 Thank you very much. So, we are live now, thank you. So, good afternoon and welcome, sorry, 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 just got a few housekeeping points. Whether you're present in the chamber or taking part virtually, please make sure that you do not switch your microphone on unless you're invited to speak. Those who are participating virtually should, if possible, use a headset microphone. Please, would those who are attending virtually indicate a wish to speak by use of chat in the teens meeting? Those present in the council chamber, please could you indicate your wish to speak by raising your hand and I'll ask my vice-chair to keep a note of speakers virtually. This meeting is being webcast live and a recording will be available after the meeting. By being present or contributing to the meeting, participants agree to their images and voices being broadcast and used for training purposes. And attendees may also make their own audio and video recordings so long as they do not interfere with the meeting. Please turn off mobile phones and... Just pause, will I do that, sorry, folks. Sorry, please turn off your mobile phones or alarms and set to silent. And if any member needs to leave during the meeting, please could they make this known so that it can be recorded. So firstly, item one is apologies for absence. Can I ask democratic services if there have been any apologies for absence for the meeting, please? Yes, we have apologies from councillor Mark Howell, councillor Graham Cone, councillor Michael Atkins, councillor Stephen Drew and councillor Carla Hoffman. Thank you, just one moment. Thank you, councillor Hales. And I believe councillor Sally Ann Hart is also offered issues to work today. Okay, thank you very much, councillor Howell. So that's councillor Sally Ann Hart as well. Thank you very much. So can I confirm that the meeting is correct? Thank you very much. So we also have present, I think, the lead member cabinet for environmental services and licensing, do we? Councillor Brian Mills. He's not, he's not. Okay, sorry. Sorry, he's currently online. No, okay, sorry. So the second item is declarations of interest. Do any committee members have any interests that they would like to declare in relation to items on the agenda? Can I confirm we don't have anybody taking part online? Ah yes, that's right because it's my vice chair. Sorry. Can I ask my vice chair to introduce herself, please? My name's Annika Rosbourne and vice chair for licensing and the member for condom. Very much. So first item of substantive is the minutes of the last meeting of the licensing committee, which was held on Wednesday, the 23rd of February. And I just wanted to ask, are members happy to approve the minutes of that previous meeting? Or are there any matters of accuracy that members would like to raise? And I think that's going to fall to the few of us who were members at that time, which is, I'm happy with them in its, you're happy with them. Thank you, Councillor Hales, that's great. So I'll approve those. So moving on to item four, which is review of the Hackney carriage and private hire policy. Um, this is the third review of the taxi policy following the licensing committee in September and another in November, 2021, where we agreed that a workshop should be arranged to enable members to discuss the proposed amendments to mandating of CCTV in all licensed vehicles. We also considered age limits and emission standards for licensed vehicles as we have previously agreed provisional measures until December, 2023. We had a workshop in October this year and the agreed recommendations can be found at Appendix B on page 13. As members spent considerable time in discussions of those proposals, I'm hoping that the recommendations can be approved. Obviously we'll welcome discussion. So could I ask the Rachel Jackson, who is the lead officer for licensing, to present the report? Thank you. Thank you, Chair. The committee has asked to consider revisions to the policy following the licensing committees in September and November last year. The first aspect relates to the mandating of CCTV in all licensed vehicles. At the workshop, members were provided with evidence and rationale that supported mandating CCTV in hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, excluding those executive exempted vehicles. With regard to exempted vehicles, there is no evidence currently to suggest there is a pressing need nor would it be proportionate to mandate a CCTV in such vehicles. And as per the July 2020 guidelines by the Department for Transport Best Practices Taxing and Private Hire Guidelines, we need to ensure it's proportionate and meet suppressing need. There is no evidence to suggest there is such pressing need for exempted vehicles. It is also recommended that the implementation of CCTV is taken a phased approach, so as to require any new licensed vehicle to have CCTV installed prior to licensing from the 1st of April 2023, and existing licensed vehicles must have CCTV installed on renewal from the same date. This is to allow for effective administration, including current taxi testing station procurement to be completed, and will align this with the city of Cambridge's proposals, whom we have obviously worked very, very closely over the last couple of years with regard to CCTV. That concludes my introduction to the first part, because I think it's right and proper that members discuss the initial recommendations for CCTV before we move on to the next recommendations, Chair. Thank you. Thank you, Ms Jackson. I'm very happy that we do it in that way. So, at the workshop, we saw evidence that there was no evidence to suggest that any of the concerns or infringements or incidents that might otherwise have meant that CCTV is necessary, none of those had occurred in plate-exempt vehicles, so there wasn't sufficient justification for requesting CCTV in plate-exempt vehicles, but our recommendation was to proceed with CCTV in our ordinary vehicles, so that would be great. So, members, have any comments or questions that some of you were not able to attend the workshop? Does any member wish to ask anything about the principles or the practical aspects of introduction of CCTV? Oh, everybody's delighted. Everybody's happy and content with that, are they? OK, so, Councillor Garvey. Yes. It was just about the, if taxes already have CCTV, then they have to transfer over to the other system, I believe. I just wondered whether there needs to be anything about that in that, in the recommendations. Ms Jackson. Thank you, Chair. I think that's actually a very good proposal. So, should a private hire vehicle already have CCTV installed, which does not meet the new specifications, then you're absolutely right that should fall in line with the 1st of April 2023 recommendation. How would we know, Ms Jackson, whether they had already, how would we know if they'd switched over? Well, what we should do, Chair, is, obviously following your decisions today and ultimately the Cabinet's final sign-off, we will notify all drivers and vehicle proprietors themselves. If anybody does have CCTV installed, they'll be advised accordingly that they will, obviously. If they haven't notified us already, that they will need to meet the new specification. Hopefully, they're already in line with the new specification in any case, but we'll be notifying of them, so they'll have the same kind of timeline as everybody else who comply. Thank you. Also, I'm very much welcome seeing the table in our Appendix A about the reported incidents where the taxi driver was stated as the occupation of the suspect, where we have a comparison with other districts, but also the reported incidents where the taxi driver was stated as the occupation of the victim, and I think taxi drivers may find this is helpful to them as well, because often at our appeal hearings, if a licence has come into question, we are listening to one person's view against another, so actually CCTV will be very helpful, because as you can see in the data on page 10, taxi drivers are also subject to considerable numbers of offences, so this should protect them too. Right, okay, so the recommendation, I won't read it out, but the recommendation is to revise the policy such that the items under 4, 1, 2 and 3 are accepted. So members, I'm just wondering what the best... So we'll be looking at all of these policies and voting on them together at the end, but does anybody have any concerns with those recommendations at this stage? Chair of a major's following off from Councillor Garvey's suggestion as well, I think we should include one or two words, obviously which I can have to do now or later today with your agreement, just to suggest rather than trying to make it awkward for those who've already got to see Steve installed, we should say something on the lines of... with CCTV meeting the council's required specification. I think we'll include those three words, then I think that will be a cover all for everybody, thank you. Thank you very much, thank you very much. Okay, so let's move on then. So Mr Ackerson, would you like to take us through the next part which relates to emissions? Thank you, Chair. Yes, the second aspect relates to age limits and vehicle emissions standards. The proposals again are detailed within Appendix B following the workshop. Members agreed that removing the arbitrary age limit would support the new draft practice guidelines that were consulted upon in the summer and encourage a greener fleet as drivers currently are using a Euro 5 engine and they'd be more likely or able to replace their vehicles with a less harmful Euro 6 engine in a more timely manner. In addition, this would support officers and the policy as there have been successful challenges to officers refusing to grant a vehicle over four years of age, subsequently going to the licensing panel and for that decision to be returned. It was agreed at the workshop, Chair, that from the 1st of December 2023, a new licence will only be granted or renewed if it is Euro 6 compliant or zero or ultra low emission category. It was further agreed that by no later than the 1st of December 2028, all licence, private, high and hackney carriage vehicles must be zero or ultra low emission to coincide with the restrictions for Cambridge City Centre access. Thank you, Chair. Thank you very much, Ms Jackson. OK, so I just have one question earlier in the recommendation. So this is looking at the considerations about the Euro 5. And I just wanted to be reminded. This is on page 17 of our agenda paper under 0.4 Euro 5. It reminds us that the current policy allows for the renewal of Euro 5 vehicles potentially until August 2024 and that the nine-year age limit for renewals will take effect in December 2023. I think that means that will that start in 2023 or will that have the effect of ending in 2023? And I thought we had decided that the age of vehicles doesn't inherently matter as long as it's meeting the emissions data. I feel a question from or a clarification from Councillor Harvey. But I think that's because we wanted to phase out the Euro 5, wasn't it? You're absolutely right, yes. And that just relates to the current existing policy. So this would come back and so it would encourage drivers who have so far quite simply been in economic climate not been able to afford to purchase a four-year-old Euro 6 but might be able to be able to afford a, or more come to be able to afford a five or six-year-old Euro 6 thereby removing sooner rather than later the Euro 5 engines. Great, thank you. And also, I just wanted to point out that on page 15, I'm sorry, I meant to say this to you before, that the meeting at the City Council's licensing committee in the block of text immediately of point little three, Roman 3, the city's licensing committee was on the 12th of September 2022, not 2002. Right. Members, any questions, any considerations, any thoughts, comments? OK, so we're, yes. I just, sorry, I guess I'm trying to get my head around all of this and compare it with the Cambridge City one. I was just looking at it again and noticed that the Cambridge City one has new vehicle licenses for ultra low or zero emission or right now or until June 2020 for standard hybrid vehicles. So does that mean that ours will be more relaxed than the Cambridge City? So might that encourage more people to license their vehicle through the district council and the city council? Thank you. I know we didn't want to set up an uneven system. Ms Jackson, can you help on that please? It's certainly, as we mentioned at the workshop, it will be a different, we're not like-for-like currently. We haven't been on this for a while. So it will be a difference. We will be, obviously, we have taken into account, so we, meaning your committee at the workshop, have taken into account the proposed recommendations from the Department for Transport Guidance, the service consulted upon, and the expectation from leading kind of consultees have been discussing this with. It's very, very likely that this will be kind of mandated, in any case, the removal of the arbitrary age limits. So a city just have not taken that into account at this stage. So we've kind of further advanced in that by taking into account the anticipated changes with the guidance. So you're right, we are different. There is a suggestion, so you might say, we are more flexible, but by that we are then ensuring that our fleet is encouraged to become greener, quicker. So not having the older vehicles on the road. Thank you, Ms Jackson. And did I also understand that the city were going to review that policy? That is correct, I think it was due next year. Does that answer your question, or are you still concerned that we might get an avalanche of drivers leaving the city and joining us? I guess I wasn't sure if your answer addressed the emissions part of the question, rather than perhaps it focused more on the age limits. I think ours is 06, and ultra low emissions and zero emissions from December 23, whereas theirs seems to be just ultra low emissions, or zero emissions in standard hybrid from 2020, from sort of now, and then just the ultra low zero emissions between 2024. Sorry, Lisa, I'm sorry, Council Red Drop, I'm struggling to hear you. Oh, right, sorry. I think it's possibly because Ms Jackson still has her microphone. Sorry, could you summarise a bit what you were asking if you wouldn't mind? I'll do my best, Chair, sorry. It was just that I guess I wasn't really talking about age limits. I was talking more about the difference in the emissions that we're allowing versus Cambridge City Council and just that ours is perhaps more relaxed and if we're happy with that as the committee. Ms Jackson, do you want to comment on that? Yes, thank you, Chair. The approach would be more relaxed than that from City, definitely, because we are saying Euro 6 was the ultimate aim to remove our Euro 5 fleet as soon as possible. So we are doing that rather than saying hybrid vehicles, for example. We haven't mandated it must be hybrid, so we're just saying Euro 6, you're quite correct. But that is obviously looking at previous concerns we've had with a lot of them. Remember, we're very, very different from City. City has mainly carried the lead as well with the shorter city journeys. Our fleet, we've got about 90 exec hire who are doing long-distance journeys. The infrastructure is just not there yet for the exec hire, the high-end vehicles. That was the argument that was put before the committee last year. I think it's probably still in the mind of the committee members to try and get a fair and balanced approach, but we are very different. We do try and work with City like-like as much as possible, but we're actually, with respect, very, very different from the makeup of our fleet and our trade compared to the city centre. For example, we don't have any hackney carriage ranks. City's predominantly hackney carriages are taxis that you can hail or get in a taxi rank. We have about four hackney carriages. So that's the difference and about 900 private hire. So it's hard to compare like-for-like when we're very, very different, although we're very, very close in proximity. Thank you, Ms Jackson. Yes, that's right. We have to bear in mind that many of our drivers go very long distances, whereas a lot of the taxis and private hire, hackney carriage and private hire in the city are working broadly speaking within the city and just going out in a very small area. So that's really important. And also we are... Councillor Garvey, do you want to turn your microphone off for a minute? Thank you. We're mindful that we want to make it possible for people to switch to vehicles and to a viable for them financially, but also are going to gradually shift us into a cleaner system. Councillor Harvie, you asked to speak. Yes, thank you, Chair. Well, just trying to recall the workshop, but I suppose effectively we are sort of taking on board the taxi trades argument that, for example, I think the example was, you know, trips to Liverpool and back, which I think modern electric vehicles could do that trip, but it would require recharging on routes. So I suppose the two issues, really, I think for that kind of trade, we need to start educating the clientele a bit, I suppose, and maybe because they really have to start to expect that there will be short stops along, you know, we'll go and have a coffee while the car recharges a bit. But I mean, it does create... I mean, I think we want to avoid the fact that there's a kind of like a... we want to have a better phrase, sort of divide to conquer sort of approach from the taxi trade towards city and south comes licensing. I mean, I think it's really important that we have the maximum sort of dialogue both at officer level and politically with our city colleagues. It's not because I think there is a danger here that if we're not coordinated, and I think it's obviously... the place where we are coordinated is the 2028 deadline 100% EV or ULEV. But I do think if it turns out to be the case that our decision today has a sort of major impact on city, then I hope their officers will contact our officers and we'll be able to make adjustments as needed either in our policy or city's policy because I don't think it's really our intention to undermine what city you're doing and I think it's important that we are coordinated. So I don't know whether we should insert something to say that the committee, if the committee agrees, sort of underlines the importance of maintaining a sort of coordination in policy with city. Thank you, Councillor Harvey. I'm mindful about that too. And in fact, in the past, we've had joint workshops with South Cam's officers and city officers at the same time. So that's been very helpful, but interesting point we make about members as well. We can look at that. The other thing I'm noting is that we've embedded in these recommendations that we're prepared to review before the December 2028 date if we need to. And the other point which Councillor Reddrop raised was about hybrids. And I think we recognise that at core you have to take the worst emissions of a hybrid rather than the electric emissions of a hybrid. So that's why we're making recommendations as we have. Yes, so Councillor Hales. Thank you, Chair. Just a quick question for Ms Jackson. Given the differences between the two policies between the city and us, is there any likelihood of now and potentially in the future that drivers registered in South Cam's and driving for one of the better choice of words, the lesser eco vehicle would be penalised or restricted from entering the city? Yes, Ms Jackson, do you want to hand that out? Is that? Thank you, Neil. Thanks, Jace. So Cambridge City are actually in consultation at the moment for the Sustainable Travel Zone. So if you don't have an ultra-low emission vehicle or it's not wheelchair accessible or no emissions, you won't be able to get into the city centre without paying a fee. So, yes, that will be the same for all South Cam's drivers who don't have that vehicle. Is that answer? Could you turn your... So, Cale, do you want to come back? That presents us with a problem, then. A monumental problem. So it goes back to what was being said by your self-chair and Councillor Redder and Councillor Harvey with regards to the levelling up. Essentially, if there's going to be a charge run over the zone... Yes, so when I went to Cambridge City last week, they introduced the £5 charge. Obviously, this is just a consultation at the moment and that will be charged per day for any vehicle entering the city centre that isn't electric. So would that be a one-off charge? Yes, per day. So not every time you enter the city. Not every per day. It is if you drive in the city per day. But am I right in saying that's a consultation at the moment? It's not... All of the taxi drivers will have been... The operators will have been contacted about this, I'm sure. Yes, so it's in consultation stage at present with the aim to go live. They're looking between 2026 and 2028. When are they... When does the consultation close? End of October. Has that been opened up to all operators? In other words, operators in South Cams too? Yes, so it has been sent to, I believe, nearly every single person also living in the city centre too because it will affect them. Would it be wise for us to ask to see the results of that consultation? Yes, so they're actually sending me the consultation once it ends so I can share that with you. So if there's a huge uproar from the taxi drivers and operators, we can at least consider our policy again if we need to? Yes. Are we happy on that or can't so hails? I suppose the question through you, chair, to Ms Jackson again is this, for a decision today, is this jumping the gun until we have the results from, as you rightly say, chair, with regards to the consultation, there may be some pertinent data within that that would affect our decision. So rather than make a decision today, I need to have to overturn it, which is actually a fact in a time period. There are certain timings to making a decision so my gut is telling me that we may need to defer this particular part of this paper until we have the results from the consultation. Thank you, Councillor Hales. Thank you. Just let me pause a moment while I do a think. So the action date of this recommendation, if we took it today, would be 1 December 2023, that's when things would change. So effectively we've got a year before this would take effect. I'm concerned that we shouldn't do anything, for example, cause drivers who are currently licensed with the city to drain into South Cams. I'm not in a position to know whether that is likely to happen until we see the response in the consultation from the operators. I'm going to ask Ms Jackson if you can comment on that as whether we should hold this element of the recommendation and wait until after we've got the results of the consultation. Thank you, Chair. I just had a chat with Brooke about that and confirmed that this, when we looked at it in the workshop, we referred to the ultra low and zero emission zone for city. That is the sustainable travel zone. So it is the same. It's all one policy document. And pretty similar, just thinking of when the congested charging was happening in London, we had fleets of private hire vehicles who were going in and they did have to, by choice, either accept that the Chinese air vehicle to be zero and therefore not paying the congestion charges or relocate their business or just refuse to take journeys in the city of London. So that was their kind of choice. So I don't believe there is a need to actually defer this decision purely because if it transpires that in 20, the sustainable travel zone is brought forward, we're saying to 2028 at the minute, we'd obviously have to come back to your committee and say by 2026. But looking at how processes have gone so slowly with regard to future policies, I've been more minded, I feel, in the benefit of existing impact and benefit for our trade now that you agree this with obviously the caveat that you rightly said, chair, to bring this in for review at any time. And if that will mean bringing forward by two years the proposal that I think is ULEV, then that is fine. But I think we are, by not doing anything now, I think we are causing a damaging impact for the trade and also we're still in the same position with the Euro 5. So we're not encouraging that aspect. You may well think, or may well be a sensible proposal, I think, from what Councillor Hales was suggesting, by no later than the 1st of December, we've already got in there, by no later than the 1st of December 2028, you may well wish to have a caveat at the date determined by the sustainable travel zone because at the minute, we sound like giving you a bit of flexibility. Could we add in a caveat in that same sentence where the ending is 1st of December 2028? Could we not add in a phrase saying something like, taking account of any change in sustainable, any introduction of a sustainable travel zone in Cambridge City? So that would give us the prompt that might trigger us to wish to review it. Would that be sensible? Or we could just leave it open because there might be all sorts of other things that might make us want to review prior to that final date. We could put something in the light of what you say. This policy will be reviewed following any impact of the sustainable travel zone review. So that covers any decisions we make today because that may well say in there. I'm trying to give you an example of what it may say, but rather than trying to dig itself into a hole, well, I shan't go any further. But I think that would be a good caveat as a protection for this policy. So that would be, remind me, where are we? Which is the wording that we're changing? It would be at the end of the proposals. We do actually say this aspect will be kept under review and maybe modified by the authority at a prior date. We've already got that in there as a caveat. Yes, we've already. Sorry, we're looking at the recommendation on page 19. The proposal, is that the proposal? That is correct, yes. So it would be in this last sentence where it says this aspect will be kept under review and maybe modified by the authority at a prior date. And maybe we're adding something like taking into account any, if the city introduces, sorry. I hate producing wording on the hoop. Councillor Harvey's got a suggestion. Thank you chair. Yes, I just would have raised this anyway, but slightly concerned or perhaps wanting to have a little bit of a debate here. This aspect will be kept under review. I hope that the trade doesn't regard that as an invitation to roll back further the date by which we have uniquely or only EB and ULev vehicles. I don't know whether we need some extra words. Obviously, I suppose you could argue, we don't want to sort of box ourselves into a corner where say there's another pandemic or another kind of, you know, let's hope these awful events do come to an end, whereby it just seems to me 2028 is such a long time away and we surely must expect by that time that some of the problems with charging infrastructure and availability of second hand electric vehicles surely by that time at least there's enough of these things around to at least have our taxes as environmentally efficient and pollution free as possible such that I think that the chances of having to again accept lobbying from the tax trade in 2028 to say, well it's still too early for us, can we have diesel for another four years, whatever it is, that seems so improbable that it would be reasonable to kind of bias that sentence a bit more to make it clear that the only way we're going to review it is actually to bring that date forward and not invite them to push it back even further. I agree. So it does say in the paragraph above, by no later than 1st of December, but I take your point. Actually the more we talk about it, the more I think I'd rather leave it as it is, because then it gives us the opportunity to modify it for any reason that we think. It might be that we suddenly have a mass exodus of drivers from the city to us, that wouldn't be appropriate. It might be that suddenly government policy changes and makes us feel that we can do this sooner. We've already said it's no later than 1st of December 2028. So on balance members, I think perhaps if we leave the wording as it is, but just remind officers that the kind of triggers that we might want to take into account is if there's an introduction of a congestion zone. Are we happy with that? And I'm mindful that Councillor Battichari would like to ask a question. Is that okay so far? Right. Councillor Battichari, you wanted to ask a question. I have a more general question. I'm looking for a general classification. When you say the taxi and private hire, how big this vehicle could be? It does not say anywhere, five cities, seven cities, nine cities, 17 cities or anything. Are we supposed to mention the number of the seats when we say the private hire? Now the private hire could be anything. But the service provided, like we are providing the service for seven people, nine people, it might be a big 17-seater mini bus or even bigger than that. So that private hire and the particular wording are just looking for a bit more clarification like 17-seaters or nine-seaters we are specifically weren't mentioning here. That's what I'm asking. Miss Jackson, do you want to answer that? Yes, thank you, Chair. It defines what is a private hire vehicle, so it can carry nine people, but that includes the driver, so we can licence a vehicle up to eight passengers, Councillor. Thank you, right. Members, are we happy? The only thing I'd like in that proposal wording, Miss Jackson, is on page 19, and I know that isn't quite what the recommendation says, but is under the... The first section is about a new licence will be granted for a vehicle if it is, and then a licence will be renewed in... Sorry, let me start again. In this section, until 1 December 2023, we cover the circumstance where it's a new licence or a licence to be renewed. Under the next section, we're talking about from 1 December 2023, could we add in the word a new licence just as a licence will only be granted, just to clarify that they're the parallel comparisons. So, in principle, we are happy with that then, members, as it stands, and we'll let our officers react to triggers, and if we need to review this, then our officers will advise us if and when the congestion charge comes in, and if and when there's any change in legislation. And I think the wording in the penultimate paragraph, Councillor Harvey, does say, by no later than 1 December, members, can I ask, do you feel we ought to emphasise the fact that any review is only likely to bring it earlier rather than later? Do you want that to be strengthened at all, or are you happy with the wording as it is? No, we're happy with it. So, Councillor Lovelock? I'm just looking at the sentence above. It does imply that this date is chosen to align with the Cambridge City Centre access question. So, in a sense, if that went back, would we go back? If it comes forward, will we come forward? It's an alignment rather than... I think that's the point I'm making. It could either be forward yet. Yeah, yeah, exactly. Councillor Rajap? So, to me, that sentence, this aspect will be kept under review. Sorry, I'm finding it difficult to hear, and if anybody listens online, they might... If you could just bring your microphone a bit closer to you. Yeah, of course. Thank you. Is that better, Chair? That's better, thanks. Okay, so I just want to say that I just wanted to clarify which part of the clause is that this aspect will be kept under review relates to you, because to me, it sort of looks like five, not just... Oh, it's confusingly five underneath it as well, but not just the one about coinciding with the Cambridge City access and the low and zero emissions. So, it's just whether it relates to the whole of the clause about all of the different emissions criteria for new and renewed licences or just that last point within the clause. Thank you. Thank you. I read that under item five, Roman five, that it's the element of all vehicles must be zero or low emission. And that's to coincide. I'm just wondering... Ah, I see what it is. This aspect will be kept under review is also part of the recommendations, but it's not numbered. But it will be embedded in the... If we approve it, that will be embedded in the decision. So, are you making the point that we could just say these recommendations will be kept under review or what is it... What wording would make it clearer for you? Yes, do you think it's just that this aspect ought to be under the section five? If that's what it relates to... I think it's just important to say don't break a new paragraph. Sorry, don't break a... Don't make a new paragraph. Yes, exactly. So, do we think that after the words this is to coincide with the restrictions for Cambridge City Centre access for ultra low and zero emission licensed vehicles only, full stop, this aspect will be kept under review should be within that same section five or is it all of it? It is just for that part from December 2020 and what will be clear, you're quite right. It is quite... When I've put it in this kind of format but when you see it in actual policy it'll be quite clear that it relates only to, as a member's wish, the 2028 changes. So it will be a lot clearer, I promise you, when you see it in the policy itself. So, Mrs Jackson, can I just suggest that that element which is it will be kept under review that we embed that as part of paragraph five? Right, lovely. So, Councillor Harvey. Thank you, Chair. I'm just saying this now because I didn't know whether we were about to finish this item. It's slightly challenging because I do recall at a previous meeting we agreed to review the list of acceptable marks for the executive category and we were going to add, for example, Tesla to the list and I've just checked. I don't think that's yet been done. Is that appropriate to discuss now or should we just wrap up this and then come back to that? Mrs Jackson, do you want to comment on that? Absolutely, thank you, Councillor Harvey. Yes, I do remember myself putting the word Tesla in the policy so I'm just checking we have the final, final version which should have been the February 2022 policy. If it's not, then obviously that was a decision and I apologise for that because I remember putting that on myself, but you did agree, Tesla. I think this Tesla was the only vehicle you did include at the time in the exec fleet but obviously right now if you have other vehicles I think we did say including, not exhaustive list. Yes, we did. So can we make sure that it was agreed, wasn't it? So if we can make sure that's in, that would be good. Sorry, is Brook looking now? Yes, but it is not. If we can make sure it's in, please. Councillor Harvey, did you want to comment? Yes, I'll just continue a little. So I'm just looking at the one that I found from the Southcams web page. You mean the policy? The policy document. So, I mean maybe this is for a future meeting but if you read what it says, which may not be the latest, or what's proposed to be the latest, but it says vehicles must be of a standard of comfort and equipment to a level equal to or above luxury brands of vehicles such as S and E class Mercedes-Benz, the seven series BMW, Lexus GS LS, Audi A8 series, Jaguar Rolls Royce, Bentley Saloons and then brackets, the highest specification executive type cars from other manufacturers may also be considered. I'm just sort of rather concerned that that list of cars is a sort of environment crime in a sentence really, isn't it? Because those are kind of the worst kind of gas guzzling cars and whether we should start sending a message. I mean I have the impression having talked to a few executive drivers, I mean they really do love their huge black Mercedes saloons and why shouldn't they? They're beautiful machines but they are becoming slightly anachronistic I feel and whether we should start sort of trying to nudge them in the direction of something that's been more environmentally efficient. How would it be, Councillor Harvey, if we put Tesla at the first of the beginning of that list? Yes, that's what I was about to suggest. Would that satisfy you? Of course, some of those marks now are... I mean I think you can buy something that says Mercedes e-class, but it's actually electric or partially electric. Whether we should be adding some words, something like fully electric or partially electric would be preferred. I think we'll add Tesla but can we bring that back to another committee? Because I think there's a lot of... It's unwise to make recommendations on the roof, we need to see it written in front of us. So yes, absolutely I take your point. For the time being, let's put Tesla in as the first element of that list. But Ms Jackson, did you want to come back? Thank you Chair, just confirmed Tesla was put in the policy. Just below, just above rather Jaguar but we can remove that to the top of the list. To obviously to encourage or hopefully encourage a greener fleet in that respect. And also I'm slightly concerned as to whether Bentley produce an electric version these days, I'm not sure, but anyway. I think you're right, we ought to be encouraging move to more environmentally friendly executive cars as well. Councillor Hales. Thank you. Just a question. Councillor Harvey, could you turn your microphone? Thank you Councillor Harvey. A new feedback. It was just a question through you Chair to the officers. I'm sure this is already taking place anyway. But since there are lots of dates with final kind of crossing the line procedures and policies that have to be implemented and cost to drivers. Are we as an authority and I hope a city as well? What have you reminding every single application for a licence that these dates are coming up like a steam train? So that all drivers and people making applications are fully aware of all of the changes that are put. Good point. Councillor Miss Jackson. Thank you Chair, thank you Councillor Hales. So we will write to every single licence driver, big proprietor as well to advise them of the changes. We did that last time. We emailed everybody to advise them of the forthcoming changes. Likewise we did that last year for the Hackney Carriages because we had to remind them that they had to be wheelchair accessible, white in colour, et cetera, from December 2023. That time passes by very, very quickly, doesn't it? So obviously it was a reminder that any of the vehicles had to be wheelchair accessible. Again it will be a reminder. We can amend our forms quite easily to make permanent points and of course liaise with the operators and drivers to just remind them as well. Our website isn't a machine that's a friendy right now, but our website will be stressing those key dates as well. So two things there, thank you. One is when you email them, can you put something really indicative on the subject line so they know because I'm sure drivers are so busy they probably might miss a single email. So can you put something critical like read this or something on it? And secondly, we need to be encouraging more drivers to go towards wheelchair accessible vehicles because we know we've got so few. So perhaps that's something to bring back also to a subsequent committee if there's anything we can do to increase the number of wheelchair accessible vehicles. OK, and Councillor Hales, did you want to come back? Yeah, if I may, it's just in reply to Ms Jackson's website. It's an obvious thing and I think it should be at the forefront if I may be so bold before you start looking at any other information, what's changing comes first. Our social media should be just a constant rolling trickle of information. All of our forms from now on should have that when you make an application for your licence. Everything above it is going to decide whether or not you want to become a taxi driver or not because of the cost that's going to be reflected. I think it ought to be all that, everything. As far as emails are concerned, you could put a link in the email so this is a pertinent link to review the website. The information will be there. We have to make it absolutely crystal clear that no one can come back to this authority and say you didn't tell me and may I also be as bold as we have, obviously, drivers from around the world in native tongues, if you like, with that kind of information so they can understand fully the implications, even though there's a requirement to speak English, but it's easier if you make sure someone understands in their own language. Thank you for that. Councillor Harvie. Thank you again, Chair. Sorry, Councillor Harvie. Can I just check with, I meant to ask, Ms Jackson, would that be a reasonable thing to do? Very reasonable and very sensible, if I may say. What we do have is, when an applicant applies for their driver licence, all the forms are online, but obviously the human aspect is we do have the one-to-one kind of check the driver to check their identity, check their communication standards, et cetera, and we do raise permanent points there within the policy, and I think you're very, very wise, Councillor Hales, to suggest that we do say, by the way, a vehicle from this date will have to be a vex standard. So I think it's a very good point. And something we can quite nicely say, we can do it cheaply, it doesn't cost me anything at all, and quickly. So we can, once the final policy has been amended, we can then have that as our kind of checklist or kind of script for officers when they have the one-to-one meetings with the driver. But it could also go on the news section of the website, so it scrolls through. Okay, thank you. Sorry, Councillor Harvey, sorry to invite you and then stop you to go ahead. Thank you, Chair. It has to be two points. Firstly, I hope that the trade will not take from the new wording, and I see that item five it says by no later than 1st December 2028 all, and that's underlined and embold. So I hope it's understood that that would include the executive class because I think previously executive drivers have regarded themselves as deserving of special consideration, which I think they are, but I think the intention is not to do other than insist on all vehicles, whether executive class or standard. Is that the committee's intention? So point one. Second point was I think I might have raised this last time when we last discussed the executive class, but I think it would be interesting to start talking to some of the clients in terms of what their expectation would be. For example, the kind of companies like AstraZeneca are presumably providing a lot of business. Whether they would prefer for example a Rolls Royce or a Tesla to turn up because I think we might find that actually they're quite attuned to the environmental aspect of personal travel perhaps more than we think. I don't think we ought to get involved with commercial choices in quite that way, but I do think we ought to be encouraging places who might be the users of executive hire to ensure that they have electric charging points and that might be an encouragement and in places where a taxi could charge up if they were then going back or elsewhere or taking their executive clients somewhere further afield. So maybe we could look at that. So Ms Jackson you could bear that in mind. What's your view about the encouraging I think that's too complicated myself and I think let's hope that they're have you any thoughts about that Ms Jackson? The principle of asking larger commercial companies whether they'd prefer a Tesla to turn up than a Bentley. I think again Chair you've mentioned the personal choice, the business choice but I feel that our policy officer who is obviously leading on the EV infrastructure could certainly have those that dialogue with the bigger organisations and encouraging them. I think that's an exceptional idea to just say install charging points outside your businesses which by default then may subconsciously encourage the clients to say we've got a big Bentley turning up here why when we've got electric charging point so it may naturally instill something there but I can raise that with our policy officer. Actually the other place that drivers have mentioned when we've had workshops is the airports so actually it would be really useful if we could contact the airports and encourage them to have charging points in non charged non car park charge areas so that or it's up to them to sort out but so that private hire vehicles could could use them. I wonder if we could have a dialogue with airports as well. Okay so I think we're getting there members oh sorry Councillor Buttercharya There is always a risk of these drivers may miss the important new policies and any changes we make here is it possible to make a visible or the laminated hard hard copy can be available for the drivers to keep in the car? Sorry so you're saying changes are difficult to spot in the policy so I'm assuming that when we email them they will be told what the changes are in summary so they will have that communicated to them directly by the local authority under this email or headed changes do you need to read this if they want to print it out that's up to them Yeah I appreciate it just a as you said in the email we will be sending them the email but there is always a risk that reading and keeping them in mind on board everything is there any policy that council can help them providing some hard copy material to keep in the car and they always have that in their mind these are the new policies are changing or something like convenient Yeah so I understand what you're saying but I think it's up to the drivers to manage that Ms Jackson do you want to make a comment on that? Thank you Chair just trying to think of ways to communicate that I would say our application process when somebody applies they get an automatic reply to confirm receipt of their application so a prompt I think as Councillor Hales has suggested continually now for the next 4, 5, 6 years as we go along is a good idea I think otherwise I'm against personally giving that highlight and saying this is important in our policy because then I'll say are they committing a fence, they murdered somebody I didn't know about that, I was just more focused about our age limits on the vehicle so I think overarching the whole policy is important we expect drivers to obviously have an applicant to have read the policy before they apply that is part of the process and also just to let you know I think I did mention this at the workshop Brooks is currently working on a revised policy not watering down anything we've got but perhaps to reduce the word count in our policy which will probably make it a lot more user friendly because at the minute we've got 130, 150 pages it's quite a hefty document along with the handbook so basically all the pertain aspects and the critical parts that members work very hard on to implement our policy we want to see that cut back and I think that will be our next kind of I'm planning unless anything changes again will be our next workshop probably in the new year and then we can take on board kind of proposals for supporting wheelchair accessible vehicles etc and then we go out for consultation on that but to say I think with our because we're very IT led now we don't really have any paper flying around the office it's very much email and to say the kind of acknowledgement letter we can send out reminders to everybody on that respect when they've renewed their vehicle licence by the way just to remember that by this date we'll need to have a a zero emission vehicle for example Absolutely and I think you've said that your email will summarise the key points of these changes and I think that's the most important thing so I'm happy that we've proceed on that basis I notice that we've now got councillor Peter Macdonald online Welcome councillor Macdonald I appreciate you perhaps haven't had much time did you want to make any observations about what we've been discussing? Not the moment chair it's fine and I'm sorry for joining late we had an important call on Wittlesford station with the GCP Okay that's fine thank you very much nice to see you Okay then members so I think we're in a position to vote on these recommendations so just to focus down on it the recommendations exist on page 3 so that's with regard to CCTV and we were going to add some wording at item 1 that clarified that it was mandatory installation of CCTV that meets the other local authority specification but otherwise the recommendations are the same as written out on page 3 and the second element is item 5 on page 4 which regards to the vehicle age limits and emissions standards and the only exception to those elements Roman 1 to 5 would be that the final sentence will be part of paragraph 5 so members are we happy to go to a vote on that? Okay so I propose that can I ask you to second it? Thank you so we have a seconder Councillor Erika Erika sorry I'm sorry Thank you so we have a seconder so members would you like to vote on that if you approve would you like to just put your hands up by show of hands so that's everyone in the room thank you very much indeed so that's carried then thank you very much indeed members and thank you officers for your guidance through that it's a complicated and multi-layered I've often thought of it a bit like Rubik's Cube trying to solve a number of different elements of a problem all at the same time and we are minded that we might we will be likely to have another workshop in the new year to think about new elements as they come in thank you very much indeed and thank you members for keeping us focused on making sure our policy encourages a move to cleaner vehicles basically as we go forward so thank you very much members for that too okay with that I'll close