| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
8 pm
Mr. Alistair Darling (Edinburgh, Central): The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is to be congratulated on raising the matter. It is quite clear that the concern affects many people living in the Scottish islands, and he is right to put down a marker for the future.
The hon. Gentleman wishes to extend the exemption that applies to some of the smaller islands but--as he rightly said--not to others, which causes all sorts of anomalies and resentment. Half the lorries might be covered, but half are not. The question is whether we extend the exemption to include all lorries and appropriate vehicles on the islands or whether it might be more appropriate to have a proper look at the whole system of support--direct and indirect--for island transport.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald), who put forward a cogent and coherent case for a proper strategic look at the way in which the Government support island transport. The vehicle excise duty problem, to which the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland referred, is only one part of an overall problem. My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the transport costs faced on the islands--not only by hauliers and commercial travel but by those who cross the sea in private cars. The cost of going to the Scottish islands is much greater than that of crossing the English channel, for example. All of us who have ever attempted to take a car and family across the Minch, let alone a large lorry carrying freight, will know that transport costs impose a formidable burden. In addition, such costs have a substantial bearing on the competitiveness of island firms.
A strategic approach is clearly called for. I know that the Government have agreed to a further study--the first study that they carried out having been rather more limited than was desirable. My hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles will know that the shadow Secretary of State for Scotland has said that he will embark on a comprehensive review of Scottish Office spending. I can certainly undertake on his behalf that, as part of that study, we shall examine how the Government support transport to the Scottish islands--by both air and sea--and see how we can best assist the majority of individuals and businesses based there.
Such a strategic study is long overdue and marks the difference between us and the present Government, who have tended to regard such things, inasmuch as they ever think about them, in a very piecemeal way. We believe that an overall comprehensive approach is absolutely essential with regard not only to the new clause but to the amendment on air passenger duty, which we shall consider later. People living on the islands of Scotland clearly face specific problems. They rightly look to the Scottish Office in particular and Parliament in general to address them. If the Government will not do that, we certainly will.
Mr. Oppenheim:
I have sympathy with the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He has fought a battle over a long period on this issue, with a certain amount of success. I am sorry that, certainly for the Government's part, I cannot offer him any further success this evening. However, I emphasise that there is quite a lot of sympathy for some of the points that he made. I shall briefly give the reasons why we do not think that the new clauses are acceptable.
The hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland argues that, on Orkney and Shetland, there are no trunk roads. Heavy goods vehicles can of course cause more wear and tear on smaller roads that are not necessarily designed to take them than on trunk roads, so quite a large cost is still involved. The reason why the islands were originally excluded is that the islands that were included were included for historical reasons. There is a danger of where to stop if a concession is made to one or two more islands. There are the small islands around Northern Ireland and the Isle of Wight--the list could go on. If one island got a concession, the next would lobby for a concession that--arguably--might be justified. The issue would become quite open-ended for any Government.
I did not find the point that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland made about some hauliers having to keep a second truck in case the first broke down because they could not rent a truck on the islands totally convincing in this day and age. Even fairly modern commercial vehicles are not that unreliable. The general points that he made about the difficulty of living on the islands and the importance of increasing employment opportunities and reducing cost penalties wherever feasible are, however, well taken, but I am not sure that the creation of further anomalies in the indirect tax system is necessarily the way in which to address them. The debate could be taken far wider into regional aid policy, European regional aid policy, and so on. I think that that is the way in which to address the issues rather than creating anomalies in the vehicle excise duty system.
Mr. Wallace:
I am grateful to the Minister for the understanding way in which he has negated what I have sought to do. Will he address the point with regard to vehicles that come from islands that are designated as small islands but, due to almost an accident of geography, those over 17,000 kg have to go more than 5 km before they reach a landing point where they can do any business? Such an anomaly seems to defeat the purpose of the exemption.
Mr. Oppenheim:
The hon. Gentleman makes a reasonable point, and we shall look at that particular anomaly. We have already looked initially at the matter. The fundamental problem is that the system would still be left open to abuse, to which hauliers, especially on the mainland, would object. There is an anomaly, but if there were a concession that vehicles could go more than 5 km, it could be abused in other directions--not particularly on the islands mentioned. That is a fair point; there is a particular problem and we shall certainly look at it. The hon. Gentleman is coming into the Treasury tomorrow for a meeting on another issue, so perhaps we can discuss the matter in more depth then, if that is convenient for him.
The comments of the Chief Secretary were absolutely marvellous--very new Labour. New Labour does not make spending pledges, it makes report pledges. We heard the usual story: lots of hints, but no firm pledges.
Mr. Eric Martlew (Carlisle):
The hon. Gentleman said that my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) is the Chief Secretary.
Mr. Oppenheim:
Sorry, shadow Chief Secretary. We heard the old story--all talk and no action. If the
We costed all the pledges very conservatively in the winter--and they came to £30 billion. What happened? The shadow Chief Secretary said, "That is nonsense. We have potentially an iron Chancellor. He is not going to go rusty or exceed Tory tax and spending targets." I find it absolutely incredible that, after 18 years in opposition, the unique selling proposition of new Labour, after all the focus groups and spin doctors--
Mr. Oppenheim:
If the hon. Gentleman will sit down a minute--is that the Tories have made such a mess of things that it is going to stick to all their policies.
Mr. Darling:
I thank the hon. Gentleman for giving way, since I assume that that is what he is going to do. It is a pity that, when discussing a matter that is important to many thousands of people living in the Scottish islands, he should depart from--indeed, not attempt to answer or come up with a constructive solution to--the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Western Isles (Mr. Macdonald) and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace). He surely must accept that, given that the Government support to a greater or lesser extent some aspects of transport in the Scottish islands and given that there are anomalies, any Government should be prepared to consider them and see whether there is a better way in which to support such transport. Nobody is in the business of writing blank cheques or making promises that cannot be delivered. He admits that there is a problem. Rather than making silly and inaccurate points, might he not do better in his remaining days in the Treasury dealing with some of the problems?
Mr. Oppenheim:
The hon. Gentleman clearly did not listen. I did my best to answer the points made by the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland. I also said that we would discuss them further tomorrow. Some of his points were invalid but some were valid. There are anomalies. I said that the new clause was not the best way in which to deal with them. I offered to discuss the genuine anomalies with the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |