FROM THE NPHTA
the process. It may even be counterproductive in that it suggests an avoidance of due diligence on their part.
It would be better to attach a condition requiring sanitisa- tion between journeys and before testing, with the tester also being required to do the same before returning the vehicle to the driver. Where due diligence is concerned, surely this would be a case of job done!
There has already been a case of a screen collapsing onto passengers due to poor installation. A screen which is easy to remove is not necessarily one which is easy to refit in a manner that makes it safe and effective in use. The very best screens out there are professionally installed but are removable when this crisis is finally over.
I’m baffled as to why there is no fear of litigation in the event of someone dying or suffering permanent damage to health as a result of contracting Covid-19 in a licensed vehi- cle without a professionally-fitted screen.
According to the ONS taxi drivers account for 4.2% of all Covid-19 deaths. This is second only to carers. A few coun- cils need to begin to accept that we are human beings too and our lives matter.
DRESS CODES
As you are aware, councils licence a number of different commercial activities including animal boarding and breeding establishments, riding establishments, regulated entertainment, food outlets, alcohol, charitable collections, gambling premises as well as the taxi/private hire trade.
Health and safety requirements notwithstanding, have you ever known of councils telling licensees what to wear - apart from taxi and private hire drivers, of course?
We are all equal but some licensed stakeholders are less equal than others... Again, licensed drivers appear to be less human...
Dress codes vary and some are more draconian than oth- ers, but do any of them meet the legal requirement of being reasonably necessary or comply with section 1.1 of the Regulators' Code 2014, which states:
1.1 Regulators should avoid imposing unnecessary regula- tory burdens through their regulatory activities and should assess whether similar social, environmental and economic outcomes could be achieved by less bur- densome means. Regulators
should choose
proportionate approaches to those they regulate, based on relevant factors including, for example, busi- ness size and capacity.
What???
The banning of caps, the wearing of shorts (even short or three-quarter-length trousers) and requiring lanyards to be
JULY 2020
plain are examples of unnecessary regulatory burdens imposed by those who don’t understand the difference between what is reasonably necessary and what is subjec- tively desirable from the perspective of septuagenarian or octogenarian councillors.
These measures are often introduced following complaints by members of the travelling public that a driver was dressed inappropriately, but they are simply not required. It’s the proverbial sledgehammer-nut interface.
Get real
Section 61 (1) (b) of the 1976 Act affords licensing author- ities the power to suspend or revoke a driver’s licence “for any other reasonable cause.”
Thus, if council officers received complaints about or saw a driver working while wearing flipflops and Speedos with an unkempt ‘bikini line’ to boot, he could be asked to go home and change into something more appropriate or face los- ing his licence.
I read and participate in discussions on social media about dress codes and what drivers should and should not wear if they are to convey an image of professionalism, but such debates completely miss the point.
It is a matter for operators and companies to make such stipulations regarding what we wear; it is a commercial and not a licensing matter.
On the abovementioned issue of caps and lanyards, I suc- cessfully appealed against such conditions imposed by Cannock Chase Council at Stafford Crown Court in 2015 - because they failed the test of being “reasonably neces- sary.”
In a subsequent meeting I also explained to officers and an elected member that the wearing of football tops while working was not a good idea and certainly did not convey a professional image. I also said that it was a matter for the driver or the operator to determine, not the council.
The ban on wearing football tops was lifted soon after.
They got the point that we are perhaps human beings after all.
A UNIFIED TRADE HAS A
POWERFUL VOICE 0161 280 2800
www.nphta.co.uk info@nphta.co.uk 43
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 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104 |
Page 105 |
Page 106 |
Page 107 |
Page 108 |
Page 109 |
Page 110 |
Page 111 |
Page 112
