COMMITTEE HEARS COMPLAINTS OF BUS REGULATIONS.

Star (Christchurch), Issue 17905, 22 July 1926, Page 2

COMMITTEE HEARS COMPLAINTS OF BUS REGULATIONS.

“ LICENSES SHOULD BE GRANTED FOR FIVE YEARS.” (Special to the “Star.”) ELLINGTON, July* 21. All parts of New Zealand were represented, including the main municipal authorities, at the first public, meeting held by the Select Committee to consider the Motor Omnibus Regulations. Mr W. G. M’Donald, who presented the case on behalf of the Wellington ‘ motor bus proprietors, complained of the unreasonableness of the regulations regarding insurance, although the motorbus proprietors did not object to provision being made for insurance. Although it was unreasonable, the insurance clause would not have the effect of putting the proprietors out of business. The regulations meant that his company, the Wellington and Suburban Bus Company, would ha\ v e to carry a cover of over a quarter of a million. At the conference, a floating policy had been suggested by the proprietors, limiting cover on any one bus to from £15,000 to £20,000. He thought that if the insurance question had been left to the proprietors they* could have j fixed it up satisfactorily; “but do not , think that the insurance clause is going I to put us out of business,” said Mr M’Donald. “ You are going to load us with very heavy* premiums, but we are going to carry on.” In a brief reference to the Appeal Board, Mr M’.Donald said he did not think the board should be weighted so heavily against the proprietors as by* four to one. Replying to questions by* Mr Taplev, ] Mr M’Donald said if there were to be j regulations he thought they should apply to New Zealand as a whole. Mr Sidey: What is the position of the Board of Trade? Mr M’Donald: Actually the Board of Trade is out of existence, but its powers were handed over to the Minister. lie added that the requirements of the Board of Trade Act had not been complied with so far as the regu- , la tions were concerned. Mr Macmillan: Do you think that i rel.ef would be granted if the licensing, authority had the right to grant : licenses for a longer term than one j Mr M’Donald: Yes; I think they ! should have power to grant a license for a period of five years. I In reply to Mr Fraser, the witness said they* would have had no objection to the regulations if there had been a complete judicial inquiry. Mr Fraser: What is the value of your plant at present? Witness: I should say that they are of very* little value at present. Mr Fraser: That is under the regulations. What if the regulations did not exist? Mr M’Donald said he thought the buses would be worth about £750 each. Discussing the question of purchase by the City Council of his company's buses, witness said that he had under- ! taken to allow the City Council to secure a full statement of the company’s financial position provided the Mayor would state that he would recommend the council to purchase the company’s fleet. Mr Fraser: Is your company paying its way?—Yes. Are you prepared to submit a statement showing that % —Yes, if the committee desires it. } $ Mr M’Donald admitted that buses could not cope with rush hours unless they were given a monopoly. He estimated that 500 buses would be rc

quired in order to carry out the work efficiently. Answering Mr Potter, the witness said that his impression was that the tramway authorities were consulted before the regulations were framed. The bus people, however, were not consulted. The buses had hot prejudicially affected tramway systems in New Zealand. Mr Dickson: Do you mean to say that buses have not affected Auckland trams? Mr M’Donald: I say they* have not. Replying to Mr Forbes, Mr M’Donald said that the general view of bufc proprietors was that if the regulations were not imposed they* would agree not to cut tram fares. Personally, he did not agree with that view. In concluding his evidence, the witness said that his petition was supported by 14,000 or 15,000 people, and he would like an opportunity to call evidence expressing the views cf the public. At the conclusion of Mr M’Dcnald's evidence, the committee adjourned until ten o’clock to-morrow morning, when consideration will be given to an Auckland petition.