£20notes-thickpile

‘NEW LABOUR, NEW DANGER’?

THE THREAT OF ROAD PRICING

Don’t let the government tax you off the road

The Starmer government suddenly ‘discovered’ a £20 billion gap in public finances, which they have already widened by another £3 bn.

Fuel duty revenue is set to reduce with the move to Electric Vehicles – something that the government is actively inflicting upon itself! One estimate is for further loss of £9 bn revenue between 2024 and 2030, although drivers are not exactly enthusiastic about buying electric-only vehicles (BEVs).

Commentators ask if there will be a temptation to make up the shortfall through charging drivers for road use – ‘pay per mile’? Particularly if it is talked up in holy-holy language such as ‘saving the planet’ or ‘reducing congestion’?

GENERAL BACKGROUND AND INTRODUCTION …

· Labour did not include road pricing in its (deliberately) bland 2024 General Election manifesto. There are hints through other policies, such as accelerating the move to Net Zero emissions.

· Sir Keir Starmer is keen on seeing powers devolved from central government. Deputy PM Angela Rayner has been tasked with devolving power to regional mayors and town halls

· The Welsh Government has shown interest in road pricing, as have the Mayors of London and the West Midlands (WMCA). The former WMCA Mayor – then a Tory, but working with local councils - favoured national road pricing that would even out local impact. Ironically it was opposed by a local Labour MP, who warned of the cost to residents who can't afford it.

· Opinion polls have repeatedly shown that the public is against road pricing. Public responses to a recent GLA Transport Committee consultation were heavily against, with marked concerns on privacy as well as cost.

· The driving public is already taxed several times over for using the roads. The figures aren’t an exact science, but UK-wide drivers pay a ballpark £50 bn a year in motoring taxes and about £10 bn a year is spent back on roads, not always on things that benefit drivers.

LABOUR MANIFESTO AND OTHER INFLUENCES …

Labour’s manifesto admitted that “Cars remain by far the most popular form of transport”, but only really mentioned these wider motoring policies

· Tackle the soaring cost of car insurance.

· Maintain roads network condition and safety. Tackle congestion,

· Fix an additional 1 million potholes across England each year.

· ‘Modernise transport infrastructure’.

· Defer the A27 bypass.

· Ban the sale of new cars with ICE engines from 2030.

· Accelerate the roll out of charge points for electric vehicles,

· Standardise information on batteries in second hand electric cars for sale.

Transport Secretary Louise Haigh has separately been reported to favour ’acting on the real priorities of drivers”:

· Local discretion over speed limits, road safety, LTNs and noise cameras.

· “Reduce the traffic clogging up our roads”

· Explore options on passing on crude oil price drops as savings to drivers

· Delivering greener transport.

There are a number of reports on the influences driving PM Sir Keir Starmer.

Politico.eu Spectator Financial Times

These include.

· Sir Tony Blair, whose government twice sought to push road pricing (1998, 2006).

· His Institute for Global Change promoted this in ‘Avoiding Gridlock Britain’ (2021). This warned “The roads will stop working if we do not act now” and “we will miss our ambitious climate targets”. The Institute is already furnishing the new government with both policy ideas and key staff

· The World Economic Forum – “people who you can see working with in the future”.

· In 2021, the World Economic Forum published ‘How Road Pricing Can Support EU’s Green Deal’

ONES TO WATCH?

· Haigh’s ministers at Department for Transport include Local Transport Minister Simon Lightwood MP. His responsibilities include active travel, modal shift, local transport decarbonisation, regions and devolution, the department’s relationship with London, including Transport for London (TfL).

· The Future of Roads Minister, Lilian Greenwood MP, is responsible for local roads and roads maintenance; strategic roads, including: National Highways, Road Investment Strategy (RIS), infrastructure planning and delivery. Her brief also includes haulage and future of freight, road vehicle decarbonisation, environment strategy, local roads and roads maintenance, traffic and technology - all areas particularly relevant to charging.

· Greenwood, who previously chaired the Commons Transport Committee, urged a discussion of national road pricing.

“We cannot ignore the looming fiscal black hole. We need to ask how we will pay for roads in the future". She sought a wider debate about the use of road space, carbon emissions, prioritising active travel and modal shift (getting cars off the road).

· Haigh’s deputy Lord (Peter) Hendy, is formerly of Transport for London. He will be busy with rail matters, but it is interesting to note an answer he gave to the London Assembly in 2006.

“Trials of tag and beacon technology, being carried out by TfL in the London Borough of Southwark, suggest that a scheme with high levels of accuracy could be deployed in London, enabling the development of more flexible charging policies. Tag and beacon could be introduced to the central London congestion charging zone after the operating contracts are re-let in 2009/10.”

He added that TfL is also investigating mobile positioning (satellite) technologies for charging in London, and believes that it might be feasible short to medium term. (That was in 2006; it is now fully in use in Singapore).

THE DANGER TO YOUR FREEDOM, YOUR PRIVACY, YOUR WALLET….

The technology is there and so is the temptation. Treasury official piled pressure on the previous government to start work on a pay-per-mile scheme.

A number of articles have been seen trying to soften the public up (e.g. on GB News). However the public backlash seen in 2006-7 nationally (and locally in Greater Manchester and Edinburgh) shows that road pricing is NOT inevitable.

There is a well-worn claim that road pricing would be ‘revenue neutral’ i.e. it would cost drivers no more than at present. This ignores the substantial start-up and administration costs, which would have to be paid for on top of the government’s take. Fuel price campaigner Howard Cox warned that a scheme would be impossible to control, with costs potentially ‘off the scale’.

There has been substantial pressure from the ‘green’ lobby to meet hyped artificial ‘carbon rationing’ targets. (Evidence given to Parliament):

Research carried out by the Tyndall Centre found that even if all new cars were ULEVs

[Ultra Low Emission Vehicles, typically Electric Vehicles] by 2035, a 58% reduction in car mileage between 2016 and 2035 would be required to meet its recommended carbon budget for the UK.

Charging us for driving (at least non-electric vehicles) off the road by would be a sledgehammer means of ‘reducing traffic’, ‘tackling congestion’ or achieving ‘modal shift’, but it could be spun as a keeping a manifesto promise. Using its pledge on insurance costs as a Trojan horse, Labour could insist on black boxes being fitted to vehicles. Some insurance companies potentially offer discounts to those having telematics fitted, allowing all journeys to be monitored. However if all journeys could be monitored, they could also be taxed.

Successive governments have also promoted the growth of communications technology such as satellites, roadside 5G and wireless networks, ‘smart cities’ and ‘the internet of things’.