HC Deb 26 June 1924 vol 175 cc765-75

The London Traffic Area shall include the following areas:—

The Administrative County of London;

The Administrative County of Middle-sex;

The County Boroughs of Croydon, East Ham, and West Ham;

So much of the Administrative County of Berks as comprises:—

The Borough of New Windsor;

The Rural District of Windsor;

The Parish of Winkfield in the Rural District of Easthampstead;

So much of the Administrative County of Buckingham as comprises:—

The Urban Districts of Beaconsfield, Eton, and Slough;

The Rural District of Eton;

The Parishes of Amersham, Chalfont St. Giles, Chalfont St. Peter, Chenies, and Penn; Coles-hill Hamlet and Seer Green Chapelry in the Rural District of Amersham;

So much of the Administrative County of Essex as comprises:—

The Urban Districts of Barking Town, Brentwood, Buckhurst Hill, Chingford, Epping, Grays Thurrock, Ilford, Leyton, Loughton, Romford, Tilbury, Waltham Holy Cross, Walthamstow, Wanstead, and Woodford;

The Rural Districts of Billericay, Epping, Ongar, Orsett, and Romford;

So much of the Administrative County of Hertford as comprises:—

The Boroughs of St. Albans, Hertford, and Watford;

The Urban Districts of Barnet, Bushey, Cheshunt, Chorleywood, East Barnet Valley, Harpenden, Hoddesdon, Rickmansworth, and Ware;

The Rural Districts of Barnet, Hatfield, Hertford, St. Alban's, Ware, Watford, and Welwyn; and the detached part (lying between the Rural Districts of Ware and Epping) of the Parish of High Wych in the Rural District of Hadham;

So much of the Administrative County of Kent as comprises:—

The Boroughs of Bromley and Gravesend;

The Urban Districts of Beckenham, Bexley, Chisleburst, Crawford, Dartford, Erith, Northfleet, Penge, Sevenoaks, and Sidcup;

The Rural Districts of Bromley and Dartford;

The Parishes of Brasted (excluding the detached portion), Chevening Dunton Green, Halstead, Kemsing, Otford, Riverhead, Seal, Sevenoaks Weald, Shoreham, Sundridge, and Westerham, in the Rural District of Sevenoaks;

So much of the Administrative County of Surrey as comprises:—

The Boroughs of Guildford, Kingston-upon-Thanies Reigate, Richmond, and Wimbledon;

The Urban Districts of Barnes, Beddington and Wallington, Carshalton, Caterham, Chertsey, Coulsdon and Purley, Dorking, East and West Molesey, Egham, Epsom. Esher and the Dittons, Ham, Leatherhead, Merton and Morden, Mitcham, Surbiton, Sutton, The Maidens and Coombe, Walton-upon-Thames, Weybridge, and Woking;

The Rural District of Epsom;

The Parishes of Bisley, Byfleet, Pyrford, and Thorpe in the Rural District of Chertsey;

The Parishes of Dorking Rural, Effingham, and Mickleham in the Rural District of Dorking;

The Parishes of Addington, Bletchingly, Chelsham, Crowhurst, Farleigh, Godstone (except the detached portion), Limpsfield, Oxted, Tandridge (except so much of the said Parish as lies to the south of an imaginary straight line drawn from the point where the western boundary of the said Parish joins the southern boundary of the Parish of Godstone to the point where the eastern boundary of the said Parish joins the southern boundary of the Parish of Crowhurst). Tatsfield, Titsey, Warlingliam, and Woldinpham in the Rural District of Godstone;

The Parishes of Artington, East Clandon, East Horsley, Merrow, Ockham, Pirbright, Send and Ripley, West Clandon, West Horsley, Wisley and Worplesdon; and part of the Parish of Compton in the Rural District of Guildford;

The Parishes of St. Martha (Chilworth) and Shalford in the Rural District of Hambledon;

The Parishes of Betchworth, Buckland, Chaldon, Chipstead, Gatton, Merstham, Nutfield, and Walton-on-Hill; and Kingswood Liberty in the Rural District of Reigate.—[Mr. D. Herbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.


I beg to move, "That the Schedule he read a Second time."

I think it is consequential on an Amendment to the first Clause, and I only formally move.


I beg to second the Motion.

New Schedule read a Second time.

Colonel ASHLEY

I beg to move to leave out lines 6 to 9 inclusive.

The effect of the Amendment is to exclude the county of Berkshire from the ambit of the Bill.

Viscount WOLMER

On a point of order. Has nut, the House already agreed to an Amendment by which the members for the county of Berkshire were appointed, and: not the case of the county of Berkshire prejudged?


I think the noble Lord was not in the House at the time. The point was raised, and I gave a decision that I thought it would be the best way to take it as a separate issue in the new Schedule, and the Minister undertook to put the early part of the Bill in that form.

Colonel ASHLEY

I ant very pleased to move the Amendment, not only because I am very anxious to do anything I can to meet the wishes of my hon. Friend the Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville), but also because the county council of Berkshire has passed a resolution desiring that that county should be excluded from the Bill. If one can meet the wishes of the local authorities without seriously damaging the structure of the Bill, I think this House ought always to move in that direction. I think the county council are ill-advised in insisting upon exclusion, because they would, by coming inside this new Traffic Authority, receive substantial financial assistance which would help them to rebuild their bridges and remake their roads. But, after all, that is their affair, and as they wish to go outside, I would ask the Minister of Transport to accept the Amendment and make them happy.


I think the County Council are wrong, but if it is their wish I accept the Amendment.


I wish to thank the Minister for accepting the Amendment; it will cause great satisfaction in Berkshire that the authority of County Council has not been over-ridden.


There was, I desire to remind the Minister, very great objection and a strong feeling in the Committee against this Schedule. Directly the Committee deleted it there were strong representations to the Minister, and it was understood that it would be re-inserted on the ground that it is essential from the point of view of traffic control. But I think the Minister should give us some reason why this particular portion should be re-inserted. Personally I feel that a lot of districts are not vital from the point of view of traffic control. I accept the assurance of the Minister that they were essential, and we agreed to the re-insertion; now I see we have a group in which is the Borough of Windsor. Why has Windsor been given the exclusive right to contract out of the Schedule?

Colonel ASHLEY

Because the County Council asked for it to be excluded from the ambit of the Bill.


There are Parliamentary representatives speaking on behalf of their constituencies who object to the whole principle underlying this Bill, and who have been unsuccessful in getting it rejected. The Minister, before he goes back on the position he put before the Committee, should give some valid reason why this particular section should be allowed to contract out.


Will the Minister say whether the county of Buckinghamshire has been retained in the Schedule of the Bill, and, if so, has the Minister done this in response to local representations?

Captain BOWYER

As a representative of Buckinghamshire I, with others, object to this arrangement. It is not needed for Landon traffic control. Seeing, however, the County Coucil of Buckinghamshire, in its wisdom, sees its way to meet the Minister of Transport and arrange for inclusion, I of course, must let it go at that.


I am very interested in this Amendment, and think that, perhaps the right hon. Gentleman opposite may feel justified in moving the inclusion of Hampshire as a set off to Buckinghamshire. For the traffic problem along the Portsmouth Road is as difficult and complex as elsewhere. I suggest, if he so moved, it would be accepted by the Minister. What is happening is that these various local authorities are beginning to understand this Bill. I feel sure that Buckinghamshire, far away from the hubbub and excitement of London, does not appreciate what is actually being done here, and there will be a rude awakening before very long. For my own part I shall vote for the exclusion of any area, because in my opinion the smaller the area under the Ministry of Transport and the more local control is insisted upon the better I shall be pleased.

Viscount CURZON

The lion. Member who has just spoken does not wish to include any area unless the London Comity Council are given the chance of controlling it. I cannot understand the precipitate action of the Minister of Transport on this Amendment and he has given no explanation of his decision. On the Committee the right hon. Gentleman did try to justify the inclusion of Berkshire by saying that that County was concerned with the Ascot races traffic, but that only lasts far four days in the year. Theo there is the race traffic to Epsom. What is going to be the position of the Minister of Transport while controlling the traffic in the metropolitan police area when he comes to deal with the Ascot traffic. He will be directing part of the traffic through Eton and Slough, part through say Chertsey, and part over Staines Bridge. What would be the attitude of the Berkshire County Council under those conditions? I think we should have some valid reasons given before acceding to the representations of the Berkshire County Council. Ascot is only an incident. You may have some other big sporting event, possibly in Buckinghamshire, and we must know how it is that we propose to control the traffic, and what the effect is likely to be on the repair of the roads of Berkshire. Personally, I think that the Berkshire County Council, in objecting to being included, are short-sighted. One of the most necessary things from the point of view of both Bucks and Berks is that a new bridge should be constructed over the Thames between Eton and Windsor.


May I ask where exactly between Eton and Windsor such a bridge would be

Viscount CURZON

I believe it has been already under consideration, and plans have been prepared according to which the road would cross the Thames just outside Eton and proceed by way of River Street and Castle Hill. If Berks and Bucks, speaking through their Members, seek to be excluded from the Bill, I think they will be short-sighted, and I think the Minister is right when he says so. I would urge him not to be in too much of a hurry to listen to the representations of these local bodies. They may be taking a far-sighted view, but, on the other hand, they may be taking a short-sighted view, and I would urge him not to be in too much of a hurry to accept Amendments of this kind, or, at any rate, to justify his attitude to the House when he does so.


In answer to the Noble Lady the Member for Wycombe (Lady Terrington), I would say that the reason for keeping Bucks in is the same as the reason for taking Berks out. The Berkshire County Council asked to be taken out, but I think they were not wise, and I think that possibly before the end of this week they will wish they were in again. Still, they are an authority, and have a right to speak, and I think it is right to accept their suggestion and let them come out. I have here the decision of the Bucks County Council. The Noble Lady shakes her head, but I will read from the Minutes. The Bucks County Council were taken out in Committee, and, as soon as they heard of that, they looked upon it as a disaster. This is their report: The London Traffic Bill, which received a Second. Reading in the Rouse of Commons on the 28th March last, provides for the constitution of a London and Home Counties Advisory Committee to advise and assist the Minister of Transport on various transport questions and for the establishment of an area to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Committee, which embraces part of the Southern portion of Bucks included within the radius of 25 miles from Charing Cross. The local authorities comprised within its area are to afford mutual assistance to each other towards important road works by which they ale benefited, and, as Bucks is of considerably less rateable value than the rich metropolitan boroughs and other local authorities comprised in the area, and the inclusion of a portion of this county would be of financial advantage to the County Council. It appears, however, that the Bill has been amended in Ore Committee stage, so that Bucks is excluded from its operation. In your Committee's ten it is important that this Amendment should not be allowed to remain in the Bill, and it is proposed to approach the Members of Parliament for the county in the matter.


They have never done so.


I Might also tell the House that deputations from the Buckinghamshire County Council have come to the Ministry of Transport urging that the Ministry should pay 100 per cent. of the cost of the roads in Bucks, on the ground that the traffic over them is entirely London traffic. If the Members who ask for the exclusion of Bucks say that the traffic in Buckinghamshire is not London traffic, then tie Council are wrong in their statement. We are informed that great building developments are taking place in the South of the county, and that it is essential that by-pass roads should be constructed to relieve congestion in the populous districts, and that level crossings on highways should be superseded by bridges. I am in this position. There are some people who say they speak for the County, and one has to listen to them. The County Council has put on record what they want to be done in this case, and I accept their decision, and hope the House will see that what the County Council ask for is given to them.


Did you promise the 100 per cent.




The Noble Lady has spoken once.


I have allowed some liberty, because I thought there was some analogy between the two cases. I think we have disposed of the question in lines 6 to 9.

Question, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule, "put, and negatived.


I beg to move, to leave out lines ten to fifteen of the proposed Schedule.


I beg to second the Amendment.

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the proposed Schedule."

The House divided: Ayes, 181; Noes, 79.

Division No. 113.] AYES. [12.34 a.m.
Ackroyd, T. R. Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon Remer, J. R.
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ainsworth, Captain Charles Hastings, Sir Patrick Richardson, R.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') Hastings, Somerville (Reading) Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George Haycock, A. W. Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South) Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Attlee, Major Clement R. Henderson, T. (Glasgow) Romerill, H. G.
Ayles, W. H. Henderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.) Ropber, Major L.
Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L. Hennessy, Major G. R. J. Rose, Frank H.
Baker, Walter Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford) Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Hirst, G. H. Royle, C.
Banton, G. Hodges, Frank Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barnes, A Hoffman, P. C. Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Barnston, Major Sir Harry Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone) Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Becker, Harry Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead) Scurr, John
Bondfield, Margaret Howard, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North) Shepperson, E. W.
Bourne, Robert Croft Hudson, J. H. Sherwood, George Henry
Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. Huntingfield, Lord Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Broad, F. A. Illffe, Sir Edward M. Smith, T. (Pontetract)
Buchanan, G. Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H. Smith, W. R. (Norwich)
Buckle, J. Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C. Jewson, Dorothea Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Clarke, A. John, William (Rhondda, West) Spence, R.
Climle, R. Johnston, Thomas (Stirling) Spoor, B. G.
Cluse, W. S. Jones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd) Stamford, T. W.
Collins, Patrick (Walsall) Jowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.) Steel, Samuel Strang
Compton, Joseph King, Captain Henry Douglas Stephen, Campbell
Cope, Major William Kirkwood, D. Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Crittall, V. G. Lamb, J. Q. Sullivan, J.
Curzon, Captain Viscount Lansbury, George Sutton, J. E.
Dalkeith, Earl of Law, A. Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale) Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North) Thurtle, E.
Dawson, Sir Phillip Lawson, John James Tinker, John Joseph
Dickson, T. Leach, W. Tout, W. J.
Dukes, C. Lumley, L. R. Turner-Samuels, M.
Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) Lunn, William Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern) M'Entee, V. L. Viant, S. P.
Egan, W. H. Mackinder, W. Warne, G. H.
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. March, S. Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Ferguson, H. Marley, James Watson W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton) Martin, W. H. (Dumbarton) Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R. Maxton, James Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Gavan-Duffy, Thomas Mills, J. E. Wells, S. R.
Gibbins, Joseph Milne, J. S. Wardlaw Welsh, J. C.
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George Abraham Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham) Westewood, J.
Gillett, George M. Montague, Frederick Whiteley, W.
Gosling, Harry Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome) Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South) Williams, Lt.-Col T. S. B. (Kenningtn.)
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton) Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Greenall, T. Murray, Robert Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greene, W. P. Crawford Naylor, T. E. Windsor, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) Windosor-Cilve, Lieut.-Colonel George
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) O'Grady, Captain James Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Groves, T. O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh Wise, Sir Fredric
Grundy, T. W. Paling, W. Wolmer, Viscount
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth) Palmer, E. T. Wragg, Herbert
Hacking, Captain Douglas H. Penny, Frederick George Wright, W
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich) Perry, S. F. Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Partick)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Harland, A. Phillipson, Mabel TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Harmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent) Potts, John S. Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Parkinon
Raynes, W. R.
Alstead, R. Black, J. W. Comyns-Carr, A. S.
Aske, Sir Robert William Bonwick, A. Darbishire, C. W.
Barclay, R. Noton Briant, Frank Dickie, Captain J. P.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff) Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby) Duckworth, John
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith) Burnie, Major J. (Bootle) Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Birkett, W. N. Colfox, Major Wm. Philip Duncan, C.
Edwards, John H. (Accrington) Kay, Sir R. Newbald Rees, Sir Beddoe
Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.) Kedward, R. M. Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. C.
Falconer, J. Lessing, E. Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Finney, V. H. Linfield, F. C. Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)
Fletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T H. Loverseed, J. F. Spero, Dr. G. E.
Foot, Isaac McCrae, Sir George Stanley, Lord
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke) Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) Starmer, Sir Charles
Gorman, William Macfadyen, E. Stranger, Innes Harold
Grigg, Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M. Maden, H. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) Mansel, Sir Courtenay Sturrock, J. Leng
Harris, John (Hackney, North) Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.) Sutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Harris, Percy A. Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G. Thornton, Maxwell R.
Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury) Mond, H. Vivian, H.
Hindle, F. Moulton, Major Fletcher White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Hobhouse, A. L. Murrell, Frank Williams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston) Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley) Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C)
Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie Owen, Major G. Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Horlick, Leiut.-Colonel J. N. Phillipps, Vivian
Howard, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton) Pringle, W. M. R. TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor) Raffan, P. W. Baroness Terrington and Mr. Har-
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby) Rathbone, Hugh R. court Johnstone.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools) Rea, W. Russell

Schedule, as amended, added to the Bill.