What evidence the Transport Committee wants from taxi and PHV drivers and how it should be presented

MPs have launched a Transport Committee inquiry into taxi and private hire licensing and standards, inviting evidence from those who work in the industry.

Submissions are open until 11.59pm on 8 September 2025 and call asks whether the current patchwork of rules gives licensing authorities the tools they need and what changes are required.

Local authorities can set parts of their own frameworks for safety, driver conduct and accessibility, and as a result, this has produced wide variation and the growth of cross-border licensing. Wolverhampton is cited as a standout case where 96% of taxi and PHV licences have gone to drivers who live outside the city, with around 9,000 of those drivers believed to reside in Greater Manchester. The Committee wants evidence on how such patterns affect local markets, passenger safety and confidence.

The Committee’s questions are grouped around nine themes. First, whether existing licensing arrangements enable councils to regulate effectively across safety, accessibility and service quality, and if not, which improvements would help. Second, the impact of variation between authorities on both the travelling public and drivers, and whether a move to greater national standardisation is needed. Third, the practical effects on councils and operators if conditions were tightened or standardised, including driver conduct, vehicle requirements and accessibility. Fourth, what steps ministers should take to tackle cross-border working. The remaining areas cover what effective reform looks like on enforcement and safeguarding, whether regional transport authorities should have a role, how ride-hailing platforms are affecting standards, whether complaints systems work for passengers and drivers, how well the NR3 or NR3S registers support consistent decisions, and what autonomous vehicles mean for taxi and PHV licensing.

Taxi drivers and those within the trade should build submissions around real-world evidence. If cross-border activity is affecting work or compliance where you operate, give dates, locations and patterns. Explain how often you see out-of-area vehicles taking bookings in your patch, what checks do or do not happen, and what the outcomes are when issues are raised. Where you have booking logs or dispatch screenshots showing systematic routing to out-of-area drivers, reference them and describe the effect on wait times, dead mileage and earnings. Tie each example to the questions above so MPs can link the experience to policy options.

Where local rules differ sharply, set out the comparison. That might include training hours, safeguarding refresh cycles, DBS update use, driving and topographical tests, medical frequency, English language checks, in-car CCTV policies, vehicle age caps and wheelchair-accessible supply. Describe the operational or cost impacts those differences create and how passengers experience them. If a neighbouring authority’s lighter touch attracts applicants who then work in your area, say how that manifests on ranks, at hubs and at peak times.

Join us on WhatsApp here

Accessibility is on the Committee’s radar following earlier work highlighting gaps in wheelchair-accessible provision and reports of assistance dog refusals. If you operate a WAV, provide typical response times for WAV bookings in your area, any unmet demand you see and the financial impact of running a compliant vehicle. If you have witnessed or reported assistance dog refusals, outline what happened, whether a complaint was progressed and what sanctions followed. Clear examples help the Committee test whether national baselines for accessibility would improve outcomes.

The Committee will look hard at enforcement. Describe interactions you have had with officers, including joint operations where vehicles licensed elsewhere are checked locally. If your authority lacks powers to act on out-of-area vehicles working in your patch, explain the practical barrier and the risk it creates. If you have been stopped by another authority while working lawfully, set out how the case was handled and whether information flowed between councils. Those details will help MPs judge whether regional bodies should coordinate enforcement or whether existing powers can be made to work.

Digital platforms are also under review. If you use ride-hailing or dispatch apps, explain how onboarding, identity checks, rider safety features and complaint handling compare with local licence conditions. If app dispatch regularly sources vehicles from authorities with different standards, say how that affects your market, how often it occurs and whether passengers are aware of the difference. Keep examples factual and link them to outcomes on safety, service quality and fairness.

Complaints and incident reporting systems should be assessed from both sides. Set out how easy it is to report a problem about a passenger or another driver, how long cases take and whether outcomes are communicated. If you can show timelines and correspondence that demonstrate delays or gaps, include them. For NR3 and NR3S, note whether your authority checked the register at grant or renewal and whether you have seen cases where a refusal or revocation elsewhere went undetected. MPs want to know if the registers are embedded and effective or if barriers remain.

Looking ahead, the Committee also asks how autonomous services will interact with taxi and PHV regulation. If you have views on permitting, council consent, insurance, safeguarding and data, include them. Explain the scenarios where a human driver currently resolves problems, such as vulnerable passengers, lost property and incident reporting, and how these would be addressed without a driver present. That evidence will help shape future licensing rules alongside the Automated Vehicles Act timetable.

Keep your submission concise, evidence-led and anchored to the nine themes. Use data and real world evidence where you can, set out practical fixes where you have them and be clear about expected outcomes for passengers and drivers. The Committee is testing whether national baselines, stronger enforcement and clearer accountability would improve safety and consistency. Trade insight grounded in day-to-day work will carry weight.