Agenda item

Purpose: To consider objections raised following the mandatory public notice of a variance in taxi fare as approved by the Committee on 24 March 2015.

Brian Leahy introduced (Agenda Item 4) for the Committee to consider objections raised, following the mandatory public notice of a variance in taxi fare as approved by the Committee on 24 March 2015.

Section 65 of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 required that, following the publication of the notice of variance in the Newbury Weekly News asking for the objections to be notified to the Council, a decision had to be made regarding implementation no later than 30 June 2015.

Brian Leahy informed the Committee that a great number of objections were received which included three letters and a petition signed by 46 members of the trade.

In accordance with section 65 (4) the table of fares had to come into operation no later than 30th June 2015 regardless of whether the Council decided to modify or not. However Members had to consider objections received as a result of the notice.

Brian Leahy suggested that the Committee had to decide on one of the following three options:

1. Confirm the table of fares agreed on the 24th March 2015 in both format and price.
2. Modify the table of fares both, in format, and price, or by either.
3. Revert back to the tariff already in place in both format and price.

The options with regards to the actual level of tariff were numerous and consideration should be given that: this would be the maximum level that taxi operators would be able to charge; that people’s livelihoods depended on them; that enforcement activities would be required and the role of the Council to protect the interest of the public travelling by Taxis. Reference was made to a Court case when the Judge ruled that a legal tariff was not the one set by the Council but the one set by the driver as long as it was not greater than the one set by the Council.

An alternative was to not set a tariff at all and allow each taxi provider to set the level they wished in a competitive market.

The Chairman invited Members of the Committee to ask for clarification on any matters.

Councillor Bryant asked if the five tariff table approved at the previous meeting of the Committee was proposed by the Council and Brian Leahy confirmed that the proposal was received from the taxi trade.

Councillor Webb enquired if amendments to the meters could be set up by the driver and how the change from one tariff to another was being made (from one time zone to another).

Brian Leahy explained that as the meter was a sealed unit, only a number of individuals had the ability to change the settings and reseal. The Council required evidence that any changes had been made by the authorised individuals.

The meters were not calendar meters and the change from one time zone’s tariff to another was done manually by the driver.

In addition, the taxi driver could set an arrangement, without using the meter. Section 54 Town Police Clauses Act 1847, prescribed the driver could take a lesser rate if agreed before the commencement of the journey.

In accordance with paragraph 7.12.14 of the Council’s Constitution, the Chairman proposed to suspend standing orders to allow members of the trade to participate in the discussion and respond to questions Committee members might have. This was seconded and the Committee voted in favour of this proposal.

The Committee decided to allow first the members of the trade that were objecting to the table of tariffs approved in March 2015 to speak for ten minutes, and then to respond to Councillors’ queries followed by those that were in favour for the same amount of time.

Mr. Paul Westbrook, representing a number of taxi drivers in Newbury, informed that in his view the new tariff was not representative of the trade and that he was aware of many objections and that there had been a number of meetings advising that the Council would force the tariff. He also mentioned that previously a similar change resulted in a loss of trade. In his opinion, the new tariff discriminated against vulnerable people and would result in a further foot fall from 2 am to 4 am.

Mr Westbrook commented that the new tariff would lead to competition and confusion in the ranks and would increase the risk of assault and attack due to changes from one week to another. He also believed that the general public did not understand the three levels of tariff and would understand the five levels even less. He highlighted that  inflation was low and that the rules were not stopping anyone charging less than the maximum agreed tariff. In his opinion the changed tariff was equivalent to a 2 percent pay rise that only the big companies would benefit from.

Mr Westbrook expressed concern that the time allocated for him to speak would not allow for a fair hearing. He continued by estimating that there were around 200 people in the borough that would need to change the meters (some to buy new meters) and this would not be popular as they would incur additional costs that they would be unable to recoup, making it more expensive for the trade to operate. He was of the view that the five levels tariff would negatively impact the elderly people in particular and people under the influence of alcohol.

Mr Westbrook considered that had the trade understood that they had an opportunity to provide feedback, the decision would have had more opposition.

Mr Hauxwell added that it would be difficult to explain to customers when they saw £7 on the meter just after they entered into the car. Justifying the fare given by the differences between the five tariffs and three tariffs was a safety matter. He also informed the Committee that some of the meters changed automatically, based on the time.

Mr Hussain expressed concerns about drivers’ safety stating that, in his opinion, especially because he was of an Asian background, he had already been attacked due to issues linked with the tariff and making the table of fares more complex would increase the risk.

Mr Hauxwell had informed the Committee of his concerns that the new tariffs could result not only in disputes with the driver but also impact on public order if people started to negotiate the tariffs and decided on which taxi to use in the ranks. He considered that the new table of fares would add more confusion, as people already had difficulty understanding the current three level tariffs. It would not be good for safety or for the reputation of West Berkshire as it might cost more to get into a taxi than the actual journey.

The Chairman invited Members to ask questions.

Councillor Bryant asked the four members of the taxi trade to clarify if they were actually opposing the number of tariffs rather than the level of the tariff, due to their view that the new table of fares brought a greater complexity.

The four members of the trade confirmed that they considered the three tariffs more appropriate and asked that the tariff be set to a reasonable level to bring a return on their investment, rather than starting with a larger tariff which drivers might reduce to be more competitive.

Mr Hauxwell added that competition did not seem to be a problem and that the current system was working. The fare could be discounted by agreement or charged based on the meter. Nobody was suggesting drivers wanted to fix competition. There was a view that if the new tariff was approved, the footfall would go down and would drive people out of business.

Councillor Bryant noted that if five tariffs were introduced, the drivers would be in a position to charge a lower fare.

Mr. John Hauxwell responded that this would create confusion and Mr. Kevin Hauxwell added that they wanted the tariff set at a reasonable level. Under the existing arrangements, a customer and driver could agree a lower fare anyway and that a more complex tariff would erode the customer base and would not benefit anyone.

Councillor Webb pointed out that his understanding was that on the five levels tariff, the fifth tariff referred only to Christmas Day and New Year’s Day and Tariff 4 applied only between 02:00 am and 05:59 am. He asked about the number of people impacted by these tariffs and, given the difference in fares for short journeys with the new tariff being cheaper, how many were taking these type of journeys.

Mr. Kevin Hauxwell replied that drivers that came to the rank go for the jobs for people going a short distance – e.g. Newbury Bank to the train station – less than mile and even if the difference in fare was small that the increase was significant for many people. In addition, a similar journey on tariff 2 would seem to be £4 more expensive on the new tariff and it would be difficult to explain differences especially to the Saturday night customers.

The Chairman asked about the differences in views regarding the interpretation of the impact of the two tables of fares.

Mr. John Hauxwell highlighted that in the morning two identical journeys started at 10 minutes difference before and after 6 am would cost £3 more to get to the train station.

Councillor Tony Linden asked how many of the 200 taxi cabs in West Berkshire they represented.

Mr Hauxwell responded that he would estimate, based on the approximately 25 members who attended the meeting, that were not in favour, about 100 drivers shared his views and probably similarly for the 10 representatives that supported the new tariffs and probably the level of people objecting to the proposal was not evident at the previous meeting.

From an independent driver’s perspective it looked like the people that worked in the night would win and the others would lose.

The Chairman invited the representatives of the trade in support of the tariff agreed in March 2015, to address the Committee.

Mr Sheikh addressed the Committee representing the other four members of the trade present.

(Councillor Howard Bairstow left the meeting at this point to attend to other commitments.)

Mr Sheikh suggested that based on the divergent views of members of the trade that the Committee should approve the option that Mr Brian Leahy proposed.

The Chairman invited the Members of the Committee to address questions to Mr Sheikh.

After obtaining clarification from Sarah Clarke that questions and comments should be asked for clarification limited to the information presented by the speaker, Councillor Webb asked if the option supported by Mr Sheikh and his colleagues was to set as the maximum level Tariff 4 of the table of fares approved in March 2015.

Mr. Sheikh clarified that they were supporting the proposal to allow market forces to determine the tariffs without the Committee having to approve a table of fares.

Councillor Webb enquired about another proposal that was sent by e-mail directly to the Members of the Licensing Committee. Sarah Clarke clarified that the e-mail mentioned was received outside of the five days time limit and that a decision of the Committee was required with regards to the new table of fares agreed on the 23 March 2015, especially in light of the opposition expressed from members of the trade.

Councillor Bryant asked Mr Sheikh to express a view regarding his preferred option between the five tariffs table approved in March 2015 versus the 3 tariffs table in existence before.

Mr Sheikh stated that his personal opinion was that the revised tariff sent directly to the Members of the Committee the week before the meeting was the one he would prefer.

Mr Leahy highlighted that in considering the response to objections raised following the mandatory public notice of a variance in taxi fares as approved by the Committee on 24 March 2015, the Licensing Committee Members could decide on any levels of tariff, including the ones mentioned by Mr Sheikh but that Officers were not in a position to comment or advise on it as the proposal was not sent to them.

Councillor Bryant enquired about the appropriateness to defer the decision to a subsequent meeting based on the fact that the additional proposal was not received sufficiently in advance of the meeting and it was not shared with the Officers.

Sarah Clarke advised that because this was part of a formal consultation on the decision agreed in March 2015, the Committee had to make a decision by the 30 June.

Members of the Committee then decided to reintroduce Standing Orders.

Brian Leahy highlighted a potential issue, in that Members had been sent a document to consider, without it being sent to Officers in time for it to be included in the reports for the meeting, and as a result if the Committee considered this unseen proposal it would be open to legal challenge and further objections.

Councillor Bryant summarised his views that the Committee was in a difficult position as the approved five levels tariff was submitted for approval by some members of the trade and subsequently they suggested that it was no longer what they wanted. In addition, as the new proposal was submitted too late for it to be considered he was reluctant to support either the five tariff table of fares approved in March or the revised one subsequently submitted.

Councillor Argyle concurred with Councillor Bryant’s views.

Councillor Linden wanted to ascertain from the Officers if the level of support for the five tariff table of fares was overstated and Mr Leahy confirmed that the initial proposal was suggested by the West Berkshire Hackney and Private Hire Association with support from Cabco Owners and Drivers Association and Dolphin Taxis. A number of owners and drivers had responded to the consultation conducted in December 2014 against the proposal and some had responded in favour (as detailed in the report for March 2015 meeting). Mr Leahy informed the Committee that he was not able to make any additional comments beyond what was heard during the meeting and noted that both the representation made from members of the trade against the five levels tariff and also from Mr Sheikh were no longer supporting the option approved in March 2015.

Councillor Webb indicated that he was persuaded by the three levels table of fares rather than the five levels agreed. He recognised that this was a difficult decision following considerable work he had done on assessing the new tariff and not being able to clarify the frequency of the short journeys, as the revised tariff one resulted in a small increase for the short journeys. He also agreed with the issue about the concerns from the trade regarding the £3.80 versus £7 difference of price between two identical journey starting just before or after 6am.

Councillor Webb expressed sympathy for the trade regarding the new tariff. He had some concerns and considered the reasons why the previous 3 levels tariff should be re-instated as:  the views from objectors that if the five level tariff was adopted it would discriminate; lead to battering on the rank and create confusion. The trade representatives reported that some customers found it difficult to understand the three level tariff and to go to a five levels would make it more difficult to understand. By operating the 3 tariff system they were in a position to offer a reduction to customers if they so wished to do.

Councillor Webb also stated that he did have reservations that the tariff 2, as based on his calculations, was cheaper.

Councillor Bryant declared that he would have been delighted to be able to support the five levels tariff but formally proposed to keep the status quo due to it being:

·           a well understood table of fares by the people of the trade

·            reasonable, as it had been in place for a time

·           it was supported by a number of members of the trade.

He also mentioned that he would like the proposals from the trade to be agreed by Members and he did not like the idea that proposals were distributed to Members without Officers or Members having the chance to consider them before the meeting.

The Chairman highlighted that members of the trade were welcome to circulate information to Members of the Committee but they should copy in Officers and it needed to be within the appropriate timescales.

Councillor Argyle seconded the proposal adding his acknowledgement for the views of the drivers that they were worried for their safety and that sticking to the tariffs they knew would be safer.

RESOLVED that Members considered and approved the three levels tariff of fares that was in place before March 2015 for use by all West Berkshire Council Licensed Hackney Carriages.