|
REQUEST TO THE MINISTER FOR AN EXTENSION OF THE CONSULTATION PERIOD ON IMPROVING ACCESS TO TAXIS
INTRODUCTION
On the 11th of March 2009 an extraordinary meeting of the group known as Meeting of Minds was called to discuss the consultation document issued in February 2009. Those present included members from:-
· GMB
· NTA
· NALEO
· NPHA
· NTTG
· UNITE
· CLOTA
· Manchester TODA
· The Board (London)
The meeting was called to discuss the implications of the consultation document and with a view to go through the document in some detail, to obtain as wide a view of the issues as it was possible to do. In the event, the main problem perceived by those present was the 12-week consultation period, which was considered to be woefully short – especially in the light of the industry’s experiences over the last 14 years.
The GMB tabled a motion that a formal application was to be made to the Minister to extend the consultation period to February 2010. This was voted for unanimously by the 20-plus members present.
In order to move forward in a coordinated way, members resolved that a report should be written highlighting the difficulties that we believe exist; that in the interests of expediency, the draft document should be completed by the 13th March, reviewed over the weekend, amended as necessary on Monday 16 March and despatched to the Minister and Government departments on that date.
It was felt important that a chronological view of the situation be put forward for the Minister’s consideration; therefore we start with that overview.
HISTORY
1985
The Disabled Persons’ Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC) was set up under the Transport Act of this year - as the committee was set up, and since its inauguration, no member of our industry has ever been included.
1993
DPTAC Taxi Working Group set up including members of the trade for the first time.
Those on the group included representatives from
· LTI and Metrocab
· National Taxi Association (then NATFED)
· National Private Hire Association
· TGWU
· Scottish Taxi Federation
· Computer Cab
In addition to the trade the councils were represented by NALEO (then NATPHLEO) and Edinburgh City Council. The terms of reference of the group are attached and they show that the membership was controlled by the chair of the committee and the Chair of DPTAC.
1995
The first meeting of the year discussed the possibilities of adding a taxi section to the Disability Discrimination Bill which was currently being formulated.
The next two meetings did not take place and, at the end of the year, at the last meeting, part 5 of the DDA was introduced to the group as a fait accompli.
The Chair of the Group Bert Massey was asked by the trade members as to why there had been no consultation and why we had not even been shown a draft of the taxi section of the Bill; he answered “We have got the Bill now so you will have to live with it”.
NATFED, NPHA and the Scottish Taxi Federation felt that this response from the chair was not acceptable and we knew that the trade could not afford it so we sent questionnaires out to the trade to try and highlight their concerns (copy attached) These were submitted to the DfT (then DETR) with no reaction or response whatsoever.
The reaction of the trade was strong enough as nothing had been explained to them and as a reaction the NPHA organised a national meeting in Oxford on 4th December 1995 with the DETR so that the trade, for the first time, could ask questions and understand what was being expected of them. Note that this was three weeks after the Act had come into force.
At that meeting John Lewis of The DETR explained that the Government would go out to consultation with the trade in 1997. Obviously no consultation took place at that time.
The issue was such that in early 1996 the NPHA was able to persuade the DETR that the meeting in Oxford, although very well attended, was not exactly robust enough to reach the industry effectually and so a number of further, although smaller meetings, were arranged around the country from Cambridge to Kendal. NATFED and TGWU also held meetings nationally in an attempt to get the message across.
None of these meetings would have taken place without the trade associations’ hard work but these were meetings for the trade to allow them the opportunity to question what was going on but did not give an opportunity for the trade to have any formal input into their future.
1996 to 1998
Because of the nature of the Act the Government was compelled to undertake a Cost Compliance Investigation which was done by Philip Oxley of Cranfield University. Mr Oxley worked closely with the industry and they supplied much of the information which the report was based on, including individual drivers’ annual accounts from all over the country to support the industry’s claim that they could not afford to comply with the Act.
The Report was handed to Government in early 1998 and was immediately hidden. Even the DPTAC Taxi Working Group were not permitted to see the report or be advised as to its conclusions. The document remained hidden until 2005 when under the Freedom of Information Act the then Minister Charlotte Atkins released the report.
Obviously, as we had expected, the report highlighted huge financial problems for the trade and that not only were there many areas where affordability was impossible, but the very important warning that even if the trade were to initially spend large sums of money to comply with the Act, this investment was not sustainable.
Whilst having seen the report for the first time after seven years the trade may well have wished to respond; however, the report was immediately put on the DfT website with the annotation that the report was out of date and was therefore of no consequence as a further Cost Compliance Investigation would have to be undertaken if part 5 of the DDA was to be introduced.
2000
In 2000, with the motor manufacturers having already been removed from the Taxi Working Group, the nature of the committee was changed by the attached letter on the 11th December. From then on – Working Group members from DPTAC and “industry regulators” would meet to discuss what they wanted to do and then, and only then, would trade members be asked to comment.
The best paragraph of the letter states:-
However, DPTAC does of course recognise the trade’s legitimate right to be fully consulted on relevant issues. Ministers will want to see evidence of that in any advice provided by the group.
Obviously we have to remark that the issues about accessibility are indeed relevant but the right to full consultation, in the trade’s opinion, has not yet taken place.
2003
This was the year that everything happened to the trade without them being involved.
In 2003 the Taxi Working Group was reformed, yet again, so that no representatives of the trade were members at all and only one member of Licensing, Doug Holliday from NALEO, was left as an observer.
This was a year which made significant moves on our industry without a single advance warning or consultation.
This was the year that the then Minister, Tony McNulty, announced his “Phase 1 and 2” concept; we say concept because we only had to wait another four years before a letter did the rounds explaining that this was just a speech at the NTA annual conference, not something that the Government had actually instituted.
Whatever the reality, concept or otherwise, some councils acted and brought in 100% WAV’s in anticipation that Mr McNulty was indeed laying down a genuine start date. In those areas we are fully aware that the consultation with both the trade and the disabled public was negligible; as was accepted by the courts, and indeed is generating many more court cases that for the most part the trade can only fund with extreme difficulty if they wish to protect themselves.
In November of that same year the OFT published its report “The regulation of licensed taxi and PHV services in the UK”. The main theme of this massive document was to urge councils to deregulate, which appeared to be the DfT’s position as was imparted to many meetings of licensing officers and to councils; once again the entire trade was left scratching their heads as to why they had not been consulted.
This report and its consequences have perhaps been the single very worst thing that could have happened to the introduction of Part Five of the DDA. All over the country councils deregulated and devastated the income of the existing trade. Quite apart from any other consideration, the concept that a fresh Cost Compliance Investigation would find that the income of the trade could, 11 years later, have improved sufficiently to fund Part Five is now just wishful thinking. We need a good length of time to produce this evidence if the Government is not going to institute a fresh Cost Compliance Investigation.
Finally, In that same year DPTAC issued a publication entitled “Making private hire services more accessible to disabled people – a good practice Guide”. NPHA confirm that at no stage had they been contacted by DPTAC about the publication, nor had they been shown a draft for comment.
As yet another example of how lack of consultation can adversely affect the industry, the document mentioned contains four pages on the issue of training without mentioning the fact that, as was well known to the DfT and others, the trade had written the first ever qualification for the industry including a Disability Awareness module which was, at the exact time the booklet was published, with the QCA for Government approval but was not mentioned in the booklet.
2007
In March of 2007 The European Conference of Ministers of Transport (ECMT) and the International Road Transport Union (IRU) issued their booklet “Improving access to taxis” and suggesting that the mixed fleet concept was indeed the way to go forward.
In this report the DPTAC booklet on private hire services was praised (chapter 13). By that time over 5,000 drivers in the UK had already taken the trade written QCA government approved qualification but it was not mentioned. By the time the present consultation document the number of drivers who had taken the qualification had grown to over 12,000. Butagain, this is not mentioned in the document.
Even more amazingly in the ECMT report the DSA driving test for wheelchair accessible vehicle drivers was not mentioned at all. That Government approved test requires drivers to:-
· demonstrate their ability to securely erect the wheelchair ramps, floor ramp etc
· safely install the wheelchair in the vehicle.
· secure seat belts/safety harness and also secure any wheel belts/clamps fitted to the vehicle.
· reverse the process by taking off the belts, harnesses and clamps, taking the wheelchair out of the vehicle and putting the ramps away.
Once again it is patently clear that nobody had spoken to our industry or bothered to update themselves on the actual position.
The report was followed by Nigel Dotchin’s letter to all Chief Executives of local licensing authorities confirming that regulations had not indeed been made and suggesting that a “consultation package” was to be developed to seek views on the way forward.
Importantly, as well as including a copy of the European Ministers’ report and the mention of mixed fleets, the letter set out the following note of intent:-
“To help us develop the consultation package, we intend to set up a small informal stakeholder group, including representatives from the Institute of Licensing and the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers, as well from the taxi trade and disability groups.”
So there was some suggestion contained in this letter that perhaps we should all sit down and plan things out before going to consultation especially since the letter did acknowledge that this is a “complex matter”.
Well quite obviously we did not get to sit with anyone and have a hand in direction pointing, we were not consulted at all about consultation packages, the concept of mixed fleets seems to be regarded as not viable, and nor indeed did we get that package in summer 2008.
2009
Sixteen years since the trade first sat down with DPTAC – Fourteen years after the DDA became law we are offered the long awaited consultation and we have been granted 12 weeks to respond. 12 weeks in which we have to put together the views and thoughts of a widely diverse industry. 12 weeks in which we have to communicate with the private hire trade that they also need to respond. 12 weeks in which to ensure ourselves that the vast majority of disabled people at local levels are actually aware of this consultation.
Perhaps most importantly ONLY 12 weeks to update those in Government and DPTAC as to what 14 years of not listening to the industry has done.
Frankly, in the light of the history shown in this document, twelve weeks is an appallingly short time to consider the document, transmit its contents to the trade and other interested parties and to obtain sensible and considered responses which the Government would have to consider in a proper and non-dismissive way.
On initial examination of the document by those present at the special meeting of the Meeting of Minds group, numerous issues were raised about the document itself that we believe need some work and clarification.
Some of the issues raised are given below but in reading them we would urge that it is the time element we believe is needed to properly clarify the points raised in the document which concern us most. These include:-
ISSUES
1. There is no one definition of a disabled person. The needs of wheelchair using passengers are different from those of someone who cannot bend forward or who has low hand grip strength. The consultation itself identifies that further research is required as only anecdotal evidence indicates there may be a need for different vehicles.
2. The document suggests that 50% of vehicles would appear to be available as WAV’s over half of those in London. We find this confusing for the average reader as only 64 of the councils in England and Wales have introduced a WAV-only policy this means that 278 councils or over 75% of them have decisions to make.
3. The figure given for the total national private hire fleet [140,000] does not give the number of disability friendly vehicles. This is a serious data omission. It is also felt that in some urban and many rural areas Dial a Ride and other schemes are already doing much if not all of the WAV work and would not permit those making considerable financial investment in vehicles to recover that investment. Where are the statistics for these vehicles?
4. The report accepts that “we do not know the extent that disabled people want wheelchair accessible vehicles [WAVs]…..further work is needed on this point.” Evidence from court cases and local surveys are available but time is needed to put them in evidence; the collation of evidence could easily take months to complete.
5. “Evidence from the impact assessment”- What evidence? The statement does not appear elsewhere substantiated and the consultation does not direct respondents to any one document. Who did the impact assessment? Why was the industry not consulted? The cost figures given in the document are in the opinion of all members of the meeting unconvincing if not totally inaccurate.
6. The assumption that because case law has made it difficult to have mixed fleets that this option is untenable. Whilst difficult, amended legislation could specify a percentage of taxis having to be WAV in any area; there is indeed case law to show that mixed fleets are lawful and that local authorities can move in this direction.
7. The assumption that saloon car owners change vehicles every four years is inaccurate. Some vehicles are retained up to ten years from new. Where did these figures come from? Considering the financial situation existing at the time the consultation document was issued, should this have not been highlighted?
8. The DfT assumption that no additional enforcement costs will be incurred is flawed. As most Local Authorities are now running at maximum resource utilisation, any further duties brought on by a commencement order under Section 36 are likely to cause additional financial burden on authorities.
9. The assumed cost of an enhanced vehicle at £30,000 is believed to be low. Given development costs and the fact the currently available WAVs can be £27-35,000 now,(not £30,000) the stated figure is certain to be on the low side. This was confirmed by LTI at a NALEO meeting last month.
10. DfT could produce a range of guidance but, in the light of the resistance, the DfT should first engage in a structure of formal sub groups within short, set timescales so that both Councils and licence holders will take delivery of the resulting guidance as being fair, accurate and reasonable. This must be done only after sufficient evidence is available for the groups to consider. It was thought significant that the document asked for evidence and input on a number of points, but did not suggest what action should be taken in the event of such evidence not coming forward. There is a wealth of difference between the words “Ignore” and “Investigate.”
11. Health and Safety issues are barely touched on in the document; as examples many drivers complain of heavy passengers with electric wheelchairs that have, anecdotally, bent ramps etc or been nigh on impossible to load safely. It has not been noted in the document or in any available information source what it is intended to do be done about medical exemptions. It should be noted that amongst those councils that have introduced a WAV-only policy not one, as far we are aware, has also permitted medical exemptions for drivers in their conditions.
12. In Health and safety terms it is also significant that the important Government generated report on “The safety of Wheelchair occupants in Road Passenger vehicles” produced by the Transport Research Laboratory (TRL) appears to have been ignored in the consultation (although mentioned in the bibliography) even though that report clearly shows that fresh legislation may be essential.
13. It is to be noted that some County Councils have already forbidden the use of rear passenger WAV’s as a result of this report. It is noted that the suggested specification provided by the TRL is different from the specification contained in the consultation document. It is also noted that the specification in the ECMT report is again different. Why were the three positive suggestions not highlighted in the consultation? We say this because if there were indeed three options there might also be three price implications.
14. Also under Health and Safety considerations, the specification gives no maximum dimension or weight that a driver would be expected to load. That sort of guidance is crucial to gaining trades the acceptance, but how can such guidance be given without some serious medical investigation of the drivers’ abilities?
15. If the enhanced specification ever became available it would seem logical to only move from the interim specification to the enhanced specification once the following conditions are met:
1. When the reference term for “persons with a disability” is more clearly defined;
2. When the extent to which the “ambulatory disabled” do not want WAVs is quantified;
3. When the extent to which wheelchair users expect / require WAVs is quantified;
4. When clearly compliant vehicles are available; and
5. When the costs of these “enhanced” vehicles are a known quantity.
16. On the newly introduced attachment of the private hire industry to the consultation, will there be a separate consultation? There is some concern that responses from each side may result in a conflict of evidence rather than point to alternative ways of considering matters. For instance the hackney side of the trade already pay huge amounts for access to work from railway stations. The concept that private hire could be in the market to outbid them would be totally unacceptable but such a scenario is mentioned in this document. Would this be lawful? Detailed investigation would be essential.
17. On the private hire side and to a lesser extent on the hackney side large companies would have to take account of the Corporate Manslaughter Act before dispatching vehicles to pick up wheelchair bound passengers – a driver aged over 60 dispatched to pick up a 20 stone passenger might not fall within the “duty of care” required by the Act either in respect of the driver or the passenger. In addition has any consideration been given as to whether a local authority might be at risk under the same Act if it did not do a health check on its drivers before imposing a WAV-only condition.
18. In respect of driver age profiles what evidence is available that requirements for drivers to change to WAV’s under the consultation have been considered at all. They certainly do not appear to have been considered by the councils that have gone the WAV route; we know of one driver who committed suicide as a result of such action.
CONCLUSION
Over the last 14 years, and certainly since the passing of the DDA, a huge amount of information, experience, Court time, evidence and a massive learning curve has been ongoing throughout our industry. We have had councils that have brought in all- wheelchair accessible conditions, such as South Staffordshire and Flint, that now have virtually no hackney carriages left at all.
Numerous court cases have most importantly highlighted the insistence of disabled passengers that all-WAV fleets are not what is required. Each of the groups at the table has their own experiences to relate. Each of the groups at the table have dozens and dozens of member groups the length and breadth of the country who wish to communicate the lessons they have learned to the Government, so that a sensible and acceptable solution be found to this – to use the consultation document’s own words – “complex situation”.
We hope that this summary of the history of what has gone on will assist the Minister in reaching a conclusion. One of the issues that was noted at Wednesday’s meeting was that the Department is putting on three road shows: one that has already taken place in London and was only attended by approximately 40 people; another one is due in Bristol; and one more in Edinburgh.
We had to point out to the Government department that the vast majority of groups at the meeting in London had not been advised where or when the meetings were taking place. The London meeting was only discovered at the last minute, and three or four members from our meeting were able to attend. We have managed to arrange for some others to be at Bristol, but the whole room was amazed that, considering the huge amount of taxis and private hire firms in the Midlands and the North East and North West of England, no meeting was going to take place in those areas before the end of the consultation.
We have invited Paul Lawry to attend a Meeting of Minds to discuss these issues in Liverpool on the 25th of March; we have not as yet received any notice as to whether he will be able to attend. His only other available date was two days before the consultation period is to finish.
The meeting in Liverpool is scheduled to take place at the Unite union offices.
We are all conscious that, as the Minister receives this letter there will be only six weeks left of the consultation period, which puts the industry under some incredible pressure.
We respectfully submit that this is a clear case where an extension of the consultation period is entirely appropriate, and we look forward to hearing from the Minister at the earliest possible opportunity.
Monday 16 March 2009
_________________
Justice for the 96. It has only taken 27 years...........repeat the same lies for 27 years and the truth sounds strange to people!
|
Login
Register
FAQ
