One of the most tragic ways that MPs and Politicians fail the Electorate, is by giving excessive weight to the advice and input from membership organisations that sell and portray themselves as representative of entire demographics or communities, when they aren’t.
Regrettably, such organisations are susceptible to the very same biases, tunnel vision and levels of self interest on the part of their representatives and leaders, and MPs would probably benefit from talking to any one person who works in the industry, alone.
All too often, Ministers who have little or no real-world experience of their brief or the wherewithal to understand how lobbyists and activists operate will respond in knee-jerk fashion to what they are told and act on the basis that they are being informed by experts – no matter what the biases at work might be.
They are under the misapprehension that the words of such representatives genuinely reflect the will and desires of whole swathes of the Electorate, when reality is that they rarely do so.
With four years experience as a Licensing Chair that ended in 2015, I was intrigued to hear the news that the Government is now to Consult on changing the qualification rules for Taxi, Hackney and Private Hire Drivers.
The direction of travel indicated openly, suggests that the rules governing their Regulation should become more uniform, and therefore centralised, so that an applicant or driver dealing with one Licensing Authority would now be effectively be dealing with them all, as one.
In principle this sounds good. There is definitely a disconnect between the reality that Drivers are often only Registered or ‘Licensed’ by one Local Authority. Yet in almost every case other than a large Licensing Area such as London, they will cross into the jurisdiction of at least one and possibly many others, every day.
This does leave grey areas over infringements in the regulatory sense. But where existing Taxi Drivers and their Operating Companies are concerned, there is a big issue over outsiders treading on toes.
Vehicles from other areas can be perceived as stealing business from ‘local firms’, with the subsequent suggestion that the Licensing Authority concerned employs a policy where anything goes.
Because Taxi Licensing Policy is open to localised tweaks, additions and therefore non-adoption of policies which might have been adopted elsewhere, it is easy to give fictitious credence to the arguments built upon the myth that every Local Authority is run differently.
The reality is that the rules governing all forms of Licensing are already heavily centralised, have been set in London and that basic issues like driver qualifications, are almost universally consistent wherever you might go.
Unfortunately, the Taxi Lobby has form when it comes to influencing Politicians to change rules for their own ends.
A decade ago, changes to the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 closed a loop-hole preventing private car owners from attracting a fee for transporting Special Educational Needs Students between their homes, schools and colleges.
Sold as a way to raise safety standards, the outcome of this ring-fencing of local authority contracts to the closed audience that lobbied for it, landed Local Educational Authorities with an average additional annual bill of at least £1 Million. There was no indication that the benefit to the end user was in any way improved.
Yes, there is always a need to make sure that the rules are tight, especially where public safety is concerned. But rules can also be twisted to benefit those with the most to gain whilst no consideration is given to the significant cost to others.
We should all be very concerned about the potential for further regulation, sold as being in the best interests of the Public, that may only favour certain operators, whilst having the potential to price others out of the marketplace and put prices up for all customers.
All this comes at a time when Taxis are increasingly the only lifeline available for people disadvantaged by the remote nature of their communities, where the commercialisation of public transport services has failed them more than most.
Like Planning Law, which is wrongly perceived as being set locally by District Level Authorities, Licensing is predominantly set centrally. It is only interpreted by Local Licensing Authorities.
In a quasi-judicial setting that some would recognise as being very similar to the Magistrates Court, License applications and reviews that cannot be determined by Officers under delegated powers are heard by a panel or bench of three of the Council’s Licensing Committee Members.
Such settings are not perfect and there is regrettably always a chance that because of the inconsistency in the quality, approach and motivation of local Politicians – as within Parliament – you will get a different outcome from a hearing. It is very much dependent upon who is sitting, who is chairing and facilitating, how they interpret the evidence given, how they are advised by Licensing Officers and yes – just because it’s the way that everything went that day.
It is here that the real inconsistency within the Licensing system is at work.
This inconsistency needs to be tackled with measures put in place to ensure that there is consistency in determinations. That impartiality is the guiding factor in all outcomes and that nobody sitting in ‘judgment’ is allowed to influence a decision because of personal bias, experience or because they are on a power trip and want to get their own way that day.
The risk in moving towards a national form of Licensing administration is that the process will remove what little flexibility is left within the system. Flexibility that needs to be monitored and improved, but not overlooked, forgotten or ignored.
Not everyone wants to be a Taxi Driver. Many people take on the role as an in-between job to keep themselves working, whilst the move between more substantial roles. Some take on the work because they do not like being employed, but do not want the responsibility of being self-employed in the generally accepted sense. They are literally making the very best of things that they can.
Yes, there have been some very serious cases of Taxi Drivers abusing the responsibility and the trust that they have been given.
What those individuals have done may be wrong. But the cases now being used as a reference point for changing a whole industry are statistically very few. And like many areas where Government Policy is being used to pursue the passions of the few, there is an inherent danger that the tail is being used to wag the whole dog.
By tightening up rules which are arguably already working well – when you consider that you will never create the perfect system, there are many would-be Taxi Drivers who could be assets to an industry facing challenging times, that will be denied entry to these roles, at an incalculable cost.
Dehumanising the system might be reflective of the world at large. But the disadvantage and cost of such steps will be much more far-reaching than what will only ever be a perceived and tangible benefit to a few.
Adam Tugwell 