(Except clauses 1, 3, 7, 8, 12, 20, 21, 25, 67 and 81 to 84, schedules 1, 18, 22 and 23, and new clauses relating to microgeneration) - Clause 5
Finance Bill
9:30 am
Adam Afriyie (Windsor, Conservative)
I welcome that intervention. I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has an A and E unit in his constituency and that the social outcomes of the licensing changes in his area appear to be moderately positive. That is not my experience in my area, however; nor does it appear to be the experience in many other areas around the country.
There must be a connection between the duty on, and the price of, alcohol and the level of alcohol usage. The hon. Gentleman is considering the social outcome and the health outcome in terms of visits to A and E, normally in the early hours of the morning. I am probing to find out the direction that the Government are taking and the philosophy behind it. What is the link between the different issues? Does the Government’s policy in this area make sense? Is it consistent? If the Financial Secretary persists—I feel sure that he will not—with the assertion that fiscal changes to duty do not have an impact on consumption, that will sadden me to some degree, not only because it does not make sense in the real world, but because it means that all the other Government policies to change behaviour must be faulty.
We have heard that air passenger duty is supposed to reduce the number of flights, for example. It is a revenue-raising measure, a bit like the duty on alcohol, but the Government have suggested that it will reduce the number of flights and so reduce carbon emissions by several million tonnes, although I do not remember the exact figure. The level of duty clearly has an impact on behaviour in that area, or at least the Government suggest that it does. Would the Financial Secretary argue that higher vehicle excise duty for vehicles with higher carbon emissions has no impact on behaviour? I do not believe so. We have only 10 or 12 low-carbon homes at the moment, if any at all—