HC Deb 16 November 1977 vol 939 cc548-9
1. Mr. Tom McMillan

asked the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects heavy lorries to meet in full the costs attributed to them.

6. Mr. Dalyell

asked the Secretary of State for Transport if he will bring forward proposals to ensure that heavy lorries meet in full the costs attributed to them.

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. William Rodgers)

The great majority of lorries—some 87 per cent.—already meet their attributable road costs in full. It remains Government policy that all should do so, but I cannot anticipate future Budgets.

Mr. McMillan

I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply, but does he still hold to his intention, expressed in the White Paper, that the British Rail freight deficit should be eliminated this year? Does not he agree that that is unfair to British Rail? Will he consider withdrawing that directive until the lorry costs are ready to be implemented?

Mr. Rodgers

I would like to help my hon. Friend in this matter because I share his wish to see as much freight carried by rail as possible. But I must remain committed to what I said in the White Paper. Freight should pay its way, and we shall be working towards ensuring that all lorries do so—as many of them do already.

Mr. Dalyell

Precisely how does my right hon. Friend intend to ensure that the social and environmental costs of lorries should be met through taxation?

Mr. Rodgers

The commitment is to acknowledge that not only does the building of roads bear directly on the Exchequer but that environmental considerations are involved. That is set out clearly in the first chapter of the White Paper.

Mr. Fry

Does the right hon. Gentleman appreciate that any increase in the costs of running large lorries will be transferred at once to transport costs, and then on to the consumer, so that there will be no net overall gain? The right hon. Gentleman says that many commercial vehicles already run at a profit. Does he appreciate that if heavy lorries are specially penalised the result will be many more smaller vehicles, which will probably cause as much damage to our road system?

Mr. Rodgers

No one is suggesting—certainly I am not—that heavy lorries should be penalised. The argument is only about whether heavy lorries should pay their share of attributable costs. I think that both the public and the House will answer "Yes".

Mr. Robin F. Cook

Can my right hon. Friend give the latest figure for the extent to which lorries of over 30 cwt—long-distance haulage lorries—fail to meet their full attributable road costs? Does that figure not include environmental costs, accident costs and pollution costs caused by such lorries?

Mr. Rodgers

There is a significant deficit between the revenue earned from such lorries and the attributable costs, which do not include environmental costs, but the gap has been narrowed because lorries have been making somewhat shorter journeys. But I think that the House as a whole is agreed that lorries should pay their attributable costs, whatever some hon. Members may think.

Mr. Norman Fowler

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that both road and rail should pay full direct costs and be able to operate without subsidy? Does he also agree that, rather than suffering a continuing barrage of criticism, our road haulage industry deserves credit as one of the most competitive industries in Britain?

Mr. Rodgers

I have said before, and I repeat, that freight should pay its way and that there should be an element of choice in this respect. I do not think that the road haulage industry is as battered as it likes to believe. It has been successful in expanding and has made a very important contribution to our economy.