PROS AND CONS: What would happen if the private hire vehicle sector were to bring in national licensing standards?
- Perry Richardson
- Mar 7
- 9 min read
Private hire vehicle (PHV) licensing in England is currently handled by individual local authorities, leading to a patchwork of rules and standards. This has sparked debate over whether a national licensing standard should be implemented across all councils, replacing local variations with one unified system. Such a change could bring consistency and potentially improve safety, but it might also reduce local flexibility.
This discussion analyses the potential advantages and disadvantages of a national PHV licensing standard, focusing on how it would affect drivers, operators, and passengers. However, as we learn, some of the same advantages can also be viewed as disadvantages too, dependent on which side of the fence you sit on within the industry. Key issues covered include consistency, safety, enforcement, operational efficiency, local autonomy, and passenger experience.
Advantages of a Uniform National Standard
Consistency and Fairness Across Regions
A single national standard would create a level playing field for drivers and operators, no matter which council they operate in. Currently, requirements (such as background checks, vehicle specs, or fees) can vary widely. Uniform rules would end ‘licence shopping’ or ‘licensing tourism’, where drivers seek out areas with the easiest or cheapest licensing conditions. For example, if one authority has lower standards, drivers can get licensed there and then work elsewhere, undercutting local drivers who faced stricter rules. With national standards, all drivers would meet the same criteria, preventing unfair competition and confusion. Operators might also benefit, as they no longer need to navigate different regulations in each locality – reducing administrative burden and ensuring consistency in how they vet and manage drivers. Passengers, in turn, would get a consistent experience nation-wide; they could trust that any private hire car they use (whether in a city or a rural town) meets the same safety and service standards.
Improved Safety and Quality Standards
National licensing could raise the bar for safety by mandating high minimum requirements everywhere. If implemented as intended, it would ensure all drivers undergo the same thorough background checks and training, and all vehicles meet robust safety criteria. For instance, the Government’s 2020 statutory taxi/PHV standards recommend measures like biannual enhanced DBS criminal record checks and mandatory safeguarding training for drivers. Under a national system, such safety practices would be standard across England, rather than left to each council’s discretion. This uniformity means no “weak spots” – no area would have lax vetting that could put passengers at risk.
Overall service quality might also improve, since national standards could include requirements for vehicle cleanliness, age, accessibility features, and driver professionalism uniformly. In short, a well-designed national standard promises a safer, more reliable fleet of drivers and vehicles across the board, enhancing public trust in private hire services. Reputable drivers would also enjoy a better public image when the entire industry adheres to high standards.
Simplified Enforcement and Cross-Border Policing
A national system could strengthen enforcement by eliminating jurisdictional gaps. Currently, when licensed drivers operate outside the area that issued their license (which is legal for pre-booked rides), it creates enforcement challenges – local officers in City A have limited powers over a PHV licensed in City B. Under unified standards, enforcement authorities could coordinate more easily, since every driver and vehicle is held to the same rules. Law Commission proposals even suggested giving local enforcement officers powers to act against out-of-area vehicles if national rules are breached. This means a licensing officer or police officer in any district could check and enforce compliance on any PHV, regardless of where it was originally licensed – plugging the current “cross-border” loophole.
A single national database of licensed drivers/vehicles could be created, making it easier to flag rogue drivers or revoke licenses universally. For drivers and operators, this consistent enforcement reduces the chance of bad actors exploiting lax regions, which protects the reputation of the trade. For passengers, stronger enforcement translates to safer rides, as drivers who commit offenses can be barred across the country, not just in one area. Overall, uniform rules with national oversight would make it harder for non-compliant or unsafe operators to hide, creating a more accountable system.
Operational Efficiency and Mobility
Implementing one standard could increase efficiency for both the industry and regulators. Drivers would have to navigate only one set of requirements – potentially obtaining a licence that is recognised nationwide – rather than applying for multiple licences if they want to work across district lines. This reduces paperwork, fees, and delays. It also means drivers could more easily respond to demand in different areas (for example, working in a neighboring town during busy periods) without running afoul of differing local rules.
Operators, especially larger firms or app-based services, would find it simpler to expand into new areas when the core rules (driver vetting, vehicle specs, insurance, etc.) are the same everywhere. They wouldn’t need separate compliance departments for each council’s regulations. This uniformity could encourage innovation and investment, since businesses can scale up services nationally with fewer regulatory hurdles.
Local authorities themselves might gain efficiency – instead of duplicating effort to develop and update policies, they can implement the national policy and focus on compliance. Resources currently spent on crafting rules could shift to enforcing them. As one industry source noted, a unified set of rules can streamline the licensing process and save time and resources for councils and operators alike.
For passengers, operational efficiency might lead to better service availability. With drivers free to operate in multiple areas more easily, rural or underserved regions could see increased coverage. In addition, a single licensing regime might enable standardised technology (like a universal driver ID or tracking system) improving how quickly issues are addressed and how seamlessly a passenger can lodge a complaint or recover lost property, no matter where they took the ride.
Enhanced Passenger Experience
Ultimately, many of the above advantages converge to benefit passengers. With national standards, passengers can expect uniform service quality and safety precautions everywhere. This consistency is especially reassuring for travellers – for example, a passenger from London taking a private hire in Manchester or Cornwall would find similar driver conduct rules, vehicle identification (plates or stickers), and complaint procedures.
National rules could also embed passenger-friendly measures that some progressive councils have adopted, making them universal. For instance, if disability awareness training for drivers becomes a standard (as recommended), passengers with disabilities would enjoy better-informed service in every local authority area, not just those few that mandated it. Likewise, requirements like displaying driver ID and license details inside the vehicle could be mandated nationally , helping passengers verify that their driver is legitimate and licensed. Over time, a nationally regulated system could cultivate a stronger brand of safety and reliability for England’s private hire sector.
Disadvantages and Local Control Considerations
Loss of Local Flexibility
A key concern is that a one-size-fits-all national standard could erode important local tailoring. Local authorities currently adjust licensing rules to fit their area’s unique needs – and this flexibility can be vital. For example, a seaside resort town might require extra safety measures during tourist season, or a city with a large elderly population might push for more wheelchair-accessible vehicles.
The Local Government Association (LGA) has argued that councils must retain the ability to respond to local issues, whether that means introducing new accessibility programs or extra safeguards for vulnerable passengers. With strict national rules, councils fear they could not go beyond the baseline standards to address these needs. The LGA supports having national minimum safety standards, but insists that councils should still be able to “improve on or tailor” those standards to local circumstances.
A single national framework may not be nimble enough to keep up with rapidly changing technology, evolving customer expectations, or distinctive local conditions. In practice, this could mean missed opportunities for innovation (e.g. a city wanting to pilot CCTV in all PHVs or require eco-friendly vehicles sooner than the national timeline). Drivers and operators might also appreciate local flexibility in some cases – for instance, rural councils sometimes relax vehicle age limits or offer lower fees to ensure enough drivers serve their area, policies that a uniform system might not accommodate. Removing local control could thus make it harder to meet specific community needs, potentially leaving some passengers worse off if the national rules aren’t perfectly calibrated to every locality.
One-Size-Fits-All vs. Local Needs
England’s transport environments range from dense urban centers to sparse rural villages, and uniform regulations could struggle to suit all equally. What works for London or Manchester might be burdensome or unnecessary in a small market town, and vice versa. For example, an urban area might need stringent emissions standards or congestion controls on PHVs, while a rural area might prioritise simply having any service available at all. If national standards lean toward urban concerns, rural operators could face requirements that drive up costs (e.g. mandatory expensive vehicle modifications or frequent testing that’s hard to access) without clear safety benefits for their context. Conversely, if standards are too lax to accommodate rural areas, big-city passengers might find them inadequate.
Local knowledge tests illustrate this tension: many councils require PHV drivers to pass a knowledge quiz of local roads/routes. A national system might decide such tests are unnecessary in the GPS age and scrap them for consistency – helping drivers start work anywhere, but possibly harming passenger experience on trips where local insight is still valuable (e.g. avoiding known traffic hotspots). Similarly, dress codes or vehicle colour schemes (some councils mandate these for branding) could be standardised nationally; while that adds consistency, it removes local character or recognition that residents are used to.
From the driver’s perspective, those in areas with relatively easier requirements today could face a higher bar if the national standard is set at the current top-tier (for instance, having to get a higher level English or driving competency certification). Some may struggle with the new hurdles or costs. Meanwhile, drivers in areas that allowed older vehicles might have to invest in newer cars to meet a uniform age limit – a financial strain if not supported. Thus, a “one-size” system risks not fitting anyone perfectly, potentially over-regulating in some places and under-regulating in others, unless very carefully designed with built-in flexibility.
Local Enforcement and Quantity Controls
Another issue is how enforcement and control of driver/vehicle numbers would work. Today, local councils can (within the law) enforce rules and even cap taxi vehicle numbers in their jurisdiction if congestion or oversupply is a concern (though PHV numbers are generally not capped by law in most areas). If a national licence lets drivers operate anywhere in England, popular areas could see an influx of outside drivers during peak times or events. While this might seem good for passengers short-term (more cars available), it could strain local roads and reduce earnings for local drivers.
Crucially, local enforcement officers might find themselves policing many more vehicles that don’t “belong” to their area. Even if legal authority is granted to enforce against any licensed vehicle, practical enforcement might become more complex– officers would need to report issues through a national system or to the home authority of the driver, potentially adding bureaucracy. Local knowledge about recurring troublemakers or hotspot locations might be less actionable if disciplinary decisions are centralised.
There’s also a fear of losing local accountability: currently, if residents complain about PHV problems (noise, parking, safety) they can push their council to tighten rules or crack down. Under a national regime, councils might respond “our hands are tied by national policy,” leading to frustration. In essence, taking control away from local hands could make it harder to respond swiftly to community concerns.
Additionally, local licensing fees currently fund enforcement operations – if fees are standardised or collected nationally, some areas might end up under-resourced for compliance checks, impacting passenger safety and driver oversight on the ground.
Transitional and Compliance Challenges
Moving to a national standard would not be without growing pains. Drivers and operators would face an adjustment period – those who were licensed under old local rules might have to quickly meet new requirements or even reapply under the national system. For example, if a new stringent background check or medical standard is introduced, some existing drivers could lose their licence or incur costs to comply. Training programs might be needed to bring every driver up to a consistent level (e.g. in disability awareness or English proficiency), and while beneficial, these require time and money.
Smaller operators who were accustomed to a cozy relationship with their local council and a bespoke set of rules might struggle to adapt to impersonal, nationwide procedures. Administrative complexity is another factor: implementing a central licensing body or framework means building new IT systems, databases, and oversight mechanisms. Any hiccups in this rollout (delays in processing licenses, confusion over jurisdictions) could disrupt services.
There’s also a risk that a national standard might initially opt for a “lowest common denominator” approach to get all councils on board, rather than the highest standard – potentially meaning some areas would actually lower certain requirements. For instance, if most councils require a driving test but a few don’t, a national rule might omit it to avoid controversy, arguably reducing rigor. Passengers in cities that had very high standards might notice a dip in driver quality or vehicle condition if those local enhancements are leveled down. This kind of standardisation downgrade is a valid concern if local authorities are not allowed to exceed the national baseline for PHVs .
On balance, these disadvantages highlight that local authority control has benefitsthat could be lost with full centralisation. Local councils often understand their community’s needs best and can set policies accordingly. They also provide a point of democratic accountability – local taxi/PHV licensing committees include councillors who respond to public feedback. Removing or reducing this local input might save time, but at the cost of public influence and tailored service.
