| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. St. Aubyn: I support the amendment. The Government are in danger of devaluing an important principle. The previous Government fully endorsed the principle of using economic levers up to a point to change behaviour. We encouraged people to switch to unleaded petrol by changing the rates of duty between unleaded and leaded. A measured increase in petrol duties was part of a programme of persuading people to use their cars less and to use public transport more.
The Government must explain why increasing the scale on which the duties are raised from 5 per cent. to at least 6 per cent. will make any difference. I do not believe that it will. A measured rise in duty is helpful as part of an overall programme to encourage people to switch from using their cars to using public transport, but on its own it is not an answer. With their excessive rise in petrol duty, the Government are putting too much faith in one policy. That will not work. The huge increases in traffic through my constituency despite increases in duty in recent years show that the use of the private car will not be influenced by the price of petrol alone. A huge convenience factor must be addressed before we can hope to stem the increase in traffic.
On Friday, we debated the Road Traffic Reduction (National Targets) Bill. It is evident that there is support on both sides of the House for measures that discourage motor traffic, but they must be carefully considered. The Government's proposal is an attempt merely to cap the previous Government's policy by taking it that step further, but without thinking through the consequences. I am sure that we shall hear from hon. Members who represent rural areas, such as Cornwall, where I used to
live, which will be very hard hit by the scale of the increase that the Government have proposed for all road users without thinking through what other measures are needed.
The extra burden on the car driver will not make any difference to the increasing traffic in lanes around Guildford. It will not save us from problems on Halfpenny lane in Chilworth or through villages such as Compton and Puttenham, where the massive increase in traffic is causing tremendous disquiet. If the Government's only response is to raise petrol duty, it is simply not good enough. That will not solve the problem.
Mr. Bercow:
Does my hon. Friend agree that, if the Government think that an increase in duty will reduce the use of the private motor car, they owe it to the House and to the public to publish an estimate of what they believe that reduction will be? If they fail to do so, we can assume that they do not expect a reduction in usage, and that the proposal is just a smash-and-grab raid on taxpayers.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I thank my hon. Friend for pointing out that what really lies behind the Government's proposal is greed. They simply want to grab as much money as they can from the taxpayer. It is old-fashioned socialist greed. The implication is that those with the largest cars will pay the most. The calculation is spinning through the brains of Labour Members as we debate the issue. I would go further than my hon. Friend: the Government should not only publish estimates of how much the additional levy will reduce road traffic but tell us how they will spend the additional revenue to encourage alternative uses.
I should like to draw the Committee's attention to some very interesting alternative means of transport in my constituency that are at the forefront of thinking on the issue. They demonstrate the inadequacy of the Government's response in clause 7. The concept of an ultra-light railway system has been promoted by a firm based in Guildford that gave a presentation in the House only a few weeks ago. The system could have a significant impact in town centres such as Guildford by encouraging people not to use their cars. The concept relies not only on increases in duty but on new technology. More to the point, it is a purely market-driven solution, which requires no public subsidy.
The Temporary Chairman:
Order. We are discussing rates of duty; I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I am just contemplating how the additional revenue that the Government are planning to raise through the excessive increase in duty might be put towards a constructive policy of discouraging the use of the private motor car. If the Government cannot come up with such a policy, the idea that the motorist should be arbitrarily penalised clearly becomes highly debatable.
The Temporary Chairman:
Order. This is all very interesting, but I am afraid that we are debating a rather narrow amendment. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would like to return to it.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
I am grateful for your excellent guidance, Mrs. Dunwoody.
We should emphasise that the Government are proposing a very narrow-minded policy that does not go nearly far enough towards solving the problems that face this country. Behind the example of the ultra-light railway is the fact that we shall solve the problems of excessive traffic through market solutions.
Mr. Clifton-Brown:
Will my hon. Friend call on the Government to publish the specific environmental benefits of not raising the escalator, as we propose in amendment No. 12? No figures have been published either in the notes on clauses or in the Red Book to indicate specific environmental gains in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.
Mr. St. Aubyn:
My hon. Friend makes a very valid point. I hope that the Financial Secretary is making careful notes because recent interventions show just how far short the Government have fallen of what they should be achieving. If they want any support in the Lobby tonight, they must show that there is a purpose behind imposing additional levies on the motorist. The purpose must surely be traffic reduction.
We must come forward with market-driven solutions. As a result of the policy instituted by the previous Government, there is evidence that although an increase in petrol duty may form part of a comprehensive strategy, it cannot be the whole strategy. If it cannot be the whole strategy, it is simply not fair, particularly on less well-off people in rural areas who depend on cars, to penalise the motorist by proposing such taxes.
Mr. John Swinney (North Tayside):
I support the amendment because some moderation of the Government's proposed increase is better than nothing. I calculate that the percentage increase recommended by the Conservatives was of the order of 6 per cent., against the 9 per cent. that the Government propose. It is important that we do something to moderate the proposed severe increase in petrol duty.
There has been much double-talk in this debate from Conservative spokesmen who have denounced measures that they were quite happy to introduce when they were on the Government Benches. I shall spare the Committee any further points on the hypocrisy of both main parties on this issue.
Mr. Heathcoat-Amory:
The hon. Gentleman has just said that he wants to return the duty increase to the level that applied under the previous Government, which is exactly what the amendment proposes. Why, therefore, is it hypocritical for us to get together on the same issue?
Mr. Swinney:
Although I am grateful for that intervention, it is a curious way to welcome friends into the body of the kirk, as we would say in Scotland. I would have much preferred the amendment tabled by my hon. Friends and myself--or, possibly, that tabled by the Liberal Democrats. Unfortunately, those amendments were not selected.
Mr. Bercow:
It is sour grapes.
Mr. Swinney:
It is not sour grapes. It is just a recognition that the Conservatives, as usual, are offering us a second-best solution to the problem, which I am happy to support.
If the clause is passed without amendment, we will have witnessed two inflation-busting increases in 12 months, totalling three in 18 months. As a Member of Parliament who represents a very large part of Scotland and a diverse rural constituency, I know that the increases are very damaging to the health of the rural economy.
I have listened carefully to, and comprehend, the Government's arguments at different stages in the Bill's passage on why it is necessary to go down such a route to reduce vehicle use and traffic congestion, protect the environment, reduce emissions, and all the rest of it.
On Second Reading, I questioned the Chief Secretary on that very point. I asked him what information the Government had at their disposal to suggest that increasing duty on petrol reduced car use. I thought that was a straightforward question. The Chief Secretary replied:
"The matter has been looked into. If fuel duties are increased, there is a reduction in car use and lower carbon dioxide emissions."--[Official Report, 21 April 1998; Vol. 310, c. 609.]
That sounded clear, but, to make sure, I thought that I would ask a written question to get the information out into the public domain. I asked the Chancellor
"what data he has evaluated indicating that increasing the duty on fuel results in lower car use; and if he will make the studies available in the Library."
The Financial Secretary kindly responded:
"I shall let the hon. Member have a reply as soon as possible."
That did not suggest to me that there was compelling evidence in the Treasury to suggest that increasing the cost of petrol resulted in less car use. I am sure that the full answer is in the post.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |