English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill

Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill Excerpts

Report stage
Monday 13th April 2026 Lords Chamber

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

266: Clause 64, page 65, line 26, leave out “minimum”
Member’s explanatory statement
This would provide for the standards that can be imposed under Chapter 3 to be known as “national standards”

--- Later in debate ---

[The Minister of State, Department for Transport (Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill) (Lab)]

My Lords, this Government are committed to making travel by taxi or private hire vehicle as safe as it can possibly be. We are committed to the reforms needed as a result of the work of the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, and regard the taxi and private hire vehicle elements of the Bill as the first step ahead of wider engagement, which is starting to take place now, and possible future primary legislation. That is why in these amendments we are seeking powers for the Secretary of State for Transport to set in regulations the national standards that must be met to obtain, retain or renew any taxi or private hire vehicle driver, vehicle or operator’s licence, and why, having carefully listened to the views expressed in Committee, we are seeking further changes to improve regulatory oversight.

Government Amendments 266, 269 to 278 and 300 are intended to use language that more accurately reflects the intent of the standards. Licensing authorities will still be able to supplement them to address specific local needs if they consider it necessary, but the standards themselves will not be minimal. Once set, national standards will prioritise safety and accessibility so that passengers can be confident that, wherever they live or travel in England, the taxi and private hire vehicle services that they use will be subject to robust licensing standards.

On Amendment 279, we have listened to the concerns raised by noble Lords, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, that national standards alone are not enough to address the challenges created by out-of-area working whereby taxi and private hire vehicle drivers license with one authority but operate mainly in another licensing authority’s area. Following the noble Baroness’s amendments in Committee and subsequent discussions, the Government have brought forward amendments that will strengthen existing enforcement powers and ensure that enforcement officers can take immediate action against any licence, irrespective of which authority issued it, which is a key aim of the noble Baroness’s previous amendments.

National standards will be enforced through licensing processes, both by applications being refused where the standards are not met and through the suspension and revocation of licences if standards are breached during the duration of the licence. Government Amendment 279 will introduce a duty for licensing authorities to report any breach of national standards by a driver to the authority that issued the licence, building on the existing requirement for safeguarding, road safety and equality discrimination concerns to be reported.

The licensing authority that receives such a report must, within 20 working days, decide whether to suspend or revoke the licence and inform the reporting licensing authority of its decision. To enable the use of this reporting requirement to be measured, the clause will enable the Secretary of State for Transport to make regulations enabling data about its use to be collated and published. This will provide transparency and reassurance that licensing authorities are meeting their obligations and that licensees they suspect are unfit are being reported.

--- Later in debate ---

Briefly, I also have Amendment 287A, which seeks to oblige the Government on the face of the Bill to collect statistics about the exercise of this power to cancel licences cross border. I understand both from an informal message and from the remarks made by the Minister that he is entirely in sympathy with that principle and that he will be able to give undertakings that this will be done without the need for it to be in the Bill. So I am not minded to divide the House on Amendment 287A. I will give the Minister one last chance, but unless he comes up with something, I think it would be fair to test the opinion of the House on Amendment 280A.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Pidgeon, and the noble Lord, Lord Moylan, for their contributions. Before I respond on Amendments 280A and 287A, I will briefly address the guidance question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Moylan. The department has for many years issued guidance related to safeguarding, accessibility and the appropriate regulation of the sector, and that will continue. That would include guidance about the two local authorities and about local standards to be applied, as well as the national standards.

The noble Lord’s Amendment 280A would remove the power that we seek for all licensing enforcement officers to have the ability to temporarily suspend with immediate effect any driver, vehicle and private hire vehicle operator licence, if the licence relates to the operation of a vehicle being driven in the enforcement officer’s area. I start by quoting the noble Baroness, Lady Casey, from her National Audit on Group-Based Child Sexual Exploitation and Abuse. She said that most taxi drivers, and by extension most operators,

“are law-abiding people providing an important service to the public”.

The Government echo those sentiments. We agree that the vast majority of the trade, whether it is drivers, vehicle operators, owners or private hire vehicle operators, are hard-working and law-abiding people who take pride in their work. But we want to keep passengers safe while protecting the good reputation of the trade from a minority who are irresponsible and/or potentially dangerous to their individual passengers and customers. We can do that now by giving the right tools to licensing authorities.

We often hear about the inconsistent patchwork of licensing regulation, and the noble Lord’s amendment, regrettably, would create another example of it. Why would we grant a power to licensing authorities to take action to prevent drivers and vehicles that pose an immediate risk or have caused harm to public safety from working but not provide the same powers for operators if there are urgent safety concerns to justify doing so?

Private hire vehicle operators come in all shapes and sizes. We have large operators, as the noble Lord says, that work in many local authority areas, working with tens, if not hundreds, of thousands of drivers and taking millions of bookings. But we also have much smaller operators that work with only a handful of drivers, and we have one-man bands where a private hire vehicle driver licence holder also holds an operator’s licence so that he or she can take their own bookings. Context is the key to the use of these powers and is a determining factor when considering offences under the current legislation.

We recognise that the facts of the case will need to be determined at the time, but I can imagine that what might be reasonable and necessary to safeguard the public immediately may be different where the driver is also the operator compared with when they are not. It is an offence knowingly to use an unlicensed vehicle. It would seem a perverse situation where a one-man band that knowingly used an unlicensed driver and/or vehicle could have those licences suspended but could continue to accept bookings and dispatch other drivers and vehicles to carry the public when they have shown no regard to one of the fundamental requirements of the legislation that protects the public. Suspending the operator licence at the same time as the driver licence would seem a proportionate and reasonable use of these powers.

For larger operators, an example of what might trigger a suspension would be the discovery of the deliberate use of unlicensed drivers and/or vehicles which an enforcement officer judged to be a deliberate action on the part of the operator. Surely in that case, the noble Lord would want the operator suspended, if only principally for reasons of public safety, unless noble Lords think that that might be so far-fetched as to be unlikely. In my career, I have come across private hire vehicle operators in London who have deliberately used unlicensed vehicles and drivers; in the bus and coach industry, with which I am familiar, it has been the case that licensed operators have been found deliberately to use unlicensed vehicles and drivers. This is not so far-fetched as to be beyond making regulations about.

Anyway, we do not expect this power to be exercised frequently nor with impunity. The threshold for its use will be high, just as for driver and vehicle suspensions, and it is certainly not intended to be used as a means of punishment. These powers are to be used only if it is necessary in the interests of public safety to suspend a licence immediately, and certainly operating a private hire vehicle or taxi outside the area of the authority which issued its licence to fulfil a prebooked journey is not of itself a risk to public safety, and it will be a misuse of these powers to suspend a driver, a vehicle or operator solely for that reason. So—

[Lord Moylan (Con)]

It is very kind of the noble Lord to give way. I appreciate it is late, but there are not many speakers in this debate so perhaps I can take a little time. The noble Lord said that context is important, and he is absolutely right. The context is that, if the driver is drunk, he is drunk in front of you now. The bald tyre, for example, is there present in front of you and you can see it. However, any evidence that the operator is operating by, for example, using other drivers can only ever be partial at a particular moment for a single law enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa. If it is true that the operator is operating in that way, then the evidence should be and would be given to its licensing authority—in my case in Birmingham—for the licensing authority to investigate. No doubt, if the case stacks up, they will remove the operating licence, but they should not do so on the basis of partial evidence at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa.

The other difficulty that the Minister has is that the test for these three immediate sanctions is the same test, which relates to a threat to public safety. The officer sitting there might say, “I have identified a threat to public safety. Now why shouldn’t I put all three of these into operation at the same time?” There is nothing in the statute that says that the one for the operator is to be used only in really difficult, dangerous or odd circumstances. So, why would you not use all three? The truth is the Minister is in a real difficulty over this. No doubt he might want to force it through on votes, but what he has put together makes no sense at all. I think he knows it, and he should be a little bit more generous in responding to this so that we might reach some agreement, because in terms of trying to protect public safety we are entirely on the same page.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My response to the noble Lord is this: let us use his example of an enforcement officer at 7 pm in Droitwich Spa—though it might equally be 2 am in some dark and unfriendly place with a vulnerable passenger. If an enforcement officer were to come across real evidence that the vehicle and driver were unlicensed and had been used deliberately by an operator, the context in which these amendments are framed is that suspension of the operator’s licence is, I think, warranted in that case. A big operator ought to take enormous care to make sure that it does not behave in such a manner, as it would be a threat to a big operator. But if it were found to be true of an enormously large operator, then it is a matter that ought to be immediately addressed. The public would expect it to be immediately addressed. The public would not say, “Oh, they’re big enough that the licensing authority can take a leisurely look at this”. It has always been a bit of a mystery to me that, in a similar case in the bus industry, the DVSA can discover the most flagrant breaches and it takes months to get those people in front of somebody who can deprive them of their operator’s licence.

Here, I think we are doing the right thing, and we are doing the right thing for the right reasons, which is that there is a genuine concern about public safety in taxi and private hire vehicles. Although it is an interim move, because the whole legislation is, frankly, outdated and needs to be fixed, this is an example of something which would be proportionate. If the action taken was not proportionate, it could be quickly reversed by the processes that are embodied in this amendment. So I reject the noble Lord’s proposition. I have thought it through, and I am not the least bit embarrassed in promoting it. I think I am rather more on the side of public safety than the noble Lord is. To accept his amendment would leave a gap in public protection and would perpetuate the inconsistencies in licensing and enforcement.

Quickly on the noble Lord’s Amendment 287A, the noble Lord heard me say that the Government have every intention of monitoring these arrangements very carefully. We will use all our powers to ensure that we collect the right data, that local authorities collect the right data and that, as a result, we understand what the effects of these amendments are when they pass into law, and we are willing to alter the way in which the arrangements operate in the light of the evidence that we get. I hope that I have said enough, without using all the words that I have been given, to persuade the noble Lord not to press Amendment 287A, because the Government have every intention, short of putting it on the face of the Bill, to collect exactly this for the most obvious reasons, which is that we need to know how it works and individual licensing authorities need to know how this will work in order that they can monitor and, if necessary, change their own behaviour.

Given those assurances, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able not to press either of his amendments.

Amendment 266 agreed.

Moved by

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill]

267: Clause 64, page 65, line 28, leave out subsection (2)
Member's explanatory statement
The definition of “regulated licence” would be added to clause 72 by another amendment in my name.

--- Later in debate ---

We will support my noble friend’s amendment as a matter of principle. I am fully aware that there might be improvements made to its drafting, and there might even be changes made to the timelines in it. If the Government were to come back at an appropriate stage with some changes, then we would be open to discussing them. We are not tying ourselves to the detail of my noble friend’s amendment, but we are absolutely there. We say that disabled people deserve a service, and we will be in the Lobby with him.

[Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill (Lab)]

My Lords, I start by paying tribute to noble Lords who have spoken, and particularly to the noble Lord, Lord Borwick, for his commitment and contribution to accessibility for disabled people in taxis over many years. Without him, the iconic London taxi would not be the accessible vehicle it is today and the lives of many would be significantly curtailed. He is right to say that the provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, carried over into the Equality Act 2010, have never been taken up by the numerous Governments that have come and gone, and he says that it is time that they were. I cannot account for previous Governments’ behaviours. He was inclined in his speech to blame the department, but in fact the department is the Government of the day, but we are here.

The question that has to be asked is: why can I and the Government not support his amendment now? My answer is that the circumstances have changed. Thirty-odd years ago, the now two very closely aligned industries of the taxi industry and the private hire industry were in an entirely different place. Private hire vehicles were not licensed and illegal in many places. Now, the taxi has been joined across England by much increased numbers of licensed private hire vehicles, about which the noble Lord is not concerned, but I am. Some 82% of the combined fleets of taxis and private hire vehicles across England—more than 300,000 vehicles—are the latter, and in the modern age of apps, mobile phones and technology, for many people and in many places the two services are very nearly completely interchangeable.

Secondly, as the noble Lord, Lord Young, pointed out, we now know that disability is about not only people in wheelchairs but people with many other characteristics too, and one size fits all for the accommodation of people with disabilities is not now what this large market is all about. Indeed, a wheelchair-accessible vehicle for some is one that is not suitable for others. Across England, circumstances differ enormously, which I hope the noble Lord will recognise from the round table that we had some weeks ago and from the views of the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee that he heard more regularly when he came to visit me in my office. In many places in England, especially in rural areas, the taxi fleet is generally smaller, sometimes virtually absent, especially in places that do not have a large town centre or transport hub, such as a railway station where a taxi rank would generally be placed, and most journeys are by private hire vehicles. This long-term growth in the number of private hire vehicles is a trend we cannot ignore. In rural areas, where the amendment would mandate an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet, private hire vehicles hugely outnumber taxis and, crucially, the noble Lord’s amendment would not apply to those vehicles. Disabled passengers, including wheelchair users in those areas, would therefore not benefit.

As I said in Committee, the department’s independent Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee’s view is that mixed fleets of wheelchair-accessible vehicles and non-wheelchair-accessible vehicles provide a more inclusive service that supports both wheelchair users and ambulant disabled passengers than one that consists only of wheelchair-accessible vehicles. As I have also previously said, the cost of mandating every taxi in England to be a wheelchair-accessible vehicle would be extremely high. The noble Lord is right that new vehicle prices are not the same as second-hand vehicle prices, but if his vehicle is worth only £1,000, it would not be in service as a taxi for much longer in virtually any town or city in England. There would be a significant cost of some magnitude for thousands of self-employed drivers who are not able to call on reserves of funding to make this change. This requirement would run the risk of taxi drivers being forced to license as private hire vehicle drivers to avoid a cost they could not afford or even to leave the industry completely. Indeed, the traders raised exactly those concerns in response to the mandating of an all-wheelchair-accessible taxi fleet.

To summarise, if accepted and implemented, this amendment would realistically result in fewer taxi services being available across the country for all passengers, including disabled passengers, particularly in rural areas, meaning at best longer wait times for all who wish to travel by taxi and at worst no supply and no independent travel. The Government’s position is that we should use the powers to set national standards for licensing to mandate the completion of disability equality training for all taxi and private hire vehicle drivers and staff who take bookings and dispatch vehicles for private hire vehicle operators. This will ensure that every driver and staff member has the knowledge, skills and confidence to support disabled passengers appropriately. National standards will be subject to public consultation, but we intend to use the regulations to drive greater accessibility for all.

I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Grey-Thompson, that the integration of taxis into wider public transport is very important. The Government’s integrated transport strategy will be published shortly. Her example of the unavailability of accessible taxis in any areas outside London, particularly in school hours, is germane to the real solution to this. My department already recommends in its best practice guidance that licensing authorities should assess the demand for wheelchair-accessible vehicles in their areas. They should set out the actions that they will take to meet that demand as part of a mixed fleet by publishing these in an inclusive service plan, and we will reiterate this.

Throughout this process, we have been clear that the measures being taken through this Bill are just the beginning of a broader package of reforms for taxi and private hire vehicle regulation, which is thoroughly out of date, as I think noble Lords would generally agree. My department is carrying out engagement with stakeholders to look at the broader issues, including a consultation just closed on changing licensing authorities to the significantly lower number of local transport authorities, and on accessibility for disabled passengers, looking to build consensus about what the best mechanisms are to tackle them.

In conclusion, the noble Lord’s campaign to see the execution of what has been promised for a very long time through previous legislation is not in vain. I understand perfectly well the symbolism of these amendments, as mentioned by the noble Lords, Lord Shinkwin and Lord Holmes, but we need to translate it into the reality of today’s position across England, where over four-fifths of vehicles used in this way are not taxis and the demands of everyone, including ambulant disabled and disabled people in wheelchairs, need to be met. The Government intend to do just that through the application of mandatory national standards on local transport authorities, as I have described, and thus I hope he will be able to consider that his objective will be achieved at last and withdraw his amendment.

[Lord Borwick (Con)]

My Lords, I am grateful for the words used by the noble Lord, Lord Hendy. To correct one of his points, the reason that my taxi is worth only £1,000 despite its very low mileage is because of the emissions standards in London, not because it is useless outside London. It would be useful in a market which does not have those same emissions regulations, but in London it is not worth more than £1,000.

The Minister said at the beginning that circumstances have changed. That is the basis of my problem, because circumstances have not changed in 31 years but they should have done. The Minister has the opportunity to change the circumstances, and I think he should do so. I am pressing this amendment, and I wish to test the opinion of the House.