Finance (No. 4) Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 7 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Chloe Smith)
To ensure that all hon. Members who wish to do so can speak in this debate, I intend to lay out extremely briefly what clause 189 and schedule 23 do and reprise at the end of the debate.
The clause and schedule make four changes to air passenger duty. First, they set APD rates for 2012-13, which took effect from 1 April this year, as announced in the autumn statement of 2011. Secondly, they extend APD for the first time to business jets and flights taken aboard other small aircraft. Thirdly, they give statutory effect to the reduced rate of APD on all direct long-haul flights from Northern Ireland, which was introduced in November. Fourthly and finally, they introduce the long-term solution of granting the Northern Ireland Assembly the power to set APD rates for all direct long-haul flights in future.
The changes provide certainty to both industry and the consumer. I commend them to the Committee and look forward to a brief debate.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I rise to speak to amendment 8 in my name and those of my colleagues, and I should like to press amendment 61 to a Division.
I am short of time, so I shall keep interventions to a minimum. There has been co-operation among the parties to try to give hon. Members time to speak, and I shall try to keep my part of the bargain.
In fact, I have risen to speak in favour of a Government policy—a well-thought-out policy that would do wonders for the economy. I am speaking, of course, of the devolution of air passenger duty to Northern Ireland. I like that great idea so much that I should like APD devolved to Scotland as well. We want equality of treatment and opportunity for Scotland.
In reality, I and many in Scotland, and the aviation industry, feel that APD is unfair and that it places an undue burden on business and travellers at a time when the Government should be encouraging the movement of people and goods to spur economic growth. The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends therefore propose to halt the rise in APD and devolve the power to Scotland, which is a recommendation not only of the Scottish Government, but of the Calman commission.
The idea of the cut in APD is simple: the UK already has the highest APD in the world, which surely cannot boost economic growth. The industry has had its say. Derek Provan, managing director of Aberdeen airport has said:
“Aberdeen, Edinburgh and Glasgow airports issued a joint letter to the Chancellor ahead of the Budget calling on the UK Government to create a level playing field for the UK aviation industry, which is subject to the highest aviation taxes in the world…The leaders of BA, EasyJet, Ryanair and Virgin Atlantic also jointly warned that the double inflation increase would hit ‘millions of hard working families in the UK.’ They said a family of four flying economy class to Australia would pay £500 in APD, whereas in 2005, they would have paid just £80. BA also recently revealed that it had plans to halve the number of new recruits in 2012 as a result of APD.”
Jim O’Sullivan, managing director of Edinburgh Airport, has said:
“APD is already costing Scotland passengers and having an impact on tourism revenues. We know from discussions with our airline partners that it is a major factor in their decision to connect further routes to Scotland. We would urge the Westminster Government to see Scotland as it does Northern Ireland and understand the need to both reduce and devolve this unfair and damaging tax.”
Sammy Wilson
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman has said about the general level of APD, but does he not recognise that this measure is the result of the climate change legislation passed in a previous Parliament which his party supported? The chickens are coming home to roost, with extra green taxes being imposed on poor consumers across the United Kingdom.
Mr MacNeil
It is not the taxes that are the problem but the level of the taxes, who is controlling them and what they are doing with them to stifle economic growth.
Furthermore, Amanda McMillan, chief executive of Glasgow airport, said:
“On the question of devolution of APD, Glasgow Airport has always been supportive of this proposal given the Scottish government’s more progressive approach to aviation and its greater appreciation of the role the industry plays in supporting the growth of the Scottish economy.”
Mr MacNeil
I am sorry but there is no time. [Hon. Members: “Ooh!”] If I have time later and the hon. Gentleman wishes to intervene then, he may.
The Scottish Government Transport Minister, Keith Brown, said:
“We need to be able to deal with the competitive and connectivity disadvantages that Scotland faces and if APD were devolved now we could provide the means to incentivise airlines to provide new direct international connections to Scotland, benefiting our aviation industry and our passengers and supporting the growth of the Scottish economy. The UK government needs to listen to the many voices in Scotland who clearly want to see full devolution of”
the APD powers to Scotland. The Scottish Chambers of Commerce’s chief executive, Liz Cameron, said:
“Current rates of APD seem more suited to controlling capacity constraints at Heathrow than they do with the needs of regional airports, and devolution of this tax would afford the Scottish Government the opportunity to create an air transport package for Scotland designed to improve our direct international connectivity.”
A range of voices throughout Scottish industry and aviation are clearly calling for the devolution of APD.
We have been calling for the devolution of APD to the Scottish Parliament for some time. Most recently, we called for it to be part of the Scotland Bill, but unfortunately the Government and Labour opposed the idea. Today, however, we are arguing again for the devolution of APD in a different context. We do not need to argue the viability anymore, because the Government conceded that point in agreeing to devolve APD to Northern Ireland.
Charlie Elphicke
We have airports in Kent. Why should we not have regionalisation of APD for all regional airports? Why should it just be special pleading for Scotland?
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman makes a good point. I hope he will join me in the Lobby, because if it is good enough for Scotland, surely it is good enough for Kent. We are happy enough for it to be devolved to Kent if it wants it. We are not the type of people to want a power for ourselves that we would deny to others. We are not the type of people who would give it to Northern Ireland but not to Scotland.
The amendment is straight and to the point. It would allow the Scottish Parliament to set APD rates for Scotland. By passing it, under the rules in the Scotland Act 1998, the Treasury would redirect those specific funds to the Scottish consolidated fund instead of to a UK consolidated fund. With this economic lever, we in Scotland would have the ability to set our own rates, although owing to legal reasons we could not increase them—but frankly why would we? Higher rates of such taxes and the punitive fuel duty can only increase inflation and reduce productivity.
The evidence is growing in our favour. My office has discovered that Scotland has been getting the short end of the stick on non-EU flights. According to the Department for Transport, Scotland has only four non-EU direct routes—air routes that fly in and out of Scotland to a non-EU country. Let us compare that with our Celtic and Scandinavian neighbours. Norway and Ireland are connected to key emerging economies such as Russia, and Denmark is connected not only to Russia but to China, Japan and 24 other non-EU countries. Norway has connections with about 15 non-EU destinations, and Ireland with about 10, while Scotland is trailing with four. It is remarkable, given all this, that Edinburgh is such a successful financial centre. Arguably, Scotland was comparatively better connected in the days of the Icelandic sagas than it is now, with the Westminster Government controlling APD.
The UK Government are responsible for the negotiation of air routes with other countries. In short, Governments agree to routes in international air agreements and later decide where the routes go. In that capacity, the Westminster Government have failed Scottish airports. For more than 65 years, Governments have argued for more and more routes to the south-east of the UK, with only a handful making the road north of the M25. Devolving APD would take the pressure off Heathrow, with the calls for a third runway. Given that Monday is St George’s day, this measure would be almost a St George’s day gift from the SNP to the people of the south-east of England.
Cathy Jamieson
Before the hon. Gentleman moves on to other things, I wonder whether he might say a bit more about the relationship with his Celtic friends, as several amendments in this group affect Wales. Would it not make sense to look at the issue when the Silk commission reports, given that it is looking at a range of fiscal issues concerning Wales?
Mr MacNeil
I am glad that the hon. Lady seems to support devolving air passenger duty to Wales. Perhaps that could be extended to Scotland as well.
Without the ability to negotiate our own air routes, we therefore need other economic levers to attract businesses and travellers to Scotland. The current situation forces business and travellers to commute to Scotland via one of the most congested air hubs in the world. The south-east can absorb the impact of an 8% increase in air passenger duty. With the countless flights that go through London everyday, it would take a very severe drop in tourism indeed to affect travel through London. However, given that Scotland has already seen a serious decline in air routes—from BMI pulling out of Glasgow, as well as Ryanair—we have to think about the impact that the APD rise will have on us.
Mr Reid
I infer from what the hon. Gentleman is saying that if APD were devolved to Scotland, the SNP in the Scottish Parliament would want to cut it. Does he accept that that would mean less income for the Scottish Government, and if so, what cuts does he plan to make to services to make up for that?
Mr MacNeil
Perhaps I can expand the hon. Gentleman’s thinking. If we were to grow from four non-EU routes to 10 or 15, or to the 24 that Denmark has, we might see a growth in revenue. This is about raising revenue, not the precise level of taxation. We would be looking to raise revenue in Scotland and grow our economy, which is the plan for independence—indeed, it is why we want independence.
If APD is increased, Scotland will be put at a further disadvantage in attracting not only international passengers, but international business. As I said earlier, the Government have already conceded that point in devolving APD to Northern Ireland.
Phil Wilson (Sedgefield) (Lab)
The hon. Gentleman is being a bit disingenuous as far as Northern Ireland is concerned. The reason APD was devolved to Northern Ireland was because the airport in Northern Ireland was in serious danger of losing continental flights. Also, people were travelling to the south of the island, to Eire, to travel. The decision was made for economic reasons, to maintain the airport in Northern Ireland. It was nothing to do with the principle of devolution.
Mr MacNeil
It is not unusual to see Labour once again abandoning principle in its arguments. Surely we should be looking to allow Scotland to compete with other countries in the world. I hope that the hon. Gentleman would reflect on that.
Brandon Lewis
I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s generosity in giving way. Does he not accept, however, that there is a simple logistical and geographical difference between Scotland, which is linked with England and its airports, and Northern Ireland, which is obviously competing with a fellow European Union member state? That alone is a big difference.
Mr MacNeil
As I have pointed out, our proposal would benefit the south-east of England as well as Scotland. Surely the hon. Gentleman can see that, given what Conservatives say about taxation.
Mr MacNeil
I am sorry, but given the time I will take no further interventions.
Three airports support the devolution of air passenger duty, as do the chambers of commerce. They want it to be independently controlled in Scotland. They will be frustrated by what the House of Commons in London will probably do this evening, when I press amendment 61 to a vote. Frustration is a negative, but in my view this will have a positive outcome. Members who cannot yet understand the rising support for Scottish independence can surely see that those who are frustrated about APD this evening will begin to see a better way of dealing with the allied intransigence from London, on this and other matters, large and small. That will be one of the many reasons why people will vote for Scottish independence in 2014—to move the Scottish economy and Scottish connectivity forward.
I only hope that I have aided Members in understanding that this is not an SNP call: we are only a vehicle for the community of Scotland, along with the three airports and the chambers of commerce, in improving industry and creating better chances for families. The amendments in my name and those of my hon. Friends therefore seek to stop the increase in APD and to continue the pattern of devolving things to the Scottish Parliament, which is a more sensible locus for controlling air passenger duty.
Cathy Jamieson
I shall keep my remarks brief in order to give other Members an opportunity to speak. I have listened to the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) and, as I said in an intervention, it is important that we should have an opportunity to look at this matter in the round. Given that a recent review of air passenger duty resulted in no changes being made, I hope that the Minister will take this opportunity to consider taking a further look.
Connecting Europe Facility
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Chris Leslie
I did not quite hear that from the Minister. If that is the Government’s position—perhaps the hon. Gentleman has a hotline to the Prime Minister on these matters—I would be very interested to hear it.
I agree that the proposed budgets for EU institutions are still too high. Export refund practices have to be cut back. We have to change agriculture policy so that it is fairer to smaller farmers and ends the ridiculous tobacco and wine subsidies that are lavishing payments on some of the very wealthiest players in the wealthiest EU countries.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I wonder what the hon. Gentleman’s proposals might mean for crofters in the highlands and islands of Scotland.
The Economy
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(12 years, 11 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Glyn Davies (Montgomeryshire) (Con)
I shall take a Welsh perspective, and to some extent a constituency perspective. Debt hangover, deficit reduction and the problems facing the eurozone have an impact in Wales, just as they do in the rest of Britain, but some issues are specific to Wales and I want to touch on them.
Much of the management of the Welsh economy is devolved, but not completely; for example, policies on tax rates and international investment are still determined at Westminster. That inevitably means that a close working relationship between the Governments in Cardiff Bay and at Westminster is crucial. Without one, there is the potential for damage. Enterprise zones are an important aspect of the Government’s policy for dealing with the economic problems of England. I do not want to blame anyone, but in Wales they are still incredibly ill defined and the process is slow, so we need a much closer relationship between Ministers in the Assembly Government and Ministers at Westminster.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
The hon. Gentleman said that most economic control was devolved to Wales. Would he be as comfortable with a relationship between London and Europe as there is currently between Cardiff and London—with most powers held in Europe and London, despite the economy of Wales being devolved?
Glyn Davies
I thank the hon. Gentleman, although I am not absolutely certain that I picked up his point. Governments and institutions have to work as closely together as possible for the benefit of the people they all serve.
First, inward investment has historically been strong in Wales. Yesterday the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills told the Welsh Affairs Committee that Wales was doing relatively badly. I think Wales is doing very badly indeed; last year only 3% of inward investment in the UK went to Wales. In the two previous years the proportion was 6%, which is about what one would expect given the population of each country. In the days when Lord Walker was Secretary of State for Wales, it was 20% for two or three years in a row. There was a major focus on Welsh links to the most successful parts of Europe, such as Baden-Württemberg, Stuttgart, Barcelona and Lombardy. There was a strong relationship with Japan, which in those days was aggressively developing its economy throughout the world. A lot of investment was going to Wales, and we need that sort of advantage. When I became a Member of this House I had been a Member of the Welsh Assembly for eight years, and I want the relationship between the two institutions to work as well as possible. On inward investment the working relationship has not been as close as it should be, and we need to change that.
Secondly, I want to touch on cross-border issues, in particular their impact on my constituency of Montgomeryshire. Again, it is a question of making devolution work for the people. There is a real problem in terms of capital investment in Wales. A consequence of the autumn statement is that over the next three years another £216 million will go to Wales for capital projects, but projects on the border will not be considered, because the arrangements following devolution mean that they cannot be. For my constituency and for the whole of mid-Wales, industrial development depends on access to the west midlands market and the motorway network. One of the biggest impediments is the stretch of the border between Welshpool and Shrewsbury. A road project there has high priority for the Welsh Government and would almost certainly have gone ahead, but the total cost is around £30 million, with a significant proportion—about £5 million—over the border in England. Although it has huge priority in Wales it is given almost no priority at all on the English side. That project has been sitting around for ages and is not going ahead, yet it should really be a priority. I could give three or four similar examples.
Fuel Prices
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on his campaign to secure today’s debate.
I represent a sparsely populated constituency where long drives for essential business are common, so I am well aware of the impact of high fuel prices on individuals and businesses. For example, the price of fuel on some of the larger islands in my constituency, such as Mull and Islay, is typically about 15p to 20p a litre higher than in a city centre supermarket, and on the smaller islands, such as Coll and Colonsay, the price is usually about 30p a litre higher. It should be stressed that this is not because of profiteering by the local filling stations. The reasons for the higher prices are low turnover, compared with all the fixed costs that a rural filling station has to pay, and the costs of the distribution network. The costs of fuel distribution in the highlands and islands are very high, and I hope that the Office of Fair Trading will investigate them.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I understand exactly what the hon. Gentleman is saying about Coll and Colonsay, but he will know that a newspaper on Coll and Colonsay costs the same as in the city centre. Should the Government not move towards more parity and equality between islands such as Coll and Colonsay—or, indeed, Na h-Eileanan an Iar—and city centres?
Mr Reid
I agree with the hon. Gentleman, and I hope that he will give credit to the Government for what they are doing on fuel duty on islands. The high price of fuel obviously has a great impact on people’s living standards, and makes it difficult for anyone trying to run a business on an island or in a remote rural area.
Stewart Hosie
Indeed, they can. What that organisation said at the time was:
“Transport is…a vital component of the fishing industry and cost increases there have applied even greater pressure, felt more acutely by the more remote fishing areas of the North West and the Northern Isles.”
I was paraphrasing what it said, as we have a whole four minutes each to speak. The point is that the response to spiralling costs under Labour was a fuel duty escalator, not a fuel duty stabiliser. The Labour Government set their face against every attempt to introduce a price stabilisation mechanism and, most cynically of all, increased duty to compensate for the temporary reduction in VAT.
The coalition’s response was to introduce the “fair fuel stabiliser”. That is what they called it. However, instead of using the windfall they already had from the North sea, they engaged in a smash-and-grab raid of £2 billion extra, with an increase in the supplementary charge. Hon. Members will remember that that led EnCore Oil to suggest that no tax would be paid on undeveloped and undiscovered oil. Other organisations said that very large projects were no longer viable because of the surprise Budget move. Chevron warned that the measure had
“shaken investor confidence to the core.”
Everyone was singing from the same hymn sheet except the Chancellor, who said that he
“did not expect investment to be damaged.”—[Official Report, 3 May 2011; Vol. 527, c. 604.]
Mr MacNeil
Does my hon. Friend agree that the Chancellor’s reckless smash-and-grab of North sea taxation has endangered investment in Scotland?
Stewart Hosie
It has indeed. There were stark and powerful warnings from the sector at the time that went on for a considerable time, and forced some limited changes to the regime. In the cold light of day, this month, the Aberdeen and Grampian chamber of commerce, along with others, carried out a survey that revealed that:
“50% of operators say Chancellor’s tax hike harmed North Sea investment.”
That policy did little to help the haulier and the motorist, but it did a great deal to damage the oil and gas sector.
Of course, it is not just the oil and gas sector and the traditional users of haulage who have been damaged. This week I have been contacted by a building company—a static business, not a haulage business—in my constituency, which told me that over the past few years, fuel as a proportion of its overheads has rocketed to 20%. We are not just causing inflation for goods that are moved, we are not just putting the haulage sector under pressure, we are not just making it difficult for people even to afford to go to work: the increasing cost of fuel as a proportion of overheads is driving other sectors to the wall too. These are very difficult times indeed.
This is only a Back-Bench debate—I am delighted that we have secured it—but the strength of feeling is very clear. There is now a body of opinion saying that constant high price rises, and the spikes in the price at the pump, are damaging the entire economy. I hope that the Minister is listening carefully to what has been said, and that action will be taken quickly.
Fiona O'Donnell
I shall not give way at this point because I am keen to make progress and allow others to contribute.
My constituency is largely rural and my constituents rely heavily on their cars not just to get to the shops but to engage in the big society—to take their daughters to Brownies and their sons to Scouts, or their sons to Brownies and their daughters to Scouts. They go out to reach the cheaper petrol at Asda up at Dunbar. That is the reality of living in East Lothian. My constituents suffer a double whammy and I find it really hard to listen to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) going on about what this Government have not done, because another Government could do something to make things easier for my constituents to get around East Lothian—the Scottish National party Government in Holyrood could re-regulate the buses.
Fiona O'Donnell
No I will not. The hon. Gentleman should sit down and listen to what I am going to say before being so eager to get to his feet. He should let me finish this point.
The Scottish Government could have re-regulated the buses so that we could have a service in East Lothian that meets the needs of my constituents, instead of meeting the party election funding of the SNP Government. They have not taken advantage of that option, so in East Lothian we have the double whammy of rising prices at the pumps and a poor local bus service that is being further cut by an SNP council.
Fiona O'Donnell
My hon. Friend and neighbour is absolutely right. The SNP should stop talking about what they want other people to do and which other powers they want and instead start using the powers they have.
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Lady has to ask herself whether she wants the Conservative Government here in Westminster to have taxation powers over Scotland or whether she wants Scotland’s powers back in Scotland at the Scottish Parliament.
Fiona O'Donnell
That is not the only choice. I want a UK Government who do the best for all the people in the UK—not just those in the Western Isles, Glasgow and Edinburgh, but those in Liverpool and London too. I note that the hon. Gentleman did not say why his party in Holyrood did not support a private Member’s Bill to re-regulate the buses. He should stop whingeing about what he cannot do and start doing something with the powers he has.
Fiona O'Donnell
No; the last interruption was not very satisfactory—I am not taking another risk.
I find myself in a familiar situation. I spoke in a similar debate not very long ago about a haulage company in East Lothian that was about to go bust because of fuel prices. I remember an hon. Member from somewhere on the Government Benches saying something about claiming back VAT. Unfortunately, I did not realise at that time that the company was not even registered for VAT, so that was not an option. The company has gone out of business and those jobs have gone. Others in East Lothian are trying to find work but the reality is that those jobs as a rule are not in the county—they are in Edinburgh. Given the poor local provision of public transport, they are forced to take to their cars. That is a real problem for making work pay for my constituents. If the Government are serious about getting people back to work they have to enable rural communities.
I am sorry that the hon. Member for Penrith and The Border (Rory Stewart) is not here. His contribution was not so much a speech as a postcard from some rural fantasy that he sent to the House. He spoke about how important this debate and this motion are, but I remember the last time there was a debate on this issue in which the will of the House was unanimously expressed—
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
It is an honour to wind up the debate, which has been far ranging and widespread, both geographically and in content. Luckily, it was a virtual tour of our constituencies—had it been a driving tour, it would have cost a veritable fortune.
The debate has taken place after much pressure from outside, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) who, since coming to the House, has been a great champion of this issue. In fact, in the previous Parliament, he might well have spoken for the Scottish National party and Plaid Cymru. I hope that I am not damaging his career too much by giving the praise that only an SNP Member could give to boost it in that way.
The right hon. Member for Dwyfor Meirionnydd (Mr Llwyd) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) have pointed out that the House has been rotating around us nationalists. The hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan) pointed out in an intervention that the SNP has been constant on the issue, and whoever has been in government and opposition have played their points as such. The price of diesel, at £7 a gallon in my constituency, is damaging to families and, in particular, to businesses.
Mr MacNeil
I cannot give way.
Many hon. Members, including the hon. Members for Worcester (Mr Walker) and for Beverley and Holderness (Mr Stuart), pointed out that tax was up, but revenue was down. As the hon. Member for Camborne and Redruth (George Eustice) said, it is a regressive tax, which is something that we should change. Three years ago, Iceland had a huge crash, but today it has lower unemployment and a greater growth rate. Interestingly, the cost of its fuel is about two thirds the cost in the UK. The UK has the highest petrol taxes in Europe, with Greece in second place. The message is surely going out to the Treasury and the Chancellor: no tax rises in January.
Question put and agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House welcomes the 1p cut in fuel duty at the 2011 Budget, the abolition of the fuel tax escalator, the establishment of a fair fuel stabiliser and the Government’s acknowledgement that high petrol and diesel prices are a serious problem; notes that in the context of the Government’s efforts to tackle the deficit and 5 put the public finances on a sustainable path, ensuring stable tax revenues is vital for sustainable growth; however, believes that high fuel prices are causing immense difficulties for small and medium-sized enterprises vital to economic recovery; further notes reports that some low-paid workers are paying a tenth of their income just to fill up the family car and that high fuel prices are particularly damaging for the road freight industry; considers that high rates of fuel duty may have led to lower tax revenues in recent years, after reports from leading motoring organisations suggested that fuel duty revenues were at least £1 billion lower in the first six months of 2011 compared with 2008; and calls on the Government to consider the effect that increased taxes on fuel will have on the economy, examine ways of working with industry to ensure that falls in oil prices are passed on to consumers, to take account of market competitiveness, and to consider the feasibility of a price stabilisation mechanism that would work alongside the fair fuel stabiliser to address fluctuations in the pump price.
Road Fuel Duties
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 2 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab)
I welcome you to your rightful place in the Chair, Mr Hancock, and I also welcome the Economic Secretary to the Treasury and my hon. Friend on the Front Bench, the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy), to this extremely important debate. It is also good to see that all parties in the House are, I think, represented here, and I look forward to what they have to say. I particularly want to hear what the Economic Secretary has to say about the high levels of road fuel duties in this country. I also want to put on record my thanks to the Speaker for allowing the debate to take place at this time.
This year, 2011, has been eventful in every sense of the word. It has perhaps been the most financially eventful year in the history of politics. It has been a rollercoaster. We have seen global financial turmoil, and the stock market has fluctuated at a rate that I have never seen before. We are seeing the beginnings of high unemployment levels, along with a rise in inflation, increasing transport costs, and tax changes that I have never witnessed in my time in the House—I have been here some 20 years. The past eight months have delivered a record-breaking run of price rises, those of petrol and diesel being among the most alarming.
Across the UK—there are, of course, highs and lows across the country—the average price of petrol reached a high in May of 137.43p per litre, and an examination of the relevant website just last night showed that the average price just now is not far from that. There is a differential of some 24p per litre between the highest and the lowest price across the country. I remember that when the Labour party was in government there was a near revolution when the truckers blockaded the refineries as a consequence of high fuel prices. Interestingly, we have not seen anything like that since, and I wonder why.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I am not certain from the tone of the hon. Gentleman’s voice whether he wants a blockade of refineries by truckers across the United Kingdom.
Mr Donohoe
The hon. Gentleman should know, as should all Members, that I would be the last person in this place to call for a revolution and civil disobedience.
There is absolutely no doubt, however, that the high fuel prices are at the point of driving people out of jobs, which is the most serious aspect of the matter. I shall give an example, which makes me angry, of the desperate situation of a nurse in my constituency. She has had to put up with a wage freeze for the next two years, her pension contributions have gone up, she has to pay double for parking at the hospital in Glasgow where she works, and she has to find £100 extra a month to get to and from work because of the high fuel prices. That proposition cannot feasibly be sustained for too long, but she cannot use public transport because of where she stays and where the hospital is. That problem must be looked at.
Regarding what the Government take per litre, I always remember a case from some years ago of a retailer who was determined to show the breakdown of the price of petrol and diesel. He was told that that was not the form, and the petrol company said that it would no longer supply him, for some obscure reason. When one considers that of the average 135p price of a litre of fuel, 81p is taken, one starts to understand the cost to the individual buying the petrol or the diesel. A good 60% goes on dealing with Government intervention in the form of fuel duty, and there is also VAT. Indeed, 20% VAT increases the price of petrol by 2.5%, putting something like 2.5p on it. In addition, outside of Government intervention in the price, there are the oil companies, and it is time to argue for a windfall tax on their profits. I know that there has already been a tax, which a lot of colleagues are very concerned about in relation to the oil companies’ continued investment, but I believe that the Government should look at the correlation between profit and price.
I have already argued that a significant portion of the price of petrol and diesel in this country is made up of the Government take, and I argue that it is higher than in most other European countries as a consequence of the high level of tax. Is there any opportunity to make the price cheaper? I am sure that the Economic Secretary will argue that in the present climate there is no leeway—no room for manoeuvre—but I suggest that there might be, and I shall come on to that later.
The reason for this debate is obvious: the price of fuel is crippling a great number of the people whom I represent and, I am sure, a great many of those represented by other Members here this morning. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has announced that the living standards of UK families will decline by more than 10% over the next three years, and it predicts that in real terms the typical household income will fall by 3.5% in the year to April, which will be the steepest drop since 1981. We understand that there is little room for offsetting falling living standards by cutting taxes, but the matter must be looked at. The level of tax and duties on petrol and diesel is cutting off the prospects of many struggling families and small businesses, and since I secured this debate I have had dozens of e-mails from small businesses with examples of just what it is doing to them.
The situation is also destroying job prospects, in particular among young people. I have already had a summit in my constituency, attended by the Secretaries of State for Work and Pensions and for Scotland. Youth unemployment is reaching levels that I never thought possible—it is as high as 70% in many areas. That cannot be sustainable and it is not helped at all by the cost of living today, particularly in more rural areas—I see that the hon. Members for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) and for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) are present.
Mr Donohoe
The blasé slogan “Either eat or heat” is becoming a reality faced by many of my constituents, particularly the elderly. The hon. Gentleman is right. It is a major concern, and it should concern the Government.
To return to the economic point, the industry should look into the fact that some oil providers supply their own forecourts with fuel at one price while selling the same fuel to a second retailer down the road at a higher cost. Something must be done about that. Anyone who travels two miles along the road from Prestwick to Ayr in my constituency can see it at first hand. Prices at forecourts using the same supplier vary 6p from one end to the other, which should not be allowed. Two-tier pricing is becoming a joke.
Mr MacNeil
I hear what the hon. Gentleman says about two-tier pricing, but I am sure that he will sympathise with areas of one-tier pricing, such as my constituency, where all prices are high and the closest cheaper fuel is a ferry ride away. Does he not feel that there has been too much inaction by successive Governments on tackling the problem?
Mr Donohoe
I agree entirely. It is interesting to note that Shetland has some of the highest petrol prices in Scotland, although half the United Kingdom’s total oil supply flows through two pipelines there. Another instance is Grangemouth, where the refinery for Scotland is based. The price of fuel there is also among the highest in Scotland. That does not stack up.
Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mr Hancock. I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate and on bringing this important issue before the House.
I represent a sparsely populated constituency, so I am well aware of the impact of high fuel prices on people and businesses. I represent many of the islands of the Inner Hebrides. The price of fuel on the larger islands, such as Mull and Islay, is typically 15p a litre higher than at a city centre supermarket, and on the smaller islands, such as Coll and Colonsay, the price is usually about 30p a litre higher. That is not due to any profiteering by local filling stations; Office of Fair Trading investigations have shown that there is no local profiteering. The main reason is the low turnover. The high fixed costs of running a filling station mean a high price.
Mr MacNeil
On that point, Donald MacNeil of the Burnside filling station in Daliburgh, South Uist, has told me that, if he paid somebody to sell fuel all day, they would not raise their own wage from the amount they sold, which is a reflection of why the price of rural fuel is so high. There is no profiteering. Apart from the high prices, we also know that there are distribution issues.
Mr Reid
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. He is correct that there is no profiteering at the local filling station, although the distribution network, as he has indicated, might be another issue.
The high price obviously has a great impact on people’s living standards and on anyone trying to run a business on an island or in a remote rural area. I was therefore delighted when the Government announced their intention to pursue a pilot scheme under which there will be a 5p a litre fuel duty discount on many of the country’s islands, including all the islands of the Inner Hebrides and the Clyde. The Treasury is currently consulting filling station operators on the terms of the pilot scheme. Its original consultation proposals were met with significant concern by filling station operators, because they would have caused a cash-flow problem. I was pleased when the Government responded quickly to those concerns and revised their proposals in a way that removes the cash-flow problem.
The revised consultation proposals envisage two possible schemes—a distributor-based scheme and a retailer-based scheme. Of the two, it looks like the distributor-based scheme would be easier to operate, because the distributor has the resources to carry out the administration, which the small retailer would often find more difficult. I appreciate, however, the Government’s concern that a distributor-based scheme may fall foul of EU state aid rules and might not be approved by the European Commission. I hope that a distributor-based scheme can be devised that is acceptable to the Commission. If not, we would have to proceed with a retailer-based scheme.
The cash-flow problem in the original proposals has been overcome, but filling station operators are still concerned that it is not clear how they can prove to the Treasury that they are passing on the discount to the consumer. An essential principle of the scheme is that the 5p discount is passed on to the consumer. What retailers have asked me is whether the Government can provide clarity on how they should demonstrate that they are passing on the discount. That clarity would be welcomed because, as I say, the retailers are still not clear what they would have to do to comply with the scheme—and, of course, they are all keen to participate. If the islands’ pilot scheme is successful, as I am sure it will be, I would like it to be extended to remote areas of the mainland.
Mr Reid
The Chairman asked for limited interventions and I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman.
I have accepted the Government’s view that we must have an islands pilot first, but after that I would certainly press for it to be extended to remote areas of the mainland.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
I congratulate the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this important debate, a debate that is in my ears every week of the year. I think the hon. Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham) used the words, “under the cosh”—and we are certainly under the cosh.
Road fuel in my constituency is at ridiculous rates, and has remained at ridiculous rates in the lifetime of this Government and the previous one. Road fuel is between £1.50 and £1.57 a litre. My constituency has the highest fuel poverty in the UK. In Stornoway, at the north end, fuel is £1.50 a litre. At a small fuel station in South Uist, where I stopped on Friday in a rush to the ferry—I was almost late, as usual—I paid £1.57 a litre for diesel for my car.
In the Faroe Islands, which are halfway between the Hebrides and Iceland, the price of fuel is usually 50p a litre less. That was confirmed to me this morning: it is £1.06 a litre in Torshavn in the Faroe Islands. The price is not a function of geography; it is a function of Treasury taxation. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Strangford (Jim Shannon) asked me whether I wanted to move. Given how we are taxed from London, as Scotland does not yet control fuel tax, we may have to move to all sorts of strange, weird and wonderful places to avoid the Sheriff of Nottingham tax behaviour from the London Treasury, regardless of which sheriff is in charge. Be it the red sheriff or the blue sheriff, the prices are much the same from London.
Iceland has prices that follow the Faroese model. It is interesting to note, and probably no coincidence that, despite its problems three years ago, Iceland has bounced back better. Its unemployment is lower than that of the United Kingdom and its GDP per capita is higher—Iceland is moving on and putting the past behind it far better than the UK. In my constituency, higher fuel costs are bleeding the economy dry.
Unlike in Iceland, which is able to move on, we are still being bled dry and left in a very weakened state. Higher fuel costs are pulling money from councils, health boards, the police, the fire service, small businesses, pensioners and families. The hon. Member for Coventry South made that point very well. He also mentioned rural postal vans. My father used to drive one of those postal vans. They were certainly a crucible of politics when passengers came on from whichever part of the island of Barra, where I lived when I was younger, and where I still live.
When I spoke in the House of Commons on 7 February —I went back over Hansard this morning—I said that Alec MacIntosh at Benbecula airport was haranguing me about the price of fuel and telling me to sort them out in London. He said the same thing yesterday morning as I boarded the plane from Benbecula to Glasgow. Fuel in Benbecula is about 10p a litre higher than it was when I spoke in the House of Commons on 7 February 2011; it is 19p a litre up on the price it was in Stornoway last year. Orkney, Shetland and the islands of Argyll are suffering the same, and Northern Ireland is probably suffering the same.
That is all the more galling when we think of the oil around the islands of Scotland. Shetland, of course, is pumping oil at the moment, as is Orkney. West of the Hebrides, we apparently have 25% of the UK reserve of fossil fuels—$1 million for every man, woman and child in the Hebrides—but we are paying 50p a litre more than the Faroese, who have no proven or found reserves at all.
When the Government came to power, they talked about a rural fuel derogation, and that was welcome. We are having problems, of course, because the Scottish Government do not control this issue and we are left with the red sheriff or the blue sheriff in London. The previous sheriff played Pontius Pilate to the issues of rural fuel. They were not interested in the rural fuel derogation; spurious and ridiculous reasons came about why they could not do anything. They sat on their hands. There was no fair fuel stabiliser, absolutely no rural fuel derogation, daft excuses and—still dafter—they had no apologies. There is still no apology from the previous Labour Government for their inaction.
This Government came in and their words were like a fresh breeze. Being the fair and earnest fellow that I am, I welcomed their words and their stated intentions. They blamed Europe for the slow progress of the rural fuel derogation and, being the fair and earnest fellow that I am, I was minded to believe them and accept them at their word. Then, of course, the green light came from Europe. The Government are now in danger of eclipsing the previous Government in their cynicism.
Treasury rules are now so cumbersome that they might actually cause small rural fuel stations to go out of business. The Government are looking for every device to slow this down when we know that in rural France, 10 km from a main population centre, people enjoy rural fuel derogations. What is the difficulty? Please get it into place. I warned the Liberals in February—in the House of Commons, as recorded in Hansard—that if the rural fuel derogation was not in place before May, they would suffer at the polls for the Scottish elections. They did suffer in rural areas and they are now known as the “not so famous five” in the Scottish Parliament.
There is a good argument, as I think the hon. Member for Central Ayrshire or the hon. Member for Coventry South said, for fixing fuel across the country, just as the prices of newspapers are fixed. If we are to have any fairness, we will have people across the UK paying the same amount of tax; my constituents, and probably those in Argyll, Orkney and Shetland, are paying the highest tax per litre of any part of the United Kingdom.
Mr Jim Cunningham
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to try to sort the problem out—it is becoming like a ping pong game between the political parties—is to have a proper public inquiry into the price of fuel and fuel hoarding?
Mr MacNeil
I have some sympathy for what the hon. Gentleman says, and I will come on to distribution in a second, but we have played the patient game long enough. I think it was Martin Luther King who said that it was not the time for the “tranquilising drug of gradualism”. This is a time for action. At £1.50 and £1.57 a litre, people are hurting and hurting badly.
I am aware that I have taken six or seven minutes, Mr Hancock, and that others want to speak. I would finally like to mention fuel distribution. I have asked the Secretary of State for Scotland, the right hon. Member for Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk (Michael Moore), about distribution from refineries to retailers, and he has assured me that he is looking into the issue.
Jim Shannon
On distribution, I would like to underline how the issue affects Northern Ireland. The same oil that comes into Belfast goes out all over the whole of the province and the prices vary incredibly. Does the hon. Gentleman feel that there is a need to address how oil companies distribute fuel across the whole of Northern Ireland and the United Kingdom?
Mr MacNeil
Yes, I could not agree more. I had a feeling that that was going to be a helpful intervention and indeed it was. As I was saying, I spoke to the Secretary of State for Scotland in the House and he has assured me that he will look into the matter of fuel distribution. I am not sure what progress there has been on that.
There is a difficulty between refineries and small rural fuel stations, and the habits of the distribution companies. They hold retailers very tightly and do not allow them the freedom to shop around and buy their fuel from different suppliers. A tanker in a certain area of the west highlands can move to a port further down and the fuel can be more expensive. It can go into another port and it can be cheaper. Batches of fuel, within a discharge at a small island port, can have different prices, depending on the amount that is bought. There is, in my view, predatory parasitical behaviour. I use those words with some thought. There is parasitical behaviour from fuel distribution companies when it comes to small rural and island areas.
I am not sure what the Scotland Office is managing to do, but I ask whether the Treasury might look into parasitical behaviour by fuel distribution companies, which are basically leeching off small, vulnerable island communities. That has to stop. At £1.50 to £1.57 a litre, there is utter anger at the price people are having to pay, and that in an area where the cost of living is generally higher—often thanks to the Co-op—where the wages are lower and, as I said, where we have the highest fuel poverty in the United Kingdom. I am making a plea to the Treasury.
The issue comes around every six months, but it is serious and affects people badly. If the powers were held in Scotland, we would not be coming every six months to talk to the Treasury or the Scotland Office in London, to make a plea about how tough things were in areas of Scotland.
I am aware that other Members want to get in, and some throats are being cleared around me, so I will leave it at that—I have said my piece. I am more than annoyed, and I hope that I am not back here in six months repeating part of my speeches of February 2011 and September 2011. We need the rural fuel derogation to come soon.
Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab)
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) for securing the debate on what is clearly an important issue for all our constituents and the future of our economy. All right hon. and hon. Members will have had constituents approaching us and expressing their concerns about the current high cost of fuel. Individual constituents and local businesses have certainly raised it with me.
Fuel costs in West Lothian, where my constituency of Livingston is, are currently almost exactly in line with the national average: about £1.35 or a little more for a litre of unleaded, and £1.38 a litre for diesel—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) confirms that from a sedentary position.
High fuel costs form an important element of the general increase in household outgoings currently experienced by so many families, in many cases coupled with frozen or reduced household incomes. A constituent recently contacted me to describe her own circumstances: she has not had a pay increase for two years, yet she is having to pay an extra £10 to fill up her car with petrol, meaning that she must now prioritise her journeys to remain within her budget.
Interestingly, recent AA research found that one in four of its members is now in the position of having to restrict the amount spent when refuelling and to prioritise car use. Alarmingly, that figure rises to 40% among those on lower incomes. Edmund King, the AA’s president, commented:
“Members tell us that driving to work represents the priority use of their car and that other trips have to suffer to make financial ends meet.”
With the Institute for Fiscal Studies warning recently that household budgets are set to be squeezed for a decade, it is vital that we get a grip on the issue of fuel costs now, so that consumers do not continue to suffer misery year after year.
Other constituents have expressed their frustration at being told that they should use public transport when they live in areas where public transport links are simply inadequate, or the costs are as high as for using their own vehicle. We touched on that earlier in the debate, and I do not want to go into the detail. The impact of high fuel costs is also seriously hurting businesses, however, and I want to focus the remainder of my remarks on that aspect of today’s debate.
We have seen some welcome, if limited, respite for consumers in the past few weeks, with pump prices in supermarket forecourts falling in response to a reduction in wholesale costs. Even if that is of some small assistance to individual consumers, it does little to help businesses and, in particular, haulage and transport companies. Speaking about that recent round of price cuts, the Road Haulage Association chief executive, Geoff Dunning, said:
“These price cuts can only ever be short term. What is desperately needed and would help everyone would be a reduction in the actual rate of fuel duty.”
He went on:
“However, January’s planned duty rise, combined with the proposed August increase will drive up fuel duty by a massive 10.4%. This will suck more money out of the economy and further undermine efforts to regenerate growth.”
Only last week, the Freight Transport Association revealed research showing that, on average, vehicle operating costs for rigid, articulated and drawbar vehicles had risen by 5.6% in the year to 1 July 2011 and that they have remained close to record, all-time highs since April this year. The largest contribution to the rise is the 12% increase for diesel over the same period. The FTA said that, while hauliers could ride out the recession by reducing margins and delaying vehicle replacements, they continue to feel the pinch and that it is likely that some hauliers might not be able to sustain their businesses in such circumstances.
That is of particular concern in my Livingston constituency because of its central position in Scotland, which makes it a popular location for businesses that need to transport goods throughout Scotland and often to other parts of the United Kingdom. Before the previous Budget, Dave McDougall, the chief executive of the West Lothian chamber of commerce, highlighted that point and the importance of getting the cost of fuel down for businesses in West Lothian. He said:
“Fuel prices are crippling all types of business. West Lothian is a location of choice for many companies because of its access to all of central Scotland. But this means that the effects are even worse for our Chamber members.”
He urged the Chancellor to take action to reduce the costs but, of course, we know that the 1p cut in fuel duty announced in the Budget was wiped out within weeks by soaring world oil prices.
Also speaking before the Budget, in March, the Federation of Small Business’s Scottish policy convener, Andy Willox, said:
“Scotland is suffering disproportionately due to the spiralling cost at the pumps.”
Mr MacNeil
The hon. Gentleman has just said that Scotland is suffering disproportionately. Would he prefer those powers to be held by the most democratic forum representing Scotland, the Scottish Parliament, or to be controlled by the Tory and Liberal Government here in London?
Graeme Morrice
I do not want to get bogged down in a debate on the constitution or the whole question of more powers for the Scottish Parliament. I certainly support the Scotland Bill, which we have been discussing, and fiscal autonomy for Scotland—but not independence, of course.
[Jim Dobbin in the Chair]
The impact has also been felt by retailers, with Asda stating last month that its customers were cutting back on trips to its stores because of high fuel prices. It estimated that families have, on average, £9 less disposable income each week compared with this time last year, largely due to increased petrol costs. So there is absolute agreement about businesses needing more help with high and rising fuel costs.
The all-important question is what can be done with road fuel duties to reduce the pressure on businesses and individuals and to bring about a halt to spiralling price rises. Fuel duty accounts for more than 60% of the pump price of petrol and just less than 60% for diesel, with VAT on top of that—the highest percentage of duty in the European Union. While the anger and frustration of individuals at suffering such high duties are understandable, once again the major concerns that business has are also clear. How can we expect businesses to compete on a level playing field with European competitors when they face such high taxes and duties?
When the Government increased VAT to 20% in January, they contributed to a further hike in fuel costs. It was the wrong tax at the wrong time, hitting families and businesses hard, just when they were least able to absorb such an increase. I support the calls to look at reversing the VAT increase for road fuel. We know it is feasible to obtain approval at the EU level for such a cut, but the Government refuse to entertain the idea because it is politically inconvenient for them to do so.
In a debate on motoring fuel costs here in Westminster Hall back in June, the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) called for a commitment to no more petrol tax rises in this Parliament. He urged the Government to consider abolishing even inflationary rises on fuel duty during the Parliament. Such calls have largely come about as a result of the work of Fair Fuel UK, which is a broadly representative body and is making a strong case for reducing fuel costs for both motorists and businesses.
How do such calls square with the Government’s position? In opposition, the Conservatives made much of plans to “slash fuel duty”, as the headlines screamed at the time, with their fair fuel stabiliser. The concept of fuel duty falling when fuel prices go up and rising when prices fall, seems, on the surface at least, like a winningly simple and effective idea. Many of my constituents certainly believed so and contacted me about supporting it. However, the Office for Budget Responsibility, the Institute for Fiscal Studies and others have raised problems with that approach. It remains to be seen whether the fair fuel stabiliser will deliver what businesses and individual motorists want.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire (Mr Donohoe) on securing this debate. I am aware that the number of signatures on the e-petition that is doing the rounds calling for a debate on fuel duty is rapidly approaching 100,000. Since joining the shadow Treasury team, I have spent much of my time debating fuel duty with the Economic Secretary. It is indicative of just how strongly Members of Parliament feel about the matter, and of how much their constituents are affected by high fuel prices, that we have returned to the issue. It also suggests that the Government’s limited action so far—the 1p cut in fuel duty—has not done enough to satisfy people’s concern and its impact on their lives. For example, my hon. Friend the Member for Central Ayrshire referred to the impact on a nurse in his constituency.
The small increases in the cost of living and the small cuts add up. The cost of parking at a hospital may have doubled, and travel to work may cost an extra £100 a month. Such increases make the difference between people being able to get by on a modest income and being unable to make ends meet. Sometimes they must make the tough decision to give up work, because they simply cannot afford it. I want to allow plenty of time for the Economic Secretary to reply, so I will not elaborate further, but people are being hit across the board. Fuel duty rises and the cost of petrol are obviously a significant element in that.
Before the Budget in March, we called on the Chancellor to review the duty increase, and we welcomed his decision following the example of previous Labour Governments, who had cancelled or postponed rises in duty when circumstances suggested that would be a good idea because fuel prices were putting too harsh a burden on people. We welcomed the 1p cut in duty, but the savings lasted only a short time, and prices at the pump remained high. According to figures published by the Department of Energy and Climate Change this morning, the price of one litre of petrol has increased over the past seven days by 0.38p to 135p and diesel by 0.44p to 139.4p. That makes prices 20p and 22p respectively more expensive than in the equivalent week last year. I am sure that some hon. Members in rural constituencies will say that those average prices do not reflect the real prices in areas that are ill-served by petrol stations.
Clearly, the 1p cut has not been sufficient for motorists feeling the squeeze. That is partly because the Government added another 3p to the price of a litre of petrol by hiking up VAT in January 2011. Motorists are also facing the prospect of a 3p increase in January 2012, and a further increase in August 2012. That comes at a time when the Institute for Fiscal Studies is warning that the coalition’s tax rises and spending cuts will squeeze household budgets for the next 10 years, with families over the past year having suffered the largest fall in living standards for 30 years. Median net household income is down 3.5%, the consumer prices index stands at 4.4%, and the retail prices index stands at 5%, which is more than double the rate at which earnings are growing. The Office for National Statistics has highlighted that fuel costs are one of the most significant contributors to the CPI and are adding indirectly to the cost of our weekly food shopping, because distribution costs rise with fuel prices.
I need not remind hon. Members that fuel prices affect not only affect households, but are having a serious impact on businesses, which are already struggling in a flatlining economy. Only this month, the Freight Transport Association reported that the high cost of fuel remains the biggest cause for concern among haulage operators. A survey by the Federation of Small Businesses found that its members were most concerned about the fuel tax rise in January. It warned that small and medium-sized enterprises would be severely affected.
I shall move on to what the Government have said they will do about the problem. Before the election, great play was made of the fair fuel stabiliser. David Cameron said that he would introduce a mechanism to ensure that when oil prices went up, prices at the pump would go down and vice versa. That was widely seen to be unworkable, and has been proven by the fact that since coming to power the Government have not acted on it. The stabiliser in the form suggested by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor has not materialised. Even the Office for Budget Responsibility said that it would make fuel prices less stable rather than more stable.
The Treasury then moved to funding the 1p fuel duty cut with the windfall tax on the oil companies, which the Scottish First Minister described as cack-handed. It was introduced almost at the last minute, and the oil companies that it affected were not consulted. The reduced duty is funded by a rise in the supplementary charge on oil companies from 20% to 32%. The Government were then hit by evidence that that would lead to fewer new fields being developed, and greater reliance on foreign imports, which are, of course, more expensive. Under pressure, the Treasury announced in the summer that it would allow companies to offset some start-up costs against tax, but that only served to show the Government’s muddle on the fuel duty regime. They float various ideas, but when those ideas are subject to any scrutiny they do not stand up to cross-examination, and the Government have to make policy on the hoof.
That is partly why we tried to amend the Finance Bill to require the Chancellor to assess the impact of tax on ring-fenced profits. As I argued at the time, that seemed to be in line with the Government’s professed commitment to more consultation and greater transparency in tax policy, instead of coming up with measures without consulting industry and then having to make U-turns..
Another measure that the Chief Secretary announced and which seems to be running out of steam is the pilot scheme for the rural fuel duty rebate, which he announced last October. He was keen on that when he was in opposition, but it seems to be more complicated than the Treasury expected. The rebate would allow a discount of up to 5p a litre on petrol in the inner and outer Hebrides—
Mr MacNeil
There is talk in London of the scheme being complicated, but it need not be. It is happening in many places throughout Europe. The only complication seems to be the length of time it is taking to put it in place.
Kerry McCarthy
At the moment, it is suggested that the scheme will apply to the inner and outer Hebrides, the northern isles and the Isles of Scilly. The Minister will have to explain, but perhaps the delay is due to the fact that there is considerable pressure from other areas where fuel prices are very high. The hon. Member for Newton Abbot (Anne Marie Morris) is no longer in her place, but she made the case for her constituency in the south-west having a similar scheme.
People in the Scottish Highlands, where large distances need to be travelled and the scarcity of retail petrol stations adds to the cost of petrol, think that they, too, should be included in the scheme. Do the Government think that the scheme should be restricted only to the islands, or should it be extended? If the islands are a particular case, perhaps the Minister will clarify what that is. It is not clear whether the island populations would feel any benefit or how the discount could be delivered, and there have been warnings that such a scheme would risk putting petrol stations out of business.
Under the original idea, upfront costs would fall on retailers who might have to wait two months to be reimbursed by the Treasury. For many small retailers that is simply not viable, and if petrol stations in remote areas are forced to close, motorists will have to travel even further to fill up their tanks. I would appreciate a response from the Minister about how that could be avoided if the pilot schemes for rural islands are introduced.
Justine Greening
Thank you, Mr Dobbin. I want to make some progress on fuel duty, because that is the key concern in our minds today. The issue of hauliers was raised. The package that we introduced has meant that hauliers have been able to benefit on average by about £1,700 a year.
Mr MacNeil
I know that time is getting on—we meandered down a funny road there. I want to pull the Minister back to two important points. First, when are we likely to see the rural fuel derogation in place? That is very important. Secondly, does the Minister have any sympathy with my point of view that I am tired of the red and the blue sheriff and I would like to see some of this controlled in Scotland?
Justine Greening
We will update the House very shortly on what is happening with the rural fuel duty discount. We have made progress with the European Union. That will be good news for the hon. Gentleman. It will mean that we can get on with our pilot. I am sure that he very much welcomes that. In terms of other issues raised by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid), he will be aware that of course his islands will be part of that pilot. As he pointed out, we have within the Treasury met stakeholders—petrol retail associations and of course regional owners and operators—to talk about how we can ensure that any rural fuel duty discount scheme works effectively. I think that we are making good progress with that. Clearly, whenever we bring in such a scheme, we must ensure that we understand that it will do what we want it to do and that it will work in the way that we want it to work. We want it to be of help. We were therefore keen to sit down and work through some of the issues that came up, for example, in relation to cash flow. It is also important to ensure that the scheme is not administratively over-burdensome. We are making good progress with those discussions. We have made good progress with the EU. Perhaps we will be able to give further details of that in coming days.
Finally, I want to point out once and for all why it is simply not possible to go down the route of creating a separate VAT rate for petrol. I am surprised that I still hear the Labour party talking about that. We rejected that proposal for a number of reasons. One was that it would take six years—possibly more—to come into effect. The other was that it is illegal, because fuel is standard-rated in terms of VAT, as part of EU rules. If we want to reduce the rate of VAT on fuel, we need a revision of the VAT directive. In fact, we would have to have unanimous agreement from all member states, and the European Commission would have to approve. As I said, it could take six years or more. I say that because that is what the French found when they sought a reduced VAT rate. Just in case that is not enough of a problem, the EU has also agreed a moratorium on revising the VAT directive. That was agreed under the previous Chancellor of the Exchequer. That route is not the route to help motorists, whereas the route that we took of a £1.9 billion package to support motorists was.
Sovereign Grant Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 4 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Osborne
That is not something that the Government are proposing today. If we were to propose it, we would of course address the impact of such a decision on the royal finances. I am assuming that even under such arrangements, the Queen would remain the Queen of Scots. I believe that most of us are happy with the current arrangements.
Mr MacNeil
Will the money from the Crown Estate be paid directly to the royal family or will it go to a third party?
Scotland Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr MacNeil
The Minister talks about the Scottish Government justifying why they should have this power, but have the UK Government given any justification for why they should hold on to the power over corporation tax in Scotland?
Mr Gauke
It was about five minutes ago when we last set out the reasons that corporation tax remains a reserved matter. The Bill provides for a substantial devolution of tax powers to the Scottish Government, but corporation tax has always been a matter for the United Kingdom. We are exploring this matter in the context of Northern Ireland, but if there is a case to be made for a radical change in this area, we would like to hear it and we look forward to doing so soon.
Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con)
I shall speak first to my amendment 24 before making some broader comments about some of the other amendments and new clauses.
I tabled the amendment as a probing amendment, as I felt there was still some ambiguity about one aspect of the definition of a Scottish taxpayer when it was considered in Committee. My point of concern is to define whether under clause 26 a taxpayer is resident in Scotland at the end of the day if that person is embarking on a cross-border overnight journey—one that departs Scotland before midnight and arrives in England after midnight. I think primarily of my old friend on the Caledonian sleeper, whom I cited in Committee. If the train leaves Glasgow and has crossed the border before midnight, is he deemed to be in Scotland or England at the end of the tax day? The point may seem trivial, but for someone who makes that journey regularly it could be material in defining whether they were a Scottish or an English taxpayer. Obviously, it would also apply to other modes of transport, such as private or heavy goods vehicles and overnight coaches.
It is a probing amendment and it may not offer the most specific or elegant definition, but I tabled it to find clarity. I shall be happy not to press it if alternative wording can be found, or the Minister can give clarity in case the definition is ever challenged in court. I shall return to that point briefly at the end of my comments.
I shall speak briefly to new clause 8 and the related amendments tabled by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) and others. I suspect that one of our show-stopping debates tonight may be on the Barnett formula and related matters. When I looked at the amendment paper, I thought I would be following the right hon. Gentleman and responding to his points, but I shall have to anticipate his arguments from the interventions and from the new clause itself.
They are a beguiling set of amendments. I agree that at some point we shall have to tackle the whole issue of the Barnett formula and the fiscal relationship between all parts of the United Kingdom. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) invites me to give a solution. If he bides his time—
Iain Stewart
I know, but I believe I have a better one and I shall turn to it in a moment.
The arguments are beguiling. The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Kate Hoey) said that she has correspondence from constituents asking why on the face of it Scottish residents have a much better deal from the UK public purse than people in England. I receive similar letters asking why prescriptions are free north of the border, but there is a charge in England. That issue has to be tackled.
Mr MacNeil
Among that raft of questions, has anyone ever asked the hon. Gentleman why the social security spend is higher per head in England than in Scotland?
Iain Stewart
I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s facts, because in preparing for the debate I read that often-thumbed document GERS—Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland—and the Treasury’s public expenditure statistical analysis, which show, if my interpretation is correct, that social security payments are higher per head in Scotland than in England.
Iain Stewart
Indeed. If the hon. Lady will let me develop my argument, I shall address those points. There is a lot of misinformation swilling around and we need to arrive at hard evidence-based data so that we can make objective decisions about the future fiscal relationship between the different parts of the United Kingdom.
One of the misleading things is that we often talk about changing the Barnett formula as if that was the whole fiscal relationship between the different parts of the kingdom. In fact, it is a convergence formula; it was designed by Lord Barnett to diminish the difference between Scottish and English public spending over time. The reason why people complain about the formula is that so many elements of public spending are negotiated separately from the formula. Last week, there was an instructive debate about the formula in the other place and I remind Members of the comments of Lord Lang, a former Scotland Secretary. He said that between 2000 and 2002 the Barnett elements of the public expenditure rounds diminished the Scottish block by £17 million, but the total increased by £340 million because of separately negotiated arrangements.
Mr MacNeil
Was any mention made in that debate of the massive defence underspend in Scotland, which is a huge section of public spending where Scotland receives dramatically less than its per capita share compared with the rest of the UK? [Interruption.] I would say more if I was not being heckled by the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson).
Iain Stewart
If the hon. Gentleman has a little patience, I shall come to what I believe is the solution.
I fear that new clause 8 and the related amendments are a little hasty in dealing with this matter.
Iain Stewart
I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. His party, in calculating Scotland’s share of the United Kingdom’s tax receipts, has used very different formulae and assumptions over the years. I do not have the exact figures to hand, but in the space of a few months it came up with a figure for Scotland’s surplus, if that is what it was, which varied by several billion pounds because it used different assumptions in calculating Scottish tax receipts. That is the problem that we have in calculating the true relationship.
Mr MacNeil
Over and above tax receipts, disaggregated spending might be a lot easier. Does the hon. Gentleman believe that Departments such as the Ministry of Defence should provide full figures on how much they are spending in which parts of the United Kingdom? The Government have the power and authority to do that. We have many concerns about the shipyards in Glasgow and about defence spending. As a member of the governing party, does the hon. Gentleman feel that he should be encouraging his side to provide openness and clarity on these vital issues?
Iain Stewart
I am happy to come to some agreement with the hon. Gentleman. My solution is to provide a detailed breakdown on a territorial basis of actual spending and receipts—what is spent and received by each part of the United Kingdom.
Iain Stewart
I challenge the hon. Gentleman’s assumption about the lack, as he sees it, of economic benefits. I also contend that he is making a good case for Scotland's remaining part of the Union, so that the lion’s share of UK defence assets can be based north of the border.
Mr MacNeil
As part of the Union, Scotland currently has a manifest defence underspend. There is no defence advantage for Scotland of being in the Union at all; we are actually losing money by being part of the Union. Far more would be spent on defence in Scotland as an independent country than the Union is spending there, and the shipyards in Glasgow would be in a far better state with an independent Scotland than with a dependent Scotland represented by Labour.
Iain Stewart
My amendment is very simple and would remove any ambiguity. If a passenger were on a cross-border overnight journey, irrespective of when the border was crossed, they would be deemed to be in Scotland at the end of the day when that service departed. It may not be the most elegant or precise of solutions, but I felt that in the debate in Committee there was some ambiguity about the position, so the amendment is my attempt to clarify it.
Iain Stewart
Forgive me, but I am going to finish now. Many other Members wish to speak, and I look forward to the Minister’s comments.
Ann McKechin
I do not discredit the hon. Lady for making strong statements in this Chamber. However, I find it extraordinary that the First Minister, who feels that he can speak about any issue that impacts on Scotland and who has more powers, does not take the opportunity to speak about the issues that matter to ordinary people in Scotland every day of the week.
I will return to the Bill, as I am sure you would wish, Madam Deputy Speaker.
Mr MacNeil
Will the hon. Lady clarify whether she is saying that she would welcome the First Minister coming to Downing street to talk about welfare reform and pensions?
Ann McKechin
If the First Minister had anything sensible to say, I would, but as yet, I have not heard it. It is a bit like the corporation tax issue—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil) needs to calm himself and not get over-excited. The Scottish Government have had many weeks to produce detailed analysis. They have complained that things have been rushed and that we have not had figures from the UK Government on a variety of issues throughout the passage of this Bill, yet they cannot produce the detailed evidence and analysis that would allow people in Scotland to judge whether their calls have validity.
The hon. Member for Dundee East was given five opportunities this evening to explain what the impact would be on Scottish public expenditure if there was a cut in corporation tax. He said in Committee:
“I would like it cut over a number of years”.—[Official Report, 14 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 70.]
Members may be interested to hear that that has not always been the Scottish National party’s policy on corporation tax. In 1988, a certain Alex Salmond was suspended as an MP from the House of Commons for attacking the Tory Government’s reduction in corporation tax.
Ann McKechin
I would like to continue this point.
Does the SNP believe that a further tax cut for banks, which pay the majority of corporation tax in Scotland, is a progressive policy? Does it believe that there should be a shift from corporation tax to personal income taxation, as has been the case in Switzerland, for example?
Ann McKechin
Actually, there has been very little increase in growth in Switzerland. There is no direct correlation, and the evidence is weak.
As I have said previously, and as a report that came out this week clearly indicated, many different levers of economic growth are already in the hands of the Scottish Government, but they have either chosen not to use them at all, or when they have chosen to use them it has had a detrimental effect as well as sometimes having advantages.
Ann McKechin
The hon. Gentleman is right to raise the serious problem of alcohol consumption in Scotland. As the Labour group in Holyrood pointed out, simply raising the price and allowing supermarkets to retain the surplus—I think that that was the Scottish Government’s first plan—was neither popular nor logical.
However, it is important to note that excise duty is now subject to an escalator above inflation. The Labour Government introduced it before the general election so that excise duty increases above inflation. Although, following the recession, as might have been anticipated, consumption in England dropped, that has not happened in Scotland to the same extent. There is a significant difference between consumption in Scotland and average consumption in England, despite the identical price and range of products.
Price sensitivity does not seem to apply in Scotland to the same extent as it does in England. That suggests that cultural and social issues are predominantly behind the problem. I do not derive any satisfaction from that. It would be much easier if we could say that a simple price escalation would lead to a reduction in consumption. However, the evidence to date has not shown that that would happen. Indeed, the medical evidence shows that the unit cost would have to be considerably higher than that in the Scottish Government’s proposals to make any impact. Obviously, that would have an effect on the drinks industry, particularly given that much of it is located in Scotland.
The subject is serious. The Scottish Government already have a range of levers at their disposal. The one for excise duty is exceptionally complex and I do not think that the argument for it has been made. Certainly, more needs to be done, but it needs to be based on hard evidence. We also need to realise that some of the things that we would like to do and that we think could work might not be sufficiently strong to make an impact. We might have to reconsider our proposals.
I appreciate that the Scottish Government have begun re-examining the issue because I think that they recognise that providing money to supermarkets was not the way forward. However, the issue is much wider and requires several different measures. The power to ban drink discounting, which the Labour group supported, is already on the statute book in Holyrood. That has still to go ahead. I therefore hope that the Scottish Government will enforce the legislation that they already have on the statute book.
Mr MacNeil
First, I observe that on the minimum price of alcohol, the SNP minority Government were supported by a range of professional opinion. However, is not the hon. Lady’s point on the differences between alcohol consumption north and south of the border an argument for pricing within cultures, as opposed to uniform, blanket, one-size-fits-all pricing?
Ann McKechin
The hon. Gentleman must recognise that the cost of alcohol has increased by slightly more than inflation over the past 20 or 30 years, when, of course, the increase in incomes has been much greater. The Government’s ability to control that gap is limited.
The other problem is that the total price of alcohol is, to a large extent, made up of different forms of tax. When we increase taxation to more than a certain level, we find that there is an increase in black market sales, as we found when we increased taxation on cigarettes. I do not discount the fact that price can have a bearing on consumption, but the evidence to date in Scotland presents us with a much more complex problem, much of which is about cultural and social values. They are the only things that can explain the difference in consumption north and south of the border. The regimes of alcohol selling are more or less the same, but there is increased drinking at home rather than in public houses. The problem is complex, and a range of measures must be put in place to deal with it. My Labour colleagues certainly want to make changes that will make an impact, and they are prepared to have a serious debate.
Mr Field
Whatever that means, I shall try to move on, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for that.
I wish to speak to new clause 8 and amendment 23, but I sense that I am interfering in a family row between different factions. As clearly as possible, I want to put the English case, which seems to be lacking in the debate.
This is the first time I have wanted to join in a debate on Scottish matters in the House. That is my fault, though, and I assure my hon. Friends that I will not let it happen again—I now wish to pursue Scottish matters whenever they arise. I have been struck today, listening to a Scottish debate for the first time, by how many of us—myself included, perhaps—failed to think through what devolution meant, and now we have almost hit an invisible brick wall past which we cannot get our arguments.
It seemed to me from observing the recent Scottish elections—obviously my sympathies lay with the party I have the honour to represent in Parliament—even from the language used by English politicians contributing to the Scottish debate that we had not thought through what the limited measure of devolution would mean. We got a pretty good hiding for our trouble on that score. I plead with the Labour Front-Bench team—this is meant as an encouragement, because I know that, as part of our policy review, they are thinking through what should necessarily follow from a defeat on the scale of the one we suffered at the last general election—not to go into the next general election without seriously thinking about the consequences of devolution, not just for Scotland but for the other parts of the United Kingdom, particularly England, where my seat is situated.
I have also been struck by the fact that although people try to mystify us by using various formulas and by saying, “What was given with one hand is taken by another”, I cannot answer, in the light of this debate and the work I have done, the charge put to me by a constituent of mine during the half-term break, when I visited the Scottish Parliament, which is a magnificent building—the extraordinary scale of the domestic architecture was incredibly grand. A constituent of mine greeted me as I went in and asked, “Why is it, Frank, that if I lived in Scotland, I would have free medicines, free long-term care and my children would go to university without paying the fees they pay in England?” Despite all the talk about grants and how we might review them, there is no reply yet to our English constituents on those points. If the explanation is not an unfair distribution of Exchequer grants, I want to know what we have in England that Scotland does not have that might pay for those extraordinary benefits.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman is making an interesting speech and has raised a fascinating point put to him by a constituent of his whom he met in the Scottish Parliament. The only immediate answer I can find to the question he has put to the House about the difference between politics north and south of the border is the existence of the SNP and what it contributes to politics in Scotland.
Mr Field
The answer to that, briefly, is yes.
Reference has been made to the incredibly interesting debate held in the other place last week. I was struck not only by the unanimity on the view that the status quo cannot hold but by the fact that the Minister replying to the debate found it terribly difficult to marshal a case against all those contributions.
Mr MacNeil
The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned a sourness creeping into politics, which everyone wants to avoid for a number of reasons. The hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) has just mentioned comparisons across the jurisdictions, and I hope that that would include jurisdictions outwith the UK. Might the right hon. Gentleman find a solution to his problem in full fiscal autonomy, with spending fully correlated to the ability to raise money? After all, I am sure that his constituents do not want to talk to him about the spending in the Isle of Man, Ireland, Norway or Denmark. They feel a grievance because they perceive an over-closeness in the relationship with Scotland, and that relationship would become healthier with a little more distance.
Mr Field
I shall answer that intervention and finish on that very point. We do not have the information that we require to argue these points, and the sourness could ensue when the Scottish Government hold their referendum on independence. I believe that a large force in this House will insist on other parts of the United Kingdom having a say in that referendum. Given the sourness that will result if we continue the debate in the way we have tonight and certainly before now, the irony would be that the SNP could well fail to carry the Scottish electorate with it on independence, while the English electorate would vote for it.
Mr Reid
The Bill and the Government’s new clauses will bring about a substantial increase in the taxation and borrowing powers available to the Scottish Parliament, taking the Scottish Parliament and the process of devolution substantial steps further forward. Since the Scottish Parliament was established in 1999, it has been held back by the fact that it has had very few tax-varying powers and that its role has been largely to spend money rather than to raise it. By giving it these extra powers, we will increase its democratic accountability.
Mr MacNeil
Surely there is more to it than that. I often hear politicians and certain sectors of the media talking about democratic accountability, but is not the bigger issue the need to ensure that we have Governments, in whatever country, who are capable of influencing the economy so that it can grow? More important than politicians being accountable are people having jobs and the economy growing, so that we can live in a more prosperous society.
Mr MacNeil
Is not that argument similar to a golfer being told, “Of course you can go and play a round of golf, but you’re only getting a putter to play with”?
Mr Reid
The Scottish Parliament already has more than a putter, and the Bill will give it a lot more clubs in its bag.
I support the Government’s new clauses. I listened to the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who appears to have left us, and I conclude that he has not made a case for his amendments. I want to compare the SNP’s approach to that of the other parties in Scotland. The other parties all worked together within the Calman commission and, through deliberation and working towards consensus, came up with a package of measures to give more powers to the Scottish Parliament. The Government are implementing those measures through the Bill. The SNP, however, refused to take part in that process. It has come along tonight with amendments that have no back-up papers, and it cannot make a case to back them up.
When I questioned the hon. Member for Dundee East, I understood his case to be that if corporation tax is cut, more revenue will come in. As I pointed out in my intervention, however, assuming his case to be correct, if one part of the UK were to cut corporation tax, the other parts would be forced to follow suit and there would simply be a race to the bottom, in which businesses would not be paying their fair share of taxes. That would mean either personal taxes going up or services being cut.
Equally, the hon. Member for Dundee East did not convince me on alcohol duties. All the practical problems were put to him and he was not able to answer them. I understand that he thinks the Scottish Government should increase alcohol duties, but if such duties were lower in England, people who lived near the border would simply travel across it to buy alcohol. No doubt when they were in the supermarkets there, they would buy other things as well, which would be a loss to the Scottish economy.
Motoring Fuel Costs
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 5 months ago)
Westminster HallRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Westminster Hall is an alternative Chamber for MPs to hold debates, named after the adjoining Westminster Hall.
Each debate is chaired by an MP from the Panel of Chairs, rather than the Speaker or Deputy Speaker. A Government Minister will give the final speech, and no votes may be called on the debate topic.
This information is provided by Parallel Parliament and does not comprise part of the offical record
Robert Halfon
I very much agree that rural people are also being crushed by the price of fuel. I am glad that my hon. Friend is here today to represent her constituency and the many rural residents who are suffering so much.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Coming from an area where fuel is more than £1.50 a litre at all our fuel stations in the Hebrides, and regularly so, I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has secured this debate. Does he agree that the Office of Fair Trading has to show more teeth in looking at the distribution of fuel? As noted, when the oil price goes up, the price at the pump increases quickly, but when falling, it does not happen at the pump at all. The OFT must start investigating the trade for fairness.
Robert Halfon
I agree that that should happen. I also have another proposal, which I will set out later. I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his work on fuel prices in a debate in the main Chamber some months ago.
Robert Halfon
The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is why I am arguing for transparency. If supermarkets reduce prices, they must do so properly. We cannot have situations such as the one he describes. We often bash bankers, but oil barons are far worse, because they enjoy a semi-monopoly in the UK market, and most motorists have no alternative but to buy their products. We need transparency above all. Oil prices are falling, and we must ensure that the big companies cut their prices at the pump.
The green movement makes a case for expensive petrol, but modern vehicles have lower carbon emissions. Cars account for only 13% of our man-made carbon emissions. My argument—some hon. Members may say that it is controversial—is that environmentalism sometimes becomes a luxury for the rich, with no substantive answers, other than regressive taxes on energy. It is all too easy, in the cause of saving the planet, for the wealthy to insist that the poorest families should pay more in petrol taxes, and gas and electricity bills.
The impact of high fuel prices is particularly severe on road freight companies, and they are a major employer in Harlow. Road freight carries nearly 97% of everything we eat, wear or build with. High and rising fuel costs force the road freight companies to try to pass on the extra cost, and that stokes inflation. If they fail to pass on the increased costs, they go bust.
The road freight companies face a further cruel impact that the UK green lobby must consider. Fuel duty levels on the continent are about 24p a litre lower than in the UK, so hundreds of thousands of foreign lorries pour into the south-east of the UK and undercut UK hauliers. Foreign trucks pay no road tax here, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a £9 a day charge, although I believe that it should be a lot higher. Those trucks pay no fuel tax in the UK as their tanks are big enough to last all week and all their fuel is bought abroad. They pay no employment taxes. They simply come into the UK, drive our UK freight companies out of business, and pay nothing to the Exchequer.
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)
It is a pleasure to serve under your chairmanship, Mrs Brooke, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon) on securing this important debate—Harlow is a place I know well as I used to work there many years ago. He is one of a number of MPs who represent their constituents well by talking to the Government and Ministers about the concerning cost of fuel, and about how that is impacting on the ability of businesses across Britain to employ people, and on families and household finances.
In the short amount of time available, I would like to say why the Government agree that the cost of fuel is a concern, and mention some of the actions that we have taken to try to address that. I will then say a little about some of the things that we think need to happen during the rest of this Parliament.
Mr MacNeil
Does the Minister, or her Department, have any suspicion that high oil prices are the revenge of oil companies for the £2 billion that the Chancellor raised in the Budget through the North sea tax, which also threatens perhaps 15,000 jobs? Oil companies are losing money to the Government in one way, and are penalising consumers and people up and down the country.
Justine Greening
The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the price of oil is a spot price driven by commodity markets. We are talking about a part of the industry that is different from the area in which we chose to raise tax. We are working with industry to ensure that we mitigate any risk of a lessening of investment in the North sea as a result of that tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, we needed to strike a balance to take into account the overall effect of high oil prices as they fed through into the broader economy in petrol prices and energy prices more generally.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. It showed clearly that, although the Exchequer has some growing tax receipts, the dampening effect of the rest of the economy is also significant. We felt that although there was an overall impact on the economy, one sector—the oil companies—was doing much better from a high oil price. It seemed fair and sensible to look at how we could balance some of the value that was being generated by the high oil price, and to create a fairer split between oil companies and those motorists and businesses that bear the brunt of the prices at the pump. We are working hard with industry to mitigate the impact of our policy on investment—the impact was analysed as being small by industry observers such as Wood Mackenzie. This is an important debate, and the Government recognise that motoring is an essential part of life for households and businesses. Fuel costs affect us all, and as the price of petrol continues to rise, those costs have become an evermore significant part of everyday life for people and companies. We were keen to look at what could be done.
The previous Government left us facing the introduction of a fuel escalator from the 2009 Budget that would have involved seven fuel duty increases. I realise that in this half-hour debate, only a Government Minister gets the chance to respond to the Member who secured it, but I am disappointed that a shadow Minister is not present to listen to some of the concerns raised. One of our biggest challenges concerned how to deal with the proposed above-inflation increase in fuel duty. That increase could have resulted in average prices at the pump being 6p per litre higher than they are currently. We would have seen above-inflation rises in 2012, 2013 and 2014. When we took office, no plan was in place to support motorists, and within the huge financial constraints in which we found ourselves, and with little room for manoeuvre, we had to see what we could do to address such an important issue.
Justine Greening
My hon. Friend is right to raise that point. In a sense, the most extreme examples of that problem are the reason why we are bringing in a pilot scheme for the rural fuel rebate. We are making progress on that.
Mr MacNeil
When might we see that welcome rural fuel rebate and rural fuel derogation? We have been calling for such a measure for years, and although we welcome the progress made, we would like to have a date fairly soon.
Justine Greening
I say, “Me too” to that. We are working with the European Commission, and once we have clearance, we will get on with the pilots as soon as possible. We are keen to make progress on the issue, and I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are working and making our case in Europe. We must get agreement from the Commission, and unanimous agreement from European Finance Ministers. Once we have that agreement, we will be pushing on with the pilot schemes.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 6 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Malcolm Bruce
Before I do, I want to point out that today I received the Oil and Gas UK index of confidence in the industry, which is to be published tomorrow. It is not surprising to note that the index reveals a very sharp fall in confidence within the industry in the first quarter since the Budget. For example, exploration and production companies’ confidence has fallen from an index level of 71 in the fourth quarter of 2010 to 46 in the first quarter of 2011. Even the confidence of supply chain companies has fallen, albeit less so, from 61 to 54, and when asked why the fall was less sharp, they said it was because their business was now much more international and they expected to pick up business elsewhere that they would otherwise have lost in the North sea. That gives a clear indication that the industry is facing a loss of confidence as a result of these changes.
Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil (Na h-Eileanan an Iar) (SNP)
Is the right hon. Gentleman happy with what his Government are doing in the North sea?
Malcolm Bruce
The fact that I am moving the amendment makes fairly clear what I think and what I am trying to do. What I am saying to the Government—[Interruption.] I accept that the Government have introduced a Budget that has made these changes. What I am trying to do is to get Ministers to understand that the industry is complex and that Government decisions might lead it to a review of investment, which could lose production, jobs and export opportunities. It is possible to retrieve the situation, however, if we have an active process of negotiation. Previous Governments have made the same mistake and realised the need to engage with the industry.
Malcolm Bruce
I think the answer is that I want to hear what the Minister has to say.
Malcolm Bruce
Hang on a minute. We have had a series of debates tonight, and have heard a number of lengthy speeches, not all of which have contributed much to the argument. We are now engaged in a very material debate about the most important industry that we have, and in a serious attempt to persuade the Government to engage, piece by piece, with the industry and rebuild the trust which, as was rightly pointed out by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford), has been damaged and needs to be repaired The industry was very pleased that the Economic Secretary engaged with it soon after her appointment and went offshore. It is important for her not to lose that good will, and to demonstrate that she has that degree of understanding. I am sure that she will do so, because I think that she has learned a great deal from her experience.
Malcolm Bruce
Time will tell—that is all I can say to the hon. Gentleman. My hon. Friend the Member for West Aberdeenshire and Kincardine and I together probably represent more oil and gas jobs than any other Member, except perhaps for the hon. Members for Aberdeen South (Dame Anne Begg) and for Aberdeen North (Mr Doran). It is important to point out that our areas account for only about a quarter of the oil jobs in the UK, as many of the jobs are in London, the north-east and elsewhere—
Malcolm Bruce
Indeed, some are even in Stornoway. It is important that this is seen to be a national industry.
I have debated oil and gas in this House for 28 years. I have seen every Government make the same mistake and I am disappointed that the present Government have done so, but I have also seen every Government engage and reach an understanding because they have learnt the complexities of the industry. All I am asking is that this Government engage in the same constructive way and that we reach a position where we get the balance right. The amendments seek at least to provide a framework for the sort of conversations that should take place between the Government and the industry.
Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living
Angus Brendan MacNeil Excerpts(13 years, 8 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
I would not expect any less of the Minister, as she certainly should be meeting the organisations. It is a shame that the Chancellor and the Chief Secretary to the Treasury were not also here today to listen to people.
The hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) talked about his election leaflets hounding his constituents about the fuel duty stabiliser. He referred to the work that Conservative central office had put into the policy, which he described as a well-thought-out policy from before the election that will be implemented shortly. I may disabuse him of that delusion a bit later in my speech.
The hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills) talked about the impact in rural areas and the fact that people could not afford to go to work, and he urged the Chancellor not to go ahead with the fuel duty escalator. My hon. Friend the Member for Stockton North (Alex Cunningham) ventured further afield and discussed the impact of fuel poverty on people who were having to spend more than 10% of their income on heating their homes, saying that what the Government are doing across the board is likely to push more people into fuel poverty. It was a very thoughtful speech.
The hon. Member for Bristol West (Stephen Williams) talked about petrol prices in Bristol. I am sure that one of the few things on which we can agree is that Bristol desperately needs to sort out its transport issues and develop a better public transport system. It has the worst congestion of any city in the country, and we need to address that. The hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil)—did I pronounce that correctly?
Kerry McCarthy
Almost. The hon. Gentleman talked about the rural fuel derogation, but I do not think that he got an answer from the Economic Secretary. He asked when the pilot in the Outer Hebrides would happen and whether he could have more details.
The hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) went on a bit of a flight of fancy about the Economic Secretary engaging people in head-locks and bare-knuckle fighting, which, I am afraid, she missed. He then expressed disappointment that we had had no softening up from her—I am not sure where he was going with that. However, he also spoke evocatively about the impact of the fuel price rise on his Northern Ireland constituents.
The hon. Member for Dover (Charlie Elphicke) accused the Labour party of shameless opportunism in speaking up for constituents and trying to address the impact on hard-hit motorists. What I would describe as shameless is the Conservative party’s leading people to believe before the election that it could cut 10p off the price of petrol and then doing nothing about it.
Kerry McCarthy
I am sorry, but I have no time to allow any more interventions.
We heard today that unemployment has now risen to more than 2.5 million. Another 27,000 people have been added to the dole queue in the past three months. Those who are in work find their income squeezed by the rising cost of living, with inflation surging over 5%, but average wages growing by just 2.3% and many in the public sector facing a cut in real terms. People are struggling to make ends meet.
This month, the Office for National Statistics added iPhone apps and online dating fees to its RPI shopping basket—I am not sure what was in its RIP shopping basket. The ONS believes that essentials such as food and fuel now make up an increasing proportion of the average family spend. Of course, we have heard today that the price of fuel is rising fast. A litre of fuel is now £1.32, which is up 7p from the beginning of the year. That is an extra £80 for the average driver.
We accept that the Government cannot control the price of oil. We understand that the turmoil in the middle east and north Africa is having an impact on global prices. However, the Government are not powerless. They have a choice. They could choose to help working families get through the tough times, or to carry on regardless down their reckless path of cuts, which are too fast and too deep, slashing support for families and putting the recovery at risk.
The Government have made the wrong choice. The Chancellor chose to raise VAT to 20%, which hits low and middle-income families hardest and has pushed up the prices of fuel, energy and food and, as we have heard, has hurt businesses, too.
The Exchequer Secretary to the Treasury (Mr David Gauke)
This has been a helpful debate. There is little doubt that the cost of living and the rising price of fuel are difficult issues that affect all our constituents. I thank my hon. Friends who raised issues from their constituencies, in particular my hon. Friends the Members for Worcester (Mr Walker), for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills), for Bristol West (Stephen Williams), for Devizes (Claire Perry), for Rugby (Mark Pawsey), for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy) and for Dover (Charlie Elphicke).
When times are hard, things are clearly very difficult, and we understand that people want us to do something. We have to address the deficit. The plans that we inherited were not credible. One plan announced by the previous Government was to increase fuel duty six times over the course of the next few years. The Chancellor will, of course, update the House next week on our plans on all tax matters. I am sure that the points that have been raised today will be fully taken into account.
I will focus on one particular Opposition proposal: the suggested cut in VAT on road fuel. In advance of a Budget, the Opposition seek to find a popular and eye-catching policy to get some headlines and broadcast time. One can imagine the enthusiasm of the shadow Chancellor when he told the Leader of the Opposition of his cunning plan. He wanted to use the money from a tax on unpopular people—our bank levy—to reduce costs for motorists. However, rather than the obvious proposal of reversing fuel duty increases, which might have been a little awkward for the Labour party, he proposed to focus on VAT on fuel, and in so doing to distract attention from the fact that Labour is dropping its opposition to other parts of the VAT increase.
Mr MacNeil
I am grateful to the Minister. I did try to intervene on the Opposition spokesman. I wonder whether the Minister is aware that 37 days ago, on 7 February, there was a debate in this House calling for action on fuel prices, and Labour MPs abstained.
Mr Gauke
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that point.
With the new policy prepared, how could the shadow Chancellor’s plan possibly fail? An interview round was done on Sunday, a press conference was booked for Monday, and an Opposition day was planned for today—I believe by moving aside other plans. However, let us consider what happened. So quickly did the flagship policy of a cut to VAT on fuel unravel that the shadow Chief Secretary, in her 32-minute speech, completely skipped over it. She did not want to discuss it for a moment. What went wrong? The starting point, of course, is that the funds identified by the shadow Chancellor are a one-off amount of £800 million that is available this year from the bank levy. There are no funding plans for future years. Of course, the bank levy should be spent in myriad ways, according to the Labour party—I think it has committed it 10 times over.
Let us turn to how a VAT reduction on fuel duty would be achieved. As has been pointed out, the operation of VAT by EU member states has always been restricted by EU-wide rules. Of particular relevance is the fact that reduced rates may apply to certain specified items, but road fuel is not among them. Under the current rules in the relevant EU directive, we simply cannot do it.
Today’s motion states that we should seek a derogation, and the shadow Chancellor has said that France has obtained a derogation with regard to restaurants. That is correct, and it is perhaps worth describing the process required to obtain a derogation—unless, of course, Labour Members wish to leave the EU. That would liven up the debate, but I do not think that that is their position. If they wanted a derogation, there would have to be discussions with the European Commission, which would have to be persuaded to make a proposal. Each and every member state would have to agree to that proposal, and there would also have to be consultation with the European Parliament.
It is true that a new agreement was reached in 2009 on the list of excepted activities, but that agreement took nearly seven years from start to finish. There is no guarantee of success, either. Opposition Members dismiss the European situation, but they sought derogations to achieve lower rates of VAT for listed places of worship and green energy-saving materials. They were unsuccessful, and they abided by the decision. The VAT directive currently allows derogations only on the grounds of simplification or the prevention of avoidance or abuse, so the chances of success are slim. The shadow Chancellor’s position today is that we should begin a lengthy, and almost certainly unsuccessful, attempt to obtain a derogation that may result in our being able to reduce VAT on fuel in six or seven years.
That is not quite what the shadow Chancellor has been saying recently. On 27 February, on the “Politics Show”, he said in respect of additional VAT on road fuel that the Chancellor
“should say I will reverse that now.”
In The Sun on 28 February, he stated that the Chancellor should “act now”. Again on the “Politics Show”, on 13 March, he said:
“The VAT rise he could reverse immediately and I think he should.”
The same morning, on Sky News, he called on the Chancellor to
“act immediately on VAT…on Wednesday we’ll be urging Conservative and Liberal Democrat MPs to join with us in voting in parliament to urge the Chancellor, cut VAT on fuel now and give immediate relief to hauliers and motorists across the country.”
When he says “immediate relief” and that we should not wait until the Budget and that we should “act now”, what he really means is that we should start a lengthy process that just might, possibly, with a bit of luck and with the consent of 26 other member states, mean that we could take some action in about 2018. As an example of immediate action to help hard-pressed British motorists, that is somewhat lacking in effectiveness.
The cynical view is that the shadow Chancellor knew that that policy would not work, but it was enough for him to have something to say to get in the media. The cynics will point out his vast experience in the Treasury—he is, after all, a man with a past. How, they will ask, could he possibly be so incompetent? I think those cynics are being unfair to him. He could be that incompetent. After all, he has told us that he wants to cut VAT to help hauliers, but hauliers can reclaim VAT. He has talked about the cutting of VAT on fuel in the 1990s, but in fact that was domestic fuel. He has talked about asking for a VAT cut on fuel in rural areas, but now asks for a derogation on fuel duty.
If the Labour party is to have a shadow Chancellor who does not understand the tax system and who makes embarrassing mistakes, they would do a lot better with the previous one, who at least did that with a certain amount of charm. Only at the weekend, the current shadow Chancellor told The Guardian:
“My task is to rebuild Labour’s economic credibility, but that won’t happen in a week”.
That will certainly not happen this week. In a desperate attempt to have something to say on a matter of genuine concern, he has come up with a risible policy that is unfunded from next year and that cannot be implemented for years, if at all.
Once again the Labour party has demonstrated that on economic matters, it lacks credibility and competence, and I urge the House to oppose the motion.
Question put (Standing Order No. 31(2)), That the original words stand part of the Question.