HC Deb 16 November 1933 vol 281 cc1161-9

"(1) Whereas it is expedient that the existing traffic areas under the Road Traffic Act, 1930, in England should be varied—

  1. (a) by the abolition of the Southern Traffic Area and the transfer of the areas constituting it to other Traffic Areas; and
  2. (b) by the transfer of part of the East Midland Traffic Area to the Eastern Traffic Area:

Now therefore, as from the first day of January, nineteen hundred and thirty-four in this section referred to as 'the said date')—

  1. (i) England shall be divided into the Traffic Areas specified in the first column of the First Schedule to this Act and those Traffic Areas shall consist of the several areas respectively specified in the second column of that Schedule;
  2. (ii) the said First Schedule to this Act shall be substituted for Part I of the Third Schedule to the Road Traffic Act, 1930, and references to that Schedule in any enactment shall be construed accordingly:
    3. 1162
  3. (iii) the offices of the Traffic Commissioners for the Southern Traffic Area shall be abolished.

(2) The Minister may by Order make such consequential and incidental provisions as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of traffic areas effected by this section and, in particular, but without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing words, provision may be made in the Order with respect to—

  1. (a) the effect, as from the said date, of licences previously issued or backed, and consents previously given, by the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected;
  2. (b) the effect of applications for licences or consents made before the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected, the Commissioners to whom applications relating to any such area may be made between the date of the Order and the 6aid date, and the Commissioners by whom and the places at which any such applications as aforesaid may be heard, either before or after the said date;
  3. (c) the continuance of appeals pending at the said date against decisions of the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished or otherwise affected; and
  4. (d) the recovery of any sums due at the said date to the Commissioners for any traffic area abolished.

(3) Any Order made by the Minister under section sixty-two of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, for varying the number or limits of traffic areas may contain such consequential and incidental provisions, including provisions with respect to any of the matters mentioned in the last preceding sub-section, as appear to him to be necessary or expedient in consequence of the variations of areas to be effected by the Order.

(4) For sub-section (3) of the said section sixty-two, there shall be substituted the following sub-section:—

'(3) An Order made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall be of no effect unless and until it has been approved by a resolution passed by each House of Parliament.'"

4.11 p.m.

The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Lieut.-Colonel Headlam)

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

Under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, England and Scotland are divided into 13 traffic areas. The main object of this Clause is to provide for the abolition of the Southern Area, the headquarters of which are at Reading, and the distribution of this area among the adjacent areas. This course is being adopted for reasons of economy and more convenient administration. The Clause at the same time provides for a readjustment of the boundary between the Eastern Area and the East Midland Area. Section 62 of the Road Traffic Act, 1930, provides that the Minister may from time to time by Order vary the provisions of the Schedule, either by altering the limits of any existing traffic area or by increasing or reducing the number of traffic areas. The Section goes on to provide, however, that every Order shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament, and shall not have effect until it has laid upon the Table of each House for a period of not less than 28 days during which the House has sat.

Although the decision to do away with the Southern Traffic Area as from 1st January, 1934, was reached in July last, it would not have been possible to conform with the procedure laid down in the Act of 1930, as the other place would not have sat for the necessary 28 days before 1st January, 1934. This last date cannot be altered as it is proposed that on that date the scheme for the licensing of goods vehicles provided for in the present Bill shall come into effect, and it is essential that the redistribution of the areas should take place at the same time. It has, therefore, proved necessary to provide for the abolition of the Southern Area in the present Bill. This course has the advantage of setting out the new areas in a complete Schedule which can readily be referred to.

Sub-section (4) of the Clause substitutes the procedure of an affirmative Resolution on the part of each House of Parliament for the more cumbersome procedure laid down in the Act of 1930, to which I have already alluded, with regard to any future Orders made by the Minister for varying the number or limits of traffic areas. Sub-section (2) provides that the Minister may by Order make consequential and incidental provisions with regard to such matters, for example, as the effect of licences granted by the existing Commissioners for the Southern Area, and indeed all matters which the Southern Area Commissioners have already begun.

4.14 p.m.

Mr. PARKINSON

That this proposal is creating feeling in the Southern Area is shown by the following telegram Bent to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition: Earnestly appeal to you to oppose Lords Amendment to Road and Rail Bill abolishing Southern traffic area. Petitions against sent by all operators and municipal authorities in area ignored by Minister. That is sent on behalf of 85 operators. The abolition of the Southern Area is proposed for two reasons—first, economy; and, secondly, more convenient administration. The question of economy has reference to money. To many people, of course, economy means the saving of money, but I think economy means getting more efficient administration for the amount of money spent in any direction. I should like to ask the Minister how this change will affect the operators, and what will be their position in view of the fact that the central meeting place is now to be taken away and three others are to be substituted for it? Will it not be more expensive and inconvenient for the operators in that area? Moreover, in view of the statement that this alteration is in the interests of economy, I should like to ask the Minister how much money he is going to save by the abolition of the Southern Area 1 The abolition of this area will mean that a number of people will be discharged; are they going to be found other jobs, or are they going to be added to the unemployed? That is certainly something which the National Government ought not to do.

Is it worth while to break up the present areas for the sake of economy before the present arrangement has been given a fair trial under the new conditions? It appears to me that the operators ought to have an opportunity of putting their case before the Minister, but, owing to the hurry, no real opportunity has been given them. The Southern Area covers five whole counties, the Isle of Wight and a part of Buckinghamshire, and I believe it has been found to be very convenient for the operators under the present administration. I am sure, from the information I have received, that this reallocation will cause confusion, inconvenience and expense to the operators, and will also entail much more work, because I understand that in future, when they make application for a licence, they will have to sign three forms instead of one, and probably, unless the Commissioner is prepared to move his court from one district to another in order to help them, the change will also cause dislocation.

I suggest that it is not reasonable to introduce so great a change by adding this Clause to the Bill at the end of its progress, and also that the absorption of this area by the other areas will place an additional burden of labour on the other Commissioners. I should like to ask the Minister whether he has consulted the local authorities in the area, and whether they have had any voice as to the action which it is now proposed to take. In my view the change is too hurried and drastic, and needs further consideration. I understand that all these matters have been brought to the notice of the Minister on behalf of the operators, who take great exception to this change on the grounds I have already mentioned, and their views, and those of the omnibus proprietors, ought to be taken into consideration. If the Minister has done that, I should like to ask him what has been the result?

I have already mentioned that the operators will have to make application on three forms instead of one, and I understand also that the offices of the Southern area are already placarded as being to let. I do not know whether they are going to be dispensed with before the specified time, but it rather looks as though no further reconsideration was going to be given to the matter. I understand that over 17,000 licences of various kinds were granted in this area during the year ending on the 31st March last, and that fees amounting to £16,000 have already been paid. This change means reducing one area and increasing the size of another. What means have we of knowing that the new area will not be so overcrowded as to make it impossible for the work to be done as efficiently as it ought to be done, and what equivalent is to be offered to the operators in the area in order to make matters more convenient and less expensive for them than appears likely under this proposed change?

4.23 p.m.

Dr. HOWITT

I have received so many protests against the proposed abolition of the Southern area that I feel that I must ask the Minister, even at this eleventh hour, if it is possible for him in any way to reconsider this Amendment. The Southern area has worked extremely well, and its abolition will vastly increase the size of the South Eastern area, and will make the administration more difficult rather than easier. The people in the Southern area will have to go very much greater distances. They have become used to going to Reading, and those who have administered the area have got used to the various problems of the people there. I know that it is the eleventh hour, and that it is a rather hopeless thing to ask the Minister, but I have been urged to do so, and, therefore, I would ask him if he cannot reconsider his decision on this matter.

4.25 p.m.

Mr. ANNESLEY SOMERVILLE

I desire to support what my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt) has said. It has been urged that this change is to be made in the interests of economy, but, so far as one can make out, the interests of economy lie in favour of maintaining the present arrangement. One would like to hear from the Minister the real reason for the change. Undoubtedly it will cause very considerable additional inconvenience and expense to a large number of authorities, and the associations of transport owners in the area are unanimously against it. I doubt whether the general public have yet realised what the change involves, but it seems to me that we have not had sufficient reasons to justify it, and I would urge the Minister, if he cannot fully justify the change, to give the matter further consideration.

4.26 p.m.

Mr. STANLEY

I should like to deal first of all with the point made by the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Parkinson), that insufficient notice has been given of this change, and that there has been no real opportunity for discussing it. I would point out that the procedure laid down in the Act of 1930 was put into force as far back as the 25th July last, and from that moment all those affected by the proposal have had full notice of what it was intended to do.

Mr. PARKINSON

The period of 28 days was not given, and the matter has been precipitated without any notice being given to the operators at all.

Mr. STANLEY

I communicated with the people connected with the area, and let them know how I intended to proceed in this matter, so that they have had full notice. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, by proceeding in this way a fairer chance was given for discussion than was given by the old procedure. By adding this provision to, the Bill it was possible to discuss it through all the stages of the Bill in another place, and the House is now given an opportunity of either negativing or affirming it. With regard to the actual proposal, some change was inevitable after the passage of the London Passenger Transport Bill. Under that Bill, the Metropolitan area was very largely extended at the expense of the South Eastern area, and the South Eastern area is now left of a size that would be quite uneconomic to work. It was, therefore, inevitable that some redistribution should take place, and it has been decided that the most convenient and economical arrangement would be the abolition of the Southern area and the incorporation of parts of it in the three adjoining areas.

Hon. Members will see that, prima facie, any move of this kind must be in the direction of economy. I understand that the actual saving to the Road Fund from the abolition of the Southern area will be something in the neighbourhood of £5,000 a year. As to the staff, we shall, of course, make arrangements to absorb them elsewhere, and the term of the commissioner was coming to an end in any case. That, however, is not the only consideration. From the point of view of the operators as a whole—not in any one particular area, but over the country as a whole—the fewer areas that there are, provided that they can be economically and efficiently worked, the beter, Hon. Members will realise that every licensing authority has complete jurisdiction within his own district, and it is necessary for any operator who wishes to run through a number of districts not only to get a licence in the one in which he applies, but to get what is called a backing in every area through which he proposes to run; and many complaints have been made that this imposes upon the operators considerable expense and delay. Obviously, the fewer areas there are, the less will be the necessity for this backing, and, therefore, the more expeditious and economical will the arrangement be from the point of view of the operator. I submit that, these two considerations in favour of the change could only be set aside if it could be shown that, as regards the operators in the area concerned, it would lead to difficulties and expense, and I do not believe that in this case that can be shown.

I do not think the hon. Gentleman quite realises what the effect of this is upon the operators. It is quite true, and here I sympathise with my hon. Friend the Member for Reading (Dr. Howitt), that Reading will cease to be the place where the office of 'the commissioner happens to be situated, but my hon. Friend must not think that all the hearings of the commissioners are held in their offices, that it has been necessary hitherto for operators all over the Southern area to go to Reading, and that henceforth it will be necessary for them to go to London, Bristol, or Nottingham. That is not the case. The commissioners are peripatetic, holding their sittings in various parts of these areas as may be most convenient to the applicants, and the abolition of this area will make no difference in that regard; the sittings will still be held wherever in the various areas the amount of work appears to make it desirable.

I can assure my hon. Friend that, from the point of view of the sittings of the Commissioners, the operators will suffer nothing. In certain cases they may suffer in that they may be farther away from the central office of the Commissioner than before, but in soma cases they will be nearer; and, after all, my right hon. Friend the Postmaster-General does provide an excellent telephone and postal service. You can communicate with almost equal facility with London as with Reading. I cannot really believe that the operators in the Southern area find it necessary to make personal journeys every time to the offices of the Commissioners, and they will not, therefore, be inconvenienced. The business that they have to transact with the officials can be and is normally transacted by post or telephone. I have given the utmost consideration to the representations that were made to me, and, as a result of the change, I promise that operators will not be put to extra expense or delay. There is nothing which will outweigh the obvious advantages which are to be gained by a reduction in the number of licensing areas.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: After Clause 24 insert: