RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRAFFIC.
Page 23
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Bill to Give the North Western and Midland Group Powers Transport Passes the Second Reading Stage. to Run Road
THE SECOND reading of the.Railways (North Western and Midland Group) Bill was moved in the House of Commons on Monday the 10th inst., the debate lasting for over two hours. Sir William Joynson-rficks, Bt., moved the rejection of the Bill. He said the question at issue was between the railways and the roads, or, rather, be: tween the railway companies and the traders of the country. The railway con-Taffies had full power already to run road vehicles for the collection and delivery of goods carried by their railways.
What the group of railways which was proaroting the Bill desired was power to establish road .sevvices for the transport of goods which had not been' carried on their railways at all, and those services would run in competition not only with the roadcarrying companies, but with the railways themselves. The capital of the group of railways concerned with the Bill was .E500;000,000.
If the Bill were passed the other groups of railways would apply to Parliament for similar powers. What chance, he asked, would the road transport companies have of competing with these huge aggregations of capital'? They would soon be run oft the • reads. It was 'suggested that as those powers were . possessed by some railway companies they ought to Le extended to all. ,
. It was true that in 1904 and 1905 three`railway companies got powers to run road traffic. Those powers had not been used to any great extent. But in 1903, 1911 and 1913 three other railway companies, applied for similar powers, and they were refused by the House of Commons.
He thought the real reason why the railway companies were applying for those powers was that the high rates they were charging for the transport of goods were having the effect of diverting traffic from the railways to the roads. (Hear, hear.) In 1916 there were 600 road transport undertakings. To-day they numbered 8,000. Their capital was over 1.G0,000,000. They gave employment . to 1;600,000 men.
The object of the railway companies was to knock • out those undertakings by competition and possess themselves of a monopoly of the traffic by railway and road. Therates iby road were lower than. the " rates by railway. The rates from London to Bristol were 59s. 4d, per ton by railway and 43s. 9d. per ton by road; from London to Birmingham 56s. 10d. by railway, 45s. by road ; from London to Brighton 39s. 6d. by railway, 31s. by road; from London to Southampton :its. 8d.• by railway, 39s. 6d. by road. He had not the slightest objection to a Royal Corn mission examining 'fully the proposals. A strong Committee of the Ministry of Transport, set up last year .by Sir Eric Geddes, liad taken evidence on the
matter, and they had presented a majority and a minority report—the former against the railway proposals and the latter,although in favour; expressed
the opinion that it would bring about a railway monopoly in the end.
It was essential, in the interests of the country, that the railway companies should be kept to their own undertaking and compelled to put their own house in order, rather than enter into this illegitimate competition. (Cheers.)
The motion for rejection was moved by Mr. a. IT. Roberts, who said that if the powers asked for were
granted monopoly was inherent in the circumstances. In his opinion, the railways ought to concentrate their resources and their enterprise on the development of their legitiniate business—namely, the carriage of passengers and goods 'along steel , rails. If they would respond to the request now being made by the trading public, and would reduce their rates, the railways would find that they would be able to attract ba•ek.a good deal of the traffic that had gone on to the roads.
Support for the Bill first came from Mr. P. J. Hannon, member for the 'Moseley division of .Birmingharn, who said that the safeguards which the railway companies had offered to provide amply safeguarded the interests of the public. In fact, 'he claimed that it would confer benefits upon the public at large, and therefore he hoped that the measure would net be regarded from the point of view of any sectional or limited interest. • Mr. Hannon said that the legal position of the
railways in this country in the organization of road transport had been very vague up to the present, and this particular Bill aimed at settling once and for all the relationship between the railway companies and road transport. He admitted that if these powers now asked for were granted they must necessarily be extended in time to all the other great 'groups. • He referred to the modifications already made in the Bill, and offered other clauses to ensure that• the standard charges for the conveyance of the same class of goods by rail or by road should be the same; subject to the right, to grant exceptional rates..
Mr. Arthur Neal gave the views of the Ministry of Transport. This. Bill, he said, coupled with the Bill of the Scottish companies, would empower the whole of the railway companies which would form the Western ,Group to run road traffic for goods without restriction of area from the North of Scotland to the Thames. The Only company in that group which 'at present possessed such powers was the North Staffordshire Co.
The passing of the second reading of this Bill would afford the opportunity for that full inquiry which had been suggested if the matter had not already been sufficiently inquired into by the Corn-, mittee which was presided over by the late Mr. Balfour Browne.
The reports of the Committee s.eerned to turn upon the question whether or not it was possible to find some machinery, if the powers were granted to the railway companies, whereby the evils which it was feared might arise could be prevented.
Speaking ofthe position from the point of view of the Ministry, Mr. Nealsaid there could be no doubt that they wanted in these days every encouragement to every form of transport that should be efficient, .economical and permanent, and which Should not be destructive of other forms of traffic, and set up evils which would be worse than the present conditions.
• The solution of the' problem was not obvious, He
• suggested to the House that it might be well advised to say that it was the general practice to give a second reading to a private Bill unless' there were paramount considerations of public policy to the contrary, and to let these matters receine the fullest inquiry by a Committee of the House.
It, might very well` be that on the third reading of the Bill the House might still think it would be wise to reject it. In his opinion, it would be Wise to reject it unless the dangers of monopoly, of • the crushing out of other forms of transport, were adequately guarded ,against. If they were guarded against, then in the interest of transport and Competition he suggested that the law might well become operative.