Road Transport Topics By OUT Special In Parliament Parliamentary Correspondent
Page 57
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
THE GOVERNMENT AND POLICE PATROL GRANT.
THE House of Lords, last week, adopted the following resolution: " That his Majesty's Government should implement the recommendation of the Select Committee on Prevention of Road Accidents and that a substantial grant should be made to the police, without delay, to enable them to increase the number of motor patrols." The motion was moved by Lord Sandhurst, who indicated that it had the support of the Roads Group. He said that, from statements made on behalf of the Government, he was inclined to think that it had no intention of implementing the recommendation.
Earl Howe supported Lord Sandhurst's motion. He inquired whether the Government was really serious upon the question of road safety. Here was a thing that could be done, a recommendation that could be implemented by a stroke of the pen without legislation, and if the Government was really interested in saving life on the highway, atid in highway questions generally, it would continue an experiment which had shown that it could reduce casualties by some 40 per cent. or 50 per cent.-46 per cent. he thought.
SUPPORT FROM ALL BUT GOVERNMENT.
I ORO WALFRAN, speaking as one Lawho had 2,500,000 miles' experience of motoring, said that the training given to these motor patrols at the Hendon Police School, was excellent, and he agreed with Lord Howe that there was absolutely no excuse for not carrying the whole scheme to finality.
In the discussion which followed, every peer who spoke, apart from the
Gove rime tit representatives, supported Lord Sandhurst's motion including Lord Alness, the chairman of the Select Committee.
EXTENSION OF SCHEME WOULD COST £2,500,000.
rr HE Earl of Cottenham, who had
been described by Lord Alness as the pioneer of the Mobile Patrol system, said that, although the expense was large, the scheme was producing results on a scale that no other measure had managed to achieve since the war.
Last autumn, the Home Secretary stated that to extend this mobile police scheme to the whole of England, would cost £2,500,000. When a matter like this was at stake, that was a small sum.
GOVERNMENT GRANT LIMITED TO 50 PER CENT.
C ART, DE LA WARR, who replied L-ifor the Government, said that what it was discussing under the motion was uot whether the system of mobile police
was good or not, but as to how to distribute the cost of paying for it. Hitherto, for every police force, no matter how important the particular service might he, the grant had been on a 50 per cent. basis. So far as he could gather, the alternative before it, if it pursued the course advocated by Lord Sandhurst, was that it should pay the local authorities something like 100 per cent. on what were well recognized to be local services, He did not think their lordships would support a National police force for this specific purpose. This scheme would cost approximately £2,500,000 a year, whielt was not a negligible figure. The Government was not prepared to go beyond the 50 per cent, grant.
Earl Stanhope, First Lord of the Admiralty, pointed out that the motion was a question which went to the whole Inundation of grants made by the central government to local authorities. The Government was not opposed to the extension of police patrols. but it said it was not. only a Government service but a local service. The Government could not accept the motion.
Lord Sandhurk said he would thank Earl De La Warr for one thing, and that was for a liberal education in the art of wriggling. He insisted on a division and the resolution was carried by 34 votes to 25.
SUSPENSION AND REVOCATION OF CARRIERS' LICENCES.
NAR. B. SMITH having asked as to Inthe number of cases in which carriers' licences had been suspended or revoked on account of infringements of the provisions of Section 19 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, relating to drivers' hours, Captain Euan Wallace said that from figures supplied to him by the Traffic Area Licensing Authorities, it appeared that, in 55 cases, licences had been revoked or suspended by reason of breaches of licence conditions which included breaches of Section 19. In a further four cases, vehicles were removed from licences.
PRIORITY OF TRANSPORT IN AN EMERGENCY.
QUESTIONED by Sir Henry MorrisJones, as to whether he could state the order of priority of transport sanctioned by the Traffic Commissioners in the event of an emergency. the Minister of Transport stated that he did not think it would be wise to lay down any exact and rigid order of priority, as circumstances were likely to vary greatly at different times and in different localities. Defence requirements and transport of foodstuffs must clearly be of special importance.
REVISION OF LONDON PASSENGER FARES.
CAPTAIN WALLACE informed Mr. Sorensen that the revision of the fares of the London. Passenger Transport Board, and on the London Suburban passenger services of the main line railway companies was governed by the provisions of the London Passenger Transport Act, 1933. He saw no reason for proposing to Parliament that those provisions, which were the subject of careful and exhaustive examination during the passage of the Act, should be altered. He reminded Mr. Sorensen that the receipts of the Board and of the suburban passenger services of the main line companies were already pooled as required by the Act. In answering Sir Percy Harris, the Minister stated that statutory jurisdiction over the fares charged by the Board resided in the Railway Rates Tribunal which had power, on the application of a local authority, or, in any case where the Board had not power to make the alteration in fares which it desired to make, on the application of the Board, to revise the fares or any of them charged or chargeable by the Board or to modify any conditions applicable to such fares. It would be seen that he had no power to intervene.
WEIGHT LIMITATION ON LOADS BY ROAD.
THE Minister of Transport has promised to make inquiries into the circumstances placed before him by Mr. Neil Maclean in a question asking Captain Wallace " whether his attention has been drawn to the case which was tried at Lanark Sheriff court, on May 26, where the driver of a 60-ft. tractor and trailer was admonished on a charge of careless driving; that the steersman on the trailer admitted that at certain corners it was impossible to prevent part of the vehicle being over the centre line; that the load which the
• vehicle had carried was stated to be an 80-ton ingot mould; and as a vehicle of 60 ft., with a load of 80 tons, is too long and heavy for the public highway and bridges, what steps he will take to prevent such vehicles being used in future."