Hansard

I am not a member of the Local Government and Regeneration Committee but I thank it for producing the report, which is welcome.

I will restrict my comments to the sections in part 3 of the bill that relate to taxi and private hire car licensing. In my previous life as an Edinburgh councillor, I was the convener of the regulatory committee. In effect, that made me the spokesman for the then administration on taxi and private hire car licensing.

As the Local Government and Regeneration Committee report points out, the main reason for licensing taxis and private hire cars is that the general public must have confidence in the knowledge that it is safe to get into a vehicle and that there is a fit-and-proper-person behind the wheel. There is also the issue of ensuring that any operating company is not a front for organised crime.

My first television interview on licensing as a local politician some years ago was in relation to an incident where a young lady got into a vehicle thinking that it was a taxi. She was taken by the driver to a secluded spot where she was subjected to a serious sexual assault. That is why I feel so strongly that we must have a robust licensing system. For the most part, the taxi and private hire trade is of a similar mind. If we have such a system, those who have been subjected to such attacks in the past will feel that we as legislators are listening to them and that everyone is safe using taxis and private hire cars at any time.

The Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 was written at a time when the technology that we know did not exist. No one had thought of mobile phones as we use them today—they were massive in the early days—and certainly nobody had heard of such things as apps.

On booking offices, I absolutely disagree with the comment attributed in paragraph 311 of the report to Audrey Watson of West Lothian licensing board. Although Police Scotland could investigate nationally, in my opinion it is vital that booking offices are local to the licensing authority area or a short distance from the area in which they are licensed to operate. That allows the police or the licensing authority to easily check on driver and vehicle movements. To say, as Audrey Watson suggests, that a booking office did not have to be in Scotland would demand an almost unlimited amount of trust to be placed on a taxi or PHC operator.

Although most operations are professionally run, there have been the odd exceptions over the years. I believe that local licensing authorities should have not only the right to suspend a driver or vehicle or an operator’s licence but, in extreme circumstances, the right to be able to revoke a licence—a right that they do not have just now. I say that because there are examples of unscrupulous operators changing the day-to-day named operating manager or the ownership of an incorporated company while they fight a licence suspension in order to give the impression that there has been a substantive change to the business.

I know that the current convener of the regulatory committee at the City of Edinburgh Council, Councillor Barrie, would be supportive of such a change as he has informed me of his frustrations in combating unprofessional and unsafe practices within a small minority of the taxi and PHC trades in Edinburgh.

In local licensing systems, booking offices are key to public safety and to the ability to access records. That has to be the case for traditionally run taxi and PHC companies but also for those that use apps as a method of communicating with their customers. Indeed, any company—apps based or traditional—should be allowed to operate only if they do so taking cognisance of local conditions set down by the local licensing authority.

I turn to the issue of limiting numbers of vehicles and unmet demand. In my experience, that has been one of the most contentious subjects over many years, particularly here in the city of Edinburgh, and I suspect that it will be again if we decide to extend the right of licensing authorities to limit private hire car numbers.

I have absolutely no objection to the limiting of numbers, having seen the mess that some cities get themselves into with vast numbers of unregulated PHCs or taxis. Oddly enough, the comments made by Mr Buchanan in the debate echo those made in a debate that we had in the city council back in 2007—I have to say that the Conservatives have not changed their view in that time.

I was a supporter of the policy to limit taxi numbers when I was in charge of licensing here in the capital. However, in order to help licensing authorities, an accepted method of calculating unmet demand, which has always been a problem, should be made available and agreed. It has been too easy for those who have had licence applications refused to run off to the sheriff court and make an appeal that is based on there being no real, accepted methodology in place. In a licensing system in which litigation has been frequently used by many, it would make sense to make a more prescriptive change to the Civic Government (Scotland) Act 1982 for certain circumstances, in order to make things easier for local authorities as well as to keep the cost of licence applications or amendments manageable for applicants.

I welcome the report and say well done to the committee for it. I have no problem in principle with limiting taxi numbers or with the ability to ensure that private hire drivers can be tested if that is done locally in a correct manner. I would also like to see currently exempt drivers and vehicles, such as stretch limousines, brought into the regulated system for safety purposes.

I once again commend the committee not just for its scrutiny of the bill but for opening up the discussion in the report, which has been very useful.

I support the general principles of the bill.