Taxi Driver Online

Baroness Casey has had her report published today, and it confirms what those of us with more than 1 brain cell has been aware of for years.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Abuse.pdf

Of particular note to those of us in the taxi/PH trade is what she says about our trade in her report.

Chapter 7: Taxi licensing

Chapter summary:

• As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation.
• Local authorities issue taxi licences in line with statutory guidance issued by the government. Some go above and beyond this statutory guidance as a means of combating child sexual exploitation but they are being hindered by a lack of stringency in other local authorities, and legal loopholes which mean drivers can apply for a licence anywhere in the country.
• Proper safeguards in the licensing of taxis is as much about protecting the drivers as the passengers.
• The Department for Transport should close this loophole immediately and introduce more rigorous standards.

In chapter 5 we looked at the ways in which children who are at risk of or come to harm from sexual exploitation come to the attention of police, children’s services and health services. We concluded that their presence was often not visible and, in these circumstances, it is much harder for local authorities, health and police to see where children are and if they are atrisk. This is particularly the case with children who are looked after by the state but also for other adolescent children who become more vulnerable to exploitation whether that is online, in parks or shopping centres, in takeaways, buses or in taxis.

While the subject of taxi licensing might seem to be just one dimension of local authority responsibility, which could have been placed into chapter 5 of this audit, the ability of local authorities to control and regulate who is a fit and proper person to drive a taxi in their area has the potential to be an important lever to safeguard children and others who are vulnerable to child sexual exploitation. In this audit’s visits to police forces and local authorities, we found that issues around taxi licensing – which have featured in several past reviews as a facilitator of child sexual exploitation, and on which some action has been taken - continued to be of concern and warranted the attention we give it here.

To be absolutely clear, most taxi drivers are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public. There are many occasions where taxi drivers have gone above and beyond to protect members of the public and to support the police and other emergency services in their duties.

As a key part of the nighttime economy, taxis have historically been identified in a minority of cases as a way children can be at risk of sexual exploitation, both as a potential way for perpetrators to meet their victims, as well as a means of trafficking victims to different locations and introducing them to other perpetrators.

Many cases of group-based child sexual exploitation have highlighted links wit taxis. In her 2014 report, Professor Jay said the role of taxi drivers was a ‘common thread’ in child sexual exploitation cases across England and noted that their
involvement was evident from an early stage in Rotherham204. The same concerns have been highlighted in independent reports into child sexual exploitation cases across the country including Telford, Oldham and Newcastle, and repeated to this audit.

Taxi licences are issued by local authorities who are required to make sure that taxis and private hire vehicle services are safe and accessible for all passengers. Proper safeguards also protects drivers. The Department for Transport sets the statutory guidance local authorities must have regard to when issuing taxi licences. The Department for Transport also complements this with best practice guidance which is encouraged but not mandatory.

Some areas have gone far beyond this guidance in efforts to ensure taxis cannot be used to commit group-based child sexual exploitation again.

Rotherham Borough Council told us that, since the Jay report and Casey inspection, it had transformed its approach to taxi licensing, introducing new, more rigorous approaches that went beyond the statutory and good practice guides and were
applied retrospectively to ensure all drivers on their books met the same standard.

In some cases, their good practice improvements had been included in updated statutory guidance. Improvements included:

• Introduction of taxi cameras which must be capable of capturing every
passenger and driver from the chest upwards.
• Setting out a clear definition of a ‘fit and proper person’.
• Proper training and a knowledge test on 3-year refresh.
• A 100% pass mark requirement for the safeguarding test.
• Using novel legal approaches to ensure those accused of serious sexual offences have their licences repealed if the evidence available meets the civil threshold.

Rotherham council applied the new standards retrospectively and revoked a number of licences as a result. Their hope was that the higher standards they applied could be mandated nationally.

However, several areas we visited which were imposing rigorous standards were left frustrated by seeing taxi drivers freely operating in their areas having been licensed by other authorities who were perceived to operate less rigorous processes.

This is allowed to happen as, under existing legislation, taxi drivers do not need to apply to the local authority area in which they live or work to obtain a license. Taxi drivers may operate in areas well beyond the area in which a licence has been issued.

In 2023, the Mayor of Greater Manchester, Andy Burnham, expressed concerns that a high proportion of taxis operating across Greater Manchester were licensed outside the area and were undermining public safety. He was reported to have said that other authorities’ checks were not as stringent. In 2025, he launched a campaign ‘Backing our taxis: Local. Licensed. Trusted’207 with aims to put a stop to ‘out of area’ licensing amid figures which GMCA said showed that more than 11% of England’s private hire vehicles are licensed by a single local authority, up from below 0.5% less than a decade ago.

A BBC news report in on 2 October 2024208 said, based on figures obtained by the GMB Union, that the same single local authority had issued 8,563 new taxi licences in the first five months of the year, over 30 times more than all of its neighbouring authorities over the same period; and that up to 96% of the taxi driver licences issued by that local authority in in the 2023-24 financial year were for drivers who lived elsewhere.

The local authority was reported to have said that they did not actively encourage applications from drivers outside the city, and that existing legislation required that if an application is submitted and requirements are met, then the application must be granted, adding that it supported further standardisation but that government legislation would be required to introduce any changes.

Given the extent of the reporting on the role taxis can play in child sexual exploitation, it is unacceptable that local areas are unable to oversee and account for the taxis on their streets. A lack of stringency means that drivers who are unscrupulous can apply to a lax neighbouring borough. The Department for Transport should close these loopholes urgently.

_________________
IDFIMH

The last paragraph needs repeating IMO.

Baroness Casey is not only saying that a lack of training and standards needs to be addressed, but she is also saying that a lack of local control needs to be sorted out as well.

Well done to her.

Recommendation 11: The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’ and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers.

_________________
IDFIMH

Maybe should have added this to Sussex's pinned post above, but it's quite significant in itself

But just in case anyone misses it (for people who don't log in they might not notice it), below is Baroness Casey's summary of her taxi stuff, and below that is the Government's response.

Interesting that she uses the generic t-word, though, just to confuse it all - pretty sure that in her Rotherham report she was quite clear about the HC/PH distinction. To be fair, for a small section in a huge report like this, maybe the t-word is good enough for public consumption.



Full report here:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.u ... _Abuse.pdf

Government response to the National Audit on Group-based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse report

Published 16 June 2025

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... use-report


Recommendation 11

The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to ‘out of area taxis’ and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of taxi drivers

Government response: The Department for Transport will legislate to address the important issues raised in the report, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicle driver licensing.

• We will work as quickly as possible and consider all options – including out of area working, national standards and enforcement – seeking the best overall outcomes for passenger safety.

• In the interim we will act urgently to make improvements, including consulting on making local transport authorities responsible for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, and determining how existing statutory guidance can be strengthened to further protect the public.

• We are also reviewing authorities’ compliance with existing guidance and will hold those who do not follow it to account.

Interesting, of course, that you-know-where isn't actually named

'A single local authority' - I wonder where that would be

Not sure if in fact there's anything new in the Government's response there that isn't happening already. Except, maybe the word 'urgent'. But, of course, 'urgent' in politics terms can mean years

On the other hand, probably not a good idea to rush legislation through either...

Usual terminological inconsistencies there - in the main the report uses the generic t-word. Then, in the paragraph at the top, it's suddenly 'taxis and private hire'.

And in the second paragaraph there's a specific mention of 'private hire vehicles'.

Then, in the third paragraph, the reference is simply to 'taxi' licences. But obviously that's referring to Wolverhampton, thus specifically private hire

No point being over-pedantic about this in some contextes, but when it comes to stuff like this...

So to non-specialists the stuff above is maybe a tad misleading.

And, of course, visit any local authority website and the term 'hackney carriage' is likely to put in an appearance.

And even the likes of James Button use the t-word to include both HC and PH

As we've discussed on here previously, I suspect this angle is overdone, and it's more about cost, processing speed, a lax vehicle spec and few barriers to getting a badge.

The 'unscrupulous' angle alludes more to the fit and proper/background/character checks stuff, and I'd guess that's overdone, and only a minor factor as regards why drivers have been flocking to Wolverhampton

I’m not sure the DfT’s response will go anywhere near what the Baroness requires of them, and looks to me like a rushed panic effort by the DfT to try and show they are doing something.

Whilst we all know they have done SFA and merely fiddled as Rome has burnt down.

The Baroness has mentioned ‘immediately’ a number of times in her report, the response to her from the DfT is, at best, snail pace.

Clearly no one wants rushed law, but the cross border issue isn’t that hard to sort. Many councils have a ‘must predominantly work in the area where they are licensed’ requirement for Hackney carriages, why can’t that be replicated for PH?

_________________
IDFIMH

Surely the DfT has had many years to consider all the above. In fact, if they haven't been considering these issues, then they could be viewed as being highly negligent.


It's all well and good making local transport authorities responsible for taxi and private hire licensing, i.e. locally elected Mayors, but what happens to areas that don't have elected Mayors? And assuming the government gives those Mayors the powers to, in effect, ban non-local taxi/PH from predominantly working in those areas, what happens if those elected Mayors choose not to adopt those powers? How will that help?


To what end? The whole point of guidance is to guide; if the DfT wishes to mandate rules and regulations, then surely they need to legislate.

_________________
IDFIMH

'Loophole' allowing private hire drivers to use licences from anywhere in country to be closed

https://www.liverpoolecho.co.uk/news/li ... s-31871572

The government has promised to "work at pace to close loopholes in taxi licensing laws" to stop drivers applying for a licence anywhere in the country. Home Secretary Yvette Cooper vowed to take action on the issue in response to Baroness Louise Casey's National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse, which was published yesterday, June 16.

The report set out twelve recommendations to tackle grooming gangs, including launching a national enquiry and a national criminal investigation. The government will accept all of the recommendations, which also include taking immediate action to close a loophole allowing private hire vehicles to operate outside of their licensed areas.

The report's recommendation 11 stated: "The Department for Transport should take immediate action to put a stop to 'out of area taxis' and bring in more rigorous statutory standards for local authority licensing and regulation of private hire drivers.

"This remains an area that can be exploited by individuals and groups intent on sexually exploiting children and more rigorous approaches – and consistency in those approaches across local authorities – is necessary."

Responding to the report in the House of Commons yesterday, Ms Cooper said: "My Right Honourable Friend the Transport Secretary will also work at pace to close loopholes in taxi licensing laws."

Later in the Commons session, Peterborough MP Andrew Pakes said: "I know from my city of Peterborough the challenge to law-abiding, decent taxi drivers who are undercut by different licensing laws, but also to law enforcement and the safety of passengers when we have number plates from different areas.

"I note that that is the focus of one of the recommendations. Can my Right Honourable Friend give us more details on how we will move at speed to create a level playing field nationally, so that passengers are safe and drivers have the support they need to keep everyone safe?"

Ms Cooper responded: "Many local authorities across the country have worked to ensure that they raise standards and checks in their licensing arrangements, particularly those in areas where there have been serious problems and criminal cases.

"However, those checks and safeguards can end up being undermined by the licensing of taxis in other areas that do not have such checks, so we are looking to take forward reforms to the law.

"The Transport Secretary is looking at exactly this issue to make sure that we find a way to close the loophole."

Last month, the ECHO reported that almost 500 private hire licences were granted to drivers with Liverpool postcodes by Wolverhampton Council in 2024.

Though passengers may expect private hire drivers to have been licensed by their local council, current legislation means they can work outside their licensed area. Many of these drivers are registered in Wolverhampton, and their vehicles are now frequent sights when booking journeys in Merseyside on apps such as Uber.

A Freedom of Information request made to the City of Wolverhampton Council revealed the local authority issued 479 private hire driver licences and licenses for 695 private hire vehicles to applicants with Liverpool postcodes in 2024. Additionally, earlier this year, a Freedom of Information request revealed that 96% of Wolverhampton taxi and private hire drivers licensed in the last year live outside of the council authority area.

Greater Manchester Mayor Andy Burnham has highlighted the prominence of Wolverhampton licences and has called on the government to change the law to mean that drivers should be licensed locally. Mayor Burnham pointed out that more than 11% of England’s private hire vehicles are licensed by the City of Wolverhampton Council, up from below 0.5% less than a decade ago.

The Merseyside-born Greater Manchester leader has called for the government’s English Devolution Bill to both devolve power over taxis to Mayoral Combined Authorities and put a stop to 'out of area' licensing.

Regarding the issue in Greater Manchester, the mayor said at a press conference in April: "The taxi licensing system is demonstrably a broken system. In our city region, we are on the verge of not licensing the majority of our taxis.

"We’re just about hanging on. But if the growth [in out-of-area] licenses continues, we will no longer licence the majority of our taxis."

In April, Liverpool City Council’s cabinet member responsible for licensing, Councillor Harry Doyle, said: "This is a national issue, and while we fully understand the frustration felt by some drivers, unfortunately, without a change in legislation, there is currently no action we can take.

"As the law stands, drivers with vehicle licences issued by other authorities are legally permitted to operate in Liverpool, and the City Council has no legal power to prevent this.

"It’s important to note that many of these drivers are, in fact, based locally. However, they choose to obtain their licences from areas such as Wolverhampton, where the licensing criteria differ.

"This is often due to the more robust standards set by Liverpool City Council, such as comprehensive training requirements, which we’re very proud of, as residents and visitors traveling around the city can expect the highest standards from our licensed taxis.

"The leader of Liverpool City Council, Councillor Liam Robinson, has formally raised these concerns with counterparts in Wolverhampton and we are committed to continuing discussions with other local authorities and the government in order to push for legislative changes that will address these issues and better support both drivers and passengers in Liverpool."

Last month, a spokesperson for City of Wolverhampton Council said: "Under the current law, applicants are able to apply to any licensing authority for taxi licences and the council may not refuse an applicant simply because they live in a different area. It is illegal for licensing authorities to impose a limit on the number of private hire licences it issues.

"Applicants are usually local to the area they drive in, but many choose to be licensed in Wolverhampton due to our efficient, yet rigorous, licensing process. Our early adoption of digital technology has allowed us to offer a simple and efficient online application procedure, with the requirement that drivers attend in person for training and strict assessment before an application can be processed. In addition, City of Wolverhampton Council is the only authority which carries out daily checks of drivers’ DBS status.

"The council does not gain financially, as the fees for taxi licensing are legally ringfenced for spend only on related activities. Where our income generates a surplus, due to economies of scale, we must return the money to the trade by reducing our fees.

"Public safety is of paramount importance to us. Drivers are regulated by Wolverhampton and can legally work anywhere in the country. We take enforcement responsibilities seriously and our officers are out across the country, every Friday and Saturday night, working to protect the public."

_________________
IDFIMH

Surely rescinding some of the clauses in Camerons deregulation bill would make a large difference or is that too simple ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

The thing is, the Deregulation Bill didn't really have much legislative effect on cross-border, other than maybe allowing the app firms to pass work to each other cross-border.

Allowing the right to roam whilst banning the right to stay is the way forward.

_________________
IDFIMH

Isn't it now the deregulation act?

The Baroness's taxi recommendations were also welcomed by the Hampshire Police and Crime Commissioner.

https://www.portsmouth.co.uk/news/crime ... gs-5180845

_________________
IDFIMH