Conservative Councillor Fiona Thomson has upset taxi drivers and commuters. She presides over the council’s appalling Hackney Carriage (taxi) team.
As a loyal Conservative, I would find it hard to vote for anything else. I can think of few things worse for Welwyn-Hatfield than a Labour-run council. When I was a Labour councillor (before I became a Conservative), the council was just recovering from a Labour administration that took the council £3 million over budget and which Conservative John Dean’s leadership of the council had to rectify. Even so, in my recent interactions with Welwyn-Hatfield’s taxi team they have fallen well short of what I would expect at every level, failing to deal adequately with serious allegations of systemic racism and maladministration.
As we approach the elections, Conservatives hope to rely on the support of small business, such as taxi drivers. In Welwyn-Hatfield unfortunately they are demonstrating outside the council offices (archive). Why? The (Conservative) County council has come up with an ill-conceived plan to move the taxi rank away from the station where it currently rests. The Borough council has been asked to oppose the plans and it is far from clear on where it stands. Conservative Executive Member Fiona Thomson said it would be “inappropriate to comment”. Because alienating a core vote is exactly what we want before local elections.
According to an article in the Welwyn-Hatfield Times, Labour PPC for Welwyn-Hatfield Rosie Newbigging “warned of risks to elderly, frail and disabled people who would have to cross a busy road to get a taxi”. I think Ms Newbigging is ignoring other important groups. What about well-nourished Conservative law bloggers? When I stagger out of the train station full of foie gras and scotch why should I have to walk further? Commuters are an important vote too!
But the controversy is only the tip of the iceberg. I was recently asked to provide pro-bono support to a taxi driver who was being accused of license misconduct. In fairness, he admits to overcharging, albeit he says that it was in error. It is likely this is true as he gave receipts. I did agree to an initial look at the papers. Suspiciously, the council had not sent the driver a transcript of an interview they had with him under caution (under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, usually known as PACE). When I became involved it was only 6 days before the hearing. When the driver emailed the council and consented to a copy being sent to me, council officer Cheryl Bridges claimed she could not give it to me because of “data protection” even whilst admitting to having the consent in front of her.
When I finally received the interview transcript (after further representations) it read like something from Blackadder. The driver had admitted he had charged extra because he had to drive a long way to collect the customer. In reply, Hackney Carriage Officer James Vaughan said this, “So the more vulnerable the customer is the more you can charge them, is that how it works?”. He literally invented an allegation of predation on the spot and out of whole cloth.
The irony is of course that the taxi driver is a vulnerable Muslim migrant with English good enough to run a taxi but not well equipped to protect himself from a jumped up, wannabe-traffic cop like Vaughan. The person who had complained about the driver had produced a witness statement referring to two incidents, one to which there was an independent female witness. The officers had not contacted her. I did. Her evidence points to the driver being a kindly man (if not well educated) dealing with a rude and frightening customer.
