M.P.s Hostile to Restriction
Page 52
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
A RAILWAY-MINDED MINISTER.
IF the House of Commons, last Friday, Sir Assheton Pownall's Road Traffic Bill was given a second reading: without a division, and committed to a Standing Committee. Although the measure contains a limited amount of amendment on recent road legislation, the debate was notable for the shrewd and direct criticism of the Acts of Parliament under which road-transport interests are obliged to exist.
Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon, in moving, in the absence of Sir Assheton Pownall, the second reading of the Bill, drew attention to the Acts of 1930, 1933 and 1934. It was obvious in 1930, he said, after the passing of Mr. H. Morrison's Bill, that things were moving fast and that other legislation would have to follow. The Ministry of Transport was afterwards • presided over by Mr. Oliver Stanley, and he thought it was dangerous to put a member who was at that time a director of a great railway company in charge of the Ministry.
PREPOSTEROUS LEGISLATION.
T"present Minister of Transport, continued Lieut.-Colonel Moorelirabazon, although he did not for a moment suppose that, had he been in power, be would have introduced a measure anything like the 1934 Act, had the responsibility to implement it and to try to make it a success, and he had been staggering under that difficulty ever since. It was true to say that he had done his best.
The Bill he was introducing dealt with only two small points. If he had had his way he would have introduced a measure, almost as big as any of the three Acts, to change most of the points in these Acts, because they were three of the most preposterous pieces of legislation that this House had ever put through.
A decision of the Court had laid it down that it was illegal to share a taxicab and the present Bill dealt with the matter. The first clause stated, in effect, that a stage carriage or express carriage which carried less than eight passengers should be excluded from the prohibition, subject to certain conditions being satisfied.
LONGER CURRENCY PERIODS.
THE other clause of the Bill referred to a difficulty which had arisen over the licensing of commercial vehicles. Under the 1933 Act, it was laid down that A, B and C licences were given a certain time to run. A licences were given automatically, because, during the first licence year 1934-5, A and B licences were granted largely without examination, owing to the provisions of Section 72 of the 1934 Act, under
A.34 which applicants were entitled to claim licences to the extent they had used vehicles in the standard year.
The fact that all these licences came up for renewal at the same time had caused great difficulty in the administration of the Licensing Authorities' work, This clause gave the Minister power to grant these licences for a longer time in order that they need not all come up together.
CONGESTION IN THE COURTS.
IN seconding the motion, Lieut.1 Colonel Sandman Allen said, with regard to Clause 2, that the first report to September 30, 1935, showed that the number of vehicles licensed was 459,626. The renewal applications for B licences were made and considered in the autumn of 1935 and the renewal applications for A licences in the autumn of 1936. Experience had shown that the period was too short.
This Bill proposed to remedy that, although he suggested that Clause 2 would have to read—" or such longer period as may be prescribed, such longer period to be not less than five years." This would give justice to road hauliers and prevent traffic authorities from being overcrowded.
Most of the congestion was due to objections from the railway companies, who had objected very often on trivial grounds. Sir Josiah Stamp said last year that they deplored the railways' inability to object to 70 per cent, of the goods motor vehicle licences, meaning manufacturers and traders' C licences.
RAILWAYS' BULLYING TACTICS.
THESE objections were giving the impression to those engaged in the road-haulage business that they were .being badly bullied by the railway com
panies. If that was the case there could be no objection to a longer licence. The legal costs to one applicant alone came to £475 before he could get his licence. One applicant answered a thousand questions put by the railway authorities and then he was opposed.
Unless the position was altered, a rot was bound to set in, and the situation in regard to road services would not be the advantage of the community.
ACT TO BENEFIT RAILWAYS.
THE 1933 Act, said Mr. H. G. Williams appeared to be generally regarded as having been introduced not for the benefit of the general public but in the interests of the railways_ It was a sequel to the Salter Report. Much of the procedure under the Act of 1933 could not be explained on any intelligent grounds.
CLAUSE 1 NOT ENOUGH.
REVERTING to Clause 1, Mr. E. Dunn said the mover had merely called attention to the anomalies in regard to the sharing of a taxkab, but, he suggested, the real difficulty went far beyond that.
Under the Act of 1930, as a result of the withdrawal of paragraph (c) of Clause 61, it was possiblenot only for two persons to share the costs of running a taxicab, but also for combinations of men to undertake transport services of their own, to convey workmen to and from work. Under. the 1930 Act this could be done without any licence, but Section 24 of the Road Traffic Act 1934 altered the procedure.
A LIMITED OBJECT SERVED.
THE Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport, Captain Austin Hudson, said the Bill was designed to deal with only two cornparatively small points, and the Government felt that some alteration of the Law thereon was desirable.
The matter raised by Mr. Dunu was not dealt with at all under the Bill and was another subject altogether. The Government felt that there was no difficulty in Clause 1 which at the same time would constitute an obstacle to anyone who sought to use the Bill to evade the ordinary Licensing Law.
As regards Clause 2, the present position was that A licences had a currency of two years, B licences of one year and C licences of three years. It was felt that the experimental period might be assumed to be over, and that the need for renewing carriers' licences, at such frequent intervals as this, imposed an unnecessary burden both upon operators and licensing authorities.
The object of the Clause was to give the Minister power to extend the normal period of any class of licence so soon as he was satisfied that the position warranted such an extension. All interests would have every opportunity of stating their case before any alteration in the periods of licences was made.
CONCESSIONS FOR STEAMERS?
DURING the preceding week, a quest,ion was put by Mr. Louis Smith, who asked whether, in view of the slow progress that was being made in this country towards placing on a commercial basis the processes of producing oil and petrol from British coal, the Minister would consider changing the regulations with regard to heavy steam vehicles with a view to encouraging such steam traffic and a consequent increase in the amount of coal required for road transport.
Mr. Hore-Belisha stated that, whilst he doubted whether any concessions he could make would achieve the end desired by Mr. Smith, he was ready, with the Minister of Mines, to consider any constructive suggestions put forward.