Agenda item

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

RESOLVED, by majority vote, that –

 

(a)      officers be instructed to consult on the implementation of an increase to the tariff by 5% (rounded to the nearest full percent) in line with the Retail Price Index for Motoring;

 

(b)      officers be authorised to proceed with a statutory notice with an implementation date of at least 28 days following publication of the notice, and

 

(c)      officers be instructed to prepare a report for the next Licensing Committee if any objections were received to that statutory notice.

[Councillor Win Mullen-James abstained from voting on this item because she had joined the meeting late and had not been present for the whole debate.]

 

The Public Protection Business Manager (PPBM) submitted a report (previously circulated) seeking the Committee’s review of the current tariff charges for hackney carriage vehicles (taxis), including options for consideration and recommendations on the way forward.  The current tariff charges had been set in July 2022.

 

Following a request from a licensed driver, officers had consulted on a proposed 10% increase to all tariffs and extras to ascertain the views of the licensed trade.  The responses included general support for an increase and numerous alternative variations of the proposal.  The Licensing Consultant’s Report on the 2022 fare review had recommended a methodology for calculating future fares which was reliant on sufficient data being provided by the licensed trade; that engagement work had commenced with no definitive timescale for completion.  In the absence of that data, the Consultant had recommended using the Retail Price Index (RPI) for Motoring (4.8% as of August 2023) as a tool to increase/decrease fares.

 

The PPBM guided members through the report in detail and options available to either retain the current table of fares, support the proposal for a 10% tariff increase, or support an increase in line with the RPI for Motoring.  If members supported a fares increase a public consultation would be undertaken on the proposal with any objections brought back before the Committee for consideration.  Any final tariff would be subject to a Lead Member Delegated Decision.  Officers had recommended consultation on a tariff increase of 5% (rounded to the nearest full percent) in line with the RPI for Motoring as recommended by the Consultant.

 

Members considered the report and options available to them, and there were mixed views as to the best way forward.  Questions were raised with the PPBM on various aspects of the report and initial consultation with the trade, with some concerns raised regarding assumptions that non-respondents were not supportive of a review, the general lack of response from the taxi trade to inform the process, and inflation rate fluctuations when used as a basis for tariff increases.  Whilst general concerns were raised regarding the timing of a tariff increase during a cost of living crisis and impact on taxi users, regard was also given to the impact on the taxi trade who were dealing with increased costs affecting the industry.  It was felt there should be a more structured approach to reviewing tariffs on a regular basis.

 

The PPBM responded to members’ questions and comments as follows –

 

·       there were no statutory timeframes for reviewing taxi fares and charges

·       following the request for a tariff increase it was considered appropriate to gauge support for an increase from the taxi trade

·       280 licensed drivers had been consulted, 56 had responded with 47 in support of an increase, which was considered sufficient to proceed with a review

·       there was no methodology behind the assumption that those who failed to respond were satisfied with the current tariff, and given the low response rate to consultations generally, that assumption could not be satisfactorily concluded

·       officers were working to engage with the taxi trade as recommended by the Consultant with a view to calculating future fare increases and on completion of that work regular reviews would be carried out on a structured and timely basis

·       whilst the consultees and respondents had been referred to as licensed drivers, they also included taxi business owners and proprietors

·       if a fares increase was supported a wide-ranging consultation with the public and stakeholders would follow

·       it was accepted that the recommended 5% increase in line with the RPI for Motoring as at August 2023 changed on a monthly basis, but for the purposes of a review an agreed figure was required to move forward

·       noted that although inflation had fallen over recent times, it meant that costs had risen more steeply previously and were still increasing but at a slower rate

·       tariffs set the maximum charge permitted, and a lesser fee could be charged

·       the Consultant had completed his report and there were no further consultancy costs being incurred by the authority in relation to that work.

 

Councillor Joan Butterfield was uncomfortable with a tariff increase at this time but recognised the cost increases faced by the taxi trade.  She felt that consultation on a 5% increase would be appropriate to seek the views of the wider public to inform any subsequent decision.  Consequently, Councillor Butterfield proposed, seconded by Councillor Alan James, the officer recommendations as set out in paragraphs 6.1, 6.3 and 6.4 of the report, to consult on a 5% increase, proceed with the statutory notice in that regard, and report back any objections to the Committee.

 

Councillor Brian Jones could not support a tariff increase at this time given the current cost of living crisis and he did not consider the number of responses to the consultation in support of an increase to be sufficient to proceed.  Councillor Jones proposed an amendment, seconded by Councillor Andrea Tomlin, to retain the current table of fares.  The Solicitor set out the process regarding amendments to motions and the Chair called for a vote on the amendment.

 

Councillor Gwyneth Ellis raised a point of order on the validity of the amendment, which she argued was not an amendment but a vote against the motion.  The Solicitor reiterated the options available to the Committee as set out in the report.  If the amendment failed, the Committee was effectively agreeing to an increase, but there was the option to increase by 5% or 10% which was yet undetermined.

 

Having counted the votes, clarification was sought from Councillor Butterfield on whether and how she had voted which had not been captured.  Councillor Butterfield confirmed her vote which resulted in a tied vote.  The Chair used her casting vote to vote against the amendment which was LOST.  The Chair then called for a vote on the substantive motion by Councillor Joan Butterfield, seconded by Councillor Alan James which was restated for the benefit of members. 

 

Upon being put to the vote it was subsequently –

 

RESOLVED, by majority vote, that –

 

(a)      officers be instructed to consult on the implementation of an increase to the tariff by 5% (rounded to the nearest full percent) in line with the Retail Price Index for Motoring;

 

(b)      officers be authorised to proceed with a statutory notice with an implementation date of at least 28 days following publication of the notice, and

 

(c)      officers be instructed to prepare a report for the next Licensing Committee if any objections were received to that statutory notice.