THIS was the dilemma: The Parochial Boards (today’s parish councils) needed additional revenue to finance their operations. But where was the money to come from?

When the House of Representatives met on Wednesday, March 5, 1947, the answer to that question became apparent: The Government proposed to increase the tax on private motor cars and public passenger vehicles by way of a bill amending the Road Traffic Act.

Under the proposed amendments, the fee on private cars would move from £5.10 to £8; for taxi-cabs it would jump from £6.10 to £9.

The bill was piloted by Frank Pixley, minister for social welfare. He reminded the House that a portion of the revenues derived from this source would go to the parochial boards, as a matter of course, and argued that it was, therefore, the best way to meet their needs while reducing the burden on Central Government.

Dr Ivan Lloyd, Opposition member from Eastern St Ann, was quick on his feet with a strong objection to the measure, complaining that these vehicle owners were already “paying taxes out of all proportion to the income they make from these vehicles”.

Alexander Bustamante, MP for West Kingston and minister for communications, was just as quick with a rebuttal of Dr Lloyd’s arguments. Accusing the doctor of “electioneering”, he insisted that the tax increase being proposed was reasonable and asserted that “any private person or persons who run private motor cars and cannot afford to pay £8 per annum should put them up!”

The amount being charged, he said, was not enough for the “pauperised” parochial boards to pay for the maintenance of the roads.

Rev Reginald Phillips, Independent member from Clarendon North East, while accepting the need for a tax increase, recommended that it be based on the weight or horsepower of the vehicle.

Bustamante was not quite enamoured of that proposal, lightheartedly expressing suspicion that it was aimed at his three big cars!

Lawton Bloomfield, Jamaica Labour Party member for Southern Manchester, proposed that the tax increase be confined to private motor cars.

He urged the House to consider the burdens a tax increase would visit upon the taxi operators “who operate these vehicles for no other purpose but to make a livelihood”.

To press home his point, Bloomfield reminded his colleagues that the taxi men already had to pay high insurance premiums on their cars; pay their annual licence fees; and face the daily prospect of “these traffic inspectors round each curb and corner waiting for them”.

The People’s National Party’s (PNP’s) Norman Sinclair, of Northern Manchester, also voiced strong opposition to the measure. The people of the country, he argued, were already over burdened, what with the cost of living having gone up significantly as a result of the recently concluded war.

His PNP colleague, William Linton, MP from Clarendon Northwest, had a novel suggestion: “If land was taxed on its unimproved value, we would get all the money we want without having to burden the small people who pay this tax!”

But Bustamante would not be moved. The new rates being proposed, he said, would amount to a mere “penny-ha’penny a day, or 365 quatties and a small fraction!” And he fired a warning to all members of the House of Representatives that additional taxes were coming.

Looking towards the upcoming 1947/48 budget, he said the Government would be spending over £900,000 on road construction and maintenance and warned that this would have to be financed through additional taxes.

Against that background, he described the measure before the House as “not even smoke”, warning that “smoke is coming and fire will be behind the smoke!”

But he insisted that this was unavoidable, “for unless this is done, hundreds of unemployed people will go more and more to the poor house, the mad house and prison and other places!”