|
got this leter fae ma we pal fae perth going ta send it ta rod wallace
Civic Government Licensing
Legal Services
Chief Executive’s
Perth and Kinross Council
Perth PH1 5PH. November 2010.
Dear Sirs.
Review Of the Limit On Taxi number In Perth City.
This response to the above is made on behalf of the Perth taxi trade , in respect of the review of the limitation on taxi numbers, being undertaken by Perth and Kinross Council (PKC).
The review seeks conclusion by January 2011, and may well, at least in terms of the Perth taxi industry, turn out to be a historically significant date; which will decide whether or not they continue to flourish as a service industry or simply disappear as a significant part of the public transport infrastructure in Perth.
In making our submission we refer to the PKC consultation document:
The Council develops much of its basic analysis from work undertaken by the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) in 2003 (OFT Report 676), which related to the practices of the time in some cities. It is our view that by placing such emphasis on the OFT report, the consultation document is prone to dated analysis, and more significantly on conclusions drawn from practices in large cities. The work is flawed in that it relies to a large extent on printed matter that in our view is totally irrelevant to Scotland. We refer to the sections on the OFT report and the “Scottish Governments” Best Practice Guidance (BPG).
Our comments on the consultation document are as follows;
Quality Controls:
The Perth taxi trade has no difficulty with quality controls and recognises these are an essential ingredient in ensuring public safety is catered for. Quality assurance, particularly safety, is a significant part of the three elements of Quantity, Quality and Economic control.
However, quality controls should not be viewed as a means of controlling numbers. These are differing aspects of the market place and require differing assessments and application.
Current Thinking On Restricting Taxi Numbers:
In relation to the consultation, and reported thinking on the numbers of licences, the first paragraph under this heading is misleading in that it suggests only one reason for refusing licences. This is clearly not the position at all as Councils can and do refuse licences for a variety of reasons including failure to meet the fit and proper person criteria. Excess concentration on, or reference to, a single element of control has the effect of suggesting a single market solution exists alone, and this has the potential to invalidate any conclusion drawn thereon.
Paragraphs 2,3,4 and 5 refer to the OFT report (OFT, 2003). This report was firmly rejected by the then Scottish Ministers who correctly decided to leave matters of licensing to local LA’s. The OFT report therefore has no relevance to Scotland.
The Best Practice Guidance as issued by the Scottish Government and referred to in the remaining Para’s under this heading, should also be discounted as the BPG was simply a copy of the document issued earlier by the DfT for application in England and Wales. No consultation ever took place in Scotland in regard to the BPG. Therefore, again in our view, this Publication has no standing or relevance in Scotland. Significantly the Scottish Government will shortly go out to consultation on a new BPG for Scotland.
Benefits To The Public:
Is it in the interests of the public in Perth City to continue with licence restriction? In a word YES. This will be explained later in this response.
Must the Council carry out a measurement of Significant Unmet Demand (SUD) to continue with the present policy? It is certainly desirable and preferable but not absolutely essential. The test for Councils is that they are satisfied no unmet demand exists when deciding whether to grant or refuse an application. The Perth taxi trade fails to understand what the difficulty is here since the cost of a SUD is recoverable through licence fees. In reality there is no cost to the Council.
Disadvantages To The Public in Maintaining Restriction:
• We respectfully suggest that the comment referring to plates tied to a booking office being regulated as to when they can sit on ranks is ARRANT NONSENSE. No taxi driver is going to by pass available income.
• It is easy to make comment on plates changing hands for large sums of money but has anyone provided documented proof of this allegation. In any case the plate/licence is the property of the Council and as such has no value.
• Removing limits would not impact on PH Cars acting illegally. The main cause of this is over provision and a not enough work to go around. This will only be exacerbated by de-restriction.
Analysis:
There is a constant theme running through this consultation document that being the references to the alleged trade in licensed taxis. What seems to have been forgotten is that taxis are in essence a small business that happens to need a licence to operate and in this regard they
fall into the same category as Public Houses, Bookmakers etc. It is significant that there is rarely any adverse publicity when these businesses change hands often for sums far in excess of those allegedly paid for taxi businesses. There seems to be double standards in operation.
It is standard practice in the taxi industry for a multiple owner to hire his licensed taxi(s) to a driver or drivers. We need look no further than London to find garages with multiples of licensed vehicles available offering these on full or half shift basis to licensed drivers. This allows drivers who may not be able to finance a vehicle of their own, to gain a foothold in the trade that may otherwise be denied them. The fact that a multiple owner hires out his vehicles to drivers as part of a legitimate business arrangement has or should have no bearing on restriction or de-restriction. If on the other hand however, a licensed operator is renting plates to drivers who have to provide their own vehicle, then that is quite another matter as false declarations may be being made as to who actually owns the vehicle in question. This would be a matter for the Council to address.
It should be noted that many drivers prefer not to have the responsibility of owning a taxi and all the associated problems that come with this. For example, the operator has the responsibility to maintain the vehicle to the exacting standards quite rightly demanded by Councils, he has to ensure it is roadworthy at all times, is properly insured, taxed and maintained. The driver on the other hand pays a hire charge and there his financial responsibility ends. Many drivers prefer it this way.
We are concerned with the obvious bias displayed in this consultation document, for example “ limiting numbers can only be allowed to continue if, as stated earlier, removing restrictions would result in a CLEAR and UNAMBIGUOUS deterioration in the amount or quality of service provision”. The writer has clearly made up his or her mind or has had it made up for them by the OFT in advance of the consultation process being completed. Whilst it is possible to identify many clear and unambiguous negatives in de-restriction, see below, proof of such impacts follow only post application, at which point a return to restriction is significantly harder, if possible at all. Attempts to apply de-regulation in US cities in the 1970s resulted in a significant move back to regulation, at much cost to the cities, with negative effects continuing to this day.
It is unlikely that we will know for certain what effect de-restriction will have in Perth, but one example may be the City of Dublin where taxi licences increased from 2000 to 11,000 in a short period of time following de-restriction; while availability, in terms of service levels, only increased by only around 15%.
The reference to PH Cars diminishing is also conjecture bordering on nonsense on the part of the writer. Many drivers choose to operate PH Cars as opposed to taxis simply because there is less regulation involved in owning a PH car. Reasons for this include, the use of cheaper vehicles, no restrictions on fare tariffs and the knowledge that they can act as taxis with impunity.
The writer states that taxi rank spaces are not an issue, really? If the number of taxis doubles or worse where will they go? Are they to be expected to cruise endlessly at to-days fuel cost while adding to pollution of the environment, do they stop and park illegally, or as is most likely the case, do they over rank at the available rank spaces. The Council cannot contemplate inviting unlimited taxis on to its streets without providing them with the necessary space to stop while awaiting hires.
Concluding Comments On The Consultation Document:
This, in our opinion, is a poorly drafted and biased document which leans heavily on the OFT report rejected by the Scottish Ministers and the Best Practice Guidance copied from and intended for use in England and Wales only. It is also in our view, ill informed of the taxi industry and deals in rumour, speculation and allegations, which it fails to substantiate.
Our Overall Conclusions:
Taxi services are a long-standing, well-established, mode of transport commonly available and instantly recognisable. The taxi mode has a significant history of supply which pre-dates motorised transport in many countries.
Against the backdrop of a long-standing consistent supply, the taxi operates within a complicated set of regulations and controls affecting the quality, quantity and economic circumstances under which the mode is provided. The taxi is recognised by UK Governments as being not only part of the transport system but as perhaps the most important and integral part of the public transport system.
The taxi provides a means of getting home from late night entertainment. It plays a role in the start and finish in aeroplane, railway or bus journeys and plays a significant role in providing accessible transport thereby enabling disabled persons to achieve a degree of social inclusion not previously available. It provides a flexible and low cost door-to-door service and is in fact the most flexible of all public transport modes currently available, and does so without any subsidies from any source whatsoever. This should not be overlooked.
The Council has an absolute duty to ensure that the taxi services within its licensing area meets the needs and aspirations of its constituents. This can be achieved by commissioning a SUD report from a reputable source, which could include the following information.
• Gauge generally what, if any, unmet demand exists.
• Assess the needs of disabled persons and what steps are necessary to address these.
• Confirm if additional taxi stance space is required and suggest suitable sites. And:
• Advise the Council how best to monitor the future taxi requirements of Perth City. The list is not exhaustive.
As stated, PKC are right to review taxi numbers but wrong to assume that de-restriction is the only solution. Once implemented de-restriction is impossible to reverse, as are the effects it will have on the existing trade. Section 10(3) of the CG (S) Act 1982 allows a Licensing Authority to refuse a Taxi licence for the purpose of limiting numbers. The purpose of this is to prevent a situation arising where it becomes impossible for licensed taxi operators to provide a proper service on economic or other grounds, caused by an excessive number of licences.
If the Council need an example of how de-restriction does not work, then they need look no further than South Ayrshire, where, despite licences increasing from 27 in the year 2000, to around 200 to-day, around 80% of South Ayrshire still has no taxi services worthy of mention. We urge PKC to have carried out a SUD report and agree with the current operators that both parties will be bound by its conclusions.
Yours Faithfully
Perth Taxi Trade
|
Login
Register
FAQ
