Andy Burnham blasted over latest move – ‘weak, insulting gesture’

Andy Burnham announced the ‘game changer’ policy this week (Image: Getty)

Prime Minister Andy Burnham is facing criticism over the Government’s response to soaring fuel prices, after a new digital feature allowing motorists to compare petrol and diesel prices on Google Maps was condemned by campaigners as an inadequate response to the cost-of-living crisis.

The initiative, introduced on Thursday, October 8, allows drivers across the UK to check near-real-time fuel prices at nearby petrol stations before deciding where to fill up. Ministers have described the change as a practical way to help households save money, with Government estimates suggesting that households with a car could save an average of around £40 a year by comparing prices.

But Howard Cox, founder of the motorists’ campaign group FairFuelUK, dismissed the announcement as a “weak gesture”, arguing that drivers need more substantial financial relief rather than another digital tool.

His criticism comes amid a period of exceptionally high fuel costs. Diesel prices approached or exceeded £2 per litre in early October, putting additional pressure on households, businesses and people who depend on their vehicles for work.

The dispute has become another test of the Government’s approach to household affordability, with ministers defending greater price transparency while critics demand action on taxation and the underlying cost of fuel.

FairFuelUK attacks the Government’s response

Cox argued that the Google Maps update does little to address the reasons motorists are paying more at the pump.

“This is tinkering at the edges,” he said, criticising what he sees as a lack of direct support for drivers. He also argued that the UK’s fuel-tax system leaves motorists carrying too much of the burden when international events push prices higher.

According to Cox, governments in other countries have introduced measures such as fuel-duty reductions, VAT cuts or direct financial support to ease pressure on motorists. He believes Britain should consider comparable action rather than relying on consumers to search for cheaper petrol stations.

Cox also argued that fuel duty and VAT account for a substantial proportion of the price drivers pay, leaving the Government with domestic policy options even when global markets are volatile.

His criticism reflects a longstanding argument between motorists’ organisations and successive governments over whether fuel taxes should be reduced during periods of exceptional price increases.

For campaigners, a digital comparison tool can only help drivers find the cheapest available option. It cannot guarantee that the cheapest price will be affordable, nor does it directly reduce the amount charged at every forecourt.

Howard Cox said the announcement as an ‘insulting’ show of support for drivers (Image: Getty)

The Government’s position is that greater transparency can help consumers make better-informed choices and encourage competition between retailers. Whether that produces substantial savings will depend on how widely drivers use the information, how retailers respond and the differences between local fuel prices.

Diesel prices put pressure on households

The controversy follows a sharp increase in diesel prices during early October. The RAC reported that diesel had reached a record 199.18p per litre on the Monday cited in the original report, surpassing the previous peak recorded following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022.

Subsequent reports showed average diesel prices briefly exceeding £2 per litre before easing back. The Guardian reported on October 9 that prices had fallen below that threshold as oil markets reacted to changing expectations about the conflict in the Middle East and the resumption of Chinese fuel exports.

Even a modest reduction can make a difference when a household needs to fill a large tank. At around £2 per litre, buying 55 litres of diesel costs approximately £110. For drivers who fill up frequently, the cumulative expense can quickly become a significant monthly bill.

The pressure extends beyond private motorists. Tradespeople, delivery drivers, taxi operators, farmers and transport companies depend on fuel to carry out their work. When diesel becomes more expensive, businesses may face higher operating costs and eventually pass some of those increases on to customers.

Coach and haulage operators have also warned that sustained high diesel prices could threaten the viability of some services, including school transport routes. The Guardian reported on October 5 that transport businesses were seeking Government assistance as fuel costs squeezed already tight margins.

That broader impact explains why the debate is about more than the price of filling a family car. Fuel is an input cost throughout the economy, affecting the movement of goods and the delivery of services.

Burnham defends the Google Maps initiative

The conflicts between Russia and Ukraine and in the Middle East have driven up fuel prices (Image: Getty)

Announcing the change, Burnham acknowledged that rising fuel prices were worrying households and said the Government could still take practical steps to help.

He explained that drivers would be able to search for nearby petrol stations, compare prices and identify cheaper places to refuel before setting off.

The Government’s launch announcement said near-real-time petrol and diesel prices would appear on Google Maps for the first time in the UK. The system draws on information from the Government’s Fuel Finder scheme, which requires participating fuel retailers to report price changes. The Government says the scheme now covers 99% of fuel sold on UK roads.

The policy is intended to make comparison easier. Instead of relying on signs beside the road or visiting multiple forecourts, drivers can check prices digitally and decide whether a detour to a cheaper station is worthwhile.

Ministers argue that this information could strengthen competition by making it easier for consumers to identify retailers charging less. If drivers can quickly compare prices, stations may have a greater incentive to offer competitive deals rather than relying on customers to purchase fuel without checking alternatives.

Polly Billington, the minister for energy consumers, described the feature as a “game changer”, arguing that it would help drivers find better deals. The AA also welcomed the move, although the extent of any savings will depend on local market conditions and whether price differences are large enough to justify travelling further.

The Government’s estimate of around £40 in annual savings is an average projection, not a guaranteed payment or saving for every household. Some motorists may benefit more than others, while drivers in areas with few competing stations may have limited alternatives.

Why international conflicts matter

The Government has pointed to international developments as a major factor behind the rise in fuel costs.

Oil prices and refined-fuel markets are sensitive to conflict, shipping disruption, sanctions and changes in supply. When refineries or export routes are disrupted, buyers may need to source fuel from alternative suppliers, increasing competition for available supplies.

The war between Russia and Ukraine has continued to affect energy markets. The original report cited attacks on Russian oil refineries as a factor reducing Russian diesel exports and increasing demand for supplies from other exporting countries.

Developments in the Middle East have added further uncertainty. Disruption around the Strait of Hormuz is particularly significant because the route is important to international energy trade. Any threat to shipping through the area can influence oil prices well beyond the region itself.

However, the relationship between geopolitical events and pump prices is not always immediate or straightforward. Retail prices reflect wholesale fuel costs, distribution, retailer margins, taxes and the timing of purchases made by suppliers.

On October 9, oil prices eased after Donald Trump said there would be no military strikes against Iran ahead of the US midterm elections, while China resumed fuel exports following a pause during its Golden Week holiday. These developments helped reduce some concerns about supply, although prices remained elevated compared with earlier periods.

The international situation therefore offers some context for the Government’s argument that it cannot fully control the price drivers face. Critics respond that global pressures do not remove the Government’s ability to alter domestic taxes or introduce temporary support.

Fuel duty remains at the heart of the argument

Fuel duty has become a central point of disagreement between the Government and motorists’ campaigners.

The temporary 5p-per-litre reduction was originally introduced in March 2022, when fuel prices surged following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. The Government subsequently extended the measure several times.

In May 2026, the Government confirmed that the 5p reduction would remain in place until December 31, 2026. Under the published policy, the future path of fuel duty was due to be reviewed at the 2026 Budget, with the rates potentially moving back towards their pre-2022 levels during 2027.

That timetable has become increasingly relevant as pump prices rise again. If fuel costs remain high when the temporary reduction expires, motorists could face pressure from both market prices and changes in taxation.

Campaigners such as Cox want the Government to consider further reductions or other measures that would provide direct relief. Their argument is that consumers should not be expected to absorb the full impact of global disruptions while continuing to pay substantial taxes on essential transport fuel.

The Government must also consider the public finances. Fuel duty generates revenue used to support public spending, and reducing it would have a fiscal cost. Ministers would need to decide whether any additional relief was affordable, how long it should last and whether it would provide better value than support targeted at lower-income households or particularly affected industries.

The debate is therefore not simply about whether fuel taxes can be cut. It is also about who should receive support, how it should be funded and whether a temporary measure would reduce costs enough to justify its impact on Government revenue.

AA welcomes greater price transparency

Not everyone has dismissed the Google Maps update.

Edmund King, president of the AA, described the initiative as a major step forward because it gives drivers easier access to information about fuel prices.

He argued that making prices more visible could encourage competition and help motorists identify retailers offering lower prices. In areas where stations charge different amounts for the same fuel, consumers may be able to make meaningful savings by choosing where to fill up.

The potential benefits depend on the quality and timeliness of the data. The Government says Fuel Finder provides near-real-time information, but consumers will still need to consider whether a listed price is current, whether the station has fuel available and whether travelling to a cheaper forecourt is worthwhile.

The scheme also cannot eliminate regional differences in fuel prices. Retailers face different property costs, operating expenses and levels of local competition. A station with limited competition may have less incentive to lower prices than one located near several rival forecourts.

Greater transparency can nevertheless give consumers more information when choosing where to buy fuel. The key question is whether that information leads to sustained reductions in prices or primarily helps motorists navigate differences that already exist.

A political challenge over the cost of living

The dispute places Burnham’s Government under pressure to show that its response to rising household costs goes beyond digital initiatives.

For motorists who depend on their cars to reach work, take children to school or care for relatives, the immediate concern is the total cost of transport. A comparison feature may help them make better choices, but it does not directly address the amount they must spend if all nearby stations are expensive.

At the same time, reducing fuel duty would not necessarily guarantee that the full reduction reached consumers. The eventual effect would depend on how retailers adjusted their prices and how wholesale costs evolved.

The Government’s policy is therefore one part of a wider response: improving price information, monitoring supply and deciding whether further fiscal intervention is justified. Campaigners are demanding that ministers place greater emphasis on direct financial relief.

As the temporary fuel-duty reduction approaches its scheduled end-of-year deadline, the issue is likely to remain a focus for motorists and businesses. The next Budget will be important in determining the future tax treatment of petrol and diesel, while global energy developments will continue to influence wholesale costs.

Burnham’s Google Maps initiative may make it easier to find cheaper fuel, but it cannot settle the broader argument over taxation and affordability. For the Government, the challenge is to demonstrate that better information can deliver practical benefits while deciding whether additional measures are needed. For critics such as Cox, the test is whether motorists see a meaningful reduction in the cost of keeping their vehicles on the road.

The debate ultimately reflects a familiar dilemma in economic policy: how to help households cope with international price shocks while balancing tax revenue, public spending and the limits of Government control over global markets.