§ (1) The Company shall not under the powers of this Act except with the consent of the Minister work or run road vehicles for the conveyance of passengers, or enter into any agreement for or in any way facilitate the working or running of any such road vehicles along the route of or in competition with any tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system constructed or operated under the powers conferred by any Act of Parliament or Order confirmed by or having the effect of an Act of Parliament passed before the passing of this Act, or with any service of transport which may have been, or may hereafter be, provided under statutory authority along the route of, and in substitution for, any such tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system.
§ (2) The Company shall give notice of any application by them for the consent of the Minister under this Section by advertisement in a newspaper circulating in the district affected, and otherwise to such persons and in such other manner as the Minister shall direct, stating the manner in which and the time within which any persons affected by such application may object thereto, and if any objection shall be made by any such person the Minister may direct an inquiry to be held.
§ (3) The consent of the Minister shall not be given to any application by the Company under this Section if he is satisfied that an adequate and satisfactory service of carriages or vehicles is provided on the tramway or light railway or trolley-vehicle system, as the case may be, or that the 2550 service of transport provided in substitution therefor as aforesaid is adequate and satisfactory.
§ (4) Nothing in this Section shall restrict the running of any such road vehicles by the Company along any such route if no passenger conveyed thereon is both taken up and set down on any one journey upon any such route.
§ (5) Any question at any time arising as to whether there is or would be any such competition shall be determined by the Minister and the Minister shall have power to make any such order to give effect to the provisions of this Section as he thinks fit.—[Sir J. Nall.]
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
§ Sir JOSEPH NALLI beg to move, "That the Clause be read a Second time."
In order that the House may appreciate exactly what is intended by this Clause, I would say, first of all, that it is rather difficult for anyone who, like myself, is supporting the Bill on general principles to move a Clause which it may be urged in some way restricts those general principles. I want the House, in considering the very important question of principle which arises on this new Clause, to have in mind what has happened in the Joint Committee. I venture to say that the Joint Committee, in its dealings with these Bills, has created more striking anomalies than have been created by any Private Bill Committee certainly in the last 10 years. In the first place, five Bills received a Second Reading and were sent to the Committee, but where is the fifth Bill to-night? The Metropolitan Company's Bill was torn up by the Joint Committee, in spite of the fact that it had received a Second Beading, and notwithstanding the fact that the other four Bilk give the other four companies power to run all over the Metropolitan Company's area outside the London zone. That is the first anomaly. The Committee then proceeded to give a special protection to the London Underground Combine by excluding from the London area the passenger activities of those four companies whose Bills are being considered row. The Committee have in fact given a very definite protection to the London Underground Combination. I de not object to that, as I think it is quits sound that it should do so, but I want the House to remember that fact, that of all the petitioners in regard to these Bills, the one who has got sub- 2551 stantially what he wanted is the London Underground Combination, because the main line companies may not compete, for all substantial purposes, within the area of the London Underground Combination.
§ Sir R. HORNENo. Only a very narrow area.
§ Sir J. NALLThe Committee gave that protection, as I say, quite properly, to services which are operated by companies. Why then should they cut out protection to the provincial towns? They have given this almost complete watertight protection to the London Underground system, which includes the London omnibuses which are allied with the Underground system. The Committee then proceeded to say, "We will not give protection to the provincial towns except in the very narrow case of those provincial services which are operated by the municipalities, and even then only within the limits of the particular municipality." That is anomaly number two. Then, in proceeding to apply their decision to the provincial towns, they said, "We will only protect the local municipal service so far as it is operated by the authority of that area within its own area." You have, therefore, got oases where a borough operating the lines of an adjacent authority has protection within its own borders, but there is no protection for the lines of the adjacent authority, although in other instances, where each authority operates separately, each separate authority is covered, so that in fact the whole area is covered. That is the third kind of anomaly which arises under this Committee's very carefully considered decision.
There is a further anomaly, because, having conceded the principle of protecting local services, the Committee then said that the company services are to have no protection at all—not even the statutory companies. Why, the whole basis of these Bills is that the railways are statutory companies, with large capital sums involved, raised and invested under the provisions of Acts of Parliament; and, therefore, they have some right to the consideration of this House for the protection of that capital. The tramway companies have exactly the same case. They too have raised sub- 2552 stantial sums of capital under the cover of Acts of Parliament. They are under statutory control, they have onerous obligations, they have to maintain the pavement of the streets on which they operate and on which the railway companies' omnibus services will run and increase the maintenance charges; and yet this decision of the Joint Committee says that they ought not to have any protection at all. You have, therefore, got an extraordinary position in the country, and I will illustrate it by comparative cases. You get the tramways of Birmingham, Manchester or Liverpool in part protected because they are municipal, but the tramways of Bristol not protected only because they are company tramways. You get the Ipswich system protected because it is municipal, and for the Norwich system no protection because it is run by a company.
§ The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)Do I understand that this Clause will extend this protection to these enterprises not only in a municipal area, but wherever they have statutory powers now?
§ Sir J. NALLThis Clause applies to authorities operating tramways or trolley vehicles which are established under Statutes, whether they be municipal or company owned.
§ Colonel ASHLEYWorking outside the area?
Mr. THOMASIs the hon. Member seeking by this Clause to obtain the same protection for private undertakings as is already provided in the Bill for the municipalities? Is that the object?
§ Sir J. NALLNo, and I will explain the difference. Clause 4 of the Bill gives protection to the municipal services of trams and omnibuses within the municipal area. This new Clause would give protection to the trams and trolley vehicles only, irrespective of area, and irrespective of whether they are municipal or company owned. It extends the tramway companies, but it drops the omnibus cover from municipalities. You get the municipal services at Blackpool and Southport partly protected, but the services at Hastings and Scarborough are not protected because they are company owned. Could any decision be more crudely absurd than that? These com- 2553 pany undertakings, in the main, are purchasable at some date by the local authority, some of them quite soon, some of them in years to come. Why should the municipality which now owns its undertaking scoop some municipality which hereafter acquires the undertaking? My right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport always deplores any distinction between municipal and private enterprise, and I do not know what he is going to say on this Clause, but I am sure he will realise that there is really no distinction between the merits of the statutory system because it happens to be owned by a municipality and those of a statutory system which is owned by a company.
8.0 p.m.
In both cases, the obligations are identical, and the statutory control is exercisable by the Minister. Therefore, this Clause proposes to cover those local systems of tramways, or the alternative of trolleys, and the few cases where the track has been taken up and omnibuses put on instead. It simply protects the undertaking which is operated under a statutory authority. Hon. Gentlemen may say that Clause 4 is the most that can be done, but I want to point out that that Clause, even for the municipalities whom it is proposed to cover, deals in a most erratic and unfair manner with them. Take the system of Manchester, with which city I am particularly concerned. The city system is protected. The very considerable area of Stretford, which comes to within very nearly a mile of Manchester Town Hall, and is worked as part of the Manchester system, is not covered, because it is used as part of the Manchester system. The Salford system, because it is separately operated, is covered. There is no justification for a perfectly absurd anomaly of that kind, and I say to my hon. Friend who was a member of the Joint Committee, that they really cannot have listened to this part of the case. [Interruption.] I might dilate at some length as to whether some parts of the case were listened to, but I will desist.
I would ask the House to consider the circumstances in which these Bills were brought in. The railways are large capital enterprises, established and very onerously restricted by Acts of Parliament. I have never been able to see why 2554 they should not be accorded facilities for operating the business for which they exist, whether it be upon the roads or upon the railways which they built. That principle was accepted on the Second Reading of these Bills. If, however, as the Joint Committee has proposed, that facility were restricted by putting in particular provisions about other statutory undertakers, whose case is exactly similar, and whose claim for consideration is absolutely on all fours with that of the railway companies, I cannot see any justification for this House allowing these Bills to go forward with that most astounding anomaly of the London Underground combination being protected while the municipalities are only in part protected, and the provincial companies are not protected at all.
If we were to allow these Bills to proceed with such a glaring anomaly as that, the public at large would indeed despair of the justice of Private Bill legislation in this House. I hope that I have made the case clear as to what was intended. We are not asking for the long distance, free lance, under licence omnibus services to be covered. I have never supported the plea that these omnibus services, which are run by free lance undertakers, which are subject to the grant of a licence, should be given particular cover against the operation of the railway companies. Nor is it practicable to give the ordinary road hauliers particular protection against the operation of the railway companies. But where you have these statutory systems, which have to pay rates on their tracks, which have to maintain the streets over which other traffic runs, there is an overwhelming case for a reconsideration of the quite extraordinary provisions which the Committee have put into the Bill. I hope that, on these grounds, those who are interested in the municipal case will realise that it is more Important to get the municipal tramway system properly covered than to get the tram and the omnibus only partly covered, and that in so doing we can do justice all round to the statutory undertakers, so that they may continue the business which Parliament has specifically, and under special local Acts, entrusted to them.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI beg to second the Motion.
2555 I am glad to have this opportunity of supporting this new Clause, and of showing how unfairly Clause 4 of the Bill will operate against certain boroughs. I have in my constituency a concrete example—a very unusual one, possibly—of how Clause 4 will operate to the disadvantage of the local ratepayers and corporation. The borough of Ayr has an old and long-established tram system extending on the one side into and right through the adjacent borough of Prestwich, and on the other side into the county of Ayr. If Clause 4 is allowed to stand as it is, it will mean that within the borough boundaries of Ayr protection will be afforded to the town council and its undertakings, whereas outside the borough boundary, that is, in the borough of Prestwich and in the county of Ayr, there will be no protection. That is an unfair and unjust system.
The tramways of Ayr carry approximately 15,000 passengers a day, and they have a service of about 15 cars. To carry that volume of traffic, if the tramways had to be scrapped, as unfortunately, will have to happen under Clause 4, 40 or 50 omnibuses of 20-seat capacity will be required. There is nothing in the Clause to show what size the omnibuses should be, or even whether they are to have trailers attached to them. In the borough of Ayr the streets are very narrow in parts, and the congestion is already very great. If the tramways have to be scrapped, and these 40 or 50 omnibuses of varying size are put on the streets, it will mean that the already great congestion will be intolerably increased, and will be a danger to the population. Ayr is a seaside town of considerable amenities, and numerous holiday-makers go from Glasgow to spend their Saturday afternoons there. The danger to these holiday-makers will be increased, and I submit that on no grounds of necessity, expediency or justification can this Clause be inserted in the Bill.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI hope that the hon. Member is not anticipating the Debate on Clause 4. We are dealing now with the suggested new Clause.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOREI was merely contemplating the unhappy position in which we would be placed if Clause 4 were allowed to pass, without advancing 2556 a case for the substitution of the new Clause. I feel that the case of Ayr possibly represents the same position of many other boroughs in the country. I would like to assure the promoters of the Bill that I am most whole-heartedly a supporter of the Measure. I feel that the principle of the Bill will give increased employment and security of employment to thousands of railway employés, and a guarantee of future safety to thousands of small shareholders in railway companies, but neither of these sections of the community would be willing to get that security if it were to be at the expense of the small ratepayers. What it actually means is this. The new Clause will give protection not alone within the limits of borough boundaries, but also to the systems operating outside. It will prevent the expense of widening streets and bridges, and scrapping capital outlay on systems already laid down, and it will remove the possibility of placing an intolerable burden on ratepayers who are already overburdened.
Mr. THOMASIt would be wise to remind the House of the situation when the Second Reading was given to these Bills. There will be general agreement that all sides of the opposition were heard on that occasion, and that with an unprecedented majority the House said that these Bills should go to a Committee for examination, where all the arguments could be presented in a judicial way. I want to submit that the House at least agreed upon one thing, and that was the unfairness of the existing system, which deprives railway companies from competing on an equitable basis with their competitors. I would put that as a generally agreed proposition so far as the House of Commons is concerned. The House said, in substance, that whatever may have been the position in the past, they believe that the railway companies should not be handicapped in the manner in which they are handicapped to-day. Whatever may have been the justification when the Second Reading was agreed to, I put it to any hon. Member who takes the responsibility of voting against these Bills, that an examination of the facts to-day shows, not only a case as strong, but a deplorable situation which has to be faced. Whatever may have been the value of the railways when the Second Reading of these Bills was carried, it is 2557 no secret that they are worth at least £100,000,000 less to-day. This case has been examined by a Committee, and any hon. Member who is seeking to upset the decision of that Committee ought at least to show that some unfair position has been created.
§ Sir J. NALLWould the right hon. Gentleman say that he agrees with the action of the Committee in throwing out the Metropolitan Railway Company's Bill?
Mr. THOMASThere are a number of Amendments dealing with different aspects of the question. At the moment I am dealing with the more general position. I will express my view of how to deal with the London traffic problem on an Amendment which will be moved later. Here let me remind the hon. and gallant Member that I am sure he knew perfectly well, though it was not a convenient thing for him to state in the Debate, that the real reason for separating the London traffic problem from that of the rest of the country lies in the London Traffic Act. He knew that perfectly well; but I agree, if I had been arguing his case, it would not have suited me to mention it. I am not complaining. I am merely pointing out to the hon. and gallant Member that he made out an excellent ease. It did not suit him to add that bit; I am adding it.
§ Sir J. NALL rose——
§ Sir J. NALLThe right hon. Gentleman does not want the whole tale to be heard. Can the London Traffic Committee give powers to the main line companies to run in London? He knows perfectly well that they cannot.
Mr. THOMASIn the presence of the Minister of Transport, I will content myself with saying that the difficulty of the Committee in dealing with and separating London was exclusively on account of the London Traffic Act. Of course it was; and the hon. and gallant Member knows it perfectly well, and is not going to drag me into that side issue. I come back to the general situation. Stripped of all the irrelevancies, his case for the new Clause boiled down in essence to this: "We want this House of Commons to deny to the rail- 2558 way companies a right which other private concerns have obtained from Parliament." That is what is involved in this Amendment, and the hon. and gallant Member knows it perfectly well. He made the point, "Did you ever concede this principle to municipalities?" I want tie House to understand what is the Amendment before us. The Amendment asks the House to deny the railway companies, what is already conceded by Parliament to another private undertaking.
Mr. THOMASI am trying to keep within the bounds of Order. The municipalities will come up on a separate Amendment. I repeat that that is what the House has to determine. If it is admitted that there is a case for one private concern, call it a railway company, to have a fair chance to compete, what right have you to make a concession to one and deny it to others? I do not think the Clause can be justified on the facts. The whole of the case was put before the Committee, and they considered it and came to their decision, and I ask the House to maintain the position.
Mr. THOMASBecause I did not want to be unkind and draw the hon. and gallant Member's attention to the fact that he had been speaking on the wrong Clause.
§ Question, "That the Clause be read a Second time," put, and negatived.
§ Sir W. SUGDENOn a point of Order. When I raised the point of Order on my new Clause, which was the first on the Paper, I was informed that I should be permitted to debate it upon the Clause of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail). Should I now be in order in moving an Amendment to his Clause?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER(Mr. James Hope): The new Clause of the hon. Member for Hulme (Sir J. Nail) has just been rejected by the House.
§ Sir W. SUGDENI rose before you put the Question to the House. I appeal to you now, because I say, with very great deference to the Chair, that the new 2559 Clause which is down in the name of another hon. Member and myself deals with a vital issue which goes to the root of the question with which all four Bills are concerned. I ask you, therefore, seeing that I have been refused an opportunity to debate my Clause, although I rose in my place, where and how I am to find an opportunity of placing these vital considerations before my colleagues?
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERThe hon. Member could have raised his point on the proposed new Clause which we have just disposed of. It is true that I saw the hon. Member rise from his seat, but I was under the impression that he did so in a rather half-hearted way, and he resumed it. Had he pressed me, I should have been bound to hear him. It may be that an opportunity will be found on some later Amendment for him to raise his point. The new Clause has been denied a Second Reading, and it is impossible for him to pursue the matter now.
§ Sir W. SUGDENAs I understand your decision, my obedience to you in the Chair has penalised me of my right to address you.
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERIt is not any question of obedience. If the hon. Member had asserted his right to speak, I should have been bound to hear him. I was under the impression that he was undecided whether he wished to speak or not, and when I put the Question the matter was decided.
§ Sir W. SUGDENMr. Speaker, when he was in the Chair, after ruling my Clause out of order, although I endeavoured to show him that it was vital and, to my mind, more essential to the ratepayers and to the citizens of this country than any other Amendment in the Paper——
Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKERI do not know precisely what the hon. Member proposed to argue, but, anyhow, the chance of arguing it on that proposed new Clause has passed. It may be that he can raise his point on some other Amendment, but I cannot say at present, because, for one thing, I am not sure what the point is. He cannot pursue the subject now.