Finance (No. 3) Bill

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.””"