UNCORRECTED TRANSCRIPT

HOUSE OF COMMONS

REPRESENTATIONS

TAKEN BEFORE THE

BACKBENCH BUSINESS COMMITTEE

BACKBENCH DEBATES

TUESDAY 11 OCTOBER 2011

ROBERT HALFON, MARTIN VICKERS, MR ANGUS BRENDAN MACNEIL, MR ALAN REID and ROBERT FLELLO

Evidence heard in Public

Questions 1 - 12

USE OF THE TRANSCRIPT

1.	This is an uncorrected transcript of evidence taken in public and reported to the House. The transcript has been placed on the internet on the authority of the Committee, and copies have been made available by the Vote Office for the use of Members and others.
2.	Any public use of, or reference to, the contents should make clear that neither witnesses nor Members have had the opportunity to correct the record. The transcript is not yet an approved formal record of these proceedings.
3.	Members who receive this for the purpose of correcting questions addressed by them to witnesses are asked to send corrections to the Committee Assistant.
4.	Prospective witnesses may receive this in preparation for any written or oral evidence they may in due course give to the Committee.

Representations

Taken before the Backbench Business

on Tuesday 11 October 2011

Members present:

Natascha Engel (Chair)

Mr Peter Bone

Jane Ellison

Natascha Engel

John Hemming

Mr Philip Hollobone

Ian Mearns

Mr George Mudie

Robert Halfon, Martin Vickers, Mr Angus Brendan MacNeil, Mr Alan Reid and Robert Flello made representations.

Q1 Chair: Thank you very much for coming. I am sorry that we are a little bit late today. Robert Halfon, you have come to us about an e-petition on fuel tax. You have been here before, so you know the format, but what we would like to hear from you is a normal bid, like the one you did before. Obviously, the e-petition will form part of that, but we are still looking to hear about: topicality; how many hours you want; why you have to have the debate; what other avenues you have tried; and whether you want a vote or not.

Robert Halfon: Thank you, Madam Chair, and I thank the Committee for hearing us today. I am here representing the all-party parliamentary group on fair fuel for motorists and hauliers, which includes MPs from all parties and a number of organisations, such as FairFuelUK, the Freight Transport Association, the Road Haulage Association and Motor Transport magazine, whose representatives are in the audience.

As the Committee is aware, there has been a petition over the summer, which was started in late July. As of just before the party conference season, over 100,000 people have signed that petition. It asks the Government to look at the high cost of fuel prices, and to look at ways of reducing them, including by not implementing the planned fuel duty rise next year. It also asks the Government to look at long-term ways of reducing the price of petrol and diesel because of the difficulties that they are causing the economy. It is a very current issue; the average motorist spends a tenth of their income, on average earnings, on petrol costs every year. Petrol prices are a major brake on the economy, and it is the No. 1 issue in the constituency postbag for many MPs, as you can probably see from the number of MPs who have come here today. We are asking for a full Commons debate in the main Chamber for five hours on a non-votable motion, so that as many MPs as possible can represent their constituents’ concerns.

Q2 Chair: Okay. Would anybody like to add anything to that?

Martin Vickers: Robert has outlined a very good case. This is something that affects every individual, every constituency in the country, and every business, so the case is made, in terms of the impact on all of our constituents. It impacts particularly on businesses, and we all know that it is becoming an increasing burden on the average family.

Q3 Chair: Thank you. Angus?

Mr MacNeil: I had a meeting last Friday in Stornoway, Lewis, with the fuel distributors in my area, and we were trying to get to the bottom of the fuel distribution network, and the way in which the oil companies and the distributors work together. It is a very opaque situation, so apart from the Government and taxation side, there is a major area to be focused on, and that is how that fuel leaves the refinery and arrives in cars. That would be a huge part of the debate, and a part that we need to get Government, parliamentary Committees and the Office of Fair Trading interested in. I am sure that a debate would be a good opportunity to achieve that.

Mr Reid: I have just completed my summer tour of the constituency-Argyll and Bute-and fuel was by far the main issue raised. Nearly everybody whom I met mentioned the price of fuel because, as others have said, it impacts on the price of everything. To back up what Angus said, this is not just about fuel duty; it is about the way the whole market operates. Extracting or refining oil has not gone up dramatically in price over the last few years, so it is clearly because of the way in which the market is operating-the law of supply and demand.

You asked what other mechanisms we had tried. We have had various Adjournment debates in Westminster Hall, but in those, you could have a 10-minute response from the Minister, and it is very easy for the Minister to duck a lot of the issues raised, whereas a debate in the Chamber-

Q4 Chair: How long were those Adjournment debates? Were they just half-hour debates?

Mr Reid: No, we have had 90-minute ones; there have been two or three.

Q5 Chair: Were they over-subscribed?

Mr Reid: Oh yes, massively. As I say, there can be a short, 10-minute response from the Minister.

Q6 Chair: Rob Flello, very briefly.

Robert Flello: As chair of the all-party freight transport group, I can say that this is an issue that has come before us as well. Also, there are European Union implications, with overseas hauliers coming to the UK with tanks, and there is the whole knock-on effect, so it is a much wider issue.

Chair: Okay. Thank you very much.

Q7 John Hemming: I have two questions. You are not talking about having a votable motion. Would you be willing to consider the broader question of energy prices more generally, or do you want to focus specifically on road transport energy prices? Also, there are slots available in Westminster Hall at an earlier stage; there are not slots available at an earlier stage in the Chamber. Would you prefer it to happen at an earlier stage in Westminster Hall, with a three-hour debate there, or would you prefer to wait until there is time in the Chamber?

Robert Halfon: Given that 100,000 people have signed the fuel petition, which is specifically about petrol and diesel prices, we very much want to focus on that issue. In light of the importance of the issue, the number of people who have signed, and the 150 MPs who support the FairFuelUK campaign, we would prefer to wait and have the debate in the main Chamber.

Q8 John Hemming: So you want to turn down any option in Westminster Hall?

Robert Halfon: Yes, because there have been short debates in Westminster Hall already.

Chair: We are talking about three hours, as opposed to 90 minutes, which is quite significant, but we can discuss that later.

Q9 Mr Hollobone: I would like to congratulate Robert and the rest of the Members here who are pushing for a debate on this issue. In my mind, this is undoubtedly an issue that should be debated, not least because of the 100,000-plus people who signed the petition, but the petition does not just call for a debate; it calls for the Government to do something, and with respect, I think your answer on Westminster Hall is wrong.

The first thing to bear in mind is that this Committee does not decide how many days we have to debate issues. It is the Government who give this Committee the days, and we have to fill those days with appropriate topics. The big difference between the Chamber and Westminster Hall is that in the Chamber you can have a votable motion; in Westminster Hall you cannot. We do not have that many Chamber days, and there are all sorts of issues piling up where Members have votable motions that they want the House to make a decision on. It seems to me that what the petitioners are asking for is for this House to make a decision on fair fuel. You are not going to get that unless you have a votable motion, so I for one would urge you to go away and reconsider your approach to having a parliamentary debate, because I absolutely think that there would be a very strong chance that you would get something in Westminster Hall pretty quickly, but the chances of getting something in the Chamber are much reduced unless you have something on which you are asking Members to make up their mind and are calling on the Government to do something.

Robert Halfon: May I read our draft motion to the Committee? It says: "that this House asks the Government to note the severe impact of high petrol and diesel prices on our economy; believes that the Government should do everything possible to look at a) how fuel duty can be frozen in this Parliament and b) radical ways of cutting fuel taxes in the longer term." The reason why I spoke about a non-votable motion is that I am trying to unite the House on the issue, but if a votable motion is a requirement for having a debate in the main Chamber, I would support one roughly on the lines that I have set out, because I believe that the debate will be given considerably more importance, by those inside and outside the House, if it is in the main Chamber.

Q10 Jane Ellison: It is worth noting that a votable motion is not a requirement as such; it just makes a Chamber debate more likely, because, for the reasons that Mr Hollobone gave, time is very short; we do not have a next definite date. I just wanted to clarify something: did you start this e-petition?

Robert Halfon: I started it jointly with FairFuelUK, which is represented in the audience, because I am chairman of the all-party group on fair fuel for motorists and hauliers, along with some of the MPs present. We decided that this was the best way of working together to get 100,000 signatures.

Q11 Jane Ellison: This is only a personal view, not a Committee one, but many mechanisms are available to Members of Parliament, as you have demonstrated, because you have secured Westminster Hall debates, to get things on the agenda. My own thought is that the e-petition system is for members of the public to bring to the attention of the House issues about which they are concerned. You are making a strong case, but I am listening to your case and assessing it on the basis that many Members have come to support it. It is not just because you were involved in an e-petition.

Robert Halfon: FairFuelUK organised the petition and the signing of it. I just offered to support it so that I could represent it when I came to the Committee.

Q12 Mr Bone: The Leader of the House has brought to our attention the e-petition, because the number of signatures on it have gone past the 100,000 mark. While we look at e-petitions as supporting evidence for a debate, the e-petition is considerably different from the motion that you tabled. It calls for specific action, and the motion should be much closer to what the petition says. Such motions are amendable, and amendments can be tabled.

What I am trying to say is that the petitioners would at least expect the main issues that they addressed to be on the Order Paper. If Members want to amend the proposal, they can do so. I accept that you are trying to secure broader support, but that comes afterwards.

Chair: I will wrap up by saying that we have very little time available. It is great, because people are bringing more and more proposals to our Committee to schedule as debates, and almost everything that comes here is very good, and we would like to schedule all of it. Increasingly, we are looking at not giving people a full six-hour debate unless it is a really massive issue. We would be looking at three hours anyway. That three hours would be guaranteed-there is nothing that can bite into it in Westminster Hall. If you did not want a votable motion, and you wanted just a general debate, Westminster Hall would be far more appropriate, given the scarce time available to us.

We have heard your bid, and it is very, very strong. We will discuss in private what other bids have been submitted. The next available day is 27 October, so we will let you know this afternoon what decision we have made.

Mr MacNeil: Will you make an offer to us on the basis of a votable motion, or of a non-votable motion? If we change the motion and it becomes votable, is the venue likely to change?

Chair: The next available slot is 27 October, which is quite a long way away, so I do not think that we will make a decision about what we put into that slot. We will look generally at the strength of your representation, to park it up, so that we can still talk to you, either next week or informally, about how to go forward.

Robert Halfon: May I put in a final word? Because we are keen to secure the debate in the Chamber, if we have to cut down the hours in the main Chamber, I understand that and it is not a problem. Obviously, I would bid for the full amount, but I understand if there is a cut. If a votable motion is required, based, as Mr Bone has asked, on the petition, we can redraft the motion. As I have said, this is just a draft. We are keen to unite the House, and not turn this into a party political-bashing issue, so that the Government are well aware of the views of MPs and the 100,000 people who signed the petition.

Chair: Okay. We will consider everything that you said when we go into private session, and we will let you know this afternoon. Thank you very much for coming.