13. Lieut.-Colonel Sir FREDERICK HALLasked the Home Secretary whether he is aware that a number of small omnibus proprietors were convicted on a charge of having plied for hire on a route other than the one to which they were allocated under the recent traffic restrictions; and that, by the publication of a special concession in the "London Gazette" of the 19th June last, these men were permitted again to operate their vehicles on the actual route in respect of which they were prosecuted; whether the proprietor of an omnibus is held responsible for the action of his staff even if they should act contrary to his instructions; and can he see his way to issue instructions for the expurgation from the licences of the men concerned of the particulars of the offence for which they were prosecuted under the recent traffic restrictions?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe facts are as stated in the first two parts of the question, except that the offence charged was failing to maintain a regular service in accordance with the deposited schedules. As regards the third part of the question, the person liable under Section 6 (9) of the London Traffic Act is the person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted. As regards the last part of the question, particulars of these offences are not endorsed on the men's licences.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONDoes not the right hon. Gentleman think it is somewhat remarkable that all prosecutions under this Act up to the present have been against small omnibus proprietors, and that although complaints have been laid against the London General Omnibus Company no prosecution has taken place?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI really was not aware of that fact. If the hon. Member can give me any particulars of offences by the London General Omnibus Company, of course they will be subject to prosecution.
§ Mr. MORRISONI will gladly do so.