The PRA has welcomed the government’s commitment to transparency after it vowed to introduce a statutory open-data scheme for fuel prices, requiring retailers to share real-time pricing information.
The government decision came after it was recommended in a report into the road fuel market by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA).
Gordon Balmer, executive director of the PRA, said: “The Petrol Retailers Association welcomes the government’s commitment to transparency and will support any sensible steps taken to help motorists find the best deal available to them.
“We will continue to engage with officials to ensure that this scheme is rolled out efficiently. The logistics surrounding fuel pricing are complicated and it is vital that the government consult with industry to ensure a smooth implementation.
“Independent forecourts represented by the PRA comprise 65% of the fuel network, with the CMA report noting an increase in the extent to which individual non-supermarket retailers are pricing more cheaply than the supermarket national average price. These smaller, independent forecourts operate as a crucial part of local communities, often knowing customers personally.
“If motorists want to compare fuel prices online before the government’s scheme is rolled out, I would recommend checking pre-existing market alternatives, such as petrolprices.com.”
He added: “We will continue to work with the CMA and provide any evidence they may need concerning their investigation. We are committed to advocate for independent retailers and to ensure fuel market transparency.”
The government has also committed to introducing a body to monitor road fuel prices but Balmer reassured members this would not be the PumpWatch scheme touted by FairFuelUK founder Howard Cox.
Cox has claimed in the press that the CMA report has paved the way for the formation of Pumpwatch.
However his proposed body would have control over prices and margins, while the CMA’s report said: “We considered whether acting to directly control prices would be an effective and proportionate way of addressing the concerns we have in this market. Having considered various ways this could be done, we do not believe it would be feasible to do this in a way that would be likely to improve overall outcomes for consumers at this time, and there would in fact be significant risks of making outcomes worse.”
It added: “The task of setting fair margins for so large a number of PFSs if efforts were made to tailor them based on their specific circumstances would also risk becoming unfeasible.”
