OPINIONS and QUERIES Those Salter Report Implications.
Page 44
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3959] Sir,—The ordinary observer would think that the recent disclaimer by the members of the Salter Conference, of any recommendation on their part for heavier taxation of passenger-carrying motor vehicles should have allayed all uncertainty on this point and put an end to the wholesale cancellation of orders for vehicles and discharge of workers engaged in their manufacture, which followed publication of the report. It has done nothing of the kind.
Careful inquiries throughout the country reveal that municipal authorities and others who had cancelled orders for vehicles have not restored those orders; that manufacturers who had discharged workmen •by the hundred have not taken them on again ; and that the disastrous standstill in an important section of this industry is still complete.
The public must be wondering why, and should be informed and a remedy demanded. The members' denial of any recommendation on their part to impose heavier taxation on passenger-carrying motor vehicles was merely a statement of the obvious. Was it intended as a "red herring," for that has been its effect on the general public? They were precluded by their terms of reference from any recommendation whatever outside goods traffic. But their report contained not only "recommendations," but also "implications," and definitely indicated that unless legislative effect were given to these implications, as well as to the recommendations, the value of the report would be stultified and their labours vain.
Now, these implications very definitely apply to passenger-carrying vehicles. They postulate much heavier taxation of such vehicles. The amount to be so obtained is definitely stated at no less a sum than £36,500,000. The whole thing is cut and dried. For example, the 5,452 vehicles (other than trolley-buses) operated by the municipal authorities of this country, purely in the public interest and with no profit-making intent, would have to bear an added tax of £801,766— an average of £147 per vehicle per annum, meaning bigger fares or shorter distances for all users. No wonder that the municipal authorities are still holding their hand, with this sword hanging over their heads.
Meanwhile the financial loss, to manufacturer and worker alike, that has been caused by cancellation of orders, goes on.
Effort has been made in the House of Commons and elsewhere to get the Government to say where they stand in this matter. All such efforts have been "fobbed off" with the reply that the question is a Budget matter which cannot be revealed beforehand. It is surely common justice to the municipalities, as direct representatives of the public, no less than to manufacturers and users, upon whose policy employ 2330 meat and wages depend, that this overhanging sword should be removed by a definite statement from the Minister of Transport as to whether he means to accept the Salter Report—as to its recommendations and as to its implications, the one and the other, in whole or in part.
ALFRED HACKING, Joint Secretary of the Society of British Motor Manufacturers and Traders. London, S.W.1.
An Association for Owner-drivers.
The Edttor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[30601 Sir,—In reply to Capt. Palmer's letter in last week's Cu., I, for one, would very much like to see formed an association for owner-drivers.
I am sure that I feel at the moment very much like Mr. C. A. Plowman, when he wrote of "leaving it all to the professional Muller."
Imagine, Mr. Plowman, our own association, our own clearing houses, perhaps our own garage, or garages even, and then, perhaps, "toning up" a little, some of those all-night cafés. Surely then we should be more than ekeing out an existence?
Perhaps Capt. Palmer will receive hundreds of letters from owner-drivers. If so, let us hope he will help us to form this association.
I should be very willing to help in my small way.
London, N.W.9. NORMAN LACHAN.
Buying British-built and British-owned.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL Moron.
[3961] Sir,—Too little attention, it seems to me, has been aroused by the decision of Birmingham City Council that "no article or manufactured material produced or manufactured in any place other than the British Isles, India or British Dominions beyond the seas, should be supplied by a contractor without the authority of the committee concerned."
The importance of the step taken by Birmingham lies, not so much in its immediate application, as in its relation to a stricter trend of public policy to be noted to-day in many European countries, where it is now very difficult, and in some cases impossible, for a manufacturing subsidiary of a foreign company to obtain government and municipal contracts. The question, in brief, which now arises, is not whether Birmingham is going too far, but rather whether she has gone far. enough. Should our municipalities refuse contracts to companies which are not British controlled?
In Germany—as , in Italy—definite difficulties are placed in the way of trading by non-German and nonItalian concerns respectively, and similar restrictions apply in many other countries. In Spain, for instance, special advantages are given to maufacturing concerns of which two-thirds of .the board, with its chairman as managing director, are Spanish nationals and 75 per cent, of the capital is owned by Spaniards, and the attitude of the Irish Free State is similar in tendency. Rouse of Commons. GEO. G. MITCHESON.
The Furniture Removers Association Replies.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3962] Sir,—I take this opportunity to send you a copy of a letter I have to-day addressed to Mr. J. Bradbury in relation to the communication from him published ,in your issue dated January 6 under the heading of "24. Criticism and an Appreciation."
EDwric A. HARRIS, For the Furniture Warehousemen and Removers Association, London, W.C.2.
[The copy of the letter referred to above reads as follows:— " I have noticed in The Commercial Motor a letter referring to this Association purporting th be signed by you. In view of the nature of the references made, I am writing to inform you that applications for membership to the Association are only invited from firms who have separate plant, equipment ;and staff for removals and warehousing, and as you addressed your communication to the Association on a loose sheet of notepaper, which gave no indication as to your business, it was not possible to reply fully to your communication until the matter. had been referred to the local centre of the Association. As a meeting of the local centre has not been held since the receipt of your communication, we have been unable to furnish you with the particulars you desired."]
The Costs of Door-to-door Delivery, The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3963] Sir,—I have noticed with interest in your Issue of November 4 the costs given on page 403 under "This Week's Problem."
The figures given are all the more intere.sting, as I have in mind the purchase of a second-hand 1-ton lorry of about 14 h.p. for door-to-door delivery, and I should be very interested to know an expert's opinion as to what the weekly cost of running this would be.
The following are the particulars concerning the running:— Lorry running six days a week.
Daily mileage.—Trip of seven miles to point of operation; trip of, say, five miles up and down streets, stopping, say, 15 times in each street (20 streets) ; journey of seven miles back to garage.
Garage cost, say, 10s. per week ; tyres, say, f 28 two years; petrol, say, 12 m.p.g.; oil, say, 350 m.p.g.; insurance, say, £14 per annum ; tax, £14 per annum.
The point, however, that particularly interests me is that I have been given to understand that the continuous starting and stopping with a ton load would quickly render the clutch defective.
Is this so, and how often would the clutch require to be renewed, supposing that it was in a fair state of repair when the lorry was purchased?
I should be much obliged if you could supply an answer to the above problem giving your idea of the weekly cost on the running stated, including all repairs which are likely to be necessary and renewing clutch, if it should be your opinion that the clutch originally in the motor purchased would have to be renewed in • the first year of running.
Loading and unloading of lorry are free, and there will be no cost for driver.
The idea is that so soon as one f25 lorry has worn out (say, a life of two years), then another of approximately the same price should be purchased.
London, S.E.13. INTERESTED.
[According to my calculations your running costs will be as follows (per mile). Fuel, 1.506.; oil, 0.186.; tyres, 0.60c1.; maintenance, 0.601 ; depreciation, 0.306.; total, 3.136. The standing charges, per week, are, licence, 8s.; insurance, Ss.; rent, 10s. : total 23s. Your mileage is 120 per week and your total cost 5id. per mile (approximately).
To that you must add something for profit and then, with a knowledge of your work, calculate your charges for individual deliveries.
It is impossible for anyone to state what the effect on your clutch will be for the work you have in view, but the foregoing figure ,of 0.601 for cost of maintenance should cover the expense.—S.T,R.1 Mr. Creatorex Not Selling Engines.
The Editor, THE COMMERCIAL MOTOR.
[3964] Sir,—There appears to be a slight misunderstanding resulting from my letter which you published in your paper on December 0, and to clear this up I would like to state that the engine referred to therein was a 4L.2 Gardner fitted in a Pagefield chassis. Further, I should be obliged if anyone who writes to me for information concerning same will enclose a stamped addressed envelope for reply, as my business is haulage contracting, not selling Gardner engines or any other make.
C. G. GREATOREX, Burton-on-Trent, The Burton Transport Co.