1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
Road Transport Topics
Page 123
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In Parliament
PROTESTS AGAINST ROAD-FUND RAID.
A DEBATE took place in the House -of Commons last week on the report of the Budget resolution to transfer £4,470,000 from the Road Fund to the Exchequer. Mr. Parkinson, on behalf of the Labour Opposition, moved to leave out 24,000,000. He maintained that the Fund was established in 1909 for the purpose of road improvements, definite declarations having been made to that effect by Mr. Lloyd George, then Chancellor of the Exchequer.
Motorists paid the money for improving _roads and bridges and ought. not to have to contribute twice to the general revenue'. Local .authorities, -vehicle makers and road users all -opposed this transference. The Fund, he insisted, should be:uSed for therelief of the first-named More than it vas. The Excheepi6r appropriations' had increased from £10,000,000 in 1927 to £42,000,000 in 1934. The Chancellor was not giving the local authorities a good start with_ their fiVe-year roadimprovement programmes.
Sir Percy Harris emphasized the need for road expansion in the interests of industry ; Sir John Power supported the course pursued 'hy. the Chancellor ; Captain Strickland denounced it as a dishonest proposal and hoped the House would enter an emphatic protest against the treatment perpetually being given to the great motor industry.
LICENCE DUTIES PART OF EXCHEQUER REVENUE.
THE Chancellor of the Exchequer replied that the pledges made in 1909 were irrelevant to the present case. -After the war, the ,new Road ImprOVement. Fund was set tip into which was paid only the licence duty and no longer the motor-spirit duty. Therefore, only pledges given after the war were relevant to this discussion: It was ridiculous to pretend that a Minister could pledge succeeding Parliaments, for all time, to carry out an undertaking he might give as to the .destination of particular taxes.
Dr. Addison said the Chancellor was not fairly representing the position. These were taxes paid into a fund created for a special purpose.
Mr. Chamberlain pointed out that these taxes were not paid into the Road Fund, but into the Exchequer, which issued them into the Road Fund after certain deductions had been made. They were part of the revenue of the Exchequer, and it was only because of a decision of Parliament, that a portion of the money that was paid into the Exchequer from licence duties was issued to the Road Fund.
He denied that the transfer of the
balance to help the small income-tax payer, who was often the small motorist, too, would cripple the roadimprovement programme. At the rate at which the Fund was receiving in-corm from the licence duties, they anticipated that there would be ample provision to meet the new commitments as they matured.
He repeated that, if more lunacy were required for the roads than the Road Fund could supply, the Minister of Transport had a. right to represent to him that further provision should be made, in order that thoSe 'schemes should not suffer,
After further discussionthe amendment was rejected by 213 votes to 57, and the resolution carried by 206 votes to 53.
DUTY ON STOCKS OF HEAVY
THE Financial Secretary to the Treasury made the following statement:----On and after August 8, no heavy oil that has not paid the increased duty of Sd. per gallon may be used as fuel in road vehicles. Stocks of heavy oil remaining in the hands of users or dealers on August 8, which have been rebated and, therefore, have only borne the existing duty of id, may, however, be so used, provided that the full duty of Rd. is paid —that is, provided the amount of the rebate, 7d, per gallon, is repaid to the Customs.
Full and detailed information as to the procedure in these respects, and in regard to the new duty generally, will be issued in due course.
EXTENSION OF ROAD SERVICE LICENCE PERIODS.
THE Traffic Commissioners, it was stated by Mr. flore-Belisha, are of opinion that conditions are not yet sufficiently stable to warrant the extension, from one year to three, of the period of validity of road service licences in respect of stage-carriage services.
Mr. McKeag pointed out that the necessity of making annual applications for renewal of their road service licences was a burden, particularly upon the smaller type of bus operator, and he suggested that the Minister should expedite the extension of the period. Mr. Hore-Belisha replied that, when stability had been reached, the question could be more appropriately considered. RAILWAY OIL ENGINES ESCAPE DUTY.
Tim Secretary to the Treasury, upon being asked whether it was intended that railway oil engines should be permitted to use untaxed fuel, said the proposed duty would apply solely to oil used in road vehicles. Railway oil engines would be entitledto run on oil which had paid only the existing duty of id.
Mr. Somerville asked whether this was not giving a very big and unfair advantage to 'railway transport over road transport. Sir P. Harris desired the Minister to say why this preference was given to railways over road users.
The Secretary to the Treasury pointed out that the duty was introduced in order to prevent the competition which oil-fuel was carrying on with petrol in road vehicles, and the loss to the Exchequer which was re
sulting from that competition. Mr. Godfrey Nicholson suggested that. the Government should bear in mind the competition which oil-fuel ,engines carried on with coal.
LONDON TRANSPORT A PUBLIC AUTHORITY.:
THE Minister of Transport %vas asked by Captain Strickland, Member for Coventry, whether his attention had been drawn to the decision of Judge Beazley at Ilford county court, on Monday, April 15, last. This was to the effect that the London Passenger Transport Board was entitled to the protection of the Public Authorities Act, because it was stated to be a public authority in the London Passenger Transport Act and was not trading for profit but carrying on its business' for the public benefit. He also inquired if he were satisfied that the present and future practice of the Board would entail its obtaining, from outside sources, essential supplies of accessories which had hitherto been furnished by independent companies.
Mr. 1-lore-Belisha said his attention had been drawn to the judgment referred to. The Board was free—subject totcornpliance with Sections 6 and 21 of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933---to purchase its supplies as it thought proper in the interests of the Board.
LICENCES CONDITIONAL TO FAIR WAGES.
NAR. THORNE asked the Minister of IVITransport whether the Traffic Commissioners refused licences to operators who did not pay the recognized rates of wages or observe the recognized conditions of labour agreed to by the workers' trade unions and the employers' organizations. Captain A. Hudson, the Parliamentaty Secretary, replied that every A and B licence was subject to a condition that required the holder to comply with the 'fair wages resolution. Failure to observe this condition would render him liable to prosecution , and, in certain circumstances, his licence might be suspended or revoked. R9