UNITE VIEWPOINT
FIT OR PROPER AND THE ‘THRILLER IN MANILA’ WELL, SUSSEX...
Firstly ‘Happy New Year’, whatever that means these days!? I sincerely hope that 2021 will be much better for us than the years that have preceded it. Especially this past one that has seen the cab trade face so many unprecedented challenges and diffi- culties, both financially but also in the ‘conditions of work’ that the local trades in most areas have had to contend with.
As we welcome in the New Year and hopefully far better times, recent events cause me to re-examine the subject of ‘fit and proper’. Specifically I take a sideways glance at what I believe the public should expect of the people who are charged with regulating us and our activities, i.e. council officers and elected councillors.
Why am I re-examining this, you may ask?
Well my friend I’m glad that you asked; recently a full council meeting, held by a local council here in Sussex, was reported by the Brighton & Hove Argus local newspaper to have descended into what was described by local journalist Christopher Hawtree as, “
...the best brawl since Destry Rides Again, with the Mayor powerless to separate the fuming Councillors...”
From the Argus report (
shorturl.at/kEM23), the meeting became embroiled in a row about racism. Even their current Standards Chief, tweeted: “...Disgraceful behaviour at full council meeting tonight...” It ended up being abandoned.
What has this got to do with us? I hear you ask.
Well whilst I whole heartedly agree with checking and establishing the ‘fitness and propriety’ of licensees, I am extremely concerned that this appears to be a very narrow one way street!
For example, whilst it is fit and proper, pardon the pun, for licensees to be required to be ‘fit and proper’, I am very worried that in these days of increasing requirements for the cab trade to retain their ‘fit and proper’ status; the people who regulate them and are responsible for making decisions regarding public safety and an individual’s ability to feed his/her family are not regulated and perhaps infinitely more worrying, are not themselves required to be ‘fit and proper’!?
Most reasonably minded individuals reading the Argus article will be caused to question the possible ‘fit and proper’ nature of some councillors and I am sure there are numerous other examples of this up and down the nation. This is concerning, as aside from recent events and during the previous investigation of various complaints against differing councils, I have been provided with evidence of previous and alleged
54
impropriety by both serving councillors and officers – the same people who are responsible for determining the fate of trade members and establishing whether those trade members are (in their opinion) ‘fit & proper’.
Am I alone in seeing the crass hypocrisy here, of those who are ‘employed’ (I use the term loosely) to establish another’s ‘propriety’ whilst they themselves could be deemed to be not ‘fit and proper' – you really couldn’t invent this, could you?
It seems highly questionable to me that those in positions of power within Local Government and with the ability to make the “rules”; may in some cases themselves not pass the ‘fit and proper’ test that they impose upon the licence holders whom they license. We really are driving around in the cul-de-sac of madness’ here, aren’t we?
What happens for example to those councillors whose conduct ‘falls short of the standard expected in public office’? Are they required to attend a disciplinary hearing where they could lose the ability to feed themselves and their family? Are they awarded a documented number of penalty points and if they reach a predetermined amount of points, will they be required to resign? Are they subject to both an initial investi- gation of their ‘fit and proper’ status and are they required to remain so (fit and proper) at all times thereafter?
The answer to all of these questions is of course, “No”! As recent events, I suggest highlight. There’s a whole section on this within the LGA Licensing Councillors handbook. Interest- ingly there’s also a section documenting discriminatory behaviour – including racism etc...
If it isn’t bad enough, that time and again we have a group of inexperienced, unqualified, rudderless council officers and councillors in most areas wandering around in a dark room crashing into things and then not having to pay for the break- ages... it seems now that they are also not required to prove that they are indeed ‘fit &and proper’.
In short – who regulates them??? Isn’t it high time someone regulated the regulators, in order to regulate and control their conduct...? If only to avoid recurrences of the kind of behaviour recently exhibited in Sussex!
Drive carefully.
Article supplied by: Sean Ridley Secretary Unite the Union, SE Region (Cab Section)
Sean.Ridley@unitetheunion.org JANUARY 2021
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
