ANNEX (continued)
Letter from the Head of Buses and Taxis
Division, Department of the Environment,
Transport and the Regions to the Clerk of the Committee
I should say at the outset that the order, as proposed,
would make it clear that the Train Operating companies (TOCs)
and the British Railways Road (BRB) had the ability to
use licensed private hire vehicles (PHVs) as well as taxis and
buses. The order is an enabling provision only, putting no obligation
on TOCs to use PHVs. If a TOC considered in a particular case
or in general, that the needs of its passengers would best be
served by buses or taxis, then the order would not in any way
prevent it from using them.
The Committee asked whether any guarantees of accessible
transport for disabled passengers are given by rail companies
at present. I am advised that TOCs do welcome disabled passengers,
and are committed, in their Disabled Peoples' Protection Policy
Statements, to making improvements to stations and trains to make
rail travel easier. The Railways Act 1993 placed a duty on TOCs
to have regard to the needs of disabled people. The Rail Regulator
is responsible for policing that duty, and each one has to submit
a Disabled Persons Protection Policy to the Regulator for approval.
However, the TOCs are under no specific obligations
to make special arrangements for disabled passengers if train
services are disrupted. In those circumstances, TOCs are required
by their Franchise Agreement to use reasonable endeavours - having
regard to safety and cost - to provide alternative transport for
all their passengers. I enclose a copy of the relevant part of
the "agreement template" - that is, the standard form
on which the Franchise Agreements were based.
There is thus no specific guarantee that accessible
public transport will be made for disabled passengers in the event
of an interruption or discontinuance of a train service at present.
However, I understand that there is to be a review of the Rail
Regulator's Code of Practice on meeting the needs of disabled
people which will begin shortly and we will ask the ORR to address
this issue in the review. At present the Code simply recommends
that disabled people be advised of any planned disruptions at
the time of booking.
For the future, however, regulations under the Disability
Discrimination Act 1995 will apply mandatory standards of accessibility
to trains. That statutory requirement may well also apply to
provisions made for alternative transport if train services are
disrupted.
The Committee also asked why consultation was not
undertaken with organisations representing disabled people. The
Department originally saw the issue as essentially one of increasing
the supply of road passenger vehicles to train companies, for
the general benefit. It is perhaps worth pointing out that some
accessible vehicles are licensed as PHVs, and although the majority
of PHVs are not accessible, the same is true of taxis at present.
However, once it became clear that there were concerns
about possible implications for disabled people, the proposal
was discussed at some length by the DPTAC taxi committee. DPTAC
are, of course, the Department's statutory advisers on disability
issues. DPTAC expressed no overall view on the matter.
As to representations about cover by licensed taxis
the draft order had its origins in a complaint from a TOC. It
felt it was being overcharged by some taxi drivers, because the
cost of a taxi for a journey in one direction was markedly higher
than for the other direction. (Once a taxi leaves the area for
which it is licensed, the fare is not legally determined by what
is shown on the meter.) The intention of the order is to enable
TOCs to call upon a wider range of vehicle operators to meet their
requirements, and thus possibly keep prices more stable by introducing
an element of competition.
It is perhaps worth adding that when a TOC arranges
for a road service to substitute for a train service, it will
mostly use buses, simply because that is the most economical way
of moving quantities of passengers by road. (The transport provisions
of the Disability Discrimination Act extend to buses and coaches,
and regulations will be introduced to ensure that in future those
vehicles are fully accessible.) Taxis tend to be used where only
small numbers of passengers are involved.
As to the supply of taxis, in many places the number
of taxis licensed is strictly limited by the local licensing authority.
It was considered in principle reasonable that a TOC should be
able to call upon the services of the usually greater number of
licensed PHVs.
The Committee asked about the relative safety of
taxis and licensed PHVs with particular reference to checks on
criminal records for applicants for drivers' licenses. It is
the responsibility of the licensing authority to ensure that the
people they licence are "fit and proper" (in the words
of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976) for
the task, and the Department therefore does not have precise details
for every local authority. But all our information indicates
that the only difference between the two licences is that some
local authorities require a different topographical knowledge
test for taxi drivers as compared with PHV drivers. There would
be no difference on matters such as criminal record checks.
The Committee raised the question of the use of unlicensed
drivers for PHVs. It is in fact a criminal offence for unlicensed
drivers to drive licensed PHVs, and it is a requirement of the
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 that a licensed
driver shall wear a badge, so that the matter may easily be checked
by passengers among others. Any evidence of unlicensed drivers
being used by operators of PHVs can be sent to the licensing authority
so that action can be taken against both the offending driver
and the operator. It is not clear to the Department that the
use of licensed PHVs by TOCs would increase the risk of passengers
being carried by unlicensed drivers.
The Committee also enquired about relative standards
of maintenance of taxis and PHVs where both are licensed. As
mentioned in the Explanatory Memorandum, the responsibility for
licensing these vehicles rests with the appropriate local licensing
authority. Again, the information available to the Department
indicates that each licensing authority requires the same standards
of maintenance for both the taxis and the PHVs it licences. There
may be in principle differing standards between authorities, but
of course all taxis and private hire vehicles are required to
meet the appropriate roadworthiness standards prescribed by law
for cars and other motor vehicles. Taxis and PHVs will be tested
against these standards in MOT tests, although it is common for
local authorities to require both taxis and PHVs to be tested
more often than a private car, because of the relatively high
mileages they run.
As to insurance, all motor vehicles, including taxis
and PHVs, have to have a minimum of third party insurance, which
to be valued has to cover their hire and reward activities. In
the case of PHVs the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1976 requires licensing authorities to be satisfied that there
is in force a policy of insurance (or security) complying with
the legal requirements before they issue a PHV licence. There
is no equivalent provision in the case of taxis, but Councils
are able to require an insurance policy to be produced before
they issue a taxi licence.
The Committee asked which councils outside London
do not licence PHVs. The only licensing authority in England
and Wales not to do so is Broxbourne, although I understand that
a few Scottish authorities do not exercise their licensing power
in some rural areas.
There is one final point of which perhaps the Committee
should be aware. The provisions of section 4A of the Transport
Act 1962, which the order would amend, refer to the British Railways
Board. The powers of the BRB are now concurrently exercisable
by the Director of Rail Franchising, by virtue of section 47 of
the Railways Act 1993, but although the Board exists, it no longer
operates passenger train services. However, there is some uncertainty
as to the extent to which the limitations of the Board's powers
under section 4A bite on the TOCs, so some TOCs may consider themselves
able to use PHVs anyway.
In conclusion, it might be helpful if I were to repeat
that the Order would only be enabling rather than mandatory.
It would increase the options open to TOCs in arranging replacement
services, but would leave the choice with the TOCs. In the light
of the overall policies, the order would not override any statutory
obligations to which the TOCs were subject, and would permit the
use of only licensed PHVs, which would thus be subject to all
the relevant local authority safety checks.
Relevant section of "agreement template"
annexed to letter
8.2 Disruptions to Passenger Services
(a) In the event of a disruption to the Passenger
Services the Franchise Operator shall use all reasonable endeavours
to provide or secure the provision of such alternative transport
arrangements as are reasonably feasible (having regard to safety
and cost) such that passengers who would otherwise have travelled
on the Passenger Services are transported by such alternative
transport to (or as near as reasonably practicable to) the end
of their intended journeys on the Passenger Services.
(b) Where any Passenger Services are required
to be cancelled or delayed or short formations are required to
be operated, the Franchise Operator shall use all reasonable endeavours
to ensure that any such cancellations, delays or short formations
are not concentrated on a particular route on which the Passenger
Services are operated save where such concentration either:
(i) would be in the overall interest of passengers
using the Passenger Services and would not result in disproportionate
inconvenience to any group of passengers; or
(ii) is reasonably necessary as a result of the
cause or the location of the cancellation, delay or short formation.
13 January 1998
| 
