.jpg)
GMB reiterates opposition to autonomous vehicles as DfT discusses future of taxi and private hire sector
The GMB Union has reiterated its opposition to autonomous vehicles entering the passenger transport market after the technology was raised during Department for Transport (DfT) discussions on the forthcoming Taxi and Private Hire Bill.
GMB said autonomous vehicles (AVs) received only limited discussion at the recent DfT roundtable because they fall outside the scope of the proposed legislation, despite the possibility that driverless vehicles could eventually compete directly with conventional taxi and private hire services.
The union said: “There was a limited discussion on AV’s as they are outside the scope of the present Bill, as they are not taxis or private hire, even if they accept paying passengers in the future.”
That distinction could become increasingly important as the Government develops separate legislation and regulatory structures for self-driving vehicles. While the Taxi and Private Hire Bill is expected to reshape the framework governing today’s licensed drivers, vehicles and operators, autonomous passenger services present a different regulatory challenge.
GMB used the roundtable to restate its opposition to AVs, saying: “GMB reiterated our opposition to AV’s for a number of reasons which we detailed previously.”
GMB’s position also relates to discussions around possible changes to cross-border working and licensing areas. The union suggested that larger licensing areas could potentially provide a basis for controlling taxi and private hire vehicle and driver numbers, both to help stabilise earnings and to prepare for autonomous vehicles.
GMB said such reforms could “provide the foundations of a mechanism to manage any future introduction of AV’s”.
For taxi and private hire drivers, the economic implications are beginning to look significant as time ticks by. If autonomous vehicles eventually provide commercially available passenger services, they could add another source of supply to local markets already served by taxis and private hire vehicles.
GMB’s argument indicates it does not want policymakers to wait until large-scale autonomous services arrive before deciding how those vehicles should interact with existing licensed markets. Instead, it is pushing for today’s reforms to create mechanisms capable of dealing with future changes in vehicle supply.
There is also a potentially important regulatory distinction. If autonomous vehicles carrying paying passengers do not fall within conventional taxi or private hire definitions, questions arise over whether they would be subject to equivalent local licensing requirements, operating restrictions and market controls.
The Government will therefore have to consider how two regulatory systems could interact if autonomous passenger services become commercially viable. Taxi and private hire operators could remain subject to licensing requirements developed specifically for their sector while driverless services operate under legislation designed around automated vehicles.
GMB has made its position on that transition clear by maintaining its opposition to autonomous vehicles while asking policymakers to consider their potential impact as today’s licensing reforms are developed.
The union said it would continue working to ensure industry changes are introduced in a coordinated way and take account of future challenges.
With AVs outside the immediate Taxi and Private Hire Bill, no direct autonomous vehicle measures appear to have emerged from the roundtable discussion described by GMB. However, the union’s intervention raises a longer-term question for policymakers: whether a licensing framework being redesigned today will be capable of managing competition between human-driven taxis and private hire vehicles and potentially driverless passenger services in the years ahead.
