NEW CLAUSE.—(Provisions as to Motor Cars Used as Hackney Carriages.) (Hansard, 26 June 1916)

§ Mr. MONTAGU
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a second time."
This is a provision as to motor cars used as hackney carriages.

§ Mr. PETO
From the brief commendation given to this Clause by the Financial Secretary I would not have concluded, if I had not read the Clause, that in Sub-Section (1) it stiffens up the provisions of the Finance Act 1909–10. I cannot see exactly the reason for it, and I would like 667 some explanation. It provides that the exemption from the Licence Duty on hackney carriages is to be granted only if the car is used solely as such a hackney carriage. On previous occasions I have had a little controversy with the Treasury on this question. When the old cab was done away with and people in the country towns had to march with the times, and have hackney carriages driven by power to meet the trains at the station and so forth, they might be occasionally used not strictly under the provisions of plying for hire as provided by the Government in earlier Acts. I would like to ask why it is considered necessary to go away from the old provisions in the Act of 1909–10, Sub-section (3), which says: Nothing in this Section shall be construed so as to increase or affect the duty now payable in respect of any motor cab, motor omnibus, or other vehicle, being a hackney carriage within the meaning of Section 4 of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, or to require a licence to be taken out for any motor car which is not a carriage within the meaning of that Section. That has been good enough so far. The right hon. Gentleman has not explained why it is necessary, in order to do some thing, which I presume was for the benefit of hackney carriage owners, to begin by stiffening up and putting in this word "solely," which seems to be designed to run counter to the obvious ordinary use in country towns of a little motor car which usually plies for hire in the station or public square, or may be occasionally let out for a short period for private hire. At a period when everybody is putting away cars in order to reduce consumption of petrol we should not make it more difficult for people who have a certain; number of these cars which they can sometimes let out to keep those cars without paying full Licence Duty. I much regret to see by this Clause that the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not taking the opportunity of simplifying all these exemptions from Motor Licence Duties, and increased Petrol Duties, and putting in a certain category or Schedule people who may be considered to be using the cars mainly for trade purposes, in connection with agriculture or any other trade, veterinary surgeons and all the rest of them, and putting into one omnibus Clause some provision making quite clear 668 who, and on what principle, are exempted from full Petrol Duty and full Motor Licence Duty.

§ Mr. MONTAGU
This Clause is introduced precisely to deal with the difficulty of definition of what is a carriage plying for hire. Representations have been made by certain local authorities that it is very difficult to collect Motor-car Licences, and that the taxes are frequently not paid by those who ought to pay them. One of the difficulties which the local authorities find in the collection of these duties is the difficulty of defining hackney carriages. Often it is said that a carriage is a hackney carriage plying for hire when there is no method of proving that this is the case. It has been held, under Section 4, Subsection (3) of the Customs and Inland Revenue Act, 1888, which contains a definition, that if a motor is ever let for hire or plies for hire it escapes motor-ear taxation altogether, as a hackney carriage. It is clearly unfair that people who take out a hackney carriage licence, for 15s. or £2 17s., as the case may be, should escape motor licence altogether on the representation that they are the owners of a hackney carriage. I do not believe that that was the intention of Parliament. This Clause was intended to clear up the difficulty of defining what a hackney carriage was, so that full Motor Car Duty may be collected from those which are not hackney carriages.

§ Mr. PETO
The right hon. Gentleman has not satisfied me. I have a clear recollection of when this question was raised on the Finance Bill, and the definition "standing or plying for hire" was held to be correct. We debated the question whether if a motor car which usually stood in the ranks, or at a station, were let for a short period—a week, or something of that kind—for some special job, it would thereby become liable for full Licence Duty, and it was settled at that time that clearly it would not be. Now under the wording of this Clause it seems quite clear that unless it is solely plying for hire, as a hackney carriage, it will immediately have to pay the full licensing duty. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to reconsider the question whether, with motor ears being shut up all over the place, and when from the most patriotic motives you are not to employ people needlessly when they are not wanted, that is the moment to select for 669 interfering with the supply of cars available at short notice and cars let out for special jobs, which would be almost entirely in connection with Government or War Service?