HC Deb 26 June 1924 vol 175 cc757-65
Mr. HERBERT MORRISON

I beg to move in page 18, line 27, at the end, to insert the words (2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven. Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment previously incurred under this Act or under any regulations made under this Act or affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, and any such legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, or continued, or enforced, and such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not expired. I understand that this Amendment will be accepted by the Government, and I hope the House will approve of it. I think right hon. and hon. Members are agreed that this is only a temporary Measure. The former Minister of Transport, the hon. and gallant Member for Christchurch (Colonel Ashley) never regarded it as permanent legislation. I was a member of a deputation which waited upon him and lie made it clear that this was a Bill to meet a particular emergency and without prejudice to any future reform of Local Government in London. The Bill has been subjected to a good deal of criticism from this side of the House, in which I have joined, and still I do not like it. Whatever may be our opinions about the fundamental principle of the Bill, we are agreed that it ought to be regarded as temporary legislation to carry us over a period of emergency and that its period of operation ought to be such as will enable this or some other Government to give attention to the reform of local government of Greater London, with a view to merging the powers conferred in this Bill and certain other powers conferred upon specialised authorities, and placing thorn upon some properly elected authority for Greater London. I think a limitation of three years is ample, and I hope that before those three years have expired the existing chaotic, undignified system of local government which we have in Greater London will be seriously looked into and that fundamental reforms will be introduced with a view to giving the people of London the right to control their own public services.

Mr. GOSLING

This Bill is very largely an experiment, and in these circumstances I accept the Amendment.

Viscount CURZON

I very much regret that the Minister should have hastened to accept an Amendment such as this, which was heartily opposed in the Committee, without waiting to hear the arguments that might be presented against it. If this Amendment be accepted, how will it be possible to arrive at any businesslike arrangement under this Bill? Many Members are anxious to reserve the rights of the small man who may try to operate vehicles under this Bill. He must, of necessity, know where he is, and be able to make business arrangements under this Bill. How can he do that if he knows that in three years' time, unless Parliament decides otherwise, which is always a matter of uncertainty, the whole of this Bill will come to an end automatically and the whole of the traffic of London will be thrown into a state of still greater chaos? I have doubts with regard to a great deal of this Bill, but bad as it may be we have, at any rate, the prospect of doing something to straighten out the traffic of London.

If this Bill is to come automatically to an end in three years, you are going to throw the whole London traffic into the melting pot. What about hon. Members opposite who speak for gas works or electric lighting companies? What is going to be their views of a Bill which imposes severe restrictions now, and in three years' time lets the whole thing go back? If this Amendment is passed it will necessitate a fresh Act in three years' time to continue the operation of this Act. If we think this Bill worth passing now the need will be doubly great in three years' time when the traffic conditions will be aggravated beyond what they are to-day. It would be madness to pass a restrictive Clause of this sort. If there is one thing required in dealing with London traffic it is elasticity. If this Amendment be carried the Minister and his successors will be unable to make arrangements with any elasticity because in three years' time down will come the closure and the Act will be done away with, whether it prove good or bad. That is not businesslike and I oppose the Amendment.

Mr. P. HARRIS

I am glad the Minister at last makes some concessions. I moved an Amendment in similar terms in Committee, and pressed it very hard with the object of having this Bill made a temporary measure. It is some satisfaction now to know that this is not to be permanent legislation, but I am not over sanguine that this Amendment carries us very far. My experience is that once a Bill of this kind is on the Statute Book, Governments have a way of taking the line of least resistance, either by renewing it or putting it into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. It is, however, satisfactory to have this provision in the Bill, and I thank the Minister for making this concession, even though it is done at the eleventh hour—or half-past the eleventh hour. I hope the insertion of this limitation in the Bill will be some guarantee that the Government are going to face the whole problem of London government. One of the reasons for my strong objection to the Bill is that I consider the very fact of its passage will make more difficult the reform of London government, which is the real, sane, proper way of dealing with the traffic difficulty.

Mr. D. HERBERT

I trust the House will not allow the question of London Government to be dragged into this discussion and will not decide this matter on the views expressed with regard to that subject. I will not discuss it further than to refer to the hope expressed by the Mover of the Amendment that the time would come within three years when London would manage its own affairs. I am desirous that London should manage its own affairs but I do not think that London should manage the affairs of Watford. I am anxious moreover to see that so far as possible it shall secure a gradually increasing improvement in the traffic conditions around London. It would be a fatal blot on the Bill if it were limited to three years, so that it would be possible at the end of that period for its operations simply to come to an end, with nothing to take its place. I hope those who are interested in improving the conditions of traffic will see that the best thing to do is to leave this Measure on the Statute Book: then if and so far as it does not act, there will be a real demand from the Government of the time for its improvement. I ask the Minister to allow the House the opportunity to express the view that there should be no statutory limitation put into the Bill as to its duration and that it should be left to stand there with all its faults open to the world as a standing challenge to future Governments to see if they cannot do something better than the present Government.

Viscount WOLMER

I do not think the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) need excite himself about this Amendment. I agree with the hon. Member for South West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) that when a Bill of this sort gets on to-the Statute Book it may be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuous Acts for many years For example, I believe the Motor Car Act really expired in 1000 and it is the foundation of a great deal of the trouble which has led to this Bill but along with a great many other Acts, it is revived every year. I would not mind betting the hon Member—[HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]—that there is not the slightest prospect of the question of London government being tackled within the next three years. Personally I should rejoice if it were, as I think hon. Members opposite would be much better employed in tackling questions of that sort rather than some of the schemes that are dear to their hearts So, from every point of view, as a Conservative and one who believes in moderate legislation and feeling one's way and not making fundamental drastic changes by Act of Parliament, I think it is a wise thing to limit the duration of this Bill, and I hope during the next two years hon. Members opposite will devote a great deal of attention to London government and we shall be able to review the subject when the Act expires. From the point of view of the interests I have tried to voice and that of watching the combine, it is an exceedingly desirable thing this question should come up in debate in two years' time. The Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea, has tried to make out that this Clause is going to injure the competitors of the combine. I do not think that is the case. If the Act expired and nothing took its place the small man would only be in the position he is now, that is, he would enjoy the ordinary privileges of a citizen of the land. The privileges that are conferred upon the combine come from this Bill and therefore I do not think the small competitor may fear the temporary nature of this Bill. Therefore I shall be regretfully compelled to vote against my Noble Friend if it be pressed to a Division.

Mr. BECKER

I have the greatest and utmost respect for the Minister of Transport; in fact he has endeared himself to all our hearts, and I rise therefore with trepidation to criticise his action in agreeing to this three years' limit to the Bill. If he were a Socialist, which I am sure he is not, he would jump at this opportunity of perpetuating State control of such a thing even as traffic. It is a step on the way. Here we find that at the very first opportunity of getting a grip on something which it is vital to get a grip of the Minister, without really thinking about it, suddenly saying he will agree to relax that opportunity, which is one of the things the Labour Party continually have been arguing for. What can be the reason of the Minister for jumping to this conclusion? I hope he is going to retract what he said. Perhaps it is that the Ministry of Transport is almost ready to be wound up, and ho feels that his Department will not be able to control the traffic under this Bill, because if not, there is no reason why the Minister in a Labour Government should not be in agreement to keep this control in perpetuity. What is the Party's attitude on this matter? Here is an opportunity, hon. Members will agree, to nationalise the control of the traffic. I really think that in all parts of the House, perhaps from different motives, there ire hon. Members who would like to see this made a permanent Bill, and not merely a patched up measure to last a short period. Possibly the Minister anticipates that he and the party to which he belongs will have an opportunity of extending the boundaries of London so as to cover the area brought under the jurisdiction of this Bill. I think it is very unlikely; I do not believe there is any possibility of it, and therefore I beseech the right bon. Gentleman to allow this Bill, so far as London traffic is concerned, to be placed on the Statute Book without any necessity for including it year after year in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.

12 M.

Sir F. HALL

It may interest hon. Members to know that until this Bill was brought forward—it was taken over for the last Govt—we who represent London in this House never suggested that we wanted this legislation for a few weeks only to deal with the enormous congestion of London traffic. We wanted the question properly dealt with. This subject has been under consideration for the last 70 or 80 years, by Parliamentary Committees and other bodies, but this is the first time we have had any Measure brought forward to endeavour to do away with the terrible congestion in London. The Metropolis has a population of 7,000,000 which is increasing and will increase year by year, yet here are the Government proposing to put this Bill on the statute book for a period of three years only so that at the end of that time the whole question will be brought into the melting pot again. We do not want that. We desire to know where we stand in this matter and I must confess it was to my mind extraordinary that the Minister, when this Amendment had been proposed should at once have intimated that we accepted it without first giving the House an opportunity to discuss the matter. This was discussed in Committee upstairs, and nothing was done then.

Mr. BARNES

On a point of Order. In Committee, the Minister gave an undertaking to accept this.

Sir F. HALL

at is not a point' of Order. I say the Minister should not be

prepared to accept an Amendment of this drastic kind without giving the House an opportunity of discussing it. I sincerely trust that my hon. friends will press this matter to a division. After all the trouble we have had of having brought forward a Measure of a previous Government—a Bill good in parts—we are not going to have it put on the scrap-heap, without any opportunity of bringing forward amending Clauses. There are bound to be lots of Amendments brought forward on this Bill hereafter and I trust they House will not accept the limitation of three years.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted in the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 72.

Division No. 112. AYES. [12.2 a.m.
Ackroyd, T. R. Falconer, J. Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Finney, V. H. Jones T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)
Alexander, A, V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T H. Jowett, Rt. Hon. F.W. (Bradford, E.)
Alstead, R. Foot, Isaac Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Ammon, Charles George Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Kay, Sir R. Newbald
Asks, Sir Robert William Gardner, J. P. (Hammersmith, North) Kedward R M.
Attlee, Major Clement R. Gates, Percy Kirkwood, D.
Ayles, W. H. Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Lamb, J. Q.
Baker, Walter George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Lansbury, George
Banton, G. Gibbins, Joseph Law, A.
Barclay, R. Noton Gillett, George M. Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)
Barnes, A. Gorman, William Lawson, John James
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Gosling, Harry Leach, W.
Been, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Lee, F.
Birkett, W. N. Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Lessing, E
Black, J. W. Greenall, T. Linfield, F. C.
Blundell, F. N. Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Loverseed, J. F.
Bondfield, Margaret Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) Lunn, William
Bonwick, A. Grigg, Lieut.-Co). Sir Edward W. M. McCrae, Sir George
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. Groves, T. Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Briant, Frank Grundy, T. W. M Entee V. L.
Broad, F. A. Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Macfadyen, E.
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mackinder, W.
Buchanan, G Harris, John (Hackney, North) Maden, H.
Buckle, G. Harris, Percy A. Mansel, Sir Courtenay
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon March, S.
Chapple, Dr. William A. Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Marley, James
Charleton, H. C. Hastings, Sir Patrick Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Klnc'dlne, E.)
Clarke, A. Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton)
Climie, R. Haycock, A. W. Masterman Rt. Hon. C. F. G.
Cluse, W. S. Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Maxton, James
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Mills, J. E.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.) Mond, H.
Colfox, Major Wm. Philip Hillary, A. E. Montague, Frederick
Collins, Patrick (Walsall) Hindle, F. Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Compton, Joseph Hirst, G. H. Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Comyns-Carr, A. S. Hobhouse, A. L. Moulton, Major Fletcher
Costello, L. W. J. Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Murrell, Frank
Crittall, V. G. Hodges, Frank Naylor, T. E.
Darblshire, C. W. Hoffman, P. C. O'Grady, Captain James
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Dickie, Captain J. P. Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Oliver, George Harold
Dickson, T. Hudson, J. H. Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)
Duckworth, John Iliffe, Sir Edward M. Owen, Major G.
Dudgeon, Major C. R. Jackson, R. F. (Ipswich) Paling, W.
Dukes, C. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Palmer, E. T.
Duncan, C. Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Perry, S. F.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Jewson, Dorothea Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern) John, William (Rhondda, West) Phillipps, Vivian
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Potts, John S.
Egan, W. H. Johnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East) Pringle, W. M. R.
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby) Raffety, F. W.
Ramage, Captain Cecil Beresford Spence, R. Warne, G. H.
Rathbone, Hugh R. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South) Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Raynes, W. R. Spero, Dr. G. E. Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Rea, W. Russell Spoor, B. G. Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Rees, Sir Beddoe Stamford, T. W. Wells, S. R.
Rhys, Hon. C. A. U. Starmer, Sir Charles Welsh, J. C.
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring) Stephen, Campbell Westwood, J.
Ritson, J. Stranger, Innes Harold White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Roberts, Rt. Hon. F.O. (W. Bromwich) Stuart, Lord C. Crichton Whiteley, W.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell) Sturrock, J. Leng Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Robinson, S. W. (Essex, Chelmsford) Sullivan, J. Williams, David (Swansea, E.)
Romeril, H. G. Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William Williams, Dr. J. H. (Lianelly)
Rose, Frank H. Sutton, J. E. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Royle, C. Terrington, Lady Williams, Lt.-Col. T.S.B. (Kenningtn.)
Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C. Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West) Thornton, Maxwell R. Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Scurr, John Thurtle, E. Windsor, Walter
Seely, H. M. (Norfolk, Eastern) Tinker, John Joseph Wolmer, Viscount
Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) Tout, W. J. Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John Trevelyan, Rt. Hon. C. P. Wright, W.
Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) Turner, Ben Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)
Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) Turner-Samuels, M.
Smith, T. (Pontefract) V'ant, S. P. TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Smith, W. R. (Norwich) Vivian, H. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinson.
Snell, Harry
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte Gilmour, Colonel Rt. Hon. Sir John Phillpson, Mabel
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Greene, W. P. Crawford Remer, J. R.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Ropner, Major L.
Astor, Viscountness Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L. Harland, A. Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Harvey, C.M.B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne) Shepperson, E. W.
Betterton, Henry B. Hennessy, Major J. R. G. Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Bourne, Robert Croft Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Spender-Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H.
Brass, Captain W. Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N. Stanley, Lord
Butt, Sir Alfred Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Steel, Samuel Strang
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North) Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Clarry, Reginald George Huntingfield, Lord Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Cope, Major William James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthberl Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Curzon, Captain Viscount King, Captain Henry Douglas Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Lumley, L. R. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Dawson, Sir Philip Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Wise, Sir Frederic
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Wragg, Herbert
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Ferguson, H. Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Penny, Frederick George TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Perring, William George Mr. Becker nd Mr. Frederick
Hall.

Question put, and agreed to.

Forward to