§ 2.45 p.m.
§ EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
§ [The Question was as follows:
§ To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are aware of the danger resulting from the restrictions on rear side windows on trade vans, and whether they do not consider that the abolition of such restrictions without penalising the user would be justified.]
§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY, BOARD OF TRADE (LORD RHODES)My Lords, I do not doubt that the restrictions which the noble Earl has in mind are those arising from the scope of the purchase tax on road vehicles. The law provides that tax is chargeable on any vehicle which has to the rear of the driver's seat roofed accommodation fitted with side windows or constructed or adapted for fitting side windows. It is necessary to draw a clear dividing line between those vehicles which are subject to purchase tax and those which are not. The conclusion that rear side windows should be one of the main criteria employed was arrived at after exhaustive consideration of the problem, in consultation with the motor trade. The road safety aspect of the matter was fully taken into account in the discussions at that time.
§ EARL FORTESCUEMy Lords, I thank the noble Lord for his reply, but is the Minister satisfied that the extra purchase tax on these vehicles, which might or might not be collected, is sufficient to offset the number of casualties caused by these vehicles?
§ LORD RHODESNo, my Lords, we have no evidence to that effect. If the noble Lord has any we shall be pleased to look at it. In any case, these vehicles were presumably bought for a commercial purpose and, that being the case, they will be loaded and there is in that event no possibility of one being able to see out of the side windows, anyway.
EARL FERRERSMy Lords, to which does the noble Lord attach the greater importance: the saving of life on the roads or ensuring a modest recoupment of purchase tax for Inland Revenue?
§ LORD RHODESMy Lords, I do not think that question is involved at all. I think that just a clear definition has been required, and the criterion we have is good enough to suit the purpose.
§ VISCOUNT BRENTFORDMy Lords, can the noble Lord indicate how much purchase tax is involved in regard to these particular vehicles?
§ LORD RHODESYes, my Lords, of course: 25 per cent.
LORD HAWKEMy Lords, will Her Majesty's Government not agree that it is time to revise these old rules which, by tending to draw a rigid line between what is a commercial vehicle and what is not for fiscal purposes, definitely militate against safety al the roads? Would it not be much better to consolidate the purchase tax on all motor vehicles at the same rate?
§ LORD RHODESMy Lords, this question was first considered in 1940, then in 1950 and again in 1963. I am obliged to the noble Lord for his suggestion and I will convey it to the proper quarter.