Substantial cycle to work scheme variation is holding back take up

By Laura Laker

Freedom of Information requests (FOIs) show substantial variation in Cycle to Work (C2W) provision in UK universities, potentially leaving disabled staff, those with children, or in need of electric cycles, locked out of buying one.

Of 165 universities contacted earlier this year, 140 provided information about their Cycle to Work schemes provision. Three (Leeds Arts University, University College of Osteopathy, Writtle University College) say they offer no scheme at all. Of the 137 that do, there is a wide variety in the maximum purchase value, from just £1,000 to £15,000.

While the FOI reveals UK universities have a relatively high rate of C2W provision, eleven feature limits of £1,000 or below, with a further six capped at £1,500, potentially restricting staff access to electric cycles, adapted cycles or cargo cycles.

Chris Hilliard, sales manager at The Electric Bike Shop in Cheshire, said his FOI was motivated by what he calls the “inequality, opacity and fragmentation” of Cycle to Work schemes, as he observed it.

Prior to 2019, the salary sacrifice C2W scheme was effectively limited to £1,000, when government clarified the rules. Hilliard said: “I filed the requests because I wanted to look at this on a national level, while also taking the opportunity to look at how COVID and the raised cycle to work limits have affected our industry over the past five years.”

“We can see, even at local universities there’s a wide disparity in what opportunities staff have to take up a cycle to work scheme. In Leeds, there are three universities out of four that offer a Cycle to Work scheme, with one offering Halfords as the scheme provider and two using Cyclescheme. That drives staff to specific retailers, and limits choice and options.”

Cyclescheme is responsible for 66 of the responding universities’ Cycle to Work schemes (47%), and Halfords 36 (25%). Two thirds of Halfords’ universities’ schemes are capped at £2,500 or less, and a third of Cyclescheme’s. A Cyclescheme spokesperson said while it offers an upper limit of £10,000 to customers, and actively promotes the benefits of higher limits, the cap was ultimately employers’ decision.

The Green Commute Initiative’s Joanna Flint added that while most UK universities used, “traditional scheme providers who were slower to adopt the plus £1,000 scheme model that GCI pioneered”, more are now coming on board with a wider range of providers, thanks in part to more flexible procurement rules in the public sector. It is possible, Flint adds, to increase any cap on a case-by-case basis for individual employees, under GCI’s scheme.

Flint said: “Employers’ decisions will be influenced by past experience with the scheme, ease of procurement, staff turnover, their approach to sustainability, the bottom line and how risk adverse they are. Employers can be jittery about recouping all the money back from the employee and with high staff turnover are particularly mindful of this. Of course, demand for cycling to work will only increase as when cyclists feel safer using the road – infrastructure is key!”

The University of Westminster’s Professor Rachel Aldred said: “The Cycle to Work scheme helps support purchase of a bike and accessories but is often unavailable to those who may need it most, like those not in work or low paid employees. Even where it is offered, there is substantial variation in the amount provided by employers.”

She noted Westminster was one of four London universities – a city with relatively high cycling levels and infrastructure – were among the 11 with a £1,000 cap. Professor Aldred, a leading academic on active travel, also says the scheme needs extending beyond traditional employment structures.

She added: “I hope these employers will reconsider the limited amount provided, especially taking into account those with children, with mobility needs, or who are otherwise in need of a non-standard cycle. More generally, there is a clear need for more equitable schemes that are not dependent on an individual being in work and having a participating employer and an eligible contract.”