HC Deb 08 July 1953 vol 517 cc1313-20

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Mulley

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, to leave out "two hundred and fifty," and to insert "five hundred."

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps it would be convenient to take this Amendment and the next two together.

Mr. Mulley

Yes, Mr. Speaker, I was going to suggest that, with your permission and that of the House, we should discuss this Amendment together with the next two Amendments, that in page 3, line 28, leave out from "£1 5s. 0d.," to "they," in line 29, and insert "wherever," and that in page 3, line 30, at end, insert: in the first column after the words 'exceeds 250 cubic centimetres' there were inserted the words 'but does not exceed 500 cubic centimetres' and in the first, second and third columns after sub-paragraph (c) there were inserted respectively the following words and figures, namely in the first column '(d) exceeds 500 cubic centimetres,' in the second column '£3 15s. 0d.,' and in the third column '£1 5s. 0d.' I do not apologise for taking up the time of the House on what may appear to be a very small point because in my view it is really a matter of very considerable consequence. However, it may be of some consolation to hon. Members to know that I do not intend to take anything like 30 minutes in putting forward my arguments on the matter.

The purpose of the Clause was stated by the Financial Secretary during the Second Reading debate when he said: Clause 4 makes a small reduction in the small duty payable where sidecars are attached to lower or medium-sized motor bicycles. That is a small contribution to road safety. I understand that it is safer to travel on a sidecar than on a pillion."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 584.] We entirely endorse the desirability of reducing motor-cycle accidents, but our case is simply that the kind of motorcycle that should be encouraged to fit a sidecar is not included in this concession at all. The figures given by the Financial Secretary show that there are 1,200 motor-cycles of 250 c.c. which are fitted with sidecars. I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman has discovered how many of them are so fitted purely for the purpose of carrying a small child or even a baby.

From my own very limited mechanical knowledge, I do not think that many of these motor-cycles are capable of pulling a sidecar. My hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Pannell), who, unfortunately, is not present, said, speaking with much greater technical authority, that to encourage the fitting of sidecars to small motor-cycles is not only mechanically undesirable, but has very unfortunate consequences for the design of the machine, and, far more important still, increases the danger on the road.

I think it will interest the House if I quote a passage from remarks made on this subject by Mr. Granville, Director of Road Research of the Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, as reported in "The Times" of Friday last. He said: A motor-cyclist is about 50 times as likely to be killed—per mile driven—as a car driver. In 1952, the cost of motor-cycle accidents to the community, making no allowance for human suffering, was about £45 million. Quite clearly, the case for improving road safety by encouraging motor-cyclists to fit sidecars is absolutely made out.

Mr. Glanville went on to say: Solo motor-cycles are far more dangerous than machines with sidecars. From a strictly national economic angle it would, it appears, pay us to fit all motor-cycles of over 250 c.c. with sidecars free of cost to the motor-cyclists. Not every motor-cyclist would wish to ride with a sidecar, but any encouragement to motor-cyclists to fit sidecars should prove to be a move in the direction of reducing accidents. I would not go so far as to suggest that the Treasury should present motorcyclists with free sidecars, but I hope that the Financial Secretary will take note of the very important point that it is only machines of over 250 c.c. which should be so fitted.

If the Amendment is accepted, the effect will be that the class of motor-cycle which most needs to be encouraged to fit a sidecar in the interests of safety will have the advantage that the Financial Secretary claimed would be the case in his Second Reading speech. I do not know what the cost will be of extending the concession from 250 c.c. to 500 c.c. but I am sure it will be nowhere near the £45 million that it is claimed motor-cycle accidents cost the community, and it will be very much less than the cost of giving people free sidecars, as this gentleman suggests should be done in the interests of road safety.

I wonder what sort of consultations the Treasury had with the people concerned with road safety before arriving at the figure 250 c.c. given by the Financial Secretary? Were the Road Research Department consulted, or the Ministry of Transport? What consultations did the Financial Secretary have with the trade when fixing the figure at 250 c.c., and with what organisations of motorcyclists? It may seem irrelevant to suggest to the Treasury to have this kind of consultation, but with practically every other taxation proposal we meet the answer, "We cannot move now, because we must have a Royal Commission on this point." In this very vital matter of road safety a good deal could be done at very little cost if the Amendment were accepted.

I hope that the Financial Secretary will be able to make a record short speech, since time is pressing, by saying that he is in a position to accept the Amendment.

Mr. Anthony Crosland (Gloucestershire, South)

I beg to second the Amendment.

It does not seem possible that right hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench, who are not themselves physical lightweights, should be in favour of limiting this concession to lightweight motorcycles, and I urge them to extend the concession to sidecars that are pulled by motor-cycles of heavier power. The argument in favour of limiting this sidecar concession to the lighter motor-cycle could take one of two forms. It could mean that the sidecar drawn by the motor cycle of 250 c.cs. was very much safer than a sidecar drawn by the heavier cycle. On the other hand, anyone who knows anything about motor-cycles will be aware that the heavier machine combined with the sidecar is very much safer than the lightweight motor-cycle.

The only other argument that has been put forward is the one advanced by the Financial Secretary when we raised this subject in Committee. He then said that the reason the concession was confined to the lightweight machines was that the special sidecar duty, as it existed before the concession, was something of a deterrent in the case of the light machines because it was heavier in relation to the duty upon the machine itself than in the case of heavier machines. The light machine pays a smaller duty than the heavier machine, so that the sidecar duty of 25s. was a heavier deterrent than in the case of the heavier machine.

I suggest to the Financial Secretary that the argument he put to the Committee was not quite sound. In the first place, as my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Park (Mr. Mulley) argued in Committee from a great wealth of technical knowledge, the real deterrent to putting a sidecar on a small cycle was that a small motor-cycle was hardly strong enough to pull the thing. The deterrent was therefore, not a financial one at all, but a technical one. Even if the argument of the Financial Secretary were true, that there was a heavier deterrent in the case of a lightweight motor-cycle because of the higher proportion of the sidecar duty, it is not the case that nothing could be done to encourage combinations being attached to a heavier motor-cycle. Even if there is a heavier deterrent in the case of 250 c.c. cycles, it does not follow that there is no deterrent in the case of the heavier ones; there might be an overwhelming deterrent in the case of the smaller motorcycles, yet still a quite powerful one in the case of the rather heavier machine.

We take the view that the road safety argument applies to all motor-cycles, and indeed, particularly to the heavier cycles, and that there must, therefore, be a a stronger case on the grounds of road safety for extending this concession from its limit of 250 c.cs. to the 500 c.c. machine. I hope that we may have a sympathetic reply from the Financial Secretary.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter

The fact that there is real sympathy with the point of view which has been so admirably, and with such admirable brevity expressed by the two hon. Members is indicated by the presence of Clause 4. The intention is to provide for the removal of a certain amount of discouragement in the use of sidecars.

As has been very properly pointed out, the Clause limits this particular concession to sidecars attached to motor-bicycles up to a cubic capacity of 250 c.cs. The argument for so confining it is largely that the deterrent is the greater where the charge of duty for the use of the sidecar constitutes a much bigger proportion of the total cost than is the case higher up the scale. That is beyond doubt.

Indeed, before the change proposed in the Clause, for the small class of motorcycle up to 150 c.cs. the charge of 25 s. for the sidecar exceeded that for the motor-bicycle itself and in the next band, up to 250 c.cs., the 25s. was a rather large proportion of the duty of the motor-cycle itself, which was 27s. 6d. It is common knowledge that these latter are cheaper machines, used by those who can spend less on this particular form of transport. I should have thought it was reasonable to assume that the duty on the sidecar should be rather less than that on the motor-cycle itself.

It was suggested in Committee, and has been suggested again this afternoon, that it was rather inappropriate to encourage the use of sidecars for these light motorcycles. I shall not claim any expertise in motor-cycling. On the last occasion we exchanged mutual reminiscences. It is, of course, the fact that hundreds of our fellow citizens overcome the mechanical difficulties which, it was suggested in the Committee, arose. What I think is overlooked is that included in this category of light motor-cycle is the assisted bicycle, which is rapidly coming more into use. These machines can carry a sidecar.

The number of sidecars for them has risen to 581 in the last year and it is not an unusual spectacle to see someone taking the baby to the local park or cinema in this way, which is much safer for the baby. A sidecar is a practical proposition for one of these machines. These are the machines where the rate of duty is less than it was on the sidecar when this Clause was produced, and it seemed reasonable to begin with these low-powered machines. Sidecars are used much less with low-powered than with high-powered machines. That being so, I should have thought it was reasonable to try some stimulus first in this area.

I do not want to seem dogmatic in this matter because, as I said in the Committee, this concession is experimental. One difficulty is that it is designed not to come into force until 1st January next year, and, therefore, we have no more mechanical evidence as to how the experiment will work than we had put to us in the Committee.

7.0 p.m.

It may perhaps serve to reassure the two hon. Members, however, if I read to them what was said in Committee on 19th May: We think that this is an appropriate place at which to begin and on which to judge the effect. Therefore, for this year at any rate, this is a reasonable beginning. I can undertake that we will watch the position and watch, in particular, whether there is an effect in this sphere of the sort which we would like to see, and we will consider in the light of that whether perhaps next year a move in the direction which the hon. Member suggests may not be warranted. I do not think this is more than an experimental concession. I think the sensible thing is to put it into operation and judge by the results."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th May, 1953; Vol. 515, c. 1971.] I think that that indicates what is our point of view.

In the nature of things we cannot have proceeded any further with the experiments since the Committee stage, and I think that the sensible thing to do is to put this provision into operation and judge any further action by the results. I ask hon. Members not only to accept that point of view, but to accept that we have taken the initiative by putting this Clause into the Bill, that we are aware of the important aspects of this matter, and that my right hon. Friend is taking a sensible and intelligent interest in it.

Mr. Mulley

We are grateful for the assurance that the Government will at least keep this matter under review, but it is not a matter for satisfaction that since the Committee and the Report stages the Financial Secretary has not taken the trouble to inquire from motor-cyclists and the Ministry of Transport—

Mr. Speaker

Order. The hon. Member is making a second speech.

Mr. Mulley

I thought that I could make a short speech to show that we intended to withdraw the Amendment, Sir.

Mr. Speaker

Then the hon. Member must be very brief.

Mr. Mulley

On the understanding that the Chancellor will look again at this question next year I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.