DEVOLUTION AND MERGED TAXI FARE TARIFFS: A path to uniformity or a recipe for chaos?
The ongoing debate over devolution in England is raising important questions across a number of different topics for the taxi and private hire industry, one of those being the feasibility of merging fare tariffs across newly defined regions.
While proponents argue that harmonising tariffs could bring consistency and fairness, current attempts in regions like Northamptonshire and historically in North Yorkshire has exposed significant challenges that could undermine these goals.
As the Government pushes for devolution under the new Enhanced Devolution Framework, the taxi industry stands at a crossroads. The possibility of shifting licensing and fare-setting responsibilities from local councils to larger regional authorities has sparked a mixed response so far.
The Promise of Merged Fare Tariffs
The concept of merging fare tariffs aims to simplify the fare structures across regions, making pricing consistent for passengers and ensuring fair competition for drivers. Under the current fragmented system, drivers often licence their vehicles in one area but operate predominantly in another, creating disparities and confusion.
For example, under a Combined Authority’s initiative to introduce minimum licensing standards, advocates could push for a unified fare structure. They could argue that standardisation would level the playing field for drivers and provide transparency for passengers. Proponents might also highlight the potential for economies of scale, with larger authorities being better equipped to enforce compliance and address issues like cross-border working.
The devolution proposal suggests regional mayors could oversee taxi and private hire licensing, including fare-setting, as part of broader local transport plans. In theory, this could eliminate inconsistencies and streamline operations, benefiting both the trade and the public.
Lessons from the Past When it Comes to Tariff Merging
Despite the promises, recent attempts to merge tariffs reveal the complexities of such undertakings. Northamptonshire currently provides a cautionary tale. When North Northamptonshire and West Northamptonshire unitary authorities sought to unify tariffs after replacing district councils, they faced fierce resistance and still do from some sections of the trade. Disparities in existing tariffs across urban and rural areas caused tension. Some urban drivers feared a drop in income if fares were averaged down, while rural operators worried that higher tariffs would alienate their customer base, particularly vulnerable groups relying on affordable transport.
Potential Pitfalls of Regional Tariff Mergers
The primary risk of merging tariffs lies in its impact on drivers and passengers. Fare averaging could create winners and losers: urban drivers in high-demand areas might see a drop in income, while passengers in rural regions could face higher costs. This could disproportionately affect vulnerable groups, such as the elderly, who rely on affordable taxi services where public transport options are limited.
Operational confusion is another challenge. Transition periods often leave drivers and passengers uncertain about which fares apply, leading to disputes and undermining public trust.
Moreover, regional authorities would need to address broader structural issues beyond tariffs. Disparities in vehicle standards, driver qualifications, and enforcement mechanisms could persist unless these are also harmonised. Without addressing these factors, merged tariffs alone may fail to achieve their intended outcomes.
Could Devolution Make a Difference?
The Government’s proposal to introduce regional licensing under devolved authorities offers an opportunity to address several big challenges comprehensively. By creating consistent licensing and fare-setting frameworks across regions, devolution could, in theory, eliminate the inconsistencies that plague the current system.
However, some critics argue that the Government’s White Paper proposals lack the necessary detail and stakeholder engagement at this point. The industry has expressed frustration over the vague language in devolution documents, which often fails to acknowledge the complexities of cross-border working and the diverse needs of urban and rural areas.
Some suggest that simpler solutions, such as applying “intended use” policies more widely, could help address cross-border working without the need to overhaul the entire licensing and fare system. This would allow authorities to stipulate that most work be conducted within the licensed area, reducing misuse while preserving local control.
The idea of merging taxi fare tariffs under devolution is, at its core, a balancing act. While it holds the promise of fairness and efficiency, the practical challenges are considerable. For now, the industry awaits more clarity on how this ambitious vision will translate into reality.
