Government response
Introduction
The Government is grateful to the Transport Committee
for undertaking an inquiry into taxis and private hire vehicles
(PHVs). The Committee's report provides a helpful analysis of
the issues and it demonstrates just how complex those issues can
be—and how widely opinion varies about the best way of moving
forward.
The Government has now considered the Transport Committee's
Report and specifically its 14 recommendations a response to each
is given in this publication.
Coincidentally, on the same day that the Committee
published its report, the Law Commission announced that, as part
of its Eleventh Programme of Law Reform, it intends to undertake
a comprehensive review of taxi and private hire vehicle legislation.
So whilst the Government notes the Committee's recommendation
that the Department for Transport should undertake an in-house
review rather than handing over the issue to the Law Commission,
the Law Commission is now undertaking a review. The Minister,
Norman Baker, indicated on 15 March whilst giving oral evidence
that the Government regarded a Law Commission review as a sensible
way to proceed and the Law Commission agreed that a review of
taxi legislation fitted in with their criteria for taking on projects.
The Law Commission is an independent body with a
statutory remit to modernise and simplify the law. The Government
has indicated that it wants the review to be underpinned by a
deregulatory objective commensurate with maintaining satisfactory
levels of safety. Beyond that, the Law Commission has been charged
with carrying out a root and branch review with a view to providing
recommendations and drawing up a draft Bill.
Against that background, the Government is clear
that this response should not fetter the discretion that has been
given to the Law Commission. Whilst it is entirely reasonable
for the Government to give an indication of what it thinks of
each of the Committee's recommendations, it must be stressed that
in doing so, the Government is not intending to lead the Law Commission
towards a particular conclusion or close off any particular avenue
of consideration.
Recommendations
Recommendation 1. In our view, the case for a
thorough overhaul of the legislation relating to taxis and private
hire vehicles is irresistible. (Paragraph 14)
DfT response: The
Government agrees that there is a strong case for overhauling
the legislation governing taxis and private hire vehicles. That
is why the Government has asked the Law Commission to undertake
a comprehensive review of the legislation.
Recommendation 2. We recommend that, instead of
referring reform of taxi and PHV legislation to the Law Commission,
the Government should engage with the trade, local authorities
and users about the objectives of future legislation on taxis
and private hire vehicles and commit to overhaul that legislation
during the course of this Parliament. Once these objectives are
decided, the detailed work to frame legislation and guide it through
Parliament should begin. This need not involve primary legislation:
we consider that the swifter legislative reform order procedure
could be used in this case. (Paragraph 15)
DfT response: The
Government does not consider that referring the review of taxi
and PHV legislation to the Law Commission is in any way inappropriate.
On the contrary, the Government considers that the Law Commission
is the ideal body to undertake such a review. Its fundamental
purpose is to review complex areas of law, it has experience and
expertise in carrying out this function and with its independent
status comes an ability to assess the issues in an objective way.
The Government is satisfied that the Law Commission will undertake
an effective and productive review, the final report of which
will be delivered during the lifetime of the current Parliament.
The Government is not inclined towards the legislative
reform order route to establish a new legislative framework for
taxis and PHVs. Whilst the Government expects the draft Bill produced
by the Law Commission to have a good degree of support, there
will be substantive and controversial issues to be addressed and
the Government considers that these would best be considered and
debated during the passage of a Bill through Parliament.
PRINCIPLES TO UNDERPIN NEW LEGISLATION
Recommendation 3. We recommend that, in developing
proposals for changing the legislation applying to taxis and PHVs,
the Government should commission authoritative research into consumers'
opinions. Particular attention should be paid to the views of
vulnerable groups, such as disabled people, who are often most
reliant on taxis and PHVs. (Paragraph 18)
DfT response: The
Government accepts that seeking the views of users is a vital
element of undertaking any reform of the taxi and PHV legislation.
The Government does not, however, accept that a dedicated research
project is needed. The Law Commission will engage with consumer
organisations—in order to gain a full understanding of the
views of everyone with a stake in this sector—as part of
its review of the legislation.
Recommendation 4. We recommend that the Town Police
Clauses Act 1847 and the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions)
Act 1976 should be replaced by a single Act or legislative reform
order, covering both taxis and PHVs. (Paragraph 19)
DfT response: The
Government notes this recommendation. Without wanting to pre-empt
the Law Commission's review, it seems clear that a sensible and
desirable outcome from the review would be a single Act of Parliament
covering both taxis and private hire vehicles.
Recommendation 5. We recommend that the Government
provide clearer guidance to local authorities on how taxis and
PHVs should be included in local transport plans. (Paragraph 21)
DfT response: Under
the Government's commitment to localism, the Department for Transport
will not intervene in the way local authorities review their progress
against LTPs or require reports or reviews. While local authorities
had a statutory duty to produce LTPs by April 2011 it will be
for them to decide how to implement and use them.
Recommendation 6. There are strong arguments in
favour of national standards in relation to issues which directly
relate to public safety, such as the level of CRB check drivers
require, the roadworthiness of vehicles and drivers whose licences
have been revoked being licensed shortly afterwards by a different
district. We recommend that new legislation in this area should
provide for this. (Paragraph 23)
DfT response: The
Government agrees with this recommendation in principle. There
are certain elements of the licensing process where the public
would, quite reasonably, expect there to be a degree of consistency
throughout the country. We expect the details of the extent of
nationally-imposed criteria to be considered in the context of
the Law Commission's review.
Recommendation 7. We agree with the Minister that
the licensing of taxis and PHVs should remain a local function,
not least because of the likely cost and complexity of instituting
a national system. (Paragraph 23)
DfT response: Local
authorities do, indeed, seem well-placed to deal with this form
of transport. They have a good deal of experience and expertise
in administering the licensing function and a continuing role
for them would obviate the need to establish a new licensing system.
However, the Government does not want to pre-empt the Law Commission's
fundamental review of the legislation, and would be willing to
consider the case for an alternative approach.
Recommendation 8. We recommend that any legal
barriers to co-operation between local authorities and innovation
in organising and funding enforcement activity in relation to
taxis and PHVs should be reviewed as part of the process of legislative
reform. (Paragraph 25)
DfT response: The
Government agrees with this recommendation in principle. There
would seem to be advantages in enabling local licensing authorities
to collaborate over enforcement funding and activity. The Law
Commission will consider enforcement strategy and activity carefully
as part of their review.
Recommendation 9. We are sympathetic to the argument
that offences relating to taxis and PHVs, such as plying for hire,
should be dealt with by fixed penalty notices rather than court
action and we recommend that the Government should move in this
direction when it comes to reform the legislation in this area.
(Paragraph 26)
DfT response: The
Government accepts that there is merit in considering whether
certain offences could be appropriately dealt with by fixed penalty
notices. The use of fixed penalty notices is a cost-effective
way of dealing with certain low-level offences of an objective
nature. We will consider whether there is scope for making use
of this form of enforcement for certain low-level taxi and PHV-related
offences. The Law Commission will consider the extent to which
fixed penalty notices can be incorporated into a more modern regulatory
system.
Recommendation 10. We recommend that new legislation
should permit existing licensing districts to be combined where
local authorities decide it is best to do so. (Paragraph 28)
DfT response: The
Government accepts this recommendation in principle. A local authority-based
approach to taxi and PHV licensing has advantages in terms of
enabling people who know and understand local conditions, circumstances
and needs to make decisions. Those same local authorities will
also know best when it is desirable or appropriate to combine
licensing areas in order that they secure the economies of scale
associated with such a policy and that passengers get a more efficient
service. Whilst accepting that this recommendation is attractive,
the details, for example of how many licensing authorities should
be allowed to combine, the extent to which taxi drivers will be
compelled to accept hirings within a larger district and whether
such a combination should be reversible, will have to be considered
by the Law Commission.
SOLVING THE CROSS-BORDER HIRE PROBLEMS
Recommendation 11. We recommend that it should
be permissible for taxi and PHV licences to include a condition
that the vehicle must principally be operated in the licensing
district. A similar provision should also be permitted in relation
to driver licences. (Paragraph 30)
DfT response: The
Government understands the concerns that some have about the present
position but is not convinced that this recommendation (which
it understands to relate solely to pre-booked hirings, rather
than immediate hirings at ranks or by being hailed in the street)
is a suitable way of dealing with the cross border issues considered
by the Committee.
Such a restriction would
work against those operators who were located at the edge of a
local authority's area and it would work against those operators
who were dedicated to long-distance trips eg airport runs where
a large proportion of the distance travelled would be beyond the
local authority's border. Operators would end up sending for an
out-of-district hiring not the nearest driver, but a driver who
had not yet reached his limit on out-of-district journeys—and
this would increase dead mileage, with adverse environmental implications.
In short, it does not sit neatly with a deregulatory approach
to reforming taxi and PHV legislation.
Moreover, a restriction
of this nature could confuse and unfairly penalise passengers
who would be unable to use the operator of their choice.
On a practical level, it
would involve local authorities establishing a whole new tier
of enforcement activity—at some cost, which might be added
to the licence fee—in order to determine which vehicle owners
and which drivers had exceeded their quota of out-of-district
hirings.
The Government recognises
that the Committee's underlying concern is to avoid the situation
where taxi drivers are licensed in the north of the country and
then locating themselves in the south of the country in order
to undertake pre-booked hirings. The Government would note that
there are alternative approaches to that proposed by the Transport
Committee, for example, obliging licensed operators to use only
vehicles (whether taxi or private hire) licensed by the same local
authority as granted their operator licence.
The Government, in proposing
this possible alternative approach, is not intending to fetter
the Law Commission's discretion in undertaking a comprehensive
review of the legislation, it is simply demonstrating that there
are various potential means of addressing this particular issue.
The Law Commission will,
as part of its review, consider the wider picture including why
this is actually happening and propose a way forward in that context.
Recommendation 12. In addition, new legislation
should permit local authorities to issue fixed penalty notices
to out-of-town drivers where there is evidence, for example, that
they have worked, or sought to work, for a specified period of
time in that district. Local authorities should also be enabled
to prosecute operators in other districts which are routinely
sending cars to work in their area. (Paragraph 30)
DfT response: The
Government does not agree with this recommendation. For the reasons
set out in response to recommendation 11, the Government does
not consider that directly restricting the area in which a taxi
or PHV driver can pick up passengers by means of a condition attached
to his licence is a sensible way of proceeding against the background
of a review which has a deregulatory objective at its heart.
The Government believes that fixed penalty notices
are best deployed for offences which are objective and where the
scope for dispute is minimal (for example a driver either was,
or was not, wearing his badge). The question of how many out-of-district
journeys a driver might have undertaken as a proportion of his
overall total number of journeys would be far from straightforward
to determine at any time, and particularly not "on-the-spot".
Recommendation 13. In our view it is essential
that local authorities justify their approach to the use of these
controls in local transport plans, alert drivers and operators
in neighbouring districts to their intention to use such powers;
and provide adequate warnings to drivers and operators before
issuing fixed penalty notices or initiating prosecutions. (Paragraph
31)
DfT response: The
Government does not agree with this specific recommendation as
it is not convinced that directly restricting the area in which
a driver can accept a pre-booked hiring is a desirable way forward.
Conclusion
Recommendation 14. We call on the Government to
set out its policy proposals before the end of the year, with
a view to holding a consultation exercise in 2012, introducing
draft legislation in 2013-14 and taking an Act or legislative
reform order through Parliament before the next general election.
(Paragraph 33)
DfT response: The
Government has asked the Law Commission to carry out a comprehensive
review of taxi and PHV licensing and they have agreed to include
it in their Eleventh Programme of Law Reform starting in July
2011. The Law Commission's timetable involves them undertaking
a consultation exercise in 2012. The Government's plans for introducing
draft legislation arising from the Law Commission's review are
still subject to consideration.
| 
