An Attempt to Justify The Salter Report
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
ALETTER replying to the criticisms of their report has been sent to Mr. P. J. Pybus by the members of the Rail and Road -Conference. It is claimed that sole, of the criticisms have revealed certain mieeonceptions, and that the Press which represents the general public has, with few qualifications, welcomed the proposals, whereas, the motor Press has, in general, reflected the views of those affected by the proposed increases in rates of duty, and has been adverse.
It proceeds to point out that the Association of Municipal Corporations and the County Councils Association agree with the proposals. They refrain, however, from expressing any opinion as to the licensing proposals, and add a reservation that the increased duties should be applicable only to commercial goods vehicles, and not to those used by local authorities for passengers or for highway, sanitary or other purposes. The Association of Counties and Cities in Scotland has drafted its report mainly from the point of view of municipal transport, for which it deprecates increased duties. Passenger vehicles, says the letter, are outside the terms of reference and recommenda tions. Any special consideration involved by municipal ownership falls outside the competence of the Conference.
The Federation of British Industries supports the .objealous of the goods-vehicle industry upon similar grounds.
The same is true of the "Case for Trade and Industry," issued on behalf of a conference of 66 national organizations interested in -road transport. The two latter bodies and others have criticized the recommendations, either as to increased duties or new regulations, as being too severe, 'They amount to saying that the inconvenience or cost involved to motor owners will be transmitted to those trades and industries affected. In other words, they are valid only if the proposals be unjust to motor owners.
The Members and Their Qualifications.
The letter goes on to describe the nine members chosen and their qualifications, and asks whether it is likely that Mell so qualified by personal experience and interest could have been induced to agree unanimously to recommendations substantially unjust to the motor industry.
It is pointed out that the Conference did not recommend any new rates of licence duty for passenger vehicles of any class, and that this "misconception " was given some colour by a few ambiguous words in one paragraph of the report. It is true that it was necessary to decide what part of the total sum of 160,000,000 should be regarded as applicable to goods vehicles, and the fixation of this at 123,500,000 left a remainder of 136,500,000 in respect of the use of the roads by all other classes of vehicle.
The Conference does not claim to have discovered any single scientific principle, capable of translation into an exact arithmetical result, to determine the just incidence of contribution of different classes of vehicle.
The assumption that there is some relation between a table given in paragraph 22, showing certain charges on the railways amounting to 164,000,000 a year, and the 160,000,000 taken as the share of the annual road costs to be borne by mechanically propelled vehicles is completely false. It is claimed that the conference was in no way concerned to bolster up the railway services.
"The Case for Trade and Industry" even makes it a complaint that the Conference kept strictly to its task of recommending a just incidence of contribution, and so establishing a sound economic basis of operation and competition. The report pointed out the indisputable fact that vehicles not using petrol escaped the petrol duty, and therefore their licence duties must be largely increased if they are to make a fair contribution towards road costs. The " Case " objects that " it is necessary to have regard to the relative cost of the fuel used in relation to the work performed." The Conference considers that it would have acted very wrongly if it had done so. It was not its duty to propose rates with a view either to driving steam vehicles from the roads or keeping them there.
It Was net part of the duty of the Conference to work out a scheme comprising "division of function." It would have been absurd, it says, to have undertaken a task of working out a system which the terms of reference, the time prescribed, and the recognition both of the importance and complexity of the prohlem involved, alike precluded.
In the task of considering incidence of contribution towards road costs, the Conference was bound to take into account whatever contributions the vehicles make towards public funds by special impost.
This basis of calculation does not, as was pointed out by the Conference, preclude Parliament from securing through petrol duty more than a fair contribution to road costs from any class of motorist which it may consider a proper subject of sumptuary taxation.
This basis makes the contrast between the suggestion of the Royal Commission, that ratepayers and motorists should divide the costs in the proportion of one-third and two-thirds, and the proposals of the Conference quite irrelevant.
£60,000,000 for Roads Not Too High.
It has been suggested that the figure of £60,000,000 for road costs is too high. The Conference was particularly impressed by the great harm which would be suffered by the commercial-motor industry if economies in expenditure (for which it would perhaps be unlikely to get the full advantage in reduced rates of duty) were made by abandoning urgent work, or lowering the quality of road surface.
The principal opposition arose from the increases pro
posed for the heavy classes of vehicle. It is generally recognized that a considerable increase for these is already overdue, because the present scales rise by gradations up to 5 tons, and quite indefensibly stop there, so that the 12tonner pays no more than the 6-tonner; but it is true that the actual increases proposed represent more than a continuation of the existing scale. The Conference is convinced that the carriage of a given weight over a given distance involves more, not less, wear and tear if it be in very large units. At the same time, it is certain that it involves the consumption of legs petrol, which, so far as this Ls economy in the untaxed cost of the petrol, is a sound economic advantage which the Conference has no desire to penalize, but so far as it means an escape from its appropriate contribution to road expenditure, it is a factor which must be considered in recommending rates of licence duty.
similar considerations apply to the recommendations as to vehicles which escape the petrol duty.
Elastic System of Regulation and Licensing..
As regards regulation and licensing, only such control has been proposed as is thought desirable in the public interest, and in that of the motor industry itself. The unsatisfactory conditions which militate against the proper organization of the industry cannot be removed without the aid of some system of licensing control. The system proposed is an elastic one, capable of adjustment to what may prove to be the actual needs. At its minimum it involves little actual restriction.
in the concluding comments it is pointed out that no appreciable increase will occur as regards some 80 per cent, of commercial goods vehicles.
• It is suggested that owners of commercial goods vehicles would do well to ask themselves seriously whether, in view of all these considerations, they would not be ill-advised to attempt to secure the rejection of the scheme and to take the chances of an alternative policy.
The general problem of the motor industry and its relation to the railways is obviously at once important, urgent and difficult. Much will remain to be done if the Conference proposals are at once embodied in legislation, but There is no reason for delay in this first step. The Conference members remain convinced of the justice of their unanimous recommendations.