ROAD TRANSPORT MATTERS IN PARLIAMENT.
Page 13
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Plea for a Return to the Petrol Tax. The Arguments Against the Budget Proposals. The Proposed Amendments to the Finance Bill.
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent.
SOME further allusions to those aspects of the Budget which affect road transport were made in the concluding stages of the debate on the second reading of the Finance Bill. There was a plea by Colonel A. Pownall, Conservative member for Lewisham E., backed by other members, for a reversion to the petrol tax— a subject which Mr. Churchill had promised would be carefully explored. Colonel Pownall recalled that, on March 31st, 1924, the House of Commons passed unanimously a resolution which he had moved in favour of the substitution of a petrol tax for the existing system of taxation. He believed that the difficulties then urged could be overcome, although he did not enter upon the elaborate findings of the Departmental Committee on this vexed question. His view was similar to that urged by Sir Robert Home a week or two ago—that the Present system tends towards the building of cars which are less suitable for ovemea markets than American and other foreign vehicles. He also objected to the inequity of a car which used the roads every day being taxed at the same rate as one only in occasional use, and mentioned that nearly all the States in the United States had adopted the petrol tax. Major Crawfurd, Liberal member for Walthamstow W., regarded the petrol tax as the only fair way of raising taxes from motorists, and declared that the motor trade and all the allied bodies were in favour of it. He contended, as the Government considered that users of roads should pay for the upkeep of the roads, that payment ought to be in proportion to the usage, and the petrol tax approximated more closely to the various factors of mileage, power, weight and speed.
The New Scale of Taxation.
vv-1TH regard to the proposed additional rates for hackney and commercial vehicles, very few comments have been made in debate. Major Crawfurd, however, expressed his view that the scale for commercial vehicles could be improved, more especially with regard to the proportion of the tax paid by the smaller commercial vehicles and by electric vehicles. Sir P. Pilditch, Conservative member for Spelthorne, supported the further taxation of commercial vehicles on the not too ebnvincing or discriminating ground that the money—along with the proceeds of the raid on the Road Fund and the betting tax—was to be used to make up the Chancellor's balance. He went EO far as to say that the argument about a pledge or contract with regard to the Road Fund had been abandoned by the members who had spoken. This, however, was rather a sweeping description of the attitude of the House. It is true that the raid on the Road Fund has turned out to be somewhat less serious than was expected, or perhaps originally intended, but there is a strong body of opinion opposed to the transfer of the £7,000,000 to the Exchequer.
Ex-Chancellor Condemns the "Raid" SHORTLY before Sir Philip Pilditch spoke Mr. Snowden had attacked the diversion of £7,000,000 in no uncertain manner. Alluding to the claim of Mr. R. M'Neill, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, that it was equitable to take the money because the Treasury had made grants of £8,000,000 to road expenditure some years ago, he characterized as unsound such a policy, to which there would be no limit if they commenced taking back grants spent years before. Whilst he did not think that, in principle, assigned revenue was a desirable thing, he felt there were exceptions, and in the case of the Road Fund an unanswerable
case could be made out. His general argument was that the time had not yet come for a re-allocation of the duties, the funds available being inadequate for road expenditure.r le declared that tens and perhaps hundreds of millions would require to be spent on secondary roads which every day were becoming primary roads.
This subject was also dealt with by Major Crawfurd, who told the House he had in his hand a list of necessary improvements in road construction which would represent an expenditure of £338,000,000. Instead of limiting the number of vehicles on the roads, the Minister of Transport, he said, should regard it as his first duty to provide a sufficient number of roads for the vehicles that required to use them.
The commercial vehicles import duty was also touched upon by Major Crawfurd, who was disinclined to accept the statement that the tax was put on because of the Customs difficulty in distinguishing the parts of a commercial motor from those of a private motorcar.
Future Aid for Unclassified Roads.
TBE Chancellor of the Exchequer's reply did not go far beyond what he had already said, although he made an interesting statement regarding the burden of maintaining unclassified roads. He called for a sense of proportion in considering the Road Fund and pointed out that £3,500,000 more would be spent this year on roads than was spent last year, whilst £1,250,000 more would be available for unclassified roads. He said the burden of unclassified roads would have to be relieved in future years, and there was every indication and assurance that considerable growing funds would be available year after year to enable that to be done. On the whole, he thought his treatment of the Road Fund was admitted to be reasonable.
Proposed Amendments to Finance Bill.
THE first list of amendments to be moved when the Finance Bill reaches Committee contains a number that were foreshadowed in the general debates on the Budget. Many more will be tabled when Parliament meets after the recess. On Clause 3, which brings commercial motor vehicles under the McKenna import duties, several I abour members will move to leave out the clause. A similar amendment comes from the Liberal benches along with amendments to delay the operation of the clause for a year and to require the consent of a committee set up under the Safeguarding of Industries Act, 1921.
Clause 13 enacts the increased scale of duties for hackney and commercial vehicles set out in the schedule, and Mr. Benjamin Smith, backed by several other Labour members, proposes that the increases should be confined to vehicles not fitted with pneumatic tyres.
Clause 40, which takes one-third of the taxes paid in respect of private motorcars and cycles for general Exchequer purposes, is opposed by Mr. Lloyd George and other Liberal members as well as Labour members, who seek the omission of the clause. There are also delaying amendments and proposals to reduce the one-third to one-eighth or one-tenth, the latter proportion finding favour with Sir John Simon. Clause 41, which sanctions the transfer of £7,000,000 from the Road Fund to the Exchequer, is also opposed by Mr. Lloyd George and other Liberal and Labour members, who desire its deletion, whilst Mr. Snowden and a group of Labour and Liberal members have attached their names to an amendment reducing the contribution from £7,000,000 to £1,000,000.