1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148
149
150
151
152
153
154
155
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172 
.T threat to independents continued from page 41 This, said
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mr. Fay, was competition not m some newcomer to the industry but from at was probably the biggest passenger nsport operator in the world. "To have -npetition from this enormous concern let Ise is bound to have a profound effect on all businesses which hitherto have been .1Itered by the prohibition on London Trans-t from going into these new fields."
Mr. Fay: -We claim that the Bill would able London Transport to enter into unfair -npetition based on subsidies from the rates cross-subsidization of other services."
He said: "since the 1933 Act, operators .re been compelled to build and develop !ir businesses in those fields that were free m the London Transport monopoly created that Act. It is now proposed that the 3cutive may compete anywhere for the its of other operators' labours while mainling the monopoly of London bus services. -us clients also objected to the abolition of right of appeal against a London Transport usal to grant a consent, There was another ;sage, he said, where the GLC could get Executive to take over businesses within ! London area provided they could get the ner to agree.
"This is a straw in the wind and it is lesirable that this sort of thing might hap) after the competition of the colossus of tdon Transport is unleashed on small ;inesses," he said.
fhe committee adjourned for lunch.
Nhen the committee resumed, Mr. Fay d: "Our petition is not based on any major fundamental part of this Bill at all, but rely the curtailment of certain powers ich are peripheral and, in my submission, te unnecessary for the central features of Bill."
Vit. Harold Marnham, QC, representing the )fic Transport Association, another of the itioners, spoke of "the special interest" of se coach and bus companies operating ) and out of London—"an interest which I imit distinguishes them from the ordinary k of bus and coach operators throughout land".
-le said: "We do not object to the transfer Dart of the present London Transport Board iertaking to the Greater London Council, simply to certain of the powers which the visions of the Bill would confer upon the v London Transport Executive."
vlr. Marnham: "If the provisions of the Bill re enacted in their present form, the Metolitan Traffic Commissioners would cease have jurisdiction even to approve routes in iater London bus services".
Ehere would, he claimed be "unfair comition". And he said: "In particular the Exeive would have powers to fix their own :s and charges which are expressly excludfrom the matters to be dealt with by the 3rs Consultative Body, established under Bill."
Marnham: "The effect of the Bill is that Executive would be free to fix its own ts and charges in the Greater London area I it can, if necessary, charge its losses to general rate fund."
-le said: "When one considers the rights I wrongs of the matter, this is a case which es issues of sufficient importance for Parnent to wish to say that this is a matter ich ought to be examined."'
A-. Frank Layfield, QC, for the Ministry of
Transport, said that the Minister, in objecting to these petitioners, did not mean to imply any criticism of them. "He recognizes the valuable representations made to him from time to time by them."
Mr. Layfield spoke of the objection of the so-called power conferred on the GLC to direct the Executive to prepare proposals to take over services provided by others.
He said: "The Minister is anxious there should be no unreasonable apprehension about this. The Bill makes it clear that any transfer must be by agreement, and there will he no compulsory powers here," he assured.
Mr. Layfield was still addressing the committee when it adjourned until Wednesday.
Continuing his arguments, Mr. Layfield then said that the matters to which the petitioners were objecting were clearly ones of public policy. The broad principle was that petitioners against the Bill should not attack public policy unless they could show that special interests had been singled out for special or separate treatment, London Transport Executives, if the Bill were passed, would be entering into competition with all other bus operators operating outside London, and operating to and from the Capital. "The width of the possible area of competition makes plain that there cannot even be implied any singling out", said Mr. Layfield.
Of course it was right to say that some people were affected in different degrees. But that did not mean that they had been singled out either as a category or individually. As in the great majority of public Bills which necessarily affected private interests some categories of persons were affected more seriously than others.
Mr. Layfield invited the committee to say that neither petitioner had satisfied the requirements justifying the granting of locus standi.
Mr. Fred Blackburn, Labour MP for Stalybridge and Hyde, the chairman, said the committee would announce their decision after all submissions had been made.