Several licensing authorities are considering introducing compulsory CCTV cameras in taxis and PHVs to improve driver and passenger safety.
The move comes after incidents in which accusations have been made against both drivers and passengers and some authorities believe CCTV would help provide evidence of any wrongdoing – or prove a false claim has been made.
However, there are also concerns over privacy and the expense of installing and maintain approved CCTV cameras and systems, on top of the rising cost of fuel, licensing fees and taxi insurance.
Consultation
Coventry City Council is one of the authorities considering making CCTV compulsory in taxis and PHVs. Currently, drivers have the choice whether to have cameras in their vehicles.
But the Coventry Telegraph reports that the council is reconsidering the issue after a taxi driver was jailed for committing a serious offence.
The council is again looking into the viability of a compulsory scheme, following a previous consultation in 2022 in which 67.9% of respondents opposed the proposal.
A new report to the council said: “Voluntary CCTV is currently a policy requirement. There are strict requirements in terms of data protection, and drivers that voluntarily install CCTV have to register with the ICO (Information Commissioners Office) as they are the ‘data controller’.
“The task and finish group would consider several factors regarding the mandatory use of CCTV in licensed taxis, including national legislation, guidance, current policy, crime data, local comparators, costs and anything else which would come within the scope of the investigation.”
Safety drive
CCTV and panic buttons could also be made compulsory in taxis and PHVs in Crawley, West Sussex.
The BBC reports that Crawley Borough Council has launched a public consultation to improve passenger and driver security.
It said that under the new measures, all licensed vehicles would be required to install CCTV systems capable of audio and visual recording.
Panic buttons for both drivers and passengers would trigger recording in the event of an incident.
Cllr Yasmin Khan, cabinet member for public protection, told the BBC: “Public safety is at the heart of our licensing regime. We want everyone – whether they’re a passenger, driver, or operator – to feel confident and secure when using or working in our licensed vehicles.”
Trials
In Suffolk, CCTV will be trialled as part of a voluntary scheme which will come at no cost to drivers taking part.
The Suffolk News reports that West Suffolk Council has secured funding for a voluntary pilot scheme for 10 vehicles in Bury St Edmunds, 10 in Haverhill and 10 in Newmarket. The scheme will last six months and cost about £18,000.
Gerald Kelly, the council’s cabinet member for governance, regulatory and environment, told Suffolk News: “We are hoping that drivers and operators will see the advantages of having CCTV in their vehicles.”
Cllr Kelly added it could provide evidence for both prosecutions and defence against accusations.
The expert’s view
Despite the consultations and trials, NPHTA director David Lawrie – whose expertise has been used to shape national licensing guidance – is against mandatory CCTV.
David, who is also director of Safe Systems CCTV Ltd, said: “The criteria I have drawn up and that has been used nationally is focused on safety and applies to CCTV and issues of compliance, etc, whether a scheme is voluntary or mandatory.
“It might seem strange given what I do that I am completely against compulsory CCTV. It should be voluntary.”
For David, the key issues are cost, privacy and safety.
He said: “An approved and compliant system is a big expense for a driver, but it can protect them in the event of a false allegation, which typically happens when a passenger wants to get out of paying the fare.
“If a false claim is made, the CCTV can be checked and a driver can go straight back to work, instead of having to be summoned into a meeting by the licensing authority, cautioned, given time to respond, there could be an appeal – the whole time they are unable to work.”
When it comes to privacy, David said the ICO is clear that privacy has to be maintained, which includes video recording being stopped when the driver is not on duty. It also insists that audio recording at any time has to be justified.
However, David does not see privacy as a reason for not having CCTV in cabs.
He said: “If a passenger got into my cab and wanted me to switch the CCTV off, I would want to know why. What are they doing that they shouldn’t? What are they trying to hide? There are cameras everywhere, in shops, offices, streets, buses – they cannot expect not to be filmed in a taxi.”
David also believes that councils that enforce mandatory CCTV risk forcing drivers into switching licensing authorities.
