Loading
The Taxi and General Committee considered two proposals to raise the maximum metered fares charged by Hackney Carriages (taxis that can be hailed in the street) in Caerphilly. It agreed to recommend that Cabinet approve proposal A, and to advertise the proposals for a 14-day public consultation.
Apologies for absence were received from Councillors: Apologies for absence were received from Cllrs R. Chapman, C. Gordon, D. Harse and J. Scriven
There were no declarations of interest received at the commencement or during the course of the meeting.
Decision as recorded
RESOLVED that :- 1. Members considered the proposals on the amendments to the Hackney Carriage fare tariff and made recommendations for a preferred proposal to Cabinet for approval, and to enable the proposals to be advertised in the local press for a 14-day public consultation period. 2. Members considered proposal A and proposal B (as set out in Appendix 4 of the report) and made a recommendation to Cabinet that proposal A be approved as the revised Hackney Carriage fare tariff. The Chair thanked everyone in attendance and the meeting closed at 10:29 am.
The Licensing Manager presented the report requesting that Members considered two proposals (A and B) to revise the Hackney Carriage tariff of fares, and to make a recommendation to Cabinet. The Committee were informed that the review related to metered fares in Hackney Carriages and the maximum amounts passengers may be charged. There had been two proposals submitted by a Hackney Carriage Proprietor and the Caerphilly County Borough Taxi Drivers Association as set out in the report. Members were advised that a formal public consultation took place between 17 April and 8 May 2026. Feedback to the consultation were summarised and included within appendices. Not all respondents supported an increase, and some responses opposed any increases were received from some Hackney Carriage Proprietors and some also from members of the public. It was confirmed that neither proposal included an increase to the starting rate, and that both proposals proposed that the fare increase would begin after the first half mile rather than after the first mile. Comparative tariff information was also provided showing Caerphilly’s position nationally and across Wales. The Licensing Manager highlighted and apologised as there were two typographical errors within the report, Paragraph 5.15 figure should read 22 (not 15). Paragraph 5.16 figure should read 21 (not 19). For context, the Committee were advised that currently within Caerphilly County Borough there were 330 Hackney Carriage Vehicles, 185 Proprietors and 421 Drivers. The last tariff increase occurred in 2022, and it was acknowledged that since then there had been increased pressures which included cost of living increases and higher operational and licensing costs. Officer’s view was that proposal A should be considered as this would provide an increase to the trade and would have a lesser impact on passengers. Members were asked to balance viability of the trade and affordability for passengers. The Chair thanked the Licensing Manager and invited Members questions. A Member queried why the tariff had not been reviewed since 2022 and asked whether a more frequent (e.g. annual) review with smaller increases would be preferable. The Licensing Manager confirmed that Annual reviews were possible but would have time and cost implications. Reviews were generally triggered by requests from the trade and that there were mixed views within the trade, with some seeking increases and some opposing any increases. A review was considered necessary due to changing conditions since 2022. One Member Referred to concerns raised in consultation regarding out-of-area vehicles (cross-border hire) and asked what work was being undertaken with neighbouring authorities to address the issue. It was confirmed that cross-border hire was a national legislative issue, and it was legally permitted for private hire vehicles to operate across boundaries if properly licensed and pre-booked. Vehicles may be subcontracted between operators if licensing requirements were met. It was also confirmed that a response had been provided to the individual who raised the concern, with no further correspondence received. An observation was made from a Member that there had been previous discussions regarding more frequent, smaller fare increases, and noted that the issue had reoccurred after several years again with no review. There were no further questions, and the Chair invited Mr George Etheridge to make his representations. Mr Etheridge made representation highlighting the significant financial pressures on the trade which included the fuel costs rising sharply in some cases over 30%, wider cost of living pressures affecting drivers personally and professionally, operating costs exceeding approximately £10,000 annually for some drivers, risk of drivers leaving the trade if costs were not addressed, affecting availability and emphasised that taxi’s were an essential public service, particularly for healthcare access, education and vulnerable individuals. Member were asked to support proposal B as this was more viable for the trade. An additional concern was highlighted where there had been an increased presence of externally licensed vehicles seen within the borough where the drivers licensing vehicles in other authorities had been issued and provided an example of Wolverhampton plates, this was due to lower costs to obtain the licences. The Chair thanked Mr Eheridge and invited Members questions. A Member expressed concern that failure to adopt Proposal B could lead to reduced number of taxis and this would have negative impacts on transport services including education transport. One Member stated that they supported proposal A and cited that it provided a balanced approach between driver support and passenger affordability and stated that vulnerable users (elderly, disabled, low-income) would be disproportionately affected by higher fares. It was also noted that the comparative costs between the two proposals for a two-mile journey would place Caerphilly amongst the highest in Wales. The Chair emphasised that Members must find a balanced approach between trade sustainability and public affordability. Following consideration of the report, it was moved and seconded that the Taxi and General Committee considered the proposals set out in the report with a view to recommend to Cabinet an increase in the Hackney Carriage fare tariff, in light of requests received from members of the taxi trade. By way of Microsoft Forms this was agreed by the majority present. RESOLVED that :- 1. Members considered the proposals on the amendments to the Hackney Carriage fare tariff and made recommendations for a preferred proposal to Cabinet for approval, and to enable the proposals to be advertised in the local press for a 14-day public consultation period. 2. Members considered proposal A and proposal B (as set out in Appendix 4 of the report) and made a recommendation to Cabinet that proposal A be approved as the revised Hackney Carriage fare tariff. The Chair thanked everyone in attendance and the meeting closed at 10:29 am.
Councillors must say when they have a personal link to something being discussed, such as a job, a property or a family member. A prejudicial interest is one strong enough that the councillor usually leaves the room and takes no part.
The minutes record no declarations of interest.
The council hasn't recorded attendance for this meeting.
Lists the council's current councillors only. Co-opted members, officers and former councillors aren't shown.