HC Deb 04 May 1999 vol 330 cc781-6
Mr. Edward Davey (Kingston and Surbiton)

I beg to move amendment No. 67, in page 104, line 29, leave out clause 199.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 66, in clause 239, page 129, line 24, after '(1)', insert

'Subject to subsection (1A) and (1B) below,'. No. 65, in page 129, line 26, at end insert—

'(1A) With respect to the Acts shown in subsection (1B) below, the Metropolitan Police district is defined by the area shown in (1) above and the following areas:

  1. (a) in the county of Essex, in the district of Epping Forest— the area of the former urban district of Chigwell the parish of Waltham Abbey;
  2. (b) in the county of Hertfordshire— in the borough of Broxbourne, the area of the former urban district of Cheshunt the district of Hertsmere in the district of Welwyn Hatfield, the parish of Northaw;
  3. (c) in the county of Surrey— in the borough of Elmbridge, the area of the former urban district of Esher the boroughs of Epsom and Ewell and Spelthome in the district of Reigate and Banstead, the area of the former district of Banstead.
(1B) Subsection (1A) above relates to the following Acts:
  1. (i) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1843;
  2. (ii) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1850;
  3. (iii) The London Hackney Carriages Act 1853;
  4. (iv) The London Hackney Carriages (No. 2) Act 1853;
  5. (v) The Metropolitan Public Carriage Act 1869 (in so far as it applies to London Hackney Carriages);
  6. (vi) The London Cab and Stage Carriage Act 1907;
  7. (vii) The London Cab Act 1968;
  8. (viii) The Transport Act 1985 (in so far as it applies to London Hackney Carriages);
  9. (ix) The Private Hire Vehicles (London) Act 1998.'.

Mr. Davey

The amendments reflect a debate in Committee that did not focus on amendments that would have put into law the issues with which we were concerned. The Government want to make the boundaries of the Metropolitan police authority coterminous with those of the Greater London Authority. That makes sense for many aspects of its operation. It will help it to be more accountable. The establishment of the Metropolitan police authority in many ways requires the two sets of boundaries to be as one.

As with any boundary change, anomalies are thrown up. Our amendments seek to put right such an anomaly. They deal with the effect of the boundary change on taxi drivers who are regulated by the Metropolitan police authority under the legislation listed in the amendment. We believe that reducing the Metropolitan police district to being coterminous with the GLA will denude the market of many cab drivers, particularly those who ply in the suburbs. By fiat, the livelihoods of many of my constituents will be made more difficult because their lawful business will suffer from the loss of some customers.

We make no apologies for arguing again on Report on behalf of those constituents. They may support the Greater London Authority and the Metropolitan police authority coming under democratic control, but they feel that they are being hard done by.

There seems to be no problem in retaining the current Metropolitan district simply for the purpose of regulating London cabs. As we pointed out in Standing Committee, that creates no real problem for the regulatory bodies—the police. I discussed with officers from the Metropolitan police and from the Surrey constabulary how such a

policy could be implemented. It was clear that it would create no problems for them on the ground. They would be able to distinguish who should take responsibility in which areas and to whom they would have to report any transgressions of the regulations. As there are no practical difficulties associated with the proposal, one has to ask why anybody should be opposed to it. I can see no particular reason, unless people with over-tidy minds need to ensure that each boundary looks nice on the map.

The Minister may recall that we had an interesting debate in Standing Committee, when I pressed her on several points during her response to my argument. At one stage, she seemed to suggest that my point was not valid because taxi drivers could be licensed by the new licensing authorities—for example, in my neck of the woods, the Elmbridge district council—and could also be licensed by the Metropolitan police authority. Taxi drivers could continue to earn their living in both taxi areas. I picked the Minister up on that point because it was news to me.

Cab drivers who are members of the Kingston and Surbiton cab drivers association have told me that it is most unusual to be able to be licensed by two authorities and that that is not allowed by the taxi regulatory authorities in many parts of the country. However, the Minister was clear on that point:

It will be entirely possible for cab drivers to drive a black cab if they hold a licence within the GLA and maintain the requirements for licensing. However, should they wish to drive a cab in districts outside the GLA boundary and outside what will be the Metropolitan police district boundary, they will have to obtain the requisite licence from the requisite local authority."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 March 1999; c. 925.] The Minister made it clear that dual licensing was possible. When I pressed her on how that would be implemented practically, she clarified her remarks by saying that the licence was related to the vehicle and not to the owner. Therefore, if, in order to maintain their standard of living, drivers took up her suggestion, they would have to operate two cabs. They would need one for the GLA area and one for the area outside the GLA boundaries. One needs only to reflect on that proposition for one minute to see how impractical it would be. Not only would there be the cost of purchasing and maintaining two separate vehicles: there would be different health and vehicle checks every year under different regulations, and that would be extremely costly.

The solution offered by the Minister in Committee is not a practical answer to people whose livelihoods are affected by the proposal that we are debating. If the Minister can offer another alternative to protect the living of those cab drivers, we should be glad to discuss it. Our amendments would provide a solution that works within the remit of the current legislation and would ensure that it was clear in statute that the anomalous boundary distinction of keeping the current Metropolitan police district for cab drivers would apply only to cab drivers. It would not affect other aspects of the day-to-day duties of the Metropolitan police.

My hon. Friends and I believe that the amendments provide a constructive way forward that is more practical than the solution of dual licensing offered by the Minister in Standing Committee. I hope that the Minister has reflected on the matter; we are keen that she should give us a positive answer.

Ms Glenda Jackson

Before I get to the meat of the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey), I point out to him that the proposals that he has presented to the House as being helpful would in fact lead to a situation in which there would be no requirement for any licensing at all. I find it very odd that a member of the Liberal Democrat party, whose members constantly urge that power be devolved to local authorities, should present a proposal whereby local authorities would have no power whatever over allowing taxis to ply within their own areas, on their own streets and carrying their own taxpayers.

I welcome the hon. Gentleman's opening remarks as to the good sense that he and Members of his party perceived in the fact that the boundaries of the GLA and the new Metropolitan police district would be made coterminous. However, I regret to have to tell him that amendments Nos. 65, 66 and 67 make no sense at all. They would retain, for the purposes of taxi and minicab licensing only, the current Metropolitan police district. That would mean that taxis and minicabs operating in district council areas outside Greater London, but within the current Metropolitan police district, would be subject to regulation by Transport for London rather than the relevant district councils. However, the boundary would be notional; the Metropolitan police would have no role whatever.

Our White Paper, "A Mayor and Assembly for London", stated:

Responsibility for taxi and minicab licensing in councils' areas outside greater London, but partly or wholly within the Metropolitan Police District (MPD), will be transferred to the local District Council. Even before the decision was taken—one that the hon. Gentleman and his party consider makes good sense—it has always been the policy to align the Metropolitan police district with Greater London. Districts outside London would regulate taxis and minicabs in their areas. In seeking to extend Transport for London's remit beyond Greater London, especially by making Transport for London responsible for taxi and minicab licensing outside Greater London, the amendments go against that principle.

Regardless of the anecdotal evidence that the hon. Gentleman has presented to the House of the approach of the Surrey police to his proposals, they would cause untold confusion by implying that the Metropolitan police—seemingly linked to an area called the Metropolitan police district—would have a role in regulating taxis and minicabs, when, of course, they would have no such role. The effect of the amendment would be a patchwork quilt of different boundaries and different responsibilities. I argue that that is a recipe for total and unmitigated confusion.

However, the hon. Gentleman did state concerns that have been expressed to him by some of his constituents who are suburban taxi drivers, to the effect that they might be adversely affected by changes to the Metropolitan police district which they perceive as being likely to cause a reduction in their livelihoods. As I said in Committee, and as I now repeat in the House, those concerns are unfounded. Let us take the example of a taxi driver who currently plies for hire in Epsom. From 1 April 2000, when the MPD boundary is scheduled to change, the taxi driver in question may apply to Epsom and Ewell district council, which the Bill will make a single taxi-licensing area, for a licence to ply for hire in that district; or that individual may choose to ply for hire in Greater London, thus carrying on with his or her current licence issued by the Public Carriage Office. That licence will remain valid, giving the right to ply for hire in all or part of Greater London, depending on whether it is an all-London licence, as most are, or a licence for one of the suburban sectors.

Moreover, following consultation with the London Taxi Board, and the Metropolitan police service, the Public Carriage Office has revised suburban taxi sectors. That revision is designed not only to align the sectors more closely with borough boundaries, but to allow drivers a wider area than that which would have been available to them once their current area had contracted. The arrangements are outlined in PCO notice 5/99, dated 31 March 1999. 1 will arrange for a copy of the notice to be placed in the Library and furnish a copy to all members of the Standing Committee. In respect of the taxi and minicab licensing responsibilities of the eight district councils moving outside the MPD, in September 1998 representatives from each council attended a PCO-organised seminar that addressed the MPD changes. Most recently, my Department has written to each of those district councils in some detail about the transitional arrangements.

8.30 pm

The point to stress in conclusion is that all existing licences granted by the PCO remain valid. If drivers want to apply separately for a licence from a fringe district, they are free to do so. I hope that the House, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton and his constituents will take reassurance from that, and that the hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Davey

I am rather disappointed by the Minister's reply. Her assertion that the cab drivers in my constituency will not be affected and that their livelihoods will be protected by the sectoral review she describes is not borne out by my conversations with them. They are convinced that they will be hit in the pocket by the boundary changes. They are well aware of the sectoral review inside the GLA, but they are convinced that they will lose some of the rich pickings to which they currently have access. The Minister mentioned Epsom, but in Standing Committee I explained that cab drivers are concerned about the business that they will lose there. Their options are either to stay there and be regulated by Epsom and Ewell district council, or to go to Wimbledon and compete with the many other drivers who currently ply the cab rank outside Wimbledon station. The cab drivers are not convinced that they will not be severely hit by the Government's policy.

The Minister appears to suggest that our policy will be difficult to implement, because it will create a patchwork throughout the capital and its bordering districts. However, there is already a patchwork, because we currently have a rather bizarre historical arrangement under which there are several areas just outside the London boroughs where cab drivers are able to ply. Therefore, in practical terms, it makes no difference keeping those boundaries.

The Minister also suggests that the amendment would cause confusion to the police, but the contrary is true: the police in suburban London see no problems with administering what the Minister calls notional boundaries. I should point out that there appear to me to be notional boundaries already, and that the only question is how one organises the jurisdictions to enforce the regulations.

I am not convinced by the Minister's response, and I intend to go back to my constituents and tell them that I voiced their concerns in Standing Committee and on Report, and that we proposed alternatives to the Government's arrangements, but that the Government have not seen fit to accept our proposals. My constituents will be extremely disappointed, if not angry. I am sure that their retort will be to encourage me to ask my noble Friends in another place to pursue the matter. I hope that, in the meantime, Ministers will talk to some of their hon. Friends who have some knowledge of the cab business—no doubt some still have friends in the cab trade who will be well aware of the impact of the changes.

Let me take the Minister up on one point: she is pleased that my views are in line with the Government's policy of establishing a Metropolitan police authority and democratising London's police force. Liberal Democrats have argued for such policies for many years and we are glad that the Labour party has at last come round to our views. However, rather than continuing to stand here making party political points, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Forward to