§ Mr. T. KENNEDYI beg to move, in page 2, to leave out lines 23 and 24.
I am encouraged to hope that this will be accepted without a division. I cannot believe the House will deny to provincial municipal authorities a protection which it has extended to transport interests in the Metropolitan area. I move the Amendment in order to protect local authorities within the whole of the area of their existing transport undertakings. The Bill does not do this. Clause 4 stipulates, it is true, that with- 2569 out the consent of the local authority a railway company shall not enter into any agreement for the running of any service of road vehicles, except for the purpose of serving any area beyond such local area, so long as no passenger conveyed by such service of road vehicles is on any one journey both taken up and set down on a route in such local area. A "local area" in this Bill is defined in Clause 4, as the House will observe, as a county, city, borough, burgh or urban district. It is that definition that my Amendment seeks to leave out in order to give local authorities a further measure of protection, to which I think they are entitled and which the railway companies and the promoters of this Bill will find it very difficult indeed in equity to refuse. Under Clause 4 of the Bill—it was, I think, in Clause 6 of the Bill which was given a Second Reading—which we are now considering, the local authorities are protected against the exercise of the powers sought by the railway companies within their own local areas, that is, within the municipal, borough, city or district area.
While this Bill may have real meaning and real value for certain municipal and public purposes, it has really no meaning at all and no value as far as the question of transport services is concerned. Transport services and transport problems cannot be interpreted in terms of municipal area or mere geographical area. Transport services, especially passenger transport services, cannot afford to be interpreted by a mere geographical municipal boundary. A moment's reflection will, I think, convince any hon. Member of this House that this is so. In recent years there have been extensive developments in the matter of housing schemes around all our great industrial centres, around all our big towns and cities. Progressive authorities in these areas have made it their business to extend their tramway transport services to meet the needs of the people who dwell in those new areas. Municipal authorities have extended their services into adjoining areas, into areas controlled by district authorities, into neighbouring boroughs, less progressive than the borough in which the tramway service originated. Those extensions of publicly-owned tramway transport services have involved the authority owning them in 2570 very serious financial commitment's, extending in some cases, I understand, to a period of 30 years ahead.
9.0 p.m.
While it can be argued that municipal authorities enjoy certain statutory privileges with regard to transport—they enjoyed privileges in the past—I think the House cannot avoid realising that those authorities to-day have, not merely privileges in the matter of transport within their own area, but that they have very serous and very definite financial and other obligations. It has been argued in the course of discussions on former Amendments that the Bills as now before the House have as their main justification the serious financial difficulties in which the railway companies now find themselves. I do not deny that these difficulties exist. The railway systems of the country are to-day undergoing a process of change, but I think that it is the business of the railway directors and the railway shareholders to face them. I do seriously argue that it is not quite justifiable that the railway companies should come here to-night in this connection and argue that they should be given statutory powers to save them from their present difficulties at the expense of local authorities who are working to-day under statutory obligations and under difficulties that are just as real as any of the difficulties that beset the railway companies. I wish the House to remember that those difficulties and dangers bat the local authorities foresee, if Clause 4 becomes operative, will, in the last resort, have to be borne by the ratepayers in our great industrial centres up and down the country.
In this matter, I think I have a right to expect the support of every Member of this House, at any rate, who sits on the Government Benches, for the interests of the ratepayers are seriously involved in this matter. I think I have the right especially to count on the support of the Minister of Transport. When these Bills were passing through this House on Second Beading, the House was encouraged to give them practically a unanimous Second Beading on the assurance of the Minister of Transport that they contained no menace at all to the interests of municipal transport undertakings. He said that hon. Members were rather disturbed at the idea that 2571 if the Bills became law they would in some way hurt their municipal enterprises. What, he asked, had the municipalities to fear in this matter? The power to refuse licences remained. At the present time, in the case of 99 per cent. of our municipal tramways, the municipality had power to refuse licences for motor vehicles. This power of refusal could be used against the omnibuses run by a railway company, just as against omnibuses run by a private individual or a private company. Does the Minister of Transport to-night seriously argue that this Clause as it now stands will not seriously hurt municipal tramway and omnibus undertakings as they now exist?
§ Colonel ASHLEYWhat it does do is to protect the position in these localities. The Joint Committee give them absolute power to decide upon this, whereas when the Bill came up for Second Beading it did not give them that power.
§ Mr. KENNEDYThe Bill as it now stands does give municipalities protection within their own area, but my argument is—and I would like the Minister of Transport to meet this—that the definition of a local area does not give the municipal authorities protection in regard to that vital part of their municipal tramway undertakings which takes the form of a necessary extension outside the geographical municipal boundary. I hardly think it can be argued that the Bill as it now stands does not financially menace municipal transport undertakings. That it does menace those undertakings is the deliberate and expressed opinion of the municipal authorities themselves. In moving this Amendment, I am glad to say that I do so on their behalf and with their approval. I am not to argue the case in detail, although I could do so if it were necessary. I will leave it to hon. Members to argue the case so far as their own municipal authorities are concerned., I state the general principle that in this matter municipal enterprise is seriously hurt by Clause 4, and that the protection afforded within the municipal area should extend to the whole field of the authorised undertakings now carried on by those municipalities. I am encouraged by another evidence of the sympathy of the Minister of Transport with municipal 2572 authorities and his impartiality in this matter, to count on his support. A few nights ago, in this House, we were discussing the Nottinghamshire and Derbyshire Tramways (Trolley Vehicles, etc.) Bill, and in that Bill there was a Clause, Clause 37, which reads as follows:
If and so long as the company"—this was a private company—provides a service of tramways or trolley vehicles along any specified route and such service adequately meets or together with any service of omnibuses operated by the company adequately meets the requirements of such route, it shall not be lawful for any other company or any local authority, body or person to run omnibuses along such route or along any other route in competition with such service or services of the company.That was a private company promotion, and that Bill on Second Reading had the approval of the Minister of Transport. I am not stating this point merely for the purpose of argument. I want to paraphrase this Clause in the Notts and Derby Bill, and to ask the House to say whether or not in Clause 4 of the present Bill the same principle might not with advantage be applied. What would the Minister of Transport say to the suggestion that we should include in this Bill an Amendment on these lines, which would really express the spirit and intention of my Amendment and the Amendments which follow?If and so long as any local authority provides a service of tramways along any specified route and such service adequately meets or together with any service of omnibuses operated by such local authority adequately meets the requirements of such route, it shall not be lawful for any company to run omnibuses along such route or along any other route in competition with such service or services of the local authority.That kind of Clause would give to the local authorities exactly that measure of protection which this private company got, with the approval of this House, on the Second Reading of the Bill a few days ago. There is an overwhelming case for the contention of the local authorities that they are entitled to the protection which my Amendment seeks to give them. They have vast capital interests in these undertakings, and those interests are, in the last resort, the ratepayers' interests. Many of these undertakings are run to-day on a very narrow margin of profit, 2573 I plead with the House to realise that in the matter of the carriage of passengers within the municipal areas and to adjoining boroughs we are dealing, not with the long distance traffic which the railways will always carry for us, but we are dealing with purely domestic passenger traffic, over which the local authorities should have complete control.There are general considerations which should compel the House to adopt my Amendment. Nobody can deny the fact that there is dangerous congestion on all our public highways to-day and that congestion is, I believe, more dangerous in our big provincial towns and cities than it is even in the city of London. There is the further consideration that within a day of two this House will set up machinery for a joint traffic inquiry by a Commission. Is it wise to-day to go further than is absolutely necessary in giving the railway companies statutory powers out of which they will create goodwill and vested interests, which in a very little time this House and the ratepayers and taxpayers may have to take into account? On all these general grounds and on the ground that I hope will be pleaded on behalf of the individual towns and cities concerned, I ask the House to accept the Amendment.
§ Mr. C. EDWARDSI beg to second the Amendment.
I understand that an Amendment which stands in my name—in page 2, line 28, leave out the words:
'each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area,' and insert instead thereof the words 'such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the Board.'is not to be taken. That is the reason why I am seconding this Amendment. This Amendment is much wider than the Amendment that I was going to propose. There is another Amendment down in the name of the hon. Member for Middlesbrough West (Mr. K. Griffith) and other hon. Members on the same lines as the Amendment that I had intended to move. We gave the railway companies a Second Reading of their Bills too easily. We did not anticipate then that they were not only seeking powers but that they were going to take away powers that Parliament had 2574 already given. That is what Clause 4 proposes to do. There are two local authorities in my constituency which have formed themselves into an omnibus board. Clause 4 now makes them one area instead of two. In 1925, the Bedwellty area sought powers from this House to run their own municipal service, but the Bill was rejected, presumably because the area was too small. In 1926 the adjoining area, came forward and promoted a Bill for exactly the same purpose. While that Bill was going through they found out, I suppose, that the area was too small and that they had to do something, with the result that they entered into negotiations with the Bedwellty Urban District Council, and they agreed to form a joint board, which was passed by this House in 1926. It is proposed in Clause 4 to make those areas one. One can hardly believe that it was intended to take away powers already given.When these two authorities came together there were several small private companies operating in the area. They bought out four of them, paying £18,000, and they have already spent on the undertaking some £30,000. There are two through services, which pick up passengers in the area and put them down outside. If Clause 4 is left as it is at present it means that this area will be so much smaller, and the undertaking will then pick up passengers in one of these areas and put them down in another. I hope hon. Members will see the difficulty of these authorities. Already there is competition, but it will be much greater if the area is made smaller, as it will be under this Bill. In the Amendment which I have put down I did not ask that they should be protected outside, but inside the area. The promoters of the Bill issued a statement the other day which is3 not quite correct. They talk about the restrictions and safeguards which have been put in the Bill and say they have no right to provide a transport service whereby passengers may be taken up and sot down in any one area in competition with existing tramways. That is our trouble—in any one area—and they go an to say:
This affords protection to all existing transport services.That is not true. That is why I am putting this point to the House to-night. The Bill does not protect existing ser- 2575 vices. You are making these two areas a single service area, with the result that the competition will be greater and more money will be taken out of the areas than has been the case up to now. Municipal corporations are provided for, as they should be. You do not propose to confine the area to the original area of the corporation. Most of our big municipalities have taken in certain districts at various times, have widened their boundaries, but you do not propose to go back to the original area in their case. In the case of these two areas in South Wales you do. I can hardly believe that the promoters of the Bill intended it, but that is the result of Clause 4. We have many joint boards in South Wales. These two authorities are the constituent authorities with four or five other boards. There is the Rhymney Water Board and the Rhymney Sewage Board, the Abertillery Water Board, and various other authorities, and a Bill has just been introduced to widen the area. In this case you propose to narrow it down and take away powers which were given as late as 1926. I can hardly believe that that is intended; but that is the effect of Clause 4.
§ Sir WILLIAM EDGEI would not have intervened in this Debate were it not for the fact that with other Members of this House I was a Member of the Select Committee which considered these Bills in the Committee stage. I understand that we are to be allowed a fairly broad discussion upon the general question and, therefore, I desire to put before the House some of the points which were considered by the Committee. I do not stand naturally for the railway companies, or against the municipalities, but I want to offer a few observations from the point of view of the Committee which might be of some service to hon. Members. I should like, in the first place, the House to realise the position of the Committee. We commenced our duties in the latter days of April. We sat on continuously throughout the months of May and June, and we concluded them in the early days of July. In that time we heard 49 Counsel, and listened to 24 long speeches, some of them exceding two days in length, and we heard 18,000 questions asked and answered in cross-examination and re- 2576 examination. Let me try and bring the discussion to the points with which we were confronted in the Select Committee. I am sure no member of the Select Committee had the least conception of the great revolution which has taken place in the area of transport in all parts of the world since the invention and perfection of the internal combustion engine. These Bills are the efforts of the British railway companies to try and catch up their past mistakes, repair some of their damaged fabric and deal with the difficulties which have come overwhelmingly upon them in the last few years owing to the introduction of this new road transport.
Let me refer to the municipal position. I say, and I know that I am speaking with the consent of my colleagues on the Select Committee, that no part of the great case put before us received more serious consideration and gave us greater searchings of heart than the case of the municipal authorities. We had the advantage of listening to their witnesses, men high in the esteem of the municipal world, at great length day after day, examined and cross-examined. We found, of course, what was general knowledge before the Committee met, that municipalities bad entered into road undertakings. A few years ago the statutory tramway undertakings of this country were in exactly the same position with regard to the inroads of new road transport as the railways are today. They were chained absolutely to the tramways, exactly as the railway companies are chained to the rails. They secured powers for running and entering into the newer kind of transport, and it seems to me that some of the Amendments on the Order Paper really show that some municipal authorities, having gained their own salvation and protected their own undertakings, rather object to the railway companies having the same means of securing salvation for themselves.
Let me say this to my hon. Friends of the Labour party. I must not be accused of being nervous of municipal enterprise. I know and understand, and live in the atmosphere of a great industrial borough and I am accustomed to municipal undertakings. Indeed, I admit quite frankly that the provision of amenities for the people in our Indus- 2577 trial towns is one of the duties which a municipality has to undertake. I think the Select Committee agreed with that. But the Committee, in view of the greater question and the difficulties arising between railway transport and road transport, in their wisdom and enlightenment, said that there must be some sort of a limit. I do not think the most fervent admirer of our wonderful system of municipal administration would, ill his calmer moments, say definitely that for the purposes of long-distance transport municipalities are in exactly the same category or on the same platform as railway companies.
Let me give one illustration from the many which came before us in the long weeks of the Select Committee. The leading witness for the municipalities was a very highly respected municipal servant, Sir William Hart, the Town Clerk of Sheffield. During the course of his evidence, it was mentioned that at the present time the Sheffield Corporation were running a series of omnibus services well outside their city. I am in no way attacking the Corporation of Sheffield, for I have no doubt they were running under perfectly legal rights, but the point which arises is this. There were some services six miles, eight miles, 10 miles and one 20 miles outside the Borough of Sheffield. It was done in conjunction with one of the other transport services. It was admitted in evidence by the witness that it was run in competition with the railway services, and that it was doing damage to the railway services. The leading counsel for the railway companies asked the witness, if it was fair or right for the Corporation of Sheffield to run long-distance transport, admittedly at the expense of the railway company, was it not right for the railway companies to have the same privileges? Then he turned round and asked the same question of the Committee. He asked: If it was fair and right for the Corporation of Sheffield to run long-distance transport by linking arrangements, was it not at least fair and just that the railway company should stand in the same category and on the same platform as the municipality of Sheffield?
I want to ask hon. Members in all parts of the House the same question, and, before they turn down the recommendations of the Select Committee, I 2578 hope that they will think the question over, not once but twice. There was one question entirely within the ambit of this matter, which was constantly before us day by day and week by week. There was the question of the decreases and deficits of the railways. Since the passing of the 1921 Act the relations of the railway companies to the public are well known in this House, but not so acutely perceived outside. If the drain is to continue on the railway companies, the deficits will have to be made up, and I would say to some of my hon. Friends above the Gangway, who so rightly call the attention of this House to the sad conditions obtaining in the coalfields and to the iron and steel trade, that the burden of making up these deficits will inevitably fall on the shoulders of the coal industries and the heavy industries, because they cannot get away from the railways and use road transport.
With regard to the municipal Amendments, it was the very anxiety of the Committee in order to safeguard the ratepayers' interests absolutely within the precincts of their own districts that, after listening to evidence and to counsel, they gave absolute, clear and undiluted protection against all forms of competition inside those areas. If the spirit of these Amendments were carried into the Bill it would absolutely kill this Bill for assisting the railway companies. I do urge hon. Members in all parts of the House most earnestly in this case at any rate to back up the findings of the Select Committee which do give full protection to the ratepayers of this country within their own borders, and which, while realising that the problem is one of transport throughout the country, give the railway companies an opportunity under stringent conditions—but I hope not harassing and crippling conditions—of repairing the damage to their traffic, and of making them a better and more useful national asset.
§ Colonel ASHLEYTo me this Amendment raises two very important issues. Firstly, does the Bill, as it comes down to us from the Joint Committee, do any injustice to municipal enterprise; and, secondly, if the Amendment were passed, what would be the effect on the prospects of road transport by the railway companies? Take the first one. I, in my office, thinking quite clearly and 2579 conscientiously, cannot condemn myself as being in any way unfavourable to municipal tramways and omnibus enterprises, because, with the present Regulations and laws, apart from the Railway Bills altogether, when a municipality refuses to grant licences to other undertakings to run a transport service within its area, it is my duty, after an inquiry, to the best of my ability to come to a decision as to whether that refusal has been justly given or, at any rate, fairly given. Taking into consideration all the circumstances of the case and the traffic facilities provided by the municipality and the congestion of the streets, and, in fact, trying to suit convenience and do what is right as far as the public is concerned, I have always endeavoured, when a municipality was giving an efficient and proper service, to do what I could to protect that existing service from enterprise—whether it was private or whatever it was—which seemed to me to be redundant on the roads.
Therefore, municipal enterprise in its own proper sphere—I lay stress on the words "proper sphere"—has up to now and is, I hope, receiving legitimate protection. But the Joint Committee, in the exercise of their discretion, after this point had occupied four days with counsel and evidence, came definitely to the conclusion that some more or absolute protection inside municipal areas should be given to the municipalities. Some of my hon. Friends on this side may in their hearts have thought the Joint Committee went too far. That is quite conceivable, but in the changed circumstances of transport, with the Royal Commission coming upon us, and not knowing what their recommendations are going to be, I, personally, gladly accept the recommendations of the Joint Committee that absolute protection inside the municipal area should be given to the municipal enterprise. I should have thought that hon. Gentlemen opposite, who are warm supporters of municipal enterprise, would have welcomed this, and have said they had got a great step in advance and were satisfied with it, but not at all. Indeed, they say, not only inside the municipal area, where it is much more the business of the municipalities to run transport services, and where they may be said rightly to 2580 have special interests to consider such as the congestion of the traffic, and many other local circumstances, but they now say that the whole of their municipal tramway, trolley vehicle and other enterprises shall be absolutely protected. Why should they be?
§ Mr. SUTTONMay I tell the Minister of one instance? For 26 years Manchester has been running trams to outside districts, and the ratepayers' money has been spent on those undertakings. In my opinion competition ought not to enter there at all. What applies to Manchester applies also to other places.
§ Colonel ASHLEYThe hon. Member is quite entitled to his opinion, as I am to mine. Manchester will continue to run trams to these outside districts. The hon. Member says that when a municipality goes outside its municipal area, it should be absolutely protected from any sort of competition, and with that contention I do not agree. When a municipality goes outside its area, in my opinion it loses its distinctive municipal character. Its undertaking is run for profit. The municipality is not necessarily obliged to carry on this municipal undertaking, but does so because it is a paying proposition and the profits go to the alleviation of rates. I do not quarrel with that, but I do quarrel with the contention that the municipality should be given absolute protection and that no private enterprise should be allowed to come in and compete with it. I think it is most unfairly loading the dice against private enterprise when a municipal undertaking goes outside its own proper sphere of action for its own municipal purposes and then claims absolute protection.
§ Mr. R. MORRISONWould not that argument apply to a municipality running a service to its own housing scheme outside the municipal area?
Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGANWill the Minister deal with a question raised by the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. C. Edwards) relating to two local authorities which, because of their smallness, joined together? One runs from A to B and the other from B to C. Where is the protection for these? They do not want to go outside the area but only from A to C, 2581 and they do not want this Bill to give power to the railways to pick up passengers in A and set them down in C, and on the return journey pick up passengers in C and put them down in A. All that we ask is that those two local authorities should be considered as one, and the Bill does not give that protection.
§ Colonel ASHLEYIt is difficult to deal with all the interruptions. The hon. and gallant Member will admit that they will have the same protection as now, namely, that there is an appeal to the Minister of Transport if there is any licence refused by the local authority. I have shown that I am most anxious to protect any municipal enterprise. I may not have convinced hon. Members—probably I have not—but I feel that, when a municipality goes outside its area, the enterprise is in a very different position from that inside the area. But let us be quite clear on this subject. If this Amendment were passed, it would largely defeat the whole object of the Bill. That is the really practical argument. Hon. Members know that there are large areas, not so much in the South as in the Midlands and North, where there are chains of these municipal undertakings, and it is no exaggeration to say that the railway companies would be entirely prevented from operating at all over stretches of country 40 or 60 miles long. Therefore, I put it that the House having, by a majority of 400 to 40, said that, subject to proper safeguards, the railway companies are to be allowed to use the roads, it would be absolutely stultifying itself if it now gave an absolutely opposite opinion and said that many thousands of square miles must be sterilised and put outside the operation of the companies.
Hon. Members must know that, if the Amendment were passed, it would mean killing the Bill. I am sure that the House does not wish to do that. I appeal to hon. Members opposite not to press the Amendment, and for this reason: It is not as if to-night we were deciding how transport is to run in this country, who are to be the licensing authorities for road transport or how rail and road and coastwise traffic is to be co-ordinated. I hope that before the end of the Session the Government will be able to announce the appointment of 2582 a Royal Commission, which has been pressed upon us by hon. Members opposite, to investigate the whole matter. I put it to them that the Joint Committee, by giving this very considerable concession—a concession which hon. Members sitting or Government benches distrust—are going a long way to meet their wishes. I therefore ask hon. Members to wait a year or two before going any further—to wait and see what the Royal Commission will suggest, remembering that on that Royal Commission they will have in opportunity of voicing their own feelings by having members of their own political faith upon it. I hope that the House will reject the Amendment.
§ Sir J. NALLThe Minister is objecting, I understand, to covering these long distance omnibus services. Does he object to covering the municipal tram services beyond their borders if the protection to omnibus services is dropped?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI object to this complete protection being given to municipal enterprises outside municipal areas.
§ Mr. JAMES STEWARTI wish to support the Amendment because of the position in which the Bill will place the city of Glasgow. As far as tramways are concerned, outside the great metropolis of London, Glasgow is the most important tramway authority in this country. There are in that city 266 miles of tramway, and of this total 92 miles is outside the city. It is not that we have gone outside the city of our own will; we have been asked by the authorities in Paisley, Dumbarton and elsewhere to extend the system. In the case of Paisley, it was a bankrupt concern carried on by a private company inefficiently, and ultimately the Corporation of Paisley asked the municipal authority of Glasgow to take over the system. They were asked to extend the tramways to the borough of Georgetown. Soon afterwards they were asked to take over the Lanarkshire system for the very same reason, namely, because that concern under private enterprise was not able to meet its expenses. The Corporation made these extensions, as I have said, because the local authorities desired them to do so. Following on that, another local authority in another part of Dumbarton- 2583 shire, asked the Corporation to build a new line of tramways towards a place the name of which is spelt Milngavie, but pronounced "Milgay." That extension cost £800,000. They had to buy up land from the adjoining proprietors so as to widen the road and make it possible to lay the tramways. Having done so, they were met with opposition by the railway company. A bridge intervened at a place called Hillfoot which interfered with the use of the tramway line, and from then until now that bridge has not been altered, although the Corporation of Glasgow were willing to bear the expense. In connection with that matter more than £2,000,000 has been tied up and on that tremendous amount of money more than £750,000 has been accruing in interest and sinking fund which has to be borne by the citizens.
We are asking for no extension of our privileges. It is to be remembered that when the tramway system first came into being—it was in 1872 as far as Glasgow is concerned—it was a new mode of carrying passengers, and being regarded as a better method, it became a monopoly. This House, in dealing with the extension and development of tramways, whether in the case of private companies or in the case of local authorities, always treated the trams as a monopoly. To-day Glasgow has spent over £7,000,000, in this respect, and over £3,000,000 of that sum has been spent in order to deal with these bankrupt and inefficient concerns at a time when the ratepayers and the people generally were clamouring for a properly equipped tramway service. They are now meeting with opposition instead of having facilities granted to them to carry on their traffic as it has been carried on in the past. The fact that from time to time demands have been made for the extension of this service is proof positive that no fault has been found with the manner in which the public have been served. I submit that it is unfair, now that this monopoly has been created, that the money which has been spent should be thrown to the winds.
We do not desire a complete monopoly. We only desire that we shall get the powers that the railway companies are seeking in some degree to get for themselves. We ask that where we are carry- 2584 ing on a service efficiently and to the satisfaction of the various communities concerned, our system should not be turned into a complete loss to the City of Glasgow. It is also to be remembered that we have to maintain the roadway in all these places, and in the case of one line, which extends from Airdrie to Georgetown, a distance of over 23 miles, we are maintaining the track and paying rates on the track. The railway companies, if they come in, will have no rates of that kind to pay on the road, but the Glasgow Corporation, faced with their competition, will still have to bear that burden. The result may well be that Glasgow Corporation, finding it impossible to carry on the traffic may tear up its rails, and discontinue those services, and allow the competition of the railway companies and the others to have the effect of closing down the trams. But who will say that the people of the community are likely to be better served in that case? The railway company is not likely to carry passengers a distance of 23 miles on a 2d. fare. They cannot do it, but Glasgow is doing it to-day.
We only ask that the privileges which Glasgow has used not for the benefit of the Glasgow ratepayers but for the service of its own and the adjoining communities, shall be continued. The railway companies have many friends here. The municipalities have not so many; but the municipalities must be protected in their efforts to serve their communities. The Glasgow Corporation is developing housing. It is impossible within the confines of the city to find room for the 80,000 or 100,000 new houses required. Year by year with every housing scheme which is proposed, we have to go further and further beyond the confines of the city. If this Amendment is not accepted, the result will be to restrict our opportunity of supplying our own housing needs, and developing our city as it ought to be developed, in the interests of health and good government. By rejecting the Amendment, I submit that the House will do a, greater disservice to the community of Glasgow and the adjoining districts of Dumbartonshire, Lanarkshire and Renfrewshire than they will do a service to the railway companies. There will not be in Scotland the position which the Minister of Transport indicated in regard to the North of England, namely, that adjoin- 2585 ing authorities will link up systems and prevent the railway companies from getting that position that the House is asked to grant to them. I submit that, as far as Scotland is concerned, that appeal is not effective. All that we ask is that the rights of the municipalities should be conserved. I challenge contradiction when I say that we have not failed to serve the community well, and, that being so, I hope the House will agree to this very simple and wise Amendment.
§ Major HILLSThe hon. Member for St. Rollox (Mr. J. Stewart) has treated the case as though it were entirely a ratepayers' case. I submit that there is a much wider question, a very big question of public interest, involved. It is not mainly nor essentially a railway question. It is not a ratepayers' question. The same comment applies to the speech of the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Mr. T. Kennedy). He made a very powerful speech as though the question concerned the ratepayers alone. I am not connected with any railway company. I try to look at this question from the point of view of the public interest, and I find that, especially in the Midlands and North Midlands, the country is largely covered by municipal services, omnibuses as well as tramways, but chiefly omnibuses, outside the municipal areas. But the hon. Member who moved the Amendment talked as though it was a tramway question. It it much more than that, for the Amendment, if carried, would prevent a petition by a railway company against any motor omnibus service established by a municipality outside its own area.
The hon. Member for St. Rollox told us what an excellent tramway service has been established in the district that he represents, and he told us how cheap the service was. If it is as cheap as that, the railway companies cannot come in, unless they run a cheaper service, and I do not think he need have much fear; I do not think any railway could possibly compete with him. May I reassure him on a further point? If he will read Clause 5 of the Bill, he will find that no company can deny the use of a bridge to a competing road company over which that railway company runs its own service, and Clause 5, I think, completely meets the point he raised.
§ Mr. STEWARTIf I gave the hon. and gallant Member that impression, I gave him an impression that I did not intend to convey. I did say that the Glasgow Corporation had, at the solicitation of the local authority in that area, made arrangements for tramway lines from Hillport to Milngavie, some two and a half miles, that there was a railway bridge that intervened, that that bridge required widening, that the railway company refused to widen it, and that they have held up, from then till now, that tramline, so that not a wheel has moved on it since the road was constructed, through the direct action of the railway company.
§ Mr. STEWARTThe railway companies who are so solicitous for fair play were the very parties that, so far as the Corporation of Glasgow were concerned, were not inclined to give that fair play.
§ 10.0 p.m.
§ Major HILLSI want fair play between competing services. This Amendment would not exclude all competition against municipal services outside their own area, for it is perfectly open to any private undertaker who gets the necessary consent of the local authority to run a service of motor omnibuses competing with an municipal service outside its own area. The only people that you exclude from competition on these lines are the railway companies. Can that be in the public interest? This is a Clause that is at the very root of the Bill, and I would ask any hon. Member who thinks that we can pass this Amendment and still preserve the Bill to imagine a map of North of England if this Bill were passed, for if he does he will realise that a very large part of that area—and it is the most productive part from a traffic point of view—would be excluded from the operation of the railways. I believe that if this Amendment is passed, the Bill is dead.
Let me very respectfully appeal to hon. Members opposite who are interested, and quite rightly interested, in the serious position of our coal and iron trade. Do they want to throw back all that the railways are entitled to earn under the Act of 1921 on to the heavy 2587 traffic that cannot go by road in any event? It is surely clear that what is happening now is that the traffic that goes by road and that used to go by rail is the traffic that pays better and the traffic on which the rate is high, and that the traffic that remains on the railway now is the heavy traffic, which earns only a small sum for bulk or weight. If you kill this Bill, think where you leave the heavy traffic, think where you leave the coal miner, think where you leave his wages. A very large part of the depression in the coal trade is due to the high rates that coal has to pay to get to our ports and be exported, and the only chance of reducing those rates and recovering our export trade in coal is by bringinog back to the railway companies some of the better paying traffic that they have lost.
I hope the House will not pass this Amendment. I was not on the Committee, and I do not speak for any railway. I speak merely as one who tries to think what is best in the public interest, and I do not think that any municipality ought to be able to hold up a big public interest. If it has gone outside its own area, it should be at its own risk. It is not its own business—that lies within its own area—but it has chosen to go outside, and if it goes outside, it must not expect to be sheltered, but must be prepared to meet the weather that it finds outside, and it must not expect Parliament to hold an umbrella over its head always. I believe that the Committee has come to a just and wise decision on this matter, and I think that when a municipality goes outside its own area, it should not be given a monopoly.
§ Mr. PALINI can only regret, and all those who have open minds on the subject will regret, that the Minister of Transport intervened before he had heard the case for the municipalities, and further that he should have displayed such a lamentable ignorance of the provisions of the Bill. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Sir W. Edge) presumed that the Bill provided no protection for municipalities outside their own bounds. As a matter of fact it does, and that is the unfairness of it. The Bradford City Council leases lines from Bingley and Shipley, and because the Councils of Bingley and Shipley own the lines, they 2588 will have protection for their services outside their boundary, but on the other side of the city, where they have constructed lines under the Act of 1870, they will have no protection whatever. Therefore, when the hon. Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) said that the members of the Joint Committee were saturated, he was perfectly correct. They were more than saturated; they were inebriated, and so doped by the verbosity of the 49 counsel who appeared before them, that they did not really understand the provisions and the recommendations that were placed before them. The municipalities desire no umbrella held over their heads. They are asking for exactly what the railway companies are asking, that is a fair deal. The municipalities have risked their capital, and if they are to be forced outside their boundaries, it has been for protective purposes, and no one can say that the municipalities have placed any obstacle in the way of the railway companies getting a fair amount of traffic.
The railway companies by the stupid and autocratic attitude which they have displayed towards the municipalities, have largely contributed to the position in which they find themselves. Their only chance is to come to an agreement with the municipalities and endeavour to find a way in which both can co-operate and protect the capital invested in their undertakings. It does not matter whether the capital has been invested by people as ratepayers or as ordinary individuals, it will be a bad thing for the country if that capital goes down. Hon. Members may urge that there is something sacred about the capital invested in railways, but that there is no need to worry about the capital invested in a municipal generating station, and that there is something sacred about the employment of men engaged on a railway, but that men are entitled to no protection if they are employed by a municipality. From whichever angle this question is approached, it is not going to be settled on the lines laid down by the Minister of Transport to-night. The railway interests may to-day feel that they are in a strong position, and that they are going to lay down the law, but when the people of this country realise the great injustice that has been done to 2589 them, I venture to say that the railway companies will no longer be able to get that favourable consideration which they have received at the hands of this House hitherto. To a very large extent, the flattering majority which was obtained on Second Reading was obtained by false pretences. The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and others gave an undertaking that the interests of the municipalities would be adequately protected. There seems to be a disposition to throw that principle to the winds, because, having felt the pulse of the House, they see that there is a possibility of getting the Bill through without such an undertaking. But retribution will meet them later on.
If the railway companies are to be put on to their feet, it will not be by Bills passed by this House, but because they honestly try to meet the needs of the public and by giving those services which the trade of the country desires. Many of those services which have become competing services with the railways to-day would never have come into being but for the stupidity of the railway companies. They refused deliberately to give travelling facilities; they refused to give facilities for the carrying of goods. I need not repeat what I said on Second Reading in this direction, for it is all known, and I cannot understand why gentlemen who go to Chambers of Commerce and voice these grievances, run away from all the opinions they have expressed when opportunities like this present themselves, and say that the railway companies must have all their own way and that every other interest is to be sacrificed in order to put them on their feet. I trust that this very reasonable measure of protection for the municipal services will be granted. I realise that the friends of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nall), who run the private tramway services, can at any time establish an omnibus service without the expense of coming to this House. Municipalities have to spend thousands of pounds by appearing by counsel before local legislation committees before they can run a single omnibus. But a private tramway can, when they find that their business is going down, get a licence and run a service of omnibuses. Out of the revenue of some of these 2590 tramway systems, they have acquired an entirely new omnibus system, and they are row in a substantial and prosperous condition. I feel that the Royal Commission and the Traffic Act that was promised by the Minister of Transport are overdue, but I trust that, in the meantime, while co-ordination and order are being restored out of the chaos that exists in our internal communications, this reasonable measure of protection will be given to the municipalities.
§ Major BRAITHWAITEI understand that my Amendment will not be called if this Amendment is defeated, and, as it is consequential to the Amendment now before the House, I should like to say something about it. My Amendment deals solely with the existing tramway services of the municipalities. Tramway services are permanent installations, and are quite different from the omnibus services. Tramways are laid down permanently and cannot be removed. They are fixed assets which, if the revenue from them goes, are of no value at all. As there is a substantial amount of money invested by large municipalities outside their areas in this particular direction, I feel that the railway companies are presuming when they wish to compete with public money in that direction. The number of men dependent for their livelihood on the success of the municipal tramways is 87,000, and £83,000,000 of public capital has been invested therein. If we destroy any part of these tramway systems, we affect the interest upon the whole of this money, and, as the tramway companies are carrying passengers for a profit of only one penny for every 21 persons carried, I fail to see how the railway companies can bring any improvement to bear upon that particular situation.
Under this Clause the railway companies obviously desire to take away a certain part of the revenue of those municipalities, and as the surplus at the present tine is so low I think that is absolutely unfair, unless the municipalities are to be compensated for the amount of revenue the railway companies take. We all desire to see our railway companies prosperous, but we do not desire to see the roads of our great cities congested by commercial vehicles if these 2591 are not necessary. There has been no complaint at all from the general public of the working of the municipal tramways; they have done their job efficiently; and when it is realised that municipal tramways have carried three times the number of passengers which the railways have ever carried, I think the railway companies are very presumptuous in bringing forward a Clause of this sort. I hope, if the Minister of Transport is not in favour of excepting omnibuses, he will again consider the position of tramways, because I cannot reconcile the speech he has made to-night with the remarks he made on 3rd July, when he said in this House:
I do not see why it should be necessary to have an undue number of vehicles on the road. Wasteful competition, surely, I should think all hon. Members would desire to see eliminated."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd July, 1928, col. 1266, Vol. 219.]If this is not wasteful competition I do not know what is, and I ask the Minister seriously to consider the protection of municipal authorities where they have spent money which they cannot now realise upon. I beg to support the Motion.
Mr. THOMASMy friends on the Front Bench here know that I had not intended to take part in a Debate on this Amendment. I arrived at that decision in loyalty, and intended to give effect to it, but a deliberate, clear challenge under three heads has been made to myself by one of my own hon. Friends. He said that during Second Reading I had made a promise, that the House of Commons was deceived, and that I and those supporting me were concerned only with railwaymen and not with municipal employés. I propose to deal with those three points. With regard to the false pretences. It is true that the railwaymen took a view on this Bill because they believed in was in their interest. They may be wrong, but they took that view, and the railwaymen to-day have not changed that view. The statement with regard to municipalities made by me on Second Reading—I am speaking now from recollection, but hon. Members who will follow me will be able to find it in the OFFICIAL REPORT—was this: It is quite clear in my mind that I said it 2592 was for the Committee to protect municipalities and that the railway companies did not ask any more than was conceded to any other private undertaking, and if a municipality had the power to refuse licences they could refuse them under this Bill and they could refuse them under this Clause.
§ Mr. MACKINDERBut the Minister can give them.
§ Mr. MACKINDERTell all the story.
Mr. THOMASI am dealing with what I said on Second Reading, and I am answering a specific charge made against me, and if the hon. Member is going to speak he can quote from the OFFICIAL REPORT what I said. I repeat it. The statement I made then I make now, that the municipalities were the licensing authorities and had the power to deal with licensing within their own areas. I also made it quite clear that the existing power of the Minister was one with which I did not agree. I said that in my judgment the solution of the problem was a centralising authority, and I still believe it. That is my answer to the first charge. To the second charge, that railwaymen are more concerned with their own position than they are with that of the municipal employés, I say it is not true, and it ill becomes an ex-railwayman to make that charge against me. The railwaymen feel, rightly or wrongly, that their interest is involved, but they do not quarrel with the municipalities.
I repeat what I said on Second Reading, that so far as the municipalities are concerned we not only realise that they are fair competitors, but we go beyond that and say that they, like us, are handicapped by unfair competitors. Can any hon. Member challenge the statement that if you carry this Clause, any private omnibus company sweating their men without any restrictions, can compete in the very area you are frying now to protect. My hon. Friends behind me know just as well as I know, that that is the position. I will now take the third point. I repeat that so far as the protection of public bodies is concerned and so far as the treatment of 2593 municipalities is concerned, I stand with any other Member in this House for the absolute protection of the rights of municipalities.
§ Mr. PALINThe right hon. Gentleman is a constant temptation, but I would remind him that he has made three speeches to my one on this question.
Mr. THOMASI am only dealing with the points which my hon. Friend raised. I repeat here and now that if any Clause in this Bill would exclude any private company from competing with a
§ municipality I would support that Clause, but I am not going to exclude a railway company because it is a railway company from doing what any other private undertaking can do to-day. That is the position before the House.
§ Colonel Sir GEORGE COURTHOPE rose in his place, and claimed to move, "That the Question be now put."
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 170; Noes, 112.
2595| Division No. 281.] | AYES. | [10.25 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Goff, Sir Park | Power, Sir John Cecil |
| Albery, Irving James | Gower, Sir Robert | Preston, William |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Ramsden, E. |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Greene, W. P. Crawford | Bees, Sir Beddoe |
| Alien, Sir J. Sandeman | Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Stretford) |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Grotrian, H. Brent | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell |
| Apsley, Lord | Hamilton, Sir George | Ropner, Major L. |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Hanbury, C. | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Harland, A. | Salmon, Major I. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Sandeman, N. Stewart |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Sanderson, Sir Frank |
| Beckett, Sir Gervase (Leeds, N.) | Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Sandon, Lord |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Hills, Major John Waller | Savery, S. S. |
| Bethel, A. | Hilton, Cecil | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) |
| Bevan, S. J. | Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belf'st.) |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Hopkins, J. W. W. | Skelton, A. N. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Blundell, F. N. | Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Smith-Carington, Neville W. |
| Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Smithers, Waldron |
| Brassey, Sir Leonard | Hudson, R. S. (Cumberl'nd, Whiteh'n) | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Hume, Sir G. H. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Brittain, Sir Harry | Hurd, Percy A. | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Burman, J. B. | Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Caine, Gordon Hall | Jephcott, A. R. | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Campbell, E. T. | Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton) | Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Cautley, Sir Henry S. | King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth,S.) | Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon, Sir Philip | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell- |
| Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | Looker, Herbert William | Tryon, Bt. Hon. George Clement |
| Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Lougher, Lewis | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Christie, J. A. | Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Cobb, Sir Cyril | Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Lumley, L. R. | Warrender, Sir victor |
| Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Cope, Major Sir William | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro) | McLean, Major A. | Wells, S. R. |
| Curzon, Captain Viscount | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H. | Margesson, Captain D. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Davies, David (Montgomery) | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Dean, Arthur Wellesley | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Drewe, C. | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd) |
| Eden, Captain Anthony | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw- | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| Elliot, Major Walter E. | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Ellis, R. G. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Everard, W. Lindsay | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Fielden, E. B. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L |
| Forrest, W. | Oakley, T. | |
| Fraser, Captain Ian | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Ganzoni, Sir John. | Pennefather, Sir John | Colonel Sir George Courthope and |
| Gates, Percy | Penny, Frederick George | Major Glyn. |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool) | Roberts, Rt. Hon F. O. (W. Bromwich) |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Groves, T. | Saklatvala, Shapurji |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tvdvil) | Salter, Dr. Alfred |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | Hardie, George D. | Scurr, John |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Hayes, John Henry | Sexton, James |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Hirst, G. H. | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Barr, J. | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Batey, Joseph | Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath) | Shinwell, E. |
| Bondfield, Margaret | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Sitch, Charles H. |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley) |
| Briant, Frank | Kennedy, T. | Smith, Rennie (Penistone) |
| Bromley, J. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M. | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lamb, J. Q. | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buchanan, G. | Lawrence, Susan | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Lawson, John James | Sullivan, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Livingstone, A. M. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Charleton, H. C. | Lowth, T. | Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby) |
| Cluse, W. S. | Lunn, William | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cove, W. G. | Mackinder, W. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Viant, S. P. |
| Dennison, R. | Macmillan, Captain H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dixey, A. C. | March, S. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda) |
| Duncan, C. | Montague, Frederick | Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah |
| Dunnico, H. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.) | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Edge, Sir William | Murnin, H. | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| England, Colonel A. | Naylor, T. E. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) | Oliver, George Harold | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Fenby, T. D. | Owen, Major G. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Gillett, George M. | Palin, John Henry | Windsor, Walter |
| Gosling, Harry | Paling, W. | Wragg, Herbert |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Wright, W. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Pethick-Lawrence, F. W. | Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton) |
| Greenall, T. | Potts, John S. | |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Remer, J. R. | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Riley, Ben | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley |
§ Mr. HARDIEOn a point of privilege, may I ask a question before you put the Amendment. When this discussion opened to-night you, Sir, intimated that it would be general, and I understood Members on these benches to accept that in full agreement. We have been denied the right of expressing things that really demand an answer. There is especially one local question affecting two places. I feel that it was very unfair and unjust to accept the Closure.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt has been ruled over and over again that the question of Closure is an action of the House and is not one that can be allowed to be discussed or criticised.
§ Question put, accordingly, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 192; Noes, 84.
2597| Division No. 282.] | AYES. | [10.34 p.m. |
| Acland-Troyte, Lieut.-Colonel | Bourne, Captain Robert Croft | Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities) |
| Albery, Irving James | Bowyer, Captain G. E. W. | Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend) |
| Alexander, E. E. (Leyton) | Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B. | Crookshank, Cpt. H. F. Lindsey, Gainsbro) |
| Alexander, Sir Wm. (Glasgow, Cent'l) | Brassey, Sir Leonard | Curzon, Captain Viscount |
| Applin, Colonel R. V. K. | Briant, Frank | Davidson, Major-General Sir John H. |
| Apsley, Lord | Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive | Davies, David (Montgomery) |
| Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W. | Brittain, Sir Harry | Dean, Arthur Wellesley |
| Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W. | Burman, J. B. | Dixey, A. C. |
| Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) | Caine, Gordon Hall | Drewe, C. |
| Astor, Viscountess | Campbell, E. T. | Eden, Captain Anthony |
| Atholl, Duchess of | Cautley, Sir Henry S. | Edge, Sir William |
| Balfour, George (Hampstead) | Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City) | Edmondson, Major A. J. |
| Barclay-Harvey, C. M. | Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt. R. (Prtsmth,S.) | Elliot, Major Walter E. |
| Beamish, Rear-Admiral T. P. H. | Cecil, Ht. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston) | Ellis, R. G. |
| Bellairs, Commander Carlyon | Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood) | England, Colonel A. |
| Bethel, A. | Charteris, Brigadier-General J. | Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.) |
| Betterton, Henry B. | Christie, J. A. | Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.) |
| Bevan, S. J. | Cobb, Sir Cyril | Everard, W. Lindsay |
| Birchall, Major J. Dearman | Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. | Fielder., E. B. |
| Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.) | Cockerill, Brig.-General Sir George | Forrest, W. |
| Blundell, F. N. | Cope, Major Sir William | Fraser, Captain Ian |
| Ganzoni, Sir John | MacAndrew, Major Charles Glen | Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness) |
| Gates, Percy | Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness) | Sinclair, Col. T. (Queen's Univ., Belfst.) |
| Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John | Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.) | Skelton, A. N. |
| Goff, Sir Park | McLean, Major A. | Slaney, Major P. Kenyon |
| Gower, Sir Robert | Macmillan, Captain H. | Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) |
| Graham, Fergus (Cumberland, N.) | Makins, Brigadier-General E. | Smith-Carington, Neville, W. |
| Grant, Sir J. A. | Margesson, Captain D. | Smithers, Waldron |
| Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John | Marriott, Sir J. A. R. | Southby, Commander A. R. J. |
| Griffith, F. Kingsley | Mason, Colonel Glyn K. | Spender-Clay, Colonel H. |
| Grotrian, H. Brent | Merriman, Sir F. Boyd | Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F. |
| Hamilton, Sir George | Milne, J. S. Wardlaw. | Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westm'eland) |
| Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland) | Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark) | Steel, Major Samuel Strang |
| Hanbury, C. | Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M. | Thorn, Lt.-Col-J. G. (Dumbarton) |
| Harland, A. | Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C. | Thomas, Sir Robert John (Anglesey) |
| Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. | Nail, Colonel Sir Joseph | Thompson, Luke (Sunderland) |
| Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley) | Neville, Sir Reginald J. | Thomson, Rt. Hon. Sir W. Mitchell. |
| Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. | Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter) | Tinne, J. A. |
| Henn, Sir Sydney H. | Nicholson, O. (Westminster) | Titchfield, Major the Marquess of |
| Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J. | Oakley, T. | Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement |
| Hills, Major John Waller | Oman, Sir Charles William C. | Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P. |
| Hohler, Sir Gerald Fitzroy | Owen, Major G. | Wallace, Captain D. E. |
| Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.) | Pennefather, Sir John | Warner, Brigadier-General W. W. |
| Hopkins, J. W. W. | Penny, Frederick George | Warrender, Sir Victor |
| Hopkinson, Sir A. (Eng. Universities) | Perkins, Colonel E. K. | Waterhouse, Captain Charles |
| Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley) | Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) | Watts, Sir Thomas |
| Horne, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert S. | Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome) | Wayland, Sir William A. |
| Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) | Power, Sir John Cecil | Wells, S. R. |
| Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n) | Preston, William | White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dairymple |
| Hume, Sir G. H. | Ramsden, E. | Williams, A. M. (Cornwall, Northern) |
| Hurd, Percy A. | Rees, Sir Beddoe | Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay) |
| Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l) | Remer, J. R. | Williams, C. P. (Denbigh, Wrexham) |
| Jephcott A. R. | Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs., Strettord) | Williams, Herbert G. (Reading) |
| Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth) | Rodd, Rt. Hon. Sir James Rennell | Wilson, Sir Murrough (Yorks, Richm'd) |
| Joynson-Hicks, Rt. Hon. Sir William | Ropner, Major L. | Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield) |
| King, Commodore Henry Douglas | Ruggles-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A. | Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George |
| Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement | Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) | Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl |
| Lister, Cunliffe, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip | Salmon, Major I. | Womersley, W. J. |
| Livingstone, A. M. | Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham) | Woodcock, Colonel H. C. |
| Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley) | Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney) | Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L. |
| Looker, Herbert William | Sandeman, N. Stewart | Wragg, Herbert |
| Lougher, Lewis | Sanderson, Sir Frank | |
| Lowth, T. | Sandon, Lord | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.— |
| Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh Vere | Savery, S. S. | Major Glyn and Colonel Sir George Courthope. |
| Luce, Maj.-Gen. Sir Richard Harman | Sheffield, Sir Berkeley | |
| Lumley, L. R. | Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down) | |
| NOES. | ||
| Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West) | Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil) | Scrymgeour, E. |
| Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock) | Hardie, George D. | Scurr, John |
| Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro') | Hirst, G. H. | Sexton, James |
| Ammon, Charles George | Hirst, W. (Bradford, South) | Shaw, Rt. Hon. Thomas (Preston) |
| Attlee, Clement Richard | John, William (Rhondda, West) | Shepherd, Arthur Lewis |
| Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston) | Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly) | Shinwell, E. |
| Batey, Joseph | Kelly, W. T. | Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Hotherhithe) |
| Bondfield, Margaret | Kennedy, T. | Smith, H. B. Lees, (Keighley) |
| Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W. | Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph, M. | Smith, Rennic (Penistone) |
| Braithwaite, Major A. N. | Lamb, J. Q. | Snell, Harry |
| Brown, James (Ayr and Bute) | Lawrence, Susan | Stewart, J. (St. Rollox) |
| Buchanan, G. | Lawson, John James | Sugden, Sir Wilfrid |
| Burton, Colonel H. W. | Lunn, William | Sullivan, J. |
| Cape, Thomas | Mackinder, W. | Sutton, J. E. |
| Cluse, W. S. | Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan) | Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.) |
| Cove, W. G. | March, S. | Tinker, John Joseph |
| Dennison, R. | Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, H.) | Viant, S. P. |
| Duncan, C. | Murnin, H. | Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline) |
| Dunnico, H. | Naylor, T. E. | Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhodda) |
| Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty) | Oliver, George Harold | Wellock, Wilfred |
| Fenby, T. D. | Palin, John Henry | Wilkinson, Ellen C. |
| Gillett, George M. | Paling, W. | Williams, David (Swansea, East) |
| Gosling, Harry | Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan) | Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly) |
| Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.) | Pethick Lawrence, F. W. | Williams, T. (York, Don Valley) |
| Greenall, T. | Potts, John S. | Windsor, Walter |
| Greene, W. P. Crawford | Riley, Ben | Wright, W. |
| Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne) | Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich) | |
| Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan) | Saklatvala, Shapurji | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.— |
| Groves, T. | Salter, Dr. Alfred | Mr. T. Henderson and Mr. Whiteley. |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ Mr. MACKINDEROn a point of Order. May I ask for your guidance and ruling as to how Members on the back benches are to express their 2598 opinions on the Railway Bills, when only one Member from the back benches had the opportunity of speaking before the Closure was put? May we have your 2599 assistance in preserving the rights of the back-bench Members of the House of Commons, to enable them to express their opinion before the trick which has been worked can be operated again by the action of an hon. Member opposite?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI shall always see that the various views of the House have the opportunity of being properly expressed.
§ Mr. MACKINDERMay I ask if it is the considered opinion of Mr. Speaker that the full opinion of the House has been expressed when only one back-bench Member of the official Opposition has been allowed to express his opinion on such an important Bill before the Closure is moved and accepted. Is it the considered opinion of the Chair that the views of the back-bench Members are sufficiently expressed by one Member?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe same opinions have been expressed several times by different speakers.
§ Mr. T. KENNEDYMay I remind you, on the point of Order, that in moving the Amendment I deliberately refrained from spending time in dealing with the case for the Amendment as it affected specific localities. I deliberately did that in order to allow the local Parliamentary representatives of the various municipalities to state their specific case against Clause 4. Have you kept that in mind in determining that the discussion on Clause 4 shall cease in the manner in which it has ceased?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Closure Motion has been put and decided by the House. It is not a matter for discussion. All the questions which have been raised have been in my mind all the time while the discussion was going on.
§ Mr. A. V. ALEXANDERI beg to move, "That further consideration of the Bill, as amended, be now adjourned."
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot accept that Motion.
§ Mr. MACLEANAre we to understand that you refuse to accept a Motion that the Debate be now adjourned, in order that this matter can be further determined? Are hon. Members who represent constituencies which are affected not to be allowed to put the point of view of their constituents?
§ Mr. SPEAKERWe have already discussed that question and the House has decided it. I do not accept the Motion for the adjournment of the Debate as I consider it to be an abuse of the Rules of the House.
§ Mr. MACKINDERThe Closure was——
§ Mr. MACLEANOn a point of Order. Is it not the case that hon. Members of this House could not express the point of view held by constituencies which own tramway systems, because the Debate was closured by an hon. and gallant Member who is a railway director?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI cannot discuss the question of the Closure. Over and over again it has been ruled that the question of the Closure cannot be discussed.
§ Mr. MACLEANI was going to ask you whether that was not a situation in which you would accept a Motion to Report Progress, instead of a Motion for the adjournment of the Debate.
§ Mr. SPEAKERA Motion to Report Progress only applies when the House is in Committee.
§ Mr. C. EDWARDSI beg to move, in page 2, line 28, to leave out the words: "'each constituent authority being deemed (a) to be the local authority of its own area,' and to insert instead thereof the words 'such joint board being deemed (a) to be the local authority of a local area consisting of the local areas of the constituent authorities of the Board.'"
This is a much narrower point than the one we have been discussing, but I hope hon. Members will be able to raise local matters upon it.
§ Mr. MACKINDEROn a point of Order. We have your ruling. In the opinion of many Members of this House, the last question was not adequately discussed——
§ Mr. SPEAKERHon. Members cannot continue to argue the question of the Closure. It has been decided over and over again that it cannot be discussed.
§ Sir H. CAUTLEYThe particular matter of the Bedwellty Union was fully discussed before the Select Committee. I am not prepared to say that I carry in 2601 my mind all the details, but I recollect the fact that there was an amalgamation in two local areas to take people over the Welsh mountains from one valley to another. The essential point, however, which came out in the course of discussion was that the railway company in the neighbourhood were by far the largest ratepayers in the area and were really paying a large part of the money which found the service which was competing with them. The Committee, therefore, decided that there was nothing special in the Bedwellty case, and it was dealt with just the same as other local areas where there are two local authorities running a joint service by arrangement with one another. Each union is treated as a separate union, running a separate service in its own area, and whatever hardship the local people of Bedwellty may feel, they are, in fact treated in just the same way as all other joint areas are, where the adjacent area has a joint service. No difference is made and the Committee, as far as I am aware, could find no circumstances affecting Bedwellty.
§ Mr. MORGAN JONESI have listened with interest to the reply of the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) and I assure him that, while I quite understand he was doing his best to recall the decision given by the Committee, there are some points which. I think, it advisable to put before the House before it comes to a final decision. The whole point with regard to this particular Amendment lies in the fact that the contour of the district is one which makes it imperative that the two adjacent constituent authorities should be able to provide transport facilities through the medium of the present Joint Board than through their own independent concern. Everybody acquainted with South Wales conditions will know that just now many of these areas are hard hit financially, and because of that fact these local authorities have found it very difficult to find ways and means to secure the powers which they already possess by Act of Parliament. Therefore, they would feel it a particularly severe hardship if this Amendment which they seek to move here, were rejected by the House, and the expenditure which they have already undertaken should thereby be made very largely nugatory.
2602 The hon. Gentleman opposite made a point that the largest ratepayers in the area are the local railway company. I believe that is largely true, and I am not concerned very much to deny it. It is hard to explain to those who do not know the particular area, but our first consideration even in discussing this Bill must be surely the convenience of the general public. Any person wanting to travel from the Sirhowy Valley in the Rhymney Valley, in which my hon. Friend's constituency lies, must, if he wants to travel by train, go a considerable distance, into the Rhymney Valley, change his train there and travel by train into the adjacent valley, possibly wait for a considerable time at the station there and then travel up the Rhymney Valley, whereas the Joint Board which provides the present system is able to avoid all this inconvenience to the travelling public They feel, therefore, that the powers which are now vested in them through the medium of this Joint Board are powers which ought not in any way to be interfered with by this Bill. Not only do I submit that the convenience of the travelling public is safeguarded by this Joint Board, but it is met in another way by reason of the fact that the travelling public are able to go that distance for half the cost of travelling by the trains referred to. I do beg the House to be good enough to consider as generously as they can the Amendment which we are hopeful in submitting to the Horse, because it is something which is of vital moment to these comparatively small local authorities. If the Clause be accepted, as I hope it will be, I assure the House that it will be a very considerable boon to the local authorities concerned, whereas if it be rejected it will mean a serious menace to the economic prosperity of the Joint Board. I have the greatest possible pleasure in supporting the Amendment.
§ Mr. KINGSLEY GRIFFITHThis is not a question affecting Bedwellty alone. It is a question which arises in many other parts of the country, but only a limited part. Remembering what the Minister said on the last Amendment—that we ought not to wreck this Bill—we can say that this Amendment will not wreck the Bill at all. It is very much more limited than the previous Amendment, and at the same time, if carried, 2603 would be a great boon to certain local authorities. The hon. and gallant Member for Ripon (Major Hills) said that when the municipalities had gone out into the rain they ought not to ask this House for an umbrella. The municipalities in this case have not gone into the rain. They have been put there by Act of Parliament. They have been made statutory authorities, and are asking to be protected in that position. In the case of Middlesbrough and Eston they are a joint authority for the purposes of traffic—the Teesside Railless Traction Board.
It seems ridiculous that this Bill can create the situation that the railway company can pick up in Middlesbrough and set down in Middlesbrough, or in Eston and set down in Eston, but that the existing authority has no right to go right through from Middlesbrough to Eston. That is what we seek to avoid by this Amendment. These authorities have been formally constituted under the law as the proper unit for traffic, and they have a claim now to be kept in that position. To give them that privilege would not be doing what the previous Amendment would have done—open up an endless chain of municipal enterprises in which the railways would be prevented from competing. It is quite a small point but a very important point for places like Bedwellty and larger places like Middlesbrough and Eston. The delicate balance which the Joint Committee sought to establish is not going to be upset by the Amendment, but will be slightly adjusted in places where it is now not quite just.
§ Mr. HARDIEI would like to have the attention of the Minister in order that I might put a question to him. I wish to know whether those who considered this matter took into consideration certain existing factors. The municipality of Airdrie had direct from this House power to run trams. The same was the case with Coatbridge. Those powers, through the municipality, were given as a lease to a company, and that company became bankrupt. The Glasgow municipality took over, under lease, the powers that had been given directly by this House to Coatbridge and Airdrie. Did the Members of the Joint Committee con- 2604 sider what answer they could give to the question whether that meant a combination of powers given to municipalities through this House, and that the Glasgow municipality in carrying out this undertaking was outside the Bill? Did they say that because the Glasgow area joins on to the area of Coatbridge and Airdrie, the powers given by this House are to be denied to Glasgow because of what was done under the last Amendment? The City of Glasgow have no powers to run omnibuses outside their specified area. It was hinted that such powers existed and I was prevented from exercising my right as a private Member, when I wished to put in a correction of that statement. I hope the hon. and gallant Gentleman who prevented me, will remember what he did, because I shall not forget it. Every time a railway privilege is sought from this House, it will be found that any director who closures me will have to fight me. [Laughter.] Hon. Members may smile. This will change the complexion of the Membership of the House at the next Election.
§ Mr. J. BAKERMay I ask a question which may save the time of the House? Would the speech made by the hon. and learned Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley) apply to Wolverhampton? With the consent of the adjoining urban districts, that authority has bought out the trams owned by a private company, and, with the consent of this House, it has undertaken to re-make the roads, and to run a trolley omnibus service over those roads. Will Wolverhampton be a joint Board wtihin the meaning of this provision?
§ Colonel ASHLEYI am afraid I cannot answer the question, and I think the hon. Member himself will admit that it would be difficult to answer it offhand. Although I have no right to speak or to make any offer, may I appeal to my hon. Friends in charge of the Bill to accept this Amendment. It seems to me not unreasonable, provided always that it is understood that it only applies to existing undertakings and not to future undertakings.
§ Mr. BAKERIf the House is prepared to accept the suggestion of the Minister, may I appeal for the inclusion of Wolverhampton in that suggestion? The 2605 Minister cannot give a clear definite answer as to whether they are included or not. The district is being so badly served by private enterprise that the municipality has had to take over the trams. They have been running trams since 1900 and omnibuses since 1905. They have got the rights, with the consent of the adjoining local authorities—the urban district of Sedgley, the county borough of Dudley, and the urban district of Bilston. They have powers to run trolley omnibuses to Wednesbury, by the sanction of this House. Does that constitute them a local board for those areas? They are also running omnibuses, trams and trolley omnibuses for many miles outside their area. The Minister in a previous speech ruled out that case, but now he is inclined to agree that where municipalities are joined together to run joint services, and where other authorities have handed over their rights to those municipalities, this Amendment should be accepted. I cannot see any difference between that case, and the case which the Minister refused to consider.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§ Mr. K. GRIFFITHI beg to move, in page 3, line 28, at the end, to add the words
(5) Where a local area will be altered by virtue of an Act passed in the present Session the alteration shall for the purposes of this Section be deemed to have been made before the passing of this Act.If this Bill receives the Royal Assent before the Bill which is before Parliament extending the boundaries of Morecambe, Morecambe will only be protected from competition within its present small area, whereas it is obviously fair that it should receive protection for the larger area to which it is being extended. All that this Amendment will do will be to safeguard Morecambe, so that on whatever date it officially receives its extension it will receive protection against competition throughout the whole area.
§ Mr. ERNEST EVANSI beg to second the Amendment.
§ Amendment agreed to.