XN000022-1974-12-18 — Page 10

+

#

8

WEDNESDAY, DECEMBER 18, 1974.

1

THE BILL ALSO SEEKS TO EMPOWER THE GOVERNOR TO APPOINT UP TO TWO DIRECTORS TO THE BOARDS OF ALL FRANCHISED COMPANIES.

+THEIR FUNCTION WILL BE TO REPRESENT THE GOVERNMENT AND THE PUBLIC INTEREST, MR. HOBLEY EXPLAINED. IT IS HOPED THAT THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTORS WILL BE ABLE TO PLAY AN EFFECTIVE ROLE IN INFLUENCING COMPANY POLICY WHILST AT THE SAME TIME PROVIDING A READY MEANS WHEREBY THE GOVERNMENT'S TRANSPORT POLICIES AND OTHER MATTERS CAN BE COMMUNICATED TO THE COMPANY.+

THE ULTIMATE SANCTION IS THE RE-INTRODUCTION OF THE POWER TO CANCEL FRANCHISE IN THE EVENT OF FAILURE TO PROVIDE A PROPER AND EFFICIENT BUS SERVICE.

+HOWEVER,+ MR. HOBLEY SAID, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS COURSE COULD AND WOULD ONLY BE TAKEN IN EXTREME CASES, THOUGH THE POSSIBILITY OF ITS USE CANNOT BE ENTIRELY RULED OUT.+

IN ADDITION, PROVISION IS ALSO MADE FOR A TEMPORARY TAKE-OVER, IN THE EVENT OF THE REVOCATION OF A FRANCHISE, OF ANY OF A BUS COMPANY'S PROPERTY WHICH WAS USED BY IT FOR THE PURPOSES OF ITS FRANCHISE.

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL SAID THE INTENTION THAT FRANCHISES WOULD BE GRANTED ON THE BASIS OF ROUTES, HAD, HOWEVER, OPENED THE WAY TO A NEW AND HOPEFULLY EFFECTIVE SANCTION FOR INEFFICIENCY. THE BILL WOULD ALSO ENABLE THE GOVERNMENT TO WITHDRAW A SPECIFIC ROUTE ON WHICH A COMPANY HAS FAILED TO PROVIDE A SATISFACTORY SERIVCE, AND, AT THE SAME TIME, WITHDRAW OTHER MORE LUCRATIVE ROUTES.

MR. HOBLEY HOPED THAT THIS SANCTION WOULD DISCOURAGE THE DELIBERATE NEGLECT OF LESS PROFITABLE ROUTES AND AT THE SAME TIME ENSURE THAT A VIABLE PACKAGE OF ROUTES COULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO AN ALTERNATIVE OPERATOR WILLING TO OPERATE SERVICES ON THE ROUTES IN QUESTION.

THE BILL ALSO PROVIDES FOR THE IMPOSITION OF FINANCIAL PENALTIES BY THE GOVERNOR IN COUNCIL IN THE EVENT OF A BUS COMPANY'S FAILURE TO COMPLY WITH THE BILL. THE PENALTIES MAY BE UP TO $10,000 FOR A FIRST OFFENCE, UP TO $20,000 FOR A SECOND AND UP TO $50,000 FOR ALL SUBSEQUENT OFFENCES. THESE FINES ARE INTENDED IN PRACTICE, TO BE IMPOSED FOR INFRINGEMENTS OF THE PROVISIONŠ OF THE BILL, OR OF A FRANCHISE, WHERE THE GREATER PENALTY OF THE REVOCATION OF ONE OR MORE ROUTES WOULD NOT BE JUSTIFIED.

DEBATE ON THE MOTION WAS ADJOURNED.

19.

Page 10Page 11