The Committee is asked to consider the Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy (Report to-follow).

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities, Chairman of General Licensing Committee, the Resilience and Licensing Officer and the Licensing Officer have been invited to attend for this item.

Report published 18 October 2017.

The Chairman welcomed the Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities, the Chairman of the General Licensing Committee (GLC), the Resilience and Licensing Manager and the Licensing Officer to the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities introduced the report which provided Members with information and guidance on a new draft ‘Statement of Hackney Carriage and Private Hire Policy’ for comments from Members prior to public consultation.  He welcomed the opportunity for the Policy Development and Review Committee (PDRC) to consider the document and to provide sound advice for those constructing the policy.  He hoped the policy would provide flexible, smooth and efficient online business working which worked for the Council and the taxi industry.  The overriding objective of the policy was the need to ensure the safety of customers.  He referred to the child exploitation issues that had occurred in places such as Rotherham which he stated must not be allowed to happen in Swale.

The Committee then considered the main points for the proposed changes to the draft Taxi Policy as set out in the Committee report, and made comments on those, as highlighted below:

Vehicles – page 8 of the draft policy

6 monthly Test

The Resilience and Licensing Officer reported that mileage and age of the vehicle would be included as part of the 6 monthly test.

In response to a query from a Member, the Licensing Officer advised that the team would be looking at proposing a mileage limit to be agreed but suggested of 150,000 upwards for Hackney Carriage Vehicles.

The Chairman of the GLC explained that currently vehicles were only required to undergo a 6 monthly test if they were five years old, this was being amended so vehicles were subject to a 6 monthly test, regardless of the age of the vehicle.

Members raised points which included: need to consult with operators to ensure the mileage levels were correct; to what extent would the Council be able to insist on requirements, such as ensuring vehicles carried a spare tyre?; and it was more important to ensure the vehicle was serviced regularly than how high the mileage was.  

In response to queries from Members, the Licensing Officer explained that vehicles over five years old were subject to two tests per year, an MOT test and a compliance test.  The compliance test was more extensive than an MOT and issues that would be considered as advisory on an MOT would be a fail under a compliance test.    Moving forward, the Certificates of Compliance would be sent from the garage electronically to officers at Swale Borough Council (SBC).

The Chairman of the GLC advised that only a limited number of garages carried out Compliance Tests which gave the Council more control.

In response to a query from a Member, the Resilience and Licensing Manager stated that they would be looking to carry-out spot checks on compliance testing in the future.

Electric / Hybrid Type

The Licensing Officer explained that initially they would only be looking at licensing electric vehicles for Private Hire to start with. This was because there was a risk with Hackney Carriage drivers, who could ply for trade, not ensuring their vehicles were charged-up properly which could leave passengers stranded.  They also needed to consider the impact these type of vehicles would have on passengers being able to use the boot of the car as often equipment to operate them was stored there.  

In response to a query from a Member, the Licensing Officer advised that hybrid vehicles would also be allowed as such vehicles did not require to be charged before use.

Members raised points which included: there were problems in parts of the Borough with air quality and we must ensure we do all we can to promote use of electric vehicles; should provide charge-up points at taxi ranks; need to be clear what standard of diesel engine was allowed; need to add the date that euro standard 6 diesel came into force and ensure taxi companies were aware of the measures they needed to take in this respect; and did not believe electric vehicles should be for Private Hire Vehicles only, as it was the responsibility of the owner of the vehicle to ensure it was charged properly. 

In response to a queries from Members, the Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities agreed that if the Council wanted to push its ‘green credentials’ it could urgently push for electronic vehicles and lower than Euro standard 6 diesel vehicles.  The Council would not be able to offer financial incentives to have electric/hybrid vehicles as legislation would not allow this and the Council was only responsible for licensing vehicles. 

3.3 Drivers – page 17 of the draft policy

Probationary Badges

The Licensing Officer introduced the item.

Members raised points which included: did not think the Street Knowledge Tests were very strenuous; and sensible to have two pass marks.

In response to questions from Members, the Licensing Officer outlined each stage of the tests which included four sections: Section 1 (A to B journey with the selected town to work); Section 2 (journeys across the borough); Section 3 (landmarks); and Section 4 (multiple choice).  The applicant must achieve 80% mark to pass.  The Resilience and Licensing Manager explained that the test was being reviewed and in the new proposed online test that some sections of the test would require a 100% pass rate, e.g. safeguarding.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities stated that it was not appropriate for vehicles to have satellite navigation devices.  He stated that it was a difficult test and there were not many that passed.  However, passengers expected drivers to know where they were going and this was also important for safety reasons.

Driving Experience

Members raised points which included: did not consider the removal of this condition a good thing, and would make it harder for officers to keep a track of new drivers; had some sympathy for keeping the twelve month rule but it did trap you and undermine small businesses so can see pros and cons on both sides; would encourage ‘cherry picking’ jobs and more understanding of what happened if the conditions were removed was required; and considered it would be good for businesses.

The Licensing Officer stated that the condition was only imposed in Swale, and that officers were always watching drivers and operators.  There was no market-led demand for younger drivers.

Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) Criminal Records Checks

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities reported that legal advised that the Council should be handing out licenses before, receiving the DBS certificates or risk being sued by applicants.  He advised that he would rather the Council ensured the safety of children and vulnerable adults whilst using taxis even if that meant being sued for not issuing DBS certificates, before they had been authorised.

In response to queries from Members, the Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities reported that when we have intelligence to say there was a risk, it would be considered on its merits and we will not allow that person to drive a licensed vehicle until we were certain it was safe to do so.  The decision for removing a driver’s license due to a failed DBS check would be for the Head of Service to make.

Members raised the following points: DBS checks were the best tool officers had; endorsed inclusion of including the proposed paragraph so we did not decrease the standard, and we must have no cracks in the system.

In response to queries from Members, the Licensing Officer reported that drivers must inform the Council immediately of any convictions post receipt of their badge.  Failure to do so would result in appropriate enforcement action taken against the driver and could eventually lead to drivers appearing in front of the Licensing Panel. 

Code of Conduct – page 23 of the draft policy

A Member considered the dress code to be very limiting and strict.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities stated that it was important to set the standard and that drivers adhered to the pragmatic and flexible dress code.

In response to a query from a Member, the Chairman of GLC stated that approximately 80% of reviews of drivers licenses by the Licensing Panel for violation of the dress code.  With regard to enforcement there had been an increase in the number of drivers’ licenses being reviewed since 2012, when only two had been reviewed.  Under the new regime he advised that six cases had been heard during 2016 and six so far this year, two of which had resulted in formal warnings and two suspensions.

A Member considered that the best taxi operators would enforce the dress code themselves.

A Member raised concern that drivers would be penalised for using e-cigarettes in vehicles and felt that we should not be seen to try and discourage people from wanting to give-up smoking.  He understood they should not use them if they had customers in the vehicle but felt it was unreasonable if they were just waiting for passengers.

Disciplinary and Enforcement measures – page 28 of the draft policy

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities reported that officers had tried to look at a pragmatic way of dealing with this issue, which allowed them to work with the taxi industry.

Members raised points which included: the new penalty points system was reasonable; endorsed this and important to ensure consistency; had to set the standard; and needed to ensure enforcement at all times of the day.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities explained that the proposal was to scrap the current points list and allow the authorised officer to issue between 2 and 12 points at his discretion.

The Chairman of GLC welcomed this approach as officers knew who the repeat offenders were.  He considered this system would work well for officers.

Future Amendments to the Policy

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities stated that this should read ‘Future Amendments to the Appendices’, not Policy.

A Member stated that the Council needed to ensure a level playing field and fairness in the market place.

Street Knowledge Test – Page 63 of the draft report (Appendix G)

In response to a question from a Member, the Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities stated that a stringent approach to this was required to professionalise and to ensure good and proper time to book the test.  This would show the start of a good professional relationship with the applicant.  The fee was £25 and if they did not attend they would have to reapply and pay a further £25.

The Chairman thanked the Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities, the Chairman of GLC, the Resilience and Licensing Manager and the Licensing Officer for attending the meeting.

The Cabinet Member for Safer Families and Communities thanked the officers, and the Committee for their suggestions which he considered would help to make the policy better and stronger before going out to public consultation.