AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

THE TRANSPORT BILL PROCEEDINGS INTERPRETED

8th August 1947, Page 46
8th August 1947
Page 46
Page 46, 8th August 1947 — THE TRANSPORT BILL PROCEEDINGS INTERPRETED
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Unreasoning Reasons

Lords Propose Alternative Amendments to Those Thrown Out by the Commons, and Defeat the Government

By Our Legal Adviser

THE Commons, at a sitting last week, disagreed with all those Lords' amendments to the Transport Bill which the Opposition peers had taken to a. division, or were consequential on those divisions. The House then sent to the Lords its reasons for disagreeing.

The Lords could, constitutionally, have insisted on their amendments. To have done so would have been tantamount to a refusal to pass the Bill, and under present-day conditions would have led to a conflict which could have had only one result -L-thi hamstringing, by one means or another, of the Lords' legislative powers.

Instead, they moved different amendments, not so far-reaching in character as their earlier ones, which would, nevertheless, partially achieve the same objects. By asking for less, they hoped that they might obtain some concession from the Government.

Minor Concession Indeed, in addition to the compromise amendments already agreed to in the Commons, a slight concession was made at the beginning of the consideration of the reasons. An amendment was made, on the motion of Viscount Swinton, that the Minister will consult with the Commission before appointing the Executives.

The Lords persevered on only three of the matters on which disagreement had been reached. In each case they carried their amendments as a result of divisions.

First they tackled the question of the distance which constitutes a long distance. Lord Teynham moved a set of amendments .which would reduce the double test of 40 miles overall and 25 miles radius to a single one of 40 miles radius. As he pointed out, the examination of journeys necessary under the original idea would be thereby greatly simplified.

Lord Beveridge drew attention to the confusion in the debates between Clauses 39 and 52, saying that he felt the case was even stronger on the latter Clause, when considering the restriction of non-nationalized transport.

Viscount Addison firmly tied Clauses 39 and 52 together. The number of vehicles to be taken would, he said, be reduced, and the area of non-nationalized operation would be enlarged by the amendment. To accept the amendment would undermine the whole scheme of the Bill.

Viscount Swinton pointed out that A36

the Commission could order new vehicles if it did not obtain as many as it wanted on nationalization.

The second of the three points turned on the question of burden of proof. Government speakers have emphasized how difficult it would be for the Commission to prove anything, as substantially the whole of the relevant evidence will be in the hands of the operators.

In that case, said the Opposition, let the burden of proof rest on the person who is contending that Section 39 is applicable (the Commission, if it is seeking to take over an operator, and the operator if he is seeking to compel the Commission to take him over), but only provided that the other party has given the Tribunal all the evidence in his power.

The Lord Chancellor, resisting the amendment, argued that there might be a good case for placing the burden of proof on the person who has, or should have, the information available—in these circumstances, the. operator.

The Government bad not gone so far as that. As to giving evidence, that matter was already -covered in Clause 51; but how did one know whether the obligation had been duly performed? A man might say that he had had a fire, or had sent his old papers for salvage, but there would be a suspicion that he had not been as forthcoming as he might have been.

Under the Opposition's clause, asked the Lord Chancellor, would they say that the burden had shifted'? The provision would be too uncertain.

"Potential Criminals" Viscount Swinton took the Lord Chancellor severely to task for treating hauliers as potential criminals an:I classifying them with receivers of stolen goods, who, in certain circumstances, have to prove their innocence. He appealed for the common principle of English justice to apply, that before an honest man is deprived of his livelihood, the burden of proof should rest on the man who seeks to turn him out.

Viscount Swinton moved an alternative to the proposition that the Commission should have to apply to the Licensing Authorities for licences. This would enable holders of A and B licences to complain to the Licensing Authority that the Commission was competing unfairly by seeking to provide more than a fair proportion of the facilities required; the Authority could then report the matter to the Minister, who could, if he deemed it just, require the Commission to withdraw or alter the facilities.

Viscount Swinton thought there was an arguable case on passenger transport, that the original amendment was, as the Commons said, inconsistent with the scheme and intentions of the Bill. ButA and B licensees would have to go to Licensing Authorities for permission to run new vehicles, and even to retain the old when the licences expired. The Licensing Authorities might be bound to refuse renewals because of the large number of B.T.C. vehicles on the road.

Viscount Addison maintained that the Commission would not deliberately put an excessive number of vehicles on the road; by doing so, it would be infringing Clause 3, under which its services have to.be self-supporting.

So the Lords have hurled more defiance at the Commons steamroller.

[For the latest developments, see page 28.)


comments powered by Disqus