Fuel Prices

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I congratulate the hon. Member for Harlow (Robert Halfon). I rise to speak on behalf of my constituents who have expressed to me their deeply held views about the rising cost of fuel.

People are angry in unprecedented numbers right across my constituency. The same is true throughout Britain. At my weekend surgeries there has been a steady flow of constituents who have not held back from telling me what causes the most hardship in their domestic finances. One of the dominant themes is rising petrol pump prices, which are a constant weekly battle for motorists.

[Mr Donohoe]

I understand that my right hon. Friend has an Asda in his constituency. Asda has introduced a price of 128.9p per litre across the whole nation. Surely if the Government are to do anything, it should be to reintroduce universal prices for petrol. He is old enough, as I am, to remember when we had those.

[Mr Clarke]

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I have a big constituency, which stretches from Cumbernauld right through to Chryston, Coatbridge and Bellshill. The prices at Asda, welcome as they are, do not deal with the problems elsewhere.

These are truly worrying times. We have sluggish growth, rising unemployment, falling confidence in the manufacturing sector and depressed business confidence, so this is no time for complacency from the Government.

By September 2011 the cost of petrol had increased by 17.7% in a year. Our constituents are now paying petrol prices that are the highest in all 27 countries of the European Union. The only country in the world that seems to beat us on motoring taxes is Turkey.

[Andrew Griffiths]

The right hon. Gentleman is making the point that we are the most expensive country in Europe. Will he tell us when our prices became the highest in Europe?

[Mr Clarke]

We are where we are.

What the Chancellor does on fuel duty increases next year could make or break many people’s ability to go about their everyday lives, whether they are looking after their family or running a business. Failure by the Government to take effective action would mean winding the clock back on travel and mobility to a time when the freedom of the road was the preserve of the middle class. That cannot be right or fair. It would be a retrograde step for my constituents and would place their finances in an intolerable position.

With 80% of the population living in a car-owning household, a car is now a necessity, not a luxury. Unlike here in London, where vast transport links provide the necessary infrastructure for people to live their lives effectively, in constituencies such as mine people use and rely on their cars daily. Lower-income families, elderly people and those living in rural areas will be the most adversely affected and hit by rising fuel prices. In September, the then Secretary of State for Transport suggested that the railways had become a rich man’s toy. If that is the case, how can the Government’s policy, which is allowing exorbitant fuel prices literally to drive people off the roads, be justified?

Despite the Government’s seemingly generous gesture of a 1p cut in fuel duty, the public will simply not be fooled. The simultaneous increase of 2.5 percentage points in petrol tax that accompanied the VAT rise from 17.5% to 20% in January makes a mockery of the Government’s proposal. Their meagre attempt to placate motorists will benefit only the Treasury.

The fuel duty stabiliser has not shielded drivers from pump price volatility. That is why I believe that the Government need to take real urgent action now to help ease the squeeze on struggling families and kick-start the economy by temporarily reversing the VAT increase.

[Karl Turner (Kingston upon Hull East) (Lab)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I am sorry, but I will not.

I know that when times are tough, tax revenues are seen as vital to the Treasury. My constituents know that, too, because most of them have been through tough times. However, let us be clear that those revenues cannot be loaded on to the backs of the poorest and most vulnerable in our society. It is they who are suffering most from rising fuel prices, and it is for them that the House ought to speak tonight.

--- Later in debate ---

[Miss Smith]

It is the Labour party that wants a price stabiliser, and I shall come to that. Our fair fuel stabiliser aims to do other things, and I shall deal with that in due course.

Motoring is an essential part of everyday life for many households and businesses, and the cost of fuel affects us all. The Government recognise that the price of petrol is a significant part of day-to-day spending. We know that high oil prices are causing real difficulties with regard to the affordability of motoring. It is important that a responsible Government listen, consider and act.

It was the previous Government who, in the 2009 Budget, introduced a fuel duty escalator. That involved planning for seven fuel duty increases after the 12 that they had already made. None of those planned increases was subject to either oil price or pump price movements. Despite what Labour Members may claim now, and the synthetic anger referred to earlier in the debate, the previous Government had no plans whatever to support motorists. The right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke) said, “We are where we are.” It is regrettable that the previous Government did not act to prevent us from being where we are. From the very beginning of this coalition Government, we have looked at how we could ease the burden on motorists. We acted with a £2 billion plan to ease that burden.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Miss Smith]

I am terribly sorry, but I am very short of time. I need to explain how we acted. We acted by cutting fuel duty by 1p per litre from 6pm on Budget day.

Summer Adjournment

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 19th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

Upon my re-election, I declared that the big issues for my constituency were investment and jobs. Unemployment in my constituency in June 2011 was 3,082, which is far too high—the 132nd highest in the UK. This Friday, I will attend a meeting with Department for Work and Pensions officials and other MPs where we will analyse in some detail the statistics and trends of what has happened in the last year. However, my constituents are not statistics. They are decent people, neighbours, friends and families who are worried about their future. My constituents want action from the coalition Government and the Scottish Government.

One example is the regeneration of Gartcosh. Starting in 1986, a multi-million pound investment of public money was spent on creating this new industrial park. For far too long, there has been a lot of huffing and puffing from the Scottish Government about planned jobs. This is turning into a national scandal. Massive public investment has not yielded one job. The Scottish Government and all the agencies accountable to them are in the dock. My constituents want answers, and they want them now.

Equally, the communities that I represent do not want jobs at any price. For example, the planned incinerator was rejected by North Lanarkshire council. In my view, Councillor Jim Brooks has skilfully exposed the Scottish Government’s role as pathetic and like that of Pontius Pilate.

I invite the First Minister, for the second time, to visit my constituency so that he can listen to the sincere views expressed by decent, hard-working people who value their health and that of their children.

I will make three quick points that are important to my constituents. I believe that the scandalous domestic energy prices should be subject to a full investigation by the Competition Commission, and I urge the Under-Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills, the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr Davey) to order an inquiry.

Credit unions in my constituency perform an outstanding role in helping people with their finances. Because of their differing values, the banks have bombed and the credit unions have boomed.

Financial constraints led North Lanarkshire council to consider parking charges. I have recorded my view with the chief executive and I met the leadership of the council to explain that our economy is too fragile and our town centres too vulnerable, and that above all else our people are being hammered enough without the imposition of such charges.

I will end on a positive note. Jobs can come from superfast broadband in the future. Pauline and Robert Bell, the energetic owners of Skyline Installations, a burgeoning company based in my constituency, have a legitimate interest in the new infrastructure. On their behalf, I wrote to the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills, and in all fairness, I have to say that the Secretary of State replied immediately. However, the response from the Department for Culture, Media and Sport was less than satisfactory. As a consequence, and consistent with my support for small businesses, particularly in my constituency, I have decided to request a meeting with the appropriate Minister. As a former Minister in that Department, I do not think that that should be too difficult. My constituents would expect no less.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

My hon. Friend tells me something that I did not know, which is that the behaviour of Labour MEPs is completely inconsistent with the message from their party that it is serious about trying to reduce Britain’s budget deficit. The money that we have found for flood and coastal defences totals about £2 billion and will help 145,000 households. Obviously, the relevant Secretary of State will make the announcements about the different tranches that will now go ahead, and I wish Suffolk Coastal every success.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

This is further to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow (Mr McCann) and refers to the Chancellor’s use of the words “conflict resolution”, which strangely were also used several times by the Prime Minister yesterday in the context of a statement on defence expenditure. It also recalls the episode of the Pergau dam. Can the Chancellor give us an absolute assurance that ring-fenced funding for overseas aid will not find its way into defence commitments and will be used for the purposes outlined in the millennium development goals?

[Mr Osborne]

Let me say to the right hon. Gentleman that, first, the 0.7% target is internationally monitored and so, having said we are going to hit it, we obviously do not want to find the international bodies saying that we have badged overseas aid in the wrong way. [Interruption.] May I say to the hon. Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) that we have increased the international aid budget by almost £4 billion today? I understand that lots of Labour Members, and indeed Members on this side of the House, want to ask questions about specific difficult decisions that we have taken, but to quibble about the massive 37% increase in DFID’s budget is a little unfair. We have made a decision as a House of Commons to hit the 0.7% target, as internationally observed—all parties were committed to this in the general election—which we have to understand has consequences in Government budgets elsewhere. That involves a substantial increase in the international development budget. We are funding very specific projects on malaria, maternal health and the like, and as a country we should be proud and tell the world about our commitment, rather than suggest that the rules will be fudged when they cannot be because they are internationally policed.

Oral Answers to Questions

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Tuesday 13th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

Yes, and had the hon. Gentleman been in the Chamber at about quarter past 10 last night, he would have heard me doing so at some length. The fact is that for every 1% by which the gap between income tax and capital gains tax is reduced, we get an extra £60 million from income tax. However, there is also a countervailing pressure, which is that fewer transactions are entered into. The analysis based on studies done in America and elsewhere shows that 28% is about the level at which we maximise revenue.

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

9. What assessment he has made of the effect on low-income families of the implementation of the proposals in the June 2010 Budget.

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

The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the Budget was really about achieving two things: reducing the fiscal deficit and protecting the most vulnerable in our society. I am sure that he will welcome the fact that, as we heard earlier, we have reduced the personal allowance on income tax, which means that nearly 900,000 people have been relieved from paying income tax altogether. That has also benefited 23 million people working in Britain who will benefit by up to £170 a year. Additionally, he will recognise that we have taken steps to increase the child tax credit by £150 next year and £60 the following year, which will benefit some 7,200 households in his constituency. As a result of that, levels of child poverty after the Budget will remain unaffected.

[Mr Clarke]

Let us get back to reality. In view of the increase in VAT, the slashing of benefits and the changes proposed for the disability living allowance, does the Chancellor have any proposals that will mean that the poorest and most vulnerable in our society are not treated disproportionately?

[Justine Greening]

The right hon. Gentleman is right to raise the issue of poverty, but to pick him up on disability living allowance, just 5% of those on DLA have been receiving it for less than five years. We should be trying to tackle the root causes of poverty, rather than putting people in a poverty trap. I am sure that he would welcome, as I do, the fact that the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr Field) will be leading a review into poverty, to ensure that we can do just that: tackle the root causes of poverty, rather than persist with just the symptoms.

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Tom Clarke Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Tom Clarke (Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill) (Lab)]

I have seldom been so disappointed with a speech by the hon. Member for Bermondsey and Old Southwark (Simon Hughes) as with the one that we have just heard. I suspect that he will find life even more uncomfortable as time goes on. Having listened to the speech by the Secretary of State, and then heard the support offered by the hon. Gentleman, it seemed to me that many Liberal Democrat supporters will be thinking that this must be the biggest conversion since the Chinese general baptised a whole army with a hosepipe. We have had a whole election campaign in which many of the things commended today by Government Members were not only blatantly opposed by Liberal Democrats, but disowned.

I have had the privilege of serving for many years in the constituency in Lanarkshire that I represent, where my next-door neighbour was the late John Smith. More than once, he said to me, “You know, I judge a Budget on the impact I think it has on ordinary young men and young women, with all their aspirations, living in a council house in Lanarkshire.” It is on that test that I make my views clear.

We have heard today a defence of a Budget that is thoroughly unfair and absolutely vindictive towards a large number of people in this country, region by region, not least those in my own constituency. I am not at all surprised that the Conservatives have supported what is a Tory Budget; it is the kind of Budget that they have always wanted to introduce, with or without a global crisis. However, I have to say that the apologies from the Liberal Democrats are profoundly unconvincing, as they have shown again today. As Jeremy Thorpe might have said, “Greater love than this no man has—that he laid down his principles to save his Mondeo and his red box.”

I have to tell Government Members frankly that their claims for this already discredited Budget stand in stark contrast to the consequences for my constituents in Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill. For several years before the election, and then again during it, the Conservatives talked about “a broken Britain”, but no Budget has done more to introduce a broken Britain than this one. The most vulnerable have been attacked, with housing benefit cut, child benefit frozen, the health in pregnancy grant scrapped, and the maternity grant slashed—and we are told that this is a fair Budget.

Then we come to what I would regard as perhaps the most appalling aspect of this Budget—the increases in VAT, hugely painful because they are clearly regressive. A 2008 report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies demonstrated that cuts in VAT benefit the poorest 10% most, while increases hit them hardest. That is why during the election the Tories were particularly ambiguous on this specific issue, although I have no doubt that they had this policy in mind all the time. To be fair to the Liberal Democrats, they did warn us—for example, by unveiling a poster showing a “VAT bombshell”, with their leader standing beside it. What we got on Tuesday was a Trojan horse with their leader and his friends standing inside it.

We are told that we are all in this together—that this Budget is indeed fair. I invite the House, then, to contemplate for a few moments what it means for a constituency like mine. In Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill, the average wage of those in work is £18,000. Unemployment stands at 7.4%—lower than in 1997, but clearly unacceptable. Let us look at Tatton, the Chancellor’s constituency. The average wage is over £25,000, and unemployment stands at 2.9%. In Twickenham, the Business Secretary’s constituency, the average wage is over £33,000, and unemployment stands at 2.5%. Yet this Budget is being applied to the whole nation.

Of course there is a crisis, as recognised most recently in the letter that President Obama sent to those involved in the G20. However, the words that he repeatedly used about investment, about real fairness—and, above all, about growth—were hardly reflected in the Budget that we are asked to approve. More sustainable ways to reduce the deficit clearly apply to the growth that President Obama has promoted and that, along with progressive taxation, Labour Members strongly support.

I can see that for the Tories this is a matter of ideology. They do not like the public sector: they have made no bones about that. The public sector provides education, excellent services from the police, and infrastructure for providing new jobs—and, my heavens, we will need them after this Budget. How can they possibly argue that this Budget will not lead to unemployment? We need to build more schools. We need to make more industrial parks available, hoping to invite inward investment, via the regional authorities, and making more money available so that the Government are creating the environment by which jobs can be provided.

[Kwasi Kwarteng (Spelthorne) (Con)]

What does the right hon. Gentleman think about the remarks written down by his party’s former Chief Secretary to the Treasury, the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr Byrne), who said, I believe, “There is no more money”?

[Mr Clarke]

I had assumed that the hon. Gentleman had a better sense of humour. It was clear to the whole country that it was a joke, so I do not regard that as being a serious point.

The Government blame the public sector for the recession, but what about the banks? [Interruption.] We must ask that question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster North (Edward Miliband) dealt at some length with how we have approached that important matter. While the Government have been hammering away at the poorest people in the poorest parts of our country, they have treated the banks with a feather duster. They have hardly responded to the problems that the banks themselves created, and no Member on their Benches can defend that.

[Rachel Reeves]

Does my right hon. Friend agree that it does not seem fair that the welfare bill will be cut by £11 billion, but we are asking the banks to contribute only an extra £2.4 billion?

[Mr Clarke]

Absolutely—that is an excellent point. Indeed, I wish now to compare the Budget’s response to local government, and to people applying for disability living allowance, with the way in which the Government have treated the banks. They have certainly not done so in a way of which my constituents, or the disability and local government organisations that I know of, would approve.

What the Government have done to local government is to cut, cut and cut again. They have offered the public a freeze in council tax but failed to explain that the services that they and the House have imposed upon local authorities cannot possibly be carried out without other services being slashed, including social services and social work for the most needy. That is clearly missing from the thoughts of coalition Members. I invite them to compare that with their approach to the banks, which I was heckled for mentioning.

What about those who seek to live on DLA? We are told that one by one, they are going to be recalled and re-examined. I was a Member of the House in the early 1980s when we had that version of Thatcherism, and I want never again to see men who have worked in the mining industry, and who have to be helped into my surgeries because they can hardly breathe, being cut off from benefit because they are told that they can walk 50 yards. If that is the type of policy that the so-called coalition Government are planning, which I believe it is, they can expect the utmost opposition.

At a time when there is a clear demand for housing, what the Government have done to housing support is simply disgraceful. I say that as somebody who was in local government before coming to the House. Even the Evening Standard had to point out last night that because of the Government’s approach to housing benefit, more poor people would be made homeless. I predict that local councils faced with the financial challenges that that represents will build fewer and fewer social houses, which the Liberal Democrats told us before the election were one of the important issues for them.

[Matthew Hancock]

Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

[Mr Clarke]

I will not, because I know others want to speak. I wish to conclude now for that very reason—many hon. Members wish to speak about the situation in their constituencies and the Budget’s impact on ordinary people and communities. They want to do so partly because we have seen this situation before—not in this generation, but certainly in the 1930s and the ’80s, and we do not want to see it again.

This is a regressive and dangerous Budget that will hit the poor hardest. Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Derby North (Chris Williamson) referred to Orwell’s “Animal Farm”, and I wish to conclude by quoting some words from that work:

“Twelve voices”

—I look at the mixture of Liberal Democrats and Conservatives on the Government Benches—

“were shouting in anger, and they were all alike…The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

But the British people can see through that.

[Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks) (Con)]

It is always a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill (Mr Clarke), but he will not be surprised that I cannot agree with his analysis. I wish to make two specific comments to him. First, he spoke passionately on behalf of the poorest people in his constituency, but I cannot see how one helps the poorest and those out of work in Coatbridge by messing up the public finances and producing spending plans that are unaffordable and cannot be carried through. Making promises of that kind does the poor no favours.

Secondly, I disagree with the right hon. Gentleman’s accusation that we take pleasure in the measures that were announced on Tuesday. There are many things in the Budget that I do not take pleasure from, and many spending cuts are coming that Members in all parts of the House will probably wish had not been made. There are certainly tax increases in the pipeline that we would not have wished for. However, many of the decisions that the Chancellor has taken were simply unavoidable because of the mess that we have inherited. We take no pleasure in the judgments that have had to be made.

It is heartening to Members on the Government side of the House, after so many years of hubris, boasting and declaration, to have a Budget that is so clear, honest and straightforward. Even if the right hon. Gentleman disagrees with the measures in it, it sets them out clearly and simply. It is refreshing to have a Budget that takes the longer view—a Budget for a whole Parliament. It is good to know now the structure of the measures in it, unpopular and unpalatable as some of them are to Members on our side of the House as well as his, and that if those decisions are carried through, the current structural deficit will be closed by the end of this Parliament.

It is refreshing also to have a Government who face up to a situation that has deteriorated rapidly, as we have seen in the eurozone. There is no exact parallel between our deficit and that of Greece, or between our debt and that of Spain, but there was a parallel between the Labour Government and the Governments of Greece and Spain in that all of them ignored successive warnings. They were all warned by the International Monetary Fund, the OECD and the European Commission to start putting their public finances in order, and they ignored those warnings. That is why we have had to be confronted with a second Budget in a year—an emergency Budget that puts right the weaknesses that have been identified.

[Mr Tom Clarke]

When the hon. Gentleman makes comparisons with other countries, will he bear in mind that we in Britain are not in the euro? Will he also, as he did when he was on the Treasury Committee, recognise that there is a big difference between short and long-term debt, and that that matters?