Official Report: Minutes of Evidence

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I welcome Mike Barr and Peter McCracken back to the Committee. This has been an ongoing and protracted discussion. We are very grateful for your engagement with members offline, and for coming back to discuss this issue. In response to your lobbying and to questions from the Committee, the previous Minister announced a review of the regulations. We are bringing you in on the back of that "progress", which is hopefully what it is. If you would like to give us your evidence, we will open the meeting up for questions after that.

Mr Peter McCracken (Wedding Car Representative): We know that there is going to be a review of the legislation, but we have an immediate problem, which we have had for quite some time, in that we just do not fit into the legislation in any way, shape or form. Mike, did you email over the list?

Mr Mike Barr (Star Car Hire): Yes.

Mr McCracken: You will have seen the list of exemptions for us that we emailed to you.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Yes.

Mr McCracken: The only two things that remain for wedding cars to adhere to in the legislation are that the drivers and vehicles have PSV certification. Unfortunately, over the past 10 years there has been a 50% decrease in the number of taxi drivers available. That is where we would have pooled our wedding drivers from because it was such an ad hoc service. That is a massive problem for us. The other side is the PSV certification of the vehicles. The Driver and Vehicle Agency (DVA) has, for some reason, decided that vehicles that we have registered to be able to carry up to six passengers safely on UK roads can carry passengers but not fare-paying passengers. That is really what we are here to discuss.

Mr Barr: It is now 20 years that we have been asking for something that we feel is very simple. We were never running a taxi business, yet from the very start of the consultation on the regulations, we were not included. We have made that point for the past 20 years: there is legislation put on our businesses that has nothing to do with what we do. We have to go on certificate of professional competence (CPC) training courses, and all the content is irrelevant. Every time we arrive at one, the guys who run the course say, "Guys, we understand that you shouldn't be here. This is nothing really to do with you, but you have to sit and do your time."

We can get drivers, but it has come to the point where I have almost decided to stop: I cannot be bothered. I have been to every politician, MLA and MP in the country with little success. Twenty years later, we are asking for the simplest of things. There is an exemption certificate that can be applied to us. We can just be picked out of the legislation's reach. I am not in any way afraid of being regulated: I just want it to be fair and specific to our business. We are wedding car businesses: we are running 50-year-old cars, not picking people up on the street on a Saturday night. Ours are completely different businesses to taxi businesses. For years, the Department have told us, "It is going to take two years to change because we have to amend primary legislation". It was Pete who discovered that you can use an exemption certificate to pull us out of it.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Yes. Has that been used to date?

Mr Barr: It has not been used for us. We got close last time. We were amazed because we thought that Minister Mallon was going to use it, and she did a complete U-turn. We have been let down so many times. We sat in a meeting with Minister Mark H Durkan in 2012, and he instructed the Department to undertake a review. In my opinion, the officials left that meeting with their tails between their legs and thought, "OK, well we have to do it now". I think that Stormont then collapsed. Chris Hazzard then ordered a review in 2016, and we thought, "Happy days. Finally, the review is going to be done". Nothing has changed to this day. It has been 20 years. The officials in that Department need to be held to account. My business has been destroyed. Pete used to have 40 cars. I think that he is down to six.

Mr McCracken: Unfortunately, I did not have the same reason as Mike for leaving the industry. I got to the stage where I just could not cope. We had 36 cars and 16 PSV drivers, so each and every Friday and Saturday, I had 20 vehicles that I could have been earning £300 to £400 on but could not send out, so my business collapsed completely. I had a mental breakdown, so the best thing to do was just to walk away from it.

That was all because of regulation.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): It strikes me that — others have said this in their evidence — whether it is the wedding car or the funeral car sector, both of which are in a similar predicament —

Mr Barr: They are exactly the same.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): — the legislation is a sledgehammer to crack a non-existent nut when it comes to regulating the two sectors. Your sector was not, I understand, engaged in the original Taxis Act (Northern Ireland) 2008, but it poses an existential threat to your sector and the funeral car sector. I do not understand it. For many years, we have heard at this Committee that you are pushing an open door but that that door does not seem to fully open. Every time we make representations to the Department, we get the same single transferable response that I have seen in answers to different questions and letters to umpteen people. We get the same copy-and-paste response: an obtuse answer. I do not know why that is. Maybe you would be guessing if you said that you knew why there was that reluctance from the Department to even open up the discussion, engage and look at what works well in other regions. Mike, you said that you do most of your business in England and Wales, where the regulations do not jeopardise public safety but allow you to conduct your business. Should we look at copying and pasting from the model that is there?

Mr Barr: Yes, because when the legislation for taxis and everything else was being reviewed in England, Scotland and Wales, our counterparts there fought their corners and were exempted. They were always exempt from PSV licensing. If you run a wedding car or a funeral car business there, you are exempt. Even my vehicle insurance is a fraction of the cost of that for taxis, because it is seen as low risk. My policy states that it is for a vehicle that is available for hire in connection with weddings and funerals only, so even the insurers recognise the significant difference in risk between wedding and funeral cars and taxis. Our vehicles have never been taxis, but the regulations have constantly referred to them as taxis since the beginning. We should have been involved in the 2004 consultation.

Mr McCracken: The first proposal that came out in 2003 to change the legislation related to private hire, public hire, wedding/funeral cars and taxi buses, which are classes A, B, C and D. As a result of the exemptions that wedding cars already held, chauffeur companies said, "We don't want to have a roof sign. We don't operate within the maximum fare structure". Home-to-school transport operators then said exactly the same thing: they did not operate within the maximum fare structure. So, loads of other taxis got lumped into what was meant to be a specific bit of legislation for wedding and funeral cars. Again, we were a square peg that did not fit.

Mr Barr: The taxi guys themselves are frustrated with this. In fact, getting rid of us probably helps them, in a way, to close the loopholes that Uber and others are getting away with. I do not know; it is something to do with taximeters. I am not here to represent the taxi guys in any way. I want to make a distinction between what they do and what we do. However, at the end of the day, since the regulations were brought in in 2014, there has been a 48% decline in taxi numbers. The legislation was brought in to improve safety, but do you really think that cutting taxis by 48% makes it safer for people to get home from a Saturday night out in town? There is a distinct correlation. Since the rules and regulations came in in 2014, the number of taxis has nosedived. Look at the graph in our presentation. It is not working for anybody. Now, everyone is crying out, although we have been crying out for 20 years. Taxis, funeral cars, wedding cars — it does not work for anyone.

I cannot understand why it has taken 20 years for the Department to address it. Despite Mark H Durkan and Chris Hazzard asking for reform, it still has not happened. Stormont has collapsed on us twice in that time. The last time that it happened was at the end of a mandate. We actually went and spoke to a barrister and explored taking a judicial review, but it got so expensive very quickly that we had to stop that. Now, here we are: back to the drawing board and lobbying again. I do not mean any disrespect, but what is the point? It has been 20 years. I have lost faith in everything but mainly in the Department. I just want it to be held to account, and I want it to be instructed to review this. My business is already failing, as is Pete's. Everyone else is going to suffer as well. The funeral guys are crying out, and I know that you had meetings with them. There are familiar faces here. Cathal, you have sat around the table and heard me moan before, as have a few other members. When will this happen? I am aware that John O'Dowd called for a review. Obviously, there has been a change of Minister since then. It is now Liz Kimmins. Will she honour that? Can she do it quickly, because we are running out of time?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): It is the hope that kills you, I suppose. You have been through so much with this. That is the first point. The second is that you have been buoyed by the fact that every party says consistently that it is on board with the changes, but, when it comes to departmental and ministerial attempts to change it, nothing happens, for whatever reason. We absolutely need to see change. The Minister will be in front of the Committee next week. I have no doubt that that will form part of the questioning; first, on the attempt to continue with the review and, secondly, on actually making something come of it. I know that you engage regularly with the Department, much to your frustration. Before I pass to other members, I am keen to know whether you have had any recent engagement.

Mr Barr: No.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): I am sure that all the points have been made, gents.

Mr McCracken: I have. I thought that I would try my luck again about the vehicles, which are basically kit-converted vehicles. They are registered with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) over in Wales. They go through an assessment to ensure that the chassis, brakes, axles, engine and gearbox are all mechanically the same. What the manufacturers have done when building the car is put a different body on it. It is like a car that has a bodykit — like the ones that you would have seen everybody up in Portrush with back in the '90s. [Laughter.]

Basically, they have done that.

Mr K Buchanan: You are showing your age there, Peter.

Mr McCracken: Back in the day.

Mr Boylan: All is being found out now.

Mr McCracken: The DVA then said that the car has been changed significantly and is no longer fit to carry fare-paying passengers, but it fully accepts that it can carry non-fare-paying passengers. I have asked, "What is the difference?". I have not been given an answer. It was reviewed by Philip Gallagher, the new head of taxi policy. I just cannot understand why, if the DVA agrees with me, it has put that policy into place. The only thing that it has to say is that it is a devolved matter and it gets to choose. In that case, base your decision on something concrete; do not just base it on —.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Well, if the rationale for the regulations is public safety, surely it should apply regardless. That is clearly not the case.

Mr McCracken: If it is about passenger safety —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Yes.

Mr McCracken: — and it is safe to carry non-fare-paying passengers —

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Exactly.

Mr McCracken: — then it is safe to carry fare-paying passengers. There is no difference.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): That is the frustration, Peter: whether we ask about it in questions for written answer, questions for oral answer or letters to the Department, we get the same single-transferable and quoted response, year after year, with no real willingness to even look at changing or adapting it. I know that you are exasperated by this protracted process. Our hope is that the review will actually come to something. I am sure that I speak for other members when I say that we are committed to seeing that change happen. It strikes me as being obvious common sense. We cannot see sectors going out of business because of poorly drafted regulations that have not got the flexibility to change when they are required to do so.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I thank the two gentlemen who have joined us. I am sorry that I am not with you in person. We appreciate your time.

The Committee has been asking about the issue since the Assembly got back up and running. I suppose that there was a bit of a U-turn by the then Minister, when he said that there would be a review. From a Committee perspective, we cannot promise anything on that, but we are certainly looking at it. We have had meetings with and representations from the sector. It is really important to hear from you. The Committee also has to look at the issue from a road safety perspective, so some of my questions will point towards that.

The Wedding Vehicle Association indicated that no car operator was invited to make representations on the Taxis Act before it was enacted. At what point did the industry become aware of the legislation and its potential impact on wedding vehicles? I am new to the Committee, so I need to understand the issue from that perspective.

Mr McCracken: Back in 2003, when the draft proposal came out and we were initially invited to make representations on it, we paired up with the funeral guys to speak about the needs of our industry. Subsequent to that engagement, we have been left out. When they started adding chauffeur-driven hire services, courtesy transport, home-to-school transport and contract hire to class C, we were phased out and our voice was not heard. Back then, we were very much of the opinion — I am sure that I can find the emails from 2004 and 2005 that say this — that we still needed a separate category: by all means, have classes A, B, C and D, but then have wedding cars and funeral cars separately, because we are different from the taxi industry.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You were completely phased out of those discussions?

Mr Barr: There was a point when the legislation stated that wedding cars must put a taxi sign on the roof. It was us that had to point out, "Guys, you can't put a taxi sign on the roof of a wedding car". That is how they totally bypassed us. At that time, they just bunched us in with taxis and did not take consideration of the individual needs of the wedding and funeral guys. They have now done their best to make amendments here and there to exempt us from certain things, but the Act is not fit for purpose — certainly not for wedding and funeral cars.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I touched on road safety. How would the industry respond to the argument that the requirements on wedding cars have an important safety element? If the industry were exempted from the identified licensing and testing requirements, how would it ensure that safety remains paramount?

Mr Barr: The MOT test and the PSV test are exactly the same test, except that, in the PSV test, they check your insurance and check that you have a fire extinguisher. Mind you, you pay about £100 extra for the privilege of doing the PSV test; when you have 14 or 15 vehicles, that adds up to quite a bit.

In England, Scotland and Wales, even historical vehicles are okay for weddings. In Northern Ireland, it has been introduced that if you have anything that is over 40 years of age, you no longer even need to MOT it. It should absolutely be mandatory to keep the MOT in place for the vehicles. We are not against regulation; we just want it to be proportionate, instead of sending our drivers to do written theory tests, driving tests and CPC training. It was OK here at the start. You applied for your PSV test and got your AccessNI check to show that you were of good repute: that was enough, and you got their licence. We would like to get back to that situation. Again, regulation is OK if it is fair. We are not looking for a free pass. England, Scotland and Wales are exempt from everything. It is easy to do weddings over there. Yes, ideally that would be great. What I am trying to say is that we are not against regulation.

Mr McCracken: Back in 2014, they introduced the requirement for training for PSV drivers to improve the image and safety of the industry. Back then, when we were using Facebook, we had five-star reviews across our entire service. Wedding cars never had a problem with safety, image or standards. We were just lumped in with an industry that we were deemed to be a part of because of legislation.

Mr Barr: At the time, I contacted the Department and asked officials whether there were any data, figures, accident rates or anything that proved that wedding cars were unsafe or needed regulation. They were unable to provide me with anything. There is no basis for doing this. All they have done, basically, is to destroy our businesses.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): You have more or less answered my next question, which was on that issue.

If the Department were to come back and say that training was still needed and that it was for safety on the road, what compromise do you consider would be workable? Does it need to go back to the arrangement that was previously in place? Do you see that as the only arrangement or the best solution for your industry?

Mr Barr: Yes, an AccessNI check. If I take a driver on, I take them out in the car and assess their driving. For example — I said this in the last meeting that we attended — I once took out a guy who had a taxi licence. On paper, he was perfect, because he had the licence, but he could not drive the car to save his life. I had a wedding for him the next day and I was desperate for a guy. He had the licence, so I thought, "OK, I can send him out". I took him out, but he could not hill start, he conked out and he was hitting the wheels off the kerb; he was awful. Just having the licence does not make you a good driver. Some of my cars are worth quite a bit of money, as are Pete's. I do not want just anybody going out and having a jolly — "Oh, you have a licence; perfect, away you go". I will take them out for a drive for half an hour to an hour and I will assess their driving. I have to know that they are good enough, and, in that case, I did not. There has to be some onus on business owners and some responsibility. The regulations serve no —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am sorry for interrupting you. I appreciate that, and I am just playing devil's advocate here. You are doing it right. You might be looking at it from a road safety perspective. I am not saying that this is the case — I am just playing devil's advocate — but there may be some people who think, "I'm under pressure, I need drivers. On paper, that guy looks great, so I will get him in". There has to be some level of making sure that it is safe, because you are carrying passengers. I am sure that you agree with that.

Mr Barr: Yes.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): There is that level of accountability, if you get my drift. It is about how you make sure that —.

Mr Barr: No, I understand.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): I am not saying that; I just want to scope it out from that perspective.

Mr Barr: Obviously, you need to check that people have clean licences. On the flip side of that, who is to say that the CPC course makes you a better driver? I have been to a bunch of them and, let me tell you, it is not relevant in the slightest. I had one driver who went to one of those courses — I said this in the last meeting as well — and the guy spent 30 minutes saying, "I know that you don't want to be here, guys", and had a laugh. He went over a few things for 35 minutes, and then he stuck on an adult film — a pornographic film — and showed it to everybody. My driver at the time was a straight-laced Christian and he was horrified. He wrote to Nichola Mallon, but I do not think that he even got a response. So who is to say that the CPC is making any difference? It is not. I can tell you first-hand that my kids could sit in that and learn absolutely nothing.

If you need a lesson in how to get a disabled person into a wedding car, there is something wrong. I am telling you now that it is just a waste of time. If you sat through one yourself, you would know. It is a tick-box exercise to look good on paper. I will tell you now that it provides no benefit to any of my drivers.

Mr McCracken: There needs to be some onus placed on wedding car operators. This is a small place and people are very vocal on Facebook and Google with reviews and things like that. You need to do a good job for the sake of your own business. As well as that, however, as Mike rightly said, we have expensive vehicles and we do not want just anybody using them. I have a condition in my insurance to say that drivers have to be between the ages of 25 and 70 and have fewer than three points on their licence, with no accidents in the past five years. That is something that I got put on to my insurance so that I was getting good-quality drivers.

Mr Barr: That is on all insurance, though. One of the stipulations in classic car and wedding car policies is that you have to be over 25. It certainly is on mine as well.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): We will have to be careful about that particular incident, Mike. Perhaps you could send us some details — not all the gory details of that, obviously. [Laughter.]

Mr Boylan: Settle down, Chair. I know you are being remote there.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): It is a very serious allegation, if that is the case, especially if it happened in relation to training.

Mr Barr: Yes. He has already written —.

The Chairperson (Mrs Erskine): The Committee may want to highlight that to the Department in order to check what the scenario was. That seems like a very serious allegation. That is all that I want to say on that.

Mr Barr: That is all right.

Mr Durkan: Thanks to the gents for coming in. As wedding car drivers, you are no strangers to being kept waiting. You have been waiting this long for something as simple —

Mr Boylan: You have been waiting all day for that one, Mark.

Mr Durkan: — or apparently simple as what you are seeking. That is absolutely ridiculous, and it is a source of great shame for us collectively as an Assembly, and for me as a former Minister, and you have alluded to that. I will be able to bring a wee bit to that by way of insight — not as an excuse; insight into why I think that this is taking so long. It is fair to assume at this point that there is some deep-rooted reluctance within the Department to allow the Pandora's box of the Taxis Act to be opened again. I have made this point previously at a meeting. When I came into the Ministry, it was like pass the parcel: the music stopped, and I was holding the taxi legislation that had been passed many years before in 2008. For any review to be carried out, the legislation had to be enacted in full, so we had to proceed with that, imperfect as it was. Before we got to that point, there were a lot of back-and-forths, even in my time, largely from the wider taxi industry, around issues that it had. I do not know whether any of the officials who were in the Department at that time are still there — I do not think that many of them are — but they probably still have the scars from that engagement and trying to keep everyone happy. There were issues around single tier — all sorts of stuff like that. You guys have been caught in the crossfire. We really have to push to get the review done, even if there is a way of isolating pieces of the Act.

That is not to say that the rest of it, or any of it, is perfect, but it has also brought improvements to the industry. I do not attribute all the huge reduction in taxi driver numbers to the legislation or the need for training and things like that. There are a multitude of factors, as members will be aware. It is evident in the fact that you have had political support. You have had Ministers from different parties say, "Yes, a review is required", but then members will recall the just-departed Minister, John O'Dowd, saying, "There is absolutely no need for legislation". I do not know whether he met you or heard from us or others about the issues facing you, but he then said, "Absolutely there is a review needed". However, it is not a full U-turn yet, because members will recall that it is a review "if resources are available". There is nothing concrete. That is something that we have to keep pushing the Department on. You have dealt with officials for over 20 years. What have the changes been like in personnel in that time? I am not doubting the ability, attitude or aptitude of any official, but do you feel that there is sufficient knowledge within the unit in the Department?

Mr McCracken: There is sufficient knowledge, certainly. There are extremely bright people working in the Department. The difficulty is that they have an ethos and an obstinate view that wedding cars are taxis — if it is a hire-and-reward service, it must be a taxi. They cannot seem to understand that there are different types of taxis, or that wedding cars are a hire-and-reward service but do not fit the taxi genre. Their view seems to be inherited, regardless of who is in the position.

Mr Durkan: Yes, if you say something often enough, it becomes fact and institutionalised. That is why we have to explore. I do not know whether the resources will be available to carry out this review — I am in favour of a full review — but we need to have a suite of options from the Department regarding what capacity exists to reopen and look again at certain aspects of the legislation. Wedding and funeral cars would be at the top of that. Going back to my time in the Department, I remember them saying, "Yes, a wedding car is a taxi", but there was an acknowledgement, privately, that you should not have been there in the first place.

Mr Barr: Yes. Alex Boylan or — what did you call him at the very start?

Mr Boylan: Alex Boyle.

Mr Barr: Alex Boyle was very sympathetic, and he —.

Mr Boylan: No relation to me whatsoever. It is a totally different name.

Mr Barr: He had said over the table, "Guys, you should not be in this". He was going to do his best to get us out of it, but, as usual, nothing has happened. We understand that a review can take a while, and it would be great to have it done, but it is not helping us. We are still struggling. We cannot get drivers still to this day. I have gone from having 12 drivers to having two. That is how bad it is at the minute. I cannot get people whom I trust. I want the right drivers, and I just cannot pull them from taxi ranks. They make their own money in their own cars.

In the interim, if the exemption certificate could be applied, it would take us until they get their house in order. They did it with childcare. In my kids' school, a 21-year-old girl comes and picks kids up every day. It is still hire and reward, because it is part of the service that they are paying for, whether you like it or not, and they do not have to do anything. They use that exemption certificate to take them out of it, so you have young, inexperienced drivers picking kids up from schools. It is argued that that is not their main business because it is childcare, and that is just a little sideline. However, we could argue that the main side of our wedding car business is not to taxi somebody from A to B, because they could get a normal car for a fraction of the price. It is for the aesthetic of the wedding car, the vintage and the photographs. No one hires a wedding car just to take them from A to B. It is madness. We could argue that it is not the main case for our business either.

Mr Durkan: I am not sure how much of an issue this is currently. It is one that came across my desk as a constituency MLA as opposed to when I was Minister, and it is around cross-border work, where you fall into cabotage and stuff like that. It has been a particular issue for border areas here, but it is common across the piece for people to have cross-border weddings or go to venues in the South.

Mr Barr: We have always said that we are part of the wedding industry and not the taxi industry, but the fact is that if you are getting married in Dundalk, you can get your wedding dress down South, along with your cake, your photographer and your video guy, but you cannot hire a car. We are classed as taxis so we cannot go down South and do a wedding. We can pick up in the North and take people to the South and vice versa. I have more alternative, unique cars that are not available anywhere else, and I got a request yesterday from somebody in Dublin, but I cannot do it, even though I am the only person in Ireland who has that car. Couples can get every aspect of their wedding from suppliers up North except for the cars, because we are bunched in.

The guys down South are not happy either. I spoke to one of them the other day, and they are struggling. Their regulation is no better than ours. I do not know the total ins and outs of it, but he was fairly vocal on the phone with me the other day about how difficult it was. At the end of the day, whether we like it or not, we are still part of the UK. We are being persecuted for running our businesses in Northern Ireland, while wedding car companies in England, Scotland and Wales trade freely, and it is not fair.

Mr Durkan: Finally, the issue around modified vehicles is something that I have had a bit of back and forth on in more recent times. I do not know whether other members will recall, but I raised it with the Department when it was in not that long ago — I will have to dig out the clip — and the officials said, "There is no issue there". They did not recognise it as an issue and looked at me with a blank expression.

Mr McCracken: To be honest with you, I do not think that the Department has an issue with it. It is very black and white to the Department, but, when you ask, it cannot give you a clear-cut, definitive answer as to why it has made that decision. Harry Fitzpatrick told me that he could not stand over an individual vehicle approval (IVA) because he does not know how it would act in the event of an accident. As I said to him, testing conditions are not road conditions. If you have a front-on collision with a car, you have no idea what will happen if the truck wheel drives over you. It is not tested in every scenario, so I do not think that he has got an argument there.

Mr Durkan: OK. Thank you, lads.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): Before I bring Peter in, Cathal wants to make a quick point before he leaves.

Mr Boylan: I will be quick, Chair. Unfortunately, I have to go now. I have had many a chat with Mike, so whatever we can do. I think that there is something there that we can work on. I know that members asked about the review of the legislation, but there are alternatives that have been mentioned before. I am happy enough to support whatever the Committee decides. I am in support of bringing something forward.

Mr McReynolds: First, how many companies and, I suppose, drivers does this impact upon? Secondly, to touch on what Cathal said, what are the alternative arrangements that could be considered to try to crack this?

Mr McCracken: There are fewer than 50 wedding car operators across the entirety of Northern Ireland. I do not have the information on drivers and fleet sizes readily available, but your average fleet is about eight to 10 cars, so you are maybe talking between 400 and 500 vehicles, depending on the size of them.

Mr Barr: Plus the funeral guys. They are in exactly the same boat as us; we just do not seem to work very well together. We have had meetings together, and I know that they have been in front of you as well. We have tried to involve them because we are stronger in numbers. You have to account for all the funeral companies over here, because all of them have cars and are facing the same problems as us.

Mr McReynolds: What are the alternatives?

Mr McCracken: You have a couple of different options to explore. The easiest one is in the legislation as it stands: it is called a certificate of exemption. They can use that to remove us from the legislation altogether. However, there are other options to amend the legislation. We are already exempted from a whole list of things under the legislation as it stands. If they also exempted us from section 7(2) of the Taxi Licensing Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2015, we would get these kit cars through PSV. If they exempted us from sections 4(1) and 4(2) of the Taxi Drivers' Licences Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2014, that would remove the need for us to get our drivers tested. With the test itself, the document that the DVA gives you says, "How to be a taxi driver". There is not a single mention of wedding cars in it at all.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): A lot of us, having researched this, have heard this evidence before. I know that you have waxed lyrical on this. It is, as I said before, exacerbating, but hopefully it has come across that we, as a Committee, are incredibly sympathetic and also want to play a constructive role to see this changed. It is a unique set of circumstances that you and the funeral car providers find yourselves in, and a targeted piece of evidence from the departmental officials regarding this would be a good starting point to find out where we can go with this. Secondly, we have the Minister in front of us next week. We need to find out what the caveat of "resource-dependent" means with the reviews. We need to make sure that that is actually going to happen in the current financial year to make sure that the ball gets rolling on this. As I say, we are incredibly sympathetic, and you given us some paths to consider, whether it be the exemption or the amending of legislation. It should not be that difficult to overcome.

Mr K Buchanan: I just want to quickly recap, gentlemen. I have read different bits of this stuff. There are two things, in layperson's terms, that you have to do. You have to do a taxi driver's licence (TDL) and also a PSV of the vehicle. You made the point that you took the gentleman out to see what way he could drive. If you were talking to the Department now — park the PSV bit — what would you say to it about the TDL bit? This individual obviously has a standard driving licence, so pre 2013, somebody driving your wedding car just had a driving licence. Is that correct?

Mr McCracken: No. Since 1967, wedding cars have appeared in the legislation, so you have always had to have a PSV licence.

Mr K Buchanan: OK.

Mr McCracken: The main difference is that it used to be an application process. You had your AccessNI and your medical done, and you got granted your licence, whereas now I think that it costs about £500 or £600.

Mr K Buchanan: You go to the training course with the videos. I will leave that there.

Mr McCracken: Yes, and you have to pass a test and things like that to get your TDL now as well.

Mr K Buchanan: OK. Your theory is to go back to that?

Mr McCracken: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: In simple language? Or the exemption certificate.

Mr Barr: The exemption certificate would be amazing but, again, we are not against regulation. We would be happy to go back to the way it was where drivers are checked with AccessNI and a medical. That was already in place, so it might be the easiest option for the officials to revert back to. Peter and I are really not against the vehicles being PSV'd. The cost is obviously —.

Mr K Buchanan: Are you talking about the extra £100 for the fire extinguisher?

Mr Barr: Yes. That is the only difference. It is a lot of money for the sector.

Mr K Buchanan: I do not mean that it is only money. I do not mean it in the wrong sense, but it is purely down to that £100 difference, theoretically.

Mr Barr: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: That makes a difference when you have 14 or 15 vehicles.

Mr McCracken: If they allow them to be PSV'd, I have no problem.

Mr K Buchanan: There are two aspects — PSV and the additional training. The rest are exempt.

Mr Barr: Yes.

Mr K Buchanan: That is all that I wanted to know, to get clarity on those two things. Thanks, and I do not mean to belittle those two things, to be clear.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): No, it is important to get a grasp of it.

Mr Barr: It worked for years.

Mr K Buchanan: Suddenly, it is not working.

Mr Barr: Yes, and there is a massive drop in taxis as well.

Mr K Buchanan: Thanks, gentlemen.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): In the absence of any other member coming forward, I again thank you for taking the time to come and brief us. I reiterate the Committee's support and commitment to assist you. We look forward to engaging, potentially offline, and keeping you abreast of any developments we have. You can tune in next week, if you are so minded, to see what the Minister says about the questions on the matter. I am sure that it will be raised and, as I said, we will continue to engage with you. Is there anything else you want to say before we finish today?

Mr McCracken: No, other than to thank you all very much for seeing us today. We appreciate your time.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): This is probably the sixth or seventh Committee you have briefed over the time.

Mr McCracken: Is that all?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): It is probably a record, but not one that you want to hold. Thank you again. We will reach out whenever we can.

Mr Barr: Can I just ask very quickly whether the taxi officials have changed since our last meeting? It used to be Beverly Cowan, Dorcas Cutrona and Michael — Michael O'Neill, was it?

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): We would not know, Mike, to be honest. We would only find out about higher-level changes, but we will find out when we get a response.

Mr Barr: A fresh set of eyes on the whole thing might be a good thing.

The Deputy Chairperson (Mr Stewart): We can certainly ask those questions. Thank you for your time.