Government protection of Uber will cost Londoners dear
|
Version 0 of 1. Sajid Javid claims that tougher regulation of Uber would have “a massive detrimental impact on consumers in London” (Javid flags light touch over Uber, 15 October). It is clear to me that this is erroneous, as the cheaper fares on occasions provided by Uber only reflect a new business’s attempt to enter a market, undercut the existing competition and then put up their fares in order to maximise profit once they have achieved a dominant market position. The long-term issue on cost is whether the residents of London want access to a regulated, iconic black taxi service, with its fares decided on by elected members (over which voters have some recourse), or a remote US company seeking to maximise profits and which is registered for tax purposes in Bermuda, Ireland and Holland. The LTDA would be delighted to discuss reducing some of the onerous regulations that our drivers face, but many of these regulations are there for a purpose. Unlike private hire firms, they ensure that our drivers are UK taxpayers, comprehensively insured, undertake the famous “Knowledge” instead of relying on a satnav and have taxis that are the only form of public transport in London that is 100% wheelchair accessible. London should be proud of its black taxi service, which will be moving towards being a zero-carbon service from 2018 onwards, and is still seen as critical to business by many of those living and working in London.Steve McNamaraGeneral secretary, Licensed Taxi Drivers Association • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |