|
Former Council leader Donald Anderson professes to know little about the taxi issues we have raised.
He has been singularly critical of me. Here is our response to him which explains the background to the way the trade is organised in Edinburgh. And the way it was organised during "his watch". Organised by "his" officials. Permitted through "his" acquiescence.
7th November 2006
Dear Councillor Anderson
Thank you for your letter of 26th September and the copy of the letter from Mr Facenna. This raises a number of issues.
You cite two instances of “abuse” which you purport I levelled at you, namely the illustration in FairerView I and my references to your handling of the case of Daniel Wencker and Cllr Milligan’s extraordinary defence of him before the Licensing Board.
The Illustration
First, in the case of the illustration, I find it remarkable that you have taken such a deep offence to it, particularly when it was not directed at you, but to two colleague councillors whom we were taking to task for the disgraceful way they conducted themselves in the Regulatory Committee (RC).
The background to this, as I’d hope you will remember, concerns the shenanigans surrounding the introduction of the Telford College course modules, for which I will remind you there is no provision within the terms of the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982. In short, the council used a tenuous interpretation of the legislation to impose these modules.
It is well documented that there was resistence to these modules because of their poor choice of subject, appallingly poor quality of delivery and lack of any summative, transferrable qualification achievable. So much so that the representative from Comcabs tabled a request to conduct further evaluation of them prior to implementation. It is documented that Phil Attridge (convenor), Mark Greenhalgh (whom the RC allowed to instal his advertising screens in taxis without any proper Heath and Safety checks (why?)) and Andrew Young (Telford College) went into a private huddle, after which it was intimated that the request would be noted, but denied).
I contend, perfectly reasonably, that the appalling training modules were foisted on our trade, without the fullest and proper consideration, because this triumvirate had personal vested interests concerning them and they had control of the Taxi Liaison Group to enact their ambitions.
This was why Phil Attrridge and Trevor Davies (for his appalling comments withing the Regulatory Committee) were the subject of the jocular illustration, which being published on page three of the magazine, parodied a typical page three in the tabloid press.
Now, it occurs to me that you may not have seen the joke, may even have taken umbrage at its perhaps insensitivity, but it is surprising that you were not able to put it to one side. Had you been able to do so in our meeting those years ago, perhaps the whole conduct of the debate, and our relationship, would have been on a better, more professional level. However, you were clearly more interested in scoring petty points, no doubt influenced by Jim Inch (who you may remember intimated that he had warned you not to have the meeting, clearly engaging in it with prejudice from the outset, which you were apparently politically blind to), than entering into meaningful discussion.
While the illustration was not aimed at you personally, you should have sought to understand the reason for it, listened to the complaints surrounding it, and taken steps, as council leader, to ensure the equanimity within the taxi regulation process which is soerly missing. This is my criticism of your leadership. You didn’t really have your finger on the pulse. You were oblivious to the skullduggery being perpetrated in the council’s name outwith your earshot and line of vision.
Incidentally, our concerns with the Regulatory body remain manifestly justified. While you failed to recognise the difficulty with the TLG, because it was fundamentally flawed and merely reflecting the interest of a few vested interests, rather than seize the opportunity to bring it into line with democratic processes and hold those to account for abusing it, you allowed council officials to create the Jim Inch inspired “son of TLG” in the shape of the Hire Car Licensing Consultation Group, and you arranged for those who had abused their position to be promoted, Attridge to the Licensing Board (more of later) and Davies to Planning.
So, nothing has changed. The HCLCG continues to reflect the interests of the vested few and the administration of it is woeful (a “representative” of an organisation was allowed to attend when no organisation existed and the council was made aware of this) and wholly undemocratic. And, once again, with the announcement that the Convenor, Jack O’Donnell (appointed by you Cllr Anderson), has interest in Private Hire, we continue to have a situation where the Regulatory Committee is controlled by interests diametrically opposed to the interests of those who work in the taxi trade – no surprise therefore that PH has expanded exponetially while taxi licences have been restricted.
Again, my problem with your council leadership is that you allowed such a position to exist and, when you had knowledge of it (presumably O’Donnell declared his interests in the register) you took no action to restore fairness and objectivity to the process.
I would remind you that knowledge makes you culpable and accountable.
A Tale of Two Cases
Second, the matter of my comments about Councillor Milligan. It is quite astonishing that you take umbrage at this. Particularly as I am not alone in deprecating what transpired with Cllr Milligan in that meeting of the Licensing Board, chaired by none other than Cllr Phil Attridge, the erstwhile architect of the failings of the Regulatory Committee, whom you appointed.
The circumstances are quite clear.
Milligan was supporting his friend Daniel Wencker in his bid to retain his restaurant licence. Wencker is a criminal. He was jailed for resetting alcohol stolen in East Lothian. Over many months he was paying £10 for wine and resetting it by selling same for £100 or more. Wencker is a common thief who knew precisely what he was doing. The courts recognised this and he served six months in jail. That’s correct, six months in jail. Clearly the court took an extremely dim view of his criminal activity. He is a disgrace.
The Chief Constable also took a dim view of his activities and represented the view to the Board that this criminal was not a fit and proper person to hold a Licence. The Lib Dems and Conservatives on the Board, to a “man”, voted for his licence to be revoked. Yet, Cllr Milligan, extraordinarily the Chair of the Police Board, gave testimony in support of the criminal Wencker and exhorted his majority Labour colleagues on the Board to grant the licence.
Councillor David Guest said the board should suspend the licence and would lose credibility in future if it did not. Yet, the Licensing Board granted the criminal his licence, the power of the Labour cabal too strong for the democratic process to resist.
But, the fault is really yours Cllr Anderson. As council leader, it was incumbent on you to right this wrong. There are no circumstances where a criminal like Wencker, having premeditated his nefarious activities, should have been allowed to retain his licence. I have no doubt that you would have had prior knowledge of how this vote would go. I also have no doubt that knowing Milligan was going to speak on the criminal’s behalf, you would have known what he was going to say. As council leader, it was incumbent on you to uphold public decency and intervene to prevent this embarrassing episode.
Given your claim that my comments to you on this matter were “abusive” and “unsubstantiated”, I invite you to comment on this directly and tell me where this is so. Of course, this matter has not been forgotten and can be raised during the forthcoming elections. Wouldn’t it be extraordinary for the electorate, reminded of this episode, to support Milligan for his involvement in this affair. And, your inability, or unwillingness, to intervene will no doubt also be a matter for your electorate when deciding upon your fitness to represent them in Holyrood.
However, the most galling aspect of the Milligan/Wencker disgrace is the parallel case of Garry Thomson, the cabbie who was fined the minimum £150 for a “heat of the moment” incident with another taxi driver, who spat on him because he protested at being undercut for a fare.
Thomson was dealt with by the court, fined a minimum £150, then dragged before the Regulatory Committee who, presumably because he didn’t have a former Lord Provost to support him, suspended him for a month from driving and forced him to take two modules at Telford College.
This despite the facts that this was the first occasion Mr Thomson had transgressed. His record was clear with over 15 years service, during which time he had engaged 150,000 fares and carried over 300,000 passengers. This good record was highlighted during the RC meeting, yet conveniently ignored by it.
(Note: - The use of suspension in this way is NOT proscribed in Law. The Act provides for suspension pending enquiry as to whether an individual is a “fit and proper person” to hold a licence. An individual can only be either “fit” or “unfit”, there is no provision for a middle ground. So, this begs the question how someone can become “fit and proper” after the period of “suspension”? Of course they can’t, which is why the council’s conduct contravenes the Law. There is also no provision in the Act for a table of punishments for varying circumstances, because the Act allows only for punishment by withdrawal of a licence.
There also no provision for the use of training modules as a punishment. Once again, this is based on the tenuous interpretation of the Act by the council and which would require prohibitively expensive legal process to adjudicate. It is also clear that suspensions are kept to a minimum period to render it financially unviable to take the protest before the Courts.
In short, councils play fast and loose with the terms of the Act in this matter. This was the view of the Sheriff in Dumfries who described the use of suspensions in this way “illogical”, which will be cited when we finally take this matter to court. This course of action is now easily affordable because of our growing confidence in being able to present the matter to a Sheriff without expensive legal representation.)
This unwarranted action by the RC placed Mr Thomson in severe financial difficulty. Loss of earnings amounted to £2000, the owner he drove for lost £1000 in lost rental and the cost of the two modules penalised him by a further £118. In total an effective additional punishment, an extra “fine” of £3118.
I well recall your email to me of 25/08 2005, in which you stated “With regard to the case that you highlight which was considered by the Council’s regulatory Committee, that of taxi driver Garry Thomson, a ban of one month for an assault does not, on the face of it, seem unreasonable to me.”
I would now formally request that you explain to me where the Act allows councillors to “ban” a taxi driver? Where does the word “ban” appear in the Act. I look forward to your direct response to this.
(I would also be interested for you to tell me how it is that John Prescott can punch a member of the public in self defence and receive no criminal conviction, while a taxi driver who equally spontaneously responds to being spat at by another cabbie is fined £150 by the courts, then “fined” another £3,118 by the tenuously empowered RC?)
Meanwhile, you find it acceptable to allow licence retention by a restaurant owning criminal who spent six months in jail for a premeditated crime, while you agree with £3118 of extra fines for a taxi driving worker who became embroiled in a “heat of the moment” spat. Is this correct? Is this what you will defending with your electorate?
So, I would now like you to detail specifically how my allegations are not substantiated, and if you still believe them to be so, why you have not pursued the matter through due legal process? I think we both know full well that there are no grounds for this, and the electorate will be able to decide.
Taxi Issues
I am grateful that you have “requested” information from your colleagues about taxi issues. However, it is disappointing that you failed to address the matter while you were council leader.
Nevertheless, while you are considering the information requested perhaps you would care to consider it in the following light:-
There is a shortage of taxis in Edinburgh. This leads to:
High plate “values”
Plates now “selling” for £50,000 to £58,000 although not permitted in Law.
Plate restriction limits availability of taxis
This forces drivers to pay higher rentals.
Customers forced to pay higher tariff than necessary.
Encourages the growth of the less regulated PH
(PH readily open to infiltration by criminal elements)
Customer difficulty getting a taxi at peak weekend periods.
Encourages street disorder.
Encourages problems at taxi ranks.
Greater danger for those who walk home.
Encourages the use of unlicensed vehicles.
Endangers public safety.
High rentals
Rentals currently £300 plus per week and rising.
Forces drivers to work longer to meet income needs.
Restricts employment opportunity.
Endangers public safety.
Despite the above, private hire has increased three fold over the last four years or so. This proves that demand for taxi services has increased while the taxi fleet has been artificially restricted to maintain high plate “values” in the interest of vested interest owners.
This is patently a nonsense, a fact attested to in the report by the OFT, a report which could not have failed to attract your attention as council leader.
Neither did it in Aberdeen, who have now de-restricted numbers, depending instead on quality controls to maintain the proper balance in the taxi trade.
Indeed, this is precisely the situation which prevails in the London model. And, it is this model which I am working to achieve here in Edinburgh – nothing more, nothing less.
The London model resolves all the above issues. It allows those who are qualified to operate as a taxi driver, the right to do so in their own vehicle. It is certain that the economics of the trade, particularly in the first instance, would encourage drivers in the newly expanded fleet to work at the peak periods meeting the needs of customers to provide the service. Streets would be cleared quicker, satisfying the needs of the police and enhancing public safety.
Drivers would be able to work the peak periods, the times when there is greatest tariff reward. The time off they would enjoy would be at quieter times, bringing a market responsive equilibrium to the quieter week nights.
The downside to the London Model for the status quo interests running our trade, is that plate “values” would disappear. However, as there is no legal basis for these, they really should not even enter into the equation.
There is also the fact that, because of greater competition, owners who wish to hire out their vehicle to drivers will need to do so at a sustainable level. Reasonable owners will be successful, the greedy ones will fail. This is simple market forces, which every piece of competition Law at EU, UK and Scottish level is at pains to promote.
There has to be political kudos for a politician promoting this, along with public acclaim from taxi users benefitting from the improved, more cost competitive service this will bring.
I believe that the London Model would bring impetus to our taxi trade, would deliver a higher quality, more customer focussed service delivery and lead to increased business and prosperity for those working in and surrounding the trade.
Euro 7
It is almost with some regret that I read your position on the Euro 7 and the accompanying letter from gerry Facenna. Regret, because it would appear that I was wrong in my belief that you were being obstructive in this issue.
However, in my defence, I have to say that my position was entirely based on the position I was entitled to believe you were taking. You had done or said nothing which encouraged me to understand precisely what your true position was. In short, you played your cards close to your chest when you should have been articulating it publicly, which you have shown yourself more than capable of doing on other issues.
I therefore commend you for taking the position you did and I would be grateful if you were persuaded that the same free market, competition based criteria should apply to the matter of the issue of taxi operators’ licences.
Perhaps the real lesson is that, depending upon your view of the matters herein, there is more to be achieved by working together than in opposition.
Cllr Anderson, if you have arrived at this point in this correspondence then I am grateful for you sticking with it. I could ask no more.
I would be interested if you would take the time to consider it and respond. Should you require further information, or input, please do not hesitate to get back to me.
Regards
Jim
|
Login
Register
FAQ
