| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
4.15 pm
Mr. David Drew (Stroud): The case that my right hon. Friend is making is interesting, but does he share my concern that, as well as examining the road haulage industry, we should consider inventory policy? One of the key reasons why there are so many vehicle movements is the "just in time" system, which has been an environmental disaster in many respects.
Mr. Milburn: The industry and the Government agree that there are simple and straightforward steps that road hauliers can take to improve their performance. The representatives of the industry are discussing those issues with the Government now. Less empty running, better driver training, better logistics management and the use of cleaner engines will all make a difference to the haulage industry's fuel consumption.
As I have said, the gap between the best and the worst is alarming--and closing that gap is in the hands of the industry itself. I am sure that provided that we can achieve agreements between the industry and the Government in the road haulage forum, we can begin to make progress in the direction that my hon. Friend would like.
The Government openly acknowledge that there is a balance to be struck between environmental objectives and the needs of the industry. We have established the road haulage forum to allow us to hear the industry's concerns, and, where possible, to deal with them. Dialogue rather than disruption will best serve the industry. Similarly, the industry will be best served by keeping a comfortable distance between itself and the Opposition. [Hon. Members: "Oh."] After all, it was the Conservative party that drove almost 5,000 hauliers out of business during the recession that it created in the late 1980s and early 1990s.
Mr. Andrew Lansley (South Cambridgeshire)
rose--
Mr. Milburn:
The hon. Gentleman has just come into the Chamber. He was not here for the start of my speech, and he should have been, so I shall make him wait a moment or two.
Mr. Milburn:
The hon. Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson) has been here from the beginning; he has been patient.
Mr. Paterson:
Can the Minister square his comments on the environment with the evidence that I have received from the Library that in 1990 Britain's carbon emissions amounted to 159 million tonnes, of which only 30 million came from road transport? Of that 30 million tonnes, only 16 per cent. came from freight. The maximum estimate is therefore that 5 million of the 159 million tonnes came from road haulage. As there is no evidence that the number of loads carried has been reduced, where does the Minister get his environmental conclusions from?
Mr. Milburn:
I get my conclusions from the figures, which I recited earlier. Unlike his hon. Friend, the hon. Gentleman has been present for the whole debate. I presume that he was listening to what I said, but I shall repeat it for his benefit: road freight distribution is one of the fastest growing causes of air pollution, accounting for one third of the 35 million tonnes of carbon that result from vehicle use. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go away and check his figures, he will find that mine are right.
Mr. Milburn:
No, I am not giving way. I want to finish now.
It is simply wrong to say, as the Opposition allege, that the escalator makes it impossible for United Kingdom hauliers to compete with foreign hauliers. One would be hard pressed to find any United Kingdom industry--
Mr. Jonathan Sayeed (Mid-Bedfordshire)
rose--
Mr. Milburn:
I am not giving way.
Mr. Milburn:
I have made it clear that I am not giving way. I have given way on countless occasions, and frankly , I wish that I had not--[Hon. Members: "Oh."]--given the baloney that I have heard from the Conservatives. I am certainly not about to give way again.
One would be hard pressed to find any United Kingdom industry more dominated by domestic providers than the road haulage industry. Of course we know that we pay more for diesel in this country than continental companies do, but they pay far more in corporation tax and labour costs. The tax burden here is lower than that in other major European countries. They have motorway tolls; by and large, we do not. Once all those factors are taken into account it is clear that moving out of the United Kingdom would be an expensive business for haulage firms.
A typical firm, with 50 articulated lorries, would face higher business costs of nearly £400,000 a year in France, £600,000 a year in Holland and more than £800,000 a year in Belgium. So, contrary to the irresponsible claims from Conservative Members, Britain is the best place for hauliers, especially as a result of the help that the Budget gave to the haulage industry.
Mr. Milburn:
Instead of yelling, the hon. Gentleman should start listening. He might learn something.
The most fuel-efficient, road-friendly vehicles--and the companies that operate them--stand to gain from the package that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced on Budget day. That package includes the duty cut on cleaner, ultra-low sulphur diesel relative to ordinary diesel; the duty cut on road fuel gases enshrined in this clause; the freezing of vehicle excise duty for 98 per cent. of lorries, to which we shall return later in our deliberations; the doubling in the vehicle excise duty reduction for lorries meeting lower emission standards; and the cuts in red tape to allow lower-weight lorries to qualify for lower level vehicle excise duty. There are also, of course, the cuts in corporation tax, which have been welcomed so warmly by the business community.
The Government's approach will help the road haulage industry and improve the environment. There is a balance to be achieved between the industry's needs and the country's environmental needs. The fuel duty escalator helps to get that balance right.
Until last week, the Conservatives supported getting that balance right. What they argued for in government, they now argue against in opposition. Their position is irresponsible, unprincipled and hypocritical. It deserves short shrift from the Committee and I urge it to support the clause.
Mr. Maude:
I start, as usual, by declaring the outside interests disclosed in the Register of Members' Interests.
The Committee will have listened to the Chief Secretary's speech with astonishment. His assertion that the road haulage industry is grateful to the Government
for the help that they have given is one of the most remarkable ever made by a Minister in the House. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman had the nerve and the gall to make it.
The huge rise in road fuel duties lies at the heart of the Budget, which was launched in such a blaze of chest- beating glory by the Chancellor. The Chancellor has rarely been seen since, but the Budget has fallen apart under the weight of scrutiny.
It is not surprising that the public are increasingly angry at the lies told about the Budget. They are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget for families while abolishing the last recognition of marriage in the tax system. They are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget for enterprise while increasing tax on business by £3.2 billion. That is the help for business for which business is supposed to be so grateful. Some kind of help that is.
Most of all, however, the public are angry with a Chancellor who claimed that it was a Budget of tax cuts, even though taxes are to go on rising by stealth. Figures from the House of Commons Library show the truth. Taxes will rise by £40.7 billion over this Parliament, and by £7.1 billion in the current financial year alone. That is the effect of the Government's stealth tax increases, the hidden tax rises that they hoped no one would notice. The rises amount to £1,500 for every taxpayer.
All that is after the Prime Minister promised before the election that there were no plans to increase taxes at all. After this Budget, no one will ever believe a word that the Labour party says on tax. The Government have broken their promises on tax not once, but again and again and again. It is in the context of an ever-rising tax burden that we must consider the massive increase in tax on petrol and diesel under Labour. There is a limit to the number of times that Labour can clobber motorists with massive tax hikes and hope to get away with it. That limit has been exceeded. Petrol and diesel are far more expensive in Britain than anywhere else in Europe. It is time that the Government recognised that their policies are doing great damage to motorists.
Mr. Campbell-Savours:
The right hon. Gentleman will recall that a number of increases in duty on DERV occurred under previous Conservative Governments. I opposed those increases, and the Freight Transport Association sent delegations to make protests to Conservative Ministers. Can the right hon. Gentleman explain why he failed to take those protests into account, rather than implementing increases that he knew in his heart to be wrong in principle?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |