Should taxi guarantee schemes be mandatory, and at what cost to the local authority?
- Perry Richardson
- Jul 7
- 2 min read
As discussions continue on the Bus Services (No. 2) Bill, the wording of Clause 18 has attracted scrutiny from MPs and campaigners alike. The clause allows, but does not require, enhanced partnership (EP) schemes to include taxi guarantee provisions for disabled passengers. This has prompted a debate over whether such guarantees should be made mandatory.
At present, the clause says local authorities may include requirements to help disabled people travel independently and in safety and reasonable comfort. That can include a taxi guarantee scheme. However, this discretionary language means authorities could choose not to include these measures, even where they might be needed.
Rebecca Smith MP raised concerns that the clause offers only the possibility of improvement. She pointed out that if the goal is truly to improve access to public transport for disabled people, then the clause should place a clear duty on authorities to act, not just allow for it.
Making taxi guarantees mandatory would help ensure a baseline level of service nationwide. It would avoid the current risk of postcode variation, where some areas offer full support while others deliver no equivalent provision at all. A statutory requirement would also strengthen the rights of disabled passengers and make local transport authorities more accountable.
However, mandating such schemes raises practical questions. Councils in rural areas, for example, may struggle to implement taxi guarantees due to lack of vehicle supply, geographic spread, or cost constraints. Requiring such a service across the board could create significant financial and operational pressures.
There is also the issue of enforceability. If a taxi is guaranteed but none is available when needed, what happens next? Would the authority face penalties? Would passengers have a right to compensation? Without clear answers, a legal obligation could quickly lead to legal challenges and public dissatisfaction.
Some stakeholders argue that a mandatory approach should be tied to funding support. The Department for Transport could introduce a dedicated accessibility fund to help authorities roll out schemes, particularly in harder-to-service regions. With sufficient backing, councils could develop partnerships with taxi operators and make practical use of existing technology to manage demand and bookings.
Campaign groups have long argued that accessibility must be a universal feature of public transport planning, not an optional one. They point out that many disabled people still face barriers to travel every day, barriers that a properly enforced taxi guarantee could help remove.
Whether or not such schemes should be mandatory depends on the balance between ambition and capacity. The current clause gives authorities discretion but no obligation. Making it a requirement would strengthen rights but would also need clear guidance and resources to support delivery.
