| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Hayes: My hon. Friend brings me to my penultimate point. One of the disappointments felt by hon. Members and the industry is caused by the Government's lack of understanding of the competitive position in which their measure puts our haulage industry. The Minister of Transport said:
- "I'm convinced that you don't suffer from any serious competition . . . The fuel duty escalator is here to stay . . . I have never met a business man yet who goes out of business and says it is his fault."
Mrs. Gorman: Does my hon. Friend agree that that is the "let them eat cake" political argument?
The Minister of Transport (Dr. John Reid) rose--
Mr. Hayes: I think that Marie Antoinette is about to intervene.
Dr. Reid: As I have said several times before, although the last sentence of that quote is accurate, the first two are not. It is absurd to suppose that my view is that there is no competition, and I have never said that.
I dare say that I have met more hauliers today than the hon. Gentleman has, and I shall continue to talk to them. I started today talking with Mr. Sandy McCracken, a haulier, and then met several of his friends. I then met five major hauliers through the Freight Transport Association, spoke to the council of the FTA, and came back here and met the general-secretary of the Road Haulage Association. I am always available to talk to hauliers.
Mr. Hayes:
I am delighted to hear that the Minister is doing so much talking, but actions speak louder than words. The Government would have done well to consult and listen before introducing the measure, rather than doing so afterwards. It is good that they are talking now and that they are showing at least a degree of guilt for their action--the fact that they are exercising their guilty conscience is healthy and good, but they should have consulted before they acted.
Mr. Paterson:
Does the Minister's reply not contrast dramatically with the decisive action taken by the French Government, who also signed the Kyoto accord, but who have introduced a rebate so that French hauliers are competitive with Luxembourg hauliers? A socialist Government introduced that measure last October.
Mr. Hayes:
My hon. Friend makes a valid point about the willingness of Governments in competitor nationsto support their industry more vigorously and
In his opening speech, the Chief Secretary advised the industry not to get too close to the Opposition, but he should understand that the industry is bound to get close to the Opposition when it sees that the Opposition are listening, responding and learning and that they are prepared to share its concerns and to act on them. The industry sees nothing of that in the Government. The industry will continue to become closer to us and to work with us for the benefit of the industry, the countryside, people and jobs, because it knows that it will get no such response from the Government.
Mr. Roger Casale (Wimbledon):
The first thing to say about clause 2 is that it forms part of a Budget that sets a framework both for stable economic growth and for growth that will be sustainable. Secondly, clause 2 reflects the proper concern of Government, in framing Budget policies, to do so on the basis of a settled and balanced view of what is in the best long-term interests of the country as a whole, reconciling the complex and sometimes conflicting pressures of economic, social and environmental concerns. Clause 2 is not motivated by short-term political opportunism; it does not neglect the interests of any key stakeholders, although pandering to no one group; it does not leave out of account any key argument or fail to take fully into consideration any key facts.
Moreover, like other aspects of the Bill, clause 2 is notable for the fact that it does not cast aside every policy or measure introduced by the previous Government--although there was much in the Budget that is genuinely new. Therefore, it is all the more curious that the Opposition should have chosen to oppose that part of the Finance Bill that builds most directly on a policy that they introduced when in government--namely, the fuel duty escalator.
In the interests of constructive debate during Committee stage, I do not wish to provoke further the Opposition by repeating the oft-quoted remark that, by opposing clause 2, they are sailing dangerously close to hypocrisy. Instead, I invite them to apologise for having introduced the fuel duty escalator in the first place--after all, it is not hypocritical to admit that one made a mistake in the past and to try to put things right in the future. Perhaps Opposition Members would like to put it on the record of today's debate that they were wrong to support the introduction of the escalator under the previous Government. That would at least free them of the charge of logical inconsistency, if not the outright contradiction that has characterised the speeches of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen, whose argument appears to be that the road fuel duty escalator was right under the Tories, but is wrong under Labour.
Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory (Wells):
Cannot the hon. Gentleman understand the difference between the introduction of an escalator when British fuel is among the cheapest in Europe and the Labour Government's
Mr. Casale:
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that clarification--of course I understand the difference. However, we have not heard any evidence to support the argument that now is the time to abandon the fuelduty escalator; instead, we have heard arguments for abandoning the escalator that would have been equally valid if they had been used to oppose its introduction in the first place.
Mr. McNulty:
For the second time today--we heard it from the shadow Chancellor--we are hearing the myth that British fuel prices were low when the escalator was introduced. Figures from the Library for the third quarter of 1993 show clearly that Italy was the only country in the European Union where diesel prices were higher than those in Britain. By any reckoning, that means that the price of diesel in a significant number of countries was lower than ours, so the right hon. Member for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) should either withdraw his comment or apologise to the Committee for misleading it.
Mr. Casale:
I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the Committee will continue to disagree on many issues, but I hope that we can agree on the facts. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that intervention.
Precisely because the Government are building on a policy introduced by the previous Administration, I had hoped that the debate would focus more on the facts, the arguments and the issues at stake in the interestsof preserving a cross-party consensus, rather than degenerating into party political--and occasionally opportunistic--rhetoric. The fact is that the fuel duty did rise significantly under the Conservative Government, as it has risen under Labour, in both cases at more than the rate of inflation. Under the previous Administration, the total rise was considerably greater than it has been under Labour.
Mr. Woodward:
Would the hon. Gentleman care to speculate on the consequences for the haulage industry of the fact that, while excise duty on diesel fuel is about 20p per litre in Germany and between 20p and 25p per litre in France, it is now 51p per litre in the United Kingdom and is to rise to 60p per litre in the next year or two? What does the hon. Gentleman believe that the effect of that will be on that industry in the United Kingdom? Will it be good for the industry, or bad?
Mr. Casale:
If the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that rising fuel prices will have a devastating effect on the competitiveness of the road haulage industry, why did the Conservative Government introduce the road fuel escalator in the first place? In an earlier intervention, the hon. Gentleman invited us to forget history--one can understand why he wants us to do that--but let us suspend our knowledge of history for a moment and examine the question from first principles.
7.30 pm
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |