Taxi Driver Online

UK cab trade debate and advice
It is currently Thu Apr 30, 2026 1:51 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 
Author Message
PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 10:14 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18523
Slightly odd feel to this, which reads like something AI-produced (not that I know much about all that kind of thing, but getting that sort of vibe from lots of online taxi-related stuff these days :-o ).

Either that or it's just a rehashed press release which doesn't show quotes from the press release as actual quotes, if you see what I mean.

Which isn't that unusual, obviously, but perhaps the reason this feels a bit odd is that it's maybe a press release from an MP, as opposed to the usual local authority stuff or from corporate entities like Uber and Veezu.

Anyway, whoever actually wrote this, it's pretty much what I think is what's called a puff-piece in journalism...

But has the law actually been changed yet, or does the headline and text overegg it all a bit?

And one or two inaccuracies as well - I mean, don't all councils require DBS checks now, albeit not all require the same level, or the daily update stuff etc?

(And presumably this has little connection to the other recent Peterborough Telegraph piece about the CCTV, which seemed more of a council thing. But, of course, it's also the Labour party, so maybe that also helps explain the shift on the CCTV stuff...)


Peterborough MP Sam Carling successful in securing change in law to improve taxi safety across the county

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... ty-5428244

Sam Carling, Labour MP for North West Cambridgeshire, has successfully campaigned for national minimum standards for taxi licensing to be introduced across England.

At present, loopholes allow many taxi drivers to operate anywhere in the country regardless of which local council has issued them with a license – meaning councils don’t have effective control over the standards expected of taxi drivers in their area.

Some councils require drivers to undergo DBS checks, to have CCTV in vehicles, or to undergo stronger safeguarding training. But due to the practice of out-of-area licensing, unscrupulous drivers can register under authorities which have laxer standards, and get around stricter rules.

This penalises drivers who do the right thing and register locally, as they may face higher costs, while reducing passenger safety – either through lower standards, or because alleged incidents have to be investigated by the council which issued the taxi license. That may be halfway across the country, with a large proportion of drivers registered in Wolverhampton in particular. Over-stretched, distant councils cannot effectively carry out investigations into incidents like this.

The Government has now announced that the law will be changed, with national minimum licensing standards being introduced to reduce the problems.

Carling’s lobbying for this change was specifically credited in the announcement speech. The Minister also highlighted that the Government will be consulting on further options to limit out-of-area licensing, including moving taxi licensing powers from councils to mayors that cover larger areas.

Sam Carling MP, Member of Parliament for North West Cambridgeshire, said: “It’s great news that the Government has listened to me and the people across Peterborough and Huntingdonshire who are concerned about this. National minimum standards, as well as possible further measures to end out-of-area licensing, will make a huge difference for passengers, and for local taxi drivers who want to do the right thing but have been undermined for too long.

“I’ll now be pushing to make sure the new standards provide fairness for drivers and improve safety for passengers – with fair national requirements for CCTV being a key potential part of that.”


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Wed Dec 03, 2025 10:15 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18523
Quote:
This penalises drivers who do the right thing and register locally, as they may face higher costs, while reducing passenger safety – either through lower standards, or because alleged incidents have to be investigated by the council which issued the taxi license. That may be halfway across the country, with a large proportion of drivers registered in Wolverhampton in particular. Over-stretched, distant councils cannot effectively carry out investigations into incidents like this.

Eh? Isn't that playing into the Wolverhampton-as-victim narrative? They're 'overstretched', so can't properly investigate stuff happening a hundred miles away?

Er, they could have sufficient personnel to do what any other council does, albeit that the LOs would be based and working elsewhere, presumably. Trouble is, they tried to do it on the cheap, and thus remotely most of the time, so they dug their own hole in terms of enforcement [-(


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 8:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 7:36 pm
Posts: 1477
“ Some councils require drivers to undergo DBS checks”

Really? So some don’t ?? :roll:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 4:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2006 11:47 pm
Posts: 20858
Location: Stamford Britains prettiest town till SKDC ruined it
so he's trying to claim credit for something that's been included in the devolution bill then. :wink:

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


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 7:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Sep 03, 2003 7:30 pm
Posts: 57349
Location: 1066 Country
Quote:
But has the law actually been changed yet, or does the headline and text overegg it all a bit?

The law is yet to be passed, and the headline and text are overegging the MP's contribution.

Who would have thought?

_________________
IDFIMH


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 9:54 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18523
Sussex, definitely overegging by the looks of it, and it's maybe instructive that between the headline and strapline it's moved from 'successful in securing change' to 'successfully campaigned for'.

Like I was successful in campaigning for me to win the Euromillions, because one person heard what I said :lol:


Peterborough MP Sam Carling successful in securing change in law to improve taxi safety across the county

https://www.peterboroughtoday.co.uk/new ... ty-5428244

Sam Carling, Labour MP for North West Cambridgeshire, has successfully campaigned for national minimum standards for taxi licensing to be introduced across England.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 9:57 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18523
Anyway, the slightly unusual tone of the piece is probably due to the fact that it's basically restating his Parliamentary speech in the debate, but it's not really portrayed as a speech and the opinion of one MP - for example, the bit about the difficulty of remote enforcement is portrayed as some kind of objective fact in the article above, while it was actually a claim in his speech :-o [-(

But the speech is very interesting in other regards because, as well as the nonsense about remote enforcement - which was basically a situation created by Wolverhampton itself - his speech, and the intervention from 'socialist' Labour MP John McDonnell underline how successful Wolves have been in creating their victim narrative - basically there was nothing they could do about it :-o

Of course, hardly a surprise that two Labour MPs would be defending a Labour council, but are the MPs also victims of the Wolves-as-victim narrative, or are they just spinning that line to save Labour's image :-o


Quote:
Sam Carling

I strongly support this Bill and was proud to serve on the Committee. The Bill will deliver an enormous transfer of power out of this place and into our local communities. As a former councillor, I know that trusting local representatives to make decisions about local services and issues leads to much stronger outcomes.

I want to speak strongly in favour of the Government’s new clauses 49 to 57, which provide for the introduction of national minimum standards for taxi licensing. I am delighted to see the Government bringing forward those measures, which I and others, many of whom have spoken today, have proposed to tackle the huge problem with cross-border licensing, which is an issue for both taxi drivers and passengers. Right now, local councils have significant flexibility around taxi licensing policy, without a baseline, which means there is huge variance between councils. Yet drivers can operate anywhere once licensed. Unsurprisingly, that creates huge demand for licensing from councils with laxer standards.

Wolverhampton has become the UK’s taxi licensing hub. In the first five months of last year, as my hon. Friend the Member for Crawley (Peter Lamb) mentioned, the council issued over 8,500 licences, which is more than 30 times any other council in the midlands. From April 2023 to March 2024, 96% of licences went to people living elsewhere. Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with. There is a real democratic deficit: local authorities cannot regulate their own standards effectively and they lose control, as seen in Peterborough in my area, where plans for CCTV in taxis had to be dropped because locally licensed drivers would pay more while others would avoid the cost by licensing elsewhere.

Secondly, climate and emissions aims are undermined too. Peterborough city council will not license a vehicle that is over nine years old, but Wolverhampton allows cars up to 12 years old. There is a lot of variance on that.

John McDonnell

We have all had a go at giving Wolverhampton a bashing. The council has not advertised this licensing; it just deals with it efficiently, so drivers have gone there—but it was not the council’s fault.

Sam Carling

I recognise what my right hon. Friend has said. In fact, I carefully drafted this speech to avoid attacking Wolverhampton in any way, because I recognise that the reasons for this situation are complex. That goes to my next point: overstretched councils cannot monitor conditions, let alone enforce them, for drivers operating hundreds of miles away. If there is an incident in my constituency of North West Cambridgeshire involving a driver who is licensed halfway across the country, there is no way that their licensing council can properly investigate and do something about it. It would be like asking Police Scotland to investigate something in Cornwall; it just does not make sense.


Thirdly, there is a huge safety issue. Some councils have less stringent Disclosure and Barring Service checking requirements, they are cheaper, or they have no requirement for CCTV or emission-compliant vehicles, so both passengers and drivers are left without adequate protection when there are incidents. That was a key point of the recent Casey audit on child sexual exploitation and abuse, which identified that some councils go beyond statutory guidance as a means of tackling sexual exploitation, but were hindered by a lack of stringency from other authorities.

That problem was also raised in the 2014 Jay inquiry into child sexual abuse in Rotherham. That rings true with calls from all sectors, including from trade unions such as Unite and the GMB—I declare that I am a GMB member—in their long-running campaigns around this matter, to which I pay tribute. I am delighted that the Government have listened to me and others and adopted the proposals that were brought forward in Committee. I look forward to seeing the detail of what the Government propose for national minimum standards, and I will continue to engage closely.

At this point, I was going to talk about the importance of considering raising the licensing authority level to strategic authorities and transport authorities, so it was brilliant to hear the Minister say just now that we will be consulting on that, because that is the other key part of this story. Together, those two measures could have a profound impact on dealing with the issues in this sector.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Thu Dec 04, 2025 9:59 pm 
Offline

Joined: Wed May 16, 2012 6:33 am
Posts: 18523
Sam Carling MP wrote:
Wolverhampton-licensed taxis now operate nationwide, and a third of taxis in Manchester are registered in Wolverhampton, 80 miles away. That is not the drivers’ fault, as seeking out the best deal possible is understandable, particularly if it is cheaper or if processing times are faster. However, there are several problems.

First, drivers who do the right thing and register locally are undercut by those going to councils with weaker standards, creating a race to the bottom that harms both drivers and passengers. We must emphasise that drivers want this to be fixed too, so that rogue operators can be dealt with.

I mean, he's all over the place here. First, drivers aren't at fault by licence shopping, then the drivers who licence locally are 'doing the right thing'. Slight contradiction there?

Then he's on to 'rogue' operators - but there's no fault attached to licence shopping? #-o

Then, for example, he's moaning about the lack of CCTV or vehicles with higher emissions, but who created their licensing empire by not having the requisite rules and specification to deal with that, but apparently are just a council who are a victim of circumstances? #-o

He's moaning about councils with 'laxer standards', but then portraying the Wolverhampton-as-victim narrative #-o


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 8 posts ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 306 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group