Pressure mounts on Treasury to rethink fuel duty break for north

Published: 20/03/2010

Liberal Democrats and the SNP yesterday both ramped up the pressure on the Treasury to give the north a fairer deal on fuel prices, while fearing the worst from next week’s pre-election Budget.

Lib Dem MP Danny Alexander and his party colleague, Euro-MP George Lyon, urged the Edinburgh and London governments to acknowledge the campaign for lower fuel duty for remote and rural communities.

A pricing scheme that protects a number of remote areas of Europe has been in force for some years, but the UK Government has consistently refused the same deal for the north of Scotland.

Highlands and Islands SNP MSP Rob Gibson has challenged the Lib Dems to back an SNP amendment as part of next week’s post-Budget debate, calling for the introduction of a “fuel duty regulator” to freeze fuel duty increases if world oil prices rise above levels forecast by the chancellor – and a parallel reduction in duty to match extra revenue from VAT from higher pump prices.

Mr Alexander, the MP for Inverness, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey, said: “It seems likely the Budget will mean a further increase in fuel duty in April, which would be madness at a time when people are struggling because of the recession and fuel prices have risen by as much as 20p in the last few months.

“The Treasury is already getting a big windfall from that through VAT. The idea that they should then impose a further punitive duty rise at this time is wrong and would hit people in the Highlands especially hard because of the lack of alternatives in terms of public transport.”

Mr Gibson said: “The cost of petrol, thanks to tax increases by Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling, is the highest in Europe.

“The SNP's proposal of a regulator would stabilise the rises and bring some sanity back to prices at the forecourt.”

He called on Highland Council to buy fuel in bulk, suggesting it should be stored at Lairg or Lochinver and sold to local petrol stations.

Highland transport committee chairman John Laing, an independent councillor, dismissed the idea, however.

“We buy significant marine diesel supplies for the fishing industry which is held at ports that we manage,” he said. “We’ve looked at buying in fuel many times, but it would be a nightmare.

“There are so many regulations around the storage of petrol that the cost would far outweigh any benefits that would accrue from it and the profit margin in petrol is so low that it’s really not worthwhile.”

Reader's Comments

The whole country needs lower fuel prices not just the highlands and remote areas. It is time the government froze the duty on fuel and looked elsewhere for the money (Income Tax) as they have taken enough from the motorist over the years. Every one should stop using any kind of transport for 10 days then see how the chancellor feels then.
Robert Horne
Report this comment

I agree with you to a point Robert, but those in urban areas have an alternative to the car, regular public transport. Most car journeys in the central belt are made for convenience, not through necessity, as in the remote areas of the north and west highlands.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

Ron, your comments have nothing to do with the fuel price. Are you saying that the fuel price should rise exponentially just because, in your view, some people should use public transport? It's a much bigger issue than that - with inflation already rocketing due to "no more boom and bust" Brown and a reliance on imports whilst we have a weak pound, we really don't need more inflation in the shops from high fuel prices.
Roger Savage
Report this comment

With respect Roger, fuel prices are significantly higher in remote areas and no alternative modes of transport are available. Those in urban areas can chose not to use the car, thereby saving. I agree with you in regard to price inflation in the shops caused by fuel hikes, but subsidy could be afforded to those delivering foodstuffs, fuel etc.
Ron Campbell
Report this comment

OK Ron, but you could get someone living in a town/city that might work in the country, or a long distance away where, again, no decent public transport is available to get them there. The bottom line is that fuel prices are too high and we shouldn't discriminate using fuel taxation between one set of motorists and another. Using a car to drive a few hundred yards down the street to the corner shop and back is pretty pointless, agreed, but travelling from one side of a city to another late at night (with the current state of anti-social behaviour) - why shouldn't someone use their legally taxed and insured (at great cost) car for that? Public transport isn't safe, viable or available for everyone 24/7 - cars are.
Roger Savage
Report this comment

I think we should use up all the oil as quickly as possible.
Ludvig von Mises
Report this comment

The Press and Journal is happy to encourage discussion and debate on the topics featured within our newspaper and on our website.

However, we would urge people to respect the opinions of others even if they do not agree with them. We will not tolerate abusive comments of any type and such posts will be removed with the people responsible facing a ban from this website.

Only registered users can supply comments, and your registered name and location will automatically be appended to any comment that you upload.

We reserve the right to remove comments from anyone using a false name or pseudonym.

To post a comment, please login using the form at the top of the page, or click to register.