Written evidence submitted by Cheshire East Council (TPV0139)

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?

As leaders and representatives of our communities, we have a duty to protect the public, to prevent and detect crime, and to keep children and vulnerable adults safe.

The statutory guidance Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards - GOV.UK states that “licensing authorities should have in place arrangements that reflect the importance of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children”.

Despite the risk and the duties placed on local authorities, the legislation on taxi licensing, some of which dates back to 1847, has failed to keep pace.

Deregulation Act 2015 undermines the ability of each local authority to discharge the duties placed on it.

The risk is not adequately mitigated by the current national standards.

Regulators are obliged under the Regulators Code Regulators' Code - GOV.UK to base their enforcement activities on risk and to support those that they regulate to comply. It is questionable whether a licensing authority that is remote from the point of operation can have an effective understanding of risk and the needs of those that there regulate. The number of enforcement officers deployed to a particular region is often low, when compared to the number of vehicles operating in that area.

There is currently little or no incentive for the authority in which the vehicles are operating to enter into an enforcement agreement with the licensing authority in which they are licensed, as they would effectively be discharging the responsibility of the licensing authority, without having control over the administration of that licence.

The current system is open to market forces. There is a risk that it will be driven disproportionately by price and ease of obtaining a licence, as opposed public safety.

A feasibility review should be carried out to examine how SEND needs can be made more cost effective, removing duplication between procurement and licensing regimes, whilst maintaining appropriate levels of safeguarding and enforcement.

If not, what improvements could be made?

The introduction of new primary legislation for taxi licensing.

Opportunities have been missed in the past. The Law Commissions report in 2014 Taxi and Private Hire Services - GOV.UK included a draft Bill with a comprehensive set of proposals to completely update and replace taxi and PHV legislation. In 2017 the Department for Transport set up a working group. The Government issued a response in 2019 Government Response to the report of the Task and Finish Group on taxi and private hire vehicle licensing with a view to introducing legislation.

There needs to be a clear commitment and timetable to introducing new primary legislation that has regard to the latest technology, methods of operation and safeguarding risks.

Guidance on Provision and Cross Border Hiring.

Previous reviews have highlighted the concepts of plying for hire and provision. This is particularly important given the use of technology. Plying for hire has been tested in the courts. Provision has not been tested to the same degree. An operator can only make provision for the invitation and acceptance of a private hire booking in the controlled district in which they are licensed. Provision is taken to focus on the arrangements and not the provision of the vehicle.

There needs to be clearer guidance on the interpretation and meaning of provision and the implications on the currently widely accepted principle that no part of the journey needs to start from, pass through or end in the controlled district in which the vehicle is licensed.

The Government should as a minimum urgently review the national standards Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards - GOV.UK in order to ensure that they provide an appropriate, rather than minimum level of safeguarding and control. This should include an assessment as to whether the introduction of national standards, set at an intervention level sufficient to protect the public, are in themselves sufficient to mitigate likely risks. Licensing authorities should be required to submit an annual statutory return demonstrating compliance, or where enhanced measures are required, based on local need.

If sufficient assurance cannot be provided based on an enhanced system or national standards, then the Government should look at the feasibility and practicality of returning to a system where all taxi and PHV drivers and vehicles should license within the principal area that they intend to operate.

Devolved administration of taxi licensing.

Transport for London is currently responsible for transport provision within its area. A devolved approach may promote consistency in the administration, control and enforcement of taxi licensing across a sub region.

Devolved administrations should be given the powers to opt to centralise taxi and private hire administration and enforcement across their region.

Enforcement

Licensing authorities should have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) for breach of legislation and conditions of licence.

Legislation should be brought forward to enable licensing authorities to carry out enforcement and compliance checks and take appropriate action against any taxi or PHV in their area, against the revised national standards.

The police are an invaluable source of intelligence when assessing whether an applicant for a driver’s licence is a fit and proper person to hold that licence. It is vital that that appropriate information is shared as quickly as possible. They can be significant delays in disclosing relevant information to local authorities.

There should be a requirement for the police to notify the Licensing Authority of all investigations involving a taxi driver and for a licensing authority, without prejudice to any police investigation, to be given any such information that can be disclosed at that time, in order that the local authority can determine whether the person remains a fit and proper person to hold a licence.

CCTV

The Government Best practice guidance Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing best practice guidance for licensing authorities in England - GOV.UK It recommended that all licensing authorities should consult to identify if there was a local need to introduce CCTV on safety grounds.

Previous reviews have called for mandatory CCTV. Concerns have been raised that the proportionality of such an approach. Guidance is provided in annex 12 of the statutory standards Statutory taxi and private hire vehicle standards - GOV.UK

All Licensing authorities should be required to prepare and publish and keep under review a Data Protection Impact Statement on whether CCTV is necessary in their controlled district, and whether its use would be proportionate and effective.

Government should examine how drivers and operators can be incentivised to introduce discretionary CCTV, of a sufficient evidential standard in their vehicle(s).

Safeguarding Training

All licensing authorities should provide safeguarding advice and guidance to the trade and should require taxi and private hire vehicle drivers to undertake safeguarding training. This is often produced in conjunction with the police and other agencies. There are wide discrepancies as to the standard and quality of the training provided and the level of assurance that the person has achieved an appropriate level of awareness.

The Government should consider launching a national training and assessment tool that requires each perspective applicant and existing driver every three years to complete a national mandatory training assessment, which requires proof of who they are, and which gives them a unique reference code providing assurance that they have satisfactorily completed the course. This could be further expanded by introducing a nationally accredited qualification, similar to a personal licence holder under the Licensing Act 2003.

National Database.

The development of a national database of all licensed taxi/PHV drivers, vehicles and operators would help to facilitate greater information sharing between partners and assist with safeguarding.

The Government should look to introduce a national database of drivers, vehicles and operators, which can be accessed by any licensing authority.

What is the impact on the travelling public and drivers of variation between licensing authorities? Is reform needed to bring greater standardisation?

There has been a significant detrimental impact on drivers. In theory, the ability to licence with any licensing authority should confer benefits to the driver and operator in terms of cost and ease of access to the services. However, the current system has effectively created ‘super’ licensing authorities who experience significant demand and backlogs. Drivers refer to frustration that “out of town” drivers who do not have to operate to the same standards, either perceived or actual, are impacting on their livelihood.

It is acknowledged that large operators would benefit from greater consistency when seeking licences across multiple licensing authorities.

The travelling public either loyally use a local taxi company or instead use widely recognised APP based providers. Ease of access, convenience of use and reliability are increasingly becoming important factors for the public, rather than quality of service and standards of licensing.

Reform is required to bring about greater standardisation. It is not clear whether the travelling public can adequately distinguish the difference between a private hire and hackney carriage vehicle, and how they operate. National standards should the current requirements in terms of signage and identify to ensure that they remain appropriate and that the importance of the distinction between the different type of operation remains.

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?

Licensing authorities would need to ensure that their licensing policies are consistent with any changes. Overall, we would welcome greater standardisations of conditions set at an appropriate level rather than minimum standard. This would improve consistency for users and operators, whilst reducing the potential for drivers to elect to renew their licence with an authority operating to a lesser standard, on the basis of cost and wase of obtaining a licence alone.

What steps should the Government take to address the challenges posed by cross-border licensing in the taxi and PHV sector?

There needs to clearer guidance on the interpretation and meaning of provision.

Licensing authorities should be required to submit an annual statutory return demonstrating compliance, setting out where enhanced measures are required, based on local need.

Devolved administrations should be given the powers to opt to centralise taxi licensing administration and enforcement across their region.

Legislation should be brought forward to enable licensing authorities to carry out enforcement and compliance checks and take appropriate action against any taxi or PHV in their area.

The Government should set national minimum fees to prevent the system being dictated by the cost an ease of obtaining a licence, as opposed to public safety. There should be a periodic audit of accounts by Government to ensure that fees are only being used to cover the reasonable costs of administrating the licensing function, and that fees are not being used to subsidise other budgets.

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?

Addressing out of area working is a complex issue and would take a significant amount of time to resolve. However new primary legislation should be introduced within a realistic timescale.

We would urge Government to introduce more robust national standards set at an appropriate rather than minimum level, national enforcement powers and a national database of all taxi/PHV drivers, vehicles and operators.

There are also significant barriers in terms of harmonising policies, standards, conditions and enforcement protocols. However, we believe that as part of the devolution agenda, combined authorities should have the option to move to a centralised administration and enforcement approach.

Legislate for any Licensing Officer to enforce-see previous.

How are digital ride-hailing platforms impacting standards in the sector, and is further regulation in this area required?

Digital ride-hailing apps have increased the prevalence of out of area working, as drivers are no longer dependent on a radio link to a local operator base. This has raised concerns about how new taxi/PHV service operating models fit into the current framework, with many drivers now working outside the area they are licensed in.

App based providers have not mandated CCTV within vehicles operating using their platform, which means that a significant proportion of vehicles do not benefit from the use and legitimate operation of CCTV.

Drivers have commented that they work to small margins when operating via an APP based system, in costs of their ability to make a living.

There is therefore an urgent need to reform to the outdated legislation that governs taxi and PHVs. Piecemeal changes to legislation in recent years have not kept pace with rapid advances in technology, which have changed the way taxis and PHVs operate in the 21st century.

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?

The police have frameworks which govern information sharing. Since the Home Office’s Notifiable Occupations Scheme (NOS) was succeeded by the Common Law Police Disclosure scheme (CLPD) in 2015, licensing authorities have received significantly less information from the police in relation to taxi/private hire drivers. This is because, under the CLPD, there is no presumption that relevant information about licensed drivers will be shared by the police, whereas under the NOS, information was shared more frequently.

Whilst councils understand that the CLPD tries to balance an individual’s rights with the need to disclose information to protect the public, councils are concerned that the ‘pressing social need’ threshold the police must adhere to before disclosing information means that, in practice, licensing authorities are not receiving the information they require to fully implement the fit and proper person test, as described in the Department’s statutory standards of July 2020.

Legislative changes since 2015 also mean that the Disclosure and Barring Service (DBS) filters more conviction information than it did previously which means that less information may be disclosed to licensing authorities on an Enhanced Disclosure Certificate. Again, this can mean licensing authorities do not have all the information that may be relevant to determining whether a driver is fit and proper to hold a licence.

We are concerned licensing authorities are being asked to make decisions about who is fit and proper to hold a licence without access to all relevant information. This is more often about already licensed drivers, where information the police hold subsequently indicates they are not fit and proper.

A national database would aid cross-border enforcement and improve the ability of authorities to be able to identify where driver and vehicles are licensed in order to report concerns or issues to the "home" licensing authority, or the police. Without a database, councils may not be able to identify the relevant licensing authority as a driver could be licensed anywhere in the country, and this can cause challenges with complaints or incidents being shared with the relevant licensing authority.

How effective is the National Register for Revocations, Refusals and Suspensions (NR3S). in supporting consistent licensing decisions across local authorities? What barriers, if any, are limiting its use or impact?

It is a crucial tool to support councils in determining whether a licensee is fit and proper. We cannot identify any barriers.

What are the implications for taxi and PHV licensing of the future rollout of autonomous vehicles?

The Automated Vehicles (AV) Act 2024 will introduce the Automated Passenger Services (APS) permitting regime. This new regime creates a legal route for self-driving taxis, private hire vehicles (PHVs), and buses, seeking both passenger safety and regulatory clarity as these services develop. DfT will serve as the single national permitting body for England (though it is possible that in some cases, the power to grant permits may be delegated to Traffic Commissioners).

Local authorities, under the terms of the Act, will still play a key role in this process. Councils would need to provide or withhold consent to any company that proposed to offer services resembling taxis or PHVs before an APS permit can be granted by central government. If a council refuses to consent, no automated service could operate inside its legal boundaries, whether at the beginning, course or end of a journey.

We are concerned that criminals may adapt, such that autonomous vehicles may increase the risk of county lines where drugs are transported across borders, and that they may be used to exercise coercive control of a vulnerable person. We believe that this matter needs careful consideration to ensure that risks are adequately mitigated and that appropriate controls, including enforcement are in place. It is also important that the any council is not exposed to any liability associated with an accident, or incident involving an automated vehicle operating in its area, by virtue of a failure of the operating platform.

September 2025