COMMITTEE REJECTS HE AMENDMENT BILL
Page 26
Page 27
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
All Clauses Defeated by 25-23 Vote : Special Report to the Commons
nN Tuesday, the Committee Stage on the Transport (Amendment)
• -/Bill was concluded and all the clauses were rejected, in each case by a vote of 25 to 23. A special report is now to be made to the House of Commons. The Bill is virtually dead.
Speaking last week on the proposal to increase the free haulier's radius from 25 miles to 60 miles, Mr. G. E. P. Thorneycroft (Cons., Monmouth) likened the present control of road transport in Britain to that of Nazi Germany.
Continuing his reply to Labour arguments at the previous meeting, he said it was complete nonsense to claim that the nationalized edifice would come tottering down if the haulier's radius were increased.
Saying that the transport system of German pre-war National Socialism seemed now to be proudly acclaimed by Labour M.P.s, Mr. Thorneycroft declared that, whilst it might be thought that the Labour Party preferred to model its transport system on what went on in Germany before the war, it was disgraceful that it should seek to impose such a model upon the free road hauliers of this country.
The model of Adolf Hitler was a wholly miserable precedent for a free country and a free people. It was untrue, too, to say that the Opposition believed in unbridled competition. Anybody who required a licence had to go to the Licensing Authority and prove the need for it.
Mr. R. W. Williams (Lab., Wigan) asked whether there was any juslifica
lion for a distinction between a 60-mile limit and the 25 miles laid down in the Transport Act, 1947. Mr. Thorneycroft replied that there was a very strong case for removing the limit altogether, but this would call for a major reform.
The Opposition's idea was not to undermine the whole basis of the Act, but to make amendments which it considered were fair and equitable to road hauliers and their customers.
The £70m. compensation was not paid for a monopoly. The Act specifically laid down that it was not to be paid upon a monopoly basis.
Mr. Alfred Barnes, Minister of Transport, said he did not think that anyone could deny that the Bill sought to upset the 1947 Act in a relatively important way. The monopoly of the British Transport Commission was limited by Act of Parliament, because it in no way sought to interfere with the rights of private business. It exempted specialized traffic and left untouched the field of local transport.
Minister Agrees He agreed that the existing 25-mile limit was an arbitrary figure. By the very nature of the industry, however. one could not find a basis which would represent equality between one haulier and another, because of differences in operational bases. The aim was that only those predominantly engaged in long-distance traffic should be acquired. Dealing with Mr. J. R. Bevins's complaint (reported in "The Commercial Motor" on March 30) that traders in Lancashire, and Manchester and Liverpool in particular, were dissatisfied with British Road Services, Mr. Barnes said that returns showed art increase in tonnage.
In January this year, the Manchester district showed an advance from 177,000 tons to 232,000 tons, arej the Liverpool area from 175,000 tons to 275,000 tons. Tonnage in the two districts together showed an increase of 41 per cent., compared with an increase of 12 per cent, over the whole system of British Road Services.
When the acquisition of specified undertakings was completed, B.R.S. would be running 40,000 vehicles, whilst the number of Aand B-licence vehicles on local transport, which would not be acquired, would exceed 100,000.
Mr. Barnes could see no reason why the committee should set out to destroy a public asset for a limited number of hauliers. Mr. Bevins said that the figures given by the Minister proved his contention that in districts like Manchester and Liverpool, traders were forced to use B.R.S. because the distance between their towns and the ports was over 25 miles.
The clause was rejected.
The remaining clauses of the Bill came before the committee on Tuesday, Supporting Clause 3, applying the licensing system to goods vehicles of the British Transport Commission, Mr.
Niall MacPherson Dumfries) said he believed that there should be one law for -all, whereas the Party opposite believed in privilege.
The B.T.C. is a vested interest," he declared. "Sooner or later the British sense of justice and impartiality insist that the Commission should be subject to exactly the same rules and regulations as other operators."
Mr. MacPherson said that the Minister should make a gracious gesture and accept the clause, knowing that eventually it would become the law of the land, and knowing that his own reputation would be greatly enhanced if he admitted that he had seen the error of his ways in time. it was the duty of the Minister to integrate the whole of the transport of the country,
Mr. C. C. Poole (Lab., Perry Bar) told the committee that there were 250,000 vehicles surplus to requirement operating in this country.
Lord Douglas Hamilton (Cons., Inverness) declared that if the Road Haulage Executive succeeded in driving out the private hauliers, the tendency would be the same as in every other nationalized industry—to push up prices. The key to this matter, he contended. was controlled competition.
The way to help development was efficient and cheap transport, and the best way to keep prices down was com petition. That was why he did not wish to see any form of transport on short distances operating under any kind of privilege.
Referring to private operators, Mr. Thorneycroft declared: "Lord Ilurcomb and the Transport Commission mean to drive these men out of business."
The clause was rejected.
Clause 4, requiring the Commission to keep a register of haulage vehicles, was also rejected by 25 votes to 23.
All the remaining clauses in the Bill were rejected, and on the suggest-ion of