Transcript

Can you sit down as quickly as you can, please, because you want to start the meeting. Good evening, everybody. Thank you for attending this Regulating General Purposes Committee. I'll do the webcast first. This meeting will be webcast and a record retained on the Council's website for up to two years. By participating in this meeting, you are consenting for your name, the content of what you say, and your image to be broadcast and stored in the Council's website. If any member, officer, or member of the public addressing the committee has concerns with this, please contact the committee services officer immediately. For those at home viewing the webcast, I would like to inform you that if you look above the video, you'll see a resources tab. Select this and the link to the agenda will appear in the right-hand side. This will allow you to open the agenda in PDF form and follow the discussion and debate. And item two on this, are there any apologies for absence, and I have Councillor Paula Basnet, who's being replaced by Councillor Mike Sullivan, and we have James Stewart Lang, who won't be able to tonight, and he's being replaced by Jill Wood, Beauty and the Beast. Right, any declarations of interest? Steve? Yeah, I've got a declaration of interest on item eight, Tammy Rovers. I actually do some security work for them, so I will basically have to declare an interest on that. Thanks, Steve. I was going to ask you about that. Anything else? Any more decorations of interest now? Okay. We have the minutes, one to four. Do I have to sign anything on that now? We can sort that out later. Okay. Is everyone happy with the minutes from the last meeting, for those of you who were here? Sign them later. I will sign them later, if everyone's happy with that, okay. Any public member's questions? No, there's no member's questions have been received. Any member's questions, comments, no, from the licensing panel? No? Regards that. Okay. We'll move on to item seven now. The honorary freedom of the Buddha, David Armstrong, which he had at full council, invite Chris Culleton to present the report, please. Oh, sorry. Before we move on, the minutes of the licensing panel, pages five and 46. Is everybody happy that the accuracy of the minutes of the meeting of the licensing panel held on the 10th of November, '23, 13th of December, '23, 18th of January, '24, 9th of February, '24, 15th of February, '24, 8th of March, '24, and the 5th of April, '24. Can they be approved? Everyone happy with that? Yes? Yes. Agreed? Okay, thank you. Right. Item seven, honorary freedom of the Buddha, David Armstrong, pages 47 to 52, and I invite Chris to present the report, please. Thank you, Chair. So this report is the honorary freedom of the Buddha for David Armstrong. So in summary, the Local Government Act 1972, the council has the power to grant the title of honorary freeman or free woman of the Buddha to persons of distinction who have rendered eminent service to the Buddha. This is a very significant step for the council to take. It should only be awarded to somebody who has made an exceptional contribution to the Buddha. David Armstrong is considered to be within this category. If recommended to council and subsequently approved, a scroll will be presented to David Armstrong by the mayor. The reasons for the recommendation are to honour David Armstrong for his eminent public service to the Buddha and to the people of Wirral. Other options are to be considered. The alternative option is for this committee not to recommend to council that David Armstrong be admitted as an honorary freeman of this Buddha. Members will see the full report within their pack. Notably, in his 34 years at the council, David Armstrong undertook a variety of roles, consistently demonstrating his flexibility and willingness to do whatever was asked of him. A series of events in the council led in June 2012 to him being asked to cover the chief executive role for a period and then from late 2012 to cover a number of other senior roles as needs arose. He took on the role of acting chief executive again in 2015. David has never shied away from any times when the council have been most challenging. He stepped up for the council, its staff and local residents when it was needed the most. He is recognised by past and present members and offers to be 100 per cent committed to the borough of Wirral and its residents through his career as a true public servant. The modest financial implications for awarding this freedom of the borough to David Armstrong can be met from within the existing civic service budget. Happy to take any questions that members may have. Thank you. Any questions? Any members? Yes, first Steve. Yeah, it's not really a question, it's just as I agree with what Chris has said. With David it wasn't a career, it was a vocation. He worked, he was the go-to person for many, many years in this council. Every time this council had difficult problems it went to David. David was chief executive twice in challenging times and worked really hard. So I've got no qualms at all in this, thanks very much. Thanks Andrew. Yeah, I'll concur fully with that. I was first elected here in 2012 and I met David and he just epitomises everything that should be in a person who goes into public service and he was fabulous and I'll just tell one quick story. The last time I had dealings with David was just before I retired. Now there's a lady who lives in my ward who helps with severely disabled children. They go to Barnsdale every year and they really are severely disabled, these children. So I said I'd try and help. What the lady wanted was a morning or an afternoon where one of our public swimming pools, they wanted to use it but they'd have to close the whole, either for a whole morning or a whole afternoon. So who did I contact? David, David Armstrong. He sorted out a meeting with the manager in West Kirby and David said to me, Mike, if it arises that the manager from West Kirby wants paying because it would have been open to the public, he said let me know. So the meeting was arranged by David. The manager, brilliant, he said yes, he wanted an afternoon and they got it. And there was a cost and I don't know what the cost was. So I emailed David, I said it's all been sorted, thank you, there is a cost. And David Armstrong paid the cost out of his own pocket and that to me epitomises the spirit that David Armstrong brought to this council and to the people for the betterment of the people of Wirral. And, you know, we all should 100 per cent back this and we don't give this out lightly, it seems like we've given a few out in the last few years, but the borough does not take lightly giving the freedom of the borough to anybody. But I'm delighted and I'm also delighted that David is still alive before we actually give him the freedom of the borough. Thank you and thanks, thanks chair. Anybody else? Thanks for those comments. At full council I actually spoke for quite a lengthy period of time about David because I admire them greatly. All the things you've said, very nicely, are true about his character. He was a brilliant servant to the council, even to the point where he nearly got locked up on our behalf over Hillary Island. But I actually contacted him last week because I had an issue in my ward and I couldn't find anybody to help me and he actually solved the problem for me. And that's why he's been retired or he's a consultant. I've got all the time in the world for David Armstrong and I fully endorse this with the others. So if I can now ask if everybody's happy to approve this recommendation, can we show by a show of hands, please? Proposer? Michael? Seconded? Thank you. Thank you for that, it's one of the nicer jobs we do. Thank you for that. And we now move on to item 8, which is the appointment of members to the licensing panel and a charitable subcommittee. So Ken? Thank you chair, yes. This report, or the purpose of the report, is for this committee to note the process for appointing members to the charitable trust subcommittee, its terms of reference, and the licensing panel, and the terms of reference of both subcommittee and panel, which have been approved by council. The next recommendation is to agree that the director of law and governance be given delegated authority to convene licensing panels for the purposes of carrying out the council's functions to deal with applications, determinations, and reviews of licenses or registration, and any related matter in respect of any license activity that is the responsibility of the authority other than under the licensing act 2003, or the gambling act 2005, which is dealt with by the licensing act committee separately. The third recommendation is to agree that the director of law and governance together carries out the wishes of the group leaders in allocating members to membership of the charitable trust subcommittee, together with deputies, and to appoint those members with effect from the date at which the proper office had advised of the names of such members. And I understand some groups have already put forward nominations in that regard. The terms of reference, very quickly, of the charitable trust subcommittee is that there is to be appointed five members from the pairing committee, politically balanced, with regards to the licensing panel, members will note in paragraph 1.3 of the report that the terms of reference allow between three and five members of the pairing committee exempt from political balance, but in relation to that requirement not formed solely by members of one particular group. And the licensing panel obviously have responsibility for the council's functions as per license of registration reviews and any related matter. Once appointed to the childhood trust subcommittee, members will be responsible for discharging the council's functions where it acts as a corporate trustee of the council, and this is specifically relating to the mayor's charity. With regards to political proportionality referred to, I would refer members obviously within the report to paragraph 5.2 which sets out the proportionality calculations for the allocation of five seats on the childhood trust subcommittee and those proportionality calculations are contained there. I would also indicate that those who are not nominated to the childhood trust subcommittee with regards to deputies be taken from the remainder of the pairing committee going forward. So that is the recommendation, chair.

Okay. Members have got any questions or comments? Nobody? Can we propose and second the recommendation? We can have a proposal for that, please. Louise, who's the seconder? Steve? Steve? Thank you. Just very quickly in relation -- thank you. In relation to that also, it allows the organization and the function of licensing panels to continue until the membership of this committee changes next year. There is that little period in between as part of the municipal year whereby this recommendation allows such panels to carry on and be effective. Having said that, we've had a seconder and a proposer. Can we have a show of hands if we all agree? Thank you. Okay. Thank you. We now move on to Item 9, which is the request by Tramier Rovers Football Club to register as a trademark the Tramier Rovers Club badge. That's on pages 59 to 62. You have to leave. Councillor Bennet is leaving because he's already declared an interest in this matter. Okay. So he's leaving the room. Ken, do you want to move on to the -- I don't -- it depends if the interest is a pecuniary one or not, because it's a personal -- It's a pecuniary. It could be pecuniary. It's a pecuniary. It is. Okay. Thank you, Chair. Then it's quite right for Councillor Bennet with a pecuniary interest to leave the committee. This report, Chair, request is a -- follows a request received by the mayor from Tramier Rovers Football Club to register as a trademark the Tramier Rovers Football Club badge. The badge is derived from the council's coat of arms and Tramier Rovers wish to register their badge as a trademark, as due to the unconnected businesses using the badge unofficially. As indicated in the report, the recommendation contained is -- does meet the objectives of the rural council, a plan for 2023 to '27 in respect to safe, resilient, and engaged communities. Chair, the Regulating General Purpose Committee is therefore requested to consider and decide upon this request as a trademark derived from the rural council's coat of arms. Members will have before them the various emblem. There's a Tramier Rovers Football Club emblem together with the two coat of arms which are referenced, one being the Wirral coat of arms and the other being the Birkenhead coat of arms. The Birkenhead coat of arms together with the Bebbington coat of arms, the Hoylake coat of arms, and the Walsey coat of arms in 1974 were taken together and amalgamated to formulate the Wirral coat of arms under which the council currently sits. The council has been having the grant by the kings of arms under all authority of the official coat of arms, results in the right to use the coat of arms as being exclusive to the council, and it cannot be passed on to a third party; however, a badge derived from aspects of the coat of arms can be used as a community emblem, which is what is suggested in this particular instance and can be available for display by local organisations with the consent of the council. And this has happened not often, but has happened in the past with other type of organisations. Members will be aware from the background information of the history of this and will obviously be able to see the distinctions between the badge and the two coat of arms. In particular, the Tramir Rovers did actually introduce the badge on this shirt in 1962, wearing the coat of arms of the borough of Birkenhead, along with adopting their motto U B Fides, I B looks et rober. I didn't get that from any legal dedication. It's just effectively meaning where there is faith, there is light and strength. Members will also refer to paragraph 3.2 about the history of the use of certain elements of the Birkenhead civic coat of arms, which is what is reflected in the application before you. With regards to the post 1997 badge, this was trademarked and Tramir Rovers are indicating that the pre 1997 badge, which will be used for the upcoming season, has not been trademarked and therefore they wish the right to be able to do this. The advantage of being obviously is to provide some protection for the club in respect of individuals or organisations who wish to use their football badge on counterfeit merchandise, et cetera, which has an impact on fans, the community and obviously on the quality of the merchandise that is being put before for sale, as it were. So that is the report itself. And I'm content to, obviously, answer any queries that you may have on the application. Any questions or comments? Michael. Put your mic on, yeah. Ken, I take it that the badge, the Tramir badge is unique. It's not -- Well, if there is -- you do have -- I'm not sure if you've had substituting this afternoon as a deputy, whether you've had the opportunity. The badge itself is -- there are certain elements of the old Birkenhead badge that have been used into the badge itself. They will then trademark that badge as their own in respect of -- for their own purposes. But there are only certain elements of it, as there would be in elements of any badges that is used by one organisation to another organisation. What they're trademarking is that badge itself. But it's not -- and it would be unique, as I say -- It would be unique to the club. >> It would be unique to the club, yes. A few years ago, Liverpool FC across the river tried to patent the liver bird or the liver birds, and they got knocked back. So it is -- Tramir's is a unique badge. It is a badge, yes. It has been -- I mean, it has been used by them since 1962. No, it hasn't got a riddle. Sorry, it hasn't got -- no, there's no horn. The badge itself -- the fact that the badge itself takes -- >> The thing I would think of is, you know, you made that comment, Mike, about the live birds. If you're trying to do the riddle horn or something like that, that's not honest. >> There's no -- of the current coat of arms of riddle actually within the badge that I can see. If you had the opportunity to view it this evening, there are slight elements, and I mean an oak tree and a staff which is then covered by the Tramir Rovers Football Club motif, and those are the only signia that are of -- that -- and the wording at the bottom, the insignia, that have been adopted by them. >> You know, if we do allow this, it means, as it said at the end of what Ken was saying, making it unique just to them. It protects them financially and also protects the fans so people can't copy it. Okay? Any more -- okay. No more comments or questions. Where are we? So we're asking this committee's requester to consider and decide upon the request to register as a trademark the Tramir Rovers Football Club badge, which is derived from Wirraburra Council's coat of arms. So if we're all happy with that, can I have someone to approve it? Max approve seconder? Okay. Thank you, Councillor Wood. Can we just have a show of hands before all the agreements? Thank you. Okay. Thank you for that. Right. The important -- the really important one I consider tonight is item 10. Do you want to bring Steve back in? Okay, Steve. Okay. Right. This is over to -- it's always got Ken on. I think it should be marvelous. Thank you, Chair. So the purpose of the report that's been brought before you this evening is for you to consider the results of a consultation in respect of the current criteria for licensing Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles and determine whether there should be any amendments to the current criteria in light of the feedback received from the consultation having regard to the statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards and the Department for Transport taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice for licensing authorities in England. Set out in the report are a number of recommendations which are in respect of specific matters which were consulted upon in a have your say consultation which ran from November to February and the full details are set out within the report. I will go through the recommendations and it's important that we recognise the significance of the recommendations against what the current criteria are and the responses to the consultation and the reference to the best practice, all of which is set out quite clearly within the report. The first recommendation is to approve an amendment to the criteria for licensing Hackney carriage vehicles. Currently the requirement is that a Hackney carriage vehicle presented for licensing for the first time must be three years old or less and the date of manufacture or date of first registration, whichever is the earliest, and be replaced with the following. Have just a slight amendment to the wording, although the principle is exactly the same as proposed within the printed recommendation. The recommendation is that a vehicle presented for the grant of a Hackney carriage vehicle license with Wirral Council must have been compliant with Euro 5 emission standards at the date of first registration. A further recommendation in respect of Hackney carriage vehicles is that the current requirement for MOT testing be amended as follows, that a Hackney carriage vehicle that is 11 years of age or more from the date of manufacture or date of first registration, which we will amend throughout the report, where it says date of manufacture or date of first registration, we will replace with date of first registration. The recommendation is that from 11 years old that vehicle will be subject to a license of no more than six months and will be required to pass an MOT and compliance test every six months. In considering the amendments in respect of the age criteria that currently are in place in respect of Hackney carriage vehicles, it is deemed appropriate that the following criteria be removed as it is deemed to be superfluous should you adopt the criteria that is proposed within the report. The criteria that it is recommended to remove is as follows. In circumstances where a Hackney carriage vehicle proprietor wishes to change a Hackney carriage vehicle that is currently licensed to a different vehicle, the replacement vehicle must be the same age or less than the vehicle that is currently licensed up to a maximum of 10 years old. Vehicles that are 10 years old or more must be replaced by a vehicle that is no more than 10 years old. Just for clarity, the reason why it is considered superfluous is if you approved a recommendation that when a vehicle is granted a license it must comply with the Euro 5 standards. We are recommending that that is the same if somebody wishes to change a vehicle. However, just to take it a step further in terms of practical processing, because the Council no longer have a limit on the number of Hackney carriage vehicles that are licensed, there is no reason why an individual would need to replace a vehicle on an existing license. They could simply come and ask for the grant of the license, which is why the criteria that refers to the grant of a license would apply to any Hackney carriage vehicle that was brought before us to be licensed. In terms of private hire vehicles, the requirement the private hire vehicles must be 10 years of age, which is currently the requirement. It is recommended that it is replaced with the following. A vehicle presented for the grant of a private hire vehicle license with the council must have been compliant with Euro 6 emission standards at the date of first registration. And it is recommended that the requirement in respect of MOT testing and six month licenses be replaced with the following. A private hire vehicle that is eight years of age or more from the date of first registration would be subject to a license of no more than six months and will therefore be required to pass an MOT and compliance test every six months. The following recommendation relates to the current requirement in respect of window tints. The requirement for tinted windows in respect of both Hackney carriages and private hire vehicles, it is recommended that it is amended as follows. That the front windscreen must allow at least 75% of light through. The front side windows must allow at least 75% of light through. And the windows rear of the B pillar, which are the passenger windows, must allow a minimum light transmission of 30%. And that no windows or glass fitted to the vehicle may have been subject to an enhanced film or after market tinting post manufacture. And all window glass must meet factory specifications. That recommendation is completely in line with the best practice guidance. There was included in the consultation an opportunity for members of the public and the trade to provide their views in respect to the requirement for a vehicle that has a step in of 38 centimetres or more to have an intermediate step, either fitted permanently within the vehicle or carried as a portable step. Members will be aware that most Hackney carriage vehicles will have a fitted step, because they are purpose built vehicles and they will come with that step, because they know that that is the requirement that they would have to have. There is a requirement, you know, more specifically in relation to the private hire vehicles. You will note from the results of the consultation that there was a certain value attached to the provision of a step within vehicles that members of the public thought that it was a good idea that vehicles should carry a step or have an intermediate step fitted. There was also some responses which showed some concern in respect of the type of step that may be carried in the vehicle. And the responsibility of drivers when operating such a step. Therefore, it is recommended that that particular criteria be strengthened and that both a fitted step and a portable step must be robust to carry the weight of a passenger and be covered with a non slip surface. And the step height of that step must be no more than 38 centimetres. And also that the driver, if he is asked to use the step, would actually carry out a risk assessment, a dynamic risk assessment on the spot at that time. Which drivers would normally do in any case in carrying out their work and their duties, in particular for carrying passengers who require access in a wheelchair. Set out within the report are the reasons for those recommendations. And you will note that the criteria for licensing Hackney Carriage and private hire vehicles has not been reviewed since September 2017. Although following the publication of the statutory standards in 2020, we did bring all of the criteria and conditions relating to taxi licensing into one comprehensive policy document. However, there were no changes to the criteria at that time. And since that time, on 17 November last year, the Department for Transport published its best practice guidance. It is a non statutory best practice guidance and it complements the statutory standards. So making any decisions that you do in respect of taxi licensing, we will always make reference to both of those documents as guidance. There is a legal duty to have regard to the statutory standards and its best practice to have regard to the best practice guidance from the Department for Transport, which is why you will see set out within the report, alongside the results of the consultation and the recommendation, the relevant reference to the best practice guidance is set out within the report and was fully appendixed to your report this evening as well as the statutory standards. In terms of the options before you this evening, you may determine that there should be no change to the current criteria for licensing Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. However, having regard to the consultation outcomes, the most recent publication of the Department for Transport's best practice guidance, as well as consideration of the criteria for licensing vehicles in neighbouring authorities across the city region, it is considered that there should be change to the criteria, as if there is no change to the current criteria. Proprietors of vehicles will increasingly seek to have their vehicles licensed in other authorities where the criteria may not have a strict in terms of their age or whether or not the vehicle has been fitted with tinted windows. In terms of bringing the report to you this evening, we did consider replacing the current age criteria for licensing both Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles with alternative age criteria. However, we have had regard to the best practice guidance, which describes the setting an arbitrary age limit as inappropriate and counterproductive. In terms of the step requirement, it was considered appropriate to review this requirement. However, in light of the feedback from the consultation, it is considered that there should be no change in terms of having that as a requirement, but it be written into the criteria that the driver risk assess the use of a portable step on each occasion they may be requested to do so. It is also proposed that the recommended amendments to the criteria for licensing both Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles has immediate effect. It is also requested within the recommendations that as the licensing manager I am given authorisation to amend other relevant documents which may cite some of the criteria that you may amend and make appropriate amendments that will make the interpretation of the criteria straightforward and applicable, both for officers and for licence holders. You can see throughout the report, as I say, the full details of the consultation. You will see that it was extensive consultation and I am grateful for colleagues in the organisational development team who have brought forward to you what I consider to be a very comprehensive report setting out all of the results from that and also bringing together all of the comments. I am pleased to say that we had 289 responses to that consultation and you will see that there is over 100 pages of comments that people felt it was worthwhile to bring their feelings and their thoughts to you in respect of the current criteria for licensing vehicles. It is important that you do have regard to those responses, that you also have regard to your public sector equality duty in determining any policy changes this evening. You will note that in respect of Hackney carriage vehicles in particular, that it would be hoped that any changes to that criteria would hopefully increase the number of Hackney carriage vehicles which have wheelchair accessibility in the borough. I don't think there is anything else that I can take you through in terms of the report. It is all set out there and I have made reference to the significant aspects of the report. I am quite happy to take questions in respect to any aspect of the report. Thank you. I have questions about three of the criteria, so I don't know if you want me to say them all at once or take them one at a time. First one is in regard to being compliant with the European standards at manufacture, is there a reason why a vehicle can't be modified in order to be licensed, having not been compliant at manufacture, is it possible to change that, which would actually maybe save the person wanting to license that vehicle a little bit of money? My understanding is that it can be modified. I think in terms of the criteria that is proposed before you, that we would ask you to accept it as it is proposed and that we keep it under review and that we monitor what the circumstances are and whether there is a frequency or there is any pre-pension to individuals doing that. In terms of how it is reflected with regard to current vehicles that are licensed, in terms of the Euro 5 criteria, that would mean that a vehicle could be bought that is 13 years old in terms of a hackney carriage and in terms of the private hire vehicles, it would mean that a vehicle would be no more than nine years old. The average age of vehicles that are currently licensed as private hire vehicles or where the significant bulk of age is around eight years of age. So we will keep that under review. Thank you. So the driver could bring that to appeal if necessary in terms of their licence? Anybody can appeal the refusal of a licence. If there was an application that was outside of the criteria, we would refer that to the licensing panel to determine. Thank you. Is it okay to go to question two? Thank you. It is about the 30 per cent light in the rear of the taxi. I fully understand the people that do the party limos, but they want it pretty much blacked out and there's a lot of people in the back. I was just thinking about the smaller vehicles where there may be one person in the back, whether there are any safety concerns there with there only being 30 per cent light allowed through compared to the 75 per cent that is standard on vehicles? The recommendations are what is standard in vehicles. So currently the legal requirement is for 75 per cent on the windscreen and 70 per cent on the windows with the driver and the front passenger, and it is permissible to have vehicles with 30 per cent light coming through in the rear. And it is in terms of the -- again, it's a straight recommendation from the best practice guidance. There can be vehicles that have stronger tinted windows and that don't allow 30 per cent of light through, and therefore any application like that would come before the licensing panel. Again, there's reference within the best practice guidance to that. There may be what are often referred to as executive style vehicles that want to do what they describe as executive functions, and that they may have separate conditions attached to their licences in terms of that. I'm just thinking about passenger safety, really, because if you were to pass through a CCTV -- if you have to pass through the purview of a CCTV, if the vehicle has got 30 per cent visibility coming through the rear windows, I'm not sure how much the CCTV would be able to pick up from what is happening to the passenger. Whereas if you had 75 per cent visibility, is it not the case that any CCTV could potentially pick up any issues that are occurring with the passenger in the back? Yes. There have all been these reasons as to why that is currently a criteria for vehicles licensed in Wirral to comply with. What we are finding is increasingly that both residents and business workers, et cetera, in Wirral are being transported by vehicles that are licensed by other local authorities that don't have that criteria, so that whilst we currently have that criteria, it is not then the situation that we can guarantee that the residents of Wirral are going to be transported in vehicles that don't have tinted windows, and we are increasingly -- because of the cost to drivers, it costs several thousand pounds to replace the windows, and you will see from the consultation that there is much reference to the cost of replacing windows in their vehicles if they want to have them licensed by Wirral Council. We are currently the only authority within the City Region that has it as a requirement, and it is important to note that, you know, there are members of the public who do welcome the fact that the windows are not tinted. It is a matter for you as a committee to take all of the factors into consideration. In terms of passenger safety, we should be satisfied that the driver of that vehicle is a fit and proper person, and that there should be no risk to that passenger from the driver, and that's where our tests and challenges should be, are with the driver of the vehicles, irrespective of whether or not the glass itself is tinted or clear. Right. Thank you. I'll accept that for the moment. I am a supporter of Get Me Safely Home, and I will discuss with my union as to the appropriateness or not and what action they may want to take. Yeah. Basically, I'd just like to commend the officers, first of all, for all the hard work they've done to put this together. I know it's taken a lot of time. It's a very extensive consultation. Looking through the papers and looking through the consultation, I think this complies with best practice nationally, so it works nationally. It works locally because we have more control over the taxi drivers within this area. It gives taxi drivers the right to basically work in Whivel. Regarding the windows, what was Councillor Jenkins talking about before, most vehicles now, in fact, I'd say probably over 90 per cent of vehicles have tinted windows in the back, letting only 30 per cent light in. Therefore, taxi drivers are going through an unnecessary expense to having to change windows in order to work on Whivel, which is unacceptable. I think those taxi drivers are basically DBS'd. They're licensed for us. They are fit and proper people to drive people around, so I don't see any reason why we shouldn't do that with those licenses. Regarding our duty of care and equality of duty, we have got fewer hackneys now than we've had before. We need to build up the hackney taxi trade. We need to make it more viable for them to be able to work, to transfer disabled people around this borough. I think anything that can help mobility for disabled, give taxi drivers a living and promote taxis in this area is a good thing. We've made sure that we're following national guidance, we're looking at all the protections, and also the environmental side of the EV5 and EV6. That's what I'd like to say. Thank you. I'll be asking more questions in a minute. We're just going to pass a letter round that's been received from Mr Meir, the Secretary of Wurabang Radeshi Taxi Drivers Association. Can you pass that to Max, please, Marcus? And Marcus will read it out for you as well, once you've had a look at this. [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] [BLANKAUDIO] Has everybody read that? Happy with that? Have some reflection on it, okay. [BLANKAUDIO] Councillor. I had three questions, that was two. Can I carry on? Also, can I just say that I accepted what you said? And then my reference to consulting with my union was maybe about a national change rather than a change for Whirl, if it is a public safety issue. And I'll say what they say, it wasn't about changing it particularly for Whirl drivers and putting them at a disadvantage. Because I thought it was important to raise it, Councillor Wood. So the final point is about the height of the step. Well, equally, so the height of the step. When the consultation was made, I can see that only 20% of people thought that 38 centimetres was possibly too low and that a higher step should be allowed. And 50 something percent said that it should be at 38 centimetres. Just a little, I understand that with the Hackneys having the bring down step, that that's a different matter to having a separate step. And I'm just wondering why, it might be that you're gonna say the national criteria, but to me, 38 centimetres, or also known as 15 inches, seems quite high for somebody with particular mobility problems. And also, you've said that it's required to have a safe tread covering on a freestanding step. Has there been given any consideration to how the feet of the step should operate, and whether there should be criteria there? Or is it just that these are the national criteria and these are what we're applying? Okay, there is no national criteria in regard to steps. What the best practice guidance says is that it encourages the use of mobility assistance to be carried within vehicles. That there is a statutory requirement on all licensed drivers to give reasonable assistance to anybody who has a disability. And it was really an opportunity to test public opinion on that of drivers in respect of whether or not the current criteria in relation to carrying a portable step was something that was used, was needed, was recognized. And it is a matter for yourself in terms of having regard to the responses to the consultation in respect of what people are saying with regard to the step height, which says that the majority of respondents, which is 49.3%, thought it necessary for private hire vehicles with an entrance step height exceeding 38 centimetres to have a fitted step or a portable step than not. So there was 19.4% thought that it wasn't necessary but 49.3% thought that it was. And the majority of respondents, 58.6%, thought it necessary for Hackney carriage vehicles with an entrance step height of 38 centimetres to have a fitted step, a portable step. So I am reporting the responses to the consultation to you with regard to whether that criteria for carrying a portable step and having a fitted step remain. That is the current criteria. And it's whether or not it should remain as relevant criteria. And because of the response being the majority saying that they thought that it was, the recommendation suggests that we should keep that criteria. But I've had regard to the comments that were received about concerns in relation to maybe somebody slipping on the step and also the responsibility on the driver in using a portable step. Thank you, Chair. Chair, may I? Yeah, thank you. Just to say, I mean, I accept that for now and I must, I would actually quite welcome the opportunity to see people using these steps to see actually how they manage them because I've never really observed it. And so I think I'd be quite glad of an opportunity to understand this better, to see what the provision is and understand how helpful it is. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. And thank you, Margaret, for this very detailed and comprehensive report and the very clear presentation you've given of it. I think our primary responsibility as a committee is to the safety of people using taxis and private hire vehicles. And I've just been looking at the best practice criteria that you've referenced a few times and looking particularly at page 103, where it says the use of CCTV can provide a safer environment for the benefit of taxi and private hire vehicle passengers and drivers. And then it goes on to say that all licensing authorities should consult on the merits of mandating CCTV in vehicles. And I noticed that a few of the responses that people have written into the consultation do reference the use of CCTV, although there was no specific question about that. And that isn't an aspect we have actually consulted on on this occasion. And I just wonder why we haven't done that and whether that is an aspect that we ought to at least examine. Thank you, Chair. The consultation was based on the current criteria that we have. We don't currently have any criteria that mandates CCTV. With reference to both the best practice and the statutory standards, it does say in the statutory standard, if a local authority thinks there is evidence that there should be a need for CCTV, that it should then consult upon that as to whether or not it should be mandated into vehicles. It's a complex area. It's not something that I could extend the full details of this evening, but it is a complex area when a local authority decides to mandate CCTV. We do allow drivers to have CCTV in their vehicles, and we have conditions that relate to the provision of that CCTV, that if they do put CCTV in their vehicles, that they have to comply with those conditions. So we certainly don't prohibit CCTV in vehicles, but it's a very complex area in terms of if a local authority mandates CCTV, not least of which is that you become the data controller of that data. Thank you, Chair. Yes, just a quick one, Chair. For Councillor Jennings' benefit, all the questions she asked were all in the members' briefing, so if Councillor Jennings had have bothered to read the briefing in full, the questions that she asked would have been answered, and this committee takes very seriously the safety of all the passengers that the taxis use, whether it's private hire or hackney, and that's the first concern, as it is the officers of all this committee. Thank you, Chair. Anybody else got any comments? Councillor? Thank you for bringing together the report. It's evident you've engaged with loads and loads of people, so thank you. My question was just around the MOTs and how the private hire vehicles go to six months from eight years old, and the hackney carriages when they're 11 years old, and why that wouldn't be aligned to both be the same, to extend the private hire to go to six-monthly MOTs once it gets to 11 years old, like a hackney carriage. Thank you. Thank you, Chair. So, there is a difference between, obviously, a hackney carriage vehicle that is licensed in Wirral or that seeks to be licensed in Wirral, in that the criteria does require that vehicle to be purpose-built, and in being purpose-built, it is expected that it is built to such a standard that it will be expected to do a considerable excessive amount of mileage to what a normal saloon or family car may do. Vehicles that are brought to us to be licensed as private hire vehicles are vehicles that are normal-use vehicles, everyday vehicles. And in terms of considering the recommendation within the report that's brought before you this evening, again, regard was given to the responses in the consultation. The best practice guidance, which, again, looks at the frequency of MOTs as, again, somewhat of an arbitrary area for determination, but does recognise that as a vehicle gets older that it may require more frequent testing. So, therefore, in considering which recommendation to bring before you, I did have particular regard to the requirements in other authorities within the city region. And, again, you'll see at Appendix 7 to the report that the recommendation before you is in line with three other authorities within the city region. Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. Just following on from Councillor Sullivan's comments, if I may. So, as a subsection from this committee, of course, we have the panels, which myself and colleagues do sit on. So if it's any reassurance to Councillor Jenkinson when vehicles come forward that we've never licensed before, we rigorously assess those vehicles for the steps, for the tinted windows, for everything else. So it's not just a case of this policy moving through, and that's the end of it. We will continue doing the protocols within this council, supporting residents and drivers. So just following on from that, and also, if I may, thanking also for the report and the comprehensive nature of it. Have we had any feedback from other authorities in the region on this proposal or input from them on how we can streamline anything or bring it in line with what they have themselves? Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Chair. As officers across the city region, we do meet on a regular basis. And for many years now, we have been seeking to get our policies and criteria to be consistent. And currently, we are all tasked with different areas of private hire and hackney carriage licensing. My task is leading on the criteria and the conditions in respect of private hire and hackney carriage vehicles. So, yes, I have presented these proposals to colleagues in the city region, and there is work ongoing to try and ensure that we do work better and more closely together. We're all very mindful of the issues that affect passengers across each of our authorities. And we are all striving to make sure that we have the best standards in place, taking into account all the various factors that influence the licensing of drivers and vehicles. Thank you, Chair. Brenda. Just following on, from sitting on the panels and the vehicles that we do see that currently go over the age criteria, the condition is immaculate. We ask them questions. What type of maintenance, what type of service routine do you do? Those that do all the current checks, their vehicles will last and will be able to pass. So it makes us as members reassured that changing the criteria will still suffice and the vehicles will be fit for the public to use and safe. Thank you. Anybody else? To the recommendation in a minute, before I do, I'd like to say thank you to Margaret for the work she's put in. I know it's been bank holiday weekends and late nights. I'd also like to thank the members of the committee who have had past experience of how we operate within the safety of vehicles and for your positive comments. Perhaps new members aren't aware of how it works. I'm sure you'll learn that as we move forward. We've got one tomorrow morning, actually, which I'm going on. But thank you for all the comments. Margaret, before we move to the recommendation, I've got it written here. Before I give it to the members, I think there's been some change in the detail, hasn't there? So it would be helpful if I asked for a 10-minute recess and we could look at it, make any changes before I read it. How would that consist? It's a matter for you, Chair. I mean, I have -- I'd rather get the detail correct. Yeah, I mean, I have got it written, but it is a matter for you. Well, we'll just have a 10-minute recess, just because this is an important document. I want to make sure it's spot on. Okay, yes, thank you. Sorry? I can't hear you. Recess, feedback. Okay. Oh, you've come straight. You've come straight from work, haven't you? Okay. So if we say we meet up again and say quarter past, okay. Thank you. [ Silence ] Thank you, everybody. I don't think there's any further questions or -- has anyone got any amendments or anything? No? Right. So the recommendation is quite a lengthy statement, this. The recommendation is that this committee, the Regulation and General Purpose Committee, one, approve the following amendments to this criteria for licensed Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles contained within the council statement of Hackney carriage and private hire licensing policy. A, the requirement that the Hackney carriage vehicle presented for licensing for the first time must be three years old or less from the date of manufacture, or, excuse me, date of first registration, which is the earliest to be replaced with the following. A vehicle presented for the grant of a Hackney carriage vehicle license with the Whirl Council must be compliant with the R05 emission standards at the date of first registration. B, the requirement for the MOT testing for Hackney carriage vehicles be replaced with the following. A Hackney carriage vehicle that is 11 years of age or more from the date of the first registration will be subject to a license of no more than six months and will, therefore, be required to pass an MOT and compliance test every six months. C, that the following criteria be removed. In circumstances when a Hackney carriage vehicle proprietor wishes to change a Hackney carriage vehicle that is currently licensed to a different vehicle, the replacement vehicle must be the same age or less than the vehicle that is currently licensed up to a maximum of 10 years old. Vehicles that are 10 years old or more must be replaced by a vehicle that is no more than 10 years old. D, the requirement that the private Hackney vehicles must be 10 years of age from the date of manufacture or the date of first registration, whichever is the earliest, be replaced with the following. A vehicle presented for the grant of a private hire vehicle license with rural council must be compliant with the Euro VI emission standards of first registration at that date, and the requirements for the MOT testing for private hire vehicles will be replaced with the following. A private hire vehicle that is eight years of age or more from the date of the first registration will be subject to a license of no more than six months and will, therefore, be required to pass an MOT and compliance test every six months. F, the requirement for tinted windows in respect that both Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles will be amended as follows. The front windscreen must allow at least 75% of light through the front side windows and must allow at least 70% of light through the windows, rear of the B pillar, and must allow a minimum of light transmission of 30%. No windows or glass fitted to the vehicle may have been subject to an enhanced film/aftermarket tinting post manufacture. All window glass must meet factory specifications. G, the requirement in respect of an additional step of private hire vehicles be amended as follows. A vehicle with a top tread for the entrance which exceeds 38 centimeters from the ground must be fitted with a step to allow easy access into and egress from the vehicle. Any vehicle that does not have a step fitted must carry a portable step to be available for the passengers. Both the fitted and portable step must be robust to carry the weight of a passenger and covered with a non-slip service. The step height must be no more than 38 centimeters from the ground, and the driver of the vehicle must risk assess the use of a portable step on each occasion it is requested by a passenger. That the recommended amendments to the criteria for licensing Hackney carriage and private hire vehicle license have immediate effect. And three, authorize the licensing manager to amend relevant licensing documents in accordance with any amendments made to the criteria for the licensing Hackney carriage and private hire vehicles. So Margaret, do you want to mention something? Yeah, just for completeness, if possible. Members will note that within the report there was also reference to-- there's a measurement that we use to decide whether or not a vehicle should be licensed in terms of the size of the rear seats. What I would just say with regard to that is that there is no proposal to change that criteria because of the feedback. Therefore, there was no recommendation put forward. But just for completeness, and just that in approving the proposals that it would include the fact that there would be no change in terms of the size dimensions of seating for the vehicles that we would license. We would, as officers, in creating a new criteria document, make it clear where those measurements will be taken in respect of the seat. If that's OK, Chair. Thank you, Margaret. And those comments you just made, they're all contained within the report that's here. OK, is everyone happy with that? So I need someone as an approver. A seconder? Well, Mike had his hand up first, so Mike. OK. So that's Councillor Bennett to approve and Councillor Mike Sullivan proposed and seconded. OK. Anyway, I'd like to, again, put on record-- thanks. You're going to put us on the vote, then. Oh, I sorry. It's the most important part. Put us on the vote. Vote. Anyone else who agree? OK, thank you. What I was going-- It's got immediate effect as well. Yeah, we've said that in here. It's got immediate effect. OK. Again, I'd like to put on record thanks to Margaret and her team because it was a hard job. She's done, and I know other authorities are after her, and I won't let them have her. So thank you, Margaret. Thank you. Do you want to say anything, Margaret? No, it's thank you to everybody here as well for their time in reading the report. There was a lot of paperwork appendix to the report. So a thank you for that. And also a thank you, as I said, I did mention in passing, but a colleague, James, in the Organisational Development team, who has brought all the illustrations, the diagrams, all the figures, and everything before you. So yes, thank you, Chair. OK. Thank you, everyone, for attending. For those who I'll see tomorrow, can't wait to see you. And have a good shippo.