Fuel duty

[HSTEd]

Successive governments' failure to increase fuel duty over many years and the almost-total absence of toll booths on motorways amount to a massive hidden subsidy to the UK's road haulage industry. If hauliers had to pay the true costs of road maintenance, accidents, policing and pollution they would have to raise their rates to such a level that rail freght could once again compete on flows in less-than-trainload volumes.

It is not at all clear that there is an any such large scale subsidy.

Fuel duty on HGVs, VAT on fuel duty along with other associated taxes raises many billions a year.
The strategic road network only costs ~£5.5bn a year, and those roads carry a large fraction of road haulage traffic (as well as a large fraction of other traffic).

EDIT:

HGV fuel use through the UK supply chain is around 6 million tonnes per annum in the UK. That's around 7.2 billion litres. So fuel duties alone on HGV fuel earns around £3.83bn.

Just adding the VAT on the fuel duty would get you to £4.6bn.
Add vehicle excise on HGVs (no good stats) and £200m from the levy on foreign HGVs and the tax take is pretty large considering.

 

[Magdalia]

You're falling into the trap set by the roads lobby, which most politicians and reporters subscribe to.

No I'm not falling into any traps set by any lobbies.

I am looking at it from a macro-economic policy perspective, increasing fuel duty is inflationary. CPI inflation is currently 3.8%, way ahead of the Bank of England's 2% target. Increasing fuel duty would push inflation further away from target, and reduces the Bank's opportunities to reduce interest rates. Much of any revenue raised would be lost because of higher debt interest and benefit payments resulting from the bigger increases to the relevant price indices.

The Treasury will be thinking about those issues, any transport policy implications are not going to overcome that macro-economic reality..

If fuel for road transport is that big a factor in the cost of producing goods then that says that the logistics behind it are poor. If this incentives people to buy products that are made locally and not shipped around, if it discourages people from having everything delivered to their front door by a diesel van, then that is all to the good. The mileage that delivery vans cover collectively is insane, compare it to just 10 years ago – we don't need that level of convenience, if we want it then we have to be prepared to pay for it.

Products made locally are almost entirely moved around by road.

Whatever the distance, goods have to make the journey from the distribution centre to the home and the final part will mostly be by road. Vans delivering from a small number of distribution centres to lots of homes is more efficient than lots of cars doing out and back journeys between homes and retail outlets, each of which also has to be served by a distribution network.

 

[ainsworth74]

Do you have a car? Are you volunteering to pay more in tax or are you merely demanding that other people pay more?

I have car (a petrol one to be clear so I would be effected, no EV cop out here! ) and I absolutely think that the "temporary" 5p cut should be reversed ASAP and then a further couple of pence added on. That fuel duty has been frozen since 2010 is absolutely crackers particularly at the same time as bus transport has been cut to the bone (outside of London) rail transport has been subject to fares increases well above inflation. We've made it cheaper to drive at the same time as we're making it harder/more expensive (even bus fares were rising until we introduce the £2/3 bus fare cap) to use public transport. Ditch the 5p cut and add a couple of pence onto fuel duty in the following couple of years and be done with it.

 

[Llanigraham]

No. Getting to places for work is an essential, or for medical reasons or shopping etc. Getting to places for leisure purposes less so, but still important for many. However, getting there in cars which have a host of extra features is not essential, it's a luxury of modern times and privileges.
If people want to spend their money on these things then they forfeit their right to complain about fuel prices. Perhaps only those who run basic and/or older cars should be complaining about fuel prices?

It may be a luxury to you, since I suspect you live in an area with adequate public transport, but there is a huge population outside the urban areas that have little to no public transport, so a car is not a luxury.

In particular, anyone who drives an SUV or similarly outsized vehicle at 80+ on the motorway has absolutely forfeited the right to complain.

You do realise that for many places in the UK there are no motorways?

You're falling into the trap set by the roads lobby, which most politicians and reporters subscribe to. The system needs changing so that driving becomes just a bit less taken for granted by most people
Yes of course cars should be available to everyone, but in practice it's an abused privilege for many reasons. Start by using fuel duty to subsidise essential freight. The whole process needs a re-think, what it doesn't need is people being quite so subservient to their cars and finding every excuse under the sun to use them. Pandering to cars to the excessive extent that we do is quite a weakness.

And those comments support my comments above that you are only thinking of an urban situation and ignoring the huge poplualtion that lives in a rural setting.

 

[Shrop]

Successive governments' failure to increase fuel duty over many years and the almost-total absence of toll booths on motorways amount to a massive hidden subsidy to the UK's road haulage industry. If hauliers had to pay the true costs of road maintenance, accidents, policing and pollution they would have to raise their rates to such a level that rail freght could once again compete on flows in less-than-trainload volumes.

Yes, we should be mindful that of all damage that happens to roads, HGVs cause almost all of it, not cars. Cars (and vans) cause immense levels of congestion and pollution rather than road damage. BOTH these forms of road transport make legitimate targets for raising huge funds for Government use. Some of which could go into rail transport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==

Just look at what happened to a much stronger Labour government in 2000, and how they were forced to back down.

Failure to provide justification for fuel prices, that's all. It's not hard with good reasoning.

 

[35B]

Failure to provide justification for fuel prices, that's all. It's not hard with good reasoning.

Hmmm, that's not how I remember the politics of the time. And certainly not how I imagine them playing out today.

 

[The Foghorn]

If you drag freight up Shap with greener electric traction you pay Climate Change Levy which has been increased dramatically in recent years, whereas diesel lorries grinding up the M6 have had fuel duty repressed in recent years. Where's the incentive to do the right thing?

 

[stevieinselby]

You do realise that for many places in the UK there are no motorways?

And?

 

[Mgameing123]

I do have a car and I'd be totally willing to pay more for my fuel so long as everyone else also has to. The benefits it could and should bring to other parts of our economy, along with other sacrifices that would no longer be necessary, would be completely worth it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==


Absolutely. I only wish more people were willing to think this through properly!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 31 Oct 2025 ==


You're falling into the trap set by the roads lobby, which most politicians and reporters subscribe to. The system needs changing so that driving becomes just a bit less taken for granted by most people
Yes of course cars should be available to everyone, but in practice it's an abused privilege for many reasons. Start by using fuel duty to subsidise essential freight. The whole process needs a re-think, what it doesn't need is people being quite so subservient to their cars and finding every excuse under the sun to use them. Pandering to cars to the excessive extent that we do is quite a weakness.

If we really wanted to increase fuel duty then we need to give companies an exemption in order to prevent further inflation.

 

[Bald Rick]

And the comparison with the US?

I think comparing oursleves to the US on almost any matter is something that should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the state with the most expensive fuel duties (California) has lower duty than the european country with the lowest duties (Malta).

 

[JamesT]

If we're doing comparisons, https://www.rac.co.uk/drive/travel/advice/european-fuel-prices-petrol-and-diesel-prices-in-europe/ may be useful?
After tax, the UK is 10th most expensive for petrol out of 28, and 4th most for diesel.

 

[35B]

I think comparing oursleves to the US on almost any matter is something that should be avoided.

Nevertheless, the state with the most expensive fuel duties (California) has lower duty than the european country with the lowest duties (Malta).

The comparison is noted. And you just know that when it gets into the political sphere, it will be the comparison that gets made.

If we really wanted to increase fuel duty then we need to give companies an exemption in order to prevent further inflation.

Hey? The inflationary effect will also be on private vehicles, and that is also where it will be immediately felt.

 

[61653 HTAFC]

If fuel for road transport is that big a factor in the cost of producing goods then that says that the logistics behind it are poor. If this incentives people to buy products that are made locally and not shipped around, if it discourages people from having everything delivered to their front door by a diesel van, then that is all to the good. The mileage that delivery vans cover collectively is insane, compare it to just 10 years ago – we don't need that level of convenience, if we want it then we have to be prepared to pay for it.

It's all well and good to think about buying locally produced products but if it's a product produced locally but sold nationwide, bought from one of the big four supermarkets, there's a catch.
For example I could visit the large supermarket right next door to my home, and buy a pack of biscuits made in a factory about 0.5km away in the opposite direction... but that packet of biscuits will have been shipped to the supermarket operator's large regional distribution centre around 40 miles away when it left the factory, and then shipped back to be put on the shelf.

With enough political will we could go back to a system where there were no big nationwide producers of things liked baked goods, and everything is done by a handful of local bakers in each town with their own small factories and shops, delivered by a rosy-cheeked young lad on a bicycle... but that isn't going to happen.

It's seen as "progressive" to view car use and ownership as a luxury, and therefore to view a tax on motorists as a "progressive tax" but the reality is rather different.

 

[yorksrob]

I suggest you look at what happened when Tony Blair pushed fuel duties. When fuel duties are already at a high level by comparison to other countries, and inflation is already above target, raising costs directly would be extremely courageous.

A couple of bolshie lorry drivers blockading the fuel points. They should have arrested them and confiscated their vehicles.

 

[Farnborough]

As I understand it, just 5p on a litre of petrol could raise around £3bn per year for the UK's beleaguered coffers

5p on just petrol, or 5p on petrol and diesel?

Adding 5p on diesel immediately increases the delivery costs or everything, as most lorries are trucks are diesel... as are many buses, coaches and even some trains.

 

[The exile]

5p on just petrol, or 5p on petrol and diesel?

Adding 5p on diesel immediately increases the delivery costs or everything, as most lorries are trucks are diesel... as are many buses, coaches and even some trains.

PSVs (and trains) pay different duty, don’t they (hence open top tour bus operators pretending to be running a service bus with intermediate fares).

 

[Llanigraham]

It's seen as "progressive" to view car use and ownership as a luxury, and therefore to view a tax on motorists as a "progressive tax" but the reality is rather different.

And invariably by people who live in urban areas with good public transport, and with little to no experiencce of living in a rural setting where there is no such thing.

 

[35B]

A couple of bolshie lorry drivers blockading the fuel points. They should have arrested them and confiscated their vehicles.

It was a little more than that, and highlighted the vulnerability of a concentrated distribution system. It also showed the limits of policing by consent.

 

[yorksrob]

It was a little more than that, and highlighted the vulnerability of a concentrated distribution system. It also showed the limits of policing by consent.

I'm old enough to have been around at the time and noticed that particular group holding the country to ransom.

For all its faults, when people started gluing themselves to trains a few years ago, the Government at the time disentangled them quickly enough.

Tony Blair should have had a bit more backbone and enforced access.

 

[Shrop]

I suggest you look at what happened when Tony Blair pushed fuel duties. When fuel duties are already at a high level by comparison to other countries, and inflation is already above target, raising costs directly would be extremely courageous.

The weakness here lies with politicians, as is so often the case. The EU claims to be promoting sustainability targets, and raising fuel duties helps with this, because so many car journeys are made without thought for the environment.
Governments need to advertise facts about how fuel is wasted, eg that doing 80mph on motorways uses at least 10% more fuel than doing 70mph. But those who drive at 80mph would soon complain if fuel was increased by 10%.
There are many examples of fuel waste, if only Govts would be strong enough to educate their electorates.

 

[Farnborough]

eg that doing 80mph on motorways uses at least 10% more fuel than doing 70mph.

I guess I'd be churlish to point out that driving at 80mph is an offence under the Road Traffic Act...

 

[al78]

Politicians are usually scared of increasing fuel duty in case it risks losing votes, but Labour are already struggling on this front.
As I understand it, just 5p on a litre of petrol could raise around £3bn per year for the UK's beleaguered coffers, and when Labour came to power this was widely expected, but they chose not to do it. So why not now? Of course the Daily Mail etc would vilify them but they do that anyway, so why not use this means of raising money? At least drivers have an element of choice about using fuel, more so than many others who face having money clawed off them ...

Not everyone has a practical choice about whether or not to drive e.g. people who live in areas with very poor public transport, or people with mobility issues.

Motorists can be very entitled and demanding and are a large enough voting block that they are capable of swinging elections if antagonised too much. Look at the outrage when someone is fined for breaking the speed limit, because they are such superb drivers they don't need a number on a stick to tell them what is a safe speed to drive at.

It is arguably better to raise more tax from those who have the ability to pay it with little impact on their ability to live a high quality of life e.g. high earners. Taxing the wealthy so that young working people aren't hammered even more will likely be a vote winner.

 

[slowroad]

My point is, is it really that much of a vote loser compared to other policies which are losing votes? I'm not at all convinced about why a few pence on fuel is perceived as such a vote loser. Yes, of course people love to complain about the price of fuel, but in practice and after some whingeing, most people would still use their cars almost as much if fuel was £2 a litre. Most people happily pay £thousands extra for car capabilities that they never use (eg 4WD in London), it's only the perception that needs addressing. Don't forget, if fuel prices had kept up with inflation over the last 10-15 years, it would already be £

I'm old enough to have been around at the time and noticed that particular group holding the country to ransom.

For all its faults, when people started gluing themselves to trains a few years ago, the Government at the time disentangled them quickly enough.

Tony Blair should have had a bit more backbone and enforced access.

More backbone also needed to deal with restrictive practices in the rail sector.

 

[al78]

There is also the point that higher fuel prices causes inflation because now businesses need to use more money annually on increased fuel costs. It does sound like a good idea but you need to also look the consequences. First we need to see how would this policy affect inflation and the cost of living?

I do think the inflation argument for not increasing fuel duty is overblown. Here are a couple of grocery prices from my local Tesco supermarket:

Tesco organic bunched carrots: £1.80
Tesco Broccoli: £0.82
Tesco cauliflower: £1.19
Tesco wholemeal batch rolls 6 pack: £0.45

These prices have to contribute to the cost of growing the food plus enough for the farmer to live on, the cost of processing, the cost of packaging, the cost of operating the supermarket, the depreciation and maintenance costs of the vehicles used in transporting food from farm to factory, or factory to supermarket, the cost of everyone's salary involved in the farming, processing and selling, the cost of advertising and a contribution to the supermarket's profit. Taking all these contributions into account and noting that the very common items I bought recently came to well under £2 each, how much do you think adding a few pence onto fuel duty, which equates to a few percent at most (likely less than that) increase on the price of a tank of fuel, will the prices of these groceries have to rise in order to compensate for the fuel duty increase?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==

It is not at all clear that there is an any such large scale subsidy.

Fuel duty on HGVs, VAT on fuel duty along with other associated taxes raises many billions a year.
The strategic road network only costs ~£5.5bn a year, and those roads carry a large fraction of road haulage traffic (as well as a large fraction of other traffic).

EDIT:

HGV fuel use through the UK supply chain is around 6 million tonnes per annum in the UK. That's around 7.2 billion litres. So fuel duties alone on HGV fuel earns around £3.83bn.

Just adding the VAT on the fuel duty would get you to £4.6bn.
Add vehicle excise on HGVs (no good stats) and £200m from the levy on foreign HGVs and the tax take is pretty large considering.

How much does treating pollution related health issues and dealing with the aftermath of the tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on the roads each year cost?

I had to laugh when I came across a kind-of outrage article about the rise in deaths due to dog attacks which have been increasing even before the pandemic. The figure quoted was nine deaths a year. British motorists kill that many people every couple of days.

 

[35B]

The weakness here lies with politicians, as is so often the case. The EU claims to be promoting sustainability targets, and raising fuel duties helps with this, because so many car journeys are made without thought for the environment.
Governments need to advertise facts about how fuel is wasted, eg that doing 80mph on motorways uses at least 10% more fuel than doing 70mph. But those who drive at 80mph would soon complain if fuel was increased by 10%.
There are many examples of fuel waste, if only Govts would be strong enough to educate their electorates.

People often choose not to be educated, whether or not that education is on offer. And, as is demonstrated by tobacco, sin taxes breed evasion and crime when they raise the price of a product above what people are willing to pay.

Meanwhile, politicians work for the electorate, not the other way round. They have to make choices about what is acceptable to the electorate, and are taking the view that fuel price rises are beyond the pale.

 

[The Planner]

I do think the inflation argument for not increasing fuel duty is overblown. Here are a couple of grocery prices from my local Tesco supermarket:

Tesco organic bunched carrots: £1.80
Tesco Broccoli: £0.82
Tesco cauliflower: £1.19
Tesco wholemeal batch rolls 6 pack: £0.45

These prices have to contribute to the cost of growing the food plus enough for the farmer to live on, the cost of processing, the cost of packaging, the cost of operating the supermarket, the depreciation and maintenance costs of the vehicles used in transporting food from farm to factory, or factory to supermarket, the cost of everyone's salary involved in the farming, processing and selling, the cost of advertising and a contribution to the supermarket's profit. Taking all these contributions into account and noting that the very common items I bought recently came to well under £2 each, how much do you think adding a few pence onto fuel duty, which equates to a few percent at most (likely less than that) increase on the price of a tank of fuel, will the prices of these groceries have to rise in order to compensate for the fuel duty increase?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==


How much does treating pollution related health issues and dealing with the aftermath of the tens of thousands of deaths and serious injuries on the roads each year cost?

I had to laugh when I came across a kind-of outrage article about the rise in deaths due to dog attacks which have been increasing even before the pandemic. The figure quoted was nine deaths a year. British motorists kill that many people every couple of days.

Do those prices cover it for the providers though, or are Tesco screwing the farmers too considering they made £2billion in profit?

 

[furnessvale]

It is not at all clear that there is an any such large scale subsidy.

Fuel duty on HGVs, VAT on fuel duty along with other associated taxes raises many billions a year.
The strategic road network only costs ~£5.5bn a year, and those roads carry a large fraction of road haulage traffic (as well as a large fraction of other traffic).

EDIT:

HGV fuel use through the UK supply chain is around 6 million tonnes per annum in the UK. That's around 7.2 billion litres. So fuel duties alone on HGV fuel earns around £3.83bn.

Just adding the VAT on the fuel duty would get you to £4.6bn.
Add vehicle excise on HGVs (no good stats) and £200m from the levy on foreign HGVs and the tax take is pretty large considering.

Your calculations demonstrate that HGVs barely cover the cost of provision of the strategic road network, let alone pollution, accidents etc.

The NERA report from around 2000 calculated that even then, HGVs did not cover their costs by some margin. Since then HGV taxation has virtually stagnated, but the cost of road provision has escalated with inflation and improved safety provision.

It is questionable whether VAT should be included in the figures, being a general tax not related to the specifics of the taxed item.

As for VED, a modern 44tonnes artic pays £540pa. A Land Rover Discovery can pay £1360pa.

In 2000, HGV companies and farmers held large scale protests which paralysed the country. This co-incided with the publication of the NERA report. The government of the day panicked and capitulated to the protests. The NERA report was quietly shelved, taxation on HGVs and farmers was reduced and held back ever since.

 

[Brubulus]

I do think we should encourage electrification of road transport. Fuel duty is a useful factor in doing so, but I think the freeze should continue, such that fuel duty will be paid on top of any future road charging regime.

 

[Shrop]

I guess I'd be churlish to point out that driving at 80mph is an offence under the Road Traffic Act...

And your point is??? You will of course be aware that doing 80mph is practised by many thousands, or hundreds of thousands of drivers every single day, with little or no risk of punishment.
The law on this is pretty meaningless, its the enforcement that counts, which of course is rare to non-existent on many roads. Unlike railways - where speeds are always monitored and VERY strongly punished for very little excess I believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==

People often choose not to be educated, whether or not that education is on offer. And, as is demonstrated by tobacco, sin taxes breed evasion and crime when they raise the price of a product above what people are willing to pay.

Meanwhile, politicians work for the electorate, not the other way round. They have to make choices about what is acceptable to the electorate, and are taking the view that fuel price rises are beyond the pale.

Driver education SHOULD be much stronger, and failure to conform to road laws should be punished more harshly. It's all very well having the belief that driving is a right, but this ignores the right of people to go about their business without being injured (or worse) by careless driving.
Driving without due care is the cause of the vast majority of deaths and injuries on our roads, and in the pursuit of safer roads our politicians SHOULD be leading the electorate, not pandering to them.

 

[35B]

And your point is??? You will of course be aware that doing 80mph is practised by many thousands, or hundreds of thousands of drivers every single day, with little or no risk of punishment.
The law on this is pretty meaningless, its the enforcement that counts, which of course is rare to non-existent on many roads. Unlike railways - where speeds are always monitored and VERY strongly punished for very little excess I believe.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Nov 2025 ==


Driver education SHOULD be much stronger, and failure to conform to road laws should be punished more harshly. It's all very well having the belief that driving is a right, but this ignores the right of people to go about their business without being injured (or worse) by careless driving.
Driving without due care is the cause of the vast majority of deaths and injuries on our roads, and in the pursuit of safer roads our politicians SHOULD be leading the electorate, not pandering to them.

Then the definitions of "safer" need to be considered more carefully, and less moralistically.

There's a lot in what you say, but my experience as a driver is that a simplistic focus on speed limits discredits the endeavour. I've lost count of the times I've followed (and, yes, sometimes overtaken) people who have drifted along country roads easily safe for 60mph at 40mph, and then held their pace as they've entered a village with a 30mph or even 20mph restriction. Or of the people who've been driving quite happily at 5mph below the speed limit, then seen a camera and slammed on the brakes, regardless of their speed or anyone around them.

These are drivers, who have been conditioned by simplistic rules and the existing enforcement regime into thinking that their behaviour is "safe", despite demonstrating their inability to use a core skill - that of observation. I drive, and know well where my car is and isn't efficient. I make choices about the efficiency of my driving based on a number of factors - and my fuel bill is only one of them. Meanwhile, just as on the railway, the level of traffic on busy roads means that capacity is scarce and using it inefficiently - driving too fast or too slow - wastes a scarce resource.