Meeting Details
Committee: Regulation and Licensing Committee
Item: Taxi Fare Scale Review
Location: Fife House committee room
Date: 10th March 2026
Published by: East Fife Taxi Association
Committee Papers: RLPublicAgendaPack2026-03-10 (PDF)
Regulation and Licensing Committee – Audio Recording & Transcript
This page contains an audio recording of the taxi fare scale discussion at the Fife Council Regulation and Licensing Committee meeting held on 10th March at Fife House. The meeting was open to the public, and the recording covers that agenda item in full and unedited.
A transcript generated using automated speech recognition is provided below to aid readability and has been lightly corrected for clarity, but minor errors may remain. The audio recording should be treated as the authoritative record.
Audio
Transcript
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager] (0:00 – 09:02)
The salient recommendations are set out at 6 and 7 together with 10. 6 is the decision that members should be taking this morning or the committee should be taking this morning to actually physically fix the new scale fare. 7 delegates authority to the head of legal and democratic services to implement the fixed scale by enrolling in further procedure which involves notification to operators and a further publication of the scale fare in the press etc. and number 10 sets that determines the effective date when these new scales will come into effect and I’ll come back to that later because that is quite an important consideration not least in relation to calibration matters.
We’re going to be taking members through the report convener under paragraph 1 in particular paragraph 1.4 on page 9 which reference to the minutes of the meeting of this committee on 9 September 2025. We at the committee agreed an increase to the existing scale of 5% on stage 1 and 10% on stage 2 only with no uplift in respect of the fees for extra charges.
Now by way of demonstration of how that might look members would be directed to appendix 3 within the papers which is a mocked up version of how the new scale fare would look in practice and that’s set out on page 34 this morning. So going forward to issues and options paragraph 2, following the decision on 9 September, a further public consultation exercise was carried out as is required under the legislation, with a closing date for submissions by any interested parties by the 10th of November 2025. At the end of that period a total of 38 representations were received within time, 37 of which were objections on the level of the fair scale uplift proposed by the committee and one was in relation to an observation on meter recalibration which will be a consequence of fixing the new fare.
At 2.3 page 10 gives a breakdown of the nature of the representations received by way of two individual operators one from a taxi association and 34 other objections received from individual members or others associated with that particular association utilising a full format response. And as I say the remaining representation was received from a company specialising in taxi meter calibration. So I think just by way of information only and there’s no inference or implication made by this and it’s not in any way an implied or inferred criticism on the face of it the objections to the scale rise mainly came from operators or associations associated with the east zone.
There was no other representations made from any other operators in the other four zones, however, it is recognised properly and as I set out in paragraph 2.4 of page 10, that the full proforma response in terms of parties responding may have been from other areas of Fife. However we took the responses on face value as being properly made representations or objections at that time without having gone through some forensic digital deep dive as to where these representations or objections have come from. But by way of fairness I think to give a full rounded picture convener I’ve also included this morning in the papers the representations made by parties on a more Fife wide basis at the initial stages of the review and these are set out in appendix 1.
So 2.5 indicates that in terms of these representations received, they supported an uplift in stage 1 and stage 2 fares as proposed by the committee on 9 September, and 2.6 sets out relative percentages in that regard having regard to what the committee had agreed on. As a breakdown in terms of the nature of the explanation provided to support the uplift on the feed you will see in paragraph 2.7 there are attendant impacts arising from increased costs and outweighs arising from fleet and vehicle maintenance. Vehicle and fleet purchase with a placement with specific reference to the five year age limit on vehicles, insurance, fuel and other operational compliance costs including local authority licensing fees, driver standards of living, continual occupation viability and the impact on the taxi meters for calibration.
2.8 indicates that following the setting of fares this morning a date must be set for the new fares to come into effect and the effective date must also be at least seven days after publishing the new scale fares which is a procedural requirement. So by way in terms of the conclusions paragraph 3 page 10 recommended that the committee note all representations received and considered by the committee on 9 September in respect of the taxi scale review and those subsequently received in response to the public consultation period following the committee’s decision on the proposed scales. It is also recommended that the committee fix the scale by adopting one of the proposed options from appendix 3 which is the option proposed by committee on 9 September or the other options set out within the parameters of appendix 5 which includes options proposed by the taxi operators and associations or any other alternative option and subsequently fix a date on which the revised scales come into effect.
And thereafter the committee has requested to formally instruct the head of legal democratic services to implement the adopted option conforming to the legislative provisions and finally it is further requested that the committee endorse the current process for meter change or recalibration referred to earlier in paragraph 2.9 of the report. So going back to the recommendations convener as previously indicated for this morning’s purposes the important decisions are in relation to recommendation 6 which is to fix the new scale from regard to the illustrated options in appendices 3 or 5 or otherwise and thereafter to delegate authority to the head of legal and democratic services to implement the change. And also to effectively determine the implementation date of the new taxi scale fares to come into effect following the agreement on the scale this morning.
So that’s rather a whistle stop tour to approve the report but in terms of the appendices convener for the sake of completeness it was determined then so that the members had the fullest amount of information before them to make a decision this morning that the appendices would include the previous representations, the previous scale, the proposed scale, all the representations received following the publication of the newspaper advert. And appendix 5 is the various illustrations of options following on from that including an option proposed by the service itself. So that’s the position this morning and I’m happy to take questions convener as always.
[Councillor Tom Adams] (09:10)
INAUDIBLE Councillor Lindsay
[Councillor Carol Lindsay] (09:14)
Thanks very much and thanks for the whistle stop tour of the report in front of us. I had a wee bit of an issue of navigating these papers, and INELIGBLE, and where I find it difficult is that in the list of appendices in page 11 it said 4 and 5 but there was no 4 or 5 in the paper so that was kind of difficult to actually manoeuvre around. You know I found it very difficult because there was no, you know you’ve got appendice 1, you’ve got appendice 2, you’ve got appendice 3 and that’s clearly stated at the top of the page but 4 and 5 are not there. So it was very difficult to actually compile in comparisons in regards to the different options that were there. Also it was just to bare in mind that there’s, you know you’ve got a flow chart on page 21. There are some members that can’t read flow charts without aids and so it would be really appreciated in the future if there are flow charts that they’re either in colour or they’re not there because they’re useless to certain members.
I think the other question is that I found the difficulty is the fact that it’s taken 6 months from this period of consultation to go forward. Normally in the past, I know we’re talking about the past, you know the consultation period would be a lot shorter and then it would have come from the committee a lot sooner. So you know there’s a bit of issues around that but I’m going to leave it at that and wait for other questions to come in.
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager] (10:56)
Convener, well this is my report so if there are any difficulties with the formatting or that it’s not being numbered properly or labelled properly or any of the appendices are not properly laid out for the benefit of members, I would take responsibility for that. It’s my report, it’s my name that’s on it so I’ll fully note and appreciate Councillor Lindsay’s constructive feedback on it and I’ll take that away and make sure that for future purposes it’s taken on board from the produced and further papers which will be in due course perhaps on previous policy matters. So that’s a note for me and I’ll appreciate the sentiment from Councillor Lindsay properly made.
In relation to the timing issue of bringing this back, under the legal INELIGIBLE section of the report on page 8, I think it’s fair to say that it’s properly recognised again, taking responsibility for, as a manager of the particular team involved here, taking responsibility for the fact that it’s properly acknowledged that we are not on timetable. However, the issue remains that, notwithstanding that, the current way of fixing the taxi scale fare is potent and necessary to continue to conclude the cycle process to ensure taxi operators are not disadvantaged materially, not least for the reputational risk that Council may have in it. So I fully accept that.
I’m not using this by way of mitigation or explanation but I know that obviously there’s a spike we’re dealing with so I’m only interested in this and only in Fife but we have not been the only local authority in recent times to be off the timetable here. There’s a number but nevertheless I fully take on the responsibility as I’ve already made and as was indicated to the trade when we met with them on the 3rd of February and I think there was a synopsis of that meeting as the last item on the agenda for today. So I take responsibility for that however I felt it necessary then to keep the process going.
So as I say, if there’s a fault then I take responsibility for that. Any other questions?
[Councillor Tom Adams] (13:29)
Members, any other questions. Councillor Brown.
[Councillor Patrick Browne] (13:36)
Thanks convener INAUDIBLE. I think I share Councillor Lindsays, in terms of the papers, a draft paper wasn’t presented with the agenda and if it had been we would have picked up several of the graphics issue because I have heard it raised in other locations that I’m surprised its INAUDIBLE still hasn’t been INAUDIBLE basic requirement for efficiency. INAUDIBLE taking in consultation responses INELIGIBLE. Can I ask in terms of the submissions that were made between drivers and operators because I’m conscious that drivers have different concerns from operators.Do we know what the split is between those? I think the responses, the generic ones seem to be submitted as both operators and drivers so there’s no distinction between the two and it would be helpful to know that because that would give different ways to answer questions.
In terms of the timetable issue, and I have to say obviously we are behind that, I think two questions. What was the reason for that? At the taxi drivers meeting in January, I think this came up a couple of times, my response at that meeting was that as a committee, as Councillors, as a convener, we had complied with the timescale which we had been asked to comply with which I think is a fair assessment. So I’m just trying to work out why the timetable wasn’t met, presumably because the original timetable was wrong or inaccurate at that point.
I think the second issue is, given that we have to do this, in terms of changing the fares we have to then review them again 18 months later. Where does that leave us in terms of once we set fares, does the 18 months start from that date or does it start from the date when we should have made the changes which I guess would have been December last year?
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager] (15:55)
Convener, I think taking the first point around the timing again, to start with that, I fully appreciate that it’s never been the case that any shall we say blame falls on this committee about the timing. That’s not a councillor issue, it’s purely in my respectful view and I’m mindful of the press line this morning in this open session. So I take that as being an operational issue for officers, so I’m not hiding behind anything other than it’s an operational issue.
As always I’ll lead my team from the front, I take full responsibility for any shortcomings and in this case it’s probably my shortcomings, so I’m properly acknowledging that. It’s not for members, it’s not at council’s level at all, it’s the committee and by extension the individual members of the committee. I think that’s properly set out.
So in terms of going forward, I think the issue here was we were tight up against the actual initiation of the review in the first instance, so that had an issue on the timetable and etc. And there was some other operational delay in getting to where we are today, but as I say that’s an officer kind of matter, not a member matter. But nevertheless we are here where we are now, with a view to taking a view on the scale fares.
And as I say I think what will happen is that once we set the new date, I suspect it will be not terribly long before we’re actually back into having a further review of that in terms of timetabling that in. So to ensure that this does not happen again, so I can give the committee an assurance this morning that we won’t find ourselves, neither officer nor member will find themselves in such a position. But as I say, I can only apologise to members for this, it doesn’t reflect on them, it reflects on me as a manager of the team.
So I don’t know how much more I can say about that, but other than that I apologise to members for this.
[Councillor Tom Adams] (18:32)
Any other questions? councillor INAUDIBLE
[Councillor Patrick Browne] (18:34)
Thanks for that response, I’m not trying to attribute responsibility to anybody, we are where we are as you said, and, we are I think 5 to 6 months behind schedule, which is quite a long time in an 18 month process process but we are hopefully going to resolve the issues by taking a decision. I appreciate that there has been other issues, and there will be INAUDIBLE. I think we just need to resolve the issue and move on. I’m just trying to avoid making sure that it doesn’t happen again.
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager] (19:11)
I can give the committee and members that categorical assurance that we won’t find ourselves in that position moving forward. Thank you for the answer.
[Councillor Gordon Pryde] (19:28)
Sorry, I wasn’t at the meeting on the 9th, I think the 9th of September, I apologise. So maybe I’m going over the old ground. I’m looking at appendix 3.
I think the committee looks like they agree that 5% for phase 1 and 10% for phase 2. Most taxi journeys are more than 600 yards, so a 3 pence increase on the additional 150 yards isn’t 10%, it’s 12%. Pardon?
Aye, but I mean, round it up to 150 yards. If it’s a longer taxi journey, it’s still going to be 12% increase, not a 10% increase.
[Councillor Tom Adams] (20:14)
In terms of INAUDIBLE, I’m going to ask Craig to come in and explain the meter INAUDIBLE.
[Craig Ritchie – Civic Government Licensing Enforcement Officer] (20:24)
Yeah, I think, obviously, the agreement was on phase 1 about 5%, 10%, but in practicality, 10% would have ended up at half pences, so it was rounded up to the actual number. The proposal was agreed in September. The problem with that, and I think you’ll find on page 37, representation from Brian INAUDIBLE who is responsible and one of the main contractors in Fife for adjusting the meters has pointed out that that proposal could cause major issues in terms of stage 3 and stage 4, incurring half pence increments, and the meters wouldn’t be able to cover that. That is effectively one of the reasons why it’s been brought back for further consideration.
[Councillor Gordon Pryde] (21:08) (Editor note: nameplate wasn’t visible so misidentification possible)
Well, thank you. I mean, clearly, we’re not going to take a fare for half pences. It is 100-150 yards. If the meters can’t deal with it, then the meters can’t deal with it and that the way it is, then I understand, then that’s the way it is, INAUDIBLE technically, it isn’t a 10% increase at all.
[Councillor ???] (Editor note: nameplate wasn’t visible so misidentification possible)
Can I come in INAUDIBLE Sorry, I don’t know if INAUDIBLE to 67% (Editors note: 6-7% or 67%?). INAUDIBLE It kind of seems like, you know, last year, this year, and all the other ones that are tabled, it actually goes to 67% (Editors note: 6-7% or 67%?).
[Councillor Gordon Pryde] (21:51) (Editor note: nameplate wasn’t visible so misidentification possible)
Well, all I can say to that is 3 pence on INAUDIBLE is INAUDIBLE.
[Councillor Tom Adams]
Is there any other questions?
Any other questions? I’m going to move the motions up. My own belief is we should go with the decision that we took in September, and I think we spent a lot of time discussing that in September.
We went around the table with people who were in here for about an hour discussing different things. I’m quite happy to go with appendix 3. I know there’s a lot of discrepancies out there with percentages.
With the proviso that we go with a meter, which there’s a trade-off to for the half-pences and stuff like that, so I would move that we go with appendix 3 in the recommendations and I’m looking for a seconder.
[Councillor Carol Lindsay]
I think, I’m happy to agree with that. INAUDIBLE I think we’ve got to take into consideration the amount of work that taxi drivers and operators do, and that, you know, we’ve got to look at, you know, the passengers, like the pick-up place, you know, the passenger mobility issues and, you know, other issues. And I think, you know, we’ve got to look at, across the board, fairness for the taxi drivers, and across the board for passengers as well. And I think, you know, this does strike, you know, a fair and reasonable for all that’s included in this report. So, yeah, I’d be happy to support.
[Councillor Tom Adams]
Thank you. Any amendments to that?
No amendments? Therefore, the decision is to go with appendix 3 for the taxi fare scale, and to ask the officers to take it away. Also, it came up there, I believe, that it’s up to the head of legal now to determine if the start date, right?
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager]
Convener, recommendation 10, this could be a committee decision. It’s also legally competent to delegate authority to the head of legal and democratic services, to determine the effective date as appropriate for the taxis scale coming to effect, in consultation with yourself and the vice-convener. But I would say, otherwise, it’s a matter for the committee to actually fix out an effective date.
Now, what I would say around that, is that, in regard to section 18A of the Act, the one matter that is set down in terms of timescale is that the scales may come into effect no earlier than seven days after the date on which they are published. So, it might be prudent just to set out what happens next in terms of procedure. Then, if this is a decision today, then within seven days, then we require to write out to all operators with a given notice of the decision on the scale, and that includes that notice, gives them also rights to appeal to the traffic commissioner within 14 days of that.
Then, I would say, there’s a publication to be put into the press of the new scale fee. So, taking all these things into account, this is my submissions, as you know, my submissions, my calculations, I have calculated that effective dates for those that appear to come into effect are perhaps given, obviously, and bearing in mind, obviously, for Mr Hammond’s purposes here, in terms of, to go back to Mr Buchanan’s submissions around meter calibration, taking that all into account, so to give ample time for that to happen, the dates I had thought about for this were either sometime in May, either about 11th, 18th or 25th. So, that’s a couple of months hence, but as I say, it’s all about giving sufficient time for the meters to come in, needing calibrated, et cetera, and to take account of any other procedural matters in the interim. Otherwise, I’d say the other alternative is simply then to allow the delegated authority, the head of my service in consultation with your good self and the vice-convener to set the effective date.
Now, for the voice of doubt, for this morning’s purposes, I didn’t deliberately put any dates in the report, that was a decision by me to do that, because it’s something I feel is a matter for the committee to have a debate on or a discussion about, against the parameters which I’ve set out, about giving sufficient time for various matters to take place, not least the calibration question.
[Councillor Tom Adams]
Given the timescales involved with the INAUDIBLE, and probably the earliest time we can get this introduced into the meeting, I would be quite happy delegating it to the head of legal along with myself and councillor Brown, to get this increase included as quick as possible, because it could fall in between committee time, and I mean, we’re waiting, waiting, waiting. So, I’m quite happy to delegate it to the head of legal, but I’m obviously open to any other member of the committee.
[Craig Ritchie – Civic Government Licensing Enforcement Officer]
Thank you convenor, sorry, I probably INAUDIBLE in terms of INAUDIBLE Brian Buchanan saying it’s not feasible, in terms of calibrating meters, if that is the actual position that the meters can’t be calibrated to reflect the increases agreed, where do we go from there, are you delegating changes to the fares if the meter cannot be calibrated to reflect …
[Councillor Tom Adams]
Yeah we go with the original decision but with the meter calibration included in that …
[Craig Ritchie – Civic Government Licensing Enforcement Officer]
So it could be adjusted …
[Councillor Tom Adams]
It could be adjusted
[Craig Ritchie – Civic Government Licensing Enforcement Officer]
It could be adjusted and recalibrated
[Councillor Carol Lindsay] (28:28)
And can I just add that we should get a briefing on whether it’s happening, otherwise it’s delegated and we need to know when it’s happening.
[Councillor Tom Adams]
I’ll get an email sent to everybody to say that the new rates won’t start until…
[Steven Paterson – FC Officer – Legal Team Manager]
Convener, I’m happy to provide a briefing note, either to members with a formal setting, or within a formal setting in members’ hands. Absolutely, yes.
INAUDIBLE multiple speakers
[Councillor Tom Adams]
Move on then?