THE CHANCE OF A LIFETIME A NEW TAXI AND PRIVATE HIRE VEHICLE BILL
By Andrew Wescott Corporate and Government
Affairs Director, Veezu
www.veezu.co.uk
The recent Lunar eclipse may have been a rare occurrence – having last taken place nearly 30 years ago – but rarer still is the opportunity facing the Private Hire Vehicle (PHV) and taxi sector over the next two years. After decades of false starts and unfulfilled promises, the sector has finally been gifted what is has been asking for – the chance to reframe and recast the legislative framework that determines how it is regulated.
Back in May, the King’s Speech included a new draft Taxi and Private Hire Vehicle Bill. It follows a year of scrutiny, first through the Casey Audit and then through the Transport Select Committee inquiry. Both inquiries shone a light on some of the challenges faced by the sector. They also revealed that addressing them may not be as simple as some may think. But then, getting things right rarely is.
The Transport Select Committee inquiry highlighted the complexity of the taxi and PHV sector. For decades successive layers of legislation have been added, like a multitude of ill-fitting blankets that never quite cover the bed and still leave you exposed to a cold draught. The changes brought in by these reforms solved one problem, but then created others, leaving one stakeholder group happy, while another felt let down.
The current patchwork of legislation has also struggled to keep pace with the technological changes that have taken place across the sector. Perhaps this is the first lesson to take into this new legislative process. We should create regulations that future proof the sector. This does not mean making them so rigid that they impede the adoption of new technology. It means creating a more flexible regulatory framework that embraces and encourages innovation.
The Department for Transport (DfT) has, so far, taken a refreshingly open approach to the pre-legislative scrutiny. They have homed in on the more contentious issues and brought a very wide range of stakeholders
16
together to debate and discuss these weighty topics. Based on experience of the workshops and round- tables people with quite different viewpoints have been able to disagree, agreeably. This is a promising sign.
Prioritising safety
Safety is core to the way the sector should be regulated. People trust licensed operators and driver-partners to transport them, their loved ones and their employees safely. There has been much debate around the need for national standards and whether local authorities should retain some discretion when it comes to standards. But if there is any room left for discretion when it comes to fundamental safety standards, then those national standards are not high enough.
Stronger safeguards, better information-sharing and joined-up enforcement are essential if national standards are to reflect how the sector operates today. That is why the draft Bill’s proposal to mandate a national database of licensed drivers, vehicles and operators, alongside stronger enforcement powers, is so vital.
An important part of this debate has already been settled. Last year, the Supreme Court unanimously ruled in D.E.L.T.A. Merseyside and Veezu v Uber that the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 does not require an operator to contract with a passenger as principal. It found that it was “by no means clear” that forcing every operator into that model would better serve passengers or wider public safety.
Put simply, a contract between an operator and passenger does not, on its own, make a journey safer. The principal-versus-agent debate should therefore not distract from the task ahead - ensuring operators and licensing authorities have the tools they need to keep passengers safe.
We can all agree that public safety must sit at the heart of reform. For women (a group that take around 25 per cent more PHV trips than men) travelling alone at night, shift workers, older passengers, disabled passengers and those returning home when other transport has stopped running, trust in the system is fundamental. But we cannot detach safety from supply. If reform makes it harder for responsible
SEPTEMBER 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 |
Page 75 |
Page 76 |
Page 77 |
Page 78
