Fuel Duty
Private Members’ Business
3:00 pm
Debate resumed on amendment to motion:
That this Assembly condemns the forthcoming 3p rise in the cost of fuel; notes that our people pay some of the highest fuel costs in Europe; and calls on the Executive to start negotiations with the British Government regarding the devolution of powers on fuel duty. — [Mr McKay.]
Which amendment was:
Leave out all after “Europe;” and insert
“and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to halt their planned fuel duty increase and, due to Northern Ireland’s peripherality within the United Kingdom, to devise and implement a scheme for Northern Ireland similar to the rural fuel duty relief scheme which was recently introduced for the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, the Islands of the Clyde and the Isles of Scilly.” — [Mr Hamilton.]
Sandra Overend (UUP)
: I beg to move amendment No 2: Leave out all after “Europe;” and insert
“recognises the potentially significant cost to the block grant of devolving fuel duty; and calls on the Executive to lobby Her Majesty’s Government to take action to address high fuel prices in Northern Ireland.”
I thank the Members who tabled today’s motion, as it gives the House a good opportunity to debate what is a very important and topical issue. However, at the outset, I will say that the Ulster Unionist Party will not be supporting the motion as tabled by Sinn Féin; instead, we propose amendment No 2, which recognises the significant cost of devolving fuel duty and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to take action to address high fuel prices in Northern Ireland.
The current price of fuel in Northern Ireland is a particular worry for individuals and businesses right across the Province. The latest fuel price report from the AA, produced as recently as last Friday, stated that the average UK petrol price has risen to a new high of 142·48p a litre. Although that is concerning in itself, the fact is that prices in Northern Ireland are even higher, with motorists here paying about 1·5p more than the national average. The recent price rise is, of course, linked to panic buying at forecourts across the mainland last month. As an aside, I am concerned that the Minister affirmed during Question Time that the Department has no contingency plan in place should a similar scenario occur in Northern Ireland.
It is not just petrol prices that are high. Aside from south-east England, Northern Ireland also has the highest diesel prices, at 148·2p a litre, which is also above the national average. It is not just within the United Kingdom that Northern Ireland’s fuel prices are disproportionately high; they are also high compared with those in the rest of Europe. Given that the UK has the seventh highest petrol prices in Europe and the second highest diesel prices, Northern Ireland has among the highest prices in the whole of Europe, as the motion suggests.
The statistics give us a sense of the seriousness of the situation we are facing. Therefore, the proposed increase of 3p in August will worsen what is already a bad situation. At the outset I mentioned the particular worry that that brings for individuals and businesses, at a time when many families are already finding it hard to get by. It is becoming increasingly difficult to afford to run a car, and the cost of fuel in general accounts for a major part of a household’s expenditure.
As regards businesses, fuel prices are driving up transport and haulage costs, and our private sector businesses are suffering as a result. The uncertainty surrounding prices also makes it hard for businesses to plan for the future. I accept that the volatile price of oil is not something that can be cured by the House or in Westminster. However, high fuel prices are obviously detrimental to the Executive’s aim of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy and ending our well-publicised overreliance on the public sector.
We must also take particular account of the fact that rural areas suffer more. I know that only too well from my own constituency of Mid Ulster, where I hear weekly from local businesses and people who find it difficult to cope with fuel prices at their current level. As with other issues, such as youth unemployment, it is an unfortunate fact that rural areas are often hit harder. Due to the increased transport costs that are associated with being so dependent on cars to travel, the price of fuel has a major effect on those who live and trade in rural communities. Indeed, the DUP amendment highlights the rural fuel duty relief that is provided in Scotland for exactly those reasons.
The issue of fuel laundering should also be touched on in the debate. We have a particular problem in some areas of Northern Ireland. Fuel laundering undoubtedly plays a part in driving up the price of fuel. I know that that is an issue for the Minister of Justice and the PSNI. Although I would never condone any criminal activity, high fuel prices lead to more fuel laundering, which, in turn, drives prices up.
We have debated fuel fraud in the House previously. We are all aware of the extent of that problem. Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs estimated that, in 2009-2010, the revenue that was lost to fuel fraud was in the region of £70 million. As well as that, convictions for that particular crime are relatively low. Performance statistics that HMRC and the Minister of Justice provided show that between 2001 and 2009 there were only 47 prosecutions for fuel fraud in Northern Ireland. We must work to alleviate the factors that lead to fuel fraud. That will have a positive effect on fuel prices.
In the light of what I said, the Ulster Unionist Party has no problem with the part of the Sinn Féin motion that sets out that fuel prices in Northern Ireland are high. We also have no issue with condemning the 3p rise —
Sandra Overend (UUP)
: I will in a wee second.
We also have no problem with condemning the 3p rise in the cost of fuel that was outlined in the recent Budget that the Chancellor brought forward. Indeed, my colleague Danny Kennedy spoke out against that increase when the Budget was announced. We cannot, however, support the start of negotiations to devolve fuel duty. That would come at a significant cost to the block grant. In February this year, the Finance Minister outlined that the fuel duty that is collected in Northern Ireland amounts to around £900 million per annum. As my colleague Leslie Cree will outline in more detail when he speaks, we are already working to devolve corporation tax to Northern Ireland. The cost of devolving both would have significant effects on funding for other areas, such as health and education.
Does the Member still want me to give way?
: Yes, indeed. I am grateful to the Member for giving way. One reason that fuel fraud exists is the differential in fuel prices, particularly for diesel, between the North and the South. Does the Member agree that one way to address that would be to try to harmonise duty on diesel, and, indeed, petrol, between the North and the South so that that would at least act as a disincentive to those who launder fuel?
Sandra Overend (UUP)
: I thank the Member for his comments. Although I am not saying that fuel duty powers should be devolved, I think that the Government at Westminster need to look at the different areas in the United Kingdom.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
: Does the Member accept that, if that that movement occurred, difficulties could arise with fuel laundering and smuggling between Northern Ireland and the UK? The problem of dye being stripped from diesel would remain. That is a major problem in which fraudsters are involved. Undoubtedly, if the Republic were to increase its fuel prices in line with those of the UK, that would also get rid of the other issue.
Sandra Overend (UUP)
: That is a very good point. Thank you very much, Roy.
The Ulster Unionist Party considers the SDLP amendment to be unrealistic, because it seeks to set up a commission with a view to devolving all fiscal powers to Northern Ireland. I want to make two points on that. First, the last thing that we need is another commission. We should seek to deliver efficiencies by rationalising existing commissions and quangos. My party has committed to bringing those efficiencies into government. Secondly, cost is, again, an overriding factor. I will be interested to hear how the SDLP proposes that its amendment will work to Northern Ireland’s economic advantage.
My party believes that our amendment is pragmatic. It addresses specifically the main issue that we have with the Sinn Féin motion.
Sandra Overend (UUP)
: I think that I will just keep moving on. Thank you.
We believe that our amendment is pragmatic and that it addresses specifically the main issue that we have with the Sinn Féin motion, which is the huge cost that the devolution of fuel duty and subsequent lowering of tax would have on the block grant.
Our Executive must lobby Her Majesty’s Government to bring about an equitable resolution for the people of Northern Ireland.
: I beg to move amendment No 3: Leave out all after “regarding the” and insert: “establishment of a commission to assess the devolution of further fiscal powers, such as fuel duty, which would enable the Assembly to serve the people of Northern Ireland better.”
Éirím le leasú uimhir a trí a mholadh. Before I continue, I will respond to some of the points made by Mrs Overend. She suggested that we were proposing the establishment of a quango. A commission is not a quango; it exists for a short period to deal with one particular issue, as was the case with the Calman commission in Scotland.
The SDLP has been highlighting the issue of high fuel costs for a long time at Westminster. I pay tribute to the work done there by my colleague Margaret Ritchie, the MP for South Down, who has been campaigning long and hard on this subject. The issue of fuel costs should not be seen in isolation, but should be viewed as part of a process of rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy. Short-term action may be useful in staving off the immediate effect of a particular escalation, but it is much better to look at things in a more holistic and strategic way to obtain a wider set of levers that would give us more control and help us to shape our own economic future.
We all agree that we have few enough tools in our economic toolkit and that we need more, so I believe that we should seek them. The original motion confines us to seeking one particular lever. Amendment No 1 confines us to a single scheme, and amendment No 2 does not even go that distance; it is all too vague in its import. The SDLP amendment does not preclude short-term action, but it places the issue in the wider, more strategic context of rebalancing the economy around this issue and others, which might include landfill tax, vehicle tax, enterprise zones, Crown Estate assets and winter fuel payments. That is not an exhaustive list. That is why I ask the House to take a wider view and support the SDLP amendment.
There has always been some controversy in the House when tax-varying powers are mentioned. The issue of cost obviously comes to the fore, and the question is whether the acquisition of a certain power would be a cost or a benefit to Northern Ireland. Indeed, many of these issues are complicated, and, in some cases, it is difficult to answer with accuracy, as was found with corporation tax. People are understandably wary that costs may outweigh the benefits, but rather than constantly reverting automatically to the default position, I believe that we should seek to explore what may be available to us on a cost/benefit basis.
I was going to say that the Minister of Finance and Personnel will, no doubt, rise to his feet, do a merry dance and berate us, but he is not in his seat today. We have the heir apparent here, although his succession is not always that apparent. In any case, on the question of the transfer of corporation tax powers, we have seen the wide variance in the estimates of costs and benefits between the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) and the Treasury. Although work is ongoing on reconciling these estimates, the variance illustrates some of the difficulties involved. I congratulate the Minister on taking up the SDLP’s suggestion to bring in external experts to assist DFP in its negotiations with the Treasury, and I am glad to hear that progress is being made.
As I said, rather than treat each potential tax-varying issue singly, the SDLP believes that we should look at the situation in the round through an inquiry into all the possibilities open to us and the potential impact of each. The issue of fuel duty is most pressing at the moment, and I am not suggesting for one minute that it should be kicked into touch.
Recently, public transport fares have increased, and we hear today that Translink is under huge financial pressure —
: Thank you very much, Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker. Those financial pressures on Translink are largely due to escalating fuels costs. As we have heard, petrol prices have reached astronomical proportions, with prices as high as 144p a litre being reported. We are now said to have the sixth highest price in the world, higher than anywhere else on these islands or in Europe. It is estimated that it now costs over £70 to fill the average family car tank, and, as the Minister and Members know, that is not an insignificant cost for the vast majority of people at a time when they are already suffering, with welfare reforms coming down the line and the cost of motor insurance being much higher here than in other areas. This is a particular problem in rural areas compared with other areas.
The average family sends around £700 a year to the Treasury just to cover fuel duty. The high cost of fuel is particularly problematic for the poorest in society, for whom such an amount represents a significant portion of income and for whom the use of the car is most important for their remaining economically active. There is not only a discrepancy between regions but within them, with rural areas here suffering particularly high prices.
As I said, we cannot separate this problem from the issue of investment in public transport services. Historically, we have received the lowest spend per capita on transport infrastructure, leaving the car as king and often the only viable choice.
Alastair Ross (DUP)
: I thank the Member for giving way. He rightly says that families are struggling in the current economic climate, but he offers up devolving fuel duty as some sort of panacea for all these problems. Will he not accept that, if we are to get fuel duty devolved to the Assembly, there will be a significant cost to the Executive and that that means less spend for the very things that he has just laid out, such as public transport?
: I thank the Member for his intervention. I am afraid that he is wrong in insinuating that I am offering a reduction in fuel duty as a panacea. I do not think that I have said that anywhere in my speech. What I have said is that we should set up a commission to examine all the possible levers available to us and to examine them on a cost-benefit basis. That is exactly what I have said, and I do not think that that is suggesting that one lever rather than another is a panacea.
To get back to the transport issue, people have no option but to get into their cars. Those who are priced out of the market by high fuel prices are often left economically and socially isolated. Indeed, there seems to be little joined-up thinking on a North/South basis regarding the fuel duty regime to avoid striking disparities, particularly around the border. This problem distorts the local market for fuel and leaves local retailers and consumers at a marked disadvantage. As other Members have said, it also encourages fuel smuggling and fuel laundering.
These problems are faced not only by people and by families but our businesses. As we know, oil is the blood that drives the heart of industry and commerce, and, when oil prices are high, costs soar, which weakens competiveness and, in turn, threatens jobs. We hear the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland and Treasury Ministers talk about rebalancing and growing the Northern Ireland economy. This seems to be rhetoric in search of a policy at the minute. One of the main things holding back business growth in Northern Ireland is the punitive price of fuel. Action here would be an ideal way for the Treasury to demonstrate its commitment to growing the Northern Ireland economy.
In conclusion, short-term action is useful, but it will only really be a stopgap and will not address the underlying issues in our economy. That is why I ask the House to support a holistic and strategic approach to our problems and to do so by supporting the SDLP amendment.
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
: I thank Mr McKay and his colleagues for bringing the motion to the House today, even though we will not support it. It has given us an opportunity to discuss the matter at least.
I remember not so long ago when people were fearful of the £5 gallon. I am going back to old money here. For the record, at the moment, based on a price of £1·50 a litre, a gallon of diesel would cost just under £7. That is where we are with this at the moment. It is a serious situation. Somebody said that £70 is an average fill for a car. I do not drive a very big car, but I can get more into it than that at the moment.
I confirm that my party will oppose the motion, and I acknowledge Mr McKay’s belief that a 5p reduction could be sufficiently benifical to the Northern Ireland economy to make the measure cost-effective. However, I do not accept that that is the case. Mr Hamilton said earlier that it could cost close to £100 million to test such a measure. It is not feasible to do that. The whole principle of the devolution of tax-varying powers to the Northern Ireland Executive has been the subject of much discussion, principally around corporation tax. A little bit of time has been spent on air passenger duty, and, probably because of the relatively small amount involved in one long-haul connection, that has been able to be sorted out and has been solved fairly quickly. However, when we start to talk about serious money, as evidenced in the argument on corporation tax, it becomes much more difficult, and the length of time that that is taking, because the stakes are so high and the consequences of getting it wrong are so serious, is an indication of how difficult it would be to undertake the same exercise on fuel duty.
Amendment No 3, the SDLP’s amendment, makes more sense to us, and we could support the call for a commission to assess the viability of the devolution of fiscal powers in general across the board. Indeed, if we get to the point of voting on that amendment, we will support it. However, that suggestion is perhaps aimed at the longer term, and it does not address the immediate, serious problem that the high cost of fuel is now having a noticeable effect on the lives of people in Northern Ireland.
: The Member said that the SDLP amendment does not address the immediate problem, but neither does it preclude action on the immediate problem. I made that point several times during my speech.
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
: Mr Bradley did indeed make that point, but I am going on what the amendment says, not what it might have said. It proposes a commission to look at the problem of the devolution of fiscal powers generally, and we would support that.
All this is now having a noticeable effect on the lives of people in Northern Ireland, through transport costs, commercial activity and day-to-day usage of cars, which we rely on here, and public transport.
Amendment No 2, tabled by the Ulster Unionists, is more immediate. Indeed, the amendments seem to get more sensible and agreeable the closer we get to the top of the page. We agree that the Executive should lobby Her Majesty’s Government to take action. Indeed, frankly, I would be very surprised if that has not already happened, but I am not in a position to tell.
The preferred amendment to us is the DUP one, which points to the extension of a scheme that is already in place for reasons that could, at a stretch, be justified in Northern Ireland. It happens to give the same concession of 5p a litre. The peripherality — lovely word — and the rural nature of much of Northern Ireland are valid reasons for special relief, and I hope that the Assembly will vote amendment No 1 through and that the Westminster Government will take it seriously.
Trevor Lunn (Alliance)
: I am getting a bit tight here, thanks.
At Westminster, Margaret Ritchie is not the only one who has been pursuing the matter. Naomi Long, in her response to the Budget, also registered her dissatisfaction that no recognition was given to higher fuel costs over here and to our greater dependence on the private car, which exacerbates the problem.
As I said at the start, we are in a new area here. The £1·50 litre has arrived, and it will not stop there. The cost of crude oil will continue to rise.
That leaves the only significant variable in that equation as the amount that the Exchequer takes for each litre and gallon of fuel that is used. The only way to make a significant and immediate difference is to get the Exchequer to take a smaller take, to recognise the particular problems that we have over here and, in the terms of the DUP amendment, to make us a special case once again. At least there is a precedent for it. The islands off the Scottish coast or on the Clyde might be pretty small, but the situation is the same. It costs more to produce the fuel and bring it to the pump in those places, just as it does here, particularly in our rural areas.
I hope that the House will support the DUP amendment on this occasion. If it does not, we will support either of the other two amendments, but not the motion.
William Irwin (DUP)
: I welcome the opportunity to comment in this debate on a growing issue for everyone in Northern Ireland. The price of fuel in Northern Ireland continues to rise and to put a heavy strain on not only drivers but our businesses and industries that rely heavily on transport. A report from the AA this week states that it costs more to fill up a car with fuel than the average two-child family spends on groceries in a week. That is a startling reality, and it shows just how serious the situation is getting. The amendment set out by my colleagues focuses attention on what is within the powers of Westminster as regards fuel duty and draws attention to the relief scheme operating in more rural areas of the UK. It would be excellent to see a similar scheme in operation here in Northern Ireland, given the significant price differences that exist here.
As someone who comes from a farming and rural background and who represents a constituency that is largely rural, I can certainly say that travel and transport costs are significant across all sectors. Many who live in rural areas and travel to work are under enormous pressure in terms of fuel costs, and we all know that driving for miles on rural roads requires a greater amount of fuel than driving on motorways or A-class roads. Many of my constituents drive to larger towns and then opt to use public transport to travel to work because they feel that that saves money and avoids serious wear and tear on their vehicles. However, after Minister Kennedy’s announcement last week, we now have the added expense of higher public transport costs and higher car parking costs for those who choose to use public transport. It is quickly becoming a no-win situation for commuters.
Turning to the farming industry, and speaking as somebody who is involved in the industry, I know that fuel prices are becoming a massive issue for the industry in general. Fuel price rises affect everyone involved in the agricultural sector, from the farm gate to the supermarket shelf, and it is staggering just how much of an impact fuel costs have on margins within the industry. Farmers and the wider agricultural industry have deep concerns that, as we head into harvest season this year, fuel prices will be at a record high, with no signs of stability or reduction. In the harvest season, as you know, farmers have lots of heavy machinery out in the fields and on the roads, and it is staggering just how much fuel that work uses. The costs must be met upfront by the farmer.
Stiff competition among the major food retailers and large supermarkets mean that those rising fuel costs cannot simply be offset by asking for more for the product, as we know that the farmer has no control over the pricing. The farmer is left to pick up the tab for any rise in fuel and production costs.
Another sector that feels every penny rise acutely is the haulage industry. Only a few weeks ago, a well known haulier in the Newry and Armagh constituency had to close its doors after 40 years in the business. That came as a great shock to the workers and the industry generally. The high cost of fuel is the major issue facing our hauliers at this time, and it is getting more and more difficult to make haulage pay. Competition is fierce in the industry, and operators really have their backs against the wall in trying to find work and keep contracts. It is now more important than ever to ensure that some meaningful solution is found to help offset the mounting cost of motoring and transportation within Northern Ireland.
I fully support the Assembly in making approaches to Westminster to discuss this matter and to work towards ensuring that Northern Ireland is no longer burdened with such significant cost differences. I support the amendment in the name of my party colleagues.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin)
: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I support the motion and welcome the opportunity to contribute to the debate. I am a bit disconcerted that we will not have a ministerial response to today’s debate. I was here from the outset of the debate, and I am not sure whether we received an explanation of why the Minister of Finance has chosen not to attend. I hope that it is something that the Speaker can address. A debate on fiscal powers in the Assembly, with all the participants and the amendments, is an indicator of the interest in the issue. The fact that the Minister who has responsibility for some of those fiscal powers is not here to respond on behalf of the Executive undermines and undervalues the debate somewhat. I hope that an explanation of why we did not manage to secure a ministerial response to today’s debate will come through the Speaker’s office.
The debate and the amendments show the level of interest that there is in the issue of fuel duty and costs. Even though there are differences in the debate, there is a broad range of acceptance of the nature of the problems that we confront in relation to fuel duties. The spiralling costs have put us at the top of the European leader board when it comes to fuel prices. There is a general condemnation, or certainly lack of acceptance, of the fact that the British Government intend to put another 3p on to the price of fuel later this year. Mrs Overend, on behalf of the UUP, accepted that those issues and the rising cost of fuel are damaging business and the rural way of life and are making it difficult even for the Executive to achieve Programme for Government targets in relation to rebalancing the economy. It has a very serious impact right across our economy. The question is what to do about it, and that is where the disagreement arises.
I am disappointed with the number of amendments. The DUP’s argument appears to be that we could have the power among a range of other fiscal levers, which we could balance against one another and decide how to deploy in the interests of our economy. However, its preference is not to take the power on behalf of the people who elect us and hold us accountable; it is simply to lobby the Treasury. Mr Hamilton, speaking to his amendment, was not optimistic about the outcome of any such lobbying. The DUP amendment suggests that we should deploy this on the basis of a scheme that was given to the islands. When people talked about going for the same reduction in air passenger duty that applies to the highlands and islands, the Department of Finance and Personnel (DFP) accepted that that was not possible; Treasury ruled that out. However, Mr Hamilton’s amendment seems to send us down the same route of exemption in relation to fuel duty. I am not surprised that he is not optimistic about the outcome of any such argument to the Treasury, given that the previous one about air passenger duty, according to DFP, failed. I will give way.
Simon Hamilton (DUP)
: I will give the Member the opportunity to answer the question that his colleague to his left has abjectly failed to answer during the debate. The Member has just said that he would take a range of measures and balance them off against one another. What other taxes would the Member wish to devolve to the Northern Ireland Assembly, and, more importantly, which ones would he want to put up to achieve the balance that he mentioned?
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin)
: My party position has always been quite clear: we wish to devolve the entire range of fiscal measures to the Assembly.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin)
: I am quite happy to put up wealth taxes and introduce a range of duties that would balance them off. The logic of the DUP defies the logic of its approach to corporation tax, where it can envisage a cost to the block grant that will have a greater economic benefit, but only on that issue alone. If that logic applies to corporation tax, surely it should apply to a range of other fiscal measures that could have benefits to the economy and benefits in revenue that that would create for the Executive against the cost of deploying the measures. We have rates and other smaller fiscal measures available to the Assembly, and we decide how to deploy those as we see fit.
Conor Murphy (Sinn Féin)
: I am sorry; I am running short of time. The UUP amendment proposes less than that; simply to knock on the door and hope for the best. Our MPs who sit in Westminster say that they are lobbying hard on this issue, but they actually produce very little.
The SDLP amendment is interesting, and whatever means we can deploy to look at the full range of fiscal powers that are available would be useful. It is somewhat surprising that the SDLP has decided to attach that argument as an amendment to this motion. Perhaps it should have put forward the idea of establishing a commission to look at the broad range of the issues when we were dealing with the Programme for Government or debating rebalancing the economy, rather than tagging it on as an amendment to a single issue like fuel duty. Nonetheless, I think that the idea is worthy of support and that we should find ways and means of looking at the broad range of fiscal powers.
Other than that, Members are content to be a glorified county council, simply administrating whatever moneys are given to us with all the strictures that are applied by the Treasury. Do we not want to deploy the full range of powers that are available to us in the interests of the people to whom we are accountable, whom we represent and who come to us to provide some sort of difference to them in the issues and struggles that they face in their everyday lives? The answer from the opposite side of the Chamber appears to be “Don’t call us, call the Treasury, and we will do our best.”
David McIlveen (DUP)
: I welcome the opportunity to speak in the debate. It is clear from the various contributions that there is a great deal of disagreement on how we approach the issue. However, it is important that we look at the issues on which we are agreed, as there are some issues that unite the House. We all agree that the cost of fuel in Northern Ireland is too expensive. In February, during a debate in Westminster, my colleague Ian Paisley Junior said: “the little piece of water between the mainland and Northern Ireland … is the most expensive stretch of water in these islands”.
I think that there is a lot in that.
We all agree that businesses that rely on fuel are being put under severe pressure. One of my good friends has a medium-sized business, and it costs him £80,000 a month just to keep his vehicles on the road. That is not sustainable. We also accept that the price of fuel is causing a lot of pressure for individuals and families, and we have seen a 20% rise at the fuel pump over the past few years. We are agreed that a further 3% rise on top of what we have had to endure is a bad thing. We can all agree on those issues.
What we cannot agree on, however, is how we will get there. Whether we like it or not, or deny it or not, when we devolve fiscal powers to the Assembly, it costs us money. My accountant has a saying, and, when he relates it to me, it usually does not mean good news. That saying is “You can’t saw sawdust.” If you think about it, that is exactly where we are when it comes to the block grant that we receive from the Treasury.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: Does the Member agree that, although there has been some work done on the cost of the transfer of corporation tax, there has not been any work done on other taxation powers being devolved to the Assembly? As no figures have been given, we do not know what the cost benefit will be.
David McIlveen (DUP)
: I thank the Member for her intervention. Mr Hamilton dealt with that point in his contribution. I will not go over it again, but exact costs have been calculated and attributed. I encourage the Member to read the Hansard report when it is available. I will also deal with the issue of corporation tax in a moment.
Again, I ask the Members who tabled the motion where the money will come from. I am sure that there will be another contribution from a Sinn Féin Member, and I ask that Member to please give us the answer. Sinn Féin has Ministers who, I am sure, will be willing to step up to the mark and surrender the money to pay for it. Do we take it out of Agriculture, DCAL or Education? It has to come from somewhere.
Alastair Ross (DUP)
: Does the Member share my concern that not only has Sinn Féin not said where the money will come from but, in her intervention, the Sinn Féin Member from West Belfast did not even know how much it would cost? Is that not the height of irresponsibility? Sinn Féin has tabled a motion, and its Members do not know how much it will cost us.
David McIlveen (DUP)
: I thank the Member for his intervention, and I will let Members from Sinn Féin defend themselves.
The Member for North Antrim who tabled the motion asked why we could not treat fuel duty in the same way as corporation tax. The very simple answer is that they are two completely different types of taxation. When we try to sell Northern Ireland plc to companies around the world, I admit that we can demonstrate that our education system and skill set are much superior to those in the Republic of Ireland.
However, we cannot compete with a 10% lower tax rate. There is no alternative for us when we are going to sell Northern Ireland plc around the world but to bring in something to incentivise companies to invest in Northern Ireland. That means that there is no alternative other than this issue of corporation tax. That is why we are fighting so hard to get it. Incidentally, there has been brought support for that, apart from, I think, one Member.
Fuel duty is different. When we speak out against something, we are always asked what the alternative is. We have presented the alternative here in black and white. There is a system in place —
David McIlveen (DUP)
: I am running out of time. There is a system in place. It is regarded as being generally successful in the other parts of this island. That alternative is there and we can draw on that. It is not a matter of just knocking on the door and hoping for the best, as was insinuated. This is something that is happening in other parts of the United Kingdom, so why can it not happen here? It is a very strong and forceful argument that we can make.
Our amendment is fair. We are asking for something that can be delivered. Although what is asked for in the original motion may be worth considering if we lived in an ideal world with infinite resources, we do not live in such a world. We have to accept that the motion is unrealistic. Therefore, I will be opposing it but, of course, supporting our amendment.
Leslie Cree (UUP)
: Many Members have outlined the differentials in fuel prices between Northern Ireland and the rest of Europe. I will resist the temptation to rehearse those figures. Suffice to say it is clear that fuel prices in Northern Ireland are higher, and much higher in some circumstances, than in many countries in the rest of Europe. The figures are clear in that respect.
With growing levels of fuel, pensioner and child poverty, it is certainly not an ideal scenario for Northern Ireland to be in. High fuel prices are also bad for business as they push up their costs. That is counterproductive for our economy, which is, of course, the Executive’s number one priority.
I want to deal in some detail with the issue of devolving fuel duty to Northern Ireland, which is the proposal put to us by Sinn Féin. First, we must consider the cost of such a move in line with the Azores ruling. The Azores ruling by the European Court of Justice means that regional differences in direct taxation must satisfy fiscal autonomy. That means that Northern Ireland’s block grant would have to be adjusted to reflect the cost of a reduction in fuel duty. We must ask whether Northern Ireland would be best served by a reduction of the block grant in this scenario.
Secondly, we must look at the cost of administering that tax. I do not think that has been referred to today. Currently, Westminster bears all the costs of collection and administration in respect of that tax, given that it is an excepted matter. If we were to devolve that tax, the Executive would have to foot that bill. Has Sinn Féin got a figure for what that cost would be? Probably not.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: Going back to 2008, does the Member remember the huge hike in electricity and gas prices? Just the increase and that hike cost £40 million. That £40 million over a short time went directly into the British Treasury instead of going into the Executive here. Does the Member not think that it would have been better going into the Executive so they could have put that money back into services that were needed here?
Leslie Cree (UUP)
: I thank the Member for that interjection, but the money did not go to the Treasury.
Thirdly, it is important that we are able to plan our public expenditure in a strategic, long-term manner. The income generated from fuel duty is not constant from one year to the next. Therefore, it is different from the block grant, which has been outlined over the four-year cycle, and which we are currently in, and, as such, allows us to plan accordingly.
We are, of course, in the process of working towards the devolution of corporation tax to Northern Ireland, and many Members referred to that. The joint ministerial working group on rebalancing the Northern Ireland economy is considering the cost to the block grant, and estimations so far range from £225 million to £400 million.
Corporation tax is an issue that the Ulster Unionist Party has lobbied extensively on. We support its devolution as we are convinced of the economic benefits it can bring by growing the private sector. However, we do not support it as a basis for opening the floodgates for the devolution of all fiscal powers, such as fuel duty, as that simply does not make economic sense.
The cost to our block grant would be too severe to take the measures in the motion forward, and it is for that same reason that we have argued that the devolution of corporation tax powers should be phased in as foreign direct investment increases and our gross value added also increases. That is the big difference. The motion departs from that measured approach.
Lastly, it is useful to look at the current government policy on fuel duty. The fair fuel stabiliser was announced in the Budget of 2011 and replaced the fuel duty escalator. At the same time, the Chancellor postponed the planned annual inflation-linked RPI part of the duty rise from April 2011 to January 2012 and from April 2012 to August 2012.
The fair fuel stabiliser annually increases fuel duty by the rate of the retail price index when the price of oil is above a certain trigger level. That trigger level is $75, which is approximately £45 according to OBR estimates. Should the price of oil be below the level of that trigger, the annual increase in fuel duty will be by the rate of RPI plus 1p per litre. The decrease in fuel duty, at times when oil is above the trigger level, is to be funded by higher taxation on the profits of the oil and gas companies.
By contrast, the fuel duty escalator annually increased fuel duty by RPI plus 1p per litre, irrespective of the price of oil. Therefore, the coalition Government have made some attempt to deal with this issue. However, my party contends that they have not gone far enough. It is for that reason that I support my party’s amendment.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I am glad of the opportunity to speak in this debate. I apologise for missing the beginning of the debate.
As many people have already said, maybe the one thing that we will agree on today is that the soaring fuel prices are causing greater financial difficulties to families. That is the important issue that we need to be debating.
The average cost of petrol is approximately 143·9p per litre and the average cost of diesel is 148·2p per litre. When you add that up, it costs £4·29 more today to fill a petrol car and £6·60 to fill a diesel car than it did this time last year. That is very worrying for families, motorists and businesses.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
: Does the Member accept that reducing the tax will impact on the Northern Ireland block grant? The only thing I have heard her colleagues talk about is Northern Ireland rates. If rates go up, that will affect homeowners and those who are renting because landlords will put up rates. Rates were mentioned earlier. How are you going to plug the £100 million gap created by reducing the price of a litre of fuel by 5p?
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: I am going to come on to taxation in a minute: I have only started. The issue of raising taxes is a red herring that you are throwing out. I go back to my point earlier: £40 million of tax revenue was raised by the electricity and gas hikes in 2008, which happened over a short period, and we did not see a penny of that here.
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
: The rate we were referring to earlier in the debate was the fuel duty rate. The fact of the matter is that the British Government have responsibility for that, and they have failed entirely to be innovative with that when it comes to our local economy. They are setting the rates in the interests of the economy on the island of Britain, not here. If we can be innovative and take into account the fact that there are two rates on this island, maybe we can reduce the rate. By doing that, fewer people will go elsewhere on the island for fuel, which means that there will be more revenue for the Executive, which will make ends meet.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: I thank the Member for his intervention.
Due to the rural nature of the North of Ireland, there is an even worse impact here. Public transport infrastructure here is so underdeveloped that people depend on their cars. Regional variations in prices, particularly at the large supermarkets, mean that people can pay up to 5p more on a litre of petrol or diesel.
It is important to remember that this does not just have an effect on your finances; it also has an effect on accessing work, going to the shops and getting children to school. It affects all the social aspects of your life. It is very important that, when we speak about it, we remember we are talking about real people’s lives. It might not always seem like that when we listen to some of the debate.
A number of reasons are cited for the rising fuel prices. One of those is the speculative practices of those playing the stock markets. We also have talk about the unrest in the Arab world and the price of crude oil. However, the main component in the price of petrol and diesel at the pumps is taxation: that is the reality. The rise in VAT from 17·5% to 20% on the pump price has had an even more adverse effect. The British Government’s tax take is 58·5p of every pound that you spend on petrol and 56·5p of every pound you spend on diesel. Therefore, it is about 60% of the overall price.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: I am not giving way any more.
The fact that the British Chancellor is set to raise that again in August by 3p beggars belief. When we talk about tax-varying powers in the Assembly, the red herring is always thrown in about its effect on the block grant. What I really meant earlier is that there has been no clear study on what effect it has on the block grant. We cannot just keep throwing out the line, “What about the adverse effect on the block grant?” We need to reflect the particular needs of the people here in the North of Ireland. Any tax derived from the rising cost of fuel needs to come back to the Executive here to be redistributed to people here and into services here and not, as I said, to the British Treasury. Some Members corrected me on that, but it does go to the British Treasury and into what they feel is important in their place.
We have all been part of the debate on the transfer of corporation tax and the particular circumstances of the North in relation to that. We had the motion in the Assembly and debates on it. We have also talked about other taxes, such as the aggregates levy in the Committee for Finance and Personnel.
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: As my colleague said, we need to be responsible legislators here. However, as someone else said, we also need to have all the tools —
Jennifer McCann (Sinn Féin)
: — at our disposal for the people here and to address the particular circumstances that affect the people in the North of Ireland.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
: It has to be common cause that fuel prices are horrendous. All Members in the Chamber know that. If we know that, how much more do those who are in far more straitened circumstances than any Assembly Member will ever be know it? It is truly hurting all our constituents very deeply. It is hurting them not just in the price that they pay at the pumps but in the price that they pay at the supermarket till, because everything that they buy is transported. Therefore, it cuts across the entire cost of living with the most horrendous effects. There can be no dispute or doubt about that.
The motion identifies that in the first clause, but then departs into a land of fantasy and the fantasy economics of Sinn Féin. There is the amazing suggestion, “Oh, we might be a region that is dependent on the United Kingdom for subvention. Oh, we may be a region that raises less in tax than we spend. Nonetheless, give us tax-raising powers on this and everything else that we can think of.” They say that without ever bothering to ask the question, “How we will pay for what we spend?”
The inevitable consequence of the lunacy of Sinn Féin’s position is that you move as a region that is dependent on subvention to one that collects all its own taxes and raises all its own money, and then you wonder where you will get the money to pay for welfare, for the various subventions right across the community, and to pay the £16 billion. Where will we find it? The attitude of Sinn Féin is never worry, because, in fantasy land, such things are not a bother. In fact, according to the previous Member to speak, they are a red herring. I am afraid that, far from being a red herring, they are a reality. Regions that spend more than they raise should be very careful what they wish for.
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
: In respect of the block grant, fuel duty revenue is apportioned according to its share of consumption. Therefore, if fuel duty were devolved, we could make ends meet, and we could be innovative and ensure that revenue actually increases. The Member may not have any ambition to better the lives of the people that we represent, but we need the devolution of fuel duty powers to ensure that prices can be put down.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
: I do not know what fuel is required to engage your brain before you engage your mouth, but if the Member reflects on what he has just said, which is that we could raise it, that is exactly the first question that arises. In fantasy land, if fuel taxes were devolved to Northern Ireland, what would you do with them? Would you raise them or reduce them? Would you reduce them to help people? If so, how would you pay for the deficit? That is the question that has been asked a dozen times in the Chamber today and to which there is no answer.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
: If, on the other hand, he is saying that we are going to look after ourselves somehow, that is a coded way of saying that, in fact, we are going to raise fuel taxes —
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
: — because we want to spend more. Sinn Féin is all about spend; it is a high-spend party. Its attitude is: let someone else pay; sponge off someone else, and they will pay.
Jim Allister (Traditional Unionist Voice)
: That is the essential kernel of Sinn Féin economics. What will we do about VAT on fuel duty? Do we want VAT devolved as well? Do we live in a parallel universe where we think that we can have a different VAT rate in this part of the United Kingdom? Is that where we go next?
Sinn Féin has been clear. It wants all tax-raising powers transferred, not because it thinks that it makes economic sense or because there is a compelling financial case for it; but because it ticks the boxes of its political agenda that you must cut all ties of whatever nature between London and Belfast because that is part of its paramount agenda.
The Member nods in agreement. Whatever the price to the citizens of Northern Ireland, it is Sinn Féin’s crazed policy. Fortunately, it is not a policy that I believe will command support today. However, there is a bit of merit in one thing that Sinn Féin has raised today: the parallel that it has drawn between opening a door to tax transfer and corporation tax and saying that once you have opened the door on that, why not open it on everything. It brings me back to the point that a region that cannot raise all its spend should be careful what it wishes for — including on corporation tax.
: May I remind Members not to persist when it is clear that the Member on the Floor does not wish to give way?
I call Mr Alban Maginness to wind on amendment No 3.
: It is regrettable that the Minister has not attended the debate. It would have been useful to hear his view and, I suppose, the view of the Executive in relation to the proposition that has been put forward by Sinn Féin. There is a degree of agreement in the Chamber on the horrendous price of fuel which is causing great hardship throughout the community. It is causing hardship not only to families, but to businesses. In fact, it is impeding business in this region. Therefore it is incumbent on the Executive, and on the Minister of Finance in particular, to address the issue openly and to seek innovative ways in which to reduce the pressures that exist.
David McIlveen (DUP)
: Does the Member agree that one factor widely regarded as being responsible for the success in keeping fuel prices largely under control on the mainland is that there is greater competition there in the form of a lot more branded supermarkets than we have here? Does he agree that slightly more liberal planning policy in relation to supermarkets, as well as what he has suggested, may also help to bring the prices down?
: It could well do, but I am sure there is some political point behind that intervention. The fact is that you cannot build supermarkets overnight, and we still will not have the sort of keen price competition that exists in England and Wales. Therefore, we have to start from where we are, and we are in a very difficult situation. The pressures are going to increase unless something is done. At the very least, the Westminster Government should not proceed with the 3p rise in the autumn. That should be a demand coming from the Assembly and the Executive.
We need to be innovative about this. A number of ideas have been expressed through the amendments, and each one is meritorious in one respect or another. The reason why we brought our amendment relates to how such taxes should be considered. When you are considering the whole issue of tax, duty and so forth, you should not be doing so on a piecemeal basis. You should examine it on a comprehensive basis. The Calman commission in Scotland dealt with devolution at large. It did not deal only with taxation issues, although it did deal with taxation. We have suggested by way of an analogy that we use a commission such as that to examine the impact of taxation here in Northern Ireland and the implications of transferring some or all taxation powers to the Assembly. If we do that, we will be in a proper context in which to consider whether those powers should be transferred.
Let us say that we had the power in relation to fuel duty, as opposed to a VAT, as Mr Allister referred to. Could we not use that innovatively, in terms of a significant reduction, which could, in fact, give us a competitive advantage to other regions? Could we not use it to stimulate business in Northern Ireland quite effectively? I think we should consider that thoughtfully and look at the issue much more seriously than we have before.
There is agreement throughout the Chamber on corporation tax, and I think that that opens up a very significant and proper argument that we should be looking at other forms of taxation and duty. Mr Allister said that this has opened the floodgates. It may not have opened floodgates, but it has opened an opportunity for all of us to consider what the Assembly should be like in the future.
Any transfer that takes place will not take place immediately, but over a number of years. I think that we should now be starting to consider what the fiscal powers of this Assembly should be like in, say, 10 years’ time. Let us be imaginative and see how the transfer of those powers could, in fact, help to stimulate, rebuild and develop our economy so that we can exercise real control over our economic future. That is the nature of our amendment to the Sinn Féin motion, which we of course welcome. It is not an unreasonable position.
: I want to thank the Members who brought the motion forward in the first place for doing so. I hope that they will support the SDLP amendment.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
: The main motion sought to solve the difficulty of the high cost of fuel in Northern Ireland by simply devolving the tax-raising powers on fuel duty. What was not explained, although I did attempt to draw it out, is how that gap in funding would be filled. Clearly, there are European rulings and regulations to indicate that a region, if it is to diversify from other parts of the nation, must stand on its own feet with regard to that form of taxation. If, for instance, we were to reduce the tax on fuel by 5p as has been indicated, it would cost £100 million. Are we going to cut support to the health service or the education service by £100 million? There was no explanation.
The words “rates” and “wealth tax” were mentioned. No mention was made —
Roy Beggs (UUP)
: I would like to pursue my comments. If I have some time, I will give way at the end.
No mention was made of what cost would be involved in administering any such systems and developing such additional taxes. It is not a well developed plan at all. There are huge dangers in what is being talked about, with no significant benefits; it is simply moving tax from one part to another, with no economic benefit clearly illustrated. Therefore, there is a problem with the main motion.
Sandra Overend proposed amendment No 2. She highlighted that one practical issue is that, effectively, we, along with other regions of the United Kingdom, including Scotland, Wales and other northern regions, would have to lobby Her Majesty’s Government to highlight the difficulties we are experiencing as a result of the high cost of fuel, particularly in rural areas, where that has a big impact. We have to thank the Assembly’s research department for its information. It shows that we have some of the highest petrol and diesel costs in the United Kingdom and that the United Kingdom costs are the second highest in Europe. We are suffering significantly due to our rurality, our peripheral position in Europe and the taxation levels that exist. People living in rural areas of Northern Ireland have to use more fuel to travel to town to shop, to work or to go to school.
My colleague Leslie Cree highlighted the issue of administrative costs. Dream up more and more ideas for devolving taxation powers, but bear in mind the taxation costs and the cost of developing very extensive computer systems to run and administer them. You do not get such things for free. He also highlighted the fact that, in those areas where there has been consensus to devolve powers here, an economic business case has been thought out: for example, air passenger duty for long-haul flights, from which an economic benefit can flow, or, indeed, the potential for revitalising our private sector economy through corporation tax. Were we to eventually get to the stage of that being formally offered, there will be a cost involved. Really, to take anything more on board at this stage could actually rule that out. We cannot overload ourselves. Let us face the fact that we will have a cost to pay to deal with that and to enable our economy to take off. Let us not bring in uncosted, unplanned and uneconomic additional ideas that have been thought up on the back of a fag packet.
In speaking to amendment No 1, Simon Hamilton indicated support for widening the rural fuel duty relief scheme to benefit Northern Ireland. That is another practical solution that could benefit here, and it is something that I can support. We should try for it; there is no harm in trying. He also said that reducing fuel tax in Northern Ireland by 5p would cost £100 million. He and some other Members questioned how that would be funded. We must have a plan for how we will fund it. That issue was highlighted by Trevor Lunn, DUP Members, my Ulster Unionist colleagues and Jim Allister.
Jim Allister, to use his language, spoke about the “fantasy economics” of Sinn Féin, and rightly so. Sinn Féin Members want everything devolved. If you devolve everything, nothing comes, because it is all here. You are almost advocating an independent Northern Ireland in which we would stand now, today, on our own feet and with our own taxation policy. I am sorry, but, as a result of the many years of terrorism, our economy could not do that. At some point, we hope to reach the stage of not being as dependent as we are at present on the rest of the other regions, but we cannot do that today. I ask Sinn Féin Members please to think through the implications of what they are saying. They do indeed have fantasy plans.
The SDLP amendment proposes setting up a commission. We argue that we need to try to do things now. We do not want to wait six months or a year for a commission to report. Let us act now to try to stave off some of the proposed increases already earmarked for petrol prices not only in Northern Ireland but in the rest of the United Kingdom. Let us see whether we can gain some specific benefits for this region, and make our argument. The European Commission has accepted that peripheral regions of Scotland could benefit, so why not try for this part of the United Kingdom?
In conclusion, I ask Members to support the Ulster Unionist amendment and indicate that we can also support the DUP amendment.
Alastair Ross (DUP)
: As my colleague stated in proposing our amendment, the problems that high rates of fuel duty are causing people across the Province, and the negative impact that that is having, is an issue on which we have all found agreement. However, trying to find agreement on the method to solve it is something very different.
Members have asked why there is no Executive response to the debate. The clue is probably in the fact that this is a reserved matter. It is perhaps interesting to note that two of the three signatories to the Sinn Féin motion are Members of the House of Commons. Perhaps if they took their seats in the Commons, they could raise these issues in the appropriate forum. Indeed, as other Members said, other parties have been doing so. Other Members of Parliament have been pushing those ideas.
It is no surprise that Sinn Féin Members want to have more power devolved to the Assembly. Politically, we all understand that they want to pull as many powers as possible away from our national Parliament at Westminster. Therefore, even if we do not agree with it, we understand the rationale. However, when it comes to the economic argument that was put forward, I think that Mr Allister used very kind language when he called it “fantasy politics”, “fantasy economics” and “lunacy”. We could agree on the use of many more derogatory terms.
It makes no sense whatsoever to propose the devolution of fuel duty, and without VAT, the devolution of which would also be required in order to do this properly. Indeed, far from benefiting people in Northern Ireland, it would make things worse. That is why Sinn Féin did not refer specifically to the costs. Even when I asked Mr McKay — after eight minutes of his opening remarks — to tell us the cost and where he would find savings, he failed to do so. Other Members repeatedly asked Sinn Féin the same question during the debate.
Being unionists does not mean that we are opposed to looking at other powers that could be devolved. Indeed, the two examples used were corporation tax, about which discussions with Treasury are ongoing, and air passenger duty, on which we have got a positive result. Those are issues on which we found general agreement in the House. However, the two examples differ greatly from that of fuel duty. For example, a reduction in the rate of corporation tax is about rebalancing the economy by helping to grow the private sector. In the longer term, projections show that we will have a cost benefit from that. Likewise, with air passenger duty, the cost to the Executive is relatively low. The change will affect strategic air routes that are important for our economy and tourism and will be a benefit to Northern Ireland.
The issue that I heard from both nationalist parties is that they are both very keen to get as many taxation powers to the Assembly as possible. At least the SDLP takes a more sensible approach, in that it wants to look at this in more detail before saying that we should devolve the power. Indeed, from listening to some of the recent debates, where the nationalist parties talked about getting taxation powers and lowering taxes, you would almost think that they were now parties of low taxation and small government — big society parties. Of course, we know that that is not the case, because you need to pay for the taxes that you are looking to devolve. That means that you either radically cut public spending in education, health, road building, welfare, or you have to get powers over other taxation — the SDLP’s Mr Bradley mentioned this — that inevitably will have to go up to cover the cost of fuel duty, which we want to reduce.
So, while families are struggling at the moment, the nationalist parties’ solution is not to lower taxes and the cost to families but to put up other taxes to compensate, thus hitting families harder.
David McIlveen (DUP)
: I thank the Member for giving way. Does the Member agree that, even if Sinn Féin Members perhaps have ideas in their minds about how this can be paid for, unless they verbalise them, we cannot make an objective decision?
Alastair Ross (DUP)
: Absolutely, and the statistics and evidence that we have suggest that it will cost in the region of £1 billion a year. As we heard, a 1p cut will cost between £17·5 million and £18·5 million annually. Getting the 5p cut that Members proposed will cost upwards of £100 million at least. If the price of crude oil rises in the future, as we all predict it will, the cost gets higher and higher. That means that they will either, in tandem, put up other taxes to the same level, which I think that they must inevitably do, or they will cut public spending at the same amount so that we have less and less money over the next number of years to spend on public spending. I do not think that that is viable either.
Those Members proposed a motion, which they think is a good idea, but they have not thought about it. If they have, they do not want to own up to the fact that it is not affordable for Northern Ireland. It is not a sensible motion. It would damage Northern Ireland’s economy and would mean that we would have less money to spend on crucial public services. It is economic nonsense.
I ask the House to support the amendment in my name and in that of Mr Hamilton. It is the most realistic and sensible amendment, but I recognise that the others have some merit. However, other Members, including Mr Lunn, said that the DUP amendment is the most sensible. I hope that Members support us today. I also hope that they support us in our attempts, with Her Majesty’s Treasury and the Government at Westminster, to ensure that we have a scheme that operates across the United Kingdom, recognises the unique circumstances of Northern Ireland and helps to ensure that people in Northern Ireland are not hit hardest by any increase.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: Go raibh maith agat, a LeasCheann Comhairle. I have listened to the debate. Usually, debates last one hour and 30 minutes, but this has already lasted one hour and 40 minutes. I am due to speak for 10 minutes, if I take that long. We are grateful to you for letting the debate overrun by 20 minutes.
I listened very carefully to each and every one of the other parties in the Assembly discuss the Sinn Féin motion. All sorts of reasons have been given as to why they cannot support it. However, there is a word in our motion that is quite clear. All the parties in the Chamber will tell you that they were all very good at this when it came to the talks. That word is “negotiations”. That is the key word. You enter into negotiations with the British Government and then take the best out of that. That is very important. I am sorry that all the other parties missed that. They claim that they are very good at negotiations, but what they tell me and all of us here is that they are afraid of negotiations on the devolution of fuel duty at this stage.
Roy Beggs (UUP)
: I thank the Member for giving way. Does he recognise that there are already European judgements on this? Where negotiations are concerned, costs have to fall on the region that will benefit. What does he say about that?
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: What I say about that is that our party, as well as the Member’s, has an MEP. We will take the negotiations to Europe as well, if that is what we need to do. Do not be afraid of negotiations, Roy. I think that we have to get involved in them.
We need to consider a lot of issues. The important point is that we talk to people and negotiate the best means. If we do not negotiate, we will have failed all the citizens who put us into the Assembly and other places.
We tabled the motion because many people are suffering. That is the one area of common ground that all parties covered today. Many people in our communities are experiencing hardship because of fuel costs. Families on low incomes are affected, and people travelling to work are affected greatly.
At the weekend, I spoke to a man who challenged me on what we were doing about fuel costs. I told him that we had a motion coming to the Assembly on Tuesday and that I hoped that we could get all-party support for it: obviously, we will not. Every single day, that man has to travel from Belfast to Tyrone, which costs him over £100-odd a week. He is thinking of leaving his employment in Tyrone to try to find an employment opportunity somewhere in Belfast that will help to reduce that cost, because with fuel costs continuing to rise, it is becoming unaffordable for him to travel to work. It will be especially hard when the 3p increase is introduced in August. That will add to his hardship and that of the young family whom he is rearing.
In opening the debate, Daithí McKay stated that we have some of the highest fuel costs, the majority of which are because of the level of taxation. He mentioned that the high price affects many drivers’ businesses and that it costs hauliers somewhere in the region of an additional £1,200.
Daithí McKay (Sinn Féin)
: Does the Member agree that the scheme that the DUP amendment calls for, which is currently in place in the north of Scotland, excludes hauliers? That has been of some local concern. Also, the Highland Council has highlighted the fact that, because the repayment of that 5p a litre is in arrears, it is putting a lot of businesses at risk.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: I agree that it is having an adverse effect on many businesses throughout society, probably more so on hauliers, taxi drivers, and so on. That means, as was mentioned earlier, that food costs go up, taxi costs go up, and people cannot travel to and from work, go shopping or carry out their daily business. However, it is also stemming economic growth, which I think would be a major issue if we were able to have proper negotiations with Westminster on fuel duty.
We could look at a wide range of issues, including hauliers. Hopefully, we could create more employment opportunities that would not cost the amounts of money that Simon Hamilton talked about earlier. In proposing the amendment, Simon agreed that we pay far too much for fuel, but he was, unfortunately, unwilling to take control of the issue. He seems to be running scared of devolving powers from Westminster to here. He stated that the cost to us would be £100 million. However, I think that he may be putting some of those costs forward as a scare tactic. I agree that every 1p reduction would cost £17·5 million, but the issue is one of entering into negotiations with the British Government in the hope that we could reduce that cost to make it much more affordable.
With devolved power, we could control our destiny. I am not sure whether it would be possible, but this is about the art of negotiation. Could we go and look at places such as Venezuela, where fuel costs 2p or 3p a litre? This is what it is all about. I do not think that we should be afraid of having these discussions, because we all have a duty — [Interruption.]
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: I appreciate that, a LeasCheann Comhairle.
This is where the conversation needs to be had. We should not be afraid to go around the world to look at where fuel is more cost-effective, as that could be much more beneficial for our citizens in the North. Those are some of the main issues that we have to deal with, and I am not afraid to start tackling them. Other parties may be afraid to do so, but I am not.
Dominic Bradley proposed amendment No 3, and we talked about the SDLP looking at a full range of taxation policies being devolved. In the previous term, Mitchel McLaughlin tabled a motion on the devolution of more physical powers to the Assembly. Unfortunately, however, we were unable to get the Assembly to pass that motion.
I am glad that some parties are now saying that we need to look at having many more fiscal powers devolved to the North. That may be a step in the right direction.
Trevor Lunn said that he would support a debate on the devolution of powers. That is also to be welcomed. His preferred option is the DUP’s amendment. However, again, in my view, he is shirking the responsibility that we as legislators have to take control and govern for ourselves. That is one of the serious issues today.
William Irwin said that he represents a rural area, and he, too, mentioned the cost of fuel for rural people as well as the added cost of public transport, especially given the announcement last week that those costs will increase in the very near future.
There are many issues. Conor Murphy stated that he was disappointed that the Finance and Personnel Minister is not in attendance today. When I asked him a question about the devolution of some fiscal powers from Westminster, he said that, because he is a Unionist, he simply does not want any more powers. I do not think that that is an option; it is not good enough. We need to take control of this. I do not think that even Sammy Wilson’s supporters would be happy with that answer either. We need to take the lead. Sinn Féin is very happy to have all powers devolved from Westminster, and we make no excuses about that. We would like to have more control over our own destiny.
David McIlveen said that this is costing some businesses an additional £80,000 a month. So, we agree on many issues but not on a way to deal with them. That is some of the issue. It is has a massive cost effect, and we need to take it seriously.
Leslie Cree talked about fuel poverty and child poverty and the cost of fuel adding to that burden. Again, he questioned the benefit of this power being devolved. I believe that it would benefit us, and it is important that we continue with this. Jennifer McCann raised the issue of the hike in electricity costs and the £40 million that went to the Treasury in taxation. Leslie may be getting confused about where some of that taxation goes. The fact of the matter is that when the price was hiked up, an additional £40 million went to the Treasury. That is a major issue.
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: No. I am running out of time. Sorry about that.
Jim Allister stated that the Sinn Féin position was lunacy. Jim just needs to look at himself in the mirror when he looks at loony policies, because I think there would be quite a few of them looking back at him. He did say that we can go and sponge from somewhere else. The fact is that the British Government have been sponging from the people of Ireland for hundreds of years, and it is time for some of that money to be paid back into the system. That is where we are at, and I think that we need to get real about how we look at it. I am certainly not a sponger. Unfortunately, I pay my tax like everybody else, but I pay it to the British Treasury, and I would rather not.
As regards what Alban Maginness said about devolution being done together and not in isolation, why is the SDLP, like all the other parties in the Chamber, supporting the devolution of corporation tax- and air passenger duty-varying powers? That is being done in isolation not collectively. There are reasons why —
Paul Maskey (Sinn Féin)
: — the likes of which we should continue to look at to bring forward solutions to suit our people here in the North.
: Before I put the question on amendment No 1, I advise Members that, if this amendment is made, I will not put the questions on amendment Nos 2 or 3, as the wording to which they relate will have been deleted. I hope that that is clear.
Question put, That amendment No 1 be made.
The Assembly divided: Ayes 51; Noes 33
AYES
Mr Allister, Mr S Anderson, Mr Beggs, Mr Bell, Ms P Bradley, Ms Brown, Mr Buchanan, Mr Clarke, Mrs Cochrane, Mr Craig, Mr Cree, Mrs Dobson, Mr Douglas, Mr Dunne, Mr Easton, Mr Elliott, Dr Farry, Mr Ford, Mrs Foster, Mr Frew, Mr Girvan, Mr Givan, Mrs Hale, Mr Hamilton, Mr Hilditch, Mr Humphrey, Mr Irwin, Mr Kennedy, Mr Kinahan, Ms Lo, Mr Lunn, Mr Lyttle, Mr McCallister, Mr McCarthy, Mr McCausland, Mr McClarty, Mr B McCrea, Mr I McCrea, Mr McGimpsey, Mr D McIlveen, Miss M McIlveen, Mr Moutray, Mr Nesbitt, Mrs Overend, Mr Poots, Mr G Robinson, Mr Ross, Mr Storey, Mr Swann, Mr Weir, Mr Wells.
Tellers for the Ayes: Mr Hilditch and Mr G Robinson.
NOES
Mr Agnew, Ms M Anderson, Mr Boylan, Ms Boyle, Mr D Bradley, Mr Brady, Mr Durkan, Mr Eastwood, Ms Gildernew, Mr G Kelly, Mr F McCann, Ms J McCann, Mr McCartney, Mr McDevitt, Dr McDonnell, Mr McElduff, Mr McGlone, Mr McKay, Mrs McKevitt, Mr McLaughlin, Mr McMullan, Mr A Maginness, Mr A Maskey, Mr P Maskey, Mr Molloy, Mr Murphy, Ms Ní Chuilín, Mr Ó hOisín, Mr O’Dowd, Mr P Ramsey, Ms S Ramsey, Mr Sean Rogers, Ms Ruane.
Tellers for the Noes: Mr Boylan and Mr Brady.
Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put and agreed to.
Resolved:
That this Assembly condemns the forthcoming 3p rise in the cost of fuel; notes that our people pay some of the highest fuel costs in Europe; and calls on Her Majesty’s Government to halt their planned fuel duty increase and, due to Northern Ireland’s peripherality within the United Kingdom, to devise and implement a scheme for Northern Ireland similar to the rural fuel duty relief scheme which was recently introduced for the Inner and Outer Hebrides, the Northern Isles, the Islands of the Clyde and the Isles of Scilly.
Motion made:
That the Assembly do now adjourn. — [Mr speaker is in charge of proceedings of the House of Commons in..." class="glossary">Deputy Speaker.]