5,731 spoken contributions under 12 words (interjections such as “Will the hon. Member give way?”) are hidden. Show them
Just for clarification, my point was that that is a pay-per-mile scheme and that the pay-per-mile basis would not be extended to petrol and diesel cars. Is the charge per mile on EVs a gateway for that extending to petrol and diesel vehicles?
I could reel off countless examples of villages in my constituency where hard-to-reach areas simply have no broadband at all, let alone fibre broadband. Constituents and businesses are tearing their hair out. At what point will the Government possibly accept that if the millions—if not billions—of pounds are to reach those hard-to-reach places, it would probably be better to help those people to get, for instance, satellite broadband instead, so that they can have access to the internet now rather than having to wait for years?
Q11. Traffic chaos from a botched road realignment is affecting Calvert Green, Steeple Claydon and Twyford. Landowners are still awaiting payment for land taken. There is woeful underfunding of promised mitigation projects in Wendover after inadequate noise modelling. Many years ago, the Prime Minister and I used to be united in our opposition to High Speed 2. He changed. With the upcoming HS2 reset, will he make a personal intervention to ensure that my constituents and communities living with this hell on earth of a construction project are finally treated with the fairness and respect that they deserve?
The hon. Lady has potentially misunderstood the intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans). She is making the case, perfectly rightly, for better public transport in this country, but bus companies and train operators running diesel trains—of which there are still a number—pay fuel duty, too. If fuel duty goes up, that will impact fares.
How absurd it is that, on an issue that affects each and every one of our constituents, whether they drive their own car or take the bus or a diesel-powered train, not one Government Back Bencher—not one—sought to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, to make a speech either to defend the Government’s plan to increase fuel duty this September, or perhaps even to have the backbone to stand up and oppose it. Meanwhile, from the Conservative Benches, we heard the case set out clearly and with passion by the shadow Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Member for Basildon and Billericay (Mr Holden), in opening the debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Gordon and Buchan (Harriet Cross) rightly spoke about the volume of internal combustion engine vehicles in the United Kingdom, exploring how far this tax rise will go and how Labour simply does not understand rural life, as well as the folly and unfairness of “pay per mile” for rural communities. My hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) rightly identified the absurdity of the Government preferring to import oil rather than use our own resources in the North sea. On the fuel finder, he made an accurate point, which I recognise from my own constituency, about the scarcity of filling stations in rural communities. I accept that we had a bit of a trade-off with constituency sizes this afternoon, but I can think of only eight filling stations in my modest 336 square miles in Mid Buckinghamshire. It is a point well made that, in rural communities, people often have to travel great distances to fill up with fuel, and may end up burning more fuel by going to the apparently cheaper station further away. My hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Joy Morrissey) spoke good Buckinghamshire common sense when making points about rural communities. Likewise, that case was made by my hon. Friends the Members for North West Norfolk (James Wild), for Hinckley and Bosworth (Dr Evans) and for Keighley and Ilkley (Robbie Moore). My hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Biggin Hill (Peter Fortune) made good points about the simply ridiculous and hideous levels of taxation on motoring in our capital city under Labour Mayor Sadiq Khan. Let us ask a very simple question. When the Chancellor talks about asking those with the broadest shoulders to pay more, does she mean the care worker filling up their car to get around to their house visits, particularly in rural communities? Does she mean the self-employed delivery driver keeping our high streets alive? Does she mean the small business owner trying to make ends meet? I very much hope that she does not, but what we see on the ground, as the reality, is that those are exactly the people who will be hit hardest by this policy of increasing fuel duty.
The hon. Gentleman is late to the debate—we have been around that a few times over the course of the afternoon. The record of the Conservatives in government was to freeze council tax and freeze fuel duty—indeed, we cut it when we saw Russia invade Ukraine in 2022. Conservatives stand on a proud record of keeping fuel duty down, freezing it and cutting it. It is his party that, in government, is going to increase it on hard-working people this very year. Let us be absolutely clear: this is a tax rise, a regressive tax hitting the poorest the hardest; a deliberate, calculated and, frankly, cynical tax rise phased in carefully in the hope that people will not notice. We have a rise in September—a back to school tax. We have another in December—a Christmas shopping tax. And then, in March, we have a spring clean of people’s wallets. Three moments in the year, three hits to working people.
My hon. Friend, as usual, makes a clinically accurate point, and he is absolutely right to do so. The truth is that the headline figure does not even tell us the full story. This is not just a tax rise; it is a tax on a tax. Fuel duty is applied first and then VAT is charged on top of it. So when the Government increase fuel duty, they are also increasing the VAT paid on that tax—a tax on a tax. That means that what they present as a 5p rise is not really 5p in practice, but closer to 6p at the pump—a hidden double tax built into the system, taking more from every driver, every business and every household. We saw that argument tested just this weekend. The Energy Secretary was asked directly about the soaring cost of fuel and his instinct was simply to point to global events, external pressures and anything other than the decisions being made here at home in Whitehall. But he was confronted by a simple, undeniable fact: a breakdown of the price of a litre of petrol showed that fuel duty alone accounts for around 38% of the cost and, once VAT is added on top, that more than half of what drivers pay at the pump is tax—more than half. Let us be clear: this is not simply about international markets or events beyond our control. Of course global factors play a role and of course wholesale prices fluctuate, but when over half the price at the pump is made up of taxes set by this Government, Ministers cannot hide purely behind external circumstances. They cannot blame global markets and ignore their own policy choices. And they certainly cannot claim to be easing the cost of living while actively increasing the tax burden built into every litre of fuel. The consequences ripple through the entire economy. Equally, when prices go up, including at the hands of the Chancellor, crime also rises. Already we are seeing reports from our hauliers across the country of fuel thefts taking place. That is serious. Fuel is not a luxury; it is fundamental to how the country works. It is how goods get to our supermarkets, how tradespeople get to jobs and how carers reach the most vulnerable. When the cost of fuel rises, the cost of everything else rises—shops feel it, businesses feel it, families feel it—and it is, of course, inflationary. That matters not just for household budgets, but for the public finances. Around a quarter of the United Kingdom’s national debt—some £750 billion—is index-linked, so higher inflation means higher debt interest costs. In other words, this policy risks making the Government’s own fiscal position worse even as it makes life harder for working people. The question is: what are the Government going to do, and why are they doing this? Why impose higher costs on drivers, businesses and families at a time like this? The answer lies in a failure at the heart of this Government’s approach: they have lost control of welfare spending. Instead of taking the difficult decisions required to ensure that welfare spending is sustainable and properly targeted, they have allowed costs to rise and rise. Now, having failed to grip that challenge, they are asking working people to pick up the bill. We have already seen tax increases on jobs, family businesses, our high streets and our farmers; this is simply the next step. Drivers are being asked to pay the price for the Government’s failure. There is a different approach. In government, the Conservatives understood the pressure that fuel costs place on households and businesses, which is why we cut—I repeat, cut—fuel duty, froze it year after year, and stepped in again when global pressures caused prices to spike. We recognise that Governments do not balance the books by making it more expensive for people to go to work or to set up or operate a business and do not hide tax rises within the price at the pump. No one can create a system where people are taxed twice—once through fuel duty and then again through VAT applied on top—and call that fair. This policy fails the basic tests; it is an unfair tax. We Conservatives will oppose this unfair tax rise, and any Member who cares about what our constituents are paying at the pump will surely vote for our motion tonight.
My right hon. Friend makes a powerful point about North sea oil and gas extraction. The Labour party says that will not make any difference to the global price of oil and gas, but billions and billions of pounds in tax will be lost as a result of having no new licences in the North sea. Those billions could be used to replace the revenues generated by fuel duty. In fact, if the Government wished, they could convert those billions into cuts in price at the pump for every single family in the country, including those in rural Beverley and Holderness who are suffering today.
I do not know whether I am being picked on or specially singled out, but in any case, Mr Speaker, thank you for selecting me. One aspect that my right hon. Friend has not mentioned today is the Clean Power 2030 action plan. Bringing it forward from 2035 means that we are overpaying for the renewables, and locking in those overpayments for 20 years. Does my right hon. Friend agree that, along with the immediate negative impacts on our economy and, most importantly, on our constituents, locking in long-term contracts for overpriced renewables will increase the cost of living even further?
I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. With the strait of Hormuz in effect closed, does that not prove the point we have been making for years, which is how important it is for our energy security to have new licences in the North sea? The Minister is known as “Torsten Tax”, so I will ask him about tax. Does he accept that not having new licences in the North sea will lose this country billions in tax revenue—yes or no?
My right hon. Friend will have noted, as I have, that the hon. Member for Hastings and Rye (Helena Dollimore), the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr Brash) and other Labour Members wish to talk about the past. Our constituents, and graduates who are paying these outrageous sums, want to talk about the future. At the general election, they listened to Labour’s promises on lowering costs for graduates, but the Government are doing exactly the opposite. By deflecting and talking about the past rather than accepting responsibility for the government that they are delivering, Labour Members are letting down all those young people, whose aspirations should be respected.
Young people in my constituency are looking for a bit of hope. How should they interpret the Minister’s answer to her hon. Friend, the hon. Member for Leeds Central and Headingley (Alex Sobel), and the fact that the Chancellor has said that young people are at the back of the queue? From that very recent mood music, it does not sound as if there is much to hope for from this Government.
I am trying to follow the mental perambulations of the left. The argument seems to be that people from working-class backgrounds can go on courses that lead them to have negative outcomes—poor earnings—and that the very course they are on, which does them little good, with so much promised and so little delivered, actually has the opportunity to cross-subsidise other people doing other courses. Both the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Gloucester (Alex McIntyre) seem to think that is a good thing. Can they not see that, in reality, it is not?
The hon. Lady is giving a powerful speech. On behalf of her generation, is she disappointed that, having promised to reduce the costs for graduates repaying student loans, the Government are making it worse? Is she disappointed that, when challenged over this broken system, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the hon. Lady and people like her are at the back of the queue?
Would the hon. Lady not find it rather worse if we were not reflecting on our time in power and the fact that we were thrown out and were not trying to come forward with constructive proposals to make things better? The important thing is to listen to people like the hon. Lady and our constituents, reflect and come forward with proposals. That is what we are doing. We are trying to look forward, not play some history game.
The hon. Gentleman is making an impassioned speech and we hear where he is coming from, but over the 14 years of Conservative Government, 800 jobs were created every day and unemployment was brought down to near record lows. Since his party has come to power, with the mission that he is describing, what has happened? Unemployment is up by 25% and youth unemployment has now eclipsed even that of Europe. The Government are not delivering. I hope in the next part of his speech, he is going to talk about what the Government need to do now in order to make things better for young people, because at the moment every indicator is going the wrong way, including the cost of student loans.
The hon. Gentleman said that the Government are helping young people, and mentioned transport. Bus fares have gone up by 50%, from £2 to £3; for somebody who travels every day to work and back, that is £500 a year out of taxed income. That is not helping. Fuel duty is going to go up in September—that is not helping. The cost of heating oil is going through the roof, and there is going to be nothing for anyone who goes to work—that is not helping either. Can the hon. Gentleman start to look at the reality of what is happening? It is not good for young people, and unemployment among young people is going up, not down.
It is a pleasure to participate in this debate. Graduates were promised a fair deal, and we have heard all the promises that were made from when the current Prime Minister stood to be Leader of the Opposition to the announcements that were made afterwards. People were told to work hard, go to university and have a shot at a better life, and that their efforts would pay off. On those principles, Labour Members entirely agree with those of us in the Opposition. The Education Secretary knows that those things should be in place, because in 2023 she wrote that graduates will pay less under a Labour Government. She, the actual Education Secretary, said that graduates would pay less under a Labour Government. Now in office, she says: “We are where we are.” The Chancellor knows it, too. In January, she said the student loan system was fair and reasonable—in January, this year. Yesterday, suddenly, she admitted it was broken, but, importantly, not a priority. And the Leader of the Opposition knows it. Last month, she said the current system created an unfair debt trap for graduates. But what is the difference? The difference is that the Leader of the Opposition has a plan—a plan to cut interest rates that no one would accept on a normal loan. The moment a graduate throws their cap in the air, unfortunately the Labour party sees a target to tax. We Conservatives see a dream to back—dreams like Sammi’s. Sammi, from Keyingham in my constituency, is one of the first in her family to go to university. She borrowed £40,000. She works in the medical field and makes a payment every month, but she now owes £46,000 because of interest rates that no one would accept on a normal loan. Graduates such as Sammi need to earn £66,000 before they even start to reduce their loans. By refusing to cap interest at the rate of inflation to help people like Sammi, as the Conservatives are proposing today, the Chancellor, who admits that the system is broken, is making them pay more for longer. For too many, the degree that was meant to help them get on is now holding them back. That is why, in a tough situation, we are making tough proposals about finding courses that are not adding value. They exist. We have had Liberal Democrat and Labour Members suggesting that there is not a single course at a single institution in this country that should not be put under question. That is not the right attitude. Under our plans, interest rates on plan 2 student loans will be capped at inflation, saving graduates tens of thousands of pounds. A doctor from Hedon, graduating in 2029 with £80,000 of student debt, will save £58,000 in lifetime repayments. An engineer from Roos with £40,000 of student debt earning £50,000 would clear their loan five years faster. So, when these young people enter the workforce or start a business of their own, they will have the space to build a future of their own: saving for a home, starting a family, creating something of value—fairness, a future, freedom. People like Sammi are the risk-takers, the innovators and the builders of what is to come and they are being let down by this Government. That is the choice before this House tonight: vote for our plan to make effort pay again or do nothing, because it turns out that graduates are at the back of the queue. Colleagues on the Government Benches know the right thing to do. Deep down, the Education Secretary knows it and the Chancellor knows it. What they need now is the courage to do something about it.
What provision do these measures make for the disproportionate impact of fuel poverty in rural areas? Treasury figures show that cost of energy increases have disproportionately hit rural households, rural public services, rural charities and rural businesses, including in my Norfolk constituency. The risk of fuel poverty is 15% higher in rural areas. Do these regulations include any provision that tackles this traditionally overlooked injustice?
I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate. On the point of insurance, I have just come from chairing a meeting with Aviva—a great Norfolk insurer, the biggest insurer of houses in the country. It made the point to me that this is the tip of a major iceberg of uninsureability, unmortgageability and then unsaleability, and that the Treasury should be looking at this as a major problem on the balance sheet of this country. It is a Horizon Post Office-sized scandal in its scale, risking serious economic damage to our economy. Does my hon. Friend agree that that elevates this issue to one of national importance?
The Minister has mentioned Aviva, one of Norfolk’s great companies and the biggest insurer of houses in the country. Has she seen its recent report, in which it calculates that about 4.78 million houses are at serious risk of flooding over the next 10 years? I congratulate he on securing the funding in the autumn, which I think was going to protect 60,000 houses, but does she agree that the Treasury should be thinking very deeply about the scale of this challenge in the context of national resilience?
The Minister is typically generous with her time and courteous in the number of interventions she accepts. May I gently take her back to lines 3 to 4 of the text of the Prime Minister’s amendment on student loans, which state that this House “welcomes the Government’s commitment to make the system fairer and financially sustainable”. To avoid this sounding like jam tomorrow and to reassure young people—I have a lot of respect for the Minister, and I will be generous—can she give one or two concrete announcements today of specific measures that she is bringing forward that will achieve that commitment?
Education is one of the few forces of life that allows a person not only to imagine a different future but to reach it. It is more than a qualification. It is more than a certificate. It is more than even a career. It is the moment where circumstance loosens its grip and possibility takes hold. A good education does not simply serve the individual; it strengthens families and it uplifts communities. It is the most powerful engine of social mobility we possess, and it is the surest path by which talent can rise, irrespective of where it begins. However, if we are to be true to that belief, we must confront a most uncomfortable question. What does it say about us as a nation if the very ladder we offer is weighed down by a burden that grows faster than the lives it is meant to lift? Today, far too many graduates look not at opportunity, but at a balance that rises year after year, and not simply with the cost of living but more than that. This is a system in which interest is not just keeping pace with inflation, but outstripping it, and where the cost of learning risks becoming a source of anxiety that follows people into their working lives, their families and their futures. This is not just an economic issue, but a moral one. Education should open doors, not cast longer shadows. The reforms that the Conservatives support are a simple settlement, yet they are profound in their principle. They would ensure that student loan interest rises only with inflation, not above it, moving from RPI plus 3% to RPI alone, and preventing the trap of pushing low to middle earners to pay more than the threshold.
If the hon. Member does not want to tackle the problem of the inadequacy and inequality between a high earner on £150,000 who will pay off their debt of around £46,000 over an 11-year period, and a lower or middle-income earner on £50,000 who will pay off their debt of around £80,000 over a much longer period of time, then I am afraid the public watching this debate will have serious questions about the Government’s resolve in tackling this issue.
I will make a little progress. The changes that the Conservatives propose would not remove responsibility for the student or change the process by which graduates repay, but they would fundamentally restore a sense of fairness. This is not about numbers on a balance sheet; frankly, it is about a young person deciding whether it is worth taking the risk of going to university. It is about a graduate wondering why their debt grows despite doing everything right, and it is fundamentally about trust that if people work hard, play by the rules and invest in their future, the system will be fair in return. We return to the timeless understanding that education is in the interests of us all, not just because of what it gives to an individual, but because of what it gives to society as a whole. I think of the words of Benjamin Franklin, who said: “An investment in knowledge pays the best interest.”
I have been contacted by many students in Epping Forest who are deeply concerned about their future debt and by many graduates who are worried about ballooning debt on these plan 2 loans. Does my right hon. Friend agree that the Labour Government have an opportunity to step in and relieve the pressure on young people and adopt the Conservative plans to scrap real interest rates on these plan 2 loans?
All my right hon. Friend’s arguments stand, and that was true before the war in Iran. The Prime Minister stood there on Monday saying that the freeze is still in place, but the world has literally changed around us. Does my right hon. Friend share my concern that this Government are not being reactive and following the change? There will be a big impact and a knock-on effect, and the Prime Minister is touting this policy as though it is new, when it was in the Budget last year.
That is good to hear. As it is under review, it sounds as if, should there be a change, the Government would look to support the British public, and I support that. Is there some kind of framework that the Government are using to make this decision? Is there a trigger point on fuel prices, or on how long petrol prices remain at that level? This relates to the previous question about budgeting. Are the Government using triggers, or is it just finger in the air and wait and see what happens?
It sounds as though this support will be provided through the crisis and resilience fund, which replaces the household support fund. The problem is that many more people will not fall within that, despite seeing the price of heating oil double, if not triple—plus doubling the amount they have to order. What support is there for them? If those figures are going from £500 to £1,500 overnight, that will be a huge impact, and they will not get the £35 from the Government.
At what point would the Green party feel that we should step in to support those in rural communities? Green Members often say that the Government need to provide more support, but if we cannot de-escalate because this is not our war, how can we support constituents in Hinckley and Bosworth, in the hon. Lady’s constituency, and up and down the UK?
As the hon. Lady rightly points out, if someone is using alternative transport, such as buses, they are still affected by fuel duty—even more so. On top of that, the Government have already increased the cost of a bus ticket by 50%, so her argument does not hold water.
On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am grateful for the chance to make a point of order about the intervention made by the hon. Member for Cowdenbeath and Kirkcaldy (Melanie Ward). She labelled the Conservative Benches “the manosphere”. Do you, Madam Deputy Speaker, think that it is suitable to use sex as a pejorative just because there happen to be only male Members sitting on the Conservatives Benches at this point in the debate? I would envisage it being a problem if I used such a term the opposite way to label only females sitting on the Labour Benches.
I come here today with a mission. Unfortunately, for the past two years I have not followed closely enough the Labour party’s position on what the Government want to deliver. I have lost track of whether we are talking about pillars, aims, priorities, staging points, milestones or foundations, but at the start of the year the latest reinvention was a mission focused on the cost of living. That was a slight change from when the Government first took office, because their main aim and their No. 1 priority at that point was to go for growth. Alas, as we have seen, that is not happening—the last figures say growth is 0%. What is more, it was evident that all the Government policies that were being put in place were actually anti-growth, as we are starting to see.
To win the next election, because then we can deliver the change that we are talking about. On reducing the cost of living—the Government’s No. 1 aim for January—it seems bizarre that the measures that are being put in place have done nothing to support that. The Prime Minister went on the news on Monday with a five-point plan to deal with what is going on. He said energy bills would be capped, but we already knew that because it was announced in the Budget and the cap is in place until July. He said the fuel duty cap would be extended until September, but we knew that because it was in the Budget and then it is set to rise.
The best way to decide how someone is going to behave in the future is to look at their past habits: we froze fuel duty for 15 years, and when a crisis hit in 2022 we reduced it. That is exactly the point that I was trying to make when the hon. Lady intervened. The Government have come up with a plan that is a talking shop and not doing anything. In response to the situation in Iran, they have simply reannounced what was in the Budget and further conversations with the CMA and the heating oil firms to work out whether they should or should not do something. That is precisely the point I am making: the rhetoric from the Government was “We are going to go for growth” but they then put in place some anti-growth policies, whereas now the cost of living is the No. 1 priority, but they are simply talking about that and making things worse.
I am grateful to the hon. Lady for pointing that out because I was the energy PPS in the Home Office at that time, so I saw exactly how that worked, what it looked like and how difficult it is to put measures in place. Let me remind her that the Conservatives made a £200 unconditional payment to anyone who could claim that they were living off grid. That is a stark difference from this Government, who have put aside £53 million for the 1.5 million people across the entire nation who use heating oil because they live off grid—£35 per person. The Government have ringfenced that money, so it will only be available to the houses that are hardest hit, meaning that most households will not get any payment at all. That is the exactly the point I am trying to make: the Government talk a good game, but when it comes to delivery, they are not doing what they say.
Of course the war increases the risk. The Americans chose to go into that war and that is now having an impact on all of us. The question under debate is what are we doing about that and what measures are being taken. We are discussing fuel duty, which, as it stands, the hon. Gentleman’s Government will increase in September. I have asked the Government to talk about the framework and the trigger points. I was glad to hear from the Minister that that increase is under consideration, but we need to know when that consideration will be made and what the trigger points are, because, as I rightly highlighted, we have seen all this before in 2022. We know what it looks like and we know how difficult it is to get to the canal boats, the park homes and the people living off grid. The fifth point that the Prime Minister made earlier this week was about de-escalation, but he has no control over that if he says that he is not involved in the war. I am all in favour of de-escalation, but that is not a domestic policy that will bring down the cost of living—nothing tangible can come from that stance. Why does this all matter so much? I live in and represent a rural constituency that is about 85% agricultural. We sit in the very heart of England, at the centre of the logistics industry. That means that every single day men and women from across Barwell, Earl Shilton and Donisthorpe get up, drive their vans, go out and drive their lorries, and support the economy.
The hon. Member is absolutely right. The Road Haulage Association has estimated that the fuel duty change will involve about an extra £2,000. On top of that, the change will hit the individual householder or car owner by about £140. The Government talk about making a difference, for example with the warm home discount or freezing energy prices, but those measures will already have evaporated given the very nature of the fuel duty escalation, on top of the prices that are rising because of Iran. People who work in the logistics industry are very susceptible to these fluctuations. It is right that we all want to move to electricity, but that is not going to happen immediately. I do not disagree with many of the arguments about the direction that we need to take, but the question is: what can we do now in the light of the reaction from Iran? My constituents do not have the choice of walking or getting a bus, because we are a rural constituency and they rely on their cars. This increase will hit their cost of living by the very nature of the way it comes in. Let us contrast that with the 14 or 15 years of Conservative Government. That is usually the stock answer we hear from Labour Members. Gosh, 14 years! Yes, for 14 years we froze fuel duty because we recognised the impact it had on our households, on the white van man who is out working, on the delivery driver and on the lady who is driving from Hinckley to take a package up to Appleby Magna. Those people really need that support, and the change that we made and delivered had an impact.
In true style, a knight of the realm recognises my very next point, because all these policies need to be set in context. Context is important, because each Government might need to raise taxes at some point, but here we have a toxic concoction of employment rights, more red tape, business rates going up and the support around business rates being taken away, fuel duty going up, national insurance contributions going up and the minimum wage going up. Any of those in isolation might be a good idea and might need to be done for support, but taken together they run against the Government’s milestones, mantras, missions—whatever they want to call them—on growth and the cost of living. The pay-per-mile proposals for electric vehicles have been touched on, but I would like to expand on the issue. The proposals have brought huge consternation to many of my constituents. When I raised this issue straight after the Budget, I was blown away by the number of people from across the country who contacted me after seeing my question about how the proposals would work. There are simple, fundamental questions that the Government have not set about addressing. For example, what happens in the second-hand market? Who is judging when the mileage is being done? Are we likely to have monitors in our cars? That is meant to be done at an MOT, so what happens if I sell my car six months into it? What happens if someone lives in Northern Ireland and commutes to the Republic of Ireland? Where does the tax go then? What happens if we drive to Europe? For example, many people from my constituency like to take their caravan down to France for a holiday. Where do they pay their tax? How does that work? The proposals are having the effect of stalling growth in the electric car market. Many people are saying, “I made the choice. I wanted to do the right thing for the environment and for my family, because that was a good decision to make”, but they are now regretting that decision, and the market is stalling as a result. I ask the Government how will that impact be felt in the context of fuel duty, and where will those measures fit into the framework of a continuing Iranian war? To close where I started, I agree that in this place we can have a difference of opinion on when it is the right time to do something. I am pleased that the Minister said that everything was under consideration. That is really important for those listening outside. After all the Punch and Judy of this place on whose policy was right, whose was wrong and what has happened before, at the end of the day it is the families in Hinckley and Bosworth who will be looking at their budgets and at the uncertainty they see on the TV, and trying to decide what they should do. I simply ask the Minister to outline what he would consider to be a trigger point for change. Would it be a certain price value for heating oil? Would it be a certain price value for petrol? Would it be a certain duration of the conflict? None of us knows when the conflict will end. All these questions could be addressed in a framework that we learned from during our time in government. In 2022, we had to come up with support schemes from scratch.
Forgive me; I would be happy to give way again if the hon. Gentleman knows what the value was at that point. I do not know what it was because at the time I was working in the Energy Department trying to help support those households who were struggling and suffering, particularly those who lived in caravan parks, static homes and canal boats, who are off-grid and suffered by the very nature of where they got their fuel. He is right to say that we have to take this in the round. I have heard the Chancellor say that multiple times. How long will this go on? The decision is under consideration. I am not asking about when the decision is made or how to make that decision. This is more about understanding at what point we make those decisions and when the Chancellor decides that it is the right time to step in. It may well be that that decision was too late and that lessons could be learned. How do we know? That is the question I am posing to civil servants and this Government, because the hon. Gentleman’s party is now in charge of setting that out and deciding when is too long and when is too late. I would argue that the current payment of £53 million is not enough for my constituents. Many of them will not benefit, because they will not be covered by the resilience fund. What the Government have done under the resilience fund—formerly the household support fund—is simply delegate the decision making to councils. Under the previous Government, when we were in charge, we chose not to do that because we wanted to support everyone who was struggling. It is this Government’s job to set out why they are not going to do that. I would argue that keeping the fuel duty rise in September will create a terribly difficult time for any of us who drive cars or run a business that uses vehicles. Let us not forget that the energy price cap will change in July. The Government have rightly said that it is frozen until then, but the impact on prices will not come through the system until July, so we might well see prices and the price cap rise very quickly in July just as the fuel duty is about to come in in September. We are back to the point made by the knight of the realm, my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Sir Ashley Fox) about this toxic concoction of everything happening at once. I urge the Government to be aware of that and to set out the trigger points and the framework.