Agenda and minutes

Minutes of the meeting held on 1 September 2016 (previously circulated). 

The Minutes of the meeting held on 1^st September 2016 were signed by the Chairman as a correct record.

There were no items of urgent business.

To receive declarations by Members of interests in respect of items on this Agenda. 

Members are reminded that, in accordance with the Localism Act 2011, they are required to declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which have not already been declared in the Council’s Register of Interests. (It is a criminal offence not to declare a disclosable pecuniary interest either in the Register or at the meeting). 

Whilst not a legal requirement, in accordance with Council Procedure Rule 9 and in the interests of clarity and transparency, Members should declare any disclosable pecuniary interests which they have already declared in the Register, at this point in the meeting. 

In accordance with Part B Section 2 of the Code Of Conduct, Members are required to declare the existence and nature of any other interests as defined in paragraphs 8(1) or 9(2) of the Code of Conduct. 

There were no declarations of interest.

Report of Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to inform Members of the recent problems in relation to the return of Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) checks and to ask Members to consider proposed improvements.

It was reported that changes had recently been made to the DBS, which had impacted negatively on the delivery of the service.  The change was to the issue of the client’s completed DBS check, which had been issued to both the applicant and the licensing authority at the same time. 

Since the change, only the applicant received a copy, which meant that licensing officers were reliant on the applicant delivering a copy of the DBS to them.  This could sometimes cause delays in issuing licences and extra administrative work for officers, who had to chase up copies of the DBS check. 

It was reported that the checks took between 4 and 8 weeks.  However, in exceptional circumstances, they could take a lot longer, and this meant that the driver could have a period when he/she could not work.  Officers had therefore undertaken work to establish how best to avoid this situation.

The Licensing Manager had been approached by some umbrella companies who could carry out the DBS checks on behalf of the licensing authority and provide a one stop shop for enhanced disclosures, which were processed through a portal.  The cost for the DBS check would be £54 for 3 years, compared to the current £44 for 3 years.  The umbrella companies could not give guarantees in relation to the timescale for the return of the checks if they got stuck at the police stage, and would not be able to escalate the application until 60 days had passed. 

Another option was for drivers to update their DBS check online, which had to be done within 19 days of receiving the initial DBS check.  The cost of updating online was currently £13 per year, which equated to a saving of £5 over the 3 year period.  The information would be available immediately, except where the information indicated that there had been a change since the last certificate. 

This would eliminate the issue of checks not being received on time and provide drivers with the assurance that they would always have a valid DBS check, unless their circumstances changed.  The information would have to be accessed and checked by a licensing officer via a unique pin code, which the driver would need to provide. 

Members considered the three options set out in the report.

Option 1         

Approve the change in relation to the administration procedures to allow the checks to be done by an umbrella company.  This would speed up most applications but would not completely alleviate the problem where an application was stuck at the police stage.

Option 2         

To continue as at present, but publicise, encourage and assist drivers to register online.  Ideally to the point where this became the default DBS system where necessary, all drivers would subscribe to the DBS online  ...  view the full minutes text for item 32.

Report of Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager to inform Members of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency decision to discontinue the delivery of the Driving Standards Agency Private Hire and Hackney Carriage assessment and, in particular, the enhanced wheelchair part of the test.

It was reported that in February 2014, Members had approved the introduction of the Driver and Vehicle Standards Agency test for hackney carriage and private hire drivers in February 2014 to ensure consistent standards of drivers licensed by the Council.

It was reported that a condition had been introduced from 1^st March 2014 that all new drivers should pass the basic DVSA, and anyone driving a mandatory wheelchair accessible vehicle should also pass the enhanced wheelchair part of the test.

In August 2016, the DVSA had notified local authorities that they could no longer facilitate the tests after December 2016, and had stopped taking bookings for the test with immediate effect.  This had caused problems to local authorities who had adopted the test as a basic standard before issuing a licence.

It was reported that Licensing Services would ask new applicants to book their standard driving assessment with the Blue Lamp Trust, who had worked closely with the DVSA, in order to ensure continuity.  Other options would be offered should the Licensing Manager consider them to be on a parallel with the DVSA test.

Officers had currently been unable to identify a suitable alternative for the enhanced or upgrade assessment. 

Members considered the two options set out in the report.

Option 1         

Introduce the alternative test, as approved by the Licensing Manager, which offers the same standards as the standard DVSA test.  This would have the potential to maintain standards and public safety.  Until a suitable alternative can be found, require any driver of any wheelchair accessible vehicle to have undergone training and instruction by the owner of the vehicle or another competent person, and require a log of the training to be kept.

Option 2:        

To recommend something different that would still ensure the safety of the public.

The Officer preferred option was Option 1.

It was proposed by Councillor Metcalfe and seconded by Councillor Redfern:

“That Option 1, as set out in the report, be approved, but that any suitable alternative for wheelchair training that is found be undertaken by the new drivers within three months of its approval, even if they have had training by the vehicle owner or another competent person.”

It was then proposed by Councillor Jackson and seconded by Councillor Edwards, by way of amendment:

“That Option 1, as set out in the report, be approved, but that any suitable alternative for wheelchair training that is found be undertaken by the new drivers within six months of its approval, even if they have had training by the vehicle owner or another competent person.”

Members voted upon the amendment, with 5 Members voting in favour of the amendment and 4 against, whereupon the Chairman declared the amendment to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33.

The Committee is recommended to pass the following recommendations in relation to the following item:

“That, in accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting for the following item of business, on the ground that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act.”

Members are reminded that, whilst the following item has been marked as exempt, it is for Committee itself to decide whether or not to consider the item in private or in public. In making the decision, Members should consider the relevant paragraph of Schedule 12A of the Local Government Act 1972, and also whether the public interest in maintaining the exemption outweighs the public interest in disclosing the information.  In considering their discretion Members should also be mindful of the advice of Council Officers.

In accordance with Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public were excluded from the meeting in connection with consideration of appendix 5 of the report of the Licensing Manager – Assurance in Relation to Current Licensing Processes (Minute No. 35), which contained exempt information, as defined in paragraph 3 of Schedule 12A of that Act, and for the report of the Chief Executive – Notification of Decision taken under the Urgent Business Procedure – Existing Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Driver’s Licence – Julie Dawn Parrington (Minute No. 36) on the ground that it could involve the possible disclosure of exempt information, as defined in paragraph 1 of Schedule 12A of that Act.

Report of Licensing Manager

The Committee received the report of the Licensing Manager, which had been prepared as a means of providing assurance to members of the Licensing Regulatory Committee in relation to the current processes in place in the licensing service and in order to seek to address any questions which may arise as a result of the recent publication of the South Ribble Report.

It was reported that public safety was paramount to the licensing regime.  The rationale behind the hackney carriage and private hire licensing regime was to ensure that the service provided to members of the public was accessible and safe, and seen to be so. 

With this object in mind, the Council had the following three policies in place, which aimed to provide guidance, consistency and transparency:

·         The Rules, Regulations and Procedures for Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Licensing (attached as appendix 1 to the report)

·         The Convictions Policy (attached as appendix 2 to the report); and

·         The Enforcement Policy (attached as appendix 3 to the report).

Members were advised that the report had been prepared to try to alleviate any anxieties Members may have following the publication of the South Ribble Report, which was attached as appendix 4 to the report.  The Licensing Manager had highlighted several shortcomings in the South Ribble Report and had attached the comparative procedures set up in Lancaster.  Details were set out in exempt appendix 5 to the report.

It was reported that the Licensing Manager had asked for an internal audit of the current procedures to be carried out to provide further assurances. 

It was proposed by Councillor Hartley and seconded by Councillor Metcalfe:

“That consideration of the matter be deferred until the recommendations of the internal audit are available.”

Upon being put to the vote, Members voted unanimously in favour of the proposition, whereupon the Chairman declared the proposal to be clearly carried.

Resolved:

That consideration of the matter be deferred until the recommendations of the internal audit are available.

Report of the Chief Executive

The Committee received the report of the Chief Executive to inform Members of a decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee.

Decision of the Committee

That the decision taken by the Chief Executive, in consultation with the Chairman of Licensing Regulatory Committee, in relation to the following matter, be noted:

That Ms. Parrington’s dual hackney carriage and private hire dual driver’s licence be revoked and that the revocation be with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.