MOTOR TRANSPORT

Dominion, Volume 21, Issue 131, 2 March 1928, Page 9

MOTOR TRANSPORT

“BIG FIVE’S” BILL IN HOUSE OF COMMONS A MIXED RECEPTION MEASURE READ A SECOND TIME The Bill promoted by the “big five” railway companies of Britain, designed to give them powers to run road motor sen vices, has received a mixed reception in the House of Cornmons. Thz measure, however, passed its second reading. BY Telegraph.—press association —Copyright. London, February 28. The House of Commons opened a two days’ debate on the Bill promoted by "The Big Five” railways, giving them powers to run motor services of passengers ind goods in opposition to road transport companies. Mr J- Q- Lamb (Con.), in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that the railways already had thirty-five thousand vehicles on the road, of which four thousand were motor vehicles. He objected to giving them power enabling them to embark in an entirely new business. He believed that the existing competition ensured lower charges .to farmers and other produce: s. Mr A. C. N. Dixev (Con.), in seconding the rejection, said that the Bill would give companies power to squeeze out every small motor-omnibus company. Rather than give the railways a, monopoly he would prefer to see the railways nationalised.

Mr. Edward Grenfell (Con.) said that the question was whether the railways should be prevented from competing with road transport companies, who at present had a stranglehold upon the railways. He repudiated the idea that the Bill would enable the railways to establish a monopoly. The present harassing restrictions should be removed. Sir R. A. Sanders (Con.) said that the railways had a prima facie case which should be referred to a committee for investigation The fear of the agriculturists that if the railways got these powers the rates would go up was unfounded. Mr. J. Bromley (Lab.) earnestly supported the Bill. He urged that the railway employees were meeting the unregulated competition of men who were driving ramshackle vehicles on the roads at wages as low as 30s. to 355. per week. BILL READ A SECOND TIME GUARDING AGAINST A MONOPOLY (Rec. March 1, 7.30 p.m.) London, February 29. The House of Commons is continuing the railway debate. Mr. R. ‘R. Kennedy (C.) expressed the opinion that the railways were seeking a statutory right to go on the roads, to the exclusion of competitors. Their complaint regarding the rate burden was a pretence. The railways’ aggregate rafe worked out at one-lortieth of a penny per ton per mile of goods carried. The Hon. W. W. Ashley (C.) said no new principle was involved. The railways were simply’ seeking an extension of their existing powers to participate in road traffic. The railways were taking an increasing part in road traffic in everv country. He knew of no case of a rigid refusal to give such powers. It was a world problem being dealt with in different ways in different countries. Mr. Ashley agreed that there were objections to a monopoly of powers, and he did not regard the Bill’s safeguards against them as adequate. He would propose amendments to strengthen them, obliging the railways to obtain the Ministry of transport’s sanction to institute or withdraw services, but there was no reason why the Bill should not be read a second time. Mr. J. H. Thomas said the railwaymen feared that their standard of living’ might be lowered by the competition of other transport workers. The interests of both railwaymen and companies would be served by passing the BiH. . r onn The amendment was negatived by o9J votes to 42, and the Bill was read a second time.—A.P.A. and “Sun.”