Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 11th September 2017 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

The relationship between employers and schools has never been more important, particularly in the STEM subjects, which are so crucial to British business. Whether we are raising standards in maths and science or whether the university technical college programme is formally connecting employers and education, the Government are looking across the board to ensure that that relationship is strong.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T5. I very much welcome what the Universities Minister had to say last week about excessive pay packages for university vice-chancellors and the measures he is taking to try to get vice-chancellors to justify those packages to their university courts. Does he really think that that will make a difference given that vice-chancellors are paid so much more than the £150,000 talked about?

Schools Update

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 17th July 2017 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

Many young people in Bristol choose to go to St Brendan’s Sixth Form College in my constituency rather than stay on at their school sixth forms. Will the Secretary of State categorically assure us that those pupils will benefit from fairer funding? At the moment their choices are being restricted, as are their facilities, because of cuts to sixth form colleges.

[Justine Greening]

Today’s statement is, of course, about the core schools budget and high needs funding. There will be higher per pupil funding for every school and every local area. That will enable schools to do a better job in their local provision. The hon. Lady sets out some of the challenges of sixth form funding, but I want to reassure her and the House that we are absolutely committed to ensuring that children stay in a well-funded school system. I know that Bristol has successfully focused on education in recent years, and it is important that we work together to see that success continue.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 10th October 2016 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

1. If she will offer students places on the board of the Office for Students.

[The Secretary of State for Education (Justine Greening)]

I welcome the shadow Ministers to their roles and also, more importantly, welcome my new ministerial colleagues to theirs for our first oral questions session.

We have made it clear that the Office for Students must have student representation, and we will take every opportunity to embed student engagement in the culture and structure of the new organisation.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for confirming that. During the summer, I met students from the University of Bristol and the University of the West of England, who are very concerned about rising tuition fees, the scrapping of maintenance grants and, above all, the quality of teaching. Can she assure them that they will be listened to when they express concerns about those issues in connection with the Higher Education and Research Bill?

[Justine Greening]

In part, the Bill reflects our wish to secure value for money for students, which we are building into law for the first time. Our updating of the higher education regulatory framework is long overdue, and I am delighted that we are taking the opportunity to put the interests of students at the heart of it.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 5th November 2014 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

5. What recent discussions she has had with her international counterparts on including climate justice in future sustainable development goals.

[The Secretary of State for International Development (Justine Greening)]

I regularly discuss the sustainable development goals with my international counterparts, most recently doing so with the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Ban Ki-moon, at the UN General Assembly. Of course, ensuring that environmental sustainability and climate change are integrated into the sustainable development goals is a key priority for the UK Government.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I thank the Secretary of State for that response. Does it mean she supports the inclusion of climate change or a climate-related sustainable development goal as a stand-alone goal, or is this just something that she sees factored into other elements that will be in the goals?

[Justine Greening]

We think that making sure we have targets on areas such as climate change is vital. We also recognise that millennium development goal 7, on sustainable development, was ineffective, because people did not focus on it and it needed to be better mainstreamed into the rest of the framework. It is important that we focus on ensuring that sustainability is mainstreamed right the way through the post-2015 framework.

UK’s Development Work (Girls and Women)

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Thursday 7th March 2013 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

When I asked about the arms trade treaty at Foreign Office questions on Tuesday, I was assured that although no DFID Minister was going to the talks later this month, they were very much taking an interest in it, working the phones and so on. I was therefore concerned by the Secretary of State’s response to my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh East (Sheila Gilmore), which implied that the issue is simply not on her radar at all, when it is so important to the matters addressed by her Department, such as poverty among women and gender-based violence. Can I urge her to give it real priority?

[Justine Greening]

I can assure the hon. Lady that I do give the issue priority. I am making a statement today precisely because I think that the issue of women and girls is so important in all aspects. I hope she can welcome that. To reiterate, I take her point on board. I regularly meet the Foreign Secretary to discuss the work our two Departments do together and I can assure her that this is precisely the sort of issue I discuss with him.

Road Fuel Duties

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 13th September 2011 Westminster Hall

[Anas Sarwar]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

rose—

[Justine Greening]

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but then I would like to make some progress and talk about fuel, because that is clearly the point of the debate. However, I am happy to have a debate on the economy, because many people in Britain recognise exactly whose fault it is that the economy is in the state that it is in today—it is the fault of the Labour party.

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 5th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

Let me start by confirming that Labour Members support the principle of a carbon floor price. We believe that carbon price support could be an excellent opportunity for the UK in providing a high and stable price for carbon. It could encourage investment in low-carbon power and green technologies, create a new generation of green high-skilled jobs which the UK sorely needs, enable the UK to make radical reductions in its carbon emissions, and contribute to meeting our carbon budgets. Unfortunately, however, we cannot support the way in which the Government have implemented this measure. It will hit those who can least afford it, damage the prospects of developing a UK green industry, and fail to reduce carbon emissions. We have to question whether we can call the carbon price support rate a green tax at all.

First, I shall deal with the impact on consumers. We know that people are struggling to pay their fuel bills. The OECD estimates that, on May’s figures, energy prices are nearly 10% higher than they were a year ago. Scottish Power recently announced electricity bill rises of 10% and gas bill rises of 10%, and other companies are expected to follow suit. The Government are not helping. Rising energy bills and fuel bills are coming on top of higher taxes, cuts to tax credits and cuts to public services. This year the Government have cut the winter fuel payment by £50 for people over 60 and £100 for people over 80, with no mention of that in the Budget statement or the pre-Budget report. That comes after their promise in last year’s Budget to protect key benefits, including winter fuel payments, for older people. They may claim that they inherited this from the previous Government, but we could and would have looked again at that decision in the light of rising energy prices, and so could they; that is the point of having an annual Budget statement.

These are the circumstances in which the Government have proposed a carbon floor price designed in such a way that it will cost working families by raising their energy bills. We understand that in the long term, if the policy is designed in a way that encourages a switch to low-carbon energy production, there should be no significant effect on consumer bills—that is why we support the principle of the carbon floor price—but right now, in the short term, there will be price rises for consumers at a time when they are already finding their fuel bills unmanageable. The Government have not included any counterbalancing measures to help working families to deal with those price rises. If the measure goes ahead in the form that the Government propose, between 30,000 and 60,000 more households will fall into fuel poverty in 2013, rising to between 50,000 and 90,000 more households by 2020. Those are the Government’s own estimates. Earlier this year, Consumer Focus said:

“In its current form there is a real risk that this policy may simply displace detriment.”

In other words, even if it did have a positive impact on green investment, that would be at the cost of more people falling into fuel poverty.

There have recently been somewhat hysterical reports about green taxes, alleging that they are the biggest factor in causing consumer bills to rise. That is not true. Ofgem figures from March show that environmental and social costs make up just 8% of the typical dual fuel consumer bill, and that has risen by just one percentage point since 2008. Climate change deniers cite figures suggesting that hidden green taxes add some £200 to energy bills, but those figures do not stack up. That does not mean, however, that now is the time to add to those costs. The Government have got it wrong. Ordinary working families were clearly the last thing on their mind when they designed this policy. That is why the amendment calls for them to look again at the effect that it will have on people in fuel poverty.

I turn to manufacturing, which several of my colleagues will wish to discuss too. Rising energy prices will affect not only consumers but firms that employ thousands of people across the country. In particular, they will hit energy-intensive industries such as steel, aluminium and chemicals. There is a danger, particularly in the absence of a credible Government plan for growth, that growth and jobs will be exported to other countries. According to a report by Thomson Reuters Carbon Point earlier this year, the carbon floor price will impose additional costs on businesses amounting to £9.3 billion. We understand that that effect might be mitigated in the long term if there is a switch to greener sources of energy, although that is not certain given the problems that I will come to in a moment. In the medium term, however, UK industry will be at a disadvantage, and jobs and growth will be put at risk. That is why the director general of the CBI and industry bodies such as the Chemical Industries Association have called for an exemption from these extra costs for high energy-using industries.

Concerns have been expressed by firms such as Tata Steel, which employs 1,000 people in Teesside. Its chief executive officer said:

“The introduction of the carbon floor price represents a potentially severe blow to the sustainability of UK steelmaking.”

Rio Tinto Alcan, an aluminium producer in the north-east, may close, shedding 600 jobs, and 1,800 jobs are at risk at INEOS ChlorVinyls in Runcorn. Some of the industries threatened by this measure are not only major employers but among the UK’s biggest export sectors. For example, the chemical industry, which accounts for 12% of total UK manufacturing, exports the bulk of its production, with a trade balance in 2008 of nearly £6 billion.

There is also the danger that we will harm our own prospects of building a UK green industry. This sector represents huge opportunities for the UK. For example, the wind energy sector provides over 10,000 jobs, and it expanded by 91% in just two years from 2007 to 2009. The solar energy industry in the UK provides over 10,000 jobs. There is a danger that we may not be able to sustain these sectors in the UK, despite any efforts from the Government, if the necessary materials are not available here. This would be yet another own goal for the “greenest Government ever” after their ill-thought-out change of policy earlier this year on feed-in tariffs, which has put thousands of green jobs at risk. The solar sector is a vital, nascent green industry in the UK. Until the Government’s announcement, the 10,000 jobs that it currently supports was expected to rise to 17,000 this year. The Government’s promised green investment bank was supposed to boost investment in new green industries, but it has been watered down: it will be a fund, and not a real bank, until 2015. That makes a mockery of the Government’s green credentials. Our amendment calls on the Government to look again at the carbon floor price and its effect on high energy-using industries. This is the wrong time to put jobs and green investment at risk without a plan to protect them.

I now move on to the impact on green investment. We accept that a well-designed carbon floor price can deliver reduced emissions and higher green investment, which is why we support the idea in principle. However, we doubt whether the Government’s proposal will deliver those goals. The UK is part of the EU emissions trading scheme, so any carbon permits that are not sold in the UK will simply be sold elsewhere in Europe. The Department of Energy and Climate Change commissioned Redpoint Energy, a consultancy, to examine the options for a carbon floor price. It said in a footnote to its report:

“Under the EU ETS, it would be expected that lower emissions from the GB electricity sector in a given year would be offset by higher emissions elsewhere within the trading scheme.”

A recent report by the Institute for Public Policy Research agreed that

“this policy would have no direct effect on emissions reaching the atmosphere.”

It went on to say that

“it is important to be clear that the UK would be meeting climate change targets in a way that has zero direct effect on emissions.”

The Treasury’s own consultation document admitted that for power stations covered by the ETS, the carbon price floor will not directly impact on the Government’s ability to meet their carbon budgets.

Consumers and companies facing higher energy bills because of this policy would be right to question whether this is a worthwhile use of their money. Will the Government’s policy encourage more investment in renewable power? The Energy and Climate Change Committee expressed doubt:

“when it comes to low-carbon investment, the effect of the Carbon Price Support will depend on the confidence of investors in the long-term reliability of the Carbon Price Support.”

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

Perhaps I can just tell the hon. Lady that the Institution of Civil Engineers said that the policy will create a “more conducive environment” for investment. Does that allay her fears? If she has concerns about the structure of the policy, it would be helpful for Members to hear the Opposition’s alternatives.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I will go on to explain, there are concerns about future stability, as we have seen with the North sea oil tax, which we discussed yesterday. Investors need stability to plan for the long term, particularly in solar and wind power, which need long-term investment. People need to know what to expect and what impact proposals will have.

As for what the Opposition are saying, I refer the Minister to our amendment, which calls for a review of three main points, which I am discussing in my speech. Those are the impact on fuel poverty, the impact on energy-intensive industries and the fact that this is, in effect, a subsidy for nuclear power, which I will discuss later. It is important for us to look at the consequences of this policy because, as with so many things, the Government have introduced it in haste and without thinking through the consequences. It is not until we look at the impact on these sectors that we will see what the ideal solution might be. It is premature of the hon. Lady to ask us to come up with an alternative before we have done that analysis and reached a consensus with the industry on what the impact will be. As I have said, we agree in principle with the carbon price support, but because of the way it is being implemented, it will not achieve any of the objectives that she presumably wants it to achieve.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

As we will no doubt debate later, we carried out an extensive impact assessment on this policy. Indeed, the hon. Lady has quoted a couple of figures from it. I reiterate what I said earlier. If she agrees in principle with the policy, which I very much welcome, it would be helpful to hear how she thinks the delivery of it ought to differ from what the Government are doing.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said, we are calling for a full-scale review. I am not convinced that the Government’s impact assessment examined in sufficient detail the impact on fuel bills, for example. As the Economic Secretary is intervening on me, it is obviously not the time for me to pose questions to her. When she speaks later, perhaps she can enlighten us as to what it was judged that the impact would be on consumers in meeting their fuel bills, on fuel poverty and on energy-intensive industries. What impact does she think that will have on jobs and growth in the areas where energy-intensive industries are based? Perhaps she could also respond to the questions that I will soon pose about whether it is wise to, in effect, create a subsidy for the nuclear industry when there are other competing priorities, on which some people would argue the money would be better spent.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am not sure where to start in responding to the hon. Gentleman. My opening line was that we support the idea of a carbon floor price in principle. Everything that I have said since has outlined why we have reservations about the way in which it is being implemented. I simply refer him to the speech that I am making.

I appreciate that there are difficulties in getting this policy implemented at an EU level. It would be easier if we could look at the EU emissions trading scheme in the round. Experts have said that measures on carbon pricing should first be considered at EU level, and that a UK-only solution is a second best option. Lord Turner, the Chair of the Committee on Climate Change, has said that, and it was echoed in the Institute for Public Policy Research report. The Government appear to have done nothing to explore the EU option. The coalition agreement says that the Government will

“make efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.”

However, it does not mention any intention to talk to our EU partners about a carbon price floor. Perhaps that is unsurprising, given the Government’s record on dealing with the EU. For example, the Government’s MEPs tabled no proposals to reduce the EU budget, whereas Labour MEPs tabled amendments that could have cut more than €1 billion of waste from EU spending.

[Justine Greening]

Is the hon. Lady aware that one of the main reasons why the UK’s contribution to the EU budget is going up is that the former Labour Prime Minister, Tony Blair, gave away part of the rebate?

Charter for Budget Responsibility

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 11th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

We cannot get into a whole debate about macro-economic policy. Needless to say, I disagree with the hon. Gentleman’s analysis of how the financial crisis occurred. The point I was making—the intervention was not particularly relevant to it—was that this Government’s action in reducing the deficit too far and too fast is hitting people at the bottom end of the income scale far harder than it is hitting people such as bankers. If the Government were to adopt our suggestion of introducing a banking bonus tax again this year, as we did last year, they would not have to make cuts that hit people at the bottom so hard.

[Justine Greening]

I find the hon. Lady’s comments ironic in a debate welcoming a charter that sets out some guidelines on the operation of the Office for Budget Responsibility—an independent group of forecasters who have looked at and then provided input into distribution analysis showing that the richest people have borne the greatest burden of deficit reduction. I do not understand how we can have that debate on the one hand, yet hear the hon. Lady saying on the other hand that the burden has fallen on the most vulnerable. This Government have worked hard to protect the most vulnerable.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I shall come in a few moments to some of the Government’s measures that have done precisely the opposite of what the hon. Lady claims. Will the Minister explain why thousands of people with disabilities—people in wheelchairs, people with chronic illnesses and so forth—were protesting outside Parliament today under the banner of the Hardest Hit campaign, supported by reputable charities? Is she saying that being hit by what the Government are doing is a figment of their imagination?

Finance (No. 3) Bill

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 3rd May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

My hon. Friend makes a valid point, which I will come on to in a moment. [Interruption.] Ministers are peddling the line that it would take six years to achieve such a derogation from the EU. I ask them, have they even tried? I suspect that the answer is no. It is a fairly defeatist attitude to say that we will not even ask because we know what the answer will be. That is not fighting for Britain’s corner in the European Union.

As I was saying, there was an alternative for the Government. We called on the Chancellor to scrap the hike in VAT on fuel, which would have been of genuine help to families and businesses. It could have been paid for from the £800 million more than expected that was raised from the bank levy. Unlike the stabiliser proposed by the Conservatives in the run-up to the general election, that would not have been “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”, to use the words of the Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills.

The stabiliser is based on the idea that taxation will vary according to fluctuations in petrol prices, so that

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

to use a direct quotation from the Conservative party consultation document on the issue. The stabiliser was a flagship policy for the Conservatives in the general election campaign. The present Prime Minister made an issue of it when he visited a Coca-Cola plant in Morley just a week before polling day, where he said that

“it would give you certainty as you go about your lives, knowing what your salary is, knowing what your mortgage is, 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”.

When the Conservative party got into government, it soon realised that that was an empty promise, made glibly without doing the homework required, as we have seen with so many of its policies in its year in government. In the Budget, the Chancellor resorted to a different so-called stabiliser by increasing the supplementary charge on North sea oil. We will discuss that issue later tonight when we come on to the next group of amendments.

It is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) mentioned, that asking for a special rate of VAT would require our asking for a derogation from the European Commission. The Chief Secretary to the Treasury said that the Government could not afford to “sacrifice income willy-nilly”. However, he was willing to go to the EU to ask for a derogation for remote islands, although not for the rest of Scotland or the UK. Even members of the Conservative party agree that the solution should apply to the rest of the UK.

[Justine Greening]

I just want to check that the hon. Lady is aware that she is talking about two entirely different taxes. The tax that relates to rural areas is fuel duty, and the other derogation that her party is unwilling to accept is illegal to pursue relates to the EU VAT directive.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am making the point that there are precedents for applying to the EU for a derogation, and I will come on to examples of other Governments who have done so.

I was about to quote the hon. Member for Brigg and Goole (Andrew Percy), who said from the Conservative Benches when we were debating the rural derogation:

“The pressures that affect the islands of Scotland and the Scilly Isles affect our constituents too.”

He went on to say that

“if any solution is applied to one part of the United Kingdom, it must be applied to other parts of it as well.”—[Official Report, 16 March 2011; Vol. 525, c. 352.]

Incidentally, we have heard reports that the Chief Secretary’s derogation on that issue may be approved by this summer, after he applied only on Budget day. That is rather quicker than the six to seven years that the Government have claimed would be needed for a broader derogation on VAT for fuel.

The French Government were willing to go to the EU to ask for special dispensation for French restaurants, and several member states have asked for other derogations in the past. Derogations have been granted for goods as diverse as fertilisers, pesticides and works of art, and for services from amusement parks and hotels to cleaning and cable television. In 1994, the British Government secured a derogation for domestic fuel, and in the past derogations have been granted to some member states for reduced VAT on goods such as heating oil.

[Justine Greening]

Since the hon. Lady gives a whole list of derogations, perhaps she will also be prepared to tell the Committee how long they took their respective Governments to achieve.

[Kerry McCarthy]

As I said before, the Economic Secretary invents a mythical time frame which she says it would take for her to achieve a derogation from the EU on VAT on fuel. I have asked her several times now in various debates whether efforts have even been made to raise the subject with the European Commission, and answer has come there none.

[Justine Greening]

rose—

[Kerry McCarthy]

Perhaps the Economic Secretary is going to answer now.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady obviously does not know the answer, but I do—it took more than six years. Does she think motorists should have to wait six years before her party’s policy can come into effect? It is unlikely ever to be accepted.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Lady invents a mythical obstacle to achieving a derogation, without even having tried. Many of her Back Benchers who are constantly urging Ministers to stand up to the European Commission will be very disappointed that they are using the Commission as an excuse. They could have avoided this situation by not introducing the rise in VAT on fuel earlier this year. They should have considered the consequences before entering into such a policy.

The UK has not applied for as many derogations as other member states. We have only one reduced rate, which is used largely for energy and energy-saving materials and a number of health products, as well as the zero rate. France, Italy and Poland have each secured three different reduced rates of VAT, in addition to a zero rate, so there is clearly scope for the UK to ask for a little more.

While Labour was in government, we never applied for a special rate of VAT on fuel, but the reason for that is simple: we never raised VAT on fuel in the first place. This is a problem that the Government have created, so rather than simply telling the Committee that a derogation would be illegal, perhaps the Economic Secretary can once and for all tell us whether the Government have made any serious attempt to start negotiations with the European Commission on the matter, or whether they are simply capitulating to the Commission without putting up a fight.

We have tabled the amendment so that the Government’s fuel duty cut will be shown for what it really is—a 1p cut that is wiped out by the 3p a litre increase resulting from their VAT rise on fuel. It comes at a time when petrol prices are already rising rapidly and reaching record highs, when families are already squeezed and when the economy is struggling to grow. It comes after the Government refused to take the alternative approach that we put forward, which would have been a genuine help to families. The amendment means that the Government will have to face up to the fact that they have made the wrong choice at the wrong time and are harming, not helping, working people.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

As the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) said back in May 2009,

“there are very few even socialist theorists who would suggest that commodity prices were somehow controllable”.—[Official Report, 13 May 2009; Vol. 492, c. 918.]

I do not think the hon. Member for Bolton West (Julie Hilling) can expect the Government to control commodity prices, but what we can do is take action to lessen the effects of swings in the oil price as they feed through to the pump. That is precisely what we are doing in clause 19 on fuel duty, and we will shortly debate the mechanism by which we can pay for that, which is the fair fuel stabiliser.

Of course, the Labour party has suggested that we should create a separate VAT rate for petrol. As has been pointed out even by Labour Members, that would have provided no help for hauliers, and I remind the Committee of why the Chancellor rejected the proposal. It would take six years, and it would not even be able to come into effect then, because the current EU VAT directive means that it is illegal. I do not think motorists should have to wait for six years, and the Government are not going to wait six years. We listened, and we responded as of 6 pm on Budget day.

Finally, I shall address the issue of VAT. I know that it is not strictly within the scope of the debate, Mr Hoyle, but it is important. The Opposition have been quick to point out that although the Government cut fuel duty by 1p in the Budget, pump prices have increased by about 3p following the VAT increase. They appear to be implying that motorists would be better off under their plans for an escalator and a VAT rate of 17.5%, although of course we know that the right hon. Member for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) was planning to increase VAT himself. I suspect that they wish to use the amendment to prove their point.

It is simply not true that motorists would be better off under the previous Government’s tax plans, and let me be absolutely clear that even comparing the changes that we announced in the Budget with the previous Government’s fuel duty and 17.5% VAT plans, it is likely that on 1 April pump prices were 3p a litre lower than they would have been. Even after the two increases in fuel duty next year, average pump prices could still be about 1p a litre lower than they would have been under the previous Government’s plans. Cutting fuel duty and scrapping their escalator more than offsets the impact of the VAT increase, and I should not need to explain to Opposition Members that an increase in VAT was needed to cut the deficit that they left behind. They did not even have the political courage to vote against that measure, which they were so upset about—absolutely shameless.

In government, Labour Members ran our country’s public finances into the ground, and now, in opposition, they bring forward this feeble and unnecessary amendment. Dare they even push it to a vote? We will find out. I suspect that in the case of clause 19, it will be a case of another day, another abstention. The Government are providing motorists with a fair deal. Where the previous Government left tax rises, we have taken action, and I ask the House to reject the amendment.

[Kerry McCarthy]

We have had an interesting debate over the past couple of hours. It is notable that although we have had some significant and thoughtful contributions from my hon. Friends, not a single member of the Conservative party, apart from the Minister, or a single Liberal Democrat has felt the need to speak up for their constituents and talk about rising fuel prices. I am sure their constituents have lobbied them about it, but their silence in the Chamber today speaks volumes.

My hon. Friends the Members for Wirral South (Alison McGovern), for Gateshead (Ian Mearns), for Ilford South (Mike Gapes), for York Central (Hugh Bayley) and for North Durham (Mr Jones) have all highlighted the impact of the rise in fuel prices and of the Government’s decision—and it was the Government’s choice—to raise VAT from 17.5% to 20%. They described the impact on families’ living standards, on businesses in their constituencies, on the haulage industry and across the board.

The point is that the Minister’s view of the impact is short-sighted. She cited the impact of the measures in the Budget from 23 March to 28 March, which must be the smallest, most selective economic data ever cited in the Chamber. It would be interesting to know what happened after 28 March, to which she did not refer. She also tried to lead us down the garden path by talking once more about the fuel duty escalator, but she knows full well that the Opposition called for the Government to reconsider that in the Budget and welcomed the fact that they did so.

The debate is on the VAT increase, which the Government chose to introduce. We are asking simply that they publish an assessment, within three months of the Bill becoming law, of the impact of taxation on fuel prices. I do not think that that is too much to ask. I was surprised to hear the Minister say that we would not press the amendment to a Division, because I can inform you, Mr Hoyle, that we do indeed intend to do so. With that, I rest my case.

Question put, That the amendment be made.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Economic Secretary said that it had led to a drop of 0.8p at the pumps between 23 March and 28 March, which seems very selective. It is clear now that petrol prices at the pumps have gone up and that the Government have gained very little from their approach.

In the run-up to the general election, both the current Chancellor and the current Prime Minister were clear that they would deliver on a fuel duty stabiliser. Voters were led to believe that the Government could and would act on that. However, in March, as we approached the Government’s second Budget, the Opposition pointed out that the fair fuel stabiliser was still nowhere to be seen. Even with fuel prices rising above £6 a gallon, due to the rising price of oil—the very situation that a stabiliser was meant to help with—the Government had still been unable or unwilling to act. That was because their original plans would never have worked.

The Conservative party had believed that rising oil prices led to higher tax revenues for the Government, which could then be shared with motorists. It turned out that, just like the proposals we see in the Bill, they had been poorly thought through. They were told that they were wrong not only by Labour Members, but by the Institute for Fiscal Studies, which stated that

“the claim that the Treasury receives a windfall gain when oil prices rise that it can “share” with motorists is incorrect.”

They were told that they were wrong by the chair of the Office for Budget Responsibility, Robert Chote, who said it

“would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable.”

They were even told that they were wrong by the current Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, who said before the election that the fair fuel stabiliser would be

“unbelievably complicated and unpredictable.”

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady is providing a critique of our policy, but her party has just decided not to oppose our fuel duty reduction, which, compared with what they proposed for the public finances, represents a difference of approximately 6p per litre. How does she propose to pay for the change in fuel duty that she has just not voted against?

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister is trying to return to the topic we debated in the previous group, so perhaps she should have been a little quicker and thought up her intervention then. I am talking now about stability in fuel prices and the empty promises the Government made to the electorate in the run-up to the election that they would be able to do something to stabilise fuel prices at the petrol pumps.

Representatives of the oil and gas industry tell us that as recently as February the Government were giving assurances that they wanted to keep the North sea tax regime stable, as they had said in their previous Budget, but between February and April they very swiftly changed their mind. Perhaps the Minister can tell us why? What caused the Government to have such an urgent rethink on the fair fuel stabiliser? Many of us suspect that the increased scrutiny that the Opposition brought to bear on the Government’s policy might have prompted them belatedly into action—action they would have realised much sooner was needed if they had only done their homework and listened to what people were trying to tell them.

Inevitably, given the panicked way in which it was put together, the Government’s new version of the fair fuel stabiliser is equally as half-baked as the proposal put forward before the election. As a result, potentially tens of thousands of jobs, as well as billions of pounds worth of investment, are at risk, and the Government have broken their commitment to stable, consultative tax policy making.

Fuel Costs

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Monday 7th February 2011 Commons Chamber

[Justine Greening]

I shall ensure that I respond to my hon. Friend on that issue. A variety of concerns about the cost of motoring have been expressed in constituencies throughout the country in recent years.

I hope I can reassure Opposition Members that we are getting on with the process of requesting a derogation by trying to arrange some pilot schemes. I am sure they will be pleased to learn that, although we are still considering the exact scope of the pilots, we have announced our intention of including the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles and the Isles of Scilly, should we be given the necessary dispensation. I assure Members that we are pressing ahead as fast as we can, and we should appreciate their support in helping us to complete the process. I hope that they will be able to overcome any political barriers, do the right thing and back up the coalition Government as we go through this process over the coming months.

We recognise the importance of fuel prices to motorists and businesses. While we are looking at options in the run-up to the Budget, which I will discuss this afternoon, we can have one of two debates today: we can continue to argue about the problem and waste the opportunity presented by today’s debate by scoring points, or we can have a frank and open debate about how to reach the best solution and how we can find common ground. For instance, do we agree that the price of fuel and the affordability of motoring are important for motorists? The answer is yes. Do we agree that the unpredictable way in which the oil price fluctuates can create difficulties for households and businesses when it comes to budgeting? The answer is yes, although the Labour party never recognised that point in government, and I doubt whether it recognises that point in opposition—if it does, perhaps the hon. Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) will explain why it has suddenly changed its mind after having been booted out by the electorate.

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

I am pleased that the Economic Secretary wants to have a constructive debate this afternoon and does not want to engage in party political point scoring. Given that conciliatory approach, will she confirm that a Conservative Government were the first to introduce the fuel duty escalator at 3% in the March 1993 Budget, which they increased to 5% in the November 1993 Budget?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady wants to go back into history. The previous Labour Government left a huge fiscal deficit, and we have to get to grips with those ginormous debts, so the position is entirely different. The previous Labour Government left not only debts and deficit, but tax rises that will unfold over the coming years. In opposition, the Lib Dems and the Conservatives discussed helping motorists, and we still want to see what we can do to help them. Given the state of the public finances when they were handed over to us, the Labour party in opposition should be thoroughly ashamed. We have waited in vain for an apology to the British people for the state of the public finances, and I suspect that we will have a long wait before we hear any of them say, “Sorry.”

The most depressing thing is that the main adviser to the former Chancellor and former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), is now shadow Chancellor. It is like returning the car keys to the man who crashed the car in the first place, which is the worst thing for the British electorate.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I can only reiterate what I have just said, which is that we are considering the exact scope of the scheme, but it is helpful to hear some of the issues that Members have in their constituencies. We are pressing ahead and will need European approval.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will give way one last time.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Minister is being very generous. I am slightly confused, because my understanding was that it was Conservative party policy to look at the fuel duty stabiliser and Liberal Democrat policy to look at the rebate and the rural derogation. She has spoken for more than half an hour and focused almost totally on the rural derogation, so will she, before concluding her remarks, tell us the current position on the fuel duty stabiliser?

[Justine Greening]

I think that I have been very clear on that. In opposition and in government, we have always recognised the impact on motorists of the unstable oil price, which feeds through to pump prices. In setting up a stabiliser, we need to ensure that it works as intended, so the first step was to ask the Office for Budget Responsibility to look at how oil prices feed into the economy and affect public finances. We have commissioned that work, as the hon. Lady will know, and now need to take on board its outcomes before looking at how it feeds into policy making. It would not be right to pre-empt the Budget. Indeed, when the hon. Member for Dundee East was asked for further details, he said that he needed some time, which indicates that this is a complex policy area—too complicated for the Labour party when it was in government.

In conclusion, we want to treat motorists fairly, but we must also act responsibly by ensuring that we tackle our record national debt and the financial deficit, which will not be easy. I will not hide from the House the fact that that is a difficult balance to strike, so difficult that the previous Government chose to ignore it completely. That is also the approach they have adopted for tackling the deficit, offering no credible alternatives to our policies and, in the case of fuel duty, no viable alternatives to their own policies, because it is their fuel duty escalator that is causing the problems.

Once again, it has been left to the coalition Government to clear up the mess left by the Labour Government and look at how we can reach a fair resolution on fuel duty, get our economy back on its feet and support our businesses, families and, in this case, motorists. I look forward to the rest of the debate and hope that we can have an open and honest discussion on the problems faced by motorists across the country and possible solutions. I look forward to hearing from Members in the run-up to this year’s Budget what they think is the best way forward.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valid point. He was speaking on behalf of his colleagues in the more remote parts of Scotland, obviously, rather than on behalf of his own constituents. I thought that perhaps his constituency stretched a little further than the city boundaries.

For Governments, when considering fuel duties there is always a difficult balance to be struck among the needs to raise revenue and balance the public finances; to address environmental concerns about increasing road traffic and emissions, to which there has not been much reference in this debate; and to ensure that the motorist and especially people who have to rely on their cars—people who do not have a choice because of where they live and the environment in which they live—are not disproportionately penalised. The previous Labour Government endeavoured to strike that balance, despite the points that the Economic Secretary to the Treasury made. That was why, for example, in years when fuel prices rose, Labour chose to put the fuel duty escalator on hold—to help motorists meet those rising costs. It is a tricky balance to strike, however, as today’s debate demonstrates, and there are no easy answers.

[Justine Greening]

To clarify matters, is the formal Labour party position that the fuel duty rise should now go on hold?

[Kerry McCarthy]

If I can adopt the mantra that the hon. Member for Dundee East first used and the Minister then picked up on, I should say that that is a matter for us to discuss when we get round to the Budget negotiations. Today, we are here to discuss the two main proposals to ameliorate the impact of rising fuel prices, particularly on rural areas. We are talking about rural areas, rather than about fuel duty prices across the board.

The dog that has not barked during this debate—the thing that was most noticeably missing from the Minister’s speech—is the fact that motorists are being hit hard by the increase in VAT to 20%, which has helped push petrol prices up to their current record levels.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

I would like to make some progress.

There are other concerns about the stabiliser. The then Liberal Democrat spokesman, who is now Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, said at the time of the 2008 Finance Bill debates that the idea of a fuel duty regulator was “unbelievably complicated and unpredictable”. He said that the Exchequer would have to predict the net windfall, and then:

“May I suggest that there might not be any net windfall at all?”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 339.]

The OBR has now confirmed that.

Labour’s then Chief Secretary to the Treasury said:

“In the face of a world slowdown, to take any one tax in isolation and claim that there is a windfall available to spend is economically illiterate, irresponsible or just disingenuous.”—[Official Report, 16 July 2008; Vol. 479, c. 331.]

She was basically saying—this was echoed by the hon. Member for Taunton Deane (Mr Browne), who was the junior Liberal Democrat spokesman at the time—that we cannot consider these revenues in a silo. Yes, oil revenues might go up, which might provide a boost to the nation’s finances—although I stress the word “might”, because it does not necessarily follow that increased revenues come from increased oil prices—but other things might happen that affect revenue flows, and it is irresponsible not to look at everything in the round. Hypothecation can box us into a corner and hamper our choices, and that is a real problem in the case of the stabiliser.

[Justine Greening]

Was the Chief Secretary who referred to economic illiteracy the same Chief Secretary who left us, as an incoming Government, a note saying that there was no money left?

[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.

--- Later in debate ---

[Kerry McCarthy]

The new head of the OBR, Robert Chote, said in an interview about a week ago that its analysis

“suggested that a fair fuel stabiliser would be likely to make the public finances less stable rather than more stable”.

If a £10 increase in oil prices was passed through, the assumption is that it would add 7.4p per litre at the pump. To offset that would cost £3.7 billion, which is £1.3 billion more than the consequential rise in oil and gas revenues. It might have been a good idea for the Conservative party to carry out that sort of analysis before making promises that it could not keep. All the Economic Secretary has to say today is that the Government will consider the OBR’s report.

I also ask the Economic Secretary what conversations she has had with people in the industry about the impact of fuel prices. I have been contacted by the Retail Motor Industry Federation, which tells me that it has written to the Chancellor and Prime Minister four times about the matter recently, with no response at all. It has stated that the Government have

“made no attempt to engage with industry”

and that it wants the policy of a stabiliser to be dropped, because it would be

“costly and a huge administrative burden”.—[Interruption.]

Sorry, is the Economic Secretary saying that the RMI has not written to the Chancellor or the Prime Minister?

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Lady says that there has been no engagement, which is completely wrong. Only about three weeks ago, we held a workshop on tax policy in relation to travelling and the environment, at which a range of stakeholders from a variety of sectors of the travelling industry came to the Treasury to talk about their challenges. Many said that it was the first time they had been invited in for any kind of constructive discussion.

[Kerry McCarthy]

The Economic Secretary says that as though I were the one saying that there had been no engagement. I am not, it is the RMI that states that the Government have

“made no attempt to engage with industry”.

Perhaps she could place in the Library a copy of the response from either the Chancellor or the Prime Minister to the letter that the RMI says it has sent four times, and copy me in. That would confirm whether there has been an attempt to have a dialogue.

I turn to the other proposal under active consideration, the rural derogation. As we have heard, the Government are planning to pilot it in the inner and outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles and the Isles of Scilly, although from what the Economic Secretary said I am not sure whether those are the definite areas for the pilot or whether the matter is still under consideration. My understanding is that there would be a maximum 5p per litre discount on petrol and diesel sold in those areas.

Will the Economic Secretary elaborate on just how far the informal conversations with the European Union have gone? Have they been about just the pilot scheme, or have there been discussions about introducing the scheme to a significant proportion of the British isles at some time in the future?

Following on from the question that my hon. Friend the Member for North Ayrshire and Arran (Katy Clark) asked, will the Economic Secretary explain on what basis the islands in question were chosen for the pilot as opposed to other remote rural areas? Does she not think that it will be difficult to extrapolate from pilots carried out in island areas how such a scheme would work in remote mainland areas, particularly those from which it is not so far to travel to urban areas where petrol is in greater supply? Will she explain why the pilot scheme is to be so limited, rather than a larger pilot that could have more evidential benefit and be used to show how the scheme would work across the country?

We have a number of other concerns about the rural derogation. There is a long-standing principle that excise duties are charged on a universal basis, and it would set quite a precedent to depart from that practice. As has been said, the scheme would be difficult and expensive to administer, because at the moment duty is levied when oil leaves the refinery, not at the point of retail sale. That takes us back to the point that the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mr Reid) made when I was talking about the stabiliser. How would the system be policed if there were to be differential duty at the point of sale? It sounds like a complex administrative system would be required.

[Justine Greening]

I am trying to follow the hon. Lady’s argument, but it is not clear to me. Will she confirm whether she supports the Government’s attempt to get a derogation in place by introducing pilots?

[Kerry McCarthy]

It is up to the Economic Secretary to answer the questions. We are certainly interested in the conversations that she is having with the EU, but we have major concerns about whether it is practical to take the proposal forward. We would like more information to be convinced that it will solve the problem.

The rural rebate proposal was, of course, a Liberal Democrat manifesto commitment, and it seems that the Government are now taking it up. The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) referred to the fact that he has raised the matter on many occasions over the past 12 years, and when he was his party’s transport spokesman he proposed a duty differential based on the Scottish Government’s method of having eight categories to distinguish between urban, rural and remote areas. Again, that could become quite complex. It would be quite easy to calculate rebates in the case of geographically isolated, sparsely populated areas, but in southern Scotland, where there is more of a patchwork of those categories, it could be difficult.

Draft EU Budget 2011

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Wednesday 13th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy]

No; I want to make a little progress. I have not started saying what I intended to say.

I am slightly confused by the Minister’s stance on the motion and the amendments. The motion states that the Government support

“efforts to maintain the 2011 EU budget at cash levels equivalent to the 2010 budget”—

in other words, a freeze. The hon. Member for Stone (Mr Cash) argues that there should be no increase in the EU’s budget, which is pretty much the same position. Although the Minister implied through everything she said that she wants the budget to be smaller, that is not what the motion states. Will she clarify whether the Government are arguing for a freeze, or whether they support the 34 Back Benchers who have signed amendment (b) calling for cuts in the budget? Will she also clarify what she meant when she said that it would be illegal to support amendment (b)? I would be very happy for her to intervene on me to explain the element of illegality. If there were not that illegality, would she call for cuts? If so, why does not the Government’s motion say that there should be cuts?

[Justine Greening]

On the legalities, we are part of the EU—I am sure that some hon. Members wish that we were not, but we are—and we are under a treaty obligation to make payments. If we were to stop making payments, we would breach our treaty obligations, which we are not able to do under law. If we went down that route, presumably any other European country could do anything it liked against any particular treaty obligation it thought inappropriate, which would not be conducive to good diplomatic relationships or to progressing the case that we want to make for a cut in the 2011 budget. I hope that that has clarified matters for the hon. Lady. Perhaps I can press her to confirm whether Labour MEPs will support our Government’s policy stance for a cash freeze in the 2011 budget.

[Kerry McCarthy]

I am here to put the questions to the Minister and to find out what her stance is. She is trying to placate Conservative Back Benchers, who are clearly unhappy about the lack of progress being made by the Government. It is tough talk, but it is all talk and there is no action. When she goes to Brussels tomorrow, what will she see as success in those negotiations? What is she aiming for?

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I must make some progress, because we have very little time left.

In the wake of the worst financial crisis in living memory, and with the events that subsequently unfolded, we have said today in this House that we believe—rightly—that there is no justification for an increase in the EU’s annual budget of nearly 6%. In fact, as we have heard, countries across Europe are taking steps to ensure fiscal consolidation, and there is a strong case for the EU to follow suit—I know that the House can tell that I am taking that case to Europe directly and making it to those countries. My right hon. Friend the Member for Wokingham (Mr Redwood) pointed out how they are taking difficult decisions, and I made that exact point in French to the French Finance Minister.

At a time when all our European neighbours are looking to rein in public expenditure, the EU should not be looking to carry on with business as usual. It cannot be a case of carrying on regardless. That is why we voted against the Council’s first reading, which went in the right direction but did not go far enough—a view seemingly shared by everybody in this House apart from those on the Opposition Front Bench. They let us down by losing part of the rebate in 2005 and now in 2010 they are letting us down again by failing to support our efforts as a Government and as a coalition of parties on behalf of the British taxpayer to get value for money.

My hon. Friend the Member for Sittingbourne and Sheppey (Gordon Henderson) asked how many MEPs will vote against this provision. I can reassure him that we are already talking to our partners in Europe and in our group—the European Conservatives and Reformists. I have spoken to my hon. Friend the Member for Scarborough and Whitby (Mr Goodwill), my good friend, and he assures me that he spoke yesterday to the Whip in charge of that group and all that group will be voting against a rise in the European Parliament when it comes before them. I urge those on the Opposition Front Bench to join us in that and to confirm that their Socialist group will do that. If they want to help the British taxpayer, they can start lobbying their own group in the European Parliament in the way that we have already successfully done.

Finally, we have spoken a lot tonight about concerns over the effectiveness of the EU spend and how well it is accounted for. I share those concerns. In fact, the last Government never used their vote when they took a look at the European audit accounts. We plan to be ready to use our vote if we see accounts that fail to meet the standards that we think they should. If we see accounts that contain points made by the European auditors that we believe the Parliament is not taking on board, we will be ready to use our vote in future to challenge the Commission in a way that the last Government never were.

I want to thank Members again for their valuable contributions. It has been incredibly useful for me to have this debate, particularly on the day before I travel to Brussels to defend our national interests and to get the best possible deal for the taxpayer.

[Kerry McCarthy]

Will the Minister give way?

[Justine Greening]

Not unless the hon. Lady is about to say that Labour MEPs and their Socialist group will support us.

[Kerry McCarthy]

indicated dissent.

[Justine Greening]

Sorry.

This year, member states have been taking unprecedented action to restore sustainability to their national finances, making tough choices today to deliver a better future tomorrow. That is the case that I shall be making to my colleagues across Europe in the days and weeks ahead. In these times of austerity, there is no justification for ineffective, wasteful expenditure and there is a real need to scrutinise every euro of spending to ensure that it delivers what is promised. The Opposition might not want to play a role in challenging the unacceptable Commission budget rise, but the Government and we on the Government Benches will. I commend the motion to the House.

Amendment proposed: (b), leave out from ‘the financial year 2011’ to end and add

‘is concerned at the above-inflation increase being made to Britain’s EU budget contribution; believes that, at a time when the Government is poised to make reductions in public spending elsewhere, it is wrong to increase that contribution; and calls on the Government to reduce Britain’s EU budget contribution’. —(Mr. Carswell.)

Question put, That the amendment be made.

Oral Answers to Questions

Debate between Justine Greening and Kerry McCarthy

Tuesday 8th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)]

T5. I was disappointed to see no mention of the credit union movement in the coalition agreement. Although I admit that I have not yet got my head around what the big society is, I hope that there is a role in there for the credit union movement. When can we expect the Legislative Reform (Industrial And Provident Societies and Credit Unions) Order 2010 to be laid before the House?

[The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Justine Greening)]

We do support credit unions. In fact, one of the first things that the new Secretary of State for Wales did on her appointment was to visit her local credit union in Wales. We have said that we want vibrant, sustainable credit unions. We are looking at the legislative reform order to which the hon. Lady referred and I hope that we can come back with some further dates in the next few weeks. As she can imagine, the focus right now has been on the emergency Budget, but I am aware of the order and officials are talking to me about the time lines for it.