CONTROL BY LICENCE

Evening Post, Volume CXII, Issue 7, 8 July 1931, Page 9

CONTROL BY LICENCE

The Transport Licensing Bill introduced in the House of Representatives yesterday differs from the Bill submitted two years ago in three important particulars: (1) There is no| provision for advisory bodies to work with the Transport Ministry in formulating a co-ordination policy; (2) the licensing authorities are to be nominated and not representative; (3) control of goods transport is to be gradually applied in "controlled area's," not by districts as with passenger services. Though there is little evidence' available of useful achievement by former advisory bodies (which were in any circumstances not well balanced), we regret the omission of machinery for consultation between transport operators, road-makers, and the public. A uniform system is , desirable in licensing, and without some central Transport Council we fail to see how this uniform system can be defined and accepted. Certainly there is to be a central appeal board; but we think it would be better to frame a co-ordination plan in the first place rather than to leave one to be^ evolved | by the long and indirect process of appeal. Nomination of licensing authorities may prove: good or bad according, to the wise discretion exercised in the choice of members. The aim is independence, and ( this is necessary., . There is ample evidence of the faulty operation of a licensing system which puts too much power in.the hands of bodies directly interested in transport operation. Preference to the Government and to local bodies is proposed, and to this we cannot object, provided,it is not absolute. Exclusive preference is not warranted, for public authorities at times need the spur of competition. The principle of preference (or it might be called protection) .is also to extend to existing services. This is a principle which must be carefully scrutinised lest it go too far in the establishment of vested interests. In Great Britain the Ministry of Transport deemed it necessary to warn operators of services and the local authorities who were licensing them that it must not be assumed that the Traffic Commissioners would renew the licences. We had occasion to point out some time ago that protection against future competition could not safely be guaranteed to all existing services. Such services had" disregarded existing vested interests and could scarcely claim to have created new vested interests for themselves. The differentiation, between passenger and'goods/services.in the, application of the licensing system rather suggests that the Government is doubtful of the,wisdom of interference with road-freighting. < It is true that the differentiation follows the British precedent, but conditions are different, If there is to be a real co-ordination of road and rail, goods services cannot be omitted from the scheme. The Bill, however, does provide machinery for a start in control. That is the main point. Valuable time has been wasted, and there should.be no further delay.