§ Mr. B. SMITHI hope I shall not be charged with presumption in raising a matter which is of minor importance compared with the previous discussion. The difference is that one is large national policy, whereas the point I wish to raise is more of a domestic nature. May I give a short history of the cab trade in London, dating back to 1907, when cabs were first licensed at 8d. per mile, 2d. per quarter of a mile thereafter, 4s. an hour, and 2d. per package? Several companies came into existence, the total number of cabs they had between them approximating to 5,000. By 1913, at that fare, not a single one of those companies was in existence, neither are any of them now in existence, and they had in the industry at that time approximately £3,000,000 of capital. The reason the companies went out of existence was that at that time, in competition with the horse cab against a is first hiring, the 8d. fare was brought 2428 in to popularise the mechanical vehicle as against the horse vehicle. That fare remained, and the cabs were sold chiefly to individual owners, until 1917 when prices were higher, petrol was limited in quantity to the men, and they were given an initial first hiring of 1s. 2d. In 1919 that order was again amended, and the initial hiring was fixed at 1s., with 3d. a quarter of a mile thereafter, 6s. an hour waiting, and 3d. per package carried. That fare has stood until now.
2.0 P.M.
In October, 1924, the right hon. Gentleman called a conference of the trade, which I introduced to him, with regard to the advent of the two-seater cab. It was pointed out to him that a two-seater cab in London at a differing fare would be bad for the public, bad for the proprietors, and worse for the men. He agreed to postpone any action for a period of about 12 months, when he again raised the matter, and instituted a Committee known as the Two-seater Cab Committee, on which seven Members of the House had seats. They went into the question of the advisability of the two-seater cab. The reference was to consider
whether it is desirable in the public interest to ply for hire as cabs as defined by the London Cab and Stage Carriage Act, 1907, any type of four-wheeled motor vehicle constructed or intended to carry less than four passengers, and, if so to make recommendation on the rates of fare which should he fixed and/or any other matters arising out of the licencing of such vehicles.The Committee took evidence, and I believe there was practical unanimity on the part of the witnesses that the introduction of a two-seater cab in London would be inimical to the best interests of the cab trade, would conduce to further congestion from the traffic point of view, and would have the effect of disturbing the public by promiscuous hiring first of one vehicle and then of another at a differing fare. The Committee reported in the following terms:(1) It is not desirable that the Secretary of State should make an order which would prohibit the licensing of a vehicle which complies with Scotland Yard requirements, on the sole ground that it is constructed to carry less than four passengers.The first mechanical cab in London was in fact a two-seater cab. After about a year of operation the whole of the companies were pressed by the Commissioner of Police to convert those two-seater cabs into four-seaters. Those cabs, which cost 2429 £350 in 1910, and £500 in 1914, cost in 1920 £1,000 and in some cases more. To-day the same cab is £700 to £750. The owner drivers and small proprietors, of whom there are many, put the whole of their capital into the cab business in the belief that there would be no change in the method of construction or seating or ea prying capacity of the vehicle, and there is now approximately £4,500,000 of capital sunk by these men. The licensing of the two-seater cab will have the effect of ruining practically every driver now in London. There are 10,000 men now in London, and if the right hon. Gentleman lie roses them at a fare that is 9d. a mile and 3d. a third thereafter, and 4s. an hour waiting, it will have the effect in the long run—and no one knows it better than he himself—of bringing fares down for the whole of London. That will mean a 27 per cent. reduction in the revenue of the proprietors and a like reduction in the wages of the men. They are paid on a commission basis, and when any change is made in the fare it takes 27 per cent. of the gross income in wages from 10,000 men. I think that should give one pause before licensing a vehicle that is likely to have a serious effect upon the income of 10,000 genuine people and will ruin in the long run most of the owner drivers, will add to congestion in traffic, and last but not least, will create two fares, which the Committee are dead against, for a period and will operate to the disadvantage of the public as a whole. In Clause 2 of their recommendations, the Committee say:The public convenience is hest served by one standard rates of fares.That is what we are asking.(3) It is therefore suggested that the Secretary of State should call a conference of the cab trade with a view to secure an agreed reduction in existing fares which would be applicable to all types of taxis.I introduced a deputation of both the proprietors' and the journeymen's interests, and they told the right hon. Gentleman that, having regard to the present cost of running a vehicle, they thought it was impossible to reduce the fares. The conference was adjourned for a month, and a further one held, and again the interests reflected the view that it would be impossible to reduce the fares. This arose out of a letter received from the Home Secretary asking the men to consider three points. The first was whether 2430 they could agree to a reduction of 9d. per mile and 3d. a third thereafter, and 4s. an hour waiting; (2) whether they could agree or would discuss 6d. a half mile and 3d. a quarter mile thereafter, and 4s. an hour waiting as against 6s., or (3) first hiring and 2d. a quarter mile thereafter, and the same amount, 4s., for waiting. After a very long discussion the representatives were committed by their association, and I was instructed to make a tentative offer to the Home Secretary on No. 2 of his letter, which was 6d. a half mile—and to use the figures which have been presented to us, 60 per cent. of the rides are a mile or less—and 4s. an hour waiting. I regret to say that although that offer was made, subject to endorsement. by the representative associations, the Home Secretary could not see his way clear to accept it. He then issued a statement, after correspondence with myself—a very courteous correspondence, I am glad to say—to the effect that in a fortnight from that date he intended to license two-seater cars. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] One hon. Member says" Hear, hear." If anyone can say that Is. for the first hiring for the use of a man's servie and a £1,000 vehicle, to travel one mile, is excessive, I cannot agree with him. That is exactly what happens. The Committee go further and say that:In the absence of any agreement for a uniform fare for two passengers, we recommend," etc.They then make certain recommendations as to the fares for the use of two-seater cabs to be licensed, and proceed to say:We recognise that a result of licensing two-seater cabs may be an undue decrease in the number of four-seater vehicles capable of dealing with the station work of the Metropolis, or, alternatively, a total number of taxi-cabs in excess of public demands, adding to the congestion of the traffic. We are strongly of opinion that any further addition to the congestion of traffic is contrary to the interests of the public and of the cab trade. The situation would, therefore, have to be carefully watched and considered in conjunction' with the steps taken by the Ministry of Transport to diminish congestion, and it may be necessary for the Secretary of State to obtain powers to limit the numbers of either or both types licensed to ply for hire.I have the honour of being a member of the Traffic Advisory Committee. The 2431 Two-Seater Cab Committee, when in session, wrote to the Traffic Advisory Committee asking their views with regard to two-seater cabs, and the Traffic Advisory Committee unanimously sent a letter to the effect that the introduction of such cabs would seriously increase the existing congestion in London. Therefore they were against the introduction of two-seater cabs. After the report of the Two-Seater Cab Committee, having regard to the Clause which I have just read, the Advisory Committee again went into the matter, and advised the Minister of Transport, who I understand in terms advised the Home Secretary, that the introduction of a two-seater cab would be a serious factor in congesting the traffic. I do not want to say anything unnecessarily contentious. I want to placate the Home Secretary, if I can, and I am hoping that he is in a better frame of mind to-day than he has been all along.
§ Mr. SMITHI say that advisedly. I want to ask the Home Secretary whether he will consider either meeting a deputation again or, alternatively, having regard to the fact that the men have not had an opportunity of submitting what I will call the finance of their business, he will agree to set up a Committee to arbitrate on the question. I think the Government should set an example on the question of arbitration. It is not our fault that London business is in the hands of the Secretary of State for the Home Department. If these matters were, in the hands of the London County Council for licensing purposes, or in the hands of any of the larger London bodies, one could understand it. If is not our fault that the Home Secretary has to be brought in in connection with what he may regard as a minor question. Although it may be a. minor question to him, having regard to his onerous duties, it is a, very serious matter for the men who are to he called upon to face a 27 per cent. reduction in wages.
I would ask the Home Secretary (1) whether he would again meet a deputation with a view to arriving at an agreed settlement as recommended by the Two- 2432 Seater Cab Committee, or, failing that, (2) whether he would agree to submitting the whole case to arbitration. I suggest that there should be one representative from labour, one from capital, with a neutral Chairman, and that before them the matter should be argued, and we would stand or fall by the decision of that Committee. I suggest to the Home Secretary that that is a way out and that it would save what undoubtedly will happen in London if the two-seater cab comes, namely, that there will be chaos in the trade and that it will be bad for the public and bad, in the long run, for the Home Secretary.
§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANThe hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) has given a very clear and comprehensive view of the situation. As a London Member I am interested in this question from the point of view of the Metropolis, although I am not in any sense connected with the trade in one capacity or another. I am also interested in the question because I have many friends of years' standing among the men who drive taxi-cabs in London. Not only Members of Parliament for London, but any citizen of our great city should take a keen interest in this subject, because the taxi-cab is a very important means of communication, and we should be seriously inconvenienced were the numbers to be reduced. We depend upon the taxicab for part of our means of communication. This is essentially a domestic question. It is not one that lends itself to division on party lines or to any cleavage of that kind. It is a matter essentially for London to consider and, in the last resort, it is a matter essentially for London to determine. The owners and drivers of taxi-cabs are London citizens, but not all the patrons are Londoners.
I disagree with what. I understand to be the policy of the Home Secretary on this question. A case has been made out by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe against the demand that the cab trade shall, at this juncture, accept a greater reduction in fares than those already offered. I think it can be clearly demonstrated that if the figure of 8d. a mile was reasonable pre-War, 9d. a mile is not reasonable to-day. Everybody will recognise that the costs of running and obtaining a vehicle have enormously increased. Some of my 2433 friends in the trade estimate the increase at 70 per cent., while others put it at a higher figure. Certainly the relation between 9d. and 8d. cannot represent an effective comparison. If therefore a reduction in fares cannot be justified on the ground of reduction in working costs, what argument can be put forward in support of it? There are, I think, two arguments which have been put forward. It is said that, in spite of the difficulties, the public as a whole demand the concession. If that view be held, all I can sail from my experience is that I demur from it. I am not aware of any extensive informed opinion which demands a concession of that kind. On the other hand, there is a certain amount of dissatisfaction on the part of the public because they are afraid that the payment of the strictly legal fare will not be invariably welcomed with that kind of courtesy which one expects from servants of the public. My experience in that direction not been unfavourable. I find that the taxi-driver is courteous and reasonable.
A further argument used in favour of the reduction is that if the fare be reduced the business of the trade will largely extend. That view, as far as my information goes, is held by a section of the trade, but one large cab proprietor with whom I am acquainted who is understood to have held that view at one time does not hold it at the present time. I think the best policy for the cab trade would be to persist in the offer they have mace, so as to limit the first short hiring to not less than 1s. and to adhere to the 'seductions for waiting time and in regard to extra passengers which they have offered. If that condition was accepted it could hardly be contended that for the use of a vehicle of the character, type, and quality which is insisted upon in the case of London taxicabs. it is excessive to charge for conveying two persons half-a-mile or three-quarters of a mile a sum varying from 3d. to 4d. per head. I do not think it could be contended that that is an exorbitant demand. 'When we come to consider the reluctance of the trade to accept a reduction or to admit the possibility of a reduction, it is only fair to look at their side of the question. The figures which appear in the report of the Two-seater Cab Committee show the cost of a vehicle. I have heard varying figures 2434 mentioned. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe mentioned £1,000. I have heard £000 mentioned and £800. The figure most commonly given is £750.
§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANMere is a cash payment down of £100, or in some cases £75, and a weekly payment varying from £3 3s. to £5. In addition, the taxi-driver has to insure against third party risks. He has to pay rental for his clock, and he has to pay his licence and the police fee.
§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANAnd his road tax. At a rough estimate, it seems to cost him, before any profit is earned., in the neighbourhood of £4 4s. a week the year round. I do not know whether the impression prevails among any large section of the public that every taxi driver or taxi proprietor is rapidly making a fortune. My information does not support that view. I therefore find myself in disagreement with the policy which I understand the Home Secretary has hitherto resolved upon, and I support the plea that is being made that he should reconsider the attitude which he 'holds at the present time. The question of congestion in the London streets is serious. There is difficulty to-day in finding adequate rank accommodation for taxicabs. There is a tendency on the part of the Advisory Committee in the direction of reducing the numbers rather than increasing them, which is going to make the situation of the proprietors not more easy. The proprietors' earning power will be further restricted. I ask the Home Secretary to consider that aspect of the question again.
Now I come to the third point. Is it necessary, is it reasonable that the taxicab to-day should cost the figure which is asked for it? I believe that that figure is due, at least in part, to the Regulations of Scotland Yard. I have heard of those Regulations and I am familiar with some of the details, though I have not in my possession the substantial volume which contains the whole of them. I ask the Home Secretary to consider a review of the Regulations and restrictions which at present obtain. In view of the development of the motor trade and the improvement in motor vehicles, is it any longer 2435 necessary to insist upon the turning circle, the lock, which has now to be specially provided? Is it any longer necessary to insist upon a certain clearance under the cab? Is it any longer necessary to insist upon certain detailed specifications as to length of body, length of seat and distance between, and so on? In fact are a great many of the pernickety Regulations really necessary? Will the Home Secretary consider a review of these Regulations, and possibly the appointment of some qualified Committee to go into the matter and to ascertain, first of all, in how far they are really responsible for the high cost of the vehicles and the restricted sources of supply of the vehicles?
In the course of his reply perhaps he will also be good enough to inform the House how the fares in London compare with the fares authorised in other important towns in the country. So far as my information goes, the fares in London are infinitely less than those which obtain in any other town in Great Britain. They are certainly less than the fares in certain places abroad. You can travel in a taxi more economically in London than in New York. That does not surprise anyone. But if you compare the relative purchasing powers of money in the two places, according to what is a rough and ready estimate, the London taxi-cab cods to day no more than the taxi-cab in New York, making allowance for the reduction and taking the dollar at 2s. Those being a few arguments in support of the appeal which has been made by the hon. Member opposite, I conclude by asking the Home Secretary to give attention to these considerations. Will he be good enough to give his attention to the appeal, and will he also take into consideration the question of the Regulations and restrictions which are partly 'responsible for the trouble? I have had considerable correspondence on behalf of a constituent of mine with the Home Office on points arising out, of these restrictions. Are they really all necessary? By a relaxation of them could not the difficult task of the cab driver and proprietor be made substantially easier, and the way be made more readily accessible for a reduction in the cost to the public?
§ Mr. MACQUISTENI am speaking on behalf of the travelling public. I am not 2436 speaking on behalf of proprietors of fleets of taxi-cabs or on behalf of owner-drivers. Nor am I speaking on behalf of unions or the Traffic Committee. I speak for the ordinary person who regards a taxicab as a thing to be taken now and again when he has missed his last tube train. He takes a cab, therefore, as a certain form of extravagance. I think that the fares are too dear, and that the taxis stand idle for great parts of the day because the fares are too dear. I am perfectly satisfied as to that. If there were a reduction of fares on the lines suggested, I am satisfied that every driver would have two customers where he now gets only one. Out coinage is very awkward for dealing with fares of this kind. I wish we had something a little more elastic. You put your hand in your pocket for a 1s. or 1s. 3d. fare and you find you have only a two-shilling piece. You are not going to ask for change. The taxi-man, after all, does not really make his earnings out of the rigid, legal fare. The last speaker said something about a taxi-man being courteous when given a strictly legal fare. I gathered that my hon. Friend had had the audacity to pay only the legal fare. It is a thing of which I never would have dreamt. I could not do it. I would rather walk all the way. [HON. MEMBERS: "To Scotland?"] Yes, walk to Scotland.
It is utterly uneconomic, when you are travelling alone, to get into a cab designed to carry four people. What is wanted is a two-seated vehicle to take one person or two. The Traffic Committee is cutting down the number of omnibuses and teeny people will not go underground, notwithstanding all the appeals that the combine issues to make human rabbits of us. Those people want something in which to travel about. There might be some relaxation in Scotland Yard's regulations. If the result of those regulations is that a man has to pay £725 for a cab, Instead of £325 or £400 at the outset, there is someone who is having a great pull. It is ridiculous that that heavy burden should be hung round the neck of the taximan at the start. I have no use for proprietors of fleets of taxicabs. I am a believer in the man who owns his own taxi and drives it. Hon. Members opposite may not agree. Such proprietors are not often members of trade unions; they like to be independent. The two-seater cab is bound 2437 to be cheaper and the vehicle will be more within the reach of the democracy and of people of small means. If I believed that the reduction of fares would reduce the taximan's wages to the extent that has been stated I would not support it. But I do not believe it for a moment. The drivers are crying out before they are hurt. I believe that the taximan today is getting a good average standard wage.
This scheme of the Home Secretary will not be an iron-bound scheme. It will not be like the laws of the Medes. It ought to be tried. The Home Secretary has to consider first the interests of the travelling public. Taxi-cabs are not on the streets for the benefit of their owners but for the benefit of the public. All industries and occupations and professions should be carried on for the benefit of the customers. The Home Secretary is fortunate that he is in a neutral position, unconnected with the Traffic Committee, the trade unions or anything else. He can, therefore, consider the question with the utmost impartiality. I hope that he will stick to his guns. The public are absolutely behind him in his endeavour to get these smaller vehicles and lower fares. The smaller cabs could go round the smaller streets and avoid the congestion. They would, in fact, minimise the congestion. I doubt whether the gloomy prognostications which have been indulged in will be realised. Experience shows that when the cost is diminished to the customer and the consumer, there is an amazing result in turnover, with increasing profits to those who have a commodity for sale. Some hon. Members opposite have the narrow-minded, trade union point of view that the higher the price the more money is made. I recall the last Coalition Government, when the Post master-General raised the price of post cards to 1½d. I asked him, "Why not raise the price to 1s. 6d. and pay the National Debt?" He strangled the industry. The present charge for taxicabs is absolutely injurious to the taxi-men, and in the best interest of all concerned they should accept the Home Secretary's suggestion.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am much obliged to the hon. Member for Rotherhithe (Mr. B. Smith) for the very cour- 2438 teous way in which he introduced this very important question, which has excited so much interest in the House this afternoon. I would like to assure such of the House as is here that this matter is no sudden decision on the part of the dogmatic Home Secretary. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe was quite fair in telling the history of the case. It was as long ago as November, 1924, when I first came into office, that I was faced with an application which had been made by one or two firms to put two-seaters on the streets. I knew all the difficulties that would arise. They have been mentioned to-day. Therefore I called a conference of the cab trade. The proprietors came to see me and discussed the matter. They explained all their difficulties to me. I said: "Let the thing stand over for 12 months. I will not license any two-seaters for 12 months, and by then you will have had time to consider what the effect will be and you can come and see me again to talk it over." At the end of 12 months there was no greater accord between the trade and myself, and I was being pressed as to why I would not give licences to two-seaters. I appointed a Departmental Committee, consisting of five Members of this House, one of the Police Commissioners, and one representative of the Ministry of Transport. That Committee met a great many times and took a great deal of evidence, and it arrived at certain conclusions.
I want the House to realise my position. I appointed a committee which was in effect a committee of this House, though it had on it one representative of the police and one representative of the Ministry of Transport, to assist in technical matters. That committee came to certain conclusions which have been quite fairly stated by the hon. Gentleman opposite. They advised me that there would be difficulties in this matter. I must confess their report was not a very dogmatic one, and did not give that amount of guidance and help for which a Minister hopes when he shifts the burden of decision and of blame on to a Parliamentary Committee. However, they gave me some help. They came to the conclusion that it would not be right to refuse to license two-seater taxi-cabs, simply because they were two-seater taxicabs. That was the first clause of their report. Then they told me there would 2439 be a good deal of objection to it, and they advised me that, in the first instance, I should try to negotiate with the cab trade to arrive at a reduction of fares which would enable me not to license the two-seater cabs. I held the series of negotiations which the hon. Member opposite has fairly and frankly described. I listened to all that there was to be said by proprietors, drivers and others, and the result of the conference was that there was no agreement at all for any reduction of fares. They said, "We cannot and we shall not reduce. It cannot be done, and therefore it is no good talking to us any longer about it." That was their attitude. Then I said, "I am sometimes obstinate as well as you. Take another month to think this matter over, and see if you cannot come to some arrangement in the interests of the public. I have no interest either for or against the taxicab trade, but take another month and come and see me again at the end of that period." At the end of the month they came again, and they said, "We cannot and will not reduce the fares."
The hon. Member opposite came to me after that demonstration, and discussed with me the possibility of a reduction of fares on a smaller scale than that which I had suggested. A right hon. Gentleman who sits opposite also suggested a minor alteration in the scale of fares. In the first place, I should say that suggestions were sent out some months ago from my office as a basis for discussion. When the discussion took place, the cab trade would not consider these suggestions at all. They said, "We will not have anything to do with any of them." Therefore, I withdrew all those alternatives, and said the matter was now being started afresh. The suggestion made by the hon. Member was a fare of 6d. for the first half-mile, 9d. for three-quarters of a mile, and 1s. for a mile. That would have very little effect on the travelling public except in the case of the very rare passenger who rode just less than three-quarters of a mile, and who would get off with a ninepenny fare instead of a, shilling. The suggestion made by the right hon. Gentleman who is one of the leaders of the Opposition was that we should continue the fare of Is. for the first mile, and charge 2d. for each one-fifth of a mile afterwards. 2440 Thus the man who now rides two miles and has to pay 2s. would get off for 1s. 10d., while the man who now rides three miles and pays three shillings would get off for 2s. 8d. That did not seem to me to be worth all the bother, and I said if I could not., on behalf of the travelling public, get any more substantial reduction, it seemed to me the fares had better remain as at present. Finally I wrote to the hon. Member opposite, and told him quite frankly that I had heard all the cab trade had to say, in support of the view that they could not possibly live at lower fares than the present fares. "Very well then," I said, "let us assume that to be the case. What am I to do?" As the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire (Mr. Macquisten) has just said I have something else to represent, besides the taxicab trade. I have to think of the public. I am given the responsibility by Parliament of looking after this question of taxicab fares and conditions and so forth.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI am responsible to Parliament, I quite agree, for the way in which I carry out my office. I would much prefer if I had not these difficult questions to decide, but I would point out to the hon. Member that I am in the position of an arbitrator. He suggested that we should have an arbitration by a representative of the taxicab trade on one side, a representative of the travelling public on the other, and a third member of independent character. Obviously, as everyone knows, number one and number two would cancel out each other, and the third person, appointed as the independent chairman, would have to decide. I have tried during the last 15 months to take the part of the independent chairman. I have heard a great deal more on the side of the taxicab proprietors than on the side of the general public, but, at all events, I have tried to find out what was my duty in the matter, and I must confess I have not been able to feel that I should be justified in declining to allow this new type of taxicab to be brought into operation in London. Really, the view taken by the hon. Member for Rotherhithe is the very acme of Toryism. In effect, he says, "Because the four-seater cabs are already here, because the 2441 present men cannot get a living if new cabs are introduced, no improvement must be permitted to the travelling public of London." On the other hand, I am met by people who say, "We are prepared to supply a public want. We are prepared to put two-seater cabs on the streets at certain fares." Am I to say to those people, "I will not permit it, and London is not to have the privilege of cheaper taxicabs because it will be injurious to the existing cab trade." That is a very strong statement.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSNo, it is a very different proposition, because in the case of other industries we have foreign competition in Germany and elsewhere, working on very different lines to our home industries. The hon. Member went back to 1907, and to the advent of taxicabs and motor omnibuses. Now it is quite true that motor omnibuses carry people about satisfactorily, quickly and cheaply, and that taxicabs can get round London much more quickly than the old "growlers" did. But think of the vested interests of the old cab drivers and the old omnibus drivers, who were displaced by those vehicles. Was it to be said then that we should not have these new vehicles on the streets, because it would do away with the old cab driver, and the old horse omnibus driver with his many coals, who had driven omnibuses through the City for 40 years previously? We must think of these poor old gentlemen, but progress, I am afraid, cannot be stopped, and the hon. Member knows that the pressure of progress and the pressure of new inventions, introduced the motor omnibus and the taxicab very greatly to the detriment of many of the old drivers. Even to-day one has applications in regard to concerts and entertainments for the benefit of the old omnibus drivers to help them over bad times. They, have been ruined by modern vehicles. I know it is a very sad thing and I am very sorry for it, but you cannot keep back the clock—not even on the Conservative side—and the hon. Member opposite ought not to desire to keep back the clock in this way.
There are just two other points which I would mention. An argument has been used as to the congestion of the London 2442 streets, and the suggestion is made that if 500 new two-seater taxicabs come on the streets in the course of six months it will seriously add to the congestion. These cabs are not made yet—but I believe there are one or two specimens to be submitted to Scotland Yard—but the whole 500 would come on in the course of six months. In the last three weeks of this month, 8,000 new motor vehicles have been licensed in London. They are being licensed to-day at the rate of 2,300, or 2,500 per week, so that in the six months within which it is possible that the 500 new two-seater cabs may come on the streets, there will be 26 times 2,500 new motor vehicles. The additional congestion of 500 taxicabs is a drop in the bucket, compared with the enormous number of additional vehicles with which the Minister of Transport will have to deal somehow or other. Whether my right hon. Friend is going to widen streets, or what he is going to do, it is not for me to discuss, and I should probably get into trouble if I did so, but I assure the House that the congestion argument is not one which should be considered even by the Traffic Advisory Committee. Then I am told that I should be involved in ruining old men as well as young men who have bought their taxicabs on the hire-purchase system. I think I have already answered that point. I cannot stop modern progress, and I have no right to stop it.
All I can say is that I am not altering the fares for existing cabs. I am not saying, as I have the power to say to the taxicab trade, "I am going to issue an Order altering your fares." I am leaving the fares just as they are, but I am saying, that as somebody else has applied for permission to put a new type of vehicle on the street at a lower fare, in the interests of the travelling public I conceive it my duty to allow this to be done. It may be that the effect of that will be, as the hon. Member suggested, to reduce the fares of the existing four-seater cabs, Personally, I agree with the hon. and learned Member for Argyllshire. We have found all along the line that the cheapening of transport does not ruin the transport industry but improves it. If I may introduce a personal note, many years ago I had a great deal to do with the traffic of London from a commercial point of view. I was interested as a lawyer 2443 and very largely helped in the management of the great omnibus company, and I remember the transformation from the horse omnibuses to the motor omnibuses. I had a great deal to do with that, and it was found in those days that the cheapening of fares, which many older people looked on as ruin to the omnibus trade, resulted in the prosperity of the omnibus trade. I believe the same principle applies in this case. If the cab trade were to reduce the fares to the extent I have suggested, I believe there would be a great increase in the numbers using the cabs. There are hundreds of thousands of more men and women pouring into London who are available as fares, and all you have, to do is to convince them that the present high rate of fares is going to be reduced and you will find a great accession to the number of the taxicab-using public.
I am bound to say that I cannot see my way to alter my decision. The hon. Member for Rotherhithe has told the House exactly how I have been placed, and what efforts I have been making during the last 15 months to secure an agreement. I have failed to do so, and I have come to the conclusion that my duty as Home Secretary and the interests of the travelling public, demand that in answer to those who are prepared to put two-seater cabs on the street, at lower fares, I must at least allow the experiment to be made in order to see whether it will be for the benefit of the people of whose interests in this matter I am the ultimate guardian. I am very sorry to have to refuse the offer made by the hon. Member. He has been so kind and courteous and so helpful, if I may say so, throughout the whole of these negotiations and the dispute, which is not really a dispute, because the taxi trade has been very courteous to myself personally, and I only deeply regret that I am unable to accede to their request.
§ Mr. SMITHDo I understand that the right hon. Gentleman proposes to limit the advent of the two-seater cabs? He used the term "experiment."
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSI did not say that I proposed to limit them, because I have no power to do it. I should need an Act of Parliament to enable me to 2444 limit them, but the applications that I have heard of coming in are at the most only 500. I have prepared the Order giving the permission for them in draft, and I was proposing to issue it on Tuesday next, the clay after Bank Holiday, but the conditions in regard to the new taxis are being considered and drafted by the Commissioner of Police. They will necessarily take some little time, and it will take some considerable time, of course, for the taxis to be built.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSThe hon. Gentleman is pressing me, as, of course, he is entitled to do, on behalf of those for whom he speaks, but the thing has gone on for so long already. If he likes to come to see me in my office on Tuesday morning—I come back again on Monday from what short holiday I am going to get, and my intention now is to issue the Order on Tuesday afternoon—and if he can come and tell me that he has been able to get agreement, I shall be glad, as I always have been, to see him.
§ Colonel VAUGHAN-MORGANWill the right hon. Gentleman give any consideration to the points I have mentioned in regard to the Regulations?
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSMy hon. and gallant Friend has made a new point on the question of the Regulations—I have not had it put before me at all, and certainly not by the taxi-cab drivers themselves—as regards the lock of the cab. One of the secrets of the success of the London taxi-cab is that it has a short lock, which will enable it to turn round in the width of the street. If I had a large cab licensed with a lock which could not turn round in an ordinary street in London, I would ask the House to consider what the traffic congestion would amount to then. The Commissioner of Police is always open to consider improvements. I was asked the other day whether I would permit four-wheel brakes on taxi-cabs, and I have seen the Commissioner, and I think arrangements will be made to permit of four-wheel brakes, or any other improvement, but the question of the lock is one on which I could not give way.
Mr. MACQUSTENI hope that when four-wheel brakes are allowed on taxicabs, the right hon. Gentleman will insist on there being a sign at the back giving notice of that fact.
§ Sir W. JOYNSON-HICKSYes.