TRANSPORT COMMITTEE INQUIRY
FINAL SESSION: Lilian Greenwood MP and Liz Wilson, DfT
I took many notes on the final session involving Lilian Greenwood MP and Liz Wilson, Deputy Director for Accessible and Inclusive Travel DfT, and submit the following observations and recommendations based on that discussion.
National licensing & standards
National licensing was previously proposed during the 2010 Office of Fair-Trading consultation, which explored whether responsibility should sit with a central agency such as the DVSA. While this was not progressed at the time, the current discussion around a national standard presents a renewed opportunity. A centrally administered licensing system, with enforcement carried out by police forces, would significantly reduce the regulatory and financial burden placed on local authorities, delivering meaningful cost savings while improving consistency.
During the session, the concept of a “national standard” was questioned as to whether it should be absolute. The dismissal of this approach, in favour of allowing local authorities to make regional variations, risks undermining the very purpose of a national standard. This approach mirrors the current framework under the LGMPA 1976, supported by the Statutory Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Standards (2020), where sections 47, 57, and 67 permit local variation. As such, this proposal would not materially improve consistency or fairness across the sector.
Fees, turnaround times & licence shopping
When Dr Scott Arthur MP asked whether national standards would include licence fees and application turnaround times, the response suggested this would be too complex. I respectfully disagree. Fee caps and efficiency benchmarks can be implemented through mandatory maximums, in the same way that MOT fees and Vehicle Excise Duty are nationally regulated.
Without addressing regulatory behaviour - including fees and processing times - licence shopping will persist.
As illustrated during the session, licences may be identical in substance due to there being a national standard, but drastic fee disparities (for example, £100 versus £600 for the same licence) make outcomes
8
predictable. Human nature and economic logic will always drive operators toward the lowest-cost authority or “licence shop” as the term has become known. A national standard that applies only to drivers, vehicles, and operators - but not to regulators - will therefore achieve very little.
DBS, safeguarding & medical standards:
DBS, safeguarding, and medical requirements are already national standards. However, the DBS system contains two significant flaws that merit urgent attention:
1. Renewal method: DBS renewals rely solely on card payments rather than direct debit, leading to frequent lapses due to card expiry. Moving to direct debit would materially reduce compliance failures.
2. Duplicate DBS certificates: Drivers are currently required to hold two DBS certificates: one for SEN transport and one for all other work. This distinction is based on the classification of SEN transport as “regulated activity”, yet all licensed taxi and private hire work is inherently regulated. There is no practical justification for duplicate checks and costs. This issue is the subject of an ongoing joint campaign by the NPHTA and the Institute of Licensing.
Trip radar & driver distraction
Trip radar-style on-screen trip offers were rightly identified as a safety concern. These systems encourage drivers to divert attention from the road to assess offers under time pressure. Such functionality should not be standard practice.
Trip offers should only be displayed once a driver has completed their current journey and the vehicle is stationary, a condition that can be easily identified, verified, and implemented into software through existing GPS and app technology.
CCTV in licensed vehicles
There was declared to be a clear and obvious appetite to include CCTV within national standards, given its proven benefits for both driver and passenger safety and its value in resolving complaints and allegations.
Concerns around privacy, data access and storage are already comprehensively addressed through existing ICO guidance, based on lawful basis and justifiable reason.
FEBRUARY 2026 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
