TAXI & PHV INQUIRY: Cross-border hiring row deepens as national operators defend licensing freedoms and local firms warn of out-of-area working
- Perry Richardson
- 9 minutes ago
- 6 min read
Cross-border hiring took centre stage during the latest Transport Committee evidence session on Wednesday (19 November), exposing a widening split between national app-based operators and traditional local taxi firms. Representatives from Uber, Bolt, Veezu and independent operator Vokes Taxis delivered detailed and differing accounts of whether cross-border working strengthens or undermines the sector. The testimony revealed an industry divided over the long-term consequences of allowing drivers to work far from the authority that licensed them.
For national platforms, cross-border operation is a functional necessity. For local operators and some councils, it is the root cause of declining standards, enforcement failures and an erosion of public confidence.
Uber and Bolt mount robust defence of cross-border freedoms
Uber and Bolt were unequivocal in their support for keeping cross-border hiring. Emma O’Dwyer, Uber’s Director of Public Policy, told MPs that banning or restricting the practice would create significant disruption for passengers. She insisted that modern mobility patterns simply do not fit within traditional licensing boundaries.
“We believe that the travelling public would not expect that they would be limited to not travelling across licensing authority boundaries,” O’Dwyer said. “Important civic locations such as shopping centres, universities or hospitals are outside of their licensing boundaries, and indeed people do not generally know where they are.”
She warned that removing the flexibility would force supply inward towards city centres and damage reliability for those living further out. “Drivers cross multiple boundaries within quite a small geographical area,” she added, noting that constraints would make journeys harder and reduce coverage.
Bolt echoed this stance and argued that cross-border working accurately reflects the way people move through urban areas. Senior General Manager Kimberly Hurd pointed to the high density of councils in city regions, using London as an example.
“There are 32 boroughs in London and there is one consistent standard and one licence across it,” she said. “If I could use Manchester as an example… 47 per cent of our drivers based in Manchester also have Wolverhampton licences.”
Hurd argued that speed and cost drive the licensing choices made by drivers, not lower safety standards. She stressed that in her view “cross-border is essentially the way people live and work”. Passengers also “expect” that their journeys can cross boundaries without issue.
Both platforms rejected calls to reinstate the ABBA principle, which requires a driver, vehicle and operator to be licensed by the same authority. O’Dwyer accepted that “the world certainly would not fall apart” under such a model but insisted it would reduce reliability and push drivers towards central zones. She said this pattern already occurs in Scotland, resulting in challenges for suburban communities.
MPs hear starkly conflicting accounts of how cross-border private hire working is reshaping local transport, testing enforcement capacity and fuelling licence shopping.
Independent operator warns cross-border model is “broken” and leaves councils powerless
The most critical view came from Medway-based Vokes Taxis, which provided a detailed account of how cross-border hiring is undermining local regulation. Co-owner Mark Robinson dismissed the claim that cross-border trips reflect natural travel patterns.
“Some 95 per cent or more of our journeys—probably 97 per cent or 98 per cent of our journeys—originate within the Medway towns or they end in the Medway towns,” he told MPs. “We see a situation where… many vehicles that are not licensed in Medway come in and operate. They operate without any oversight whatsoever.”
Robinson said out-of-area drivers routinely work full time in Medway, particularly those licensed by Transport for London or Wolverhampton. Local officers cannot inspect or suspend these vehicles, he said, leaving public safety compromised.
“The local authority does not have any ability or authority to even inspect those vehicles,” he stressed. “We are not just talking about journeys that cross borders; we are talking about drivers who deliberately work in a different area from which they were licensed and can do so without any oversight.”
He argued strongly for cross-border hiring to be removed from legislation entirely.
“I believe that local licensing and cross-border hiring is a significant issue… If cross-border hiring was taken out of the equation, you would have local authorities enforcing over vehicles and drivers that are licensed in their authority. That system worked for many years.”
Veezu offers a middle position: operationally useful but distorted by licence shopping
Veezu, which operates across more than 60 licensing areas, told MPs that cross-border activity is operationally necessary but acknowledged that it is also undermined by inconsistent licensing costs and processing times.
Wescott said availability and supply were “synonymous with safety”, particularly in regions with limited late-night public transport. He described parts of Cardiff, where demand regularly outstrips local driver numbers, as heavily dependent on drivers coming in from neighbouring districts.
“During very busy periods, drivers will come in from Newport, Bridgend and the surrounding areas to help with the demand,” he said. Without this, passengers “would either be left waiting for a long time or they would not have a service at all.”
But he accepted licence shopping is widespread and financially rational. He cited Wolverhampton’s three-year licence fee of £138 compared with £336 in Portsmouth, noting: “You can understand why a driver may choose to go and license there.”
MPs question whether safety is being compromised
The Committee pressed witnesses on repeated evidence from licensing authorities that cross-border working is weakening safeguarding. Rochdale Council, represented indirectly through MP Elsie Blundell, said it fears that large proportions of out-of-area drivers limit its ability to enforce local standards.
Hurd disputed that cross-border operations lead to worse outcomes, citing data from London. “Only three per cent of safety complaints in London came from out-of-borough drivers,” she said. She added that Bolt data shows cross-border drivers have “a significantly lower complaint rate per 10,000 rides… about 83 times lower.”
However, Robinson argued that these statistics hide the underlying problem: local authorities cannot inspect, monitor or sanction out-of-area drivers operating in their patch, meaning unsafe behaviour may never be detected by the correct regulator.
“One of the problems people will experience is if they get in a car that is not locally licensed, they haven’t got a clue who to make that complaint to,” he said. He warned that operators’ own complaint mechanisms are less robust than direct complaints to licensing authorities.
Joint enforcement: a tool that is barely being used
Hurd revealed that out of the 50 councils Bolt operates within, only three have undertaken joint enforcement operations. “There is a lack of joint enforcement,” she said. “There is not enough attention or focus on being able to do that effectively.”
She highlighted the disparity in resources between councils. Wolverhampton employs around 100 licensing officers. Some rural or mid-sized districts have “one or a fractional person who is dedicated”, leaving them unable to police their own borders, let alone others.
Robinson said this structural imbalance guarantees regulatory failure. Local officers “have no idea of the drivers who are regularly working supposedly in its territory but over which it has no oversight whatsoever.”
The 2015 reforms remain under scrutiny
The Committee revisited the 2015 Deregulation Act changes, with Labour MP Laurence Turner citing past concerns from Rotherham’s licensing manager about drivers refused locally then re-entering the market via cross-border subcontracting.
Uber rebutted this, with O’Dwyer stating firmly: “The Deregulation Act 2015 was never relied on and we do not subcontract. Everywhere we license we maintain the triple lock.” She argued that today’s risk stems from poor data sharing, not cross-border rules themselves.
The political stakes rise
This evidence session showed that the issue is no longer a technical licensing debate but a structural question about who holds authority in a system increasingly reshaped by national platforms. Councils, especially those with limited resources, argue they have lost the ability to enforce local standards. Platform operators argue the system must modernise to match travel patterns and passenger expectations.
The Committee will now decide whether cross-border hiring remains compatible with a safe and accountable licensing system. On one side sit operators who rely on geographical flexibility to guarantee supply. On the other sit local authorities and small firms warning that regulatory power has already slipped too far from the places and people who need it most.
RELATED NEWS STORY:
