ROAD AND RAIL TRAFFIC BILL.

§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Oliver Stanley)

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

Hon. Members who look at the Short Title of this Bill will see that it is described as the Road and Rail Traffic Bill. I prefer that description very much to one which has grown into common use during the course of the last year, namely, Road versus Rail. That last phase gives one the impression of a combat in which the only interest of this House and of the Government can be to succour one of the combatants, to lift the flagging arm of the vanquished and to restrain the ardour of the victor; and that the most and the best that we can look for is a victorious result for one or other of the fighters. I conceive the interest of this House to be quite different; to be unconcerned with the success or failure of either of the two great protagonists in this struggle, and that it has as its only and ultimate object the provision for the people of this country of the best and most economical form of transport which modern science and technical developments are capable of providing.

We are faced with a situation which to all of us is a new one. All of us remember, and most of us have grown accustomed to, a condition of transport monopoly. Twenty-five years ago, although it is true the railways had to face competition from coastwise traffic and canals, and were limited geographically to their areas, yet, for all practical purposes, the great railway systems of this country held a monopoly of transport. As a matter of fact, I believe that the situation which faces us to-day is not only new but unprecedented. People talk as if something of the same nature occurred nearly 100 years ago when the railways superseded the turnpike roads. But my reading of the events of that period convinces me, at any rate, that the situation then was quite different, and that whenever and wherever a railway was established between two points, its victory 852 over competing forms of transport was immediate and complete. You never had in those days the situation that you have to-day of an equilibrium which varies from time to time between two great providers of transport. If that is the situation to-day, he would be a bold man who would prophesy that in the immediate future that situation is likely to be altered. No one but a fool would think that we could put back the clock, and that the progress which the road transport industry has made in the last few years could be wiped out by any action of ours. Equally, he would be a bold man who would prophesy that at any time within the next few years, perhaps at any time within a much longer distance than that, we could dispense entirely with the great advantages of transport which our railway system provides for us.

We have to face in the future the position that over a vast range of transport, whether of passengers or goods, the individual will have in the individual case the choice between two alternative methods of transport. By the way that choice of the individual in the individual case is decided, will be decided the waxing or the waning of these two great competing industries. No one can deny that if that indeed is the result of the choice of the individual in the individual case, if so important consequences as the decay of the railway or the growth of the road may follow that decision, then it is incumbent upon us to make certain that, at any rate, the choice which the individual is called upon to make is a fair and open one, and is not secretly vitiated by factors which prejudice its equality and induce lack of balance. I do not propose to discuss now whether in fact you will, by simply leaving this question to the individual choice of the individual, satisfactorily solve the problem and reach, by that means, a correct allocation of transport between rail and road. But, at any rate, I think we are all agreed that if and so long as individual choice remains a factor in the decision, we must see to it that that choice is fair, and therefore that the results which flow from it are not biased.

There seem to be three possible factors which may prejudice this choice of the individual. There may be a situation in which the individual's choice say of the road in preference to the rail seems justi- 853 fled by the particular circumstances of the particular case, but where in fact there are certain factors which could not have been taken into account and which make it a wrong choice on true economic grounds. The first factor is the economic one—the possibility that there may be in the choice given between the price of the road and the price of the rail transport a concealed element of public subsidy. Possibly one of the competitors may have to pay for and, therefore, include in its price, certain services for which the public are paying in the case of the other industry and in regard to which, therefore, the other industry has to make no charge in its price to the public. That, of course, is not so much a matter with which we can deal in this Bill, though it was to deal with that potential factor that I introduced the changes in motor taxation which passed through the House yesterday. No doubt when an opportunity recurs upon the Finance Bill the House will wish to discuss that factor.

The second factor is that of restriction, the possibility that in the public interest the State is putting upon one competitor restrictions greater than are necessary in the interests of the State end upon the other competitor restrictions that are less than are necessary in the interests of the public, and in that way one of the competitors has to bear a heavier economic burden than the other is called upon to do. The third factor, and to my mind the most important, and at the same time by far the most difficult to deal with, is what I might call the factor of regularity. Hon. Members will appreciate that the principle of the railways has never been to make to the consumer of transport a charge based on the particular cost of the particular service which is being rendered to him. It has always been the practice so to arrange the whole scale of railway charges that a proper return shall be given on capital invested in railways, and the result is that the consumer of transport, whether passenger or goods, is never in fact paying for exactly what he gets. When an hon. Member opposite goes to Brighton on a Saturday in the summer, he is not really paying just for what it costs the railways to take him to Brighton at the peak of the season. He is also paying some part of what it will cost the railways to take him on the same scale of prices to Wigan 854 in the depths of the winter. [An HON. MEMBER "Why Wigan?"] Out of compliment to the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) opposite. [An HON. MEMBER: "Why go to Wigan anyhow?"]

The public has got used to this system, it has got used to paying at a flat rate so that the facilities for whatever it wants to do will always be available for it; but hon. Members will appreciate the difficulty that arises if a competitor comes along who is not prepared and is not going to offer to the public these general facilities, but who is going to pick and choose, and who is going to be prepared to take the hon. Member to Brighton on Saturday in the summer but is not going to be available to take him to Wigan in the winter. It is quite clear that they then will be able to charge for that journey to Brighton in the summer a sum based purely on the cost of transport at that time, end the public, faced with a choice between the charges of the two competitors, will naturally say, "How is it that, for instance, the road can quote me such a much lower rate for this than the rail?" and naturally, seeing these lower rates, will be prepared to accept them. But if that condition is dispensed with, if in fact those who are prepared to provide facilities at the bad times have to compete on level terms at the good, it is clear that in the end the public facilities will in fact he curtailed.

§ Captain STRICKLAND

Will the hon. Gentleman tell me—

§ Mr. STANLEY

I have a lot to say, and I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will allow me to continue. My hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will only be too glad to reply to questions at the end of the Debate. If that factor of regularity enters into the competition between rail and road, it is also a factor which will enter even more in the future into the road industry itself. There you have, as the road industry becomes more and more organised, more and more people prepared to provide regularity of service. They will require—they do require—protection against their competitors who will come in and will take from them the cream of the service by offering to the public lower facilities for those particular transactions, and they will en- 855 danger to the consuming public the provision of the facilities which they need but which are not so attractive to the providers of transport.

For a long time it has been apparent that this problem was ripe. As far back as 1930 the Royal Commission on Transport recommended upon this as upon other aspects of the transport problem, and among their recommendations for dealing with the goods traffic problem was a system of licensing for road haulage. It is true that the actual system which they proposed was to be based only upon what one might call conditions of safety. Those who were to be responsible for the issuing of the licences were not to take into account any element of the transport problem, but the Commission did express an opinion that even this limited amount of licensing was an essential preliminary to the proper organisation of the road traffic industry, and they expressed the hope that that organisation would inevitably lead to a proper co-ordination between the road and the rail.

As hon. Members will recollect, the issue of those recommendations by the Royal Commission was followed by the appointment, by my predecessor, of what has come to be known as the Salter Conference, a committee under the chairmanship of Sir Arthur Salter, consisting of four railway representatives and four men versed in road transport problems, to consider the recommendations of the Royal Commission in so far as they affected the carriage of goods by road. There is a certain amount of misconception and, I think, a certain amount of quite misinformed criticism with regard to that Salter Conference. No one pretends for a minute that it was a delegate conference, that the four distinguished gentlemen who attended on behalf of the roads had any intention or had any authority to bind by their recommendations the providers of road transport in general. The recommendations of that conference were binding upon no one, not even binding upon the Government, and in many respects, as I shall show to-day, we have departed from them, but one cannot ignore the fact that you had there, sitting together, Sir Arthur Salter, a man whose repute it is unnecessary to emphasise to this House, four people in the 856 railway world who can clearly answer for the railway position, and four gentlemen whose personal knowledge of and capacity in the road transport industry cannot be questioned or criticised by anyone; and whether or no the decisions of this conference were binding, they are, everyone will admit, decisions which cannot be ignored.

That Conference reached unanimity in recommending, just as did the Royal Commission on Transport, a system of licensing. The system which they proposed was a great deal more extensive than the system which met with the favour of the Royal Commission. They not only wished to include security, even as the Royal Commission, but they recommended that we should go much further in basing the issue of licences upon the availability of transport facilities and upon The over-crowded state of the roads. Therefore, we have the most recent and most authoritative investigations of the problem which I am outlining to the House, and although they differ from each other on the different points, both these sets of men after the fullest possible investigation agreed that an essential preliminary to any further co-ordination of road and rail was the institution of some system of licensing in the road industry.

Accordingly, I am in this Bill introducing a Measure which will establish a licensing system for goods vehicles on roads and provide for a measure of regulation. It will, I believe, affect those factors which I mentioned earlier in my speech in two directions. It will, of course, have no effect or little effect upon the economic factor. That was a matter for the Budget Resolution. It will, I think, have a very considerable effect upon the security factor required, because the safety conditions in this Bill differ greatly from the safety conditions which are already imposed on the road industry by previous Acts of Parliament or by regulations of the Ministry. Yet I believe that, as a result of this Bill, we shall be able to enforce those conditions in a way in which it has been impossible to enforce them up to now. [The Bill will undoubtedly have an effect on the third factor of regularity in that it will, I believe, provide within the road industry some protection for the man who is prepared to offer a regular service against the pirate who only comes to skim the 857 cream, and will prevent some of the overcrowding in the road traffic industry which otherwise might occur.

I want to make it quite plain that this Measure, differing as it does in many respects both from the report of the Salter Conference and the report of the Royal Commission, is in no sense a compromise. It is in no sense based on a desire simply to find the least that the railways will accept and the most that the road industry is prepared to tolerate. The responsibility for these proposals must, and does, rest, upon the Government. We have had the advantage of studying these two valuable reports, and in the light of those reports we have come to our conclusions as to the method of regulation which offers the best in the national interest. Of course, hon. Members will realise that in some respects in this Bill I have gone beyond the recommendations of either of these two bodies in that I have dealt with the question of existing restrictions upon the roads. Hon. Members will realise that the possibility of excessive restrictions upon railways is just as important a factor as the possibility of too little restriction upon the roads. I should like to explain the general scheme of the Bill, and in doing so I will be as brief as possible. Hon. Members will realise that in order to be brief it will be necessary to summarise and to generalise, and that I shall have to omit a good dead of the detail which is contained in these Clauses, but my hon. and gallant Friend will be only too glad when he closes the Debate to answer any questions on points which it has been necessary for me to omit.

First, in regard to the scope of the Bill. The provisions of Part I, which deals with the whole licensing scheme, apply to goods vehicles which are used on roads for the carriage of goods for hire or reward, or the carriage of goods in connection with trade or business. That in itself is a wide definition, and will bring within the primary scope of the Bill the vast majority of goods vehicles. Hon. Members will see set out in Sub-section (5) of the first Clause the exemptions to the Bill. There is a fairly long list with which I will not trouble the House, but the basis upon which these exemptions have been arrived at is that the vehicles which are specified are 858 not really transport problems at all, that although they might fall within the definition which I have already given as to the scope of the Bill, their primary object is not the carriage of goods by road, and therefore the regulations which we propose are not applicable to them. With those exceptions, all other motor goods vehicles which fall within the scope of the Bill will have to have a licence of one kind or another.

The licences proposed are of three kinds. There is, first, the public licence which will be necessary for the man whose business is to carry goods for hire or reward. That licence is designated throughout the Bill as an "A" licence, and it will be current for a period of two years. There is, secondly, a limited licence. That is a licence applicable to the man who for part of the time is carrying the goods of others for reward, and for part of the time is carrying his own goods. That is referred to as the "B" licence, and will have a currency of one year. Thirdly, there is the private licence applicable to the man carrying goods in connection with his own trade or business and not carrying goods for hire or reward. That is the "C" licence, and will have a currency of three years.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Sir D. Newton) will be glad to see that the word "ancillary," which gained such currency in the Salter Report, has disappeared from this Bill. The hon. Member came to me on behalf of the agricultural industry to urge its omission from any regulations that were made because he said that, although he as a representative of a university town was of course aware of the Latin derivation of this word, many of the farmers had not had the advantage, or had not thought it necessary to have the advantage, of a classical education; that was before my right hon. Friend the Minister of Agriculture brought in his marketing schemes; the farmers would not therefore know what "ancillary" meant. Even those farmers who did understand Latin and would know the derivation of this word would be a little puzzled to understand how a farm lorry could be described as belonging to or appertaining to a housemaid.

There is always a certain provision in Bills to say that in certain cases certain words will not mean what they actually 859 do mean. If hon. Members will look at Clause 1, Sub-section (3), they will see set out certain cases where the words "carried for hire or reward" will not mean "carried for hire or reward." In other words, cases where a person who would normally be expected to have either an "A" or a "B" licence will be entitled to have a "C" licence. These cases are three in number. There is, first, the delivery of goods which are sold in the course of a trade or business. That covers the case of the shopkeeper who sells his goods to a customer and who afterwards delivers them at the customer's house. It may be—I do not say that it is—that property in those goods passes to the customer on settlement, and that it might be strictly held that the delivery was delivery of goods to others for hire or reward. But we have covered that by this exception, and in that case the shopkeeper will be entitled to a "C" licence. Then there is the question of delivery or collection for the purpose of processing. It may be a laundry, repairing, or whatever it is, where the man who is going to carry out the processing act sends out a lorry to collect the goods from a customer and brings them in and sometimes makes a small charge for doing it. That man, too, will be entitled to a "C" licence.

Finally, there is the specific case of agriculture. I was particularly anxious that just at a time when every effort is being made to develop the co-operative marketing of agricultural goods there should be nothing in the Bill to make it more difficult or less effective for farmers to combine to get their goods to market in this way. I have accordingly provided that in certain circumstances, when the goods carried are in connection with agriculture and where they are carried for another person in the same locality, the farmer, even if he does charge a sum for their carriage, shall still be entitled to the benefit of the "C" licence. It might be convenient at this point to summarise the effect of these regulations upon the farming community. To start with, every farmer who is entitled at the present moment to claim for his agricultural vehicle exemption or advantages under the Finance Act, will be able to claim for that same vehicle complete exemption 860 from the provisions of this Bill. Those who are unable to claim complete exemption will, in the case that I have specified, be able to claim the advantages of a "C" as compared with an "A" or "B" licence.

The licensing authority whose duty it will be to determine the applications and issue the licences will be the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners set up in each area by the 1930 Act, and as far as the Metropolitan area is concerned it will be the Commissioner. I should only weary the House if I took hon. Members step by step and Clause by Clause through the Bill. I think the preferable course is to explain exactly the steps which will be taken and the results which will accrue to the individual when he comes, under the provisions of the Bill, to apply for and obtain a licence. Let me deal first with the "A" and "B" applicants, those who want licences either for public use or for limited use. The first question naturally which they will ask themselves is, where do I make my application? The application of each of these men has to be made to the chairman of the Traffic Commissioners for that area in which their permanent base or centre is to be found. I am often told that that cannot be defined, that the case is rather like that of a tramp steamer, that it does not run as a passenger transport vehicle along well defined routes from point to point, but that in pursuit of business it may wander all over the country. But I cannot help feeling that every tramp has its home, and that however far it wanders as business dictates, somewhere or other, in some little corner of England, there is a place that every lorry can call home. Which Commissioner deals with the application will depend upon where that place is.

The particulars which the applicant will have to send in to the licensing authority, are, first of all, the number of vehicles which he wishes licensed, the description of those vehicles, and if the authority so wishes he may he called upon to supply information as to the facilities which he is prepared to provide in the locality in which he normally works. Hon. Members will realise that the use of the word "normal" is intended to cover the difficulty that no provider of road transport is able to say, "I work only in this district." Most of them will be able to 861 say that their normal area is such and such an area. When these applications are received by the licensing authority it will be his duty to publish notice of their receipt, and he will then have to consider any objections which are made to the grant of the licence. He can either consider those objections at a public inquiry, if he thinks fit, or he can consider them in private. The people who are entitled to object to the grant of these "A" or "B" licences are other providers of transport in the same locality, and they are entitled to object on two grounds, either that there is already an excess in the facilities of transport available in the area, or else that the granting of these applications would create an excess, or that the person who is applying for the licence has already had a licence the conditions of which he has failed to comply with. These objectors will be entitled to state to the Commissioner their objection upon either of those two grounds, and in view of their objections and the explanation of the applicant it will be for the Commissioner in the exercise of his complete discretion to decide upon the granting or refusal of the application.

There is, however, one important exception to this. We have made provisions to deal with those who are providing transport at the present moment, and in their case for the first license period the licensing authority will have no such discretion. Provided that within six months after the passing of this Act they make an application to the licensing authority, they will be entitled to have a licence, "A" or "B," for the same weight of transport which they can show that they were running and in possession of on any one day in the year ended on 1st April of this year. Of course, that will ensure them two years of the same facilities. At the end of two years, at the end of the expiration of the "A" licence or "B" licence in one year, they will fall back under the common jurisdiction and be subject to the discretion of the licensing authority.

Once the licensing authority has decided to grant a licence, there are certain conditions which he must attach to every licence that he issues. There is a condition that the vehicles shall be in a fit and serviceable condition. There is a condition that the Regulations with regard to speed and loading shall be com- 862 plied with, that the hours of drivers in the 1930 Act shall be observed, that there shall be the keeping of records in a manner which I will explain later, and that the Fair Wages Clause of the 1930 Act shall apply. Those conditions, which one might call security conditions, have to be attached to every "A" and "B" licence which is issued. But with regard to the "B" licence, that is the limited licence, the Commissioner will have power, if he so desires, to 'attach further conditions. He will not be able to attach these conditions under the provisional arrangements for those who are already providing transport, but in the ordinary course, on the expiration of that provisional period, he will be able to attach, if he desires, to a "B" licence, conditions as to user of the vehicle, as to the locality in which it is to be used, as to classes of goods which are to be carried, and any other conditions, with the one exception that he will not be entitled to attach any conditions with regard to rates. Hon. Members will realise that in so far as the "A" licence, the public licence, is concerned, the Commissioner has no power to attach conditions of use at all. He can use his discretion as to whether or not to grant the licence, but once he decides to grant that licence he is not entitled to attach any conditions as to the use, in the transport sense, to which that vehicle is to be put.

Let me say a few words upon the effect of the scheme on the "A" and "B," the public and limited categories. I will leave for the moment the question of security conditions. Our object, and I believe the object of every hon. Member, is to get some measure of co-ordination between road and rail; and to my mind co-ordination means getting the best out of competition. We have to recognise that in the present situation competition has its value. But it has also its dangers. It has its great value in that this road transport industry is still a developing industry. No one pretends for a moment that we have reached the limit of mechanical knowledge or development in this industry. No doubt competition has great value in preventing any stabilisation, any crystallisation at the present point. On the other hand, competition undoubtedly has its great dangers. The provider of transport ought, from the 863 public point of view, to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth, to provide the facilities which are profitable and easy and desirable, and at the same time be prepared to provide the facilities which are less profitable, less desirable and more difficult to manage. The trouble is that unless you have some system where people who provide transport do take the rough with the smooth, you will have everyone taking the smooth and no one prepared to take the rough.

So I have attached—I do not disguise it—provisions to this Bill to give some advantage to the regular providers, to give the man who is prepared to offer continuous and not sporadic facilities, some advantage over the provider who just "blows in" on the chance of picking up what traffic he can at the expense, and very likely to the detriment, of the man who is prepared to provide regular facilities. Of course alternative methods of arriving at that result could have been suggested. There is nationalisation. I will say a word on that subject. perhaps, on the Amendment of hon. Members later. There, of course, my criticism will at once be that that would lead, at a time of developing industry, to complete stabilisation. There is the possibility of routeing and applying to goods vehicles some system of the same sort as has been applied to the transport industry under the Road Traffic Act. That system has, I believe, been tried in certain countries, but they are countries far less thickly populated than ours, where the centres of population are much more clearly defined and the roads between them are much fewer in number. I do not believe that a system of that kind would be possible in this country.

So we fall back upon this system of regulations. I know that some hon. Members will say that the conditions of this system will be very onerous on the road traffic industry. That is not my view. My fear is that they are going to be quite ineffective. I think there is much more danger that this system will not achieve its end than that, in achieving its end, it will place handicaps and restrictions upon the industry. The only suggestion of real hardship to the industry is in the discretion given to the Commissioner to prevent excess of facili- 864 ties, and it certainly is surprising to me that so many hon. Members whom I have heard vociferating for the prevention of uneconomic competition in other industrial spheres should say that a similar arrangement in the sphere of road transport should be so burdensome to the industry concerned.

With regard to the "B"licence, it is true that I have imposed harder conditions than I have in the case of the "A" licence. That is because the limited carrier provides transport in its most sporadic form, with the least regularity. The transport he is prepared to supply to the public depends primarily upon his own convenience, and the charge which he is going to make to the public depends primarily upon his own costs. If a man who is a limited carrier, that is to say, uses lorries for the purpose of transporting his own goods, and at the same time is prepared to carry the goods of others in those lorries for hire and reward, wants to send a load of his own goods from, say, Birmingham to Manchester, and the lorry has to come back from Manchester to Birmingham empty, it is quite clear that the price he is prepared to accept for a return load has nothing to do with the economic cost of carrying the goods from Manchester back to Birmingham. For his own purposes he has had to send a lorry to Manchester, and sooner than that it should return empty to Birmingham it is better for him to accept anything he can get. That seems to me to be exactly the type of competition which is most unfair to the man who provides regular facilities, and which, from the point of view of the public, is least satisfactory, although at the moment it may seem to give the benefit of cheaper rates. It is the most sporadic form of transport and the least willing to meet not just this one need of the public only, but all their needs as they may arise.

To return to the gentleman who is going to make an application for a "C" or private licence. He will make it to the traffic commissioner of the area in which his principal place of business is situated. All he has to do is to send in to the commissioner particulars of the number of vehicles for which he wishes a licence. There need not be any publication of his application, there is no inquiry and no opportunity for objection. There is no discretion for the 865 traffic commissioner to refuse a licence, except in the one circumstance of the applicant being a man who has previously held a licence which has been either revoked or suspended. Except for that one fact the commissioner has got to grant a licence, and that licence is to be available for three years. Hon. Members will appreciate that so far as the "C" licence is concerned, the system is extremely simply and the result automatic. When that licence is granted it will have attached to it all those security conditions which are obligatory on the "A" and "B" licence holders, except this one, the condition as to fair wages. It is true that the Salter Report recommended that the fair wages condition should apply to the private carrier, but that was recommended in rather a vague way, as the possibilities of its application were to be left to the Minister of Labour and myself to decide, and it is only after considerable discussion with the Ministry of Labour that I have come to the conclusion that it would be impracticable to apply this fair-wage clause to the case of the private carrier.

I came to that decision with considerable regret, because it has its obvious practical advantages. To start with, if we adopt the principle that a man who takes out upon the roads a machine which, in certain circumstances, may be dangerous to the public ought to have conditions of service which ensure that he shall only go out in a proper physical condition, then it is just as important that those conditions should be observed whether he is in the employ of a man who carries goods for others or in the employ of a man who is carrying his own goods. Secondly, it is unfair on the "A" and "B" licence holders to impose a condition of this kind on them and not impose it on people who are, in fact, their competitors, those who provide their own transport. I admit that I started with a desire, if it were practical, to extend this condition to private owners as well, as the Salter Report proposed, but I was met with what appeared to me to be insuperable practical difficulties.

First, there was the case of the small employer. Putting out of one's mind the large organised factory, where the man who drives the motor lorries is a motor driver and nothing else, and turning one's attention to the man who owns a shop 866 or is a farmer, and runs some small lorry or van in connection with business, we find that the man who drives that lorry is not in the real sense of the word a transport driver at all. For the greater part of his time, probably, he is standing behind the counter or working in the fields. The employer says, "Bill, take out the lorry and run into market," and he does so, and when he comes back he goes out into the fields again. The difficulty there is, What is that man's employment and what fair wage conditions are to cover it. We cannot say that he is a transport worker if, with the exception of an hour or two a week, he is working in the fields or behind the counter. That type of sporadic employment would inevitably create difficulties in the small industries.

§ Mr. STANLEY

I think I had better get on with my speech. There is an even stronger and more formidable obstacle when we come to the bigger industries, in which the man who drives the lorry does nothing else, and can obviously be regarded as a transport worker and a transport worker only. There we have organised labour and collective bargaining. As I understand it, it has always been the general trend of collective bargaining in this country, and of trade union organisation, that it shall not be on an occupational but upon an industrial basis. The tendency has been to say, "We will bring within the scope of one agreement negotiated by one union all the people employed by the employers in a particlar industry, irrespective of the particular job they happen to be carrying out." Perhaps the hon. Member for Rotherham (Mr. Dobbie) will correct me, but I understand, for instance, that it has always been the contention of the National Union of Railwaymen that men employed by the railway companies, even though employed to drive road vehicles, ought to be members not of the Transport Workers' Union but of one of the railway unions. I believe they have pressed that point of view, not with heat, of course, but, 1et us say, fraternally. It has been, of course, the view also of the employer, who has liked to feel that when he negotiates an agreement with one set of men it is going to cover all the people in his factory, and that he has not to deal 867 with half a dozen different trade unions representing half a dozen different types of jobs which are being done in the factory.

What is the result if we apply to these people, by their occupation, a statutory wage protection? The wage protection given to the people who drive motor vans in those industries will, of course, be based upon an agreement negotiated by the Transport Workers' Union for transport workers. We shall then have a position where the people who happen to drive a motor vehicle for a factory, who are perhaps members of the union which covers their industry, are far more interested in what may be negotiated by another union in another industry than they are in agreements negotiated by their own union in their own industry. I should be interested to hear what hon. Members opposite have to say upon this problem during the course of the Debate, and I hope they will not just give their views showing general sympathy, such as we naturally all should feel for a proposal to ensure fair wages for a certain set of people, and not give them only from the point of view of a certain union whose interests might well be served by the application of a Clause like this, but put the view of organised labour generally as to problems of this kind. I should very much welcome information upon that point during the Debate.

Next I will say a word with regard to security conditions. Hon. Members will realise that from the very start railway companies have always had certain regulations imposed upon them which were thought to be necessary in the public interest, and therefore no one can complain that there is any lack of fairness if the same principle is applied to their competitors. In view of the terrible figures of accidents, which are more and more stirring the conscience of the country, no one can say there is any lack of necessity for the application of security conditions to the road transport industry. The first condition we impose concerns the condition of the machine itself. It is quite true that under regulations issued under the Act of 1930 a vehicle has to be in a satisfactory physical condition before it goes on the roads, but up to now that 868 condition has been enforced by the police by means of prosecutions. Let us be perfectly frank. The police have not had the time to do it; and wherever there has been a prosecution the penalties imposed have not been worth while. If a penalty is merely a small fine, and the chances of ever being brought to prosecution are trifling, obviously it is worth a man's while to go on running his vehicle in breach of the conditions on the chance of getting off so lightly.

Under this Bill we establish a new system. We shall not demand from the vehicles to be licensed any prior certificate of fitness, as is done in the case of public service vehicles, but we shall have a body of examiners whose duty it will be to take a "spot check" of road vehicles, either on the road or in the garage, to see that, they are, in fact, complying with these conditions of fitness, and we shall, I hope, avoid a great deal of the unnecessary trouble that prosecutions would bring by giving certain powers to these examiners. They will be able to give the owner of the vehicle a specific time, up to 10 days in which he can put those defects right, or if they think that the case is so serious that the defects cannot he put right in 10 days, they can immediately prohibit the use of that vehicle on the road until the necessary repairs have been carried out. The owner of the vehicle will have the right to appeal, first of all to the certifying officer under the 1930 Act, and then to me. I would ask hon. Members to note that disregard of this condition will constitute an offence under the Bill. Penalties are provided for offences under this Bill, but in this case only have I provided imprisonment as one of the penalties. I think that hon. Members will agree with me that if a man is told that, his vehicle is dangerous and, despite that, he takes it out and risks the safety of the public, imprisonment is not too great for such an offence.

The next condition is with regard to speed limits and loading. Here, again, conditions do not differ in any way from the conditions which are now laid down by regulation. The only difference is that I hope in the future we are going to be able to enforce them; at the present we have been unable to do so. Here, again, the police have not been able to spare the time effectively to deal with this problem. I hope that a combination of the 869 records which will be kept and the services of the examiners whom we propose to employ, will enable us to tackle the problem of vehicles that proceed at too great a speed and with an excessive load which must lead to danger to the public. Thirdly, there are the hours of driving. This, too, is laid down in the 1930 Act, but every hon. Member who has read the papers knows that, so far as the goods vehicle is concerned, that Act is an absolute dead letter. When I hear hon. Members say that it is not necessary to impose conditions of this kind because they are already in the 1930 Act, I believe that they know as well as I do that the 1930 Act, so far as this is concerned, has never been enforced, and could not be enforced. Hon. Members will realise—and this is a point with which I will deal later—that what a man has to, face now, if he deliberately sends his drivers out on journeys which must infringe the provisions of this Bill, is not merely the possibility of prosecution and a fine of some trifling sum, but the possibility of the loss of his licence and his definite exclusion from the road transport industry altogether.

Now I come to the case of keeping records. The records which will have to be kept are in regard to the driver and to the times of his work, the journeys and itinerary and the weights, descriptions and destination of goods. The Salter Report attached great importance to the keeping of these records as providing—and I believe that they were right—the only possible check for the real observance of these security conditions. These records must be kept and be available at any moment for the examiners to see and to form the basis of an inquiry. I am told that the keeping of these records is going to place a difficulty upon the owners of motor-vehicles, but I do not believe for a moment that a man who owns a motor-lorry is so helpless and so improvident as some of his supporters would have us believe. The road industry is a very different thing from what it was 15 years ago. I can imagine that there are very few lorry owners in the country who do not, in fact, keep some kind of waybill containing exactly the information which is going to be asked for in these records. I have wide powers of dispensation under the Clause which will enable one, if it is really found that there are practical difficulties, to grant 870 an exemption to certain classes of traffic and, in particular, to agricultural traffic. The answer to those who speak of what they call "the little man" in this case, and who say that he will not be able to keep these records complete, is that this little man has chosen to come into a job which involves certain dangers to the security of the public, and that if he chooses to come into that profession he must be able to meet the obligations as well as to take the advantages which that industry offers.

Finally, I have to point out to hon. Members that the real sting, if I may so call it, in all these conditions, lies in 'the Clause which for the first time gives power to enforce. Under that Clause it will be possible, not only to prosecute and to fine people who break these conditions, but for the Commissioners to revoke or to suspend their licences. They will only be able to do it, not in one individual case where perhaps the offence has not occurred through the fault of the owner at all, but in cases of wilful frequency of breach and where the breach has caused danger to the public. There will be, as I have said, a right of appeal for the man who is affected. Under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, the ultimate appellate court was the Minister. I do not hesitate to say that even in the few months that I have been at the Ministry, that system of having the Minister as the ultimate court of appeal has very great disadvantages. The Road Traffic Act, 1930, laid clown certain conditions, with regard to the granting of licences, which were to be administered judicially, and which the applicants and objectors were entitled to ask should be so done. The Commissioners, when they considered them, as the court of first instance, if I may put it like that, did so conditionally. I have no doubt at all that, to carry out the function intended by Parliament, the Minister also, when it comes to an appeal, ought to consider his function as judicial and not political. There is great difficulty in a Minister being called upon to exercise judicial functions. Hon. Members, quick as they are are not always able to foresee the exact moment when a Minister exchanges the motley of the politician for the ermine of the judge, and it is not beyond my experience that they sometimes address to him requests and put forward considerations which they would never do if they were 871 addressing someone whom they recognised to be in a judicial capacity pen-dente lite. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I thought that that would draw a slight recognition from the classically-minded. I propose in this case not to make the final decision rest with the Minister. I have set up a new appeal tribunal of three entirely independent people, of whom the chairman is to be appointed after consultation with the Lord Chancellor. That is a mystic phrase which I think will be full of significance to hon. Members who are of the legal profession—of significance and perhaps of hope. Hon. Members will also see that, in the arrangement before this court of appeal, I have paid full attention to the national claims of Scotland. That is a brief account of the system of licensing which is proposed. In Part I of the Bill are contained provisions with regard to the powers to close roads, as recommended by the Ray Committee, and various other minor provisions with which I need not trouble the House.

I should like to come now to the second part of the Bill which deals with the other side of the problem, the relieving of railways from restrictions. You will find, in the Press and in conversation, people maintaining that there is a whole mass of unnecessary Regulations imposed by stupid Governments upon the railways, and that it is only necessary for a Government to have one minute, in which it is a little less stupid, to take away those restrictions, for the whole of the traffic problem to be solved, and that nothing else need be done. There need be no division of function and no restriction upon roads—simply take those restrictions from railways and, without offending anyone or without doing anything at all, the whole problem will solve itself. That argument is therefore a very favourite refuge of the lazy and the cowardly. I hope, by the time this Bill has become law, that there will be no possibility left of that argument being advanced any longer. Restrictions were not put upon railways just for the fun of putting on restrictions; they were put on for two definite main purposes, one of which was to secure the safety of the travelling public and of the public who happen to go near the railway, and the second was for the protection of consumers of transport, whether trader or 872 traveller, from the power which the complete monopoly of the last century gave to the railways. Those principles, which I am sure hon. Members wish to maintain, the security of the public and the protection of the trader against the now not monopolistic but quasi-monopolistic power of the railways, are still of vital interest to this House, but apart from that, provided that those two principles are not infringed, there is no proposal for the removal of restrictions from railways to which I am unwilling to listen. I shall welcome any suggestion. The only stipulation I make is that, at the end we should be able to say that every suggestion for the removal of restrictions has been considered and that every suggestion has been decided, and that there can be, and will be, no further ground for talking about this mass of unnecessary restrictions upon railways which alone prevents the easy solution of this problem.

In the second part of the Bill, I present to the House for their consideration my contribution towards the removal of those restrictions, and I invite from them their contribution, for discussion and decision. The only really important Clause to which I need call attention is Clause 29, which sets out what is known as the agreed rate. Hon. Members know that the principle upon which railway rates are built is that of a standard rate on a ton-mile basis, and that the railway companies either without, or in some cases after, application to the Railway Rates Tribunal, quote exceptional rates. There was a recent case before the Railway Rates Tribunal where the railways applied for power to charge an exceptional rate. As this exceptional rate was not based on a ton-mile basis and there was no foundation for it of so much for such a distance, the Railway Rates Tribunal were not prepared to accept it as an exceptional rate.

As a result of that decision, it is clear that, apart from any question of prejudice to other traders, it is impossible for the railways to quote rates on a flat or composite basis, and I have provided in this Clause a new rate, an agreed rate, which may be agreed between the railways and the traders on any basis, apart entirely from the basis of the ton-mile. It will, however, require in all circumstances the approval of the Railway Rates Tribunal. Once that approval is given, the law of undue preference or inequality 873 of toll will no longer be applicable to this particular rate. The protection of the trader will lie, first of all, in the power of either the trader or representative bodies of traders to appear before the Railway Rates Tribunal and object, but, even more than that, the real protection of the trader in the future will lie in the fact that the railways have lost their monopoly, that they are no longer in the position, in which they were 30 or 40 years ago, of being able to say: "If you do not like our terms there is nowhere else that you can go to get better ones." Traders are now, over the vast range of the goods-carrying world, able to make a choice between the two systems.

I do not think it is necessary to call the attention of the House to any of the other minor provisions for the relief of rates. They are mostly quite insignificant in their character, and they are only included so that we shall be able to say, when the discussions on this Bill are ended, that we have left out no possible relief which the House thinks it is able to give to the railways. In Part III of the Bill, power is taken to set up a Transport Advisory Council, which will take the place of the old Roads Advisory Committee. The composition of the council hon. Members will find set out in the First Schedule. The importance of this council was emphasised by the Royal Commission, who said that they attached great importance to it; and undoubtedly, if we are to proceed, as I hope we are, to further coordination between road and rail, some body such as this, which will represent authoritatively the varying transport interests, will be of great importance as a means of inquiry and as a focus of discussion.

I must apologise to the House for having taken up so much time in explaining the Bill. I want now to say a few words in conclusion upon the general problem which is presented to us. I understand from my military and naval friends in the House that, from their point of view, to be under a cross-fire is to be in an uncomfortable and a dangerous position. I am not sure that it is, for a politician, either so uncomfortable or so dangerous, for cross fires have a way of missing the primary target and hitting the other firers. I shall be told, and, indeed, I have been told already, that there is too much Socialism 874 in this Bill, while, on the other hand, I shall be told that there is too little. I shall be told by some that there is too much regulation, while others will say that there is not enough. I shall be told that I have done nothing for the railways, and I shall be told that I have ruined the roads. Let me say a word or two upon those accusations.

In the first place, let me deal with the one accusation to which I plead guilty—the accusation that there is too little Socialism in this Bill. It is, I think, one of the chief claims of the Bill that there is no Socialism in it at all. I notice that, as I expected, hon. Members opposite have put down an Amendment, in what I might call common form, which no doubt they will discuss later, calling for the nationalisation of the whole of the transport of this country. My only hope in that regard is that, when they come to discuss it, the discussion will not be quite so general as such discussions have been of late. I hope we shall not have quite so many of those very powerful, very interesting, but perhaps rather theoretical speeches upon Capitalism and Socialism, and private funds, and other things of that kind such as last week must have taken my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford University (Sir C. Oman), like some kind of bad dream, back to his lecture room in a listening rather than a speaking capacity. I hope that hon. Members will not merely generalise, but that they will tell the House what they really mean to do—not just that it is a good thing for transport to be nationalised, but who is going to do it, where they are going to run it, how it is going to be run, and, particularly, what man they are going to find who will have the genius and energy to run the trams in London and the omnibuses in Caithness. I only hope that they will do it. It will not be of any use to me, because I shall have finished, but I am not selfish, and, if they do it, they will provide for my hon. and gallant Friend one of those debating opportunities for which we are always looking, but which unfortunately, fall to the lot of few of us.

There is one general point that I should like to put to the House. I should like to ask what would have happened if some Motion of this kind had, by some extraordinary malignity of fate, been carried in this House 10 or 15 years ago, and if, as a result, all the transport known at 875 the time had been brought under one unified national control. I wonder what would have happened to road transport in the last 10 years if the losses under the competition of road transport had fallen, not on the railway shareholders, but on the Budget of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, if the assets which we now see going to waste had been, not the assets of the railway companies, but the assets of the taxpayers of this country, and if the man who had to stand at this Box every April and explain the losses which arose from this competition were also the man who had it in his power to bring that competition to an end. I wonder what sort of co-ordination we should have seen? It would have been the same sort of thing as happened to that unfortunate young lady from one of the Baltic sea-ports who so incautiously accepted a hiking invitation.

One word to those who say that there is too much Socialism in the Bill. I should say that there could be no Socialism in it unless its provisions in-eluded some element of State ownership or State management, and neither of these will be found in the scheme. That there is State regulation is true, but there was State regulation of railways nearly 100 years ago—State regulations of railways put on by Parliaments in which my hon. Friend the Member for South Kensington (Sir W. Davison) would have appeared a dangerous "red." I do not think that, if 100 years ago they were prepared to do it, we need be frightened of doing it now. There is a much better case for it to-day. Hon. Members and the country as a whole are beginning to realise the importance of the population factor; they are beginning to realise that many things that were possible in an area of gradually and steadily increasing population are no longer possible in an age when populations are either stationary or declining.

I am told that there is too much regulation, and that suggestion is set out in an Amendment to an Amendment which stands in the name of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Tamworth (Sir A. Steel-Maitland) and the names of some of his friends. I understand, of 'course, that hon. Members who take different views of this problem from those which I take, may hold those views so 876 sincerely and deeply that they may be forced to oppose me in the Division Lobby, but I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman and his friends should find it necessary to express their opposition by way of an Amendment on the Paper, and particularly, if I may say so, by way of an Amendment in these terms. The right hon. Gentleman, in his Amendment, talks about increasing the cost of living. What a gift that is for opponents of this Government. The right hon. Gentleman is, of course, a man of great reputation in the country, a man who has been a Member of successive Administrations, and whose words must carry great weight. The opponent of the Government who uses these words of his as an argument is not going to inquire what authority the right hon. Gentleman had for using them, or whether his reasons for doing so were good or bad; he is simply going to announce that the right hon. Gentleman said that this National Government has deliberately increased the people's cost of living; and, in the mouth of the agitator, the sober fallacy of the right hon. Gentleman on the Paper will, while remaining equally fallacious, become a good deal more emphatic.

I should like to know what grounds the right hon. Gentleman has for saying that this will increase the cost of living. It is quite true that under the Bill I shall have to ask the House, in a Financial Resolution, to authorise a charge amounting to about £130,000, to be raised from those applying for licences. Is that what is going to increase the cost of living? Yesterday we were discussing a Resolution on the House to impose, upon the same people, taxation amounting to £1,750,000. Did the right hon. Gentleman and his friends then say that that sum was going to increase the cost of living? They never even discussed it, not to mention dividing against it. Am I to understand that this figure, which, as far as I can work it out on the data available, will mean an increase in transport costs of something like ld. per 200 miles, is really going to increase the cost of living of the people? If it is not that, is it the provision that the Commissioners shall have authority, in deciding whether or not they will grant licences, to take into account excess of facilities, and that they will be able to refuse licences where facilities are excessive? I wonder is 877 that the reason for the statement that an increase in the cost of living is going to result I Hon. Members will realise that all that I am doing there is to try to approximate supply and demand—exactly the thing that the Government have been trying to do for the last 18 months in the industrial field by means of tariffs and quotas, and I have never heard of the right hon. Gentleman or any of his supporters putting an Amendment down to any of those proposals on the ground that they would increase the cost of living.

Finally—and here I admit there is a possibility that the right hon. Gentleman may be right—is it suggested that the fact that we are are now going to insist on the observance of conditions as to wages and as to hours is going to increase the cost of living of the community? I have taken it that breaches of these conditions have been the exception, and not the rule; the right hon. Gentleman, being in closer touch with the road interests, will be better able to give the House information on that point. It may be that I am wrong, and that these practices are widespread. But, if that is what he means by increasing the cost of living, I am prepared to debate the point with him, either in this Assembly or in any other assembly in the country, and to ask the people of this country whether they object to their cost of living being increased in order to see that people who have to take dangerous mechanisms out upon the high road shall be secured decent conditions of life. Some people will ask what this Bill will do for the railways. I do not know what it will do. I do not know whether the result will be to force traffic back on to the railways or not. That is not my object nor is it the object of this House. We sympathise with the railway shareholders, just as we sympathise with the shareholders in any of our great basic industries who have lost the money which they invested, and invested for the national interest; but our sole concern is the public interest. Our sole concern is, not the profits of this industry or of that, but to provide proper transport for the people of this country, Then I am told that I shall ruin the roads. I do not believe that to bring order out of chaos is in the long run 878 going to do any harm to the road industry. I do not believe that the present position of unbridled competition is really good for it, nor do I believe that it is really good for industry in general, or that the cheapness available during a war of cutting rates is a cheapness which in the long run is a good thing for the industries of this country.

Hon. Members will ask whether a Bill of this kind, combined,, of course, with the Budget Provisions, will end the matter; whether we can now say that with the passage of this Bill the road and railway problem will he settled. I wish that I could answer that question in the affirmative. The most for which one can hope from this Bill—the most I aim at—is that the individual in individual cases shall be able to exercise a fair choice. It may be, of course, that in the exercise of that fair choice we may arrive at a proper equilibrium between the road and the railway. But if we do, it will be purely by luck. On the other hand, we may get something which is not equilibrium; we may, of course, get a vast change which so helps the railways that the roads disappear, or which so helps the roads that railways become unnecessary. We may get a very dangerous position between the two, and it is no good blinding our eyes to that possibility or refusing to face it. We may quite easily get a condition where the competition of the road industry increases, where it becomes more effective, where it gradually takes more and more traffic away from the railways until at last it leaves them with only those classes of heavy traffic which the road is either unable or unwilling to bear and, at the same time, by having crippled the resources of the railways, leaves them unable to transport those heavy classes of traffic at rates which are reasonable or fair to the industries of this country. That is a situation which nobody would be able to face with equanimity when it arose.

It is, I think, essential that sooner or later we should come to some division of function as between road and rail. That was the earnest desire of the Salter Conference on Road and Rail Transport, which put my point of view much better than I can: We believe that the best division of function will be obtained mainly through the deliberate effort of those engaged in road and rail transport to co-ordinate their 879 services and give the public the full advantages of complementary service…The hauliers on the one hand and the railways on the other are essentially two branches of the nation's common carrier service. More and more we conceive that, while they may still compete with each other, on the fairer basis resulting from the recommendations, they will in future be concerned so to organise their services that in collaboration they can attract the public to resort to them for all classes of traffic in which large-scale organisation has great advantages. Every hon. Member of this House will echo that hope, and most hon. Members will agree, that co-ordination of that kind is best done by the industries themselves. They have the special knowledge; give them the good will which only lack of compulsion gives. But, though it may best be done by the industries concerned, sooner or later it has got to be done by someone. The nation could not remain indifferent to the sort of situation the possibility of which I have just described to the House, and we cannot remain indifferent to the fact that the temporary gains of industry through this cut-throat competition may fiend in a permanent loss to the nation.

I believe that the Bill to which I am now asking the House to give a Second Reading is an essential preliminary to co-ordination of that kind, and I hope that, when the heat and dust of the controversy which this Measure has necessarily aroused have died down, the industries concerned will get together to discuss the real problems which face them, not in the spirit of eternal antagonists, but in that of partners in a great enterprise. I am sure that in their efforts to reach such a solution they will have the good will and the support both of this Government and of this House.

§ Mr. PARKINSON

I beg to move, to leave out from the word "That" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof the words: in view of the present chaotic conditions of road and rail transport, the need for a cheap and efficient transport service in the interests of the community, and the establishment of fair wages and conditions of employment for those engaged therein, this House cannot assent to the Second Reading of a Bill which establishes regional instead of national regulation, and fails to recognise that, in the interests of industry and trade, the unification of all transport services under national ownership and control is a vital necessity. 880 Every Member of this House will join with me in complimenting the hon. Gentleman on his speech in support of the Second Reading. He has confined himself very strictly to his case. Nevertheless, I am sure that the arguments adduced by the hon. Gentleman in the beginning of his speech might have been spoken on behalf of our Amendment. He pointed out from very many points of view the unsatisfactory nature of the conditions of transport at the moment; he pointed also to the differences which applied not only in the past but which are bound to apply for a long time to come. We contend, of course, that those differences must for ever remain so long as we have this great transport industry under individual control.

At the close of his speech the hon. Gentleman added many remarks in support of this Amendment, and he put the specific question: What would be the case to-day had the Government adopted this Measure 15 years ago? I hope that he has not forgotten the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary for the Dominions introduced a Bill to nationalise transport in 1921, or the time when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill)—at that time, I believe, Chancellor of the Exchequer, either during or after the War —made a public declaration in favour of nationalisation of the railways. These are things which cannot be forgotten, and they are things which must have a direct bearing on the issue now before the House. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, with his influence in the Government at that time, must of course have had friends in the Cabinet in league with him, and some factor must have come into the affairs of the nation to lead some responsible Members of the Government to realise that the only way out of this difficulty was nationalisation.

No one will deny the chaos which is prevalent in the transport services throughout the country to-day, nor will hon. Members suggest that the time has not arrived when this great tangle of interests ought to be straightened out and undertakings put in the position of being able to render service beneficial to the whole community and not to the sectional interests which are at present operative. One can easily realise that to make matters easier for one section 881 of the transport industry may be to deal a blow at or impose a hardship upon all sections of that industry. The matter, therefore, comes down to this: that so long as the two branches are opposing one another we shall never be able to make that progress which is so necessary to bring stabilisation, unification and nationalisation into the industry the affairs of which are before the House to-day.

It is, of course, understood that the country must have the best services which it is possible to secure, and we all agree that the most efficient form of transport must be economic. It must be so, in the interests of commerce and for the prosperity of the whole community. Attached immediately to this efficiency, of course, must be the establishment of fair wages and conditions of employment, with which the hon. Gentleman dealt so fully this afternoon. It would be fair to say that neither the wages nor the conditions of employment operating to-day are satisfactory or honestly observed by employers of labour. While the Road Traffic Act, 1930, laid down certain Regulations and enacted certain law which ought to be applied throughout the country, those provisions have not been enforced at all. I should like to ask the Minister to give careful consideration and serious thought to the whole of this problem with a' view to making that Act fulfil the functions for which is was passed. On the one hand, we have some employers who are really good employers, and against whom I would not say one word; who do all they possibly can to make their employés comfortable and to get the best service out of them. On the other hand, we have employers who believe that their conditions of labour ought to be, in a sense, like slavery; that their business can only be successful when it is carried out in the midst of strife and dissatisfaction. These are the sort of people with whom the Bill has to deal. Whether it will be able to bring them within its operation or not I do not know; the Road Traffic Act, 1930, was certainly not able to do so. There is plenty of opportunity, by stricter supervision, of compelling these people to do what they ought to do.

This Bill establishes regional instead of national regulation. It does not embrace the greater and wider principle of the unification of all transport services, 882 clearing away the continuous struggle between different interests and bringing together in the interests of all concerned the whole of the transport services of the country, so that they could be unified under national ownership and control. This course would give full service to the country in its struggle to rebuild its trade and commerce, and would render the greatest assistance towards bringing that prosperity which is so much desired.

§ Mr. PARKINSON

The Labour party cannot regard the Bill as a solution of the national transport problem. As the House is aware, this party has on many occasions raised the question of nationalisation, of unification and of socialisation. Consequently, we cannot accept the Bill in all its implications. The Bill, with the Budget proposals, is the Government's action following the report of the Salter Conference, to which the hon. Gentleman referred this afternoon. I quite agree with the portion of the report which he read at the end of his speech. The division of interests that at present obtains ought to give way to good will and well being in the interests not only of the people themselves but of the nation as a whole. The terms of reference to the Salter Conference prevented any real consideration being given to the problem. We do not expect the Government to adopt the terms of the Amendment, but the Bill will be helpful in eliminating many present-day evils such, for instance, as those in regard to the conditions of labour. It will to some extent straighten out the industry and give us a better picture of the problem when the machinery of licensing is built up.

I should like to call attention to some points in the Bill which, I think, should be brought to the notice of the Ministry. It is a long story to tell, and I am not going through the whole Bill. I will simply make a selection of some of the Clauses which I think ought to receive consideration. I do not see any reason why "C" licences should not be included with "A" and "B" licences in Clause 8. I do not see that there is that difference in the position which would warrant the separate issue of licences, particularly in view of the fact that probably the number 883 of "C" licences will be greatly in excess of the number under the other two heads. In Clause 8 (5) the person in my opinion should not only be guilty of an offence but should be liable to lose his licence, which is, of course, provided for in another part of the Bil, in Clauses 6, 9, 10 and 11.

Clause 8 sets out the conditions to be attached to all licences, but Sub-section (2) excludes the holders of "C" licences from the obligation to carry out the provisions of Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act. I believe they ought not to be allowed to evade that portion of the Act. They are employing people to run their machinery, and whether they are real drivers or agricultural labourers or shop servers does not make any difference. The point is that they are called upon to take charge of a motor or lorry or car on the public road. They ought to carry with them the whole responsibility and they ought to be given the full privileges of Section 93, which relates to wages and conditions of employment. It could be argued that the holders of "C" licences would not be covered by the ordinary rail transport agreement. I do not see why they should not be. If they are driving vehicles, I do not see why they should not come under the regulations and under the control of the local authority, like other people. To meet that position I suggest that the Industrial Court shall have the right to take into consideration any other agreement made for the trade in which the vehicles are engaged. I can see a lot of controversy arising over "C" licences, but I will not enter into that now.

Sub-section (1) (c) stipulates that in relation to the authorised vehicles the requirements specified in Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act with respect to the time for which drivers of certain vehicles may remain continuously on duty are observed. These conditions are pretty well known, but they are pretty generally unobserved. They are not being used in the way they ought to be, and advantage is being taken of drivers by employers who are not giving full consideration to the welfare and well-being of their people. There is the question of the duration of intervals of rest. In many cases there are two people on a vehicle and they have to take their periods of rest while the vehicle is going. A man is entitled to 884 take his rest completely away from the employment in which he is engaged. He cannot get the natural rest, which is so necessary, on a lorry. Much more strict supervision of this matter is required.

Clause 10 (2) raises the question whether trade unions certified by the Minister of Labour to represent a substantial number of people who are concerned, should have a right of appearance before the licensing authority and the Appeal Tribunal. Clause 10 (1) provides that the licensing authority may specify persons by whom objections may be made for the grant of a licence when publishing notice of an application. It also stipulates that the authorities shall take into consideration objections made by persons who are already providing transport facilities. It would, therefore, appear that, unless a trade union is specially mentioned by the licensing authority as persons by whom objections may be made, it has no standing whatever, and the authority may refuse to hear its objections. That is a matter to which further consideration should be given by the Minister, because the men rely very much upon it. They always rely on their representatives, and why they should not be given an opportunity under the Bill I do not know.

Regulations are to be made under Clause 14 as to the form of records to be kept. This is a step in the right direction. There ought to be a full record, and we ought not to take much notice of ordinary objections. We shall, no doubt, hear it said that these are uneducated work-men, that this duty ought not to be imposed upon them, and that it will mean the engagement of a special person for the purpose. I hope the Minister will not listen to that kind of argument. I hope he will stick strongly to the point that people who are in charge of a vehicle of this kind ought to have sufficient education to enable them to keep all necessary records. Efficiency ought to be the test of legislation, particularly in connection with road transport. By Clause 15 (10) a person using a goods vehicle acting under the order of his employer may, be prosecuted. This may be unfair in many cases. Many drivers have been prosecuted simply because they are driving a vehicle, as they have been compelled to do by their employers. If a driver can show to the authority that he knew the defects, and 885 that the employer also knew them, but that he was compelled to take out the vehicle, a prosecution ought not to fail upon him. I want the man who is innocent of the misdemeanour but has been compelled by force of circumstances, or by poverty, to do what his employer suggested he ought to do, to be protected.

By Clause 16 it is proposed to give examiners power to stop vehicles in order to examine documents. I do not know whether these men are to go about in their ordinary clothes, simply armed with a paper of authority, or whether they will wear uniform so that the drivers will know that they are examiners. It would certainly be better if that were done, because a driver may be stopped by any Tom, Dick or Harry and will not know whether he is an examiner or not. There ought to be some distinctive dress which would denote that he is an examiner appointed under the Act. Subsection (3) relates to the power of an examiner in the matter of weighing vehicles. It would appear that the powers referred to in the Road Traffic Act are not, in practice, conferred on the police by the highway authorities and, therefore, could not be exercised by the examiner. In this case woirld it not be necessary to amend Section 27 of the Road Traffic Act in such a way as to give to police constables the necessary authority in respect to the weighing of motor vehicles and trailers? Many of these vehicles are in need of weighing. There seem to be tremendously heavy cargoes going through the streets. They may not be as heavy as they look but, on the other hand, it is easy to overload any vehicle with a heavy, compact material. That ought to be carried out more rigorously than it has been in the past.

Coming to Clause 17, there is provision in the London Traffic Act, 1924, and the Road Traffic Act, 1930, that, in the case of purchase by any local or public authority, any value created for the business by the Acts shall not be taken into account in determining compensation. That, of course, applies to any local authority taking over an already working business. I should like to ask whether similar provision cannot be made in this Bill. Clause 19 deals with the Appeal Tribunal. I have wondered whether there is a case for salaries to be paid 886 in all these cases. It is quite likely that the Chairman would have to have a salary, as it is likely that there may be a fair amount of work to be done during the early period of the life of the Act, but it is just a question whether there will be sufficient work for the whole of the three men to be paid salaries. It is quite all right in the case of the Chairman, but it might be payments by fees in the case of the others.

§ Mr. STANLEY

The Clause says "remuneration or salaries."

§ Mr. PARKINSON

That makes it worse. It is neither one thing nor the other. It means that you may hit with the right hand or the left, but you do not hit straight. It would be much better if one of those words was taken out and the remaining word was allowed to apply to the Bill as it stands. As to Clause 23 (2), representative organisations might not be willing to confer with the Minister, and in that case the regulation should nevertheless be valid. The Minister would have given the opportunity to the organisations to confer with him, and if they refused to undertake to do so the matter should remain valid. For some, at any rate, of the offences dealt with in Clause 27 (2), I am not sure that imprisonment should not be possible. In many cases which have appeared in the courts all over the country too much leniency has been allowed in certain directions. When a man continuously works against the laws of the country he ought to take full responsibility for his actions.

Clause 25 (1) amends Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and therefore affects passenger service vehicles as well as goods vehicles. Sub-section (2) applies only to "A" and "B" licences. Why should not "C" licence holders be brought in, so that it may be made to cover all licence holders? This also applies to Clause 8 (9). In the case of goods vehicles the provisions of Section 93 of the Road Traffic Act, as amended, will apply only to "drivers or statutory attendants," but in the case of passenger service vehicles, the Section applies "in relation to persons employed in connection with the operation of a public service vehicle." For the sake of uniformity why not insert the same words as those which appear in the Road Traffic Act, 1930?

887 I do not intend to deal at length with Part 2 of the Bill, because there are probably hon. Members here who are better able to deal with it than I and can speak with a full knowledge of railway working. But subject to the suitable protection of labour I do not see very much objection to this part of the Bill. The point arises as to whether the railway companies are to be more meticulous in the observance of their agreements with their workpeople in the future than they have been in the past. I can imagine great objections being raised on that particular point, but I should like to see a statement from the railway companies before any further concessions are given to them. I do not say that they do not deserve, or ought not to have them, but they ought to be prepared to carry out the bargains with their own workpeople, and we ought to have a distinct and definite statement from them upon the matter.

There is a point in connection with the notification of accidents. In Clause 34 they are asking to be relieved of reporting accidents attended with injury to employés which does not disable them for more than three days. All accidents ought to be reported. It is only by having every accident reported that we can know the exact toll paid through employment in every part of the country and in every industry. At least something ought to be done in that direction. We ought to maintain the words which have applied before and the position of reporting every accident. Will the concessions to be given to railways which own docks have the effect of diverting traffic from the private or municipal docks? Is there to be a monopoly in respect of their own docks, or is there any opportunity for dock authorities to appeal to the Minister or to somebody else against any diversion of traffic?

Everybody will agree that there ought to be an Advisory Council, but I think that the unfair division of representation is such that nobody can look at it without feeling that there is a grievance. Labour is only to be given two representatives, while there are to be about 16 representatives of the capitalist or employing section of the community. Users of mechanically-propelled vehicles are to be given five representatives. I suggest to the Minister that he should take at 888 least similar action to that which was taken in regard to the London Passenger Transport Bill and give five representatives to Labour. There is another great organisation which has not been mentioned from any point of view but which ought to be given representation on the Advisory Council, namely, the great cooperative movement, which carries on a tremendous amount of road traffic and is directly interested in the whole of this business. A wide and comprehensive organisation of such standing ought to be considered and given an opportunity of being represented on the Council.

We were all startled last night when we saw the report of the road accidents in the Press. The Bill does not deal with road accidents, but I suggest to the Minister that he ought to have an advisory safety council set up by the people conducting this traffic throughout the country. They should appoint men or women to apply themselves to the task of trying to reduce the terrible death roll upon the roads. Though they would be placed in a unique position they would do their best at least to bring something forward which would justify the Minister in having arranged for the making of such appointments. I throw the suggestion out as a feeler, because this is a matter which ought to be dealt with. We cannot continue to see the massacre taking place on our roads year after year. The slaughter is far too heavy. I am satisfied that with more careful consideration, and the application of intelligence, there would not be anything like the number of accidents which we have at the moment. I suggest that an advisory safety council might consider something in that direction.

No provision is made for the licensing of the drivers of authorised vehicles as is the case with the drivers of road service vehicles under the Road Traffic Act, although the former will have to conform to the same provisions in the matter of continuity of driving and rest periods. Will the Minister consider amending parts of Sections 77 and 82 of the Road Traffic Act to make them apply to the drivers of authorised vehicles? I should like the Minister, if possible, to give consideration to those matters at the earliest opportunity.

As far as we are concerned, the Bill may be regarded as further testimony 889 to the need for national regulation and co-ordination of the transport services of the country. For years the Labour party has been urging the importance of this question to the industrial, commercial, and social life of the country. The wisdom of that contention has been proved beyond doubt. There is not the slightest doubt that the contention which has been held and put forward by the Labour movement is the right one, and that in the end it will win. There was abundant proof during the War years, when the railways and canals were under Government control, so much so that the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping (Mr. Churchill), when a leading member of the Coalition Government was impelled to declare in favour of nationalisation. But then, as now, vested interests were all-powerful in the councils of the Government, and then, as now, the Government dared not tackle those vested interests and lift from the shoulders of the community the handicaps and hindrances to much needed development which the present chaotic, competitive, and overlapping arrangements impose.

The policy of the Labour movement has long been that transport should be organ-ised on a truly national plan, with national instead of private interests as the impelling motive. The railways, the canals, the road motor services, the coastal services, and even the air services, should all be regarded as parts of a national system of transport, each playing its natural part and working in cooperation instead of in competition as at present. The objection to the Bill is in its limitations and restrictions. The great need of the times, as far as transport is concerned, is for a bold and comprehensive policy. The Government should show that it has vision and purpose, and do for the country as a, whole in the matter of transport facilities, what has already been done in London, in a limited way, under the provisions of the London Passenger Transport Act.

§ Major RENWICK

Hitherto I have refrained from intervening in Debates pending the opportunity to make my initial contribution upon a subject of which I might claim some knowledge. In so doing, it may be within the re-collection of certain of the older Members of 890 the House that I am really following the tradition of my sire, whose voice at one time was not unfamiliar in this Chamber. For a number of years I have studiously observed the impending challenge to railroads and other methods of internal transport in this country, and that challenge, which I maintain was inevitable, was the direct outcome of the perfecting of the internal combustion engine. But it is only now that a Minister of Transport has summoned courage to deal with the matter by long overdue legislation, and I take the opportunity of congratulating the Minister on the production of the Bill so quickly after having assumed his new office. However, as the period of gestation has been so short, the Minister may perhaps not disagree, that his offspring may develop into a much finer little fellow when it has received attention at the hands of those nurses who are so eagerly awaiting its reception upstairs.

It is probable that at no time have the traders of this country been so urgently in need, not only of efficient transport, but of economic transport, too, but I would suggest that in an effort to obtain both it is not expedient to unduly foster one form of transport at the expense of another. The railway companies, for some unaccountable reason, appear to be the spoilt darlings of the transport industry, for immediately they experience the slightest difficulty or trouble they are clamouring round the doors and the lobbies of this House. I never can quite realise the attitude of the powers that be and the Government of the day, whatever day it may be, why they should regard railway dividends and railway capital as something quite different from any other industrial undertaking, as something quite sacrosanct and quite inviolate.

There are other great commercial undertakings which we have recently seen tackle their difficulties and successfully emerge from them. I will give two examples, the two great arsenals of this country, upon which we have so frequently relied, namely, Vickers', and Armstrong's. These two great concerns, by the sacrifice of millions of capital, have brought themselves, entirely by their own effort and their own persistence, more into accord with the altered circumstances of the day. These great undertakings were national undertakings upon 891 whom we relied, and I suggest that we shall have to rely upon them again. Take as a further example our own Consols. At one time they were the very crème de la crème of our gilt-edged securities. I think I am correct in saying that I recollect Consols in this century standing at 108, and I can remember them standing at something like half that amount, whereas to-ray they stand at, I think, 75 on the Stock Exchange. Those are our own gilt-edged securities.

I am one of those who not only realise the imperative necessity of our railways being preserved, but I further maintain that they should be preserved in a condition of virility, in order that they may compete with the other forms of internal transport. My mentality was entirely in sympathy with the railways up to the time of the publication of the Salter Report, but whether I can honestly say that since I have seen Part II of the Bill my mind is just the same, I should very considerably hesitate to stay. When the Minister invited the road representatives to meet the railway representatives to discuss their difficulties, I think the road representatives only acquiesced after having made considerable sacrifice. I believe that, in their very great anxiety to achieve accord with the railway representatives, the road people went very far beyond the expectations of their own constituent members. As a direct result of that sacrifice the liberties of the road people are now in process of curtailment at the hands of the Chancellor of the Exchequer. It was likewise generally anticipated that the road interest would be compelled to conform to some such similar arrangement of licensing as we have already experienced with passenger vehicles. Those I maintain were the two recommendations, the fundamental principles of the Report.

For the purpose of obtaining accord it was realised in certain quarters that in exchange for some security for the future a price was to be paid, but Part II of the Bill, or that portion relieving the railway companies of what is known as undue preference, has come as a positive bombshell to the industry and the public generally. No such suggestion, so far as I can see, is contained in the Salter Report; indeed, quite the contrary. I 892 should like to refer the House to paragraph 96 of the Salter Report, which reads as follows: Even in the matter of rates, where it might seem prima facie that the existence of effective competition over the whole area of the railways' work makes the system in force as regards railway rates unnecessary, we do not recommend any fundamental change. Capricious discrimination in rates, while it may in some cases secure extra receipts and in others extra traffic not otherwise obtainable, is no satisfactory principle for common carriers to work upon, either from the point of view of the transport industry itself or of the trade and commerce served. Indeed when a common carrier service is organised in large units, the commercial obligation of fair treatment towards customers must in practice prevent such discrimination. It is the fact that the railways are so organised, and not the existence of statutory regulation, which mainly accounts for the handicap of the railways in this respect; and this handicap would not be substantially reduced by any change in law or administration; nor would traders generally be likely to accept willingly such a change. I should like to ask the Minister what subsequently transpired or what circumstances, or combination of circumstances, influenced him to ignore such a definite expression of opinion from the acknowledged experts in their respective industries. In seeking to place such unprecedented powers in the bands of these chosen people, has the Minister given the fullest consideration to other alternative forms of internal transport which may be mortally hit by this shaft which he has forged? For instance, have the coasting trade and the inland waterways been taken into consideration? Have their opinions been sought as to the probable effect of this legislation upon their industries? The Minister need not have any apprehension as to this Bill being regarded in any way as a Socialistic Measure. We heard him refer to the now celebrated Bristol case, which has become quite famous. Under this Bill the Railway Tribunal are to have the opportunity of conferring upon the railways liberty to quote a flat rate. I would say, with respect, to those hon. Members who may be, perhaps, a little less initiated in these matters than I am, that when the railway companies quote these flat rates they quote them for the whole of the traffic which the particular trader is handling, to the complete exclusion of any alternative means of transport. Therefore, although the Minister referred to 893 the power of the railway companies as being either monopolistic or quasi-monopolistic, in future under Part II their powers are going to be completely monopolistic, and I hope that during the various stages through which the Bill is to pass he will bear that in mind. I suggest to the Minister that in his great anxiety to repel a common enemy he is probably, if great care is not taken, dealing a mortal blow at various other alternative means of internal transport.

I am not entirely opposed to the Bill, by any means. It is my intention to support the Government in the Lobby, but I do hope that when the Bill goes upstairs, the Minister, particularly in regard to Part II, will be receptive to the point of positive generosity. This Bill should reflect the outcome of an honest attempt at co-operation between the two rival industries, which everybody has known for years, have been at each other's throat. Despite what the Minister has said, compromise it is. It is a compromise which has not been lightly arrived at. It has not been secured without the utmost patience and self-sacrifice. I hope, therefore, that the Minister will, in his honesty of purpose, retain the confidence of those industries which have trusted him so far, and that he may be content to confine his activities entirely to the recommendations of the Salter Report.

§ Sir ARTHUR STEEL-MAITLAND

I am sure that the House has listened to the maiden speech of the hon. and gallant Member for Stretford (Major Renwick) with that pleasure which it always accords to those who make their appearance in Debate here for the first time. I am quite sure also that those who remember the hon. Member's father as a Member of this House, know quite well that in his father there was a man whose considered opinions always gained full attention and weight whenever he rose to address the House. There may well be controversy among people of different opinions as to whether descent by itself should give a title to a seat in the Legislature, but there is no question whatsoever that when the son of a respected father comes here to give us his opinions in a maiden speech we welcome him, and we hope that throughout our Debates in the future he will make the same valued contributions 894 to our discussions which his father did in his time.

Some of my hon. Friends and I have put down an Amendment to the official Opposition Amendment. At one time we thought of simply proposing that the Bill should be read this day six months, but as a reasoned Amendment had been put down by the official Opposition Amendment it was quite clear that any discussion must take place on that Amendment. We believe that no good can come from the principles embodied in this Bill. We have grave misgivings with regard to it, and, therefore, we thought it right, as our reasons for disagreeing were entirely different from those of the Front Opposition Bench, that it was as well to place on record our reasons for disagreeing so that the difference may be manifest. I regret sincerely to have to move or speak in opposition to the Bill. I regret it for this reason: I still think that the crisis which confronts this country is as serious now as it was when the Government took office, and I should never wish to do anything which might lessen their authority. The best way of dealing with a question of this kind was by Debate on the subject first before the Government were committed to a particular policy by the introduction of a Bill. That course has been followed before on occasions, and on the present occasion it was a particularly suitable proceeding.

We have had a Royal Commission on Transport and the Salter Conference, the report of which was an extremely attractive document on first reading. Then, as weeks passed and it was scrutinised, doubts began to be expressed about the authority or wisdom of the proposals it made. In these circumstances a general Debate on the subject in this House first of all would have obviated many troubles. I asked whether such a Debate might be considered, and when I was met with a complete refusal the only course left to my hon. Friends and me was to state quite frankly our objections to the Bill on the Second Heading. It is true that the grounds of our disagreement are different from those of the Opposition. The Minister of Transport has said that a cross-fire is sometimes welcome, that he can set the two sides against one another, he can argue that they cancel each other out. But that is not necessarily the case. I remember the 895 case of a barrister who at the end of a long and successful career, said that he had been the means of getting many a guilty man acquitted and many an innocent man convicted, and that, therefore, on the whole he had got substantial justice done. Because there are differences of criticism it does not follow that the principles of the Bill, which meet neither criticism fully, are therefore justified.

Let me just refer for a moment to some of the remarks which the Minister of Transport addressed to me personally. I did not take down all the interrogatories he administered to me; they came too thick and fast. But I remember two of them. He asked me why, if I object to this Bill, I have not in public expressed my objections with regard to import quotas. I will tell him the reason. I think that import quotas, as part of a permanent measure of Protection, are the most objectionable form which Protection can possibly take, but in abnormal times like the present they may be absolutely necessary to meet a temporary situation. I said nothing with regard to import quotas because I did not want to embarrass the Government, and in regard to the matters in which import quotas have been established they are temporary measures, whereas his Bill is a permanent Bill. The Minister of Transport also referred to the phrase "the cost of living," in our Amendment to the Amendment. He said that one way in which the cost of living might be increased was through improvements in the working conditions of the men employed, and that possibly if I regretted an increase in the cost of living it was because I disliked improvements in the conditions of the men employed. That is what the Minister suggested—and I am within the memory of hon. Members.

The Minister of Transport has an extremely fine and honourable record in the social work he has done and the interest he has taken in social problems. I trust, however acutely I may differ from him on a particular point, that I shall never insinuate that he has been insincere or untrue to the spirit he has shown in his social work or to the attitude he has taken towards social problems. While I do not pretend to vie with him, I also have a record of being interested in these questions, and on re- 896 flection I think he will not look back with satisfaction to a remark which cannot be interpreted otherwise than as I have suggested.

I saw in a newspaper this morning a statement that I belong to the Parliamentary road group I received a Whip from the Parliamentary railway group this morning. When I met some of those who are interested in road matters yesterday evening the first thing I said to them—as it is the first thing I say to the House now—was, "I do not stand here as an advocate of any sectional interests, road or rail." There is an interest which far transcends these sectional interests, the general interest of the country as a whole. In this case the general interest of the country as a whole is the interest of industry throughout the country.

Industry and transport and all other parts of the national life, are interconnected and interdependent, but they are distinguishable. No one will deny that the prosperity of this country and the employment of its citizens depend primarily and predominantly on the success of industry, and on its being able to maintain itself in competition with other countries in the export trade. That does not mean that those who think first and foremost and all the time of the general interest of the country and of industry have no sympathy with either of the transport interests which are affected by the Bill. I say at once that we have.

The plight of the railways is one which demands attention. The difficulties they have to face are enormous. They arise primarily from the depression in trade, but also from the competition of road transport. I have no doubt the railways feel, first and foremost, that they have to carry the heavy minerals and heavy traffic of the country at unremunerative rates, and that hitherto they have been able to recoup themselves by carrying the higher classes of merchandise. I have no doubt they feel that road transport has taken from them precisely the classes of merchandise from which they used to recoup themselves. I have no doubt also they have a feeling that road transport has not only taken this traffic from them, but that it is a subsidised form of competition, using the roads without paying a fair sum for the user; not subject to rates, except to 897 an infinitesimal degree, and not subject to the rules and restrictions to which the railways are subject. I know that they feel that contention acutely.

I have heard also of some of the difficulties of road transport. I hope they will get justice; no more than justice, but at the same time full justice. But I am not primarily concerned with these interests, I am primarily concerned with the general interest of the country and the effect upon British industry. There is no business man, least of all the Lord President of the Council, who does not realise what an important part the cost of transport has in the success or failure of any business. In some cases it comes almost next to the cost of raw materials. The importance of transport is, of course, far greater in some industries than in others. In the case of the industry with which I was connected the cost of transport was sometimes not only equivalent to the whole of the pithead price of the article but half as much again. You may have one or two trades, like the jewellery trade, where costly articles are carried in very small bulk, in which the cost of transport is negligible, but they are not many compare