| Previous Section | Index | Home Page |
Mr. Tim Loughton (East Worthing and Shoreham): In past Budgets, the present Government gave specific tax incentives for the conversion of buses and lorries to use road fuel gases. Those incentives were not nearly sufficient because, throughout the country, fewer than 100 lorries and 100 buses benefited from them. The problem is not limited to cars.
Mr. Jack: My hon. Friend makes a telling and helpful point. In my view, if there was some fiscal encouragement to install the necessary infrastructure, more cars would be converted to use liquified petroleum gas.
The second of my amendments would encourage the conversion of fleet vehicles to run on liquified petroleum gas. That fuel beats petrol and diesel on all of the polluting emissions that I mentioned except carbon dioxide. It is a very environmentally friendly and health-conscious fuel. Sadly, the Government appear to have missed a significant opportunity to start the process of encouraging the uptake of such fuel, and the development of the motor vehicle technology that would help to achieve the Kyoto targets by reducing damaging emissions earlier than agreed. For some reason--in my opinion, only to catch a cheap headline--the Government arbitrarily drew the line at 1100 cc. As a result, they have an inconsistent and illogical approach to their objective of encouraging cars that are more environmentally friendly. In the case of liquified petroleum gas, they have completely missed the opportunity to encourage earlier uptake among cars powered by that fuel. There is compelling evidence that the increased use of liquified petroleum gas would save more than £10 billion in health care and damage to the environment--especially by reducing particulate levels--by improving air quality. There would be many accompanying savings. My proposal is self-financing. Often, when we advanced perfectly respectable ideas to improve the Finance Bill, we were shot down in proverbial flames because they would cost money. However, I am now suggesting something that will save well in excess of its costs, which the Calor Group has calculated as a net figure of £607,000--the tax costs of encouraging the installation of the infrastructure for LPG. One company, Shell, has expressed willingness to install the infrastructure, but there is scepticism in the industry about how quickly that development will be made. The modest proposals that I am putting before the House tonight would effectively save far more money in preventing damage to the person and the environment than they would cost in tax terms. If the Government were to agree to my proposals this evening, it would be a worthwhile step on the way to achieving their objectives earlier than expected.
Mr. Fabricant: I support the new clause so ably moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack). It gives the lie to the Labour Government's claims that the Budget is environmentally friendly. The fact that the arbitrary cut-off figure of 1100 cc generated a net income, in its first year alone, in excess of £40 million simply shows that it is yet another stealth tax, and is even more deceitful than the average stealth tax because it was introduced in the guise of being environmentally friendly.
12 midnight
The new clause and amendments tabled by my right hon. Friend meet the Kyoto accord and follow on from the principles of the Rio de Janeiro summit, which was established by a former leader of the Conservative party and Prime Minister, Lady Thatcher, who is now in another place. She established the conference in Rio de Janeiro and was instrumental in setting the targets that other Governments seek to follow. The vehicle excise duties set up in the Budget do nothing for achieving these targets.
As my right hon. Friend has already asked, why have the Government, instead of saying that there should be a cut-off point of 1100 cc, not specified a cut-off point that
is related to the emission of particulates or carbon dioxide? Why, for example, have they not encouraged, as has the republic--that is the right way to put it--of California, the introduction of catalytic converters to Californian standards, which can reduce the emission of carbon dioxide to less than 110 g per kilometre. There is--[Interruption.] The Secretary of State for Scotland says from a sedentary position that it is typical that I do not mention British--[Interruption.] I give way to the right hon. Gentleman. I did not understand or hear what he said.
The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid):
I said that California has excluded almost all British cars. Is he suggesting that we do that here?
Mr. Fabricant:
The right hon. Gentleman raises an interesting point. If the Government, instead of carping, understood a little about emissions--not from their mouths, but real emissions--and a little about industry, and introduced standards that would reduce the emissions of carbon dioxide, British cars would not be excluded. They are excluded because they do not meet Californian emission standards, and they should. We should aspire to those standards in the United Kingdom and not mock them. The Government mock them because they do not understand.
When my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde was talking about 140 g per kilometre, I could see the eyes of Labour Members glazing over. They did not understand. They are innumerate. They understand only pound signs, stealth tax and the spin to try to make out that the measures that they are taking, which are primarily to raise tax, are designed to produce a cleaner environment, They are trying to misguide the population. They will not produce a cleaner environment by such means.
We have a chicken-and-egg situation with regard to liquefied petroleum gas, which is a very clean way of generating power for motor vehicles. However, my right hon. Friend the Member for Fylde will be the first to concede that using LPG reduces the power output of a vehicle by about 20 per cent. The real reason why there are so few cars using LPG is that despite the best endeavours of companies such as Shell, there are only 14 outlets in the United Kingdom selling it.
Mr. Jack:
Is my hon. Friend aware that the question of loss of power output has been more than addressed? That has been ably demonstrated by the fact that one of the leading cars in the Vauxhall Vectra racing category happens to be powered by LPG.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am interested to hear that. I believe that the Volvo, which is the only commercially available car that has a device to enable it to use non-leaded fuels and LPG, loses 20 per cent. of its power when switched to LPG.
Mr. Lindsay Hoyle (Chorley):
The hon. Gentleman may not be aware that a very good British car--the Vauxhall Vectra--has such a switch.
Mr. Fabricant:
I am pleased to hear that. Like thehon. Gentleman, who is a powerful advocate for
If the Government were truly interested in the emission of particulates, carbon dioxide and other pollutants, they would focus on the emissions, rather than setting arbitrary sizes of car engine.
Mr. Richard Page (South-West Hertfordshire):
I hope that my hon. Friend will develop the argument and explain to the House why the Government have banned the production and licensing of gas-powered electricity stations, as opposed to letting them continue with coal power, which produces far more emissions and environmental damage.
Mr. Fabricant:
My hon. Friend is right. Although carbon dioxide is extremely dangerous and damaging to the environment--we have all heard of the greenhouse effect--he knows that the power stations fuelled by oil and by coal produce sulphur dioxide, which is an even greater pollutant. One can use as many cleaners as one likes in the emission chimneys; the emission of sulphur dioxide is still damaging, and is in breach of the Kyoto and the Rio de Janeiro targets.
Let us not be confused or beguiled by the Government's weasel words. The Government are not interested in ensuring that our environment remains safe for the generations that will follow. If they were, they would tax emissions. Instead, they tax the size of the engine. They tax it to the tune of £40 million in net gain this year--as I said, yet another stealth tax.
By how much will that increase in years to come? The world will get warmer and warmer, and become more and more polluted. We will have a car industry that still cannot sell into California, as the Secretary of State for Scotland said from the Treasury Bench, because in California people are truly concerned about their environment, so they are concerned with output and emissions.
I should have liked the Government to give real tax incentives for experimentation in the use of liquid hydrogen, which has not yet been developed in this country. Liquid hydrogen is one of the cleanest forms of fuel for the internal combustion engine. The sole emission of liquid hydrogen is steam.
Mr. Page:
Is it not explosive?
| Next Section
| Index | Home Page |