 OK, we're now live. Thank you. Thank you very much. So good morning and welcome to this meeting of the licensing committee. My name is Councillor Anna Bradnam and I'm the chair of the licensing committee. We have a few points of housekeeping to start with please. So please make sure that your device is fully charged and or charging. Please switch off your microphone unless I invite you to speak. When you finish speaking, please turn off your microphone immediately. And please speak slowly and clearly remembering that not everybody's link is as good as some people's. And don't talk over or interrupt anyone. If you wish to speak on an item, please indicate that using the chat function. Which myself and the vice chair will be monitoring. So present online with me here are the following members of the licensing committee who I will invite to introduce themselves. Members, after I call your name, please turn your camera and microphone on. Allow just a second or two and then introduce yourself so that we can note your presence. And then please remember to turn your microphone off after your introduction. So, Councillor Dr Shribona Bhattacharya muted apparently volume is very low. No, I'm sorry. I'm Councillor Shribona Bhattacharya. I am representing Cambon Ward. Thank you very much. Do we have Councillor Gavin Clayton present? I don't think so. OK, Councillor Graham Cohn has given his apologies and he's being substituted by Councillor Heather Williams. So out of order, Councillor Williams, would you like to introduce yourself now? Hopefully I won't be out of order through the meeting, Chairman, but Heather Williams and I represent the Mordans Ward. Thank you. I meant out of sequence. Thank you. Out of alphabetical order, should I say? Thank you. Councillor Claire Del Defield. Let's see her here. Councillor Williams, could you perhaps contact Councillor Del Defield just to check if she's intending to attend? I'm sorry. Councillor Wilson, you mean? I think you mean Wilson, not Williams. Sorry, I apologise. Yes, sorry. Sorry. Yes, Councillor Wilson. I do apologise. Thank you. OK, Councillor Peter Fane. Peter Fane, Shelford Ward, present. Thank you. Councillor Joyce Hales. Joyce Hales, Melbourne Ward. Chair, before we go on, could I pop over to Councillor Malion's house? Cos I think the set up over there is far more incongisusive to work than my set up. I want to go and play in the wigwam. Councillor Hales, that's charming. Maybe later after the committee meeting. Councillor Jeff Harvey. Councillor Wilson, perhaps you could ask Councillor Harvey if he intended to arrive. And Councillor Mark Howell. President, Chairman, representing the Papworth Ward. Thank you. Councillor Steve Hunt. Hello, Steve Hunt here, representing Heston in Fenton-Rodgford-Pamp. Councillor Alex Malion. Hello, Councillor Alex Malion, representing Longstanton Ward. Thank you. And we've been advised that Councillor Peter MacDonald is unable to arrive right now, but he hopes to join us a little later. Councillor Deborah Roberts. Good morning, Chairman and everybody. Deborah Roberts, Foxton Ward. Thank you. Thank you very much. And I am Councillor Anna Bradnam, and I'm one of the members for Milton and Water Beach Ward. OK. So, I think you've forgotten me. Oh, sorry. Yes, of course, you're at the top of the page. Sorry. Councillor Wilson, would you like to introduce yourself? Yes, I'm Councillor Eileen Wilson, elected member for Cottenham and Rampton Ward. Thank you very much. And my vice chair. So thank you very much indeed. So we were advised that the lead cabinet member for environments, tool services and licensing would have liked to attend, but is unable to do so because of a clashing meeting this morning. But he has said he will observe what we have, our deliberations by means of the recording later. So if any member needs to leave during the meeting, please could they make this known so this can be recorded? And perhaps Councillor Wilson, would you be so kind as to, if you see a new member arriving, could we just note that in the chat so that we know when people have arrived? I'd also like to take this opportunity to introduce the officers who are supporting us. So firstly, Miss Jane Jackson, who is the author of the report in licensing. Miss Jackson, would you like to introduce yourself? You're muted. I'm Jane Jackson and I'm a technical officer in the licensing team. OK, thank you very much, Jane. Mr Paul Weller, who is our legal advisor. Good morning everybody, my name is Paul Weller. I'm the legal advisor for the committee this morning. Thank you very much. And do we have John Hall with us, who is, would you like to introduce yourself, John? Good morning everyone, John Hall. So commercial licensing service manager. Thank you very much, John. Right, OK, so the first item is apologies for absence. We have so far one apology for absence, that is Councillor Graham Cohn and Councillor Heather Williams. As we said earlier, he's substituting for him. Can I ask democratic services if there have been any other apologies of absence for the meeting? And thank you, chair. I've received no further apologies, but I will note the absence of Councillors Clayton, Deldarfield and Harvey if they don't join us later. Thank you. Thank you very much. OK, we come on to item two, which is declarations of interest. Do any committee members have any interests that they would like to declare in relation to items on the agenda? Shaking of heads, nothing in chat. OK, so that looks like there are none. If however, as we go through, somebody realises there is a declaration that they ought to make, please could they make that known to me? OK, so item three, the minutes of the previous meeting, which starts on page one of our agenda pack. I'll go through page by page. So this is the meeting that was held on the 10th of February 2020, a year ago, thereabouts. So are there any matters of accuracy that any members wish to raise on page one, page two, page three, page four or page five? OK, so are we, so that's none. Are there, so are we happy to confirm that this is an accurate record of the meeting? Agreed. Thank you very much. Super, thank you. So in your course, they can be signed. So moving on to the meat of the meeting, agenda item four, the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards. Could I ask Miss Jackson to present the report, please? Can I just suggest Miss Jackson? I think perhaps you've found this in the past. It might be better not to put your camera on, not that we don't want to see you. It'd be lovely to see you, but I think your internet connection is not strong enough to cope with both video and audio. So would you be prepared to present your report just on microphone, please? OK, yes, so the Department for Transport has published its statutory taxi in private hire vehicle standards and it has made recommendations to local authorities to adopt this unless there are any compelling reasons not to do this. Our recommendations from the licensing departments are in the report as you have in front of you and there are a number of things that we have posed to do. A lot of what's already in the report, in the standards, sorry. We have already gotten our policy and any questions anybody has about it, then feel free to ask. Thank you. So, and just to clarify then, the reason this is just full clarity on the agenda, on the report, it's not a key decision because this is purely a recommendation that the lead cabinet member for environmental services and licensing should approve the new standards. So it's not a key decision for us. And a reminder that the expectation is that these recommendations will be implemented unless there is a compelling local reason not to. We have the standards in Appendix A. And I should point out that for clarification, the emboldening in the standards was as received. This hasn't been done by our staff, it's as received. And our staff have gone through, looked at the aspects that already really we're already doing and have come up with the items at Appendix B which they identify as we might need to discuss. And I have however gone through a number of aspects of that emboldening. So if anybody has any questions on any of those aspects, we can ask them as we go through. So I think what I'm going to do, if that's okay, is I am satisfied with all of the aspects as it were that we are not specifically considering. But if anybody wants to ask, I'll just go through section by section. So does anybody have any questions about aspects in section 2, which is page 16 to 17? Nope. Nobody has any questions there. Of course one of the aspects was that we publicise our deliberations and of course that will be by the minutes of this meeting but also by the policies that we put on our website. Okay, section 3 covers administering the licensing regime. Does anybody wish to raise anything in section 3? These run from page 18, 19 through 20 and 21. So has anybody got any questions about the aspects in bold or anywhere else? And Councillor Roberts has asked to speak. Yes, Councillor Roberts. Many thanks Chairman. I should have marked it. I'm not as good as you, you're wonderful at marking and you know exactly where you are. But I don't know whether it's a question that comes in here but one of the things that I read that had come from the department was seemingly that such as ourselves would need to do more training. I mean, I think we do very good training already. Can we leave that to Councillor Roberts? Yes, we are training absolutely but it comes under a later section. That's fine Chairman, thank you. I'll pick it up with you when we come to it. Thank you so much. I'm just asking page number 18, 3.4, page number 18, 3.4. There is a good practice example from other council. I'm just asking is it necessary to give this example of the council outside our geographical domain? I mean, was it necessary to keep such example because there may be many such good examples? Or is it necessary or yes or no? Sorry, are you saying? Licensing. Sorry, are you saying was it appropriate to put that in at 3.4 as an example? Yes, as an example. It's not for us to judge that. These are standards that have been set up by the Department for Transport. They chose to put it in. We understand what happened in Rotherham. And I think perhaps they recognise the history of past failings there and elsewhere is well known, but it's the transparency and resolution that Rotherham Council has demonstrated in the high standards that they now require that are rebuilding public confidence. So that's good news that the steps that they're taking are improving public confidence in the taxi hire service. Is that OK, Councillor Basharia? Yes. Councillor Roberts, did you put your hand up again? No, OK. Councillor Burtman, can I just say I've tried to contact councillors Deltafield and Harvey. Did you want me to try councillor Clayton? I think thank you very much, Councillor Wilson. I think if he isn't here, he may join us later. I should leave that for the moment, but thank you for trying. I've left messages for the other two councillors. OK, thank you very much. OK, so just a quick skirmish through those. We do, I'm just on 3.5. We do arrange to review our licensing policy every five years. We've always, always done so up to now. And we have a new principal licensing officer coming on board shortly. And I'm sure there will be some minor reviews on an annual basis that she'll wish to pick up on 3.8 whistleblowing procedure. We have a general whistleblowing procedure for the whole council, which would incorporate this requirement. 3.13 looks at, do we engage with licensing authorities in neighbouring areas? And we certainly do engage with both city, Hertfordshire and East Cambridgeshire when we do consultations. Could I ask somebody to turn their microphone off? I think that might be Councillor Harvey trying to join us. If perhaps Councillor Harvey could turn his microphone off. Great, lovely. Nice to have you with us, Councillor Harvey. We're on page 19, looking at the standards. OK, thank you very much. Apologies for my lateness. I walked to the doctors and then took a different route back and got stuck in a flood. Picking my way through. Well, we're very glad to have you here. Thank you very much. OK, so then we move on to Section 4, Gathering and Sharing Information. Councillor Harvey, just to explain, I'm going through section by section and asking if anybody wishes to pick anything up and then myself and picking up items I've asked officers about. So Section 4, Gathering and Sharing Information, goes from page 22 through to page 28. So, and here we do come across one that we've got on our Appendix B pages. Just before we go past that point, Section 411 asks that we should maintain close links with the police, which I've confirmed with our officers this morning we do. So, then we come to 4.12, which is referred to in the report. Can I stop you at that? I did type in me, please. Yes, thank you, Chairman. Yeah, I'm a little perplex actually about the whole report and I'm not complaining about our officers. I'm talking about the Department of Transport. Cos it seems to me that we haven't got much joined up thinking here. The problems that have been encountered over the last few years were clearly known to both the police and to social services often. And I don't think there's been any resolve and clarification of what went wrong. I think there's been an awful lot of sweeping under the carpet. But for this to work up from our side, actually can only be, I mean, it's cut before the horse. Unless the police are doing their job and social services are doing their job, actually it's very difficult for us to do our job. So I'd like a little bit more clarification about this working with the police. It actually is going to be. Will it be that if the police start to get reports in of bad behaviour and activity, that they will let us know immediately? Because if they don't, why the heck should we be signing our names on that we've done training to get it right? So OK, Chancellor Roberts, thank you for that question. Can I ask Miss Jackson whether we receive information proactively from the police as well? So if there are any reports, we do work quite closely with the police and if there's anything that they think that is relevant to the licence or that we should know, they do inform us. OK, and Mr Willow, do you have any comment on that? Clearly there is a liaison between your officers and the police where it happens. Additionally, there have been occasions where the police have put forward the common law disclosure notification where they've made us aware of perhaps an arrest or something that they've carried out. So they know that we have an interest in the taxi and private hire trade. So they know that if they do have it caused to interview a driver in one way or another, then if they need to and they feel that their criteria are met, they do notify us. Thank you, Mr Willow. OK, is that satisfactory, Chancellor Roberts, that they do give us information as well as us giving them information? I think it's no, I think it's less than satisfactory and I feel sorry for the officers because they're going to have an onerous task here trying to make sure that people are safe. But actually, if you don't know that an investigation is going on, you can't start considering what you may need to do it for yourself. It seems to always be after the act rather than during investigation. So... But with all due respect, Chancellor Roberts, we wouldn't necessarily know, would we? If we're informed at the time that the police are undertaking an investigation about somebody that they think might be a risk to travelling passengers, then that is reasonable, is it not? And obviously... I'm not sure that they will do. OK, but you said that there's far too much secrecy, actually, when it should be much more open if you're talking about what they said to the public, you know, if they are going to do that. Chancellor Roberts, what they have also, of course, do is they refer to the disclosure and barring service. So we would hear about some of those individuals through our examination of the disclosure and barring service record for any applicant or at any renewal. So, you know, and if there was a reactive concern, they would let us know, if they thought there was an immediate concern, they would let us know. OK, are we happy to move on then? Thank you. Thank you. So then we move on to 4.12, which is at the bottom of page 23, and it refers to the fact that licence holders should be required to notify the issuing authority within 48 hours of an arrest and release, charge or conviction of any sexual offence, any offence involving dishonesty or violence, and any motoring offence. Now, what we understand now from our appendix at B on page 51, it says two aspects to this, there's the timing, how quickly they should report. We currently report within 72 hours. And also, we currently require people only to report when there's been a conviction, but the request is that we should report when there's been an arrest and release as well. So, we need to look at the pages, the arguments as it were on page 51. So, we've got a whole collection of people wishing to speak. So, Councillor Roberts, is that something you wish to speak on? Or is your request to speak about the previous item? OK. So, Councillor Hunt on 4.12, do you go ahead? Thank you, Chair. Yeah, puzzled by the fact that in the proposal, we appear to require notification of any kind of arrest, even if it was mistaken or that seems strange. I would have thought that, excuse me, my phone's playing up with picking with notifications. But 48 hours, can we realistically process that? I mean, what does it mean to notify? Does that mean that the person has left a telephone message or submitted something on a website? Or does it mean we've actually logged it and responded to it and acknowledged it? Because are we able to do that over holiday periods and so forth? And the other question I had, sorry, the other question I had was, our current situation includes, expressly mentions, that it includes things like restraining orders. And the proposal doesn't. I would have thought we'd be quite interested to know about people who've been subject to a restraining order. Thank you. On the first element, I understand people can report either by telephone if it's during the week, or they can report online, which would be picked up after that. So, can we have a response, though, from Ms Jackson about how we respond, how we receive those reports? OK, so it's requiring the licence holder to notify that the licensing authority within 48 hours. So we do have a reported page on our website where people can go and report. We have supplied our taxi email address where people do report, even over the weekends. It's not requiring us to action what it's requiring, the licence holder to report. So, obviously, to be able to action within 48 hours is quite difficult, but for them to be able to report it is fairly easy. And going back to what you said about the other. Restraining order. Restraining orders, yes. I agree that that should be within the proposal as well. It should be 48 hours of all. So we would wish to add in to the proposal all of the elements that we have in our current situation, because the proposal seems to be rather lighter, as it were. Yeah, yeah. I mean, it is open for discussion, but the view would be that they would do it all within 48 hours. It's much easier for a licence holder or a driver to have to go and look through the policy and to see whether his conviction or his warning had to report it in 48 or 72 hours. Oh, no, we're not suggesting a division. All I'm suggesting is that all of the elements in our current situation, in the blue box on page 51, should be transposed to 48 hours. Yes, yes, yes, that's what I'm saying. OK, so is that OK, Councillor Hunt? Sorry, it was stuck on me. Yes, but I think that would be a good amendment to trauma here. OK, so good. OK, because the proposal simply refers to arrest and release, charge or conviction of any sexual offence, any offences involving dishonourty or violence and any motoring offence. So we would prefer for our policy that all of the items that we currently have as being reported in 72 hours should be reported in 48. Does that make sense, members? And the point being, one of the questions was about arrest and release because the person might have been arrested in error, but that doesn't mean to say they shouldn't report it. It just indicates that they were released again. So have Councillor Fein and then Councillor Ailes. Thank you. Councillor Fein. Thank you, Chair. Yes, as you pointed out, we currently only expect people to report if they are convicted of an offence. This will be a new type of report, and I hope that our guidance in the way that we respond will take account of the fact that he's not a conviction. Clearly people are innocent until proven guilty. So the report has to be dealt with in a different way. There's also the question of a motoring offence. It wasn't quite clear to me whether they're supposed to report any motoring offence. There are many different levels of motoring offence, and whether it is only if they've been arrested for a motoring offence, which would be very unusual, because that is not necessarily the case for motoring offences. I just wonder if we clarify what sort of motoring offence they will need to report within that time scale. Will it refers to such a speeding, doesn't it, in our current situation? Ms Jackson, is there anything you wish to contribute there? Yeah, definitely. So it's clear that they have to report that it's a speeding offence, because obviously that builds up and has an effect on their licence if they have too many points. The point that you were saying beforehand about the... Sorry, Councillor Fane, about the... House Chair, will you help clarify what I was saying? Apologise. Can we just... Sorry, back again. Sorry, my understanding is that there's been a suggestion, which I would quite subscribe to, all of the wording that we currently have in our current situation box, that the items that people must report within 72 hours, we should transpose that all into the 48-hour reporting regime. Sorry, does... Councillor Fane, does that... But with the comment you were making, Councillor Fane, was that given that that's everything, it should be dealt with proportionately in terms of our response? That and also in relation to a speeding offence, it would be unusual for somebody to be arrested for that, and therefore it might be felt that they did not need to report it until such time as there were points on their licence. And from my point of view, I do not read it like that. I don't interpret it like that. I think it's whether they've been arrested and released or any of these other things, but they're separate issues, separate reasons. Is that how other people understand it? Councillor Bethman, Ms Jackson would like to speak. Thank you. Ms Jackson. Sorry, don't go back to what was said about the arrest and release and people being innocent until pre-guilty. It wouldn't be a case of if somebody was reporting that they'd been arrested and released, that they would be under any enforcement action, it would be more of a protection to that person in case there was a report of a problem further down the line. So it would be a note on their file rather than requiring any enforcement. So again, it's a self-protection to the driver. Okay, thank you. So we don't have any other requests to say, oh yes, Councillor Hales, you have a question. I think, Chair, I want to appreciate and I support these, obviously the recommendations. We don't have too much say of it because either one has come from above us, should we say. That's fine. I just wanted to, if I may, ask through you, the legal officer to make sure that we can implement additional stuff or are we expected to be using the government guidelines or are they just, they want them added into our policy? And then as we are now discussing, all of our existing policy plus is what I'm after. Thanks. Mr Weller, could we, could you clarify that please? For the purposes this morning, it's adding these extra bits into our policy. Should hypothetically a driver come before you or at a later stage a driver come before the magistrate's court by way of an appeal of your decision, then the court or yourselves will have brought to your attention both your own policies, but also the statutory guidance so that you are aware as it were of all the supporting documentation there is. Does that answer your question, Councillor Hales? Yes, thank you. Lovely. Okay, thank you very much. Okay, so are we broadly in favour of the principle, but we'd like the words that we currently have in our current situation to go into the 48 hour request? Would that be possible, Miss Jackson? Yes, to include the arrest and release as well. Okay, super. Thank you very much. Okay, so that takes us, if we go back to, that was on page 23, and we've talked about feeding back to the police and getting response to the police at 4.17. 4.20 looks at disclosing if they've previously held a licence with another authority. We already check for that. 4.21 refers to use of the database in R3, which we already use. 4.29 refers to having a robust system for reporting complaints, which we do. However, we don't currently have a brilliant way of analysing trends, but can I ask Miss Jackson, I understand we have a new system coming in which might make that more possible. Can you just explain to us what we currently do now and what we're proposing to do in the future? Okay, so the system that we have at present, M3, where we record all our jobs, does allow a certain amount of coding for the most common complaints, such as door signage and behaviour complaints and driving without due care and attention, for example. I think we can separate it into five different options. We are having a new system coming in which is called Tascomi, and we will be able to pull out more reports. There are different phases of this going forward. I'm not 100% sure when or what reports we will be able to pull out, but I think the phase one, we are looking at being able to pull out reports for various things, and it should be, I'm not saying I'm 100% sure, but it should be from then that we should be able to do it. It's something that will need to speak to the person who's leading the project at the moment, and maybe speak to Tascomi as well, but it's something I can look into. So thank you, Ms Jackson. So to be clear, we already have a robust system for recording complaints, which is NR3, but this new system will enable us to do more of the analysis. So that's great. Thank you very much. And that should be coming in in March, I understand. It's M3, not NR3. Oh, sorry, M3. I do apologise. Thank you. Right, OK. So moving on, 4.31 asks that we have a way of guiding passengers how to make complaints, and we have that both on our website and by means of the internal vehicle notice. And then moving on, if we come to, I think that's all of section 4 dealt with. So then we move on to 5, which is decision-making. And at 5.3, this is the point that I had raised and indeed others have raised. It requires that all members are trained to undertake adequate training. And it says, as a minimum, training for a member of a licensing committee should include licensing procedures, natural justice, understanding the risks of child sexual abuse and exploitation, disability and equality awareness, and the making of difficult and potentially controversial decisions. And before this meeting, I did ask what our training criteria are. And I was advised by Democratic Services that we do annual training. We did training last year in summer 2020. And I believe our legal advisor has said that it's recommended we have training every two years, which I believe we comply with. And we do that jointly with the city. And I know that Councillor Roberts wished to ask a question on that. So, Councillor Roberts. Thank you very much, Chairman. Yes, I knew I'd read it somewhere. And I suppose my question is, I don't really understand why we need to sign because clearly those of us that attend, and we have to attend to be on the committee, those of us that attend, our attendance is recorded, it's there already. And I'm just a little bit concerned that it's going to be a bit of an own responsibility if we all individually sign that we've received training. Because if something goes wrong in the general picture, is it going to be a question of that we can then be picked out as the people responsible? Because certainly in those now infamous cases, there's been a clear written down of the fact that Junior wasn't taken about what was going on. Presumably the councillors had been had training. But things were not acted upon. I mean, it was an appalling situation of abuse, not just in Rotherham, all over the place. Are you saying that people who had signed that they had had training still didn't see, didn't take action when it was felt that way? That's been well recorded, Chairman, that the people knew about it. They were not acting. The reason that they were not acting is because they were feeling that if they did so. Excuse me, can I just say we cannot attribute motivation to people we don't know and haven't spoken to. So can I just clarify? I suspect this requirement at 5.3 is hailing to an older time when we would have done training face to face. And all of us sign an attendance sheet when we attend training anyway. And that's the sort of signature I imagine it would mean. Equally, our training is recorded on the website under our name. So I think it's simply confirming that we have done training. That does not in itself exonerate us from acting on what we know and understand and have learned. And I think that is a separate issue. Any individual can choose or not to apply the training that they have been given. But the first step is that they should be trained and made aware of these things. And we cannot set policy for people who have training and then don't act on it. Mr Weller, could you just? Can I just add a little extra question on there? Yes. I clearly understand what you just explained to us, Chairman. I've got no problem with it. But I'm saying, though, is do the officers feel with their information that they may have received that actually the training is going to be a lot different and it's going to bring into it elements that it isn't brought in at the moment. Because I believe that everybody should be tweaked equally. And I'm sure I remembered somewhere in here the talk of the part of this new idea of training would be about equality. And I'm not really sure why that would be. We should be just treating everybody the same. That's what equality training does. Mr Weller, could you advise us? As far as I'm aware, the training that's been received to date has been from a nationally acknowledged trainer. Clearly I'm not responsible for the training that is provided for members, but there's actually no reason why the quality of the training will not be downgraded as time goes by. And nationally acknowledged trainers, one way or another, will bring into their new training if they change it at all. These Department for Transport standards as well. So that will be brought into the overall picture. I'm comfortable with the level of training that members have received to date. I don't envisage that will change. So I'm comfortable. I tend to attend the training as well because as someone who is likely to be advising the subcommittees, I want to know what you know before the meeting starts. So me being part of the training is there. Other than that, I'm not sure how I can assist further at the present. That's helpful, Mr Weller. Thank you. And just can I clarify? Signing that you've undertaken training doesn't make you personally liable for anything, does it? It's just simply saying I've undertaken some training. No, I mean, again, part of the training and members who attended the subcommittee will be aware that an important part of the decision is the reasoning. And that's well where the training will come out. OK. And if there's a matter going to appeal, then it would be the reasoning that is the subject matter of the appeal rather than the training or the implementation of the training. Thank you very much, Mr Weller. And can I welcome councillor Peter MacDonald to the meeting? Can I just check with you, Mr Weller? Given that councillor MacDonald has joined us, will he be entitled to vote on this, vote on the recommendation at the end of the discussion? I think on that, our colleague in Democratic Services will probably have a stronger answer than I do. Thank you. So, Miss Wallace? Chair, given you haven't completed your discussions on all the standards, I would say so. Yes. Thank you very much, Miss Wallace. Good. So you can make your views, councillor MacDonald. councillor Batticharia, I can see your hand is up. You're muted. OK. OK, thank you, Chair. I would like to explain some experiences of mine and my fellow councillors, but I'm not very comfortable if it is a live stream is going to the public. In which case you must make those discussions separately and outside this meeting and not hold it up. They actually involve the decision making, the safety and security of the councillors, because sometimes we do handle a greater level of criminality at the same time. So, but I would like to discuss this into the panel, but I am not comfortable if this live streaming is going to the public. It would certainly is. And so, as I said, if you want to discuss that councillor, Dr Batticharia, that's fine. And we can do that. We can arrange a separate discussion where that's arranged. But it's for others than me to determine whether that should be in private. But certainly we can discuss that with officers and arrange a meeting to discuss that. But this is being live streamed. So, if you don't want to discuss that on a live stream, then we can arrange that separately, OK? Please, yeah. Thank you. I'll just make a note of that. Councillor Roberts would like to speak. Just one moment, please, while I make a note. OK, thank you. Councillor Roberts. No, thank you, Chair. I'm 5.3. My concerns have been answered, Chair. Thank you. Lovely. Thank you very much, Councillor Roberts. OK. So, moving on. Councillor Hunt would like to speak. Sorry? Yes, Councillor Hunt. No, I didn't have to speak. OK. Right. OK. Thank you, Councillor Hunt. That's all right, don't worry. So, moving on then, carrying on through this decision making, my next note was at 5.11. On page 31, where it says, we should have arrangements for dealing with serious matters. We do, and decisions on serious matters are dealt with in consultation between the lead member for environmental services and licensing in consultation with me as chair of licensing and in consultation with our legal advisers. 5.15 at the bottom of the page. In the middle of that paragraph, it says, licensing authorities should have a clear policy for this consideration of criminal records, which of course we do, and it's an appendix to our current policy. So, moving on to 6.6 section 6, which is about, remember there are drivers, vehicles and operators. So, this is about drivers at the moment. So, this is driver licensing. And we come to 6.2, which is on page... Oh, sorry, I do apologise. Have I missed something out? Can we come back to... Sorry, yes, of course. Can we come to... I have skipped it, I apologise. Page 52, looking at 4.14, it's referrals to this disclosure and barring service. I apologise for going backwards. So, this refers to the fact that the disclosure and barring service, in some circumstances, it may be appropriate under the Safeguarding Vulnerable Groups Act for licensing authorities to make referrals to the disclosure and barring service. A decision to refuse or revoke a licence as the individual is thought to present a risk of harm to a child or vulnerable adult should be referred to the disclosure and barring service. The power for the licensing authority to make a referral in this context arises from the undertaking of a safeguarding role and further guidance has been provided by the DBS. Could you repeat the page number? It's page 52, Councillor Macdonald. It's the appendix B. And it's page 24 in the actual standards. So, the question in my mind was if we revoke a licence on grounds of risk of harm, do we refer to the disclosure and barring service? And the answer would be ultimately yes, but very often those sorts of disclosures come up on a case that's already being investigated by the police and indeed the police would usually make that referral to the disclosure and barring service. If however something happened that didn't go to the police then we would make a referral to the disclosure and barring service if we felt that was appropriate. I wondered if Ms Jackson would like to speak first and then perhaps Mr Weller. So, it's not routinely undertaken. We haven't come across many cases where we would have to do that but relevant matters going forward it would be something that we would refer to the DBS. Thank you. And Mr Weller, did you want to make any comment there? The only comment I would make is I apologise, I can't remember where it is but there is reference within one of the replies from the consultees about a national register or similar. I think the more that licensing authorities engage with national bodies or national recording systems the better for the trade as a whole. So, it looks like we're not doing it currently. Policies or procedures change in-house so that that starts to happen. I see no bad thing coming out of that. Okay, thank you. And indeed the consultees whose responses are on page 53 of our agenda have all agreed that this makes sense. So, I think we're okay with that. Is that all right everybody? All members happy? Okay good. So, let's skip back then to element six which is where we're talking about driver licensing and the fact that at 6.2 it's requested that all license drivers should be required to evidence continuous registration with the DBS update service to enable the licensing authority to routinely check for new information every six months. And as I understand it we require registration with that system anyway for drivers. And the proposal is that we, all new drivers applying should register with that list and our proposal is that they should, I think Miss Jackson can you just clarify? I'll be saying they should renew every six months or? No, so when they join the update subscription, the update service and they pay their subscription yearly which can be a problem for some drivers because the DBS don't allow for direct debit payment so if people's card details changes it does create problems but that's out of our hands. What we're proposing is instead of us checking every year to see that they're still subscribed that we check every six months. Yes, okay, sorry, that's right. It's the last section in the DFT that drivers who do not subscribe to the update service should still be subject to a check every six months and you're saying yes, we agree, it should be every six months. We have some comment from the operators here saying batch checking should make this easy but broadly speaking people agree and that one business observed that whilst there was a small cost to be incurred that would represent considerable benefits. Okay, so are we all happy? Councillor Harvey has his hand up. Okay, Councillor Harvey. Yes, we just... Councillor Harvey, just before you start could I just ask that you use the chat rather than your hand up function? Yes. But it's all right just to clarify we're using chat. Thank you. Yes, just to be reassured that the sort of criteria that we use which I think boils down to this test of would I be happy for my door drawer or somebody close to me to use this taxi or private license? Is that sort of aligned with the criteria that you would use to report somebody to the DVS system? I'm just sort of wondering whether there's... because the consequences of somebody being referred to the DVS system might be quite a lot more severe than merely having your taxi license revoked because it could prevent all sorts of other career paths, could it not? So I'm just wondering, are we sort of happy that those two things are aligned? My understanding is that that's reasonable. Anybody who has any contact with children or vulnerable adults has a DVS, gets a DVS check. It's simply a recognition that these need to be recorded and checked. So I think it's a good thing that if they have not subscribed to the update service, nevertheless they should still be checked every six months. And I think that's an improvement on our current annual check. And I don't think there's any implication. It's simply a recognition that these are vulnerable people. And I have a DVS check for work that I have done in the past in a teaching capacity. So I don't think it's... it's not an indictment on a character. It's just a recognition that they're in a situation where they could have influence or access to children. So is that okay? Yes, thank you. Okay. Mr Weller, did you want to add anything to that? Only to emphasise that the whole driver behind these standards from the Department for Transport and the whole thing behind the training that you receive is that taxi drivers and private hire drivers may at some time in their professional life be responsible for transporting some of the most vulnerable members of our community. And therefore we should do all that we can to ensure that the travelling public are protected throughout. Thank you, Mr Weller. Yes, it's a matter of public safety. Councillor Harvey. Okay, we've had quite a lot of comment from one of the... Well, we have two people who wish to speak. Miss Jackson and Councillor Hales. Thank you, Councillor Wilson. So, Miss Jackson. I'd just like to highlight the bit about the small cost incurred by drivers. One of the comments from the responses. So what actually happens is a DBS certificate is done and that costs £54.95. From that, you have to subscribe to the update service within a certain period of time by the DBS service. I think at the moment it's 28 days. From then, you pay a subscription of £13 per year. So actually, if you were to have a licence for three years, it works out cheaper for the driver to join the DBS update service. So the small charge would not change if it was checked six monthly. There wouldn't be any additional cost. And going back to Councillor Harvey talking about the DBS. So we quite regularly have notes which are put onto the DBS. Maybe it would be by the local police or the national police. What happens with the check-in is it goes to five different departments and it goes through. The police, it's down to an individual within the police to decide whether they feel that's relevant, the notes or the conviction to what the application is for. So when we do the DBS searches for the certificate, we put down private hire driver. So that's the workforce that they'll be doing. So for example, we have had notes that have come back to say there have been alleged charges for certain things which there was never a conviction for. So for us passing information to the DBS, it would then be down to the individual police officer who was dealing with that check to decide whether it was relevant to somebody having a private hire or a hack and carriage licence. Does that make it sound clearer? Thank you, Miss Jackson. That's helpful. And Councillor Hales. Thank you. I've got three points to do the same thing. As Miss Jackson said that the update service costs you £13 a year and it's the 28-day cut-off from actually when the DBS is first issued or applied for. What do we do if it's really reasonable? Why don't you've done your DBS if you apply for the update straight away as part of the process of applying for a licence? My question really is through you to Miss Jackson is what do we do at the moment with regards to that? Do we take punitive measures for people not doing it? Or is it the fact that we just check them every year at the moment and then cost them £59 or £54? And lastly is that since that has been mentioned and Miss Jackson has mentioned it as well that we have no control over direct debits on my view that is this something that we're actively lobbying the Ministry on? This is the 21st century and if someone sets up a direct debit for a service to check and make sure that they are worthy of holding a licence surely it's something that the system should make easy to take that £13 a year off of them. Thank you. Thank you Councillor Hales. Miss Jackson can you answer those? So yes the direct debit part is something that the Institute of Licensing have raised a number of times that ABS have confirmed that they're working on setting up a direct debit payment system. So that's probably been lobbied as you say for the last 18 months. We haven't heard anything different for that. As regards to the checks when we go on to do the check it will we'll get a message saying nothing has changed since the certificate was issued or no change since the certificate sorry it was issued or we will have a message saying please check certificate or we do the update service so it doesn't tell us what the not redo the update service to do another certificate so it doesn't actually tell us what the conviction is at that stage the driver licence holder would have to do another DBS certificate because there's new information on the record. Okay so and the other one was do we have any as it were sanctions against people who don't subscribe other than the cost of actually picking them up when something comes up? Okay so when they have their initial new licence appointment or renewal and when the licence is issued the driver actually has to sign a certificate to say that they understand a statement sorry that they understand that the update service and the fact that they have to apply within 28 days from the date of the certificate so we keep that information out there it's on the newsletter it's on the website it's in the handbook and they're told verbally that they sign something to say that they understand but we still have people that drop off and it will be then that we would chase them and they'd have to do a new DBS certificate the problem being is at the moment it's quite difficult to get people who aren't working to do that because they still want to keep their licence but they're not working and why having to pay out the £54 and then the subscription is a bit difficult so we are more lenient at the moment and it can be that if they refuse to do the certificate that they can be suspended or revoked it does say in our policy that we can take that action if need be Thank you Ms Jackson so we do have an opportunity to suspend or revoke licences if they don't subscribe to the renewal services. Does that answer your question Councillor Hales? It does in the most part chair is the update service I don't know if I heard Ms Jackson wrong that a licence holder would have to do if a search came back which showed up there was a need for a DBS check or further information if you've got an update service I would automatically assume that that would give us that information because the update service was constantly rolling is that not the case Ms Jackson could you answer that please Sorry unfortunately not no they have to redo the update service if there's another conviction Do you mean they have to do the £59 they have to do another £52 So if they haven't subscribed and something comes up then the sanction if you like is that they have to pay for another £54.94 to get the new DBS Yes but I think what Councillor Hales is saying is if if there is a conviction it doesn't show through the DBS update service and it would mean that the licence holder would have to do another certificate for us to get that information and the answer is yes we would Does that make sense? Does that answer your question Councillor Hales? Not being the most brilliant individual in the world of maths it does seem to be rather unnecessary then if someone has a conviction then we're going to be checking anyway once a year or every six months or whatever it is then the update service it still requires them to pay for a full DBS check kind of what's the point of the update service So it's a way of informing us that there is a conviction unfortunately they don't let us know what the conviction is unless we do another certificate but what you'll find is that if the driver is doing that position they probably don't go any further with their renewal Right Okay so it's effectively the update service keeps us alert that there is a problem which then prompts us to ask them to do a new DBS is that correct? Yes and we also require people to subscribe don't we? Yes Okay It does seem a little bit like the joined up thinking isn't particularly joined up if all the authorities are actually doing our work our authority is doing its work and following every single rule in regulation laid down from above it doesn't feel like above is making it joined up so that if a DBS or a conviction is triggered that actually surely everybody in that process, officially in that process should be notified of an issue that way we could cut out the middle man Okay so what we're saying is that it feels as if if somebody is subscribed to the update system then we should be informed when something happens Is that what we're saying? That's exactly what I'm saying Right so Mr Weller you've noted in chat well I'll read out Additionally they're also required to self-notify Would you like to make a point Mr Weller? It goes back to the matter we discussed a little while ago but it does require them to notify the authority should they be arrested or convicted or whatever so the information on the DBS they should be bringing to our attention as well Oh I see what you mean So they should be telling us also shouldn't they? Yes So the virtue of the automatic update is that it alerts us when they haven't self notified to us It alerts us the other way of looking at it if there is a driver without any conviction then the update will allow him to be allow officers to check the DBS on a regular basis if they see no change then he has no requirement to apply for a new DBS Yes So the remaining question is why is it not that if you are subscribing to the update service why doesn't that mean that when you have a conviction that the DBS service informs us that there is a conviction I think councillors that's way beyond your control it's a matter for the DBS service In all things they are a relatively new body 2-3 years further down the line we may well be in that happy state but we aren't yet So currently we are alerted to a concern by the automatic by the subscription service but the individual themselves is supposed to inform us as well Yes Does that cover the ground councillor Hales? It certainly does Sharon I am fully supportive of all the measures that have been going in here it was just a query as to why it wasn't coming back the other way Thanks Thank you very much So are we happy with that 6.2 proposal then it looks as though most of the operators and drivers are Are we all nodding? Good So The next one over the page on page 54 in appendix B is 6.14 is about a lack of language proficiency Could I just ask Ms Jackson have we lost some wording because we've got the current situation but we haven't got the proposal Is that because we haven't decided what to do yet? Or has some proposal wording slipped off the page? The proposal wording seems to have gone to the right of the page there So can you read us out what it should have said under proposal please? Yep And slowly so we can write it down I'm just trying to find the correct document One moment Actually I might even have it here Hang on I've got it here There we are I've got it The proposal I've got the current situation but I haven't got the proposal Oh there we are All applicants must obtain a South Cambridshire District Council approved test or equivalent qualification of a driver's proficiency to cover both oral and written language skills Does anybody want me to read that again? No it should be agreed Yep So it's a requirement that they should obtain an approved test or equivalent qualification of a driver's proficiency to cover both oral and written English language skills So that's the proposal and indeed the drivers, the operators the licensed operator and the resident all agreed Are we all happy with that? Yes Councillor Hales, sorry Yes, Councillor Hales do go ahead and we've got Peter Fein afterwards Much obliged Jen, you said SCDC test or another approved test Is there any reason why we can't have it exclusively as an SCDC test since that we are licensed authority? It's because we want to make use of language tests which are available that we can pick up So this is the policy we want to set that an approved test that we agree is what they must do but the detail of the actual nature of that test will be in the handbook which can be changed more readily and doesn't require committee consideration So it's So this is the principle that they must do an approved test Does that explain it? Kind of If I could explain my thoughts if I may How to do it tactfully You can buy or obtain quite a lot of information as you see fit from wherever you like and if the tests and requirements for licensed in are fulfilled through the licensed authority that can't happen that can only be absolutely adjudicated process through the SCDC licensing team So it takes out any any attempt potential attempt by anybody for fraud Okay My understanding is when we discussed this before we said there are a number of highly reputable language language training providers in Cambridge and we could we would do well to contract in one of their tests or a number of tests a selection of maybe two or three or perhaps just one that we felt was suitable for what we do and get them accreditation through that means Miss Jackson did you want to clarify that? Yeah so we did also talk about the government approved ones for residency and citizenship as well the ones that they use so there are a number of tests that we can look at and that probably would be a procurement exercise to find the standard that we require the problem being is something that was brought up earlier that we're not actually capable of running the test because we're not trained to do that, we're not teachers So I think I hear what you say Councillor Hales but I think we would be ill advised to try to run this kind of training ourselves and I think if we have access to government approved tests that we recognise due to our purpose I think that would be the best way to go Do any other members? Councillor Fane also wanted to speak was it on this matter Miss Councillor Fane? Yes Perhaps I take a different view from Councillor Hales on this I think Miss Jackson just said it herself that we are not qualified to run language tests and there is a a danger that is being rather subjective not entirely consistent between different applicants if we are ourselves trying to run a test rather than to ask people to secure a certificate of some form from somebody who is qualified in language testing Absolutely Thank you Councillor Fane We have two hands up Councillor Harvey and Councillor Howell I don't know whether they I think Councillor Harvey's may be a legacy hand but Councillor Harvey do you want to speak Okay and which was the other one? Councillor Howell Oh Councillor Howell thank you Thank you very much indeed Chairman just a very quick one could I ask the officers not nothing for the policy but we domain note that we do have some people who have great difficulty in reading through dyslexia and other reasons such as that and can we have an understanding look at them when they come forward that's all I'm asking is that we I'm sure the language schools and different things can have an understanding look at the way we do things sometimes it's with regards to extra sheets they would supply acetates to go over and sometimes they need certain words to explain because they can't read the words so that's all I'm asking that we have a sympathy or an understanding towards people who have those difficulties which they can't there's no way it can be overcome Thank you Chairman And would I understand you to mean that our understanding would be that some of those people whilst they might have difficulty reading they wouldn't have any difficulty in operating the normal dispatch systems and mapping systems that they use for their job? That's very true Chairman and actually conversely very often people who do have a difficulty especially with the written and spelling words are exceptionally good with regards to map reading and routes and different things such as that the way the brain works or all I'm asking is for an understanding and if you have that understanding for our officers please. Okay so Ms Jackson could we make sure that we make a note that the that when we this is for policy and I think in principle people seem to be agreed but I just want to check that we when we go through to the handbook and when we go to procurement that we make sure that the language the language certification that we procure does recognise the fact that the most of the work that these people would do is not necessarily written can we miss Jackson have you a view on that? So we do have we have had a number of people that have come through the system and have had to do the competency test and we have provided extra help for that so we are aware that there are problems there so it does actually say for the English so to cover both all and written English skills to achieve the objectives so that that is what would be concentrating on as part of the procurement for the test going back to somebody mentioning about the types of test of course you might you will find that there will have been people who will have GCSE or O level English and it may be that that would be an accepted test anyway which would save an awful lot of people of having to do another language proficiency that is something to think about Okay thank you right and I can see that councillor Doctor Battacheria's hand is up councillor Battacheria can I ask that you request to speak through chat thank you but what is your question Excuse me councillor Hales has asked to speak first Okay so councillor Hales do you want to come back Thank you chair two things fully endorse councillor Hales councillor Hales sorry we're not brothers comments in regards to the dyslexium I have you haven't thought of that at all and given the explanations given by Miss Jackson and I had completely forgotten about the government regulated language test so essentially I was wrong and I will withdraw my comments with regards to any suggestion of fraud Thank you councillor Hales councillor Battacheria would you like to put your hand down and say what you wish Okay thank you chair so in spite of having good English knowledge or in spite of having very good English written or the past written test people who are dealing with customer outside they mainly they face the accent they also face the accent I mean the spoken English accent so is there any possible way of helping them putting a bit of notice or notifying something that I'm not a native English speaker so I may take some longer time to understand I hear what you say but I think it is important we recognise the whole purpose of this recommendation from the department for transport is that we make travel safer for our passengers using private hire and Hattney carriages and the owners is on the driver to ensure that they can reach an adequate standard as assessed by as we've just described a government approved test that's appropriate for the work that they're doing and that's why I'm saying that through the procurement process we need to be sure that the type of qualification is appropriate for the work that's being done and I think actually if I may say so that it would be worse for them to actually have to declare that they couldn't speak English I want them to be able to speak English to have to say give me more time. No sorry I did not mean that I did not say that what I said that just giving there are many people they are very good in English they can write and read English very well than many many average people but the accent and understanding of the local accent understanding the local accent because I'm coming from a different place of the world different part of the world so I understand because I lived in Edinburgh Belfast and now in Cambridge so the understanding the local English accent may have they may have difficulties to understand the accent not the English language I understand what you're saying and I think the onus is on them to say excuse me please could you repeat that excuse me could you slow down I think that's really down to the driver or the operator okay thank you right so are we happy with that we seem to be happy with I'm getting noises off from perhaps Councillor Howells' microphone I'm not sure but I think in principle everybody seems to be broadly happy with that is that my understanding correct good lovely okay so that takes us on to in my book just to be clear you'll remember that at 7.2 in the standards there's reference to CCTV which of course we've already incorporated into our policy that's why there are no questions about that we incorporated that into the policy and this is the requirement for them to have CCTV that was in the policy in April 2018 although we at that time we agreed accent drivers wouldn't have to have it but then in 2020 we included it for all drivers of all types of private hire vehicle right moving on then we come to 8.8 which is a section looking at sorry so we're at the bottom of page 54 and 8.8 is on page 40 of the the proposed new standards and this is looking at dispatch staff this is the people who take the booking and decide which drivers they'll send on the job and the request is that these people should be there should be a register of staff that would take bookings or dispatch vehicles and the proposal is that those people will be required to keep a register of all staff taking bookings because we recognise that that role recognises that the person making the booking could be vulnerable so can I just take that part first are we happy with that? Councillor Roberts would like to speak thank you Councillor Roberts I think this is a really important addition chairman because not only could they be vulnerable but they could also have a bad record themselves that could be inflicted they could be giving information on to other people they could be finding out the details of vulnerable people themselves so I think this is a really good one and a really important one yes and so you're perhaps alluding to 8.9 where it's saying that operators should be required to evidence that they have sight of a basic DBS check on all individuals listed on their register of booking and dispatch staff and to ensure that basic DBS checks are conducted on any individuals added to the register and so it goes on and the point being that you can only be on the subscription register for enhanced DBS checks whereas these basic DBS checks peculiarly have to be done individually so Miss Jackson do you want to just go through that for us yeah I just wanted to go back to what councillor Robert said about people having the dispatch staff maybe criminals themselves what you also got to remember is their booking taxis maybe for airport journeys so they would know that Mr Jones or Mr Brown is taking his wife and two children on holiday the house is empty the house is empty, it can be empty for two weeks so they're privy to an awful lot of information that can be passed on to or used by themselves so having that information about their criminal record is quite important unfortunately we can't do enhanced DBS checks on anyone other than people who are applying to be drivers so we can't do non-driver proprietors, people that own vehicles or operators unless of course their drivers themselves and the booking staff again it would be a DBS check that the operators themselves would have to carry out on them and it would have to be a yearly check because you couldn't do the update service on a basic DBS okay so one that's helpful thank you miss Jackson but one other thing I wanted to ask you about was one of the resident, the resident on page 55 has said in principle the driver has said that's fine, the licensed operator has said yes that's fine but the resident has said it should read DBS staff that work abroad now are we suggesting that we're including a situation exists where you might have a call centre abroad that's doing DBS dispatch so we do have a company licensed by us that does have an office abroad that takes bookings so yes that's the answer so if that dispatch staff is working abroad do we still require the company that's licensed with us, the operator to do a DBS check on those staff or some kind of record of good character so you can't do a DBS check for somebody who lives abroad but you can do a good you can request a certificate of good character and that's done through the government so each different sorry they would go to the government website and look at each country a different way of doing that so it wouldn't be the equivalent of a DBS it would be a certificate of good character is what they're putting in that the residents have put in that the equivalent of a DBS we couldn't do that so it may be that for example if you were looking at somebody who's coming from Sri Lanka let's say that their certificate of good character would have to be done by the embassy and translated by solicitor or it would be with most of them would be the local police station from where the country that the town that they're living in okay and also the aspect that some come some operators do dispatch by automatic algorithm so not relying on human agents can you talk us through that that so again you wouldn't be able to do any sort of checks on that that would be completely out of our control yes I'm not very happy with that myself so okay my feeling is that I agree with the proposal does anybody not agree with that sorry I'm not asking you if you have any genuine objections then let me know okay everybody seems to agree good so we're happy with the proposals at 8.8 and 8.9 and I think if app based operators find it difficult to comply then they'll have to find a way of complying I think Mr Weller have you any thoughts on that I mean presumably the department for transport wouldn't have set up something that was inappropriately exclusive no and and they can't I think the problem is that we are moving into a different era we technology is being used some of these organisations may well have booking staff that are broad we can't impose dvs on them because it just physically wouldn't work so it's whatever that country on nation has as the nearest equivalent and we would use that it gives us some information yeah okay so broadly speaking members are we happy with that proposal then at 8.8, 8.9 good lovely thank you okay so then over the page um we come to section um the section about use of passenger carrying vehicles this is at 8.16 on page 41 in the standards and page 56 in appendix B so this this refers effectively to drivers um sorry this is passenger carrying vehicles and licensed drivers um so this is as it were minibus drivers and what we're what it's recognising is that because the work IE driving a bus does not present usually present the same risk to passengers members of the public are entitled to expect that when making a booking that they will receive a private hire licensed vehicle and driver and the use of a driver who holds a PCV licence and the use of a public service vehicle such as a minibus to undertake a private hire vehicle booking should not be permitted as a condition of the private hire vehicle operators licence without the informed consent of the booker so basically it simply requires that at the time of the booking they're told that um they must gain the person who's booking the job they must gain their consent in the knowledge that the PCV driver has different conditions and the vehicle has different conditions so they must be advised in writing that the driver is subject to different checks and not required to have an enhanced bs check and that must be given in writing now members does anybody want to make a comment about that I personally think that's a very good idea I think certainly I've suggested it when we're discussing it. Councillor Wilson I just wanted to ask does in writing include by email I think it does I think that would have to go by text to somebody who was using Uber if that was how it happened I find it hard to believe that's how it would work and indeed actually one business or organisation has said a couple of people the licensed driver and the resident have said they agree but the business or organisation says that passenger carrying vehicle drivers have different checks and measures and testing arrangements we do not believe they should be used for private hire vehicles or taxi bookings and indeed if you were just a person ringing up and wanting to make a booking if you'd wanted to go by coach you could have called a coach company directly whereas you're making a booking because you think it's a taxi or a private hire vehicle and you might be being told no you've got more than eight people therefore I need to book you a different type of vehicle but they must be informed about the different conditions that apply do people have anything to say about that? Ms Jackson did you want to speak I think your comment was before I think you've covered it actually so we do have a company that does and there's only one that I know of that does taxis and minibuses but if you're phoning to book a taxi then that's what you expect so Members if our children were about to go off after a mate ball and booked a taxi and there were ten of them and they got a PCV driver rather than a taxi would we feel differently about it perhaps I'll ask Councillor Harvey because he's looking very thoughtful you're still muted I suppose the reason that there is a difference in the requirements is because there's a sort of safety in numbers but I suppose it would be an issue if you were just a single fair and a minibus turned up to take you that would be a problem wouldn't it but that's why you'd have to be told in writing that it would be a different type of vehicle I think I think broadly in principle I'm happy with this and I agree with it so okay thank you so and the principle there are other things that we just to complete the looking at the standards document there were a couple of other items under section nine that I picked up which is enforcing the licensing regime and it said at 9.2 on page 43 licensing authority should whether need arises jointly authorised officers from other authorities said that compliance and enforcement action can be taken against licensees from outside their area well I understand we've never been asked to do that by another authority and we have never sought to do that but and that sort of we've really never needed to do that so I don't think we'd be against it but we've never needed to do that and the final one was 9.3 some licensing authorities operator point space system which we do so I think that covers the ground so I think we're coming towards the recommendation members unless anybody wants to discuss anything else the recommendation is on is on page 8 of the agenda at paragraph 4 of the officers report and I'll just read it for us so just before I do that does anybody else want to raise anything else nope okay so the recommendation is it's recommended that the licensing committee recommends that the lead cabinet member for environmental services and licensing approves the new standards as written as license conditions policy requirements and procedures the department for transport expects these recommendations to be implemented unless there's a compelling reason local reason not to so can I take an indication my feeling is much of what we've read we've agreed with does anybody wish to object to it as a whole policy a whole document or does anybody wish to object to any section so I'll move that recommendation thank you and Councillor Roberts has said she's happy to second is that okay thank you Chairman thank you Councillor Roberts so can I just take that by affirmation if anybody wishes to object please could they make that known now thank you very much I can see that the comments that I have are from Councillor Hales and Councillor Howell that they approve and nobody has said that they wish to object so thank you very much members so we have approved that recommendation so thank you very much thank you Chairman and that's the end of the meeting can I thank you all for your attendance and for your contributions thank you Chairman and I will take away Councillor Batticharia your wish to discuss some matters separately thank you thank you very much indeed thank you chair could I ask this to take off Liam could you take us off the live stream please yeah