HC Deb 12 July 1928 vol 219 cc2560-8
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER

The first Amendment marked for selection by Mr. Speaker is that standing in the name of the hon. Member for Central Wandsworth (Sir H. Jackson).

Sir HENRY JACKSON

I beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 20 and 21, and to insert instead thereof the words: convey by any road vehicle any passenger who on any one journey is both taken up and set down in the area consisting of the Metropolitan police district and the City of London. The effect of this Amendment would be to allow the railway companies to enter the Administrative County of London for the purpose of undertaking long distance motor coach work, and in exchange for this concession they would undertake not to engage in the Metropolitan Police area or the City of London in the ordinary work of omnibus business. As the Bill stands they are prohibited from entering in any way for passenger conveyance the Administrative County of London. I venture to say that the proviso which has been inserted by the Joint Committee of the two Houses is open to certain criticism. In the first place the Administrative County of London is not a recognised traffic area at all, and the London County Council is not itself a traffic authority nor a highway authority; and so, by this new condition, you are introducing into the present very complexed problem of London traffic an entirely new authority in the management and organisation of that traffic.

I want to point out that in considering the continuous urban area of London—after all the traffic does not know the boundary of the administrative county—we have in the Metropolitan Police area not only the Cities of London and Westminster and Metropolitan Boroughs but we have such extremely important boroughs as East Ham, West Ham, Croydon, Ilford, Ealing, and Leyton and such densely populated urban districts as Willesden, Tottenham, Walthamstow and Barking. The problem of congestion in all these areas is becoming more and more acute, and I think it would be generally agreed amongst those of my colleagues who are acquainted with the traffic problems of London that at the present moment there is very little reasonable opening for any new undertaking to embark upon the carriage of local passenger traffic in the area of Greater London. The problem facing those who have to advise the Minister of Transport is rather to reduce the present congestion which, if it continues, must result in local authorities having to embark upon more and more costly street widenings. Our problem to-day is to use to the best possible advantage the traffic facilities which are already available. The Metropolitan Police has since 1869 been the licensing authority for all public service vehicles in that area, and as a consequence they have by this time established considerable control. It is quite true that the City has its own police force but nevertheless it has been found necessary to place it within this Amendment.

As the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) hinted, the whole question has been altered by the London Traffic Act of 1924 and the experience which we have gained under that Act. Before 1924 there was little attempt to restrict or control, and the chaos of traffic in London was then of such a character that the then Government took up the question, and I wish to pay a tribute to the Labour Government of that day for placing the Act of 1924 upon the Statute Book. The congestion of the traffic has increased so much since that time that we are experiencing an increased number of fatal and non-fatal street accidents, and an increasing burden is being placed on our local authorities to deal with that congestion. In the case of suburban services of the main line railways there has been a gradual falling off in the receipts, accompanied by a closing of their stations, and at the same time there has been a demand from various other areas asking for new railway facilities whether by tube, underground railways or the electrification of existing railways. The tramways, so necessary to the travelling public and under important statutory obligations, continue to be a serious financial burden to their owners.

The then Government passed the London Traffic Act of 1924 and by Sections 6 and 7 the present Minister of Transport has made a series of instructions which laid down that upon certain streets in the Metropolitan Police area they should not have any more omnibus traffic. It may be of interest to tell the House what has been the result of those restrictions which from time to time have been made, and which Parliament has sanctioned. At the present time the total mileage of restricted streets is 563, and 96 relates to tramways only and 26 are not covered by tramways or omnibuses. The miles of restricted streets operated by omnibuses total 441. The total number of miles which are covered by omnibuses in the Metropolitan Police areas is 903. The point I want to make is that whether your streets are restricted or unrestricted it is important that they should be worked as one unit and one unit only, and a uniform policy should be adopted with regard as to all streets in the Metropolitan Police Districts.

Finally, there is one great factor in the London traffic of to-day which ought to induce the House to accept the Amendment which I have moved. Apart altogether from the propriety of making the Metropolitan Police district the area for exceptional control, I will point out that if you can avoid it you should not introduce anywhere a fresh factor in the way of London traffic. The London and Homes Traffic Advisory Committee in July, 1927, recommended a scheme for the establishment of a common management and a common fund to cover all the local passenger traffic in the London area. That is, of course, subject to public control, and the protection of the community in the level of fares in the matter of the adequacy of the services given and the question of future developments. This scheme has been submitted to the local authorities and to statutory undertakings both municipal and private in the London traffic area, and it has received an overwhelming amount of support. It has also received the official approval of organised labour engaged in transport.

The main line companies are asking to be included within that scheme for the protection of their suburban traffic, and if these Bills were to pass in their present form with this restricted area of the administrative County of London it will introduce a new and a very uncertain factor into those negotiations and must delay the establishment of such a scheme. It is for that reason that I ask that there should be a continuance of the logical policy that I have suggested. I move this Amendment because I feel that it is fair and equitable to the railway companies themselves and it does continue that policy which, for the last four years, we have been pursuing and which, if carried out, must result in improved transport facilities for Greater London which will be of immense benefit to the community, to whom cheap and efficient travelling facilities are so vital.

Mr. B. SMITH

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would call the attention of the House to the fact that the object of the London Traffic Act was to eliminate the congestion in the London streets, and also to eliminate what one would call unholy competition within the streets of London for the carrying of passenger traffic. I want the House to see that, if the Bill as it is now before us be carried, the exclusion of any railway vehicle from operating in the administrative County of London must have an effect that the Committee never intended, because it is obvious to anyone who looks at the matter that, if we tell the railway companies that they may not operate at Finsbury Park, yet they may operate at the Manor House—the one being in Middlesex and the other in the London County Council area—chaos will result. The object is not to put the railway companies out of operation in London, but rather to say to them that, so far as long-distance traffic is concerned, they may use the whole of the Metropolitan Police area for depositing and collecting their passengers for the journey into or out of London, but they shall not compete with the transport undertakings already existing within London. That is the real object of the Amendment, and I hope that the House will agree to it.

Colonel ASHLEY

Speaking generally, I am in favour of the House supporting the broad decisions arrived at by the Joint Committee, who, as we have been told earlier in the Debate, sat for between 40 and 50 days considering this Bill; and, therefore, in venturing to advise the House to agree to this Amendment, I would submit that it is not a departure from that general principle which I have laid down, but simply an amplification or elucidation of what, I take it, the Committee had in mind. As the House knows, under the London Traffic Act the Minister of the day has very extensive powers to deal with London traffic, and I have, with the advice of the Traffic Advisory Committee, during the last two or three years, not only prevented an increasing number of omnibuses from coming on to the streets and making traffic impossible, but have also reduced their numbers a little as and when opportunity has offered. It is my policy, subject of course to the over-riding convenience of the public, to reduce them still more. I imagine, therefore, that the Joint Committee took London as a special enclave, a special area with which they desired to deal definitely in their recommendations, and they thought that, by the Sub-section which now appears in the Bill, providing that the railway companies should not run any passenger services within the London County Council area, they were, so to speak, crossing the t's and dotting the i's of the London Traffic Act, and by so much were supporting the Minister of Transport of the day and the House of Commons at the same time.

The result of that, to speak quite frankly, would have been unfortunate and unfair—unfortunate for the general public and unfair to the railway companies—because it would have meant that not only would the railway companies be prohibited from running omnibuses in that area, which as a matter of fact they could not have done without the consent of myself, but they would have been prevented from carrying out what I submit, with all respect to the House, is a quite legitimate activity on their part, namely, offering to the public a road service from say, Southampton to some point in London. They would not have been able to offer that service, and, therefore, would have been deprived of one of the legitimate and necessary activities of a road haulage or transport undertaking, whether a railway company or otherwise. The Amendment which has been moved and seconded by my two hon. Friends, both of whom are members of the London Traffic Advisory Committee—very active members, if they will allow me to say so—seems to meet both points of view, because it enlarges the area of prohibition for taking up and setting down from the county area, which has no relation to the London traffic area, and puts it definitely at about 15 miles, which is the extent of the Metropolitan Police district, inside which I have definite powers. It says, however, that, although the railway companies are not to take up and set down passengers and run omnibuses, they may, inside that area, start chars-a-banc to any outside town or village, or they may set down their passengers whom they bring by the same means into the Metropolis. The Amendment, therefore, seems to me to be an excellent one. I recommend it to the House, and I say again that I cannot see in it any departure from the principle that we should generally support the Joint Committee in their recommendations, because it is only elaborating their idea and putting it into a somewhat more practical form.

Mr. THOMAS

There is only one thing that I should like to say to the House in regard to this Amendment. I take the line of not moving against the recommendations of the Committee. As I understand it, the position of the railway companies and those of us who are supporting the Bill is that, whatever our views may be on the broad question we accept the findings of the Committee. That is our position in regard to this Amendment. I would like the House to observe this remarkable fact, that an assumption has arisen in people's minds that the railway companies are going to try to stop road transport and drive people on to the railways. Nothing could be more absurd and ridiculous, and, indeed, the railway companies themselves would be most foolish if they attempted it. If the people of this country want road transport, they must have it, and they are entitled to it, but they are entitled to have it under the maximum of advanage.

Look at the situation at this moment. I know a number of people to whom time makes no difference. If they are going from here to Bristol, or from here to Scarborough, whether they take two or three or four hours more or less over the journey is a detail. But there are other people who must get there in quick time. Trains meet their case, but, if the railway companies are wise, they will cater for those other people, and they will do so in this way. They may reasonably run, and no one would object to the railway companies running, a service to Bristol partly by omnibus and partly by train, but, unless this Amendment be carried, that will be impossible. I am quite sure that the Committee did not intend that that should be so. Supposing that anyone going from here to Bristol wanted to go from London to Swindon by road and from Swindon to Bristol by train, that, under the Bill as it stands, would be impossible. This Amendment gives that facility, with the added advantage that it stops plying for hire within the London County area. That is important. I do not support it because I quarrel with the Committee. I rather put it on the ground that it is not inconsistent with what the Committee has done and it rather facilitates it.

Mr. FIELDEN

These Bills received a very large majority on the Second Reading. They were sent upstairs, where for some 30 days they received very careful consideration by the Committee which after hearing and considering most carefully all that could be said for and against the Measure, have found certain results which we now have in the amended Bill. The promoters are somewhat disappointed at the result. They had hoped the Committee would be more favourable to their views, but after the careful and very full hearing, they came to the conclusion that it would be wrong for them to oppose the findings of the Committee on the Report stage. It is now proposed that the findings of the Committee should be altered on this point. It is apparently a change which is very strongly desired by those who have had to deal with this very complicated question of the traffic in London. The proposed change is approved by the Minister of Transport, and we believe the members of the Committee are not at all averse to it. Under these circumstances the promoters do not propose to offer any objection.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

It was argued before the Committee that the London traffic area should be excluded because it was too congested. It was argued on the other hand that the London Road Traffic Act gave complete power to deal with any traffic going through that London area. It was shown that all the restricted streets in London were in the administrative county area, and the Committee decided to exclude the area of the administrative county only. They never intended, as far as I know, that omnibuses should not come in from a distance and pass through that area. All the members of the Committee agree that this Amendment is an improvement on the Bill, and I take upon myself, though I have not seen members from the other place, to approve it on behalf of the Joint Committee.

Sir J. NALL

There is a question of public policy arising on this that ought to be mentioned before the Bill passes on. As it came back from the Committee, as I think wrongly, the main line companies could not run these services in Central London at all. My hon. Friend has quite properly moved this Amendment which, subject to restriction, enables the main line companies to bring their running services into London. To that extent the House is reversing the Committee's decision. My hon. Friend in moving the Amendment is, I think, meeting a very real need. I think some member of the Committee ought to give a better reason than we so far know of, in the first place, why the main line companies were excluded from the London areas at all and, secondly, why the Metropolitan Company was given no powers at all, even outside the London area. There is here a very important question of policy. The London Traffic Advisory Committee can give authority to undertakers to run provided those undertakers are qualified to run, but the main line companies will not be qualified to run. The Metropolitan will not be qualified to run, and no powers of the Traffic Advisory Committee can enable them to put on services if that Committee thinks those services ought to be provided. We have heard nothing as to why there is this curious fact in the Bill. The London Underground Combine is very largely protected, and properly protected, as the result of this restriction of main line powers within the London area. It is most curious that, coincident with that, the London Combine, which is protected in its own home market, is given a free hand to run into the Metropolitan Company's outside territory whilst the Metropolitan Company may not run at all in the London area.

Why is it that the Joint Committee has given this extraordinary series of decisions and now acquiesces in this further decision in favour of the main line companies and in favour of the London Underground group, whilst one single undertaking, which has as much claim, indeed a stronger claim, than any other to these powers, has been shut out and its Bill torn up? We ought to hear from some Member of the Committee where that fifth Bill is which was given a Second Reading by this House. In my view the Committee's decision on the whole question of the whole of the five Bills is thoroughly unsound and unsatisfactory from a Parliamentary point of view. Hon. Members may think I am unduly talking about the Metropolitan Company. I have had no kind of communication from that company and I have not seen any of its officers or members or heard anything from it. I am raising this purely as a question of public policy, as I am entitled to do in this House. Having regard to all the circumstances of the case it is an astounding anomaly. It is the most sinister sequence of coincidences. This House ought to know why the London Underground Combination is to benefit as a result of certain provisions in these Acts while one of its principal competitors is entirely excluded from the field.

Amendment agreed to.