NEW CLAUSE.—(Amendment of s. 72 of the principal Act.) (Hansard, 28 June 1934)

§ Mr. McKEAG

I beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."

This deals with that part of Section 72 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, which gives power to railway companies to lodge objections to applications by omnibus operators for road service licences, and who appear in the traffic commissioners' courts in support of those objections. I will read those words which constitute the part of the Section which I seek to amend: The commissioners shall … take into consideration any representations which may be made by persons who are already providing transport facilities along or near to the routes or any part thereof or by any local authority in whose area any of the routes or any part of any of the routes is situate. That gives the railway companies the same range of objection as is given to the competing omnibus services; in other words, the railway companies are given the same rights as are given to omnibus operators who may be running along the same routes. It is true that the Act of 1930 sought to secure co-ordination of all forms of passenger transport, but in 1370 putting down this Amendment my desire was that the railway companies should still have the rights of objection and representation, but with some limitation. If the Section is amended as I now suggest, the railway companies will still be able to go to the Traffic Commissioners' courts, lodge objections, and put forward particulars of their own services, because it will then read that the Commissioners, in deciding whether or not to grant a road service licence to any omnibus operator shall take into consideration any representations which may be made by persons who are already providing road transport facilities along or near to the routes … or by persons who are providing rail or other transport facilities, whose representations however shall be restricted to the presentation by them for the consideration of the commissioners of the time tables and fare tables of the services provided by them. I submit that that Section would give to the railway companies all the power which they should properly have if the object of the 1930 Road Traffic Act is to be carried out, namely, that co-ordination of all forms of transport, including rail transport, should be secured, if at all possible, and it would enable the railway companies to place before the Traffic Commissioners full particulars of the services which they provide, their time tables and their fare tables, and the Commissioners would be bound to take into consideration the information so provided. All that the Amendment does is to restrict to some extent the present practice of the railway companies in carrying on hearings before the Traffic Commissioners to interminable lengths on objections and by way of cross-examination on all sorts of things not even remotely connected with the services of the railway companies.

1371 I would ask the House to have regard to the present anomalous position, in which the railway companies have full power of objection to applications by omnibus operators, but the omnibus operators have no power at all of representation or objection against railway companies' rail operations. This power of the railway companies to object to every application by omnibus operators has been abused to a very considerable extent. It has become their invariable practice to object to every application by private omnibus operators on principle, even when the competition of those operators with the service provided by the railway companies is only the remotest possible contingency. The railway companies are also invariably represented before the Traffic Commissioners by lawyers, who subject the operators and their witnesses to very long cross-examination; and for purposes of self-preservation the omnibus operators as well, no matter how small the case may be, are compelled to be legally represented. By that process omnibus operators have had a terrible burden thrust upon them. The hearings before the Traffic Commissioners have been unnecessarily prolonged, and the transport industry has been subjected to, an avoidable expenditure of thousands of pounds. In many cases the smaller omnibus operators, faced with the powerful and persistent opposition of the railway companies, have at last crashed financially, or have been compelled to give up the ghost and sell out to competing omnibus concerns, which, in many cases, have been associated companies of the railways. I submit that practice has shown that objections by railway companies have taken up unnecessarily the time of the Commissioners' courts and that the Commissioners have no control whatever over the railway companies' services.

This fact has produced somewhat farcical results at times. There is, for instance, the case of a railway company which has been objecting to an application by an omnibus operator on the ground that the fares to be charged by the operator were too small. The Traffic Commissioners have had regard to representations of the railway companies and have stated that they would only grant 1372 the application provided that the fares were increased. The moment the decision has been given by the commissioners, the railway companies have forthwith proceeded to reduce their own fares and the Traffic Commissioners have had no control whatever over their action. There is also the case of the railway companies who have objected to these applications on the ground that adequate travel facilities are already provided by them and by the other transport undertakings. The commissioners have had regard to those representations by the railway companies, and have perhaps insisted upon certain restrictions reducing the omnibus operators' services. As soon as the railway companies have achieved their object in that direction, they have proceeded to reduce their own facilities, and again the Traffic Commissioners have had no control over them.

Mr. STANLEY

I am sure that the hon. Member who moved this Clause, and the House, will believe that I am only too anxious to do anything to deal with people who take up unnecessary time. I do not think, however, that the time taken up by these applications before the authorities can be described as time wasted. We must remember that the fundamental principle of the scheme laid down by the Road Traffic Act was the co-ordination by this machinery of all forms of traffic, including the railways. Frankly, I cannot see how that co-ordination can be carried out if one of the principal constituents of the co-ordinating body is to be refused the right of proper representation during these proceedings. Apparently, the railway company appear and can put in their time schedules and their fare tables, but even if during the course of the hearing they find that one of their rivals is making a statement which they know to be untrue, they have no right to stand up and cross-examine, and no opportunity for bringing the real facts of the case to the notice of the Commissioners. I submit that in those circumstances to expect the Commissioners to carry out their duties of coordinating all forms of traffic would be idle, and I therefore cannot accept the Clause.