To approve the Management of Occupational Road Risk Policy and Guidelines; and to delegate authority to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to make minor amendments to the Policy following Union consultation.

1.      That the Management of Occupational Road Risk Policy and guidelines be APPROVED.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to make minor amendments to the policy, if necessary, following Union consultation.  

12.1           The report of the Head of Finance and Asset Management, circulated at Pages No. 87-97, sought to extend the current arrangements for the checking of business travel and formalised the approach so that the Council was able to demonstrate it was discharging its duties. Members were asked to approve the Management of Occupational Road Risk Policy and Guidelines and to delegate authority to the Head of Finance and Asset Management to make minor amendments to the Policy, if necessary, following Union consultation.

12.2           The Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that the Policy, as attached to the report at Appendix A, would apply to all officers and Members of the Council, Council volunteers and a number of additional roles. The framework would organise the Council’s current approach to the administration of business travel and provide consistency across the organisation. The Policy was designed to be comprehensive and effective yet simple and quick for management and employees to instigate. In summary, the Policy required annual checks against car insurance, driving licence, MOT certification and road tax. Individuals would be required to provide hard copy information for certain elements whereas in other areas the government’s website and central database could be used. Managers would be expected to sign a declaration once they had checked the documents and that would be passed to Human Resources for recording on personnel files. Should an employee not have the correct insurance and/or documentation for themselves or their vehicle they would be suspended from undertaking business travel until the issue was resolved.

12.3           During the discussion which ensued, a Member questioned how many of the Council’s business users were under 25 years old and whether any of them were required to use a telematics box (also known as a black box) for insurance purposes as this could make it cheaper. In response, the Head of Finance and Asset Management explained that, in terms of age, he could not be absolutely sure but he would imagine the vast majority of such users would be over the age of 25. The cost of an individual’s insurance was none of the Council’s business as it was the individual employee who paid for the insurance so it was up to them whether or not they had a box fitted. In terms of the number of claims made against the Council none had been received in the past five years but the Council’s new insurance provider had still requested that the arrangements be made to ensure the Council was in the best position possible.

12.4           There followed a brief discussion about why the Policy applied to Members. In response, the Borough Solicitor indicated that, if a Member was involved in an accident, but for some reason was inadequately insured, the Council could be pursued as being vicariously liable as the Councillor was travelling in order to conduct Council business. The Council was trying to protect its insurance provision by ensuring all checks were carried out and that no employees or Members were driving without valid insurance, MOT, road tax etc.  Whilst everyone had individual responsibilities it was the case that an injured party would often see the Council, rather than the individual, as the better chance for financial recompense. A Member expressed the view that, because Councillors were not salaried, they were not classed as business users but instead were commuters; she felt the Policy was intrusive and unnecessary for Members in particular. However, upon being put to the vote, it was