Taxi Driver Online

I've no doubt the DfT are highly critical of Wolves, at least in terms of allusion and implication. But there are only two occurrence of the word 'Wolverhamtpton' in the submission, and this is it:



I mean, how NOT to stick the knife in

For what it's worth, the Taxi Point article about the private meeting seems to have been reinstated (I checked again just in case I was in error and/or it was a technical glitch).

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/trans ... rs-next-ph

However, when I searched for the original source (if any, other than Taxi Point) the other night, there were also Google links to a post on Taxi Point's Facebook page, and another one on another black cab Facebook page which looks suspiciously like an offshoot of TaxiPoint. And both the other links seemed to have been disabled or deleted as well, so it certainly looked like the piece had been pulled in some way.

Anyway, that is the link to the piece above, and the link is live at the moment.

Not that there's anything earth-shattering in it, apart from the fact that it's a private meeting with the grassroots of the trade.

But still interesting to know where that info came from, which doesn't seem to be in the public domain as far as Parliament is concerned. Or at least I can't find anything official, apart from the link on the TansComm site simply saying there's a private meeting taking place

Note, though that the piece is highly speculative, and includes several uses of the words 'expected to', and 'expected', as opposed to concrete information.

So in fact the only thing not really available publicly is that the attendees would be from the grassroots, as opposed to licensing bods, corporate representatives and pressure groups from outside the trade, blah, blah.

the word your looking for is 'Speculative' although you did actually write it

_________________
Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that.
George Carlin

Reading that, it is becoming a lot clearer, at least to me, as to where we are going to end up in respect of cross-border hiring.

A start or finish requirement, with a few exceptions such as council contract work, and maybe contract rail replacement and airport work.

But it will all depend on whether elected Mayors decide they want their new transport authorities to have such requirements, which, in all fairness, I suspect most will.

Will these new requirements help out? To an extent, I believe they will. However, it would have been so much easier to have a 'predominantly' requirement instead. A requirement that works quite well in the hackney trade.

All that said, reading the DfT's submission, my view is that they would rather do nothing, and it's only political pressure that is making them do anything.

_________________
IDFIMH

Well this is a bit odd. Not only a very late submission by the LPHCA, but wasn't the initial submission written by Steve Wright MBE, and read like a dog's breakfast in terms of presentation etc (deffo no AI there ).

This one's also written in the first person:


There's no name on the document, but it's presumably written by Mr Multi-millionaire MBE, who appeared in one of the oral evidence sessions, and this document looks like a follow-up based on what was said by others before the committee members. (Two MBEs at the top of the LPHCA? )

But it's pretty predictable stuff based on their previous input, and what you'd expect from a producer-interest submission from a huge PH provider - no vehicle caps; wary on CCTV; bigging up cross-border working generally, and Wolverhampton Council in particular

Just skimmed it, though, and worst bit is that it says cross-bordering isn't a problem regarding safeguarding etc, because Rotherham didn't involve cross-border cars

I suspect that's what committee members might regard as a bit tin-eared and spinning a line - I mean, didn't the impetus for the TransComm inquiry come from the Casey audit published in the summer, which had a whole chapter about the problem of cross-bordering in general, and Wolves in particular (although the council wasn't specifically named, but it was obvious which licensing authority she was alluding to).

Either that or totally clueless

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 57219/pdf/

The document is only three pages, but if anyone needs a more succinct summary, then this on Taxi Point serves that purpose, and the headline majors on the capping thing.

In fact, Taxi Point has published quite a few pieces in the past few months ably analysing and summarising some of those huge documents submitted to TransComm. I wonder how they can do that so well?


TAXI AND PHV CAPPING: LPHCA reveals reasons for rejecting private hire caps in fresh Transport Committee inquiry submission

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/taxi- ... port-commi

Clearly Richie Rich knows better than Baroness Casey.

_________________
IDFIMH

To be fair, what the LPHCA are now saying about Rotherham may be literally correct:


Problem is that that's ludicrously narrowly framed in the context of the thing as a whole, and the Casey audit in particular.

At what might be regarded as the other extreme, the Women's Safety Initiative has recently tweeted this, based on that BBC piece about Wolverhampton last week:


I'd guess the WSI is likely to be regarded as veering towards the 'far right' by the average TransComm member, at least in terms of current terminology.

But I'd also guess the WSI's view above is likely to chime much more with the TransComm than the LPHCA's latest input will

Manchester Councils call out the Wolverhampton lies.

https://committees.parliament.uk/writte ... 57423/pdf/

Discussed also in this thread.

viewtopic.php?f=2&t=42106

_________________
IDFIMH

So the responsible Government minister Lilian Greenwood will be quizzed by TransComm members tomorrow from 9.15am.

As will Liz Wilson, who seems to be a senior DfT bod responsible for trade stuff

Official notice here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/event/ ... e-session/



Highway News has this (complete with obvious error in the first paragraph) - not sure the source of the particular points I've highlighted. Or it might be, er, you know...

But you wouldn't have thought fees would be a priority for questioning. On the other hand, given the committee's focus on cross-bordering etc, maybe they think the whole fee thing highlighted via Wolves makes it seem a more important topic than those of us more long in the tooth about these matters

(Not that the Wolves fee thing isn't an important factor, but, you know...)


MPs set to quiz minister over varying standards for taxis and private hire vehicles

https://highways-news.com/mps-set-to-qu ... -vehicles/

The Minister for Local Government will tomorrow appear before MPs as the Transport Committee wraps up the evidence for its inquiry into the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs). to the licensing of taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs).

The inquiry is focused on how standards for taxis and private hire vehicles (PHVs) could be improved, amid concern about inadequate regulation that varies from one part of the country to another.

Laws underpinning taxi and private hire vehicle licensing date back to 1847 and 1976 respectively. As they question the Minister, MPs will explore whether there is any appetite for updating or replacing the legislative framework to make it more fit for modern times.

In November 2025, the Department for Transport announced that it would legislate for National Minimum Standards that set a baseline for taxis and private hire vehicles.

The Minister will be asked about the proposed scope of the Standards and the main areas they will cover. With the variation in standards across the country being a key talking point throughout the inquiry, MPs will seek clarity on why the Department has not set a single set of absolute standards that every licensing authority could apply to deliver greater consistency. They will also explore what accompanying enforcement mechanisms could look like.

There will be a further focus on licensing fees, which are presently set by each authority, and on licensing responsibility. The Department has consulted on moving the responsibility for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing from licensing authorities to Local Transport Authorities and the Minister is likely to be pressed on what it is intending to achieve by this.

Department for Transport data shows that there has been a 10.5% increase in the number of PHV licences issued (reaching 256,600 in 2024). By contrast, the number of taxi licences issued has decreased over the same period by 1.4% to 56,400.

MPs could also ask about whether app-based platforms and traditional operators are treated equally under current licensing conditions, whether there are plans to address working conditions for drivers, and what can be done to improve the accessibility of the fleet.

The Minister and the lead civil servant gave evidence today to the committee.

https://parliamentlive.tv/event/index/3 ... 6449b950c8

I've watched most of it, and my takeaway is they are pinning their hope on national minimum standards and larger licensing areas (Transport Authorities) to deal with the cross-border issue, and although I think there are better ways, it's better than nothing.

Now of course, if Andy Burnham somehow gets elected as MP and then PM, things will change. But we are where we are.

_________________
IDFIMH

I see the oral evidence transcripts for last week are up if anyone's interested. There's also an earlier letter from the TransComm chair to the minister seeking information on something-or-other before the actual meeting. Can't be bothered reading it, but link below to a Taxi Point piece, which I'm sure does a good job of summarising it all

But the actual letter and last week's oral evidence available here:

https://committees.parliament.uk/work/9 ... lications/




Transport Committee pressed government for detail on national taxi standards plan prior to inquiry quizzing

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/trans ... -inquiry-q

The House of Commons Transport Committee formally challenged the Government to provide further detail on its plans to introduce national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing, ahead of a key evidence session last week.

ICYM the TransComm oral evidence from the transport minister and top DfT bod, looks like there was an interesting discussion about age rules (and related stuff like inspections and emissions) and how that related to the cross-border dimension

Which is all neatly summarised in this Taxi Point article - wouldn't be surprised to see one or two other pieces based on the evidence session, which is useful for us types who can't be bothered wading through the whole thing (or just don't have the attention span )



Transport Minister explains why a change to TAXI AGE LIMITS may play key part in tackling cross-border and rising costs

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/trans ... cross-bord