AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.

10th July 1928, Page 81
10th July 1928
Page 81
Page 81, 10th July 1928 — RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

The Bills Sent Forward for Third Reading After Being Before the Committee for 37 Days.

THE Joint Select Committee on the Railway Road Transport Bills have finished their work, and, -with the exception of the Metropolitan Railway Bill, the preamble of which was found not proved, the others go forward to the House of Commons for report and third reading. Instead of seven Bills there are now four, the L.M.S.R. and the L.N.E.R. Bills applying to Scotland having been consolidated with the identical Bills relating to England and Wales.

From the decision of the Committee, which we published in last week's issne, it was apparent that the powers sought by the companies were to be curtailed and valuable safeguards inserted. There was some doubt as to whether the Committee included the transport of goods in their restrictions upon railway road traffic in the county council area of London, but it was afterwards made plain that the restrictions applied only to passenger traffic. The railways will thus he enabled to compete with the present transport undertakings in respect of goods traffic.

On the adjustment of the clauses by the Committee last week, a great number of proposals were submitted by the various petitioners, but nearly all were rejected by the Committee. The dictum of the Chairman (Lord Chelmsford) was that the preambles had been passed by the Committee after long and patient examination of the arguments on both sides, and they were not now prepared to have the Bills hedged round with a number of fussy restrictions. They felt that having got those powers the promoters ought to be allowed to exercise them reasonably unhampered.

One of the most important of the petitioners' proposed new clauses was one submitted on behalf of the English County Councils and supported by the Federation of British Industries. it would have had the effect of restricting the fares and charges to be imposed by the railway companies to a maximum, which would be subject to revision from time to time by the Minister of Transport. This was opposed by the promoters, in view of the Clause they were bringing forward in accordance with the undertaking previously given, and the Committee rejected it.

The Safeguarding Clause.

The promoters' clause which was the principal safeguarding provision was in the following terms:—

" If the Minister of Transport is at any time of opinion that the interests of the public are prejudicially affected by the exercise of the powers of this Act, lie may give to the company notice in writing thereof and of the reasons upon which that opinion is founded, gnd may direct an inquiry to be held, at which all parties who he considers are entitled to be heard shall be given. an opportunity of being heard. If after such inquiry he shall still be of the said opinion and the company shall not within such period as the Minister may direct make provision to the satisfaction of the Minister for the protection of the interests of the rnblic, or shall be of opinion that the injury done to the interests of the public is incapable of being remedied by the company, then the Minister shall report to both Houses of Parliament such opinion and the reasons upon which that opinion is founded."

In the course of the discussion counsel offered to make it clear that the railway company should intimate to the Minister when they had entered into an agreement with other transport undertakings and whether the agreement gave them control in the other undertakings.

He was also prepared to extend the representation of interests at the inquiry referred to in the new clause to all the public bodies, including commercial and agricultural, already provided by the Railway Act.

After a number of alternative suggestions bad been rejected, the Committee agreed to accept the railway companies clause as submitted, and it was added to the Questions arose as to the definition of a local authority in regard to the protection of municipal tramway and omnibus services. It had been proposed by the Corporations of Glasgow and Ayr that the protection given to municipal undertakings should be extended to a number of towns which are linked up with the GlaSgow tramway system.Otherwise, the burghs out side Glasgow would not benefit from the protection given to the municipal undertakings. The Chairman considered that this would mean going back on the Committee's decision, but, after consultation, it was agreed to accept a clause defining a local authority for the purpose of the Bills as a council of a local area or a joint board of local authorities constituted by Act of Parliament prior to the passing of these Acts, each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area in respect of the tramways or omnibus services of such joint board within that area, and (b) to work the tramways or provide the omnibus services therein.

Separate Accounts for Ancillary Businesses.

Another important provision relating to accounts was inserted in the Bills. The effect of it is that the companies are to furnish annually to the Minister of. Transport in such form as he may prescribe a statement relating to the ancillary business to be established, which will include the net revenue resulting from it and the amount of the capital employed.

A clause was inserted on the proposal of the pro.

moters requiring that when any regular service, including an experimental service, of road vehicles had been provided by the railway company, the company should give notice to the Minister of Transport for the purpose of record, and that no service in respect of which such notice had been given should be withdrawn without notice or without giving time for objection to such withdrawal. A local authority, including a county council shall have power to object to the withdrawal of a service in addition to any representative body of traders.

Other effects of the Committee's decisions are that light railways are not to be specifically protected from the road competition by the railway companies. The Trafford Park Estates, Manchester, are not excluded from transport operations under the Bills, and the railway companies are not to be prevented from acting as furniture removers.

From the above it will be seen that the most effective

safeguard provided against any action by the railways calculated to defeat competition and establish a monopoly by means of cut-throat fares and charges is the power of inquiry by the Minister of Transport and the publication of separate accounts. From such information as will be available, it is contended, the Minister will be enabled to judge whether the powers conferred by Parliament are being abused.

The date of the report stage in the House of Commons has not been fixed, but it is probable that a number of amendments will be brought forward. One of these, I hear, will seek to extend the protected London area from the administrative county to the Metropolitan Police area.


comments powered by Disqus