Here is the paper for the meeting on the 6/1/05.
Brighton & Hove City Council
For general release
Meeting: Licensing Committee
Date: 6 January 2005
Report of: Assistant Director, Public Safety
Subject: Hackney Carriage Quantity Control Policy
Ward(s) affected: All
1. Purpose of the report
1.1 Central government requires the council to review its policy of limiting the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences.
2. Recommendations
2.1 That the committee consider whether to retain the policy of quantity control of hackney carriage vehicle licences with a managed growth strategy.
3 Background
3.1 The Office of Fair Trading published a market study into the regulation of hackney carriage and private hire vehicles in November 2003. The Government responded by means of a written statement in the House of Commons, which included an Action Plan. The Action Plan covered a number of issues including restrictions on the number of licences issued by local authorities. It makes it clear that the Government believes that local authorities remain best placed to determine local transport needs and so it is not proposing to legislate to remove their power to restrict the number of hackney carriage licenses in their own area. However, it believes that restrictions should only be retained where there is shown to be a clear benefit for the consumer, and that Councils should publicly justify their reasons for the retention of restrictions and how decisions on numbers have been reached.
3.2 Accordingly, those authorities that are affected are asked to review the case for restricting the number of licensed hackney carriages, to make that review public by 31 March 2005, and thereafter to conduct a three yearly review with published conclusions. They are also asked to include justification of the local policy for quantity restrictions in the 5 yearly Local Transport Plan process. To assist authorities conducting a review a checklist has been published and is attached at Annex 2
4 The Policy of Controlling Numbers
4.1 This council last reviewed its policy of quantity control on 17 September 2003.
4.2 Supporting that review was an independent survey of unmet demand for hackney carriage services conducted by Halcrow Ltd. In the course of its work, Halcrow measured demand and supply at taxi ranks, consulted the taxi trade, the general public, representatives of special needs groups (e.g. Brighton & Hove Federation for the Disabled, the Disability Awareness Action Group), a range of city businesses, the Police, interest groups and transport providers. The council’s Equalities and Social Justice Forum made recommendations about disabled access vehicles. The taxi trade made observations about policy. Whist latent demand was not separately assessed there was no unmet demand for accessible vehicles at taxi ranks and the managed growth policy is designed to cater for increased demand. Halcrow’s findings were included in a report which, along with other submissions and recommendations, were made available to Members together with a report from Officers. Copies of both of those documents are available as background papers.
4.3 Taking all of the evidence into consideration, Members resolved to continue council policy of limiting the number of hackney carriage vehicle licences, to issue 19 extra licences immediately to cope with the level of unmet demand which had been identified by the survey, and to adopt a managed growth policy of granting five additional licences each year to deal with any increase in demand for hackney carriage services.
4.4 The balance in retaining quantity controls is to ensure an adequate supply of appropriate vehicles and a satisfactory level of service, without which the policy is detrimental to the consumer. Regular independent surveys are essential with appropriate measures being taken to address issues arising. This council has addressed matters of supply, service, choice and safety by
• creating one taxi zone in which all hackney carriages can ply for hire throughout the city area
• commissioning an independent survey of demand for hackney carriage services
• granting extra licences to eliminate unmet demand
• introducing a managed growth policy allowing more licences to be granted each year
• licensing a variety of vehicle types
• increasing the number and range of disabled access vehicles
• continually reviewing rank space
• the provision of taxi shelters
• taking steps to encourage more vehicles to be available at times of peak demand and as a result to clear more quickly the city centre hotspots and so reduce the propensity for late night violence and disorder
• addressing the issue of late night driver safety with police supervision of taxi ranks including the taxi service in, and working with the Police to develop the city’s public safety initiative
• linking taxi operator offices to the city’s cctv control room
• approving the installation of cctv and safety screens in vehicles
• introducing compulsory seminars for new drivers on equalities and disability awareness
• subjecting all vehicles to strict defined annual mechanical tests
• requiring vehicles to be easily identifiable by conforming to a prescribed livery including colour, logos and the display of licence numbers
• requiring all drivers to submit to Criminal Records Bureau checks every three years and to take regular medical examinations from the age of 45 years.
4.5 The managed growth policy aims to meet any increase in demand for hackney carriage services should the economic climate in the city change. Economic Development confirms that there has been no significant change in the city’s fortunes since September 2003.
4.6 To increase the percentage of vehicles in the fleet that are accessible to disabled people all additional licences are confined to accessible vehicles. Being mindful of the preferences expressed by representatives of disabled people, the council does not restrict those vehicles to a particular vehicle type. Consequently there are London type taxis licensed alongside other accessible vehicles. That is consistent with advice from government, ahead of the phased introduction of the taxi accessibility regulations under the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The compulsory new driver seminars include instruction in the use of equipment provided on these vehicles for disabled people and give an understanding of the needs of disabled people.
4.7 Limiting the number of licences does produce a price premium on the cost of a licensed vehicle and that premium comes into play when a licensed vehicle is sold on. It is sometimes argued that in an area where there is a limited number policy the fares are higher to take account of that premium. In this city that is not so. Fares are subject to a formula using AA vehicle running costs, government average earnings figures and independent insurance quotations. None of those figures take account of the vehicle price premium. The formula sets the highest figure that will be entertained by the council in setting fares. The actual fares are then set in negotiation with the taxi trade.
4.8 The role of the taxi trade is included in the Local Transport Plan, which identifies it as a key element in providing sustainable transport choices. It creates important links in the transport network to other forms of sustainable transport providing a seamless connection. It will contribute to three of the government’s four shared transport priorities – reducing congestion, improving air quality and accessibility. These national themes will underpin the next LTP 2006/11, which will be submitted to government in 2005. Use of taxis for school transport, licensed vehicles using bus lanes, locating ranks at railway stations and the city coach station, approved use of liquid petroleum gas all contribute to reducing congestion and moving passengers quickly.
4.9 Hackney carriage is only one part of the taxi trade. Its prime function is street work, that is hirings from taxi ranks and flag downs, although some of the vehicles also respond to telephone bookings. As it is not possible to force these vehicles to work through a taxi operator (to whom telephone bookings are made) and thus be available to respond to telephone bookings, it is essential that the other part of the taxi trade, private hire, is maintained at a suitable level to adequately service telephone bookings. If the policy of limitation is discontinued two things may happen. Firstly much of the private hire fleet may change to hackney carriage thus reducing the number of vehicles available to service telephone bookings. Secondly it may happen that there will be a large influx into the hackney carriage trade on top of those transferring from private hire. That may lead to oversupply and in turn unviable businesses.
4.10 The result of the limited number and managed growth policies and the initiatives taken by the council over a period of time is a high quality and safe vehicle fleet, drivers who are increasingly well trained, adequate vehicles to cope with demand, more vehicles being licensed each year, better availability and choice for the consumer, an open fare structure, a viable trade for both hackney carriage and private hire and a trade embedded into both the local transport and public safety initiatives.
5 Observations
5.1 The OFT market study and the Transport Select Committee’s responses were debated in Parliament on 24 June 2004. In response to comments from a local MP, Mr McNulty, the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, Department for Transport, observed: “Without wishing to pre-empt Brighton & Hove, I should think that, given the detailed work that was conducted last year on a managed growth strategy and the amount of local detail in it, the Government would not seek to change the position that prevailed under it after the survey of unmet demand. Brighton and Hove’s strategy appears exemplary and something we would request of all local authorities that would like to retain quantity controls…..we have already written to all authorities that have restrictions in place, not to ask them to justify their position – “justify” is the wrong word – but simply to substantiate why carrying on having restrictions is appropriate. If they are anything like Brighton and Hove they will be able to answer that question in very short order.”
6 Consultation
6.1 This matter has been discussed at the council’s hackney carriage and private hire consultation forum. See appendix C for trade comments.
7 Conclusion
7.1 Members are now asked, based on the above, to review the policy of quantity control and decide whether or not to continue with it.
APPENDIX A
Meeting/Date Licensing Committee 6 January 2005
Report of Assistant Director Public Safety
Subject Hackney Carriage Quantity Control Policy
Wards affected All
Financial implications
If the result of the review is that the control on the number of taxis licences is lifted there could be direct financial implications in that we may have to employ more licensing staff if the numbers of taxis expands. That in turn may cause a significant variation in the fees for licences year on year until the market settles at which point we may have too many staff and have to make redundancies.
Finance Officer consulted: Steve Linnett Date 19 October 2004
Legal implications
Under the Road Transport Act 1985 the council has the power to limit the number of hackney carriages within its area, but only if it is ‘satisfied that there is no significant unmet demand for the services of hackney carriages (within the area to which the licence would apply) which is unmet.’ The section does not require councils to limit the number of licences they issue for this reason; it forbids them to restrict numbers for any other reason. The usual method of evidencing demand is by employing consultants to undertake a periodic survey.
The requirement to review the policy of restricting numbers and publish the outcome by 31 March 2005 is a matter of Government policy rather than a statutory requirement.
Lawyer consulted: Louise Hanrahan Date: 11 November 2004
Corporate/Citywide implications
None
. Risk assessment
Please see financial implications.
Sustainability implications
As set out in the body of the report at 4.8
Equalities implications
As set out in the body of the report at 4.6
Implications for the prevention of crime and disorder
As set out in the body of the report at 4.4
Background papers
1. Letter from Department of Transport to Chief Executive, Brighton & Hove City Council dated 16 June 2004
2. The Government’s Action Plan for Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles in England and Wales.
3. Report of Chief Executive to Policy & Resources Committee sitting on 17 Sept. 2003
4. Brighton & Hove City Council Hackney Carriage Unmet Demand Study (Halcrow, 2003)
Contact Officer
Peter Winder, Hackney Carriage Officer, Tel (29)6667
APPENDIX B
Useful questions when assessing quantity controls of taxi licences
Questions relating to policy of controlling numbers
Have you recently reviewed the need for your policy of quantity controls?
What form did the review of your policy of quantity controls take?
Who was involved in the review?
What decision was reached about retaining or removing quantity controls?
Are you satisfied that your [policy justifies restricting entry to the trade?
Are you satisfied that quantity controls do not:
Reduce the availability of taxis
Increase waiting times for consumers
Reduce choice and safety for consumers?
What special circumstances justify retention of quantity controls?
How does you policy benefit consumers, particularly in remote areas?
How does you policy benefit the trade?
If you have a local accessibility policy, how does this fit in with restricting taxi licences?
Questions relating to setting the number of taxi licences
When did you last assess unmet demand?
How is your taxi limit assessed?
Have you taken into account latent demand, ie potential customers who would use taxis if more were available, but currently do not?
Are you satisfied that your limit is set at the correct level?
How does the need for adequate taxi ranks affect your policy of quantity controls?
Questions relating to consultation and other public transport service provision
When consulting, have you included
All those working in the market
Consumer and passenger (including disabled) groups
Groups which represent those passengers with special needs
Local interest groups, eg hospitals or visitor attractions
The police
A wide range of transport stakeholders eg rail/bus/coach providers and traffic managers
Do you receive representations about taxi availability
What is the level of transport modes)?
APPENDIX C (1/8)
Brighton & Hove City Cabs, 63 Queen Road, Brighton, BN1 3ZE
Brighton & Hove Radio Taxis, 38 Montpelier Crescent, Brighton, BN1 3JL
Brighton & Hove Streamline, 5 Clifton Hill, Brighton, BN1 3AN
414141 Carcabs Ltd, 19 Victoria Road, Portslade, BN41 1XP
Streamline 202020 Taxis, Streamline House, 86 Goldstone Villas, Hove, BN3 3RU
Peter Winder
Hackney Carriage Officer
Brighton & Hove City Council
Hove Centre
Norton Road
Hove
BN3 3BG
Wednesday, 24 November 2004
Dear Peter
In reply to your question regarding Hackney Carriage limited number policy here is the response on behalf of
Brighton & Hove City Cabs - 205205
Brighton & Hove Radio Taxis - 204060
Brighton & Hove Streamline - 747474
Carcabs - 414141
Streamline 202020 Taxis - 202020
We represent approximately 1450 licensed taxi drivers in Brighton and Hove.
After the unmet demand survey by HALCROW, changes made by the Council in September 2003 regarding the Hackney Carriage trade have been an enormous success. You took on board its recommendation of nineteen extra Hackney Carriage plates which were almost issued immediately, and a further five per annum. The extra plates issued have all been wheelchair accessible type vehicles. It was also highlighted in the HALCROW report of the unmet demand problems of unsociable hours at weekends especially. The Council and the trade addressed this problem during its fare review process in December 2003; it was decided to implement an extra pound surcharge on Friday and Saturday nights from midnight to 06.00am.
In that time our achievements have been aired in the House of Commons in a debate held on the 24th June 2004. Our local MP, Mr David Lepper quoted:
“Managed growth is the key to a successful taxi fleet as part of the public transport network in any area. The people best suited to make decisions about the form that managed growth should take are those on the local Council and the local licensing authority, in consultation with local representatives of the taxi trade. In that way, we can end up with a system that is more likely to best suit the needs of the area. The underlying mistakes of the OFT’s report – there were lots of mistakes – were to assume that one system was right for everywhere in the country, and to overlook totally the likely negative results of the delimitation of numbers.”
APPENDIX C (2/8)
In response, Tony McNulty MP, Parliamentary under Secretary of State, Department for Transport quoted:
“We concur with the Transport Select Committee that local authorities are best placed to make local decisions in the light of local needs and circumstances.”
“Without wishing to pre-empt Brighton and Hove, I should think that, given the detailed work that was conducted last year on a managed growth strategy and the amount of local detail in it, the Government would not seek to change the position that prevailed under it after the survey of unmet demand. Brighton and Hove’s strategy appears exemplary and something that we would request of all local authorities that would like to retain quantity controls. ”
And a further quote later in his speech:
“Without going into the matter too much, that is why I profoundly disagree with the suggestion of a one-tier taxi.”
Our research shows that a single tier licensing system would decimate the taxi service for customers booking by telephone from the outlying areas of the City. Hackney Carriage drivers understandably migrate to the more lucrative ranks in the City centre and servicing the outlying areas falls mainly to Private Hire drivers.
In conjunction with the Council’s obligation to produce their second local transport plan, which is due in 2005. For the first time the taxi trade have been included in its consultation and implementation. A Taxi and Private Hire statement which will be entered into the transport plan states in its draft:
1.1 the continued development and management of the City’s Hackney Carriage taxis and private hire vehicles is seen as crucial in the delivery of a balanced and effective integrated transport system.
4 Licensing Policies and conditions.
4.1 The Council’s licensing policy is considered to be among the best in the country as is often used as an example of best practice.
Since the changes made by the Council in the night time weekend tariffs we have worked extremely hard with the local police regarding the clearing of taxi ranks and unsocial behaviour late at night. We have also met regularly at taxi forum meetings with the police liaison officer Jean Smith.
The results have been extremely successful with the desired effect, with more Hackney Carriages working unsociable hours ranks have cleared in a much quicker and orderly fashion across the City.
Since Jean Smith’s promotion, she has met with the Prime Minister at Downing Street regarding the above issues on a national level. Jean has used Brighton and Hove as a role model as how to deal with anti-social behaviour in conjunction with the taxi trade.
Since the HALCROW report and the Council’s recommendations, the Hackney Carriage fleet of Brighton and Hove has now been increased by twenty four wheelchair accessible vehicles. The effect of this has been more Hackney Carriage
APPENDIX C (3/8)
vehicles on the roads of our city at all times of the day. Unmet demand has decreased and wheelchair accessible vehicles are evident at all times of the day. It is clear that a two tier taxi fleet works for the benefit of all the people of Brighton and Hove.
We would like to conclude that it is our considered opinion that the existing policy advised by Brighton and Hove Council is correct. The public have been served better, the police have indicated this, your local transport plan will support this, and in Parliament you have been congratulated on this.
Tony Breslin
Streamline 202020 Taxis
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C (4/8)
Transport & General Workers Union
Brighton & Hove Cab Branch 1/222
November 2004
Written submission to the Licensing Committee
Subject: Review of Plate Limitation Policy
Prepared by: Paul Cracknell (Vice Chairman)
Initial Comments
1.1 This document has been produced by the Brighton & Hove Cab Branch of the Transport & General Workers Union. It sets out the views of the membership.
1.2 Following the partial rejection of the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) report. The Government, through the DTI, announced in a written statement to parliament (18th March 2004) that local authorities remain best placed to determine local transport needs and to make the decisions about them in the light of local circumstances.
1.3 It is the national policy of the Transport & General Workers Union to persuade all Licensing Authorities to adopt a policy of managed growth. Brighton & Hove City Council is frequently cited as a flagship authority by the unions, trade organizations and other local authorities. It was recently described, in parliament by one of our own elected representatives, as an example of best practice in taxi licensing.
1.4 The retention of the Hackney Plate limitation policy must be considered in the light of the best interests of the consumer. Consequently, we must deal with the central theme of the OFT report that the traveling public receives a better deal from taxis in de-limited areas.
The Arguments For and Against de-limitation
2.1 The OFT claim that the benefits of more taxis, reduced waiting times and lower fares can all be achieved by simply abandoning plate limitation policies. They claim that 55% of licensing authorities are currently de-limited or have always been unlimited.
APPENDIX C (5/8)
2.2 Any claim that one method is better than the other can only be tested by carefully examining data collected before and after
de-limitation in areas that have switched.
2.3 The OFT claimed to have done this. However, examination of the evidence revealed it to be old data, gathered over many years for the purpose providing unmet demand studies.
2.4 The only primary data gathered for the purpose of their study was the ‘after de-limitation’ data obtained in just two locations (Cambridge & Sheffield), which proved to be completely unreliable and was discredited.
2.5 In Cambridge the OFT claimed a staggering improvement of 34% (or 46 seconds) in waiting times. However, this was associated with an inexplicable 50% drop in demand for taxis. It transpired that the data had been collected mainly out of university term time when the population is reduced by more than 26%
2.6 A similar claim that waiting times were reduced by 20% (or 32 seconds) in Sheffield. Data collected here was invalid because only half of the taxi fleet had permits to pick up at the railway station, which accounted for 38% of all hiring.
2.7 In consequence, there is no evidence based on a reliable before and after study that proves the OFT claims for de-limitation.
2.8 It has It has to be acknowledged that there is no data supported evidence to prove the superiority of a limited system. However, we can argue that the Licensing Committees, Hackney Carriage officers, and people who work in the trade know it well enough to give a sound judgement concerning their own areas.
2.9 Since Since the OFT study into the Taxi Trade, the point has been continually made that only 45% of authorities outside of London are restricted. The point is an unfair attempt to claim that those authorities are in a minority and therefore wrong. What is not mentioned is that the 45% is comprised of almost all of the large towns and cities in the country.
APPENDIX C (6/8)
2.10 It sho It should be remembered that many authorities included in the 55% de-limited category, have never been limited and have no need to be so. Our neighbour to the East, Lewes district is a good example of such an authority, where all of the work is pre-booked and it is irrelevant if the cars are private hire or hackney.
2.11 Unlike Brighton & Hove. Lewes offers almost no work to independent Hackney owners. Drivers in this area, and similar areas, would find it impossible to earn a living by working solely from a cab rank. They have no choice but to
subscribe to a radio circuit in the way that private-hire drivers do in large towns and cities. It is therefore quite wrong to claim that what works in rural areas and small towns could work everywhere.
LimitLimited Plate Issue – the best policy for the people of Brighton
3.1 The licensing system in Brighton & Hove, assisted by a variety of measures including consultation through forums, the livery, fares formula and knowledge testing have helped to create a Taxi service that is second to none and a standard to which others aspire. However, there is no doubt in our minds that the foundation of success in this city is the policy of plate limitation.
3.2 Plate limitation has always produced a stable environment and economic viability, which ensures that we have sufficient, taxis available at all times of the day and night. People who are prepared to invest the time and money to provide a valuable and vital public service to a high standard over a significant period of time deserve and currently enjoy some security.
3.3 This union seeks to persuade the licensing authority that market forces following de-limitation do not improve the service to the consumer in the taxi trade. In fact, all the available evidence suggests that it results in an inferior service for passengers.
3.4 The OFT surveys revealed that de-limited areas experience a net loss in the total number of vehicles available. If plate numbers are limited, drivers share cars and the results is continual coverage. In de-limited areas, more plates equals single shift cars and fewer cars at night because drivers inevitably choose to work during the day.
3.5 We know that in some de-limited areas the quality of the fleet has deteriorated because owners have been forced to cut costs.
3.6 We know also from the OFT surveys that on average, fares are higher in de-limited areas.
3.7 Perhaps one of the biggest dangers with de-limitation is that some drivers have been forced to work longer hours to try and maintain a minimum income.
APPENDIX C (7/8)
3.8 OFT surveys reported that public satisfaction with waiting times for telephone booked hiring's (60% of the total market share) fell significantly after Cambridge became de-limited.
3.9 Like taxi drivers in most large towns our drivers can choose to work independently and without relying upon radio circuits for work. If this city became de-limited, it is unlikely that this would remain the case.
3.10 It is truly ironic that the aim of the OFT is to open up markets and create opportunities for competition, and yet de-limitation as recommended by the OFT in the large towns and cities like Brighton & Hove is the primary threat to that very same concept.
3.11 Plate limitation is working well in conjunction with managed growth. It is providing positive benefits to the consumer including:
• Reasonably priced fares
• A well-maintained, high quality fleet of vehicles
• Qualified, competent and safe drivers
• Public safety
• 24hr availability of Hackney Carriages and Private Hire cars
• Economic viability
• High proportion of wheelchair accessible vehicles
3.12 This branch of the Transport & General Workers Union urges the licensing Committee to resolve that there are compelling reasons to retain Hackney Plate limitation and that there are positive advantages for the people of Brighton & Hove by doing so.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
APPENDIX C (8/8)
NATIONAL PROVINCIAL TAXI TRADE UNION
NPTTU, Brighton & Hove Branch,
21 Sunninghill Avenue, Hove, BN3 8JB
Tel: 01273776654 e-mail:
alhaddow@hotmail.com
Plate Issue Response
This union supports Brighton & Hove Council's policy with regard to the Taxi trade in the City. We feel that a total delimitation in the number of taxi's in Brighton & Hove would cause the following problems.
1. Congestion. Due to the large number of extra taxis that would appear on the roads almost overnight the present taxi ranks would be unable to cater with the increase in usage. As most taxis use city centre taxi ranks this would cause more congestion on city centre roads that are already very slow moving.(Byelaws state that if a rank is full the driver must go to another rank)
2. Vehicle Quality. Brighton & Hove has got one of the newest fleets of taxis in the country. Delimitation would force a large number of taxi owners to purchase older, high mileage vehicles. The vehicles may also be serviced less frequently than presently ( due to drop in earnings) which could result in vehicles being unsafe.
3. Tariff Increases. The only way that driver's earnings would be maintained would be with higher fares which are not in the public interest. The only other way to earn the same income would be to work longer hours which could be very dangerous for the travelling public. (Tired drivers are more likely to cause an accident).
Mr David Lepper supports the Council in the way that they control the trade and
has stated this in Parliament. The Minister also told the house that Brighton &
Hove is an example to the country as to how the taxi trade should be controlled.
We feel that the Councils present policy of managed growth of the taxi trade in
Brighton and Hove is the best way to avoid the above problems occurring as it
allows the trade to gradually get used to an increase in the number of vehicles in the fleet and allows the Council the time to find extra rank space in the City for the extra vehicles.
Yours faithfully.
Alex Haddow,
Secretary
Chair: G. Lord; Vice Chair: M. Heslop; Secretary: A. Haddow; Treasurer: A. Haddow
Login
Register
FAQ
