Hydrocarbon Oil Duties

Part of Orders of the Day — Finance Bill – in the House of Commons at 5:45 pm on 27 April 1999.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Barry Gardiner Barry Gardiner Labour, Brent North 5:45, 27 April 1999

No doubt the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech in due course, but I will deal with the issues that he raised, because they are legitimate and important. Indeed, I was about to do so.

I am confident that my right hon. Friend the Chief Secretary has had an opportunity to read the recommendation of the fourth report of the Select Committee on the Treasury, which says that it would expect the Treasury to evaluate its effect next year"— meaning the effect of the increase in excise duty— and report progress in the next Red Book". I consider that sensible. What I cannot believe is that the party which, for 20 years, folded its arms and muttered the mantra "market forces" as 30 per cent. of British manufacturing industry went into liquidation now affects horror, and demands that the Government save small, uncompetitive road hauliers. What I cannot believe is that the party that stamped on every strike and public demonstration with all the rigour that Norman Tebbit could muster is now cosying up to industry rebels who block the streets of London and prevent the people of London from going about their business. I suppose that it was at least a good Tory demonstration—it was held in Pall Mall, after all.

I cannot believe that the party that has been apoplectic in its opposition to European tax harmonisation is now demanding that the Government should set their fuel duty only after doing an Esso price check at pumps across Europe.

In seeking to strike out clause 2, the Opposition seek to deny the Exchequer £1.5 billion of revenue this year, and a total of £4.7 billion over the next three years. Yet, the Opposition offer no alternative way of raising that revenue. That is not responsible opposition, but opportunism. In this debate, the shadow Chancellor said that he believes that the social security budget should be cut. If that is so, where is his amendment to that effect? What is his proposal? What would he cut—pensions, or disabled people's benefits? A responsible Opposition would come clean and state how they would cover that revenue shortfall, or what spending they would cut.

I turn now to the fundamental question. For what purpose was the fuel duty escalator introduced? I hope that I may now be able to answer the question of the hon. Member for Witney (Mr. Woodward). In 1993, the Conservatives introduced the tax precisely to change behaviour—the behaviour of transporting goods by road haulage. Did they think that they could do that without any road hauliers going out of business? Of course not; that was the policy's objective. There is a logic in that that even Janus could not deny. If one raises duty to discourage road freight, one aims inevitably and precisely to put road hauliers out of business. To protest when that policy begins to work is not only madness but hypocrisy.

The final hypocrisy is that the policy was introduced to meet the United Kingdom's emissions targets. When it came to signing the Kyoto resolution, the Opposition supported the Government on those targets.