Heavy Lorries

Part of the debate – in the House of Commons at 9:02 pm on 25 November 1982.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Roger Stott Mr Roger Stott , Westhoughton 9:02, 25 November 1982

I am aware that such products are on the market, but their use is not compulsory and I fear that only one or two operators are using them. They will become compulsory only when a British standard has been fixed, in about two years' time. That is our criticism.

It is not good enough for the Opposition merely to oppose the introduction of heavier lorries. We must seek to provide an alternative policy and strategy. In this context, I recommend the document "Labour's Transport Policy" which has been produced by the TUC-Labour Party liaison committee and to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Barrow-in-Furness, my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) and I made a not insignificant contribution.

The basis of our approach is freight integration, which the Government have ignored. The Government propose instead to increase the basic weight of heavy goods vehicles. Our document stales: The basis of our approach to freight transport has these features:the mass of freight journeys will continue to be transported by road for the foreseeable future, but fair means must be used to get as much freight as possible on to the railway without sacrifices in costs and efficiency;market mechanisms will not by themselves achieve the best distribution of freight amongst transport modes and the Government has a role in influencing this distribution;the road haulage industry suffers from over-capacity, operating irregularities and low employment standards, and the Government needs to rectify these conditions;heavy lorries are damaging to people, the environment and roads, and their use must be carefully regulated.

We propose a more imaginative use of resources. Clearly it it not practicable to take the bulk of the freight off the road and put it on rail, but it is certainly practicable to move 4 or 5 per cent. of it to rail. That would make a significant difference to the way in which British Rail operates. I am told that it needs only 4 per cent. of the freight currently carried by road to be transferred to the railways to make the railway freight business profitable. We should try to achieve that.

As I am running out of time, I must insist that the Government buy copies of the Labour Party document to acquaint themselves more fully with the provisions spelt out in it. It further states that our approach would be to:concentrate on the expansion of rail facilities for bulk, long-haul movement;encourage the development of trans-shipment depots which link trunk road and rail networks at strategic points in the goods distribution system;take back-up powers to license the long-distance movement of freight by road;promote agreements involving major freight consignors and the transport industries so that the needs of industry and the capacity of the railway are synchronised by means of government investment. A programme of that kind would be of more benefit to the nation than simply increasing lorry weights.

Finally, I am sad to see that only one of the 91 recommendations in the splendid Foster report, commissioned in 1978, on operating provisions for heavy goods vehicles has been adopted in the White Paper and the statutory instrument. It would have been far better if the Government had accepted most of the major proposals in that report instead of trying to force the House to accept a weight increase for lorries that is unacceptable not only to the Opposition but, I believe, to the vast majority of our constituents. Therefore, we shall vote against the Government's proposals.