Issue - meetings

This report follows a resolution of Council on 23^rd March 2017 which asked the Cabinet Member for Transport to produce a report on the issues and options for a way forward, following the widespread concern that had been expressed about the awarding of a Taxi Operating License to Uber.

The Council considered a report brought forward on a request from Council of 23rd March 2017 considering issues and options concerning Uber’s private hire operator’s licence.

During debate, the Chief Executive in his role as Head of Paid Service acknowledged the strength of feeling regarding this issue, but clarified that the term ‘contentious’ which had been mentioned by some of the public speakers, was terminology set out within Licensing regulations and when this application had been dealt with under delegated authority, the term ‘non-contentious’ had been used correctly within that context.

On a motion from Councillor Martin Veal, seconded by Councillor Colin Blackburn, it was

RESOLVED

1.  To note the contents of the report;

2.  To note that a new Government Working Group has been created to examine the employment practices of companies like Uber;

3.  To note that the Transport Minister has said that local authorities may be unaware of the extent of their powers and their ability to use them and that there are problems with different local authorities interpreting their powers in different ways; and

4.  To note that the guidance and advice given to local authorities by Government is to be clarified and therefore;

5.  To remit to Licensing Committee to consider a further report on this issue in light of any new advice referred to above.

[Notes;

1.  The underlined wording in the resolution above was proposed by Councillor Joe Rayment and accepted into the substantive motion by the mover and seconder.

2.  During debate, an unsuccessful amendment was moved by Councillor Caroline Roberts and seconded by Councillor Tim Ball to ask the Licensing Committee to carry out a further investigation.  This amendment was lost, with 17 Councillors voting in favour, 34 Councillors voting against and 5 abstentions.

3.  The substantive motion was carried with 55 Councillors voting in favour and 1 Councillor voting against.]