Road Transport Topics By Our Special In Parliament Parliamentary Correspondent
Page 24
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
MOTION TO NATIONALIZE ALL TRANSPORT.
LAST week, the House of Commons Lahad a field day on the subject -of the nationalization of transport It arose iipon a Labour motion moved by Mr. Simpson.: "That,, realizing that the present competitive system in transport has failed to provide satisfactory facilities, and involves serious waste, and in view also of the part which transport must play in a proper planning of the nation's economic life, this House is of opinion that co-ordination of transport is essential and that complete co-ordination can only be secured through unified public ownership."
An amendment was later moved by Colonel Sandeman Allen to substitute : " That this House recognizes the importance of a properly co-ordinated transport system, but considers that, having regard to the complex nature of transport requirements in this country and their widely varying conditions, there are definite public advantages in having transport undertakings under both public and private ownership and operating under such measures of statutory regulation and control as may be necessary in the national interest."
After a debate based largely on old arguments, the motion was defeated by 163 votes to 95. The amendment, being put as a substantive motion, was talked out.
ROAD INDUSTRY IS INDIVIDUALISTIC.
THE mover and seconder of the motion (Mr. Simpson and Mr. Watkins; respectively) made it clear that the desire of the Labour Party was to operate the whole of the transport facilities as a unit and to establish a National Transport Board which should be charged with the responsibility of organizing and co-ordinating all forms of transport—road, rail, canal, coastwise shipping, and air—in order to procure the utmost contribution from each.
• Colonel Sandeman Allen, suggesting that the proposal savoured of dictatorship, argued that it was an impracticable scheme. He pointed out that the road industry was individualistic, a by no means negligible percentage of •the vehicles being owner-driven. the industry, on that account, must be unsuitable for nationalization.
He could not agree that" the present competitive system in transport had failed to provide satisfactory facilities." Proper co-ordination was necessary, but they did not want to see the dead -hand of bureaucratic dictatorship on any industry. Moreover, co-ordination of the transport services could not ho secured until road systems became stabilized.
B40 PUT WAGES AND CONDITIONS RIGHT FIRST.
WHEN the Bill for altering the law dealing with wages and conditions of service had been discussed, he continued, the Government would have got a great deal farther towards -really good co-operation, and road transport would then be able to get its rates on a better basis than at present. A large measure of agreement had already been obtained. If Members opposite had their way, half the lorries, drivers and operators would be out of work, and the maximum would be carried with the minimum of personnel. There were already enough dictatorships in the world without another. The railways had suffered from restrictive legislation and road transport was now suffering from objections. Everyone seemed to be able to object to a man getting a licence.
Sir Isidore Salmon seconded the amendment. He remarked that there was a great patronage attached to the idea of having the whole of the transport workers in a nationalized scheme. If that were the suggestion, there might be a repetition of the scandals that happened under public assistance committees when it had been necessary, in order to end such scandals, to take the matter out of the political arena and put it under the control of independent persons.
WHERE WAS THE NECESSARY SUPERMAN?
THE motion, said Captain Hudson, seemed one of the most sweeping that had ever been brought before the House at the instance of a private Member. It proposed to nationalize the railways, passenger and goods road transport, canals, coastwise shipping and civil aviation. Who, he asked, was the superman to control all this? He could see nothing but the greatest disadvantage in what was called nationalization. He could not see what bene-, fit would accrue to any industry through taking it from the people who knew how to run it and putting it under the control of politicians. In the case of an industry with the ramifications of transport, the suggestion seemed to him to be little short of madness.
It seemed pretty obvious that, with nationalization, the free choice, which the trader had with his goods and which the passenger had as to his mode of travel, would not remain. He had not time to go into details about -the proposals, but he understood from the seconder that it was not the intention, in putting down the motion, to bring in C-licence holders. They had not heard the intentions regarding B-licence holders, but it was difficult to see where the line could be drawn.
The ridiculous position might arise, in the case of G-licence holders, of a private enterprise dairy with a nationalized milkman.
Transport was an up-to-date industry constantly adapting itself to changing needs and extending to meet new requirements. Whilst the Government agreed that a measure of statutory control was necessary in the national. interests, its policy was to encourage co-ordination by voluntary methods supported where necessary by legislative action. He hoped, therefore, that the motion would be rejected and the amendment supported.
COMMITTEE TO CONSOLIDATE HIGHWAY LAW.
rrHE Parliamentary Secretary has stated that, in conjunction with the Minister of Health, Mr: Burgin proposed shortly to set up a committee to consider the consolidation of Highway Law, but that the exact terms of reference and the constitution of the committee were not yet settled.
BRITAIN TOPS THE LIST.
APPROXIMATE figures were given by the Minister of Transport for the numbers of motor vehicles (excluding motor cycles) licensed to runon the roads in Germany and in Great Britain as 1,521,300 and 2,409,000 respectively. Official figures for France were not available, but an unofficial estimate, published in that country, puts the number, at the end of 1936, at 2,100,000, FORFEITURE AND ENDORSEMENT BILLS REJECTED.
TWO new Road Traffic Bills presented in the House of Lords did not survive when they were respectively submitted for second reading. The first was the Motor Vehicles (Forfeiture) Bill for which Lord Newton was responsible. It gave the court power to order the forfeiture of the motor vehicle, in a case of conviction for manslaughter. It was defeated by 43 votes to 17.
The second Bill, the second reading of which was moved by Viscount Elibank, was the Road Traffic Amendment Bill. This proposed to modify the wording of the section of the 1934 Act referring to licence endorsement for exceeding a speed limit. It was laid down that the licence shall be endorsed; he proposed that it may be endorsed.
The Earl of Erne said it was undesirable to give the court complete discretion in such cases. Speed limits were intended to be observed and infringements should not be regarded as of little consequence. If a licence had been endorsed, it became clean after its holder had had a clean record for three years. The motion was defeated by 27 votes to 10.