Alcohol Taxation

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 14th December 2011 Westminster Hall

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I have watched many of my former patients die as a result of alcohol; there is nothing like witnessing the end of the journey to focus one’s attention on the need to prevent people from becoming harmful drinkers in the first place. We are witnessing an unprecedented rise in hospital admissions and deaths from alcohol-related liver disease. Alcohol is directly responsible for more than 6,500 deaths and more than 1 million hospital admissions a year. It is the single largest cause of mortality in young people, accounting for one in four deaths among 15 to 24-year-olds—far more than die as a result of knife crime. There are now 1.6 million dependent drinkers in England alone.

However, the point about alcohol is that it does not just affect the drinkers themselves; it has a devastating effect on their families, especially children, and on entire communities. There are 705,000 children living with a parent who is a dependent drinker. Parental alcohol abuse is a factor in half of child protection cases.

The full costs are hard to quantify, but the bill runs to at least £20 billion a year.

[Mr Kevin Barron (Rother Valley) (Lab)]

The hon. Lady will know that I chaired the Select Committee on Health in the previous Parliament. We conducted an inquiry into alcohol, and it was the first time in many decades that a Select Committee had done that. We took evidence that the cost to the NHS could be as high as £55 billion a year. The situation is similar to that with tobacco: in the end, no one really knows the cost of the use of these products.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is absolutely right. The study to which he refers took into account the reduced quality of life years associated with alcohol, which are extremely difficult to quantify.

In three years’ time, the Government will be judged not just on the economy, but on other tangible markers, such as violent crime, the prison population, health inequalities—even markers such as teenage pregnancy. It is hard to think of a social marker that is not affected by alcohol.

However, there are other compelling reasons for taking action. At a time of squeezed police budgets and when the NHS needs to find efficiency savings of £20 billion, we should not be pouring that money down the drain because of the problems that this country has with alcohol. About half the offenders in some prisons are jailed for an offence in which alcohol played a significant role. The relationship between crime and alcohol is not linear, but the positive association between violent crime and alcohol is compelling. There is a wealth of evidence to link alcohol price increases and reduced rates of homicide, rape, robbery, assault, motor vehicle theft and domestic violence.

[Brandon Lewis (Great Yarmouth) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. In terms of alcohol price increases having the effect that she has just outlined, does she agree that one easy, fast and effective route that the Government could take to stop underpriced and low-priced alcohol being sold would be to go ahead with duty stamping on beer and wine to ensure that alcohol is sold at the right price and, equally, to save the Government up to £1 billion a year of revenue that is currently lost through the tax being avoided?

[Dr Wollaston]

That is one of the options. I would like to outline an alternative, but I certainly thank my hon. Friend for that intervention.

Numerous studies around the world have shown public health benefits as a result of price increases and taxation policies, so is it not time for some evidence-based politics? The trouble is that there is no single, simple solution. We know that there are other factors in addition to price: availability, our drinking culture and marketing. Those are all key factors, but today’s debate is about taxation, so I will focus entirely on price, not because the others do not matter, but because they are not within the remit of the Treasury.

It is worth pointing out that most health experts feel that changing pricing is the most effective way of achieving results. I draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to the letter in today’s edition of The Daily Telegraph signed by 19 organisations. I know that the Treasury is aware of the costs to our economy of dependent drinkers and binge drinking, so I will not ask my hon. Friend to respond in detail on those points. As disposable incomes have fallen, so too has the overall consumption of alcohol, but that comes on the back of decades of steady increases. Alcohol remains about 44% more affordable than it was in 1980.

In 2010, a total of 48.4 billion units of alcohol were sold in the UK. Of those, 31.8 billion units—about two thirds; the great and increasing majority—were sold by the off-trade. The widening gap between the price of on-licence and off-licence alcohol is becoming far more significant and is fuelling the rise in home drinking. Harms are not going down as we might expect as a result of the small fall in overall consumption, because of the low-price deals that are still very widely available in supermarkets, garages and convenience stores pretty much around the clock.

[Guy Opperman (Hexham) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on obtaining the debate. The north-east has one of the worst rates of liver disease: we have seen an increase of 400% since 2002. I accept entirely the point that she makes about robust regulation in terms of minimum pricing, but does she accept that the local supermarkets in our individual constituencies can make a specific difference on the pricing and availability of alcohol and the way in which it is presented to our constituents?

[Dr Wollaston]

I absolutely agree. Most of the alcohol-related carnage is caused by young binge drinkers and by heavy or dependent drinkers, so the issue is not only about the availability of alcohol in outlets throughout the country. The harm is not going down, because those groups are the ones that are most attracted by the low-price deals.

[Andrew Griffiths (Burton) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this important debate. I declare an interest as chairman of the all-party beer group. I agree with her about the need for the Government to take action. Does she agree with me on this point? Twenty years ago, the price in a supermarket and the price in a pub were much the same at about 75p a pint. Today, a pint costs £3.10, £3.20 or £3.30 in a pub, whereas in a supermarket it remains at about 70p or 80p. That has encouraged people to drink more and more at home and discouraged them from drinking in a safe, supervised environment such as the community pub that is at the heart of many of our towns and villages.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend: he makes an excellent point about the decline in rural pubs and why any action that the Minister takes has to take into account the impact on rural pubs and, of course, town pubs.

[Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con)]

I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing the debate. I have to declare an interest. I worked behind the bar in one of my local pubs on a recent Friday evening, celebrating British beer week. I am also a member of the all-party beer group. I echo the comments made by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths). In a pub, we have a safe environment; we have a landlord who is licensed. That encourages responsible drinking. The pub I worked in—the Wills O’Nats in Meltham—was a family environment. Young people were there, drinking soft drinks until early in the evening. Does my hon. Friend agree that any taxation put in place by the Government should not just be about revenue streams, but should encourage responsible drinking in the community pub environment?

[Dr Wollaston]

I absolutely agree. The point is that in the UK harmful drinkers buy 15 times more alcohol than moderate drinkers, yet they pay 40% less per unit. Those are the groups that are most influenced by pricing. That is why I agree with my hon. Friends that the problem does not come from pubs.

I did have a prop for the debate. Last weekend, my researcher was able to access 2 litres of own-brand cider from Asda for £1.48, which worked out at just 18p a unit. With a four-pack of bitter for 68p, the price was just 17p a unit. I particularly objected to the labelling. It said, “Asda Smart Price”. I put it to hon. Members that there is nothing smart about charging 68p for four units of alcohol. That would send a woman well over the safe limit for a single day for just 68p.

[Mike Wood (Batley and Spen) (Lab)]

I, too, congratulate the hon. Lady on securing the debate. It is significant that Asda is the supermarket she cited, because it is seen as the one supermarket that has so far taken a lead in trying to get to the bottom of two-for-one offers and the like. If Asda is still behaving as badly as that, what can we expect from the others?

[Dr Wollaston]

Asda has acquired a veneer of respectability by signing up to the new responsibility deal, but I would ask whether it is killing its customers with such pricing. Asda has liked to boast of its responsible approach in removing low-price offers from its foyers, but I put it to Asda that those who conduct proxy sales on behalf of teenage binge drinkers have no trouble in locating the cider at the back of the store. It is the ultra-low pricing that is causing the carnage.

I recognise that the Government are trying to introduce a floor price for alcohol that will include duty and VAT. The trouble is that the policy will not go far enough to solve the problem, as it will still allow white cider to be sold at below 10p a unit. It will establish the principle of minimum pricing without the prospect of delivering any meaningful results. Will the Minister set out what responses she has received from public health experts on that point? All the public health advice that I have seen is entirely pessimistic. The Daily Telegraph pointed out today that the policy will catch only one in 4,000 of the drinks currently being sold and will do nothing to save lives.

[Andrew Griffiths]

Does my hon. Friend agree that it was this Government who introduced, for the first time, a ban on below-cost selling? That was an important line in the sand—the first time that a Government have said that selling booze too cheaply is a bad thing. The question now is how cheaply?

Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the current tax system seems to encourage people to drink ever stronger and stronger drinks? The tax system encourages the strength of wine to increase dramatically, and the drink of choice of young people is now vodka.

[Dr Wollaston]

I thank my hon. Friend for making that point. We need to show what minimum pricing means in practice if we set a reasonable price. If we set a minimum price of around 45p a unit, as the Scottish Government are planning to do, in a Bill introduced at the end of October, it would mean that a bottle of whisky containing 28 units could not be sold below £12.60, a bottle of wine containing 10 units could not cost less than £4.50, and a pint of beer with two units could not cost less than 90p. Such prices would not suck all the fun from a night out; in fact, they would not raise the price of alcohol in the on-trade at all.

[Mr Barron]

Will the hon. Lady give way?

[Dr Wollaston]

May I make a little progress? The case against a minimum price of between 45p and 50p a unit may hang on the loss of income to the Treasury. Alcohol duty raised £9.5 billion in 2010-11, which is equivalent to 1.7% of total Government revenue. There is a certain illogicality in the bands set by the European Union, so to a certain extent, as my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Andrew Griffiths) said, there is great encouragement towards higher strength products.

The amount received by the Treasury is the same whether a product is sold in a pub or a supermarket. VAT is levied on top, but there are no specific data on where and on what products it is levied. Will the Minister set out estimates of the loss of income that would arise from the introduction of a minimum unit price of between 45p and 50p? Will she also set that against the benefits in estimated savings to the Home Office, the Department of Health and the Ministry of Justice that would result from a reduction in alcohol-related harms?

The Department of Health leads on alcohol policy. It has stated repeatedly that it does not wish to disadvantage moderate drinkers on a low income. However, it has failed to point out that harmful drinking disproportionately affects the poorest and most vulnerable in our society, and is a significant contributor to health inequality. A report on the Department’s behalf from September 2011, titled “Narrowing the health inequalities gap”, makes it quite clear that if it were not for alcohol-related deaths, and if we had had an effective policy, the objective to narrow the overall life expectancy gaps for the spearhead local authority areas—the most deprived areas in our country—

“would…certainly have been achieved for males; and would be well on the way to being achieved for females.”

The evidence is not just that low-income groups suffer the most health harms, but that they suffer the most harms as a result of violence in their communities.

If we look at the evidence from some shopping basket data published in a university of Sheffield study, we can see that for

“a 50p minimum price, a harmful drinker will spend on average an extra £163 per year whilst the equivalent spending increase for a moderate drinker is £12.”

In other words, the published data state that such a policy will not penalise low-income moderate drinkers.

The deprived spearhead communities have the most to gain from an effective alcohol policy. A minimum or floor price can be set that is not regressive and is affordable for anyone who is not drinking at hazardous levels. As one of my correspondents pointed out:

“If you can’t afford 50p per unit it is a good sign that you are drinking too much.”

The charge is often made that without an increase in duty the profits will go to the drinks industry and retailers, not the Treasury. I can understand that, but if we can introduce windfall taxes on energy companies, why not have windfall taxes on supermarkets that profit from windfall gains? With more than 31 billion units sold in the off-trade, why not even consider a health levy on unopened bottles, perhaps of between 5p and 10p a unit, targeting just the off-trade? That would be more than enough to allow for decent treatment programmes. Evidence shows that for every pound we invest in such programmes, we save £5 in wider benefits to the economy because of reduced harms.

[Guy Opperman]

Does my hon. Friend think that it would be a good idea to introduce an alcohol Act similar to that which exists in Scotland?

[Dr Wollaston]

I could not agree more.

Finally—I know that other Members would like to come in—there are those who argue that a minimum price is illegal under EU law. If so, why are the Scottish Government so confident that it is not? I draw the Minister’s attention to a reply given by Mr Dalli on behalf of the European Commission to a question put by an MEP on that point. The bones of the reply are that

“the Commission fully shares with the Honourable Member the conviction that there are strong public health reasons for the EU to tackle alcohol-related harm including minimum pricing measures.”

Will the Minister set out today whether there have been discussions with the Scottish Executive on the matter? Will she also comment on what steps the Treasury will take to tackle supermarkets’ plans to undermine Scotland’s decisive action to tackle the carnage caused by alcohol? Tesco recently e-mailed Scottish customers to reassure them that they will still be able to access cut-price deals after the Act is in force, as the products will be delivered from across the border. Will the Minister join me in condemning that e-mail from Tesco?

Yesterday, the Select Committee on Health returned from a visit to Carlisle, and it is clear that the city is expecting an increase in cross-border sales. It would prefer to see us use an evidence-based policy to protect the north-west, which has suffered from the devastating impact of alcohol. There have been many calls for effective minimum pricing and numerous models show the amount of lives and money saved, so I do not want to go over them in detail, other than to point out again that a 50p minimum price could save nearly 10,000 lives a year.

We have shown that Britain is prepared to stand our ground in the EU when it comes to the City of London. Now is the time to put the lives of our young people ahead of the theoretical risk of a legal challenge. A precedent exists in the loi Evin, which the French introduced to protect children from the effects of alcohol marketing in France. It has been challenged repeatedly by the industry in the EU’s courts, but it was upheld on the grounds of the health benefits. I fully agree with that.

[Mr Barron]

I agree with the hon. Lady regarding unit pricing, as did the Select Committee. One issue that caught my ear in her presentation is that of spirits. For 10 years, I have sat in Budget speeches in the House of Commons Chamber, when everyone cheered when the duty on spirits never went up. Then a £6 bottle of vodka became the choice for binge drinking. That is one of the lessons that the Treasury should learn.

[Dr Wollaston]

I could not agree more. Pricing plays, and has played, a role in the massive increase in the drinking of vodka, particularly by young women.

There are other ways of levelling the playing field, if the Treasury wants more income after minimum pricing. I know that the Minister is aware of the paper written by Dr Nick Sheron in which he argued that we could vary VAT between the on and off-trades to achieve minimum pricing, without damaging our pubs. I accept that the Treasury is convinced that that would be illegal under EU law. That is just another example of the completely illogical rules by which alcohol duty is set from across the channel, and is a prime example of the intrusive and frustrating way so much of our legislation is controlled by the EU.

I finish by asking the Minister not to commit to a floor price that will be meaningless. Will she assure the House that she will meet her Scottish counterparts to discuss why they are convinced that it is legal to introduce a realistic minimum price for alcohol? Can she assure me that the Government will look at the consistent and evidence-based advice from health experts on minimum pricing, and at least ensure that supermarkets south of the border do not undermine what is happening in Scotland? Can she also assure me that the Treasury recognises that alcohol is not an ordinary commodity, but a psychoactive, teratogenic carcinogen, which also happens to be addictive?

I finish with a story from one of my constituents, who spoke to me after trying to stop a drunken lout urinating on a semi-conscious vulnerable woman in the street. Is that the picture of Britain that we want to send to the rest of the world in our Olympic year? It really is the picture that other people are starting to have of Britain, and it is completely preventable. We just need bold action from the Government. Otherwise, we are abandoning another generation of young people. There is no such thing as a free lunch and equally no such thing as a cheap drink. We are all cross-subsidising cheap deals in supermarkets by paying extra for our groceries and other products. There is no such thing as a cheap drink: we are all paying a heavy price.

Fuel Prices

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 15th November 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

When Labour came to power in 1997, fuel duty stood at 36.8p per litre. When it left office in 2010, the price was more than 57p per litre—“a pain in the gas” as they say in the United States. I therefore welcome the early and decisive action taken by the Treasury in taking 1p off fuel duty, scrapping the duty escalator and delaying the 3p per litre rise. Many Members have today made a compelling case for why we now need the Treasury to go further, however.

I represent a large rural constituency in south Devon, and having a car in order to get to work or exercise choice in education is not a luxury; it is an absolute essential. My constituents spend a far greater proportion of their disposable income on fuel than those who live in cities.

A further 3p rise in January would not just hit householders, however; it would hit essential local businesses, too. Some 65% of all the UK’s groceries are delivered on retread tyres produced by a company in my constituency: Bandvulc tyres. It also exports to cities across Europe. It is a significant employer and wealth generator, but a 3p a litre rise in fuel duty would cost it an additional £24,000 a year, because it uses more than 500,000 litres of fuel a year. It is a family-run manufacturing business producing a sustainable product and creating local jobs. It wants to stay in Devon but knows that it would make economic sense to relocate part of its business to eastern Europe as a result of the fuel duty rise. There are similar examples among other businesses in my constituency.

Another very important sector in my constituency is tourism. I am talking about businesses such as Sharpham wines and cheeses, which attracts 7,500 tourists a year and employs up to 40 people. More importantly, it is in the top six wine producers in the UK and it is another wealth creator that exports across Europe. That business spoke of the ripple effects of a further rise in fuel duty, as did many others. A business that I visited last week, Palladium Building Supplies, told me of the knock-on effect to the entire building industry across south Devon that there would be if we go ahead with this rise.

[Mel Stride (Central Devon) (Con)]

My hon. Friend is making a powerful point about the effect on businesses. Does she accept that not only are these high fuel prices damaging businesses, but that, in turn, that is leading to less revenue to the Exchequer, because businesses are becoming less profitable?

--- Later in debate ---

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. This is about whether a 3p a litre increase will generate any income. Many of my constituents feel that it will lead to a drop in income, because they will simply not be able to fill up their cars.

[Jo Swinson (East Dunbartonshire) (LD)]

I agree with the hon. Lady’s case, which has been made by others, that the Government need to take account of the impact of the high price of fuel and the hurt it is causing to families, individuals and businesses. She mentions an important short-term measure, but does she agree that in the medium and long-term it is also important that the Government take action to reduce our dependency on oil, the price of which is only likely to rise, and look towards investment in things such as electric cars and charging infrastructure across the country, so that we will be set for the rest of the 21st century?

[Dr Wollaston]

My hon. Friend makes a good point. Indeed, one organic business in my constituency said that it would find a rise more acceptable if it could be seen directly as a green tax. Unfortunately, that is not the case. In my constituency, people will be badly hit by a double whammy, in that the bus service operators grant is set to be reduced by 20% next year. Just when they cannot afford to use their cars, people are being hit by a real threat to rural bus services, which are already at a critical level in south Devon. I hope that the Minister will set out what proportion of the rise will be set aside for green taxation purposes.

[Priti Patel (Witham) (Con)]

Does my hon. Friend agree that the points she is making show precisely why motorists need to see greater transparency in how fuel prices are determined? I am thinking, in particular, about the disparity between pump prices and the price of oil.

[Dr Wollaston]

I fully support that, because in south Devon those on the lowest incomes will be hardest hit. They will be spending yet more of their disposable income on fuel or they will be waiting at the side of a road for a bus service that can no longer afford to operate.

Eurozone Crisis

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 27th October 2011 Commons Chamber

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

How confident is my right hon. Friend that countries such as China will want to contribute to the special purpose vehicle, and what will happen if they do not?

[Mr Osborne]

The short answer is that we will find out whether China wants to contribute. The President of France is speaking to the President of China today, and he will no doubt give us all an update following that conversation.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Wednesday 10th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Bob Blackman]

I and all the others who are new to the House signed the pledge in the belief that, if we were elected, we would compensate everyone who had suffered as a result of the maladministration, rather than taking an arbitrary position to compensate some and not others. I have heard heart-rending stories from my constituents and from people all over the country who are now living on desperately low pensions, having expected much larger ones, and we have a very strong moral duty to all those people. We throw that away at our peril.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

This is not just a question of fairness. Many of those individuals are older and very vulnerable indeed. The letters that I have received make the point that those people are living on very low incomes at a very vulnerable time of their lives, and they have already suffered from the effects of inflation. I agree with my hon. Friend that we should talk about this as parliamentarians, not on a party political basis.

[Bob Blackman]

My hon. Friend clearly demonstrates that we are talking about the oldest and most vulnerable people, and that they have been dealt with in a most disgraceful way following this scandal. We have a moral duty to compensate them.

Going back to the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff North (Jonathan Evans), it is clear that when the bonuses that were attached early in the process are taken into account, some policyholders might not receive a penny piece in compensation. We need to recognise that, but there is an 18-month gap between the cut-off dates. A large number of the retired people who had taken out annuities could not adjust them once they had purchased them, and they are now trapped in that position. That is why we have a moral duty to compensate them.

Comprehensive Spending Review

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 28th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Ms Eagle]

I do not suppose it is their fault they are men. I can blame them for some things, but not that. My hon. Friend makes a perfectly fair point though. It is clear that 65% of those who work in public services are women, that 75% of those who work in local government are women and that there are even higher levels working in the health service and social care. Clearly, they are on the front line, and the Government have a legal duty, which it is not clear that they have fulfilled, to take reasonable account of that fact.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Has the hon. Lady met people trapped on benefits, many of whom, incidentally, are women? The failure to address the perverse incentives operating in our benefits system was utterly spineless and ignored the real misery affecting those who live trapped in our benefits system.

[Ms Eagle]

The hon. Lady’s intervention was extremely helpful. Of course I have. We have all done a great deal of work on social security reform, and I hope she will be the first to acknowledge some of the progress we made, particularly in helping lone parents into work. Tax credits and all the support we gave on child care were among the measures that were crucial in ensuring that we managed to increase significantly the number of lone parents in work when we were in office. I hope she will be the first to recognise our success in those areas. She should take a close look at the increasing rates of marginal tax that came about because of some of the changes, particularly for lone parents, and the savings made in tax credits, and she should also have a word with her party’s Front-Bench team about their priorities for cuts, given that they are taking away benefits that particularly help women go out to work.

In softening up the country for this age of austerity, Ministers have been anxious to establish some myths, the first of which is that the deficit was a Labour spending choice. We heard a lot of that today from the Chief Secretary to the Treasury. The second myth is that the cuts announced are unavoidable. We need to start with some facts. When the credit crunch struck in 2008, Britain had the second-lowest debt in the G7. We had low interest rates, low inflation and low unemployment. There is nothing reckless about that. Now, however, the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats are trying to rewrite history.

Equitable Life (Payments) Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 14th September 2010 Commons Chamber

[Stephen Timms]

My right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill made it clear before the election that he thought that that was entirely inappropriate, so the answer to that question is no.

Parliament has recognised for many years that it is not generally appropriate for the taxpayer to pay compensation even when there is regulatory failure. The responsibility to minimise risks and prevent problems from occurring in a particular financial institution lies first and foremost with the people who own and run it. The Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 reaffirmed the long-standing exemption of financial regulators from liability for negligence in the courts. There would be serious repercussions for the taxpayer, and for the relationship between Government and financial markets, if the taxpayer were to provide a remedy for all losses every time the regulator failed to prevent a financial institution from getting into trouble.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Does the right hon. Gentleman feel that the emptiness of the Opposition Benches represents a lack of interest in trapped annuitants, or merely shame? I assure him that the fact that the Benches on this side of the House are so full represents a strength of opinion that we wish to express to our Minister on behalf of members of Equitable Life.

[Stephen Timms]

I wish the hon. Lady success. I believe that she is one of those who signed the pledge, and I am sure that she will be training her fire on Ministers. As I have said—and as EMAG has made crystal clear—we are currently heading for the breaking of that pledge.

Equitable Life

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 22nd July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Mr Hoban]

As part of the spending review process, I have already committed to publishing not only the amount of compensation the taxpayer can afford to pay, but the final loss figure. My objective is to be as transparent as possible on that calculation.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Although I congratulate the Minister on the undoubted speed and transparency of the process, many of my constituents will be seeking reassurance that it is safe to save in future. Will the cap of 20 to 25% be sufficient in giving them that reassurance? If not, what other measures will be taken?

[Mr Hoban]

I welcome my hon. Friend’s comments. Many people’s confidence in saving has been shaken as a consequence of what happened at Equitable Life, but she will recall that last month, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced reforms to the regulation of financial services, which will include a new consumer champion—a consumer markets and protection authority. That is one way to help to improve regulation and to give people confidence about saving for their future.

Equitable Life

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 20th July 2010 Westminster Hall

[Nicola Blackwood (Oxford West and Abingdon) (Con)]

I am grateful for the opportunity to debate Equitable Life. As a parliamentary candidate, along with many others from all parties, I signed a public pledge to support and vote for proper compensation for the victims of the Equitable Life scandal and the setting up of a swift, simple, transparent and fair payment scheme, independent of Government, as recommended by the parliamentary ombudsman. I am here today, along with many concerned colleagues, because, with the Chadwick report due imminently, I wanted to give the Minister an opportunity to hear the views of parliamentary colleagues and Members an opportunity to raise the concerns that have been brought to them since the election.

I must confess that I spent much of Sunday watching the Opposition day debate from 17 March on Parliament TV—although that may raise doubts about my sanity, it was very reassuring. The Minister showed a real understanding of the appalling injustice that has been suffered by Equitable members. According to the Equitable Members Action Group—EMAG—more than 1,000 policyholders and 2,000 group scheme members live in my constituency. He understood the anger felt at the previous Government’s delaying tactics. Most importantly, he was clear in committing a future Conservative Government to implementing an effective compensation scheme in a timely manner. I am pleased that that commitment has been restated in the coalition programme.

Nevertheless, concerns have been raised with me and my colleagues since the election. As many of us are new Members who did not have the chance to contribute to the most recent debate on the matter, I know that the Minister will appreciate the opportunity to hear their views as he considers the Treasury response to the Chadwick report and decides on future plans for a payment scheme.

I am not inclined to give a summary of the Labour Government’s attempts to avoid the findings of the Penrose inquiry and hobble the ombudsman in her first inquiry, only to refuse to accept her conclusions of maladministration and injustice in her second inquiry and the subsequent judicial review, which determined that much of their refusal failed the cogency test. I am sure that all Members present are familiar with that sorry saga; if they are not, there is an excellent Commons Library standard note on the matter, which they can peruse at their leisure. Suffice it to say that the Minister has been left with a scandalous legacy by his predecessor, and one that I would not wish on my worst enemy.

I will focus on some of the main barriers to progress that we face. The first barrier is that Equitable members have had all their faith in Government systematically destroyed by the transparent attempts by the previous Administration to delay and obfuscate—one of the few instances of transparency they can boast. The accusation that the Treasury made the cold-hearted calculation that the longer the process took, the less it would have to pay out, as Equitable members were dying off at such a rate, has never been verified. Nevertheless, the accusation sits uncomfortably in the middle of the negotiating room, making it difficult to build a constructive relationship when attempting to create a scheme that Equitable members can support.

Together we will have to find a way to build that relationship, however painful the process, and to start rebuilding trust, and I suspect that no amount of rhetoric will do the trick. The only way Equitable members will be able to move past the consistent abuse they suffered at the hands of the previous Government will be by seeing concrete action replace warm words. I urge the Minister to remember that history as he moves forward.

Many of us feel that, after our active championing of the cause of EMAG members when in opposition, they should feel that they can trust us. It is clear, however, that having suffered so much from Labour’s broken promises for so long, they now find it difficult to trust so easily. The only remedy for that distrust is to prove the doubter wrong by delivering in government what we promised in opposition. At the same time, Equitable members must meet us halfway by working in partnership with, rather than just in opposition to, the Government as we try to find a way to bring them justice.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Another point is that so many Equitable Life members are very hard up. I have received letters from many constituents, and one couple I heard from are now surviving on pension credits and rent rebates after a lifetime’s savings were decimated by the Equitable Life scandal.

[Nicola Blackwood]

That is the message I receive in my post box day after day, and I am sure that many colleagues have similar cases.

The second problem we face is uncertainty. For decades, Equitable members have been treated with the utmost contempt by the management of Equitable Life, the regulators and, latterly, the Labour Government, who refused to give them clear answers, denied their claims of injustice, even in the face of all the evidence and, even after accepting some measure of responsibility, have consistently refused to give the victims any indication of the timetable or costing.

Finance Bill

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Tuesday 6th July 2010 Commons Chamber

[Barry Gardiner]

My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Institute for Fiscal Studies has made some damning comments about the regressive nature of this Finance Bill.

Should it be passed in the House of Commons, the Bill will be unavoidable in its own way. Consider the carer, middle-aged herself but looking after her ageing, frail parents. She will not be able to avoid seeing her carer’s allowance cut by £90 a year over the next five years. Consider the family of five living in Brent, already struggling to find the difference between what the landlord insists is a fair market rent and their housing benefit payments each month. They will not be able to avoid eviction as the Finance Bill cuts housing benefit. Consider the severely disabled sufferer from Crohn’s disease. She will not be able to avoid losing £300 a year as the Bill cuts support year on year.

Consider the young couple starting their life together, moving into and trying to furnish their flat. They will face the costs of conveyancing solicitors, new fridge, new washing machine, new carpets, new sofa, new telly. This is certainly the unavoidable Finance Bill for them, with an extra 2.5% on every item. It is the unavoidable Finance Bill for the poor, for the disabled, for those on housing benefit, and for carers. A clear choice has been made by the Conservatives to cut an extra £40 billion on top of the £78 billion announced already.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

I would like to ask the hon. Gentleman whether he realises why all these very sad cases are unavoidable. It is because we have a national debt of £1 trillion. I was looking at what that means. If every pound were a second, that would be 31,546 years and we would all be sitting here for a very long time.

[Barry Gardiner]

rose—

Budget Resolutions and Economic Situation

Sarah Wollaston Excerpts

Thursday 24th June 2010 Commons Chamber

[Chris Huhne]

No. I said that the previous intervention would be the final time that I would give way before winding up, and I have given way to the hon. Gentleman before.

By the way, I should add to my response to the previous intervention by saying that we have confirmed some of the grants and soft loans made available, for example, for wind energy.

[Dr Sarah Wollaston (Totnes) (Con)]

Will my right hon. Friend give way?

[Chris Huhne]

I am not going to give way again. I am sorry, but I am going to end up—[Hon. Members: “But it’s a new Member!”] I am sorry, I did not realise that the request came from a new Member.

[Dr Wollaston]

I am extremely grateful to my right hon. Friend for giving way. My constituency is home to Transition Town Totnes, of which he may have heard. It leads the way in looking at climate change and peak oil, and I am sure that the people involved will be very interested to know the size and scale of the projects that will be funded by the green banks. What will be the time scale? When might they be able to start looking forward to making applications?

[Chris Huhne]

I thank my hon. Friend for that intervention. [Hon. Members: “Answer!”] Opposition Members know perfectly well that there are certain processes in Government that we have to go through. We have to consult. We have to make sure not only that we produce decisions at the moment that both Opposition and Government Members would like, but that those decisions are right and have gone through all the normal processes.

However, I want to pick up on one very important point. My hon. Friend mentioned peak oil, something that, especially in the context of Deepwater Horizon in the gulf of Mexico and our exploration west of Shetland, opens up a terribly important point about the whole thrust of what we are intending to do. That is that we have been given a wake-up call to move towards a low-carbon economy even more rapidly than before. That is not merely for climate change reasons but because an economy that is more independent of volatile sources of energy from geopolitically troubled parts of the world is also more resilient to oil price shocks. If the name of the game is not to end boom and bust, as the right hon. Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown) used to promise, but at least to moderate boom and bust, then an important objective for my Department has to be to ensure that that moderation takes place by making energy security a more serious objective and defining energy security not merely in terms of physical interruptions—problems, say, in the straits of Hormuz—but in terms of our ability to withstand price volatility and price shocks.

I think I have gone on far too long—[Interruption.] As the hon. Member for Islington South and Finsbury (Emily Thornberry) says from a sedentary position, and I can agree with her—[Interruption.] Sorry, the hon. Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle)—I was being barracked. I want to make a key point about the prospect of the move to a low-carbon economy providing us with a new type of economy that will be more resilient to shocks, will be jobs-rich and will provide genuine prosperity, employment and profit for British businesses, including opening up enormous opportunities in export markets. The framework that we have set out enables us to do that, and I commend the Budget to the House.