What happened over a number of years—I am afraid that our Government were not immune from this—was that, rather than planning roads to encourage economic growth and development, we planned them to accommodate congestion. That was not always the best thing to do from an economic perspective. Down that road lies ruin, if you will pardon the pun.
The Federation of Small Businesses has asked for a fuel stabiliser. I am not saying that I necessarily agree with the federation, but stability in fuel prices is important. The Chief Secretary said of a fuel stabiliser:"““It's a complicated idea and it's difficult to see… how we achieve it, but it's something that we are looking at very carefully to see if we can reduce the burden of fuel duty””."
I wonder whether the concept could not be more straightforward. When oil prices increased, the stabiliser—or a stabilising impact effect—would allow the Government to reduce duty to a lower limit; when oil prices fell, the Government would be able to raise duty to a higher limit.
Critics cite the difficulty of knowing whether the fluctuations in the price of oil are temporary or likely to persist beyond the near term, saying that it would be difficult for a fuel duty stabiliser to set fuel duties effectively. To counter the volatility in the price of oil, a fuel duty stabiliser or a stabilising measure would need to be based on an official forecast of the future price of oil, and then adjusted regularly according to the actual oil prices. It will be difficult, given the volatility in how the international oil markets are working at the moment, but we need to try to find some measure to help our small and medium-sized enterprises through this difficult process at this difficult time; otherwise, we are in real danger of seeing fuel become a major blockage to economic growth, not only in particular regions, but across the whole nation.
Would this be bad for the public finances? The Chief Secretary said that we cannot ““sacrifice income willy-nilly””. Critics argue that a stabiliser or a stabilising effect would be too expensive to implement during a time of austerity, but that criticism fails to take into account the wider implications of high fuel prices on the UK economy. If set correctly, the measure could be fiscally neutral for the public finances and help to provide much-needed economic stability for the UK economy. My main point in asking for some sort of analysis in a review is that the measure is needed so much more in the regions of England, particularly regions such as the north-east, but the south-west as well.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Ian Mearns
(Labour)
in the House of Commons on Tuesday, 3 May 2011.
It occurred during Debate on bills
and
Committee of the Whole House (HC) on Finance (No. 3) Bill.
Type
Proceeding contribution
Reference
527 c569-70 
Session
2010-12
Chamber / Committee
House of Commons chamber
Subjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-15 16:01:23 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_739516
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_739516
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_739516