SPHA CONSULTATION RESPONSE
31 August 2025 Cllr Susan Aitken, Leader of Glasgow City Council Dear Councillor Aitken
I write in response to your submission to the Licensing and Regulatory Committee’s consultation on the overprovision of private hire cars and unmet demand for taxi services. While I share your ambition for a vibrant and prosperous Glasgow, I must respectfully challenge a number of the points and assumptions outlined in your letter. The Scottish Private Hire Association (SPHA) maintains that the recent decision to commission a further independent review is a flawed and unnecessary step that undermines the democratic process.
Your letter suggests that the current policy is a barrier to the public getting home safely, citing related comments from commissioned reports. With all due respect, this assertion is directly contradicted by the most recent and comprehensive evidence available: the Council’s own public consultation. The survey found a remarkable 92% of respondents were in favour of retaining the licence cap, with a significant majority reporting no problems with availability. To prioritise a “perception” from a handful of reports, reports that are arguably now out of date, over the clear, unambiguous views of over 4,400 members of the public is, in our view, a serious misinterpretation of the facts.
We must also challenge the central premise that the challenges facing Glasgow’s night-time economy are a direct result of a lack of taxis and PHCs. This argument, while convenient, overlooks the wider economic forces at play. The night-time economy is suffering nationwide, even in cities and regions that have no overprovision policy. It is a victim of macroeconomic pressures such as the cost-of-living crisis and inflation, which have eroded consumer confidence and disposable income. Businesses in the hospitality sector are grappling with immense financial strain from soaring energy bills, rising supply chain costs, and the pressure to increase staff wages. These factors have a far more profound impact on their viability than transport availability, as evidenced by the fact that nightlife is in decline in cities across the country.
We are not the cause of this problem; we are affected by it just like the hospitality sector. Our drivers’ earnings and the demand for our services have declined along- side the rest of the economy. We are asking for the cap to be maintained to protect the sustainability of our trade from these wider economic effects. Instead of targeting the taxi and PH sectors, the focus should be on broader solutions. The Council has other levers at its
54
disposal that could provide genuine, meaningful support. We suggest that you look at providing business rates reductions for hospitality venues and relaxing certain licensing restrictions that may be stifling the sector’s recovery. These are concrete actions that the council can take to stimulate growth.
Your letter puts forward a number of suggestions that demonstrate a fundamental misunderstanding of our industry. You propose exploring conditions to require a sufficient level of evening provision and suggest that employer/employee relationships could be a lever. I must clarify that taxi and PH drivers in Glasgow are almost universally self-employed sole traders. The council does not have the legal authority to mandate or manipulate their working hours. We believe such conditions would be unlawful and unenforceable. Furthermore, your premise that an employer/employee relationship exists is factually incorrect. There is no traditional employment relationship that would allow a firm to mandate working patterns. Drivers choose to work late nights based on economic viability and safety. When there is insufficient work to justify long hours, particularly during mid-week nights, drivers will not be on the road. Many are also discouraged from working late due to poor rider behaviour, a public safety concern the city must address.
We contend that the removal of the licence limits you propose will not revitalise Glasgow’s hospitality economy; it will undermine it. Such deregulation would trigger a “race to the bottom” where driver earnings are drastically diminished. This financial pressure would force drivers to work excessive hours, directly increasing the risk of fatigue-related accidents and compromising public safety. The consequence would be a less professional, less safe and less sustainable service for your constituents.
In conclusion, your call to remove the licence cap is, in our view, an action that is not in the best interest of Glasgow’s drivers, its public, or its environment. We urge you to reconsider your position and to stand with the vast majority of the consultation’s respondents who believe the current policy is a vital safeguard for a fair, safe and sustainable transport system.
Finally, we reiterate our commitment to working constructively with the council to find ways to boost our city’s economy. If you would like to meet to discuss these matters further please don’t hesitate to get in touch.
Yours sincerely Edward Grice General Secretary SPHA
Board member for Scotland, NPHTA and IoL Member
OCTOBER 2025 PHTM
Page 1 |
Page 2 |
Page 3 |
Page 4 |
Page 5 |
Page 6 |
Page 7 |
Page 8 |
Page 9 |
Page 10 |
Page 11 |
Page 12 |
Page 13 |
Page 14 |
Page 15 |
Page 16 |
Page 17 |
Page 18 |
Page 19 |
Page 20 |
Page 21 |
Page 22 |
Page 23 |
Page 24 |
Page 25 |
Page 26 |
Page 27 |
Page 28 |
Page 29 |
Page 30 |
Page 31 |
Page 32 |
Page 33 |
Page 34 |
Page 35 |
Page 36 |
Page 37 |
Page 38 |
Page 39 |
Page 40 |
Page 41 |
Page 42 |
Page 43 |
Page 44 |
Page 45 |
Page 46 |
Page 47 |
Page 48 |
Page 49 |
Page 50 |
Page 51 |
Page 52 |
Page 53 |
Page 54 |
Page 55 |
Page 56 |
Page 57 |
Page 58 |
Page 59 |
Page 60 |
Page 61 |
Page 62 |
Page 63 |
Page 64 |
Page 65 |
Page 66 |
Page 67 |
Page 68 |
Page 69 |
Page 70 |
Page 71 |
Page 72 |
Page 73 |
Page 74
