Skip to main content

Parliamentary group wants Mayors to have the power to curb private hire vehicles

In its report published this week, the UK Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Taxis calls on the Government to give the Mayor of London, and other Mayors, the power to cap the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) on London’s streets, stop cross border hiring and set out a robust set of minimum licensing standards for taxis and PHVs across the country.
July 14, 2017 Read time: 2 mins

In its report published this week, the UK Parliament’s All-Party Parliamentary Group (APPG) on Taxis calls on the Government to give the Mayor of London, and other Mayors, the power to cap the number of private hire vehicles (PHVs) on London’s streets, stop cross border hiring and set out a robust set of minimum licensing standards for taxis and PHVs across the country.

GMB, the union for private hire and taxi drivers, welcomed the report, saying a cap would improve the quality of life for drivers and hopefully reduce the hours that drivers are forced to work.

It claims that without a cap the industry could well see further exploitation of drivers by companies such as Uber and Addison Lee who attempt to deny their drivers any worker or employment rights in order to maximise profit and avoid their obligations to contribute to the public purse.

Tony Warr, head of Legal, GMB London Region, said, “Private hire drivers already work in very precarious conditions and while overall we welcome the report it was disappointing to note operators licensing will not be conditional on drivers receiving even the basic of employment rights."

The report also calls for the creation of a statutory definition of cross border hiring whereby a journey must “begin or end in the licensing authority where the licence was issued”, as well as consultation on statutory guidance for taxi and PHV licensing and a robust set of minimum licensing standards for all licensing authorities.

UTC

Related Content

  • September 3, 2014
    Professional drivers’ union claims Uber cannot offer safe service
    GMB, the union for professional drivers, has responded to the news that a state court in Frankfurt, Germany, has issued an injunction preventing cab service Uber from offering its services without a specific permit under German transport laws. Steve Garelick, GMB branch secretary professional drivers branch, said "Up until now Uber seems to have adopted the route of forcing its way in to markets on a like it or lump it basis.”
  • March 4, 2019
    TISPOL says gig economy tears up enforcement rulebook
    The road safety enforcement sector is facing a crisis. Rulebooks around the world are going to have to change as our roads become a high-pressure workplace for millions of gig economy workers. Geoff Hadwick reports from the TISPOL conference Traffic police forces everywhere will need a fresh approach to regulating the way in which our highways are being used, senior enforcement officers were told at the latest TISPOL European Traffic Police Network annual conference. The World Health Organisation puts it
  • February 8, 2016
    Better enforcement needed to combat drivers using mobile phones says FTA
    Responding to proposed changes to penalties on drivers using a hand-held mobile phone, the Freight Transport Association (FTA) has said that better enforcement is needed before penalties are increased. After consulting with members at its Road Freight Council Meeting in London yesterday, the FTA stated that the use of modern technology and cameras should be able to enable authorities to improve enforcement and provide evidence against those breaking the law. The recently launched consultation proc
  • September 18, 2019
    Uber: AB5 ‘does not automatically reclassify’ drivers
    Business life may be about to get trickier for transportation network companies following the passing of a new law in California which aims to give gig economy workers more rights. Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), which is due to come into effect in January next year, says that “a person providing labour or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor” - unless three points are proved. One, that “the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the con