LORDS AMENDMENTS. (Hansard, 5 August 1924)

§ LORD PARMOOR:
My Lords, I beg to move that your Lordships do not insist on the Amendments on pages 13 and 14. I only want to say a few words because, as the noble Lord has pointed out, this matter has been considerably discussed I think that what I will call the two sides are pretty clear. On the one side, most of us would desire in a Traffic Bill to bring 359 in the question of tramways and tramcars, because undoubtedly to a considerable extent and in certain districts, they do add to the obstruction of the traffic. That is one side. I think, however, it is impossible to put out of sight the other side of the question, which was specially emphasised when this matter went back to the House of Commons. The first point which was emphasised is that you ought to draw a distinction between the tramway companies—they are really at the present time practically the local authorities—in London, the London County Council, who have certain statutory rights of user of the streets, and the omnibuses, which are the main matter we are dealing with in these clauses.
Surely it is right for two reasons. A very large amount of money has been invested through the local authorities in London, and elsewhere, on the construction of these tramway lines. The amount has been stated, in the case of the London County Council, to be not far short of £20,000,000. Supposing you were to put these tramways and tramcars in the same position as omnibuses, it would lead to this result—that it would be quite possible in the interests of traffic for Regulations to be made, under the terms of this Bill, which would even go so far as to prevent the tramway company or authority from using the tramway lines on which, under statutory authority, they have made very large expenditure indeed. I have pointed out before that I think it is wrong in principle—this view was maintained in the other place—to deal with bodies who have these statutory rights in the same way as omnibuses, which have no statutory rights or monopoly, or anything of the kind. If, in a Bill of this kind, you are really going to interfere with statutory rights it will have far-reaching effects. It must be remembered that railway companies have not, in a certain sense, so large a statutory right as the tramway companies, because others have a right to run over their lines although it is not exercised, whereas in the case of tramways they have their lines to themselves and no other vehicles are able to use those lines.
I am not going to discuss the question of rights and wrongs, but ought we, in a Bill of this kind, to put statutory rights on the same footing as that on 360 which an omnibus runs along the street? I think quite the contrary. Immediately you interfere with statutory rights of this kind the question of compensation arises, and this Traffic Bill is not founded upon any principle of this sort at all. It is founded upon the principle of the regulation of traffic. It is not founded on the principle of interfering with the business, which is a tramway business carried on under certain statutory rights conferred by Parliament. That is the view which the other House took, and, for my own part, I am glad that they did. On the other hand, I should very much regret if your Lordships instituted a precedent in the other direction, particularly in relation to traffic of this kind. Therefore, I hope that the noble Lord, who has interested himself much in this matter, will be able to appreciate this point of view, and that your Lordships will not insist on these Amendments.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:
My Lords, as I understand it, the ostensible object of this Bill is to avoid the traffic congestion which has occurred in the streets of London. Now, what is one of the principal causes of that congestion? It is the tramways. And yet the tramways are to be left out of the Bill, and thus to a very great extent you will nullify any chance of success that the Bill may have. The noble and learned Lord has advanced two reasons. One is that the tramway companies and the London County Council have spent large sums of money on tramways. The London General Omnibus Company and the other omnibus companies have also spent large sums of money on their omnibuses. They are to be regulated, but the London County Council is not. I venture to say that the argument of the noble and learned Lord on the ground of expense falls to the ground. What is in his other argument? That there are statutory rights. I am not learned in the law, as is the noble and learned Lord, but I think there are no statutory rights. The London County Council paid nothing for putting their lines down on the streets. All that happened was that the tramways thought 361 that they could make more money by running a vehicle on a set of rails than by running it on ordinary wheels, and they obtained power to lay rails in the streets.

§ LORD PARMOOR:
May I correct the noble Lord? I had to argue this matter from the very start, judicially and otherwise. The company got the statutory powers, and the local authorities took them over, and paid for the rights they obtained.

§ LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM:
I maintain that the companies got no statutory powers. All that the companies got was the right to lay lines in the streets. The noble and learned Lord compared them to the railways. No such comparison can be made. The railways bought the land, and it is their own land; they made the roads, and upon the roads they put a set of lines. It is said that in the old days, going back to 1830, there