CLAUSE 15.—(Power of board to run public service vehicles.)

HC Deb 05 December 1932 vol 272 cc1358-96

Mr. LINDSAY

I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, after the word "section," to insert the words: and save as hereinafter provided by the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. 9.41 p.m.

Earlier in the evening I made an unsuccessful effort to obtain some information about the relation of this Bill to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and on this Amendment I can return to the same subject. It deals with the position under the Road Traffic Act. Sections 72 to 76 of that Act set up a licensing system whereby anyone who wants to run a public service vehicle has to go before the Traffic Commissioners of the area and get a licence. Sub-section (3) of this Clause provides that the newly-constituted board are exempt from that obligation within the special area. When they run outside the special area, I take it, they have to comply with the provisions of the Road Traffic Act and go before the Traffic Commissioners and get a licence. That is implied by Sub-section (4) which lays down what the Traffic Commissioners shall do when they consider such an application. The Attorney-General will agree that nowhere in this Clause is there anything which makes it clear that this obligation rests on the board. Some of my hon. Friends think that the matter ought to be carried further, and that within the special area the board ought to go before the Traffic Commissioners and get a licence. I say nothing about that, and if the Amendment is carried that question still remains open, and can be dealt with afterwards. You have already under the Act of 1930 and the Act of 1924 what appear to me to be adequate means of controlling the surface traffic, and you are now setting up entirely new machinery, without any clear conception as to how the two bodies will fit in together. The real purpose of the Amendment is to get a clear statement as to the relations between these two bodies. Has the Minister of Transport considered what will be the position of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, and if he has thought it out, may we have the benefit of his thoughts? He may look upon some of us as fractions; but we are not. Many of us have been deprived, of the advantage of hearing the Second Reading Debate on this Bill and also of the inquiries which have been made, and we are therefore anxious to understand the Bill, and we want to help the Government to pass a Bill which will be a good Bill.

9.44 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I quite appreciate the desire of the hon. Member for information, but these words are unnecessary. The general law applies except in so far as the special area is exempted. For instance, he referred to Sub-section (3) which exempts the special area, because in this special area there will be really no need for the activities of the Traffic Commissioner. The board will have a monopoly of the traffic in the area and will be responsible for the vehicles which run and for the conduct of the traffic.

Mr. LINDSAY

Will the Metropolitan traffic commissioner still have control over omnibuses which come into London from Nottingham and Leicester? They will still be running within the special area.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

In regard to omnibuses which go through the special area and do not stop, I take it that the existing law will apply, and they will have to have the visa of the Metropolitan traffic commissioner in the same way as they do now?

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

If an omnibus comes from an important place like Torquay and is nut going through the area, at what stage does the omnibus become subject to this condition?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

If the omnibus goes through the area?

Mr. WILLIAMS

No, not through; if it is coming from Torquay to London.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

It would be in exactly the same position as it is in now.

Amendment negatived.

Major JESSON

I beg to move, in page 23, line 10, after the word "section," to insert the words: and to the grant of a road service licence under Sections seventy-two to seventy-six of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, as amended by this Act. 9.46 p.m.

Like the hon. Member for Bristol South (Mr. Lindsay) I am in the difficulty that I have not had the privilege of hearing the Second Reading of this important and cumbrous Bill. The purpose of this Amendment, and of consequential Amendments, is to extend the existing control over London traffic by applying to it the system of road traffic licences which are granted by the road traffic commissioners. This system applies under the Road Traffic Act of 1930, in other parts of Great Britain. The Amendment would require the board and all other public service vehicle undertakers in the London area to obtain road service licences, and to satisfy the road traffic commissioners that such licences ought to be granted. It is really an alternative to the monopoly to which the Parliamentary Secretary referred; he used the word "monopoly." The Amendment is an alternative to Clause 16, which gives to this proposed board absolute powers. If one refers to Clause 16 one finds that the hoard, while operating road vehicle services, is to determine whether any other undertakings should operate in competition with it. There is to be no appeal from the board's decision. The alternative proposed in the Amendment is to put the road traffic commissioners in authority over the board, and to let decisions as to co-ordination or control rest with the commissioners.

The commissioners under the Road Traffic Act of 1930 have definite duties laid down, as to whether they should or should not grant licences. They have to consider the suitability of a route, the extent of a route, the extent to which the proposed service is necessary in the public interest, and the needs of the area, and having thought over those matters the commissioners have a right to say whether the fares are reasonable, whether they are desirable in the public interests, they can decide that fare-tables must be carried and where passengers shall be picked up and dropped. It is a great mistake to suppose that to-day there exists no control over London traffic. The supporters of this Bill endeavour to create the view that London traffic is not controlled, and that it will be controlled only if this Bill is passed. Nothing of the kind. I noticed only last Thursday that that old Tory paper the "Times" said this: Moreover it is precisely because there has hitherto been no unified control over London passenger transport that the present difficulty, which the Bill is designed to remedy, has n fact arisen. Later on it said: The continuous addition of internecine competition is useless duplication and congestion. These are phrases which might make some people gain the impression that there was no control over traffic in London, and that this Bill is going to remedy. all that. So far as omnibuses and coach traffic are concerned, that statement is entirely false. London street traffic by omnibus and coach to-day is very strictly controlled by the London Traffic Act of 1924 and the London Traffic Act of 1930. The Minister of Transport to-day can make restricted streets orders under the London Traffic Act of 1924, and can prevent the increase in the number of omnibuses on any of the restricted streets.

The learned Attorney-General said the other day that the object of the Bill was to do away with congestion in the streets. I say that it is possible to deal with the congestion in the streets with the powers that already exist. There is competition to-day between the London General Omnibus Company and the independent undertakings. They provide services and those services have to meet with the approval of the commissioners. But both these competitors are tied strictly to a schedule and they cannot increase their services without coming before the commissioners again. That is a very important provision. I am not a shareholder in any omnibus concern, but one must feel that the great Combines have got terms, and one must put in a word for the underdog, the little independent omnibus owner who by his initiative, his courage, and his enterprise has done a great deal to bring the omnibus service to the state of efficiency in which it undoubtedly is to-day. These motor coaches are controlled by the London Traffic Act and the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner. He exercises the necessary control. The combined effect of these two systems of very strict control is that the public gets an excellent omnibus service. It is true that it is rather a patchwork machinery. You have the Commissioner of Police, the Minister of Transport and the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioner, but at the some time there is the power to prevent congestion in the streets.

Why not let the board be on the same basis as an independent omnibus pro prietor? Let them go before the traffic commissioner and let their case be stated, and then the commissioner could grant a licence in the usual way. In practice you get this done in every other part of Great Britain. There is no reason why it should not be done equally in London. Competition is the best stimulant to efficiency. Let us look for one moment beyond the frontier of hope and optimism. Suppose that this board is not successful from the financial point of view. In my humble opinion, experience shows that these great combines do not make so much money as the small undertakings. In the case of these big undertakings you have at the head of affairs men drawing big salaries. The overhead charges are heavier than in privately-owned concerns and there is no liaison between the top men and the bottom men such as one finds in a privately-owned concern. The advantages which the privately-owned concerns possess have proved useful up to now and it is a pity to let them go because of this rather autocratic Measure which puts the proposed new board in such a strong position. If money is not made by the new undertaking what will be the result? Fares will have to be increased or services will have to be restricted and the public will suffer. If there is healthy competition by independent competitors it will keep the board and those under the board on the alert and I suggest that the Government ought to look favourably upon this Amendment and the consequential Amendments which follow.

9.56 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The effect of this Amendment and the subsequent Amendment of the hon. and gallant Member on Clause 16 would be to require the board to obtain road service licences for all their omnibus and express services within the special area, which of course includes the City of London and the Metropolitan Police District. The board will be required to take over all the undertakings now providing road services in that area and it seems hardly necessary that Sections 72 to 76 of the Road Traffic Act should be made to apply. If this Amendment were accepted it would also involve considerable waste of time and energy on the part of the traffic commissioner and his staff and would do away with the economies which we propose to carry out under Clause 50 by transferring certain functions of the Commissioner of Police in connection with traffic, to the traffic commissioner. The Amendment really destroys the principle of the Bill which is to unify the ownership and management of the means of transport in the special area. It would also in my opinion hamper the board in carrying out the duties which are laid down in Clause 3.

Major JESSON

Do I understand that it is the intention of the board to take over the whole of the omnibus undertakings now plying within the special area?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The board can do so or it can leave them as they are. It is a matter of agreement but the power is given to the board in the Bill.

Major JESSON

That is the point. It can take over these other omnibuses but it may not do so. Therefore, instead of getting unity of control you are going to have a board which can put its omnibuses on the road without any examination or licensing, while those omnibuses within the special area which are not taken over, have to obtain road licences Therefore you will have, not unity, but dual control.

10.0 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND

Is it not also the fact that so far from getting unification you will get separate responsibility? Is it not the case that under Clause 60 the metropolitan traffic commissioner will control the routes for all public services, while under Clause 61 the Minister will control the number of vehicles and under Clause 16 the board will decide whether or not other operators may run on those routes? Are we not getting away from unification and spreading the work over three different sources of authority?

Amendment negatived.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Before I call upon the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) to move the next Amendment on the Paper, I suggest that it would be convenient to discuss the four Amendments in the name of the hon. Member on this first Amendment, as they all raise the question of roads in the county of Buckingham.

Mr. MICHAEL BEAUMONT

I beg to move, in page 23, line 17, at the end, to insert the words: except roads in the county of Buckingham. 10.1 p.m.

The object of this Amendment is to leave the administrative county of Buckingham out of the purview of the Bill. The effect of the Bill on the county of Buckingham comes under three heads. In the first place the Bill is applied to the area which, under the London Traffic Act of 1924, is already in the London transport area. Why that part of Buckingham was ever placed in the London traffic area is a mystery to anybody who lives in the county and I can only suggest that it was done because that was the only time in the last 10 years when the Members of Parliament for the two divisions affected were not of the Conservative party. Probably realising that their tenure of office could not be long those Members did not take the interest in this matter which they might otherwise have taken. I do not propose to argue the merits or demerits of the Bill all over again but I wish to point out that the effect which the Bill will have on the centre of London is very different from the effect which it will have on the outlying areas. Frankly, I do not very much mind what happens in London. I think I heard the Minister just now in an audible "aside" refer to the hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) taking part in these discussions although not a London Member. But the Bill seriously affects outside areas in the London passenger district which are not actually in London. These are the areas which will suffer most under the Bill. We have heard a great deal of various interests being consulted and considered but one interest which has been sadly neglected is that of the travelling public in those areas and it is on behalf of those people in my constituency that I move the Amendment.

The second way in which the Bill will injure Buckingham—and one has to read through the Bill and refer to the signed map and delve into various documents before one discovers it—is that it extends the London transport area in the county by a further eight miles and allows it to be extended even further. There is no justification whatever for that course. Buckingham is not connected with London in any way. The area is riddled with little local services which have no connection with the services in the London area. They are services run by small concerns linking various villages in the county and have nothing to do with the great problem of London transport.

I suggest, without labouring the point, that it is absurd to put that class of rural service in the hill villages of the Chilterns under the control of this board. There is no reason why they should, and they cannot, have an understanding of, let us say, the needs of Bledlow or Bledlow Ridge, to take two villages in the Chilterns which will come under the purview of this Bill. It is putting on the board something they are not fitted to do, and it is introducing an area which has nothing to do with the main purpose of the Bill. I notice that, although the Bill takes in a proportion of Essex, the Minister's own constituency of Harwich is not affected, and I cannot see why he is going to be let off in this way. For that matter, I cannot see why Barnard Castle, the constituency of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry, should not be affected, because it sends omnibuses to London and is no more outside the scope of London traffic than some of the areas included in Buckinghamshire.

It is perhaps unfortunate that the county council have received no notice whatever of the changes that have taken place in this Bill. It is true, as I realise, that the powers of the Bill are not, strictly speaking, powers that affect the county council, but if hon. Members turn to Schedule 10, they will see that the Traffic Advisory Committee is considered to affect the Buckinghamshire County Council sufficiently to give them a joint right, with Hertfordshire, to nominate a member on that committee. They have not been informed that the Bill affects them in any way. They have not even seen the signed map. They have had no facility for understanding the effects on the county of the changes in the Bill, and it was not until I, by my own action and some careful research, discovered what was going to happen to the county under the Bill, that the county council were a ware that it affected them at all.

I suggest that the effects will be very serious. We have had some experience under the Road Traffic Act of the decrease of facilities of public control, and I am certain that that decrease will be intensified in the area of the county which will come under this Bill. I contend that there is- no justification for it at all, and that it is my duty, as representing the people in that part of the world, first of all to stand out as far as I can for the maintenance of small local facilities and, secondly, for the retention of those small local omnibus services which have nothing whatever to do with the main London traffic problem, but which serve an extraordinarily useful purpose locally, both by affording facilities of communication and local employment and by providing traffic services by people who understand the needs of the area.

There is yet a third point in which the Bill affects, and affects seriously, the area under discussion. Besides the actual extensions under the Bill, there are various roads, marked on the signed map by blue dotted lines, into which the board may extend their activities on application. They are mentioned in the various Amendments which we are discussing with the one that I am actually moving. There is the road from Tring to Aylesbury, there is the road from Little Missenden to Great Missenden, Wendover, Tring, and Dunstable, and there is the road, mentioned in the Amendment standing in the name of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), from Slough to Maidenhead, which actually strays into Berkshire. Those roads cannot, by any possible stretch of imagination, have any more connection with London transport than has any other main road in the country. The only connection they can possibly have with London is that, as on all other main roads, including the Great North Road and the Great West Road, there are coaches which run over them to London.

I regret that I did not quite understand the answer given by the Parliamentary Secretary to my hon. Friend the Member for Torquay (Mr. C. Williams), as to whether the board would or would not have anything to do with vehicles which came from outside the area into the area. He made it clear that the Traffic Commissioners would still have control, but whether the board would have control was not made clear. If it does, you will have purely local services starting outside the area, coming inside the area and being affected by the London Transport Board.

I do not wish to stress the point at greater length, but I appeal to the Minister, first of all, to leave the county of Buckingham out altogether. It has nothing to do with London, it wants nothing to do with London, and it only wants to be left alone. If he cannot do that, will he at least consider not- extending the scope of the Bill beyond the area under the London Transport Act, 1924? The reason for that extension seems peculiar. It has been suggested that some of the provincial omnibus companies have had some of their areas curtailed and are having them made up at the expense of counties such as Buckinghamshire, and what they gain on the swings, we lose on the roundabouts. If the Minister cannot exclude the whole county, I ask him if he will exclude that part which comes in afresh under this Bill; and if he cannot do even that, will he at least remove from the purview of the Bill those new roads which have nothing whatever to do with the general scheme of the Bill, which are marked on the signed map by a dotted line, and which can be brought into the Bill apparently at a moment's notice by application for, so far as I can see, no reason whatever.

10.13 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

May I add a word in support of the Amendment? This is a most important matter. If London is content. to be ruled by this combine, we in the country are not at all content to be so ruled. If hon. Members look at the signed map, which bulks so largely in this Bill, they will see the London traffic area marked, and running out of that area are 100 arms, or not quite so many yet, but the number will increase if they are not checked at the start. Those arms or spurs denote roads over which the new board will have power to operate. Let me give an example of how it will work, with regard to the road from Slough to Maidenhead. Slough is in the constituency of my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox), and Maidenhead is in my constituency. That section of road was operated by the Green Line. The other operatives, some of whom were on the road before the Green Line, opposed the renewal of the licence of the Green Line, and it was refused by the traffic commissioners. The Green Line appealed, but the decision of the traffic commissioners was upheld by the Minister, and so the Green Line ceased to have the right to operate that section of the Bath Road. The Green Line is part of the Underground Combine, and, according; to 'Clause 15, Sub-section (1), paragraphs (a) and (b), particularly paragraph (b), the board, which will obtain possession of the Green Line as part of the Underground Combine, will have the power to operate that section of the road again against the decision of the Minister himself. How will that work? This great Combine will come into competition with the smaller services which are now operating that road. It is not at all consonant with a Government which depends upon Conservative support that they should be backing a great Combine against the rights of the smaller people.

My hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), the hon. and gallant Member for Wycombe (Sir A. Knox) and I wish to make a protest on behalf of the smaller services that are giving good service to the public, and to ask the Government not to give to this monstrous Combine the power of stretching their arms out over the whole countryside and coming into competition with the smaller people. I hope that we shall get sufficient support in every part of the House so that, if we cannot get a satisfactory reply from the Minister, we shall divide on these Amendments. It may be said that all the smaller services are protected by the traffic commissioners, who retain their powers, but that is not true with regard to the road of which I am speaking from Slough to Maidenhead, because the Bill gives the board powers to run services on that section of the Bath Road. It affects the whole of the Bath Road up to Reading. I appeal to the Government to take this important matter into consideration and not to give to this monstrous Combine the power to interfere with the services in the country or to permit competition that will seriously damage the smaller people. London, if it wishes, may be satisfied with the Combine, but we in the country object very strongly to falling into the claws of the monster.

10.18 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT

I wish strongly to support the Amendment and to speak particularly about the road from Slough to Maidenhead. I urge the Government to accept the Amendment. This subject has been twice considered; it has been brought before the traffic commissioners and the Minister, and each time the Green Line has not been allowed to trade on this route. Do the Government wish that it should be considered in the country that they want to suppress all private enterprise? This is a state of affairs where private enterprise that has quite successfully operated on this route is to be suppressed, even though it has been upheld by the traffic commissioners and the Minister. It would be a bad thing if it were felt in the country that the Government are supressing private enterprise outside the London traffic area. I agree with the Government that it is necessary to have unification of London traffic, but surely if it goes as far as Slough that is quite sufficient. If it goes beyond that, why not take it right down the West Road for goodness knows how many miles? There must be a limit to what is regarded as London, and surely Slough is far enough to go. The road betwen Slough and Maidenhead has been successfully worked by a line called "Thackeray's Way," and surely the Government should show sympathetic consideration to a line already operating whose work has already been twice upheld. I ask the Government to agree to this Amendment, because it is extremely unfair to a line which has operated so well to be suppressed entirely.

10.21 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON

There are in this Amendment several very important principles which have been brought out by those who have moved or supported it. I would like to take the Committee back to the days of the Loudon Passenger Transport Act, which was under discussion in the days when hon. Members opposite were in office.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

To what Act is the Noble Lord referring? Does he mean the Road Traffic Act?

Earl WINTERTON

Yes, I am sorry if I misquoted it. It is the Road Traffic Act. Some of those now on the Government Bench and on the benches supporting the Government may remember what took place when that Act was under discussion. Some of us who were then in opposition as Members of the Conserva- tive party raised certain objections to the area of operation of that Measure. We were told it was necessary to go outside the area of London because it was impossible to get a co-ordination of London traffic unless we went outside the Metropolitan Police area. I moved an Amendment to confine the area to the Metropolitan Police area. The point I wish to put is that at the time when the Conservative party supported the Act because it was said it was necessary in order to co-ordinate London traffic that traffic was not in one combine but was run by individual enterprises. In other words, it was necessary to pass the Act to prevent numerous companies which were then operating from cutting each others' throats, and that was the only condition on which the Conservative party supported it.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am sorry to interrupt, but I should like to be quite clear what Act the Noble Lord is speaking about. He spoke about the Road Traffic Act, 1930.

Earl WINTERTON

No.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

Then he is speaking about the London Traffic Act, 1924, and I am afraid his hypothesis will not do, because the Conservatives were in power then.

Earl WINTERTON

The right hon. and learned Gentleman is wrong. The Act of which I am speaking is the London Traffic Act brought in by the late Mr. Gosling, when he was Minister of Transport. I do not know whether my hon. and learned Friend took part in the discussions then but I took a very considerable part, and as far as I can recollect I moved an Amendment—I know that I supported it—to confine the operations of the Act to the Metropolitan Police district. We were told it was necessary to have the wider area, which I believe is technically known as the London traffic area, because if it were merely confined to the Metropolitan Police district it would not be possible to co-ordinate the traffic affected. That was traffic in the hands of private enterprise, and the Conservative party only supported the Act, or at least they did not oppose it, on the assumption that it was going to apply to the then existing conditions. Now what do we find the Government proposing in this Bill? They propose to apply it to the whole of that traffic area, parts of which are outside what, on a strict interpretation, could be called the London area—it applies as far south as Guildford—and an hon. Member has pointed out they even propose to extend the area. He has assured me and the Committee, and I understand his information is based on what he has been told by the local authorities in Buckinghamshire, that the joint committee have actually enlarged the area in the original Bill, under which the operating area was the London traffic area as defined in the First Schedule of the London Traffic Act.

Here is a very curious question in connection with this subject which I hope one of the Ministers will answer. The London area has been extended in the case of Buckinghamshire and, I am given to understand in the case of Essex, that they have actually reduced the London traffic area. I am told that they have done so because of some understanding that has been come to with the companies operating in the area. The Government should give an explanation of it. Why have they extended the area, in the case of Buckinghamshire, even outside the London traffic area? I will put it to all Conservatives and to all supporters of the Government, what possible justification is there for the nationalisation of traffic in rural areas? Hon. Members of the Opposition appreciate what our views are, although they may not be able to agree with them. They may admit that we were right. It is bad enough from our point of view to nationalise traffic in the purely urban area, but when you go eight miles outside the area of London traffic, that is a matter which seems to me to call for some explanation. What is the reason for it? Why have they increased the area in the case of Kent? This is a question of very considerable principle. I assure the Members of the Government that one thing for which their supporters were not returned at the last election was the nationalisation of the road traffic of this country.

10.27 p.m.

Mr. D. G. SOMERVILLE

I should very much like to emphasise what has just been said by the Noble Lord. It is intolerable to me that the Government under this Bill should take powers to go so far out of London. I happen to know the Thackeray's Way Company very well. The service was started from very small beginnings. It has served the public well, and now that it is a prosperous little company, it is to be squeezed out of existence. It is serving a branch route, and is doing very well. It is to be squeezed out in favour of some of the privileged groups. I do not think that that it is fair or just. How far are the Combine going? They are spreading their claws all round. They are taking control of all the small companies and squeezing them out of existence. Where is the process going to stop? Is individual enterprise going to be squeezed out altogether? [Interruption.] Apparently hon. Members of the Opposition are entirely in agreement with the Government over this squeezing out of individuals by nationalised transport. Where is it going to stop? I am satisfied that you will never get the same service from a Combine that you get from these individual services. They have served the country and their districts well, and they deserve consideration. In view of the interests affected, the Government might keep the Combine off branch routes, and confine it to London and central London traffic.

10.30 p.m.

Major HARVEY

Up to the present I have not taken any part in this Debate, because I thought that it was concerned with London traffic, but, in the Clause that is now under discussion, we find fingers, or arms, or whatever they may be called, radiating into all parts of the country, indicating that the question of transport in London may be extended into a very much larger area. That would certainly do a considerable amount of harm to a great many people around London who have spent a great deal of money and time and have rendered excellent services to the local people. My constituency, the Totnes Division of Devonshire—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I do not think we can bring Totnes into London.

Major HARVEY

Of course, I accept your Ruling, but I was putting a proposition as an illustration of what might happen. Just as London is surrounded entirely by various other counties, so my constituency entirely surrounds Torquay, and this Measure might form a precedent for some local authority applying for powers to run services into the various local districts of my constituency. It seems to me to be a very dangerous precedent. I do not claim to know perfectly all the ramifications of the area which is dealt with in this Amendment, although I have a fair knowledge of Slough, but it seems to me to be reasonable that some limit should be set to the extension of these tentacles which are now stretching out into the country in the endeavour to crush out local enterprise which has done so well in the past.

10.32 p.m.

Sir NAIRNE STEWART SANDEMAN

You have ruled, Captain Bourne, that the discussion on this Amendment must stop at Buckingham, but I am wondering where Buckingham is going to 'stop. It is spreading all over the country, and, after my own experience of the Ministry of Transport, and what they have done for a good many of my constituents in making their lives very much harder by the restriction of services, I have a good deal of difficulty in thinking that we are not making it unduly easy for the powers that be to cut out personal and individual effort. I am certain that, if we go on making that easier, when the end of our time comes and one day, perhaps, the Opposition may be in authority, nationalisation will be made an absolute certainty, and we know exactly what nationalisation means.

10.33 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I congratulate Buckingham on having found a modern Hampden. I do not think it could have found a more suitable representative, or one nearer to the old-fashioned type. We are fighting, as far as Buckingham is concerned, a very big principle. There are all these small concerns, and those hon. Members who have been here for some time this evening know that they will not necessarily get even fair compensation. What is being done in this Sub-section is simply to enable this typically Socialist octopus in the City of London to reach out to Buckingham. I want to kill the octopus at the earliest possible moment, and that is why I join with my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. M. Beaumont) in hoping that on this occasion the Government will give way, because they must realise that it is impossible to allow what may be bad, and is bad, for London, to stretch throughout the country in this way. Here we have a small, isolated county which has enormous support on this Amendment, simply because of the injustice of this particular Clause of the Bill, which, although it is bad, is no worse than a great many other parts of the Bill, if hon. Members knew it.

10.35 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I have listened to hon. Members who have spoken with great interest and with considerable sympathy. I know how annoying it must be for them to have to pass what they describe as a Socialist Measure. But it is not a Socialist Measure, and the speeches that have been made have, I think, rather exaggerated the changes that are being effected by the Bill, more especially on the question of these dotted roads on the map. The only reason for these roads being utilised is for the advantage of the public. There is no power for the board to run omnibuses on these roads except exactly under the same conditions as their competitors. They have to get the licence of the traffic commissioners.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

Does not the Bill give power to the board to operate the road at South Maidenhead without reference to the traffic commissioners?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

No. On that road and on all roads outside the special area the board have to get the same permission as others. That being the case, I do not see how people are going to have their conditions in any way worsened, because the board will have to satisfy the traffic commissioners that the competition that it is introducing, if it is introducing competition, in a country district is legitimate and called for in the public interest. That seems to me to be the real point at issue. If I thought the board was going to damage private owners in the way that certain hon. Members have suggested, I should not be in favour of the Bill. I look upon it merely as an extension of an existing principle, and these changes that have been brought about on the borders of the special area are made for the benefit of the public as a whole. I cannot for a moment suggest that the Government can give way on these points.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

This is a very important matter, and we want to get it quite clear. Do we understand that the board will be in the same position as any other operator and that it must apply for a renewal of its licence every year to the traffic commissioners?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

Yes.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

In the event of an appeal from the traffic commissioners, I understand it will go to the Minister of Transport. The Minister's relations with the board will at least be intimate and, accordingly, you are going to have an appeal from an aggrieved operator who is refused a licence to someone who is, in fact, not impartial, because of his intimate connection with the board. At one time I sat for Reading, and I know that certain operators in that part of the world may be very seriously aggrieved unless this and subsequent Amendments are accepted.

10.69 p.m.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

The Parliamentary Secretary has really only answered one of the cases put up to him. I do not agree with him with regard to the dotted lines because I am inclined to think the board will go to the traffic commissioners with their case, if not prejudged, heavily weighted in their favour. Be that as it may, he has still said nothing about that, which to my mind, is a very serious point—the extension of the London traffic area into the rural districts. I am very anxious not to divide against the Government on the matter if it can possibly be avoided, but I ask for some consideration on what is really a very important point.

10.41 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I am glad that my hon. Friend has drawn my attention to that point. The actual extension by this Bill is very slight, and is due entirely to the fact that we want to link up the services in town and country. I would point out to my hon. Friend, and also to the Committee as a whole, that obviously London has extended considerably, and is always extending, and that is one of the reasons why you will find that London, though not going as far as Barnard Castle, has undoubtedly made a little inroad into Buckinghamshire. But I admit that what we are doing and the suggestions in the Bill on this matter are not only for the benefit of the population of Buckingham but for those who use the road from London to Buckingham.

Earl WINTERTON

Why this arbitrary extension to eight miles? The hon. and gallant Member says he intends to link up town and country, but that is not an answer to the question of my hon. Friend. Why this arbitrary extension of eight miles? What is the reason for it? Why not an extension in every direction? For instance, London traffic stretches to Brighton. What is the reason?

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The Bill, as no doubt the Noble Lord the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) realises, allows us to go within a radius of 10 miles outside the London passenger transport area, and five miles into Kent. The eight miles to which he is alluding—the road which runs parallel in Buckinghamshire —were arranged to suit the convenience of other services to be taken over.

10.42 p.m.

Mr. BRACKEN

The Minister said that the Bill is to serve the county of Buckinghamshire. I was under the impression that the Bill was to deal with the very complicated question of London traffic. I have considerable sympathy with the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont), because when the Minister said the. Bill did not justify him in extending the London Transport Bill to Barnard Castle he forgot that, if passed in its present form, hon. Members on the Opposition Benches will make it apply to Barnard Castle and to other parts of the country. I have never heard a more preposterous reply than that given by the hon. and gallant Member. If you want the case For nationalising the railways, you have had it from the Front Bench of the National Government.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The question of nationalising the railways does not arise on the Amendment.

Mr. BRACKEN

It may not arise on the Amendment, but I was pointing out the tendency which would occur if the Minister carried out his ambition that the Transport Bill might apply to Barnard Castle. I hope that the Conservatives will support the Amendment and make themselves felt. While I feel that the Bill, with all its defects, is the only alternative offered to us, for the moment I think that it is our duty to purify it as much as possible. I am strengthened in my attitude by what was said about the Bill only two years ago from the Front Bench opposite. I hope that Tory Member on this occasion will rally round the hon. Member for Aylesbury and will not allow the passage of this iniquitous and altogether Socialistic part of the Bill.

10.44 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY

We cannot allow the reply of the Parliamentary Secretary to go by without comment. How can the back benches be expected to understand the Bill when Ministers in charge of it are not clear about it? The hon. and gallant Member has not been in his present post very long. He talks about running 10 miles outside London, and five miles into Kent—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The hon. Member is now dealing with the next Sub-section.

Mr. LINDSAY

With respect, the Parliamentary Secretary referred to running 10 miles outside the London passenger transport area and five miles outside in regard to the county of Kent. That is not a reply to the point before the Committee, because it refers only to contract carriages and not to public service vehicles, with which the Amendment deals.

10.46 p.m.

Colonel GRETTON

I have listened to this Debate from the beginning. The only thing which has been said on behalf of the Government is that they think that the arrangements that are being made are for the benefit of the county of Buckingham, but hon. Members representing that county say that it is not for the benefit of the county. Therefore, the statement of the Parliamentary Secretary is not satisfactory. The Parliamentary Secretary said that the extra eight miles merely meant taking over an arrangement with one concern which was to be linked up in the Combine. Cannot he state which of the concerns is referred to and why these particular eight miles are taken over? The Bill is very complicated and the Committee is entitled to be fully informed. There is no exam- ination of the Bill upstairs and information must be extracted and given on the Floor of the House. I trust that the Government will give us a little more information why they wish to extend into the county of Buckingham.

10.48 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

In consideration of the long experience of my right hon. and gallant Friend I willingly respond to his request and I will also reply to other hon. Members. We are dealing with an Amendment in which the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. M. Beaumont) moved to except the roads in Buckingham, but the discussion has been allowed, for our general convenience, to cover a number of other Amendments and the area of the discussion has, like the London traffic area, extended considerably. I am not quite sure what is the particular point before the Committee except the general point as to why the area covered by the Bill is as large as it is. I think that summarises the objection to this part of the Bill. Obviously, we cannot deal with the discussion simply upon the question as to whether the roads in Buckingham shall be in the area, otherwise the next question will be why are the roads in Berkshire, or the roads in Essex, or the roads in Kent included. Therefore, the hon. Member for Aylesbury will not think me guilty of any discourtesy if I do not address myself to Buckingham in particular but to the general question. The fact is that in 1924 the London traffic area was created. My Noble Friend the Member for Horsham (Earl Winterton) has a prejudice about the London traffic area. He says that he objected to its constitution. I dare say he did. I do not remember whether I did or not, but I dare say I did. But I am afraid that we cannot go back upon Acts of Parliament simply because they were passed when one party was in power. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh ! "] I thought that was a good Conservative doctrine. In 1924 the London traffic area was created and it was of considerable width. It included a great deal more than what one would call London.

Earl WINTERTON

Hear, hear !

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am glad to have that confirmation from the Noble Lord. In the Schedule to that Act there were delightful rural names which seemed to indicate anything but London. When the Bill was started it was intended to take the London traffic area. I do not speak with authority on this point, because I was not in the Government which devised the Bill originally, nor was I a Member of the House. I share the same disability with my hon. Friend opposite, that I did not hear the Bill discussed on Second Reading, because I was not in the House. When the London traffic area was mapped out, it was found to cut across certain lines of services which it was desired to maintain, and the area was slightly altered from the London traffic area to the London Passenger transport area to meet, not the desires of grasping Ministers, but the convenience of the services that were running to the different localities. The result was that you had a slightly different area, sometimes inside and sometimes outside the London traffic area, but not coterminous with it and not extended by any artificial five or 10 miles in all directions. It was altered solely for the convenience of the lines operating and to meet the objections of the same little private omnibus undertakings of which hon. Members have been such eloquent champions this evening. That was how the London traffic area came to be altered in shape and size.

Then there was still a question which arose in respect of many of these services, for not even the extension of the London passenger transport area quite met the case of all services. There were one or two little arms stretching out five, eight or 10 miles, as the case might be, and these little extensions were added to the area so as to allow existing services to be maintained. The area was not included by drawing lines all round it, but, as the map shows, there were these arms stretching out in different directions outside this area. Outside the special area, which is only another way of describing that which is common to the two areas, the London traffic area and the London passenger transport area, it would be necessary for the board to get precisely the same approval by way of road service licence as any private undertaker.

10.53 p.m.

Earl WINTERTON

May I ask a question? When the Attorney-General talks of these extensions being necessitated by changed circumstances, was there any consultation with the local authorities?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I will ascertain whether there was any consultation. I did not say it was necessitated by altered circumstances. What I did say was that it was desirable to meet the wishes of the local services that were operating largely inside the London traffic area, but to some extent outside. Frankly, I do not know whether there was consultation with the local authorities, though I should imagine it would be very difficult for them not to have been aware of what was going on in regard to these local services, to meet whose convenience the area was extended.

10.54 p.m.

Sir BASIL PETO

Though it is not within my knowledge exactly who was consulted, I can tell the Committee that this question of the area came up quite early in the 30 days on which the Committee sat, was postponed for some weeks for consultation with everybody concerned before the area was finally agreed and every opportunity was given for consultations and for facts to be placed before the Committee.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am much obliged to the hon. Gentleman for giving me the information, seeing that he sat on the Select Committee for the long period which he has mentioned. The broad point I wanted to make out was, that rather large as this area seems at first sight it is in substance not very much larger than the London traffic area which, for good or ill, was adopted by Parliament in 1924. In so far as an extension has taken place, it has been for the convenience of the services which were operating. If it so happens that some parts of Buckinghamshire are included—I do not know whether some of them arc included in the London traffic area—it is through no malice or original sin on the part of the Government but to meet the convenience of services which were already operating. Any area which would cut across these routes would have resulted in confusion, injustice and hardship to different undertakings, part of whose limbs would be taken and some parts left. After the intervention of the hon. Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Pete), it is hardly necessary for me to say that local authorities must have been aware of what was going on.

Mr. M. BEAUMONT

As far as the Buckinghamshire County Council are concerned, they had no notice whatever.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I am not going to challenge the statement that they had no notice, but I can hardly conceive that as the London Passenger Traffic Bill was before a Committee for a period of three months—it began in April and ended on 27th July—these great local authorities were living in a blissful state of ignorance that it was intended to extend the area to any part of their jurisdiction, and no objection was taken by a single local authority as to the areas proposed in the Bill. I know that hon. Members are sincerely concerned to secure the comfort, peace and prosperity of their different districts, but really the Government could have done no other than they have in fixing the areas in the Bill, and whatever natural indignation hon. Members may have at the flight of time and the happy days when everybody lived as they liked, I hope they will not resist the Government proposal further.

10.57 p.m.

Sir JOSEPH NALL

The Committee is indebted to the Attorney-General and the Parliamentary Secretary for throwing considerable light on the controversy that has arisen. We are in this difficulty. If this central organisation is set up under the Bill it is obvious that there will be cases where extended routes outside the particular area of the undertaking will be necessary. As I understand, the power which we are now debating is merely an enabling power, to allow the board to apply for a licence to run these additional outside routes. The hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A. Somerville) has pointed out that in a particular case an operator was refused a licence by the Traffic Commissioner, and the Minister upheld is refusal. It is now feared that the board by absorbing that operator will be able to revise a service which the Traffic Commissioners and the Minister have decided should not be continued. That is the first point; and it might be met by putting in a proviso on Report to the effect that nothing in the Bill shall authorise the restoration of a service which has been disallowed by the Traffic Commissioners or the Minister since 1st January, 1931, which is the date when the Road Traffic Act came into force. Such a proviso would make it clear that this enabling power does not, in fact, authorise the restoration of a service already suspended under the Road Traffic Act.

The other point is this. Some hon. Members are apprehensive that an existing private operator may be prejudiced by the restoration of a service through the machinery of the board; and this point may be met by a second proviso to the effect that nothing in the Bill shall prejudice the right of an operator who has been licensed under the Road Traffic Act to apply for a continuance of his licence to operate a service through the area now being handed over to the board. I suggest that those are two perfectly reasonable propositions. Does the power of the board to absorb an undertaking which has lately been refused permission to continue a service in or outside the area necessarily authorise the restoration of that service? I understand from the Parliamentary Secretary that it does not; it merely enables the board to apply for a licence to run a service. Obviously, it should not be implied by the passing of this Bill that in fact Parliament has given some sort of authority to the board to re-open some service which the Minister has already decided should not be run.

Particularly the second point is of importance, that where an existing private operator is in fact running into the London area from an outside rural district to-day—it is undoubtedly something deprecated by the Salter Report, to which no reference has been made in this Debate—if such services are to continue in common fairness they should not be prejudiced by the passage of this Bill; if they are bona-fide rural services coming into the central zone they should not be prejudiced in their renewed application for a licence, by anything that is in this Bill. I suggest that two provisos of that kind might very reasonably meet the difficulties which have arisen. I do not offer the suggestion with any desire to facilitate this Bill, which is a bad Bill, and bad particularly because the area is too wide. If the Government would address themselves to a restriction of the area and a revision of the powers constituting the board, we might get a Measure which would receive more general support.

11.2 p.m.

Mr. GLOSSOP

The Parliamentary Secretary, in reply to a question as to the reason for extending the area, said that it was necessary to co-ordinate the traffic. As one who wishes to support the Government on this Clause, if possible, I would ask for a rather more complete answer than the one which he gave. I can see that the Bill is going to be the forerunner of a great many other Bills for densely populated areas. While I agree that it is essential that traffic should be co-ordinated, I hold that that traffic should be co-ordinated from its centre, and one has to consider which is the particular centre from which one must co-ordinate. The natural commercial centre, the natural market centre, may not be London, but may be some town in Buckinghamshire. It is around that particular town that the traffic should be co-ordinated, instead of trying to draw the traffic of the rural areas of Buckinghamshire into the Metropolis. If there is any argument for co-ordination we have already got it in the railways; there is plenty of scope for traffic on the railways. By putting forward the plea that you must co-ordinate the traffic where it is drawing the people from the natural centre, from miles and miles away, one is doing a great deal to sap the very lifeblood of the shopkeepers and the industries in a great many of the rural towns, which are dependent on the purchasing power of the people in those rural areas.

11.5 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

The Attorney-General said he did not quite know what we were discussing. We are discussing a principle and that principle is that we should confine the operation of the Bill to the London district. We feel that if we do not assert that principle on behalf of the country districts, a precedent may be established which will be used in the future. The London area may be extended further and further, and the ultimate goal will be the nationalisation of the transport of the country. -Unless we can get more satisfactory assurances than those which we have received, while it is very distasteful for us to oppose the Government, we shall feel bound to divide the Committee on this Amendment.

11.6 p.m.

Sir GEORGE GILLETT

Having had some months of close association with the Ministry of Transport, I should like to point out that some hon. Members do not appear to have realised the tremendous revolution which is taking place in the motor industry. One of my duties when I was Parliamentary Secretary was to deal with the appeals made by private concerns against decisions which had been made contrary to their desires and which were referred to the Ministry. I think hon. Members have not realized that two kinds of motor transport are provided by the omnibus companies—by private as well as public concerns. One of the questions involved in those appeals was as to how you were to adjust the long-distance motor traffic so that it did not clash with local concerns which were serving various localities. The Amendment doubtless has been moved by the hon. Member with the best intentions for his own district, but the only result of it would be that instead of the long-distance motor omnibuses taking his constituents right into London, as some of them require, at a certain point the line would be cut, and those wishing to travel into London would have to go by two omnibuses instead of getting a

through omnibus. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] That is one of the problems in connection with long-distance motor traffic. You have some motor omnibuses going a long way, and at the same time it is necessary to make arrangements for short-distance traffic within certain definite areas.

In regard to the tramway systems, for instance, in some localities, we had to make conditions that the taking up of passengers by long-distance vehicles should be limited, so as not to affect the short-distance services. If you are going to interfere with the long-distance services, you deprive London people of the advantage of getting quickly out to the country districts, and, on the other hand, you deprive the people in those country districts of the advantage of a through omnibus service to London. Any idea that you are going to have smaller areas is misleading. It is inevitable that you will have motor omnibuses covering long distances, while on the other hand you will have local companies or municipal services covering the shorter distances. What the Government suggest is in keeping with that idea. I make that submission as a result of my experience when I was at the Ministry of Transport and when these matters came before me.

Question put., "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 40; Noes, 244.

Division No. 16.]	AYES.	[11.10 p.m.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Howard, Tom Forrest	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Beaumont, M. W. (Bucks., Aylesbury)	Liddall, Walter S.	Somerville, D. G. (Willesden, East)
Bracken, Brendan	Lymington, Viscount	Strickland, Captain W. F.
Broadbent, Colonel John	Maitland, Adam	Tate, Mavis Constance
Butt, Sir Alfred	Marsden, Commander Arthur	Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Mitcheson, G. G.	Wells, Sydney Richard
Chalmers, John Rutherford	Nail, Sir Joseph	Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Cobb, Sir Cyril	Perkins, Walter R. D.	Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Colfox, Major William Philip	Ralkes, Henry V. A. M.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Dawson, Sir Philip	Ray, Sir William	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Gault, Lieut.-Col. A. Hamilton	Remer, John R.	Wise, Alfred R.
Graves, Marjorie	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	Wragg, Herbert
Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John	Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Selley, Harry R.	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
		Dr. Howitt and Mr. A. Somerville.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South)	Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.)	Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough)
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.)	Belt, Sir Alfred L.	Briant, Frank
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G.	Bernays, Robert	Brown, C. W. E. (Notts., Mansfield)
Albery, Irving James	Bevan, Aneurin (Ebbw Vale)	Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham)
Aske, Sir Robert William	Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman	Brown, Ernest (Leith)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton)	Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Blindell, James	Burgin, Dr. Edward Leslie
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Borodale, Viscount	Burnett, John George
Banfield, John William	Bossom, A. C.	Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley)
Bateman, A. L.	Boulton, W. W.	Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley)
Batey, Joseph	Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton	Campbell-Johnston, Malcolm
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell	Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W.	Caporn, Arthur Cecil
Carver, Major William H.	Heligers, Captain F. F. A.	Parkinson, John Allen
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.)	Henderson, Sir Vivian L. (Chelmsf'd)	Patrick, Colin M.
Chapman, Col. R.(Houghton-le-Spring)	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Pearson, William G.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric	Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division)	Penny, Sir George
Clayton, Dr. George C.	Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston)	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, B'nstaple)
Cocks, Frederick Seymour	Hornby, Frank	Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston)
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J.	Horobin, Ian M.	Potter, John
Conant, R. J. E.	Horsbrugh, Florence	Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Cook, Thomas A,	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cooper, A. Duff	Hudson, Robert Spear (Southport)	Procter, Major Henry Adam
Copeland, Ida	Hume, Sir George Hopwood	Pybus, Percy John
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L.	Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd)	Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Cove, William G.	Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.	Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Cripps, Sir Stafford	Iveagh, Countess of	Ramsbotham, Herwald
Crooke, J. Smedley	Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)	Ramsden, E.
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro)	James, Wing-Com. A. W. H.	Rankin, Robert
Crossley, A. C.	Jesson, Major Thomas E.	Ratcliffe, Arthur
Culverwell, Cyril Tom	Joel, Dudley J. Barnato	Rea, Walter Russell
Daggar, George	John, William	Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter)
Davies, Edward C. (Montgomery)	Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)	Reid, Capt. A. Cunningham-
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)	Reid, James S. C. (Stirling)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Reid, William Allan (Derby)
Drewe, Cedric	Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)	Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U.
Duckworth, George A. V.	Ker, J. Campbell	Robinson, John Roland
Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel	Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)	Ropner, Colonel L.
Duggan, Hubert John	Kerr, Hamilton W.	Rosbotham, S. T.
Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.)	Kirkpatrick, William M.	Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge)
Eales, John Frederick	Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.	Salmon, Major Isidore
Eastwood, John Francis	Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George	Salt, Edward W.
Eden, Robert Anthony	Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Leckie, J. A.	Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard
Edwards, Charles	Leech, Dr. J. W.	Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D.
Elmley, Viscount	Leighton, Major B. E. P.	Savery, Samuel Servington
Emmott, Charles E. G. C.	Lewis, Oswald	Scone, Lord
Emrys-Evans, P. V.	Lister. Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-	Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Entwistle, Cyril Fullard	Llewellin, Major John J.	Simmonds, Oliver Edwin
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)	Lloyd, Geoffrey	Skelton, Archibald Noel
Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool)	Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)	Slater, John
Essenhigh, Reginald Clare	Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander	Smith, Bracewell (Dulwich)
Evans, David Owen (Cardigan)	Lunn, William	Smith, R. W. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, C.)
Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.)	Lyons, Abraham Montagu	Somervell, Donald Bradley
Fermoy, Lord	MacAndrew, Lt.-Col C. G. (Partick)	Spencer, Captain Richard A.
Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst	Mac Andrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)	Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde)
Fleming, Edward Lascelles	MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)	Stones, James
Foot, Dingle (Dundee)	McEntee, Valentine L.	Storey, Samuel
Fox, Sir Gifford	McKie, John Hamilton	Strauss, Edward A.
Fraser, Captain Ian	Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton	Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Fremantle, Sir Francis	McLean, Major Alan	Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Gillett, Sir George Masterman	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart
Glossop, C. W. H.	McLean, Dr. W. H. (Tradeston)	Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Gluckstein, Louis Halle	Macmillan, Maurice Harold	Thompson, Luke
Goff, Sir Park	Magnay, Thomas	Thomson. Sir Frederick Charles
Goldie, Noel B.	Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest	Thorp, Linton Theodore
Goodman, Colonel Albert W.	Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot	Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.)	Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.	Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Greene, William P. C.	Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.	Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Greenwood. Rt. Hon. Arthur	Martin, Thomas B.	Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan)	Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)	Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Grenfell, E. C. (City of London)	Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John	Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro'.W.)	Merriman. Sir F. Boyd	Williams. Edward John (Ogmore)
Grimston, R. V.	Mills, Major J. D. (New Forest)	Wills, Wilfrid D.
Groves, Thomas E.	Milner, Major James	Womersley, Walter James
Grundy, Thomas W.	Monsell, Rt. Hon. Sir B. Eyres	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E.	Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.	Worthington, Dr. John V.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noaks)
Hall. George H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Hammersley, Samuel, S.	Morrison, William Shepherd	TELLERS FOR THE NOES —
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Muirhead, Major A. J.	Lieut.-Colonel Sir A. Lambert Ward And Commander Southby.
Haslam, Sir John (Bolton)	Nathan, Major H. L.
Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M.	Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I beg to move, in page 23, line 32, after the word "mile," to insert the words: or in the county of Berkshire one mile. 11.18 p.m.

This Amendment is rendered necessary because we want to bring Windsor in the purview of the Bill. It is situated immediately outside the boundary of the London passenger transport area. The sole purpose of the Amendment is to enable the board to operate omnibus services to and from Windsor which are at present being operated by the London General Omnibus Company. They will be taken over by the board. The terminal point in Windsor for these services is more than half a mile outside the boundary of the London traffic area.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. A. SOMERVILLE

This Amendment is a complete justification of the action taken in dividing the Committee just now. We said Clause 15 would be taken as a precedent for a further and further extension of the London area, and here is proof of it. I agree, however, that it is impossible to resist the voting power of the Government, backed as it is by the Socialists, and, I may add, by the votes of a good many Conservatives who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

11.21 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

The Parliamentary Secretary said he wanted Windsor included but he never told us why he wanted Windsor, except that some odd omnibus service is running there at the present time. What was said by the hon. Member for Windsor (Mr. A Somerville) just now is a perfect illustration of the kind of grab that is going on. Here is an entirely new Amendment, put in at the last moment by the Government. It has nothing to do with the Committee upstairs. We cannot blame them now, and we cannot blame the incompetence of the present Minister of Transport—he did not want it—yet now the Ministry comes along with its accelerating desire for Socialism, to bring Windsor into this Bill. It is monstrous that the Government should put us in this difficulty. Nearly all the Government's Amendments to-day have made the Bill a little worse. That is not the use of the Committee stage of the House, and there is every justification for the attitude we are taking up. The Government ought never to have tried to force this unwelcome Bill on the House. Apparently the only people who are cheering the Government in their efforts this evening are the Socialists on the Opposition Front Bench.

Amendment agreed to.

11.25 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY

I beg to move, in page 23, line 34, at the beginning, to insert the words: a public service vehicle operated by the. This Amendment will make no alteration in the force of the Bill, but it will make sense that which was not sense before. I hope that the Amendment will be accepted.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

We cannot accept the Amendment which would only make a slight alteration in the drafting of the Bill. I appreciate the hon. Member's intention in putting it down.

Mr. LINDSAY

Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman direct his attention to Proviso (1) to Sub-section (1), which begins with the words: a service provided by the board. Proviso (ii) begins with the words: The board shall not. What distinction is there between the two Provisos?

11.27 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I do not like to spend any time on what is a mere drafting Amendment. The two Provisos deal with different matters; the first one says that a service shall extend to a certain point. The second says that the board shall not both pick up and set down. Therefore, they need two different subjects.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.28 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND

I beg to move, in page 23, line 37, at the end, to insert the words: and (iii) notwithstanding anything contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act or shown upon the signed map mentioned in Part I of that Schedule the boundary of the London Passenger Transport Area in the neighbourhood of Sevenoaks shall be a line drawn on the western side of the Dartford, Otford, Sevenoaks, and Tonbridgo Road commencing at the junction of that road with the Seal and River- head Road passing through Sevenoaks and terminating at the bottom of River Hill where the boundary of the London Traffic Area crosses the,Sevehoaks and Tonbridge Road, and notwithstanding anything contained in Parts II and III of that Schedule the road from Sevenoaks to Tunbridge Wells shall not be available for use by the public service vehicles of the board under the powers of this Subsection farther south from Sevenoaks than the bottom of River Hill. I have been asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Chislehurst (Mr. Smithers) to submit this Amendment. In view of what happened to the Buckinghamshire and Windsor Amendments, I have very little doubt as to what will be the fate of this Amendment. The purpose of it is to ask for a revision of the map, with regard to Sevenoaks. I understand that the boundary line that has been drawn is the boundary line of local government, but that is not necessarily the best that can be found for road transport purposes. Very little regard is paid to the question of convenience. The Amendment suggests that there should. be a slight alteration which would make the town of Sevenoaks the natural point from which the traffic would operate. So far as the public are concerned, there are already quite adequate facilities from the town of Sevenoaks. The people of Tonbridge, who are particularly affected by this Amendment, are anxious that existing services should be maintained. The purpose of the Amendment is to restrict the operations of the board to a natural point, which is deemed to be more convenient, at Sevenoaks, rather than two miles further on, between Sevenoaks and Tunbridge Wells.

11.30 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

The object of this Amendment is to prevent the board from utilising one of those routes which were alluded to in the discussion on a previous Amendment. My hon. Friend has put the case very clearly, but we cannot accept the Amendment, because the effect would be to stop an existing service, beginning in London, at an inconvenient point midway between Sevenoaks and Tonbridge. It would, moreover, involve a change in the map which was drawn up after considerable discussion and after the case had been heard by the Joint Select Committee. In these circumstances, and in view of what has been pointed out already in regard to these routes, we cannot accept the Amendment.

Mr. MAITLAND

I am sorry that the clarity with which I put the case prevents the Government from accepting the Amendment. In view of what has happened in the case of the previous Amendment, I beg to ask leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

11.32 p.m.

Mr. DAVID GRENFELL

I beg to move, in page 23, line 39, to leave out from the word "carriage" to the end of the Sub-section.

Sub-section (2) of Clause 15 reads as follows: It shall he lawful for the board to run any public service vehicle as a contract carriage on any road within the London Passenger Transport Area and on any road outside that area within a radius of 10 miles, or in the county of Kent five miles, from any point on the boundary of that area but not otherwise. This is the first reference in the Clause to the particular kind of vehicle which is called a "contract carriage," and we want to make an exception in the conditions governing the running of contract carriages and the other vehicles referred to in Sub-section (1) of the Clause. Perhaps, for the convenience of the Committee, I may explain what a contract carriage is. As I understand it, it is a carriage that is let for the full journey, the passengers entering the vehicle at the commencement of the journey and remaining in it as passengers until the journey is completed, and coming back in the same carriage from the destination on the outward journey to the starting point. The Parliamentary Secretary, in resisting the last Amendment, suggested that it would be unreasonable to expect people who had booked for the full journey to, say, Sevenoaks, to transfer themselves from the omnibus in which they started their journey to another conveyance in order to complete the journey, but that is what will happen unless contract carriages are excepted. Frequently people travel in a body in these carriages for the purpose of seaside excursions, Sunday school treats and so forth, using an omnibus, or a number of omnibuses, under a contract made with the omnibus company, and travelling all together to their destination without the party being broken up or having to change conveyances on the way.

In the Clause there is a limit of 10 miles outside the boundary in any other county than Kent, where it is five miles. Contract parties sometimes wish to go considerably beyond the distance of 10 miles. There are seaside resorts 40 and 50 miles beyond that boundary, to which parties frequently go in this way. There are pleasant picnic resorts in Buckinghamshire. We do not wish existing facilities to be withdrawn. Football and cricket clubs and Sunday school treats frequently go 40 or 50 miles. They would find it extremely inconvenient to have to change at the boundary of the London transport area and take some other conveyance to complete the journey. This is an indispensable Amendment and it can be accepted without prejudicing the value of the Bill. The London General Omnibus Company caters very largely for the kind of clubs and touring parties that we wish to protect.

We are not asking for permission to change conditions. We are simply asking that what is being done to-day shall be permitted. We are not asking that these omnibuses should be allowed to ply for hire outside the transport area boundaries but only that an omnibus loaded at the starting point shall be allowed to continue for the whole length of the journey. A party of boy scouts or girl guides can go to Margate or Folkestone at present without changing. That could be continued without interfering with the licensing conditions or impairing the efficiency of the Bill and it would be a very great hardship to pass the Bill with such conditions as are contained in Sub-section (3). If the Minister can give us an assurance that he will make provision somewhere in the Bill for the preservation of these facilities, we shall be pleased to listen to him and to work with him in seeing that it, is given effect to.

11.39 p.m.

Sir B. PETO

I intervene to prevent the Committee being misled, I am sure inadvertently, by the hon. Member. There was never any question in the Committee that considered the Bill of preventing football clubs and the like traveling to their destination without breaking their journey. The point is whether catering for long-distance travelling by contract parties is a part of London passenger transport. The Committee decided that it was not part of London passenger transport and that the conveyance of these parties for long distances outside the area, to seaside resorts and to other distant places mentioned by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell), was not the business of London passenger transport. It was pointed out, on the other side, that in order to carry on London passenger transport there must be spare vehicles, and that it would make the whole of the business of London passenger transport more expensive if there was no outlet for the use of spare vehicles on certain days. It was decided by the Committee, as a matter of compromise, that it was reasonable that London passenger transport vehicles should carry passengers for a distance of 10 miles outside their own area and no further. Therefore, I beg of the learned Attorney-General, or whoever is to reply, not to respond to the hon. Member and give a. concession on this point. It was thoroughly thrashed out, and the arrangement embodied in Sub-section (1) is a fair one.

11.41 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

After the observations of my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto), I do not think that there is anything I need add, because they really embody all that I was going to say. I think that the hon. Gentleman the Member for Gower (Mr. D. Grenfell) appreciates the fact that there is nothing to prevent Girl Guides, Boy Scouts, or whoever they may be, from getting a contract carriage to carry them through, comfortably, without any break of journey, to their ultimate destination.

11.42 p.m.

Sir S. CRIPPS

The answer is really not satisfactory to us. This is a large business which has been carried on by the London General Omnibus Company up to the present time. The value of that business has been purchased, or will be purchased under the Bill, by the Transport Board. Now, apparently, it is proposed to hand over the whole of the business which has been purchased by the Transport Board to somebody else, i.e., to private directors, and to stop the Transport Board from doing in the future that which the London General Omnibus Company have done in the past, and which is part of the goodwill of the London General Omnibus Company for which the Transport Board have paid. Moreover, there is no guarantee whatever that there will be any provision of direct carriages by other people to satisfy the demand. An hon. Member opposite laughs. It does not always pay simply to hold a large number of carriages in preparation for special occasions upon which large numbers may be required, and that service was performed by a big organisation like the London General Omnibus Company.

Captain STRICKLAND

Has the hon. and learned Gentleman ever experienced any difficulty whatever in getting a contract?

Sir S. CRIPPS

The London General Omnibus Company have been in the market with an enormous number of vehicles and have been able to cover a very large part of the demand. Other people have covered part of the demand, it is true, but they have covered a large part of it.

Captain STRICKLAND

The vehicles to be thrown out of employment by this Bill will be available for that traffic.

Sir S. CRIPPS

Now the hon. and gallant Member is suggesting, apparently, that the Transport Board is to be forced to sell vehicles which it has been forced to purchase, because the Bill is to take away from it the uses to which those vehicles have been put.

Sir B. PETO

That really is not the point. There is a distance of 10 miles outside the 25 miles radius—and that is a very considerable distance—which will still be supplied by all this mass of vehicles brought inside the London transport area. It is merely a question of the long-distance transport, which was felt to be more appropriate to people who own the coaches for this long-distance transport and have surplus vehicles capable of carrying it.

Sir S. CRIPPS

I do not understand the argument of the hon. Baronet. Up to the present time the London General Omnibus Company have been able to run their omnibuses anywhere without limit. The Transport Board are purchasing the whole of that business from the London General Omnibus Company, and paying for it.

Sir B. PETO

Would the hon. and learned Gentleman consider it a reasonable proposition that the vehicles of the London Transport Board should operate with contract vehicles carrying parties down to Ilfracombe?

Sir S. CRIPPS

Certainly. If in free competition with a hirer the London Transport Board got the contract, I do not see why they should not do it. But that is not likely, because their omnibuses would not be suitable for going over the roads that long distance.

Sir B. PETO

The Green Line.

Sir S. CRIPPS

You may take any district which has been served by omnibuses of that type, and the facilities which have been afforded by the London General Omnibus Company in the past may not be afforded in the future, because they will be no longer in the market for affording the facilities. The Transport Board will have had to pay for the goodwill of omnibuses which have run but which are going to be prevented from running. For these reasons we think the Amendment ought to be carried.

11.47 p.m.

Mr. SOMERVELL

I think the Government must now see the danger they run. If they make a concession the Labour party immediately take advantage of it and want to carry this unified and nationalised transport all over the country. I was interested to hear the hon. and learned Member saying that there would be no vehicles left for these services because the Government were crushing out the small independent companies, and there would be none in existence.

Sir S. CRIPPS

That was not my argument.

Mr. SOMERVELL

That is what I understood, that if you form this unified system of transport and buy out all the independent companies there will be no company to run these services and it is possible that there may he no omnibuses or charabancs to take these long journeys.

Amendment negatived.

Amendments made: In page 24, line 3, after the word "seventy-six," insert the words "both inclusive."

In line 7, leave out the word "section," and insert instead thereof the word "Act."

In line 22, at the end, add the words:

(5) The board shall, in respect of road services provided by them, perform such services in regard to the conveyance of mails as are prescribed by the Conveyance of Mails Act, 1893, in respect of a tramway to which that Act applies.—[The Attorney-General.]