Taxi Driver Online

I suspect this written parliamentary answer a couple of days ago is the source of yesterday's Manchester Evening News piece about the government's 'statement' on tackling 'out-of area' drivers.

And which follows on from a previous question a month ago, so both questions and answers are pasted below for context.

But it all kind of demonstrates the element of churn and repetition about all this sort of thing - the MP asks a question, and the minister is duty bound to answer it.

Of course, it could well be a planted question in order for a 'statement' to be issued via the parliamentary written question and answer process (particularly when here it's Labour replying to Labour).

But the most interesting thing about it all is that the follow-up question is based on a false premise, effectively - confining licence applications to where drivers actually LIVE was NEVER going to happen.

So to an extent the question was a total waste of time; on the other hand it allows the government to issue that all-important 'statement'

(And, as is generally the case with stuff like this, the question is asked of the Secretary of State for Transport, but a more junior transport minister supplies the answer. Or, more accurately still, it's very probably a DfT civil servant who supplies the answer )

Answered on 5 November 2025

Jim McMahon, Labour, Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment she has made of the potential impact of out of area taxi operations on public safety.

Lilian Greenwood, Labour, Nottingham South

The primary purpose of the taxi and private hire vehicle licensing regime is public safety. Since coming into Government, we have been actively looking at ways to improve the existing licensing regime.

We have committed to legislate to address the issues raised in Baroness Casey’s national audit on group-based child sexual exploitation and abuse, to tackle the inconsistent standards of taxi and private hire vehicle driver licensing. We want to achieve two outcomes; the first is ensuring we have consistently high safeguarding standards and the second is that there is no unintended reduction in the availability of licensed taxi and private hire vehicle services, which could disproportionately impact women and girls and disabled people, who rely on these services the most. We are considering all options – including out-of-area working, national standards, enforcement and transferring licensing to local transport authorities - seeking the best overall outcomes for passenger safety.

We are currently reviewing licensing authorities’ compliance with existing guidance issued by the Department on actions they should take on licensing matters including safety. All licensing authorities have reported that they require the highest level of criminal background checks for taxi and private hire vehicle driver licence applicants – an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service check with a check of the children’s and adults’ barred lists. Where safety recommendations from the guidance are not being followed, licensing authorities will be held to account.


Answered on 3 December 2025

Jim McMahon, Labour, Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to the answer of 5 November 2025 to question 85843, whether she is considering requiring drivers to register with their home local authority validated by checking council tax, electoral roll and credit reference data.

Lilian Greenwood, Labour, Nottingham South

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill seeks to introduce powers to set national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing. If passed, national minimum standards would enable government to set robust standards for licensing across England, to keep all members of the public safe, wherever they live or travel. It would also help reduce the variability of licensing standards across the country, which is a significant factor in inducing drivers to licence with an authority other than that in which they intend to work.

The Department continues to consider further options for reform, including out-of-area working and enforcement. We need to ensure that taxis and PHVs are able to work in a way that facilitates the journeys passengers want and need to make, in a consistently safe way, whilst achieving the best overall outcomes for passenger safety.

So the question and answer provides the basis for a Taxi Point article. Which astutely points out the self-evident problem with confining licences to where drivers actually live - a thing self-evident to folks in the trade, if not to the Labour MP asking the question

This isn't the whole article, and just the bit addressing the issue properly, which of course isn't answered directly by the minister. But which the average MP/journalist/member of the public wouldn't realise anyway


WORK WHERE YOU LIVE: MP challenges minister on whether taxi and private hire drivers should ONLY be licensed where they live

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/work- ... ld-only-be

Government replies that national minimum standards remain the planned solution as industry figures warn residency rules would be unworkable in major cities

[...]There was no indication that ministers intend to pursue home-address licensing as a preferred solution.

Residency rules may appear straightforward but would create significant issues. London offers the clearest illustration as an example. Thousands of licensed taxi and private hire drivers work in the capital yet cannot afford to live within the Greater London boundary. Requiring them to be licensed only where they live would force many drivers out of the workforce or away from the cities that depend on them reducing availability.

In many other regions the picture is similar. Housing costs, commuting patterns and flexible working arrangements mean the location where a driver lives quite rarely matches where they are licensed and work within. Hackney carriage taxi drivers can only ply-for-hire in the area they are licensed meaning that no cross-border actions are taken and they remain in the area they are licensed, no matter where they chose to live.

Councils have warned for years that the underlying problem is the disparity between licensing regimes, not the addresses of individual drivers. Operators continue to licence in jurisdictions with lower fees or lighter requirements, and the Department for Transport has repeatedly recognised this variability as the main driver of cross-border activity.[...]

Of course, the minister effectively answers the question by saying the intention of the reforms is to make licence shopping less attractive, and to that extent it would address the MP's implied concerns in his questions.

And note the use of the words 'licence with an authority other than that in which they intend to work' at the end there. The operative word is 'work', whereas the MP's question was about where drivers 'live' rather than 'work'.

So effectively the minister's implication is that the MP's question was based on a false premise, but she won't say that directly. But it's all about where drivers are licensing and then working, as opposed to where they're living in as compared to where they're licensing

If you could only work in the area you lived in, that would get rid of at least half of the London black cab trade.

Allow drivers to license where they dam well like, but ensure they work, predominantly, where they are licensed.

_________________
IDFIMH

I get the feeling they haven't thought this thing through

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

Is there any evidence that anyone from the current government ever does ?

_________________
lack of modern legislation is the iceberg sinking the titanic of the transport sector

To be fair to HM Government, I think the top brass have worked it out, but they still have to answer questions from clueless MPs

Anyway, this was another question asked by the same MP, and the same minister responding, which is a bit more pointed in terms of the Wolverhampton 'pull and push factors'...


Answered on 5 December 2025

Jim McMahon, Labour, Oldham West, Chadderton and Royton

To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, what assessment has been made of the pull and push factors driving taxi license holders from obtaining licenses out of their area of residence and operation, such as to Wolverhampton Council.

Lilian Greenwood, Labour, Nottingham South

Ministers and officials regularly engage with the taxi and private hire vehicle sector. Differing licensing requirements, processing times and costs are often cited as reasons why licences are sought from authorities other than that in which the applicants intend to work.

Though there is a high degree of consistency in requirements relating to safety, for example all licensing authorities in England require an enhanced Disclosure and Barring Service and barred lists check for drivers, the Government is taking action to ensure even greater consistency in licensing.

The English Devolution and Community Empowerment Bill seeks to introduce powers to set national minimum standards for taxi and private hire vehicle licensing. If passed, national minimum standards would enable government to set robust standards for licensing across England, to keep vulnerable children and, indeed, all members of the public safe, wherever they live or travel. It would also help reduce the variability of licensing standards across the country, which is a significant factor in inducing out-of-area working.

Although the minister's response isn't particularly pointed, and just mentions 'differing licensing requirements, processing times and costs' in terms of the specific question, and then wanders off at a bit of a tangent..

But which Taxi Point considered worthy of an article, albeit puffing the response out a bit - I mean, the minister's 'differing processing times' becomes 'smoother administrative pathways'

Nice one - but I wonder where phraseology like that comes from

https://www.taxi-point.co.uk/post/gover ... o-out-of-a

Out of the bulls backside.

That's one way of putting it, Heathcote, and another interesting turn of phrase

I'd guess that isn't the technical term for what I'm thinking about, though

Interesting debate going on at the moment (mainly in Scotland), about the Sandy Peggie v Fife Health Board employment tribunal judgment, which was delivered a couple of days ago.

It's 312 page long

But some of those actually reading it claim to have found quotes in the judgement from previous decisions which are inaccurate, and miss out or include words that shouldn't be there.

Thus basically the claim is that the judgment inaccurately quotes from previous decisions and judgements. And some suggesting that may be because of AI

As one Twitter account says:


Ironically, the person who wrote that tweet was himself caught out a while ago using ChatGPT or similar, and which he admitted

Anyway, it's mainly social media chatter at the moment, although there are plenty of big names questioning the possible AI dimension, and numerous other aspects of the judgment.

Getting very off-topic this.

But the whole Sandy Peggie thing is kicking off in the mainstream, and corrections have been issued by the judicial service. And many are blaming AI

This is in the Telegraph. Some interesting stuff about the official use of AI


Sandie Peggie judgment to be revised over ‘made-up AI quote’

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2025/1 ... er-errors/

Judge backed up his ruling using statement that was ‘edited so its meaning is completely reversed’

Sandie Peggie’s tribunal judgment will be revised after allegations that a vital quote was “made up” using artificial intelligence.

Monday’s judgment found that the veteran nurse who complained about sharing a female-only changing room with a transgender doctor had been harassed by NHS Fife.

The tribunal dismissed her allegations of discrimination, indirect discrimination and victimisation.

That meant that Judge Alexander Kemp ruled it was “not inherently unlawful” for a man to use a woman’s changing room, which appeared to contradict the Supreme Court’s decision on the definition of a woman earlier in the year.

The Supreme Court ruled that the words “sex”, “man” and “woman” in the Equality Act referred to biological sex.

However, Judge Kemp said there was “nothing stated specifically in the act itself” to say the protected characteristic of being a woman “takes precedence” over that of being a trans person.

To support his argument, he quoted a tribunal case involving Maya Forstater, the chief executive of sex-based rights charity Sex Matters, as concluding that: “It is important to bear in mind that the [Equality Act 2010] does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”

However, Ms Forstater said the quote was “made up” and did not appear in her tribunal. She suggested that it had been produced using AI.

She added: “The source needs to be investigated and they need to ask Judge Kemp where it came from.”

She said he may have had a team of clerks working on the report and whether the judge, or one of his administrators, used AI should be investigated.

“We deserve an explanation and that might be one,” she added.

Ms Forstater said tribunal judgments are sometimes amended to correct typographical errors but not to change “whole, key” parts.

“Claimants and witnesses going to court swear to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and we expect nothing less from the judges.

“There are several errors in the judgment beyond the made-up quote attributed to my judgment.

Mistakes like this severely undermine people’s confidence in the legal process.

“This judgment was already being questioned because it seems to fly in the face of the Supreme Court’s clear statement that single-sex facilities can only be on the basis of sex, not claimed identity. Errors like this just add to the growing feeling that this is not a sound judgment.”

The new version of the ruling was issued just after 2pm on Thursday.

The quote attributed to the Forstater tribunal case had been changed to: “This judgment does not mean that those with gender-critical beliefs can ‘misgender’ trans persons with impunity. The Claimant, like everyone else, will continue to be subject to the prohibitions on discrimination and harassment under the EqA.

“Whether or not conduct in a given situation does amount to harassment or discrimination within the meaning of EqA will be for a tribunal to determine in a given case.”

Ruling to be appealed

The Peggie ruling then added: “We consider that quotation provides support for the proposition that the Equality Act 2010 does not create a hierarchy of protected characteristics.”

However, there was no explanation as to how the original quote was sourced.

Asked for an explanation, a Judicial Office spokeswoman said that judges speak through their judgments and no comment would be provided on individual cases.

On Thursday afternoon, Ms Peggie is set to hold a press event with her legal team at which it is predicted they will announce that the ruling will be appealed.

Scottish Courts and Tribunal Service (SCTS) guidelines from April state that the service is “not using or considering the use of AI in relation to any form of decision making” in courts and tribunals.

Tribunal guidance says that “AI tools may hallucinate”, including making “up fictitious cases, citations or quotes, or refer to legislation, articles or legal texts that do not exist”.

This policy applies to all those contracted to work for the SCTS, such as judges. The SCTS will “communicate clearly” where AI has been used, the policy says. It will also be transparent about the “purpose” of any systems that are used.

The guidance, issued in October, also states: “Judicial office holders are personally responsible for material which is produced in their name.

“Judges must always read the underlying documents. AI tools may assist, but they cannot replace direct judicial engagement with evidence.”

Dr Michael Foran, a gender law expert from Oxford University, said: “It is an incontrovertible fact that the judgment includes supposed quotes from specific judgments that do not appear in those judgments.

“That in itself is extraordinary. How this happened and what consequences will flow from it are unclear at this point, but there are incredibly serious questions that need to be answered.

“Additionally, it is not clear to me that the tribunal even has the power to reissue the judgment with these quotations removed. The power that permits reissuing judgments is confined to correcting clerical errors and accidental slips or omissions, not substantial changes of this magnitude.”

Loads of questions to be answered there.

I'm glad it's going to appeal.

_________________
IDFIMH

More on the off-topic stuff

But in view of the intersection between the trade, legal issues and maybe AI, this might be of interest to some readers on here...


Sandie Peggie judge urged to withdraw ruling ‘riddled with errors’

https://www.thetimes.com/article/c12870 ... 4ef0160740

Legal experts cast doubt on the trans case judgment involving the NHS Fife nurse which dismissed all the claims against Dr Beth Upton

The judge who presided over the Sandie Peggie employment tribunal has been urged to withdraw his findings and consider his position after it emerged that his ruling was “riddled with numerous errors and inaccuracies”.

Alexander Kemp found the nurse had been harassed by NHS Fife after she was suspended for objecting to Dr Beth Upton, who was born a male but identifies as a woman, using a female-only hospital space.

However, he also dismissed multiple other allegations against the health board, the entirety of the case against Upton and found it was “not inherently unlawful” for a biological man to use a women’s changing room.

On Thursday the Judicial Office removed a quote from Kemp’s 312-page ruling that purported to be a direct quote from a previous ruling, after it emerged that no such wording existed.

It issued a certificate of correction, insisting the matter was now resolved, but failed to remove a second incorrect citation.

The Times has now learnt that the document continues to contain a host of other errors, prompting suggestions that artificial intelligence (AI) may have been used to assist compilation of the ruling.

The gender-critical group Not All Gays Ireland was referred to as “Not for Gays” in Kemp’s ruling, prompting them to formally demand a correction and an apology.

A spokesman described the error as damaging and unacceptable, adding: “Not only is this a deeply concerning typographical error, but it also places a negative inference on Not All Gays as an organisation, implying or misrepresenting that we do not support gay rights.

“To have this negative implication placed on us and recorded in an employment tribunal judgment, which is so heavily covered by the mainstream media, is simply unacceptable.

“It is entirely unacceptable to name us as ‘Not for Gays’ without correction, due to the implications this will have for our good standing and reputation.

“We are aware of several other alleged clerical errors or misquoted or misrepresented citations upon which this panel relied upon when reaching their decision.”

Maya Forstater, chief executive of the gender-critical campaign group Sex Matters, noticed that a quote Kemp included in the original ruling — attributed to her 2021 tribunal — was incorrect.

She claimed a reference to her case against the Centre for Global Development (CGD) Europe, which established that gender-critical views were capable of being protected under the Equality Act, was “completely made up”.

It has since been corrected, but the revised document now wrongly refers to the organisation as “CDG Europe”.

“It is utterly disrespectful of Kemp to produce a judgment which does not meet basic standards,” Forstater claimed.

“Making up quotes and then quietly changing them is not acceptable. Maybe he will do a job lot [of corrections] and try to correct all the mangled quotes in the next version?

“Or maybe someone in the judicial system will tell him he can’t do that?”

It also emerged that Kemp included a direct “quote” from the Games v University of Kent ruling, a 2017 case centred on claims of age discrimination, which does not appear in the actual judgment.

The Times previously established the Peggie ruling included a quote from Lee v Ashers Baking Company from 2018, which does not feature in the written findings.

Kemp also misquotes the Supreme Court’s ruling in April in the For Women Scotland v The Scottish Ministers case, which found the definition of a woman for the purposes of the Equality Act was based on biological sex.

Kemp’s judgment states: “The decision states that ‘such women may in practice choose to use female only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users’.”

The actual ruling says: “Although such transwomen may in practice choose to use female only facilities in a way which does not in fact compromise the privacy and dignity of other women users, the Scottish Ministers do not suggest that a trans woman with a GRC is legally entitled to do so.”

Anya Palmer, a barrister who specialises in employment law, claimed it was a “significant error in a crucial part of the judgment, explaining why [Peggie] loses on a central part of her case.”

“The tribunal cannot just rewrite this,” she said. Palmer added. “I fully expect there will be a successful appeal.”

Gary Francione, professor of law emeritus at Rutgers Law School, in New Jersey, addressed the author of the ruling directly on social media. “Dear Judge Kemp, I would withdraw the opinion,” he wrote.

“This is only going to get a great deal worse. Being proactive and confessing clear errors would be more efficient and end up harming the judiciary less.”

Francione said he expected the mistakes would result in Kemp “stepping down from the bench”.

Kemp’s ruling also features numerous American spellings of words including “victimization” and “minimization”.

One senior legal figure said: “Sandy Kemp is an employment and discrimination lawyer by trade. The idea that he would spell victimisation with a z is unthinkable. That strongly suggests to me that it was written by AI.”

He claimed: “Judge Kemp’s judgment is riddled with numerous errors, inaccuracies and omissions. As such, I feel certain it will be chewed up and spat out when the appeal takes place.”

Craig Smith, a law lecturer at the University of Salford who specialises in legal technology, said features of the judgment appeared to be “consistent with the kinds of errors that generative AI systems are known to produce”.

The Judicial Office said: “We cannot comment on any claim of a judge using AI in a judgment or on decisions in any individual case.

“We are not aware that any further amendments or updates will be made. Anything contesting any legal decision or points of law would be for the appeals process.”

In June Dame Victoria Sharp, president of the King’s Bench Division of the High Court of England and Wales, claimed there were “serious implications for the administration of justice and public confidence in the justice system if artificial intelligence is misused” and that lawyers misusing AI could face contempt of court proceedings and referral to the police.

On Thursday, Peggie confirmed she would appeal against Kemp’s judgment, stating: “Whilst I am delighted that the tribunal was critical of Fife Health Board and found they harassed me, their judgment I believe falls short in many respects and that is why I certainly won’t be giving up this legal fight any time soon.”

The Peggie case, which has made international headlines, was caused by an incident on Christmas Eve, 2023, in Victoria Hospital, Kirkcaldy, when she confronted Upton about the doctor’s use of the female changing rooms.

Peggie was suspended after Upton lodged a complaint claiming to have been subjected to a “transphobic hate incident”, while Peggie’s supporters insisted she was merely standing up for her rights.