Road Transport Topics
Page 47
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
In Parliament s
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
OUTCRY AGAINST OIL TAX.
TN the course of the discussions on the !Budget, last week, the raid on the Road Fund and the tax on oil fuel used • for road-vehicles were sharply criticized. The chief attack on the oil tax came from Mr. Morgan Jones, speaking for the Labour Opposition.
He said that the number of oilengined buses owned by the \London Passenger Transport Board was, he believed, 600, and at 9 m.p.g. the Board would consume about 3,000,000 gallons per year. If it were to pay 7d. per gallon additional tax, that meant £150 per bus, which was a stiff imposition. For 600 vehicles it amounted to £00,000 a year. He understood that a large number of local authorities, at considerable cost, had converted petrol vehicles to oilers, because the latter were cheaper to run.
It was not strictly correct merely to compare the difference between the tax paid on the petrol vehicle and that paid on the oiler, because the cost of the latter was considerably greater than that of the former. He was told that a petrol vehicle weighing 4 tons to 5 tons, cost in taxation about £70 a year, but the oiler, being heavier, paid about £120 a year. The extra running costs would probably be about id. per
He was informed that the tax on an 8-14-seater petrol vehicle was £24, compared with £42 in the case of the oilengined vehicle ; on a 14-20-seater it was £26, compared with £48; on a 20-26-seater £48, compared with £68, and so on up the scale. The Chancellor of the Exchequer pointed out that he was equalizing Ile duty.
BIG OIL-ENGINE ORDER CANCELLED.
AS his answer to this statement, Mr. Morgan Jones said he ,had had a message inforining him that an order placed for ten oil engines was cancelled that morning by a well-known London company. The incidence of the change Vi3. bound to be heavy on local authorities and there would be a substantial discouragement of research.
The Chancellor had said he did not want to cramp development, hut the event might be somewhat different from his anticipation. Was this policy now being followed, he asked, in the interest of the railways? He also inquired whether the Transport Advisory Committee had been consulted in any way whatever.
Sir Herbert Samuel spoke of the financial implications of the Chancellor's action in sweeping away £7,500,000 from the Road Fund. Dick Turpin, he remarked, only stole from passengers on the highways, but the Chancellor was stealing the highways from the passengers. This was cer
tainly not an example of sound finance.
Mr. Mabane thought this raid raised the question of the position of the Ministry of Transport. He asked if it had been degraded to the position of a subordinate department.
Mr. Wilmot said the tax on heavy oil would destroy the oil-engine industry, as the motive for using this type of power-unit would largely disappear. He also objected to diverting the Road Fund balance to the Treasury, OILER STILL AT AN ADVANTAGE.
REPLYING to the debate on the second day, Mr. Duff Cooper, Financial Secretary to the Treasury, informed the House that the oil Customs duty would apply only to heavy oils bought with Customs duty. The measure was mainly to meet a loss of income which the Exchequer suffered in consequence of the competition of oil engines with petrol engines. During the past year the increase of goods vehicles running on oil fuel had been 304 per cent., whilst the increase of petrol-engined goods vehicles was only 3 per cent. The number of passenger vehicles using oil was about 50 per cent., whilst there was actually a falling off of 4 per cent, in the number of similar vehicles running on petrol.
That showed that competition so large could no longer be disregarded. Even under the new system, the oil engine would have considerable advantage, for the licence rates had been reduced to the level of petrol vehicles, so that, actually, ion the oiler, instead of eightpence, only fivepence a gallen was paid.
He did not think this was a tax on invention, as had been suggested. The oiler would still have the advantage over competitors.
The question of the collection of the duty had been studied most carefully, and it did not present insuperable difficulties. With regard to the position of the Minister of Transport and the diversion of the Road Fund balance, the Minister of Transport had never had the free disposal of the Road Fund and had no grievance.
SHORT-SIGHTED ACCOUNTANCY.
MR,ATTLEE, the Deputy Leader of the Labour Party, declared that, unlike Mr. Churchill, whose object in robbing hen-roosts was to get rid of a debt, the present Chancellor robbed hen-roosts in order to create an entirely false surplus. Of that false surplus of
£11,000,000 £7,000,000 came from the Road Fund, and of that sum £4,000,000 was barefaced robbery. The Chancellor was afraid that, if the oil-engined vehicle gained more ground, he would lose half his revenue, and was therefore going to hamper its use.
This was the narrow Treasuryaccountancy point of view. If a vehicle with an oil engine were a more efficient form of transport for this country, then its utilization must be to the advantage of the wealth of this country.
RETROGRESSIVE POLICY.
1% AR. ORR-EWING said' the roadaltransport industry was the only large field for the development of internal-combustion engines. Five years ago only 100 oilers were on the road ; to-day there were over 6,000. The oil engine had entirely revolutionized the modern motor vehicle. Experiments in oil-engine development had advanced metallurgical science. Apart from the assistance to industry rendered by the lower operating costs of the oil engine, the possibility of the development of aero engines using oil fuel should be considered. It was a retrogressive policy to tax a new invention because it competed with one in existence.
Mr. David Evans agreed with Mr. Orr-Ewing and deprecated methods of taxation that tended to cripple one of the most successful industries in this country. The Budget resolutions were agreed to.
NUMBER OF RECORDS EXAMINERS.
UPON being asked to state the numberber of examiners employed by the Ministry of Transport in the examination of hours of work, etc., of drivers of goods vehicles and the number of examinations made, Mr. Hore-13elisha said this work was included in duties entrusted to officers and examiners appointed by the Minister of Transport under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933.
The number of these officers was 228. Police constables were also entrusted to examine records. The total number of examinations made was not aggregated.
STOPPING VEHICLES FOR WEIGHING.
THE attention of the Minister of Transport was called by Mr. Aled Roberts to the fact that certain highway authorities have provided portable signboards bearing the inscription, "Stop—Road Traffic Officer," and he was asked whether, in view of the fact that a driver is obliged to stop only at the request of a police constable in uniform, he would cause the use of such notices to be discontinued.
The Parliamentary Secretary replied that, in the absence of a means for stopping vehicles, the powers of highway authorities under Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, to weigh vehicles, could not be effectively carried out. Therefore, under the powers conferred by Section 48 of the Act, the Minister had authorized the use of signs of this type.