Chancellor Should Cut Electric Car Subsidy and cap VED for ULEZ compliant vehicles in Budget

The average driver doing 8,000 miles in a new 40mpg hatchback pays around £900 per annum in fuel tax and VED. Drivers of older cars can pay double this amount. Drivers of electric cars not only pay nothing whatsoever to use the roads, they also receive a gift of £4,000 from the taxpayer when they purchase their new electric car.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries explains:

“The ABD has no gripe about encouraging the use of electric cars. They do move the pollution source out of town, although new cars are extremely clean. However, electric cars still cause just as much congestion and wear to the roads as any other car. It is simply unjust when so many are struggling financially to give electric car drivers subsidies and free road use. We would like to see VED of £500 on new electric cars, £100 on existing electric cars and an end to the cash subsidy. This would still mean electric car owners would pay significantly less than other drivers but would pay some contribution to infrastructure costs.”

The new London Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) sets a minimum standard of Euro 4 compliance for petrol cars and Euro 6 for diesels. As recent budgets have seen a welcome move away from CO₂ and towards NOx taxation, it seems at odds that many ULEZ compliant cars are paying over £300 1 and in some cases £520 VED 2 when they are deemed clean enough for city centres even by the London Mayor’s standards.

ABD spokesman Nigel Humphries said:

The ABD calls for a cap on VED at £200 for all existing vehicles that comply with ULEZ standards. Scrapping the strange anomaly because of which, cars with low NOx emissions are paying very high VED rates, would help drivers of clean older cars who are overpaying for no valid reason.”


1. 2008 Ford mondeo 2.5 £305 VED ULEZ Compliant
2. 2008 Vauxhall Vectra 2.8 £520 VED ULEZ Compliant

14 thoughts on “Chancellor Should Cut Electric Car Subsidy and cap VED for ULEZ compliant vehicles in Budget”

  1. What most behind this sort of story fail to accept is that electric car drivers also live out normal lives in this country and therefore pay into the government and economy like everyone else, they’re not using the roads for free, electric cars are getting greener and cleaner all the time as reliance on fossil fuel for electricity drops.
    Petrol and diesel is not getting cleaner, and never will.
    All cars will be electric in the future, stop trying to fight them.

    1. Exactly this. I do wonder who funds this type of sensationalist rubbish. General taxation pays for roads, VED is almost totally irrelevant!

  2. VED is based on emissions and follows the polluter pays principal.

    As electric cars are zero emission, they do not have VED levied against them.

    That’s good and the correct way to encourage cleaner vehicles. Suggesting the cleanest cars pay more than the polluter is a stupid suggestion.

  3. Of course there needs to be an incentive there for some one who switcbes to EV.And as for VED well of course it should be 0 it is an incentive to switch.

  4. This makes no sense.

    VED is based on emissions. Electric cars create no emissions therefore have a VED of zero. That makes sense.

  5. I think EV drivers know that in the future they will be paying into the road tax system just like everyone else. However EVs are in their infancy still, so need subsidies to help and bring the technology into the mainstream, further development and bring the cost of owning them down more.

    To try and introduce heavy tax to this new technology is not the answer. It will dissuade people from buying Evs and further the pollution problems they are trying to change? We need to get polluting cars out of our cities, this is not a EV movement, but a government realisation that we have a problem. We should be doing everything we can to achieve this.

    Unless of course you are like the oil industry, willing able and capable of poisoning everybody in order to make huge profits? We are talking 3 Trillion US dollars a year!!!!!

  6. No, the Chancellor should not. Petrol and diesel powered cars continue to have massive subsidies for oil extraction (including armed forces protection). It will take decades for EVs to receive anything like this level of subsidy. And in London specifically, “extremely clean” would not be good enough even if it were an accurate description of modern ICE cars, which it’s not. Pollution levels kill thousands a year.

  7. This is really ill informed. ULEZ is NOT a ‘standard’, just an absolute minimum emissions level for access to London. It does not improve the future air quality significantly due to the allowance of older emissions standards vehicles. ULEZ has no significance outside the London area referenced. Only ULEV vehicles should be promoted.

  8. What a bizarre statement. “Drivers of electric vehicles…pay nothing to use the roads”. Yes, they do. Road maintenance is funded from general taxation. “Car tax” was abolished almost a century ago! This makes a nonsense of the rest of your proposition about making some contribution to infrastructure. As for your assertion that new cars are “extremely clean”, well, from the VW scandal onwards there have been myriad reports showing that real world pollution is far worse than manufacturers claim.

  9. “The ABD has no gripe about encouraging the use of electric cars”. “It is simply unjust… to give electric car drivers subsidies and free road use.” How would you encourage them then, give out free jelly babies?

  10. Anyone who has driven an electric car knows they’re better than petrol or diesel cars. Air pollution from them kills tens of thousands and costs the UK economy billions. The sooner they’re banned the better.

Leave a Reply to Julian Davies Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *