HC Deb 03 March 1937 vol 321 cc479-503

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

10.3 p.m.

Mr. Croom-Johnson

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

The reason I move the Amendment is because the Bill introduces a totally new principle with regard to the motor industry in the country. I want to make it plain at tl7e outset that this is an example of municipal training which those of us who doubt some of its manifestations regard as being mischievous in the extreme, but I also desire to commend the Amendment to the House for the reason that the kind of municipal training which is proposed in the Bill is of a very extraordinary type. Hitherto, whenever a Motion has been made in this House, for the purpose of handing over the transport of an area to any particular Board, all forms of transport have been included in the Measure. This Bill does not deal with all classes of transport. It provides, except quite inferentially in Clause 52, nothing in the way of coordination in the form of transport, and it deals with a very wide area, a very great deal of which is wholly rural in character. The Bill, therefore, is aimed at a principle which is entirely different from the principle which was attacked by this House under the guidance of the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) in the London Passenger Transport Bill of 1931. In the Debate on that Measure comment was made by the right hon. Member for South Hackney on attempts which had previously been made to deal with the problem of London Transport by means of Bills other than public Bills. He said, on 23rd March, 1931: It was a subject of essentially public policy that ought to have been dealt with by public legislation, on the responsibility of the Government of the day. I and those of my friends who are supporting me think that a Measure of this sort is one the principle of which should be brought before the House for the House to determine, with a responsible Minister, who can lay before the House all the information we need, in charge of the Measure, so that we may have an opportunity of discussing a matter which we regard as of considerable importance in connection with the motor industry. An interesting thing is that in the very considerable number of com- munications which I have received, not merely from my own constituents but from all over the country, are a very large number from small people owning only one vehicle who find themselves in a position of insecurity as the result of what is proposed in this Bill. Time is late, and I do not want to dilate too much on that aspect of the case, but there are two or three other aspects which are well worthy of our consideration.

The Bill proposes that 17 local authorities spread over 20 local government areas should have the whole of their transport conducted by a board. That board is to consist of 39 persons. Those 39 persons are to come as to a majority of them from two local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under Lyme. The rest of the local authorities, except three, are to have a single member each, and the other three are to have no representation on the board. The individuals who are to comprise the board are to be members of local elected bodies. I say nothing at all against these individuals who give up their time in order to do the work of local administration on these bodies, but none of them at present owns any transport whatever, or no public transport of the kind to be taken over by this Bill, and none of the individuals who are to comprise the board, as far as we can discover, has any knowledge whatever of transport problems, and none of them is a specialist on the matter. If I might put the comment which I desire to make on that aspect of affairs in the words of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, on the London Transport Bill of 23rd March, 1931, I should put it in this way: We desire upon this Board the best business brains that we can secure for the purpose, and the Bill does not exclude from consideration for membership somebody associated with local government in London possessing the necessary business ability. But we must insist upon all the members being persons of business ability and capacity. It is obvious that the people in charge, certainly the Chairman of the Board, must have great industrial, managerial ability, and we must be prepared to pay what is necessary in order to secure that ability, if the undertaking is to be efficient and if the ordinary working people in the industry are not to be let down by incompetent management at the top." [OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 59, Vol. 250.] There is another curious thing about this Bill. As I have said, it covers the area of 20 local authorities, but in the middle of that area there are two islands, as it were, two local authorities, whose transport is not to be taken over, within whose area under the Bill, the board would have no power to run vehicles, and these two little authorities will find themselves isolated from the transport facilities which are to be offered by the board. There is an even greater objection, and it is this. In recent years in regard to transport this House has conferred jurisdiction upon the Traffic Commission. The traffic commissioners have had a most difficult task to perform, and I think the House will agree with me that in general they have performed that task fairly, with ability, and with a great deal of satisfaction, and the result is that the various forms of transport in the areas are being co-ordinated by the Commission. They are taking into account, as they must do under the Act of Parliament, the railway and other traffic facilities which are offered.

This proposed board will, to a large extent, be supreme. As I read one of the sections in which there is a direction given to the traffic commissioners, they are to take into account with regard to this board something which they apparently have not to take into account with regard to other owners of motor vehicles. We shall find the traffic commissioners' duties in this area being interfered with. The traffic commissioners who operate in this area, the West Midland Area commissioners, are men of great ability and great experience, and when I tell the House that they are the commissioners who are responsible for the traffic in the whole of the Birmingham area, including the city of Birmingham, they will appreciate that the work which they are doing is work which is not to be done by a set of amateurs.

We think that this is a new system, a new proposal which ought not to be left to be dealt with by a Committee upstairs, which usually deals, and rightly deals, with the details of such proposals, but this is a new proposal upon which the House is not only entitled to pronounce, but ought to have an opportunity of pronouncing. It is a proposal which we suggest cuts into the Regulations and the schemes which the House itself has laid down in recent times as part of legislation as a whole by the introduction of traffic commissioners. We are of opinion that the management of traffic in a rural area covering such a large district ought not to be conferred upon a board which is to be nominated from individuals on local authorities, some of whom may from time to time lose their seats after they have acquired some knowledge of the problems with which they have to deal.

There is one other curious feature about this Bill. There are two traffic systems in the United Kingdom where an ad hoc authority has been brought into existence to co-ordinate the forms of traffic and to own public transport vehicles. One is in Northern Ireland and the other is the London Traffic Board. In both instances Parliament has laid it down that these boards are to carry on the business so that they must pay their way. This Bill eliminates even that safeguard. It provides that two of the 17 local authorities, Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, are to guarantee out of their rates any losses on the undertaking. It is true that in subsequent years these losses may be made good if they are so fortunate as to run the show at a profit, but the difficulty is that pressure may be brought to bear on representatives of public institutions when the awkward moment comes and they have to raise fares in order to make both ends meet. After all, one can well understand the individual objecting when he find that incompetent management by a board, due perhaps to inexperience, has resulted in an increase in these fares.

Let me read one more passage from the speech of the right hon. Member for South Hackney, a speech which is filled with good sense. I commend it to the attention of hon. Members opposite when they are visualising the possibility of putting this power into the hands of a board which is to consist of unpaid representatives of local authorities. On 23rd March, 1931, the right hon. Gentleman said: We ask ourselves whether this vast business task is necessarily appropriate for politicians with electoral minds at all, for politicians trying to win elections with concessions to electors upon questions of fares, wages and salaries. That is a very potent question to ask, and the right hon. Gentleman answered it. When we know how Members of this House are squeezed upon this or that subject at elections, and sometimes submit to the pressure, I began to think twice whether we want these undertakings to be run by the ordinary political mind along ordinary political lines. I say, quite frankly, that I have come to the conclusion that on the whole, the politician as such is better outside the function of management, unless he qualifies for membership as constituted in the Bill."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1935; col. 55, Vol. 250.] There are many other arguments which I could advance on this matter, but may I just deal with one reason which is given in support of the Bill. There are, apparently, a large number of people in Stoke-on-Trent who have been licensed to run public vehicles. The difficulties about the competition which results from that, and the unevenness with regard to fares and timetables and other things, have all been ironed out by reason of the operation of the Traffic Commissioners. With great respect to those who drafted the case for the promoters of this Bill, it seems to me that they have not really owned up, as they might have done, to the fact that the very people who are there, with their local transport vehicles running to such numbers, are the people who were originally licensed by the Stoke-on-Trent authority itself in the days before we had to go to the Traffic Commissioners in order to get a licence to run vehicles on the public roads.

I hope the House will forgive me for not going in greater detail into the objections to this Bill at this hour and after the time that has already been occupied on private legislation this evening, but I submit with Confidence that this matter is one which ought not to be dealt with in a Private Bill. It is not a principle which the House should be asked to accept more or less by chance in a Private Measure, and accordingly I ask the House to support the Amendment which I have moved.

10.22 p.m.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

I beg to second the Amendment.

My hon. and learned Friend has covered very fully the objections to this Bill. The House may indeed be surprised that a Bill involving such a revolutionary change is brought forward as a Private Bill. The Bill proposes to set up a board composed entirely of the representatives of local authorities, and that board is to buy up the major portion of all transport undertakings, not only in the area of the two big corporations of Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, but in a far wider area embracing great parts of the three counties of Staffordshire, Shropshire and Cheshire. If this undertaking is run at a loss, it is, as my hon. and learned Friend pointed out, to be made up from the rates.

We hold that this is pre-eminently a subject for national and not for local legislation, and that if there is a case for a change of this kind, Parliament, by a general Bill, ought to bring in a change in the general law. I think the reaction of the average Member to this Bill is that this type of problem was properly met by the Road Traffic Act, 1930. If I may anticipate the speech which the right hon. and gallant Gentleman the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) will probably make in defence of this Bill, I would like briefly to recapitulate the lines which I am sure he will adopt. He will tell the House that this area is a particularly difficult one for transport undertakings, and that the only way in which the local authorities can meet the present chaotic conditions is by some legislation of this sort. I have two answers to that charge, if he makes it. The first is that the Road Traffic Act, which set up commissioners, gave them just the sort of powers that can properly be applied to such local difficulties. They are required, under the general law, to consider the local needs, the general needs of the area, and how far existing services meet those needs.

I would like to point out that under this Bill, and particularly under Clause 52, the discretion of the Traffic Commissioners is being, for the first time in our law, very seriously fettered. They are to be required, by Clause 52, to give a Statutory preference to these corporations over all other undertakings which may apply for licences. I would remind the House that one of the sanctions by which the Traffic Commissioners have been enabled to secure adherence to their regulations has been the threat to withhold or to suspend the road service licences. If this board remains the only local undertaking, it will obviously be impossible for the Commissioners to exercise that sanction. If the right hon. Gentleman says that the conditions in these counties are chaotic, we are entitled to ask why are they chaotic and who has made them so? They are chaotic chiefly because of the policy of the Stoke Corporation, which has enormously increased the number of local undertakers —I do not suggest with a view to legislation of this kind, but with some purpose which, no doubt, the right hon. Gentleman will disclose, and all the efforts of existing undertakers in these counties to rationalise their transport have been systematically met by difficulties put in their way by the local authority.

If the right hon. Gentleman cites the case of London, I would, as my hon. and learned Friend has done, remind him that seven expert men, appointed by trustees and obliged to make the service pay, are running London transport, but 39 local politicians, changing no doubt at every election, ignorant of the difficulties of transport, and responsible only to their political supporters, are to dominate the board in this case. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will endeavour to show that this board will be constituted in a very satisfactory way. Of the 39 members, as he knows, 21 are to be provided by the two councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke, and there is to be no representation for the three rural areas of Congleton, Cheadle and Stafford, and no provision whatever for transport in at least two urban areas in the district. One would have thought that a board applying for amazing powers of this kind, greater than any other board has ever received with the exception of the London Passenger Transport Board, would have experience in the running of transport, and I am lost in amazement at the courage of the local undertaking in being prepared to saddle itself with a responsibility of this kind.

There are one or two other provisions to which reference ought to be made. The corporations will have the power, notwithstanding Clause 101 of the Road Traffic Act, to carry on a contract carriage business, which has always been specifically excluded from the powers of local authorities. Parliament has excluded it in the general law. Why should we now be asked to introduce it by Private Bill legislation? If hon. Members are doubtful as to how far the Bill goes, I refer them to Clauses 47, 48 and 51 as an example of Socialism by the backdoor. No doubt the right hon. Gentleman will conclude by saying that all the arguments that we have used justify sending the Bill to Committee, but the object of a Second Reading is to decide on the principle of a Bill and the object of a Committee stage is to decide how far a principle, already conceded shall be given effect to in a particular case. I believe the majority of hon. Members are against the principle of the Bill and this is the time to show that in an emphatic way.

10.29 p.m.

Mr. Hollins

This is not the occasion for one in my position to follow the hon. Members who have spoken in a discussion of the Clauses of the Bill. The details of the different Clauses are better left to the Committee, and if we have no greater difficulties to meet than are presented by the arguments of the previous speakers, then, it seems to me, we shall have an easy passage for the Bill in Committee. I speak here in three capacities—as Lord Mayor of the City of Stoke-on-Trent, as a magistrate of Stoke-on-Trent and a citizen of Stoke-on-Trent. It is obvious that neither of the two hon. Members who have opposed the Bill know the area with which this Bill is concerned at all. The North Staffordshire area has always been considered as a unit of itself, and hon. Members who have been there have seen that for themselves. Stoke-on-Trent and Newcastle-under-Lyme, which are dovetailed into each other, are in the centre of that area, and all the passenger services radiate from it into the rural districts. It is a fact that there are 15 other authorities which will be brought into the Board, and at the moment we have their whole-hearted support. I may be able to disabuse the minds of hon. Members opposite, and particularly the last speaker, when he said that this was a backdoor method of introducing Socialism. There are 112 members of the city council of Stoke-on-Trent, and they are there in equal proportions—50–50—Independent and Labour party members, and the Bill has the support of a unanimous vote. Newcastle-under-Lyme has an overwhelming majority of Independents, and we have had our statutory meetings. The one which we held in Stoke-on-Trent was attended by over 1,200 people, and the necessary Motion was declared carried by the Lord Mayor by a majority of nine to one, while I believe that at the Newcastle meeting there was only one dissentient.

The reason which has prompted this Measure is that the coach service in the North Stafford district is most unsatisfactory and is not being run in the interests of the public. The hon. and gal- lant Member for Lewes (Rear-Admiral Beamish) said on the previous Bill that the monopolistic instincts of the Southern Railway had scorned local interests, and the same thing has been happening in our district, but we have got our mandate from the councils of Newcastle-under-Lyme and Stoke-on-Trent with Independent majorities on those councils, not because of any Socialist idea behind the Bill, but because of the necessities of the public that we represent. There are 500 buses, controlled by 58 proprietors, operating in the area covered by the Bill, and that excessive competition has no counterpart in Great Britain. This state of affairs has on numerous occasions been strongly criticised by the West Midland Area Road Traffic Commissioners, who have stated that they would prefer the transport by road to be in the hands of one undertaking.

Mr. Lennox.Boyd

Is it not the fact that the only criticism made by the Road Traffic Commissioners is a general statement, with which no one can quarrel, that it is more difficult to deal with a number of people than with one or two people, and that their criticism was not of the adequacy of the services.

Mr. Hollins

That is what I said. We have 58 opera:ors. I am sure the Minister of Transport would be of the same opinion as we are that we should bring all these 58 operators under one board. The existence of 58 operators in an area such as North Staffordshire should alone convince the House of the desirability of a unified and co-ordinated bus service. The whole purpose of the Bill is to co-ordinate the services. The hon. and learned Gentleman opposite said that there is nothing in the Bill which allowed us to co-ordinate them, but it is the very purpose of the Bill to do that. Since the Bill has been deposited, agreement has been reached with 52 operators out of the 58.

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

How many vehicles are involved?

Mr. Hollins

The vehicles number, I think, about 238. Since that tentative agreement has been come to with these operators an offer has been made by the big opponents of this Measure, namely, the Potteries Motor Traction Company, which is the controlling factor owning half the 500 omnibuses. We should naturally expect that their interests would be protected by hon. Members opposite. Although this company is working on its own, it is at the same time closely allied to other big interests. The real question we have to decide is whether we should give over this unified control to the Potteries Motor Traction Company, or whether we should give it to the transport board mentioned in this Bill. Since the tentative agreement has been come to with 52 of the operators, the Potteries Motor Traction Company have enhanced their price considerably. If there were not the control of the transport board as proposed in the Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that in the next few years there would be a monopoly created by the Potteries Motor Traction Company. In the last few years they have gradually been buying up the little man. The omnibus people had to combine to protect themselves against that particular company.

We have had experience of the Potteries Motor Traction Company when it was known as the Potteries Electric Traction Company. Prior to 1929 that company had control of the tramways in Stoke-on-Trent, and constantly the city was asking them to improve their services, to give better facilities and to lower fares, but could not get a single thing done when they had that monopoly. The city had no power to run an omnibus or a tram, and that concern had an absolute monopoly up to 1929. We could not get any complaints about overcrowding, the scarcity of trams or high fares remedied. We asked the company to sell out to the corporation, which they were willing to do, but there was the question of price between us. If they were willing to sell out then, why are they not willing to sell out now? We know the reason. Since the introduction of the new transport arrangements their shares have gone up from 10s. to £2 12s. 6d. If the House will give us a Second Reading for this Bill, there is not the slightest doubt that we shall break a monopoly in our city, and, as has been said, where there is a monopoly there is no concern for local interests.

I appeal to the House not to allow control to pass into the hands of this company. It was mentioned that a transport board would be to a certain extent a new principle, but there is nothing novel or new in boroughs or cities having control of their buses or trams. A further point is that there will be no confiscation of the buses under this proposal. A general offer to pur chase has been made and has been accepted by 52 owners, subject to the passing of this Bill. An hon. and learned Gentleman opposite remarked that the House had been told nothing about profits. We have had the services of Mr. Collins, one of the most eminent experts in this department of finance, who has advised us that there will be substantial profits to be made at the price which we are offering and which has been accepted tentatively by 52 owners, and that those profits can be used for the payment of interest and sinking fund on the loan, for the reduction of fares, for the provision of transport facilities for school children, which is an ever growing problem with us in our city, and for the introduction of special travelling facilities in connection with the new housing sites to which we have had to take our people outside the city. We should like to alleviate the hardships of those people. Instances have been given to me where as much as 25s. to 30s. has had to be laid out by a family in fares. We hope, by the economies which can be effected through the centralisation, co-ordination and control which a united service will introduce, to bring some measure of relief, to these people who are compelled to live in the suburbs. Hon. Members opposite must realise that with a centralised service there can be considerable savings combined with greater efficiency; there will be lower overhead charges and more economy and less waste generally.

I know that time is dragging on, but I want to mention some of the difficultieS that we encounter in our area. We have in Stoke-on-Trent what is known as the main road, which is 12 miles in length from the northern end to the southern end of the city, and on that road 22 different proprietors are operating, their vehicles sometimes lining up behind each other, jockeying into position and some-, times cutting in and creating dangerous positions. We have not been able to get: these people to put on the proper number of buses. Complaints have constantly-, come from our workpeople, who wish to be carried from one end of the district to the other at particular times of the day, that they have had to stand in queues and have been left waiting. Another complaint made by the public in our district is that omnibus shelters should be provided. The proprietors have turned to the City Council and asked them to provide these shelters. That charge should be on the service.

If we get permission for the Second Reading of the Bill I am sure that we can remedy many of its weaknesses in subsequent discussion. I would call attention to one of the conclusions of the Commission, which I hope most hon. Members have read. They say: The matters raised by the Bill require investigation and consideration, and are not such as are capable of being adequately or Conveniently dealt with upon the Second Reading stage. … If the Bill is not justified it will be rejected by the committee, and such rejection would indicate the deliberate and considered mind of Parliament; … on the other hand, rejection without a hearing is contrary to British principles. To convince the House that this is an all-Party Measure I would like to read the report of a speech of the Chairman of the Independents upon the City Council, an ex-Mayor, made at the statutory meeting. The report states: Alderman Harvey, seconding the resolution, said he was confident that the Corporation could come to an agreement with 50 per cent. of the bus owners. It was because of the reasonableness of the price that he seconded the resolution. The matter was one which affected every one in North Staffordshire, and he believed they were the more likely to get the Bill through because they had the co-operation, not only of Newcastle, but of the other local authorities. They were endeavouring to do the best thing possible for the travelling public in North Staffordshire. The difficulty hitherto had been the price, but he thought that any reasonable-minded person who read the statement in the "Sentinel" last night would agree that the proposed price was a reasonable one, and that, therefore, the Bill could be supported whole-heartedly. A suggestion was made by an hon. Member opposite, who said that the board were supreme and were taking control out of the hands of the Commission. At the same statutory meeting a question was put, whether, if the buses were taken over, the Transport Board would be subject to the control of the Traffic Comissioners in the same way as the present operators. The Town Clerk said, "They will be subject to exactly the same control as the persons operating now."

Mr. Lennox-Boyd

Clause 52.

Mr. Hollins

We have to take our legal advice from our legal adviser, and he said that. I hope that the House will be fair to the North Staffordshire area, and will give a Second Reading to the Bill, for which a good case has been made.

10.52 p.m.

Colonel Wedgwood

The senior Member for the City of Stoke (Mr. Hollins) has stated the case for this Bill, and Stoke may congratulate itself on the Debate it has produced. I would congratulate the Mover and Seconder of the Amendment for the brevity and eloquence of their orations. But I have heard words that were strangely familiar. I heard them 30 years ago in this House, uttered by prophets of evil whose prophecies have been falsified by events. It is too late now to say that local authorities are incapable of managing business. We have only to look at Glasgow, Manchester and Sheffield to see public bodies, larger in number than Stoke-on-Trent, conducting public services even more complicated than this which is now put forward. The Mover and Seconder of the Amendment spoke in English, but it was the voice of Germany. The alternative to government by local authority is government by burgomaster. The burgomaster is an elected permanent official.

Mr. Macquisten

Is it not the case that the burgomaster is appointed by the central government?

Colonel Wedgwood

I believe he is now, but in the old days he was an elected person appointed afterwards. The essence of the matter is that you can believe in autocratic rule, or you can do as we have done and gradually develop self-government. Our local authorities throughout the country have taken on one branch of public service after another which, though they managed them badly at first, they have learned how to manage. If we are to say at this stage that a public authority cannot manage things, and that we must hand them over to experts, we are running contrary to the whole course of progress and contrary to British traditions. I do not say that this board of 39 persons will be a perfect body, but it will be just as good as other unpaid bodies who are managing throughout the country and the Empire such services as this.

As to the other famous old difficulty, that we are creating another precedent, we have been creating precedents every year that I have been in the House at the rate of half-a-dozen a minute. In this country we slowly broaden down from precedent to precedent. We have before us not merely the example of London, where there is a different sort of management, but the example of Bradford. Sometimes I have been called over the coals by Bradford, but they have their own service, and they do not manage it so badly. If it is not well managed it is the fault of the Bradford people—

Mr. Holdsworth

Bradford have never had the impudence to say that no one shall run out to their area, as is proposed here.

Colonel Wedgwood

Bradford runs out through other people's areas. I could never hope to emulate the eloquence of the two hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I ask the House to believe that I approach this Bill with more feeling and more desire to see it put on the Statute Book than any other Bill I have ever supported in this House. I am not thinking merely of Stoke. These are my people. It is not merely Stoke that is in question, but the whole of North Staffordshire. Unemployment is terrible in North Staffordshire. You talk about the Special Areas, but I could take you down to districts in my place where unemployment is worse. The mines have all been closed down in the North, whole districts are derelict, and the only way in which these people can get work is by going long distances daily in order to find a pit where they can be allowed still to do their work. Owing to the fact that most of the men are out of work, their wives and the boys and girls are going out trying to make a living, wandering as far afield as Stafford and Leek and Congleton, and even Macclesfield, in order to get a job in the textile factories or in the brickfields, which are now so much within a child's labour.

These people are having to pay anything up to 10 per cent. of their wage in fares week after week, and therefore traffic is a question which touches the really vital interests of the people of North Staffordshire. Factories are shifting out into the country, and our people have to go outside the borough of Stoke- on-Trent in order to get to their work. You have all the difficulties of transport to work, which are acute enough all over the country, accentuated in Stoke-on-Trent. Stoke-on-Trent itself is a long, straggling, dirty town 12 miles long. That is where the people work, but they live outside in increasing numbers, and daily they go backwards and forwards through the mud and the rain. Just think what it would mean here if every omnibus that we took stopped at the Marble Arch, or Hyde Park Corner, or Victoria Station, and we had to get out and change omnibuses and fight our way into another overcrowded omnibus. It would not be so bad in London, because the omnibuses stop where the other omnibuses start, but I am thinking of Longton, where the omnibuses stop under the railway arches, and the people have to get out of crowded omnibuses into the rain and wander across two dangerous crossings, getting wet, and then have to sit and wait—there are no shelters—for an omnibus which may be a quarter of an hour late, with the omnibuses running at half-hour intervals, to take them to their homes. At every exit from Stoke-on-Trent you have this deadly block, with an average delay of 10 minutes every day for everybody in getting to and from their work. The people are tired. I pass them in my motor car and see them seated in ill-lighted omnibuses, cold, wet and hungry, all because the traffic is the worst in the whole of Great Britain. It is easy enough for Bradford. In North Staffordshire there are 57 different companies or persons owning omnibuses and the traffic commissioner is helpless in dealing with such a problem, because you have these competing people all owning licences all of different values—because a licence on one road is different from another—and the hope of a traffic commissioner getting agreement among all these competing companies is visionary. We have long sought a way out at Stoke-on-Trent. This is the only way we can see.

There is every reason why we should make any number of alterations in the Bill. I am not at all certain that I shall not vote against the Third Reading, for the very good reason that the compensation proposed in it is higher than it ought to be. That is a question for the Committee. It is a question what are the failings of the Bill, how we can improve the representation of districts outside, how we can get more skilled management, how we can regulate finance so that the undertaking shall meet its expenses. All these matters are questions for the Committee. There is another point which is essentially a matter for the Committee. The question of safety in the streets of Stoke-on-Trent is becoming daily more urgent—competing buses cutting in ahead of each other, the most dangerous thing you could have in these narrow, child-infested streets, stopping places blocked up—at every one of the exits from Stoke the whole bus has to be emptied—the length of time it takes going from work to home driving people more and more to use push and motor bicycles. You have in that city the possibility of tragedy, because it is ever growing as more and more people go outside and come in daily, congesting the traffic. These things are eminently suitable for consideration by a Committee. There is no new principle whatever involved, either of management or of the problem to be considered, and the same old financial questions to be worked out by four honest Members of Parliament instead of the vested interests concerned in the Bill.

May I state again what is in question here? There are in this area 500 buses owned by 57 different companies. With all the privately owned companies—that is nearly half the buses—an arrangement has been made to buy them up at a certain figure, and that figure is £4,000 a bus. I do not wonder that that figure startles the House, but it is too low for the public company, the Potteries Electric Traction Company. I ask hon. Members to think what that means. These buses, worth apparently £4,000 on the road, are written down in the books to £600, £500 and £400. They are selling from eight to ten times that amount. Why? Because they have a licence. There you have an admirable example of what has happened in this country. We passed a Traffic Bill four years ago. The Act has only been in operation three and a half years, and in that short time the value of a licence granted by the Commissioner has risen, if we take into account the garages and other assets in addition to the buses, up to £3,000 a licence. Here we are proposing in this Bill, for a population of, 450,000 souls, to buy up 500 buses at that figure. That will mean, if the Potteries Electric Traction Company comes in on the same terms as other owners, £2,000,000. There are 450,000 people_ in North Staffordshire, and if you multiply that number by 100 you have the population of this country, roughly speaking. If there is any relation between buses and population, there will be not £2,000,000 value in the licences, but £200,000,000, so that in these few years we have built up a gigantic monopoly value. Every additional licence granted, on the average, means £3,000, and the total value of the licences of the companies running these buses amounts to no less than, I will not say £200,000,000, but £150,000,000. How are we to deal with a proposition such as that?

Take the shares in this one company here referred to. Four years ago they were 9s. 6d. a. share, and now the shares of the same company are 52s. 6d., and if you reject this Bill to-night, I will buy them to-morrow, but I shall not get them for less than Every time you make a present of a licence to the company, you are increasing not its assets, but its power to tax the public. The price we are offering is immense. It is eight times the value, and I do not know whether next year it will be not be 10, times the value. We do not know, we cannot tell whether, if in 20 years we seek to buy up this monopoly, we shall not be paying far more. It is time that the House took it into account and realised whence has come those 219 names on the Order Paper. Never before have we had so many names against a Private Bill, and the reason for that is the vital and enormous financial interest in stopping the Bill. Think of the precautions taken in all other cases by the Government when they confer monopolies, in the case of every public utility company in the country, every gas company, electric light company. Their shares do not go up like this. They cannot go up. Every increase in profits is accompanied in the public utility company by a reduction in the price. The Government safeguard the public against that form of exploitation and, therefore, why do they not safeguard us or allow us to safeguard ourselves against similar exploitation on the part of any other utility service?

My own borough of Newcastle-under-Lyme, perhaps inspired by right ideas, long since bought up all the suburban land within its area. They have been able to town plan and to make their town planning compulsory, a thing which no other local authority in the country has been able to do. That was foresight, of course. They paid too much for the land. They bought up all the agricultural land at a high building price, just as we are proposing to buy these buses, at a high economic price. They made a good job of it, and they have been glad that they did it. Every house that goes up there is an asset to the town. The town is laid out to plan and is a thing of beauty. Whenever I go there I look at Newcastle-under-Lyme and say to myself, "That is what a little foresight can do." Buying up that land has resulted in making a garden city instead of a slum. That is what we want to do in this case. We want to buy up this monopoly before it gets above the sky.

I should like to know whether hon. Members who wish to stop this question going before the Committee upstairs realise that this matter is of great importance not merely to Newcastle-under-Lyme and to North Staffordshire but to the country generally. This growth of monopoly value is a matter of vital importance. Why do hon. Members object to this matter going before a committee of ourselves? Is it due to a desire on their part not to give evidence before that committee, lest their profits should be exposed?

I shall be told by hon. Members that all that is wrong in the transport of North Staffordshire can be remedied by the Traffic Commissioners, that fares can be adjusted, that workmen's fares can be granted and that all the necessary changes can be effected without this Bill. Take the question of fares. If these companies are making profits on a bus value of £4,000, it is obvious that, on the real value of that bus they could make a profit out of a lower fare than they charge to-day. If one goes to the Commissioner and points out what I have been saying to-night, he will say at once: " I have to fix the fares at what is reasonable." What is "reasonable"? Reasonable from the point of view of the public or nom the point of view of the person who bought shares when they were 52s. 6d.? To ensure that the present income and the present possibilities of increment on in- come shall go on, you must base your fares on quite a different basis from the competitive basis which would be produced if it was possible to run an unlimited number of buses instead of a limited number. If we say that the fares are unreasonable the answer will be that they are reasonable. Is it not fair that those who complain of the fares should be able to see the accounts and ascertain what profits are being made? We have asked for this, and have been refused. Under the Bill it is not compulsory that they should be made known. If we are to have any control over these public utility services we must be able to see what profits are being made.

You could not have a stronger case for a Bill going to Committee where such matters can be decided after sworn evidence has been taken. The real charge against the Measure is that it is a Socialist Measure. That is the reason why they will go into the Lobby against me, in spite of the fact that I am always right. I am about the only real individualist in the House. Nobody has been a stronger defender of private interests than I have been, defending private owners against large combines which have wanted to swallow them for years. I have always been a strong supporter of private enterprise and the right of free competition, believing that free competition was the best means of getting good service and keeping down prices. The Bill will stop free competition and create a monopoly.

Sir Ronald Ross

It is a Socialist Bill; it was passed by a Socialist Government.

Colonel Wedgwood

I am not concerned with what Government passed it; all Governments are equally Socialist. The same question arose in London. We tried to prevent the pirate omnibuses being absorbed by the London General Omnibus Company. We were beaten, and you have a monopoly in London. I am not against public management where free competition can have free play, but where there is a monopoly it ought to be in public hands and under public control. The essence of a monopoly is that it takes from the consumer not a fair price for the article but all that the consumer can pay. Wherever you have monopoly you have robbery of the consumer by the man or institution which owns the monopoly. I do not like that robbery; I do not like monopolies but if there is to be monopoly and robbery then let the robbery go into the public pocket. It would be a good thing for big business if that rule held good, and the public conscience urges that it should be adopted. It has been adopted in some cases otherwise the Government would not have limited the profits of public utility companies. I have come to consider that it is desirable, for instance, to nationalise the railways. I have come gradually to consider that nearly all municipal services which are monopolies should be public companies simply because, if there is to be a monopoly, the public, who are the victims of that monopoly, should have a voice in the control of it. I do not think this is Socialism. I should say it is common sense and common honesty.

I am sorry to take up so much time, but, after all, this is a matter which is of vital importance to my people. Unlike the hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill, I have complete confidence in my colleagues in the House of Commons, and I would not even except the Front Bench opposite. I think Members of Parliament make better judges on all matters of public interest than can be found elsewhere. I go even further, and say that Members of Parliament make the best Governors. I suggest that the Colonial Office, the Dominions Office and the India Office should pick their Governors, their Chief Justices and their Attorneys-General from people who have been in the House of Commons and who have had some experience of public affairs. I am sure they would be the best, for they have a sense of public responsibility.

I know of no better body to judge questions such as we have been considering this evening than the Private Bill Committees of the House of Commons. They are not always unanimous, but they are much nearer agreeing when the matter has been discussed than they were when it started. In the whole of my 30 years in the House, I have never heard one whisper against the complete altruism and uprightness of those Committees and their Members. Why cannot hon. Members opposite allow these questions to go before them? What is their objection? They say it is a new principle. It is not; there is nothing new about it. What they are afraid of is the publication of the facts. What we want to get is the facts, and on those facts, justice. This House has no right to rob my people of the privileges enjoyed in the comfortable and prosperous South. You who control these matters for Middlesex, Essex, Surrey and Kent have no right to deprive us of the same rights that other places have. You have no right to rob my people, who are poor enough already.

11.24 p.m.

Captain Hudson

I think it would be for the convenience of the House if, very briefly, I gave the views of the Government on this Bill. In the first place, I should say that on general grounds we would view sympathetically any sound scheme for co-ordinating passenger traffic in a well-defined area, and incidentally, I agree with the two hon. Members who moved the Amendment for the rejection of the Bill and also with the right hon. Gentleman who has just spoken that a substantial measure of co-ordination of passenger transport has already been achieved, and is being achieved, in the area by the Area Traffic Commissioners set up under the Road Traffic Act, 1930. I thought much of the right hon. Gentleman's speech was a plea more for the amendment of the 1930 Act than for the passage of the Bill. The question of whether or not a monopoly is set up by the licensing system would not be put right in the slightest degree by the passage of the Bill. In regard to schemes for the co-ordination of traffic, it is, in my opinion, essential that such a scheme should be sound both as regards finance and administration. Normally the procedure of this House on Private Bills is to send them upstairs to be examined by a Select Committee, and I think it right to tell the House that should this Bill receive a Second Reading the Minister of Transport has a number of criticisms of the Bill which he would have to lay before that Select Committee in his report.

The first criticism concerns the size and constitution of the board. It is to consist of 39 members elected by local authorities in the area. They must themselves be members of the local authorities and are liable to recall at any time. If they lose their seats on the local authorities they lose their seats on the board. We do not feel that a large body so constituted is the appropriate body to carry out the complicated business of transport. We believe that the transport board should consist of a much smaller number of persons, including those with knowledge and experience of transport, and we think that the chairman certainly should devote the whole of his time to the work of the board. This part of the Bill will need very drastic alteration. Secondly, there is grave objection to the proposal that any losses should be made up by the rates. This, we feel, may weaken the board's sense of financial responsibility, and I think, myself, that any sound scheme of co-ordination should be self-sufficient financially. The last of the major criticisms is that there appears to be no proposal for co-ordination with the railways. The L.M.S., the L.N.E.R. and the G.W.R. all operate in the area, and all are providing passenger transport and I should have thought that such co-ordination was essential to a proper area scheme. There are other points, more detailed, to which we should have to draw attention in the report. I would say, incidentally, that such criticisms of the

Division No. 98.] AYES. [11.30 p.m.
Acland, Rt. Hon. Sir F. Dyke Hayday, A. Parker, J.
Adams, D. (Consett) Henderson, J. (Ardwick) Parkinson, J. A.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, S.) Henderson, T. (Tradeston) Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Adamson, W. M. Jenkins, Sir W. (Neath) Potts, J.
Alexander, Rt. Hon. A. V. (H'lsbr.) Jones, A. C. (Shipley) Price, M. P.
Anderson, F. (Whitehaven) Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) Pritt, D. N.
Aske, Sir R. W. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) Rathbone, Eleanor (English Univ's.)
Attlee, Rt. Hon. C. R. Keeling, E. H. Ridley, G.
Banfield, J. W. Kelly, W. T. Riley, B.
Bellenger, F. J. Kennedy, Rt. Hon. T. Ritson, J.
Benson, G. Kirby, B. V. Roberts, W. (Cumberland, N.)
Bevan, A. Lathan, G. Robinson, W. A. (St. Helens)
Broad, F. A. Lawson, J. J. Rothschild, J. A. de
Bromfield, W. Leach, W. Sanders, W. S.
Brooke, W. Leckie, J. A. Sexton. T. M.
Charleton, H. C. Lee, F. Silkin, L.
Cluss, W. S. Logan, D. G. Silverman, S. S.
Cripps, Hon. Sir Stafford Lunn, W. Simpson, F. B.
Dalton, H. Mabane, W. (Huddersfield) Sorensen, R. W.
Davidson, J. J. (Maryhill) McEntee, V. La T. Stewart, W. J. (H'ght'n-le-Sp'ng)
Davies, R. J. (Westhoughton) McGhee, H. G. Strauss, G. R. (Lambeth, N.)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr) McGovern, J. Tirker, J. J.
Dobbie, W. MacLaren, A. Walkden, A. G.
Dunn, E. (Rother Valley) Maclean, N. Walker, J.
Ede, J. C. MacMillan, M. (Western Isles) Watkins, F. C.
Edwards, Sir C. (Bedwellty) Mainwaring, W. H. Watson, W. McL.
Evans, D. O. (Cardigan) Mander, G. le M. Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Fletcher, Lt.-Comdr. R. T. H. Markham, S. F. Welsh, J. C.
Frankel, D. Marshall, F. Westwood, J.
Gardner, B. W, Mathers, G. Whiteley, W.
Garro Jones, G. M. Messer, F. Williams, T. (Don Valley)
Gibbins, J. Milner, Major J. Wilson, C. H. (Attercliffe)
Grenfell, D. R. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Windsor, W. (Hull, C.)
Griffiths, G. A. (Hemsworth) Noel-Baker, P. J. Woods, G. S. (Finsbury)
Hall, G. H. (Aberdare) Oliver, G. H.
Hall, J. H. (Whitechapel) Owen, Major G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Hardie, G. D. Paling, W. Mr. Hollins and Mr. Ellis Smith.

existing scheme as have been made by the right hon. Gentleman and by the hon. Member for Hanley (Mr. Hollins) would have to be examined by the Committee if the Bill goes upstairs. This is a private Bill, and it is for hon. Members to decide whether it should have a Second Reading or not. The right hon. and gallant Gentleman said he demanded a Second Reading for the Bill. Whether it should be read a Second time or not is in the hands of hon. Members. If the House wishes to throw out the Bill, it can do so, and it will not be doing anything against the normal procedure of Parliament. There is, I can see, a big divergence of opinion. I am not trying to influence the House in any way. What I say is that if the Bill is sent upstairs, my Ministry will give any assistance in its power for which the Committee may ask in order to try to make it a workable Measure.

Question put, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

The House divided: Ayes, io8; Noes, 163.

NOES.
Acland-Troyte, Lt.-Col. G. J. Ellis, Sir G. O'Conner, Sir Terence J
Agnew, Lieut.-Comdr. P G. Elliston, Capt. G. S. Orr-Ewing, I. L.
Allen, Lt.-Col. J. Sandeman (B'kn'hd) Emmott, C. E. G. C Patrick, C. M.
Amery, Rt. Hon. L. C. M. S. Emrys-Evans, P. V. Penny, Sir G.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Erskine Hill, A. G. Percy, Rt. Hen. Lord E.
Apsley, Lord Evans, Capt. A. (Cardiff, S.) Perkins, W. R. D.
Assheton, R. Everard, W. L. Petherick, M.
Astor, Hon. W. W. (Fulham, E.) Fleming, E. L. Pickthorn, K. W. M.
Atholl, Duchess of Foot, D. M. Porritt, R. W.
Baldwin-Webb, Col. J. Furness, S. N. Procter, Major H. A.
Balfour, G. (Hampstead) Fyfe, D. P. M. Raikes, H. V. A. M.
Balfour, Capt. H. H. (Isle of Thanet) Goldie, N. B. Ramsbotham, H.
Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. Graham, Captain A. C. (Wirral) Ramsdsn, Sir E.
Beauchamp, Sir B. C. Grant-Ferris, R. Rankin, Sir R.
Beaumont, Hon. R. E. B. (Portsm'h) Gridley, Sir A. B. Rathbone, J. R. (Bodmin)
Bird, Sir R. B. Griffith, F. Kingsley (M'ddl'sbro, W.) Rayner, Major R. H.
Bossom, A. C. Grimston, R. V. Reed, A. C. (Exeter)
Boulton, W. W. Gritten, W. G. Howard Remer, J. R.
Bower, Comdr. R. T. Guest, Hon. I. (Brecon and Radnor) Rickards, G. W. (Skipton)
Boyce, H. Leslie Hamilton, Sir G. C. Robinson, J. R. (Blackpool)
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. Hannon, Sir P. J. H. Ropner, Colonel L.
Braithwaite, Major A. N. Haslam, H. C. (Horncastle) Ross, Major Sir R. D. (Londonderry)
Brooklebank, C. E. R. Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel A. P. Ross Taylor, W. (Woodbridge)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Newbury) Hepburn, P. G. T. Buchan Rowlands, G.
Browne, A. C. (Belfast, W.) Hepworth, J. Scott, Lord William
Bull, B B. Holdsworth, H. Shaw, Captain W. T. (Forfar)
Carver, Major W. H. Horsbrugh, Florence Somerset, T.
Castlereagh, Viscount Hunter, T. Southby, Commander A. R. J.
Cayzer, Sir C. W. (City of Chester) Jonas, L. (Swansea W.) Storey, S.
Channon, H. Kerr, Colonel C. I. (Montrose) Strauss, E. A. (Southwark, N.)
Clarke, Lt.-Col. R. S. (E. Grinstead) Keyes, Admiral of the Fleet Sir R. Strauss, H. G. (Norwich)
Clarry, Sir Reginald Latham, Sir P. Strickland, Captain W. F.
Cobb, Captain E. C. (Preston) Law, R. K. (Hull, S.W.) Sueter, Rear-Admiral Sir M. F.
Colfox, Major W P. Leech, Dr. J. W. Taylor, Vice-Adm. E. A. (Padd., S.)
Colman, N. C. D. Levy, T. Thomson, Sir J. D. W.
Cooke, J. D. (Hammersmith, S.) Liddall, W. S. Tree, A. R. L. F.
Cooper, Rt. Hn. T. M. (E'nburgh, W.) Llewellin, Lieut.-Col. J. J. Tufnell, Lieut.-Commander R, L.
Courthope, Col. Sir G. L. Lyons, A. M. Turton, R. H.
Craven-Ellis, W. MacAndrew, Colonel Sir C. G. Walker-Smith, Sir J.
Crooke, J. S. M'Connell, Sir J. Ward, Lieut.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Crookshank, Capt. H. F. C. McCorquodale, M. S. Warrender, Sir V.
Cross, R. H. MacDonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Waterhouse, Captain C.
Crowder, J. F. E. McEwen, Capt. J. H. F. Wayland, Sir W. A
Cruddas, Col. B. McKie, J. H. Wells, S. R.
Davies, Major Sir G. F. (Yeovil) Macnamara, Capt. J. R. J. Wickham, Lt.-Col. E. T. R.
Dawson, Sir P. Macquisten, F. A. Williams, H. G. (Croydon, S.)
De Chair, S. S. Magnay, T. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Denville, Alfred Mayhew, Lt.-Col. J. Womersley, Sir W. J.
Dixon, Capt. Rt. Hon. H. Mellor, Sir J. S. P. (Tamworth) Wragg, H.
Dodd, J. S. Mitcheson, Sir G. G. Wright, Squadron-Leader J. A. C.
Doland, G. F. Moreing, A. C. Young, A. S. L. (Partick)
Dorman-Smith, Major R. H. Morgan, R. H.
Duckworth, W. R. (Moss Side) Morrison, G. A. (Scottish Univ's.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Duggan, H. J. Munro, P. Mr. Croom-Johnson and Mr.
Duncan, J. A. L. Nall, Sir J. Lennox-Boyd.
Edmondson, Major Sir J. Neven-Spence, Major B. H. H.

Words added.

Second Reading put off for six months.

Forward to