TAXI LICENCES

Press, Volume LXXXVI, Issue 26120, 24 May 1950, Page 8

TAXI LICENCES

APPLICANTS HEARD BY AUTHORITY When the Christchurch Metropolitan. Licensing Authority continued its sitting yesterday, the question whether the authority had the right to grant 20 additional taxi licences, was raised by Mr J. S. Haywood, representing the Canterbury Taxi Proprietor J Association. The chairman of the authority (Mr E. H. Andrews) said that the authority had advertised asking for applications from those interested in a further 20 taxi licences, but he wished to make it clear that the authority did not necessarily have to grant that number. An applicant for one of the new licences, Thomas William Hogg, now supervisor to Blue Star Taxis, stated that he had been in the taxi business for 23 years. He had previously owned a taxi business, but had sold out after he had lost his car when it went over the wharf at Lyttelton in June, 1947. He had been advised medically to leave his present office position and take up driving again. To Mr C. D. W. L. Sheppard, a member of the authority, Mr Hogg said that he considered that 10 new licences would be sufficient, and that 20 additional licences would be excessive. Similar evidence was given by Arthur Henry Archer, manager of Gold Band Taxis. Ltd. He also considered that 10 additional licences would be sufficient. Witness said Le had been engaged on the administrative side of the taxi business for a considerable period. At the completion of yesterday’s hearing the president of the New Zealand Taxi Proprietors’ Federation (Mr J. M. Doody) said he wished to give evidence on some of the “wild statements” made by applicants. “In regard to the railway station 25 per cent, or more of passengers have checked*luggage and are naturally forced to wait’ 10 to 15 minutes for their luggage,” he said. As a result, when drivers returned from a job, more passengers were waiting. There had been references to the lack of co-operation between operators and traffic inspetors. This to a minor degree was correct. The attitude of certain inspectors made operators dubious. Another point was that an operator might be told by a client that the car was 10 minutes late. This delay could easily be caused by an inefficient telephone operator, on whom the taxi business was solely dependent. A wrong address or street might be given to the operator, or the driver might be easily misled by a change in street numbering. The position of telephone operators was strictly a specialist one, said Mr Doody. The hearing will be continued today, when the remainder of the applications will be heard.