The government has not yet responded to the
public consultation on relaxing taxi licensing laws even though
there was an overwhelming public response against the proposals
because many other people share my concerns that public safety
would be compromised.
Does the Portfolio Holder agree with me that this is already
happening in Medway because a failure to resource the instructions
in my motion, agreed at Full Council in October, has led to an even
bigger increase in out of town cab drivers working in Medway?
Minutes:
“The government has not yet responded to
the public consultation on relaxing taxi licensing laws even though
there was an overwhelming public response against the proposals
because many other people share my concerns that public safety
would be compromised.
Does the Portfolio Holder agree with me that this is already
happening in Medway because a failure to resource the instructions
in my motion, agreed at Full Council in October, has led to an even
bigger increase in out of town cab drivers working in
Medway?”
Councillor Hicks stated that Full Council agreed the following motion last October:
· Medway Council notes concerns that private hire vehicles from outside Medway are operating in Medway.
· Council believes that employment should not be discouraged, but recognises there may be safety concerns over out-of-area drivers operating in Medway.
· Council resolves to work with the Medway Licensed Taxi Drivers Association in finding a sustainable and legal solution
He stated that officers continued to work with the Medway Licensed Taxi Driver Association (MLTDA).
The issues centred around the case of Stockton - On - Tees BC v Fidler and others and the decision of the High Court in that case. The essence of that case determined the following matters:
He stated that following this judgment, licensed hackney carriages could be used for private hire via a pre-booking system in another borough but could not operate as a hackney carriage during those journeys. The court highlighted that Local Authorities still had control of those plying for trade in their areas and that all hackney carriages still had to be licensed.
Given this, it meant that there was now a grey area with regards to enforcement. Medway Council consideredpublic safety to be paramount and was therefore working with partner Local Authorities to ensure that public safety was maintained. It was due to public safety that Medway Council required that its licensed drivers and vehicles undergo the checks and standards required.
He stated that officers were looking at the implementation of a policy which would deal with hackney and private hire drivers, vehicles and operator licensing. At this stage, he stated that he would like to thank Councillor Rehman Chishti for raising this matter in Parliament and undertaking further consultation work on this very important subject.
He informed Members that on 17 April 2015 the Council had carried out pre-planned taxi licensing enforcement operations jointly with Tonbridge and Malling Council but for operational reasons he could not confirm the outcome of this initiative. However, he did confirm that further operations of this kind were planned and the Council was committed to thwarting illegal trading. Clearly intervention could only lead to prosecution where cogent evidence was established via, for example, test purchases.
He then stated that he would like to summarise what took place at the Licensing and Safety Committee meeting last November as follows:
Members made the following comments:
· The first priority for Councillors was customer safety whether whilst using hackney carriage or private hire vehicles.
· It was noted that mystery shopping exercises were difficult to carry out within the Medway area and collaboration with other local authorities was more effective. Officers working as mystery shoppers from each authority used the same questions in relation to the condition of the vehicle, customer care and attention, and knowledge of the shortest route versus the quickest route, for reasons of comparison.
· A question was asked in relation of the safety of officers working as mystery shoppers. Members were assured that a risk assessment was calculated on each route and, depending on the time of day, low risk routes were worked by a lone officer and high risk routes by two officers. The Committee noted that the licensing authority was the regulating authority and therefore partnership working would make any initiative to address the cross-border working issues more effective. An issue with regard to the use of Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000 (RIPA) powers was raised. The Committee was advised that the Council’s Licensing function had gone through the RIPA process in the past and the Council was likely therefore to be able to withstand a legal challenge. However, the Licensing and Local Land Charges Manager agreed to obtain legal advice should this matter arise.
· The Head of Legal Services clarified that partnership working with other local authorities would work in the same way as joint committee arrangements. The delegation of enforcement powers to partner authorities would have to be agreed by Council. This would give officers the ability to deal with all drivers operating within the Medway area if their licensing authority was part of the signed agreement.
Supplementary question
Councillor Murray stated that Councillor Hicks’s response was clearly an attempt to ignore the second part of her question. Everybody knew that there were now drivers from all over Kent working in Medway and the Council did not know who they were, whether their vehicles were safe or whether they were insured and Councillor Hicks had just demonstrated his failure to take responsibility for what was happening.
Councillor Hicks stated that the matter was subject to further consultation and the Council would take such enforcement action as it was at liberty to do.