Previous SectionIndexHome Page


9 pm

Kali Mountford (Colne Valley): I was disappointed earlier that duties elsewhere meant that I could not be here all afternoon, but the contributions that I have heard show that I have not missed much. The hon. Member for Billericay (Mrs. Gorman) seemed to argue for hypothecation of all taxes in all circumstances. That is extraordinary: I do not remember any Tory Chancellor of the Exchequer ever arguing that all taxes must be hypothecated to particular purposes. An argument can be made for hypothecation, but not in this case.

In light of the polluter-pays principle, however, we must recognise that the rise in incidence of asthma has been remarkable, especially in young children. To say that it is caused not by increased vehicle exhaust fumes but by dust mites is extraordinary, especially as dust mite-free mattresses are more commonly available than ever before. It is hard to believe that the hon. Member for Billericay should have cited that argument to the Committee, but she did and I felt bound to rebut it.

Conservative Members seem to have forgotten that it was the previous Conservative Government who signed up to the Rio convention and who said that emissions were too important and too dangerous to the atmosphere to be ignored. At the time, I thought that that was admirable, but Conservative Members seem, quite cynically, to have changed their stance, merely for the sake of a debating point that makes them look different. They claim that there is no evidence to support the view that the proposal will reduce pollution. It is all most extraordinary.

In the Opposition debate on haulage last week, I asked the shadow Chief Secretary, the right hon. Memberfor Wells (Mr. Heathcoat-Amory), why the previous Conservative Government introduced the fuel duty escalator in the first place. The right hon. Gentleman said that he would answer that later in his speech, but he did not do so. In fact, my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary was able to give me the answer to my question. He told me that, at the time, the previous Conservative Government said that the important thing was to reduce pollution.

Mr. Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although the Conservative Government introduced the escalator in 1993 to amend behaviour and reduce the amount of road haulage journeys, they knew that people in the road haulage industry would be put out of work? The crocodile tears shed by Conservative Members over unemployment in an industry that they targeted are hard

27 Apr 1999 : Column 231

to believe. At least we make no bones that we are trying to get people to change their behaviour and to move them off the roads and onto rail and other means of transport.

Kali Mountford: My hon. Friend is right. The contributions of some Conservative Members have already been quoted to make that point. It is certainly true that the previous Conservative Government knew what they were doing with the introduction of the escalator. However, they believed it to be the right thing to do: they knew the consequences, and they expected there to be certain changes in people's behaviour. There may have been overcapacity in the industry--there may still be--but there was also an expectation that drivers would not carry on with the old technology that produced the pollution, but that they would switch to more fuel-efficient engines.

Conservative Members have also made some nonsensical arguments about going abroad to buy petrol. I represent a rural constituency in the north. One of my best friends is a lorry driver, so I speak with some knowledge of the industry. My friend is not a member of the Labour party and does not lobby me regularly, but I see him every week. He would not dream of driving to France to buy fuel. That would be ridiculous, and a completely uneconomical way to behave. He has not once complained to me about the fuel escalator, and he has ample opportunity to do so if he wants. He understands what our policy is about. He appreciates that the policy is part of a lot of tax changes. Since I came into the Chamber, I have not heard Opposition Members refer to the massive reduction in corporation tax for small and large businesses.

Mr. Brady rose--

Kali Mountford: I hope that it is worth it.

Mr. Brady: I merely meant to draw attention to the very intelligent remarks made by the hon. Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on that point. He pointed out the difference of scale between a major company losing £1 million a year because of the fuel escalator and gaining a few thousand pounds from corporation tax. Perhaps if the hon. Lady had been here for the whole debate, she would be able to make a more intelligent speech.

Kali Mountford: Those remarks were very flattering to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours), and, given their source, I consider myself flattered, too. The hon. Gentleman has never said anything so wonderful about a Labour Member before, but I prefer not to be in his company normally.

It often happens that some people gain more than others, but the hon. Gentleman is talking about large businesses. For small businesses, the result is quite different. He is missing the point. Of course some will gain and others lose, but the overall effect will be a change in behaviour. No hon. Member should be against that because pollution is far too important. There has not previously been any dissent about the idea that the polluter should pay, and I am alarmed to hear it raised on this matter.

27 Apr 1999 : Column 232

I represent a rural constituency, and I have heard some remarkable comments with which I cannot possibly associate myself. I have had exactly three letters complaining about the fuel escalator. Two came from hauliers who were obviously part of a concerted attempt to change Government policy. I do not denounce them for that; I would seek to protect my own interests if I were in their position, rather than considering the wider interests of the whole community.

The other letter came from a lady who did not need to use her car, but did not like buses. She preferred her car and complained that the £50 million--and the additional £20 million--for rural buses would be of no benefit to her because she simply did not like to stand outside waiting for buses.

Conservative Members spent some time saying that buses were inefficient, that they did not run when people wanted them to, that timetables were wrong and that buses were not convenient. They should come to my constituency where bids have been made to the rural transport fund and where considerable change in rural bus provision has already begun. Even before funds were made available, consultation and sensible discussion with the local bus company meant that timetables were making the company more profitable. That made it more likely that people would use rural buses that ran on time, at the times when people wanted them and which were reliable, efficient and comfortable.

Mr. Loughton: Does the hon. Lady admit that one of the biggest losers from the added increase in diesel fuel will be community buses, which do not receive any fuel duty rebate and on which a Conservative private Member's Bill was talked out by her Front-Bench colleagues?

Kali Mountford: Fortunately, my local council had the foresight to help community buses so much that the change has not affected their running. Indeed, more buses are available for schools than were before the general election. The hon. Gentleman's argument falls down there, and Conservative Members should use their negotiating skills to benefit their constituents instead of whingeing in the House. That would do far more good by doing something about improving bus services.

When we came into office, competition between buses was causing a fiasco on the roads. No wonder people would not use buses. Our changes have begun to take effect, and more are on the way. There will be two more bids--successful I hope--to the rural transport fund from my constituency, and I expect even greater change. Those changes mean that people in rural constituencies can get to work when they need to. It is nonsense to say that services do not run when they should. When we came into office it was true that subsidised buses ran only on Sundays but I am glad to say that that has changed in my constituency. The changes in the fuel duty escalator and the improved bus services mean that such a service is available. The arguments of Conservative Members fall apart because we are changing behaviour, and that change is essential.

We also need to change behaviour in respect of freight. A shift to rail would be a good thing but I do not think that Conservative Members want it. They were against rail services throughout their period of office and they

27 Apr 1999 : Column 233

maintain that still. They wanted to privatise the rail service, which they said would improve competition and efficiency but it has signally failed to do so. Now we must do something about it. [Interruption.] They laugh because they do not like the arguments. However, the arguments are clear: the polluter should and must pay. They have not addressed that issue.

Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Kali Mountford: If I must.

Mr. Brady: I am grateful, because I took exception to the hon. Lady's remarks about our attitude to rail freight. As joint chairman of the all-party rail freight group, I have always strongly supported rail freight but she must recognise that it is not available everywhere or for all freight flows. Her attitude in trying to force all freight on to the railways is unrealistic.


Next Section

IndexHome Page