FairFuel Debate

On Tuesday afternoon I was present in the House of Commons for the backbench debate on fuel duty. In the days before the debate I was contacted extensively by constituents, many of whom live in very rural areas, on the issue of high fuel prices. I must start by praising the abolition of the fuel escalator and the implementation of the fair fuel stabiliser by this government, but have three further observations on the matter.

First, as was made clear by many MPs in Tuesday's debate, we must recognise the significant effect of high fuel duties on those who live in rural areas. In Salisbury, I know that those living in our surrounding villages, particularly those who also work in the rural economy, tend to be on low or volatile incomes, further compounding the difficulties they face. These duties also impact the disabled disproportionately. One constituent, representing many like her, wrote to me to say that she relies on her motability car, and is concerned that fuel duty rises will significantly affect those who are disabled.

The trouble is that high fuel prices do not act as a fair "green" tax. The idea of a "green" tax is that consumers switch away from emission-producing products and services to greener alternatives. But most people lack the ability to purchase affordable fuel-efficient cars, and access to suitable public transport networks is not an option in many parts of Salisbury. There is no genuine alternative to travelling by car – and paying the fuel duty that goes with it.

Secondly, high fuel prices are detrimental to businesses, particularly micro businesses - employing very small numbers of people – of which there are a significant number in Salisbury. Micro-businesses cannot absorb significant increases in the price or fuel, nor easily cope with its volatility. Fuel prices are therefore hampering cost control and growth.

The fuel stabiliser is a good start and it begins to address the problem – but further efforts to stabilise fuel prices at the pumps could give small businesses the stability and assurance that are needed to plan for the future. Account needs to be taken of the dynamic effect of a lower fuel duty both for increased revenues and benefits it would provide for the wider economy.

Third, and most importantly, fuel taxes hit the poorest the hardest. When you have no choice of whether to spend money on fuel, and the price is a bigger proportion of a low income, this is a significant problem.

It has been clear from my mailbox this week that the people of Salisbury feel very strongly about this matter. I believe a reduction in the fuel tax and a more robust stabiliser will really help those on low incomes and in rural areas, and will stimulate economy growth by reducing the unpredictably burden on our small businesses.

Back to all posts