| Allan Wilson:
I cannot tell
members how pleased we are on the Labour benches that the Scottish nationalist
party has called this debate on fuel prices. It is important that this
Parliament and the wider public are clear about the SNP's policies. However,
as SNP members themselves seem far from clear, that might be an ambitious
goal.
Having examined
their various announcements and policy proclamations, I tend to think that
the SNP members are having this debate to allow us to point out to them
the inconsistencies, contradictions and gaps in their policies. They seem
to treat this chamber as a consultation exercise, putting forward a number
of differing, and often contradictory, options to test their validity.
As a policy-making process, that technique is deeply flawed. SNP members
owe Alasdair Morrison some thanks for his helpful critique and for pointing
out where they are confused and where they have got it wrong, although
they will be disappointed at the short time that he had at his disposal
to do so.
The SNP has
no answers to issues such as price differentials or public transport. Its
economics would cost the Scottish people jobs, income and quality public
services. By separating out fuel pricing from the wider issues of transport
policy, the SNP will continue to flounder for an answer.
Mr MacAskill:
Why is it that, down south, when differential
car prices vis-à-vis Europe are a problem, the minister can apparently
consider legislation immediately? As I said, when Murdoch proposed to take
over Manchester United, instructions were given for the Office of Fair
Trading to investigate. However, it seems that the present Labour Government
can do nothing about differential fuel prices, and is waiting 16 months,
18 months or longer for the OFT to report. If Labour can legislate on car
prices, why cannot it legislate on fuel prices?
Allan Wilson:
We are waiting for the OFT report, as is Mr MacAskill, who admitted in
the John o' Groat Journal and Weekly Advertiser article that he was
"still looking
for the best solution to the problem of exorbitant fuel prices".
He thinks that
the OFT report will provide those answers, and so do we.
Fergus Ewing:
Will Mr Wilson give way?
Allan Wilson:
I am just coming to Fergus Ewing; he can just hold his horses for a moment.
The SNP conference
last year called for lower rates of duty to be applied in rural areas,
and that position was recently reiterated by Fergus Ewing.
Kenny MacAskill
tends to agree with Labour that that is an avenue that raises false hopes
and sets up a prospective confrontation with Europe. However, it is clear
that the European Commission would rule out such derogations as being contrary
to state aid policy or leading to distortions of internal markets. He criticises
us for a lack of joined-up government, but there should be some joined-up
opposition from the SNP.
That policy
is not unrealistic only because Kenny disagrees with it. There are huge
difficulties in setting the boundaries of the areas that would benefit.
Reducing prices in one area would encourage people from adjacent areas
to drive there to buy petrol. While promising the impossible for short-term
popularity, the SNP neglects the long term by encouraging independence
and the use of an expensive and polluting mode of transport. That is a
further example of the hypocrisy, given its membership of the European
Federation of Green Parties.
Labour's goal
is to deliver a transport system that provides genuine choice for all.
Andrew Wilson:
Can Allan Wilson explain exactly how the fuel
duty has affected the demand for petrol?
Allan Wilson:
One of my Liberal colleagues has already quoted no less an authority on
the subject than Ken Clarke, who said:
"Any critic
of the Government's tax plans who claims also to support international
agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions will be sailing dangerously
near to hypocrisy."—[Official Report, House of Commons, 30 November 1993;
Vol 233, c 939.]
The SNP is indeed
sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy.
As we know,
the chancellor abolished the fuel duty escalator in the last budget and
hypothecated any money raised from the increased fuel duty for use on roads
and public transport. That undoubtedly causes problems for the Scottish
nationalist party, because the money raised from the escalator is included
as income in its budget for a separated Scotland. Andrew Wilson and Alex
Salmond had better get out the bookies' biros again to readjust the black
hole that exists in the SNP spending plans.
Both at Westminster
and in this Parliament Labour is implementing properly budgeted policies
and initiatives allowed to us by the successful management of the economy.
Those budgets are transparent and open to examination. The SNP calls for
more and more spending, but refuses to show how it would pay for it. The
motion put forward by Kenny MacAskill is as confused and misinformed as
is the SNP's policy. He tried to paint a picture of Scotland-raised revenue
going to London to be spent there, when we all know that the constitutional
settlement voted for by the Scottish people means that the Barnett formula
ensures that that money plus some more is returned and spent in Scotland.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: Close now, please.
Allan Wilson:
I am concluding.
The Deputy Presiding
Officer: You are a full
minute over, so you are denying other members a chance to speak.
Allan Wilson:
This fuel duty rebate seems, in practice, to be the same as ring-fencing
public expenditure for use on fuel. It would take away the flexibility
and creativity that we would allow public services to have. Kenny MacAskill's
motion calls for an extension to the fuel duty rebate. It is yet another
example of SNP faraway-tree, Enid Blyton economics, where it tries to increase
expenditure by reducing income.
To
read this debate in full, click here
|
