Agenda item - Petitions

To consider any petitions received.

The deadline for notification of petitions is 12 Noon on 1 March 2012 .It is anticipated that a paper petition will be presented at the Committee meeting on 8 `March 2012.

28.1    The Chair explained that a petition had been received following publication of the agenda but by the due deadline. Mr Funnell presented the following petition containing 12 signatures:

            “We the undersigned wish you to consider an exemption for us with regard to the mandatory installation of CCTV into our private hire vehicles for the following reasons:

            As sole operators all of our work is booked directly to us, as individuals, and not through third parties, agents or taxi companies.

            Our work is pre booked and the clients are known to us because we have given them first class service over many years.

            We already have exemption certificates from displaying licence plates, door and roof signs and have no meters, two way radio or data units fitted to our vehicles. As a result our cars cannot be mistaken as taxis or private hire vehicles connected to a circuit.

            By putting CCTV in our cars with the accompanying signage the private chauffeur car image with the discreet comfort that our clients now enjoy will be spoilt with our cars seeming like taxis. Many of our clients are high ranking American Express personnel, local celebrities and top business executives and could well choose vehicles that do not have CCTV installed.

            Chauffeur cars from surrounding districts will have a very unfair advantage and we fear a loss of business as a result.

            To grant us exemption from installing CCTV into our chauffer cars would be merely an extension of the existing exemptions of displaying licence plates etc.

            In closing we would also like to point out that in the House of Commons Safety Debate on 29 February the Parliamentary Secretary of State for Transport, Norman Baker MP, answered a question raised, on CCTV for taxi drivers as follows: In querying the Department of Transport’s stance on the matter he suggested that the ultimate responsibility of unit fitting should rest with the individual drivers, with guidance from local authorities.”

28.2    Mr Funnell also had the opportunity to amplify on his petition for up to 3 minutes and in doing s he referred to the recent decision of Oxford City Council wef 1 April 2012 which had given private hire drivers acting as chauffeurs exemption from the requirement to have CCTV apparatus fitted.

23.3    The Chair, Councillor Deane thanked Mr Funnell for his petition, the contents of which were noted. It was explained that the decision that CCTV equipment should be installed was agreed policy, the Committee were not in a position to grant either a blanket, or individual exemptions at that afternoon’s meeting. The Chair stated that she was recommending therefore that a further report be brought back to the Committee in 6 months time (2 Committee cycles) detailing the impact of the installation of CCTV in the light of operating experience.

23.4    Councillor Simson expressed concern in respect of the timescale stated, in that any drivers whose licence required renewal after 1 April 2012 but prior to the Committee receiving the report referred to would be required to install CCTV in any event.

23.5    The Head of Regulatory Services explained that these proposals which were agreed Committee policy and had been widely consulted and properly upon prior to implementation, operators had received notification of these changes, no concerns or dissent had been voiced until now, CCTV equipment had already been fitted to a number of hackney carriages and private hire vehicles operating in the city. Following the original Committee decision, the Committee had decided to grant a further 12 month lead in period to expire on 31 March 2012.

23.6    In answer to further questions raised by Councillor Simson and concerns raised by Councillor Mrs Theobald, The Head of Regulatory Services explained that in view of the amount of work involved it would not realistically be possible to bring a report back to the June meeting of the Committee (date to be confirmed).

23.7    Councillors Cobb and Marsh sought clarification regarding how those operating as chauffeurs were classified for the purposes of legislation and it was confirmed that they were treated as private hire drivers and were not categorized separately.

23.8    RESOLVED – That that the contents of the petition be received and noted and that a further report be brought to Committee in 6 months (2 cycles) time setting out the position in the light operating experience in relation to the installation of CCTV in Hackney Carriages and private hire vehicles.