HC Deb 21 June 1926 vol 197 cc200-18
Mr. MACQUISTEN

I beg to move, in page 35 line 11, at the end, to insert the words "in the Metropolitan Police area."

In a preceding Finance Act a differentiation was made between the Metropolitan police area and other districts, but in the present Finance Bill the differentiation is to be abolished. I submit that the differentiation should be continued, in the first place because it was recommended in the report of the Departmental Committee of the Ministry of Transport on the taxation of road vehicles, and also because in the metropolitan police area the average number of miles per vehicle per annum is over 38,000, while in the outside areas it is only 29,000. Therefore the outside mileage is 25 per cent. less than in the Metropolitan police area. I suggest that the Duty should be 25 per cent. less in the outside areas, because the wear and tear of the roads is less. In a further Amendment to the Schedule I propose a a scale in districts other than the Metropolitan police area, for vehicles with a seating capacity up to 32 persons, varying from.£12 to £00 and that there should be an additional 30s. for each person in excess of 32.

THE MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)

This Amendment to the Finance Act, 1920, is not one that ought to surprise the Committee, because in the Act of 1920 specific power is given to the Minister of Transport to extend.the existing scale in the Metropolitan area to the areas outside and therefore we are only here in this Schedule carry- ing out what was obviously contemplated by the Act of 1920. My hon. Friend has shown commendable restraint in refraining from pointing out the very serious financial loss which this Amendment would entail. If this Amendment were carried, it would cost the Exchequer at least £400,000 in a financial year and consequently on that ground alone it is quite obvious that. the Government cannot accept it. Then I cannot, accept the figures given by my hon. and learned Friend as to the distance run by these omnibuses and chars-a-bane outside the Metropolitan area. Vehicles in cities outside the Metropolitan area do as much mileage as those within, and even in the country districts the mileage is very considerable.

Mr. MACQUISTEN

Is it not a fact that practically every country vehicle is run on pneumatic tyres, whereas in London they arc run on solid tyres.

Colonel ASHLEY

That may be so, but the existence of these heavy vehicles does cause considerable damage to the roads. Local Authorities are reconstructing their roads, and they would not have had to do this had it not been for these vehicles. It is necessary for us to have money in the Road Fund so that we can have money available to repair these roads. I regret that I cannot accept the new Clause.

Question, "That those words be there inserted," put, and negatived.

Sir A. HOLBROOK

I beg to move ill page 35, line 31, after the word "tractors," to insert the words "timber [...]tractors."

The Amendment I have put down is to bring timber tractors, used as forestry vehicles, on to the same basis as agricultural vehicles. There is very little distinction between agricultural and forestry tractors so far as transport is concerned, but there is this difference, that while field crops are harvested annually, timber crops are harvested once only in 30 or 50 years. Like agriculture, the timber industry is a struggling industry, and for that reason I hope the Minister of Transport will see his way to accept this amendment. This Industry can supply only a comparatively small extent of the home needs, and hence it has to meet over- whelming foreign competition. It can fairly lay claim to special treatment such as agriculture has been given by successive Governments. The amendment is strongly approved by the Forestry Commission, which is carrying on an extensive planting system throughout the country. Unless the industry is maintained in a healthy state it is difficult to see how the Government will be able to market their timber when it matures. Although woodlands pay rates and taxes for so many years, the timber merchant receives claims for what is known as ''extraordinary traffic when the timber is hauled. Would it not be possible for some fund to be created gradually so as to repair the road damage done by these vehicles.

In this Bill it is proposed to increase the licence on tractors and engines to what is about 100 per cent. This is particularly hard on the merchants in timber. In addition to that, the Ministry Transport is to-day requiring that all these engines shall be rubber-tyred. or have rubber strakes to prevent damage to the tarred roads. To fit a single engine to rubber tyres would cost £300 to £400. It is threatened that if this is not done voluntarily, legislative powers will be sought. Rubber tyres would render these engines useless and they would not tie able to get on the fields. The industry only admits of very small profits and the heavy increase in licenses and the cost of tyres in one year would be disastrous t o many of the traders. There are only about 700 merchants in the whole of England and Wales, many of them in a Small way of business and financially weak. It is a purely British industry and employs many hundreds of men in the rural districts. I hope we shall receive the same consideration as was shown by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to the last Amendment to the Bill.

Colonel ASHLEY

I entirely agree with all the pleas on behalf of forestry put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Basingstoke (Sir A. W. Holbrook), and I agree that it should be encouraged. The industry has been encouraged by successive Governments by setting up Forestry Commissions and doing what they can in reason to assist the industry. Therefore it is not from want of sympathy that I must resist. this Amendment. The Way to support the industry is by assist- ing it in some other direction. After all, what I have to think of is the damage done to the roads. That is, the sole angle to-night from which we have got to approach this question. The hon. and gallant Member asks why, if we have done this for agriculture, should we not do it for forestry? There is a differentiation between agriculture and forestry. In agriculture the tractor is used almost exclusively on the land and not on the roads. The damage done to the roads is very small. But in dragging huge trees up and down the roads the damage is very large indeed. Therefore the hon. Member must not think that I have no sympathy with forestry. I have, first of all, to look at the damage done to the roads, and there is no doubt that these tractors do great damage to the roads.

Sir A. HOLBROOK

Has not the right hon. Gentleman lost sight of the fact that the agricultural engines are on the roads every week all the year round, and that these timber engines are on the road only once in 30 years at least?

Major RUGGLES-BRISE

I must say that I am surprised at the reply we have just had from the Minister. He is straining the point when he says that a concession granted to agriculture should not be given to forestry. After all forestry and agriculture are very much on a par. Whether you grow a blade of wheat or a tree the only difference is that a tree is the longest of all the processes of production. A tree has no value where it stands. It may be an ornament to the countryside, but it has no commercial value where it stands. It must be felled, and even then it has no commercial value until it has been hauled to the timber yard. If you increase the cost of hauling you will decrease the price of tree and that, I submit, is a retrograde movement and entirey opposed to the interests of forestry which is encouraged by another department of the Government. I deplore the decision of the Government and hope they will take an opportunity of reviewing it.

Mr. REMER

I claim to be one of the few Members of this House with some practical knowledge of felling and transporting timber, and for that reason I deplore the speech of the Minister of Transport. In my own experience I know of some estates which have paid duties in the form of rates and Income Tax over a period of 80 to 100 years, and at the end of that period have been charged on account of extraordinary traffic on the roads. That is the crux of the situation If those people pay taxes on their woodlands, for what are they paying? They are paying for one purpose only—that at the end of the period when the trees have grown they will have the right to use the roads for transporting that timber. You can bring timber 2,000 miles across the Atlantic and 500 miles in the interior of the United States at a lower price than you can transport it 100 miles in this country. The reason is plain. In this country we have no big rivers which we can use for transport. There is the Mississippi, on which I have worked, the Vistula and the Dwina, great rivers like these make a big difference in the cost of transportation.

For these reasons I ask the Minister of Transport to consider the question afresh before the Benoit stage and to weigh the points which have been raised in this discussion, because I believe the subject is one of vital interest to the country.

Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE

I am sorry to disagree with my three hon. Friends who have spoken on this Amendment. Although I cannot claim to have the knowledge of timber of my hon. Friend who has just spoken, I have been handling timber with great regularity for a number of years, using tractors and steam engines as well as horses. It would be a mistake to extend this relief to the traction engines used for hauling timber. They are in a position altogether different from the position of the agricultural tractor. I think I am right in saying that the agricultural tractor, if used for road haulage, requires a road licence and pays on the higher scale, and I know from personal experience that the traction engine, if kept off the roads and used merely for winding up timber, does not pay the road licence, but only the lower rate charged on the ordinary agricultural tractor not used for road purposes. I keep a heavy engine with winding gear, which does not go on the roads and does not pay a heavy licence. Having used both steam engines and horses for hauling timber, I have no hesitation in saying that horse haulage is, generally speaking, the more economical method A well-equipped estate, handling timber, or a well equipped timber merchant, would not feel the additional burden of this tax, if using the most economical method which is horse haulage and I hope the Government will not give way.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in page 36, line 10, after the first word "engines" to insert the words or locomotives or motor vehicles used solely by travelling showmen in the pursuit of their calling. On Clause 13 we had a discussion with reference to the particular case of showmen's vehicles, and I understand the Government have since had the matter nnder consideration. We do not wish to press the Government on the matter, but I move the Amendment formally in order that the Minister of Transport may inform us, if possible now, as to the Government's intentions.

Colonel ASHLEY

The hon. and gallant Member is quite correct. When we were discussing Clause 13, the Chancellor of the Exchequer said the Government would consider this matter between the Committee stage and the Report stage of the Bill. The Government will do so and I shall let the hon. and gallant Member know their decision as soon as possible.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain CROOKSHANK

I beg to move, in page 36, line 38, after the word "used," to insert the word "solely."

The subhead of this Schedule contains a form of words quite different from that of the Finance Act., 1920, which is the present law. I am advised that the wording proposed in this Bill is so wide that it could easily be interpreted as covering every single kind of motor because there are only a very few which could not be said to be "adapted for the conveyance of goods for trade or otherwise." I am advised that this particular form of words will mean that the conveyance of luggage by an ordinary touring car, will bring it into the category of a commercial vehicle, provided that luggage comes under that description of "goods." A motor-car used for station work, bringing up various articles coming through the parcels post or rail, could, I am told, be similarly described as a. commercial car because it has a luggage grid; and as in the case of an alternative description being applicable, a car must pay the higher scales of duty, mane roaring cars may now, I imagine, against the intentions of the Government, have to pay higher rates. The object of this Amendment is merely to restore the form of words which existed in the Finance Act, 1920. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will find time to consider what the object of the change is, and let us know on the Report Stage.

Colonel ASHLEY

I am advised that none of the vehicles which the hon. and gallant Member has outlined could possibly come under this paragraph of the Schedule. Luggage loaded from the station could not bring a ear under this scale. Therefore his fears are groundless, because the words are specific. These are constructed or adapted for use and used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, whether in the course of trade or otherwise. However, a legal matter is always a matter of opinion, and if it will meet my hon. Friend's point I will take further legal advice between now and the Report Stage and let him know what the advice may be.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I beg to move, in page 36, line 40, at the end, to insert the words other than vehicles kept by a local authority, and used in the performance of their duties relating to the removal of refuse and the cleansing, watering, and repairing of streets. I will be as brief as possible in moving this Amendment. It is an important matter. This Bill does amend the Act of 1920 in regard to vehicles. I think it has been done inadvertently, but evidently it is in this category of heavy vehicles, which now include those used by local authorities for sanitary purposes. This Bill, we are advised, proposes to amend the old Act to include vehicles used for the conveyance of goods or burden of any description, whether in the course of trade or otherwise, and imposes the duty in all cases where vehicles exceed 25 cwt. in weight unladen. Paragraph 5 will no longer be limited to vehicles in the course of trade. The effect will be that the duty on vehicles vied for sanitary purposes will be largely increased, particularly in respect of mechanically-propelled vehicles. Consider what the effect will be on small Corporations. We find that in one small Corporation the Duties that are now payable to the extent of £192 will, under this new Bill, amount to £1,636. In the case of the Birmingham City Corporation, their Duties at the present. time are £747, and according to the Schedule they will have to pay £4,311 under the new Bill. We contend, on behalf of the Corporations of the country, that these vehicles are only used in their own areas where the ratepayers have to pay the biggest part of the money required for the upkeep of the roads: they are of low horse-power in most cases: they proceed at a very slow speed, and therefore they ought to receive special consideration, as they did in the 1920 Act. As regards water-carts, in our usual English summer they do not use the roads about two months in the whole year, and we feel we have a fair case for special consideration of the Corporations as regards these vehicles.

Colonel ASHLEY

I do not think I can accept—althria I am sure he has put them forward believing that it is so—the figures of the increase suggested by my hon. Friend in regard to Birmingham and Sheffield.

Mr. WOMERSLEY

I did not mention the other.

Colonel ASHLEY

I would point out that steam rollers are exempt under the 1920 Act, and that really what the Government has to consider in dealing with Amendments of this Schedule is the road user and road vehicles. I cannot see why a vehicle which is used by a local authority for sanitary purposes should have any preferential treatment over the vehicles used by anybody else—by the private individual. After all, damage knows no owner, and damage done by the Corporation of Birmingham may be just as bad as damage done by myself if I owned one of these vehicles. I would ask the Committee to bear clearly in mind the damage done to the road: and why should one employer be selected for preferential treatment more than another? A corporation has a vehicle or vehicles used for carting materials about in the course of their works. That, under the new Amendment as I read it, would receive a louver rate of taxation, whereas, if they put out their work to contract, the contractor would have to pay the higher rate because he is a private individual. I do not think that is fair and I do not think it commends itself to the Committee. But I would point out, further, that Corporations are, I am glad to say, [...]tsing more and more, every month electrically propelled vehicles, and I believe in the case of the two Corporations which my hon. Friend mentioned, they have a very considerable number of these vehicles. We have already indicated on discussion of Clause 13 that we. propose to give a very substantial concession to these electrically propelled vehicles, some 2,500 in number, which I think are used exclusively by Corporations, by reducing by 50 per cent, the taxation which is outlined in the present Finance Bill. That means we are prepared to review it on deport, because these vehicles ought to be considered and they do a smaller amount of damage than vehicles propelled by petrol. Further than that we cannot differentiate between one owner and another where road damage is concerned.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I am very much disappointed with the reply the Minister has made. I [...]un perfectly convinced he has not yet given full consideration to the very strong case which the corporation has in this matter. He has suggested that the (inures put forward by my hon. Friend, the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Womersley) were not probably good representations of the expenses of corporations in this matter. Let me give him the Sheffield figures They show that under the proposals of the Government what is at present a charge upon the non-trading vehicles of £2,214 a year will be increased by this Pill to C8,888. That is even a bigger proportion than the figures quoted by my hon. Friend, who moved the Amendment. The Minister says that there ought to be no consideration in this matter, because he says there should be no discrimination between corporations as employers and users and other people. He forgets, I am sure, that the local authorities who are engaged in these non-profit making health services, are themselves very heavy contributors to the upkeep of the roads. They have very heavy duties to perform and great costs to incur at the expense of the ratepayers, and when he talks about sanitary and health vehicles using the roads to which the Government contributes, does the right hon. Gentleman realise how many miles of the roads the great [...]ei corporations use at all with the health vehicles. The great city corporations use very little indeed of the [...]ig country roads on which so much of the first-class road expenditure is incurred. A very great proportion of their work in this connection is upon roads in respect of which they get either a very small grant or else maintain the whole wit of the roads out of the local rates. It seems, therefore, that the whole argument used by the Minister of Transport in refusing to grant the concession asked for falls to the ground. I am certain the municipal corporations will not be satisfied for one moment with the reply that he has made, and while at this hour of the morning, it is not convenient for the Members of the Committee to debate at length, I do think we ought to say at once that the matter cannot be allowed to rest where the Minister has left it by his reply: and we ask him and the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reconsider the matter so that we may put it clown again on Report stage and get a more favourable answer.

Captain A. EVANS

In his reply the Minister referred to a concession he kindly said he was going to make concerning vehicles propelled by electric batteries. I would like to ask him if that concession is going to be made solely to vehicles owned by local and municipal authorities, or is it to extend to all vehicles propelled in that way?

Colonel ASHLEY

All vehicles, whoever the owner.

Mr. J. HUDSON

The right hon. Gentleman continually reminded the Committee that we ought to take into account the damage clone to the roads, but surely a vehicle that is specially engaged in improving the roads, in brushing and watering the roads and removing refuse from the roads, does not come at all under the same head as these other vehicles he referred to. One would imagine a vehicle of this sort would be included under that definition. The Minister put it forward as a rule according to which we should snake a judgment on the inquiry as to whether a tax should be charged or not. It is most unsatisfactory, and parti[...]larly with regard to vehicles of this sort which are actually engaged in improving the roads—vehicles, indeed, that air hearing the burden that the central authority Ought to bear out of the mole[...] that will now be taken away as a result of the decision made in connection with the Road Fund. It is entirely an unfair burden that is going to be laid on the local authorities.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

I think the Minister's decision is perfectly sound. This complaint arises, as I understand it, solely in relation to particular electrically propelled vehicles [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] Oh, yes! The complaint arising from corporations originally related to electrical vehicles. I must confess that, from what I have heard of the complaints, it. would be difficult to discriminate between the different owners, but to try to stretch this complaint into a general pleading that all electrically driven lorries used by municipalities should benefit, is really unfair to the Committee.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The Minister in his reply said this Amendment would enable all in municipalities to do work which would otherwise be done by contractors who compete unfairly owing to the fact that they get a lower duty.

Colonel ASHLEY

Let me make myself clear. The anomaly would be that the extra taxation would be paid by the contractors and the lower taxation would be paid by the corporation. I see no reason to differentiate between the one and the other.

Mr. PETHICK-LAWRENCE

The point I want to make is that this is for specific municipal purposes. It does not apply to all vehicles, but to vehicles for the removal of refuse and the carrying of water for the cleansing of streets. These come, I think, within a different class than the vehicles used by contractors.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

Major CRAWFURD

I beg to move, in page 37, line 5, to leave out. "12 cwt." and to insert instead thereof "15 cwt."

The object of the Amendment is to extend up to vehicles of 15 cwt. the class of those which will pay the lowest rate of duty, that is £10. The hour is late but it has been worth my while to stay up to this hour because the right hon. Gentleman, in all the speeches he has made, has already foreshadowed his acceptance of this Amendment. Twice already in regard to other Amendments

The Committee divided: Ayes, 27; Noes, 131.

Division No. 299.] AYES. [12.43 a.m.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hayday, Arthur Potts. John S.
Charleton, H. C. Hayes, John Henry Preston, William
Compton, Joseph Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley) Purcell, A. A.
Crawford, H. E. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Dalton, Hugh Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Watts-Morgin, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Day, Colonel Harry John, William (Rhondda, West) Westwood, J.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Kelly, W. T.
Harland, A. Kennedy, T, TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. Mr. Womersley and Mr. James Hudson.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Goff, Sir Park Moreing, Captain A. H.
Albery, Irving James Grant, J. A. Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Greene, W. P. Crawford Morrison—Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Apsley, Lord Gunston, Captain D. W. Nall, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Balniel, Lord Hanbury, C. Nuttall, Ellis
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Oakley, T.
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Betterton, Henry B. Haslam, Henry C. Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Boothby, R. J. G. Hawke, John Anthony Radford, E. A.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxford,Henley) Raine, W.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Remer, J. R.
Braithwaite, A. N. Hills, Major John Waller Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Brassey, Sir Leonard Holt, Captain H. P. Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hopkins, J. W. W. Salmon, Major I.
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'I'd, Hexham) Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Sandman, A. Stewart
Campbell, E. T. Huntingfield, Lord Sanderson, Sir Frank
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Savery, S. S.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Christie,.J A. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Shepperson, E. W.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Kindersley, Major G. M. Skelton, A. N.
Cobb, Sir Cyril King, Captain Henry Douglas Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine,C.)
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement Sprat, Sir Alexander
Cope, Major William Knox, Sir Alfred Steel, Major Samuel Strang
Couper, J. B. Lamb,.J. O. Strickland, Sir Gerald
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Little, Dr. E. Graham Styles, Captain H. Walter
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Loder, J. de V. Templeton, W. P.
Crookshank, Cpt.H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Lord, Walter Greaves- Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Curzon, Captain Viscount Laugher, L. Tinne, J. A.
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd, Hemel Hempst'd) Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo.F.(Somerset,Yeovll) Lumley, L. R. Watson, Rt. Hon. W. (Carlisle)
Dawson, Sir Philip Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) Wells, S. R.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Mac Intyre, I. Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
England, Colonel A. McLean, Major A. Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Macmillan, Captain H. Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Fairfax, Captain J. G. McNeill, Rt. Hon. Ronald John Wilson. M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Falls, Sir Charles F. MacRobert, Alexander M. Wise, Sir Fredric
Fermoy, Lord Makins, Brigadier-General E. Wragg, Herbert
Ford, Sir P. J. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Margesson, Captain D.
Ganzonl, Sir John Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Gibbs, Cot. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Mr. Frederick Thomson and Lord Stanley.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col, Rt. Hon. Sir John Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.

the right hon. Gentleman has said that the sole angle front which the Government viewed these proposals is that of damage to roads.

Colonel ASHLEY

And the amount of money going to the Road Fund.

Major CRAWFURD

I am within the recollection of the Committee that he used the words "sole angle." If he wishes to withdraw that, and make it two angles, he can do so. But I think I may be able to satisfy him in a very few sentences on the point. The effect of the Amendment if accepted would be to do two very necessary things. It would encourage the use of second-hand chassis of old motor vehicles for commercial uses and it would also encourage the extended use of new vehicles for uses of this nature. At present the light car pays £11 or £12 tax. If converted from pleasure uses to commercial uses it will be compelled to pay a tax of £16 because it comes in the class over 12 cwt. The Chancellor of the Exchequer I think originally proposed these changes in the licence duties in order to carry out the intentions which his colleague has expressed this evening to make them in accordance with the usage of the road. In the case of the pleasure motor car by the arbitrary distinction he has made by which two-thirds is levied for road users and one-third levied for what he calls the pleasure aspect of the car—if he carries out that intention he must also make the concession to the lighter commercial vehicle and that is what I am asking the Government to do. If the Government will give this concession, they will certainly do one thing and that is they will encourage traders to use light commercial vehicles by giving to them a wider choice of a vehicle at a tax of£ Thus the Government would undoubtedly stimulate the motor car in a direction where at the moment it is perhaps weakest in this country. I also want to put this point to the right hon. Gentleman that very likely if he will accept this Amendment and make this change it would not mean less revenue. But the Amendment would unoubtedly lead to two things It. would encourage second-hand chassis of pleasure vehicles being put to commercial uses and stimulate the motor trade in making light commercial vehicles.

Colonel ASHLEY

The Committee will notice that in the new Schedule contained in this Bill the Government does not propose to increase the tax on vehicles under one ton and therefore there is no question of increasing the tax. There are reasons why I cannot accept the Amendment. If it were carried, vehicles between 12 cwt. and 15 cwt. would pay less than they do under the present scale of 1920 and when we are increasing the taxation on these vehicles—very substantially indeed—it is illogical and wrong to select one small class and say that they and all others shall not even be included.

Major CRAWFURD

It merely is illogical if it can be shown that such a change would be no loss of revenue.

Colonel ASHLEY

The and gallant Member does not convince me that that would be the effect. The concession would cost some £60,000 or £70,000, which we cannot possibly afford.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. A. V. ALEXANDER

I beg to move, in page 37, line 7, after the word "unladen" to insert the words such weight not to include the weight of apparatus used in the vehicle for a specific trade and not supplied with the vehicle by the manufacturers thereof. 1.0 A.M.

This matter is of some importance to people who are using motor vehicles in specific trades and arising from a test case which is on in Scotland at the present time. The case in question is where the local taxation officer has asked a firm to submit their motor vehicles in which they deliver bread for re-examination and weighed, whereas vans of that character have been weighed without the furniture which is used for carrying hread—shelves and so on. Now it was said they must have the van weighed with all the shelves and boards for fixing the tax with the result that before you came to the increase in the present Finance Bill on these vehicles for delivering bread and similar food commodities they will have an increased charge of £6 per annum. That is a serious charge on the food distributing trades of the country. In this particular case I want to point out that the boards and shelves used in these vans are used so that they help very materially to keep the bread clean and in condition. If, on the other hand, bakers went back to the old-fashioned methods and used heavy baskets, which are not to be weighed for the purpose of-assessment to motor duty, you get unclean bread. I think that is an anomaly which the Government might well remove, and that, anticipating the detrimental effect of the decision which is about to be taken in a test case, I suggest that the Government should make the necessary alterations in the Bill. I am well aware that it is difficult to draw an Amendment in words which would be suitable, and if the Minister is unable to accept the particular form of words I have on the Paper I should be very happy to withdraw them if he could assure me he will give the matter further consideration between now and [he Report stage.

Colonel ASHLEY

I think this can be answered simply. There are always hard cases; there must always be hard cases where the weight of a vehicle comes near the higher scale and just goes over. Therefore you can always make a case for some concession so that the particular vehicle shall remain in the lower class. Really the answer to the hon. Gentleman is this: that Section 7 (6) of the Roads Act, 1920, provides that for the purposes of all enactments relating to the use of vehicles on roads, the weight unladen of any vehicle

shall be taken to be the weight of the & vehicle inclusive of the body and all parts. … which are necessary to or ordinarily used with the vehicle when working on a road, but exclusive of the weight of water, fuel or accumulators (other than boilers) used for the purpose of propulsion, and of loose tools or loose equipment."

That seems to be a very sound provision. If the ease put forward by the hon. Gentleman comes within that Section of the Act of 1920, I consider that they ought to pay the extra taxation. If they do not, they would obviously get relieved of the taxation.

Mr. ALEXANDER

If that is the attitude, I shall not be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 17: Noes, 136.

Division No. 300.] AYES. 1.5. a.m.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) Smith, Pen (Bermondsey, Rotherinthe)
Charlelon, H. C. Hudson. J. H. (Huddersfield) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Compton, Joseph John, William (Rhondda, West) Wilkinson, Ellen C.
Dalton, Hugh Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Day, Colonel Harry Kelly, W. T. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hayday, Arthur Kennedy, T. Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Hayes.
Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley) Potts, John S.
NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel Evans, Captain A. (Cardiff, South) Knox, Sir Alfred
Albery, Irving James Fairfax, Captain J. G. Lamb, J. O.
Applin, Colonel R. V. K. Falls, Sir Charles F. Little, Dr. E. Graham
Apsley, Lord Fermoy, Lord Loder, J. de V.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Ford, Sir P. J. Lord, Wager Greases-
Balniel, Lord Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony Laugher, L..
Barnett, Major Sir Richard Ganzonl Sir John Lucas-Tenth, Sir Hugh Vere
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman
Betterton, Henry B. Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Lumley, L. R.
Boothby, R. J. G. Goff, Sir Park Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft Grant, J. A. Maclntyre, I.
Braithwaite, A. N. Greene, W. P. Crawford McLean, Major A.
Brocklebank, C. E. R. Gunston, Captain D. W. Macmillan, Captain H.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I. Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) McNeill, Pt. Hon. Ronald John
Brown, Maj. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Hanbury, C. MacRobert, Alexander M.
Burton, Colonel H. W. Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Makins, Prigadier-General E.
Campbell, E. T. Harland, A. Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn
Cazalet, Captain Victor A. Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington) Margesson, Captain D.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)
Christie, J. A. Hawke, John Anthony Monsen, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer Henderson, Capt. R, R. (Oxf'd, Henley) Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col, J. T. C.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Moreing, Captain A. H.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A, D. Hills, Major John Waller Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)
Cope, Major William Holland, Sir Arthur Morison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive
Cooper, J. B. Holt, Captain H. P. Nail, Lieut.-Colonel Sir Joseph
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. Sir George L. Hope, Capt. A. O..J. (Warw'k, Nun.) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick) Hopkins, J. W. W. Nuttall, Ellis
Crookshank, Cpt. H.(Lindsey,Gainsbro) Honlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Oakley, T.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Hudson, Capt. A. U. M.(Hackney,N.) Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Davidson,J.(Hertf'd,Hemel Hempst'd) Huntingfield, Lord Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome}
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset,Yeovil) Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Preston, William
Dawson, Sir Philip Kennedy, A. R. (Preston) Radford, E. A.
Dixey, A. C. Kidd, J. (Linlithgow) Raine, W.
Edmondson, Major A. J. Kindersley, Major Guy M. Remer, J. R.
England, Colonel A. King, Captain Henry Douglas Richardson. Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E. A. Stanley, Lord (Fylde) Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Steel, Major Samuel Strang Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Salmon, Major I. Strickland, Sir Gerald Wilson, M. J. (York, N. R., Richm'd)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) Styles, Captain H. Walter Wise, Sir Fredric
Sandeman, A. Stewart Templeton, W. P. Womersley, W. J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) Wragg, Herbert
Savery, S. S. Tinne, J. A. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Shepperson, E. W. Watson, Rt. Hon. W, (Carlisle) TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Skelton, A. N. Wells, S. R. Mr. Frederick Thomson and Captain Bowyer.
Smith, R. W.(Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) White, Lieut.-Colonel G. Dairymple
Sprot, Sir Alexander Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern)
Lieut.-Colonel HORLICK

I beg to move, in page 37, line 18, to leave out the words "of £10," and to insert instead thereof the words being a trailer not exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen—£2. being a trailer exceeding 2 tons in weight unladen—4 The object of this Amendment is to reduce the proposed tax on trailers drawn by motor vehicles. The present tax is £10, which seems to me to be excessive. The effect of this Amendment would be to reduce the tax to £2 in the case of light vehicles and to £4, or double the existing tax, in the case of heavy vehicles. The Minister of Transport, speaking on Clause 13, admitted that £10 was somewhat excessive and said he was going to propose to reduce it to £6; hut I suggest he should reduce it still further in accordance with the Amendment in my name.

Colonel ASHLEY

I do not know which to admire most, the briefness of my hon. and gallant Friend's speech or the reasonableness of his statement. He said truly that the Government were giving certain concessions in respect of these trailers. In the first place, I would point out that the duty is not levied on the trailer as a trailer. but on the tractor which draws the trailer. If you once start differentiating by putting a duty on the trailer and not on the tractor, you will have bad administration. The Government cannot go any further in this matter than was outlined. The Committee will remember that in the Irish Free State they raised their duty to £12. We propose to go only up to £6 which, I think, shows great moderation.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Captain A. EVANS

I beg to move, in page 37, line 18, at the end, to insert the words: Vehicles propelled by electricity stored in and conveyed by the vehicle and exceed- ing twenty-five hundredweight ill weight unladen to be charged at 50 per cent. only of the before-mentioned rates of duty for the appropriate weight. In view of the fact that I have already dealt with this matter, I will move the Amendment formally.

Colonel ASHLEY

I have already accepted the esssence of this Amendment. I cannot accept the wording of the Amendment on the Paper, but I promise the hon. and gallant Member that on the Report stage an Amendment embodying his proposal shall he put down.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Remaining Schedules ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported: as amended, to be considered upon Monday next, and to be printed. [Bill 131.]