Standards
22. An issue we explored in some detail was the rationale for differences in licensing standards between local authorities, given suggestions that this contributed to cross-border hire problems. David Wilson called for national standards for drivers and vehicles which would “in effect, be a national licence”. He said “we have national licences for everything else. If you drive an HGV, you don’t obtain a licence from your local council. You obtain it from the DVLA and you can drive an HGV anywhere in this coun- try”. However, most witnesses preferred to retain licensing as a local function. For example, Myles Bebbington, the licensing manager for South Cambridgeshire District Council, argued that there were valid reasons for differences between vehicle licensing conditions in urban and rural areas because of the different types of driving undertaken by cars in those areas. The Minister said he did not think differences in standards between local authorities were likely to be problematic and that removing functions from local authorities “would go against the grain of the Government’s general drift”.
23. There are strong arguments in favour of national stan- dards in relation to issues which directly relate to public safety, such as the level of CRB check drivers require, the roadworthiness of vehicles and drivers whose licences have been revoked being licensed shortly afterwards by a different district. We recommend that new legislation in this area should provide for this. There are no good arguments for local varia- tions in these areas and, in our view, taxi and PHV passengers ought to be confident that wherever they travel their safety is protected to the same degree. However, some aspects of licensing, such as whether or not driv- ers should be subject to a knowledge test and what form such a test might take, are essentially local matters which depend on the nature of the dis- trict. We agree with the Minister that the licensing of taxis and PHVs should remain a local function, not least because of the likely cost and complexity of instituting a national system.
Enforcement
24. Some local authorities raised with us difficulties in enforcing standards in relation to drivers or vehicles licensed by other districts. Councillor Cec Tallack, the leader of Milton Keynes Council, said it was “inequitable” for Milton Keynes residents to pay for enforcement activity against out-of- town cars whose drivers and operators paid licensing fees to another authority. He also drew attention to difficulties caused by differing prac- tices in the licensing of drivers who had infringed the law: he argued that Milton Keynes Council took a tougher line than its neighbouring authori- ties. This was disputed by one such authority, South Northamptonshire, which also said that its officials had been carrying out enforcement activ- ity in Milton Keynes since 2005. We were also told of other arrangements whereby local authorities could engage in enforcement activity in neigh- bouring districts or in relation to out-of-town cars, such as a joint initiative involving Merseyside councils.
25. If our proposal for national standards in relation to matters directly relating to public safety is accepted, there should be no difficulty in local authorities carrying out enforcement activity against cars and drivers irre- spective of where they are licensed. Precisely how enforcement activity is organised is a matter for local authorities but we acknowledge that the cur- rent requirement for ring fencing income from licensing may constrain innovative practices, such as contributing to enforcement activity in a dif- ferent district. We recommend that any legal barriers to co-operation between local authorities and innovation in organising and funding enforcement activity in relation to taxis and PHVs should be reviewed as part of the process of legislative reform.
26. Offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire, must be dealt with in court. Prosecutions are not numerous. Liverpool City Council undertook 18 prosecutions for plying for hire by PHVs in 2009 and 40 in 2010. Northumbria Police said that it had evidence of just three such pros- ecutions in north east England during this time. Some witnesses suggested that fixed penalty notices could be used for dealing more effi- ciently with taxi and PHV offences. We are sympathetic to the argument that offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire, should be dealt with by fixed penalty notices rather than court action and we recommend that the Govern- ment should move in this direction when it comes to reform the legislation in this area. Licensing districts
27. It was suggested that one solution to cross-border hire disputes would be to license vehicles to operate over a larger geographic area. This
PAGE 76
approach has been adopted in London, where taxis and PHVs are licensed by Transport for London to operate across the entire Greater Lon- don region. Brian Whitehead of the RMT argued that this had simply moved cross-border disputes out to the borders of Greater London. Paul Brent of the National Taxi Association suggested that with larger districts taxis and PHVs would flock to the most profitable areas, such as city cen- tres, leaving other parts of the district bereft of cars.
28. Kris Beuret of NATU said “one of the problems at the moment is that so much taxi thinking is done at the district level and most transport plan- ning [is] at the next tier up. So you often find complete disregard of taxis as the essential cement... of the public transport system”. This is a sensi- ble assessment which points to the desirability of aligning licensing districts with local transport planning areas. In general terms, it might be preferable for taxis and PHVs to be licensed to operate across all of the boroughs of a conurbation rather than to be constrained by borough boundaries which are often somewhat artificial. However, in other areas the status quo may be optimal. This is properly a matter for local authori- ties and different arrangements will suit different areas. We recommend that new legislation should permit existing licensing districts to be combined where local authorities decide it is best to do so.
3 SOLVING THE CROSS-BORDER HIRE PROBLEMS
29. We have concluded that taxis and PHVs should continue to be licensed at a local level, although with national standards relating to mat- ters directly affecting public safety. In addition, local authorities should integrate planning on taxi and PHV issues—such as where to site ranks and whether or not to restrict the numbers of licences issued—into their local transport planning. In this context it is likely to be undesirable for cars or drivers licensed in one district to operate principally in another area. This could undermine local transport plans and be problematic for users if, for example, cars principally designed for rural or long-distance travel were mostly undertaking urban journeys. This is not to suggest that taxis and PHVs must stay exclusively within their licensing districts: con- sumers often request cross-border journeys and no witness suggested that they should be prohibited. However, local authorities which wish to prevent taxis and PHVs from other districts operating predominantly in their areas should have the option of doing so.
30. We recommend that it should be permissible for taxi and PHV licences to include a condition that the vehicle must principally be operated in the licensing district. A similar pro- vision should also be permitted in relation to driver licences. This would enable licensing authorities to take action against drivers or operators who principally operate out-of-town. In addition, new legis- lation should permit local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices to out-of-town drivers where there is evidence, for example, that they have worked, or sought to work, for a specified period of time in that district. Local authorities should also be enabled to prosecute operators in other dis- tricts which are routinely sending cars to work in their area.
31. Local authorities have different views on the seriousness of cross-bor- der hire issues. We expect that some will decide not to use these powers or will take a light touch approach to enforcement. In some areas, howev- er, it is clear that local authorities are strongly of the view that local control of taxis and PHVs is essential and the powers we have suggested are like- ly to be welcomed. If these powers are introduced as we suggest they should be accompanied by guidance from the Department about their use. In our view it is essential that local authorities justify their approach to the use of these controls in local transport plans, alert drivers and oper- ators in neighbouring districts to their intention to use such powers; and provide adequate warnings to drivers and operators before issuing fixed penalty notices or initiating prosecutions.
4 CONCLUSION
32. Our inquiry has demonstrated the clear need for the Government to bring taxi and PHV legislation into the twenty-first century. Without reform the legislation will continue to struggle to deal with modern developments, such as the internet and mobile telephony, leading to increasingly com- plex case law and further tensions and difficulties with cross-border hire. The principles for new legislation which we have proposed above attempt to strike a balance between protecting public safety on a consistent basis across England and Wales and the desirability of maintaining local control over taxis and PHVs, particularly given the Government’s commitment to localism. It is essential that the taxi and PHV trades are involved in dis- cussions about legal reform but, even more importantly, the Government must ensure that users are involved and that their views and concerns are
PHTM AUGUST 2011
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88
