Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Bill

Peter Gibson Excerpts

2nd reading
Friday 10th September 2021 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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

Peter Gibson Excerpts

3rd reading
Friday 21st January 2022 Commons Chamber

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[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.