Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Friday 10th September 2021
(3 years, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
This Bill may look familiar to some hon. Members, particularly the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who introduced a similar Bill in the 2017-19 Parliament. I am pleased to see him in his place today and thank him for his hard work on the earlier Bill, and I thank all members of the all-party parliamentary group on taxis, which he now chairs.
I am also indebted to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), both former Transport Ministers, who have worked hard on this issue and whose assistance in recent weeks has been invaluable.
I am also grateful to those three Members for co-sponsoring the Bill, along with my right hon. Friends the Members for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes), for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill) and for Tatton (Esther McVey), the hon. Member for Rotherham (Sarah Champion), the right hon. and learned Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ashfield (Lee Anderson).
This Bill has a very simple purpose, which is to ensure that only those fit to hold a licence are entrusted to carry the public. It will enhance public safety by mandating the sharing of relevant and necessary information. Simply put, better decisions are made when more information is available.
Although the Bill’s focus is to protect the public, it will also protect the hundreds of thousands of decent, hard-working drivers from having their reputation tarnished and their profession diminished by the abhorrent behaviour of a small minority who would seek to abuse their position of trust.
Just under 343,000 taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences are currently issued in England. Decisions on licensing are made by 276 licensing authorities. In each case, the authority must reach a decision as to whether a person is fit and proper. Although this is not defined in law, there is, by and large, consistency in safety-related criteria and processes. All licensing authorities require an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service criminal background check, and virtually all have the enhanced DBS checks carried out. This is reassuring, but it is only part of the picture.
There will be many cases across the country where the conduct of an individual has been unacceptable. However, these incidents might not result in the involvement of the police, let alone a prosecution or conviction. Some incidents may potentially be a criminal offence, but I am sure we all accept that not every crime reported ends with a conviction. That is not to say these incidents did not happen.
This Bill does not trespass into the realm of the Disclosure and Barring Service; rather it provides an additional means to enable the sharing of relevant information. Neither does it alter any of the existing processes that enable a driver to challenge the decision of a licensing authority. It will require licensing authorities to keep registers of licences issued and to make this information available on request. There is no mandatory requirement to share information with other licensing authorities on revocations, refusals or suspensions. Some licensing authorities do use the voluntary national register of taxi and private hire licence revocations and refusals—quite a mouthful, but it is commonly referred to as the NR3. It is commissioned by the Local Government Association and operated by the National Anti Fraud Network. Although some licensing authorities check information on NR3, others rely on applicants self-declaring whether they have had a licence refused, suspended or revoked. As one might expect, those with something to hide are unlikely to declare it, even if they face a greater sanction for not doing so.
Where an authority does not use NR3 to ensure a complete picture, a licensing authority would have to individually contact every one of the other 275 licensing authorities, somehow provide a unique identifier, and await all relevant or nil responses. Such a process is clearly impractical. I am informed that this has resulted in instances where a driver, having been refused a licence for safeguarding reasons by one authority, has then had their application accepted by another, in ignorance of the original safety concern. Once a licence has been granted, it is only the licensing authority that issued it that can revoke or suspend a driver’s licence. Although the expectation is that licensing authorities in one area will report concerns that they may have about a driver licensed by another authority and that those concerns will be acted on, there is currently no legal requirement to do so.
This Bill builds on the approach set out in the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards issued by the Government in 2020, which recommends that licensing authorities share information with other authorities, as better information will mean better decisions. The objective is to improve the knowledge of the tax and private hire vehicle trade’s gatekeepers and enforcers: the licensing authorities.
The first part of the Bill is intended to ensure that in their role as gatekeepers to the trade, licensing authorities have as much relevant information as possible when considering new or renewal licence applications. The second part is intended to ensure that, in their role as enforcers, licensing authorities are aware of any incidents involving their drivers, even when they are working in other areas.
I appreciate that there are those here and elsewhere who would like to see wider reforms to our legislative framework, under which taxis and private hire vehicles are licensed, but more substantial changes cannot be done through this Bill. Indeed, in my engagement with industry bodies and operators, many suggestions have been put forward to me about what other wide-ranging improvements could be made, but this Bill simply focuses on passenger safety, which is a key concern to all of us in this House.
The Bill would require all licensing authorities in England to record and input into the database instances where they have refused to grant or renew a driver’s licence, or have suspended or revoked a licence, because of a certain safeguarding or road safety concern. When processing applications, licensing authorities will be required to search the database for any relevant entries made and request any relevant information that the first authority relied on to make their decision. The authority processing the application must then have regard to the previous information when making its own licensing decisions.
Anthony Mangnall (Totnes) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this Bill to the House. I noticed that clause 1(g) includes as “relevant information”, whether an applicant
“has threatened, abused or insulted another person”.
That is quite a broad position, which could be misinterpreted by different local authorities. I am quite interested in what my hon. Friend thinks needs to be done in terms of an appeals process in case someone is taken off the road, because that is how a local authority has interpreted whether someone is suitable to be a licensed vehicle driver, taxi driver or whatever it may be. Is there more to be done on the appeals process?
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend raises an important concern. The Bill would not change or constrict licensing authorities’ existing discretion to grant licences to drivers.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I should just clarify that local licensing authorities have licensing panels that hear evidence and give taxi drivers opportunities to make their case, so protections are already in place.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is correct. The Bill does not change the existing licensing authorities regime and does not affect the appeals process, appeals panels or applications to the magistrates court.
The relevant information that led to the decision would not be recorded on the database but kept by the licensing authority and shared with other licensing authorities if they requested it. The information on the database would simply flag instances of applications for a driver’s licence being refused or of the suspension or revocation of a driver’s licence.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
This is an important Bill. Does my hon. Friend agree that the timeliness of the information sharing is crucial? If someone has their licence revoked but seeks to get one from another authority, we do not want the information not to be on the database for the second licensing authority to check. It is crucial that information is shared in a timely manner and can be checked. Will my hon. Friend speak to that?
Peter Gibson
That very point is considered in the Bill, which gives local authorities a time limit for the entering of such information on the database. In that way, playing one local authority off against another—that circumnavigation, loophole or lacuna—is effectively dealt with.
To achieve its aims, the Bill enables the Secretary of State to provide or designate a person to provide a licensing information database. It enables the database operator to charge a fee in respect of the costs of the database, but such a fee will not be levied automatically.
I risk repeating a mantra, but better decisions are made when more information is available. The existing legislation enables only the authority that issued a licence to take action against it.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on bringing this important Bill to the House. Of the 15,000 private hire licences issued by City of Wolverhampton Council in 2019, many were for drivers spread across the United Kingdom, including at least one as far away as Perth, which is quite some taxi drive. Does my hon. Friend think that the Scottish Government and other devolved national Governments should, following what will hopefully be the Bill’s passage, work with the UK Government to reciprocate the flow of data to ensure that all authorities throughout the United Kingdom have access to the best possible information?
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend raises an important point about passenger safety applying throughout all four nations. The Bill will provide for the devolved nations to access the database and they are strongly encouraged to do so.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
To follow up on and clarify that point—I am from a devolved nation—would the Bill only require licensing authorities in England, not those in Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland, to input the information, but they would have the benefit of that information? Has my hon. Friend had any discussions with devolved authorities about whether they would adopt a similar approach to the inputting of the information?
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is correct that the devolved nations would be able to access the database. I am not aware of discussions among or engagement between the devolved nations and the Department for Transport.
As I was saying, the existing legislation enables only the authority that issued a licence to take action against it. The Bill will enhance safety by requiring licensing authorities to report information on certain serious safeguarding or road safety matters to the authority that issued the licence.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Peter Gibson
I would be delighted to take my first intervention from the hon. Gentleman.
Jim Shannon
I am always pleased to get a first. I am aware of occasions where people with wheelchairs or mobility rollators have been unable to use taxis. Will the Bill safeguard accessibility for disabled people to use taxis and ensure that they have equality with those of us who are able-bodied?
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I feel as though I have obtained my proper parliamentary wings, having now taken an intervention from him. He raises an important point on the rights and needs of disabled passengers. The Bill does not deal with access to vehicles, but it does deal with safeguarding. I believe it will help deliver that provision for those who are most vulnerable in our society and require public authorities to ensure that safety is of paramount concern in licensing decisions.
The Bill would give the Government flexibility to designate a database provider or to provide the database themselves. Given the existence of NR3, it would make sense to use that database so that the Bill’s provisions can come into effect quickly. I recognise that NR3 does not currently allow for the recording of suspensions, but I wanted that in the Bill in case such functionality is added at a later date. Many local authorities already pay a fee to the National Anti Fraud Network for use of a wide range of services, including access to NR3.
The ability of the database operator to charge a fee would enable the National Anti Fraud Network to continue to recover NR3’s running costs. Indeed, it is anticipated that rather than starting from scratch with a new database, there will be use of the existing voluntary database operated by the National Anti Fraud Network—of which NR3 forms a part—which is already subscribed to by 256 of the 276 licensing authorities. However, only 138 such authorities use the NR3 element. I am reliably informed by the Local Government Association that, with little or no additional costs, the NR3 database could fulfil the Bill’s requirements if the Secretary of State so designates.
The Bill’s objective can be illustrated no better than through use of the current voluntary scheme. Luton Borough Council recently ran a check on the NR3 database for a driver applying for a licence. The search revealed a revocation in another local authority area, due to a safeguarding concern, which the applicant failed to disclose. Consequently, Luton—rightly—refused a licence due to that deliberate withholding of information.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
My hon. Friend is being incredibly generous with his time. I commend him on the Bill. I am sure he is aware of the scandalous situation of the special educational needs and disability travel contract in Sandwell, with Sandwell Council having handed it out without checks being conducted. Is the safeguarding of children with special educational needs in respect of large travel firms the sort of thing that the Bill and use of that database would combat to ensure the safety of those children?
Peter Gibson
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. There are many examples across the country of deplorable practices where the failure to access information is failing to safeguard our constituents. For the same reasons as I gave in response to the intervention on disabled passengers by the hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), the Bill will help to support and safeguard our special educational needs children when accessing taxis. The Bill will close the loophole that I identified in the Luton case that enables an applicant to obtain a licence from an authority that does not participate in the voluntary scheme, just as my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) alluded to.
Since the Bill’s First Reading, I have met a wide variety of groups, from the Local Government Association to operators and industry bodies including the National Private Hire and Taxi Association, the Durham Licensed Taxi Association and the all-party parliamentary group on taxis. I thank them all for their engagement and assistance up to this point. However, the engagement that was organised by the Suzy Lamplugh Trust with Elaine Pickford and Liam O’Callaghan, the mother and brother of Sian O’Callaghan, who was murdered by a taxi driver in Oxfordshire, was the most important to me. I am grateful to them for the time they spent sharing their tragic story with me, and although this legislation can never bring Sian back, I hope it can serve as a lasting tribute to her.
Mr Richard Holden (North West Durham) (Con)
As my hon. Friend knows, in County Durham we have a lot of cross-border travel, particularly involving my constituency—with Newcastle and Gateshead—with drivers travelling on both sides. Standards are different across the board, but I welcome this Bill as a real step in the right direction. What further could he say about how this cross-border issue will be addressed by the Bill?
Peter Gibson
We have a situation where 276 licensing authorities have individual discretion to apply the standards they wish to see locally. Although this Bill does not seek to impose a set of national standards or national licensing—we know how important the income from that licensing for their local drivers is to local authorities—by sharing this data and information we seek to get to the position where good practice is spread out across the country.
I hope that hon. Members from across the House will support this Bill, which will bring about a real improvement in the regulation of the taxi and private hire vehicles sector. So many of our constituents, particularly those with mobility difficulties, rely on the sector in their daily lives—to go to the shops, attend hospital appointments, get to school and get out of their homes, as we return to normality. It is important that they can do that safely, and in the secure and certain knowledge that those in authority have done all they can to ensure that the person driving the vehicle they travel in is a fit and proper person to do so. We should do all we can to ensure the safety of our constituents where we can, and this Bill does just that.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and support the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) in his efforts to put this Bill into law. I should declare at the outset that I chair the all-party group on taxis. I speak with some passion on this issue, because some three and a half years ago, on another Friday morning, I moved a similar Bill, fully anticipating that with support from across the House and the industry, and with local authority and passenger group support, we would see the Bill progressing. I very much hope that he does better than I did in my efforts.
The intervening time has been tough for many people, and taxi and private hire drivers have had a particularly hard time. Many will have heard, as I have in my constituency, of the financial hardship people have faced, and of issues associated with vehicles being laid up and insurance-related problems. Although some help has been given, it has often been patchy. I have to say that with the Minister responsible being in the Lords, many will share my view that not enough has been done, with the impact on London’s black cab trade being a case in point. In June 2020, there were 18,553 licensed black cabs but by 31 October that had fallen to just over 15,000—there has been a 29% fall in the number of black cabs operating on London’s roads. At the start of June 2021 there were just 13,884, according to statistics from the Department for Transport—we are talking about 1,000 fewer licensed taxi drivers. So it has been a hard time for the industry, and I am grateful to the various groups, including Steve McNamara and the Licensed Taxi Drivers' Association, for all they have done in pressing for help, but this has not been enough.
Matt Rodda (Reading East) (Lab)
This is an important Bill and I thank the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his work on it. I also thank Ministers and colleagues on the Opposition Benches who have also inputted into this important legislation. I wish to comment briefly on my hon. Friend’s point about the effect on the taxi industry; these are important key workers who keep our country moving and offer a vital public service. I hope that the Government will look to provide some further support for the taxi industry in the future because of the pressure they have been under. I ask colleagues across the House to consider the needs of disabled people in the Bill. There is a need to do so and ensure a level playing field across the country. I hope the Bill is also an opportunity for that important work to take place.
Daniel Zeichner
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The taxi and private hire sector is often misunderstood. It plays a key role in our transport sector. Extraordinarily, it represents the largest number of people employed in transport. My hon. Friend is right that for so many people, particularly disabled people, taxis and private hire vehicles are a lifeline. The fact that they have been under such pressure is a cause for further action from Government.
Three and a half years is a long time to wait, and in the meantime I am grateful that Members across the House have pressed relentlessly for action. The hon. Member for Darlington has already praised the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) for his role when he was Minister. He established what was known as a task and finish group led by Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq. His group achieved remarkable consensus, because there are competing views, particularly between taxi and private hire. It came back with 34 recommendations, a number of which include the very proposals we are discussing this morning.
There have also been repeated questions to Ministers and Westminster Hall debates. I remember when I was a member of the Transport Committee hearing a passionate appeal from a professor who feared we would see further incidents of the type that the hon. Member for Darlington has already referred to. He felt it was only a matter of time, without improvements in licensing, before we would see further tragedies. At Transport questions on Thursday morning, it sometimes felt like a permanent item on the agenda that Ministers would be pressed on this point. I am sure that many Members across the House will have heard over the past few months from a whole range of constituents about these issues, as well as from safety campaigners, disability organisations, trade unions and so on.
Technology has also produced huge challenges and changes for the sector in recent years. Something that has come across to me in my discussions with people going around the country is just how different the situations are in different parts of the country. I have already made reference to the black cab trade in London, and we hear about that, but there are different patterns in different towns, cities and market towns across the country. I thought that London and Cambridge were different in their approach, but in learning more about Liverpool, Brighton, Manchester, Rotherham and Wolverhampton, as have already been mentioned, and then looking at the market towns and rural areas, we see it is not a simple task to regulate all these different situations.
There are many, many things we need to tackle, and for those who want a quick history, I refer people to my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne), who had an excellent Adjournment debate a few years ago, where he traced the history of taxi legislation all the way back to the Victorian era. It is astonishing how much of the legislation still refers back and is based on so much of that. When I was talking to Department for Transport civil servants, they pointed me to the volume of legislation, which I am sure the Minister is intimately familiar with. It is lengthy, complicated and, frankly, it probably needs an overhaul, exactly as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading East (Matt Rodda) suggests. The world has changed and unfortunately the legislative situation has not changed to keep up, and it cannot be done in a private Member’s Bill, as the hon. Member for Darlington clearly acknowledged. There are so many things we need to do, but this is a small part related to passenger safety.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
As a former member of a licensing panel, I completely agree with what the hon. Gentleman just said. Does he agree that the Bill is a valuable first step in bringing uniformity and rigour to how different authorities license their taxi drivers? I think particularly of Rossendale Borough Council, which is next door to Rochdale Borough Council, where I am an MP. They have completely different standards, so we see a preponderance of Rossendale licences in our area, rather than Rochdale ones. There is clearly a disconnect between how they license their taxi drivers, and people are exploiting that.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Member is absolutely right. Rossendale, I am afraid, did feature extensively in some debates. When my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish had his Adjournment debate many years ago, he referred to that issue in particular. I have to say it is astonishing how many Wolverhampton plates still turn up in Cambridge. I was not aware of the Perth example, but one can see the problem. This system was devised in an era where people worked locally, but the world has changed completely with the kind of technologies we have, which is why the legislation needs such a major overhaul.
I was going to go through the details of the Bill, but the hon. Member for Darlington did so impeccably, so I feel no need to trouble the House with them again. He has obviously done very good research. I had intended to contact Tameside to see where the NR3 database had got to. I was struck that it had not yet achieved universal coverage. That is the key point: until it is universal, there will always be the possibility of gaming the system.
There is a danger in this whole debate of implying that there are large numbers of people doing this. The hon. Member was absolutely right to make the point at the outset that most people are not behaving badly, but some are.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
The hon. Member makes the point that until this is universal, there will be a way of gaming the system. As a Member from Wales—a cross-border one—it strikes me that, if this database does not cover Wales and England at the very least, there will still be that opportunity. Most taxi drivers in Montgomeryshire go west and east; they do not go north and south.
Daniel Zeichner
The hon. Member makes an important point. That is one of the issues of living in a devolved series of nations: we have to try to work with others. I have to say that I am not aware of that being the overwhelming problem at the moment, but should it be so, clearly it would need to be addressed.
It always seemed to me that part of this issue was setting up the database and getting that all resolved, but the other side of the coin was enforcement. When I had discussions with various people about how enforcement worked, I was struck by how complicated it is. Different rules seem to apply depending on who is doing the enforcing. Of course, that is made much more complicated by the difficulty that local council officers face having to enforce in their area while not being able to enforce against people who come from another area. That is why the proposals in the Bill are so important; they begin to address that problem. In theory, the only body that can enforce against that Perth licence holder is the local council in Perth, which would presumably require the council in Perth to be in Penzance to do so. One can see how that is not going to work and why we have that problem.
Another former Transport Minister, the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani)—this has been a long-running debate—pursued this issue. In fact, she was the Minister involved at my previous attempt. I pay tribute to her, because she worked very hard on this. She was a strong believer in national standards, but she always suggested that there would be occasions when we needed local flexibility, which immediately reintroduces the problem. If we have higher standards to deal with particular problems—sadly, we have seen particular problems in some parts of the country—we are back to square one. We need some kind of approach, as is suggested in the second part of the Bill, to make this possible.
I thank all those who spoke to me. I suspect they are the same people who have been talking to the hon. Member for Darlington. I was very impressed by the National Association of Licensing and Enforcement Officers. I always had great support from people at Transport for London and from the trade unions, particularly Unite and GMB. The hon. Member mentioned the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and Guide Dogs; they too have been pressing for action on this issue for many years.
I appreciate that time is always precious on Fridays, so I will conclude at this point. I genuinely hope that we will get cross-party consensus to get this measure forward. We have waited too long, and it really is time to get it done.
Mark Jenkinson (Workington) (Con)
I rise to dedicate my wholehearted support to the Bill. It will help increase accountability, raise safety standards in the industry and ensure that licensing authorities have access to the same pool of data, which will be valuable in my constituency of Workington and for my borough council, Allerdale. Let me take the opportunity to thank the licensing officers and the councillors on the licensing panel in Allerdale for their continued hard work in this area.
I applaud the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) in bringing these measures to the House, and I have no hesitation in endorsing them; they will foster better working practices based on reliable and accessible information. As colleagues have explained, the Bill will help to prevent unsuitable individuals from working the current system to their advantage. By closing the gaps in the information available, local authorities will be in a much better position to make sound decisions. I accept that most local authorities already adhere to good practice when considering whether to grant or revoke licences, but they do not have access to all the data and in many cases they do not share the data on refusals and revocations with other local authorities. This important legislation will change all of that by helping to ensure that local councils are in full possession of the facts that they need.
Currently, licensing authorities are unable to take action against the licence of a taxi or private hire vehicle driver issued by a different licensing authority, even if the driver implicated is working in its own area. Since there is no obligation on licensing authorities to report concerns about drivers to the licensing authority that issued the licence, concerns over safety are often not acted on due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the home licensing authority. This cannot be allowed to continue. This Bill is a huge step in the right direction when it comes to addressing these issues and providing additional assurances when it comes to the safety of the travelling public.
The statutory standards issued in 2020 are absolutely unequivocal about the public safety benefits of information sharing, and in particular of the use of the national register of taxi and private hire vehicle driver licence refusals and revocations. I thank my hon. Friend for his incredibly important work on this issue, and I offer him my unwavering support as this Bill progresses.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I am very pleased to see this Bill before the House today. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for promoting it, and for this thoughtful and very well researched exposition of exactly why this is needed. I hope that, after today’s debate, there will be much support on both sides of the House for this very well-timed Bill, which perhaps should have been brought forward some time ago, by my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner).
I am pleased that the Bill will be debated today, given that local authorities have repeatedly called in recent years for this Government to update their taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regulations over and above the current statutory standards, because at the moment they simply do not go far enough. I am also pleased that the Bill contains the very same provisions as the Licensing of Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill that was introduced in a previous parliamentary Session by my hon. Friend, whom we heard from earlier. I hope that the work he has done will not be in vain, as this Bill potentially progresses through this House and onwards to make the changes needed to safeguard passengers and enhance the taxi industry.
In 2018, the independent task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing published a detailed report that called for sweeping changes to taxi and private hire vehicle licensing and regulation. Its recommendations included national licensing standards, limits on cross-border working, powers to cap licences under certain circumstances and higher safeguarding standards. However, more than three years down the line, we are still waiting for those recommendations to be implemented, unfortunately. This is despite, at that time, the then Transport Minister agreeing the conclusions of that report.
At the time, the Government accepted the need for a national database to achieve a safe service for passengers and were broadly in agreement with the original Bill. However, it would unfortunately appear that the Government have since slightly shied away from taking more robust action to improve licensing and therefore passenger safety. The Minister will perhaps point to the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards that they published last year, which local authorities are in the process of consulting on and then implementing. However, those standards do not go far enough and, importantly, do not deliver on all of the recommendations made by the task and finish group. In particular, they do not address the vital issue—as mentioned by previous speakers, including the hon. Member for Darlington—of cross-border hiring, which currently undermines the efficacy of licensing right across the country. This is why it is high time for proper legislation with robust national minimum standards that are legally enforceable.
It is also disappointing that it has taken a private Member’s Bill to reach this point. I think that was inevitable, having had to wait so long for this to be brought forward. It is vital that the Government consider the measures set out in the Bill today, which address critical issues, including safety concerns, with the overall existing licensing legislation. It would require taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England to share information of recent adverse licensing history, such as refusals, suspensions and revocations of a licence, and enable this to be taken into consideration to mitigate the risk of unsuitable people being granted or continuing to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle licence.
Let us be clear: at present, licensing authorities are not required to share information with other authorities. This prevents them from being able to take an informed decision about granting or renewing a driver’s licence. It creates the conditions for a driver who has been refused a licence, or has had an existing licence suspended or revoked because of safety concerns, to be in a position to apply for a licence in another area where that new licensing authority is completely unaware of the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. We need only look at the totally unacceptable situation in Wolverhampton, where drivers who were the subject of serious allegations were allowed to continue their trade—in one case, more than 150 miles from where the original complaint was made. That is clearly unacceptable, as I think all Members on both sides of the House would agree. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle users at risk, and goes against the recommendations of the task and finish group.
The existing statutory standards are no longer fit for purpose, and we have already heard today about NR3 and the database. While they urge data sharing between local authorities and encourage the existing NR3 database, they do not mandate it, which creates clear inconsistencies in the system. The Bill will help to strengthen these obligations. Indeed, the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, to which I spoke just the other day, has welcomed it as
“exactly the kind of concrete action we need”.
The association acknowledges that the Bill may not be a silver bullet. However, it would be a positive step, helping to strengthen the noble taxi and private hire vehicle licensing trade and—most important—promote public safety. It would also require licensing authorities in England to report any serious safeguarding or road safety concerns to the licensing authority that issued an individual of concern with a licence, requiring the licensing authorities to consider reviewing an individual’s case.
More broadly, the Government should take urgent action and do more to support the wider taxi sector, which has been decimated by covid-19. In my constituency, many hundreds of people are drivers of black cabs and private hire vehicles. Indeed, in London the taxi fleet is now at its lowest number since 1983, at around 13,400 vehicles, a loss of more than 5,000 since the start of the pandemic. We have seen a similar drop across the whole of England. The DFT’s own figures from July 2021 reveal that the number of licensed vehicles in England has decreased by 15.9% since 2020, to just over a quarter of a million. The Government’s apathy towards taxi and private hire vehicle drivers is undermining drivers’ confidence in the future of the trade and deterring many from returning, or—more important, because we want to tackle climate change—from investing in new low or zero-emission vehicles, because they feel that they are being pushed out and overlooked.
I welcome the Bill. The Government must go further than simply encouraging licensing authorities to adopt the statutory standards. I therefore hope that they will support the Bill and make the changes to the existing legislation that will improve the safety of all users of taxis and private hire vehicles.
Shaun Bailey (West Bromwich West) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak on the Bill, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on introducing a vital piece of legislation.
I want to talk about the experience that we have had in my borough of Sandwell—which I mentioned in an intervention earlier—and the opportunities that the Bill presents in ensuring that issues such as the scandalous transport contract for children with special educational needs, which was awarded by Sandwell Council to “one of their mates”, never arise again. I hope that the information provided on the database has the scope to ensure that that is included in wider procurement processes for larger transport contracts involving the most vulnerable members of our community.
I must pay tribute to two local councillors, David Fisher and Jay Anandou, who led the charge in exposing that disgraceful scandal, which has put at risk some of the most vulnerable children in my community. It is timely that my hon. Friend has brought the Bill to the House today. This is exactly the reason we are here: to protect the most vulnerable in our communities. I thank him for that. I think the Bill is vital because, as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) articulated so well—as have other Members—we have a patchwork licensing system at the moment and probably an antiquated one, which needs reform. This is probably the first step on that journey. We really need a root-and-branch look at how we are licensing and providing authorisation to private hire vehicles. We see how well that can work when it goes right, and we know the important contribution that taxis and private hire vehicles make to our communities and local economies, as many right hon. and hon. Members have said. Private hire vehicles and taxis are at the heart of keeping us moving so it is important that we ensure, not just for our peace of mind but for that of the industry, that they know they are on a level playing field and that there is fairness.
We also need to ensure that firms that are playing by the rules get a fair go, because it is not right that individuals or firms are gaming the system. We heard some examples from my neighbouring city of Wolverhampton about how that can go to the extreme, to the detriment of people who are working hard. As hon. Members said, taxi drivers have been key workers during the pandemic. We know the important contribution that they have made to ensure that we can keep moving, that our frontline healthcare workers can get to where they need to be, that we can keep our most vulnerable members of our community safe, and that people can get the care, shopping, food and resources that they need. It is important to ensure that the system is robust enough and fair enough to put a level playing field in place.
What will be important in the success of the Bill—I say “success” because I am fully confident that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will get this through and I really hope so, because it is vital—is its implementation once it is on the statute book. We have to think about that. There has to be, and I am heartened to see, a degree of a duty for local authorities and licensing authorities to co-operate, because that will be the real success of these measures. It will be important to ensure that we have an obligation on local authorities to share that information. I am very pleased to see that a time limit is in place for local authorities to respond to an information request, because it will be really important to ensure that once these issues are flagged, they are dealt with expediently. We have to ensure not only that issues are highlighted, but resolved. That is key, too; it is about ensuring that we can keep our industry moving by resolving these problems and ensuring that we can keep people safe.
This Bill provides many opportunities and it falls into many different areas. It is not just about what we see on the face of the Bill, but so many different things, because we know how far-reaching the private hire industry is in respect of the work it does in our communities. I do not want to repeat what my hon. Friend said, because he introduced the Bill so expertly and with such precision, and I would not do it justice by doing so.
To keep my remarks as succinct as possible to allow colleagues to come in, I will just say that this is a vital Bill. It is one of those that transcends many parts of our communities and I think it is the start of a wider conversation about private hire and taxi firms. From our experience in Sandwell, there is scope for it to be utilised in the procurement processes of local authorities as well. I thank my hon. Friend for introducing the Bill, because this is exactly the sort of legislation needed for my constituents who have had to go through the scandalous situation of the SEND transport contract in Sandwell, and I wish him every success as it passes through the House.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I start by sending my warmest congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on all the work that he has done in introducing the Bill and on being so successful in the private Member’s Bill ballot. This issue has perhaps been rather ignored in this place for too long, which is why I am delighted that we are bringing the Bill in today and discussing this really important topic. The Bill represents an important first step in updating what is, unfortunately, outdated legislation in this area.
While licensing authorities are currently required to carry out assessments of whether a driver is fit and proper or of a good character, current laws simply do not go far enough. Technological developments in transport, as well as changes in the wider taxi and private hire vehicle market, have overtaken current laws, meaning they do not always guarantee safety for passengers. Of course, we have fantastic taxi drivers in all our constituencies who wish to do the very best for all of us, for our residents and communities, but we need to make sure that local authorities are able to share concerns, whether about safety, reckless driving or other issues, including drugs,
A worrying case came across my desk two or three weeks ago, when I met a constituent who had contacted me to say that she had video evidence of a couple of taxi drivers using their taxi system to distribute drugs in my constituency, which is absolutely disgraceful—I am told this has been an issue among a minority of taxi drivers for far too long. I provided this video evidence to West Yorkshire police, which I hope it picks up with Bradford Council.
This Bill will help us to provide safety in all our constituencies. It is vital that we protect the taxi drivers who are doing a brilliant job, tackle the minority who are causing an issue and provide safety to our constituents. Not only will this Bill protect passengers but it will aid drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles by guaranteeing high standards to any would-be passengers. Enabling the Department for Transport to provide an information database will streamline the process and ensure there is no passing by of the rules. Likewise, the statutory requirements for licensing authorities to have regard to the database will make sure these standards are kept up.
As has been said, we currently have a patchwork system. It cannot be right that a licensing authority in the Bradford district I sit within is very different from the one in North Yorkshire, which is only two miles away. It is inconceivable that someone could lose their licence for reckless behaviour and be able to get a new licence from a different licensing authority two miles away. This Bill, presented very well by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, will make a huge effort on taking these steps.
I very much welcome this Bill. I would like to see it progress as quickly as possible, because when I hear harrowing stories from constituents who are still worried about safety in the taxi system, and when drugs are being distributed by a minority of individuals, it is right that we drive through legislation that cleans up the system. I am determined to support the Bill’s progress in every way I can.
Angela Richardson (Guildford) (Con)
It is always a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Keighley (Robbie Moore). I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on his sensible Bill and on his excellent opening speech setting out why it is so important.
I take this opportunity to thank Mike Smith, an officer at Guildford Borough Council who is a senior specialist in licensing and community safety. He wrote to me on this issue last year, and I sought a ministerial response for him. Such was his concern that he wrote to me again in July 2021:
“As you will be aware, Guildford is an historic university town and principal regional destination for the day and night-time economy. The Council along with other stakeholders works hard to ensure public safety through initiatives such as the Safer Guildford Partnership and is the only town in Surrey to hold the prestigious purple flag award. However, despite this work the Council’s efforts to promote safety within the taxi and private hire trade, and ultimately the safety of our residents, remains undermined by the significant number of drivers and vehicles licensed elsewhere… I therefore cannot stress enough that it is only a matter of time until further but entirely preventable tragedies and scandals which have beset other licensing authorities recently are likely to occur due to the failure to update legislation in the taxi and private hire sector.”
I passed on to him a ministerial reply, dated August. I am not sure that many of my constituents will be tuned into proceedings in the Chamber, but I hope that any who are will be heartened to hear that their local authority has been assiduous in raising the issue through their Member of Parliament, and that their safety is of paramount importance.
I want to give my constituents some other assurances too, such as that a number of licensing authorities across England have adopted conditions of fitness that are identical or similar to those imposed in London owing to London having a longer history of taxi licensing. Such checks can involve a criminal record check, a comprehensive topographic examination, a medical, a driving test and a check on the financial standing of prospective proprietors. There is no statutory requirement for local authorities to carry out a criminal record check before issuing a licence to a taxi driver, but there is a requirement to ensure that the applicant is a fit and proper person.
I also assure my constituents that, locally, Guildford Borough Council recently updated its taxi and private hire licensing policy to require all vehicles licensed by it to be equipped with CCTV. The council considers that an important measure to deter and detect crimes against passengers and drivers, and to help to promote public confidence in the taxi service. That is particularly relevant for female passengers following the tragic death of Sarah Everard.
The Bill’s explanatory notes mention that any concerns raised
“must be sufficiently credible and serious”
for a licence to be considered for suspension. I have one question: how do we protect drivers from vexatious campaigns against their characters? Can the Minister give any reassurances about how we might go about that? It is excellent that a national database is part of the Bill, but we must be mindful of the fact that taxi drivers may sometimes be subject to vexatious campaigns within their communities, so we must protect them against that. Otherwise, it is an excellent Bill that I am happy to support.
Dr James Davies (Vale of Clwyd) (Con)
It is a pleasure to make some brief comments in support of this excellent Bill. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) and acknowledge the huge input from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and, of course, from past and present Ministers in the Department for Transport.
Between 1972 and 2020, the number of taxis in England and Wales outside of London increased by 334%. In addition to that significant growth in size, the industry has had to adapt to evolving technologies and changes in lifestyle patterns. This legislation is important to ensure the continued safety of passengers. Local authorities, private hire companies and drivers want those using taxis to be safe, but unfortunately there is a small minority of individuals who pose a threat to passengers. We have a responsibility to ensure that dangerous individuals are not permitted to carry passengers at any time.
As we have heard, many local authorities across the United Kingdom already report information to the national register of taxi and private hire licence revocations and refusals—NR3—to help to achieve that, but that is on a voluntary rather than statutory basis. The Bill will help to ensure that local authorities in England are mandated to share such information. It will also place a requirement on licensing authorities to report serious safeguarding or road safety concerns about a taxi or private hire vehicle driver working in its area to the licensing authority that granted a licence to the driver concerned.
The Bill will also play an important role in addressing discrimination in the industry. Again, such practices represent a mercifully small minority, but prosecution data from the Department for Transport last year indicates that it is still a problem. There are instances where individuals using a wheelchair or those with an assistance dog have been refused access or charged additional fees by some drivers. There can be no justification for this. I am glad that the provisions in the Bill should, if victims bravely report discrimination, ensure that such practices cannot continue.
Let me also say how glad I am that provisions in the Bill will help to address road safety issues. Again, the vast majority of taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are experienced and responsible. For those who are not, it is right that additional information be recorded.
As the Bill progresses, I hope that consideration will be given to liaising with the devolved Administrations to make these mandatory measures apply UK-wide. That is particularly important in areas such as mine, where many taxi drivers work across both north Wales and the north-west of England. In preparing for my speech today and looking at the legislation, I have been in touch with my local authority of Denbighshire to determine whether it is entering data into the existing database and consulting it.
Officers in local authorities already undertake a series of functions, and I recognise that the provision in this Bill would be an additional, albeit relatively small, duty. It is essential that the data-sharing platform is easy to operate and permits simple communication between licensing authorities. I am aware that the Local Government Association has overseen the development of the NR3 database, which is hosted by the National Anti Fraud Network via Tameside Council, which it would presumably make sense to formalise for this purpose. I am also aware of minor amendments to the Bill that the LGA has proposed, which I am sure my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will consider as the Bill progresses through the House.
Over the pandemic of the past 18 months, taxi drivers have provided an essential service to people throughout our country. The Bill will assist in further boosting public confidence in taxi services by upholding standards of safety and behaviour. It will assist local authorities in their duty of care towards citizens and protect members of the public from the small number of dangerous and discriminatory drivers who operate.
Simon Baynes (Clwyd South) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for bringing this private Member’s Bill to the House and for his speech, which laid out the situation and the proposals clearly and incisively.
We have already touched on the second part of the Bill, which would require licensing authorities in England to report certain safeguarding or road safety concerns about a taxi or private hire vehicle driver working in their area to the licensing authority in England, Wales or Scotland that granted a licence to that driver. The Bill would then require licensing authorities in England to have regard to any such reports received and to consider whether the relevant taxi or private hire vehicle driver should remain licensed.
As a former member of the licensing committee of Powys County Council, I know how important this issue is. Even without this proposal in place, the licensing committee would regularly consider the suitability of certain drivers. As outlined by my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies)—with whom I share representation in the Denbighshire County Council area—it is particularly important that we also align these proposals with Welsh authorities. I am therefore pleased to understand from the Bill that the information provided by England will be available in Wales; however we need to reciprocate the process. I know my hon. Friends the Members for Vale of Clwyd and for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams) and others in Wales will be taking that up with the relevant authorities in the Welsh Government.
I would also like to echo the point made earlier by my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey) about the importance of safeguarding everybody in the Bill, but particularly children and young people with special educational needs. My constituency of Clwyd South is no different from anywhere else. There are some fantastic special schools, and taking the young people to those schools is a desperately important part of the taxi service that is provided to people.
I also wish to touch on the existing legislation allowing a person who is granted a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence by any licensing authority in England and Wales to be able to take pre-booked journeys anywhere in Great Britain. This has been referred to by several Members and is closely allied to the point that I have just been making about the importance of a Union-wide approach. The point was made eloquently in an intervention by my hon. Friend the Member for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams).
Finally, the Bill would require the home licensing authority to consider whether to suspend or revoke a driver’s licence as a result of any such information that is reported to them by another licensing authority. That will ensure that the home licensing authority, which is solely able to suspend or revoke that driver’s licence, is aware of information that suggests that the driver poses a public safety risk. That is the key point about it. That will help existing taxi and private hire vehicle licensees by eliminating those who bring the profession into disrepute.
Like other Members, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the drivers of taxis and private hire vehicles in my constituency who have suffered during covid from the lack of custom, but who have been a lifeline for many families and especially disabled and elderly people who have needed their help to attend medical appointments or other vital commitments. It is sometimes easy to forget that the taxi drivers provide an incredibly important public service. They may be privately run, but they provide an incredibly important public service, particularly to the more vulnerable in our society.
In conclusion, I fully back this Bill and its intention to safeguard consumers and motorists by putting into statute the requirement that I have mentioned. I warmly congratulate again my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on bringing this very worthy private Member’s Bill to the House.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for bringing forward this incredibly important Bill. As quite a few colleagues have said, when we use taxis generally, the taxi driver, as a professional person, is potentially in a position of power. We get into their car. Quite often, they pick us up from our homes, our work or places that we are visiting. We need to make sure that those professional taxi drivers are protected from that very small minority who may not be acting professionally. We need to remember that taxi drivers are vital in our communities and in our workplaces, and also vital for our visitor economy. Quite often, they are the first person somebody will meet if they are leaving a train station or a bus station or when they are going to visit somewhere.
Taxi drivers are a mine of information. With my background in education and as someone who was young once, I know that we might use taxis when we are not in our best frame of mind—if I can put it like that. We might have been to various hostelries as young people and it is then that we put our trust in taxi drivers. As students, young women will pile into a taxi together and there will always be one friend left at the end of that taxi journey. They need to feel confident that the taxi driver has at heart not only their best interests, but their safety. It is not only the safety of the vehicles and the safety of the driving that is important, but the safeguarding of the individual as well.
I have had reasons to use taxis in recent years. I was not visiting hostelries, because those days are over, but receiving treatment for an eye condition. When people need a taxi driver to take them to hospital or to pick them up after treatment, they are in a very vulnerable situation. They might not be steady on their feet or able to see, or, as has been pointed out, they might not have the best mobility. This is a vital piece of legislation and I wholeheartedly support it.
Chris Clarkson (Heywood and Middleton) (Con)
It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), and I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) as well as the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) who brought this Bill’s spiritual predecessor to the House. I share his frustration this occasion did not happen sooner. I am a former member of the licensing authority on Salford City Council, and we often benefited from the voluntary sharing of information. I particularly pay tribute to the council chair, a great Labour councillor called John Warmisham, with whom, despite our varied politics, I usually found myself in full agreement—that picks up on the point made earlier, that this issue should be supported across the House.
At its heart, this Bill is about confidence. It is about enabling people to feel confident when getting into a private hire cab, and about them knowing that the person who has that licence is a fit and proper person and has not somehow gamed the system. I alluded earlier to the fact that just over the border into Rossendale a slightly different standard was applied to the distribution of taxi licences, and someone would be more likely to find a Rossendale-licensed cab in my Rochdale-based constituency than they would one from our own licensing authority. The Bill is also about confidence for taxi drivers, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington pointed out.
Currently, the bad acts of one driver can impact on others—I think of a particularly cogent example in Rochdale. We are all aware of the heart-breaking events of the Rochdale grooming scandal, and many of the people involved in that were taxi drivers. We then had a situation where certain taxi providers in Rochdale were offering white drivers to people as a matter of confidence. That is a shameful situation in which to find ourselves. It besmirches the reputation of honest ethnic minority drivers—obviously it is a very diverse community—and it led to difficulties in an already tense situation in a very diverse town. It also created a situation where people did not feel comfortable using their local provider, which is bad for the local economy.
We know from the pandemic that taxi drivers have been an essential part of keeping this country going. They have been key workers in a very real sense. I do not drive my own private car because I live in the city centre and it is not practical for me to do so, and I often rely on taxis to get me from A to B. I like to get into a taxi knowing that the driver is a decent person, and I am grateful for the extra effort put into keeping me safe from covid, in addition to all the other things that those drivers have done, sometimes at their own expense. Many are now multi-apping and working across different platforms, to try to keep the wolf from the door. I want them to understand that by introducing this Bill we are trying to make their lives easier. This is not about casting aspersions on the quality of taxi drivers; this is about ensuring that the few who choose to game the system and bend the rules are not allowed to carry on. I fully commend the Bill. I am extremely glad that it is going through the House, and I hope we will press forward with it today. It has my absolute support.
Craig Williams (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
It gives me great pleasure to support my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson). He introduced the Bill with aplomb, and went into all the technical details, saving me a good 10 minutes’ worth of my speech. I thank him very much indeed.
This important, timely and overdue Bill seems to have cross-party support. I echo the concerns raised by my constituency neighbours and colleagues, my hon. Friends the Members for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes) and for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies). Perhaps on Report—it seems that the Bill will go through at pace—those on the Front Bench could consider whether they could reach out to the devolved Administrations, especially the Welsh Government, and see whether the database could be made cross-border, either through a legislative consent motion or some other form. That seems to have consensus in this House, and I implore Labour Members, if they have the phone number of any Welsh Labour Government Ministers, to join that lobbying charge. In Montgomeryshire we look east and west and, like other cross-border constituencies and counties, someone is more likely to receive a taxi from Birmingham than from Cardiff. That is just the nature of the economy, the traffic flow, and the public services.
I welcome the Government’s recent introduction of new robust standards for taxis. That was on an England and Wales basis, and it meant that disclosure and barring service criminal record checks were recommended every six months. I understand that the constitutional settlement of this place means we get these questions of who is responsible for what and times when this House introduces English and Welsh legislation and we question whether it is England-only. The Bill must apply to Wales; otherwise, we will have the gaps that we have been talking about.
I am conscious of the time and that there are other private Members’ Bills to consider, but I echo the supporting evidence that I have read from stakeholders. It is great that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and other Members went out there and really engaged, and the LGA made some sensible suggestions. I have done my own stakeholder engagement: Elwyn the Taxi—for the uninitiated, he is the Uber of Llanfair Caereinion—takes not just me but my whole community from A to B. In rural areas, we rely on our taxi network, which is made up of small businesses. He has assured me over and over again that because of a lack of data sharing, we see bad actors in this space, and people can abuse the system by going from one licensing area to another. The database would therefore be a great step forward. I implore the Minister—it is great to see him in his place—to reach out to colleagues in the devolved Administrations, and I will implore anyone to see what we can do on Report to make the Bill apply to England and Wales at the very least.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I will be brief, because I know that other hon. Members want to come in. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for this excellent Bill and to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for all his work on it in the past. The Bill takes a crucial function and makes it universal so that if someone has been disqualified from driving a licensed hire vehicle, that passes on across all local authorities. It also means that people have will confidence in the private licensed hire vehicles they are getting into, which is a key point.
I was privileged to attend the parliamentary taxi awards arranged by the hon. Member for Cambridge, through which we heard incredible stories of the role that these vehicles and their drivers play in keeping our communities together. They have done remarkable things all through covid, from picking people up from hospital to picking up their prescriptions and carrying their bags to the door. It would be remiss not to name Lee Smith from 24/7 Barrow who won the award for Barrow and Furness. Licensed hire vehicle drivers are a key part of our community, and it is essential that we do what we can to strengthen them and give the community faith in them. The Bill goes a long way towards that.
I am delighted that the LGA, with which I have worked extensively, is backing the Bill. I declare an interest: before coming to this place I worked in data sharing in fraud and financial crime, so I have some experience in the area. I have some recommendations, the wonkery of which I will not go into right now, but I will happily meet the Minister on issues such as data matching and speed of processes that we could look at and strengthen—I recognise that he may not want to meet me.
Finally, on the system’s governance framework, we need to be assured that if mistakes are made—hopefully they will not be—there is some comeback so that if someone is impugned unfairly on the database, they can seek redress. Similarly, if bad data is put on to the database, the licensing authority who did so should have a penalty put against it. I fully support the Bill and thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for bringing it to the House.
Sally-Ann Hart (Hastings and Rye) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on this vital Bill. As a former district councillor for Rother District Council—part of the constituency that I now represent as MP—I welcome this Bill, which will improve safeguarding and data sharing across local authorities’ licensing authorities. This is essential. I am not going to go through what the Bill does, but there are two points that I would like to highlight to the Minister.
The Bill makes enormous improvements to passenger safety, but it does not go far enough. When I was a district councillor sitting on a licensing panel hearing, there was a situation where the taxi driver had not informed the licensing authority, as he should have done, that he had been arrested for stealing tens of thousands of pounds from an elderly customer. He was later convicted. I understand that the police are not under a duty to—or cannot—inform the licensing authority because of issues with data sharing, ongoing investigation, innocent until proven guilty and so on, but I would like the Minister to think about how we can improve this kind of data sharing even further.
The question to ask, of course, is whether we would allow our son or daughter, spouse or partner, mother or father, grandson or granddaughter, or any other person for whom we care, to get into a vehicle with this person alone. The driver I mentioned had been driving around other elderly and vulnerable people, who might have been at risk from him. Data on taxi drivers should be shared between agencies, including the police, to ensure the highest possible standards of safeguard.
I want briefly to highlight Rother District Council’s innovative penalty points scheme, which was introduced by the excellent Andy Eaton, a licensing and litigation lawyer and deputy legal services manager for both Wealden District Council and Rother District Council. He is also a fellow of the Institute of Licensing for his outstanding contribution to the field of licensing.
The aim of the penalty points scheme is to work in conjunction with other enforcement options. The purpose of the scheme is to record offences, and to act as a record of a taxi driver’s behaviour and conduct so that the licensing authority can find out whether the applicant is a fit and proper person. The primary objectives of the scheme are to improve levels of compliance, improve standards and ensure the safety and protection of the travelling public. The scheme operates without prejudice to the council’s ability to take other action that it is entitled to take under legislation, byelaws and regulation. It is an excellent scheme that other licensing authorities could use to improve the safeguarding and protection of passengers.
I understand that the Local Government Association welcomes the Bill. I absolutely support it and commend it to the House.
The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Chris Heaton-Harris)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on his success in the private Members’ Bill ballot, on bringing the attention of the House to the important issue of unsuitable people obtaining licences to drive taxis and private hire vehicles, and on the excellent way in which he introduced the debate. Let me point out to some Members that my hon. Friend is in charge of this legislation. Private Members’ Bills are a wonderful thing that we have in this House; I was fortunate to get one through myself a number of years ago. It means that many of the questions raised are actually for my hon. Friend, but I will try to answer some of them.
There have been some excellent speeches in this debate, including 11 interventions, which shows just how important the subject is. There was a speech from the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who is not only supportive, but who has driven this debate previously as best he can to try to get to a resolution. He also kindly mentioned the hard work of previous incumbents in the Department for Transport ministerial team, including my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani).
We heard excellent speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson) and for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), who mentioned Elwyn the Taxi.
We also heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell)— I am always happy to meet him, but he might want to go first through my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington; perhaps if that was done over a beverage in Strangers, I could join them—as well as my hon. Friend the Member for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart), and indeed the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry), who made some important and valid points, which I am sure we will take on board in due time. I wanted to say one thing to him, though: he called for “proper legislation”, but as someone who got a private Member’s Bill on to the statute book—a journey that I hope this Bill will make—I know that private Members’ Bills are important and proper legislation.
The Government attach the utmost priority to passenger safety in taxis and PHVs, so we are happy to support the Bill. The licensing process gives the travelling public confidence that the vehicles in which they travel are safe and that drivers have had proper background checks. We have had a really positive debate on that basis.
As we have heard, taxis and PHVs provide valuable services, particularly to vulnerable and disabled people and those without personal transport, and do so at times when there are fewer alternative public transport options. The vast majority of taxi and PHV licensed drivers are entirely trustworthy, of good character and a credit to their trade, but the system must not allow those who are not to obtain or keep a licence.
Last year, the Government published the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, outlining how licensing authorities should carry out their licensing function to safeguard children and vulnerable adults, although the recommendations will obviously benefit all passengers. The Department is working with licensing authorities to monitor implementation and good progress is being made.
I could say a whole host of things, but my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington covered the subject in great detail. I am told that the database about which many Members were talking is already actively engaged in Wales and, to a lesser extent, Scotland. The points made by my Welsh colleagues are well founded, and I shall make sure that they are reflected on in the proper fashion.
There is no denying that the proposals in the Bill will impose additional responsibilities on licensing authorities. Although I would prefer that such burdens were not needed, they are small compared with the benefits they will provide.
The Bill does not seek to address every issue that has been raised today. Members have expressed concerns about whether allegations or vexatious campaigns against drivers could lead to a driver losing his licence unduly; if I may, I will reply to those concerns in writing, through my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, to give Members the assurance they seek.
I assure the House that the Government remain committed to introducing legislation, when parliamentary time allows, to introduce national minimum standards, national enforcement powers and a national licensing database. That database will build on the proposals in the Bill by extending the database to include the details of all driver, vehicle and PHV operator licences, as well as information on refusals, revocations and suspensions.
We support the Bill and wish it well in Committee and as it travels through the House. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington.
Peter Gibson
With the leave of the House, may I thank the Minister for his support? I am also grateful to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mark Jenkinson), the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and my hon. Friends the Members for West Bromwich West (Shaun Bailey), for Keighley (Robbie Moore), for Guildford (Angela Richardson), for Vale of Clwyd (Dr Davies), for Clwyd South (Simon Baynes), for Great Grimsby (Lia Nici), for Heywood and Middleton (Chris Clarkson), for Montgomeryshire (Craig Williams), for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) and for Hastings and Rye (Sally-Ann Hart) for their valuable contributions to the debate.
There is clearly cross-party agreement on this issue, for which I am grateful. All our constituents will be pleased to see improvements in the safeguarding of taxi licensing. I put on the record my thanks to the hard-working team at the Department for Transport for their support.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a Second time.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Friday 21st January 2022
(2 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Watch Debate Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2021 - (3 Nov 2021)
Peter Gibson (Darlington) (Con)
I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I want to begin this morning by thanking the many people who have been involved in the long gestation of the Bill. As an MP elected in 2019, I was pleasantly surprised to be drawn in the ballot to bring forward a private Member’s Bill. I have learned from speaking to many colleagues across the House—many of whom have been here for decades—that the probability of being picked and then steering a Bill that would garner Government and cross-party support through its various parliamentary stages is very low. Today is the culmination of that process, at least in the House of Commons.
Reform of our taxi licensing is something that I know various Transport Ministers have battled with over previous years. My hon. Friend the Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani) and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) are very keen to see the Bill reach the statute book, as, too, is the current Minister, my hon. Friend the Member for Copeland (Trudy Harrison). It is a pleasure to see her in her place today.
Ahead of today’s debate, I spoke with my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings. He has been an incredible support to me on this journey and I know he would like to have been here today; he cannot be because of a ministerial visit in his constituency. I place on the record my gratitude to him and to my hon. Friend the Member for Wealden.
It would be remiss of me not to mention the good work of the all-party parliamentary group on taxis during this debate, which I know carries out great work in trumpeting reform and updating taxi legislation. I thank the APPG for its engagement with me as well.
Some will recognise much of the Bill, because a previous incarnation of it was ably brought to the House by my friend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). Although he and I sit on opposite sides of the House, it has been a pleasure to work with him on steering the Bill through it. I am indebted to him for his support. Some great things come from this House when we work together on matters, and I am proud to be able to help improve our constituents’ lives with this legislation.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for South Swindon (Sir Robert Buckland) also cannot be here today, but he is keen to see the Bill on the statute book—not only as a former Lord Chancellor, but as a constituency MP. In previous debates, I have mentioned the sad and tragic murder of his constituent Sian O’Callaghan. From my engagement with Sian’s family, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and my right hon. and learned Friend, I know that the Bill will stand as a lasting tribute to Sian.
Violence against women and girls, which is a key focus of the Government and indeed all hon. Members across the House, has been detailed in the recently published “Tackling violence against women and girls strategy”. This work builds on a long heritage of legislation brought about by Conservative Governments, including the Children Act 1989, the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012, the Modern Slavery Act 2015 and the Domestic Abuse Act 2021, all of which contain steps and measures to protect people.
Having sat on the Women and Equalities Committee and the Bill Committee for the Domestic Abuse Act and regularly engaged with my local police, domestic abuse refuge and night-time economy, I am only too well aware of the need for our society to do more to protect people. I am grateful to all hon. Members present for helping to put measures in place that will improve the safety of our constituents.
I will provide an overview of what the Bill does and its merits. There are about 343,000 taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences issued in England and 276 licensing authorities that issue those licences. In each case, it is the responsibility of our local licensing authorities to decide whether a person is fit and proper to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle driver licence. The Bill will make a straightforward, clear improvement to the information available to our local licensing authorities when determining an applicant’s suitability. The availability of as much relevant information as possible is essential to support local licensing authorities in making the right decision, because better decisions can be made when more information is available.
As I said, there are about 343,000 licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers. Local licensing authorities refuse applications when they decide that someone is not fit and proper. Furthermore, authorities monitor the activity of their licensees and will suspend or revoke licences when they have concerns. Our local authorities therefore grant, refuse, revoke and suspend licences of those 343,000 people, but there is no requirement for them to share details of their adverse licensing decisions—suspensions, revocations or refusals—with others. It is perfectly possible for a driver to be refused a licence in one local authority and be granted one by a neighbouring authority that has no knowledge of the refusal by the other. It is a crazy situation, and one met with incredulity by many when I have explained what the Bill does.
Not all local licensing authorities are oblivious to the problem. Many use the national register of taxi and private hire licence revocations and refusals, commonly referred to as NR3, established by the Local Government Association and the National Anti Fraud Network. While that is good practice, without consistent use of it—or a similar database—by all licensing authorities, the authority making a decision cannot have the full picture. Given that there are 276 different licensing authorities across England, we need to make it easier for them to share information, because, in this instance, sharing really is caring.
That is what the first part of the Bill aims to do. It would require all licensing authorities in England to record and input into a designated database their suspensions, refusals and revocations of taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences where this is due to safeguarding or road safety concerns.
Sir Greg Knight (East Yorkshire) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on getting this far. Only about 1% of all private Members’ Bills make it on to the statute book, so he has done very well. I wish him well as the Bill proceeds.
My hon. Friend referred to the database. May I ask him who is going to fund the costs of that?
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his intervention. He raises a very important point about the cost, which I will address in further detail later in my speech. However, it is safe to say that a notional cost is already being borne by many local authorities as part of their membership of the national anti-fraud framework. It is for the Minister to decide whether to designate that database for the use of this legislation, if we are successful in getting it on to the statute book, and whether the Government fully fund it themselves or pass the relatively nominal cost on to a local authority.
Licensing authorities will then be required to search the database when processing each licensing application to ascertain whether the applicant has had a licence suspended, refused or revoked by another licensing authority. If there is a relevant entry on the database, the authority will be obliged to request further details of that adverse decision and have regard to the information considered by the other licensing authority when making its own decision. To be clear, the database would only record instances in which a licensing authority suspended, refused or revoked a driver’s licence due to safeguarding or road safety concerns: it would not hold details of that decision. The details would remain held by the relevant licensing authority, and would need to be requested on a case-by-case basis where an application is made to another local authority by an individual whose name appears on the register.
Dr Neil Hudson (Penrith and The Border) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend, the proud champion for Darlington, on having introduced this Bill and on getting it so far. I fully support the Bill, which will improve the safety of passengers in taxis and private hire vehicles, and I echo his comments about the cross-party nature of working on this issue; he has mentioned the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner). It is so important that we work together across the House on important issues such as this.
However, does my hon. Friend agree that the history of the licensing regime goes back to an era when private hire vehicles of any sort were very unlikely to go out of their own area and operated in very small geographical areas? The regime dates back to a different time, but now the situation has evolved. That is why things need to change.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend raises an incredibly important point. Much of our legislation dates back to previous eras when people did not travel outside their local authority areas, but now vehicles licensed in one local authority could operate entirely in another. Far from being even in neighbouring local authorities, they could be in completely disparate parts of the country.
In the interests of ensuring that the latest and most relevant information is available to the licensing authority, the Bill stipulates that licensing authorities must input the decision details within five working days of notifying the driver of their decision. During the 11 years that the record would be held on the database, the licensing authority must also ensure that it is kept up to date to reflect any changes, such as if the driver successfully appeals the original decision—as indeed they will be able to, just as they may now.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend on this excellent private Member’s Bill. I am fascinated to hear what he is saying about the regulation and licensing of private hire vehicles. In London, we have the issue of pedicabs, which can be considered a private hire vehicle but have no licensing regime. We do not know who the drivers are, or how safe they are—in fact, we do not know how safe their vehicles are. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is about time that we had a proper licensing regime for pedicabs in London?
Peter Gibson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention. She, too, knows the challenges of steering private Members’ Bills through the House, and she rightly continues to raise the issue of pedicabs and to press the House to deliver legislation to deal with it. She has been a tremendous champion of that, and I look forward to her continuing that campaign.
The Bill will give the Government the flexibility to provide the database or to designate another database provider. The database operator will also be able to charge a fee to licensing authorities to cover the cost of administering the database, but that fee would also need to be agreed by the Secretary of State. The fee does not have to be levied; the Government may choose to cover the cost, and I think that adequately deals with the point raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Yorkshire (Sir Greg Knight).
Enabling licensing authorities to check an applicant’s previous licensing history with other authorities in respect of suspicions, refusals and revocations will ensure that relevant information can be considered. The aim is to empower our licensing authorities in the vital work they do in protecting the travelling public from the few who seek to do harm.
The other aspect of the Bill is new duties on licensing authorities to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas and to respond to those reports from other authorities. As Members may be aware, only the licensing authority that issued a driver’s licence can suspend, refuse or revoke it, but, as we know, drivers may be licensed by one local authority but operate almost entirely in another—often a neighbouring local authority, but sometimes much further afield.
Where a licensing authority in England has safeguarding or road safety concerns about a driver licensed in another area that would lead to it considering suspending or revoking that licence had it issued it, the authority will be required to report those concerns to the authority that issued the licence. Those concerns must be reported, even if the licensing authority is based in Wales or Scotland, and they must be reported within 10 working days of the authority’s becoming aware of the relevant information relating to the driver’s conduct in its area.
Where a licensing authority in England receives concerns from another licensing authority in England, Scotland or Wales, it must consider whether to suspend or revoke the driver’s licence. The authority must inform the reporting authority of its decision and reasonings within 20 working days. These measures will help ensure that the licensing authority that issued the licence and is able to suspend or revoke the driver’s licence is aware of serious concerns over its drivers, even when they are working in other areas, so that only those who are fit and proper remain licensed.
Overall, the Bill is about ensuring the safety of our constituents when travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle. From the support the Bill has received across the House, I know it is something we can all get behind. The Bill goes some way towards the reform of our taxi licensing system and improves safeguards for the protection of our constituents. It does not provide for wholesale reform, and it is not a costly measure. It simply and cleanly closes a glaring loophole that frankly should never have been allowed to exist. I commend the Bill to the House.
Jim Shannon (Strangford) (DUP)
First, I commend the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on opening the debate in such an effective way, as he always does. He did so the last time I was here, too. Today is the culmination of that; I understand that Third Reading will take place today.
Whenever my grandchildren see something go well, they say, “Granddad, you’re a lucky duck!” The hon. Member is a lucky duck today, so well done to him for shortly getting the Bill through Parliament and for all he has done to improve this key issue: the safety of those who use taxis and private hire vehicles. Well done, genuinely. Those who are here are here to thank him and to participate in the debate. For the record, I also commend the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), because I know that this is a subject close to his heart. We can all rejoice in the culmination of the Bill’s progress through the House today.
Although I appreciate that the Bill does not apply to Northern Ireland as it is a devolved matter and we have our own taxi and private hire vehicle laws—I have spoken to the hon. Member for Darlington about that—it is great to speak on the main aspects of the Bill to see what can be learned in this place and what encouragement can be given to improve the legislation. When the legislation is passed, I intend to send it through to our Minister in Northern Ireland and say, “Here’s something that they’re doing across the water. Perhaps it might be a good idea to follow suit and put whatever we don’t have in place as well.”
The Bill has a simple but effective purpose, which is to protect our public—a key issue. Our taxi and private hire business is massive. In 2020, almost 300,000 taxis and PHVs were licensed to operate in England. That represents a roughly 60% increase in the numbers licensed since 2005.
In Northern Ireland specifically, the Department for Infrastructure figures say that there were 8,781 registered taxi drivers as of ’20-’21. According to a previous DfI report, in 2014, a total of 15,802 taxi drivers’ licences were recorded—just six years later, the figure has plummeted to just 9,045, a fall of more than 42%. The figures indicate that we in Northern Ireland have not had the increase in business to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred.
Dr Hudson
If you will forgive me for making a second cricket analogy in two days, Mr Speaker, I cannot resist the opportunity to break my duck and intervene on the hon. Member. On his point about how different parts of the United Kingdom can learn from each other, does he agree, as a Northern Ireland Member, that legislation through which we can share best practice across the United Kingdom shows us how important our precious Union is?
Jim Shannon
I certainly agree with the hon. Gentleman. He is right that I am a committed Unionist and I would always love to see this great nation as one; everybody from Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England is better together. He is pushing at an open door with that point. He makes a serious point, however, about how we can learn. It is important to share details, legislation and ideas, and to share what is right and what is successful, and then do that across this great nation.
Whether the figures in Northern Ireland are a result of the pandemic is another topic. I welcome the safeguarding aspects of the Bill, to which the hon. Member for Darlington referred. The main concept of the Bill is to ensure that only those fit to hold a licence are entrusted to carry the public. We could not ask for more—that is a key point. On Second Reading, he stated that the Bill aims to
“protect the hundreds of thousands of…drivers from having their reputation tarnished…by the abhorrent behaviour of a small minority”.—[Official Report, 10 September 2021; Vol. 700, c. 596.]
I repeat that today because it is a key part of the issue.
Many local government associations welcome the Bill as it would make it mandatory for licensing authorities to access vital background information about drivers seeking a licence in their relevant areas. That fully supports the use of councils, as they can ensure that those using taxi or private hire services are kept safe. With that in mind, I am sure that we in Northern Ireland, where it is a devolved matter, will make that happen, as the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said and the hon. Member for Darlington wants, too.
Licensing laws need to be brought up to date, which is what we are doing today. The Bill will take us to the next stage of enshrining safeguarding and protection in legislation. We live in a world where regulations, guidelines and policy are everything, so this is an opportunity for protection to be brought in, for legislation to be updated and to secure better travel for our constituents. The Bill aims to make the licensing system for taxis and PHVs fit for the 21st century, which will ultimately benefit both passengers and trade. We should all welcome that, because it is a step in the right direction for taxi companies and passengers who travel.
I feel strongly that more power to deal with allegations of crime or misconduct should be given to local authorities. The process of an investigation could well be delayed for months otherwise. For the protection of our constituents, the Bill takes us that stage further. Local agencies should have the power to deal with this matter in their areas. When working with the private sector, we must ensure that our constituents get every level of protection.
This Bill enables all licensing authorities to record and input into the database instances where they have refused to grant or renew a driver’s licence, or have suspended or revoked the licence because of a certain safeguarding or road-safety concern. I welcome the recent announcement of £14 million to help the taxi industry deal with the impact of the pandemic. We often say—it is the truth—that the Government stepped up to help businesses during the pandemic, and we are all deeply indebted to them for that. They have helped my constituents, along with all the constituents in this great nation represented by MPs in this House.
I believe that further discussion should be undertaken between the Minister, the Department and the devolved nations to see how we can further protect the public. I appreciate that data and information can be shared if necessary, but there should be a further conversation on the timescale. When the Minister sums up, can she indicate what conversations have been had with the devolved Administrations? That would tie in with what the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border said in his intervention and what the hon. Member for Darlington said. If there is something good here, we should share it.
To conclude, I welcome the comments of hon. Members who have spoken so far. I look forward to the contributions from those who follow, from both sides of the Chamber, particularly from the hon. Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) and the Minister.
I wish the hon. Member for Darlington well for the remainder of this important Bill’s legislative process. When it comes to public safety, it is crucial that we play our part in protecting the general public by having the correct guidelines in place. For that reason, this House, the Minister and the Government have much to thank the hon. Member for Darlington for in introducing this Bill.
Paul Holmes (Eastleigh) (Con)
I am delighted to have finished writing my speech before being called, Mr Speaker. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on progressing the Bill to this stage. It is a good Bill and it is a testament to his due diligence, his assiduousness as a Member of Parliament and his fundamental love of good governance. This Bill puts good governance at the heart of the taxi and private hire vehicle industry.
Now that he has Government support for the Bill, he might want to step down his case for Darlington to have Great British Railways headquarters, because we in Eastleigh need some good news too. If he manages to get this excellent piece of legislation on the statute book, Eastleigh should have Great British Railways headquarters. I am sure he will agree with me when he winds up at the end of the Bill, or he may wish to intervene. I think that Eastleigh has a very good case.
Peter Gibson
As my hon. Friend knows from my previous speeches in this House, Darlington is the birthplace of the railways. In 1825, Locomotion No.1 pulled the very first passenger train across Skerne Bridge—the oldest, longest-established and continuously used railway bridge in the world, and heritage site—in my constituency. I can think of no better place for Great British Railways to be based than Darlington.
Mr Speaker
May I suggest that a train is not a taxi? As much as the hon. Gentleman sells this great history, even he would agree that it does not quite link in to this Bill.
Paul Holmes
I apologise to you, Mr Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington for leading him down that path, but my constituents were expecting me to mention that point.
Paul Holmes
Not for the first time, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken) outlines. I will get to the cars that service the trains in Eastleigh, but I just say to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that Eastleigh is the birthplace of the railways in the south.
This Bill closes some of the loopholes around the good administration, and relieves the current burden on local authorities and licensing authorities. I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington that there is a kind of postcode lottery and patchwork quilt approach to the licensing of private taxis in England. As someone who has previously served on a licensing authority in Southampton—[Interruption.] My hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster heckles me from a sedentary position; she told me 10 minutes ago that she was chairman of the largest licensing authority in the UK, so I am sure that she will want to intervene and share her experience during my speech.
I remember consistently that when I was a member of the licensing authority, there was a perennial frustration when drivers came before us that we did not necessarily have all the information that we wanted, given the timescales for approving and licensing taxi drivers. We also did not know whether that driver had been before other licensing authorities.
Nickie Aiken
As my hon. Friend has just informed the House, I was proud to be the chair of the largest licensing authority in the country. Does he agree that we should thank the outstanding licensing officers—including the licensing enforcement officers—up and down this country, who work so hard to ensure our safety, whether that is in premises, taxis or any other form of licensing?
Paul Holmes
I absolutely agree. In my background and in my hon. Friend’s, the teams worked tirelessly to ensure that we have not only roadworthy vehicles, but safe drivers. In addition to her comments, we should also put on record our thanks to the thousands of taxi drivers—my constituents and constituents across the whole UK—who play by the rules, keep their cars up to scratch and provide a service to people in this country. We really do value their lifestyle and the work that they do, and we thank them.
This Bill is good for reassuring millions of users of the taxi trade, particularly people travelling late at night, of their safety. As my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border (Dr Hudson) said, whereas years ago taxis were predominantly focused on close geographical areas, they are now travelling much further around the country and are being used a lot more. That is why it is so important that licensing authorities across the whole country know where drivers have come from and whether they have not necessarily played by the rules in the past.
It is unfortunate that the most important provision in the Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, is that it protects people. It protects people who are vulnerable, including young people, but in particular women who may actually be using a taxi for the safe trip home, instead of using public transport; unfortunately, in recent times we have seen the absolute reason why this Bill should pass, which is that it will provide women with that reassurance in getting home.
There is a key problem. It is bizarre that in 2022, we still have an antiquated and outdated system. My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border said that this licensing regime has been going on for many years. It is bizarre that we have a system that has not got a single, uniform, one-stop code or database to be able to ensure the safety not only of vehicles, which are travelling further, but the people who drive them, who have people in their cars. I use taxis from here at the end of late-night sittings, and sometimes, when I am travelling, when I get back to my constituency, and it is rare to see the same driver twice. The many millions of people who use taxis in this country probably do not see the same driver twice. Given the nature of being in a taxi—with a stranger—it is bizarre that we do not have people being properly checked.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for bringing this Bill to the House. My hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) has experience of serving on a licensing authority; in the process of licensing taxi drivers and their vehicles, are criminal records and other issues that are not linked to taxis part of the decision-making process?
Paul Holmes
Yes, they are. Licensing authorities can ask for such information but my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is trying to mitigate the fact that that process does not show whether drivers have had not necessarily criminal convictions but suspensions or revocations because they have not kept their vehicle up to scratch or have committed some sort of misdemeanour. There is provision for that in the existing licensing regime but it does not go far enough, which is why the Bill needs to become law.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has outlined, the problem is widespread. Local authorities are not required to share information and people whose licences have been suspended, refused or revoked can carry on working elsewhere. My hon. Friend has absolutely the balance right in respect of the need to protect the information of drivers who play by the rules and those who may have had a mishap, because his Bill allows that information to be shared only on a case-by-case basis. That will reassure the decent, honourable taxi drivers out there who play by the rules that this is a safety mechanism, not an attacking mechanism. That is vital.
Paul Holmes
I give way to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) first.
James Wild
The removal of a taxi driver’s licence takes away their livelihood so, given my hon. Friend’s experience on a licensing committee, will he reassure me that the Bill will not affect the appeals processes that are in place?
Paul Holmes
I shall respond to that excellent point after I have given way to my hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border.
Dr Hudson
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way to a double-headed intervention. His points about the database are well made—it is important that authorities can access and share information—but does he agree that with central databases it is so important that the information is shareable but kept secure?
Paul Holmes
I thank both my hon. Friends. I have taken a double-header; I shall respond first to my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk, who makes a good point. There is of course an appeals process in the existing licensing regime and the Bill will not harm it at all. In fact, it will do the reverse by making it easier for local authorities to get all the information they need and allowing the driver going through the appeals process to be confident that the local authority will get the full information it needs from throughout the country, if that driver has served under two licensing authorities.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border makes the good point that having a central database should not mean that local authorities keep information inappropriately. I agree with him that drivers should be reassured that their information will be used properly.
Peter Gibson
It may assist the House if, following the interventions that my hon. Friend has just generously taken, I put on the record and clarify the fact that in respect of the decisions taken by local authorities the Bill will not change or alter the appeals process in any way, shape or form. The existing regime, with appeals to magistrates courts, will remain as it is.
Paul Holmes
I thank my hon. Friend, who is an expert on the Bill because he wrote it, for that clarification. He will have reassured Members from all parties and has just added to the reasons why the Bill should be passed today.
James Wild
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for taking a second intervention. To return again to his experience on a licensing committee, will he say what proportion of applications for private hire licences were rejected? Would he expect that proportion to increase when local authorities have additional information?
Paul Holmes
My hon. Friend tempts me to hark back to my career in local government around 12 years ago—[Interruption.] I know I do not look old enough, as someone very kindly said. I do not think the Bill will have an impact on the number of cases that would be refused. What it would do is allow that information to be shared with councillors. Officers take their responsibilities very seriously and perform them impartially, independently and without fear or favour, as my hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster said. I do not think the legislation would have an undue effect on the number of cases that would be refused or granted.
To come back to my speech after those wonderful interventions, the system is outdated as there is no obligation on local authorities to report the concerns about drivers to the home authority. At present, we are in effect allowing an unsafe system. I am not saying that in a melodramatic way or trying to raise concerns about the thousands of drivers that behave properly and provide a backbone to the country, but the current system has some large loopholes and can be unsafe for some people—perhaps not unsafe, but negligent—in allowing the cross-country approach. That is why my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington should be congratulated.
In clause 2, my hon. Friend has thought exactly of that point, with a reasonable time period to record a suspension from local authorities of five days. That would not put an undue or onerous duty on local authority officers, particularly those in licensing teams who work in that atmosphere every day. That is not unreasonable. Clause 2 also provides for that information to be kept on the database for a period of 11 years, and that gets the balance just right. It is not too onerous for drivers to think that if they leave the profession or want to come back to it the information will be kept on for too long. The Bill may be seen by some as onerous for the taxi driver. I do not agree, because those people who have played by the rules, and may have been in the career for 30 years, will have nothing to hide, and they should be reassured by the Bill.
Peter Gibson
It may further assist the House for me to clarify that I have had extensive engagement throughout the country with a variety of private hire taxi operators and vehicle hire associations representing their members’ interests. Every single one of them is keen to protect the reputations of good, decent and honourable people who are plying their trade as taxi or private hire vehicle operators, who should be commended for the work that they have done throughout covid. I think it is fair to say that the Bill is universally accepted as good legislation that will protect the reputations of good, decent drivers.
Paul Holmes
As usual, in two minutes my hon. Friend has made the point in a much more succinct and concise way than I have in 12, and I am sure that will happen again in our mutual careers over the next few years. He never knowingly undersells something with fewer words than I do.
My hon. Friend the Member for Penrith and The Border made the point that drivers are now driving further and people are using taxis for longer distances, rather than just in their city or town jurisdiction. If we apply the Bill to the geographical location of my constituency in Eastleigh, it has a major railway station in Southampton Airport Parkway that is massively serviced by Southampton taxi drivers because it is 500 yards over the local authority licensing boundary. It seems perfectly sensible to me that if someone is using a major infrastructure point such as Southampton Airport Parkway and travelling back into the city of Southampton, Eastleigh and Southampton should be able to share information to ensure the constant and uniform provision of safe vehicles and safe drivers. As well as road safety, given that there are more cars travelling and many people using taxis have absolutely no idea of the safety mechanisms or of how well serviced the car is in which they will be travelling one mile or 50 miles, there has to be a mention of what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said: this will have an impact in making people who use taxis feel safer and more reassured.
Ironically, as I said earlier, people use taxis as their first port of call when they do not necessarily feel safe travelling home on trains and tubes because of the night-time or the early-morning economy. When we leave the Chamber today after what I hope is a successful conclusion to the Bill, it is important that we all go out and let our constituents know that this fundamental legislation will provide them with that extra safety, particularly vulnerable people who might be travelling to hospital, women and younger people. Unfortunately, some cases in recent history show why this Bill is necessary.
I have had the leave of the House to speak for quite some time. [Interruption.] Someone said, “Hear, hear.” Thanks very much. I sincerely congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, who is a good friend of mine. He believes in good legislation and has an acute eye for making sure legislation is drafted in the right way. I have no doubt that we will see him have a further impact on legislation and good governance in this country. That is why this Bill should be passed this afternoon.
Daniel Zeichner (Cambridge) (Lab)
It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), who made an excellent speech. The account of his and others’ experience on licensing committees is extremely helpful and useful.
I also commend the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), who has been an excellent driver of this Bill. He has successfully piloted it this far, and I wish him every success in getting it through Parliament. I share his commendation of former Ministers, particularly the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) and the hon. Member for Wealden (Ms Ghani), who fought very hard to get this on the statute book some years ago. I am delighted we are here this morning.
Without repeating the many excellent points that have been made, I will address the important point made by the hon. Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild). It was one of the issues raised when the Bill was talked out three years ago, when I was slightly frustrated not only by the fact it was not able to proceed but more by the fact I was not able to respond to some of the points that were made that day. I addressed some of those points in Committee, because I think it is important that we understand that this is not a draconian attack on people who have offended. The balance between national regulation and local discretion is really important, and it is a delicate issue. There are reasons why it is important to use local knowledge and expertise.
Exactly as the hon. Member for Darlington said, nothing in this Bill changes the ability of local representatives to use their knowledge and discretion to make decisions. The key point is that it gives them extra information to allow them to make a better-informed decision, which is an important point to get across.
I will briefly reflect on some wider issues. I was struck that last week the right hon. and learned Member for Kenilworth and Southam (Jeremy Wright) moved the Second Reading of the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill, which says to me there is a need for wider, broader legislation in the taxi and private hire world.
If the right hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings were here today, he would refer back to the report he commissioned from Professor Mohammed Abdel-Haq some three or four years ago, which the Select Committee on Transport and others discussed at length. The professor made 34 recommendations, and I am slightly concerned it has taken us so long to do so little. Exactly as has been said, the world out there changes very quickly. When I embarked on this process four or five years ago, we were still in the relatively early days of app-based travel. Here we are, four years on, and we are still trying to plug one of those loopholes. Goodness me, the world has changed in that time, and it will change again.
I very much hope that, at some point in the future, we will have a comprehensive piece of legislation, and I look to my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford South (Sam Tarry) on the Front Bench because I suspect he will have something to say about that. We really need that, because so many issues have still not been addressed, particularly the vexed issue of cross-border hire, which has been mentioned a number of times. I am afraid that the Bill is only a small piece of legislation in the face of the challenges that exist.
I very much agreed with the comments about the excellent work being done by so many people out there. They have had a hard time during the pandemic, and I am not sure that there are still 345,000 of them, as there were a couple of years ago. I was struck by conversations that I had with representatives of some of the taxi and private hire firms in my own area—Panther Taxis in particular—who were ruing the fact that during the pandemic a number of their best and most experienced people were drifting away, leaving the industry and going off to do other things. That, I am afraid, is partly because some of the support schemes, welcome though they were, were patchy, and different local authorities applied them in different ways. In some cases, it depended on whether drivers were registered in an area, or whether they lived in an area.
Local discretion is important, but I think that overall the feeling in the sector is that the support did not always come through, which has meant the loss of a large number of drivers. I am told—and I think anyone travelling here this morning will be well aware of this—that London is still quieter than before, and that has a knock-on effect. Yesterday I was talking to Steve McNamara of the Licensed Taxi Drivers Association, who told me that the London black cab fleet is nearly 40% electric—which is a huge achievement to which we should pay tribute, although obviously there is more to be done—but the number of registered cabs, which was 18,000 before the pandemic, is still only about 14,000, so there is more to be done in that regard as well.
Let me end by again paying tribute to the huge number of people in this sector. There is a danger, when we talk about the problems in a sector, that we begin to think that all the people in that sector are breaking the rules. They are not: as has already been said, the vast majority provide a fantastic service, often for people with disabilities, which is why I think the Bill proposed last week—the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Disabled Persons) Bill—was so important. These people do a brilliant job in all our communities throughout the country. I also pay tribute, as others have done, to those who make the licensing system work: the local councillors, who often have to make quite difficult decisions, and, of course, the enforcement officers and their officials who back them up.
This is a great sector, it works very well and the Bill will make it work better, but there is still more to be done.
Nickie Aiken (Cities of London and Westminster) (Con)
Like every other Member who has spoken, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for embarking on this mission to reform the licensing laws governing taxis and private hire vehicles. Given what he has said this morning and what I have read in the Bill, I cannot understand why we have not done this before. I agree that private Members’ Bills can play a vital part in improving legislation, and I thank my hon. Friend for his diligence and his excellent work on this issue.
I have read the Bill in detail, and I am incredulous that one type of vehicle, which is seen particularly in our capital—the pedicab—is exempt from its provisions because of an anomaly in the law. As many Members know, for the last two years I have been trying to get my Pedicabs (London) Bill through the House; I am continuing to do so, and I hope that it will be read again this afternoon.
Lia Nici
It seems to me from what my hon. Friend has been saying that the only difference relates to whether or not a vehicle has an engine. What position are passengers in should a pedicab owner have an accident and they are injured? Must they have insurance?
Nickie Aiken
I thank my hon. Friend for raising the issue of insurance. She may be shocked and possibly appalled to learn that, as it stands, pedicabs in London have no licensing regime. Therefore, there is no onus on them to have any insurance. Currently, passengers getting into a pedicab have no understanding of the risk they are putting themselves at. There is no legislation that calls on pedicabs in London to have any insurance, and drivers are not checked. Operations conducted in recent weeks by Westminster City Council and the Metropolitan police found drivers who are wanted for sexual offences. Their vehicles have no form of MOT—there is no onus on the driver to have an MOT or any checks on their vehicle. That is why I have been campaigning, since I arrived in this place, to ensure we have a proper licensing regime that mirrors what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is trying to do with his Bill.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Can I just stop the hon. Lady there momentarily and suggest that we go back to this Bill? I know and appreciate that the hon. Lady has a separate Bill, which may or may not have a Second Reading this afternoon, but we must focus on this Bill. I have given a little bit of generous leeway, but I think we should get back to the Bill.
Nickie Aiken
I appreciate and understand your comments, Mr Deputy Speaker. You will understand my passion to ensure that everybody who gets a pedicab in London is safe, but I will move on.
I pay tribute to the outstanding taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers we have in this country. As Members have pointed out, it is clear that they have paid a huge price during the pandemic. One only has to go on to the streets of my constituency to see that the office workers and international travellers have disappeared. I talk to taxi drivers all the time and I know they are desperate for us to get back to normal after the pandemic. I hope the Bill my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is bringing forward today will give those who work day in, day out to provide a service the comfort that we support their efforts.
Let us not forget that private hire vehicle and taxi drivers provide us with a service, including in taking us to hospital. Many vulnerable citizens going to hospital may not want to get a bus. They may prefer to get a taxi. I have a taxi driver in my own family. I am very proud that my cousin-in-law in Cardiff, Alex, is a black cab driver. He does a brilliant job. I know from first hand the work he does. He supports children with learning difficulties by getting them to school every day of the week. I thank him and drivers like him who are doing that public service, taking our vulnerable patients to hospital and our vulnerable children and young people to school. Quite often, that type of work is forgotten. We think that taxi drivers and private hire vehicle drivers are just those who take us out on a night out or perhaps take us home after we have had a good night out.
In conclusion, I thank my hon. Friend for bringing forward this brilliant Bill. It will make us safer, it will make our drivers safer and it will ensure that our outstanding licensing authorities across the nation, and in particular across England and Wales, provide the extra level of security we all deserve when we get into a private hire vehicle.
Mike Wood (Dudley South) (Con)
I join hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on bringing forward such an important Bill. I remember well that being drawn out of the private Member’s Bill ballot, particularly as a relatively new Member of the House, can be something of a mixed blessing. A Member normally only really finds out they have been successful and got one of the higher places in the ballot when, suddenly, their email inbox starts pinging 100 times a minute. They are suddenly far, far more popular than they have been for a long time, with any number of organisations, non-governmental organisations, charities, campaign groups and Government Departments on the telephone with helpful advice on issues they might wish to consider bringing forward. That lasts until they announce the title of their Bill, when suddenly the calls stop and the emails stop, and the work really begins.
A private Member’s Bill can be a huge amount of work—preparing and drafting the Bill, navigating the legislative process, building support, finding supporters, negotiating with Opposition parties and finding Members for the Bill Committee. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington will have done a huge amount of work over the past eight months. It is thanks to that work that we are at the point of hopefully completing this House’s consideration of the Bill this morning. That is a tribute to his effort and his effectiveness in bringing people together behind a very sensible set of proposals.
My hon. Friend was typically generous to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for all the work he did on the predecessor Bill, which laid so much of the groundwork. I think it was Isaac Newton who said he was standing on the shoulders of giants; I do not know whether my hon. Friend would put it in quite such terms, but I am sure the sentiment applies.
Peter Gibson
My hon. Friend is making an excellent speech and I am very grateful for his praise, which is making me blush. In Committee, I made similar references to the people whose shoulders I was standing on. I think I described the hon. Member for Cambridge as the father of the Bill, and my right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) as the grandfather of the Bill—he took some objection to that, as it seemed to imply his age. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments.
Mike Wood
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. Perhaps it might have been more delicate to suggest that our right hon. Friend the Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Sir John Hayes) was not the grandfather of the Bill, but more a favourite uncle. That is how most of us think of our right hon. Friend, who I know wishes he could be here.
The need for the Bill is clear to anyone who gives the most cursory thought to the issue. The taxi licensing regime, as has been said, goes back to a time when taxis and private hire vehicles operated locally and were very unlikely to move outside of their area. That is not the world we are in now. We are now in an age of app-based travel. In the 21st century, with Uber, Gett, Kapten and who knows how many others that I am not quite hip enough to yet be familiar with, it really is impossible to know where a taxi might have originated from. Of course, there are exceptions—in Dudley, there are a number of local operators, including one operated by one of my local councillors, which run extremely successfully on a local basis with local drivers and local registrations and are competing with the big ride-hailing apps—but we do need to look at the wider regulatory framework.
Other hon. Members have spoken about their time on local authority licensing authorities. During my time as a member of Dudley Council, through a mixture of pleading and constraints on availability, I very successfully avoided being on the licensing committee, but I know that those who serve on such authorities around the country have the extremely difficult responsibility of making sure that passengers are safe and that responsible operators can run their business and make their living in a fair, reasonable and safe way.
The first priority has to be passenger safety: anyone who gets into a taxi or a private hire car has to know that they are safe. In almost all cases they are, but a very small number of very high-profile cases, such as the horrific crimes carried out by John Worboys, have had a horrible impact on people’s lives. Wherever a vehicle or a driver is licensed, authorities have to do everything they can to ensure that the risk is kept to the absolute minimum.
On Second Reading, in an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, I said that, since the liberalisation of licensing, some local authorities have been responsible for a huge proportion of the licences issued in any region. In the Black Country, City of Wolverhampton Council issues approximately 15,000 licences per year. At least one was for a driver from as far away as Perth—I shudder to think what the fare would have been on the round trip for that taxi, which is presumably still operating in Perth with a licence issued in Wolverhampton. That is why it is so important that, once my hon. Friend’s Bill is on the statute book, the devolved Administrations make sure that the flow of information that the Bill provides for is reciprocated: so that Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish licensing authorities can see clearly any concerns or offences recorded by an English authority, while those who make decisions in places such as the City of Wolverhampton can see whether any reasons to decline a licence have been recorded, whether in Perth, in Swansea or in Derry.
The Bill builds on an existing register, which local authorities have effectively put in place themselves, and provides the option for the Minister to make it the relevant register. The NR3—the national register of taxi and private hire licence revocations and refusals—was created three years ago by the Local Government Association and is managed by the National Anti Fraud Network; it is an excellent example of how local government can innovate and introduce solutions. Those solutions are working well. It is now time for us to legislate for a comprehensive system across the country and support the local authorities that already submit data on a voluntary basis by making that approach the rule, instead of the somewhat patchy system that is now in place.
Putting a statutory obligation on local licensing authorities to record refusals, revocations and suspensions will improve safety for passengers. It will allow local enforcement teams to report instances of wrongdoing, and ensuring that the report is dealt with will help to keep all our constituents safer when they get into a taxi or a private hire vehicle. It will also ensure that licensing bodies in local authorities are in possession of all the relevant facts before they issue a licence, as they will be aware of previous refusals and suspensions.
This is an absolutely crucial safety mechanism; it will ensure that data sharing is commonplace. By sharing the data, all authorities will be in possession of all the facts. That must be the right way to handle the licensing and approval of those who have the responsibility of transporting people about and in whom passengers put their trust daily. Passengers must know every time they get into those vehicles that they are safe. That is important not only because they must of course be safe, but because there must be confidence in the system of taxis and private hire vehicles if the industry, on which so many people’s livelihoods rely, is to thrive and be sustainable.
Lia Nici
Does my hon. Friend agree that it is not only the people who are actually in the taxis who need to feel safe, but parents and carers? Quite often, taxis are used for people who have learning disabilities or difficulties, people having treatment in hospital, or children being ferried from home to school.
Mike Wood
My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. As a father, I would like to believe that I can make sure that my teenage daughter never leaves the house other than to go to school or to other authorised activities, but I know that in a very short time she will be travelling independently with friends and, despite her current aversion to the idea of anything alcoholic, it is just possible that as she gets older, she will decide that the nightlife of Dudley, the Black Country and the wider west midlands has a little bit too much to resist.
Any of us would want to know that family and friends who need to take taxis home are absolutely safe. The Bill introduced by hon. Friend the Member for Darlington is an important measure in helping to deliver that, and that is why I look forward to supporting it.
John Lamont (Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk) (Con)
I am delighted to speak in the debate. Like others before me, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on all the work that he has done in bringing forward this important Bill. We have before us today a great opportunity to improve the safety of taxi passengers, particularly women and other vulnerable users. I am delighted to support the Bill and pleased that the Government are doing so, too.
Amending the law in this way to improve safety is most welcome across the board, but I think it is important to note that this measure is designed to target a minority of taxi drivers who have committed sexual offences, caused physical or psychological harm, or threatened or harassed another person, and for whom licensing authorities have refused to grant or renew a licence, or have suspended or revoked a licence, because of certain safeguarding or road safety concerns. In short, those are actions that make someone—often, a woman—feel unsafe or that put them in danger. Indeed, the Bill focuses on stopping a sinister few from abusing, threatening or causing harm to passengers. I think it is important to keep that in perspective while debating the Bill.
Before I get to the crux of the Bill, I want to take the opportunity briefly to speak more broadly about taxi firms and their contribution to wider society. I pay tribute R&L Taxis, based in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. R&L Taxis provide veterans with free taxi lifts through the “Fares 4 Free” scheme, allowing our veterans to get around properly and ensuring that they do not become isolated. During the pandemic, R&L Taxis have offered NHS staff half-price rides, with drivers even dropping off and picking up the same individual after long driving shifts. The owner of the firm, Bruce Mercer, is a veteran himself and has built up relationships with many members of the local community. This work and the service provided by R&L Taxis are to be commended; I am very glad to have the opportunity to recognise Bruce and all the drivers at R&L Taxis in this place today.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
Bruce Mercer has obviously done a fantastic job. Does my hon. Friend agree that this illustrates that some taxi firms do fantastic work in providing safe transport for many of our constituents? Bruce Mercer is clearly going out of his way to provide that at a reduced cost so that many veterans and those who feel isolated are able to benefit from that service.
John Lamont
I am grateful to my hon. hon. Friend for making that intervention. His key point is that the vast majority of taxi firms and drivers are providing an excellent service to their local community and the Bill is designed to target a very small minority, but it is right to take action to address those concerns.
Members may rightly wonder why I am participating in this debate given that the Bill’s provisions do not extend to Scotland. I want to raise the profile of the changes introduced in the Bill and highlight that similar measures would benefit Scots if they were brought forward there. Any person who feels unsafe in a taxi is one too many and I welcome that the Bill seeks to address that. I want to highlight why corresponding legislation should be introduced in Scotland, which would obviously impact on my own constituents in the Scottish Borders.
By mandating local licensing authorities to record when a licence has been refused, the Bill creates a database that allows serious safeguarding or road concerns about a taxi or PHV driver to be identified. That will allow licensing authorities in different areas of England to be aware of past criminality before awarding a new licence. Currently in England licensing authorities are not required to share information with other licensing authorities, which can result in situations where, even if a licence is revoked in one area due to a taxi driver offence, that does not prevent them from getting a licence elsewhere in another part of the country. There are even instances where a taxi driver who has committed an offence can drive in the original area where the offence was committed. Often, concerns over safety are not acted upon due to a lack of knowledge on the part of the relevant licensing authorities.
This is clearly a hole in upholding the safety of passengers, particularly women and other vulnerable users. In Scotland there is not a comparable central database that authorities must have due regard to, meaning it is more likely for a criminal to slip through the net. If Scotland adopted the same system and collected and stored information in the same way the Bill suggests for England, a much tighter net would be constructed to prevent criminals from capitalising and preying on passengers.
I recognise the critical and hard work so many of our taxi drivers do across the UK, including in my constituency in the Scottish Borders. Their work will often include unsociable hours and nights away from their families. I hope the focus in the Chamber today does not cast a shadow over their important work, but I hope this debate and the Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington serve to illuminate what can and should be done in Scotland to safeguard women from the minority of drivers who are dangerous and predatory to society.
Simon Fell (Barrow and Furness) (Con)
I will be brief because I know that many Members want urgently to speak on this subject. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for this excellent Bill and am very glad to speak on it for a second time; I spoke on Second Reading. It is an excellent Bill and at its heart it is designed to keep our constituents safe. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) for his hard work in bringing this legislation through.
The Bill takes a critical function and makes it universal, so that if someone has been disqualified from driving a licensed hire vehicle, that information is passed to other local authorities. Put simply, it keeps the public safe. Crucially, it also means that people have confidence in the private hire vehicles they are getting into, which is key. We have heard much about the licensing process from my hon. Friends the Members for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes) and for Cities of London and Westminster (Nickie Aiken). It gives people confidence in the vehicles they get into. It means that people who use the services, particularly vulnerable and disabled people and those without access to decent local public transport, who use these services when there are fewer public transport options available, have faith in the drivers and the vehicles they get into.
As has been raised across the House, the vast majority of private hire vehicle drivers are excellent. They do superb work to keep our communities moving and have done so throughout the pandemic. They are of great character and are an absolute credit to their trade, but the system must not allow those who are not a credit to hang on to their jobs and continue to keep operating.
Where I am based in Barrow and Furness, we have Barrow local authority, South Lakes and Copeland up the road, home of my excellent constituency neighbour, the excellent Minister on the Front Bench. When we hire a vehicle through an app or on the phone, we do not think about which local authority or licensing authority we are sitting in. We simply think about which is the nearest, which will get us somewhere fastest and who has the best reviews. The Bill goes to the heart of why we need to share information to clamp down on the bad apples in the system.
There is no denying that the Bill will impose additional responsibilities on licensing authorities. I certainly think very carefully about any additional restrictions that we put on authorities, but these are very small compared with the benefits that will flow from the changes. I am delighted that the LGA backs the Bill and that complementary, albeit voluntary, versions of the scheme are already running across different parts of the UK. Connecting them is key, and we want to see interoperability between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, especially at the borders, where the scheme could show the most benefit. That interoperability is not just about data sharing. It is also about sharing best practice. Where one area is forging ahead with new schemes, where it takes the system further and where it learns what information can be shared to the further benefit of the people who ultimately get in these vehicles, we want to make sure that across the borders the other nations take notice and adjust their schemes as well.
Although I back the Bill wholeheartedly, I have some concerns on it and some of the actions that will probably flow post the legislation passing, hopefully. On governance I want an assurance that, if mistakes are made—hopefully, they will not be—and an individual is impugned and placed on the database incorrectly, they will have fair recourse to get their name taken off it in good speed. Similarly, if bad data is put on the database, the licensing authority that put it there should face a penalty. I heard what my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said on that, but I hope that can be kept under review.
On the database operation, I understand that clause 2 talks about five days in terms of how long it should take before information is put on the database and shared. I would like the Department to give decent consideration to the speed of data entry and access. We do not want authorities making decisions on poor or out-of-date data. Before I did this job, I spent 10 years in fraud prevention and learnt that as close to real time is what we should aim for.
Similarly on data matching rules, my experience in my past job showed that those who want to evade penalty spend an awful lot of time ably curating the information that they give to people. We want to be using up-to-date systems, and the best technology that uses data matching rules that help minimise the effectiveness of what those people are doing who are trying to keep their jobs when they should not have them. We want to use technology that can pick out both Daves and Davids; can pick out people switching addresses; and uses secondary and tertiary information, such as phone numbers and email addresses, to make sure that good connections are made between items of data that are shared, so that people who are trying to avoid being taken out of the system cannot do so. Getting this right is key to making the system effective.
Setting aside those concerns, I fully support this excellent Bill. I hope it passes Third Reading successfully, and makes it through the other place. I commend the work of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington.
James Wild (North West Norfolk) (Con)
It is a pleasure to speak in this debate. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on successfully stewarding the Bill through to Third Reading. It is right to acknowledge what others have done, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who brought forward similar proposals. I hope that he enjoyed his visit a few weeks ago to my North West Norfolk constituency.
At its core, the Bill is about public safety, and giving people greater confidence, when they get in the back of a taxi or private hire vehicle, that the driver has been properly checked out. We legislators have a duty to consider carefully whether legislation is necessary. I recognise that the Bill builds on the approach set out in the Government-issued statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, which recommend that licensing authorities share information with other authorities, because better information will lead to better decisions.
The Bill will benefit local authorities—and, through them, the public—by ensuring that they have as much relevant information as possible when considering new applications or renewal applications. It will also mean that local authorities are aware of incidents in other areas involving drivers whom they have licenced. It closes a loophole that means that local authorities are not required to share information. That prevents other authorities from being able to make an informed decision, and as others have highlighted, that creates the potential for a driver who is refused a licence to move to another area to apply for a licence there. As my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington said, that is a crazy situation. The Bill represents a proportionate and welcome response to that, and will help local authorities protect the public.
Constituents have raised with me the difficulty in getting taxi drivers to accept passengers with assistance dogs; they are turned away by drivers. Research by the charity Guide Dogs found that the businesses most commonly reported to have refused access included minicabs and private hire vehicles; 72% of respondents reported that happening to them. These refusals are deeply distressing to the individuals involved. They damage their confidence and undermine their independence and ability to live their life. Of course, it is already an offence under the Equality Act 2010 for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to refuse to carry an assistance dog; they can be fined up to £1,000.
In 2019, the Government accepted a recommendation that all taxi and minicab drivers be required to have disability equality training. I would be grateful to the Minister for an update on that for my constituents and Guide Dogs, and on the steps that the Government are taking to encourage drivers and companies to do that training voluntarily. Given the importance of the issue, I welcome the fact that passengers with assistance dogs and wheelchair passengers will be covered by the clause 1 “Relevant information” provisions, which require information to be passed on if a person poses a safeguarding risk. I welcome the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington confirmed, there is no effect on the appeals process or panels, or on the rights that taxi drivers have when decisions go against them.
I am always focused on the question of when legislation commences. In my experience as a special adviser in various Departments, I found that too often a lot of energy was focused on bringing forward measures; less energy was spent on bringing them into force. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister is on the case with her officials to make sure that the measures are implemented as rapidly as possible.
Finally, I lend my support to the campaign launched a decade ago by the noble Lord Finkelstein against the misuse of the prefix “pre”. Private hire cars are often festooned with signs saying, “Pre-booked only”. The explanatory notes fall into the same trap. These cars are not pre-booked; they are just booked. If we can end this preposterous prefix use, that would be a little win for pedants everywhere. I support the Bill.
Robbie Moore (Keighley) (Con)
I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on getting the Bill to this stage. I know that he has spent much time diligently looking at the legislation and has had many conversations with colleagues from across the House, including the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), who has worked on similar legislation. I wish my hon. Friend all the best of luck as the Bill passes through this House and the other place.
As many hon. Members have said, current legislation in this area has unfortunately been outdated for too long. That is why the Bill is so important. We have many fantastic taxi drivers providing a fantastic, valuable service to all our constituents, doing the best that they can and doing an important job, whether taking constituents to the hospital for doctors’ appointments, or simply taking them home after a night out or from the train station to wherever they wish to go.
Sarah Owen (Luton North) (Lab)
I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for bringing this important Bill to the House. On that point, taxi drivers in Luton are taking people to and from vaccination centres in free “vaxi taxis”. Does the hon. Member agree that that is a fantastic service provided by our taxi and private hire vehicle drivers?
Robbie Moore
I absolutely do. That, along with examples that we have heard from other hon. Members, illustrates how important taxi drivers are. They provide a fantastic, valuable service to all our constituents, and it is great to hear that they are even taking people to vaccination centres. That is what I want to illustrate.
My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington has carefully articulated the Bill, which gets to the nub of the issue of safeguarding, ensuring that our constituents are protected when a minority of taxi drivers are not doing the right thing. I will share some instances which, unfortunately, I have experienced in my constituency. Only a couple of months ago, some constituents contacted me as they had video footage of several taxi drivers using their firm to distribute drugs in Keighley. We have a huge drug issue in Keighley. We therefore need one local authority to be able to share data with others so that we get the licensing provisions absolutely right. It is key that licences are given only to taxi drivers who perform their duty with absolute care. We all have fantastic drivers in our constituencies, and it is right that we protect drivers going about their business and keeping passengers safe while we have a targeted approach to clamp down on individuals who are abusing their positions.
Developments in both technology and the transport market in general have prohibited local authorities’ ability to share concerns about an individual, whether relating to darker issues such as using taxis to distribute drugs or safeguarding issues such as protecting women and young children, which are also a huge concern. That is why the current system needs changing. Someone who loses their licence from one local authority should not be able to get one from another local authority in close proximity and carry out their day-to-day duty in that same local authority area in which they lost their licence. That is why the collective ability to share data is so important.
Provisions of the Bill such as those that enable the Department for Transport to provide an information database on taxi drivers will help to streamline the process and ensure no bypassing of the rules. Likewise, the statutory requirements for licensing authorities to have regard to the database will ensure that the standards are kept up to date.
I also welcome the fact that the Bill enables councils to report their concerns about out-of-area drivers and have those concerns acknowledged in the appropriate way. The current circumstances, where local councils are unable to take enforcement action against taxi drivers licensed by other local authorities, even if they are operating in their own streets, are wrong and the Bill will help to counteract that. It will also ensure that local authorities have the power to share vital information on whether a taxi driver is safe to have passengers in their car.
It is also right that the Bill will ensure that drivers are fit and proper and that road safety is guaranteed across local authority borders. I represent a constituency that is right on the periphery of the county of West Yorkshire, on the periphery of Bradford Council’s local authority remit and with North Yorkshire literally a stone’s throw away. I know many taxi drivers take passengers between North and West Yorkshire; that is why this Bill is so important, enabling that data to be shared.
I am delighted that the Bill will go further, building on work done by the Government, to ensure that taxis and private hire vehicles are safer for passengers and drivers alike. The task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, established in September 2017, was important in kickstarting the process towards a safer taxi and private hire vehicle industry. The group was essential in starting the process of reviewing and considering the accuracy of the current taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities. It concluded not only that the powers of local authorities needed to be strengthened further, but that new legislation was needed to make our roads safer, so I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington again on bringing forward this vital piece of legislation.
It is absolutely right that the Bill does not remove the current appeal process; it is right that there is a working appeal process. I would have liked to see the Bill encompass the ability to have CCTV in taxis, which would have provided a further mechanism for ensuring that our taxis are even safer; that children, young people, women and anybody using a taxi is safeguarded; and that drivers are also protected. I wish my hon. Friend the best of luck as this legislation goes through the House.
Matt Vickers (Stockton South) (Con)
I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. Having taken many taxis to and from Darlington station, I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) on all the work he has put in to this Bill, which will ensure that 276 licensing authorities across the country can make better-informed decisions on who should and should not be on our roads.
The Bill will not only improve public safety, but protect the confidence and trust that we have in our amazing workforce of taxi and private hire drivers—trust that means we can put lone and vulnerable loved ones into a taxi and know they will arrive safely thanks to the key workers who drive our taxi and private hire vehicles. Those drivers have had a hell of a ride in business terms over the pandemic; as we were retreating to the safety of our own homes, they were rolling up their sleeves, getting on with it and keeping the country moving.
Those drivers continue to keep us moving: doing the early mornings and the late nights, getting young people to school, helping the disabled, elderly or vulnerable to get to day services and hospital services—there has even been some fantastic taxi marketing going on with the “vaxi taxis”—and supporting our night-time economy. Without so many taxi drivers on our streets, our economy of an evening would not be what it is, because people would not be confident of getting home safely.
We have amazing drivers in my part of the world, who not only go above and beyond to help people of all ages, but keep me well informed on public opinion, both good and bad. We have a fantastic lady driver in my part of the world, Samantha from Teesside Cars, who is not only forthright in her views but brightens everybody’s day with bags of banter and decorates her cab for every single season. For Hallowe’en, it is pumpkins and scary window stickers; at Christmas, passengers get to drive in a grotto full of baubles, Christmas lights and tinsel. It is something else, and there are always sweets available. She goes above and beyond, and it is characters like her—fantastic taxi drivers who have a great reputation —who this Bill will protect, and ensure that we have confidence in those amazing workers who do so much to help the immobile and elderly people and keep the place going.
We have all heard about the awful exceptions, the small minority of unscrupulous drivers, and about the consequences that that terrible behaviour can have on our residents. This Bill will mean that calling a taxi is not a game of roulette, and that bad-apple drivers cannot roll from one licensing authority to another to avoid the consequences of their actions. I thank Margaret Waggott in the licensing team at my local authority, and the councillors across the country who do so much in this space to keep our residents safe and ensure that only the right people are driving our taxis. I am delighted to support this long-overdue change, so that licensing authorities across the country can be armed with the information they need to make the right decisions. I wish the Bill good luck.
Mr Gagan Mohindra (South West Hertfordshire) (Con)
I rise like a bat out of hell to contribute to today’s debate. First, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for getting the Bill to its Third Reading in this place, and I welcome the Minister to her place on the Front Bench—I think this is the first time I have been in a debate for which she has been the Minister. This issue ties in nicely with two important local campaigns that I am running: the first is safer streets, and the second is reliable and healthy transport. Around this time last week, I was singing the praises of my own local taxi firms: how critical they have been in the community over the past 22 months during this global pandemic, and how much they are regarded as a core part of the community.
I welcome the Bill as it is drafted, but I would like to hear the Minister’s views on any unintended consequences. All legislators want to create good laws, and rightly so, but I am aware that cab drivers are really reliant on their jobs, and this Bill could potentially prohibit that. Although I have been a councillor for many years, I have never had the privilege of sitting on a licensing committee—partly because they were daytime meetings, but also because of the expertise and level of training required to sit on those committees—so once again, as others have, I applaud the quality of those discussions. I know that my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington addressed this issue earlier, and I hope that the Minister will do so in her closing remarks, but my concern is where human error might lead to a particular taxi driver being on the list, so to speak. That should not prevent them from having due process and the ability to appeal, or render them unable to take on further jobs while the process is being followed through.
Other Members have spoken about the size of the industry—the 343,000 different licences and 276 licensing authorities that are out there. It is a really important and core part of communities up and down the country. My constituency is really reliant on taxis; although, as I have said previously, we have some great transport links north to south via public transport, both train and the tube, our east to west links are not so great. Although we have a bus service, it is not consistent enough to mean that people can use it as a daily means of getting around. I, for one, need either to drive to the station or use my local cab company to get there in order to commute down to London.
The other thing that is really important about this Bill is the confidence it will give to users of that particular mode of transport. We have already spoken about the safety implications not only for women but for vulnerable people and those who are younger—those who need that transport to get to school, sports clubs, or whatever it may be. Anything we can do to give them confidence and put safeguards in place is absolutely the right thing to do. It is probably worth remembering that 98% of taxi hire drivers are men, and about 2,500 reported assaults on women in 2018 were from one taxi app alone, so the proactive nature of this Bill is right and proper. I applaud the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner) and others who have spent many years trying to get to this point. I look forward to the Bill getting on to the statute book, subject to its progress in the other place.
We have not yet mentioned the wider use of taxi firms, but I hope that the Bill will also help in our battle against criminal gangs. A very small minority of cab drivers abuse the system—in county lines, for example—and I would argue that they are probably inclined to pursue other criminal activities as well. This process will make it harder for them to do so. It might be a slight inconvenience for local authorities and applicants, but it is worth it if the quality improves. I know from my conversations with drivers that they are proud of their industry and as keen as anyone else to remove the bad apples, and I think the Bill will make that easier.
I will bring my remarks to a close, because I am conscious that other Members wish to speak. We have talked about a national database. Local authorities already have this information to hand, and all that the Bill is asking them to do is collate it in one system, so I do not think there is much of a barrier to getting this done relatively quickly and cheaply.
Lia Nici (Great Grimsby) (Con)
I apologise to hon. Members, because I have only just bobbed to catch your eye, Mr Deputy Speaker, and I know that some Members have been bobbing for some time.
I commend my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for the huge amount of work that he has done on this Bill. His office is next door to mine, so I know how much time he has spent beavering away on this. The Bill is vital for the safety of people using taxis. As my hon. Friend has said, the majority of taxi drivers are excellent citizens who do a fantastic job and provide a hugely valuable service to their communities, but we know that a very small number of bad eggs use that mobility to get up to things that we do not want people to get up to. It concerns me that people can register in the west midlands but then provide services a very long way away. There may be legitimate reasons for that, but it does pose some questions.
Taxi drivers are absolutely vital for our communities. In constituencies such as mine, for example, those who do not have a car might decide to spend a little money once a week to get to the supermarket, so that they do not have to carry lots of shopping bags back home on the bus. A few years ago I required treatment for an eye condition, which meant that for several months I was unable to drive and so had to rely on taxis in order to continue working—the buses did not necessarily run at the times expected for my managerial job, so I needed taxi drivers to get me where I needed to be while I could not see properly.
Quite often the people using taxis are in a vulnerable position. They might be going to hospital for treatment, or sending their children off to a special school, or their children might need to travel to different places for lessons and things like that. It is therefore vital that this legislation closes the loophole that a very small minority of taxi drivers may seek to exploit, and we know that some of them do.
As a woman, I do not like to be called vulnerable. I feel that in a scrap I can give as good as I get—you can take the girl out of Grimsby, but you can’t take Grimsby out of the girl. However, when groups of friends go out, they are always mindful that someone will be the last person to be dropped off and they will be on their own in the taxi. We forget that taxi drivers know where we live and, although we know we can trust the majority of them, people may have been on a night out, drinking alcohol. There have been terrible stories in my region, which I will not go into in detail, where people have had drinks spiked and they have been in a bad state, and friends have put them in a taxi assuming they will get home safely. On rare occasions, that has not been the case.
I thank our taxi companies. I urge people listening to the debate not just to use modern apps. Like some colleagues, I do not like using apps for such things. When I need a taxi, wherever I am in the country, I go to well known, established firms that have websites and telephone numbers, and I can talk to a person at the end of the phone line. They have the technology to know a caller’s mobile phone number and tell them the type of car they will be picked up in, the registration number and who the driver is, which gives some safety. That is something people need to think about.
We all have taxi firms in our constituencies that have served our communities for a long time, and I thank them from the bottom of my heart because they provide an excellent service. This private Member’s Bill is important and I wholeheartedly support it.
Rob Butler (Aylesbury) (Con)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson), as so many have done from across the House. We have been on a similar journey with our private Members’ Bills—at least, I hope we have, because I hope we will reach mine a little later today. I applaud him for everything he has done to get to this stage, not least passing Committee stage without amendment. I know, only too well, what a challenge that can be.
Taxis are not just a convenient mode of transport, but a lifeline for many of our constituents. During the pandemic, taxi drivers have been tremendously important in my local area of Aylesbury. They helped ensure that people could get to urgent appointments and were particularly important for vulnerable residents. On behalf of the people of Aylesbury, I thank our local taxi drivers for all the hard work they have done in what has been an incredibly challenging period of almost two years.
As we have heard from right hon. and hon. Members, taxis are especially important for those members of our community who are disabled. Having a convenient door-to-door service helps to give disabled people the freedom to travel locally, thereby enabling them to live the lives that everybody else lives, often without giving a second thought to the way they get around. That can prove essential to the wellbeing of disabled people and help to combat loneliness and isolation. Many taxi firms in Aylesbury provide transport for schoolchildren who have special educational needs or disabilities, helping them to get the provision they need, so they receive the best education possible.
Indeed, a recent report from the Department for Transport showed that, on average, disabled people are 55% more likely to take journeys by taxi or private hire vehicles than non-disabled people. That underlines why it is so important that safeguarding is at the very highest level, and my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington’s Bill is helping to achieve just that.
My constituency is called Aylesbury, after the proud county town of Buckinghamshire, but the seat is, in fact, quite rural. Almost two thirds of my constituency, including many villages and hamlets, such as Speen, Lacey Green, Great Hampden, Bledlow Ridge and Radnage, is nestled in the quiet and peaceful tranquillity of the Chilterns area of outstanding natural beauty.
Mr Mohindra
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chilterns are a beautiful part of the world and we should do all we can to protect them?
Rob Butler
I entirely agree. Many people adore living in that very beautiful area and they want to protect it and ensure, for example, that houses are not built on the stunning green landscapes. However, people also have a cost to pay when they live in this area, which is that there is very little in the way of public transport. Consequently, they need to drive or be driven in cars. In practice, that means travelling to Aylesbury or High Wycombe to do their shopping, going to one of the many excellent restaurants in Aylesbury or visiting the exceptional Aylesbury Waterside Theatre if they would like to see some of the fine performances that take place there.
If, for example, someone had wanted to travel from Great Hampden to Aylesbury to do some shopping at 9 o’clock this morning, they could not have done that if they were relying on public transport. Equally, if I wanted to travel from Speen to Aylesbury at the same time by bus, I would first have had to walk for a mile downhill along very narrow country roads to reach the nearest bus stop. Although there are some excellent community initiatives, such as the Risborough and Wendover dial-a-rides, which help to serve our more rural areas, connecting people—particularly many elderly residents—to places such as Aylesbury, Princes Risborough and High Wycombe means reliance on a taxi. Taxis are essential to get out and about.
That is why this legislation is so important for my constituents in Buckinghamshire, just as it is for the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington, and—as we have heard this morning—for constituents across the length and breadth of this country, whether they are represented by Government or Opposition Members.
Although taxis are convenient, it is vital that they are also safe. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend helps to ensure that that will be the case, by requiring taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities in England to share any information about recent adverse licensing history. The purpose of this Bill is admirably clear. It will ensure that only a fit and proper person will be licensed to convey passengers from A to B. Therefore, it will dramatically reduce the likelihood that an unsuitable person will be granted or hold a taxi or private hire driver’s licence. The key, of course, is the new central database, into which licensing authorities in England will be required to put relevant information about cases where an authority has suspended, revoked or refused to grant or renew a taxi or private hire driver’s licence, because of a relevant—that is an important word—safeguarding or road safety concern that relates to the driver.
I have to say, Mr Deputy Speaker, that I was rather surprised to learn that no such database existed already; I am very pleased that my hon. Friend has introduced this Bill to correct, at pace, that glaring omission. I am very glad, too, that he has also gone much further than the current statutory guidance issued to local authorities, to allow for the recording of inappropriate behaviour by drivers that is relevant to their responsibilities when carrying passengers. Although such behaviour might not have warranted police investigation or reached the threshold to meet a criminal prosecution, what will happen now will permit licensing authorities to better safeguard the public by identifying worrying patterns of behaviour by drivers. Having that data easily accessible on a central database will mean that unscrupulous drivers who are a safeguarding risk to their passengers cannot just hop to another licensing area to acquire a new licence.
That is why it is so important that licensing authorities should have a duty to search the database and have regard to relevant information. We have heard an awful lot this morning about recording the data, but of course that is useful only if people then access the data and act on it. I am very pleased to see that my hon. Friend’s Bill ensures that that will happen.
There are clear requirements for decision-making authorities to request the relevant information from the authority that has made an entry of concern, and a duty for that latter authority to respond within a specified timeframe. Again, that is really important as it means that these things do not just go into a hole of paperwork and get completely forgotten about. I am very glad to see that. In short, a centralised database will allow for a joined-up approach between licensing authorities, which will make our roads safer.
In conclusion, it is clear that we must protect our constituents from disreputable and harmful drivers, and this Bill will allow us to do just that. However, I will end where I began, because it must be stressed that the Bill will affect only a minority of drivers. The vast majority are hard-working, law-abiding and vital members of our community. I repeat my thanks to drivers in my constituency of Aylesbury and my congratulations to my hon. Friend on the success of his Bill thus far.
Sam Tarry (Ilford South) (Lab)
I start by thanking the hon. Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his diligent work on introducing the Bill and for the consensual and cross-party way in which he has approached it, working to introduce a Bill that, once it achieves its passage, will hopefully address so many of the safety issues that Members have ably mentioned today, as well as ensuring that both drivers and passengers are protected.
There have been significant calls from councils and pressure groups, for a long period of time—over several years—for the Government to update their taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regulation and to go above and beyond the statutory standards, which many organisations do not think go far enough. That update is needed to address critical issues, such as safety concerns on cross-border hiring and the lack of statutory disability and equality training. This is an issue that is important to many in my constituency. I probably have 3,000 to 5,000 local residents who are private hire taxi drivers and this issue is something I discuss with them regularly. Yesterday, in my constituency of Ilford South, I had a discussion with a number of taxi drivers about the issues facing them. They were pleased to see this Bill back in the Commons this morning.
As the Opposition have previously proposed, we would like to see provision for a driver’s risk to road safety while driving to be assessed in line with DVLA standards, as opposed to the individual assessment of the licensing authority. We proposed amendments to reflect that at an earlier stage. It is an important point. At present, licensing bodies are not required to share information with other local authorities. That prevents them from being able to take informed decisions about granting or renewing a driver’s licence, and creates the conditions for a driver to be refused a licence, or to have existing licences suspended or revoked because of safety concerns, but to be in a position to apply for a licence in another area, where the new licensing authority is completely unaware, as hon. Members have pointed out, of the previous refusal, suspension or revocation. That is completely unacceptable. It puts the safety of taxi and private hire vehicle users at risk. Furthermore, it goes against the recommendations of the DFT’s task and finish group on taxi and private hire licensing, which published its report more than three years ago.
At present, there are still concerns and uncertainty among representative bodies such as the Licensed Taxi Drivers’ Association as to whether the Government will support the Bill. I am hopeful they are going to, but I will talk a little bit about the other measures that could be looked at as well.
The Government previously indicated that they had no plans to legislate on some of the issues that a number of hon. Members, including my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), have raised and instead, they strongly encourage licensing authorities to adopt their new statutory standards, but those standards are roundly felt to be wanting. That is one of the reasons that this private Member’s Bill has come forward—the statutory standards are not quite powerful enough to address concerns.
The current approach focuses on improving licensing through the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards that were published in 2020, which local authorities have subsequently consulted on and implemented. Representative bodies such as the LTDA believe that the standards do not go far enough and do not deliver on all 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 urge the Minister to reassess the Government’s approach and to adopt a more robust stance that comprehensively addresses passenger safety and enhances existing licensing legislation through national minimum standards that are legally enforceable.
The existing statutory standards are no longer fit for purpose. Although they urge data sharing between local authorities and encourage use of the existing NR3 database, they do not mandate it, which creates a clear inconsistency in the system.
I reiterate my earlier point that taxis and private hire vehicle drivers operating out of an area for which they are not licensed must be stopped. Enforcement must be shifted to national level, allowing local authorities to issue enforcement within their jurisdiction under national guidelines. The Government must go further than simply encouraging licensing authorities to adopt the statutory standards. It is crucial that there is a renewed focus on non-licensed cross-border working—rather than simply cross-border working—and there needs to be a national enforcement process to prevent any non-licensed cross-border working in the first place.
The GMB union, which represents around 30,000 to 35,000 taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, has estimated that there are many tens of thousands working outside of their driving boundaries. It is high time for proper legislation and robust national minimum standards that are legally enforceable. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge said, I hope in future we can have a comprehensive piece of legislation that would address many of the concerns that have not been addressed by this, on the whole, excellent private Member’s Bill—most significantly, cross-border hire, so that that is tackled in the proper and robust way that it should be. I hope that the Government will support the Bill today, and consider making the additional changes to existing legislation to improve the safety of all users of taxis and private hire vehicles.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Trudy Harrison)
What has come across more than anything in the debate is the appreciation for the taxi industry, not least during the pandemic, in providing essential services, often to the most vulnerable in our society. I join in all those tributes to taxi drivers and licensing authorities. I will come on to more detail in my response.
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Peter Gibson) for his tremendous and diligent work on the Bill, and congratulate him on steering it through the House. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Cambridge (Daniel Zeichner), whose tenacity has been commented on by many hon. Members. The collegiate way in which he has worked with colleagues across the House is commendable.
I am pleased to give my support and that of the Government to the Bill. My hon. Friend also referenced the many groups that he has worked with to provide such a comprehensive private Member’s Bill for consideration today. He referred to the APPG and organisations such as the Suzy Lamplugh Trust.
As hon. Members may know, regulation of the taxi industry began in the 17th century under King Charles I. The King was so concerned about congestion in the City of London that he issued a proclamation restricting the number of hackney coaches to 50 and preventing them from carrying passengers less than three miles. In spite of that, by the 1760s the services provided by hackney coaches were so popular that there were more than 1,000 such coaches on London streets—although I believe there were no pedicabs at the time—[Laughter.]
The diligent work of so many reputable people in the taxi and private hire trades can be tarnished by the acts of the few. That is something that the Bill will help to prevent, by ensuring that those few are not able to hold a taxi or private hire vehicle licence, so that the vast and respectable majority can build the reputation that they deserve. It is vital that transport users feel safe while travelling alone and late at night. The Bill will help to achieve that for those travelling by taxi or private hire vehicle by ensuring that local licensing authorities have access to relevant safeguarding and road safety information about license applicants and existing licensees applying for renewals.
There has been much talk today about the safety of women and girls using taxi services. I am afraid that I probably have a bit of a reality check for my hon. Friend the Member for Dudley South (Mike Wood), because in my experience of having four daughters aged 18, 20, 21 and 23, his currently studious daughter will probably be tempted by the night-time economy and find a need to use the services of taxis. My hon. Friend the Member for Barrow and Furness (Simon Fell) mentioned his night-time economy, and it is certainly often the reason for my daughters’ use of local taxi services.
I want to set out what we are doing on the violence against women and girls strategy, which pertains to the Bill. Everyone has the right to feel safe when travelling and using public spaces, which is why we will be working with the industry and the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), who is also on the Front Bench today, to ensure that a real change is made on the ground. The Department is determined to do all that we can to ensure that women and girls are safe when they use the transport network.
Nickie Aiken
I agree with what my hon. Friend is saying about ensuring the safety of women and girls on public transport, whether in taxis or otherwise. Does she agree that it is incredibly important that we ensure that the Mayor of London gets the night tube up and running, and takes on the unions that are preventing this from happening, to ensure that women and girls, whether they are working in the night-time economy in London—60% of employees in the night-time economy in London are women—or enjoying a night out, can get home safely?
Trudy Harrison
Yes; my hon. Friend makes a crucial point. She referred to her Pedicabs (London) Bill. I hope that it will have time for debate—if not today, in the very near future—and that I will be the Minister responding to support it.
Let me return to the work that we are doing as part of the wider violence against women and girls strategy, which the Government published in July last year. We have appointed two women’s safety champions: Laura Shoaf, the chief executive of West Midlands Combined Authority; and Anne Shaw, the interim managing director for Transport for West Midlands. They will shortly produce independent recommendations for the Department and wider transport network on what best practice should be adopted to improve the safety of the transport network for women and girls, and indeed for everybody. In addition, the Department for Transport continues to work with the Home Office and the Cabinet Office on the implementation of the violence against women and girls strategy. The publication of the strategy was very much the start of this work and we are determined to deliver the change on the ground.
There has been much reference to collaboration. The Bill will greatly improve collaboration between licensing authorities by placing duties on them to report concerns about drivers licensed in other areas, and to reconsider licences that they have issued if authorities report concerns. That means that although the vast majority of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle drivers are fit and proper, licensing authorities will be able to identify the few who are not, and prevent them from entering, or remove them from, the sector. This can only be a good thing for the trade and the travelling public as a whole.
The Bill will build on the incremental improvements in regulation that we have seen, and we will continue to see them in the future. The Government have been working to make regulatory improvements, with the aim of ensuring public safety while travelling. In July 2020, the Department for Transport published the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards, which focus on safeguarding standards to protect the most vulnerable in society. Licensing authorities must have regard to the standards when setting out their licensing policies.
The statutory standards include enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service checks for all drivers and safeguarding awareness training, which are key to protecting vulnerable people who use these services. In fact, all licensing authorities now require an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers, with 95% also requiring barred list checks. The proportion of authorities requiring enhanced DBS and barred list checks has grown from 79% in 2017. The Department for Transport will shortly be consulting on revised taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance to assist licensing authorities in setting their policies and to enable greater consistency in the standards across 276 licensing authorities. This will allow the licensing authorities to look afresh at what they require in taxi and private hire licensing.
I will briefly refer to hon. and right hon. Members’ comments. The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon), who is not in his place, referred to the devolved Administrations, and the work that we are doing to show that we respect and appreciate what devolution means. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is a devolved matter. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing is, of course, a devolved matter. The Welsh, Scottish and Northern Irish Administrations are all able to legislate on it should they wish to. We would not seek to impose duties on those authorities in a devolved area. However, as taxi and PHV drivers may work across borders or seek a licence in another nation, it is important that all authorities in the UK have access to the database, so that information can be shared where appropriate. I know that was of importance to many Members who spoke today.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Paul Holmes), who said that this is a good Bill. It absolutely is. I also heard his calls—as I am sure my colleagues in the Department did—for Eastleigh to be the home of Great British Railways. I would also like to refer to the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for North West Norfolk (James Wild) about disability training. I reassure him that guidance will be brought forward shortly, and we will be mandating national minimum standards.
The hon. Member for Luton North (Sarah Owen), also not in her place, referenced “vaxi taxis”. I thought that was a fantastic initiative, and I want to join her in paying tribute to it. My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Rob Butler) and other Members thanked taxi drivers for the essential means of transport they provide. We have heard today of Alex, a taxi driver who transports children with special educational needs in Cardiff. We heard about Samantha of Stockton Cars, who does not just transport constituents but entertains them with seasonal decorations in the vehicle. I thought that was tremendous. We then heard of Bruce Mercer of R&L Taxis, who transports people across Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk. I thought that was absolutely superb. The way he has been transporting veterans and NHS workers during the pandemic is commendable.
I know there are many Members wishing to debate their Bills, not least the Pedicabs (London) Bill, so I will conclude now. Once again, I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington and the hon. Member for Cambridge for bringing forward this important Bill and for appreciating the taxi sector, drivers and licensing authorities. This is a good Bill, as my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh said, and I have been delighted to speak to today.
Peter Gibson
With the leave of the House, can I place on the record my thanks to the Minister for her engagement with me? It has been a pleasure to work with her on the stewardship of this Bill, and I thank her for her speech this morning. I am particularly delighted to see the Minister of State, Home Department, my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), in her place. She has done so much work in respect of violence against women and girls. I had the great privilege of serving under her stewardship of the Domestic Abuse Bill. It was an exemplary performance. I am delighted to see her in her place today for the final passage of my Bill in the Commons.
I am grateful to all Members who have spoken today. I was going to list them all individually, but the Minister has done that already. I thank all Members for their congratulations to me. I also want to thank the sponsors of the Bill—some of whom are here and some of whom are not—everyone who spoke on Second Reading, those from across the House who served on the Bill Committee, the Department for Transport staff, who have been excellent in their engagement with me, and the House staff, who have worked diligently with me. Last but not least, I want to place on the record my sincere thanks to my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Rebecca Harris), whose stewardship and guidance ensured that I was able to get this far.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.
Mr Deputy Speaker (Mr Nigel Evans)
Congratulations, Peter—absolutely superb. I want to put on the record my gratitude to all the taxi drivers in the Ribble Valley.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Monday 24th January 2022
(2 years, 10 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2021 - (3 Nov 2021)
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Friday 4th March 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2021 - (3 Nov 2021)
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I first must make my declarations of interest. I am currently the holder of a London taxi proprietor’s licence, as I own a single London taxi and employ a taxi driver. In the past, I spent most of my business life in the taxi industry. I was chief executive and a big shareholder in Manganese Bronze Holdings plc, which manufactured, distributed and financed the traditional London taxi and developed the first mobile phone hailing system in the world, which became the first wheelchair-accessible public transport system. I will always be grateful to the late Sir Bert Massie and a fine civil servant, Ann Frye, for pushing me to do that. Later I was chairman of the company that adapted the Mercedes Vito to make a wheelchair-accessible London taxi. All those interests have now ceased.
The Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill will improve public safety while travelling by these modes of transport. Taxi drivers throughout the country are great people generally. There are quality systems in place in almost all boroughs. This is desirable because the customer, the traveller, is in a uniquely vulnerable position. Passengers are often alone, often away from home in an area they do not know. The customer chooses the first empty taxi plying for hire and has no way of choosing their taxi driver. That puts a burden on the authorities to get the regulation right. In most parts of the world, among the top 10 problems to be faced is the number of complaints about taxis. In London and many other towns around the country, taxis are among the features that a mayor gets compliments about. Drivers are proud of their knowledge and most had a warm sense of achievement when a taxi driver won “Mastermind” on TV a few years ago. Of course, they knew that they could have achieved that prize if only they had tried.
The main focus of the Bill is on formalising information-sharing between taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities, specifically safeguarding and road safety concerns identified by other authorities. Ensuring that serious and credible concerns about a driver are shared will facilitate more considered licensing decisions as authorities will have greater access to the relevant facts. As noble Lords may know, the authorities responsible for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing in England are lower-tier and unitary authorities such as district councils. The exception to this is in London, where Transport for London is the licensing authority. These licensing authorities decide whether each applicant for a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence is fit and proper, and that is where this Bill can help.
In some areas, a phenomenon has occurred whereby a driver who loses his licence in one area reregisters with the adjacent licensing area and essentially carries on as before. It would be unreasonable to expect an authority to check each application manually with the other 275 licensing authorities for previous adverse history. So, it is the duty of the law, I suggest, to allow technology to perform this task instead. While the number of bad guys who get a taxi driver’s licence is small, their importance is great because they jeopardise the whole system of regulation of quality.
It is important to note that the Bill would only make more information available to licensing authorities. It does not change the criteria under which licensing authorities make their decisions, nor does it tie a licensing authority into making a particular decision. Licensing authorities are currently required by legislation to keep records of the licences they have issued. They must also make this information available if asked for it, but there is no requirement to share information with other licensing authorities about the licences they have suspended, refused or revoked. There is a voluntary database, the national register of refusals and revocations, known as NR3, which some licensing authorities use. However, the use of this database is far from universal. This means that there remains the possibility that a driver deemed unsafe in one licensing area and who has their licence revoked may well reapply for a licence and successfully hide that decision from a different licensing authority.
I am sure the Minister will agree that this situation is unacceptable, and it is one of the issues the Bill seeks to address by ensuring universal usage. To do this, the Bill would mandate licensing authorities in England to record in a database decisions to suspend, revoke or refuse a licence which are based on specific safeguarding and road safety concerns. For privacy reasons, the Bill ensures that the reasons behind the licensing decision would not be recorded directly on to the database; instead, this information would be held separately by the relevant authority. Licensing authorities would be required to search the database for each applicant. Where an authority identifies a record on the database relating to their applicant, the Bill would require them to contact the authority that made the entry to gather the details of that decision. The authority would then be required to have regard to the information provided. To be clear, the licensing authority would not be bound by that original decision. In fact, licensing authorities can, and undoubtedly will, make different decisions for a variety of reasons. Therefore, a driver’s inclusion on the database would not automatically preclude them from gaining a taxi or private hire vehicle driver’s licence.
The Bill gives licensing authorities access to more information relevant to their decision, which will help them to make the right decision. That decision may be to grant the applicant a licence. As noble Lords will have seen, the Bill builds timescales into that process to ensure that information is provided promptly, so that the process does not unduly delay a driver’s application. The database itself would be designated by the Secretary of State for Transport. This means that the Bill could mandate a database already in use, such as the national register to which I referred earlier. Although the cost of such a database is not expected to be significant, the Bill allows the database operator to charge a fee to licensing authorities to cover the associated administrative costs. The fees can be charged only if the Secretary of State has agreed the fee level.
The other key issue the Bill seeks to address is the safeguarding and road safety concerns an authority may have about taxi and private hire vehicle drivers working in their area but licensed in another. Again, the Bill does not grant any new powers; it seeks only to ensure the sharing of relevant information in a timely manner. As noble Lords may know, drivers can undertake pre-booked journeys in areas other than the one in which they are originally licensed. However, only the licensing authority that issued a driver’s licence can revoke or suspend it. This means that, where a driver is suspected of acting in an unsafe manner in one licensing authority’s area but is licensed elsewhere, the local authority is reliant on the authority which issued the licence to take action against that driver. While it is expected that one licensing authority would act on another’s concerns, the Bill would seek to formalise the process of reporting serious and credible safeguarding and road safety concerns. It would do so by requiring licensing authorities in England to share with the relevant authority concerns they have about drivers licensed in other areas.
The Bill acknowledges that drivers need protection from vexatious or frivolous complainants, but safety is rightly at the heart of the Bill, and drivers must be able to continue to earn a living where it is safe for them to do so. To achieve this balance, the concerns would have to be related to safeguarding or road safety concerns, as set out in the first clause of the Bill. The concerns would have to be serious and credible enough that the licensing authority would have considered suspending or revoking the driver’s licence were they one of their licensed drivers.
Where a licensing authority in England receives a safeguarding or road safety concern from another authority about a driver it has licensed, the Bill would require it to consider whether to suspend or revoke the licence. The authority must make its decision and inform the reporting licensing authority within 20 working days of its reasons. This would provide important clarity and consistency for licensing authorities on the action they must take when concerns are raised about a driver licensed in another area.
It might be said, as is so often, that this Bill should have progressed many years ago. Noble lords may surprise me and the Minister with some analysis which reveals a flaw we have not spotted. I am not sure that I look forward to that—but we are told that there is no room in the legislative agenda for amendments to the Bill and that, if any are promulgated, it will fail. That would be a shame.
The point has been made that there are several other ways in which the taxi industry can be improved by further legislation. My honourable friend in another place, Nickie Aiken, the Member for Cities of London and Westminster, has done great work on trying to solve the problems of pedicabs in London. Alas, this Bill is not the place to achieve that. The Bill has had widespread support in another place. It was first proposed by Daniel Zeichner, the Labour MP for Cambridge, and this particular incarnation was proposed and delivered by my honourable friend Peter Gibson, the excellent MP for Darlington. Perusal of Hansard reveals the enormous amount of work he did to progress it. On this lonely Friday afternoon, I hope that we in our House can do justice to the aspiration outlined by Peter Gibson to help travellers in his constituency and elsewhere.
The Bill should be seen for what it is: a vital next step to improve public safety when travelling. It does not grant new powers but, through sharing of relevant information, it makes better use of those which exist. I beg to move.
Baroness Brinton (LD) [V]
My Lords, I declare my interest as a vice-president of the Local Government Association and as a disabled person who uses an electric wheelchair. I have used taxis across the United Kingdom. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, Peter Gibson MP and, before him, Daniel Zeichner MP on this Private Member’s Bill, which will make a key improvement to the experience of vulnerable passengers and to how licensing authorities can keep them safe. I shall focus on two areas: passengers assaulted by drivers, and disabled people refused a service by drivers despite the requirements under the law.
Assault by a driver is a very serious offence. Drivers are in a position of trust but too often there are incidents that have placed passengers at risk, or worse. I am sure Members of your Lordships’ House are aware of the cab driver John Worboys, who received two life sentences for a number of rapes and assaults: it is now believed he committed more than 100 offences against women using his cab to trap them. More recently, a predatory London private-hire driver raped a passenger and sexually assaulted two other women, and in 2019 police were looking for a London taxi driver who allegedly assaulted a passenger by braking excessively and causing them to fall off their seat during an argument in his cab.
I now turn to disabled people. Watford Borough Council—my local council— has an excellent public notice on the legal rights of disabled passengers using taxis and minicabs, which followed a series of complaints that drivers were refusing to take disabled passengers. It then surveyed disabled passengers and ran a mystery-shopper exercise to test the system. It was shocked at the results, but I am not surprised.
My own experience occurred about five years ago after leaving your Lordships’ House one cold winter’s evening. I live one mile from Watford station, and I arrived after 11 pm. My wheelchair battery was too low to get me home and it was sleeting. There were two wheelchair-accessible taxis in the queue, and both refused to take me, the first saying that he did not want to get out of his cab and get cold and wet, and the second saying that it was not worth it for such a short journey. There were no other accessible cabs available. One of the other drivers remonstrated with these two, who just refused to help, and I had no option at that hour but to go home, very slowly, pausing for long periods to try to preserve the battery life. It died around 250 metres from home, and I then had to get out—luckily, I can walk—and I had to push my big, 90-kilogram chair home. I am sorry to say that my experience of being refused a journey was not unusual, and I have travelled around the UK relying on taxis that frequently ignore the law. I am looking forward to hearing the contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, who may well have similar experiences where guide dogs have been refused.
Watford Council’s problem is that these drivers were not licensed by their own authorities, for reasons set out very helpfully in the briefing from the Local Government Association. Can the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, tell us if the breaching of the law on taking disabled passengers is enough to qualify for this Bill? I am rather hoping that it is.
The wider safeguarding issues relating to drivers who assault or threaten passengers, which I raised at the start of my speech, are equally important: every other part of our lives aims to provide safeguarding practice to prevent people who are known to provide a risk to the public from being put in positions of trust. The reporting of drivers of concern has not kept pace with the lifting of restrictions for taxis plying for trade, which used to do so only in their licensing areas. This Bill will change that. A duty will be placed on local authorities to report serious safeguarding or road-safety concerns relating to a different council that has licensed that driver. I particularly want to see a formal—not voluntary—central register of drivers who are thought to be a sufficiently credible and serious risk that would put the driver at risk of having their licence suspended or revoked, or who have had their licence revoked, to prevent drivers trying to play the system, as outlined by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick.
This Private Member’s Bill introduced by the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, will close this loophole; but I also agree with the LGA’s proposal that the Department for Transport should bring forward a taxi and private hire vehicle licensing reform Bill to replace all the current outdated legislation and to modernise the licensing system for taxis and PHVs. This is vital for both passengers and drivers. I recognise, however, that this is not a matter for today, and I support this Bill’s clear and limited aims, and wish it well in its passage to becoming law.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is a pleasure to take part in this Second Reading. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Borwick and Peter Gibson MP on getting us to this stage. I will not, in any sense, spare my noble friend’s blushes: what he did for accessibility of all London taxis is as much as anybody has done positively for accessible transport. It made a difference to this capital; it made a difference to transport; it made a difference to accessibility right across this country and right around the world. International cities look to London and what he—and thus we—did, and it is an absolutely fabulous testament to his work that this was achieved. What is my noble friend the Minister’s view on where accessibility is likely to go in London if we do not hold strong to that which the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, set in place so many years ago?
I support the Bill, which is clear and concise. It is about safety, and that has to be a thoroughly good thing. Cabbies are a cornerstone of communities up and down this country, carrying in passengers’ shopping and looking out for people. The most striking example is that it was local cab drivers who first alerted the authorities to the horrors of Harold Shipman.
I have two brief questions for my noble friend the Minister. First, where are the Government on having a national database, which could be built on new technologies such as distributed ledger technologies so that it could operate in real time, be immutable and, in this sense, be a thoroughly positive force? Secondly, how quickly can drivers who are mistakenly put on the current register, for a number of reasons, address and correct those details?
As we are talking taxis today, I take the opportunity to go a little wider, first on issues of accessibility. What data do the Government gather on how often disabled people are refused from taxis? I have certainly had the experience, in London and across the country, of being refused service when travelling with my guide dog. Here is the thing: it does not matter how many times it happens; when you experience refusal and discrimination, it is not a cerebral experience—you feel it in your heart and your gut.
Secondly, I turn to some of the things that seem to be happening with so-called shared space. Is it sane, consistent and coherent for taxis to be excluded from areas where buses and cycles are allowed to go? I cite Tottenham Court Road in London, where cabs are not allowed for the vast majority of the hours of the day. How can I and the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, get to meetings in areas such as Tottenham Court Road? Cabs are banned from Bank Junction but buses and cycles are allowed through. Cabs have never been involved in an accident at Bank Junction. As my noble friend is the Minister responsible for TfL, I ask her to lay out what exactly is going on.
Across London boroughs, roads are similarly closed to cabs. In Kensington and Chelsea it is fine—you can get around the borough in a cab, no problem. In other London boroughs, roads are closed to cabs but available to buses. How can it be that those roads allow a diesel bus but not an electric cab?
Further, what is the public policy situation? Why do we not cherish our cab services up and down the country, as we should? Why do we not see them more clearly in public policy as an absolutely key part of public transport?
I support the Bill, which is good for safety, disabled people and all people. Hail taxis!
Lord Bassam of Brighton (Lab)
My Lords, what a pleasure it is to follow the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, on this topic. First I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, on sponsoring and leading on the Bill, as well as his honourable friend in another place Peter Gibson and my honourable friend Daniel Zeichner on his earlier work.
As expertly set out by the noble Lord, the purpose of the Bill is to increase the safety of passengers by introducing new checks on taxi and private hire drivers. For that very reason, we welcome the measures contained in the Bill. Specifically, as I understand it, the Bill would oblige taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities to submit information about refusals, suspensions and revocations of driver licences to a national database. Licensing authorities would have to check the database before making licensing decisions. That seems both logical and very sensible.
At present, all licensing authorities require DBS checks, but these reveal only prosecutions. Many unacceptable incidents do not lead to charges or even to police involvement. The important thing about the Bill is that it brings co-ordination to the national licensing system, something long overdue.
The Bill would create an additional check by allowing the sharing of other relevant information, by requiring licensing authorities to keep registers of licences issued and to make this information available on request. Supporters of the Bill have said that although the main focus is protecting the public, it will also benefit drivers by boosting their reputation and providing an important measure of comfort—and, more than that, confidence—for taxi service users.
I hardly need to say this but, a year on from the tragic murder of Sarah Everard, nobody needs reminding that we must do all we can to enhance public protection, particularly of people in a position of vulnerability. The noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, referred to some very useful examples to suggest how this measure may be of value and use in ensuring that we do not let a few rogue drivers into the taxi-driving profession. It must be said that the taxi trade is generally well regulated. Taxi drivers offer millions of examples every day of being the very best in providing a public service, which most of us use without a second thought because they are, as the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, has told us, trusted and friendly. They are of course never short of offering their opinions and worldview on more or less every topic.
I share in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Holmes, about the need for greater accessibility and protections for those who are disabled and vulnerable users of taxi services. I also share his aspiration for taxi services to be seen much more in the light of being a public service, rather than a private add-on. We need legislation that perhaps modernises the framework in which taxis and private hire operators work.
I have one question of the Bill’s sponsors; I am sure it is something I have missed. Will the Bill cover Uber service providers? I have assumed that it will but would welcome reassurance on that point. My guess is that the taxi trade as a whole would welcome that assurance too, because it believes in a level playing field and Uber offers what is, after all, a national service.
Labour has supported the Bill through the House of Commons and we will continue to support the measure in your Lordships’ House today. I wish it well from here.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Transport (Baroness Vere of Norbiton) (Con)
My Lords, I too thank my noble friend Lord Borwick for bringing forward this Bill, which the Government wholeheartedly support. I am also so grateful for the support expressed for the Bill by my noble friend Lord Holmes, the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, and the noble Lord, Lord Bassam. I think we would all pay tribute to my honourable friend Peter Gibson, the Member for Darlington, for successfully steering the Bill through from the other place to your Lordships’ House.
My noble friend Lord Borwick, with his incredible experience in the area of taxis—I was not aware of quite how much he had done for accessibility and am grateful to my noble friend Lord Holmes for reminding us of that—has very ably set out the purpose of this fairly narrow Bill. As I said, the Government support it and are very keen to see its provisions in place as soon as possible. But I am standing here as the Government and, although we support the Bill, I would like to address a few things in the wider taxi and PHV space.
My noble friend Lord Holmes talked about taxis and PHVs as public transport and, to an extent, the Government agree. We see them as an integral part of the wider transport network. Any good local authority will think incredibly carefully about how these vital services are able to reach people and then drop them off at their destinations, particularly those who are disabled and others who may be vulnerable. Taxis and PHVs are licensed and enforced by over 270 different authorities. Many agree that that is too many and may lead to inconsistencies and a greater risk of failure.
In the levelling-up White Paper which we published on 2 February, we announced that we would explore transferring the responsibility for licensing taxis and PHVs to upper-tier and combined authorities in England. One benefit of reducing the number of licensing authorities from around 276 to just over 80 could be increased consistency in licensing standards. A second would be that licensing would be in the hands of the same authorities that draft local transport plans; I think that makes perfect sense and look forward to progressing those proposals. In the context of such large numbers of licensing authorities, the Government are very focused on consistency in licensing and enforcement and raising standards, particularly with regard to safeguarding across the sector.
In 2017, we commissioned the task and finish group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing to consider the adequacy and efficiency of the legislation and guidance and to make recommendations to address the priority issues. The Government responded to that report in 2019. We committed to legislate when parliamentary time permits to set national minimum standards in licensing, introduce national enforcement powers and establish a national licensing database to include all driver, vehicle and operator licensing information. That remains our intention.
In the meantime, however, the Government have published the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards, which clearly set out what licensing authorities should do to safeguard children and adults. I have written to licensing authorities many times since the publication of the statutory standards to emphasise their importance and ensure that authorities are moving quickly to improve their safeguarding policies. One aspect of the statutory standards strongly recommends the use of information-sharing tools in licensing, specifically the national register of refusals and revocations, also known as NR3. Uptake and use of NR3 has been good and has been growing—I get literally monthly updates, so I can see what is happening—but it is not yet universal. That is why this Bill will help us to make sure that the usage of that or an equivalent database is mandatory. Essentially, the Bill mandates the existing direction of travel to improve safeguarding.
The next step for the department is to update the best practice guidance, and there will be a consultation on that shortly. It will cover licensing, enforcement and accessibility, including a strong recommendation that every driver be required to complete disability awareness training. We recognise that taxis and PHVs are a vital mode of transport for many people with disabilities, and I was appalled to hear about the experience of the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton, at her local station. She asked a specific question about the interrelationship between refusing to take a disabled passenger and this Bill. I will write to her on that and other matters that have been raised, because I am looking at the time and I know that I am well over.
Finally, on my noble friend Lord Holmes’ point about taxi access on certain roads, it is true that I am the Minister for TfL and, indeed, the Minister for every highway authority in the country. Local highway authorities are responsible for determining how road space is allocated, and of course they must be responsive to local communities. I encourage anyone who has an issue with what a local highway authority is doing to get in touch with them.
To close, I am grateful to my noble friend Lord Borwick. I look forward to the passage of this Bill, and I hope that it can pass into legislation as soon as possible.
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, I know we are short of time, but I have a brief question for the Minister before she sits down. Regarding authorities for streets such as Tottenham Court Road and other areas that refuse taxis, thus making them inaccessible for disabled people, does she agree that that is a prima facie breach of equalities legislation and their public sector equality duty? I am happy if she wants to write on that subject.
Baroness Vere of Norbiton (Con)
I am very grateful to my noble friend for giving me the opportunity to write to him on that.
Lord Borwick (Con)
My Lords, I thank all noble Lords who have spoken in support of the Bill this afternoon, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Brinton. Assault and refusal by drivers are exactly the sort of comments that would be added to the database and are relevant to the discussion as to whether that driver gets a new licence.
Of course, the range of wheelchairs carried by taxis nowadays varies enormously. We found that the type of wheelchair used most is, in fact, a baby buggy. Indeed, as we age over the years, it is possible to say that we all spend time in wheelchairs, and we are lucky if we do so only at the very beginning of our lives. But it is terribly important that disabled people be able to get a wheelchair-accessible taxi everywhere. A long time ago, I think in the original Disability Discrimination Act brought in some 20 years ago, the enabling legislation for statutory instruments to make all taxis wheelchair accessible was put in, so they await the moment when those statutory instruments are brought forward.
On false accusations, which was mentioned by my noble friend Lord Holmes, there is of course still the opportunity for such accusations to be appealed against by the taxi driver and dealt with through the appeals system in each borough. In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Bassam, all Uber vehicles are licensed as private hire vehicles, so they are covered by the Bill.
I thank noble Lords very much for their help, and I beg to move.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Tuesday 22nd March 2022
(2 years, 9 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2021 - (3 Nov 2021)
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Borwick and with his permission, I understand that no amendments have been set down to this Bill and that no noble Lord has indicated a wish to move a manuscript amendment or to speak in Committee. Unless, therefore, any noble Lord objects, I beg to move that the order of commitment be discharged.
Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill
Friday 25th March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: Public Bill Committee Amendments as at 3 November 2021 - (3 Nov 2021)
Lord Holmes of Richmond (Con)
My Lords, it is an extraordinary honour to stand here in the shoes of my noble friend Lord Borwick, with his permission. He is recovering from Covid and we very much look forward to welcoming him back to the rank this coming Monday.
This was a lovely, smart, straightforward Bill presented to and piloted through the House of Commons by my honourable friend Peter Gibson. I thank him, the departmental officials and my noble friend the Minister for all the work that was done to get the Bill to this place. It will mean that people can travel with greater safety and security in taxis up and down the country, and for that reason it does exactly what a Private Member’s Bill should do: it makes a clear, concise, effective change that will benefit citizens right across the land.
Baroness Scott of Bybrook (Con)
My Lords, I, too, send my best wishes to my noble friend Lord Borwick, who is unwell, and thank my noble friend for standing in for him today.
I am pleased to be here to give my support and that of the Government to the Bill. It is an important step to make our transport network safer. As my noble friend Lord Borwick said at Second Reading, the Bill will formalise the sharing of vital safeguarding and road safety information between licensing authorities. I pay tribute to my noble friend for his expert and committed stewardship of the Bill and to the other noble Lords who have contributed their views during its passage through the House.
It is also right that we acknowledge and thank Members of the other place for their contribution. Peter Gibson, the honourable member for Darlington, shepherded the Bill throughout and it is down to him and my noble friend Lord Borwick that we have the Bill in front of us today. It would be remiss of me not also to mention Daniel Zeichner—I hope that I have pronounced his name properly—the honourable Member for Cambridge, who originally brought a version of this Bill forward and has been a strong advocate throughout. I also thank the many other Members of the House of Commons who contributed to debates on the Bill. The widespread and cross-party support for the Bill in both Houses reflects the positive impact that it will have and the sensibleness of its provisions. Once again, I thank my noble friend Lord Borwick and express my strong support for the Bill.
Royal Assent
Thursday 31st March 2022
(2 years, 8 months ago)
Lords ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Amendment Paper: HL Bill 140-I Marshalled list for Committee - (30 Mar 2022)