ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

HC Deb 21 December 1938 vol 342 cc2984-3045

7.32 p.m.

Mr. Higgs

I beg to move, That, in the opinion of this House, road transport is an essential feature of modern industrial life, that better roads for its accommodation are urgently necessary, and that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed to its encouragement and development without unnecessary restriction so that it may take its proper place in the transport system of the country. There is an Amendment on the Order Paper standing in the names of several hon. Members opposite—in line 5, leave out "without unnecessary restriction," and insert, "in co-ordination with other forms of transport." I am prepared to accept that Amendment. During the whole of our industrial development whenever an invention has been made there has always been opposition to it. I particularly refer to the industrial development which has taken place during the last 200 or 300 years. Whenever inventions have come forward there has been opposition. We can remember that particularly in connection with transport, when a red flag had to be carried in front of road vehicles. To-day we control road traffic by regulations, and I am convinced that in time to come future generations will consider that our actions and our opposition in regard to road transport have been equally absurd.

There has been a colossal road expansion, but it presents a very difficult problem. We have made considerable headway, but the headway has not been satisfactory. The road transport system in this country is to a very large extent artificial, both in regard to the roads and the vehicles. I look at this problem from the manufacturer's point of view. The manufacturer is concerned with the use of the roads both for goods and passenger vehicles. Many industrial concerns employ anything from two to 100 passenger vehicles, primarily perhaps for their representatives. I consider that transport charges on the roads are too high, and that even with those high charges we have not succeeded in protecting the railways. The railways had no competition for 100 years. Then they met with a new form of competition, and they have had to endeavour to adjust their methods of working in order to meet it. In some instances they have done that successfully.

The first legislation in regard to road transport took place 600 or 700 years ago. There were no vehicles in those days, but only pack horses. Charles I taxed coach-builders. That was an indication of legislation against road transport as we know it to-day. Since the War there have been only four years when there has not been legislation adverse to road transport. There are 220 Acts and Orders in existence adversely affecting road transport. The rail came before road transport, and my belief is that if road transport as we know it to-day had come before the railway, probably rail transport would never have been developed, [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] That is my opinion, and I think it is justified. The difficulty with transport on the roads was that there was no suitable material for making tyres. The object of legislation has been to get the traffic on to the railways, on the plea that heavy traffic spoils the roads. We must agree that the railways have not spoilt this country, and I am inclined to think that road transport is no more detrimental to the scenery of the countryside than the railway.

With regard to taxation, the revenue from road transport amounts to some £90,000,000, a figure with which we are familiar. We are not, however, so familiar with the fact that private garages contribute £10,000,000 in rates to the various local authorities. From that £10,000,000 I am excluding the rate revenue from 24,000 public garages. Therefore, the sum that is being collected in taxation from road transport is in the order of £100,000,000 a year. The highway expenditure is something between £50,000,000 and £60,000,000. Why this indirect taxation upon industry?

Motor transport was originally a luxury, and I believe that was the cause of the taxation in the form in which we have it to-day. I would not favour a turnover tax, but it would be more equitably distributed than the taxation of one section of industry in the way that road transport is taxed. Industry, obviously has to pay in the long run. This taxation of road vehicles has distorted engine design, it has to a great extent spoiled our overseas market in the private car industry in many parts of the world, it is artificial, and it has made the car itself distorted and different from the natural development that has taken place in other countries. There are 132 countries which tax their road vehicles, but only ten of those countries tax their vehicles solely on horse power as we do in this country. Our private car taxation is the highest in the world. The only countries that approach us in this kind of taxation are Ceylon, whose taxation is 40 per cent. of ours, France about 40 per cent., Germany about 70 per cent., and the United States about one-sixth or one-eighth of our taxation.

There is the question of differentiation. When heavy oils are used on the roads the tax is 9d. a gallon, but when used on the rail the tax is 1d. per gallon. In 1934, the entire direct tax on a car was taken off in Germany with the object of stimulating the production of motor cars, and we have seen the results that have been achieved. Complaints have been lodged in this House on many occasions about the recent importation of German cars, which has been made possible by the expansion of the German market due to the withdrawal of taxation on cars. Taxation on petrol was reintroduced in this country in 1928 with the object of giving relief in rating. I consider that that action was absolutely wrong. I would much have preferred to have had the rates as they were and no tax on petrol, from the manufacturer's point of view. What we gain in one respect we lose in another. I have pointed out the way in which taxation distorts the car. I would not advocate any violent change, but when amendments are being made in our form of taxation we might take steps so to modify our taxation as to allow car development in this country to proceed on normal lines as in other countries.

Let me deal with the advantages of road transport from the manufacturer's point of view. Road transport is considerably quicker up to a radius of 100 miles. If one has to send goods to a port from a city like Birmingham, a matter of about 100 miles by rail, one has to allow two, or possibly three, days in order to catch the boat.

Mr. Poole

Is the hon. Member not aware that from Birmingham there is a 24 hours' service to every industrial port in the country?

Mr. Higgs

I am aware of the service which has been in existence. I have had practical experience of missing boats through relying upon the rail. I have never known an occasion where when we have placed goods on road transport at 5 o'clock at night they have not been delivered on the ship at 6 o'clock next morning.

Mr. Remer

Can the hon. Member give one single instance where the rail has given any delivery within 24 hours?

Mr. Higgs

I cannot, because I have no statistics. The rail is very efficient in many respects but not so reliable as the road. One reason is that there has to be transhipment on the rail, whereas on the road there is no transhipment. An- other great advantage of road transport is that less packing is necessary. For short distances packing can very often be eliminated. Packing has an important bearing upon the value of the article, because it may be anything from 2 to 10 per cent. of the cost. Therefore, the elimination of packing means a very considerable saving. From my own experience, the breakages are considerably less by road transport than by rail, because there is no necessity for transhipment. Even with the taxation and the difficulties which it has to meet, road transport is cheaper than by rail, and there is no reason why it should not be cheaper still. Transport charges are cumulative. Adam Smith said 200 years ago that man spent three-fourths of his time shifting material from one place to another. That is even more true to-day. We scarcely realise the amount of money we spend on transport. Road transport is very elastic in operation. It often covers areas not covered by rail. Another point in its favour is that pilferage is considerably less.

The railways have their advantages. On the long haul undoubtedly there is considerable benefit by rail. I believe that half the goods transported by rail is fuel, and I see no objection to that being retained by the railways. In the case of very heavy machinery it is practically impossible to transport some of it by road. With regard to the transport of passengers, there is no better method of getting from the city where I live to London than by rail. The rail certainly has its alvantages. What I object to are the methods adopted to transfer traffic from one mode of transport to another.

The roads have been provided by over 1,300 independent highway authorities, and, obviously, have been constructed to meet local needs. The Ministry of Transport has contributed to the expense. In 1937 over 4,000 miles of main roads were taken over. Prior to that we had no national roads. We have as many hard-cored roads in this country as any country in the world; unfortunately, we are paying the penalty of being pioneers. Many of these roads are unsuitable for modern traffic, the surface is unsafe, they are dangerous in construction, the cambers are wrong, they have sharp bends and they are too narrow. I do not know of one single bridge road-crossing. I may be wrong. I have visited Germany, Italy and America recently, and that type of crossing is general. I am drawing the attention of the House to the construction of the modern road in other countries as compared with the roads which we are endeavouring to use for modern transport. Roads authorised as long as ten years ago are unfinished—for example, Western Avenue.

In England we have more vehicles per mile on the roads than any other country in the world. In Great Britain there are 13, in the United States 10, and in France six. Private car owners complain of the heavy traffic. I think that is wrong; it is the roads which are unsuitable. If the roads were suitable there would be room for the heavy traffic and for the private car owner. If we had better roads we should have fewer casualties. Do hon. Members realise that private cars on our roads are increasing at the rate of 150,000 per annum? Then there is the case of national emergency. The Road Traffic Act, 1933, actually contracted the number of certain vehicles, and when the crisis came it was admitted that there were not sufficient of the right class of heavy vehicles. From April, 1936, to April, 1937, there was a reduction of over 1,700 A licences. That is not a right state of affairs for an expanding industry. This industry is expanding throughout the world, but I am afraid that we are not keeping pace with the expansion in other countries. Then again, in the case of national emergency the rail is more vulnerable to air attack than the road. I agree that they cannot hit one better than the other, but it is quite easy to take an alternative course on the road almost immediately, whereas it may take days or weeks to repair a damaged railway.

Let me say a word on limiting road traffic. There has been no limitation on rail traffic in the same way that there has been a limitation of road traffic. There has been no limitation of tramway traffic, but the limitation on road traffic has not achieved its object. It has retarded the development of a new industry and has given little or no assistance to the railways. Road transport to-day in some respects is worse than it was in 1933. The railways were developed with their feeder lines and horse vehicles, and then there was the advent or the invention of the internal combustion engine, which put an entirely different face on transport throughout the world. In regard to these limitations let me read two or three lines extracted from a report which appeared in the "Manchester Guardian" on 17th December: The Traffic Commissioners, sitting at Manchester Town Hall yesterday, refused to authorise the North Western Road Car Company to carry 870 passengers for the Royton Co-operative Society to Belle Vue on Wednesday, 24th January. At a previous hearing permission had been given for 20 omnibuses to carry 600, but Mr. W. Chamberlain, the chairman, said that 20 omnibuses were the limit on a journey of this short distance. This was mass transportation and it made him railway-minded. That is typical of the limitations on road transport, to which I object. Another point which I desire to bring to the notice of the House is the necessity for the development of the use of home-produced fuels. A concession asked for by the town gas and producer gas vehicles and gas bottles for carrying the gas, is that they should not be included in the weight of the vehicle. The weight of this additional equipment often reduces the speed of the vehicle from 30 to 20 miles per hour. In the case of the electric vehicle the accumulator is not considered as part of the weight of the vehicle. The accumulator is a parallel case to bottles for using compressed gas, and I see no reason at all why the bottles should be included in the weight of the vehicle. The steam vehicle already has a rebate of one ton before taking into consideration its weight, and I consider that the same concession should be granted to the producer-gas vehicle. The development of these vehicles to a great extent has been retarded by taxation, and I suggest that the Government should permit the use of some 100 vehicles free of taxation to competent authorities in order that this method of transport could be developed. In Germany to-day there are 1,000 of these vehicles running, with 40 filling stations. In France there are 120 running with 25 filling stations. They are running in Russia, the United States, Italy and even in Australia. In this country we have one filling station and one vehicle running. In France owners of 10 commercial vehicles or more must have 10 per cent. of their vehicles running on home-produced fuel. In reply to a question last February the Minister of Transport said: I shall welcome a study of further developments. Further developments will not take place unless some encouragement is given to that development. At Bolton, on 8th December, the Minister said: He thought that by far the greatest difficulty in time of trouble would not flow from any inadequacy of the road system, but from the fact that so much of the road transport of this country depended upon imported fuel. He hoped industry would concentrate on making engines that would run on some kind of fuel that could be produced at home. The industry is ready to make this development. It does not ask the Government to do it, but it does ask for some encouragement. Only those people who have had experience of developing machinery of this description know the difficulties, and if we want these vehicles they are not going to he produced in a few weeks or months. The revenue which the Chancellor of the Exchequer would lose by permitting a limited number to be run would be negligible compared with the gains which would be obtained. It is argued that these vehicles already get a rebate on the fuel they use. Steam vehicles get a rebate on the fuel they use and also a rebate on the tax. We all remember the gas-bags during the last War, and the same thing will occur again if there is another national emergency. During the recent crisis the Birmingham Industrial Research Laboratory received inquiries as to the development they had made on the bottle-gas vehicle and one inquiry came from a Home Office representative.

It may be asked what I would suggest. I would suggest the automatic renewal of A and B licences. I am aware that they now run for five years, and that there is not often any considerable opposition to their renewal, but if people are investing thousands of pounds in road vehicles and the life of these vehicles expires somewhat before the period of the licence, they are not going to invest money again without being assured of the renewal of the licence for a considerable period. It should be automatically renewed without any question. I would also suggest that the speed limit should be increased to 30 miles an hour for certain goods vehicles. The argument in favour of that is that passenger vehicles now have a speed limit of 30 miles, and if they are safe surely the goods vehicle is equally safe. I do not believe in regulations limiting free competition. I consider it unjust that the railways and canals and coastwise shipping services should have a right to object to the granting of an A and B licence. Sixty-eight per cent. of the objections come from the railway companies. These restrictions should be removed and the fleets allowed to increase. The difficulty of getting increases in the fleets is still very great. There was one action where it cost £320 to get one more vehicle on the road. I know that this was a test case but I say that on no occasion should it be necessary to pay £320 in order to get one more licence.

The policy which I have been criticising is not the policy of any one particular Minister; it has been the policy of the nation for years to tax unnecessarily road transport, and to add irritating regulations which are quite unnecessary to prevent its development. It is really opposition to progress. It seems to me that certain industries get together and go to the Government, and if the majority in these industries want assistance they seem to get it. The minorities suffer, and it is very often the efficient minority; the minority which is really making headway. In this way the efficient minority is brought down to the level of the majority who have to ask for assistance. It is freedom that is wanted on the roads, and the Government's duty is to see that people are safe and that working conditions are moderately protected.

Mr. Ede

Why only moderately?

Mr. Higgs

It depends on what the hon. Member calls moderate.

Mr. Ede

The hon. Member used the word.

Mr. Higgs

I meant what I said. We do not want third-party interference. Road competition has caused the railways considerably to improve their services, but enterprise on the road has, to a very great extent, been throttled. The railways want de-control; the roads want control of rates. Can anybody imagine a more absurd state of affairs? Last March the road industry started asking for price-fixing and rate-fixing, and the railway companies have now come with their bombshell, asking to be relieved of rate-fixing. A state of chaos now exists. The position is an absurd one. Free competition is the only method of settling rates. Leave them alone. We hear a great deal about the freedom of the Press. Let road transport have the same freedom. I believe that if the road transport industry is freed of the restrictions it is labouring under at the present time, it will be to the benefit of the industry and the nation as a whole.

Sir Henry Fildes

May I ask the hon. Member a question? Is he prepared to have the road transport industry scheduled as common carriers?

Mr. Higgs

I am afraid I am not in a position to reply to that question.

Sir Alan Anderson

In several parts of his speech, the hon. Member has spoken of road transport as though it were overburdened in comparison with the railways. Has the hon. Member compared the burden borne by the motor industry in the tax on petrol and on vehicles with the burden borne by the railways for capital expenditure on the maintenance of their track?

Mr. Higgs

My argument is that there have been a great many unnecessary artificial restrictions on road transport. Had it not been for them, we could have had a road transport system very much better than we have to-day. I have taken into consideration the comparison which the hon. Member suggested.

8.4 p.m.

Captain Strickland

I beg to second the Motion.

I wish, in the first place, to reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Sir H. Fildes), who asked whether the road transport industry would be prepared to undertake common carrying. The road transport industry would be ready to-morrow to undertake to carry everything, provided it had the vehicles with which to do so; but as long as the number of vehicles is cut down to such an extent that there are barely sufficient to carry the goods which are required to be sent by road, it is impossible for road transport to undertake common carrying. The industry would have no objection to undertaking that task provided that the restriction on the increase in their fleets on the road could be removed, and they could have enough vehicles to undertake the work.

I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs) has had an opportunity of moving this Motion, because it is all too seldom that the House has an opportunity of discussing fully the question of road transport. I need not labour the point about the great utility of road transport. When one remembers how the cities are spreading out, when one remembers that men are living long distances from their places of work and women from the shops at which they wish to buy, one realises what an awful catastrophe it would be if the road transport services were to be withdrawn. On the passenger side alone, the passenger-vehicle services have earned the gratitude of thousands of our workers, to say nothing of making it possible for people to visit the more distant places in greater comfort by road transport than by the overcrowded excursion trains which are run to various places.

But it is more particularly with regard to industry that I wish to plead with the House, the Minister and those responsible for the conduct of road transport to look very carefully into the results of the working of those many Acts which govern the conduct of road transport, and which in many ways, as I shall seek to prove, have hindered a progress which deserves better of the country, considering the great benefits which it has bestowed. First of all, I would plead the vast number of people who find employment in the industry, which is, I believe, the largest employing industry in the country; and the effect of any diminution of employment would react very largely on the workers engaged in the industry.

Instead of being encouraged, the industry has been consistently hampered and harassed by taxes and regulations, the freedom of competition has been to a very large extent destroyed, and traders have been prevented from exercising that choice of the means of transport of their goods to which, as I think the House will agree, they are entitled. This country cannot afford to stifle the road haulage industry, for it is obvious that the railways of the country cannot, by the nature of their fixed ways, under the present system, cope with that largely increased and altered trade which now obtains in the country. In many cases goods can be delivered by road before the trucks have left the depot. That is the case not only with the distances within 100 miles mentioned by my hon. Friend, but in the case of considerably longer distances. The system of sidings, by which trucks are run into a siding and the truck nearest the building is unloaded first, and then has to wait until the last truck is emptied, must mean a considerable delay in the use of trucks on the railway lines and in delivery, which is not the case on the road.

Mr. Poole

Surely, the hon. and gallant Member does not suggest that railway traffic is unloaded wagon by wagon. Surely, he has a better knowledge of the railways than that.

Captain Strickland

I quite agree, but I think the hon. Member will agree that the principle is to unload the truck nearest to the factory at which it is to be unloaded.

Mr. Poole

That is definitely not the case.

Captain Strickland

That only makes it so much the worse when traders and manufacturers cannot get trucks returned very often for three or four weeks, whereas a motor vehicle can get back within 24 hours. I want to deal with road transport haulage itself, and I want to try to show the House some of the difficulties which a road haulier experiences. I will deal first with the courts to which application is made for a licence to be granted and the tribunal, which is the court to which an appeal can be made. I suggest that the whole principle of the courts as they exist to-day is wrong, and is an injustice to road transport. The Traffic Commissioners have the power to grant or refuse a licence. They are under the direct influence of the Minister himself, they are appointed by him, liable to be dismissed by him, and under his control all the time.

Where freedom to conduct business is governed by Statute law, I consider that it should be under the control of independent adjudicators. Such safeguards are provided where the whole community is concerned, and they are much more necessary where a small portion of the community is dependent on the decisions that are given. Judges and magistrates are independent of the Crown, Parliament and Ministers. They are there to administer the law as it is. But the licensing authority can himself be an objector to the granting of a licence, and having objected, raised his points and urged his case, he can then adjudicate whether he himself has been within the law in the objection he has raised; and an applicant who has had his licence refused by the licensing authority, who has gone to appeal and has won on that appeal, has no means of proceeding against the licensing authority with regard to the objection raised in his own court on which he adjudicated.

I will give the House one case, the case of William Boyer and Sons (Transport), Limited. This is an old-established haulage firm. It applied for A licences in the usual way. On 8th October, 1934, the application came before the licensing authority, and the licensing authority made persistent efforts to try to persuade the firm not to apply for A licences but to apply for B licences. The firm objected; it did not want to be tied down to the short distances and considered that it was entitled to A licences. The licensing authority adjourned the court. On the resumption of the court, he tried again to persuade the firm to accept B licences, but he was unsuccessful, and on that refusal, he adjourned the court until 11th October. On that date the applicants were represented by counsel, and the licensing authority granted the licences. Two years afterwards, on 2nd November, 1936, an application was made for a renewal of these licences that had been granted, and the application came before the licensing authority on 19th February, 1937. Again, the licensing authority urged the firm to accept B licences and again they refused and the court was adjourned. On the resumption of the court, the licensing authority refused to grant the renewal of the licences, and an appeal was made to the tribunal. The hearing was before Mr. Justice Harker on 24th May, 1937, over six months after the application was made; and Mr. Justice Harker ruled that the licensing authority was wrong in his premise—

Mr. Dingle Foot

Surely, the hearing was not before a judge.

Captain Strickland

I apologise—it was before Mr. Rowand Harker, K.C. He granted the appeal of the appellant firm and said that as there were no respondents to the appeal, he was not in a position to make any order as to costs. That is a concrete case of the sort of difficulty that arises not in one case, but in many cases. I have many cases which I could quote to the House, but that is a typical example of the licensing authority being the only objector in his own court and having the power to judge whether his objection is sound or not. Great inconvenience was caused to the firm, which had to hire vehicles over seven months in order to carry on its work because it could not get licences, and it was put to great expense; yet the firm had no means whatever of obtaining redress against that unjust decision of the licensing authority.

Sir Ronald Ross

Does my hon. and gallant Friend suggest that the licence was suspended? The normal practice is that a firm which has appealed can continue to use its old licence until the appeal has been heard. I shall be rather surprised if the facts of that case are as my hon. and gallant Friend has stated them.

Captain Strickland

I am afraid that I cannot reply to that point, but I am satisfied that the firm was put to considerable trouble and inconvenience.

Mr. Remer

May I say that I have in my own personal experience in connection with appeals, known of licences having been suspended.

Sir Ronald Ross

Of course licences are suspended, but that is an entirely different thing. My hon. and gallant Friend was dealing with a case in which the licensing authority decided against the renewal of a licence and the applicant then put in notice of appeal. I say that in such cases the normal practice is that the applicant continues to run his vehicles on his old licence until the appeal has been heard.

Captain Strickland

At all events, my point was to show the inconvenience caused to the firm and the uncertainty which must have run through that firm's operations during all those months. They did not know whether at the end of the period their licence would be renewed or not, and whether they would be able to enter into contracts or not. They were placed under a heavy handicap by the fact that the licensing authority had refused a licence. The main point which I am seeking to make is that in cases of this type, the licensing authority is both objector and the adjudicator. That, in my opinion, is wrong and is something which ought to engage the attention of the Minister.

The next instance which I will give is the case of T. Ball, of Leicester, who applied for an addition of one 2½-ton vehicle to a fleet of four. His application was refused by the licensing authority, but granted on appeal. The proceedings occupied 20 months and cost him £322 17s. 10d. plus the cost of hiring a vehicle to carry on the work in the meantime. The railways under statutory law can and do put applicants to enormous, and, I venture to say, in the majority of cases, unnecessary expense. A few nights ago, we debated the question of these costs in the courts. I suggest that the costs should be spread over all the people who participate in the proceedings, and that the railways should be asked to make some sort of cover for the cost of the hearing, when they enter an objection.

There is also the case of the Smart Transport Company. They, too, applied for the addition of one 2½-ton vehicle to a fleet of 10. The licence was granted by the licensing authority in spite of opposition by two railway companies. The application was made in December, 1935, and the case was heard in the following March and April. On 24th June a decision was given in favour of the applicants, who were awarded £35 8s. 4d. costs. Anyone who has gone to the appeal court knows that the costs in that case must have been very heavy indeed. In May, 1937, having gained their point on the appeal, they applied for an increase of two vehicles and proved the need for the addition. They brought evidence that certain traders were desirous of using their fleet. The application was granted by the licensing authority, again the railway companies appealed and the case was heard in September, 1938, 16 months after the original application. I do not yet know the result, but the costs must be very heavy. I should like to read a paragraph from a letter which I have received from the head of this firm: It is significant also that three important customers of mine, concerning whose business relationships I have been obliged under cross-examination to make the most detailed disclosures, have since been the subjects of negotiations for a fiat rate by the railway companies. I am an operator of good repute. I am interested in and work hard for the good of the industry. The licensing authority in giving his decision used these words 'Mr. Smart has been in Bristol as a road haulier since 1928. He is an efficient operator who observes the conditions of his licences and against whom there is no suggestion that undesirable practices have been resorted to for the purpose of inducing traffic.' Yet I am subject to the utmost restriction, fear that a case may be established by the appellants which may be quoted as a precedent in all applications for variations of licences, and fear of the high costs necessarily involved, which are no fault of mine. I am harassed with uncertainty and have to face the possibility of ultimate extinction if the point sought to be established by the appellants is extended from variations to renewals of licences. I quote these cases in order to get the House to realise the sense of unfairness which is felt by the road haulier in regard to the actions of the Government on this question. It is easy to raise objections, either to old-established businesses or to applications for licences for new vehicles, and I suggest that one thing which the Government ought to consider is whether the onus of proof should not in these cases be placed on the objector. It should not be necessary for a haulier to bring his customers into court and disclose the whole of his business with them, and then to have the railway companies going behind his back and under-cutting the rates.

Mr. Poole

May I respectfully suggest that that statement is not quite in accordance with the facts? It is an established practice that railway companies do not quote a flat rate to any manufacturer unless that manufacturer himself applies for such a flat rate, and there is no question of going behind the man's back and under-cutting him. The initiative must have come from the manufacturer.

Mr. Remer

May I from my own personal experience categorically deny that that is the case?

Mr. Poole

I speak specifically from instructions, and also from some experience in handling flat-rate applications.

Captain Strickland

Yes, but the hon. Member is speaking to those who have also had some experience in these matters. I have a case here—I do not wish to mention the names but I will undertake to give details to the hon. Member afterwards—of a transport firm carrying motor bodies. Their rate was £5 a ton. The railways objected to their licence and they went into court. The railways went round afterwards and quoted a rate of £3 11s. 3d. per ton. I can vouch for that case. That is the sort of thing which the House ought to know about, because it will give Members a better perspective on this question and a realisation of the difficulties under which road transport is working.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

Is it not competition?

Captain Strickland

If you want competition, let us have competition. But do not tie the hands of road transport, as the legislature has done, and then allow the railway companies to go behind backs and under-cut them. It should not be sufficient for an objector to urge his objection on the ground that he can supply alternative service. That is the usual form of objection by railway companies to the renewal of a licence. It is not enough. A manufacturer may have the railway at his door but may not wish to use the railway. He may have his own reasons for wanting to use road transport. If that form of objection can be urged against the grant or renewal of a licence, it may make the position of the road hauliers desperate. I urge that there should be an automatic renewal of all licences where the licensee has fulfilled the conditions of his licence and where there has been no material change. All those cases should go through automatically and thus save the heavy expense of hearings by the court.

Quite recently I attended a meeting in the House at which one of the railway chiefs made the statement that it was no longer the policy of the railway companies to oppose the renewals of licences. Since then I have made inquiries and have found that objection has been lodged against a certain old-established business on the ground that "present facilities are in excess of requirements." This firm is at present hiring extra vehicles for 1,000 tons per month, and the railway objection is that the vehicles are in excess of the requirement. [...] on that and nothing else, the railway company will proceed to object to the renewal of these licences. In this case the licences expire on 31st December and the court is so pressed with work that it can give no indication whatever when it will be able to hear the railway objections. It makes it impossible for the road haulier to carry on his business in those circumstances.

I would like to stress another point, and that is with regard to what are known as causing or permitting. This is a very strong point with road hauliers. Road haulage is conducted as no other industry is conducted, in that it has not complete control over the actions of its employés. Repeatedly in Acts of Parliament and in regulations occur such phrases as "causing or permitting any person to drive," "causes or permits to be used," "causes to be kept," and so on. The holder of a licence is always responsible, whatever precautions he may take, for the deeds of his employés, wherever they may be. To quote a case in point, there is a fleet running 4,800,000 miles during the last licensing period of two years. This firm has 30 offences placed against it, and has received a letter written by the licensing authority asking the firm to explain. This is an average of one offence per 160,000 miles, or one per vehicle every six years. Nevertheless, the licensing authorities have seen fit to ask how it is that there are these 30 offences against the firm. Of these 30, 27 are for speeding, and of the 27 there are only 12 recorded on the firm's books.

They had no knowledge whatever that there had been other offences committed anywhere by men in charge of their vehicles, and they have no means of ascertaining until they go to court for a renewal of their licences. The unions pay the men's fines, and the men do not report to their employers, who know nothing about it, but are held responsible when they ask for a renewal of their licence. The speed schedule of this firm lays down an average speed of 16 miles an hour for vehicles over 2½ tons and 25 miles an hour for vehicles up to 2½ tons. That allows an ample margin for any of those delays which may occur. In addition to that, the firm gives a bonus of anything from £1 to 30s. per man every month to those drivers who have a clear record for that month. Everything is done to encourage keeping within the law. Nevertheless, that does not save this firm from having this list brought up against it.

Then, with regard to the weighing of vehicles, licences are granted, as hon. Members know, on the unladen weight of a vehicle, with a total load which must not be exceeded. When these vehicles are granted a licence, it may be for 8 or 10 tons weight, and that weight, owing to the inadequacy of the weighing machines about the country, has very often to be calculated by taking the different axle weights—so much weight on the front axle with the rear axle on the road and the front axle on the weighing machine, and then taking the back axle on the weighing machine and the front axle on the road. Added together, those weights are supposed to give the correct weight, but let me give a case to show how very inadequate this method is. The loading of a vehicle with long baulks of timber which extend a good way beyond the rear of the vehicle must throw a considerably heavier weight on the rear axle than on the front axle, because the centre of gravity is nearer to the rear of the vehicle. The case might be better illustrated, perhaps, where you get any sort of uneven road surface. A vehicle may weigh under its weight when despatched from the weighing machine of the transport operator, but when it comes to any uneven ground on which it is weighed, the centre of gravity must be shifted, and the weight must either go forward or behind the axle weight that is allowed. I think that is a point that ought to be considered.

An experiment was tried by the road hauliers in which a vehicle was weighed at the Hendon weighbridge on all four wheels. It was a 12-tons permitted load, and when it was weighed it turned the scale at 11 tons 19 cwts. 3 qrs. 21 lbs., or 7 lbs. under weight. It was then weighed separately on each axle. The front axle weight was 12 tons 2 cwts. 1 qr. 7 lbs., or 2 cwts. 1 qr. 7 lbs. over weight. The weight on all four wheels was 7 lbs. under, but by this other weighing it was 2 cwts. odd over weight. It was reversed and weighed the other way round, and then it weighed 12 tons 1 cwt. 1 qr. 14 lbs. or 1 cwt. 1 qr. 14 lbs. over weight, by this system of weighing on the axle weight alone. It was weighed on the journey on six other weighing machines, and there were no two of them that weighed it out at the same weight, although allowance was made for fuel and so on. It was weighed at W. and T. Avery's works in Birmingham, and it weighed what it recorded on the four wheels at Hendon originally.

I hope these few cases which I have given—I could give many more, but other hon. Members wish to speak—will convince the House of the necessity of this Motion being placed on the Order Paper and will induce the Minister to give the most careful consideration, as speedily as possible, to the operation of the Acts, to find out where these grievances occur, and, so far as is consistent with the public safety, to remedy them, and to give every encouragement to this growing industry, the road haulage industry, which has been of such great benefit to this country and brought happiness and trade prosperity to so many different undertakings.

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Simpson

I beg to move, in line 5, to leave out "without unnecessary restriction," and to insert "in co-ordination with other forms of transport."

I do not propose, like the Mover of the Motion, to rely on Charles I, because, first, I do not want to go back quite so far, secondly, out of consideration for the time of the House, and, thirdly, for sound historical reasons. I do not propose, either, to traverse many of the narrow debating points that have been raised and the catalogue of individual grievances, which seemed to be somewhat beneath the national importance of the subject. However, there is apparently something of the Christmas spirit abroad, because I understand that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion are willing to accept the Amendment, although co-ordination did not play a very big part in their presentation of the case.

Captain Strickland

We are prepared to accept the Amendment, provided it follows at the end of the Motion and does not leave out the words "without unnecessary restriction."

Mr. Simpson

I am afraid, then, that I am not in a position to do other than act in accordance with the Motion as it is tabled and the Amendment as it stands in relation to it. I was thinking, as that was the position as I understood it, that it was indicative of the fact that we should be saved some of the feeling of rivalry and antagonism that is sometimes suggested between various phases of national transport. In order that I might avoid any possible suggestion of partisanship or rivalry of interests, I was prepared at one time to withdraw the Amendment.

Captain Strickland

Would the hon. Member remember that we discussed this matter and it was agreed that the Amendment should not be moved?

Mr. Simpson

I was in that position for the reasons I have stated, but I subsequently understood that the Amendment was acceptable to the Mover and the Seconder. I understand the Mover said so in his speech. My friends and I are concerned with eliminating any feeling between these two sections because we feel that it is imperative to secure a proper conspectus and objective consideration of the whole question of transport, in which the road plays an important part. We all recognise that transport in these days is a vital communal concern, and from that standpoint we regard the road interest as a component part and as complementary rather than competitive to rail transport. They have, of course, their differences of methods, but there is no reason why there should be any fundamental antagonism.

Mr. Remer

In judging this situation does not the hon. Member think there is another interest, namely, the users of transport, like myself, which should also be considered?

Mr. Simpson

I was coming to that part of the question, but I have hardly emerged from the preamble of my speech. The attitude which I and my hon. Friends take on this question is specially concerned with the public. In discussing this question it is first necessary to consider and relate the respective functions and status of the different kinds of transport. In considering the "proper place"—which are the words used in the Motion—of road or any other phase of transport, it is not so much a question of a square deal or of a fair deal for separate entities, but the necessity for a balanced policy in which each element assumes its most appropriate functions. We recognise that air, canals, and the coastal service should not be overlooked, and these, together with road and rail, should offer alternative means of transport where the question of speed and convenience should be related to economy and transport costs.

The Motion refers to unnecessary restrictions. "Restriction" rather implies arbitrary or gratuitous interference. I take it that the only justification for regulation or control is that it confers greater freedom, fairness and advantage to all who provide the service, those who depend upon it and the public at large. In point of fact, the rail interests are not separate or isolated from the road. The railway companies in this country own no fewer than 10,000 goods motor vehicles. They were once literally railways only, but soon they had to undertake the collection and delivery of goods in addition, and now they undertake direct short hauls by road. When the question of restriction becomes a subject for discussion we remember that the railways have certainly operated under severe and costly forms of restriction. There is too large an amount of railway capital represented in efforts to secure Parliamentary and other authority for their undertakings. It seems rather strange that when the Mover was asked whether the road people would undertake to become common carriers, he was not prepared with an answer.

In addition to the early necessity for Parliamentary authority to engage in the transport business, the railways to-day are involved in any number of statutory restrictions and obligations, and the latest publicity is associated with some phases of that impediment. From time to time the railways have been subjected to criticism because they have not adopted new and modern methods. They have been criticised because they have not done this or that thing, but they have been impeded by Parliamentary restrictions in many cases from undertaking services and providing modern means, of which hon. Members apparently feel the need but do not recognise the difficulties.

Mr. Remer

Would any sensible trader who wanted to send goods from Manchester to be delivered to-morrow morning at Birmingham ever employ a railway company? My own firm pays 8d. a ton more for goods to go by road instead of by rail. Would any sensible firm ever employ a railway company to do anything quickly?

Mr. Simpson

I like to assume, for the purpose of this Debate, that all traders are sensible. Railway companies were conveying goods from London to Glasgow and making delivery next day—

Mr. Remer

May I say to my hon. Friend that the railways are thoroughly inefficient?

Mr. Simpson

Do I understand the hon. Member to say that railway companies are thoroughly efficient? In that case I do not recognise the point of my hon. Friend's objection.

Mr. Remer

May I repeat that my own firm pays 8d. a ton more for goods to go by road rather than by rail. Would any sensible firm pay 8d. a ton more if one form of transport were as good as the other? We pay it because the goods go more quickly by road.

Mr. Poole

Is the hon. Member's point that his is the only sensible firm?

Mr. Deputy-Speaker (Sir Dennis Herbert)

Hon. Members ought to remember that this is a Debate.

Mr. Simpson

I was dealing with restrictions and making good my argument that the railways have suffered as much in the way of restrictions as road undertakings. In point of fact, as recently as 1928 there was a fiercely-fought contest in this House over granting the railways permission to engage in road transport business. As regards restrictions, the railways have a more impressive case than the road operators. The Motion calls for better roads and extended accommodation, and in that case we should have to inquire how we could determine the dimensions of that claim without having regard to the whole system of transport.

Let me give one or two indications of the magnitude of the problem. I cannot give the figures for road transport, because they are not recorded; and on that one point alone it is to be noted that the railways have been subjected to an administrative requirement which has not been imposed upon the roads. In 1937 no fewer than 1,216,000,000 passengers were conveyed by rail, and a large proportion of those were, of course, long-distance passengers. During the same year no fewer than 287,000,000 tons of freight were conveyed by rail. From time to time we hear rash and ill-founded statements that the railways could be scrapped and all that immense volume of passenger and freight traffic put on the public highways, and I was somewhat astonished to gather that the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry who, I assume, is somewhat of an expert in transport matters, seems to share that opinion. I think it will be admitted that such a suggestion is manifestly absurd.

That point being granted, we must then ask, What is the economic or necessary proportion, if any, of that traffic which should be transferred from the rail to the road? On the other hand, I think it is not unreasonable to ask whether it is not the case that much of the heavy and dangerous transport on the roads ought to be conveyed by rail, where there is adequate accommodation, facilities for safety and reasonable rates in operation. After all, the initial purpose of the railways was to provide special tracks on which traffic could be run. In respect of land alone the outlay was £42,000 per route-mile, and then there is the annual outlay upon the upkeep, £20,000,000 a year, and the cost of all the other essential provisions in the way of signalling and other equipment; and the point we have to bear in mind from the public point of view is that whatever amount of traffic may be passing over the rails those fixed charges, representing the cost of insuring the efficiency of the system, remain.

Road construction—and the Motion calls for extended and improved accommodation—would cost a huge sum of public money. At present the outlay is £54,000,000 annually, and that is a public charge, as against the private provision which is made by the railway companies. If increased road facilities are to be provided quite obviously the public will have to pay. The simple economic truth to-day is that the easy and discriminatory advantages secured by some sections of industry from the road services must be subsidised by those other sections of industry and of the public who of necessity have to use the railways, or, alternatively, railway labour and railway capital must make sacrifices to equate the difference. Again, when we talk of road accommodation we must remember that the roads are public highways. Reference has been made to the enormous increase in the number of private cars on the road. Some thousands per week are added to the already congested roads, and in addition to those who use motor cars or motor transport vehicles cyclists, pedestrians and other road-users are entitled to consideration.

In recent Debates in the House hon. Members have been impressed by the appalling number and the terrific cost of road accidents, and the matter is causing very great concern in the country, and without becoming hysterical, or anti-motor, or anti-road, one can say that that aspect of the question is a very substantial social debit factor in the problem as a whole. We all know that there is a strin- gent and searching inquiry into every accident which occurs on the railways and that new safety devices are being introduced every day—at private and not at public cost—to the advantage, in the long run, of the travelling and trading public. That enterprise, that system of inspection and regulation, is in itself an enormous social asset to the safety and well-being of the public. Referring again to the question of restrictions, only last week there was an interesting Debate in this House on a Prayer, submitted by the Seconder of the Motion, and most of us were startled by the statements of the Minister—in reply to observations made by my hon. Friend who will second this Amendment—regarding the number of road offences and the general disregard of the laws which have been made in connection with road transport in the interests of public safety. The Minister said that no fewer that 26,000 road convictions were recorded in a single year, and many of them for offences associated with those considerations of safety which affect the general public. One might, without much exaggeration, have thought that instead of that Prayer being directed to the perfect justice of high Heaven it might more appropriately have been offered to the other place.

I make no apology for referring to the vast army who serve in the realm of transport. For better or worse the distributive demands of modern society increase at an astounding rate. It is true that much of the road business does not represent diversion from rail but has been created by and has followed new inventions which undoubtedly confer social advantages on the people. With doubtful wisdom, perhaps, in these days, we seem to calculate progress in the variety and rapidity of movement. The extent of that advance is indicated by the fact that the huge total of 1,750,000 people are directly employed in transport. Together with their families, they represent approximately 3,000,000 of the population of this country. The social reaction in regard to the standard of life in that large proportion of the community will necessarily have considerable importance to the rest of the country. The stability of the employment is itself of great social value. The railway wage bill alone represents a figure of £100,000,000 a year.

To mention only one subsidiary factor in addition to those huge figures affecting the economic and social life of this country, the railways are purchasers of 15,000,000 tons of coal a year, which is a very substantial contribution to the coal trade of this country. I am not pretending or suggesting by any means that the labour conditions represent Utopia, because a considerable number of employés do not receive 50s. per week at the present time. Improvements in service conditions are being sought; nevertheless, the freedom of negotiation and the standards that already exist represent an advance on many other industrial employments in this country. There are other secondary but not unimportant features, inasmuch as the rail side of the industry provides sick funds and there are widow and orphan schemes and superannuation schemes. While it is true that these do not embrace the whole of the staff, they represent a considerable amount of industrial self-help and of ambulance work for the community.

We ought not to allow the Gresham Law to operate in social and industrial affairs. We ought not to allow the worse conditions to drive out the better. It is unfair to indict all road operators and road firms in this connection. I am certain that the best of the road employers hope for protection by means of regulations against their more unscrupulous competitors. That is the justification in the employing side of the industry for some of the restrictions that are complained of. I have in mind an important road firm which does not concede ordinary trade union recognition and does not give negotiating facilities to my own organisation. We hope to overcome these difficulties in the near future, but the fact remains that this firm, in contrast with the railway organisations, shows definite hostility and obstruction to elementary trade union rights of recognition. The hon. Member who moved the Motion said that he was in favour of moderate considerations for the labour interests in the industry. That seems to go hardly far enough.

Finally—here possibly I enter on more controversial ground—I believe it is the case to-day that some of the least useful and most harmful employments of capital get the greatest industrial reward. I may be critical of railway capital from time to time when I am opposing attacks on railway wages, but when considering the claim of the capital which provides ser- vice so essential to the life of the nation, although it is dangerous ground to me, I am not shirking this aspect of the problem. If on these benches we enunciate new values and ways of economic organisation we must appreciate comparative values and the merits of here-and-now and of things as they are. Again I proceed on the principle of sustaining the better against the worse and the social against the anti-social service.

As the Motion is drawn we did not intend to oppose it, but we urge that in the wider national interest some of the considerations which I have advanced tonight should be kept well in mind, if we wish to put road transport into its proper place and to ensure that broader communal concerns dominate and decide our transport policy. It is well known that on these benches the principle of public ownership and control is our direction in these matters. After all, we do not improve the mixture by changing the label on the bottle. We do not solve a complex issue like modern transport merely by reticketing the vehicles. I submit that most of the points which I have raised to-night are equally pertinent under changed ownership because they are fundamental social and economic factors which are inseparable from the problem, either to-day or to-morrow and in conditions of modified chaos, or on a basis of intelligent scientific co-ordination. It is equally important that they should be kept in mind. For those reasons I feel that it is necessary on the broad grounds of public interest and equity that the Amendment should be added to the Motion. I hope that the House will give that interpretation of public good in regard to public transport.

9.3 p.m.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

I beg to second the Amendment.

What struck me was that the Mover and Seconder of the Motion contended that road transport was necessary to the life of the nation, but neither sought to justify the Motion. One took the line that we needed better roads but he had very little to say except to revert to what we had in the War, such as the old gas-bottle. The Seconder tried to introduce a series of hard cases extracted from approximately 500,000 vehicles. I think it is agreed that hard cases make bad law. The Amendment that I am second- ing is that it is necessary to work in cooperation with other forms of transport. Road transport is an essential feature of modern industrial life and no one would deny that better roads for its accommodation are urgently necessary if it is to take its place in the modern system. It must take its place with other forms of transport and must be subjected to regulation.

Many of the disabilities and restrictions of road transport are due to the fact that it has grown up in an unregulated manner. Before the War, there were very few road transport mechanical vehicles on the roads; now there are over 500,000. It has had no conscious direction; it has grown up in competition, instead of in co-ordination, with other forms of transport. Other disabilities are due to the faults of road operators themselves. Road transport has developed rapidly since the War, and, in spite of licensing regulations, the number of vehicles on the roads is undoubtedly in excess of economic requirements, having regard to the existence of other efficient forms of transport. There are now in existence 93,216 A licences and 54,906 B licences, while of C licences, that is to say licences held by people who carry only their own goods, there are no fewer than 365,025, making a total of 513,147. In April, 1936, there were 102,855 A licences, 54,590 B licences, and 329,195 C licences, or a total of 486,640. The total number has thus increased by 26,507, but the increase in the number of C licences alone is 35,830.

What is the significance of these facts? They mean that, if the A and B licence-holders are not giving the trader the service that he requires, and if the railways, the canals and coastwise shipping are not playing their part in a co-ordinated system, the trader buys his own vehicle, goes on to the roads and adds to the congestion and danger of the roads, whereas, if there were a properly co-ordinated system, it could be used to provide proper facilities for any trader. If we are to have such a co-ordinated system, something will have to be done to check the increase in the number of licence-holders carrying only their own goods. Already the figure is 365,025. Is this increase to be permitted to go on indefinitely, until we reach complete saturation on the roads, while at the same time, through lack of co-ordination, we see a dimunition of the railway services and of another important service the absence of which in time of war would be a real menace. I refer to coastwise shipping.

The increase in the number of vehicles, and particularly of heavy vehicles, necessitates more and better roads. We have, of course, the Road Fund, the Petrol Duty, and also the assistance given by the Minister in the construction of trunk roads; but the main burden of expenditure on our roads and streets is borne by local authorities. They are not consulted as to the volume of traffic which their roads and streets have to carry, but they must bear their share of the cost. Huge sums have to be spent. It may surprise hon. Members to learn that last year the total expenditure on the roads for maintenance, including about £9,000,000, for new roads and widening, was approximately £55,000,000. Of that amount, only £20,000,000 comes from the Road Fund; £35,000,000 comes from the ratepayers of the country. This is an aspect of the question that some of our ratepayers' associations might look into. My own district of Bermondsey is practically the feeding centre for London. Only lately I had to go to the Ministry of Transport to seek assistance for road development, not in order to deal with local traffic, but to deal with traffic that comes through and over that area. Bermondsey is a borough which has something like 2,000 overcrowded houses, and will have, in a few years, to carry out no fewer than 44 slum clearance schemes. Yet that borough, where a 1d. rate yields £3,400, has to find one-third of the cost of bearing that traffic, which serves the rest of London and its environs with food. From the point of view of the rates, I think it is time that that factor was dealt with.

I wonder whether the Minister, since we all know that roads are necessary, could not consider increasing what I would call new development on the roads. There is no doubt that much good has been done, but anyone who travels on the roads will be aware that constantly, after going 5, 10 or 20 miles along a good road, one finds that the virtue of that road has been utterly wiped out by a series of bottle-necks, which, at comparatively small cost, could have been by-passed. Again, take the question of the Severn Bridge. At one time the Minister went so far as to agree to the promotion of a Bill, and to pay 75 per cent. towards the cost of that promotion. The Select Committee which considered that and of which I was a member, sat for 19 days, and the railway interests were successful in killing the Bill. I do not blame them. They said that this bridge, which for the first time would have connected physically Wales with England, was going to be a danger to the Severn Tunnel. They paid no regard to the fact that, if this country should be involved in war, and Heaven knows it might be, the whole of our food and munitions traffic would have to come from the western side of the country. Without an efficient bridge system connecting the whole of our roads, we should be left, as we were in the last War, with that bottle-neck of the Severn Tunnel, through which every ton of goods for the service of the country had to come, and if one bomb dropped on it, we should be left in a state of complete starvation. The ratepayers have no voice in the spending of the money; they only have to find it.

The Mover of the Motion, who has now left the House, is, I understand, connected with the motor industry. I would not be thought in any way to decry Lord Nuffield, who also is connected with the motor industry. One has to look upon him with respect on account of his munificence. But, on the other hand, is it fair that the ratepayers should be mulcted in rates to this extent when the producing side of the industry is making such fabulous profits that it can distribute millions without making any contribution to the road system of the country, on which its vehicles are going to operate?

On the question of legal obligations, the road transport operators display a complete lack of social conscience. Regulations were properly imposed on the industry, in the interests of public safety, with a view to improving the standards of employment, in order to attract the best type of workers to the industry. But so high is the cost of enforcing these legal provisions, and particularly the safety provisions, that the Minister has just had to increase the fees for carriers' licences. In a Debate the other night, the Minister said that in the year 1937 among these unsocially-minded people there were 8,000 convictions for driving over hours and over the rest periods that the law insists shall be given to the employés in the industry; 10,000 convictions for hours not kept or improperly kept; 4,500 convictions for vehicles not maintained in a serviceable condition; 2,750 for using vehicles without a licence or outside the terms of the licence—that is a very serious statement; 200 convictions for using vehicles after an examiner had stopped the vehicle for inefficiency; and 550 in respect of heavy vehicles driven by men not licensed to drive them. The employer must know whether a man carries a heavy vehicle licence as well as an ordinary motor-car licence. Remember that the 1933 Act was a Road Safety Act, and yet there were 7,300 convictions for speeding.

One hon. Member said it was the fault of the men. I will have this House know that daily and hourly men are forced to exceed the speed limit, to do a journey in a specified time which involves their breaking the law, under the fear of losing their employment. The legal provisions in question are not disabilities and unnecessary restrictions, but are fair and proper regulations which Parliament has imposed in the public interest. If road transport operators seriously disregard these provisions, as they do, how can they expect sympathy; and how can they expect financial assistance from public funds to continue?

On the question of wages and hours I want to bring this to the notice of the Minister and of his right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour. When the Bill came before the House one of my hon. Friends said to me, "Wherever I go I point to this Measure as the effect of real democracy in this House." The fair wages requirement in the Act of 1933 was first applied only to holders of A and B licences. A national joint conciliation board was set up, representing both employers and workpeople. The difficulties encountered by the board in its efforts to provide a stable basis for working conditions in the industry were so great that both sides on the board had to approach the Minister in 1936 for further legislation. That was done by the employers and the workpeople—the good employers and the workpeople—going to the Minister. The good employers in the industry were, and are, exposed to unfair competition. It is their continual complaint. They say, "You keep pressing these conditions; we keep paying your rates; but you do nothing to deal with the scallywags we have to compete with." That is a fair case. On the Order Paper to-day, I had some questions addressed to the Minister. I asked him, whether he is aware that during the hearing of a case against the Gibson Road Transport Company, Limited, Clayton Street, Newport, Monmouthshire, for tampering with a driver's log, the defence attempted to discredit the driver by suggesting that he had been dismissed for the alleged theft of oil and for being involved in accidents and that his evidence was a deliberate attempt to get his former employers into trouble; whether he is aware that this line of defence is frequently pursued; whether the examiners for the Traffic Commissioners have experienced any difficulty in obtaining evidence because of the intimidation of drivers in this and other ways; and whether he will therefore consider increasing the number of examiners? In my second question, I pointed out that this firm had been fined£15. Here is the Minister's answer: I have caused inquiries to be made into this case and I am informed that the defence to the action was on the lines indicated by the hon. Member, and that the court found the case proved and inflicted the penalty which he describes. Licensing authorities in their annual reports have expressed the view that falsification of driving records is prevalent and that drivers are reluctant to give evidence about their records for fear of dismissal. I fully share the hon. Member's desire to stamp out this practice, and I have recently taken steps to augment the number of examiners, whose duty it is to scrutinise the records with a view to seeing if the law as to speeding and hours of driving and rest are complied with. I am satisfied that the maximum penalty of revocation or suspension of a licence is adequate. I would like to ask, how many licences have been revoked or suspended for offences such as that covered by those questions? I think I should be right in saying, less than 20. I am not certain about that. Not all the worst offenders are A and B licence holders, who are contractors; some are C licence holders, who are ancillary users. These licences were excluded from the fair wages requirement of the Act of 1933; and this was one of the factors that made it impossible to establish reasonable conditions in the industry. The privileged position which they enjoyed, and still enjoy—because if they cannot get satisfaction from the contractors they immediately put their own vehicles on the road—has been renewed under the Road Haulage Wages Act. When the Act comes into operation they will not be governed by the same authority as the A and B licence holders, but it will be left to the trade unions to submit complaints regarding unfair wages to the Minister of Labour for reference to the Industrial Court. It is a great pity that the Government yielded to pressure and departed from the recommendations of the Baillie Committee in this instance.

That Act was passed last June, but the area boards are not yet established and it is doubtful whether the Central Board has ever yet been constituted. If there was a real desire among the employers to put their industry on a proper basis, if there was a recognition by them of the obligations of citizenship in regard to carrying out an Act with which they were in agreement, why are we still waiting for a settlement of the condition for the establishment of these area boards and the Central Board? It would appear that industry does not want to put its house in order; it wants, as the mover and the seconder so steadfastly claimed to-night, free competition; it wants freedom to do as it likes; and while this House exists no industry of its size and character would ever get the freedom which is demanded by this Motion. In the case of road transport the Council recommended that an opportunity be afforded for road hauliers to build up a rates structure. A committee was set up, and progress, they say, is being made, but the fact remains that after 18 months of discussion there is no approach to a rates structure. The mover and seconder will agree that there ought to be a rates structure, but how can you have a rates structure and free competition at the same time? A rates structure fixes the rates for the type of goods carried for a given distance.

I want to say a word now about the railways. We are told that the claim of the railway companies is for a so-called square deal. After the Minister had received two deputations of the railway representatives he referred this matter, I understand, to the Transport Advisory Council, a body made up of all the elements of transport—coastwise transport, canals, railways, road transport, owners and labour. That is a pretty wide body to deal with co-ordination. But what happened? I am credibly informed that the railway companies, in going before the Transport Advisory Council, pressed that their case should not be publicly heard. I want to protest against that. The matter was referred to a sub-com- mittee of the Council, and the railway companies, I understand, pressed that the case should be heard in camera. After a lot of discussion it was decided, I believe, to take the case partly in camera and partly in public, but when it came to the question of the Baillie Report and workmen's compensation, that inquiry must be held in public. If it is good for the workman to have his conditions aired in public, it is right that the railways should come out and tell the public what they mean by a "square deal."

I want now to refer to the question of roads. It is no use paying mere lip-service to co-ordination and then leaving it to be dovetailed in, as it were. It has to be planned. The railway companies, in my opinion, made a fatal mistake when in 1928 they had the right given to them to run goods vehicles on long-distance haulage and passenger vehicles. Certainly, they spent £13,000,000—£9,000,000 on transport vehicles and £4,000,000 on goods vehicles, but only to exist in competition with present goods vehicles, and, in fact, in competition with the railways themselves. That is not coordination. I understand the railway people say they welcome co-ordination. I understand the road transport people say they welcome co-ordination. Last week I saw representative owners of coastwise shipping and they said, "What do you mean by co-ordination?" My answer to them is that all forms of transport should act as the complement one of the other, and the most efficient form of transport should be used for the type of goods that have to be moved. That seems to me to be a fair way of explaining what co-ordination is. I believe—and I hope this will not be misunderstood—that the railways cannot launch out as they would like to, because of the amount of fixed capital. If a railway were going to launch out in a system of co-ordination, it would mean closing down all the unremunerative branch lines, and utilising road transport and passenger transport on the road in place of the unremunerative branch lines. Instead of saying, "The railway must stop at a dead end there," by a proper system of co-ordinated transport they should give all the facilities that are necessary to traders and passengers.

Another aspect that is rather forgotten in this House is that when the railways were doing well and there was no road transport the road people used to buy and store goods. To-day they move goods quickly, and road transport is used because it operates from door to door; it is quicker in transit, and at the same time it allows a turnover to take place. That is a factor that has to be considered: it is the quick turnover of goods, avoiding price fluctuations, which has advanced the system of using the roads. Coastwise traffic surely is a complementary form of transport. I believe that 70 per cent. of coastwise traffic is by what I call coastwise liners, and the 30 per cent, is made up of what I call the tramp system of coastwise traffic. They are complaining of many forms of foreign transport—the Dutch family boat that comes in and competes against them from one port to another, then slips away to Holland and back again. That is a serious thing. But if this country is really going to be defended in a war, then road transport, rail transport and coastwise transport must play an important part in operating the traffic needs of this country, both from the military and the civic points of view. Therefore, I say that there is plenty of room for the road transport industry to exist side by side with other forms of transport, operating as a complementary, and not as a competitive, system. If we can get that, with the proper regulations and proper co-ordination, the cost to the public, to the trader, and to the Exchequer could be materially reduced, and the conditions of labour might as a result be very much better.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

The original Question was the Motion which appears on the Order Paper. Since then an Amendment has been moved to leave out the words, "without unnecessary restriction," and to substitute" in co-ordination with other forms of transport." The Question I have to put is "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Motion." I think, perhaps, I ought to call attention to the fact that it is now the Amendment which is before the House, and it may be that one would be obliged to restrict somewhat the very interesting Debate we have been having. But I am given to understand that the Mover of this Motion does not oppose the Amendment, and it might be in the interests of the Debate generally, if the Amendment is carried, that the House should proceed in that case to continue the Debate on the original Motion. If hon. Members agree, I will put that to the House.

Hon. Members

Yes!

Amendment agreed to.

Main Question, as amended, proposed.

9.35 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport (Captain Austin Hudson)

I understand that it would be for the convenience of the House if I intervened now, and I can assure the House that I will not take longer than is absolutely necessary, because there are many Members who wish to speak. May I say first of all that I welcome this Motion, as it gives the House an opportunity of discussing the important problem of the great industry of road transport, and I hope that the Motion, as now amended, may be carried unanimously in a proper Christmas spirit.

I should like, first of all, to deal with the subject of difficulties and restrictions with which the Mover and the Seconder have dealt. It has been said that the road transport industry suffers from restrictions, but I would be disposed to say that the "restriction" is really "regulation" or an attempt to bring order out of chaos. I believe the whole House would agree that restrictions which merely hinder or irritate should not be encouraged, but I would ask hon. Members to throw their minds back to the time when the 1930 Road Traffic Act and the 1933 Road and Rail Traffic Act were before this House. Conditions in the road transport industry were little short of chaotic. Unrestricted cut-throat competition was such at that time that few could make a decent living, and what was far worse—and this point has been stressed by the Seconder of the Amendment—low wages and long hours were forced upon many employés, and the safety of vehicles on our roads was becoming a secondary consideration in the rush for orders.

On the passenger side of the industry I have not heard a single responsible passenger operator say that after eight years' experience of the Road Traffic Act he would like to return to the conditions prevailing before 1931. Since 1931, I am informed, the number of passenger journeys per year in public road vehicles has grown from 5,200,000,000 to 6,600,000,000. We were told at the time the restrictions were put on that the industry would be inclined to slump. It was because the position in the goods industry was becoming impossible that the 1933 Act reached the Statute Book with comparatively little opposition in this House. Since that Act has reached the Statute Book some sort of order has been evolved. Inspections have turned the dangerous vehicles off the road, and conditions in the industry are improving; and, as we were reminded by the last speaker, the Road Haulage Wages Bill reached the Statute Book only this year. I think that we can say too, that the good employer now is no longer at the mercy of the bad, as he was before the passing of these Acts. But the necessity for continued vigilance is obvious. That, as many of us remember, was debated in this House only last week, and I do not want to go into the question again now as time is short. Far from throttling the goods industry, I find that in 1933 there were some 370,000 goods vehicles on the road, whereas in 1938 this figure has risen to 513,000 vehicles, so that on that side as well the industry still continues to thrive.

On the subject of restrictions, raised by the Mover and Seconder of the Motion, I assure the House that we will study with the greatest care what has been said and what will be said in the remainder of the Debate. We do not want to see unnecessary restrictions imposed, any more than anyone else in this House. I would say one thing, though I do not want to go into details now. The Seconder complained of the difficulty in obtaining renewals of licences and said that the railway companies opposed applications. Over 90 per cent. of the renewals are unopposed, and it is only a small residue that are opposed at all by the railway companies or anybody else.

I cannot let the remarks made about the independence of the licensing authorities go past without a word. The House will remember that these gentlemen were made independent. It is true that they are appointed by the Minister, but he cannot interfere with their decisions. Their day-to-day administration cannot be questioned in this House. That is a Ruling from the Chair. On the goods side there is an independent Appeal Tribunal to whom operators can go. That is different from the passenger side, where the appeal is to the Minister. An hon. Member of this House wrote to me and said that he would like appeals on the goods side to go in the same way to the Minister as they do on the passenger side, and then he added: "instead of to an impartial tribunal."

Mr. Remer

I am the hon. Member who wrote to the hon. and gallant Gentleman. My point in this matter is that I would rather have my hon. and gallant Friend to be the judge of the matter than some of the impartial tribunals I have found dealing with road transport.

Captain Hudson

I did not want to mention any names, but now that my hon. Friend reminds me, I rather think that it was he. He knows that I myself deal with these appeals on the passenger side, but I assure the House that, as far as I know, the decisions of the appeals, and certainly the conduct of the Traffic Commissioners, are independent, and no pressure, political or otherwise, is put upon them. It is remarkable the way the Commissioners carry on in a really difficult position. As regards the gas vehicle mentioned by the Mover, we are looking very carefully into the question of its encouragement at the present time. I would say a word or two about co-ordination mentioned in the Amendment which has now become part of the Motion. The House will recall that every investigation of recent years has urged that co-ordination and not unregulated competition between different forms of transport is the proper course to adopt.

I do not want—the House would not expect it of me—to say much concerning the present claims of the railway companies, since they have now been referred to the Transport Advisory Council for advice. The Council has appointed a committee to deal with the matter, and that committee I understand has sat today and will meet again to-morrow. It is taking all possible steps to expedite this work, and the House will in due course be informed of the Government's decision on the request put forward by the companies.

I want to say a word or two on a very important part of the Motion, that calling our attention to the necessity for adequate roads. Taking it all in all our road system in this country is probably the best in the world, especially having regard to the standard and condition of our secondary roads and the comprehensive network which they form.

Mr. Edwards

That kind of thing gives such a false impression. I come from the North-East coast, and the road from Newcastle to London is a positive disgrace to this country. It is no good giving the impression that the roads are in a satisfactory state.

Captain Hudson

I had not really finished what I was going to say.

Mr. Edwards

I am sorry.

Captain Hudson

I said, taking it all in all—and I have travelled on roads abroad—our system is probably the best in the world, but I was going to assure the House that we are well aware that this should not obscure the necessity for improvement, particularly of our main traffic arteries.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

May we take it that the Government will be prepared to augment the money from the Road Fund for the purpose of developing the roads?

Captain Hudson

The hon. Member has been mentioning the roads in his borough. I cannot go into that question. He knows the difficulty. The Trunk Roads Act does not affect the roads through boroughs of the kind in his constituency. I am, however, in favour of doing all we possibly can to improve the roads, and I think I shall be able to show that we are by no means neglecting our duty in that respect. It was because of the need for improvement that the Trunk Roads Act was passed in 1936, under which 4,500 miles of trunk roads were taken over by the Ministry. It is for the same reason my right hon. Friend has approved in principle programmes of highway authorities for improvement of other highways, not trunk roads, at an estimated cost of over £100,000,000. The House will understand that vast undertakings of this kind cannot be carried through all at once. Apart altogether from the question of finance, which is of great moment, at the present time particularly, the time taken by land acquisition is a governing factor. It is because of the conditions laid down by this House that the time cannot be shortened. We have to give ample notice by Statute to interested parties, and in any case of objection—the House can read the accounts of the different inquiries that have been held—local inquiries may be held. These conditions which are imposed upon us have involved an initial time lag, but we are hoping by special efforts made during the past year to improve and quicken matters. Constructional works will be pushed ahead as quickly as possible.

Our plans are being made out not only for the immediate future but for years to come. I want to give some figures which I hope the House will find interesting. Some 215 orders for by-passes and diversions have been published and 127 of these, covering 178 separate diversions, have been sealed. Last March the figures were 73 and 33 respectively. Hon. Members will, therefore, see that whereas up to last March the average rate of progress was under seven orders per month, the present rate is over 17. As regards trunk road schemes, there are 500 upon which constructional work has already begun or which are in the final stages of preparation. These include a number of large schemes such as the Maidenhead by-pass, the Maidstone by-pass, the Northwich bypass and the Chester Ring road.

In considering road works to be carried out or to be assisted by the Department, the possible demands of war are taken fully into account. In that connection I should like to mention a very important road in London, the Cromwell Road extension, which was recommended by Sir Charles Bressey. Tenders have been received for this road and the contract will be let before another month expires.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

The Traffic Committee recommended that so far back as 1925.

Captain Hudson

It is one of the schemes that come in the Bressey Report. The Bill went through the House long before the Bressey Report ever saw the light of day. I mentioned it so that hon. Members, if they so desire, can look up the scheme and see what it is. We hope that this scheme will be completed in the latter part of 1941. It is a scheme which is very vital, in consideration of the evacuation of London to the west, should that unfortunate eventuality ever have to take place.

The last sentence of the Motion says that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed to the encouragement and development of the road transport industry. We believe that that is a vital necessity, and we believe that it is equally vital both for road and rail. We certainly would not be parties to any scheme to kill the road in order to save the rail, or vice versa. Let me say a few words regarding war-time measures, which I gather are covered by the last sentence of the Motion. My Department has been working on a scheme for a long time past and a special Department of the Ministry has been set up. In conection with this plan we are in constant co-operation with the Committee of Imperial Defence, and we have also the advantage of an advisory committee of leading men of the road haulage industry. In the light of the experience of September last, our scheme is at present undergoing a thorough review. I might, incidentally, inform the House, in view of recent public utterances on the subject, that plans are well advanced for the diversion of shipping from ports whose facilities and activities might be curtailed by enemy action, to other ports capable of receiving it. The Department's examination of that subject is not a matter of a few weeks ago but goes back for several years.

Mr. Benjamin Smith

Be sure that your docking facilities are right.

Captain Hudson

All relevant conditions are considered. The hon. Member will realise that this is a matter which is extremely complicated. I do not want to detain the House any longer. I would only repeat that the criticisms and suggestions which have been made during this Debate will be most carefully considered by my Department, and that my right hon. Friend and I welcome the discussion of the problems of one of the most important industries in our country.

Mr. Bemer

May I ask my hon. and gallant Friend whether the efficiency of the railway companies is also taken into consideration by the Ministry of Transport?

Captain Hudson

All relevant points are taken into consideration.

9.52 p.m.

Mr. Parkinson

I was rather surprised at the line taken by the Mover of the Motion. It appeared to me that he would follow the line of the Motion, but he immediately went right away from it, and the question of road vehicle transport and rail transport has been the subject of the discussion rather than what is expressed in the Motion. The Motion can be easily divided into three parts:

1. (1) That in the opinion of this House, road transport is an essential factor of modern industrial life.
2. (2) That better roads for its accommodation are urgently necessary.
3. (3) That the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed to its encouragement and development without unnecessary restriction so that it may take its proper place in the transport system of the country.

Instead of debating the question as I expected he would have done, we had an immediate breakaway into the intricacies of motor transport service. The hon. Member said that there had been a colossal expansion of roads recently. I do not know where any colossal expansion has been taking place, but certainly in the present state of the country everyone will agree that a greater expansion of roads is necessary, owing to the emergency with which we are threatened. The hon. Member also referred to the number of acts and regulations of all kinds affecting road transport, and also the amount of money paid by the road transport services to the Exchequer. Later on he said that he did not agree with forcing traffic from one method of transport to another. I do not know what he meant by that. In the whole of his speech he showed that he was not in sympathy with co-ordination, practically speaking, of any kind.

He wanted special facilities for road transport services as against any others, but he did not suggest the method by which he would force traffic from one method to another. Neither did he specify the kind of traffic, whether it is heavy traffic, medium weight traffic or light traffic. He did say that the roads were constructed to meet local needs. That may be the case, but in times like the present we want roads constructed for national needs. It is more likely that we shall require roads for much heavier traffic in the future. He also made the startling suggestion that wages should be moderately protected. Why "moderately"? Why should not wages be fully protected in order that we may have peace and tranquillity among the workers in the whole of the transport services? I should like to think that the hon. Member has made a mistake and would admit it if he had to make his speech over again. He said that free competition was the only method of keeping down rates. I think the time has arrived when we should get out of the muddle into which the transport services have got, and that we should get down to concrete proposals and regulations in the interests of the nation as a whole. The Seconder of the Motion dealt wholly with the licensing of vehicles which, to my mind, is not quite inside the terms of the Motion, although I am not the authority to decide that.

I propose to deal with the Motion as divided into the three parts I have indicated. In the first place, that road transport is an essential feature of modern industrial life. Recent events have demonstrated that very fully. Modern industrial life demands not only the best we can get from road transport but the best we can get from railways and coastwise shipping. The complicated conditions of commercial life at the moment demand more from our transport services than ever they have in the past. Our present road system is unable to meet the requirements, and I look forward to the time when the roads of the country will be considerably increased and improved. There is no doubt that at the moment we are not prepared for an emergency should it fall upon us. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. Benjamin Smith) referred to good straight roads for ten miles which suddenly run into a bottle-neck. That is a condition on the Great North Road. We should be in a very awkward situation in a national emergency if we had to depend on the roads as they are at the moment. They are too small; there are too many bottlenecks, too many ugly twists and too many congested areas.

I thought that the Debate would have dealt with these matters rather than of playing off one industry against another. There is an insufficient number of through roads to meet the demands of our industrial and national life. It is a condition which demands the most careful consideration. There is congestion of traffic in particular areas. I can speak of Lancashire which I know. Road traffic has to slow down because of these bottle-necks. I think they are responsible for the large number of convictions of heavy traffic drivers who try to make up lost time on good roads afterwards, but I am not quite sure on that point. They certainly slow down the traffic and loss of business and time is money wasted. It has been said that we have the best roads in the world. I am not disputing that statement, because I do not know any other country. I have not had the opportunity of inspecting what they have done in other countries, but, according to what I have read, European countries have seen the dangers of delay particularly in regard to national needs and have been making new roads connecting all main centres and making provision for all future purposes. That is all I have to say on the first part of the Motion.

The second portion is that better roads and accommodation are urgently necessary. That means that better roads for the accommodation of road transport are absolutely necessary. I believe they are. I do not think the country is at the moment able to meet the potential requirements of the future, and I strongly suggest that something should be done. What has become of the five-year plan? Is it being speeded up in view of present-day requirements? It will be needed. Special roads for heavy and fast traffic should be undertaken at the earliest opportunity. I know it will cost money, but everything you do costs money, and those things which are urgent should have first call. These special roads will be required for heavy traffic in a case of national emergency which might arrive at any time. I have listened to all the Debates on preparations for war, and I have failed to find one Minister who has laid any stress on the making of good roads in order to take the place of railways should they be so damaged as to be inoperative. I have never heard a Minister suggest that the transport of munitions and foodstuffs by road would demand a very heavy expenditure of money on the roads. These are essential services in time of war and they are things which have been neglected. They should have the first call on the national Exchequer. Railways may be destroyed, broken. What is our second means of supply? The southern part of England might be able to find a second means of supply. I remember that in the Tea Room we had a huge map showing about 14 new roads from the coast verging on certain centres of the country. I have heard nothing more about it.

I want to put one point to the Minister which, I think, is worth considering. A royal ordnance factory has been built near Chorley. It is on the side of the railway but if anything happens to the railway, if it should be broken, there are no roads which will enable the factory to obtain its supplies or distribute its goods. There should be a second system to enable this factory to send its goods by road to places like Liverpool and Warrington, and also enable it to get supplies. There would be nothing to take the place of the railway there if it were destroyed. That is an illustration of my contention that road extension is an urgent necessity, not only in the interests of road transport at the present time, but in the national interest. Special roads ought to be made to meet such requirements, and such special roads ought to be built at the expense of the Government and not at the expense of the local ratepayers. An impossible amount of money would be called for from the local authorities if they had to build any great lengths of new roads. These roads would be to meet national requirements and national emergencies; they ought to be built as soon as possible, and they ought not to be a charge on the local ratepayers. The last part of the Motion says: that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed to its encouragement and development without unnecessary restriction"— or, as the Amendment says, "in coordination with other forms of transport"— so that it may take its proper place in the transport system of the country. What should be the policy? It should not be a policy of wrangling between road and rail. For the past few years, we have had this wrangle between the two, and if things continue as they are, the wrangling will be more bitter in the future than in the past. We never hear anything said about canals. I know that they are a slower means of transport, but to a certain extent they are sure; and they would be a great national asset in times of emergency. What should be our policy? Is it to be full co-operation between all forms of transport, coastwise, road, rail and canal; or are we to go on, one holding the bait and the other biting, barking all the time, and accusing others of not doing the right things in certain circumstances? The Government ought to bring together all these systems, to allay the suspicions which exist, and to try to arrive at a condition of things which would give a unified service that would fulfil the country's requirements. One system cannot be developed alone. All the systems must be taken into consideration for the purpose of meeting national requirements which are larger than any particular interests. The welfare of the community is the greatest of all interests. There ought to be that unification which would give protection and support to the whole population. This cut-throat competition must cease. National requirements must come first, and there must be national regulation of the whole of the transport services.

The Government ought to initiate at once inquiries regarding the co-ordination of all forms of transport under Government control; for I do not see any other way of bringing the whole of the transport services together. We cannot allow this bitterness and bickering to go on until the transport systems of the country are thrown into a state of chaos all round. I believe I have stated the only way in which the national requirements could be met, and I think those requirements brook no delay. While I do not share any of that bitterness which has been expressed on both sides of the House, I believe that a real policy such as I have outlined would bring about a feeling of understanding between all these people. In particular, there ought to be an end to that financial bitterness which has caused so much trouble. After all, finance is not the only thing in the world. Everybody has a right to protect that which he possesses, but here there are four services all having financial needs. Is it not possible for them to come together with the common objective of serving the country in all circumstances? I believe it is. Delays are dangerous, particularly at this time, and I think that the Government ought to do as much as they can to institute those inquiries which are necessary in order to clear the ground for an agreement between the services. Let the Government get to work on this problem, and by co-ordination of the transport services make of transport, not a competitive business in which each man is grabbing at the throat of a competitor, but a great transport service that will be a real national asset.

10.11 p.m.

Sir R. Ross

I intervene in the Debate because in recent years I have had con- siderable experience of the problems of transportation, and in particular of the operation of the Road and Rail Traffic Act, 1933. I was surprised to find that one for whose sound common sense and abilities I have such great respect—the hon. Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Higgs)—should have indulged in what I think were fallacies and inconsistencies in some of the things that he said. He suggested that all road users are on the side of the commercial road users. I assure him that no one detests a commercial vehicle on the road as much as do the other people on the road at the same time. If all commercial vehicles were removed from the road, it would give joy to the owners of small cars, who trail behind the big commercial vehicles for miles. Nearly all classes of road users dislike to see commercial vehicles on the road and believe, rightly or wrongly, that by the taxes they pay they are subsidising commercial vehicles.

There was another matter in which I thought my hon. Friend was remarkably inconsistent. I was particularly surprised when he demanded that there should be more commercial vehicles on the road, that this business should be increased and encouraged; for at the same time he pointed out that the congestion on English roads was greater than the congestion on the roads of any other country. It is easy to answer that more roads should be built, but to do that we should have to spend millions of pounds. Moreover, it would raise a problem peculiar to this country, which is a country in which the land is very crowded, so that it is much harder to improve and straighten the roads here than it is on the Continent. A certain amount of goods has to be carried about the country, and the alternative to building more roads, at a cost of millions of pounds—and the money, of course, would not be provided exclusively by the commercial users of the roads—is to send by other means such traffic as can be appropriately sent by those means—the railways, canals and coastwise shipping.

Mr. Remer rose—

Sir R. Ross

My hon. Friend has made the equivalent of two speeches by interruptions, and I do not intend to give way. He goes out of the Chamber and then comes back, and expects to make more interruptions.

Mr. Romer

If my hon. Friend does not want to hear me—

Sir R. Ross

No, I do not. To continue my argument, the question of the co-ordination of these systems is before us. In criticising rather sharply the operations of the licensing authorities under the 1933 Act, both the Mover and the Seconder of the Motion left out one very important thing. The licensing authority has one paramount duty, which is to consider the interests of the public as a whole, above the interests of the individual types of transport which are represented before it. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) was in error in saying that the authority could appear as an objector in his own court. He cannot do that, but even should there be no objector, he has a duty to see that the interests of the public are not jeopardised, either by the grant or by the refusal of a licence. In the execution of that duty it is clear that he must occasionally refuse as well as grant licences.

This is not a party matter. This is a discussion in which, I think, we are all, irrespective of party, trying to make what contribution we can to a solution, and I would like to make some allusion to the criticisms which we have heard of the operation of this Act. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Coventry suggested that the licensing authorities were not independent persons. I am sure he made that remark in good faith, but I do not think he can have seen much of the operation of those authorities. I think, as the Minister said, they carry out a difficult duty to the best of their ability, and as impartially as they can. The licensing commissioners who arrange the affairs of passenger traffic are in a different position. Under the 1933 Act there is a legal tribunal whose decisions are reported and who decide the law, under a very distinguished lawyer and the licensing authorities have to administer the law as laid down by this tribunal. It has been suggested that there should be automatic renewal of A and B licences. I do not see why any class of vested interest should be created by the operation of this Act. Because a man has once received a licence in respect of a particular public need, is no reason why he should have a vested interest in that licence even when the public need has come to an end or why these people should be exempt from a control to which others are still subject.

There is one basic principle involved in the consideration of the operations of this Act. The yardstick by which the need for transport is measured, is whether or not there are in existence, adequate and suitable means of transport. I emphasise the two adjectives. It is not a case of any means of transport, but of means of transport which can carry the desired quantity and are suitable to the needs of the trade and the traders. The Act does not consider the question of cost. It considers solely whether having regard to the public interest there are means to carry the things which need to be carried suitably and adequately. Some of the claims which have been made for the road transport industry cannot be sustained. In the early '30's we had in that industry the law of the jungle. There was voracious competition, there was no sort of control of hours and the wages, in the cases of bad employers, were terrible. I think in all these respects it has improved. We are now gradually getting the enforcement of the hours of driving which were first laid down in 1930, but which had very little respect paid to them until the 1933 Act brought in the necessity of filling the records. Those hours of driving, the 11 hours maximum, with due intervals for rest, and the 10 hours every night which the driver must have, are not hours which are recommended as being appropriate hours, but are hours laid down as being the very maximum for humane employment; and it took the passing of that Act before they were brought in.

We have had the instance of the man who spent £320 on having to argue a case for an extra vehicle. I did not think that in that particular case the costs would be paid by the man. I thought the costs were paid by various road organisations—I am subject to correction—which wished, quite legitimately, to try out an important test case, which they tried out; and what I object to is that, having taken that course, they should then come and make an ad miseri cordiam plea of the amount of the costs which they voluntarily paid by employing particularly good lawyers to try out that important point. The problem which is facing us is that there are too many vehicles on the roads; there are not fewer vehicles. There may be fewer A licence vehicles, but there are actually, if you take A licence and A contract licence vehicles, which are of some value, more this year than last.

Mr. H. G. Williams

Why not?

Sir R. Ross

The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. G. Williams) asks me why not. I did not know that there was anything that the hon. Member did not know. The fact is that the roads have reached saturation point, and that if you could get goods suitably and adequately carried by other means which would take them off the road it would be a very good thing. The great problem is that of the C licence vehicle, and I think the time has come when some sort of control of that vehicle will have to come. Although one could not possibly deny any industry or manufacture vehicles for legitimate collection and delivery work—that is, for a radius of 20 or 30 miles—I think the running of these vehicles all over the country is really becoming a vicious system and that it will not be long before some steps will have to be taken about it. I do not express any opinion as to the correctness or otherwise of the railway case, of which we have heard a lot recently, except to say that my opinion is that if we had the absolutely unrestricted competition of everybody, which the Mover and Seconder of the Motion advocated, the conditions of the transport industry would be far worse than ever before. I apologise for taking up so much time.

10.24 p.m.

Mr. Walkden

The Debate has been exceedingly interesting to those of us who are concerned with transport, and I am sure we all welcome wholeheartedly the statement made on behalf of the Minister. I only hope that he thoroughly meant everything he said and that he will continue to grapple with this problem and grapple with it more vigorously than ever. It is also very pleasing to see that, at any rate superficially, there is agreement in favour of the principle of co-ordination. Unfortunately, while there is apparent agreement on that principle, both sides of the transport industry, the railway companies and the road hauliers, are clamouring for the removal of restrictions and seeking, apparently, to go right back to nineteenth century competition, which, in my humble opinion, is wrong. I do not hold any brief for the railways.

Mr. H. G. Williams

You are on their side.

Mr. Walkden

I have had to fight the railway companies all my life, and I am not on their side. Hon. Members on the other side of the House are too much on the side of certain interests. I am not on the side of any interest but the public interest. There has been much evidence, even in this Debate, helpful as it has been, that there is a desire to get back to the chaos of nineteenth century competition. We want to get away from that situation, and that is why I welcome the acceptance of the word "co-ordination." I want to urge that there never was a more imperative need for that principle to be applied than to-day in view of what happened last September. Our transport system is not only vital to the commercial and social life of the country, but absolutely vital at any time when the country is in danger. One serious difficulty of giving road transport the right to please itself and to get rid of restrictions, as the Mover and Seconder desired, is that if it is left to fight with itself and with the railway companies there will be less coordination and less unity, and in the hour of peril we shall have an industry quite unprepared to give the national assistance it ought to give.

I want to urge this point a little more strongly on the attention of the Ministry. I would remind them that whereas under the Act of 1871, which was carried just after the Franco-Prussian War, the State has the power immediately to take control of railways in the event of a national emergency—and it did take control within an hour of the outbreak of war in 1914—it has no such direct power and no organisation to take control of road and other forms of transport. It is absolutely necessary that it should have that power. In the case of the railways there is the Committee of General Managers. They were ready in 1914 long before trouble came; they are still in existence, and they are ready now to be at the service of the Government to become the railway executive, acting on behalf of the Government and the community, and to give a united and complete service to the State in the event of war. They carried during the War period 1914–18, 50 per cent. more traffic than they normally did, and they did it with marvellous efficiency.

I should like to see the road operators as ready to do the same thing. The spirit shown in the Debate to-night on their behalf is a purely commercial spirit, and not a patriotic and helpful spirit. We get documents from the road side of the transport industry pleading for our support and consideration. Those documents contain the names of dozens of different conflicting organisations brought together for temporary purposes, such as defending themselves or fighting the railway companies. But they are nothing like as united as the railway industry is for the service of the community. I urge the Ministry to press on with the task of securing real co-ordination of the road and rail interests, together with canals and coastwise shipping, so that the moment the country is in danger the whole of our transport system will be ready to act in the national interest.

The development of a transport war would be deplorable. The railway companies are now seeking to get the same freedom to carry on cut-throat competition that our road friends have been asking for. I say that that war is most deplorable. It can only be stopped by a higher authority, and it is the imperative duty of the Minister of Transport to intervene and to prevent it from deevloping.

If it goes on it will mean that two of the most valuable documents in the transport service, the railway rate book and the railway classification, will be destroyed. Freight will be carried at any haphazard rate. There will be ruthless competition between the services, and that will not redound in the end to the public interest. Rates could be cut on packed consignments of finished goods—on manufactured articles like hosiery, boots, textiles and that type of freight, which is very valuable per ton. If rates are to be cut on those goods which can bear a high rate, and are rightly charged a high rate—it is the ad valorem principle—the principle of charging what the traffic can bear, which is the soundest principle ever discovered in connection with transport, will be destroyed. The railway rate book and the railway classification will be abandoned, and we shall go down into anarchy at the behest of the road motoring industry in conjunction with the ill-advised policy of the railway companies.

In the result there may be lower rates upon those highly valuable goods which can well afford to bear the rates they are now charged, but inevitably there will be higher rates on other goods. I am certain that in spite of their apparently patriotic publicity the railway companies have that idea at the back of their minds. Higher rates will be imposed upon heavy goods, upon coal and goods of that type which can most conveniently be carried by rail and have generally to he put on rail. That will mean that every home in the land will have to pay more for coal—every manufacturer, every electricity authority, every gas undertaking. All the users of coal will have to pay more; and, of course, everyone uses coal, which is the very foundation of our industrial and economic life. All will have to pay more for their coal because other persons have been given unduly cheap rates on highly-valuable manufactured articles.

Therefore, I plead that the Minister of Transport should do his utmost to prevent the destruction of the railway rates and take steps towards securing real coordination, taking full powers to lay down what rates shall be charged by any persons engaged in freight transport. There would be no insuperable difficulty in the compilation of a new national rate book for all forms of transport, simplified and codified in a much more sensible way than our rates are at present. Anyone could then have a copy and see quickly and easily on what terms he could move any freight, whether by road, rail, canal or coastal steamer, and naturally the rates would vary somewhat, according to the different forms of transport, some being slower than others. In that way the Minister would be keeping control of this matter and not letting it go down into destruction and anarchy. It would make it easy for people who want to tender for contracts or quote prices for goods to know exactly what they and their competitors would have to pay in connection with the business.

I think that is what all business men want to know, but no one can provide the information unless we have the powerful intervention of the Ministry of Transport and the setting up of a rates committee with powers to fix rates in the way they have been fixed for years at the Railway Clearing House. There are any number of men who have been used to the work of rate-fixing whose services are not now in demand to the extent that they used to be. Fewer than 2,000 are employed at the Railway Clearing House now, and there used to be 3,000. Since the merging of the railway companies into the four groups there are plenty of such men doing other work. There is an abundance of such men in the country, highly skilled rates men, and he could also requisition skilled men from the great houses of industry who are continually concerned with traffic rates. There is no dearth of competent men who could help the Ministry to survey the whole of the rating structure and create a new structure without destroying the old; because I do not believe in destroying anything we have got until there is something else ready to take its place. That is a wrong principle in political, social or economic life. Let them create a new rate book without destroying the old one. In due course it will supersede the old one, and everything, so far as transport is concerned, will be on an understandable basis, with fair play for all the interests concerned.

10.36 p.m.

Mr. H. G. Williams

I listened with the very greatest interest to the hon. Member who has just spoken, taking apparently—I say it with great respect, because we all like him—a very impartial and independent view. He is, of course, well-known in the railway world, and rightly well known, as one who for many years has sustained, and rightly, the interests of that intelligent body of people, the railway clerks. Naturally, when he is thinking of them vis-a-vis their employers he is the enemy of the railway companies, but when he is thinking of the railway companies vis-a-vis the community he is a railway man.

Mr. Walkden

I imagine that I am as impartial as the rest of the community.

Mr. Williams

Not quite as impartial as he might have been. I believe he said that you always ought to charge according to the traffic conveyed. In my younger days, when I had a great deal more time to read, I read many works by eminent Socialists in which they denounced as incredible inequity the fixing of railway charges according to what the traffic would bear. They regarded that as the most anti-social thing that any capitalist could think of.

Mr. Walkden

The hon. Member must not expect me to take responsibility for the Socialists of by-gone days.

Mr. Williams

But the hon. Member cannot sit on that side of the House without getting a bit of the tar on his body. He was talking about the chaos that existed before 1921. If my memory serves me that was the year in which the railways brought about the great amalgamation, but that was not the end of chaos on the railways. I have not looked up the figures, but I think I am not far wrong in saying that in those days when the railways were reasonably prosperous they employed 150,000 more people than they do to-day.

Mr. Walkden

The difference is due to the roads.

Mr. Williams

They had a bit of chaos in those days.

Mr. Walkden

Organisation gets you far better results than does chaos.

Mr. Williams

The 150,000 railway workers who are missing might not hold quite the same idea.

Mr. Walkden

The Act of 1921 required the railway companies to merge into four groups. In 1923, provision was made that any men who were retrenched were due for compensation, and in every case they were looked after.

Mr. Williams

I am not doubting that, but there was a time when the railway companies reported the employment of 150,000 more people than they do now. Though it is true that ultimately the old soldiers do die, it is also true that the young soldiers coming forward used to look for employment on the railway companies but cannot do so to-day because the railways are so highly organised that they have ceased to be prosperous. I am inclined to say that there are some merits in chaos.

Hon. Members

No.

Mr. Speaker

Perhaps hon. Members would not interrupt quite so much and allow the hon. Member to make his speech.

Mr. Williams

There was a time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Gorton (Mr. Benn) was rather an advocate of chaos, but he has degenerated since. Another hon. Member wanted to know why the licences should be renewed. I am a little doubtful why we want them at all. I am sorry that that hon. Mem- ber has gone because he represents a part of the world where there are shipyards, linen factories and, even better, a whisky distillery. The whisky distillery has to have a licence but it can get its licence without difficulty. It is not a licence which is refused. I am one of those who think that it is not at all desirable that entrance to an industry should be denied to people. Surely the whole basis of opportunity in this life should be that if people desire to enter an occupation or profession they should be free to enter it. It is no use hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite denouncing Fascism. What is Fascism? It is merely the corporate State, or some long word like that, in which every industry is regulated, in which entrance to any industry is denied to those who are not already in it. Why is it that hon. Members opposite are always denouncing Fascism as a theory and ceaselessly advocating it in practice? [Interruption.] This desire that nobody shall take up a job unless he has a licence from the Government is Fascism.

Mr. Poole

Would the hon. Gentleman agree that the placing of the same difficulties in the way of working-class children entering the legal and medical professions is also Fascism?

Mr. Williams

When the hon. Member has studied these things longer, he will realise that any human being can enter the legal profession or the medical profession, subject to his establishing that he has the qualifications for doing the job, but neither the General Medical Council nor the Bar Council have the right to refuse a man because they do not like him, or because they think the profession is overcrowded.

Mr. Poole

Or because he has not the finance to pay for his studies?

Mr. Williams

A profession is one in which you serve the community, and the community want to know whether you have the requisite qualifications, because you act, not as a trader, but as an adviser. There we want a test, but anyone who can pass the test can get in. There is no closed door to the Bar or the medical profession, but the hon. Member would like to have a closed door to the industry of carrying goods on the roads. You can pass all the examinations in the world, but it does not give you an A licence. You can pass the requisite examinations for the medical profession or the Bar, and you are admitted. That is the difference. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman is a Fascist. He does not realise it, but he is. I am not; I stand for the principle of liberty.

I am not unsympathetic to the railways. My only interest in road transport is a rather indirect one, and a personal interest. I am, in fact, a partner with a particular railway company. It is a roundabout interest, through a directorship of an individual company which is not concerned at all with the point I want to raise to-night. I am glad to say I am a senior partner; we do the work and others get the reward. There is not the slightest doubt that the preservation of the railway companies is vital to the economic interests of this country. We have all seen and received literature demanding a square deal for the railway companies, but up to now the railway companies have been a little chary of telling us what they mean by a square deal. We all want the railway companies to survive; we all want decent conditions of employment for those whom they employ; but I think they might be a little more precise. It is true that on this occasion none of those hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who happen to be connected with the railway companies on the directorial side are present, but the railway companies are represented on the operative side to a small extent—

Mr. Walkden

That has nothing to do with this Motion. We are in no way subsidised by the railway companies.

Mr. Williams

I did not say "subsidised"; I merely said that they are connected with the railway companies.

Mr. Walkden

I am not connected with any railway company.

Mr. Williams

There is nothing wrong in being associated with the railway industry. There is no one who has not some kind of direct or indirect vested interest. The hon. Gentleman has occupied a most distinguished position in connection with the railway companies. Anyone who was the chosen leader of 100,000 people ought to be very proud of himself, and there is not the slightest reason why, in addition to representing South Bristol, he should not educate the House from the great experience he acquired before he left those 100,000 people. I was merely pointing out that other distinguished gentlemen who represent their constituents and who happen to be connected with railway companies as directors are not present.

Mr. Walkden

The hon. Member said that the railway companies were represented on this side of the House.

Mr. Williams

Only the operatives. I said there were no representatives of the directorial side present.

Mr. Walkden

The hon. Member himself has been present only during the last half-hour.

Mr. Williams

The hon. Member is not accurate; he should have doubled the time. The railway interests in road transport are very large, not only in respect of freight transport but passenger transport as well. It is quite wrong to think there is the conflict between the two interests which people suggest. The majority of the well-known companies which one might select to deliver parcels are to-day owned by the railway companies, and a very large proportion of the buses running in this country belong to companies in which the railway companies have a substantial interest.

On the other hand, there is a complaint which I hear ceaselessly from my constituents—because it happens that in my constituency are the headquarters of a number of long-distance coaching services, and their point of view is different from that of the bus companies rendering purely local service. In 1933, the then Minister of Transport made a limiting order in respect of long-distance coaching services, and this caused a great deal of embarrassment not merely to the proprietors of these services, but also to great numbers of other people who quite definitely desire to use road services for certain kinds of travel, particularly at holiday times. In 1934 there was a new order, of a somewhat unusual kind. At holiday times these coaching services were given permission to duplicate, or sometimes triplicate, their services. When those triplications were authorised, the curious condition was attached that, of the total number of services, two-thirds had to start from one terminus and one-third from another. That is to say, if a service from Croydon to Brighton was allowed at holiday time to have a larger number of buses running, all the additional buses had either to start from Croydon or from Brighton. If you bear in mind that people who have gone somewhere generally want to come back, you will see how stupid it was. It caused the greatest inconvenience not only to those people who make money out of the services, but to the public.

If the railway companies have extra traffic to carry, they can put on as many extra carriages as they require. That is not a privilege which is shared by the road services, or by the public who want to travel on them. I have had three, it not four, deputations from transport organisations in my constituency about this, because they have peculiar difficulties. In certain respects they are in opposition to the largest transport monopoly in this country, the London Passenger Transport Board, and this introduces a new complication such as does not exist in parts of the country where the railway service is the main alternative.

What happened? In October (I think it was) of this year certain passenger transport operators made an application as to services between London and the North of England and Scotland. They made their application jointly, I think it was, to the Traffic Commissioner for the Metropolitan area and the Traffic Commissioner for the Northern area—the one being the starting point and the other the terminal point. What did the Traffic Commissioners decide? They decided that the traffic regulations of 1934 were unduly hard, and that the plea of the applicants ought to be conceded; in other words, that a greater measure of elasticity should be granted in respect of those road transport services. The North Eastern Railway Company were the main, if not the only opponents. They grumbled, I understand, on the ground that the fares offered were too low, though I understand that since then they are offering services by rail at lower fares still. They did not succeed. The Commissioners, after hearing all the evidence, decided that the point of view put forward by these passenger road operators was a legitimate one under the Act—I suppose the Act of 1930, or perhaps the Act of 1934. An appeal was made to the Minister. I have great respect for the Minister and also for his Parliamentary Secretary. I think they are two of the most competent Ministers in the Government, and they do their job exceedingly well. But the Minister acceded to the appeal put forward by the railway company, and this very reasonable demand for greater elasticity was refused.

In whose interest was this demand for greater elasticity in holiday time refused? It does not matter very much this next week-end in present weather conditions, but if you take the Easter traffic, the Whitsuntide traffic, or the August Bank Holiday traffic, it really is a grave injustice to deny the ordinary man the right to choose which way he will go from his home to the place he has selected for his holidays. Why should either the Minister, the Traffic Commissioner or a railway company deny to the ordinary citizen this right to select his own method of transportation? I do not know why the Minister has turned this down. I am sorry I am speaking late in the Debate, because the Parliamentary Secretary has already replied and there will not be an opportunity for a Ministerial explanation as to this decision, though no doubt the matter will be looked into, and possibly later, by means of an appropriate question, we may get some explanation as to this very extraordinary state of affairs.

May I just summarise? A body owning passenger vehicles asked for sanction for greater elasticity in respect of passenger road transport between London and the North of England.

Mr. Poole

You told us that.

Mr. Williams

Well, it is not a bad thing for new Members to be told things twice over, and if there is tedious repetition Mr. Speaker has the remedy in his own hands. On the ground that the service is too cheap the railway company object. There is no question here of the rates of remuneration to the employés being unsatisfactory. The Traffic Commission, who study all these problems, accede to the request, and then, for reasons that one cannot understand, the whole proposal is upset by the Minister. I do hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will look into this point. I am not alone in saying that very considerable perturbation has been caused by this decision.

The Motion moved by my hon. Friend, in addition to drawing attention to a number of other grievances, makes some reference to a road policy. I am one who thinks that the roads ought to be made to fit the traffic and not the traffic to fit the roads. On the other hand, it is only right that we should say frankly to the road interests that, having regard to the colossal burden which the nation is now carrying in respect of rearmament, and to the fact that the next Budget cannot be balanced, in the ordinary sense that there will be very heavy borrowing, it is obvious that in many directions there will have to be a scaling down of expenditure.

Mr. Buchanan

Oh!

Mr. Williams

It is obvious. I hope that that scaling down will not inflict hardship upon individuals. I do not think that we have yet reached that stage, but we are face to face with a financial problem of the greatest complexity and at the moment we ought not to undertake new commitments. That is the first step, and, although I am a supporter of the Motion in its general terms, it would be wrong to lead the road interests astray in thinking that the expenditure that was contemplated at the last election, when there was a declaration with regard to a five-year road plan, can be carried out to the full. I do not think it can. We are face to face with a financial problem of the profoundest difficulty, and we shall be rendering a good and not a bad service to those connected with the road industry, if we tell them frankly that they cannot expect to have that expensive scheme of road development to which we might have looked forward if the international situation had been a more pleasant one.

Therefore, though I shall vote, if there is a Division, for the Motion because I like its terms as a whole, I do not think that anybody should vote for a Motion which continues certain phases about which there ought to be a qualification, without explaining frankly to the House what is the qualification. Everybody concerned with road transport has to realise that certain major improvements, which we should all like to see, almost inevitably have to be postponed. It is obvious that the maintenance of roads must be at the highest possible level because that is economy anyhow, but for any hon. or right hon. Member to think that we can carry a rearmament expenditure probably in the neighbourhood of £400,000,000 and still go ahead with everything else at the present time is a great delusion, and it is as well that I should tell my hon. Friends.

Mr. Buchanan

The Government do not think so.

Mr. Williams

They cannot expect this scale of expenditure to go on.

Main Question, as amended, put, and agreed to.

Resolved, That, in the opinion of this House, road transport is an essential feature of modern industrial life, that better roads for its accommodation are urgently necessary, and that the policy of His Majesty's Government should be directed to its encouragement and development in co-ordination with other forms of transport, so that it may take its proper place in the transport system of the country.