• THE RAILWAY TRANSPORT BILLS.
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Parliamentary Inquiry Opened by a Joint Committee of Both Houses. The Constitution of the Committee and the Numerous Counsel Engaged in the Fight.
THERE was a large attendance in the Grand Committee Room, Westminster Hall, last Thursday, when the Committee proceedings on the seven railway road transport Bills were commenced. Before Easter, the Bills, after receiving a second reading by a: large majority in the House of Commons, were committed• to a joint committee of both Houses, consisting of Viscount Chelmsford, Earl Russell, Lord Darling, Lord Loch, Lord Ruthven, Sir Henry Cantley, K.C., M.P., Sir William Edge, MY., Captain E. Naftali, M.P., Lieut.Col. J. G. Thom, M.P., and Mr. Sidney Webb, M.P. Lord Chelmsford was appointed chairman at the outset.
It is expected that the first fortnight of the inquiry will be devoted tO hearing evidence from the general managers, traffic superintendents and other railway officials.
An Array of Counsel.
Counsel engaged in the case were as follow :—For the railway companies: Mr. H. P. Macmillan, K.C., Mr. Graham Robertson, K.C., Mr. F. G. Thomas, K.C., Mr. R. Harker, K.C., Mr. Bruce Thomas, K.C., and Mr. A. Taylor ; for the L.G.O.C. and Underground Railways: Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C., and Mr. Tyldesley Jones, K.C. ; for the National Transport Employers' Federation: Mr. Tyldesley Jones, K.C. for the Federation of British Industries : Mr. R. Stafford Cripps, K.C., and Mr. Jacques Abody ; for the National Farmers' Union : Mr. Quesne, K.C., and Mi. Keen ; for the County Councils Association and the Municipal Corporations: Mr. Evan Charteris. K.C. ; for the Transport and Light Railways: Mr. Craig Henderson, K.C.; for the Furniture Warehousemen's Associated Removers' Association: Mr. J. G. Hurst, KC.; for the West Ham and other East London Corporations : Mr. Edgar Macassey ; for the Lancashire County Council: Mr. Jeeves, K.C., and Mr. R. Etherington : for the Scottish Burghs : Mr. T. M. Cooper, K.C., and Mr. E. Graham Guest; for Ayr and Fife County Councils, Mr. Douglas Jamieson, K.C., and Mr. Wallace. Sir Lynden Mavassey, K.C., will also act for the Commercial Motor Users Association.
The first Bill taken was that of the London Midland and Scottish Railway Co. Each Bill, of course, will have to be considered separately by the committee, hut it is obvious that the case for each and all of them will virtually be fought out under the first Bill.
Promoters' Case Opened. '
Mr. H. P. Macmillan, K.C., who appeared for the London Midland and Scottish Railway Co., the London and North-Eastern Railway Co., the Great Western Railway Co., the Southern Railway Co., and the Metropolitan Railway Co., opened the case for the promoters.
He stated the main purpose of the five measures submitted to the committee was identical. The London Midland and Scottish Railway Co. Bill and the other Bills were designed to empower the railway companies to provide road vehicles in any district to which they had access and, by means of those road vehicles, to carry passengers and goods.
A number of the opponents to the Bills suggested that the only function of the railway companies was to conduct traffic on the railways. According to Mr. Macmillan, that might have been the view at one time but that idea had long been departed from, and he would be able to show that, to a large extent, railway companies had already been permitted to engage in other forms of transport.
The activities of railway companies were in no sense confined to their rails. The scope of their powers had been progressively enlarged, and the present appli
cation was one to carry that process farther. Railway companies, he continued, still suffered under a restrictioa which, however wise it might have been in the past, they would submit was no longer fair, because it precluded railway companies from engaging in road transport in the full sense of that term.
They were going to ask for the removal of that restriction, not only in their own interests, but in the Interests of the railway users and the road users themselves. They submitted that the restrictions were anomalous, unfair and contrary to interests of the Mr. Macmillan dealt at length with the legislation directed to the control of railway companies in the exercise of their powers and then gave an outline of the activities permitted to these concerns outside their activities on the railways.
He said the argument was put forward by many of the petitioners that the railway companies should be confined to the carriage of passengers and goods by rail. They said that was the only function of such companies.
• Not a New Departure.
It was no new departure that they were asking Parliament to sanction. The business of a railway company hadlong ceased to be confined to conveyance by rail. Mr. Macmillan said that the real business of the railway companies was to transport passengers and goods not merely by rail, but by various other means and, as and when new methods came forward, those methods were within the general ambit of the railway companies' functions to provide transport in every form, He went on to refer to the service of collection and delivery of goods, which was started without any legislative sanction, and which was recognized as being incidental to or ancillary to the rails. There had grown up a large branch of railway business done upon the roads and it had been done with the cognizance of Parliament.
• Another department of transport in which the railway companies were engaged was that of transport by sea. When those powers were applied for, every one of the arguments that were now going to be adduced by his opponents were expressed then, but Parliament nevertheless gave the powers asked for.
The committee then adjourned. It is anticipated that the proceedings will continue over at least four weeks.