PARLIAMENTARY DEBATES - United Kingdom Parliament

647 Petrol Prices
15 MAY 2013
Petrol Prices
648
[Mr Gregory Campbell]
State has said that we do not know the timing of
it—what steps will the Government and the OFT take
to ensure that prices come down, that people see openness
and transparency, and that the Government reduce fuel
duty rather than put increases on hold?
Mr Davey: Like every right hon. and hon. Member,
the hon. Gentleman is concerned about the price of fuel
and the impact that that has on household budgets. I
know from speaking to right hon. and hon. Members
who represent rural constituencies how the price of fuel
impacts on them. That is one reason why my right hon.
Friend the Chief Secretary to the Treasury has paid
such attention to the matter since he entered Her Majesty’s
Treasury. The Government’s record on bearing down
on fuel duty, which is one thing we can directly influence,
is exemplary. We have had the longest freeze in fuel duty
for 20 years—that is us playing our part.
Duncan Hames (Chippenham) (LD): The allegations
of price rigging that are being investigated by the European
Commission directorate-general for competition stretch
over nearly a decade—they go back over years under
the Secretary of State’s Government and over even
more years under the previous one. At 8p a litre on the
price of fuel, the scale of the price distortions is potentially
vast. Given the scale of the impact on consumers’
expenditure and on our economies, how can fines
compensate consumers in Britain and on the continent?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend is right to ask that question,
but I remind him and the House that we are talking
about allegations, and that we are at the early stage of
investigations. It is important that people remember
that.
One benefit of the investigations by our independent
competition authorities is that we can try to ensure that
our markets work more effectively. If manipulation is
proved, and if it is proved that the manipulation led to
higher prices, we could see lower prices, which would be
welcomed by many outside the House.
Barry Gardiner (Brent North) (Lab): In January, the
OFT did not find no evidence; it found evidence of
price fixing, albeit limited evidence. At that time, did
the Secretary of State ask what the evidence was? If so,
what consideration did he give it, and what actions did
he recommend as result?
Mr Davey: I have not seen that specific evidence, but I
know that it was very small and that the OFT felt that
the evidence was unable to lead it to a further investigation.
However, it was clear that the OFT announced a call for
information—the Government supported that. The OFT
wants people to bring forward information, which is
exactly what they should do.
Jason McCartney (Colne Valley) (Con): Commuters
from my constituency to Leeds, Manchester and beyond
who have been suffering the nightmare of the M62
roadworks will welcome the fact that fuel duty is 13p per
litre lower under this Government than it would have
been under the previous one. However, I echo the
suggestion that fines, if they are levied on oil companies
found guilty of price fixing, should be passed on to
consumers and hard-pressed commuters.
Mr Davey: I believe that the law does not currently
allow fines levied by the European Commission to be
passed on directly to consumers, but consumers will
benefit from any lower prices that result from freer and
fairer markets, which Government Members are determined
to see.
Paul Flynn (Newport West) (Lab): What is the Secretary
of State doing to prevent another rip-off by Électricité
de France, which has an atrocious record in cost overruns
and delays, and which demands a 40-year guarantee of
twice the current price for building Hinkley Point, at a
time when abundant sources of energy are being discovered
throughout the world? Will he guarantee that the House
debates that before a deal is done with EDF?
Mr Davey: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on
getting the subject of nuclear power into this statement.
Some of the tests in our negotiations with EDF on a
contract for difference in relation to the proposed nuclear
reactor at Hinkley Point C are to ensure that we get
value for money and that the proposal is affordable.
Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): While the
European Commission’s involvement is welcome, will
my right hon. Friend outline what more UK authorities,
such as the Competition Commission and the OFT, can
do to ensure that fuel duty cuts made by the Government
end up in the pockets of motorists rather than in the
coffers of oil companies?
Mr Davey: My hon. Friend makes a good point. UK
authorities are working extremely closely with European
competition authorities. Indeed, they accompanied them
on their raids of various companies’ offices. They are
active in this investigation, and I hope he takes reassurance
from that.
Dr William McCrea (South Antrim) (DUP): The
Minister constantly congratulates his Government on
keeping the price of petrol down. Why then, when I
travel to America, do I find that consumers there pay
half the price for their fuel than we pay in the United
Kingdom? Why is the price of fuel in the Irish Republic
10p less than it is over the border in Northern Ireland?
Mr Davey: The difference in the tax levied in the
United States on petrol and diesel might be one of
the main explanations. I have not made a study on the
difference in price between Northern Ireland and
the Republic of Ireland either, but that might also have
something to do with duty differentials.
Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): My constituents
will be very concerned about the price-fixing allegations
and will want the oil company executives, if found
guilty, to go to prison. Today’s findings have come
about as a result of unannounced inspections by the
European Commission. To what extent does the Secretary
of State believe that the OFT, Ofgem and the Financial
Services Authority are undertaking unannounced
inspections in their inquiries? If they are not, should
they not be encouraged to do so?