Road Transport Activities
Page 43
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
IN PARLIAMENT
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
that the transport by the railways of coal and heavy traffic was unrernunerative.
Road and Rail Traffic Bill.
MHE debate on the Second Reading of the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, following the introductory speech of Mr. Stanley (a brief summary of which appeared in our issue for last week) was characterized by a critical attitude on both sides of the controversy, The Labour view was against the Bill on the ground that it failed to recognize that national ownership and control was a vital necessity.
Major Renwick said that Part 2 of the Bill, or that portion relieving the railway companies of what was known as undue preference had come as a positive bombshell to the road-transport industry and the public generally. No such suggestion was contained. in the Salter, Report. He hoped that when the Bill was in committee the Minister might he content to confine his activities entirely to the recommendations of the Salter Report.
Railways and Trade Depression.
SIR A. STEEL-MAITLAND opposed the Bill as he believed no good could :come from its principles. He admitted that the plight of the railways demanded attention. The difficulties arose primarily from the depression in trade, but also from the competition of road transport. The new licence duties and this Bill together were undoubtedly going to add heavy expense to haulage by road, and Would increase rates. He criticized adversely the power of the Traffic Commissioner at his discretion to refuse a new entrant into the industry a new licence.
Information About Rates.
MITE Commissioner could require in 1 formation as to rates which the ap plicant proposed to charge. Why should he want to know the rates unless his grant or refusal of the licence was going to be influenced by them? In the case of objection to the licence the Traffic Commissioner was to have regard to whether a licence in a particular case was in excess of requirements. In that case the cheapness of the rates in the locality was not mentioned. He wondered whether the real endeavour was to ,get rates fixed so that there should be no rate-cutting. Probably it would be admitted that that was the case.
With regard to 0 and B licences, the whole object was to discourage any kind of return journeys. He did not think that even the other road hauliers would wish to see that.
Transport Costs Will Rise.
HE feared that under the Bill rates. charged to industry would be higher than they would have been otherwise. The whole 'Crux of the question was whether, as had always been said, the heavy traffic on the railways was unremunerative and that the railways had to recoup themselves from other classes of merchandise. He did not believe The Railway Attitude.
PIELDE'N, a member of the .1.1ULRailway Companies Association, expressed the railway view. Whilst in. favour of co-ordination, they considered that the Salter Report was not what they were entitled to. The duties proposed in the Budget were again less than those proposed in the Salter
Report. The railway companies did not look upon the Bill as something that was going to give them very great assistance, but the structure of the Bill was such as to allow for amendments to be moved in Committee that would improve it very much from their point of view.
Licensing authorities, in the public interest, should be required, when considering the grant or refusal of existing A and B licences, to have regard to the adequacy of existing transport facilities, including transport by rail. There was an important omission in that no provision was made for the control and publication of road-transport
• rates. The railway companies were in sympathy with the Bill in so far as it related to the regulation of goods transport by road, and the matter of making agreed charges with traders for the conveyance of goads by railway, so long as they were not bound by restrictions which rendered those powers nugatory. They welcomed also the proposal to set up a Transport Advisory Council, subject to its being so constituted as to give the railway companies adequate reprosen tation.
Liberal Opposition.
Q IR HERBERT SAMUEL said it }Owes clear that there was a problem needing the immediate attention of the legislature. In Committee there would be criticisms and some of his Liberal friends felt that the Bill was unduly restrictive of the new road industry, which was necessary for the commercial advantage of the nation.
Mr. Geoffrey Peto declared that the Bill did not attempt to improve the position of the railways, but set out to drag the, roads, if that could be done, down to the Jevel which the railways had now reached. The Bill would multiply crime, because it contained a whole . list of new penalties for all sorts of crimes which were only invented to be shoved into the Bill. In two years' time nobody would be able 'to implement a haulage contract because every licence would then expire and nobody could say that at the end of that time the contractor would have his licence renewed.
IIauliers' Goodwill Affected.
MR. ROBERTS said that in prohibiting the transfer of licence from one person to another the Bill was taking away the goodwill from a haulage contractor.
Mr. McKeag maintained that the Bill would mean the gradual stifling of road transport. It sought to effect the strangulation of this new industry precisely in the way that the railway companies secured the strangulation of the canal industry years ago. It was a socialistic measure without any of the redeeming features of Socialism. The duties were penal and the Bill also was penal. It was almost as though carriage of goods by road was regarded as a kind of regrettable incident in our economic life which should either be stamped out or severely curtailed. The Bill he described as a monumental work of interference.
Mr. George Hall was another critic of the Bill, which he described as another patch put on an already over patched coat. :
Government Reply.
COL. ElEADLAM, Parliamentary Secretary, in replying to the debate, suggested that there had been an immense improvement in the passengertransport system of the country as. a result of regulations, and there was no reason to expect that the form of regulation set out now for goods traffic would not equally be in the interests of the industry as a whole. The Labour amendment was rejected by 302 votes to 38, and the Bill was read a second time and committed to a Standing Committee.
Oil Fuel in Aviation.
01R PHILLIP SASSOON, replying to a question regarding the use of oil engines for civil flying, said ,that he was not in a position to forecast how soon oil engines would be available for civil flying, but the aircraft industry was giving close attention to the question of their satisfactory development. One type of oil engine had been developed at the Royal Aircraft Establishment and had passed the airworthiness test.
London Taxicabs.
NTISCOUNT ELIBANK in the ,V House of Lords addressed a number of questions to the Government regarding the inspection of taxicabs in London, and the incidence of accidents. He declared that nearly a quarter of the London taxicabs were 15-20 years old.
The Earl of Lucan said the police were doing as much as they could to have as frequent inspections as possible, especially of the older cabs. It was not so much a matter of age as one of maintenance and condition. All cabs of 15 years or over were examined over the pit at the public carriage office and it was the intention to extend this examination to cabs of 10 years of age.