Councils "must have flexibility" to set local conditions for taxis and PHVs

It is essential that councils retain the flexibility needed to respond to local issues in relation to taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs), the Local Government Association has said in a response to a Law Commission consultation.

The LGA said this flexibility was important, “whether this is to introduce a new scheme to increase access to those with mobility issues, or to provide safeguards to vulnerable passengers”.

It added that the Law Commission should introduce such flexibility as the default option. “Councils have shown that they use existing powers to introduce local conditions and regulate numbers in a way that is responsible, proportionate and, most importantly, in a way that is beneficial to their communities,” the submission continued.

The LGA said it backed the idea of minimum safety standards for both taxis and private hire vehicles. However, it argued that councils should continue to have the ability to set appropriate conditions above any minimum standards established.

The Association said: “Experience has shown time and again that it is simply not possible to establish a national set of safety guidelines that is both flexible and responsive enough to react rapidly to changes in technology, passenger requirements or distinctive local conditions.

“The LGA is therefore in support of introducing national minimum safety standards for both taxis and PHVs, but we believe that can be rapidly improved on or tailored to local circumstances by councils should the need arise.”

The proposal in the Law Commission’s paper, Reforming the law of taxi and private hire services, was that all vehicles should be subject to national minimum safety standards.

Additional local standards, above the national standards, would continue to apply to taxis. However, for PHVs, only the national standards would apply and there would be no scope for additional local standards.

The Law Commission estimated that the national standards would replace more than 340 sets of local regulations.

In its submission, the LGA also said it supported the extension of the legislation to cover all road transport services provided for hire with the services of a driver, including novelty and niche forms of transport.

“There is no question that passengers in these vehicles should be afforded the same sense of protection and safeguarding as with more commonplace vehicles,” it argued.

However, the LGA’s members were divided on the Law Commisison’s proposal to remove quantity restrictions.

The Association therefore proposed that councils should continue to be able to introduce this if necessary. It also supported a proposal for councils to have the option of issuing peak time licences.

“The majority of councils do not find it necessary [to restrict numbers], but 93 councils, predominantly in rural areas, find that a more regulated approach works best for their residents,” the submission argued. “They should be allowed to do what is best for their area.”

The LGA’s submission also said that:

• The Law Commission’s proposals offered “a positive vision for clear and effective regulation that will increase passenger safety and value for money, while simplifying and reducing the burden on taxi and PHV drivers and owners”;
• The LGA supported the continuing distinction between taxis and PHVs;
• It supported the exclusion of voluntary carpooling from the taxi licensing regime;
• All passengers should be protected from violence as far as possible through the taxi licensing regime and, as such, the LGA did not see the need to introduce tiered levels of protection;
• The Association supported the placing of the concept of ‘plying for hire’ on a statutory basis. “This is a long established concept that has worked well in practice, but is becoming less well-defined with the advent of mobile and remote methods of booking”. A statutory definition would go a long way to clarifying the issue for both licensing authorities and businesses;
• There is no need to legislate for councils to co-operate. “The difficulty of enforcing such a measure must also be considered, along with the risk that it could actively discourage some of the best and most creative ways of achieving service improvement and efficiency savings for taxpayers”;
• The LGA had no objection to the suggestion that councils should have the option of combining areas for the purposes of taxi standard setting;
• Proposals to strengthen the ability of enforcement officers to intervene in a proportionate, yet effective manner were welcome;
• It questioned the statement that inconsistency in licensing enforcement was both a major problem and the cause of a high number of appeals. There was no evidence to show that taxi licensing had a significantly different level of complaints to any other licensing regime, “nor should locally-tailored approaches be viewed as a problem”;
• The claim that the introduction of national standards would lead to an improved system and considerable financial savings “seems to be over-rated”.

The LGA also said that it did not agree with the proposal to limit the right to appeal the licensing decision to only the applicant.

“It is quite possible that residents or businesses may wish to make representations, quite possibly on the grounds of being a ‘fit and proper’ person, and it would be wrong to deny them this opportunity to put forward a case that may materially affect public safety and, as a consequence, the decision to grant or not grant a licence,” the submission said.

The Association added that councils had considerable experience of dealing with objections and representations of this sort from their work as licensing authorities for alcohol and gambling premises, so it would not be problematic for them to manage.

“Magistrates have the same level of experience and should continue to hear reviews in a quick, professional and cost-effective fashion,” it argued.

Philip Hoult