Written evidence submitted by the Department for Transport (TPV0189)
1. This is a Department for Transport (‘Department’) response to the Transport Select Committee’s inquiry on ‘Licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles’.
2. Taxi and private hire vehicle licensing policy is devolved to respective governments in Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. Policy on equality of opportunity is generally reserved in Great Britain.
The taxi and private hire vehicle sectors in England
3. The taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) sectors provide a vital service to communities across England. They reduce the need for private car ownership, provide a service where other modes of transport are not available or accessible and support local economies - with disabled people, women and those from lower socio-economic groups and without access to a car making more taxi and PHV journeys, on average. In 2024, there were over 313,000 licensed taxi/PHV vehicles and 381,000 licensed taxi/PHV drivers in England; those are increases of 70% and 57% respectively since 2005[1]. The vast majority of drivers are male and of Asian, Asian British or White ethnicity. Further data on the sector is attached at Annex A.
The difference between taxis and private hire vehicles
4. The term ‘taxi’ is often used generically to refer to both taxis and PHVs, but there is an important distinction between the two. Taxis can be hired from ranks or on the street, while PHVs must be pre-booked. That distinction has blurred, with both often used similarly, particularly away from the larger cities where demand may not support a ‘rank and hail’ market.
Taxi and private hire vehicle regulatory framework
5. The legislative framework was first set when journeys and businesses were more locally focussed, and it has evolved incrementally since. The way in which taxis are regulated outside London is rooted in Victorian legislation (the Town Police Clauses Act 1847) that originally dealt with horse-drawn vehicles. Legislation for PHVs followed much later (1976 for most of England, 1998 in London), and even that much more recent law was written in a world without mobile phones, booking apps, and the significant changes that such innovations have brought about in how taxi and PHV services are engaged and provided. We are faced today with a complex and old legislative framework, underpinned by much case law, and different legislation applying in London, Plymouth and the rest of England.
6. Whilst the basic premise of each regime is the same, that drivers and PHV operators must be suitable to hold a licence and vehicles must be safe to carry the public, the different legislation means there are variations in the legislative requirements particularly in terms of enforcement provisions. Peoples’ travel patterns and the way services, particularly PHVs, are engaged and dispatched have changed immeasurably since the main legislation was put in place.
7. Under previous governments the Department focussed on setting the regulatory framework, and setting out expectations for the approach licensing authorities should take through guidance.
8. Options for reform of the sector legislation have previously been looked at in depth. In 2012 the Law Commission was asked to review the taxi and PHV regime in England and Wales [2] with a view to making it simpler and more modern. The final report and draft Bill were published in 2014. The Government at the time did not respond to the report. A Task and Finish Group was convened in 2017, and the Government’s response to the Chair’s report made commitments to reform key elements of the legislative framework. These were not taken forward.
9. Instead, there have been incremental changes to support passenger safety. The 2014 Jay (Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Exploitation in Rotherham (1997 - 2013)) and 2015 Casey reports (Report of Inspection of Rotherham Metropolitan Borough Council) evidenced how failures in licensing contributed to the abhorrent abuse of girls. Subsequent inquiries identified similar failings by other public bodies. In response, in 2017 Parliament granted the Secretary of State the power to issue statutory guidance to licensing authorities on exercising the taxi and PHV licensing function to protect children and vulnerable adults from harm. Licensing authorities must have regard to the statutory guidance. This was published in 2020 and has resulted in increased consistency in the vetting of taxi and PHV drivers. The role that the trade can play in protecting the public has also been recognised and improved. In 2017, 58% of licensing authorities reported that they required training in child sexual exploitation awareness; at 1 April 2024 this had increased to 96%.
10. In addition, a Government-supported private member’s bill was passed in 2022 that requires taxi and PHV licensing authorities in England to share information in relation to safeguarding, road safety and equality discrimination concerns about drivers. This seeks to ensure that any driver’s adverse licensing history, or concerns about a driver, are shared and considered, to mitigate the risk that unsuitable people are granted or hold a taxi or PHV driver licence.
11. Licensing authorities set standards for the drivers, vehicles and PHV operators they license, but pre-booked journeys in taxis and PHVs can take place anywhere. “Out-of-area” working of this nature, which has increased in recent years, poses challenges. This subject is core to current issues in the sector so is touched on throughout this paper, but in the response to topic D in particular.
12. Since coming into Government, Department for Transport Ministers have been actively looking at the licensing regime for taxis and PHVs, including safeguarding and the challenges created by “out-of-area" working.
13. The Government committed in last year’s English Devolution White Paper to consult on making all Local Transport Authorities, including Strategic Authorities, responsible for taxi and PHV licensing. This would produce a regime with significantly fewer, and generally much larger, licensing authorities that would have a better match between licensing revenue and compliance and enforcement burdens, and as a result be better resourced.
14. The Department for Transport has also been reviewing the effectiveness of its existing guidance to licensing authorities. Work is underway to review how the statutory guidance has been implemented by licensing authorities and whether it has been effective in delivering the intended outcomes.
15. Licensing authorities have also been asked to report on their compliance with the Department’s existing guidance, both statutory and best practice. This will improve our understanding of the totality of variations in standards, and where important recommendations from the guidance are not being followed, particularly where there is a direct connection to safeguarding, licensing authorities will be held to account.
16. The Government welcomed the work Baroness Casey has undertaken in her audit of group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse. It adds valuable evidence to the Department’s existing work to improve the regulatory framework for taxi and PHV licensing. The Government response committed to legislate to address the important issues raised in the report, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and PHV driver licensing. The Government is working as quickly as possible to consider all options – including out-of-area working, national standards and enforcement. It is vital that the conclusion of this process delivers the best overall outcomes for passenger safety, not least for the vulnerable passengers who we know rely so much on these services.
17. This will help ensure that the regulation of the sector builds on the improvements in licensing following the 2014 and 2015 reports. It is important to acknowledge the point well-made by Baroness Casey, that “most taxi [and PHV] drivers are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public”. Regulation should acknowledge this; it must enable passengers to readily access safe vehicles driven by highly vetted drivers.
Point A: 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?
18. There are currently 263 licensing authorities in England consisting of 164 district councils, 62 unitary authorities, 36 metropolitan district councils and Transport for London.
19. A driver, vehicle and (for PHVs) operator must all be licenced by the same licensing authority. Although a licensing authority can prosecute breaches of any taxi and PHV legislation that occur in its area, it only has powers to take action (suspension or revocation) against licences that it issued.
20. There are however increasing numbers of PHVs which are working entirely outside the area in which they are licensed, sometimes at considerable distance – this is because journeys themselves are not restricted to taking place in the licensed area, and never have been. However, changes in technology have undoubtedly increased the extent of this way of working, often referred to as either cross-border hiring or out-of-area working. Pre-booked taxis can also carry out journeys in any area, although taxis can only ply for hire in the area in which they are licensed.
Safety
21. All licensing authorities in England must be satisfied that an applicant for a taxi or PHV driver licence or PHV operator licence is fit and proper to be granted a licence and that they remain so for the duration of that licence. There is no statutory definition of ‘fit and proper’ in legislation; statutory guidance sets out the Department’s views on how this should be achieved.
22. The legal framework, supported by that guidance (to which licensing authorities must legally pay regard) should ensure consistency in core safety expectations. For example:
23. The statutory guidance describes a wide range of actions that licensing authorities can and should consider, to promote consistently high levels in safety. This includes the level and frequency of DBS checks for drivers, vehicle owners, operators and their booking and dispatch staff; obtaining certificates of good character for extended periods of time spent out of the UK; safeguarding awareness skills for drivers; reviewing whether to mandate CCTV in all taxis and PHVs; and having a clear policy for the consideration of previous convictions.
24. However, we recognise that effective enforcement where a driver is working out-of-area remains more challenging, and also that guidance (even where statutory) has less force than legislation. That is why we have recently been undertaking a survey of licensing authorities to check their compliance with existing guidance, to understand its take-up and the totality of variation in standards.
Accessibility
25. Disabled people are particularly reliant on taxi and PHV services, which provide essential mobility, enabling them to make journeys that might otherwise be difficult or impossible.
26. The powers available to licensing authorities to shape the trades that they regulate, including the extent to which services are provided inclusively, are broad and flexible. They may, for instance, already encourage or require the licensing of wheelchair accessible vehicles (WAVs), they can support operators and drivers to understand their legal duties through training and targeted communication, they can ensure that processes for the making of complaints and the seeking of redress are open and accessible, and they can take prompt and effective action in response to alleged instances of discrimination. In practice however, anecdotal feedback suggests that the experience of disabled people varies significantly across the country, reflecting the equally significant variation in licensing authority policies and practice. Notable issues include the provision of an accessible fleet, disability awareness training, and assistance dog acceptance.
Provision of an accessible fleet
27. The current Best Practice Guidance recommends the provision of mixed fleets of wheelchair accessible and non-wheelchair accessible vehicles, but also that authorities should assess the demand for WAVs and identify steps to ensure that there is sufficient supply. The provision of a mixed fleet is currently the most effective way of ensuring that a range of access needs are catered for; this view is supported by the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee (DPTAC).
28. There is considerable variation in the licensing of WAVs across England. As at 1 April 2024, for instance, whilst 54% of taxis in England were wheelchair accessible, only 2% of PHVs were WAVs. This headline figure also masks significant variance throughout the day, particularly outside of school holidays, when all WAVs in a given area may be unavailable during school drop off and pick up times. This inevitably constrains the ability of passengers reliant on WAVs to choose when and where they travel.
29. In areas where it would be inappropriate to require every taxi licensed to be a WAV, authorities can encourage uptake through financial incentives, less onerous vehicle licensing requirements and through prioritised access to ranks. That said, we recognise that such incentives may not always be sufficient to overcome the additional costs of procuring and operating a WAV.
Driver training
30. The Best Practice Guidance sets out that drivers should be trained in disability awareness and/or have their knowledge and skills assessed. Despite this, statistics as of 1 April 2024 indicate that taxi and PHV drivers are required to complete this in only 67% and 65% of licensing authorities respectively. Whilst this figure has climbed steadily in recent years, it is unacceptable that in a third of licensing authorities drivers are still not supported to understand their legal duties, potentially leaving disabled passengers vulnerable to unlawful discriminatory conduct. It should be one of the foundations of any driver licensing policy that this critical training or assessment is required.
Assistance Dog acceptance
31. Licensing authorities are responsible for enforcing legal accessibility requirements including, where appropriate, prosecuting operators or drivers in line with s.222 of the Local Government Act 1972. Best Practice Guidance recommends a proactive approach to enforcement. In particular, it recommends that alleged discrimination is always investigated and, where appropriate, prosecuted, to give disabled passengers confidence in the accessibility of the service being provided, and to discourage operators and drivers from discriminatory conduct. Despite this, in 2023 only eleven prosecutions were taken under s.165, s.168 or s.170 of the Equality Act 2010, yet 76% of assistance dog owners surveyed for the 2022 Inclusive Transport Strategy Evaluation report had experienced a refusal or near-refusal during the preceding year.
32. Anecdotal evidence, including that given to the committee in 2023’s inquiry into the accessibility of the transport network, also suggests that some apparent refusal incidents occur when disabled passengers attempt to hail a taxi at the roadside; but the law can only apply once a taxi has been hired, and cannot require a driver to accept a hiring. This likely means that some incidents, whilst undoubtedly causing inconvenience and distress, are not technically unlawful and cannot be prosecuted. Some assistance dog partnerships may also fall outside the existing definition in the relevant legislation.
Accessibility enforcement
33. Existing legislation provides a clear framework for the enforcement of offences under Part 12 of the Equality Act 2010 but there are a number of factors which could influence the ability of authorities to take effective action. Section 222 of the Local Government Act 1972 gives authorities a power to prosecute when it is in the interests of residents, however this means that the authority responsible for prosecuting alleged discrimination may not always be the same one able to offset costs from the licensing fees of respective operators or able to apply licensing sanctions against them. Though court costs can be recoverable where prosecutions are successful, awarded costs may not fully reflect the actual costs of prosecuting cases and so may deter some authorities from taking such action.
34. Overall, whilst there are areas of law which might be strengthened, either to provide authorities with clearer or more effective powers, evidence to date suggests that use of existing powers is mixed, and that such action would not necessarily result in disabled passengers receiving an adequate service more consistently. Enforcement of current and any strengthened laws is critical. We want to consider action so that all authorities take a similarly robust approach to the provision of an inclusive service and enforcement of legal requirements. That is likely to drive change and support disabled people to travel with greater confidence, regardless of which authority has licensed the service of where the journey is taking place.
Quality of service
35. There are differing views as to how interventionist the licensing regime should be in terms of the ‘quality of service’. The coverage of current guidance reflects the long-term view to date that this is best determined locally.
36. Competitive forces do not work fully in the taxi rank and hail market where passengers have little choice over which vehicle they hire. They are generally unable to make comparisons as to price and quality, so the type and degree of regulation for taxis is therefore designed to deal with the specific features of ranking and hailing. For example, regulated fares provide an important element of customer protection. Licensing authorities outside London are also able to restrict the number of taxi licences they issue, and many do.
37. Fares for PHVs, which must be pre-booked through a licensed PHV operator, are normally set by the operator. The competitive pre-booked market allows operators to compete on price as well as other factors such as service quality. A customer pre-booking a PHV has more opportunity to shop around, comparing factors such as price, reliability and availability. PHVs also encompass a wide range of services where passengers can have the choice between relatively cheap services or luxury, executive services.
38. Many licensing requirements that are primarily safety or accessibility focussed will nevertheless support high quality of service. For example, guidance recommends that drivers and PHV operators’ staff in customer facing roles should be required to undertake disability awareness training. This is fundamental to helping to ensure people have the knowledge, skills and confidence to provide a good service to passengers and in so doing, meet their legal duties.
39. Businesses that do not provide an appropriate quality of service for a customer will lose custom to those that do. High safety standards are essential, but using the licensing framework to impose unduly stringent standards in other respects is detrimental for passengers, as it may restrict the supply of licensed services, by putting up the cost of operation too high or otherwise restricting entry to the trade.
Regulatory oversight
40. Compliance activity is funded through licence fees, so if applicants choose to licence outside of the area in which they predominantly or exclusively intend to work, it reduces the funding available in that area for such work.
41. As noted earlier, a licensing authority can prosecute breaches of any taxi and PHV legislation that occur in its area regardless of whether it issued the licences, but prosecutions can be resource intensive. In contrast, if the authority has issued the licence it can easily require remedial action (e.g. training) or if more serious take action against the licence (suspend or revoke).
42. Outside of London, licensing authority enforcement officers are able to suspend driver licences that their authority has issued with immediate effect in the interests of public safety. TfL has the power to suspend driver, vehicle and PHV operator licences that it has issued with immediate effect in the interests of public safety.
43. Regulatory oversight was enhanced by the Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles (Safeguarding and Road Safety) Act 2022 (‘the 2022 Act’). Licensing authorities in England must report safeguarding, road safety or equality discrimination concerns about drivers working in their area to the authority that issued the driver’s licence. The driver’s conduct must be of such a type that the licensing authority would have considered suspending or revoking the driver’s licence based on the concerns if it had granted the licence. The authority that receives the report must consider whether to suspend or revoke the driver’s licence and must inform the authority that reported the concerns of the action it has taken or intends to take within 20 working days.
44. There are also other options for licensing authorities to increase the effectiveness of enforcement action against drivers and vehicles licensed by other authorities. Joint enforcement operations can be carried out with other relevant licensing authorities. Where there is a need, licensing authorities should jointly authorise officers to enable them to undertake compliance checks and any relevant enforcement action. Such an agreement enables the use of enforcement powers regardless of which authority within the agreement the officer is employed by, and which issued the licence, and removes the need to rely on enforcement officers from other authorities being in attendance.
45. Licensing authorities can also work with their local police service to make use of the Community Safety Accreditation Scheme (CSAS) to increase the powers enforcement officers have available. The CSAS enables chief constables to accredit employed people already working in roles that contribute to maintaining and improving community safety with limited but targeted powers. This might include the powers to stop any licensed vehicle, regardless of the authority that issued the licence, to undertake compliance checks.
Government view on improvements
46. As described earlier, since coming into Government, Department for Transport Ministers have been actively looking at the licensing regime for taxis and PHVs and how it might be strengthened.
47. The Government wants to ensure that there are means of ensuring effective enforcement against all vehicles and drivers wherever they are working, and strengthened consistency in standards. There are different ways this could be achieved; for example through national standards (which are discussed further in the next section of this document) and enforcement powers, or through restrictions on out-of-area working. We will also explore whether there are options to incentivise drivers and operators to license more locally. As set out in our response to Baroness Casey’s recent report, we are considering all options, and the benefits and risks of all approaches must be carefully considered.
48. There have previously been calls for a national licensing database of all licensees across England which both licensing authorities and the police would have access to. This would aid enforcement if this information could be accessed at the roadside during compliance checks. It could also enable the creation of a public licence checker tool, similar to that which TfL provides in London.
49. Whatever legislative solution is taken forward we need to seek the best overall outcome for passenger safety, not least for the vulnerable passengers who we know rely so much on these services.
Point B: What is the impact on the travelling public and drivers of variation between licensing authorities? Is reform needed to bring greater standardisation?
Point C: 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?
50. The criteria licensing authorities can apply cover a range of issues including vehicle safety, passenger and driver safeguarding, provisions of WAVs and vehicle emissions. The need for consistent national standards versus variation according to local circumstances, vary across these issues.
51. There is already a high level of national consistency in the information gathered to inform decisions on drivers’ suitability to hold licences; licensing authorities report that they subject drivers to high levels of scrutiny to reduce this risk as far as possible.
52. As mentioned earlier, all licensing authorities in England have said that they undertake enhanced DBS and barred list checks for drivers. All licensing authorities are required by law to check the National Register of Refusal, Revocations and Suspensions and obtain information from relevant licensing authorities about previous adverse licensing history. Members of the public are likely to expect that drivers and vehicles would be subject to the same high licensing standards in terms of safety regardless of where they are licensed; it is difficult to see a compelling case against this. Beyond core safety safeguards, there is broader variation in standards between licensing authorities.
53. We know that some drivers (and their vehicles) are being licensed away from where they intend to work. The biggest variations in standards between authorities often relate to vehicle standards and these are likely to have the biggest impact on drivers, in terms of costs and barriers to entry. Vehicle standards variation could also impact on passengers if requirements lead to higher operating costs resulting in fewer vehicles and potentially higher fares
54. But out-of-area working is not necessarily driven by standards alone. There are also variations between licensing authorities in overall costs (both fees and costs of the requirements that must be met) and the time taken to obtain a licence. These differences will influence the decision of drivers as to where to seek a licence, particularly for new entrants to the sector. An individual will understandably seek to obtain a licence in the shortest time if other costs are comparable but may be willing to pay a higher fee to license faster and so start to earn income sooner. The time taken to obtain a licence is often opaque. Drivers will have to consider not only the time taken for the licensing authority to consider the application but the availability of training and assessment slots to pass required courses such as safeguarding, and whether it has to be done pre or post-application.
55. The taxi and PHV licensing regime is designed to be self-funded through licensing fees. Licensing authorities are not permitted to use taxi and PHV licensing revenue for other purposes. There are significant variations in fees; our understanding is that 3-year PHV driver fees are around: £400 for Harlow; £380 for York; £300 for Southampton, £300 for London and £140 for Wolverhampton[3].
56. Standards are not necessarily “lower” where licenses are cheaper. For example, the statutory guidance recommends licensing authorities check the DBS record for updates every 6 months; the City of Wolverhampton carries out automated criminal records checks on a daily basis. That example of a more stringent requirement has no impact on law-abiding drivers and a low impact on the licensing authority.
57. In last year’s English Devolution White Paper, the Government committed to consult on making all Local Transport Authorities, including Strategic Authorities, responsible for taxi and PHV licensing. This would see a significant reduction in the number of licensing authorities as there are currently 263 licensing authorities compared to 70 local transport authorities.[4]. This would naturally reduce the range of different standards, improve economies of scale and so the efficiency and costs of licensing, and therefore reduce amounts of out-of-area working.
58. There are some important choices and trade-offs in deciding whether to go further. To achieve common standards nationwide, standards would either have to increase in some places (resulting in higher costs to the sector) or reduce in others. The use of CCTV is an example of a current inconsistency in standards which would have a large impact in that scenario.
59. CCTV can provide a safer environment for the benefit of taxi and PHV passengers and drivers. Currently, the decision on whether to mandate CCTV in vehicles is a local one. The statutory guidance recommends that all licensing authorities should consult to identify if there are local circumstances which indicate that the installation of CCTV in vehicles would have either a positive or an adverse net effect on the safety of taxi and PHV users, including children or vulnerable adults, and taking into account potential privacy issues.
60. There is currently a significant variation in the requirement for CCTV to be fitted in vehicles. As of 1 April 2024, all authorities allowed voluntary installation, but it was mandated by only 8% of authorities in respect of taxis and 7% for PHVs. There would, of course, be an important proportionality assessment to be made and a national mandate for CCTV would need to be strongly justified.
61. The mandating of CCTV is an example of where the costs to drivers could currently induce them to licence out-of-the area in which they intend to work; this was one of the reasons cited by Telford and Wrekin Council who despite a successful trial of CCTV decided not to mandate it for fear of losing their licensees to other authorities.
62. In undertaking the licensing function, licensing authorities must have regard to the Regulators’ Code. This provides a principles-based framework to assist regulators in discharging their function. The Code is clear that regulators “should avoid imposing unnecessary regulatory burdens through their regulatory activities…” and “…should choose proportionate approaches to those they regulate…”. The Department’s existing best practice guidance supports this view. The licensing regime is primarily intended to ensure public protection, and any requirements that extend beyond that should have a clear purpose and benefit.
63. We do recognise that local standard setting is still highly valued in many places, particularly for the identity or branding of taxis (which by way of the rank and hail market may have particularly strong local association), and in places where there have been particular local safety issues or concerns.
64. The Government has acknowledged that reform is needed in this area. In response to Baroness Casey’s recent report, we committed to legislate to address the important issues raised, tackling the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicle driver licensing. This includes considering national standards and national minimum standards: national standards would be fixed, or absolute, standards with no local discretion to go further, whereas national minimum standards would permit local additions.
65. Our sense is that many licensing authorities favour national minimum standards, but that approach does mean that if an authority chooses to go above them, and the requirement is more costly for applicants, then out-of-area licensing might still be induced. The Law Commission’s draft bill proposed national standards to promote enforcement, protection of the environment and accessibility, in addition to safety. For PHVs these standards would be absolute, but the Commission recommended that licensing authorities should, subject to consultation, be able to set licensing requirements in addition to national standards for taxis.
66. In respect of accessibility, we consider that there is benefit in greater standardisation of the approach to the regulation of taxi and PHV accessibility initiated by licensing authorities. As noted earlier, legal requirements are established and clear, but the principal difference between licensing jurisdictions in those respects is not the law that is applicable, but the policy for its enforcement, including the likelihood of a discrimination offence resulting in criminal prosecution or the suspension or revocation of an operator or driver’s licence. It is this inconsistency, rather than the stringency of the applicable law, which likely causes variance in the experience of disabled passengers.
67. To inform our consideration of the options, we have surveyed all licensing authorities about their compliance with the Department’s existing guidance, and the large amount of data provided is being reviewed.
68. The areas which we expect would be particular areas of focus for consideration in national (or national minimum) standards include:
69. To be effective, national standards or national minimum standards would also need appropriate enforcement mechanisms developed alongside them.
Point E: 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?
70. PHVs and taxis have always been able to fulfil bookings anywhere. People naturally travel across local authority borders and this flexibility in the licensing system has benefits for passengers and the sector. It increases competition, allows surge capacity for special events with peak demands, and enables passengers to access a larger pool of wheelchair accessible vehicles, as some licensing authorities have very few such vehicles licensed.
71. Out-of-area working is where the PHV trade licenses with one licensing authority but intend to carry out work predominantly or exclusively in other areas. Evidence submitted to the Transport Select Committee in 2011 shows that concerns about out-of-area working undermining local standards pre-dates the growth of booking apps, and the Deregulation Act 2015. The latter allowed PHV operators nationwide to subcontract bookings to operators licensed in different authority areas, which operators in London had always been allowed to do, but it is important to note that it did not introduce the ability for PHVs to work out-of-area
72. There is nothing inherently unsafe about a driver fulfilling a booking outside their licensed area; all authorities have a duty to ensure that a driver is fit and proper to hold a licence, and all authorities report that they carry out the highest level of background checks to test the latter. But out-of-area working does come with downsides. It has the enforcement challenges outlined earlier, and Baroness Casey’s report highlighted how (with particular reference to Rotherham Council’s policy on CCTV) a local licensing authority’s policy can be undermined by vehicles working out of area which do not need to comply with it.
73. The prevalence of out-of-area working has undeniably grown over time, particularly as technology has extended the range at which PHV operators can give drivers notifications of their bookings; apps give drivers a range which would have been impossible when they needed to rely on a radio.
74. Government has committed to act on the issues identified in Baroness Casey’s report, and to work as quickly as possible and consider all options. There are two main ways in which the challenges of out-of-area work can be tackled – these are to address them through national standards and enforcement, as discussed in the previous section, or by restricting in some way where a licensed vehicle can carry out journeys. That restriction would most likely be to require that a journey had to start and/or end in the licensed area.
75. While the second of those options, journey restrictions, would address the challenges, it would have potential risks and downsides of its own which would need to be carefully considered in policy design and implementation. These include:
76. These potential impacts could be mitigated through action such as targeted exemptions for events, types of vehicles or locations. Every cumulative exemption to a policy does, however, reduce its overall impact and the risks of creating loopholes would need very close attention. Another mitigation approach could be an ability for authorities to agree to accept operators from other areas, where they are comfortable with the standards of those licensing areas.
77. The risks and downsides are also like to be reduced significantly if licensing is lifted up to the Local Transport Authority level, as there would be fewer boundaries and fewer sets of standards. Licensing at this level would also better enable the sector to be fully considered and integrated in Local Transport Plans, which are the responsibility of local transport authorities. These generally larger areas allow for stronger consideration of people’s travel patterns – particularly so in the case of Strategic Authorities which generally cover much larger footprints across whole functional economic areas and reflect travel to-work patterns and local labour markets. As set out in the English Devolution White Paper, the ultimate ambition of English devolution is for universal coverage of Strategic Authorities.
Point F: How are digital ride-hailing platforms impacting standards in the sector, and is further regulation in this area required?
78. As noted earlier, drivers and vehicles have long worked ‘out-of-area’ but new technology has infinitely increased the distance that drivers can be contacted over so it is now possible to work out of area at a national rather than regional level. This has undoubtedly been key to the proliferation of out-of-area working. Any company that wants to invite or accept bookings for PHV services must hold a PHV operator licence. This includes companies that use digital platforms/apps to invite or accept bookings, just as it includes companies that take bookings over the phone or in person at booking offices. The same requirements should be made of licensees regardless of the means used to enable the booking of services. There does not seem to be a case for requirements to be different based on how bookings can be made, such as those relating to record keeping or the criminality checks applicants are subject to. Many operators will now offer the ability for bookings to be made through a digital platform of some sort.
79. The Department is aware of calls for the regulation of taxi intermediaries (such as taxi apps or radio circuits). This issue has been looked at by both Law Commission and the Task and Finish Group who reached different views. The Law Commission concluded that intermediaries working solely with licensed taxis should not require licensing. This was because intermediaries have much less control over their fleet, as taxi drivers are free to take bookings independently and pick up off the street and customers can contact a taxi driver directly without breaking any legal requirement, so when dispatching a vehicle the intermediary is doing no more than passengers could do themselves. The Chair of the Task and Finish Group recommended that Government should require companies that act as intermediaries between passengers and taxi drivers to meet the same licensing requirements and obligations as PHV operators.
Point G: 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?
81. The Department’s statutory guidance and Best Practice Guidance both set out recommendations in relation to passenger complaints. The statutory guidance sets out the important role complaints can play in terms of providing a source of intelligence about drivers and operators when considering the renewal of a licence or to identify problems during the period of the licence. It recommends that all licensing authorities should have a robust system for recording complaints, including analysing trends across all licensees as well as complaints against individual licensees. Such a system will help authorities to build a fuller picture of the potential risks an individual may pose and may tip the balance of probabilities assessment that licensing authorities must make.
82. The matter of complaints handling and how this may affect disabled passengers in particular was raised by the Committee in its report Access Denied. The Best Practice Guidance recognises that some disabled people lack confidence to use taxis and PHVs due to worries over the service they will receive. The guidance recommends a number of actions authorities should take to mitigate confidence related barriers. These included recommendations that information is made available on the accessibility of taxi and PHV services and the action that will be taken if services fall short of reasonable expectations, that PHV operators are required to provide relevant driver details to authorities in response to allegations of discriminatory conduct, that complainants are kept informed of the progress of investigations and that they understand the reasons for any related decisions taken, and that operators and drivers are prosecuted where there is sufficient evidence of a relevant offence being committed and it is in the interests of the inhabitants of the area.
83. As set out in the statutory guidance, licensees with a high number of complaints made against them should be contacted by the licensing authority and concerns raised with the driver and operator (if appropriate). Further action in terms of the licence holder must be determined by the licensing authority, which could include no further action, the offer of training, a formal review of the licence, or formal enforcement action.
84. As the Committee heard in 2023, the process for complaints and redress is not always clear to passengers. To ensure that passengers know who to complain to, the statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should produce guidance for passengers on making complaints directly to the licensing authority, that should be available on their website. The Best Practice Guidance makes clear that authority websites, including any pages relating to the taxi and PHV services and procedures for providing feedback and making complaints, must comply with current accessibility guidance and legislation.
85. The statutory guidance recommends that ways to make a complaint to the authority should be displayed in all licensed vehicles. This is important to assist in directing complaints and information regarding the behaviour of drivers to the licensing authority that issued the licence. For this to be effective licensing authorities must ensure that drivers are aware of a requirement to display information and take appropriate sanctions against those that do not comply with this requirement. It is more likely that a complaint against a taxi driver would be made directly to the licensing authority whereas a complaint against a PHV driver is more likely to be made to the operator. An effective partnership in which operators can share concerns regarding drivers is also encouraged.
86. The Best Practice Guidance reinforces these points and sets out that the provision of a clear, simple and well-publicised process for the public to make comments and complaints about drivers, vehicles and operators will enable authorities to recognise and promote excellence and target compliance and enforcement activity. Both guidance documents make the point that in terms of investigating complaints CCTV footage of an incident can provide an invaluable insight, providing an independent witness to an event.
87. Where a passenger has complained to a licensing authority but is dissatisfied with its handling, they can also contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to make a complaint.
88. The variation in reporting processes, and how incidents are investigated, is particularly reflected in disabled passengers’ experience of alleged discrimination incidents. This can constrain disabled passengers’ confidence in their ability to make complaints and in them being taken seriously and acted upon.
89. Anecdotally, there is likely considerable under-reporting of discrimination, due to “complaint fatigue” on the part of disabled people used to experiencing barriers to their access, and tired of making complaints which fail to result in meaningful change or redress. This is likely exacerbated by the challenge for some in collecting evidence of incidents and the operators, drivers and vehicles involved, and of using online complaint forms or other complaint-making channels. Even where complaints are submitted to the appropriate authority a lack of feedback provided on the progress of the case or eventual outcome, or a failure to involve the complainant in any eventual prosecution, may also constrain disabled passengers’ confidence in complaint systems.
90. Complaints about PHV driver conduct may also, or alternatively, be reported to the respective PHV operator. There is likely significant variation in how such complaints are handled, the information which is provided to complainants, and the eventual action taken. We are aware, anecdotally, of large operators which refuse to provide the PHV licence number of a driver to a complaining passenger following a report of discrimination, frustrating any attempt to provide relevant information to the respective licensing authority, and potentially protecting discriminating drivers from eventual prosecution. Confidentiality policies may also prevent operators from providing assurance of any action taken in response to complaints, including on whether a driver continues to drive for the operator.
91. The Department agrees that failure to meet accessibility obligations such as carriage refusals or other discriminatory behaviour should be treated as a serious service failure. As set out in the Departmental response to Access Denied, the Department has committed to working with Disabled People's Organisations and the sector to create a national accessibility charter that will outline rights and responsibilities and best practice.
Incident reporting for drivers
92. In respect of drivers the licensing regime has mechanisms in place for them to appeal licensing decisions to a magistrate’s court; in London taxi drivers can also ask for a reconsideration of the decision taken by TfL to refuse a licence. If drivers have complaints about a licensing authority’s policies or the way their application has been dealt with, they can complain to the licensing authority. Where they have concerns about the way a local authority has handled their complaint, they can contact the Local Government and Social Care Ombudsman to make a complaint.
93. The focus on safety is often on the safety of passengers. Licensing authorities, however, have a general duty under section 17 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998 to consider the crime and disorder implications of all their activities and functions and do all that they reasonably can to reduce crime. Licensing authorities routinely do this by setting licensing requirements that protect passengers, but this duty also extends to considering ways that licensing requirements and policies can reduce crime against drivers. It is the case that drivers are subjected to robbery, verbal and physical assault, which can be racially motivated or aggravated, and sadly instances of drivers being murdered whilst working have been reported. Licensing authorities must consider ways to protect those working in the trade as well as those that use its services. The Best Practice Guidance provides advice for taxi and PHV drivers on staying safe, including in relation to the reporting of hate crimes. It also signposts Health and Safety Executive guidance on protecting lone workers. This guidance applies to anyone contracted to work for an operator, including self-employed people. Devices and apps are also available to help protect lone workers.
95. The designated database provider is the National Anti-Fraud Network (NAFN) and the database is the National Register of Taxi and Private Hire Licence Revocations, Refusals and Suspensions (NR3S). The department has published statutory guidance, which all English licensing authorities must have regard to, to support licensing authorities in complying with the 2022 Act.
96. Before deciding whether to grant or renew a driver licence, licensing authorities in England must search the database. If there is a marker on the database for an individual, the searching authority must contact the authority that added the marker to request the relevant information. The authority receiving the request must provide the relevant information within 20 working days, and the searching authority must have regard to this relevant information when making its decision on whether to grant or renew a licence. This prevents a taxi or PHV driver with an adverse licence history (for example, a previous revocation on safeguarding grounds) from applying for a licence with a different licensing authority, without the new licensing authority being aware of past concerns.
97. For these processes to be effective, all licensing authorities must keep a complete and accurate record of any relevant information relating to decisions recorded on the database for 11 years from the date it is entered on the database, in order that this can be shared if requested and appropriate to do so.
98. Licensing authorities must consider as full as possible a range of information available to them when making a decision whether to grant a licence and to meet their ongoing obligation to ensure a licensee remains to suitable to hold a licence. This can include information that is held on NR3S.
99. Individual licensing authorities are responsible for deciding their own policies and making decisions on individual licensing matters, applying the relevant law and any other relevant considerations. For example, a criminal conviction does not automatically mean that a person will be unsuitable to hold a taxi or PHV driver’s licence. Each case must be considered on its own merits. A range of factors would need to be considered, including the type of conviction, any mitigating circumstances, the time passed since the conviction, and any rehabilitation the person has undertaken. As noted earlier, statutory guidance recommends that licensing authorities should have a clear policy for the consideration of criminal records and provides a framework for the assessment of previous convictions.
100. According to data provided by NAFN, between 1 January and 30 June 2025, 110,858 searches were conducted, and 4,669 entries were added to the NR3S database. This represents a 9% increase in searches compared to the same period in 2024. There were 475 more refusals (+33%) and 719 more suspensions (+85%) recorded in the first half of 2025 than in the same period the previous year. The number of revocations remained broadly stable, with a slight decrease of 1% (9 fewer cases).
101. NAFN has worked closely with licensing authorities to ensure they understand the legal duties on them and has provided training on the use of the database. As of 30 June 2025, all licensing authorities had conducted at least one search of the database, and only three had yet to register any entries. While this indicates positive engagement with NR3S, and suggests there are no barriers limiting its use, it remains difficult to define what constitutes typical or expected usage. Activity varies significantly by local authority, depending on licensing volumes and local enforcement practices. The Department will be engaging with the licensing authorities that have yet to register an entry on the database to establish the reasons why.
102. The Automated Vehicles (AV) Act 2024 introduced legislation for the permitting of automated passenger services (APS). Section 82(2) of the AV Act sets out that an APS is a service that consists of the carrying of passengers in a road vehicle that is:
(a) designed or adapted to travel autonomously, or
(b) being used for a trial with the aim of developing vehicles that are so designed or adapted.
103. While a service is operating in an area and a vehicle in which services may be provided under an APS permit, taxi, PHV and bus legislation is disapplied. As a consequence, even where a vehicle looks and operates like a taxi or PHV, where it is providing a service in an area and a vehicle in which services may be provided under an APS permit it is, by definition, not a taxi or PHV and from a regulatory perspective should not be treated as such.
104. The appropriate national authority is responsible for the granting of an APS permit. The Secretary of State for Transport is responsible for granting permits for taxi- and PHV-like services in England and bus-like services in Great Britain. As taxi and PHV policy is a devolved matter, Scottish Ministers and Welsh Ministers are responsible for granting permits for taxi- and PHV-like services in Scotland and Wales respectively.
105. An APS permit for taxi and PHV-like services cannot be granted without the consent of the appropriate licensing authority. Consent is required from each licensing authority in whose area the proposed service will operate, with the service not being able to operate in any authority that refuses consent where this is done in line with legislation. The AV Act provides that consent is taken to have been given unless written reasons are provided within six weeks as to why consent is being refused. Government is currently considering whether and how to develop guidance to support authorities with their consenting role.
106. The principle of consent was included within the AV Act to enable local policy considerations, such as those that may be set out in taxi and PHV strategies and/or plans, to be considered.
107. On 21 July, the government published a consultation on the APS permitting scheme. The acceleration of the APS permitting scheme is intended to support pilot deployments of self-driving passenger-carrying services from Spring 2026. These pilot deployments will provide an opportunity for government and industry to gain a greater understanding of the commercial viability of deployment models and learn from the experience of granting a permit.
108. The introduction of APS presents a unique opportunity to consider UK and international legislation and best practice to achieve a high standard of passenger safety and prevent safeguarding risks. The APS permitting consultation includes proposals for approaches to protect and reassure passengers. This includes outlining the intention for organisations wishing to deploy a self-driving passenger service to provide a robust safeguarding policy as part of their application evidence base. A second proposal, for which there is a specific question, is about the requirement for safety drivers and passenger assistants, who may be remote from the vehicle, to be subject to criminal record checks, in line with taxi and PHV drivers.
109. Industry may adopt a number of different measures to ensure safeguarding of their customers and passengers: they will need to set out to Government clearly in their application how, in combination, these provide a high standard of safeguarding. It will be for Government to assess that this standard has been met; the AV Act 2024 allows for a high level of discretion in whether to grant a permit or not. Examples of approaches that could adopted as safeguarding measures, many of which are already deployed as part of existing services in other countries such as the United States, may include:
110. This policy remains under development and subject to input to the Automated Passenger Services permitting consultation, which closed on 28 September 2025. Officials will continue to work closely with industry and take account of existing approaches in the bus, taxi and PHV sector to ensure a high and consistent standard of safeguarding across these services.
111. Self-driving services provide a significant opportunity to improve travel options for disabled people. Enabling early pilot deployments provides government with an opportunity to gain a better understanding of the approaches that can be adopted in these services to provide accessible and inclusive travel, alongside monitoring approaches taken internationally. Our consultation outlines the intention to develop accessibility guidance for APS permit applicants, and we welcome feedback through the consultation to inform its development. The permitting process itself can also include accessibility requirements, which can include any that may be required as the basis of local consent.
112. While the APS permitting scheme is planned to be introduced in spring 2026 to support early pilot deployments, it will continue post full implementation of the Automated Vehicles (AV) Act 2024 in the second half of 2027. This will see APS providing the long-term regulatory framework for the permitting of self-driving passenger carrying services.
113. Outside of the APS permitting scheme, the Vehicle Certification Agency (VCA) will assess a vehicle’s safety and capability to drive itself. We envisage that there will be two routes for such vehicles to be used to provide an automated passenger service: where the Secretary of State is satisfied that the vehicle can safely and lawfully drive itself, it will be listed under the Automated and Electric Vehicles Act 2018 (or, once the AV Act is fully implemented, it can be authorised); alternatively, the vehicle can be used for a trial with the aim of developing a vehicle that is designed or adapted to travel autonomously. A passenger-carrying service with a safety driver, where the developer intends to develop the vehicle to drive itself, would follow the existing process outlined in the ‘Code of Practice: automated vehicle trialling’.
Annex A: Data on the taxi and PHV sectors
What types of journeys are taxis and PHVs used for?
1. Almost half (48%) of trips taken by taxi or PHV in 2024 were taken for leisure purposes, in addition to commuting (13%), and for shopping (11%), personal business (11%), and education (11%). These journeys support local and national economies, taking passengers to and from shops, airports and railway stations, and support the nighttime economies. Taxis and PHVs are often used for essential journeys, for example, taking older people to their hospital appointments or enabling children with special educational needs to access their schools.
Who uses taxis and PHVs?
2. Taxis and PHVs are disproportionately used by those with protected characteristics. Disabled people, women and those from lower socio-economic groups make more journeys by taxi or PHV.
3. In 2024, females took more trips by taxi or PHV than males overall (10 compared to 8).
4. Disabled people account for approximately 24% of the UK population, amounting to 10m disabled people in England, and 11m in Great Britain overall. Disabled people are less likely to have access to their own vehicle than non-disabled people, and may face barriers accessing public transport services, or being independently mobile in the built environment. As such, disabled people are particularly reliant on taxi and PHV services, which provide essential mobility, enabling them to make journeys that might otherwise be difficult or impossible. Those with mobility difficulties make more trips (15 per person per year) compared with those with no mobility difficulties (9 trips per person per year). Taxi or PHV usage accounted for 3% of all trips for those with mobility difficulties, compared to 1% for those without mobility difficulties. They get people home safely late at night, offering the only door-to-door service.
5. Those without access to a car make almost 4 times as many taxi or PHV trips compared to those with access to a car (23 trips per person compared to 6 trips per person respectively). More trips are taken by households with the lowest income (8 trips by those in all other income quintiles compared to 12 trips by those in the lowest income quintile).
The numbers of taxis, PHVs and operators
6. The total number of licensed taxi and PHV vehicles and driver licences in England have both continued their long-term upward trend, reaching 313,000 and 381,100 respectively on 1 April 2024.
7. The 256,600 total licensed private hire vehicles represent an increase of 8.2% between 2023 and 2024, driven by a 10.5% increase in PHV numbers. The number of taxis fell by 1.4% over the same period.
8. On 1 April 2024, there were 381,100 driver licences in England, 34,800 (10%) more than in 2023. Of the total licences, 69% were PHV-only licences, 9% were taxi-only licences and 20% were dual licences which allow the holder to drive both taxis and PHVs.
October 2025
Endnotes
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/taxi-and-private-hire-vehicle-statistics-england-2024/taxi-and-private-hire-vehicle-statistics-england-2024#summary. These are the most recent taxi and private hire vehicles statistics for England, which present information as of 1 April 2024.
[2] It should be noted that responsibility for taxis and PHVs was devolved to the Welsh Government in 2018.
[3] These licence costs do not appear to include any additional costs such as training courses and assessments.
[4] The exact number will depend on the outcomes of local government reorganisation, and the timetable for creation of further strategic authorities.