Congestion charge could force businesses to leave city, council warned
Glasgow City Council has been considering a number of charging options for road users and, while plans for a workplace parking tax have now been shelved, an 'at-city-boundary' congestion charge and tolling of the Clyde Tunnel remain on the table.
The city's SNP group has said it would seek to exempt Glasgow residents from any new charge, which would be paid by those entering the city from other council areas. The options are being investigated as part of efforts to reduce car use and increase revenue.
But Stuart Patrick, chief executive of Glasgow Chamber of Commerce, said: 'We cannot support a city-wide congestion charge until public transport improvements have been made in line with the conclusions of the Connectivity Commission.
'We are very concerned about the possible displacement of business out of Glasgow. We believe the city council needs support from the Scottish Government to deliver priority transport projects such as the Clyde Metro and the Glasgow City Region Bus Partnership improvement plan.'
The Connectivity Commission, chaired by Professor David Begg, proposed a range of measures to upgrade the city's transport capacity, including a Metro system.
The city's Labour group also opposes the proposed congestion charge and Clyde Tunnel toll. It has said residents from Ayrshire, Lanarkshire, East Renfrewshire, East Dunbartonshire and beyond would be forced to pay to visit Glasgow for work, family or social reasons.
Cllr Angus Millar, SNP, the council's convener for climate, transport and city centre recovery, said: 'I think it is important that we as a council fully explore any and all opportunities we have to utilise powers and to raise revenues to support the sustainable transport transition that we are undertaking.'
He was 'a little bit confused around some of the statements from Labour colleagues' as the group had previously supported proposals for congestion charging and it had been included in the council's strategic plan, which passed unanimously.
Cllr Millar said it was 'a chicken and egg discussion', adding: 'If we want to see significant improvements on public transport then we need to be able to identify where the investment is coming from to make those investments.'
He was speaking at the city's economy, housing, transport and regeneration city policy committee,which received an update on potential charging options today.
They were asked to note progress, including the decision to halt work on a workplace parking levy, rather than approve any plans.
Bailie Anthony Carroll, Greens, proposed an amendment which would have seen a possible workplace parking charge revisited once controlled parking zones are in place across the city.
A parking scheme would have required businesses and workplaces to hold a licence for spaces they provide to staff and visitors, with licence charges based on the number of places available. It was estimated it could have raised over £8m per year.
But officials reported there is 'limited commercial and public appetite' for the scheme and they will direct resources towards other options.
Bailie Carroll said funds raised through a levy could help to 'actually improve our public transport systems' as the council has not received the same UK Government support as regions in England.
Cllr John Carson, Glasgow Labour's deputy leader, said: 'We are against a workplace parking levy.
'People can dress it up in various narratives, but ultimately we see it very clearly as the Scottish Government passing the buck onto local authorities rather than giving us the money that we need to run and enhance our city.'
The amendment only received two votes as SNP councillors supported the initial recommendations to note the update and Labour members chose to abstain.
Get all the latest news from around the country Follow STV News
Scan the QR code on your mobile device for all the latest news from around the country
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Spectator
The Epping ruling is the last thing Yvette Cooper needs
It is another scratchy, difficult week for the government. Inflation is up, to 3.8 per cent in July – the highest level since January 2024. Asylum applications are now at record levels with 111,000 applying during Keir Starmer's first year in office. But the real body blow is the interim High Court injunction to stop migrants from being accommodated at The Bell Hotel in Epping. Unsurprisingly, dozens of councils of the country are now poised to launch similar action. That creates a very difficult dilemma for Yvette Cooper. The Home Secretary has sought to downplay and depoliticise the housing of asylum seekers, pointing, not unfairly, to the industrial scale under which this occurred for many years under the Tories. But now, it seems, local authorities have reached their breaking point. It is not just Conservative and Reform councils considering appeals: both Tamworth and Wirral – two Labour-run authorities – are reportedly doing the same. That makes it harder for the government to suggest this is merely partisan gamesmanship. With ministers now scrambling to devise contingency plans, we could potentially be witnessing the complete unravelling of the existing system of dispersing migrants across the country. The obvious resort for the Home Office is to turn from hotels to smaller private dwellings instead, which would fit with the Chancellor's pledge at the Spending Review to stop using hotels by 2029. But the risk is in piling even more pressure on the private rental sector, as asylum seekers will add to competition for places among young renters. The government had reportedly been expecting the co-operation of councils in this goal; after Epping, this hope looks increasingly to be a forlorn one. For Cooper and the Home Office, working out where to house the 106,000 asylum seekers in receipt of taxpayer-ended support, is a never-ending game of whack-a-mole.
Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Spectator
Labour's first year sees 111,000 asylum claims
When it rains for Sir Keir Starmer, it pours. Now it has emerged that during the Labour lot's first year in office to June 2025, a whopping 111,000 people claimed asylum in the UK amid a surge in small boat crossings – up by a staggering 14 per cent on the previous 12 months. So much for smashing the gangs, eh? Figures reveal that the numbers of those claiming asylum during this period was 8 per cent greater than the last asylum claim peak in 2002. Half of those looking for asylum entered the UK irregularly: four in ten arrived by small boat while an additional one in ten arrived via lorries, shipping containers or without the correct documents. Good heavens… The areas with the highest proportions of asylum seekers included 'red wall' areas, such as England's North West and North East which have approximately 2,700 and 2,600 people per million residents respectively. However, while the number of people receiving asylum support in the UK has increased by 5 per cent year on year, this remains lower – by 14 per cent – than at the end of September 2023, when it reached 123,758. And as if that wasn't enough bad news, while the use of hotels has fallen since last September, the number of people in migrant hotels has, in fact, increased under Starmer. In June 2024, just under 30,000 people were living in asylum hotels with 67,000 staying in other accommodations. In June 2025, 32,000 were being housed in hotels with 70,800 staying elsewhere. And, as James Heale writes on Coffee House, local authorities seem to be reaching their breaking point… Immigration remains a top priority for Brits, while the taxpayer coughed up £3.1bn for asylum hotels last year. After Tuesday's landmark High Court ruling – which saw Epping Forest district council granted a temporary injunction that requires the area's Bell Hotel to stop housing asylum seekers within 24 days – more councils across the country are considering similar legal action. Yet the Labour lot don't seem all that sure where migrants will go, with security minister Dan Jarvis conducting a pretty disastrous interview on the airwaves on Wednesday morning. Starmer's army certainly has its work cut out…
Spectator
15 minutes ago
- Spectator
Britain shouldn't be cowed by China in the Taiwan Strait
It has only been a few months since Labour's much-trailed 'China audit' – touted as the masterplan that would finally bring coherence to Britain's China policy – yet once again the government's China position looks as muddled as ever. The latest furore is over Operation High Mast, Britain's first carrier strike group deployment to the Far East under the Labour government. Defence Secretary John Healey wants HMS Richmond, a Royal Navy frigate, to conduct a transit of the Taiwan Strait – which separates China and Taiwan. It's the sort of routine passage that Britain and its allies have long treated as normal. Foreign Secretary David Lammy, however, is said to be blocking the move, anxious not to ruffle feathers in Beijing. The decision now sits with the Prime Minister, who continues to dither. For Starmer the choice should be clear. Failure to sail the HMS Richmond through the Taiwan Strait would be a major surrender to Beijing. We have been here before. Despite only a fraction of the Strait falling within China's territorial waters, Beijing claims the right to police all traffic through the passage. When a British frigate last sailed through in 2021, Beijing raged about London's 'evil intentions'. When the patrol vessel HMS Spey did so more recently, China accused Britain of 'causing trouble' and 'undermining peace'. To duck out now would be an admission that Beijing's threats work – and that the Royal Navy takes its orders from junior apparatchiks in China's foreign ministry. Equally damaging is the signal that avoiding the Strait would send to Beijing: that Britain tacitly accepts China's expansionist claims. Britain's stance has always been clear – the Taiwan Strait is international waters, with freedom of navigation for all. This isn't about goading Beijing it's about protecting Britain's prosperity. The Strait is one of the world's vital shipping arteries, a choke-point between Asia and Europe. Chinese control of the Strait would be devastating for global free trade. Failing to uphold this position seems particularly strange for Starmer – for whom international law is supposedly sacrosanct – given how blatantly China's claims flout maritime law. Foreign Office mandarins attempting to block the passage will claim that the HMS Richmond's passage would be seen by China as a provocation. Beijing will certainly say as much. But the alternative is far worse. In recent years Beijing has massively escalated its military pressure on Taiwan: fighter jets cross into its air space almost daily, shadowy vessels have repeatedly cut its undersea cables, and the island is the target of over half of the cyber-attacks in the region. Choosing to step back now sends all the wrong signals to Beijing, and will only encourage it to go further and faster – edging the world closer to a catastrophic Taiwan crisis. Capitulation to Beijing would also seriously undermine Britain's credibility in the region. Ever since the much-trumpeted 'Indo-Pacific tilt' of 2021, London has been at pains to demonstrate that it can still project influence in the region. Longstanding alliances with Australia, and a deepening security partnership with Japan, rest on Britain's ability to stand firm in the face of Chinese threats. Allies would be right to question Britain's commitment to the region if it collapses at the first whiff of diplomatic protest from Beijing. The carrier strike group, meant to reassure allies on Britain's ability to flex its muscle in the region, may as well sail home now if it falls at the first hurdle. Above all, conceding that China enjoys 'special rights' over the Taiwan Strait would not only betray Britain's interests, but also disregard the wishes of Taiwan's 23 million citizens. Even Beijing's most zealous propagandists cannot deny that Taiwan has never been ruled by the People's Republic of China, nor assented to the rule of the Chinese Communist party. Placing the Taiwan Strait within Chinese 'sphere of influence' is exactly the same kind of defeatist logic that justified Western inaction in the face of Russia's invasion of Crimea in 2014 – with devastating consequences. Starmer must learn the lessons of history: peace is secured through strength, not surrender.
