Editorial | Procrastinated too long

Those who are concerned with the minutiae, or given to quibble over details, may enquire into the specific powers invoked by Daryl Vaz to ban ride-hailing apps like Uber and inDrive. They may perhaps claim that it was the wrong minister who did the deed.

As he clarifies that matter, Mr Vaz, the minister with responsibility for telecommunications and transportation, cannot escape a perception, despite his insistence to the contrary, that this was a knee-jerk reaction to a young woman’s murder, rather than a measured, even if right, policy decision.

If the rule of law had been consistent and enforced, the critics may argue, the Uber app – and those of domestic ride-sharing companies like 876OnTheGo, Lyft and Ride Jamaica that have developed since – would have been shut down three years ago. Not because of concerns for national security, but simply because they breached the regulation covering the operation of public transportation in Jamaica.

This matter was brought to a head by the discovery on Monday of the body of Danielle Anglin, a 29-year-old primary school teacher who had been missing since May 13.

Ms Anglin reportedly used a ride-sharing company for an early-morning pickup for a ride to work. It is now alleged that her driver, and suspected murderer, was previously arrested for sexual assault.

“My recommendation as of today,” Mr Vaz told Parliament, “… is [for] a ban on all of those ride-sharing apps with immediate effect, until such time as we can come to the table and work out properly how these apps will be regulated, in terms of making sure safety [and] background checks of the drivers are done.”

Although the minister said his action would be legally vetted, he had earlier released on social media a letter to the telecoms service provider, Cable and Wireless Jamaica (Flow), directing that it immediately “restrict access to all ride-hailing applications via its network”. A similar letter, the minister reported, was also sent to the other big telecommunications company, Digicel.

AUTHORITY TO ACT

Section 56 of the Jamaica Telecommunications Act says: “The Minister responsible for national security may, where he is satisfied that it is necessary to do so in the interest of national security and after consultation with the Minister, take control of, or close down a licensee’s operations or any part thereof and where any such action is taken, the licensee shall be eligible for compensation for any loss suffered as a result of that action.”

On its face, it would seem that an intervention based on concerns raised by the police would have been the responsibility of Horace Chang, the minister of national security, although he would have had to have consulted with Mr Vaz. However, the telecommunications sector is also governed by a raft of subsidiary regulations that may have preserved the minister’s authority to act.

Or he might have interpreted that those powers fell within the Transport Authority Act.

The more fundamental question, however, is why it came to this, rather than the regulatory environment for ride-hailing operators being sorted out years ago? In 2018, Robert Montague, then the transport minister, signalled Uber’s intention to come to Jamaica and warned domestic taxi operators that they would have to “up their game”.

When Uber finally entered the Jamaican market in 2021, domestic taxi operators – as many around the world have done – complained that they would face unfair competition from drivers who would operate outside the regulatory framework, and therefore have lower costs.

Legal taxis in Jamaica (like all public passenger vehicles) have, by law, to register with the island’s Transport Authority and pay annual licence fees. The owners/boards and drivers also have to furnish criminal records from the police.

On the other hand, the ride-share operators, a business pioneered by America’s Uber, have essentially bypassed the old ecosystem. Anyone with a motor car can register with the company and operate as either a full- or part-time service provider.

Indeed, to get around the law requiring special registration for public passenger vehicles, Uber said vehicles under its umbrella were part of a “vehicle-with-driver” lease arrangement. Its app was a marketplace connecting the lessor and lessee. The rider and service provider would engage the agreement at every ride.

LACK OF COMMUNICATION

In practice, someone wishing to use a ride-hailing vehicle simply inputs the request and his destination in the preferred company’s app and approves payment for the ride from the payment system registered with the company. The rider receives, via the app, his pickup time and information on the driver and vehicle who has responded. The deal is confirmed as closed at the end of the journey.

The technology, it seems, should make it easy to track the driver when something goes wrong, as in the case of Ms Anglin. However, Jamaica’s Deputy Police Chief, Fitz Bailey, complained that lack of communication between the constabulary and the ride-hailing companies complicates investigations when crimes occur.

According to Mr Vaz, none of the companies, apart from Uber, has had a serious conversation with the Government. To be fair to Mr Vaz, he has had the transport portfolio for only a bit more than a year.

Nonetheless, six years, from the time of Mr Montague’s signal of Uber’s intention to enter Jamaica, is a long time. A regulatory framework should have been long sorted out. Jamaica cannot ignore technology’s advance. But it cannot be the Wild West.