---

Mrs. Shephard: I would not advise the hon. Gentleman to tell that to the average British trucker.

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1325

He might regret it. The Minister of Transport--normally a sensible man--told the Freight Transport Association a month ago that British hauliers were not suffering any serious disadvantage. I would like to read to him a letter faxed to me today by Mr. David Burton who runs a small transport company in Whissonsett, in Norfolk. He said:

"I am contacting you for help and to lobby this Government regarding the terrible plight of UK hauliers. As you are aware we cannot compete with unfair competition from continental hauliers due to this Government's insistence of the fuel duty escalator. I and my wife have built up from nothing to a profitable company employing 17 employees from a small rural village in mid Norfolk over the last 20 years. This is now very much in jeopardy due to vast differences in fuel duty. We have in the last month lost an valuable contract running to Spain due to unfair competition and also another contract to Holland and Germany is under scrutiny by our customer, asking for a reduction in rates which will be the final straw. We are desperate for help and cannot survive much longer."

I appeal to the Minister to listen to Mr. Burton--an authentic voice from the smaller end of the business--to reduce the tax burden and to play his part in saving 50,000 jobs.

Mr. Matthew Taylor (Truro and St. Austell): The right hon. Lady's concern for that haulier and the lorry industry--and for motorists in general--is clear. Will she make it clear whether the policy of her party is now to end the fuel escalator, and whether the shadow Chancellor has agreed that with her?

Mrs. Shephard: I have said that we think the Government should do as we did with whisky duty and review the global effects of their policy on the haulage industry and reduce the tax burden. That is what they should do--they are in charge.

Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): The right hon. Lady is developing policy on the hoof. Is she proposing that we freeze duty on diesel, or cut the duty?

Mrs. Shephard: Clearly, the hon. Gentleman was not listening--I suppose that he was bemused by the glamour pics. What I said earlier was what I just said to the hon. Member for Truro and St. Austell (Mr. Taylor). I could hardly put the position more clearly. He may recall that we voted against the increase in the Budget.

The Government have increased road taxes, affecting every man, woman and child in the country. That is despite their promise that there would be no tax increases under Labour. The travelling public--the people who were promised immediate benefits under Labour--are entitled to ask why. Clearly, despite the Government's desire to hide behind a green smokescreen, this is not being done for environmental reasons.

The stark fact is that, following the Budget, the Government's tax take from road users will increase this year by £1.6 billion. Spending on transport is to be cut for each of the next three years, as the Department's own figures confirm. Thus, there will be no investment in public transport to provide a choice for motorists, as promised in "Consensus for Change."

The then Labour transport spokesman, now Secretary of State for International Development, said that her intention was that people should be

"caught in traffic jams when driving to work to see clean fast buses whizzing by and determined to leave their cars at home."

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1326

She was right on one count. We have the jams--but where are the buses?

As John Dawson of the AA said,

"The Chancellor's environmental excuse for hitting motorists is wearing very thin."

He said that the Budget is

"a purely revenue generating measure which impacts most on less well off families and those living in rural areas without any realistic public transport alternatives. No country in Europe spends so little of what it takes from motorists on its transport system."

Dr. George Turner (North-West Norfolk): Does the change in policy that the right hon. Lady is making on the fuel escalator--which, I understood, was introduced by the Conservative Government for environmental reasons--mean that she is abandoning a commitment to achieve the environmental objectives, or does she have alternatives to suggest? Many of us who represent rural areas understand the concerns that she is raising. The county that we both represent has more to lose--literally--in land mass by global warming than most.

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Gentleman makes his point, whatever it may be. I have made it absolutely clear why we voted against the Government's punitive increase in diesel duty. I remind him that he, too, has many hauliers in his constituency.

Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (West Derbyshire): Surely the Government are misunderstanding the point. It is not that lorries will cover fewer miles, but that companies will flag out to other European countries. They will carry on transporting, but far more cheaply than is possible in this country.

Mrs. Shephard: From what we understand from the Minister, the Government's policy is to attract foreign companies here to add to our pollution and congestion. The Government cannot claim that the extra tax that they have raised is used to reduce congestion and bottlenecks. Last July's roads review slashed the roads programme from more than 140 targeted improvements to only 37, and it will be up to a decade before many of those are completed.

Mrs. Anne Campbell (Cambridge): May I take it that the Conservative party no longer supports the international agreement to curb carbon dioxide emissions? If so, what measures would the right hon. Lady put in place that would have the same effect as our taxation measures?

Mrs. Shephard: The hon. Lady should listen to the case that I am making. The Government are imposing swingeing tax increases on road users. They have made cuts in overall transport spending, depriving road users of public transport alternatives. They slashed the roads programme, which would have reduced congestion and pollution.

The local transport settlement amounted to a real-terms decrease in cash for local authority road schemes, and that is set to continue for the next three years. The December survey by the Institution of Civil Engineers found that the maintenance backlog had increased by 40 per cent. since 1996 and now stands at a total of £160 for every vehicle licence holder.

18 Mar 1999 : Column 1327

The Opposition support an integrated approach to transport. We agree that we must make the best use of what we have, in the way that is most sustainable for the environment. We support the responsible use of the car and responsible roads investment to reduce congestion and pollution. When in office, we invested £26 billion in roads and nearly the same amount in public transport. Our policies levered in more private funds to increase public transport choices.

The Government have broken their pre-election promises on transport. There have been no immediate benefits for the travelling public. Their answer to transport problems is to tax the motorist off the road and to put hauliers out of business. Their swingeing stealth tax increases are hitting every man, woman, child and business in the country. They are cutting investment in public transport and our roads. They are creating a standstill Britain. I urge the House to support the motion.

4.34 pm

The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid): I beg to move, To leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof:

"commends the Government for taking a far-sighted and more integrated approach to roads policy than the previous administration; notes that the previous Government's 'predict and provide' approach to road building has been discredited and that the present Government has instead taken a realistic and practical approach based on the five criteria of integration, the economy, the environment, safety and accessibility; notes further that the previous Conservative Government's grandiose but impractical wish-list of schemes for which funding was not available has been replaced by a targeted programme of improvements, all of which can be started within seven years; welcomes its increased and more rationally-based spending on roads maintenance; and applauds the Government for tackling the problems of congestion and pollution, thereby ensuring that the road transport system operates for the benefit of individual people and the UK economy as a whole."

I strongly deprecate these attacks on my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. He is a sensitive soul and will no doubt have been deeply offended by the remarks of the right hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). If she chooses in future to start a debate with an attack on my right hon. Friend for his obsession, as she put it, with media opportunities, she should advise her colleague, the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin), not to send letters round to all Conservative Members saying:

"Central office will be using the debate to mount a major media operation."

That may be the pot calling the kettle black.

---