OPINION CONTINUED FROM PAGE 9


Recommendation 5: We recommend that the Government provide clearer guidance to local authorities on how taxis and PHVs should be included in local transport plans. (Paragraph 21)


DfT response: Under the Government's commitment to localism, the Department for Transport will not intervene in the way local authorities review their progress against LTPs or require reports or reviews. While local authorities had a statutory duty to produce LTPs by April 2011 it will be for them to decide how to implement and use them.


Recommendation 6: There are strong arguments in favour of national standards 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safety, such as the level of CRB check drivers require, the roadworthiness of vehicles and drivers whose licences have been revoked being licensed shortly afterwards by a different district.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. (Paragraph 23)


DfT response: The Government agrees with this recommendation in princi- ple. There are certain elements of the licensing process where the public would, quite reasonably, expect there to be a degree of consistency through- out the country. We expect the details of the extent of nationally-imposed criteria to be considered in the context of the Law Commission's review.


Recommendation 7: 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. (Paragraph 23)


DfT response: Local authorities do, indeed, seem well-placed to deal with this form of transport. They have a good deal of experience and expertise in admin- istering the licensing function and a continuing role for them would obviate the need to establish a new licensing system. However, the Government does not want to pre-empt the Law Commission's fundamental review of the legislation, and would be willing to consider the case for an alternative approach.


Recommendation 8: We recommend that any legal barriers to co-opera- tion 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. (Paragraph 25)


DfT response: The Government agrees with this recommendation in principle. There would seem to be advantages in enabling local licensing authorities to collaborate over enforcement funding and activity. The Law Commission will consider enforcement strategy and activity carefully as part of their review.


Recommendation 9: 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 Government should move in this direction when it comes to reform the leg- islation in this area. (Paragraph 26)


DfT response: The Government accepts that there is merit in considering whether certain offences could be appropriately dealt with by fixed penal- ty notices. The use of fixed penalty notices is a cost-effective way of dealing with certain low-level offences of an objective nature. We will con- sider whether there is scope for making use of this form of enforcement for certain low-level taxi and PHV-related offences. The Law Commission will consider the extent to which fixed penalty notices can be incorporat- ed into a more modern regulatory system.


Recommendation 10: We recommend that new legislation should permit existing licensing districts to be combined where local authorities decide it is best to do so. (Paragraph 28)


DfT response: The Government accepts this recommendation in princi- ple. A local authority-based approach to taxi and PHV licensing has advantages in terms of enabling people who know and understand local conditions, circumstances and needs to make decisions. Those same local authorities will also know best when it is desirable or appropriate to combine licensing areas in order that they secure the economies of scale associated with such a policy and that passengers get a more efficient service. Whilst accepting that this recommendation is attractive, the details, for example of how many licensing authorities should be allowed to combine, the extent to which taxi drivers will be compelled to accept hir- ings within a larger district and whether such a combination should be reversible, will have to be considered by the Law Commission.


PAGE 48


SOLVING THE CROSS-BORDER HIRE PROBLEMS


Recommendation 11: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 provision should also be per- mitted in relation to driver licences. (Paragraph 30)


DfT response: The Government understands the concerns that some have about the present position but is not convinced that this recommendation (which it understands to relate solely to pre-booked hirings, rather than immediate hirings at ranks or by being hailed in the street) is a suitable way of dealing with the cross border issues considered by the Committee.


Such a restriction would work against those operators who were located at the edge of a local authority's area and it would work against those operators who were dedicated to long-distance trips eg airport runs where a large proportion of the distance travelled would be beyond the local authority's border. Operators would end up sending for an out-of- district hiring not the nearest driver, but a driver who had not yet reached his limit on out-of-district journeys - and this would increase dead mileage, with adverse environmental implications. In short, it does not sit neatly with a deregulatory approach to reforming taxi and PHV legislation.


Moreover, a restriction of this nature could confuse and unfairly penalise passengers who would be unable to use the operator of their choice.


On a practical level, it would involve local authorities establishing a whole new tier of enforcement activity - at some cost, which might be added to the licence fee - in order to determine which vehicle owners and which drivers had exceeded their quota of out-of-district hirings.


The Government recognises that the Committee's underlying concern is to avoid the situation where taxi drivers are licensed in the north of the country and then locating themselves in the south of the country in order to undertake pre-booked hirings. The Government would note that there are alternative approaches to that proposed by the Transport Committee, for example, oblig- ing licensed operators to use only vehicles (whether taxi or private hire) licensed by the same local authority as granted their operator licence.


The Government, in proposing this possible alternative approach, is not intending to fetter the Law Commission's discretion in undertaking a com- prehensive review of the legislation, it is simply demonstrating that there are various potential means of addressing this particular issue.


The Law Commission will, as part of its review, consider the wider picture including why this is actually happening and propose a way forward in that context.


Recommendation 12: In addition, new legislation 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 districts which are routinely send- ing cars to work in their area. (Paragraph 30)


DfT response: The Government does not agree with this recommenda- tion. For the reasons set out in response to recommendation 11, the Government does not consider that directly restricting the area in which a taxi or PHV driver can pick up passengers by means of a condition attached to his licence is a sensible way of proceeding against the back- ground of a review which has a deregulatory objective at its heart.


The Government believes that fixed penalty notices are best deployed for offences which are objective and where the scope for dispute is minimal (for example a driver either was, or was not, wearing his badge). The ques- tion of how many out-of-district journeys a driver might have undertaken as a proportion of his overall total number of journeys would be far from straightforward to determine at any time, and particularly not "on-the-spot".


Recommendation 13: In our view it is essential that local authorities justi- fy their approach to the use of these controls in local transport plans, alert drivers and operators 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. (Paragraph 31)


DfT response: The Government does not agree with this specific recom- mendation as it is not convinced that directly restricting the area in which a driver can accept a pre-booked hiring is a desirable way forward.


Conclusion


Recommendation 14:We call on the Government to set out its policy pro- posals before the end of the year, with a view to holding a consultation exercise in 2012, introducing draft legislation in 2013-14 and taking an Act or legislative reform order through Parliament before the next general election. (Paragraph 33)


DfT response: The Government has asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive review of taxi and PHV licensing and they have agreed to include it in their Eleventh Programme of Law Reform starting in July 2011. The Law Commission's timetable involves them undertaking a consultation exercise in 2012. The Government's plans for introducing draft legislation arising from the Law Commission's review are still subject to consideration.


PHTM NOVEMBER 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