HC Deb 30 June 1931 vol 254 cc1092-4

So long as a mechanically-propelled vehicle for which a licence has been taken out under paragraph 5 of the Second Schedule to the Finance Act, 1920, is to a substantial extent being used for the conveyance of goods or burden belonging to a particular person (whether the person keeping the vehicle or not), then, notwithstanding anything in Section fourteen of the Finance Act, 1922, duty at a higher rate shall not become chargeable in respect of that vehicle by reason only that it is used for the conveyance without charge in the course of their employment of employés of the person aforesaid.— [Mr. Herbert Morrison.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Herbert Morrison)

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

The explanation of this Clause is that owing to the provisions in certain Finance Acts the concession given to goods vehicles which incidentally carried the employés of the persons owning the vehicle has been withdrawn, and they have become liable to a higher scale of taxation than would otherwise have been the case. We think that the position should be put back to what it was before, and, therefore, this is in the mature of a concession to the owners of goods vehicles which may incidentally carry their employés to and from their place of employment. The object of the new Clause is to restore this lost privilege. A typical case is the conveyance at the same time and in the same vehicle of a load of building material and workmen who are to perform a building operation. Under the existing law, they would be subject to a higher scale of taxation than was formerly the case. Another example of a different kind is the conveyance of potato pickers in lorries which are also used for carrying the potatoes to the railway station. The new Clause, however, does not confine this concession to the owners of the vehicles, but extends it to the hirers of the vehicles. This is a reasonable extension. A public works contractor who is not the owner of the vehicle which he may require for the purposes of the transport of the material to or from the site of the works will be able to transport his workmen in the same way as a contractor who owns the vehicle.

Captain BOURNE

I should like to put one question to the Minister of Transport. It is not an infrequent practice in many parts of the country for a contractor to get a motor vehicle which is hired by farmers for the purpose of doing their hauling. Practically the whole of the hauling of the farmers is done by one contractor. Will the owner of the vehicle be allowed to use it for the purpose of conveying his employés without having to pay the additional tax? I am not sure whether the new Clause covers that particular kind of case or not.

Sir JOSEPH LAMB

I have in mind the case of an employer, a farmer, who employs a man to pick his produce when grown, but prior to it being grown he may employ men to hoe it Will a farmer be able to employ a man to hire transport for the conveyance of these seasonal workers without having to pay any additional taxation?

Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

The Clause does not apply to vehicles in general. It should be a vehicle carrying the employés of the owner of the vehicle. If the employer hires a vehicle for the specific purpose of carrying his materials and his workmen it comes within the new Clause, but I am rather doubtful whether an occasional use of a vehicle would come within the Clause.

Clause added to the Bill.