§ Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I beg to move, in page 4, line 5, to leave out Sub-section (1).
I am glad to see the Minister of Transport in his place, as I want to obtain some elucidation as to the actual effect of this Clause. It is one of those instances of legislation by reference which have recently become so common. Probably there is no other way of referring to a Section in a previous Act. At the same time, it does make it more difficult for the ordinary back bench Member to understand what the effect is likely to be. I therefore, particularly want to ask the Minister of Transport if he can explain exactly what the effect of this Clause will be upon the various classes of motor vehicles which will come under it. I have referred to the original Act, and it seems to me that there are three, or possibly four classes of motor vehicles which will be affected by Clause 6 of this Bill. The first class of motor vehicle which apparently will be affected by the Clause is the rather obsolete type of what used to be called the electric brougham, which relies for its motive power upon a storage battery carried in the chassis, which has to be charged separately and independently of the vehicle, and is charged almost invariably when the vehicle is at rest. The only tax for that vehicle has hitherto been £6 but as that type has almost become obsolete, and I think probably in future the only instances you will see of it will be found in local museums, probably parked with the old hansom cab and the chariot, I cannot see that this Clause, from that point of view is of very much importance.
There are one or two other classes of motor vehicles upon which this Clause is likely to bear very heavily, and it seems to me that there is a chance that engineering initiative may be restricted, 1986 and this may have the effect of deterring enterprise and invention from bringing out an improvement in the type of motor vehicle which we see upon the streets to-day. A short time ago experiments were made with a motor vehicle with what was known as an electric transmission. Transmission in that case was conveyed from the engine to the drive by means of an electric cable, much on the lines of the American battleship. The petrol engine drives a dynamo, and the power is conveyed by an electric cable to a motor in the back axle, thereby dispensing with the cardan shaft type of drive. This Clause, in my opinion, will prevent any further development of that type of drive, and it seems to me, in view of the way in which this country has fallen behind in the motor manufacturing world, that it is rather a pity that anything should be done which will deter British invention and initiative from bringing out a new type of motor car, which might do much to re-establish the British motor industry in the position which it ought to occupy in the markets of the world.
The effect of this Clause will be to charge a full rate of tax on that type of vehicle; in fact, it will charge rather more on that type, because it necessitates the use of a rather large slow-running engine, and you cannot obtain quite the same efficiency from a dynamo driven by a small quick-running engine, which is almost exclusively used to-day with the idea of avoiding as much of the road tax as is possible. This Clause will have the effect of checking any development of invention in that direction, and, in view of the unsatisfactory position which the motor industry holds to-day in the markets of the world, it seems to me a, pity that that should be the case. I should like to know from the Minister of Transport whether that is his opinion, and, if so, whether it is not advisable to give temporarily, at any rate, encouragement to the vehicle fitted with the electric drive by allowing it either temporarily or permanently to benefit by the reduced duty in the hope, as time goes on, that that may become a standardised form of motor vehicle. As experiments with this vehicle have been largely carried out in this country, I think the motor industry in this country would receive the full benefit of any concession which the hon. Gentleman 1987 might grant in the direction of not making this particular Clause apply to that type of motor vehicle.
I should also like to know from the hon. Gentleman what are the reasons for perpetuating, under the Clause, as fax as I can see, the particularly favoured position which the electric tramcar occupies at the present time. In the opinion of many people to-day, the electric tramcar, if not obsolete, is at any rate obsolescent, and anyone who drives about London to-day must realise to what a large extent the traffic congestion from which we suffer is due to the electric tramcar, which is the only vehicle which has a right to stop in the middle of the road and disgorge its passengers to the imminent danger of those passengers, and causing great delay to the passing traffic. No other vehicle has a right to proceed slowly in such a position—
§ The CHAIRMAN
I am afraid that the points which are now being raised by the hon. Baronet are not in order on this Clause.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I was simply pointing out that this Clause would perpetuate the favoured position of the electric tramcar.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
My argument is that this Clause perpetuates the position which the electric tramcar occupies with regard to freedom from Road Fund taxation.
§ The CHAIRMAN
That may be so, but the question whether or not tramcars should be taxed does not arise under this Clause.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
In those circumstances, of course, I bow to your Ruling, and will not continue the argument. There was one other vehicle as to which I should like the position under this Clause defined by the hon. Gentleman, and that is the comparatively new trolley-car or trackless tram. I should like to know from the Minister of Transport whether that is specially included under this Clause, and, if so, what are his reasons for including it? It is possible that the electric tramcar, travelling as it does upon a line of rails, laid at the expense of the owners, might, or 1988 should, be favoured in the matter of the road tax, but I cannot see any reason why the trackless tram should be placed in the same favoured position, and I should like to hear the hon. Gentleman's reasons for introducing a Clause which will have those effects.
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison)
I am very glad, Mr. Young, that you have not encouraged us to proceed with the discussion on the merits of the tramcar, which is a very excitable subject, but the hon. and gallant Member may be assured that it has nothing whatever to do with this Sub-section, and, as a matter of fact, the trolley omnibus has nothing to do with it either. They are taxed on the seating capacity, and are in a different category from the vehicles with which the Committee is now dealing. The Sub-section is related to quite a restricted point, and, in reality, a very simple point. The First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926, which came into operation on 1st January, 1927, gave a concession to a certain class of vehicles, namely, a preferential rate amounting to 50 per cent. This concession was given—certainly it was intended by the framers of the Finance Act, 1926, only to be given—to electrically propelled goods-carrying vehicles, and the only ground of that concession was—and this is, of course, very important—that these vehicles were slow running, they had a very restricted radius of action, and their annual mileage was, therefore, substantially lower than that of the ordinary petrol-driven vehicle.
In view of that fact—and it was admitted by everybody that the electrically-propelled vehicle was not doing the road damage that the petrol vehicle was doing—that concession of 50 per cent. was made, but, in the early part of 1927, the inventors got to work, and Messrs. Tilling-Stevens brought out their petrol-electric goods vehicle. Those vehicles were electrically-propelled, or, at least, it was claimed that they were electrically-propelled vehicles within the meaning of the Finance Act, 1926, and a test action arose, because the Kent County Council, under the instructions of the Minister of Transport for the time being, refused to recognise the Tilling-Stevens petrol-electric vehicle as an electrically-propelled vehicle within the meaning of the Act of 1926.
1989 As a result, an action was taken in the Courts on the initiative of Tilling-Stevens. The case was heard on 2nd May, 1928, when Mr. Justice Clauson gave the case to Messrs. Tilling-Stevens, and the Government of the day lost their case on the wording of the Finance Act, 1926. The case went to the House of Lords, where the Government did not win, although they did win in one of the Courts. Finally, therefore, the case was awarded against the Government of the day. It is an experience which frequently happens, that the intention of the Government and of Parliament in framing an Act sometimes goes wrong, because of a subsequent invention, or because of something which was not visualised at the time. As a matter of fact, the Tilling-Stevens petrol-electric vehicle is differentiated from an ordinary electrically-driven vehicle by the fact that the primary motor power is an ordinary internal combustion petrol engine. That engine is connected with an electric dynamo, and the electricity generated in the dynamo is transmitted to an electric motor. The electric motor drives the rear wheels of the car through a cardan shaft and differential gear, instead of the driving-power being derived from storage batteries charged from a source external to the vehicle. The vehicles affected do not include public service vehicles carrying passengers, which come under another category.
It is clear that the concession is given only because of the lesser damage to the highway done by the electrically-propelled vehicle. As a matter of fact, the petrol-electric vehicle, which can move as fast as the ordinary petrol vehicle, and can go distances which the ordinary petrol vehicle can go, clearly is doing the same amount of damage to the highway as the ordinary petrol vehicle, and it is unjust as between one manufacturer and another for this vehicle to be placed in a different category; similarly, it would be unjust to treat vehicles differently because one man owned a petrol vehicle and another man owned a petrol-electric vehicle. Therefore, it seems to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and myself that they should be put in the same position. Hon. Members who were here will remember that in the last Parliament it was the intention of the Chancellor of the Exchequer of that day that that should 1990 be done, but the second Finance Bill was not taken after the General Election.
Under this Sub-section, the vehicles which will get the benefit are goods vehicles propelled by electrical motive power derived from a source external to the vehicle, for example, trolley vehicles used for the conveyance of stores, other goods or for repair purposes in connection with a trolley-vehicle or tramway system. Obviously, their operations are severely restricted, and, in fact, they do a lot of standing about, which does not do the road damage which moving about does. The second class of vehicle which will get the benefit are goods vehicles propelled by electrical motive power derived from electrical storage batteries which are not connected to any source of power while the vehicle is in motion. Therefore, the provision of the law, as we propose to amend it, will, in reality, be exactly the same provision as was intended by the Government in the Finance Act, 1926, and it merely puts right—I will not say right, but puts back the provision as intended, but which was affected by the legal derision to which the Courts, I have no doubt quite rightly, came.
The Sub-section, as drafted, excludes from the concession in respect of electrically-propelled vehicles only the petrol-electric type of vehicle which is driven by electrical motive power derived from a dynamo carried on the vehicle. It being the desire of the Government only to revert to the intention of the Government in 1926, and as the last Government, I understand, would have brought in an identically similar provision, and, indeed, passed it into law before now, no change of policy is involved. After that explanation, I hope that the hon. and gallant Member will be in a position to withdraw his Amendment which was moved, I believe, largely to get information, which, I trust, I have given with all the fullness I could.
§ Captain GUNSTON
The hon. Gentleman referred us to the Finance Act, 1926. I have no doubt he referred to the First Schedule, but I cannot find any reference to the concession in regard to electrically-propelled vehicles. If the hon. Gentleman will refer to the law he will find the definition "goods or burdens," and I rather think that 1991 passengers may be taken as a burden, and that trolley trams therefore can come in. May I further reinforce my argument by a question which I asked the Chancellor of the Exchequer? I asked him previously whether, if a tramway company changed to trackless trolleys, they paid the duty, and he replied that he could not say. Therefore, I think the Minister has not satisfied the Committee that the trackless trolley would not be included. Personally, though it would be in order to argue the question whether the trackless trolley ought to get the benefit, I cannot help thinking that if they did so it would encourage the local authorities to transform their tramways to the trackless trolley system.
§ Mr. CHARLES WILLIAMS
I am not at all satisfied with the Minister's explanation. He rode off on the assumption that this is the result of a sort of mistake which arose out of a previous bit of legislation, and a decision in the Courts. He also laid it down—and with this, I think, most of us will agree—that under this decision certain vehicles, by means of the decision in the Courts, escaped their fair share of the burden and the upkeep of the roads. Those who view this Government from a point of view of comparative innocence in this matter would think that that is all right, and be rather inclined to accept the Minister's statement, but the Minister in his statement pointed out that this provision had to be inserted because a certain firm had introduced an improved form of electrically-propelled vehicle.
This is really what we are doing under this Sub-section. Because a firm has brought itself up-to-date and produced a new and valuable asset to British industry, we are going to place upon them the heaviest burden. That is what he said in effect, although he did not put it in that way. He tried to make out that the reason was that they did damage to the roads, but I suspect the real reason had little or nothing to do with that. Then the hon. Gentleman tried to ride off, and say that if it had not been for certain incidents last year, it might have been done last year. We have no confirmation of that. It might or it might not, but I would like to know for certain before I, at any rate, vote for this Sub-section. Perhaps my right hon. Friend in 1992 front of me may be able to say if there is any reason to suppose that in any circumstances this provision might have been brought in last year. I think it is probably done by the Ministry of Transport or some other section of the Government with very different motives at the back of their minds from what they put forward.
Let me come to the actual definition as laid down here. There you have a complication of words, and I do think the Committee is entitled to have some clear explanation as to what they actually mean. Apparently it is being laid down here that there are two forms of vehicles—those which get their electricity from some external source, and those which are not connected with such an external source of power. Obviously, the words "not connected" are used in order to distinguish the two classes of vehicles, and I should have thought from that that the Government clearly had two different sorts of vehicles in mind. The Minister explained that the provision with regard to vehicles not connected to an external source of supply has been put in for a particular purpose, but I am not sure whether what are known as trackless trolleys would come in under this definition or not. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I am glad to hear that some interest is taken in this important matter, because, if a mistake is made, it affects the travelling facilities of millions of people in the country, and it is the duty of the Conservative party to look after these matters.
The Minister, as I understand it, laid it down that some of these vehicles would come under this Sub-section and others would not—that if they carried passengers they would be in one class, while if they carried materials for the roads, or anything of that kind, they would be in the other class. This confusion has worried a considerable number of people on this side of the Committee, and I very much doubt whether anyone on the other side, unless it be the Minister himself, could explain quite clearly exactly what is meant. It is a very bad case of reference back to an Act of 1920, and, if this legislation is to be of a permanent character, and if we are not to have to reorganise it again next year, I think the Committee would be well advised to get the best possible legal 1993 advice before going any further on this question. I hope, therefore, that my hon. and gallant Friend will insist, before a Division is taken, or before the Amendment is considered to be satisfactorily answered, that we should have a proper explanation of the technicalities of this Sub-section, and that the Law Officers should be here to explain these complicated and difficult points. The Minister's excuse—I think it would be unfair to put it higher than an excuse—for bringing in this provision is that it is to correct a technical legal, difficulty. If that be the case, it is quite clear that it can only be explained properly from a legal point of view, and, unless that is done, I think the Government will be once again treating the Committee with extreme discourtesy by not giving us a proper and adequate answer. I never expected the Minister to be able to deal with the matter from a technical point of view. He has done his best, but I protest most vehemently that, on an occasion of this sort, the Government should be so discourteous at this early stage to the feelings of the Committee.
§ Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS
The Minister gave us a most lucid explanation of this Sub-section. It was so clear to me that it revealed to my mind what I had not previously known, namely, that this is a piece of retrospective legislation which needs the most careful consideration of the House. Take the case of a trader who during recent years has purchased one of these Tilling-Stevens cars. When he bought it, the dealer probably told him that he would have to pay 50 per cent. less duty upon it than if it were purely a petrol vehicle, and behind that there was a decision of the House of Lords. Relying on the decision of the House of Lords, the man has altered his position by buying this vehicle, which he might not otherwise have bought. He has done that on the faith of the law as decided by the House of Lords, and, if Parliament now comes along and changes it, it is clearly a case of retrospective legislation which affects the position of an individual who has taken perfectly legal action in a perfectly legal way. I would ask the Minister to consider whether it would not meet the case if vehicles sold after the date of the introduction of the Budget were the only ones included, and if an exception were made 1994 in the case of all vehicles sold to private individuals prior to the date of the introduction of the Budget.
§ Mr. PYBUS
I should like to say a few words in support of the point made by the hon. Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). Not only has that point occurred to me, but I am sure also that the Minister is not aware that, by this restriction, he is retarding a very fine development in electric traction work. As the Minister knows, the object of this electric drive is to eliminate the gearbox, and everyone who lives in London knows that the real nuisance, the really noisy vehicle, is the vehicle which carries goods and which has a gear-box that is very inefficiently handled. Under the law as it stood the development of the electrically-driven vehicle, with transmission from dynamo to motor, was making good progress. It was developing in a remarkable way for goods vehicles, and not only will those who have already purchased these vehicles be hard hit by this change, but this new movement, which was making great progress, not only here but abroad, will be stifled. I hope the Minister will not, just for the sake of a cecrtain amount of revenue which will be secured from these vehicles, take a step which will hamper business, will prevent development, and will discourage those who in future set out to improve methods of traction in this country.
§ Captain CAZALET
I should like to ask the Minister a question. He made it perfectly clear that this provision has been inserted because of the invention of a particular type of engine after the passing of the Act of 1926, but is there really any concrete reason why this concession should not be given? After all, it has encouraged a new kind of engine, and it might have started a new industry on a small scale. The arguments of the last two speakers certainly enforce everything that has been said from this side. I understand that under this Sub-section only two kinds of vehicles will get the benefit of the exception made in the Act of 1926, namely, certain trackless trolleys when they are conveying goods, and certain electrically-propelled vehicles, also when they are conveying goods. What I should like the Minister to make clear is how much a concession of this nature would cost the Road Fund, because that, surely, is the crux of the 1995 whole problem. If it is merely a matter of a few thousand pounds, why hamper all those industries which have bought vehicles of this kind, on the strength, as has been pointed out, of an Act of Parliament, supplemented by a decision of the highest Court of the Realm? In order to justify his case the Minister should let us know what it would cost to negative this Sub-section, and what benefit would accrue to the Road Fund.
§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND
Two points have arisen in connection with this matter, about one of which I should like to make representations to the Minister, and about the other to ask if he will kindly make the situation clear. As to the first point, I think there is a great deal of force in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Ecclesall (Sir S. Roberts). It does seem very severe on any owner who has purchased, as some have, a fleet of Tilling-Stevens cars, to have an extra burden suddenly added to his running costs greatly beyond what he was legitimately entitled to expect at the time that he purchased them. In all these cases, everyone who sets out on a business takes care to ascertain as far as possible what will be the costs that he will have to meet, and, in view of those costs, what charges his customers are entitled to expect from him. Therefore, it seems, prima facie, to be rather unfair that people who have acted on the strength of a House of Lords decision, which might appear to have settled the case, to have that suddenly changed in a Clause which deals, as I gather, with one specific case. Whether it will be just so far as the future is concerned is quite a different thing. So far as these cars are more analogous to the ordinary petrol car than to a car driven by a storage battery, the case is quite arguable, and very likely the Minister is right. Upon that I express no opinion; but, as regards those who have founded themselves on the decision given in a previous case, I think there is a great deal in the contention that has been made, and I put it to the Minister that an exception should be made in the case of those cars which were constructed, licensed and in operation before the introduction of the present Finance Bill.
1996 The other point about which I should like to ask is with regard to the classification of the cars of which the Minister spoke. I have been through the Acts with regard to this subject since an Act passed, I think in the 80's, to establish hackney carriages. Such a task is, of course, extremely complicated, because during the past few years there have been, if I remember the dates aright, an Act of 1924, which was amended by one of 1926, amended again by one of 1927, and yet again by one of 1928; while even in the index to the Statutes in force there is not any one heading under which they can be traced, but you are badgered about from one heading to another, and it took about an hour's work even to trace the Acts of Parliament which are involved in this matter. I am sure that the Ministry of Transport knows that what I am saying is true. I used to be an expert in legislation by reference, and I acknowledge my fault, but I am bound to say that this is worse than anything of which I was guilty in past days. In those days, as I have remarked before in this House, I did issue a Paper, when I was asked to do so, stating what the changes were and endeavouring to make them clear.
I gather from the Minister that you really get two categories of vehicles into which electrical propulsion enters. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong, but I think the first category is one in which the vehicle is a trolley propelled by electrical power from outside, being a trolley which carries goods, and only goods, and of which, as the Minister says, the sphere of action is very limited. The other class under this same category has an electrical storage battery and carries goods. What is the degree of taxation? I have endeavoured to verify it from the Acts, and it is only because of their complexity to anyone outside that I ask. They are, I presume, in a different category from the trolley-omnibus, which is taxed according to seating capacity, if it is seating capacity? What is the comparative taxation of these two? The original tax on the electrically-propelled vehicle was £6 per annum.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The comparative taxation does not arise on this Amendment. The point under discussion is the definition of "electrically-propelled," 1997 and, according to the definition, the taxation will be.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I do not wish to travel beyond what you say is proper, but we are considering what classes of vehicles should come under this Sub-section, and whether a class of vehicles should or should not properly come under the Sub-section is really determined by the treatment it will receive if it comes under the Sub-section. Here we have words which define the classes to which the favourable terms of treatment apply, which are, first of all, propelled vehicles which get electrical motive power from an external source and the others which are driven by an electrical storage battery. The real point is whether you should have in this class of vehicles the third class to which the Tilling-Stevens kind of machine belongs. A point which is germane to this is what precise difference in advantage there is between coming within this class and the heavier taxation which they would have to bear if they were outside it. I submit that, if it is a difference between about £6 per annum and anything varying from £12 to £30 per annum according to the number of seats, it is a matter one wishes to consider in order to see how the difference is created.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I think I can clear up the points that have been raised, after which I should hope the Committee would come to a conclusion. I have very great sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's observations as to the complication of these Schedules. We all admit it, whether present or past Ministers. I imagine the right hon. Gentleman knows why the previous Government have not before now consolidated these Schedules into one. The probable reason is that it would increase the time that would have to be devoted to the Committee and Report stages of the Finance Bill. Possibly one of these days, when we have a Government that has very little legislation before the House, they may be consolidated. We have tried to simplify it by the publication of documents, and what we call a church door poster, which gives all the scales of taxation up to date, and in as simple a way as they could be given if a revised Schedule were made.
With regard to the relative advantage in taxation of the electrical vehicle 1998 proper, the answer is quite simple. The electrical vehicle proper gets a 50 per cent. rebate on the tax it would pay if it were a petrol-electric vehicle. Hon. Members may be certain that this is in no way related to the trolley vehicle, or any passenger vehicle at all. It deals solely with the goods vehicle which is propelled by electric power. I do not know whether hon. Members have seen these vehicles, but they are very slow-moving. They are used for refuse collecting and jobs where there is constant stopping. They are not particularly economical vehicles where long journeys have to be done and considerable speeds must be achieved.
Clearly, the owner of a vehicle who bought it up to the date of the judgment has no grievance, because he bought it on the understanding that it would be taxed in the same way as the petrol vehicle. [HON. MEMBERS: "No !'] The Minister of Transport—not I, but my predecessor—and the Treasury held throughout that the proper tax upon these petrol-electric vehicles was the normal tax of the petrol vehicle, and it was not until the Courts had upset the Government of the day that anyone had a right to suppose they would get through with a lower tax. Therefore, the only man who has a possible grievance—and I will shortly show that he has none—is the man who bought it between the date of the judgment and the introduction of this Bill. But he has no grievance, because he must have known that the Government of the day, whether the last Government or this, would bring in legislation at the earliest possible date to rectify the matter and, therefore, no one has bought a vehicle under the impression that he would get this 50 per cent. rebate for any material time. [Interruption.] I do not know whether the hon. Member has any better knowledge than I have, but that is my information. Is it fair that a man who has a petrol vehicle is to be taxed 100 per cent. higher than a man with a petrol-electric vehicle, which can go as fast, do as much work and use up the roads as much as a petrol vehicle? I am surprised that it should be suggested that one vehicle, which is doing exactly the same class of work as another, should be taxed at 50 per cent. less. Clearly that would not 1999 be fair to the operators and to the manufacturers.
I agree that the cost of such a concession, even the cost of the concession in this Amendment, would not be great at the moment, but if one looks ahead, clearly it would encourage the production of a particular type of vehicle, to which I have no objection on merits, but if it developed in a wholesale fashion, the revenue from this class of vehicle would be down by 50 per cent. within a few years' time. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman should associate himself with the Amendment even in the distant way he has done, because there is conclusive proof that the last Government intended to do exactly what we are doing. There was presented to the House in April, 1921, by the then Financial Secretary, a White Paper which indicated the Clauses that would be incorporated in the Finance Bill (No. 2), and we find on page 7 the following:At the end of the said Schedule there shall be inserted the following paragraph:'A vehicle shall not be deemed to be an electrically-propelled vehicle within the meaning of this Schedule unless the electrical motive power is derived either from a source external to the vehicle or from an electrical storage battery which is not connected to any source of power when the vehicle is in motion.'If you compare those words with the Bill, they are exactly the same, and my reasons are exactly the same as impelled the last Government to make that proposal. Parliamentary tradition is accustomed to the knowledge that Members say in opposition things that they do not say when in office, and they say things when in office that they do not say when in opposition. I have never been in opposition, and I have no words to eat, but that is what I am told. This is really a startling example of that rather bad Parliamentary tradition. In view of the case I have made, which is really unanswerable, and in view of the fact that we are doing exactly what the last Government intended to do as recently as April of last year, I hope the Committee, having had a thorough explanation of what the provision means, will now come to a decision.
§ Sir LAMING WORTHINGTON-EVANS
I should not have intervened had not the hon. Gentleman put forward 2000 an argument as if it were unassailable, which seems to me to be entirely beside the point. He was claiming that there was no hardship on those who already owned these petrol electrically-driven machines, because the Ministry of Transport decided that they ought to have been taxed in the same way as petrol-driven machines. The Ministry of Transport was wrong and the owner of the machine was right when he thought he was entitled to a 50 per cent. reduction. That is proved by the decision of the highest court in the land.
§ Mr. MORRISON
The right hon. Gentleman is on a wrong point. I did not say who was legally right or wrong. If the House of Lords on appeal decided that the last Government was wrong, the last Government was wrong on that point, as they were on a good many other points. But that is not the point at all. What I have said is that no one had any reason to expect that the widespread concession consequent upon the decision of the House of Lords on law could possibly stand. Therefore, there is no grievance.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
How could anyone who was buying a machine know what the intention of Parliament was except by reading the Act passed by Parliament? The Act gave him a 50 per cent. rebate and, on the strength of having it, he may quite well have bought a fleet of these vehicles. Then the hon. Gentleman says he was wrong because the Ministry of Transport intended that these electrically-propelled vehicles should be taxed as if they were petrol-propelled. That is not right. The House of Lords decided that the owner was right and the Ministry of Transport was wrong, and whether that Ministry of Transport was the Ministry of the last Government or of this is entirely beside the point. The owner now finds that he is to be taxed 50 per cent. more than the law required him to be taxed at the moment when he bought the vehicles. I am not in the least concerned that he should get some benefit over others who are using petrol-driven vehicles. On the contrary I am glad that he should have a benefit.
This electrically-driven vehicle is a new invention and we want to see it developed. It has many advantages over a vehicle which depends on gear-Changing. 2001 The streets are made hideous with the noise of these heavy vehicles changing their gears when they have to stop and go forward. The electrically-driven vehicle moves much more easily and more silently than the petrol one. We really require encouragement for these vehicles, so that the inventors and experimenters may improve and standardise them, and I am very glad that they should in the meanwhile get a 50 per cent. rebate of their taxation in order that invention may be stimulated. The hon. Gentleman has made the best of a very bad case but, notwithstanding his efforts, I do not think the Government have treated us properly. Here are these Acts, five of them. I confess that I have not spent an hour, as did my right hon. Friend the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) in searching out the history of this particular Amendment, but I take it from him that there are five Acts, each one referring to the other, and there is some confusion as to whether one vehicle or the other is included. When we started on this discussion, I thought that, unless we had the Attorney-General present, it would be impossible to come to a decision upon so complicated a matter. I compliment the Minister of Transport on having made the point clear. What is it that he has made clear? It is, that here is a vehicle which in many ways is better for London traffic than the petrol vehicle. Here is an electrically-driven engine at present enjoying 50 per cent. rebate in order to encourage experiments in these vehicles, and now the Government propose to take away that rebate. I hope that my hon. and gallant Friend will go to a Division.
§ Major COLFOX
I approach this problem with an unbiased mind. [Laughter.] That remark may seem singular to some hon. Members opposite, who are so prejudiced as not to allow themselves to be influenced by any debate. I am not of that kind. I came here to be influenced by the debate as it proceeds, and I am forced to the conclusion that the balance of justice is on the side of the Amendment. It is noteworthy that the justice of the Amendment has goaded even the patient oxen to rebel against their oppressive taskmasters or, rather, one of them. It is always a little difficult to know, because they are not always influenced by herd 2002 psychology, whether the patient oxen will move in a body, or turn and rend one of their—
§ Major COLFOX
The balance of justice is on the side of the Amendment. By resisting the Amendment it seems to me that the Government are giving us one more instance of the way in which they increase unemployment by hampering an infant industry, which would no doubt grow and employ a considerable number of people if this Amendment were passed. It would also give great scope to inventive genius to carry forward inventions to simplify road traffic. The Minister of Transport has said that the people who have bought these vehicles have no reason to complain if we alter the law. Not only this Government but any Government is in a very privileged position, because when a case is contested in the Law Courts and the Government find that the decision goes against them they immediately alter the rules of the game, they alter the law, thereby getting an unfair advantage over the ordinary litigant, the private citizen, who has contested the case against them. I suppose it is inevitable, but it always seems to me very unfair that the Government should not be compelled to abide by the same rules as the ordinary individual. For my part, lamentable as it is, I should be prepared to support an alteration of the law in regard to the future, provided the Minister would give an undertaking that the position in regard to these vehicles in the past should be safeguarded. Although I admit that that would not carry out the full advantage of the Amendment, it would be part of what we desire.
§ Captain CAZALET
The Minister of Transport said that he could not give the exact sum that would be involved in this matter, but that it would be a small figure. Is it a matter of a few thousand pounds?
§ The CHAIRMAN
We are not discussing the amount of the tax on any vehicle at the moment. This is a definition part of the Clause.
§ Mr. ARTHUR MICHAEL SAMUEL
It is only reasonable that we should know what amount of money is in question.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Amendment relates to the definition, and the tax will be the same according to the class of vehicle irrespective of the definition part of the Clause.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
The definition puts a limit on the tax. That is the object of the definition. The position is this, that there is a form of vehicle which has escaped a certain amount of taxation or, at any rate, it only pays 50 per cent. The object of the definition is to bring in that form of vehicle and to increase the tax by removing the 50 per cent. abatement. The question is, how much revenue that will mean.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
That is precisely what the Amendment is. Its object is to leave out the definition. If we leave out the definition, then 50 per cent. will be payable, and not 100 per cent. We want to know what is the difference between the 50 per cent. and the 100 per cent. In other words, what will the Amendment cost?
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The Sub-section limits the class of vehicles that can get the rebate. The Amendment would not limit it, but leave it as it is. Neither the Amendment nor the Sub-section in any way affects the scale of taxation.
§ Captain CAZALET
The Minister of Transport in his argument for not accepting the Amendment said that it would cause a shrinkage of the revenue of the Road Fund. He said that the sum was not large, but he could not tell us how much it was. Can he say whether it is a matter of a few thousands or hundreds of thousands?
§ The CHAIRMAN
The Minister cannot say beforehand. That is quite apart from what we are discussing now.
§ Mr. SMITHERS rose—
§ Mr. REMER
My object in rising is to ask the Minister of Transport why this Sub-section is put in the Finance Bill. We have a Bill dealing with road traffic which has passed through Committee, and it would seem that this Clause ought to 2004 be in that Bill and not in the Finance Bill.
§ The CHAIRMAN
Whether this Clause ought to have been in this Bill or in another Bill I do not know but, at any rate, we are discussing Sub-section (1) of Clause 6 of the Finance Bill.
§ Mr. REMER
If this Sub-section had been included in the Road Traffic Bill it would have been very much more to the advantage of the Committee.
§ Mr. REMER
That is precisely what I was seeking to bring to the attention of the Minister. This is a Finance Bill, and under no circumstances should Clauses be put into the Finance Bill which have reference to another Bill which is before the House. The Minister of Transport has put many strange things into the other Bill.
§ The CHAIRMAN
The hon. Member must keep to this Bill. For the time being we have nothing to do with the other Bill or what is in the other Bill.
§ Mr. REMER
I appreciate that, and I obey your Ruling. May I call attention to the fact that this Sub-section ought not to be in this Bill. Where it should be, I leave the Minister to explain to himself. I protest very strongly against putting into the Finance Bill matters which have no reference of any kind to finance. I think that your ruling a few minutes ago in reply to a question by the late Financial Secretary to the Treasury showed conclusively that what I have said has a great deal of point. If I understood your ruling, it was to the effect that this is a definition Clause and, therefore, I do not think that it should be in this Bill. I enter the strongest protest against misusing the Finance Bill for matters which have nothing whatever to do with the finance of the year.
§ Several HON. MEMBERS rose—
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 278; Noes, 151.2007
|Division No. 327.]||AYES.||[4.59 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Montague, Frederick|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Morgan Dr. H. B.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Morley, Ralph|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Harbord, A.||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Hardie, George D.||Morris-Jones. Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Arnott, John||Haycock, A. W.||Mort, D. L.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Hayday, Arthur||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)||Muff, G.|
|Ayles, Walter||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Henderson, W. W. (Middx. Enfield)||Naylor, T. E.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Herriotts, J.||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Noel Baker, P. J.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Hoffman, P. C.||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Hollins, A.||Palin, John Henry|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Hopkin, Daniel||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)|
|Benson, G.||Horrabin, J. F.||Perry, S. F.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Picton-Turbervill, Edith|
|Bromfield, William||Isaacs, George||Pole, Major D. G.|
|Bromley, J.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Potts, John S.|
|Brooke, W.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Price, M. P.|
|Brothers, M.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Pybus, Percy John|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Jones, Rt. Hon Leif (Camborne)||Richards, R.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)|
|Buchanan, G.||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Eliand)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Ritson, J.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Romeril, H. G.|
|Cape, Thomas||Kennedy, Thomas||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Kirkwood, D.||Rowson, Guy|
|Charieton, H. C.||Knight, Holford||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Chater, Daniel||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Lang, Gordon||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Clarke, J. S.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lathan, G.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Sanders, W. S.|
|Compton, Joseph||Law, A. (Rossendale)||Sandham, E.|
|Cove, William G.||Lawson, John James||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scott, James|
|Daggar, George||Leach, W.||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Scurr, John|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Sexton, James|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lees, J.||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Day, Harry||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shield, George William|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Logan, David Gilbert||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Dickson, T.||Longbottom, A. W.||Shinwell, E.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Longden, F.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Dukes, C.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lowth, Thomas||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Lunn, William||Sinkinson, George|
|Edmunds, J. E.||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Egan, W. H.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McElwee, A.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Foot, Isaac||McEntee, V. L.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||McKinlay, A.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Freeman, Peter||MacLaren, Andrew||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Snell, Harry|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Phillp|
|Gibbins, Joseph||McShane, John James||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Sorensen, R.|
|Gill, T. H.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Gillett, George M.||Mansfield, W.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Gossling, A. G.||March, S.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gould, F.||Marcus, M.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Markham, S. F.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Marley, J.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gray, Milner||Mathers, George||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Matters, L. W.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Maxton, James||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Melville, Sir James||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Messer, Fred||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Middleton, G.||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Millar, J. D.||Toole, Joseph|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Mills, J. E.||Tout, W. J.|
|Townend, A. E.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Turner, B.||Welsh, James (Paisley)||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Vaughan, D. J.||West, F. R.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Viant, S. P.||Westwood, Joseph||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Walkden, A. G.||White, H. G.||Wise, E. F.|
|Walker, J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Wallace, H. W.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Wallhead, Richard C.||Wilkinson, Ellen C.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor||Williams, David (Swansea, East)||Mr. Paling and Mr. Charles|
|Watkins, F. C.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)||Edwards.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fermoy, Lord||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Albery, Irving James||Fielden, E. B.||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Astor, Viscountess||Forestier-Walker, Sir L.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Remer, John R.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Rentoul, Sir Gervals S.|
|Berry, Sir George||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Gower, Sir Robert||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'te'y)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Salmon, Major I.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bracken, B.||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Buchan, John||Hartington, Marquess of||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Butler, R. A.||Haslam, Henry C.||Smithers, Waldron|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Hurd, Percy A.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Iveagh, Countess of||Tinne, J. A.|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Long, Major Eric||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Worthington, Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|England, Colonel A.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||O'Connor, T. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||O'Neill, Sir H.||Sir George Penny and Major the|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Marquess of Titchfield.|
|Ferguson, Sir John||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."2008
§ The Committee divided Ayes, 273; Noes, 156.2011
|Division No. 328.]||AYES.||[5.8 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Attlee, Clement Richard||Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Ayles, Walter||Benson, G.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Bowen, J. W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Barnes, Alfred John||Broad, Francis Alfred|
|Alpass, J. H.||Batey, Joseph||Bromfield, William|
|Ammon, Charles George||Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Bromley, J.|
|Arnott, John||Bellamy, Albert||Brooke, W.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Brothers, M.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Ritson, J.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Romeril, H. G.|
|Buchanan, G.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Kennedy, Thomas||Rowson, Guy|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Kirkwood, D.||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter|
|Cameron, A. G.||Knight, Holford||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)|
|Cape, Thomas||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Salter, Dr. Alfred|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Lang, Gordon||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)|
|Chater, Daniel||Lathan, G.||Sanders, W. S.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Law, Albert (Bolton)||Sandham, E.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Law, A. (Rosendale)||Sawyer, G. F.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Lawrence, Susan||Scott, James|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Lawson, John James||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Compton, Joseph||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)||Scurr, John|
|Cove, William G.||Leach, W.||Sexton, James|
|Daggar, George||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)|
|Dallas, George||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)||Sherwood, G. H.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Lees, J.||Shield, George William|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)||Shillaker, J. F.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Lloyd, C. Ellis||Shinwell, E.|
|Day, Harry||Logan, David Gilbert||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Longbottom, A. W.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)|
|Dickson, T.||Longden, F.||Sinkinson, George|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Dukes, C.||Lowth, Thomas||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)|
|Duncan, Charles||Lunn, William||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)|
|Edmunds, J. E.||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)|
|Egan, W. H.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)|
|Elmley, Viscount||McElwee, A.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)|
|Foot, Isaac||McEntee, V. L.||Snell, Harry|
|Forgan, Dr. Robert||McKinlay, A.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Freeman, Peter||MacLaren, Andrew||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)|
|Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||MacNeill-Weir, L.||Sorensen, R.|
|Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||McShane, John James||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Gibbins, Joseph||Malone, C. L'Estranga (N'thampton)||Stephen, Campbell|
|Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)|
|Gill, T. H.||Mansfield, W.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|Gillett, George M.||March, S.||Strauss, G. R.|
|Gossling, A. G.||Marcus, M.||Sutton, J. E.|
|Gould, F.||Markham, S. F.||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Marley, J.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Mathers, George||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|Gray, Milner||Matters, L. W.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Maxton, James||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Melville, Sir James||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Messer, Fred||Toole, Joseph|
|Groves, Thomas E.||Middleton, G.||Tout, W. J.|
|Grundy, Thomas W.||Millar, J. D.||Townend, A. E.|
|Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Mills, J. E.||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Montague, Frederick||Turner, B.|
|Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Morley, Ralph||Viant, S. P.|
|Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Walkden, A. G.|
|Harbord, A.||Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Walker, J.|
|Hardie, George D.||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Mort, D. L.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Haycock, A. W.||Moses, J. J. H.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Hayday, Arthur||Muff, G.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Muggeridge, H. T.||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Nathan, Major H. L.||West, F. R.|
|Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Naylor, T. E.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||White, H. G.|
|Herriotts, J.||Noel Baker, P. J.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Hirst, G. H. (York, W. R., Wentworth)||Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Palin, John Henry||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Hoffman, P. C.||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Holfins, A.||Perry, S. F.||Williams Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Hopkin, Daniel||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Horrabin, J. F.||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Pole, Major D. G.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Potts, John S.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Isaacs, George||Price, M. P.||Wise, E. F.|
|Jenkins, W (Glamorgan, Neath)||Pybus, Percy John||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Quibell, D. J. K.|
|Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Richards, R.||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Fielden, E. B.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Albery, Irving James||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Forestler-Walker, Sir L.||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Astor, Viscountess||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Penny, Sir George|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Berry, Sir George||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Pilditch, Sir Philip|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Gower, Sir Robert||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Remer, John R.|
|Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Rentoul, Sir Gervais S.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Boyce, H. L.||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Bracken, B.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Buchan, John||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Hartington, Marquess of||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Butler, R. A.||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Haslam, Henry C.||Simms, Major-General J.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfast)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Hurd, Percy A.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Iveagh, Countess of||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)|
|Cowan, D. M.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Croft, Brigadier General Sir H.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.||Tinne, J. A.|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Long, Major Eric||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Cot. Sir Godfrey||Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Davies, Dr. Vernon||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Duckworth, G. A. V.||Margesson, Captain H. D.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Eden, Captain Anthony||Marjoribanks, E. C.||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Elliot, Major Walter E.||Mond, Hon. Henry||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|England, Colonel A.||Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Womersley, W. J.|
|Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Everard, W. Lindsay||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Ferguson, Sir John||O'Connor, T. J.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Fermoy, Lord||Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Captain Wallace and Sir Victor|
§ The CHAIRMAN
The next Amendment which I select is in the name of the hon. Member for East Lewisham (Sir A. Pownall).
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
May I ask, with regard to the manuscript Amendment, whether it was not called because it was ruled out of order, or because it was not selected?
§ Sir ASSHETON POWNALL
I beg to move, in page 4, line 18, to leave out the 2012 word "July," and to insert instead thereof the word "January."
The reason for this Amendment is to be found in the fact that last year, when two separate Finance Bills were to be brought forward, the second one was dropped owing, as some of us think, to the regrettable episode which took place in the latter part of May when there was a change in the constitution of this Chamber. These particular provisions would have been put into the Finance Bill No. 2 of last year had there not been a change of Government. They are shown clearly in page 4 of the Finance Bill and affect motor bicycles which only have to pay a higher rate of duty if they exceed 224 lbs. instead of exceeding 200 lbs. They also make a 2013 concession in regard to motor vehicles between two tons and 2½ tons in weight, unladen. It is most unfair, if the new Government thinks, as did the old Government, that these particular concessions should be given, that unfortunate individuals should be penalised, as they will be penalised, for six months merely owing to the change of Government. The Minister of Transport made most eloquent appeals to this side of the Committee regarding the last Amendment, because, he said, it would have been the intention of the late Government, had they remained in office. If that argument applied to the last Amendment, it applies equally to this Amendment. If the concessions were to have been given in regard to vehicles of these particular weights a year ago it is very unfair now to deny the concessions until the 1st July, when they might just as well take effect as from the 1st January. It might be said that there would be difficulty in regard to those who have already paid, but Sub-section (3) provides that anyone who has already taken out a licence is entitled to have a proportion of his money back. Taxation bears very hardly upon these two particular classes. Motor cyclists are not the wealthy class of the community, and there is a saving of 30s. to those who have motor bicycles between 200 and 224 pounds in weight, unladen. It is only fair that this concession should be made. I understand that relatively the cost would be very small indeed, and that there is not much administrative difficulty in regard to it.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
It should be appreciated by the Committee that the agitation, so to speak, which led to this concession was not so much an effort by the licence-holders and users of vehicles but a very strong effort made by the manufacturers of these vehicles for certain trade reasons which appeared to the last Government and to this Government to have force behind it. Therefore, I think the Committee would be unwise to consider this primarily as a concession to the licence-holder. It gives certain advantages to the licence-holder and it is a concession to the licence-holder, but the Committee would be wrong to consider it otherwise than as primarily a concession to meet certain difficulties placed before 2014 the Government by the manufacturers of this class of vehicle. The Amendment, as the hon. Member has said, would make the concession in respect of motor bicycles, and of goods vehicles operate from the 1st January, 1930. I do not know that it is relevant to say that, as the last Government intended it to operate from the 1st January, therefore this Government, to be logical, should do the same. The actual date which the late Government intended if the Finance (No. 2) Bill had passed was the 1st January, 1930. The date which this Government have adopted is the date given in the Bill, and logically there is no difference and no inconsistency between the two. It is a difference of date, entirely accounted for by the fact that the Bill is being dealt with at a different period.
If the Amendment were incorporated, a large number of refunds would be payable in respect of ordinary licences taken out in the first two quarters of the year. The sums involved, I agree, would be relatively small, but the extra work falling upon the local authorities which we must all consider in this very big and administrative task would be considerable. There would, no doubt, be complications by administrative difficulties arising from the fact that licences might have expired and in many cases might have been destroyed, and there might have been considerable changes in the ownership of vehicles. That is a material point as far as administration is concerned. The cost would not be great. I am advised that it would be something in the region of £35,000. I do not resist the Amendment primarily on financial grounds, although £35,000 is a sum at which no Chancellor of the Exchequer could sneeze in these hard times.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I think that it might well simplify and possibly abridge our proceedings if the hon. Gentleman told us exactly, to the best of his belief, what were the financial issues involved in this Amendment, and not only in the Amendment but in the Clause. This Amendment, obviously, is a modification of the Clause. Is it true that the Clause itself involves only a very small sum, and what is that sum? What is the sum which the Amendment takes away from the yield of the Clause? If we could have that information, we should know what are the dimensions of the problem with which we are dealing.
§ Mr. MORRISON
The additional cost would be £35,000. The real point about this matter is that it is a concession to manufacturers in reference to things now regarded as necessary, like electrical equipment, and leg protectors on vehicles. I think that the result of the change we propose will be to enable manufacturers to add this useful equipment without moving the vehicle into a more highly taxed category. Therefore, I do not think that there is very much of the financial aspect about it at all. It is a concession to manufacturers in order to enable them to add certain desirable things to the vehicle. It is difficult, if not impossible, to estimate the cost of the whole of the concessions in Clause 6, but they will amount to about £80,000 or £100,000 in a full financial year. I am sorry that I cannot for reasons which the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate separate this particular item from the rest.
I will come back to the main point which the Committee ought to consider. We have to consider this particular concession, not as a concession so much to the rider or the licence-holder, as a concession to the manufacturer to enable the manufacturer to add certain pieces of equipment which are useful in themselves without thereby automatically bringing the vehicle into the category of the higher taxed vehicle. For those reasons, it would not be wise to adopt the Amendment, especially in view of the very considerable administrative difficulties which would be involved not only to the Ministry of Transport but to all counties and county boroughs who collect the Road Fund licences on behalf of the Government.
§ Mr. ALBERY
The Minister, in speaking against this Amendment, has given the very best argument possible in favour of it. He has said that the primary object is a concession, not to benefit the riders of motor bicycles but manufacturers. We should all of us perhaps on all sides of the House, if we could, like to confer a benefit on that large section of the population who ride motor bicycles, but, whatever our feelings are on that subject, they are very mild compared with the feelings which we ought to have at the present moment regarding manufacturers and trade. The Minister has explained that, in order to bring motor 2016 cycles up-to-date, the manufacturers consider that this concession is necessary. When I think of the condition of trade generally in the country, I can conceive of no better argument which the Minister or anyone else can possibly produce for accepting the concession than the one which he has just mentioned. It is desirable that our motor cycle manufacturers should at the earliest possible moment be enabled to produce the most efficient and up-to-date machines for sale in these markets and in other markets. Although the duty may only govern the machines in these markets, we have a large export trade, and no doubt under the present system of mass production it will also affect machines made for export. We always hear, when any Amendment is moved, that there are administrative difficulties. There probably are some difficulties, but they are not insurmountable. Although one can get any overpayment of taxation reimbursed it is never an easy matter, and in the present case a great many of these payments will never be reclaimed. The amount which will be lost to the Treasury therefore will be very much less than that stated by the Minister of Transport.
§ Mr. REMER
I did not quite understand the Minister of Transport's reply to this Amendment. He based his estimate as to the amount which would have to be repaid on the fact that quarterly licences would not become payable at the end of the year. A very considerable number of licences are taken out for a year and fall due on the 31st December. The amount to be repaid would be infinitesimal. The trade should know beforehand what the position is going to be in order that they may be able to prepare for any alteration. They should have the fullest information six months ahead as to what is exactly in front of them. I think the 1st of January is a much better date to put in the Bill than the 1st of July. It would he more convenient to everyone, better for the trade and better for all people connected with the industry. I hope the Minister will explain how he arrives at this sum of £35,000. Obviously he must have made a mistake in his original statement. I presume that it will be open to me to move an Amendment that the date should be the 1st January, 1931. If I vote in favour of the word "January" 2017 going into the Bill I presume it will be in order for me to hand in a manuscript Amendment—
§ Mr. THURTLE
May not the hon. Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) be ruled out of order for incoherence?
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
May I ask whether that kind of discourteous interruption is likely to facilitate the progress of our debates?
§ Mr. REMER
I am much obliged to you, Mr. Chairman, for your protection on this occasion. It is my view that the word "January" should be inserted in the Clause in place of the word "July," but instead of being post-dated I want to ante-date it; but I must support the Amendment now and reserve to myself the right to hand in a manuscript Amendment to make my meaning clear.
Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALL
I think the Minister of Transport should accept this small Amendment. It is only a question of £35,000. In Sub-section 3 difficulties will arise in regard to rebates on licences that have already been taken out. The Minister of Transport says that the manufacturers have been pressing for this concession. If that is the case, surely in these times of difficult trade any assistance or help which can be given should be given.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The manufacturer has not the slightest interest in this Amendment, one way or the other. Vehicles on the road on the 1st July are already sold, and, therefore, he has no interest in them. We look after the manufacturer on the 1st July. He is all right; his problem will be met. The 2018 only person who will get an advantage under the Amendment will be the licence holder.
Sir F. HALL
If money has been taken from the licence holder which should not have been extracted it will be something fresh for the Government to say that they will rectify a wrong which has been done and give a rebate. In view of what the Minister of Transport has said I cannot press the matter in regard to the manufacturer, but I still have my own opinion on that subject. I still think that some benefit would accrue to the manufacturer under this Amendment. The late Government, had it remained in power, intended this to come in on 1st January, and it is only fair and right and equitable to ask the present Government to adopt the same line. It was understood they would do so. It is such a small amount that surely the hon. Gentleman might accept it.
§ Mr. CHURCHILL
I agree with what the hon. and gallant Member for Dulwich (Sir F. Hall) has said. This is really a case where a minor nemesis has overtaken the Government. The original proposal figured in the Budget of last year. Owing to our desire to take the sense of the country on the general political issues we divided the Budget into two portions; the main necessary and operative part and certain provisions of a non-controversial but desirable character which were left over so that they did not interfere with the convenience of the country when their electoral decision was recorded. It was assumed that as soon as the new Government was formed that these comparatively unimportant and non-controversial but nevertheless desirable provisions would be passed through the House in a second and subsidiary Finance Bill. They made their arrangements and adjusted their outlook to the new conditions. It was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who brushed all this aside. He wanted to slight the work of his predecessor. That was the mood in which he came to his office; to show how well he could do it; and he brushed it aside with an imperious gesture of contempt expressed by a brand new broom.
Now a year has passed and the Government has to come forward and stand in a white sheet for their neglect. 2019 The Minister of Transport has to say that this is one of the proposals wanted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer last year and that it is a just, legitimate, necessary and desirable feature in our legislation; that it would have been right to do it last year. If it was right to do it last year it is all the more right to do it now. The Government have extended this anomaly, this unfair treatment, for the whole year and now, when we have this enormously complicated Finance Bill, with its almost limitless succession of Clauses and Amendments, they take up the best part of two hours of the time of the Committee in presenting an Amendment to the existing law which ought to have been done last year and which might have been done by general consent last year. In a moment of great embarrassment of Parliamentary business the Government presses it upon the Committee. The Government are entirely and absolutely to blame. The very mood and temper in which they have approached their duties is the cause of their misfortune at the moment. We could have got this without the least trouble.
What is it that we ask in this Amendment? All we ask is that if the Government a year later, having seen the error of their ways, their education advanced by a year's contact with responsibility—or the best approach they can make to responsibility—when all the claptrap which they talked on public platforms has been worn off, come forward and indicate their desire to pass what we proposed, and what we should have passed into law last year, we say, "All right, we accept the Amendment; but if you consider accepting our proposal, you should reinstate the proposition in the exact form in which we originally proposed it." We proposed that it should date from January. We are willing to agree with the Government that it should be done at once, but we say that the Government should accept it in the form in which it was originally proposed. One cannot tell what expectations were raised or what arrangements were made. It is important that the legislation of this country should proceed on a definite and solid basis, and that what has been formally proposed by responsible Ministers should be carried into law. 2020 The second Finance Bill should never have been rejected and treated in that unceremonious manner, and if my hon. and gallant Friend chooses to go to a Division, I shall give him my vote in order to reinstate this law in the form in which it was originally proposed.
§ Major COLFOX
It seems to me that the guiding principle on this Amendment must be which date, January or July, would cause the least administrative dislocation and difficulty. In default of any definite pronouncement to the contrary from the Minister, I think that the date of January would produce the least administrative difficulties, for the simple reason that most licences are taken out for a full year from 1st January to 31st December. Very much less difficulty would be incurred by the local authorities which have to administer this Clause if we were to insert the date of January. There is another reason which leads me to support the Amendment. It gives to the Government a chance to repair some of the disastrous effects that have befallen the country as a result of the General Election of last year. It allows the pledge which was given by the last Government to become operative—a pledge on which many people had built their hopes. I ask the Minister to tell us which of the two dates, January or July, will, in his opinion, impose the greater burden and difficulty on local authorities. I shall be guided to a very large extent by his reply.
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I would like to know whether the Minister's first speech or his second was accurate, for the two speeches contradicted each other. In the first he led the House to believe that it was the manufacturers who would benefit by this Clause. In his second speech he said it was the licence holders who would benefit. A possible explanation of the contradiction is that in his first speech the Minister was meandering and out of order.
§ Mr. WILLIAMS
Certainly. I was merely trying to find out which of the Minister's two speeches was the correct one. I conclude that his first speech was accurate and that the manufacturers will benefit. I notice that the Minister was 2021 careful to use the term "manufacturers." He omitted to say what type of manufacturers they were. Is it that he has been approached by certain foreign or British manufacturers in respect of the Amendment? I should like to know. Is he being forced by some external ring to amend the Bill, or is he following out what I would call the half-Budget which was dropped at the latter end of last year? If there was pressure we are entitled to know whence the pressure came. Or is the explanation that Ministers are not as foolish as they were last year, and that they realise that their predecessors were wise. The introduction of
§ this Clause does show a slight increase in sanity on the part of Ministers. Why cannot they go a little further and accept the Amendment? Some of those who are affected may not be alive by July. Purely from the point of humanity I ask the Minister, therefore, to grant this concession. It would give many of us immense satisfaction. The hon. Gentleman has not made any concession so far to-day.
§ Question put, "That the word 'July' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 275; Noes, 158.2025
|Division No. 329.]||AYES.||[5.55 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Ede, James Chuter||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff,, Cannock)||Edmunds, J. E.||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Egan, W. H.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Elmley, Viscount||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Ammon, Charles George||England, Colonel A.||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Arnott, John||Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)||Kinley, J.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Foot, Isaac||Kirkwood, D.|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Freeman, Peter||Knight, Holford|
|Ayles, Walter||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lang, Gordon|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||George, Rt. Hon. D. Lloyd (Car'vn)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Barnes, Alfred John||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Lathan, G.|
|Batey, Joseph||Gibbins, Joseph||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs. Mossley)||Law, A. (Rossendale)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Gill, T. H.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Gillett, George M.||Lawson, John James|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Gossling, A. G.||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Benson, G.||Gould, F.||Leach, W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gray, Milner||Lees, J.|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Bromfield, William||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Bromley, J.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Brooke, W.||Groves, Thomas E.||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Brothers, M.||Grundy, Thomas W.||Longden, F.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Hall, G. H. Merthyr Tydvil)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Lunn, William|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Buchanan, G.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Harbord, A.||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hardie, George D.||McElwee, A.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon||McEntee, V. L.|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||McKinlay, A.|
|Charieton, H. C.||Haycock, A. W.||MacNeill-Weir, L.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hayday, Arthur||McShane, John James|
|Church, Major A. G.||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Henderson, W. W. (Middx., Enfield)||Mansfield, W.|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Herriotts, J.||March, S.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Marcus, M.|
|Compton, Joseph||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Markham, S. F.|
|Cove, William G.||Hoffman, P. C.||Marley, J.|
|Daggar, George||Hopkin, Daniel||Mathers, George|
|Dallas, George||Horrabin, J. F.||Matters, L. W.|
|Dalton, Hugh||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Maxton, James|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph||Melville, Sir James|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.||Messer, Fred|
|Day, Harry||Isaacs, George||Middleton, G.|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Millar, J. D.|
|Dickson, T.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Mills, J. E.|
|Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)||Milner, Major J.|
|Dukes, C.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)||Montague, Frederick|
|Duncan, Charles||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Morgan Dr. H. B.|
|Morley, Ralph||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Sutton, J. E.|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Mort, D. L.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Toole, Joseph|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Sanders, W. S.||Tout, W. J.|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Sawyer, G. F.||Townend, A. E.|
|Muff, G.||Scott, James||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Scrymgeour, E.||Turner, B.|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Scurr, John||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Naylor, T. E.||Sexton, James||Viant, S. P.|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Walker, J.|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Wallace, H. W.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Sherwood, G. H.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Shield, George William||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Palin, John Henry||Shillaker, J. F.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Shinwell, E.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Perry, S. F.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Sinkinson, George||Westwood, Joseph|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Sitch, Charles H.||White, H. G.|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Price, M. P.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Rathbone, Eleanor||Snell, Harry||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Richards, R.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Sorensen, R.||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Stamford, Thomas W.||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Ritson, J.||Stephen, Campbell|
|Romeril, H. G.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe||Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. William|
|Rowson, Guy||Strauss, G. R.||Whiteley.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut. Colonel||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||King, Commodore Rt. Hon. Henry D.|
|Albery, Irving James||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Astor, Viscountess||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Atkinson, C.||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Baillie-Hamilton, Hon. Charles W.||Eden, Captain Anthony||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Balniel, Lord||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Long, Major Eric|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Berry, Sir George||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Everard, W. Lindsay||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Margesson, Captain H. D.|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Ferguson, Sir John||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Fermoy, Lord||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Fielden, E. B.||Mond, Hon. Henry|
|Boyce, H. L.||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Bracken, B.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Gault, Lieut.-Col. Andrew Hamilton||Nicholson, O. (Westminster)|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||O'Connor, T. J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||O'Neill, Sir H.|
|Buchan, John||Gower, Sir Robert||Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Peake, Capt. Osbert|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)|
|Butler, R. A.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)||Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John||Pownall, Sir Assheton|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Gritten, W. G. Howard||Ramsbotham, H.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Gunston, Captain D. W.||Rawson, Sir Cooper|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth. S.)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.||Remer, John R.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)||Reynolds, Col. Sir James|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch'ts'y)|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)|
|Christie, J. A.||Hartington, Marquess of||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)||Salmon, Major I.|
|Colfox, Major William Philip||Haslam, Henry C.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Colman, N. C. D.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart|
|Colville, Major D. J.||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.||Savery, S. S.|
|Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome|
|Cowan, D. M.||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)|
|Cranborne, Viscount||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)|
|Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.||Smith-Carington, Neville W.|
|Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)||Smithers, Waldron|
|Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hurd, Percy A.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.||Southby, Commander A. R. J.|
|Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Iveagh, Countess of||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Dalrymple-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Kindersley, Major G. M.||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Stewart, W. J. (Belfast, South)||Turton, Robert Hugh||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert||Womersley, W. J.|
|Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Warrender, Sir Victor||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)||Waterhouse, Captain Charles||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Thomson, Sir F.||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Tinne, J. A.||Wells, Sydney R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES—|
|Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)||Sir George Penny and Captain|
|Train, J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)||Wallace.|
§ Sir A. LAMBERT WARD
I beg to move, in page 4, line 31, to leave out "224" and insert"250."
This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper which is in similar terms, are consequential, the one upon the other and I may be allowed to deal with both at the same time. I feel rather conscience-stricken at the length of time which it took the Minister of Transport to explain the point raised in my earlier Amendment and I do not wish to take up too much of the Committee's time. It is a very fortunate thing that the integrity of His Majesty's Ministers and of our permanent officials stands as high as it does in this country because I am sure that in some other countries a Sub-section such as this would give rise to the suspicion that the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Transport had acquired a proprietary interest in bicycles which weighed more than 200 lbs. and that the Minister so interested was doing his best to promote the sale of that article. In this country, of course, such a thing is quite impossible but I wish to know whether the manufacturers are satisfied with the increase in weight which the Minister is giving them under this proposal.
On a previous Amendment the Minister said that this allowance was being made in order to allow of further equipment being put on the machine. I always understood that equipment such as lamps and things of that kind were not taken into account when weighing the machine and that it was the strict weight of the machine itself upon which taxation was based, and I always understood that the manufacturers required a considerably greater increase in weight than the Minister is giving them under this Subsection. I do not think that it is a question so much of equipment, as of being able to construct a stronger and, to adapt a naval expression, a more roadworthy machine, with the idea of selling machines not only at home, but in the Dominions and Colonies and elsewhere abroad. It is only 20 years ago since 2026 the world was astonished at the manner in which motor transport could be driven over all kinds of roads. The world was astonished when the Ford car was driven over the veldts and through the desert and in all kinds of places, and where the Ford car could go, the motor bicycle can go—only to an even greater extent because it only requires a track of 1 foot or 18 inches wide and it can be driven in and out among rocks and almost anywhere. To do that sort of thing the machine must be well constructed and must have the necessary weight and strength to enable it to go over metalled tracks. That is the reason for the Amendment. I understand that many manufacturers are not satisfied with an increase of 24 lbs. but require more in order that they may construct machines which can be used both in this country and abroad.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
As far as I am advised the concession which we are making here is not related to any question of export trade or of the Dominion market. The manufacturers made representations to the effect that there had been improvements in the equipment of motor cycles and that there could be further improvements and that the 200 lb. limit was fettering the manufacturers in making the improvements which were desirable, or, alternatively, were imposing an unjust burden upon the users of bicycles by transferring those machines into the category of higher taxed vehicles. As an illustration of the equipment which is concerned and which involves a certain amount of extra weight I may mention electrical lighting apparatus, improved brakes, leg shields and other refinements which are regarded as essential for the modern motor bicycle. A discussion took place on the matter and the increase of 24 lbs. which is proposed in the Clause is, I am definitely advised, sufficient for the purposes of the manufacturers and traders who, have not asked for any greater increase. Therefore, I submit that this is a bona fide concession made for the purpose of meeting 2027 a legitimate point raised by the manufacturers and, the manufacturers having acquiesced in the Government's proposal, I can see no case for the Amendment. The Amendment would involve a loss of revenue although no definite estimate can be made of the amount. In these circumstances the hon. and gallant Member may see his way to withdraw the Amendment.
§ Captain CAZALET
I think it would be difficult to find a Clause in which the evils of legislation by reference are more amply demonstrated than in this Clause, because all the way through we are referred to the Second Schedule of the Finance Act of 1920 when, in fact what is meant is the Third Schedule of the Finance Act of 1928. To the Minister no doubt the reason for this is very obvious, but I had to search through all the Finance Acts from 1920 onwards to discover what is really meant by the Clause. We are referred to a sub-paragraph (d) but such a paragraph does not exist in the 1920 Act at all, and I wish to know if this paragraph 1 which we are now discussing refers to the Second Schedule of the 1920 Act or if that Schedule has been amended since, and, if so, in which Finance Act has it been amended. There are other items mentioned in paragraph 1 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act of 1920 including tricycles—
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Mr. Dunnico)
I am not sure that a general question of that kind can be raised on this Amendment.
§ Captain CAZALET
May I, then, limit my remarks to asking the Minister if this Clause refers to the actual paragraph 1 of the 1Second Schedule to the Finance Act of 1920 or is there a later amending Finance Act or Schedule which I have not yet discovered?
§ Mr. C. WILLIAMS
I am sure that it was not through deliberate discourtesy that the Minister failed to answer the simple and civil question which I put to him on the last Amendment and which I propose to repeat on this Amendment. When he speaks of manufacturers, why does he avoid stating whether he refers to British or to foreign manufacturers? We understand that he has been approached by manufacturers in regard to 2028 these matters, and we wish to know whether, in these proposals, he is acting in the interests of British manufacturers or in the interests of some outside body. If the manufacturers to whom he refers are British manufacturers, that strengthens the Minister's position enormously and he ought to inform the Committee on the point in order to save further time and trouble. I regret the rather slipshod way in which the Minister made his remarks on this Amendment. He is not very good at answering questions. I realise that he has not yet advanced to the stage of making a long series of consecutive answers but I should like him to give a definite reply to the point which I have raised.
§ Captain Sir WILLIAM BRASS
If, as the Minister said in his reply, there would be a loss of revenue by increasing the limit up to 250 lbs., it means that there are a large number of motor cycles in this country of a weight up to 250 lbs. We manufacture in this country the finest motor bicycles in the world, and we ought to encourage the manufacturers as much as possible. The Minister has said that they did not seem dissatisfied with the 224 lbs. which he has suggested. They would be much more pleased if the weight were increased to the amount suggested in the Amendment. We must remember why these weights were put on. They were put on not only far the purposes of revenue, but because of the destruction of the roads, and it is assumed that a motor bicycle of 224 lbs. will not do as much damage to the roads as one weighing 250 lbs. I do not think, however, that a motor bicycle does any real damage to the roads. This little concession might be given therefore, for it would help our export trade by giving our motor-bicycle manufacturers an opportunity of building a slightly bigger machine with a little more horse power. Besides that, the motor bicycle is becoming the poor man's motor car, and he takes his wife out on the back of it as a pillion-rider. Very often he attaches a side-car, and one often sees on the road a large motor bicycle of considerable horse power with a side-car carrying a whole family. If the Minister could see his way to give this little concession, he would give a fillip to motor-bicycle manufacturers in this country.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
The Minister of Transport told us that the manufacturers would be satisfied with the 224 lbs. Are we to understand that they would not like the larger poundage? I can say as a former Secretary to the Overseas Trade Department that the motor-bicycle trade was one where we were doing extremely well. I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend who has returned from the Protectorates in East Africa. I remember well we were doing an extremely good trade with motor bicycles in the uncivilised parts of Africa, and if by increasing the weight of these cycles we can make them slightly stronger, so that they will stand the rough roads and means of communication in East Africa and West Africa, where we have a pretty good business, it might, without hurting the revenue, bring us employment which would more than make up anything that might be lost to the revenue in raising the weight of the machines. Although the manufacturers were content with 224 lbs., does the Minister tell us that they have not assured him that a slight increase in the weight would increase their power to sell abroad? If he can assure us of that, we might take a different view; if he cannot assure us, we shall have to take this Amendment to a Division.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I really do not see that it is part of the duty of the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give as a concession to people more than they are satisfied with. I have informed the Committee that the manufacturers are satisfied with the concession which we are giving. The hon. Gentleman asked us whether they would like more. Quite likely they would, but they agreed with this concession, and, having come to a business arrangement it would be unbusinesslike on my part and on that of my right hon. Friend to give people beyond that to which they have agreed. This has no relation to the Dominions or the overseas market. Presumably the manufacturers are already making cycles of the heavier kind which pay the heavier tax, and the question of which category the cycles fall into is beside the point so far as the overseas market is concerned. They are already making vehicles of the type to which the hon. and gallant Gentleman referred, and therefore, if the Dominion market wants 2030 them, it can have them without this Amendment being made. I do not think the Committee will expect me to deal exhaustively with the hon. Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams). The manufacturers were British. The other points of the hon. Gentleman's speech are rather a needless attempt to be superior at my expense, and I do not think any discussion with him on that point would be helpful, but I would assure him that in his presence I have not the slightest feeling of inferiority at all.
§ Mr. MOND
If the Minister's theory were carried out manufacturers would have to make two kinds of cycles, one for the export market, and one for the home market. Everyone knows, however, that mass production is the only method of cheap manufacture, and the effect will be just the opposite to what he wants, for it will not encourage employment. There are not a great many manufactures in which England is dominant, but the motor cycle is one. We entirely dominate the world in the manufacture of this machine, and I appeal to the Minister not to say, "We have made a business agreement about this, and the manufacturers have not asked for any more." We all know what these Treasury deals are. Probably, under a severe threat of getting nothing at all, they were allowed to have a little bit. We ask him to take a different view of the position. He says that he will lose revenue by doing it. Perhaps he will, but if he does, it shows that we have a strong case. As a matter of fact, however, he will lose so little that he has not been able to calculate it. The Government are not being very generous to the manufacturers on this point, and I appeal to the Minister to make this concession.
§ Captain CROOKSHANK
Surely the Minister remembers what happened with regard to the motor car trade. We have always been told that our difficulties in exporting to the foreign market are due to the fact that this House interfered by putting the horse-power tax on motor cars. The Minister is now running the risk of falling into the same error with regard to motor bicycles. We have now got the great bulk of the world trade in motor cycles, and do not let us run any risk of restricting or hampering that trade. It is an extraordinary theory 2031 for the Minister to say that he is doing it because the traders asked him for a concession. So long as he is in such an accommodating mood in regard to the first 24 lbs. above the 200 lbs., why does he not go a little further and say that there will be nothing to restrict the size of motor bicycles? It is a simple problem. If there is any difficulty about definition that could be done in another way, but this is merely a question of weight, and do not let us put the motor cycle trade in the unfortunate position in which the motor industry has been put through the interference of this House.
§ the interests of those who ride. Not long ago I went through the Ariel and A.J.S. works, and saw what was being done to strengthen motor bicycles. Many people have to travel to work on motor bicycles, and we want to make the tax as low as we can while enabling them to ride the stronger-made bicycles. The Chancellor might lose a certain amount of money by allowing this increase of weight, but we would get more safety for the rider. It would affect a large number of people, while not being a serious matter to the Exchequer. I am not concerned with the manufacturers, but with the people who ride motor bicycles, and I hope that the Minister will meet them in order to enable them to reduce their licence expenditure.
§ Question put, "That '224' stand part of the Clause."
§ The Committee divided; Ayes; 286; Noes, 155.2035
|Division No. 330.]||AYES.||[6.30 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Daggar, George||Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burniey)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Dallas, George||Henderson, Arthur. Junr. (Cardiff, S.)|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Dalton, Hugh||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Denman, Hon. R. D.||Herriotts, J.|
|Alpass, J. H.||Dickson, T.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Dudgeon, Major C. R.||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)|
|Arnott, John||Dukes, C.||Hoffman, P. C.|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Duncan, Charles||Hopkin, Daniel|
|Attlee, Clement Richard||Ede, James Chuter||Horrabin, J. F.|
|Ayles, Walter||Edmunds, J. E.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Hunter, Dr. Joseph|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Hutchison, Maj.-Gen. Sir R.|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Egan, W. H.||Isaacs, George|
|Batey, Joseph||Elmley, Viscount||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||England, Colonel A.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Foot, Isaac||Johnston, Thomas|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Wedgwood||Freeman, Peter||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)|
|Benson, G.||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Gibbins, Joseph||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)|
|Bowen, J. W.||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Gill, T. H.||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Gillett, George M.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.|
|Bromfield, William||Gossling, A. G.||Kennedy, Thomas|
|Bromley, J.||Gould, F.||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.|
|Brooke, W.||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Kinley, J.|
|Brothers, M.||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Kirkwood, D.|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts. Mansfield)||Granville, E.||Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Gray, Milner||Lang, Gordon|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Lathan, G.|
|Buchanan, G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Groves, Thomas E.||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lawrence, Susan|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lawson, John James|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S W.)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Charieton, H. C.||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Leach, W.|
|Chater, Daniel||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Church, Major A. G.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||Lee, Jennie (Lanark, Northern)|
|Clarke, J. S.||Harbord, A.||Lees, J.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Hardie, George D.||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Harris, Percy A.||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour.||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Compton, Joseph||Haycock, A. W.||Lonqbottom, A. W.|
|Cove, William G.||Hay day, Arthur||Longden, F.|
|Cowan, D. M.||Hayes, John Henry||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Lowth, Thomas||Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sorensen, R.|
|Lunn, William||Perry, S. F.||Stamford, Thomas W.|
|Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)||Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Stephen, Campbell|
|Macdonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Seaham)||Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Stewart, J. (St. Roilox)|
|MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)||Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Strachey, E. J. St. Loe|
|McElwee, A.||Pole, Major D. G.||Strauss, G. R.|
|McEntee, V. L.||Price, M. P.||Sullivan, J.|
|McKinlay, A.||Quibell, D. J. K.||Sutton, J. E.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)|
|Maclean, Sir Donald (Cornwall, N.)||Rathbone, Eleanor||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)|
|MacNeill-Weir, L.||Richards, R.||Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)|
|McShane, John James||Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Thorne, W. (West Ham. Plaistow)|
|Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)||Riley, Ben (Dewsbury)||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Mander, Geoffrey le M.||Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Tinker, John Joseph|
|Mansfield, W.||Ritson, J.||Toole, Joseph|
|March, S.||Romeril, H. G.||Tout, W. J.|
|Markham, S. F.||Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Townend, A. E.|
|Marley, J.||Rowson, Guy||Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles|
|Mathers, George||Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter||Turner, B.|
|Matters, L. W.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Melville, Sir James||Salter, Dr. Alfred||Viant, S. P.|
|Messer, Fred||Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Middleton, G.||Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Walker, J.|
|Millar, J. D.||Sanders, W. S.||Wallace, H. W.|
|Mills, J. E.||Sawyer, G. F.||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Milner, Major J.||Scott, James||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Montague, Frederick||Scrymgeour, E.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Morgan, Dr. H. B.||Scurr, John||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Morley, Ralph||Sexton, James||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Morris, Rhys Hopkins||Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston)||Welsh, James (Palsley)|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||West, F. R.|
|Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)||Sherwood, G. H.||Westwood, Joseph|
|Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N)||Shield, George William||White, H. G.|
|Mort, D. L.||Shillaker, J. F.||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Moses, J. J. H.||Shinwell, E.||Whiteley, William (Blaydon)|
|Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Muff, G.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)|
|Muggeridge, H. T.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Nathan, Major H. L.||Sinkinson, George||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Naylor, T. E.||Sitch, Charles H.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Noel Baker, P. J.||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Winterton, G. E. (Leicesler, Loughb'gh)|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Wise, E. F.|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Wright, W. (Ruthergien)|
|Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Snell, Harry||Young, R. S. (Islington, North)|
|Palin, John Henry||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip|
|Palmer, E. T.||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Mr. Ben Smith and Mr. Paling.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Colfox, Major William Philip||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Albery, Irving James||Colman, N. C. D.||Gunston, Captain D. W.|
|Atkinson, C.||Colville, Major D. J.||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Cranborne, Viscount||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Balniel, Lord||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Berry, Sir George||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Dalkeith, Earl of||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Dalrympie-White, Lt.-Col. Sir Godfrey||Hills, Major Rt. Hon. John Waller|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Davidson, Rt. Hon. J. (Hertford)||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Bowyer, Captain Sir George E. W.||Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Boyce, H. L.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Bracken, B.||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Duckworth, G. A. V.||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Eden, Captain Anthony||Iveagh, Countess of|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Buchan, John||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)||Kindersley, Major G. M.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Everard, W. Lindsay||Lamb, Sir J. O.|
|Burton, Colonel H. W.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Ferguson, Sir John||Leighton, Major B. E. P.|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Fielden, E. B.||Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Long, Major Eric|
|Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth, S.)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Macquisten, F. A.|
|Cazalet, Captain Victor A.||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)||MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Makins, Brigadier-General E.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Glyn, Major R. G. C.||Marjoribanks, E. C.|
|Chapman, Sir S.||Gower, Sir Robert||Mason, Colonel Glyn K.|
|Christie, J. A.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)||Mond, Hon. Henry|
|Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.||Monsell, Eyres. Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Turton, Robert Hugh|
|Nicholson, O. (Westminster)||Savery, S. S.||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|O'Connor, T. J.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|O'Neill, Sir H.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Waterhouse, Captain Charles|
|Peake, Capt. Osbert||Smithers, Waldron||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Pownall, Sir Assheton||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Pybus, Percy John||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|Ramsbotham, H.||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stanley, Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)||Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl|
|Remer, John R.||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Sueter, Rear-Admiral M. F.||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Thomson, Sir F.|
|Salmon, Major I.||Tinne, J. A.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of||Captain Margesson and Sir George|
|Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement||Penny.|
§ The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Lieut.-Colonel HENEAGE:
In page 5, line 9, at the end, to insert the words:
(c) at the end of the Schedule shall be added the following:
'If any person proves to the satisfaction of the authority charged with levying the duty that he has paid in respect of any motor vehicle the duty chargeable under this schedule, and that such vehicle is used only for agricultural or market-gardening purposes, he shall be entitled to repayment of 50 per cent. of the duty paid.'
§ Viscount WOLMER
May I ask whether the Amendment in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Louth (Lieut.-Colonel Heneage) is out of order, or is it merely that you have not selected it?
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN
There is another Amendment dealing with the question farther down on the Order Paper, and I am calling that as it appeared on the Order Paper first.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I beg to move, in page 5, line 10, after the word "who," to insert the words:is the holder of a licence which was taken out.This and the following Amendment are really little more than drafting Amendments. The new duty under Sub-section (2) comes into operation on the 1st of July, and refunds will therefore be necessary on annual licences in respect of the second half of the calendar year. Refunds can only be made to the holder of the licence at the time, who is not necessarily the person who took out the licence originally. My Amendment has been put down to make it clear that it will 2036 be the holder of the licorice who will get the benefit and not the person who originally took it out, because there may have been changes in the ownership of the vehicle in the meantime. If this and the following Amendment be inserted the Clause will read:Any person who is the holder of a licence which was taken out before the first day of July, nineteen hundred and thirty, in respect of any vehicle to which Sub-section (2) of this section applies.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
We do not propose to offer any opposition to this Amendment so long as we understand in plain English that these alterations are made to protect the interests of the present holders of the licence. Can the hon. Gentleman give us that undertaking?
§ Amendment agreed to.
Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 11, to leave out the words:
has taken out a licence."—[Mr. Herbert Morrison.]
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I beg to move, in page 5, line 13, after the word "shall," to insert the words:on surrendering the licence to the council of the county or county borough with which the vehicle is for the time being registered.The object of this Amendment is to secure that a person claiming a refund shall surrender the licence to the licensing authority for the county or county borough concerned. That is necessary for accounting purposes, in order to see that the licence is in the form commonly issued, and also to prevent any defrauding of the revenue. This Amendment 2037 will provide machinery for that purpose, and I am sure it will commend itself to the Committee.
§ Mr. A. M. SAMUEL
Here, again, we do not propose to offer any objection to the Amendment, so long as we have an undertaking from the hon. Gentleman that the holder surrendering the licence will be in no way damnified by so doing.
§ Sir W. BRASS
I wish to ask whether it is really necessary to put in these words; and I also wish to know what happens to the licence. When it is sent back to the Council and the Council have taken notice of it, is it then sent back to the owner?
§ Mr. MORRISON
The licence is kept by the licensing authority which, however, will issue a new licence.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, at the end, to add the words:and Sub-section (2) of Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 192G (which relates to the enforcement of repayments in respect of over-payments of duty on licences for mechanically-propelled vehicles) shall apply as if the holder of the licence were entitled to a repayment in respect of an over-payment of duty.This Amendment will prevent claims being made after the 31st December next year, and we are simply following the precedent set by Section 14 of the Finance Act, 1926.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
I beg to move, in page 5, line 19, after the words last inserted, to add the words:Provided that the duty which shall be charged, levied, and paid in respect of all mechanically-propelled vehicles, while they are used for the purposes of agriculture or market gardening, shall be at half the rates chargeable under Section thirteen of the Finance Act, 1920, as specified in paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule to that Act.In the Finance Act, 1920, there are laid down certain rates of duty payable by mechanically-propelled vehicles, and the object of this Amendment is to reduce the duty by one-half for mechanically-propelled vehicles used for the purposes of agriculture or by market gardeners. During the past few months we have made attempts on this side of the House 2038 time after time to get the Government to do something to benefit the farmers and the market gardeners of this country, but up to the present we have not been successful. Therefore, it is necessary for us to make another attempt in this direction. We made an attempt on the beer Clauses to get a certain kind of beer brewed from home-grown ingredients, and now we are making an attempt to obtain some benefit for the persons engaged in the business of agriculture and market gardening.
My own Division suffers very much from foreign competition. There is between my Division and the coast miles of market gardens, and the great bulk of the produce from those gardens has to come along the arterial roads of the county by motor lorries. Some of those gardeners employ two or three, and, in some cases, four motor lorries for this purpose. I put market gardening in my Amendment because, when a previous Bill was being considered and the late Minister of Transport was in charge, it was not made quite clear whether market gardening came under the definition of a farmer or a person engaged in agriculture. Here is a great industry not only in my Division but all round London and the big towns, in which a great deal of capital has been sunk in putting up glass houses. One man I know has premises which cover 11 acres of ground. These people produce an enormous amount of delicate produce for the food and comfort of those living in the big cities, and practically all of them send their produce to the markets by motor lorries.
I beg the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give this slight help to the agricultural interest, because agriculture at the present time is suffering under very great difficulties. Unfortunately, the season in my county is a few weeks behind the season across the water, and one of our greatest difficulties is to compete with the early season produce which is sent over to this country by the foreigner. I am asking for this relief in order to help our market gardeners and farmers to compete with the foreigner. On Easter Monday I visited Salisbury Market, and I took particular notice of the large number of motor lorries in use by the farmers of that district. I am asking for this benefit for the farmer and for the market 2039 gardener, as well as for the man who grows the more perishable kind of produce. This Amendment would also give real assistance to the arable farmers. In the city of Salisbury on market day the roads leading to the market place are blocked with motor lorries bringing in cows and pigs and all kinds of produce alive and dead. I have several friends engaged in this business. One of them represents the Farmers' Union of Wiltshire, and they all say with the utmost sincerity—they are a, plucky lot and do not "grouse" unnecessarily—that they have had a very bad time, and any little help the Government can give them will be fully appreciated.
It may be said that the number of these vehicles in use for farming purposes is not very great. If that is going to be the reply of the Minister of Transport, then I claim that it supports this Amendment, because one of the reasons why more motor lorries are not used for farming and agricultural purposes is the heavy tax upon them. I feel confident that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will see his way to halve the tax on motor lorries which are used mainly for agriculture and market gardening, and if he grants this concession I am sure he will not lose anything, because I feel confident that there will be a greater demand for this kind of transport in the near future, especially in the outlying districts. I appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the farmers and market gardeners a little encouragement, and help them to compete with the produce that comes over from France, Holland, and Belgium. We saw in the paper this morning that an old Savoyard had been given an honour by the King, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer—there is nothing personal about this—not to come into the category mentioned by one of his characters ofThen the idiot who praises, with enthusiastic tone,All centuries but this, and every country but his own.I make an appeal to the right hon. Gentleman to help our country by giving this concession to the farmers to enable them the better to compete with foreign produce, which is put upon the London market.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
I am afraid that the hon. Member for Chislehurst 2040 (Mr. Smithers) cannot have appreciated the very material concessions which have been made in the past on this subject, and the very good position which is enjoyed by the agricultural community. We have all listened with sympathy to the claims put forward by the hon. Member on behalf of agriculture, but, while I am clear as to the intention of the Amendment, I am not very clear as to whether it would be workable. May I inform the hon. Member that market gardening, in any case, is included in the legal definition of agriculture for this purpose. Clause 47 (5) which deals with this point provides that:Any reference in this Act to any enactment shall be construed as a reference to that enactment as amended by any subsequent enactment, including this Act.
§ Mr. SMITHERS
Is there any chance of the spirit of my Amendment being accepted? I have done my best to draft it by looking through the Act, and if I have drafted it wrongly, I hope that the Minister will not allow that to militate against an Amendment being introduced on the Report stage. I am not wedded to these words at all, and if the Minister of Transport can suggest some other form of words, of course I shall be willing to accept them.
§ Mr. MORRISON
I am afraid it is worse than that. We are not only not wedded to the hon. Member's words, but we are not wedded to his ideas on the subject. The reference to paragraph 4 of the Second Schedule of the Finance Act, 1920, must be taken as a reference to paragraph 4 as finally amended by the Finance Act, 1927. That paragraph must be read in conjunction with the First Schedule to the Finance Act, 1926. The Government are not responsible for these complications; in fact, we have a grievance because we have to explain them. This enactment provides a scale of duties for farm tractors from £6 to £10 in respect of tractors registered under the Act of 1920 in the name of a person engaged in agriculture and used by the owner for the haulage of produce or articles required for the purposes of the agricultural land which he occupies, and not for any other purposes.
§ Mr. MORRISON
There are three Acts involved. They are the Acts of 1920, 1926 and 1927, and there does not appear to be any point with regard to the Act of 1928. It will be seen, therefore, that the duty on a tractor used for agricultural purposes is from £6 to £10, whereas the duty on an ordinary vehicle is from £21 to £60. I think the Committee will agree that £6 to £10 as compared with £21 to £60 is a very big concession to the agricultural industry which Governments have made from time to time.
The Amendment refers to all mechanically-propelled vehicles, whether tractors or others, and without confining them to the period while they are being used for the purposes of agriculture. Therefore, the Amendment would include lorries as well as tractors. The scale of duties as set out in the Finance Act, 1928, which provides the scales of duties in respect of vehicles used for agriculture, subject to the definition I have already quoted, ranges from £10 to £25.
§ Mr. MORRISON
I have not the Schedule by me, but the scale is, as I have said, from £10 to £25, and, in addition to scales for various special classes, there is a scale of from £10 to £60 in respect of ordinary goods-carrying vehicles. Therefore, we have the scale of £10 to £25, and for ordinary vehicles £10 to £60. It will be seen, therefore, that vehicles used for agricultural purposes receive a substantial preference. There is a further reason against the Amendment. It would extend a special concession, made to agriculturists as such, to any owner whose vehicle is used, by contract or otherwise, in connection with agricultural purposes, while so used. For instance, it would cover the merchant who carries the goods to market. It will be seen that the Amendment is much wider in its effect than the Committee might be led to think from the speech of the hon. Member who moved it. I think it might hardly be appreciated, from the hon. Member's remarks, what substantial concessions the agricultural industry already enjoys. For the reasons indicated, my right hon. Friend does not see his way to accept the Amendment.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
When the Minister talked about the considerable 2042 advantage already given to agriculture under the Act of 1928, he contended that the tax on these vehicles went up to £20, whereas on the other vehicles it went up to £60, but if he looks at the scale he will see that for the scale on an ordinary vehicle, for agricultural use, which is £20, there is a corresponding duty on ordinary vehicles, not used for agricultural purposes, of only £25. Therefore, the advantage is not so great as might be thought by anyone hearing the figures which the Minister has quoted.
§ Viscount WOLMER
I am sorry that the Chancellor of the Exchequer has refused to accept this Amendment, even in a form of words which would be suitable to himself. It seems to be impossible to extract any concession for agriculture, no matter how small, out of the present Government. The sole reply of the Minister of Transport was to point to the concessions made by the last Government to help agriculturists. Those concessions, so far as they went, were very valuable, but it is no reply on the part of the hon. Gentleman merely to point to the help which his predecessors gave to agriculture, and to refuse to move a little finger himself to carry the good work any further. I will put to him briefly the reasons why we think this demand, in the present state of agriculture, is legitimate. If the agricultural industry was flourishing and prosperous, this request would not be pressed by representatives of agricultural constituencies, but in the present state of agriculture I submit that there is no little help that it is in the power of this House to give that we ought to decline to give. I put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer that any assistance he gives to farmers and to market gardeners in this respect may be of very considerable importance to them but have only an insignificant effect on his Budget as a whole. This is specially true of market gardeners, who, generally speaking, are small men, and the amount of money they have invested in a lorry and the amount they spend on running the lorry represents a serious item in their finances, whereas the relief for which we are asking in this Amendment would be an insignificant sum in the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The hon. Gentleman does not say how much it would cost the Government. 2043 I cannot help feeling that he must have those figures in front of him, and if he gave the figures to the Committee it would be found that they were exceedingly small. Valuable as were the concessions which the right hon. Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) made, I cannot think why they cannot be carried further. In the first place, the reduced duty that tractors pay is a concession which certainly might be carried further. A tractor used for ploughing and threshing makes practically no use of the roads at all. If farmers are careful—and most of them are—to use iron tyres while moving from field to field and using the road, they will do practically no damage to the roads. The whole of their life is spent on the farm, and they merely cross the roads occasionally for the purpose of going from field to field. Since the Motor Duties and the Petrol Duty are intended for the upkeep of roads, I do not see why agricultural tractors should make any contribution at all towards the Road Fund. With regard to petrol, it is true that a great many agricultural tractors do not go on petrol, but use mainly paraffin, but there are a great number that do use petrol, and I would bring to the notice of the hon. Gentleman that every penny going to the Petrol Duty from the use of these agricultural tractors is payment towards the upkeep of the roads of which these tractors make no use. Agricultural tractors, therefore, are still too heavily taxed both in regard to licences and in regard to duty.
Then we come to the lorries. It is quite a mistake to think that a farmer's lorry is used entirely on the roads; it is not. The lorry is used a great deal in going about from place to place on the farm, and the whole of that work imposes a heavy strain on the lorry itself, and can be taken to represent much more wear and tear than a similar mileage covered on the roads. Yet the whole of that work does no damage to the roads at all. That is a further reason why the duty on lorries should be reduced. I would like to put this point to the Minister of Transport, because it is one about which farmers feel keenly, that the whole of this high motor taxation and the great Road Fund it has produced, and the great arterial roads with their slippery surfaces, are of no use to the 2044 farmer. They are, in fact, a very great source of inconvenience, danger and loss to the farmers of this country. The amount of damage which farmers receive through horses and other animals slipping on these roads is very high, and, therefore, the farmer legitimately regards it as adding insult to injury that he should be taxed, even to the present extent, for the upkeep of those roads in a condition which may be desirable from the point of view of the motorist and the road-hog, but which is of no use to agriculture as a whole. Therefore, I express my disappointment that the Government, even on this minor question, have refused to move even a little finger to help the agriculturist of this country. As my hon. Friend the Mover of the Amendment said, we have waited for 12 months for their agricultural policy, and have given them every opportunity to help the farmer. We want to afford them an opportunity to give this help which the farming community, through their official accredited organisation, has demanded, and which would cost the Chancellor of the Exchequer very little indeed.
§ Mr. HASLAM
I do not think we have to find any further argument to show the depressed state of agriculture at the present time. The Minister of Transport, in refusing this Amendment or anything like it, with such limiting words as he might have desired to put in, suggested that the concesions which were given by the last Government were sufficient. I would point out that the state of agricurture is even worse now than it was a few years ago. Bad as the times were then, at any rate we had the hope that things would be better, but, instead, they have become steadily worse, and year after year—it had now been going on for nearly 10 years—farmers have been losing and have found their capital resources depleted, in many cases almost to vanishing point. The Schedule, as I understood from the Act of 1928, gave practically no concession at all to the lighter forms of lorries, and the light lorry is one that is used very much by farmers. It is also a vehicle which does very little damage to roads. In the old days, when the duties on heavy vehicles were increased substantially, it was done very largely on the ground that these vehicles did a lot of damage to the roads. In those days that was true, but every year since, with the 2045 improvement of types, and with the greater use made of pneumatic tyres, the damage to roads by heavy vehicles has been considerably lessened.
In any case, as my right hon. Friend has pointed out, these lorries which are used by farmers are used a great deal on the farm itself. Finally, I would point out that a tax on transport is surely not a very wise tax. Our competitors abroad, particularly in France and Belgium, have at their disposal a very efficient and cheap form of transport in the light railways which run along the sides of the roads, and which are propelled, I think, very largely by steam. I would submit that on the face of it this tax on transport is, for a farmer, a very large sum of money. It was £25 under the old Schedule, but under this proposed Schedule, as I understand it, for vehicles exceeding two tons and up to 2½ tons, the tax will be from £28 to £35, while for vehicles exceeding 2½ tons and up to three tons it will be from £32 to £40. Considering the financial position of farmers in this country, I submit that these charges are, as a tax, altogether too high. They must considerably more than cover any damage to the roads which these vehicles do, and I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Committee to consider whether this is really a wise and sound method of raising money. I suggest that it is a most unsound method, and that to lighten the charges on transport is a legitimate way of helping agriculture, and one which, in the present circumstances, should be followed by the House of Commons.
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
I want to reinforce what was said by my Noble Friend the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer). What the Minister of Transport said about there being an advantage to agriculture, is quite true in the case of heavy vehicles, but in the case of the lighter vehicles there is no advantage to agriculture at all. For vehicles not exceeding 12 cwt. in weight unladen, the annual tax for each vehicle is £10. For vehicles exceeding 12 cwt. but not exceeding a ton it is £15, and for vehicles exceeding a ton but not exceeding 1½ ton it is £20 in each case. I think it is quite clear that the great majority of the ordinary lorries used by 2046 farmers, at any rate in my district, are either one-ton lorries or, sometimes, 25-cwt. lorries. They all come within these lower categories. On the whole, the farmers do not use them continuously, in the way that a merchant does who makes a business of conveying goods all over the place. I would put it to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport that a concession on these vehicles would mean comparatively little money to the Exchequer, but, if the Chancellor of the Exchequer can see his way to do it on Report, it would be extraordinarily appreciated, as some recognition of their position, by the farming community. They have been asked to be more scientific, and to carry out their business by modern methods, and it is precisely the most up-to-date of them who have lorries, and for whom some reduction in the tax on these three lower categories, on which they have now no advantage, would be of very great use indeed.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
It is perfectly true, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, that in the second category—the non-tractor category—the relief is not felt until we get to the heavier type of vehicle, but in the first category, that is to say, the tractor type, the relief is a very real one all the way through. I quite agree that in the case of the non-tractor vehicle it is not such a real concession all the way through—
§ Sir A. STEEL-MAITLAND
It is not a real concession in the case of this class, of which these vehicles form the great majority.
§ Mr. MORRISON
I have no doubt that the Government at that time, and the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time, had a good reason for handling the matter in that way, and I gather that it was this, that in the case of the lighter type of lorry the tax was relatively low in any case, but, when you got to the heavier type, the tax became a real and substantial burden to the agricultural industry in the conditions of that time. Therefore, the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that Government made this concession in order to relieve the heavier type of agricultural vehicle. On the other hand, the Chancellor of the Exchequer at that time could not, for reasons which no doubt commended themselves to him, 2047 make the concession in the case of the lighter vehicles.
The Noble Lord, however, is very much in error as to the position of vehicles which are used as agricultural implements on agricultural land, because it is provided, under the present system of taxation, that locomotive ploughing engines, agricultural tractors, and other agricultural engines not being engines or tractors used for hauling on roads any object except their own necessary gear, threshing appliances, farm implements, or supplies of fuel or water required for the purposes of the vehicle or for agricultural purposes, only pay a nominal registration fee of 5s. a year, and are otherwise completely relieved. Even though such a vehicle may go on a road, if it is merely there of necessity, for the purpose of carrying its own gear, threshing appliances, farm implements, fuel or water, it only pays 5s. a year. The Committee will see, therefore, that the concessions have been very real, and we do not feel like finding further concessions. The argument of the hon. Member appears to be on the basis that all the efforts of the late Government to improve the condition of the agricultural industry have left agriculture worse in the end than it was at the beginning. It further implies that the right hon. Gentleman, in making his concessions, did not make them big enough. Our own present feeling is that the concessions were real and, substantial, and my right hon. Friend, for the reasons indicated, does not feel that the Committee would he wise to accept the present Amendment.
§ Mr. MacLAREN
I do not know how far one can influence the Chancellor of the Exchequer in this matter, but I am in wholehearted sympathy with this Amendment. I think that it is a really serious Amendment, which ought to have some consideration, if not now, at a later stage in the consideration of the Bill. The hon. Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) complained that the heavy taxation on these vehicles was the cause of the scarcity of their use in agriculture, but I think that the Petrol Duty has more to do with it than the Motor Duty, and that the De-rating Act and its consequences are a greater hardship in regard to the use of motor vehicles than the immediate tax on the vehicle itself. While the wording of the Amendment 2048 would not very well suit the purpose for which it is proposed, I think that some form of words conveying the principle might be considered by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
I do not quite agree with the Minister of Transport in his comparisons with other vehicles paying heavier taxation, but I do not think it is a bad thing to say to anybody, "You are not so badly off as the other fellow; look how bad lie is." I think it would be a good thing for the Labour party if they took some such line as is indicated in this Amendment, and reduced as far as possible the taxation on vehicles used in industry. I do not want it to go out that, as has been alleged on the other side, the Chancellor of the Exchequer is adamant in regard to any concession towards agriculture, and that is all the more reason why I ask him, though I do not know what success I shall meet with, for some consideration for this Amendment.
We have heard a good deal about the hardships of agriculture, and it is interesting to notice that, when the Conservative party are in Opposition, they become very strong advocates for the un-taxing of industry and vehicles, though they are not so enthusiastic on that matter when they are on this side. However that may be, I would ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider something along the lines of this Amendment and I would like to ask him this question: If the concession suggested in the Amendment were granted, what would be the cost? I was rather amused at the irate disposition of the Noble Lord the Member for Aldershot (Viscount Wolmer) when he was declaiming a few moments ago. He said that these very fine roads which were made by means of the Petrol Duty are too high-class for agriculturists, and simply become skidding alleys for these tractors. What does the Noble Lord want us to do? Does he want us to make them nicely rutted, so that he may get back to his old cart-tracks again? I hope that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will not think that this is a new insurrection on the back benches, but will recognise that I am really quite serious in asking him if he will consider something in the spirit of the Amendment which has been put forward.
§ Mr. WARDLAW-MILNE
I merely rise to add my voice to the appeal to the 2049 Chancellor of the Exchequer to consider, between now and further stages of the Bill, whether he cannot make some concession of this kind. I remember that a year or two ago this question of the taxation of motor vehicles carrying agricultural produce was brought forward again and again, especially by the small agriculturists, and I entirely agree with what has just been said by the hon. Member for Burslem (Mr. MacLaren). The position was undoubtedly seriously accentuated in the minds of the small agriculturists at the time of the Petrol Duty. That was bound to be so. We all object to taxation, and the only point of my appeal to the Chancellor of the Exchequer is that, as has been shown today, the smaller vehicle really does not have any particular advantage. Agriculturists who use these one-ton or 1½-ton vehicles have practically no advantage, or only a very small advantage, and any small concession that the Chancellor of the Exchequer could give would be a real consideration to the small agriculturist. Therefore, I would press him to consider the matter between now and report.
§ Sir WILLIAM WAYLAND
To-day, as has been pointed out already, the position with regard to agricultural lorries is quite different from what it was 12 months ago. Lorries now have to be used more and more in order to reduce agricultural
§ expenses. Agriculture to-day is in a far worse position than any other industry in the country. It has to meet more unfair competition than any other industry, and, therefore, it has a right to more consideration than any other industry. The taxation of motor vehicles in every other country is very much lower than in this country. In Normandy and the South of France, in Belgium, and in Italy, where they compete with our farmers in the early markets, they have a great advantage, and, therefore, taking everything into consideration, the question of a tax upon the farmer's lorry is one of great importance. When you ask the farmer to be up-to-date in his operations and to employ a motor vehicle in place of horses, especially in conveying his produce to the town, the tax upon the vehicle is to him a great consideration. The farmer does not employ his lorry more than a small part of the day, and he does not employ it every day of the week; and, therefore, again, he should be considered when compared with lorry owners who are running their lorries every day. I hope also, as every little helps, and it is a series of littles that make a muckle, that the Chancellor will agree to this reduction.
§ Question put, "That those words be there added."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 252.2053
|Division No. 331.]||AYES.||[7.33 p.m.|
|Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel||Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer||George, Megan Lloyd (Anglesea)|
|Aske, Sir Robert||Colfox, Major William Philip||Gibson, C. G. (Pudsey & Otley)|
|Atkinson, C.||Colman, N. C. D.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley (Bewdley)||Colville, Major D. J.||Gower, Sir Robert|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Courthope, Colonel Sir G. L.||Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.)|
|Balfour, Captain H. H. (I. of Thanet)||Cowan, D. M.||Granville, E.|
|Balniel, Lord||Cranborne, Viscount||Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.|
|Beaumont, M. W.||Crichton-Stuart, Lord C.||Gray, Milner|
|Berry, Sir George||Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.||Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)|
|Betterton, Sir Henry B.||Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)||Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H.|
|Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman||Croom-Johnson, R. P.||Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)|
|Bird, Ernest Roy||Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)||Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford)|
|Bourne, Captain Robert Croft||Cunliffe-Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry|
|Boyce, H. L.||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hartington, Marquess of|
|Bracken, B.||Davies, Dr. Vernon||Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)|
|Brass, Captain Sir William||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Haslam, Henry C.|
|Briscoe, Richard George||Dixey, A. C.||Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)|
|Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)||Eden, Captain Anthony||Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Newb'y)||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Herbert, Sir Dennis (Hertford)|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Elliot, Major Walter E.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Bullock, Captain Malcolm||Elmley, Viscount||Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S.|
|Burgin, Dr. E. L.||England, Colonel A.||Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)|
|Butler, R. A.||Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s-M.)||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward||Everard, W. Lindsay||Hurst, Sir Gerald B.|
|Carver, Major W. H.||Falle, Sir Bertram G.||Jones, F. Llewellyn- (Flint)|
|Cautley, Sir Henry S.||Ferguson, Sir John||Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Fielden, E. B.||Jones, Henry Haydn (Merloneth)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. Sir J. A. (Birm., W.)||Fison, F. G. Clavering||Kedward, R. M. (Kent, Ashford)|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston)||Ford, Sir P. J.||Knox, Sir Alfred|
|Christie, J. A.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Lamb, Sir J. Q.|
|Lambert, Rt. Hon. George (S. Molton)||Pownall, Sir Assheton||Stanley, Lord (Fylde)|
|Lane Fox, Col. Rt. Hon. George R.||Pybus, Percy John||Stanley Maj. Hon. O. (W'morland)|
|Leighton, Major B. E. P.||Ramsay, T. B. Wilson||Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur|
|Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hon. Godfrey||Ramsbotham, H.||Stewart, W. J. (Belfast South)|
|Long, Major Eric||Rawson, Sir Cooper||Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)|
|Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)||Remer, John R.||Sueter Rear-Admiral M. F.|
|MacLaren, Andrew||Reynolds, Col. Sir James||Thomas, Major L. B. (King's Norton)|
|Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.||Richardson, Sir P. W. (Sur'y, Ch't'sy)||Titchfield, Major the Marquess of|
|MacRobert, Rt. Hon. Alexander M.||Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall)||Todd, Capt. A. J.|
|Maitland, A. (Kent, Faversham)||Ross, Major Ronald D.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Makins, Brigadier-General E.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Wallace, Capt. D. E. (Hornsey)|
|Marjoribanks, E. C.||Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury)||Walters, Rt. Hon. Sir J. Tudor|
|Mason, Colonel Glyn K.||Salmon, Major I.||Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. Lambert|
|Mond, Hon. Henry||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Wardlaw-Milne, J. S.|
|Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. Sir B.||Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)||Warrender, Sir Victor|
|Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)||Sandeman, Sir N. Stewart||Wayland, Sir William A.|
|Morrison, W. S. (Glos., Cirencester)||Savery, S. S.||Wells, Sydney R.|
|Nicholson, Col. Rt. Hn. W. G. (Ptrsf'ld)||Scott, James||Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)|
|Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert||Shepperson, Sir Ernest Whittome||Wilson, G. H. A. (Cambridge U.)|
|O'Connor, T. J.||Sinclair, Sir A. (Caithness)||Withers, Sir John James|
|Oman, Sir Charles William C.||Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's U., Belfst)||Wolmer, Rt. Hon. Viscount|
|O'Neill, Sir H.||Smith, Louis W. (Sheffield, Hallam)||Womersley, W. J.|
|Owen, Major G. (Carnarvon)||Smith-Carington, Neville W.||Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley|
|Owen, H. F. (Hereford)||Smithers, Waldron||Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.|
|Peake, Capt. Osbert||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Penny, Sir George||Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)||Southby, Commander A. R. J.||Captain Margesson and Sir Frederick|
|Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)||Spender-Clay, Colonel H.||Thomson.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)||Ede, James Chuter||Kinley, J.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Edmunds, J. E.||Kirkwood, D.|
|Addison, Rt. Hon. Dr. Christopher||Edwards, E. (Morpeth)||Lang, Gordon|
|Aitchison, Rt. Hon. Craigie M.||Egan, W. H.||Lathan, G.|
|Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (Hillsbro')||Freeman, Peter||Law, Albert (Bolton)|
|Alpass, J. H.||Gardner, B. W. (West Ham. Upton)||Law, A. (Rosendale)|
|Ammon, Charles George||Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, N.)||Lawrence, Susan|
|Arnott, John||Gibbins, Joseph||Lawson, John James|
|Ayles, Walter||Gibson, H. M. (Lancs, Mossley)||Lawther, W. (Barnard Castle)|
|Baker, John (Wolverhampton, Bilston)||Gill, T. H.||Leach, W.|
|Baldwin, Oliver (Dudley)||Gossling, A. G.||Lee, Frank (Derby, N. E.)|
|Barnes, Alfred John||Gould, F.||Lee, Jennie (Lanark. Northern)|
|Batey, Joseph||Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)||Lees, J.|
|Beckett, John (Camberwell, Peckham)||Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)||Lewis, T. (Southampton)|
|Bellamy, Albert||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Lloyd, C. Ellis|
|Bennett, Capt. Sir E. N. (Cardiff C.)||Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro' W.)||Logan, David Gilbert|
|Benson, G.||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)||Longbottom, A. W.|
|Bentham, Dr. Ethel||Groves, Thomas E.||Longden, F.|
|Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)||Grundy, Thomas W.||Lovat-Fraser, J. A.|
|Birkett, W. Norman||Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)||Lowth, Thomas|
|Bowen, J. W.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lunn, William|
|Broad, Francis Alfred||Hall, Capt. W. P. (Portsmouth, C.)||Macdonald, Gordon (Ince)|
|Brockway, A. Fenner||Hamilton, Mary Agnes (Blackburn)||MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)|
|Bromfield, William||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Zetland)||McElwee, A.|
|Bromley, J.||Harbord, A.||McEntee, V. L.|
|Brooke, W.||Hardie, George D.||McKinlay, A.|
|Brothers, M.||Harris, Percy A.||McShane, John James|
|Brown, C. W. E. (Notts, Mansfield)||Hastings, Dr. Somerville||Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)|
|Brown, Ernest (Leith)||Haycock, A. W.||Mander, Geoffrey le M.|
|Brown, Rt. Hon. J. (South Ayrshire)||Hayday, Arthur||Mansfield, W.|
|Brown, W. J. (Wolverhampton, West)||Hayes, John Henry||March, S.|
|Buchanan, G.||Henderson, Arthur, Junr. (Cardiff, S.)||Markham, S. F.|
|Burgess, F. G.||Henderson, Thomas (Glasgow)||Marley, J.|
|Buxton, C. R. (Yorks. W. R. Elland)||Henderson, W. W. (Mlddx., Enfield)||Mathers, George|
|Caine, Derwent Hall-||Herriotts, J.||Matters, L. W.|
|Cameron, A. G.||Hirst, G. H. (York W. R. Wentworth)||Maxton, James|
|Carter, W. (St. Pancras, S. W.)||Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)||Melville, Sir James|
|Charieton, H. C.||Hoffman, P. C.||Messer, Fred|
|Chater, Daniel||Hopkin, Daniel||Middleton, G.|
|Church, Major A. G.||Horrabin, J. F.||Mills, J. E.|
|Clarke, J. S.||Hudson, James H. (Huddersfield)||Milner, Major J.|
|Cluse, W. S.||Isaacs, George||Montague, Frederick|
|Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Morgan, Dr. H. B.|
|Cocks, Frederick Seymour||John, William (Rhondda. West)||Morley, Ralph|
|Compton, Joseph||Johnston, Thomas||Morris, Rhys Hopkins|
|Cove, William G.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)|
|Daggar, George||Jones, Rt. Hon. Leif (Camborne)||Morrison, Robert C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Dallas, George||Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)||Mort, D. L.|
|Davies, E. C. (Montgomery)||Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)||Moses, J. J. H.|
|Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)||Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W.||Mosley, Lady C. (Stoke-on-Trent)|
|Denman, Hon. R. D.||Jowitt, Rt. Hon. Sir W. A.||Muff, G.|
|Dickson, T.||Kelly, W. T.||Muggeridge, H. T.|
|Dukes, C.||Kennedy, Thomas||Nathan, Major H. L.|
|Duncan, Charles||Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.||Naylor, T. E.|
|Oldfield, J. R.||Shield, George William||Turner, B.|
|Oliver, George Harold (Ilkeston)||Shillaker, J. F.||Vaughan, D. J.|
|Oliver, P. M. (Man., Blackley)||Shinwell, E.||Viant, S. P.|
|Palin, John Henry||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Walkden, A. G.|
|Paling, Wilfrid||Simmons, C. J.||Walker, J.|
|Palmer, E. T.||Simon, E. D. (Manch'ter, Withington)||Wallace, H. W.|
|Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)||Sinkinson, George||Wallhead, Richard C.|
|Perry, S. F.||Sitch, Charles H.||Watkins, F. C.|
|Peters, Dr. Sidney John||Smith, Alfred (Sunderland)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.||Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Picton-Turbervill, Edith||Smith, Frank (Nuneaton)||Wellock, Wilfred|
|Pole, Major D. G.||Smith, H. B. Lees- (Keighley)||Welsh, James (Paisley)|
|Potts, John S.||Smith, Rennie (Penistone)||West, F. R.|
|Price, M. P.||Smith, Tom (Pontefract)||Westwood, Joseph|
|Quibell, D. J. K.||Snell, Harry||White, H. G.|
|Richards, R.||Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip||Whiteley, Wilfrid (Birm., Ladywood)|
|Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)||Snowden, Thomas (Accrington)||Wilkinson, Ellen C.|
|Riley, F. F. (Stockton-on-Tees)||Sorensen, R.||Williams, David (Swansea, East)|
|Ritson, J.||Stamford, Thomas W.||Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llaneily)|
|Romeril, H. G.||Stephen, Campbell||Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)|
|Rosbotham, D. S. T.||Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Rowson, Guy||Strauss, G. R.||Wilson, J. (Oldham)|
|Salter, Dr. Alfred||Sullivan, J.||Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)|
|Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen)||Sutton, J. E.||Winterton, G. E. (Leicester, Loughb'gh)|
|Samuel, H. W. (Swansea, West)||Taylor, R. A. (Lincoln)||Wise, E. F.|
|Sanders, W. S.||Taylor, W. B. (Norfolk, S. W.)||Wood, Major McKenzie (Banff)|
|Sawyer, G. F.||Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)||Young, R. S (Islington, North)|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Thurtle, Ernest|
|Scurr, John||Tiliett, Ben||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Sexton, James||Tinker, John Joseph||Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr.|
|Shepherd, Arthur Lewis||Tout, W. J.||William Whiteley.|
|Sherwood, G. H.||Townend, A. E.|
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
Will the Minister of Transport tell us what is the actual amount of cash obtained by this Clause? He said that it was only small, but I do not think he gave the exact amount.
§ Mr. HERBERT MORRISON
The right hon. Gentleman, perhaps, was not here when I informed the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill) that the financial equivalent of the concessions obtained in the whole Clause are estimated to be between £80,000 and £100,000 in a full financial year.
§ Sir L. WORTHINGTON-EVANS
What is the amount of the 50 per cent. rebate for electrically-driven vehicles?
§ Mr. MORRISON
That information I was unable to give. On the existing number of vehicles it is an insignificant sum, but clearly, if the trade understood that the 50 per cent. rebate on the petrol-electric vehicle, which can do equivalent service to that of the petrol vehicle, was permanent, that class of vehicle would increase in numbers and the number of petrol vehicles would be reduced. In that case, the cost could be very big. We do not know the exact amount, but it is a small sum.