The Triumph of the R.H.A.
Page 38
Page 39
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
150 Members of Parliament and Two Ex-Ministers of Transport Attend a Luncheon to Hear Proposals on the Rail and Road Problem
WHAT was probably the most important function that has ever been held directly in the interests of transport in general, and road transport in particular, took place last Tuesday, when the Road Haulage Association gave a luncheon at the Hotel Victoria' which was attended by 150 Members of Parliament and members of the Association and their guests to such a number that an overflow luncheon had to be held in another banqueting room.
Mr. E. C. Marston, M.Inst.T., chairman of the Association, occupied the chair at the luncheon, and was supported on one side by Lord Mount Temple' P.C. (a former Minister of Transport), and on the other by Sir A. Griflith-Boscawen, P.C. (chairman of the late Royal Commission on Transport) ; Sir Maxwell Hicks, C.B., sat between Lord Mount Temple and another previous Minister of Transport, Mr. Herbert Morrison. Also at the top table were Sir Henry Jackson, M.P. (chairman of the Conservative Transport Committee in the House of Commons) ; Mr. P. J. Hannon, M.P.; Sir William Lobjoit, 0.B.E.; Sir C. Hipwood (National Union of Manufacturers); Lieut.-Col. McLagan, D.S.O. (secretary, S.M.M. and T.) ; Mr. R. W. Sewill, M.A. (vice-chairman of the R.H.A.) ; Mr. Ernest Bevan (secretary, Transport and General Workers' Union) ; and Major Crawfurd.
After the loyal toast, that of "The Road Haulage Agoelation" was proposed by Lord Mount-Temple, who expressed his pleasure at being present on such an important occasion when so many Members of the House of Commons were guests.
2,000 Transport Concerns in the R.H.A.
no congratulated Mr. Maratha most heartily upon the marvellous growth of the R.H.A., which had become one of the most important associations in the transport industry ; it had a membership of 2,000 firms and could speak with no uncertain voice on problems affecting trade and industry.
The future of haulage, he said, was in the balance. Any false move in Parliament might severely damage trade and industry and raise prices in general for many years to come. As Minister of Transport, he had secured the appointment of a Royal Commission to review the whole problem of roads, in connection with both passengers and goods, and he was particularly fortunate to secure the services of Sir Griffith-Boscawen. The members were sensible, hard-working men, many very eminent. The series of recommendations was still worthy of acceptance, as was shown by the actions of Mr. Morrison, who implemented the whole of the first and second Reports, together with part of the third. Why was the remainder of this third and final report not passed into law? If this had been done, the whole problem would have been largely solved. The omission was a great slight on the members of the Commission, and it may be difficult in future to obtain suitable men to sit on a Royal Commission on another subject.
The implementing of the recommendations put forward by the Royal Commission would not be objected to by the R.H.A., but even welcomed. They deal with vehicle fitness for the road and the safeguarding of wages and hours, but the haulier must not be licensed like the passenger-vehicle operator ; he must be able to go from place to place with his loads.
A harassed Minister had appointed the Salter Conference and it was easy to get unanimity when the people actually concerned in the industry were excluded. The Minister , invited to a meeting the railways, the Standing Joint Committee of Mechanical Road Transport Associations, and the Road Haulage Association, and the result of this was that the R.H.A. was told that it could not have representation; thus the people most concerned had no say in the proceedings. It was dirty work to broadcast reports on the unanimity of the Conference and net on it.
Would it not be possible for those who wished to put the B24 members of the Association out of business to cease their attacks? Would it not be better for all to be partners and let bygones be bygones? The present uncertainty is damaging to trade. Could not Mr. Marston give the con• siderate and moderate views of the R.H.A.? He knows what it can put up with and what it cannot! Let all hammer out a policy to help the trade of the country by finding a fair solution to the problem.
The Duty of the Association.
Mr. Marston, in replying, said that the proper duty of the Association is to contribute what it can to the future and well-being of transport, and it has tried squarely to face the position. It recognized that in any proper solution both road and rail transport must be considered.
The vast problem of transport could not be tackled in three months by eight men of whom two were distribution managers equally interested in rail and road.
Last year the Minister received a notification from the Railways Association to the effect that if experience should prove that the diversion of transport still continued, it would be necessary to consider other possibilities and impose further burdens on the road to help the railways. In view of this, how could Sir Josiah Stamp say that it is moonshine to suggest that the railways want to restrict road transport.
The R.II.A. does not claim to have found a solution, but does put forward constructive proposals. All the recommendations of the Salter Conference were aimed at restricting the road, and it was a destructive document. The railways have been established for a long time and were the paramount form of transport, but it is necessary to find out how they could be amended to fit into modern conditions. They had provided nothing for obsolescence, having taken the view that they would always be dominant. Many miles of track must be non-paying and uneconomic; this dead wood must be cut out. The average distance between stations or depots was five miles, which was probably due to the influence of horsed traffic, but that was now ridiculous. The railways should close those stations close together and encourage road transport between the others. They would not lose work, but would cut down expenses. The two services should be complementary. The idea of stopping trains every few miles, except in aurburban areas, is ludicrous. Road transport can concentrate passengers and goods at more widely separated stations.
He agreed with the President of the Pennsylvania Railroad, who recently stated that if the railways acted intelligently they would give to the motor industry their terminal deliveries and roadtransport would find it, in turn, • advantageous to give the railways the long hauls.
Ancillary Business Causes Much Railway Loss, The ancillary business of the railways, such as docks, hotels, steamers, canals, etc., represented a capital of nearly £170,000,000 and should not be taken into account when determining the relative positions of road and rail; hut for those services and the capital they represent, the net revenue would have been almost £5,000,000 more per annum than it was. Yet the railways, last year, claimed a diversion of goods road transport of only £6,000,000 net revenue. Railway-owned docks and harbours returned only .'T per cent. on the total capital, without a penny for obsolescence. The prior charges require over 3 per cent., so that the deficiency must come out of railway operation. Canals costing £8,000,000 produce a grossturnover of 1187,000, showing a loss of nearly £60,000. He believed that the ancillary business of the railways should be separated entirely from railway operation. He did not believe that the railways would voluntarily amend their systems while they continued to think that Parliament would (mist them by restricting their competitors. He felt that if the railways clearly under
stood that they must help themselees, they would get down to the job of doing it, and they would then receive the co-operation of the road in the attempt. As a transport operator, he had a fair knowledge of the factors influencing traffic to or from road or rail, and he assured his listeners that much traffic is attracted to roads because of the better facilities provided ; for instance, home-killed meat sent by road fetched higher prices than rail-borne meat. All the facilities provided attract traffic to the roads, but until the two systems of rating traffic are brought more into line, then they must remain highly competitive and cause difficulties and problems between road and rail, and uneconomic working. The railways base their rates on what the traffic will bedr ; the road on the cost of the journey—two different systems which must conflict He believed that the adjustment of road and rail rates on that traffic which is competitive is a subject which should receive immediate inquiry.
The advent of 'the private car has permanently taken a large part of passenger revenue from the railways. Speed in transport is essential—as an example, tea which once took a week to deliver by rail now takes a day by road, thus saving the merchant interest on capital and duty.
The Grading of Taxation.
In grading taxation, regard should be paid to the number of wheels, axles and width of tyres. Road wear must have a definite relation to tyre wear, and now the cost of tyre wear per mile on a 10-tanner is little different from that on a small motorcar. Any attempt to penalize the larger lorries must add to the numbers of smaller vehicles.
Under the Salter scheme of licensing, hauliers would be refused licences on the ground of road congestion, ignoring the fact that all goods traffic, except where private sidings exist, must come over the roads from works and factories; the goods would still have to come to the stations.
Road transport demands some sense of security, and there is none if each year there is a danger of one's business being terminated. The Association considers that all hauliers should be registered, and the conditions of such registration confined to vehicle fitness, proper conditions of employment, and the applicant's knowledge of the business. It is vitally important that clearing houses should be considered.
The proposals of the Association may be summed up as a removal of onerous restrictions from the railways, an encouragement to them to reorganize their systems so that road transport is naturally attracted to fit in with their systems, the regulation of goods haulage by road as required in the interests of road users and public safety, the control of freight agencies to avoid exploitation, taxation on an equitable basis with a proper regard to actual road wear, and improvement in design to encourage reduced wear. Regulation on these lines would receive the warm support
of the Association, whilst the Other proposals should be 'one into by an Advisory Board to the Ministry of Transport. • The toast of "The Guests" was proposed by Sir Maxwell Hicks, who advised the formation of a tribunal of a judicial nature to estimate what would be a fair share of the road costs to be paid by road transport. It was unfair to tax transport as such, and, if done, might equally be applied to horsed vehicles, railways, canals and coaetwise shipping. Sir A. Criffith-Boscawen made the first reply for the guests. He agreed with Lord Mount Temple that it is a pity that all the recommendations of the Royal Commission were not carried out. An enormous amount of trouble had been taken by the Commission, yet a leading newspaper, in praising the Salter Report, criticized what it termed the "perfunctory conclusions" of the Royal Commission. The proposals still stood, and he hoped that Parliament would use them. He profoundly disagreed with most of the Premises in the Salter Report and the results founded on them. Cancelling out the legacy of the pest and community use was as easy-going a formula as the conventions of con tract bridge. Roads were necessary to civilization, to cyclists, to horses, everyone must use them, and even if no damage be done, the facilities are enjoyed. He impressed on the Members of Parliament present the importance of holding the balance fairly between competing forms of transport, and thus to do their best for the nation as a whole. Mr. Herbert Morrison, in his reply to the toast, said that it was the duty of the Minister of Transport to consider transport as a whole. He should have no bias, prejudice or predilection. The road-transport industry had been in an unsatisfactory position and. still required some improvement, particularly in respect of section 19, concerning the conditions of working.
He had a high appreciation of Sir Arthur Salter, but his view of the report was that it was practically an impossible task to complete it satisfactorily on the terms of reference. The composition of the Conference was wrong and it ought never to have been appointed. The Minister had plenty of information in addition to the Royal Commission's Report, whilst the responsibility of determining the policy to be adopted in connection with a great industry ought not to be delegated to interests in the industry itself.
Taxation a Blind Weapon.
The weapon of taxation, he continued, was too blind, too difficult a weapon with which to solve the problem of road and rail. The heavy vehicle must pay its way, but its merits in relation to the damage done must be considered.
The last response was made by Sir Henry Jackson, who emphasized that the House of Commons must consider itself as being in the position of a jury, which must see that effective transport is provided for 40,000,000 persons.