Agenda item

To approve the proposed increase of the Hackney Carriage Vehicle table of fares.

Members reviewed the Proposed Increase to Current Hackney Carriage Vehicle Table of Fares report presented by Andy Fox.

Members made comments, asked questions, and received responses as follows:

·         Councillor Meekins asked if the taxi trade had seen the proposals. Andy Fox replied they had, but unfortunately only a small number had responded.

·         Councillor Hicks asked if a comparison had been made against the charges. Andy Fox responded that a comparison had been made for journeys over two miles.

·         Councillor Woollard commented that although he is unsure about the rest of the district he knows that in March, taxi firms struggle for drivers in the evenings, and it is very difficult for anyone to get a taxi then. On that basis the officer recommendation for additional night fees could encourage extra drivers on the road and he knows a lot of people in March that would be happy to pay these extra fees so long as they can get a taxi.

·         Councillor Miscandlon said it is difficult for anyone in Fenland to get a taxi in the evenings; the attitude amongst many of the drivers is that it is just not worth it, so the modest increase proposed is probably beneficial to them to provide an evening service. However, he is sorry to say that the poor response to the survey is typical and abysmal. It is their trade, but they are not encouraging it, however he will support it.

·         Councillor Murphy said he would also support it, but asked if the whole matter could be simplified. There is mention of a tenth of a mile, 1.62 miles and who counts a waiting time of 96 seconds?

·         Michelle Bishop agreed that it is confusing and whatever the final decision post consultation, work can be done to simplify it as much as possible. The different tariffs are necessary but in terms of waiting time, unfortunately we cannot know how long the waiting time will be because it depends how long it takes to get from end of town to the other given any hold ups on the way.  It is difficult because they have to run on a meter; yes private hire can give a price, but these proposals are for the hackney carriage trade and is the maximum they can charge. Drivers have the choice, If they want to charge less that is fine, it is their decision if they want to accept £10 for a £15 journey. Andy Fox added that every council in the country operates in the same way and the Council has attempted to keep this as simple as possible.

·         Councillor Miscandlon agreed, drivers do not have to charge what it says on the meter and quite a few of them don’t. Some drivers prefer not to mess around with change, they like to deal with round figures and not technical meterage.

·         Councillor Carney asked if members follow officers’ recommendations, and the two-mile rate rises above that of neighbouring districts, is that playing into the hands of taxi operators in Peterborough or South Holland for instance? Andy Fox pointed out that the Council is responding to a request from the trade. As the report states, some councils have not increased fares since 2022 but many are now following suit and looking to put their fares up also.

·         Councillor Meekins commented that officers had said they would try to simplify the process and yet a fraction of a mile is an eleventh; why is it not a tenth or eighth, which is a furlong, it seems a peculiar distance. Andy Fox responded that this had been inherited. A report in 2022 referred to a mile and an eleventh of a mile so it seemed easier to keep these and look at and alter the fee rather than reducing or changing the meterage.

·         Michelle Bishop advised that members have the option to request officers to look at this again, change or simplify it if possible and come back with further proposals. They do not have to accept Option A or B in the recommendations today.

·         Councillor Humphrey asked what is the comparison with the current scheme? It may seem complicated, but it is the system the trade is used to but do other local authorities use a similar scale and brief? Looking at how the trade accepted it then the simplest way seems to be to go with the officer recommendation; perhaps trying to oversimplify it creates more work for the same end, although there could be an amendment to the recommendation in that further work be carried out for the future.

·         Councillor Miscandlon agreed with Councillor Humphrey and said it may be an advantage for officers to look at simplifying the system over the next year ready for when fees are reviewed again, and it may then make the trade’s calculations more user friendly for everyone. Meanwhile he supports the increases as suggested because hopefully it will encourage more evening trade.

·         Councillor Meekins said it has already been pointed out that members do not need to go with the report recommendations but can make their own suggestions. His thought is that as the fees were last reviewed in 2022, presumably any increase will last a couple of years, therefore would it not be better for members to get this right now before implementation. If changes are to be made in the future, it will make more work; it should be reviewed now, so when it is implemented, members, officers and the taxi trade are all happy.

·         Councillor Humphrey stated that Option B has already been through that process. Councillor Woollard agreed, saying Option B has already been through the review process and whilst he appreciates the previous comments about reviewing the whole structure, that should be a project for next year’s consultations, and he is therefore happy to propose that Option B be adopted.

·         Councillor Oliver asked for clarity further to previous comments, he asked if members were proposing to accept Option B or if they were proposing an amendment to the recommendation to accept Option B and have officers look to revise and simplify the process over the next year. A vote was taken, and members agreed the latter option.

Proposed by Councillor Murphy, seconded by Councillor Miscandlon and AGREED to accept Option B now for a taxi fare increase and look into it over the next year for the next round; subject to a 14-day notice period in the newspaper with any comments and/or objections raised from the public during this period to be presented to the Licensing Chairman and Portfolio Holder for them to consider and decide on the next steps.