CALL FOR EVIDENCE:
TRANSPORT COMMITTEE LAUNCHES INQUIRY INTO LICENSING AND STANDARDS IN TAXIS/PHV SECTORS
The Transport Committee is a cross-party group of backbench (non-Government) MPs appointed by the entire House of Commons to carry out inquiries into the DfT’s policies, scrutinise its decisions and hold it to account. This new inquiry will investigate how standards for taxis and PHVs could be improved, amid concern about inadequate regulation that varies from one area of the country to another.
The inquiry’s full terms of reference are included below:
Local authorities (LAs) which issue licences, such as TfL, city councils, county councils or combined authorities – have some freedom to set their own local standards for safety, driver conduct and accessibility, within a statutory framework. Despite licensing authorities needing to have regard to statutory standards, local variations have arisen across different authorities.
Additionally, ‘cross-border licensing’ has given rise to the case of Wolverhampton City Council, where 96% of its taxi and PHV licences have been awarded to drivers from outside of the city. The Greater Manchester (GM) Combined Authority is among those calling for a change in the law, after an FoI Act disclosure showed that 9,000 drivers registered with Wolverhampton CC reside in the GM area.
The cross-party committee will also examine how standards across the sector could be improved and made more consistent across the country regarding accessibility, safety and safeguarding of passengers.
The inquiry will look at how best practice could be replicated, the effectiveness of enforcement and inspection regimes, and how standards vary – and could be standardised – between taxis, PHVs and ride- hailing services such as Uber and Bolt.
MPs will also look to the future at how the sector and its regulatory system might need to evolve to enable the use of self-driving vehicles (See pages 11 and 66-67).
The inquiry comes after the Committee published its report on accessible transport, which heard evidence of too few wheelchair-accessible PHVs and taxis being in circulation around the country, and even of drivers turning away blind people with assistance dogs.
Transport Committee Chair Ruth Cadbury MP said: “When it comes to the licensing and regulation of
6
taxi/PHVs, a strange patchwork of driver and vehicle standards exists across every town/city in the country.
“This inconsistency has given rise to a situation that just isn’t good enough for drivers or for the public, who can unknowingly leave themselves vulnerable when getting into the back of a stranger’s car.
“This Committee will investigate whether a more standardised, more rational regulatory and enforce- ment regime could do away with the phenomenon of one city receiving applications from all over the country. We want to examine how an improved system could give greater confidence to consumers, particularly disabled people, women, children and other vulnerable people. And we need to look at how the system could make it clear who a passenger can complain to if standards aren’t met.”
CALL FOR EVIDENCE:
The Transport Committee is now accepting written evidence from those with knowledge of the sector. Your voice matters:
This isn’t just a formality. When the government opens a public consultation, it’s literally asking you - the people in the industry - what works, what doesn’t and what needs fixing. Silence can be interpreted as agreement with the status quo or acceptance of changes decided without industry input.
BREAKDOWN OF QUESTIONS & WHAT THEY MEAN:
Q: Do current licensing arrangements and tools enable LAs to effectively regulate and oversee the taxi and PHV sector across England, in terms of safety, accessibility and quality of service? If not, what improvements could be made?
Do current licensing systems work? l Can councils keep passengers safe?
l Are councils able to properly check and regulate drivers and vehicles?
l Are cross-border and out-of-area drivers making that impossible?
Q: What is the impact on the travelling public and drivers of variation between LAs? Is reform needed to bring greater standardisation?
AUGUST 2025 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74 |
Page 75 |
Page 76
