►
Description
AGENDA
1. Declarations of Interest 00:01:52
2. Minutes 00:02:02
3. Public Participation 00:02:32
4. Update on Disclosure and Barring Service checks for York taxi drivers 00:34:55
5. Update Report - Private Hire Licensing 00:41:06
For full agenda, attendance details and supporting documents visit:
https://democracy.york.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=606&MId=10533
A
Good
afternoon
everyone
good
afternoon,
thank
you.
Welcome
to
this
meeting
of
the
gambling
licensing
and
regulatory
committee.
First
item
is
apologies.
I've
got
apologies
from
councillor
funnel
who
understands
on
well
council,
mace
and
the
council
of
Derbyshire.
Are
they
any
other?
Additional
apologies?
I
think
we've
got
a
full
contingent
other
than
that
declarations
of
interest
to
members
have
any
additional
declarations
that
they
want
to
make
nope
minutes
of
the
previous
meeting.
Has
anyone
got
any
comments?
A
I've
got
one
so
at
the
last
meeting,
I
mentioned
that
it
would
be
helpful
for
the
committee
if
we
included
a
forward
plan
on
future
agendas.
That
was,
and
then
it
was
in
the
ministry
if
that
could
be
ministers
and
then
also
included
in
future,
obviously
after
the
election,
and
that
would
that
would
be
brilliant
I
think
both
of
them
that
I'm
happy
to
sign
the
minutes
as
an
accurate
record,
which
I'll
do
after
the
meeting
which
moves
us
on
to
public
participation.
So
we
have
a
number
of
speakers
this
afternoon.
A
B
Thank
you
Tara.
The
issue
at
stake
here
for
me
is
that
officers
once
again
through
their
lack
of
rigour
and
now
negligence
are
putting
the
council
and
citizens
at
risk.
The
report,
from
start
to
finish,
is
in
non-standard
form,
with
the
required
key
sections
missing
or
so
deficient
as
to
expose
the
council
to
accusations
even
of
nonfeasance.
Let
me
explain.
First,
the
office
has
characterized
the
report
simply
as
an
update
report
that
states
the
council's
position,
but
then
you
are
directed
to
agree
this
dangerously
unsupported
officers
recommendation.
B
Second,
there
is
no
material
analysis
of
the
two
diametrically
post
legal
opinions.
One
from
the
leading
QC
in
the
field
officers
cannot
expect
you
to
balance
them
without
proper
analysis
from
a
qualified
person
or
court.
The
paragraph
or
two
from
officers
is
not
only
defective,
but
it
is
entirely
deficient.
B
Third,
the
report
is
entirely
deficient,
as
it
also
has
no
risk
assessment.
Worse
it
even
states,
there
are
no
risks
at
all.
This
in
council
speak
is
a
blatant
untruth.
Risks
either
way
you
decide,
are
significant,
exposing
the
council
to
multiple
litigation
reputational
and
financial
risks.
Every
scenario
offers
risks,
none
of
which
have
been
advised
to
you.
Fourth,
you
are
not
provided
with
any
decision
options
again,
non-standard
practice.
There
are
at
a
minimum
three
options
available
to
you.
This
is
not
even
Hobson's
choice.
Fifth,
you
are
told
there
are
no
financial
implications.
None.
B
This
is
an
error
of
judgment.
At
best,
the
financial
implications
are
significant.
Whichever
decision
is
taken
sick
and
terminally,
you
have
not
provided
them
with
an
equality's
impact
assessment.
This
is
a
clear
and
incontestable
breach
of
the
chief
executives
public
sector,
equalities
duty.
This
is
a
this:
is
judicial
review,
cannon
fodder
and
each
and
every
deficiency
individually
and
severally.
The
chief
officer
near
Ferris,
the
statutory
officers
and
legal
staffers
are
placing
the
council
at
risk
of
multiple
legal
actions.
B
If
you
determine
this
matter
with
this
entirely
inadequate
and
unlawful
information
before
you,
the
only
safe
option
you
have
councilors
is
to
reject
this
appalling
report.
We
caught
defer
the
mess
until
director
Farris
and
the
lawyers
produced
to
this
committee,
a
professional
report
to
standard
Thank,
You
Jay.
Thank.
C
Okay,
I'm
frequently
asked:
are
your
taxi
licensing
accounts,
just
Mickey
Mouse
figures
and
is
the
department
fit
for
purpose?
Should
there
be
a
judicial
review?
I
reply?
Probably
I've
been
an
acne
carriage
proprietor
for
18
years
for
my
first
15
years,
everything
runs
smoothly,
but
since
the
removal
of
the
cross
border
rule,
something
rotten
seems
to
have
taken
place
in
the
policing
of
the
trade.
The
major
problem
is
over
another
out
of
town
cows,
coming
from
as
far
away
as
Newcastle,
Liverpool,
Sheffield
and
even
London.
Why
do
they
come
they
cook?
C
They
come
for
the
easy,
illegal
pickings.
The
six
pound,
eight
pounder
12
pound
fares,
which
they
receive
on
their
mobile
phone
apps,
will
not
make
their
journeys
to
York
viable.
It's
not
rocket
science
to
understand
why
they
come.
They
know
that
they
can
make
up
the
shortfall
by
illegally
touting
for
fares
on
our
own
police
streets.
C
Some
of
our
annual
taxi
fees
on
the
increase
of
our
own
enforcement
officers
to
do
the
stings
that
would
have
in
a
matter
of
weeks
brought
this
massive
problem
under
control
york
city
councillor.
For
years
we
grossly
negligent,
which
is
an
offence
in
law.
They
know
the
legalities
reference,
the
types
of
insurance
all
drivers
must
have.
They
are
ignoring
this
illegal
practice
of
Chow
ting
and
doing
so
are
actually
condone
in
this
malpractice,
which
means
that
the
council
are
showing
a
lack
of
duty
of
care
to
its
citizens.
C
They
have
been
and
still
are,
putting
the
citizens
of
York
and
its
value
tourists
high
risk
York
taxi
drivers
must
abide
by
the
rules
and
regulations
which
they
are
there
to
protect
the
public
and
they
are
rightly
held
accountable
for
their
actions
when
breaking
those
rules.
So
why
do
your
councilors
and
their
officers
think
that
they
are
above
the
law?
We
are
not,
so
why
do
they
act
as
if
they
are
the
untouchables?
You
are
not
untouchable.
You
are
not
above
the
law.
I
repeat,
you
are
not
above
the
law.
Thank
you
very
much.
D
Thank
You
chair
the
importance
of
localism
Steven
Walsh
QC
states,
clearly
that
drivers
and
their
vehicles
may
well
have
the
right
to
room,
but
operators
do
not
Boober
does
not
hold
an
operator's
license
in
York,
so
they
need
challenging,
and
here
is
why,
in
York
last
weekend,
a
Bradford
uber
was
caught
on
dash
cam
illegally
picking
up
off
the
rank.
Luckily,
for
them,
the
passengers
got
out,
the
driver
was
reported
and
the
footage
was
sent
to
public
protection.
D
Although
the
vehicle
and
a
Bradford
Private
Eye
plates
and
clearly
displayed
displayed
uber
door,
signage
uber
said
the
vehicle
is
not
registered
to
them.
This
is
why
it
happened
before
uber
tried
taking
over
the
world.
All
cabs
were
local,
so
if
any
of
the
1000
work,
all
drivers
in
York
saw
an
out-of-town
car
here,
we'd
all
quietly
monitor
them
until
they're
left
negating
most
public
risk
with
uber
flood
in
York
without
its
own
drivers.
D
It
was
only
a
matter
of
time
before
someone
saw
an
opportunity
to
take
advantage
of,
has
not
been
able
to
police
this
and
coming
to
York
an
ID
in
plain
sight,
amongst
all
the
other
ubers.
If
this
pickup
attend
hadn't
happened
on
a
rank,
he
would
still
be
getting
away
with
whatever
he
was
trying
to
do
with
no
enforcement
on
the
streets
and
uber
drivers
doing
us
their
wish.
What
happens
when
that
sexual
predator
seizes
his
opportunity
and
comes
to
York
and
we're
for
that
innocent
victim
to
approach
his
vehicle?
D
Even
if
national
companies
only
use
local
drivers,
this
would
not
happen
as
we
self-police
all
local
drivers
at
the
art
of
every
license
and
authority
is
localism.
The
taxi
licensing
and
public
protection
departments
primary
function
is
to
ensure
the
traveling
public,
our
failure
around
in
safe
regulated
transport.
It's
important
that
you,
our
elected
members,
put
the
safety
of
the
people
of
York
back
into
perspective
and
before
monie,
take
back
control
and
regulate
all
drivers
working
in
York.
If
you
don't
fight
uber,
you
will
lose
localism.
D
E
Thank
You
chair
I've,
analyzed
Leo's
opinion
because
nobody
else
seems
to
have
done
that,
for
you,
I
was
surprised
to
find
that
out
of
21
paragraphs
in
it,
seven
were
of
no
substance,
background
opinion
and
one
seems
to
be
another
for
uber
another
six
and
a
half
paragraphs
are
about
plying
for
hire,
and
the
reading
case
irrelevant
to
was
here
maybe
he's
confused
about
which
law
uber
are
breaking.
We
use
a
1976
act
for
private
hire
operators,
not
the
1847
one.
E
This
leaves
six
and
a
half
paragraphs
for
me
to
speak
of
paragraph
3
says
that
uber
operate
here
and
could
undermine
local
licensing
control.
Thank
you
for
that.
Leo
12
says
that
an
operator
can
tell
a
driver
to
do
any
job.
13
says
why
drivers
can
go
anywhere
on
a
job.
17
gives
evidence
that
uber
are
operating
in
York,
yet
18
tries
to
say
that
uber
aren't
operating
here.
E
Thunder
Lee
19
says
that
in
offering
cups
for
customers
here
they
are
indeed
operating
here.
20
is
half
and
half
the
relevant
parts
is
that
when
a
customer
in
York
makes
the
booking
with
uber,
they
aren't
booking
it
here,
where
they
aren't
licensed,
they're
booking
it
in
Leeds
or
Bradford,
where
they
are.
Surely
this
means
that
leads
our
Bradford
branch
are
operating
here
unlawfully
without
an
operator's
license.
A
customer
in
York
sees
their
adverts
books
a
cab
on
the
app
and
get
sent
one
isn't
that
what
operators
do
send
cabs
to
customers?
E
Why
does
Leo
try
to
show
that
uber
can
do
it
here
without
a
license
when
our
local
companies
need
one
the
way
I
read
it?
Leo
is
trying
to
say
that
uber
doesn't
require
an
operator's
license
in
York
because
they
have
one
somewhere
else
in
the
country.
It
seems
they
are
too
big
for
local
councils
to
regulate
so
they
choose
not
to
be.
E
Does
that
sound
say
this
comes
back
to
paragraph
three
of
Leo's
opinion
and
how
over
are
undermining
this
councils,
ability
to
keep
the
trouble
in
public
say
when
they
knowingly
sent
their
fleet
here
to
operate
without
a
license?
We
request
that
something
be
done
to
challenge
them
and
to
show
them
that
the
lure
applies
to
everyone.
Despite
what
the
second-tier
lawyer
says
about
the
opinions
of
several
first-rate
QCs
and
the
other
licensing
authorities
surrounding
York.
F
Thank
You
chair
good
afternoon,
so
the
reading
case,
the
reading
case,
which
mr.
chair
alum
B's
references
heavily
in
his
advice
to
the
council,
has
no
relevance.
In
this
instance.
Reading
council
Prosecutor
driver
not
an
operator
for
plying
for
hire
under
the
town
police
clauses,
Act
of
1847,
the
reading
case
I
believe,
is
being
used
purely
as
a
smokescreen
to
hide
this
fact,
as
emphasized
by
Lord
Justice
flow
during
the
here
in
the
1847
acts
and
the
1976
act
are
mutually
exclusive.
F
So
to
be
clear,
section
46
of
the
1976
Act
makes
it
an
offense
to
make
provision
for
the
invitation
or
acceptance
of
private
hire
vehicles
begins
in
an
area
in
which
the
operator
is
not
licensed.
The
reading
case
does
not
say
otherwise.
The
cases
decided
under
Section
46
of
the
1976
act
say
that
the
central
question
in
an
unlawful
operating
case
is
where
a
provision
for
invitation
or
acceptance
of
a
booking
is
made.
The
High
Court
has
said
it
is
simply
a
question
of
asking
in
common
sense
terms
whether
this
provision
has
been
made.
F
The
reading
case
does
not
say
otherwise.
We
would
say
that
in
common
sense
terms
and
looking
at
all
circumstances,
uber
is
making
that
provision
in
York,
where
we
did
it
is
not
licensed.
The
reading
case
does
not
begin
to
rule
as
a
matter
of
law
or
otherwise
that
our
associations
are
wrong.
It
simply
does
not
deal
with
that
issue.
F
It
was
concerned
only
with
only
whether
an
individual
driver
was
primed
for
hire
under
the
18:47
act.
That
has
nothing
to
do
with
unlawful
operations
under
section
46
of
a
wholly
different
Act
past
130
years
later,
the
unlicensed
activities
of
uber
are
causing
serious
problems
in
your
section
46
one
day
of
the
1976
Act
specifically
makes
unlicensed
provision
for
the
invitation
or
acceptance
of
private
I,
bookends
and
offense.
This
section
is
there
to
solve
your
problem.
You
only
have
to
use
it.
G
Thank
you,
the
difference
between
York
private
hire,
drivers
and
other
drivers.
My
name
is
Lauren
I'm
24
years
old
I've
been
in
the
trade,
since
I
was
19
as
an
operator
and
I'm.
Now,
a
driver
at
the
age
of
15
I
suffered
with
kidney
failure
so
for
six
months,
I
was
on
dialysis
for
many
people.
This
involves
decades
of
dialysis,
which
takes
at
least
four
hours
to
complete
every
other
day
of
their
lives
and
that's
not
including
travel
time.
G
I
was
very
lucky
as
I
got
a
kidney
transplant
first,
but
I've
come
here
to
dare
to
tell
you
the
difference
between
what
your
private
hire
drivers
do
compared
to
what
these
out-of-town
uber
drivers
do.
Just
in
case
you
don't
know
the
full
starring.
This
is
what
we
do.
That
is
the
same
as
uber.
We
pick
up
students
and
tourists
and
we
drive
them
to
where
they
want
to
go.
You
compare
directly
from
your
bank
with
our
app
and
track
every
journey
in
real
time
on
our
computer
system,
but
that's
where
our
similarities
end.
G
This
is
what
we
do
that
over
do
not
we
respectfully
and
with
pleasure.
Curry,
the
following:
customers,
wheelchair
users,
visually
impaired
and
blind
customers,
customers
with
learning
difficulties,
customers
with
mental
health
problems,
prisoners,
refugees,
children,
pets,
we
transport
countless
of
samples
of
life-saving
drugs
between
hospitals,
all
over
Yorkshire.
Every
single
day
we
ferry
patients
between
hospitals
we
carry
children
to
and
from.
We
have
trained
dementia
champions
in
our
companies
so
that
we
can
provide
a
dementia
friendly
service.
We
transport
adults
with
learning
difficulties
to
their
place
of
work.
G
Every
day
we
drive
over
a
hundred
renal
patients
to
and
from
their
dialysis
treatment
seven
days
a
week,
365
days
a
year,
so
that
we
are
an
essential
part
of
the
team
that
keeps
them
alive.
I'm
sure
that
you
feel
you've
been
held
to
ransom
by
uber,
but
that's
not
real.
This
is
real.
What
is
happening.
Your
constituents
here
in
York
is
real
life,
and
if
your
cancer
continues
to
ignore
the
needs
of
its
own
trade,
they
will
kill
the
trade
and
all
the
things
I've
just
listed
just
now
will
not
happen
anymore.
G
You
can
hear
the
trade
you
can
help
the
trade
today
by
voting
no
to
the
recommendations
so
that
these
people
can
still
get
to
where
they
need
to
be,
regardless
of
their
age,
disability
and
ensure
that
those
that
need
it
can
still
receive
the
drugs
or
treatment
they
need,
because
that
is
their
real
life
to
them.
Thanks.
H
Thank
you
care.
The
central
issue
is
uber,
making
a
provision
for
the
invitation
or
acceptance
of
the
booking
in
an
area
they
are
not
licensed
in
the
answer
is
yes.
The
next
question
is:
is
that
illegal?
We
believe
that
not
one
person
in
this
room
should
answer
that
question.
It
is
a
matter
for
the
courts
to
decide.
H
The
report
tells
you
that,
because
Leo,
a
junior
counsel
does
not
agree
with
Gerald
Guria,
a
QC
that
we
must
agree
with
Leo.
Why
would
you
freely
choose
to
do
that?
You,
our
elected
members,
appear
to
be
being
told
that
you
are
not
to
challenge
the
company
that
you
found
to
be
not
fit
and
proper
to
hold
an
operator's
license
in
Europe.
H
H
Interestingly,
your
counsels
recommendation
is
flawed.
How
can
you
our
elected
members,
accept
the
recommendation
before
you
when
nobody
is
asking
for
a
change
in
taxi
licensing
policy?
What
we
are
asking
you
to
apply
is
already
in
your
policy.
Your
policy
makes
the
trades
legal
position
at
least
equally
as
valid
as
your
legal
teams,
as
they
are
both
part
of
the
1976
Act,
which
this
council
adopted
a
quarter
of
a
century
ago.
H
Do
not
forget
that
the
hundred
and
five
square
miles
of
the
units
of
unitary
authority
of
York
is
the
area.
That's
as
a
local
authority.
You
not
owe
that
are
supposed
to
have
control
over
York
residents.
Students
and
seven
million
tourists
expect
you
to
protect
them,
and
sometimes
that
is
going
to
involve
court
action.
H
I
Thank
You
chair
taxi
licensing
policy.
This
is
your
current
taxi
licensing
policy.
1.1
of
this
document
says
York
Council
adopted
the
whole
of
part
2
of
the
1976
local
government
miscellaneous
provisions
at
25
years
ago.
It
did
not
adopt
all
of
it,
except
section
46
point
1d.
It
adopted
all
of
it,
which
includes
section
46,
point
1
day
for
clarity.
The
trade
is
not
asking
for
a
change
in
your
taxi
licensing
policy.
We
are
asking
that
you
implement
your
full
policy.
I
We
are
yet
to
hear
clear
and
compelling
reasons
that
allow
this
council
to
depart
from
their
own
taxi
licensing
policy
by
cherry-picking
the
1976
Act.
Your
council
are
ignoring
the
parts
that
will
help
their
trade
1.11
states
that
the
first
purpose
of
the
local
authority,
when
licensing,
hackney,
carriage
and
private
hire
vehicles,
drivers
and
operators
is
to
protect
the
public
over
lost
their
license
when
they
were
proven
to
be
not
fit
and
proper,
but
they
continue
to
operate
here
as
if
they
are
licensed.
So
your
council
is
no
longer
able
to
protect
the
public.
I
This
is
happening
in
your
city
and
you
must
take
back
control.
Don't
let
overturn
York
into
the
Wild
West
purely
for
its
own
monetary
gains.
You
cannot
you
don't
want
them
here,
and
you
have
the
power
to
do
something
about
that.
So
why
not
act
today
before
something
worse
happens
than
cutting
a
woman
out
of
the
car
at
a
set
of
traffic
lights?
I
We,
the
trade
here
in
front
of
you,
do
not
feel
that
our
interests
or
well-being
is
being
protected
by
this
council.
It
states
where
possible.
Well,
we
believe
it
is
possible,
prosecute
uber
and
you
are
doing
your
driver's
and
your
public
anything
less
than
that
and
you
are
protecting
over
failing
your
own
drivers
and
departing
from
your
own
policies,
without
the
clear
and
compelling
reasons.
J
Thank
You
chair
moving
forward.
The
trade
does
not
dispute
the
council
officers
commitment
to
their
jobs
and
we
welcome
effective
dialogue
between
us,
but
we
strongly
believe
that
the
assessment
has
been
made
by
officers
is
fundamentally
flawed.
Unless
the
impasse
between
your
counsel
in
the
trade
is
resolved,
there
will
continue
to
be
a
sense
that
our
council
does
not
support
us
instead
choosing
to
support
uber
to
the
detriment
of
the
safety
of
the
people
of
York,
when
its
first
purpose
is
to
protect
the
public.
J
J
Surely
the
fact
that
these
processes
persist
unabated
in
York
must
be
of
continuing
concern
to
this
committee.
The
trade
asks
you
to
consider
if
it's
right
that
this
council
turns
a
blind
eye
to
an
operator
that
is
causing
identical
problems
to
those
which
caused
this
committee
to
refuse
to
renew
their
license.
J
Uber
as
an
unlicensed
operator.
Continuing
to
work
in
York
is
unacceptable.
The
outcome
of
the
decision
that
you
made
is
that
nothing
has
actually
changed,
so
you
must
now
do
something
else
to
force
the
change.
The
only
way
you
can
address
your
concerns
is
by
recommending
a
sari
if,
by
rejecting
the
recommendation
that
you
have
before
you,
and
instead
it's
your
Council
to
prosecute
uber
under
Section
46,
one
D
of
the
1976
Act,
which
is
in
your
licensing
policy.
J
By
doing
that,
you
may
not
just
save
York,
you
may
save
the
rest
of
the
council's
across
the
country
whose
members
are
not
as
brave
as
you
are.
You've
set
a
precedence
on
the
12th
of
December
2017
by
becoming
the
first
Council
in
the
land,
to
refuse
to
renew
realise
that
sorry
to
refuse
to
relicense
uber.
You
were
fearless,
then
you
took
on
a
giant
and
we
really
need
you
to
do
that
again
right
now
by
rejecting
that
recommendation
and
forcing
positive
action.
Thank
you.
K
Thank
You
chair
I've,
been
requested
by
a
taxi
driver
in
my
ward
to
make
representation
this
afternoon
and
that's
in
relation
to
agenda
item
5
I'm,
certainly
not
here
to
argue
of
the
rights
and
wrongs
of
the
legal
opinions
presented
to
yourselves.
Only
to
remind
you
that
the
legal
opinion
obtained
by
your
counsel
remains
just
that
an
opinion
I'm
sure
members
rizal
are
as
aware
as
I
am
that
for
the
legal
system
to
operate
in
the
lucrative
manner,
it
always
has
and
always
will
do.
K
There
has
to
be
discussed
between
legal
opinion
obtained
by
opposing
parties.
Practice
committee
ought
to
be
brief,
form
its
own
opinion
and,
if
necessary,
up
world
taxi
licensing
policy
in
New
York
to
such
an
extent
that
a
test
case
proceeds
through
the
courts
and
legal
opinions
from
all
sides
are
thoroughly
examined.
K
It
seems
from
my
understanding
that,
as
a
committee,
you
were
being
asked
to
tolerate
the
uber
operation
in
york
on
the
basis
that,
because
these
drivers
are
valid
operator
vehicle
and
drag
a
licensee
issued
by
a
single
authority
elsewhere
than
they
are
free
to
operate
here
in
europe
in
europe.
This
council
operates
and
arguably
well-run,
stringent
and
reasonably
well-respected
taxi
licensing
regime,
and
that
gives
confidence
to
taxi
users
as
to
the
competence
and
background
of
drivers.
But
such
a
regime
doesn't
come
cheap
and
it
became
much
dearer
as
a
result.
K
So,
as
a
committee,
you
had
to
try
to
maintain
the
integrity
of
the
arc
council.
Taxi
licensing
regime,
stop
the
operation
of
clueless
and
frequently
dangerous
drivers
under
the
uber
banner
in
New
York,
and
have
that
decision
tested
in
the
courts
or
risk
as
I
would
certainly
encourage
your
drivers
to
turn
the
backs
on
this
set
up
and
register
elsewhere,
which
will
highlight
the
absolute
absurdity
of
the
whole
setup.
A
L
L
L
There
are
14
drivers
with
checks
in
progress
with
the
DBS.
There
are
22
drivers
with
whom
we
are
checking
positive
results
and
I
want
to
stress
here
that
these
positive
results
are
because
the
the
DBS
is
a
comprehensive
process
and
we
go
right
back
right
back
in
time.
So
this
will
include
convictions
and
cautions
that
were
already
aware
of,
and
we
need
to
check
that.
We
are
aware
of
those
and
those
matters
so
that
there's
not
alarming
that
there
are
22
with
them
outstanding
and
checked.
L
Some
18
drivers
have
indicated
their
intention
to
surrender
their
licenses
they're
no
longer
driving,
and
there
are
ten
who
we've
been
unable
to
contact
or
to
begin
the
process
for
a
good
reason.
For
example,
because
of
a
long-term
illness
or
because
of
out
of
the
country
and
individual
circumstances
are
given
that
there
are
disappointingly
three
drivers
refusing
to
cooperate,
although
I
have
been
informed
as
of
today,
that
is
now
only
two.
There
are
two
drivers
refusing
to
cooperate
and
we
are
taking
the
steps
to
deal
with
those
those
drivers.
L
M
Thank
You
Chuck
and
pleased
that
we
have
such
an
in-depth
checking
system
for
disclosure
barring
and
that
the
figures
that
you've
shown
as
are
very
high
for
the
compliance
of
that
my
question
is:
does
it?
Is
it
not
rather
academic
when
people
can
come
here
from
other
authorities?
Do
we
do?
We
know,
have
those
outs
of
town
drivers
are
adhering
to
disclosure
and
bearing
checks
in
the
areas
worth
their
license?.
M
L
N
Completely
separate
the
question
now
in
respect
to
paragraph
five,
you
you're
in
contact
with
those
drivers
who
have
yet
to
surrender
their
license
are
refusing
to
cooperate,
determining
whether
they
are
fit
and
proper.
Have
we
revoked
anybody's
license
and
when
do
you
suspect
the
or
when
do
you
anticipate
the
process
of
those
individuals
to
have
been
completed
and
decisions
made.
A
Any
further
questions
members
I
think
to
thank
officers
for
the
report.
It's
it's
pleasing
to
see
that
this
update
has
been
conducted
and
that
we're
now
at
a
level
that
I
think
members
can
feel
satisfied
at
the
way
we're
carrying
out
our
obligations
and
also
it's
pleasing
to
see
that
the
additional
291
drives
that
become
do
a
check
have
also
gone
through
that
process
and
that
all
drivers
have
been
contacted.
A
I
think
the
reason
why
this
committee
wanted
a
follow-up
report
was
as
a
progress
check
to
ensure
that,
after
the
issue
was
flagged
in
an
internal
audit,
that
the
officers
were
able
to
get
on
top
of
that
and
I
think
you
have
given
us
that
assurance
I,
suppose
the
only
additional
she
decides
I'd
want
is
that
officers
would
then
keep
either
the
chair
or
the
relevant
executive
member
informed
in
future.
If
that
and
any
issues
do
occur.
But
are
we
happy
to
note
the
report
agreed?
A
L
Yes,
thank
you,
chair,
I.
Think
I
can
be
brief,
that
this
report
came
with
a
request
of
the
committee
last
last
time.
It
confirms
the
count
the
position
the
council
took
that
uber
is
lawful
in
the
circumstances
set
out
in
the
report,
and
that
is
this
that
provided
the
three
licenses
required
in
relation
to
a
private
higher
vehicle,
the
operator,
the
vehicle
the
driver
have
all
been
issued
by
the
same
Authority,
then
that
private
hire
vehicles
can
undertake
journeys
anywhere
in
England
and
Wales.
L
We
have
not
ignored
the
trade
in
this
issue,
we
received
the
opinion
and
we
sought
our
own
independent
counsel,
advice
and-
and
we
saw
advice
from
a
leading
barrister
in
the
field.
The
details
of
that
independent
opinion
have
been
put
in
the
report
for
all
to
see,
and
the
conclusion
is,
the
upshot
is
described
in
a
V
in
in
the
annex
the
opinion
that
just
find
it
in
relation
to
the
opinion
we
received
from
the
trade
that,
in
the
barristers
opinion,
Jarrod
goryeo's
opinion
is
untenable
and
self-evidently
wrong.
A
O
O
O
Now,
obviously,
members
you've
got
all
the
information
before
you
and
you
extensively
as
to
the
concerns
of
the
trade,
had
just
reinforced
that
you
not
being
asked
to
take
a
decision
today.
The
recommendation
is
that
it's
referred
to
the
executive,
that
no
change
is
required
to
our
policy,
and
the
status
quo
remains
in
terms
of
the
legal
interpretation.
A
must
dress
as
well
that
this
isn't
just
the
voice
of
one
barrister,
as
was
intimated
by
some
of
the
speakers.
This
is
the
position
across
the
country
and
the
current
settled
law
on
the
matter.
O
I
think
the
report
was
also
criticised
because
it
didn't
set
out
in
detail
the
risks.
What
the
report
does
say
is
that
the
recommendation
is
to
leave
the
matter
as
it
is
and
comply
with
the
settled
law,
rather
than
challenge
the
position,
and
therefore
the
risks
would
only
have
been
set
out
had
a
recommendation
or
an
option,
we've
been
possible
to
go
against
the
law.
O
As
you
are
not
actually
making
a
final
decision,
I
don't
think
there
is
any
flaw
in
the
reporters
was
suggested
by
some
of
public
speakers
and
so
I
hope
that
leaves
you
with
enough
background
on
my
position.
Obviously
it's
up
to
members
what
what
you
consider
you
want
to
recommend
to
the
executive
to
do,
but
I
would
urge
caution
in
going
against
the
settled
law.
At
this
point.
Thank.
P
You
Jay,
thank
you
for
the
definition.
I
think.
The
thing
here
is
not
so
much
the
law
is
the
point
about
the
vehicles
and
how
vehicles
are
actually
are
breaking.
The
law
are
actually
apprehended,
whether
it's
the
police
or
others
our
officers,
and
it
would
have
been
helpful
if
the
executive
member
had
been
here
to
let
us
know
whether
the
planning
or
not
planning,
so
that
we
could
have
an
alternate
opinion
of
what
the
city
is
doing
rather
than
a
legal
position.
We
seem
to
be
going
around
about
a
legal
position
which
is
always
difficult.
P
P
There
doesn't
seem
to
be
much
in
the
way
of
apprehension
by
police
or
anybody
again.
It
would
have
been
nice
if
the
inspector
or
lexpay,
an
inspector
or
Commander
had
been
here
for
us
well
for
us
to
ask
questions
about
why
there
doesn't
seem
to
be
a
campaign
by
the
police
to
try
and
check
what
is
going
on.
We
have
ideas.
We
have
plenty
of
things
going
on,
but
is
it
when
you
say
it's
not
for
us
to
say
we'd
be
just
to
take
this
advice,
and
but
is
it
that
it
was
like
your.
A
I
think
the
recommendation
from
officers
is
that
there
shouldn't
be
further
action
on
the
basis
of
the
legal
advice.
My
obviously
recollection
from
the
previous
meeting
was
that
this
committee
felt
strongly
that
it
should
be
members
that
made
a
decision
and,
as
per
this
paper,
it
seems
that
the
appropriate
place
for
that
would
be
the
executive
and
that
this
report
is
coming
to
us
for
them
to
recommend
to
the
executive.
A
Now,
whilst
there
are
not
multiple
options
about
what
this
committee
can
recommend
in
the
paper,
as
Alison
said,
it's
obviously
up
to
this
committee,
what
recommendations
it
seeks
to
make
the
only
things
I
would
add
to
that
before
I
go
round
to
the
table
to
the
other
questions.
Other
personally
I
feel
uncomfortable,
making
a
very
formal
recommendation
on
the
basis
of
this
report.
In
this
it
doesn't
highlight
the
financial
implications
to
the
council
about
what
litigation
might
be.
There
is
no
risk
assessment.
There
is
no
equalities
impact
assessment,
so
it
makes
it
very
challenging.
A
A
So
you
know
wanting
a
further
analysis
for
them
to
make
an
informed
decision,
because
they
will
ultimately
be
the
decision
makers
or
this
committee
could
seek
to
defer
the
report
and
receive
a
more
detailed
and
thorough
report
at
the
next
meeting,
which
obviously
will
be
post-election
I'm
happy
to
have
a
discussion
around
that,
but
I
will
pass
it
on
to
Council
pavlovic.
Who
was
the
next
person
on
my
list?
No,
those
boys
counts.
The
boys.
L
L
It's
some!
It's
something!
That's
brought
up
with
where
wherever
uber
operators
is
the
challenge
that
they're
operating
with
out
of
town
vehicles
in
an
area,
so
we're
not
alone
in
in
this
concern
and
I,
don't
I,
don't
know
that
does
answer
your
question.
It
doesn't
doesn't
bear
out
of
the
deregulation
act.
It
is
a
use
of
an
existing
law
that
was
there
whether
or
not
that
deregulation
act
came
through
so.
Q
L
O
View
is
that
there
isn't
and
that
the
second
position
is
correct.
I
think
this
is
the
difficulty
when
you've
got
lawyers
involved
in
it
in
a
forum
debated
in
committee
and
the
nuances
of
legal
interpretation.
But
we're
quite
satisfied
in
our
advice
to
the
council
is
that
our
position
is
legally
correct.
O
They
don't
they
don't
actually
all
contrast
as
it
were.
They
all
set
out
the
settled
position
and
then,
with
a
new
interpretation,
that's
not
yet
tested
by
any
court
that
you
could
potentially
argue.
They
also
refer
to
cases
that
have
taken
place
in
magistrates,
courts
and
say
if
they
had
thought
about
this
issue
and
if
they
had
decided
on
something,
then
this
might
be
arguable
I
think
that's
the
top
and
bottom
of
it.
So.
N
You
face
that
so
much
better
than
I
could
have
done,
but
that
is
essentially
the
number
of
the
the
issue
that
there
are
interpretations
of
case
law
and
how
the
interpretation
of
the
legislation
as
it
relates
to
46,
1d,
could
or
should
or
potentially
might
be
applied
in
in
New
York,
where
lubbers
had
its
its
license.
Renewal
refused
the
problem
of
the
the
the
problem
I've
got
is
in
the
recommendation.
N
O
It's
highly
unlikely
to
to
be
a
successful
argument
in
my
legal
opinion
and
also
in
the
opinion
of
the
independent
barrister
who
have
sought
advice
from
so.
My
my
advice
to
members
is
that
I
think
that
arguments
going
to
make
it
would
would
not
be
successful
and
I
certainly
couldn't
be
recommending
to
the
council
as
a
prosecuting
authority
that
a
prosecution
should
go
forward
on
that
basis.
O
It
is
just
a
recommendation
you're
making
to
the
executive,
and
it
was
for
the
executive
to
determine
so
if
you
feel
that
there's
insufficient
level
of
analysis,
etc,
perhaps
a
way
forward
would
be
when
you
refer
it
to
the
executive.
If
you
express
any
concerns
that
you've
got
that
there
could
be
some
outstanding
risks
that
weren't
dealt
with
in
the
report
to
your
satisfaction
and
that
you
wanted
further
detail
to
go
to
the
executive
at
that
time.
I
don't
know
if
that's
the
way
forward.
M
Thank
you,
I
think
Ellison
might
be
anticipating
something
that
I
was
going
to
say,
so
you
you've
advised
us
that
there
was
no
risk
assessment
with
this
reports,
because
the
report
suggests
we
stick
with
the
status
quo
now.
Clearly,
there
are
risks
in
sticking
with
the
status
quo.
So
what
I'm,
asking
yeah
and
I
don't
know
who's
going
to
write
the
reports
of
the
executive,
whether
it's
maths
or
or
Michael,
but
Sir
can
I.
R
L
R
If
I
mean
we
were
given
that
opportunity
to
make
that
decision-
and
that
was
in
my
view
as
complex-
if
not
more
complex
than
this
question-
that
we're
being
posed
today
so
I'd
like
to
ask:
why
is
this
going
to
go
to
executive?
Why
will
we
allow
to
make
a
decision
a
and
certain,
but
yet
it's
been
decided
that
we're
not
able
to
make
decision
be
like
a
and
very
productive.
R
R
O
H
O
H
O
Uber's
was
a
licensing
regulatory
ubers
application
was
a
licensing
application,
that's
a
regulation,
Suri
decision,
it's
a
non
executive
function
and
that's
why
this
committee
took
that
decision
policy
decisions.
So
the
taxi
licensing
policy
is
an
executive
function
and
therefore,
as
with
the
local
plan,
issues,
matters
go
to
the
Planning.
Committee
and
recommendations
can
go
to
the
executive
but
or
to
local
plan
working
group,
and
so
this
has
been
borne
area
so
that
you
can
refer
if
you
wish
to
the
executive
for
any
changes.
R
But
an
application
came
to
us
for
uber
to
up
to
have
an
operative
license
and
we
were
making
that
decision
in
the
knowledge
that
we,
because
of
the
fact
that
that
over
had
lost
thousands
of
files
and
had
paid
a
ransom
to
have
those
files
returned
after
a
very
long
period
and
that
we
were.
We
were
convinced
that
that
made
them
an
unfit
operator.
R
R
S
There
was
have
one
question
as
a
result
of
counsel
waters
comments
about
the
cost
of
the
appraisers
license.
Am
I
right
in
thinking
that
the
taxi
licensing
account
has
to
break
even
at
the
end
of
the
year?
So
the
fact
that
the
license
has
gone
up
is
is
to
operate
the
service
and
that
isn't
actually
income
to
the
council
as
as
profit,
so
to
speak.
L
S
S
L
S
It
doesn't
give
us
any
profit
to
spend
on
other
other
other
things
that
the
council
base
book
is
what
I'm
trying
to
say.
No,
it's
for
taxi
license.
Yes,
that's
right!
Okay,
thank
you
that
the
other
questions
I
had
were
if
the
policy
was
changed,
are
we
being
with
Puma
being
advised
that
the
council
would
have
to
make
a
decision
to
prosecute
a
person
in
order
to
test
it
in
court?
It
isn't,
it
would
have
to
be
a
specific
prosecution.
Yes,
yes,.
O
I
think
probably
what
it
would
say
was
change
it
to
say
that
the
council's
position
on
the
law
is
that
you
would
need
to
that.
You
couldn't
operate,
it
would
be
akin
to
buiiets
argument
would
be
set
out
in
the
policy
yeah,
but
then
each
individual
one
would
have
to
be
assessed
by
the
prosecutor
right
and.
S
I
suppose
the
only
other
thing
I
have
is
that
everybody
is
talking
is
mentioning
a
certain
company,
but
we,
we
are
basic,
we're
really
talking
about
the
principle
of
any
operator
coming
in.
That's
because
I,
if
my
right
in
remembering
that,
before
the
uber
case,
there
was
complaints
at
that
point
about
out
of
out
of
city
operators
coming
in
and
they
weren't
associated
with
you,
though.
Yes,
it's
it's.
A
A
shorthand
okay,
thank
you,
can
I
just
ask
a
quick
supplementary
in
relation
to
being
a
change
of
policy.
Could
you
just
perhaps
clarify
that
for
me
because
to
me
it
seems
like
it's
a
view
and
the
council's
the
legal
interpretation
of
the
of
the
current
legal
position
with
relation
to
out-of-town
drivers
I,
don't
quite
understand
how
that's
a
change
of
policy.
It
might
be
a
change
of
legal
opinion,
but
could
you
clarify
that
for
me
well.
O
I
think
it
would
be
saying
that
that's
the
stance
of
the
authority,
and
that
would
be
the
the
place
in
which
you
could
do
that
would
be
in
in
terms
of
your
policy
and
in
your
enforcement
policy
that
you've
got
set
out
the
circumstances
in
which
things
about
it
is
it's
highly
highly
unusual
there,
this
entire
entire
matters
highly
unusual
to
have
in
this
forum,
but
that
as
members
wanted
it
as
transparent
as
possible
and
to
air
the
issue
for
the
benefit
of
the
trade
and
their
concerns.
This
is
where
we
are.
N
You
mentioned
that
there
have
been
case
law
looking
at
uber,
not
a
driver
as
an
operator
in
246
one
day.
The
the
opinion
that
we
have
here
says
that
it
has
not
been
yet
settled
and
applied
by
the
courts
as
far
as
it
relates
to
over.
Is
that
opinion
wrong
as
it
relates
to
uber,
not
as
a
as
a
drive
applying
for
hire
the.
N
And
that's
and
that's
the
bit
that
I
think
certainly
from
the
sounds
of
him.
They
and
and
I
read
in
these
different
I
are
a
lawyer
like
you,
but
that's
the
bit
that
I
have
the
problem
that
it's
the
is
the
invite
to
book,
and
so
just
just
to
get
back
to
the
just.
To
get
back
to
the
question
is:
is
that
am
I
satisfied
as
a
member
of
this
committee
for
that?
N
A
R
The
point
was
made
by
quite
a
number
of
people
about
localism
and
the
fact
that
licences
are
determined
at
a
local
level
and
I
think.
The
point
was
made
by
more
than
one
speaker
that
in
actual
fact,
the
the
opinion
of
the
QC
seems
to
indicate
that
if
we
follow
their
logic,
we
will
not
be
changing
policy.
We
will
return,
we
will
retain
policy
as
it
presently
stands,
whereas.
O
R
I,
but
that
this
is
about
localism.
This
is
about
how
we
determine
our
like
our
taxi
licensing
in
in
a
local
authority,
and
it
strikes
me
that
the
goal
posts
are
being
moved
and
those
moved
gold
posts
are
the
new
rules,
apparently
we're
now
no
longer
going
to
play
with
the
football.
The
football
course
at
that
end
of
the
pitch
to
both
now
gonna
be
outdoor
that
this
end
of
the
pitch.
D
E
P
O
P
Spoke
about
this,
this
definition
a
clearer
definition
of
the
bodies
with
regarding
to
the
the
ability
to
to
operate
with
the
three
you
all
need,
like
cetera,
et
cetera,
which
is
what
being
allowed
to
come
into
the
area
to
determine
whether
it
was
a
drive
and
pick
up
wherever
so
are
we
asking
the
executive
to
write
to
the
Secretary
of
State
to
say
we
would
like
a
better
definition
about
this,
or
are
we
asking
the
executive
member
to
change
the
policy
so
that
that
definition
is
very
clear?
That's.
O
M
Thank
you
magistrate
from
the
main
legal
issue
which
I'm
sure
will
return
to
in
debate.
It's
just
a
couple
of
questions
about
enforcement's
which
arose
from
the
floor.
There
was.
There
was
one
reference
to
a
driver
who
would
seem
to
be
pretending
to
be
an
uber
driver
but
was
not
registered
with
uber
can.
Can
we
confirm
whether
that
case
was
because
I
think
evidence
was
produced,
and
that
can
we
confirm
that
that
case
was
presented
to
the
police.
L
We
touched
on
this
at
the
last
meeting,
I
think
Emily
and
it
would
be
lovely
to
have
an
umpteen
officers
out
there
on
the
ground.
Don't
get
me
wrong
if
you
can
offer
more
officers
great,
but
but
the
situation
is
this,
and
officers
can
only
be
in
one
place
at
one
time
and
we
urge
ask
encourage
taxi
drivers
or
any
member
of
the
public
if
they
see
wrongdoing
report
it
to
us.
L
M
Be
a
recommendation
that
we
make
so
executive
I
think
it
could
be
valuable
if
there
are
people
doing
that
and
we
can
be
shown
to
be
apprehend
in
them.
There
may
be
less
people
coming
into
the
area
to
to
cause
these
problems,
so
we'll
leave
that
for
for
debate,
lace
and
maybe
a
comments
of
the
executor.
It's.
S
A
N
Thank
you
I'd
just
like
to
make
some
comments
that
this
is
a
very
difficult
and
emotive
subject
and
I
feel
that
some
of
the
comments
that
have
been
shouted
from
the
from
the
floor
have
been
wholly
inappropriate.
I
have
no
doubts
whatsoever
that
every
single
officer
of
this
council
has
acted
with
integrity.
N
However,
the
recommendation
that
we
have
before
us
asks
that
we
are
sure
in
our
own
minds
as
a
committee,
that
the
legal
interpretation
does
that
there
is
no
requirement
for
a
change
in
taxi
license.
Policy
is
a
consequence
and
that
the
advice
in
annex
2
is
accepted.
I
feel
that
there
is
too
much
ambiguity
in
the
different
advices.
The
fact
that,
as
Allison
has
quite
rightly
pointed
out,
the
point
of
law
issue,
which
is
ubers.
N
Entity
as
an
operator
under
46,
1,
D,
hasn't
been
effectively
challenged
and
therefore
I
do
not
feel
that
we
can
currently
say
that
there
is
no
change
in
our
policy
required
or
we
apply
the
whole
of
the
policy
which
incorporates
46
1
D
and
if
we
feel
that
uber
are
operating.
Having
already
refused
to
renew
its
license
that
we
therefore
need
to
act
on
that.
S
You,
chair
I
just
like
to
agree
with
counsel
Pavlovic.
His
first
comments
about
things
that
comments
have
been
made
and
that
I
I
too
feel
that
all
our
officers
act
with
integrity
and
I
think
it's
unfortunate
that
they
are
sometimes
attacked
in
such
a
way.
That
is
difficult
for
them
to
defend
themselves.
S
When
we
discuss
the
over
license,
it
was
made
quite
clear
to
this
committee
that
refusing
the
license
would
actually
not
result
not
end
up
with
the
result
that
people
were
hoping
for.
It
was
made
quite
clear
that
the
triple
license
situation
meant
that
they
would
be
able
to
continue
to
operate,
apply
for
trade
I.
Suppose,
no,
that's
not
the
right
term.
Is
it
sorry?
They
would
continue
to
operate
in
this
city
because
of
the
triple
the
triple
license.
Situation
and
I
said
at
that
meeting.
S
I
do
see
over
over,
like
over
caps
in
in
the
city,
I've,
never
seen
any
any
of
them
driving,
particularly
better
worse
or
better
than
any
other
driver
of
any
stage
in
this
city.
But
then
I'm
I
don't
drive
around
with
the
dashcam,
and
it
would
be
quite
nice
if
I
was
allowed
to
speak.
I,
don't
have
a
dashcam
to
but
I
speak
as
I
see
and
I
haven't
seen
any
of
them,
particularly
driving
it
in
a
any
more
dangerous
manner
than
anybody
else.
S
M
Thank
You
Jay
I'm,
not
at
all
comfortable
with
the
council's
position
on
this.
We
we
took
a
decision
that
was
that
uber
was
not
so
fit
and
proper
company
to
hold
enough
for
as
licensing
York
and
and
that
wasn't
a
comment
on
individual
uber
drivers.
That
was
a
comment
on
the
company
itself
being
unfit
to
have
a
hold
an
operator's
license
here
now
I
can
read
the
two
legal
opinions
that
presents
it
sewers
but
I'm
frankly,
not
qualified,
so
adjudicate
between
them.
I'm,
not
a
judge,
I.
M
Think
that's
why
this
case
should
go.
It
does
appear
to
me
reading
the
judgments
that
sir
mr.
Shaw
and
by
these
seems
to
be
answering
their
different
questions
to
some
extent,
so
that
raised
by
mr.
Garriga
much
of
the
case
law
that
he's
produced
relies
on
that
on
the
reading
case,
which
which
dwells
on
the
fact
that
mr.
Ali
was
a
driver
and
not
an
operator
so
I
I,
don't
see.
His
arguments
has
been
directly
answering
the
questions
that
mr.
Duryea
raised.
R
Thank
You
chair
I'm
still
stuck
with
this
problem
that
I
have
with
policy
and
opinion.
It
seems
to
me
that
on
the
and
were
being
presented
with
a
couple
of
more
than
one
opinion
on
on
this
legal
matter
and
the
the
judgment
is
in
my
mind,
I
would
probably
put
a
favor
the
QCs
argument.
I.
Think,
though,
that
is
the
stronger
of
the
two
arguments.
A
I'll
jump
in
here
I
think
it's
it's
important
that
as
a
committee,
we
don't
conflate
the
issues
of
the
actual
application
for
who,
but
getting
a
license
and
the
question
that
we
have
here
in
front
of
us
today
in
this
report
which,
to
me
a
wholly
separate
and
one
is
a
question
of
law.
The
other
one
was
a
question
of
whether
one
particular
licensee
potentially
was
a
fit
and
proper
person.
I
think
it's.
It's
also
slightly
confusing
when
we're
talking
about
this
as
being
a
change
of
policy
in
that
I.
A
Think
that
word
in
policy
actually
confuses
members
somewhat,
because
it's
not
set
out
within
the
council
policy,
and
it's
not
a
change
to
that
policy.
It's
a
change
of
what
the
council's
interpretation
of
that
legal
legal
opinion
is.
Officers
have
commented
a
number
of
times
that
they
find
that
this
process
is
highly
unusual,
I.
Think
because
it's
a
significant
issue
in
this
city,
we
know
that
we
there's
a
very
strong
representation
that
we've
had
over
a
number
of
meetings.
A
So
there's
a
lot
of
public
interest
in
this
and
that's
why
this
committee
felt
that
it
should
be
members
that
made
the
decision
rather
than
offices
and
that's
something
that
yeah
I
I
wholeheartedly
agree
with
I.
Don't
necessarily
think
that
the
executive
is
a
bad
place
for
that
to
go,
because,
ultimately,
that
is
the
highest
level
of
political
decision-making
within
the
council
and
they
they
are
in
a
position
where
they
could.
They
can
make
that
decision
on
a
significant
issue
of
policy.
A
With
that
being
said,
I
think
we
have,
as
you
said,
three
different
pieces
of
legal
advice
and
they
are
opinions.
As
councillor
waters
mentioned
earlier.
We
have
to
effectively
diametrically
opposed
in
the
gooery
a
opinion
and
Shaolin
Vedas
opinion,
and
then
we
have
the
one
that's
that
was
received
and
sent
through
by
the
trade
late
last
week
that
sits
somewhere
in
the
middle
of
that.
A
So
actually,
we've
got
significantly
conflicted
legal
opinion
and
the
the
settled
case
law
on
this
matter
isn't
there,
and
the
real
issue
for
me
is
that
whilst
we
have
the
recommendation
here
to
accept
the
the
legal
opinion
from
Leo,
Cheryl
and
Vedas,
we
don't
have
the
information
that
we
would
need
to
make
that
as
elected
members,
we
don't
have
the
financial
implications.
We
don't
have
additional
analysis
from
our
own
lawyers
of
those
two
potentially
three
opinions.
We
don't
have
the
equalities
impact
assessment.
A
So,
for
me,
that
makes
it
become
incredibly
challenging
and
I
think
that's
the
view
that
we
should
put
to
executive,
because
I
do
think
it
would
be
worth
progressing.
This
I
think
to
defer
it
would
be
unfortunate
and
I
think
we
are
able
to
put
a
view
to
executive
because
they
are
ultimately
the
decision,
makers
and
I
think
it
should
be
about
their
making
a
considered
opinion
of
what
is
significantly
conflicted
legal
opinion
and
that
they
need
to
make
that,
on
the
basis
of
the
financial
implications.
N
Looking
at
all
the
different
bits
of
case
law,
the
question,
the
question
that
I
think
councilor
hazing
and
councillor
Taylor
raised
is
having
considered
uber
to
be
not
unfree,
not
a
fit
and
proper
entity
to
have
an
operator's
license
in
York,
whether
their
actions
constitute
then
operating
in
York,
and
therefore
that's
the
bit
that
we
should
be
asking
for
the
advice
on
under
46.
1D
specifically
I
mean
you
may
disagree,
but
that's
just
my
view.
I'd.
S
P
Thank
you,
I
actually
was
going
to
question
around
the
area
that
hostelry
brought
up
and
I
agree.
It's
not
about
the
money
it's
about
whether
it's
broke.
It's
a
process,
that's
broken
the
law
and
therefore
that's
what
we
follow
rather
than
well
he's
gonna
cost
us
50
thousand
pounds
or
whatever,
at
the
end
of
day
of
your
wing.
Hopefully
you
get
you
costs
back,
but
authority
from
I.
P
Offices
to
find,
whenever
there,
if
they
catch
anybody,
it's
good
that
they,
the
trade,
is
actually
passing
information
all
over
us
two
bodies.
It
is
annoying
that
it
is
going
on
it,
isn't
just
over
there,
all
the
cows
that
are
causing
problems
and
just
lastly,
yes,
you
know
I
mean
our
officers.
Do
work
really
hard
on
a
number
of
things
and
I'd
like
to
thank
them
for
all
their
hard
work
and
comments
and
I've
justify
it
on
the
fly.
R
R
M
Taylor
good
effort,
Johnny
I,
don't
think
you
get
it
in
as
emergency
motion
for
Thursday
I
would
like
to
make
a
proposal.
Then
I'd
like
to
make
a
proposal
that
we
do
not
accept
the
advice
because
we
deem
it
to
be
insufficient
and
the
the
issue
is
then
sent
back
to
our
sense
through
the
executor
to
make
a
decision
because
we're
not
empowered
to
make
this
decision.
Q
Q
What
about
this
look
that
law,
but
is
it,
is
unfair
and
it
can
lead
to
practices
that
we
don't
like,
but
unfortunately,
I
wish
there
would
be
some
regulation
made,
but
that
doesn't
appear
to
be
happening
at
the
moment.
So
it's
really
difficult
to
actually
to
know
what
we
can
do
and
I'd
like
somehow
to
be
able
to
I.
Think
we're
going
to
have
to
send
this
to
the
executive,
but
I've
not
learnt
much
confidence
about
their
decisions.
M
T
My
my
problem
is
that
it
is
a
legal
thing
if,
if
I
could,
if
I
could
make
a
judgement
on
legal
decisions,
I
probably
wouldn't
be
sitting
here,
I'd
probably
be
in
a
very
highly
paid
job,
but
the
the
second
part
is
that
we
recommend
to
the
executive
that
no
requirements
that
there's
no
requirement
for
a
change
in
the
policy.
So
what
are
we
sending
to
the
executive?
We
to
my
way
of
thinking?
We
we
either
reject
it
out
of
hand,
because
we
can't.
T
We
can't
judge
that
some
and
x2
is
a
correct
interpretation,
but
we
can't
send
it
to
the
executive
and
say
there
may
be
a
need
for
a
change
in
policy
than
there.
Not.
Surely
that's
something
that
should
be
discussed
in
this
committee
that
there's
something
wrong
with.
What's
with
with
what's
happening,.
R
Hayes
I'm
just
going
to
come
back
and
and
echo
those
comments.
I
actually
do
think
that
the
it
is
actually
up
to
us
as
this
committees
to
give
our
opinions
and
give
our
opinion
strongly,
because
I
think
that
we're
probably
closer
to
it
than
than
more
than
the
executive
I
mean
I
I
I
feel
that
that
I
would
like
to
recommend
that
we
followed
the
advice
given
by
the
QC
rather
than
the
the
alternative
view.
That
would
be
my
feelings
that
that
certainly
would
be
how
I
would
interpret
it.
R
However,
I
do
I'm
not
the
arbiter
on
this,
but
I
think
that
I
would
say
executive.
Please
look
at
this,
but
could
you
please
look
at
it
from
the
point
of
view
of
a
local
operator?
Could
you
please
try
to
look
at
it
from
that
perspective,
because
I
think,
if
you
apply
that
perspective,
then
I
think
that
you
will
probably
come
out
with
a
more
balanced
and
a
correct
answer
to
this
question.
U
Understand
from
the
the
comments
made,
the
concerns
around
the
room
and
I
think
it's
obvious
recommendation
that
if
you
are
uncomfortable
that
you
do
refer
this
to
the
executive
at
the
end
of
the
day,
my
understanding
is
that
this
committee
would
have
to
see
the
policy
changed
for
the
council
to
embark
on
a
on
a
prosecution
and
that
function
doesn't
lie
with
this
committee.
As
a
licensing
committee,
it
has
to
be,
if
effectively
moved
to
the
executive
order
to
fall.
Council,
but
not
not
a
mother
here
and
I.
U
N
A
A
Yeah
to
clarify
it's,
this
committee,
making
a
new
recommendation,
not
accepting
the
recommendation,
that
is
on
the
papers
and
that
recommendation
being
that
this
matter
should
be
referred
to
the
executive
and
that
the
legal
position
is
conflicted
and
the
executive
needs
to
make
this
decision
on
the
basis
of
the
additional
analysis
and
also
factors
that
I
listed
at
the
moment
ago.
Are
we
happy
to
move
to
a
vote
all
those
in
favor
of
that
recommendation?.