| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): Will the Chief Secretary explain the conundrum of how the polluter pays or the environment gains as a result of the Government's tax changes, which will have the effect of replacing British lorries belching British fumes on British roads with Belgian, French and German lorries belching their fumes on British roads? There will be no net gain whatsoever for the environment.
Mr. Milburn: I wish that the hon. Gentleman, who has expertise in this area, would consider the facts rather than relying on conjecture. [Interruption.] I say to hon. Members on the Opposition Front Bench that it is conjecture. The facts are straightforward. It is a fact that fewer than 1 per cent. of journeys by lorries on our roads are undertaken by foreign firms.
Mr. Milburn: I shall allow the hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) to intervene. He probably wants to apologise.
Mr. Paterson: No, I should like to try to educate Ministers about the environment. The Government's Kyoto target is to reduce carbon emissions by 12.5 per cent, using
the 1990 rate as a base. According to the House of Commons Library, in 1990 this country produced about 159 million tonnes of carbon: power stations produced 54 million tonnes; other sources produced 76 million, and road transport produced 30 million. The Library estimates that 16 per cent. of road transport emissions were from freight traffic, so 5 million tonnes of carbon are emitted by the road haulage industry.
How on earth will the Government halve the emissions by the road haulage industry when if loads are not carried by British trucks, they will be carried by foreign trucks, and when Library figures show that road traffic is increasing year on year?
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin):
Order. The hon. Gentleman's intervention was far too long.
Mr. Milburn:
The simple answer to the hon. Gentleman's lengthy question is that we shall achieve our aim through improved fuel efficiency. My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport and the haulage industry are working closely in partnership to tackle those issues. There are extremely simple measures that the industry wants to take, and can take, to improve its fuel efficiency, such as improved driver training, less empty running and better logistics management. Those are all straightforward options which my right hon. Friend is now exploring with the industry.
I say to the hon. Member for North Shropshire and the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) that we have established the road haulage forum to allow us to listen to the industry's concerns and, where possible, to meet its representatives. The first meeting of the forum took place earlier this month. It was constructive and the forum agreed to examine as quickly as possible the industry's competitive position, with a view to considering solutions.
Far from the Government ignoring hauliers' views, as the Opposition motion alleges, we are working closely with the industry and the trade unions that represent its workers. That is a sensible approach. Dialogue is certainly preferable to the disruption that a minority of militant hauliers have been visiting on the streets of our major cities in recent weeks. I hope that hon. Members of all parties will condemn such disruption as irresponsible and ultimately self-defeating.
Mr. Fabricant:
Is not the Minister aware that while he continues to talk about this issue, businesses are going bankrupt? He says that the question of taking vehicles abroad is conjecture, but is he aware that Fareham council now plans to get all its heavy vehicles licensed in France?
Mr. Milburn:
I shall turn in a moment to the allegations about flagging out made by the hon. Gentleman and by his party in the Opposition motion.
Mr. Andrew Welsh (Angus):
Will the Minister give way?
Mr. Milburn:
In a moment. I shall make a little progress first.
I know that industry representatives have rightly been cautious about appearing to sanction any disruption by a minority of militant hauliers. They should be equally
cautious about relying for political support for their cause on the Opposition, whose motion I shall now deal with in detail.
The Conservatives have adopted the worst possible combination of hypocrisy and exaggeration in making their case. First, it is a bit much to hear the right hon. Member for Wells accuse the Government of damaging the haulage industry, because when he was a Treasury Minister, his Government's policy of boom and bust drove 5,000 road haulage companies out of business. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that what industry dreads most is a return to the days of the late 1980s and early 1990s when interest rates and inflation were in double figures, thanks to his Government's policies.
In any case, the figure that the right hon. Gentleman quoted in respect of job losses, and which the Opposition motion repeats, is pure make-believe. Before the Budget, the Opposition were citing job losses of 26,000; now, that figure is 53,000. In all candour, I have to tell Opposition Members that thinking of a figure and then doubling it overnight is hardly the most credible way to win a political argument. [Interruption.] If the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) wants to win a political argument, I am happy to give way to him.
Mr. Desmond Swayne (New Forest, West):
Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a clear difference between unemployment arising out of the accidental and unforeseen consequences of an interest rate policy that was backed by the then Opposition, and his own quite deliberate policy, given that he began by saying that there was overcapacity in the industry and went on to say that it was his intention to drive fuel-inefficient companies out of business?
Mr. Milburn:
I am not sure whether that was an apology for the damage that the previous Government wreaked on the haulage industry, but it certainly should have been. In those days, the Government set interest rate policy directly, and they set interest rates in double figures. I remind the hon. Gentleman that interest rates were in double figures not for one but for four years.
What is ever more striking about the Opposition's position is their pure opportunism. This is from the party which, while in government, introduced the fuel escalator, extolled its virtues and defended its impact. We have of course become used to new U-turns and new posturing by the Opposition almost daily, but today the Opposition have displayed a degree of opportunism that frankly is enough even to make the Liberal party blush.
It is simply astonishing to hear the right hon. Member for Wells now oppose the fuel duty escalator as he was a Treasury Minister in the previous Government who introduced it in the first place. Not only that, but he was one of its foremost exponents. He told the House on 23 January 1995 during the passage of the Finance Bill:
I know that the Conservative party is desperately trying to reinvent itself, but I had not realised that that applied to individual members of the party as well as the organisation itself. What on earth are we going to see next? Heaven knows, we might even see the deputy leader of the Conservative party and the Front-Bench spokesperson on health agreeing their policies on privatisation, for example.
It is not as if the Conservatives stopped supporting the idea of environmental taxes the moment they left office. Quite the reverse is true. When this Government took office and announced that we were continuing the escalator policy introduced by the Tories, and, indeed, were raising it from 5 to 6 per cent. in our first Budget, the Leader of the Opposition told the House on 2 July 1997:
Mr. Loughton:
One thing that has certainly changed since 1993 is the abolition of cabotage rules in the European Union last year. That means that any continental vehicles can come to this country, belching out their fumes and taking UK loads. That certainly was not the case in 1993. I repeat the question that I asked earlier: how is that an environmental gain? It is simply substituting one country's pollution for that of another on our roads. The Minister must admit that.
"These increases"--
the 5 per cent. real increases--
"are also an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. The fuel duties policy should reduce carbon dioxide emissions by around 2.5 million tonnes of carbon by 2000. This, together with other measures already announced, should enable us to meet our targets of reductions arising from the Rio agreement."
21 Apr 1999 : Column 928
On the same day, he went on to justify the escalator further. I do not know whether he can remember this speech, but he said:
Nothing could be clearer.
"The fact is that 20 per cent. of carbon emissions in the United Kingdom come from road transport, and a large increase in emissions is forecast by the end of the century; so transport must contribute to any strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."--[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 98-103.]
"We also welcome the Chancellor's continued use of tax for environmental purposes".---[Official Report, 2 July 1997; Vol. 297, c. 323.]
So what has changed?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |