Agenda item

To consider the results of the consultation feedback and agree there is not strong enough local evidence to support mandatory CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles; and, to review and enhance the current policy on optional CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles. 

31.1          The report of the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader, circulated at Pages No. 75-104, asked Members to consider the results of the consultation feedback on the draft county CCTV consultation document in hackney carriage (taxi) and private hire vehicles and to agree there was not enough strong local evidence to support mandatory CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles and that the current policy on optional CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles be reviewed and enhanced.

31.2          The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader explained that, due to the poor response to the consultation across the county as a whole, the results of did not give strong enough justification to impose mandatory CCTV on all taxi and private hire vehicles at this time.  A working group was being set up with Gloucestershire County Council and the local district authorities to work with the Local Government Association, the Institute of Licensing and Gloucestershire County Council’s school contracts team to consider changing the wording of the policy in terms of CCTV across the county.

31.3          A Member found it interesting that seven of the 10 responses had agreed that CCTV would benefit the safety of the licensed driver; the same number agreed that video CCTV would reduce the fear of crime and six agreed that CCTV would benefit the safety of passengers.  It seemed to him that, should there be an incident locally, everyone would be asking why CCTV had not been made mandatory.  The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader advised there had been a similar pattern in responses across Gloucestershire where it was recognised that CCTV would benefit both the driver and passenger.  The policy allowed drivers to install CCTV if they so wished, provided it was compliant with Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) standards; however, making it mandatory in licensed vehicles would put the licensing authority in the position of being the data controller which would require a significant piece of work.  A Member asked if it had been mandated by any other Councils and was informed that, in the last survey in 2020, 13 of more than 200 licensing authorities had mandatory CCTV in their licensed vehicles.  In response to a query as to whether the Police had a view, Members were advised that the Police had been consulted and had indicated there were no incidents where CCTV would have been beneficial.

31.4          A Member expressed disappointment with the response rate and that there was no intention to engage further.  He noted there were Councils which had mandated CCTV in licensed vehicles and felt this should be monitored in some way to obtain information to gain a better perspective on how useful it could be.  The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader explained that Greater Manchester had just mandated CCTV in licensed vehicles and she was in touch with that authority; furthermore, she currently chaired the Gloucestershire Licensing Officers Group (GLOG) and Southampton City Council had attended the last meeting and provided useful information which had helped the investigation when CCTV had been mandated at that authority.  There were concerns regarding cost to the licence holder with a good system in the region of £300 per year.  She provided assurance that discussions would be ongoing and it was possible that things would move forward quickly over the next 12 months.  A Member sought clarification as to the make-up of the county group and was advised that it comprised the Licensing Managers from the six district authorities within Gloucestershire with County Council involvement in terms of the school contracts compliance team and the Police.  Another Member asked for a rough idea of when something substantial would be brought back to the Committee in order for Members to make an informed decision and the Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader advised there were no timescales and there was no legal requirement – the statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards issued in 2020 had put the onus on licensing authorities to consider whether there was a need for CCTV in licensed vehicles and that requirement had been fulfilled.  Notwithstanding this, there was a need to update the wording; however, as the County Council was currently looking to tighten up its own policy wording, it was prudent to wait until that had been done. 

31.5          A Member indicated that he had expected the industry to be against mandatory CCTV but the consultation responses suggested they actually felt it was worthwhile.  Nevertheless, no members of the public had been engaged for their views - Parish Councils had been consulted but no responses had been received.  Personally, he believed that people would feel safer if CCTV was installed and he was reluctant to agree not to move forward with this.  He was interested what the review process would be and was keen for a further consultation exercise to be undertaken which included engaging with the public to establish if there was greater body of evidence to support mandatory CCTV in licensed vehicles, particularly as the limited responses so far did support it.  The Chair indicated that the key point was that there was still an option for CCTV to be installed should drivers so wish.  He was very disappointed at the absence of any public feedback but, whilst people may feel safer with CCTV, there may also be concerns about what happened to potentially ambiguous footage and control of data etc.  The report before the Committee demonstrated there was not enough evidence to make CCTV mandatory at this time, even though those who had responded to the consultation were largely in favour.  The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader indicated that she would be happy to bring a report to a future meeting of the Committee to update Members on progress of the working group and consider whether it would be appropriate to set up a Licensing Committee Working Group to look into this further.  A Member expressed the view that it made sense to do something jointly with Cheltenham Borough Council given that the majority of drivers licensed by Tewkesbury Borough tended to work in Cheltenham.  The Licensing Operations and Development Team Leader clarified that the Gloucestershire authorities were working together on this, it would be a County Council decision and all policies would align with that.  Several Members indicated that they did not recall Parish Councils being consulted and, in response to a query as to whether any acknowledgement of receipt was required, Members were informed that an email had been sent to all Parish and Town Councils on the Council’s distribution list but no formal acknowledgement was requested. The Chair recognised that greater engagement from communities was needed but that was an issue for the Council as a whole as opposed to this Committee.

31.6          It was

RESOLVED           That it be AGREED that:

i)                  there is not strong enough local evidence to support                                                mandatory CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles;

ii)                 to review and enhance the current policy on optional                                                CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles; and

iii)                a report on the progress of the county working group be                                              brought to a future Licensing Committee meeting.