|
This report was submitted to the Transport Select Committee on behalf of the GMB Trade Union
THE HOUSE OF COMMONS TRANSPORT SELECT COMMITTEE:
INQUIRY INTO ISSUES RELATING TO THE LICENSING OF TAXIS AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES
GMB EVIDENCE
Executive Summary
1. GMB is the UK’s third largest trade union, and as a general trade union, has over 610,000 members employed within every sector of the economy. The Union represents thousands of members who are employed as professional drivers, many of whom drive taxis and private hire vehicles.
2. GMB has a wealth of knowledge and experience of the issues related to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles, and our members within the trade have long-standing concerns, in particular, about issues related to cross-border hiring. We therefore welcome this inquiry and the opportunity it presents for the Union to submit evidence in support of our view that urgent action is needed to address the abuses of the current system, which are endemic throughout the trade.
3. The “1976 Act” makes provisions for licensed taxis, licensed private hire (PH) vehicles, licensed taxi and PH drivers, and licensed PH operators. In differing parts of England and Wales, each one of these different elements of the trade has abused the provisions in the 1976 Act by working predominantly, if not permanently, outside of their licensing district, thereby effectively circumventing both the licensing controls and the checks and balances of the locally elected licensing authorities.
4. Examples of abuse of the 1976 Act are numerous. In the main body of our submission below, GMB will outline a clear case of abuse by each section of the trade referred to in paragraph 3 above (taxi, PH vehicle, taxi and PH drivers, PH operator), and we will also give an example of a complete failure of control by a locally elected licensing authority. We also draw attention to the issue of volunteer vehicles and drivers. These examples are just the tip of the iceberg, and GMB believes that if Parliament does not take action soon to stop the damage being done to the national taxi and private hire trade, then these examples will become the norm.
5. GMB would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Committee, at the hearings which we understand will take place early in 2011. This would allow the Committee to hear detailed accounts from our representatives working within the industry of the effect of these abuses, on the integrity of the licensing system and the taxi and private hire industry, on the livelihoods of our members working within the trade, and, most importantly, on the customers who are ultimately the lifeblood of the trade.
1. Introduction
1.1 The Taxi and Private Hire Provisions, in the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act (“the 1976 Act”), allow democratically elected licensing authorities, in England and Wales (excluding London and Plymouth) to set conditions/by-laws for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) and private hire vehicles (PH), in response to the needs of their electorate and the issues which affect the areas to which they represent.
1.2 Since the introduction of the 1976 Act there have been in excess of twenty four High Court hearings in relation to the issue of Cross Border Hiring, whereby a driver, vehicle or operator has been working outside of the area to which they are licensed. In almost all of those judgements, the judges have indicated their view that the law isn’t working, and that Parliament should look again at this Act.
1.3 The 1976 Act makes provisions for licensed taxis, licensed private hire vehicles (PH), licensed taxi and PH drivers, and licensed PH operators. In differing parts of England and Wales, each one of these different elements of the trade has abused the provisions in the 1976 Act by working predominantly, if not permanently, outside of their licensing district, thereby effectively circumventing both the licensing controls and the checks and balances of the locally elected licensing authorities.
1.4 Examples of abuse of the 1976 Act are numerous. Below, GMB will outline a clear case of abuse by each section of the trade referred to in paragraph 1.3 above (taxi, PH, taxi and PH drivers, PH operator), and also an example of a complete failure of control by a locally elected licensing authority.
2. Example: Taxi
2.1 Before becoming part of the Northumberland Unitary Authority, Berwick licensing authority licensed taxis that never entered the licensing authority of Berwick. The drivers never met licensing officials, and the vehicles were never checked by any Berwick authorised testers. In short, anyone could have driven a Berwick taxi, and that taxi could have been a motorised death-trap, and nobody would have been able to do a thing about it, as some of these vehicles were permanently working hundreds of miles away from their licensing authority.
2.2 Since the Northumberland Unitary Authority came into being, nothing has changed. The recent court case involving Stockton (which at least tried to end this abuse) confirmed that there was nothing the courts could do to rectify this mess. So, we are left with a situation whereby every taxi in the country could license in Northumberland, a license easily gained by poor standards of taxis and drivers (i.e. no knowledge test, poor vehicle standards), and work wherever they so wish, in the full knowledge that nobody has any powers to check who they are, or what they are driving.
2.3 Other concerns arising out of this example are the increase in unlicensed street hirings (as the vehicle has taxi on, yet isn’t licensed in the pick-up area) and higher fares due to the drivers not having taken any local knowledge test.
3. Example: Private Hire (PH) Vehicle
3.1 We believe that our colleagues from the trade union Unite may outline in their written evidence one of the biggest examples of cross-border abuse. This is taking place on Merseyside, where thousands of PH vehicles are working predominantly outside of their licensing area.
3.2 On a slighter lesser scale (in terms of the number of PH vehicles involved), but nevertheless of significance to GMB, we would like to outline the abuse that is having a detrimental effect on our members licensed in Brighton & Hove. Elected Councillors in Brighton & Hove have always ensured their local taxi and private hire fleets were maintained to very high standards, and an equally high standard set for their licensed taxi and PH drivers.
3.3 Bordering Brighton & Hove is the licensing district of Adur, which has licensing criteria of a lower standard to that in Brighton & Hove (i.e. lower vehicle standards, easy to pass knowledge test, no DSA ‘taxi’ test, no BTec qualification). For reasons known only to themselves, Adur have given an operator’s license to an operator based in Brighton & Hove.
3.4 This operator, who also has a licensed Brighton & Hove operator’s license, can now integrate vehicles into their fleet which are licensed to a lesser standard, drivers who have no knowledge of Brighton & Hove, and/or drivers who can’t be bothered to meet the high entry criteria demanded by the local licensing authority.
3.5 This has led to a situation whereby an element of the Brighton & Hove taxi trade are now lobbying for lower vehicle and driver standards, to enable them to compete on a level playing field with Adur vehicles and drivers, when we should all be looking to improve the service and standards we offer customers, not the reverse.
3.6 Customers also lose out because they are being picked up by people who haven’t got a clue where they are going, and they are also being misled by the operator who is supplying them with an Adur vehicle and driver, when they have telephoned a Brighton & Hove based operator fully expecting a Brighton & Hove licensed vehicle and driver.
4. Example: Taxi and PH drivers
4.1 As outlined in the previous examples, drivers can license their vehicles and themselves in one licensing area, yet never set foot in it. So, any licensing criteria set down by the local licensing authority can simply be ignored.
4.2 This is bad enough, but there are a number of occasions when a driver has had his license revoked by one licensing authority only for him to be re-licensed by another area, thus allowing him, via the cross-border abuse, to go back to work from where he has just been banned from. There is nothing legally in place to stop such a driver working in the area where he has had his license revoked, and a driver banned by one authority could still legally work in that authority. This is clearly unacceptable.
4.3 A particular nasty example of this was when a Leeds licensed private hire driver had his license revoked after being caught illegally picking up customers from Leeds railway station, and playing pornographic DVDs to those customers, who happened to be licensing staff. This individual simply went to Pendle licensing authority, gained a taxi driver’s license there, and as there is nothing from stopping him from doing so, to GMB’s best knowledge he is likely to still be working in Leeds.
5. Example : PH operator
5.1 Directly outside of Haywards Heath railway station (Mid-Sussex licensing authority), right beside the taxi rank, is a licensed PH operator’s booking office using private hire vehicles licensed by Wealden licensing authority. This has led to years of conflict between taxi drivers licensed by Mid-Sussex who have a knowledge of the area, and high standards of vehicles, and private hire vehicles from Wealden who have neither.
5.2 Customers exit the station and expect a vehicle to be driven by a driver who knows where they are going, at a price set by the local licensing authority. They don’t expect, nor deserve, a driver who hasn’t a clue where they are going and one that hasn’t been checked or approved by the local council.
5.3 Our members in Haywards Heath, joined by our members in Brighton and Hove, ask why they bother meeting high standards, only for drivers and vehicles using operators licensed outside of the area, with lower standards of vehicle, taking their work. Surely we should all be aiming for high standards, not moving on a downward spiral for survival?
6. Example: Complete failure of licensing authority
6.1 There are too many examples of this to list in the space available, so we focus on one of the worst, following on from a previous example, Wealden, referred to in paragraph 5.1 above.
6.2 This particular Council has taken upon itself to become a licensing hub for much of the south of England. As a result of evidence gained from the submission of information requests, made under the Freedom of Information Act by one of our members, it transpires that Wealden has licensed in excess of thirty private hire operators in eight licensing authorities outside of their own area, and they have never been to any of the licensing premises to check the books, as they are required to under the 1976 Act.
6.3 Basically, Wealden is using their abuse of the 1976 Act as a cash cow to raise revenue, and it’s the rest of southern England that’s paying the price, and a high one at that.
7. Volunteer vehicles and drivers
7.1 There is one further type of abuse that is causing real hardship to the legitimate licensed taxi and private hire trade, and quite frankly, putting some of the most vulnerable members of the public at risk. This is the growth of Volunteer vehicles and drivers.
7.2 The Volunteer drivers and vehicle “industry” is spreading like an epidemic throughout the country, and is leading many in the legitimate trade into bankruptcy. Volunteer drivers have no checks on them, no CRB, no medical, no knowledge or driving standard checks. Their vehicles have no taxi tests, and have no standards to meet other than a one-off annual MOT.
7.3 Yet, despite these lack of controls and standards, these unlicensed volunteer vehicles and drivers are being used by councils the length and breadth of the country, because they are cheap. However, the reason they are cheap is because anyone can become a volunteer driver. Come out of prison, do a council contract! It is perverse that councils are saying to the legitimate taxi and private hire trade that they must adhere to certain standards, yet then give work to volunteers because they are cheaper than the legitimate trade.
7.4 It’s important to note that these unlicensed, unchecked, volunteer vehicles and drivers are often ferrying the most vulnerable people about. These passengers can include the elderly and infirm, children with special needs, and adults with learning difficulties. Surely councils should be looking after the most vulnerable members of the public, not scrimping on their safety?
8. Conclusion
8.1 In conclusion, GMB believes that the above examples are just the tip of a substantial iceberg, and that they point conclusively to the abject failure of certain sections of the 1976 Act. In our view, they clearly illustrate the urgent need for a ‘root and branch’ review of that Act.
8.2 GMB sincerely hopes that the Transport Select Committee will note the huge problems being faced by the licensed taxi and private hire trade. We believe that there is a pressing need to raise standards and ensure that these are consistently applied. If no serious action is taken by Parliament to address the issues which are the subject of this Inquiry, the result can only be a continuing and serious deterioration in standards. This will put the livelihoods of our members in further jeopardy, increase the risk to customers, and lead ultimately to a loss of confidence amongst the public in the taxi and private hire trade.
8.3 In our view, amendments to the 1976 Act are required which will lead to all vehicles and drivers only being able to take work within the area in which they are licensed. In the case of taxis, that means plying, and in the case of private hire that means waiting for a radio/phone booking. This wouldn’t mean that taxis and private hire vehicles couldn’t take work to destinations outside of their licensing district, just that once free of customers they should head back to their own area to continue work.
8.4 If such amendments were implemented, then we could eventually see the end of the current crazy situations whereby:
• hundreds of taxis are licensed in areas in which they never work;
• thousands of private hire vehicles license in areas with low standards, in order to compete unfairly with those in the trade who aim for high standards of customer safety and service;
• errant drivers, having been banned from working in one area by the local council, simply go elsewhere to gain a new license, and continue working as if nothing happened;
• private hire operators open booking offices outside of their licensing area, to the detriment of the local taxi and private hire trade;
• councils issue private hire operator’s licenses to applicants from outside of their own licensing area.
8.5 GMB’s view is that it’s essential for the guiding principle which was the original basis of the 1976 Act - local accountability - to be reinforced. We believe that it is not appropriate for adjoining councils, or in some cases distant councils, to decide the level of standards required for the taxi and private hire trade in another locality. It is for the locally elected councillors to set the standards, in consultation with the local taxi and private hire trade within that particular area.
8.6 To reinforce this important point, we refer the Committee to the comments made by Norman Baker MP, Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Department for Transport, in a recent speech to the National Taxi Association:
“Better taxi services can never be delivered through a one size fits all approach. Every local community is different. So if they are to be efficient and profitable then taxi services must obviously meet the specific needs of specific local communities. So what I really want to see is local regulation that allows you to flourish.”
and
“Passengers expect drivers to be able to communicate. They expect drivers to know where they are going and they expect to be safe during the journey…… it is in your interests for your licensing authority to undertake a rigorous assessment of taxi driver licence applicants. It gives passengers the confidence they need to use taxis.”
8.7 GMB would welcome the opportunity to give oral evidence to the Select Committee, at the hearings which we understand will take place early in 2011. This would allow us to elaborate upon this written evidence, which we believe would be to the benefit of this Inquiry and the Select Committee’s consideration of the issues.
Submitted by:
Mick Rix
GMB National Officer for Transport
December 2010
_________________ Mick Hildreth (07814 032002)
GMB PDB P39 Southern Region Branch Secretary
mick.hildreth@gmbtaxis.org.uk
www.gmbpdb.org.uk
|
Login
Register
FAQ
