Agenda item

This report asks the Committee to endorse the response to the Law Commission’s consultation paper.

The Committee received a report of the Head of Environmental Services asking the Committee to review the draft response to the Law Commission’s initial proposals to reform taxis.

The Licensing Manager introduced the report and explained the background. The Chair added that it was a complex area and responses were difficult to frame as a decision in one area, such as whether there should be a one-tier system or a two-tier system, could affect the response to another proposal. She noted that if a one-tier system was introduced it could put private hire operators out of business.

Councillor Dhindsa highlighted that if there was a one-tier system it would cause the ranks to be overcrowded. He also noted the difference between the knowledge test requirements for Hackney Carriage and private hire drivers.

The Licensing Manager responded that he did not disagree about over-ranking and noted that under the proposals there were different requirements for drivers. The issue of rank space was not addressed in the consultation document.

Councillor Brandon referred to the suggestion in response to provisional proposal 1 that individuals could apply to establish a taxi rank. He added that he would like there to be consultation with residents and ward councillors for any such proposals. The Licensing Manager said that this could be added to the response.

In response to a question about the timescale of the review, the Licensing Manager explained that the consultation would close on 10 September. In mid-2013 the Law Commission would publish the draft bill and it would be for the government to respond and potentially take the bill through Parliament. He anticipated that any changes would not come into effect until 2015-16.

Councillor D Scudder referred to the proposed requirement for all work to be logged by the driver and noted that this would be an extra layer of bureaucracy for sole traders. Other Members concurred with this point. The Licensing Manager noted this point and said the response would be amended to reflect this concern.

In response to a request for clarification about question 4, the Licensing Manager explained that a number of vehicles such as horse-drawn hackney carriages and rickshaws did not require a driving licence. However, there were still public safety issues with these forms of transport.

The Licensing Manager advised that there was an error in the response to provisional proposal 7, the second line should read ‘the former will licence…’.

In response to a question from Councillor Aron, the Licensing Manager advised that the regulations around limousines were quite complex and the licensing depended on the number of seats. The response to the consultation was that the number of seats should not make a difference and the Licensing Authority should licence all such vehicles.

Councillor Brandon referred to provisional proposal 43; he asked how a competitive market would work when maximum fares were in place. The Licensing Manager said that this was a good question. He noted that fares would just be the maximum amount that could be charged and there could be competition up to that level. This issue could be added to the response.

Councillor Dhindsa referred to provisional proposal 41 and asked how numbers of taxis could be controlled if vehicles from other areas could operate in the Borough. The Licensing Manager explained that one proposal was for the local authorities to lose the power to set conditions on private hire licences and these would be set nationally. The response, however, would be that full enforcement powers over drivers operating in the Borough would be required. He added that the issue of fees would need to be addressed; under the current proposals drivers could be licensed in the local authority area that was cheapest and then operate elsewhere. The fees were needed to help cover the cost of enforcement.  Fees would need to be equitable either nationally or regionally to address this. Members agreed that this would need to be addressed. The Licensing Manager suggested that this could be posed as a question in the response.

Councillor Dhindsa referred to question 53 and reiterated the problem with record-keeping for Hackney Carriages. The Licensing Manager responded that one option was that the meter could keep a record of each journey.

The Committee then discussed provisional proposal 54 and agreed that local authorities should continue to be able to limit the numbers of taxis in their area. Councillor Derbyshire advised that he felt it would be difficult for a national formula to be used which took account of all the local factors which determined the level of need. He felt the judgement should be made locally. The Committee agreed this approach.

Councillor Brandon referred to question 57; he said that quotas should be avoided and there should be a demand-led evidence base to provide taxi services for the disabled. He added that he was happy with the wording.

It was noted that the responses to questions 55 and 56 would need to be changed to reflect the answer to 54.

Councillor Dhindsa said he agreed with the response to question 58.

Councillor Brandon commented that the response to question 59 seemed to contradict the response to questions 57 and 58.

The Chair expressed the Committee’s thanks to officers for their hard work in preparing the response to the consultation. It had not been an easy task.

RESOLVED –

that the draft response to the Law Commission be endorsed together with the amendments made by the Committee.