Road and Rail
THE unanimous Report of the Conference on Road and Rail Transport, the " Salter Committee," was published on Wednesday. The Committee, which was appointed on April 11th of this year, " from the point of view of establishing what would be a fair basis of competition and division of function between rail and road transport of goods," consisted of four representatives of the railways, including Sir Josiah Stamp, and of four representatives of goods transport by road, with Sir Arthur Salter as Chairman. The Committee, whose problem has been " not that of transport generally but of goods transport " only, wisely refrain from ranging over the whole ground covered zealously, if inconclusively, by the 1928-30 Royal Commission of Transport. " Our role," they say, " is much more modest ; our task more limited." Their general angle of approach is clear at once. They assume that there are conditions of fair competition between rail and road, the achievement of which would not only be equitable between the competitors themselves, but would serve the interests of the community as a whole. They set out to suggest a scheme of taxation and of Government regulation generally, which will establish such " fair " conditions.
The Report is in four parts, the first historical, the last three operative. The second part handles the problem, which it not very happily defines as that of " the incidence of highway costs in relation to the contri- bution of the different classes of mechanically propelled vehicles." The Committee soon agree that the cost of the roads is £60 million a year, that if we add petrol duty to licences this sum is to-day just about being paid by users of the roads, and that it should continue to be paid by them. They rummage round for a principle on which to allocate the £60 million, first between commercial and other vehicles, and next between the different commercial classes. They want their principle to work out in such a way that the more a vehicle wore out the road, the more it would have to pay. The principle of " Petrol-Consumption " under which 80 per cent. of the £60 million would come from a ls. tax on petrol, would fall too lightly on some of the heavier vehicles, a fault partly avoided by the Ton-Mile principle under which a vehicle would pay partly according to tonnage, partly according to the number of miles which the average member of its own class was expected to go. In the end the Ton-Mile principle is adopted, supplemented, with no clear reason stated, by that of Petrol-Consumption. Under this compromise, slightly modified (so as, for example, to impose still heavier burdens on the heaviest classes, and to prevent a relative escape by vehicles not using petrol), £234 million of the £60 million taxation is placed on commercial vehicles and £364 million on " other mechanical vehicles. " How much on other grounds the Government cares to tax the latter, which include the private motor-car and the 'bus, is no concern of the Committee. The kernel of the recommendations is that commercial vehicles will in the aggregate have to pay £24 million more in petrol taxation than at present, the impositions falling on the heavier vehicles and being in some cases as much as 600 per cent.
The third part is concerned with " Regulation and Licensing " and the fourth with general problems of co-ordination. As regards rates the railways are to remain restricted and the users of the roads to go free. But " the Committee considers that some regulation of goods motor vehicles is necessary and that this regula- tion can be enforced only through a licensing system." And so no one is to be granted a licence whose wages or whose vehicle is unworthy of the right to the public road. Standards of decency and care are all that is asked for here ; of more profound economic significance is a further condition to apply only to hauliers (i.e., those who have no other business but transport). The licensing authority is to have regard to " any such excess in existing transport facilities as may make the grant of a licence for the full number of vehicles asked for against the public interest." A Central Advisory Com- mittee is to be set up to assist the Minister of Transport in advising licensing authorities. Finally, the Minister is to have statutory powers to discourage the transfer from the railways of the conveyance of certain heavy commodities which the Committee, following the Royal Commission on Transport, proclaim to be too heavy for the roads.
The Report is marred by three defects—one of them small. First, it perfunctorily sets off against one another two huge claims, running into many millions, one of which, for " community use," represents commercial users of the roads as paying at present far too much, and the other, for " Legacy of the Past," far too little. Secondly, the possible restriction on the number of " hauliers " involves unfair discrimination in favour of the " ancillary " or " mixed " users and artificial stimulation of vertical combination between manufacture and transport. Thirdly, we are given no reasons why certain specially heavy traffic, not directly damaging, should be unsuitable for the roads. It appears indeed as if there was cropping up here an economic philosophy different from any in the rest of the Report ; which regards the railways as national assets, in whose defence not only " fair " competition, but discriminating protection may be required. And there is a fourth objection. A restriction on the number of hauliers will be in many eyes not only quite beyond the competence of the licensing authorities, but an unpardonable interference with what remains to-day of economic law. Road Transport has peculiarities of its own, but the arguments of the Com- mittee would justify similar interference in artificial silk. Laissez-faire may be dead, but there is no need to chivy the corpse.
Nevertheless our warmest thanks go out to Sir Arthur Salter and his colleagues. Unanimity in a commission is always creditable ; in the present Conference stupendous. Nor has compromise here been achieved a la Macmillan, for the proposals are concrete and immediately practicable. Some will command more support than others. The increased tax on the heavier vehicles will commend itself to a public which, sentimental reasons apart, resents the present anomalous system, under which, for example, the duty is no higher on a ten-ton than on a five-ton lorry. We thoroughly approve, too, of the suggestions for making honest wages, &c., a condition of all commercial licences. It is the proposals for restricting the number of " hauliers " to that conceived by licensing authorities to be in the public interest, and the types of goods allowed on the roads to those which the Minister thinks suitable that, in their present crude form, we find difficult to swallow. But the signatories have made it clear that the whole Report stands or falls together. The agreement it embodies is so significant, the emergency it is designed to alleviate so grave, that some of our scruples must be silent. We hope that the Government will take as soon as possible the necessary steps to give effect to the recommendations,
Previous page
