223
The Committee considered a report which provided it with information relevant to the
installation of closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) in Licensed vehicles. It
detailed financial implications, licensing requirements and legal/information services
recommendations.
Paul Donaghy, Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager attended
the meeting to present the report and assist the Committee with its enquiries. The
report which was before the Committee contained a large amount of information
regarding the installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles, and it was the
recommendation of the Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager
that the Council did not mandate the installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles.
Instead, installation of CCTV should be encouraged to improve safety, and act as a
deterrent to criminals. He considered that the Council should provide guidance to
vehicle proprietors to encourage those who chose to fit CCTV to comply with the
requirements of the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO). In accordance with the
recommendations of the report, the Committee was asked to begin a period of public
consultation, seeking views on whether or not the installation of CCTV in licensed
vehicles should be mandated. An alternative option for the Committee would be to
remove any mention of CCTV from the Council’s Hackney Carriage and Private Hire
Licensing Policy altogether.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager advised the
Committee that there were known issues associated with the mandating of CCTV
installation, including the proportionality of the intrusion against individuals balanced
against the low level of requirement indicated by crimes associated with licensed
vehicles. Additionally, if CCTV was mandated, there would be a requirement on the
Council to become the data controller for all recordings under the relevant
regulations, and the financial burden and impact on staffing levels in the Licensing
Team would be very significant. There was the danger that if CCTV was mandated,
any proprietor who did not wish to install it would simply obtain a licence from
another authority, and continue to operate locally. Neighbouring local authorities had
been consulted with, including those with which the Council was likely to
amalgamate in the near future under local government reorganisation proposals, and
no other authority had mandated, or intended to mandate, the installation of CCTV in
licensed vehicles.
It was well known that the Council was under an obligation to protect the travelling
public by making certain, as far as possible, that all licensed drivers and proprietors
met the requirements of the ‘fit and proper’ person test, from the time they were first
licenced for the duration of their licence, and the Council was also required to
consider statutory and best practice guidance.
The Committee heard that since the question of mandating CCTV in licensed
vehicles had first been raised, there had been significant changes in the licensing
regime with the implementation of the National Register of Taxi and Private Hire
Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3) system which allowed national licensing
and enforcement checks to be carried out against licence holders who had fallen
below the required standards. Central government had also introduced best practice
guidance and recommendations and was working to implement national standards if
possible.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager believed that a key
consideration when discussing mandatory CCTV was the issue of who exercised
overall control over the data (recorded images) which would be processed, and it
was re-emphasised to the Committee that if CCTV was mandated in licenced
vehicles, the Council would become the lawful data controller of all footage recorded
in a licenced vehicle.
The advice of the Council’s Interim S151 Officer had been sought in relation to the
cost implications of mandating the installation of CCTV and the financial implications
for the Council. The Interim S151 Officer had advised that the Council needed to be
mindful of all spending, and mitigate against potential overspends. Consequently, the
Interim S151 Officer supported the report which recommended that the Council did
not mandate CCTV within Hackney Carriages or Private Hire Vehicles, but instead
encouraged use of CCTV as a way of improving safety and reducing crime for both
drivers and the travelling public. Mandating CCTV installation in all licenced vehicles
would cause both a one-off and ongoing financial burden to the Council. Detailed
cost information was contained in the Officer’s report including initial purchase costs
and ongoing maintenance costs, however, the Committee was asked to note that
this information had been obtained some years ago, and the actual costs were likely
to have risen significantly in recent years. The potential capitalisation of these costs
has been considered but should not be pursued, meaning that the costs would
remain as an ongoing revenue pressure. If the Council was to mandate the
installation, the Council would need to purchase and install the cameras, and this
could be treated as capital expenditure only if the Council retained ownership and
control. However, such treatment would raise questions around; asset deployment,
tracking and ownership (external audit would request evidence), system portability
between vehicles, recovery of equipment when licenses lapsed, and was therefore
not recommended.
Turning to the health, wellbeing and community safety implications, the Committee
heard that the installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles, whether by encouragement
or mandate, was likely to enhance the protection of drivers and the public. Drivers
would be better protected against criminal activities and false allegations, thereby
improving their working conditions, and reducing personal risk. CCTV would also
assist in the investigation of complaints and may function as a deterrent to those
wishing to use licensed vehicles in criminal activities. These benefits were, however,
already in place for a number of drivers and their passengers, as some licensed
vehicles have already chosen to install CCTV. Any further benefit was likely to be
seen quicker if CCTV was not made mandatory, as the voluntary installation process
would be much quicker and unaffected by devolution.
In considering the proposed introduction of CCTV in licensed vehicles, the Local
Government Association (LGA) guidance stated:
“The law is clear that the use of CCTV and audio in taxis must be
proportionate to the risk presented, and councils would need to set out a clear
justification of why they believed there was a need for visual and audio
recording if applicable. The main rationale for using audio recording in
taxis/PHVs was that this would pick up any inappropriate conversations
between passengers and drivers, for example when they are carrying
children. Authorities would need to assess whether audio recording was
necessary based on local circumstances and be able to justify this.”
Additionally, guidance provided by the ICO stated that:
“The public must have confidence that the use of surveillance systems was
lawful, fair, transparent and met the other standards set in data protection law.
The rights and freedoms of individuals could be greatly affected where
decisions were made about them based on particularly intrusive means of
processing personal data.”
The Committee heard that the Council was required to demonstrate that the
implementation of any new monitoring system was designed with privacy in mind,
and was proportionate to the risks which had been identified. This assessment
should be evidence based and have regard to the number of offences and serious
offences which had occurred. The numbers of offences would need to be sufficiently
high to mandate CCTV in all vehicles. Although reports in the press and elsewhere
of high-profile safeguarding cases in other areas of the Country had underlined the
need for safeguarding issues to be addressed, the response of the Government and
regulating advisory bodies had been to make a number of changes to guidance and
statutory standards as detailed in the report. This had led to a significant
improvement of the regulation of the trade since the Licensing Committee first
considered the imposition of CCTV in licensed vehicles. The Government in seeking
to address safeguarding challenges in relation to licensed vehicles had stopped
short of mandating CCTV in licensed vehicles. The general position across the
Country was therefore not considered sufficient to justify the mandatory imposition of
CCTV.
To determine local risk crime figures, complaints and other information had been
considered. The assessment of local risk was difficult as it was believed that crimes
perpetrated on and by taxi drivers were under reported. It was also difficult to know
how much of this crime would have been prevented by CCTV, and how much crime
was prevented by the CCTV already in licensed vehicles.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager advised the
Committee that when he had been challenged in Court by way of appeals against
suspensions or revocations of a dual driver licence, every appeal had been won by
the Council without the use of CCTV footage, and it was not considered that such
footage would have been helpful in any of these cases. Even in other complaints
where it was considered that CCTV footage could have been helpful, this footage
would also have needed to have sound to provide context, and given that ICO
guidance prohibited the recording of sound without the use of a panic button it was
likely that sound would have been absent.
The Committee was advised that if, following the proposed consultation, it
determined to recommend the mandatory installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles,
the final decision on this recommendation would be taken by Full Council. Should the
installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles be mandated, it was considered that given
the expenditure involved, proprietors should be given a year to implement the new
requirement, which would take the Council closer the proposed date for LGR,
following which it was unclear how licensing functions would be delivered across
Essex.
Councillor Law, Portfolio Holder for Communities and Public Protection, attended the
meeting, and with the permission of the Chair, addressed the Committee. She was
sensitive to the fact that there was a desire for progress to be made in relation to this
issue. Although it was very important to prioritise the safety and welfare of licensed
drivers and the travelling public, consideration also had to be given to the resourcing
and data ownership issues which had been identified, and she considered that the
issue of data ownership could present a significant burden to the Council. She
supported a public consultation to seek the views of drivers, members of the public,
nighttime workers and other stakeholders to seek views on whether, or not, CCTV
installation should be mandated in licensed vehicles. The results of the consultation
could then be presented to the Committee later in the year and would inform the
future drafting of the Council’s Policy.
A Committee member welcomed the comprehensive report which had been
presented, although considered that the installation of CCTV represented something
of a ‘grey area’. Although it was possible to say that CCTV would offer some
protection to drivers, it was difficult to say whether, or not, CCTV would stop assaults
or would be primarily to provide evidence to support a prosecution, and it was also
significant that very few other Council’s had mandated its installation. When
considering the number of journeys which took place in licensed vehicles each day,
the numbers of reported issues were very low, and the possibility that drivers who
did not wish to operate with CCTV in their vehicles would simply licence elsewhere
and still operate in Colchester needed to be considered, as this could simply negate
the introduction of CCTV. It was also a significant concern that large sums of money
could be spent on a mandatory CCTV scheme, only for local government
reorganisation to lead to it being scrapped almost immediately.
In response to a question from the Committee, the Licensing, Community Safety and
Safeguarding Manager provided some detail in relation to the installation of CCTV
which had been mandated by Southampton City Council in 2008. The cost of
installing each system via the approved provider was at least £600 prior to VAT per
vehicle, not including ongoing maintenance. Recorded footage was saved within a
locked system in each vehicle which required the presence of 2 Council Officers to
access in person via a dedicated computer system. The expert advice which had
been offered by Colchester City Council’s IT Team had been that the only
acceptable solution for Colchester would be a cloud-based system which allowed the
greatest degree of safety and control over footage. The Licensing, Community
Safety and Safeguarding Manager was aware that a Council which had determined
to introduce mandatory CCTV in 2024 had now reversed this decision in light of
concerns over data ownership, and a further Council which had mandated CCTV
had now started a consultation to remove this requirement due to concerns about
proprietors obtaining licences form elsewhere. The Committee heard that areas
which had introduced mandatory CCTV had tended to be those in which there had
been significant or specific types of crime, and when requested by the police.
A Committee member considered the proportionality of intrusive surveillance
balanced against the low level of reported crimes which had been discussed, and
wondered how the proposed encouraged installation of CCTV differed from
mandating in this respect? He further considered that the imminent changes which
would be brough about by LGR posed a risk if CCTV was to be mandated and then
this requirement be immediately removed following LGR.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that the
difference between mandating CCTV and encouraging its installation was that if it
had been mandated the Council would be open to challenge and would have to
provide a justification of its policy through demonstrating that there was sufficient
need. When the crime statistics were considered, it was likely that crimes related to
licensed vehicles was under-reported, with many minor non-violent offences not
being reported to the police by licensed drivers who may believe that no action would
be taken. The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager believed
that mandating CCTV would not change this position, as non-violent crimes would
not be treated as a priority by the police. The Committee heard that the data which
had been provided by Essex Police in relation to the number of crimes associated
with licensed vehicles would have included any crime report which mentioned the
word ‘taxi’, whether or not the crime had occurred in, or been associated with, a
licensed vehicle. On this basis, it would not be possible to use the crime figures
provided to justify the introduction of mandatory CCTV.
Sarah White, Licensing Team Leader, attended the meeting and responded to a
question from the Committee. During the previous public consultation which had
considered the imposition of mandatory CCTV 36 responses had been received, and
the majority of these responses had not been in favour of the proposal. Concerns
which had been raised by those who responded had included costs, privacy issues
and the installation of panic buttons. Licensing Officers had recently met with several
of the larger private hire operators in the area who had confirmed that they would
only support the introduction of mandatory CCTV if they could become the data
controller for the recorded footage, which was not possible.
Andrew Tyrrell, Head of Public Protection, attended the meeting and spoke in favour
of carrying out a public consultation in relation to the issue. The results of this
consultation would then be collated later in the year when the position with LGR
would hopefully be clearer, allowing for an informed decision to be taken.
In response to questioning from the Committee, the Licensing Team Leader
confirmed that the advice which had been received from the Council’s IT department
had been that the only form of CCTV system which would be GDPR compliant was a
cloud-based one. The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager
confirmed that, whether or not the decision was taken to mandate the installation of
CCTV cameras, he believed that the Council should provide advice on the use of
CCTV in vehicles via its website for drivers and the travelling public. Any CCTV
system which was installed into a vehicle would require expert installation
A member of the Committee recalled the initial discussion which had occurred in
respect of the possibility of mandating the installation of CCTV in licensed vehicles, a
number of years ago. He was a firm believer that CCTV in licensed vehicles should
be mandatory on the basis that CCTV was prevalent in all forms of public transport
such as busses and trains for the purpose of public protection. However, since the
Council had first considered CCTV in licensed vehicles, the broader picture for local
government had changed significantly. It was considered that the government was
now moving towards implementing national licensing standards, which was to be
welcomed, and which should receive the full support of the Council. It was also
necessary to recognise that under LGR, licensing would likely become a function of
the Mayoralty, and the approach which would be taken by the Mayor towards
licensing was unknown. The report which had been presented to the Committee was
of excellent quality, and explored areas in relation to CCTV and its implications
which had not been suggested to the Committee before. The report had been so
through that he was of a mind to support the recommendation which it contained to
avoid the wasting of both public money and money of the trade. The best way
forward would be to encourage, but not mandate, the installation of CCTV in licensed
vehicles. In encouraging drivers to install CCTV it was essential that they were also
made aware of the requirements of the ICO to ensure that they did not fall foul of
data control regulations.
The Licensing, Community Safety and Safeguarding Manager confirmed that the
Council had a duty to protect the public as well as providing a service to the licensed
trade. It was necessary for advice to be offered in respect of data control regulations
to all the proprietors who had installed, or would install, CCTV in their vehicles, and
Officers would undertake to provide this advice.
In discussion the Committee recognised the uncertainty of the future and considered
that it may be foolish to impose a new system which may end up being abandoned
over the following year. The Committee discussed the possibility of running 2 public
consultations simultaneously in respect of mandatory CCTV and the revised
licensing policy which would be considered later in the meeting, and the Portfolio
Holder for Communities and Public Protection considered that this would be helpful.
A member of the Committee suggested that as the Committee did not appear to be
minded to recommend mandated CCTV there was little point in a public consultation,
however, the motion was lost with the Committee considering that as much
information as possible should be considered when making its final recommendation
on the subject.
RESOLVED that:
- the installation of closed circuit television cameras in all licensed vehicles
should be encouraged, but not mandated, as part of Colchester City Council’s
Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy, and that;
- the above decision be the subject of a public consultation for the period of
three months.