ENDATIONS: GOVERNMENT RESPONSE ✗
Govt TFG Recommendation 19 Leg.
National standards must set requirements to assist the public in distinguishing between taxis, PHVs and unlicensed vehicles. These should require drivers to have on display (e.g. a clearly visible badge or arm-band providing) relevant details to assist the passengers in identifying that they are appropriately licensed e.g. photograph of the driver and licence type i.e. immediate hire or pre-booked only. All PHVs must be required to provide information to passengers including driver photo ID and the vehicle licence number, in advance of a journey. This would enable all passengers to share information with others in advance of their journey. For passengers who cannot receive the relevant information via digital means this information should be available through other means before passengers get into the vehicle. PHTM: There was some strong reaction to the arm band concept(!) during the TFG; however, the Government is all in favour of these types of parameters if they form part of the consideration of national standards. There’s time yet, as this would require legislation to implement national standards.
TFG Recommendation 24 TFG Recommendation 8
Government should legislate to allow local licensing authorities, where a need is proven through a public interest test, to set a cap on the number of taxi and private hire vehicles they license. This can help authorities to solve challenges around congestion, air quality and parking. It can also ensure appropriate provision of taxi and private hire services for passengers, while maintaining drivers’ working conditions. PHTM: This recommendation of limiting the number of private hire vehicle licences issued by individual licensing authorities, has been rejected by Government on the basis of the potential impact on public safety, and the possible stifling of competition. This caused a great deal of controversy during the TFG meetings; however we are in favour of the Government’s decision for the same reasons and agreed that capping numbers at this time would be “closing the stable door after the horse has bolted”.
Govt TFG Recommendation 18 Leg.
Government must establish a mandatory national database of all licensed taxi and PHV drivers, vehicles and operators, to support stronger enforcement. PHTM: Virtually everybody – Government being top of the list – is in favour of such a database. Big Brother? Maybe – but very necessary for further protection of both passengers and drivers.
Govt TFG Recommendation 5 ✗
As the law stands, plying for hire is difficult to prove and requires significant enforcement resources. Technological advancement has blurred the distinction between the two trades. Government should introduce a statutory definition of both plying for hire and pre-booked in order to maintain the two-tier system. This definition should include reviewing the use of technology and vehicle ‘clustering’ as well as ensuring taxis retain the sole right to be hailed on streets or at ranks. Government should convene a panel of regulatory experts to explore and draft the definition. PHTM: Government rejected this recommendation, on the basis that if the Law Commission couldn’t come up with such definitions, they see no way any new panel would reach a different conclusion.
Govt TFG Recommendation 6 ✗
Government should require companies that act as intermediaries between passengers and taxi drivers to meet the same licensing requirements and obligations as PHV operators, as this may provide additional safety for passengers (e.g. though greater traceability). PHTM: Government rejected this one, on the basis that “the Law Commission also considered this and concluded that intermediaries working solely with licensed taxis should not require licensing.”
✗
As Government and local authorities would benefit from a reduction in crime in licensed vehicles, both should consider ways in which the costs to small businesses of installing CCTV can be mitigated. PHTM: Government rejected any offer of national subsidies for CCTV equipment, on the basis that it costs the same as “a new set of tyres”. However, that doesn’t have to prevent licensing authorities from considering ways of sourcing local subsidies or other funding boosts.
Govt TFG Recommendation 30 ✗
Licensing authorities that have low levels of Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles (WAVs) in their taxi and PHV fleet should ascertain if there is unmet demand for these vehicles. In areas with unmet demand licensing authorities should consider how existing powers could be used to address this, including making it mandatory to have a minimum number of WAVs in their fleet. As a matter of urgency the Government’s Best Practice Guidance should be revised to make appropriate recommendations to support this objective. PHTM: Great emphasis has been placed on disability issues: disablility awareness training; concessions to WAV owners to mitigate their expenses; stronger action against those who commit access refusals; the setting up of “designated lists” of WAVs under s.167 Equality Act 2010. The Government responded by acknowledging the practical difficulties licensing authorities would encounter by setting a specific number, or percentage, of WAVs amongst both their taxi and PHV fleet. However, Government also “acknowledged that an entirely WAV fleet may not be beneficial to disabled passengers, most of whom are not wheelchair users.” (Are you listening, Cheltenham??) So the mandating of an all-WAV fleet is deemed to be overkill and would never be sanctioned nationally, nor is it recommended locally. PHTMfeels strongly that the requirements of the wheelchair-bound disabled passengers in the individual marketplace should determine the number of WAVs available.
FACTS NOT FICTION MARCH 2019 51
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
