Agenda item

To consider a report by the Head of Planning, Public Protection and Countryside Services (copy enclosed) seeking the Committee’s further review of the current tariff charges for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) following the consultation on the proposed tariff charges.

 

RESOLVED that –

 

(a)       the proposed tariff as detailed in Appendix D to the report be approved with an implementation date of 1 July 2022, subject to additional miles being measured in one tenth of a mile increments, there being no change to the tariff timings which would remain as currently set in 2018, and there being a surcharge per passenger of more than 4 passengers of 20p, and

 

(b)       a review of the tariffs, including Tariff 2 timings, be undertaken with a report back to members for further consideration in approximately six months’ time.

The Public Protection Business Manager (PPBM) submitted a report (previously circulated) seeking members’ further review of the proposed tariff charges for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis) in light of the consultation responses received.

 

The proposed changes to hackney carriage fares and charges had been approved for consultation by the Licensing Committee in March 2022 and had followed a request from licensed drivers for a review of the tariff charges.  Fourteen objections had been received in response to the consultation together with a number of representations received in support of the proposed tariff changes and two petitions signed by 38 licensed drivers.  The proposed changes to the current tariff had been highlighted and reference had also been made to the authority’s current position in the “league table” of taxi fares in comparison with the proposal.  Members were asked to review the proposed tariff charges and consider whether or not to modify the proposed tariff charges, or reject the proposals, in light of the information provided and responses received.  Particular areas for consideration included the timing of Tariff 2, the days where Tariff 2 was implemented, and whether the rate per mile was the appropriate measurement for subsequent distance.

 

The PPBM guided members through the detail of the report and the responses received to the consultation, highlighting the issues raised in those representations.  In brief, there were mixed objections to the proposed tariff charges relating to various aspects of the proposals with some objecting to specific elements of the proposal and others to any and all tariff increases.  Most objections had been against the timing of Tariff 2 on a Friday and Saturday and the introduction of Tariff 2 on a Sunday.  Other objectors supported an increase in the start fare but not per mile and others questioned the rate per mile as an appropriate measure. The main basis of the objections was that the proposed fee increase would deter taxi use and have a detrimental impact on the trade, with valuable trade lost as a result.  Those in favour of the increase cited the cost of living increases having a significant impact on the viability of the trade and a shortage of drivers to meet customer demand.  The PPBM also referred to an email sent directly to members from a taxi operator in response to representations received in support of the proposed tariff changes.

 

Councillor Martyn Hogg did not feel sufficient information had been provided to understand the full effects of the rate increase but accepted the need for a tariff rise due to cost increases incurred by the taxi trade.  The current proposal was higher than inflation and taking into account the consultation responses he proposed an amendment (as a compromise) in line with inflation (around 10%) as follows –

 

·         Tariff 1 – Start fare £4.00 (includes first mile), fare per mile thereafter £2.20

·         Tariff 2 – Start fare £5.50 (includes first mile), fare per mile thereafter £3.30

·         Fare to be charged in one tenth of a mile increments

·         No change to timings of Tariff 2

 

Councillor Hogg explained his reasoning behind the amendment and provided examples of the percentage increases in the cost per journey as a consequence.  He felt further work should be undertaken to understand the average taxi journeys in the county and to review the tariff timings as soon as possible.  The proposed amendment had been discussed with the PPPM who confirmed that the Tariff 2 proposal needed to be reviewed as did the rate per mile.  The practicalities of the amendment were acknowledged but no calculations had been carried out on the revised proposals.  Councillor Joan Butterfield seconded the amendment and also called for a review in six months’ time.  She had been disappointed to note only one consultation response from the public.

 

The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services set out the legislation relating to the review of fares and charges and the processes to be followed in that regard together with the options available to the Committee to approve/amend the proposed tariffs with an implementation date of 1 July 2022, or to reject them.  If members were minded to carry out further consultation, then the process would effectively recommence which would delay any implementation of the tariffs.

 

Members carefully considered the report, including the consultation responses, the proposed tariff and subsequent amendment to that tariff, and took the opportunity to raise questions with the PPBM, and also heard from two members of the taxi trade, one for and one against the proposed tariff increase.  Mr. L. Peake spoke against the proposed tariff increase, highlighting the problems for taxi operators advertising discounted fares with some drivers subsequently charging the maximum fee which was difficult for operators to address, particularly in the case of owner-drivers.  He argued the proposed tariff increase was too high and customers would be lost.  Mr I. Horvath spoke for the proposed tariff increase highlighting the significant cost increases associated with an average vehicle and gave examples of typical journeys and costs incurred in different areas of the county and longer distances.

 

During debate the following points were raised –

 

·         the start fare in the proposed tariff also included the first mile

·         tariff charges set by the Council were the maximum permitted and a lesser fee could be agreed with the customer

·         the majority of respondents were in support of the proposed tariff increase

·         the majority of the objections related to proposed changes to Tariff 2

·         charging an incremental rate per mile rather than a flat rate per mile meant that the customer only paid for the actual mileage incurred rather than a full mile

·         there may be unintended consequences of tabling amendments to the proposed tariffs given the detail had not been properly examined beforehand

·         the tariff proposals agreed by the Committee for consultation had been based on proposals put forward by a number of licensed drivers, not by officers

·         there was no one representative body for taxi drivers in Denbighshire

·         the tariff proposals consulted upon in percentage terms rose from 7% for a two-mile journey and increased over additional miles, the further the journey the higher percentage increase.  However, the proposed Tariff 2 would potentially double or treble the fare and would be a contentious issue for customers.

 

The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services provided advice in terms of the decision making process and rules of procedure with regard to amendments to motions.  At this point the Chair called for a vote on the amendment proposed by Councillor Hogg, seconded by Councillor Joan Butterfield, which was then restated for the benefit of members.  Upon being put to the vote the amendment was LOST.

 

Councillor Delyth Jones highlighted the need for an increase in fares to support the taxi industry to move towards environmentally friendly vehicles.  She supported an incremental rate per mile from the second mile onwards in the interest of fairness for customers, but felt there should be no change to Tariff 2 timings pending an early review of the consequences of its implementation.  Consequently, Councillor Jones proposed a further amendment, seconded by Councillor Paul Keddie, that the tariff be as set out in the original proposals, subject to additional miles being measured in one tenth of a mile increments, and there being no changes to Tariff 2 timings (which would be subject to an early review).  Upon being put to the vote the amendment was CARRIED thereby taking the place of the original motion and becoming the substantive motion to which any further amendments could be moved.

 

The PPBM noted at this point that the 20p surcharge per passenger for journeys more than 4 passengers had been omitted from the report.  He asked that members consider implementing that element of the proposal as part of their deliberations.

 

Whilst it was acknowledged that amendments to the proposed tariff could be tabled at the meeting, both Councillors Joan Butterfield and Hugh Irving expressed concern there may be unintended consequences as a result given that the detail had not been properly examined by officers and put before members beforehand with the full effects ascertained.  The Head of Legal, HR and Democratic Services set out the legislative requirements and rules of procedure and he was satisfied that the statutory processes had been followed and it was perfectly in order for a decision to be made.  However, if members were not happy to make that decision and wished to defer or seek further consultation it was entirely a matter for them.  If a decision was deferred, the current fares would remain in place, and the process would be recommenced.  Councillor Hogg reiterated his concerns that insufficient information had been provided from the outset to make a fully informed decision and requested a proper process for assessing taxi fares in the future to include inflationary costs and the effects on customers and hospitality.

 

The Chair called for a vote on the substantive motion, which was restated, with the inclusion of a 20p surcharge per passenger for journeys more than 4 passengers.

 

Upon being put to the vote it was unanimously –

 

 RESOLVED that –

 

(a)       the proposed tariff as detailed in Appendix D to the report be approved with an implementation date of 1 July 2022, subject to additional miles being measured in one tenth of a mile increments, there being no change to the tariff timings which would remain as currently set in 2018, and there being a surcharge per passenger of more than 4 passengers of 20p, and

 

(b)       a review of the tariffs, including Tariff 2 timings, be undertaken with a report back to members for further consideration in approximately six months’ time.

 

At this juncture (11.25 am) the meeting adjourned for a short break.