Powerful Indictment by the S.M.M.T.
Page 41
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
An Answer to the Note Circulated by the Assoctation of British Chambers of Commerce In Which the Society Puts Forward Powerful Arguments for Road Transport Freedom
THE Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders has taken action in respect of the recent invitation issued by the Association of British Chambers of Commerce to its constituent chambers throughout the country, in which it asked them to enress a view as to the possible further restriction of road transport in favour of the railways. The matte, is of considerable importance, because it is understood that it is the Association's representative on the Transport Advisory Council of the Ministry ofTransport who desires guidance on this proposition.
Consequently, the 5.141,M. and T. has issued a statement as an answer, and this has been sent to the individual chambers. In this it points out that the inference to be drawn from the sixth paragraph of the Association's note is that co-ordination means restriction of road freedom and the transfer of traffic to the railways. This means restriction of the individual freedom of our . people to use their vehicles for their own purposes—a principle which has, providentially, not yet been accepted by Parliament, It h Untrue That Railway Receipts Have Suffered Through Road-transport Competition.
The note proceeds, as with all such propaganda, on the ..assumption that railway receipts have suffered owing to the transport of industrial goods by road. Thjs has never been proved by the railways, and., in fact, is untrue, The accounts issued by the Ministry definitely disclose that railway receipts are in direct relationship to the production' of the basic materials of the country and closely relative to the export and import figures. As the basic production of the country represents 92 per cent. of the goods carried by rail, it will be seen that the railways have, during the past 10 years, retained their relative position in this respect. They have even improved it under the direct leadership of the motor industry, which has to an effective extent raised the production of coal, iron and steel. It is correct to say that without this progress, these three industries would be in a parlous state and railways receipts would .nave suffered accordingly.
Road transport for industrial purposes is a necessity to -the well-being of trade,. 'Much of the traffic is new and created by the flexibility of the motor vehicle, which is applicable in a manner with which it is impossible for -the -railways to compete. Transport must wait upon industry, not industry upon transport. Any movement to restrict, even to a slight extent, the flexibility and freedom of road transport would be a severe setback to the industries which it serves and to' the general trade of the country, including the railways.
Road Transport Has Created Traffic Which the Railways Could Not Handle.
The note from the Association quotes a figure of 70,000 vehicles of over 2i tons unladen as the next objective for attack by legislation. Allowing each of these an average load of 4 tons for 300 working days per year, the total freight would reach 84,000,000 tons, a figure greatly exceeding the total railwa3, freight in any year in the one class of traffic in which material competition might be expected from road vehicles. That this is a low average is obvious,. but it is ....sufficient to show that the railways have never been its carriers, and, in fact, would be incompetent to convey even that amount in addition to their present freights.
The real carriers of the merchandise. class (excluding categories one to six) are vehicles under 2* tons, of which there are approximately 350,000. Allowing each a daily load of 30 cwt., • we have the stupendous total of 1.57,500,000 tons, comparable only with the total coal, etc., carried by the railways. To suggest that this traffic has been taken from them is not supportable, as they never had it.
There can be no doubt that the advent of road transport has diVerted traffic into new channels, but it has created enormous new traffic of a much more suitable nature for the railways. Amongst these may be cited the 9,660,000 tons of road material carried by rail, whilst the components of a motor vehicle, are carried four times by rail before the vehicle appears on the road. These are merely indicative of the types and volume of increase.
The Unjust and Impracticable Closing of the Industry to New Entrants.
The present interpretation of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933, in respect of A and B licences, has closed the industry to new entrants, and in that respect is unjust and impracticable for the future. It is not for the railways, who have opposed practically every application before the Traffic Commissioners, to question the judicial findings of their Courts and revert to appeals for further legislative restriction.
It is quite clear from the decisions of the Royal Commission, the Salter Conference and Parliament that there was no intention, present or future, to restrict the freedom of vehicles owned by ancillary users. It is all the more surprising that a statement emanating from the Association should carry the inference that such a restriction is, or can be, contemplated.
The suggestion that there arc national grounds inherent in the railway income is beside the point, as there would be no difficulty in obtaining a satisfactory return on railway capital if it were in strict relationship to the assets of the respective companies. Even on their over-capitalisation, the railways have been earning a steady 2* per cent., the only difficulty being that this is required to pay interest at higher figures on loan capital.
The Enemies of Road Transport are Singling Out Sections for Attack.
The statement leads one td believe that it is not yet intended to attack delivery vans, and these have extended theradius of road distribution to quite four times its previous sphere. It is symptomatic of the methods of the enemies of road transport that they should seek to attack one section of the road at a time, and, in this instance, they are singling out the heavy vehicle for discriminatory treatment.
The railways' complaint that they are regulated by Statute is no answer to the fact that their efficiency has not succeeded in retaining traffic which they allege they have lost. The 'solution of their problem does not lie in restricting other methods of transport, but in rejuvenating their own. There would be no difficulty in retaining the material services of the railways, provided that their finance were adjusted in accordance with the facts.
It is submitted that any further restriction on road vehicles to compel road-created traffic to be carried on the railways, whether this be suitable -to the industrial future of Great Britain or not, is unjust and unsupportable in theory and in fact.
The final contention that the alternative is to have a National Board to control transport is not true. It would create material injury to the country's industry, owing to its want of flexibility and bureaucratic management.
It is requested that the chambers of commerce throughout the country should give the gravest consideration to this suggestion of a transport monopoly, and should assure the Association that, without any shadow of doubt, they are entirely opposer! to any further restriction on the freedom of industry in the country.