Road Transport Activities in PARLIAMENT
Page 62
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent 2d. More on Petrol.
THE Budget, as had for some time been anticipated in road-transport circles, laid an additional impost on the owners of mechanically propelled vehicles by raising the tax on petrol from 4d. to 6d. a gallon. The Chancellor of the Exchequer's words may be quoted in extenso.
Mr. Snowden's Explanation.
" T HAVE reviewed in my search for 1 revenue the whole field of taxation, both direct and indirect, and after careful consideration I have come to the conclusion to increase the duty on oil. The present rate of duty is 4d. per gallon, and I propose to raise it to 6d., an increase of 24.
"The consumption of oil has steadily increased since the duty was imposed in 1928, despite the rise in the price of petrol by 4fd. per gallon which then occurred and a further subsequent rise of 21d. which took place in March, 1929. Last September. however, the price was reduced by 2d. per gallon, and a further similar reduction was made again only last month.
"The proposed increase in the duty will, therefore, still leave petrol no dearer than it was before March and lower in price than it was before last September. I estimate that the tax will yield me exactly the sum I require, E7,500,000 in the current year and over £8,000,000 in a full year."
Thereafter the ways and means resolution giving effect to the increased tax as from April 28th was agreed to.
Agricultural Critics.
AT its meeting last Tuesday, the Conservative Agricultural Committee discussed the Budget proposals as affecting agriculture, and exception was taken to the increase in petrol duty as affecting mechanical farming methods.
Major Colfox, M.P., called attention to the injurious effects on the 'business of village carriers of some of the regulations under the new Road Traffic Act. A committee was appointed to investigate the matter, with a view of representations being made to the Minister of Transport.
The London Passenger Transport Bill.
4T the first meeting, last Tuesday, of the Joint Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill, an application was made by counsel for an adjournment on the ground that the basis of an agreement between the Government and the Underground Railway group had been proposed and would be submitted on Friday for the approval of the shareholders. It was also suggested that a still wider agreement between other petitioners against the Bill was possible.
Sixty-five petitions against the Bill B44 have been presented and 26 counsel are appearing for the various interests before the committee.
Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., for the Government, intimated that discussions had been proceeding for some time to see whether a basis of settlement could be arrived at with the London 'Underground group and the proposals had fructified, a basis of agreement being assented to by the boards of the companies concerned. These boards, however, were anxious to consult the shareholders and they proposed to do so on Friday.
In the circumstances, it was highly inconvenient that the Bill should be proceeded with that day or before the promoters had had an opportunity,for putting into the Bill the necessary alterations required in view of the agreements reached. It was hoped to have them ready and printed on Tuesday, so that the proceedings might be resumed on Wednesday of the next week. There were also negotiations with other opponents of the Bill, which, it was 'hoped, would be satisfactorily concluded.
Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C., for the Underground group, agreed with what had been said, but he thought the date of the resumption would not give sufficient time to the opponents to consider the amendments. Sir Leslie Scott, K.C., for the Metropolitan Railway, and Mr. E. Charteris, K.C., for the London County Council, also agreed that there should. be a longer interval.
Finally, it was agreed that the committee should adjourn until May 12th, and that it should sit on Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of that weak. The committee then adjourned.
Money We-solution.
ADAY or two before the committee met the House of Commons passed a resolution authorising the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of :—
(a) The expenses of the London Passenger Transport Arbitration Tribunal to be constituted under the Act, including the remuneration of members and staff of the tribunal; (b) Any additional expense incurred by reason of the provisions of the Act in connection with the Railway Rates Tribunal ; (c) Any sum payable by the Minister into the Metropolitan Police Fund in respect of costs incurred in connection with the licensing of the drivers and conductors of certain vehicles; (d) Any expenses incurred by the Board of Trade in the granting of certificates in connection with the distribution of transport stock and money forming part of the consideration for the transfer of statutory undertakings to the Board ; and (e) The costs, charges and expenses preliminary to, of and incidental to the preparing, applying for, obtaining and passing of the Act.
Expenses Under the Bill.
lUrR. MORRISON, in moving the IN1resolution, said that ultimately it involved no money to the State, but for a transitory period there would have to be an amount of expenditure which would be recovered from the London PassengereTransport Board when it was established and working. There was to be an Arbitration Tribunal, and obviously it would have to be paid and there would have to be staffs.
It was estimated that the expenses of the Tribunal would be in the region of £135,000, on the assumption that the work would occupy about two years. There was a precedent for this arrangement under the Railways Act.
The Railway Rates Tribunal might have to incur some expenditure which would be recovered from the Board. The third point referred to payments to the Metropolitan Police Fund. Under the Road Traffic Act, the licensing of stage carriages in the Metropolitan area remained with .the Metropolitan Police, although the licensing of coaches went to the Traffic Commissioner.
Under the Bill, the power to license .stage carriages would pass to the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, functioning under the Road Traffic Act, and, unless agreement was otherwise reached, so would the licensing of drivers and conductors. If the Police continued to license drivers and conductors it might be necessary that some of the expenses in this and other connections -would have to be met, so far as the'Police were concerned. They would have to be reimbursed from the Road Fund and, therefore, that provision appeared in the resolution, although it was probable that the greater part of the expenditure would .be met out of fees.
The fourth provision dealt with the issue of transport stock in connection with the winding up of existing undertakings and certain expenses not material in amount which might 'he incurred by the Board of Trade. Then there were the costs of securing the passage of the Bill which would fall upon the Board. All the money would, therefore, be paid back to the 'State.
70 Counsel to be Paid.
oln P. CUNLIFFE-LISTER sugOgested that two years seemed a long time for the work of the Arbitration Tribunal and, apparently, contentious issues were 'anticipated. From the point of View of the stockholders of municipal and other undertakings, a certain amount of justification was required. He asked for an estimate of the costs of promoting the Bill. If 70 counsel were to be paid for an indefinite number of days the prospect would not he warmly received in any quarter of the House.
Mr. Morrison said the expenditure for the Arbitration Tribunal must depend upon the measure of agreement possible in the meantime. He hoped there would be such an agreement between the Government and the 'parties concerned and that the estimated expenditure would not be exceeded. Ile also hoped that before the Bill passed, he would be able to give the names of the Commissioners to be appointed by the Lord Chancellor, so that, if pp"ible, they might be incorporated in the Bill. With regard to future expenditure, the nearest possible estimate was about £25,000. The resolution was agreed to.