Private hire association urges RETENTION of cross-border working, warning of risks to supply and operator viability
- Perry Richardson
- 3 minutes ago
- 4 min read
The Licensed Private Hire Car Association (LPHCA) has renewed its call for cross-border working to be retained within the taxi and private hire framework, warning that restricting it would undermine operator efficiency, reduce vehicle supply and lead to higher fares for passengers.
The association argues that cross-border licensing has become a practical necessity for operators operating within a fragmented regulatory system and should not be curtailed without the introduction of robust national standards.
In supplementary written evidence submitted to Parliament following oral evidence to the Transport Select Committee, the Licensed Private Hire Car Association said the current framework under the Local Government (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1976 has resulted in widely varying licensing practices across England and Wales. The association said this inconsistency has driven both drivers and operators to seek licences from authorities that are more efficient and consistent in their decision-making, rather than encouraging drivers to relocate or work far from home.
“Licencing out of area would not be an issue if licencing districts all worked to the same rules or at least a high level of safeguarding that protects all vulnerable people equally,” the association said in its submission.
It added that cross-border licensing is “a result of poor performing licensing districts taking many weeks to complete fitness checks and issue a licence, having rules that are not fit for today’s environment”.
Trade body says cross-border licensing is essential for efficient operations and argues inconsistent local standards, not driver mobility, are the root cause of safeguarding concerns
From an operator’s perspective, the association said cross-border working enables businesses to deploy vehicles efficiently to meet demand, particularly during peaks and disruption. “Cross bordering work is essential to facilitate the movement of large numbers at events such as Cheltenham races, large marathons and events and emergency service movements including train and airport disruption,” it said. Without this flexibility, operators warn that local shortages would quickly emerge.
The submission also emphasised the economic impact of restricting cross-border working, particularly on fares and service availability. “Cross boarder also allows more efficiency, with empty return mileage negated by being able to work anywhere,” the association said. “This ensures that there are enough drivers to satisfy demand which is paramount to safety and efficiency, whilst encouraging lower fares.”
It warned that if cross-border working were stopped, “there would be supply problems in many areas, and fare increases would inevitably follow”.
Addressing claims that cross-border licensing leads to drivers flooding into other towns and cities, the association described this as a misconception that does not reflect how the market operates. “Drivers that licence for example with Wolverhampton do not live there and suddenly decide to work in say Liverpool,” it said.
“Drivers generally live in and work in their local area, they simply licence with Wolverhampton or other areas due to the licensing efficiencies in their area.” For operators, it argues, this behaviour reflects rational business decisions rather than regulatory abuse.
Safeguarding concerns, often cited by critics of cross-border working, were acknowledged but strongly contested in the submission. The association said that inconsistent enforcement and interpretation of checks such as DBS disclosures and medical assessments across more than 270 licensing authorities has created confusion for both operators and regulators.
“This act has become a liability to the safety of passengers as it prevents police and licensing officers from properly being able to determine whether or not a licensing driver from out of their area is acting within the terms and conditions of their licence,” it said of the 1976 Act.
The association also challenged conclusions drawn from the Casey Report, which called on the Department for Transport to close what it described as a licensing loophole. “The statement ‘The Department for Transport should close this loophole immediately and introduce more rigorous standards’ is misleading as there is no loophole and cross border was never the problem,” the submission said. It added: “None of the offenders that were prosecuted in Rotherham were out of area licensed, they were all licensed in the local area.”
Instead of restricting driver mobility, the association said the focus should be on introducing absolute national standards that apply uniformly across all licensing authorities. “Absolute National standards are licencing standards that must apply to every part of licencing,” it said. “They must uphold high standards that drivers, operators, regulators and enforcers understand and can comply with, only with these standards can the Public be kept safe.” For operators, it argues, national standards would provide regulatory certainty while allowing cross-border working to continue without compromising safety.
The submission ends by stating that removing cross-border working without first addressing inconsistencies in licensing would penalise compliant operators and reduce the resilience of the private hire market. “To stop cross boarder does not stop grooming,” it said. “An absolute high national standard will and must give all children the same high level of protection.” From an operational standpoint, the association warned that failing to recognise the role cross-border working plays in maintaining supply risks destabilising local markets and increasing costs for both operators and passengers.
