The price of oil fell below the $100 a barrel mark on Friday for the first time since last October, but a weaker pound means drivers won’t save a penny at the pumps.
A barrel of Brent crude fell to $98, down from $120 a barrel last month.
The 2p saving drivers should see at the pumps as a result of lower oil prices, however, has been 'knocked out' because the pound has fallen in value by 4% since the middle of May, the AA explained.
'Had the pound remained worth $1.61 instead of around $1.53 now, further falls in the NW Europe wholesale price of petrol (taking it below $1000 a tonne for the first time since January) would have saved drivers a further 2p a litre,' the AA said.
Meanwhile, retailers have also yet to pass on the full 10p a litre saving from previous falls in wholesale prices to drivers.
Drivers have seen a saving of just seven and a half pence per litre at the pumps, Luke Bosdet of the AA explained. So while a weaker pound means they will not benefit from the most recent drop in wholesale prices, they are still owed a two and a half pence saving from the wholesale price falls seen since mid-April.
Yesterday the average price of petrol in the UK stood at 134.92p a litre, down from the record high of 142.8p seen in April. The cost of diesel, meanwhile, has fallen from 147.93p to 140.52p.
Earlier this week, the government warned fuel companies that they were being given 'one last chance' to improve transparency in the market.
Retailers have long been accused of responding to increases in wholesale prices much more quickly than price falls – prices shoot up like a rocket and fall like a feather, said Bosdet.
Transport secretary Justine Greening has now ordered retailers to set up a code of practice that allows drivers to monitor changes in petrol and diesel prices. If they don't, the government has said it will implement legislation.
Retailers claim that the industry does not understand the complex pricing mechanism, said Bosdet. Yet this fall in the price of oil is a perfect example of why greater transparency in the market would benefit suppliers as well as drivers.
On the one hand transparency would show drivers that a quarter of the savings from the original fall in wholesale prices was yet to be reflected at the pump, while on the other retailers and suppliers accused of pocketing the benefits of falling oil prices, would be able to defend themselves as to why a weaker pound means there will be no added savings.
Rural broadband would only benefit the rich, says Labour MP Graham Jones - Daily Telegraph
Mr Jones claimed the investment provided poor value for money and would create just 25 jobs.
Speaking in Parliament he also claimed “That £32 million will mean faster internet shopping for millionaires; it will not generate business in rural communities. White middle-class and upper-class areas will get the money and deprived, working-class areas will have money removed from them. It will not provide additional businesses or create jobs. This is just about faster internet shopping for wealthy people.”
Sarah Lee, Head of Policy for the Countryside Alliance, condemned the MP's attitude. "Graham Jones has criminally missed the point of these plans," she said. "In a digital age the need for fast and reliable broadband is just as important as the need for gas, electricity and water. People need to access more services online, especially critical Government services; businesses need the internet for growth; and much of everyday communication now occurs online.
In contrast to Mr Jones views, earlier this year shadow Culture Minister Harriet Harman criticised the Coalition for not doing enough to provide fast broadband to rural areas. "The Government can talk about ultra-fast and super-fast, hyper-fast and mega-fast, all (it) likes but what is happening is the creation of a digital underclass," she claimed.
Edwin Booth, Chairman of the Lancashire Enterprise Partnership, said: "creating this network could be as important as the construction of the canals and railways was to the Industrial Revolution".
Mr Jones added "I am not against rural broadband per se or denying others but is this our priority for Government funding in austere times? £30m investment would surely be more beneficial in real infrastructure and ensuring businesses in urban are connected at 100mbps as in rival economies."
Mr Jones told the Telegraph that he was in favour of rural broadband, but wanted to see more of it delivered by private sector investment. “My concern is only Lancashire and value for money economic development,” he said. “I don’t know enough to comment about national rural broadband issues. Every area is different.” He claimed £4.7m in local Council Tax was being taken from the most deprived East Lancashire areas to fund the broadband scheme.
No comments:
Post a Comment