Oral evidence: Taxi and private hire reform in England, HC 1940
Wednesday 27 March 2019
Ordered by the House of Commons to be published on 27 March 2019.
Members present: Lilian Greenwood (Chair); Jack Brereton; Ruth Cadbury; Steve Double; Paul Girvan; Huw Merriman; Daniel Zeichner.
Questions 1 - 48
Witness
I: Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq, Chair, Task and Finish Group on Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Licensing.
Witness: Professor Abdel-Haq.
Q1 Chair: Good morning, Professor. Thank you for joining us this morning. For the benefit of the recording, would you like to introduce yourself to the Committee?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Thank you very much, Chair, for having me. My name is Mohammed Abdel-Haq. I am a professor at the University of Bolton. I am a banker, a businessman and the author of the report.
Q2 Chair: Thank you. We would like to start by understanding a little more about the formation of the task and finish group that you chaired. Can you tell us how you became involved and why you decided to accept the role of chair? What did you think that you would bring to the work of the group?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Before I answer, please call me Mohammed. There is no need to call me Professor.
As to the formation, I was invited by the Minister of State—at that time Sir John Hayes—to chair the group, which I accepted. I was not involved in deciding who the members of the taskforce were. It was, “This is the taskforce, and would you like to chair it?” Of course, this is for the Minister to answer and not for me, but I think my contribution is my judgment. I am not involved in the industry, either positively or negatively. I do not have shares in any transport companies. I have never been involved in them or employed by them. My view was to be as objective as possible. Of course, human beings cannot be completely objective.
Q3 Chair: What was the remit you were given by the Department for Transport? Did they steer you in any particular direction or say, “We don’t want you to touch that”? What sort of guidance did they provide?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Basically, there was a letter with a lot of points in it. The overriding one was, “We need to protect the public.” That became very clear during my discussion with the Minister at that time. That is truly my personal motive, and why I accepted the chair of the Committee. It took time and energy, but I thought I had a duty to pay back to the public what this great country has done for me.
Q4 Chair: Public safety was at the top of your priorities.
Professor Abdel-Haq: The main motive is the first three words of the report. It is all about public wellbeing. Of course, when you hear what happened associated with licensing PHVs and other scandals, yes, we have a duty to contribute to this debate in a positive manner.
Q5 Chair: What support did the Government provide during the time you were chairing the group?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The report would not have happened without the support of civil servants. They were exemplary in their support and their impartiality. People think that civil servants work from nine to five. No; I used to call them on Sundays and they would take my calls. They were very good. They provided me with all the information without trying to steer one way or another. Sometimes I tried to say, “What do you think of this? What do you think of that?” They said, “We are just happy to provide information and facts.” I said, “For God’s sake, any indication?” They said, “No.” They were very good, and I take my hat off to them.
Q6 Chair: On our Committee we very much understand the importance of having a wonderful secretariat to support us.
It was Minister of State John Hayes who set up the group. He resigned in January 2018. Did the group’s remit or support from the Government change in any way following his resignation, or was it very much continuous under the new Minister with responsibility?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Literally, we did not notice, not because John Hayes was not an important senior Minister and a big figure but because the group was well established. We had a modus operandi. We understood each other. The civil servants ensured a seamless transition. The new Minister was supportive, and her door was open.
Chair: We want to explore a bit more how the group actually worked and the dynamic.
Q7 Ruth Cadbury: Mohammed, could you describe how the group functioned? How many times did it meet? Were the meetings virtual or in person? Did you undertake any visits or collect evidence in other ways?
Professor Abdel-Haq: When I was asked to chair the group, I was told that I needed to present my evidence or the report within three months. After probably four weeks of those three months, I realised that that was a bit unrealistic. I shared my views with the Minister and he was very supportive. He said, “The most important thing is that I want you to tell me the real story and what we can do.”
We used to meet every two weeks. Some of the members clearly knew each other before; some did not. I did not know anyone before. I can share with you that all the members enjoy big personalities and they have great confidence. They have strong views. It took some time for me to assure them that they would all be listened to and none would be ignored, but that we needed to listen to everyone even if sometimes they disagreed. Have I answered your question?
Q8 Ruth Cadbury: I think so. Did you do any visits?
Professor Abdel-Haq: We allowed for witnesses. I requested that my colleagues in the Department, in the civil service, did not decline any request, even if it took more time. As far as I know, there is not a single person who requested a meeting and we said, “Sorry, we can’t, we don’t have time,” or, “We met someone from your group and we have enough.” I always believe that every little helps. I am someone who wants to learn. I want to know, because at the end of the day the more facts I have, the better judgment I will be able to reach.
Q9 Ruth Cadbury: I want to move on to the challenges you faced as chair. Dealing with taxi groups is challenging. Sometimes, there are conflicting interests; you have the London and out of London differences, and the rural and urban differences. That raises itself in small p politics. Obviously John Hayes moved on and you had a change of Minister. How did you manage to handle that, as chair?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I did not take it as people having biased views. People were there, and each one represented a community and was entitled to defend it. That was my attitude. At the same time, I urged them in certain circumstances and on certain points to come out from the orbit of their small community and into the bigger community to protect the wider public. Sometimes it worked. Sometimes I had to remind them again and again.
Early on, we identified three themes. I thought we needed a methodology for our discussion. The first one was about regulation, the second was about safety and the third was about working conditions. There was consensus in the group that those were a very good start and should be the three main pillars for our discussion. We started from there.
There were volunteers for every theme from the group. Each smaller group submitted a paper and circulated it to the wider taskforce group. There was a discussion, and once we had finished those three themes and had a submission from the taskforce members, we opened it to the wider public. We thought that the wider public should make their submissions in 750 words. Why 750 words? It could be 850, but that is what I do when someone applies to study for a PhD. I ask them before I accept them to submit a proposal of up to 750 words, basically to know the direction of travel. We cannot have people submitting 10,000 words, because of the time.
Q10 Ruth Cadbury: That makes sense. In terms of process, what were your expectations at the beginning of the work? How did they differ from how things worked out in practice ?
Professor Abdel-Haq: On a personal level, I did not expect that it would take so much time, I have to say. It took considerable time from me and extra time, bearing in mind that I have other work to do.
Going back to the Chair’s point, I started from the assumption that there was no problem in the system. I was not gung-ho; I did not say, “Yes, we need to change it.” Not at all. There are probably 15 or 16 drafts—I do not know exactly—and there are incremental changes between the first, the second and the third. The first draft was a happy, lovely affair and everything was working. Now when I start to read, check and cross-check, the real challenges start to emerge. The expectation between the beginning and the end was big in terms of differences.
Q11 Ruth Cadbury: On the drafting of the final report, how did you arrive at the conclusions and recommendations? How were the other members of the taskforce engaged in the drafting process?
Professor Abdel-Haq: At all times, there was nothing confidential between me and the members. It was a fully transparent relationship. I had requested a confidential wall between the committee and the public until the final report, but the committee members were with me at all times. Sometimes they liked it and sometimes they disliked it, but they were all aware of what was happening. Again, if you will allow me to reiterate, they were not shy of being very open and frank with me. If there was something they did not like, they said so.
Q12 Ruth Cadbury: Finally, were there issues that you felt fell outside the scope of the report and that it might have been helpful to consider?
Professor Abdel-Haq: There were the 11 points, or the seven points—the mandate for what I had to do. There was the public safety issue. As far as I was concerned, my mandate was public safety and I acted accordingly. I was not saying, “Oh let me check this point; is it part of no. 7?” I did not do that. I might be criticised for it or I might not, but I thought that it was a great opportunity for someone to present a fair view to the public, according to what I thought.
Chair: We would like to explore a little further how you created the final report and what is in it.
Q13 Huw Merriman: I want to touch on the task and finish group report. First, as far as you are concerned, what would be the main takeaways from the report?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The main takeaway from my point of view is that currently the public is at risk. This is truly shocking. I never imagined that someone who committed an offence would be a taxi driver or a private hire vehicle driver in Oxford. Allow me to give examples about Oxford because I live in Oxford. He could go to another town, get a licence and come back to Oxford to do whatever he can. Nobody can stop him because he is licensed somewhere else. I had to read that a few times to believe whether I understood the case correctly or not. That is the main takeaway.
The last words in my introduction were that there is no time to waste. Our young daughters and sisters are there in the street, and they are entitled to be safe. I am a father of four daughters. I expect a certain minimum standard when they go out. We, the public, have expectations from taxis: “I am in a taxi and I am safe.” That is the main takeaway.
Q14 Huw Merriman: I was going to ask you if there were certain parts of the report or recommendations that you would prioritise over others, or whether the report should be taken as a whole. You have touched on the public safety element.
Professor Abdel-Haq: Public safety is definitely the top priority. Within that, you can talk about a national database. In my view, that is urgent. The other one is a national compliance officer. If there is a traffic warden in Oxford, anyone in Oxford is subject to his inspection. Someone cannot tell him, “No, I am not.”
Personally, I believe in a free market, so I was aware that we should allow competition.
Q15 Huw Merriman: Flipping it the other way, would there be certain recommendations that you would happily leave to one side if it meant getting the key priorities delivered?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The report is built as an ecosystem. That is the reality. Of course, you can cut and paste and do this and that, but if you want a safer community and a more efficient system, in my view all of it has to be implemented. I cannot tell you, for example, that working conditions are more important than disabled people being looked after well. I know you are not asking that, but I cannot tell you which one is more important. Both are important to me. Both are addressed. I hope I have answered your question.
Q16 Huw Merriman: I see what you are saying. It should be taken as a whole, which is absolutely fine.
The Law Commission review was on the table; likewise, the all-party parliamentary group report. Did you find their conclusions of interest? Was there anything you disagreed with in those reports, if you looked at them?
Professor Abdel-Haq: We met a representative from the Law Commission and the all-party group. I read the report very quickly. I did not see my report as a continuation of them, not at all; it is independent. I am aware of them, but if you asked me what the main differences are between my report and the Law Commission report, I would not know. That was not my main concern. It could be 95% the same or 1% the same; I do not know. I never made it a factor in my thinking.
With the Law Commission report in particular, I became aware later of a major issue over plying for hire. The Law Commission report said that they cannot and do not want to define that. I have the greatest respect for the people in the Law Commission, and I do not know what the circumstances were that led them to reach that conclusion. Of course, they are entitled to it. I find it difficult not to be able to define a very important concept. It is not up to me to define it. I acknowledge that it is a very important concept to define, hence I believe that stakeholders should come together and try to find a definition. In my view, they must have a definition.
Q17 Huw Merriman: I am going to ask a question to which I may know the answer, because I can see that there was a bit of dissent from some of the members. Were there any disagreements among the group about the recommendations?
Professor Abdel-Haq: There is a big appendix, and the appendices with disagreements or statements from members have not been audited. They have been sent to the secretariat, and the secretariat put them in as they are. I never debated them with people after they submitted them or tried to influence them. But, again, I understood them, and I believe in free speech. People are entitled to show where they disagree. I understood the disagreement from their point of view, given the communities they represent. On the main issues we agreed, and this is where I have to give it to the members of the group. We agreed on the big picture about public safety and the protection of our community. No one was saying no to that.
Q18 Huw Merriman: In a way, it is a similar concept to our Committee, with our reports. We may have different views, but in the four years I have been on the Committee we have never had a member who had to write additionals or who refused to sign up to a report. We have always found a way to get everybody there.
Your report was obviously different. Did you always envisage from the very start that members would have the ability to write additionals, or did it just become clear that there were some disagreements and that was the only way to move forward?
Professor Abdel-Haq: In fact, the ministerial letter to me did not make it clear who would write the report. It was the taskforce, but did that mean the taskforce or did that mean me? We had a very lively debate at one stage. I put the recommendations and I was the one who initiated the draft. If a member said, “What happens if I disagree with this? Is it our report, or your report, or whatever?”, I strongly recommended that it should be my report and that members were allowed to disagree freely in appendices 1, 2 or 3. At that moment, it became my report. Of course, my report did not come out of the blue; it came with the support of the taskforce, but, if any member wished to disagree with any point, they were entitled to express it without reservation or limitation.
Q19 Huw Merriman: Do you think it might have been better if, right from the start, everybody had agreed that it should be the entire group’s report, or would that not have been possible?
Professor Abdel-Haq: In theory, that is probably a valid conceptual point. But given that all the members of the group, apart from me, represented specific communities, if we were going to have consensus on voting, we might have ended up with two or three recommendations.
By the way, the report is not a compromise between X and Y, where someone says 100 and someone says zero and we meet at 50. No. The public interest was the overriding issue. As a result, it was not a matter of who voted more or who voted less, especially as it was clear that the group members represented communities. To be fair to the members, I admire all of them one by one, because they realised that point and agreed to the methodology. At the same time, they were entitled to disagree openly. I thought that ticked all the boxes concerned, the most important being to protect the public.
Huw Merriman: Thank you. We are a model of consensus.
Chair: It sounds as if you did a very skilled job and took a great deal of responsibility as chair to come up with recommendations, albeit that other people could disagree with them. We want to focus a little on some of the areas that proved to be the knottiest issues.
Q20 Daniel Zeichner: Good morning, Mohammed. First, I thank you and all those involved. Your report was very well received and was remarkable in managing to take such complex issues and boil them down into a series of succinct recommendations.
There are many things I would like to ask you about, but I have limited time, so the Committee has asked me to concentrate on three of the areas where there seems to be more potential disagreement: capping private hire vehicle licence numbers, cross-border hiring and CCTV. To take the first one, on PHV numbers, where we have seen a huge growth in some areas, particularly in London, could you tell us a little bit about the different views presented in the group and how you arrived at your conclusion?
Professor Abdel-Haq: There are two views. One is to cap the numbers and one is that we are in a free market and we should let market forces decide; it is a matter of supply and demand. As I mentioned to the Chair, I am objective, as much as any human being can be objective. I am not a classical liberal. I love the market and market forces, and I believe that works most of the time, but sometimes some intervention might be required. The growth in numbers of PHV taxis in cities is big, and their impact on the environment, industry and infrastructure is huge. The other argument is that other people are contributing to those environmental issues too, and I said yes, maybe. Online businesses increase van deliveries, and all that, but there is a substantial increase in the numbers of cars—PHVs.
By the way, I did not advocate capping. I believe in localism, and I advocated that local authorities need the power to cap if and when they see fit. It is not up to me to sit here and say that I think London should have 200 cars and Leeds should have 100. Not at all. The best people, who know their environment, their cities and towns, are the local authorities, and that fits with our current belief that it is all about localism. I believe in it. Why don’t we give that power to local authorities, which can decide, if things become unreasonable, to use it? It would be subject to a general public test; it would not be decided at the whim of any city council employee. I cannot remember the names of individuals who stood in favour or against it, but that was the argument.
I asked for facts, and more facts. I acknowledge market forces and I acknowledge that newcomers are allowed to come into the market, but at the same time you cannot have an unlimited number, given the low threshold for having a private hire vehicle. That is very important. In the banking world, for example, you can apply to open a bank, but the threshold is so high that it prevents 99.99% of people from opening banks. Here the threshold is, relatively, very low. With a few thousand pounds, you can be a private hire vehicle driver. That cannot be unlimited, if the local authority think it is unreasonable.
Q21 Daniel Zeichner: The taxi trade has been subject to the public interest test for some time. Did your group look at how that had worked? Would there be any differences in the kind of public interest test you proposed to apply to the private hire sector, or would it be the same?
Professor Abdel-Haq: We did not look at that, because it is up to specific stakeholders to come together to agree on what is the public test. I tried as much as possible not to get micro, because there are technical issues that need to be addressed by technicians, if I can use that word. It requires a different set of experiences from those of our taskforce group.
Q22 Daniel Zeichner: What do you think the benefits would be of capping the numbers?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The benefit is that every community would be responsible for its affairs. If there is an issue with regard to numbers in a town, I cannot blame them, because they will say, “We can’t cap them.” That became apparent from certain interviews and meetings, as I came to realise. The growth in numbers is unsustainable. Here is where the judgment comes: you cannot leave that matter for supply and demand to sort out. At some stage, it needs to be controlled by someone who looks at the figures and says, “My community needs this or it needs that.”
Q23 Daniel Zeichner: We will come to the general Government response later, but on that specific point I was quite surprised that, when the Government said they would not take your suggestion forward, they used safety as a reason. They said that there might be an undersupply if numbers were capped. I am surprised by that. What would your response be?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I was surprised as well. I love consistency. Do we trust our local authorities or not? If we trust them, they should be responsible and accountable for that. If there is a deficit in numbers, presuming that is a correct assumption, the local authorities will be accountable in front of their local communities, who will know exactly what they need to do at the next election.
I cannot speak on behalf of the Government; it is for the Government to speak on their behalf. I think their concern is that, as we are a free economy, we should not stop new entrants. I understand that and I am not against it, but in certain circumstances you cannot just leave it open.
Q24 Chair: You said a few moments ago that entry into the market is relatively easy; there is not a huge capital outlay required for someone to become a private hire driver. You also said that you think the exponential growth is unsustainable. Normally, if there is supply and demand, eventually you reach an equilibrium. Why do you think that the market will not deliver a sensible equilibrium? What made you reach that conclusion?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Because of the minimum threshold, and where the business is. According to my discussions with people and colleagues, in Leeds town centre on Saturdays there are tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of partygoers between eight and 12 midnight or so. People could be part-timers, and on Saturdays go to Leeds and fill Leeds with cars. To answer your question academically, it is the nature of the product. If it was a shop, supply and demand might work, because you cannot keep moving the shop. This is a small thing that can keep moving from place to place and is relatively reasonably priced, and we have limited places. There are other issues that we need to consider. There is no point in having 100,000 taxi drivers in the centre of Leeds; it will kill the whole business.
Chair: That is very helpful.
Q25 Daniel Zeichner: If capping private hire vehicle numbers is a complicated issue, cross-border hiring is one that has been at the centre of this debate for some years, for a variety of reasons. You are coming at it from the safety angles. What were the main arguments raised in the group for and against acting on cross-border hire?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Cross-border hiring is definitely a contentious issue. Some people supported it very strongly, and other parts of the group did not support it.
Allow me to go one step backwards. The worst thing in life is to have a law and not implement it—for it not to be implementable. It is much better not to have it. To have one and for it not to be respected is, in my view, not healthy. In the committee, I suggested hypothetically that we should cancel all local authority licensing. The argument was very convincing; people said that we should keep them, and that it was localism and community. I said, “Fine, let’s keep them.”
There are two issues. Among big cities, London is a model of success in terms of one licensing authority controlling the whole industry, looking at it comprehensively and responding accordingly. In Manchester, there are 12 or 13 licensing authorities. That is an almost impossible situation. However big Manchester is, it is too small for 12 licensing authorities, so I advocated that Manchester should follow London’s lead. Of course, now, the argument is about Leeds, and that is for some people to debate. I urged the countryside communities to make a space for co-operation and find mechanisms to work with each other.
I cannot see the logic of some people getting a licence in a different town and spending most of their time in another town. That comes back to the ecosystem; if you want to work in Oxford, you need to be licensed to function in Oxford. I recommended that you could take a licence from more than one authority, so, if you work in Oxford and you feel that there is a lot of business in Abingdon and Reading, you could go to Reading and apply; you would be free to do that. But you cannot have an Oxford licence and spend most of your time in Abingdon, so that Oxford has the fees but the cost is in Abingdon.
Q26 Daniel Zeichner: This is a complicated industry, and concern has been raised about the chauffeur sector and the longer distance hires. How did your committee think that could be dealt with? Can it be dealt with in your recommendations?
Professor Abdel-Haq: If I understand your question correctly, Daniel, it was reported to me that Transport for London is licensing a number of taxis in Sheffield, for example. I do not think there is someone living in Sheffield who comes to London every day to work and then goes back home.
To address your question/concern, in a metropolitan area like Manchester, you need one authority, so that it makes sense, and there is a proper orbit for taxis to move freely. You cannot have 12 licences from 12 different authorities in a relatively small licensing area like Manchester.
In the countryside, they need to work with each other, and I recommended that the matter needed to be watched and worked on later, and that, in three years’ time, it should be addressed by the Local Government Association to see what could be done. It is not about restricting; no one is restricting anything. It is about stopping the chaos. Either we have fewer authorities or we become more disciplined. To have a lot of authorities and no discipline is chaos.
Q27 Daniel Zeichner: Without going into a debate, some would argue that, however large the authority, there are always edges and borders, so those issues will always come up. Another issue raised with me by some other large urban areas is that, if you suddenly go for a bigger area, what is to stop all the work clustering into the centre of Leeds, for example? Suddenly people who had previously been licensed to work in areas elsewhere would be entitled, in effect, to work in the centre. Could you do a zonal system, a bit like in London? Is that the kind of thing you are suggesting?
Professor Abdel-Haq: That is possible, but I am convinced that, if the problem is in Leeds and you have local authorities equipped to solve it, they will be able to find the solution, like Transport for London. Why do all taxis not go to Leicester Square, for example? They have zoning. I believe in the creativity of human beings, as long as there is a framework.
Q28 Daniel Zeichner: To go back to enforcement, which you raised earlier as being a difficult issue, when a vehicle goes from one area to another, at the moment the local enforcement officer does not have the authority to enforce. Could you say a bit about what you think should be done about that?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The enforcement officer in Oxford should be responsible for Oxford. Anyone entering Oxford should be subject to the standard of Oxford. If that standard is low, it means that everyone will function accordingly; if the standard is high, newcomers to Oxford need to ensure that they are up to the standard of Oxford, or they will be penalised. I cannot report to you here, on such a respected platform, what some witnesses told me that drivers tell traffic wardens in other cities who see them breaking the law. They are extremely belligerent.
Q29 Daniel Zeichner: I have heard the same accounts. I have one further point for clarification. The Government’s response was skilfully written in such a way that I was not entirely clear what it meant. Would a local enforcement officer enforce to national minimum standards or, as you say, to the Oxford standards? There is an important distinction.
Professor Abdel-Haq: The national minimum standard does not mean minimum, or minimalist; it does not mean nothing—it does not mean milk and water. We did not say anything absolute, because we believe in freedom; certain councils need to have the freedom, if they want, to up the standard. I presume that the national minimum standard should be enough to function, if implemented correctly. The way I interpret national minimum standard has nothing to do with safety. The safety is the same; it will not be compromised. It is about Oxford liking to have its taxis green and Leeds liking them to be red, and they would all have different things in them; but the standard on safety should be more or less the same.
Q30 Jack Brereton: As you have said, in some authorities it is a lot easier for an applicant to get a licence than it is in other areas. As you have suggested, there have potentially been incidents where people have been banned in one area from a licence, and have then got a licence in a neighbouring authority. Was it the view that those sorts of practices, where people are banned in one area, should be taken into account when they are considered for a licence for a neighbouring area?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Sorry, the phone buzzed, and I missed the key words.
Q31 Jack Brereton: If somebody is banned in one area, should they be banned from having a licence in a neighbouring area?
Professor Abdel-Haq: Yes, if you have been banned in Oxford because you committed a crime, for example. Jack, if I may call you that, this is one country. If Oxford thinks that a person is not fit to drive, I do not see how Bristol can find that the guy is good.
Q32 Jack Brereton: At the moment, we have situations where drivers who have been banned in one authority will just go over the border and get a licence.
Professor Abdel-Haq: Yes, and in my view that should stop. There is no national database and no exchange of information. Of course, there is complexity around sharing information, human rights and so on, but I am sure that there should be a way for all this information to be shared. We have a very robust legal system in this country, so if any person feels that he has been unfairly treated, there is a process to protest through the courts. It is not just, “That’s it forever.” If anyone felt that he had been treated unfairly by any authorities denying him his rights, there is a mechanism to protest and to ask for a third party to look at it.
It is about the ease with which someone can just go to Oxford, Bristol, Leeds or anywhere, when an authority has said no to him because he has committed a crime. He says, “Okay, it’s no big deal; I’ll go to a different place within half an hour’s drive.” And guess what? He does not work in that community; he comes back to work in the community that denied him. That is what is so dangerous, unfair and wrong.
Q33 Jack Brereton: Do you think that the training undertaken by drivers, particularly on how they should deal with issues of safeguarding and help and assist people with a disability, is robust enough in some of the authority areas?
Professor Abdel-Haq: In some of them it may be, but there is a recommendation on that. I have forgotten the exact number. I believe that you cannot do enough training; more training is always required. A banker in the City is supposed to do compliance tests every year, not once in a lifetime. Every year, I have to sit them, to read and ensure that my memory is sharp, and I am asked about my duties and responsibilities. Even if I know them, I need to do that. I do not see why every taxi driver should not do the same.
Q34 Jack Brereton: Should it be part of the minimum standard that they should undertake training in specific areas?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I believe so. We are not talking about training that means that you need to take three days offsite in a hotel—not at all. It could be online training, for an hour or two hours, with a published certificate that someone can add to his credentials. Education is not necessarily time-consuming any more.
Q35 Chair: On the enforcement of cross-border hiring, did you make any assessment of whether local authorities would have the resources they need to enforce, if they were given the power? Is that outside the scope of the work you did?
Professor Abdel-Haq: If any driver works in an area, he needs to be licensed to operate there. If he is not licensed, it means that he is breaking the law, basically. The enforcement officer will be able to check immediately on that. I believe in the integrity of the process, and operators need to be told that if they are based in Abingdon, and do most of their work in Oxford, they need to let us know; if they do most of their work in Oxford, they need to be licensed to function in Oxford. Operators need to provide that information and to be accountable.
Q36 Chair: To do that—for enforcement officers to know that someone is licensed in a place—do you think that they have sufficient resource already to be able to do that checking?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I am not arrogant enough to say yes, because I do not know exactly. If we empowered and equipped the existing traffic wardens and officers in a city and said that they were responsible for their city’s standard, including who operates there and whether that person has a licence or not, I do not think that would be a matter of too many extra resources. The challenge now is to give them the power more than the resources. I met some of those people, and I think they would welcome having that power. The abuse they receive from unlicensed outsiders in their areas is immense; it undermines their authority in front of their local licensed taxi drivers.
Q37 Daniel Zeichner: As always with this discussion, the words “taxi” and “private hire” get used interchangeably, when, certainly in my area, taxi drivers often say that they are licensed to a higher standard. Their concern is that there is almost an unfairness, and we should recognise that a lot of the concerns have been around the private hire sector.
In the CCTV discussion within the group there were different views, probably reflecting the fact that there were different circumstances in different parts of the country. Can you say a bit about how you reached your conclusion?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The argument against CCTV is about freedom and privacy. I reached my conclusion, and it is a judgment that I am happy to debate. I think that taxis and private hire vehicles are public not private places. A taxi is a public place. I am not asking you to put CCTV in your car or mine, but if your car is open to the public, it is a public place. This did not come out of the blue; it comes after what has happened.
To come back to you, Jack, and to link two points with each other, I am not sure whether Rotherham or Rochdale have imposed CCTV cameras and whether drivers from neighbouring areas drivers can function in Rotherham or Rochdale without CCTV cameras. That brings us back to the standard.
To come back to your point, Daniel, taxis and private hire vehicles are not private places. There is an argument about cost, of course, but my understanding from my fellow officials is that a CCTV camera costs less than a mobile phone. I am talking about an average mobile phone; if you are talking about the top i-things like my daughters’, it is a huge cost. This is a reasonable cost. It is very important that the CCTV camera is not only to protect the passenger from the driver; it sometimes protects the driver from the passenger. It goes both ways. Unfortunately, we live in an awkward time, when people can do things. CCTV cameras will not stop crime, but they would act as a major deterrent.
Q38 Daniel Zeichner: The Information Commissioner has issued guidance on this. Did you consider that it was fit for purpose? Did you suggest any differences? You raised the privacy issue at the beginning of your answer.
Professor Abdel-Haq: I did not see what she issued.
Q39 Daniel Zeichner: It was not something you discussed.
Clearly, technology changes and costs fall, so the debate moves on, but in some places where operators and drivers are working at very marginal levels who should bear the cost? It gets paid for by somebody in the end.
Professor Abdel-Haq: Personally, I think operators are responsible for their whole operation. They need to find ways to work with taxi drivers to find a solution, probably not 100% but 50:50 or 70:30. At the end of the day, it is the operators’ responsibility to ensure that the cars that he or she sends to serve the public are equipped with CCTV, for the sake of the public and the drivers.
Q40 Daniel Zeichner: Thank you. That is very helpful. There are many other things that I would like to ask you about, particularly around working conditions, disability and access issues, and so on, but we will not have time to pursue those this morning, maybe another day.
If it is all right, I will ask you about the Government’s general response to the report. Others will go into the more detailed responses. Were you given a timeframe in which you expected the Government to act on your recommendations?
Professor Abdel-Haq: No. When I submitted my report, I was informed that there would be a response within a few weeks, probably up to three months. More or less, given how busy the Government are with some other obvious things these days, they have responded. Were you asking me what I thought of their response?
Q41 Daniel Zeichner: Not so much what you thought of it as whether you were disappointed that legislation was not coming forward at the moment.
Professor Abdel-Haq: It is not a matter of being disappointed or not. That is not the point. I am truly frightened that one morning I will read in the Daily Telegraph or the FT, or see on the BBC or Sky, that we have another Rochdale, Oxford or Rotherham, and the reason why is, “We didn’t have time.”
Don’t worry about my disappointment; that is the least of my concerns. On such phrases as “best endeavours,” and “as long as we have time,” allow me to tell you that in business I learned that nothing could be done unless you had a sense of ownership and urgency. I do not think any successful business would accept someone saying, “I will do it when I have time.” I would not accept that in my world.
Q42 Daniel Zeichner: You made a very strong statement at the beginning of this session, when you said that the public was currently at risk. You made reference to it in your introduction and on a number of occasions. You say that “undue delay would risk public safety.” I have to say that I think that requires urgent legislation. You are more generous than I am; I shall keep pursuing the Government on this. Given that there are things that could be done on some of the safety issues—this is slightly unfair, because it is my private Member’s Bill—would you agree that a national licensing database and enforcement powers would make a real difference?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I agree 100%. To go back to Huw’s point about the order, on those points there should be no delay. I have great respect for how busy our political establishment and Government are, but let me tell you that I, as a person and a father, will never accept it if anything happens to any of our daughters—I am not talking just about my four daughters; I am talking about our community’s daughters—because of Brexit. This is nothing to do with that; it is another issue.
The cross-border issue is extremely important. The ply for hire definition is very important, and needs to be addressed, but that can be debated for six months, given that we have taken the last however many years over it. But allowing criminals to go from one city to another city to obtain licences to abuse, and for you, not you but others, to say, “I am busy, but I will do my best,”—I am sorry, but that is not good enough.
Daniel Zeichner: Thank you, that is extremely helpful.
Q43 Chair: I do not think that you could have been clearer on the distinction between importance and urgency. I was struck when you said earlier that there is an expectation that, if you are in a taxi, you are safe, and that is not the case at the moment.
Professor Abdel-Haq: Our kids do not know what is a taxi or what is private hire. They order it and someone comes who is supposed to take them from A to B, and they say, “Mum, Dad, I’m safe.” Suddenly, we hear all those horror stories, and then someone says, “We don’t have time, I’m sorry.” That is beyond me to accept. I do not know how our politicians could take on such a responsibility. Let me tell you that the public will not be generous in forgiving this time, because we have said loudly and clearly that this is the case and they should act immediately.
With all due respect, when they tell me that they will use their best endeavours, it reminds me of something Lord Patten said recently: “If someone says best endeavours, I immediately reach for my gun.” It means nothing. Or they say, “Whenever time allows.” Remind me, when does time allow, unless you put something as a priority? This is not a challenge for officials. This is a judgment issue and a challenge for politicians, and they need to deliver.
Chair: You have been very clear and given very powerful evidence. We want to explore a little further the Government’s response to your report. Steve has to leave in a little while, so I shall hand over to him.
Q44 Steve Double: You have already covered some of the specific points that I wanted to raise about the delay in legislation, and so on. Could we look more specifically at the Government’s official report, or response to your report? Are there any particular areas where you agree with the Government’s comments or where you were particularly disappointed with their response?
Professor Abdel-Haq: There are three areas where the Government agreed: national data, enforcement and the minimum standard. I welcome the fact that the Government agreed on that. Where I have a problem is that they talk about “best endeavours” and “when time allows.” You are politicians; you know what that means. When you know, let me know. As far as I am concerned, it means, “See you later.” That is the disappointment.
Then there is the issue of ply for hire. I do not know if you knew this, but I came from Jordan as a student 30 years ago. Before I came to this country, there were three things I knew about Britain: Big Ben, Liverpool football club and black cabs. The black cabs are a lovely thing, and when I asked why the threshold was higher for them than for others, I was told that it was because they have the power of ply for hire. Well, guess what, until now I did not know what ply for hire was. Someone has to define it and protect it. There was a debate over whether we need a two-tier system; I think we do. We need to preserve, nurture and protect it. In this case, we need a fair arrangement.
On ply for hire, with all due respect, the report from the Law Commission said that they did not want to, or could not, define it, for whatever reason. I do not think we should stop there; we should reconvene stakeholders, and they can come and have a lively debate, and I can assure you, from my experience with the committee members, that they are very lively. Let them come up with a conclusion.
Q45 Steve Double: Can I bring you on to another point? I am thinking particularly about aspects of your report where members of the group disagreed with each other. How do you view the Government’s response to those areas? How do you think that the Government handled their response to areas where there was disagreement?
Professor Abdel-Haq: It is up to the Government to say, but from where I see it I do not think that areas of agreement or disagreement were a factor in the Government’s response. It is my personal view, and no one told me this, but I did not see any evidence to suggest that they read them carefully and considered them, or that they disregarded them.
Q46 Steve Double: Alongside their response to your report, the Government published a consultation on new statutory guidance to local licensing authorities relating to passenger safety. What do you think of that consultation?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I very much welcome it. I have no doubt personally of the Government’s sincerity about doing something, otherwise they would not have set up the taskforce, but I would like to see a timeframe for that consultation. I would like to see a sense of urgency. Is it three months? Is it six months? What shape will that consultation take? Will it be a committee? Will they all come together, or is it going to be one to one, and for how long? When should we expect a decision to be made? That is where there is disappointment, because it is vague. Again, I think that is wrong. We have a great opportunity, because all the stakeholders, in my view, are willing to work with the Government to find common ground.
Q47 Steve Double: You have made the point very well about wanting to see some action and having a clear timeframe for that. Is there anything that you think is missing from the draft guidance that should have been included?
Professor Abdel-Haq: The report never claimed that it would solve all the problems, and, as a result, neither does the response, but I think the report will go a long way to address serious challenges facing our society. Allow me to be reasonable. Let us achieve those, and, once we achieve them, I am sure that other issues will need to be addressed and improved.
I am very much aware of the importance of doing and not just talking. Hence, when someone in the committee asked whether we needed a two-tier system, I did not encourage that debate, because I did not want to spend our time discussing what is good and bad. A segment of my society was abused, and we needed to solve that. Once I have solved it, I am happy to go offsite to one of the nice hotels in Oxfordshire to debate with the chair or the head of TfL whether we need two-tier systems. That is a different matter. Let us do those things, and I will be content for the time being.
Q48 Chair: You have been very clear that on the public safety aspects, in your view, there is no time to waste. Have you raised your concerns directly with the Minister since you received the Government response to the report?
Professor Abdel-Haq: I have not had the opportunity or the pleasure of meeting the Minister since then, but the first two pages and the last few words of my report are very clear. I am very happy to write again and talk again, but I have not had the opportunity. To be fair, the Minister called me and wanted to talk to me, but, again, the challenge is that there are so many other things. Someone has to say, “This is the most important thing, and now we need to move on it.” Someone has to take ownership, to take it to the next level. It is clear, Chair, that nothing is more urgent than to stop further abuse in our communities. Nothing could be more severe than that.
Chair: Yes, you have been very clear. Do other members of the Committee have further questions? In that case, thank you very much for giving evidence today.
Professor Abdel-Haq: I am grateful. Thank you very much for having me.
Chair: That concludes our session.