Written evidence submitted by the Liverpool City Region Local Authority Licensing Authorities, Liverpool City Region Combined Authority and the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner (Merseyside) (TPV0136)
1.1 This response is submitted to the Transport Committee on behalf of the six Liverpool City Region Local Licensing Authorities (Liverpool, St Helens, Wirral, Knowsley, Halton and Sefton) and the Liverpool City Region Combined Authority (LCRCA).
1.2 The response also reflects the priorities and the views of Emily Spurrell, Merseyside’s Police and Crime Commissioner, whose remit covers the Merseyside policing area. Halton Borough Council is served by the Cheshire Constabulary and the Cheshire Police and Crime Commissioner.
1.3 In the context of taxi licensing, the LCRCA has no statutory role or remit, as these are the clear responsibilities that sit with the six constituent local authorities. In the broader context of taxis and private hire vehicles, the LCRCA’s interests stem from its role as Local Transport Authority for the city region, with associated transport planning responsibilities. Taxis and private hire vehicles form an integral part of the city region’s public and shared transport offer and support the social, environmental and economic wellbeing of the city region and beyond.
1.4 The LCRCA is finalising its draft Local Transport Plan (LTP), that sets a clear vision and priorities for transport, looking to 2040. The LTP advocates an urgent and significant uptake in the use of clean, sustainable forms of travel to address challenges and opportunities of the city region. These include: the need to support growth, productivity and access for all, the need to decarbonise transport by 2035, the need to improve health and wellbeing, and the need to make the city region a safe place to live, work and visit – safe from the risk of road traffic collisions, and safe from actual or perceived hate, violence and other anti-social behaviour. The role of a high-quality taxi and private hire vehicle fleet and a licensing regime that supports the very highest standards and safeguards in support of this will be very apparent.
1.5 Within the Liverpool City Region, the authorities together with the Office of the Police and Crime Commissioner, regularly collaborate to ensure that taxi licensing is delivered to comparable standards across the city region. The city region has been working closely together for over ten years and this has led to the adoption of policies and standardised conditions benchmarked against the same minimum standards. Prior to the introduction of the NR3S the city region already operated an information sharing agreement to ensure that those refused licences or who had been revoked, were not licensed in a neighbouring borough.
1.6 The city region’s Licensing Managers meet every month to problem solve and agree new or revised policy and this partnership has assisted the region greatly when addressing the issue of cross border hiring but cannot be a substitute for legislative change.
1.7 The city region has been instrumental in calling for legislative reform in the area of taxi licensing for some time and has lobbied government through its representation on the LGA (Local Government Association) and the Institute of Licensing. Elected Chairs of the council’s Licensing Committee’s and Council Leaders have also submitted their concerns.
2. Do current licensing arrangements and tools enable local authorities to effectively regulate and oversee the taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) sector across England, in terms of safety, accessibility and quality of service? If not, what improvements could be made?
2.1 Taxi licensing requires modern, progressive legislation which is suitable for the world it now operates in. Existing legislation dates back to 1847 for Hackney Carriages and still refers to the carriage being required to carry a bale of hay. Private Hire legislation under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 is not bespoke law and again is outdated.
2.2 Because of the challenges caused by this and the evolving area of taxi licensing, authorities are free to set the standards they wish and although most claim to have the same checks and balances, they are not all carried out to the same standard.
2.3 An example of this would be for safeguarding, which is always a key consideration for licensing authorities. In the Statutory Guidance for Taxi and Private Hire Licensing there are highlighted areas for training which should be carried out. Safeguarding, disability awareness and an English language test are noted. There is no set standard for what the training should consider, safeguarding could just be children and vulnerable adults but there should be considerations for those who are intoxicated, under the influence of medication, have hidden health conditions, people trafficking, modern slavery, it is a long list. As there is no standard content then the authorities are free to choose what to include and the length, duration and manner of the training. Some authorities do this extremely well and insist on in person courses, where identity is verified and those in attendance subject to questioning and written forms of understanding. Others simply offer an online tick box course which could be sat by anyone and offers no challenge to the important matters which need to be considered. This is also the case with disability awareness training.
2.4 The English language test is difficult to address as there is no recommended course and nothing appears to be available nationally. Local authorities are then left to devise their own training which is time consuming and defeats the object of what the guidance is trying to achieve, a universal standard. As a local example from the Liverpool City Region, devolved Adult Skills Funding will continue to support the delivery of vocational training that supports taxi drivers through a range of providers in 2025/26. Wirral Met College have requested a sub-contract for Unite the Union for 2025/26 and are currently undergoing their due diligence in relation to the sub-contract arrangement.
2.5 In legislation, licensing authorities have to accept an application, even when they are aware that the applicant will not meet the requirements. Applicants are aware of this and insist on the application usually being considered by a committee of elected members, usually with the same outcome of refusal. This is both time consuming and costly to local authorities as if the application is unsuccessful, all the fee is required to be refunded. There is currently no way to recover these costs and authorities are dealing with thousands of applications which have already been considered in another area and refused and have to start the process again. It has a significant financial impact on local authorities. An authority should be able to refuse an application, when it has taken into account all relevant information, in the interests of public safety.
2.6 Ideally cross border hiring should be removed from existing legislation as it is this single part of a wider act, which has caused many of the problems the authorities now face. The ability to subcontract between boroughs one to another seems reasonable but this has never happened. Private hire operators saw the loophole and took out multiple licences throughout the country. This means that the business never leaves their organisation and has resulted in, rather than being licensed in their home borough or region, drivers are looking for the cheapest option, with fewer checks and the quickest or easiest processing systems. Drivers are licensing themselves and their vehicles. This cannot be good for safeguarding. Drivers are being licensed hundreds of miles away and returning to work in their own borough. There is no oversight by the licensing authority and the local authority is powerless to take any action or because they have lost revenue from drivers moving elsewhere, neither do they have the resources to provide a response. Shared agreements between authorities are useful but have little effect if the authorities do not have the funding to properly operate their services.
2.7 Legislation needs to be strong with clear supporting guidance similar to the Licensing Act 2003 to ensure that all councils are delivering the same high standards across the country.
2.8 The city region would be supportive of the ABBA model, which stands for “A to B or B to A” - a PHV journey must either start or end in the area where the driver, vehicle, and operator are licensed. Its purpose is to prevent drivers from being licensed in one area (with lower standards or costs) and working almost exclusively in another. This model was recommended by the 2018 Taxi and PHV Working Group as the most effective solution to close the cross-border loophole.
2.9 Taxi licensing has also been severely impacted by the removal of taxi drivers from the notifiable occupations. Since then, it’s very hit and miss throughout the country as the onus is on the arresting officer to initiate the process. As police officers are not specifically trained in taxi licensing law and their ‘evidence test’ is completely different from the powers of a licensing authority, this may have complicated matters. Taxi drivers need be treated as a notifiable occupation to reinstate the disclosures the authorities desperately need to keep the public safe.
2.10 Common Law Police Disclosures (CPLD) replaced notifiable occupations of which taxis was one. This replaced a system that at that time was seen as having the potential to breach Data protection and human rights and was due to excessive disclosure being made on matters not relevant to the role, simply by virtue of the occupation and the finite list of occupations was often restrictive.
2.11 The principle of CLPD is that it allows for a police officer to make a professional judgement, and any occupation can be considered. There has to be an ‘urgent pressing social need’ such as safeguarding, or protection from harm, of an individual, a group of individuals, or society at large particularly vulnerable adults and children. The offence must be relevant to the occupation – so with taxi drivers we would expect sexual and violence offences, driving offences (especially drink/drug related), drugs including possession and PWITS, as these would all present an urgent risk to passengers and the public alike, but a shop theft wouldn’t meet this threshold. This revised process however is bureaucratic, it takes place generally from within custody at the point of arrest - an Occupation Disclosure Risk Assessment (ODRA) form is completed and goes through the process to the nominated Chief Officer for approval, and then it goes to PNC & Data Access where one of the supervisors will contact the relevant third-party. There’s a procedure for out-of-hours if the Custody Inspector deems it to be time critical and can disclose directly to the employer. This process was instigated in 2015, and the world has moved on, this would be worthy of revisiting.
2.12 Violence Against Women and Girls (VAWG) should be considered in the context of taxi licensing. This is recognised by Police Chiefs as a national emergency and features in the Police and Crime Commissioners Plan.
2.13 The city region is innovative in its approach to VAWG and works collaboratively with partners from Community Safety and the Police to integrate this key priority into taxi licensing.
3.1 The City of Wolverhampton’s dominance in the field of PHV licensing is very significant, linked to the deregulated system that allows drivers to be licensed outside of their home local authority It is also to the detriment of authorities working to implement local licensing standards that may be more stringent, so as to address the specific needs of their localities. Some licensing authorities reducing their standards to address the competition exerted by Wolverhampton’s lower costs, and licensing requirements that can be seen as more favourable, but which is to the detriment of the principles of devolution, and ultimately, to the detriment of the travelling public. It is appreciated that Wolverhampton is acting fully within the law, hence the need for action to be taken at a national, legislative level. The Deregulation Act 2015 introduced competition to a statutory service which should not exist and introduced very serious safeguarding risks to an already vulnerable area. The fees payable for taxi licensing are strictly controlled in law and can only be used for the purpose of delivery of the service. When setting licence fees due regard must be had to recent relevant case law in particular ‘Hemming v Westminster City Council 2015’ (Supreme Court) and ‘Manchester City Council ex parte King’.
3.2 Effectively revenue has been drawn from licensing authorities to areas like Wolverhampton, making it difficult for the authorities to deliver their statutory licensing duties. There was no need to create this issue and the safeguarding risks of drivers choosing to be licensed several hours away from their home / work base should be thoroughly scrutinised. Similarly, how those authorities which are attracting such large volumes of applications, are apportioning this revenue.
3.3 Complaints are regularly received from the public when an ‘out of town’ vehicle turns up to collect them. They describe feeling vulnerable as they don’t know where the vehicle is from and confusion of how this is allowed to happen. They do not feel safe and usually the licensing authority in which the collection occurs is the one who will receive the complaint. The public do not understand why they then need to contact a licensing authority elsewhere in the country about a complaint that took place where they live. Invariably, it’s too difficult and they don’t follow through with the complaint.
3.4 Similarly, if a serious incident involving a taxi driver occurs locally and the driver is licensed in another council the authority will not be informed. This can result in serious, damaging publicity for an authority who is completely blameless. Legislative reform is the only way to solve the issues the industry now faces.
4. What would be the practical implications for licensing authorities and operators of more stringent or standardised licensing conditions in respect of safety, accessibility, vehicles and driver conduct?
4.1 Changing anything in licensing takes a good deal of time and requires consultation, however a set of mandatory conditions could be imposed on licences, similar to LA3 which delivered through legislation should not be too onerous.
4.2 Training for the taxi trade and elected members should also be standardised.
5. What steps should the Government take to address the challenges posed by cross-border licensing in the taxi and PHV sector?
5.1 New, clear, robust legislation and guidance is urgently needed.
5.2 When recommending training areas, these should be clearly defined as to requirements, outcomes and the delivery model and an assurance provided that the courses exist throughout the country.
5.3 When setting standards and guidance there should be a quality assurance process to oversee the standards possibly at regional level, and there should be no room for authorities to set their own standards of delivery which permits safeguarding concerns.
6. What would effective reform look like in terms of enforcement, passenger safety and safeguarding, and regulatory consistency? Is there a role for regional transport authorities?
6.1 The LCRCA and constituent local licensing authorities have been following the progress of the Government's Devolution White Paper since its publication in late 2024, noting its proposals to move taxi and PHV licensing responsibilities from the level of local authorities upwards to the LCRCA.
6.2 However, the LCRCA and its local authority partners see no case for, and no benefit in moving these licensing responsibilities from a local level as a blanket measure. Fundamentally, such changes would not address the core issues raised in this submission around the problems created by out-of-area licensing. Drivers would remain free to license their vehicle outside of an LCR-wide regime without a more fundamental change in the law. In practical terms, this would only serve to move the problem, and any benefits would be limited.
6.3 The priority for the LCRCA is to support the alignment and raising of collective standards across the local authorities, to maximise the local knowledge and insight that local licensing authorities have, and which is fundamental to a safe and well-functioning taxi and PHV network. The legislative shift needed is to manage out of area licensing, rather than seeking to stipulate the level at which licensing should be operated.
6.4 In the spirit of devolution, it should also be a matter for Combined Authority areas to determine their preferred model of taxi and PHV licensing, aided by appropriate “enabling” legislative provisions, rather than for government to impose a fixed model on local areas.
7. How are digital ride-hailing platforms impacting standards in the sector, and is further regulation in this area required?
7.1 The current legislation does not lend itself to this at all. The ‘off hands’ approach and ‘faceless’ operation of these models causes concern particularly among older service users.
7.2 For young people, this is now their only mode of transport when using a ‘taxi’, they have very limited knowledge of local trade and often see them as being inferior to the fashionable ‘I’m getting an Uber’.
7.3 It has undoubtedly had an impact on the local private hire industry with the bigger operators such as Uber and Veezu, buying out the smaller companies, which has reduced competition and, in some cases, driven up prices. Some regions now have little choice between operators and are limited to a small pool of two or three. The older members of the community and those who have a disability have been casualties as the local choice and trust they had no longer exists.
8. How effective, accessible, and trusted are complaints and incident reporting systems in the taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) sector, for both passengers and drivers?
8.1 There is no legal requirement for this so again it is completely dependent on the licensing authority introducing and enforcing this through licence conditions and policy. Drivers will routinely omit to disclose matters or incidents to their authorities or operators, and this has been made much worse by drivers working nowhere near their licensing authority. Authorities would benefit from tighter legislation and agreed systems of complaint reporting, investigations and action.
8.2 There is merit in developing a national database for complaints and incident reporting, akin to the existing NR3S register referenced below, but for issues that are reported to licensing authorities and subsequently investigated.
9. How effective is the National Register for Revocations, Refusals and Suspensions (NR3S). in supporting consistent licensing decisions cross local authorities? What barriers, if any, are limiting its use or impact?
9.1 The NR3S Register has been welcomed within the sector and has provided a central repository for use across the country to easily check the licence status of an individual. What could be improved is the response time of authorities when information is requested by another licensing authority. This can take anything from a single day up to eight weeks in some cases which delays the application process for the requesting licensing authority.
9.2 Consideration could be given to authorities uploading supporting information for the suspension or revocation, at the time of the addition of the individual to the register. This would ensure that information is accessible at source and decision making improved.
10. What are the implications for taxi and PHV licensing of the future rollout of autonomous vehicles?
10.1 There has been no consultation with Licensing Authorities about the introduction of autonomous vehicles which, given their experience in managing public transportation by single vehicle, is difficult to understand.
10.2 The LGA have been the main source of information for authorities but only by the way of consulting on small parts of plans and contracts that are already approved. Most licensing authorities are concerned not only about the impact on local business and serious safeguarding issues which haven’t been addressed, but on the additional burdens that will come to local authorities with no financial recompense.
10.3 Limited feedback has been provided to authorities that the licensing process is too cumbersome and slow for automated vehicles and is deemed inappropriate. This is very concerning, not only were authorities not consulted, but the ‘cumbersome’ processes they describe are in place to safeguard and protect the public. There are serious concerns not only on the matter of safeguarding but also on the ability of local authorities to fulfil their statutory licensing obligations, if their revenue declines following the introduction of the autonomous licences.
September 2025