A Prominent Northern Coach Operator Thinks That
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Licensing System Should Be Modified
Instances of Hardship to Passenger-vehicle Proprietors. Six Factors that Require Immediate and Careful Attention
THERE are many. striking faults in the administration of the Road Traffic Act, as applied to coach services, that were positively never contemplated by the late Minister of Transport, nor by the Rouse that passed this measure.
That in many respects its provisions were necessary none can deny, but its implied object—namely, the promotion and regularization of road traffic has taken second place to its eliminating possibilities. It has been a veritable gift to the railway companies for the removal of competition at the expense of the public and road-vehicle operators.
To those operators who survive and are inclined to rest content, a clear warning is needed. In each succeeding year the railway interests, stronger in this Parliament than ever, will demand a heavier death rate amongst road operators and their own deathstruggle may be near.
The average layman has little conception of the position. When bus fares are increased by monopoly, when his convenience is jeopardized by reduced time-tables, when, indeed, the strongest appeal of the coach, namely, door-to-door transport is eliminated, he will wonder a while and may voice a grievance, but long ere that takes place, the attractiveness and economy of the coach will have passed away.
Restrictions on Coaches.
Already the Commissioner of one area has told the public that the clay of cheap travel by road is over. In another area coaches are not to be permitted to pick up or discharge passengers within the centre of a certain town, and the mobility of the coach is thereby seriously impaired.
The greatest hardships are, however, seen in the procedure that has been adopted by all Commissioners in the method of hearing applications. It is in this regard that early and drastic amendment is needed.
Hearings have developed on the lines of police-court proceedings, with an array of solicitors and King's Counsel. All this expense has sooner or later to come out of the passenger-transport business, and the money is not there. The railway and combine interests have set the pace, and now every operator feels that it is incumbent upon him to act likewise. In some cases, although he obtains his licence, the expense of doing so is going to mortgage his earnings a long way into 1932.
The Commissioners' hearings should be greatly simplified. Legal representation should be prohibited unless there are legal points at stake. Operators who were in business before February, 1931, should, as an act of justice, receive their , licences for continuing services and the primary licences should be all that is necessary.
Backings and Their Cost.
The cost of obtaining backings is alarming. There is one mediumsized concern which is spending £4,000 every three months on legal representation. The railways must be spending many thousands in a similar way ; surely every railway shareholder holding stock with a face value of £100 per share and a market price ranging between £5 and £6 per £100 scrip ought to deny them the right to waste revenue in this direction.
The railways' greatest need is an alert ideas department, with " yes " and " no " men in places of authority. This twin need also refers to the larger road-transport companies • now growing up. They, too, are losing, if they have not already lost, their creative spirit. They now act on the defensive, reducing privileges, increasing fares and generally adopting the slow moving businessby-committee attitude of their railway owners.
Obtaining backings is a tragic expenditure of time and money. There was one small operator, who travelled 260 miles each way to• a hearing, waited five days, and his case was not even reached. This operator, seeking backings for long date tours, will have to appear in at least 12 areas. He is expected to travel to Aberdeen in the north and Exeter in the south, with no certainty that on arrival his case will be heard.
If we had all the money in the world we should have no right, at any time, to waste it in that way, whilst to do so at present is sheer madness. The Minister of Transport should be pressed to convene a meeting of the Commissioners, and at such a conference there shoffid be a presentation of the tease as it applies to the operators working prior to 1931.
Suggested Amendments.
One must remember the difficulties of the situation. The system itself is at fault, and after a year's working it is an opportune time to review the position to date. • The following points, amongst many others, need careful study and amendment :— (1) Procedure at hearings, with a view to lessening expense by eliminating legal representation.
(2) A method whereby the primary licence can be sufficient for long-distance services and long-date tours of more than one day's duration.
(3) A section of the day at each hearing to be set aside for eases in which operators have travelled long distances, thus eliminating the cost of a prolonged stay.
(4) When a licence is refused, a written statement of reasons for such a refusal to reach operator within seven days of the decision.
(5) A reduction in the number of objectors by eliminating railway and combine objectors, when these arebased on mere monopoly-seeking, or where an operator has definitely run the service prior to February, 1931.
(6) A separate and distinct Tribunal for Appeal.
There is also the vital question as to what compensation should he• given to an operator for loss of business caused by a licence being refused. Railway and combine objectors might well be asked to provide a compensation ' fund for the gradual extinction of what they consider as being redundant services. Monopoly and protectionare worth something.