Scotland’s environmental standards watchdog has called on the Scottish Government to overhaul its engine idling laws, warning that the £20 fixed penalty that has not been updated in more than two decades is failing to deter drivers and is so low it is actually putting councils off enforcing the law.
Environmental Standards Scotland (ESS), the independent body that scrutinises public authorities’ compliance with environmental law, published its Improvement Report this month following an investigation into the effectiveness of the Road Traffic (Vehicle Emissions) (Fixed Penalty) (Scotland) Regulations 2003.
The probe was triggered by a formal representation from an environmental charity, which raised concerns that the existing legal framework was not being properly implemented or enforced. ESS examined the Scottish Government’s statutory guidance to local authorities, how consistently councils were applying their enforcement powers, whether the £20 fine still functioned as a deterrent, and the reliability of data on enforcement activity.
The findings make uncomfortable reading for ministers. ESS concluded that the £20 Fixed Penalty Notice (FPN) – unchanged since the regulations came into force – has been so eroded by inflation that in many cases the administrative cost of issuing one exceeds the value of the fine itself.
Local authorities told ESS the penalty was ‘too low and unlikely to influence driver behaviour’, and compared unfavourably with fines for other environmental offences. By contrast, fly-tipping carries a £500 penalty, littering £80 and pavement parking £100. They write:
‘ESS considers that an enforcement system that is rarely used on the basis of the cost to administer it is structurally flawed and risks defeating the purpose of the statutory regime. Accordingly, ESS maintains its position that Regulation 8(b) should be reviewed with a view to increasing the level of the value of the FPN so that it no longer amounts to an operational barrier to local authorities, and acts as a credible and thus effective deterrent to drivers committing stationary idling offences.’
ESS also found that Scotland’s councils were not recording or reporting enforcement activity in any consistent or comparable way. Despite guidance requiring six-monthly returns to the Scottish Government, no national monitoring has been taking place, leaving ministers unable to assess whether the law is working at all. ESS has announced it will ask local authorities to siupply data on idling offences to address this evidence gap:
‘ESS intends, on a time‑limited basis, to issue a request to all local authorities requiring them to provide annual data on engine idling offences and associated enforcement activity. The exercise is intended to address the current evidence gap and the information gathered will be used by ESS to undertake an assessment of the operation and effectiveness of the 2003 Regulations.’
On a more positive note, ESS welcomed the Scottish Government’s decision to revise its statutory guidance following the investigation. The updated guidance, published in March 2026, removed language describing Fixed Penalty Notices as a measure of ‘last resort’ – wording that had created confusion among enforcement officers and contributed to inconsistent practice across councils.
However, ministers rejected ESS’s recommendation to raise the fine level, arguing that penalties in England remain at £20, that any legislative change would require robust evidence, and that technological advances such as stop-start systems and electric vehicles were already reducing idling emissions. ESS rejected that reasoning, noting that 90 per cent of cars on Scotland’s roads in 2024 were still petrol or diesel.
ESS has now formally laid its Improvement Report before the Scottish Parliament. Under the terms of the Continuity Act, Scottish Ministers are legally required to respond with an Improvement Plan setting out how they intend to act on the watchdog’s recommendations.
Mark Roberts, Chief Executive of ESS said: ‘Part of our job is to ensure environmental laws are effective and deliver their intended outcomes.
‘Our work has concluded that the current legal framework intended to tackle engine idling – an avoidable source of air pollution – may not be acting as a strong enough deterrent.
‘By laying this Improvement Report in the Scottish Parliament, we are requiring Scottish Ministers to set out clearly how they will ensure the law here works as intended and helps to reduce harmful emissions.’
Leave a Reply