Ted,
below is your attachment you sent me as mentioned in above post. i've removed the circulation list as it as direct line phone numbers etc. but the rest of the attached letter you sent is in its entirety. i will post the GMB piece from page 10 June issue of Taxi-Today.
Dear Sir,
As a licensed hackney carriage driver I feel compelled to draw your attention to the following statement of Terence Flanagan, GMB Professional Driver Branch Secretary, (Contactable on 07958 275339 or GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy, or Steve Pryle who all three are, seemingly, associated with the GMB). And ask that you make a formal complaint to Terence Flanagan, GMB representative, Rose Conroy and Steve Pryle of the GMB Press Office, for the disingenuous portrayal of the three local authorities of Adur, Mid-Sussex and Lewes their employees and the licensed hackney and private hire drivers within your District. The statement implies that the staff of East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and the staff of Brighton & Hove City Council who are responsible for allocating school runs are failing to pay due regard to the children’s safety when allocating school runs to taxi companies within Adur, Mid-Sussex and Lewes authorities.
The statement may or may not have the support of the GMB.
The statement that is set out below was taken from GMB Website on Monday 14th of May 2007. It is alarming for several reasons, its disregard for fact, its attack on the integrity of council staff and the amazing insight into the lack of methodology used by councillors and the former Brighton and Hove leader to reach conclusions that should be aimed at helping their electorate.
While these points are discussed below it should also be borne in mind that the question of whose interests these people truly represent as depicted within the document duplicated below must be considered.
The allegations of Terence Flanagan, GMB Professional Driver Branch Secretary (contactable on 07958 275339), or GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy, or Steve Pryle 07921 289880 are hopefully not the views or current policy determining beliefs of the GMB itself. Hopefully this body would like to attract new members rather than alienate potential members.
The allegations are extremely serious in nature and range from, “…taxis in outlying districts being a safety risk because of the age of the vehicle or/and a competent mechanical test.” And on to the “…drivers from within these districts being a risk to children because they have not had a criminal records check by the Criminal Records Bureau”.
Implicit within these allegations sits the extreme accusation that hackney carriage licence holders and their relevant authorities are in collusion to breach national legislation re CRB and vehicle mechanical checks. Can anything be more absurd?
Well, yes, is the answer to that.
Unfortunately, despite the content of this GMB documents disingenuous and malicious, rather than factual, material it is purported within the document that the GMB comments have been supported by “…Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess.” And councillor “Pat Hawkes”.
Indubitably this alleged support would create a certain credibility for the document to the uninformed reader, if for no other reason than readers would assume messers Burgess and councillor Pat Hawkes would have checked the veracity of the allegations. Yet the evidence suggests that they did not.
However, one has to ask why, given the commitment to uphold the public interest these elected figures are alleged to have, just why have they leant support to such fallacious nonsense as set out in the GMB press release? Well I would like to know.
The material referred to below is copied from the press releases of a website named gmb.org.uk http://www.gmb.org.uk/Templates/PressItems.asp?NodeID=95400 with the Contacst:Terence Flanagan, GMB Professional Driver Branch Secretary on 07958 275339 or GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy on 07974 258123 or Steve Pryle 07921 289880. either being responsible for the authoring or for the publishing or both. For either case they are accountable for the demeaning, in my view - libellous and insulting content to district taxi licensing officers, school transport personnel and the authorities for which they work. Adur, Mid-Sussex, Lewes, East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and the staff of Brighton & Hove City Council. All, it seems, have failed to adhere to the law re vehicle and CRB checks and colluded to put child safety at risk. N.B. if it is a fact that the drivers and vehicles from the named Districts put Brighton and Hove children at risk then surely this same risk must apply to the children within the named Districts when these drivers are used by them.
In the following paragraphs I have copied the content of the web page and listed some of my considered responses. I have constrained my responses to fact and empirical evidence and, unlike the GMB have no intention of misleading anyone to gain any money let alone more money as seems the intention of the GMB representatives.
Below you will find the verbatim text from the GMB Website, copied on Monday 14th of May 2007, which is in bold font and indented so that you can readily differentiate from my response which will be in both normal paragraph and font format.
1) GMB’s call for all taxis transporting vulnerable children in Brighton & Hove to meet the high standards set by the city council has been backed Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess.
1.1) Simon Burgess of Brighton and Hove council supports this call for safer transport for vulnerable children. This is a pretty vague, yet suspiciously safe, statement. But…
Q) Does Simon Burgess really believe that only Brighton & Hove Taxis are safe?
Q) Has he checked the standards of the districts around Brighton & Hove?
Q) Does he believe that all other district authority taxis are unsafe?
Q) Does Simon Burgess of Brighton and Hove Council believe that Brighton & Hove Taxis should be paid their higher tariff and ignore the benefits to the council of the competitive market?
Q) Does he really support the implicit contention of the GMB that Brighton and Hove Council should raise more Council Tax from residents to fund the exorbitant school run charges of Brighton and Hove Taxis when the same job can be done cheaper?
I, personally, would hope not. Knowing Brighton and Hove Residents I don’t think they would cast votes for anyone or any party that held the belief that it is better to pay more for less.
Q) If, (when?) Simon Burgess determines that other districts have higher standards will he ensure that Brighton & Hove standards are raised in the interests of safety? For example, will he seek to ensure that all Brighton & Hove cabs have two extensive vehicle mechanical safety checks per year as insisted upon by Lewes district?
However,
2) 26 Apr 2007
Currently taxis licensed outside the city, in Lewes, Adur and Mid Sussex, are able to tender to carry vulnerable children but neither the drivers or their vehicles are licensed to the same standards as Brighton's, by their councils. GMB welcomed an amendment put by City councillors, Pat Hawkes and Simon Burgess last week the council which begins the process of equalizing the standards for all vehicles and drivers who seek to tender to carry the City's vulnerable children.
2.1) The “…neither the drivers or their vehicles are licensed to the same standards as Brighton's.”
Mr. Flanagan, Ms Conroy and Steve Pryle have thus far been referring to Brighton & Hove but have now made singular reference to Brighton only and not to Brighton and Hove. Could this be because they represent the financial interests of the drivers within the old Brighton companies?
2.2) Standards? “The same standards as Brighton's.” I must confess that Authorities beyond the State of Brighton exact higher standards. Two, not just one as within the boundaries of Brighton and Hove, but Two taxi (vehicle mechanical safety checks) tests are expected from some authorities per year to ensure passenger safety is but one example of these higher standards.
3) Brighton GMB Taxi drivers have raised concerns over standards of taxis from outside the City. Currently Brighton & Hove City Council contracts work to the lowest bidder regardless of where they are licensed.
3.1) As reiterated below the above statement refers to the income of taxi drivers within the city. All interested parties should note that it implicitly states that contracts should be offered to Brighton and Hove city Council Taxis rather than “…Those who submit the LOWEST BID. “ MMMmmmm. Okay…!
I think I’ve got it now. The message is – “Don’t give jobs to those who can do it cheaper than us just give us more money to do it.”
What can I say, it has a rationale. And it seems the former Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess is in complete agreement with this. Any way, moving on lets have an explanation …
4) Mike Doyle GMB Brighton Professional Drivers Rep, explains, "Brighton & Hove has had a policy of giving contract work to vehicles as long as they are licensed regardless of which authority has licensed them. Many residents won't realize that there are lower standards elsewhere and it's a cause for serious concern for children's safety. It is also having an adverse effect on BrightonDrivers buying expensive Wheelchair accessible taxis that can't compete with cheaper older vehicles operated elsewhere.
4.1) “…regardless of which authority has licensed them.” Thankfully this takes away responsibility or accountability from the drivers of these neighbouring Authorities and places all blame on the elected bodies. See, I knew that I was doing nothing wrong. Oh yes, these felonious Authorities are named in the publication as Lewes, Adur and Mid-Sussex. Which, on the face of it, is more than insulting to the integrity of all involved. But, look a little closer…
4.2) “..lower standards elsewhere ..” Mike Doyle GMB Brighton Professional Drivers Rep, actually doesn’t say where these lower standards exist but leaves it to the subliminal effects for the reader to infer that it is Adur, Mid-Sussex and Lewes Districts which were alluded to earlier that have these “Lower Standards“ . I’m sure that it is purely co-incidental that these are the same Districts responsible for taking jobs away from the Brighton and Hove Drivers who have high finance bills.
A decent union representative would have qualified such remarks with evidence but perhaps it was one of the press officers who wrote this bit.
4.3) “. Many residents won't realize that there are lower standards elsewhere and it's a cause for serious concern for children's safety.” There is absolutely nothing presented, factual or otherwise, to support this contention but the former leader of Brighton & Hove clearly supported all of this nonsense. It seems that this former leader of Brighton & Hove Council and the GMB people share the same blindness together with a potency for supporting something not even figuratively within the realms of reality.
4.4 “Wheelchair accessible taxis that can't compete with cheaper older vehicles operated elsewhere… “ (See 1B) )
Wheelchair accessible vehicles are required for only a tiny proportion of school runs.
N.B. Cheaper and/or older vehicles from districts do not dictate the tariff the council set. AND, no authority on the planet would set the tariff according to the Hire Purchase details of the owner drivers.
The tariff set does not affect the safety of the vehicle, whatever its age, because the mechanical testing exists to ensure this high safety standard, despite Brighton & Hove not setting as a high standard as in other authorities.
Submitted bids, therefore, are submitted according to the tariff set by the authority. And no-one has noticed this? Really?
The vehicles, with a lot newer than those operating in Brighton and Hove are co-incidentally operating in areas with cheaper taxi rates per mile than Brighton & Hove. Cheaper taxi rates per mile equals less total fare, yes this is so. As in Brighton and Hove, fares are not set according to the finance deals drivers have on their vehicles. Ergo, lower tariffs equal lower cost per run. Logic. I don’t think anyone on the planet can refute this logic. But could one point be true without the other? Let us look at the converse to this logic,
The newer, more expensive, wheelchair accessible vehicles of Brighton & Hove should be given school runs at Brighton & Hove Taxi Drivers Rates so that …? Well, so that Brighton & Hove taxi drivers can have loads o’ money to pay for the more expensive, wheelchair accessible vehicles that they purchased without giving heed to the effects of the free market economy? Good old fashioned Keynesianism, I’m all for it, in fact someone throw in a couple of grand for me. Logic? Modern? Efficient? I know my answers.
5) Brighton GMB Taxi drivers have been urging the local authority to include vehicle age limits and to compel all drivers who transport children to have Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks in the tendering process. Brighton GMB Taxi drivers also wanted Brighton & Hove City Council to keep records of drivers and vehicles used from outside the area to check that they are actually licensed and CRB checked."
5.1) “Brighton GMB Taxi drivers have been urging the local authority to include vehicle age limits and
Just “Brighton” yet again. The vehicle age is and always will be a factor in deciding whether or not a hackney or private hire licence is issued.
5.2) “…and to compel all drivers who transport children to have Criminal Records Bureau (CRB) checks…”
No authority will (or can) employ anyone for whatsoever to do with children without a CRB check, they can’t. Not since the aftermath of the Soham Murders.
My apology for stating this so obvious point so glaringly overlooked by the fact-less trio of the GMB and possibly endorsed by, what is alleged to be, a reputable union and upheld by Simon (researchless) Burgess.
But…
Can the former Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess really be unaware of this? Really?
Visit : http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=289&qid=503
Which contains the line; To obtain a hackney or private licence, drivers must have a CRB check. (Appendix 1 contains the relevant clipping.)
6) Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess said; "We have a highly professional taxi fleet in our city and residents and visitors really value that. I have been concerned that drivers who are licensed outside the city such as in Lewes, Adur and Mid-Sussex can come into our city to operate, and yet those councils don't insist on the same standards that we do. It's important that vehicles are safe, clean, well insured and the drivers are fully trained and thoroughly checked. I want the other councils to up their game so that we can all feel fully confident that everything possible has been done to ensure we all have safe journeys in taxis. Our action in the city to tighten the requirements of those bidding to carry children is good news for residents here who want our children protected."
6.1) Mr Simon Burgess is clearly demonstrated here to support the factless rantings of a deceptive man and/or woman or team. For either to represent members they should be honest and base all on fact. Each assertion should be evidenced in documentation or/and empirically where necessary. What this union representative has done is to sow the seeds of distrust to such a degree that no-one should give him time or credibility. His assertions are sheer unsubstantial nonsense. Clearly this failing not only brings harm to the interests of the people he claims to represent but also discredits a union in times when controversy such as this can only alienate potential members.
What Mr Simon Burgess and his ally have done in accepting this nonsense is to breach the trust of the electorate that he reputedly represents. His, and his colleagues blind acceptance of the GMB nonsense clearly demonstrates their inability to perform the most basic of functions that a true representative must have, i.e. the wisdom and ability to check the facts!
I’m afraid the whole pattern just begs the question of just what else they are not representing Brighton and Hove residents on.
As stated earlier, perhaps Mr Simon Burgess will insist that City Hackney and Private hire vehicles will have two MOT mechanical tests per year and.. perhaps, as Liverpool considered, have drivers undergo an English speaking test.
The insults that Mr Simon Burgess and Terence Flanagan, Rose Conroy and Steve Pryle inflict on the three district councils of Adur, Mid-Sussex and Lewes are quite phenomenal in themselves but cap that with the insult to the staff who allocate the school runs within East Sussex County Council, West Sussex County Council and the staff of Brighton & Hove City Council who all, by implication, fail to consider the safety of the children requiring the transport.
I don’t know them personally but I would assume they are a lot more professional than that, and definitely more professional than Simon Burgess and Terence Flanagan, Rose Conroy and Steve Pryle. They, the employees of the six authorities involved, deserve a public apology at the very least and they may need their employers help to get it. The same holds true for the drivers, licensing officers and the District Councils referred to in the GMB’s vexatious report.
For the GMB itself it may recognise the damage done to credibility and to recruitment promulgated by this publicity and consider its own need for a discipline, a public apology and a serious look at its training content.
Contact:Terence Flanagan, GMB Professional Driver Branch Secretary on 07958 275339 or GMB Press Office: Rose Conroy on 07974 258123 or Steve Pryle 07921 289880.
GMB Calls For Tighter Taxi Standards For Vulnerable Children In Brighton & Hove
26 Apr 2007
GMB’s call for all taxis transporting vulnerable children in Brighton & Hove to meet the high standards set by the city council has been backed Brighton & Hove City Council Leader Simon Burgess.
--- End ---
Contact Point:
Submitted By:
On behalf of:
Appendix 1: web sourced information re CRB checks.
http://www.crb.gov.uk/Default.aspx?page=289&qid=503 Produces the following
· Can I apply for a CRB check on my taxi drivers?
- Yes. Taxi drivers can be CRB checked. To obtain a hackney or private licence, drivers must have a CRB check. Taxi drivers are entitled to at least a Standard CRB check. An Enhanced CRB check is available to those who are likely to be regularly in sole charge of passengers aged under 18 or vulnerable adults. Local authorities may feel, for example that it is likely that local taxi firms will be engaged by schools on contracts to transport children to and from school and therefore request drivers are checked to an Enhanced level. Decisions regarding the level of check are to be made by the Registered Body involved.
Appendix 2: web sourced information re Lewes District checks.
Lewes,
Taxi and minicab licences
Town Police Clauses Act 1847
Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976
Vehicles
A vehicle needs a Hackney Carriage Licence if it is to stand or ply for hire in a street. This includes picking up passengers or waiting for them in a street (the legal rules still use the term Hackney Carriage instead of Taxi or Taxi Cab). A Private Hire Licence is needed for a vehicle that is pre booked only by telephone or at a Private Hire Office.
It is essential that you contact the Hackney Carriage Licensing Officer on 01273 484276 to arrange an appointment to attend the Licensing Office at 20 Fort Road, Newhaven, where detailed guidance and advice will be given.
On initial contact you will be asked to complete an application form. The cost of the licence is £153 and the vehicle plate (which at all times remains the property of the Council) an additional £30.
In order to obtain a licence you will be required to:
Hackney Carriages
Supply Public Hire Insurance
Supply a valid MOT Certificate (for vehicles over 1 year old)
Supply and fit a calendar controlled taximeter set to the Lewes District Council fare tariff
Supply and fit a roof sign
Supply and fit a Fire Extinguisher and First Aid Kit
Private Hire
Supply Private Hire Insurance
Supply a valid MOT Certificate (for vehicles over 3 years old)
Supply and fit a Fire Extinguisher and First Aid Kit
For your Information:
(a) vehicles presented for first licensing shall not be more than 5 years old from date of first registration, and vehicles more than 10 years old will not be re-licensed.
(b) must be fitted with a minimum of four side doors,
(c) have an engine capacity not less than 1290cc,
(d) be so designed to permit the specified number of passengers to be carried in comfort and safety,
(e) have adequate luggage space,
(f) may be of saloon, estate, hatchback or MPV type but estate vehicles must be fitted with a grill or parcel shelf,
(g) left hand drive vehicles will not be licensed.
For more detailed information please read Vehicle Guidance for Applicants in the 'Relevant Documents' section of this page.
Private Hire Operators
Persons wishing to operate a Private Hire business in respect of a vehicle(s) or premises must obtain a licence from the Council.
It is essential that you contact the Hackney Carriage Licensing Officer on 01273 484276 to arrange an appointment to attend the Licensing Office at 20 Fort Road, Newhaven, where detailed guidance and advice will be given.
In order to obtain a licence you will be required to:
Complete an application form
Supply a Reference from a 'person of some standing'
The cost, at present, is £54 for a maximum of two vehicles and then £17 for each subsequent vehicle.
Drivers Licence
Persons wishing to become a driver of a Hackney Carriage or Private Hire Vehicle need to obtain a licence from the Council before they can legally drive a licensed vehicle.
It is essential that you contact the Hackney Carriage Licensing Officer on 01273 484276 to arrange an appointment to attend the Licensing Office at 20 Fort Road, Newhaven, where detailed guidance and advice will be given.
In order to apply for a licence you must be over 21 years of age, have held a full DVLA Drivers Licence for a minimum period of 12 months, be a "Fit & Proper" person and be physically and mentally fit.
You will be issued with the following to complete and return:
(a) A Criminal Records Bureau disclosure form - all applicants are subject to this and any offences disclosed (including motoring offences) may be taken into consideration when deciding upon an application. The cost of the check is £36 and non-refundable.
(b) A Lewes District Council Drivers Licence Application Form. The cost of the initial licence is £141.
Following this, should you wish to continue with the application, you must make an appointment to complete the Criminal Records Bureau check and attend at the licensing office supplying the following documents:
(a) Passport (if held)
(b) Full DVLA Drivers Licence (if photo licence both card and paper section are required)
(c) Birth Certificate (original copy)
(d) Marriage Certificate (if appropriate)
(e) Document or card with details of National Insurance number
(f) Utility Bill, Bank Statement or other correspondence to verify current address (Enhanced disclosures from other bodies will only be acceptable if less than 3 months old at date of application).
Once the Criminal Records Bureau check has been completed you will be required to present an application form with two references and a medical undertaken by your own family doctor (cost approximately £70 - £90). You will also be required to sit and pass a Knowledge Test of Lewes District Council area at a cost of £28. On the day of licensing you will be required to provide two passport size photographs for your drivers badge. A cost of £10 is charged for the badge.
For more detailed information please read Drivers Guidance for Applicants in the 'Relevant Documents' section of this page.
Email: robbie.clark@lewes.gov.uk
Appendix 3: Adur and Mid-Sussex.
Adur
e-mail : bill.nailen@adur.gov.uk
For their details but for sure taxi mechanical tests and CRB checks have to be made.
Mid Sussex
Taxi safety is top priority
Mid Sussex District Council is currently conducting checks on taxi plates to ensure high levels of vehicle safety throughout the District. Safety and Licensing officers have been out and about in Mid Sussex, checking the safety and roadworthiness of taxis, private hire vehicles and their operators.
The safety and security of taxi users in Mid Sussex is the top priority for MSDC's Safety and Licensing team. Licensing officers work in partnership with Sussex Police and the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) to make sure taxis are kept in peak condition. Mid Sussex District Council currently licences 154 Hackney carriages, 200 private hire vehicles, 35 private hire operators and 460 drivers. Licensed vehicles undergo strict Council tests to ensure they are fit for purpose. Officers assess the mechanical condition of the vehicle, the state of the bodywork, its cleanliness both inside and out, its seating capacity and luggage space.
Before applicants can be accepted as licensed Hackney carriage or private hire drivers they are vetted, with checks being made as to their suitability with the Criminal Records Bureau. Drivers are required to undergo a medical examination, up to the standard used for heavy goods vehicle driver licensing, take a written local knowledge examination and provide two character referees.
It's easy to check that the taxi you are about to use has been thoroughly checked and licensed by Mid Sussex District Council. All licensed taxis must display identification plates on the inside and outside of the vehicle. The plates display important information including the vehicle make, model and registration number, the expiry date of the licence and the number of passengers it is licensed to carry. In addition the driver is issued with an identification badge, displaying the drivers name, licence number, expiry date and photograph.
For more information on taxi licensing contact Alec Lee, Mid Sussex District Council Taxi Licensing Officer on 01444 477335 or email AlecL@midsussex.gov.uk
HACKNEY CARRIAGE AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE INSPECTIONS
(a) Full Inspection £36
(b) Cancellation with less than 48 hours notice £10
(c) Retest if returned within 7 days or 300 miles No Charge
(d) Retest if returned more than 7 days after failure £36
Criminal Records Bureau (C.R.B.) Check
Each Application £36