| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Baker: I am grateful for the assurance that there will be an independent element to the Government's talks with the road haulage industry.
Mr. Jenkin: The right hon. Gentleman did not say that.
Mr. Baker: Yes, he did. It is important that the facts are independently verified so that when we next have a debate on the issue we can proceed on the basis of facts that we can all agree on and dispute the interpretation of the facts, rather than the facts themselves.
I do not know whether there is a loss to the Exchequer, and if so how much, from hauliers going abroad to fill up. The Government say that that is not happening, and the Conservatives say that it is. I am not sure that it would make economic sense to go abroad, because one must also take account of the time involved and the fare on the ferry. However, in my constituency some drivers travel a long way to avoid paying a 20p car park ticket and waste far more in petrol. It is not necessarily a question of logic as to whether people go abroad. However, we need to find out whether that is happening and quantify the loss to the Exchequer if there is one.
It is clear from the debate so far that two black holes have opened up in the Conservatives' policy, and they need to be filled by the hon. Member for North Essex when he sums up. The first is the loss of income to the Treasury that will follow the abandonment of the escalator. If the Conservatives wish to pursue that policy, they must recognise that £1.5 billion a year, or more, would be lost to the Treasury. The right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) admitted that it would come from welfare. Many people depend on welfare. They have no alternative income and would be very badly hit by cuts. To raise that possibility so cavalierly was not helpful, and it is important for the Conservatives to clarify
exactly where in the welfare budget that cut will be made. Will it fall on pensions or the disablement allowance? It is not credible to have a policy that cuts something for somebody but does not say who will pay the price.
The second black hole that has opened up relates to Kyoto. The Government have made a full commitment to meeting the Kyoto targets, and our commitment to that is as firm if not firmer. I had thought, following the stalwart efforts of the previous Conservative Secretary of State for the Environment, that the Conservatives were also committed to Kyoto. However, if the fuel escalator is abandoned, as the Conservatives suggest, that will have an adverse impact on our ability to meet our Kyoto targets.
I have a copy of a press release from the previous Government dated 30 November 1993, following the November 1993 Budget. It states:
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) earlier talked about two light bulbs. We should become more energy efficient, but the transport sector has increased carbon dioxide emissions when other sectors have seen their emissions fall. The transport sector is, therefore, a big problem in terms of carbon dioxide emissions.
It is also worth bearing in mind the fact that road freight traffic has increased by 67 per cent. since 1980. According to the Library's figures, it is set to double between 1996 and 2026. Whether or not hon. Members welcome that, it is premature to talk about 53,000 jobs being lost when such an increase is forecast. At the same time, rail freight has declined in gross tonnage by 32 per cent. since 1980. We must make efforts to ensure that the maximum amount of freight possible is transported by rail. The Government, to their credit, have introduced rail freight grants and taken other measures to achieve that. To the Conservatives' credit, the one part of rail privatisation that has been a success is the privatisation of rail freight, which has worked well with English, Welsh and Scottish Railways and other companies. Let us agree on that and build on attempts to put more freight on rail. That is not to say that all freight can go by rail as huge amounts of it must go by road. However, we must maximise use of the rail network.
Mr. Loughton:
I am glad to hear the Liberals coming around to privatisation following the benefits that it has brought to rail services. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge that much freight on rail is carried by diesel-powered locomotives and that the increase in diesel charges will have an impact on the railways? Does he
Mr. Baker:
The hon. Gentleman was highly selective in what he said about our view on rail privatisation. I had picked out the one bit that had been a success.
Mr. Loughton:
The hon. Gentleman is making progress.
Mr. Baker:
Not much, though. The hon. Gentleman made the valid point that locomotives should be as clean as possible. It might be helpful if Railtrack used some of its gross profits--gross in both senses--to invest in railways instead of dressing up regular maintenance as investment. There should be more money for electrification to deal with that problem.
Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East):
Any independent inquiry into the road haulage industry ought to consider the results of surveys under successive Governments that have indicated that, regardless of the substantial tax paid on them, the heaviest lorries in the UK do not meet their true track costs. Is it not time that there was--to use an overworked phrase--a level playing field for road and rail freight? The tilting of the field for several years has had its impact, and a declining amount of freight is carried by rail, with an equally adverse impact on traffic congestion, road deaths and the environment.
Mr. Baker:
I agree entirely. There must be incentives to use rail and there must be no market distortions that discriminate against rail. The Government have begun to deal with the environmental impact of lorries, but we must ensure a greater correlation between environmental damage caused by lorries and charges imposed on road haulage companies. If the industry is working hard to clean up lorries--I think that it is doing so--we must ensure that it is rewarded, but we must discriminate against lorries that pollute.
Mr. Baker:
I acknowledge that the Minister has begun that work, but it needs to go further.
We have some sympathy for the Conservative proposal for a Brit disc, because it relates to road usage. We are keener to tax road usage than simple ownership of vehicles. We must look at vehicle excise duties on our lorries, which are well in excess of duties in other European Union countries. That does not necessarily mean a big cut in revenues to the Exchequer, but we must examine the structure of the tax system to put more taxes on road use and fewer on vehicle ownership. Recently produced league tables show just how far out of line our VED is with duties in the EU.
We support the concept of what Conservatives call Brit discs, and we call Euro vignettes. I am pleased that the Government have announced that they will examine the idea. That is a sensible, non-confrontational approach.
I have mentioned Kyoto, but I have not yet dealt with the pollution factor, and it would be wrong to leave that out of a debate of this nature. One in seven of our children suffers from asthma, and up to 10,000 people a year die
prematurely because of particulate pollution. Any transport policy must include strategies to deal with those problems, or we shall fail our children and those who suffer from pollution.
The Liberal Democrats support the fuel escalator in principle, but it must not be a milch cow from which there is no return for the industry. We must reinvest the money--hypothecated, perhaps--to ensure that benefits result from the burden of taxation on the industry. My colleagues and I have continually supported the escalator for cars, but we match that support with calls for a cut in VED. The Budget provided a cut for 1100 cc cars, but we want VED to be abolished for all cars under 1600 cc, which would provide a specific link between the fuel escalator and the benefits that arise for transport, both public and private. We voted against the Budget's proposals on the escalator, and we want the Government to make a more explicit link.
"The Chancellor also announced his decision to raise its commitment to real increases in the road fuel duties in future Budgets . . . to an average of at least 5 per cent."
That implies that 6 per cent. could fit that category. The press release continues:
"The Chancellor's decisions reflect a number of factors including the need to raise revenue"--
so it was a milch cow even in those days--
"and the need to encourage reductions in UK carbon dioxide emissions."
The need to reduce carbon dioxide emissions has not gone away: it is stronger than ever. Environmental analysis demonstrates that the need to take action on climate change is greater than it was six or seven years ago, but the Conservatives appear to be abandoning that policy. That is the second black hole that the Conservatives need to fill.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |