The LPHCA is responding as a trade body that represents private hire vehicle (PHV) and taxi operators directly alongside PHV and taxi drivers indirectly via our member operators. We have a UK-wide membership of nearly 300 operators who agency to or work with around 25,000 drivers. Our membership includes some of the biggest taxi and PHV operators in Manchester and the northwest, some of whom may respond independently to this consultation.

We have been engaging considerably with Transport for Greater Manchester (TfGM), particularly in the last two years. During that time, we have initiated meetings with TfGM and also endeavoured to attend both physical and online meetings or sessions with regard to Greater Manchester Taxi and Private Hire Minimum Licensing Standards (MLS) and Clean Air Zone (CAZ) proposals.

Prior to endeavouring to respond to this consultation process, we held a meeting at the Manchester Emirates venue last year where over 500 taxi and PHV operators and drivers were in attendance. Also at that meeting were officials from the Department for Transport (DfT) and the government’s Joint Air Quality Unit (JAQU) who spoke to the packed meeting.

We had intended to invite officials from TfGM, the DfT and JAQU, alongside local politicians and TfGM Officials to join us at the Manchester Emirates on 16^th April this year to partake in the debates that many hundreds would have taken part in. Sadly, however, due to the pandemic this event had to be cancelled. It was also our intention to involve all concerned with the MLS and CAZ proposals to partake in this year’s event. This forum would have given the wider Manchester PHV and taxi trade the opportunity to have debated the air quality and minimum standards proposals that are now are being covered via this consultation process.

By way of constructive, but critical feedback, we have made two important assertions regarding this process. Firstly on the quality of this consultation, its structure and its miscellaneous formats are inconsistent and confusing. Secondly on the timing and duration, which during the North West and Greater Manchester’s four-week national lockdown and High COVID tier status is problematic. We have flagged the timing difficulties many times prior to the process starting and we have communicated our concerns on the actual consultation structure, size and inconsistencies at meetings and inconsiderable communications with TfGM, local politicians and others throughout the process.

For the sake of being constructive we will make our best endeavours to deal with these difficulties by focusing on our response, which due to circumstances has not facilitated great engagement with those it will affect most, the taxi and PHV trade. Whilst we sincerely hope that poor proposals and outcomes will not ensue, for the sake of clarity we reserve the right to challenge them should they materialise. We are, however, heartened that TfGM and colleagues therein have assured us that dialogue will continue way beyond this process, for which we very publicly wish to express our gratitude.

Our following submission therefore takes account of all the points mentioned above and our considerable communications with TfGM, members, key industry suppliers, the wider trade and its representatives.

Yours sincerely,

Steve Wright MBE – Chair LPHCA

Q0.1 Respondent Type: We are responding as a trade organisation

Q0.2 Name: The Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA)

Q0.3 Authority to Respond: As Chair I am authorised to respond on behalf of the association

Q0.4 Size of Your Business: Whilst we are a micro business, we have membership UK wide of nearly 300 operators who agency to or work with around 25,000 drivers.

Basis of Our Responses Below: It was impossible to give an appropriate set of answers using the clustered - Strongly Agree/Agree/Neither Agree nor Disagree/Disagree/Strongly Disagree/Don’t Know options; I have therefore individualised all the sections and added comments where necessary.

SECTION 1

Proposed minimum licensing standards for licensed drivers in Greater Manchester

• Enhanced Criminal Record Checks – Strongly Agree
• Driver Medical Examinations – Strongly Agree
  • Comment – Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency (DVSA) to the licensing of lorry and bus drivers (Group 2 standards of medical fitness) are currently considered the appropriate standard for licensed taxi and private hire drivers. Something that is problematic however is the fact that individual licensing authorities have differing standards requirements for DVSA Group 2 medicals. Many ‘forward thinking’ licensing authorities are currently using DVSA medical providers that are approved by the Road Haulage Association (RHA). Such companies provide expert medicals, quickly at reasonable cost, which includes an eye test and the provision of essential, rather than full driver medical records. With the pandemic and high tiered status in Greater Manchester and GPs universally unable to deliver medicals for taxis and PHV drivers alongside the imminent national vaccination program, we implore the ten Unifying TfGM Authorities to immediately utilise these service providers like the RHA does.

• Knowledge Tests – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • Comment – In documentation it is suggested that the test may include some or all of the following: local area knowledge, local conditions, licensing law, road safety/highway code/cycle awareness, numeracy, reading and writing and safeguarding. Blanket requirements without considerable dialogue with the trade on what is appropriate should not be adopted. The appropriate level of so called ‘knowledge’ will vary between taxi, private hire, operators and drivers. For example, a roaming taxi driver, a chauffeur, a PHV driver on fixed runs (e.g. special needs and school runs) and a PHV doing national work or corporate runs only, will need different skills. The wide-ranging Law Commission 2014 review of Taxi and Private Hire services stated: We see no sufficient justification for requiring local topographical knowledge tests for private hire drivers’ and ‘there are a number of reasons why topographical knowledge tests are much less important for private hire drivers than for taxi drivers.

• English Language Tests – Strongly Agree
  • Licensing authorities require that all new drivers are able to communicate in English both verbally and inwriting to a standard that is required to fulfil their duties, including in emergency and challenging situations. This should include:
    • Talking to passengers to find out where they want to travel to, an estimation of the time taken to get there and acknowledgement of other common passenger requests
    • Being able to communicate with the customer in order to provide them with correct change from a note or notes of higher value than the given fare, and doing so with relative simplicity
    • Providing a legibly written receipt upon request.
    • It is proposed that applicants undertake an assessment that meets the above criteria. This assessment could also be used following a licence review and could, as a result, require an element of training as part of the decision.
  • Comment – In your wording above you have got this absolutely correct, however assessment should be realistic, affordable and absolutely not go above this standard, which is appropriate to the job. Any policy adopted, must in our view, however, as you have asserted above, make provision for training for those unable to immediately reach the required standard without loss of licence via continuity of licence. TfGM also need to take account the fact that where possible online assessments and training are possible post-Covid-19 as Licensing Authorities have failed in their ability to provide fundamental licensing services in order to meet their Statutory Obligations in Law.

• Driving Proficiency Tests – Strongly Agree
  • Under the proposed minimum standards all new drivers will be required to pass a taxi/private hire on-road assessment with a GM approved supplier (each local authority has an approved list of suppliers) and must submit evidence of that pass as part of their application process. Where an existing licensed driver’s driving proficiency is called into question, a licensing hearing may require the driver to undertake a relevant skills assessment, which may include a classroom-based theory session.
  • Comment – In your documentation above you have also got this absolutely correct, however once again assessment should be realistic, affordable and absolutely not go above a standard, which is appropriate to the job.

• Driver Training – Strongly Agree
  • Comment – In your documentation below you have also got this absolutely correct, however, once again, assessment should be realistic, affordable and absolutely not go above a standard that is appropriate to the job. TfGM also need to take account the fact that where possible online assessments and training are possible post-Covid-19 because many Licensing Authorities have failed in their ability to provide fundamental licensing services in order to meet their statutory obligations in law. Some are, in fact, currently closed.

• Dress Code – Agree
  • Comment – We are in agreement with proposals but not over and above your documentation which states: It is proposed a dress code is introduced to promote a positive image of the licensed taxi and private hire trade in GM. All clothing worn must be in good condition and the driver must keep good standards of personal hygiene.  As stated in Appendix 7: Licensed Drivers’ Dress Code, the purpose of the dress code is to set a standard that provides a positive image of the licensed hackney carriage and private hire trade in Greater Manchester, promoting public and driver safety.
  • Dress Standard
    • All clothing worn by those working as private hire or hackney carriage drivers must be in good condition and the driver must keep good standards of personal hygiene.
    • As a minimum standard whilst working a licensed driver, males should wear trousers and a shirt which has a full body and short/long sleeves. Knee length tailored shorts are acceptable. Exceptions related to faith or disability are accepted.
    • As a minimum standard whilst working as a licensed driver, females should wear trousers, or a knee length skirt or dress, and a shirt/blouse which have a full body and a short/long sleeve. Knee length tailored shorts are also acceptable. Exceptions related to faith or disability are accepted.
    • Footwear whilst working as a licensed driver shall fit (i.e. be secure) around the toe and heel.
  • Examples of unacceptable standard of dress
    • Clothing that is not kept in a clean condition, free from holes, rips or other damage.
    • Words or graphics on any clothing that is of an offensive or suggestive nature which might offend.
    • Sportswear e.g. football/rugby kits including shirts, track suits in whole or part or beachwear.
    • Sandals with no heel straps, flip flops or any other footwear not secure around the heel.
    • The wearing of any hood or any other type of clothing that may obscure the driver’s vision or their identity.
  • Uniforms – The Council recognises the positive image that uniforms can create. This dress code does not require a licensed driver to wear a distinct uniform. The Council acknowledges that many private hire and hackney carriage companies do require licensed drivers to wear appropriate corporate branded uniform and this is a practice that the Council would encourage licensed drivers to support.

• Drug and Alcohol Testing – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • Comment – It is not possible to agree or disagree until the policy is developed for comment

SECTION 2

Proposed minimum licensing standards for licensed vehicles in Greater Manchester

• Vehicle Emissions – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • Comment – In your documentation below you say: It is proposed that all licensed vehicles must comply with the current Euro standard (Petrol: Euro IV 2005 onwards manufacture, Diesel: Euro V1 2015 onwards manufacture) when they are first licensed, with an ambition for a zero-emission capable fleet by 2028. We agree with the first part but must point out the ambition for a zero-emission capable fleet by 2028, though whilst sensible cannot, at this stage, form a policy as the supply, charging infrastructure, cost, and ability for drivers to charge at home is uncertain, especially post-pandemic. There is also uncertainty on grant funding for drivers, so this aspiration needs to be kept under review as events become clearer.

• Vehicle Age – Strongly Disagree
  • Comment – As a former qualified engineer and operator that had over 2,000 vehicles used, leased or owned by my business for private hire usage and as many experienced operators, taxi and PHV hirers will tell you it is the condition, not the age of a vehicle that is critical. A combination of condition and vehicle emissions requirements (as you have set out above) is a far better way to determine the fitness for a taxi or PHV to be licensed. It is reasonable to subject older PHVs to more frequent MOTs and other inspections whilst meeting established Euro Standards and Air Quality requirements, rather than the outdated and inappropriate use of age policies.

• Different Age Policy for Electric Vehicles – Strongly Disagree
  • Comment – Please see above. A vehicle is either mechanically fit or not. Many very expensive older PHVs including specialist special needs vehicles have had costly conversions, can do little mileage and if well maintained have a long working life expectancy. Some such vehicles will not be electric due to battery weight/availability. There is therefore no logical reason to allow electric vehicles to have a longer age consideration, it is now time to use mechanical fitness, Euro Standards and Air Quality requirements as stated above.

• Vehicle Colour – Strongly Disagree
  • Comment – With respect, this is an extremely poor proposal; few people within the PHV industry that I have spoken to that would accept this as being rational, either run or own white vehicles and even they accept that prescribing white only will almost certainly increase prices, reduce model availability and potentially create a shortage of available vehicles. Here are just some of the other reasons not to do this:
    • Private hire vehicles are privately booked not taxis
    • A uniform colour will make PHVs look more like taxis
    • Modern technology and the number plate identifies vehicles to customers
    • Passengers will start approaching white vehicles (this is dangerous)
    • Bogus drivers will use a white vehicle (this is dangerous)
    • Passengers from neighbouring authorities will be confused
    • Tourists travelling to multiple destinations will be confused
    • Drivers who move into TfGM with a vehicle they used elsewhere won’t be able to get licensed
    • Electric and Hybrid vehicles are not predominantly white
    • Colour schemes are unwelcomed by vehicle hirers, replacement vehicle suppliers and major trade suppliers
    • Colour schemes for PHVs have been successfully challenged in the courts
    • Some excellent PH industry vehicles are not available in white
  • There is extremely marginally a better case for taxis being one colour as they are hailed by the public, however much of the above would apply.

• All Hackney Carriages should be Wheelchair Accessible – Strongly Agree
• Side and/or Rear Loading Accessible Hackney Carriages Without the Need for Swivel Seats – Neither Agree nor Disagree
• Accessible Hackney Carriages Vehicle Livery (special design) – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • It is proposed all vehicles will display licence plates on the front and back of the vehicle, a ‘GM Approved’ sticker on its bonnet and that private hire vehicles will display stickers on both rear side doors which will include operator name, ‘advanced bookings only’ and ‘not insured unless pre-booked’, and a sticker containing the operator name in the back window. The wide-ranging Law Commission 2014 review of Taxi and Private Hire services stated:
    • Private Hire Vehicle Signage: though our consultation paper suggested that most standards for private hire services should either be part of national safety standards or left to the market, we asked whether vehicle signage or other aspects of standard-setting might need to be set at a local level. Two views can be distinguished in this area: Firstly, that signage is an important safety feature as it demonstrates the licensed status of a vehicle, and secondly, that signage is potentially dangerous as it can be used to attract customers to vehicles which are in fact unlicensed. As an example, the “pre-booked only” identifiers issued for private hire vehicles by Transport for London have been criticised on the grounds that they are easily counterfeited and are used to entice users into unlicensed vehicles.
  • Comment – The short duration of this consultation, the lock down and the pandemic has unfortunately not enabled us to get our member’s views on this subject. This proposal, however, looks onerous, unnecessary and expensive. LPHCA’s current policy is that ‘less is more’ on a PHV and the more you put on a PHV the more it looks like a ‘hireable taxi’.

• Vehicle Testing – Agree
  • It is proposed that all vehicles more than three years old will be tested for safety, road worthiness and exhaust emissions at least twice a year. It is also proposed that all vehicles will be tested against the standard DVSA MOT Standard as a minimum.
  • Comment – The only reason we don’t strongly agree is because the DVSA MOT Standard and an annual inspection has worked very well in places like London for many years so we cannot see it needs to be a minimum standard with authorities potentially having a variety of differing standards.

• Mandatory CCTV – Strongly Disagree
  • It is proposed that all licensed vehicles are fitted with mandatory CCTV. Cameras can act as a deterrent to the occurrence of a crime and can protect both drivers and passengers. Audio as well as visual recording is proposed, triggered by a panic button system.
  • Comment – Majoritively LPHCA members in the TfGM and wider membership are against mandatory CCTV and a member survey showed over 72% of responders were against it. Privacy, loss of corporate and high-end business, cost, effectiveness, data controller issues and extra signage to meet Information Commissioner requirements were all cited by our members. Unlike publicly hired taxis, PHVs work with operators, are generally tracked and areas the name states booked for privacy. The pandemic has worsened the plight of drivers, who in the main are owner drivers and would need to pay the costs, so it is not surprising the assertion that CCTV should be mandatory is extremely unwelcome.

• Executive Hire – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • It is proposed that the following standards apply to executive hire vehicles (eg. chauffeur driven): bookings to be confirmed by written contract, payments made in advance of the journey or by invoice afterwards, the types of vehicles to be licensed, dress code, business plan shared with licensing authority, vehicles not to be fitted with radios or data heads or meters, exemptions from plates and door signs and must be used exclusively for executive hire.
  • Comment – This proposal looks to be out of date and out of sync with the modern world. We would suggest lengthy dialogue with the executive sector on this and would be keen to partake in discussions. We can agree that there should be exemptions.

• Vehicle Design – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • It is proposed that all vehicles conform to M1 vehicle standard (DVLA vehicle classification), no retrofitting of engines into older vehicles (Liquid Petroleum Gas (LPG) conversions will be accepted), any retrofit emissions technology must have been approved as part of the Clean Vehicle Retrofit Accreditation Scheme (CVRAS), manufacturer window tints only, no vehicles will have been written off in any category, no roof signs on private hire vehicles, no advertising other than Local Authority issued signage on private hire vehicles.
  • Comment – We mainly agree with this proposal but care needs to be taken on Special Needs Conversions that have had their M1 status changed to accommodate specialist equipment or seating. We would like to query the no advertising proposal as to whether that includes the company name and branding.

• Vehicle Conditions – Neither Agree nor Disagree
  • Details of proposed Greater Manchester private hire and hackney carriage vehicle conditions can be found in Appendices 4 and 5 respectively and include matters such as identification plates, accidents, meters, fare tables and CCTV.
  • Comment – The reference to considerable appendices in the midst of this consultation documentation, which already cross-references matters responded to above is problematic. Our inability to consult our members and the wider trade appropriately in the midst of a pandemic and highest COVID-19 tiered risk status has meant it has been impossible for us to give a considered response on Vehicle conditions and one of the reasons that we asked for the consultation period to be extended. We therefore hope to cover these matters post-consultation with TfGM officials.

SECTION 3

• Proposed minimum licensing standards for licensed operators in Greater Manchester – Agree
  • Common Licence Conditions: It is proposed that common conditions are attached to each private hire operator licence setting out their responsibilities and how records should be kept with regards to bookings, vehicles and drivers working from and for their company.
  • Criminal Record Checks for Operators and Staff: It is proposed that each private hire operator licence requiring operators and their staff (paid or unpaid) are DBS checked every year to ensure that only safe and suitable people have access to operator records.
  • Vehicle owners who are not licensed drivers, including Directors of companies or partners, are to have a basic DBS check as a part of their application process.

SECTION 4

• Minimum Licensing Standards for Local Authorities – Strongly Agree
  • Timescales for applications to be submitted and received
  • An agreed common enforcement approach
  • An agreed framework to which licensing fees are set
  • Councillor training (relevant to their role) before they hear applications
  • Appropriate delegated powers for Licensing Managers

SECTION 5

• Timetable – Strongly Disagree
  • To what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed timetable for minimum licensing standards in Greater Manchester? It is acknowledged that there needs to be a period of transition before Licensing Authorities implement any proposals agreed following this consultation. This will also allow the trade to consider their options for vehicles going forward.
  • To support Greater Manchester licensed hackney carriage and private hire vehicle owners to upgrade, the Greater Manchester Clean Air Plan proposals include a ‘Clean Taxi Fund’ and a series of other measures, more information on this can be found at cleanairgm.com. A timetable has been set out which proposes:
    • New vehicles being licensed from 1 April 2021 will be required to meet the standards that are approved following this consultation
    • Most of the other policy areas that are approved will start to come into force from April 2021, for example relating to driver and operator standards
    • From 1 April 2021 it is proposed that all existing licensed vehicles will commence transitioning to meet the standards that are approved following this consultation. This will include the stated emissions requirements and age of vehicles
    • The transition period will be determined by each individual Licensing Authority having considered current and revised policies and the likely effect on the trade, but it is expected that all vehicles would have to be compliant with the proposed emissions standards by April 1, 2024 (non-compliant vehicles will still be liable to pay the Clean Air Zone charge from Spring 2022). This will mean that from April 2023, hackney and private hire vehicles will need to meet Minimum Licensing Standards to secure a vehicle licence
    • From 2025 all new-to-licence vehicles would need to be Zero Emission Capable (ZEC) (a vehicle which emits no more than 75g/km C02 exhaust emissions and be capable of being operated with no emissions for a minimum range of 20 miles)
    • From April 2028 all who submit their vehicle for a licence would need to be ZEC.
  • Comment – The devastating effect that the pandemic has had on the trade, the uncertainty, and it’s inability to properly engage with TfGM and the ten councils currently, makes it essential that TfGM takes a realistic and pragmatic approach to the timetable. If officials can look to the essential, rather than the desirable, that will help all concerned. TfGM licencing authorities have not even been capable of meeting their statutory licensing obligations in eight months of pandemic, let alone be capable of meeting these deadlines, so this timetable needs urgent revision.

SECTION 6

• Effect on Businesses – How will you / your business will be affected by these proposals (if at all) if they are approved and implemented.
  • Comment – The devastating effect that the pandemic has had on the trade, will seriously mitigate its ability to be anyway near ready to afford, let alone conform to so many costly, time consuming and difficult to easily comply to requirements, post pandemic. TfGM officials need to take a pragmatic and humane view on the effects on the many taxi and PHV businesses that manage to come through the pandemic.

• COVID Impact – Do you have any comments on the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proposals outlined within the consultation document?
  • Comment – Once again the devastating effect that the pandemic has had on the trade will need to be factored in:
    1. to the TfGM licensing authorities’ ability to implement these wide-ranging and radical changes and ensure that they can deliver them post-pandemic
    2. to ensure that the industry is capable of transitioning in a compassionate way post-pandemic
  • We will be writing to the Mayor of Manchester to suggest a post COVID-19 Impact Assessment is funded and undertaken, prior to implementation, this would include consideration of points 1 and 2 above.

SECTION 7

• Overall, to what extent do you agree or disagree with the proposed Greater Manchester Minimum Licensing Standards for hackney carriages and private hire services – Agree
  • Comment – We are broadly supportive of these proposals but more engagement is needed with the trade as we move towards the end of the pandemic.

• Are there any changes that you think would improve the proposed minimum licensing standards?
  • Comment – More dialogue/engagement with the trade

• If you disagreed with the proposals, how likely would you be to agree with them if the changes you suggested in answer to the previous question were made? – Extremely Likely

SECTION 8

• Draft Equality Impact Assessment
  • A draft Equality Impact Assessment has been produced to identify the potential impacts of the proposed minimum licensing standards on persons with protected characteristics. This can be found www.atgmtaxistandards.com. Please use this space to provide any comments on the draft Equality Impact Assessment.
  • Comment – This impact assessment is stated as draft but appears to have been approved, either way it seems a comprehensive and well-considered assessment.
  • Question 1 – There does not appear to be a formal Regulatory Impact Assessment – has this been done?
  • Question 2 – If yes, where can it be obtained?
  • Question 3 – If yes, will it be fully updated to assess the impact Post COVID-19 on both the industry’s capacity to comply and the Local Authority’s ability to deliver its obligations.

Additional Feedback from LPHCA Members

Members have mentioned that some of the proposals seem protectionist, rather than regulatory. It has also been mentioned that some choose to licence vehicles and drivers outside of Greater Manchester. The LPHCA has established that the reason for this is apparently due to the fact that allegedly some TfGM authorities have extremely poor service levels and serious delays managing their licensing obligations.

We would assert that there is a golden opportunity to keep Greater Manchester operators, drivers and vehicles licensing ‘in area’ via the current unification plans. We feel this could be achieved in our considered view by the combined authorities providing service levels and fees that are appropriate to a modern licensing regime.

In conjunction with appropriate service levels, the numbers being licensed here could fill the coffers too, which in turn would improve compliance.

It has also been suggested that as major providers of transportation PHVs licensed in GM should be given access to bus lanes as they are a mode of transport that reduces car ownership and traffic.