LONDON TRAFFIC

Hokitika Guardian, 9 May 1931, Page 3

LONDON TRAFFIC

BILL BEFORE PARLIAMENT. BUSINESS BOARD. LONDON, March 2(5. The future control of Lonuon passenger traffic was d -ted in the House of commons on Monday on the second reading of the London Passenger Transport Bill. Air H. Morrison, Minister for Transport, who presented the case loj- the Bill, did not disguise from th e iiouso that in proposing tluit the various transport agencies should lie transferred to a public corporation, lie was dealing with a vast and complicated business. In the aggregate the !-

transport undertakings, excluding main lines, carried in 1930 nearly 3,500,000,000 passengers—an increase of 000.0-jOjOOO, or 10 per cent., compared with 1925. Corresponding figures of the number of suburban passengers carried by main line services wore not available, but it was estimated that the passenger journeys taium in Greater London per lu*»d of the population had trebk'd in tire last three years.

COMPETITION MUST GO. If competition involved a needless charge of only id per passenger journey for the 4,000,000,000 journeys, which must have been exceeded for all services in 1930, that id per journey would aggregate over £4,000,000 in a year. If consolidation should in time save that amount of money, it could be set aside for much needed »lcvelopmeiit—reduction ol fart's or better working conditions. Essentials in dealing with a problem of this character were;—

They must qot tinker with the problem. Competition must go.

Co-ordination must not be a mere phrase to cover up a deal between (he existing operators, but single consol Mated o w nersli ip. The tram mind, the hus mind, and the tube mind must give way to the transport mind, which could look at the prohlcm as a whole.. A single consolidated ownership must’ involve public ownership for public service. There must he efficient management, find the • combined concerns must pnv their way and not require anv suhcifiv from the State or municipal funds.

ELECTORAL MINDS. The effective ‘area of London traffic was approximately 1.800; square miles, and there was not a- suitable municipal authority for its management He had considered whether 'the new authority should be a State Depart ihent. He had a great admiration foi the Civil Service, but lie had decided that the old idea of Departmental nationalisation was not appropriate for business undertakings ol this kind. (Conservative laughter). All politicians had electoral minds. They sometimes Isubmitted to pressure, and might- submit to pressure with regard to concessions regarding fares and salaries. He had come to the conclusion that on the whole politicians as such were better outside the function of management unless the politician qualified for management. Mr Morrison evaded a very real difficulty when he was asked what would happen if the Minister for Transport (who appoints the Commissioners') disagrees with their policy. His reply was that they never do disagree, and Dint „h-?n Englishmen get away from polities to pure issues of business it iastonishing how amicable they can be. and how small become the difference.that loom so large in the politic.'-.’ sphere.

Sir Philip CuiilifFe-Uistcr pc inter 1 out that when one legislates for perpetuity one cannot assume as a mat ter of course that the Minister lo: Transport will always he as disinter estedlv keen on efficiency .as the pie. sent Minister for Transport. He aria eked the Bill as a measure of Socialism which his Party must resist despite tlie five' Coinii’i-iSioners, th real responsibility was the Minister’s, and it was too much to be entrusted iiito his hands; the parallel with the EP'ctncit" Commissioners wn« not sound. At the same time, Sir P'"il:p prai s ed Air Morrison’s speech highly. Air Percy A. Harris, the Liberal spokesman, who is deputy chairman of the L.0.C.. objected to the Bill from the point of view of a municipalise)'. Municipal ownershop seen in the new public utility company a s erious rival in a sphere where local government lias Had no rivals hitherto, and here we ave a cross current ot opposition that may give Air Alorrison more trouble than the objection to Socialism as sucli. Mr Harris threatened, un.eVs representation was given to local government authorities, to vote against the Bill on the third reading.

THE LONDON PUBLIC. The. K) , final criticism camp horn »ir Kingsley Woo l. He burlesqueu the Bill and its “bnrenucrat'c autocracy,’’ and prophesied that the London public opinion the omnipotent Board would discover themselves heavy loser®. In the division the Oovernment had a majority of 47 for the second reading! the figures being 271 and 224.

NEW SYSTEAf OF CONTROL. RUGBY. Alay 2. By a rge majority file shareholders of the London Underground Transport Group approved of the proposed terms upon which the companies will be ac-

q hired under the scheme for the coordination of te London passenger transport services under a public board appointed by th Minister for Transport. Mr Herbert Morrison. Tlie terms were strongly recommended by the president (Lord' Ashfield). •vho, rep'.ving to criticisms, pointed out that the proposed board would be quite free from political interference.

Negotiations are also in .progress between the Transport Minuter anu other undertakings involved in tlie scheme.

Tt ’s estimated that the underground group en pied nearly 2,20>.000.000 passenger- each year.