Road-transport Activities IN PARLIAMENT
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A Report of the Resumption of the Debate on the Road Traffic Bill By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent nN the resumption, in the House of Lords, of Committee l_fproceetlings on the Road Traffic Bill, the earlier part of which was summarized in our issue for last week, discussion took place on the compulsory third-party insurance Clauses. Lord Luke moved an amendment requiring that the policy of insurance should ensure to any hospital payment up to £25 of the cost, in each case, of treatment for bodily injury. Earl Russell, on behalf of the Government, whilst admitting the grievance of the voluntary hospitals, said the amendment was not the best -way of dealing with it, as it would be inconsistent with the general scheme of insurance. He suggested that a separate clause should be drafted to cover all injured persons. If Parliament thought fit, a levy of 55. might be imposed on every person who took out a licence, and this sum could be passed on to a central fund to be administered for the benefit a the hospitals. This would require further consideratioh, and he was, before the report stage, willing to consider such a Clause.
Viscount Brentford disagreed with the suggested levy on motorists. Eventually the amendment was withdrawn so that the subject might be considered .before report.
Viscount Brentford brought forward an amendment to meet the case of railway companies and great bus or goodscarrying concerns, which would undertake their own insurance, 115,000 being deposited with the Accountant-General. Earl Russell remarked that the sum would have to be £25,000 to agree with the rest of the Bill, but he could not accept the amendment without consultation with the Board ef Trade. The amendment was withdrawn on the understanding that it would come up again on report.
An amendment was agreed to allowing five days instead of three days, within which a driver must produce his certificate of insurance at a police station, if required to do so.
Earl Rowe moved a new Clause with regard to the insurance of public-service vehicles, the object of which was to avoid the difficulty of a company owning a large number of subsidiary companies which, under the Bill as it stood, would have to take out an insurance policy or make a deposit of £25,000 for each one of the companies.
Earl Russell said it seemed to him' that if the holding company were really responsible for all the. companies it might be 'possible for it to make a deposit. He would have to consider the matter. The amendment was then withdrawn.
It was agreed that the directions in the highway code should be approved by a resolution of 'both Houses of Parliament.
On Clause 43, which gives the Minister of Transport Dower, on the application of the local authority and after public inquiry, to restrict the use of vehicles on specified scads, a proposal to give private concerns the same right as a local authority was opposed by the Government and was withdrawn. A new sub-section was added, providing that no order made under the Clause shall apply to the driving of ally tramcar or trolley-bus in pursuance of the powers of any special Act of Parliament or Order having the force of an Act. Tramways were also exempted from the requirements of Clause 44, in respect of signals, direction posts, signs or devices, erected by the owners of the tramways, under special Acts of Parliament or Orders.
Public-service-vehicle Classification.
WITH regard to Clause 54, which classifies public-service vehicles and applies to them Part 4 of the Bill, an amendment was accepted and agreed to exempt contract carriages adapted to carry fewer than eight passengers, the number proposed in the Bill being nine. In the definition of stage carriages, the fare basis was changed from 6d. to Is.
Earl Russell promised to consider any representations that would be made on the definition of express carriages. Lord Newton had expressed a desire that the difference between• a bus and a motor coach should be made clearer. He said there was unfair competition, because motor coaches had now developed into buses, running short journeys and picking up people, although they were not subject to the same control
as the legitimate motorbus. The fare minimum of (3d., in the definition of express carriages, was changed to 1s.
It was agreed to lower the limit to eight or more persons. In the first sub-section of Clause 61, relating to certificates of fitness for vehicles "adapted to carry nine or more passengers," nine was replaced by eight, and the proviso that the Minister may by regulations extend the provisions of the sub-section to stage carriages and express carriages adapted to carry eight passengers or any smaller specified number was accordingly changed by altering eight to seven.
Clause 62, dealing with roads-service licences, was amended so as to require that the Commissioners should be satisfied as to the time-tables "and fare tables," etc.
Suspension of Licences.
rsN the provision in Clause 68 enabling an examiner to ‘...../suspend the licence for a public-service vehicle which, owing to any defects, is, or is likely to become, "unfit for service," Lord Newton moved to replace the latter words by "unsafe for use."
Earl Russell said that the suggested words were not appropriate. A bus which was safe for use might have the tops of several windows broken and at this season of the year he should not call that vehicle fit for service. There was a proviso that where the defects could be remedied within 48 hours and did not involve danger to the public, the suspension should not operate before the expiration of 48 hours, nor after that period if the examiner was satisfied that the defects had been, or were in course of being, remedied. The amendment was withdrawn.
In Clause 80, which empowers a local authority to make orders for determining' the "routes to be followed" by public-service vehicles in the area, the words "routes which may be used" were substituted.
Extension of Municipal Powers Rejected.
AETER an amendment to Clause 92 had been accepted, requiring the consent of a harbour or dock authority before a local body could run public-service vehicles on any road forming part of the estate of the harbour or dock authority, the Clause itself was challenged by Viscount Brentford. He said Part 5 of the Bill permitted any local authority, which had power to carry on a tramway, trolleybus or motorbus undertaking, to run public-service vehicles on any road within its district and, "with the consent of the Traffic Commissioner for the area in which any other road is situate, on that road." He moved to omit the clause.
Royal Commission's View.
EARL RUSSELL pointed out that, under the Bill, a person who had opposed the grant of a road-service licence could appeal to the Minister of Transport. The ]Ctinister of Transport had thought it proper to ask the chairman of the Royal Commission on Transport to bring the matter before the Commission and take its views on it. The chairman, Sir A. Griffith-l3oseawen, had written the following letter :—
"The Royal Commission has had under consideration the question which you brought before me—namely, the proposal to include in the Road Traffic Bill a clause which would enable any local authority already possessing transport powers of any kind to operate bus services either inside or outside its area, thus obviating the necessity of the authority going to Parliament for an extension of its existing powers. This is part of a larger question with which the Commission had already decided to deal, after further consideration, in the final Report, but my colleagues see no reason why this broad proposal should not be included in the Bill.
On a division, Clause 92 was struck out by 24 votes to 11. Several drafting amendments having been made in the remaining Clauses and schedules, the committee stage was concluded and the Bill ordered for the Report stage, which will commence on January 22nd.