Select Committee on Deregulation Second Report


ANNEX

Letter from the Clerk of the Committee to the Head of Buses and Taxis Division, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions

The Deregulation Committee has begun its consideration of the proposal for the Deregulation (Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles) Order 1998. At its meeting on 16 December, the Committee expressed concern over a number of aspects of the proposal.

Although it was acknowledged that by no means all taxis and buses were currently accessible for disabled passengers, and indeed some private hire vehicles were accessible, it was noted that the proposed Order could have implications for disabled passengers. The Explanatory Memorandum notes that the Government intends to introduce regulations under the disability Discrimination Act 1995 to require taxis to conform to prescribed accessibility standards. There was no suggestion that such requirements would apply to private hire vehicles. It would therefore appear that by allowing the provision of substitute rail services by private hire vehicles the proposed Order could undermine the protection for disabled passengers that would otherwise be introduced by regulations under the 1995 Act.

The Committee therefore wish to know what guarantees there would be that accessible transport would be provided for disabled passengers in the event of an interruption or discontinuation of their rail service, and also whether any such guarantees are currently provided by rail companies.

The Committee expressed surprise that there was no consultation undertaken with organisations specifically representing the disabled. The issue of provision for disabled passengers was raised by a number of the consultees, and it was argued that such organisations should have been approached. The Committee would like to know why these organisations were not consulted.

The Committee questioned who would benefit from the removal of a burden under the proposed Order. The Explanatory Memorandum states that the proposed Order would remove a burden from the companies that provide train services because it would enable them to utilise the services of private hire vehicle companies. On this specific point, the Committee would like to know whether rail companies do at present have difficulty in providing a substitute service for their passengers when necessary without the option of using private hire vehicles. They wished to know whether representations have been received stating that provision of cover by licensed taxis was ever unable to meet demand. A number of consultees stated that this was not the case.

The proposed Order also raises questions about the necessary protection for rail passengers arising out of the relative safety of taxis and licensed private hire vehicles. The Explanatory Memorandum stresses that licensing authorities are able to obtain the criminal records of applicants for licences for both taxis and private hire vehicles, and as a result there is no reason why the public should be any less safe travelling with a licensed private hire vehicle driver. The Committee would like to know whether there are differences between the requirements for applicants for taxi and private hire vehicle licences.

The Committee also wish to know what assessment has been made of the potential for abuse of the new provisions resulting in rail passengers being carried by unlicensed drivers when rail services are discontinued or interrupted. The Transport and General Workers Union argued that private hire companies frequently employed unlicensed drivers and unlicensed vehicles on contracts. They believed that the proposed Order would increase the risk of rail passengers being driven by such drivers or in such vehicles.

The Explanatory Memorandum also notes that local licensing authorities are responsible for inspecting licensed taxis and licensed private hire vehicles to ensure standards of maintenance. It was unclear to the Committee whether the standards required for both categories are the same and also whether regulations relating to the maintenance of the vehicle vary across the country. The Committee would also like to make certain that the insurance requirements relating to the carriage of passengers are the same for drivers of licensed taxis and licensed private hire vehicles.

The proposed Order only applies to areas where private hire vehicles are licensed. The Committee wishes to know which local authorities outside London do not license private hire vehicles.

As has been mentioned, a number of the points raised above were noted by individuals and organisations who responded to the consultation exercise expressing opposition to the proposed Order.

The Committee resolved at its meeting on 16 December that it would raise the points of concern listed above, and that they would then decide on whether it was necessary to take oral evidence on the basis of the response.

17 December 1997


 
previous page contents next page

House of Commons home page Parliament home page House of Lords home page search page enquiries

© Parliamentary copyright 1998
Prepared 19 February 1998