| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman not understand that my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made the decision to impose at 5 per cent. but opposes the increase to 6 per cent., and that there is no inconsistency? How does the hon. Gentleman explain the fact that the current Paymaster General, the hon. Member for Bristol, South(Dawn Primarolo), at that time opposed the introduction of the levy at 5 per cent., but vigorously supports the imposition of the levy at 6 per cent?
Mr. Leslie: If the hon. Gentleman cannot see an inconsistency between someone supporting the escalator at 5 per cent. but finding it appalling at 6 per cent., I am worried about his health.
Opposition Members must address some of the consequences of their actions. Although raising money is not an overriding objective, the fuel duty escalator brings significant resources into the Exchequer; resources that can be used for vital public services such as health, education and transport.
These are not small amounts of money: according to the Red Book, there will be £1.5 billion of revenue in 1999-2000; £2.9 billion in 2000-01; and £4.2 billionby 2001-02. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) was asked how he would plug that gap, which taxes he would raise and which services he would cut--or whether he would add the amount to the national debt. He failed to answer the question.
Mr. Loughton:
Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it has been estimated that, already, £400 million has been lost in excise duties that are now going to the continent as a result of lorry drivers filling up their tanks there? That amount will increase enormously, and the money will be lost anyway.
Mr. Leslie:
I do not know where the hon. Gentleman gets his figures from.
Mr. Loughton:
From the lorry drivers.
Mr. Leslie:
I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman got that information while driving around in the cab of a lorry, but when he presents me with some objective analysis, I might take it seriously.
Perhaps I was misrepresenting the views of the right hon. Member for Wells when I said that he gave no suggestion of where the money would come from. I recall his saying during the debate that he wanted to cut welfare spending to achieve those amounts of money; that is, up to £4.2 billion in 2001-02. Cutting welfare is now the policy of the Conservative party. Pensions, child benefit and disability benefits are all to be slashed by the Conservatives because they want to reduce the fuel duty escalator.
I wonder whether the constituents of Conservative Members--especially their poorest constituents--are fully aware of the risk that would be posed to their financial well-being should the Conservatives ever be re-elected. What an unfortunate day that would be.
The hypocrisy of the Conservative party has been evident throughout the debate, and a strong whiff of feigned outrage and false indignation is emanating from the Opposition Benches. Opposition Members must reconsider their desperately opportunistic stance on so many of these issues, especially when they introduced the road fuel duty escalator in the first place.
As bedtime reading recently, I looked through some of the amendments tabled to the 1997 and 1998 Finance Bills by the Conservative party--as one does. It was rather soporific. In debates on the 1997 Finance Bill--after the general election--the Conservatives proposed a 7.2 per cent. increase in the duties on diesel and all hydrocarbon oil fuels. In 1998, they proposed a 6.4 per cent increase in those duties. That is interesting, given that the expressed policy of the Conservative party is to get rid of the road fuel duty escalator.
I should like to know--the House deserves an answer--whether the Conservative party will stick with the commitments it made during the last few Finance Bills. Will the Conservatives go back to the 5 per cent. escalator? Will they propose a 5 per cent. change, a 1 per cent. change, or do they propose to cut the duty?
Mr. Jenkin:
We want to stop the escalator.
Mr. Leslie:
I recognise that, but will the Conservatives commit themselves to freezing the duty on hydrocarbon oils, or do they propose to cut those duties? That is what we need to know. I look forward with relish to the amendments that the Conservatives table next week to the Finance Bill. They will be well worth waiting for.
Mr. Norman Baker (Lewes):
I welcome the opportunity to speak in this important debate, and I am grateful that the Conservatives have chosen this subject.
There are genuine concerns in the road haulage industry about the present situation, which the Government have acknowledged this afternoon that they recognise. Hon. Members may disagree about the action that has been taken, but it does not help to name-call or to suggest that people are not interested in the industry when, clearly, they are.
The Conservatives have found an issue at last, after months of searching--taxation of the road haulage industry. However, they have not helped their case or the road hauliers by over-egging the pudding. The motion refers to the Government's
Mr. John Hayes (South Holland and The Deepings):
Typically, the hon. Gentleman is being generous to the Government, but would it not have been more encouraging had the Government established the consultative process before the crisis? It is a little rich for the Government to say that they will discuss with the road haulage industry what should be done about fuel prices, because that is too late in the day and as a reaction to the understandable outrage that the industry has felt since the Budget.
Mr. Baker:
The road haulage industry has been very articulate in making its case in the past few months and has caused all the political parties to consider the issue in more depth than had been the case previously. We should go forward from that point. As I have mentioned, the Conservative motion talks about the loss of 53,000 jobs. I see no evidence for that and I hope that when the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) winds up he will give us some evidence, because it is worrying for the industry and needs to be justified.
Mr. Jenkin:
The Centre for Economic and Business Research conducted an investigation into the continuation of the Government's policies and it forecasts job losses of that magnitude from its economic modelling.
Dr. Reid:
It is sponsored by the Road Haulage Association.
Mr. Jenkin:
It is run by a former CBI economist. The Labour party is fond of listening to the CBI and it is a respectable forecast. The Government should commission an independent assessment of the competitive position of road haulage in the UK and then we could have a proper debate, but the Government will not do it.
Mr. Baker:
I agree that we now need an independent assessment of the situation. We need it even more after this afternoon, because the opposing side have produced "facts" that are incompatible with each other and which do not stack up. We need to find out whether the road haulage industry in this country is competitive.
Mr. Jenkin:
Can the hon. Gentleman not make up his own mind?
Mr. Baker:
No, we need the facts. It appears that Conservative Members wish to make up their minds before they have the facts: we would rather wait for the facts.
Dr. Reid:
What the hon. Gentleman and the Conservatives have asked for is precisely what we are doing in the haulage forum. Much hot air is produced on this subject, but we have agreed with the haulage forum that we will work jointly with the Freight Transport Association and the Road Haulage Association to discover the areas on which we can agree. If necessary, we will take independent advice so that we can build up a picture that will show whether the industry is--as we think--highly competitive internationally. That does not mean that there are not problems with sectors of the industry.
"utter failure to acknowledge the crisis in the UK road haulage industry."
It talks about 53,000 jobs being lost and says that the Government should
"end its complacency and refusal to listen to the road haulage industry".
Conservative and Liberal Democrat Members may feel that the Government should do more, but it does not help to exaggerate beyond belief the Government's response to the issue. Whether they are taking the right decisions is another matter, but they are listening to the road haulage industry. A forum has been established and, this afternoon, the Government have acknowledged some problems. I hope that we will now see some positive action from the Government. Let us have a sensible debate instead of the point scoring that we have heard so far.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |