Proceeding contribution from Lord Davies of Oldham (Labour) in the House of Lords on Wednesday, 1 November 2006. It occurred during Debate on bill on Road Safety Bill [HL].
Road Safety Bill [HL]
My Lords, I beg to move that the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12. These are the principal amendments dealing with taxis and private hire vehicles, sometimes known as minicabs. They introduce two new clauses. The remaining amendments in this group are consequential to the two new clauses. They both have the same objective—to make travel safer for people who use these modes of transport. Against the background of the Bichard report and the legislation that we have brought forward in that regard, we have looked carefully at whether we should use the opportunity presented by the Road Safety Bill to deal with any urgent safety concerns in taxi and PHV legislation. The result is these new clauses to deal with two worrying aspects of the legislation that we identified. Amendment No. 11 addresses our concern about a taxi or PHV driver’s right to continue working while appealing against a decision to suspend or revoke his licence, even if he is considered to present an immediate threat to public safety. The clause provides local licensing authorities in England and Wales, outside London, with a new power, which will enable them to suspend or revoke a taxi or PHV driver’s licence with immediate effect on safety grounds. This power has already been available to the licensing authority in London—Transport for London—for a number of years. A driver’s automatic right to continue working pending appeal has been a source of justified concern to many taxi and PHV licensing authorities. They want to use their licensing powers to ensure that passengers are safe using local taxi and PHV services. They play a tremendously important role in protecting residents and visitors who make use of taxis and PHVs in their areas. The amendment will equip them to do so even more thoroughly in circumstances, for example, where a driver has committed a serious offence or is suffering from a medical condition that makes it unsafe for them to continue working. Amendment No. 12 addresses our concern about what is commonly known as the ““contract exemption””; the provision that exempts drivers, vehicles and operators outside London from licensing if the vehicles are hired only under contracts lasting seven days or more. During the earlier passage of the Bill, concerns were raised about what is now Clause 47. The House will be aware that this clause tightens the definition of a private hire vehicle in London and will bring vehicles dedicated to contract work within the London PHV licensing regime. One of the points made in the earlier discussion was that the clause would be inconsistent with the retention of the contract exemption outside London. Ministers promised to consider this matter. Having done so, the conclusion that we came to is that public safety, and indeed consistency, requires that we ensure that contract private hire work is licensed both in London and elsewhere. That is why we have brought forward the new clause in Amendment No. 12. There are no compelling reasons why private hire services provided under long-term contracts should be outside the arrangements for ensuring public safety that are considered to be essential for other private hire work. The need to ensure public safety remains the same regardless of whether the hiring is a one-off or part of a long-term contract. For a passenger possibly at risk, the method of hiring is scarcely relevant; what is important is that there is no doubt that all the necessary checks and procedures have been comprehensively and effectively carried out. There are good grounds for removing the contract exemption to ensure a level playing field in the industry; unlicensed contractors have a commercial advantage over their licensed counterparts, which cannot be justified. Both these new clauses are strongly supported by those who have responsibility for taxi and PHV licensing, and they have been welcomed by many in the industry. I commend them to the House as being necessary to safeguard the public, and I urge the House to agree to these amendments. Moved, That the House do agree with the Commons in their Amendments Nos. 11 and 12.—(Lord Davies of Oldham.)
Secondary information
- Type
- Proceeding contribution
- Reference
- 686 c350-1
- Session
- 2005-06
- Chamber / Committee
- House of Lords chamber
- Subjects
- Appeals Death Accidents Bridges Dangerous driving Cameras Finance Immobilisation of vehicles Enforcement Level crossings Large goods vehicles Income Local government Railways Roads Safety Road traffic offences Taxis Sentencing Safety measures Road traffic control Testing Speed limits Driving licences
- Legislation
- Road Safety Bill (HL) 2005-06
- Link
- View this Proceeding contribution on www.publications.parliament.uk
Librarians' tools
- Timestamp
- 2026-04-01 10:55:21 +0100
- URI
- http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357523
- In Indexing
- http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357523
- In Solr
- https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_357523