Fuel Costs

Alan Reid Excerpts

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

I am always surprised when otherwise articulate, able and intelligent Members do not see the whole picture. When one looks at total tax and total income, rather than the mere, modest fragment of net identifiable expenditure, one sees a rather different story. Prior to the recession—independent figures stand this up—Scotland was about £50 billion in, £50 billion out. As the hon. Gentleman will recall, the UK ran a £0.5 trillion debt before the recession, so his argument is not particularly helpful, and nor does it really pertain to today’s motion.

Of course, some business sectors are hit rather harder than others. Some businesses have a little leeway in their pricing policy, but some have none. I was struck by the comments of Bill McIntosh, the general secretary of the Scottish Taxi Federation, who said:

“Taxi drivers”—

it is an important trade—

“are affected more than most by increases in fuel. Unlike other transport operators, taxi drivers can’t just raise their prices as fares are set by local authorities…The Scottish Taxi Federation welcomes and supports the proposal for a fuel stabiliser.”

That is important. The sector has a fixed pricing structure that it cannot adjust and rising input costs.

Many haulage firms—this is an extreme example—have already agreed long-term future contracts with a fixed price. There might be some variation, depending on the uplift in fuel, but it is unlikely, under the contractual arrangements, that they could be compensated for the very quickly and steeply rising input prices. In my view, the haulage sector suffers the largest single impact. According to the Road Haulage Association, operating costs have risen by 3.3% since last October. It tells me that fuel accounts for more than a third of the sector’s business costs, and that, in cash terms, an average rise is expected this year of £4,206 on the basis of increases over the past three months alone. That is quite extraordinary—an increase of £4,206 in the running costs per truck.

I suspect that that is why Phil Flanders, the Scottish and Northern Ireland director of the RHA, has said:

“The RHA…supports the SNP/Plaid Cymru motion to urge the Government to take immediate action to resolve the increasingly difficult situation that hauliers—and motorists—find themselves in due to the cost of fuel.”

He went on to say that it has always supported these

“proposals for a fuel duty regulator in order to bring stability to the costs of a haulage business where fuel”

in some places

“can account for around 40% of running costs…Whatever it is called—a stabiliser or a regulator”—

or a modulator—

“help is urgently needed for all hauliers and particularly those further from their market such as those in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. Remote rural communities also deserve special help given the exorbitant price they have to pay.”

I will say more about that later. He continued:

“It cannot be stressed strongly enough that in the past year fuel prices have gone up by at least 14% and in the last 28 months there have been 8 fuel duty hikes amounting to a 25% increase. This is just simply unacceptable for the economy.”

I share that view entirely.

The Freight Transport Association has followed up that support and welcomes the effort

“to develop the fuel duty debate further. Lives and livelihoods up and down the country are suffering in the face of unsustainable and crippling fuel costs. For businesses still in the grip of tough trading conditions these costs severely restrict cash flow and a company’s ability to do business; sadly this can translate to job losses and the difference between solvency and insolvency.”

It says that when the price of fuel

“rises steeply it has an immediate impact on a company’s cash flow.”

Given how the banks are behaving, with credit tight and squeezed, cash flow is vital.

The FTA also says:

“As part of the Fair Fuel UK Campaign, the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association, along with backing from the RAC, are asking government principally to scrap the fuel duty rise planned in April and introduce a methodology for stabilising fuel prices.”

Indeed, Fair Fuel UK, which is supported by 20,000 road freight companies, the Royal Automobile Club, dozens of trade associations, other groups and tens of thousands of individual motorists, has said that it supports today’s attempt to raise this issue and its impact on the economy on the Floor of the House. It said that this

motion and debate will…add pressure to the Government to act”,

and act quickly, on what it calls a “fuel crisis”. There is no doubt that this is a crisis. It is also clear that there is not only an assessment of a real, immediate and serious problem, but a clear coalescing of those at the front line about the introduction of a stabiliser as the primary solution.

This is about not simply a fuel duty regulator or stabiliser, however, but the specific problems in remote areas.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

The hon. Gentleman has outlined the problem, but he has not given the solution. He has spoken for 18 minutes, but has not told us how a stabiliser would work. I would like to hear how it would work, so will he please explain it to us?

[Stewart Hosie]

The hon. Gentleman has been here long enough to know that this is an Opposition day motion. If he waits until the Finance Bill, I am sure that both I and his hon. Friends will be happy to put forward detailed proposals and provisions, as we have all done on a number of previous occasions. Had he been listening to my response to an earlier intervention, when I explained how the proposal was due to work, he would know that we suggested it in 2005. We presented an amendment in 2008, and the then Conservative Opposition proposed something similar in July 2008. If he holds his horses, I suspect that we will have the detailed provisions for such a mechanism soon enough.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am going to make some ground.

This motion is not simply about the fuel duty regulator; it is about the problems in remote areas, where there is no choice but to drive. In a debate on introducing a rural fuel derogation in 2006, the argument was put as follows. The purpose of the proposal—on that occasion contained in a new clause—was to

“enable the Treasury to specify lower rates of duty on fuel to apply in remote rural areas. Hon. Members will know that article 19 of the European Union’s energy products directive allows member states to apply for a derogation to allow lower duty rates in specified areas. In October 2004, the French Government, with the support of UK Ministers and Ministers of other member states…did just that, following the example set by the Portuguese and the Greek Governments in previous years.”

The argument for applying such a measure in the United Kingdom rested on

“the very serious economic impact that higher fuel prices in rural areas have on areas such as the highlands and islands of Scotland. The truth is that people…in remote areas such as the highlands and islands are victims of a triple whammy. They pay higher fuel prices and have much longer distances to travel, with few or no alternatives to making those journeys by car. Unavoidably, they spend more on transport than others and therefore also contribute more to the Treasury. Motoring costs represent some 18 per cent. of total household expenditure in rural Scotland compared with 13 per cent. across the rest of Scotland.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 738-39.]

Those were not my words; they were the words of the current Chief Secretary to the Treasury. I am disappointed that he is not here to stand by his words and make a commitment to drive forward a rural fuel derogation at the earliest possible opportunity.

[Mr Reid]

rose—

[Stewart Hosie]

Before the hon. Gentleman gets to his feet, let me remind him that when the Liberal party last proposed a rural fuel derogation, we backed it. I suspect that some of his colleagues were less forthcoming in backing proposals that we had made, although there were some honourable exceptions who wanted to.

[Mr Reid]

Now that the Liberal Democrats are part of the Government, the hon. Gentleman should be pleased that the rural fuel derogation is going to happen. We tried for years and the Labour party knocked us back, but now that my right hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey (Danny Alexander) is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the rural fuel derogation for the islands is going to happen.

[Stewart Hosie]

I am delighted to hear that the rural fuel derogation is going to happen. I cannot wait to hear that from a Minister, because the reports that I read earlier tended to indicate a little confusion in the Government’s ranks. I hope that that happens soon, for the following reasons.

In the final bit that I want to quote from the Chief Secretary’s speech in 2006, he said:

“Median earnings in the highlands and islands are some 85 per cent. of the UK figure, so the inequitable situation”

that he had described

“hits an already poorer region very hard.”

He said that, before coming to the Chamber, he had conducted

“a random survey of pump prices for a litre of unleaded petrol. In Aviemore in my constituency…the…price is 99.9p per litre. In Dalwhinnie, a little further south, it is 102p per litre. In Thurso, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), it is 102p per litre. In Lerwick, in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), it is 106.9p per litre. By comparison, at Asda in Leeds the price is 92.9p, while in Morrison’s in Camden in north London, it is 90.9p.”—[Official Report, 4 July 2006; Vol. 448, c. 739.]

In preparation for today, we were told by the AA that petrol cost £1.34 a litre in Portree and £1.42 a litre in Stornoway. With prices now more than 30p a litre more than four years ago, that means an increase of more than £1.30 a gallon—many hon. Members will remember when that was what a gallon of petrol itself cost. If the argument was correct then, when the price was between 90p and £1 a litre, it is even stronger today, when the price is £1.30 a gallon more.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

No, I was referring to my right hon. Friend the Member for Normanton, Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper). The Minister may have got the hint when I said “She”.

If a stabiliser were introduced, there is the question of whether the cut in duty would be passed on to the consumer at the pump. That would be very difficult to achieve without further Government enforcement and interference. I am not sure how that would square with the Government’s purported dearly held belief in the free market and dislike for state interference in the operation of the free market.

[Mr Reid]

Yes, that issue must be considered, but the whole point of a pilot scheme is to enable us to work out whether the cuts are being passed on, which the Government would monitor. The hon. Lady’s argument is no case for not having a pilot scheme.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I am talking about the fuel duty stabiliser. I appreciate his confusion, because that has not been discussed much in this debate. The rural derogation is a separate issue. I am talking about how a stabiliser would be enforced.

Despite the concerns about a fuel duty stabiliser that were raised during the 2008 Finance Bill debates and afterwards, and the obvious difficulties in implementing one, the Conservatives could not resist dangling the prospect of reduced petrol prices before motorists’ eyes. They published a consultation document in July 2008, which proposed the stabiliser:

“when fuel prices go up, fuel duty would fall. And when fuel prices go down, fuel duty would rise”.

That continued to be Conservative party policy until polling day. A week before polling day, the Prime Minister told voters on a visit to a Coca-Cola plant that

“we’d be helping with the cost of living by trying to give you a flatter and more constant rate for filling up your car”.

It was suggested by Conservative politicians in the media that it would be included in the new Government’s first Budget.

Before the election, this Government made all the right noises about tackling high petrol prices. They led the public to believe that they would take action to slash fuel duty and bring down the price of petrol at the pumps. Since then, they have done nothing. Actually, that is not quite true. They have done nothing to implement the fuel duty stabiliser, which they made such a song and dance about before the election, but they have hit the motorist by whacking up VAT to 20%. They have increased petrol prices, not cut them.

Even the Office for Budget Responsibility, set up by this Government to give independent, impartial advice, has said that the fuel duty stabiliser would not work. The underlying economics of the stabiliser contain a simple, basic assumption that when oil prices rise, the Government receive an unexpected windfall from taxes on North sea oil production. The OBR said that that is not the case, at least not in the long term. In “Assessment of the Effect of Oil Price Fluctuations on the Public Finances”, which was published on 14 September last year, the OBR reported that a temporary rise in the oil price would have a negligible effect on the UK public finances, and that a permanent rise would create a loss. The OBR said that it would be difficult for the Government to introduce a fair fuel stabiliser without a significant cost to the Exchequer:

“There is no improvement in the public finances to be used for stabilising the pump price in the case of a permanent shock.”

In fact, a permanent increase in fuel prices would have a negative impact on the public finances after a year, given the effects on demand, inflationary pressures, household income and consumer spending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Representing a sparsely populated rural constituency, I am only too aware of the severe impact of the high fuel price on motorists and local businesses. It is important to remember that, in remote areas, a car is an essential, not a luxury.

Let us consider the purpose of high fuel duty. Two arguments are often advanced: the green argument and the tax-raising argument. The green argument does not stack up in rural areas, because it is based on encouraging people out of their cars and on to public transport. That fails completely in the highland and islands of Scotland, where buses are few and far between. Indeed, there would be no point in rural councils in remote areas subsidising buses that run with only one or two passengers to try to reduce carbon emissions. Clearly, one or two people taking a car will cause far fewer carbon emissions than one or two people on a bus.

I represent many of the islands of the Inner Hebrides, and the price of fuel is far higher there than on the mainland. On the larger islands, such as Mull and Islay, the price of a litre of fuel is typically 15p higher than in a city. On the smaller islands, such as Coll and Colonsay, the price is often about 30p a litre higher. I was therefore delighted when the Government announced their intention to pursue a pilot scheme under which there would be a 5p fuel duty discount on many islands, including the Inner Hebrides. I realise that they must get EU permission to go ahead with that scheme, but since other EU countries operate a similar scheme for islands, I see no reason why permission will not be granted. It takes time to take such projects through the EU, and it is important that the Government get their proposals right, but I plead with them to take their proposals through as quickly as is humanly possible.

[Mr MacNeil]

When does the hon. Gentleman hope to see the rural fuel derogation in action on the Inner Hebrides?

[Mr Reid]

I hope that the scheme will be implemented as soon as possible, and that it can be extended to remote parts of the mainland once the pilot schemes are proven to be successful, as I am sure they will be.

Any argument that fuel duty must increase yet further in order to deter car use is complete nonsense. The high price of fuel already deters car use, and simply increasing the duty further will have no effect on the environment. As other hon. Members have said, increasing the duty will simply harm the rural economy.

I recognise that fuel duty brings in a lot of money for the Treasury, and that the Budget must be balanced. We face an enormous budget deficit, which was inherited from the previous Government, but I put it to the Chancellor that yet another fuel duty increase in the coming Budget will harm the economy, particularly in rural areas, and I urge him to find another way of raising that money. Fuel duty discriminates against rural areas in a way that no other tax does. Almost any other tax increase to replace an increase in fuel duty would therefore be an improvement.

We have debated the stabiliser previously, particularly during proceedings on the Finance Act 2009, when the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) proposed one. The crucial decision is on the amount around which the price should be stabilised. The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was a Liberal Democrat Treasury spokesman at the time, pointed out that the proposal from the hon. Member for Dundee East would mean that the fuel duty would have been 4.5p higher if it had been introduced in the 2008 Budget. I am disappointed that in the intervening two years, the hon. Gentleman has not come forward with a detailed, workable proposal.

[Katy Clark]

I recall the debate and vote on that proposal. Parts of my constituency are similar to the hon. Gentleman’s constituency. Does he agree that the technical and practical problems of introducing a nationwide derogation would need to be looked at very seriously? When those on the Treasury Bench consider the detail, they might find that a nationwide scheme is impossible. Does he therefore agree that we need to consider introducing a scheme in specific communities in specific parts of the country, like the pilot scheme?

[Mr Reid]

Yes, I agree with the hon. Lady. I hope that a stabiliser formula for the whole country can be found and made to work, but I remain sceptical. It is important that the Government consider that idea, but it is also important that no idea is put into practice without careful consideration of all possible negative effects. Any rigid formula could have such unforeseen effects, such as the 4.5p increase that would have resulted in 2009. I am convinced that a rural fuel derogation could be made to work in a specific area. I have no argument whatever against a stabiliser pilot scheme, but I remain sceptical. It would be great if a stabiliser could be made to work—the Government ought to consider it—but we must be very careful. The way forward is definitely a rural fuel discount.

The Budget is only a few weeks away. It is important that the Chancellor exercises restraint and that he does not increase fuel duty in the Budget, when the fuel price is already so high. However, rather than having a rigid stabiliser formula, which could have unforeseen side effects, it is important that he acts sensibly.

Under the previous Labour Government’s policy in their last Budget—the fuel escalator—the tax on fuel would increase by more than 4p a litre in April. I hope that the Government do not follow Labour’s policy. That would be grim news for a rural economy that is already struggling under the burden of a high fuel price. I urge the Chancellor to heed the warnings he has received on the impact that another 4p per litre increase would have, and I plead with him to cancel the proposed fuel duty increase in the Budget.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr MacNeil]

Absolutely. Labour was against a fuel duty regulator, a rural fuel derogation and anything else that would have helped people in the Hebrides.

[Mr Reid]

What the hon. Gentleman is saying about the previous Labour Government is perfectly correct, but does he not have it within himself to congratulate the coalition Government? He knows that, time after time, I, along with my hon. Friend the Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) and other Liberal Democrats, put forward proposals in debates on Finance Bills for rural fuel derogations, and the Labour party rejected them. This Government are going to implement that. Will he not have the decency to recognise that and congratulate the Government?

[Mr MacNeil]

I certainly do have the decency to recognise that. I am very pleased that that announcement was made in the autumn. In fact, I think I text messaged the Chief Secretary to the Treasury to say how delighted I was. My only fear is that Liberal Members have lost the fierce urgency that they used to have in opposition, and are not really looking for a date on which we will see a rural fuel derogation. By Christmas we had heard that nothing formal had happened—that was one of the lines that came out. We want things to happen, and we genuinely need them to happen. The coalition agreement mentioned the rural fuel derogation. It did not mention the VAT rise, but hey, that was put in place quite quickly—by new year—yet we have not seen the rural fuel derogation.

The European Commission has been blamed, so I wrote to the Commission asking for the timetable, to see whether things are indeed being held back. However, the European Commission being the European Commission, it probably does not feel very accountable to democratically elected citizens in the member states of the EU. That is a matter for the European Commission. I hope that it is listening and will respond quickly, because we need action now. I need to know from the Government whether the formal stage has started. Just when will we see a rural fuel derogation? How long has it taken to get a rural fuel derogation in other countries? Those are the questions that I am being asked when I go back to the Hebrides, and I need answers from the Treasury now.

The rural fuel derogation is not at all like Christmas, because Christmas has come and gone, but where is the rural fuel derogation? I acknowledge that progress has been made, and I am pleased to see that. There are good intentions behind it, but thus far, it has been as effective only as the progress made by Labour. I hope that, in a year’s time, the situation will be very different. I hope that we will not have to debate the issue again in a year’s time, but I fear that we will. The Labour Government were famous for the ridiculous, obstinate answers that they gave us over the years—they were against giving any help at all to the islands—and my worry is that the Liberals have really lost the urgency of now. They should remember that there are elections in May, and that if there has been no action by then, the voting will hurt them.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Alan Reid Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

That is clearly where our moral duty arises. If policyholders are trapped and cannot adjust their position, they are unable to rectify the damage that has been done.

I want to speak briefly to amendment 7. The Government have accepted that £4.26 billion should be the full amount available to policyholders, 37,000 of whom will receive 100% compensation. That clearly involves a huge amount of money, which will come out of the £1.5 billion. The policyholders who are not trapped annuitants would therefore get something like 15% of the compensation due to them, which seems pretty unfair and unreasonable. We should set up a commission to devise a payment scheme, then look at the results. Instead, £1.5 billion has now been set aside, and an independent commission will set up the mechanism for distributing that money. That could have very serious consequences indeed.

Parliament has a problem in this regard. I applaud the Government for moving swiftly to settle this matter once and for all, but we are setting up a method for distributing the money and creating expectations out there. About 1.4 million policyholders have been affected by the scandal, and 37,000 will receive full compensation while 10,000 will not get a penny. That leaves rather a lot of policyholders among whom to divide a relatively small amount of money. When the Minister responds to the debate, I trust that he will be able to set out how the calculations were made, so that we can be clear about them.

Amendment 7 would allow us to review the position in five years’ time, when the economy has recovered and the benefits of this Government are clear for all to see, and to top up the compensation further for those people who will be retiring in five, 10, 15 or 25 years’ time. We also have a moral duty to honour our pledge to those people. This is one of those cases in which we have set out to do something in the proper way, and I applaud those on the Treasury Bench for moving swiftly to bring the matter to a conclusion so that payments can be made as soon as possible, but we must ensure that we fulfil our moral duty to those policyholders.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I start by putting firmly on the record my belief that the Government have implemented the parliamentary ombudsman’s report and have honoured the pledges made before the election. It was always part of the parliamentary ombudsman’s report that this would be a political decision for the Government to make, taking the public finances into account when they set the cap. The Government have set the cap at £1.5 billion. I wish it could have been more, and I hope that it will be possible to revisit this in future when the public finances are in a better state.

I have sympathy for amendment 1, but let me state my understanding of how it would work in practice. It does not alter the cap that has already been set, so if the pre-September 1992 with-profits annuitants were to be compensated to the same level as the post-September 1992 with-profits annuitants, there would be less for the latter group of people. If the cap remains the same, and the amendment does not alter the cap, giving more to some people would mean giving less to others. I ask the Financial Secretary and the hon. Member for Leeds North East (Mr Hamilton) who moved the amendment to comment on that when they respond.

I want to press the Government on why they have chosen the date of September 1992. As other hon. Members have said, the maladministration started in June 1991. Penrose found that when the Equitable Life Assurance Society’s board papers were sent to the Government Actuary’s Department on 11 June 1991, there was information in those papers showing that the society was not in a good position. Had the Government Actuary’s Department publicised that information at that time, investors would have been deterred from investing in the society. There is a strong argument for saying that the date should be not September 1992 but June 1991.

On 30 July 1992, in an internal briefing, the Government Actuary’s Department described the society as being one of the

“companies on whom we have been keeping a close watch for a number of years”

and said that Equitable Life remained a company “which caused serious concern”. There was evidence in July 1992—in fact, before July 1992—that the Government Actuary’s Department was aware that Equitable Life had problems. Surely that should have been made public and investors should have been deterred. In his response, will the Minister clarify why the date of September 1992 was chosen, because it certainly seems to me that an earlier date—say June 1991 or possibly even earlier—would have been more appropriate?

[Mr Marcus Jones (Nuneaton) (Con)]

I would like to speak mainly about the position of with-profits annuitants and the pledge that I and other Members of all parties made before the general election—that the Government should make fair and transparent payments to those who had suffered as a consequence of the debacle of Equitable Life. I am talking about 350 local people in my constituency who are part of the Equitable Members Action Group. Those 350 include people associated with many companies that were in the Equitable Life scheme. Many hundreds of other people are affected. For some, Equitable Life provided their only private pension to supplement their state pension provision.

I welcome the fact that for a number of my constituents, that pledge has been made good, and I understand that the trapped annuitants in the post-1992 cohort will receive 100% of their compensation. I am delighted about that. Needless to say, I am also very concerned for the pre-1992 Equitable Life investors for whom, it seems, there will be no compensation at all. That seems contrary to the recommendations of the parliamentary ombudsman, contrary to EMAG’s suggestions and contrary to the views of Sir John Chadwick, for whom not many Members have a great deal of time.

I understand that it is difficult to quantify the losses, but, if the Government have the will, the losses of the pre-1992 annuitants should be explored. The people to whom we made a pledge before the general election in May were not necessarily concerned whether they were pre-1992 annuitants or post-1992 annuitants. Their concern was as Equitable Life policyholders looking for justice.

If the Government and the Treasury have the will to deal with this situation, they should do so; if not, they should explain how I justify the position to constituents who have been wronged.

If the Government and the Treasury are prepared to look at compensating the pre-1992 annuitants, there has to be a health warning, because there is a law of unintended consequences, should we be stuck at the compensation figure of £1.5 billion. Many of my constituents who are post-1992 annuitants might be unaffected by any decision to include the pre-1992 annuitants.

Amendment 7 deals with that position and the relative losses. The Treasury should consider it, although I am concerned about whether it could be taken into account within the current comprehensive spending review or would need to be considered after the current CSR period expires.

I would like to ask the Minister several questions. First, will he look again at how to compensate the pre-1992 annuitants, and at how that might be quantified? Will he commit to working with his Treasury colleagues to take into account payments beyond the CSR period to enable the pre-1992 annuitants to be compensated without prejudicing the position of the post-1992 annuitants and that of Equitable Life policyholders generally?

I implore the Minister again—I did so in the last debate on this subject—to recognise that the Government’s decision over Equitable Life raises questions not only about the integrity of the current Government, but about the integrity of savings and investments for one’s retirement. I am well aware that many of my constituents do not have their own retirement provision. The Government should encourage people to provide for their retirement, but if we do not ensure that there is a safety net for people who have invested and done the right thing for their retirement, they will think that it is not worth putting themselves out by investing money for their retirements during their early years of work.

I ask the Minister to consider those points extremely carefully before any decisions are taken this afternoon.

Banking in Scotland

Alan Reid Excerpts

Thursday 14th October 2010 Westminster Hall

[Mr Davidson]

It is up to them. That is my opinion. Argyll, I believe, should remain part of Scotland.

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

Bermuda!

[Mr Davidson]

I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving me the opportunity to mention that. Whether Bermuda should join the UK or cease to be an overseas territory is a matter for the people of Bermuda.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I was not a member of the Select Committee on Scottish Affairs in the previous Parliament, but I want to congratulate its then members on the excellent report that they produced, and congratulate the new Chair, the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), on securing the debate today. I agree that it is important for the Committee to keep banking services in Scotland under review because the banks are obviously an important and essential part of our economy.

The analysis of how we got here is fairly straightforward. For far too long the banks were undertaking far too much risky lending, and when panic broke out, they went to the opposite extreme and lent hardly anything at all. We would have hoped that the situation would improve, but time after time, when I meet the owners of small businesses in my constituency, I get the same story: they are finding it very difficult to get loans from the banks, even for viable projects or when they have a good order book. Often, even established companies find that they cannot get a loan from the bank on reasonable terms.

There is clearly a lack of competition. Business owners tell me that, even if they go to other banks for a better deal, the cost of moving from one to another is prohibitive. They have to pay a break fee to the bank that they are with and pay a joining fee to the bank to which they want to transfer, so the cost of the switch far outweighs any benefit that they might get from a slightly better deal. I hope that the Government will look at that and investigate how we can have genuine competition in the banking industry. Small business owners often say to me, “Please don’t write anything down” or “Please don’t take this up with the bank”, because they are frightened that, if the bank knew that they had dared to complain, the situation would get worse. Although there may not be evidence coming forward, I and other hon. Members I am sure have found that the same problem exists for many small businesses.

I was pleased that the Government response to the Committee report stated that they believed that banks need to promote lending to SMEs better and that they would be working with the industry on disclosure of regional lending data. I hope that the Minister can update us today on progress on that.

Concerns from individuals are often about unfair banking charges, which is a subject that goes back many years. It has not just happened since the banking crisis of two years ago; for many years before that, people complained about unfair charges. Someone may inadvertently go into overdraft for a day or a few hours, and suddenly huge charges appear on their account, and that can often be the start of debt. For someone on a very small income, for whom every penny is a prisoner, a charge of £30 or £40 can be the start of deeper debt.

The previous Committee recommended that the regulatory authorities monitor banks for bad practice. The Government response was that they were introducing measures to end unfair bank and financial transaction charges, on which I hope the Minister can update us. Other hon. Members mentioned the evidence that Citizens Advice Scotland gave in its update for the debate, but it is important to stress it again. It said that banks are listening more, but the problem is not getting them to listen, but getting them to act. I hope that the Minister will look at that and mention it in his response. I was pleased to note that the Government said in their response that they were committed to providing a free national financial advice service and an annual family financial health check, which the new social responsibility levy on the financial services sector would fund. They said that financial support for Citizens Advice Scotland would be considered in the spending review. I know that the Minister cannot pre-empt the spending review, but I hope that we will get good news either today or next Wednesday.

It is important that banks have a presence in local communities, particularly remote communities, which many in my constituency are. Banking managers based in large towns or cities cannot properly understand small remote communities. That issue was brought to the fore last year when HBOS decided to reorganise its small business managers. Until then, managers were based in many communities in my constituency, but it withdrew them. There was complete uproar on the Island of Islay at the thought of losing the local business manager. It is only fair to HBOS to say that the reason why nearly all the businesses on the island were its customers was that it had a local business manager on the island, unlike the other banks. Many small businesses were with HBOS because it had provided a better service. The decision to take the manager away and operate with managers based on the mainland caused uproar, and there was a massive campaign to keep the local manager. It is important that banks have roots in local communities, and HBOS made a big mistake by withdrawing the business manager and having people phone managers on the mainland. A manager occasionally coming to see small businesses is not the correct way to run a banking business.

Finally, on the theme of banks in small communities, I have long supported the campaign for a post bank, and I hope that the Government will take it forward. A bank based at the local post office would provide much better banking services to small, remote communities—both to businesses and to individuals. I hope that the Government will develop the idea, and that we might see a post bank before long.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Alan Reid Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Alan Reid (Argyll and Bute) (LD)]

I welcome the Bill because it gives the Treasury statutory authority to make payments to Equitable Life policyholders. Those policyholders have waited a very long time to receive compensation for the injustices of which they have been victims. It is now more than nine years since the value of their policies was drastically cut. Sadly, many have since died and more die every day. I therefore welcome the speed at which the new Government have moved, which contrasts sharply with the snail’s pace at which the previous Government made progress.

It has been clear since Lord Penrose published his report in 2004 that there was regulatory failure. The regulatory regime was not properly resourced. Natural justice indicates that policyholders should be compensated for the losses they suffered as a result of that regulatory failure.

In the six years since Penrose, we have had two reports from the parliamentary ombudsman. Those reports were well named. The ombudsman’s first report, which was published in July 2008, was entitled, “Equitable Life: a decade of regulatory failure”. That was followed in May 2009 by another report entitled, “Injustice unremedied”.

I want to draw the House’s attention to the coalition agreement, which states:

“We will implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.”

The key phrases in that agreement are an “independent payment scheme” and “relative loss”, and that as recommended by the ombudsman. I also draw the House’s attention to paragraph 7 of the second report:

“Accordingly, I explained that the aim of such a compensation scheme should be to restore anyone who had suffered a greater loss, relative to that which they would have suffered had they invested in a comparable scheme with another company, to the position they would have been in had no maladministration occurred.”

So the coalition agreement commits the Government to compensating for the “relative loss” suffered by the policyholders.

After years of delay, the previous Government commissioned the Chadwick report, but Sir John Chadwick’s remit was flawed because he was allowed to consider only those parts of the ombudsman’s findings that had been accepted by the previous Government. The ombudsman wrote to MPs on 26 July, saying that the Chadwick proposals were an

“unsafe and unsound basis on which to proceed.”

Bearing in mind the ombudsman’s report and the coalition agreement, I urge the Government not to require the independent payment commission, through its terms of reference, to have regard to Chadwick’s report because it has been so clearly discredited.

The Chadwick report uses a series of dubious calculations to cut the proposed compensation to about a tenth of the relative losses that were estimated by Towers Watson, which had been commissioned by the Treasury to calculate the losses suffered by policyholders. Chadwick makes many dubious claims, the most ridiculous of which is his estimate that even if the regulatory regime had done its job, about 75% to 80% of Equitable Life investors would still have ignored the regulator and put their savings into an obviously failing company. I find that assertion completely incredible. Sir John then used that figure to reduce the compensation payments by between 75% and 80%. I hope that the independent payments commission will conduct its own analysis, because I am sure that it will find that that figure is completely ridiculous. Because of the flawed Chadwick remit, the Government should delete all references to that report from the independent commission’s terms of reference.

The ombudsman recommended that it was appropriate to consider the potential impact on the public purse of any compensation payment. That has always been a part of her reports, but I urge the Government, when they consider that recommendation, to bear in mind that Governments always want people to save and invest for their retirement. If people lose confidence in regulators, they simply will not save and invest for their retirement, and that will cost Governments more in the long run. People are not going to save or invest if they cannot be convinced that they will be compensated fairly if a future regulatory regime fails in the way that the past one did.

The Bill paves the way for a compensation scheme that policyholders have waited for nine years to see. The scheme can be made affordable by spreading payments over several years, as proposed by EMAG. The coalition agreement sets out the principles that should be followed: there should be an independent scheme and there should be fair and transparent payments for relative loss as a consequence of the regulatory failure. As long as those principles are followed, the surviving Equitable Life policyholders will at long last see justice done.