Road Transport Activities
Page 66
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
Road and Rail Bill.
AT the fourth sitting of the Standing Committee on the Road and Rail Traffic Bill, Capt. Strickland moved an amendment to Clause 2 providing that the holder of an A licence should not be prevented from using an authorized vehicle to convey goods purchased by him for the purpose of enabling him to deliver such goods on the re-sale thereof.
He gave as an example a haulier with an A licence who might be conducting a small incidental business, in connection with which he required, say, a load of corn. Although he might be passing a corn-merchant's premises, he could not take up his load of corn, but must employ someone else to carry it. He thought that some provision should be made to give the right to an A-licence holder to carry his own goods, which were not at the time of carriage actually being sold and were not, therefore, at the time being carried for hire or reward.
A Licence Limitation.
lux. STANLEY said that the differ1.111ence between the A and B licences were deliberately conceived. The amendment would,:remove from the necessity of taking out a B licence any man who carried on at the same time the business of a haulier of goods and that of a merchant. He was unable to understand why merchants should be selected for this privilege whilst a producer was excluded. It was possible for a man to obtain a B licence with no restrictive
conditions upon it. The amendment was negatived.
Hired Vehicles.
A ,DISOUSSION arose on sub-sec-L-1_6m 6 which specifies the vehicles authorized to be used under the licence, but in the case of hired vehicles provides for a man getting a licence not for a specific vehicle but for a number of vehicles. It was suggested that the latter arrangement should apply to both owned and hired vehicles ; and the larger the fleet, the larger the reserve of the vehicles which the holder of the licence would desire to have.
Mr. Stanley said that in One case they asked that every vehicle should be specified, whilst in another case all that remained to be specified was the number. \They could not ask a man who was applying for a two-years' A licence to specify particulars of the vehicle he might wish to hire during that period, because he did not know them.
Tonnage Difficulties.
iurR. A. ROBERTS said that so .IY1many opportunities were givenfor objections to be raised to the number
of vehicles which might be licensed that the holder would not obtain a licence for a greater number of vehicles than he was aetually using, and he was going to have the utmost difficulty in getting a licence for any bigger weight of vehicles than he had on the dates specified in
the Bill. If a haulier happened to have 25 vehicles but only 20 on the road at the time specified, he would get a licence for only 20 vehicles. What was going to happen when he wanted to bring the other five into his fleet? He could not use them in the event of an emergency without going back to the Minister and getting them specified. The Minister should assist those people who adopted this up-to-date haulage practice.
Provision for Spare Vehicles.
MR. STANLEY said he was prepared to consider whether it was possible to provide that all vehicles most be specified, and that the licensing authority should be able to include in the specification of the licence the particular vehicles it would permit the man to run on the road. He would consider that point later. They could not put in words which would necessitate the specification of vehicles under the hiring agreement, but they were insisting on the specification and the number and type of the vehicles. The amendment was withdrawn.
Duration of Licences.
ALONG discussion took place on Clause 3 regarding the duration of licences. Sir G. Rentoul moved that the licences should continue in force until revoked or suspended or surrendered under the provisions of this Act. He said the proposals seemed to be designed mainly for the purpose of allowing competitors to raise objections and to put the applicant out of the running if possible.
Mr. Jones said be felt that if these A licences were for only two years, there was little hope of real development in this branch of the business. The average life of a vehicle was in the neighbourhood of five years. He knew of one large industry which had as an ancillary to its business a fleet of 900 motors, and which was desirous that the road-haulage industry, under the A licence system, should be so organized that it would be possible for that industry to dispose of its transport department and proceed with its legitimate business.
The Fifth. Sitting.
THE fifth sitting of the Committee was almost entirely devoted to a resumption of the discussion on the continuity of licences in the interests of affording security for the owners of vehicles. Mr. Stanley repeated his assurance that he hoped to draft a form of words which would ensure that the bias would be in favour of the holders of existing licences.
Fewer Traffic Police.
THE Home Secretary states that the reduction of police employed on traffic regulation in the Metropolitan Police Area, as a result of the introduction of traffic signals, during the year ended April 30, 1933, is 116. Many more signals have, of course, been introduced since that date.
Motor-coach Side Lamps.
IT having been suggested by Sir G. Fox that many motor coaches carried side lamps so high that they were useless, Col. Headlam said he agreed that side lemps on motor vehicles should not be carried at too great a height, but his attention had not been drawn to any special difficulty with regard to motor coaches. Normally these vehicles, owing to their internal lighting, were sufficiently visible at night. He doubted whether a regulation on the subject was necessary, but he would bear the suggestion in mind.
Compensation for Accidents.
THE former Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr. J. H. Whitley, chairman of the Voluntary Hospitals (Parliamentary) Committee of King Edward's Fund, was principal witness before the House of Lords Select Committee on the Road Traffic (Compensation for Accidents) Bill, last week.
He mentioned that a sum amounting to at least £200,000 a year which people had given for the relief of the sick poor of their neighbourhood was diverted under certain circumstances to deal with accident cases. They felt that where there was any provision in regard to insurance the first charge on any money paid for an accident should be a charge to recompense, at least partially, the hospital for its expenses. They suggested that the amount to be paid by one insurer or owner of a vehicle should not exceed £50 for an in-patient or £5 for an out-patient. Mr. T. C. Foley, secretary of the Pedestrians' Association, also gave evidence and referred to certain loopholes which enabled insurance companies by means of technicalities to avoid the payment of claims, and the difficulty of pedestrians obtaining compensation owing to their inability to prove the negligence of the motorist or to their poverty.