WHAT ABOUT OUR DRIVERS’
As PHTM readers and NPHTA members will know, we have been campaigning vehemently to raise awareness, at both Government and local authority level, of the plight of licence holders in our industry.
Please see our #theforgottenindustry features in the last three issues of PHTM.
Our loudest message is: WHAT ABOUT OUR DRIVERS?
We promised to continue this fight to raise awareness of the perils of working within our industry and to help improve your safety.
This is the latest message from David Lawrie, Director, NPHTA:
So where do we begin on this topic? A difficult one. Do we start in 1976 with the introduction of the Miscellaneous Provisions Act? Do we look at each local authority’s licensing policy? Do we look at the government? Or do we focus on the coronavirus pandemic and the government’s complete disregard for our industry?
WHO IS FINALLY GOING TO STAND UP AND REALISE THAT DRIVERS’ LIVES MATTER?
The Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (LGMPA 1976) is all about driver behaviour, vehicle conditions, appearance, how and when an offence is committed, what actions licensing authorities should take against drivers, vehicles and operators etc. - nothing to actually protect drivers. Most councils have adopted this Act, with very few exceptions such as TfL, Scotland, Ireland and of course Plymouth, from whose legislation the Act cometh. They are all implementing policies and licensing
conditions accordingly which run along the same theme.
The only part that offers any form of protection is section 77 “right to appeal” and “carry on with their business”, which is in many regions cleverly avoided by licensing authorities that fail to stipulate the section under which they are suspending a driver or vehicle, thereby leaving it as an “immediate effect by assumption” suspension when in reality, in many cases the drivers could and should be able to continue to work pending appeal……but the lack of stipulation prevents this!!
WHAT ABOUT LICENSING OFFICERS’ ASSOCIATIONS?
The institute of licensing issued their version of “safe and suitability guidance” which was all about how to further restrict drivers and vehicles, introducing for example a condition of seven penalty points on the DVLA licence and you are prevented (effectively banned) from re- applying for your badge for five years, despite the DVLA themselves and the courts allowing 12 points and then only a one-year ban, which was extended or granted lenience for any other professional driver such as bus, coach or delivery driver, but no….not taxi and private hire!!! They get half the tolerance and five times the punishment!!!
THE GOVERNMENT MAYBE?
Grant Shapps on the 17th of July, once again ignoring professional advice as provided by the Task and Finish report, made his ground- breaking announcement introducing what he thought were further regulations to “protect the passengers” such as a suggested bi- annual (six monthly) DBS check increased from three-yearly….why suggested? Very simply put, most local
authorities have already implemented the update service requirement, which means many drivers are checked daily, weekly, monthly or yearly, and guess what - once signed up, drivers do not require a new DBS at all, let alone every six months!!! Unless of course they fail to make their annual payment of £13, or they commit an offence since the issue of the last DBS check. So this one did absolutely nothing but refresh his name in the public eye making it look as though he knows what he’s talking about. Reality check: anyone and everyone who actually knows anything about our industry, including regulators, read the announcement and knew instantly that he had no idea how this industry works.
FACE MASKS TO OFFER SOME PROTECTION?
We heard the announcement of mandatory face coverings for all public transport, which was then extended to all shops. Note the term “face coverings”, which was explained as “not a face mask since we need to keep the supply of those for the NHS”.
Now let me spell this one out for all to see: there were 14,700 UK-based companies who all answered the government call to action to diversify and provide surgical face masks and PPE, but instead they appointed the person who oversaw the building of an Olympic stadium to oversee the supply. He used NONE of those companies and instead went abroad for the supply, meaning that there are quite literally millions if not billions of PPE facemasks available for purchase which will categorically NOT affect NHS supplies at all since those suppliers have all been told “thanks for your offer but we are OK now.”
So if you would prefer actual protection, instead of a face covering, go for it,
68
SEPTEMBER 2020
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
