The Panel shall receive any apologies for absence.

No apologies for absence were received.

The Panel are asked to declare any interests that they may have.

No declarations of interest were made.

The Panel are to approve the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 16 October 2023 as a true and accurate record.

AGREED: That the minutes of the meeting held on Monday 16 October 2023 were a true and accurate record.

The Panel are asked to note the minutes of the Sub Committees that were held on 27 November 2023, 6 December 2023, 20 December 2023 & 19 January 2024.

The Licensing Panel noted the minutes of the Licensing and Public Space Protection Order Sub-Committees.

The Licensing Panel are asked to note the report and:

i)               Note the information provided on the availability and costs of electric and hybrid hackney carriage vehicles and,

ii)              Agree that the livery requirements for current RBWM licenced hackney carriages remain in place, and that an amended livery be agreed for hybrid and electric hackney carriages

Greg Nelson, Trading Standards & Licensing Manager, introduced the first report to the Licensing Panel. He said that the report primarily concerned the livery that RBWM hackney carriages were required to be painted with. He noted that at the last meeting the Panel had also asked for research to be carried out on the availability and cost of electric and hybrid hackney carriages and other vehicles, and whether the models available complied with requirements for wheelchair accessibility. This information was set out at Appendix B of the report.

Greg Nelson then said that as agreed at the last Panel meeting, a public consultation had been carried out on the livery that RBWM licenced hackney carriages were required to be painted with, whether this livery should be kept as it was or changed in some way. In addition to this, whether changes could be tied in with the introduction of hybrid and electric hackney carriages, when that change was eventually made in the coming years. The public consultation had now been completed, which saw 320 responses, with the full results being available in Appendix C of the report. The results showed that there was a high level (89.1%) of recognition of the livery, and that a clear majority of respondents, 64.8%, thought that the livery should remain as it was. When taking into account the respondents who were not an RBWM licenced hackney carriage or private hire driver, the percentage of respondents who thought that the livery should remain as it was, increased to 87%. The benefits that respondents gave for keeping the livery were very positive and highlighted the ease of recognition of the vehicle as a licenced vehicle, the extra safety and confidence that this brought, and the positive brand marketing that it provided for the borough. He did note that there were of course some neutral views and some that were also negative.

Greg Nelson then said that a petition signed by 80 hackney carriage drivers had also been received asking that the current RBWM hackney carriage livery be removed. This petition, which was Appendix D of the report, set out the drivers’ reasons for this and suggested an alternative livery in the form of magnetic signage. He said that officers were in favour of maintaining the livery as it was for operational reasons and were very much against the use of magnetic signage for the reasons set out in Table 2 of the report. Any changes to the livery would lead to a cost in removing the current livery and a cost in changing the colour of the hackney carriage, which would have to be burdened by the driver, along with the application of any new livery, or the purchasing of magnetic signage.

The Chair then invited both Mr Sabir and Mr Yasin to address the Licensing Panel as registered speakers, each separately for 3 minutes.

Councillor Werner then addressed the Panel as the Cabinet Member for Public Protection by saying that all taxis needed to be recognisable,  ...  view the full minutes text for item 126.

The Licensing Panel are asked to note the report and:

i)               Agree to amend RBWM policies such that all RBWM licenced hackney carriage and private hire drivers enable the Licensing team to check their DBS for new information every six months with effect from 01 April 2024

ii)              That this is achieved as set out in Table 1, below,

iii)             That the charges for this are paid for by the individual drivers, and

iv)             That penalty points be introduced for failure to comply with these requirements.

Greg Nelson began by reminding the Panel what had been agreed at the last meeting. A consultation had since been completed and the full results of this were set out within the report. The results showed that a large majority of respondents, 81.9%, said they knew of no compelling reasons as to why RBWM should not implement the six-monthly checks. There were also no RBWM operational or policy reasons as to why RBWM should not implement these six-monthly checks. Greg Nelson then stated the two ways in which these checks could be carried out, as stated within the report. He said that making use of the “DBS Update Service Status Checks” facility provided by the third-party company was the preferred option as it would by far be the most efficient and effective way of implementing the six-monthly DBS checks. He said that it was also recommended that this be paid for by the individual drivers, with the costs then being read out.

Greg Nelson said that the cost of the “DBS Update Service Status Checks” facility was £6 + VAT per driver per year. He said that this would mean that the DBS costs to an individual driver would be as follows:

•                an initial £59 to sign up to the online DBS service via the third-party company.

•                £13 per year (including the first year) for the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Update Service, and

•                £6 + VAT (£7.20) per year for the “DBS Update Service Status Checks” facility provided by the third-party company.

Greg Nelson then said that it was important to note that the £6 + VAT (£7.20) per driver per year would be waived by the third-party company for the first year. It would then be recharged to RBWM. The intention was to recover this by increasing the hackney carriage and private hire drivers’ licence charges from 1 April 2025 to cover the fee. Therefore, in the first year, drivers would pay £72 (£59 + £13), and then in all subsequent years they would then pay £20.20 (£13 + £7.20), subject to any future inflationary price increases. He said that this would be a considerable saving compared with having to provide a DBS (£59) every six months.

Greg Nelson said that all drivers would benefit from the reduction in paperwork and the efficiencies that came with the automated system, particularly when renewing their licence. In effect, once they had signed up to the online services, there was no more that they would have to do in respect of their DBS during the lifetime of their hackney carriage or private hire driver licence other than renew and pay for the DBS Update Service annually. He added that it would of course take some time for drivers to understand and get used to the new system and some leeway would certainly be given for initial and innocent non-compliance. However there needed to be consequences for drivers who did not comply after advice and assistance was given, so  ...  view the full minutes text for item 127.

The Licensing Panel are asked to note the report and:

i)               Agree that a consultation should be carried out to review the current RBWM Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles and,

ii)              Agree that the results of that consultation be brought to a future Licensing Panel for endorsement before going to Full Council for adoption as RBWM policy.

Greg Nelson introduced the last of the reports to the Panel, which concerned a statutory three yearly review of the borough’s policy under the Gambling Act 2005. This was a legal requirement of all licensing authorities so was something that had to be done, but as a courtesy to the Panel, he wanted to inform them of this happening and to explain the background and methods. If necessary, any updated policy would be brought to the next Licensing Panel meeting for endorsement before it went to Full Council later in the year for approval.

Councillor Story asked for an example of what could potentially be changed. Greg Nelson replied by saying that in the past, work had gone into looking at the protection of young persons from gambling for example. However, there had been less consideration given to vulnerable adults, which colleagues in adult services assisted with adding into the policy. This was only 3 years ago, hence why not many changes were envisaged due to him believing that the borough had a robust policy in place.

Councillor Knowles wished to propose the recommendation that was listed within the report. Councillor K Singh seconded this.

A named vote was taken.

AGREED: That Licensing Panel noted the report and:

i)               Agreed that a consultation should be carried out to review the current RBWM Gambling Act 2005 Statement of Principles and,

ii)             Agreed that the results of that consultation be brought to a future Licensing Panel for endorsement before going to Full Council for adoption as RBWM policy.