The Licensing Panel are asked to note the report and:

i)               Note the information provided on the availability and costs of electric and hybrid hackney carriage vehicles and,

ii)              Agree that the livery requirements for current RBWM licenced hackney carriages remain in place, and that an amended livery be agreed for hybrid and electric hackney carriages

Greg Nelson, Trading Standards & Licensing Manager, introduced the first report to the Licensing Panel. He said that the report primarily concerned the livery that RBWM hackney carriages were required to be painted with. He noted that at the last meeting the Panel had also asked for research to be carried out on the availability and cost of electric and hybrid hackney carriages and other vehicles, and whether the models available complied with requirements for wheelchair accessibility. This information was set out at Appendix B of the report.

Greg Nelson then said that as agreed at the last Panel meeting, a public consultation had been carried out on the livery that RBWM licenced hackney carriages were required to be painted with, whether this livery should be kept as it was or changed in some way. In addition to this, whether changes could be tied in with the introduction of hybrid and electric hackney carriages, when that change was eventually made in the coming years. The public consultation had now been completed, which saw 320 responses, with the full results being available in Appendix C of the report. The results showed that there was a high level (89.1%) of recognition of the livery, and that a clear majority of respondents, 64.8%, thought that the livery should remain as it was. When taking into account the respondents who were not an RBWM licenced hackney carriage or private hire driver, the percentage of respondents who thought that the livery should remain as it was, increased to 87%. The benefits that respondents gave for keeping the livery were very positive and highlighted the ease of recognition of the vehicle as a licenced vehicle, the extra safety and confidence that this brought, and the positive brand marketing that it provided for the borough. He did note that there were of course some neutral views and some that were also negative.

Greg Nelson then said that a petition signed by 80 hackney carriage drivers had also been received asking that the current RBWM hackney carriage livery be removed. This petition, which was Appendix D of the report, set out the drivers’ reasons for this and suggested an alternative livery in the form of magnetic signage. He said that officers were in favour of maintaining the livery as it was for operational reasons and were very much against the use of magnetic signage for the reasons set out in Table 2 of the report. Any changes to the livery would lead to a cost in removing the current livery and a cost in changing the colour of the hackney carriage, which would have to be burdened by the driver, along with the application of any new livery, or the purchasing of magnetic signage.

The Chair then invited both Mr Sabir and Mr Yasin to address the Licensing Panel as registered speakers, each separately for 3 minutes.

Councillor Werner then addressed the Panel as the Cabinet Member for Public Protection by saying that all taxis needed to be recognisable, safe, and classy. He said that looking at the responses to the consultation, it showed that taxis should still have the borough crest on them and be recognisable to residents. He appealed to the Panel to remove the purple bonnet but bring in a more up-to-date and modern look to the hackney carriages.

Councillor Douglas said that public safety needed to be put first, however the reduction in the cost and burden of drivers, whilst also modernising the design should be looked at.

Councillor Gosling asked if stick on colours could be considered as an option for taxi drivers, who could then use their car as a regular vehicle, instead for use as a taxi permanently.

Councillor Wilson said that some form of livery was important but said that a change in what was currently used should be looked at. He wondered if a phased transition could potentially be looked at, so once a new car was obtained then the new livery would then need to be obtained.

Councillor Knowles said that the current livery was a dated look and that it also damaged the re-sale version of the vehicle too. He wondered if it would be possible to potentially have a stick-on sign on both the passenger and driver doors. A contact sticker could be used rather than a magnetic sign, which could be taken off too easily.

Councillor Story said that it must be noted that the consultation results showed that the current livery should stay. However, he did feel as though it was something that could certainly be looked at adjusting. He wished for the Panel to be able to see this final design first though.

Councillor K Singh said that it was important to protect both the public and also the driver’s livelihoods, which was a fine balance. He believed that the idea of magnetic signage would not be feasible and would be very difficult to police, as outlined within the report. There was also a big issue with when a driver wished to use the same vehicle for private-hire and also as a hackney carriage, as the livery was permanent and there was no distinguishment for them between the two.

Councillor Douglas wished to then defend the responses to the consultation, as despite the numbers, it was important to note that it was available to all residents to participate. He also then touched on Electric Vehicles (EV) and said that there should not be a difference between the two as this would complicate things.

Councillor Story asked Greg Nelson what the thinking was behind potentially having a different livery for EV’s and regular hackney carriages. Greg Nelson replied by saying that the idea was for a clear distinguishment in order to push the EV movement, however he took on board the Panel’s feelings towards confusing residents.

Councillor Wilson asked if there was scope for the Panel to propose a recommendation that was different to the one that had been put forward in the report. Greg Nelson confirmed that there was, as long as it was within reason.

Councillor Martin agreed with that way forward and said that some key factors of safety ought to be incorporated and agreed that magnetic signage was not ideal.

Councillor K Singh asked about the grants and if they were from central government. Greg Nelson confirmed this and stated that the grant was for £7,000.

Greg Nelson said that the livery requirements were solely for hackney carriage vehicles within the borough. In terms of magnetic liveries, officers were very against this due to the practical issues that this would cause, in addition to the resources that would be needed to police it. He also said that it was very important to keep residents safe and he implored the Panel to not adopt magnetic signage as there would be nothing to stop unregistered drivers using these and putting residents at risk. 

Councillor Brar put forward a slightly amended motion to what had been recommended by officers. This recommendation was to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Housing & Public Protection, the Cabinet Member for Public Protection, and the Chair of the Licensing Panel to amend the current RBWM hackney carriage livery to ease the burden on drivers, whilst still ensuring the cars are recognisable, by keeping the crest, creating a more up market design and whilst protecting the public. Councillor Martin seconded this motion.

Councillor Wilson then asked if consideration could be made for the optimum mechanism for the phasing in of the new agreed hackney carriage livery and sought for it to be added into the motion. Both Councillors Brar and Martin agreed to this.

Oran Norris-Browne, Principal Democratic Services Officer, wished to clarify what the amended motion was and asked Councillor Wilson to restate his point on the mechanism for phasing in the new agreed livery, so that it could be correctly documented. The motion was then read in full, prior to a named vote then being taken.

AGREED: That the Licensing Panel:

i)               Noted the information provided on the availability and costs of hackney carriage vehicles and,

ii)             Agreed to delegate authority to the Assistant Director of Housing & Public Protection in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Public Protection and the Chair of the Licensing Panel to amend the current RBWM hackney carriage livery to ease the burden on drivers, whilst still ensuring the cars are recognisable, by keeping the crest, creating a more up market design, protecting the public and to consider the optimum mechanism for the phasing in of the new agreed hackney carriage livery.