Road Transport Activities
Page 45
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
The London Passenger Transport Bill. iurR. MONTGOMERY, K.C., repreDisenting the Association of London Omnibus Proprietors, addressed the Joint Committee which is considering the London Passenger Transport Bill. Referring to the point made against some of the proprietors that they were making a large return on their capital, he contended that a man working with, say, £2,000 as a lever might fairly expect, if he had ability and was making a good business, to obtain a reasonable return.
A man might put a large amount of ability into a small undertaking with a small capital and it would be unjust to say that he should get a smaller number of years' purchase for his business because of the return he was making. Counsel went on to argue that the proposal that independent proprietors should be paid out in cash or stock, as the arbitration tribunal should determine, was unfair. He asked the Committee to insert a provision in the Bill directing that his clients should be paid in cash, instead of being left to the tender mercies of the tribunal, which necessarily wonld, be influenced by considerations relating to the Transport Board's finances and which might, therefore, be inclined to give stock instead of cash.
Deficit after 10 Years ?
TN the course of further observations 'counsel declared that at the end of 10 years, when renewals fell to be made, there would be a likelihood of a deficit. There was no reason to suppose, he said, that the Bill was a sound financial proposition. So far as additional facilities were concerned, the Advisory Committee would be the moving spirit and not the Board. Therefore the Board would not have unfettered control:
Additional facilities were •the essence of the finance of the Bill. He submitted that the tendency of the measure would be destructive of business enterprise and that the proposed undertaking would be too vast, with the result that the scheme would be a step towards inefficiency.
No Belief in Confiscation.
TTIgchairman of the Association of London Omnibus Proprietors, Mr. A, C. Partridge, then gave evidence. He recalled the first independent bus service put on the London streets in 1922 and claimed that its appearance had a marked effect in causing an improvement in the London General bus service both in the number and class of vehicles.
The service was started in the face of a big combine and it involved considerable financial risk, but it had gone on successfully and had earned quite good profits. It was untrue to suggest that independent companies served only the remunerative routes.
The Bill, he declared, would be a failure from the beginning. The public would be put to inconvenience because the first thing to happen would be that many buses would be removed from the streets. Sufficient machinery existed already for the unification of the traffic without transferring the undertakings. The control to-day was so complete that it was almost impossible to put a new bus service on the streets. His association believed in co-ordination, but not in confiscation.
The City Company's Views.
APPEARING on behalf of the City Omnibus Co., Ltd., Mr. Burt submitted that if the company had to become an involuntary stockholder in the new combined undertaking, it ought to be protected, and he proposed to the Committee that the settlements reached between the Government and the Underground group and the municipal tramways should be referred to the arbitration tribunal so that the hist-named should apply the same principles to them as to other undertakings.
An erroneous principle had been adopted in the case of the Underground Group. The L.G.O.C. was to be paid a consideration in excess of what it would otherwise. have received, because it had contributed to the tube railways. The sole test which should have been applied was the test of value. The contribution to the tube railways was no criterion of value and was an argument which would not be listened to for a moment by an arbitrator.
Thereafter an announcement was made that a settlement had been reached between the promoters and the Westminster Coaching Services, Ltd., and the Westminster Omnibus Co., Ltd.
• More Opposition.
THE Committee afterwards heard the petition against the Bill lodged by the Lewis Omnibus Co., Ltd., of Watford.
Mr. Moon, K.C., submitted on behalf of the Premier Omnibus Co., Ltd., and other independent concerns that the Bill should not be passed, but if it were to proceed the powers of the Board should be curtailed, as they were too wide. His clients did not wish to be compensated, but desired to carry on their legitimate business. If, however, they were to receive compensation they claimed to be put on the same basis as the shareholders in the Underground Group. He suggested that it was not right that the Transport Board should be saddled with £82,000 a year for the shareholders in the Underground Group. Was that, he asked, where the profits of his clients were going. Then there wasthe surplus that was to provide new tube railways: from where was that to come? It could be provided only by increased fares and such a step was not in the public interest. Mr. Charles Dobbs, a member of tl managing committee of the Mott Hirers and Coach Services Associatiot afterwards gave evidence against tb Bill.
Manufacturing by Board.
MBE Committee heard objection t 1 the proposal to enable the Transpox Board to manufacture motor vehicle and spare parts and to carry on busi ness as a garage proprietor. Mr. Bruc Thomas, KC., submitted the cas against the proposal on behalf of th Society of Motor. Manufacturers an Traders, the Institute of Britisl Carriage and Motor Manufacturers, an the Motor Agents Association.
He said that the members of the.firs two organizations had rendered valuabl. service in the development of road trans port in London and elsewhere by thei continuous improvement of buses an coaches, and the proposals in the. Bil would inflict grave injury upon them. They requested that the Board sheath not be allowed to manufacture motel vehicles or spare parts, but should Ix left free to buy its machines from mane. facturers at the best prices obtainable It was quite unnecessary, in order tt give effect to a complete monopoly oi the operation of passenger-transport services in London' that the power tc manufacture should illso be given to the Board.
Experimental Work.
THE chairman asked whether the argument would apply to power to manufacture for experimental purposes.
Mr. Bruce Thomas said his argument was presented on the footing that the Board exercised its manufacturing powers to provide its own requirements. He said there was no lack of manufacturing capacity among the motor manufacturers, and they ought not to be excluded from what would be one of the most important markets in the country. Evidence confirming the statement made by counsel was then given by Col. Hacking, representing the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders.
Variation of Speed Limit.
Tram House of Lords has approved ..11_ the new regulations regarding the variation of speed limit. Lord Ponsonby, in moving approval, said that the regulations raised the maximum legal speed from 20 m.p.h. to 30 m.p.h. for pueumatic-tyred vehicles drawing twowheeled pneumatic-tyred trailers.
The Minister of Transport had received influential deputations from various associations pointing out that the limit of 20 m.p.h. for this class of outfit inflicted a hardship and that, in one particular case, therehad actually been a reduction of 30 per cent, in the orders given for this type of vehicle.
Applications to Commissioners.
WITH regard to applications for licences awaiting determination by the Traffic Commissioners, the Minister of Transport stated that the position on May 31st last was that approximately 32,000 applications for public-servicevehicle licences and 27,000 applications for road-service licences and backings remained to be dealt with by the Traffic Commissioners. It was hoped that they would all be disposed of by the end of the year.