IN THE NEWS
LABOUR COUNCILS LEAVING PASSENGERS VULNERABLE AS TAXI DRIVERS GO UNCHECKED
Major Labour councils were accused of leaving passengers “vulnerable” to unsafe taxi drivers by failing to carry out checks on a national safety database. The NR3 register of taxi and PHV licence refusals and revocations was set up by the Local Government Association to stop taxi and private hire drivers who are stripped of their licences for committing crimes from working in another area. Details released in Parliament show four big local authorities failed to search on it once and another only consulted it on one occasion. A Conservative source said: “To make all journeys in taxis and private hire vehicles safe, ministers have been pressing councils to make proper use of the national database - sharing information on drivers across the country. “Sadly, five of the largest councils, all Labour-led, clearly aren’t. It’s time for Labour to put the interests of passengers first and start checking and inputting information onto the national database to protect taxi passengers, rather than leaving them vulnerable.” Transport Minister Richard Holden released records in the Commons showing Birmingham City Council, which has 6,280 registered drivers, made just one search of the register last year. Meanwhile, Manchester, New- castle and Liverpool city councils along with Sefton all failed to use it at all.
54
The register was set up following concerns that drivers who had committed road traffic offences or other more serious crimes could be stripped of their taxi or private hire licence in one local authority area but continue to work by simply setting up in another area. A DfT spokesman said: “The safety of passengers using taxi and private hire vehicles is vital, which is why since 2020 Ministers have consistently urged licensing authorities to make use of the database – writing to them again on the topic as recently as this week. We will continue to keep any further potential measures under review.” A Birmingham City Council spokesman said it follows a “comprehensive vetting process” for all driver licence applications for hackney carriage and private hire vehicles and is “moving to a model” where the vetting will include using the national database. “Public safety is our priority and we are confident that our vetting process ensures that we have taken appropriate steps to safeguard all passengers and ensure drivers are “fit and proper,” the spokesman added.
Newcastle City Council said it will start using the national register after a new policy was put into place. “The safety of passengers is of the utmost importance and all drivers are subject to stringent licensing authority vetting processes, and their records are proactively consulted upon and shared with Northumbria Police,” a spokesman said. Manchester City Council said it has “one of, if not the most stringent licensing regimes for taxis and private hire vehicles in the country”. A spokesman said it had only been given technical details of the database Wednesday and “only now can we integrate our own processes within this system, which we will do immediately”. Liverpool City Council said its procedures for licensing drivers are “extremely robust” and involve a “rigorous six-stages process”, which has been benchmarked for best practice against other major cities in the UK. “The council also has a sharing agreement already in place with our neighbouring authorities in the Liverpool City Region and our respective licensing departments all share details of those drivers who have been revoked or refused a licence,” a spokesman said. A Sefton Council spokesman said: “The licensing authority has appropriate checks
in place,
including DBS checks, to ensure that passengers are not placed at risk when using a Sefton licensed taxi or private hire vehicle.”
APRIL 2023 PHTM
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
