1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164 
The 1932 Attitude Towards the 1930 Act
Page 74
Page 75
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
As Much Depends Upon the Mode of Administration as Upon the Letter of the Law Itself—Modifications That are Being Made Without Amending the Act
MANY operators of public service vehicles would, if they had their way, at once amend the Road Traffic Act of 1930 by means of further legislation. They should reflect that less than a year has passed since the administration of Parts IV and V of the Act commenced, so that criticisms of to-day may need modification in the light of further experience.
Apart from this, it is a surprise to many when they come to realize to what extent the effect of this Act can be altered by regulations of the Minister, or by a change
in the attitude of the Commissioners towards particular aspects of the licensing task. It is intended to hold more frequent conferences between the chairmen of Commissioners, and an important conference has recently been held in London. It is to be hoped that the better understanding that is certain to result will mean the removal of many existing objections; already hopeful indications are detected.
It is undoubtedly an Act in which vitally important definitions are vaguely expressed, an Act, one hears it said, which will provide good work for lawyers. Doubt exists as to the definition of stage, express and contract carriages in Section 61, also as to the right of municipal authorities to operate contract carriages (Section 101).
Apart from this it is an Act which opens the way for disturbing extensions of bureaucracy. The powers of the Minister, under Section 75, to demand that accounts and records be kept by operators in a manner regulated by him is but one striking example of this.
n24 First let us consider points of objection which cannot be removed without further legislation. Doubtless the clause most strongly resented is that in Section 81, which establishes the system of appealing to the Government department responsible for administering the Act. One or two cases that have got so far as-the High Court recently have caused members of the Bar to raise their eyebrows as they realized, for the first time, the possibilities of this appeal system.
There is a feeling amongst some of our lawyers that the present system certainly does not enjoy public confidence and that rules of procedure need to be adopted conforming more closely to standards of judicial impartiality. The fact that no record is kept of the proceedings on appeal is a genuine objection. Improvements in the procedure may •be ,expected, and the Minister may keep a digest of appeals, which will be of value.
Probably the next most important matter is that of Sections 75 and 76, under which the Minister is requiring every operator to keep complete accounts and records of his business and to make complicated financial and statistical returns. Considering the amount of information which operators are obliged to render to the Commissioners when applying for roadservice licences, it is difficult to understand why the statistical department of the Ministry should be in need of independent records vouched for by the operators.
It has been suggested by some who, perhaps, may be
unduly apprehensive of the dangers of a spreading bureaucracy that the object of clause 75 is to put into the hands of the Ministry data which would be ready for the nationalization of transport when political events should provide the opportunity, and lessenlightened bus owners have seen in this section a chance for statistical clerks to make work for themselves, and to provide scope for the expansion of their offices. Such expressions are, of course, idle, but the fact remains that, after consulting operators' representatives, the Minister appears determined to insist upon requiring these copious periodical returns. Amongst other matters which are laid down by the Act, Section 25 may be mentioned. It seems unreasonable that a bridge authority can restrict the use of a bridge, without there being an opportunity for appealing before the restriction takes effect. A similar position arises under Section 46 in respect of roads.
There has obviously been a slip in the draughtsmanship of Section 74 (1), which gives conditions under which Commissioners may not revoke a licence, when it ,was clearly intended that, under those conditions, suspension 'also should not be permissible.
As regards the hazy definition of a special occasion in Section 61 (2), it is known that the Ministry and CommissionerS are seeking a method of settling the difficulty without amending the Act.
When we come to consider matters that can be modified by regulation, the question of the speed limit of 30 m.p.h. for passenger vehicles "adapted to carry more than seven passengers" comes at once to mind. The Minister may, by regulation approved by both Houses of Parliament, vary this speed limit. No indication of the Minister's view has been given, and the deputation of the Motor Hirers and Coach Services Association, Ltd., representing independent operators throughout the country, was told on December 16th merely that the matter would receive his attention.
The Minister's Wide Powers.
Let us now consider how licensing matters may be directed by the Minister. He may, under Section 79, make regulations as to the procedure on applications for, and the determination of questions in connection with, the grant, suspension and revocation of licences by Commissioners, and the surrender of licences, and those regulations may make provision as to the particulars to be furnished and the persons to whom notices are to be given, the manner in which notices are to be published or served, and as to the manner in which objections may be made. This amounts to an exceedingly wide power.
Certain modifications are likely, to be made almost immediately, not all of them calling for any special regulations by the Minister. In respect of unopposed applications in which, prima fac2e, Commissioners would be prepared to grant the applications, personal appearances of applicants are being dispensed with.
Co-ordination between Commissioners with a view to obtaining uniformity of conditions in respect of backings is another innovation we are likely to witness shortly. Whether the request that personal attendance in respect of backing applications should not be required, when it is not intended to pick up or set down passengers in the intermediate area or areas will be acceded to, is still a matter of doubt, but the authorities are doing their best to eliminate attendances for unimportant matters.
Commissioners' Reasons for Decisions.
A point which the Commissioners have been considering is to what extent reasons for decisions may be announced at the time when decisions are published. The recent action of the Metropolitan Commissioner in announcing grounds for his decision excluding coaches from the central area of London shows that Commissioners are realizing the importance of this matter.
The attention of ,the, Ministry and Commissioners -has been drawn to the special excursion rates offered by alternative forms of transport, such as the railways, and it is likely that these will be borne in mind in cases where, under Sections 72 (4) (b) and 72 (6), control is exercised over fares.
It is a little too early to say whether the Commissioners are likely to adopt a common policy of per
mitting passengers to be picked up at points other than the starting places of excursions, and the position is equally 'doubtful concerning the limitation of the class of passenger to be carried on certain regular services. It appears that, to allow, for example, only singlejourney passengers to be carried, amounts to a waste of transport facilities.
As regards the standardization of evidence for Commissioners, steps in this direction may, in the near future, confidently be expected. Incidentally, the same cannot be said regarding the limitation of the number of vehicles to be used under road-service licences, and the even more serious limitation of picking-up points.
Out of a protracted peried of worry and discontent-borne largely of misapprehension—the passengerservice business at last shows signs of emerging into a new realization of itself. The position of independent operators is that they are to a considerable atent stabilized by the Road Traffic Act—despite the "teething troubles" in regard to it, some of which are referred to above. Their privilege and duty are to conform to licence conditions, to co-ordinate (under safeguards) with their erstwhile competitors, and to support their representative associations.