219
The Committee considered a report which sought its approval of the proposed draft
Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, to enable the formal public
consultation to begin. The Committee was also asked to agree the proposed
consultation process.
Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting to present the report
and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The approval of the Committee was
sought for a period of public consultation to commence in relation to the proposed
draft Policy which had been presented to it. A complete revision of the Policy had
been carried out with the intention to focus on public safety whilst making the Policy
clearer and easier to understand. The revised Policy took into account all current
statutory guidance, best practice and the Institute of Licensing Suitability Guidance.
Given the scale of the revisions, it was proposed that the entire Policy be subject to
public consultation for a period of 3 months during which the views of the public,
partners and the taxi trade would be welcomed. The Committee was advised that it
was important that the Council did not view its licensing requirements in isolation, as
there was already evidence of ‘licence shopping’, with an increasing number of
vehicles operating across the city which were not licensed by the Council. ‘Licence
shopping’ took place for a variety of reasons, but it was considered that the principle
reasons were the cost and ease of obtaining licences, together with avoiding
compliance with the Council’s licensing conditions.
The Chair of the Committee confirmed that he had been aware that it had been
intended that a proposal be made to the Committee that the draft Policy be amended
to make the installation of closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) in licensed
vehicles mandatory. He did not, however, consider that this proposed Policy
amendment was appropriate at this time, as the Committee required clarification in
relation to whether mandating CCTV would mean that the Council became the data
controller for all the footage recorded according to the Information Commissioners
Office (ICO).
Paul Donaghy, Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager, attended
the meeting and advised the Committee that a report containing detailed information
in relation to CCTV had been prepared in March 2025 when it had been intended to
bring the revised Policy before the Committee, however, as the draft revised Policy
had not been considered by the Committee at that time, it had not yet seen the
report. Acknowledging the point which had been made, the Chair indicated that he
would welcome a debate on the proposed draft Policy at the meeting, before
suggesting to the Committee that a final decision on whether to submit the revised
Policy for public consultation be deferred until such time as the Committee was in
receipt of more detailed information, including the cost implication of mandating
CCTV in licensed vehicles and clarity on whether the Council or licensed drivers
would be the data controllers of recorded footage in the opinion of the ICO.
Considering the Policy which had been presented to it, a Committee member
welcomed the proposed requirement for drivers and vehicle licence holders to
undertake daily maintenance checks of their vehicles and complete maintenance
records. He further welcomed the proposal that operators and their staff would be
required to be trained in disability awareness.
It appeared as though the Council’s proposed Penalty Points for driving offences
would be in line with the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA)’s penalty
points, with the exception of convictions for the use of a mobile phone whilst driving
and drink or drug driving, what was the rationale for this difference?
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager explained that the
Institute of Licensing’s position was that certain offences were so serious and posed
such a danger to public safety that they required further sanctions. Driving whilst
using an electronic device, as well as the offences of speeding and the failure to use
a seatbelt were major contributors to fatal road accidents, and a such convictions for
these offences may also call into question whether a driver remained a ‘fit and
proper’ person to continue to hold a licence issued by Colchester City Council. It was
hoped that bringing the Council’s penalty points more in line with those issued by the
DVLA would improve the clarity of the proposed Policy for all.
Officers were asked to clarify why the proposed Policy appeared to make it harder
for the holders of European (EU) and non-European driver licences to obtain a
licence issued by Colchester City Council. The Licensing Team Leader confirmed to
the Committee that it was proposed that it would now be a requirement for applicants
who had held an EU or non-Eu driving licence to have exchanged this for a United
Kingdom (UK) driver licence prior to submitting an application. Views would be
sought in relation to this proposal as part of the Policy consultation, as to whether it
was too restrictive and would prevent new drivers from joining the taxi trade. It was,
however, important for Officers to be able to monitor penalty points which had been
applied to a driver licence, and this was only possible with DVLA licences.
In response to a question from the Committee, the Licensing Team Leader
confirmed that an equality impact assessment was in place in relation to the Policy,
however, the Council did not collect personal data of applicants or licence holders in
relation to their nationality or ethnic background as such data was not relevant to the
issuing of a licence and the Council would have no lawful purpose to collect this.
Noting references which the proposed Policy made to closed circuit television
cameras (CCTV), the Committee sought clarification in relation to the number of
licensed vehicles which were currently fitted with CCTV or a panic button.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that
currently no specific information was available as to the number of vehicles which
had been fitted with CCTV as provision of CCTV was not a requirement and was not
yet recommended under the Policy. From conversations with the Colchester
Hackney Carriage Association, he believed that it would be reasonable to assume
that approximately 80% of licensed vehicles had some form of CCTV device fitted. It
was, however, important to note that the proprietor of any vehicle which had been
fitted with CCTV was required to adhere to guidance issued by the ICO. Registration
with the ICO was thought to be a short, 15 minute, process which cost approximately
£47 if the applicant was an individual. The Committee heard that using fitted CCTV
equipment to capture audio was not permitted unless under very specific
circumstances, as a licensed vehicle was considered to be a private place when a
customer was on board. If in the future the Council was responsible for CCTV in
licenced vehicles, it would be obligated to carry out enforcement action in relation to
this, which would in turn require a much larger team of Officers.
Clarifying the discussion, the Chair of the Committee explained that at the present
time some licensed vehicles were fitted with cameras, and if the proposed Policy
was implemented which informed proprietors that they needed to register with the
ICO he considered that some proprietors may remove cameras altogether rather
than go through this process. Details of the number of CCTV cameras fitted in
licensed vehicles would not be known by the Council as the installation of CCTV was
not currently mandatory.
A Committee member noted that it was a requirement for licensed vehicles to be
equipped with the means to receive electronic payments unless an exemption had
been granted, under what conditions would such an exemption be granted? The
Licensing Team Leader confirmed that exemptions from the requirement to provide
the means to accept electronic payments were in relation to executive hire vehicles
where contracts were in existence, and vehicles which were used exclusively for
school contract work.
Returning to the topic of CCTV in licensed vehicles, the Committee wondered what
steps could be taken to make installing CCTV more attractive to proprietors in
Colchester through providing clarity in relation to the costs associated with ICO
registration for example? The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding
Manager advised the Committee that he believed that provision of CCTV in licensed
vehicles was a good idea, and that he believed that this opinion was shared by all
present at the meeting. In his professional experience, CCTV was often no more
than an evidence gathering tool, and did not necessarily prevent crime from
occurring. CCTV in licensed vehicles was potentially a significant intrusion into
people’s privacy, and accordingly for the Council to mandate it, crime figures would
need to be obtained to demonstrate that mandatory CCTV in licensed vehicles was
both reasonable and proportionate, and figures which were specific to issues which
actually occurred within licensed vehicles were very difficult to obtain due to the way
in which crimes were reported and recorded. In terms of the requirement for vehicle
proprietors to register with the ICO, the Council was obligated to provide information
in relation to this responsibility as part of the Policy, if it was also recommending that
CCTV be installed in licensed vehicles.
In discussion, the Committee noted that attacks on licensed drivers, although
infrequent, did occur, and considered that the presence of CCTV in licensed vehicles
would serve as some protection for drivers. It further noted that CCTV was present in
many areas which were not associated with crime, such as the Town Hall, and that it
was a normal requirement for individuals running a business to have to comply with
varying regulatory requirements. The Committee was pleased to note that the
proposed Policy was much more accessible than its previous versions, and the
Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that one of the
principal priorities for Officers when drafting the document had been to shorten it,
making it as easy as possible to interpret. The Council’s licensing website was also
currently being completely redesigned to make finding information much simpler,
although the Committee was reminded that it was the overriding responsibility of
applicants and licence holders to make sure that they had read, and complied with
the Council’s Policy.
A Committee member considered that the approach which had been suggested by
the Chair in regard to the to the proposed Policy was a sensible one, and he would
welcome more detail being provided to the Committee in the future in relation to the
varying responsibilities and the implications for data controllers with the ICO. The
Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager reiterated that the Council
did not know how many CCTV systems had been installed in licensed vehicles,
however, any system which had been fitted would be the subject all the relevant
regulations. He did not believe that any proprietors who had fitted CCTV in their
vehicles would have deliberately failed to comply with ICO regulations such as
registering as a data controller or displaying necessary signage in their vehicles, but
it was important to ensure that they were aware of their responsibilities. A public
consultation was already underway concerning whether or not Council’s licensing
functions should rest with the Mayor’s Office following local government
reorganisation, and it was hoped that this may prove to herald a move to nationally
set standards for licensed drivers and vehicles, which would resolve the issues
which were caused by the current position with cross-border hiring.
The Chair requested that the Committee considered deferring making a decision on
whether or not to submit the proposed Policy for a period of public consultation until
it had the opportunity to consider further information in relation to the costs of
mandating CCTV in licensed vehicles, and the implications for the Council and
vehicle proprietors in respect of becoming the data controller for footage which was
recorded.
RESOLVED that: the decision on whether, or not, to submit the proposed Hackney
Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy for public consultation be deferred until a
future meeting of the Committee to enable more detailed information to be presented
and considered.