Taxi Driver Online

This is quite interesting, although the obvious question is, why now?

Well we all know why now - it's in the piece. But why has it taken so long?

Might actually tune in to the forthcoming meeting if it's online.

But in the meantime, it's the usual boilerplate response from the council.


Calls for taxi licensing review over safeguarding

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/cwyrwj31yl8o

Safeguarding concerns have been raised over the high number of taxi licences being registered in Wolverhampton, despite many drivers not living there.

It comes after Baroness Casey's review, published in June into abuse by grooming gangs in England and Wales, stated that taxis have historically been identified as a way children can be at risk of child sexual exploitation.

Simon Bennett, Conservative opposition leader at the council, has called for an immediate cross-party scrutiny review into safeguarding and the council's licensing regime.

The council said safeguarding was a number one priority in taxi licensing.

Figures last year showed that up to 96% of taxi driver licences issued in Wolverhampton between April 2023 and end of March 2024 were for people living outside the city

In a letter to council leader Stephen Simkins, Bennett said it was essential the council moves "urgently to review and improve its processes, reassure the public, and uphold its duty of care" after the publication of the Casey review last month.

He added that the review he was calling needed to reassure the public and ensure the council's policies met the highest standards.

Taxi drivers do not have to live and work where they obtain their licence and the council has said it was illegal for it to refuse and to impose a limit on the number of private hire licences issued.

Last month, ministers said laws would be passed to tackle the inconsistent taxi and private hire standards amid fears some vehicles "are a dangerous place for many children and young people".

'No financial gain'

In his letter, Bennett urged the council to offer "full and unconditional support" in contributing to a national inquiry and Department for Transport review of licensing laws.

In response, the council said it welcomed any measures or changes to law from government to help tackle the issue.

"We lead the way nationally on using technology to help with safeguarding, including being the only council to do daily DBS checks on all drivers and the first council to offer driver licence checks by smartphone. We implement the government's statutory standards and best practice guidance.

"We also have officers out across the country, every Friday and Saturday night, working to protect the public."

It added: "We do not gain financially from taxi licensing, as the fees are legally ringfenced for spend only on related activities," the spokesperson added.

The motion by Bennett will be considered by full council next week.

I suppose the daily criticism of this basket case council must take its toll.

They can repeat as many times as they like the same old feeble excuses, but no one is being taken in by them.

_________________
IDFIMH

I suspect they now realise that the writing is on the wall, and in terms of the council's reputation it's now a damage limitation exercise, and there's going to be a lot of blood on the carpet as it's all increasingly scrutinised, and there will be a lot of upheaval for both the trade and the council as it's all unwound

Anyway, there's slightly more in an Express & Star article, and I spent [far too long] trying to find the original source

But this is the relevant stuff in the article, and the rest is the usual official defensive boilerplate etc. But this kind of gives the impression that the opposition leader who's made the statement/letter/motion is also being a tad defensive about it all:

I mean, he starts by promoting the 'efficiency' thing, while a more rounded and critical take would surely also highlight the minimal standards and the like.

Then, as per the bits I highlighted, he mentions 'national loopholes', and then seems to at least partially shift the blame onto 'individual councils' - not sure if that means other councils, or is basically saying it's not Wolverhampton's fault that the whole thing has developed the way it has, and that it's the fault of the 'loophole' in the legislation.

But even accepting the argument about the efficiency of their processing system etc, I think there's a lot more to it than that, and there was absolutely no reason Wolverhampton had to evolve into a de facto national licensing authority, despite their claims that they really had no choice in the matter. They did