HC Deb 05 June 1934 vol 290 cc839-42

8.13 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND

I beg to move, in page 15, line 22, to leave out "and each subsequent financial year."

This Clause deals with a vastly different subject from the last. It deals with a matter brought to the notice of the House by the Chancellor in his Budget statement, and it is necessary largely because of the arrangement which the right hon. Gentleman announced, to reduce the horse-power tax on motor vehicles. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted. It is a modest Amendment and it does not in any sense violate the intentions of the Government with regard to the proposal embodied in the Clause. The object of the Amendment is merely to ensure that next year and in subse- quent years the matter may be the subject of review. I would recall to the Committee that the Road Fund was established in 1920. So fertile a source of revenue has it been that from time to time Chancellors of the Exchequer have appropriated certain funds from it. The disposal of the proceeds of the duty was provided for in the Road Act of 1920. Those provisions were subsequently amended by the Finance Act of 1926. Briefly stated, the position to-day is that out of the total duties collected from the tax on motor vehicles one-third is retained by the Exchequer and two-thirds remains in the Road Fund. When the Chancellor of the Exchequer made his proposals with regard to the reduction of the tax from £ 1 to 15s. per horse-power he made these observations. I would rather call in aid the observations which he made than anything I might venture to express for myself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the cost of the concession was to be £2,200,000 this year and £4,000,000 in a full year. He continued: That cost under the existing law would fall to be borne as to two-thirds by the Road Fund and one-third by the Exchequer, but in the present circumstances and with the many claims which are being made upon my surplus, I did not feel that I can undertake this year to provide any considerable sum for this purpose. I. therefore, consulted with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and we have agreed upon the following arrangement: The Exchequer's share of the produce of the Motor Vehicles Duties in present circumstances is to be subject to a minimum of £5,000,000. rather less than the sum that I should expect to get if no alteration had been made at all By that arrangement, therefore, the cost of the concession that I have described will fall mainly upon the Road Fund."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th April, 1934; cols. 918 and 919, Vol. 288.] I do not suggest any alteration in the arrangement which has been made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Minister of Transport, but I think that it is in the interests of the House, whose function, after all, it is to keep itself informed of these financial arrangements, that there should be an opportunity not only this year, but next year, and in subsequent years, for the House to decide for itself whether or not, on the evidence submitted either by the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Minister of Transport, whichever Department is affected, the arrangement proposed this year is a right and proper arrangement to become per- manent.I am rather afraid that when words are inserted in Finance Bills they are lost in oblivion, and we do not have an opportunity of reviewing them. in a subsequent year. I understand that the Treasury have the power, and doubtless exercise the power, of revising and reviewing these things, but, unless these words are deleted, the initiative will have to come from some private Member rather than from the Exchequer. Therefore, I propose, for the simple purpose of bringing the matter once more to the notice of the House next year, that the words should be deleted, and hope that my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury may see his way to accept the Amendment.

8.19 p.m.

Mr. HORE-BELISHA

This is a Clause under which, 'as my hon. Friend has said, the Exchequer's share of the Motor Vehicle Duties is guaranteed at a minimum of £5,000,000, not only in 1934–35 but also in subsequent years. In the Budget speech from which my hon. Friend quoted the Chancellor of the Exchequer "aid that he would not have felt himself able to reduce the taxes as he has done on private vehicles if the reduction had involved any substantial charge on his Budget surplus, for clearly there were others who had prior claims. It may be that the same circumstances which exist this year will exist next year, but it is not the preconceived intention to deprive the Road Fund of the means to carry out its proper duty. Therefore, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer will keep in close touch with my hon. Friend the Minister of Transport, and should circumstances alter, of course, this arrangement "an be reviewed. It may be that the Clause will become inoperative—and we hope that it will—as a result of expanding revenue. It may be that circumstances will necessitate its withdrawal, but my right hon. Friend has felt that, instead of adding to those provisions which have to be introduced every year, the most effective way would be to put the legislation in this form, leaving it to the future to disclose whether or not it may be necessary to repeal it. I hope that it will not be necessary, because, as I say, we trust that there will be, in the future, an expanding revenue. I trust that my hon. Friend will be satisfied with an assurance that the position will be kept under constant and sympathetic review, and will accept the Clause as it now stands and withdraw the Amendment.

8.21 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND

I am obliged to my hon. Friend. I agree that this is the most effective way of dealing with the matter from the Treasury point of view, but I am not so convinced that it is the most effective way of dealing with it from the point of view of the House of Commons. But in view of the statement which he has been good enough to make and his assurance, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.