POSITION OF THE LONDON PASSENGER TRANSPORT BILL
Page 61
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Questions in Parliament About Commissioners' Differing Principles: Also About London Coach Services IT may be useful to state the position in which the London Passenger Transport Bill now stands. Before the political rearrangement in August, the Bill had been read a second time by the Commons and passed for report on various amendments by the joint committee of both Houses. This committee having consented to the Bill proceeding, it was reported to the Commons and put down for consideration in committee of the whole House, thus enabling amendments to be moved by members. The new Government consented to the Bill being carried over into the next session.
There is no chance of the committee stage being approached before ChristInas, and it may not be reached until some considerable time after the reassembly early in February. Meanwhile the parties are endeavouring, to settle certain differences. Apart from the principle of the Bill, which may now find greater opposition, the outstanding matter of controversy is the character of the controlling board. The London County Council regards the suggested board as having too absolute power, which may be against the public interest, destructive of healthy competi tion and advance, and contrary to the spirit of local government. The L.C.C. presses for a superior board, representing all local authorities concerned, so that the public may be safeguarded by an elective element.
Some outstanding amendments will probably be moved when the Bill is again taken up. It will be recalled that Mr. Morrison was strongly against bringing in the municipal element.
Last week in Parliament Mr. Hutchison, Member for Romford, asked that the Minister of Transport should collate and publish at the end of 1931 the detailed decisions of the Traffic Commissioners, giving in each case the principle on which such decisions had been reached, and should indicate the extent to which priority of establishment counted against other essential factors. The Minister replied that he did not think the cost of compiling such a statement would be justified, and mentioned that the Commissioners were obliged to furnish him with annual reports and that he would consider publishing them. As regards priority of establishment, the Commissioners were required to consider the extent to which the needs of any proposed route were already served.
Mr. Marjoribanks asked whether the Minister was aware that the Commissioners -proceeded on different principles. Mr. Pybus replied that he had no doubt it would be possible to take decisions of all sorts of legal bodies and persons and to find that they differed in some
degree. Mr. Marjorabanks remarked that he referred particularly to the different principles applied as between municipal and private enterprise.
Mr. Flutchison asked how many previously existing London coach services had now been prohibited, and what other suitable arrangements had been made to enable suburban residents to make unbroken journeys to their business. Mr. Pybus replied that there was no full record of previously existing services and that it would be realized that, to prevent street congestion and uneconomic services, it might not be possible to provide unbroken journeys.