Taxi Newspaper
In my last Chairman’s report, you may recall I was just a little disappointed
about the fragmentation of the Taxi trade in these very precarious times and
how leaders from one or other organisations would attack their colleagues from
the other organisations due purely to petty jealousies or indeed, for political
ends. Consequently you can imagine my surprise when I saw the April 23 issue of
TAXI. There on the centre spread was a picture of me together with five other
colleagues from the Taxi trade. Why am I afforded this dubious honour? It
appears that we six are the culprits for having the night tariff revised so
that it now starts at 2200hrs instead of 2000hrs. So I’d like to relay the
facts to the LTDA en bloc as the article was unsigned.
I must confess that at the beginning of 2001, I was one of the
main instigators for introducing a night tariff because in my opinion there was
a shortage of taxis at night with the market so buoyant and I also believed
that taxi drivers working at night should earn more money than those working
during the day. I also believed that an increase in the night fares would
entice more drivers out. But as we all know, the economic climate changed
dramatically. First it was foot and mouth which took its toll on the
tourist industry, I then noticed a distinct downturn in our job figures
commencing in May 2001 and to cap it all, we had the atrocity in New York on
September 11th. Consequently, I changed my mind and felt that the
increase in the night tariff that I had helped to negotiate, should be
postponed untill the following April and then the whole fare structure
could be reviewed. I was very concerned that the Taxi industry would be seen to
be greedy and grasping in a very delicate economic and political climate.
Unfortunately, I then committed a cardinal sin according to the LTDA - I dared
to voice my opinion! It would appear that the LTDA only believe in democracy
and freedom of speech providing that you agree with their views; otherwise you
get attacked for voicing your opinion. Or is it only the LTDA which is
responsible for the Taxi trade, after all the majority of my members do not
belong to the LTDA?
The article then states that Ken’s (Livingstone)
statement was reached after "listening to the views of the Taxi
trade" and the "LTDA and the T&G Cab section were the only trade
bodies that supported the night tariff increase." So if I understand that
correctly, then Ken Livingstone listens to me but disregards the LTDA and the
T&G - and they are supposed to negotiate on our behalf! Makes you think
doesn’t it…?
Conditions of Fitness
I am led to believe that the above conditions are to be
|
reviewed this month, which would mean a lowering of standards to allow a
greater variety of vehicles to be used as London Taxis. Some
organisations within our industry have vigorously campaigned to have the
conditions relaxed, however I believe that it is pertinent to relay all the
facts to you. Denying a driver freedom of choice is difficult, but if the
conditions in London were to be relaxed then I believe that the two present
manufacturers, LTI and Hoopers, could face dire consequences. After all,
LTI produce only 2,500 vehicles per annum and 1,500 of those go to London. Is
it their fault that they are the only manufacturers who are prepared to produce
a vehicle that meets the current standards? If the two manufacturers were to go
out of business, what would happen to the most expensive asset most of you have
outside of your homes? Their residual values would go through the floor
and you would have an ‘asset’ that would become practically worthless. In
addition, these ‘new’ vehicles that would be allowed into our industry,
would also be used by their Private Hire equivalent - further eroding the
distinction between Taxis and Private Hire, which would then lead to further
confusion in the eyes of the general public. It’s worth mentioning that due
to current legislation, the Taxi manufacturers cannot sell their vehicles to
the Private Hire industry. Before any of us come out in favour or otherwise to
relax the conditions of fitness, the above reasons should be taken into account
before we arrive at any conclusion.
House of Commons
I’m delighted to inform night-men among you that the mileage rate for the ‘House’
has been increased quite substantially as of April 15. Although the previous
rates were very low, it was still difficult to get them increased in this
current climate. I know you will be happy with the new rates, but please make
sure that we cover everything and not just the longer trips. As things are out
there, we cannot possibly afford to be too choosy and I know most of you will
agree with that.
Office Fair Trading
I have very recently had a meeting with the OFT. You may be aware that they are
conducting a study on behalf of the Government to see if consumers are best
served by regulations that restrict taxi licences in half the authorities in
England and Wales. They also aim to identify any other competition or
consumer welfare issues in this nationwide project that will
|
include
London. The purpose of my visit was to explain the unfair competition
that will exist between the Taxi industry and that of the ‘light touch’
Private Hire once licensing is completed in London. The OFT will report
directly to the Government with their recommendations, which should be
completed by late summer of this year. I believe that the meeting went well and
while there, the OFT asked if they could visit Brunswick House. Let’s
all hope that I am as persuasive as the LTDA think I am!
Terminals
You are all aware of the problems concerning wilful damage to our terminals by
some drivers, but it appears that the message is getting across. There is a
letter in this issue from Sid Nathan (K88) suggesting that subscriptions be
increased to pay for any wilful damage. Sorry Sid, I disagree with you on
this occasion. I do not believe it fair for the vast majority of our members to
subsidise the tiny minority who deliberately damage their terminals. If there
is accidental damage, that is one thing, but deliberate damage will remain a
chargeable item.
Private Hire Vehicle Consultation Document
You may remember me writing in previous Call Signs of the Consultation
Document that was issued by the PCO. I drew your attention to the fact that the
Private Hire industry was to be allowed exterior signage on their vehicles. I
believe that this scenario is totally unacceptable to the Taxi industry as it
will lead to complete anarchy on the streets of London, where the public will
be hailing Private Hire vehicles as if they were Taxis. Consequently, the PCO
have issued a second or follow-up Consultation Document where they have diluted
their proposals. But they still remain totally unacceptable to me. They now
propose that a PHV owner or operator may affix exterior signs to the vehicle
which provide details of the operator’s name, telephone number, website
address or a company logo. These signs will only be permitted on the rear
window or on the front driver/passenger doors to occupy an area not greater
than .6m x .6m (approx 2ft x2ft). In defence of the PCO, they do go on to say
that they recognise exterior signage to be a contentious issue (I’m delighted
they now recognise our concerns) and they may adopt a solution that differs
from the proposals.
In my view, other than a licence plate, any exterior signage is
totally unacceptable. The PCO state that the reason for signage is that the
public wish to recognise their Private Hire vehicle when it arrives. Well, if
this is the case then the PHV should be allowed to display a passenger name
board whilst he is stationary only, just as we do – nothing else will
suffice.
Brian Rice
DaC Chairman
|
