Agenda item

5.1

The Chief Licensing Officer submitted a report on a review of the policy and specification of image recording equipment (CCTV) in licensed vehicles.  The former Licensing Board, at its meeting held on 23^rd May 2003, had agreed a policy and specification to allow licensees to install image recording equipment in their licensed vehicles and a copy of the agreed specification was attached at Appendix ‘A’ to the report submitted at this meeting.  The policy and specification was further reviewed at a meeting of the former Licensing Board on 17^th April 2007, and whilst the issue of a mandatory policy was discussed at this meeting, the Board made no changes to the policy.

5.2

Dermott Griffiths, Mercury Taxis, stated that the main concerns of private hire drivers related to the costs of purchasing the equipment and the ongoing maintenance.  He stated that although private hire drivers tended to experience less incidents, particularly “run-offs”, as passengers were often sat next to the driver, and that the companies maintained records of passengers’ names and trip details, drivers would like image recording equipment in their vehicles, but could not justify it due to the costs.  There were also questions as to whether such equipment was efficient enough to act as a deterrent, as well as concerns that such equipment could be used to implicate drivers in particular circumstances. 

5.3

Ian Trew, VerifEye, manufacturer of the system currently being operated in Southampton, stated that image recording equipment provided protection for both the driver and passenger.  He reported on the various different systems available on the market, referring specifically to the automatic system, which stops both the driver and passenger being able to turn the system off.  He stated that whilst systems having both an audio and visual facility could prove very useful in cases of alleged sexual assaults in vehicles, there were privacy issues for the drivers, particularly when private hire drivers were using their vehicles for personal use, and that he believed the audio system should only be operated by pressing a panic button.  He added that technology had moved on considerably and there were now systems available which produced very high quality, colour images.  He referred to a recent pilot scheme undertaken in Doncaster, whereby a sample of taxis drivers were monitored during two periods of similar time, one where there was no recording equipment in their vehicles and the other where such equipment had been installed.  The period where equipment had been installed showed a drop in the rate of incidents of 83%. 

5.4

HafeasRehman, Sheffield Taxi Trades Association, stated that whilst drivers accepted that the use of image recording equipment in Hackney Carriages would prove beneficial to both drivers and passengers, both as acting as a deterrent and for providing evidence following incidents, they were not in favour of such equipment being mandatory.  He stated that whilst the Association would continue to encourage drivers to install equipment if they could afford it, the main objections to any mandatory policy would be due to the cost, particularly in the present economic climate.  He also made reference to the effectiveness of such equipment,  specifically to incidents he was aware of whereby Police had been provided with images of incidents, but had still not been able to identify perpetrators. 

5.5

In response to questions from Members of the Committee, Clive Stephenson, Principal Licensing Officer, confirmed that the pilot scheme  funded by Sheffield ‘Safer Communities’, and led by Andy Christian and Shahbaz Ramzan, Safer Neighbourhood Officers, had resulted in a significant reduction in offences and ‘run-offs’.  The legal challenge by Southampton City Council against the decision of the Information Commissioner, who had deemed that Southampton’s policy regarding the mandatory use of CCTV equipment in licensed vehicles to be a breach of the Data Protection Protocols and intrusive into the private lives of not only the drivers, but also the travelling public in those vehicles, related only to audio recordings.  If the Council adopted a mandatory policy in terms of CCTV, drivers would be able to reclaim the taxable amount in terms of the purchase of equipment.

5.6

Members stated that in connection with any determination to implement a mandatory policy in terms of the requirement of drivers to install image recording equipment in licensed vehicles, the Council needed to concentrate solely on passenger safety.

5.7

RESOLVED:  That the public and press and attendees be excluded from the meeting before further discussion takes place on the grounds that, in view of the nature of the business to be transacted, if those persons were present, there would be a disclosure to them of exempt information described in paragraph 5 of Schedule 12A to the Local Government Act 1972, as amended.

5.8

The Solicitor to the Committee reported orally, giving legal advice on various aspects of the report.

5.9

At this stage in the proceedings, the meeting was re-opened to the public and press and attendees.

5.10

RESOLVED:  That the Committee:-

(a)

notes the contents of the report now submitted, the representations now made and the responses to the questions raised;

(b)

defers making any decision pending (i) investigations into (A) the technical specifications of the various image recording systems available and (B) how the system has been operating in those local authority areas who had adopted mandatory policies, and (ii) the seeking of the views of South Yorkshire Police, and a report back on all these issues to a future meeting of the Committee; and

(c)

requests that the report on the pilot scheme funded by Sheffield ‘Safer Communities’ be circulated to all Members of this Committee.