NEW CLAUSE.—(Rebate of licence duty on certain motor vehicles of which the engines are not less than five years old.) (Hansard, 19 June 1933)

§ Captain STRICKLAND
I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
There is a precedent for asking the House to grant this concession with regard to old cars, because in 1921, owing to the great change in engine design, it was found advisable to give such a rebate on cars or engines constructed before 1913. It is known to all motoring people, and particularly to manufacturers, that as you have your car in use its consumption of petrol grows with each year. There is another factor in the case which I would suggest the Minister might take into consideration, and that is that the existence in this country of cars of this age acts as a distinct brake on the trade of the country. There are many men to-day who buy an up-to-date car, and, having run it for a year or two, wish to dispose of it in the market, but they find they can get no market for it because the tax people would be called upon to pay on these five-year old cars would be just as heavy as the tax they would have to pay on a more recently constructed car. This condition is acting as one of the greatest brakes on the motor trade of this country, and I hope that it may be found possible to grant the concession.
I do not ask for the concession because these cars can be regarded as no longer efficient. We know from experience that we see cars of recognised makes that must be at least 10 years old still capable of doing their work, and, another important point, they can get into the hands of smaller people who cannot afford a new car, but who can extract a tremendous lot of pleasure by the purchase of one of these older cars. They are, however, debarred from buying them, particularly the higher horse power cars because of the enormous tax they would have to pay on them. I daresay many 553 hon. Members have had the experience of having a car of 15 to 16 horse power and trying to sell it on the secondhand market, but they realise that although £50 or £60 might be obtained for the car, the purchaser would have to pay £15 or £16 a year tax on it. The Amendment is reasonable, and its acceptance would be a great help to the motor trade of the country. I do not think it would mean a great loss of revenue. If the secondhand market could be cleared in this way, it would lead to a very definite increase in the revenue, because many people would be buying up-to-date cars if they could dispose of their secondhand cars. I hope the reasonableness of the request will appeal to the Minister and the House.

§ Mr. GEOFFREY PETO
I beg to second the Motion.
We have to-day, I am glad to say, an efficient Minister of Transport. Unfortunately, in previous Governments the Ministers of Transport have not been efficient. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] That applies to all parties. The result has been the fixing of a scale of taxation on heavy lorries which has existed for years, and which does not meet with the approval of the Minister of Transport to-day. Now, there has been a sudden drastic change made. People bought their lorries a few years ago in anticipation of doing a useful trade. They are small men, or mostly small men. They now find themselves faced with taxation they had no possible means of anticipating. Some compensation should be given them for the fact that previous Ministers of Transport did not foresee that lorries would be heavier, and that there would be so much competition on the roads. As some compensation for what has now been done, I would urge the Minister of Transport, who is taking a much broader view than previous Ministers of Transport with regard to transport in general, to make this small concession to help the industry.

§ The MINISTER OF TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)
The hon. Members who have moved and seconded this Clause have been so brief and reasonable, and, I might almost say, flattering, that they might well have moved a heart less moveable than mine. I much regret, in view 554 of their approach to this problem, that I have to refuse their request. It is not only a question of cost. The hon. and gallant Member who Moved the Amendment said it would cost very little. It would cost something in the nature of £1,000,000 a year. It is not only that consideration, but the question of principle, which makes me refuse to accept the Clause. The result of accepting it would be to put a premium on old cars. Any car over five years old would be allowed to travel on the roads cheaper than its more modern competitor. I do not think anyone wants to put a premium on the car which lacks modern features which tend to a greater condition of safety. I cannot see how it can be argued that putting a premium on the retention on the road of the older-fashioned cars would be to remove a drag on trade.
The production of motor cars depends primarily, I would have thought, not on the sale of second-hand cars, but on the demand for new cars. I would have thought one could do no greater disservice to the demand for new cars than to make older cars more profitable to run. It is true there was a precedent, but that was a precedent due to the year fixed marking a complete revolution in the design of the internal combustion engine. It was a suitable year for a division between the taxation based on the new and the old. I am afraid it is impossible for me to accept the Clause.

§ Captain STRICKLAND
I would not like to divide the House on this matter, in spite of the gibes at those who try to place motor cars in the hands of the workers of this country. In view of the blank refusal of the Minister of Transport to meet us in any form whatever, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Clause.