A lot of repetition here, but plenty other detail, including quite a bit on the privacy issue, and there's obviously a lot of confusion over that. Article a bit of a slog, but worth reading for some interesting stats, detail and debating points.
And if anyone wants to see lots more photos of the drivers protesting, plus a video, then visit the website
But at least this clears up the Cambridge City Council/South Cambridgeshire Council thing - they're
both implementing CCTV, and isn't there a lot of cross-border stuff going on here?
Great effort from the press here, though
In pictures and video: South Cambridgeshire and Cambridge taxi drivers protest against mandatory CCTV in their vehicleshttps://www.cambridgeindependent.co.uk/ ... r-9304094/Taxi drivers have staged a protest about new council rules requiring the installation of CCTV cameras in their cars - and they are planning another demonstration on Monday (March 20).
Waving banners and chanting, the drivers made their feelings known outside the Cambourne headquarters of South Cambridgeshire District Council on Wednesday (March 15).
Under a policy agreed by councillors last October, any driver renewing their licence or applying for a new one in the district must have CCTV fitted in their vehicle from April 1, 2023.
The council says the move will improve safety for passengers and drivers alike.
But the drivers are angry that they must meet the significant cost of the installation - and have voiced concerns over privacy.
Cambridge City Council is also implementing the same policy, but a licensing committee meeting on Monday is expected to delay the requirement until September. Taxi drivers plan to stage a protest outside the Guildhall from 10am, meaning the number available for hire during the day will be limited.
After Wednesday’s demonstration, Tariq Ahmed, co-founder and chair of the Cambridge Taxi Drivers’ Association, told the Cambridge Independent: “We have 400-plus drivers in the association and they wanted to protest. It was very good and lots of people turned up.
“The problem was none of the council’s representatives came out to talk to us.
“They reported us to the police, saying we had been ‘aggressive’. The police turned up but I said it is our right to protest. We weren’t doing anything illegal. We were chanting.”
A district council spokesperson said: “Police were notified about the protest by the council following concern about entrances to the building being blocked at times, and the way vehicles had been left parked outside the office and around the bus stop.”
A police spokesperson confirmed: “We were called at 10.50am on Wednesday to reports of a protest in Cambourne Business Park. A protest liaison officer attended and no issues were raised.”
Mr Ahmed said drivers were not opposed to the concept of CCTV in their vehicles, but rather the way the policy was being implemented.
“You will see that taxi drivers have already put cameras in their cars, because if anything happened, they had no way to prove it,” he explained.
“We don’t mind the cameras, for our own safety as well, but there has to be a better way of doing it.
Drivers have been told they must use a select group of approved suppliers. South Cambridgeshire District Council said it understood the cost of installation to be about £500, but Mr Ahmed said drivers had been given different figures in practice.
“There are four or five suppliers. Some are saying they don’t have stock. Some have it, but they are all different. Some quoted about £1,000. Another person was quoted about £1,300,” he said, explaining that the cost is higher for larger vehicles requiring more than one camera, or cameras with night vision.
He urged the district council to bring the implementation in line with the city’s timeline.
“Delay it and work with us to find a better supplier, with a cheaper price, or try to get a grant from the government,” he told the district council.
Both sides in the dispute have also been at odds over the issue of privacy when vehicles are in domestic use, with some drivers believing that the cameras could only be switched off for up to half an hour using a ‘kill switch’.
The district council confirmed to the Cambridge Independent that this understanding was wrong.
A spokesperson explained: “The cameras can be switched off when the vehicle is being used privately. They only need to be switched on and recording when the vehicle is in use as a taxi.
“It is operated by the driver. There is no time limit or ‘30-minute kill switch’. The system is required to be active at all times that the vehicle is being used as a licensed vehicle. This will allow the system to be deactivated during times when the vehicle is being used for domestic use.”
Mr Ahmed, who runs the Private Hire 2 Go taxi company, complained that the council had shut down communication.
“They refuse to talk to us. I emailed them to ask them to sit down with us, and delay it a bit and try to get more companies in. Maybe there are cheaper suppliers out there, or a grant that they could get to help drivers?
“But they have made their mind up and they are not going to discuss this policy anymore. They are ignoring us,” he claimed.
“It was so disgusting that none of them came out and talked to us on Wednesday. They shut the doors on us.”
The council said it was open to communication and a council officer had made contact to better understand any issues drivers had and solve any misunderstandings.
Mr Ahmed said there were other financial implications.
“They also put on the policy that if the camera is not working, the driver cannot carry on work until it is fixed - and it could take a day or two. Drivers work any time of day or night. If a camera breaks at 1am, they can’t carry on working.
“In this trade, if you don’t earn, there is no one to compensate you. You won’t earn what you lost before.
“And if the council wants to take the footage out for an incident, they might stop you working until they do.
“On top of that, you have to register with the Information Commissioner’s Office, which costs £40 or £60, but the council will hold the keys to the data. All the costs are being passed to the driver.”
Mr Ahmed said drivers in South Cambridgeshire will join those in Cambridge for Monday’s protest, but he stressed that Cambridge Taxi Drivers’ Association had urged all drivers to honour school run bookings, which are organised by the county council, before turning up.
“We sympathise with people,” he said. “We have told our drivers not to interrupt the school run.”
A petition has also been created on Change.org by Maninder Singh, demanding the right to privacy and the right to dignity at work, and protesting about the cost.
It adds: “Many members of the public to whom we have spoken are also unhappy about the prospect of being recorded in taxis. We respectfully ask that these proposals be dropped.”
South Cambridgeshire District Council said the issue had been under discussion since October 2017, when its licensing committee first agreed to consult on a draft policy.
Initially agreed in November 2019, with a deadline for installation of a year later, the committee agreed an extension in February 2020, meaning drivers were told CCTV would be required in their vehicles no later than March 2021.
But amid the pandemic, the policy got delayed again.
Finally, in October 2022, the licensing committee agreed an implementation date of April 1, 2023.
While doing so, councillors considered data that showed 28 reports to the district council of offences involving taxis between 2017 and 2022, including nine alleged sexual advances or assaults, eight incidents of aggressive or threatening behaviour, nine claims of inappropriate conduct and two reports of child sexual exploitation.
Police data suggests taxi drivers are more likely to be the victim of an incident than the suspect.
In South Cambridgeshire, in the period January 2021 to February 2022, there were six reported incidents where the suspects stated ‘taxi driver’ as their occupation, although none of these was in the vehicle.
There were 24 such reports in Cambridge, including five in a vehicle, with four of those relating to the same incident. Countywide, there were 83 reports and 19 incidents, including two assaults causing injury, six incidents of kidnapping and two sexual assaults.
However, there were 140 incidents in the same timeframe where taxi driver was stated as the occupation of a victim of crime - and 55 of these involved incidents in a vehicle, including six assaults causing injury, two threats to kill, six reports of criminal damage to a vehicle and 16 incidents of people making off without payment.
South Cambridgeshire District Council’s lead cabinet member for licensing, Cllr Henry Batchelor, said: “Our aim is to keep both passengers and drivers safe. We consulted extensively while developing this policy and there was strong support for CCTV from residents. The installation of CCTV in taxis has been on the agenda for several years now and was only delayed because we recognised the difficulties the trade faced throughout the Covid-19 pandemic.
“Many taxi drivers also support the policy because they recognise the presence of CCTV will reduce the number of incidents of abusive and violent behaviour towards them.
“The data recorded will be encrypted and stored securely in the vehicle; it will not be accessible by the driver or the taxi operator.
“Most of the images recorded will never even be seen because they will be erased after 28 days. Only if there is an incident or complaint will they be analysed by the police or other authorised officers when gathering evidence.
“For anyone who has family members or friends who drive taxis or travel in them, it should be reassuring to have the additional safety net that CCTV provides.”
While taxi drivers have previously suggested they might take legal action over the policy, the council has said it had made a number of moves to support the trade since late 2021, including:
• Removing the need for six-monthly vehicle inspection checks;
• Not requiring a safeguarding course on (annual or tri-annual) renewal of licence, and only requiring a refresher course if considered appropriate on a case-by-case basis, and allowing approved external providers as opposed to in-house;
• Removing the age limits for vehicles; and
• Postponing the need for all vehicles to be electric zero or ULEV from December 2021 to December 1, 2028.
A Cambridge City Council spokesperson said: “Installing CCTV in taxis and private hire vehicles licensed in Cambridge will be a boost to safety for both customers and drivers.
“As taxi licensing authority, the council has a number of objectives, including the safety and protection of the public, vehicle safety, prevention of crime and protection of drivers – all of which will help to be met by the installation of CCTV in the vehicles it licenses.
“Introducing CCTV for all licensed vehicles will also ensure there is supporting evidence for any criminal or enforcement investigations into customers’ or drivers’ actions or behaviour while the vehicles are operational.
“Under the specifications for use, all recorded images will be securely captured, stored and encrypted, and the CCTV system will not be accessible while the vehicle is in use commercially. Vehicle proprietors will be able to source and install their own systems as long as they meet or exceed the council’s requirements.
“Fortunately, incidents in Cambridge’s taxis and private hire vehicles are rare but installation of CCTV across the fleet will provide additional reassurance to customers and drivers alike, act as a deterrent, and will be able to provide clear evidence for any investigations that may have to take place.
“Following concerns from the taxi trade about the timescales for implementation, a decision will be made at Monday’s licensing committee on recommendations to postpone the need to install CCTV until September.”
Login
Register
FAQ
