Defeat for Municipal Bus Hire Powers
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Attempt to Widen Contract-carriage Work of B.T.C. also Fails
BY OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT
AHOT and detailed debate on whether local authorities should be able to enter the contract-carriage field marked the opening of the committee stage of the Public Services Vehicles Bill, last week.
No amendments had been tabled to Clause 1 of the Bill which deals with this subject, and Mr. Short, the promoter, was instantly engaged in a battle to try to keep it in the Bill—against the Government's desires.
The municipal transport undertakings, Mr. Short said, were unanimous in their desire to have these powers. He urged a free vote. The clause would enable a local authority to use vehicles and platform staff more economically. It would also enable a local authority with a transport undertaking to continue to run unrcmunerative services, which all municipal undertakings had to operate to new housing estates outside their boundaries.
Keeping Fares Stable The clause would not, he urged, upset the equilibrium of the transport system of the country. It would help to keep the fares of municipal undertakings more stable. The Licensing Authority would still co-ordinate and control fares.
The clause, he said, did not seek to give free competition between private operators and municipal undertakings. It contained a restriction in that journeys must begin within the local authority's own boundaries.
Mr. Geoffrey Wilson (C., Truro), opposing the Clause, said that one of the well-known troubles of bus undertakings at present was that costs of transport were so high that many routes no longer paid.
"it would be much more satisfactory if we could come to some solution which would help all bus undertakings, and not merely try to help municipal bus undertakings at the expense of others who might be seriously prejudiced by the proposals in this clause," he submitted.
No Shortage of Facilities
He pointed out that the Road Traffic Act, 1930, did not permit municipal undertakings to enter the contract:arriage field. There was no suggestion Chat people in areas outside the municipalities were in need of any idditional facilities for c o n trac t :arriages.
The duty of the municipality with a ;ransport undertaking was to provide a service within the municipal area, and it ;eemed a pity that it should enter into :ompetition with maybe its own rateuayers in work outside that area.
Mr. H. Molson, Parliamentary i'ecretary to the Ministry of Transport, dated that it could not be said that vivate enterprise was at present making ;uch large profits that it would be iossible to interfere with the present )artition of work between private
enterprise and municipalities. There would be serious effects on private enterprise which would most likely result in a further increase in applications for higher fares.
"It is a matter of the utmost concern to us that the already high cost of transport in this country should not be increased unnecessarily," he declared.
In many cases municipal undertakings enjoyed a quasi-monopoly, or at any rate a great preference, in the areas where they operated. The Licensing Authorities often imposed protective fares. Municipal undertakings had behind them not only the normal reserves that any other undertaking might have, but also the rateable value of the municipality which owned them.
What Mr. Short was asking was that buses should be allowed to be used for contract work at a time when they were not needed for peak loads. What would be the effect of that on a number of small companies and private owners who relied largely on the contract business to keep going?
" Cut Fuel Tar" The resumption of the debate on Tuesday brought from Mr. John Eden (C., Bournemouth) a strong plea to the Chancellor of the Exchequer to cut the fuel duty. "I hope Mr. Molson will bring such pressure to bear as he can on the Chancellor to reduce transport costs overall," he said. "That is what we are aiming at. One of the ways I would suggest is that we should reduce taxation on commercial fuel."
The committee were still discussing the proposal to give local authorities contract-carriage rights, and it was on this that Sir William Darling (C., S. Edinburgh) made the original remark that a local authority's most valuable asset was, not its machinery, but its ratepayers. "My motto when I was city treasurer [of Edinburgh] was, 'never kill a ratepayer,'" he said—but the Bill's proposal, he thought, would do so.
Mr. McLeavy (Lab., Bradford) from a lifetime spent in the transport industry, thought that a cut in the fuel tax alone would not solve the problem. "Something has got to be done in the transport world in the interests of the travelling public and the nation," he declared.
The industry, he urged, needed every possible help—and it was "absolute nonsense" to say that by giving these powers to local authorities they would be brought into serious competition with private enterprise,
Help from Rates When Mr. Short wound up the debate on the clause, he gave the figures of municipal transport undertakings receiving help from the rates. For the past three years they were 14, 17 and 15 but for the last three years of a Labour Government the figures had been 7, 4 and 3.
He urged that, given the opportunity, a demand for contract-carriage work in industrial areas could be created, so that the local authorities would not necessarily be impinging on the profits of private operators.
On the division, the clause was, as expected, defeated by 18 votes to 17.
Mr. Short withdrew clause 2, which would have repealed the restrictions on the B.T.C. running contract carriages. Before he did so, Mr. David Jones (Lab., Hartlepools) asked for a statement of Government intentions on the report of the Chambers Committee on London Transport.
Minister Studying Report
Mr. Molson replied that the report had only been published for a short time. The Minister had read it and had begun to study it, but was not in a position to announce his conclusions on it. They would make an announcement "in due course."
It would be necessary to bear one important fact in mind— London Transport enjoyed special monopoly powers in its own area and there was, therefore, a strong argument againstits being allowed to go outside.
The Committee were discussing the amendments conferring powers on local authorities to give concessionary fares, and to limit them to thoseauthorities which had been giving them up to November, 1954, when the sitting adjourned.