CROSS-BORDER AND NATIONAL STANDARDS: What Uber, Bolt, Veezu & Vokes will likely say to Transport Committee during inquiry examination
- Perry Richardson
- 17 minutes ago
- 6 min read
This week, the UK Parliament’s Transport Committee will question leading ride-hailing platforms and taxi operators about taxi and private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing. On 19 November, representatives from Uber, Bolt, Veezu and Vokes Taxis are set to give oral evidence.
Their written submissions to the inquiry offer a preview of the positions and proposals each company is likely to highlight. Key topics will include calls for national licensing standards, debates over cross-border hiring, enforcement powers, passenger safety, accessibility for disabled users, operator responsibilities like complaints handling, the use of CCTV, and modern technology in regulation. Here, we examine what each firm is expected to say on cross-border and national standards, based on their written evidence.
National Standards and Consistency in Licensing
One theme common to all four companies’ evidence is the need for more consistent standards in taxi and PHV licensing across the country. Uber argues that mandatory national standards should be introduced in key areas to ensure a “consistently high bar for safety” nationwide. In Uber’s view, the current patchwork of 270+ local licensing authorities leads to uneven rules and confusion, which would be unacceptable in other regulated industries. They recommend the Government implement legally binding national rules on things like driver background checks, vehicle requirements, operator obligations and licensing processes. This, Uber says, would hold every driver and operator to the same high standards and bolster public confidence.
Ride-hailing rival Bolt takes a similar stance. Bolt’s submission notes that while many councils already impose high baseline requirements (for example, enhanced DBS checks, driver document verification and insurance are universally required), formalising these into a single national framework would cement best practice across the board. The company stresses it is “not calling for a wholesale overhaul” of the system but rather a “formalisation of existing good practice”. In other words, core safety checks, enforcement tools, and digital processes should be standardised to reduce complexity without lowering standards. Bolt believes aligning baseline rules nationwide would make compliance more efficient and fair, while still allowing local authorities to address local needs.
Large fleet operator Veezu also “welcomes the standardisation” of operator, driver and vehicle licensing. Veezu’s evidence recommends that the Department for Transport, Institute of Licensing and Local Government Association work with the whole industry (including passenger groups) to shape national licensing standards.
Crucially, Veezu says any national standards must come with the power to enforce them across licensing boundaries. The company supports consistent high standards “in areas of licensing that have a clear, direct impact on public safety” but cautions that differences in local conditions should be considered carefully. All three major firms (Uber, Bolt, and Veezu) therefore align in calling for clearer, national rules, a “high bar” everywhere, to end what Uber calls the “fragmentation” of the current system.
Local taxi operator Vokes Taxis, while smaller in scale, is not opposed to raising standards either. Vokes says it “support[s] all measures” to improve safety and driver conduct “so long as they are commercially viable” for drivers and operators. Like many traditional taxi firms, Vokes prides itself on striving for high service and safety, and “would appreciate” a clearer legal structure mandating those standards. However, Vokes’ perspective is rooted in its community: it emphasises that local operators with local drivers build rapport with customers, and suggests any nationwide changes should not undermine the viability of those small businesses.
Overall, the committee can expect broad support for national minimum standards from this group of witnesses. The tension may lie in the details of implementation – how to set a uniform high bar without ignoring local context or overburdening drivers. MPs are likely to probe how far each company thinks central government should go in mandating rules, and whether a move to national standards might require new legislation or oversight bodies.
Cross-Border Hiring and Enforcement
Perhaps the most contentious issue is cross-border working where drivers or vehicles licensed in one authority operating in another. This practice has grown, partly due to ride-hailing apps enabling bookings across council boundaries. The companies hold differing views on how to manage it.
Uber and Bolt both defend cross-border operations as an integral part of modern PHV services. Uber’s evidence does not support an outright ban on out-of-area driving; instead, Uber proposes changing the law to allow truly cross-jurisdictional enforcement of standards . In Uber’s view, the key is to empower enforcement officers to act against any driver working in their area, regardless of where that driver’s licence was issued. Currently, a council’s officers have limited authority over vehicles licensed elsewhere.
Uber wants those “loopholes” closed so that regulatory oversight travels with the driver across boundaries. The company is expected to highlight solutions like a national PHV driver database to facilitate real-time licence status checks and enforcement cooperation between councils. Such tools, Uber says, would address concerns about roving drivers without needing to restrict where drivers can work.
Bolt strongly concurs that cross-border operation is a “practical necessity” in today’s transport network. Their submission notes that many essential journeys (for example, airport or hospital trips) naturally cross local authority lines. Bolt argues that allowing taxis and PHVs to pick up return fares outside their licensing area improves efficiency, reduces dead mileage, and avoids longer wait times for passengers. Importantly, Bolt presents data to counter the perception that cross-border drivers are less safe. In 2024, for instance, out-of-area drivers operating in London accounted for only 3% of safety-related complaints and actually had a lower complaint rate per trip than locally licensed drivers.
Moreover, many drivers who licence in a different area are local residents of the place they work. Bolt found that drivers in cities like Manchester often live in the city but obtained a licence from another authority mainly to save on fees or avoid long waits. “Cross-border licensing in these cases is not about avoiding regulation,” Bolt explains, but about navigating an inconsistent system. The firm’s stance is that rather than limiting where drivers can operate, the focus should be on reinforcing consistent standards and better joint enforcement across authorities. Bolt is likely to urge the Committee to “reaffirm the legal basis for cross-border journeys” while pushing councils to actively use their existing powers (like joint operations and the national revocations register) to police standards everywhere.
Veezu occupies something of a middle ground. As an operator spanning 50+ towns and cities, Veezu acknowledges cross-border hiring is a “well established and legal” part of the industry. It cautions that simply banning it would “remove passenger services and increase safety risks by removing vital supply to communities”, particularly in areas with limited transport options. However, Veezu also recognises the problems caused by drivers “shopping” for the easiest or cheapest licensing authority. Their evidence points out stark disparities: for example, a three-year PHV driver licence costs £138 in Wolverhampton but £336 in Portsmouth, and some councils take 6 months to process a licence versus 6 weeks elsewhere. These cost and bureaucracy gaps actively incentivise drivers to get licensed in another district.
To tackle this, Veezu suggests a two-pronged approach: standardise core licensing policies and costs nationally, and strengthen enforcement across boundaries. Veezu’s recommendation is “no outright ban on cross-border hiring”, but rather a review to harmonise licensing fees, training requirements and timelines so drivers aren’t driven to cross-border in the first place. At the same time, it agrees with Uber that enforcement powers should extend beyond local borders, so any officer can take action against any driver working in their area regardless of origin.
In contrast, Vokes Taxis is expected to voice the concerns of small local operators who feel undercut by cross-border drivers. Vokes argues that local licensing authorities should have authority over all drivers operating within their borders. In essence, if a driver works regularly in an area, they should be licensed there. In its submission, Vokes gives a blunt example from the Medway Towns: Uber drivers licensed by Transport for London frequently work in Medway but are “not subject to any level of oversight” by local officials.
According to Vokes, some of these out-of-town vehicles are in poor condition and there is “no scrutiny of who’s actually driving the vehicle” because TfL does not conduct inspections in Medway. The local council’s enforcement team, lacking jurisdiction, cannot intervene, so those drivers “can essentially do whatever they want”, a situation Vokes calls untenable and not in the public interest. Expect Mr. Mark Robinson of Vokes Taxis to press MPs for a solution that restores local control, perhaps through requiring drivers to register with each area they work in, or by outlawing certain cross-border activities unless agreements are in place.
MPs will likely probe this divide. They may ask Uber and Bolt whether cross-border freedoms undermine local democratic control and if their proposed enforcement fixes will truly protect standards. Equally, they may challenge operators like Veezu and Vokes on how to prevent “licence shopping” without harming driver livelihoods or passenger service. Enforcement is sure to be a key point: the Committee could explore ideas like a national inspectorate or regional licensing bodies, and how each witness views those possibilities.
