Road Transport Topics
Page 34
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In Parliament
EFFECTS OF THE BUDGET
"MORE EQUITABLE" OIL-FUEL TAX!
THE Chancellor of the Exchequer, during his Budget statement, on Monday, said that the development of the oil engine, however admirable in itself, -threatened danger to the important revenue derived from light hydro-carbon oils. There were now said to be well over 7,000 oil engines on the roads, and the number was daily increasing.
This form of power unit did as much work on one gallon of fuel as a petrol engine did on a gallon and three quarters. With duty on heavy oil at only lit. a gallon and the duty on petrol at sd., enormous fiscal advantage.accrued to the former type. In 1933-the licence duty on heavy-oil vehicles was increased to a greater extent than that on corresponding petrol vehicles, but the licence duty did not bear any relation to the amount of work performed.
The totaltaxation now -borne by oilers doing a moderate annual mileage was only . from one-half to two-thirds of that charged on corresponding petrol vehicles. In consequence, he reckoned that he lost, last year, £1,300,000 in revenue, which figure might well rise to £2,200,000. He could not, therefore, contemplate a threat to the oil duty of that character with equanimity.
Whilst he had no..desire to cramp the development of the compression-ignition engine, he must ask it to make a larger contribution to the revenue. He proposed, therefore, to remove this (if. ferential licence duty from August 1, and to substitute a more adequate and more equitable form of taxation, by raising the duty on heavy oil, used as fuel by road vehicles, to 8d. a gallon. This would be confined to all users of road vehicles, and, although the duty was equalized, the oil engine would still retain its advantage of more economical running. had he also taken this fact into account, he would have had to have raised the duty to Is. 2d.
It was -necessary that the duty should be backed by a prohibition, supported by heavy penalties, on the use of untaxed oil. He could not bring the tax into operation until next August. H he had been able to impose the increase now, it would have yielded, for the full year, £1,200,000. As it was, he could count on only £800,000 for the current year.
LOWER LICENCE DUTIES FOR OILERS.
T"proposed changes in the licence duties of oilers are set out in the printed Financial Statement as follow : it is proposed that, as from August 1, 1935, hack.ney carriages and goods vehicles fitted with,Diecs.eldeurr rtegnecttgiosi thosepayable o.lzlken
ROAD FUND'S 41 MILLION suReLus FOR THE TREASURY.
DEALING with the Road Fund, the L./Chancellor of the Exchequer said that, in spite of the reduction of the horse-power tax on private cars by 25 per-cent. last year, the licence duty on road vehicles produced £800,000 more
than it did in 1933-4. At the same time the Outgoings of the Fund were curtailed by a reduction in the programme which followed upon the crisis of 1931.
.The result was that on March 31 last there was an apparent . surplus of £7,000,000 — apparent because £2,530,000 was a debt owing to the Exchequer in repayment of the loans given in 1931 and 1932.
He had not given the order. for repayment until this year, accordingly that sum was included in the estimate of Miscellaneous Receipts. A free balance of £4,470,000 remained in the Road Fund, and the need for curtailment of programmes was past. This would involve additional calls on the Fund, but these calls would only come in as the commitments matured, and in the near future the income of the Fund, present and prospective, would be ample to meet all demands.
Whilst there was, therefore, no need, for the purpose of the Road Fund, of this £4,470,000, there existed a pressing need for it elsewhere, as an addition to his modest surplus which was to be used for the relief of taxation. Accordingly he hadinformed Mr. HoreBelisha that he proposed to transfer this sum to the Exchequer.
The Minister of Transport had expressed reluctance, but he had assured him that if money were later required for the roads which the Road Fund could not supply, he would be entitled to ask him for consideration.
SETBACK TO OIL-ENGINE DEVELOPMENT.
I N the brief discussion following the introduction of the Budget, Mr. Macquieten said the petrol engine and the petrol tank were the most dangerous things mankind had invented. There
were nany persons who hoped that the oil engine would eventually take the place of the petrol engine for aviation.
So long as oil-fuel was practically untouched by taxation, the compression-ignition engine was making progress. Now he was afraid a heavy blow had been struck at it, and he was deeply disappointed.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that the tax would be applied to oil-fuel used by the engines of road machines, to which Mr. Macquisten replied that it was only by development of the road machine that they could reach the stage when oil'engines could be applied to air craft.
EFFICIENCY OF P.S.V. DRIVERS.
NAB. LUNN, having pointed out that I.V.Lin 1934, 65,629 road deaths were concerned with private cars and 8,615 with public service vehicles, asked the Minister whether means could be instistated to ensure that drivers of private cars were not less careful than those of public service vehicles. Mr. HorsBelisha said that whilst there was one accident for every 20 private cars as compared with one for every five public service vehicles, it must be borne in mind that a true comparison would necessitate an estimate of the accident incidence per car-mile and that other considerations must be taken into account. The standard of driving of public service vehicles had improved as a result of the special tests which their drivers had to undergo, and he hoped that a similar result would ultimately follow the driving tests for all drivers.
Mr. Lunn asked if he were to understand that the Minister agreed that there was a higher standard of efficiency, and that greater care was taken by drivers oi public service vehicles, than in the case of the private motorist.
The Minister said he had stated the considerations which should be borne in mind, and he did not think he could say anything further than that.
CLASS DISTINCTIONS IN DRIVERS' HOURS.
TTENTION was drawn by Mr.
Holdsworth to the fact that the Minister of Transport made an Order in November, 1934, varying the provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in relation to the hours of drivers of certain goods vehicles used under A and B licences, but subsequently decided not to make a similar order in relation to the hours of the drivers of goods vehicles used under C licences. He asked whether the Minister would now say what the grounds were for the distinction between the hours of drivers of vehicles used under A and B licences on the one hand, and under C licences on the other hand.
Mr. Hore-Belisha replied that he did not feel justified in extending further the scope of the Order referred to, to include a large number of persons engaged in a variety of trades and industries and in a diversity of occupations. not necessarily confined to driving.