Road Transport Activities
Page 57
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.
11. MORRISON, the Minister of Transport, was called before the Joint Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill in order to give evident*. He stated his views in favour of unification as a means for providing efficient service. If, he said, they were to consolidate all existing undertakings into one combined undertaking, they would not get effective unification of management and identity -of interest between the different undertakings, unless there was a consolidation of the ownership into one London passengertransport undertaking.
With retard to the question whether some form of municipal ownership might be adopted, Mr. Morrison said that at its best municipal management would be management by one municipal corporation. The only conceivable one in the Metropolis would be the London County Council, but that authority covered only 117 ad. miles, whereas the London traffic area was approximately 1,800 sq. miles.
He said that he was not enthusiastic about a joint municipal authority, because the business had to be run as a business undertaking capable of effective and swift action. Therefore he adopted the board to be appointed by the Minister of Transport on the basis of business ability and business management.
A Sharp Question.
COUNSEL asked him if there was any idea of the Minister of Transport getting the Board under his thumb..
Mr. Morrison replied that he could find nothing in the Bill to allow. the Minister freedom of action with the Board. He had deliberately framed the Bill with the object of preventing any Minister from interfering with the dayto-day management by the Board.
Upon being asked whether the only remedy which stockholders would have in relation to the Board was to apply to the Courts if they thought the action of' the Board or-the Minister was imperilling the solvency• of the Board or its annual surplus, Mr. Morrison said that that would be the great remedy, but it had to be remembered that the Board would be as anxious as any board of directors to be successful. Unless the Board achieved substantial success it would always be faced with difficulties in raising new rrsoney.
Removing Private Enterprise.
11/1-R. MONTGOMERY, K.C., ques111..tioned the Minister on behalf of a number of owners of independent bus
undertakings. The witness said the effect of the Bill would be to remove private enterprise from large areas in London and abolish competition. He admitted that independent concerns had contributed certain improvements to bus equipment, whilst the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd„ had also done so.
He could see no reason why the new Board should not assimilate and continue such improvements and, indeed, there would be greater resources available for that purpose, owing to the elimination of competition. The L.G.O. Co., in providing services on good routes, had also followed the policy of providing services on the smaller and even unremunerative routes.
He could not agree that independent companies which were earning higher profits than those that .public-utility undertakings ought to be earning should be compensated on the basis a such profits.
Counsel remarked that the proposal was to compensate the L.G.O. Co. on the basis of its present position.
Mr. Morrison observed that the L.G.O. Co. was in a special position. He declared that he had no prejudice against independent undertakings and recognized the services that they had rendered.
Replying to Mr. Miller, K.C., counsel for certain other petitioning private bus companies, Mr. Morrison , declared that there was, at the preSent time a measure of unified control of the bus services, without merger of ownership.
A Complete Monopoly.
THE Minister, replying to the chairman, declared that the circumstances stances were sufficient to justify placing in the. hands of the Board a complete monopoly in the London traffic area. The Board would possess complete initiative in regard. to all actions and Would not be subject to the control of the . Ministe
He declined to agree that the existing state of affairs was satisfactory. Mr. Morrison stated that he had not had negotiations with anybody as to filling the appointment of chairman of 'the Board and nothing had been settled.
Southend Express Services. A TTENTION was called in the House of Commons by Mr. Oldfield to the representations from the.inhabis tants of Laindon and district protesting against the refusal of the Traffic Commissioner to grant running powers to the Southend Express Services. The Parliamentary "Secretary, I Mr. .Pailsinson, stated that the company concerned was exercising its right of appeal to the Ministerof Transport. ,
Sir P. Dawson asked whether, in cases where the railway companies opposed the granting of licences to competing suburban and .inter-urban roadtransport undertakings, the quality. of the service provided by the railway company and the question whether the railway company was taking -steps to give an adequate service to the travelling public would be taken into consideration.
kr. Parkinson pointed out that under
Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, the Traffic Commissioners, exercising their discretion to grant or to refuse a road-service licence, were required to have regard amongst other matters to the needs of the area as a whole in relation to traffic.
Coach Operator Supported.
"D RIG.-GEN. CLIFTON BROWN _LI called attention to the action of the Traffic Commissioners in stopping all motor coaches running from Wokingharn to London and asked' whether the local authorities -had been consulted and whether an appeal lodged against their action had yet been considered by the Ministry of Transport.
Mr. Parkinson stated that the Minister had received a letter from the town council of Wokingtann on the subject of the refusal of Traffic Commissioners to grant a road-service licence to the Ledbury Transport. Co. in respect of a service from Reading to London via Wokinghana. The Road Traffic Act provided that the Commissioners, when considering an application for a roadservice licence, should have regard to any representation made to them by a local authority on the proposed route. No appeal had as yet been lodged with the Minister against the decision of the Commissioners in this case.
Conditions of Road-service Licences. -wt. PARKINSON informed Mr. IY_L Somerville that the conditions attached to a road-service licence fell to be determined in the first instance by the Traffic Commissioners concerned, having regard amongst other things to the traffic conditions existing in their own area. He expressed the hope that when further experience had been gained it might be popible for the Commissioners to standardize such conditions as might prove to be generally applicable to a particular type of service, special local conditions being added as might be necessary.
Mr. Somerville asked whether it was not the case that, owing to varying decisions in the same districts, coach proprietors did not know where they stood at the present time.
Mr. Parkinson admitted the fact and said that the chairmen of the Commissioners had nominated a sub-committee to consider the whole question.
Mr. Somerville asked whether, in view of the uncertainty in respect of motorcoach services, the Minister would expedite the investigations of the Traffic Commissioners and if he would consider the desirability of allowing all existing coach services to continue during the present summer with the object of avoiding unemployment and enabling, the public to .know exactly what holiday facilities existed.
Mr. Parkinson pointed. Out that under the Public Service Vehicles Transitory Provisions Order an applicant for a road-service licence who was operating on February 9th; 1931; could continue to run that service pending the granting or refusal of his application by the Commissioners. Similarly, a seasonal service operated during the 12 months ended ,March 31st last could be run during the corresponding period or periods of this year. In these circumstances the Minister, saw no yeason for taking action on the lines suggested.