RAILWAYS AND ROAD TRAFFIC.
Page 15
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
The Vital Stage, the Hearing of the Petition Before a Committee of the House of Commons, is Reached by the Railway Bill
THE Committee of the House of Commons, which commenced its sitting last Tuesday to hear the arguments for and against the Bill promoted by the London and North-Western and Midland hallway group, to seek full powers to own and control road vehicles carrying goods independent of any connection with the railways, is composed of Lieut.-Col. the Hon. Walter Guinness, D.S.O. (Bury St. Edmund's), who presided, Brig.-Gen. Cockerill (Reigate), Major P. B. Malone (South Tottenham), and Mr. N. P. Jodrell (King's Lynn). Petitions presented against the measure total now over 50, a number having been already withdrawn, the London Chamber of Commerce, the Federation of British Industries, the Commercial Motor Users Association,‘the Automobile Association and Motor Union, the National Road Transport Employers' Federation, Carter, Paterson and Co., Ltd., remaining to fight the battle for transport. The counsel are:—For the promoters of the Bill: Mr. Macmillan, K.C.' Mr. Clods, K.C., Mr. J. B. Aspinall, and Mr. A. Moon. For the Commercial Motor Users Association, the National Road Transport Employers' Federation, and the Automobile Association: Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C., and Mr. Rowland Harker. A number of counsel represented the other opposing interests. Mr. Macmillan, in opening the case for the promoters, dealt with the position of the North Staffordshire Railway Co., which was included in the particular railway group and which already was in possession of the powers sought by the Bill. The purpose of the Bill was to authorize the promoting companies to use road vehicles for the carriage of merchandise. There was considerable opposition to it throughout the country, and the promoters had already, to some extent, by amending certain. clauses of the Bill, succeeded in allaying some of the apprehensions at first entertained. He claimed that some of the persons who at first were critical were now quite friendly to the Bill.
After dealing with the attitude of the Ministry of Transport, as outlined by Mr. Neal, M.P., during the second reading debate, he gaid that the railways already conveyed traffic along their own rails and to a very large extent over the roads and over the sea. The railways had not, in fact, in the process of their evolution, been confined to the metals of their permanent ways. At present they suffered certain restrictions on their powers of transport by road, because they were a, statutory company, and, accordingly, had to obtain by Act of Parliament any increase of power, but a limited liability company or other similar undertaking was not so hampered in its enterprise. He contended that the public were not so much concerned with who carried their traffic as to how it was carried, and the public interest was that goods should be moved cheaply, expeditiously, and efficiently.
There had been fears of an enormous and immediate expansion of road transport should the railways secure the powers, but he ventured to think that this was an exaggerated picture. The position was that the traffic which the traders of the country desired to go by road would go by road. The claim of the railway companies was not that they should have a monopoly of that traffic, but that they should be permitted to participate in it. The attitude taken up by certain people would suggest that they desired that no one else should be permitted to participate in road traffic, and that, in fact, they should have a monopoly. He said that the advent of the railway companies pn the roads would be to the public interest, in that it would encourage competition. He referred to a report of a Select Committee which sat in 1864 to inquire into the question whether the railways should be granted powers to run coastwise steamers and engage in transport by sea. That question had been settled in favour of the railway companies, despite the feet that the very arguments now advanced by the road transport people as to unfair competition and soeforth had been advanced on behalf of the owners of coasting vessels.
The disclosure a the existence of this report and its findings seemed to make a great impressioia upon the Committee.
Mr. Macmillan asked what were the changed circumstances which justified the request for the powers. There were two main changes in the circumstances. The first was the development of road transport by mechanically propelled vehicles, and the other war the changed economic position of the railways. There had been an increasing, although gradual, recognition of tile position of the railways as the main carriers of the country. Already they were engaged in the business of road transport, the very thing which they were now asking the Committee to permit, and there was no good reason Fhy the process of recognizing the railway companies should e arrested at this particular stage or that the railway companies should be debarred from the natural expansion of their business of conveying the goods from the producer to the customers. Dealing with the fears with regard to the cutting of rates, Mr. Macmillan said that it was well to remember that a large part of the incentive to cut rates, which formerly existed, had gone. He pointed out that the railways were at present entitled, in their collection and delivery powers, to travel, to a practically unlimited extent, over the roads of the country, provided that there was at some stage in the journey a railway ingredient—that is to say, putting the goods on the rail and carrying them a short distance. It seemed ridiculous that you could do all that and carry the goods as many miles as you like, but you must not take the goods direct from consignor to consignee.
On the resumption of the hearing on Wednesday last, at the request of the chairman, Mr. Macmillan outlined the course he proposed to adopt in completing his statement of the case, the chairman saying that the committee desired the whole case to be put before them on the question of safeguards against monopoly and unfair competition and matters of that kind, and a good deal of the day was occupied by the reading and consideration of the report of Mr. Balfour Browne's Committee on Transport presented about a year ago. In connection with the present Bill, the promoters had imported into it such restrictions as were suggested in that report.
With regard to competition, he maintained that, so far as the railway companies were conceined, competition would be fair, and, therefore, would be to the public good. He dealt with the question of the amount paid by railway companies in local rates and to local authorities for the maintenance of roads. He also dealt with the nature of the petitions against the Bill, but in response to a request from counsel acting for the Furniture Removers Association, would only promise to consider introducing into the Bill ,safeguards with regard to that industry. The hearing is expected to last all this week.