Another slightly long-winded response to a politician's written questions, this time from a London Assembly member to mayor Sadiq Khan
Not that it's really that long-winded, but it's maybe a bit stating the obvious-ish.
But it underlines a widespread misinformation thing often claimed, but rarely properly addressed - that both HC and PHV drivers (and operators) are treated similarly when it comes to vetting and safeguarding stuff (or, at least, that's the theory...).
But it would be interesting to know why the question (which is in two parts) was asked in the first place. But it's perhaps instructive that it was asked by one of the two Reform UK members of the London Assembly.
(And maybe a good time to point out that this is what Green leader Zack Polanski does as a day job - when he's not trying to enlarge women's, er, appendages by hypnotism
)Keith Prince, Reform UK London Assembly member wrote:
Private Hire Safeguarding Standards (1)
Transport for London identifies a credible and well-evidenced risk to passenger safety arising from either (a) the conduct of a licensed taxi driver, (b) the conduct of a licensed private hire driver, or (c) the operating model, systems, or practices of a licensed private hire operator. Does TfL apply the same safeguarding standards and protective responses in each case, with the protection of passengers treated as the overriding consideration?
Transport for London identifies a credible and well-evidenced risk to passenger safety arising from either (a) the conduct of a licensed taxi driver, (b) the conduct of a licensed private hire driver, or (c) the operating model, systems, or practices of a licensed private hire operator. Does TfL apply the same safeguarding standards and protective responses in each case, with the protection of passengers treated as the overriding consideration?
Mayor of London wrote:
As the licensing authority for taxi and private hire services in London, Transport for London (TfL) requires all licensees to meet its standards at the point of licensing and throughout the duration of their licence. Passenger safety remains paramount in how these standards are set and enforced.
Where TfL finds that a licensee is falling short of these standards – whether linked to a taxi driver, private hire driver or a private hire operator’s systems or practices – it takes the appropriate action necessary to protect passengers.
Where TfL finds that a licensee is falling short of these standards – whether linked to a taxi driver, private hire driver or a private hire operator’s systems or practices – it takes the appropriate action necessary to protect passengers.
Keith Prince, Reform UK London Assembly member wrote:
Private Hire Safeguarding Standards (2)
In such circumstances, does TfL’s safeguarding framework provide that suspension or restriction, whether of a driver’s licence or, where appropriate, of an operator’s activities, is the default protective response pending investigation, applied consistently across taxi services and private hire services without differentiation?
In such circumstances, does TfL’s safeguarding framework provide that suspension or restriction, whether of a driver’s licence or, where appropriate, of an operator’s activities, is the default protective response pending investigation, applied consistently across taxi services and private hire services without differentiation?
Mayor of London wrote:
Transport for London (TfL) assesses each case on its facts. Where a driver or private hire operator falls short of the standards TfL has set, or where there are otherwise clear safety concerns, TfL will take appropriate action to protect passengers. This approach is applied consistently across both taxi and private hire services.
