TAXI LICENSING INQUIRY: MPs challenge operators over driver earnings, fatigue risks and the pressures of multi-app working

Driver earnings, working patterns and the sustainability of the platform business model came under intense scrutiny during the Transport Committee’s latest evidence session on taxi and private hire licensing. Representatives from Uber, Bolt, Veezu and independent operator Vokes Taxis faced detailed questioning over whether drivers are now working harder for less, how multi-app working affects fatigue, and whether operators are doing enough to ensure safe and fair conditions.

The exchanges revealed some uncertainty about how much drivers truly take home, how waiting time affects earnings, and whether the wider structure of the ride-hail economy is pushing people towards excessive hours. MPs repeatedly challenged operator claims that earnings remain stable or rising, pointing to contradictory independent analysis and the lived experience of drivers in many parts of the country.

Uber’s Director of Public Policy, Emma O’Dwyer, argued that earnings remain strong across its platform. She told MPs that the average full-time driver “is making about £43,000 pre-cost, and post-cost about £36,000 as a median”, based on Frontier Economics research commissioned by Uber. She described earnings of “broadly £30 an hour on the Uber app when you are logged in” as the typical profile.

But the Committee questioned whether those figures capture the full picture. Dr Scott Arthur pressed O’Dwyer on whether the numbers account for unpaid time waiting between bookings, noting that drivers frequently see large portions of their working hours consumed by idling on streets or car parks.

Uber insists drivers “earn well” — but MPs say data omits waiting time

“Waiting time is important, is it not?” he asked, suggesting that omitting it risks presenting an overly optimistic view of take-home pay. O’Dwyer replied that earnings “vary… depending on the trip, where you are going, area of the country, time of year”, arguing it is difficult to calculate a single metric that captures the complexity.

Arthur, unconvinced, countered that independent analysis indicates drivers may be earning significantly less than Uber claims once all costs and downtime are accounted for. “Independent analysis suggests that drivers are earning much less than that,” he said.

Multi-app working raises fatigue concerns: “Nothing stops a driver switching”

The Committee raised repeated concerns about driver fatigue, particularly for those working across several platforms. O’Dwyer confirmed that Uber enforces a ten-hour maximum driving limit per driver on its own service. However, she acknowledged that a driver could immediately switch to another app once that limit is reached.

Join us on WhatsApp here

“Yes, we have a ten-hour limitation,” she said, adding that drivers have “a responsibility to uphold safe standards” and ensure they are well rested. When asked directly whether anything prevents drivers from moving straight to Bolt or another operator once their Uber hours run out, she replied: “No, there is nothing to stop them from doing that.”

MPs warned that commercial pressures could push drivers to do exactly that. Arthur asked whether Uber’s model, reliant on a large available pool of drivers to minimise passenger waiting times, increases competition between drivers and encourages excessive hours.

“If your business model is making it harder and harder for them to earn a living, those temptations will always be there, will they not?” he asked. O’Dwyer rejected the suggestion. “We would not accept that it is making it harder and harder for them to earn a living,” she said.

Bolt and Veezu drivers juggling multiple income sources

Bolt and Veezu both emphasised that multi-app working is widespread and often beneficial to drivers, giving them access to more trips and greater choice. Bolt did not give its own figures for earnings during the session but stressed that drivers switch between platforms because they want flexibility and the ability to maximise income through competition.

Kimberly Hurd, Bolt’s Senior General Manager for the UK and Ireland, said that “drivers often work across multiple platforms… At any given time a driver could be working quite literally for two companies.” She argued this freedom ultimately gives drivers more control.

Join our YouTube channel here

Veezu’s Andrew Wescott told MPs that the economics of private hire vary drastically by region. In some areas, he said, “over 50 percent of journeys that we fulfil are for essential bookings”, such as medical appointments or routine daily travel, meaning availability expectations are different from large cities. He did not claim drivers were earning less under current conditions, but acknowledged that competition, dynamic pricing and local tariffs complicate the picture.

Local operator: earnings hit by subsidised fares and oversupply

Independent operator Mark Robinson offered a contrasting, more precarious picture of working conditions. He argued that national platforms’ approach to pricing has distorted local markets and pushed down driver earnings for traditional operators.

“There is very much a battle between local taxi companies and incoming national or global players,” he said. In some areas, he added, Uber vehicles have taken heavily discounted fares as part of market-entry strategies. In Tunbridge Wells, he said, “a £7.50 fare is being paid as £7.50 to the driver, but the general public is being charged £2.50… in a deliberate strategy of making life very difficult for the taxi companies to compete.”

Robinson said that in Medway, where Vokes Taxis operates, the combination of rising costs, increased competition and undercutting by national platforms has already reduced incomes: “The earnings of drivers have reduced over the last four or five years because of increased competition and the different pricing strategies of incoming and unlicensed vehicles operating in the area.”

His comments highlight one of the central tensions raised throughout the session: whether driver earnings are falling because of oversupply generated by national platforms. While Uber and Bolt argue that more drivers create shorter waiting times and improve service reliability, local firms warn it forces longer hours for everyone on the road.

MPs question whether working conditions are sustainable

Committee members repeatedly challenged whether drivers are being pushed into longer shifts to maintain stable incomes. The tension between flexibility and financial necessity was a key theme.

Arthur asked O’Dwyer whether Uber’s model contributes to drivers needing to work extended hours across multiple apps to secure enough trips in competitive areas: “Are the drivers not paying the price for this? They are competing harder and harder to get rides and it means they are earning less and less money per hour.”

O’Dwyer rejected the claim and pointed to continued growth in demand for Uber journeys. “We need more drivers, not fewer,” she told MPs, arguing that the platform remains economically attractive.

Arthur again pressed the point: “If you include waiting time, are drivers’ earnings rising or coming down in relation to inflation?” O’Dwyer did not provide a direct percentage or trend across recent years, saying only that earnings vary widely by trip, timing and geography.

Deactivation concerns add pressure to working conditions

The Committee also linked working conditions to deactivation processes, warning that sudden loss of earnings due to a complaint can leave drivers without income overnight. MPs asked operators whether drivers receive compensation if a complaint is later found to be malicious or incorrect.

Bolt said its cases are reviewed manually and drivers are encouraged to provide evidence. But when asked directly whether drivers are compensated for lost income if wrongly deactivated, Hurd said: “I am not aware of cases where that has been the case,” adding she would need to provide a written response.

Uber insisted that deactivation is rare and not based on single, low-level complaints, but on patterns indicating risk. However, O’Dwyer acknowledged: “Any decision that we make is appealable”, highlighting their review process with the GMB.

For drivers reliant on platform work as their primary income, the Committee made clear that sudden removal from an app, even temporarily, exacerbates the financial pressures already linked to increasing competition.

The structural tensions remain unresolved

The hearing pointed to one of the industries long standing core disputes: national platforms claim pay is stable and flexible working remains attractive; local operators and MPs say oversupply, subsidy-driven competition, unpaid waiting time and tight pricing are all placing unprecedented pressure on drivers.

While Uber and Bolt maintain that demand is rising and drivers have strong earning potential, much of the Committee remained sceptical, citing the lack of definitive industry-wide data and the clear regional disparities in income.

As MPs continue their inquiry, driver earnings and working conditions are emerging as one of the headline issues in the evidence provided so far. Whether the current model is sustainable, or whether intervention is needed, could be central to the Committee’s recommendations in the months ahead.