The Railway Bills
THE co-ordination of rail and road transport, which is the essential condition of a perfect service -for the nation, has been brought a stage nearer by the approval bestowed last week on the Railway Bills by the Joint Select Committee.
This Committee had sat for thirty-four days, and after a scrupulously careful inquiry, during which the cases of both the railway companies and the private road transport companies were presented skilfully and at length by eminent counsel, reported that the preamble of the Metropolitan Company Bill was not proved, but that the preamble of the six Bills of the other railway companies was proved subject to two conditions. The conditions are that the administrative County of London is to he excluded from the operation of any Bill, and that protection shall be given to statutory tramway, trolley, and omnibus undertakings of all municipal authorities.
The Committee further recommend that the Minister of Transport should be empowered to hold an inquiry and to report to Parliament when he thinks that the powers conferred by the Railway Bills are contrary to the public interest. The promoters of the Bills had already ex- pressed their willingness to insert this proviso and it cannot be doubted that it will be done.
Next, the Committee promised to advise the Minister of Transport to promote a Bill governing the conditions of traffic throughout the country. This Bill would give to the competent authorities the power to fix fares and impose conditions. The Committee were deeply im- pressed by the need for amending the present chaotic state of the law, but although they regard a general overhauling of the law as a matter of the " utmost urgency," they point out that the Railway Bills ought not to wait for this revision. The Bills ought to be passed as quickly as possible. There is now every hope that they will have a _favourable wind - in Parliament. The need for them ha#iibeen proved muck ;more amply than generally happens in this class of legisla.tion, The distinction made by the Committee.. between the getropolitan Railway Bill and the other Bills was natural enough, for although the Metropolitan railways provide a tremendously important service, which earns more gratitude than dividends, they are confined to a limited area in which the general issues under dispute between railway interests and road interests are either not acute, or are placed in a different category by existing legislation. Now as regards the conditions imposed upon the companies whose preamble is accepted as proved, London is already so congested that the objection to setting more vehicles free to. run upon the streets is obvious. The only puzzle is why the Committee confine their recom- mendation to the County Council area. The congestion, as the Times justly points out, is quite as great throughout the larger Metropolitan Police area. As for the statutory tramway, trolley, and omnibus undertakings of municipal authorities we cannot understand exactly what form the protection will take or how far it will go. The local authorities certainly ought not to be allowed to prohibit omnibuses owned by the railways merely in order that they may bolster up their own enterprises even though those enterprises provide an . inadequate service. The proposal, however, that the Minister of Transport should be able to hold an inquiry where the rights conferred by the Bills are used contrary to the public interest seems to us really valuable. It goes to the heart of the whole matter, which is the necessity of holding a balance for the public goof' between the railway and road services.
It is difficult to be patient with the partisans who have a violent prepossession in favour of the roads as against railways, or in favour of the railways as against the roads. Both methods of transportation are indispensable, and there will be no solution deserving of the name until the best results are being simultaneously got from both. Ideally, short-distance haulage ought to be done by motor power, and long-distance haulage by the railways. At present the railway companies are carrying on a most unequal fight, and the time is overdue for them to be accorded not indeed privilege, but equity. It clearly is not equitable that they should be rated for the support of roads on which they are not allowed to run motor traffic, and yet all the while have their earnings eaten into by motor transport companies which use the roadd as they please. Such an arrangement is tantamount to compelling the railway companies to subsidize their successful competitors. The Railway Bills ask for mere justice in making it possible for the railway companies to trade on the roads on the same conditions as other people.
Nor can it be pretended that the railway companies are trying to promote a selfish cause. By the Railways Act of 1921 the distribution of profits by the companies is limited, all excess of profits being earmarked for the reduction of charges to the public. Transparently, therefore, the prosperity of the railways is a matter of public concern. The case against the railway companies invokes the old hatred of monopoly, which is a just hatred when it is rightly directed, but may be too easily used in our modern world in misleading circumstances. From what we have said about the Railway Bills it will be seen that there is no danger of the railway companies achieving a monopoly. All that is aimed at is that the railway companies should be enabled to survive.
It may still be objected that the railway companies, though not overtly attempting to establish a monopoly, might in effect get it by means of a rate-cutting campaign. That danger, however, seems to us to be effectually countered, first by the powers proposed for the Minister of Transport, and secondly, .by the obligation on the Railway Tribunal to safeguard the standard revenue. The safeguarding of the standard revenue means that uneconomic fares on the roads could not be accepted by the railway companies. Rate-cutting prices would be possible only if the general railway revenue could be employed to make good temporary losses on the roads ; but that would be illegal.
How necessary it is to equalize the conditions of the struggle for the railways is proved by the alarming " slump " in railway stock during the past few days. The revenue of the railways so far this year is more than five millions below the revenue for the same period of last year. The outlook is indeed grave, for if there is a further decline in railway prosperity a phase of unem- ployment will set in. The failure of the railways is due partly to the disappointing passenger returns, but chiefly, we believe, to the continued depression of the hea industries. Here is further proof, if further proof w needed, that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would do well to expedite the relief of rates in this essential industry.
Meanwhile both employers and employed in the railway world are behaving with excellent sense. The emp/oydb have informed the staffs of the dangerous situation, but have not suggested cutting wages (though adjustmentb of overtime are under consideration), and the staffs on their side have responded by showing—as, for example, at the meeting of the National Union of Railwaymen it Bristol—that they are conscious that Capital and Labour must survive or fall together,
Previous page
