Comments on the
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Coach-ban Decision
110SE persons who are neither philosophers nor
T ..humorists may be forgiven if they find difficulty
in appreciating the Subtlety of the minds of those who frame some of the regulations which affect the running of motor coaches in London, or if they be unable to follow clearly' the arguments which are advanced in support of such regulations.
At the end of last year the Minister of Transport gave notice of his intention to make regulations under the Provisions of the London Traffic Act, the result of which would be to restrict the use of motor coaches Withinan inner and an outer zone, the restrictions being more extensive,Within the smaller than within the larger area. Objection was taken by certain coach proprieters to the making of the regulations and steps were taken to have their validity tested in the High Court, with the result that they have been upheld. (This was reported in our issue for last week.) It is not our intention to consider the whole of the objections Which were put forward, but to confine ourselves to one in particular, which, although it was net upheld by the court, appears to be worthy of consideration, and to explain why it will be that when the regulations come into force certain coach proprietors will, in effect and in fact, have the right to use their coaches within the forbidden area to the exclusion of all other operators.
The difficulty with which the Minister was faced when he set out to draft the regulations, and what would appear to be the substantial fact which led to the proceedings in the High Court, was that there are within the inner zone three stations in which certain coach proprietors have interests, and that the London Traffic Act authorized the Minister of Transport to make regulations "for prescribing streets which are not to be used for traffic by vehicles of any specified class or classes, either generally or at specified times."
The difficulty lay in the words "vehicles of any specified class or classes," for it appeared from the argument in court that neither the Minister nor his advisers would have suggested that it was competent to exempt from the ,provisions of the regulations the vehicles of the particular proprietors of the three coach stations which are within the inner zone. The Minister, however, got over that difficulty by providing that the regulations should not apply to any public
service vehicle proceeding by named routes to or from the three stations.
The exemption, therefore, was not confined to any particular vehicle, but might be taken advantage of by " any public-service vehicle" which might be going to those stations. This distinction may be quite clear to the lawyer, and for the time being it must be regarded as a sound legal distinction, because it was upheld by the court, but when the facts are further considered it is one which the man in the street has some difficulty in following.
The question that he puts to himself, and has difficulty in answering, is what is the use of a coach proprietor being allowed to arrange for his vehicle to travel along one of the named streets which leads to one of the three coach stations if, having arrived at the station, he is unable to use it because it happens to be the private property of some other concern, and he is unable to unload his pastengers outside the station becatise the regulations forbid hiin to do so?
The Solicitor-General, who appeared fer "the Minister, did not allow such thoughts to trouble hint and he apparently saw no reason why they sheuld trouble anyone else: The solutien which he put forward was simplicity In itself. • All that the coach proprietor need do IS to buy one of the three stations, or to enter into some agreement with the owner or tenant Of one of those stations:under which the owner or tenant would allow him to use the station for the purpose of taking up and setting down passel,: gers and for garaging his vehicles. This is, of course, a delightfully simple solution, marred only by the fact, which the Solicitor-General did not appear to regard as serious, that none of the owners or tenants may be prepared to sell his rights, or to enter into an agreement under which another proprietor would be allowed tc use his station.
It may be that it would be foolish for the man in the street to suggest that such a difficulty may exist, in view of the fact that its existence would not be the fault of the Minister or of his regulations. The regulations allow all public-service vehicles to use the named streets for the purpose of proceeding to or from any of the three stations, and if, having arrived there, the vehicle is not allowed to enter—after ail, that is not the fault of the regulation, so why blame the Minister?