| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Paterson: What will the hon. Gentleman say to the hauliers who will be closed down and put on the dole by the fuel escalator? Will he explain to them that he voted for the fuel escalator tonight?
8.15 pm
Mr. McNulty: The very first thing that I shall say is, "Don't look to your friends in the Conservative party, because they put 5,000 people on the dole, and no one who has gone on the dole so far has done so because of this measure."
We are told that it was all right for the previous Government to introduce a fuel escalator--I shall not go into history--because our fuel prices were the lowest in Europe. Figures from the Library, which I quoted in an earlier intervention, show that, short of Italy, of the 12 member states of the EU at the time, Britain was second. Ten other countries had lower fuel rates. [Interruption.] The right hon. Members for Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory) and for Horsham (Mr. Maude) are not interested in the truth. Those are House of Commons Library figures. That is the second time that Conservative Members have challenged figures that come not from me, other hon. Members or vested interests, but from the Library. I thought that the Library's neutrality was recognised and that it was against the conventions of this place to challenge its figures.
The little schoolboys opposite giggled when I suggested earlier that it does matter that for every £10 spent on fuel, we accept that £8.50 is tax. However, £7.70 of that£8.50 is down to the previous Government. I say that with no malice; it is just a fact. Conservatives should remember that we are talking about the small differential between £7.50 and £8.50.
I go further and say that, since the introduction of the escalator--
Mr. Brady:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. McNulty:
Of course--it is always fun.
Mr. Brady:
Is the hon. Gentleman really suggesting that in 1979, the level of duty was zero?
Mr. McNulty:
I shall not bother letting the hon. Gentleman intervene again if that is the best that he can do. He has said nothing.
Since the escalator was introduced, 26p on each litre is accounted for by what one might call the Tory escalator, and only 7p is accounted for by the last three Budgets. Conservative Members do not dwell on the fact that the Treasury has picked up on the Select Committee's suggestion and will review the entire use of this tax next year. [Hon. Members: "Ah."] There is no "Ah" about it. My hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) said that, and there was simply no dissent.
Listen to this line very carefully: I should like to congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing the fuel escalator.
Mr. Tim Collins (Westmorland and Lonsdale):
Will the hon. Gentleman give way on that point?
Mr. McNulty:
On what? On congratulating the Conservative Government? Of course I will.
Mr. Collins:
If it was such a good idea, why did Labour Members oppose the fuel duty escalator? Why did they go around the country attacking the so-called 22 tax increases from the Tories, five of which were that?
Mr. McNulty:
I repeat: I should like to congratulate the previous Conservative Government on introducing that tax--not all 22 taxes and the handful that were not counted in that figure. That tax made sense. It also makes sense within the context of clause 2, not least for the environmental reasons suggested by hon. Members, but because the increases are an important part of our strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions.
Let us listen to the complacency of Conservative Members: "We have done that. Tear up the Kyoto agreement. It no longer matters. Tick the little box--done." What a deep understanding that shows of the environmental impact of those emissions. One right hon. Member said that
This issue is and must be about balance. That argument has been sadly lacking in this debate. Everyoneaccepts that it is about balance. Although it is about environmental concerns, it is also about keeping people in business and keeping freight running around the country, whether by road or by rail. It is also partly about revenue for the Exchequer, but as has been said,
We are lost in the mythology that, since 1 May 1997, everything in the rural economy has been destroyed and put asunder, which is absolute nonsense. We accept that some things are more expensive in rural areas, but others are more expensive in urban areas. Four years ago that did not matter at all, but now, in the Conservatives' feeble attempt at opposition, it does. They argued then that that was the interplay of the market; now, who knows what they argue?--it depends who one talks to.
There are three key elements of Conservative Members' opposition. I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, who explained them far more accurately than I last Wednesday. The same is true of clause 2. To sustain their opposition to clause 2 and, sadly--depending on whom one speaks to--their complete opposition to the road escalator, the Tories have had to bad mouth the haulage industry by calling it uncompetitive. In the round, it is not.
I was present last Wednesday and I have been here for much of tonight's debate, and apart from some hot air, no Conservative Member has suggested that the costs of British haulage companies compared with those of companies on the continent make British companies anything other than extremely competitive.
Mr. Paterson:
Will the hon. Gentleman name one Conservative Member who has accused the road haulage industry of being uncompetitive? I remind him that the Minister of Transport in Wednesday's debate and the Chief Secretary today went on about the 30 per cent. empty loads run by the haulage industry and accused it of being uncompetitive. No Conservative Member has said anything about that.
Mr. McNulty:
That takes disingenuousness to a higher plane than I ever could. The underlying assumption of much of what Conservative Members have said today and of what they elaborated on last Wednesday is that--as one of them said, but I cannot remember which one--this is the straw that breaks the camel's back. They argue that the industry is hobbling along, and that the provisions outlined in clause 2 will mean death and destruction to the business of the haulage industry up and down the land. If that is not implying that the industry is not competitive and robust, I do not know what is. Every Conservative Member has suggested that in one form or other. They are completely wrong.
Conservative Members also argue that all the difficulties ever laid at the door of the British road haulage industry began on 1 May 1997 or thereafter with the three Budgets that the Government have introduced, including this one. That is at best a gross over-simplification of the prevailing situation, and at worst extremely misleading.
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham)
rose--
Mr. McNulty:
Is the hon. Gentleman waving at me or does he wish to intervene?
Mr. Loughton:
Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Loughton:
I hate to disrupt the hon. Gentleman's flow, but he says that things have not changed since 1 May. Does he acknowledge that on 1 July 1998, with the ending of cabotage restrictions in the European Union, European lorry drivers were able to pick up British loads and take them to British destinations? That made the competitiveness argument that he is trying to espouse entirely fallacious.
Mr. McNulty:
With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is being fallacious. He knows as well as I do that that had an insignificant and minimal effect on penetration into the British market. It would go beyond the scope of the debate to talk about Brit sign or Brit pop and the other matters that Conservative Members were discussing last week, but we could go into further detail and expose the hot air that Conservative Members produce. They have no response at all. Blaming Government policies is, at best, an over-simplification and, at worst, extremely disingenuous.
Others have waxed lyrical, so I shall not dwell on this point, but the third key pillar of the Conservatives' opposition to clause 2--they cannot be bothered to table an amendment, so they are not that bothered--is the "not me guv" approach that they have rehearsed at length. They argue that it is nothing to do with them, and that the world stopped on 1 May 1997. The £7.70 out of £8.50 tax for every £10 of fuel is nothing to do them: it was all invented on 1 May.
The substance of the Conservatives' opposition is meaningless. They offer no alternative. No one would dispute that many industries go through cycles and have difficulties. We accept that the road haulage industry has difficulties, which is why we have listened and have set up the forum. In a range of other areas, such as corporation tax and the freeze on road tax for 98 per cent. of lorries, which is unfortunately beyond the scope of the debate, we are tackling many of the industry's concerns.
"transport must contribute to any strategy to reduce carbon dioxide emissions."
Who can disagree with that? Certainly not the right hon. Member for Wells as those are his words.
"I know that a car is often a necessity, but all motorists must think about the environmental consequences of what they do."--[Official Report, 23 January 1995; Vol. 253, c. 103.]
Who would disagree with that statement? It is as relevant now in 1999 as it was in 1995 when, again, the right hon. Member for Wells said it.
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |