Before the debate was adjourned I was dealing with this amendment, which seeks to exempt from road duty vehicles which are used in quarries or pit solely for the purpose of raising material for the construction of roads. I wish to make it quite clear that it is machinery and vehicles carrying that machinery used solely for the purpose of raising of material for road construction I have in mind. If, one day during the year, the vehicle carries machinery used for any other purpose than raising material for roads for that one day, then the exemption would cease to have application and the normal duty would be payable.
The present situation is that mobile tar tankers, tar sprayers, loaders, bulldozers, graders, excavators—all that type of travelling machinery—are exempt from this tax, but because a stone-crusher or a compressor may be mounted on a vehicle, the vehicle carrying that stone-crusher, and doing nothing else, and the stone-crusher, which does nothing else except raise road materials, are liable.
I understand further that if a compressor or a crusher were put on a low loader, the low loader carrying it would not be liable. Because it is put on a lorry chassis, it is liable, whether it is a lorry or an articulated vehicle. If it is carried by a low loader it would not be liable, but because it is on an ordinary lorry, it is liable. That is not fair. It seems to me contrary not merely to what was the intention of the section but also to commonsense. When I say it is contrary to the commonsense of the section, I am not indicating any argument on the interpretation of the original section. It seems to be a contradiction in terms that something used for the purpose of road construction in this way should be liable to road tax. The two things are not compatible. As the big tanker carrying the tar is exempt, so should the vehicle mentioned in my amendment.