To receive a verbal update from Trading Standards & Licensing Lead, Greg Nelson.

Greg Nelson, Trading Standards & Licensing Lead, informed the Panel about the CSE training for taxi and private hire drivers and operators. The training was mandatory and was being introduced by local authorities neighbouring RBWM and around the country.

The training would be a wider safeguarding training on the meaning of CSE, how to spot potential victims, how to report it, and how to deal with other types of exploitation of vulnerable people. Those who had completed the training would be able to keep safe those who were less able to look after themselves.

The safeguarding training was relevant to areas such as RBWM even though there had been no evidence or suggestion whatsoever that RBWM licenced drivers or operators had been or were involved in any types of terrible abuse that went on in Rotherham and other areas.

The was because the training would raise awareness within the hackney and private hire trades of the vital lessons learnt from the Rotherham and Oxford inquiries, train drivers and operators how to identify and report issues of concern that they come across in the course of their work, which will be a huge help to those responsible for safeguarding young and vulnerable people and ensure that the drivers, as individuals, avoid behaviour that might, even inadvertently, lead to inappropriate relationships with children or other vulnerable people.

It is believed that RBWM should now introduce a programme of mandatory safeguarding training for our hackney and private hire drivers and operators. This would provide consistency of approach amongst local authorities, reduce the likelihood that RBWM was seen as an easier local authority at which to get a licence,  ensure that our drivers had high operational standards, and, most importantly,  provide the highest possible levels of protection for children and other vulnerable people.

The introduction of mandatory safeguarding training for existing RBWM licenced drivers and new applicants would require a change to the RBWM Hackney Carriage & Private Hire Driver & Vehicle Policies and Conditions and so would need to be approved and agreed by the Licensing Panel. It would also need to go out to consultation to hackney and private hire drivers and operators.

We see safeguarding training for our taxi and PHV drivers and operators as a really positive initiative.

Greg Nelson asked five question to the Panel:

Q1 – Does the Licensing Panel support the introduction of compulsory safeguarding training for existing RBWM licenced taxi and PHV drivers and operators, and for new licence applicants?

Work had been carried out with colleagues from otherBerkshire local authorities to try and identify the most effective way of providing safeguarding training. A joint approach was envisaged but this had not proved possible. One stumbling block in RBWM was the sheer number of licenced drivers and operators that we would have to provide the training for (approximately 1700 people). Training could be provided in a number of different ways, for example

small classes for up to 20 people, presentations for 50 to 75 people or an on-line training module for individuals.

Ø  The Panel was Unanimously in supportthe introduction of compulsory safeguarding training for existing RBWM licenced taxi and PHV drivers and operators, and for new licence applicants.

Q2 – Does the Licensing Panel agree that the options for training, along with the associated benefits and drawbacks of each option, should be brought to a future Licensing Panel so a decision can be made on which one to adopt?

Another issue to consider is whether there should be a test at the end of the training.

Oxfordshire’s licensing authorities include a test element in their safeguarding training.

Reading Borough Council’s safeguarding training involves presentations to around 50 drivers per session without a test at the end. Similarly Slough Borough Council’s training does not include a test.

Bracknell Forest Borough Council is including a test in their safeguarding training. They take the view that a test helps to focus the mind of attendees and is the only way to ensure that each individual has understood, and be in a position to implement the training and advice provided.

Whilst including a test will make the implementation of safeguarding training even more of a challenge in RBWM, because of the number of drivers and operators involved, RBWM officers recommend that a test is included in the training provided.

Indeed, we would argue that it is because RBWM has such a large number of licenced drivers and operators that a test is essential because this would ensure that the highest standards of public safety are being applied to the highest number of drivers. We also do not want to be seen as a soft touch authority at which to get a licence.

Ø  The Panel Unanimously Agreedthat the options for training, along with the associated benefits and drawbacks of each option, should be brought to a future Licensing Panel so a decision can be made on which one to adopt.

ACTION: A report to be brought to the next Panel in April 2018.

Q3 – Does the Licensing Panel support the inclusion of a test element in compulsory safeguarding training?

However the training is presented, there will be a cost to cover the trainer’s fees, room hire, paperwork and training materials, administration and so on. There was no money to cover this in existing budgets.  

It was not known at this time what these costs would be but Bracknell Forest were looking to charge a cost-recovery-only fee of £20 per person. RBWM officers would recommend that we would take a similar approach.

Ø  The Panel Unanimously Supported the inclusion of a test element in compulsory safeguarding training.

Q4 – Does the Licensing Panel agree that a charge should be made for compulsory safeguarding training, on a cost-recovery-only basis?

There were other vehicles involved in transporting children and young persons, for example home-to-school and other similar transport activities.

Ø  The Panel Unanimously Agreed to debate this at the next meeting when the report was being discussed.

Q5 – Should all transport providers who carry children and young persons be included in compulsory safeguarding training?

As and when a training system is introduced we will look to see whether other safeguarding issues can be included, such as disability awareness, the carrying of use of wheelchair users and the carrying of assistance dogs.

Ø  The Panel Unanimously Agreed that we should look at the licensing industry and include an advisory for other departments and providers of services.