There has been a sea-change in both the understanding of and commitment to tackling climate change in the business community.
That was a clear message I picked up from senior United Nations staff at COP26.
But not every measure with an environmental objective will automatically secure business support.
The current proposals for a workforce parking levy (WPL) are a case in point.
The proposal suggests that every business with car parking for staff and visitors above an agreed threshold number of spaces would be liable to a charge which they might choose to pass on to their staff.
Nottingham is the one example where the levy has been introduced and the charge this year will be £458 per space.
A Glasgow City Council paper made it clear that this might not simply target the city centre.
A figure of£20-30 million was floated as possible annual revenue but that depended on the levy being applied to businesses across the whole city.
Reducing reliance on fossil-fuelled private cars is a widely shared goal but the feedback I have been getting from Chamber members on the prospect of a levy in Glasgow has been overwhelmingly negative.
It was a relief to read that council leader Susan Aitken has suggested the WPL may not be near the top of her priority list.
I believe that she is right to say so.
Firstly, there is the question of timing. There is widespread recognition that more needs to be invested in regional transport systems in Glasgow. The City Council’s Connectivity Commission – of which I was a member – made it very clear that it was time to invest in the quality and reach of public transport; reversing the decline of bus travel and expanding transport options through the Metro proposal, recently supported in the Scottish Government’s transport review.
There may well be a role for measures like the WPL in the future but not until improvements – many of which may secure private funding support – are well advanced.
Travelling across the city region on public transport can be especially awkward, often involving a two-stage journey that is much more time consuming and less reliable than using a car.
Better to encourage more use of public transport by making it more attractive before penalising those for whom it does not yet meet their needs.
Then there are questions of fairness.
If companies choose to absorb the cost, then the behavioural change the policy seeks will not happen and after a period of inflation badly hitting household incomes, employers will be very reluctant to add to the burden.
For some employers, there will also be irritation that they are being charged for spaces that they were required to provide as a condition for securing planning permission.
Then there is a doubt about the economic sense of a policy that might only
apply in Glasgow and not
in surrounding local authorities.
Glasgow suffered from post-war policies that deliberately moved businesses out of the city into the new towns to the obvious detriment of those left in poorer city districts.
We have spent thirty years attempting to bring jobs back to those communities.
A levy that increases the costs of working in Glasgow alone does not appear to fit well with that task.
It would be wrong to suggest that businesses will complain about any policy that raises their costs.
That was clear at COP26.
Businesses are prepared to invest heavily to become more sustainable, but for Glasgow, the WPL may do more harm than good.
Its time may come but that time is not now.
Stuart Patrick is chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce.
Why are you making commenting on The Herald only available to subscribers?
It should have been a safe space for informed debate, somewhere for readers to discuss issues around the biggest stories of the day, but all too often the below the line comments on most websites have become bogged down by off-topic discussions and abuse.
heraldscotland.com is tackling this problem by allowing only subscribers to comment.
We are doing this to improve the experience for our loyal readers and we believe it will reduce the ability of trolls and troublemakers, who occasionally find their way onto our site, to abuse our journalists and readers. We also hope it will help the comments section fulfil its promise as a part of Scotland's conversation with itself.
We are lucky at The Herald. We are read by an informed, educated readership who can add their knowledge and insights to our stories.
That is invaluable.
We are making the subscriber-only change to support our valued readers, who tell us they don't want the site cluttered up with irrelevant comments, untruths and abuse.
In the past, the journalist’s job was to collect and distribute information to the audience. Technology means that readers can shape a discussion. We look forward to hearing from you on heraldscotland.com
Comments & Moderation
Readers’ comments: You are personally liable for the content of any comments you upload to this website, so please act responsibly. We do not pre-moderate or monitor readers’ comments appearing on our websites, but we do post-moderate in response to complaints we receive or otherwise when a potential problem comes to our attention. You can make a complaint by using the ‘report this post’ link . We may then apply our discretion under the user terms to amend or delete comments.
Post moderation is undertaken full-time 9am-6pm on weekdays, and on a part-time basis outwith those hours.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel