Rushcliffe Borough Council divided over decision to leave mandatory taxi CCTV out of new five-year policy

Rushcliffe Borough Council has agreed to review its new taxi licensing policy after outraged councillors questioned the decision not to mandate drivers to have CCTV in their vehicles.

At a Licensing Committee meeting on Monday, October 27, a draft of the council’s new Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing Policy for 2025 to 2030 was brought before members.

It set out an aim to reverse the decline in the number of licensed taxis in Rushcliffe.

Within it, a reference was made to a letter sent by a Nottinghamshire councillor to the chief executives of all Nottinghamshire’s seven district and borough councils in June, asking them to consider the adoption of a policy for CCTV in their taxis.

At the time, Rushcliffe’s new draft policy was in a period of public consultation.

But when the policy was published, it said that a decision had been made not to amend it in light of the county council’s letter.

Councillors on the committee on Monday questioned the move not to consider introducing the mandate.

Newly-defected Reform member Debbie Soloman said: “I would feel uncomfortable and I do getting in a taxi late at night with just me and someone I’ve just met picking me up.

“I’ve done a straw poll with my adult teens and their friends and every single one of them said that they would be far more comfortable if they knew there was CCTV in that taxi to take them home.

“Girls particularly actively avoid going in a taxi at night with a driver because the taxi does not have CCTV.”

It is not a government requirement for taxis to have CCTV, and just 22 of the UK’s 249 local authorities require theirs to do so.

Ones which do, such as Bolsover and Rotherham, have seen a reduction in the number of licenses issued, officers told councillors at the meeting — the opposite of what Rushcliffe is hoping to achieve.

Officers also referenced particularly the cost of installing CCTV in taxis for drivers, between £450 and £600, depending on the system.

Agreeing with the decision not to introduce the mandate, Conservative Hetvi Parek said: “Is there an evidence base here for us to be proactive? Also, wouldn’t continuous recording violate human rights?”

Officers explained that a mandate would require the council itself to provide specifications for CCTV systems, as well as to have legislative control over the data, which would impose a “burden” on the authority.

In answer to Hetvi Parek, they also said there was no evidence for the need for CCTV in Rushcliffe, as opposed to places like Rotherham, where evidence was clear.

But Debbie Solomon said: “It’s about prevention rather than waiting for an issue to happen, then say it should come in. We don’t want to follow Rotherham’s route, because they’re the worst example.”

Independent Carys Thomas recommended that the proposal to endorse the policy for approval by full council be amended so that it was “subject to a review, specific to CCTV, in 12 months’ time.”

A majority of councillors voted through the recommendation.

The policy will now be reviewed for approval at full council on November 27.