ROUND THE COUNCILS BIRMINGHAM:
WAKEFIELD: CCTV PLANS SECRETLY SCRAPPED
Birmingham City Council has secretly axed plans to install CCTV into every taxi and PHV - despite evidence it would help prevent CSE. The authority’s licensing committee unveiled the camera proposals last April following a review into the Rotherham grooming scandal. Yet the proposals have now been qui- etly scrapped after opposition from operators. The U-turn has seen CSE campaigner Ed Ruane, who has responsibility for children’s services at Coventry City Coun- cil, calling on West Midlands Mayor Andy Street to step in. Cllr Ruane told the Birmingham Mail: “Local authorities have their hands tied. No one wants to see black cab drivers or others leave the industry or area because of increased costs. “We need to see proper regulation so that all drivers, whether private hire, black cab or Uber, are regulated and treated the same.” He added: “Wolver- hampton Council has been issuing lots of licences to Uber drivers allowing them to trade in any part of the West Midlands. “Even though the West
Midlands’
mayor has no pow- ers in this area, I would like to see him lobbying Gov- ernment about this issue.
24
“We need to protect drivers’ jobs and creating one fair system of regulation that applies to all, this should then lead to authorities being able to push forward with vital CCTV in all vehicles.” Rotherham child abuse report author Dame Louise Casey had recommended CCTV in all UK taxis and PHVs after a network of minicab drivers were used to traffic young girls to locations for abuse. Birmingham Licens- ing Committee member Des Flood had said at the time of the camera pro- posals: “The instal- lation of CCTV cam- eras in taxis is a positive step for- ward in safe- guarding the health and wellbeing of all taxi users. “Taxi drivers play an important role in keeping an eye on the children in the community. The installation of CCTV cameras will also support taxi drivers against false allega- tions.” Cllr Lynda Clinton had added: “Apart from the cost I can’t see why any driver would not wish to see themselves pro- tected, and their passengers, be- cause they are vulnerable to allega- tions. “The council said it could introduce the CCTV plans by last November following consultation with taxi and private hire firms.”
Yet it appears oppo- sition from the firms has seen the plans axed, although the authority blamed ‘deregulation’ of the industry.
A Birmingham City spokesman said: “A report outlining pro- posals for CCTV cameras to
LEGAL ACTION OVER EMISSIONS CLAMPDOWN be
installed in hackney carriage and private hire vehicles was considered by Licensing and Public Protection Commit- tee in April 2017. “However, it has not been progressed, as initial consultation with trade represen- tatives showed there was no sup- port for this pro- posal. “Introducing this as a requirement would very likely result in more drivers going to
neighbouring
authorities – and outside Birmingham City Council’s juris- diction – to get their licence. “If we required drivers to
Taxi drivers in the district have launch- ed legal action against Wakefield Council following the authority’s decision to hike up licensing fees and introduce tough emission rules. As reported in last month’s PHTM, the cost
for drivers’
licensing badge has risen by 60 per cent to £384, while any cab manufactured before September 2016 will not be licensed because it would exceed pollu- tion levels set by the council. This means almost 90 per cent of taxis would be taken off the road, with many drivers saying they cannot afford
newer models. Wakefield District Private Hire and Hackney Carriage Association, which represents drivers, criticised the move, saying the council should introduce lower emission lev- els gradually or risk losing hundreds of drivers.
Planned industrial action, which includ- ed go-slows through the city to prevent traffic from running freely,
have since
been postponed, but legal action has started. Waj Ali, co-chairman of the association, said: “We have issued initial pro- ceedings against the council. It’s cost us a
lot of money, more than £10,000 so far and could cost us £60,000. “It’s very, very seri- ous but we are not prepared to back down on this. We’re not going to be pushed around by bully boy tactics.” The council had until March 12 to respond to the legal pro- ceedings. Bernadette Livesey, Wakefield Council’s city Solicitor, said: “The taxi association has written a letter before action and the council is cur- rently considering its position. The council is pleased that planned indus- trial action has been postponed.”
EAST LOTHIAN: LICENCE COST TO MORE THAN DOUBLE install
CCTV cameras in their vehicles – at a cost of at least £500 each, which the driver must pay – large numbers of drivers would get their licences from authorities that don’t have that requirement, but still work in Birmingham. “This is a conse- quence of the Deregulation Act: it undermines our abil- ity to improve standards. Also no other West Midlands authorities require drivers to have CCTV in their vehicles.”
Taxi firms face more than 100 per cent price hikes in some licence costs after East Lothian council- lors approved an increase in fees. The East Lothian Courier reports that at a meeting of the local authority’s licensing sub-com- mittee last month approved increases which will see the cost of taxi driver licences more than double from £62 to £130 a year. Operators will see the cost of a licence for each vehicle also rise from £250 to £386 a year. The same increases are being introduced
to private car drivers and operators. Prices across the board have been increased, with a new set price for a vehicle retest of £150 introduced. Cllr Colin McGinn, chairman of East Lothian Council's licensing sub-com- mittee, said: “A review of East Lothi- an Council’s licensing services was carried out last year to ascertain what levels the fees should be set at to ensure full recovery and compli- ance with legislation. "Benchmarking com- parisons of fee levels in neighbouring councils were also
carried out and it was found that East Lothian Council’s current fees were, in general, substantially below the national average. “As each council is legally required to recover its full costs, it was expected any differences between local authorities would be compara- tively small but in fact East Lothian Council had not actually been achiev- ing full cost recovery.” However,
the in-
creases came as an unwelcome surprise to many in the taxi industry in East Lothian.
APRIL 2018
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78 |
Page 79 |
Page 80 |
Page 81 |
Page 82 |
Page 83 |
Page 84 |
Page 85 |
Page 86 |
Page 87 |
Page 88 |
Page 89 |
Page 90 |
Page 91 |
Page 92 |
Page 93 |
Page 94 |
Page 95 |
Page 96 |
Page 97 |
Page 98 |
Page 99 |
Page 100 |
Page 101 |
Page 102 |
Page 103 |
Page 104
