Reluctant Concession
Page 35
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WITH great reluctance the Government have agreed to exempt from the levy vehicles up to 30 cwt. unladen instead of a ton. The unit charge will remain at 13s. 6d., but as a result of the exclusion of a further 90,000 vehicles, the period over which the levy will have to be paid will be extended. The operators of about 470,000 vehicles will escape the impost, which will now be imposed on 495,000 vans and lorries.
Viscount Swinton, who, on behalf of the Government, moved the amendment to the Transport Bill in the House of Lords, had little confidence in the arguments that he used in support of his action. He said that the intention was to exempt vehicles used by traders for retail delivery. Originally, a ton had been thought to be a reasonable limit, but. Viscount Swinton complained, there were no accurate statistics on which to work in assessing the unladen weights of the Vehicles commonly used by retail traders.
Such a confession of ignorance, coming from a Government spokesman at a time when the Bill was nearing its final stages of debate, was surprising and alarrning. • The required information is readily available to anyone who seeks it.
Expert Advice With the approval and support of the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, The Conunercial Motor publishes annually the specifications of all British commercial vehicles. From this tabulation, the types of vehicle built and used for retail distribution and their unladen weight are readily identifiable. If the Government had been so anxious to ensure equity in tile application of the levy, they might have consulted, in the first place, competent, recognized sources of technical information. Instead, they used the pin-spotting method, as though they were backing a horse, and reluctantly gave way to expert opinion only at the last moment.
Viscount Swinton refused to entertain the suggestion of Lord Silkin and Lord Lucas of Chilworth that the weight limit should be raised ,to 2 tons. If this proposal were adopted, he said, the unit charge would have to be increased from 13s. 6d. to 16s. 6d. The levy fund would otherwise lose £700,000. In any event, exemption would then be extended to A and B licence holders, as well as to the C licensees who were intended to benefit.
Lord Lucas' reply was powerful and destructive. Speaking with a disgust of the entire principle of levy," he declared that 77 per cent. of the levy was still to be paid by ancillary users and only 23 per cent, by hauliers. "If that is justice and equity," he said, "then I do not understand it."
Face Saved Viscount Swinton was unable to reply to this argument, because the amendment proposed by the Socialist peers was ruled out of order and discussion ceased. The Government were thus saved further embarrassment, for they could have offered no convincing answer to such justifiable condemnation of the levy.
Lord Lucas scored another strong point when he said that the difficulties encountered by the Government in deciding an equitable line of demarcation exposed "completely the idiotic fallacy of taxing goods-carrying vehicles by an unladen-weight formula." His plea for the taxation of vehicles by laden weight was obliquely supported by Earl Howe, although the Earl was• opposed to any further increase in the limit of exemption from the levy.
His attitude was based on a belief that to exclude vehicles weighing 2 tons would encourage the overloading—" which is already very serious "of light commercial vehicles, to the detriment of public safety. Such overloading as is at present practised is the result of a fallacious taxation policy, which encourages the injudicious paring of weight and confers an unfair advantage on the operator who abuses his vehicle and endangers life. The remedy lies with the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
The levy creates yet another fiscal anomaly for the road transport operator. The whole system of motor taxation is falsely based and basely applied, and the levy is indeed in fitting company with a legalized process of extortion without pretence of equity.