It is extremely positive that the LTDA are taking legal action against Uber Drivers.
It is also positive that a protest is taking place on June 11
However the message needs to be extremely clear as to what the Taxi trade is campaigning about and it is important to think strategically.
Uber have the multi billion dollar backing of Google. We have all seen how powerful entities like this can be and that they seem to be able to control all political and Judicial process in their own favour. This is now happening with Uber and probably also with the Carlisle Group who have bought Addison Lee and are also a multi billion dollar corporation. It could well be the case that there will be a collaboration between these two corporations in some way and have no doubt that they have the ability to control the media, the politicians , the regulations and the legislation.
The issue of Uber is a symptom of the problem. The problem itself is the failure of London Taxi and Private Hire, Transport for London and the Mayor to act in a reasonable way and in compliance with Public Law.
The decisions that have been made in relation to the London Taxi trade do not comply with Public Law; they are required to be reasonable, rational. proportionate, evidence based and for proper purpose. The reason that these legal requirements exist is to ensure that decisions are made properly without improper influence.
There have been many decisions that have been improper and had an adverse impact on the London Taxi trade.
These include TFLs continued failure to enforce Private Hire Law, the improper process of the Olympic Lanes which saw corporate sponsors given priority to the detriment hard working Londoners (all London businesses suffered losses) and the London Taxi Age Limit which has seen more than 3000 cabs needlessly scrapped and drivers left with huge financial costs. Some older drivers who are semi retired have been deprived of their pension; the ability to work for a few hours here and there to support themselves.
It is difficult to challenge TFL on some of the issue listed above because they use spin and waffle to create ambiguity in interpretation of rules.
The issue of the London Taxi Age Limit is a clear unarguable case of a breach in Public Law.
The evidence below proves beyond any doubt that the Mayor of London and TFL have acted improperly.
The London Taxi Age Limit was supposedly implemented to reduce air pollution. It was initiated by Tory MP Tim Yeo who chaired an Environmental Audit Committee Inquiry in 2010 which had the objective of helping local authorities to implement effective air quality strategies (including TFL).
Tim Yeo was also chairman of Eco City Vehicles, the company selling the new Mercedes Vito taxis that drivers were forced to buy at more than £40k as a direct result of his own policy ; the London Taxi Age Limit.
Yeo himself declared a vested interest at the start of the inquiry
Q1 Chairman (TIM YEO) I should just draw attention to my
entry in the Register of Interests. I chair a company which distributes and services London taxis, which may be relevant to the problem of air quality in London.
The Parliamentary Rules state
3 ”when a member of a Committee, particularly the Chairman, has a financial interest which is directly affected by a particular inquiry or when he or she considers that a personal interest may reflect upon the work of the Committee or its subsequent Report, the Member should stand aside from the Committee proceedings relating to it.” [Paragraph 24]
Yeo did not step aside therefore this a clear breach of the Parliamentary Rules
Yeo later declared in an undercover sting by the Sunday Times about a solar company:
‘I’ve got a very close relationship with all the key players in the UK Government’ and said ‘I think I could help define how to influence the policy process here, at a national level and on a local level…’
This was said on camera and is exactly what he did with the London Taxi Age Limit; he used his position to create a policy that he himself benefited from, that his buddy Boris Johnson implemented for him.
This a clear breach of the rules yet the Parliamentary Standards Commissioner has refused to investigate.
A taxi age limit in Newport in Wales was overturned in the High Court because the consultation had been conducted improperly and had involved parties with a vested interest.
Peter Da Costa the CEO of Eco City Vehicles attended the TFL taxi age limit meetings and had a direct influence in that process.
This is a further breach of Public law yet the Mayor of London has completely denied any involvement of Yeo or Da Costa in the Taxi Age Limit in a letter to MPs who have challenged him on this issue.
The result of the failed London Taxi Age Limit has not just meant that thousands of taxis have been needlessly scrapped.
There are 4267 people a year dying form pollution in London (the Mayors own statistic)
London Taxi Drivers are probably the group of workers who are worst affected by the Mayors failed Air Quality strategies; when someone eventually conducts a scientific study they will surely find instances of heart disease, respiratory disease and cancer higher in London Taxi Drivers than any other group of workers.
If a factory was full of toxic fumes the Health and Safety Executive and Unions would shut it down to protect the workers. In London no action has been taken.
The Mayor of London claims in his letter to the Environmental Audit Committee dated May 8th 2014 that he has reduced pollution in London by ‘retiring 3000 of the oldest, most polluting taxis’.
In written evidence that the Mayor of London submitted to the same Committee in a report in 2011 he stated
‘’11. NO2 levels have not fallen in recent years as modelling had predicted. This is a problem across major cities in the UK and across the EU. Emerging evidence, including a report by King’s College London, suggests that this may be due to the failure of recent Euro standards to deliver expected reductions of NO2 [1] .
A Euro 5 car, for example, emits around five times as much direct NO2 as a fifteen year old car.’’
In this report he acknowledges that he had seen a report from Kings College London (prior to 2011) and that a new Euro 5 car would emit around five times as much NO2 as a fifteen year old car.
The Mayor of London had previously stated the same in his Air Quality Strategy report of 2010.
He then implemented a taxi age limit needlessly scrapping the fifteen year old taxis, which he knew would not reduce pollution at all. In fact it has been proven to have failed by a Defra report in May 2013 following testing in London carried out by the Environmental Research Group at Kings College London who tested the emissions from tens of thousands of vehicles.
The results of this testing confirmed what the Mayor had said in his statement more than two years earlier and before he implemented the taxi age limit; that the newer taxis actually created MORE NO2 than the older taxis.
The Mayor was asked on many occasions in Mayors questions by London Assembly Members to conduct proper emissions testing BEFORE he needlessly scrapped taxis, to prove that this strategy would actually reduce pollution.
It is a requirement of Public Law for decisions to be evidence based so it would be reasonable to conduct at least some basic testing of taxis.
The Mayor point blank refused to conduct any testing whatsoever, instead relying on the fact that the newer vehicles were Euro 5 and therefore would be cleaner, even though this completely contradicted his own written evidence that he had submitted to the Environmental Audit Committee in 2011.
This is a clear example that proper process has been ignored and that the Mayor of London’s Air Quality strategies have not complied with Public Law which is why they have failed
The Mayor of London has failed to implement any effective air quality strategies; there are simple commons sense solutions that have been proposed by myself and ignored by the Mayor and TFL
A regulated engine clean up programme could significantly reduce emissions of all diesel vehicles (including new vehicles).
Cleaner fuel could be used to reduce emissions for all diesel vehicles .
In Sweden a ‘ Grade 1’ diesel is used which reduces PM (Particulate Matter) by 30% and Nitrogen Dioxide (NO2) by 10%.
This is a simple and effective solution which would have a significant and immediate effect and yet has been ignored.
HGV vehicles are among the most polluting and these vehicles cause the most pollution when they are ‘stop starting ‘ in traffic.
(A vehicle causes most pollution when the engine is under load i.e. you see smoke for the back of a truck or bus when it pulls away from a stationary position and not when it is driving along)
A simple solution would be to implement a peak time delivery ban on HGV vehicles.
This would result in a significant reduction in pollution for the most polluting vehicles but would also improve safety for cyclists. It would also allow the remaining traffic to flow more freely and reduce the pollution from these vehicles as well.
It seems that Uber with its Google connection have significant media control and are portraying London Taxi Drivers as greedy for opposing them.
The fact is that any action needs to be shown to be against the improper conduct of TFL . The specific issue of failed air quality strategies is something that can be clearly proven against TFL and will gain huge Public and Media support if the London Taxi Drivers and their organisations choose to use it as part of their campaign.
I am certain that the London Taxi Trade organisations could take legal action on this issue and have a good chance of success.
The result needs to be regime change and not just to challenge any single improper decision.
The London Taxi trade needs a fair and reasonable system of management and regulation as opposed to how TFL currently conducts itself.
