1. Do current licensing arrangements and tools enable local authorities to effectively regulate and oversee the taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) sector across England, in terms of safety, accessibility and quality of service? If not, what improvements could be made?
In my view they do not, which is why the Transport Committee is undertaking this inquiry. Evidence of current arrangements not working can be found in the damming comments in the Casey Report. It’s also worth noting that MPs, councillors, Mayors, alongside thousands of drivers have been bemoaning matters for many years. I share those concerns.
Councils do, in my opinion, have the powers, if they wish to use them, to regulate and oversee their locally licensed taxi/PH trade within their licensing area. The problem arises (which has led to most that is wrong in the trade), is when those not licensed locally act or work as if they were. Helped by operators who only wish is to license as many drivers as possible, as quickly as possible, from anywhere in the country.
In my view, having thousands of vehicles working hundreds of miles away from their licensing enforcement officers cannot be anything other than unsafe, especially when one takes account the horrors as described in the Casey Report.
2. What is the impact on the travelling public and drivers of variation between licensing authorities? Is reform needed to bring greater standardisation?
Having a good knowledge of the area to which you are licensed cannot but help the local travelling public. The vehicle requirements of a rural area will not automatically be suited to that of a major city, and vice versa. In short, a one-size-fits-all approach to licensing is not a sensible option going forward. We have democratically elected councillors for a reason. They know their area, their local population, and their local taxi and PHV trade infinitely better than those working in the central London offices of the Department for Transport.
We already have a standardised approach to medicals and DBS checks, and we have the MOT as a minimum for all vehicle checks. Having a statutory national set of rules and regulations will stop councils from having any control over the vehicles they license, and remove the flexibility currently allowed to amend local policies to suit local conditions and individual circumstances.
In my view it also makes no sense to have a situation where locally elected Mayors will have control over all matters in their areas except that of taxi and PHV licensing?
3. What would be the practical implications for licensing authorities and operators of more stringent or standardised licensing conditions in respect of safety, accessibility, vehicles and driver conduct?
Licensed operators will express concern that more stringent standards will affect the number of new drivers entering the taxi and PHV trade. Whilst those same stringent standards will be welcomed by most licensing authorities and customers. Some councils whose licensing model is to license anything that moves will suffer a reduction in numbers, but that reduction will be alleviated in a positive way by drivers licensing in the areas they live and work.
4. What steps should the Government take to address the challenges posed by cross-border licensing in the taxi and PHV sector?
The simple answer is to follow what our friends north of the border do. Scotland doesn’t have a cross-border issue, as it’s unlawful. Section 21 of the Civic Gov Act 1982 allows drivers to undertake work outside of their licensing areas, but prohibits those drivers from continuing to work outside their licensing area. These requirements have been in place for over forty years without being abused. The large app operators manage to work within those requirements without it having a negative effect on their business.
Those in favour of the current cross border free for all often quote the words ‘right to roam’ when they defend the rights of vehicles working hundreds of miles away from their licensing areas. However every taxi and PHV roams every day of the week, that’s the nature of taxi and PHV working. What is causing nationwide concern are thousands of drivers working on a ‘right to stay’ basis. This is not what was envisaged when the regulations were enacted.
A less simple answer is to allow councils, or even mandate them, to have an ‘intended use’ policy when licensing PHVs. It works very well in many areas where councils have an ‘intended use’ policy for taxis. This would allow taxis and PHVs to undertake work outside their licensing areas, from time to time, but ensure they didn’t work predominantly outside of their area.
5. What would effective reform look like in terms of enforcement, passenger safety and safeguarding, and regulatory consistency? Is there a role for regional transport authorities?
Effective enforcement is all down to fully trained local licensing officials enforcing the local licensing trade, and that would include officials working outside of office hours. What would significantly help enforcement is giving those fully trained officials the powers to stop and check non-local taxis and PHVs, and report any license breaches back to their licensing authority. These non-local checks should be fully funded by a charge to the council that the driver is licensed in. It should not be the case, as it is now, that checks on non-local taxis and PHVs are, indirectly, being funded by local license fee payers.
A proper complaints procedure should also form part of the enforcement provision. It should also be a requirement that licensing councillors regularly observe out-of-hours enforcement.
I’m not sure what role regional transport authorities would add to the party, other than maybe adding an extra level of bureaucracy.
6. How are digital ride-hailing platforms impacting standards in the sector, and is further regulation in this area required?
The digital ride-hailing platforms have thrived by scouring the UK looking for the councils with the lowest standards, often run by officials who are untrained and can be best described as admin clerks. Companies like Uber are ensuring that many of their vehicles are licensed in those councils, even though those vehicles and drivers will never operate in those areas.
This has worked very well for those platforms who can now bypass the higher standards set by democratically elected councillors elsewhere, and has worked equally well for those officials who can guarantee their future employment despite never having to worry about the vehicles they license, as they are working hundreds of miles away, well out of sight.
As an example, Chichester City Council license 28 taxis and over 500 PHVs, yet undertake no enforcement checks. That in itself is shameful, but it’s worth noting that the vast majority of PHVs work outside of Chichester on the Uber app. So, despite Chichester scouping up 10s of 1000s of pounds in license fee money, it’s the license holders in Brighton, Portsmouth, and Southampton that are paying for the enforcement of Chichester PHVs.
7. How effective, accessible, and trusted are complaints and incident reporting systems in the taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) sector, for both passengers and drivers?
It’s a bit of a lucky dip situation; in some areas where there is effective local enforcement, you will find that such complaints are dealt with in a very professional manner by properly trained officials. However, in many areas, there is no effective complaints procedure due to the lack of properly trained staff, who are often merely administrative staff.
Of course, dealing with complaints isn’t easy when you have thousands of vehicles working hundreds of miles away from their licensing authority. CCTV would assist in helping those investigating complaints, and assist drivers who have received false complaints against them. However, too many councillors think CCTV in taxis/PHVs is too much of an intrusion, despite CCTV being used in almost every council building in the UK.
8. How effective is the National Register of Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3) in supporting consistent licensing decisions across local authorities? What barriers, if any, are limiting its use or impact?
It appears that once drivers are placed on the list, councils generally take note of it when considering new applicants, and renewal applications.
The problem, as I see it, is that we currently have 300-odd different sets of rules that lead to drivers being placed on that list. So in many areas, the criteria for revoking or refusing a license is completely different from the area next door.
9. What are the implications for taxi and PHV licensing of the future rollout of autonomous vehicles?
Current PHV legislation only applies if a driver is supplied with a vehicle, therefore autonomous vehicles will have no effect on PHV licensing. The wording for taxi legislation would allow it, given it was written in 1847.
Many in the trade are concerned for their future, but I take the view that any roll out of autonomous vehicles will be limited, and in my view will highlight the dangers of such vehicles.
I look forward to seeing one of these vehicles navigate Hyde Park Corner on a Friday afternoon, or not as the case may be.
On behalf of the Brighton and Hove Private Hire Association
phassociation@hotmail.co.uk
Brighton and Hove Private Hire Association 