§ '() It shall be a duty of the Secretary of State to publish annually a report on forecasts of the effect of changes in vehicle excise duty and hydrocarbon oil duty upon the level of road traffic in England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.'.—[Mr. Chope.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ 2 pm
Mr. Deputy SpeakerWith this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 6—Separate reports for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland—
'.—It shall be the duty of the Secretary of State within six months of the commencement of this Act to publish separate figures for the incidence of road traffic in England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.Amendment No. 15, in clause 2, page 1, line 11, after 'England', insert 'other than London, London,'.
Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
- '(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1)—
- (a) for Scotland, unless he has obtained the consent of the Scottish Parliament, or
- (b) for Wales, unless he has obtained the consent of the Welsh Assembly.'.
Amendment No. 16, in page 1, line 11, at end insert—
'(1A) The Secretary of State shall not set targets under subsection (1) in respect of London unless he has obtained the consent of the Mayor of London and any body known as Transport for London established following Cm 3897.'.Amendment No. 10, in page 2, line 7, at end insert
'and before the Scottish Parliament and the Welsh Assembly.'.
§ Mr. ChopeThe thinking behind new clause 3 has its origins in this year's Red Book.
Table 5.3 on page 78 sets out the environmental impact of the increases in taxes on motoring and motorists. The increases in taxes announced in the Budget give an extra Exchequer yield of £1,720 million in 1998–99–£1.7 billion. On page 153 of the Red Book they are described as environmental measures, but table 5.3 shows that the swingeing fuel duty increases will reduce car mileage in 2010 by only 1.875 billion car miles, given that the Government's road traffic forecasts predict 351 billion car miles in 2010.
Those are very large figures, but in summary they show that less than half of 1 per cent. of the traffic that is predicted by the Government to be on our roads in 2010 will be removed as a result of those swingeing fuel duty increases.
That is why flat increases in fuel duties have been attacked by the Automobile Association and other experts. Indeed, some people from Friends of the Earth are extremely sceptical about the environmental benefit of those swingeing increases, and they are saying that they are a most ineffective way of reducing increases in road traffic.
It is worth pointing out that 125 billion fewer car miles per year must be travelled in 2010 if the Government are to achieve the target of the 10 per cent. traffic reduction 861 on 1990 figures signed up to in Hampstead high street by the Minister this time last year. That is 125 billion fewer car miles in 2010; the effect of the Budget is to reduce that amount by just 1.8 billion. There is an enormous credibility gap between what the Minister said in Hampstead high street and what Government policy will achieve, on the Government's own figures.
New clause 3 would require the Government to produce separate forecasts of the effect of changes in motoring taxation on different parts of the country. That would fit the new wording of the Bill, which calls on—but does not require—the Secretary of State to
set … targets for road traffic reduction in England, Wales and Scotland.If the new clause were incorporated in the Bill, it would be possible to see how fairly the Government were allocating the extra proceeds of motoring taxation to public transport investment among the different parts of the United Kingdom. The Minister made much of public transport in her response to the previous short debate. In the Budget statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made much of his public transport package. He quoted a headline figure of £500 million, but, of course, when we examined the small print, we read that that was to be spread, not over one year, but over three, and that the £175 million total additional spending on public transport next year was only 10 per cent. of the extra tax yield from motorists.Of the £500 million over three years, £50 million-only 10 per cent.—was identified as available for rural areas and, of that, only £5 million for community-based initiatives. People outside London are bound to draw a contrast between the paltry sum made available for public transport in rural areas and areas outside London and the £300 million for London Underground.
We were not told in the Budget statement that £300 million of the £500 million package that the Chancellor of the Exchequer talked about would be allocated to London Underground a few days later by the Deputy Prime Minister, leaving a paltry amount to be spread around other public transport needs.
As we discussed in Committee, and as we are well aware, 35 per cent. of the population have access to regular public transport. Most of those people live in London—the city one of whose constituencies the Minister has the privilege to represent. However, an enormous number of people who live outside London—most of the other 65 per cent.—are paying the bulk of the fuel taxes because, by dint of geography and lack of public transport, they are obliged to travel further by car than those who live in the conurbation. People who live outside London are paying dearly through their taxes, and new clause 3 would force the Government to come clean about that.
New clause 6 would require separate figures for England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland with regard to road traffic forecasts. Those figures are not produced in the 1997 forecasts. Amendment No. 15 seeks separate targets for England other than London and for London. That is a reasonable amendment in light of the Government's recent London White Paper. Amendments Nos. 1, 16 and 10 seek the involvement of the Scottish Parliament, the National Assembly for 862 Wales, the mayor of London and Transport for London in this process. They are reasonable amendments advanced in an attempt to make the Bill better. It is already a better Bill as a result of the pressure that I applied in Committee, and I hope that the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), and the Government will accept those amendments.
§ Mr. ForthI support amendment No. 1 and new clause 6. I take my cue in this matter from remarks of the Minister in Committee, which are relevant to my amendment. She said:
there is no equality between the four constituent parts of the United Kingdom in terms of car ownership … there are also wide disparities in economic potential and employment prospects. There are many other variations throughout the United Kingdom's comparatively small land mass.She went on to say:In reducing greenhouses gases, for example, each of the four territories of the United Kingdom is responsible for playing its part in achieving national targets.Finally, and most tellingly, she said:setting a flat rate for every territory of the United Kingdom to work towards would be unachievable, ineffective and not in the best interests of all the territories concerned."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 12 March 1998; c. 83.]That statement was helpful in Committee, and it will certainly assist our deliberations at this stage of the Bill's progress. Even more helpful were the comments of the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Dafis), who said:In the Bill, 'national' refers to England, Wales and Scotland. Let me clarify that 'UK targets' refers to the whole of the United Kingdom."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 19 March 1998; c. 84.]My amendment and new clause 6 would acknowledge the role that the new Scottish Parliament and the Welsh assembly will increasingly play in our governance. That point is directly relevant. Following the Minister's comments about the variations that exist throughout the United Kingdom—she mentioned several different factors—the hon. Member for Ceredigion went on to talk about England, Wales and Scotland. That leads inevitably to the realisation that the new bodies, which will be responsible for different parts of the United Kingdom, should and must be involved in the process of target setting that the Bill sets in train.Logically, we cannot have a national target comprising the totality of different regional targets while, as a result of the Government's constitutional changes, having bodies with extensive responsibilities for their own parts of the United Kingdom. Those same bodies must be an integral part of the process. Surely the Government, and particularly the hon. Member for Ceredigion—given his loyalties and those of his party—would want to ensure the maximum possible involvement of the new bodies, with their new responsibilities, in the process that the Bill requires. In saying that, I thought that I would be going with the flow of what may be characterised as "modern thinking". I am not the greatest devotee of the devolution process, but it is proceeding apace.
That leads to another issue that was raised in Committee and on which the Minister may be able to help us further. Given what I am arguing about the responsibilities in Scotland and Wales, I assume that the figures for England will continue to be produced by the Department. That raises as an interesting side 863 issue the possibility of an English parliament. Recognition of the national identities and responsibilities in Scotland and Wales leaves us in the anomalous position that Whitehall and Westminster remain responsible for English matters because there is no other body to assume that responsibility. I shall not pursue that thought, but it is a consideration.
I wish that I could have made specific reference to England in my amendment, but that would probably not have been allowed. The anomaly remains that we expect English figures to be produced by what remains of the national bodies in Westminster and Whitehall, whereas the regional figures, if I may call them that, will have to involve the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales.
§ Mr. Gerald HowarthPerhaps my right hon. Friend can help me. In drawing up the reports, as the United Kingdom Minister will be required to do, will he need the approval of the Scottish Parliament before drawing up targets for Scotland, as transport is not a power reserved to the Westminster Parliament?
§ Mr. ForthI am not sufficiently expert to give my hon. Friend a confident reply. In order for the national targets required by the Bill to be firmly based, in order to take account of the diversity and variety that the Minister pointed out so eloquently in Committee and in order to recognise the important role to be played by the Scottish Parliament and Welsh assembly, my amendment suggests that those bodies must be involved as an integral part of the process. Taken together with new clause 6, that produces a more coherent picture.
It follows the logic of the previous group of amendments that we should recognise the huge diversity in the nature of traffic, and the vehicles and users that make up that traffic, and that, in parallel, we should take account of the regional variations in the United Kingdom in patterns of traffic and so on. It is well known that there are enormous variations between the large, empty spaces of most of Scotland and the traffic generated in and around London and the south-east of England.
I hope that those comments are relatively uncontroversial and that they add to the effectiveness of the Bill, rather than detracting from it. I hope also that they take full account of the important developments taking place in our constitution.
§ Ms Glenda JacksonI oppose new clauses 3 and 6, and amendments Nos. 15, 1, 16 and 10. I was not aware that the work of the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) in Committee had strengthened the Bill, or that any of his amendments were accepted. I am sure that all rural communities will be interested to note that he opposes the fact that the Chancellor has found £50 million a year over the next three years for the restructuring of public transport in such areas, given that the Administration whom the hon. Gentleman served privatised bus services and reduced many rural areas to a public transport system that is non-existent or totally inadequate.
New clause 3 is unnecessary. The Bill places on the Secretary of State under clause 2(1) or (2) a duty to have regard to the impact of any changes in vehicle excise duty 864 or fuel duty on road traffic. Those, however, are only two of the triggers available to the Secretary of State. He will need to consider a wide range of factors; there is no reason to single out this particular fiscal trigger; nor would it be sensible to list all the potential triggers available to a Secretary of State in setting and achieving targets.
New clause 6 is unnecessary. Road traffic statistics are currently produced at regular intervals, so there is no need for specific legislation.
The Bill's subject matter is a devolved matter in Northern Ireland. The Bill, as amended in Standing Committee, provides for analogous legislation to be introduced in Northern Ireland.
Amendments Nos. 15 and 16 refer to London. My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister announced earlier this week that, subject to the referendum to be held on 7 May, there will be a directly elected mayor for London from 2000. The mayor will be responsible for transport in the capital. The White Paper "A Mayor and Assembly for London" makes it clear that the mayor's integrated transport strategy will be set in the context of a national policy. It therefore makes no sense to set separate figures for London or to require the consent of the mayor to measures that we believe should be applied nationally.
I cannot support either amendment No. 1 or amendment No. 10. The existence of the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales is contingent on the devolution legislation going through, which cannot, for the purposes of the Bill, be assumed. If the legislation were passed in advance of the Bill, the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales would automatically be involved in the way suggested by the amendments, as the subject matter of Bill would be a devolved matter in both countries. I therefore ask the hon. Member for Christchurch not to press the new clause.
§ Mr. ChopeI am disappointed in not just the content, but the manner of delivery, of the Minister's reply: she is being totally graceless about the matter. She knows that in Committee a number of the points that I raised were accepted by the Bill's promoter, if not by her, and that one of the amendments in the first group arose directly as a result of points that I first raised in Committee.
I wish to move quickly to the final group of amendments, so I shall not respond in more detail to what the Minister said. I can say that I do not agree with almost anything that she has uttered in the Chamber this afternoon.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.