Fleet News

The route to road charging

Matthew Oakley, director at WPI Economics

By Matthew Oakley, director at WPI Economics

Commenting on our recent report into how fiscal policy can support the uptake of cleaner vehicles, Fleet News Editor Stephen Briers summarises his view on the need to move to a system of road charging in the UK.

He says “…bite the bullet now and start an assessment”. I couldn’t agree more.

The report, supported by ClientEarth and researched and published independently by WPI Economics, made a set of recommendations including:

  • The mandation of charging clean air zones in areas in breach of legal NO2 limits; A more visible and attractive VAT rebate scheme for ULEVs to replace the Plugin Car Grant; and
  • The Government starting to develop a new, more resilient, system of motoring taxation to replace the current and rapidly eroding vehicle tax base.

With £170 billion of Fuel Duty alone at risk between now and 2030, it’s no surprise that the latter recommendation is where Stephen focuses his attention.

His main argument is that this new system should not be based solely on emissions – and as we move towards a future of zero tailpipe emission vehicles he is, of course, completely right.

In other work from WPI Economics, we’ve shown how road charging system could be based on a wide range of factors, including distance travelled and vehicle weight, noise pollution, congestion, and style of driving.

We don’t have all the answers, but our argument is that a new road charging system is essential, and it must be flexible enough to reflect all these factors as economic and environmental priorities change over time.

So, if we agree, will it happen? My years in tax strategy at the Treasury make me sceptical. Sights tend to be fixed on ensuring the books balance over the next five years and, more practically, any suggestion of a move to road pricing is a major political headache.

But I think there is a way forward. Political leaders across the country, including Conservative and Labour Metro Mayors, have recently written to Government, highlighting the need to remove the most polluting vehicles from our roads.

Their proposal to bring the 2040 deadline forward to 2030 is welcome but, by ignoring the Exchequer impacts, it only tackles half of the problem.

Instead, the solution could be placed in their hands. Metro Mayors have the political will, as well as a desire for greater independence – so why not make them responsible for designing and testing a new system of road charging?

That’s why our report also suggested a competitive fund for Mayoral Combined Authorities, to support the costs of designing and testing a new road charging scheme.

In a world where Mayors have limited financial powers, if combined with an agreement with the Treasury to share any financial upside, this could be an incredibly attractive proposition.

But this thinking needs to start now. As Universal Credit has shown, designing policy alongside its implementation is fraught – far better to take our time and get it right.

And, importantly, the public case must be made. In short, 2030 (and even 2040) is not that far away and, as Stephen says, road charging is not on central Government’s agenda.

So let’s stop asking them and, instead, provide the platform for Metro Mayors to innovate, create a system that meets the needs of local voters, and deliver a new approach that can be rolled out nationally when fully tested.

Leave a comment for your chance to win £20 of John Lewis vouchers.

Every issue of Fleet News the editor picks his favourite comment from the past two weeks – get involved for your chance to appear in print and win!

Login to comment


  • Peter Roberts - 02/07/2018 19:46

    Not a chance. Road pricing is one of the most intrusive and regressive possible taxes. It relies on tracking every move you make, your speed, location, time and a host of other information related to charging for road use. These roads on which we are driving were built over generations and they are not for the government to tax poorer people off them. We could call road pricing roads for the rich whilst everyone else is forced out of a job or priced out of their car. There is no desire for road pricing and a lot of drivers very much against. Only an out of touch policy adviser would even consider road pricing and fortunately, this policy will lose politicians their seats so it won't happen anytime soon, ULEV zones in cities and harsher emissions tests are a way to reduce emissions, not road pricing. As for the loss of revenue due to ULEV's, the transport network and it's availability for all to use are a great advantage to our overall economy. Recover the lost revenue with a small increase in general taxation or maybe stop spending so much and use the money saved. Overseas aid budget would be a good place to start.

Related content

Compare costs of your company cars

Looking to acquire new vehicles? Check how much they'll cost to run with our Car Running Cost calculator.

What is your BIK car tax liability?

The Fleet News car tax calculator lets you work out tax costs for both employer and employee