Agenda item - Deregulation Bill 2014 Taxi Licensing Amendments - implications

8.1       The Committee considered a report of the Director of Public Health setting out details of the amendments made to the Deregulation Bill 2014 which had implications for the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire trades.

8.2       The Head of Regulatory Services explained that on 14 March 2014 the Department for Transport (DfT) had written to taxi and private hire stakeholders to inform them that amendments had been introduced to the Deregulation Bill as part of its drive to reduce the overall burden of regulation on business and individuals and cut ‘red tape’ during this Parliament. Ministers had identified for inclusion in the Bill three measures which were straightforward to make in isolation and which they considered would generate significant benefits for the taxi and private hire trades.

The three measures which have been added to the Deregulation Bill were:

·        (i) Allowing private hire operators to sub-contract bookings to operators licensed in a different district. This change will improve operators’ ability to meet passengers’ needs. And it will help to make the passenger’s experience so much more convenient.

·        (ii) Allowing anyone with an ordinary driver’s licence to drive a private hire vehicle when it is “off-duty”.  The principal benefit of this measure is that a PHV could be used as a family car, freeing up many families from the need to run a second car and saving them money; and

·        (iii) Making the standard duration for all taxi and PHV driver licences three years; and five years for all PHV operator licences. Shorter durations will only be granted on a case by case basis, where it is justifiable for a particular reason. This will reduce the financial and administrative burden of having to make more frequent licence renewals.

8.3       The Dft had also asked the taxi and private hire trades outside London to give examples of conditions attached to their licences which they considered to be overly restrictive or unreasonable so that they could consider the case for Government involvement in the licence conditions set by local authorities. The Trade, Unions, NALEO, LGA, Meeting of the Minds Group and Suzy Lamplugh Trust had all expressed over these proposals which were considered to be ill thought out especially as the Law Commission had published its Draft Bill on 23 May 2014 (Appendix 4 to the report).

8.4       Licensing officers also had concerns especially in relation to the change to three year licences. Fee setting was tightly regulated and local authorities were facing unprecedented budget challenges. Although the vast majority of licence holders were responsible and transparent, annual licensing arrangements could pick up criminal convictions and relevant medical conditions that licensees may have omitted to declare, changed addresses, etc, during the currency of the licence. Triennial Licences would increase that risk.

8.5       The city taxi trade itself appeared fearful that opening the market to out of town operators might facilitate big transport companies using a loss leader approach to drive out local operators, to the detriment of local business, and eventually passengers, as competition reduced as local operators became displaced. Fares would rise as a result of newly formed monopolies muscling in on the market.

8.6       The Head of Regulatory Services explained that officers considered that the call for ‘examples of conditions attached to licences would be overly restrictive or unreasonable and it was therefore viewed with concern. There could be diminution of the standards that had been developed over time, working in partnership with business and based on local evidence, that recognised the city as the visitor, leisure and conference based economy that it was. Examples could be conditions relating to livery, English language standards, driver standards, vehicle emissions standards and air quality and local community safety (CCTV requirements).

8.7       Councillor Duncan stated that he was of the view that notwithstanding that these amendments had been made in reality there might be little movement on them until after the 2015 General Election.

8.8       Councillor Gilbey stated that it was difficult to see how the changes would work in practice.

8.9       Councillor C Theobald referred to the fact that traffic became gridlocked in the station area including taxis seeking to drop off and pick up there. Councillor Duncan agreed that this needed to be addressed. The Head of Regulatory Services explained that this was recognised as a “pinch point” and that the taxi trade and bus operators were in discussion to seeking solutions to these problems. The matter had also been discussed at the recent Taxi Forum meeting.

8.10    Councillor Jarrett stated  that he  shared  the  concerns  expressed  and that in  his  view  relaxation of  conditions  could  result  in a  reduction in public  safety  both for customers  and  other  road users as well as being  overly restrictive  and  unreasonable  in other  areas.

8.11    Councillor Powell the Chair concurred with all that had been said, she was particularly concerned that accessibility and equality issues could be compromised. The city’s Green MP had also spoken out against these proposed changes and it was hoped that against the backdrop of serious concerns that had been voiced from a number of quarters that ultimately, these proposals might be diluted.

8.12    RESOLVED - That Committee notes the proposed amendments to the Deregulation Bill 2014 and possible implications.