INQUIRY DEBATE: Licensing failures laid bare as transport safety groups urge MPs to legislate stricter national taxi standards
- Perry Richardson
- 40 minutes ago
- 4 min read
The push for mandatory national licensing standards for taxis and private hire vehicles intensified as safety groups, licensing experts, and local government leaders gave detailed evidence to the Transport Committee last month.
Witnesses warned that current arrangements, governed by the Department for Transport’s 2020 statutory standards, remain inconsistent, loosely applied and in some cases ignored, leaving passengers exposed to avoidable risks.
Representatives from Transport for All, the Institute of Licensing, the Suzy Lamplugh Trust and the Local Government Association told MPs that the absence of enforceable national rules enables drivers refused a licence in one area to obtain one elsewhere. They described fragmented training requirements, gaps in police-to-council data sharing, weak complaints processes and limited protections for disabled passengers. Councillor Arooj Shah, representing the LGA, said authorities “cannot enforce licences that have been issued outside of their borough”, calling the situation a “huge safeguarding issue”.
Emma Vogelmann, co-CEO of Transport for All, said disabled passengers continue to experience unpredictable standards between local areas, with “a large amount of ambiguity in terms of what journey they might experience” depending on local rules. Saskia Garner of the Suzy Lamplugh Trust warned that some licensing authorities are still issuing licences to drivers with convictions for violent and sexual offences, despite the 2020 standards being in place. Her organisation’s FOI data showed “at least 90 active licences” were held by such drivers across the small sample of councils able to provide details.
Evidence to MPs reveals serious gaps in enforcement, data-sharing and driver vetting, with industry bodies demanding mandatory national rules
Witnesses unanimously told MPs that guidance without enforcement powers is insufficient. The Institute of Licensing’s president, solicitor James Button, said that while the existing framework sets out expectations, the wording remains too discretionary. “It needs to be enshrined in law and there need to be absolute standards, not minimum standards,” he said, adding that authorities can currently “depart from it if they feel they should do so”.
The evidence highlights severe operational disruption created by cross-border working. Licence shopping by drivers seeking the easiest route through compliance regimes remains a significant challenge for councils striving to maintain higher standards. Button called it “absurd that somebody can pass a test in one district and fail in another”, arguing that fragmented rules undermine both safety and confidence. The pressures are particularly acute in Greater Manchester, where out-of-area vehicles operate extensively. Councillor Shah said this practice affects local drivers’ livelihoods while also “posing great risk to our communities”.
A recurring theme was the inadequacy of data-sharing between police forces and licensing authorities. Button said “common law police disclosure does not work” and highlighted cases where drivers arrested for serious offences continued operating because councils were not informed. He described examples where licence holders arrested for rape on a Friday remained unknown to licensing teams by Monday. Witnesses called for statutory duties on police to alert councils immediately when licence holders are arrested, charged or investigated.
The Suzy Lamplugh Trust pressed for non-conviction information, such as complaints and behavioural patterns, to be included in licensing decisions. Garner said conviction rates for serious crimes such as stalking and rape are below three per cent, meaning councils relying solely on convictions risk issuing licences to high-risk individuals. “Every incident where a passenger is subject to criminal behaviour by a driver is one too many,” she told MPs.
Disabled passengers’ safety received significant focus. Vogelmann said existing rules fail to recognise core needs such as safe boarding, securing wheelchairs, preventing discriminatory behaviour and prohibiting overcharging. She argued that passenger safety must explicitly include disabled passengers’ requirements, noting that many are unaware that a driver barred in one area can legally operate in another. Persistent refusal rates remain a concern, with Transport for All’s evidence showing 26 per cent of disabled passengers experience access refusals, rising to 63 per cent for assistance dog users.
The Committee heard repeated calls for mandatory disability equality training, particularly training designed and delivered by disabled people. Vogelmann said just two-thirds of authorities require any disability-focused training at all and that quality varies widely. She also highlighted that wheelchair-accessible vehicle availability is inconsistent across the UK, particularly outside metropolitan centres. Witnesses agreed that national quotas or minimum proportions of accessible vehicles may be necessary, but concerns were raised about higher purchase costs and the need for subsidies.
The panel described structural problems in enforcement. Many authorities rely on councillor-led licensing panels, which can deviate from officer recommendations. Button said that “decisions should be taken by professional, trained, experienced licensing officers”, citing examples where panels granted licences that officers viewed as unsafe. Shah agreed that current guidance allows too much interpretation, adding that legislation would “make sure that that assurance is there”.
MPs also probed the NR3S register, a national database recording refusals and revocations. Witnesses said its usefulness is constrained by slow data entry, lack of mandatory reporting timescales, limited information, and the fact that second licensing authorities can still decide to grant licences even when a previous revocation is recorded. Suggestions included expanding access to operators, widening the dataset to include behavioural complaints, and establishing a centralised, statutory national database for all drivers and operators.
Despite the seriousness of the issues raised, witnesses stressed that the majority of drivers operate safely. Button cautioned against generalising from the minority of concerning cases, noting that “the vast majority” are “hard-working, decent, law-abiding people who generally provide very good services”. Garner added that the lack of strong national standards harms the reputation of the wider industry, enabling “a very small minority” to undermine public trust.
Throughout the session, MPs sought to understand whether regional standards might serve as an interim solution. Button warned against the idea, saying it risked “larger variations in standards” and would still enable licence shopping between regions. Witnesses maintained that national legislation remains the only workable option to ensure consistency, information-sharing, enforceability and a baseline level of safeguarding.
The Committee will question the Minister in the new year, with national standards, data-sharing duties and out-of-area working expected to form central recommendations in its final report. The consensus voiced across safety groups, licensing experts and councils signals significant pressure on the Government to move beyond guidance and legislate, more than five years after the 2020 standards were first issued.
