TRANSPORT BILL

Wanganui Chronicle, Volume 74, Issue 199, 24 August 1931, Page 12

TRANSPORT BILL

RIGHT TO LICENSE REPLY TO LOCAL BODIES. ENGLISH FINDING. The objections raised by certain local bodies against the proposals under the Transport Licensing Bill to change the system of licensing is not without precedent. The same opposition was voiced before the English Royal Commission, which condemned any system in which licensing authorities were also themselves owners and operators of commercial transport serivces. The English Commission went thoroughly into this question, and its proposals were adopted by the House of Commons. After reviewing the claims of local authorities who were anxious to retain or obtain licensing powers, the Commission stated: —‘‘The evils of the present system or lack of system, are patent to the most casual observer. First, the public service vehicle of today operates over large areas which bear little or no relation to the relatively small areas of Existing licensing authorities. Every local authority naturally looks to securing efficient transport facilities within its own boundaries and the district immediately surrounding, and has comparatively little interest in long-distance through services or even in services to and from towns some distance off. From their point of view, such services merely add to the congestion of the streets and to some extent compete with local services.. Co-ordination Impossible. “Second, although there are over 1300 licensing authorities in Great Britain, in many parts of the country there is no such authority at all. Even in those areas where licensing laws may be put into operation, we are very doubtful whether in certain cases the licensing authorities exercise their powers as fully as they might. As a result, almost anybody can obtain a license somewhere, or else, owing to inadequate penalties, it may be profitable for a proprietor to operate unlicensed vehicles in spite of the fines inflicted for this breach of the Jaw. It follows that in many places the congestion on the roads is increased by unnecessary vehicles, which, by running just in advance of regular services and tapping their traffic, render them unremunerativc. In order to do this, racing and cutting-in take place to the serious danger of the public. Further, by skimming the cream off the best-paying routes they prevent the regular operators from providing services on Jess remunerative routes, thereby depriving a section of the public of convenient facilities. In circumstances such as these it is obvious that no sort of coordination of transport is possible. In addition, there can be no proper inspection of these public service vehicles, with the result that there are undoubtedly at the present time an appreciable number of vehicles on the road which are in an undesirable condition, if not actually out of use. This state of affairs must, of necessity, increase the risk of deplorable accidents such as those which have of late shocked the public.

“A third objection to the present system is that many local authorities are themselves owners and operators of transport and although no definite case of unfair discrimination has been put before us, there can be no doubt that when functioning as licensing authorities their actions are suspect to many of their competitors. This aspect of the case was insisted upon by several witnesses. We consider that it is undesirable that a Judge should be open to suspicion on the ground that he is interested in an organisation that may be in rivalry with the applicantNeed for Radical Change, “For such reasons we were forced to the conclusion that for the present system must be substituted something radically different. It is true that in the draft Road Traffic Bill the Ministry proposed to reduce the number of licensing authorities from the present number of about 1300 to approximately 350, and to give licensing powers to county councils so as to cover those parts of the country where there is now i no licensing authority. But this proposal does not, in our opinion, go nearly far enough, since it does not meet the objections set out above. The problem confronting us involves two distinct questions. First, there is the question of the traffic area, and second, that of the licensing authority. “A reference to the suggestions) which have been made to us shows clearly that the principle of the establishment of traffic areas, which are frequently recommended to us for adoption, is generally acceptable. In some cases it was proposed that these areas i should be allowed to shape themselves naturally as a result of voluntary association of neighbouring local authorities rather than that they should be made for the constitution of trafficboards for extensive areas. “We are in complete agreement with the principle of large traffic areas—in- < deed, we fail to see any other practical and satisfactory alternative—and, following upon the general conclusion at which we have arrived, we recommend that for the purpose of the licensing of public service vehi*cles and the coordination of all passenger-carrying services Great Britain shall be divided into traffic areas.” Judicial Comment. This matter has also been the subject of comment in a House of Lords decision, which states, inter alia: — “If there is one principle which forms an integral part of the English law, it is that every member of a body engaged in a judicial proceeding must be able to act judicially• and it has been held over and over again that if a member of such a body is subject to a bias—whether financially or other —in favour of or against either party to the dispute or is in such a position that a bias must be assumed he ought not to take part in the decision or even to sit upon the tribunal. This rule has been asserted not only in the case of Courts of Justice and other judicial tribunals but in the case of authorities which, though in no sense to be called Courts, have to act as Judges of the rights of others,” and then went on to state that ‘‘There can be no question that the functions imposed on licensing authorities by the provisions of the Motor-omnibus Traffic Act, 1926, come well within that principle. It is quite clear, therefore, that in order to properly discharge the duties imposed on the council as licensing authority, the members must be in a position to exercise their functions <adicially.”