6 minute read
NPHTA SLAMS ‘POORLY RESEARCHED’ DEBATE
The Parliamentary debate on cross-border hiring highlighted a lack of understanding from MPs, raising fears that the Deregulation Act could be under threat, because MPs don't understand the issues. That's the view of NPHTA chief David Lawrie. Mark Bursa reports
Last month’s government debate on the subject of cross-border hiring was “poorly researched and presented”, and contained many “misleading and incorrect” statements.
This is the view of National Private Hire and Taxi Association director David Lawrie, who has launched a stinging attack on the MPs who contributed to the debate, claiming that the discussion highlighted “how little the MPs understand our plight, the legislation, enforcement powers and root causes of the problems”.
Lawrie said: “The attention to this subject is much appreciated, but a deeper understanding both by the MP raising the topic as well as those participating in the debate would have been extremely beneficial.”
The debate was initiated by Chris Vince, Labour MP for Harlow. Lawrie believes Vince was correct to highlight the consequences of cross-border hiring on the livelihoods of locally-licensed drivers. But Vince and others contributing to the debate wrongly linked the issue to the Deregulation Act of 2015. “This is simply not the case,” Lawrie said. “Unfortunately, he [Vince] and other MPs also continued to quote further incorrect and misleading information throughout the discussion.”
Worryingly, some MPs, including Rachael Maskell, Labour MP for York, called for the Act to be repealed, while Vince himself suggested that all bookings should start and end in the area in which the drivers are licensed – undesirable and unworkable suggestions that would have a negative impact on the sector.
Lawrie maintained that the Dereglation Act has not led to the growth in cross-border hires. He said: “To be clear, the Deregulation Act 2015 did two things: Firstly, it regulated the period for which licenses are issued: driver’s license (3 years); operator’s licence (5 years) and vehicle licence (1 year).”
“Secondly, it clarified that it was legal for a private hire operator in one area to subcontract to an operator licensed by another area, and so enable legitimate use of vehicles and drivers correctly licensed by the same authority and therefore comply with the triple-lock rule, The Deregulation Act did absolutely nothing else.”
During the debate, Vince appeared to be unaware of the requirement for local authorities to use the NR3 database when checking a driver's suitability to receive a license. Vince said: “Cross-border hiring undermines high standards. A driver who loses their license in one district can simply apply for a license elsewhere and continue operating with little or no scrutiny.”
“Local authorities lack the enforcement powers to enforce out-of-town drivers which leaves a gaping hole in our public safety framework. How can we claim to protect our constituents, when such fundamental weaknesses exist in our system?”
This is not the case, said Lawrie. “High standards are maintained by all local authorities with only minor deviations in criteria, for example CCTV, fire extinguishers, first aid kits, vehicle colour, tinted window restrictions etc.”
“To be clear, powers to oversee proper regulation refers to legislation as opposed to local conditions; local councils have the power to enforce regulation as national legislation is set by parliament.”
Lawrie continued: “It may be helpful for Chris Vince to look at the Statutory Standards 2020 which introduced the NR3 Database as a mandatory condition. He would then understand that it is now very difficult (although not impossible) for a driver who has lost their license in one district to obtain a license anywhere else in the country.”
Other ill-informed comments came from Gill Furniss, Labour MP for Sheffield, Brightside and Hillsborough, who claimed that a lack of scrutiny by other councils undermines safeguarding and puts the public at risk. She claimed her licensing team did not have the powers to check that out-of-town vehicles are being driven by properly licensed drivers.
Lawrie disagreed. “All local authorities have very strict inspections and compliance checks. It is also now national legislation that all drivers take safeguarding courses. Furthermore, council enforcement officers have the powers to check for all criminal offences not only that a driver is licensed but is displaying his license on duty as these are criminal matters, not local conditions.
During the debate, Vince said he wanted to see a a national minimum standard for private hire established by law, and that councils should have the power to enforce national regulations. But he went on to dredge up the ‘ABBA principle” – that all journeys should start and finish within the licensed area.
One MP who did show some understanding of the situation was Dr Zubir Ahmed, Labour MP for Glasgow South West – and the son of a taxi driver – who highlighted the important role taxi and private hire drivers play in our society and asked if the minister would look into the escalating costs associated with the industry.
Lawrie’s takeaway from the debate was a lack of understanding of the basic elements of the industry. There was confusion about the differences between hackney carraiges and private hire vehicles, and suggestions that some drivers were not being properly checked, even though the DBS checks have been tightened in recent years and all councils have a statutory duty to perform these checks.
Transport minister Simon Lightwood did appear to support the principle of national standards and a national licensing system, but offered no view as to how or when this might be achieved.
Lawrie’s disappointment with the debate is clear: “Unfortunately there are too many other ill-informed people in our trade, many of whom are more than happy to convince both their MPs and local and national media that this issue is simply a consequence of the Deregulation Act and that lower safety standards and checks in other towns and cities is the problem.”
“Sadly, the debate was poorly researched and presented, showing how little the MPs understand our plight, the legislation, enforcement powers and route causes of the problems. We have reached out several times to discuss, explain and assist, but are often met with automatic replies or no reply at all, which leaves them to debate matters based on nothing more than rumour and misinformation.”
Lawrie concluded: “What a crying shame that we have waited so long for this high-profile matter which has such an effect on so many to be granted time in the House, only for it to be wasted in such a manner.”
