House of Commons Hansard Debates for 15 Jul 1991

Mr. Tom Clarke : Nineteen eighty eight was three years ago. Some of us believe that the reference to that in the Chancellor's speech was a slip of the tongue. I do not know whether that was the case, but will the Financial Secretary tell us about the progress made by the Department of Trade and Industry's working party? If he cannot, the high hopes that were raised at the Downing street summit will have been dashed. We have heard nothing in the debate so far to offer us encouragement.

Mr. Maude : The hon. Gentleman will hear plenty about the work of the Department of Trade and Industry working party from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. I cannot report to the House about that this evening. I can report to the House about the state of the Government's mind on taxation issues and I am ready to do that.

My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that we would continue to pursue and discuss with the film industry what taxation measures might be introduced to assist the industry. It appears that the industry would support the measure. As I have said, we are not fundamentally out of sympathy with it. I am prepared to look carefully with the industry at the possibilities to discover whether the proposition offers an answer.

Sir Anthony Durant : My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary's response was not as forthcoming as I had hoped, but at least there was some sign that the proposal would be examined as part of the general examination of fiscal measures to help the industry. On the strict understanding that the proposal will not be lost in the discussions, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 16

United Kingdom authorised unit trusts

Authorised unit trusts : unfranked income trusts

468G--(1) This section applies where--

(a) as regards a distribution period ending after 31st December 1991 a dividend is treated by virtue of section 468(2) as paid to a unit holder (whether or not income is in fact paid to the unit holder), and

(b) all or part (in this section the appropriate portion' ) of the dividend is paid from sources other than franked investment income, and

(c) the dividend is treated as paid by the trustees of a unit trust scheme which is an authorised unit trust as respects the accounting period in which the distribution period falls, and

(d) arrangements with the Board as provided in section 468H are in force in respect of such unit trust scheme.

Column 122

(2) Where this section applies, if the unit holder to whom the dividend is treated as paid is not resident in the United Kingdom for the whole of the year of assessment in which the dividend is treated as paid and is resident in a qualifying country, he shall be entitled, on the payment (or deemed payment) of the appropriate portion of the dividend, to payment by the trustees of such unit trust scheme of the tax credit (if any) to which an individual resident in the United Kingdom would have been entitled had he received such dividend, and no United Kingdom tax shall be payable in respect of such dividend or the amount of the tax credit so paid.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2) above, a person shall be treated as not resident in the United Kingdom and resident in a qualifying country for a year of assessment if this is proved on a claim in that behalf made to the Board.

(4) Where units are held under a trust and the person who is the beneficiary in possession under the trust is the sole beneficiary in possession and can, by means either of the revocation of the trust or the exercise of any power under the trust, call upon the trustees at any time to transfer the units to him absolutely free from the trust, that person shall, for the purposes of this section, be treated as the unit holder.

(5) The trustees shall certify in writing to the investor the appropriate portion of the dividend together with the amount of the tax credit referable thereto and to which a recipient is entitled to a payment as provided in this section.

(6) In this section qualifying country' means any country which is at any time during such year of assessment a member state of the European Economic Community or any other country which is for the time being designated for the purposes of this section as a qualifying country by order made by the Board.

Authorised unit trusts : payment by trustees

468H--(1) The trustees of an authorised unit trust may enter into arrangements with the Board in respect of unit holders who would, if such arrangements were in force, be entitled to payment of the associated tax credit under section 468G.

(2) Under such arrangements where a dividend falling within section 468G is treated by virtue of section 468(2) as paid to unit holders in respect of whom the arrangements have been made--

(a) the trustees may pay to such unit holders the amount of the associated tax credit in respect of the appropriate portion of the dividend (the additional amount' ) ; and

(b) all additional amounts so paid shall be set against advance corporation tax which the trustees are liable to pay for the return period in which the dividend was paid and shall discharge a corresponding amount of that liability.

(3) The Board shall not make arrangements under this section unless they are satisfied that the payment of the additional amounts shall not enure to the benefit of persons other than those entitled thereto.

(4) The effective period of such arrangements shall begin with the date on which the arrangements are made, or such later or earlier date as may be specified in the arrangements, and shall end with the date on which either party receives notice in writing from the other terminating the arrange- ments, or such later date as may be specified in the notice.

(5) The trustees shall render the Board an account at such time, and containing such particulars relating to the dividend as the Board may require.'.-- [Mr. Watts.]

Mr. John Watts (Slough) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

New clause 16 would introduce two new sections into the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988--468G and 468H. I am moving the clause on behalf of the Unit Trusts Association, although I have no financial interest in that association.

Column 123

My hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury will have seen the same new clause in the Committee of last year's Finance Bill. I will therefore be brief in rehearsing the arguments because they are well known to him. I am moving the new clause again tonight to elicit what progress has been made in the discussions between my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary and the unit trust industry about changes in the tax regime to improve the competitive position of the British unit trust industry in the export market, particularly in the European Community. I know that my hon. Friend has an aversion to the phrase "level playing field", so I will avoid using it. The whole underlying purpose of the new clause is to provide a better basis on which the United Kingdom industry can compete and sell into what is an important investment market.

Without going into the detail of the drafting, which is unnecessary, the new clause would allow a foreign investor in a United Kingdom unit trust to receive dividends gross without deduction of tax. Such investors, perhaps in France or in Germany, would already be entitled to a tax credit and would be able to recover at a subsequent date tax deducted at source. If they invested in a domestic vehicle--in a French or German fund--they would not suffer that initial deduction. From the point of view of cash flow, the investor is better placed if a United Kingdom fund is able to pay dividends gross than he is under the present taxation arrangements. I know that in the past the Treasury has argued that that is a small part of the United Kingdom unit trust industry's business and that there is insufficient justification for changing the law to provide a better tax regime. The industry, of course, argues that one of the reasons why it is currently a small area of business is that the existing tax regime is unfavourable to the development of the business and that if the changes that I propose were made it would be far easier for it to sell its products into the European market and to add to our invisible export earnings. The industry argues that it would generate additional revenue for the Treasury because, although the investment vehicle itself would not generate tax income for the Treasury, the management activities of the unit trust managers would be more profitable and, therefore, they would pay more tax.

I have described the argument in essence. At present, the industry cannot compete in international income funds on the same terms as some of its European competitors. That sector of funds is critical to United Kingdom fund managers' export success because it combines the strengths of London as an international fund management centre with the increasing demand in Europe from the aging population for such investment vehicles which means that there is a large and growing market. I hope that my hon. Friend can give some encouraging reply to the debate today.

Mr. Maude : I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Mr. Watts) for raising the matter in the way that he has. I know that he has had a long-term interest in the matter and has, with my hon. Friend the Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith), pursued it consistently and effectively. All hon. Members share my hon. Friends' concern that United Kingdom unit trusts should be able to compete effectively with their continental counterparts.

Column 124

The special lower rate of corporation tax which we introduced for unit trusts in 1989 removed a serious disadvantage faced by unit trusts. The main beneficiaries were bond funds and it is encouraging to see recent advertisements for newly set up unit trusts investing in bonds. Moreover, an individual in this country who wants to invest in a collective investment fund cannot generally do better than to invest in a unit trust.

In the rest of the European Community, unit trusts investing in United Kingdom equities and in international equities growth are in a good position to compete with their continental counterparts. That is important given that those unit trusts account for the bulk of existing funds under management. The United Kingdom industry has most experience of running equities funds.

I recognise that the Unit Trust Association is concerned about the competitive position of unit trusts invested in bonds, and those that are invested in international equities for income. As I understand it, the new clause is aimed at improving the competitive position of these funds by allowing them to pay income to continental investors free of United Kingdom tax.

10.45 pm

The benefits, however, would not be as great as has been suggested. First, Britain is already a better place to set up income funds in international equities than Luxembourg, which is often seen as London's main competitor. However, in some cases a home country fund of this sort, for example, a French fund for a French investor, can produce a better return for investors. That would remain the case even if the new clause were adopted.

Second, taxpaying investors in other European Community countries, such as France, which give full credit for British tax would not end up with any more income from unit trusts after tax. They would simply end up paying extra home country tax that would cancel out the British tax that was saved.

Third, it is far from clear that tax is the main constraint on more sales by unit trusts on the continent. There are also the problems of the unfamiliarity of the trust vehicle in many Community countries and the difference in pricing methods. The Department of Trade and Industry is considering the case for company law changes to permit open-ended investment companies which might be more familiar to continental investors. But, as my hon. Friends accept, that is a complex exercise which will inevitably take some time.

The new clause is lengthy, and I fear it would be lengthier still once some extra parts had been added to make it workable. The end result would inevitably be a more complicated tax regime for unit trusts. It would mean a greater administrative burden for unit trust managers.

Overall, therefore, the new clause's disadvantages outweigh any benefits that it might bring, which might be more limited than has been suggested.

One of the disadvantages would be that there could be problems over foreign tax for equities funds on income from abroad which, in an extreme case, could mean that United Kingdom investors were worse off.

I know that the UTA is shortly to respond to an invitation from the DTI to put forward suggestions as to the form open-ended investment companies might take. It seems to me that the best way forward would be to see whether my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for

Column 125

Trade and Industry decides companies of this sort should be allowed. If so, we can then move on to look at how open- ended investment companies should be taxed, once we know what they look like. At that stage, we would of course be glad to have the industry's views on their tax treatment, including any comments on how continental investors should be dealt with.

I assure my hon. Friends that this is something that we take seriously. I have discussed this matter personally with the UTA on at least one occasion, if not several. It is certainly not something that we are allowing to go by default. We are concerned that British fund management,

Column 126

which is, after all, a great British success story, should not suffer competitive disadvantages by comparison with competition elsewhere in the European Community.

Mr. Watts : I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his acknowledgement of the importance of the role of the unit trust movement and his clear willingness to continue to examine with it the ways in which its competitive position might be improved.

On that basis, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

Column 127

New Clause 22

Car Tax : Amendment of Car Tax Act

1983

For section 52(2) of the Car Tax Act 1983 there shall be substituted the following :

"(2) Car tax on any vehicle shall be charged for vehicles recording a touring fuel consumption in the following categories :

(a) 40 m.p.g. and above--zero

(b) 30 m.p.g. to 39 m.p.g.--5

(d) zero to 24 m.p.g.--10

(2A) For the purpose of determining the Touring Fuel Consumption, official Government economy figures will be used as follows : 50 per cent of urban cycle

25 per cent of 56 m.p.h.

25 per cent of 75 m.p.h. steady speed cycles.".'.-- [Mr. Roger King.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Roger King (Birmingham, Northfield) : I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker) : With this, it will be convenient to consider also new clause 31-- Car tax : reduction where pollution control devices fitted --

--. After section 1(2) of the Car Tax Act 1983 there shall be added

"(2A) Where a chargeable vehicle other than a caravan is fitted with a catalytic converter (or such other pollution control device as the Treasury may specify in regulations made under this section) at the time car tax falls to be paid under section 5 below and that time is not earlier than 1st July 1991, subsection (2)(b) above shall have effect as if the reference to 10 per cent. was a reference to 7 per cent.".'.

Mr. King : It will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister that I rise again in a Finance Bill debate to raise the issue of the special car tax, which has been with us for many years--since value added tax was introduced--and which is a strong bone of contention with the motor industry belt of the west midlands where we feel that this element of taxation, which is unique to one type of product in the United Kingdom, detrimentally affects the sales of our products within the United Kingdom. At a time when the car industry is facing a downturn in its home market, we believe that the special car tax is long overdue for some reform.

A study of taxation of cars throughout Europe shows that in the United Kingdom the present level of taxation on a new car is in excess of 27 per cent., compared with 14 per cent. in Germany and about 22 per cent., which is falling rapidly and will fall further shortly, in countries such as France. Elsewhere the level of taxation is lower than in the United Kingdom.

Recently, car production in Britain has enjoyed a record level of output. That is because the industry has found a ready market overseas, principally in Europe, because of the improved quality of the product and its desirability in the marketplace. But it must be remembered that in connection with competitive pricing terms in the European market, the industry needs a strong home market. A strong home market gives it viability and competitiveness in the export market. While it is possible to make up for a shortfall in the home market by diverting products to the overseas market, that is not a long-term solution.

Column 128

In addition, the retail sector is feeling the effects of the prolonged recession to a greater degree than perhaps any other industry, save the construction industry. Many retail businesses have gone out of business as a result of the downturn in United Kingdom sales, which are expected to fall this year to 1.5 million or even 1.4 million, from a peak of 2.2 million in 1989.

Another factor that we must bear in mind is the Government's desire to improve on the green aspect of their policies. We all understand and applaud that. The trouble is that if one does not tackle the problem of the car, one's green policies are somewhat suspect. If we do not encourage the sale of new cars in the United Kingdom, we shall be left with a growing elderly fleet of cars which, by their nature, are obsolete in design and have inferior emission standards. So it is in every one's interests to ensure that there is a ready market for new environmentally acceptable motor cars in the United Kingdom. That means that we should do what we can to stimulate sales.

There is no doubt that, along with manufacturers, the retail sector is playing its part in reducing prices as much as possible and offering financial incentives to encourage those important sales. But whatever the retail sector and the manufacturers do, we are still left with the 27 per cent. level of taxation.

We understand the Government's problems in eliminating the 10 per cent. special car tax. The tax brings in a large sum of money. However, this year that income will be much reduced as a result of the downturn in the United Kingdom market. But we see some clear linkage between providing environmental incentives and reducing the 10 per cent. special car tax.

My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Transport put it clearly on Tuesday 9 July. He called on car makers to produce more fuel- efficient engines because

"We cannot waste any time getting to grips with this challenge It is, of course, for the Chancellor to decide whether any further changes in motoring taxation are appropriate to encourage greater fuel efficiency.

But fiscal incentives are a flexible instrument which require no new bureaucracy for their administration.

They leave motorists with complete freedom of choice while providing an incentive for them to choose economical cars and drive less aggressively.

At the same time they concentrate the minds of vehicle manufacturers on the importance of fuel economy."

We understand that fact. He was alluding there to possible changes in duty on fuel, but there are other ways. The 10 per cent. special car tax is one matter to which we should address ourselves. New clause 22 goes a long way to giving a clear indication of how the Government should think about encouraging the use of more environmentally friendly, fuel-efficient motor cars. We accept that it may not be possible to do something this year, but due consideration should be given in the next Budget to tackling the particular difficulty of the 10 per cent. special car tax. We have devised a formula and a method to implement it. It establishes a touring fuel consumption using the Government's fuel figures, which are well known and well documented, to categorise cars into four fuel-consumption classes. Cars that achieve 40 miles to the gallon and above on the formula would attract a zero rate of the 10 per cent. special car tax. The car tax would rise to the level of the car that achieved only 24 miles per gallon or below, on which the full 10 per cent. special car tax would be payable.

Column 129

The formula has the attraction of linking new car sales with environmentally acceptable vehicles, which it is the Government's aim to achieve. The Government have set themselves the target of restricting CO emissions to present levels in the year 2005. Given the growth in motor transport, that will prove very difficult indeed. If we can make a sea change in the marketplace by attracting drivers to buy more fuel -efficient cars, the levels that the Government seek to achieve can be met by the motor car industry. Naturally, the Government must also take steps to deal with emissions from power stations, factories and so on, but, given the potential growth in road traffic, this formula is the one way in which the Government can in a businesslike way set about attracting consumers to buy more fuel-efficient cars. In that spirit, I commend the new clause.

Sir Hal Miller (Bromsgrove) : It gives me great pleasure to second the new clause so ably moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King). Indeed, we consulted on its terms.

I have previously described the Budget as an unhelpful and unpleasant surprise for the motor industry--unhelpful in that the industry was singled out for additional taxation, whether through national insurance contributions on company cars and fuel, the increase in taxation on company cars or the unique impost arising from the special car tax uprated to 27 per cent. by the increase in VAT, which no other consumer durable bears.

Tonight I wish to approach the subject in a more constructive spirit. On Friday I said :

"The motor industry is anxious and willing to make its contribution to improving the environment for all of us, as well as giving us the advantages of mobility and security."--[ Official Report, 12 July 1991 ; Vol. 194, c. 1271.]

I said that the industry needed targets towards which to work. This is not just a sudden rush to green the industry. I was personally responsible for the motor industry's contribution to the Government's original White Paper. I arranged discussions between the Secretaries of State for the Environment, for Transport and for Energy and Treasury Ministers, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders. Since then we have been trying to obtain from the Government some targets to give the White Paper teeth. The only targets that we could light on were fiscal ones, which we believe are necessary. I welcome the proposal of the Secretary of State for Transport in his recent White Paper on the environment and transport that market signals and incentives, apart from regulation and the provision of infrastructure, are the routes to adopt to improve the environment. Since the publication of the White Paper, my hon. Friend and I have been trawling all those Departments, seeking methods to improve the environment.

The first line of approach that we adopted was the suggestion that, in the short term, the only way to achieve the Government's target of stabilising CO emissions was by the wider use of diesel engines until further research had been undertaken to make cars running on alternative fuels practicable. There has been some recent publicity about the potential of the hydrogen cell. However, its use is still 10 years away on the most optimistic forecasts, or perhaps 20 years away on a more realistic time scale.

In the meantime, how do we cut CO emissions? The catalyst cannot help because it aggravates the problem. The new clause tabled by the Opposition is a case of Johnny-come-lately. Their attempts to persuade the

Column 130

motorist that they are on his side are laughable in view of the remarks made by their spokesman on the environment in the debate on Friday. The Opposition's proposals are of no practical purpose because manufacturers have already made arrangements to meet the statutory requirements for the installation of catalysts in cars in the next model year. There is nothing to be gained from the Opposition's new clause.

11 pm

We are still trying to enable the industry to undertake the contribution that it is willing and anxious to make towards environmental improvements. My hon. Friend the Member for Northfield was rebuffed in Committee on the use of diesel fuel, which would have been a significant help to the environment. However, I understood from the various Secretaries of State I met that that option was their preferred choice. That is why the Budget was an unpleasant surprise.

Now we are trying to introduce targets and inducements for people to purchase more economical cars to cut down on the use of carbon. The use of diesel is much the quickest way to do that, but the Treasury has apparently developed new-found environmental skills that have eluded other Departments and it claims that diesel does not contribute towards reducing environmental harm. The Government's reasoning is obscure, but, even accepting the Treasury at its own word, we have presented yet another proposal to reduce the use of carbon. We aim to switch the public preference to more economical cars, which means more economical driving. At the same time we seek to reduce the obvious bias against the motor industry in our taxation system.

I am sorry to have to take issue with Treasury Ministers at this time of night. I have warm personal regard for them, but some of the correspondence I have received recently from the Treasury is so ignorant as to be breathtaking. One cannot sustain the assertion that our cars are not more heavily taxed than those on the continent. That is not true except for a few luxury models. As my hon. Friend the Member for Northfield has established, that assertion flies in the face of the facts. However, I do not wish to be vindictive. We are trying to make our contribution towards improving the environment. We need to have targets. Tonight we are talking about fuel consumption as opposed to emissions, but I have suggested targets for improving the quality of fuels. In the past I have asked why we are wasting time trying to deal with what comes out of the engine instead of what goes in.

I have argued for greater research on alternative fuels, but there are things that we could do now in this Budget, and certainly in the next, to improve the position. What is incomprehensible is the fact that every time one tries to make that effort the Treasury dreams up some ill-founded reason for opposing it. That goes against the thrust of Government policy as set out by the Prime Minister in his speech on Monday last, as set out by the Secretary of State for Transport in his White Paper, and as set out in the White Paper produced by the Secretary of State for the Environment to which the motor industry--through my agency--made a significant contribution. We are not harking back, being vindictive or trying to rub people up the wrong way ; we are trying to make progress. I hope that the Minister will say something to show that that effort to

Column 131

improve the environment and provide signals to purchasers and drivers of cars is understood and will go some way towards being accepted.

Dr. Marek : If those Conservative Members who have spoken really want to do something for the environment and limit carbon dioxide emissions from motor cars, an obvious way to do so is to insist that every car has a governor to stop it going more than 70 mph. I do not know whether that suggestion would find much favour in the House, but if it were adopted, big cars simply would not be bought. Legally, no one should travel at more than 70 mph.

Sir Hal Miller : In America, where speed limits are lower than in this country, people still buy large cars.

Dr. Marek : That may be to do with the fact that petrol in the United States is much cheaper than in this country.

I sympathise with the new clauses. Although new clause 31 represents no commitment by a future Labour Government, it seeks to show a commitment to caring for the environment, which will be at the forefront of the actions of the next Labour Government. There is a deadline for catalytic converters anyway, and if a general election is delayed for too long, that deadline may overtake events. I wonder whether the new clause is properly targeted. it must cost many hundreds of millions of pounds. There must be a certain amount of special pleading by the Conservative Members who have spoken--

Mr. Roger King : What?

Dr. Marek : The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) is laughing and pretending to look nonplussed, but I think that he realises what I am saying.

I need to be convinced that the targeting of the new clause would achieve the environmental benefits better than any other method. There are other ways of achieving the same aim. The new clause would result in a major loss to the Revenue but would not have much effect on the environment. However, I remain to be convinced and if the Minister of State thinks that I am wrong I hope that she will say so. I insist that we need to pay more attention to the environment. There is no doubt that carbon dioxide problems are important. We may have to get rid of the car tax eventually anyway because of European legislation. If so, I should like to look at that because our car industry should not have to compete at a disadvantage with other European car manufacturers. This country will be prosperous and healthy only if the British car industry is properous and healthy. However, I have some doubts and reservations about the new clause and shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say.

Mr. Wallace : The intention of both the new clauses in relation to improving the environment is laudable, and to that extent we should support them. I always think that if we were serious in our intent to tackle environmental problems involving cars, the first step that we could take within the powers of the House would be to change our mileage allowance scheme, which currently gives a greater incentive to those who run bigger cars. It is interesting that their Lordships did so--I think that they have a standardised mileage allowance, regardless of the car's size-- [Interruption.] I can see to what controversy such a

Column 132

proposal would give rise. However, if we wish to be serious about the problem, and to be taken seriously about it, we could set that example.

I do not think that there is too much dispute about the car's contribution to pollution. Although leaded petrol may be on the decline, road traffic produces carbon dioxide, nitrogen oxides, hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide. Road traffic accounts for 18 per cent. of Britain's emissions of carbon dioxide--a major greenhouse gas. Nitrogen oxides--of which 45 per cent. of total emissions originate from cars--are a major cause of acid rain.

Clearly, this issue must be tackled, but I fear that if it is to be tackled in an effective way, the consequences will be difficult for any political party to face. Over time, tackling the problem will lead to an increase in petrol taxation. The sooner that all parties face that and plan for the solution over a period, rather than allowing the solution to be forced on us by sheer force of circumstances, the better it will be for the consumer.

We should not forget the costs to the average household of traffic congestion. An estimate from the Confederation of British Industry showed that each household pays £10 a week extra for goods and services as a result of traffic congestion. The growing traffic congestion on our roads has not only an environmental effect, but a general effect in terms of the cost to industry.

I said that the measure was modest, and I suspect that, in the longer term, vehicle excise duty may be more geared to the environmental friendliness of a particular car. We should enter into discussions with car manufacturers and other interested organisations to develop specifications for achievable levels of fuel efficiency and emissions of pollutants. Those specifications should become stricter over a period, and perhaps it would be possible to vary the vehicle excise duty according to the degree of specification cars attain and abolish it for cars that meet a high specification. We must be alert to the problems of rural districts, where a car is not a luxury, but often an essential. Many car drivers in rural regions already tend to drive smaller models. While it is often thought that the mileages are higher, many of them are necessary. If we were to switch from vehicle excise duty to petrol tax, it would not necessarily be as disadvantageous as is sometimes thought. One of the main reasons for higher petrol prices in rural districts is that the throughput of traffic at many rural garages is low, so the mark-up for the retail petrol has to be that much greater. Value added tax is put on top of that price and on top of the duty. To some extent, the Government are receiving revenue through the disadvantages with which many motorists in rural regions have to cope.

I do not think that the new clause will be put to a vote, but I think that we are discussing the initial stages of something that, over a period, will have to be dealt with by something more radical than any proposals made this evening.

Next Section

Home Page