Up and down the country local councils increasingly have at their disposal the power to issue civic penalties or otherwise enforce against undesirable behaviours. Chief among these – and by far the most controversial in the eyes of the public – are those levied for traffic violation and parking enforcement. However, there is a perceived democratic deficit in how these surpluses are spent by town halls. To counter this, civic penalties such as parking enforcement should be decided by emerging neighbourhood governance structures, at a stroke realigning local decisionmaking with revenues raised at this most local level.
Parking controls were ‘decriminalised’ in the 1990s when local councils became responsible for parking enforcement. Today, local authorities are estimated to raise over £1.2bn in parking revenues a year. While revenues are initially spent covering the operating costs of parking enforcement, larger or urban local authorities typically generate surpluses. Safeguards were put in place to ringfence surpluses to ensure that excess funds are dedicated to environmental and transport projects. Surpluses are also used to support measures like the Freedom Pass scheme for pensioners or regional transport strategies otherwise funded by the taxpayer.
Yet during this time many local councils became vulnerable to the criticism that they are merely revenue-raising for their own purposes, or ‘lining their own coffers.’ In practice and in print, there has been a challenge against what sometimes seemed to be superfluous, expensive or invasive traffic management programmes installed by councils, from money raised in this way.
Arguably, this has come about because the use of revenue surpluses are either too broadly or ill-defined to be justified in the eyes of the public. Many now see them as an unjust new form of taxation, rather than a deterrent. Perhaps it is now time to reshape this debate in the light of criticisms, and look at how this problem of local democracy can be resolved.
One idea would be to link surplus revenues from civic penalties to Labour’s localist desire to give a boost to community governance. New ward or area forums – often hampered by the lack of viable budgets – should now choose how to distribute penalties literally levied on their very own streets. This would not only help foster greater understanding of these penalties, currently ‘owned’ by town halls, but will also restore a crucial link in the local democratic process.
After funding social goods like the Freedom Pass, ward/area forums or committees and other constituted neighbourhood groups should have a more direct say in how these surpluses are spent on neighourhood environmental projects. Given proper control over a proportion of these fees each year, properly constituted local communities – via public meetings – could themselves decide what the top environmental priorities for local areas are.
Of course, this does not necessarily stop with parking. Today, councils and the police have powers to issue a range of on-the-spot fines for antisocial behaviour or to deter public nuisance caused by issues ranging from noise and flytipping to dog-fouling. These could also be considered in the same way.
This, albeit small, devolution would be a good signal in shifting the balance between communities, councils and the government in this area. It would encourage greater engagement with what are perceived to be unpopular or ‘big brother’ policies, and potentially stimulate greater grassroots democracy.