§ LORD HARRIS rose to call attention to the opinion of the House as expressed on April 5, namely: That the burden thrown on the ratepayers through the wear and tear of roads caused by heavy mechanical transport is unreasonable and should be remedied; and to ask His Majesty's Government whether, instead of again referring the subject to a Departmental Committee, they will submit it to a Parliamentary Committee.
§ The noble Lord said: My Lords, a few weeks ago, you may remember, I brought before the House the subject of the excessive wear and tear of the rural roads by the heavier mechanical transport that uses them, and your Lordships supported my view, which was that such wear and tear is unreasonable and should be remedied. Following upon, and supported by, that opinion, I made inquiry at the Ministry of Transport, and learned there that the subject would be again considered by a Departmental Committee. I referred to that Committee in my remarks on the previous occasion. A Departmental Committee sat upon which the local authorities were represented by one person, and the schedule of licence fees which was eventually imposed upon mechanical vehicles was the outcome of the consideration of that Committee. I expressed my suspicion that that schedule was the result of the representative of the Department coming down as an arbitrator between the rival opinions of the local authorities and of the makers and users of mechanical transport.
§ It is now suggested by the Department that the subject should be again considered by the same Committee, and in my view that is not a satisfactory reply. In my humble opinion this burden which has been laid upon the ratepayers of the country has become intolerable, and I am supported in that view by a large body of local opinion. In those circumstances I submit to your Lordships that if a burden 229 is intolerable, Parliament should be open to the sufferers, and that at present we are deprived of the opportunity of coming to Parliament. I bring the matter before your Lordships' House; your Lordships agree upon an opinion and to an Inquiry, and I find that the Department deals with the matter. I am next week, or the week after, bringing resolutions before my county council, and I think it is highly probable that the county council will approach the Association of County Councils. If the Association is disposed to move in the matter, what is their channel? They have to go to the Department, and the consequence is that wherever we attempt to remedy this matter we come up against the Department. I submit to your Lordships, to use what is, perhaps, too wide an expression, that it is becoming a tyranny.
§ We have not the opportunity of approaching Parliament, and I regard this matter as very important. The position is now very much what it was when the railways attempted to permeate the land. They were compelled to conic to Parliament to get permission to extend their lines. I submit that the matter has become so important as regards the roads, the user of which at any rate is the property of the people of the country, that they ought to be allowed, if in their opinion they are under a heavy grievance, to come to Parliament. Therefore, I have put down a Question to the Government to ask whether they do not think the matter is of sufficient importance to be referred to a Parliamentary Committee rather than to a Departmental Committee. If the reply of the Government is unfavourable, I take this opportunity of giving notice that I shall put the matter into a formal Resolution, and bring it forward at the earliest possible opportunity. Should I do so I hope to find sufficient support in your Lordships' House to convince the Government that the subject is worthy of a Parliamentary Inquiry.
§ LORD PARMOORMy Lords, before the Government reply is made I should like to support the views expressed by the noble Lord opposite. I think it is a scandal that these questions affecting repairs, and especially the wear and tear of roads, should be shelved from time to time, and the hope of any remedy rendered illusory by the method of appointing Departmental Committees. This is a very old grievance. As long ago as the time of the late Lord 230 Denman the grievance came to a head, and the result has been that each year in the Bill for the continuance of expiring Acts we introduce a provision which is supposed to make only a temporary provision for the method of contributions towards the local roads. Yet, it may be recalled, during the discussion in the House of Commons, raised by Sir Ralph Lopes, it was promised that these matters should be immediately considered and that some remedy should be provided. A. little later I was one of those who sat for six years considering all these questions on a Royal Commission. Again, nothing whatever was done. After a period of time the actual recommendations of that Royal Commission, of course, became to a certain extent out of date, and they were referred to a Departmental Committee. But nothing in substance was ever done. I agree with the noble Lord that this is an intolerable grievance, and one which, so far as it relates to wear and tear of roads, has been enormously aggravated in recent years. I hope that the Government will be able to say that it is no longer a subject for a Departmental Committee, but one that should be inquired into by Parliament itself.
THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (THE EARL OF CRAWFORD)My Lords, I cannot help thinking that there is perhaps some little misunderstanding as to the exact position of this matter. I do not know what it is that my noble friend, Lord Harris, thinks demands further inquiry. He makes a distinction between a Parliamentary and a Departmental Inquiry. That I quite understand, if it be settled that something in particular is to be the subject of inquiry. But what is the point at issue? What further facts can be elicited by inquiry?
Let me recall to your Lordships the recent history of this particular subject. In recent times it was first discussed and examined in the most thoroughgoing manner by a Royal Commission presided over by Lord Balfour of Burleigh. That was some years ago. As recently as 1914 a further Committee, presided over by Sir John Kempe, inquired into the relations of Imperial and local taxation since the Report of the Royal Commission in 1901. The function of that Committee was to re-examine and bring up to date public knowledge and experience of this very difficult subjects That Committee 231 reported seven or eight years ago. It was a very strong Committee, upon which both Imperial and local taxation interests were very well represented, and, to tell the truth, I should be reluctant to agree to any further Inquiry unless it be shown that the facts are not to-day thoroughly in possession of the public.
It is true, as Lord Parmoor has told us, that the putting into operation of the Report of the Kempe Committee, which reported in 1914, had to be suspended, but it was not shelved, as the noble Lord says. The word "shelving" is, as a rule, applied to a Department which wishes to shirk or to obstruct a public reform. It was not shelved at all, it was suspended by the war because, owing to the conditions of the war, and the exceptional difficulties of road user, of labour, of petrol and the duties therefrom, it was clearly impossible to carry out the policy which had been outlined by Sir John Kempe's Committee. But it was not shelved. So far from that being the case, immediately the war was over a further Inquiry took place under Sir Henry Maybury, who is head of one of the Departments—an important Department—in the Ministry of Transport. The object of that Committee was not to determine the relation between Imperial and local taxation; its duty was to raise money, and it performed that duty in a very effective manner by raising millions and millions a year towards the upkeep of roads. Various other duties were imposed upon it, notably as regards classification. Whatever does my noble and learned friend, Lord Parmoor, mean when he says that nothing effective has been done?
§ LORD PARMOORI meant exactly what I said, and that is my view.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDWell, let me comment on that statement. I really think it is very unfair. The grievance has been that local authorities and ratepayers do not receive adequate recognition from the State for the important work in the matter of communications which they have performed for the community as a whole. Has nothing been done in that respect? Why, anything from £7,000,000 to £10,000,000 is available every year towards this particular object. Surely, Lord Parmoor will acknowledge that that is an effective contribution towards the difficulties of the local rate, 232 payer, with which nothing in our lifetime has been comparable.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI was quoting Lord Parmoor, who says nothing has been done. I did not intend to refer to Lord Harris. Lord Harris is very closely acquainted with the rating problem, and his County of Kent (I asked this morning) received over £300,000 during the last financial year towards the upkeep of the Kent roads.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI do not say my noble friend is complaining of it, but Lord Parmoor complained bitterly that nothing has been done.
§ LORD PARMOORI did not complain of what had been paid, but I thought it was quite inadequate and that the whole matter necessitated a far larger contribution on a different basis.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI am sure everybody agrees that if more money could be raised it would be a very good thing indeed, but already the sum of £10,000,000 is being raised. Where is the increased amount to come from? It cannot, ex hypothesi, come from the rates, because the whole case is that the rates are already overburdened and require larger contributions from the taxpayer. I ask your Lordships whether it could come from the Exchequer now? How many of your Lordships would take the responsibility of saying that £10,000,000 is utterly inadequate and that the taxpayers as a whole must contribute another £5,000,000 or another £10,000,000? How many of your Lordships, I ask, would take that responsibility? The third and only remaining source of revenue is the user of the road. All who are motorists will agree with me that although the motor community—that is, the commercial and every other form of motor user—would like more money spent and appreciate the amount that is being spent, they contend that the £7,000,000, £8,000,000 or £10,000,000 which is raised from them is already a terrific burden upon their industry; that if we increase their contribution we shall diminish their enterprise, we shall check the development 233 of this great industry, and, in short, that such action might completely paralyse a large and very important manufacturing trade, quite apart from the incalculable importance and value of its distributive work. We are, therefore, faced by an obstacle which is almost insuperable. At the present moment I do not see in what direction it is possible for Parliament to turn for a further increase of income to spend upon our roads. Whether further inquiry is necessary, as I say, I am most sceptical. The Departmental Committee to which Lord Harris referred is not going to inquire into this question.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI think there may be some misunderstanding. My noble friend wrote to the Ministry and the reply he got was framed in quite general terms and referred to road problems in general, I understand, and not to the specific problem he raises to-day as to the relation between Imperial and local taxation.
LORD HARRISThat is not my point at all. In the speech I made the other day and in what I said to-clay my point was this, that the schedule of rates is unfair. If the burden that is placed upon the light car is a fair one, then the heavy car ought to bear a burden in proportion to its weight. That is the question into which I wish inquiry to be made.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDWhether a light car pays too much relatively and a heavy car too little is not a question of the incidence of local taxation.
LORD HARRISI have not raised the question of the incidence of local taxation. Where does it appear in my Question?
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI apologise to your Lordships if I seem stupid, but the whole of Lord Harris's statement a month ago dealt with the local grievance. He talked about the roads in Kent being cut up, and so on. I was present and 234 remember the debate well. To-day, in terms, he referred to the burden cast upon the ratepayers through the wear and tear of roads caused by heavy mechanical transport.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDI see I must have misread it, but I read the noble Lord's Question as meaning that he was concerned with the incidence of taxation as between—
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDIf my reading of it was incorrect, I apologise; but that is how I understood it, bearing in mind the noble Lord's speech. Now it is a question of the classification of cars.
THE EARL OF CRAWFORDThat is a question which, the noble Lord knows, has been examined very carefully. If he will show me that the inquiries that have been made are inadequate, I will gladly consider, in conjunction with my colleague Mr. Neal, whether any further inquiry is necessary. If I misunderstood the noble Lord I must express my apologies to him, but I certainly thought he was referring to the relations between local and Imperial taxation, and not to what is a very much more technical and mechanical problem— the classification of motor cars.
LORD HARRISI must make my apologies to the noble Earl. Naturally I have my own speech better in mind than he has. What I emphasized on that occasion, I assure him, was the insufficiency of the licence fee on the heavy transport traffic as compared with the light traffic; because it is the heavy transport traffic that is doing the damage to the roads and throwing a heavy burden on the ratepayers. However, I am extremely obliged to the noble Earl for the assurance he has given me that if I can produce sufficient evidence of that, he will take into consideration the possibility of referring the matter to a Parliamentary Inquiry instead of to the Department. I will revert to the matter as soon as I can.
§ House adjourned at twenty-five minutes before five o'clock.