DEEMED INADEQUATE: Taxi industry delivers overwhelming response to Government plans around cross-border working
- Perry Richardson
- 6 minutes ago
- 4 min read
Taxi drivers and private hire operators have delivered a largely critical verdict on the Government’s latest proposals to address cross-border working, with many arguing that the plans fail to confront the operational reality driving the problem.
The feedback, gathered from across the trade, reveals widespread frustration that the proposals stop short of introducing direct controls on how private hire bookings are dispatched. Several respondents said this leaves cross-border working largely untouched, despite years of reviews, consultations and public debate.
Scepticism was evident from the outset. One reader, Ian Hynds, asked simply: “What plans?” Martin Evans responded: “There are none. They’re not stopping or banning cross border hiring.” Another contributor, Antony Di Cesare, questioned whether the proposals amounted to anything at all, asking: “Have they done anything then.”
A significant group of respondents argued that the Government is overcomplicating an issue that could be resolved quickly by placing clearer legal obligations on operators. Lee Ward said ministers were avoiding decisive action, commenting: “They are kicking the ball down the field with all these consultations. The Casey Report recommendation was very clear that an immediate end to cross border was needed.”
Industry questions enforcement, operator responsibility and whether ministers are delaying decisive action
Ward argued that the solution lay in dispatch controls rather than structural reform. “End cross border by making it a legal obligation for the operator to only despatch bookings to vehicles while they are within their licensed area,” he said, adding that this could be done “easily” and “at zero cost to anyone”. He suggested national standards could then be introduced gradually, rather than being treated as a prerequisite for enforcement.
That approach was supported by Ryan Elbourne, an operator who said his business already limits dispatch activity geographically. “As an operator with over 140 cars we can implement this overnight,” he said. Elbourne argued that focusing on dispatch practices would “end all this nonsense” more quickly than licensing policy changes that rely on interpretation by individual councils.
However, that view was challenged by others who questioned why, if dispatch-only models were sufficient, the problem had persisted for decades. David Lawrie, Director at National Private Hire and Taxi Association (NPHTA), responded by arguing that enforcement based solely on existing legal provisions had already failed. “If it was possible to work alone, then we would not be in this mess, as it would already be enforced,” he said, pointing to the limited resources available to local authorities.
Lawrie instead advocated the wider adoption of intended use policies, which require drivers to demonstrate that they will primarily work in the area that licenses them. “The only proven way to resolve the cross border issue is to roll out intended use policies,” he said, describing them as “very effective and extremely efficient”. He argued that these policies support enforcement of long-standing provisions of the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976, rather than relying on councils to expand day-to-day enforcement activity.
The exchange between proponents of dispatch controls and supporters of intended use policies highlighted a deeper divide over how much change is actually required. While both sides broadly agree that cross-border working has become excessive, they disagree on whether the answer lies in new legal mechanisms or better use of existing ones.
Not all respondents agreed that cross-border working should be curtailed at all. Some drivers warned that restrictions could harm livelihoods, particularly outside major cities. Md Noman said limiting cross-border activity would leave drivers “restricted to a small area”, adding: “Especially small-town drivers will be badly affected.” He argued that the current system allows drivers to “enhance their work” and adapt to fluctuating demand.
Questions were also raised about passenger impact. Sultan Ahmed asked whether airport pick-ups would fall under any cross-border restrictions, reflecting wider concern that long-distance pre-booked journeys could become more complex or less viable if tighter geographic rules were imposed. Others warned that poorly designed reforms could lead to reduced availability or higher fares for customers travelling across council boundaries.
Another strand of the debate focused on national standards. Stephen Pike argued that piecemeal reform would never resolve long-running disputes. “National standards is the only thing that will solve this because there is always going to be grey areas,” he said. Pike went further, suggesting national pricing should be considered to create a level playing field, arguing that stronger operators would grow while weaker ones would exit the market.
That idea was quickly challenged by other contributors, who pointed to differences in living costs, wages and licensing conditions across the country. Alex Elbourne questioned how national pricing could work when “the cost of living and wages in London is a lot higher than Teesside”, reflecting concerns that standardisation could create new distortions rather than solving existing ones.
The discussion also reignited long-standing arguments over how cross-border working emerged in the first place. Some respondents blamed app-based operators, particularly Uber, for accelerating the practice. Simon Rossdale said cross-border working “should have never been allowed” and claimed it was introduced “for the benefit for UBER”. He argued that out-of-area working was not possible earlier in his career and blamed large operators for eroding distinctions between private hire and hackney carriage work.
Those claims were however strongly disputed. Lawrie pushed back, saying cross-border working “was an issue before 2007, five years before Uber existed”. He argued that misunderstanding the origins of the problem risked targeting the wrong solutions. “Before 2007, it was hackney carriages,” he said, adding that councils which adopted intended use policies at that time saw drivers return to their home areas, before the issue later shifted towards private hire licensing.
Others supported that assessment. Andy Simon said Uber may have operated “on the biggest scale” but added that “many big PHV ops” were engaged in cross-border activity “for years first”, including before the Deregulation Act 2015.
Taken together, the responses paint a picture of an industry deeply divided over both cause and cure. While many contributors agree that enforcement is inconsistent and that current arrangements undermine local licensing regimes, there is little consensus on whether the solution lies in operator dispatch rules, intended use policies, national standards, or leaving the system largely unchanged.
What is clear from the feedback is a widespread belief that the Government’s current proposals will not, on their own, change behaviour on the ground. As cabbie Bill Armstrong put it succinctly when asked whether the plans went far enough: “No not even close.”
RELATED NEWS STORY:
