Finance (No. 3) Bill

Hugh Bayley Excerpts

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Chris Leslie]

My hon. Friend is entirely correct. As I have said before, this shows the failure of the Government to understand the paradox of austerity. When they take away some of that vital investment that would support jobs and growth, they are fuelling unemployment and raising welfare bills, which will cost the country more in the long run. That is why we are seeing borrowing levels rising rather than falling, and why, in the last six months of the economic experience in this country, we have seen economic growth flatlining. The House of Commons Library tells me that that will cost the Exchequer an extra £6 billion that will need to be added to borrowing. So this is the fallacy that the Government pursue—that simply cutting all elements of public investment is the way out of the deficit. They just do not understand how the economy works.

[Hugh Bayley (York Central) (Lab)]

Following up that point, this applies to investment not just in manufacturing, but in services, too. Yorkshire Forward had decided to make two investments: one of £5 million to help enable the National Railway museum to redisplay its collection; and a £1 million grant towards the cost of restoring York Minster’s great east window. Why did it do this? Because it realised that the additional tourism generated would create many jobs, particularly for people without high skill levels, in the York economy. When I raised this matter with the Minister, I was encouraged to get the National Railway museum to apply for the regional growth fund, which, with help from his Department, it did—yet it has received not a penny.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Redwood]

I hasten to correct the hon. Gentleman: of course I think we have to tax banks. We have to tax ourselves, and we need to tax the other banks in the system, as well as the state-owned ones, but we must also consider the balance of effects and the impact on shareholder value. I entirely agree with those who say that if a bank is state subsidised or largely state owned and is therefore in receipt of state money, it is surprising that it should be paying very large bonuses. It is even more surprising if the bank is loss-making, because although an individual employee in that bank may be able to say, “I personally made a profit to offset some of the losses,” the senior people in the bank are corporately responsible for the overall results. It is at the very least surprising if a loss-making bank is making rather big pay-outs, because that is taxpayers’ money and taxpayers’ wealth being paid out to those individuals, which, as the hon. Gentleman rightly says, is not then available to sell as a stream of profits when the shares are returned to the private sector.

[Hugh Bayley]

The right hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that it is important that the taxpayer gets the maximum value when the publicly owned portions of banks are put back on the market and floated, and I agree. Does he agree with me that it is therefore important that the mechanism at that time should not provide incentives for would-be shareholders such as shares being valued below their real market rate in order to encourage popular capitalism, but that the shares should be sold in such a way as to maximise the return to the taxpayer?

[Mr Redwood]

No, I do not necessarily agree with that, because I think that another way of returning value to the taxpayers who have supported the bank is to make those sorts of offer. However, I will wait to see what Treasury Ministers come up with before judging whether a measure is too generous or not generous enough, and how appropriate it is.

--- Later in debate ---

[Hugh Bayley]

My point is that if we maximise the return to the taxpayer, everybody in the country—rich and poor—gets a share of the benefit. If we put some of the value into creating lower-priced shares to boost popular capitalism, we spend our public money on only a small percentage of the population. Surely that is less fair than maximising the return and spreading the benefits across all taxpayers.

[Mr Redwood]

The hon. Gentleman is right that there are those two sides to the argument, but this is probably not the time or place to argue that through. We may have an opportunity to argue through how the bank shares are sold and the balance in the sale process when we get nearer to that point. The issue before us now is a taxation one. We are discussing the taxation of bonuses and the bank levy—the subject of the clause—and I agree with those who say that if we take too much out in bonuses in a state-owned bank, that detracts from the value that is available to sell.

Of course, the bank levy is not the means by which we can have any impact on bonuses. Interestingly, it was the previous Government who nationalised or bought shares in banks and signed off on all the original agreements for the top directors and executives. I believe that they included generous bonus terms at the time because, they said, they had to in order to have the talent needed. The criticism being made of the coalition Government now is that they took over those inherited contracts and lived with them, rather than broke them and disrupted the management of the banks, which I regard as a lesser charge than the one against the former Government of setting up all those contracts in the first place.

This should not be a party political issue. I regret some of the contracts that were incorporated at the time of the purchase of shares, but I regretted the whole purchase of shares because I thought it neither a particularly good deal for the taxpayer, nor a necessary deal to sort out the banking problem. I would rather have sorted that out more rapidly at the time, with managed administration or something else, than adopt this expensive way of putting all that money in. We are now trying to maximise the returns because we are where we are.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

My hon. Friend brings me on to a new relevant area, because he shows how the banking and financial sector are able to influence the debate. The previous Labour Government as well as this Government might have been somewhat in awe of the threats made by the banking sector—for example, to move offshore, with a consequent effect on jobs, if too much regulation is imposed. It might just be coincidental, but since the right hon. Member for Witney (Mr Cameron) became Leader of the Opposition, donations to the Conservative party have increased, and about 50% of them come from the City and the financial sector, including some donations of £500,000 from four or five key individuals, including from Finsbury and Pelham PR, whose job it is to persuade politicians and other decision makers of the importance of, and the need for, the banking sector. As I say, it could be completely coincidental that the Tory party gets large amounts of money from this sector, but one could draw the conclusion that this is one of the reasons this Government have taken such a light-touch approach to regulation of the banking and finance sector.

[Hugh Bayley]

I wanted to follow up the intervention of my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson). It was not only the OECD that praised the London summit, which got the leaders of the western world to work together through fiscal stimulus to avoid recession. I remember going to the IMF in spring 2009 and what it described as “the Brown plan” was, it said, the only thing that stood between a global financial meltdown and getting the world economy back on a level footing. Does my hon. Friend share my concern and dismay at the Prime Minister saying that he would not support the former Prime Minister if he decided to run for the job of managing director of the IMF? Surely the best way to test the Prime Minister’s thesis about whether the former Prime Minister’s leadership was good or not is to allow him to run and see whether other countries support his candidature.

[Mr Jones]

I would not want to stray too far down that avenue, but it does say something about the pettiness and smallness of our present Prime Minister, whereas the previous incumbent is not only respected in financial circles but has proven ability to do the job. Pettiness is one aspect of this Government but another part of their mantra is that they must sound tough. They won an election by sounding tough, but they have not followed it through when it comes to banking regulation.

The right hon. Member for Wokingham spoke about banking regulation. He is no longer in his place, but he used a wonderful phrase about his being in favour not of less regulation, but of “better and less regulation”. My hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) touched on whether the previous Government should have regulated the banking sector more. In hindsight, I think yes, they should. I think we all accept that; it is not an admission of failure to concede that. We also need to remember who else at the time was arguing, along with the right hon. Member for Wokingham, for less regulation and less red tape in all areas, including banking. The answer is, the Conservative Front-Bench team—those same Conservative Front Benchers who were arguing for the same spending levels that we had right up to 2007, although that seems to have been forgotten about in the revisionist history that has developed since they gained power with the Liberal Democrats last May.

The Government’s bank levy is estimated to bring in £2.5 billion a year—less than Labour’s bank bonus measures, which according to the Office for Budget Responsibility brought in £3.5 billion. We should not forget that the cut in corporation tax in 2011-12 will give the banks £100 million in tax relief, but that at the same time local government is being asked to make cuts. My own county council, for example, is going to lose 40% of its budget—£125 million—over the next four years as a result of the unnecessary austerity measure proposed by this coalition Government.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Jones]

It is very serious. What my hon. Friend describes will have an effect on the private sector and on what has already been seen in the banks. The Government have set great store by making sure that banks lend to small businesses. That was one of the things talked about at the general election by both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats, but we have seen little evidence of it actually happening. As I said, it will be painful for many small businesses, particularly those in the north-east, when they see the amount of bonuses being paid to bankers and find that when they ask those same banks for investment they are told that either it is not available or that the terms on which it is available involve such horrendous rates of return. As my hon. Friend the Member for Wansbeck (Ian Lavery) has said, the same may also be true of personal finance, whereby certain individuals who would in the past have got access to credit will no longer be able to do so.

[Hugh Bayley]

It is not just that banks are still not providing finance for small and medium-sized businesses. Under the Labour Government, we had support through the regional development agencies—Yorkshire Forward in Yorkshire—to help businesses with the Government loan guarantee schemes, and in my constituency that secured a very important investment for a packaging factory. The RDAs are now being done away with and so there is not that support from the Government to get the banks lending.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mike Gapes]

Thank you, Mr Hoyle. I will, as always, take your sagacious advice.

We need to look at the consequences of the way in which our economy is integrated globally, and the knock-on consequences of our competitive position in European markets. We need a review of fuel taxation, taking account of the position of the haulage industry and the discrepancies and disparities between different parts of the UK—I accept what my hon. Friend the Member for Gateshead (Ian Mearns) said about the north-east region. There are difficulties and we need to look at this issue in the round. It is eminently sensible to have a comprehensive review of fuel taxation policy, as called for in the amendment.

Everybody agrees that the current arrangement is not working well. There is a huge amount of public disquiet—all of us receive e-mails and letters on the subject, and the Federation of Small Businesses and others write to us. People are concerned about high fuel prices. There are things we can control, such as not increasing VAT on fuel, and there are things we cannot control, such as the impact of global events, but as long as we have an economy that is dependent on fossil fuels and oil, we will always be vulnerable to such things. The debate embraces wider issues than are dealt with in the terms of the amendment. I will not talk about those issues now Mr Hoyle, but it is important that we address them in a comprehensive review of fuel taxation policy. I therefore support the amendment.

[Hugh Bayley]

First, I want to compare the records on fuel taxation of the most recent Labour Government and the previous Conservative Government. My view is that the Labour Government were a great deal kinder to the motorist, and the following figures are provided by the current Government. Figures from the Department of Energy and Climate Change show that in 1990, when the Conservatives were in power, 59% of the price paid at the pump by the motorist and road haulier for unleaded petrol was taken by the Government in fuel taxation, and that it rose to 75% during the following seven years of Conservative rule; the Government therefore took more and more and more in taxation. When Labour was in power, however, the proportion of the price of unleaded petrol taken in fuel taxation fell to 65%. The figures for diesel are almost the same. Under the Conservatives, the tax take rose from 57% to 74%, whereas Labour brought it down to 64%.

I would like the Economic Secretary to the Treasury to answer one question in her response, on the following subject. Since the general election, Government policy—not just Conservative policy, but Conservative and Liberal Democrat policy—has been to increase the tax on fuel by about 3p a litre through the increase in VAT and to give back roughly a third of that, 1p a litre, through the reduction in duty. That policy will slightly help road hauliers, because the duty element will reduce. The VAT element increases, but hauliers are able to recover the VAT, or at least pass it on in the VAT they charge their customers. So the effect of the Government’s policy will be to clobber the private motorist to the tune of 2p a litre, because they will have to pay the VAT increase out of their own pockets, while providing slight relief to businesses, particularly hauliers. I say “slight” because the price of fuel has increased as a result of a number of factors, including the increase in the cost of oil and the fall in the value of the pound on the international exchanges. So motorists and hauliers have been clobbered by the market and by the Government, but hauliers are being hit slightly less hard than the private motorist because they are able to recover the VAT increase.

My question to the Economic Secretary is as follows: is it a deliberate act of Government policy to make life slightly easier for businesses but to clobber the private citizen, or is it just an accident that that has happened? This is one of the things that ought to be studied in the review that the Opposition amendment proposes. We should examine the relative merits of taxing fuel for vehicles through VAT as opposed to through fuel duty, and who the gainers and losers are.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wirral South (Alison McGovern) made a very powerful speech about the impact that the increase in VAT on fuel has had on family budgets, and the impact that inflation generally, and fuel inflation in particular, is having on families who are having their earnings squeezed. My Front-Bench colleagues’ amendment proposes that the review ought to consider that matter.

I would like such a review also to consider one other issue, because I do not believe that the Government have yet done so—although I would be delighted to be corrected if they have carried out the sort of analysis that I propose. The review should also examine the impact that taxation has on the demand for fuel. The previous Conservative Government, one and a half decades ago, introduced a fuel price escalator. I understand that their reason for doing so was environmental: they wanted to increase the price of fuel to depress the demand for it, and so reduce carbon emissions. That was the policy intention, and it is one of the reasons why Conservative policies cost taxpayers and consumers so much. I mentioned that the fuel tax take rose from 59% to 75% in their last seven years in office. I wonder whether the Minister can tell me whether that sharp increase in fuel taxation under the previous Conservative Government actually did depress the demand for fuel, because that is an important consideration. If we change the marginal rate of fuel taxation, economics suggest that there should be some elasticity in demand.

The Government say that they want to be the greenest ever, so they ought to consider the carbon emission consequences of changes to fuel duty and VAT on fuel. I hope that Treasury Ministers have taken advice on that from both the Department of Energy and Climate Change and the Department for Transport. They ought to have done, if they really are—[Interruption.] Does the Financial Secretary to the Treasury want to intervene? No, he is back in his seat. The Government ought to take advice before they make such proposals, so that they can assess the environmental impact of a fiscal measure. I am waiting to hear from a Minister, but it sounds as though that has not happened. It ought to if the Government are serious about the environmental consequences of their fiscal policy.

[Justine Greening]

rose—

[Hugh Bayley]

The Economic Secretary wants to intervene, and I hope she can tell me that the analysis has been done and what its outcome is.

[Justine Greening]

I direct the hon. Gentleman to the tax note that we issued at the Budget. The answers to his questions are there; clearly he has not read it yet.

[Hugh Bayley]

I have not read it—[Interruption.] That is why I ask the question. If the hon. Lady would care to read it to the Committee, I would be pleased to listen.

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Gentleman could not read the note himself in advance of the debate, I shall read it to him now:

“Removing the fuel duty escalator and cutting duty by 1ppl could result in a small increase in CO₂ emissions in 2011-12 of 0.4Mt. However, emissions from road transport are forecast to be approximately 1 per cent lower than current levels by 2015-16 owing to underlying trends in”

fuel efficiency.

[Hugh Bayley]

Is it the Government’s policy, then, to use fiscal measures to reduce carbon emissions? Is that what brought about the carbon variation of 1.4 megatonnes—is that what the hon. Lady said? [Interruption.] It is 0.4 megatonnes; I am grateful to stand corrected. Has the reduction that she mentioned come about as a result of the Government’s proposed fiscal changes, or as a result of the economic downturn that is a result of their policies? There is an important difference. One would expect the fall in economic activity that we have seen as a result of the Budget—the Office for Budget Responsibility has revised down its forecast for growth as a result of the Government’s fiscal measures so far—to lead to a decline in carbon emissions from both road transport and other sources. I am not clear from what the hon. Lady has read out whether the reduction in carbon emissions will be a result of the fiscal measure or of a reduction in demand because of a contraction of the economy.

[Barry Gardiner]

If I interpreted the note correctly, it was a projection of what might happen as a result of the fiscal measures. It did not answer the question posed by my hon. Friend, which concerned an analysis of the results of the differing policies on carbon reduction hitherto. Does he agree that it is vital that we use green taxation only as a means of changing behaviour, and never solely as a revenue-raising measure? That is the question that he posed about past policy, and the Economic Secretary did not answer it.

[Hugh Bayley]

One would assume that a Government estimate has been made on the basis of some evidence. My hon. Friend shrugs his shoulders, but he was in government for a time and I certainly give a Government the benefit of the doubt. I believe that their civil servants would make the best estimate they could based on the evidence they had. Past responses to fiscal changes in the taxation of fuel would of course be a good indicator. Either the Minister can tell me that that is the basis on which the estimate has been made or she is not certain. If she is not certain she should be honest and say so, because we will then need the further analysis proposed in the amendment.

[Jim Fitzpatrick]

Technological advances such as hybrid vehicles, greener cars, electric vehicles and biofuels might lead to a reduction in emissions. Could they therefore be incorporated into the review? They will surely have an impact on taxation policy in future.

[Hugh Bayley]

The premise that my hon. Friend puts forward is absolutely right. The fact that more and more people are using low-emission vehicles will obviously have an impact. However, the purpose of the review proposed in the amendment is to consider what effects the fiscal changes will have. If the price of fuel is raised, some people will consume the same amount of fuel anyway because they are in business and they do not want to contract their business, but generally speaking it has a marginal effect. Private motorists will reduce the number of discretionary journeys they make by trying to take their cars to the shops less frequently and perhaps abandoning some leisure trips, and businesses will look for ways of economising as prices rise. I have heard the Minister’s comments and I am grateful to her for drawing my attention to the estimate that the Government have made, but it is a fairly bald statement and it does not answer my question about whether the measure is driven by the Government’s environmental concerns or their revenue-raising concerns, and we need a clear answer on that.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Hugh Bayley]

I am going to sit down shortly to let my hon. Friend himself make a speech, but I shall certainly give way.

[Mr Jones]

May I propose a third reason for the reduction—political expediency and creating the impression that the Government are doing something about fuel prices?

[Hugh Bayley]

That could very well be the case, and we will listen with great interest to what the Minister says in reply to the debate. All we are asking for is transparency. We want to know whether the Government are doing this for environmental or revenue-raising reasons, what the implications of the rise will be in environmental and revenue terms and what the impact will be on family budgets. I believe—indeed, I know—that all that information is not known, so I think that the Opposition’s amendment is a sound one.

[Julie Hilling (Bolton West) (Lab)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Hugh Bayley]

I keep trying to sit down, but my hon. Friends are preventing me from doing so.

[Julie Hilling]

My hon. Friend mentions the potential effects on the environment, tax-raising and families. A project has been brought to my attention because it can no longer afford the fuel for the vehicle it uses to take young people with mental disabilities out on trips, so those disabled young people are no longer getting the benefit they used to get from going out. Is he aware of similar issues in his constituency?

[Hugh Bayley]

Yes, I have had third sector organisations coming to me and saying how much more difficult life is getting because sources of funding are drying up.

It is clear from the interventions of my hon. Friends that the point I have raised has wider implications that ought to be studied by the Treasury and other Departments. I know what the process is for tabling amendments that ask for reviews and reports regarding legislation, and they are tabled not just to frustrate or irritate those on the Treasury Bench but to pose serious questions and seek serious answers. The Minister is waving her piece of paper again, and I promise I will read it properly, but what she read out to me did not answer my questions. It is an input—an estimate of one figure—but as we have heard, further study of the environmental and social impacts, the impact on family budget impacts and the overall economic impact is needed. I hope that as a result of that analysis the Government will produce better, more coherent cross-government proposals for the taxation of fuel in future.

[Mr Kevan Jones]

I support the amendment, which asks for a review. In the previous debate, we asked for a review of the implications of the bank levy. Similarly, the amendment calls for an assessment of the impact of taxation on fuel prices. It would be disingenuous to suggest that all Governments have perfect relationships when it comes to dealing with fuel duty. Clearly, the previous Government had problems with the cost of fuel and difficulties over taxation, but my hon. Friend the Member for York Central (Hugh Bayley) exploded one of the myths about the tax-take from fuel duty. Under the Conservative Government from 1990 to 1997 the tax-take on unleaded petrol rose by 16%, and under the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010 the tax-take fell from 75% to 65%.

The Government delayed the planned fuel duty rise, as Labour Governments did previously, as oil prices rose. Was that the right decision? Yes. At a time when many hard-working families are affected not only by higher inflation and increased taxation, but by wages being driven down and in some cases by family members facing unemployment, the Chancellor’s VAT increase puts about £1.30 on the cost of filling up a 50 litre tank of petrol.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman’s party does not even have a position on that because Labour Members abstained on it. If the policy in clause 19 is so bad, I expect them to vote against it, but I suspect that it will be another case of abstention making the heart grow fonder. I do not think that that will work with taxpayers, who remember exactly who was planning to bring in the fuel duty escalator had they remained in power.

This Government listened to hard-pressed motorists and businesses. We declined to increase the escalator and to introduce the 1p per litre fuel duty increase, which would collectively have added 6p to pump prices compared with what they are now. Instead, we responded with a £1.9 billion package to ease the burden on motorists at this time of record pump prices. We acted by cutting fuel duty by 1p per litre from 6 pm on Budget day. We cancelled the previous Government’s fuel duty escalator for the rest of the Parliament. We introduced a fair fuel stabiliser that will better share the burden of high oil prices between motorists and oil companies, and so fuel duty will increase by inflation only when oil prices are high.

[Hugh Bayley]

I read from a Library briefing:

“In its Budget in March 1993 the Conservative Government introduced a ‘road fuel escalator’—a commitment to increase duty rates on these fuels in real terms by a specified percentage each year”.

I accept that that was continued for a number of years by the Labour Government before being abandoned, but the Minister should not say that the public do not forget things and then gloss over the fact that it was a Conservative Government who brought in the fuel price escalator.

[Justine Greening]

I will tell the hon. Gentleman one thing we did not do, and that is hand over a huge fiscal deficit to the incoming Labour Government.

[Hugh Bayley]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

No, we have heard enough from Labour Members.

We had to take decisions to support motorists in spite of the catastrophic state of public finances that Labour handed over. We have made sure that there are no fuel duty increases this year by deferring the inflation-only increase that was planned for April to 1 January 2012. This is real help for families and for businesses. As of 1 April, average pump prices are approximately 6p per litre lower than if we had continued with the previous Government’s escalator.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the derogation is to carry out a pilot to look at how we can support rural areas with a fuel duty discount. He is right to point out that we have submitted a formal request to the European Commission, and we wait to hear its response. I assure him that we got on with that derogation request, just as we said we would.

If I may, I will make progress on the issues that have been raised by hon. Members.

[Hugh Bayley]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman once more.

[Hugh Bayley]

The Economic Secretary has been extremely generous. A few minutes ago she referred to the deficit and the debt inherited by the incoming Government. Has she forgotten that during John Major’s premiership, the national debt almost doubled, and that during the first 10 years that Labour was in power, the Government reduced the national debt by 40% through good stewardship of the economy?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is obviously one of the Labour party’s structural deficit refuseniks. He simply refuses to accept that the deficit exists. I am sure that he would also refuse to accept that his party left unemployment 400,000 higher by the end of its term in office. We understand the problems that our economy faces and the Budget was all about tackling them.

I will turn to the substance of the amendment. For motorists to realise the benefits of the cut in fuel duty, retailers need to pass it on at the forecourt. If the cut in fuel duty had been fully passed on to average pump prices, including VAT, they would have been 1.2p per litre lower. The amendment seeks a published assessment of the degree to which the cut fed through to pump prices. As I said, we have already published a tax information and impact note that sets out our analysis of the impact of the cut. Following the Budget, the website petrolprices.com, which gives independent average daily prices and which the previous Government used to track prices, showed that average pump prices fell by approximately 0.8p per litre between 23 and 28 March. It can be clearly seen that the reduction in fuel duty largely fed through to prices at the pump. Therefore, prices are lower due to our actions and motorists are benefiting from the cut in duty. Let us not forget that average pump prices are approximately 6p per litre lower as a result of the cut in duty and our scrapping of the previous Government’s planned escalator, which they would have gone ahead with.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Anderson]

In the learned advice that she gave, my hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland spelt out more clearly than anyone else in this debate that nobody seems to know what people will be paying in tax. Nobody knows whether they will be paying anything or whether they will be able to say, “I want to get away with this while you get away with that.” That is absolutely ludicrous; even if we accept that the tax should be imposed, people at least need to know what the Government are going for.

[Hugh Bayley]

I wonder whether my hon. Friend has read the article in today’s edition of The Guardian entitled “Accountants attack Osborne’s North Sea oil levy”, which reports on the ACCA report that my hon. Friend has just mentioned. It also reports the Chairman of the Treasury Committee as saying:

“Every time we do the unexpected, future business is deterred. It’s crucial we construct a tax system around the principles of certainty, simplicity, stability as well as fairness. The only beneficiaries of complex changes are tax accountants and tax lawyers—the very people who are complaining.”

[Mr Anderson]

I have read that report. Whatever hon. Members’ views, we respect the Chair of the Treasury Committee as someone who has done a good job for the people of this country and for the House, and when he says such things, hon. Members should listen. He is not someone who should be ignored: he speaks not from arrogance or ignorance but from a lot of knowledge. His Committee has undertaken a rapid investigation of an issue that is of massive importance to the country.

We have been here before with Tory Governments, who have a long history of making crass policy decisions on energy. In the 1930s, the Tories presided over a coal industry that was in internal decline and had massive problems, with more than 1,000 men a year being killed in the industry and with no investment whatever. Those men were using 19th-century technology—life was cheap and people were not allowed to live decent lives. The situation was pushed back after the war when the Labour Government came in and nationalised the coal industry.

Then there was another repeat in the 1980s. My hon. Friend the Member for Bishop Auckland has mentioned the POP forecast and the pricing of oil according to how much it costs to get oil from coal. In the 1980s, we led the world in getting oil from coal, but that industry was destroyed at the whim of the then Government, who did that for political reasons. I can see that you are getting annoyed, Mr Hoyle, which is not like you, so I shall move on rapidly.

The truth is that Tory Governments, and not just in the past, have taken policy decisions that were to the detriment of the energy system in this country. That is being confirmed today, because this is not just about the oil industry. As has been discussed in debates on the solar power industry, Ministers have changed the rules halfway through a process. I have received a letter from a company in my constituency saying that it is involved in a number of projects in which clients want to build solar arrays that do not fulfil energy requirements. Funders and clients are now cautious because of the uncertainty caused by the policy change halfway through discussions. The industry had been told that it would be able to set targets at a certain level, but that level was later changed and the same thing is happening now. If the Government spring surprises on companies that are investing in energy policy, those companies will not know where they are and will look at other markets. As I have said before, I am not one to stick up for the oil companies, but I am one to stick up for this country and the workers of this country, and this part of the Bill, along with many others, is detrimental to the workers and the people of the country.