Issue - meetings

The Service Manager for Licensing and Enforcement presented the report to the Committee and briefly explained the main points.

Councillor Wilson asked whether there had been any instances of the Council revoking drivers’ licences due to sexual offences committed during their duty and, if so, could Members be confident checks were sufficiently stringent. He also asked whether the whistleblowing policy for staff could be extended so that drivers or operators could report concerns.

The Manager said licences had been revoked for sexual offences in the past. However, he was confident that checks could not be any more stringent at initial licensing or renewal. The lessons learnt were that the Council should maintain a close relationship with the Police to build intelligence, and to take a cautious approach. The Council had revoked licences and had the option to later reinstate them should allegations or intelligence prove to be unfounded. In relation to whistleblowing, the Council had a good relationship with most operators and they were a good source of intelligence. A review of operating conditions would take place and this would formalise the reporting process.

The Chairman said that the Council operated to a different evidential standard than the Police. There had been occasions in the past where the criminal standard had not been met, but the Council had revoked a licence.

Councillor Wilson asked whether directly contacting the Police circumvented the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) process, which the Department for Transport (DfT) discouraged. He also asked whether the Council would need justification for the policy of refusing or revoking a licence on the basis of drug possession (or a similar offense) until ten years after the offence, rather than the five years the DfT recommended. He said these offences were often committed by addicts and he felt that the Council’s policy was harsh.

The Chairman asked whether the DfT’s recommendations were mandatory or advisory. The Manager said the Council could justify its contact with the Police as they would only disclose relevant information.

Members were advised that, in the past, this approach had highlighted issues relevant to licensing that were not visible on an enhanced DBS check. The Council must have regard to the DfT’s recommendations in the formulation of its policy, and have valid justification for departing from them. The Council’s more stringent standards were subject to public consultation and deemed appropriate by Members at the time. However, this could be reconsidered at the end of the consultation period if Members so wished.

Councillor Wilson said it seemed contradictory that some standards, such as those relating to driving offences, were the subject of proposed amendments due to the recommendations of the DfT, yet the Council had departed from its guidance in other areas.

Councillor Bolton asked how the Council could evaluate whether someone was alcohol or drug dependent, and if they had been free from alcohol or drugs for five years.

The Manager said that applicants were required to declare all relevant facts. The Council may also rely  ...  view the full minutes text for item 272