ࡱ> 7 bjbjUU &7|7|zl8 42  4444444$5 7;4 ;4"" P4""""""   4"" 4""""(r1T2 x E r12f4041z8""z82""Introduction This document is a joint submission on behalf of the NSW and Victorian Taxi Industries to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commissions Inquiry on Equal Access to Wheelchair-Accessible Taxi Services. The Taxi Industry is the only branch of public transport in NSW and Victoria which is providing a realistic and concrete solution to the movement requirements of Australians with disabilities. Despite this, the Industry believes that it is poorly dealt with by Government at the State and Federal levels, and required to consistently address excessive targets and unrealistic service outcomes. Nonetheless, the Industry remains committed to delivering the primary transport requirement for wheelchair passengers. However, this requires partnership, rather than simply direction from Government. This document outlines the core issues hampering the delivery of an ideal wheelchair-accessible Taxi service, and where the Industry believes cooperation and support from the public sector is required to help it reach regulatory targets. This is a discussion document, raising a range of issues and solutions. More complex data can be provided upon request. We welcome this opportunity to work with the HREOC to address this issue of critical importance to Australians with disabilities, and we look forward to further consultation on this matter. Overview Over the past decade, the Taxi Industry, including peak bodies such as the NSW Taxi Council and the Victorian Taxi Association has been a willing and committed participant in the pursuit of equal access to public transport services for Australians with disabilities. As part of this process, both States have supported a range of initiatives, including the introduction of separate classes of Taxi Licences for wheelchair-accessible vehicles. At this time, wheelchair-accessible and other disabled Taxi services are at their highest levels ever, although there remain some structural difficulties, and consequently limited pockets of unmet demand. From the Taxi Industrys perspective, there are a number of available solutions to provide equal access to Taxi services for wheelchair users and other disabled people. However, these solutions vary in cost, and significantly require both higher capital and operating expenditure than do traditional Taxi services. Historically, the solution to this challenge has been to mandate numbers of vehicles and conditions of service, provide limited subsidies to passengers, and then require the Industry and its participants to meet the shortfall (which almost inevitably exists.) It is the Industrys view that, given the industrial structure and economics of Taxi operation, this solution is in itself contrary to central Human Rights doctrine, in that it mandates for some individuals to sell their labour at a lower cost for what is an equivalent (or commonly more demanding) service. The Industry is concerned that, while its general Community Services Obligation has historically been implicitly compensated (if at all) through the general level of publicly regulated fares, the more specific CSO associated with disabled transport support is met with a deficit by providing a specialised service, the Industry is subsidising government, rather than the other way around. If disabled Taxi access is a public good, and the Industry would concur with the view that it is, then it requires an efficient subsidy to support it. This subsidy cannot occur through a generalized increase in Taxi fares, since the price-elasticity of demand associated with Taxi travel will erode any expected increase in income. Similarly, devolution of responsibility for public funding of these services to State Treasuries is unlikely to be effective, as competing pressures on public funds mean a suitable level of subsidy is unlikely to be sustained in the long run. This is an issue of consistency. In this sense, it is comparable to various other problems which compromise the efficacy of delivery for disabled Taxi access. These include planning failures, such as the tendency to create centralised and separate bureaus outside the market, and the tendency to dilute the economic efficiency of wheelchair vehicles through poorly planned community transport programs. Similarly, the economics of this service are hindered by the absence of standard vehicles, both in the Taxi stock itself, and for the chairs and scooters to be carried. The Taxi Industry in NSW and Victoria, in common with that around the country, remains committed to effective, accessible wheelchair transport services. However, the Taxi Industry cannot meet this goal in isolation. We require public finance and planning support, standardisation of equipment with appropriate compliance enforcement, and integration with other public transport providers. We welcome this opportunity to make a submission to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunities Commission, and look forward to further discussions on this matter. This is a general document, designed to identify and describe the key hurdles to, and opportunities for improvement of wheelchair-accessible and other disabled Taxi transport. The Industry can provide various data and other information to the Commission as required. Core Principles General The Taxi Industry recognises that the current HREOC Inquiry into disabled access to Taxi Services is focused on the question of pick-up times. Nonetheless, we believe any realistic long-term plan to narrow booking-to-pickup times in either NSW or Victoria (or indeed nationally) must take into account all the factors which affect the operation of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. Therefore, this submission seeks to identify the broad range of issues which affect the operation of these Taxi services, so that a comprehensive, rather than limited approach can be taken to the problem at hand. As part of this approach, we would identify three core principles, which we believe are critical to any informed consideration of this issue. These are set out below. Economic Rights The Taxi Industry, as a regulated Industry, does not have the authority to set its own fares. Consequently, it negotiates with Government on a regular basis, to determine a range of fare components, including: Booking charges Waiting time rates Per kilometre rates (generally expressed in the reverse, as so many metres per ten-cent increase) Luggage allowances Special rates, such as for late night travel, or during peak periods such as the Olympic Games Reimbursements, such as tolls, airport charges, other expenses, and Special levies, such as lifting fees for wheelchair vehicles A schedule of fares is attached at Appendix 1 to this document. In determining these rates, for the main part, costs (including vehicles, fuel, standard labour rates, maintenance and similar) are considered, and fares adjusted as required to reflect increased cost. However, with wheelchair services, there is a conflicting interest for Government, as it provides the subsidy to passengers. Consequently, there is resistance to rises and fair compensation, and wheelchair-accessible Taxi drivers and operators commonly earn a lower income than drivers of non-wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The reason for this is that fares are generally calculated on a standard distance, such as ten kilometres with a booking fee. Unfortunately, with a low flat rate for lifting in Victoria, none in NSW, and none for time spent unloading at the destination, drivers are poorly compensated. The average increment for a wheelchair fare is $2 in NSW and $6 in Victoria, which may reflect up to 30 minutes extra work. As a general principle, the Taxi Industry believes this is an unfair situation, whereby the providers of a compulsory service are required to sell their labour at a lower cost. As a consequence of this situation, as well as the regular variation of WAT licence conditions (over a dozen times in the past 12 months) not all wheelchair-accessible licences in NSW have been purchased by the market. This ad hoc approach to WAT conditions in NSW has occurred without reference to any Industry consultation or consultative forum. It is destabilising and a disincentive to investment. To make the provision of wheelchair-accessible Taxi services attractive to operators and drivers, which is the key to effective access, these situations need to be reversed. Direction of Subsidies It is a unique peculiarity of the Taxi Industry, that it is a hybrid provider of private services within a public transport network. The private ownership is clear, and the public transport status is recognised both through regulation and through explicit policy statements of Government. One of the guiding policy principles of public transport (and of all public service provision) is the notion of a community service obligation (CSO.) This is defined by conditions of operation (including disabled services) and for all other transport providers is compensated via direct State Treasury subsidies to those providers. Here again, the Taxi Industry is unique. In neither NSW or Victoria does the Industry receive a single dollar in direct capital subsidies, and the only extant direct subsidy is the $6 per journey lifting fee in Victoria. In the current climate, it is generally expected that this CSO will be expanded, although there is no suggestion of any new direct subsidy. This is despite the vastly increased capital risk accepted by operators in delivering disabled access. The Industry views this as inadequate and opportunistic policy, particularly given the relatively greater time and leeway being accorded to publicly owned public transport services in becoming wheelchair-compliant. From our perspective, while we recognise the political value in directly subsidising passengers, this is an inefficient method of reward for the Industry, and an incomplete approach to passenger financial needs. It is our considered view that, in the absence of a suitable direct subsidy, there can be no effective resolution of demand for wheelchair-accessible Taxi services. Abrogation of Responsibility As a principle, it is of concern to the Taxi Industry that standards on disabled access for Taxi travel are set by Commonwealth agencies such as the Attorney-Generals Department and the HREOC, while implementation of funding solutions is left to State Treasuries. The complicating factor in this approach, is that State Treasuries effectively become regulator and client. As evidence of this, recent fare increases in Victoria have been stalled due to the cost of indirect subsidies. Consequently, the VTA and NSWTC believe strongly that there must be a single, national solution with directed funding, rather than the existing abrogation of responsibility by policy formers to separate implementation authorities. This issue is discussed further below. Current Environment General The current operating environment for Taxi operators and drivers is difficult. A number of independent but coincident factors, including the new tax system, increased oil prices (including LPG), difficulty attracting drivers to the Industry, NCP reviews and changes to vehicle compliance have eroded margins, and taken away the Industrys capacity to absorb increased costs. Industry uncertainty as a result on National Competition Policy reviews (ongoing) in particular has meant the appetite for investment in WAT services is limited. The aggressive, negative and unfounded commentary by the National Competition Council in particular has undermined existing Industry investment, and made this an extremely difficult time to address other Government policy desires. Once the NCP process has been finalised, and the Industry is confident as to its long-term operating environment, the WAT investment equation may become clearer. At the same time, community expectations and Commonwealth legislation, combined with State Government initiatives, have delivered the Industry the responsibility to meet the transport requirements of Australians with disabilities. For the most part, this has been identified by convenience, rather than through integrated planning. As Taxis are the only ubiquitous public transport provider with door-to-door service, they are a convenient solution to this need. As a consequence, the expectations placed upon the Industry have moved ahead of its operating capacity, and this has resulted in excess demand which has prompted the current inquiry. The Taxi Industry is well aware of the international evidence which suggests WAT services are more economically efficient than retrofitting mass transit. However, it is of concern to the Industry that this is not recognised by a more effective direction of transport subsidies into the Taxi Industry, rather than to State-owned infrastructure. Complaints The Taxi Industry is committed to serving all Australians, regardless of physical ability, and is working hard to implement solutions which meet this goal. At the same time, we are cognisant that there are a number of complaints about the quality and supply of wheelchair-accessible services. While the Industry does not have detailed figures on this issue (complaints are handled by the relevant public agencies,) we are aware of the suggestion that complaints from disabled passengers may occur at a higher rate than from those of the general community. We would respectfully identify a number of issues relating to this, viz.: A number of these, including in your own submissions relate to general operation (e.g. vehicle or locality knowledge.) These are issues being addressed via the NCP process and other review, and we would note for instance that a recent, post-NCP review of the Sydney fleet in its entirety found only a 3% incidence of any compliance failure whatsoever; Complaints about wheelchair-accessible Taxi supply need to be considered in context. In order to make Taxi services viable, there is generally faster availability during non-peak periods, with an expectation that large passenger movements will be handled by large-volume carriers (trains, buses, trams, ferries.) This presents two issues, being: Longer waiting periods at peak times for disabled transport need to be recognised as a consequence of the booking period (i.e. waiting times for regular Taxis are similarly longer at these times.) We would note in concert with this that Taxis have never been regarded as a mass-movement service, and our role as primary transport provider for Australians with disabilities is different from our general task; and, The reliance on Taxis as the primary source of disabled transport, without a concurrent scale-up of wheelchair-accessibility for other transport means there is no effective integrated public transport solution. As a consequence, the Taxi Industry, which is attempting to meet the public transport shortfall, is a focus of dissatisfaction for disabled users.; N.b. as part of various NCP reviews, there is consideration for extra peak-time licences in various States, and this should be looked at for wheelchair-accessible transport. However, it may require even greater subsidy; Disabled Taxi services are more complex services, and therefore have greater capacity for dissatisfaction. Combined with this, difficulties in transport services do, in our view emphasise a feeling of indignity suffered by some disabled people, and this makes for a greater likelihood of complaints; and, On an issue to be addressed further below, the absence of universal vehicle standards means that, with the best of intentions, there is still some level of discomfort during passage for some of the Taxi Industrys clients. This is regrettable and should be addressed. Each of the above points notwithstanding, the Taxi Industry regards every complaint as serious, and believes each should be included in a review of disabled transport services, to help with service design. Ambiguity of Regulations In the current business environment, one of the issues which is most significantly hampering the efficient development of disabled Taxi services is the unclear or ambiguous meaning of Commonwealth decisions on disabled transport. At the same time, the multi-dimensional solutions proffered by State Governments to meet wheelchair-accessible Taxi demand have further complicated the marketplace. Since the delivery of Taxi services is conditioned by the profitability of supply, these ambiguities need to be addressed before the excess demand for wheelchair services is met. By way of (inexhaustive) illustration, we would provide five examples. We would note that there may be many more in other State jurisdictions: The most significant concern and absence of clarity lies with the Commonwealths demand for equal access. It is not clear to the Industry whether this means all Taxis should have wheelchair capability (which is commercially fanciful) or whether a suitable percentage should. If the solution lies with the latter, then there needs to be a more explicit percentage stated, taking into account demand, public cost, and the need for some overbuild on the last of these, there is a requirement to slightly over-service demand, since pickup times depend on fleet size (and therefore geographic dispersion) as well as direct percentage for specific demand. We would note further that, while the current inquiry focuses on the question of pickup times, the issue of rank access must be addressed. If a strict definition of equality means that the presence of a regular Taxi on a rank means there must also be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, then subsidies will be massive. Further, such a requirement would mean a highly-inefficient service, with large numbers of vehicles waiting on ranks, with little prospect of a reasonable income. Until these requirements are more clearly defined (and there must be consultation on this) there will continue to be concern within the Taxi Industry about the possible scope of wheelchair-accessible services; In NSW, in order to provide an economic case for wheelchair-accessible vehicles, the Government has allowed the creation of Maxi-Taxis, so wheelchair-accessible Taxis (WATs) can make extra money operating as multiple-hire carriers (up to 11 passengers.) However, since this is only one dimension of a solution to overall demand, there is an allowance for any Taxi operator to put his plate on Maxi-Taxi, without offering wheelchair services. Consequently, another indirect funding solution is ineffective, in that the market for WAT operators can be diluted by access for general operators; In Victoria, there are two classes of High-Occupancy Vehicles (HOVs), being the M50 and M80 classes. The former of these is specifically a wheelchair vehicle, which can operate as a multiple-abled-passenger carrier in the absence of wheelchair work, and the licences for which were issued for $1. The latter is a specific HOV, which must have wheelchair capability, but which has entirely vague licence conditions specifying that it is a backup for the M50 class, but not really compelling wheelchair work. The licences for these vehicles were released for $65,000. As a consequence, in Victoria, the complete size of the wheelchair-accessible fleet is variable and difficult to gauge at any given time; Further, in Victoria, there has been an (unsuccessful) experiment in the allocation of HOVs to an outside bureau, which has hampered the efficiency of the system. Interestingly, this was done with a substantial direct government subsidy, though to the bureau service, and therefore not to operators or drivers. Again, this made for an inefficient solution. This approach in Victoria, has demonstrated an ambiguity in the central policy regarding wheelchair-accessible Taxis, viz.: are they part of the Taxi fleet, or is this just a way of directing funds to a separate wheelchair service. If the fundamental approach is the latter case, then this is of concern, since the Industry will be further eroded by the creation of new classes which draw income from standard work, while failing to provide an adequate direct- or cross-subsidy for wheelchair-accessible work. We would note that, recently, through the offices of the VTA, as well as Black Cabs Combined and the Silver Top Taxi Service, the failing bureau in Victoria has been replaced and is now running with increased efficiency. From the Industrys perspective, whether there is a single bureau, as in NSW, or a joint operation, as in Victoria, the logistics management must come from the Industry itself, to ensure economic efficiency and integration; As a final point on the ambiguity of the Industrys operating environment, there is an intermediate class of disabled passengers in each State, covered by a Subsidy Scheme in NSW and a Multipurpose Taxi Program (M40) card in Victoria. These are passengers who can obtain medical certification stating that they are unfit to access mass-transit services, and therefore receive a fare subsidy (again indirect) for Taxi travel. That this class exists, and is an extremely broad group in terms of ability, makes it extremely difficult to measure actual demand for disabled Taxi services. Further, the disparity between the number of people registered for these systems, compared to the number who actually use it, makes planning all the more difficult. It is the Industrys assessment that, contrary to the focus on wheelchair-accessible services, the M40 service (in regular Taxis) accounts for approximately 80% of all disabled Taxi services. These examples are given to illustrate the difficulty both for public policy framers, and Taxi Industry participants to determine effective solutions for wheelchair and other disabled access. They indicate the value of national standards. Other Economic Issues Capital Cost and Risk It is implicit in earlier commentary in this submission that wheelchair-accessible Taxis cost more than standard vehicles, and that this cost is not compensated. However, to emphasise the point, the numbers are clear: A standard Taxi costs around $45,000 fully-fitted, although may be cheaper if it is purchased second-hand (which is decreasingly common, particularly in light of the Federal Governments 2001-02 allocation of a $3,000 deduction applying to new vehicle purchase); A wheelchair-accessible Taxi costs around $75,000 or more fully-fitted, and is not generally available second-hand. This is a stark difference. Further, it should be taken into account that since wheelchair-accessible licences do not have the market value of ordinary licences, it is difficult to finance the capital requirements. Given the comments earlier on ambiguity of the Taxi Industrys operating environment, it is of even greater concern that a minimum excess capital risk is associated with operating a wheelchair vehicle. The majority of Taxi operators are small-businesspeople, who do not have access to unlimited capital, and do not have the diversity of investments required to carry this risk. In any school of economic thought, special access must be recognised as a public good. Therefore, it is expected, in the absence of a user-pays requirement, that the public will meet the cost. At the moment, the public does not, and the expectation that the services will be provided without direct subsidy is onerous and unreasonable. A Final Word on Indirect Subsidies The failure of indirect subsidies has been identified at a number of points in this submission. However, we would state the case more directly. Indirect subsidies are a way of devolving risk to the Taxi Industry, whereby the Industry carries capital responsibility, and the State treasury is only exposed to the variable costs (and part thereof.) Naturally, the Industry can see the accounting and risk-management benefits of this approach. However, in light of the public good argument mentioned above, this is an opportunistic and ineffective path. It is clear, that, in the case of community transport, whether for the disabled, for war veterans or for school children, direct subsidy is a recognised solution. Differential treatment of the Taxi Industry therefore seems even more unreasonable. If clear and central planning is to work, the Industry must be able to expect direct capital subsidy, and the public must be exposed to risk. There is no other effective solution. Tied Funding For reasons discussed earlier, including inconsistency, and the tendency toward inefficient indirect subsidies, the Industry would strongly recommend that the Commonwealth consider direct tied funding for disabled Taxi programs. Price-Elasticity of Demand It has been suggested on occasion, to the Taxi Industrys amazement, that the solution to the deficit associated with wheelchair-accessible Taxi services lies with increasing all Taxi fares. Conceptually, this has merit, in that it expands the funding of a public good to a larger class than just direct providers and users. However, it is also opportunistic, since it sets a limited set of contributors, rather than, for example all public transport users, all road users or all taxpayers. More importantly, this solution presumes that there is an unlimited demand for Taxi services. In fact, quite the opposite is true. Firstly, we would note, as has been recognised by a series of NCP reviews, that the general availability of Taxi services to all Australians at acceptable and safe standards (which is a broader public good), is a delicate process, requiring fleet and price regulation. Secondly, as a market-brake on taxi fares, it is generally estimated that the short-term price-elasticity of demand for Taxi fares is around (-)1, and reasonably linear (at least for significant rises.) This is to say that, in the case of substantial fare rises, for every 1% rise in fares, there tends to be around a 1% fall in custom, for a 3-6 month period. Third, contrary to the general assumption that wheelchair-accessible Taxis can be subsidised within fleets, most WAT operators are individual licence holders, so any cross subsidy (even if it were effective) would not necessarily flow. Therefore, for access, and general commercial reasons, it is infeasible to allocate the cost of wheelchair-accessible services to the general Taxi customer class. Other Issues Vehicle Consistency To maximise the efficiency of the solution to excess demand for disabled Taxi services, it is the view of the NSWTC and the VTA that there should be national vehicle standards. This will create returns to scale for capital requirements, and will mean easier establishment of compliance regimes. 鱨վ ten years ago, the NSW Taxi Industry asked for either a tax solution or duty removal for London (TX1) wheelchair vehicles. This was refused, but it is still the Industrys position that a one-off subsidy or tax relief for a standard vehicle is the best solution. Further, we would suggest that vehicle compliance should require bilateral standards, including clear standards for both wheelchairs and scooters, and other conveyances as may reach the market. This is so there is no mismatch between technologies, either locally, or for disabled people traveling interstate. There may be value in reference to international standards on this issue. N.b. we would note that the Industry has a particular concern about scooters, which do not comfortably fit within the vehicle envelope, and present a number of safety challenges associated with anchoring and restraint of passengers. Community Transport The final planning challenge facing the effective provision of wheelchair-accessible Taxi services is community transport (CT). CT services, particularly in rural areas, have the effect of distorting the economics of disabled Taxi services, by taking some but not all work. At the same time, they are not recognised in consideration of demand for Taxi services. Further, there is a clear absence, both in NSW and Victoria, of consistent guidelines for CT services, with multiple ownership modes, types of vehicles and levels/times of service. The Industry is also concerned that CT drivers as public passenger transport drivers, are not subject to the same background and competency check which face those applying for a Taxi Drivers Authority. Nonetheless, the Industry recognises that there are some type of passenger transport involving various physical, intellectual, behavioral or psychiatric disabilities which may make Taxi services inappropriate, and there is consequently a role for CT or other dedicated specialist service. This needs to be taken into account in the planning of Taxi services, but the role and public funding of CT (which, ironically is commonly by direct capital subsidy) need to be standardised and also built into the planning process. It is the Industrys view that a significant majority of CT services could be more cheaply and efficiently delivered by the Taxi fleets, particularly in rural and regional areas. Training One highly significant issue regarding wheelchair-accessible Taxi services is the requirement for appropriate specialist training for drivers. At the moment, the nationally accredited specialist WAT driver qualification is mandatory in NSW. Consequently, since there is a requirement for WAT vehicles to give preference to disabled passengers, it is an offence for a driver without this qualification to operate a WAT vehicle, even for non-wheelchair work. NSW WAT drivers have a distinctive driver ID which displays the International Accessible Logo, and which proves their certification for the appropriate vehicle. This is important not just in ensuring that drivers are equipped to manage the variety of non-standard situations which WAT driving entails, but in demonstrating the higher qualification, which is critical to attracting drivers for this service. This standard is not in force in Victoria, and is enforced differently across Australia. The VTA and the NSW Taxi Council believes there should be a fully-enforced single national standard for operators and drivers of WAT vehicles. Conclusion As noted earlier, this document is intended to identify issues, which the Industry would like to discuss in greater detail with the HREOC. It is our understanding that this opportunity will be available, and we look forward to discussing it further. Once again, we would repeat our offer to obtain such data as the HREOC requires to undertake deliberation on this issue. Finally, we would repeat the Taxi Industrys commitment to finding a wheelchair-accessible and disabled-accessible transport solution but only where there is suitable recognition of the public good argument, and the need for efficient and suitable public funding. Appendix 1: Taxi Fares in NSW and Victoria NSWVICWheelchair Accessible TaxiFlagfall2.352.80Radio Booking fee1.101.10Lifting feeNone6.00 per tripFares: tariff one cost per km1.321.31Waiting time0.620.45Average (radio booked) fare 10km journey$16.6523.00Normal TaxiFlagfall 2.352.80Radio Booking fee 1.101.10Fares: tariff one cost per km1.321.31Waiting time0.620.45Average (radio booked) fare 10km journey16.6517.00 Submission to HREOC Inquiry on Equal Access to Wheelchair-Accessible Taxi Services NSW Taxi Council & The Victorian Taxi Association, 3 July 2001 Page  PAGE 1  _ i  ...YY`HbAccddeekklzwz|)}*},}4}5}P}Q}~~~~~rsyz{|}0JCJmHnHu0JCJj0JCJUCJ55CJCJ6 B*phCJ$0 jk56$%] ^ _ i j u v & ' 1  !~1 2 67klCD78wxXY !YFG0C#$/0w x """"## & F#[$\$ % %"%#%%%E&F&''r(s(g)h)?*@*++++++,,--.........i0j0112233i4j4"5#5|6}666%7&788999e:;b=>?@AABBBBCC_D`DEEEEJ;MP'UXX & F^ & F & FXYYYYYZZZZ[P\Q\)]*]]]^^h_i__````za{aHb & FHbIbAcBccddddeeeeffzg{ghhiijjkkkkkkkk[l\lllmmnncodoMpNpbpcpppqqrrQsRssttt\u]uvvvvvvvwwxxyyjzkzwzxz{{s{t{{{||||||)}*}+}+},}0}4}5}P}Q}R}gx^^ $$Ifa$$$IflF 4," @   0,"    4 lal$IfR}S}\}a}f}yPsjj $$Ifa$$If$$IflF 4," @    0,"    4 lalf}g}y}~}}}}}}}}}}}t|ss|ss|ss` $$Ifa$$If|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lal }}}}}~~~~~~~ssjj $$Ifa$|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lal $$Ifa$$If ~ ~,~-~.~<|ss $$Ifa$$If|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lal.~/~9~>~C~yTsjj $$Ifa$$If$$IflF 4," @     0,"    4 lalC~D~W~\~a~x|ss $$Ifa$$If|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lala~b~~~~~~~~~~~~|ss`|ss|ss $$Ifa$$If|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lal ~~~~.}~zxxzh^h|$$IflF 4," @  0,"    4 lal$&P 1h. A!"#$% i@@@ Normal CJOJQJ_HaJmH sH tH 0@0 Heading 1$@&CJ4@4 Heading 2$@&5CJ<A@< Default Paragraph Font,@, Header  !, @, Footer  !&)@& Page Number{ jk56$%]^_ijuv&'1 2 6 7 k l CD78wxXYFG0C#$/0wx[ \ ! !"!#!!!E"F"##r$s$g%h%?&@&''''''(())********i,j,--..//i0j0"1#1|2}222%3&34455e67b9:;<==>>>>??_@`@AAAAF;IL'QTTUUUUUVVVVWPXQX)Y*YYYZZh[i[[\\\\z]{]H^I^A_B__````aaaabbzc{cddeeffggggggg[h\hhhiijjckdkMlNlblclllmmnnQoRosptp\q]qrrrrrrssttuujvkvwvxvwwswtwwwxxxxxx)y*y+y,y0y4y5yPyQyRySy\yayfygyyy~yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzz z,z-z.z/z9z>zCzDzWz\zazbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz.{}{~{{000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@0@00F0F0F 0F 0F 0F 0F 0F 0F 0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0F00!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!0!00;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(0;(00h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+0h+002020202020202 02 02 062 06202 02 02020202009?09?09?09?09?09?09?09?09? 09? 09? 09? 0> 0>0>0>0>0>00U0U0U0U0U 0U 0U0U0U0U0U0U0U0U0U0U0U00000000{]0{]00000`0`000a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a0a00g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g0g00Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl0Nl00r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r0r00x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x0x@0@0@0 0A1 Y#.9XHbkv+}R}f}}~.~C~a~~BDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUC!tz~{{#1.##%e%n(~() )00X1f133::::;;??AAEEjGpGNNSSX"XeeKmTmoooov$vwwz~{{33333333333333333333333333333Alastair FurnivalRC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 20010702 HREOC.asdAlastair FurnivalRC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 20010702 HREOC.asdAlastair Furnival"C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC.docAlastair Furnival"C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC.docAlastair FurnivalRC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 20010702 HREOC.asdAlastair Furnival"C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC.docAlastair Furnival)C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC Locked.docAlastair Furnival)C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC Locked.docAlastair FurnivalYC:\WINDOWS\Application Data\Microsoft\Word\AutoRecovery save of 20010702 HREOC Locked.asdAlastair Furnival)C:\My Documents\20010702 HREOC Locked.docU>]DgG<S[C|f {h^`.h^`.hpLp^p`L.h@ @ ^@ `.h^`.hL^`L.h^`.h^`.hPLP^P`L.h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh pp^p`OJQJo(h @ @ ^@ `OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(h ^`OJQJo(oh PP^P`OJQJo(DF[C|U>gG*y+y,y0y4y5yPyQyRySy\yayfygyyy~yyyyyyyyyyyyyyyzzzzzzz z,z-z.z/z9z>zCzDzWz\zazbzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz~{{@Dd{@@UnknownG:Times New Roman5Symbol3& :Arial?5 :Courier New;Wingdings"h#WF*WFrVMe3ru*Z20dg|12Q IntroductionAlastair FurnivalAlastair Furnivalsimsim Oh+'0 $0 L X d p| IntroductionontrAlastair FurnivaldlaslasNormalrAlastair Furnivald3asMicrosoft Word 9.0@Ik@|?q@H@BMe ՜.+,0 hp|  d3g|  Introduction Title  !"#$%&'()*+,-./0123456789:;<=>?@ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVXYZ[\]^_`abcdefghijklmnopqrsuvwxyz{}~Root Entry FF1TableWz8WordDocument&SummaryInformation(tDocumentSummaryInformation8|CompObjjObjectPoolFF  FMicrosoft Word Document MSWordDocWord.Document.89q