Hull City Council calls for end to 'out-of-town' taxi licensing
Calls have been made to close a legal "loophole" that allows taxi drivers licenced in other areas to operate in Hull.Hull City Council members have unanimously called for new government legislation to bring to an end "out-of-town" taxi licensing, which they see as a safeguarding concern.The application process for getting a private hire vehicle licence differs between councils, with the fees and the level of vehicle standards set by each authority.Ted Dolman, chairman of the city council's licensing committee, said the current system meant the authority was left "with a lack of control over who operates on our streets and who transports our residents".
According to the Local Democracy Reporting Service, at this month's full council meeting Labour Group leader Daren Hale brought forward an emergency motion calling for government action to close the "loop hole", which he described as an "absolute travesty".Similar concerns have been raised in Lincolnshire recently by South Kesteven District Council.The motion in Hull follows the release of the recent Casey Review on grooming gangs, which included the tightening of taxi licensing rules as one of its recommendations.Unlike hackney carriages, private hire vehicles are not confined to operating within the borders of the authority where they are licensed.
Safeguarding concerns
Hale's motion specifically referred to City of Wolverhampton Council, which has made headlines due to its licensed drivers popping up across the country on a seemingly disproportionate scale.The motion stated it should be a mandatory requirement for licensees to operate within the areas where their licences are issued.Dolman, who seconded Hale's motion, said: "Without a doubt the largest issue our fantastic drivers raise is that of Wolverhampton taxis and the safeguarding concerns that come with them."A spokesperson for the Wolverhampton council said safeguarding was "our number one priority in taxi licensing".It said it was the only local authority that checked the Disclosure and Barring Service database every day and it was the first authority to offer driver licence checks by smartphone, allowing passengers to verify a driver's status and identity before getting in."We welcome any measures from government to help tackle the important matter of safeguarding," the spokesperson added."We work in partnership with Hull City Council and have carried out 23 operations over the last three years, checking 206 vehicles."They added that it was illegal for the council to refuse an application for a taxi licence on the basis of where they live and for licensing authorities to impose a limit on the number of private hire licences issued.
Listen to highlights from Hull and East Yorkshire on BBC Sounds, watch the latest episode of Look North or tell us about a story you think we should be covering here.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Sky News
26 minutes ago
- Sky News
Government to make concessions to Labour rebels over welfare reforms, Sky News understands
The government has made an offer to rebel Labour MPs over its controversial welfare reforms, Sky News understands. More than 120 Labour MPs were poised to vote against the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment (PIP) Bill on Tuesday. The changes come after a ring-around by cabinet ministers failed to bring rebels on side. The bill was intended to restrict eligibility for the PIP - the main disability payment in England- and limit the sickness-related element of universal credit, to help shave £5bn off the welfare budget by 2030. Sky News political editor Beth Rigby has heard that existing PIP claimants will be able to keep their payments, which means 370,000 people will not lose out. This will cost the government at least £1.5bn, according to the Institute for Fiscal Studies. Sky News understands that a senior source has accepted the change, but it will be up to each individual rebel to make a decision on whether to withdraw. The source said they think the changes are a "good package" with "generous concessions". A reasoned amendment signed by 126 Labour MPs argued that disabled people had not been properly consulted and further scrutiny of the changes is needed. If passed, this would have killed the bill. Other concessions offered by the government include allowing existing claimants to keep the health element of Universal Credit.
The Independent
36 minutes ago
- The Independent
Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform, prime minister
One of the more unexpected aspects of the prime minister's performance in recent months is that he seems to find much more success in negotiating with the likes of tricky characters such as Donald Trump and Emmanuel Macron than he does with his own backbenchers. Many of them, he must reflect, owe their seats in the House of Commons to his Herculean efforts to make the Labour Party electable again after the debacle in 2019. There was nothing preordained about the landslide last July, even if the Conservatives did all they could, inadvertently, to ease Labour back into power after a 14-year wait. That so many Labour MPs now seem to yearn for the kind of policies Jeremy Corbyn fought and lost on can only be a cause for dismay for Sir Keir Starmer and his closest advisers. In its century and a quarter existence, Sir Keir is only the third leader of his party to have ever won an overall majority. Attlee, Wilson, Blair, Starmer; this is an instructively small club. Politics is indeed an ungrateful business. At this juncture, the prime minister might be well advised to reach for Occam's razor, whereby the simplest explanation is often the best. The range of political options, policy adjustments and permutations of possible parliamentary outcomes as the vote on the welfare bill approaches is dizzyingly complex. The chances of success are vanishingly thin. There is simply insufficient time to recast the reforms in such a way that would preserve the best intentions of policy, deliver the savings needed by the Treasury, and secure the support of an increasingly febrile parliamentary party. The good news for Sir Keir and his colleagues is that, when treated as an objective policy challenge, the path ahead is more straightforward. The obvious mistake made by ministers since they took office is that reform of social security also became an exercise in 'tough', performative politics, and a crude if not panicky way for the Treasury to cut public spending. The Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill was rushed to meet unrealistic fiscal deadlines set by the chancellor, Rachel Reeves (as with some of her other policies), and, for want of a better word, botched. With such a hurried timetable for such a sensitive set of changes affecting vulnerable people, it is little wonder that Liz Kendall, the work and pensions secretary, was unable to win the arguments. A pause is essential, and inevitable. What is to be done? Just as the 'reasoned amendment' put forward by more than 120 Labour MPs suggests, the first thing the government must do is complete the essential work that should have been done before bringing the bill to parliament. That means the consultations with groups representing people with disabilities must be properly completed and taken into account. We already know that, on the government's own estimations, some 250,000 people will be pushed into poverty, and that seems very much at odds with the declared intentions of the changes – to improve the living standards of people with disabilities by getting them into the good jobs so many of them want. Will the reforms do that? We do not know. MPs, and the public, are waiting for the Office for Budget Responsibility to publish its impact assessment on the employment prospects of those affected, with the improved job-finding support and the 'right to try' safeguards in place, alongside the alterations in the criteria for personal independence payments (PIP). If, as the Cabinet Office minister Pat McFadden attests, more than 1,000 people a day go on to PIP, why is that so high? Why have economic inactivity rates not recovered to pre-Covid levels? Conjecture, surmise and speculation are a poor basis for policy. This might also therefore be a moment for an overhaul of the points-based system for assessing people's needs. The mathematical nature of such tests feels insensitive and deeply impersonal, and may take insufficient account of individual circumstances. There should be a better, more dignified, more holistic way of working out need than 'scoring' a person according, for example, on whether they can wash their whole body themselves (zero points), need 'supervision' (two points), assistance for lower body (two points), upper body (four points) or whole body (eight points). There should also be an objective review of how far mental health is being 'over-diagnosed' and affecting the numbers claiming benefits. Some, such as Nigel Farage and the health secretary, Wes Streeting, opine that that is the case – but there seems inadequate data to draw a firm conclusion. It would also help the credibility of the reforms if the government had organised time-limited but full pilot schemes under the new arrangements in one or two regions of the country. Under the DWP's Pathways to Work programme, there have been such trials and work coaches and specialist one-to-one help have proved successful – but there's no evidence or research to back the argument that the proposed reforms to benefit eligibility will indeed produce better outcomes. That is why the Labour MPs are left unpersuaded. Britain is a parliamentary democracy. Backbench MPs are not AI-driven automatons whose only role is to unconditionally back the party leadership. When they are asked to do so, an appeal to loyalty and the horrors of the opposition ('Prime Minister Farage') are perfectly legitimate. But members of parliament are also entitled to have evidence-based, well-developed policy before they are asked to approve it. The public is also right to expect that, and parliament has an obligation to respect the needs and vulnerabilities of those subjected to fairly sudden changes in their personal finances – in this case, people with extremely varied disabilities. If there is to be a Commons vote on welfare reform next week, then the bill would need to be gutted, taking out the contentious, under-researched provisions on eligibility, and leaving only the useful and proven new schemes that are likely to help people into work, where it is available. It's a rare opportunity to get social security reform right – and for it to command the wide public support needed as spending on an ageing population increases the cost. Delaying welfare reform is better than bad welfare reform.
Daily Mail
37 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
BREAKING NEWS Starmer caves in to rebels on benefits: Sir Keir is forced into a humiliating climb-down by Labour welfare army
Keir Starmer was tonight forced into a humiliating climbdown by Labour's army of welfare rebels. The Prime Minister is said to have handed them 'massive concessions' in a bid to avoid defeat in a crunch vote on benefit cuts next week. Experts warned it meant fresh tax raids this autumn were almost inevitable because the reforms, projected to save £5billion, will now save much less. The concessions are understood to include watering down reforms to personal independence payments (PIP), which would have hit vulnerable people unable to wash or dress themselves. Privately, ministers were cautiously optimistic last night that the climbdown will enable them to peel off enough of the 126 rebels to press ahead with a Commons vote on Tuesday. And one rebel told The Guardian: 'They've offered massive concessions, which should be enough to get the Bill over the line at second reading (Tuesday's vote).' It came following a frantic day of talks after the PM set a deadline of Sunday night for striking a compromise. Sir Keir is understood to have phoned several of the rebels. Insiders acknowledged that the PM would have little choice but to pull the vote – leaving his authority in tatters – if there was no deal by Sunday evening. The climbdown is still highly embarrassing for Sir Keir as it highlights how drastically he failed to read the mood among his MPs. It is also the latest in a series of backsliding on policies after he U-turned on cuts to the winter fuel allowance. Several moderate opponents said they were open to passing the benefit cuts legislation if key elements such as the PIP proposals were watered down, suggesting Sir Keir stands a good chance of winning over enough rebels in the coming days. But several other more hardline MPs warned that nothing less than ditching the Universal Credit and Personal Independence Payment Bill would placate them. The Government has a majority of 165 in the Commons, meaning 83 Labour MPs need to oppose the Bill to inflict defeat. After days of mounting opposition to the benefit cuts, Sir Keir finally acknowledged today that the reforms would not get through without a compromise. Speaking in the Commons, he said he would start a 'conversation' with rebels because 'colleagues want to get this right, and so do I'. Speaking to ITV, Chancellor Rachel Reeves added: 'We've got to get this right. So of course we've got to take people with us on this journey. 'And over the next few days, we'll continue listening ahead of the vote on Tuesday. Everyone can see the system we've got today isn't sustainable. Asked about the prospect of tax hikes, she added: 'It is right to say that we're not going to increase the taxes that working people pay – their income tax, National Insurance or VAT. As a government, we do need to get control of the public finances, but we need to in a fair way.' As the reforms stand, most of the 800,000 affected PIP claimants will lose £3,850 a year as the proposals stand. Projections by the Institute for Fiscal Studies show ditching this proposal could cost up to £2.3billion, further adding to the black hole in the public finances. Other elements in the proposed new law include halving the health top-up in Universal Credit for new claimants from 2026 and phasing out the work capability assessment. Watering down the Universal Credit plank would cost up to another £2.5 billion. With the Government already pledging to reverse winter fuel allowance cuts, poised to lift the two-child benefit cap and spend billions more on defence, it means tax rises or spending cuts elsewhere would almost certainly be needed. Eduin Latimer, a senior economist at the IFS, said: 'Scaling these measures back somewhat would boost support for claimants with health conditions but naturally would require the Government to raise taxes or find other savings elsewhere.' Ben Caswell, of the National Institute of Economic and Social Research, added: 'If the Government is unable to pass this Bill, the cost would be large enough to erase the narrow £9.9billion headroom against the Chancellor's stability rule. This means she will face the difficult choice of either cutting current expenditure or raising taxes.' Tory Shadow Chancellor Mel Stride said: 'This is the latest in a growing list of screeching U-turns from this weak Labour government.' Asked which benefits she would cut to bring the welfare bill down, Tory leader Kemi Badenoch said: 'We have people who... are now claiming disability claims for things like anxiety. 'That is not what welfare was designed for. The system is being gamed. 'There are people claiming it for conditions that probably shouldn't be getting welfare, and also people who don't have conditions at all, who have worked out that you can exploit the system.'
