OPINIONS and QUERIES
Page 53
Page 54
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WHERE THE PETROL TAX GOES.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
14413] Sir,—A letter from you was recently published in The Daily Express. It was in reply ,to a leading article in that paper, in which it was stated that airmen paid petrol tax which went to road upkeep, and you pointed out that, actually, all the petrol tax went to general revenue, as dick a further 'minimum of .£5,000,000 taken from the motor-vehicle duties.
A correspondent who signed himself " Lex," of the Inner Temple, then wrote to The Daily Express stating that you were wrong, but this assertion by "'Lex " as to the effect of the 1926 Finance Act upon the Road Fund Revenue from motor-spirit duties is inadmissible, because, in that year, no enactment was in force to provide for the collection of such ditties, and no revenue receipts from this specific source have been recorded since 1921-1922, when the figure was only 4169,000. For similar reasons, this duty obviously could not receive mention in the 1929 Local Government Act.
The existing corresponding duty, which first became operative in 1928, is applied to a much wider range of hydrocarbon oils as used for aircraft, shipping, industrial and commercial machinery and processes, and for private and commercial road vehicles.
• The statement in The Daily Express was wrong, and in endeavouring to correct you, has failed.
Grays. A. S. MIDDLETON.
MR. DONALDSON WRIGHT JOINS ISSUE WITH OUR COSTS EXPERT S.T.R.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[1414] Sir,—I observe with much regret that my old and esteemed friend S.T.R. is concerned as to an allegation that he is encouraging rate-cutting on a certain type of traffic, and as I happen to be the guilty party who has dared to make the "accusation," I feel I must crave the hospitality of your columns to reply to his observations in your issue of last week.
In your, issue dated August 31 you published a letter, presumably from a small operator, who enquired as to the appropriate rates to charge on a parcels service " 100 miles around Nottingham, London to the South Coast, and from Nottingham to South Wales."
This letter was headed by you "A Long-distance Parcels Service." In his reply S.T.R. indicated a scale of zrates on parcels ranging in steps from 14 lb. to 1 cwt. for varying distances, and I considered it my duty to draw your attention to the fact that the rates suggested were considerably below the rates operated by estab
fished concerns which run long-distance parcel services on an organized and regular basis.
I will now quote from the observations of S.T.R. in his .retent article:— "I quoted a figure to an owner-driver who was
considering the establishment of a simple round of parcels collection and delivery. The man to whom .1 was giving advice was simply an owner-driver, proposing to operate much on the same lines as the
' old-fashioned country carrier. His organliation would be, practically speaking, negligible."
Now that is just where I join issue with S.T.R. " A simple round of parcels collection and delivery" can in no sense bear comparison with "a long-distance service from the Midlands to London, the South Coast and South Wales," and such a service cannot possibly be operated "on the same lines as the old-fashioned country carrier." I quite agree that "such a man is an essential part of the transport of the country," but his functions cannot be compared to the long-distance operator who, by the ramification of his services, can cover the whole of the country, both industrial and rural.
"The old-fashioned country carrier" who now runs his motor vehicles is an essential link in the chain of the long-distance operator, who is glad to utilize his services for deliveries in the rural areas. But to encourage this type of man to enter the long-distance side of the business at rates that are lower than the established concerns is, surely, a grave error.
The country carrier has his own scale of rates for traffic that originates in his industrial centre, but in my experience I often find it difficult to persuade this man to discriminate between this type of traffic and longdistance traffic handed to him for delivery, which cannot command the same rate as purely local goods.
Again I join issue with S.T.R. in his dismissal "of the idea that parcels carrying is a special branch of the haulage industry." It is most certainly a special branch of the " long-distance " haulage industry, and I am much concerned with the statement that the necessary "organization would be negligible." An organized long-distance " smalls " service needs a considerable staff to deal with the necessary waybilling and accountancy work, in addition to efficient depot accommodation for transhipment purposes, and the essence of a successful organization of this nature is point-to-point or depot-to-depot trunk services with efficient collection and delivery at each end.
I do most seriously submit that work of this nature is entirely beyond the scope of the type of man advised by your contributor, and that with only one vehicle, or B35 even a small fleet, he is not in a position to offer an efficient service over an area such as is indicated in the original enquiry I have, an intense admiration for the knowledge and ability of S.T.R., but I do submit that the " small man" should not be encouraged to come out of his legitimate sphere, where he is doing well and performing a useful service, into the thorny paths of long-distance operation in competition with the established concerns with which he should be working in co-operation.
I have purposely refrained from entering into the question of costs and the method. of arriving at a scale of rates because it is impossible to define the exact cost of carrying, say, a 28-1b. parcel for a distance of 100 miles. Collection and delivery, plus overheads, is an important factor, and consideration must be given to the natural ebb and flow of trade. Efficiency must be maintained, and the service must run whether the vehicles be fully loaded or not; for this reason it is impossible to arrive at a reliable figure of cost "per package."
shall be glad to hear the opinions of other operators on this important question.
• W. DONALD SON WRIGHT, Managing Director. Nottingham. For Donaldson Wright, Ltd.
ROAD REPRESENTATION IN PARLIAMENT.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[44151 Sir,—May I refer to the growing irritation at the anomalies, present and future, of the road. Most of the people in the industry, even yet, seem to be centred in their own particular anomalies. It is not the slightest use bemoaning the fact that this and that should be altered until the power to do so has been achieved. That power lies at Westiniffater and is gained through the ballot-box. A general election must come in the near future, and preparation for it must begin now.
It is reported that hopes are entertained of a coordinated body arising from private car and commercialvehicle interests, and this will, doubtless, be composed of the best brains of the two industries. It would, perhaps, be presumptuous on•my part to attempt to dictate to that body, but this is the sort of thing that they are up' against. The following is culled from a leading article in a daily paper. The article is headed No Petrol Tax for Airmen, and reads : "This tax of 8d. per gallon goes into the Road Fund. It is used to build highways, to improve conditions for motorists and other road users. The Road Fund has already got a large surplus. It is unjust and ridiculous to increase it by taxing travellers who do not use the roads."
Doubtless this illustration, taken at random, could be multiplied a hundredfold. Is it any wonder, then, that the pedestrian, spoon-fed on this sort of stuff, thinks of the private motorist as a bloated capitalist, and, being splashed with mud by a passing 6-tonner, thinks of commercial vehicles as beastly juggernauts. If pedestrians knew that the private motorist was a surgeon hurrying to save a child's life, and that the 6-tonner was bringing in the village food supply, well, of course, he might think a little differently.
When a modern locomotive breaks a speed record it .becomes a national hero and goes on a world tour ; if an up-to-date 12-tonner breaks a speed record, the driver will probably go to jail and the owner to the bankruptcy court., The solution of the road problem lies in vested interests in Parliament, but those vested interests have got to be road. A. R. Waseca. Glasgow.
B36
[Ir. Wilson refers in his letter to a leading article, dealing with the petrol tax, which appeared in the Daily Express. We wrote to the editor of this paper pointing out that the petrel tax does not go to the Road Fund, and he courteously published our letter, but two days later printed a further letter from a reader in which our statement was flatly contradicted. We then wrote the following letter :— " In view of the fact that our statements as to the disposal of the petrol tax have been contradicted by ' Lex,' we trust that you will permit us to justify them, and on no less an authority than the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The following is an extract from a speech by Mr. Neville Chamberlain in answer to the debate on the amendment to exempt owners of aircraft from the payment of duty on hydrocarbon oils. It is taken from Hansard dated June, 18, 1934. I wonder that my hon. Friend the Member for Melton did not make use of an argument—or perhaps I should say a fallacy—which *as apparent in the speeches of several other hon. Members, who were evidently under the impression that the tax which the motor owner pays upon his petrol is used to finance the maintenance and construction of roads. That is an entire misapprehension. It is not used for anything of the kind. The Petrol Tax is a general revenue tax, and the finance of the Road Fund comes entirely out of the Motor Vehicle Licence Duties. Therefore, it is an entire misapprehension to base any argument for the special consideration of aircraft on the ground that they have no roads to keep up and do not derive an advantage similar to that which the motor owner is
• alleged to get.' If furper proof be required by Lex,' this can be obtained from the Financial Statement (19241935) dated April 17. 1934, and obtainable from Stationery office (price 4d.). Table 9 of that Statement gives Sell-balancing Revenue Road Fund (Motor Vehicle Duties) estimated at £26,300,000. The duties on oils are included in the Customs and Excise Revenue, Table 12, the estimated total being £42,700,000. The Roacl. Fund
• would indeed consider itself fortunate to be in receipt of the total of £69,000,000 less only the minimum of £5,000,000 retained by the Exchequer from the duties on private motor vehicles. It is easy to see why .' Lex ' has made this error. The petrol tax, as it is loosely called, was for some years entirely replaced by the horsepower tax, and was reinstituted by Mr. Winston Churchill, later, being increased to finance the derating scheme." Al the time of writing this letter has not been inserted by the paper in question.—ED.]
STEAM-WAGON WEIGHTS AND SPEED&
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[406] Sir,—I notice in your footnote to the letter from Mr. Angus Mackay, published in your issue dated Oct. 5, that you state the maximum laden weight of a heavy motorcar with four wheels, including a steam wagon, to be 12 tons, and that the weight transmitted to the road by any one axle must not exceed 8 tons.
The Motor Vehicles (Construction and Use) (Amendment) Provisional Regulations, 1931, authorize the use of four-wheeled.i steam vehicles weighing 14 tons gross, if such vehicles have been registered before January 1, 1932; also, the axle weight may be nine tons.
1-layes. W. J. LovEsY.
[Mr. Lovesy is quite correct in pointing out an omission from our footnote to the letter from Mr. Angus Mackay, except that he does not make any reference to the fact that the Regulations permit a gross weight of 14 tons for four-wheeled steam wagons registered before January 1, 1932, only if the maximum speed, with or without a trailer, does not exceed 12 m.p.h. Incidentally, the unladen weight for a four-wheeler must not exceed 71 tons. It should also be noted that if the first registration be on or after January 1, 1932, the permissiblo gross load is reduced to 13 tons, provided that the vehicle be equipped with pneumatic tyres on all wheels. In this case there is no restriction on the speed, as compared with other heavy motorcars.—ED.]