Motoring Fuel Costs

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 14th June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Robert Halfon]

I do not want to unveil all my secrets at once, and if the hon. Lady waits a bit, I will give her my proposal.

Total’s profit rose 34% year on year, and ExxonMobil saw a 69% profit jump to $10.5 billion. We must acknowledge that some companies make a good return for pension funds, but a balance must be struck. I remember the fuel protests in 2000, when we were seriously concerned about the threat of petrol at 80p a litre. According to PetrolPrices.com, the excellent price comparison website, the most expensive unleaded fuel in the UK is now £1.51 a litre.

I accept that 64% of the petrol price is taxation, and I welcome the Chancellor’s steps to slash some of the planned taxes, but the big oil companies must play their part. Why are prices so different at petrol stations, and why are they raking in such astronomical profits when small businesses are being forced into bankruptcy by fuel costs?

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The hon. Gentleman rightly mentioned the oil companies. Did he witness the same thing as I did in my constituency eight or 10 weeks ago when some of the major supermarkets embarked on a price reduction of 5p a litre if customers spent a specific amount on goods, and at the same time raised the price of fuel by 4p or 5p a litre, which in turn forced the independents to put up their prices? The situation was contrived by some supermarkets.

[Robert Halfon]

The hon. Gentleman makes an important point, and that is why I am arguing for transparency. If supermarkets reduce prices, they must do so properly. We cannot have situations such as the one he describes. We often bash bankers, but oil barons are far worse, because they enjoy a semi-monopoly in the UK market, and most motorists have no alternative but to buy their products. We need transparency above all. Oil prices are falling, and we must ensure that the big companies cut their prices at the pump.

The green movement makes a case for expensive petrol, but modern vehicles have lower carbon emissions. Cars account for only 13% of our man-made carbon emissions. My argument—some hon. Members may say that it is controversial—is that environmentalism sometimes becomes a luxury for the rich, with no substantive answers, other than regressive taxes on energy. It is all too easy, in the cause of saving the planet, for the wealthy to insist that the poorest families should pay more in petrol taxes, and gas and electricity bills.

The impact of high fuel prices is particularly severe on road freight companies, and they are a major employer in Harlow. Road freight carries nearly 97% of everything we eat, wear or build with. High and rising fuel costs force the road freight companies to try to pass on the extra cost, and that stokes inflation. If they fail to pass on the increased costs, they go bust.

The road freight companies face a further cruel impact that the UK green lobby must consider. Fuel duty levels on the continent are about 24p a litre lower than in the UK, so hundreds of thousands of foreign lorries pour into the south-east of the UK and undercut UK hauliers. Foreign trucks pay no road tax here, and I welcome the Government’s plans to introduce a £9 a day charge, although I believe that it should be a lot higher. Those trucks pay no fuel tax in the UK as their tanks are big enough to last all week and all their fuel is bought abroad. They pay no employment taxes. They simply come into the UK, drive our UK freight companies out of business, and pay nothing to the Exchequer.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point, but the price of oil is a spot price driven by commodity markets. We are talking about a part of the industry that is different from the area in which we chose to raise tax. We are working with industry to ensure that we mitigate any risk of a lessening of investment in the North sea as a result of that tax. As my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow pointed out, we needed to strike a balance to take into account the overall effect of high oil prices as they fed through into the broader economy in petrol prices and energy prices more generally.

The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the report from the Office for Budget Responsibility. It showed clearly that, although the Exchequer has some growing tax receipts, the dampening effect of the rest of the economy is also significant. We felt that although there was an overall impact on the economy, one sector—the oil companies—was doing much better from a high oil price. It seemed fair and sensible to look at how we could balance some of the value that was being generated by the high oil price, and to create a fairer split between oil companies and those motorists and businesses that bear the brunt of the prices at the pump. We are working hard with industry to mitigate the impact of our policy on investment—the impact was analysed as being small by industry observers such as Wood Mackenzie. This is an important debate, and the Government recognise that motoring is an essential part of life for households and businesses. Fuel costs affect us all, and as the price of petrol continues to rise, those costs have become an evermore significant part of everyday life for people and companies. We were keen to look at what could be done.

The previous Government left us facing the introduction of a fuel escalator from the 2009 Budget that would have involved seven fuel duty increases. I realise that in this half-hour debate, only a Government Minister gets the chance to respond to the Member who secured it, but I am disappointed that a shadow Minister is not present to listen to some of the concerns raised. One of our biggest challenges concerned how to deal with the proposed above-inflation increase in fuel duty. That increase could have resulted in average prices at the pump being 6p per litre higher than they are currently. We would have seen above-inflation rises in 2012, 2013 and 2014. When we took office, no plan was in place to support motorists, and within the huge financial constraints in which we found ourselves, and with little room for manoeuvre, we had to see what we could do to address such an important issue.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I am sure that my colleagues will read Hansard tomorrow to see exactly what has been said. The Government inherited potential increases in fuel duty and the Chancellor has done the right thing by removing the fuel duty escalator, just as the previous Labour Government did. We also froze proposed increases in fuel duty on 11 occasions because of the increase in the price of crude oil.

[Justine Greening]

What was missing, however, was any kind of long-term plan for how to deal with changes in the price of oil feeding through to the pump. We wanted to look at how a stabiliser mechanism would work, which we felt would be in the interests of households, companies and the overall economy.

Fuel Prices and the Cost of Living

Russell Brown Excerpts

Wednesday 16th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

My hon. Friend has laid out clearly why a fuel duty stabiliser or regulator would not work in fiscal terms. The tragedy is that the wider UK public, on the back of the Fair Fuel UK campaign, have been sold the idea of a stabiliser while at the same time talking about a reasonable price. Does she have any idea what would be a reasonable price with which people would be satisfied? It would be quite unsustainable, I think.

[Ms Eagle]

I thank my hon. Friend for his observations, and he is quite right. The stabiliser mechanism relies on our having some idea of the price at which petrol ought to be stabilised, which means guessing right. A wrong guess could lose the Exchequer a lot of money. The question is, when is a rise in fuel prices a blip and when is it a trend? A stabiliser would require a judgment call on that point, too, and if the Government got it wrong it could cost a lot of money.

We have had nothing but delay and dithering on the issue from the coalition parties, despite their electoral promises, which were lavish in the extreme. The Government should be taking action now. Instead, just 10 months in, what do we have? A Foreign Secretary who is looking for his mojo, a Deputy Prime Minister publicly denying being taken hostage by the Prime Minister from inside his £2 million ring of Sheffield steel, and a Business Secretary who is so full of self-importance that he claimed he could bring the Government down single-handed if he was pushed too far. Millions of Britons struggling in the middle of the largest squeeze in living standards for 80 years are hoping and praying that somebody will push him, and push him fast.

Families are crying out for help now, but the Government are cutting too far, too fast and pursuing a dangerous and extreme experiment on the UK economy. Since they came to power, growth has stalled. Today’s unemployment figures are the worst since 1994, and inflation is double the Bank of England’s target. They need to recognise that families need help now, and they need to forget the dogma and join us in the Lobby to vote for this cut.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

I do not know exactly how they voted, but the previous Labour Government consistently increased fuel duty on motorists, taking no account of whether that was affordable.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I thank the hon. Lady for giving way—at the end of the day, she is a fair person. She talks about the increases imposed by the previous Labour Government, but she must also recognise that on 11 occasions over a nine-year period, they saw fit to suspend or abandon any proposed increases simply because of the rising price of fuel. I sincerely hope that she and her colleagues remember that in the light of the motion.

[Justine Greening]

The hon. Gentleman is talking about postponements, because those fuel duty increases eventually came through. That is one reason why in their final months in office—from December 2008 to April 2010—the previous Government increased fuel duty no fewer than four times.

Over the weekend, the shadow Chancellor confidently proposed cutting VAT on fuel.

--- Later in debate ---

[Justine Greening]

Of course they should, but as so often they never do, unfortunately.

[Mr Russell Brown]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Justine Greening]

I will give way one more time, but then I really must make some progress so that other Members can have their say.

[Mr Brown]

I am indebted to the hon. Lady, but may I just put the record straight? When Labour came to power in 1997, the duty and tax left by the previous Conservative Government accounted for 74%; when we left office, duty and tax accounted for 65%.

[Justine Greening]

And a huge fiscal deficit and debt to boot, so we will take no lectures from the Labour party. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can discuss with the shadow Chancellor how he thinks the huge deficit that his party left our country—it costs us £120 million a day to service our debt interest—should be addressed. The elephant in the room, which we have not talked about so far today because it is not in the Opposition’s motion, is how they would tackle the deficit. The answer is that they would not tackle it, which is why it is so lucky that Labour is not in government at the moment.

Scotland Bill

Russell Brown Excerpts

Monday 14th March 2011 Commons Chamber

[Stewart Hosie]

It was not that they were simply blind to it; members of the Labour party have said—I believe that their leader recently said this—that Labour found it difficult to implement a fuel duty regulator when they were in power. It was not so much that Labour found it difficult as it actively opposed every attempt to do it.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

[Stewart Hosie]

Not at the moment.

Before I get too distracted, let me return to the Bill. The whole point about this amendment and our seeking the devolution of fuel duty powers is that we are not doing this for its own sake. Everyone understands the difficulty, as we have raised it many times, so this is about action. If the UK Government will not act, it is perfectly reasonable for the powers to be devolved so that a Scottish Government can act.

The two significant taxes dealt with in this first group are the aggregates levy and air passenger duty. In written evidence to the Scottish Affairs Committee, Professor Iain McLean said:

“I am not persuaded by the UK Government’s reasons for rejecting Calman’s other two tax devolution proposals, namely Aggregates Levy and Air Passenger Duty. As Scottish Ministers have correctly pointed out, the litigation which is given as a reason for rejecting the transfer of Aggregates Levy was already in progress when Calman reported. If Scotland is willing to take any revenue risk arising from that litigation, it should be allowed to.”

Likewise, the fact that the UK government intends to convert air passenger duty into a ‘per plane’ duty argues for, not against, devolving it. The principle of subsidiarity implies that the Scottish Government, not the UK Government, should decide how to tax flights originating at small Highland or island airports. Airports don’t move. They are a very suitable devolved tax base.”

On aggregates duty, Professor McLean said:

“The shape of landfill tax is obviously complementary to that of (any successor to) Aggregates Levy.”

Landfill tax is being devolved, so the approach being taken here is rather illogical. It is also a key recommendation of the Scottish Parliament’s Committee that aggregates tax is devolved. The final Calman commission report said:

“The Commission has recommended that a number of “green taxes” (Air Passenger Duty, Landfill Tax and the Aggregates Levy) be devolved. As well as helping to increase the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, control of these taxes will provide important policy levers in relation to environmental issues, allowing the Scottish Parliament and Government further options in determining policy.”

That makes perfect sense. Excluding two of the three taxes in that “green taxes” category not only makes a mockery of the Calman report, but, more importantly, decreases financial accountability and removes what Calman called “important policy levers”.

--- Later in debate ---

[Iain Stewart]

Not that Mr Hague—this one is spelt Haig. I think the Foreign Secretary is rather preoccupied with matters elsewhere in the world.

My Mr Haig said, of the First Minister’s comments about free tertiary education in his interview on the Andrew Marr programme yesterday:

“What is it the Scots go without that we the English enjoy? More and more people I speak to are seething with this unfairness, especially in the current financial climate. How is it the Scots can afford this, and the English cannot? They even have an extra layer of government, and are able to afford that as well. Mr Stewart, English nationalism is going to rise slowly but surely over this. Your government cannot ignore this, otherwise you are going to create a fracture in the union, and the SNP’s most ardent supporters for independence are going to be the English.”

I agree. I am a Unionist and I want the Union to survive. The hon. Members for Perth and North Perthshire (Pete Wishart), for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie) and for Banff and Buchan (Dr Whiteford) might support our doing nothing to increase support for their ultimate aim, but I do not.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I suggest that the hon. Gentleman responds to his constituent by making him fully aware of what the Scottish block grant is. If the Administration in Edinburgh decide to spend money in one fashion, there is no extra funding for it north of the border. In paying for one thing, we are sacrificing something else. Could that be a starting point for the hon. Gentleman?

[Iain Stewart]

I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but if the Scottish Parliament were responsible for raising more of its revenue, such arguments would diminish. I think it is right to give it the flexibility to raise additional revenue, if it so wishes, to fund extra programmes in Scotland from which my constituents south of the border may not benefit.

I agree with the incremental steps proposed in clause 24. We are for the first time starting to disaggregate the unitary tax system in the United Kingdom. That will have many consequences, some of which will be unforeseen, so we need to proceed with great care and attention to detail. I strongly welcome the proposal that we should not rush to set up a completely new system in one go. In particular, proposed new section 80B, which clause 24 introduces, contains a provision to allow the subsequent devolution of additional tax powers. That is the right way to go, rather than trying to devolve too much at this stage.

The hon. Member for Dundee East raised perfectly valid points about devolving other taxes, including air passenger duty, fuel duty and corporation tax, and we might well come around to doing that in the fullness of time. The Scottish Parliament’s response to the Bill noted that

“international experience does show some scope for differentiation of corporation tax,”

and we may get to that point. However, there are huge difficulties and intricacies that we must first consider about the operation of corporation tax. A later clause goes into some detail in defining a Scottish taxpayer for the purposes of the Bill and we would have to do something very similar for corporation tax. If a company were primarily located in Scotland but had its tax headquarters elsewhere, we would have to work out exactly which components of its income were liable for corporation tax.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Russell Brown]

I did not intend to speak on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), but I feel that some issues need to be addressed, and I want to put to him one or two questions about fuel duty that I hope he will answer when he responds to the debate.

I am sure that no one in the Chamber does not recognise how difficult this issue has become for motorists in any part of the UK—particularly, I recognise, for those in the northern and western isles. However, when I look at the whole concept of devolving this additional tax on fuel duty, I wonder, in all honesty, whether the proposal would have been before us if fuel prices at the pumps were not so expensive. The hon. Gentleman has not given the slightest indication how this additional income would be used. More importantly, does he have even a ballpark figure on how much would be raised in additional taxation going to the Scottish Parliament? In a previous debate, he and I discussed the fuel duty stabiliser, of which he has been a great advocate. As I pointed out to him, his advocacy has not always been consistent, as there was one year when the SNP dropped the proposal. If he had his way and managed to get the amendment through, and the fuel duty charge became a devolved issue, would he totally abandon the whole concept of a fuel duty stabiliser?

I am not in favour of a fuel duty stabiliser, as I have made clear to constituents who have corresponded with me over recent weeks. I need only point to the campaign run by FairFuelUK, which has not given the slightest indication of what it thinks is a reasonable price for fuel and a reasonable level of duty. The wider public might think that this is a tremendous idea, but I warn the Committee, as I have warned my constituents, to be very careful. With the current fluctuating price of fuel—crude oil—and the way that the marketplace is at the moment, if a fuel duty stabiliser were suddenly introduced, we would end up with fuel pegged at a price that is unsustainable. People filling up their cars are already baulking at the whole concept of what they have to pay, and it is completely wrong to peg pump prices at a level that is unsustainable.

I will also briefly mention the rural fuel derogation, about which the hon. Member for Na h-Eileanan an Iar (Mr MacNeil), who is not with us, might have some idea. I hope that the hon. Member for Dundee East will indicate the average mileage of someone living in the northern or the western isles. I recognise how painful it must be for people living in those localities to pay 10p or 15p per litre more than people on the mainland. However, the pain that such people suffer if they do 5,000 or 8,000 miles a year is comparable to that suffered by people in areas such as mine who have to do 15,000 or 20,000 miles a year, or more. Fuel prices are only one element of motoring costs. People in some places pay an astronomical price because of the miles that they have to cover. On an annual basis, people on the islands might not pay more; they might even pay less if they have a low mileage.

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

The hon. Gentleman should not denigrate the fuel duty derogation in the way that he has. On large islands such as Mull and Islay, people do a significant mileage. The use of fuel is not just about the number of miles one drives; if one drives on single track roads and has to stop and start all the time, one uses a lot more fuel. The important thing is to get the derogation established on the islands and to make it workable. It can then be extended to remote parts of the mainland.

[Mr Brown]

The hon. Gentleman, like so many people, has merely used the terminology of significant mileage. We need clarification. Will somebody in this Committee please put figures on this? To a person on the islands, significant mileage may mean 5,000 or 6,000 miles. I appreciate how difficult it is for people living in remote, rural localities. However, we are talking about finance—something that I am not an expert on, as I am sure hon. Members know. We need to be clear in our minds about what we are doing here.

[Mr Reid]

Perhaps I can give the hon. Gentleman an indication of the distances involved. The distance from Fionnphort on Mull to the largest town on the island, Tobermory, is 50 miles. Somebody driving from Fionnphort to the largest town on the island and back therefore travels 100 miles.

[Mr Brown]

I appreciate the hon. Gentleman’s clarification of the distances that people travel. I believe that that will be important in the case that the Government are trying to make for a rural fuel derogation. I am not demeaning anyone, but saying that we need to be clear when discussing finance what the situation will be.

Those are the brief points that I wanted to make, and I hope that we can get clarification before we vote on these issues this evening.

[Fiona O'Donnell]

You may not have been present the last time I spoke on the Scotland Bill, Mr Walker, but it was my birthday. Every time I speak about the Scotland Bill, it feels like my birthday.

In contrast to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), the Bill offers real progress for Scotland and a recognition of all that has been achieved at Holyrood. At the same time, it offers the stability of remaining as part of the Union, which protects Scotland against some risks. The hon. Gentleman seemed to be disappointed by what he called the politics in the report of the Scottish Parliament’s Scotland Bill Committee. Perhaps, however, we should look at the history of how we have come to this point.

We had the Scottish constitutional convention and the Calman commission, both of which the hon. Gentleman’s party declined to be part of. Those things stand in sharp contrast to the SNP’s own record, because the national conversation, which my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North (Ann McKechin) spoke about at some length, has delivered nothing for the people of Scotland or the Scottish Parliament. That contrasts with what is on offer before the Committee today. Of course there is detail in the Bill that we need the Government to iron out, but even the Bill Committee in the Scottish Parliament—I believe it is the first time that a Committee of that type has been established, to give the Bill the scrutiny that it deserves and merits—has acknowledged that there is time to work on some of the details.

We could fair see how all puffed up with pride the hon. Gentleman was about all the amendments that he had brought before us, but I have to say that I found his arguments unconvincing. The SNP had all the time that Calman was discussing a way forward to come up with some detailed proposals, and it had some weeks of the Scotland Bill Committee’s work in Holyrood, yet what do we see? A single piece of paper containing its proposals for lasting change and progress in Scotland. I am afraid that is the sum total of its contribution.

Crown Currency Exchange

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 7th December 2010 Commons Chamber

[Tessa Munt]

That is quite correct. It certainly seems that on several occasions a number of people brought these problems to the attention of the FSA. One of whom was Robin Haynes, the managing director of Currency Index Ltd. He raised concerns about Crown Currency Exchange with the FSA in March 2009 and September 2010. He raised his concerns with HMRC in September 2010 and with Barclays, Crown Currency Exchange’s bankers, in May 2009. None of those appears to have been acted on.

There is also the case of a whistleblower who reported his concerns to the companies investigations branch of the Insolvency Service on 20 August 2009, but again nothing appeared to happen. It seems that none of those bodies is able to investigate a company until it has done something completely awful to its customers.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate, because it has been stipulated that Barclays bank raised concerns about the company prior to its collapse but kept quiet. Does she, like me, believe that that should be further investigated?

[Tessa Munt]

I hope so, because so many people were taken in by the idea that they had some security, and Barclays probably should have done something. I understand that there was a meeting between one or two company directors and their bankers, Barclays, on 21 July, and that there were concerns at the time about the company’s solvency, yet for some months afterwards people still tried to put their money into the company, without any results.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Hoban]

Barclays had a limited relationship with Crown. It did not lend money to Crown, but simply provided it with a bank account. It raised a number of questions with Crown, but the answers gave no cause for concern. It acted simply as Crown’s bank and had no engagement in the business.

[Mr Russell Brown]

I could ask the Minister when he believes that my constituents will receive money and how much, but I want to come back to the fact that the company was classed as a small payments institution, despite its turnover putting it in a category that meant it should have been regulated. Is he in a position to instruct the FSA to look at the more than 500 other companies that are small payments institutions to see whether they fall into a regulated category?

[Mr Hoban]

When the €3 million figure is exceeded, a company should be regulated, but that figure refers to the average monthly payment transaction. A company can therefore be turning over €36 million a year and still fall below the threshold for registration.

To conclude, I agree with the hon. Lady that the collapse of Crown Currency Exchange has hit 13,000 innocent victims and that, in some cases, the losses have been substantial. We all agree that that should not happen again, that we have to learn the lessons from Crown’s failure and that we must take all the steps necessary to ensure that consumers are better informed about the risks that they take and the rights that they have. We will be able to determine the action to be taken by the Government or the regulators only once we have received the report. We will look at the costs and benefits of regulation. I remind the hon. Lady that in last week’s debate on the retail distribution review, she pointed out the risk that more regulation poses to businesses.

We must ensure that there is proper regulation for consumers. We must learn the lessons from Crown to ensure that we put the right protection in place for consumers, given the risks involved. I assure hon. Members who take an interest in this matter that I will keep them up to date with what is happening with Crown. I recognise from the number of hon. Members present in the House tonight how important—

Independent Financial Advisers (Regulation)

Russell Brown Excerpts

Monday 29th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Harriett Baldwin]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. It is the banks that are likely to be advantaged by the change in regulations. I am afraid I have only six minutes in which to raise the many questions that I have about the regulation. I shall focus on a couple of areas that my hon. Friend the Member for Wyre Forest (Mark Garnier) did not touch on much in his remarks, which were extremely comprehensive.

I want to hear more about the handing of a competitive advantage to the banks. It is my understanding from my discussion with the Financial Services Authority that banks that are trading overseas could come into this country and continue to offer advice. The European Union is about to consult on something called the directive for packaged retail investment products. It would be wise for the FSA to wait and see the results of the consultation before it takes permanent steps here to put out of business 20% of independent financial advisers.

I have also heard through the Westminster Hall debate that my hon. Friend the Minister has talked about the free annual financial health check that the Consumer Financial Education Body will be able to offer. I want to hear more tonight from the Minister about how that will be delivered and what the additional cost to the industry through the social responsibility levy will be. Has that additional cost to the industry been factored into the £1.7 billion that is the five-year cost of the retail distribution review?

For the remaining four minutes at my disposal, I shall focus on my main area of concern, which has been raised by colleagues—the question of the qualifications. Imagine if nurses who were qualified were suddenly told that from now on, nursing was to be a degree-level qualification, and that all existing nurses would have to pass that degree-level qualification or they would not be able to practise their profession. That is what is happening to our independent financial advisers.

If I thought that passing an exam would prevent mis-selling and we would never have another incidence of mis-selling in future, I would be more supportive of the idea, but I do not see that an ability to pass an exam, which someone in their 20s might be much better at—certainly, I was—than by the time they get into their 50s and 60s, when they have all that experience about financial advice, precludes mis-selling in the future.

I can offer a few examples. We have been inundated with correspondence on the issue, but a couple of important examples stand out. One adviser wrote to me who is already qualified to chartered financial planner status. He is an associate of the Chartered Insurance Institute, which maps across to a degree-level qualification, but with the FSA’s new standards, it appears that there will be gaps. If advisers with such a qualification do not fill those gaps in the two years available, they will no longer have a livelihood in the industry. That is blatantly retrospective regulation.

Another important example that was brought to my attention was a letter from the chief executive of a friendly society based in Cleveland on Teesside. The case may be raised in the debate; I hope so. The chief executive wrote to me explaining that his door-to-door sales force who sell funeral policies for £1 a week and life policies for up to £5 a week will now be required to take the degree-level qualification. As such, he felt that his friendly society with its 10,000 low-income customers would have to shut it doors. May I urge the Minister to try to influence the independent statutory regulator to be more respectful of experience as a qualification?

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

Does the hon. Lady agree with this statement: it is one thing to impose new rules on new entrants to the IFA profession; it is quite another thing to disqualify someone who is already qualified?

[Harriett Baldwin]

Indeed. I understand that there is to be an alternative-based assessment. The Minister mentioned it in the Westminster Hall debate, but I want to try to make sure that he works closely with the FSA to publicise that route more extensively, and that he works with the FSA perhaps to soften the cliff-edge of disqualification on 1 January 2013. We all want to see better qualified financial advisers, no question about it, but to close the door on financial advisers practising their profession on 1 January 2013 is not on.

In conclusion, financial advisers face a triple whammy. We have heard about some of the other issues, but the one that we would all see as being the most illogical is the one about qualifications. As the Government go through the process of changing the way the FSA operates, I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to change the way the FSA regulates the sector.

Oral Answers to Questions

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

There is an enormous amount of speculation about Ireland at the moment to which I do not propose to add. The Irish Government have said clearly that they have not sought assistance and that they are taking difficult steps to deal with their fiscal situation. They will make further announcements about their Budget situation in the next few weeks. I make the general observation that what is going on at the moment highlights the fact that concerns about sovereign debt issues have not disappeared and we should be grateful that, thanks to the actions of this Government, we have moved Britain out of the financial danger zone.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

What does the Chancellor say to fixed-income pensioner households in my constituency and his who will be faced with the additional VAT burden in just over 50 days?

[Mr Osborne]

I would say to them what I would say to everyone in this country: that we inherited the largest fiscal—[Interruption.] Well, I do not know how many times Opposition Members have to hear this but it is the truth. They left us the largest Budget deficit in the G20 and the European Union at a time of heightened sovereign debt concern. They can either be part of the debate that the rest of world is taking part in on how to deal with the deficits or they can completely ignore that debate and become irrelevant.

Savings Accounts and Health in Pregnancy Grant Bill

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 26th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hanson]

There is a range of measures that the Labour Government introduced and would have introduced in relation to deficit reduction. There is a range of measures that my right hon. and hon. Friends and I were elected to implement to reduce the deficit over a four-year period, including an additional banking levy and help and support for deficit reduction. [Interruption.] The Financial Secretary says that is not so. Whatever happened at the general election, we were elected on a policy to reduce the deficit over four and a half years. We would have done that. We would have implemented measures including a range of tax changes and help and support for public sector efficiencies of £15 billion. He is making a choice that puts women, children and the poorest in our society at the greatest disadvantage as a result of the changes. That is a disgrace. We should have looked at the situation differently.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

I hope my right hon. Friend will take the opportunity from the Opposition Front Bench to remind the Minister that it was our aim to raise an additional £19 billion through taxation, 60% of which would have come from the top 5% highest earners.

[Mr Hanson]

Indeed. As my hon. Friend knows, even now some of the Budget measures that make the Budget seem fairer than it is are measures that we supported in government and which the Conservative Government opposed when they were in opposition. I will not take lessons from the Conservative Minister on fairness towards pregnant women, children and those on poorer incomes, because the Labour Government, when in office, had a proud record of fighting on those issues.

In conclusion, the debate is about choices for the future. As my hon. Friends have pointed out, other choices could have been made. I am not saying that I would have supported them or agreed with them, but the Government could have considered a range of other choices. They could have suspended payments for a period of time for the child trust fund, the maternity grant or the saving gateway. They could have means-tested them, so that individuals with the highest income in society did not receive the maternity grant or the child trust fund.

The Government could have considered measures including a payment holiday. They could have considered phasing out the support over a longer period. They could have done all those things, but they have not. They have taken a sledgehammer to the child trust fund, the saving gateway and the health in pregnancy grant. It is not the deficit that is driving these measures; it is dogma on the part of the Conservative party.

The Government do not recognise the pressures of bringing up a child with limited financial means in the 21st century; they do not understand the difficulties faced by people trying to save on low incomes; and they do not understand the difficulties that mothers- to-be on low incomes face in the final weeks of their pregnancy. The Bill shows that the Government have made the wrong choices. It will deepen inequalities in our society, and I urge all right hon. and hon. Members to reject it.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Russell Brown Excerpts

Tuesday 22nd June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. In Sefton, unemployment was running at half the level of what it was during the last Tory recession, as were home repossessions and business failures. That, to my mind, is a sign of economic success. Given that, as I said, this recession is the deepest since 1931 apart from the period after the war, that is a measure of the success of Labour’s policies in seeing off the worst effects of the global recession. That is an important difference between what Labour Members see as the way forward and what the coalition is trying to do.

[Mr Russell Brown (Dumfries and Galloway) (Lab)]

The hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr Jackson) refers to 5 million people being on benefits. He tends to forget something that my hon. Friend and I, and other Labour Members, recollect; there is collective amnesia about this. People were driven from being unemployed on to benefits—incapacity benefit or disability living allowance—simply to massage unemployment figures. That is what it was all about during the previous recession, and we are hearing the same thing again.

[Bill Esterson]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend, who is absolutely right. The reason why Labour Members who represent constituencies on Merseyside and elsewhere in the north-west did so well in the election is that people have memories of what Thatcherism meant. As other Opposition Members have said today, this is a Budget of Thatcherism, not one for sustainable growth. That should concern everyone in this country, because the Government are trying to repeat the failed economic policies of the 1980s and early ’90s. My concern is that the cuts that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Steve Rotheram) referred to will lead to the unemployment, home repossession and business failures that we saw all too often then, because of the loss of jobs in the public sector and the impact on people with small businesses.

The Liberal Democrats say that this is a Budget for fairness, but how can it be fair that an area such as Merseyside, which has some of the poorest parts of the country, is hit so hard? How can that be anything other than a very unfair way of “sharing the pain”, as coalition Members have rather unfortunately called it?

The review of capital projects, which the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) mentioned, was first announced on 1 January. Unfortunately, the delays in the capital programme have taken out of the economy the stimulus that was following as a result of such projects. That review, announced for October, will mean taking money away from the economy at a time when it would have been most useful to support infrastructure projects and when, as my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Austin Mitchell) so eloquently put it, the recovery is fragile. In my constituency, the Thornton relief road is a much-needed bypass that would stimulate the economy by bringing benefits to the construction industry and self-employed traders. I hope that the autumn review will mean a reprieve for a scheme that is much needed by residents and businesses alike.

Although the Chancellor’s announcement that capital totals will not be cut further is welcome, it is bizarre that the capital schemes have been frozen since 1 January. The effect on the construction industry has already been severe. The industry itself says that 50% of construction projects should be publicly funded, as they currently are. The scale of cutbacks as a result of the delays has already had a profound effect, and in the case of schemes such as the Thornton relief road that is having an effect on contractors and subcontractors. They need the certainty of knowing whether the work will go ahead, and the lack of certainty is my concern about the delay.

Self-employed traders in my constituency have told me that trade has been down during the recession, but they are surviving. Unless projects such as the relief road go ahead, more small businesses will suffer. I have mentioned the unemployment figures and the rates of business failure and home repossession, and if we go back into recession, it will be far worse this time because there is not financial support in constituencies such as mine for large capital projects, and because of the level of public sector employment. I therefore urge the Government to bring forward their review of capital projects so that we can have support for the economy now, when it is most needed, in my constituency and across the rest of the country.

The Building Schools for the Future programme is of huge significance in Sefton and elsewhere. Phase 1 was due to start this year in Sefton, but again, the delay in confirming whether the programme will happen is having a huge impact on the children at two schools in my constituency, Chesterfield and Crosby high schools. It has also had a huge impact on contractors and small businesses. The summer holiday is a big opportunity to build schools and carry out the refurbishment and rebuilding work that is part of BSF, but it will be missed this year because of the delay. Projects that were due to start in April cannot now start before November. That will have a profound impact on schools, and businesses, jobs and the wider economy will also be affected.

The Chancellor gave hope when he mentioned the bank levy, but he said that it would raise £2 billion. The VAT rise is estimated to raise £13 billion, while the freeze on housing benefit will yield a further £1.2 billion. What is fair about asking the banks to contribute just £2 billion towards the deficit, while asking those on low incomes, such as pensioners and low income families, to pay far more? The Labour Government rightly bailed out the banks to keep liquidity going in the economy. We had to do that, but, if we are talking about fairness, it is now time to make those responsible for the biggest financial crisis of our age take their fair share.

Cutting free swimming is just mean. It hits the poorest hardest—£3 per child adds up for a family on a low income or a pensioner on a fixed income. What happened to Government commitments to healthy living for young people and pensioners? They did not last when things got tough.

The Chancellor talked about risk and reward, but the reality is that the biggest banks suffer little risk, as the bail-outs show. There are plenty of rewards through bonuses. Those on low and middle incomes have little reward, but face losing livelihoods and homes if the economy goes back into recession. If we really are all in it together, the bank levy should be far higher.

In Sefton, many people work for Departments and many are self-employed. The two are related. The Lib Dem and Tory councillors in Sefton foresaw the scale of Government cuts. They voted for 400 compulsory redundancies and massive cuts in council services, which would hit the most vulnerable, the elderly and the disabled hardest. Labour councillors and the trade unions in Sefton have resisted them so far. If the Government and council cuts go ahead—from Lib Dems and Tories at both levels—thousands of staff will lose their jobs across Merseyside. Those staff will struggle with housing costs and no longer pay into the local economy, hitting local traders. The Budget contained nothing about help for those who face unemployment or struggle with mortgage payments as a result of the proposed measures.

I have mentioned how hard the Budget will hit the area that I represent. The coalition is making a huge mistake by withdrawing the stimulus to the economy this year. The Budget risks pushing the economy back into recession. The deficit can be cut only on the back of a strong economy, which can come only with support from the public sector until the private sector is strong enough to take over.

It is not a Budget for growth. I fear that it will push us back into recession, with misery for people who lose their jobs, homes and businesses.