What would standardised taxi licensing mean for all authorities and licensed drivers?
- Perry Richardson
- 4 minutes ago
- 2 min read
The call for more uniform licensing standards for taxi and private hire vehicles (PHVs) would reshape how licensing authorities operate and how operators manage their services. The Transport Committee’s recent inquiry into taxi and PHV licensing raises this question: what are the practical implications for licensing authorities and operators if conditions for safety, accessibility, vehicles and driver conduct become more stringent or standardised?
Licensing authorities presently work within a statutory framework, but they retain considerable discretion. This flexibility allows authorities to adapt to local conditions, but also results in noticeable variation in standards. Drivers and vehicles licensed under the same rules may meet very different thresholds, depending on the issuing authority. That can be both a good and bad thing.
On paper, introducing standardised requirements could strengthen consumer protection. Authorities would follow common rules on vehicle condition, equipment or technology used, accessibility provision and driver checks. For vulnerable passengers, including disabled people, this could enhance safety and confidence when using services outside their home area.
Uniform requirements for safeguarding and driver conduct would also ensure consistent training and checks. For example, driver safeguarding training every three years could become obligatory for all licence holders. Comparable directives could mandate DBS status via the Update Service and require operators to display how passengers make complaints. These measures could improve transparency and accountability.
However, these benefits come with operational costs. Licensing authorities would need additional resources to administer and enforce the standardised framework. Guidance already emphasises that licensing systems must be self‑funding through fees, and authorities must balance public safety with service availability. As a result, a more costly licensing system will need extra funding from the industry itself, meaning increases in driver and vehicle licensing fees.
Vehicle owners and licensed drivers may also feel a further financial impact. Additional training, DBS subscriptions and potential vehicle upgrades would increase costs. There is a real operational risk, that if licensing requirements become too onerous, some drivers may leave the trade. This could shrink the supply of vehicles, lengthen wait times and drive passengers toward unlicensed services.
Authorities may need to streamline procedures and invest in digital systems to manage increased checks more efficiently. Cooperation between neighbouring councils would be crucial to share intelligence, resources and best practice. Greater collaboration would be necessary to avoid duplication and hold cross‑border operators to account. All added services and costly to the authority and as a result the industry that must fund it.
Finally managing driver compliance across regions would introduce complexity, but it would of course have huge merits too. Ensuring that each driver meets a single national standard may simplify compliance, but enforcing that across multiple licensing regimes will require new systems.
More stringent licensing conditions could deliver greater public protection and consistency across regions. Licensing authorities would need to invest in capability and technology, and calibrate fee structures to cover the additional burden. Fleet owners and drivers would face higher administrative and compliance costs. A proportionate approach could focus on key areas such as safeguarding training, DBS checks, vehicle safety and complaint transparency, to balance public benefit with viability.
