Logical Development " A process which has been going on
Page 24
Page 25
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in this country for more than a century is reaching its conclusion and consummation in this Bill. Transport has been moving steadily always to a monopoly solution, and the whole of the legislation in this country has proceeded along the lines of establishing the principle of monopoly in transport," he said.
Mr. Barnes declared that any trader would be given an unlimited licence to run beyond 40 miles if he could prove his case. "No trader carrying his own goods for a bona fide purpose need have any anxiety," he said.
Sir David Maxwell Fyfe. opening the case for the Opposition, said that the measure was the greatest disservice this Government had so far done to the trade and industry of the nation.
The short distances between ports and centres of industry gave us an advantage in transport costs, but we would not have that advantage under monopoly, which was cumbrous and top-heavy. and had structural defects that were as wide as the powers were unlimited. There had been no inquiry into the technical merits of the various proposals for the industry. The varied schemes for compensation obviously had never been considered " " • 'A public and impartial inquiry would he completely dangerous to the half-baked proposals in this Bill, which would take a decade to put into operation.
A successful industry must, give freedom of choice to the user, right reward for efficient services passed on to the user, and great ela,sticity of entry into the industry. Sir David then moved the rejection of the Bill.
Mr. Clement Davies said the question was whether service under the Bill would be more efficient and economical or more costly. The burden of proof rested with the Government. Facts and figures were not known on which to arrive at a proper judgment. It was right that there should be co-ordination between road and rail, but the structure of the Bill was bad.
Sir Cuthbert Headlam said that the Minister gave no adequate reason for the Bill. The debate was adjourned.• The subsequent proceedings will be reported in next week's issue,