HC Deb 17 June 1968 vol 766 cc705-6
41. Mr. Ridley

asked the Minister of Technology by what percentage he estimates the production of commercial vehicles will be reduced as a result of the provisions of the Transport Bill.

The Joint Parliamentary-Secretary to the Ministry of Technology (Mr. Gerry Fowler)

One of the aims of the Transport Bill is to make the fullest economic use of the railways where, in their modernised form, they can give an efficient service. To the extent that this aim is achieved, it follows that less freight will be carried by road than would otherwise have been the case. But, because of the rising curve in demand for freight haulage, any consequent reduction in the demand for commercial vehicles will be relative and not absolute. Moreover, there are provisions in the Transport Bill which will stimulate the demand for new commercial vehicles.

Mr. Ridley

Since the point of the Transport Bill is to drive traffic off the roads on to the railways, what planning have the. Government done, and by how much do they think the production of commercial vehicles will fall below what it would otherwise have been? Why does the Minister not know the answer to the Question?

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Gentleman persists in misunderstanding the purpose of the Transport Bill. It is not to drive traffic off the roads. As I said, there will be a relative growth in the amount of traffic carried by rail, but there will still be an absolute growth in the amount of traffic going by road and, therefore, a growth in the number of new commercial vehicles required.

Sir G. Nabarro

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that Britain is the largest exporter in the world of commercial vehicles and that if the provisions of the Transport Bill, as we confidently anticipate, reduce the home market for commercial vehicles, will not this render British commercial vehicles more largely uncompetitive overseas than would other wise be the case?

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Gentleman's question shows the usual monumental irrelevance of his supplementaries. There will be no reduction in the absolute number of commercial vehicles produced for the British home market. Therefore the consequences which he postulates for the export market do not arise.

Mr. David Price

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in his first reply he suggested that the British lorry industry should remain static or at best move up very very slightly? That is the implication of the transfer to rail. How does he tie that up with his reply to my hon. Friend for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) in terms of carrying the overheads necessary to expand exports?

Mr. Fowler

The hon. Gentleman must understand the difference between the comparative and flat statement. I said that the rise would be slower. I did not say that it would be very, very slight. The provisions in the Transport Bill for the abolition of carrier licensing and for quality licensing, and the 25 per cent. bus grant should stimulate the demand for commercial vehicles.