Agenda item

To discuss the proposed changes to DVLA medical examinations and assessments of fitness to drive.

Paul Collyer, Head of Occupational Health & Safety, presented the report which proposed changes to DVLA medical examinations and assessments of fitness to drive.

It was explained that officers were proposing to introduce a mandatory health screening every two years for all employees who were contractually designated as required drivers for the Council and whose role included driving vehicles that carried passengers and/or work equipment/materials other than in a pool car or privately owned motor car. Therefore, it was clarified that the affected cohort were drivers of Council owned vehicles such as gritters, mobile libraries, minibuses, and vans, and totalled approximately 140 employees.

Officers further explained that regular health screening procedures were already in place for other groups of employees and given recent increase in the number of employees within Passenger Transport, the scale of usage, and the severity of possible outcomes for the affected employees while undertaking their roles, officers felt that the proposed screenings were a reasonably practicable measure.

During the discussion, points included:

·       As per Paragraphs 6 and 7 of the policy, it was clarified that the proposed two-yearly screenings would be in addition to those required in line with DVLA guidelines for holders of valid HGV/LGV/PCV licences.

·       It was confirmed that the proposed changes would not affect those employees driving private vehicles or pool cars, only those who drove Council assets as the vehicles were by nature bigger, heavier, and/or carrying passengers/work equipment.

·       Officers clarified that if the changes were to be implemented, the screenings for the 140 affected employees would be staggered over the next 12 months, with the procedure being included as part of the onboarding process for new starters.

·       It was confirmed that the proposed screenings could be fulfilled through existing resources and therefore the only cost that officers were predicting would be that of the employees’ time in attending and travelling to the appointment. However, it was clarified that the appointment would be accounted for as part of an employee’s contracted hours and the appointment’s location could be negotiated on an individual basis in order to minimise service disruption across the county.

·       Officers noted that the Passenger Transport Service had been consulted in respect of the proposals as they held the majority of those affected employees, and it was confirmed that they had no objections and were happy to support the measures and accommodate accordingly.

·       It was confirmed that if an employee was found to not be fit to drive through the screenings, then the standard HR policies would apply and redeployment among other employment options would be considered.

·       Members queried the legal implications to the Council if despite these checks, an employee were to have a medical episode resulting in an accident while driving a Council vehicle. Officers noted the proposals were a reasonably practicable mitigation measure to reduce the risk of such an event. However, officers agreed to draft and circulate to Members a written response to the concerns raised.

·       Officers highlighted that if an employee were to be diagnosed with a condition that could affect their fitness to drive, they would be legally required to inform the DVLA, but were not legally required to inform the Occupational Health Team.

·       It was explained that consultations on the proposals had followed the conventional route through the Corporate Leadership Team, Joint Consultative Committee (JCC), and Trade Unions, all of which supported the changes.

·       It was additionally confirmed that if the policy was implemented, then it would result in a formal change to existing employees’ terms and conditions.

·       In the event that an employee chose not to engage with the screening process, it was confirmed that the normal HR policies would apply to ensure that officers were confident of employees’ fitness to drive based on the information available to them.

·       Members highlighted the importance of balancing the rights of Council employees when considering that there were existing national regulations and legislation in place to report relevant health conditions, and that the proposed changes could result in an employee being deemed fit to drive by the DVLA, but not fit to drive a Council owned vehicle. Members additionally felt that further detail was required within the policy with regard to the procedures to be followed if an employee didn’t pass or refused to undertake a screening, and what the contractual implications would be for existing employees.

Following which, it was:

Resolved:

The Committee resolved to defer the item to the next meeting to properly consider the points, and necessary policy amendments, raised during debate; to include legal implications and contract of employment implications for existing employees.