Agenda item

Public Question Time

To receive any questions from Members of the public in accordance with Standing

Order 11.2

 

( Note: Public Question Time will operate for a maximum of 30 minutes.)

Minutes:

The Chairman announced that two members of the public had pre-submitted written questions

 

A member of the public asked the following question: At the trade forum 2017 Arrow private hire also call (Arrows taxis ) very confusing for the public , wanted 20 rear loaders on the taxi rank to rent out to drivers at £150 a week ?, that’s £3000 a week for Arrow private hire, private hire are nothing to do with taxi ranks and  in the trade meeting in October 2017 the taxi trade association members voted against rear loading wheelchair vehicles for safer side loading wheelchair accessible vehicles on the taxi ranks.  I asked the council license committees A, why the licensing office keep pushing the agenda for unsafe rear loading wheelchair accessible vehicles on the taxi ranks, when they have clearly identified that out of 277 cars 68 are hackney taxis 14 of which are disabled vehicles, compared to only 3 disabled vehicles out of 209 cars on private hire. I had been assured licensing Committee on 12th December in 2018 , that it would be unlawful for the license office to put forward any agenda taxi trade did not want,  so now ask for the second time same question the question to Council License committee A, why the license office are pushing this agenda again to have rear loaders on the taxi ranks when the taxi trade not want them and are in favour of the safer side loading wheelchair vehicles for the public. The licensing office have clearly identified that there is only 3 wheelchair vehicles out of 209 cars in private hire sector to that of 14 wheelchair vehicles out of 68 at taxis on the taxi ranks, most if not all are available to the public day and especially at night time at the weekend.

 

What consultation took place with whom and what third parties and why the taxi trade was not consulted? Members were told that at a recent trade meeting a discussion took place regarding rear loading vehicles. An opinion on whether the trade would like the opportunity to have rear loading vehicles was sought from those present as to ‘how many would not like rear loading vehicles’ this was carried out by a show of hands. Not every member of the trade was present at the meeting and it was not a recognisable or binding vote. If a company applied to the Local Authority to licence a number of wheelchair accessible taxis and the vehicles are compliant with the conditions of licence a vehicle licence will be issued. Hackney Carriages can be operated by a licensed private hire operator as long as the operator, the driver and vehicle are licensed by the same authority. The owner of the HC vehicle does not have to be a licensed driver, this practise is not uncommon as owners can have more than one vehicle. The numbers of licensed vehicles is fluid but there are currently: 188 PH vehicles - 3 are wheelchair accessible; 70 Hackney Carriages - 14 are wheelchair accessible. The public & interested parties have raised the lack of wheelchair accessible vehicles with officers over the last few months and the issue has again been highlighted during the current hackney carriage & private hire review consultation. That is why officers have raised the issue with the trade at meetings and at this hearing. Officers are not pushing an agenda. Officers have simply been seeking alternative views regarding an issue that is consistently being brought to our attention and is now highlighted by the responses to the review consultation. Details of consultees is listed within the report page 117 - 119 and the representations in appendices C, D and E

 

A Member of the Public asked the following question: Could the committee please explain why we as taxi drivers have been told to have installed CCTV systems that can't be switched off when the vehicle is being used for private use. And that the CCTV has to be a constant & continuous recording system? This clearly contradicts the Information Commissioners Office (ICO), which states "Taxi drivers, like all of us, have a right to privacy. And that right is enshrined in law. The law states that the processing of personal data should be necessary for its purpose and proportionate. So where a taxi is being used by a driver for their own private or domestic purpose, continuous recording is likely to be unlawful, unfair and excessive under data protection legislation and in breach of Article 8 of the Human Rights Act 1998." if the council are aware of this law, why are they trying to implement something that is unlawful? And if they are unaware of the law why are they?   The meeting was told that the current conditions do not mention an On Off switch and officers are updating the CCTV conditions in line with the ICO guidance and GDPR. The Officers have been in discussion with the ICO and the Senior Information Governance Officer. The Department for Transport has just launched a consultation on among other things mandatory CCTV in taxis at a national level. The requirements are fluid but Officers have drafted three new conditions that deals with the issue of continuous CCTV recording which members would be asked to consider.

 

A member of the public asked the following question: When I had my windows tinted at considerable cost, I, as I`m sure other taxi drivers did, went through the correct channels to do this & had it approved & have had my taxi licensed several times since.Now we are being told that this is not going to be permitted. This seems unfair to the taxi driver & to a section of society, as I point out below ......... and as per usual going to cost the taxi driver financially. On a personal note, the reason I had my windows tinted is because my vehicle is a WAV & 95% of my business is transporting disabled, special needs & wheelchair using passengers. These passengers have either physical, mental or emotional issues, or a combination of theses. I have been transporting adults & children with these issues for many years now and have & have had many contracts, including, West Sussex County Council, Social Services, SCOPE & various others. The tinted windows afford them an adequate degree of privacy against "prying eyes" who like to stare at people who are different from them, be it intentionally or unintentionally. It also gives my passengers an actual sense of privacy & security they would not otherwise feel. They are able to feel safe & secure travelling in my taxi & can do so with dignity, where as before many would not venture out due to their insecurities & issues. The degree of tint I believe you are permitting would give nowhere near the privacy my passengers need & I would risk losing many of these passengers because of this.......not only affecting my trade but discriminating against the most vulnerable in society by further reducing their transport options (which I believe the council is trying to improve).I would ask the council to strongly reconsider. The meeting was told that this is an issue regarding the safety of the passengers and there is no evidence to show that it is harmful to business. A tint measurement is being sought and is on page 44 of the report. Existing vehicle licences will not be affected and only new vehicles will be subject to the condition leading to a gradual phase out of heavily tinted glass as vehicles are naturally replaced and so causing as little financial burden on the trade as possible.

 

The chairman opened public questions up to other attendees in the gallery 

 

A member of the Public detailed a previous decision of the Committee concerning the licencing of rear loading wheelchair accessible vehicles as Hackney Carriages.The Committee was told that an application was rejected based on safety grounds and asked what had changed. The Licensing Officer told the Committee that previously there had been concerns about the safety of using rear loading vehicles at taxi ranks. Members were told further that WSCC were in a position to offer funds to redesign ranks, there was to be a forthcoming consultation on the issue involving the Licensing Authority and the trade.

 

A member of the public stated that the trade supported measures to improve public safety and told the committee that overregulation would lead to drivers seeking licences elsewhere. This would potentially lead to a public safety issue whereby the authority had no regulatory control of companies from outside of the area working in the Borough which could include companies such as UBER. It was claimed that there had been no evidence supplied by the authority of criminal activity taking place behind manufacturers rear tinted windows in the Borough of Worthing. The Member of the Public asked what evidence had the Council considered and was told that an answer would be provided in writing

 

A member of the public clarified that there had been no application made by Arrow Taxis for 20 rear loaders on the taxi rank. He asked what the licensing committee would do to ensure consistency across the region and told the committee that companies such as UBER would licence themselves in authorities with less strict regulations and operate within the Borough. Members were told that Arun had no limitations on age of vehicle or tinting windows. By introducing measures that would force drivers to get their licences elsewhere the Authority would be creating a public safety issue within the Borough. The Member of the Public was told that an answer would be provided in writing

 

A member of the public told the Committee that there had been recent news that the government would support the introduction of compulsory CCTV for licensed vehicles; this had been, in the member of the public’s opinion, unfounded. The government had stated that this was supported in principle. The statutory guidance stated that a blanket application of such a measure would give rise to the proportionality of such an approach and would require an appropriately strong justification and must be able to be regularly reviewed. The member of the public asked what was the policy justification for introducing a compulsory requirement for the installation of CCTV to licence vehicles, what evidence did the council rely on of incidents prior to the introduction of the decision. The Member of the Public was told that an answer would be provided in writing