Agenda item

With the agreement of the Committee, this item was taken first.

Councillor Collop stated that he had been contacted by taxi drivers regarding the proposals, and had invited two drivers to the meeting.

Steven O’Donnell and Jason Smith addressed the Committee and made the following points:

·        Some of the fees looked like they had been duplicated, for example new wheelchair accessible vehicles had additional checks carried out by the testing station and at the Borough Council.  He added that the Borough Council only checked with the operator and not the driver as it was important that the driver knew how to load/unload wheelchair users.

·        Changing name had gone up from £5.50 - £11.00.  He asked whether there was a way to do this online.

·        Door stickers at £19.98. £5.60 of that related to administration charges but the drivers could go directly to the sign makers.

·        The drivers could not pass on any additional charges as they were on a metre.

·        Wheelchair accessible vehicles cost a third more to operate.

·        The trade needed to have clear understanding of the charges.

He concluded that he was aware that the Act had been brought in by Central Government but felt that a fair balance could be sought for both the Council and drivers.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community advised that it was the Cabinet’s decision only that should be scrutinised.

The Chairman advised that several taxi drivers had written in about the issues and had attended the Cabinet Meeting.  He added that the taxi drivers were a credit to the Council but at the same time the taxi drivers were unhappy with the proposed fees.  He stated that he hoped the Portfolio Holder could reassure the taxi drivers the reasons why the changes had to be introduced.

The Leader thanked both Steven O’Donnell and Jason Smith for attending the meeting tonight.  He explained that the Council now had to cover its administration fees which should not be costing the Council money for providing the service.

The Chairman stated that the taxi drivers knew their costs, and he would ask the Portfolio Holder to take on board what they were saying.  He suggested that a meeting could be arranged with the Portfolio Holder, taxi drivers and officers, which seemed to be a sensible way forward.

The Leader explained that this was not a public consultation meeting.  The Portfolio Holder was here with the appropriate officers to answer questions from the Committee.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community stated that the taxi drivers could contact the officers present to arrange meeting.  He added that the Council could not subsidise the fees and had to recover the actual processing costs.  He further added that a Member could have attended the Cabinet Meeting under Standing Order 34, if they had any points to raise, but did not think that this meeting was the right place to do so.

The Chairman stated that this would be costing taxi drivers extra money and could impact on their business.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community responded that the changes had been brought in by Central Government, therefore the Council had no choice but to adhere to those changes.  A cost exercise was carried out which was how the fees were arrived at.  The last time there had been a fee increase was in 2011.  As the report stated, the proposed fees now looked to recover the actual processing costs and costs to the Council for providing this service.  In the past fees had not been calculated in that way and therefore had resulted in the service being subsidised by other service areas, however it was not intended to recover the costs previously incurred and not re-charged.  He added that someone had to pay for the increase and he could not see why it should be the taxpayer.

The Chairman stated that taxi drivers charged a set price for trips and the prices that the Council set may be adverse to their businesses.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community explained that the changes had been out to consultation and some of the issues raised had been taken into account.  The proposals would also be advertised in the press.  He added that every plate holder had the opportunity to put their points forward as part of the consultation process.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community agreed that a meeting could take place with officers and members of the taxi trade.  He further explained that the Council had to carry out this exercise to recover the costs incurred by the Council in providing the service.

Steve O’Donnell added that the consultation came out at the end of August and the end of the consultation process was 22^nd September.  He felt that this had been pushed through and left to the last minute, whereas other authorities had appeared to consult quicker.   He also stated that there had not been any response to the objections raised as part of the consultation process.

The Portfolio Holder for Housing and Community explained that all responses had been looked through in detail and this took time to do.

The Chairman asked why other authorities sent out their consultation document quicker.  The Portfolio Holder responded that he could not answer that question.

The Chairman added that he thought that a meeting between the Portfolio Holder, officers and the trade would be beneficial.  He thanked Steve O’Donnell and Jason Smith for attending the meeting.