Fuel Prices

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mark Garnier (Wyre Forest) (Con)]

Speaking as somebody whose combined family mileage approaches 50,000 miles a year, and as a Member who represents a semi-rural constituency, I am acutely aware of the burden placed on local households by fuel prices. The cost of fuel does not just affect those who use cars; it affects everyone through food prices and prices on the high street, and it affects those who use public transport.

Some argue that if we want to move towards a more sustainable economy, high fuel prices will encourage a greener outlook. I do not disagree with that. However, when we are doing everything we can to improve our economic prospects, now is not the time to allow rising fuel prices to limit the mobility of our work force and hinder manufacturers and retailers through increased transport costs.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that young people in particular feel the pressure of high fuel prices when they are trying to find their first job, which is often low paid? Does he also agree that the cost of insurance adds a burden to young people who have to get to and from employment?

[Mark Garnier]

My hon. Friend raises a very good point. The cost of car insurance is unbelievably high for young people. That is a particular problem when they are trying to get on the job ladder. We should certainly be doing everything we can to help young people.

The price of oil, as we have heard, is determined by commodity markets as well as by the sterling-dollar exchange rate. The only way to control pump prices is therefore through fuel duty. However, the country has incredibly little room for manoeuvre. I am convinced that helping economic growth through tax breaks works, especially when those tax breaks are targeted at specific areas such as fuel duty.

A cut in the price of fuel at the pump would reduce manufacturing and distribution costs, increase the mobility of our work force, increase household disposable income and lessen, overall, the headwind facing our economic recovery. Taking into account the work that we are trying to do in Kidderminster to promote advanced manufacturing and help boost the retail industry, I would welcome any reduction in costs, including fuel and transport costs. However, given where our economy is, any reduction in fuel revenue would have to be met by an increase in revenue elsewhere. Everything that the Government do has to be fiscally neutral. We simply do not have the resources available to cut fuel duty significantly without putting in jeopardy our low borrowing rates, which mean that we are in greater control of our own destiny than some of our European neighbours.

Although I support the efforts that the Government have already made in cutting 1p off the fuel duty in March and suspending the fuel duty escalator—a reduction of £1.9 billion in fuel duty—I urge them to see whether more can be done to help. The rising price of oil leads to increased profit for the oil companies from existing oilfields, as we have heard, and that extra profit gives the Government more opportunities to look again at tackling the high pump price of fuel, either through encouraging price reductions by the oil companies or through the tax system.

What has recently been causing a great deal of anguish among my constituents is that it costs more to run a car in Wyre Forest than in nearby Dudley. The average of 134.8p per litre of unleaded is about 6p higher than in Dudley, just 10 miles up the road. I have written to the petrol companies to see whether they can explain why they want my constituents to pay more for their petrol than people in nearby Dudley or Wolverhampton. Just one has taken the trouble to reply, to say that it has received my letter, but I have had no other replies, and certainly no explanation as yet.

It is right that we are debating the overall cost of fuel duty to our economy, and it is right that we are looking for ways of reducing that burden. However, I want the oil companies to explain why they see fit to charge my constituents in Wyre Forest more for their motoring. Can they justify subsidising more urban areas, not just in the black country but in the country as a whole, at the expense of our semi-rural and rural communities? Can they please let us all know when they intend to remove that rural surcharge on fuel?

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 6th September 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Speaker]

Order. Progress is very slow, and it needs to get faster.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The Minister will be aware of how rapidly fuel and energy prices have increased. Am I right in thinking, however, that if the Chancellor had not taken action in the Budget, fuel prices would be 6p a litre higher today?

[Justine Greening]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The action that we took, which was part of a £1.9 billion package to support motorists, means that fuel duty was 6p lower than it otherwise would have been under the previous Government’s proposals.

Global Economy

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 11th August 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Osborne]

It might surprise the hon. Gentleman to learn that I agree with at least part of what he says: we do have concerns about how the credit rating agencies have operated. That is why we have been part of the European discussions to get some European rules on credit rating agencies put in place, and I think they are appropriate. I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, however, on blaming all of what is happening on credit rating agencies. However imperfect they might be, credit rating agencies are trying to give market investors some idea of the credit worthiness of countries and companies. The truth is that they have not led to the spending cuts. The reason why we have had to undertake spending cuts is that this country is currently spending close to 50% of GDP on public expenditure, which is far higher than the historical average under Conservative and Labour Governments. That is why we are having to act. We are doing so because we have a record budget deficit—the highest in our peacetime history and the highest in the G20.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

The Chancellor referred to Merlin and the agreement with the banks, but is he aware that these banks are double-counting their lending by forcing businesses to convert overdrafts into long-term loans? A business in my constituency wants to expand. It has full order books and wants to take on more staff, but it cannot do so because not only are the banks not being helpful, but they are actually being obstructive.

[Mr Osborne]

I would be very happy to look at that specific constituency case. Let me look into the details and get back to my hon. Friend with an answer, or meet him in person to discuss it.

Sovereign Grant Bill

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 14th July 2011 Commons Chamber

[Mr Leigh]

I am going to develop my point; the hon. Gentleman can come in later.

We have seen that agenda in the Daily Mail campaign against the Prince of Wales and in the Murdoch press—against many members of the royal family. We are getting into dangerous territory.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Will my hon. Friend give way?

[Mr Leigh]

Let me go on a bit and then I shall give way to both hon. Members, as I want to be fair to both sides.

When I was the Chairman of the Committee I put no pressure on the Comptroller and Auditor General, but members of the Committee, including the hon. Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson), who is present, Mr Alan Williams and others quite rightly had serious questions about the royal family. They took a particular view and were always agitating for us to do more work, but I was able to say that it was not my decision. It was the decision of the Comptroller and Auditor General who, frankly, took quite a conservative approach and did not allow many reports to come to the Committee or do much initial work. Although there is massive public and media interest in this issue, particularly in the tabloid press, there is much more important work that we need to be doing on public expenditure.

Hon. Members might ask what I am worried about, given that we can surely rely on the Comptroller and Auditor General—although I think that he will be under a lot of pressure via members of the PAC because they are eternally under pressure from the media to raise these sorts of questions. Why am I worried about all this? It is because I wonder whether clause 13 is an adequate defence. How do we define exactly what are the private affairs of the Queen? We know what she does in the homes that she owns—in Sandringham or Balmoral. We know about the gardener and the cook she employs and about private travel around the estate. That is completely out of all this. but what about what goes on in Buckingham palace and Windsor great park? Is the Comptroller and Auditor General going to be under pressure to investigate value for money, the number of servants and what happens with the private office? When does official travel start and when does private travel start? There have been attacks on Prince Andrew for taking official trips and then going on elsewhere to play golf. There will be more and more pressure mounting all the time and that could be extraordinarily damaging to the royal family, which is a very fragile institution. In no other major country is there a royal family; it survives on public opinion and I am afraid that there are some people, particularly in the tabloid press, who simply are not fair and who want to go on pushing and pushing because they want as damaging a story as possible. I shall now give way to the hon. Member for Newport West because he asks about precisely the sort of story that they will try to raise through the National Audit Office and the PAC.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Spencer]

Does my hon. Friend agree that, as we are talking not only about the Head of State but about the next in line to the crown of this great nation of ours, they should be allowed to travel in such a manner? Can he imagine a circumstance where the President of the United States arrived in the UK on easyJet? We should be proud that the head of this nation is allowed to travel in such style.

[Mr Leigh]

We live in such a public world now that the Prime Minister took Ryanair when he went on holiday.

--- Later in debate ---

[Mr Kevan Jones]

The aim of the Bill is right: to provide the sovereign with the funds that she and other members of the royal family require to do their public duties. I do not think that there is any disagreement on that at all.

On the point about how we arrived at 15%, I welcome the Chancellor’s acceptance of some of the amendments in the name of my right hon. Friend the Member for Morley and Outwood (Ed Balls), but there are a few questions still to be answered. I understand why the amount is set at 15%—to get to the figure of £34 million in future years—but my concern is that if we are to have a proper look at what the sovereign costs, we should include all costs, and then determine that the Government or state should provide the money to the sovereign for carrying out those duties.

I accept that there is greater transparency under the Bill, which is welcome, but the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr Leigh) seems to think that we will somehow be intruding into areas into which we should not go. I am sorry, but if we are talking about public money, its spending has to be scrutinised, as does the spending of public money by any Government Department. My concern is that we arrived at the £34 million figure, based on 15%, without taking into account the moneys that go from Government Departments to the royal household to support the royal family in their duties. I shall talk about defence, an area that I know more about, as a former Defence Minister.

A large number of individuals in the armed forces—I have asked how many—have a role supporting the royal household. Some people might question whether that is necessary, but I think that it is, because they play an important role in supporting the monarch and other members of the royal family. However, I do not think that the costs involved should come out of the defence budget, as they currently do. The costs should be taken from the moneys we pay to support the sovereign’s work, because those men and women of the armed forces clearly do an important job in supporting the sovereign in her duties as Head of State, but we do not know what those costs amount to.

Similarly, is it legitimate for Her Majesty the Queen and other members of the royal family to use private aircraft for state duties? I fully support that, not just from a security point of view, but because of the status that we wish to give members of the royal family when they represent this country on royal duties, as my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow South West (Mr Davidson) suggested. However, I do not think that the defence budget should be used to subsidise that expenditure. For example, if it costs a set amount for the RAF to fly Her Majesty or any other member of the royal family somewhere, that amount should rightly be met by the taxpayer if it is an official duty.

[Mr Spencer]

Does the hon. Gentleman recognise that defending our nation includes defending our Head of State?

[Mr Jones]

Yes, but what I am talking about does not relate to security. I am talking about equerries and other people who play a vital role in running the royal household and who are important in Her Majesty’s representational role. In the previous debate people tried to conflate the two issues, but I am talking about ceremonial duties that are being paid for from the defence budget.

Private Finance Initiative

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Thursday 23rd June 2011 Westminster Hall

[Mr Richard Bacon (South Norfolk) (Con)]

I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman) on his tremendous campaign. It has been a marvellous example of leadership, which is built on his expertise, and we are all in his debt.

I have been watching the private finance initiative from my position on the Public Accounts Committee for many years. I always had a sneaky suspicion about it, without being able to put my finger on what that was, until I met an investment banker at a private event in 2003. He was a securitisation expert and had been involved in many PFI projects. He said: “I like the PFI. It’s a good source of income and is good for the business, but as a taxpayer it really pisses me off.” That rather woke me up. This was not a trade unionist complaining about costs being cut by worsening the terms and conditions of his members; it was a City fat cat getting fatter on the proceeds.

As a member of the Public Accounts Committee, I used to get invited to conferences on the PFI, when it was in its earlier heyday under new Labour. At those events, I met a group of people whom one can only really describe as theologians for the PFI. Rather like some Marxists, or even some Roman Catholics, there was no question to which they would not have an answer. It was a sort of self-containing system, at the root of which was the idea that the PFI was a competitive bidding process and that there was no possibility of its not being all sorted out and being in the best possible interests of clients—the public authorities involved. After all, it was a competitive, open-market process in which anyone could bid, and certain things would already be in the price. It was almost as if they were talking about the market for foreign exchange, or another perfect market. We know, of course, that because of the huge costs involved in bidding for a large project, the PFI has far more of the characteristics of an oligopoly. The Royal Institute of British Architects estimated, many years ago, that the cost of bidding for a PFI hospital was more than £11 million—probably significantly higher now. All those costs end up getting passed on to the client.

The other thing that these theologians would suggest was that it would not be possible for anything to go wrong, because it would not be possible to have an ill-informed or inexperienced client. There would be no question of there not being the right experience on the client side, or the right capacity or resources to manage a project after a contract had been signed. It was as if all must be for the best in the best of all possible worlds, because it could not be any other way. I continued, however, to be suspicious, and I continued to go to the conferences, becoming ruder and ruder until, I am pleased to say, they stopped inviting me. Customers paid £1,000 to attend and all I got out of it was a slap in the face with a wet haddock and a one-way ticket to Great Yarmouth, so I am glad that I am no longer invited.

I must congratulate the National Audit Office on something that recently opened my eyes. The NAO has produced more than 60 reports on the PFI in the past decade, and I have been pleading with it for years to do more synthesis. We have had analysis after analysis after analysis, and project after project, and in the office’s recent report, published in late April, there is more synthesis of some PFI issues. I had a light-bulb moment when I read on page 7 of the report, in a section about the skills, capacity and experience used in negotiating

“high margins on the changes in asset usage which are likely to occur over a long contract.”

I realised that the providers know full well that it is not possible to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 30 years, and so they do two things. One is that they insure themselves by tying down every conceivable cost that might arise—every conceivable risk with its attached price. That process is enormously expensive, and it is reflected in the figure of £11 million that the Royal Institute of British Architects came up with. Although it is true, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire has said, that in rare instances people have lost a packet on projects, such as Jarvis, the National Physical Laboratory and the Joint Services Command and Staff College in Shrivenham—Laing had to sell its construction business after that—the contractors have a lot of people involved, and they do it well, insuring themselves on the downside pretty effectively, to ensure that they make money whatever happens.

The other light-bulb moment in my reading of the NAO report was when I came to:

“as major contractors seek to develop their income from the project”.

I thought to myself, “Hang on a minute. How do you develop your income from the contract? Okay, you might index the contract to protect yourself from inflation, but basically you have a contract and you provide services. It is predictable, and that is why you know what you’ll get going forward.” No. They know full well when they sign up that it is not possible for the public authority, particularly those in education and health, to write a contract that is flexible enough to last for 25 to 35 years. They ensure that all their risks are covered and then develop their income from the contract over time, as changes occur. One can also see a sudden shift. Just as the flagship Norfolk and Norwich hospital in my constituency was finished, the mood music suddenly changed towards much more primary, locally based care.

The contractors also do fancy financial engineering. The Norfolk and Norwich hospital was perhaps the locus classicus of that. The contractors added about £100 million in extra debt to the contract at the time of refinancing, thus accelerating their return from the project. The NAO produced a report specifically on that hospital, which stated that not only was the repayment period for the hospital extended from 34 years to 39 years—it is hard to see how that was in the interests of taxpayers—but the rate of return for the investors was accelerated from 18.9% to more than 60%, more than tripling it. If they can get all their money out that quickly, it means that it is not nearly as important, and there is not nearly the same incentive, to carry on managing the contract in the same way as before.

My hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire made another important point when he said that we should not kid ourselves that it has all been plain sailing in the conventional procurement world. He has mentioned the British Library. One might also mention the Scottish Parliament and the Jubilee line extension. I was told that the cost overrun for the windows of Portcullis House—which, again, was a conventional procurement that the Public Accounts Committee looked at when it first opened years ago—was so huge that it would have been cheaper to have clad the exterior of Portcullis House with BMW 7 series cars. We should not be under any illusion that the conventional method has worked as well as it should.

The attempt to find a way to get projects delivered on budget, on time had a certain merit. My hon. Friend was absolutely right to point out that the hon. Member for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson) took this and ran with it. I talked to Lord Lamont, the former Chancellor of the Exchequer, at a dinner a couple of years ago. He said that he had asked the hon. Member for Coventry North West before the 1997 election, “How on earth are you going to finance all these grand promises in your manifesto?” He replied, “Oh, it’s simple—we’ll take your idea of the PFI and run with it.” Lord Lamont said, “But the rules won’t let you,” to which the hon. Member for Coventry North West replied, “Oh, we’ll ignore your stupid rules.” He was very candid about it, in fairness to him.

One of the things that I have regretted about the past few years of the PFI is that, in areas such as health and education, where it would have been fairly easy to do this, the Government did not insist on developing, at the same time, identical or nearly identical clusters and baskets of projects, so that we would then have had a proper way of comparing, over a period of years—three, five, seven and 12 years out—what had actually proved to be greater value for money.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Is my hon. Friend also aware that the issue extends to the emergency services? Nottinghamshire police find themselves in a situation whereby their vehicle fleet is PFI-ed, and it costs hundreds of pounds just to repair a puncture.

[Mr Bacon]

Yes, and of course, we cannot blame the private sector for protecting its downside and ensuring that it makes money rather than loses it. One of the most extraordinary things about all this is the naivety of many of the people in the civil service who have negotiated these projects over the years. They do not seem to understand that the private sector players are profit maximisers. If they have a chance to make money, they will, and if they have a chance to make more money, they will. A certain lack of commercial nous and capacity on the part of the public sector has coloured all this.

Turning to the proposals of my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire on steps to improve data, one of the things that have shocked me throughout is the difficulty in getting a view from 100,000 feet of what is going on. I have spent years on the PAC trying to get answers out of the Treasury and other authorities about what is going on, and only very recently has anything started to emerge that looks like a coherent picture. My hon. Friend is absolutely right that we need to think about a variety of different approaches to financing infrastructure. We need to make the PFI compete for business, if we are to use it at all in the future.

There is a paradox in relation to future proposals. The NAO report refers to the fact that there is a pipeline of £200 billion-worth of transport and energy infrastructure projects, and it is precisely for those sorts of enormous, long-term projects that a PFI-type structure might have more attractions to it. However, we have to be able to break down the different components. There is often absolutely no need to ascribe to the entire 35-year period of a project the risks that, in truth, only apply for the first few years, yet that is what many PFI lawyers have been able to get away with in many cases.

My hon. Friend’s campaign for a rebate is fascinating and has certainly caught the attention of the PFI industry. He has led the way on this. It is a remarkable testament to the fact that people in the industry know that things have been going wrong that so many of them have been prepared to co-operate. Interestingly, at the PAC hearing on the NAO report the other day, one of the witnesses, Graham Beazley-Long, from Innisfree, was asked whether it would be reasonable for equity gains to be shared with the taxpayer. He was perfectly prepared to discuss the matter. He said that the Treasury and Infrastructure UK

“would have a view on whether that pushed up the costs of capital”.

In other words, it was all just a negotiation and a certain return would be demanded by investors, and if the taxpayer wanted to pay that up in advance, they could get it back again. There is probably an element of truth in that, but my sense over the years is that the PFI industry, out of which a large number of people have made a great deal of money, has not been made to compete hard enough. There are a number of ways in which they could do that. We should have some conventional clusters that give us, as taxpayers, the ability to compare over the long term, and we should be much more innovative, as my hon. Friend has suggested—I hope that we hear more about his proposal for a national asset trust fund—in securing alternative methods for infrastructure finance, so that the PFI industry knows that it is not the only game in town.

Oral Answers to Questions

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 10th May 2011 Commons Chamber

[Danny Alexander]

The vast majority of people on low and middle incomes will benefit from the income tax cuts that will result from the raising of the income tax threshold by £1,000. For families with children, we have increased the child element of child tax credit by £180 above indexation. I agree with the shadow Chancellor, who admitted on the BBC shortly after the Budget that

“only the majority of families”

would benefit from those moves.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does the Chief Secretary share my desire to see a welfare system in which hard-working families are better off than those who choose not to work? Does he agree that, as soon as we can afford it, we should enable as many as possible of those hard-working families to benefit from the lifting of the tax threshold?

[Danny Alexander]

I agree wholeheartedly. That is why we have set ourselves the agenda of both reforming the welfare system and lifting the income tax threshold to £10,000, which will significantly benefit millions of people on low and middle incomes.

Office of Tax Simplification

Mark Spencer Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Gauke]

The hon. Gentleman makes a valuable point, and I hope that the OTS will bear it in mind. I am grateful to him for his comments.

[Mr Mark Spencer (Sherwood) (Con)]

Does the Minister agree that a more simplified tax system will encourage UK manufacturers to retain jobs here rather than export them to other countries? Does he also agree that the measure will make the UK look more favourable as somewhere for global companies to locate their business?

[Mr Gauke]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. As I said, we want to ensure that our tax system is an asset to the UK, so that we can go out there and sell the UK as a place to do business. We want one advantage of doing business in the UK to be a certain, stable, predictable and simple tax system.