Socialists Attack Amendment Bill
Page 31
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
• Supporters Quote Lancashire Cotton Industry's Dissatisfaction with B.R.S.
LABOUR members immediately began to attack the Transport (Amendment) Bill when it was considered in Standing Committee of the House of Commons, last week. The committee adjourned until April 5.
The threatened attack on the C-licensee did not materialize. Most of the arguments employed against the Bill were well worn.
Mr. H. Hynd (Lab., Accrington), :aking on the clause which proposes increase the free haulier's radius to miles, said it was the most vital part the Bill. If it became law, it would npletely destroy the present Transrt Act. That.radius would become a .meter of 120 miles and, by. choosing lain selected centres throughout the antry, private operators could take " whole of the industrial work. They mid take the cream of the traffic and ve the Road Haulage Executive as /lofting quite ineffective.
Mr. Hynd—Mathematician Mr. Hynd went on to recall that the mister of Transport, during the proedings of the 1947 Act, said quite :arly that 25 miles was an arbitrary sire. The 25-mile radius, said Mr. ,Pitd, gave an operative area of some )00 sq. miles; the proposal in the Bill iuld increase that area to over 11,000 . miles. Such an increase would mpletely destroy the purpose and ectiveness of the R.H.F.
Referring to the industry's view of 25-,mile radius, 'Mr. Ilynd also :ailed that the Parliamentary Secrery to the Minister of Transport stated, iring consideration of the amendments the 1947 Act, that hauliers themIves had proposed a 20-mile limit for e small man.
In 1946, the Association of British umbers of Commerce, in a report on tionalization, mentioned a radius of miles. He suggested that the figure 25 was a friendly and reasonable mprornise of these suggestions.
Should 170m. Be Wasted?
Mr. Hynd said that £70m. was being .id in compensation to long-distance Li/tiers and the traffic reorganized on new basis. Was it suggested that this m be wasted, so that hauliers should 'Ain be entitled to enter into business ithin a 60-mile radius? That was 'realistic and unfair.
Mr. J. R. Bevins (Cons., Toxtelh), ho promoted the Bill, said it was a gross exaggeration" to say that if the ause became law, it would undermine Le whole working of the Transport ct. The clause was merely aimed at :tending the operations of A and -licence holders.
It would ease the pressure of com:titian in the sphere of local haulage, which British Road Services were ;dye. It was possible that what .11.,S, would lose outside the 25-mile 'dins, they would gain in the shortstance field.
Mr. Bevins said it was "quite fantastic ' to suggest that hauliers would always be running 120 miles. He contended that a 25-mile radius was a great hardship. It was, indeed, a most serious matter in the case of many independent hauliers.
"The milling industry in Liverpool and other principal ports have found that since the 1947 Act became operative, transport facilities from the outlying rural areas to the ports have very considerably deteriorated. If the radius was extended from 25 to 60, their position would be very greatly improved," he declared.
Dealing, with the position of the cotton industry in Lancashire, Mr. Bevins said that in the past, the Raw Cotton Commission had been using independent hauliers to carry from the the docks to warehouses, and B.R.S. to take the cotton from the warehouses to the spinning mills.
Recently, there had been a dispute between the Cotton Commission and B.R.S., because the Commission declined to pay increased charges. The Commission was therefore trying, in face of cotAiderable difficulties, to handle its transport with independent hauliers.
totton Commission's View?
Mr. Bevins declared: "If the Raw Cotton Commission were put the question, 'Would you prefer the existing radius of 25 miles to stand, or an increase to 60 miles? ' members opposite would get a very forthright reply."
After Mr. R. W. Williams (Lab., Wigan) • had interrupted to ask whether Mr. Bevins had evidence of that attitude. Mr. Bevins went on to state that he had evidence that, generally, the feeling in the cotton trade, both in Liverpool and in Lancashire itself, was that the facilities and charges of B.R.S. were not what they ought to be.
He believed that if a ballot were taken of people in the cotton industry, they would make it clear that they would prefer a 60-mile radius.
Mr. C. C. Poole (Lab., Perry Barr, Birmingham) said he could not remember any case where a private member's Bill had ever sought completely to upset the provisions of a major Government measure. He had tried to find out why a 60-mile radius was considered the Utopia at which the distance should be fixed. The promoters of the Bill had gone to exactly double the distance that was considered necessary in war time for effective control and integration of road services.
The British Transport Commission, he added, was unable at present to find traffic for all its road vehicles, and if the proposal succeeded, it would worsen that position at the expense of the taxpayer.
Mr. G. Nabarro (Cons., Kidderminster) said he was closely in touch with industry. in Birmingham. There was a great volume of raw materials and goods carried by road between Birmingham and Liverpool. The present 25-mile radius restriction was inflicting a grave hardship on manufacturers, who were not entirely satisfied with the facilities offered by B.R.S.
• Users Want Extensions Most of these manufacturers, he said, would welcome the radius extension, which would have two results—greater efficiency in delivery and rates as low as possible.
The more intense the competition between C-licensees, private hauliers and State vehicles, the greater the degree of efficiency that could be obtained. • The 25-mile radius was arbitrary and unsatisfactory to users.
It was extremely difficult for fruit and vegetable growers in his constituency to send their goods economically • to Birmingham and Coventry through B.R.S., because the State haulage undertaking was not sufficiently flexible to deal with medium
distance hauls • of a specialized character.
Mr. John Hay (Cons., Henley) pointed out that the House of Commons had given the Bill a second reading, and if the Committee voted against Clause I, and the other clauses were deleted, it would be going against the decision, not only of the Commons on second reading, but that of the House of Lords, too.
Mr. I. 0. Thomas (Lab., The Wrekin) said that financial considerations were
involved. If the• 25-mile limit was removed, the nation would be faced with the creation of a new vested interest in long-distance haulage up to a maximum of 120 miles. He said that if the clause, or Bill as a whole, were accepted, private road haulage would skim the cream of road traffic.
Reduce Cost of Living •
Mr. A. J. F. MacDonald (Lib., Roxburgh and Selkirk) • said that only by securing efficient transport at the cheapest possible level could Parliament help to reduce the cost of living. A 60-mile radius would have been a fairer figure to lay down in the Act.
He continued: "We are not trying to sabotage nationalized transport. We do not like nationalized road transport, but we have got to accept it, and in the interest of the country, make it pay."
It would not "skim the cream" if the small haulier's radius were extended to 60 miles; the cream should be in efficiently run long-distance haulage.
Mr. J. Harrison (Lab., Nottingham East) said that if the clause were accepted, it would perpetuate the chaotic state of road transport existing before the passing of the Act.