ONE OF THE EARLIEST responses to the pandemic was a general moratorium on new policy measures. It was a sensible step, with society and the economy being locked down there wasn’t capacity or appetite to engage with the minutiae of fireworks legislation or new rules on calorie labelling.
It is of course heartening two years later that life has returned to something much closer to normal. The downside is the pipeline of policy initiatives from before the pandemic has restarted. Some of those measures are as necessary now as before the world changed – for example Scotland continues to suffer from enormous health inequalities. In some other cases, however, a little reflection might have helped. Which brings us to the little-loved Workplace Parking Levy – a policy which allows a local authority to levy an annual charge on workplace car parks.
Back in 2019 this measure was proposed by Green MSP John Finnie, and was backed by the Scottish Government, not necessarily on its merits, but more as part of the bargain struck to pass that year’s Scottish Budget. The scheme was, therefore, supported as an amendment to the Transport (Scotland) Bill.
This history may sound unimportant. But this context explains why businesses and others are so unhappy with the final approval of this measure last week. Because the policy itself never went through the proper impact assessment process that Bills receive in their original form we don’t actually know what it involves, who will be affected, and what the benefits actually are. There’s a reason we at the Scottish Retail Consortium remain concerned MSPs have voted for a pig in a poke.
The list of issues is considerable. Prosaically the policy introduces double taxation – businesses already pay non-domestic rates on their parking spaces. In itself that’s iniquitous, but in the context of companies ravaged by covid it is a further cost on top of the already high burdens facing businesses operating from property. With businesses facing a return to full non-domestic rates liability alongside the challenges arising from disrupted supply chains, rising inflation, and limited growth, this cost may not be bearable by businesses. Of course, this is not limited to the private sector. It would be for local authorities to set out exemptions to ensure public services or charities are exempt. But that won’t really solve the problem. Either the exemptions are so broad as to only leave a small number of enterprises paying the levy, in which case it’s not an environmental measure merely another local business tax, or they are specific ensuring a huge number of properties become embroiled in this cost.
So, many organisations will be caught with an expensive bill at a time where their own finances are stretched. What that means is many will have little option but to pass the cost onto their workers as the price of parking at work. So, a schoolteacher or police officer or shopworker would suddenly face an additional bill for travelling to their work. To give a sense of this, in Nottingham their workplace parking levy cost is £458 per annum for 2022; and a BBC report from 2019 indicated eight out of ten employers require employees to pay. That’s a significant cost for households already juggling rising energy bills and food price inflation.
Proponents of the policy believe its an essential policy to help the drive to reduce carbon emissions. That’s predicated on the idea if the costs of motoring are increased sufficiently then commuters will change their ways.
However, even if that is the case, this is not a progressive measure. High income workers are far more able to afford the extra cost. Which means this is a measure which is de facto targeted at low and middle earners who don’t have easy access to alternatives. A good example would be a supermarket shift worker travelling late at night, where there is a dearth of safe alternatives to private transport. Asking them to choose between a safer transport measure or paying an increased cost is just wrong.
Because of the manner this legislation was passed in, there are no safeguards, checks, or restrictions for local authorities. Those councils, facing their own difficult fiscal decisions, may leap on this as an extra source of revenue – but if that’s the motivation then motorists will be very concerned. It’s also worth noting some councils can benefit fiscally from this by charging commuters from outwith the local authority boundaries – for example Dundee Council could cash in from commuters from Angus. That’s a perverse incentive as said Angus commuters have no ability to vote for or influence that decision. It’s a bit of a mess to be honest.
This wasn’t necessary. If a workplace parking levy is necessary, it should be considered on its own merits rather than being pushed through for political expediency. A better designed approach would allow Scottish Ministers to put sensible provisions in, such as a cap on the amount charged, the need for sunset provisions (in line with Business Improvement Districts), and a model to ensure consistency across Scotland. They could even have put in restrictions to ensure any money raised was properly used to improve the wider transport infrastructure.
Recovering from Covid will be the work of a decade for Scotland. If we are to succeed in rebuilding the damage done, we need legislators to properly scrutinise policy, to bring forward coherent measures which have a clear public benefit and don’t inadvertently target those least able to afford them. Sadly, the workplace parking levy is already an anachronism which is likely to stick out more and more in the coming years.
If you appreciated this article please share and follow us on Twitter here – and like and comment on facebook here. Help support ThinkScotland publishing these articles by making a donation here.
Photo of Tesco with parking that shopworkers use too by James from Adobe Stock
