EQUALOPPORTUNITIES

Thestatutealsoaffectscallcentreoperativeswhomayforwhateverreasonelecttoworkfromhome.Ifpersonal mobility restrictions inhibited one of our telephone operator applicants from physically getting to our Control Centre,technologyallowsthemtoworkremotelyfromtheirhome.Currenttaxilegislationhoweverdictatesthat they must reside within Sefton. Naturally, this presents our company with something of a dilemma. do we discriminate against disabled applicants because they live on the wrong side of a political boundary, or do we committheoffenceofhandingbookingsthatwereenteredbyaLiverpoolbasedagenttoaSeftonlicenseddriver. AndwhatifanexistingstaffmembermoveshousefromSeftontoLiverpool.musttheyforfeittheirjobtocomply withthelaw?SuchramificationscouldneverhavebeenintendedbyParliament.Wecanonlyhopethatcommittee members will acknowledge the overwhelming need for complete modernisation of the legislature, not by strengtheninglocalauthorityboundaries,butbyDISSOLVINGthem.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Insummary,wethereforerecommendthefollowing. a) Amendments requested by Liverpool Council and Unite the Union for vehicles to be forced back to their licensingareaoncompletionofahiringshouldbeimmediatelydismissedasanticompetitiveprotectionism thatwouldhaveamajordetrimentalimpactontheenvironmentandlocalserviceprovision b) Intheinterestsofpublicprotectionthekeepingofalltaxijourneyrecordsshouldbemademandatoryfor bothsidesofthetradeandnotjustprivatehire c) The right to share bookings across district boundaries, currently enjoyed by hackney carriage operations, shouldbemadeavailabletoprivatehirecompaniesalso,creatingnationwidecrossbordernetworks d) DedicatedtelephonelinesshouldbepermittedcrossbordertoallowSupermarketsawiderchoiceofservice provisionfortheirclients e) ControlCentrecalltakersshouldbepermittedtoworkremotelyfromanyhomeregardlessofwherethey live Onbehalfofourdirectors,employees,driversandfleetowners,wethankyouforyourconsiderationofthiscomplex matterandlookforwardtohostingavisitforanyofyourmembersshouldyoudeemitappropriate. December2010
SupplementarywrittenevidencefromDeltaTaxis(TPH06a)
IrecentlyfiledaFreedomofInformationrequestwithLiverpoolsSeniorInformationOfficer(MrKevin Symm)asfollows. Throughoutthewholeof2010,howmanyvehicleswereapproachedbyLiverpoolenforcementofficers (ortheiragents)withintheLiverpoollocalauthorityboundaryinrespectofPLYINGFORHIRETEST PURCHASES(thatbeingwhenofficersortheiragentsattempttohirevehiclesfromthestreetwhichare notlicensedtoplyforhireunderthe1847TownPoliceClausesAct).Ofthoseapproached,howmany werelicensedprivatehirevehicles,whatwastheirissuingauthorityandwhichonesresultedina successfulprosecution? ThisdatawasrequestedinordertoaccuratelycomparethePERCEPTIONofillegalplyingforhirewithin LiverpoolwiththeREALITY.Wealsoremainedhopefulthatthedatamightprovidesomeassurancethat Liverpoolsofficersweretargetingallsuspectdriversevenhandedlyandnot,ashasbeensuggestedby somedrivers,concentratingextensivelyondriverslicensedbyneighbouringauthorities. Unfortunately,asitturnsout,nosuchassuranceispossible,aswenowunderstandfromLiverpoolsfirst responsethatdriverswhoREFUSETOBEILLEGALLYHIREDareNOTRECORDED.Also,theirresponsedid notconfirm,asrequested,detailsofthosedriverswhoWERERECORDEDforACCEPTINGANILLEGAL HIRING,resultinginmyfilinganimmediatecomplaintandinduecourseIreceivedtheattachedsecond response. Insummary,thissecondresponseconfirmsthatthroughoutthewholeof2009and2010therewere58 prosecutionssecuredagainstdriversforillegallyplyingforhirewithinLiverpool.Compareifyouwill,these 58illegalincidentswithwhatweestimatetobesomewhereintheregionof94Millionlegitimatetaxi bookingshiredcorrectlythroughoutMerseysideoverthesametimeperiod.Suchstatisticsfullysupport ourcontentionthatillegalplyingforhirehasbeengrosslyoverstatedbyourcommercialcompetitorsin ordertojustifytheirproposedsuffocatingamendmentswhichwouldseverelyconstrainourservice provision.Furthermore,oneofthemainreasonsillegalplyingforhireinLiverpoolissominiscule comparedwithlegitimatehirings,isthatcustomerstherecurrentlyenjoyaccesstoaveritable smorgasbordoflicensedvehiclesfromsurroundingareas.Ifcompaniessuchasoursweresuddenlyforced topullall1,700vehiclesoutoftowneverytimetheybecameavailable,passengerswhoaftermany decadeshadcometorelyonourservicewouldsuddenlyfindthemselvesstranded,andindesperation wouldnodoubtresorttoanyillegal,unlicenseddrivers/vehiclesofferingtotakethemhome.Farfrom reducingillegalactivity,theproposedamendmentsofLiverpoolCityCouncilandUnitetheUnionwould haveentirelytheoppositeeffect,placingvastnumbersofthetravellingpublicatrisk. Wereiterate,thebestwayforwardistointroducesimilarlegislationtoLondon.Their1998Acthasserved theareawellanditsuptodatesubcontractingwouldenableareassuchasMerseysidetofinallycastaside thehistoricshacklesoflocalauthoritydivisionandconflict.

A1/Cabco Ltd (01223 711111) Unit 3, Peaks Storehouse, 135, Ditton Walk, Cambridge CB5 8PY
Operates on City Licence:Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars Operates on South Cambs licence:Private Hire cars City free phones :- Arundel House Hotel, Addenbrookes Hospital X4, S.C. free phones:- ? A one number call system, based in Cambridge receives all calls from Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire (Both separate licensing districts) randomly despatches work to the nearest City or South Cambs Vehicle in Cambridge 7/ - 70
Ace Taxis (01223 462020/411010) 24 Cedar Lane, Cambridge
Operates on City Licence:Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars Operates on South Cambs licence:Private Hire only 1/3 3+
City free phones:- None S.C. free phones:- None A one number call system, based in Cambridge receives calls from Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire (Both separate licensing districts) randomly despatches work to the nearest City or South Cambs Vehicle in Cambridge
CamCab Ltd (01223 704704) 4 Ronald Rolph Court, Wadloes Road, Cambridge CB5 8PX
Operates on City Licence:Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars Operates on South Cambs licence:Private Hire cars City free phones:- 17 S.C. free phones:- None A one number call system, based in Cambridge receives all calls from Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire (Both separate licensing districts) randomly despatches work to the nearest Vehicle in Cambridge. 4/ 73 8
Camtax (01223 242424) Old Paper Mill, Ditton Walk, Cambridge, CB5 8LD
Operates on City Licence:Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars Operates on South Cambs licence:Private Hire cars City free phones:- 0 S.C. free phones:- 0 3/ 2 2
A one number call system, based in Cambridge receives all calls from Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire (Both separate licensing districts) randomly despatches work to the nearest City or South Cambs Vehicle in Cambridge.
Other Material Facts: All the above Companies have agreed to participate in a Cambridge City Councils funded Taxi card Scheme, all companies randomly dispatch work to whichevers the nearest private hire vehicle or city Hackney Carriage. Can I also confirm that both Cambridge City & South Cambridge District councils have confirmed in writing via email that these activities are lawful.

34. We would urge the Committee to recommend that the Government adopts reforms to the current system, including reforms many of the administrative burdens that exist within the current system. The requirement for a hackney carriage vehicle proprietor, for instance, to hold the licence of a hackney carriage driver in their employ should be swept away, as should the requirement that local authorities maintain two inconsistently different registers for hackney carriage vehicles and private hire drivers. A national system would allow basic services such as online applications to be more easily provided. Conclusion 35. The present system has many shortcomings which space prevents us from fully detailing here. We hope that we have been able to give a flavour of what we as licensing practitioners see as particularly defective, and our proposals for reform. December 2010
Written evidence from Watford Borough Council (TPH 10) 1. We are of the opinion that the best form of regulation for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles (the industry) is licensing. This allows for close scrutiny to be kept of individual drivers and for local considerations to be taken into account. Consistency 2. Having said the above, we are also concerned about the great levels of inconsistencies that exist between different, and even neighbouring, local authorities. Some of the local inconsistencies we experience with our neighbours include: - driver age restrictions - vehicle age restrictions - vehicle testing frequencies - advertising on hackney carriages - roof signs on private hire vehicles 3. - Knowledge test testing - Driving Standards Agency assessment requirements - medical requirements - fees and charges.
We feel that the ability of councils to set their own local policies for the industry leads to an uneven playing field, both in terms of the regulatory burdens imposed on drivers and also financially. Whilst we strongly believe that licensing should remain locally based and locally delivered, we would like to see greater consistency amongst licensing authorities. This could be achieved through national minimum standards set down in regulation. Many of these inconsistencies lead to cross-border hiring. In 2009, this Council faced a situation where most of the private hire operators it licensed were also using drivers and vehicles licensed by an adjacent authority. In each case the drivers and vehicles were colocated in the same operating base within the borough. Some of those drivers had been previously refused licences by Watford Borough Council; others had failed to pass our Knowledge Test; and others had had licences revoked following convictions for offences such as plying for hire. They were able to obtain licences from the adjoining authority whose standards were different from our own, and whose fees were also considerable cheaper. (In saying this, we do not claim that the adjoining council was acting other than in the best interests of its own local industry but nevertheless it created real problems). Watford is a busy built-up area with the main sub-regional retail, office and night-time economy; the adjoining authority is more rural and so more work for the industry exists in Watford. The difficulty lay in the interpretation of sections 46(1) and 80(2) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1982, about which we sought counsels advice. It appeared to us that a private hire operating base could not be licensed in another local authoritys area, but our neighbours took a contrary view. In order to create a level playing field, we spent considerable time and effort over a period of more than 18 months to require drivers licensed by the other council to obtain licences from us, at pain of taking enforcement action. In our view, a reformed national licensing regime which sets out appropriate standards would eliminate this scenario from arising again. We would welcome an approach similar to that for personal licence holders under the Licensing Act 2003, where primary legislation establishes the minimum requirements to hold a nationally-portable licence. Such requirements could include minimum and maximum ages; previous convictions that act as a bar to holding a licence; and medical standards. Drivers

13. We believe that only licensing private hire operators is a source of confusion for consumers, but believe it does offer them protection. We regularly deal with complaints against licensed drivers, but our investigations are often frustrated when records for hackney carriage drivers are unavailable because there is no requirement for an operator to be licensed to keep them. We would like to see operator licensing extended across the industry, (whether it is a singletier or dual-tier system). Fees should be set by local authorities within centrally set bands, and local authorities should have the facility to impose reasonable and proportionate conditions along the lines of those contained within the present condition. 14. We do however see it as an anomaly that drivers are currently required to demonstrate they are fit and proper people to be licensed, and so do applicants for public service vehicle licences from the Traffic Commissioners, but this test is missing from private hire operator licensing. We feel that operators should be subject to a pre-licensing criminality and competency checks, perhaps along the lines of a certificate of professional competence. Enforcement 15. For some years, we have operated a penalty point system for licensed drivers, and we are aware that other councils do so too. This acts as an early warning scheme and provides an objective basis for informing drivers when their conduct (normally of a non-driving nature) falls below standard and which can then justify formal enforcement action such as suspension or revocation of a licence. We would like to see this system placed on a statutory setting, applicable to drivers and operators, administered by the local authority in any reformed legislation. 16. As a council, we have used resources over a number of years to detect and deter illegal plying for hire. Because of our night-time economy, we have often had to employ undercover officers on over-time to procure the required evidence to support a prosecution, and have often worked in conjunction with other enforcement agencies. Prior to private hire licensing being introduced in London in 1998, a significant amount of plying for hire was conducted by unlicensed vehicles with one nights operation producing evidence against up to 12 drivers for prosecution. Now, a modest amount of illegal activity is conducted, predominately by licensed private hire vehicles and in our view the risk to the public is much less, even if the driver and vehicle are licensed by another council. 17. If our proposals for nationally consistent licensing standards are brought forward, we see no reason why the existing parochial arrangements should remain and why any licensed vehicle could not wait for passengers at any legal, designated place subject to sanctions for abuse. We think the system of appointing ranks, which is presently the preserve of the licensing authority on public highway or of private land-owners, could be modified. It could be open to any body with a legitimate interest (including taxi operators) to submit an application to the licensing authority for permission to provide a rank which may be granted after public consultation and consulting with the relevant highways authority and the police. The licensing authority should not, as now, also have to impose additional parking or waiting restrictions under road traffic legislation on a rank but ought to be able to do so automatically when installing a new rank. Any large new development, such as shopping centres, retail parks and leisure venues should be required to consult with the licensing authority as to whether a rank should be incorporated within their development. 18. Implicit in this development would be an extension of the powers of local authority licensing officers to use enforcement powers against any licence-holder, no matter who they issued their licence. This will improve the ability of licensing authorities to exercise their licensing functions, although we recognise that some councils may adopt a contrary approach. Whilst

Written evidence from SHDA (Stockton hackney drivers association) (TPH 15)
I am writing this email on behalf of (SHDA) as the treasurer and senior executive board member of the SHDA (Stockton hackney drivers association).I am submitting the attached documents and this email for your attention it may be used as evidence. We(SHDA) asked the THRIVE a independent organisation(a charity working to improve life of people on low incomes) for their help regarding issues facing Stockton taxi drivers.This evidence was gathered by them while researching the issues and has not been published anywhere. We would like to request this committee to legislate to stop the menace of cross ''border hiring'' this will surely help to protect the livelihood of local drivers and safeguard the public 's safety. Following are some of the reasons for this request. Figures in the attached survey shows 25 journeys made by Berwick upon tweed licensed taxis (used by Stockton based company) working in Stockton on tees more than 100 miles away. During short monitoring period on 9th/10th OCT/2010.It is obvious that these taxis never left Stockton. It was also witnessed by these independent observes(THRIVE) that during the time our member Hackney drivers picked up 1 fare from the proper Taxi rank ,the ''Out of town taxis'' (working from an illegal rank meters away from the proper rank) picked up 3.5 times more fares in the same time. Stockton Borough council says they are powerless to stop it, 'due to recent court case they lost'. WHY IT IS A PROBLEM TO US AND PUBLIC. 1-we go through some of the very vigorous/strict driver and vehicle tests by Stockton Council ''to ensure public safety''. we feel it is somewhat pointless exercise if council cannot enforce these measures on to out of town taxis. There is possibility that sub standard, unfit vehicles and drivers may be operating these vehicles, hence it compromises the publics safety. 2-We pay very high premium for license in Stockton (2nd highest fees in northeast),so it is very painfull to watch people allowed to steal our livelihood. We already have massive over supply of taxis in Stockton. These out of town taxis make it even more harder to make ends meet. ' 3-we understand that insurers ask every driver, the post code/district you operate from/based in, and the insurance is always subject to a valid operator's license issued by the authority you normally work from. otherwise insurance is invalid and this potentially very serious risk to public's safety. Do these out of town taxi drivers/operators declare, a) They don't intend to work in the area they are granted license from? b) Declare to insurers, they do not work from the district/post code from which they are licensed from? c) Are the customers made aware they are getting in taxi not licensed in their local area. We have tried to highlight some of the concerns with regards to local drivers and public's safety. This may help committee. we Stockton hackney drivers (SHDA) would like also to confirm that we support the Stockton Borough Council in their bid to have all the necessary enforcement powers granted to them, so that they can ensure the safety of Stockton on tees taxi users. Please do contact if we could be of any further help in this matter.

Written evidence from Plymouth Licensed Taxi Association (TPH 16)
RE: ISSUES RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES
We thank you for affording us the opportunity to present our thoughts and ambitions for the future legislation of our chosen profession. As requested we have restricted ourselves to six pages which is why the lay out of the many sub headings are not as clear as we would have liked. 1. Legislation requires reviewing, collating and a single Principal Act for England and Wales, London and Plymouth enacted and regularly reviewed; Legal Precedent; Department for Transport (DfT); Criminal Records Bureau (CRB). Taxi Offices should be licensed in line with Private Hire Offices and permitted to compete in an open market with various classes of vehicles. Taxis the following requires addressing: Taxi and Cab; Identification; Colour Policy; Specifications not to be retrospective; Unmet Demand Surveys; Local Transport Plans: Fare Table; Proprietor and Driver Register. Taxi and Private Hire Drivers Qualifications; Grandfather Rights; Enhanced CRB Checks; Compensation to Drivers for answering unsubstantiated complaints. Private Hire Operators Planning Permission; Single Name; Land Lines; Enhanced CRB Checks; Single Use Premises; Free Phones; Free Phone Premises should be Licensed; Cross Border Hirings. Private Hire vehicles Plating; Signage; Roofsigns; Tinted Windows; Bus Lane user. Third Class of Operator, Staff, Driver and Vehicle Licence Vehicles with service of a Driver; Voluntary Drivers; Pecuniary Advantage; Limousines and Novelty Vehicles; Wedding and Ambulance Cars.

1. 1.1

LEGISLATION Statute Law: It is understood that there are approximately 300 pieces of independent legislation that governs the Taxi and Private Hire Trades in England and Wales, London and Plymouth. There is a need to consolidate all EC Directives, Statutes, Statutory Instruments and Model Byelaws into one Act of Parliament covering England and Wales, London and Plymouth. The Principal Act should then be modified as required through Statutory Instrument. The Principal Act should be reviewed and amended every ten years incorporating the Statutory Instruments issued since the previous review. The Fraud Act 2006 S11 should be incorporated within the Principal Act as police do not recognise the current criminal offence of Bilking. The Road Safety Act 2006 S52 is being abused. There is a requirement for the provision of an Appeal procedure through a Magistrates Court. Registered in England No: 5444446

All Applicants should have an Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check as they will work with children and vulnerable members of society. All Applicants should pass an oral test in English to enable communication with passengers. All Applicants should pass a topographical knowledge test of their LA area.
4.3.3 All new Applicants should pass a VRQ in Road Passenger Vehicle Driving (Taxi and PHV) and DSA enhanced taxi and private hire assessment.
4.3.4 4.4 4.4.1 4.4.2 4.4.3 4.4.5 4.5 4.6
Drivers with one year or more experience and a clean record should receive Grandfather Rights. There should be two Identification Badges. One badge should be worn and one badge should be displayed in the vehicle. Badges should contain the Drivers LA Licence Number and a photograph to enable passengers to identify the driver and complain if necessary. Badges should not contain the drivers name to protect the driver and force complainants to go through LA channels. Badges in vehicles should be displayed in clear plastic pockets and be easily removed by drivers of vehicles that have more than one driver. There should be no Dual Licences as the two trades are different. There is an urgent and serious requirement for Taxi and Private Hire Drivers to be protected from the unlawful persecution of drivers by Licensing Staff abusing the Road Safety Act 2006 Hackney Carriages and Private Hire Vehicles S52 for immediate suspension and revocation of drivers licences in an inappropriate manner. Both Taxi and Private Hire Drivers should be entitled to compensation for answering any, and all, Mischievous Complaints made against them and dismissed by LAs. PRIVATE HIRE OPERATORS Private Hire Operators operate Private Hire Drivers and Private Hire Vehicles. Private Hire Operators should not be permitted to use the words Taxi/s, Cab/s or similar unless 51% of their fleet is comprised of taxis.

5. 5.1 5.1.2

5.2.1 All Offices should have Planning Permission in conjunction with the Licensing Office prior to opening. 5.2.2 5.2.3 5.2.4 5.2.5 All Private Hire Operators should have Land Telephone Lines and no Mobile Telephone numbers should be permitted to prevent unlicensed operators. Operators premises should be in single use premises with Planning Permission. Should satellite offices be permitted they should comply with the same Conditions as the parent Private Hire Operators office. Premises that in the course of business make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a Private Hire Vehicle through a Free Phone such as Airports, Seaports, Ferryports, Railway Stations, bus stations, Supermarkets, Hotels, Public Houses and Nightclubs should be Licensed. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 S80 and S46(d). Registered in England No: 5444446
With Free Phones there is no need for booking staff at the above locations.

and despite objections from Peterborough, the other council deemed the driver was fit and proper, granting a licence, allowing them to convey the Peterborough public. 1.13 These are by no means isolated incidents, we have discovered a number of their drivers were previously licensed by Peterborough and had lost their licence following convictions for such offences as unlawfully plying for hire, drink driving, drugs possession and violence. Despite our authority taking steps to protect the public from these people we find them conveying the Peterborough public in other councils licensed vehicles. 1.14 We are in the process of prosecuting and have successfully prosecuted a number of licensed private hire drivers from the other council, for unlawfully plying for hire in Peterborough. These drivers were parked, plying for hire outside Peterborough venues. In addition we have reported a number of their vehicles found to be in breach of the condition requiring them to return to their licensing district on dropping off their customer. 1.15 It also appears that these licensed vehicles fall below the standard required in Peterborough. Over the last 12 months we have carried out a number of operations with Police and VOSA, where licensed vehicles were stopped in Peterborough by Police and escorted to the VOSA Test Station, where they were inspected by VOSA and Licensing Officers. During these operations it was commonplace for at least a quarter of all vehicle stopped to belong to the private hire company, many of which were issued with VOSA Prohibition Notices for numerous mechanical faults such as illegal tyres, steering and brake faults. On these occasions we have even found drivers did not hold the appropriate private hire drivers licence and on one occasion the drivers DVLA licence had actually been revoked.

Possible solutions:

2.1 There is a real and definite need to revamp taxi and private hire legislation. We work with legislation dating back to 1847 and 1976. In addition, licensing conditions differ from authority to authority. As in this case, two companies on either side of a licensing boundary, despite working in the same area, can be subjected to totally different conditions, charges and to differing levels of
enforcement and monitoring, leading to unfair competition, placing one at a definite disadvantage. Most authorities would welcome a national standard of licensing conditions, so all companies operate to the same set of conditions, no matter where they are geographically operating. 2.2 If a driver or private hire company is generating the majority of work in one particular licensing area, as in this case where we have established that 90% of this companys bookings involve a pick up and drop off in Peterborough, I feel that guidance should be in place to direct the company / driver to the particular licensing authority where they will predominately work. 2.3 Instead of relying on licensing conditions to return to licensing district on dropping off customers, it would be more appropriate to deal with this by way of legislation. As in this case, we have identified a number of their vehicles breaching this condition and when reported, the other authority finds it extremely difficulty to deal with the issue. If it was covered by legislation then the authority affected by the breach could deal with the issue themselves. 2.4 There should be a national standard when dealing with applicants with convictions that all authorities should work to. As it stands, despite taking steps to ensure the Peterborough public are protected from drivers we deem are unfit, on revoking licences we find them driving in Peterborough on other councils plates, as they work to standards which fall below that of our authority.

Written evidence from Sefton Licensed Operators And Proprietors Association Of Sefton (TPN 22) You have requested submissions on the above matter, our submissions are as follows. 1. We represent the Sefton Licensed Operators And Proprietors Association Of Sefton and as a Licensed Operator for Sefton M.B.C. since 1976. 2. We have followed the Law in only accepting bookings in our Licensed Office and sending vehicles and drivers licensed by our Licensing Authority. The calls we receive can come from anywhere in the country. 3. Over the years through pressure from our commercial opposition the Public Hire Trade Local Authorities have tried to find loop holes in the law resulting in Judges findings that providing the Operator, Driver and vehicle licenses match we are abiding by the law. 4. They have used various arguments one of which when licence set A picks up in area B area B has no control. This argument has been solved by the local authority adjoining our licensed area namely Liverpool obtaining the same authority as our area officers. That argument no longer has any validity. 5. To stop the principal of Operator, Driver and vehicle all matching licenses from accepting customers anywhere in the country would remove from the public their choice based on who they want to use. The public use the firm they know and trust and feel safe with. 6. The 1976 Act has stood the test of time and any unclear issues have been in the main sorted by Case Law. December 2010
Seaforth Radio Cars Ltd Company Number: 5989748 Vat number 46
WrittenevidencefromCarlisleTaxiAssociation(TPH23). TheCarlisleAssociationbelievelocalauthoritieshavethroughvariousactsofParliament andguidelinesfrombothgovernmentandstakeholders,allthenecessarytoolsattheir disposaltoensuretheyhaveaproperlyregulatedtaxiandprivatehirelicensingfunction thatwillbenefitboththoseintheindustryandassurethepublicofbothdrivercompetence andvehiclesafety. Currentlegislationisworkableandproven. However,webelievesection46needsapoint(f)thisshouldbewordedasfollows; 46(f)Nopersonbeingthedriverofahackneycarriageorprivatehirevehicleshallwait, standorplyforhireinanycontrolleddistrictwithouthaving; i. Acurrentvehiclelicenseforthatdistrict;and ii. Acurrentdriverslicenseforthatdistrict. Inanyproceedingsunderthissectionitshallbeadefencetoshowthatthedriverandvehicle enteredthecontrolleddistrictforthepurposeoffulfillingcontractsforprivatehireandthat hecausedorpermittedhisvehiclesotowaitonlyforaslongasreasonablynecessaryforthe takinguporsettingdownofpassengersandprovidinganyrequiredassistancetothose passengers. Inrespectofcrossborderhiringsandaspointedoutabove,itiscrystalclearthatthearea wherethebookingisreceivedshouldbetheonewhichissuesthelicenses. Itisultimatelythechoiceofthecustomerwhichcompanytheywishtouse,itisthechoice ofthecompanyifabookingisacceptableandprofitable.Thiswillnotchangewhatever legislationisputinplace.However,theadditionof46(f)willensurevehiclesfromother districtswillnotbepermittedstandandwaitinareastheyarenotlicensed(savefor fulfillingprebookingswithinareasonableperiod). Whateverlegislationisinplace,thepublicalwaysneedtobeconfidentthatthedriver, vehicleandoperatorareallequallyfitforpurpose.Inourviewthiswillnotgobeyondwhat isalreadyinplace,itwouldthereforebeacompletelysenselessmovetodrasticallychange whatcurrentlegislation. December2010

DECEMBER 2010

FurtherwrittenevidencefromtheNationalPrivateHireAssociation(TPH40a) Havingread214pagessubmittedtotheSelectCommitteeinwrittenform,andthe33pagesof notestakenatthefirstSelectCommitteehearinginJanuary,itwasextremelynoticeablethat theissuesrelatingtocrossborderlicensingandhiringwerebyfarandawaytheonlymatters beingseriouslyconsidered. Wenote,however,thatinitsinitialrequestforevidencetheSelectCommitteedidaskforother issuestobeaddressedwithregardtoeitherdefectivelegislation,ormattersnotconsideredby thecurrentlegislationwhichmight,iflegislationisbeingreviewed,beofsomeimportancefor considerationbytheCommittee. TherearesixpointsthatwewouldasktheCommitteetoconsider;theseareasfollows: 1. TheAuditCommissionreportfromGuildford2010; 2. TheeffectivewordingoftheEqualityAct2010; 3. The extreme danger to rural transport posed by Unitary Authorities without access to thepowersofrectification; 4. Theeffectsofderegulationoftaxinumbersinanumberofareaswherethepowerto reversesuchdecisionsisfinanciallyburdensome; 5. The weakness of operator licensingfollowing 36 years of inactivity in this direction by localauthorities;and 6. HomeOffice/DepartmentforTransportAnnexDnewguidelines 1. AuditCommissionreportfromGuildford Licensing fees are charged by local authorities under sections 53 and 70 of the Local Government(MiscellaneousProvisions)Act1976.Sections53and70aresetoutasfollows: 53Driverslicencesforhackneycarriagesandprivatehirevehicles. 53(2)NotwithstandingtheprovisionsoftheActof1847,adistrictcouncilmaydemandand recoverforthegranttoanypersonofalicencetodriveahackneycarriage,oraprivatehire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recoveringthecostsofissueandadministrationandmayremitthewholeorpartofthefee inrespectofaprivatehirevehicleinanycaseinwhichtheythinkitappropriatetodoso. 70Feesforvehicleandoperatorslicences. (1)Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a district council may charge suchfeesforthegrantofvehicleandoperatorslicencesasmayberesolvedbythemfrom timetotimeandasmaybesufficientintheaggregatetocoverinwholeorinpart
(a)the reasonable cost of the carrying out by or on behalf of the district council of inspections of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles for the purpose of determining whetheranysuchlicenceshouldbegrantedorrenewed; (b)thereasonablecostofprovidinghackneycarriagestands;and (c)anyreasonableadministrativeorothercostsinconnectionwiththeforegoingandwith thecontrolandsupervisionofhackneycarriagesandprivatehirevehicles. ThewordingoftheDistrictAuditorsreportstates:Havingtakenlegaladvice,acouncilcan onlyrecoverorchargesuchmattersastheyareexpresslyallowedtounderlegislation.This wasupheldintheHouseofLordsappealRvRichmonduponThamesLondonBoroughCouncil exparteMacarthyandStone(Developments)Ltd1991,whereLordLowrysaid:Therulewas that a charge could not be made unless the power to charge was given by express words or necessary implication. Those last words imposed a rigorous test going far beyond the proposition that it would be reasonable or even conducive or incidental to charge for the provisionofaservice. Section 53 uses the words recovering the costs of issue and administration. It should be notedthatthewordenforcementandthewordscontrolandsupervisiondonotappearin thissectionrelevanttodrivers. Turningthentosection70(1),apartfromtestingofvehicles,providinghackneycarriagestands and the licensing of operators, section (c) uses the wording any reasonable administrative costs in connection with the foregoing, and with the control and supervision of hackney carriagesandprivatehirevehicles. The District Auditor found again that, other than basic administrative costs, there was no wording which allowed enforcement action on holders of operator licences. Whilst I accept thatthewordingofthe1976Acthasbeenunchangedinsection53andsection70,injustthe samewayasthecrossborderhiringproblemshavecometonote,hereisyetanotherproblem whichIsuggestshouldbeforconsiderationbytheSelectCommittee. In my previous written submission I had suggested the use of fixed penalties to assist with enforcement; now it would appear that even the power of enforcement has been severely undermined,andperhapstheadoptionofafixedpenaltyschemewouldassistinremovingthe problems. 2. EqualityAct2010 When the Equality Act was going through the House, the question of the current state of wheelchair accessible vehicles was posed to the National Association by the Department for

INTRODUCTION Manchester Airport, part of the Manchester Airports Group, welcomes the opportunity to set before the Transport Committee its views on the licensing and provision of taxi services, and on cross-border hire problems caused by private hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which they are licensed. Our submission focuses on our experience at Manchester Airport, as this is the most pertinent to the committees inquiry. Manchester Airport is located at the south of the City of Manchester, and also close that Citys boundaries with Stockport, Trafford and Cheshire East. As the majority Manchester Airport passengers travel from outside the City, a significant proportion our taxi or private hire vehicle journeys will be on vehicles licensed outside Manchester. TAXIS AND AIRPORTS Taxis are a necessary component of any airport transport system, providing transport to passengers who have no access to a private car, or who are unable to use conventional public transport. Most airports have a hackney carriage taxi rank outside the terminal to provide an on demand service for passengers. However, at some airports, the taxi service is through a private hire concession let by the airport. Manchester has both a hackney carriage rank, and a private hire concession. Airports are seen as attractive destinations or locations to collect passengers from by taxi drivers, as the distances travelled by air passengers to and from airports will typically be longer than the normal journey in that area. The honey pot nature of airport business encourages drivers to look for work from an airport. In the case of local drivers working from the ranks, it encourages drivers to wait for long periods at the airport in the hope of a lucrative fare. This both creates a pressure on the airport to provide parking areas over and above the rank spaces, and may reduce the supply of taxis to the rest of the area, creating an imbalance in supply across the licensed area covering the airport. Similarly, taxi firms from outside the airports local area can see airport trips as good business opportunities, and there are many examples of airport transfer services operated by private hire taxi companies and drivers. Picking up passengers from an airport rather than dropping off passengers puts more pressure on the airport services and infrastructure. Drivers will want to minimise the waiting time at the airport end. But, as it is impossible to predict exactly when a passenger will exit the terminal building, the taxi or private hire vehicle will need to park for a short period. Security measures imposed at airports have reduced the space on forecourts for pick up and drop off. Most airports now direct pick up traffic into the short stay car parks, and this will add both time and cost to the taxi journey. But the strong demand for pre booked private hire vehicles has seen some airports set aside areas in their car parks specifically for private hire vehicles to meet and collect customers. TAXIS AT MANCHESTER AIRPORT to of of of

ii. Devolving powers locally has caused inconsistent regulations and unnecessary bureaucracy that has often 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 and regulations nationally, has spawned inconsistent standards, which we believe has in some cases undermined the 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 at great 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 requirements for 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 better placed to regulate Taxi & Private Hire, than smaller Local Authorities whose other policies can sometimes get in the way of appropriate modern regulations and requirements. iii. The 2003 OFT UK Market Study scratched at the surface of such problems without providing any tangible 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 problems caused by private hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which they are licensed. ii. In London, Sir George Young and Minister Glenda Jackson rejected bringing into place outdated practices like 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 that one Metropolitan Authority rather than around 35 Local Authorities would be best placed to avoid the cross border 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 exposed the 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 protectionism and outdated thinking belongs to yesterday. In London for environmental and safety reasons Licensed Operators in Private Hire are not constrained by quotas and artificial operating borders, etc., and rightly can 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 that ensures that the nearest vehicle can and should be provided when possible for service, safety and environmental considerations. The not on my patch regulations should be overhauled and ideally scrapped as soon as possible. vi. The system where licenses and the right to operate are still traded for cash via plate sales is an outdated, archaic practice. Taxi & Private Hire regulations are in the main at least 40 years out of date, except in London, where Licensed Private Hire has a modern, much more fit for purpose set of regulations with the older Taxi regulations still working. 6. Enforcement i. The inconsistency of regulations, leads to poor supply, which in turn compromises safety. This is compounded by inconsistency of enforcement, which alongside poor supply enables serious illegal activity and crime 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 just the Met in London are encouraged to focus on the problem to give it the priority it deserves.

WrittenevidencefromNationalTaxiAssociation(TPH57)
We act for the National Taxi Association and have been asked to respond to the consultation exercise now being undertaken. We are afraid that we have not heard until very recently about the Committee in question although we deem the 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 operators licences fully aware of the limitations on those licences are choosing to try to increase their share of the market in 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 substantial investments in acquiring vehicles suitable, particularly, for carrying wheelchair passengers may find that 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 a somewhat aged nature that legislation has held very good for many years. The Town Police Clauses Act 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 two entirely different operations is clear. As members of the Committee will be aware, only a hackney carriage can be hailed in the street. A private hire vehicle can only be pre-booked and appropriate records of bookings have to be kept. 5. The writer has recently seen a handout from a local private hire operator who has been licensed in North Tyneside Council and who has operated within that district. The proprietor has acquired an operators licence in Newcastle Upon Tyne and wonders why the fleet cannot be essentially apportioned across the two authorities. The reason for that is that when the operator acquired the licence in Newcastle Upon Tyne he was well aware that he could only operate, therefore, in Newcastle Upon Tyne. The basic rule, and it is a very sensible rule, is that, in private hire, all three licences i.e. operators licence, vehicle licence and drivers 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 (North Tyneside Council v Shanks). What happened in that case was that the operator was licensed by North Tyneside Council. It also had an operators licence from Newcastle Upon Tyne. The business was run as one meaning that if a booking was made in North Tyneside a vehicle might be dispatched which was licensed by Newcastle. That, of course, breaks all of the obvious rules that have governed matters and North Tyneside Council, quite rightly, refused to renew the operators licence on the basis that the operator had not been complying with Section 62(1) of the 1976 Act.