The Press Thursday, June 24, 1926. The Bus Regulations.

Press, Volume LXII, Issue 18726, 24 June 1926, Page 8

The Press Thursday, June 24, 1926. The Bus Regulations.

On Tuesday afternoon petitions signed by over 70,000 persons were presented to Parliament praying for some mitigation of the motor-bus regulations. There has been plenty of evidence, since the regulations were gazetted, that they are very unpopular, and offend the public's sense of justice, but there has been no sign that the Government intends to heed public opinion in this matter. If the Government, or those interested in the enforcement of the regulations, doubt this, they should endeavour to obtain, in the area in which the petitions referred to were circulated, a still larger number of signatures in favour of the unwarranted attempt to strangle a perfectly legitimate private enterprise. We are far from thinking that the voice of the majority is always the voice of wisdom—although the constitution of the country obliges the Government to think so—but there is really no doubt in anyone's mind that the public is right in thinking that the regulations, even if not ultra vires, are a blow at efficiency and progressive methods in city and suburban passenger transport In the meantime the Government, through its officials, who are inveterately hostile to private competition with publicly-owned enterprises, has modified the regulation commanding the buses to charge higher fares than are charged by the tramways on runs already served by the trams. It is now provided that a busowner may apply to the licensing authority, and on appeal to the Transport Appeal Board, for exemption from the obligation to charge higher fares than either he or the public desires. But the onus is upon him to show, either that the facilities for conveyance which he offers are'" desirable in "the public interest," or that otherbuses are in use or are. intended to be used to carry passengers at less than the penal fare, or that the exemption he asks for " will not conduce to " any method of competition, trading, " or business which would be unfair or "prejudicial to any transport under- " taking (including the business of "the owner or applicant himself),-or "to the public welfare." - - If anyone had ever given any good reason why the Government should have imade this particular regulation, there might be something to be said for the idea that a bus-owner, should thus sue for exemption from it. No good reason, however, has ever been given for it, and justice and-common-sense alike command that bus-owners should not be subject to the regulation unless the tramway authority could appear before the licensing body and ; give sound reasons why this handicap should be imposed upon the buses. The burden of proof should lie upon the tramway authorities. The extract we have quoted above is a most unpleasant illustration of the want of fairness and candour in the attack on the buses. It affects to be an invocation of the principle of Section 26 of the Board of Trade Aot, 1919, and borrows some of its language. Yet what that Section (under which the regujations were made) aims at is "the prevention "or suppression of monopolies and " combinations in or in relation to any "industry," and "the prohibition, "regulation, or control of differential "prices or rates for goods or services, " or the differential treatment of differ- " ent persons or classes of persona in " respect of goods or services." That is to say, the actual authority for the regulations is an Act. expressly designed to prevent the very thing which the regulations propose! The amendment of the regulation relating to fares shows that the officials who advise the Government are well aware of this, for they slip into their verbiage a parenthesis " (including the business of "the owner or applicant himself)" which is evidence at once of a guilty conscience and of a determination to brazen it out We are asked to believe that the Act contemplated that the Government should pass regulations to destroy a business in order that those engaged in it might be proteoted against themselves! It was an honest Act, designed to protect legitimate businesses from' unfair combinations and price manipulations, and it has been most seriously perverted to an end the exact opposite of this. Although the Bolsheviks in the House of Representatives will support the regulations—hating, as they do, private enterprise in all its forms—while the Ministerialists will be reluctant to oppose the Government, we hope that when the regulations come before the House there will be some members sufficiently conscientious to make a strong protest