RAILWAY ROAD TRANSPORT BILLS.
Page 52
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Arguments of Counsel Against the Grant of Additional Powers to the Railways.
riERTAIN Scottish county councils petitioning
against the Road Transport Bills were represented by Mr. Douglas Jainieson, K.C., before the Joint Committee. In presenting their case, he emphasized the additional burden which would be thrown on the road authorities in respect of the strengthening and upkeep of road bridges over the railways if the railway companies were granted the powers sought and used them. Counsel submitted a clause providing for an apportionment by an arbitrator of the costs between the railway company. and the road authority in cases where it was necessary to strengthen or reconstruct bridges or roads as a result of additional traffic being operated regularly upon them by the railway companies. He said they would also ask to he placed in a position to make representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal in the event of a monopoly being created and unreasonable rates and fares being charged, or in the event of the railway companies withdrawing services if such action were contrary to the public interest.
Mr. Arthur Moon, K.C., represented the Trafford Park Estates, Ltd., and the Trafford Railway Co., who opposed the Bills on the ground that the estate adjoining Manchester Docks, which had been fully developed, and the traffic on the railways and sidings within the Park would be injuriously affected. He suggested a clause which provided that the railway companies should not without the consent of his clients operate or enter into agreement for operating road vehicles within Trafford Park.
The Farmers' Arguments.
The case of the National Farmers' Union was submitted by Mr Le Quesne, K.C., his main contentien being that the powers proposed to be given to the railway companies would end the existing competition between railway and road transport, which alone was responsible for maintaining rates at a reasonably low level.
Sir Lynden Macassey, K.C., contended on behalf of the Commercial Motor Users Association that there was no evidence from traders in support of the railway companies' case, and Mr. J. H. Thorpe, speaking for the National Traction Owners Association, maintained that the railway companies would undoubtedly compete with the traction business, Sir Josiah Stamp having admitted that, if there was money in it, they would certainly explore it. Mr. Thorpe remarked that when a man like Sir Josiah Stamp began to explore its possibilities there would he very short commons for the others.
Mr. Gordon Alchin afterwards spoke on behalf of the Motor Hire Purchase Association against the Bills.
Commercial Opposition.
Major-General Sidney Long, a managing director of Lever Brothers and chairman of the Transport Committee of the Federation of British Industries, was then called as a witness for the Federation, the Mansion House Association on Railway and Canal Traffic and the London Chamber of Commerce. He emphasized the likelihood of the railway companies under .their proposals creating a monopoly The big men in the road-transport business would probably be the first to go because of the difficulty they would have owing to trade union organizations, but the small man would follow, with the result that in ten years the bulk of the road traffic would be in the hands of the railway companies. Such a monopoly would mean the creation of one vast trade union of transport workers, which, in the event of a strike, would bring the life of the country to a standstill in a greater degree than die
a strike in thecoal and mining or any other vital industry.
Cross-examined by Mr. H. P. Macmillan, K.C., he admitted that he would approve of a war of extermination between the railway companies and the road companies so long as the weapon used was the cutting of rail rates. That would only exterminate the longdistance road haulier, who he thought was not of any great advantage to the country. He thought It was possible for the railways, bysome judicious arrangement, to cut their ordinary tares. He could not see how the railways were going to make more money by running motor omnibuses to Brighton and other places at the rates of the existing firms or lower rates. As a commercial man, the last thing he would dream of doing was to put money into motor-omnibus undertakings. The principle of his opposition was the realization that there would be no ultimate protection for the public.
The Risk Which Traders Would Run.
Mr. Walter Gaunt, distribution manager of Messrs. J. Lyons and Co., Ltd., and vice-president of the Institute of Transport and of the Mansion House Association, examined by Mr. Stafford Cripps, K.C., expressed the view that by making improvements and varying their practice the railways were already getting back traffic, and that was a better method than embarking on road transport. He contemplated the danger of the railways under their road powers being able to prefer one trader against another, which would be an extremely serious matter, especially to small traders. The working arrangements of the railways were not sufficiently facile to suit present-day requirements, and in cases necessitating transfers there was failure to accomplish the journey with the reliability which was usual with road vehicles. Whilst he did not actually fear one huge railway monopoly, he thought there would be a very great tendency to monopoly in certain districts.
Mr. James Bradnum, vice-president of the National Federation of Fruit and Potato Trade Salesmen, gave evidence regarding the transport of produce. The position in regard to -goods reaching the market in proper time, he said, was still unsatisfactory. In the few instances where the railways were faced with road competition they had, after remaining adamant for years, at last provided better facilities for earlymorning deliveries at the markets: The Staffordshire district was one example. They had neglected to provide similar facilities in places where competition did not exist.
Should the Railways be Saved?
Mr. Cripps, addressing the Committee on behalf of the F.B.I. emphasized the fact that fruit from abroad reached this country in a fresher condition than home fruit reached various home markets, and at cheaper rates. There was no evidence; however, that a single trader would benefit by railway services on the roads.
He submitted that the whole case of the promoters was "save the railways." The railway companies having, as they said, got into a bad financial state, and become almost submerged in the sea of competition, clutched at this' straw which they thought might make them float a little longer. It was worth coneidering whether the railways were worth saving, and his submission was that they were not. At any rate, it lay in their own hands to save themselves. Evidence showed that if they liked to use the means already at their disposal the railway companies could save .themselves, and, indeed, were saving themselves. He maintained that the real aim of the railways was to have a vt-eapon to flourish before the road-transpor firms, which would force them to put up the charges so that the railway companies should not have the embarrassment of competition.
The trader, he said, was perfectly prepared to sacri fice, for the sake of obtaining permanence of competi tion, any temporary advantage which he might get by a rate-cutting war which would end in the railway corn panies killing their competitors.
The railway companies had put forward no case on the ground of either public facilities or of saving them selves financially. They had given no details of the services they proposed to run, of the rates to be charged, of classification, of the capital expenditure or of the working expenses. It was impossible for the committee to come to the conclusion that these ancillary services would be of assistance to the net revenue of the railways. The whole of the safeguards in the Bil were mere camouflage. It was contrary to the untini mous practice of Parliamentary committees that any thing should be done to eliminate competitive forms of transport. The view of the traders was that it would be disastrous if the railway companies were allowed to obtain a monopoly.
Mr, H. P. Macmillan, K.C., winding up the case for the promoters said that during the protracted sittings
of the committee there had been 24 speeches and 16,700 questions had been directed to the witnesses. He con tended that from this searching examination the pre amble to the Bills had emerged unscathed. Railway companies were subjected to safeguards, restriction and limitations with which no other Industry had to comply. Owing to this they had been prevented from giving the services they desired.
Now that the centre of gravity of the transpor business had been altered the railway companies, in stead of being in the dominant, monopolistic position which they had occupied until 20 years ago as con trollers of the main transport system of the country found themselves in the presence of a competitor agains whom they were practically powerless. In their endea your to obtain power to adjust themselves to the new conditions they were met with the most strenuous oppo si tion.
The railways had not been superseded as the stage coach had been. They were not an archaic survival but were vitally necessary for the country. The prob lern, therefore, was to accommodate two facts—first that a large amount of passenger and goods traffic ha( been and must necessarily be diverted to the roads, and second, that the railway companies must continue to exist for the conveyance of traffic that could not otherwise he conveyed.
The Committee's Decision.
On Thursday, the Joint Committee announced its decision with regard to the seven Bills. Lord Chelmsford, the chairman, said : The Committee finds that the preamble of the Metrotiolitan Railway Transport Bill is not proved. It finds the preambles of the other six Bills proved, subject to the following conditions: (1) so much of the London traffic area as is within the Administrative County of London shall be excluded from the operation of the Bills; (2) protection shall be given to statutory tramways, trolley and omnibus undertakings of municipal authorities within their municipal boundaries. The Committee intends that this protection should extend to the statutory undertaking of the Middlesex County Council and the statutory undertaking of any Urban District Council. It does not intend this protection to be extended to private statutory tramway or omnibus undertakings.
The Committee understands from the promoters that they are prepared to insert an additional clause empowering the Minister of Transport to institute an enquiry where he is of opinion that the powers conferred by these Bills have been used contrary to the• public interest and to report to Parliament. The Committee understands also from the promoters that they are prepared to insert provision relating to (I) the publication of fares in the omnibus; (2) power of local authorities to make representations; (3) notifications of experimental services to the Minister of Transport.
The Committee will make its report to Parliament recommending that the Minister should promote a Public Bill governing the conditions under which traffic shall be carried on throughout the country and for bringing the powers of the licensing authorities into conformity with modern traffic requirements and giving them power to impose conditions as to fares and to take into account the adequacy of existing services and t:_e congestion of streets and roads.
It is impressed with the need for amending the chaotic state of the law and regard this legislation as of the utmost urgency, but it does not think the passing of these Bills should await the passing of this general The opponents were asked to present their opinion on the safeguarding clauses during the present week.