Taxis - Day Of Action

[BigDave]

£50 fine!

Don't you mean £40?

[TerryMcCann]

None whatsoever. As long as they kept moving they were not committing any offence and, as the police were forewarned of their intentions......

 

I'm surprised they didn't all just stick their hazard flashes on.

 

Taxi drivers seem to think this makes anything legal

[Lonan3]

£50 fine!

Don't you mean £40?

No. The Contamination fee - for fouling a ply for hire car causing it to go out of service due to the conduct of the passenger has not been reduced! It's been £50 for quite some time now!

[BigDave]

Not according to the document you linked.

[Sidney]

Let's face it, the public opinion of the industry is at an all time low due to all this pointless "action". There is nothing whatsoever the Douglas taxi drivers can do that will make the slightest bit of difference to what the government do.

The part of this that pisses me off the most is that the future of the industry is being decided by people who how no understanding of the dynamics of the industry and how it actually works. They commision a study then ignore the findings because the results are not in line with what the government wanted.

Not the fault of the actual MHK's, they cannot be expected to be experts in every field in which they are making decisions, but they should at least listen to advice from people who do know, such as the taxi drivers and owners of taxi firms. These are the people who understand the industry and what direction the future should take.

[Dr Gonzo]

...such as the taxi drivers and owners of taxi firms. These are the people who understand the industry and what direction the future should take.

 

No, they're the people with vested interests in keeping supply low and prices high. Would you be happy if the Financial Supervision Commission was disbanded because, after all, banks are the ones that know the industry and what direction the future should take?

Let's be honest, this should have happened years ago, but didn't because a former RTLC member resisted it strongly. Not that *he* had any connection to the taxi industry, you understand. Oh no.

Taxi drivers complaining that their monopolistic franchises are being taken away fail to appreciate that the whole idea of deregulation is to improve service to the public through a widening of the market. If you can't earn enough money to survive at the moment, why not change career? It's a bit rich to say "I can't earn enough money, please limit the competition I face". Every taxi driver I've met whinges about the Island's monopolies - the Steam Packet, the MEA, Manx Gas, etc, etc - ad nauseam. Well, welcome to the real world: where if *I* wanted to be a taxi driver, there's now nothing (including an illegal black market in plates) to stop me.

Not that I'm suggesting taxi drivers are complaining because they paid for their plates and would like to keep some sort of resale value. That would be unfair of me.

[ai_Droid]

Knowledgeable public opinion is still very much with us - I'm not in a position to comment on the rest.

 

You're delusional.

[Tugger]

Knowledgeable public opinion is still very much with us - I'm not in a position to comment on the rest.

 

You're delusional.

 

I'd have to agree. Why would the public back a closed shop whose only purpose in life is to enable them to be overcharged?

[BigDave]

Fact: According to a QC of many years experience (who has also been an Acting Deemster on the island), if Anderson proceeds with the proposed motion, he will not only be acting unconstitutionally, but will be misleading Tynwald. He has received notification of that but, because this bloody awful government seems to believe itself above the law, he will probably ignore it.

 

The Act and the Transitional Provisions of Schedule 2 / Quantity Restrictions

Many of the challenges facing the RTLC are generated by a requirement to limit numbers of Ply for Hire taxi licences, and to apply a District or zoning licensing system for Ply for Hire taxis, in accordance with the transitional provisions of Schedule 2 of the Act.

It is important to note that the Act itself is intended to de-limit numbers of taxi licences, and to make provision for all-Island taxi licensing. There is no provision in the Act for the Committee to assess or determine a need for new taxi licences. The transitional provisions of Schedule 2, are therefore in conflict with the purpose and intentions of the Act.

The transitional provisions of Schedule 2 of the Act were originally intended to apply for a 5-year period from 1 April 2002 until 1 April 2007, but Tynwald subsequently decided in October 2005, to delay the removal of the temporary provisions until 1 April 2008. A Motion was also carried at that time, to the effect that the Minister for Transport should commence to undertake such consultations as are necessary with a view to the Department submitting an Order to Tynwald for approval to remove all or part of the transitional provisions by 1 April 2008.

 

If this was intended from the introduction of Schedule 2, how is it unconstitutional and misleading? Tynwald knew about it years ago.

 

Edit to add link: RTLC Annual Report 2007.

[Lonan3]

Would you be happy if the Financial Supervision Commission was disbanded because, after all, banks are the ones that know the industry and what direction the future should take?

 

And would the finance industry be happy if the Financial Supervision Commission consisted entirely of people who had no experience of the finance industry whatsoever? And would they be happy if anyone who was prepared to swear on oath that a) they had sufficient funding to open a bank; b) had some experience of banking and c) had never been in any kind of trouble ("Wot? Me, Guv? No, guv!") was given a licence to open a bank?

[Oh, sorry... I forgot about BCCI, S&I etc, etc]

 

Let's be honest, this should have happened years ago, but didn't because a former RTLC member resisted it strongly. Not that *he* had any connection to the taxi industry, you understand. Oh no.

 

Fascinating theory! But as the only change to the RTLC has been the retirement of it's previous chairman (a butcher by trade) I honestly have no idea what you're drivelling about (that's 'drivelling' as in 'drivelling idiot,' by the way), especially as the RTLC have nothing whatsoever to do with what's under discussion.

Schedule 2 of the 2001 Transport Act was designed to provide at least 5 years during which time the status quo would be maintained (no... not the ones who'll be appearing at the Villa, before anyone tries to be smart.) The status quo was not maintained - many free new licences were handed out (a number of which were given to opportunists who sold them on fairly quickly to the young and gullible)

No time limit was placed on it's removal Yes, incredible isn't it, that you can't believe what Bruce Hannay had to say in last week's Examiner when he claimed that the Minister of Transport was obliged to bring it before Tynwald this year? I actually have the same statement in a letter from the minister, which means that he is either telling porkies or is misinformed.

In 2005, Tynwald agreed that the matter would not be discussed before the independent survey had been completed so that the facts of the matter could be discussed and it could be decided whether or not to remove Schedule 2. The Survey has never been discussed. It has never been laid before Tynwald (despite the taxpayer forking out more than 25 grand for it)

Why? Because it didn't give the answers that the RTLC (and a certain MHK) wanted it to give.

Therefore, without consultation, without discussion, without even a glance at the contents of the survey, Mr Brown Anderson is seeking to have the two most important paragraphs of it removed.

Not only is he seeking to remove the restrictions on districts (which most of us were prepared to accept) but also to introduce the kind of fre-for-all that has led to the considerable reduction in standards wherever similar delimitation has taken place - even to the extent that many UK authorities are now desperately trying to reintroduce limits!

[Tugger]

The FSC is a gateway that discriminates on the basis of QUALITY, and I can see some sort of justification for that. I can't see why taxi users should pay more because a licensing body discriminates on the basis of QUANTITY

[ans]

No time limit was placed on it's removal

 

That's not what the RTLC report linked above says...

[Lonan3]

The Act and the Transitional Provisions of Schedule 2 / Quantity Restrictions

Many of the challenges facing the RTLC are generated by a requirement to limit numbers of Ply for Hire taxi licences, and to apply a District or zoning licensing system for Ply for Hire taxis, in accordance with the transitional provisions of Schedule 2 of the Act.

It is important to note that the Act itself is intended to de-limit numbers of taxi licences, and to make provision for all-Island taxi licensing. There is no provision in the Act for the Committee to assess or determine a need for new taxi licences. The transitional provisions of Schedule 2, are therefore in conflict with the purpose and intentions of the Act.

The transitional provisions of Schedule 2 of the Act were originally intended to apply for a 5-year period from 1 April 2002 until 1 April 2007, but Tynwald subsequently decided in October 2005, to delay the removal of the temporary provisions until 1 April 2008. A Motion was also carried at that time, to the effect that the Minister for Transport should commence to undertake such consultations as are necessary with a view to the Department submitting an Order to Tynwald for approval to remove all or part of the transitional provisions by 1 April 2008.

 

If this was intended from the introduction of Schedule 2, how is it unconstitutional and misleading? Tynwald knew about it years ago.

 

Edit to add link: RTLC Annual Report 2007.

 

LINK TO HANSARD 3rd April 2001

 

Mr Brown: "So even when taxi licences become valid for plying for hire in all districts of the Island, the grant of such all-Island licences can remain subject to the unmet need test but in respect of the Island as a whole in place of being in respect of each individual taxi district. This will be achieved by an order under a new paragraph 3A which provides alternative restrictions on plying for hire. By the department making a single order the district licence system can be terminated and the unmet need provisions be continued in force in respect of all-Island taxi licences. Such an order can not have effect before 1st April 2007. The order would substitute the substantive paragraph 3 of the schedule by the alternative form of paragraph 3 set out in my amendment. This substitution cannot take place before 1st April 2007 and then only with the approval of Tynwald. That substituted provision in respect of the Island as a whole would then remain in place until Tynwald approved the repeal of the remaining provisions of schedule 2 some time after 1st April 2007. There is no time limit set out in the Bill."

(My italics)

[Lonan3]

No time limit was placed on it's removal

 

That's not what the RTLC report linked above says...

The inaccuracies, omissions and misinformation in that report merely serve to confirm what virtually everyone in the taxi trade thinks of the RTLC.

[Paul H]

Mr Brown: "So even when taxi licences become valid for plying for hire in all districts of the Island, the grant of such all-Island licences can remain subject to the unmet need test but in respect of the Island as a whole in place of being in respect of each individual taxi district. This will be achieved by an order under a new paragraph 3A which provides alternative restrictions on plying for hire. By the department making a single order the district licence system can be terminated and the unmet need provisions be continued in force in respect of all-Island taxi licences. Such an order can not have effect before 1st April 2007. The order would substitute the substantive paragraph 3 of the schedule by the alternative form of paragraph 3 set out in my amendment. This substitution cannot take place before 1st April 2007 and then only with the approval of Tynwald. That substituted provision in respect of the Island as a whole would then remain in place until Tynwald approved the repeal of the remaining provisions of schedule 2 some time after 1st April 2007. There is no time limit set out in the Bill."

(My italics)

 

Seven years not long enough to get your house in order, oh please.