Meeting documents

Apologies for absence were submitted on behalf of Councillors Mrs Ball, Mrs Beattie, Ms Bell, Mrs Hothersall, Marsh and Suthers.

Councillors Kelly and C Tomlinson declared a prejudicial interest in minute no. 23 because they were both known to the holder of a hackney carriage driver?s licence.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the minutes of the meeting held on 9 September 2014 be approved as a correct record and signed by the chairman.

The committee considered a report on its decision taken on 14 April 2005 regarding the amendment of the criteria for hackney carriage vehicles to be wheelchair accessible. A period of 10 years until 1 April 2015 was allowed for current hackney operators to meet the criteria.

On the 14 April 2005, the committee met following the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) report ?The Regulation of Licensed Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles Services in the UK?. This report recommended the de-restriction of hackney carriage vehicles (HCV).

Prior to this decision HCV numbers were tightly controlled by the local authority. The licensing authority?s decision to de-restrict hackney carriages was made alongside the introduction of quality control measures designed to keep the condition of hackney carriage vehicles to a high standard. One of these measures was to introduce the condition that all HCV be purpose built and wheelchair accessible.

A Taxi Trade Forum was held prior to the committee meeting on 21 March 2005 and as a direct result of this meeting, it was proposed and accepted by the committee that in order to protect small businesses, a period of 10 years (rather than 8 years) be allowed for current hackney carriage proprietors to operate under the existing hackney carriage conditions.

In accordance with the timescales of this decision, notices had been sent to hackney carriage proprietors reminding them of the condition when they renew their plates. This prompted a number of taxi drivers to approach the Licensing Team and requested a Taxi Forum meeting to oppose the introduction of this condition. The following reasons for their objections to the introduction of this condition were put forward:

? There are sufficient numbers of wheelchair accessible vehicles in South Ribble to cater for Wheelchair bound residents.

? Most wheelchair bookings are pre-booked not rank or flag down in South Ribble.

? Saloon type vehicles are needed to serve the elderly, infirm and non-wheelchair bound disabled residents as they are easier to get into than wheelchair accessible vehicles.

? Most wheelchair bound residents have their own adapted/modified vehicles in South Ribble.

? Drivers will be forced out of business because a purpose built taxi costs ?30,000 new and approximately ?17,000 used and this will lead to a number of drivers becoming unemployed and claiming benefits.

? The vehicles cost a lot more to run and are more polluting to the environment which will push up fares.

? Hackney carriage proprietors may choose to change over to private hire vehicles which could result in no Wheelchair Accessible Vehicles being available on the ranks or to flag down on ranks.

The council licence 98 wheelchair accessible vehicles with 17 hackney carriage vehicles and 81 private hire vehicles being wheelchair accessible. Taxis were a crucial part of the transport network for disabled people using public transport. In the Law Commission?s review of Taxi and Private Hire Services, accessibility was a key part to their report and they propose it to be a central requirement to any national standards. Currently in line with this they have recommended that the Secretary of State impose the following national standards:

1. All private hire and taxi drivers should be required to undergo recognised disability awareness training.

2. In order to ensure that licensing authorities specifically consider the needs of disabled passengers as part of reviewing their local licensing conditions, we recommend a new procedural requirement for licensing authorities to review their taxi licensing policy at least every three years, in order to assess whether the needs of their disabled constituents are being met.

It was the view of the Law Commission that a mixed fleet would, in general, more appropriately meet the needs of disabled people. It was clear that one size did not fit all, and that there was a danger of focusing too heavily on the needs of passengers in wheelchairs, perhaps at the expense of those with other, sometimes less obvious, accessibility needs. Even amongst those who use wheelchairs there were different requirements. This was one of the reasons why the Department for Transport had found it so difficult to identify a ?universal? vehicle in order to implement provisions in the Equality Act 2010 and make regulations on taxi accessibility. Therefore the commission had not proposed to introduce quotas of wheelchair accessible vehicles or any requirements for a mixed fleet. However, they recommended that authorities should aim to ensure a mixture of different types of taxis in their area.

The Licensing Team had consulted colleagues across Lancashire to establish other local authority requirements and found a very mixed picture with Preston and West Lancashire licensing only the London Black Cab which were all wheelchair accessible with Chorley, Pendle, Hyndburn not requiring wheelchair accessibility.

To comply with its public sector equality duty under the Equality Act 2010; to meet the varied needs of the travelling public; and to address the accessibility requirements of ambulant disabled and elderly people; in addition to those of wheelchair users, the committee considered the following options:

a) Not vary the decision made on 14 April 2005;

b) Remove the condition entirely; and

c) Vary the decision so that it remains a requirement for all new hackney carriages to be wheelchair accessible, but with an indefinite exemption to current hackney carriage proprietors.

In order to achieve the objective of guaranteeing a reasonable proportion of wheelchair accessible taxis whilst providing alternative vehicles for those with ambulatory disabilities and the elderly, it was generally agreed that ?Option C? would allow flexibility among existing vehicle proprietors to purchase the most suitable vehicle to serve their client base, while ensuring that the fleet remains mixed, as all new hackney carriages licences would continue to be issued in respect of wheelchair accessible vehicles only. Petitions (containing approximately 708 signatures from taxi users and 60 signatures from taxi drivers) opposing to the criteria for hackney carriage vehicles to be wheelchair accessible were presented to the committee.

With the permission of the committee two representatives from the Taxi Forum and a member of the public addressed the meeting.

The committee considered all the representations brought before them, together with the petitions presented from the taxi drivers and those using the taxi services.

The committee noted that part of the petition referred to proposed government legislation. However, the committee had to consider the original committee decision and not any proposed government legislation.

The Equality Act 2010 placed a public sector duty on all local authorities to meet the varied needs of the travelling public. The committee noted further that the Law Commission advised against a quota system.

?

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that ?

1. the committee?s original decision on 14 April 2005 be varied so that there remains a requirement for all new hackney carriages to be wheel chair accessible, but with an indefinite exemption to current hackney carriage proprietors.

2. this decision be reviewed in a period of 5 years, and that all the findings be presented before the committee to allow the authority to keep a watching brief not only on the number of vehicles which are wheelchair accessible but also if there is a balance of vehicles for all taxi users, and thus if the authority is complying with its equality duty.

3. it be noted that 1 and 2 above, not only benefits wheelchair users but also addresses the requirements of ambulant disabled and elderly users.

Further to minute no. 11 (9 September 2014) an application for a private hire vehicle licence was resubmitted.

The committee noted that the applicant, Mrs Horrocks, was unable to attend the meeting as she had been in hospital.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that for the reasons reported at the meeting consideration of the matter be deferred to a future meeting of this committee.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the press and public be excluded from the meeting during the consideration of the following items of business as it involved the discussion of information which was defined as exempt from publication under paragraphs 1 and 2 (information relating to an individual and information which was likely to reveal the identity of an individual) of Part I of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972 and in which the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighed the public interest in disclosing it.

(Councillors Kelly and C Tomlinson declared a prejudicial interest in this item because they were both known to the holder of a hackney carriage driver's licence. At this point of the meeting, it was acknowledged that the meeting was no longer quorate.)

Accordingly, Mr Topping was then informed that with only two members present in addition to the chairman the meeting was inquorate and therefore could not discuss this matter which required a decision. This matter would now be considered at the next scheduled meeting of this committee on 25 November 2014.

(The chairman reported that he had authorised the consideration of this item of business as one of urgency in accordance with Section 100B(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, because it related to action taken under Standing Order No. 38 (under the procedural rules of the council?s Constitution) that required the decision to be reported to the next scheduled meeting of the committee as appropriate.)

A report was submitted following action taken under the provisions of Standing Order No. 38 to suspend Mr Kallman?s hackney carriage and private hire driver?s licence.

RESOLVED (UNANIMOUS): that the action taken be noted.