton Keynes residents have to fundenforcement against companies and individuals who pay their fees to our neighbouring authority. Thesituation is exacerbated by the absence of any standards of good practice that could be used by allrelevant licensing authorities. The trade would welcome this approach as it would create a levelplaying field from an administrative and enforcement perspective and it would make life a lot morestraight forward for local authority officers

It is fair to state that Magistrates do take into account driver’s personal circumstances whensentencing and it is rare for full costs to be recovered by the enforcement authority so our fee structureneeds to reflect this outcome as cost neutrality is a required outcome for the vehicle licensing service.

3.(d) Legislation caters for the licensing of vehicles, drivers and operators and there is an impliedrequirement to take the necessary enforcement action in accordance with the Council’s ownenforcement policy.

4. Operators

4.(a) Within the private hire trade there appears to be tensions between the operators and their drivers. Mostprivate hire drivers are self employed but they are required to undertake a contract with an operatorin order to trade under their brand. They pay a weekly fee for the appropriate equipment to receivefares/bookings etc. this is sophisticated equipment and includes GPS tracker ands satellite navigationcapabilities (hackney carriages generally do not have such equipment). The operators are thereforehappy to maximise the number of drivers on their books whereas the drivers are looking for theCouncil to make it harder for new drivers to obtain a licence, once they have obtained their own,which is somewhat hypocritical.

5. Plying for Hire Offences

5.(a) the law in this area is difficult to enforce and requires complete reform following a “root and branch”review of the current position involving all stakeholders and interested parties.

5.(b) There are many occasions when up to 65,000 people attend the Milton Keynes “National Bowl” venuefor a music concert. However when they are outside the venue and seek to get home, to a hotel or atransport hub, the outdated inflexibility of the current legal position works against those trying toprovide a good “customer experience”.

Given that the local highway infrastructure has to cope with closures—public safety/trafficmanagement; the taxi ranks quickly become empty, then the drivers have difficulty in returning topick up other people that expect a service—queues of 100’s soon form and stay into the early hours!Hackney carriages returning to the rank are hailed and boarded before they can return to the agreedfacilitation area for the waiting public. This also applies to drivers of private hire vehicles as thegeneral public see all the vehicles as cabs or taxis. If a private hire vehicle is not pre-booked thedriver will be very tempted to take on board non pre-booked passengers who are then travellingwithout any insurance in the event of a road traffic incident. This is when the safety of the travellingpublic is compromised and legislation breached.

5.(c) Hackneys that are licensed out of district can now work under the direction of an operator withinanother area on a pre-booked basis, which allows hackney carriages to travel and trade throughout theentire country. This will create even more discontent and confusion for the trade and the localauthorities that receive complaints and allegations of “plying for hire” out of district. In effect thesehackney carriages are operating in a similar manner to a private hire vehicle except that the hackneycarriage drivers do not know who their passengers are, whereas the private hire operator has accepted abooking from a named person, it is recorded and can provide some traceability to enforcement officers.

6. The Need for Reform

6.(a) Is there is still the need to have two types of licenses for this industry Our view is not, the edges ofthe two strands have become blurred in recent years and there is both confusion and apathy from thepaying public. We need to respond positively to the customer desire for good service with an easy tounderstand structure.

6.(b) The various testing criteria for both sets of drivers and vehicles are similar. The key objective for bothhackney carriages and private hire is to provide a safe transport option for the public. The vehiclessometimes even look similar. All the user wants is a “cab” at a reasonable price that meets his/hertravel plans. Greater weight should be given to customer requirements over the vested interest ofdrivers and operators. I would support a single status “Public Service Taxi” with streamlined legislativearrangements augmented by a Good Practice Guide that deals with the detailed arrangements. Thiswill reduce red tape and enhance customer satisfaction. A similar model is used in the licensing ofthe alcohol/regulated entertainments and gaming sectors. Local authority practitioners, licensees andtheir legal representatives are used to this approach which works and can have the necessarysafeguards.



6.(c) The licensing authority has discretion to require a “Knowledge test”, which can lead to significantvariation to cross border standards. It would be helpful if there was some commonality. This couldinclude requirements to meet customer care standards, meeting disability requirements, act in a nondiscriminatory manner, use of language, minimum arithmetic ability and other basic requirements fora taxi driver/operator. An enhanced driving attainment standard could also be considered as it isrequired for other public service vehicles.

Finally, this Council welcomes the opportunity to participate in this formal process and would be willing toprovide expert evidence in person if considered appropriate.

December 2010

Written evidence from Unite (TPH 41)

1. Introduction

1.1 This submission is by Unite the Union. Unite is the UK’s largest trade union with over 1.5 millionmembers across the private and public sectors.

1.2 Unite the Union’s current membership in transport, together with our membership in other trade groups,such as supervisory and administrative grades, and some maintenance engineering members, exceeds 250,000.Unite represents workers in all areas of transport including bus, coach, tram, rail, road haulage, logistics, civilaviation, docks, ferries, waterways and, of particular relevance to this inquiry, taxis.

1.3 Unite has thousands of taxi driver members and has obtained their views through our lay membercommittees at national and regional level. Therefore Unite is in a unique position to submit a response to theTransport Committee Inquiry into Issues Relating to the Licensing of Taxis & Private Hire Vehicles.

2. Executive Summary

2.1 Unite the Union has come across hundreds of examples of Cross Border Hiring of Private Hire Vehiclesall over England and Wales, which has led to many thousands of signatures and a petition from members ofthe public from over 330 MP’s constituencies calling for a change in the law.

2.2 Currently private hire vehicles undertaking a fare to another borough are not required by law to returnto their borough of license before taking another fare in another borough.

2.3 In some cases Private Hire Vehicles are deliberately staying in their neighbouring boroughs waiting forhire. In fact some Private Hire Vehicles never actually enter their licensed borough and permanently placethemselves in neighbouring boroughs.

2.4 Unite is not trying to stop Private Hire Vehicles from being able to take a fare outside their licensedborough. All Unite is seeking is that once a Private Hire Vehicle has taken a fare outside their licensed boroughthey then must return to their licensed area like the rest of the taxi trade has to.

2.5 Private Hire Vehicles have an unfair advantage over the livelihoods of the hackney carriages taxis thatare essentially required to return to their ‘controlled area’ and the private hire trade in a particular borough.

2.6 So clearly a fair playing field needs to be established because the Local Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1976 never envisaged the above situation, and an amendment is long overdue.

2.7 In Scottish legislation section 21 (b) Civic Government Act (1982) it requires taxi and private hirevehicles to return to the licensing area when they have completed a hiring that terminates outside of thecontrolled area.

2.8 Unite’s legal opinion has indicated that it would be possible to incorporate the aforementioned sectionof the Scottish legislation without having to undergo wholesale changes to the 1976 Act which covers Englandand Wales.

2.9 Alternatively, Unite are told there is every prospect that the level playing field, which protects passengerscould be achieved by simple secondary legislation. Unite would be happy to explore this further with thedepartment.

2.10 In terms of enforcement, in order not to burden the courts (which can prove an expensive use of taxpayer’s money) with the proposed new amendment to the legislation Unite believes that a spot fine in theregion of £200 and three points on a driver’s license would be an appropriate punishment.

2.11 There are numerous reasons why Unite believes market forces can damage the taxi trade and discreditthe licensing authority. These are never simple and can vary from one area to another. Nevertheless, the factthat a number of licensing authorities having chosen to de-restrict and have subsequently re-restricted, supportsthe view that far from being the panacea for local supply difficulties, market forces often create different andfar more damaging problems.



2.12 Unite believes Local Taxi Boards made up of the licensing authority, trade unions, the police andpassenger representatives (including disability groups) should be responsible for the monitoring of supply anddemand with the remit of developing the trade in a progressive and managed way.

2.13 Unite proposes that Private Hire Vehicles should have signage on their two front doors (driver andpassenger side) in order to pre-warn the public that if they risk using a Private Hire Vehicle that has not beenpre-booked then that journey will not be insured.

2.14 Private Hire Vehicles should not be able to have tinted windows in the same way as taxis are notallowed. This is clearly double standards and there are possible health and safety implications with allowingthis.

3. Cross Border Hiring of Private Hire Vehicles (PHV)

3.1 Unite the Union has come across hundreds of examples of Cross Border Hiring of Private Hire Vehiclesall over England and Wales, which has led to many thousands of signatures and a petition from members ofthe public from over 330 MP’s constituencies calling for a change in the law. The petition was handed in tothe Chair of the Transport Select Committee Louise Ellman on 10 November 2010 and no doubt has had asignificant bearing on the Transport Committee calling for this inquiry.

3.2 Currently Private Hire Vehicles undertaking a fare to another borough are not required by law to returnto their borough of license before taking another fare in another borough.

3.3 In some cases Private Hire Vehicles are deliberately staying in their neighbouring boroughs waiting forhire. In fact some Private Hire Vehicles never actually enter their licensed borough and permanently placethemselves in neighbouring boroughs.

3.4 As long as a fare has been pre-booked and the Private Hire Vehicle operator, driver and vehicle are alllicensed in the same borough they do not need to be licensed in the borough they are going to pick up the farefrom. They are free to drive as far as they like, 40–50 miles in some cases, although obviously could be furtherand across as many boroughs as they need to, across 6 boroughs in some cases but again obviously couldbe more.

3.5 However, Unite is not trying to stop Private Hire Vehicles from being able to take a fare outside theirlicensed borough. All Unite is seeking is that once a Private Hire Vehicle has taken a fare outside their licensedborough then they must return to their licensed area like the rest of the taxi trade has to.

3.6 Currently Private Hire Vehicles have an unfair advantage over the livelihoods of the hackney carriagestaxis that are essentially required to return to their “controlled area” and the private hire trade in a particularborough.

3.7 So clearly a fair playing field needs to be established because the Local Government (MiscellaneousProvisions) Act 1976 never envisaged the above situation, and an amendment is long overdue.

3.8 In Scottish legislation section 21(b) Civic Government Act (1982) it requires taxi and private hirevehicles to return to the licensing area when they have completed a hiring that terminates outside of thecontrolled area.

3.9 Unite’s legal opinion has indicated that it would be possible to incorporate the aforementioned sectionof the Scottish legislation without having to undergo wholesale changes to the 1976 Act which covers Englandand Wales.

3.10 Alternatively, Unite are told there is every prospect that the level playing field, which protectspassengers could be achieved by simple secondary legislation. Unite would be happy to explore this furtherwith the department.

4. Proposed Amendment to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c 57)

4.1 Insert the following new Clause:

“69A operation of hackney carriages and picking up passengers in private hire vehicles outside thelicensed area

(1) If any person—

(a) operates, or permits the operation of, a hackney carriage within an area in respect of which itsoperation requires to be but is not licensed or the driver requires to be but is not licensed, or

(b) picks up passengers in, or permits passengers to be picked up by, a private hire vehicle withinan area in respect of which its operation requires to be but is not licensed or the driver requiresto be but is not licensed, that person shall be guilty of an offence.



(2) Subsection (1) above does not apply to the operation of a hackney carriage or private hire vehiclewithin an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not licensed if the request for itshiring was received by its driver (otherwise than in a public place from the person to be conveyedin it, or a person acting on his behalf, for a journey beginning there and then) whilst—

(a) in the area or in that part thereof in respect of which its operation and its driver are licensed;

(b) engaged on hire on a journey which began in that area or part or will end there; or

(c) returning to that area or part immediately following completion of a journey on hire.

(3) If any person, being the holder of a hackney carriage licence or private hire vehicle licence inrespect of a vehicle, permits another person who does not have a current hackney carriage driver’slicence or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, as the case may be, to operate the vehicle as a taxior, as the case may be, a private hire vehicle he shall be guilty of an offence.”

5. Enforcement of Cross Border Hiring of Private Hire Vehicles

5.1 In terms of enforcement, in order not to burden the courts (which can prove an expensive use of taxpayers’ money) with the proposed new amendment to the legislation Unite believes that a spot fine in theregion of £200 and 3 points on a driver’s license would be an appropriate punishment.

5.2 Unite believes that by using on the spot fines local licensing authorities will be able to generate theirown revenue to pay for enforcement in their area.

6. Quantity Restrictions

6.1 Section 16 of the 1985 Transport Act allows the Council to restrict the number of taxis, but only if it issatisfied that there is no “significant unmet demand”. Case law directs that the measuring of supply and demandis by way of an independent survey. The currency and therefore the validity of any such survey has commonlybeen viewed as lasting between three and five years.

6.2 Unite is as opposed to the notion that the status quo should be preserved indefinitely and at all costs, aswe are to the view that this vital part of the integrated transport system should be left to the whims of“market forces”.

6.3 There are numerous reasons why Unite believe market forces can damage the taxi trade and discreditthe licensing authority. These are never simple and, can vary from one area to another. Nevertheless, the factthat a number of licensing authorities having chosen to de-restrict and have subsequently re-restricted, supportsthe view that far from being the panacea for local supply difficulties, market forces often create different andfar more damaging problems. It is difficult to obtain a comprehensive and up to date picture of such areas, butthe following are examples of where de-restriction has not proved to be the answer:

— Harlow—Before OFT report in November 2003 were restricted then de-restricted and have nowre-restricted.

— Sheffield—Before OFT report in November 2003 were de-restricted and have now restricted.

— Birmingham—No plates for a year.

— Wirral—Gone from 80 to 350 cabs, which has caused a shortage of taxis on days. The competitionto earn a living is so vast taxi drivers are working nights to make their money and therefore arenot available during the day. Liverpool sees about 1,400 cabs and double the amount of driversand through sharing provides a better day and night cover then just issuing more licenses.

— Salford—Unite’s membership have experienced problems with the council’s plans to increase thenumber of taxis without an independent survey to be carried out to enable us to judge the level ofdemand in the way that case law directs.

6.4 Unite would like to know—What councils de-restricted taxi numbers following the announcement of aGovernment Action Plan in June 2004 encouraging them to do so and which have now chosen to re-restricttaxi numbers since then? And why?

6.5 In effect, Unite would like to see a detailed breakdown of all the councils/local authorities that wereused to make Chart A5.6: Quantity restriction in England and Wales on page 79 of the OFT Taxi MarketStudy—October 2007.

6.6 In summary, Unite believes Local Taxi Boards made up of the licensing authority, trade unions, thepolice and passenger representatives (including disability groups) should be responsible for the monitoring ofsupply and demand with the remit of developing the trade in a progressive and managed way.

7. Private Hire Vehicle Front Doors Signage (Driver and Passenger Side)

7.1 Unite proposes that Private Hire Vehicles should have signage on their two front doors (driver andpassenger side) in order to pre-warn the public that if they risk using a Private Hire Vehicle that has not beenpre-booked then that journey will not be insured.



7.2 The signs should be placed on both front doors (driver and passenger side) and should contain the licenseplate number and operator’s name and should contain the following wording:

License Plate Number: XXXXXXXXOperator Name: XXXXXXXX“WARNING: This vehicle must be pre-booked for your journey to be insured because in the event of anaccident you will not be covered.”

8. Private Hire Vehicle Tinted Windows

8.1 Private Hire Vehicles should not be able to have tinted windows in the same way as taxis are not allowed.This is clearly double standards and there are possible health and safety implications with allowing this.

8.2 Unite opposes the Public Carriage Office’s policy of passing PHV's with tinted windows, somecompletely blacked out, with obvious consequences for the vulnerable, particularly women not knowing whomay be in the vehicle when they enter, let alone what may happen on route with any possible attack being outof sight.

December 2010

Written evidence from Northumberland County Council (TPH 52)

Introduction and Background

1. Northumberland County Council came into effect on the 1 April 2009 following the re-organisation oflocal government in Northumberland. Re-organisation brought together the existing county council and the sixformer district councils of Alnwick District Council, Berwick Upon Tweed Borough Council, Blyth BoroughCouncil, Castle Morpeth Borough Council, Wansbeck District Council and Tynedale District Council.

2. At the time of being established, the council inherited the licensing procedures and arrangementspreviously operated by the district councils and in licensing terms Northumberland became a single controlleddistrict for the purposes of private hire licensing and six hackney carriage licensing zones were created basedupon the former district council boundaries.

Current Problems

3. Whilst there was a lack of consistency in how the district councils had licensed hackney and private hirevehicles and drivers, the single most challenging issue to be inherited was the much publicised approach to thelicensing of hackney carriage vehicles adopted by Berwick Upon Tweed Borough Council, which resulted inwhat is commonly referred to as “out of town” hackney carriages.

4. Whilst this matter was the subject of a High Court case (Newcastle City Council, R (on the applicationof) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & Ors [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) (5 November 2008) and thecouncil has seen a reduction of approximately 50% (370 vehicles) in the number of hackney carriage proprietorslicences in the Berwick zone, the council are nevertheless still trying to resolve the issues it created both withthe trade and those councils who believe that hackney carriages are still being operated contrary to thejudgment. In the main, the current problems relate to:

— Assessment and confirmation of the intended use of the vehicle.

— Varying interpretation of the judgment.

— Difficulties in proprietors seeking licences where it is more appropriate to do so due to variationsin standards being applied by neighbouring local authorities.

5. To a lesser extent, but possibly more likely to result in traditional cross border hiring issues is the licensingof Private Hire Operators, who either exclusively or significantly, provided private hire services through remotefleets operating under specific contracts with individual companies/organisations or as part of a broaderundertaking involving “chauffer services”. This has lead to concerns being expressed by those authorities wherethe fleet is based and at least one has sought to prosecute an operator for using unlicensed vehicles/drivers.Their wish to do so was unsuccessful and undoubtedly complicated by the fact that the operator was licensedin a different controlled district. It is understood that concerns have also been raised by the local trade thatcross border hiring is taking place through the acceptance of bookings at locations other than that stated on theoperators licence.

Cross Border Hiring

6. Within Northumberland due to both its size and dispersed population centres, it is difficult to establishthe extent of cross border hiring activities that take place and the impact upon public safety and theNorthumberland licensed trade. As we have a boundary with North Tyneside Council, Newcastle City Counciland Gateshead Council, it is however possible that it will take place locally, both involving operators licensedby Northumberland and those licensed by our neighbours.



7. The problem itself can be exacerbated by private hire operators who hold multiple operator licences withourselves and neighbouring authorities who will dispatch vehicles based upon proximity to the collection point,which may not always be a vehicle licensed by the same authority that granted the operators licence. The factthat they tend to operate from a central base and hold multiple operator licences under current law, supportedby case law, is recognized as lawful so long as all licences, (operator, vehicle and driver) are issued by thesame authority that issued the operator licence, making enforcement difficult, if not impossible.

8. Ultimately, whilst there are many reasons; reduced application criteria, less onerous inspection criteriaand conditions, which lead to the situation that arose in Berwick, it is arguable that the proliferation of “out oftown” hackney carriages was equally seen by the trade as an opportunity to provide private hire services withgreater freedoms and flexibilities. Both benefits have recently been challenged and the subject of a High Courtjudgment—Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Alan Fidler and others Appeal Court reference No, CO/5268/2010, the judgment confirming that a hackney carriage licensed anywhere in the country can be used for privatehire bookings in a completely different district, anywhere in the country, with the exception of London.

9. The net effect of both the Berwick and the Stockton judgment is to recognise it as being lawful to use ahackney carriage for a considerable period, so long as that it does not amount to predominant (more than 51%)or exclusive use, outside of the area in which it is licensed to ply for hire in accordance with Section 37 of theTown Police Clauses Act 1847. This in turn has the potential effect, subject to the extent of use, of vehiclesbeing used outside of their own districts in such a way that undermines the entire concept of local policies andconditions to support local control.

10. The operation and use of out of town hackney carriages in this manner and of private hire vehicles beingstationed outside of the controlled district which granted the operators licence must also increase the risk ofillegal plying for hire or “flimping”. To identify such activities either requires significant enforcement activities/test purchase exercises supported by the police as it is unlikely, unless problems are encountered, that thepublic will report such matters.

Public Considerations

11. It is difficult to accurately assess the general publics’ understanding and appreciation of the current lawrelating to hackney carriage and private hire licensing. Undoubtedly, some will have a far greater understandingthan others which may in part be due to local requirements, policies etc, but overall it is suggested that manyeither do not appreciate the difference between taxis and private hire vehicles or simply do not care. The aimfor most people is to get from point A to point B as easily, quickly and as cheaply as possible. With theexception of possibly some of the major cities, the start of that journey is more likely to pre-booked, eitherwith a private hire operator or hackney carriage, but seldom will a member of the public attempt to hail a taxiin the street.

12. The overall effect on the public is therefore somewhat difficult to quantify as they are likely to beunaware of the standards expected as the current law simply provides a framework within which localauthorities must work when undertaking their licensing responsibilities as opposed to specific standards andcriteria for vehicles and drivers.

13. What however can not be disputed is that the public do expect both vehicles and drivers to meet certaincriteria intended to protect their personal safety. So, when making a booking they will likely expect that it willconform to the local Council’s standards and driven by someone who does not pose a risk to them because ofprevious convictions/conduct and who has proper knowledge of the area.

14. In essence residents and visitors to any area would not expect to be driven in a car or driven by someone,that or who had been declined a licence by another council on the grounds of public safety. Experience suggeststhat unscrupulous drivers and operators are taking advantage of the legal “loophole” to circumvent the ethosof the legislation. It is quite apparent that this situation clearly goes against the rationale of the legislation butcase law presently allows this to happen. As Mr Justice Langstaff pointed out at paragraph 78 of the StocktonCouncil judgment:-

“If it seems that there are nonetheless tensions between any policy of local licensing and regulation onthe one hand, and the proper interpretation of the wording of statute as determined in this case, that mustbe a matter for consideration and review by Parliament rather than the courts”.

Trade Concerns

15. Whilst it is likely that the trade will make their own views known in respect of the review, it is clearfrom discussions to date that several common themes exist;

— The need for a consistency of approach by licensing authorities.

— The wish to develop commercial activities across a geographical area larger than that of a singlelocal authority.

— The need to match licensed drivers and vehicles.

— Higher costs arising from an inability to maximise the use of vehicles by matching bookings withthe closest available vehicles.



Legislative Arrangements

16. The regulation of hackney carriages dates back to 1847 with changes being introduced along side theintroduction of a national regime for the control of private hire activities in 1976. In the case of hackneycarriages, the principal legislation was written before the inception of the motor car and generally the legislationdoes not reflect current technology (mobile phones, operator booking systems etc), the nature and extent ofpublic travel or the current use of taxis and private hire vehicles.

17. The current legislation is broadly believed not to be fit for purpose and in many instances it is the subjectto time consuming and expensive court cases to the extent that the High Court has been required on manyoccasions to rule on local issues which often have national significance, but the actual statutory frameworkremains unchanged. Efforts to underpin the process through “Best Practice Guidance” have proved unsuccessfuland authorities are increasingly subject to legal challenge when all they seek to do is to provide a system whichaffords local control and a means to protect public safety.

Conclusion

18. It is believed that the needs of the public, trade and councils can only be met through the introductionof national standards for drivers and vehicles and revised licensing procedures capable of being delivered at alocal level so as to ensure local control through statutory decision making processes and effective enforcement.It is therefore suggested that as part of the review, the Transport Committee must give consideration to theoverall suitability of the existing legislation and whether the need still exists for two discreet licensing regimesfor hackney carriage and private hire activities.

December 2010

Written evidence from the Licensed Private Hire Car Association (TPH 56)

The LPHCA is delighted that The Transport Committee is to hold an inquiry into issues relating to thelicensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles.

1. Background—The LPHCA and Steve Wright MBE

(i) The Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) was established in 1989 with a specific mandate toget Private Hire Vehicles (Minicabs and Chauffeurs) licensed in London. We independently vet and visit 160Private Hire Operator Members annually, who engage by agency or directly employ 15,000 drivers, using asimilar number of vehicles.

(ii) The LPHCA’s successful campaign alongside Diana Lamplugh OBE of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, led toSir George Young’s Private Members Bill becoming the Private Hire Vehicles (London) 1998 Act (98 Act).

(iii) Steve Wright gave evidence to the Transport Select Committee in 1994 and worked closely with SirGeorge Young and Minister Glenda Jackson CBE on the structure and implementation of the 98 Act. SinceRoyal Ascent of the Act, work has continued with the Department for Transport (DfT), Transport for London(TfL), the Greater London Authority (GLA), the Home Office, the Police, the Mayor of London, manyTransport Ministers, their key staff and officials, as well as Local Authorities and their Enforcement Officer’sOrganisations.

(iv) The LPHCA has responded to most DfT, TfL, GLA, Industry and Government consultations/inquiriesin the last 20 years and gave input on the “Regulation of Licensed Taxi and PHV Services in the UK MarketStudy” (November 2003) by the “Office of Fair Trading” (OFT).

(v) Steve Wright has also served on GoSkills Stakeholder Boards or their Industry Groups since inceptiongiving advice on standards and industry qualifications and he is now the London Mayor’s representative onthe Transport for London Board covering Private Hire.

2. Cross-Border Hire Problems?

(i) The LPHCA notes the terms of reference of the inquiry and in particular “cross-border hire problemscaused by private hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which theyare licensed”.

(ii) In our view the so called “problems” are a symptom of the regulation and chaos that emanates frominconsistent, outdated, protectionist interests and poor enforcement, that is “no longer fit for purpose” in moderntimes in much of the country.

(iii) Much Taxi & Private Hire regulation, its management and enforcement, particularly outside of Londonis poor. In London the Taxi (Hackney Carriage) regulations have stood the test of time to deliver the higheststandard of “Flag Down or Hailed Taxis” in the world.



(iv) More recently the 1998 London Act has delivered a phenomenal increase in standards and regulatedservice for Private Hire in the capital, with modern fleets of vehicles driven by a diverse ethnicity of drivers,reflecting London’s “multi-cultural society”.

(v) There is currently a TfL London Private Hire Consultation running and when it concludes it willhopefully add to the benefits that the 98 Act has delivered to date.

(vi) Current regulations do not embrace the massive changes brought about by technological progress. TheInternet for example does not support “invisible borders”, “barriers to fair trade” and “restrictive practices”,just the opposite it actually provides liberation of choice, logistical efficiencies and far better access to providersbringing better supply for the travelling public.

3. Inconsistency

(i) A primary cause of “problems” in Taxi & Private Hire is the inconsistency applied via regulations andenforcement across the country.

(ii) Devolving powers “locally” has caused inconsistent regulations and unnecessary bureaucracy that hasoften proven to be flawed and there has been a “lack of government interest in changes”.

(iii) Whilst there has been “DfT Best Practice Guidance”, the lack of mandatory “Hard and Fast” rules andregulations nationally, has spawned inconsistent standards, which we believe has in some cases “underminedthe safety of the travelling public”.

(iv) The inconsistency of regulations has led to the courts needing to interpret the intention of regulations,some of which senior judges implied have little or no logic. This has impacted negatively on the industry atgreat cost and stress, with all manner of rulings, decisions and uncertainty the outcome.

4. Outdated

(i) Many local rules and regulations are in fact draconian and “out of kilter” with modern day requirementsfor service provision, competition, safety and environmental considerations.

(ii) London has shown that a larger body or Metropolitan Authority (like the GLA via TfL) is far betterplaced to regulate Taxi & Private Hire, than smaller Local Authorities whose other policies can sometimes getin the way of appropriate modern regulations and requirements.

(iii) The 2003 OFT “UK Market Study” scratched at the surface of such problems without providing anytangible outcomes and actions going forward.

5. Protectionist Interests

(i) It is complete irony that the Transport Committee in particular is interested in “cross-border hire problemscaused by private hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which theyare licensed”.

(ii) In London, Sir George Young and Minister Glenda Jackson rejected bringing into place outdated practiceslike “invisible borders/territorial domains” etc., as was being advocated by “Commercially Self Interested”parties (including some elements of the Licensed Taxi Trade) prior to the 98 Act. They also recognized thatone Metropolitan Authority rather than around 35 Local Authorities would be best placed to avoid the “crossborder parochial licensing practices” that went on outside London.

(iii) In particular the “no sub-contracting clauses” of some previous Acts were removed from the early“Draft Regulations” of the 98 Act after lobbying by the LPHCA and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, who exposedthe flaws in safety and service provision, that such outdated protectionism gave.

(iv) In a modern Britain there should be no “invisible borders” or “barriers to free trade”, as protectionismand outdated thinking belongs to yesterday. In London for environmental and safety reasons “LicensedOperators” in Private Hire are not constrained by “quotas and artificial operating borders”, etc., and rightlycan pick up and drop anywhere with a previously made booking.

(v) The “horse and carriages” world is long gone and we now have “modern technological capabilities” thatensures that the nearest vehicle can and should be provided when possible for service, safety and environmentalconsiderations. The “not on my patch” regulations should be overhauled and ideally scrapped as soon aspossible.

(vi) The system where licenses and the right to operate are still traded for cash via “plate sales” is anoutdated, archaic practice. Taxi & Private Hire regulations are in the main at least 40 years out of date, exceptin London, where Licensed Private Hire has a modern, much more “fit for purpose” set of regulations with theolder Taxi regulations still working.



6. Enforcement

(i) The inconsistency of regulations, leads to poor supply, which in turn compromises safety. This iscompounded by inconsistency of enforcement, which alongside poor supply enables serious illegal activity andcrime to prevail.

(ii) Charlotte Atkins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport) in 2003 said:

“We will crack down on touts who threaten the entire industry nationwide. All police forces—and not justthe Met in London—are encouraged to focus on the problem to give it the priority it deserves”.

(iii) Sadly “Illegal activity” has grown since this statement was made and lack of enforcement, particularlyoutside London (where the multiplicity of rules and out of date regulations exist) has meant that demand issometimes not being met. This we believe has created the opportunities for illegal activity to prevail and grow.

7. CRB & Medical Requirements

(i) The LPHCA has for a long time had concerns with the Criminal Record Checking process and we havereported to the “Criminal Records Bureau, Vetting & Barring, Protection of Vulnerable Adults and theProtection of Children Act in relation to Private Hire Vehicles Inquiry” currently being undertaken by theHome Office.

(ii) The LPHCA has similarly had issues with the medical requirements under “DVLA Group 2” whereperfectly appropriate drivers have been lost to the trade, whilst older drivers with the same minor medicalissues work with exemptions in the form of “grandfather rights”.

(iii) Some DVLA Group 2 issues have been resolved (diabetics) but others remain (like monocular visionand treated epilepsy) and it would be good for the Transport Committee to review the appropriateness of thestandards for Taxis and PHV drivers.

8. The Need for Change

(i) Taxi and Private Hire regulations outside London are in many cases not “fit for purpose”, and certainlynot applicable for today’s needs. This applies technologically, environmentally and in the best interests of thetravelling public, not least for reasons of safety and service provision.

(ii) Much of the regulation was written before the mobile phone, satellite tracking, the PC and the Internetwere invented. It is time government stopped ignoring the need for change by saying that “Licensing is amatter for Local Authorities”. The public deserve better in the 21st Century.

Summary

The LPHCA has outlined here some of the reasons why The Transport Committee must look at the issuesrelating to the licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles.

Unfortunately the timing of the review alongside the Home Office CRB review, a Major IndustryConsultation in London by TfL and other live consultations has made this a rather condensed response.

LPHCA Members based outside London all seek radical changes in regulations that are “fit for purpose” intoday’s world. The Institute for Licensing, the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers areamongst many who have also called for changes.

As Chairman of the LPHCA I would be delighted to brief Transport Committee Members individually orcollectively and I would be honoured to once again be called to give evidence to assist your efforts andunderstanding of our industry, the regulatory problems and issues.

December 2010

Written evidence from the National Taxi Association (TPH 57)

We act for the National Taxi Association and have been asked to respond to the consultation exercise nowbeing undertaken.

We are afraid that we have not heard until very recently about the Committee in question although we deemthe work that it is to undertake of paramount importance in the industry.

The points that we would make on behalf of the National Taxi Association are as follows:

1. The Association is aware that a number of private hire operators who have obtained operator’s licencesfully aware of the limitations on those licences are choosing to try to increase their share of the marketin circumstances where that could not have been in accordance with their original expectations.

2. The corollary of that is that hackney carriage proprietors who may have made very substantialinvestments in acquiring vehicles suitable, particularly, for carrying wheelchair passengers may findthat their investment in the industry is frustrated by those who seek to change the existing legislation.



3. It is fair to say that although it is easy to come to the conclusion that the existing legislation is of asomewhat aged nature that legislation has held very good for many years. The Town Police ClausesAct 1847 still governs matters in relation to hackney carriages and the Local Government(Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 governs private hire operations.

4. What is important is to have a properly regulated industry and one where a distinction between twoentirely different operations is clear. As members of the Committee will be aware, only a hackneycarriage can be hailed in the street. A private hire vehicle can only be pre-booked and appropriaterecords of bookings have to be kept.

5. The writer has recently seen a handout from a local private hire operator who has been licensed inNorth Tyneside Council and who has operated within that district. The proprietor has acquired anoperator’s licence in Newcastle upon Tyne and wonders why the fleet cannot be essentially apportionedacross the two authorities. The reason for that is that when the operator acquired the licence inNewcastle upon Tyne he was well aware that he could only operate, therefore, in Newcastle uponTyne. The basic rule, and it is a very sensible rule, is that, in private hire, all three licences ie operator’slicence, vehicle licence and driver’s licence have to have been issued by the same local authority.

6. The classic case on cross-border hiring is a case involving the operator referred to above (NorthTyneside Council v Shanks). What happened in that case was that the operator was licensed by NorthTyneside Council. It also had an operator’s licence from Newcastle Upon Tyne. The business was runas one meaning that if a booking was made in North Tyneside a vehicle might be dispatched whichwas licensed by Newcastle. That, of course, breaks all of the obvious rules that have governed mattersand North Tyneside Council, quite rightly, refused to renew the operator’s licence on the basis thatthe operator had not been complying with Section 62(1) of the 1976 Act.

7. The case effectively involved sub-contracting and the effect of it is that someone licensed in onedistrict can only provide vehicles licensed in that district.Moreover, if there is a need to sub-contractout the work the work can only be given to another operator licensed within the same district. Theposition is clear enough from the legislation and it is perfectly clear that the object of that legislationis to protect the public.

8. It would be impossible properly to look at these matters without looking at a problem that has occurredvery noticeably in Newcastle upon Tyne. It gave rise to the case of R.(APP.Newcastle City Council) vBerwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council (2008) EWHC 2369. In that case it was held that if a licensingauthority wanted to issue plates that were not going to be used in its own local authority then theywould have to have a good reason to do so.

9. Section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is clear in its terms. What it says is this:

“the Commissioners may from time to time license to ply for hire within the prescribed distance, orif no distance is prescribed, within five miles from the General Post Office of the city, town or placeto which the special Act refers, (which in that case shall be deemed the prescribed distance) suchnumber of hackney coaches or carriages of any kind or description adapted to the carriage of personsas they think fit”.

10. The prescribed distance is going to be essentially the area of the relevant licensing authority. Whathappened in the Berwick case was that Berwick Council, for some reason, took it upon themselves toissue a large number of licences full well knowing that they were not going to be used within theirown authority. Indeed, our understanding is that they were specifically forbidden to be used withintheir authority. These licences were hackney carriage vehicle licenses. It is clear law that there is noneed for an operator’s license when dealing with hackney carriages. The result of this is that theywere able to exploit that loophole creating a situation where:

(a) Berwick had little interest in what was going on because of the fact that the vehicles were beingused somewhere else; and

(b) Newcastle Upon Tyne where a very large number of these vehicles were being operated, could notenforce because they were not the licensing authority.

(c) This was, perhaps, an ingenious way of trying to secure a commercial advantage. It is perceivedthat this could not possibly be in the interests of the public for the following reason:

(i) The primary reason for adopting this device, especially given the fact that any vehiclesoperating within Newcastle upon Tyne could quite easily have obtained private hire licences,was to deal with a local authority whose fees were lower.

(ii) There were issues as to how rigorous CRB checks were and this is of course an essentialprotection of the public.

(iii) There were questions as to whether the vehicle testing arrangements were of a sufficiently highstandard. They were certainly not to the standard that would have been adopted by Newcastleupon Tyne.

(iv) There would be no effective locality test because the licensing authority would be Berwickand, of course, knowledge of the Berwick locality would be completely irrelevant to someoneoperating in Newcastle.



11. It seems therefore that all that was going on here was a scheme to enhance the commercial positionof various local operators at what would certainly appear to be some risk to the public.

12. Of course, there is nothing to stop a member of the public having a vehicle of his choice. A personwho lives in the area of North Tyneside Council could quite legitimately book a vehicle licensed inNewcastle to carry him. The point there is that the booking was made where the operator was licensed.There is no question, therefore, of the public being denied freedom of choice. It is simply a questionof not breaking the rules which are obvious in their terms.

13. In short, the present case law and also the present legislation is extremely straightforward. The onlyextent to which it has become less than straightforward is insofar as various operators, all over thecountry, have looked at ways of trying to circumvent the rules and to do this in such a way as, quitesimply, to give them commercial advantage. It would be very difficult to argue that they are, in sodoing, especially if we look at what was going on in relation to the Berwick plates, looking to enhancethe interests of the public.

14. The Association do not believe that there is any pressing need or indeed any need at all for a changein legislation. It is easy, as mentioned above, to say that this legislation is old. So is the Wills Actwhich has served the public since 1837 subject to relatively minor amendments over the years. So isthe Law of Property Act which has served the public since 1925 and which still remains substantiallyin the same form.

15. The Association would be happy to make any further representations that may be invited or to assistthe Committee in any way. Their concern is to ensure that there is clear and effective legislation,notwithstanding efforts that seem to be made to cloud that legislation with ingenious but equallyingenuous schemes. What the Association seek to see is that the public are protected and that thestandard of service given to the public is heightened. It is imperative that the following matters arealways carefully monitored:

(a) The quality of the vehicle.

(b) The behaviour of the driver.

(c) The character of the driver which, of course, is something that must be the subject of theappropriate CRB check.

(d) The way in which the business is conducted.

At the present time all of these matters are addressed effectively by virtually all of the local authoritieswith whom the Association deal. Most administrative matters are better dealt with at a local ratherthan a national level.

16. The Association believes that it would be a major task to review the law in relation to taxis andprivate hire vehicles in its entirety but believes that that is in any event quite unnecessary. It believesthat the protection of the public is paramount and that schemes to circumvent the existing simplelegislation are not in the best interests of the public.

December 2010

Further supplementary evidence from David B Wilson (TPH 36c)

Whilst preparing an article for a trade magazine, it has just come to my attention that the Transport SelectCommittee has made certain enquiries of Northumbria Police, to which they appear to have replied in March.

May I start by stating that the conviction of a Berwick licensed driver for unlawfully plying for hire securedby Gateshead Council was subsequently set aside, because the defendant, for whom I act, was not properlyserved with the summons? Upon the matter being tried, the defendant was acquitted at the close of theprosecution case upon the making of a submission of “no case” by his solicitor. Gateshead Council is nowseeking to appeal by way of “case stated” to the Divisional Court.

Might I also point out that the Northumbria Police area includes the areas of five Metropolitan BoroughCouncils—Newcastle City, Gateshead, North Tyneside, South Tyneside, and Sunderland City—and the area ofNorthumberland County Council, which, until unification on 1 April 2009, consisted of the areas of six districtcouncils—Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough, Alnwick District, Wansbeck District, Blyth Valley Borough, CastleMorpeth Borough, and Tynedale District? In the circumstances, in the whole of that area, over a little over twoyears, there were two drivers licensed by Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council / Northumberland CountyCouncil.

It may be that one of them was convicted whilst I was licensing manager at Berwick-upon-Tweed BoroughCouncil, because Newcastle City Council did catch one by way of a “test purchase” operation. As soon as Iwas notified of this by Newcastle City Council, the driver was interviewed and I revoked with immediate effecthis driver’s licence. In that particular operation, ten drivers were caught—one Berwick hackney carriage driver;two hackney carriage drivers from other areas; and seven were Newcastle private hire drivers!

If the results of that exercise are typical, it would seem that 70% of the offences of unlawfully plying forhire in Newcastle are committed by people Newcastle City Council has licensed as private hire drivers.



The information supplied by Northumbria Police seems very capable of being misinterpreted, because I’msure (as indicated by the foregoing) further enquiries of the police (or the aforementioned councils) wouldreveal far higher levels of conviction for offences of unlawfully plying for hire by private hire drivers licensedby the council for the area in which they committed the offence. Unless this is clarified, the informationprovided by Northumbria Police is presented out of context.

Likewise, as to the list of offences committed by licensed drivers, without information as to which council(s)each were licensed, it is impossible to know what, if anything, is revealed by this data. On the basis of myexperience, both when licensing manager at Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council and latterly as anindependent licensing consultant, I would predict the highest levels of offending being committed by driverslicensed by Newcastle City Council. If that is shown to be true, I’m not sure what it shows, but I am sure itdemonstrates that Northumberland County Council is appropriately regulating entry into the trade.

I appreciate from earlier emails that this email is going to reach you rather late in the process, but I wouldbe obliged if you would bring my observations and concerns to the attention of the Chair of the Committee.

June 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Office Limited07/2011 011170 19585