|
I write on behalf on members of the Ashfield Branch of the National Taxi Association with reference to my recent letter.
Please accept my apologies, I meant to refer to section 52 of the Road Safety Act 2006.
I have a number of issues I wish to raise in connection with the whole series of suspensions the Council have recently imposed on drivers.
Primarily, the council appear to be abusing the powers granted to them by virtue of the aforementioned Act. It is quite clear powers granted were intended to deal with drivers who have serious allegations made against them, these allegations would possibly include the likes of rape, drink driving etc.
The recent letter sent to me states the reasons for suspensions were on the ‘grounds of public safety’, which is a particularly moot point in respect of the cases at hand. The fact remains that the council issued verbal warning(s) and written warning(s) to the drivers involved. Unfortunately this is where there appears to be a problem.
If the suspensions are truly based on the grounds of public safety and the suspension given is immediate, why were warnings issued?
Indeed, section 61 (2B) states;
If it appears that the interests of public safety require the suspension or revocation of the licence to have immediate effect, and the notice given to the driver under subsection (2)(a) of this section includes a statement that is so and an explanation why, the suspension or revocation takes effect when the notice is given to the driver
I put the term ‘immediate effect‘ in bold type.
It is also obvious the use of the section 61 (2B) has been to specifically prevent a driver working whilst an appeal may be lodged, in the view of the branch and indeed colleagues nationally, this is a flagrant abuse of the reasons why section 52 of the Road Safety Act was brought into being.
I draw your attention to what Parliament intended when the bill was going through the House of Commons.
Stephen Hammond (Shadow Minister, Transport; Wimbledon, Conservative)
The Minister is carefully—but not helpfully—intertwining the two clauses. Under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 a taxi or minicab driver can be suspended for being convicted of a specific offence or for any other reasonable cause decided by the licensing authority. I would like the Minister to tell us what public safety requires beyond "any other reasonable cause". As yet, he has not told us.
Stephen Ladyman (Minister of State, Department for Transport; South Thanet, Labour)
The hon. Gentleman has misunderstood the purpose of the new clause and I accept full responsibility for not having explained it. There will be no new powers to suspend or revoke a licence. One would still have to satisfy the grounds for a suspension or revocation of a driver's licence as under the present legislation. The difference is that at the moment if the individual whose licence is suspended appeals against that suspension, they can continue to drive people around while they await the hearing of the appeal. If someone is accused of a serious offence—as serious as rape or some other sexual offence—it would be horrendous if they were allowed to continue to drive a private hire vehicle while waiting for the appeal against suspension to be heard. Under the new clause, when the licensing authority takes the view that the offence is serious, it will be able to suspend the licence.
The argument that was put to us by some taxi drivers was that it might leave them open to false allegations and they might lose their livelihood over a trivial allegation while awaiting the hearing of appeal against suspension. However, in the experience of the use of the power in London, where it has been in place for some time, it has not been abused. Drivers have had their licences suspended pending appeal only in cases in which a serious allegation has been made against them. Given the seriousness of the offences that might be involved, I think that the new clause is a proportionate response to the situation. No driver should lose their livelihood lightly even for a short time, but when someone is accused of an offence of sufficient seriousness to justify the revocation or suspension of their licence, it is appropriate that they should not continue to drive pending an appeal.
Further to the above I point out that no driver has been cautioned by the Police for committing any road traffic offence or parking violation.
Your letter quoted the 1976 Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, which I read from cover to cover, riveting stuff admittedly, although I much prefer Jack Higgins. I draw your attention to section 80 of the act. As you will be aware, section 80 covers the interpretation of the act, it gives the meanings, terms and phrases used.
It is interesting to note there is no description of a ‘Hire Vehicle Drivers License’ within the act.
As you will be aware through previous correspondence, according to the High Court Case, Wathan vs. Neath Port Talbot, a Hackney Carriage driver is governed via byelaws, not conditions. Indeed the judge clearly stated;
“Any regulation of a Hackney Carriage Driver had to be covered by by-laws”
Previous correspondence from yourselves dated 19 May 2010 stated a view contrary to that of the judge, it is a position you still take in respect of driver licenses.
Again I draw your attention to the Wathan case;
20. But, I repeat, although anomalies sometime occur in statutes, that does not allow the court to ignore the plain wording of the section and substitute some variation which seeks to remove the anomaly. Where there is an ambiguity that may be possible, but there is no ambiguity here. I turn then to the question which magistrates posed in their case. In paragraph 7 of the case stated, the questions are these:
“(i) Whether the Magistrates were correct in law in finding that S57(1) Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 empowers the Respondent to attach Conditions to the Appellant's Hackney Carriage Driver Licence thereby purporting to regulate the conduct of the Appellant in his role as a hackney Carriage Driver especially in the circumstances where no information was obtained by the Respondent to justify the Condition prior to the Licence having been issued.”
21. I ignore for the moment the words which follow “especially in the circumstances” and answer the question no, and merely add that that answer is not affected by those words which I have just ignored.
22. The second question:
“(ii) Whether the Magistrates were correct in law in finding that Condition 27 of the Respondent's Conditions of Licence is enforceable as against the Appellant in this case.”
23. Again, the answer to that is no. There are no powers under section 57 to make conditions which attach to the licence of a driver of a hackney carriage and the District Council has not issued any byelaws, which is what has given rise to the difficulty in this case.
24. The third and final question:
“Whether the conduct of a Hackney Carriage Driver (if to be regulated) should in law be regulated by way of Byelaws approved by the Secretary of State for Transport in accordance with S68 Town Police Clauses Act 1847.”
25. I have not been addressed upon the particular method by which byelaws under section 68 have to be promulgated and brought into effect by the District Council, but I merely say that any regulation of a hackney carriage driver has to be covered by such byelaws and, however it is that they have to be brought into force. The result is that this appeal is allowed.
It is quite clear from the current council licensing manual the council are attempting to regulate Hackney Carriage drivers by conditions, this was expressly forbidden by the court.
Arguably, the council are regulating a ‘Hire vehicle driver’, which isn’t covered in either the 1847 or 1976 acts, although if it is, I’d be delighted to hear under what section of what act allows you to do this as it is an obvious a point of perturbation......the regulation of something that doesn’t actually exist in law.
It is reasonably obvious the council are issuing ‘dual licenses’ (as per previous correspondence), which whilst these again may be acceptable to a number of local authorities in the country, there appears, (as stated above) to be no mechanism in any act which allows a local authority to make such a license. Quite simply a drivers license is either Hackney Carriage or private hire.
_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin
|
Login
Register
FAQ
