Consultation outcome

Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing: protecting users – summary of consultation responses

Updated 21 July 2020

Introduction

Section 177 of the Policing and Crime Act 2017 enabled the Secretary of State to issue statutory guidance to taxi and private hire vehicle licensing authorities as to how their licensing functions may be exercised so as to protect children, and vulnerable individuals who are 18 or over from harm.

The Act provided a list of statutory consultees:

• the National Police Chiefs’ Council
• persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of public authorities who are required to have regard to the guidance
• persons who appear to the Secretary of State to represent the interests of those whose livelihood is affected by the exercise of the licensing functions to which the guidance relates
• such other persons as the Secretary of State considers appropriate

Due to the wide range of taxi and private hire vehicle users, a public consultation ran between 12 February and 22 April 2019. The consultation invited respondents to submit their views on the measures proposed in the draft document.

This document summarises the views expressed by respondents to the consultation and provides the response of the DfT (Department for Transport).

The DfT considered all the responses received and has made amendments, where deemed appropriate, to the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards issued alongside this summary. The statutory standards have also been restructured to make them clearer to licensing authorities.

Overview of respondents

533 completed responses were submitted to the consultation from a mixture of:

• passengers
• drivers
• safety and disability representation groups
• private hire vehicle operators
• taxi intermediaries
• licensing authorities

More detail on the respondents is provided in respondent information.

What follows is a summary of responses to consultation questions.

Administration of the licensing framework

Question 1

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all those involved in the determination of licensing matters should receive training covering licensing procedures, natural justice, child sexual abuse and exploitation, disability and equality in addition to any other issues deemed locally appropriate (paragraph 2.18). Do you agree with the recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	453
No	23
No opinion	31

Summary of responses within scope

The responses to this question were broadly supportive, recognising the difficult and complex decisions those responsible for assessing whether an individual is ‘fit and proper’ to hold a taxi and/or private hire vehicle licence must make.

Some respondents felt that requiring this training would result in unreasonable costs being applied to the licensing regime and this would ultimately be passed onto the trade through increased licensing fees.

Concerns were also raised that the draft proposal was unclear in defining those individuals within the licensing regime that should be required to undertake this training and those that need not.

Outcome of review

The purpose of issuing Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards is to set out actions licensing authorities should take to mitigate the risk to children and vulnerable adults (and by extension all passengers) when using taxi and private hire vehicle services.

Those charged with the determination of licensing matters must therefore be appropriately trained so as to fully understand the potential risks that the very small minority in – or seeking to join – the trade might pose.

The draft proposal was “that all those involved in the determination of licensing matters have received sufficient training to allow them to discharge the function effectively and correctly”.

Although a few respondents thought that greater clarity was needed on the scope of those that should require training, we do not consider that changes are necessary as the roles of staff in each licensing authority will be different.

The document makes reference to “sufficient training”; therefore, those that have limited discretion – for example, administrative staff who are able to refuse a licence on the grounds that the completion of a required training course by the applicant has not been evidenced – would not require such comprehensive training and knowledge as a member of a licensing committee.

Question 2

The draft statutory guidance recommends a council structure for dealing with licensing matters (paragraphs 2.20–2.24). Do you agree with this proposed structure?

View	Amount
Yes	369
No	75
No opinion	58

Summary of responses within scope

The need for greater flexibility in the decision-making structure was raised and that the model proposed was not appropriate for all licensing authorities.

Outcome of review

Revisions have been made to make clear that the objective is that licensing authorities separate responsibilities for the investigation of licensing concerns and the management of the license process within the licensing regime, rather than implement a particular framework.

This builds on the appropriate delegation of powers to suitably trained and impartial individuals within the regime, as covered in question 1.

Implementing changes to the licensing policy and requirements

Question 3

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all issued licences should be reviewed following changes in licensing policy (paragraph 2.29). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	373
No	79
No opinion	50

Summary of responses within scope

Many supportive comments were received to this proposal, stating that this is the current practice in many authorities. As with other proposals, concerns were raised over the burden this would place on licensing authorities.

The practicalities of imposing new requirements on licensees were voiced. Respondents also raised concerns over the legality of licensing authorities applying new requirements or standards to existing licensees, and suggested that this might result in legal challenges.

Outcome of review

The government position remains that all issued licences should be reviewed following changes in licensing policy to ensure that ultimately all licensees are ‘fit and proper’ when assessed against the current licensing requirements.

The document makes clear that such a review should be undertaken in a pragmatic manner and should not lead to licences being automatically revoked overnight. For example, if the policy change was the introduction of a new safeguarding training requirement for a driver, they should be given time to undertake this.

As for all licensing decisions, any review should be reasonable and proportionate.

As a public authority, licensing authorities must permit the consideration of each decision on its own merits. Licensing authorities will of course be guided and have reference to its policies, but decisions must not preclude the possibility to deviate from a policy.

A licensing decision that is made by an authority that has restrained its discretion may be challenged on the grounds that the decision is unlawful. It may also be challenged that the procedure by which it was made was unfair, or that it is unreasonable.

For example, it is possible and legitimate for a licensee who has previous convictions that would be incompatible with an authority’s new convictions policy to be licensed; the DfT’s view on previous convictions stated: “Where there are exceptional, clear and compelling reasons to deviate from a policy, licensing authorities are able to do so. Licensing authorities should record the reasons for any deviation from the policies in place.”

The Disclosure and Barring Service

Question 4

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all drivers should be subject to an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) with barred lists check for individuals applying for or renewing taxi and private hire vehicle driver licences (paragraph 2.32). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	474
No	13
No opinion	19

Summary of responses within scope

The vast majority of responses to this question were supportive of this proposal, pointing out that this was already a requirement in many local authorities and was a vital element in the decision-making process.

Outcome of review

The importance of making a decision based on the fullest available information cannot be overstated.

Licensing authorities have, since 2012, been able to request enhanced level DBS certificate and check of both barred lists.

As of 31 March 2019, 229 of the 315 (73%) licensing authorities in England and Wales already required an enhanced DBS certificate and check of barred lists, meaning 95% of drivers were vetted to this level.

No changes have been made.

Question 5

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all licence holders should be required to subscribe to the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Update Service (paragraph 2.38). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	429
No	36
No opinion	41

Summary of responses within scope

Most of the responses were supportive of the proposal and many licensing authorities already make use of the DBS Update Service. As with other recommendations, concerns were raised over the burden this would place on licensing authorities and the additional financial cost to drivers.

Outcome of review

Revisions have been made to make clear that the DBS Update Service is only available for driver licensing, as a standard or enhanced level check is required for this functionality.

As of 31 March 2019, only 137 of the 315 (43%) licensing authorities in England and Wales required drivers to subscribe to the DBS Update Service, meaning 19% of drivers are subject to this requirement.

While the DfT recognises that there will be an additional initial cost to drivers of signing up to the DBS Update Service, given that the draft proposal was for biannual checks for drivers, even with the reduced enhanced DBS certificate fees (reduced from £44 to £40 from 1 October 2019), there would still be a net benefit for drivers to subscribe to the Update Service. The standard duration of a driver licence is three years and the cost of six new certificates would be £264; the equivalent for an enhanced DBS certificate and a subscription for three years would be £79.

In addition, use of the DBS Update Service reduces the risk of potential delays in issuing a licence at renewal stage. Any delays in the provision of new certificates could lead to the driver being unable to continue working. With the DBS Update Service, the driver does not need to complete a new certificate application nor provide the new certificate to the licensing authority.

Requiring subscription to the DBS Update Service will also reduce the administrative burden on licensing authorities, removing the need to regularly review a new certificate.

It should be noted that the costs and benefits provided assume that no new information is available throughout the period of the licence and so the original DBS certificate remains a reliable document. Should new information be available, a new certificate would be required.

Question 6

The draft statutory guidance recommends that appropriate DBS checks are conducted every 6 months (paragraph 2.39). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	279
No	176
No opinion	46

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal but several suggested this would only be practical if drivers were compelled to subscribe to the DBS Update Service.

Some respondents suggested DBS checks should be made on an annual basis rather than every 6 months.

As with other recommendations, concerns were raised over the burden this would place on licensing authorities.

Outcome of review

It is accepted that the checking of DBS records every 6 months has the potential to impose considerable burdens on both licensing authorities and licensees, but this is to ensure public safety.

That is why the Statutory Standards state that drivers should be required to subscribe to the DBS Update Service, as this will reduce costs for drivers and the administrative burden on licensing authorities.

The DBS Update Service multiple status check facility will enable licensing authorities to quickly carry out multiple checks at a time, reducing the need to regularly review a new certificate as this will only be needed if the status check indicates there is new information available.

The draft proposal was that all licensees sign up to the DBS Update Service, but this is only available to drivers as, unlike other licensees, they are eligible for enhanced DBS checks, therefore the text has been changed to reflect this.

In the case of licensed private hire vehicle operators and vehicle proprietors, the contact they have with children and vulnerable adults (and other passengers) when using these services is far less so annual DBS checks for both these licence holders is expected – unless they are also a licensed driver in which case a basic DBS check is considered unnecessary.

Licensee self-reporting

Question 7

The draft statutory guidance recommends that drivers and operators should be required to notify the issuing authority within 48 hours upon arrest and release, charge or conviction of any motoring offence, or any offence involving dishonesty, indecency or violence (paragraph 2.41). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	403
No	72
No opinion	29

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported the principal of this proposal, although several suggested a longer period than 48 hours might be more appropriate to take account of weekends and bank holidays.

Some respondents said this was already a common condition on licences, although many licensing authorities allowed up to 7 days.

Outcome of review

Licensing authorities have an ongoing duty to ensure that all those to whom they have issued a licence remain ‘fit and proper’.

As set out in the draft statutory guidance, an arrest or even a charge does not mean that the licensee has perpetrated an offence; however, it is appropriate that a licensing authority consider whether an individual remains ‘fit and proper’ based on the individual circumstances of the case, such as the type of offence and action taken (for example, arrest and release, charge or conviction).

Licensing authorities should do all that they can to protect passengers. If licensees are obligated to notify promptly in the above circumstance in the interest of public safety, authorities must consider this information with a similar degree of urgency.

Referrals to DBS and the police

Question 8

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should make referrals to the DBS when they consider that an applicant or licence holder is thought to present a potential risk of harm to the public (paragraph 2.43). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	427
No	40
No opinion	36

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents.

Several respondents said many licensing authorities already do this.

Some respondents suggested that licensing authorities should work closely with the police if they had any concerns about an applicant or licence holder. It was also suggested that there was a need for clear and detailed guidance on such referrals.

As with other proposals, some respondents were concerned about the additional financial or resource burden this would place on local authorities.

Outcome of review

All licensing authorities should be making full use of their powers to protect the public; this includes making referrals to the DBS when appropriate.

While this may place a burden on licensing authorities, the protection of the public is of greater importance; if an authority believes an individual has or may harm a child or vulnerable adult they should act to mitigate the risk of future harm.

As explained in the consultation version, the DBS has provided guidance on making referrals and links to comprehensive guidance are provided.

Overseas convictions

Question 9

The draft statutory guidance recommends that a check of overseas criminality information, or ‘Certificate of Good Character’, should be required when an individual has spent a period of more than 3 continuous months outside the UK when over the age of 18 (paragraph 2.47). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	399
No	70
No opinion	35

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by most respondents. Some licensing authorities indicated they already do this.

A few respondents pointed out that it was not possible to get certificates from some countries, especially those affected by war and political unrest.

There were also some concerns raised that it was difficult for licensing authorities to enforce and check authenticity. A few respondents said the UK age of criminal liability is 10, not 18, and therefore this should be applied as the relevant standard.

It was also suggested that the proposal should be changed from “lived outside the UK” to “spent a period of more than 3 continuous months outside the UK”.

Outcome of review

The difficulty facing licensing authorities in these situations is acknowledged. Difficulty in obtaining background information from some countries was highlighted by licensing authorities.

Though this is more likely to be an issue for those who have moved to the UK, the same ‘gaps’ may also apply to those who have emigrated and later returned or spent an ‘extended period’ travelling.

Even when background information on an individual can be provided, countries have differing criminal offences, criminal justice systems, filtering processes and thresholds for providing information.

The DfT cannot cover all possible scenarios regarding background checks of those who were born or have spent extended periods outside the UK. The standards place the safety of children and vulnerable adults foremost but recognise that it may not be possible to obtain the same level of information about individuals that have spent extended periods overseas.

Where an applicant has acted in good faith and exhausted all avenues to provide as full a picture of information to the licensing authority, licensing authorities must make a decision based on the balance of probabilities.

The draft proposal was that “a period outside the UK before the age of 18 may not be relevant” as it was the behaviour as an adult that is of interest. It was suggested that the threshold for requiring a ‘Certificate of Good Character’ should be 10 years of age as this is the age of criminal responsibility in England and Wales.

Although the age of criminal responsibility is 10 years of age, children between 10 and 17 are treated differently from adults, they are dealt with by youth courts, subject to different sentences and sent to special secure centres for young people, not adult prisons.

Convictions in the UK before the age of 18 that did not result in a custodial sentence are also subject to different filtering rules.

The DfT therefore considers the threshold of over 18 years of age to request a ‘Certificate of Good Character’ made in the draft proposal to be a reasonable basis for inclusion in the standards.

Other information

Question 10

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should require applicants or licensees to disclose if they have been licensed elsewhere, or have had an application for a licence refused, or have had a licence revoked or suspended by any other licencing authority (paragraph 2.57). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	464
No	16
No opinion	21

Summary of responses within scope

This draft proposal was supported by the majority of respondents. Several respondents said many licensing authorities already request this. Others said self-disclosure relied on trust and was open to abuse so had to be verified with other licensing authorities.

Outcome of review

The main criticism of this proposal was that it was dependent on applicants or licensees being honest in making a self-declaration in the absence of another means to verify the responses received. While this is the case, increased use of systems such as the National Register of Refusals and Revocations (NR3) will mitigate this risk.

The Statutory Standards state that applicants for a licence (at first application or renewal) be explicitly warned that failing to disclose relevant requested information may constitute a criminal offence.

Question 11

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should use tools such as NR3 to improve information sharing (paragraph 2.58). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	464
No	16
No opinion	26

Summary of responses within scope

The vast majority of respondents agreed with this proposal with many suggesting that the NR3 register should be compulsory for all local authorities.

Some respondents suggested the NR3 should also include suspensions.

There were some comments that access to the system is complex and difficult at times, and that data protection issues complicated this process. There were also some concerns about the cost of accessing the register, particularly for smaller authorities.

Outcome of review

The DfT welcomes the Local Government Association (LGA)’s work in establishing NR3, this provides a valuable tool to licensing authorities and facilitates the sharing of relevant information. Use of tools such as this is recommended, but the information held on NR3 or any similar database is not a matter for the DfT.

The LGA have advised that licensing authorities would require membership of the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) to access NR3; however, as around 90% of local authorities are already NAFN members, NR3 access would be at no additional cost. For non-members, annual membership of NAFN costs £1,050, which may be a legitimate administrative cost and so recoverable through licensing fees.

Question 12

The draft statutory guidance recommends that the authority considering an application for or renewal of a licence should consult and consider other licensing decisions in its assessment, when an applicant or licensee discloses they have had an application refused, or had a licence revoked or suspended elsewhere (paragraph 2.60). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	450
No	22
No opinion	29

Summary of responses within scope

Most of the respondents supported this proposal. Responses suggested many licensing authorities were already doing this.

Some concerns were raised about the financial burden, which would result in higher licensing fees.

Others suggested that the proposal should be clearer in stating that each case should be taken on its own merits and to remove the examples given because they undermined this principle.

Outcome of review

Where an applicant or licensee has indicated that they have had an application refused, or had a licence revoked or suspended elsewhere, the DfT does not consider it disproportionate for licensing authorities to seek relevant information from other licensing authorities.

This will ensure that the licensing authority considering the application has the fullest information available to them as part of its deliberations as to whether an individual is ‘fit and proper’ to hold or be issued a licence.

Revisions have been made to make it clear that licensing authorities should consider but not be bound by previous decisions.

Multi-agency safeguarding hub

Question 13

The draft statutory guidance recommends that multi-agency safeguarding hubs (MASHs) (or similar) should be established by licensing authorities to improve the sharing of relevant information (paragraph 2.64). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	404
No	60
No opinion	41

Summary of responses within scope

Again, the majority of respondents supported this proposal. Comments suggested many licensing authorities do this already.

It was also suggested that synergy with pre-existing MASH organisations would avoid duplication of effort.

Outcome of review

MASHs are advocated as an effective way to ensure the sharing of relevant information to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm; this will ensure that licensing decisions are made with the fullest range of information available.

The establishing of a MASH is proposed as a way to achieve the objective of ensuring the sharing and consideration of relevant information by a range of stakeholders; existing arrangements or the implementation of alternative models that meet the same objective are supported.

Complaints against drivers and operators

Question 14

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should produce guidance for passengers on making complaints directly to the licensing authority that must be displayed in licensed vehicles (paragraph 2.66). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	405
No	63
No opinion	38

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents. Some respondents pointed out that not all licensed vehicles – particularly saloons – may have available space to display guidance for passengers.

It was suggested that licensed taxis and private hire vehicles should carry information leaflets about complaint procedures, and that provision needs to be made for the visually impaired, such as in braille. It was also suggested that display guidance would be useful.

There were also concerns raised that any mandatory requirement to display complaints guidance would add increase licensing costs for drivers.

Outcome of review

Licensing authorities requiring the display of complaints information in licensed vehicles should consider the burden placed on licensees.

The costs are, however, not expected to be significant – for example, stickers could be applied at first licensing, inspection or renewal and provide the name of the authority and relevant contact details (telephone, email and website).

Safeguarding awareness

Question 15

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all licensing authorities should, as a condition of licensing, require drivers to undertake safeguarding training (paragraph 2.72). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	421
No	50
No opinion	34

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal. Several respondents pointed out that this is already a requirement in many licensing authorities; some required a refresher course every three years.

Concerns were raised about the financial burden this would put on licensing authorities and drivers, together with the loss of earnings for drivers whilst undertaking any training.

It was also suggested that there should be a nationally recognised and accredited course.

Outcome of review

As of 31 March 2019, 240 of the 319 (75%) licensing authorities in England and Wales required drivers to undertake safeguarding training, meaning 51% of drivers are already subject to a mandatory safeguarding training requirement, and are, therefore, trained to spot the signs of abuse and exploitation, and know how to respond to protect those most vulnerable.

Given this is common practice and the benefits this might provide, this proposal is not considered to be disproportionate or an undue burden on the remaining drivers.

The DfT recognises the benefits that an accredited course might provide to drivers and the public, and will consider this further.

Language proficiency

Question 16

The draft statutory guidance recommends that all licensing authorities should consider whether an applicant for a licence is able to communicate in English orally and in writing with customers (paragraph 2.79). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	459
No	24
No opinion	23

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by most respondents. Several said there was already an English language requirement in many licensing authorities; however, some just required a written test and others an oral test.

Concerns were raised that drivers should already be able to communicate effectively and read road traffic signs.

It was suggested that there should be nationally required standards of tests and assessment.

Outcome of review

The final version is clear in stating that local authorities should consider whether an applicant would have difficulties in spotting and reporting potential safeguarding issues because of language difficulties.

It is important that drivers are able to comprehend oral and written training material, which is most likely to be in English, regarding the protection of children and vulnerable adults when using taxis and private hire vehicles. Drivers should be able to evidence that they have comprehended this training so that it can be applied.

Whilst an English language requirement will also ensure that drivers are able to fulfil their duties – such as accurately concluding payment transactions – protecting children and vulnerable adults is the focus of the Statutory Standards.

Enforcement

Question 17

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should, where the need arises, jointly authorise officers from other authorities so that compliance and enforcement action can be taken against licensees from outside their area (paragraph 2.81). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	452
No	23
No opinion	28

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal. Some replies from licensing authorities said their enforcement officers would spend most of their time dealing with vehicles licensed in other authorities; concerns raised about resources and recovery of costs means this is unlikely to be practical.

Concerns were also raised about varying standards across licensing authorities, which hindered any joint authorisations. It was pointed out that licensing authorities may have different punishments for the same offences; one authority may issue a warning letter and another may prosecute.

Outcome of review

It is acknowledged that the joint authorisation of licensing officers would need careful planning, particularly where there are different approaches to enforcement.

This does not, however, negate the benefits of joint licensing within clusters of authorities, particularly where passengers frequently cross boundaries, such as in large metropolitan areas like Greater Manchester. Therefore, the Statutory Standards support this initiative.

Criminal record checks for private hire vehicle operators

Question 18

The draft statutory guidance recommends that private hire vehicle operators (applicants or licensees) should be subject to a basic DBS check (paragraph 2.91). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	407
No	71
No opinion	28

Summary of responses within scope

Most respondents agreed with this proposal and suggested that a number of authorities already require this.

Many of the respondents that disagreed suggested that an enhanced DBS check should be required instead.

Respondents also used this question to raise the issue of the vetting of individuals to whom a vehicle licence is issued.

Outcome of review

As stated previously, enhanced DBS checks are only available for taxi and private hire vehicle drivers.

Requiring a basic DBS check is considered both useful and proportionate for private hire vehicle operators.

No changes have therefore been made in regard to this proposal.

The DfT accepts the need to set standards on the vetting of individuals to whom a vehicle licence might be issued, given that taxis and private hire vehicles provide a ‘low-profile’ means to facilitate the trafficking and exploitation of children and vulnerable adults for sexual abuse and the ‘county lines’ drug trade.

Revisions have been made to include measures that licensing authorities should consider when issuing vehicle licences, as well as for drivers and operators.

Private hire vehicle operators – ancillary staff

Question 19

The draft statutory guidance recommends that private hire vehicle operators should, as a condition of licensing, be required to keep a register of all staff that will take bookings or dispatch vehicles (paragraph 2.97). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	455
No	17
No opinion	33

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents. One respondent said this provision is an extra layer of security for passengers.

A respondent highlighted that, where computerised booking systems are used by operators, the system could automatically record a staff member’s ID reference against each booking that they take and/or dispatch.

Respondents requested clear guidance on the content of the register and length of retention of records. Another response said further consideration must be given to who would be included on the register (for example, outsourced call centre staff).

It was also suggested that all staff involved in the operator’s business should be recorded on the register. Many members of an operator’s staff – not just vehicle controllers and dispatchers – will have access to sensitive personal information in respect of passengers, including their home addresses and the journeys they make in private hire vehicles.

Outcome of review

This section has been renamed to better reflect the focus of the proposal, which is to prevent an individual from receiving a booking request and sending an unlicensed individual who would seek to abuse or exploit a child or vulnerable adult.

The document is now clear that, in the case of outsourced staff, the operator should be able to evidence that comparable protections are in place at the company to which the function has been outsourced.

While it is acknowledged that other private hire vehicle operator staff may be able to access sensitive information, there are existing obligations under data protection legislation to prohibit the access of data unless it is necessary.

In response to respondent requests, more information has been included on the detail of the operation of a register.

Question 20

The draft statutory guidance recommends that private hire vehicle operators should be required to evidence that they have had sight of a basic DBS check on all individuals listed on the above register (paragraph 2.97). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	423
No	49
No opinion	32

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents agreed with this proposal.

Some concerns were raised about the additional costs and increased workload for officers when inspecting private hire vehicle operators to ensure compliance with this requirement.

It was also suggested that some guidance should be provided to the operator on how recent the basic check should be, how frequently staff are rechecked and so forth.

Another respondent suggested that the operator should be responsible for getting the DBS check and updating on a regular basis, rather than simply having sight of an old disclosure.

Another respondent said this requirement will create a major obstacle with the recruitment of new staff. Their local authority insists that it carries out all DBS checks, which take about six to eight weeks; by the time an individual’s DBS check is complete, they may have found alternative employment.

Outcome of review

As with any check undertaken by licensing officers, it is not expected that they will routinely interrogate the booking records for every booking of every operator that their authority licenses. Similarly, authorities would not be expected to routinely interrogate operator records of DBS checks for individuals involved in the taking of bookings and dispatch of vehicles.

As such, the burden on licensing authorities is not expected to be significant. Where breaches of this process are identified, more detailed and frequent checks may be necessary to assess whether further action is required.

The burden on new booking and dispatch staff to provide a basic DBS certificate to private hire vehicle operators to consider whether any previous disclosed convictions are compatible with their policy on employing these personnel is not disproportionate; nor is placing a requirement on existing staff to advise their employer of cautions or convictions during their employment.

Further detailed information has been provided on the recommended vetting of booking and dispatch staff.

Question 21

The draft statutory guidance recommends that private hire vehicle operators should, as a condition of licensing, be required to provide to the licensing authority their policy on employing ex-offenders who will take bookings or dispatch vehicles (2.98). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	423
No	36
No opinion	41

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents.

Respondents suggested this needed to be backed up with specific guidance to licensing authorities to ensure consistency. There were concerns raised that this requirement would be too costly and too onerous, especially on small operators.

There were also responses suggesting this requirement appears to clash with Home Office policy on rehabilitation of offenders; the Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 would not allow operators to know about spent convictions or to disclose it to a third party.

Outcome of review

The DfT has provided an example policy to assist licensing authorities in the consideration of previous convictions as part of the ‘fit and proper’ assessment. We expect that, with the exception of motoring offences, this might be applicable to all licensees.

Operators have a legal duty to maintain the integrity of the licensing regime; this is essential in realising the protection of passengers the licensing of drivers and vehicles brings. The measures and assessment operators undertake to mitigate the risk that those in the booking and dispatch functions might divert booking requests to unlicensed drivers is therefore relevant to the ‘fit and proper’ test.

Employers are entitled to request a basic DBS certificate but, as set out in respect of licensing authorities, operators must not seek to circumvent the legitimate filtering of previous criminal convictions and the information held by DBS.

Private hire vehicle operators – use of passenger carrying vehicles (PCV) licensed drivers

Question 22

The draft statutory guidance recommends that, as a condition of the licensing, a private hire vehicle operator may not use a driver who does not hold a private hire vehicle licence (but may hold a PCV licence) to use a public service vehicle to carry out a private hire vehicle booking (paragraph 2.100). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	367
No	75
No opinion	61

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal.

Several respondents said PCV drivers will not be subject to the same checks and training requirements as private hire vehicle and taxi drivers, which compromises public safety and creates an uneven playing field.

Others suggested that, when the public make a booking with a private hire vehicle operator, they expect that they will receive a private hire vehicle-licensed vehicle and driver.

Another respondent said this requirement is particularly important in respect of schools’ contracts to ensure that drivers are properly investigated and licensed.

Outcome of review

The DfT agrees that those that make a booking with a private hire vehicle operator should travel by private hire vehicle unless this vehicle is unsuitable (for example, because a larger capacity vehicle is need for the size of party or baggage requirements).

Local authorities must ensure that the required safeguarding and suitability checks on the drivers of vehicles providing dedicated home-to-school transport have been undertaken. This role is a regulated activity, which means some people are barred from doing it. Therefore, if a licensing authority is responsible for arranging transport for a child, they must ensure the relevant checks have been done; the Department for Education issues statutory guidance on making home-to-school travel arrangements.

Private hire vehicle operators – record-keeping requirements

Question 23

The draft statutory guidance recommends that private hire vehicle operators should, as a condition of licensing, be required to record the information detailed in paragraph 2.101. Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	422
No	18
No opinion	57

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents.

Respondents said many licensing authorities already required this information. It was suggested that bookings made with a private hire vehicle operator that are fulfilled using a hackney carriage should be recorded. Some licensing authorities required more details of the booking including any agreed fare and who took the booking.

Several responses suggested it ought to be made clear that the information should not be restricted to the list provided at 2.101 – this should be a minimum.

Outcome of review

The draft proposal listed information that the DfT considered should be included as a minimum – this therefore enables licensing authorities to go beyond this, and could include other information such as an estimated fare; this is, however, considered to be beyond the scope of the protection of children and vulnerable adults from harm.

The draft proposal did not suggest a distinction in the recording of the driver and vehicle details dependent on whether the driver or vehicle dispatched was a taxi or a private hire vehicle; as such, no changes have been made.

The DfT agrees that information on who took the booking would be useful and so the proposal has been amended to say that the details of the person responding to the booking request and the person that dispatched the vehicle should also be recorded. It is acknowledged that, due to the high level of booking and dispatch automation, in many cases a human is not involved in bookings.

In-vehicle visual and audio recording – CCTV

Question 24

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should carefully consider potential public safety benefits and potential privacy issues when considering a policy mandating that taxis and private hire vehicles have CCTV installed (paragraphs 2.104 to 2.109). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	390
No	77
No opinion	34

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal.

Respondents highlighted the wider benefits that CCTV could bring: protecting both drivers and passengers; helping to stop people running off and not paying their fare, and helping to stop unscrupulous drivers overcharging passengers.

Some respondents suggested this policy is best left to licensing authorities to implement based on local conditions and should not be compulsory.

Lots of respondents said CCTV should be mandatory.

There were concerns raised that, as licensing authorities would likely be the data controller, this would create an additional burden for them, as well as concerns over the cost of CCTV installation with some suggesting this would push drivers away from the trade.

It was suggested that DfT and the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) should provide further guidance to licensing authorities in order to assist them with implementing such a change in policy.

Outcome of review

The draft proposal presented the DfT’s view that CCTV can provide additional deterrence and prevent harm to passengers (including children and vulnerable adults) and be of investigative value when this is alleged; the standards do not – indeed they cannot – require licensing authorities to mandate CCTV in licensed vehicles.

The document is clear that all authorities should review the safety benefits that CCTV might provide and the implications on privacy. Data protection law means that, before implementing a proposal that is likely to result in a high risk to the rights and freedoms of people, an impact assessment on the protection of personal data should be carried out.

Links to extensive guidance on the process to undertake a comprehensive review of the potential impacts of requiring CCTV are provided.

Stretched limousines

Question 25

The draft statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should consider licensing vehicles with an Individual Vehicle Approval certificate, even if the passenger capacity is unclear, but under the strict condition that the vehicle will not be used to carry more than 8 passengers (paragraph 2.118). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	303
No	92
No opinion	103

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents supported this proposal.

There were comments that it was better if such vehicles are subject to testing and licensed by a licensing authority than being allowed, as at present, to slip through the gap created by licensing authorities and the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency or Traffic Commissioner – each assuming a vehicle is the responsibility of the other.

There were concerns that such vehicles would be difficult to enforce with some responses suggesting that operators will not comply with an 8-passenger restriction, especially if the vehicle could hold more passengers.

One authority said they have a policy in place for licensing limousines that carry fewer than 9 passengers, and would not want to take licensing responsibility for vehicles that have space for more but are restricted to 8 via condition.

Outcome of review

It was not the intention of the proposal to erode the segregation in the taxi/private hire vehicle and public service vehicle regimes (the demarcation being the seating capacity of the vehicle, i.e. a maximum of eight passengers as a private hire vehicle).

We are aware that not all licensing authorities currently adhere to the seating capacity stated on the vehicle registration certificate (V5C) when determining the licensed seating capacity, usually licensing to carry fewer passengers than stated on the vehicle registration certificate in the view that this will increase passenger comfort.

The ‘grey area’ regarding the seating capacity may be in respect of side and rear-facing seats as these do not require seatbelts, although these are recommended for rear-facing passengers. Where seatbelts are fitted, this should be taken as the available seating capacity; where they are not, the licensing authority should use discretion, and be mindful that the applicant is seeking to be included in the private hire vehicle regime and the safety benefits this provides to users such as children using ‘limos’ to travel to parties.

Assessment of previous convictions

Question 26

The draft statutory guidance proposes that the DfT issue guidance on the assessment of previous convictions (paragraph 2.50). Do you agree with this recommendation?

View	Amount
Yes	431
No	33
No opinion	37

Summary of responses within scope

This proposal was supported by the majority of respondents.

Some respondents said the Institute of Licensing (IoL) guidance on this issue fulfils this need with some licensing authorities indicating they had already adopted this.

Respondents said that, without guidance on the assessment of previous convictions, the current inconsistencies between licensing authorities will continue; the guidance should be continually reviewed and updated by a panel of experts in licensing.

One council said accepting the DfT’s guidelines would downgrade its current policy.

Outcome of review

The work of the IoL, in partnership with the LGA, National Association of Licensing Enforcement Officers and Lawyers in Local Government, is acknowledged.

As stated in the consultation draft, the objective of issuing a convictions policy was to achieve greater consistency in licensing policy and decisions, and this position was well supported.

The DfT has therefore included a convictions policy in the final version.

Question 27

Annex A of the draft statutory guidance provides a list of offences to aid consistency in the ‘fit and proper’ assessment for licences. Do you think that the list provides enough detail to do this?

View	Amount
Yes	281
No	127
No opinion	97

Summary of responses within scope

The majority of respondents agreed that the list at Annex A provided enough detail to aid consistency in licensing authorities’ ‘fit and proper’ assessment for licences.

A significant number of responses, however, suggested that the grouping of offences into broad categories did not provided sufficient detail, and that this did not reflect the gradation of specific offences within the categories (for example, common assault would be treated the same as wounding) and examples of offences (and even pieces of relevant legislation) that would fit into each category.

Other respondents considered that such grouping avoided disputes over the treatment of offences that are not specified in the guidance on previous convictions (for example, those omitted or new offences).

One authority said experience has shown that including lists of offences, even where it is stated that they are non-exhaustive, leads to additional work to justify any decision made when it relates to an offence that is not on the list.

It was suggested that the phrase “However, it is accepted that offences can be committed unintentionally” needs more detail – for example, offences such as speeding and red light jumping require either dangerous negligence or wilful infringement.

Outcome of review

The proposal to include the DfT’s view on the assessment of previous convictions was to achieve consistency in licensing decisions by seeking consensus on a policy among licensing authorities that places the protection of children and vulnerable adults from harm foremost, but recognises that individuals with all but the most serious criminal convictions who can evidence rehabilitation should be able to enter the trade.

Although comments were received regarding the level of detail provided in the draft document, it is considered preferable to provide a thematic list of offences rather than an exhaustive list of offences that may cease to be so following the creation of new offences in the future.

Licensing authorities must use their discretion in all decisions and be guided by the policies they establish.

Question 28

Are there any offences that should be added to the list in Annex A of the statutory guidance?

View	Amount
Yes	128
No	128
No opinion	240

Summary of responses within scope

No comments were received as this question was a yes/no/no opinion answer – see question 29.

Question 29

If you answered yes, please list the offence(s) and the period you consider appropriate to prevent the granting of a licence under most circumstances.

Summary of responses within scope

The proportionality of some of the baseline exclusion periods was questioned by some respondents, as was the range of offences that would fall under a particular heading.

Outcome of review

The IoL has established a strong consensus among licensing authorities on its guidance; the intention of drawing from this was to seek wider views from the public and other stakeholders on the proposals.

Although comments were received regarding baseline periods of exclusion, no alternative models were proposed and supported with stronger evidence so as to necessitate amendment.

Additional offences were proposed but these would fall under one of the existing themes.

The final version provides additional clarity and reinforces that the decision as to whether a person who has convictions should be licensed is and will remain dependent on the individual circumstance of each case.

Impact assessment

Question 30

Do you have data relating to alleged offences committed in licensed vehicles either against or by passengers? If you have and are prepared to share this with us, please add to your response.

Summary of responses within scope

Although information was provided, this was not sufficiently robust as to further the evidence base available to the DfT – for example, alleged offences where the suspect was a taxi or private hire vehicle driver were supplied but these did not specify where the alleged offence occurred (in a taxi or private hire vehicle) or outcomes of the allegations.

Question 31

If you have any comments or other data that may be relevant to the Impact assessment, please provide this.

Summary of responses within scope

No comments provided related to the impact assessment – most responses were general in nature.

Respondent information

Respondent identified as	Number of respondents
Licensing authority	28%
Individual	23%
Taxi driver	21%
Private hire vehicle driver	7%
Private hire vehicle operator	2%
Police	2%
Taxi intermediary	1%
Other	16%

Respondent identified as	Number of respondents
Licensing authority	148
Individual	121
Taxi driver	114
Private hire vehicle driver	38
Private hire vehicle operator	11
Police	11
Taxi intermediary	6
Other	84