Government Levies on Energy Bills

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and John Robertson

Monday 3rd March 2014 Commons Chamber

[John Robertson]

The right hon. Gentleman and I have bandied a few comments between ourselves over the years. The simple answer is that I just do not agree with him. I think he is wrong. He should look at the big picture and not just at one side of the equation. There are always two sides to an equation, with an equals sign in the middle. Both sides have to be looked after, otherwise there is an unfair balance. That is what we have at the moment.

The levies make up £112 or 9% of a bill. However, bills have gone up by £300 in the past three years. Energy companies often blame the levies for the increase. An example of that is npower’s patronising propaganda in its “Energy Explained” document of January 2014, which blamed levies and even the public for the increase. Its chief executive, Paul Massara, said:

“The actual unit price of energy in the UK is one of the lowest in Europe—but bills are high because British houses waste so much energy.”

That comes from a company whose executives get a fortune in bonuses. They do all right from their company, but at the end of the day, vulnerable customers cannot afford to pay their bills, let alone install energy efficiency measures.

[Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North and Leith) (Lab/Co-op)]

My hon. Friend is making some good points. Is it not ironic that, despite what the Government say, the levy that faces the biggest reduction is the energy company obligation, which is designed to encourage energy efficiency? We all accept that it needs reform, but is it not tragic that it is the people who lose the most money through energy inefficiency who will lose out if the impact of the energy company obligation is reduced?

Scottish Separation

Debate between Mark Lazarowicz and John Robertson

Tuesday 10th July 2012 Westminster Hall

[Mark Lazarowicz]

With respect, I had better not, given the time.

The issue of sterling was raised. As we were reminded in an intervention, the Bank of England and monetary policy were of course made independent of politicians by the decision of a Labour Chancellor. However, the SNP Government have said that they want to see a seat for Scotland on the Monetary Policy Committee of the Bank of England. They are trying to have it every which way. There are many areas in which we see that type of contradiction. An important one is, of course, the suggestion that the Bank of England would continue to regulate the financial services industry, even in an independent Scotland. That is incredibly important. The financial services sector is important in Scotland, particularly in my constituency and the constituencies of many other hon. Members.

Decisions such as how banks can advertise financial products and the requirements to maintain stability in terms of their capital base would be regulated by an institution in another country, over which we would have no say if we were a separate, independent state. That leaves aside the question, raised by Scottish Financial Enterprise, of whether it would be legal under EU rules to leave the regulation of our financial services sector to a foreign—as it would then be—country.

We have heard those in the SNP say that they do not want regional pay rates for the civil service, but the biggest regional pay difference across the UK would be if we were a separate country and the rates were negotiated on, presumably, a Scottish basis only. We see contradictions in many areas. Because the SNP recognises that voters and the public do not want full separation, it wants what some describe as independence-lite, but I describe as separation with a major democratic deficit, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow North East (Mr Bain) pointed out.

At best, the new Scottish Government could seek to negotiate with the Government of the remaining UK to have input on matters that affect Scotland’s interests, but they could not do that as a right, and would have to rely on the good will of a new UK Government. There is no reason why there would necessarily be ill will between the two successor states if Scotland separated; but obviously, a UK Government who no longer had Scotland as part of their state would have different interests and perspectives from one that still included Scotland. Scotland has MPs, Ministers and a voice in Parliament, where Ministers and the Chancellor can be held to account—for example, for actions in relation to the Bank of England. All of that will disappear after the separation of an independent Scotland.

It seems to be the worst of all possible worlds—a democratic deficit of no interest to Scotland, with no benefit to Scotland. Let us build on what we have with devolution, as expanded under the Scotland Act 2012 and current proposals, and improve it where we can. Let us get down to using the existing powers and not spend the next few years coming up with a new constitutional arrangement which, at the end of the day, will not even be independence in the full sense of the word, but, given the SNP arguments, will fall well short of it. It would be no good for Scotland or the UK.

[John Robertson (in the Chair)]

I intend to call the Front Benchers at six minutes past 12. I have two names here, so, gentlemen, sort it out.