Road Transport Topics By Our Special in Parliament Parliamentary Correspondent
Page 60
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
WATERLOO BRIDGE GRANT QUERIED.
I N the House of Commons Sir William Davison asked why the Minister of Transport had agreed to make a grant towards rebuilding Waterloo Bridge when Parliament had refused to do so?
Mr. Burgin referred Sir W. Davison to a reply he gave to Mr. H. Morrison (reported in our issue dated December 31), in which he explained the circumstances in which the Government proposed to approve a contribution from the Road Fund for this purpose. In the general interests of London highway facilities, he said, and of cross-river facilities at the site of Waterloo Bridge, • it was necessary that it should be reconstructed. To retain control of that construction he had advised that there should be a grant, and the Government had so decided.
Sir W. Davison asked if there was no object in Parliament expressing an opinion on three occasions that no grant should be made, because the London County Council had decided to 1322 pull down the bridge and not to recondition it as Parliament desired.
Mr. Burgin pointed out that it was not proposed to make any grant towards the cost of pulling down the old bridge. That was done in defiance of Parliamentary opinion.
MINISTER AWARE OF GAS POSITION.
IN Berlin, said Mr. Higgs, there was a bus route on which 2,460 vehiclemiles were covered daily on highpressure gas; also, in Hanover, coal gas was being retailed at' approximately two-fifths the price of petrol.
In view of the fact that Birmingham Corporation had spent £5,000 on experimental work, he asked whether the Minister would collaborate in the further development of compressed gas, which would be of great benefit in the case of national emergency.
Mr. Burgin said he was aware of these experiments and would welcome the opportunity to study further any developments in this field. TRUE OWNER SHOULD BE NAMED IN REGISTRATION BOOK.
THE following point was raised by Mr. R. Gibson : Difficulties and dangers arose from the fact that, where a lending company had advanced money for the purchase of a motor vehicle, and was the true owner of the vehicle, only the name of the nominal owner appeared in the relative registration book as the owner, so that a bona fide purchaser from the nominal owner was liable to be compelled to surrender the vehicle to the lending company. He asked the Minister whether he would consider making compulsory the disclosure in the registration book of the name of such lending company as owner.
Mr. Burgin replied that this question had been considered on numerous occasions since the institution of the present system of licensing under the Roads Act, 1020. The registration book did not purport to be a document of title, but was part of the machinery for collection of the licence duty. •