Agenda item

Ellie Greenwood, LGA Senior Adviser (Regulations) introduced the report, explaining that the Government was planning to respond to the Law Commission’s 2014 review of taxi and public hire vehicle (PHV) licensing. It was noted that while the report had been discussed three years ago, a lot had changed since then (such as the awareness of links between taxi/PHV licensing and child sexual exploitation) and further discussion was needed to ensure that the LGA’s submission to the Government was reflective of members’ current views. Given the ongoing media interest about councils having different standards, this was also an opportune time to be having another discussion.

It was noted that the key point of concern for councils over taxi/PHV licensing was the variation of licence standards applied by different authorities, coupled with the fact that drivers can nonetheless operate in areas other than those in which they are licensed. However, authorities cannot take enforcement action against drivers operating in their area if they have not been licensed by them. Some councils had been heavily criticised for their approaches to taxi and PHV licensing, while recent changes in the Deregulation Act and the advent of app-based booking had made it easier for PHVs to operate in other areas.

The report explained that there were two ways of responding to this challenge; 1) enforce a single, nationwide standard for licensing conditions or 2) restrict out of area activity. The Law Commission had proposed a national minimum standard for taxis, but a single national standard for PHVs. The suggested response by the LGA was that there should be a national minimum standard for both taxis and PHVs which still allows councils to retain flexibility to impose any local conditions, should they see fit. Alongside this, it was noted that the LGA could call for private hire journeys to start or finish in the area in which the driver is licensed.

A further idea which the LGA was looking at with the Institute of Licensing and others would be a voluntary database to which councils could contribute details of individuals who have lost their license or have had a license application refused.

Members made the following points:

·         Acknowledging that the current system is outdated, members welcomed the idea of establishing a national minimum standard for licensing but were clear that councils need a certain level of local determination in setting additional conditions. Members also agreed that starting or finishing a journey within the relevant licensing area would be a positive step forward.

·         Councils are responsible for enforcing licensing conditions in their area but are restricted to only taking action against drivers they themselves have licensed. Uber and PHVs do not only operate in one area and can therefore flood a busy area and operate where they are not subject to any particular conditions, which could lead to safeguarding issues.

·         A one size fits all system would not work across the country but a base level set of minimum standards is needed and sharing information about drivers would be beneficial.

·         On enforcement, members offered examples of the police working with councils’ enforcement officers to take cars off the road if they are in a poor condition and suggested that a multiagency approach would be positive.

·         A discussion was had about a national database with some members agreeing that it would be helpful to share information about who is licensed, who has been refused a license, and who has had their license revoked, while some were concerned about what this system would look like and who would contribute towards it.

·         Members queried whether it was worth trying to put together a Private Members’ Bill and taking a proactive approach to reforming outdated legislation.

·         Members noted that one key issue on licensing is that public carriage vehicle (PCV) licences are awarded and subject to a completely different set of standards from taxi and PHVs. Members were concerned about taxi and PHV drivers who had their applications refused or their licences revoked subsequently reappearing in the area with a minibus and a PCV licence. It was agreed that loopholes on PHV drivers obtaining PCV licenses should be closed, particularly as PCVs are often used to transport children – i.e. minibuses. 

·         There was recognition that Uber is a very popular service with high levels of customer satisfaction but that it needs to be better regulated with better employment standards for drivers themselves. Officers are due to meet with Uber representatives to discuss various issues including their use of technology, safeguarding, and specific concerns councils have raised about the proliferation of out of area Uber drivers.

·         A comment was made about the need to seek legislation with a positive and balanced approach which aims to offer protection for local communities without appearing to be anti-business or introducing too much red tape.

Decision:

Members noted the report and the recommendation.

Actions:

1.    At the request of Stockton Council, officers to attend a meeting with Alex Cunningham MP and the Transport Minister to discuss PCV licensing.

2.    Officers to consider the possibility of putting together a Private Members Bill in response to current outdated legislation.

3.    Officers to use comments made by members to feed into their draft of a formal LGA response to the Law Commission’s report.