Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
(First sitting) The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair: Hannah Bardell † Bailey, Shaun (West Bromwich West) (Con) †
Buckland, Robert (South Swindon) (Con) † Champion, Sarah
(Rotherham) (Lab) † Cruddas, Jon (Dagenham and Rainham) (Lab)
Eagle, Maria (Garston and Halewood) (Lab) Gibson, Patricia (North
Ayrshire and Arran) (SNP) † Gibson, Peter...Request free trial
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety)
Bill (First sitting)
The Committee consisted of the following Members:
Chair:
† (West Bromwich West)
(Con)
† (South Swindon) (Con)
† (Rotherham) (Lab)
† (Dagenham and Rainham)
(Lab)
(Garston and Halewood)
(Lab)
(North Ayrshire and
Arran) (SNP)
† (Darlington) (Con)
† (Parliamentary
Under-Secretary of State for Transport)
† (South Holland and The
Deepings) (Con)
† (Workington) (Con)
† (Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
† (Great Grimsby) (Con)
(Jarrow) (Lab)
† (Ilford South) (Lab)
† (Sevenoaks) (Con)
(Redcar) (Con)
† (Cambridge) (Lab)
Adam Mellows-Facer, Committee Clerk
† attended the Committee
Public Bill Committee
Wednesday 3 November 2021
[Hannah Bardell in the Chair]
Taxi and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety)
Bill
09:25:00
The Chair
Before we begin, I have a few preliminary reminders for the
Committee. Please switch electronic devices off or to silent. I
encourage Members to wear a mask when not speaking. In fact, we
had an update from the House a moment ago, yet to be issued
formally, indicating that Members should wear a mask when not
speaking. I am waiting for official confirmation of that, but I
would be very grateful if Members worked with me. Those who do
not have a mask will find some in the corner to my left. Thank
you very much for your compliance.
I remind everyone that they are asked by the House to have a
lateral flow test twice a week if coming on to the parliamentary
estate. That can be done either at the testing centre in the
House or at home. Hansard colleagues would be grateful if Members
passed across their speaking notes or emailed them to
hansardnotes@parliament.uk.
My selection and grouping for today’s meeting is available online
and in the room. A single amendment has been tabled, which we
will debate before turning to the existing content of the
Bill.
Clause 1
Relevant Information
(Ilford South) (Lab)
I beg to move amendment 1, in
clause 1, page 1, line 19, after
“driving” insert
“(assessed in accordance with DVLA standards and associated
sanctions)”.
This amendment would provide that a driver’s “risk to road safety
while driving” is assessed in line with DVLA standards and not
the individual assessment of the licensing authority.
It is an honour to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell. The
thinking behind the amendment is that a driver’s risk to road
safety while driving would be assessed in line with Driver and
Vehicle Licensing Agency standards, as opposed to the individual
assessment of the licensing authority. At present, licensing
authorities are not required to share information with other
authorities, which prevents them from being able to make an
informed decision about granting or renewing a driver’s licence.
That creates the conditions for a driver who has been refused a
licence, or who has had an existing licence suspended or revoked
because of safety concerns, to apply for a licence in another
area, where the new licensing authority is completely unaware of
the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. That is not
acceptable. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle
users at risk, and it goes against the recommendations of the
task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle
licensing.
It is paramount that driving standards are tightened. At present,
local authorities are using points on a licence to issue
revocations; instead of using DVLA criteria, they are issuing
individual revocations based on their own rules and the judgment
of individual officers. That sets a precedent that allows for
dismissals, potentially, based on reasons that are different from
those of the DVLA—based on the individual licensing authority and
therefore that driver. For instance, due to the nature of the
job, a driver may be pressured into speeding by a difficult
passenger and then will accrue points unfairly, which results in
them ultimately losing their job.
It is therefore clear that DVLA regulation should be the sole
framework by which drivers are assessed; it should not be left to
the judgment of an individual licensing officer. This would
create a consistent approach and help cut unnecessary bureaucracy
and reduce time spent in the courts system. I am aware that point
has previously been raised with the Transport. At present, there
is a great deal of uncertainty among representative bodies, such
as the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association, about whether the
Government will support the Bill. The Government have previously
indicated that there are no plans to legislate, but instead
strongly encourage all licensing authorities to adopt their new
statutory standards.
The current approach focuses on improving licensing through the
statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, published last
year, which local authorities are in the process of implementing
or consulting on. However, bodies such as the LTDA believe that
those standards do not go far enough. Furthermore, they do not
deliver all of the recommendations made by the task and finish
group. For example, they do not address the vital issue of
cross-border hiring, which currently undermines the efficacy of
licensing.
I therefore urge the Committee to consider the approach that I
have put forward and adopt a more robust stance that would
address passenger safety comprehensively and enhance existing
licensing legislation through national minimum standards that are
legally enforceable. The existing statutory standards are no
longer fit for purpose: while they urge data sharing between
local authorities and encourage the use of the existing NR3
database—the national register of taxi and private hire licence
refusals and revocations database—they do not mandate it, which
creates clear inconsistencies in the system.
In closing, I reiterate my earlier point that taxi or private
hire vehicle drivers operating out of an area in which they are
not licensed must be stopped. Furthermore, enforcement must be
shifted to a national level, which would allow local authorities
to issue enforcement within their jurisdiction. The Government
and the Bill could go further than simply encouraging licensing
authorities to adopt the statutory standards.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport
()
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington on his
success in promoting his private Member’s Bill. It brings our
attention to an important issue: how the licensing authorities
can best share information to ensure that the minority of
individuals who would seek to cause harm can be prevented from
obtaining a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence.
As the Bill does not change the decision-making process of the
licensing authorities, the amendment is an unnecessary
clarification of what we mean by road safety. Clause 1 seeks to
clarify which decisions by an authority to suspend, refuse or
revoke a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence should be
recorded on a database. For those purposes, the broad description
of road safety that is in use already would seem sufficient, as
all decisions made in relation to road safety should be available
for authorities to review when making their decisions.
Those authorities are of course still able to grant a new licence
to a driver who has a record on the database. They are not bound
by the previous decision, or by the fact that that is held on the
database. The guidance that the Government will produce, should
the Bill make it to the statute book, would clarify the terms in
more detail for the licensing authorities, so that they are clear
what decisions relating to road safety and other relevant
information should be recorded on the database. For those
reasons, the Government will resist the amendment.
(Darlington) (Con)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms
Bardell.
Clause 1 defines “Relevant information”. That definition is
important because it is used throughout the Bill to trigger when
there is a duty on a licensing authority to record instances of a
suspension, refusal or revocation of a driver’s licence on the
database, or to report concerns about drivers licensed in other
areas. Those duties apply only when the licensing decision relies
wholly or in part on the concerns related to relevant
information.
Licensing authorities are required to carry out an assessment of
whether a driver is fit and proper to hold a driver’s licence and
to ensure that remains the case for the duration of the licence.
Legislation already enables them to take a view of whether a
driver is a risk to road safety. Licensing authorities are
experienced at taking decisions on what poses a threat to road
safety and know that they must justify those decisions. Existing
checks and balances ensure that licensing authorities’ decisions
can be contested, including the ability to challenge an
authority’s assessment of any risk to road safety.
The Bill does not seek to change or influence the decision making
of licensing authorities, and nor does it change the right of a
driver to contest a decision; it is simply focused on ensuring
passenger safety. The Bill includes provisions for the Secretary
of State to issue guidance for licensing authorities, which I am
sure could be used to provide further guidance on the matter.
Following my explanation and that of the Minister, I hope that
the hon. Member for Ilford South will feel able to withdraw his
amendment.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure consistency across the
country. The GMB, the LTDA and other representatives of the
various minicab and private hire drivers across the country are
keen to see the Bill go through. I know from our discussions that
they want to have that ability in order to be certain that they
would not be penalised in one area that was in any way different
from the DVLA. I am also conscious that the Bill has been brought
before the House many times, in different guises, and I am keen
that we get as much Government support for it as possible. The
Bill can move forward on a cross-party basis, so that it gets
through and makes the changes that need to happen—many are
contained in the Bill. It would make a real difference. On that
basis, I will not press the amendment.
Sir (South Holland and The Deepings)
(Con)
rose—
The Chair
I call . Sorry, I call John Hayes—I
do apologise.
Sir
I am flattered.
I simply want to say how much I welcome the Bill, having
commissioned the work on taxi licensing as a Minister, as members
of the Committee will know. I particularly welcome it in the
light of the work done by the hon. Member for Cambridge, who, in
a model of cross-party co-operation, worked closely with my then
Department to look at these matters, which relate directly to the
Bill before us.
The Committee will know of the work done by Professor Mohammed
Abdel-Haq, who was commissioned to consider these matters in
detail and who recommended a review of licensing in the interests
of public wellbeing and safety. That came on the back of the
awful events in Rotherham, Rochdale and elsewhere. I do not need
to lecture members of the Committee on that, particularly the
hon. Member for Rotherham, who has taken such a brave and noble
stand in these matters, but I think this is a first step.
I will just say to the Minister, who is a good and honourable
friend—one can be good and honourable at the same time, can one
not?—that the recommendations in the important document that I
have before me, which is the review conducted by Professor
Abdel-Haq, are wide-ranging. This private Member’s Bill deals
with some of them, but I urge the Minister to look at many of the
other recommendations. I do not want to go beyond the scope of
the Bill, Ms Bardell, but I hope you will forgive me for adding
this, because many other things in the recommendations—there is a
whole list of recommendations, but I will not tire the Committee
by going through them—need to be addressed. Some will be
legislative, and some may not be. Some can be achieved by giving
improved guidance. I know the Secretary of State is mindful of
that and has done a great deal of work on it, and no doubt the
Minister will comment on it, but I just want to welcome the Bill
in that context, with that history and with a very strong
recommendation.
This is a first step in guaranteeing what is the essential
element in licensing: public safety and wellbeing. With those few
thoughts—probably at the wrong part of the Bill and at the wrong
time of the Committee, but clearly with your generous indulgence,
Ms Bardell—I will say no more, because I know that the Committee
will want to move on.
(South Swindon) (Con)
May I crave your indulgence for a moment, Ms Bardell, given that
you very kindly invoked me? I just want to put on the record my
personal commitment to this issue. The hon. Member for Rotherham
and I have a long history on this issue. When was the Secretary of State, I
was part of intimate ministerial groups talking about the need to
deal with taxi drivers whom other taxi drivers did not want in
the industry. This measure is as much about protecting reputable,
decent public servants, which is what taxi drivers are, from
those who seek to use this vocation or trade as a smokescreen for
other activities. Tragically, we saw that in Rotherham. I was
very keen to see the Bill introduced when I was in office, and I
am hugely grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington
for bringing it forward with Government support.
I also want to put on the record my local interest in this issue.
Sian O’Callaghan was tragically murdered by a taxi driver in
Swindon in 2011. With the help of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust, her
mother, Elaine Pickford, has campaigned relentlessly ever since
to improve the quality of regulation in this area. I want to put
on the record my personal thanks to her and her family for
everything they have done with such dignity since the dreadful
events of 10 years ago, when I was still a fresh-faced Member of
Parliament. Therefore, for local and personal reasons, I am
particularly pleased that this measure has been brought forward
with the support of the Government.
The Chair
I thank the right hon. and learned Member for South Swindon and
the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings for
their contributions, which are incredibly important and powerful.
They have my apologies for mixing them up. They appear to have
co-ordinated their wardrobes this morning, which led to my
confusion. I give them my sincere apologies for that.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Question proposed, That the clause stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
With this it will be convenient to consider clauses 2 to 9 stand
part.
This Bill aims to do two things. First, it introduces a mandatory
database of taxi and private hire vehicle driving licence
suspensions, refusals and revocations for all licensing
authorities in England. Secondly, it creates duties on licensing
authorities in England to report safeguarding and road safety
concerns about drivers licensed by other authorities, and for
those authorities to have a duty to take account of those
concerns. These are essential changes to empower our licensing
authorities to continue in their tireless work to keep the
travelling public safe by giving them the information they need
to make informed licensing decisions.
I have already spoken about clause 1, so I will move on to talk
about the other clauses relating to the database and the
responsibilities of licensing authorities to it. I will speak
first to clause 4, as it pertains to the database itself, and
then I will discuss clauses 2 and 3, which relate to the duties
on licensing authorities to use it.
Clause 4 gives the Secretary of State the power to provide or
designate a database to record the suspensions, refusals and
revocations of taxis and private hire vehicles driving licences.
This allows for a database, such as the NR3 database established
by the Local Government Association and the National Anti Fraud
Network, to be designated as the database that all authorities
must use. This should help the Bill come into effect and provide
its benefits much sooner, as this system is already being used
voluntarily by many good local authorities.
Clause 4(3)(b) would ensure that there is a reasonable time limit
for holding entries about a driver. The 11-year period specified
in the Bill ensures that the information is available to
licensing authorities to support their decision making, while
still allowing, in line with other record keeping such as
Disclosure and Barring Service checks, for that prior history to
no longer be disclosed. The 11-year period broadly aligns with
the filtering of less serious adult convictions within the regime
in which the disclosure and barring regime operates. It is also
worth remembering that all licensing authorities require drivers
to be subject to an enhanced DBS check and most to a barred list
check, with relevant convictions and non-conviction information
disclosed as part of this process.
Clause 2 creates a duty on licensing authorities in England to
record on the database information about certain suspensions,
refusals and revocations. As explained earlier, authorities would
have to record all suspensions, refusals and revocations of taxi
and private hire driving licences where they have relied, at
least partly, on relevant information, by which we mean
safeguarding or road safety concerns. Clause 2 also ensures that
those records are made promptly within five days of the decision
being made and that authorities must keep their database entries
up to date, including those as a result of appeals. That means
that the information that authorities use to make their licensing
decisions will be as current as possible, which is essential for
effective decision making.
The database would also hold only basic information about a
decision and the licence holder, to allow authorities to search
effectively. To receive details of a decision, the authority
would need to contact the relevant authority that had made the
entry. That ensures that only those with a business need for the
details of those licensing decisions can access them.
(Rotherham) (Lab)
It is a real pleasure to serve under your chairship, Ms Bardell.
On a point of clarification, will the fee associated with
database entries be paid by the local authority or by the
individual, and does the hon. Gentleman anticipate that it will
be enough to cover all the administration costs, or does he think
that the Government will need to, in effect, underwrite the
database?
I thank the hon. Member for that intervention. From the
information that I have been provided, because the majority of
local authorities are already part of the National Anti Fraud
Network, which runs the database, the additional cost that will
be incurred by local authorities that were not already adding to
the database in doing so is marginal. I think it will be a couple
of pounds per driver entry, so it is a nominal cost, which I am
sure she will agree is a small price to pay.
09:45:00
While clause 2 creates the duty to populate the database, clause
3 creates the duty to use the information on it. Clause 3 would
require licensing authorities in England to search the database
for the applicant every time they receive an application for a
new taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence, or a renewal
of an existing one. If there is an entry on the database, the
authority must request it, and then have regard to the
information that it receives from the relevant authority when
making its decision. It is important to note that the authority
is not bound by the previous decision. The clause is essential as
it ensures that the database, populated by licensing authorities
to protect the public, will be used effectively.
Clause 3 also places a responsibility on authorities to provide
the details of a licensing decision recorded on the database
within 20 working days. That ensures that the processing time for
applications is not unduly affected by those new
responsibilities. I hope that the Committee will agree that the
database, and the requirement to use it, will greatly improve the
safety of the travelling public by rooting out the minority of
drivers and prospective drivers who are unsafe or would cause
harm to our constituents.
The second part of the Bill—clauses 5 and 6—relates to the
reporting of concerns about drivers licensed in other areas.
Members may already know that licensing authorities can revoke
only the taxi and private hire vehicle driver’s licences that
they have issued. As we all know, drivers work outside the area
in which they are licensed. The clauses seek to empower local
authority collaboration where drivers are working in an
authority’s area but are licensed elsewhere. Clause 5 would
require licensing authorities in England to report safeguarding
or road safety concerns that they have uncovered about a driver
licensed by another authority to that authority within 10 working
days. Importantly, licensing authorities in England would still
be required to report those concerns if the relevant licensing
authority for the driver was in Scotland or Wales.
Clause 5 creates the duty to report concerns, while clause 6
creates the duty to act on them. Clause 6 requires licensing
authorities in England to consider information provided to them
by another licensing authority in England, Scotland or Wales. The
authority must decide within 20 working days whether to suspend
or revoke the driver’s licence, and inform the relevant authority
of the outcome, as well as its rationale. The clauses will boost
the effectiveness of our current system of regulation for taxi
and private hire vehicles by formalising that collaboration
between licensing authorities. Alongside the establishment of a
nationwide database for licence suspensions, refusals and
revocations, those changes would help to safeguard our community
by ensuring that only those who are fit and proper can have the
responsibility of being a taxi or private hire vehicle
driver.
Clause 7 would allow the Secretary of State to issue statutory
guidance to licensing authorities to outline how to meet the
requirements of the Bill. I do not want to pre-empt the
Minister’s Department, but I expect the guidance to go into
further detail on when, and how, the duties would apply. Clause 8
defines some of the key terms in the Bill, other than “relevant
information”, which is defined, as we have discussed, in clause
1. Clause 9 clarifies the extent and commencement of the Bill. As
a point of clarity, the Bill would apply only to England.
Although the Bill grants access to the database to all licensing
authorities in the UK, the requirements in the Bill apply only to
licensing authorities in England, although I am advised that the
voluntary scheme is accessed and used by Scottish and Welsh local
authorities.
The clause also allows a staged commencement of the Bill to allow
time for the Secretary of State to create or designate a database
and produce guidance for licensing authorities. I hope that my
walk through the Bill has been helpful to the Committee, and that
everyone here today will seek to add to the range of measures
that the law provides to protect the safety and security of our
constituents, which the Bill does by closing loopholes in our
taxi and private hire licensing system. The reasons that I have
set out make it clear why it would be a good addition to our
statute book, and it would be a clear improvement to public
safety across all our constituencies.
The Chair
I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution and I
congratulate him on introducing the Bill. I now call the hon.
Member who promoted the Bill previously and has done a lot of
work in this area—Daniel Zeichner.
(Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Ms Bardell,
and a pleasure to find myself in this Bill Committee some three
and a half years late—a long wait for a cab, one might say. I
also congratulate the hon. Member for Darlington, who has
elegantly explained the issues and proposed solutions. I hope
that in a cross-party way we can see the Bill through to
fruition. I strongly echo the wise words of the right hon. Member
for South Holland and The Deepings, the long-term author of many
of the proposals, but, as he says, there is much more to be
done.
I will not repeat the points that I raised on Second Reading, but
will make a few observations. I looked back to see the minor
differences between the two Bills, and will seek an explanation
as to why there have been changes, which might give some pointers
to the Department’s thinking. I am not sure whether they came
from the Minister or the hon. Member. There are minor changes in
the short title, or is it the long title?—I can never remember
which—of the Bill. There might be some thinking in the Department
as to why that was done.
I have already mentioned the fees that have been introduced into
the Bill this time, which seem a sensible addition. There is a
subtle change in clause 5’s terminology from “out-of-area” to
“licensed in other areas”. I am not sure whether that represents
a change in the Department’s thinking. It is obviously a vexed
issue with changing technologies. As we have all observed, much
of the legislation was created at a time when things were
genuinely local. In the modern world of apps it is very
different, so the change in terminology might be telling us
something that we should be aware of.
I particularly wanted to refer to the excellent Library briefing
by Dr Roger Tyers, issued some months ago. I was interested in
that briefing because there is reference to the short debate
three and a half years ago on a Friday, when the Bill was talked
out. Many of us who have witnessed Fridays in the Chamber will
recognise that it is not the most uplifting way of discussing
legislation. I was slightly frustrated that, as promoter of the
Bill, I never had a chance to respond to some of the points made
that afternoon, so, three and a half years later, I shall use the
Library briefing to pick up the thread.
Very subtly in that Library briefing on page 11 there are
references to some of the points made by the hon. Gentleman who
talked it out, which were quite sensible. It was not just a
question of filling the time, because important points were
raised around proportionality and the definition of relevant
information. One point made was about whether the measure was far
too draconian, so that we were in danger of potentially punishing
people in too dramatic a way for a relatively minor misdemeanour.
It is important to put it on the record why that is not what the
Bill tries to do. There are some answers to that in the Library
briefing in a reference to the National Anti Fraud Network
data-sharing agreement, which I doubt is background reading for
most people, but I dug it out.
A long time ago, as a local councillor, I was on the licensing
committee. People here in Committee have served on licensing
committees and will know that the area is very complicated. There
is guidance from the Department, but there is also local
discretion. This is one of those issues that are sensitive,
because there are different issues in different areas—sadly, as
we know—and very good reasons why some authorities would want to
have higher standards, so although there is a debate about
national standards, it is not a simple debate. What really struck
me in the data-sharing notice from the National Anti Fraud
Network, which I think is worth quoting, was where it says:
“Every application must always be considered on its own merits. A
licensing authority must not fetter its decision-making, or
appear to have simply relied upon the previous decision of
another authority. The purpose of the register is not to mean
that an applicant who has been refused a licence on one occasion
will always be refused.”
In other words, all that is happening here is that as much
information as possible is being made available to those making
decisions. It is not pre-empting the decision. That document goes
on to make the very sensible point that
“it will always be relevant for an authority to consider a
previous refusal or revocation, and the reasons for that
decision.”
I will not labour the point, but I think the answers to the
issues that were raised in the few minutes at the end of the
debate to which I have referred can be answered, and I put it on
the record that they have been answered. This raises a further,
technical set of issues, which I suspect the right hon. and
learned Member for South Swindon is far better placed to have a
view on than I am, in relation to the complex relationship
between the police and local authorities, in terms of what they
can and cannot tell local authorities. Certainly when I was
researching this legislation some years ago, I was very struck by
the expertise of some of the licensing officers, who were
explaining the nuances of this. Of course, there was a time when,
in local areas, people knew their patch: the police knew their
patch and the council knew its patch. It is sometimes quite hard
to write these things down, but they would know who were the
people whom it would be absolutely right to give another chance
and who were the people whom we would not ever want to take a
risk on. Trying to codify that is hard but I believe that, in the
complicated web of legislation that we have, we may be getting
closer to something that works. In the end, the real aim here
must be passenger safety; it has to be. This goes right back to
the professor’s point that he remains worried that, in the
current situation, people are still at risk.
As ever, none of this is easy. We are trying to balance
protection of the public with being reasonable to drivers, who
may sometimes make a mistake and deserve a second chance—I think
we would all want that. But I think that this Bill does no more
than stop the gaming of the system, and that it is absolutely to
be commended.
I begin by thanking the hon. Member for Darlington for bringing
forward the Bill. It is much needed and very sensible. Of course,
I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge for all the
work that he has done and thank the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms
Ghani). When she was the Minister for this subject area, she was
going to bring forward some more comprehensive taxi legislation.
I hope that the present Minister will consider the work that she
has done and consider finding time to bring that forward.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon
spoke about the long relationship that we have had on this topic,
and I want to bring a bit of that to the debate, so that
everybody, but particularly the Minister, knows why this
legislation is so important. I learnt about taxi licensing
because Rotherham Council got it horribly, horribly wrong. I am
delighted to say now that because of how wrong we got it and
because of Government intervention, we now have some of the
highest standards in the country. That is important because
taxis, by their very nature, tend to be transporting, in a real
position of trust, some of the most vulnerable people in the
country. It is taxis that are commissioned to take children to
school, and to take children and adults with special needs to
where they need to be. We put our most precious loved ones into
the back of a cab, on the assumption that the person will take as
much care with their transportation as we would. Sadly, as we
discovered in Rotherham, that was not the case. Children were
known for their vulnerabilities, picked up because of that and
exploited—sometimes in the taxi by some of the taxi drivers. But
sometimes they were being commissioned from place to place and
taken by the taxi drivers to do it. And they were doing all this
in plain sight, because taxis, by their very nature, are
transporting vulnerable people around, so it was not discovered
in time.
(West Bromwich West)
(Con)
I am so grateful to the hon. Lady for giving way and thank her
for raising the SEND issue. We had a bad issue in Sandwell
involving a SEND transport contract that was handed out, and
safeguarding requirements not being met. Is she as hopeful as I
am that the new database could be used in procurement by local
authorities? That will be really important, as I am sure she
agrees, in ensuring that our most vulnerable—particularly those
with special educational needs, for example—are protected when
they are being transported to where they need to go.
10:00:00
I wholeheartedly agree. I will highlight two—I will not call them
omissions; that is not in the nature of this Bill
Committee—additions that the Minister could consider in the
future. Given the experience in this room, I hope they will be
supported. The first, which the hon. Member for Darlington
raised, is cross-border travel. I said that Rotherham now has
some of the highest standards in the country. Unfortunately,
because those standards are not replicated nationally—having CCTV
in all taxis, for example—a taxi driver with lower standards
could come from out of area to work in Rotherham. They may well
be on the database and they may well have not committed any crime
of note, but they would still be able to operate in Rotherham
with lower standards of safety and protection for passengers.
Will the Minister consider bringing in, at a later date, national
minimum standards that apply to all taxi drivers, so that someone
getting into a taxi, wherever they are, can have that same
certainty?
The second addition—this is a rather a geeky point; my right hon.
Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings knows I am
slightly obsessed with this—is around Disclosure and Barring
Service checks. I met a woman whose abuser went to jail and then
changed his name by deed poll, so his DBS check was clean,
because the checks basically look at someone’s name and any
associated records attached to that name. The Government are
currently undertaking—I hope—an inquiry into the risks associated
with change of name. It is known that registered sex offenders do
that. There have been a number of high-profile cases that my
right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon has
been involved in. It happens. I am really concerned that close
that particular loophole. I would appreciate anything the
Minister could say to the Home Office and Justice, which are both
looking into this, to make sure that the loophole is closed.
Sir
Those issues were looked at in some detail, as the hon. Lady will
know, by Professor Abdel-Haq in the report that I commissioned. I
am grateful for her kind words, by the way. Cross-border travel
is a thorny issue, but Professor Abdel-Haq’s recommendation 11
states:
“Government should legislate that all taxi and PHV—
private hire vehicles—
“journeys should start and/or end within the area for which the
driver, vehicle and operator (PHV and taxi…are licensed.”
He goes on to say that appropriate measures need to be put in
place to exempt specialist services, such as chauffeurs,
disability transport services and others. However, the huge issue
of cross-border journeys was looked at in some detail by that
committee. Professor Abdel-Haq also looked at her second
recommendation. I take the view of the hon. Member for Cambridge
about local particularities, but I would go so far as to say that
we cannot be too rigorous. There has to be a thorough and
rigorous process that gives people the assurance that, wherever
they get a taxi, those standards and checks will be in place. I
strongly endorse the hon. Lady’s recommendations. This is
precisely the kind of additional work that I recommended in my
earlier intervention, and which I know the Minister will want to
take forward.
Dr (Sleaford and North
Hykeham) (Con)
Will the hon. Lady give way?
The Chair
Perhaps the hon. Member for Rotherham might like to respond to
the previous intervention before she takes a further
intervention.
I would be delighted to. I can only thank my right hon. Friend
the Member for South Holland and The Deepings for the work he has
done in the past, and for the emphasis he puts on the
cross-border issue now. He knows only too well the risk, but also
the potentially quite simple solutions that we could put in place
to give every passenger that certainty. I thank him again for
raising that.
Dr Johnson
I listened carefully to the hon. Lady, and if I heard her
correctly, she suggests that someone could evade DBS checks by
changing their name by deed poll. If so, that has much wider
application than taxi drivers; it would also apply to those
working in healthcare professions and with children in schools. I
would press the Minister to look at that urgently.
I can only say that I share the hon. Member’s concerns. It is
something that keeps me awake at night, I must say. In the case
of the survivor who I am speaking about, Bella, the perpetrator
changed his name while in jail. It is a very simple process that
can be done through an online form or on paper. The checks are so
slight that they are incredibly easy to evade.
I am deeply grateful for all the work done by hon. Members in the
room on the topic. I urge the Minister to refer to the points we
have raised, particularly around the cross-border matter and the
change of name. This is not a political issue; it is a
safeguarding issue, and I hope the Minister takes what we say in
that spirit.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge, who has a great
deal of expertise on this issue and has worked cross party in
such a fantastic way to bring these measures forward, I do not
want to talk too much about the points I made on Second Reading.
However, it is important to note that there is so much consensus
across the House on the need for the Bill. The hon. Member for
Darlington has worked incredibly hard; he has spoken with
stakeholders and taxi users and has reached out across the House
in a commendable way. For Members on the Labour Front Bench, this
is something that needs to happen as soon as possible, with the
Government’s support.
We have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham about
the harrowing and tragically avoidable situations that the
legislation could begin to address. As she explained, the taxi
system has been used to abuse people; it needs to transition to
being a shining light in terms of standards. I hope that
Government support for this private Member’s Bill can make that a
national priority.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich West made a good point about
SEND transport. It is imperative that everyone, including older
and disabled members of our communities, is fully confident in
their taxi driver. Recently, we have seen a huge growth in taxi
systems; we can pick up our phone and have a taxi at the front
door in just a few minutes. As a London MP, I am perhaps more
confident than others, given Transport for London’s regulatory
framework, but the situation is not necessarily the same across
the country. There is the well-known issue of some local
authorities, which I will not necessarily name, issuing a vast
number of licences. In fact, there were so many licences in some
of those cities that the streets would surely be gridlocked with
taxis. In reality, the situation in those towns and cities is
perhaps more about bumping up the funds available to the local
authority than safety and addressing the issues of cross-border
working.
In my Second Reading speech, I mentioned how long it has taken
for the measures to get to this point. One reason why I was
prepared to withdraw my amendment is that I want the Government
to move forward on this. Many of the recommendations of the task
and finish group are partly addressed in the Bill. It could still
go further, but something is obviously better than nothing. We
have in the Bill some key measures, which the hon. Member for
Darlington has worked hard to put there. It will move things
forward, get on the statute book, put national standards in place
and, importantly, introduce the database, which can be checked
across the country. That is essential to ensuring we do not have
a patchwork approach across the country. As in any other sector,
standardising safety means setting national standards, and it is
important that this legislation makes that happen. I hope we can
move forward positively.
First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for the
sheer amount of work and dedication he has invested in bringing
this private Member’s Bill forward. I also thank right hon. and
hon. Members from across the House who have expertise in this
legislation and in transport going back many years. I should
mention the work done by the hon. Member for Cambridge on this
important passenger safety issue.
Passenger safety in taxis and private hire vehicles is a priority
for this Government, which is why we are keen to support the
legislation. I reiterate that the vast majority of licensed taxi
and private hire vehicle drivers are fit and proper persons, who
are a credit to the sector and their communities. However, we
must ensure that those who are not fit and proper people to hold
a licence are not able to do so. It has been set out this morning
why that is so important, and the implications of getting it
wrong.
Last year, the Government issued the statutory taxi and private
hire vehicle standards, which outlined how licensing authorities
can best safeguard many of the vulnerable citizens who use those
services. One of the recommendations in those standards is the
use of the national register of refusals and revocations, which
is hosted by the National Anti Fraud Network. Some licensing
authorities are using NR3, but not all. Clauses 2, 3 and 4 of the
Bill would rectify that by mandating the use of a database that
records not only refusals and revocations, but suspensions.
There has been reference to the cost of that database. We would
hope that it could be in house; it should certainly be not for
profit, and would be done at the minimum possible cost. It would
give licensing authorities more information with which to make
informed decisions on who we entrust with the responsibility of
being a taxi or private hire vehicle driver. That can only be a
good thing. The more information available to licensing
authorities, the better their decision making will be.
The Bill rightly focuses on safeguarding and road safety issues.
Refusals, revocations or suspensions relating at least partly to
the safeguarding and safety criteria set out in clause 1 must be
recorded on the database. The criteria are sufficiently broad to
ensure that all manner of safeguarding, road safety and
discrimination concerns can be highlighted to a licensing
authority making its decision.
Clauses 5 and 6 also introduce duties on licensing authorities in
England to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas
and to act on any concerns reported to them. The Government
wholeheartedly support these provisions, which would ensure that,
where authorities have concerns about a licensed driver relating
to the criteria set out in the first clause, they can do
something about it. As many on the Committee will no doubt know,
a licensing authority can only revoke or suspend a taxi and
private hire vehicle driver’s licence if it issued it. Under this
duty, if a driver licensed in another area is behaving in an
unsafe manner, or other concerns are raised, the authority
responsible for issuing the licence must consider their
suitability again.
The clauses would greatly improve not only the collaboration
between our licensing authorities, but the effectiveness of their
collaboration with other agencies such as the police, who may
report a concern to the local licensing authority, which may then
be under a duty to pass it on to the relevant licensing
authority.
Dr Johnson
I am grateful to the Government for supporting the fantastic Bill
proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington. Women and
girls in particular use taxis of an evening to get them home
safely. They are used as a safety measure, so the work that my
hon. Friend and the Minister are doing is extremely important.
The Minister has talked about collaboration between different
parts of England. This Bill applies only to England, because this
is a devolved matter. Will she elaborate on what she is doing to
ensure good collaboration between all four parts of the United
Kingdom?
10:15:00
This is indeed a devolved matter, but we very much hope that the
devolved Administrations in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland
learn from what we do here and are inspired by the work of
Members from across the House. The priority is safety and
accountability. The devolved Administration in Wales is already
considering ways forward to protect the most vulnerable people.
This Bill is an excellent step.
My right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The
Deepings has extensive experience in transport, and I absolutely
agree with him on the importance of safety. My right hon. and
learned Friend the Member for South Swindon referred to
legislation, and there will be further legislation in due course.
The Bill covers a defined aspect of the issue.
I welcome what the shadow Minister, the hon. Member for Ilford
South, said about not delaying this important change, and I thank
the hon. Member for Rotherham for the cross-party, collaborative
way she has worked to tackle the challenges in her constituency.
The work she has done will save many more women from further
incidents.
Sir
My hon. Friend is coming to her exciting peroration and I do not
want to spoil that, but the issue of DBS checks is really
important. There are more than 30 recommendations from Professor
Abdel-Haq, all of which warrant close attention. Those that
require legislation need to be taken forward. The recommendation
on DBS checks says:
“All licensing authorities must require drivers to subscribe to
the DBS update service and DBS checks should must be carried out
at a minimum of every six months. Licensing authorities must use
their existing power to mandate this ahead of inclusion as part
of national standards.”
That point was emphasised and amplified by the hon. Member for
Rotherham. It is critical. That could be done in addition to the
excellent work that has been done by my hon. Friend the Member
for Darlington in bringing forward this Bill. Perhaps the
Minister will—if it is not impolite to suggest a response to my
query—go away and consider that.
I will of course go away and consider that, and more importantly,
we will work with colleagues in the Home Office. There has been
some really important and concerning discussion about name
changes in relation to DBS checks, and we are working on that
issue with colleagues.
The Bill is an excellent step, and my hon. Friend the Member for
Darlington has received support for it from across the House. I
reiterate my thanks for the collaborative way in which we have
got to this point. I look forward to following the Bill through
its parliamentary stages.
This House is at its best when people work together, and this
Committee has been a shining example of that co-operation and
collaboration. I thank all right hon. and hon. Members who have
been on this short Committee. This is a short but vital Bill, and
I thank everyone for sharing their expertise.
The hon. Member for Rotherham has been a champion of reform in
this area, and I pay tribute to her passionate work. The hon.
Member for Cambridge, who I will designate the grandfather of the
Bill, if I may, has been entirely co-operative throughout the
process, and I thank him for his expertise and the care with
which he has attended to the Committee’s proceedings. If the hon.
Member for Cambridge is the grandfather of the Bill, then my
right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings
is its great-grandfather. I thank him for his help, assistance
and guidance throughout.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon—my
good friend—is the Bill’s great-uncle. As he rightly pointed out,
Sian O’Callaghan tragically lost her life at the hands of a taxi
driver. Sian’s family and the Suzy Lamplugh Trust have been
incredibly supportive of the Bill. It would be a fitting tribute
to Sian if the Bill were to become known as Sian’s law.
I also thank the Lord Commissioner of Her Majesty's Treasury, my
hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (), for her guidance on and
navigation of the maze that is a private Member’s Bill. She has
been stalwart in her help and support. I also thank the Minister
on her first appearance as Minister in Committee.
In conclusion, I record my thanks to those who work behind the
scenes, including the officials at the Department for Transport,
who have put in the legwork on the Bill, and our Clerk, Mr
Mellows-Facer, who has been incredibly supportive over the past
few months. I hope that all members of the Committee will see the
Bill through today. I look forward to their joining me in the
Chamber on 21 January for Third Reading.
Question put and agreed to.
Clause 1 accordingly ordered to stand part of the Bill.
Clauses 2 to 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.
The Chair
I endorse the words of the hon. Member for Darlington and
congratulate him and all other Members who have played such an
important part in getting the Bill to this point. I also
congratulate the staff of the House and those outside who have
been mentioned—they have played a significant part. This will be
an important date for them. The hon. Gentleman is right that we
are at our best when we work cross-party to get things done.
Bill to be reported, without amendment.
|
