Landfill Tax Fraud
Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kevan Jones(1 year, 3 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Mr Jones
Yes, and I will come on to such an example in a minute. We only have to look at a company’s directors to question the situation, and I know that the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden is aware of such individuals. It would not take a great Google search, or an officer could have a look on the police computer to discover that these people have no interest in waste crime until they understand how lucrative it is.
Waste crime has become a very profitable business. The PAC report of last April, which came off the back of pressure from me, the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and others, outlines that of the 60 main organised crime groups in landfill tax fraud, 70% are involved in money laundering and 63% in other illegal activities. Waste crime is a way of washing or hiding drugs money, for example, and generating huge sums of cash—it is a licence to print money if people are not declaring what is going into a site.
People may ask, “Surely someone has noticed this?” People have been screaming about it for years. Are the police on it? Is His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs on it? Is the Environment Agency on it? They are not. I offer the House one simple fact: how many successful prosecutions for landfill tax fraud have there been since 1996? Not one.
The example I now come on to is the interestingly named Operation Nosedive—I would love to know why they named it that. Operation Nosedive was focused on the activities of a company called Niramax in Hartlepool in the north-east of England. At least, it operated in the north-east, but also elsewhere, as I am sure the right hon. Gentleman will allude to later on.
His Majesty’s Revenue and Customs instigated Operation Nosedive to look into illegal tax fraud. I have been told by individuals in the north-east about this company and what it did. It was set up, bought into the waste management business, had various sites around the north-east and other parts of the country, and I think it was running both scams: not only was it running the inert and active waste scam, but there is a question as to how much landfill tax was actually being paid on stuff it was dumping.
Someone explained it to me this way: looking at what Niramax was charging companies for taking away their waste. There is no way it could have charged that rate if it was paying the full landfill tax charge. Likewise, how could it be economically viable to transport waste from a council in south Wales to the north-east? It was quite a big operation, and certain local companies went out of business because they were being undercut by Niramax.
Three regional police forces, Durham, Cleveland and Northumbria, had contracts with Niramax, which shows how big the business got. If anyone had looked at the directors of the company and seen their backgrounds, I would have thought it would have rung a few alarm bells with those three police authorities and made them ask why on earth they were giving a contract to that company.
After a few years of badgering, HMRC took action and Nosedive was launched, with a great deal of publicity, in 2014 with a raid of Niramax’s headquarters in Hartlepool. £250,000 in cash was found under somebody’s desk and a lot of documents were taken. To quote the Teesside Live newspaper at the time:
“Simon York, Fraud Investigation Service director at HMRC, said: ‘This is the culmination of 18 months’ painstaking investigation into the suspected systematic abuse of the landfill tax system. We believe that over £78m revenue may be involved, money which could be used to fund some of the UK’s most vital public services.’”
That is £78 million for one operator. I thought, “Great!” when that happened, and so did people I know in the industry, but six years down the line a journalist rang me and said, “Do you know they’ve actually dropped the Operation Nosedive prosecution?”. Nothing happened, but HMRC spent £3.5 million of public money on the investigation.
I tried to find out how much that investigation cost; I know my hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon tried too, but HMRC would not tell us. We only found out because the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and I got the National Audit Office to do an investigation into it. There is a fundamental question of accountability here. Before the Minister tells me that we cannot have control over HMRC, I agree with him, but there is a lack of accountability in this situation if I or Parliament cannot ask why public money is being spent in that way.
Operation Nosedive was a complete failure and Niramax got away with the fraud—and that £78 million is just one organisation. The other point is that Niramax was not the only operator using that landfill site or the other sites it owned. Other operators were using them too, which raises the question who else was in on the scam and who else was not paying full landfill tax, because I suspect others were at it as well.
The strange thing is that one of the main directors of Niramax is currently in prison—it has nothing to do with this situation, but rather with a very nasty murder case in Hartlepool. Were people surprised when he was found to have been involved in that situation or found guilty? No, they were not, but why are people with criminal records allowed to run those industries? Because they are making money. That is just one case.
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
I am finding my right hon. Friend’s speech very educational. Does he share my concern about the prevalence of modern slavery and trafficking in this sector? I think in 2018 it was found that two thirds of modern slavery victims ended up in the waste sector at some point during their period of exploitation. That is part of the model he is talking about, whereby cowboy or even criminal elements are running the business, cutting costs at every corner and not caring about the cost of human life while they do so.
Mr Jones
I am not suggesting that happened in the Niramax case, but my hon. Friend is right that the individuals involved in these businesses are involved in everything from drugs to prostitution and, no doubt, modern slavery practices. That is why I cannot get my head around the fact that the Government, whether individual Departments or as a whole, just turn a blind eye to this problem, when it is causing so much damage.
There are now promises that the new joint unit for waste crime that has been set up will look at those things, but I ask the question again: it has been up and running for three years now, and has it prosecuted anybody yet? No, it has not. There is a sense of frustration at Nosedive and at the fact that HMRC does not seem to think these crimes are important. I hate to think how many billions—and it is billions—of taxpayers’ money has been lost over the years because of this process.
HMRC does not seem to be bothered. I remember when I first contacted HMRC about this situation, and they said, “If it’s not worth more than £20 million a year, we’re not really bothered.” Well, it reckons Nosedive was worth £78 million, and when I asked in a parliamentary question whether the individual quoted was giving his private estimate or HMRC’s, I got no answer, because HMRC hides behind a wall of secrecy. There is a serious issue with holding these organisations to account.
The other side to this issue is the environmental cost. We have lost revenue, we have funded organised crime and modern slavery and other things, but there will also be a cost to the environmental clean-up, and I am sure the three other Members who want to speak in this debate will highlight cases in their constituency. Not only will this activity be harmful for those various sites, but the cost will fall on the taxpayer.
My other point is about what communities can do when they have an illegal landfill site or someone who is operating a so-called legal site but is completely ignoring the regulations. It is very frustrating; people feel powerless, and I am sure we will have some good examples of that later in the debate. I know the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme has some good examples of where, even as a parliamentarian, he feels powerless when raising these issues. If he feels powerless, certainly his constituents do too, living next door to piles of rotting waste and quite rightly worrying about the environmental effect that will have on their community. I think that the PAC has done fantastic work to highlight the lack of regulation. The main thing is whether that has got any better since I have been involved, and I would argue that it has got worse. There are a lot of good and sound words, but there is not a great deal of action.
One issue is enforcement. The Environment Agency—another arm’s length quango—does not have the enforcement culture that it needs. It mainly issues guidance notes or warning letters. Frankly, giving guidance notes and sending warning letters to the types of people we are dealing with is a complete waste of time. I mentioned the joint unit for waste crime, which I have met. To their credit, the individuals in that unit are well meaning—they certainly come from an enforcement scope—but unless we see prosecutions taking down some of the big operators soon, this will just carry on. I am quite sceptical, frankly, about whether there is a will, certainly in HMRC, to grasp this. The Environment Agency has had its budget cut, and I accept that it does not have an enforcement culture—one of my hon. Friends refers to that agency as “newt lovers”, which they possibly are—but we need a certain culture to tackle what is a bigger problem.
I come back to a point that I cannot get my head around. We need a political lead from the Government to grasp the matter and ensure that the regulations are enforced and targets operated on. I, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme and the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden met the National Crime Agency a few months ago to talk about that, because, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bristol East (Kerry McCarthy) said, the money generated from such activity goes into a host of things that cost our society dearly.
The new joint unit for waste crime is a step in the right direction, but unless it starts delivering, a lot of us will be sceptical. The Minister needs to grasp this through HMRC, and there needs to be a politically led focus in Government, with someone who can say, “Right, where are you up to with this? What are you doing? What is needed?” Personally—others may think differently —I do not think we need more legislation. What we need is enforcement of the existing legislation, not just to ensure proper waste management to prevent environmental devastation, but to support the existing waste management industry, which is playing by the rules. That is an important point.
I raise this in the debate, as I am sure other hon. Members will, in the hope that someone will grasp the matter and take it forward. If they do not, we hon. Members present will not go away.
Civil List
Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kevan Jones(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy (Bristol East) (Lab)
How on earth do I follow that, Mr Deputy Speaker?
We have had an interesting debate and, as has been said, this is just the start of the process. It is an unusual process, given that we have not yet had sight of the Bill and that this is a preliminary debate. The debate has ranged from yachts, trains and the prospect of the monarch taking out a Boris bike for the day to other important issues that are perhaps slightly off-topic, such as primogeniture, succession and whether first-born females and Catholics will one day be able to take precedence in succeeding to the throne. We heard from the hon. Member for North East Somerset (Jacob Rees-Mogg) that St James’s palace was once a leper colony that was given to Eton. By the time the Bill goes into Committee—I very much hope that he will be a member of that Committee—I might have worked up a gag about that. I am still working on it at the moment.
As we have heard, the demands on the royal household are vastly different today from when the House last discussed the issue. The financing arrangements are largely unchanged since 1760. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor has made clear, we welcome the opportunity to discuss the new sovereign support grant, which we feel will be better equipped to meet the royal household’s needs. We will support the Chancellor in reforming the arrangements although, as he would expect, we will ask questions and will want to know in detail how the arrangements will work.
Efforts have already been made to ensure that grant support to the royal household is fair to the taxpayer in the context of wider Government spending and we welcome them, too. Last year, the Chancellor announced in his spending review that support for the royal household would be frozen at £30 million in 2011-12 and 2012-13 before the new arrangements are put in place. That will necessitate a 14% reduction in royal household expenditure in 2012-13.
We have also heard from a number of speakers about the significant efficiency savings made by the royal household in recent years, although the hon. Member for North East Somerset also expressed the view that the monarchy should not go down the Tesco value route, which led my hon. Friends to ask about the Lidl—or Aldi—monarchy. I suspect that that those are not places where the hon. Gentleman often shops.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls) asked whether the efficiency savings would be a continuing process or whether the end of the road had already been reached, with all the savings being made that could be made. My right hon. Friend the Member for Rotherham (Mr MacShane) highlighted some points where further savings could be made and I hope that that will be addressed when the Bill goes to Committee.
As hon. Members have said, the Treasury’s choice of a level of 15% of the revenues of the Crown Estate needs proper scrutiny. The Chancellor said that that figure was chosen to maintain the current level of expenditure, or something in that ballpark, to the end of this Parliament. It has been estimated that 15% of the Crown Estate profits would provide some £37.5 million a year, 25% higher than the total grants that are currently provided. As a number of right hon. and hon. Members have said, we need to consider the appropriate level of expenditure for the royal family. There might be a case for increasing that amount and we must consider carefully how demands on the royal household have changed. As my right hon. Friend the shadow Chancellor said in his opening speech, the pressures on the royal household from issues such as security have increased greatly.
There could also be a case for reducing the royal grant if, for example, there were further efficiency savings. I note that the Chancellor is proposing a cash floor to avoid real-terms cuts to the royal grant in future, which is a significant commitment in the context of wider Government spending cuts, but we should, however, also consider whether there is a potential need for a cap on the amount raised. We should consider the proposed mechanism for uprating the royal grant each year, too.
As has been said, profits from the Crown Estate could rise significantly, particularly because of its links with wind farm developments, which could bring in substantial revenues. The rise is described as exponential in the short term and significant in the longer term, so we need to consider whether a cap might be appropriate.
Parliament must also be certain that any new arrangement will be stable and work in the long term. If the royal grant or reserves fluctuate significantly, that could, as the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) said, lead us into the unwelcome situation of an almost annual review of the finances. We will need to strike a balance when building flexibility into the formula, and some might say that seven years is too long a gap to leave between reviews, but we will need such flexibility if Crown Estate revenues rise significantly.
One fact that has come to light, as Members have already said, is that the Crown Estate owns 55% of the foreshore around the United Kingdom and all the seabed up to 12 nautical miles from the coast. Although I do not think that the House will go down the hon. Gentleman’s suggested path and transfer ownership of the foreshore to coastal communities, despite some in the south-west facing high water bills because of the extra costs associated with being on the coast, I think that we need to look at the issue in the context of the UK being the world’s leader in offshore wind power.
Opposition Members and Members in general very much support further investment in renewables, but is it appropriate that increased Government investment in such technologies should directly support the royal household? Indeed, that goes for private and public investment. The Government have made available some £200 million of public funding for investment in renewables, a proportion of which could end up accruing to the royal household via the sovereign grant, so what flexibility can be built into the new grant to deal with such situations?
There is a need to ensure the appropriate parliamentary oversight of the sovereign grant and of royal household expenditure, and we heard from the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh), as the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee, and from my right hon. Friend the Member for Barking (Margaret Hodge), as the current Chair. She described the measures as a sensible act of modernisation, and both Members said that they look forward to getting their teeth into scrutinising the process and making it more transparent.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that we must start by looking at everything, the total expenditure, including not only, as I said, support from the military, but, for example, the cost of the lord lieutenancy service? If we do not do so, we will not be informed or really understand what the monarchy costs.
Kerry McCarthy
As I have already said, security is a big element of spending on the royal family, but other elements need to put into the mix, and the Chancellor’s announcement of the merger of the three separate funding pots will help with transparency and with looking at everything in the round.
We very much welcome the agreement that the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee will audit royal household funding, but as the Bill goes through the House, we will seek clarity on when and how often those audits will be carried out, clarity on what disclosure there will be of the information and evidence used in the process and, indeed, clarity on the Committee’s remit to look at issues such as those that my hon. Friend has just raised.
In conclusion, we support the Chancellor’s initiative, but we will seek clarity on the level at which the new grant is set, on the arrangements for uprating it each year and on whether there will be flexibility on that and on the level of parliamentary oversight. We hope that by the time the Bill reaches its final stages there will be cross-party consensus on the new arrangements.
Finance Bill
Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kevan Jones(12 years, 10 months ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
I can confirm that the Opposition oppose new clause 1. The Prime Minister spent the years in the run-up to the general election and the year since trying to convince us that he valued the NHS, that it was “safe in his hands”. Sadly, however, given the current shambles over the health Bill, which has yet again returned to Committee, it is safe to say that he and his Health Secretary have spectacularly failed. On current evidence, it seems that the Prime Minister did not even attempt to persuade his Back Benchers—it seems that they now want to reinstate a policy introduced by Baroness Thatcher’s Government.
As we have heard, new clauses 1 to 4 would introduce a tax relief on medical insurance for over-65s. The hon. Members who tabled the new clauses stood on a manifesto that proclaimed we “believe in the NHS”. It turns out that they believe so much in the state that they think even private sector provision should receive state funding.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend not think it strange that this proposal has not appeared in a Conservative party manifesto since 2001? The fact that it was dropped in 2005 and 2010 shows clearly that it is not a vote winner.
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. I believe that I will come to the point that he raises in a moment.
New clause 1 would reinstate a benefit that was withdrawn by the Labour Government in 1997 because, quite simply, it had failed. As my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) said, it was not picked up by the Conservative party during the recent general election. As noted by my right hon. Friend the Member for Holborn and St Pancras (Frank Dobson), who was in government at the time—I congratulate him on his excellent speech—the measure had little impact. One of the problems with the previous Conservative Government's tax relief was that they did not do their homework on what impact it would have. I would be interested to hear what research the hon. Members who tabled the new clause have done. I note that the hon. Member for Mole Valley (Sir Paul Beresford) pleaded numerical dyslexia when asked about the statistics. I think he should have got someone to do his maths homework for him before proposing a spending commitment. The first thing hon. Members should have done was to see whether it would have the desired effect in spending that money.
The Justice Secretary, the then Chancellor, claimed when originally introducing the relief that it would provide an incentive to older people to buy private insurance and reduce the pressure on the NHS. That has been echoed by many Government Members today. However, the tax relief did not reduce the burden on the NHS or help those patients who relied on it. It simply subsidised health insurance for those who could already afford it and had chosen to buy it. When originally announced in 1989, it was estimated that the relief would cost £40 million. A telling warning for Government Members who want to reintroduce the expenditure at a time of such fiscal restraint is that by 1997 the cost had multiplied to £140 million, because there was no limit on the state’s generosity to private providers. It would be wholly irresponsible to reinstate a policy whose costs could spiral to such an extent.
As NHS patients knew to their cost in the 1980s and early 1990s, the then Government were far more comfortable limiting expenditure on the NHS and letting waiting lists rise for the majority of pensioners and others who could never contemplate private insurance, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brent North (Barry Gardiner) said, was primarily a way of financing queue jumping for those who could afford it. For just a 10% increase in the number of people covered by insurance qualifying for relief, there was a 100% increase in costs in just the first three years. Over the lifetime of that Government’s policy, the number of people covered rose from 500,000 to 600,000; so, for a 20% increase in the number of people covered, the costs shot up by 350%.
Finance (No. 3) Bill
Debate between Kerry McCarthy and Kevan Jones(13 years ago)
Commons ChamberRead Full debate Read Hansard Text Read Debate Ministerial Extracts
Kerry McCarthy
I thank my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr Jones) for that, because it certainly seemed quite noisy from where I was standing.
As I was saying, as real incomes fall, spending on basic items such as food, energy and fuel makes up an increasing proportion of the average family’s weekly spend, as the Office for National Statistics acknowledged in March when it changed the make-up of its retail prices index basket. That means that families are increasingly vulnerable when prices rise quickly.
The Opposition accept that no Government can control the price of oil, which the global markets set, and that the situation in the middle east is affecting people in countries throughout the world, to which the UK is of course no exception, but the Government have control over fuel taxation, and that has a significant effect on pump prices. When so many people are out of work and real wages are falling, the Chancellor has a responsibility to do all he can to help business and to promote economic growth and jobs; and when ordinary working people are struggling to make ends meet, he has a responsibility to do everything possible to help them get on.
That is why we tabled amendment 7. It is important that Parliament has the opportunity to scrutinise the Government’s policies on fuel taxation and their total effect on fuel prices at the pump, because the Chancellor’s cut in fuel duty, as set out in clause 19, is not all that it seems. In January the Government decided to increase VAT on fuel from 17.5% to 20%, even though the Prime Minister told voters just before the election that he had “no plans” to increase VAT. Without that VAT rise, petrol would be almost 3p cheaper now, swamping the 1p cut that the Bill brings in.
The Federation of Small Businesses said that the UK’s small and medium-sized enterprises would be “severely affected” by that hike in fuel tax. A survey of its members in January pointed to the increase as the single biggest threat to their business—something that will resonate with Government Members, who I am sure have been lobbied by the FSB on that point. Some 89% of businesses that responded thought that the Government’s measures would add £2,000 to their costs over six months. A spokesperson for the FSB said in response to the January rise in fuel tax:
“The Government have said it is putting its faith in the private sector to put the economy on a firm footing, yet 36% said they will have to reduce investment in new products and services and 78% said their profitability will be reduced—hardly conducive to growth.”
Many small business people in my constituency are struggling to stay afloat, particularly in the face of cash-flow difficulties. The VAT increase at the beginning of this year was expected to put severe strain on their cash flow, so the Chancellor’s 1p reduction in fuel duty has to be seen in that context.
Some people will be able to cut down on their use of fuel or even stop using petrol all together. Some people are switching to cycling or to public transport, and for those who are able to do so that is a good thing. As an MP for Bristol, which saw investment from the previous Labour Government so that it could become the UK’s first cycling city, I welcome people taking up cycling.
Mr Kevan Jones
The argument that my hon. Friend puts forward is very interesting, but does she agree that the situation is difficult for rural constituencies such as mine, where bus subsides are being cut because of the Government’s cuts to Durham county council and some communities will not have any access to any public transport whatever?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an absolutely valid point, which I was just about to turn to. Some people will say that the rise in fuel prices is an incentive for people to use public transport such as buses, but they can only do so if they are in an area that is well served by public transport. Bus subsides are being cut, and increasingly some areas—particularly remote rural areas—are being completely left without a bus service, meaning that people simply have no choice but to use their car. They include not just people who are poorly served by public transport, but those who run businesses and have to visit customers and suppliers and transport goods throughout the country. They include those who have to run around in the morning dropping children off at different schools or at nursery and then get to work on time, and many other people besides. At a time when fuel prices are rising, adding to them with extra tax is hammering people at the worst possible time. These are often families who are already running a very tight budget, and even a few extra pounds a week on their bills makes a real difference to their ability to get by.
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes a valid point. I wonder what the current sales and marketing finance manager for Centrica thinks of the actions of the holder of that post from 2002 to 2005, and what experience the Economic Secretary had during her three years working for the company that has caused her to turn against it in such a fashion.
As I was saying, there is a real requirement, as the Treasury Committee has noted, for a stable tax regime in the sector. The Chartered Institute of Taxation has said that
“the last minute and precipitate change in Oil tax rates for an industry that is particularly dependent on long-term planning seems wrong”.
Does the Minister agree?
The threshold chosen by the Government may also be a problem for stability. The average oil price in 2008 was $100 a barrel, but in 2009 it was $60 a barrel and in 2010 it was $80 a barrel. If prices carry on fluctuating above and below the $75-a-barrel mark, as they have over the past three years, the uncertainty about the tax rate and whether companies will be caught by it could drive more investment away from the UK.
Had the Economic Secretary consulted the industry before the Budget, it might have reminded her that the supplementary charge applies to gas as well as oil. Gas prices are on the rise, but at less than 60p a therm they are still significantly below the Government’s $75 a barrel trigger price on an equivalent basis. In the UK, gas prices are less closely correlated with oil prices than in other jurisdictions, where there are often still contractual links between the two. Whereas oil prices are set by the global market, gas prices are more localised. Graham Parker of the Office for Budget Responsibility told the Treasury Committee quite recently that gas prices were “quite variable” so even if the Government think they have chosen the right level for oil, they might have set the balance wrongly for the gas sector. That could be disastrous given that gas accounts for 46% of the North sea industry’s production.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend find it remarkable that such a decision should have been taken in such haste that the Treasury did not realise that that issue relating to the difference between oil and gas prices would arise?
Kerry McCarthy
Certainly, when I met Oil & Gas UK, it was very surprised and seemed to be of the view that the Treasury had forgotten that gas would be affected by the measures. The policy is very much back-of-a-fag-packet stuff. It seems that, in a knee-jerk reaction to the rise in public concern about petrol prices, the Government felt they had to act on that front, and so had to came up in haste with some sort of mechanism to raise revenue to fund the 1p cut in fuel duty. The effect on gas is an important issue, and the cost could end up being passed on to ordinary people in their gas bills, either because the increase itself is passed on to consumers or because UK gas production drops, meaning that we have to import more gas from abroad.
Had the Minister consulted the industry prior to announcing the measure in March, it might also have reminded her that when the previous Government increased North sea taxation, they introduced measures to promote investment alongside that change. When we introduced the supplementary charge in 2002, we also introduced a 100% first-year allowance for capital expenditure in the North sea. That not only provided a buffer for companies to make the transition to the new regime but encouraged investment in UK oil and gas fields. When, in 2005, we increased North sea taxation again, we allowed further flexibility on the capital allowance. To maintain the stability of the tax system, we also gave a commitment not to increase the tax again in that Parliament. I wonder whether the Minister can echo that commitment today.
It was right to increase taxation on oil and gas at a time of windfall profits, and now is also such a time, but we were conscious of the need to create stability for the industry and to maintain investment for the future. If this Government had thought their changes through, they could have taken a similar approach, but instead the effects of their hasty and ill thought out decision are already being felt. We have heard the reports about disinvestment in the industry. Centrica, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has mentioned, has hinted that it might decide not to reopen its Morecambe Bay field, which produced 6% of the UK’s annual gas requirement. I wonder what the Minister’s former colleagues have to say about that. Statoil has suspended $10 billion-worth of investment in the Mariner and Bressay oilfields, which together hold reserves of 640 million barrels of oil. Research from Aberdeen university has gone further, suggesting that over the next three decades the Government’s tax change could slash oil and gas investment in the UK by £30 billion. Production could be reduced by up to a quarter, leaving the UK more reliant on imported oil and gas.
This debate is not just about the profits of oil and gas producers. The oil and gas industry directly and indirectly supports 440,000 jobs in the UK. There are reports that at least 40,000 of those jobs are at risk because of the Government’s action, at a time when 2.5 million are unemployed, including an increasing number of people who have been out of work for longer than a year. The Government have a responsibility to act with extreme caution before putting those jobs at risk.
Mr Kevan Jones
Does my hon. Friend agree that many people in the north-east who were previously made redundant from shipbuilding yards, for example, travel regularly throughout the UK and internationally to work in the oil and gas industry? Surely the Government’s proposals will affect those people, who have come to rely on home-based employment and travelling overseas, in some cases long distances, to support their families?
Kerry McCarthy
My hon. Friend makes an important point. The jobs being lost are in areas where there is little other employment. As he says, people in the area he represents have been affected by the decline in other traditional industries under the last Conservative Government. Now they are being hit by a double whammy with their jobs in the oil and gas sector being put at risk.
Mr Kevan Jones
The Economic Secretary said in her winding-up speech on the last group of amendments that the result of the Government’s policy on fuel duty has led across the board to a 0.8p reduction in the price of fuel at the pumps. Is that really a price worth paying for the effect it will have on the oil and gas industry?
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.”