TRANSPORT BILL WEARIES HOUSE

Rotorua Morning Post, Issue 5284, 21 December 1946, Page 5

TRANSPORT BILL WEARIES HOUSE

(Press Assn.-

STRONGLY CONTfiSTFD

3R1TISH PRESS JOINS IN SEVERE CRITICISM

-Rec. 9.30 v.m.)

LONDON, Dec. 20. Although the three days' debate on the second reading of the Transport Bill plainly wearied the House of Commons by the sheer reiteration of some of the speeches, the size of the vote against it and the continuing reports of criticism and objections outside the House indicate that this mammoth "three-decker" measure is likely to be contested every inch of its way to the Statute Book. Both The London Times and The Manchester Guardian, which hitherto have been synipathetically disposed towards the Government's nationalisation nieasures this morning reiterate their objections to the Bill in it.s present form. "There are times when memhers of the Government seem to regard the puhlic interest as their private property or even prerogative ; yet Ministers tencl to be tongue-tied when asked how they propose to measure it," says the Times, which adds that the criticism of the proposed ternis of compensatio'n will not be allayed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr. Hugh Dalton's skilful pleading. The speeches will also not allay the fears of ministerial patronage or of political interference. The Times aho criticises Mr. Dalton's description of the railway system as a "very poor bag of assets" and remarks that the Government is subseribing to a very dangerous principle when it sets itself up as judge of its own case. The Manchester Guardian says it is obvious from the vague generalities of the Minister of Transport as well as from the entertaining evasions of the Chancellor that the Government has a firm belief in; the general principles of the measure but only the haziest notion of how it is going to woi'k. The Guardian claims that the ■measure, in its present form, is so full of obvious defects that any advantages single ownership may bring will almost certainly be swamped by the disadvantages of an excessively 1: rge and rigid monopoly. It concludes by expressing the hope that the Government will take the Bill in hand and "make alterations without which the future of British transport will be grini." Opposition Grows When Railways Discussed LONDON, Dec. 20. Both inside and outside the House

there has been considerable criticism of Mr. Dalton's references to the allegedly poor standard of the British railways serviee. It is pointed out that the Chancellor made no allowances for the railway companies' great serviee to the wai* effort and to the effect of the war upon their rolling stock and equipnient. It is also pointed out that since 1939 they have been prevented by Government control from carrying out any but the most necessary repairs. The Minister of Transport claimed that the railway companies had not sufficient capital to undertake those repairs but he did not mention that the companies have an equipment and renewal fund of £225,000,000 which they were very wifling to j spend if given the chance. Discussing the question of public opposition to the Bill the Daily Telegraph, which describes the measure as a "puhlic calamity" asks why was it that traders, whose prosperity depends upon efficient transport; were unanimously opposed to the measure. "Unanimously" was perhaps too wide a term to apply but there was no doubt that the great majority of organised private transport and investment interests in the country were determined to oppose the Bill by every possihle means. Protest Over Compensation The latest organisation to join the campaign is the Scottish Railways Htockholders' Protection Association, which is to be backed by the Scottish Road Haulage Association in organising* opposition in the north. The Transport Users committee of the Manchester Chamber* of Commerce has also prepared a petitio-n which described the Bill as "threatening disaster to the industry," and intends to present it to the House of Commons. The rate at which the Government proposes to compensate the Railway stockholders continues to create protests from all parts of the country. This is not difficult to understand in view of the wide extent to which railway stocks are distributed amcng various elasses of the community. From the middle qf the Victorian age onwards railway stocks have been considered one of Britain's "safe" investments and to-day a vast number of private investors as well as many of Britain's largest trusts and pension funds depend upon them for much cf their income. One example is provided by friendly societies and religious organisations trust funds which together represent an investment . of £300,000,000 in railway securities. If the Transport Bill is adopted in its present form many of these investors will have their return cut from four to two and a-half per cent. Moreover, ,the number of "giltedged" stocks, in which they can reinvest has been drastically reduced in recent years.