The Transport Committee has published the government's reply to its inquiry on taxi and private-hire licensing. Government response HC 665 was published on 20 October 2026. The Department for Transport's reply was received on 14 September 2026. It answers the committee's first report of Session 2026-27, also called Raising the standard, HC 80, published on 10 June 2026. The committee's news release records that a draft bill on regulating the trade is planned for the current parliamentary session.
A draft bill and national standards
The reply confirms the announcement in the King's Speech on 13 May 2026: a draft Taxis and Private Hire Vehicles Bill will be published for pre-legislative scrutiny. The draft is to keep a clear distinction between taxis and private hire vehicles. The government will draw on the Law Commission's 2014 draft Bill and on the Task and Finish Group, and adapt both to the present market. Those two pieces of work did not agree. The Law Commission favoured a more flexible national framework, with consistent standards for private hire vehicles and fewer restrictions on where a journey may take place. The Task and Finish Group wanted tighter control of out-of-area working, including a requirement that a journey start or end in the licensing area, and powers, where justified, for authorities to limit the number of taxis and private hire vehicles. The committee had urged that the new framework also cover app-based operators. The reforms are linked to Recommendation 11 of the Baroness Casey Review, on inconsistent licensing standards and stronger safeguarding.
The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Act received Royal Assent on 29 April 2026. It gives the Secretary of State power to set national standards for taxis and private hire vehicles.
The committee had warned that national minimum standards must not mean low by default. The reply recognises that standards set too low, or with too much scope for local variation, could leave the incentive for licence shopping in place and undermine confidence in the framework. Core safety and safeguarding requirements will be set nationally, across England. Some local flexibility may remain, so an authority can respond to local circumstances and priorities, but not at the cost of public safety. Where variation is still required, ministers will consider how it would sit with any move to have drivers licensed in the area where they do most of their work. The standards are to be consulted on. They are meant to be clear and enforceable, and high enough on safety, driver training and accessibility that a passenger can expect a consistent service wherever the driver, vehicle or operator is licensed.
Out-of-area working
The government shares the concern about out-of-area working. Journeys do not stop at council boundaries, and taxis and private hire vehicles matter for work, school, healthcare and leisure, especially in rural areas. The present patchwork, though, gives some drivers and operators a reason to license where the requirements are lower, processing is quicker, or the fee is lower.
Outside London, licensing sits with district, borough and unitary councils. The consultation on moving it to local transport authorities closed on 1 April 2026. A full response is intended by the end of 2026. It is to compare that model with a more national one, including which would do more to reduce extensive out-of-area working. The committee's recommendation says the transfer would not apply in London, where Transport for London is already the licensing authority, and that London's recent licensing backlogs show a larger authority does not by itself solve resourcing. The department will work with TfL and other authorities on the operational conditions needed if licensing is to be done reliably at that scale.
Enforcement still rests with the authority that issued the licence, which limits what another council can do about a driver working away from the area that licensed them. The Act is described as a first step. It provides for a local authority to suspend a licence immediately in the interests of public safety, regardless of where the driver is licensed. Guidance is to follow, so the power is used consistently and only where the case justifies it.
A hard limit on cross-border journeys is not treated as cost-free. Measures that significantly restrict journeys across licensing boundaries could leave fewer vehicles in some areas, lengthen waits, and make it harder to get a taxi or private hire car when it is needed. Passenger safety, particularly for women and girls, is the test the reply sets, alongside a service communities can still use. The Suzy Lamplugh Trust's evidence, cited there, stressed a framework that protects the public while keeping provision effective. Proposals that would limit cross-border working will be weighed on that basis.
A driver, in the government's view, should ordinarily be licensed by the authority for the area where they intend to do most of their work. During pre-legislative scrutiny, a range of ways to discourage out-of-area licensing will be considered. If that succeeds, it would also ease the mismatch between who carries out enforcement and who has the resources for it. The reply agrees that mismatch needs a fair, proportionate and workable answer, and that any funding mechanism would have to be designed with care. It does not set out a scheme for one authority to recover enforcement costs from the authority that issued the licence. Transitional support for authorities with less enforcement capacity is not specified.
Checks, cameras and a database
Safeguarding training is to be included in the national standards, so the same protections apply across every licensing authority in England. Those standards, including training, will be consulted on. Enhanced DBS checks, with a check of the barred lists, are treated as important when an authority decides whether someone is suitable to hold a licence. How often a certificate must be rechecked, and what should be done about DBS filtering, are not set out.
The criteria for deciding that a person is fit and proper are to be tied explicitly to the national standards. The relevant statutory guidance is to be reviewed so that the link is clear.
No new statutory duty on the police is announced. The reply recognises that uneven sharing of safeguarding and risk information can leave an authority unable to judge a driver, or slow to act. That will be looked at in the feasibility work on a national licensing database, and with the Home Office and licensing authorities. A standard time for sharing information is not given.
The database is intended to show licence status, licensing history and which authority is responsible, and to record refusals, suspensions and revocations consistently, so a decision in one area is visible in another. What must be entered, and how quickly records must be updated, will be considered during pre-legislative scrutiny. There is no detailed delivery timetable. A discovery phase is expected to begin in autumn 2026 and to be completed by spring 2027. Scope, design and indicative timelines are to follow once those early stages are finished.
In-vehicle CCTV will be included in the consultation on national standards, which is intended by the end of 2026, alongside other safety measures. Any requirement would have to balance safeguarding with privacy and data protection law. A decision would take account of the responses, the evidence, the Information Commissioner's Office and the industry. This reply does not make cameras mandatory.
A national benchmark for how long applications, renewals and variations should take is outside the Act's current powers, which would not require authorities to meet or publish performance against one. Application volumes, staff and outside checks, including DBS disclosures and medicals, differ from place to place, and a fixed target could reward speed over safeguarding. Whether a benchmark is needed will be considered in later reforms. Sharing of practice is supported, including risk-based processing and simpler renewals for drivers and operators who comply.
Wheelchair-accessible vehicles
The committee asked for a national plan and one minimum share of wheelchair-accessible vehicles in each authority's licensed fleet. The proportion, and the standard of access, would be the same everywhere, including rural and low-density areas, with each authority reporting progress. Operators would have to publish how their fleet provides wheelchair-accessible vehicles. The plan would also include incentives for drivers to use them, and further funding, paid through licensing authorities, towards the cost of buying, adapting and maintaining them.
That share is not adopted. A single national minimum would bring real difficulties. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has stressed a mixed fleet as the better way to meet disabled passengers' needs. Demand differs with local population, travel patterns and the other accessible transport available, particularly in rural areas. Many private-hire drivers are self-employed and own their vehicle. Accessible cars are also needed at particular times, including peaks and home-to-school transport, so a minimum share of the fleet would not itself mean a wheelchair-accessible vehicle is free when a passenger needs one. The government is committed to exploring how provision can be increased, and will consider the options as part of the wider reforms.
The higher upfront cost of buying or converting a wheelchair-accessible vehicle, and the cost of keeping it running, are acknowledged. Those costs can stop drivers taking one on, especially private-hire drivers who own the car. The department will keep looking at ways to support and encourage uptake. No sum of money is announced.
Competence, training and complaints
Driver competence is to be part of the national standards consultation, including spoken English, so a driver can communicate with passengers, understand instructions and work safely. Existing benchmarks, and the requirements already placed on bus and coach drivers, will be considered. Care is promised so that any rule does not become an unnecessary barrier into the trade, and so that a national standard can still leave room for local circumstances. Licensing authorities, the trade, passenger groups and others will be asked for evidence.
Disability equality awareness training for drivers and operators is recognised as something the national standards need. The consultation will set out the training and the refresher requirements. Licensing authorities, industry representatives and disability groups will be involved, with the aim of a real change in the passenger's experience.
A range of booking options, digital and non-digital, may be written into the standards. Whether that is practical will be explored with licensing authorities, operators, passenger groups and disability stakeholders.
Complaints and incident reporting should be easier to follow, and a national system is one option. A complaint would be considered first by the relevant operator or licensing authority. A national route would be for cases that are not resolved, or that point to a wider safeguarding or systemic problem. That will be considered during pre-legislative scrutiny, not introduced by this reply.
None of these measures changes a licence condition on its own. The draft bill, the standards consultation and the database are still to come.