ANNEX (continued)
Letter from the Chairman of the London
Taxi Board to the Clerk of the Committee
DRAFT TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLES DEREGULATION
ORDER
The London Taxi Board represents over 90% [of] the
drivers, owners and manufacturers of the London Taxi trade. Members
of the Board are the Joint Radio Taxi Association, London Motor
Cab Proprietors' Association, Licensed Taxi Driver's Association,
London Taxis International, Metrocab and the Transport and General
Workers' Union. More than 23,000 licensed taxi drivers operate
in London ensuring that more than 2 million passenger journeys
are completed each week. The licensed taxi trade is proud of
its long history of public service, and worldwide reputation for
high standards of customer service and safety.
We noted with interest the two draft orders that
the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions put
forward to the Deregulation Committee last month.
NORTHERN IRELAND DRIVING LICENSES
The proposal to recognise Northern Ireland driving
licenses as qualifying towards a taxi or private hire vehicle
drivers' license would seem entirely reasonable. An anomaly has
existed for a number of years and this would seem an opportune
means by which to rectify this strange irregularity. The Board
fully supports the Department's proposal on this issue.
RAILWAY SUBSTITUTION SERVICES
The proposal to allow private hire vehicles to be
used for railway substitution services concerns the London Taxi
Board as it would compromise current standards of customer safety,
reliability and accessibility in London - thereby removing 'necessary
protection'.
Disabled Accessibility
There is a requirement for all London's licensed
taxis to be wheelchair accessible by the year 2000. At present
more than 70% of the fleet is wheelchair accessible and this ensures
that the disabled will have full access to our vehicles. This
piece of legislation was implemented on the basic principle that
disabled people should have equal access to all forms of transport
services - specifically without having to make special arrangements.
Private Hire Cars are not required to meet such criteria. It
is not anticipated that they should have to, even when licensed
in London.
Passengers on a train do not have a choice - they
have to accept the service which is given by the train operating
company, ie the situation is analogous to when a customer hails
a cab in the street - and they should therefore be able to expect
the highest reasonable levels of safety. The principle when providing
a railway substitution service is thus equivalent to the requirements
for plying for hire.
We understand that the Government is due to stipulate
that all new trains and buses should also be 100% wheelchair accessible,
taxis have already been regulated in this fashion. As the entire
integrated transport network becomes 100% wheelchair accessible
it would seem to be a backward step in necessary protection to
allow railway substitution services to utilise a non accessible
means of transport.
It seems unreasonable to impose a 100% wheelchair
accessible fleet on the licensed taxi industry in London and then
jeopardise one of its key market segments. The Disability Discrimination
Act was specifically amended so that those who are disabled need
not worry with regard to the availability of a transport service.
This order would remove that guarantee should a train be terminated
between stations. This would appear to go against the principle
and intentions of the Disability Discrimination Act.
Passenger safety
The licensed taxi industry is highly regulated and
has a world renowned reputation for providing a safe and reliable
service to all customers. All drivers in the industry are required
to undertake training which involves a criminal record check,
a medical, a rigorous topographical examination (the knowledge)
and a driving test to police standards - if private hire cars
are licensed in London it is unlikely that they will be required
to meet all these rigorous standards. The safety of the public
who have no choice of service is an important requirement and
it would be compromised should this order be implemented in its
current format.
The well publicised physical attacks which those
utilising minicabs have suffered in recent months should not be
allowed to also threaten those who originally intended to travel
by rail, but whose service has been terminated.
Topographical training
Licensed taxis are required to undertake intensive
topographical training. Minicab drivers in London may not be
required to undertake such rigorous training and as a result would
be unable to safely, reliably and quickly transfer passengers
in the event of a rail substitution requirement. Passengers,
already late due to a rail failure, should be able to reach their
destination as soon as is feasible - licensed taxis are clearly
able to do this - private hire cars without parallel standards
of training would be unable to do so.
Furthermore, rail passengers stranded short of their
final destination may not be able to guide a minicab to its ultimate
destination, as they may not have detailed knowledge of the area.
London issues
Although this will not affect London until minicabs
are licensed (we are supporting Sir George Young's Private Member's
Bill to do so) we believe that this legislation should not be
amended in any circumstances prior to the licensing of London's
Private Hire trade.
GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION DOCUMENT -
BOARD'S COMMENTS
Point 4.6
In explaining the rationale behind the order the
Department, whilst referring to journeys outside the District
in which taxis are licensed, stated that '[for a private hire
car] a fare can be established in advance; the contract being
made at the time of booking.' This is also the case for licensed
taxis - contracts already exist with the train operating companies,
airports and corporations establishing agreed fares (which are
often below the meter fares) with licensed taxi operators in London.
When travelling outside their licensed areas the
agreed fare for a journey is made in advance - in the same way
in which a private hire fare is agreed.
Only when plying for hire can a licensed taxi refuse
a fare that goes outside of the metropolitan area and only providing
the driver has good reason to do so. Rail substitution services
are provided by the radio circuit taxi industry and thus are booked
for the job by telephone. Drivers who provide the service are
therefore committed to the destination.
Healthy competition already exists and charges are
set at appropriate levels commensurate with passenger safety,
economy and government policy on wheelchair accessibility. The
train operating companies place substitution services out to competitive
tender.
Point 4.7
Benefits exist only if the issue is reduced to the
lowest common denominator - cost savings. However, passengers
already bear the costs of training, safety and accessibility when
they use trains, buses or licensed taxis now, or in the future.
The Board would like to see the Department's evidence
to justify the statement that 'allowing private hire vehicles
to be used in this way is unlikely to make any financial difference
to taxi drivers.' It will be impossible for the licensed taxi
industry in London to compete with the private hire industry,
who do not carry the running costs inherent with accessible vehicles,
fully trained drivers and PCO inspections etc, etc.
We are currently assessing the financial impact on
the licensed taxi industry and will advise the Committee of our
findings as soon as possible.
However our case is fundamentally based upon principle
rather than finance.
The principle being that customers utilising rail
substitution services do so involuntarily and are a completely
random cross section of the community who have no choice in the
type of substitution service chosen by the operating company.
These principles form the basis of the regulation of the licensed
taxi trade in London and operating conditions and costs imposed
upon it by the Government. It cannot be reasonable or in public
interest to make an exemption in this instance.
Point 4.9
The Departmental consultation document stated that
there was nothing in the order which has the effect of removing
or reducing necessary protection.
However, it is clear that necessary protection would
be removed from passengers - as they would not be guaranteed the
necessary levels of safety or accessibility that they currently
enjoy.
CONCLUSION
We believe that the current rail substitution regulations
provide passengers with necessary protection and ensure
that customers reach their intended destinations as safely and
as quickly as is possible. The Board feels that this order would
remove this protection and potentially put the travelling public
at risk.
Our proposal is that, at the very least, London be
exempted from the order at this time. The issue of its application
in London should be addressed once the conditions of licensing
minicabs in London is confirmed in legislation. Only at that
time will it be possible to judge its effect on passengers and
the licensed taxi trade.
This order goes against the established principle
of Government policy of ensuring a comprehensive wheelchair accessible
transport network.
I enclose an executive summary of our main points.
In our haste to make a representation to the Committee we have
not yet been able to provide full substantiation for every point
and would welcome an opportunity to give oral evidence.
We have not doubt that, if asked, those who use rail
services in London would view this order as a removal of a protection
and service they currently benefit from in the event of having
to use substitution services.
LONDON TAXI BOARD'S POSITION
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
We oppose the proposal for private hire cars to
be used as railway substitution services because necessary protection
would be removed as:
- Licensed taxis in London can cater for disabled
passengers due to statutory requirements to be 100% wheelchair
accessible by the year 2000, private hire cars are not currently
anticipated to be required to comply with such criteria.
- Passengers on a train do not have a choice -
they have to accept the service which is given by the train operating
company. This situation is directly comparable to when a customer
hails a cab in the street - and they should therefore be able
to expect the highest reasonable levels of safety and accessibility.
The principle when providing a railway substitution service is
thus equivalent to requirements for plying for hire.
- We understand that the Government is due to stipulate
that all new trains and buses should also be 100% wheelchair accessible,
taxis have already been regulated in this fashion. As the entire
integrated transport network becomes 100% wheelchair accessible
it would seem to be a backward step in necessary protection to
allow railway substitution services to utilise a non accessible
means of transport.
- Standards of passenger safety would be at risk
due to the uncertainty as to whether private hire car drivers,
when licensed in London, will match the standards currently expected
of London's licensed taxi drivers.
This order would not give the necessary protection
to consumers if applied and specifically would be premature in
London, where the conditions under which the minicab industry
will operate have yet to be determined. It should be reconsidered
after the issue of licensing London's private hire cars has been
resolved, and dependant on a requirement for wheelchair accessibility
for all private hire cars.
Our proposal is that, at the very least, London
be exempted from the order at this time. The issue of its application
in London should be addressed once the conditions of licensing
minicabs in London are confirmed in legislation. Only at that
time will it be possible to judge its effect on passengers and
the licensed taxi trade.
7 January 1998
| 
