HC Deb 13 July 1999 vol 335 cc148-50
3. Mr. David Amess (Southend, West)

What representations he has received from road hauliers on his freight policy; and if he will make a statement. [89477]

12. Mr. Robert Syms (Poole)

What recent representations he has received from the road haulage industry regarding the Government' s transport policies; and if he will make a statement. [89489]

The Minister for Transport (Mrs. Helen Liddell)

I have received a number of representations from the Freight Transport Association, from the Road Haulage Association and from individual hauliers, both through the road haulage forum and directly. Prospects for the industry are very good provided that it stays at the leading edge of efficiency, good practice and business professionalism.

Mr. Amess

Given that it takes an hour for Southend hauliers to get out of the town as a result of the Government's incompetence over the M 11 link road, which has not opened—it is an absolute shambles—why have three months passed before the second meeting of the road haulage forum? What will the agenda be at that meeting? Who has been invited? Who wanted to be invited and has been refused? Will hauliers be afforded the opportunity of regular meetings?

Mrs. Liddell

The next meeting of the road haulage forum will take place on 19 July. I had hoped to have the meeting in June, but it proved impossible to find a date as the directors general of both the FTA and the RHA took leave, or were out of the country, and I was keen that they should be able to attend the meeting. The forum's membership is well known. Officials have been meeting in the intervening period to agree a number of position papers—their next meeting will be on Friday—to inform the discussions on Monday next week. Both professional associations have welcomed the forum and made it clear that they view it as the way forward for the industry, working in partnership with Government. It is about coherent pragmatic approaches, not pointless soundbites.

Mr. Syms

Is the Minister aware of predictions that the road haulage industry could lose 50,000 jobs because of the Government's policies? When will the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions stand up to the Treasury—which is pummelling the industry into the ground? Is it not time for a fair deal for motorists and a fair deal for the road haulage industry?

Mrs. Liddell

A fair deal for motorists would involve reducing congestion, and the Government have a congestion policy—unlike the Conservative party, which launched its proposals yesterday. The road haulage industry and any other industries that are considering their economic viability have to take into account all sorts of factors, not the least of which is the costs of running a business. Those costs are now lower in the United Kingdom than in other parts of Europe. Road haulage wages, for example, are lower in the United Kingdom than they are in Europe. The costs of establishing a business are lower in the United Kingdom than in Europe. As a direct consequence of the Government's policies, the United Kingdom has the lowest corporation tax levels in Europe.

All those measures will help our road haulage industry, as they will help other United Kingdom industries. They are all designed to make the United Kingdom much more economically viable than it was under the previous Government.

Mr. Bill O'Brien (Normanton)

On behalf of Labour Members, I should like to congratulate my right hon. Friend on the freight transport policy being pursued by the Government. That policy is identified with increasingly moving freight transport from road to rail, and with extending rail facilities. Euroports—such as the one in my constituency—could be developed, and could assist in taking United Kingdom freight, on rail, to Europe; they show the best way forward for United Kingdom freight policy. Does my right hon. Friend accept that Labour Members firmly believe that we should continue with the Government's policy of encouraging freight transport to move from road to rail, as that would benefit all our communities and industries?

Mrs. Liddell

My hon. Friend makes a valid point—which is the crux of moving goods in the United Kingdom. We have doubled our spending on freight grants—in the past two years, we have spent £60 million—to support the shift of freight from road to rail or water. We are also committed to making still more funds available for the grant, if there is sufficient demand, in the next three years. Railtrack figures for 1998–99 show an 18 per cent. increase in railway freight volume.

We shall also give to the new Strategic Rail Authority objectives to promote rail freight transport. Meanwhile, the shadow Strategic Rail Authority will be able to make a start on strategic planning for rail freight growth. Rail freight transport is a key factor in reducing traffic on our roads and pollution, and in ensuring that, in future, we have a viable rail network. Our policy is common sense.

Dr. Alan Whitehead (Southampton, Test)

Does my right hon. Friend accept that—apparently unlike Conservative Members, as demonstrated in their recent publication—Labour Members believe that a continued free-for-all in road transport could have disastrous long-term consequences for the British distribution system and for freight haulage, particularly for the viability of the just-in-time system which is vital to Britain's distributive economy? What discussions has she had on ensuring the future viability of the British just-in-time system?

Mrs. Liddell

My hon. Friend has raised that issue with me before, and I have been discussing it with officials. The issue is important, particularly in the context of congestion. We must ensure that congestion on our roads does not lead to a reduction in the economic performance of our businesses. We must, therefore, adopt a commonsense and focused attitude in dealing with congestion issues—unlike Conservative Members, who yesterday published a document containing proposals that would lead to increased congestion, cost lives, and adversely affect the United Kingdom's economic performance.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin (North Essex)

Is it not interesting that Labour Members want to ask questions about anything but the state of the United Kingdom road haulage industry—for which the right hon. Lady is responsible? I welcome the fact that—at last, and about time, too—there will be another meeting of the road haulage forum. Will she give an assurance that that meeting will not be simply a delaying tactic, to string out the matter until the next Budget, when hauliers may be clobbered again?

How does it feel to be part of a Department that is consenting to the removal of ever more money from the transport industries by the Treasury, while the Treasury gives less and less in return? Is it not time that the right hon. Lady stood up for the industries that she represents, instead of increasing taxes and cutting investment?

Mrs. Liddell

I deplore the slurs on the directors general of the RHA and the FTA, and I am sure that their reasons for being out of the country were perfectly valid. I was anxious to ensure that my Department was able to take fully into account their representations on the road haulage industry. On expenditure on transport by this Government, I ask the hon. Gentleman to reflect on the remarks of the AA yesterday, which pointed out that the previous Government had taken thousands of millions of pounds out of transport, and that this Government were doing something to put those resources back.