The Transport Ministry's Policy.
Page 1
Page 2
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
"AND DON'T forget the Geddes," as Arthur Conquest beseeches his gay .companions in a merry scene at Old Drury. Certainly, we who are interested in the prosperity of road motor transport are not likely to forget Sir Eric; in fact, it may be accepted without demur that a very close eye will be kept upon the doings of his Ministry. We had honeyed words from him at the S.M.M. and T. banquet in November ; we are closely watching forthe fruits of the goodwill he there expressed. One of those finits is the raising of the railway rates, which helps to remove competition, which had long grown grossly unfair. ..
If we dare to endeavour to elucidate the arguments laid down in his presidential address at the inaugural meeting of Ahe Institute. of Transport, he intends to assist the railways to obtain a paying * revenue, in return for greater frankness in the matter of the disclosure of working eosts and other figures, and for greater internalefficiency. .
Commercial vehicle organizations do not fear the results from the pursuit of such a policy. They have aimed at efficiency, and every condition and circumstance that presses upon thein the need for this aim and ambition will be to .the good, whilst charges which are more remunerative to the railways must bring to road motor transport a greater share of the traffic, and effect a more even distribution of loads over the classes of transport best able to deal with them. They must also, of necessity, assist in providing the means–sand the only means—of solving the problem of empty running;. namely, paying loads.
No Easy Fortunes in Transport !
ONE REMARK made by Sir Eric Geddes should be seriously taken to heart by the whole of the two industries mainly .concerned with the commercial motor vehicle—the manufacturing -industry and the transport industry. He said of railway 'transport that the return on capital has always been a modest one. It has—excessively modest, not to say inadequate; and the same remark is equally true of all modes of transport, whether by rail, road, or internal waterway. In normal times, sea transport, fared better than any land method, but docks, wharves and harbours all showed much the same result—a N cry modest return on capital, the reasons being obvious. .
This fact that transport is not the royal road to an easy fortune is an argument against the payment of unduly high prices for vehicles, -die depreciation of which is excessive, for extreme -care in gauging running charges, working costs and hire rates, and against that eut-throat competition for business which is invariably the outcome of inexperience in accountancy. We have had something to say on the details of this matter lately, and need here only draw attention to the remark of the Minister of Transport in order to emphasize our warnings.
Payments by Results.
IT IS SATISFACTORY to learn that the conference of unions affiliated to the National Federation of General Workers has signified at least its qualified approval of the principle of payment by results. At present, the representatives of the men only go so far as to state that the principle it worthy of con sideration by • the unions, without definitefy reCommending it to them. Moreover, they approve it only subject to the introduction of safeguards which, taken as a whole, appear to be very nearly equivalent to a stipulation for a further increase in wages. Even so, the passage of the resolution approving the principle marks a-step in the right .direction. There are few, if any, employers who grudge the payment of goad wages to men who do good work. The employer himself and all the members of his staff who work with their brains rather than with their hands are, in effect, paid by results, which is, in fact, the only really sane method of payment in every case to Which it can be applied. • There are many classes of work to which it is not usually applicable. We cannot, for example, fairly pay the driver of a motor lorry in proportion to the ton-mileage performed by his vehicle, because it is not in his power to determine the volume of work done. The case of the factory worker is, as a rule, quite different. His output depends directly upon his energy and skill, provided only that he is not hampered by regulations requiring him .to drop to the level of the most incompetent of his colleagues.
If the principle of payment by .reSults were firmly and generally established, the difficulty of estimating future costs of production would be much diminished and the motor industry might then be reasonably expected to abandon the practice—so irritating to its prospective clients—of reserving the right to announce alterations in price between the placing of the order and the delivery of the vehicle. The anxiety of employers to persuade the Men to favour payment by results is obvious by the very . c7 generous concessions offered. The acceptance of the principle is, in fact, no longer merely important, but is rapidly becoming absolutely vital, and, we hope, now that the soundness of the system is, at least coming to be realized, progress towards a practical agreement will be very rapid.
Bus Contributions to load Costs.
I N EVIDENCE before a Select Committee of the House of Commons, Sir Henry Maybury recently ' expressed the views of the "Ministry of Transport on the subject of eontributions by motor omnibuses to the maintenance of the roads they use. He is stated to have advocated paynients not exceeding (and presumably not always reaching) a .penny-halfpenny per omnibus-mile, coupling therewith the proposal that, where roads need to be adapted to make them suitable to this class of traffic, clauses should be inserted in the Bills authorizing the establishment of the services providing for a maximum payment of £700 per ' mile of road requiring adaptation. Hitherto, except in a few special cases, the con tribution of buses towards road maintenance has _ • generally been at the rate of three farthings or a. penny per mile run. Consequently, the proposals apparently made officially. by Sir Henry Maybury appear, at-sight, to be somewhat disquieting, especially in view of the other proposals now under consideration, which would involve very high annual taxation of motor omnibuses on the basis of their seating capacity and also, to some extent, dependent upon ' the districts in which they operate.
We gather, howeyer, . that the suggestions made above are, almost certainly, not intended to be concurrent with taxation on anything approaching the scale now proposed. We do not know yet whether it will be possible to secure any redpetion in that scale as originally announced. The interests affected are,
a of course, aiming at an all-round reduction of 25 per cent.
The final decision presumably depends on the results of exanfining the figures from the point of view of the total revenue which they will produce. We gather that, once a scheme of motor taxation has been definitely adopted on a basis calculated to produce the total sum which the Minister thinks mechanical transport should contribute to the roads, the official view of the Ministry as to special payments by motor
omnibus services will undergo a complete change. . The national taxation proposed for motorbuses is unquestionably high, as compared with the taxes proposed to be levied on goods-carrying vehicles, and this fact can Only be justified if it is clearly recognized that the motor omnibus will not be further handicapped by being required to make special additional payments for the ight to run. The point is one which will no doubt be very carefully watched by the Motor Legislation Committee.
Protection of Our Industries. ' •
IN MOVING his Bill for the protection of industries in the House of Lords, Lord Balfour of Burleigh detailed proposals that appear to be eminently reasonable. In such a matter the object atwhich we ought to aim is the proper safeguarding of essential British industries, coupled with equally
• effective safeguards to protect the public from being exploited, The Committee on After War Trade, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was the chairman, advocated a special safeguarding of " key" industries and also the adoption of measures for safeguarding the welfare and permanence of other essential industries which, owing to demonstrable ca-uses, can be shown to be in danger of serious injury from foreign competition. In the report referred to, the motor industry was specifically mentioned as one probably deserving of assistance, particularly because it has been the victim of ill-advised legislation. • CS The proposal is that the case of any industry asking for assistance should be considered by a special Industries Board. Lord Balfour of Burleigh now proposes that this should take the form of an advisory council appointed by the President of the Board of Trade. To this council the Board of Trade would refer the representations of any industry in difficulties. The advisory council would present annual reports and would have the power to set up special sub-committees. By these means, Parliament would be periodically put in possession of the facts as regards all the cases considered. a , Under these provisions it would seem practically impossible for any -industry to be given specially favourable terms, undeserved by it and inimical to the public interest. On the other hand, any industry which could show a really good case would presumably obtain assistance, possibly of a temporary i nature, sufficient to carry t over the crisis.
Dumping, and Its Prevention. •
E HAVE HEARD a good deal of the steps that are to be taken by the Government with a view to the prevention of -dumping, and probably everyone who is interested in trade in British goods is agreed that this question needs treatment, quite independent of any scheme that ...may be introduced in the way of general protection of British industries. If, however, we are to take measures to prevent dumping, it is clear that one of the first things' to do is to decide exactly what the term " dumping" means. One definition quoted in the House of Lords_ when the subject wan recently under discussion reads as follows :—" Dumping is the sale of imported goods in the country into which they are imported at a price below the price at which similar goods can be produced in that country and here sold." Most people will agree that this de lion goes very much too far and is in essence, incorrect. Were it to be accepted, it definitely involves the prohibition of import in any articles that can be produced at an appreciably lower cost abroad than in this country, and this whatever the cause of the high price of the home-produced article. Another definition which cornea somewhat nearer the mark is as follows :—" The -sale of imported goods in the country into which they are imported at.a, price below their cost of production." This goes much too far in the other direction. The proper price anywhere must, be considerably higher than the actual cost of production, since it must allow for the cost)of the manufacturers' sales department, for distribution, and for the profits of retailers. Moreover, were we to accept this definition, we should be involved in a detailed analysis of the cost of production of every article imported into the country. This would be a difficult, if not impossible, business. Thus, we are led to a half-way house in the form of the following definition, which was that adopted by the Committee on After War Trade and generally approved :—" The sale of imported goods in the country into which they are imported at a price below the price at which similar goods are sold for consumption in the country of origin." Even this, definition is by no .means perfect, because it allows of the sale of foreign goods at a price not really showing a proper profit, but merely dictated by a desire to cut out the home manufacturer.
In really fair competition, the price of the imported article should be a figure reached by adding the costs of importation to the selling price in the home market. Here, again, we are up against a difficulty, inasmuch as the exact costs of importation would be difficult to asaess. Consequently, for practical purposes, this last definition, which would certainly not be unduly adverse to foreign interests, is probably the best at which we are likely to arrive.