28th October 2026
Councils, the NHS and other public bodies face a difficult choice when rising diesel and energy costs threaten the contractors they depend on. School transport in rural Scotland illustrates the problem.
When fuel prices rise sharply, the effects reach much further than the forecourt. Businesses face higher operating costs, household budgets come under pressure and public bodies can find themselves paying more to deliver services for which budgets were agreed months or even years earlier.
For councils and the NHS, the problem is particularly awkward. Many essential services are delivered by private companies, charities and small local operators working under contracts that specify what they will be paid. If fuel and energy costs rise unexpectedly, the contractor may find that the agreed price no longer covers the cost of doing the job.
The question then becomes a difficult one: should the public body pay more, should the contractor absorb the increase, or should the service be reduced or withdrawn?
School transport provides a clear example
School transport is particularly vulnerable to increases in diesel prices. A coach or minibus operator may have agreed to transport pupils for a fixed annual payment, based on the fuel prices, wages, maintenance costs and other expenses prevailing when the contract was awarded.
If diesel becomes substantially more expensive, the operator's costs rise every time the vehicle leaves the depot. On a long rural route, where buses may travel considerable distances to collect relatively small numbers of pupils, the extra expense can be significant.
In urban areas, operators may have more opportunities to use vehicles on several routes throughout the day. In Caithness and Sutherland, long distances between settlements and schools can make that more difficult.
A small operator may have only a handful of vehicles. It cannot necessarily spread the additional costs across a large fleet or other profitable activities. Nor can it simply increase fares to parents when the council is paying for the contracted service.
The Confederation of Passenger Transport warned in June 2026 that rising diesel costs were putting school transport contracts at risk. Its survey found that 38% of responding operators were likely to have to hand back school transport contracts because of rising costs. This was a warning from surveyed operators, rather than evidence that all those contracts had actually been withdrawn.
The implications are serious. If an operator walks away from a contract, the council may have to find a replacement at short notice, negotiate a higher price or make alternative arrangements. In a rural area with few transport providers, finding another company with the right vehicles and available drivers may be difficult.
The cheapest tender is of little value if the operator cannot afford to complete the contract.
Should councils share the additional costs?
There is evidence that some councils are considering ways to address the problem rather than leaving operators to bear every increase.
Dumfries and Galloway Council considered a fuel-cost risk-sharing arrangement in June 2026. Under the proposed model, transport providers would absorb increases up to 30% above August 2025 fuel-price levels, with the council meeting additional fuel costs above that threshold for specified contracts. The estimated annual cost was £110,000 at the prevailing prices.
This approach recognises that contractors should normally manage ordinary fluctuations in their costs. However, an exceptional increase can undermine the assumptions on which a contract was originally priced.
A risk-sharing arrangement can offer a compromise. The operator remains responsible for routine commercial risks, while the council helps with costs that rise beyond an agreed threshold.
Such arrangements need safeguards. Contractors should provide evidence of their actual fuel expenditure, support should be restricted to eligible contracts, and any payments should reflect genuine additional costs. If fuel prices subsequently fall, the adjustment should be capable of working in reverse.
There is also a question of fairness. A company that submitted an unrealistically low tender should not automatically be rescued at public expense. Equally, a responsible operator should not necessarily be expected to absorb an exceptional and sustained increase that makes an essential service uneconomic.
The NHS and social care face similar pressures
The issue extends well beyond school buses.
Community nurses, health visitors and other NHS staff may need to travel considerable distances to visit patients. When staff use their own vehicles, rising petrol and diesel costs can make those journeys more expensive, particularly if mileage allowances do not keep pace.
The same problem affects care-at-home services. A care worker may spend a substantial part of the working day travelling between clients, especially in rural communities. Higher fuel costs can erode the margin available to a provider that has already agreed prices for delivering care.
These are not simply questions about business profits. If a provider cannot recruit staff, cover travel costs or maintain its services, vulnerable people may struggle to receive the support they need.
Public bodies must also consider the wider network of contractors responsible for building maintenance, waste collection, deliveries, repairs and other services. Fuel is only one part of their costs, but it can be an important one when margins are tight.
Energy contracts present a different problem
Electricity and gas create a related, but different, challenge.
A public body that has agreed a fixed-price energy contract will not normally be able to change the price simply because wholesale energy costs have risen. That is part of the bargain: the contract protects the buyer against sudden increases, but may also prevent it from immediately benefiting when prices fall.
When contracts expire, however, the cost of renewing them can be considerably higher or lower than expected. Councils, hospitals and other public institutions must then find room in their budgets to pay the new price or reduce consumption.
They can improve insulation, invest in more efficient equipment, review heating arrangements and negotiate better purchasing terms where possible. But these measures take time and may require money upfront.
A hospital cannot simply turn off essential equipment, and a school cannot operate safely without adequate heating. There are limits to how much energy consumption can be reduced without affecting services.
The pressure on public budgets
Councils and NHS boards already face competing demands for money. Higher payments to transport providers and other contractors may mean less funding available for other services unless additional resources are provided.
The financial pressure can therefore spread. A council that pays more for school transport may have less available for road repairs or other local services. An NHS board facing higher energy and transport bills may find it harder to accommodate other cost increases.
Yet refusing every request for additional funding carries its own risks. If contractors withdraw, the public body may have to arrange emergency cover, pay more to a replacement provider or accept disruption.
The answer cannot be to renegotiate every contract whenever costs rise. Nor is it sensible to assume that every contract can be delivered at its original price regardless of what happens to fuel and energy markets.
Public bodies need to distinguish between ordinary fluctuations that contractors should manage and exceptional increases that threaten the continuation of essential services.
Why rural Scotland deserves particular attention
For Caithness and Sutherland, these issues have a distinctive importance. Long journeys, scattered settlements and a limited pool of transport operators can make services more expensive to deliver and harder to replace when a contractor withdraws.
A school transport contract that appears affordable on paper may become difficult to sustain if diesel prices rise sharply. A small care provider may have few ways to offset higher travel costs. An alternative supplier based far away may itself need to charge more to cover the additional mileage.
That is why contract management matters. Councils should understand how exposed essential services are to fuel-price changes, identify contracts where a failure would cause serious disruption, and establish clear rules for dealing with exceptional increases before a crisis develops.
Future contracts could include transparent fuel-price adjustment mechanisms, periodic reviews or agreed thresholds for sharing exceptional costs. Tender evaluations should also consider whether the proposed price is realistic for the full contract period, rather than focusing exclusively on the lowest initial bid.
A question of value, not just price
There is a legitimate concern that public money must be spent carefully. Contractors should not expect taxpayers to underwrite every commercial risk, and public bodies cannot promise unlimited additional payments.
But there is an equally important consideration: the cost of a service includes the risk of it failing.
When a school bus does not arrive, a care visit is missed or essential maintenance is delayed, the consequences can extend well beyond the original contract price. In remote communities, there may be no convenient alternative.
The challenge for councils, the NHS and other public bodies is to balance financial discipline with practical reality. Contracts need to allocate risks fairly, recognise exceptional circumstances and provide a sensible route for resolving problems before services are lost.
The cheapest contract is not necessarily the best value for taxpayers. It is the contract that delivers a reliable service, at a reasonable price, for the whole period agreed.