HC Deb 05 December 1932 vol 272 cc1260-93
Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I beg to move, in page 3, line 24, after the word "conveniently," to insert the words "and economically."

4.21 p.m.

The purpose of the Amendment is to ascertain whether the board will have powers for rejecting or postponing any scheme if in their opinion it would result in too high an expenditure at a given moment and over-burden the undertaking. Have they the power to postpone it to some favourable occasion? I hope the Government will see their way to accept these words

4.22 p.m.

The MINISTER of TRANSPORT (Mr. Pybus)

I can assure the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) that, if after careful consideration we were of opinion that these additional words would be of any value, we should have no hesitation whatever in putting them in. The hon. Member will appreciate the fact that the Bill already provides that the enterprise shall be conducted efficiently, and I do not see how it is possible to conduct an enterprise efficiently without doing so in an economical way. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not necessarily."] Hon. Members are entitled to their opinions, but my view is that you cannot have efficiency without economy, and therefore the words are not necessary. In the opinion of the Government, the words in the Bill fully cover the point, and we cannot accept the Amendment.

4.23 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

In case the hon. Member for East Fulham (Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan) wishes to divide, may I point out to him that his Amendment does nut make for good grammar, I do not know whether the point has occurred to him, but the Clause, if these words are inserted, will read: To provide most efficiently and conveniently and economically for the needs thereof. That is a bit of a mouth full.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

It lends emphasis to it.

Mr. WILLIAMS

If it is a question of emphasis, I think I can do it much better for him. I am sorry that he has not moved his Amendment in what I think is the right way, but if he does so on Report the Government might accept it.

4.24 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND

I want to emphasise the importance of the addition of these words. The Minister of Transport is of the opinion that you cannot run a scheme efficiently without running it economically. I suppose he has heard of a Rolls-Royce car. I do not think they will be considered inefficient, or that it is an economic proposition for anyone who cannot afford it to indulge in running such a luxury. I think a case has been made out for the addition of the words; and they certainly would be some protection for the public who will have to pay.

Amendment negatived.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I beg to move, in page 3, line 35, to leave out the words "acquire by agreement," and to insert instead thereof the words "by agreement acquire."

This is a purely drafting Amendment, to make it quite plain that the board have no more power to take anything by law compulsorily but to acquire by agreement.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. PARKINSON

I beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the beginning, to insert the word "manufacture."

4.27 p.m.

The point raised by the Amendment is the right of the board to manufacture what is necessary for the undertaking. If it is accepted, it will confer upon them the right to make the rolling stock, tile vehicles, and the appliances which are necessary. When the Bill was first introduced, there were five organisations which were producing their own materials for their business. The point I want to raise is that, while the board are being compelled to take over these undertakings, evidently they are not to be given the opportunity of taking over the manufacturing parts of the businesses which they have arranged to purchase. It seems rather ridiculous to compel them to take over a business of this kind and not give them permission to carry on the work of the business. The board are undertaking a large piece of work, the business is simply enormous, and they should be given the opportunity to manufacture anything which they think is necessary in connection with the undertaking. The Board should be able to manufacture more cheaply than a private company, and it might prevent the formation of rings and combines outside for the purpose of increasing prices. In view of the fact that these businesses were already running when the Bill was introduced, I do not see why they should be taken from the Board now that the Bill is likely to be applied.

The Joint Select Committee dealt with this question rather fully. There was great opposition, but at the same time several admissions were made to the effect that the board should be given such powers. I was looking through the Report of the Select Committee a few days ago. I found that a Mr. Bonallack was asked this question: (Q.) "Do not the London General Omnibus Company do all their repairs and maintenance themselves? (A.) That is so. (Q.) And Tillings? (A.) I am not aware of Tillings having placed any orders of a substantial nature for bodies with the trade. Their custom has been to manufacture. It will be seen that one of the opponents of the Bill admits without any qualification that the manufacturing part of Tillings was effective, so far as the company went. In the report of the Joint Committee we also find this statement: The last 1,600 omnibuses of the London General Omnibus Company were made at Chiswick. That means a large amount of manufacturing plant.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Bodies or chassis?

Sir PERCY HARRIS

On a point of Order. Clause 21 deals with power to manufacture. Should not the point that has been raised by the Mover of the Amendment be dealt with on Clause 21? If this Amendment is carried will not Clause 21 go to the wall?

The CHAIRMAN

I do not see that there is anything out of order so far.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

Does not the point arise also on Clause 6? If this Amendment is carried would not it cut out the discussion on that Clause?

The CHAIRMAN

I am not quite sure what sort of discussion the hon. and gallant Gentleman means. If the Committee come to a certain decision on this Amendment we cannot reconsider that decision on subsequent Clauses.

Mr. PARKINSON

I was making a quotation from the report of the Joint Committee, in which was a statement, that the last 1,600 omnibuses of the London General Omnibus Company were made at Chiswick, and that means that they must have a very large amount of manufacturing plant there. If this Amendment is rejected of course that plant will have to be scrapped. The scrapping of the plant means nothing more nor less than trying to force them out of business, in order that private enterprise may have freer scope and greater opportunities of putting a block in the wheel of progress in connection with the undertaking. There is the question of the loss of employment involved. These plants employ a large number of people. I do not know how many, but we will say that there are 1,000. If the plants are closed down these 1,000 people will possibly, and probably, be thrown on the unemployment funds and lose their status as workmen. We are not told whether if the work goes to private enterprise, the requirements will be met without the putting down of more plant. I do not think the requirements will be met without such a step being taken. Another question which was raised by the Joint Committee was dealt with by Sir Henry Maybury. No one will challenge the authority of Sir Henry Maybury to speak on matters of this kind. On page 966 of the Joint Committee's Report he states that the London General Omnibus Company manufacture all their bodies. In answer to a question Sir Henry Maybury also said: I think, as this is a very big customer indeed for rolling stock of all kinds, of omnibuses and tramcars, that they should he put into the position of being able to supply themselves. That would enable them so to arrange their work that they could undertake to supply the vehicles as and when they were required. No one would suggest that that statement was made with anything but the most sincere desire to help the board in its work. Sir Henry Maybury's word ought to be accepted, for we have no one with greater experience of transport and its requirements. The London County Council in their Co-ordination Bill state: That a Clause had been agreed between the London County Council and the Under ground group on the one hand, and the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, providing for the giving of power to the promoters to manufacture or to apply their funds to the manufacture of any road motor vehicle or part thereof. That was an agreed Clause. Although the people who got that agreement through were satisfied to take the power to manufacture, I understand that practically the same people are opposing the power being given to the board to manufacture under this Bill. If the promoters had the right conceded under the London County Council Co-ordination Bill, why should it be denied to this board by the same people? Is the objection raised in order to give freer play to the rings and combines? That would mean probably a higher cost of production and a heavier expenditure being heaped upon the board.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

Why did you destroy the Bill?

Mr. PARKINSON

Surely there should be the same power given against excessive prices as was given in the case of the London County Council. This is a danger which must be taken into serious consideration. We all know the danger of the operations of rings and combines, particularly in a competitive business of this kind. Under the Bill the board will be called upon to manage its undertakings in the best interests of the community of London, 5,000,000 people. The board should be given the greatest freedom to utilise every opportunity for making this scheme a success, but under this Clause they are in a sense having their arms tied behind them, without being able to use them. They should be given the fullest opportunity to manufacture all that is required. They should have opportunity for experiment and research, for in a great manufacture like this we cannot do without experiment and research. It should include co-operation with the Government, and exploration of the possibilities of using heavy oil instead of imported petrol. That would help the coal-mining industry. If the board is to carry on its work successfully it must be given a free hand in these matters, and must have fair play.

4.39 p.m.

Captain NORTH

I very much hope that the Government will not accept the Amendment. I am not exactly in love with the Bill, but if the Amendment were accepted I think that the Bill would definitely become at least 100 per cent. worse. A monopoly has already been created, and the Amendment would create a further monopoly in the manufacture of transport vehicles. Obviously it would be unfair for the board to compete with a private manufacturer of transport, for the board has been created by the State and it would have behind it all kinds of things which the private manufacturer has not. For instance, if the board goes on losing money nothing at all happens to it; it goes on, and someone has to pay. In the case of a private manufacturer that does not apply. If the private manufacturer keeps on losing money he very shortly becomes bankrupt. Suppose that the board were merely confined to manufacturing motor omnibuses and things of that description for its own use. It would be obvious that it could not compete with a private manufacturer, who was manufacturing for the export trade in competition with the foreigner; but it seems to me then that we would have a board which was producing an article that was not economical. For instance, why should it build an omnibus which is more expensive and more comfortable, when it is known very well that if a cheaper one is built the public will have to travel by it?

4.41 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS

I would state shortly the reasons why the Government cannot accept the Amendment. The question whether the board should have the power of manufacturing was debated before the Joint Committee, and the objections of the various manufacturing interests were there heard. As a result of the evidence, some of which has been quoted, and also the evidence given by the manufacturers, the Joint Committee decided that the manufacturing powers of the board should be limited to those set out in Clause 21 of the Bill. The hon. Gentleman who moved the Amendment misunderstands the position with regard to the Chiswick works. The Chiswick works never did make chassis; they made omnibus bodies only, and also carried out a good deal of repair work and maintenance. The hon. Member spoke of 1,000 employés. It would be quite wrong to assume that if the whole of the bodies for the new company were not manufactured in Chiswick, all those people would be put out of work. A good many of them now are engaged in maintenance work and would continue so to be employed, I assume.

There is another point to which the hon. Member will not fail to give due weight. This power to manufacture would not be of benefit even if the Amendment were accepted. Nobody would presume that the board will set up a great factory to compete with other manufacturers for contracts. Therefore its output would be limited. The chances that it could manufacture under these conditions at the same cost as could concerns which were getting exports orders, are remote. I think the Committee will feel that it is just as well that the board, having such enormous responsibilities for conducting transport over the whole of this great area, should not have its energies dissipated in this work of manufacture. Therefore while, under the Bill, we do allow them certain powers in this respect for experimental and research purposes, we could not accept an Amendment of this character.

4.46 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

I think the Minister is under a misunderstanding. He spoke about open competition with other producers, but the Amendment does not involve that at all. This does not speak about open competition with other producers in any part of the country or in any part of the world. It only asks that the board should be allowed to manufacture for their use or for use in connection with their undertaking. I may point out that at the time when Mr. Morrison's Bill was introduced there were the following manufacturing establishments—the London General Omnibus Company at Chiswick Works, Messrs. Thomas Tilling and Messrs. Birch Bros. for omnibus bodies; the Union Construction Company for District Railway tube trains and for tramcars, and the West and East Ham Councils for tramcars. We are not asking in this Amendment for any new machinery but are asking that the machinery which is already there and which has either been paid for or will be paid for by the board should be given an opportunity of carrying on the work.

Mr. PYBUS

There is no misunderstanding. I said that the restriction on the power to manufacture rendered the cost of the product greater. My point was that the cost would be increased because of the very restriction that rolling stock and apparatus could only be manufactured for the board's own use.

4.47 p.m.

Mr. MITCHELL

I only intervene in this discussion because the London General Omnibus Company's works at Chiswick are on the boundary of my constituency and many of my constituents are closely involved in this question. While appreciating and supporting the provision in the Bill which allows a certain amount of manufacture to be conducted in those works, I wish to ask the Minister, since he cannot accept the full measure of the Amendment, whether it would not be possible to give the new board manufacturing powers which would enable Chiswick works to develop to full capacity. As the Bill stands they are limited and prevented from getting the full benefit of those works. I have had an opportunity in the last few months of seeing over these works and I can assure the House that they are among the most modern works of their kind in this country and among the most up-to-date in the world. We are handing over to this new Transport Board assets many of which may prove to be of doubtful value, but when we have a really good asset as I believe we have in these Chiswick works, it seems a pity that we should restrict the board from working it to its full capacity.

Anyone who has had experience of business will agree that there is all the difference in the world between working a factory at 100 per cent. capacity and working it at any smaller figure. It may mean all the difference between a profit and a loss. It is conceivable that omnibus traffic will increase. We may see a decrease of tramway traffic, and it may be desirable to produce more omnibus bodies in the future. It would be lamentable if the board were prevented from using the Chiswick works to their full capacity and had to go out and buy a new site and erect works elsewhere. Therefore I would ask the Minister to meet the Amendment if not half way at least a portion of the way by providing that the Chiswick works should be able to manufacture not only to the average of the last five years but in what is the only efficient manner namely, at full capacity.

4.49 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZON

I do not think that we need bother much about the future of the Chiswick works of the London General Omnibus Company. As has already been pointed out, that is really a repair and maintenance depot to a very large extent. Those works will be kept busy maintaining an efficient fleet of omnibuses in operation and under Clause 21 of the Bill they are to be allowed to build a certain amount—up to the average of the last five years. That ought to keep those works very active. An hon. Member who spoke earlier made a remark which I somewhat resented, because it conveyed the impression that if you manufactured for a monopoly then naturally you did not make a vehicle which was efficient. I would point to the manufacture of the chassis for the omnibuses of London, and I ask the Committee whether the omnibuses in London are not as good as any to be found in the world. These have been made for the London General Omnibus Company in what I suppose may be termed a monopolistic works.

The Select Committee said, however, that this board was to be divorced from the Associated Equipment Company, and as far as I can see their decision was based on very broad grounds. I think it would have been an advantage if, years ago, we had made it compulsory on all the railway companies of England to have had their engines and trucks made by private enterprise. If that had been done great works of that type would have been built up here but as it is at present we do not export the number of locomotives or trucks that we ought to export. If firms had had that support from the railway companies to which they were entitled, we should do a great deal better in that respect. Although I am a director of the Associated Equipment Company I must say that I can see the force of the Select Committee's decision, and I do not see why this Amendment should be pressed.

4.52 p.m.

Mr. MAITLAND

I support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut.-Colonel Moore - Brabazon), particularly his concluding observations as to the importance of the manufacture of rolling-stock in this country, and the possibility of rolling-stock being made by private manufacturers. This question was considered before the Joint Committee and it was there stated that only about 17 per cent. of the rolling-stock manufactured by private builders was for home use and that about 83 per cent. had been manufactured for export purposes. If these undertakings are permitted to manufacturers—most of them at the present time do not manufacture—I can see the possibility of a great effect upon our export trade.

In further support of the remarks of the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey, may I remind the Committee that in Germany and in other countries the railway companies do not manufacture their own rolling stock but give out their work to private enterprise. This means that the manufacturers of rolling stock in those countries have a very great advantage as compared with the manufacturers here, in that they have a steady and constant demand which makes it possible for them to keep down their working costs. Like other hon. Members of this Committee, I am not enamoured of this Bill, and I think that the work which this board will have to do is going to be extraordinarily difficult. I am satisfied that they will have quite enough difficulties in their way without giving them the added difficulty of manufacture. The Mover of the Amendment raised a point as to research work, but I think he will find that in Clause 21 of the Bill power has been given to the board to carry out such research work as may be necessary.

Mr. ATTLEE

The hon. Member who has just spoken has supplied us with a very good reason why we should have this Amendment.

Captain STRICKLAND

Had you not a good reason before

4.55 p.m.

Mr. ATTLEE

Certainly, but hon. Members who have spoken against the Amendment have considerably strengthened it. An hon. Member who spoke earlier was possibly right in saying that the most efficient way of manufacturing vehicles is to have it done by people who cater for both the export and the home trade, but we have often experienced that where you have a system which gives a secure home market for a particular manufacturing interest, there is nothing to prevent that interest from competing abroad by charging high prices at home.

When that kind of thing is done by foreign countries hon. Members opposite say it is a very wicked thing and call it dumping. When it is done by our own people it is called sound business and the building-up of export trade.

Here you are going to set up a monopoly of a very large kind over a very large traffic area. Before this, you had a considerable monopoly in connection with a large part of London transport and that monopoly had a manufacturing association closely connected with it called the Associated Equipment Co. I heard no protest in that case that it was a wicked thing that a monopoly should also have manufacturing arrangements. Hon. Members apparently think that that is all right for a private monopoly but that it is all wrong for a public monoply. What is required here is that the Board should have the power to manufacture, because it is necessary to have that check against the possibility of the board being held up by a trust formed at home and to prevent the possibility of the citizens of London being charged more for their travel, in the form of excessive prices for vehicles, in order that foreign trade may be captured by the export of more lowly-priced vehicles. The Minister's main point was that what was in the Bill was the decision of the Select Committee. It is news to me to know that the Minister thinks so highly of the decisions of that committee. Hitherto on this Bill he has been messing up the Select Committee's work by the substitutions made in Clause 1. After all the Select Committee's view is not final, and I do not think that the Minister ought to use that argument. If the House of Commons is to be effective as a reviewing body it is no use saying that we must do certain things because a committee has decided them. The Select Committee's decisions are merely guides to us.

In Clause 6 of the Bill there is a provision with regard to the Associated Equipment Company. I take it the design of the Clause is that the new authority should continue to work with the Associated Equipment Company. I do not think that the board ought to be in the hands of any manufacturing body. If I may quote a relevant comparison, I ask hon. Members to consider another experiment in connection with which the Conservative party took a, prominent part, namely, the Central Electricity Board. In Committee upon that Measure a proposal was made by a Birmingham Member that the board should be obliged to buy all their electrical machinery from British firms. It was opposed by a prominent Member who was a director of several electricity undertakings. He pointed out that by such a proposal you would be completely in the hands of the home manufacturers. He said that although it was against his Protectionist faith he was obliged to oppose such a proposal, because he was a buyer of electrical machinery. In this case we are setting up a similar, body and unless we give them these powers they will not be able to protect themselves against monopoly.

There is a further point with regard to Clause 21, which was referred to indirectly by the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Sir P. Harris), who appeared to imagine that Clause 21 gave a power to manufacture. As a matter of fact, that Clause gives a restriction on the power to manufacture. If there is to be no power to manufacture by the board, what becomes of Clause 21, which is a "restriction on power of manufacture "? Perhaps the Minister will explain that point. On the question of principle, I think there is a case for the full utilisation of such manufacturing plant as is being handed over, as it would be sheer waste to scrap it. Secondly, I think some manufacture should be carried on by the board in order to check competition; and above all there is a case for this board having the power to manufacture, although they will probably not exercise it to any large extent, in order to check the citizens of London being milked dry by charges for vehicles supplied by companies mainly interested in the making of profit out of the export trade.

5.1 p.m.

Captain STRICKLAND

I rise to oppose the Amendment, which is one to empower what must be regarded as a vast monopoly, not to carry on the business for which it is being composed, namely, that of the co-ordination of traffic, but to go beyond that scope altogether and to enter into the field of industry as well. There is a point with regard to the existing plant and machinery, which is covered, I suggest, by Clause 21, but I want to plead for a, vast number of working men in a great many industrial centres throughout the country, who today are dependent on the trade that they do, and that may be done, in connection with the great London area, a trade which might be taken out of their hands by a board ambitious to exercise its full power as granted in the Bill. For many years those men have been engaged in the skilled industry of the making and manufacture of coaches, chassis, and the hundred and one different appliances and apparatus that go to make up the coaches and omnibuses in the London area. I do not suggest that they have done the whole of that work, but they have had their share of it, and where you have a vast combination such as is proposed under this Bill, with the power to enter into the field of industry, it will not be slow to take advantage of it, particularly from the point of view that it can continue to do so almost unchecked, even though its manufacturing may be run at a loss.

There is another point which is equally serious, and it is a point that has brought me, although not a London Member, into opposition to this Bill, because my constituency of Coventry is very greatly interested in the manufacture of rolling stock, vehicles, motors, chassis, and bodies. You are going to throw on to the one central body the strain of organising, not only the traffic of this great area, but the manufacture of what is a very highly technical trade. I can quite understand the remark of the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson) that you are already imposing a very heavy burden on this board, but why, if he realises that tremendous burden, does he propose to add to it and to increase the difficulties that the board will have to meet? The creation of such a manufacturing centre as this, with all its capabilities, and with the closed market that it could occupy, might very easily mean the greatest disaster to the motor trade of this country, and that would mean an equal disaster to the chassis trade, the body trade, and the manufacture of all the apparatus that is being carried on at present outside this area.

It was not the original intention of the Socialist Government, whose Bill we are now trying to pass through, that manufacturing should enter into the scheme of their Bill. Mr. Wilfrid Greene, for the promoters of the Bill, made it quite clear before the Committee that the Socialist Government of that time did not seek this power for the board beyond the existing capacity of the Chiswick works. He said: It must be premises which are being used at the date of the transfer. If you built a new bit, that would not fall within the definition, because that bit would not he used at the date of the transfer. It is obvious that even the Socialist Government, when they introduced this Measure, did not visualise the manufacture of goods as part and parcel of the business of the co-ordination of London passenger transport. Sir Henry Maybury, a witness for the promoters of the Bill, whose word as an expert was accepted at once by hon. Members on the Opposition Benches, who have such a love for experts, emphasised the point that if the board were authorised to manufacture, other works would have to be built, because Chiswick was a repair and general fitting-up place. That was the evidence brought forward by the promoters of the original Bill. Everything has been considered by the Joint Select Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, the whole of the arguments having been gone into and the witnesses for and against the Bill having been closely examined, and there can be no question as to the conclusion at which that Committee arrived. It was against the granting of these extensive powers of manufacture to the board which it was proposed to set up.

I want to emphasise a point that has been made by several of my hon. Friends, as to the general effect on our export trade of authorising the board to manufacture. I know it seems a far stretch of the imagination, but you have works all over the country, which Sir Henry Maybury himself says are capable of supplying the whole of the needs that may arise under this Clause for the manufacture of the various requirements for omnibuses in London, and power is given to this corporation to remove that market entirely. The more competitors you have entering for a contract, the more likely you are to get the greater value; and the more people you have striving to produce a better type of vehicle in order to attract an order to their own works, the greater is the ultimate comfort of the London passengers in the matter of chassis, bodies, springing, and so on.

It has been by that open competition in the past that the London omnibuses, and indeed the coaches all over the country, have been brought to their present state of perfection. You have had the whole of your manufacturing centres competing in the endeavour to supply something a little better for the use of the public; but if you have this board established, and it likes to exercise its powers to manufacture—because you have enabled it to erect works, lay down plant, and engage the men—it is enabled to hold such a position that the whole of the outside competition could be cut out entirely, and you would have no spur on the board to manufacture something better than has been made before. You will inflict a great hardship on skilled workmen who are settled down in various centres and who cannot easily change their places, and I hope the working men engaged in these industries in the constituencies of those who support the Amendment will take note of the way in which their Members have spoken on this Amendment. You will have the possibility of these men being rendered unable to get work in their own district, and you will place power in the hands of this board in London to concentrate in one place the whole of this industry.

I suggest that it would be extraordinarily unwise for this board, hampered as it will be by the need for the co-ordination of the traffic, to have this other business placed in its hands, a business which if the board is at all ambitious, it is almost certain to exercise, to the detriment of districts outside London. It is not just the Underground, or the London General Omnibus Company, or Tilling. It means that very nearly 100 independent omnibus undertakings are to be compelled to sell their concerns into the hands of this central board, and it is not only these big shows, which may be able to manufacture their own goods, but it is these smaller companies, which have been giving their orders to various constituencies all over the country, which will now have to place their orders in accordance with the decision of the board under whose power they will come. I hope that the Committee will reject this advance towards Socialism, which underlies the whole principle of this Bill, by a great majority.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. LANSBURY

No one has yet answered the question that was put by the hon. Member for Brentord and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell), and I am not sure that the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey (Lieut. - Colonel Moore-Brabazon) is correct when he says that the works at Chiswick are working full time and to the utmost of their capacity. No one has answered the question of what is to be done with those workmen. The hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) was very anxious that we should remember workmen ail over the country, but those of us who live in and about London must remember the workmen who are living in London; and the London workers who have been employed at Chiswick on the manufacture of bodies will be thrown out of work if this new concern is not to be allowed to manufacture.

Captain STRICKLAND

May I point out that in Clause 21 the rights of Chiswick are protected?

Mr. MITCHELL

No.

Captain STRICKLAND

They are, in so far as they have been carrying on work for the last five years: and we are not taking it away from them.

Mr. LANSBURY

When we come to Clause 21 we shall question that, as we do not think they are protected. We disagree with the hon. and gallant Member, and it is because we disagree with him and because this is an occasion on which to make it quite clear that he means what he has just said, that we want this Amendment carried. If the Amendment fails, we ought to have an Amendment covering the manufacture of bodies or exactly the work that is being carried on there now.

There is another point. I am not one of those who agree with the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey, who, I am sorry to see, is not now in his place. I give way to him for his expert knowledge on many things, but as a very old rail way traveller, I do not think it is a fact that the railway companies, especially the old Midland Company, or the Great Western Company, or the London and North Western Company, have been behindhand in providing the most up-to-date and the most comfortable and smooth running rolling stock in the world. I have travelled the world over, and there is no rolling stock better than the rolling stock in the British Isles. The engine made by the Great Western Railway Company in its own works, the "Cheltenham Flyer," which went to the United States, beat everything else. It is, therefore, too late in the day to tell us that the users of machinery cannot be trusted to manufacture it.

I would put this further point to the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry. If this were a private trust, which was set up by a number of people, and, through a Private Bill, given a monopoly of the passenger traffic of London, I am certain that they would never allow the manufacture of rolling stock to go out of their own hands. I am certain that if they did not do it through the parent company, they would establish a subsidiary company, and by that means keep the matter under their own control. What nonsense it is for hon. Members to talk as if we were asking for something extraordinary. The Associated Equipment Company, of which the hon. and gallant Member for Wallasey is a director, is a creature of the London General Omnibus Company. It is one of its children, one of its subsidiary companies. Why should it be right for a private company to manufacture its rolling stock and not right for a public utility company of this kind? There is no argument against it, and it is fallacious to argue that we are going to rid some people somewhere else of work. We shall not reduce the amount of work in the country. The only thing that will happen is that some people in London may be doing the work, instead of some people in Coventry, and, as I am a London Member, I should like more of it to be done in London than in Coventry. The Ministry of Transport has not at all met the case for this Amendment. If this were a private company which was given a monopoly by this House of the passenger traffic of London, I am certain that they would do what every great monopoly does and bring every one of its services under its own control. Why this public utility company should not have the same right passes my comprehension.

5.17 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS

The matter which the hon. Member for Brentford and Chiswick (Mr. Mitchell) raises should more properly be raised on Clause 21. It is perfectly clear that Chiswick will be retained as a maintenance depot. In that Clause is set out an agreement which was arrived at in the joint committee as to the amount of output which Chiswick will be able to maintain, that being the average for five years.

Mr. LANSBURY

It is a very bad average if you take this year.

Mr. MITCHELL

While we appreciate that the Government have permitted the Chiswick works to continue to manufacture, it does not entirely meet the case.

The CHAIRMAN

I think that the hon. Member must postpone that until we come to Clause 21.

5.18 p.m.

Mr. MITCHELL

I accept your Ruling, but I only mentioned it because the hon. and gallant Member for Coventry (Captain Strickland) seems to think that his constituents were being penalised by the Bill to the advantage of London. I wanted to put in a plea for those workers in Chiswick who may, I feel, not get that measure of employment which they would be entitled to under the Bill. In deference to your Ruling, however, I will raise the matter on Clause 21.

5.19 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I should like to join with the Leader of the Opposition in his tribute to the Great Western Railway. He has shown that even he is beginning to realise that all the virtues are in private enterprise. I hope, under the circumstances, that I may persuade the Labour party that their Amendment is out-of-date according to their Leader's latest pronouncement, and that they will withdraw it and not weary the Committee with a Division.

Question put, "That the word 'manufacture' be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 26; Noes, 280.

Division No. 13.] AYES. [3.26 p.m.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Despencer-Robertson, Major J. A. F. Howitt, Dr. Alfred B.
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Donner, P. W. Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Allen, William (Stoke-on-Trent) Doran, Edward Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H.
Anstruther-Gray. W. J. Dower, Captain A. V. G. Iveagh, Countess of
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley Drewe, Cedric Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.)
Balniel, Lord Duckworth, George A. V. Johnstone, Harcourt (S. Shields)
Bateman, A. L. Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West)
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th, C.) Duncan, James-A. L. (Kensington, N.) Ker, J. Campbell
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Dunglass, Lord Kerr, Hamilton W.
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Eden, Robert Anthony Kirkpatrick, William M.
Bernays, Robert Edmondson, Major A. J. Knight, Helford
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Knox, Sir Alfred
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Elliston, Captain George Sampson Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) Elmley, Viscount Leckle, J. A.
Boulton, W. W. Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare) Leech, Dr. J. W.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univ.) Levy, Thomas
Bowyer. Capt. Sir George E. W. Falle, Sir Bertram G. Lindsay, Noel Kar
Brass, Captain Sir William Fielden, Edward Brocklehurst Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe-
Broadbent, Colonel John Fleming, Edward Lascelles Lloyd, Geoffrey
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd., Hexham) Fox. Sir Gifford Locker-Lampson, Rt. Hn. G.(Wd. Gr'n)
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Fremantle, Sir Francis Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Ganzoni, Sir John Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Burnett, John George Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John Mabane. William
Butler, Richard Austen Glossop, C. W. H. MacAndrew, Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Gluckstein, Louis Halle MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Goff, Sir Park Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Goldie, Noel B. McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Castlereagh, viscount Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Maclay, Hon. Joseph Paton
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Granville, Edgar McLean, Major Alan
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Chalmers, John Rutherford Graves. Marjorie Maitland, Adam
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Edgbaston) Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Clarry, Reginald George Grimston, R. V. Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D. Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Colville, Lieut.-Colonel J. Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Ztl'nd) Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Conent, R. J. E. Hammersley, Samuel S. Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Cook, Thomas A. Hanley, Dennis A. Mitchell, Harold P. (Br'tf'd & Chisw'k)
Cooke, Douglas Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Cooper, A. Duff Hartland, George A. Morris, John Patrick (Salford, N.)
Copeland, Ida Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Courthope, Colonel Sir George L. Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Muirhead, Major A. J.
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Cranborne, Viscount Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Newton, Sir Douglas George C.
Crooke, J. Smedley Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Crookshank. Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Hills. Major Rt. Hon. John Waller North, Captain Edward T.
Cross, R. H. Holdsworth, Herbert Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. William G. A
Crossley, A. C Hore-Belisha, Leslie Patrick, Colin M.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Horobin, Ian M. Peake, Captain Osbert
Denman, Hon. R D, Horsbrugh, Florence Percy, Lord Eustace
Denville, Alfred Howard, Tom Forrest Perkins, Walter R. D
Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple) Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby)
Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'pt'n, Bilston) Salmon, Major Isidore Thomas, James P. L. (Hereford)
Pickford, Hon. Mary Ada Salt, Edward W. Todd. A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Potter, John Samuel, Rt. Hon. Sir H. (Darwen) Touche, Gordon Cosmo
Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H. Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Pownall, Sir Assheton Savery, Samuel Servington Turton, Robert Hugh
Procter, Major Henry Adam Scone, Lord Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Pybus, Percy John Shakespeare, Geoffrey H. Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Ralkes, Henry V. A. M. Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles) Slater, John Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Ramsbotham, Herwald Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Rankin, Robert Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dlne, C.) Wayland, Sir William A.
Rathbone, Eleanor Smith-Carington, Neville W. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Rea, Walter Russell Somerville, Annesley A. (Windsor) Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. Wills, Wilfrid D.
Reid, David D. (County Down) Stanley, Lord (Lancaster, Fylde) Womersley, Walter James
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Remer, John R. Stewart, William J. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Rentoul Sir Gervais S. Strickland, Captain W. F. Worthington, Dr. John V.
Ropner, Colonel L. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Wragg, Herbert
Robs, Ronald D. Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray F.
Ross Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Sugden. Sir Wilfrid Hart TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Runge, Norah Cecil Tate, Mavis Constance Sir Frederick Thomson and Sir George Penny.
NOES.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Grundy, Thomas W. McEntee, Valentine L.
Attlee, Clement Richard Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Maxton, James
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Parkinson, John Allen
Daggar, George Hicks, Ernest George Thorne, William James
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Wedgwood, Rt. Hon. Josiah
Edwards, Charles Lawson, John James
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) Macdonald, Gordon (Ince) Mr. John and Mr. Groves.
Division No. 14.] AYES. [5.20 p.m.
Adams, D. M. (Poplar, South) Groves, Thomas E. Milner, Major James
Attlee, Clement Richard Grundy, Thomas W. Parkinson, John Allen
Banfield, John William Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton) Salter, Dr. Alfred
Batey, Joseph Hall, George H. (Merthyr Tydvil) Thorne, William James
Cocks, Frederick Seymour Hicks, Ernest George Wallhead, Richard C.
Daggar, George Lansbury, Rt. Hon. George Williams, Edward John (Ogmore)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton) Lawson, John James
Edwards, Charles Logan, David Gilbert TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Greenwood, Rt. Hon. Arthur Lunn, William Mr. John and Mr. G. Macdonald.
Grenfell, David Rees (Glamorgan) McEntee, Valentine L.
NOES.
Adams, Samuel Vyvyan T. (Leeds, W.) Duckworth, George A. V. Kerr, Lieut.-Col. Charles (Montrose)
Agnew, Lieut.-Com. P. G. Dugdale, Captain Thomas Lionel Kerr, Hamilton W.
Albery, Irving James Duggan, Hubert John Kirkpatrick, William M.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman (Llverp'l, W.) Duncan, James A. L. (Kensington, N.) Knatchbull, Captain Hon. M. H. R.
Anstruther-Gray, W. J. Dunglass, Lord Knebworth, Viscount
Applin, Lieut.-Col. Reginald V. K. Eales, John Frederick Knight, Holford
Aske, Sir Robert William Eden, Robert Anthony Knox, Sir Alfred
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover) Edmondson, Major A. J. Lamb, Sir Joseph Quinton
Baillie, Sir Adrian W. M. Elliot, Major Rt. Hon. Walter E. Law, Richard K. (Hull, S.W.)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar Elmley, Viscount Leckie, J. A.
Beauchamp, Sir Brograve Campbell Emmott, Charles E. G. C. Leech, Dr. J. W.
Beaumont, Hon. R.E.B. (Portsm'th,C.) Emrys-Evans, P. V. Leighton, Major B. E. P.
Belt, Sir Alfred L. Erskine-Bolst, Capt. C. C. (Blackpool) Levy, Thomas
Benn, Sir Arthur Shirley Essenhigh, Reginald Clare Lindsay, Noel Ker
Bennett, Capt. Sir Ernest Nathaniel Fermoy, Lord Lister, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip Cunliffe
Betterton, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry B. Fleiden, Edward Brocklehurst Lloyd, Geoffrey
Birchall, Major Sir John Dearman Forestier-Walker, Sir Leolin Lockwood, John C. (Hackney, C.)
Bird, Ernest Roy (Yorks., Skipton) Fox, Sir Gifford Loder, Captain J. de Vere
Bird, Sir Robert B. (Wolverh'pton W.) Fraser, Captain Ian Lovat-Fraser, James Alexander
Blindell, James Fremantle, Sir Francis Lyons, Abraham Montagu
Boulton, W. W. Ganzonl, Sir John Mabane, William
Bowater, Col. sir T. Vansittart Gillett, Sir George Masterman MacAndrew. Lieut.-Col. C. G. (Partick)
Bower, Lieut.-Com. Robert Tatton Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John MacAndrew, Capt. J. O. (Ayr)
Bowyer, Capt. Sir George E. W. Glossop, C. W. H. MacDonald, Malcolm (Bassetlaw)
Braithwaite, J. G. (Hillsborough) Gluckstein, Louis Halle Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)
Brass, Captain Sir William Goff, Sir Park McEwen, Captain J. H. F.
Briscoe, Capt. Richard George Goldie, Noel B. McKie, John Hamilton
Broadbent, Colonel John Goodman, Colonel Albert W. Macmilian, Maurice Harold
Brown, Col. D. C. (N'th'l'd, Hexham) Graham, Sir F. Fergus (C'mb'rl'd, N.) Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Brown, Ernest (Leith) Granville, Edgar Maitland, Adam
Buchan-Hepburn, P. G. T. Grattan-Doyle, Sir Nicholas Makins, Brigadier-General Ernest
Burnett, John George Graves, Marjorie Mallalieu, Edward Lancelot
Burton, Colonel Henry Walter Gretton, Colonel Rt. Hon. John Manningham-Buller, Lt.-Col. Sir M.
Butler, Richard Austen Griffith, F. Kingsley (Middlesbro', W.) Margesson, Capt. Henry David R.
Butt, Sir Alfred Guest, Capt. Rt. Hon. F. E. Marsden, Commander Arthur
Cadogan, Hon. Edward Gunston, Captain D. W. Martin, Thomas B.
Campbell, Edward Taswell (Bromley) Hacking, Rt. Hon. Douglas H. Mason, David M. (Edinburgh, E.)
Campbell, Rear-Adml. G. (Burnley) Hamilton, Sir George (Ilford) Mason, Col. Glyn K. (Croydon, N.)
Campbell-Johnston, Maicolm Hamilton, Sir R. W.(Orkney & Zetl'nd) Mayhew, Lieut.-Colonel John
Caporn, Arthur Cecil Hammersley, Samuel S. Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Castlereagh, Viscount Hanley, Dennis A. Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Castle Stewart, Earl Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry Moreing, Adrian C.
Cautley, Sir Henry S. Harvey, George (Lambeth, Kenningt'n) Morris, Owen Temple (Cardiff, E.)
Cayzer, Sir Charles (Chester, City) Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes) Morris-Jones, Dr. J. H. (Denbigh)
Cazalet, Thelma (Islington, E.) Haslam, Henry (Horncastle) Morrison, William Shepherd
Chalmers, John Rutherford Haslam, Sir John (Bolton) Muirhead, Major A. J.
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N.(Edgbaston) Headlam, Lieut.-Col. Cuthbert M. Nation, Brigadier-General J. J. H.
Chorlton, Alan Ernest Leofric Hellgers, Captain F. F. A. Nicholson, Godfrey (Morpeth)
Clarry, Reginald George Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P. North, Captain Edward T.
Cobb, Sir Cyril Herbert, Capt. S. (Abbey Division) O'Donovan, Dr. William James
Colfox, Major William Philip Holdsworth, Herbert Ormsby-Gore. Rt. Hon. William G. A.
Conant, R. J. E. Hope, Capt. Hon. A. O. J. (Aston) Patrick, Colin M.
Cook, Thomas A. Hore-Belisha, Leslie Peake, Captain Osbert
Cooke, Douglas Horobin, Ian M. Pearson, William G.
Cooper, A. Duff Horsbrugh, Florence Penny, Sir George
Copeland, Ida Howard, Tom Forrest Percy, Lord Eustace
Craddock, Sir Reginald Henry Howitt, Dr. Alfred B. Perkins, Walter R. D.
Cranborne, Viscount Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.) Petherick, M.
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H. Hume, Sir George Hopwood Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)
Crooke, J. Smedley Hurst, Sir Gerald B. Peto, Geoffrey K. (W'verh'ptn, Bilston)
Crookshank, Capt. H. C. (Gainsb'ro) Hutchison, W. D. (Essex, Romf'd) Potter, John
Cross, R. H. Inskip, Rt. Hon. Sir Thomas W. H. Powell, Lieut.-Col. Evelyn G. H.
Crossley, A. C. Iveagh, Countess of Pownall, Sir Assheton
Cruddas, Lieut.-Colonel Bernard Jackson, Sir Henry (Wandsworth, C.) Procter, Major Henry Adam
Culverwell, Cyril Tom James, Wing-Com. A. W. H. Pybus, Percy John
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil) Janner, Barnett Raikes, Henry V. A. M.
Davison, Sir William Henry Jesson, Major Thomas E. Ramsay, Alexander (W. Bromwich)
Dickie, John P. Joel, Dudley J. Barnato Ramsay, T. B. W. (Western Isles)
Donner, P. W. Jones, Lewis (Swansea, West) Rankin, Robert
Drewe, Cedric Ker, J. Campbell Rawson, Sir Cooper
Ray, Sir William Shaw, Captain William T. (Forfar) Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement
Rea, Walter Russell Sinclair, Maj. Rt. Hn. Sir A. (C'thness) Turton, Robert Hugh
Reed, Arthur C. (Exeter) Slater, John Vaughan-Morgan, Sir Kenyon
Reid, David D. (County Down) Smiles, Lieut.-Col. Sir Walter D. Ward, Lt.-Col. Sir A. L. (Hull)
Reid, James S. C. (Stirling) Smith, R. W. (Ab'rd'n & Kinc'dine, C.) Ward, Irene Mary Bewick (Wallsend)
Rentoul, Sir Gervals S. Smith-Carington, Neville W. Wardlaw-Milne, Sir John S.
Rhys, Hon. Charles Arthur U. Smithers, Waldron Warrender, Sir Victor A. G.
Roberts, Sir Samuel (Ecclesall) Somervllle, Annesley A (Windsor) Watt, Captain George Steven H.
Ropner, Colonel L. Southby, Commander Archibald R. J. Whiteside, Borras Noel H.
Ron Taylor, Walter (Woodbridge) Spears, Brigadier-General Edward L. Williams, Charles (Devon, Torquay)
Ruggles-Brise, Colonel E. A. Spencer, Captain Richard A. Williams, Herbert G. (Croydon, S.)
Rungo, Norah Cecil Stanley, Hon. O. F. G. (Westmorland) Wills, Wilfrid D.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth) Steel-Maitland, Rt. Hon. Sir Arthur Wilson, Clyde T. (West Toxteth)
Russell, Hamer Field (Sheffield, B'tslde) Stones, James Windsor-Clive, Lieut-Colonel George
Russell, Richard John (Eddisbury) Strauss, Edward A. Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Salmon, Major Isidore Strickland, Captain W. F. Wise, Alfred R.
Salt, Edward w. Stuart, Lord C. Crichton- Withers, Sir John James
Sandeman, Sir A. N. Stewart Sugden, Sir Wilfrid Hart Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir H. Kingsley
Sanderson, Sir Frank Barnard Summersby, Charles H. Wood, Sir Murdoch McKenzie (Banff)
Sassoon, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip A. G. D. Tate, Mavis Constance Worthington, Dr. John V.
Savery, Samuel Servington Thomas, Rt. Hon. J. H. (Derby) Wragg, Herbert
Scone, Lord Thomson, Sir Frederick Charles Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (S'v'noakt)
Selley, Harry R. Todd, A. L. S. (Kingswinford)
Shaw, Helen B. (Lanark, Bothwell) Touche, Gordon Cosmo TELLERS FOR THE NOES—
Mr. Womersley and Lord Erskine.

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

Dr. O'DONOVAN

I beg page 4, line 6, at the end, words: including power to make, under regulations drawn up by the board, payments to hospitals for the treatment of patients injured by vehicles owned or controlled by the board. 5.30 p.m.

This Amendment is in no sense put forward with the object of obstructing business, but because I think the position which exists in our hospitals calls for clarification, if that be possible. The extent of the problem dealt with in this Amendment is indicated by two statements. First we have had the statement of His Majesty's judges lately that 60 per cent. of contentious litigation is due to road accidents, and, secondly, we have all read with appreciation the powerful speeches of Lord Buckmaster in another place. They reflect the amount of work which road traffic throws upon our hospitals. In paragraph (e) of Sub-section (3) of Clause 3 the board has power to: do or cause to be done all things necessary for the convenient and efficient working of their undertaking. That is a most powerful operative paragraph, and I and my friends are very anxious that in doing all things which are necessary, which I take it means all things which are humane and just, the board shall not be shackled by past restrictions. The Government gave attention to the payment of road accidents in Clause 36 of the Road Traffic Act, under which the insurer, the insurance company, is compelled by statute to reimburse hospitals where a compensated third party has been treated as an in-patient up to an amount not exceeding £25. That of course, is a contemptible amount. It is a most welcome recognition of the work of the hospitals, but in practice it means that the voluntary hospitals, which make this traffic tolerable to human society, receive only about 10 per cent. of their outgoings. Further, this expenditure is restricted to hospitals which are defined by that Act as affording in-patient treatment. I need hardly ask the Minister to imagine what is the cost of dressings, strappings, stitches, chloroform, the attendance of a nurse and the cleaning up afterwards for a dirty accident mess that does not need any in-patient treatment. It may easily run to from £4 to £7, yet the hospital is precluded under the Act from even making a claim. Numbers of lives are saved by modern major surgery, but the cost of the accidents mount up, and the bill is not liquidated by death. A thorough-going first-class accident can cost a hospital £130 to £170, and patients sometimes remain in the hospital for 18 months after they are admitted.

Therefore, this is a problem calling for consideration from the point of view of justice. Anyone going into hospitals which are situated on our main lines of traffic will see wards which should be devoted to the sick filled with forests of masts sustaining broken limbs under treatment for fractures. This board, which will control so much of our traffic, will set the pace for the whole of London and the environs, and will be the biggest factor, I fear, in the production of such accidents. We doctors attach no particular blame to modern motor transport. The public must acclimatise itself to it and get out of the way, as it has learned to get out of the way of snakes and lions. Humanity will survive, but it is an expensive process to mend the survivors. I appeal to the Minister to give us some light on whether, under this most powerful Clause, the board will be able to reimburse hospitals more amply and generously than they have been treated under the Road Traffic Act.

5.34 p.m.

Sir FRANCIS FREMANTLE

I do not wish to say much in supporting my hon. Friend who has moved this Amendment, but Clause 51 of the Bill withdraws from the board any compulsion to have their vehicles insured, and we want to know what attitude the Minister takes up in this matter. Judging by Clause 51 it looks as though the board are going to pay no attention to the matter. The Minister may suggest that when we come to Clause 51 he will deal with the matter, but my hon. Friend has shown that even so that would be insufficient. The withdrawal of Clause 51 would put the board back on the same footing as other large authorities, but, as I say, even that is not sufficient. I cannot see that any Amendment, or even the abandonment of that Clause, would meet the case, and therefore we want to have it clearly and definitely stated whether, as regards hospital treatment, this paragraph (e) can be so interpreted as to cover the normal practice of good employrs in supporting hospitals where there is a moral claim upon them for services rendered arising out of the work of the company.

5.37 p.m.

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

I have listened with interest and with sympathy to the speeches of both my hon. Friends. The Government cannot very well accept the Amendment in the form in which it stands, but we do want it to be perfectly clear that we do not want this board to be in any different position from that of the undertakings which it succeeds. Therefore, Clause 51, which takes the board out of the scope of Section 36 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, is one which we shall not be prepared to hold on to when the time comes for its consideration. There is nothing in this Bill—

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

Hear, hear !

Lieut.-Colonel HEADLAM

My hon. Friend thinks there is a good deal to object to. There is nothing which will preclude the board from continuing and even extending the practice, followed by certain of the companies whose undertakings are to be transferred of making voluntary contributions to hospitals, and we do not see that there is any reason why we should make a special exception in the case of this board, over and above any other undertaking, by imposing special obligations upon it in the way suggested. I can assure both my hon. Friends that we shall bear in mind their point of view, and when Clause 51 comes up we shall be prepared to remove it from the Bill.

5.38 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

The Minister has gone a long way to meet the views of many people, but I would point out that after all this is not a mandatory Amendment but only one expressing a pious opinion. The Minister stated that he would probably withdraw Clause 51. I suggest that he might accept this Amendment and, if necessary, alter its wording on Report stage. As. I have said, this Amendment is not mandatory, but is only laying down a sound principle, and it would go a very long way towards making people feel that we are doing nothing to tie the hands of the board while at the same time saying that it is the opinion of the House that great companies of this kind should make contributions to hospitals. We are not forcing them, but simply laying down a big, broad, public principle. That is why I think the Minister has no justification for turning down the Amendment, and he has given no practical reason why it should not be included in the Bill. It does not bind anyone, and in my opinion does express a view which the Minister might easily accept in the common interest.

Dr. O'DONOVAN

In view of what the Minister has so kindly and benevolently said, in particular his remarks that the Government have no intention of constricting the present payments made by the existing bodies which are to be absorbed in this Clause, and may even extend the present practice, I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

5.41 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I hope the Committee will bear with me while I remind them of the extreme importance of this Clause and particularly of Sub-sections (1) and (4). In Sub-section (1) it states that the general duty of the board shall be so to exercise their powers under this Act as to secure. The purpose which they are to secure might, I think, have been attained without the exercise of compulsory powers of acquisition, on which this Bill depends. No one takes exception to the necessity of setting out the purpose of the board, nor to the terms in which that purpose is stated. Co-ordination is necessary—nobody quarrels about that; and the desire for certain improved facilities in different parts of London is conceded on all sides. But all that could have been attained, and was in fact proposed, by the legislative Measures of 1928 and 1929. The Government, however, did not see fit to proceed on those lines, but to erect this vast monopoly with compulsory purchase and other features to which we have a right to take exception. Sub-section (4) is likewise extremely important. The Board, if they fail to make their undertaking as satisfactory from the public point of view as one would desire, can excuse their action and seek protection under the provisions of that Sub-section. If and when—when, as I see it—they raise fares and curtail facilities they will be able to justify their action under this Sub-section.

I desire the Committee to realise the momentous step which will be taken if we pass this Clause, and the restrictions which they are imposing on the liberty of the passenger. In the course of the Debate this afternoon the alleged parallel of the Central Electricity Board was cited once again. It has been pointed out time and again that the two undertakings do not present a parallel. If the Central Electricity Board were endowed with powers anything like those which this London traffic monopoly will enjoy, then instead of planning the generation of electricity for the country on national lines it would be their duty to acquire all the gas undertakings and all the oil refineries, to restrict and curtail the output of coal mines, gas works and the rest of it, and every consumer of every kind of fuel would be put under a restriction. If this board is formed the passenger in the London area, the consumer of this form of accommodation, will have no appeal and no choice. He has to accept what the Board choose to let him have. It is exactly, as I have said, like the Electricity Commissioners restricting supplies of fuel and light, so that consumers of those two necessary commodities would be compelled to take exactly what the Electricity Commissioners chose to supply.

The CHAIRMAN

I am afraid that the hon. Member is now making a Third Reading speech.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I have, perhaps, extended a little farther than the strict limits of the Clause might admit, but I was drawn away by the parallel which is so often made between the board that is being set up by this Bill and the Electricity Commissioners. I have done my duty in calling attention to the grave importance of the Clause, which should not, in my judgment, be lightly dismissed or without full understanding of its true import.

5.46 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

This is, of course, the main operative Clause, and it is therefore entitled to our fullest consideration before we add it to the Bill. The board which, as we decided on Tuesday and Thursday, will be under the control of the Minister, has to exercise all the great powers laid down in Sub-section (1). The words of the Sub-section represent in one sense a definition of the powers of the board, and in another they represent a general aspiration. I hope that the Minister or the Attorney-General will deliver to us on this occasion the speech, or a part of the speech, which it was the intention to deliver on the occasion when the Motion was made to report Progress, on Tuesday of last week. This is the opportunity to justify this Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

It has already been decided to set up the board, and I cannot allow any hon. Member to argue justification of the Bill.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I thought that the Minister would justify the proposal that there should be set up a board which is to perform the functions described in Sub-section (1).

The CHAIRMAN

The board has already been set up by Clause 2, and passed.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am sorry that I slipped in my phrasing. What I mean is that the Minister shall justify the declaration of policy contained in Sub-section (1) that the board constituted under the other Clause has to co-ordinate and organise London traffic by taking over all the undertakings in the Schedule and running them as one undertaking. That is properly the subject matter for discussion.

The CHAIRMAN

I cannot allow that discussion either.

Mr. WILLIAMS

Sub-section (2) reads: The undertakings and parts of undertakings which are by this Act transferred to the board, and any undertakings or parts of undertakings which under this Act are from time to time acquired, taken on lease or established by the board, shall constitute, and be administered by them as, one undertaking. There is the statement that there shall be set up as a monopoly all those undertakings. It is that that I was seeking to argue. I hope that I am not out of order in drawing attention to the fact that this great enterprise is to be constituted as one undertaking, and that the body that will run that undertaking are to deal with the question of an adequate and properly co-ordinated system of passenger transport for the London Passenger Transport Area. Under the Clause that is now before the Committee, we are considering the setting up of a great monopoly

The CHAIRMAN

Really, the hon. Member seems to be struggling very hard to make a, Third Reading speech on a Clause which has already been passed. He cannot do that. The actual wording and purport of this Clause sets out the general duties of the board which has already been set up. The particular powers with regard to the taking over of undertakings come under other undertakings and not under this one.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I am very sorry to trespass. I was not seeking to trespass. I thought that under this Clause we were entitled to consider the general purpose of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN

No.

Mr. WILLIAMS

I apologise for my misunderstanding in that respect. Now with regard to Sub-section (4). I understand that the duties of the board are "to fix such fares and charges" as will in any event make it possible for the board to defray all the charges which are by the Act required to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board. This includes, as we shall see in a later Clause, the interest which is to be paid on the various classes of stock, including fluctuation in the rate of interest which may have to be paid on one class of stock. Presumably it will be the duty of the board under Sub-section (4) to fix such charges as will, in any event, enable all the interest to be nail, including standard revenue, on the stock known as Class C. By this Clause we are requiring the board, quite irrespective of whether they have carried on with the efficiency that we should desire, to impose such charges on the travelling public as will ensure that revenues will be raised. I wish to draw attention to the vital importance of this Clause. I very much regret that, through the Rules of Order which you, Sir Dennis, quite properly enforced against me, I am not in a position to indulge in a general argument on this aspect of the Bill in a. way which I thought under this Clause would have been in order.

5.52 p.m.

Mr. LINDSAY

This Clause sets out the general duties and powers of the board as to London passenger transport. There is already in existence, as the Minister is well aware, the Metropolitan Traffic Commission, which has powers under the Act of 1930. Some of us have not had the advantage of hearing a Second Reading Debate on the present Bill, and we are very anxious to know whether the Minister can tell us exactly how this Bill fits in with the existing structure of the Road Traffic Act, 1930. It appears to me to be quite in order to ask for that information on this question. It is extremely difficult to find out exactly how those two things fit in together, and how this Bill affects the existing powers of the Metropolitan Traffic Commissioners.

Sir HENRY CAUTLEY

Before we part from this Clause, I should be very glad if the learned Attorney-General would clear up some difficulties which I have in regard to it. Sub-section (4) says: It shall be the duty of the board to conduct their undertaking in such manner, and to fix such fares and charges in accordance with the provisions of this Act, as to secure that their revenues shall be sufficient o defray all charges which are by this Act required to be defrayed out of the revenues of the board. 5.53 p.m.

What is the meaning here of "shall be the duty"? Is there to be a statutory duty imposed, a breach of which will be a misdemeanour? I cannot remember the words, but by the Factories Act every owner of a factory has to protect his machinery, and if he does not he has committed a statutory misdemeanour. What is the remedy if this duty is not carried out? Is any mandamus to lie against the board? In other words, are they bound to raise fares, although their better judgment may tell them, as I think in all probability will be the case, that an increase in fares will not bring any increased revenue? As I understand it, the power of dismissal has been taken from the Appointing Trustees to the Minister, and the Minister will have power of dismissal rather limited to inability and misbehaviour. Is he bound to dismiss them if they do not carry out the terms of the exact wording of this Clause? Would that be inability within the meaning of the Clause? I very much doubt it. I have always had the very gravest doubts as to the meaning of those words. I have assumed that they meant that the board were bound to raise fares. I have already had to point out to this Committee on the first Clause of the Bill that, in my opinion, the board means an end of cheap fares in London. The board will most certainly have to raise fares. Before we leave this Clause, I should like the learned Attorney-General to tell us what is really the meaning of these words.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. HOWARD

Before we come to a decision on the Clause, I should like to say a word or two, because I feel that the Clause is a very vital one. By it, we are allowing the board to take over the whole of the transit facilities in London. We also enable them to take such steps as they consider necessary for extending and improving the facilities for passenger transport in that area in such manner as to provide most efficiently and conveniently for the needs thereof. That is all very well, but who is going to decide as to what is a most efficient and convenient method of transport? I can foresee, after the passing of this Bill, that other measures will be devised by the people of London to get to and from their work than those which are provided by the board. There is no doubt that within a short time we shall have the hoard degenerating into the same static condition of inefficiency as has characterised the suburban services of the main line railway companies. The private citizen will be forced, as he has been forced in opposition to the main line railways, to find his own method of transport. I can see very soon the establishment of a new method of co-operatively-owned private motor cars, whereby four or five men living, let us say, in Becontree, will together buy a motor car for less than £100, and arrange to go to the City and back every day, in order to get over the exorbitant fares which the board will undoubtedly charge.

It is all very well to say at the moment that the cost of such a private vehicle is out of the question, but we know that we are on the brink of a new departure in motor transport that is going to reduce running costs by at least 50 per cent. of the present rate. As that reduction takes place, privately-owned vehicles will be co-operatively purchased to take to and from their work the working-men of the near future. Will the board be able to say, "We do not consider that this is a convenient method of transport within the London area and we ban such co-operative efforts as are being made"? I wonder whether hon. Members of the Opposition will shut down the co-operative schemes of the future?

There is another matter. We know that the tremendous growth of clubs is causing some concern even in this House. I can foresee the starting of a club which will be called, the "London Travellers' Club." It will purchase a charabanc that will leave Palmers Green, or Croydon, or any other outlying place, every morning at half past eight. It will pick up 28 passengers, and bring them to the Bank in a private charabanc or coach owned by the club. Will the board be able to say that that privately-owned motor car, even if it is a coach—there is no definition as to the size of a private motor car or of a, motor coach—shall not be allowed to bring in the members of that club'? It is not plying for hire on the streets of London, but it has a registered daily number of passengers who co-operatively own the coach, and it can bring the whole 28, or even more, to business every morning. The liberty of the subject can be interfered with by the board, who can apply to have that vehicle restricted in its use of the streets of London. I can see many other developments in motor transport in the near future, and I am jealous to try and guard the right of the King's highway for British citizens against the power of this would-be monopoly. I hope, therefore, that this Clause will be resisted by Members of the House.

6.1 p.m.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

With regard to the criticism of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for East Grinstead (Sir H. Cautley), I think that no court would have any difficulty in interpreting this Clause in a reasonable way if anybody should seek to attack the board because they had been the victims of fate. For instance, if they had used their best efforts to conduct the undertaking on a self-supporting basis, and it failed, I do not suppose that any court in the world would interpret the words It shall be the duty of in such a way as to make them guilty of anything for which they would be answerable in damages or liable to a term of imprisonment. I quite agree that the word "duty" suggests to a lawyer something which can be enforced by the courts, but the Clause merely sets out at length the direction of Parliament to the board that they are to carry on their undertaking on a self-supporting basis.

Sir H. CAUTLEY

Would the Attorney-General kindly deal with the other part of my question? Is it compulsory on this board to increase the fares, or is that discretionary also; and if so, does the Clause mean anything?

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

I think it means something. It is a direction to carry on the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. That does not necessarily mean raising fares. Indeed, raising fares may be the worst possible way of carrying on the undertaking on a self-supporting basis. The board are to fix fares, and it may be that they will get more business and more profit by reducing fares than by raising them. My hon. Friend the Member for South Bristol (Mr. Lindsay) asked how this Bill works into the Road Traffic Act. If he will be good enough to turn to Part IV of the Bill, he will find a number of Clauses which I think will answer his question.

Mr. LINDSAY

Not entirely.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL

May we deal with that matter when we come to it?

6.4 p.m.

Sir WILLIAM RAY

I should like to say a few words with regard to Subsection (4). We definitely here set up this monopoly Those of us who have been connected with London for some years know that, so far as travelling facilities are concerned, we have in London, if not the cheapest, certainly as cheap a system as any in the world. That cheapness has only been secured in London by keen competition—the competition of tramways with omnibuses, and the competition of the independent omnibuses with the, not monopoly, but the recognised great omnibus services. This Committee must recognise that, from the date of the inception of this board, competition so far as London is concerned is gone for ever. It is a very momentous decision to come to that, after all these years, after all the benefits which have been conferred upon London by a reasonable amount—there has not been an unreasonable amount—of competition, all these things are to come to an end from the moment of the board's inception. There are many of us who believe that some of the advantages which London has gained, such as the 2d. mid-day fare, the 1s. all-day fare, the 6d. fare, and so on, have only been obtained by enterprise on the part of one undertaking or another, and there is no possible guarantee under this Bill that any of the facilities, as regards both fares and accommodation, which have been given to London during the past dozen years or so, will be re- tained. I think it is rather regrettable that no provision whatever is made for the retention, for some time at all events, of the facilities that have been given to London through the competition that has been brought about. I feel that the new tribunal will have an extremely busy time—the tribunal which has to deal with applications of local authorities in regard to fares and facilities—

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN (Captain Bourne)

I think we had better leave the duties of the tribunal until we reach that point in the Bill.

HON. MEMBERS

Hear, hear!

Sir W. RAY

The Socialist party appear to think that that is a matter which might be left. I will stick to Subsection (4), and, in sitting down, I should like to congratulate them on their evident anxiety, as shown in the Bill which they framed, for the payment of interest to people who have money in the undertakings.