I move that the Bill be now read a Second Time. The purpose of this Bill is to give effect to the announcement already made in the House that it was proposed to promote legislation to increase the standard lorry weight of licensed hauliers to ameliorate any hardship which might be caused by the proposed new motor taxation legislation. This motor tax legislation removes the doubts which have arisen as to what constitutes the weight of a motor vehicle for motor taxation purposes and provides that additions to lorries such as creels, side-boards, special bodies etc. must be included in the unladen weight of vehicles for taxation purposes.
Under road transport legislation, a licensed haulier may not operate in the course of his licensed business a lorry or lorries the total unladen weight of which for taxation purposes exceeds the standard lorry weight specified in his licence. This standard lorry weight is based ultimately on the weight of the lorry or lorries he operated prior to licensing though it has in fact been substantially increased since that date.
The existing level of standard lorry weights has been settled on the assumption that the weight of additions, such as creels, sideboards, etc. was included in the weight of vehicles for Road Tax purposes and therefore, in standard lorry weights. A number of licensed hauliers have challenged the official interpretation of the law relating to the weighing of vehicles for Road Tax purposes and have removed creels and other additions when their lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes.
The effect of the proposed taxation legislation on these cases could be to bring the unladen weight of their lorries over the standard lorry weight specified in their licences. Hauliers so affected would be unable to continue to use their present lorries and in the absence of an increase in standard lorry weight would either have to replace their lorries with lighter vehicles or operate them without the attachments or additions which might be essential to their business.
It can be said that this was a risk which they should have foreseen when they chose to anticipate an interpretation of the law favourable to themselves; it is nevertheless the case that many did so in good faith and that the new legislation may indeed cause them considerable inconvenience or even hardship. In these circumstances the Government feels that some increase in standard lorry weight might be granted to help offset such hardship as may arise.
It would be entirely inequitable, however, to grant an increase in standard lorry weight to licensed hauliers who had deliberately excluded such equipment as creels and side-boards when their lorries were being weighed for taxation purposes and to deny such an increase at the same time to licensed hauliers who to their own detriment, abided by the long-standing and more generally accepted interpretation of the law. It would mean that of two licensees who had been entitled to identical standard lorry weights ever since 1933 when licensing commenced, one would in future enjoy a greater standard lorry weight and be entitled thereby to use a larger vehicle.
There is a wide disparity in the lorry attachments which may be used by a licensed haulier. Some licensees may have acquired comparatively light attachments only, such as side-boards; others may have acquired creels or even special bodies or tanks affixed to their lorries. The extent to which such acquisitions may have brought about an excess on their standard lorry weight will vary considerably not only according to the type of attachment but also according to the type of lorry.
It would be entirely impracticable to determine the extent to which standard lorry weight may be exceeded as a result of the new motor taxation legislation in each of some 1,000 individual cases. Moreover, there would be nothing to prevent hauliers acquiring new and heavy additions now for weighing with their lorries on 1st January next. For these reasons, therefore, as well as on the grounds of equity I have already mentioned, it is essential that any increase in standard lorry weight should be on a uniform basis and applicable to all licensed hauliers.
A special increase in standard lorry weight of 7 cwt. per lorry to permit the use of livestock creels by licensed hauliers authorised to carry livestock has already been granted on grounds of hardship to about 190 hauliers. This increase applies only while the lorry is actually being used for the carriage of livestock. The figure of 7 cwt. was found on examination to be adequate to meet the additional weight of cattle creels used with the great majority of lorries operated by licensed hauliers, that is, lorries not exceeding 2 tons 15 cwt. unladen weight. It had been claimed on behalf of the licensed hauliers that because such creels were essential for the safe carriage of livestock and that, since the weight of creels had to be included in the weight of the lorry for road tax purposes, they could not in most cases be used at all without exceeding the relevant standard lorry weights under the Transport Acts.
In all the circumstances and having regard in particular to the fact that the present level of standard lorry weights is intended to include the weight of additions, the Government consider that a general increase of seven cwt., the amount already approved for livestock creels, would represent a reasonable and indeed a generous contribution towards relieving any genuine hardship that may be caused by the new road tax legislation. The existing conditional increase for livestock creels will of course be cancelled and replaced by the general unconditional increase provided for in the Bill.
It has been represented that the proposed increase of 7 cwt. per lorry is not sufficient to meet the hardship imposed on carriers who may use certain heavier equipment particularly lift vans and special cattle bodies which may weigh as much as 30 cwt. each. The degree of genuine hardship in these cases is somewhat questionable. As I have already indicated, the present level of standard lorryweight—which has been substantially increased since 1933—and the concession authorised for cattle creels were based on the assumption that all additions of this kind were included in the weight of lorries for tax purposes in accordance with the long standing official interpretation of the relevant road tax legislation.
Indeed, representatives of the licensed hauliers have been agitating for years for increases in standard lorryweight for such purposes on the grounds that these articles must, in fact, be included in the weight of their lorries when they are weighed for taxation purposes. Hauliers, therefore, who acquired special bodies of this kind, which brought the weight of their lorries over and above the approved standard lorryweights prescribed by their licences, must have done so in the full knowledge that an adverse Court decision could have put them in precisely the same position as the new road tax legislation.
Furthermore, this Bill envisages an all-round increase on a uniform basis and there is no practical alternative to an increase on a uniform basis for reason both of equity and administrative practicality. An all-round increase of the order of 25/30 cwt. per lorry would be out of the question as it would increase the total carrying capacity of licensed hauliers in general very substantially and would enable many of them to acquire additional or bigger lorries. This would lead to a substantial increase in competition with C.I.E. at a time when that undertaking is engaged on what is indeed a life and death struggle for survival.
For these reasons, and having regard to the whole background to this Bill, I am satisfied that the proposed all-round increase of seven cwt. per lorry is indeed a very generous contribution to such hardship as may exist. Nevertheless, I will be prepared to consider under the provisions of Section 116 of the Transport Act, 1944, any individual case of genuine and deserving hardship which may be brought to my attention.