Written evidence submitted by England’s Economic
Heartland (TPV0168)

Introduction

England’s Economic Heartland (EEH), the Sub-national Transport Body (STB) for the region spanning Swindon, Oxfordshire, Milton Keynes, and Cambridgeshire, welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the Transport Select Committee’s inquiry into improving standards for taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs). This response reflects the views and experiences of EEH’s constituent local authorities, as shared through its Regional Bus Forum.

EEH supports reforms that promote consistency, safety, and accessibility across the taxi and PHV sector. A national framework, supported by regional funding and co-ordination, with digital integration, is essential to address current fragmentation and future-proof the sector to ensure it meets the needs of passengers and operators alike.

Taxis and PHVs should be seen as a key part of an integrated public transport network. From supporting home to school to autonomous vehicles trials, there needs to be a consistent approach to standards that are nationally set so that local authorities and users have the confidence that all operators within the sector are working to the same standards. Therefore, any regulation needs to be flexible enough to support the changing role of taxi and PHVs in the way that they supply and move both people and goods.

Q1.  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? 

A1: Current licensing arrangements vary significantly between local authorities, which can hinder effective regulation in terms of:

• Passenger safety: Disparities in vehicle inspection regimes, driver vetting procedures, and safeguarding protocols.
• Accessibility: Inconsistent enforcement of requirements for wheelchair-accessible vehicles and disability awareness training.
• Service quality: Divergent approaches to customer service standards, complaints handling, and performance monitoring.

This regulatory fragmentation can contribute to inconsistent user experiences and can facilitate drivers seeking a license in areas with less rigorous oversight.

Q2. What is the impact on the travelling public and drivers of variation between licensing authorities? Is reform needed to bring greater standardisation?

For the travelling public, there could be confusion over standards and complaint procedures, which could lead to an uneven safety and service quality.

For drivers, this creates a competitive disadvantage for those licensed in stricter areas, incentivising ‘license shopping’ in areas with lower standards. This undermines the integrity of local licensing regimes and can erode public trust.

Yes, reform is needed. Greater standardisation could, improve public confidence and safety, provide a level the playing field for drivers, could reduce administrative burdens for operators working across differing local authority borders.

Potential reforms could include national minimum standards for safety, accessibility, and conduct and centralised licensing database and enforcement protocols.

Q3. 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?

While standardisation may increase short-term costs for operators and authorities, it would likely reduce long-term enforcement burdens and improve compliance.

Q4. What steps should the Government take to address the challenges posed by cross-border licensing in the taxi and PHV sector? 

Cross-border operations without reciprocal enforcement dilute local accountability and can lead to enforcement gaps. Drivers licensed in one area may operate in another with differing standards, complicating enforcement and potentially compromising passenger safety.

Government should consider a statutory duty for authorities to share enforcement data and collaborate on cross-border compliance.

Q5: 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?

Effective reform could include more evidenced based national standards, mandatory use of National Register of Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3), real-time data sharing (between operators and local authorities and partners) and clear safeguarding protocols and training.

Any role for regional transport authorities, would need to be supported by funding, but could play a coordinating role in enforcement, data integration, and policy alignment—particularly where journeys span multiple local authority areas.

Q6. How are digital ride-hailing platforms impacting standards in the sector, and is further regulation in this area required? 

Digital mobility platforms (e.g. Uber, Bolt) have redefined user expectations around convenience, pricing transparency, and service availability. However, their operational models—particularly algorithmic dispatching and cross-border service provision—pose challenges to traditional enforcement mechanisms.

In terms of further regulation and better oversight (which could include national standards and a national register for all taxi, private hire and ride-hailing vehicles) so that there is consistency in training and safety and accessibility standards of platform-level operations, not solely individual drivers, should be introduced.

Mandatory data sharing protocols to support enforcement and planning, should also be implemented, as currently data sharing is not widespread, due to GDPR compliance which makes it more challenging, as well as enhanced driver vetting standards and platform accountability mechanisms.

Q7: 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?  

Main challenge is there is a fragmented systems across authorities and in many instances individual authorities have a single system which other authorities do not have ‘sight off’. Also, there seems to be a lack of awareness and accessibility for passengers and drivers on how and who   to complain to, if they face an issue. Suggested improvements could include centralised, user-friendly reporting platform, a more transparent resolution processes and possible feedback loops to inform licensing decisions.

Q8: How effective is the National Register of Licence Revocations and Refusals (NR3) in supporting consistent licensing decisions across local authorities? What barriers, if any, are limiting its use or impact? 

While EEH has not received specific feedback on NR3, we support its wider adoption and integration into licensing work.

Q9: What are the implications for taxi and PHV licensing of the future rollout of autonomous vehicles (AV)? 

The greater use of autonomy in taxi and PHV provision, will require a shift from driver-focused to operator-focused regulation. As vehicles and not individual drivers will be using the vehicles themselves. This will require new safety and insurance standards, as well as greater ethical and accessibility considerations. For example, as and when a vehicle is ‘called or booked’ by a user, who takes responsibility if things go wrong, it would not be the driver (as they are provided) but rather the ride provider directly or 3rd party booking platform. This creates an added layer of complexity when licencing a vehicle.

For local authorities a national framework for AV licensing and operation, will need to be developed as well as greater collaboration with tech/ride platform developers and local authorities. This would be helpful for all parties to better understand the impact and further promote the opportunity of using AV as a shared public transport resource, rather than just being individual taxies being called for individual rides.

September 2025