Agenda item

The report of the Director – Neighbourhoods is attached.

The Cabinet Portfolio Holder for Environment and Safety, Councillor Inglis presented the report of the Director – Neighbourhoods detailing the Rushcliffe Borough Council Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy 2025-2030.

 

Before introducing the report, Councillor Inglis proposed that he would be making an amendment to recommendation b) to read as follows, which was seconded by Councillor Regan, who reserved the right to speak.

 

b)       requires a review to be undertaken in respect of potential mandating of CCTV in Taxi and Private Hire vehicles within 12 months, and the findings be reported to the Licensing Committee

 

Councillor Soloman arrived at 7.11pm.

 

Councillor Inglis confirmed that the Policy had been subject to a six-week consultation, and then considered by the Licensing Committee, which had raised additional matters relating to mandating CCTV in taxis, which he would refer to later. The Committee had agreed the Policy, which proposed some significant changes to keep it legal, incorporate Government guidance and reflect the current climate of the taxi industry. It was hoped to address the decline in Hackney capacity, increase efficiency and lower costs, whilst maintaining safety standards and encourage new drivers. Councillor Inglis advised that the full summary of the proposed changes was in Annex 2 and he highlighted the main updates as detailed in Paragraph 4.2 of the report. He thanked the Assistant Director of Public Protection and his team for their continued hard work. 

 

Councillor Inglis referred to CCTV and stated that whilst this was not part of this Policy review, it was an issue being considered at Chief Executive level across the county. It was recognised that nationally legislation needed to be updated, to bring uniformity and consistency. Councillor Inglis referred to taxis from other authorities, who overwhelmingly outnumbered Rushcliffe’s own licensed vehicles, in particular from the City of Wolverhampton Council, and he referred to the importance of having locally licensed drivers, under Rushcliffe’s control. It was positive that a review was a Government priority; however, time scales were unknown. Councillor Inglis advised that all the Nottingham authorities had concluded that mandating CCTV must be a national policy; however, he was concerned that this might not take place before Local Government Reorganisation (LGR). Council was reminded that Rushcliffe was proud to currently promote the White Ribbon Awareness Campaign and support the campaign to end Violence against Women and Girls. It was important that drivers were protected too, so waiting for change was not an option and Rushcliffe wanted to start the process. Councillor Inglis referred to the recommendation from Licensing Committee, which had been included as recommendation b), and believed that a review was necessary before any application for a mandatory CCTV scheme could be successful. The review would include engagement, offer support to Rushcliffe’s drivers and operators and encourage voluntary implementation of a CCTV scheme. Councillor Inglis concluded by stating that he was passionate about safety for all and that this could be achieved by everyone working together.

 

Councillor Grocock acknowledged that this was an important issue, felt that the Borough was adopting a sensible approach and referred to the lack of national regulations, allowing operators to work anywhere, which could result in Rushcliffe losing more drivers, if it introduced mandatory CCTV. Safety was vital, he confirmed that the Labour Group supported the introduction of CCTV and felt that the current regulations prevented Rushcliffe addressing this issue alone and welcomed recommendation c). He referred to the importance of Rushcliffe increasing its driver and operator numbers, to increase oversight, improve economic development and ensure covering throughout the Borough. Referring to the review, Councillor Grocock stated that to ensure appropriate consultation, to allow the Borough to be prepared in 12 months’ time, he proposed the following additional recommendation, which was seconded by Councillor Chaplain, who reserved the right to speak.

 

f)        consults with licenced operators and drivers in the Borough, and industry representative groups and drivers' trade unions, more broadly, to gain insights into developing and implementing the most effective CCTV schemes.

 

Councillor Inglis confirmed that he accepted the amendment, which then became part of the substantive motion.

 

Councillor Chewings advised that due to the amendment, he wished to declare that he was a trade union representative for the RMT, which represented taxi drivers. However, he felt that the matter under debate did not directly impact on the finances or well-being of his interest and he was satisfied that he could approach his decision making with an open mind.

 

Councillor Dellar advised that she did not agree with CCTV in taxis and felt that any reference to it in the Policy should be removed. There was no evidence that it was required or improved safety, it would incur costs and the Police had not advised the Council that there was a problem. Councillor Dellar felt that this could intrude on peoples’ rights and suggested that if it was mandated by the Government, then it could be reviewed.

 

Councillor Soloman was pleased that a review had been proposed; however, she felt that by not making CCTV mandatory now, the Council was missing an opportunity to make taxis as safe as possible. She stated that the voluntary scheme was not working and that evidence overwhelming supported CCTV as a safeguarding measure. Those she had spoken to were in favour of this, and it would also protect drivers and she referred to two recent cases locally that had shown why CCTV was necessary. She agreed that the Government should make this mandatory and supported recommendation c); however; she felt that Rushcliffe should lead rather than follow. Councillor Soloman stated that 96% of taxis were licensed in Wolverhampton and proposed an amendment, which was seconded by Councillor Thomas, who reserved the right to speak.

 

Councillor Soloman hoped that by encouraging the City of Wolverhampton Council this would be a positive step given the number of taxis it licensed.

 

g)       Rushcliffe Borough Council writes to the City of Wolverhampton Council, as one of the largest licensing authorities in the UK, to lead by example by introducing mandatory CCTV (and where lawful, audio recording) within its Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, recognising its national impact through cross boundary vehicle operations.

 

Councillor Inglis confirmed that he did not accept the amendment as Rushcliffe was already taking the lead and it could not dictate actions to another Council, which could incur significant costs.

 

The Leader felt that the amendment took away from the recommendations, as Rushcliffe was asking the Government to mandate CCTV across the country, and writing to the City of Wolverhampton Council would not achieve Rushcliffe’s goal of safeguarding passengers in its own, local vehicles. The Leader confirmed that James Naish MP had stated that he would be pushing for the Government to introduce mandatory CCTV across the country.

 

In seconding the amendment, Councillor Thomas stated that in general it was better to have taxis licensed in the Borough. She felt that reaching out to the City of Wolverhampton Council would help to raise the profile of mandating CCTV and she did not agree that this would weaken the approach to the Government, as everyone agreed that any regulations needed to be applied nationally.

 

Councillor Soloman was surprised that the amendment had been rejected, as it would have no negative impact on Rushcliffe. A letter would acknowledge that Wolverhampton held all the power, and she felt that it would be a good thing to ask them to look at this issue, as continued delays were putting more people at risk.  

 

Councillor Inglis stated that it would be illegal for the Council to mandate CCTV now, Rushcliffe was following the correct procedure by having a review, collecting evidence and looking at the legislation and engaging with other local authorities.

 

On being put to the vote, the amendment was defeated.

 

Councillor Thomas thanked officers in the Licensing Team for their continued hard work and was pleased that a review had been proposed. She agreed that CCTV would improve safety; however, there were implications that required consideration before making it mandatory. She felt that the review would highlight relevant issues and brief everyone.

 

In supporting the Policy, Councillor Brown referred to the importance of the Government making CCTV mandatory, which was now fitted to most public transport. He stated that he would like to see all local authorities introduce a mandatory practical driving assessment and expressed concern that drivers could hold a licence without having much experience. He called for all local authorities to have the same requirements when issuing a licence as this safety issue was as important as CCTV provision.

 

Councillor Polenta stated that whilst CCTV cameras helped, prevention came through investment in community structures to improve safety and attitudes towards women and children, that security did not just come from surveillance and referred to the findings of the Jay report. Any new policies must be shaped alongside workers and community needs, and the risks to passengers and drivers should not be ignored. Councillor Polenta agreed that it was important to consult with the trade unions, as they were aware of positive and negative aspects of CCTV and called for clear rules on what information could be recorded and for community based reporting.  

 

Councillor R Mallender stated that as a local authority, Rushcliffe had limited options. He referred to an inquiry launched by the Transport Committee in July, and although it did not specifically mention CCTV, it was looking at future reforms, including safeguarding, and he was pleased that this was taking place nationally as well as locally.   

 

Councillor Birch stated that he disagreed with the motion primarily on privacy grounds and agreed with Councillor Dellar. He felt that it was a massive infringement on civil liberties and a burden on businesses. Whilst wanting everyone to be safe, previous incidents of child abuse already referred to were primarily caused by the inability of a local authority to take any action, with the abuse not taking place in taxis.

 

Councillor Chewings referred to the lengthy debate at the Licensing Committee meeting and that there were now only seven Hackney Carriage vehicles licensed in the Borough. He stated that it was important going forward to have a structure in place and any changes were made nationally, so he agreed with recommendation c). He referred to the 22 local authorities that had already mandated CCTV and questioned why Councillor Inglis had said that this would be illegal. Councillor Chewings referred to the railways and stated that CCTV drastically reduce violent incidents and provided clarity and security for everyone. He agreed that if CCTV was mandated in Rushcliffe now, drivers were likely to move to another authority, and he called for the Government to bring in national legislation.

 

Councillor Parekh stated that putting CCTV cameras in taxis did not automatically make them safer, as the situation was complex, because unless cameras were part of a national, standardised and enforced system it would be fragmented, with different rules and regulations. She stated that CCTV alone did not stop violent crime, as evidence showed that they rarely prevented attacks and could not intervene when one was taking place, with figures showing that it was far more effective in reducing property crime. National legislation and oversight was also required, to ensure that CCTV could be as effective as possible.

 

Councillor Brennan agreed with comments made regarding the pros and cons of CCTV and stated that despite its flaws, she strongly supported mandating it. She appreciated that it would protect drivers but made it clear that women and girls were primarily the victims, and that it was vital that action was taken without having to wait for attacks to take place in Rushcliffe. Whilst privacy was an issue, Councillor Brennan felt that additional safety measures were more important, with compromises required, and she called upon the Government to bring in national legislation as soon as possible.  

 

The Leader agreed that safety was the main issue and it was a fact of life that more cameras were being used, including on public transport, as it was important to safeguard both passengers and drivers. It was vital to lobby the Government and the Leader reiterated that in talks with James Naish MP, he had made it clear that he would be writing to him, about this issue, and he asked the Labour Group to do the same. He referred to the evidence given by Councillor Soloman that CCTV was effective, and whilst appreciating that it was after the event, the Leader stated that no system was perfect and public safety was paramount.

 

Councillor Combellack stated that as a mother she would have been happier knowing that her children were using a taxi with CCTV installed, and she was sure that most parents would agree. She acknowledged that there were cost implications; however, having CCTV was a unique selling point and it could give a perception of being safer. 

 

In seconding the recommendation, Councillor Regan agreed that CCTV in taxis was a powerful safeguard, protecting passengers, drivers and protecting the reputation of the taxi trade. He understood the calls to mandate CCTV immediately, as the public expected the Council to act with urgency; however, to do so now, without following due process and procedures, would expose the Council to legal challenge and operational chaos. A duty would be imposed on drivers, without understanding the financial burden, technical requirements or regulatory implications, and could force drivers out of the Borough to be licensed elsewhere. He thanked Councillor Thomas for her recommendation to undertake a review in 12 months, giving adequate time for the Council to undertake research, produce a full cost analysis and ensure that it met national Government guidelines. Its introduction should be phased and supported by the trade to ensure a safe, trustworthy policy and a blue print for a national standard. Councillor Regan requested that a recorded vote be taken, which was agreed by four Councillors.   

 

Councillor Inglis hoped that CCTV would increase crime prevention, with Rushcliffe wanting to lead by example having realistic and achievable goals. He confirmed that without considering relevant legal obligations and procedures it would be illegal to introduce mandatory CCTV. The review would look at issues related to privacy, together with all the regulations that would have to be complied with and he noted the points made about practical driving assessments. He agreed that it was imperative that this was looked at and everyone was united to do the best for Rushcliffe.

 

In accordance with Standing Order Paragraph 4.23, a recorded vote was taken for this item as follows:

 

FOR: Councillors M Barney, J Billin, R Bird, A Brennan, A Brown, R Butler, S Calvert, J Chaplain, K Chewings N Clarke, T Combellack, A Edyvean, S Ellis, G Fletcher, M Gaunt, E Georgiou, P Gowland, C Grocock, R Inglis, R Mallender, S Mallender, D Mason, P Matthews, H Om, H Parekh, A Phillips, L Plant, D Polenta, N Regan, D Simms, D Soloman, C Thomas, R Upton, D Virdi, J Walker, L Way, T Wells, J Wheeler, and G Williams

 

AGAINST: Councillors T Birch and S Dellar

 

It was RESOLVED that Council:

 

a)               approves the revised Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy (Appendix 1);

 

b)               requires a review to be undertaken in respect of potential mandating of CCTV in Taxi and Private Hire vehicles within 12 months, and the findings be reported to the Licensing Committee;

 

c)                sends a letter to the Secretary of State for Transport requesting Government take action to mandate CCTV provision within Taxi and Private Hire vehicles nationally;

 

d)               shares this letter with the Nottinghamshire Licensing Group, to request their endorsement of the Council’s position;

 

e)               engages and encourages licensed operators and drivers operating in the Borough to implement the voluntary CCTV scheme in their vehicles; and

 

f)                 consults with licensed operators and drivers in the Borough and industry representative groups and drivers’ trade unions, more broadly, to gain insights into developing and implementing the most effective CCTV schemes.