Fresh cross-border enforcement powers may tighten safety oversight, yet deeper structural issues in taxi and PHV licensing remain unresolved
- Perry Richardson
- Apr 22
- 4 min read
The Government’s proposed amendment to the English Devolution Bill marks a notable shift in how the taxi and private hire sector is regulated, but for many it does not go far enough to resolve the long-standing tensions created by cross-border working.
At its core, the amendment introduces a practical and widely supported change. Licensing authorities will be given the power to suspend drivers, vehicles and operators regardless of where they were originally licensed. If a driver is operating in an area and presents a risk, that local authority can act immediately rather than relying on another council to intervene.
For years, this gap has frustrated both regulators and those working within the trade. Enforcement has often been limited by geography, even when the risks were not. The ability to act locally, in real time, is therefore a logical and necessary development.
It is no surprise that parts of the industry have welcomed the move. Addison Lee CEO Patrick Gallagher said: “We welcome the Government’s proposed amendment to the English Devolution Bill which would give taxi and PHV licensing authorities the power to temporarily suspend a licence, regardless of which authority originally issued it.
“This is a vital modification to the licensing framework and marks a meaningful step forward in strengthening enforcement and protecting public safety. It is a position Addison Lee has championed for some time, and we are proud to have worked closely with the Department for Transport to help make it a reality.
“While this development goes some way towards addressing inconsistencies under the current framework, we believe a percentage-based system for out-of-area bookings would go further in supporting responsible operators and ensuring a level playing field for drivers. We look forward to continued collaboration with the Government as we work together to build a modern licensing system that truly reflects the needs of those it serves.”
That final point is where the debate now shifts. Because while stronger enforcement is welcome, it does not fundamentally change the economic and regulatory dynamics that have shaped the industry over the past decade.
Cross-border working has not developed by accident. It exists because licensing conditions vary significantly between authorities. Fees differ, vehicle requirements differ, and in some cases the cost of entry into the trade is markedly lower in one area than another. Drivers and operators have responded rationally to those differences, choosing to licence where it is cheapest or least restrictive, then working where demand is highest.
The amendment does little to alter that behaviour. A driver licensed in a low-cost area can still spend most of their working time elsewhere. The only real change is that they now face the risk of enforcement action from multiple authorities instead of just one. From a safety perspective, that is progress. From a market perspective, it leaves the core imbalance intact.
In a recent TaxiPoint Premium article it was suggested that without further reform, the industry will continue to operate within a fragmented framework where enforcement is national in reach, but standards remain local in design. This mismatch risks creating a system where authorities can punish poor practice more effectively, but cannot prevent the conditions that allow it to emerge.
One of the other discussed solutions is a cap on out-of-area bookings. The idea, referenced by Gallagher, would limit the proportion of work a driver or operator can undertake outside their licensing area. In theory, this would encourage stronger alignment between where drivers are licensed and where they actually work.
Such a measure would not be without complexity. It would require clear definitions, robust data collection and consistent enforcement. However, it goes further than the current amendment in addressing the root cause rather than the symptoms.
There is also the question of national standards. The bill signals a move in that direction, but without full clarity on what those standards will include, it is difficult to assess their impact. If implemented effectively, they could reduce the incentive to licence in certain areas purely for cost or convenience. If applied unevenly or with significant local variation, the current disparities may persist.
For local authorities, the amendment brings both opportunity and responsibility. The ability to act decisively is a step forward, but it also requires greater coordination, better data sharing and a more consistent approach to enforcement if it is to be effective. Local authorities in some regions may also be forced to use and up their own budgets to police out-of-area drivers, which could in turn push up the cost of local licensing fees creating an even bigger gap between the cost of licenses.
This amendment is an attempt to catch up, at least in part. It strengthens the hand of enforcement and sends a clear signal that public safety should not be constrained by administrative boundaries. But it does not yet resolve the deeper question of how the industry should be structured in a modern, mobile and increasingly platform-driven environment.
Until that question is addressed, the debate around cross-border hiring, licensing disparities and fair competition is unlikely to fade. The current proposals move the conversation forward, but they do not bring it to a conclusion.
