CONSULTATION ON IMPROVING ACCESS TO TAXIS;
RESPONSE FROM THE SOUTH SEFTON HACKNEY CARRIAGE ASSOCIATION (with thanks to John Thompson, principal licensing officer to SMBC, for his help)
NOTE
It is regretted that this consultation seeks to achieve something not commercially viable, thereby missing the chance of possible progress.
Question1. What is your view of the analysis and data included here and in the impact assessment?
Do you have any further or more accurate data to make available to DfT?
a. This consultation identifies that further research is required. All of the suggested options have high cost implications for the taxi & private hire trade and it would seem sensible to obtain evidence of the overall need for change before choosing which of the options, if any, to move with. As this situation has been on the horizon since 1995 it would seem that by now there should be clear non-anecdotal evidence of a pressing demand available to DfT.
b. 50% of the national 85,000 taxi fleet is made up of wheelchair accessible [WAV] vehicles, and would appear to be available for use as significantly less than 50% of taxi users are wheelchair users. If however the drivers of WAVs are not providing for the needs of such passengers then driver training such as the NVQ2 in Transporting Passengers by Taxi & Private Hire could be provided and would be less expensive than mandatory vehicle specifications based on anecdotal evidence of demand.
c. 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.
d. Course material provided by NVQ trainers states that 5% of disabled people are users of wheelchairs, that is 500,000, assuming the figure of 10 million in total is correct. The source, and provenance, of these figures is not given.
e. Traditionally morbidity rates have been high e.g. In Liverpool, and the south of this borough (Bootle). It may be said that the north of the borough (Southport) is a seaside area which attracts retired people and may have a high proportion of elderly disabled; the distribution of wheelchair users should be ascertained, not only to test either hypothesis but also show where (not only if) WAVs are needed.
f. These, broad figures, show that there are 42,500 WAV taxis and an unspecified number of PHV accessible vehicles, for 500,000 wheelchair users. There is no figure showing how many of these cannot use a WAV.
g. The consultation accepts that “we do not know the extent that disabled people want wheelchair accessible vehicles [WAVs]…..further work is needed on this point”. This must be investigated before considering a move to a mandatory WAV policy.
h. “Evidence from the impact assessment”- What evidence? There is no evidence showing why some areas have no WAV taxis, and no evidence to show they have no WAV PHVs. What is the demand in those aeras? There is no evidence correlating WAV numbers with WAV demand in other areas. There is no evidence moreover, to show the number of WAV users that do not have privately owned WAV access, or the distribution of any such gaps in coverage. There are a considerable number of disabled parking bays observable in urban streets. There is no evidence given, at all, to show the frequency, or pattern of demand, that these disabled people have for WAVs. It is known that a proportion of wheelchair users have WAV vehicles available privately. In short the statistical basis of the consultation is unsatisfactory and in question.
i. It would be expected that commercial demand would fill significant gaps; by PHV WAVs if not taxis. There is no, or insufficient, data to correlate gaps in commercial supply with social requirements.
j. Sefton Council has 271 taxis and of those 205 are wheelchair accessible vehicles, including TW200, Fairways, TX1, TX2 and TX4, Mercedes and Euro7. There is no mandatory policy yet 66% are WAVs. It is to be noted that one radio system in the North of Sefton have many regular customers who refuse to use 'metropolitan' type vehicles as these do not suit their particular disabilities.
k. The assumption that case law has made it difficult to have mixed fleets is disputed. There are mixed fleets in Sefton.
l. There are, in short, significant numbers of WAVs available. All sections of the community perceive transport bottlenecks at various times; there is no data separating these from WAV availability.
m. There are however, at least, 2,500 PHVs in the south of this borough. Most of these are engaged, at any one time, outside the borough, in Liverpool, but those engaged in the borough still dwarf the number of licensed taxis available. An increase in WAV overheads for taxis can be seen therefore to suggest migration to PHVs would be a likely outcome.
n. The assumption that saloon car owners change vehicles every four years is inaccurate. Some stay to ten years from new. A more accurate average on Merseyside would probably be between 6 and 7 years per saloon vehicle. Again an 11 year life span for WAVs is probably nearer correct but an average 13-14 year life span is more common.
o. Any further duties brought on by a commencement order under Section 36 are likely to cause additional financial burden on authorities. If this is imposed at the same time as licence holders having to spend more on vehicles, the authorities will have difficulty raising licence fees to recoup the additional costs.
p. The assumed cost of an enhanced vehicle at £30,000 is incorrect and believed low. Given development costs and the fact that the currently available WAVs can be £27-30,000 now, the stated figure is felt to be on the low side. £35,000- £40,000 would seem to be a minimum. There should be a more accurate estimate of the likely costs. The PCO has hitherto been the body setting standards for the only specially designed suitable vehicle; and which has expertise and experience which would reasonably be thought of as appropriate to enlist.
q. The figures set out for local conditions have been obtained locally.
Question 2. What are the potential impact costs and benefits of the “Do nothing” scenario?
a. This question should be posed as
b. “How will the stated objective be achieved by doing nothing immediate?”
c. Ambulatory disabled passengers who currently prefer saloon taxis may be inconvenienced by the mandatory introduction of WAV taxis.
d. In the current economic climate this option would not place additional costs on the licensed taxi trade. There would be no danger of taxi drivers migrating to private hire, thereby reducing the numbers of WAVs available from the current levels.
e. None of the models popular in the PHV or saloon side of the trade even market enhancements targeted to that portion of the industry. There are no interior locks just for front or driver's doors. There are no affordable factory produced LPG platforms. No modification to easily add driver screens and so on.
f. It is similarly vanishingly unlikely that the saloon side of the trade could afford to re-equip with WAVs, short of much higher fares being introduced, of necessity that would require control of PHV fares if wholesale migration were to be avoided.
Question 3: Further and more accurate data provided locally?
a. Sefton is a borough that stretches from Bootle (contiguous with Liverpool) to Southport 12 miles to the north, with a couple small dormitory communities halfway between. The southern portion is 'demographic Liverpool'. The political unit was fashioned by the 1972 Local Government legislation.
b. Within Sefton 66% of the taxi fleet are WAVs. This has been achieved without any mandatory policy, partly because in the south the borough has traditionally followed Liverpool which adopts the 'metropolitan' conditions. The remaining 33% are based in the North of the Borough where passengers, including the ambulatory disabled, appear to prefer non WAV vehicles. Of the taxi vehicles used in North Sefton some 20% are WAVs.
c. There are more than 10 times the number of PHVs licensed the majority in the south of the borough. Some (an unknown number) are WAV suitable.
Question 4: What type of guidance would be most effective, in what format and what can DfT do to promote take- up.
a. DfT is often seen by the licensed trades as handing down guidance whilst not necessarily asking the trade itself for workable answers. Sometimes this is due to divergent agendas between taxi and private hire groups, making consensus difficult. However at a recent DfT meeting on this subject, Licensing Officers, Public Carriage Office [PCO], Institute of Licensing [IoL] and National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers [NALEO] all worked in a balanced and constructive way and subsequent trade meetings exhibited the same position
b. DfT could produce a range of guidance, but should first engage in a structure of formal sub groups within short, set time-scales so that licence holders can take ownership of the resulting guidance as being fair, accurate and reasonable. This is the proper way forward with the subject of this consultation. The trade would welcome the opportunity to enhance disabled travel, in a sustainable manner.
c. Once this suggestion is followed up appropriate subjects for guidance should include: driver training, including disability awareness, considering the needs of disadvantaged persons and the benefits of additional income through increased journeys. Advice on obtaining local demand survey data, distinguishing ambulatory and wheelchair user needs would be extremely useful.
d. The recent DfT leaflet “staying safe- guidance for taxi drivers/ private hire drivers” [Dec 2008] is an example of the sort of document which can be easily circulated to the trades.
Question 5: Draft Technical Specification: Improvement of accessibility levels? Which aspects would be easy to deliver and which would be hard?
a. The technical differences between the interim and enhanced vehicle specifications are detailed and significant.
b. The interim standard would exclude e.g., Fairways and Metrocabs, which will expire naturally in a relatively short time, probably before any new specification could be taken up, or materialise.
c. Many concerns e.g. safety, mitigate towards the use of WAVs; but any mandatory requirement would have severe effects on the trade and quite probably WAVs themselves as shown in the response to question 2.
d. Turning to the new enhanced specification, until and if, a manufacturer designs such a vehicle, costs must only be a guess and, in particular, until the height and wheelbase requirements are met then accurate estimates are unlikely to be available. These two requirements are those which will prove those most unlikely to be achieved; together with specific body shapes. In the case of LTI the foreseeable re- design of a body shell seems unlikely?
e. The term 'disability' is defined in the Act, subjectively to the disabled, and by SI 1996 1455 excludes e.g. addicts; those disabled not in wheelchairs are not easy to recognise and assist.
f. There is no accurate data separating those with WAV requirements and the disabled with no WAV requirement. Data for both should be obtained.
g. However, there are also said (again by NVQ trainers) to be 800,000 people who would prefer lower steps. Later model WAVs have a low step. It may be a minor engineering requirement to facilitate this retrospectively? Raising kerbs at ranks has been mooted; this could be arranged forthwith at busy ranks. Kneeling vehicles are likely to be prohibitively expensive.
h. Ramps can be modified, but electronic devices are unlikely to be feasible. Signs and lighting could be modified, where needed.
i. By all means agree (with stakeholder groups) updating specifications to be kept under review as and when manufacturers are able and willing to produce a vehicle at economic cost. Mandatory specifications at this time would be counter-productive as described above; in fact they would appear to raise a major economic problem, particularly in the present financial climate. The taxi trade would actually like lower overheads locally in order to be competitive, cope with the economic downturn.
j. A regulation to use a vehicle that is not affordable or not produced is not a viable option. At best it would result in an ageing fleet. It could simply cause migration toward PHVs, and / or a reduction in WAV availability.
k. Further comments are contained in 16 and 17 below; in particular the overall size of any new vehicle.
Question 6. Advantages and disadvantages of DfT funded demonstration schemes.
a. One of the identified problems with WAVs is that, anecdotally, drivers of such vehicles are not always willing to be hired by wheelchair users. It is already the case that a driver is required to accept a fare when plying for hire unless he has reasonable grounds to refuse. Part 3 of the DDA applies as well.
b. As councils such as Sefton adopt the NVQ2 standard in transporting passengers in Taxi & Private Hire vehicles it is felt there should be a positive effect on this sort of behaviour.
c. Sefton is an area with a mixed fleet and which currently undertakes annual surveys on unmet demand with a restricted number of 271 hackney carriages. It also engages in the local transport plan with the other local councils and Merseytravel. It has recently adopted the full NVQ, with all drivers having to gain this by October 2013. Sefton would therefore seem to encapsulate all of the constituents that such a funded demonstration scheme would need in order to provide the data which would be of most use countrywide.
d. On the negative side if the demonstration schemes were set to impose many requirements, but offering little by way of reward, the trades would be likely to see the changes as an imposition at their expense and engagement in the aims would almost certainly reduce from present levels, even if only by migration.
e. As Sefton has anecdotal evidence of service users with disabilities not wishing to use the current metropolitan cabs, DfT should invest in a more detailed survey of user patterns using Sefton and its existing data to discover what service users really want, what providers feel they can afford to provide and what manufacturers can offer. If this were done in an urban mixed fleet area, an urban mandatory WAV area and two rural areas, the resultant data might produce a feasible way forward. Such survey data would, in less than 12 months, remedy many of the data gaps in the current consultation.
Question 7. Effective ways of influencing national and local authorities, drivers and manufacturers
a. National authorities: - A joint trades/ enforcers/ manufacturer/ disability representative steering group could effectively thrash out the parameters of any guidance and specifications in an informed manner. This would require DfT funding to facilitate and the resultant code of practice could be used as the appropriate standard. This has also been suggested at 4 a – c above.
b. Local authorities:- if such guidance were introduced then all local authorities would have parameters, objectives, and codes of practice, to discuss through their own consultation regimes, (assuming good practice throughout – a different topic?).
c. Drivers: If customers and hose funding services were encouraged to link NVQ2 training to access to income sources such as school and social services contracts, and transport executive subsidised services (dial a ride) then drivers would be encouraged to use the vehicles to a fuller extent as it would pay them to do so. Further if used for local bus services disability friendly vehicles (DFVs) could be eligible for bus fuel duty rebate again giving further incentives to owner drivers to invest.
d. Manufacturers - the proposed enhanced specification has no commercial attraction as set out in paragraphs 2.37 – 2.39 of the consultation. A regulation seeking to compel the use of something that is not commercially viable is a scenario that beggars belief. However, manufactures should be invited to attend the groups suggested in paragraph a
e. Enforcement powers: - There are already requirements that drivers accept fares, further criminalisation would be overkill; simply adding to the increasing regulation affecting the trade and society in general. There is a very strong case to allow enforcement officers to have power to issue penalty tickets, not just case summons issue, albeit not unfettered.
Question 8- Amendment & commencement of S36 DDA 1995; which is not yet in force.
a. The suggestion that there would need to be a levelling of the playing field across the taxi and PHV trades has been noted throughout and is referred to in the consultation in reference to this topic. If that were to be the case the commercial disadvantage to the trade would reduce and the physical safety of PHV and saloon drivers be enhanced, assuming all WAVs had separate driver compartments.
b. A driver is already obliged to accept a fare, when plying for hire, including at a rank, unless it reasonable to refuse, Part 3 of the DDA, also applies. The section duplicates existing regulations.
c. The section reads “This section imposes duties on the driver of a regulated taxi which has been hired” That is the section affects what happens once a cab stops or arrives for a booking (it is assumed that a telephone booking would mention a WAV requirement). The duty applies in respect of wheelchair bound disabled people.
d. Before actually loading a wheelchair a risk assessment is appropriate, and advised by NVQ trainers. It must be the case that a driver must satisfy himself that the task in front of him can be performed safely, both for himself and the passenger.
e. Experience of wheeling a friend weighing 25 stone around demonstrates that it would not be safe to load him into a cab unassisted. It could be unsafe for both parties. It is reasonable to assume that underwriters would provide cover for injury to the wheelchair user, but not the driver in such a situation. In this case underwriters may also take the view the risk was apparent and seek indemnity from the insured driver, against a claim by the passenger. Here it is the loading not the carriage of the fare that is not possible, or unsafe.
f. It was surprising to see a video at an NVQ course where a driver of a saloon vehicle manhandled a wheelchair user from the chair into the car. The possible consequences of this are legion. Is this a safe practice? What is meant by 'assistance' in this context?
g. There is an occasional requirement by parents to take a teenager (accompanied) to a café / bar, the young person is in a wheelchair in a posture requiring that the wheelchair is carried laterally, not fore and aft. The parents load the youngster themselves happily and without ramps.
h. In this instance a fare is asking for carriage in a wheelchair that cannot be restrained. Responsible parents accompany the fare. The passengers know of the limitations of the vehicle, and are aware of a risk. A decision is then made to make the journey. If the section is in force they would be unable to make this journey without expecting the driver to commit an offence.
i. It is already the case that a driver must give reasonable assistance to a passenger with luggage; this would include a wheelchair in any event. The section would not seem to be necessary.
j. It is not however, possible to safely load an electric wheelchair without its occupant. Mobility scooters are often inherently unstable in a cab and cannot be restrained.
k. Medical exemption is a reasonable proviso. It is not sufficient on its own. A recent back strain prevented loading wheelchairs; driving was not a problem, the condition settled before the time of the medical appointment. It would seem common sense that work should not be suspended in that situation. Self certification of the temporary unfit is logical.
Question 9- Additional enforcement action or tools
a. Paragraph under 7 e above is repeated: “enforcement powers”; There are already requirements that drivers accept fares, further criminalisation would be overkill; simply adding to the increasing unnecessary regulation
b. However, there is a strong case to allow enforcement officers to have power to issue penalty tickets, albeit not unfettered. Fixed penalties offered by enforcement officers would need fresh legislation.
c. WAV drivers carrying wheelchair users should not generally be liable to a penalty for stopping and taking the time to assist in loading/ unloading such a passenger. Enforcement Officers should not be able to issue penalty notices. Some do so only if a driver after unloads and assists a fare into a building, and does not leave the passenger on the pavement.
d. There should be an option offering a driver a fixed penalty notice or an NVQ2 training course instead of prosecution by summons. Further infarction could lead to suspension of WAV employment.
Question 10. Positive incentives to improve driver behaviour
a. Sefton has already adopted the NVQ2. In time disability transport will be considered part of the normal day to day job.
b. At present authorities may appoint ranks, there should be duty to do so where people congregate; whether at shopping centres or areas where there is a large number of licensed premises; ranks should be placed so as to be obvious to the congregating public and have a raised kerb to assist WAV provision.
c. Ranks at interchanges have been referred to above, and at 12 c.
d. Authorities should have regular, permanent, consultation machinery, with all sections of the trade; many areas fail in this. Sefton has a structure that is open.
Question 11. DfT & Local Authority future improvements
a. Licensing conditions vary; allowing some trade groups an advantage over others.
b. A Code of Practice agreed by stakeholders at meetings described above, in response to questions 4 and 7, would ensure that all groups had “ownership”, and thereby support for a code.
Question 12. Availability of accessible taxis at transport interchange points.
a. Taxis and WAVs should be available, for immediate hiring, at all interchange points.
b. Information could be posted using the posts at taxi stands.
c. Access at interchanges is an issue that should be easily ameliorated. That transport interchanges are not required to provide access to vehicles that can be instantly booked seems curious. These interchanges should surely be mandated to provide access. Some charge for access, a toll charged in addition to the fare. Permits for specified, and restricted, drivers should be phased out.
d. Local authority websites should provide relevant information, in a uniform way; or at least, using uniform keywords so that the web search facility provides a uniform result.
Question 13- Improving consistency & quality of information to disabled persons
Commercial information is available in standard form in directories.
Council web sites could produce standard information as suggested in 12 d above.
Question 14- Potential impacts, costs and benefits of pro-active initiatives
a. Any initiative should firstly be the proper collection and collation of data. There is a paucity of data available. The actual numbers and distribution of those who may benefit from an updated vehicle should be ascertained. The number and distribution of WAV accessible PHVs must be ascertained. See also 1 above.
b. Clearly the enhanced specification imposed on only one section of the trade would have disproportionate effect on the other, possibly resulting in reduced WAV availability.
Question 15- Further and more accurate data- DfT initiatives.
This section of the consultation clearly shows that DfT has given thought to the vehicle it wants with insufficient data on the number and distribution of beneficiaries, of the proposed updated vehicles. The data should be obtained. This consultation should then be reconsidered, with ample time allowed.
Question 16- Opinion of the draft technical specifications
Question 17- Potential Impacts Costs & Benefits of a Regulation
a. In this economic climate it is vanishingly improbable that LTI will think it economic to produce a new body shell soon. Other manufactures that produce WAV vehicles cannot satisfy PCO requirements. Only LTI offers a satisfactory turning circle for the 'metropolitan' conditions. Other manufacturers who market taxi vehicles cannot (it is believed) satisfy this requirement as they use front wheel drive technology, (see also question 5). A longer wheelbase would also impact on this important characteristic.
b. Response to question 16 has also been considered in 5 above.
c. The consultation on these points and the preceding one show the prohibitive costs involved, to quote the consultation: “It has proven to be very difficult to quantify benefits, although figurative/scoping exercises suggest that they would be many magnitudes lower than the costs”
d. It is accepted, it seems, that obtaining a vehicle that would comply with the enhanced specification is a pipe dream.
e. Moreover, the proposal for the enhanced specification seems not to be economically proportionate, the principal licensing officer for SMBC has commented that the proposal is ‘Wednsebury unreasonable’; an observation which is of itself entirely reasonable.
f. It should be stressed that there is no objection to using an enhanced specification, if it were viable. The economics are disputed. The market is not certain, there is no data suggesting usage enhancement would provide a sufficient return.
g. DfT must address the ultimate dream of providing all disabled people with taxi transport against the likelihood that its aims are achievable only through social (NHS?) provision. There appears to be no commercially viable solution. It is possible to offer a commercially viable service for a large proportion of the disabled only. This comment is made with regret.
h. Need WAVs be the only licensed taxis under the proposal? Mixed fleets with subsidies for WAVs would be required? Without having the same regulations for PHVs the probability of migration of drivers to PHVs would reduce WAV availability severely, with no apology for repetition.
Question 18- Further or more accurate data on potential costs of regulations
If the level of demand is obtained (again DfT has not produced the data) then regulatory cost can be investigated. Assuming always there is a need for further regulation, which is not admitted. The omission of the necessary data has been mentioned throughout, particularly at 1 above.
Question 19. Enforcing a Technical Standard
a. Any new standards and equipment provided for the disabled can be policed quite easily by the local licensing officers, annual checks and so on, as presently.
b. It is already necessary to pass mechanical tests, before a licence is issued and renewed.
c. Using a vehicle that falls below that standard is already regulated. MOT testers make different assessments when required. It is inconceivable that they cannot check WAV requirements. There is no difficulty in obtaining staff (or agencies) to check such compliance. There is no shortage of labour for this object, within the existing framework.
d. Certain MOT stations check vehicles locally, these agencies are perfectly capable and willing, to make appropriate WAV / Taxi / PHV checks.
e. There is no shortage of existing regulation, or punishment for miscreants. There are already a plethora of regulations, statutes, and licensing requirements.
f. Neighbouring boroughs allow each others’ officers to enforce their regulations. Cross border inspections should be pre-clued from enforcing different regulations.
g. Suggesting that this consultation should be used to impose a further level of regulation or penalty is abhorrent. The way forward is suggested in paragraph 4, proper consultation within the trade!
h. These comments are also relevant to the preceding question.
CODE OF PRACTICE ON CONSULTATION
The code shows that “time-scales should be longer where feasible sensible....Consultation documents should be clear about...”
Bearing in mind that the Act considered was passed in 1995, and that data is missing, in some instances admittedly so, the time scale for consultation is too short; data should be obtained before the consultation closes, 24th April is too soon.
Responses to this consultation should be sent by 24 April 2009 to:
Paul Lawry Accessibility and Equalities Unit Department for Transport2/25 Great Minster House76 Marsham Street London SW1P 4DR
Email:
taxiconsultation@dft.gsi.gov.uk
Login
Register
FAQ
