Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles: the Road to Reform

House of Commons Transport Committee

Taxis and private hire vehicles: the road to reform

Seventh Report of Session 2010–12

Volume II Additional written evidence

Ordered by the House of Commons to be published 11 and 25 January, 1 and 8 February, 8, 15 and 22 March and 26 April

Published on 19 July 2011 by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited

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]

List of additional written evidence

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 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

cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w1

Written evidence

Written evidence from Ed Bridges (TPH 01)

As Chair of the Licensing & Public Protection Committee in Cardiff, I would like to make the following comments on the Transport Committee’s consultation on issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles. I should add that the following points represent my personal views as the Chair of Cardiff’s Licensing & Public Protection Committee, and not the views of the Committee as a whole. 1) Cross-border hire problems. I note that this issue is the main focus of the Committee’s enquiry. The issue of cross-border hirings is not one which has been a problem in Cardiff over recent years, as such I have no major comments. However, I would like to make the following suggestions and comments on the general issues relating to the taxi trade, which I could like the Committee to consider. 2) Restriction of taxi numbers. One of the major issues facing the taxi trade in Cardiff and beyond relates to the provision for local authorities to restrict the numbers of Hackney Carriages in a local authority area. Most local authorities do not operate a restriction; Cardiff has moved from restricting numbers to derestricting and has now moved back to imposing a cap. These decisions have proved to be contentious, and have demonstrated to me that the lack of clear guidance from central government is both confusing and damaging to the trade. The messages from the Department For Transport conﬂict with those of the Ofﬁce For Fair Trading, with one body advocating delimitation and the other arguing that this should not be mandatory. What is needed urgently from central government is a clear line which states categorically whether Councils should or should not cap Hackney Carriage numbers. 3) Need for updated legislation on taxis. What is really needed is an updated set of regulations and laws relating to taxis. It is ludicrous that taxi legislation is based on laws which are hopelessly out of date. Current legislation and regulations are piecemeal, inadequate and have failed to deal with the evolution of the trade over the past 50–100 years. The differing regulations over Hackney Carriages and private hire is a case in point, as is the regional element whereby different local authorities have such different regulations over taxis (with Hackeys painted different colours and having differing requirements for what vehicles should be used). I would strongly urge the Committee to lay the groundwork for a long-overdue review of taxi laws and legislation, so that this can be taken forward during the current Parliament.

I trust these comments will be given due consideration. I would be happy to expand on these issues if that would be helpful. November 2010

Written evidence from Peoplemovers East Anglia ltd (TPH 02)

With reference to the inquiry into private hire licensing.

I have now been a minibus operator in Norfolk for 12 years running mainly within the education sector I now feel the pcv industry in Norfolk especially has suffered dramatic changes due to the licensing of eight seat private hire vehicles in 2002 as an operator we had 10 regular school contracts since 2008 we have lost all school contracts for small 16 seat vehicles if we did not foresee the changes coming early enough to diversify and change the vehicle sizes on our ﬂeet to 27, 29 and 48 seat vehicles we would now be out of business.

In 2008 Norfolk county council sent a package to all operators requiring us to take numerous hours to complete consisting of vehicles run mileages and our carbon footprint so The County Council could show how green it was.

At the end of the tendering process for that year local pcv operators within the Norwich area lost a massive 40 school runs as these where offered to local private hire contractors as vastly reduced rates as the 16 seat school runs where split into smaller eight seat runs By County Council and pcv operators where give the excuse that a lot of the children on these runs could not travel together but had been for the last ﬁve years so now we 60 private hire vehicles running instead of 40 pcvs

I would not exactly call this green and also feel that safety standards are below the standards offered by pcv operators as we all know private hire vehicles only get tested yearly at annual test as pcv operators by law maintained their ﬂeets and carry out inspections usually on a 28 interval I feel the only reasons for these changes are for cost cutting and the safety of passengers is now a serious risk. November 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w2 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Hugh Bayley MP (TPH 03) I have received a number of petitions from constituents who would like to see a change in the law to prevent private hire vehicles from picking up customers from addresses outside their own licensing area. The petition is sponsored by Unite. I enclose one of the petition forms with the petitioner’s name blanked out1. I have sought advice about this issue from the House of Commons Library. There are ambiguities in the current legislation—the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976 which need to be clariﬁed. I am pleased that the House of Commons Transport Committee has agreed to look into the issue as part of an inquiry into taxis and PHVs. I should be grateful if the Committee would treat this letter and the enclosed petition as evidence to the enquiry. It seems to me that there are environmental and passenger convenience issues to be taken into account as well as the licensing and regulation matters and the legitimate interests of private hire drivers and operators. Environmentally it makes sense for vehicles to carry passengers or goods on a return trip whenever possible, rather than running empty. Also it may be a passenger’s choice to be picked up by a hire car company they know from their own town or city when they need to be collected from outside the borough. For example I choose a York private hire car to collect me if I land at Leeds/Bradford airport, and sometimes a private hire company will offer a better rate for a return journey—for example taking someone to an airport for a holiday and bringing them home again a week or two later. If Parliament was to change the law to clarify that this is legal it would reduce the need for regulation, and the reduced regulatory cost ought to be passed on to drivers through lower licence fees. However, it would be essential for return journeys to be reciprocal—so that drivers from one borough could expect to get as much work in the form of return journeys from other boroughs, as they would lose to out of area operators taking business from their home borough. November 2010

Written evidence from Bromyard Tenbury Taxis (TPH 04) 1. Legalisation of cross border bookings. 2. Prohibit unlicensed airport and ferry transport services. 3. Standardise taxi & private hire legislation at national level. 4. Wheelchair accessibility percentages of taxi & private hire ﬂeets should reﬂect the local need. 5. Regulate charity funded Community Transport schemes to prevent unfair competition with the hire and reward trade. 6. Allow smaller eco friendly vehicles to be used for hire & reward.

1. Legalisation of Cross Border Bookings Cross border private hire bookings should be allowed to continue. Example: We operate on the border of four counties: Herefordshire, Worcestershire, Malvern and Shropshire. We have regular customers in each county. We are geographically further from our licensing ofﬁce than we are from the other three county borders. School contracts are also often cross border. Banning these bookings will put many hire & reward ﬁrms in similar geographical locations out of business.

2. Prohibit Unlicensed Airport and Ferry Transport Services These services should be licensed and regulated as all hire & reward services are.

3. Standardise All Taxi & Private Hire Legislation at National Level Prevent local licensing authorities from enforcing their own interpretations of National and European guidelines. Standardisation would offer clarity & improved safety for trade & public and would make enforcement easier. 1 Not printed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w3

4. Wheelchair Accessibility Percentages of Taxi & Private Hire Fleets Should Reﬂect the Local Need The percentage of wheelchair accessible hire & reward vehicles should be assessed per area. Some areas have very few wheelchair users and need fewer wheelchair accessible vehicles. This would keep the costs down for the trade.

5. Regulate Charity Funded Community Transport Schemes to Prevent Unfair Competition with the Hire and Reward Trade Charity based Community Transport schemes are not regulated by the Local Licensing Authorities. Many of these schemes are competing unfairly with the licensed trade. They are charging close to taxi rates and have no restrictions to the services they offer. They have vehicles donated, cheap vehicle insurance, no vehicle and driver licenses, no CRB checks, and inexperienced drivers. Volunteer drivers put passenger safety at risk. These drivers are often over 60 years old and their driving skills should be assessed. The volunteer drivers should undergo the same medical checks as the hire & reward trade drivers. How much longer will it be before they put the licensed hire & reward trade out of business?

6. Allow Smaller Eco Friendly Vehicles to be Used for Hire & Reward Allow smaller eco friendly/low emission vehicles to be used nationally without the necessity of paying to approach the local authorities committee to deviate from the standard. More ﬂexibility is needed at national level. December 2010

Written evidence from Juan Sanzo (TPH 07) As a taxi operator licenced with S Glos Council I think because of the way the taxi companies are organised more and more cross border hire is happening, ie V Cars, a very large operator answers all their calls in Swindon but operates the work in the areas of Bristol City Council, South Glos Council, Bath and North East Somerset Council and Wiltshire Council. This cannot be in the public interests. If there is a job in which local knowledge is important, it is this one. We were actually taken to court about 20 years ago for exactly this offence. We were answering calls in Bristol but operating under the South Glos umbrella and Bristol objected. I urge you not to allow this to continue. I await your comments. December 2010

Written evidence from Stamper’s Taxis (TPH 08) Thank you for your request relating to evidence and activities of cross-boarder hiring. I hope you will ﬁnd the following details correct as from 2 December helpful to give an accurate picture of the activities taking place in Cambridge.

1.0 Cambridge City Council The Guildhall, Market Square, Cambridge, CB2 3QJ

Details Private Hire drivers /cars 283/209 Hackney drivers /cars 499/305 Operators 32 Ranks / Spaces 7/36 Driver Requirements: Knowledge, Driving test, Medical Class 2 & CRB Check. Vehicles: 2 Council tests per year £104 and a vehicle Licence fee of £160(PH) £225 (H.C).

1.1 South Cambridgeshire District Council (102 Villages) South Cambridgeshire Hall, Cambourne Business Park, Cambourne, Cambridgeshire, CB23 6EA.

Details cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w4 Transport Committee: Evidence

Private Hire drivers /cars 705/558 Hackney drivers /cars 12/9 Operators 137 Ranks / Spaces 0/0 Driver Requirements: Medical (Basic) & CRB Check. Vehicle:- 1 years M.O.T.+ Compliance Cert, license Grant fee £98 renewal £79 inclusive.

1.2 Cambridgeshire Map

2.0 Panther Taxis (01223 715715) Convent Drive, Waterbeach, Cambridgeshire CB5 9QT

Operates on City Licence Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars 73/95 Approx.

Operates on South.Cambs licence Private Hire cars 210 + (53) City free phones: Colleges: Corpus Christi, St Catherine’s, Homerton, Pembroke, New Hall, Robinson, Selwyn, Queens, Churchill, Fitzwilliam, Wolfson, Jesus, St Johns, Newnham, Addenbrookes Hospital x6, Sainsbury’s x2, Tesco’s (Newmarket Rd), Travel Lodge Express, Royal Cambridge Hotel, Asda, Aldi, Waitrose, Moller Centre, Cine world, Parkside Pool & Travel Lodge (Central). (2) South Cambs free phones: Girton College (Girton), & Holiday Inn (Impington) Based at Waterbeach (South Cambridgeshire) seven miles from Cambridge, using a one number call system. 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

2.1 A1/Cabco Ltd (01223 711111) Unit 3, Peaks Storehouse, 135, Ditton Walk, Cambridge CB5 8PY

Operates on City Licence cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w5

Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars 7/ 21

Operates on South Cambs licence Private Hire cars 55–70 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

2.3 Ace Taxis (01223 462020/411010) 24 Cedar Lane, Cambridge

Operates on City Licence Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars 1/3

Operates on South Cambs licence Private Hire only 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

2.4 CamCab Ltd (01223 704704) 4 Ronald Rolph Court, Wadloes Road, Cambridge CB5 8PX

Operates on City Licence Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars 4/ 73

Operates on South Cambs licence Private Hire cars 8 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.

2.4 Camtax (01223 242424) Old Paper Mill, Ditton Walk, Cambridge, CB5 8LD

Operates on City Licence Cambridge Hackney & P/Hire cars 3/ 2

Operates on South Cambs licence Private Hire cars 2 City free phones: 0 S.C. free phones: 0 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. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w6 Transport Committee: Evidence

3.0 Other Material Facts — All the above Companies have agreed to participate in a Cambridge City Council’s funded Taxi card Scheme, all companies randomly dispatch work to whichever’s 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. — There are no duel licensed Vehicles or drivers. — Approximately 250–275+ South Cambridgeshire District Council Private Hire Vehicles work solely in Cambridge City. — Having measured a random distance of 2.4 miles, 43 South Cambridgeshire private hire vehicles were observed either waiting or carrying out work within the limits of Cambridge City. — Following the Parliamentary Transport Committee decision for a new inquiry, ten bookings were made, from various locations within Cambridge City to companies in this report. The results were as follows: 1. Six—South Cambridgeshire Private Hire. 2. One—Cambridge Hackney Carriage. 3. Two—Cambridge Private Hire. 4. One—cancelled following a 24 minute wait. — In 2008 South Cambridgeshire District Council also adopted Cambridge City Council’s maximum Table of Fares Tariff exactly. December 2010

Written evidence from Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire Taxi Licensing Officers Group (TPH 09) Cross-border Hiring 1. For the sake of clarity, we understand the term “cross-border hiring” to take three forms: — where a hackney carriage licensed by council A operates as a private hire vehicle from a base in council area B; — where a private hire vehicle operator licensed by council A operates from a base in council area B; and — where a private hire vehicle licensed by council A is called to pick up and/or transport a passenger to a destination in council area B. 2. In the first two of those scenarios, the drivers and vehicle operators in council area B are likely to lose out, which has an impact on their livelihoods. The reason that drivers and vehicle operators will favour council A as their licensing authority is often as a “flag of convenience” because licence fees are cheaper, or standards are less onerous making it easier to obtain licences. In saying this, we do not mean to imply that any council is undermining the public safety rationale behind the licensing regime, but that the current regime is too flexible and allows for too many national inconsistencies. 3. These inconsistencies and differences can relate to: — duration of vehicle, driver or operator licences; — licence fees; — frequency of vehicle testing and ages of vehicle; — standards of vehicle testing; — signage on and equipment in vehicles; — medical qualifications; — prior criminal convictions; — pre-licensing requirements, for example topographical “Knowledge” tests, or driving assessments; and — enforcement provisions. 4. The Committee is no doubt aware of the issues raised in Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and others (2010) and R (on the application of Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council (2008). We are aware of a situation in one Hertfordshire town within council area A where a private hire operator licensed by the council also holds an operators’ licence from council B. Drivers and vehicles licensed by both councils are therefore operating side-by-side from the same office, but subject to very different standards and fees. This can have an impact on passengers. It also presents a gap in public protection arrangements, as whilst officers from council A are on-the-spot and are able to enforce the legislation, council B’s resources are much more remote and far more limited to the point of being almost non-existent. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w7

5. The above example escalated within another Hertfordshire borough to the point where eight of the nine private hire operators were operating in this way, with drivers and vehicles licensed by two different authorities operating from the same bases but with different requirements, conditions and fees. This resulted in the council concerned proposing enforcement action against each operator and driver, and drawing up special arrangements to allow all drivers and vehicles to be licensed by the same council.

Plying for Hire 6. Most councils spend resources each year together with enforcement agencies such as the police and the Vehicle Operator and Services Agency in tackling unlawful plying for hire. 7. In many cases, the offence is committed by a licensed private hire driver who is either unaware of how and where they may lawfully park whilst waiting for a legitimate passenger, who may be insured at that point until their insurer declines cover following an unlawful act, or who may have to go through the charade of “pre-booking” a passenger by getting the passenger to phone his operating base whilst the passenger is actually sitting in their car. The vast majority of the public are not usually bothered whether they travel in a hackney carriage or a private hire vehicle, and still less whether it was waiting for them in a legitimate place. The fact that a licensed driver has committed the offence normally means there is little risk to public safety per se. 8. In our view, abolition of the distinction between hackney carriages and private hire vehicles would largely eliminate unlawful plying for hire, leaving enforcers to concentrate on wholly unlicensed vehicles and enforcing standards in licensed vehicles. 9. We would support the introduction of a one-tier system of taxis only, with only wheelchair accessible taxis allowed to wait on designated ranks. 10. Some of the complexities arising from plying for hire flow from the need to book private hire vehicles through an operator. A private hire operator’s licence is required where, as defined in section 80 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, provision is made for the acceptance of bookings. This made sense nearly 35 years ago, when the only means of communicating with a private hire firm was by telephone or by personally visiting their offices. Today, bookings may be made directly with drivers via mobile telephones or internet-based technologies that make the 1976 requirement anachronistic.

Driver Training 11. We support the work of Go-Skills in encouraging many drivers to achieve qualiﬁcations that reﬂect their status as professional drivers, and the Driving Standards Agency’s specialist driving assessment for licensed drivers. 12. We would argue that there is a case for this training and assessment to be made compulsory on a national basis, to bring licensed drivers in line with other occupational drivers. We are also strongly of the view that this would raise standards within the industry generally, and help reduce the local variations and inconsistencies to which we have referred above. 13. Any training should be affordable, nationally approved and involve elements of classroom and practical training, including driving assessments. We feel that in the same way that regulation of the private security industry has enhanced the image and role of door supervisors, we think that a similar enhancement is desirable and achievable for the taxi/private hire industry.

Inclusion in National and Local Policies 14. It is our understanding that a major bus operator in our region recently received a subsidy of £8 million; in contrast, taxi businesses, who operate 24-hours a day, do not receive anything. Taxis in our experience rarely feature in local transport plans, and should feature more prominently in “green” travel plans and similar strategies. 15. We would suggest the development of a National Taxi Council should be investigated, based on the New South Wales model in Australia.

Enforcement 16. Licensing ofﬁcers are generally conﬁned to enforcing licensing provisions relating to licences issued by their own authority. Even then, there are anomalies within this scheme as illustrated in the following table: Licence provision Method of enforcement Contravening of statutory provision in primary legislation — Prosecution or caution — Suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence Contravening hackney carriage byelaw — Prosecution or caution cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w8 Transport Committee: Evidence

Licence provision Method of enforcement Contravening private hire vehicle conditions — Suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence Contravening hackney carriage vehicle conditions — Suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence Contravening private hire driver’s licence condition — Suspension, revocation or refusal to renew licence Contravention of hackney Suspension, revocation or refusal only if driver is no longer carriage driver’s licence — “ﬁt and proper” to hold a licence

17. By definition, licensed drivers and vehicles are not tied to one geographical area and can equally commit offences outside of their “home area”. We would recommend that licensing authority officers are able to exercise their powers in relation to any licensed vehicle, and not just those licensed by their own authority, in a similar way that the Health and Safety Executive has introduced a system of “flexible warranting” with local authority health and safety inspectors. 18. Following from this reasoning, we would argue that licensing officers should be given a specific status in law in a similar way to environmental health officers, or licensing standards officers under Scottish alcohol licensing law. This would help local authorities to direct resources to those services more appropriately and help the development of professionals who contribute towards community safety. 19. To reduce costs and the burden on the criminal justice system, and to safeguard against abuse, we suggest that many of the existing offences under the current legislation (such as failing to wear a drivers’ badge, obscuring a taximeter, failing to use a taxi rank properly) are no longer appropriate for dealing with through the formalities of a criminal trial. We would recommend that these offences are more appropriate for disposal by way of the penalty processes in the Regulatory Enforcement and Sanctions Act 2008.

Vehicle Standards 20. In line with our call for more consistency between licensing authorities (achieved either through regulation or statutory guidance), we recommend that all vehicles that are licensed after a speciﬁc date should be ﬁtted with in-vehicle CCTV. Drivers are very vulnerable to physical attack and we believe that the installation of CCTV will have a positive effect in improving passenger behaviour.

Definition of “Fit and Proper” Person 21. Applicants for drivers’ licences have to satisfy a fairly nebulous test that they are a ‘fit and proper’ person to hold and to keep that authorisation. Each licensing authority interprets this in its own way, with many adopting a policy based on the joint Department of Transport Circular 2/92 and Home Office Circular 13/92 but adapted according to their own local requirements. The circulars do not, for example, suggest an approach to dealing with drivers convicted of offences under the relevant primary legislation; some councils include this within their policy whilst others rely on section 61(1)(a)(ii) of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. 22. This can result, for example, in drivers in one area being granted a licence despite having been refused a licence in another area as a result of their criminal conviction. We are aware that a number of drivers whose licences were revoked following their conviction for plying for hire were granted drivers’ licences by an adjoining authority. 23. We see no reason why a nationally applicable criteria could not be set out, perhaps in the same way that personal licences to sell alcohol are regulated under part 6 of the Licensing Act 2003, which includes at schedule 4 a list of relevant offences precluding the grant of, or allowing a court’s suspension or revocation of, a licence. 24. In line with our argument for greater national consistency, we would recommend that this thinking ought also to be applied to medical standards and driver training, as outlined above. 25. We think the opportunity ought to be taken to rationalise medical requirements for drivers in the same way as previous convictions. Some licensing authorities for example employ in-house medical examiners whilst others rely on examinations by the driver’s own GP. Some licensing authorities require drivers to meet the DVLA’s Group 2 medical standards for occupational standards, whilst others do not—some have different requirements for drivers with disabilities whilst others will not. Drivers are often required to have further medical examinations at age-related intervals, but again these periods can vary considerably. In our view, the Group two standards ought to be universally applied with re-examinations tied nationally to other professional occupational drivers. 26. This approach lends us to recommend consideration should be given to a national register of drivers, and this could perhaps be added by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency as a specific class on UK driving licences. Licensing authorities will then be in a position to accept qualifications for a driver from throughout the country without the need to impose additional requirements on them. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w9

27. We would like to take this opportunity to support the valued work of the Criminal Records Bureau. In our experience, the CRB has reduced the number of applicants with previous convictions seeking licences, although we are alarmed about the Government’s proposals to limit access to enhanced disclosures which contain full details of an individual’s criminal background. Unlike some other occupations that are checked by the CRB, licensed drivers are almost unique in often being in isolated, unsupervised close contact with potentially vulnerable passengers. 28. We would also like to put on record our continued faith in the magistrates’ courts as the venue for appealing against licensing authority decisions. However, we see no reason why an appeal against a refusal to grant a hackney carriage vehicle licence should continue to be made to the crown court, and would recommend that this be brought in line with other appeals.

Fares 29. The vast majority of licensing authorities choose to regulate hackney carriage fares, but have no legal power to regulate private hire vehicle fares. 30. We see no reason why licensing authorities should continue to exercise control over the fares charged by hackney carriages. We understand that, outside national utility providers, no other market is regulated in this way. 31. Fare regulation by licensing authorities is in our view anti-competitive, particularly when two adjacent authorities either have very different fare tariffs or indeed where one chooses not to set a tariff at all. A tariff is only applicable to journeys conducted by taxis within the licensing authority’s boundaries, or beyond that unless the passenger agrees otherwise, and consumers are usually confused by the rules and why private hire fares are different. 32. Allowing licensing authorities to set fares is a slow, cumbersome and expensive process, which also puts taxi owners to additional expense in getting taximeters adjusted and recalibrated to a new tariff. It can be inﬂexible and does not allow vehicle owners to respond quickly to ﬂuctuations in their operating costs such as fuel, insurance or vehicle excise duty in the same way that other businesses can pass additional costs onto consumers at a time and pace that suits them. 33. In a one-tier system, we would recommend that all vehicles should display the fare tariff that they wish to charge, so that intending passengers can make an informed choice. Consumer protection can be ensured by a requirement for taximeters to be used which issue a receipt after each journey, which can also be used to identify the driver in the event of later complaint. Enforcement of these rules, in line with other price legislation, should become the responsibility of trading standards authorities who could also enforce rules about how fares are to be calculated.

Removing Burdens 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.

Annex HERTFORDSHIRE AND BEDFORDSHIRE TAXI LICENSING CONSISTENCY SURVEY 2009 NB: The term “taxi” covers hackney carriage and private hire unless otherwise stated.

Respondents All authorities in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire were invited to take part in an on-line survey during May and June 2009. The questions were designed by the Herts & Beds Taxi Licensing Group. During this period Mid-Bedfordshire and South Bedfordshire Councils merged to form Central Bedfordshire council and were unable to respond. Nine councils out of 12 responded with populations ranging from 79,300 to 252,100 people. Most are largely urban and they licence an average of 1,154 drivers each. Not every council responded to every question. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w10 Transport Committee: Evidence

General Licensing Arrangements There are 10 licensing managers, 15 licensing officers, 16 enforcement officers, two licensing technical officers and nine licensing support/administration officers employed full- or part-time on taxi licensing. Most licensing services are based with Environmental Health, although two are within the chief executive’s department. There is an even split of use between Uniform/IDOX, Swift and Lalpac computer systems. No authority accepts on-line applications. Most councils reported their licensing regime for private hire and hackney carriage are slightly different or exactly the same with the majority reporting the schemes are nearly the same. All issue dual taxi driver licences. Six councils reported that they issue handbooks to drivers (in addition to bye-laws and standard conditions). These are issued on application for a licence; none issue these on grant of the licence or make these documents available on their website.

Driver Licences Driver age and experience Three councils have a minimum age of 18; 1 of 20 and 2 of 21—six councils did not reply to this question. Only one council out of six respondents has a maximum age limit. Two authorities require at least three years’ prior driving experience, one requires two years and three require only one year’s prior driving experience before granting a licence.

Driver licence currency Respondents were equally split on whether to treat drivers absent from the trade for a period as new applicants or as “returners” who are given concessions. The length of time applicants would be treated as “returners” varied from one month at the shortest to six years at the longest. Driver licences are issued for a maximum of three years. Only one council out of six issues for the maximum period; three out of six issues for one year; and one council out of six issues for two years; and one allows the drivers to choose themselves. All councils issue licences to issue on anniversary of the grant rather than on a common expiry date. Three of six councils use the same forms for renewal of a licence compared to an initial application. None accepts on-line applications.

Driver’s badges Only four councils replied as to the action they would take if a drivers’ badge was not returned if the licence is not renewed: one would send letter and visit if in the area; one would take no particular action as they have expiry badges printed on them; one would not take any action; and one would forfeit the badge deposit paid by the driver. Two councils out of six issue temporary driver licences pending completion of renewal application checks and four do not. Of those that do only one charge for the temporary licence. Four out of six councils print a drivers’ full name on their badge, and three print the driver’s surname and initial. Five councils put the driver’s photo on the badge, and all include a badge number and expiry date. None currently require the driver’s signature, date of birth or other details to be displayed.

Driver verification Half the respondents check that applicants are registered with HM Revenue and Customs for tax purposes and half do not. Only two councils require a signed photograph in order to verify applicant’s identities. Five of six councils rely on the standard CRB disclosure identity checks to very applicant’s details. All councils require enhanced CRB checks to be conducted. One council will also accept statutory declarations as to past criminal conduct and two will accept certificates of good conduct for overseas applicants. One council (out of five respondents) conducts CRB checks on an annual basis; two do so when the drivers’ licence is renewed and two on a three yearly basis. Four councils require checks to be completed on first application for a licence. Three out of six councils accept CRB checks conducted by other councils and five allow drivers to drive pending their CRB checks being completed when renewing licences, although none will do so for the grant of a licence. Most authorities will not accept CRB checks that are more than three months’ old, although one said it depends on circumstances. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w11

Criminal convictions Five out of six councils have published criminal convictions policies, three of whom reviewed those policies in the last two years and one reviewed it as long ago as 2000. Most authorities will usually refuse to grant or renew a licence for three to five years from the date of conviction for a range of offences (eg someone convicted of fraud, indecency or violence would have to wait three to five years from date of conviction before being licensed). Where there is any significant variation, it is to increase that limit to five to 10 years from date of conviction. Only one council would ban someone indefinitely following offences of indecency or sexual offences. one council said that offences of drunkenness, plying for hire or other offences related to the use of licensed vehicles would be of no effect. Six councils conduct DVLA checks, with only one doing so annually; three on licence renewal; and two following complaints. Again, most driving offences would disqualify drivers for between three to five years, although speeding, parking and highway obstruction would be of no effect for two councils. Only one council currently conducts immigration checks as part of the application process.

Knowledge Test Prospective hackney carriage drivers have to take a knowledge test in six council areas; prospective private hi re drivers only need to do so in ﬁx areas. Four councils use written tests and two follow an oral format. Two use a multiple-choice answer format. Whilst every council that tests drivers require them to have a knowledge of routes and most require an understanding of relevant licence conditions, none requires a demonstration of language proﬁciency. Drivers in four areas are also expected to answer questions relating to the highway code; none ask questions on basic arithmetic that would be relevant to fares calculations. The pass score for hackney carriage drivers varies from 60% to 80% on the three main segments of the test (routes, highway code and licence conditions). Some councils apply different thresholds to private hire applicants compared to hackney carriage applicants. Three councils do not have any time limits restricting unsuccessful candidates from re-taking a test. Of the other three, one permits three attempts, after which there must be a six-month gap; one requires tests to be attempted again no later than six months after the previous attempt and one does not allow tests to be taken less than two weeks after the last attempt.

Other qualiﬁcations Drivers in two councils currently take the NVQ/BTEC in road passenger transport although it is not mandatory. Three councils offer drivers disability awareness training although it is only compulsory in two areas. All but one council has implemented driving assessments by using the Driving Standards Agency. This is mandatory for new drivers but only one council currently requires existing drivers to take the assessment.

Medical examinations All councils require drivers to undergo a pre-licensing medical, with six of seven allowing drivers to use their own doctor for those purposes. Four councils have a policy of subsequent medicals based upon the driver's age. Policies commonly require re-medicals at ﬁve year intervals, but there are variations as to when that period starts. One council for example requires re-examinations every ﬁve years from the grant of the licence whilst another does not ask until the driver is 45 years old. Most councils require annual or bi-annual medicals for those over 65. Five councils follow the criteria set down by the DVLA in its Medical Fitness to Drive. One council has adopted its own criteria and another has a combination of both. Only one council will accept medicals conducted on behalf of another council.

Hackney Carriage Vehicle Licences Limitation limits Three councils currently limit the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences they issue, and four do not. Those with limitation policies reviewed them in 2002, 2004 and 2008.

Vehicle age limits Three quarters of councils responding have a maximum age limit for licensing hackney carriage vehicles. This varies from ﬁve years to being no more than 10 years old, with one council stipulating a maximum age of eight years on ﬁrst application and another allowing vehicles up to 15 years old. These limits can apply to both the grant and renewal of licences. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w12 Transport Committee: Evidence

Minimum ages for vehicle licences are required by two councils, which are set at ﬁve years for one council, and at four years (for saloon vehicles) and two years (for London-style vehicles) by another. No council imposes a maximum mileage limit after which vehicles would not be licensed. Four councils specify the sort of vehicle that can be licensed as a hackney carriage (and three do not). Of those that do…

Conditions and livery Four councils also require taxis to be wheelchair accessible, and again three do not. Three councils require all of their taxis to be wheelchair accessible, and only one requires a proportion of them to be, which states London-style vehicles must be wheelchair accessible. One council stated that it would not licence any vehicle with two doors or less than three passenger seats, and no other council said that there were vehicles they would not licence. Only one council imposes a standard livery for taxis. All council respondents require taxis to be ﬁtted with roof-signs, taximeters and ﬁre extinguishers, and the majority require First Aid kits to be carried. Three councils require internal licence plates to be displayed and two require spare wheels to be carried; only two also require door signs to be displayed. All of the councils require licence plates to be displayed on the rear of the vehicle, with two additionally requiring display inside the vehicle and two on the windscreen. The councils allow a range of equipment to be carried on the vehicle, with the majority allowing door signs and window or windscreen stickers. Four councils allow taxis to tow trailers, and three do not.

Vehicle tests Only one council has a vehicle testing station (VTS) located outside of its district, although one has a VTS both inside and outside. Only one VTS is provided in-house.

Vehicle licences All councils issue licences for the maximum 12 month period, which expire on the anniversary of the grant. All councils issue licences to vehicles provided by accident management/insurance companies providing the vehicle meets all of the relevant licensing conditions. Only two councils have “green” policies to encourage the use of environmentally-friendly vehicles. One will consider licensing vehicles even they do not comply with its engine capacity requirements, and another offers a £50 licence fee discount for what are termed fuel-friendly vehicles.

Fare tariffs No tariffs are set by ofﬁcers alone, and in most cases they are set in consultation with either councillors or the trade. The Licensing Committees in two councils are responsible for setting the tariff, and two set them with reference to the Public Carriage Ofﬁce tariff. Three councils wait for the trade to apply for tariffs to be reviewed, with one council conducting an annual review and another conducting regular reviews.

Taxi ranks Six councils provide taxi ranks, with each providing on average 4.6 ranks. Private land owners provide an average of 0.75 ranks each, with railway companies providing an average of 1.6 ranks in each district. All respondents conﬁrmed there were more licensed taxis than available rank space. Three councils have marshalled taxi ranks, and three are not. Those that are marshalled are all done so on Friday evenings, and to a lesser extent on Saturdays and Thursdays. One rank is marshalled on Mondays, and one council’s ranks are marshalled on Bank Holidays and when required. Two marshalling schemes are wholly funded by local authority funding, and three are provided for by either privately-employed marshals, the local crime and disorder reduction partnership, or contributions from pubs and clubs. None of the schemes are funded by licence fees.

Private Hire Vehicles Age limits Four councils impose a maximum age limit on licensing private hire vehicles, ranging between ﬁve and eight years. Three councils impose this limit on ﬁrst applications for licences and only on renewal applications. Only cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w13

one council has a minimum age (of ﬁve years) for licensing private hire vehicles. Like hackney carriages, there are no mileage requirements imposed. None of the councils specify the type of vehicle that may be licensed for private hire work.

Specialist vehicles (eg fire engines, stretch limousines) Two councils would licence fire engines, stretch limousines, and courtesy cars as private hire vehicles. Conversely, two councils would not be prepared to licence fire engines and three would refuse to licence courtesy cars (as distinct from accident replacement cars). Three councils would not licence cycle rickshaws. None of the councils stipulate which vehicles should be licensed as private hire vehicles (which can be contrasted to the position in relation to the type of hackney carriage vehicles that would be licensed).

Conditions and livery No specific livery requirements are imposed by any council either. One council requires roof signs to be used, and three require door signs. Three require a First Aid kit and five require fire extinguishers, which are similar to the requirements for hackney carriages. Two also require a spare wheel to be carried. No council—for either hackney carriages or private hire—requires disability awareness signage to be displayed although four councils allow it should drivers wish. Three councils permit private hire vehicles to have a specific livery and two allow door signs as an option; one council also allows optional windscreen/window advertising. All councils require vehicle licence plates to be displayed on the rear of the vehicle, with three also requiring them to be displayed on the windscreen. Five councils are prepared to grant an exemption from the requirement to display plates where they are used for chauffeur/executive work. One council exempts vehicles from displaying plates for “airports and London runs” but not “local mini-cab work”, and another if the vehicle is used exclusively for executive use providing the plate is kept in the boot of the car and a windscreen disc displayed.

General Vehicle Requirements Three councils require production of a certificate of compliance before licensing the vehicle; two require a certificate of compliance and an MOT certificate. None rely on an MOT certificate alone. Three councils request drivers produce public hire insurance, whilst four require minimum third party risks are insured. One council requires comprehensive insurance policies to be produced, and none asks for public liability insurance certificates. Five councils were happy to accept cover notes, and none said they would not. Insurance documents and log-books must be produced either with the application or before the grant/renewal of the licence. No council asks for production on renewal of the insurance policy itself. Four authorities generally ask to see original log-books and insurance certificates in connection with applications, although one council does not insist on original versions. Two councils require that log-books must be in the same name as the licence applicant, and three do not.

Private Hire Vehicle Operators Councils licence between 30 and 93 private hire vehicle operators. All of those are private hire only, and do not also operate hackney carriages. 129 operators only operate one vehicle each, but only two councils responded to this question. Two councils stated that they licence operators who are based outside of the controlled district of their council; however, two said they do not. Before granting operator licences, councils ask to see insurance (one council); a CRB check (one council); and a financial check (one council). No councils ask to see planning permission in place, a radio licence, qualifications or any other requirements. Two councils conduct pre-licensing interviews; five stated they did not conduct pre-licensing interviews or inspections. Only one council requires operators to have a customer complaints policy and public liability insurance. Four councils issue operator licences for one year, three of which expires on the anniversary of the grant and one on a common expiry date. Three councils base their operator licence fees on the number of vehicles being operated.

Enforcement and Compliance The power to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew an operators’ licence is taken by ofﬁcers in two councils, and by committees in two other councils. The same applies in relation to ending the suspension of an operators’ licence, although this is exercised by a sub-committee in only one council. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w14 Transport Committee: Evidence

In three councils, decisions to take enforcement action against a driver’s licence (as stated above) can be taken by licensing officers or Heads of Service. In three cases, those decisions are made by licensing sub-committees. In four councils, the decision to revoke a licence is taken by a sub-committee whilst officers can make the decisions preceding a revocation. In one council all enforcement decisions are decided by the Licensing Committee. Very similar statistics were produced in relation to enforcement action against a vehicle licence. Three councils have published enforcement policies relating to licenced vehicles and drivers, and only one council has a penalty point scheme in place for dealing with drivers. Four councils stated they conduct operations to target unlawful plying for hire, and one said they did not. Five councils agreed that they conducted operations to target unsafe vehicles or drivers. Two councils publish information leaflets about licensed vehicles for passengers, and three do not. A range of enforcement actions were taken by authorities during the 2008–09 financial year although the number of occasions each action was used was actually very low. The most common action was to suspend a vehicle licence, followed by suspension of driver licences and cautions for a driver licence offence. Only two actions were recorded of refusing to renew a driver’s licence and only one prosecution for a driver licence, operator or vehicle offence. Councils were engaged in defending a number of appeals during the same period, with seven appeals relating to a refusal to renew driver’s licences, two appeals for refusing to grant driver’s licences, and two relating to general licensing policies such as delimitation. Four councils have a taxi forum or similar operating in their area and one does not. These meet monthly (one council); quarterly (two councils) and annually (one council). Forums are predominately attended by council and trade representatives and the police but no taxi marshal representatives or another party.

Conclusions and Recommendations This survey is unfortunately limited due to the small number of respondents out of the small initial sample pool of 14 authorities. Although designed by the respondents, the penultimate question (number 159) suggested most respondents found the questionnaire difficult to complete. It would appear from the survey that there are some areas of common procedure and policy that could usefully be standardised amongst councils. This would allow drivers, as businesses, to know that they are competing on essential equal terms within the two counties. It has the potential for improving public safety and confidence through the implementation of uniform licence conditions and approaches. It has the potential for delivering savings for councils by allowing economies of scale in ordering consumables such as application and other forms and in the delivery of services such as enforcement or vehicle testing. It could promote a number of positives, such as a common licence issued by each council which would then make transfers by licensees between councils easier. There are significant areas of discrepancy in a wide range of areas, suggesting that an attempt to promote consistency would be difficult although the end result for the customer could be beneficial. There would also be political and other issues to be resolved to build consensus, particularly where there may be quite marked differences such as over vehicle livery. It is recommended that using this questionnaire as a basis, the Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire council officers devise a comprehensive list of all practises, conditions and policies to assess which could be harmonised and those which almost certainly could not. This next step should then be used as a start to engage the political leadership in the discussion. 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: cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w15

— driver age restrictions — Knowledge test testing — vehicle age restrictions — Driving Standards Agency assessment requirements — vehicle testing frequencies — medical requirements — advertising on hackney carriages — fees and charges — roof signs on private hire vehicles — 3. 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. 4. 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 co-located 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. 5. 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 counsel’s advice. It appeared to us that a private hire operating base could not be licensed in another local authority’s 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. 6. 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 7. We would also recommend that future driver licensing regime could also require drivers to undertake qualification training in the form of the National Vocational Qualification for licensed drivers (including disability awareness training); and driving assessments such as that currently administered by the Driving Standards Agency for hackney carriage and private hire drivers. Details of licences issued locally by licensing authorities could be held nationally, perhaps by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency. We find it strange that in this day and age drivers in the industry are the only occupational group of drivers not subject to mandatory further testing before they begin to convey the public on the road.

Vehicles 8. We see no reason why a national minimum criteria, also encompassing environmental standards, should not be applied to vehicle standards either, as for other passenger-carrying vehicles, with a standard testing regime across the country so that consumers are assured that a vehicle in Watford has received the same attention as a vehicle in Warrington. Whilst a minimum standard can be specified to ensure a licensed vehicle is distinctive within its area, we would suggest that local discretion can be maintained over vehicle types; colours; advertising and livery; and any additional equipment the licensing authority believes should be reasonably carried within a vehicle for the better performance of its duties. 9. Vehicles licensed by us undergo a regular mechanical examination before being issued with a Certificate of Compliance in lieu of an MOT certificate under regulations made under the Road Traffic Act 1988. We understand that Certificates of Compliance are not collated online by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency. This creates two different problems for drivers: they are often stopped by the police, who do not believe the vehicle has a valid MOT certificate as the vehicle does not appear on the VOSA database; and they cannot renew their vehicle excise duty online either. We feel that a nationally consistent system of testing and certification for the industry would allow these two inconveniences be rectified. 10. We think a distinction should be retained between “large” passenger carrying vehicles such as coaches, and those licensed by local authorities. We do question the viability of restricting local authorities to licensing vehicles of up to eight passenger seats if national standards are laid down. We would suggest that local authorities could licence vehicles carrying up to 15 passengers, and that the current confusing differences that allow hackney carriages and private hire vehicles to be operated under the Traffic Commissioners be abolished. We feel that this, coupled with the other suggested reforms, will give the industry greater freedom to grow and innovate. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w16 Transport Committee: Evidence

11. National standards of this nature should also allow licensed vehicles to use facilities such as bus lanes in recognition of their contribution to public transport systems. We have been engaged in a debate for more than ﬁfteen years over Hertfordshire County Council’s refusal to let hackney carriages use bus lanes within our Borough, whereas in other parts of the country—including much of London—there is no such bar. 12. Like many other councils, we have struggled over at least the previous 15 years as successive governments have sought to introduce a workable policy to specify the characteristics and numbers of wheelchair accessible vehicles. We believe that a mixed ﬂeet of vehicles works best for consumers, as passengers with disabilities have widely varying needs. Local authorities should however be required to publish an annual statement of the percentage of licences that would be available to be granted solely to wheelchair accessible vehicles.

Operators 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 single-tier 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 night’s 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 it may be for the individual licensing authority in each case to decide whether to suspend, revoke or refuse to renew a licence, we think all licensing officers should have the power to prosecute any driver or operator for a breach of the primary legislation. At the same time, many of the existing regulations (if translated into new legislation) should be dealt with by way of sanctions under the Regulatory Sanctions and Enforcement Act 2008. 19. Contraventions such as failing to display evidence of licensed status; failing to notify a traffic accident to the licensing authority; over-charging a customer; or parking on a taxi rank are not of sufficient criminality to warrant a full trial before the magistrates. The system, loosely described, of “stop” and “improvement” cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w17

notices in the 2008 Act would also in our view be more ﬂexible than the current antiquated systems of licence suspensions and revocations.

Fares 20. Like many councils, we regularly set a tariff for hackney carriage fares. However, the outdated rules cause much confusion amongst drivers and passengers. Because a regulated hackney carriage fare only applies within the controlled district of that hackney carriage, passengers are often confused as to why a return journey from a point outside of the district is at a different rate (and often on a different basis). Fare regulation by the local authority is anti-competitive, unresponsive to market forces, and works against drivers’ interests. In our view, the market should dictate fares for the industry subject to pricing legislation of a type that applies to other small commercial enterprises.

Conclusion 21. Finally, we believe that the use and the needs of the industry should be more fully taken into account when developing local, regional and national transport policies. Taxi operators should have open to them the same benefits as other transport operators in being able to influence national policy through formal consultation mechanisms, and have access to subsidies (such as those open to other public transport providers) such as fuel conversion subsidies, grants for providing wheelchair accessible vehicles or tax incentives to invest in driver training. In that way, the industry can grow and innovate. 22. We recognise that we have only briefly described some of the difficulties we experience in implementing the current system for the benefit of our local industry and their customers. No doubt many others will be making similar submissions, some of which may be in agreement with our views and many others no doubt arriving at different conclusions. We would ask the Committee to recognise that underpinning all of those views there is a genuine desire and need for reform. December 2010

Written evidence from Mick Groom (TPH 12) 1. I would like to formally propose that the following document be used as evidence in the Transport Select Committee's Inquiry into Taxi and Private Hire Licensing, as additional evidence relating to Passenger Safety. 2. My name is Michael Groom and I have operated a Hackney Carriage in Liverpool for 18 years. Before then I was a Private Hire driver. I am also a qualiﬁed Assessor and have worked for Unite the Union Taxi Education Project, which has delivered NVQ 2 in Passenger Transport to over 2000 drivers in Liverpool and the UK. 3. This document has been written out of frustration and desperation (feelings all too familiar to taxi drivers all over the country it seems), at what we see as an imbalance within our trade. A lack of consultation and equality exists in most of our major cities with regard to taxis. All we want is fairness. 4. SAFE ACCESS FOR EVERYBODY is an idea designed to address three issues facing the taxi trade in 2010. They are: (a) PROVISION (b) PUBLIC AWARENESS (c) HEALTH and SAFETY 5. I believe S A F E is a mechanism which will kill all three birds with one stone and bring our trade into the spotlight in a very positive way. Working together to achieve a common goal will, I believe, help to bring about a change in the public perception of our industry. 6. Unite the Union Taxi Project has been a huge success in Liverpool and the North West, delivering the NVQ 2 in Passenger Transport to many drivers. Although education and training are both positive and necessary, they do however throw up a number of challenges to the driver which, inevitably, affects the level of customer service, satisfaction and safety. 7. I am concerned that taxi drivers, once trained, are being forced to make decisions which may contradict the Standards set out in their training and I am in no doubt that this is due to the lack of sufﬁcient facilities to carry them out. 8. So let me explain what S A F E is:

Safe Access For Everybody 9. The focus for this campaign is multifaceted and this document will help to set out the goals that need to be met for its success. Whilst carrying out NVQ Observations at the Asda store in Huyton recently, I came across something I had never seen before. To the left of the taxi rank there was a purpose built ramp for disabled access. Its design enables the driver to carry out his/her duties, as required in the standards set out in cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w18 Transport Committee: Evidence

NVQ Level 2 in Passenger Transport, without compromising the dignity of the passenger. The standards I refer to, are part of the training that taxi drivers have either been compelled to undertake, or have voluntarily entered into, either way, the driver is now obligated to carry out these standards or be liable under the terms of the DDA.

Over 2000 drivers in the Northwest have volunteered and the training has been delivered by taxi drivers through Unite the Union, the result of which has improved relationships with customers, which in turn should increase earnings and customer/driver satisfaction. That is of course, until a wheelchair user requires a taxi.

Provision for disabled access to taxis is sadly nonexistent in Liverpool. At transport terminals (including the award winning Lime St Station and JLA), supermarkets and retail parks, where access is crucial for disabled people, there are no adequate facilities for the driver to achieve their responsibilities.

Given the fact that taxis are part of the wider transport system it appears that our trade has been overlooked on this issue.

For a long time now Merseytravel have been improving access for bus and train passengers, with raised kerbs at bus stops and improved terminal facilities.

So, why not the same for taxi passengers?

Well it’s that old chestnut “no statutory obligation”! If the LAs don't have to then they don’t, which is not of course, to say that they won’t.

I’m not talking about building taxi stops like bus stops at every taxi rank, just a designated space at the front of the rank to enable safe access at all key areas where taxis are the lifeline for many people; railway stations, airports, hospitals, retail parks, etc.

Currently in Liverpool, there are no facilities to assist taxi drivers to carry out their duties in a safe manner.

It is however, clear to me that implementing access in the way that the Asda in Huyton has would give the driver a platform to carry out the service he has been trained for in a safe and risk free manner. This would in turn maintain the dignity of the passenger and enable the driver to fulﬁl his/her potential.

Merseytravel will have received funding for carrying out the aforementioned improvements I'm sure; therefore there must be avenues along which our branch could pursue similar improvements for the taxi trade.

As a trade union we are required to strive for better working conditions, that is our purpose and if you weigh up the positives of this issue there are winners all round.

Positive action creates positive results and I feel that this campaign could help to raise awareness for disabled groups and help improve the public perception of the taxi trade in general.

Aims (i) Support: Unite and Trade Organizations, Disabled Groups, Retail Companies, Transport Organizations and Companies, Local Authorities, Charities, MPs and Councillors (ii) Provision: All key public amenities to have disabled facility for access to taxis where taxi rank provision already exists. (iii) Funding: Explore funding bodies, Disabled charities and lottery, Transport initiatives and organizations.

In addition to providing a suitable facility for both driver and passenger, a public interest campaign such as this would give a much needed shot in the arm to the taxi trade. Signage and taxi information boards could also be implemented at these 'taxi stops' to give the customer an overview of the service we provide.

With no funding being put in to advertising this would certainly put the trade in the spotlight in a positive way while ensuring a high proﬁle in our towns and cities.

As I have already stated, as a trade union we should be pushing the powers that be, to ensure that our members are provided with a safe working environment, in order to carry out their duties as laid down by the standards in their training and should be the main focus in our minds. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w19

The taxi access ramp at Asda store, Huyton Village, enables easy access for all passengers, in a safe environment. Both driver and passenger needs are catered for, whilst driver/customer relations are improved. The beneﬁts of such a scheme are obvious. Below is a section of the Local Transport Plan which clearly states that improvement of taxi ranks and their provision is part of that plan, and should be implemented by 2011. However, if Lime Street Station is anything to go by then the opposite is true. Provision has been reduced and disabled access is nonexistent. A lack of consultation with our trade and disabled organizations on ranking issues means that no progress has been made as yet. The same goes for other ranks in other areas where the importance of the drivers’ working conditions and the passengers needs are not considered at all.

5 Year Programme — As part of the MBS we will investigate more use of taxis to link with other demand responsive modes as part of the development of the DRT. (See also Bus Strategy and Chapter 9). — Within three years provide a more robust monitoring regime to shape future policy. — Provide assistance to other modes such as night buses when there is a clear objective to clear the city and town centre as safely as possible, and in order to progress this effectively the proposals are integrated within TravelSafe. — The Merseyside Taxi Training Scheme (MTTS) is being developed and will focus on Customer care and DDA issues. Funding will be sought from a wide range of agencies including operators the licensing authorities and a range of government packages and skill development organisations. — The importance of a high quality taxi provision will be recognised by the provision of improved taxi ranks, new information provision and better integration with the public transport network. This will be particularly important at key locations such as the Airport, Lime Street Station, City Centre, John Lennon Airport and other key destinations. — Ensure that measures are put in place by 2008 to support Capital of Culture through programmes such as the City Centre Movement Strategy (see Chapter 7).

10. Provision The LTP is a five year plan designed to improve the movement of people and goods within our city. The taxi trade is part of this plan and is described as “playing an important role in the transport of people in Merseyside and the government Action Plan for Taxis and Private hire Vehicles makes it clear that they are an integral part of the LTP process”. (6.170 LTP 2006–11) 11. If this is true, then surely steps should have already been taken to consult the taxi trade, disabled groups and cabbies who work the ranks, on how best to create a safe and effective environment for both driver and passenger. Unfortunately this does not appear to have happened. In fact it seems that taxis do not figure at all, if you take Liverpool as an example. 12. In the last seven years or so Liverpool has seen dramatic changes to its city centre. Therefore new challenges have had to met by LCC, which inevitably will cause problems to movement and rank spaces. However, solving these issues by cutting rank space and giving the taxi trade little or no consideration because there is “no statutory obligation” to do so, is to say the least very short-sighted in my opinion. Particularly as business in general has dropped off and taxis are more likely to be ranked up in greater number. 13. To compound the situation, LCC has issued more driver licenses, which has ensured that more taxis are working now than previously and enforcement is also targeting taxis for over ranking offences. A double whammy for the humble cabbie. I find this quite disrespectful to be honest, when you consider the fine job cabbies do 24/7 in our towns and cities. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w20 Transport Committee: Evidence

14. Public Awareness The taxi trade is not comparable to private hire or other forms of public transport in the sense that it is not a private company that makes a profit. However, it is classed as part of the public transport network. Yet it receives no subsidy from the government with regard to fuel and vehicles. Nor does it have any kind of promotion or advertising pot to dip into for these purposes. This, I believe, leaves the taxi trade at a disadvantage in the transport market. Private hire operators will argue that the taxi trade gets the best pitches within our cities to ply for hire, but again that is because of the nature of the trade not some kind of preferential treatment in the market place. 15. The “black cab” is the advert and most would be passengers recognise that fact, but in the current climate where private hire operators use billboards and other forms of media, paid for out of their company profit, gives them an advantage that cannot be matched by the taxi trade. Public information campaigns for our trade would be beneficial, but again the cost of this is prohibitive, with only £2,000 per year available in Liverpool for this purpose, how is the taxi trade supposed to compete in a free market economy? A few leaflets or decent signage would help but alas, the funding door always seems to be shut tight.

16. Health and Safety The health and safety of both driver and passenger are paramount in the solution I have arrived at with S A F E and although the purpose built taxi can adapt itself to many different situations, the pressures placed upon drivers in busy city centres to carry out their responsibilities and duties properly are often compromised by a simple lack of facilities. When a driver is confronted with a wheelchair user wishing to hire him/her, he immediately has to do a risk assessment in order to perform his duties. This is laid down in his Duty of Care and in his training (Unit 1-Ensure the Health and Safety in Your Work Environment in the Road Passenger Transport Industry and Unit 6 Passengers Who Require Assistance. EDI level 2 in Road Passenger Vehicle Driving. Hackney Carriage/PHV). In some cases this is difficult to achieve, particularly and surprisingly enough, in busy railway stations etc, where “a safe place” is not always easy to find. 17. Again the solution is found in S A F E. I am not suggesting that ramps be built everywhere but a designated area at transport interchanges and other key areas such as hospitals and retail parks, would enable the driver to carry out his duties without him having to worry about finding “a safe place” to do so. This would then allow him to perform his duties with complete confidence, therefore, not compromising the dignity of the customer. The level of service would also improve, as would customer satisfaction. The model of course already exists at the Asda store in Huyton, Knowsley and it should be noted that the private sector has found this solution; therefore the cost could be split between LA and private companies in those key areas, which would reduce any strain the public purse. 18. To conclude, I feel that the points raised in this document outline the situations that taxi drivers face each working day and that S A F E goes a long way to solving these. After talking to colleagues up and down the ranks, their main complaints are that they are not being listened to, that they are being targeted unfairly by enforcement due to inadequate provision and that a lack of support from their Local Authority leaves them wondering why their licence fees are not used to improve the taxi trade. All these issues should have been dealt within the remit of the LTP but for some reason they have not been addressed. I am appealing to the inquiry that these issues be heard so that the taxi trade can move into the 3rd millennium instead of languishing in the 1900s. December 2010

Written evidence from Darlington Borough Council Licensing Committee (TPH 13) Darlington Borough Council’s Licensing Committee wish to bring the following matters to the attention of the Commons Transport Committee in respect of “cross border hirings”: 1. This Council has great concern at the current practice of vehicles that are licensed as hackney carriages in one district being used for private hire bookings predominantly or solely in a completely different district. 2. Each local authority currently has the autonomy to specify local conditions and policies. The effect of vehicles being used outside of their own districts in such a way undermines the entire concept of local policies and conditions to suit local needs. 3. This situation has been created largely through the actions of the former Berwick District Council. This was a Council which had lower standards than many other local authorities. At the time that this situation ﬁrst arose it did not require a medical for taxi drivers to Group II standards; it did not have any knowledge test covering legislation and topographical knowledge, it did not have proper criminal record checks for drivers and it did not have proper standards for vehicles. The effect of this was that drivers and vehicles rejected by other local authorities on safety grounds were given licences by Berwick Council. Neither driver nor vehicle had to be presented to Berwick Council—applications were dealt with by post and ordinary MOT testing stations throughout the country were designated to test the Berwick licensed vehicles. In one case a driver cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w21

whose licence was revoked by Darlington Council on the basis that he was no longer fit and proper to hold such a licence was licensed the following day by Berwick Council without any consideration as to why his licence had been revoked by Darlington 4. Berwick Council was subsumed into Northumbria Unitary Authority in 2008. The legacy however continues to haunt many local authorities and has not yet been properly resolved by Northumbria. Darlington is approximately 100 miles away from Berwick and yet Berwick vehicles are still being used in Darlington’s district. As they are hackney carriages they are not required to be operated by a licensed Private Hire Operator. They have in fact been operated by two former private hire operators whose licences were revoked by Darlington Council on the basis that they were not fit and proper. 5. The effect of this on the public of Darlington is that they are subject to different standards. They may book a taxi expecting that it will conform to this Council’s stringent standards and then find it is of poorer quality, driven by someone who does not have proper knowledge of the Darlington area and has not been subject to the same stringent checks required by this Council (eg the requirement to undertake the Driving Standards Agency taxi driver competence driving test). 6. Darlington Council’s enforcement officers, working in partnership with Durham Constabulary have had frequent cause to contact Berwick/Northumbria Councils about the poor standards of some of the vehicles licensed by them & operating in Darlington. They have discovered defects that would normally require the vehicle to be suspended from use eg defective tyres, accident damage, lights not working. 7. The nonsense of this situation is that under the current interpretation of the legislation a taxi driver licensed for example in Berwick could use his vehicle to travel on holiday from Berwick to Portsmouth and then if he runs short of money he could contact a private hire operator in Portsmouth & undertake private hire bookings in that area to supplement his income. He would not have any knowledge of Portsmouth and his vehicle may not comply with the requirements of Portsmouth Council but he would be acting legitimately. This is patently ridiculous. 8. This situation is not limited to Berwick and our experience is that small local authorities which do not have proper enforcement procedures are licensing vehicles in this way. Ultimately, as demonstrated by Berwick one small authority could actually licence every vehicle in the country, gathering in all of the fees in respect of such licences and then these vehicles could work in every district of the country without each district’s local authority having any control over them 9. Darlington Council would welcome National Standards, locally applied, however expresses concern at national guidelines which can only ever be the lowest common denominator in terms of policy and conditions. This Council would welcome a complete overhaul of all taxi and private hire legislation which, this Council believes, is no longer fit for purpose and in the case of hackney carriages, was written before the inception of the motor car. December 2010

Written evidence from the 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 survey2 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”. 2 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w22 Transport Committee: Evidence

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 “public’s” 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. December 2010

Written evidence from Plymouth Licensed Taxi Association (TPH 16) 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). 2. Taxi Offices— should be licensed in line with Private Hire Offices and permitted to compete in an open market with various classes of vehicles. 3. 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. 4. Taxi and Private Hire Drivers— Qualifications; Grandfather Rights; Enhanced CRB Checks; Compensation to Drivers for answering unsubstantiated complaints. 5. 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. 6. Private Hire vehicles— Plating; Signage; Roofsigns; Tinted Windows; Bus Lane user. 7. 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. Legislation 1.1 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. 1.1.1 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. 1.1.2 The Principal Act should then be modiﬁed as required through Statutory Instrument. 1.1.3 The Principal Act should be reviewed and amended every ten years incorporating the Statutory Instruments issued since the previous review. 1.1.4 The Fraud Act 2006 S11 should be incorporated within the Principal Act as police do not recognise the current criminal offence of Bilking. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w23

1.1.5 The Road Safety Act 2006 S52 is being abused. There is a requirement for the provision of an Appeal procedure through a Magistrates Court. 1.2 Legal precedent: All Judgements of the Queens Bench Division should be reviewed and formulated into a Statutory Instrument and inserted into the Principal Act as required to meet evolving situations. 1.3 Department for Transport: Best Value Guidance should be more imposing upon Licensing Authorities (LAs). 1.4 Criminal Records Bureau: There should be one enhanced check that migrates with the Licensee between different authorities and departments. 1.5 Licensing Authorities: are not permitted to ﬁne licensees, perhaps this could be addressed in the same manner as ﬁxed penalty notices.

2. Taxi Offices 2.1 All Taxi Offices should receive Planning Permission and be licensed in the same manner as Private Hire Offices. 2.2 All staff should have enhanced Criminal Record Bureau checks as they know the locations of children and vulnerable adults. 2.3 Vehicles should be a percentage of WAV’s with saloon cars and MPV’s enabling the Taxi Trade to compete with Private Hire.

3. Taxis 3.1 Taxis are legally defined through Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 1519 S4. “taxi” means (a) in England and Wales, a vehicle licensed under (i) section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847. 3.1.1 Taxis should be plated front and rear to enable public identification and LA enforcement. 3.1.2 The rear plate should state, in part: “licensed to carry up to … passengers”. 3.1.3 This will enable flexibility of the service provided at various times of the day and types of passengers being carried. 3.2 There should be no tinted windows for public safety. 3.3 The part of the Equality Act 2010 that relates to Taxis should afford a Mixed Taxi Fleet as many Mobility Impaired Persons prefer a saloon car to Mandatory Vehicles. 3.3.1 Mandatory Vehicles cost more to purchase which coupled with over supply make Taxi Fares more costly than comparative Private Hire Fares. 3.3.2 A Mixed Fleet with controlled numbers will enable lower fares through increased productivity. 3.3.3 Specifications for taxis required by LAs precludes those taxis from tendering for school and social contracts within departments of the same LA. 3.3.4 Taxis, as public transport, should be granted free access to all Transport Hubs such as Airports, Seaports, Ferryports, Railway Stations and Bus Stations. 3.3.5 There should be no charge for dropping off passengers at the foregoing. 3.3.5 Only taxis licensed by the LA within which the facility is situated should normally be permitted to ply for hire at such locations. 3.3.6 All taxis should be permitted to use all Bus Lanes throughout England and Wales. 3.4 Unmet Demand Surveys should be carried out every five years for the following reasons: (a) Under normal finance arrangements vehicles are purchased over a five year period. (b) Local Transport Plans are issued every five years and as public transport taxis should be incorporated within Local Transport Plans. 3.4.1 Unmet Demand Surveys should be financed by the General Rate Fund because Taxis are Licensed to enable Licensing Authorities to protect the public. 3.5 There should be no imposed colour schemes by LAs until such time as there is a national colour the same as another major country or, more preferably, an EU colour. 3.5.1 The reason for the foregoing is that various LAs already impose colour schemes including Gwned that have to be black with red bonnets while Bristol has to be a non-manufactured blue; Bournemouth taxis have to be yellow while in Nottingham taxis have to be Sherwood Green. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w24 Transport Committee: Evidence

3.5.2 Taxis that have to be a specific colour cost more to purchase when new. They then reduce in value when sold as the new purchaser pays less as he has to have the vehicle resprayed, the cycle then repeats throughout the vehicles life to the economic detriment of all proprietors concerned. 3.6 Wheelchair Exemptions Signs should be of such size and design to enable them to be displayed in vehicles and easily seen by intending passengers, they should contain a photograph for identification but not the name of the licensee to protect drivers from unscrupulous passengers and force complainants to go to the LA. 3.6.1 Exemption Signs should be placed in clear plastic pockets to enable drivers of the many vehicles that have more than one driver to remove them when not working. 3.7 Specifications and Conditions of Licence for vehicles licensed as taxis should not be retrospective for the natural life of the vehicle. 3.8 Taxi Ranks should be placed within LA areas where, and at the times, that there is a public need with a 30% proportion of the taxi licences issued by the LA. 3.9 Taximeters that are Calendar Controlled and comply with the Table of Fares set byALL LAs should be a mandatory requirement. 3.10 Representative bodies of the Taxi Trade in England and Wales should have the right to Appeal Taxi Fare Increases through the Traffic Commissioners where they have not been reviewed by their LA for a period of eighteen months. Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 S18 Appeals in respect of taxi fares. 3.11 The Register of Proprietors and Drivers required to be kept by the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 S42 should not be placed on the internet as in some cases it creates a Contempt of Court and in others it enables unscrupulous complainants to circumvent proper complaint procedures through the LA thereby endangering drivers and their families.

4. Taxi and Private Hire Drivers 4.1 All Applicants should have held a UK Driving Licence for three years because UK trafﬁc drives on the left and to ensure a degree of experience. 4.2 All Applicants should have an Enhanced Criminal Record Bureau check as they will work with children and vulnerable members of society. 4.3.1 All Applicants should pass an oral test in English to enable communication with passengers. 4.3.2 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 Drivers with one year or more experience and a clean record should receive Grandfather Rights. 4.4 There should be two Identiﬁcation Badges. 4.4.1 One badge should be worn and one badge should be displayed in the vehicle. 4.4.2 Badges should contain the Driver’s LA Licence Number and a photograph to enable passengers to identify the driver and complain if necessary. 4.4.3 Badges should not contain the drivers name to protect the driver and force complainants to go through LA channels. 4.4.5 Badges in vehicles should be displayed in clear plastic pockets and be easily removed by drivers of vehicles that have more than one driver. 4.5 There should be no Dual Licences as the two trades are different. 4.6 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. 4.7 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.

5. Private Hire Operators 5.1 Private Hire Operators operate Private Hire Drivers and Private Hire Vehicles. 5.1.2 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. 5.2.1 All Offices should have Planning Permission in conjunction with the Licensing Office prior to opening. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w25

5.2.2 All Private Hire Operators should have Land Telephone Lines and no Mobile Telephone numbers should be permitted to prevent unlicensed operators. 5.2.3 Operators premises should be in single use premises with Planning Permission. 5.2.4 Should satellite offices be permitted they should comply with the same Conditions as the parent Private Hire Operators office. 5.2.5 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). 5.2.6 With Free Phones there is no need for booking staff at the above locations. 5.2.7 Staff may lead to touting contrary to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 S167 to the detriment of the Licensed Taxis patiently waiting on taxi ranks outside or nearby. 5.3 Only one operating name per licensee should be permitted for clarity to the public. 5.4 The Owner and all staff should have an Enhanced Criminal Bureau check as they know the locations of children and vulnerable persons. 5.5 Only Taxis and Taxi Drivers licensed by the same LA as the Private Hire Operator should be permitted to work through a Private Hire Office. 5.6 Taxis are only permitted to work through Private Hire Offices at fares not greater than those set by the LA. Local Government (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1976 S67. 5.7.1 Cross Border Hirings should be permitted for return bookings. 5.7.2 Cross Border Hirings should be permitted where an urban area is next to a rural one and no Private Hire Operators or Taxis are in the area. 5.7.3 Taxis are licensed to ply for hire within the jurisdiction of the LA. It therefore follows that after dropping off a customer the vehicle and driver have to return to their own LA area before plying for hire.

6. Private Hire Vehicles 6.1.1 Private Hire Vehicles are not taxis. See 3.1 above. 6.1.2 Private Hire Vehicles should not have roof signs to differentiate them from taxis. 6.1.3 Private Hire Vehicles should bear a rear plate only. 6.1.4 Private Hire Vehicles should have front door signs with the name of the LA, the vehicle licence number, Advanced Bookings Only and the name of the Private Hire Operator. 6.1.5 Private Hire Vehicles should carry a rear mounted sign stating “Bus Lane User”—Exeter, or “Bus lane Approved”—Cheltenham, to clearly indicate to other saloon cars that PHVs are permitted to use bus lanes. 6.1.6 All Long Distance transfer vehicles carrying persons to Airports and Seaports etcetera should be licensed as private hire vehicles. 6.2 Private Hire Vehicles are supposed to supply a discreet service therefore there should be no commercial advertising permitted. 6.3 In the interest of public safety there should be no tinted windows. 6.4.1 To prevent Illegal Plying for Hire Private Hire Vehicles should not be permitted to park outside Private Hire Operators ofﬁces, 30 October 1963 QBD Vant—V—Cripps. 6.4.2 To prevent Illegal Plying for Hire Private Hire Vehicles should not be permitted to Park in the street, 31 May 1962 QBD Newman — V—Vincent and Another 6.4.3 Laying Up Points should be introduced for Private Hire Vehicles—as they were for Hackney Carriages in 1654.

7. Third Class of Operator, Staff, Driver and Vehicle Licence 7.1 There is a requirement for a third class of licence for Operators, Staff, Proprietors, Drivers and Vehicles that do not fall within Taxi and Private Hire Licensing. 7.1.2 All vehicles supplied with the services of a driver for carrying persons should be Licensed. 7.1.3 Whether money changes hands or not, whether voluntary or professional, every person involved should be licensed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w26 Transport Committee: Evidence

7.2.1 There is therefore a requirement to licence the following non-exhaustive list of activities which beneﬁt either directly or through obtaining a pecuniary advantage. 7.2.2 Hotels, Hospital and Ambulance Car Service, Wedding and Funeral Cars, Pub and Social Club Teams, all Voluntary Services with less than nine seats, Limousines and Specialist Party Vehicles, Pedibikes, Trishaws, Rickshaws, Horse Drawn Vehicles and Boats. 7.2.3 Non of the preceding should be licensed as Taxis as they do not provide the same service as Licensed taxis, nor I submit, should they all be licensed as Private Hire. 7.3 All Drivers should have held a UK Driving Licence for three years. 7.4 All persons involved in providing transport services especially Drivers should have an Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau check as they may carry children and vulnerable persons. 7.5 All vehicles should be tested and passed as safe by a LA prior to carrying persons. We trust that the above is suitable to meet your requirements. December 2010

Written evidence from Cambridge City Licensed Taxis Ltd (TPH 18) 1. A Brief History In 2002, Cambridge City Council Taxi Licensing Authority granted permission for Panther Taxis, the biggest taxi hire ﬂeet in their licensed district, to move their company to premises outside the city. Panther Taxis moved to the South Cambs District Council area where they applied for and were granted an Operators Licence for that district, in addition to the existing Cambridge City Operators Licence. From there they began to lease radio equipment to dispatch bookings to South Cambs Private Hire cars, as well as Cambridge City Licensed Private Hire cars and Cambridge City Licensed Hackney Carriages, in violation of the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act (Controlled Districts). Shortly afterwards, the other taxi companies based in Cambridge with Cambridge City Operators Licences, applied for and were granted South Cambs Operators Licences. CCLT Ltd tried to consult with both the City and South Cambs Authorities regarding the legality of operating under two different Licensing Authorities, but they have constantly refused to discuss the matter with CCLT Ltd and the other independent Hackney Carriage Drivers in Cambridge. Both the Licensing Authorities deny that they have acted illegally.

2. At present there are in excess of 300 South Cambs vehicles accepting work from their operators outside their Licensed Controlled Area (South Cambs). The City Council says it is the responsibility of the South Cambs District Enforcement Ofﬁcers to take action on any illegal plying for hire in the city, but South Cambs say if an offence is committed in the city, it is for the City Council to enforce the law. Illegal plying for hire is rife in the city, and is witnessed and reported to the Enforcement Ofﬁcers of both authorities, neither of whom will accept responsibility. The illegal activity continues and is growing as drivers know there are no penalties being imposed.

3. As a result of this neglect of duty by both Cambridge City Council and South Cambs Licensing Authorities, CCLT Ltd and other taxi drivers in Cambridge have for the last eight years, been concerned about the lack of safety and security of, and the abuse leveled at the travelling public by rogue taxi drivers, ie overcharging, insulting behaviour and unprofessional practices.

4. CCLT Ltd believes the two tier system being operated in Cambridge is unfair to the public. South Cambs drivers have a less vigorous knowledge test than City drivers, and the age restrictions on their vehicles are reduced, resulting in much older taxis being used, but the passengers are paying the same fare for an inferior service.

5. Illegal plying for hire is not only illegal but is dangerous for the travelling public, who are unaware that should an accident occur while they are on board, the driver is not insured, and they are unprotected. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w27

The erosion of taxi licensing borders is providing an increasing number of opportunities for criminal and dangerous practices in the trade, and is leaving members of the public more vulnerable. In an age where Health & Safety for everyone is controlled by legislation, it is unbelievable that the taxi trade is left in such a chaotic state of affairs, which must be addressed as a matter of priority. December 2010

Written evidence from Peterborough City Council (TPH 19) 1. A Brief History 1.1 Peterborough City Council currently licence 204 hackney carriages, 434 private hire vehicles, 48 private hire operators and a total of 909 licensed drivers. In general we have a good working relationship with neighbouring authorities and in the past if it was apparent that a company would be predominately working in a certain licensing area, we would direct them to that licensing authority. 1.2 The current financial climate has resulted in a decline in the amount of journeys undertaken by the travelling public and therefore a drop in driver’s earnings. We are currently undertaking a survey to establish that there is no unmet demand, a necessary precursor to placing a limit on hackney plates in a bid to address the issues currently being experienced as a result of the current imbalance between the number of vehicles and the work available. The situation is exasperated due to actions of a particular private hire company licensed by neighbouring council. Their vehicles are saturating Peterborough, creating unfair competition for legitimate Peterborough companies. The Peterborough trade are regularly alleging incidents of this particular company illegally plying for hire and picking up other company’s legitimately bookings, purporting to represent them. 1.3 The private hire company were previously licensed by Peterborough and operated from a location close to the city centre. The council’s licensing conditions were seen by them to be more robust than neighbouring authorities, who offered cheaper licence fees, allowed older vehicles, offered less stringent driver/vehicle testing and had a more relaxed approach to enforcement (see Para 1.15). In addition in 2008 the authority took steps to increase passenger and driver safety by introducing changes to their licensing conditions such as; NVQ training for drivers, permanently affixed private hire door stickers and proposed mandatory CCTV in all licensed vehicles. As a result the company approached a neighbouring council for the relevant licenses and moved their operation to a nearby village, which is situated approximately four miles from Peterborough City Centre and still has a Peterborough telephone number. 1.4 Their base of operation is a garage and the location does not have sufficient parking spaces (space for approximately four vehicles) to accommodate the growing number of vehicles they operate. The council in question do not require planning consent or sufficient space for parking as a condition of an operator’s licence and despite the lack of parking space at the location they place no limits on the number of vehicles the company operate. The company currently operates approximately 50 vehicles. In addition as they were previously licensed by Peterborough and draw their staff from the Peterborough community, all drivers are licensed by the other council from their Peterborough home addresses and allowed to work from their home address. In reality most of their drivers work predominately in Peterborough. The village has a population of 10000 and already had three established private hire operators working in the village before the company’s arrival. 1.5 Given that the company in question were historically a Peterborough Company, advertise that they are a Peterborough company, have a Peterborough phone number and the drivers live in that area, they are for all intent and purposes operating as a Peterborough company. As they are actually licensed by the other authority, they are able to enjoy lower running costs due to cheaper licensing fees and the ability to operate much older vehicles. From inspecting their record of bookings approximately 90% of their work involves a pick up and drop off within the Peterborough licensing area, with very few jobs recorded in their own licensing area. 1.6 We are regularly finding their vehicles parked in great numbers in Peterborough City Centre, predominately outside busy venues and known haunts for those private hire drivers willing to unlawfully ply for hire. (See Para 1.14) Peterborough conditions prevent their drivers from doing this, which has led to a number of occasions where Peterborough’s Enforcement Officers have been dealing with their licensed vehicles for breaching licensing conditions, yet powerless to deal with this company’s vehicle parked next to them. This has obviously increased the level of frustration experienced by Peterborough licensed drivers and officers. 1.7 In essence, the private hire company are knowingly exploiting a loop hole which allows them to work in Peterborough, on neighbouring council’s plates. The Peterborough trade are obviously upset at what they see as unfair competition, ie a company with much lower running costs operating in their area and able as a result to undercut local prices. This has led to a number of other Peterborough companies indicating that they are considering a similar move. 1.8 Despite the issues of concern being regularly highlighted with the neighbouring authority, they have been unwilling to take responsibility, carry out little enforcement and appear to be looking at it purely cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w28 Transport Committee: Evidence

as an income generator, issuing a growing number of licenses, despite the growing problem their actions are causing in Peterborough. 1.9 In order to try and address the issue, local police and council officers have actively canvassed, applied pressure and to all intent and purpose, pleaded with their Huntingdon counterparts to assist and give them the tools necessary to address the issue. As a result we obtained a “Memorandum of Understanding” with Huntingdon, allowing Peterborough Enforcement Officers to check Huntingdon licensed vehicles for breaches of condition and also in addition pressurised Huntingdon to change their licensing conditions, requiring their drivers to return to their licensing district once they have dropped off their customer. However, in reality when our officers have identified issues and licensing breaches Huntingdon’s response has been luke warm to say the least. 1.10 It is also very apparent that that the neighbouring council employ a lower set of standards than Peterborough when determining whether a person is fit and proper to hold a licence. Given our primary role is to ensure that the public are safe when they travel in a licensed vehicle, licensing officers need to take all reasonable steps to ensure those granted a licence do not behave in such a manner that would impact on the safety of our residents. We are regularly finding ourselves in a position where we have revoked or refused a license due to a criminal conviction only to find that person later working in Peterborough, conveying the Peterborough public on a licence issued by the neighbouring council. In order to evidence the scale of the problem two examples are: 1.11 Driver A: This driver was previously licensed with Peterborough. Whilst driving during the early hours of the morning they hit something substantial in the road. The impact was sufficient to smash a headlight and side mirror. The driver failed to stop and investigate what they may have hit, did not contact Police and returned to Peterborough attempting to have the vehicle repaired. The driver had in fact hit a 19 year old soldier returning to barracks after a night out. The young soldier’s dead body was discovered in the morning. The driver was convicted of failing to stop following a road traffic collision and failing to report a road traffic accident. The driver received two six month sentences, was disqualified from two years and given 300 hours community service. Peterborough no longer licence the person deeming them not to be fit and proper. Despite disclosure from our authority, the other council deemed the driver to be fit and proper, granting him a licence which effectively allows him to convey the Peterborough public. 1.12 Driver B: We initially contacted this driver after receiving information that they had been charged with grievous bodily harm & harassment. On attending the office they played down the incident stating it was a family domestic dispute, the matter had got out of hand and the story was predominately fabricated and he was confident the matter wouldn’t even get to court. On investigating it transpires the other party was the fiancée. The driver had got into an argument with her and slammed a car door into her face, fracturing her nose and cheek bones. She required facial reconstruction surgery to repair the damage. During the trial, sentencing had to be adjourned after the driver lost his temper, threatening, abusing and intimidating witnesses. They were found guilty and received an 8 month sentence. We took the decision not to re-licence the driver 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 council’s 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 driver’s licence and on one occasion the driver’s DVLA licence had actually been revoked.

2. 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 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w29

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 company’s 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 council’s plates, as they work to standards which fall below that of our authority. December 2010

Written evidence from Sefton Licensed Operators and Proprietors Association of Sefton (TPH 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

Written evidence from Carlisle Taxi Association (TPH 23) The Carlisle Association believe local authorities have through various acts of Parliament and guidelines from both government and stakeholders, all the necessary tools at their disposal to ensure they have a properly regulated taxi and private hire licensing function that will benefit both those in the industry and assure the public of both driver competence and vehicle safety. Current legislation is workable and proven. However, we believe section 46 needs a point (f) this should be worded as follows: 46(f) No person being the driver of a hackney carriage or private hire vehicle shall wait, stand or ply for hire in any controlled district without having: (i) a current vehicle license for that district; and (ii) a current drivers license for that district. In any proceedings under this section it shall be a defence to show that the driver and vehicle entered the controlled district for the purpose of fulfilling contracts for private hire and that he caused or permitted his vehicle so to wait only for as long as reasonably necessary for the taking up or setting down of passengers and providing any required assistance to those passengers. In respect of cross border hiring’s and as pointed out above, it is crystal clear that the area where the booking is received should be the one which issues the licenses. It is ultimately the choice of the customer which company they wish to use, it is the choice of the company if a booking is acceptable and profitable. This will not change whatever legislation is put in place. However, cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w30 Transport Committee: Evidence

the addition of 46(f) will ensure vehicles from other districts will not be permitted stand and wait in areas they are not licensed (save for fulﬁlling pre bookings within a reasonable period).

Whatever legislation is in place, the public always need to be conﬁdent that the driver, vehicle and operator are all equally ﬁt for purpose. In our view this will not go beyond what is already in place, it would therefore be a completely senseless move to drastically change what current legislation. December 2010

Written evidence from Middlesbrough Council (TPH 24)

Middlesbrough Council’s Licensing Section wish to bring a number of concerns to the attention of the Commons Transport Committee in respect of “cross border hirings”. However, the issues in relation to “cross border hiring” are not limited soley to private hire vehicles as there is a signiﬁcant problem with licensed hackney carriages from one district being used for private hire bookings predominantly or solely in a completely different district.

This causes grave concerns for the Council and raises issues of unfair competition for the licensed taxi trade in Middlesbrough:

— There has been an instance where a private hire driver in Middlesbrough has been deemed not to be “ﬁt and proper” to drive a private hire vehicle by our Licensing following a number of complaints from female passengers in relation to inappropriate touching/comments to passengers during taxi journeys Committee (a decision which was subsequently been upheld by both the Magistrates Court and Crown Court). The driver has then made application to a neighbouring local authority with the intention of obtaining a hackney carriage vehicle and driver licence with that authority and then using that vehicle exclusively to fuﬁll private hire bookings in the Middlesbrough area. The current legislation/case law allows this to happen and takes away the ability of this Council to set standards for drivers carrying out private vehicle bookings in the Middlesbrough area.

— The whole idea of the current legislation is that each local authority can set standards via local conditions and policies for vehicles and drivers licensed in their area. The effect of vehicles being used outside of their own districts in such a way undermines the entire concept of local policies and conditions to suit local needs.

— In relation to the unfair competition element for the Middlesbrough taxi trade, vehicles and drivers licensed in other areas may not be subject to the same rigorous standards, both in terms of vehicle and driver conditions and policies, as those licensed in Middlesbrough. For example Middlesbrough have a number of policies in relation to driving standards such a DSA taxi driver assessments and driver training, which may not be followed by other local authorities and this gives an unfair advantage to drivers licensed elsewhere but who are working in Middlesbrough. There are other examples in relation to vehicle conditions where perhaps Middlesbrough would set a higher standard/quality of vehicle via age policies etc.

— In addition, other Authorities may have lower fees as they do not carry out the same level of enforcement (or no enforcement at all) as Middlesbrough and again this is an unfair advantage to those who seek to obtain licences elsewhere.

— The problem in relation to the use of Hackney Carriages licensed in one area being used for private hire use exclusively in another area arose as a result of the actions of one local authority, Berwick, issuing licences to any applicant irrespective of whether they intended to operate in their area. This resulted in a huge increase in the numbers of hackney carriages licenced in Berwick (and licence fee income) whilst other local authorities were left to cover the cost of the additional enforcement required to regulate the activities of Berwick drivers and vehicles working in their area. This surely cannot be right.

— In relation to Private Hire “cross border issues” again the legislation is unclear and has resulted in a number of other local authorities issuing Private Hire Operator licences to companies operating within the Middlesbrough District boundary. Again the same comment as made above in relation to local control and conditions and policies apply and we have had a situation where this authority did not consider an operator to be ﬁt to hold a licence to operate private hire vehicles in this area who was allowed to continue to operate by virtue of the fact that they held a licence to operate with the neighboring authority (for the same operating centre). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w31

— We have had numerous incidents where members of the public from Middlesbrough have contacted the Council to complain about the standard of driving/conduct of a taxi driver who carried out a journey exclusively within the Middlesbrough boundary. Investigations have revealed that the driver and vehicle used on that journey have not been licensed with the Council and we have been unable to deal with the complaint. The public expect that if they have a complaint about a taxi journey in Middlesbrough, that Middlesbrough Council deal with the situation. They do not expect to be referred to another local authority who in some instances (Berwick) are 100 miles away. December 2010

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 (TPH 25)

1. The operators and the licensed Hackney Carriage and private hire drivers in the City of Brighton & Hove are proud of the reputation gained over a number of years as to the high professional standards provided to members of the public in the area licensed by Brighton & Hove City Council.

2. By working with the trade with regular forums and good communications, the elected Councillors of Brighton & Hove have ensured the local taxi and private hire fleet of vehicles being in excess of 1,000 have been maintained to a very high level of standards; an equally high level of standards set for the drivers; excellent knowledge-based schools; and an increasing majority of those drivers having achieved BTEC qualifications; as well as having provided evidence of medical fitness to drive members of the public. The foregoing is in addition to the standard CRB and DSA checks.

3. In the absence of licensing within the limits of the licensing areas, all such controls would be at risk as would be passenger safety. There could be no guarantee of the drivers having the requisite knowledge, honesty or trustworthiness or indeed just the essential or even local knowledge that has been expected of taxi and private hire drivers throughout the country.

4. Restrictions upon the area in which a driver is licensed does not preclude that driver from taking passengers out of the area to the adjacent environs and/or ports, airports et cetera. However, having done so, the driver and vehicle must return to their licensed area before again plying/picking up new passengers.

5. It is of course common for Licensed Taxi and Private Hire drivers from areas licensed from outside Brighton & Hove to have passengers wanting to come to the City. However it is evident that such vehicles and their passengers often have difficulty in finding anything but the well known hotels and land marks. For this to be replicated countrywide could result in passengers finding difficulty in reaching their destination or certainly by the most economic route let alone the issues already referred as to the quality of vehicles; drivers’ knowledge; and especially the safety of passengers.

6. Working in conjunction with the elected Councillors of Brighton & Hove, standards have been raised over the years and maintained including where appropriate the entire support of the Hackney Carriage Officer(s) in any enforcement of those licensing provisions or indeed in dialogue with the officer, representatives of the City Council and again its elected Councillors with regard to the regular review and if need be enhancement of Licensing conditions, most recently in relation to the provision of rear access wheelchair accessible vehicles. If Licensing was removed from the locality and from the elected Councillors for the City, any such existing benefits would undoubtedly be dissipated if not extinguished altogether again to the detriment of the fare paying passenger. Retaining locally elected control of licensing retains accountability and local decision making policy(ies).

7. If reform is desired it is respectfully submitted this should be by way of bringing up to date and embodying in one statute the provisions which could apply nationally to taxis (Hackney Carriages) and Private Hire vehicles retaining the licensing of both taxis and Private Hire Vehicles within the local (licensing) authorities. Enhanced CRB checks from wherever the driver may originate would be beneﬁcial as would a minimum language test alongside the continued development of BTEC qualiﬁcations, knowledge tests and medical assessments. However most recently the Equality Act 2010 sought to introduce wheelchair accessible vehicles and has found this is diametrically contrary to the wishes of the overwhelming majority of the taxi using public (whether disabled or not) who prefer saloon car vehicles.

8. The drivers and operators of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensed vehicles in Brighton & Hove are proud of the service provided to the public and would submit further that the public, in each licensed area (Local Authority) are best served by the maintenance and where appropriate enhanced standards. However the withdrawal of the current licensing system or its uniﬁcation nationwide is not the solution or indeed any solution. December 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w32 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council (TPH 27) Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council wish to bring the following matters to the attention of the Commons Transport Committee in respect of issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles including “cross-border hire problems”: 1. This Council would welcome a complete overhaul of all taxi and private hire legislation which, this Council believes, is no longer fit for purpose and in the case of hackney carriages, was written before the inception of the motor car. The legislation is vague in parts and the current guidance/best practice is considered to be inadequate. This, together with the absence of any national standards has led to local interpretation, the adoption and application of local conditions and policy and as a consequence local challenges through the appeal process in magistrates and the high courts with differing results. 2. This was demonstrated in our recent Court of Appeal judgment in the case Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Alan Fidler and others Appeal Court reference No CO/5268/2010, when the Court found that a hackney carriage licensed anywhere in the country can be used for private hire bookings predominantly or solely in a completely different district, which again can be anywhere in the country, with the exception of London. 3. Each local authority currently has the autonomy to specify local conditions and policies. The effect of vehicles being used from outside of their own districts in such a way currently undermines the entire concept of local policies and conditions to suit local needs. 4. This situation has been created largely through the actions of the former Berwick District Council. This was a Council which had lower standards than many other local authorities. At the time that this situation first arose it did not require a medical for taxi drivers to Group II standards; it did not have any knowledge test covering legislation and topographical knowledge, it did not have adequate policies on criminal record checks for drivers and it did not have proper standards for vehicles. Vehicles and drivers rejected by other local authorities on the ground of public safety or in the case of drivers that they were not fit and proper persons to hold a licence were subsequently granted licences by Berwick Council. Neither driver nor vehicle had to be presented to Berwick Council—applications were dealt with by post. On at least two occasions drivers whose licences were revoked or refused by Stockton Borough Council on the basis that they were not considered not to be fit and proper to hold such a licence were subsequently licensed by Berwick Council and immediately appeared back working in Stockton. 5. The effect of this on the public of Stockton is that they are subject to different standards. They may book a taxi expecting that it will conform to this Council’s stringent standards and then find it is of poorer quality, driven by someone who does not have proper knowledge of the area and has not been subject to the same stringent checks required by this Council (eg the requirement to undertake the Driving Standards Agency taxi driver competence driving test and in respect of the relevance given to any convictions). In essence residents and visitors to Stockton may be driven by someone who the Borough deems not be fit and proper because the legislation and case law currently allows this. In our experience unscrupulous drivers and operators are taking advantage of the legal “loophole” to circumvent the ethos of the legislation. It is quite apparent that this situation clearly goes against the rationale of the legislation but case law presently allows this to happen. As Mr Justice Langstaff pointed out at paragraph 78 of the Stockton Council judgement: “If it seems that there are nonetheless tensions between any policy of local licensing and regulation on the one hand, and the proper interpretation of the wording of statute as determined in this case, that must be a matter for consideration and review by Parliament rather than the courts”. 6. A major problem associated with this arrangement is in relation to enforcement as authorised officers of Stockton Borough Council have no authority to deal with any issues relating to these vehicles and their drivers and the authority that licensed them does not carry out any enforcement in our area. A recent example of this relates to a customer complaint about a driver allegedly using drugs. This complaint was received in August this year and was referred to the newly formed Northumberland Council for their attention. (Note: Stockton has introduced and carries out random drug screening of our licensed drivers). It has now only recently been brought to our attention that this driver had his licence revoked in June following a caution for a drug related offence and the lack of any enforcement has allowed him to continue to drive putting the residents of Stockton at risk. This situation is not limited to Berwick and our experience is that some neighbouring, small local authorities which did not have sufficiently stringent standards, policies or enforcement procedures were also licensing vehicles and drivers in this way which were then working in our district. However we have been able to persuade them to adopt policies similar to our own and the other local authorities in the Tees Valley area so that it is no longer advantageous to go to these councils for licences. 7. Ultimately, as demonstrated by Berwick one small authority could actually licence every hackney carriage vehicle in the country, gathering in all of the fees in respect of such licences and then these vehicles could work in every district of the country as private hire vehicles without each district’s local authority having any control over them. 8. We currently have two further appeals pending, one relating to our policy and conditions relating to private hire operator licences and one in relation to our vehicle policy when we have determined that we will not licence insurance “write-offs”. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w33

9. Cross-border hiring is also a problem is this councils area as we have several large private hire operators who hold multiple operator licences with ourselves and neighbouring authorities and we receive frequent complaints from other members of the trade when they see other authorities licensed private hire vehicles working in our area. The fact that they tend to operate from a central base, hold multiple operator licences together with current case law that permits such use so long as all licences (operator, vehicle and driver) are issued by the same authority that issued the operator licence, makes enforcement difficult, if not impossible. We have attempted to address the issue with a new private hire operator condition that the operator must operate from a base situated in our area. This condition together with where a vehicle can then be dispatched from is included in the pending appeal mentioned above. 10. Illegal plying for hire by private hire vehicles and “out of town” hackney carriages is also a problem perceived by the licensed hackney carriage trade in our area. Test purchase exercises are carried out jointly with the police on a planned basis, currently a minimum of four times per year. Whilst we have had success during such exercises they are costly to carry out, requiring a minimum of five staff plus a police officer and a marked police patrol vehicle working approximately 25 man hours per exercise. This is then followed by associated court costs for the prosecution of the offending driver and sometimes an operator. 11. The requirement for this type of enforcement could be resolved by the abolition of the current two tier licensing system. The only differentials to the two types of licences in this authority are that hackney carriage vehicles must be black in colour and hackney carriage drivers are required to undertake a topography test. Some members of the trade are now starting to question this requirement with the development of satellite navigation systems. Plus it is considered from experience that the general public do not understand the difference and probably do not care either when they come out of the nightclub late at night they are only interested in getting the first available car home. 12. Stockton Borough Council has attempted to address a lot of local issues by adopting a comprehensive Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Licensing Policy a copy of which can be viewed via the following link: http://www.tradingstandards.gov.uk/stockton/Transport%20Forms/TransportPolicy09.doc, but as mentioned above parts of this are subject to an appeal to the courts despite carrying out extensive consultations with both the trade and interested stakeholders. 13. The model hackney carriage byelaws are considered out of date and inadequate for purpose. 14. Stockton Borough Council would welcome new primary legislation to licence a single tier of taxis with the possible introduction of new National Standards for both vehicles and drivers, locally applied to provide for national uniformity, a simpler administration, adequate supervision and an effective enforcement regime. December 2010

Written evidence from Borough of Poole, Passenger Transport & Accessibility Team (TPH 29) 1. Introduction The taxi and private hire trade performs the following diverse roles in Poole: — Special Education Needs transport children to school. — Social Services transport of disabled people to Day Centres. — Providing access to key essential services such as shopping/hospital for elderly residents/ those with mobility problems. — Supporting access to long distance public transport modes eg rail. Coach and airport services, for both residents and visitors from outside the area. — Providing a public transport service at times and/or to places not served by buses. — Providing a public transport service when conventional bus services are unsustainable particularly in rural areas. — Supporting the growth and development of Poole’s night time economy. It is therefore essential that the industry is supported by a modern legislative framework.

2. Licensing (i) The regulation of the Taxi and Private Hire Trade in Poole is undertaken by members of the Passenger Transport and Accessibility Team within Transportation Services. (ii) It is thought essential that the Taxi and Private hire licensing function sits within the Transportation Section as the issues raised are fundamentally about providing a safe public transport service. This is in contrast to many district authorities which do not have Transport Sections—Taxi Licensing is therefore often within Licensing and as such merely becomes an administrative function, without appreciation of the wider remit. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w34 Transport Committee: Evidence

(iii) As an example following consultation with colleagues in Social Services and Education Transport, the DSA test was introduced as mandatory for all new drivers in Poole. In addition through introducing a “managed growth” policy with a mixed ﬂeet of vehicles we have been able to substantially increase the numbers of wheelchair accessible vehicles in the town.

3. Cross Border Issues (i) In Dorset there are eight licensing districts. Transport by its nature is across boundaries and there is no question that this restricts operation and causes unnecessary dead mileage. In addition each district has its own individual conditions and fares which cause confusion both to the potential operator and the customer. In a holiday area such as ours, this results in passengers travelling from Poole to Wimborne being charged a different fare on the return which is inexplicable to the public. (ii) The recent Stockton case in particular has shown that the current Legislation is unworkable and needs complete review. On occasions our Licensing Committee have revoked a drivers’ licence as they are no longer “Fit and Proper” only for a neighbouring Licensing district to willingly grant a licence. They could now potentially drive their Taxi for the adjoining area and accept jobs from a Poole based private hire company. Again, the lack of consistency makes a mockery of the entire Licensing process. (iii) A move to a national standard taxi/ph driver CPC (as recently introduced so successfully for the bus and coach industry) would be much appreciated. It is thought that the practical DSA test should be an intrinsic part of this, as taxis are at present the only industry where fare paying passengers are carried without an additional driving assessment. Enhanced CRBs are also considered essential.

4. Hackney/Private Hire—Two Tier Licensing (i) Enforcement action is undertaken in order to reduce the “touting” of both private hire drivers and taxis from neighbouring authorities. The problem is exacerbated by the public which fundamentally do not understand the difference between the private hire and hackney trade. A single tier system would be beneﬁcial which would permit any licensed vehicle to be hailed. (ii) The supply of Taxis for immediate hire at ranks would then best be delivered by the issuing of permits. These could then be enforced by Civil Enforcement Ofﬁcers in the same way as we regulate Parking Permits for residents. The numbers of taxis at each rank could then be more accurately tailored to meet demand. In Poole we have over 30 ranks but realistically vehicles concentrate at half a dozen central locations. This would encourage greater provision to the customer across the Borough and avoid over provision/congestion in certain areas. (iii) This method would also potentially enable Local Authorities to maintain/increase numbers of fully accessible vehicles, as this could be made a condition for permits at rail station ranks for example. Areas that do not presently control numbers and have no accessible vehicles would therefore be given a mechanism to ensure that a suitable supply is available in line with the Equalities Act 2010.

5. The Changing Provision of Public Transport in Rural Areas (i) Imaginative solutions to the provision of public transport (in rural areas in particular) are required to maintain essential accessibility to key services. A background of decreased subsidy (both locally and nationally through grants such as BSOG) will result in fewer bus services and greater usage of smaller vehicles on demand responsive routes. Unfortunately the current taxi and private hire licensing legislation is a significant barrier to new entrants to the market, whilst also restricting the potential geographical network of existing operators. (ii) There is a fundamental need to encourage more bus operators to operate smaller vehicles (and conversely encourage taxi operators to run vehicles larger than eight seats) to engender competition and achieve economies of scale. This will assist in controlling council costs for SEN and Education Transport in particular. (iii) The recent change to allow bus operators to operate 10% of their fleet as smaller vehicles has been welcomed. Similarly hackneys and phvs can now operate registered local bus services. However, both these measures have yet to produce the step change required to meet future needs. Realistically whilst there are over 350 individual licensing districts nationwide (with differing standards/fares) the innovative use of smaller vehicles is inevitably going to be restricted. (iv) National Licensing would be the ideal (with nationally recognised standards such as the Driver CPC), with the Traffic Commissioner framework having obvious synergy. The opportunity could also be taken to simplify and incorporate the rules regarding the operation of Limousines and minibuses, which again fall between the two current regimes. Alternatively, and at the very least Taxi and P/H Licensing must in the future be a County/Unitary function. The recent change away from the districts for Concessionary Fare administration has been welcomed by operators in particular and we are certain that there would be similar efficiency gains if applied to taxi/ph licensing. December 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w35

Written evidence from Coventry City Council (TPH 30) The City Council welcomes this opportunity to bring to your attention an issue that is of great concern to this authority and to the licensed trade within Coventry. That issue is the use of hackney carriage vehicles (HCVs) within Coventry that have been licensed by other districts. The HCV licensing regime is a local licensing regime and standards/operating costs vary between authorities. Coventry has (or alternatively is perceived as having) higher standards and costs than certain neighbouring districts. Although the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is regarded as being intended to confine the use of HCVs to within the districts that license them, the legislation does not actually achieve this (see the comments of HH Judge Symons at paragraph 38 of his judgment in the case of R oao Newcastle CC v Berwick upon Tweed BC (05/11/08)). A HCV can be legitimately used remotely from its home district to fulfil pre-booked journeys and certain elements within the trade have exploited this loophole to obtain driver and vehicle licences from other districts which they then use to work almost exclusively within Coventry. Similarly, because HCVs being used remotely from their home district to fulfil telephone bookings are not being “operated” then the City Council does not have any control over either Private Hire Operators or unlicensed HCV “call centres” based in Coventry who are using HCVs licensed elsewhere. In practical terms, this has given rise to the following issues: — Coventry citizens being transported in vehicles and by drivers who are licensed to a different standard to those expected by the City Council; — In some cases, vehicles and drivers operating within Coventry who have been refused licences by the City Council. — A high risk of illegal plying for hire whilst HCVs not licensed by the City Council are present within Coventry. — Resentment within the licensed Coventry trade that they are losing income to others licensed to a perceived “lower standard”. — Wholly unregulated HCV “call centres” who are not subject to licensing conditions imposed on Private Hire Operators providing standards for record-keeping, customer care, property handling etc. — Loss of fee income from the City Council to other districts. This is a national issue and not one that is confined to Coventry. It arises from deficiencies in national legislation. In an ideal world there should be a wholesale repeal and replacement of the current outdated legislation. However, given the shortage of parliamentary time and other matters having higher priority the best that can be hoped for is some limited amendment of the current legislation. This should be done to prevent HCVs from being used remotely from their home district (apart for convenience sake for journeys commencing within the home district and ending outside the district) and to bring the currently unlicensed HCV call-centres within a licensing regime. I trust the above comments are helpful but please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of any further assistance. December 2010

Written evidence from Dave Walls (TPH 31) I am a qualified passenger transport manager CPC holder and therefore understand the law in relation to the above matter and problems that are being created by Local Councils not controling the Private Hire Operator Licence Holders. The Act of Parliament that controls the licensing of these operators relates to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and most importantly Section 46 should be read and fully understood for what it actually means, because Section 46 (c) gives the clearest indication with the words used: 46(c) no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51; The use of the actual word “Employ” and not the word self-employed or sub-contractor clarifies that all drivers used to undertake hiring in a private hire vehicle on behalf of the operator should be an employee of the private hire vehicle, but when read incorporating as it does Section 46(d) it clarifies that the private hire vehicle should be owned by the same person named on the private hire operator licence: 46(d) no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act; The unfortunate problems that have been created over the years have been because local councils employ staff without transport qualifications and those people have created a system where Gangmaster Operator Licence holders demand high weekly remuneration from drivers who they class as self-employed as the drivers cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w36 Transport Committee: Evidence

are forced to purchase their own vehicle and withstand the operating costs of the vehicle and driver, meaning low fares and little return for the driver who often has to claim Working or Family Tax Credit whilst the operator becomes a millionaire off the back of Government Allowances claimed by the drivers. Vehicle proprietors and drivers are often not listed on any section 55 operator licence, as the vehicle proprietor and the operator licence proprietors are often not the same owner, with the end result being large operators with £35 million turnovers being listed as £5 million turnovers, because they class drivers as self-employed and not employees, unlike the Bus Company drivers who do exactly the same job of collecting the fares set by the company from a passenger who wants to travel from point A to point B, Yet thes drivers have always been seen as employees. The end result to the country is: 1. Evasion of VAT by Large Operator Licence Holders. 2. Evasion of Employer National Insurance by Large Operator Licence Holders. 3. Evasion of Income Tax by Large Operator Licence Holders. 4. No holiday or sickness entitlement for driver. 5. No minimum wage or maximum working hours. 6. Drivers are basically slaves to the gangmasters because of poverty. The drivers do not hold their own Section 55 Operator Licence in anyway shape or form, meaning the driver cannot sub-contract in anyway shape or form in a vehicle they may own as the Act does not allow this to happen and the Inland Revenue & Customs should ask all operator licence holders three simple questions that will prove if a driver can sub-contract under the Act. 1. Is the driver of the private hire vehicle listed as the “proprietor” on the operator licence? Yes or No 2. Does the driver set the rate of charge to the passenger? Yes or No 3. Does the proprietor listed on the operator licence set the rate of charge allowed? Yes or No The easy way to solve the problem of cross-border hiring is to number each local authority operator licence and ensure each private hire vehicle is either owned by the operator licence holder or it has a hire-purchase agreement in force proving the operator licence holder is still the legal owner of the vehicle until the last payment is recieved, but upon payment of the last payment it then no longer belongs to the operator licence proprietor and this means it is no longer covered by the operator licence to be able to sub-contract hiring on behalf of the operator licence holder. All vehicles operating for an operator should have a private hire plate number that begins with the operator licence number meaning that vehicle is only licensed to work for that one operator licence proprietor for that 12 month period meaning 75% of work is from one source for Inland Revenue and Customs to easily understand if driver is Employee or Self-Employed sub-contractor in law. Hope this helps you to understand how the problem has been created, as once the customer base within its local authority has been exhausted then these Gangmasters need to find other areas to access hirings from to enable their personal wealth to grow at the expence of the Government Working and Family Tax Credit System, as well as drivers working long hours as there are no driving laws for hours at work for under 16 passenger seat vehicles even though many data-systems have a built in tachograph, because the driver has a personal log- on number meaning it is possible to track the time a driver started working that day and the time they finished each day. If you would like to discuss this further I can be contacted by email, as my points maybe difficult to understand in the way I have explained them. December 2010

Written evidence from the National Association of Licensing & Enforcement Officers (NALEO) (TPH 34) 1. The National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers is made up of persons who are employed in positions relating to the enforcement of legislation designed to protect the local population from unfair/ unacceptable business practices and criminal offences. The original core was developed around Taxi & Private Hire Licensing & Enforcement and the Association (originally NATPHLEO) has now progressed into an “all licensing”, 550+ membership base which currently includes licensing officers in England, Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland, Eire and the Channel Isles. This submission is made on behalf of those members and indicates those matters which currently give rise to concerns amongst members. 2. NALEO is aware that the Committee is concerned about vehicles licensed in one area being used in another licensing district. There are three separate scenarios to this situation. (a) Firstly there is an illegal plying for hire and a concurrent “No Insurance” offence when a vehicle, licensed in another area or wholly unlicensed acts as a hackney carriage in another district by standing or plying for hire in a street. (b) Secondly there is the situation whereby a licensed Private Hire Operator in area A despatches vehicles and drivers also licensed by area A to undertake or complete journeys within a neighbouring district B. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w37

(c) Thirdly there is the “Berwick” or “Stockton” situation where Council A licenses a vehicle to “stand or ply within its’ district” and the vehicle is then used as a private hire vehicle wholly within a remote district B and as the Stockton case decided without the local regulators being able to effectively protect the public by checking the fitness of the vehicles and drivers. 3. In relation to scenario (a) NALEO suggests that licensing officers should be considered for “accredited person” status and the ability to issue fixed penalty notices for the “No Insurance” offence in the same way that police officers now can. The plying/standing for hire should remain a strict liability offence and should also be considered for the introduction of a fixed penalty option in lieu of full prosecution. 4. In relation to scenario (b), on Merseyside, four of the five areas have jointly authorised each other’s officers as agents of the neighbouring areas. We all examine each other’s vehicles on occasion and if found unfit have the ability to suspend the vehicle licence to protect the public. This has worked well in practice over many years and has now been taken up in many other areas as well. Some members do not believe that these bookings should be legally allowed but there parent authorities have not prosecuted due to the perceived effect of s75 (1)(a) of the Act of 1976. NALEO recommends that, regardless of any other consideration that, in common with a Police Officer, a Licensing Officer’s functions should extend to any vehicle licensed by another authority as they already do to an unlicensed vehicle/driver. 5. In relation to scenario (c) members cannot accept that a vehicle licensed, ostensibly to ply for hire in Stockton for example should, without risk of inspection, be able to be wholly used in South Cambridgeshire as a private hire vehicle outside the control of South Cambridgeshire Council. The same S75(1)(a) of the 1976 Act states “Nothing in this part of this Act shall apply…. If a vehicle is not made available for hire within the district”. These vehicles are made available for hire. Therefore NALEO again recommends that any legislative change should remedy the effects of the decision in the Stockton case that “Home Authority” officers have no power to inspect these vehicles. 6. NALEO’s recommendation is, arising from paragraphs 2–5, that legislative change is required urgently but that the solution to the three problems may not necessarily be the same and that all three scenarios need to be effectively considered in any new enactment. 7. The Town Police Clauses Acts 1847–1889 and the Local Government (Misc Provisions) Act of 1976 are in many places contradictory and NALEO’s remaining submissions are designed to highlight areas of concern which are in addition to the concerns outlined above and which, in our view, are no less worthy of legislative change. 8. Within this legislation there are currently five types of licence. There are many restrictions and procedural differences which do not appear to have a valid cause or raison d’etre and which are in NALEO’s view long overdue for change. Some of these are outlined below. 9. A Hackney Carriage Proprietor, a Private Hire Driver, Proprietor and Operator can all have conditions imposed on the issue of their licences which require them to inform the Licensing Authority should they be convicted of offences, move address, or becomes medically unfit whilst licensed. A Hackney Carriage Driver cannot have such a condition imposed because he/she is only governable by Byelaws [Wathan v Neath & Port Talbot BC]. NALEO recommends that this unsafe situation merits consideration of removing condition and Byelaw making powers, replacing all with nationally consulted upon regulations made under Statutory Instrument. 10. Almost all Taxi/Private Hire Licensing Authorities require an enhanced CRB Disclosure for drivers as these Authorities believe that no driver can know when his/her next fare will be a vulnerable adult or vulnerable child. Councillors have determined that this is the best way to safeguard such local constituents. Should an applicant have relevant matters disclosed then there are processes in place to ensure hearings compliant with natural justice take place but any Authority expected to protect the public needs all the information in front of it so as to ensure a fair decision for all. NALEO recommends that the Transport Committee requests Parliament to enshrine this view within any legislative changes. 11. NALEO has for a number of years worked constructively with many Trade Unions and Associations via the Meeting of Minds Discussion Group in an effort to make suggestions for minor changes in the definitions section of the 1976 Act which would remove some of the more obvious conflicts between the Acts of 1847–1889 and the 1976 Act. The product of these discussions has been shared with the Buses and Taxis Division of the DfT. NALEO recommends that the Committee direct the DfT to produce the document to the Committee with the aim of better understanding the “ground level” concerns of those working within the Hackney & Private Hire trades and within the Licensing & Enforcement functions alike. 12. One of the most obvious inconsistencies is that a radio system taking bookings for licensed private hire vehicles needs a Private Hire Operator’s Licence under Section 55 of the 1976 Act. That licence requires that booking records are kept and made available to Police Officers and Licensing Authority Officers alike. A similar radio system only using hackney carriages does not need an Operator’s licence. NALEO recommends that any legislative change addresses this matter positively. 13. NALEO accepts the fact that Police forces countrywide are under financial pressure and that very few forces have a large traffic section capable of routinely inspecting the increasing numbers of licensed vehicles cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w38 Transport Committee: Evidence

and drivers. The ﬁtness of vehicles in particular is now effectively down to overstretched licensing sections. NALEO recommends that consideration should be given to the full range of construction & use penalty tickets being made available to suitably trained and accredited ofﬁcers. Many Authorities prosecute for tyre offences but have to do so via the courts at higher costs to the defendant and greater “off district” time for the Authorities. NALEO as an Association is committed to partnership working with its’ client group and their representatives. The views expressed in this submission are intended to facilitate consultation and effective resolution of many long-standing inconsistencies within this area of legislation rather than to impose any one perspective or viewpoint. December 2010

Written evidence from London Suburban Taxi-drivers’ Coalition (TPH 35) In response to the above consultation, we would like you to take into consideration the following items regarding the London Suburban Hackney Carriage issues. (1) Publish documentation to define where London Suburban Hackney Carriage drivers can accept pre- booked work when outside of their licensed sector, but are still within the Greater London Authority’s controlled licensing zone. Luke Howard, Senior Strategy & Integration Manager, TfL Taxi & Private Hire was asked this question about a year ago, including “What Act of Parliament prohibits suburban drivers from doing so”. His reply was “...As I said, the prohibition on drivers accepting bookings outside their area is a matter of how ‘plying for hire’ should be interpreted in this context. There is no paperwork as it is simply the advice of our legal team—we do not think this has been tested in court.” We were not shown what the legal advice was or even if it came in a written form. We believe it is time to properly define this matter once and for all so that the ambiguities of the law are removed. As you know many suburban drivers are prosecuted for out-of-sector violations and the law must be clarified. Suburban Taxi drivers should not be playing “Russian Roulette” when they go out to work. If the law is unclear or untested it is surely time to review, amend or draft more up-to-date legislation to cover this aspect of their working lives. The Office of Fair Trading state in their Legal framework of taxi and PHV licensing in the UK, Annexe A, November 2003 http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/reports/comp_policy/oft676.pdf 1.10 Taxis can pick up passengers that have pre-booked without needing a separate PHV licence. “A campaign to reduce the number of women sexually attacked in minicabs over Christmas was launched, in the wake of a 54% increase in serious sexual assaults including rape and a 50% decrease in detection/ conviction. The scheme aims to warn Londoners about the dangers of getting into minicabs without pre- booking and to help them get home safely.” However, leaders of the Safer Travel at Night (STaN) scheme say women are putting themselves in danger by getting into minicabs (licensed and unlicensed) that line up outside pubs and clubs and are given an ‘air of respectability’ by TfL in doing so. This is clearly wrong and needs to be addressed. Reports from the “Havens Rape Crisis Centres” have shown much higher figures. They also state that most rapes go unreported, so the true figure could be even higher. We believe that if London Suburban Hackney Carriage drivers were allowed to pick up the pre-booked hiring’s when outside of their licensed sector, but still within the Greater London Authority’s controlled licensing zone, then this would go, not only some way to reducing the serious sexual assaults, including rape, but also reduce the carbon emissions issue by utilising those taxis to bring passengers back into their licensed sectors with a better utilisation of these vehicles. http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/media/newscentre/archive/16746.aspx (2) We would like to have rescinded or amended the 12 mile (or one hour’s duration) rule in respect of suburban drivers. It is most unfair that London Suburban Hackney Carriage drivers are the only licensed drivers in England and Wales that are compelled to accept a 12 mile hiring which in most cases take them well outside their licensed sectors. We believe that this issue is a restrictive practice and places an unfair disadvantage on London Suburban Hackney Carriage drivers as a whole as their sectors are much smaller than that of the All-London (Green Badge) drivers, who in many more instances can do a 12 mile hiring and still be well within the area for which they are licensed. Being compelled to accept a hiring from a smaller sector makes having to accept a hiring so far away from where they are permitted to ply for hire is indeed unreasonable compared to their Green Badge counterparts. It would be more tolerable if this 12 mile compulsion was reduced to eight (8) miles or even to the previous cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w39

six (6) miles. It is our understanding that this ruling was changed due to problems of “refusal” that arose primarily in the All-London area and the consequent changes placed an unnecessary burden on suburban drivers when the rule was changed under Ken Livingstone’s Mayoral term of office. There is a precedent for a differential in the compellable distance where it was amended to 20 miles in respect of hiring’s from Heathrow Airport several years ago. There are more issues that really do need to be discussed in relation to the London Suburban Taxi service we provide, but as requested we need to keep this letter short, but would appreciate it if we could meet and present our views to members of the Transport Select Committee in the near future. (3) We believe it would be helpful if the terms “minicabs”, “licensed minicabs”, “unlicensed minicabs” and Licensed Private Hire were more clearly defined as there is a lot of confusion at present even in the literature that TfL provide. If it confuses those in the trade it must be quite perplexing to the travelling public who may be the victims of unclear definitions. This does not occur with licensed taxis as ANY taxi is by its very nature “Licensed”. There is no such thing as an “unlicensed” taxi even though the newspapers AND the TV media often talk about misdemeanours by a taxi driver (to make the headline “sensational”) but in reality the driver often turns out to be a minicab driver (whatever that is). TfL must bear the brunt of this criticism through poor descriptive terms in its documentation. If any person trying to get through to a Taxi operator and gores on the Internet they are almost always directed to a Private Hire company in spite of the fact that these companies are contravening the Licensed Private Hire (Vehicles) Act 1998 to advertise in this way, and in spite of the warnings not to do so by TfL. December 2010

Written evidence from Reading Borough Council (TPH 37) 1. Although the Transport Committee is focusing on cross-boarder hire problems caused by private hire vehicles picking up passengers on a large scale outside of the area in which they are licensed, here in Reading, the biggest cross-boarder hire problems arise from hackney carriages licensed by surrounding local authorities being used as private hire cars in Reading. 2. Legally it is currently possible for hackney carriages licensed by any local authority to be used as private hire vehicles in any other Local Authority area. 3. We are seeing an increasing trend for companies and individuals, rather than licensing vehicles and drivers for private hire purposes in Reading, licensing them as hackney carriages in the neighbouring authority of South Oxfordshire, and then using them as private hire vehicles in Reading. 4. Reading puts significant resources into carrying out enforcement activities involving taxi and private hire cars so as to ensure the safety of the public. This enforcement work is funded through the licence fees that the Council obtains from licensing vehicles. This issue is beginning to create some serious problems in Reading and if not addressed is likely to escalate and over time result in a significant loss of income and therefore an inability to carry out appropriate enforcement so as to ensure the safety of the public using hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. 5. Over the past five years, the number of private hire vehicles licensed by Reading Borough Council has remained relatively constant at approximately 450, whereas, in South Oxfordshire, the number of vehicles licensed as hackney carriages has increased over the same period by over 900%, from 48 vehicles licensed in 2005–06 to 437 vehicles licensed in 2009–10. There is little doubt that a large number of these vehicles, despite being licensed by South Oxfordshire, are used in Reading for the vast majority of time. 6. There are various reasons for the trend identified above, including the fact that up until recently South Oxfordshire District Council had no knowledge test for new drivers, their licence fees were much lower (as a result of them undertaking very little enforcement) and probably more significantly, hackney carriages, wherever licensed are able to use bus lanes, whereas private hire are not. Therefore, licensing a vehicle/driver with a surrounding authority to use as a private hire car in Reading has significant advantages for a driver over licensing a private hire car/driver for private hire use in Reading, but significant disadvantages for public safety. The problems this creates for Reading Borough Council include: (a) Not receiving appropriate income and therefore not being in a position to fund an appropriate level of enforcement. (b) Drivers operating in Reading that have not been approved by this Council as drivers and have not passed the appropriate knowledge tests. (c) Hackney carriage drivers licensed by other authorities illegally plying for hire in Reading. Over the last year Reading Borough Council has prosecuted 13 people licensed by other local authorities for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w40 Transport Committee: Evidence

illegal plying for hire in Reading. This number would be much higher if more enforcement resources were available. December 2010

Written evidence from Norwich Hackney Trade Association (TPH 38) 1. My Association has asked me to respond on its behalf to the inquiry you are just beginning. 2. There are two issues that we would wish to comment on at this time. The ﬁrst is that of “cross border hiring”; and the second to the lack of a general review of legislation relating to the carriage of paying passengers.

Cross Border Hiring 3. The experience of the Norwich hackney carriage and private hire trades has shown that the current legal framework, as established by statute and subsequent case law, fails to work efficiently or equitably. 4. Norwich is a compact city with a suburban fringe. Norwich City Council administers the city, whilst the fringe falls within the remits either of Broadland District Council or South Norfolk Council. 5. The public record shows that the licensing framework adopted by the city was, and remains, stricter and slightly more expensive than that used by either of the two more rural districts. 6. About 20 years ago an individual applied to the city council for a private hire operator’s licence. The council investigated and the application was rejected, on the basis of personal history making that person not a fit and proper one for the purpose. That person then negotiated with and applied to Broadland, and was accepted as a private hire operator. The person then set up shop in premises 20 yards outside the city boundary. Wherever the office and legal authority was situated, the purpose all along was to serve customers from the “greater-Norwich” area. (The person in question, to the best of my knowledge, is no longer involved in the hackney or private hire trades.) 7. We have been advised that there is no legal restriction on the private hire or hackney trades that prevents them from accepting and executing a pre-booked job anywhere, even outside its own district. (The only restriction seems to be that the operator’s licence, the vehicle licence and the driver’s licence must be issued by the same licensing authority.) 8. One consequence of this situation concerns the role of licensing and enforcement officers. If a private hire vehicle and its driver engages in illegal activity in a district other than his or her own, which council’s officers have the supervisory role? I have been told by a senior city licensing officer that, if he approaches an out-of-town driver, that driver is under no obligation to answer questions. It follows that to achieve adequate supervision licensing officers from Broadland, for example, would have to routinely appear in the city’s and South Norfolk’s area. 9. Those private hire operators (and vehicle owners and drivers) who licence themselves in Norwich, accepting the stricter regime and higher supervision, find themselves competing with companies and individuals enjoying advantages. This cannot be equitable. 10. Over the years a plethora of companies, some private hire and some hackney, have set themselves up outside the city in order to take advantage of this legal laxity. 11. The general public, of course, cannot be expected to understand the complexity of taxi and private hire law. But with this confused state of enforcement, there must be unacceptable risks to individuals. 12. The legal position needs clarification and amendment, along lines that can be effectively policed. 13. My Association’s considered solution is that a pre-booked job, whether executed by a hackney or private hire vehicle, must, in a bona fide fashion, either begin or finish (or both) within the district that the operator, vehicle and driver are licensed. This would mean that that the operation could be supervised either wholly or in part by the relevant licensing officers. Exceptions might be appropriate, such as for transport contracted to a local authority, where the supervision is adequately undertaken by the authority’s own staff. 14. In addition, we should like to see the competence of licensing officers, and their prosecuting colleagues, expanded to allow action against out-of-town operations. An example might be where a South Norfolk vehicle was observed picking up in the city and then dropping off elsewhere within the city boundary.

Legislative Framework 15. The statutory framework of taxi law is in two parts—for London and for the rest of the county. My Association accepts that, despite the public and even trade confusion this creates, the nature and scale of the trades is so different as to justify the separation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w41

16. The trade in the rest of the country is based upon the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, as variously amended. Other acts have come along: the Public Health Act 1875; the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Acts 1953, 1976 and 1982; amongst many others. 17. In addition there has been much case law, some of which, though it may have resolved particular legal situations, frankly has served to create great confusion and inequity within the trades. 18. During the Major government years, a consultation was started aimed at a review of the whole ﬁeld of taxi law. This initiative petered out. Then near the start of the Blair government another consultation was held with a similar purpose. Again, this disappeared into the ether. 19. The current, basic legal framework is necessarily silent on many of the factors and technical developments that have had hugely substantial effects on the hackney carriage trade and other trades with which we compete. Examples are computerisation, mobile ‘phones and “limousines”. 20. My Association therefore agues that another attempt should be made at reviewing the law governing transport available for paying passengers, which would obviously include taxis (perhaps moving away from the legal term “hackney carriage”), general private hire cars, mini buses with hired drivers, specialist vehicles supplied with drivers, and so on.

Conclusion 21. We thank you for beginning this inquiry and making provision for us to send our comments. We look forward to further developments.

Written evidence from the National Private Hire Association (TPH 40) The NPHA has many members all over the UK both private hire and hackney carriage, our perception of the words private hire indicates to us what the customer does rather than the licence plate on the vehicle. We are neither a Union nor a members group, nor do we have or generate rules which members have to follow. Anyone who holds a licence is entitled to membership. Our motto and purpose is “To raise standards in the trade both actual and as perceived by the public”. We are extremely conscious of the recent court cases which have generated the Committee’s interest in reviewing the present legislation with a view to resolving the situation if at all possible; indeed we have over the years been involved in many of the court cases which have become known as “cross border matters”. We appreciate that many of our members have opposing views and we specifically requested D.E.L.T.A from Mersyside to respond to our suggestions and those of Unite the Union to show the private hire perception of things and requested Karl Stamper from Cambridge to send his view from the hackney carriage member’s side. Whilst we do have suggestions as to how things may move forward, and indeed have discussed these suggestions with all industry stakeholders and indeed sent them to the DfT we felt it very important that the committee should be assisted in their deliberations by being able to understand what lies behind the problems, how they were generated in the first place and how the courts have dealt with what they have clearly seen as defective legislation. We hope that this document will assist. We are certain that the committee will be aware that there are three pieces of legislation which have generated the current problems; The Town Police Clauses Act 1847, The Plymouth City Council Act 1975 and The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 but why have these pieces of legislation suddenly collapsed? The words “Ultimately it is for the courts to decide” are we suggest the perfect answer to this question. It has just taken this long to reach the end of a very long road. But are there identifiable points that can be highlighted for the Committee? We think there are.

The Town Police Clauses Act 1847 The only problem with this legislation is that private hire had never been in existence in 1847 and although it has been common knowledge that Hackney’s cannot not ply for hire outside of their area for over 150 years it was not until 1975 that the door was opened to other activity namely private hire..

1975 Plymouth Act In 1975 Plymouth City council generated its own legislation for their private hire trade, one or two other councils had already gone down the same route but this piece of legislation was the one which was to affect England and Wales, excluding London, and was the generator of our problems both for private hire and hackney carriages and which legislation does not affect themselves, as you will see. Plymouth is a City and a unitary authority and lies between the to the east and the River Tamar to the west; both rivers ﬂow into the natural harbour of Plymouth Sound. Since 1967, the unitary authority of Plymouth has included the, once independent, towns of and which lie along the east of the River Plym. The River Tamar cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w42 Transport Committee: Evidence

forms the county boundary between Devon and Cornwall and its estuary forms the on which is sited Devonport Dockyard. The Unitary Authority of Plymouth is 30.8 square miles (79.78 km2), but the city of Plymouth, as cited from Plymouth City Council, is 30.61 square miles (79.29 km2). This information is to demonstrate the geographical footprint of a council that wrote a piece of legislation speciﬁcally designed to ﬁt that footprint and no other; especially as no other neighboring councils, or indeed most of the rest of the country had similar licenses for private hire at that time. This legislation was understandably restrictive in nature as it was only designed to control activities in Plymouth. The problem was that the 1975 Act, at section 25, clearly envisaged that hackney carriages could lawfully be for private hire:

Section 25—Plymouth City Council Act 1975 (25)—(1) No hackney carriage shall be used under a contract or purported contract for private hire except at the same rate of fares or charges as may be prescribed from time to time in a table of fares as may be prescribed from time to time in a table of fares made or varied by the Council under section 23 (Fixing of fares for hackney carriages) of this Act, and when any such hackney carriage is so used the fare or charge shall be calculated from the point at which the hirer commences his journey. (2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence. It is important to note that no mention is made of any area or district where the private hire job was to take place. The 1976 Act went further:-

Section 67—Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 67—(1) No hackney carriage shall be used in the district under a contract or purported contract for private hire except at a rate of fares or charges not greater than that ﬁxed by the byelaws or tables mentioned in section 66 of this Act, and when any such hackney carriage is so used the fare or charge shall be calculated from the point in the district at which the hirer commences his journey. (2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence. (3) In subsection (1) of this section “contract” means: (a) a contract made otherwise than while the relevant hackney carriage is plying for hire in the district or waiting at a place in the district which, when the contract is made, is a stand for hackney carriages appointed by the district council under section 63 of this Act. (b) a contract made, otherwise than with or through the driver of the relevant hackney carriage, while it is so plying or waiting We suggest that the extra wording indicates that work would or could be taken by a third party however there is no requirement to hold a private hire operator’s license so to do (this point was tested in the case of Brentwood—v- Gladen [2004] EWHC 2500 (Admin)) and, furthermore any such requirement was explicitly excluded by the wording in section 3 of the 1975 Act which subsequently translated to section 46 of the 1976 LGMPA. We think it important to insert the two sections at this point so that the committee can clearly see how alike the two sections are:

Section 3—Plymouth City Council Act 1975 3.—(1) As from the appointed day— (a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in the city as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 5 (licensing of private hire vehicles) of this Act; (b) no person shall in the city act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 9 (licensing of private hire drivers) of this Act; (c) no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 9; (d) no person shall in the city operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 13 (licensing of operators of private hire vehicles)of this Act; (e) no person licensed under the said section 13 shall in the city operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle— (i) in respect of which a current licence under the said section 5 is not in force; or (ii) the driver of which does not have a current licence under the said section 9. (2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w43

Section 46—Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (1) Except as authorised by this Part of this Act— (a) no person being the proprietor of any vehicle, not being a hackney carriage in respect of which a vehicle licence is in force, shall use or permit the same to be used in a controlled district as a private hire vehicle without having for such a vehicle a current licence under section 48 of this Act; (b) no person shall in a controlled district act as driver of any private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 51 of this Act; (c) no person being the proprietor of a private hire vehicle licensed under this Part of this Act shall employ as the driver thereof for the purpose of any hiring any person who does not have a current licence under the said section 51; (d) no person shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle without having a current licence under section 55 of this Act; (e) no person licensed under the said section 55 shall in a controlled district operate any vehicle as a private hire vehicle— (i) if for the vehicle a current licence under the said section 48 is not in force; or (ii) if the driver does not have a current licence under the said section 51. (2) If any person knowingly contravenes the provisions of this section, he shall be guilty of an offence. The wording of the Plymouth Act is clearly speciﬁc to “the city” there is no doubt that nobody—driver, vehicle or operator could legally work in the City without a Plymouth City licence and of course other areas were not licensed at that time and were excluded from consideration under this Act. It is to be noted that eventually when other councils adopted the 1976 Act Plymouth chose to stay under their legislation rather than join the rest of the country. Unfortunately because the 1976 Act copied the Plymouth Act so closely the 1976 Act at 46(a) removes the hackney carriage from any requirement to comply with this section and, as recently tested in the Stockton case, in any controlled district anywhere in the country. Plymouth went one step further and reinforced their zone protection with section 35(1) 75(1) of the 1976 Act):

Section 35—Plymouth City Council Act 1975 35. Nothing in this Act shall— (1) Apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within the city in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the City if the vehicle is not made available for hire within the city

Section 75—Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 75. Nothing in this Part of this Act shall— (1) Apply to a vehicle used for bringing passengers or goods within a controlled district in pursuance of a contract for the hire of the vehicle made outside the district if the vehicle is not made available for hire within the district. So it would appear that Plymouth chose not to have enforcement powers on vehicles dropping off in their area. Unfortunately the identical wording when applied to the 76 Act meant that licensing ofﬁcers in the rest of the country are virtually powerless to take any enforcement action against miscreant vehicles or drivers and this was reinforced by the Stockton case. Another section of the Plymouth Act when transferred to the 76 Act has caused problems and that is section 15 (section 57 1976 Act).

Section 15 Plymouth City Act 1975. (1) The council may require any applicant for a licence under the Act of 1847 or under this Act to submit to them such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence. (2) Not relevant (a) Not relevant (b) The council may require an applicant for an operator’s licence to submit the council such information as to— (i) the name and address of the applicant; (ii) the address or addresses whether within the city or not from which he intends to carry on business in connection with private hire vehicles licensed under this Act; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w44 Transport Committee: Evidence

Section 57 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (1) A District council may require any applicant for a licence under the Act of 1847 or under this Act to submit to them such information as they may reasonably consider necessary to enable them to determine whether the licence should be granted and whether conditions should be attached to any such licence. (2) Not relevant (a) Not relevant (b) The council may require an applicant for an operator’s licence to submit the council such information as to— (i) the name and address of the applicant; (ii) the address or addresses whether within the area of the council or not from which he intends to carry on business in connection with private hire vehicles licensed under this Act; The wording of this section has been used by some council’s to issue operator licences to areas other than their own. An example of this will be seen in Mr. Stamper’s evidence from Cambridge. We believe that this is a wholly explainable problem but, without a further test case or a change in the wording of the legislation, it will continue. The explanation is simple, Plymouth is a City and a Unitary Authority some areas are within the city, others like Plimpton and Plymstock are not, hence the wording “within the CITY or not”. Unfortunately when applied to the rest of the country under the 76 Act another cross border issue arose.

Consequenses We suggest that the committee has “area” and some additional problems to solve but multiplied by two— hackney and private hire and mostly generated by case law.

Hackney Carriage — Hackney carriages fall outside of any regulation, save for plying for hire, once they are outside their licensing area. — No controls exist to require any form of operator licence. (Brentwood -v- Gladen) — No power exists to attach conditions of licence to any hackney carriage driver save via byelaws. (Wathan -v- Neath) — Licensing ofﬁcers have no powers to carry out any enforcement on hackney carriages from other areas. (Stockton -v- Fidler)

Private Hire — Cannot make use of vehicles from other areas unless they are hackney carriage. (Ditta & Choudhry -v- Birmingham—Bromsgrove—v- Murtagh) — Cannot transfer work to any other operator in the country unless licensed by the same authority except when licensed in London or Plymouth. (East Staffordshire -v- Rendall—Bromsgrove -v- Powers) — Cannot install a freephone over a boundary (Bromsgrove -v- Murtagh) — Small businesses cannot transfer their office phones to home if they live across a border (East Staffordshire -v- Rendall—Bromsgrove -v- Powers) — Cannot open an office/s in the next district/s and use to grow a business because of the forgoing points (Shanks—v- North Tyneside) — Licensing officers have no powers to carry out enforcement on private hire from other areas. (section 75 (1)) In short whilst the private hire trade is ring-fenced the hackney carriage trade has an open door. This comment does not in any way mean that we would want to apply the same restrictive practices to hackney carriages but we do feel that in this day and age of mobile phones and high IT computer booking services and internet booking schemes things need to change to reflect the 21st century. In the Bromsgrove -v- Murtagh case in 1999 Lord Justice Kennedy said: In 1999 it is absurd that a licensed operator who operates in the area of one District Council in a large conurbation commits 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 invitation of bookings in the second area. To keep within the law he must then obtain a whole series of fresh licences—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, from one district to another, it is not easy to see precisely how the problems should be resolved, but clearly if operators, their drivers and their cars are properly licensed in respect of one area which is responsible for cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w45

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 was passed, but the law needs to reﬂect the current state of technology and not be 23 years behind it. It is now 34 years since the 1976 Act became law and we do urge the committee to save us having to spend the next 20 or 30 years wasting time and costs sitting in the Administrative court trying to make sense of this legislation.

Solutions Having spent many years working on cross border problems in 1997/1998 London decided to licence private hire services for the first time. As an association we rushed to see the Minister who had introduced this legislation as a Private Members Bill, Sir George Young, and pleaded with him to take action to avoid the cross border problems. We were able to persuade those involved to add clause 5 to the Bill. Clause 5 states: Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 5. Hirings accepted on behalf of another operator (1) A London PHV operator (“the first operator”) who has in London accepted a private hire booking may not arrange for another operator to provide a vehicle to carry out that booking as sub- contractor unless— (a) the other operator is a London PHV operator and the sub-contracted booking is accepted at an operating centre in London; (b) the other operator is licensed under section 55 of the [1976 c. 57.] Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (in this Act referred to as "the 1976 Act") by the council of a district and the sub-contracted booking is accepted in that district; or (c) the other operator accepts the sub-contracted booking in Scotland. In addition to section 5 the 1976 Act was also amended as follows: Schedules Section 39(1) SCHEDULE 1 Minor and consequential amendments Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (c 57) 1. In section 75 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (exemptions), after subsection (2A) there shall be inserted the following subsection— “(2B) Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of section 46(1) of this Act shall not apply to the use or driving of a vehicle, or to the employment of a driver of a vehicle, if— (a) a London PHV licence issued under section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 is in force in relation to that vehicle; and (b) the driver of the vehicle holds a London PHV driver´slicence issued under section 13 of that Act.” Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (c 14) 2. In section 79 of the Public Passenger Vehicles Act 1981 (vehicles excluded from regulation as private hire vehicles), after the word “1982” there shall be inserted the words “; in the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998”. Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (c 45) 3. In section 21 of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (offences), after subsection (3) there shall be inserted the following subsection— “(3A) Subsection (1) (b) above does not apply to the operation of a vehicle within an area in respect of which its operation or its driver is not licensed if there are in force— (a) in respect of the vehicle, a licence under section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998; and (b) in respect of its driver, a licence under section 13 of that Act.” Transport Act 1985 (c 67) 4. In section 13(3) of the Transport Act 1985 (defined terms for sections 10 to 13 of that Act), in the definition of “licensed hire car”, at the end there shall be inserted the words “or section 7 of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998”. We believe that it is illogical for this removal of “ring-fencing” to apply in London and not elsewhere the adoption of these sections would also remove the need for the restrictive section 75(1). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w46 Transport Committee: Evidence

We believe that the Stockton solution can only be resolved by adding a requirement for vehicles ending a job in an outlying district to return to their licensed area, unless they have another job awaiting them. In other words standing and waiting in the hope that work will come should not be permitted unless the law is changed to give enforcement rights to local licensing officers on any vehicle or driver regardless of where it is licensed. It may also be logical to introduce operator licensing for hackney carriages as recently applied for the first time for both private hire and hackney carriages in Scotland, this solution would solve the Berwick/Stockton problem alone. On a final point:

Enforcement It is quite clear that the financial circumstances applying at the moment has caused many councils to downsize their licensing department; in addition the cost of bringing cases to court for what, for the most part are minor offences, is becoming non-feasible. As a result it is clear that illegal activity and ignoring of conditions and vehicle maintenance by drivers who see no enforcement threat is growing dramatically. The touting problem in London is just one example of the resources being unable to cope. We note that many Magistrates Courts are to close and this will make enforcement even more difficult in some areas. We are aware that these days even shoplifting offences can be addressed by the use of fixed penalty tickets and we do not see that there are any offences scheduled within our legislation which have greater gravitas than shoplifting. Indeed somebody convicted of shoplifting would probably not be issued a licence in many areas in the country. We therefore strongly suggest that a fixed penalty system be applied and we believe that this would lead to greater enforcement which in turn should lead to a firmer belief within the trade that they should follow the rules properly. December 2010

Further written evidence from the National Private Hire Association (TPH 40a) Having read 214 pages submitted to the Select Committee in written form, and the 33 pages of notes taken at the first Select Committee hearing in January, it was extremely noticeable that the issues relating to cross- border licensing and hiring were by far and away the only matters being seriously considered. We note, however, that in its initial request for evidence the Select Committee did ask for other issues to be addressed with regard to either defective legislation, or matters not considered by the current legislation— which might, if legislation is being reviewed, be of some importance for consideration by the Committee. There are six points that we would ask the Committee to consider; these are as follows: 1. the Audit Commission report from Guildford 2010; 2. the effective wording of the Equality Act 2010; 3. the extreme danger to rural transport posed by Unitary Authorities without access to the powers of rectification; 4. the effects of deregulation of taxi numbers in a number of areas where the power to reverse such decisions is financially burdensome; 5. the weakness of operator licensing following 36 years of inactivity in this direction by local authorities; and 6. Home Office/Department for Transport Annex D—new guidelines

1. Audit Commission Report from Guildford Licensing fees are charged by local authorities under sections 53 and 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Sections 53 and 70 are set out as follows:- 53-Drivers’ licences for hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. 53(2) Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act of 1847, a district council may demand and recover for the grant to any person of a licence to drive a hackney carriage, or a private hire vehicle, as the case may be, such a fee as they consider reasonable with a view to recovering the costs of issue and administration and may remit the whole or part of the fee in respect of a private hire vehicle in any case in which they think it appropriate to do so. 70-Fees for vehicle and operators’ licences. (1) Subject to the provisions of subsection (2) of this section, a district council may charge such fees for the grant of vehicle and operators’ licences as may be resolved by them from time to time and as may cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w47

be sufficient in the aggregate to cover in whole or in part— (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 whether any such licence should be granted or renewed; (b) the reasonable cost of providing hackney carriage stands; and (c) any reasonable administrative or other costs in connection with the foregoing and with the control and supervision of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles. The wording of the District Auditor’s report states: “Having taken legal advice, a council can only recover or charge such matters as they are expressly allowed to under legislation.” This was upheld in the House of Lords appeal R -v- Richmond upon Thames London Borough Council ex parte Macarthy and Stone (Developments) Ltd 1991, where Lord Lowry said: “The rule was 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 provision of a service.” Section 53 uses the words “recovering the costs of issue and administration”. It should be noted that the word “enforcement” and the words “control and supervision” do not appear in this section relevant to drivers. Turning then to section 70(1), apart from testing of vehicles, providing hackney carriage stands 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 carriages and private hire vehicles.” 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 that the wording of the 1976 Act has been unchanged in section 53 and section 70, in just the same way as the cross-border hiring problems have come to note, here is yet another problem which I suggest should be for consideration by the Select Committee. 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, and perhaps the adoption of a fixed penalty scheme would assist in removing the problems.

2. Equality Act 2010 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 Transport. We then conducted a survey of wheelchair accessible hackney carriages which was submitted to the Department for Transport and to the DPTAC Committee. It was subsequently sent to all local authorities. This was in September/ October 2010. As the Select Committee will be aware, the Act was passed in October 2010. Having waited some 15 years for the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 to become active, it was hoped that the Equality Act would at very least speed up those parts of the DDA which had not come into force, but in the opinion of all in the industry should have done—and in particular those sections addressing the requirement for hackney carriage drivers to assist their disabled passengers in a legislatively controlled manner, ensuring that those drivers who did not comply would be guilty of an offence. When the Equality Act came in, the actions of the private hire drivers driving wheelchair accessible vehicles were added to section 165 of the Act. Section 165 states: 165-Passengers in wheelchairs (1) This section imposes duties on the driver of a designated taxi which has been hired— (a) by or for a disabled person who is in a wheelchair, or (b) by another person who wishes to be accompanied by a disabled person who is in a wheelchair. (2) This section also imposes duties on the driver of a designated private hire vehicle, if a person within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (1) has indicated to the driver that the person wishes to travel in the vehicle. (3) For the purposes of this section— (a) a taxi or private hire vehicle is “designated” if it appears on a list maintained under section 167; (b) “the passenger” means the disabled person concerned. (4) The duties are— (a) to carry the passenger while in the wheelchair; (b) not to make any additional charge for doing so; (c) if the passenger chooses to sit in a passenger seat to carry the wheelchair; (d) to take such steps as are necessary to ensure that the passenger is carried in safety and reasonable comfort; (e) to give the passenger such mobility assistance as is reasonably required. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w48 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Committee will note that only those drivers of designated taxis will be required to comply with section 165, and would be guilty of an offence if they fail to do so. The keeping of a designated list is addressed under section 167, set out overleaf:- 167-Lists of wheelchair-accessible vehicles (1) For the purposes of section 165, a licensing authority may maintain a list of vehicles falling within subsection (2). (2) A vehicle falls within this subsection if— (a) it is either a taxi or a private hire vehicle; and (b) it conforms to such accessibility requirements as the licensing authority thinks fit. (3) A licensing authority may, if it thinks fit, decide that a vehicle may be included on a list maintained under this section only if it is being used, or is to be used, by the holder of a special licence under that licence. (4) In subsection (3)”special licence” has the meaning given by section 12 of the Transport Act 1985 (use of taxis or hire cars in providing local services). (5) “Accessibility requirements” are requirements for securing that it is possible for disabled persons in wheelchairs— (a) to get into and out of vehicles in safety, and (b) to travel in vehicles in safety and reasonable comfort,either staying in their wheelchairs or not (depending on which they prefer). (6) The Secretary of State may issue guidance to licensing authorities as to— (a) the accessibility requirements which they should apply for the purposes of this section; (b) any other aspect of their functions under or by virtue of this section. (7) A licensing authority which maintains a list under subsection (1) must have regard to any guidance issued under subsection (6). The Committee is specifically asked to note that the section states that a council may keep a list of these vehicles—even though later on, local authorities will be required to comply with guidelines set down by the Government. Having taken some months to complete the hackney carriage wheelchair accessible survey, we thought it important to do a similar survey for the private hire WAV fleets. A copy of that survey is attached to this document,3 and has many surprising figures and details contained therein. But apart from those councils who were able to supply figures on their wheelchair accessible private hire vehicles, nearly a quarter of councils in the country fall into one of three categories: (1) Not known; (2) No record; and (3) In progress. There are subtle differences in the responses that we have had, which led us to go into those three categories. Those marked as “no record” do not actually keep a record of the types of vehicle licensed as private hire in their area. Those in the category “not known” do keep a record of the types of vehicle, but are not able to identify whether they are wheelchair accessible or not. For example, one council in Cambridgeshire said, “We license ten VW Transporters as private hire, but we do not know if any of them is wheelchair accessible.” Those in the category “in progress” are cognisant of the requirements of section 167 and are preparing a private hire list of WAVs. We feel it is very significant that the larger cities and metropolitan authorities such as London, Manchester and Birmingham do not keep any record, and yet we are fully aware that a great many of our private hire members in those areas do indeed undertake a significant amount of wheelchair accessible work. We note also, as highlighted in pink and blue in the survey pages, that a significant number of councils either have more actual numbers of private hire wheelchair accessible vehicles than those within the hackney carriage trade, whereas others have a higher percentage of private hire WAVs than on their hackney carriage fleet. Scotland is on sheet 5; similar figures may be found in section 20 of that document. The full survey runs to 23 sections, which is available to the Select Committee if it requires further information. It seems totally illogical to use the word “may” in this section of the legislation. The concept of the hackney carriage driver being guilty of an offence if he refuses to transport or assist a passenger in a wheelchair, but that a private hire driver would remain not guilty of such an offence merely because his vehicle was not on a list, strikes us as being totally outwith the concept of the Equality Act. More importantly, and perhaps vitally, private hire bookings are always taken via an operator, and we find it totally unacceptable that the actions of the operator in taking or refusing such work are not included within the Act. 3 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w49

On a ﬁnal note in this section, the lack of access to enforcement fees as set out in part 1 of this document might also prove a signiﬁcant factor in undermining the concept of the legislation.

3. The Extreme Danger to Rural Transport Posed by Unitary Authorities Without Access to the Powers of Rectification Under the Town Police Clauses Act 1847, local authorities were allowed to set boundaries or districts within which hackney carriages could ply for hire. Under section 15 of the Transport Act 1985 that power was effectively removed, and the 1847 Act was then applied to the whole of any council’s area. Section 15 of the 1985 Act follows:- 15.—(1) Where, immediately before the commencement of this section, the provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages and of the Town Police Clauses Act 1889 (as incorporated in each case in the Public Health Act 1875) were not in force throughout the whole of the area of a district council in England and Wales whose area lies outside the area to which the Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 applies, those provisions (as so incorporated) shall— (a) if not then in force in any part of the council's area, apply throughout that area; and (b) if in force in part only of its area, apply also in the remainder of that area. (2) Where part only of a district council's area lies outside the area to which the Act of 1869 applies, that part shall, for the purposes of subsection (1) above, be treated as being the area of the council. (3) So much of any local Act as enables a district council to bring to an end the application of the provisions mentioned in subsection (1) above to the whole or any part of their area shall cease to have effect. The 1976 Act, under section 45, only applies to that area of the council in which the 1847 Act applies. This was one of the main reasons for the introduction of section 15 because there were quite a number of councils whose hackney carriage prescribed distance was much smaller than the actual are of the local authority. So for example, if a council did not set an area then the prescribed distance was five miles from the central Post Office. Obviously when private hire came in, there were people outside of that area who wanted a licence, but to which the 1976 Act could not apply. Once again the wording of the Act has now been found to be potentially dangerous for rural transport. The reason for this is as follows: In April 2009 a number of new Unitary Authorities were created. Amongst those are Durham, Northumberland, Cornwall, Wiltshire, Bedfordshire, Cheshire and Shropshire. At this moment only one of those UA’s has effectively removed the zones in their area; this is Bedfordshire, where South and Central areas were conjoined. This was a relatively small area geographically, where de-zoning does not appear to have created any major problems. However, at this moment Durham, Northumberland and Shropshire are shortly to take a vote on de-zoning their areas. Quite clearly in these licensing areas there are only one or two major conurbations, and the figures applying to those areas are appended hereto.4 In Durham UA, Derwentside has by far the largest number of wheelchair accessible vehicles. The other areas have relatively few. Once de-zoning takes place those wheelchair accessible vehicles, especially the hackney carriages, may centre on the city of Durham as their most attractive area of earning a living. That could seriously deprive the rural areas of transport, particularly after dark where the rural areas have very few clubs or places of entertainment, and where hackney carriages rarely ply for hire after dark. The same is true in Northumberland and in Shropshire. We are fully aware of the Government’s consideration with regard to rural transport, and this seems to be reflected in recent documents from Europe. And whilst there is a certain financial logicality in centering licensing functions to one office, which could certainly deal with the relatively small numbers of vehicles licensed, there is a distinct danger that by de-zoning, the more remote rural areas will be stripped of available transport. Whilst we accept that local authorities may wish to experiment with de-zoning, we are extremely concerned that there is no ability or power left to that local authority to change its mind or re-install zones if local transport is severely affected. We think that this is an area which needs urgent attention.

4. The Effects of Deregulation of Taxi Numbers in a Number of Areas where the Power to Reverse such Decisions is Financially Burdensome Section 16 of the Transport Act 1985 imposes a duty upon local authorities to prove by independent survey that there is no extra demand for hackney carriages, before they can refuse to issue a licence. Section 16 states: 16. The provisions of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 with respect to hackney carriages, as incorporated in any enactment (whenever passed), shall have effect— (a) as if in section 37, the words “such number of” and “as they think ﬁt” were omitted; and 4 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w50 Transport Committee: Evidence

(b) as if they provided that the grant of a licence may be refused, for the purpose of limiting the number of hackney carriages in respect of which licences are granted, if, but only if, the person authorised to grant licences is satisfied that there is no significant demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet. This legislation has been in place obviously since 1985; it has been challenged in the Courts on a huge number of occasions, again costing more and more money. And yet despite the costs involved, a number of councils have for one reason or another decided to re-regulate. Under the Equality Act those councils that still control numbers, or have re-regulated, will be required to ensure that their hackney carriage fleets will have a percentage of wheelchair accessible vehicles (yet to be consulted on by the DfT). Our original survey last year showed that the largest number of councils with virtually no wheelchair accessible vehicles are those that deregulated without any conditions or parameters. There is now a growing concern—not just from the trade but on the part of many councils—that because of the Act and the Court decisions, their only method of number control is spending money. If you go to many council areas such as Cambridge, Milton Keynes, Merthyr Tydfil, Swansea, Worcester, the list goes on forever—where deregulation has taken place, severe problems have arisen in all of those areas because of the sheer number of vehicles on the road, the extreme shortage of rank spaces, narrowness of the roads leading to permanent battles with the police and traffic wardens, licensing officers handing out parking fines; drivers trying to get on the rank and being prosecuted for failing to drive around looking for an empty space, thus wasting fuel and impinging on the carbon footprint. This evidence is far too demonstrable without having to set it all out in this document, but the concept which I believe should be considered by the Select Committee is that the number of vehicles alone, and public demand for those vehicles, should not be the only criteria that a council can use in assessing taxi numbers. Local authorities should be able to control the number of vehicles in their area for a reason: ie, not enough rank spaces, severe traffic problems, over-ranking. We fully accept that if this was to be considered, the percentage of wheelchair accessible vehicles should also be able to be set by Government. Whether that should include the financial ability of drivers to earn a living may or may not be a criteria which the Committee would consider, but as we have drivers now working 12–14 hours a day for about £30, there are some severe public safety issues here which might need investigating by the lawyers. For instance, we have had numerous road accidents and deaths due to taxi drivers falling asleep at the wheel. Whenever we ask the drivers in this area why such accidents happened, the answer is always the same: too many taxis, too little work—a position that local authorities are fully cognisant of, and yet because of financial interests and the costs of doing surveys, councils cannot or will not take steps to control attendant problems. In those accidents which cause death, will it be long before some clever lawyer decides to add in a local authority as being a contributor to the negligence under the Corporate Manslaughter Act by not exercising a full duty of care when issuing licences, especially as the role of the local authority is fundamentally one of public protection.

5. The Weakness of Operator Licensing following 36 Years of Inactivity in this Direction by Local Authorities As we have said under item 1, there appears to be no power to enforce licensing issues on private hire operators. In this the Committee is asked to note that, as per my initial written submission in the case of Brentwood -v- Gladen, hackney carriage operators do not need a private hire operator licence. Local authorities may attach conditions to private hire operator licences. In reality, outside of London virtually the only condition to such licences is usually a requirement that booking records are kept, together with a list of vehicles on the circuit—this in line with section 56, LGMPA 1976 as follows: 56(2) Every person to whom a licence in force under section 55 of this Act has been granted by a district council shall keep a record in such form as the council may, by condition attached to the grant of the licence, prescribe and shall enter therein, before the commencement of each journey, such particulars of every booking of a private hire vehicle invited or accepted by him, whether by accepting the same from the hirer or by undertaking it at the request of another operator, as the district council may by condition prescribe and shall produce such record on request to any authorized officer of the council or to any constable for inspection. (3) Every person to whom a licence in force under section 55 of this Act has been granted by a district council shall keep such records as the council may, by conditions attached to the grant of the licence, prescribe of the particulars of any private hire vehicle operated by him and shall produce the same on request to any authorized officer of the council or to any constable for inspection. Quite apart from any planning issues with regard to the setting up of an office, virtually few other requirements are levelled at these operations. No council that we know of requires production of a Public and Employee Liability insurance certificate; of Health and Safety considerations; of fire safety rules; of registration cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w51

under the Freedom of Information Act—although obviously huge amounts of personal information are passed through these offices. No requirement attaches with the keeping of vehicle service records for the vehicles on the circuit. Even if these vehicles are owned by self-employed drivers, why should service records not be kept. Looking at any of the other branches of the road transport industry, especially bus and coach, HGV and logistics, all of the operators in these sectors not only have such rules, but also have to hold a CPC before they can obtain a licence. In a very recent GoSkills meeting with the industry, the matter of the lack of a CPC for operators in the taxi/private hire industry was indeed raised, and I was specifically asked to advise the Select Committee of this notable omission. If you are in the private hire trade, whether you have one vehicle or hundreds of vehicles you cannot take a booking from a member of the public without holding an operator licence. London has specific views on companies that have two or less vehicles having a less onerous licence, as of course does the bus industry, such policy was recently introduced in both the private hire and hackney carriage industries in Scotland. Over the last five years, qualifications for taxi/PHV drivers have only just been put in place, and they have over the last 12 months been strongly re-written to be much more trade-related than the original qualifications. This time they include—as specifically requested by the Department for Transport—a new module on vehicle maintenance; and following the deaths of two children carried in wheelchairs in taxis, a requirement that training be given to all drivers on the use of disability aids such as ramps, lifts, chair restraints etc. But this is at driver level, and as we have mentioned in respect of sections 165 and 167 Equality Act, again there is no obligation on operators, and there is no extant training for operators to understand their obligations— not just as a taxi or private hire firm but as a business within the public area—to comply with the complexity of the rules and regulations. There are between 12,000 and 13,000 private hire operators in the UK at this moment, although very, very few—perhaps less than 10%—have adopted staff and driver training, ISO 9000, Investors in People and similar standards. The majority have had no training whatsoever. As an extension of this, as the Committee will be aware, VOSA, the police and the local authorities hold regular enforcement exercises (roadside “swoops”) and on many occasions have to instantly suspend a large number of licensed vehicles from further use. Whilst those drivers may subsequently be brought before Committee to explain the reasons why their vehicle is not fit for purpose, we have yet to hear of one single occasion where the operator that that private hire driver works for was similarly brought in front of Committee. The legal contract for a private hire booking falls with the operator and never the driver; the operator must therefore be entirely liable for providing a fully licensed vehicle and driver who/that are fit for purpose for these journeys. Quite clearly there is no actual legislative requirement for this to part of an operator’s licence; nor have local authorities chosen to introduce such conditions. Once again, for those councils that do not require such duties of care from those whom they license, there may well be some vicarious liability. Things do not appear to get better, however many times a swoop takes place in a particular area. We attach a sheet from our national newspaper where we list the previous year’s worst and best swoop figures.5 You will see that some councils appear more than once—if you look at the first council on the list, Coventry, the first swoop found 65% of vehicles defective; and on the last swoop of the year 72% were found defective. Colleagues at VOSA advise that Coventry is a particularly poor area for vehicle maintenance, and have always regarded that to be remarkable because as all their hackney carriages are black cabs, they are actually manufactured in Coventry. It is ironic that the trade in Coventry is currently negotiating with the council to instigate the first ever unmet demand survey to the tune of some £40,000, which the trade has to pay for, to establish that the number of taxis in Coventry is excessive. There are 743 hackney carriages for a population of 309,800. By way of comparison, the Wirral with a population of 309,500 has 289 taxis; Dudley with a population of 306,500 has 235 taxis. These areas have been chosen for comparison as they do not regulate numbers, and they all have 100 wheelchair accessible hackney carriages.

6. Home Office/Department for Transport Annex D—New Guidelines In 1992 the Department [of] Transport and the Home Office sent out a circular to all local authorities when the regime of police checks on taxi and private hire drivers was first introduced. At that moment in time the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 still applied to licensed drivers. As part of that circular, the guidelines of the Public Carriage Office relating to relevant convictions was attached—the famous Annex D (copy attached).6 At that particular time eyebrows were raised about some of the items in that document; in particular applicants with indecency offences where convictions for indecent exposure, indecent assault, importuning or any of the more serious sexual offences should be refused until they 5 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives 6 Made available in the Parliamentary Archives cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w52 Transport Committee: Evidence

could show a substantial period, at least three to five years, free of such offences. More than one conviction of this kind should preclude consideration for at least five years. The vast majority of councils adopted these parameters, as they were clearly related to the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act which was copied in with the circular. Then in March 2003 the Criminal Records Bureau checks were introduced. Local authorities lobbied Parliament to ensure that taxi drivers fell within the enhanced check category, which meant that the law was changed to exclude taxi/PHV drivers from the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act—ie no convictions are ever spent. This caused a problem which to this day has not been resolved. When the ISA scheme was mooted, this Association, the National Association of Licensing Officers, and other stakeholders met with the Home Office and the Department for Transport asking that all taxi/PHV drivers be included in the barring scheme. There was a reason for this: Councillors in particular, in dealing at Committee with licence applications for those with convictions, faced a dilemma. That dilemma was that as the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act no longer applied to these drivers, were their convictions ever spent in relation to licence applications? Or did they always apply? For instance, with somebody who had committed a criminal offence 15 years before, that conviction would show up on his enhanced CRB check. But what consideration should be given to that conviction if the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act did not apply? The industry and councils have asked the Home Office on numerous occasions for an update on Annex D. Please be aware that we are fully cognisant of the fact that each case must be taken on its merits, but the list of convictions which would have been used under the barring scheme comes before councils on a regular basis. If we cannot be included in the ISA scheme (which now seems to be defunct), why can’t we have some new Home Office guidance which would update the industry from 1992, when the original Annex D came out.

Summary I apologise profusely to the Committee for submitting a further 12 pages of evidence not counting the attachments, but if the legislation is being looked at, it is submitted that due consideration must be given to the additional material in this document—failing which these issues will continue to escalate, together with the inherent financial and safety implications. Again, as with our previous submission, we stress herein that we are not presuming to make suggestions as to how to resolve the issues at hand; we are merely setting out the difficulties as experienced countrywide by the taxi and private hire industry, and giving feedback from licence holders, licensing officers and Government departments as to why those difficulties have arisen. March 2011

Written evidence from the Guide Dogs for the Blind Association (TPH 42) 1. About Guide Dogs 1.1. The ability to get around is vital in order to live a full life yet thousands of blind and partially sighted people never leave home alone. Guide Dogs empowers visually impaired people to do that and relies on the support of the public to fund its services. 1.2. We breed and train guide dogs which provide life changing mobility and there are currently 4,500 working guide dog partnerships in the UK. Guide dog owners only have to pay a nominal 50p for their dog to ensure no-one is prevented from having one due to a lack of funds. The full lifetime cost of a guide dog from birth to retirement is £48,500. 1.3. We also provide a range of mobility and other rehabilitation services such as white cane training as well as campaigning passionately to break down barriers—both physical and legal—to enable blind and partially sighted people to get around on their own.

2. Executive Summary 2.1. The Guide Dogs for the Blind Association welcomes this enquiry and would like to raise some issues about how the licensing regime can make journeys safe, comfortable and accessible for blind and partially sighted people. 2.2. There are three areas of particular concern: making sure that the legal requirements to take registered guide and assistance dogs and their owners at no extra charge are fully enforced as a failure to do so can lead to blind and partially sighted people being left stranded and in a very vulnerable position; a requirement to have talking taxi meters so that blind and partially sighted people know that they are being charged the correct amount; and taxi and private hire vehicle drivers need to be provided with compulsory disability equality training so that they know how to transport disabled people in safety and comfort. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w53

3. Carriage of Guide and Assistance Dogs 3.1. Guide Dogs runs an access helpline and takes calls which cover a wide number of issues including refusal by taxis and private hire vehicles to take guide and assistance dog owners with their service dogs. Since starting the logging system at Guide Dogs in 2008 we have registered a total of 140 enquiries about taxis. Of these 91 were complaints—most of them due to the taxi driver refusing to carry the guide dog owner and their dog. Some are where the taxi driver has charged extra for the dog. 3.2. The response from taxi licensing authorities to the complaints which we have referred on has varied. In some cases the licensing authority has responded well. For example, Marion Spruce from Halifax said, “The taxi licensing office in Halifax were most helpful and determined that this should not be the practice of Halifax taxi drivers. They interviewed the guy who told them that he didn’t speak any English, they got an interpreter in and when he was asked about the incident denied that it ever happened. I had an independent witness who took me and my blind friend home, she is prepared to come to court, and the licensing [authority) are taking him to court. They have already put a warning on his licences.” So this case will be coming to court in the near future. Ms Spruce is very pleased with the way in which this complaint was treated. 3.3. However, some licensing authorities have not been as helpful. Some take a long time to get back to our clients and some refuse to take complaints on the phone and ask our clients to write in with the obvious difficulties this poses for blind and partially sighted people. Even where a case is taken to court it is not always treated seriously, one offender was even let off a fine because he was a “family man”. 3.4 Licensing authorities should be supportive when blind people report incidents and be flexible by, for instance, not requiring complaints to be in writing. It can be very difficult for blind and partially sighted people to record and report offences such as refusal to stop or to carry them, poor driver or operator attitudes or refusal to carry a guide dog. Providing evidence is often impossible when travelling alone. Licensing authorities must therefore pro-actively monitor and enforce this and should carry out mystery shopping exercises to ensure compliance. 3.5 Government guidance to licensing authorities should include initiatives to monitor and enforce requirements such as the carriage of guide dogs and other assistance dogs, for instance through mystery shopping exercises. Guidance for the taxi industry should raise awareness about guide dogs and other assistance dogs. Guide Dogs produce a leaflet called “Access to taxis, private hire vehicles and private hire cars guide dog owners”, which maybe helpful in producing such guidance. There are pockets of good practice where licensing authorities have raised awareness about this issue and have provided or required training, which should be publicised and shared. 3.6 With regard to licensing authorities, the Department for Transport should collect evidence of the number and geographical spread of exemptions from carrying assistance dogs, to make sure that there are not a disproportionate number of exemptions in some areas and to use this to consider action to limit these should this prove necessary. 3.7 Appropriate sanctions should be in place. Compulsory disability equality and awareness training may be appropriate for some first offences. Thereafter a system of sanctions including realistic fines and revocation of licenses should be used.

4. Talking Taxi Meters 4.1 Guide Dogs has called for the introduction of talking meters for a number of years. The technology for a talking meter is available and it is an important feature for blind and partially sighted people, providing an assurance that they will be fairly and accurately charged the correct fare. Both the rail and public vehicle accessibility regulations include features to enable access and enhance accessibility for people with sensory impairments so we see no reason why this should not be the same for taxis. Until then we call on licensing authorities to consider using their powers to require or encourage taxi meters as they did to require the carriage of guide and assistance dogs in private hire vehicles before the Disability Discrimination Act was changed to require this.

5. Compulsory Disability Equality Training for Drivers 5.1 To improve driver behaviour and attitude, a compulsory disability awareness training programme should be put in place and this should become an integral part of the driver licensing procedure. 5.2 The training should be based around the principles in DPTAC’s Disability Equality and Awareness Training Framework for Transport Staff. 5.3 Training should include: 5.3.1 Awareness of the range of disabled people—including hidden/less visible disabilities. 5.3.2 Basic sighted guide training and training in communications skills for customers who are deaf, hard of hearing or deafblind. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w54 Transport Committee: Evidence

5.3.3 Awareness of and familiarity with guide dogs and other assistance dogs. December 2010

Written evidence from Reigate & Banstead Borough Council (TPH 43) Summary The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (hereon “the 1976 Act”) gives Local Authorities the ability to licence the operators of private hire vehicles. We believe the wording of the 1976 Act is open to interpretation as to whether Local Authorities can licence operators outside of their own boundaries. Whilst this Authority has taken the view that we will not licence outside of our boundary, an Authority two districts distant has licensed a premises within our district to operate private hire vehicles and drivers licensed by that Council. The concern is that the operator licensed by this remote Licensing Authority has bypassed locally set conditions and policies, set with local considerations in mind. The operator also has a large number of private hire vehicles and drivers that are licensed by this same remote authority, and these vehicles and drivers are similarly not the subject of locally set licensing conditions and policies. Furthermore, in licensing premises remotely it is possible that the Local Authority concerned may be disadvantaged in any enforcement action it may need to take, particularly considering that it will not be able to prosecute for offences that occur outside its own boundary. By licensing remotely the Licensing Authority concerned, as well as those operators, drivers and vehicle proprietors it licences remotely, may obtain a ﬁnancial advantage with respect to the fees for licensing. If the above principles are followed there would appear to be no restriction on local authorities agreeing to licence operator’s vehicles and drivers anywhere in the UK. Operators may then choose to apply to the authority that has less restrictive trade entry conditions and minimal fees to the detriment of both the local authority and travelling public We believe Private hire operators outside of London should be able to subcontract bookings to other licensed operators outside their own district, as London operators currently can. This current disadvantage to operators outside London is due to the two areas being subject to two different Acts.

District councils licensing operators of private hire vehicles outside their own district 1. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council in Surrey is two districts distant from a district that for this report will be referred to as District X. In the borough of Reigate & Banstead an operator trading from premises in Horley has been licensed to operate private hire vehicles by both Reigate & Banstead B.C. and District X. Private hire licensing at District X is dealt with from offices which by road are approximately 47 miles away from Horley. 2. The 1976 Act allows for differences of opinion as to whether a Local Authority can, or should, licence outside their boundary, and these arguments are available as background papers [paragraphs 9 to 12]. However, there is no case law on this subject so differences of opinion remain. Case law on related subjects though appears to give support to the view that the proper interpretation of the 1976 Act is to provide each Authority the ability to exercise full control over private hire operators in its area [available as background papers, paragraph numbers 13 to 17 below]. This is not possible if one authority grants an operators licence in another authority’s area. 3. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council borders Greater London to the North, and has Gatwick airport situated to its South. District X does not border London, but borders the English Channel to the South. Each authority will have independently set their licensing policy to reflect the needs of local residents, taking into account local factors. The concern is that the operator in question, by being licensed by this remote Licensing Authority, has bypassed the locally set conditions of the district in which it operates. The operator subsequently operates a large number of private hire vehicles and drivers that are licensed by this same remote authority, and these vehicles and drivers are similarly not the subject of locally set licensing conditions and policies. 4. In licensing the Horley premises remotely there are concerns that District X may be disadvantaged in any enforcement action they may need to take, in that they may not be able to prosecute for offences that occur under the 1976 Act outside its own boundary. There are also concerns that an incident could occur which would require investigation, and that the current situation could result in confusion as to which licensing authority would take responsibility. 5. Concerns have also been expressed by locally licensed private hire drivers that District X may not be able to afford the same level of monitoring and enforcement of the drivers and vehicles they have licensed operating outside their own district given the significant distances involved. Local information received suggests that the operator in question operates most of his vehicles outside of the District X area; however this licensing authority has not been able to confirm this. 6. It should be noted that at one point the operator in Horley was licensed at the same premises by four separate licensing authorities, and operated private hire vehicles licensed by each of these authorities. Whilst this allowed the operator a number of advantages, it undermined this Council's ability to regulate private hire work in our own district. Drivers and vehicle proprietors were getting licensed with whichever authority was cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w55

convenient to them, and this resulted in vehicles and drivers being required to meet a variety of different standards in order to be licensed, and then being subject to a variety of conditions once the licence was granted. Whilst the situation has now improved, with the respective premises only being the subject of two private hire operator licences, it remains our view that the current situation is problematic.

7. Reigate & Banstead Borough Council licences a holiday operator that provides private hires vehicles nationally as part of their holiday package. All the vehicles and drivers they use are licensed by our authority, even though they may be used in remote areas. Case law has shown this to be a proper licensing arrangement, though we are aware that it could appear that the concerns we express above relating to enforcement being conducted at a distance may equally apply to this operator. However, the distinction in our view is that case law has shown the arrangement with respect to the holiday operator to be clearly lawful, and the holiday operator has its head ofﬁce based entirely within our district, and that we are therefore best situated to consider any problems that may arise with respect to that operator. Whilst offences relating to the driver and vehicles may have to be dealt with by other district councils on an individual basis, any systematic concerns relating to the running of the business would be directed to us alone, and there would be no confusion as to who would be the authority responsible for ensuring compliance with legislative requirements.

To allow private hire operators outside of London to subcontract bookings to licensed operators outside their own licensing district

8. Operators of private hire vehicles based in London that are licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998, are, by virtue of section 5.1(b) of that Act, able to subcontract bookings to operators licensed under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (which covers areas of England other than London). However, under the provisions of the 1976 Act, licensed operators based outside London are unable to sub-contract bookings to operators other than those licensed by the same Local Authority which they are licensed by. This would appear inconsistent, and places those operators licensed outside London at a disadvantage. Provided that accurate records were kept by both operators involved of any subcontracted work it can not be seen what the public safety argument would be that for keeping the restriction within the 1976 Act.

Background Papers

The Arguments for and against councils licensing operators outside their own district.

9. The arguments for a Local Authority licensing operators outside of their own district are in two main parts. Firstly, section 57(2)(b)(ii) of the 1976 Act provides that a district council may require applicants for an operator's licence to submit information including “the address or addresses whether within the area of the Council or not from which he intends to carry on business in connection with private hire vehicles...”. This wording is often cited as showing that it was the intention of Parliament that districts could licence operators outside their own boundaries. Secondly, section 55 of the 1976 Act provides that a district council shall on receipt of an application for a private hire licence give that person an operator’s licence unless they are not satisfied that the applicant is not a fit and proper person to hold such a licence. It is thereby argued that the geographical location of the premises from which vehicles are to be operated is not a ground to refuse a licence, as the grounds for refusal must relate to the fitness and propriety of the operator alone.

10. Counter to the above views it could be argued that section 57 of the 1976 Act serves only to allow councils to ask for the information they will require so that they may make an informed decision, in the context of its licensing policy, as to whether the licence should be granted. This could include requesting information that might lead to the application being refused, including whether the applicant intends to have premises licensed outside the district council's boundaries. Section 55 of the 1976 Act does, in using the word “shall”, appear to place the onus on the district council to grant the licence where they are satisﬁed that the applicant is ﬁt and proper. However, it would clearly be nonsensical for a district council to licence a remote premises for which they would have no realistic ability of testing compliance with the legislation intended to protect the travelling public.

11. It would therefore follow that a district council must have the discretion to refuse to licence an operator outside their district where they could not be satisﬁed that the grant of such a licence might not be adverse to the safety of the travelling public, which the framework of the 1976 Act was designed to protect. Furthermore, Section 80(2) of the 1976 Act provides that “In this Part of this Act references to a licence, in connection with a controlled district, are references to a licence issued by the council whose area consists of or includes that district, and ‘licensed’ shall be construed accordingly”. This implies that an Authority may only issue a licence inside its own district.

12. Section 80(2) of the 1976 Act would also indicate that a district council would not be able to prosecute for an offence under that Act in a district other than its own. If this was the case then it would be of signiﬁcant detriment to private hire licensing to grant a licence to which many of the provisions of the 1976 Act would not apply (eg section 46). cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w56 Transport Committee: Evidence

Case law that appears to support to the view that the proper interpretation of the Act is to provide each authority the ability to exercise full control over private hire operation in its area 13. The case of Kingston Upon Hull City Council v Wilson (1995) Times 25 July (QBD) held that the licence issued is address specific and the holder of the licence may only operate vehicles from the address specified on the licence. 14. Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Khan [1994] RTR 87 considered if an offence was committed of operating without a licence if advertisements were placed in telephone directories which circulated not only within, but outside the area of the local authority in which the person was to operate. In his judgement MCCULLOUGH J stated: “The reality of the matter in relation to that booking was this: the defendant made provision for the acceptance of bookings for his private hire vehicles. He did so by maintaining an office in which, it is to be presumed, he kept a book in which orders were entered and by reference to which orders were executed. That office was in Slough, not Maidenhead. The evidence about Mr Wood's booking and the journey of A576 KLT to High Street, Maidenhead, to collect him and take him back to Slough was of no assistance to the prosecution… …The considerations to which I have already referred make clear that, in its definition of the word “operate”, Parliament was not referring to places which invitations might reach, but to places where provision is made for the invitation of bookings. Put an advertisement in a local newspaper in one part of England and it may be read in almost any other part of the country. The defendant made provision for the invitation of bookings at his office in Slough. What he did by advertising in the directories circulating in the area where he conducted his business, and in adjacent areas, was to inform the public that he had made such provision. His provision was nevertheless made in Slough, not in Maidenhead, nor in any of the other areas in which those directories circulate. That conclusion is not, in my judgment, affected by the fact that the directories circulated in a much wider area, or that the defendant named towns other than Slough, such as Maidenhead, in his advertisement. If Mr Harrison's submissions were right, it would mean that the defendant was operating not just A576 KLT, which is named in this summons, but every one of his private hire vehicles 24 hours a day, seven days a week in Maidenhead, even on days when none of his vehicles ever went anywhere near Maidenhead. That would be nonsensical.” 15. The case of Dittah v Birmingham City Council and Choudry v Birmingham City Council [1993] RTR 356 (QBD) held that the licences in relation to operators, vehicles and drivers must all be issued by the same local authority, namely the authority within whose area the vehicles will operate. KENNEDY J states “So, as it seems to me, it is quite clear that no one can, in a controlled district such as Birmingham, operate (i.e. in the course of business make provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings) a private hire vehicle without having a current operator's licence issued by Birmingham City Council.” A letter from the Department of Transport to district secretary of Bromsgrove District Council in 25 June 1992 was placed before the Court which stated: “In our view applying section 80(2) to sections 46(1)(d) and (e) has the effect that an operator requires a licence from the area in which he intends to operate and may operate only in that area vehicles and drivers licensed by the same district. This has the practical effect that an operator licensed in area A may only use vehicles and drivers licensed in area A but these vehicles and drivers will by virtue of section 75(2) exemption be able to go anywhere in the course of the hiring.” KENNEDY LJ agreed that this was “…an accurate statement of the law...” The above supports the view that an operator must hold an operators licence from authority in whose area he operates. As per Windsor and Maidenhead Royal Borough Council v Khan this is the authority where his base is located, bookings made, and vehicles dispatched from. 16. The case of Shanks v North Tyneside MBC [2001] LLR 776, QBD concerned an operator who had a private hire operator licence from both Newcastle Upon Tyne and North Tyneside Council. The vehicles operated were fitted with tracking devices and the operator sent which ever vehicle was closes regardless of whether it and driver was licensed by Newcastle or North Tyneside. The case held that whenever any operator acts by making provision for the invitation or acceptance of bookings for a private hire vehicle, he must use vehicles and drivers licensed by his licensing authority. He is perfectly entitled to do that by way of subcontract; but he cannot obtain the use of vehicles or drivers licensed by another authority in order to carry out the booking which he has, as an operator, made provision for by way of invitation or acceptance. In his Judgement LATHAM LJ stated “[22] Not only do I consider that it has not been shown that the decision of Dittah was per incuriam and, therefore, a case which we can revisit, but I have come to the firm conclusion that it was correctly decided. The provisions of s 80(2) as applied to section 46(1)(e), in my judgment, brook of no other answer but that the operator granted the licence under section 55 can only operate vehicles and drivers licensed by the licensing authority which granted it its operator's licence. One way of testing whether or not that particular construction is correct is to consider the consequences of the construction contended for by Miss Booth. One of the consequences would be that if one applied her logic to section 46(1)(d) and (e), cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w57

the only conclusion that one could come to would be that an operator could operate in any district provided he had obtained a licence authorising him to operate in one district. [23] That would, in my judgment, drive a coach and horses through what appears to me to be a central principle of this legislation, which is that the authorities responsible for granting licences should have the ability to exercise full control over the operation of private hire vehicles within their area. [24] I consider therefore that there are good policy reasons for ensuring that there is a uniﬁed system of control in relation to private hire vehicles operating within the area of any given authority. That ensures consistency of policy in relation to the provision of private hire vehicles and their drivers. It enables the authority to ensure that it is able to exercise such control as it is entitled to exercise over all the vehicles and drivers being operated to provide private hire services within its area. That seems to me to be a central purpose of the statutory provisions.” This case also supports the view that that an operator must hold an operators licence from authority in whose area he operates in order to exercise full control in their respective areas. 17. The case of Newcastle City Council, R (on the application of) v Berwick-Upon-Tweed Borough Council & Ors, Court of Appeal—Administrative Court, 5 November 2008, [2008] EWHC 2369 (Admin) whilst not directly related to the matter in hand held that “a licensing authority may in the proper exercise of its discretion under the said section 37 refuse to grant a licence in respect of a hackney carriage that is not intended to be used to ply for hire within its area and/or is intended to be used (either entirely or predominantly) for private hire remotely from the area of that authority”. It could be argued that this upholds the view expressed in the above cases that an each authority should be able to exercise full control over private hire operations in its area. December 2010

Written evidence from Manchester Airport Group (TPH 45) 1. Introduction 1.1 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 committee’s inquiry. 1.2 Manchester Airport is located at the south of the City of Manchester, and also close to that City’s boundaries with Stockport, Trafford and Cheshire East. As the majority of Manchester Airport passengers travel from outside the City, a signiﬁcant proportion of our taxi or private hire vehicle journeys will be on vehicles licensed outside of Manchester.

2.0 Taxis And Airports 2.1 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. 2.2 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. 2.3 Similarly, taxi firms from outside the airport’s 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. 2.4 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.

3.0 Taxis at Manchester Airport 3.1 In 2009 Manchester Airport handled 18.5 million air passengers, and 26% used taxi or private hire vehicles cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w58 Transport Committee: Evidence

to travel to or from the airport. Other than Heathrow, this is a relatively high percentage compared to other UK airports. The high number of taxis makes demands on the airport’s infrastructure and resources: for space to accommodate taxis and their drivers; meet and greet and collection facilities; and the regulation and monitoring of taxis, private hire vehicles and drivers. 3.2 Manchester Airport’s core market is from Greater Manchester and the North West of England. But it draws a signiﬁcant number of passengers from Yorkshire and Humberside passengers, North Wales, the Potteries as well as southern Scotland and the North East of England. The extent of the catchment area, and the popularity of taxis and private hire vehicles as means of airport access, generates a signiﬁcant number of cross border movements into Manchester. 3.3 Manchester Airport supports three types of taxi service: — Hackney Carriages licensed by Manchester City Council working from taxi ranks outside the terminals. — Private hire vehicles provided outside of Manchester Airport dropping off and collecting passengers. — Private hire vehicles or minibuses operating from Manchester Airport under a concession agreement.

3.4 Hackney Carriages 3.5 Manchester City Council hackney carriages, “black cabs”, have long maintained a taxi rank presence at Manchester Airport. The number and location of taxi ranks has increased over time in line with the growth and expansion of the airport. There are currently four ranks, one at each terminal, and one at the (rail and bus) Station. 3.6 The number of black cabs that seek work from the airport ranks will, for most of the day, exceed the available spaces on the ranks. So to avoid problems from black cabs queuing onto the road system while waiting for space on a rank, the airport has provided a feeder park where drivers can wait until space is available on a rank. As the feeder park is remote from the terminal ranks, CCTV, flight information and telephones have been installed to ensure continuous supply of taxis at the ranks. Furthermore, as drivers may have to wait for some time, the airport has provided drivers’ restrooms, toilets, and a prayer room. 3.7 Manchester Airport does recover the capital costs and ongoing maintenance costs to provide rank and feeder park facilities from the drivers. Originally this was though an annual permit to operate from the airport ranks and to use the feeder park. The annual permit was replaced in 2008 with a per movement charge. There had been concerns from within the taxi trade that the permit system was limiting the number of taxis that could work at Manchester Airport: it was discouraging non permit holders that bring a passenger to the airport from collecting a passenger from the airport, and possibly leading to a shortfall of taxis during the peak periods. 3.8 Manchester Airport has invested £620,000 in an electronic access control system to the feeder parks and forecourts ranks using RFID technology to manage the per movement charge. In addition, the airport spends over £400,000 a year on manpower and equipment services to manage taxis on the ranks. Each driver has a unique card that is pre loaded with cash to pay for the entry to the feeder park and ranks. The current charge is £1.60 per movement. £0.60 is allocated to the taxi drivers’ share of the forecourt customer service officer and taxi marshals that support traffic management on the terminal forecourts. £1.00 is allocated to recover costs from providing and maintaining the ranks and feeder park. 3.9 There are currently 750 out of 2,000 Manchester licensed hackney carriages working from Manchester Airport. The feeder park has a capacity for 120 taxis to park, and there are 30 rank spaces. There are currently 1031 hackney carriage licenses. 3.10 The Manchester “black cabs” and their drivers have qualities and skills to provide an on demand airport taxi service: they are accessible; drivers and vehicles standards are highly regulated and monitored by Manchester City Council, and the drivers have a good knowledge of the Manchester area, and the North West of England. However, there have been long standing concerns from airport passengers about the (perceived) high costs of certain journeys, and the customer service standards form some drivers, and reluctance (of some drivers) to take passengers on short journeys from the airport.

3.11 Hackney Carriage Fares 3.12 Manchester City Council as the relevant licensing authority sets taxi fares within the Manchester licensed area, and these are metered fares. Journeys outside the licensed area are negotiable between driver and passenger; it is not compulsory to use the meter to calculate fares outside the Manchester licensed area. Most drivers calculate the out of area fare based on the metered fare plus one third. The additional cost is explained (by the drivers) to compensate for their inability to collect a fare on the return to Manchester. 3.13 The Manchester licensed or compellable area extends to a point four miles outside of the City boundary with neighbouring Greater Manchester districts. But it does not extend beyond the boundary with Cheshire East. As Manchester Airport is located at the southern end of Manchester, and close to the City boundary with Stockport, Trafford and Cheshire East, many short local trips on black cabs are designated out of area, and thus not set on the meter. Those making short journeys into Cheshire East most acutely feel the cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w59

impact of the fare structure. For example, the price of a black cab journey to Wilmslow, (approximately 5 miles) will cost £20 (or £25 at night), whereas a similar journey within the Manchester Licensed area and calculated on the taxi meter would cost approximately £11 during the day. 3.14 There have been instances going back many years where customers have complained that the driver has either refused to take a passenger on a short trip from the airport, or been extremely reluctant to take the fare and that has been apparent to the customer. The short journey problem is most likely linked to waiting time at the feeder park, when a driver may have waited several hours before getting to the front of the rank, and rather than collecting a passenger for a more lucrative longer journey, instead has a passenger want to make only a short trip. However, the taxi drivers do operate an informal arrangement to mitigate this. In normal circumstances, the driver would return to the feeder park after dropping the passenger. Drivers do work a system where a driver making a short trip will return directly to the rank and avoid a further wait at the feeder park. 3.15 The absolute number of complaints compared to journeys made is relatively small, but some passenger’s perception is of a taxi service that is expensive and with drivers that are reluctant to make short trips. The reluctance to use the taxis on the ranks increases demand for out of area private hire services.

3.16 Private Hire—Airport Concession 3.17 Whilst passengers have always had the opportunity to book their own taxi or private hire vehicle, the absence of an alternative “on demand” service was seen by some passengers as a weakness in the airport’s transport products. 3.18 In 2003 Manchester Airport introduced a second on demand transfer service. This service is offered as a concession to single service provider. The licensing regime has varied with operator, but has been either a private hire license (not necessarily Manchester) or a mini bus based service working under PSV legislation through an “O” license. The concession is currently vacant and we are considering options to replace the previous concessionaire. 3.19 It is possible for a private hire service working at an airport to be licensed by an authority outside of the airport’s location. Operators may have a preference to use a particular authority because it considers that its licensing rules will best suit its own operation. This may be for reasons of cost (licensing fees vary with authority), or vehicle speciﬁcation, including colour and identiﬁcation as a private hire vehicle. 3.20 Experience from the previous second tier operation is that it is preferable for a private hire service based at an airport to be licensed by the local authority in which it is based to ensure proper vetting and monitoring of both driver and vehicle standards.

3.21 Private Hire Taxis Booked From Outside 3.22 Private hire vehicles account for 23% of passenger journeys to and from Manchester Airport. Whilst this has declined from 28% in 2008, it remains high in comparison with other UK airports. The majority of private hire vehicles are from outside Manchester and in many cases passengers will book both inbound and outbound journeys with the same company or driver. The passengers are mainly UK originating rather than foreign inbound. The latter are more likely to either take a taxi from the airport rank, or use public transport. 3.23 Private hire vehicle use will normally generate four vehicle trips for every return air journey, as one vehicle movement on each leg is usually made empty, where as “park and fly” generates only two trips. The dominance of private car drop off and private hire by Manchester passengers has been identified as a significant factor in peak time congestion on the airport road system and forecourts. 3.24 Manchester Airport’s Ground Transport Strategy is to encourage passengers to consider either parking on site or using public transport as an alternative. There has been a recent switch away from taxis and private hire, to rail or parking on site, it is likely that private hire vehicle use will remain at a high level in the short to medium term, and that measures to make this a more efficient use of road space are needed. But current legislation does not allow private hire vehicles to collect fares on the “empty return leg” unless they are first booked through a telephone operator located in that private hire vehicle’s licensed area. 3.25 A change in legislation will be necessary to enable private hire vehicle drivers to accept a return booking, and would have to include measures to ensure the driver and vehicle standards are acceptable to the local licensing authority.

4.0 Summary 4.1 Taxis services are an important component of an airport surface access system. They provide transport to passengers who have no access to a private car, or who are unable to use conventional public transport. 4.2 The airport has to provide infrastructure and services to support a wide range of taxi and private hire services. The capital investment and ongoing operating costs associated with an airport taxi operation are signiﬁcant, and form the basis of a charge to taxi drivers using the airport to collect passengers. 4.3 Airports, because of their size and location, generate high demand for taxi services, and many taxi and private hire movements are cross boundary. The current licensing regime is geared to monitoring and cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w60 Transport Committee: Evidence

enforcing standards within a limited area, and for journeys that would take place within that area. The local licensing authority for an airport only has limited enforcement powers for taxis that it does not license. 4.4 Cross boundary fares charged by taxis from an airport are unregulated, and can be much higher than for comparable fares charged for trips into the airport, leading to customer complaints, and increased cross border taxi movements. 4.5 The inability to regulate taxi fares, particularly for short journeys, out of the licensed area creates a negative impression, both of the taxi service, and the airport. December 2010

Written evidence from Transport for London (TPH 46) 1. Introduction 1.1 Transport for London (TfL) welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Committee’s inquiry into the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs). 1.2 TfL is the licensing authority for Taxi and Private Hire operators, vehicles and drivers in the Greater London area. TfL’s responsibilities include setting standards that operators must meet. London has about 22,000 licensed taxis and 50,000 licensed private hire vehicles, approximately 25,000 taxi drivers and 60,000 private hire drivers, and 3,000 private hire operators. London taxi services have been licensed in the current form for over 150 years, and licensing of the private hire trade was introduced following legislation in 1998. 1.3 The Committee is seeking evidence relating to cross-border hirings and other aspects of taxi and private hire licensing, particularly concerning passenger safety. TfL wishes to consider two particular areas concerning passenger safety: the character checks conducted on licensed drivers through the Criminal Records Bureau (CRB); and the role of taxi and private hire services in late night travel, including enforcement against illegal cab activities.

2. Cross-border Hire Problems 2.1 Cross-border hire, in which a taxi or private hire operator takes bookings for trips in an area in which they are not based, is not currently a particular issue in London. However, this could change, particularly as measures are introduced to address issues particular to London, such as those contained in the Mayor of London’s Air Quality Strategy. 2.2 The Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy, which was recently published after a wide consultation including with the taxi and private hire trades, contains a number of proposals designed to improve air quality. These include the introduction of mandatory maximum age limits for taxis and private hire vehicles in London. This requirement would apply to taxi and private hire operators based in London only, as TfL has no jurisdiction to the area beyond the Greater London Authority (GLA) boundary. 2.3 Each authority around the country must consider appropriate licensing conditions for taxis and private hire services, bearing in mind local circumstances such as environmental issues. It is reasonable that licensing conditions may differ from area to area, as the issues which authorities face also differ. However, this may lead to circumstances in which it is economically attractive for operators to be based in one area but offer bookings in another area which sets higher standards. 2.4 The relevant private hire licensing regime is determined by the authority where the booking centre is based regardless of the journey origin and destination. This raises the possibility of a “call centre” private hire operation, with the operating centre based in an area with low licensing standards; bookings taken by telephone, internet or email; vehicles and drivers physically based in London but licensed in the same area as the operating centre; marketing in London and providing London journeys, with a competitive advantage over operators that comply with London licensing requirements. 2.5 Within London, modelling undertaken for the Mayor’s Air Quality Strategy shows that action is necessary to reduce harmful emissions from road vehicles and taxis in particular. However, if the cost of providing London taxi and private hire services is increased as a result of these measures, it may be economical for private hire operators based outside London to compete for London hirings. This would present unfair competition to London’s taxi and private hire operators, and would weaken the impact of the measures taken. 2.6 Some scope for cross-border hirings is necessary; particularly to serve areas close to local authority boundaries. However, TfL considers that some measures would be appropriate to restrict the scope of operators in one location to undertake bookings in another. 2.7 TfL considers it would be appropriate for legislation to clarify the circumstances when cross-border hirings are allowed and restrict the opportunities for operators and taxis to choose to be based in one area but serving the market in another. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w61

3. Enhanced Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) Checks 3.1 TfL welcomes the opportunity to raise other areas of concern relating to taxi and private hire licensing. 3.2 TfL is responsible for licensing of all London’s taxi and private hire drivers and must ensure applicants are fit and proper persons that do not pose a threat to the travelling public. TfL currently has around 80,000 driver licensees and the licensing authority must be satisfied that the applicant meets the fit and proper person criteria in order to obtain a licence. As such, all applicants must undergo a CRB check. The disclosures assist TfL in determining whether or not public safety would be compromised by granting an individual a licence. 3.3 The CRB Disclosure process has two levels: Standard and Enhanced. Prior to using the CRB Disclosure service, TfL and other licensing authorities considered which level of CRB Disclosure would be appropriate for taxi and private hire licence applicants. TfL concluded that it would request Enhanced Disclosures for all applicants because taxi and private hire drivers can, at any time and without prior knowledge, be in sole charge of passengers who are less than 18 years old or are vulnerable adults. In addition, they often come into contact with other individuals, who legally may not be classed as vulnerable but may be so due to medical or social reasons, such as being under the influence of medication, alcohol or drugs. These individuals (at those times) need to be protected from predators who could take advantage of them whilst they are in a vulnerable state. 3.4 Enhanced Disclosures can include “soft intelligence” from the local Police services in certain circumstances. Soft intelligence reports can contribute towards decisions TfL take in regard to a taxi or private hire licence application. It is worth noting that intelligence obtained by this method includes information on alleged sexual assaults (including rapes), terrorist activities, organised crime and drug dealing. 3.5 In its position as the licensing authority TfL reviews information that is brought to its attention and takes a balanced view on whether or not to issue the licence. TfL assesses information provided by Enhanced Disclosures to not only consider applicants’ criminal histories but to also give consideration to ‘patterns of behaviour’, which may be illustrated by the “soft intelligence” provided. Taxi and private hire drivers can, by the very nature of their roles, be called upon to carry children or vulnerable adults at any time and often come into contact with other individuals who are under the influence of medication, alcohol or drugs, particularly at night. 3.6 TfL recently sought further clarification from the CRB following the introduction of the Vetting and Barring Scheme. The CRB Policy Department responded that that the CRB do not consider that taxi and private hire drivers meet the criteria for Enhanced checks and TfL should be requesting Standard disclosures. 3.7 Between 2002 and 2008, some 2,400 applicants for both taxi and private hire licences have been refused on character grounds. Of these, some 10% have been refused based on “soft intelligence” revealed by an Enhanced Disclosure. Not allowing TfL to access this information therefore poses a significant risk. 3.8 Under an Enhanced Disclosure, checks may be requested against Protection of Children (POCA) and Protection of Vulnerable Adults (POVA) lists in some circumstances. After seeking clarification from the Director of Operations at the CRB, TfL requested additional checks against both lists for all licence applicants. In 2008, TfL was informed by the CRB that it was not entitled to request checks for taxi and private hire drivers against the POVA list as this can only be obtained for those within the Domiciliary Care Agencies, Care Homes and Adult Placement Schemes. Accordingly TfL ceased requesting POVA checks, but continued to request checks against the POCA list as part of an Enhanced Disclosure. 3.9 TfL recommends that it should be permitted to request Enhanced Disclosures for every taxi and private hire licence applicant. In addition, TfL and other relevant agencies should be permitted to request checks of taxi and private hire driver applicants against the POVA list. 3.10 Similar issues arise in respect of taxi and private hire licence applicants services outside London and so TfL suggests that all licensing authorities should be permitted to request the requirement for Enhanced CRB Disclosures should be applied nationally. 3.11 There is also the issue of antecedent checks for applicants who immediately before their application for a licence lived and worked outside the UK. Although the Enhanced Disclosure gives good information on the character history of UK residents, information on those who have lived and worked overseas is less comprehensive. Applicants who have spent more than three months living outside the UK within the previous three years are required to provide additional information about their history and a Certificate of Good Conduct is sought from the authorities in the countries concerned. This is necessary for up to 10 per cent of new applications. 3.12 Not all countries provide a Certificate of Good Conduct, and where provided the information is generally of less detail than that contained in the Enhanced Disclosure. There is also concern that Certificates of Good Conduct from some countries may not be based on as thorough and rigorous checks as those checks conducted by the CRB. This leaves a risk that TfL may not be aware of convictions or misconduct by people who have lived overseas. In at least two cases, offences committed overseas have come to light in investigation of serious offences by licensed drivers, which would have been reason to refuse the licence applications had they been known. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w62 Transport Committee: Evidence

3.13 Public safety could be improved by better arrangements for collaboration and information exchange between UK and international police agencies, and TfL would like to see the Government give priority to this area.

4. Late Night Travel

4.1 Taxis and private hire vehicles provide important options for travel late at night, when rail and Tube services are closed and bus services are more limited than in daytime. A late night travel survey commissioned by TfL in early 2010 showed that 13% of journeys home after a night out were made by taxi or private hire vehicle (7% in taxis and 6% in booked minicabs) with an additional 5% in illegal hires (this includes unlicensed minicabs and licensed private hire vehicles touting illegally).

4.2 While London is safe for most people travelling at night there are major concerns over the dangers of travelling in unbooked minicabs picked up off the street. Despite signiﬁcant progress over recent years, illegal cabs remain a serious problem in London and are an under-rated danger of the Capital’s night life. These cars are unregulated and uninsured for the purposes of carrying passengers and in some cases are linked to more serious crimes such as sexual assault, robbery and arms and drugs offences. There is also evidence of increasing issues with aggressive and violent touts who are intimidating to members of the public and law abiding taxi and PHV drivers.

4.3 In 2009–10, there were 143 reported cab-related sexual offences including 24 rapes although we expect the actual number to be higher given the signiﬁcant under-reporting of sexual offences generally. Cab-related sexual offences account for over 10% of all sexual offences in London committed by offenders not previously known to the victim.

4.4 Touting and associated issues are being addressed through a partnership approach involving enforcement, education and improvement of legitimate travel options including licensing and regulation of the taxi and private hire industry. TfL and the police use a broad menu of tactics to deter, disrupt and detect illegal cab activity.

4.5 TfL is also working with the police and other partners to educate the public about the law relating to taxis and private hire vehicles, raise awareness of the dangers of illegal cabs and provide the public with better access to safe travel options. While this multi-media campaign has been extremely effective in reducing female usage of illegal cabs (from 19% in 2003 to 5% in 2010) perpetrators continue to adapt their methods to avoid police detection and deceive the public into believing that they are providing legitimate services, putting the public at risk.

5. Enforcement Against Illegal Cab Activity

5.1 Enforcement against illegal cab activity is a priority for TfL and the Mayor of London, highlighted in the Mayor’s Transport Strategy. In 2008, the Mayor introduced tougher regulatory penalties for any licensed private hire vehicle driver convicted of touting, and to date, over 400 licensed private hire vehicle drivers convicted of, or cautioned for, touting have had their private hire vehicle licences revoked for a minimum of one year. Despite this, in many instances, these drivers merely return to the streets unlicensed.

5.2 The MPS Safer Transport Command’s cab enforcement unit has made over 6,000 arrests for touting and dealt with another 2,000 offences by way of summons since its inception in 2003.

5.3 There remain concerns, however, that the penalties for drivers found to be touting are still too lenient and inconsistent in many cases. The current maximum ﬁne that can be imposed for touting is £2,500 and £5,000 for driving without insurance (which applies to any driver touting, as any hire and reward insurance is invalidated).

5.4 Sentences in individual cases are a matter for the courts, taking into account the circumstances of the offence, including all mitigating and aggravating factors in accordance with the Sentencing Guidelines. In 2004, TfL and the Mayor of London raised concerns with the Home Office about the inconsistency and leniency of penalties being imposed for taxi touting. The average fine after sentence is around £135, which is not considered high enough to be seen as a deterrent. In addition, the level of fine varies from case to case. The inconsistency of penalties continues to be an issue and we ask for the Government’s support in helping to address this.

5.5 The Mayor of London, TfL and its policing partners urge the Government to introduce tougher penalties for touting which will help to deliver more effective enforcement against perpetrators and will create a safer environment for the travelling public. Suggested measures include: — Increasing the penalties for touting and unlawful plying for hire offences including higher ﬁnes and immediate driver licence disqualiﬁcation following conviction or acceptance of a caution for touting. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w63

— Powers to seize and dispose of vehicles used in touting and unlawful plying for hire offences (powers under Section 165A of the Road Trafﬁc Act 1988 to seize motor vehicles being driven without insurance or a valid driving licence do not extend to seizing vehicles being driven without valid hire and reward insurance, although this insurance is compulsory for hire and reward activity). — Clearer legal deﬁnitions for touting and unlawful plying for hire offences to improve regulation and enforcement. December 2010

Written evidence from Hasan Syed (TPH 47) 1. In response to the Transport Select Committee’s invitation to submit evidence on issues relating to Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles, including matters concerning passenger safety. I would like summarize some research and opinions as follows: (a) Background of Private Hire and Taxi licensing—OFT Study on “Regulation of licensed taxi and PHV services”—November 2003. (b) Passenger and driver safety—cuts both ways. (c) Possible solutions.

2. Background of Private Hire and Taxi licensing—OFT Study on “egulation of Licensed Taxi and PHV Services”—November 2003 (a) Without going into too much details about the reasons for and existence of the dual-mechanism of taxis and PHV’s in the UK—a read of the OFT study dated Nov. 2003 and a look of the current circumstances makes clear that the issues remain unaddressed (87 councils or 25% still maintain quantity controls). (b) There still seems to be a “quota” on taxi permits leading to premiums on permits, expensive fares, artiﬁcial shortages, lack of competition, touting, illegal cabs, and assaults.

3. Passenger and Driver Safety—Cuts both Ways (a) It is important to point out that generally passenger safety is raised as a concern, however, safety is a concern on both sides of the divide. Some research shows the following: Concern % Agree

Drivers sometimes feel threatened by passengers 36% Drivers had harm done to themselves or their cab 45% Passengers do not feel completely safe in a cab 61% Passengers ﬁnd it inconvenient to book cabs 68% (b) It is evident from the above data that both taxi drivers and passengers are concerned about safety and 45% of drivers have had harm done to themselves or their cab. (c) To continue, passengers also do not feel completely safe in a cab and upto 61% of respondents feel insecure in a cab. This fear is not unfounded as shown by TfL’s own data of cab related sexual offences of around 143 “reported” incidents in 2009–10. This is in spite of heavy promotion/spending on the “CabWise” program—which is essentially to get three phone numbers of cab companies that are close by. Although it has met more than moderate success, the problem of assaults (as pointed out by above statistic) remains. (d) The “CabWise” program was started in 2005 and basically caters to a situation where someone looking for a cab can ﬁnd out where to call for one. The current problem is related more to ineffective enforcement of what to do when there are 10 PHV’s standing in rank right in front of you. Additionally, as the recent “Worboys” case shows the threat of assault is not limited to PHVs’.

4. Possible Solutions (a) It is necessary to open the taxi market and remove the quantity restrictions as suggested in the OFT report. Protection of some interest groups seems to be overcoming common sense and turning out to be an expensive proposition in the long-term. (b) The lack of supply, allows taxis to over-charge customers. As seen from the OFT report that most frequent users of taxis are the lower income group; they are price sensitive and would choose to save money (un-booked PHV) rather than take a taxi. (c) The PHVs plying around are welcome at 1am in the morning, especially with no or expensive taxis around, and the PHV sticker in a cab makes it quasi-legal and encourages people to patronise it even if the PHV is un-booked. I understand that it is placed for easy enforcement of pick and drop at red cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w64 Transport Committee: Evidence

routes in London. However, removing the sticker and ﬁnding a technological solution (like an electronic tag) for pick and drop at the red routes might be more feasible. (d) It may also make help to standardize taxis in some form or way (currently, a multitude of vehicles can be a taxi). All over the world a taxi is easily recognizable as a taxi due to its colour (either two- tone or a colour not generally used for a private vehicle). (e) Lastly, a lot of cab-related crime is “situational” and it is committed as there is a feeling that the perpetrator will get away with it. Current methods of tracking activity are limited to expensive CCTV systems (~£700/cab), severely limiting scope and scalability. (f) As children we are told not to go around with strangers, we seem to be doing it every day as grown ups—however, the dangers remain the same. I believe that taxi companies and passengers should have the possibility/right of registering every ride with a responsible third party—just in case something goes wrong. Such a methodology would provide for prevention of crime, provide clear evidence in case of bilking or assault as well as increased business for taxis/PHV’s (as they appear to be more secure). December 2010

Written evidence from Local Government Regulation (TPH 48) 1. Introduction 1.1 Local Government Regulation [(LG Regulation), part of the LG Group, formally LACORS] promotes quality regulation to councils in the areas of trading standards, environmental protection, streetscene, licensing and gambling, food hygiene & standards, animal health & welfare, animal feed, health & safety and private sector housing. We offer comprehensive advice and guidance to councils and their partners, disseminating good practice and providing up-to-date information on policies and initiatives that affect local people and local services. We lobby on behalf of councils and ensure that legislation and government policy can be practically implemented and contribute to sector-led improvement. 1.2 LG Regulation provides services at the national level which support and are complementary to the regional and local support provided to councils, as well as the work councils themselves undertake. In providing this written submission LG Regulation is acting on behalf of council licensing authorities in England and Wales (outside greater London).

2. Terminology 2.1 Taxis are referred to in legislation, regulation and common language as “hackney carriages”, “black cabs” and “cabs”. The term taxi is used throughout this submission and refers to all such vehicles. 2.2 Private hire vehicles (PHVs) include a range of vehicles including minicabs, executive cars, limousines and chauffeur services. The term PHV is used throughout this submission to refer to all such vehicles.

3. Introduction 3.1 Taxis and PHVs are an important mode of local transport. They are of particular importance in areas that are poorly served by other forms of public transport such as rural communities. Women aged 16–20 make the greatest number of trip stages in taxis and PHVs.7 Elderly and disabled users rely on the service taxis and PHVs provide as what is sometimes a crucial form of public transport. Taxis and PHVs also service the night time economy of many areas, ensuring the public return home safely. The “local cabbie” is often regarded as an ambassador of the local area, where they are the ﬁrst contact for tourists/local businessmen adding to the local economy and business community. 3.2 Local councils in England and Wales (outside greater London) license taxi and private hire vehicles (PHVs), the primary purpose of which is to protect the public.8 Taxis and PHVs regularly transport vulnerable groups such as disabled passengers, children to school proms and young girls on nights out. 3.3 Because of the clear interest in public safety councils have the autonomy to attach various conditions to these licences such as group 2 medical checks, local knowledge tests and enhanced CRB disclosure before being passed as “ﬁt and proper” to transport the public. 3.4 These conditions of licence vary from authority to authority, often to consider the needs of the local area (such local knowledge tests), however over time this has led to inconsistency of service to the licensed trade and therefore the traveling public. The Department for Transport (DfT) have issued guidance to licensing authorities9 on what they should consider as part of local taxi and PHV licensing policy, however as the guidance is not statutory some councils do not follow the recommendations, or only select certain parts which 7 DfT survey of licensing authorities and Transport for London (TfL). 8 The key acts covering taxi and PHV licensing are Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. 9 DfT Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance, March 2010. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w65

has created differing standards. We believe that certain conditions of licence for example Criminal Record Bureau (CRB), and medical checks on drivers should be mandated. 3.5 In 2009 LG Regulation took on taxi and PHV licensing as a new policy area. We visited over 50 councils in England and Wales, taxi and private hire trade groups and Government to fully understand the issues and concerns, with a view to supporting the local government sector on a national level. Of a range of issues which arose the key consensus was that the legislation governing taxi and PHV licensing was outdated and in need of review. Outdated and piecemeal legislation has lead to one key area of concern what is regularly referred to as Cross Border Hiring (CBH). 3.6 The term can be used to describe the following: (a) Where a taxi licensed in council A, operates as a private hire vehicle in council area B. (b) Where a private hire operator licensed in council A, operates from a base in council area B. (c) Where a private hire vehicle licensed by council A is called to pick up and/or transport a passenger to a destination in council area B.

4. Where a Taxi Licensed in Council A, Operates as a Private Hire Vehicle in Council Area B 4.1 This type of CBH is the key area of concern for many licensing authorities in England and Wales and any further references in these circumstances relates to this practice. An example of where this has occurred on a large scale recently is the licensing of taxis in Berwick-upon-Tweed.10 Many prospective drivers who wished to operate in Newcastle were refused licences as they did not reach Newcastle’s conditions of licence. These same drivers then applied and were successful in obtaining taxi licences in Berwick as a consequence of Berwick having less stringent conditions of licence. These vehicles and drivers operated “cross border” as private hire vehicles in Newcastle. 4.2 The legality of this was debated in R (app Newcastle City Council) v Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council however, the judgement confirmed that this was legal, and as such councils have no powers to stop this practice. Though our conversations with councils there are examples of vehicles licensed in Berwick which operate throughout England and Wales, one example as far as South Wales. This problem is also not exclusive to vehicles licensed in Berwick; many other licensing authorities have encountered vehicles operating in their areas which have been licensed elsewhere. 4.3 This is a significant public safety concern as licensing officers in these districts have very little enforcement powers to stop vehicles and drivers which act against their conditions of licence. Councils will usually operate with a regulatory/licensing committee made up of councillors that set policy and consider breaches of conditions, convictions and driving endorsements, where drivers’ licences can be suspended or revoked. Therefore in these instances locally elected councillors have no say who can be considered fit and proper to transport the public based on local needs. 4.4 Local taxi and private hire trades in these areas also have concern as it is not seen to be fair that they must abide by one set of conditions, where as the cross border vehicles have lower standards and little or no enforcement. The unfair and unsafe practice of cross border hiring undermines localism as many applicants are choosing to be licensed in areas which are a significant distance from where they intend to operate. 4.5 Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council have experienced similar problems and the issue was debated again in the most recent case in this area Stockton-on-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and others. Our interpretation of the judgement confirms that the law relating to CBH is correctly laid down in previous case law (Britain and Gladen), and as such licensed taxis may still undertake pre-booked hirings anywhere in England and Wales. As the judgment goes further than the Berwick case to clarify this position licensing authorities are concerned that prospective PHV drivers around England and Wales will see this as confirmation that they may seek out an authority with low fees, lower standards of driver and vehicle checks and less enforcement operations, thus increasing this practice. 4.6 Mr Justice Langstaff noted within the judgement (re a change to the law) it... “must be a matter for consideration and review by Parliament rather than by the courts” therefore local councils are looking to Government to rectify this loop-hole in the law. 4.7 Throughout our conversations with local licensing authorities It is widely thought that this problem is getting worse and will have impact on future national events such as the Olympics in 2012.

5. Solutions 5.1 To rectify the problem of CBH LG Regulation would recommend that the Government considers adopting national standards for certain key conditions which do not require local consideration. LG Regulation has looked into the range of conditions which are present in licensing authorities and developed a Standard Conditions Template11 to act as guidance for councils reviewing their policies. The DfT Best Practice 10 Berwick is now part of Northumberland County Unitary Council and has reviewed and raised standards in their taxi and PHV licensing policy. 11 http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?authCode=215E101&id=24395 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w66 Transport Committee: Evidence

Guidance also has assisted many licensing authorities develop policy, however these documents are not statutory and therefore there will continue to be inconsistency which leads to some applicants searching out licensing authorities with lower standards causing the cross border hiring problem we see today.

5.2 Alongside statutory national standards, joint enforcement agreements would be welcomed, which allow licensing enforcement officers to enforce vehicles which have been licensed in other areas. An example of where this has been successful in other regulatory areas is the flexible warranting system for health and safety enforcement between the Health and Safety Executive and council environmental health officers (further info can be found in Annex A).

5.3 Many licensing authorities would also welcome ﬁxed penalty notice (FPN) powers, which would give licensing enforcement ofﬁcers an instant control measure to ensure drivers were adhering to locally set conditions. FPNs have been particularly effective in the control of smoking in public places, recent smokefree legislation compliance data indicates that 2,268 FPNs were issued in England between July 2007 and June 201012. It would however be important to have guidance on what particular offences would be deemed suitable, as more serious offences which could threaten public safety should be heard at committee level with the option of revoking or suspending the licence. Any income generated from issuing FPNs should be redistributed within the local licensing service which would increase enforcement, reduce license fees and improve the service generally.

5.4 Most licensing authorities would greatly welcome a complete review of the legislation relating the taxi and PHV licensing. Legislation and case law has developed piecemeal and lead to inconsistency in service and standards, and burdened councils with high court costs where they have looked to rectify the law in court rather than by statute. Legislation such as the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 is antiquated and CBH is one outcome of such an approach. This also goes against the principal of consistency, one of the ﬁve principals of Better Regulation.13

6. The Following are Other Issues Identiﬁed During Our Research which have Led to Inconsistency Across England and Wales. We Would Recommend the Committee Include these in Any Further Review

6.1 Restricting the number of hackney carriages in an area (often referred to as quantity restrictions). At present approximately 100 local councils continue to restrict numbers. This is currently a local political decision.

6.2 Driver training. Goskills, the sector skills council for passenger transport has developed a comprehensive curriculum to help ensure taxi and PHV drivers are trained in all aspects of transporting the public. Previous funding to complete the training has now subsided, and most local councils will not make the qualiﬁcation mandatory for all new drivers because the costs of the training will fall to drivers as part of license fees (taxi and PHV licensing is cost recoverable).

6.3 Enhanced CRB checks. Driving a taxi/PHV is a notifiable occupation (category 1 Home Office Circular 6/2006) and the police should notify the licensing authority of all convictions for recordable offences. The police should also consider notifying the licensing authority of minor offences, cautions, fixed penalty notices and other information in accordance with Home Office Circular 5/2005. This additional information required by enhanced CRB disclosures is considered essential to the licensing process due to the nature of the role of a taxi/PHV driver, and vulnerability of many passengers. LG Regulation have put forward a written submission into the Government’s review of the criminal records regime to stress these points. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?authCode=2C7B27&id=24681

6.4 Airports. The enforcement of taxis/PHVs on airports is also a key concern for many local licensing authorities. Airports such as East Midlands Airport are situated on private land. As a result some have secured a contract with a taxi/private hire company to act as their provider to take passengers away from the airport. No other operators are allowed to ‘tout’ for business on the airport’s property. This causes problems if there are not enough vehicles and drivers available to take away the latest plane load of passengers and this in turn draws in drivers from other districts enticed by the possibility of a lucrative round-trip. As licensing ofﬁcers do not have the powers to enforce taxis on private land many drivers do not comply with their conditions of licence and, for example, some councils have received many complaints for drivers charging disproportionate amounts above the fare tariff, or not knowing the local area.

6.5 We are more than happy to discuss any of the issues raised in our response to this review, and give oral evidence in the new year. 12 NHS/LGA smokefree compliance data. Report covering January to June 2010. 13 Five principles were identiﬁed by the Better Regulation Task Force in 1997 as the basic tests of whether any regulation is ﬁt for purpose. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w67

7. Annex A—Working Across Council Boundaries: A Note on Health & Safety Flexible Warranting

7.1 Objectives

Flexible warranting is a voluntary scheme that allows one enforcing authority to appoint inspectors from another authority to undertake work on its behalf (the arrangement can also apply between the Health & Safety Executive and local authorities). It provides a practical approach designed to make the best use of joint resources by removing the current barriers that restrict where an authority or individual inspector can apply health and safety legislation. It provides a ﬂexible approach that allows local deviation from the national structure dependent on available resources, risk proﬁle and economic activity within a locality.

7.2 Governance

Section 19 of the Health & Safety at Work Act 1974 provides the legal basis for local authorities to appoint inspectors to carry out relevant statutory provisions. The mechanism for formalising a flexible warranting scheme is a Memorandum of Understanding. It sets out demarcation arrangements and also covers the management arrangements—including for example indemnification of inspectors, communication between authorities, competence requirements and dispute resolution. The extent to which flexible warrant holders will intervene on behalf of another enforcing authority can also be varied by the Memorandum of Understanding. It is supported by an Inspector’s Manual, providing further details of the arrangements between the enforcing authorities, and practical tools to assist with the operation of the flexible warrants system.

7.3 Beneﬁts & Outcomes

Benefits of flexible warranting include being able to provide local solutions to local issues; better use of scarce resources; timeliness of interventions and responsiveness; officers utilising skills more often; and delivering sensible health and safety regulation.

7.4 Further information on partnership working in regulatory services can be found in: Collaborative councils guidance on partnership working in regulatory services. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/upload/ 22768.pdf

8. Annex B—Types of Licence

8.1 Taxis require two types of licence: — Hackney Carriage Proprietors (Vehicle) Licence. — Hackney Carriage Drivers Licence.

8.2 The provision of a private hire service required three types of licence: — Private Hire Operators Licence. — Private Vehicle Licence. — Private Hire Drivers Licence.

9. Taxi and PHV Councillor Handbook

9.1 Members of the Committee may wish to refer to the LG Regulation Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Councillor Handbook. The handbook has been developed to help councillors understand some of the key issues, and difﬁculties that can arise in this complex area of business regulation. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/ContentDetails.aspx?authCode=2C7B27&id=24324

10. Case Studies

10.1 LG Regulation has developed a number of case studies which highlight areas of good practice within local licensing authorities. http://www.lacors.gov.uk/lacors/search.aspx?N=6%206069%2033%2041%2053&Ne=6000&Ns=DOC_ PUBLISHED&Nso=1&authcode=2C7B27&id=&tl=6000&prev=6+6067+33+41+53+6000 December 2010 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w68 Transport Committee: Evidence

Written evidence from The London Taxi Company (TPH 49) 1.1 We welcome the announcement by the Minister Norman Baker MP on 15 September relating to taxis in the Equalities Act 2010, which will come into force in 2011 and await the consultation document. 1.2 We hope the Department for Transport agree a minimum limit of 30% of all taxi ﬂeets need to be wheelchair accessible in order to deliver a meaningful service to disabled people. We also hope that the guidance does not promote the reduction in accessible vehicles, particularly in ﬂeets operating 100% accessible vehicles such as London. 1.3 The Department for Transport is also looking to provide guidance on a “designated vehicle” list to councils. We would asked that the guidance advises that only vehicles with “European Whole Vehicle Type Approval” and only side loading vehicles should be approved by councils for the transportation of passengers in wheelchairs. We have explained the reasons for these views below.

Need for Better Best Practice Guidance from the Department for Transport on Safety Standards for Taxis 2.1 The Department for Transport issued Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing Best Practice Guidance in 2006. The guidance was driven by an Ofﬁce of Fair Trading report in 2003, which supported liberalisation of regulations on competition grounds. The Department for Transport accepted this guidance and it is reﬂected in their best practice guidance. We believe the guidance could be improved and be clearer for local authorities.

European Whole Vehicle Type Approval 2.2 The European Community provides a “Type approval” system for the production of all cars. This is a legally binding set of regulations that automotive manufacturers must meet. 2.3 The Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing: Best Practice Guidance (Section 31) recommends that authorities should allow any of the following Type Approval standards: — European Whole Vehicle Type approval; — British National Type approval; or — Individual Vehicle Approval. 2.4 Table 1 shows the type approval requirements for “safety” related standards within the Regulation. 2.5 The Department for Transport has maintained that all type approval standards are equally valid and “legally” acceptable. While vehicles meeting a type approval standard can be legally driven in the European Community, we argue that this is a different issue from the need to ensure vehicles, used for public service as taxis, should meet the highest level of European type approval, which is European Whole Vehicle Type Approval. 2.6 If we consider UK National Single Vehicle type approval, a manufacturer or converter of vehicles is exempt from fourteen “safety speciﬁc requirements” of the regulation. 2.7 On 16 September the Government announced the Plug-In Car Grant will require compliance with 8 eligibility criteria; for vehicle safety the Department for Transport require that: “Vehicle crash safety: European Commission whole vehicle type approval (EC WVTA, not small series) OR evidence that the car demonstrates appropriate levels of safety as judged by international standards.” 2.8 The Department for Transport has clearly identiﬁed that European Whole Vehicle Type Approval is a higher safety standard than small series and single vehicle approval. The Department should therefore ensure policy consistency with the Secretary of State, Philip Hammond and advise local authorities that vehicles used for public hire should be tested to European Whole Vehicle Type Approval and if a base vehicle is converted into a taxi it should be re-tested to this standard. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w69

Table 1

S l

l R N E

t I

a E S I L L L r A

a E A t E e R L

C E A A I L I H n n E E P A N N R B e H C e I L S V O E O O

E L I I m S C S O R L I V E G

n T T S

REF SUBJECT L R U / H L o H A A E

E r A P E L E i H y

L N N C t

P v V M A L G C e W n K K A

S f L M

N A a U U I U U S U E S F E E S Fuel Tanks / Rear Protective 3 1 2 2 3 3 S Devices 6 Door Latches & Hinges 1 1 3 3 4 S 8 Indirect Vision 1 1 2 2 4 S - Mirror Component Approval 1 1 1 1 4 S 9 Braking 1 1 2 2 3 S 12 Interior Fittings 1 1 3 3 4 S 14 Protective Steering 1 1 3 3 3 S

15 Seat Strength 1 2 3 3 4 S 16 Exterior Projections 1 2 3 3 4 S 19 Seat Belt Anchorages 1 2 2 2 2 S - Seat belt Component Approval 1 1 1 1 1 S 20 Installation of Lights 1 1 2 2 4 S 31 Seat Belts 1 2 2 2 2 S

32 Forward Vision 1 1 2 3 4 S 37 Wheel Guards 1 1 2 2 4 S 45 Safety Glass 1 1 2 2 4 S - Safety Glass Component Approval 1 1 1 1 1 S 46 Tyres 1 1 2 2 4 S - Tyres Component Approval 1 1 1 1 1 S

53 Frontal Impact 1 2 4 4 4 S 54 Side Impact 1 2 4 4 4 S 58 Pedestrian Protection 1 1 4 4 4 S 60 Frontal protection system 1 1 1 2 2 S

LEVEL '1' COMPLIANCE = Full requirements of the regulations apply

Technical requirements of the regulations apply - Unwitnessed LEVEL '2' COMPLIANCE = testing allowed- No Conformity of Production requirements Essential requirements of the regulations are demonstrated - LEVEL '3' COMPLIANCE = Unwitnessed testing & reports allowed- No Conformity of Production requirements Requirements of the regulations are exempt - Engineering LEVEL '4' COMPLIANCE = inspection may be required

Taxi Vehicle Regulations

2.9 Sections 26–28 of the Department for Transport’s Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Best Practice Guidance relates to purpose built taxis. The sections include the recommendation: “[T]he Department believes authorities should be particularly cautious about specifying only purpose-built taxis, with the strict constraint on supply that that implies.”

2.10 As the main manufacturer of purpose built taxis and a British company, manufacturing an iconic British product, recognised throughout the world, we ﬁnd it challenging that the British Government has a clear policy to undermine taxi regulations, which we have invested millions of pounds to meet.

2.11 We would request that the Committee consider this point and would propose that it is removed from the Department’s guidance. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w70 Transport Committee: Evidence

The Risk of Rear-loading Taxis for Disabled Passengers 3.1 The London Taxi Company believe that the Department’s Best Practice Guidance to Councils (including the forthcoming designated vehicle guidance), should propose that only side loading and not rear loading taxis should be licensed as public hire taxis. 3.2 It is always safer to keep wheelchair users on the pavement than to put them in the road, particularly facing away from on coming trafﬁc, which is necessary for rear loading vehicles. 3.3 Taxi drivers may not be familiar with the lowering of a wheelchair over a kerb and this can present dangers to the passenger. Passengers using electric wheelchairs may ﬁnd it impossible to go down over a kerb at a rank, but if access is from the pavement, none of these issues arises. 3.4 Most rear loading taxis leave the wheelchair passenger right at the back of the vehicle in the rear impact zone. 3.5 It is also important that wheelchair passengers have an alternative exit in the event of an accident. A side loading vehicle will always offer the passenger the opportunity to exist the vehicle from the other side in the event of an emergency. In the case of a rear loading vehicle, where the rear doors or tailgate are damaged, this would be impossible. December 2010

Written evidence from the RAC Foundation (TPH 50) 1 Summary 1.1 The RAC Foundation welcomes the Transport Select Committee’s inquiry into the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHV, also referred to as minicabs), as these methods of transport have an important role to play in delivering an integrated and sustainable transport network. 1.2 Taxis and PHV rules and regulations are extremely complex, and often a lack of understanding at the local level, limits the successful development of both conventional and ‘shared’ services which could help deliver policy objectives. 1.3 The RAC Foundation’s main interest is in how taxis and PHVs can better support the overall transport system. This response is largely drafted based on forthcoming Foundation research titled ‘Alternative car options: new models of car ownership and use’ authored by Dr Sally Cairns. The report examines a range ways in which households have access to cars other than through simply owning and using their own vehicles. Renting a vehicle, getting a lift or taking a taxi are included within this, and the potential for these options to support more sustainable transport policy is discussed. 1.4 We report in this submission on the scale and nature of taxis and PHV use, their environmental and social impact, how their use can influence travel choices and how the public sector’s involvement with the industry could be improved to ensure these vehicles can contribute most effectively to overall transport policy goals. 1.5 Taxis and PHVs have the potential to provide an alternative to the private car, but there are limitations, particularly for shared taxi-initiatives, which are restricting take-up. Existing financial levers in this area are generally geared towards bus services, which might be unsuitable in certain locations and local authorities are often reluctant or find it difficult to consider taxis or shared taxi options. The current practice (outside London) of regulating taxi operations at district level rather than at a larger geographical scale is also limiting the development of such initiatives. Providing a more flexible and accessible system of taxi and PHV regulations, which can enable new and innovative services to be developed would help to provide an increased number of alternative car options to the travelling public.

2 About the RAC Foundation 2.1 The RAC Foundation is an independent charity which explores the economic, mobility, safety and environmental issues relating to roads and the use of motor vehicles, and campaigns to secure a fair deal for responsible road users. Independent and authoritative research for the public beneﬁt and informed debate are central to the RAC Foundation’s standing.

3 Scale and nature of taxis and private hire use 3.1 Taxis and minicabs are an important part of the UK transport mix. According to the DfT (2009a), in 2006/ 7, there were a total of 203,700 taxis and private hire vehicles operating in Britain. Of these, approximately 32% were based in London. 3.2 In 2008 (DfT, 2009b), the average British person made 11 trips and travelled 54 miles by taxi/minicab each year (1.1% of total trips and 0.8% of total mileage including walking and cycling). Levels of use appear to have been roughly stable over the last 10 years. The average taxi/minicab trip was 4.4 miles and took 18 minutes. The distribution of taxi/minicab journeys by distance is detailed in Figure 1, which shows that journeys between 2—5 miles are the most frequently made. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w71

Figure 1: Distance travelled by taxi/minicab

10 < 25 < 1 mile miles 8% 8%

5 < 10 miles 17% 1 < 2 miles 25%

2 < 5 miles 42%

Source: DfT (2009b) Transport statistics bulletin: National Travel Survey 2008.

3.3 Approximately 10% of people use conventional taxis or minicabs on a weekly basis, whilst a further 18% use them at least once a month. Notably, 58% of people use a taxi/minicab only once or twice a year at most. 3.4 There are higher levels of taxi and minicab use amongst those aged 17–29 and 70+; by women (compared to men); and by households without a car. Data for the Devon and Cumbria shared taxi schemes in the UK (Cairns, forthcoming) imply that schemes are primarily used by elderly women for shopping and personal business. However, this may be a particular characteristic of those schemes.

4. The impact of taxis and private hire vehicles on social exclusion 4.1 Taxi and PHV schemes have the potential to reduce social exclusion through providing travel options to people who might otherwise be relatively isolated. There is speciﬁc evidence from the Devon Fare Car on social inclusion beneﬁts—for example, a survey of 280 users found that if the service was stopped, 22% of respondents said that they would ‘stop travelling’, 18 users reported that they would give up a job and 26 reported that they would not be able to go out on a regular basis (Cairns, forthcoming).

5. The environmental impact of taxis and private hire vehicles 5.1 Evidence about emissions from taxis and minicabs suggests that they are not typically cleaner than the average car. However initiatives to encourage the development of cleaner taxi ﬂeets report on some success, partially due to the regulatory arrangements enabling public sector involvement. The most important factor in determining relative emissions is passenger loadings. Unfortunately data about typical taxi and PHV occupancy levels is remarkably limited. It has been suggested that in environmental terms, taxis may be preferable to bus services in circumstances where bus loadings are likely to be low which may particularly be the case in remote rural areas. 5.2 According to the UK Environmental Accounts (DfT 2009a), in 2007, taxis were responsible for 2.5 million tonnes of CO2 equivalent greenhouse gas emissions, which was equivalent to 2.8% of the emissions from the transport industries; 1.6% of the emissions from all transport, including household use of private vehicles; and 0.4% of emissions from all sectors included in the UK Environmental Accounts. 5.3 Defra/DECC guidelines on emissions factors for different forms of transport show that to compete with an averagely-loaded bus, a typical taxi (i.e. not a black cab) or PHV would need to carry an average of just over two passengers, whilst to compete with a bus carrying 20 passengers, a taxi would need to carry an average of just over four passengers. Meanwhile, to be equivalent to the average taxi or PHV, a bus would need to carry an average (across all parts of the route and all times of day) of just over six passengers. This can be hard to achieve on some routes.

6. Impact of taxis on travel choices 6.1 In general, the readily available literature does not provide any insights into whether the availability of taxis and minicabs has any wider implications for people’s patterns of car ownership and use, or what people would do otherwise, were these options not available. However, various studies do highlight the importance of taxis as an access and egress mode from train stations—and the general importance of cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w72 Transport Committee: Evidence

being able to access stations as a key determinant of rail use (see, for example, Brons et al 2009, McDonald et al 2003 and RSSB 2010). 6.2 Where shared taxi and PHV schemes are concerned UK experience is limited, despite the potential these schemes have for contributing toward the sustainable transport agenda. There are some successful examples—in particular, schemes which are aimed to addressing social exclusion issues for particular groups (notably the elderly or those living in remote areas). Wiltshire’s ‘Connect2’ scheme is notable, given its scale (25,000 passengers p.a.), and its integration of taxi provision with other forms of public transport (For more information see Cairns, Forthcoming).

7. The role of the public sector in taxis and PHVs 7.1 The public sector has a high level of involvement with the taxi and PHV industry due to the regulatory arrangements in this area. This goes beyond licensing regulations to issues of road space reallocation as it has become more common for taxis and PHVs to have access to bus lane infrastructure. 7.2 Taxis and PHVs have a legitimate role to play in helping to reduce individual car usage, but as the current rules and regulations exist there are a number of barriers, mostly pertaining to shared taxi initiatives. In work completed by CfIT (2008) on this issue the following issues were highlighted: — The perceptions and attitudes of local authorities and the taxi trade—this included concerns about engaging in anti-competitive activities, lack of understanding about the current legislation, and an unwillingness to take advantage of certain permits available — Taxi licensing rules—in particular, the current practice of licensing at district level, which militates against the development of organisations which would be large enough to run shared taxis operations. — Funding issues—Concessionary fares and the bus service operator’s grant are both tied to bus operations, whilst smaller vehicles are not exempt from VAT. Hence, shared taxi operations may be at a competitive disadvantage compared with conventional public transport, although it may be a more suitable alternative if demands are low. These findings are reflected at the local level, with representatives from Connect2Wiltshire commenting on the large amounts of potentially unnecessary regulation involved in running shared taxi schemes (Cairns, Forthcoming). 7.3 Given the potential taxis and minicabs have to deliver on social and environmental policies, it would be appropriate to give more public support to the industry. This could be made conditional upon certain conditions—for example, the average emission profiles of the vehicles used, or the situations in which they would provide the most obvious complement to conventional public transport, although existing concerns about ensuring that licensing procedures do not unnecessarily restrict the market would still apply; existing guidance from the DfT encourages local authorities to limit the scale of their requirements from operators to ensure the numbers of operators available to serve the public are not suppressed unduly.

8. References — Brons M, Givoni M and Rietveld P (2009) Access to rail stations and its potential in increasing rail use. Transportation Research Part A 43, pp136–149 — Cairns, S. (Forthcoming) Alternative car options: new models of car ownership and use. A report for the RAC Foundation. — Commission for Integrated Transport (2008) A new approach to rural public transport. Commission for Integrated Transport, London. — Department for Transport (2009a) Transport Statistics Great Britain 2009. DfT, London. — Department for Transport (2009b) Transport statistics bulletin: National Travel Survey 2008. DfT, London. — McDonald M, Crockett J and Beecroft M (2003) The role of rail in integrated transport. Leeds ITS, for Rail Research UK RRUK/C3/1. — RSSB (2010) Topic Note on Integrated Transport T824, RSSB Research Programme, London. December 2010

Written evidence from Christopher R Wildman (TPH 51) 1. Legislation covering Taxis and Private Hire (PH) vehicles is very out of date. The underpinning legislation is contained the Act of 1847. 2. Key areas have been covered in successive updating and, whilst this has resulted in multiple subsequent Legislation, Statutory Instruments and Court Decisions, the result is far from satisfactory. Within the circa 300 pieces of Legislation there is much that is ambiguous. This leads to a reliance on Court Cases. It may be that the time has come to sweep all away and introduce new primary legislation to regulate the two, and possibly four trades that now co-exist. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w73

3. The key areas that the 1847 Act could not have covered, nor indeed foreseen are; (a) The Internal Combustion engine. (b) The Telephone. (c) The Taxi Meter. (d) The Radio Transceiver (short Range). (e) The Datahead. (f) The Satellite Navigator. Whilst the list above is not exhaustive, it can easily be seen that an Act of Parliament, written in the age of the “Horse” and prior to “Made Up” roads becoming the norm, is simply out of touch with England and Wales in the 21st Century. 4. As well as the nuts and bolts of the trade, there has also been a major change of the demographic of the Taxi or PH user. In the 19th and 20th Centuries, until the 1970’s the Taxi and PH travelling public were most likely to be from the more affluent stratum of society. No doubt some use was made of the services by the lower orders, but this was only on a very occasional basis. In the world of today, the demographic has totally reversed. The passenger is far more likely to come from the General Population, indeed the richer members of society are now the occasional users. 5. As society has changed, either by steady evolution or by sudden change brought about by legislation, the Taxi and PH trades have evolved and when necessary changed to accommodate the situation. Whatever is done at this juncture this forward progression will not stop. 6. The primary reason for the Transport Committee requesting input is in regard to “Cross Border” hiring. I would suggest that this, whilst a problem, is far from the most important area that needs clarification and remedy. Cross Border Hiring has come about because Parliament has delegated Licensing of the two trades to Local Authorities (LA). This has had the effect of pitting area against area. If one LA allows different vehicles from the nearby neighbouring areas, and if as a result Tariffs are cheaper, or vehicles of a better quality or design are available, then cross border hiring will happen. In the free market economy, in which we rightly pride ourselves, large operators of Taxi and PH fleets will aggressively advertise. The independent operators and drivers service a relatively small client base and tend to remain within their LA areas (though obviously longer journeys are undertaken on an opportunity basis). 7. The most important reasons for legislative reform should be; (a) A national standard for Taxis (combined with requirements of the Equality Act). (b) A National standard for PH vehicles. (i) a and b should be covered by a National body, e.g. VOSA. (ii) Local Authorities must retain the responsibility for drivers’ standards (training, testing, driving and criminality checks). (c) Licensing and enforcement should remain the domain of LA’s. (d) License fees should be determined nationally. (e) Monies to enable the LA licensing function should be paid from the central fund accrued from d. above. (f) The numbers of both trades should be sensibly controlled, whilst rural areas are underprovided for with Taxi and PH services, suburban and urban areas often end up massively overprovided. (g) Whilst not subjecting the passengers to any risk, the checking of drivers for criminal histories needs to be rationalized. (h) The whole of England and Wales must be covered by all future legislation (Plymouth with the 1975 Act in force, is currently not covered by the important adjustments made to the 1976 Act). This should also include London, though perhaps instead of direct LA supervision, consideration is given to retaining the Public Carriage Office which should then assume all the functions normally delegated to LA’s. (i) Consideration must be given to increasing the weight of the “guidelines” as produced by the Department for Transport. (j) Alternate road transport, such as long distance transfer vehicles (Airport/Port transfer), legitimate long term Chauffeur contracts, novelty vehicles (stretched limos’, converted fire engines etc.), full time wedding and funeral vehicles all need a proper rationale within prospective legislation. (k) Courtesy cars—Hotels, Pubs, Clubs and Car Hire Firms amongst others are not currently properly legislated for. (l) Volunteer Hospital Patient services are not voluntary, money is paid whilst carrying passengers and even when empty—sometimes this is costing far more than a Taxi or PH. (m) Taxi and PH are used for transporting the disabled, the Aged and schoolchildren on LA contracts. Sometimes an LA will refuse to use local Taxi and PH provision because of burdens placed on conditions of license of the same LA’s licensing department. This needs to be adjusted. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w74 Transport Committee: Evidence

(n) Changes made to vehicle license conditions at the local level can and do force the early redundancy of vehicles. Properly maintained vehicles should be allowed to remain in force for longer. (o) Taxi Drivers are governed by bylaws, PH drivers by conditions. As conditions can be changed, virtually on a whim, PH drivers should be moved to governance by bylaw. (p) As “public transport”, Taxis in all areas should have free access to all transport hubs, Airports, Ports, Bus Stations and Railway Stations. Only local licensed Taxis should be able to ply for hire at these venues. 8. The imminent imposition of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAV) provision levels as a result of the Equality Act, whilst laudable, is going to cause real problems in rural areas. There is every chance that the current under provision will actually be exacerbated, it may be that the conditions imposed prevent new applications to become Taxi drivers. Why would a new entrant to the trade in these areas want a vehicle that by its very design is expensive to buy, to run and to maintain? Indeed new entrants may find the costs incurred to be so prohibitive that they do not stay in the trade at all. In fairly short order this could lead to a dearth of experience in some LA areas. On the other hand, 100% provision in suburban and urban areas is not unreasonable. The disabled in most rural areas would be able to access WAV services by telephoning the nearest “Town” operator. 9. The biggest problem caused by cross border hiring is the inability of the LA issuing licenses to properly supervise the condition of vehicles. This is compounded by the inability of the LA in which the hiring occurs to have any procedure to check “visiting” Taxi or PH vehicles or drivers. A National “Standard” is therefore required to address these issues. Perhaps the DfT should come up with regulations for the vehicles and should then be responsible for all vehicle checks, mandatory at set periods and, perhaps more importantly at random times, including “spotchecks” and these could be delegated to LA enforcement Officers. 10. The actual licensing of vehicles and drivers are a Local and not a National requirement and should definitely remain so. 11. The requirements of LA’s for vehicles vary enormously. Some require an MoT exemption certificate, some only require an MoT to license a vehicle for example. In some areas a Taxi or PH vehicle, being under three years old requires no test at all. The exemption certificate is generally a far stricter test of a vehicle, proprietors need to present a far higher quality of vehicle maintenance to achieve “fitness”. But even with this level of test, standards vary, not only between LA areas but also within the area itself at different testing stations. 12. Taxi and PH drivers also need to be regulated. It is a fact that occasionally a driver misbehaves, sometimes with violence or sexual intent. Plainly this is not acceptable and barriers to those with existing histories must be firm. Currently whilst the LA is aware of any past convictions, the Licensing Panel is able to disregard these and licence individuals if they think fit. That is not as great a concern as it may first appear, people do change and so LA Licensing Committees should retain this power. Drivers that do “misbehave” are subjected to the LAs’ “Quasi Judicial” Licensing Committee. The options open to these Councillors is very limited. They can revoke permission to drive, they may suspend, and they may refuse to renew a license. These powers can be seen as punishments, if a driver is suspended for a set period of time for example, should the public at large consider that the driver is “not fit and proper” only for that period? The powers of these committees should be considered, the suspension should be clearly seen as a punishment. Perhaps it should be considered levying a fine in preference to suspension. Monies from fines should then be used to support the regulation of the trades. In the event that further evidence came to light on an offence that reduced the severity or proved innocence, fines could be returned or reduced. The checks on histories of drivers are also a problem. Some LA licensing departments get a CRB, then a different department in the same authority may want an enhanced CRB. If this turns up something that should preclude someone from being in the trade, one department can’t inform the other. Therefore a standard level of check should cover all members of the trade, this should obviously be at the highest levels of investigation. In any case of doubt the Licensing Panel should decide if an applicant is “fit and proper”. One CRB should cover all aspects of being a Taxi driver and the ridiculous position of multiple CRB checks should be stopped. 13. Despite the move by the Office of Fair Trading to restrict the numbers of Taxis it should not be seen as necessarily detrimental to correct provision. The problems suffered in Eire are good indication of what happens when Taxi provision is no longer numerically restricted. In the urban and suburban areas, the over provision of Taxis (and PH) leads to generally lower vehicle standards. Forcing the introduction of WAV vehicles into rural areas will not greatly assist the disabled but may actually cause less general Taxi provision. Areas restricting numbers currently require a survey to be undertaken at three year intervals. This at face value is a good idea, but it would be far more sensible at five year intervals and the survey should be an integral part of the Local Transport Plan. Taxi provision must become part of the quinquennial transport review and must be properly seen as important as busses in the public transport setup. Whilst they are not “public transport”, it is equally important to include PH in these plans. This would allow proprietors to plan and finance new vehicles in a steady or at least known prospective market place. 14. In the Road Safety Act 2006 provision was made to protect the public from potentially dangerous Taxi and PH drivers. Section 52 very sensibly gave the power to LA’s to immediately suspend suspect drivers. Unfortunately the travelling public in Plymouth are uniquely not offered this protection as the Act only cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w75

amended the 1976 Miscellaneous Provisions Act, Plymouth alone has the City of Plymouth Act 1975. This anomaly should be addressed with alacrity. Abuse of the power conferred by Section 52 has occurred, this too needs to be prevented. The power must never be allowed to be used as a punishment. Further this power must be retained by the Licensing Committee and it must not be delegated to Council Officers. A right of appeal to Magistrates must be available, even if the driver remains suspended until the appeal is heard. Any new legislation must cover the entire Nation, if the Capital is to continue to be seen as a special and separate area, London legislation should closely follow the National position. 15. It is accepted that Hearses, Funeral, and Wedding Cars are different from Taxi and PH operations, whilst safety checks are required, the need to licence these vehicles is not required as long as they are not used for any other purposes. 16. Novelty vehicles, including stretched limousines, should be licensed as private hire vehicles with all that licensing entails. 17. Long distance “transfer” vehicles, often providing services to and from Ports, Airports and the like, must be licensed. 18. Currently whilst Hackney drivers find themselves governed by bylaws, PH drivers are ruled by conditions. It would be better if PH drivers too were brought under bylaws. This would give Courts the power to impose sanctions if a bylaw was broken. It would also protect PH drivers from being subjected to sudden changes of conditions. 19. In the Disabled Discrimination Act 1995, it was envisaged that all transport hubs would allow free and open access. This was never enacted and the Equality Act of 2010 does not have such a provision. As legitimate public transport, Taxis should have this free access. PH also, when booked, should be allowed to collect or deposit their customers at these venues. 20. Currently the situation exists that no LA are required to provide Hackney Ranks. In both number regulated and unregulated areas there is generally an under-provision of ranks. Consideration should be given to provision for rank space for at least 40% of the locally licensed Taxis. These ranks should be sited in positions that are amenable to the trade and the travelling public. 21. In the days of the horse, journeys were sensibly limited to 12 miles in large conurbations such as London. Smaller Cities and Towns found it more practical to limit journeys to the boundaries of the LA area. This was not a consideration for the “Cabby” but for the horse. The internal combustion engine does not require this facilitation. Requests for destinations by passengers should be entertained at meter rates of a larger maximum, even if this involves leaving the LA jurisdiction. It may however need to be charged at a slightly higher rate to cover the fact that a return journey is required before further work can be undertaken. It would not be onerous to have metered journey’s that exceed a set distance (50 Miles) to charge at a higher per mile rate thereafter. 22. Illegal plying for hire is often undertaken by private hire drivers, either by they themselves “calling in a job” or encouraging the prospective passenger to do so via mobile phone. This could be partly prevented by a strict imposition of a minimum call in period (perhaps five minutes) before the job can be undertaken. Acceptance of the job could be instantaneous to enable the PH vehicle to be dispatched to the collection point, picking up of the passenger could not take place until the booking office passes confirmation that the call in period has expired. 23. It is for LA’s to apply local tariffs but one LA area at least, Taxi Meters are not compulsory. Legislation should be considered to make meters compulsory. Consideration should be given to making these meters Calendar controlled (to facilitate bank holiday increases, night tariffs etc) and possibly in the longer term to print receipts. 24. Along with booking details, radio transmissions should be retained by PH operators to confirm bookings. Computer technology makes this possible and is not onerous or costly. 25. Along with booking details, datahead transmissions should be retained by PH operators to confirm bookings. Computer technology makes this possible and is not onerous or costly. 26. Satellite navigation is a useful tool for any Taxi or PH driver. It could also be useful for tracking the correct use of trade vehicles. Routes can now be checked by passengers or the Authorities. Satellite navigation is not however, a substitute for genuine “knowledge” and to this end a full topographical test remains a vital (if not the most vital) part of any qualification for entry to the trade. 27. As legitimate public transport, Taxi’s (and possibly PH though not public transport) should have access to all “Bus Lanes” irrespective of area. Anyone caught licensing a vehicle for strictly personal use, to gain access to bus lanes should face an immediate and mandatory driving ban. Private hire operators facilitating this abuse should be fined and operator’s licences should be revoked. 28. Police should be reminded that “Bilking” is a criminal and an arrestable offence. Perhaps this could be reinforced in any prospective legislation. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w76 Transport Committee: Evidence

29. The provision of, and the funding for, CCTV in Taxis and PH vehicles varies from one area to another. As a result of the high number of murdered Taxi and PH drivers, imposition of these systems must be considered at the National level. It should be remembered that the systems can and do protect the travelling public as well as the drivers. December 2010

Written evidence from James Button (TPH 53) I am a Solicitor specialising in Taxi Licensing, and I am the author of “Button on Taxis—Licensing Law and Practice” (3rd Edition, Bloomsbury Professional 2009). You have asked for information on issues relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, in particular, 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, and other issues relating to taxi and private hire vehicles, including matters concerning passenger safety.

Cross-border hire problems A private hire vehicle can be booked from anywhere, to pick passengers up anywhere, and drop them somewhere else. At no time does the vehicle have to be located within the district by whom it has been licensed. The journey with passengers does not have to start in, pass through or end in the licensed district. Generally, this freedom is used by operators in neighbouring districts. It enables a business with a good reputation to provide services proximate to, but outside, its own licensed district. However, there are occasions when the vehicle us used farther aﬁeld, not in neighbouring districts to its “home” (i.e. licensed) district, but where there are a number of intervening districts. It is difﬁcult to tell whether this is a problem, because the answer to that question will hinge on what is meant by “problem”. Is the local licensed trade under threat from vehicles, drivers and operators from neighbouring authorities where standards are lower, or licence fees cheaper? Or is the problem one of price for journeys and quality of service? In other words, is this a regulatory problem leading to public safety issues, or is it a competition issue which causes concern due to threats to businesses?

Other issues relating to taxi and private hire vehicles, including matters concerning passenger safety Remote pre-booked hackney carriage hirings It is clear from case law (most recently Stockton v Fidler 2010, but well established before that) that a hackney carriage can be used for pre-booked work, both within and outside the district in which it is licensed. That can be neighbouring districts, thereby enabling a driver to take a pre booked hiring as a “return” journey when the original fare has taken him out of the district, or it can be “remote” districts, some distant away form the district in which the vehicle is licensed. This can lead to signiﬁcant enforcement problems in relation to the vehicle and driver being used far away form the local authority that licences it.

Vehicle standards and fees As each local authority can set its own standards for vehicles and set its own licence fees (based on speciﬁed areas for cost recovery in sections 53 and 70 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976) there is widespread variation. With the ability for a private hire vehicle or pre-booked hackney carriage to pick up and set down remote from its district, many licensees are tempted to seek the easiest and/or cheapest district in which to be licensed. In addition, local authorities can also decide how frequently a vehicle is tested, up to a maximum of three set tests per year, although random checks are also possible under s68 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976. Again, there are wide variations in the number of tests that individual local authorities require. In relation to random tests, as there is no power for local authority ofﬁcers to stop vehicles on the highway, these are only effective if arranged in conjunction with the police and/or VOSA, thus fundamentally limiting their usefulness. Local authorities report alarmingly high numbers of failures on spot checks. In some cases over 50% of vehicle inspected have been found to be unsatisfactory, and in many cases unsafe. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w77

Sub-contracting by operators A licensed private hire operator can sub-contract to another licensed operator, but only within the same district (under the ruling in Shanks v North Tyneside) which can prevent any operator building a business beyond one district council’s boundaries.

Limited hackney carriage numbers Over 25% of local authorities limit the number of hackney carriages that they will licence, based on the “no significant unmet demand” test (s15 Transport Act 1985 applied to s37 Town Police Clauses Act 1847). This leads to a market in licences (with licences commanding premiums of over £50,000 in some cases), and prevents entry to the market for those without significant capital. The process of limitation also involves enormous amounts of local authority time (both members and officers) and increases costs to the hackney carriage trade, without any demonstrable benefit to the travelling public..

Driver standards The test for a potential driver (apart from the necessity to hold a full driving licence for a year at the date of application) is that they are a “fit and proper person” to be granted either a hackney carriage or private hire drivers licence (s51 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in respect of private hire drivers and s59 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 in respect of hackney carriage drivers). Again, this is a highly variable test, and is applied in many different ways by local authorities. This can result in a person being refused a licence by one authority, but being granted it by another. In addition, there is a wide acceptance of low to moderate levels of criminality on the part of persons considered “fit and proper” to be hackney carriage and private hire drivers, which can lead to significant risks to public safety, allied to the potential loss in confidence by the public of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles as a safe from of transport. The Department for Transport Guidance, allied to the (dormant) Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults/Independent Safeguarding Authority requirements suggest that most hackney carriage and private hire drivers should only be subjected to a Standard Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) check, whereas most local authorities feel that an enhanced CRB check is vital to maintain public safety. Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles are used by every section of society, and that includes some very vulnerable people (albeit not necessarily falling within the definitions contained in the Safeguarding Vulnerable Adults Act), including, young children, teenagers, elderly people, disabled people, people under the influence of drink, dugs or both, tourists and foreigners, all of whom place their trust in the driver.

Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles The “two tier” system of licensing in England and Wales, with hackney carriages regulated in one way and private hire vehicles regulated in another, with overlapping features but also some very important distinctions, is generally not well understood by the public. It leads to rivalry between the two trades, and potential disaster for the public who, probably unwittingly, take a non-pre-booked private hire vehicle which may well not be insured.

Conclusions 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. I trust that this is of assistance, but if I can provide the Committee with any further information, I would be delighted to do so. December 2010

Written evidence from North Tyneside Council (TPH 54) North Tyneside Council is a regulator under Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 and Town Police Clauses Act 1847 and as such it recognises the importance of public safety and effective regulation of the hackney carriage and private hire trade (the Trade). However we also recognise the importance of proportionality to allow the Trade to effectively grow and succeed as a business within the parameters that are set either nationally or locally. As a council we are acutely aware of cross border hire problems in our area and the need to balance local control against the wider geographic trading environment, as evidenced in the recent cases of Newcastle City cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w78 Transport Committee: Evidence

Council, R (on the application of) v Berwick-upon-Tweed Borough Council and Others [2008] and Stockton- On-Tees Borough Council v Fidler and Others [2010] both of which involved trading activity in the North East of England. I have been engaging with the Trade in North Tyneside recently to listen to their views including dialogue with Licensing Officers. In November, I attended the recently established North Tyneside Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Forum which is led by the Council. There, I witnessed first hand the difficulties that the Trade face, much of which can be pinpointed to the out of date legislation that exists. I would advocate bringing clarity to the legislation that regulates the hackney carriage and private hire trade by means of updating the legislation and/or introducing comprehensive national guidance. The current legislation when considered in today’s climate does not reflect modern life such as the use of mobile phones, sophisticated booking systems, and cross-border travel. However any changes should only be brought in after an appropriate consultation process and transitional arrangements.

It should be noted that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is speciﬁed in The Legislative and Regulatory Reform (Regulatory Functions) Order 2007. As a result Part 2 of the Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006 applies to taxi licensing. As Council we must therefore, quite rightly, have regard to the prescribed statutory regulatory principles by ensuring that its regulatory activities are carried out in a way which is transparent, accountable, proportionate and consistent. In addition, those regulatory activities should be targeted only at cases in which action is needed. Updating legislation and guidance would greatly assist all local authorities in meeting these statutory obligations and in doing so would secure a better regulatory environment in which the Trade can thrive and in which the safety of service users and the wider public is safeguarded. December 2010

Written evidence from Mid Sussex District Council (TPH 55)

Operators Licence Issued Outside Local Authority Borders In the Mid Sussex District Council Area we have a problem with Private Hire Vehicles and Hackney Carriages licensed by other authorities working in our district. This has arisen after a decision by a neighbouring Authority (Wealden District Council) to grant an Operators Licence to a company many miles outside of their district borders. This allows them to send vehicles licensed by other authorities to work in Mid Sussex.

Mid Sussex District Council currently licence this Private Hire Operator at a booking ofﬁce in premises in Haywards Heath. Wealden District Council has also issued an Operators Licence for these premises as a private hire booking ofﬁce.

Reigate and Banstead Council license this particular company as an operator in Horley, Surrey. Horley is within the Reigate and Banstead District.

In addition to this they also have at the same premises, an Operators Licence from Wealden District Council. The borders of Wealden DC are two authorities away from Horley.

No application has been made to Mid Sussex District Council for an Operators Licence in Horley. We have indicated that we would not be prepared, under the current legislation, to issue such a licence. Despite threats of a judicial review if we made this decision, no application has been forthcoming.

How the System Works The booking system operated by this company is semi automated via a computer system and the telephone. When the phone rings it will ring in both offices (Haywards Heath and Horley) When the phone is answered, depending on which office answers the call the system will only allow vehicles licensed by that office to service the call. We have seen this system in action and are confident that is being used within the terms of the current legislation.

Driver Licensing Mid Sussex District Council have different controls and conditions from our neighbouring authorities with regard to driver and vehicle licensing. In addition to the statutory requirements, we insist on the following: — Successful completion of a topographical knowledge test. — A DSA Driving Assessment. — Fitness testing for vehicles (up to twice a year depending on the age of the vehicle).

The two authorities mentioned above do not impose the extra conditions listed as a requirement for their drivers. Unsurprisingly, many drivers chose to licence at these authorities and then spend their entire working day in the Mid Sussex Area taking valid calls from the operator at Horley. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w79

Identifying Problems 1. The presence of so many out of district vehicles routinely working in another authorities area is understandably causing discontent within the our drivers. Mid Sussex District Council are in constant contact with the local driver’s associations. We are also engaged with Wealden DC in particular about their licensing decisions. We do acknowledge however that the current managers are not responsible for historic decision- making and in all honesty recognise that their decisions are unlikely to be reversed. 2. We have no jurisdiction over the licensed vehicles from another authority. Problems that are identified to us are notified to the home licensing area for action. We are not aware of any routine enforcement action by other authorities in our district. 3. Inspection and enforcement issues should not be a problem for a licensing authority. There is an expectation that their vehicles are working the home licensing area as a matter of course. 4. In the scenario pertaining to Mid Sussex, this is simply not the case. We are overrun with vehicles operating routinely outside their home licensing area, in the full knowledge that an operator legitimately supplies work. This operator has a licence from a local authority that is granted to premises many miles outside that authority’s borders. 5. The difference is of course that Mid Sussex District Council licensed vehicles are subjected to more stringent tests than our neighbouring council’s impose. These tests are the will of the Council’s elected members who wish to provide a safe environment for the public using their licensed taxis and private hire vehicles. 6. The identification of vehicles by the public is another contentious point. Most do not know the difference between a hackney and a private hire vehicle, let alone which authority has licensed them. The preponderance of so many out of area vehicles does put the efforts of this authority to provide safe vehicles at risk. 7. We have no issues with out of area licensed drivers working in this district. It is accepted that journeys will finish outside of local authority boundaries. The point in question here is that drivers from outside authorities are taking advantage of different licensing regimes to routinely work another district. This makes a mockery of efforts by elected members and council officers to set and maintain standards for their licensed trade. 8. Mid Sussex District Council does not seek to prevent lawful trade or gainful employment by licensed taxis and private hire vehicles. We do believe that a fundamental review of current legislation relating to Taxi licensing is overdue. 9. We would like to see clarification about cross border hiring. In addition we would like to see minimum standards for licensed vehicles and drivers across all local authorities that include local knowledge, DSA driver assessments and regular vehicle fitness testing apart for the MOT test. December 2010

Written evidence from the City of London Corporation (TPH 58) This letter responds to the Committee’s call for evidence as part of the inquiry into issues surrounding the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles. As the Public Carriage Office now performs the licensing role in London, the City Corporation is not in a position to respond fully, to the Committee’s questions. Nevertheless, the following comments in the context of the night time economy may be useful to the Committee as background. The City of London has witnessed considerable growth in the night time economy with now over 400 licensed premises within the Square Mile. As the City only has a small residential population, most of the people making use of the night-time economy in the City live elsewhere and therefore require late night transport home. The City of London Corporation and City of London Police together with other partners have been working closely together to mitigate certain negative aspects of an increased night-time economy in the City area. These can arise during weekdays when office workers seek entertainment after work hours, but are increasingly also being felt on Friday and Saturday nights with the increase of promoted events in licensed premises. Where there are numerous premises with late licences, there are often large numbers of people dispersing onto the streets in the small hours. The City benefits from a variety of transport options, including overground (main line) rail services, Underground lines and bus routes. Taxis however remain a very popular method of returning home after a late night out. Recognising that using public transport at night when transport options are more limited can be intimidating for some groups of people, the Safer City Partnership—the City of London’s Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnership—launched a marshalled taxi rank at Liverpool Street Station. The scheme is operated by Taxi Marshalls, who are licensed taxi drivers supported by police officers, aid passengers to get a taxi to their destination and provide a safe waiting environment. They help to ensure that the supply of taxis meets the demand at any given time, and that taxis are allocated on a first-come-first-served basis helping to avoid cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w80 Transport Committee: Evidence

disputes in the queue. The rank operates on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday evenings from 10.00 pm to 2.00 am with additional provision in the run up to Christmas. This scheme is funded and supported by the City of London Corporation, the Safer City Partnership and Transport for London. Additional locations are considered when demand arises, although Liverpool Street has thus far proven to be the only appropriate location for a permanent site. 121,475 people have used the rank since January 2010, bringing the total number of passengers through the scheme since it started in June 2006 to 581,134. These passengers have been transported from the area in 245,286 licensed black cabs (as of 30 November 2010). The numbers of passengers being moved from the area has increased by approximately 11,000 per year for the last 3 years showing the popularity of the scheme. The City Police also participates in Operation Regina in partnership with the Police Support Group, the Roads Policing Unit, TfL and the Public Carriage Office (PCO). This operation is carried out on Thursday, Friday and Saturday nights and involves stopping minicabs and black cabs and checking drivers’ details against the Police National Computer and the Criminal Record Office. Vehicles are also checked to identify whether any offence has been committed. If any offence is disclosed the details are then handed to the PCO. The PCO have a policy of one strike and out when it comes to touting offences and approximately 20 vehicles per month are being removed from the road through this operation. Operations with PCO officers and examiners are run at least two or three times per month in the City. January 2011

Written evidence from Skippy's Taxi (TPH 59) After watching the on line TV from your meeting with the taxi and PH representatives, it occurred to me that no one mentioned that most local authorities do have the same standards for vehicles and drivers, but most of them overcharge for the same service, and impose their own rules instead of staying with the acts as they are written, that is why most owners get their licences from the cheaper councils and then work in their own area. What is required is a set price for a licence then this would stop, if for example one council charges £100 for a licence in a rural area, then that should be the price nationally, even driver’s badges are a complete rip off in some areas, the fee for these should also be set at around £50 for a three year badge. January 2011

Written evidence from the Independent Wirral Hackney Drivers Association (TPH 60) Firstly I would like to introduce myself and my position in relation to the Taxi Trade. My name is Mark McGhee, I represent the Independent Wirral Hackney Drivers Association (IWHDA) (night time representative) at the Joint Consultation Committee (JCC) at Wirral Borough Council and I also work my Hackney Carriage taxi on a Private Hire System. I have watched with great interest the committee meeting dated 18 January 2011 in relation to issues relating to the licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles there were many points from both sides of the trade which may be of benefit to your committee to consider. I would like to bring to your attention three major concerns that I believe were not covered enough and are of vital importance to the Public and the Taxi and Private Hire Trade, firstly having worked both sides of the trade I do have seventeen years of experience. Before I make the main points of concern I whole heartedly agree the way forward is to have a mandatory governing body that regulates Local Authorities throughout the Country and hope all Licensing Authorities instead of issuing a yearly Taxi Drivers License but have the license run in conjunction with the CRB check that is obtained every three years would be more cost effective on administration on Local Authorities throughout the Country. The first point I produced to the JCC at my Local Authority is my main concern, and is a real danger to the public in the night time economy of Taxi and bogus Taxi Drivers stalking and waiting for females in a vulnerable intoxicated state. On 23 March 2010 I gave the Committee a number of news paper articles which covered cases of sexual abuse by Taxi and bogus Taxi Drivers across the Merseyside and neighbouring Authorities, unfortunately it was too late because two months later two females who on separate occasions were sexually assaulted by Private Hire Drivers who where plying for hire in Birkenhead, court cases are pending as far as I am aware. Wirral Borough Council had never prosecuted any Private Hire Driver for plying for hire in the first thirteen years of my time as a Taxi Driver, and it became so rife that when Private Hire Vehicles actually started to rank up with Hackney Carriage Taxis plying for hire I felt I had to act. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w81

Complaint after complaint was sent to enforcement with time’s, locations, and vehicle details; even non- licensed taxi vehicles details were supplied and after a number of years went by Wirral Borough Council finally started to undertake covert operations with the Police to catch Vehicles plying for hire. I honestly believe that Wirral Borough Council were and still are reluctant to fund the resources into catching drivers as it eats into their budget and given the costs of taking drivers to court it’s a no win situation as far as they are concerned because I have been told that after a successful prosecution the Authority still does not recoup all of its costs. My second point is that licensing enforcement officers should be given more powers and possibly have the authority to issue fixed penalty tickets to cut down on court costs and this in my opinion would greatly cut down on vehicles plying for hire and generate funds to continue enforcing on a more regular basis during the night time economy which is very much under resourced. My third point is in relation to the increasing number of hours all Taxi drivers are working to make a basic living in the provinces which in my opinion is starting to hit a critical stage were a driver will fall asleep behind the wheel and endanger the lives of anybody in the vicinity of the vehicle. Of a weekend on the Wirral we have a number of drivers working a minimum of eighteen hours per shift and are drinking energy drinks and taking pro plus, some are even resorting to amphetamines just to stay awake behind the wheel, I believe this is common place throughout the country. I think it’s important for all agencies to work together during the night time economy when in my opinion the public are more at risk given the nature of the environment that most people are in a vulnerable state and we should have ways to communicate between each other over observations made during the night time economy so the Police may formulate action when deemed necessary and we don’t have another episode like what has just taken place in Derby where a gang of sexual predators were stalking vulnerable females. It is common place all over the country during the night time economy young males of all ethnic back grounds try to entice females to go for drive our a lift in their cars. I do hope that some of my suggestions help the committee on formulating an approach to combat the problems during the night time economy and wish you and the committee all the best in finding the right solutions. I have other views and observations on the night time economy of the taxi trade, that if required I have no objections to sharing with the committee. January 2011

Written evidence from David Horne (TPH 61) I have recently read on your website that the committee are undertaking an inquiry into the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles. I am sorry that I had not noticed this earlier and I have missed your deadline for written evidence. Nevertheless I feel it appropriate to contact you to bring your attention to a related issue, which has been reported to me. East Midlands Trains (EMT) operate train services between London St Pancras and Nottingham, Sheffield and within the East Midlands. In January 2009, we opened a new station at East Midlands Parkway station whihc had been built by Network Rail at a cost of £28 million, sponsored by the Department for Transport. The station is located three minutes drive from the M1 and five miles from East Midlands Airport (EMA). Between January 2009 and March 2010, a supported bus link operated between the station and East Midlands Airport to provide a public transport connection between the rail network and the airport. This bus link received funding support from the East Midlands councils, East Midlands Airport and East Midlands Trains. In March 2010, the councils withdrew their funding and EMA and EMT sought to put in place alternative transport arrangements using taxi providers. During this process a strange quirk of the taxi licensing regulations was uncovered. Significantly, East Midlands Parkway station is located in Rushcliffe Borough Council whilst East Midlands Airport is located in North West Leicestershire District Council. Because of this administrative boundary, we were told that it was not possible (or economic) for one taxi operator to serve both East Midlands Parkway and East Midlands Airport. As a consequence, a taxi provider based at East Midlands Parkway station cannot pick up a return fare from East Midlands Airport and vice versa (a taxi provider based at EMA cannot pick up a return fare from EMT). This seems to me to be particularly silly: — each taxi trip from the station to the airport (or vice versa) must make an empty return journey over a five mile distance; — this is increasing carbon emissions by generating wasteful, empty vehicle journeys; cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w82 Transport Committee: Evidence

— this is increasing the cost of taxi provision to public transport users, as each trip must involve an empty return trip rather than a revenue-earning one; and — this is reducing the economic viability and therefore availability of taxis to public transport users. If a passenger is waiting for a taxi, they must wait for the next one from the right district council, rather than the next one to turn up. I have been unable to verify this position (the rules on cross-boundary taxi licensing—and any solutions to this issue—appear to be difﬁcult to ﬁnd by someone such as myself who is not directly involved in the taxi industry) but if it is the case, I believe that it would make sense to review and improve the situation in the interests of making such taxi provision more viable, cheaper to users and to reduce carbon emissions generated by empty taxi journeys. January 2011

Written evidence from Allan Anslow (TPH 62) 1. Opening Statement 1.1 This document addresses the issue of cross border hiring. In particular the signiﬁcant negative impact that the dated legislation has on employment and the valuable council ofﬁcer time wasted in dealing with outdated issues that give no added protection to the public. There is also a considerable adverse impact on the environment. 1.2 It will rebut false assumptions that have already been expressed to the committee both in writing and orally. 1.3 It will give further evidence to the committee gained from a Freedom of Information request and advice from Queens Counsel. 1.4 The conclusion will suggest a licensing model similar to the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. This would allow local authorities to cater for local need and at the same time permit an open market. Cross border hiring would not exist as an issue. 1.5 I would be willing to attend to give oral evidence if the committee feels that I can assist further.

2. Rebuttal of False Assumptions 2.1 I am a retired licensing officer formerly with Wealden District Council (WDC). I currently have an active role assisting a Private Hire Operator named Road Runners that operates from a base in Horley. This is in the Reigate and Banstead Borough Council (R&B) licensing area which abutts both Sutton and Croydon in the Greater London Council (GLC) area where different legislation applies. Road Runners holds licences for these premises with both (WDC) and (R&B) councils. (R&B) has submitted written evidence labelled (TPH 43). in which reference is made to (WDC) without naming it at paragraphs 3,4,5 and 6. 2.2 Wealden District Council is also critically referred to in the written evidence of the GMB trade union labelled GMB (TPH 20) at paragraphs 5 and 6. They are further referred to as an example of bad practice, by representatives of the GMB, in the oral evidence taken on 18 January 2011, in particular to a response to question 17 by Mr Iain Stewart. 2.3 I can not speak on behalf of Wealden District Council, however, I was the lead licensing officer with that council when the decision was taken to license operators outside the council area. In coming to that decision the council first took written advice from James T.H. BUTTON BA, Solicitor, MIL, Mclarb. This written advice was consistent with his published view stated at page 450 Chapter 12.146 in his latest publication entitled Button on Taxis Licensing Law and practice, a reference work that is used widely by licensing officers nationally. Whilst this can be no more than an opinion, there being no case law, it is at least one he is prepared to publish. I am not aware of any published peer contradiction to his view which is as follows, Quote: The Act makes it clear that it “foresees operators as not only having more than one address, but also those addresses do not necessarily have to be within the area of the council. Provided that the licence accurately reflects the address outside the district”. 2.4 Whilst his view is an important indicator from a solicitor specialising in “taxi” licensing law, Wealden District Council then briefed a Queens Counsel operating from chambers specialising in licensing law. He gave the stronger advice that it would in fact not be lawful for a council to refuse to grant a private hire operator licence solely on the grounds of where the premises were situated. 2.5 These are two powerfully reasoned views and need to be considered alongside others that are held locally by either licensing officers or the legal team advising them. 2.6 In the light of this compelling advice the council continued to license operators outside of the area but also took steps to ensure that enforcement levels would remain consistently high. Visits to these operators continued to be regular. An example of good practice in the light of this advice, was set up by me with Road Runners, the company that I now support. They were at the time and continue to use the latest computerised cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w83

vehicle tracking and booking systems and allowed (WDC) unfettered access to their records via secure internet login. Full records can be checked live, at any time, including current locations, driver status, insurance, M.O.T. Etc. by any of the licensing ofﬁcers at (WDC) either from the ofﬁce or their laptops. This sensible use of modern technology was offered to and rejected by (R&B) and other local authorities relevant at that time. Other good practices were also established in relation to this and other operators outside the area.

3. Further Evidence 3.1 In my current support role, and in order to represent Road Runners against overtures by (R&B) that the company was acting illegally with regard to cross border hiring, I asked a Freedom of Information request of all (328) licensing authorities. The answers to the question established how many licensing authorities were issuing private hire operator licences to premises outside of their area and also had that been their policy for at least three years. — 328 emails were sent asking if they licensed properties outside their area. — 164 Replied that they do not licence outside of area. — 81 Replied that they do licence outside of area. — 7 Replies were vague and could not be added to either or both of the above. — 75 Failed to reply within the statutory period. — 1 email was returned as failed. 3.2 It is disappointing that so many authorities failed to respond within the legal time frame which requires a response to be prompt and in any case within twenty days. However the figures are statistically significant and can be extrapolated to suggest that one third of all authorities licence premises outside of their area. Nationally this would mean at least 100 authorities. 3.3 I set up a unique email address to deal with this enquiry and catalogued the replies within that email address. I would be willing to make the data available by giving access to this email address if the committee feel that would be helpful. I also had many telephone conversations with licensing officers nationally (not recorded) who were having similar problems with the legislation. 3.4 I arranged for the proprietor of Road Runners to brief the same Queens Counsel used by Wealden District Council at para 2.4. above and asked essentially the same question with, as expected, exactly the same response i.e. a local authority could not lawfully refuse applications solely on the issue of where the company was in fact operating. Again he gave compelling argument and added more recent case law in support of his view. I am willing to be questioned orally on this advice or indeed make it available to be read at such a hearing but do not wish for it to be publicly available in written form as it was purchased at conventional costs. Officers from Reigate and Banstead Council were made aware of the name of the barrister and his chambers together with the generality of the advice. 3.5 The situation with Reigate and Banstead Council has stabilised on this issue at great time and expense to both parties.

4. Impact on Employment, the Environment and Wasted Officer Time 4.1 Road Runners is a progressive company that utilises the latest technology and communication methods and would like to expand. In doing so it would create more jobs and of course increase revenue to the benefit of themselves and local economies. To expand into new areas is currently not viable because work could not be passed from one office to the other even if they were potentially only hundreds of yards apart. I am currently advising that they should consider premises within London so that they would fall within the scope of the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. where ,Section 5. 1. (b). brushes aside all of these cross border concerns. In principle that can not be right. 4.2 The issues highlighted in para 3. above demonstrates the inestimable time spent, both by officers of the council and businesses, in trying to adapt this dated legislation to the twenty first century. I have personal experience of the time I spent as a licensing officer on this issue, together with the time spent since retirement with officers from other licensing authorities. This is repeated in almost every one of the 300 plus authorities when they spend time supporting or defending their particular stance. In the current financial climate local authorities and businesses can not afford so much wasted time especially as it results in inconsistencies that offer no benefit to the travelling public who, in the main are unaware of these differences. It benefits no one to explore or exploit these inadequacies. 4.3 Many of the larger companies now utilise tracking technology with their fleet and will try to send the nearest appropriate vehicle to the customer. This has obvious benefits to the customer, who will get a faster response time but it also helps to reduce operating costs. This results in lower prices and reduced mileage with the consequent substantially decreased carbon footprint. Currently this often can not be done. For an example I will use the one offered in the GMB document(TPH 20) para.5. Where amongst other things false statements are made regarding standards. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w84 Transport Committee: Evidence

Road Runners holds operator licenses at Haywards Heath railway station office with both Wealden District Council and the local geographical authority Mid Sussex Council. ALL vehicles of the company are sign written, with some licensed to Mid Sussex, some to Reigate and Banstead and some to Wealden. A customer chooses to walk into the company’s Haywards Heath office because they prefer the service of the company. At the time they walk in, all Mid Sussex licensed vehicles used by the company are engaged and not free for some time. However there is a Road Runners Reigate and Banstead licensed vehicle dropping off a customer at the station and the customer can see it. That “job” can not be passed from the Haywards Heath office to the Horley office because to do so would constitute cross border hiring. The customer has to either ring the Horley office or find another provider. He or she can not ask the vehicle that has just arrived because it can not accept as to do so would be considered as plying for hire. How does that best serve the customer?

5. Conclusion 5.1 There is general agreement nationally that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is now out of touch with modern practices and communication methods. Two simple examples are the Internet and Mobile phones, neither of which existed in 1976. It would be another 11 years before Motorola launched the first mobile phone approved network and a further eight years until Microsoft introduced the first universal computer operating system. SMS or texting as it is commonly known, was launched in Finland in 1993. Even the word address has new meanings with web address and email address as two examples. The mobile phone, texts and the computer are the major communication methods in use today, not just in the UK but across the world. A booking can as easily be made from a beach in South Africa, a mountain in Nepal or the house next door, with video if desired. Much has changed since 1976 when Harold Wilson was Prime Minister and Concorde made its maiden flight. Recognition needs to be given to those changes. 5.2 Hackney carriages in general provide an essential, immediate, standard, non personal and anonymous service on a first come first served basis. I acknowledge that there has been some controversy about their use for private hire. 5.3 By contrast and by definition the use of private hire vehicles involves pre booking. This gives the operator and or driver ample time to research routes and destinations. The customer is given a quote for the journey and has the opportunity to “shop around”. A substantial amount of the work is on a repeat basis and is achieved through brand loyalty and customer satisfaction. Comprehensive customer data bases ensures a personal service from the outset. Smaller operators achieve the same objective albeit with pencil and paper. Sub contracting work has not been an issue in London. In the case of Road Runners, a company operating across more than one licensing area, the customer would actually be using the same brand service that they chose and would get the nearest available appropriate vehicle. The company already complies with all of the conditions imposed by each local authority and this could continue. 5.4 I recommend the inclusion of a subsection into the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 similar to that at Section 5(1)(b) Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. This simple short term measure could be added reasonably quickly and would regularise the position Nationally. This would save considerable council officer time and expense and at the same allow legitimate entrepreneurial opportunities to be taken that at the moment are only available in London. The environmental benefits have already been stated. The general overhaul of the legislation should continue but with the acknowledgement that this will take some considerable time, given the need to fit it into a legislative programme. February 2011

Written evidence from South Northamptonshire Council (TPH 63) Thank you for providing an opportunity for South Northamptonshire Council to respond to comments made at the above inquiry about licensed private hire vehicles in relation to cross border activities in Milton Keynes which were made during the oral evidence session. South Northamptonshire Council fully supports the inquiry and welcomes any outcome which will seek to resolve some of the issues which relate to the law surrounding the private hire/taxi trade. In general we would agree with and have experience of the majority of issues highlighted. In order to provide greater clarity on some of the comments where I feel that the text may provide a slightly misleading portrayal of the situation, I have provided some speciﬁc factual information. In addition, and to add some context, I also thought it would be useful to submit information which may contribute to the overall debate by demonstrating the local arrangements that we have put in place jointly with Milton Keynes Council to manage cross border activity. The view of South Northamptonshire Council is that current licensing law makes provision to allow its licensed private hire drivers to legally trade in Milton Keynes. South Northamptonshire Council does not condone any practice outside of the law and imposes conditions and takes appropriate action when there is sufﬁcient evidence of illegality, for example, illegally plying for hire. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w85

In fact, in recognition of cross border activity, particularly from one operator whose business is based close to the local authority boundary, South Northamptonshire Council has set in place practical working arrangements with Milton Keynes which has resulted in successful clamping down on non compliant drivers for many years. In 2005 South Northamptonshire licensing officers were authorised to carry out enforcement in Milton Keynes city centre and the officers continue to participate in joint initiatives with the police and with Milton Keynes licensing officers on a regular basis. Vehicles are checked at random with no particular emphasis on drivers, or vehicles, from either authority. For a number of years, we have jointly carried out many roadside checks and test purchases in Milton Keynes, and in 2009 and 2010, this resulted in 233 vehicles being referred for further inspection because of defects, and 13 drivers referred for prosecution for illegal plying for hire. Of the above, 65 South Northamptonshire vehicles were found to be defective and 7 of our licensed drivers were found to be illegally plying for hire. This refers to a combination of vehicles and drivers licensed by both Milton Keynes and South Northamptonshire. This demonstrates that compliance issues relate equally to both authorities regardless of the origin of the licence. In 2009 the two Councils publicly reaffirmed their joint approach by producing a report and statement clearly stating the action that will be taken where drivers operate illegally. The joint statement which was approved by each Council’s relevant committee was also sent to all South Northamptonshire licensed private hire vehicle drivers and provides a clear united stance on the action (within the constraints of the remedies available to the respective authorities) which each Council will take. One notable success of this high profile approach is that licensing officers have observed many South Northamptonshire drivers actively refusing attempts at the “test purchasers” plying for hire. I have enclosed the report and Statement for your information. Whilst this approach may not suit all local authorities who are in a similar position it at least provides an agreed and helpful benchmark in recognition of the potential problems associated with cross border trade. The following provides a more detailed response to matters raised in the session.

Standards and Conditions South Northamptonshire Council does not actively encourage drivers to licence with this authority rather than any other, nor do we believe that drivers seek a licence from this Council rather than Milton Keynes because our standards are lower or that we have deliberately set our fee at a lower amount. Over the years we have consistently taken steps to raise standards/ conditions with the sole purpose of improving public safety. If standards are compared there are aspects of our application procedure that are over and above our neighbouring authority, in particular: — All new drivers are required to pass a DSA driving test. — All drivers are required to undertake a Group II medical every three years. — An enhanced CRB is required upon application and renewal and for three year badge holders we require interim annual basic subject access disclosure. All drivers are required to have regular DVLA checks. As demonstrated by evidence submitted to the inquiry about the national picture, there are differences in the conditions imposed by both authorities but this does not mean that the standards are lower. South Northamptonshire Council welcomes the inclusion of this issue as part of the inquiry.

Enforcement By carrying out joint working initiatives and sharing intelligence we work closely with our neighbouring Councils to ensure that our licensed drivers comply with the law. Through the joint partnership we provide substantial support to our neighbouring Council at Milton Keynes from our own resources. The transcript indicates that Milton Keynes Council bears the cost of enforcement relating to vehicles which it has not licensed. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w86 Transport Committee: Evidence

During joint operations officers from both authorities carry out random checks on all vehicles regardless of their original licensing authority. This also includes vehicles who work in Milton Keynes which originate from other adjoining districts. The cost of all enforcement activity carried out by this authority’s officers in Milton Keynes is borne by South Northamptonshire. South Northamptonshire Council also realises, as is the case for all authorities, that on occasions we will have to deal with complaints relating to drivers found trading in our area who were not licensed by us. We accept that this is normal regulatory practice. Although this Council is not mentioned specifically it is implied that Milton Keynes Council takes a tougher approach than South Northamptonshire Council. Both Councils use the remedies that are statutorily available to them within the existing legal framework, and in accordance with our agreed working policy. We believe that this practice works well and have examples of where this has been successfully implemented. Only Milton Keynes Council has the power to instigate legal proceedings within its own area. If Milton Keynes Council prosecutes drivers it is not the case that we, as the licensing authority do not take action. It can be evidenced that every driver who is prosecuted by Milton Keynes Council has their licence revoked by this Council. I hope that this response provides clarity on the evidence provided during the first oral session and is a useful contribution to the ongoing inquiry. I look forward to the final outcome and would be pleased to provide any further information which would support the discussions. February 2011

Written evidence from Thames Valley Police (TPH 64) I write on behalf of the Chief Constable in connection with your letter to her of 3 February 2011 regarding the use of taxis and private hire vehicles in the context of cross-border issues affecting Milton Keynes. In formulating my reply, I have been assisted by Chief Superintendent Nichola Ross, who is the Police Commander in Milton Keynes. As you are aware, the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles comes under the jurisdiction of Milton Keynes Council. Thames Valley Police regularly assist with joint operations, but enforcement rests with the council. There have been six convictions in 2008 for offences connected to unlawful plying for hire. Of these, five defendants were from South Northamptonshire. In 2009–10 there were 33 convictions of which 19 were South Northamptonshire drivers. All of those convicted were additionally found guilty of having no insurance. Currently a further two South Northamptonshire drivers are awaiting appearances at court. Due to rising tensions within the local taxi community, a meeting with drivers was held in December between drivers, council and police. Local drivers demanded enforcement action against private hire vehicles unlawfully plying for hire, in particular in relation to South Northamptonshire registered private hire vehicles plying for hire in the Milton Keynes area. The drivers also requested funding for CCTV in their cabs to reduce assaults and offences of making off without payment. It was explained that enforcement of licensing matters sits with the respective councils but the police would assist with collation of evidence. Unfortunately, there are no public resources available to fund the driver’s request for CCTV. Tensions have continued and a further meeting took place between police and the council in relation to fulfilling their enforcement obligations. Local private hire and hackney drivers remain frustrated by South Northamptonshire private hire vehicles plying for trade in the city centre. This had led to altercations between drivers. Local drivers consider the consequences to be: out of town firms adding costs to quoted prices; parking and obstruction issues preventing emergency service access; blockages of taxi ranks; and concern for safety of pedestrians caused by the large numbers of taxis outside nightclubs. The council have been asked to increase their enforcement staffing levels at weekends and evenings to reduce these problems. Thames Valley Police remain committed to assisting with joint operations but it would be inappropriate to take on the enforcement role of the council. Officers will deal with incidents as reported and are present at key times within the Night Time Economy zones to keep the peace and enhance public safety. Recently, a joint operation has been organised between Milton Keynes Council enforcement officers, South Northamptonshire District Council, Safer MK Partnership and Thames Valley Police. The agreed joint action plan has the following objectives: to reduce tensions; to improve taxi rank infrastructure; to undertake a media campaign; to reduce crimes involving taxi drivers; and to explore taxi associations funding CCTV in their taxis. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w87

For our part we have attempted to leave the cross border licensing issues to the two authorities but continue to support them in an effort to reduce tensions and incidents. From Thames Valley Police crime ﬁgures there were 271 offences involving taxi drivers between 1 January 2010 and 30 November 2010. It is accepted that some offences may not have been reported and others may not have been directly linked to the victim or offender’s role as a driver. Of the 271 offences, 182 were where drivers were the victims including: — 14 robberies of drivers. — 14 unprovoked assaults. — 24 assaults due to fare disputes. — 130 making off without payment. In 89 cases out of 271, drivers were recorded as offenders: — 1 rape. — 4 sexual assaults. — 10 ABH—following disputes over fares generally. — 12 assaults with injury. — 50 thefts. — 6 making off without payment for fuel. I trust this information addresses your requirements and will assist the Transport Committee in its valuable work. February 2011

Written evidence from Wealden District Council (TPH 65) Thank you for giving me the opportunity to respond to the comments made by the witness from the GMB trades union. By way of background, Wealden is a large but predominantly rural district council situated in East Sussex with five main towns. It has a geographical area of 836 square kilometres (323 square miles) and a population of approximately 143,000. Currently the council licences 80 private hire operators, 242 private hire vehicles, 210 Hackney carriage vehicles and 552 private hire/hackney carriage drivers. This Council undertook a review of its procedures in 2008–09 and as part of this review, we considered carefully the lawfulness or otherwise of granting licences to private hire operators whose place of business was outside of this authority’s controlled district. This was prompted, in part, by a trend for taxi firms to amalgamate and given the flexibility provided by modern telecommunications systems, such firms can then have the appearance of having an operating presence in more than one controlled district. Our understanding is that there is no requirement for a private hire firm to have its place of business within the controlled district in respect of which it holds an operator’s licence. Our concern is that when such a firm “operates”, for the purposes of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, private hire vehicles in Wealden’s controlled district, it does so lawfully. Clearly, this Council, along with all other relevant licensing authorities, must determine applications for private hire operators licences in accordance with the provisions of the 1976 Act. Having regard to the wording of Section 55 of the 1976 Act, we were advised that the Council has no discretion to refuse a properly made application for a private hire operator’s licence provided that the applicant fulfils the “fit and proper” person test as the wording of this particular section is mandatory in nature. This being the case and where a licence is granted, we are of the view that it is for the private hire operator to satisfy themselves that they do, in fact, operate within the relevant controlled district. We do draw every successful applicant’s attention to the statutory definition of “operate” and to the fact that whilst the grant of a licence authorises the applicant to operate private hire vehicles within Wealden’s controlled district, it is an offence to operate private hire vehicles in a controlled district without having the appropriate operator’s licence. The law as it stands causes concern, not least the key issue of the very iimited enforcement powers a neighbouring authority has to control vehicles and drivers licensed in another Council’s area. It is not correct to say that there are "no controls" but certainly at present they are quite limited. We are looking at arranging a programme of joint enforcement visits and we are now talking to Mid Sussex District Council, where Haywards Heath is situated, to see whether a flexible warranting scheme might be appropriate. This would allow licensing enforcement officers to enforce vehicles and drivers from each others areas and would be similar to an arrangement which Wealden and many other local authorities have with the Health & Safety Executive to enforce the Health & Safety at Work Act. With regard to the scenario at Haywards Heath railway station, I understand that the private hire company mentioned holds a private hire operator’s licence issued by Mid-Sussex District Council, in whose controlled cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w88 Transport Committee: Evidence

district the station lies. The company also has the beneﬁt of a private hire operators licence issued by this Council. As stated above, our understanding is that there is no requirement for a private hire ﬁrm to have its place of business within the controlled district in respect of which it holds an operator’s licence. This is supported by the power to request information from applicants under 57(2)(b)(ii) of the 1976 Act as to “the address or addresses whether within the area of the Council or not from which he intends to carry on business in connection with private hire vehicles...”. (My emphasis). Again, I would say that the key issue for this authority is to ensure that when this particular company operates private hire vehicles in Wealden’s controlled district, it does so lawfully.

As has been commented elsewhere within the evidence presented to the Committee, transport hubs are serviced both by the local Hackney trade and by Private Hire vehicles. Inevitably any private hire vehicle waiting to collect a pre-booked fare will be regarded with suspicion by the Hackney trade, particularly where it is close to a taxi-rank.

It is incorrect to say that the Council have used the licensing legislation as a “cash cow to raise money”. The Council is of course well aware that the Act only entitles it to recover its reasonable costs.

To conclude, Wealden would welcome a complete review of the legislation applying to the taxi and private hire trades. The law is not joined up, it is outdated and requires clariﬁcation. The current legislation goes back to 1847 with private hire regulation developing separately and much later, some 130 years on. The law does not cater for modern business practices and modern technology, for example many ﬁrms use computerised booking systems and telecommunications to automatically divert a call to the nearest available driver.

I am advised that the system operated by the London Public Carriage Ofﬁce would merit some examination as it seems to address some of the concerns that have been aired at the Select Committee’s meeting. The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998 allows an operator licensed under section 3 of the 1998 Act to sub- contract a booking not only to another operator licensed in London—but also to any operator licensed under the1976 Act. There seems to be a discrepancy in the treatment of operators inside and outside London and something which we understand the Department of Transport intends to address when it next undertakes a review of the legislation.

I trust that this response will assist the Select Committee and look forward to seeing the outcome of their inquiry. February 2011

Written evidence from Adur and Worthing Councils (TPH 66)

I am writing to respond to the points made by the GMB Union on the local issues regarding cross-boundary operation of local taxis and private hire vehicles.

The relevant manager and ofﬁcer have examined the points made and have briefed me accordingly. Rather than reinterpret what they have said, I reproduce their comments in full below, as I fully concur with it I hope therefore it helps with your inquiry. Many authorises license operators who are based in adjacent authorities’ areas, and authorities have the right to have different standards under licensing legislation. This is not a purely Adur District Council/ Brighton and Hove City Council issue but one which will crop up across the country. The law is a grey area and some authorities (eg Worthing) choose not to license an operator from outside their boundary. Others (eg Adur, and Brighton and Hove) do. Brighton and Hove apparently license an operator in the Adur area. It would be illegal for an operator to provide Adur-licensed drivers or vehicles for journeys solely within the Brighton and Hove area and it would be the responsibility of the Licensing team there to police this. The implication is that because an operator has both Adur and Brighton and Hove drivers on his or her books, they can mix and match, which is the GMB’s concern. There are legitimate reasons why standards are different between Adur and Brighton and Hove. These are not to do with laxity on Adur’s part, as the basic issues about public safety are well covered. It may be more about the fact that they are two different taxi trades—one a large city and one a collection of small towns for whom the geographical part of the “knowledge” is clearly easier but where enforcement of eg having to have a BTec qualiﬁcation may be considered disproportionate given the nature, size and potential of the trade. It is assumed that Brighton and Hove’s Licensing Committee will resist any moves from the Brighton taxi trade for lower standards to match Adur’s but that of course is up to them. To ensure nationwide compatibility of vehicle, driver and operator licensing conditions would presumably require legislation to clarify the law to prevent inconsistent interpretation of it by individual Licensing Committees as highlighted above. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w89

I see no reason to put this before a Licensing Committee now, and as you will see from the attached notes we intend to produce a review of the joint licensing regime for Hackney Carriage and private hire over the next year, which will involve consultation with the trades. February 2011

Written evidence from Merseyside Police (TPH 67)

I write further to your letter dated 3 February 2011 and our acknowledgment on 7 February 2011.

Following further correspondence between Disclosure Analyst Dave May and Mr Mark Egan from the Transport Committee, in order to obtain the information you have requested we have made searches of police records covering the years 2007–10.

I am able to inform you that there are records of 12 instances of plying a taxi for hire without a licence in the speciﬁed time period, all of which were dealt with by way of summons. Researching the conviction status has been difﬁcult because the offence is non-recordable and as such would not be on the Police National Computer (PNC) unless attached to other recordable offences. There are two cases where it was not possible to determine whether or not the person was convicted, as there was no indication on PNC or on other crime recording systems used by the force.

A further search was conducted for all offender records in 2007–10 where the offender’s occupation is listed as Taxi Driver. A total of 374 records were found. Of this number, it appears from the crime notes that an offence was committed against an actual passenger of the taxi driver in 21 instances. There are many more records where the offence was committed whilst the taxi driver was on duty, and also many where this is unclear from the crime notes and would require detailed research on crime recording systems to ascertain the details. To determine which drivers were convicted would again require checking each individual case on another system, like PNC.

It is worthy of note that the information supplied only forms a percentage of the enforcement statistics as the majority of enforcement is undertaken by Council Enforcement Ofﬁcers. They may be able to assist you further in this regard. March 2011

Written evidence from Northumbria Police (TPH 69)

I write in response to your letter of 3 February in relation to the House of Commons Transport Select Committee inquiry relating to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles. I note in particular the issue of Berwick hackney carriages in Northumberland.

Research has been conducted into the issues you have raised and I advise as follows.

Between 1 January 2009 and 28 February 2011 there have been no arrests in the Northumbria Police area in relation to offences of plying for hire.

Enquiries have been made with Local Authorities which has revealed two Authorities have prosecuted a total of three Berwick licensed taxi drivers for plying for hire in their area. Newcastle prosecuted two drivers both of whom were convicted. Gateshead prosecuted one driver who was convicted.

I have outlined below a schedule of detected crimes where the offender has been conﬁrmed as being an on duty taxi driver. Offence Outcome

2009 Possession of offensive weapon Convicted Racial assault Convicted Racial assault Convicted Racially aggravated harassment Convicted Racially aggravated harassment alarm/distress Convicted Racially aggravated harassment alarm/distress Convicted Assault occasioning actual bodily harm Simple caution Section 5 public order Penalty notice cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Ev w90 Transport Committee: Evidence

Offence Outcome

2010 Possession of offensive weapon Convicted Theft—shoplifting Convicted Section 20 assault Simple caution Fraud false representation Simple caution Damage to motor vehicle Simple caution Possess prohibited weapon Simple caution Possess cocaine Simple caution Common assault Simple caution

There have been no reported offences committed by taxi drivers in January or February 2011. In addition to the above the following offences relate to incidents where the victim is conﬁrmed as being a passenger in a taxi and the driver the offender. 2009

Death by dangerous driving Convicted Section 47 assault Convicted Sexual assault on female over 13 Convicted Racially aggravated harassment Convicted

2010

Sexual assault on female over 13 Convicted Theft from person Convicted Theft other Convicted Affray Convicted Section 20 assault Case ongoing at court

With reference to the issue of whether current licensing arrangements protect public safety I understand that all Licensing Authorities conduct Criminal Record Bureau checks prior to issuing licences. This process should minimise the opportunity for risk persons being employed. Northumbria Police do notify the relevant Local Authority under the National Occupations Scheme when taxi drivers are arrested. I am also advised that Local Authorities are active in revoking licences when necessary. It may be that throughout the country different Authorities have their own criteria for issuing licences where the applicant has previous convictions. If this is found to be the case, it may be worthy of consideration as to whether a national standard is required. There are thousands of taxi journeys undertaken every year and the number of crimes in relation to the numbers of journeys is very low. As with all walks of life it will be virtually impossible to eliminate all risk people from gaining employment. March 2011

Written evidence from the Scottish Government (TPH 70) 1. With regard to the legislation in Scotland the relevant legislation providing for cross border hires i.e. journeys between Scotland and England or Scotland and Wales, is set out in section 16 and section 21(1), (3) and (3A) of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 (the 1982 Act).14

Taxis/Private Hire Cars Licensed in Scotland—Operation in England and Wales 2. The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (the 1976 Act) provides (amongst other things) that taxis and private hire vehicles (and their drivers) must be licensed in the area within which they are working. However, section 75 of the 1976 Act goes on to provide certain exemptions to this requirement. Section 75 of the 1976 Act, as amended by section 16 of the 1982 Act, exempts taxis and private hire vehicles and their drivers licensed in Scotland from the provisions in section 46 of the 1976 Act that make it an offence to pick up passengers in an area within which the vehicle and the driver are not licensed. 3. In effect, section 16 of the 1982 Act amends the 1976 Act to provide that taxis and private hire cars licensed in Scotland may pick up a passenger in England and Wales. However, the exemption does not allow the applicable vehicle to actually ply for trade in the area; instead there must be a booking for the hire arranged by request made in the area in which they are licensed. 14 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/45/section/16 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [O] Processed: [15-07-2011 12:03] Job: 007846 Unit: PG01

Transport Committee: Evidence Ev w91

Taxis/Private Hire Cars Licensed in E & W—Operation in Scotland 4. Section 21(1) of the 1982 Act, provides that it is an offence in Scotland to pick up passengers in an area within which the vehicle or the driver are not licensed. Similarly to that discussed in paragraph 3 above, for taxis and private hire vehicles and drivers licensed in England and Wales, section 21(3) and (3A) provide exemption from the requirement to be licensed in the area in which they are working when engaged in picking up a passenger in Scotland. 5. These exemptions apply to licences issued under section 37 of the Town Police Clauses Act 1847 (licensing of hackney carriages ie taxis); section 48 of the Local government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 (licensing of private hire vehicles); and in respect of the drivers of such vehicles sections 46 and 51 respectively of the 1847 Act. Finally section 21(3A) also provides exemption from the requirement that vehicles must be licensed in the area in which they operate in the case of vehicles and drivers licensed under the Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998. 6. These exemptions from the requirement to be licensed in the area in which they are working are subject to the same conditions as referred to in paragraph 4 above.

Offence Provisions 7. In Scotland enforcement of breaches of the legislation with regard to cross-border operation is primarily a matter for the relevant police area since breach constitutes a criminal offence under section 21(1) of the 1982 Act. As indicated in paragraph 5 it is a criminal offence in Scotland to pick up passengers in an area within which the vehicle or the driver are not licensed save in circumstances where their operation complies with the terms of the exemptions referred to at paragraphs 3 and 4.

Effectiveness of Legislation 8. Insofar as cross-border hires are concerned we have had no correspondence from local authorities, the trade or the police to suggest that the arrangements with regard to legitimate cross-border operation between Scotland and England referenced above are being abused, nor are we aware that there is any problem of interpretation of the relevant legislation. 9. Due to the absence of representations on this matter, I can advise that there are no proposals to review or revise the relevant legislation at this time. 10. I attach links to relevant legislation for ease of reference. 11. The Scottish Government are presently engaged in a widespread consultation exercise on update of guidance issued to taxi and private hire car licensing authorities in 2007. The draft consultation document does not seek to address all licensing matters pertaining to taxis and private hire cars. However, it offers best practice advice on issues which have caused concern in the past. The issue of cross-border journeys is not covered in the draft guidance as we have not been made aware of signiﬁcant difﬁculty in this regard (see paragraph 9). The consultation, however, invites respondent views as to the content of the draft guidance and whether there are other issues which they would like to see included. In the event that responses indicate concern over this aspect we will of course give consideration as to how best this might be addressed. I hope that this is helpful. April 2011

Printed in the United Kingdom by The Stationery Ofﬁce Limited 07/2011 007846 19585