Lords Sitting of 22 July 1924

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

KEIGHLEY CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) PROVISIONAL ORDER BILL.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, I beg to move the Resolution standing in my name.
Moved, That the Order made on the 10th day of April last, "That no Provisional Order Confirmation Bill brought from the House of Commons shall be read a second time after Tuesday the 17th of June next," be dispensed with, and that the Bills be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to, and Bills read 2a accordingly, and committed for Thursday next.

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.
Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly:
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the chair.]
Clause 1.
Constitution of Advisory Committee.
1.—(1) With a view to facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London, there shall, for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in manner provided by this Act to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the London Traffic Area) be constituted a committee, to be called the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and hereinafter referred to as the Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such

781
ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.
(2) Of the ordinary members:
One shall he appointed by a Secretary of State:
Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:
One shall he appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
Two shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several metropolitan boroughs:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from among nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying north of the Thames:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying south of the Thames:
One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several county boroughs within the London Traffic Area:
One shall be a representative of the metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State:
One shall he a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:
One shall be appointed by the Minister, but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport:
Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority other than the representative of the City police and every person selected by a group of authorities shall he a member of the local authority or of one of the grouped authorities, as the case may be.
(3) Of the additional members:—
Three shall be representatives of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit:
Four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable.
(4) The ordinary members shall form part of the committee on all occasions, and the additional members shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising the Minister upon any
782
matter referred to the committee under or by virtue of Section seven or Section ten of this Act, or any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with the matters specified in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act:
Provided that the Minister may if he thinks fit, direct that in any particular case the additional members, or such one or more of them as he may direct, shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising him upon any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with any of the matters mentioned in Part II of the said schedule.
(5) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being an ordinary member of the Advisory Committee if he is a director of a company or a partner in a firm or is in the employment of a company or firm engaged in providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area.
(6) The term of office of the chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee first appointed shall be from the date of appointment, until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-live, and subject to the provisions as to the term of office of persons appointed to fill casual vacancies, the term of office of persons subsequently appointed shall be three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.
(7) If any member of the Advisory Committee without having received leave of absence by a resolution of the committee fails for a period of six months to attend duly summoned meetings of the Committee, or of a sub-committee on which he has been appointed to serve, his seat shall thereupon become vacant, and lie shall not be eligible for reappointment in respect of that vacancy.
(8) On a casual vacancy occurring on the Advisory Committee by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of a new member in like manner as the member in whose place he is appointed, and he shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place ho is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.
(9) The Minister may place at the disposal of the Advisory Committee the services of such of the officers and servants of the Ministry of Transport as appear to him to lie required for the purpose of the proper discharge of the duties of the Committee.
(10) The Advisory Committee may subject to the approval of the Minister, make rules for regulating their procedure (including the fixing of a quorum, and the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of sub-committees), and for regulating the procedure at any inquiry held by the Advisory Committee or by any members thereof under this Act; and the additional members shall form part of the. Advisory Committee when considering and making such rules of procedure.
(11) The Advisory Committee shall make an annual report of their proceedings to the Minister, which shall be laid before Parliament.
(12) The proceedings of the Advisory Committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in their number or any defect in the appointment of any member.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and near" ["in and near London"], and after "London" to insert "and the suburbs thereof." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to some extent consequential, but it is introductory because it is an alteration of the words of the first clause to meet the changes which I hope "ill be made at later stages. Possibly it would be more convenient if I did not move it here, and allowed my noble friend Lord Buxton to move the next Amendment, which is really the one on which the discussion will take place.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "described in the First Schedule to this Act" and insert "of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have on the Paper describes, I think clearly, the alternatives before your Lordships in considering the extent to which the authority given by this Bill should go. The two alternatives are: The proposal of the Bill, which gives an area of twenty-five miles from Charing Cross, and the one which I propose, called the Metropolitan Police District, which, of course, includes the City Police District, and extends for fifteen miles from Charing Cross. It seems to me that there are very great objections to the twenty-five miles proposed in the Bill. In the first place, it is a purely artificial area, and in the second place, it does not correspond with any existing local area. It includes a large number of rural districts in which there is really no congestion of traffic, and it will undoubtedly lead to a conflict of authority between the Ministry of Transport and the outside county councils and local bodies. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police area is a well known one, which has been in existence for many years. It is controlled by the Metropolitan Police, and efficiently managed. It is homogenous, and it includes the most congested areas of London, those really with which this Bill has to deal. The alternatives, then, are the twenty-five miles radius mentioned
784
in the Bill, which I consider an artificial circle, and the well known recognised boundary of fifteen miles from Charing Cross.
This is a provisional Bill. It is to last for three years only and, as I pointed out on Second Beading, it was introduced as a matter of urgency without having been properly considered. The Government at that moment had no intention of introducing a traffic Bill, but they brought in this measure because of a strike. Therefore, the matter in regard to the area has not been thoroughly thought out. In those circumstances it would be much better to adopt an area which is well known and easily worked, rather than an artificial area. We shall have plenty of opportunity, during the three years' experimental period, of seeing how this proposal of an area of fifteen miles' radius will deal with the congestion of traffic and how far it may be desirable to extend it. Your Lordships should look at the map which has been issued by one of the various committees which has considered this question. It will show that the real congestion of traffic, which is what we all desire to deal with, is confined to the inner area and not to the outer area. The most congested area of traffic is in the City of London, Oxford-street, Regent-street, Piccadilly, and not in the outskirts
I cannot think that the control of the traffic by the Minister of Transport in such places as Chertsey, Watford and Sevenoaks, which would come within the extended area of a twenty-five mile radius, would have any appreciable effect on the congestion at the centre. No doubt, if the traffic is dealt with well at the centre where it is serious there will be some improvement in the outside districts, but that the handling of the traffic in the narrow streets of Watford, where it is well-managed by the police, will have any effect on traffic in the City and the Strand is an idle idea. If noble Lords will look at the First Schedule they will find that the area includes not only the places I have mentioned but all sorts of small villages and rural areas in which there is no congestion and where the proposals of the Bill are entirely unnecessary.
I should like to ask why it is that this particular area of twenty-five mile radius has been drawn. I live in Sussex, some forty miles from London on the Brighton road, and if there is a road out of London

785
—the same applies to the Portsmouth road—which requires control it is the Brighton road. The Government do not include that area at all, but they do include other districts in which there is no congestion. When the Bill was before the House of Commons the Minister of Transport said that if the larger area was not included then Tilbury, Southend and other dock areas would be excluded, and that there was considerable congestion of traffic at these places. There is, of course, congestion of traffic there, but the simple solution would lie to include these ports in the Bill. The Bill itself admits that there is a difference in regard to the inside and outside areas, because, on the question of licensing, it schedules certain streets and Clause 6 and 7, which are the two most important in the Bill, are confined to the Metropolitan Police area and do not extend to the larger area in the Bill.
It may be said with some truth that the traffic is sufficiently controlled outside the actual London congested area by the various local authorities, and that it is a serious matter for the Minister of Transport to interfere with the traffic control of these authorities in the larger area with the mere idea of drawing an artificial line. It introduces dual control over the police and brings the Minister of Transport as the overriding authority in regard to the control of the traffic in the particular area. I mentioned Watford just now, with its narrow streets and considerable traffic. The traffic there is much better managed by the Corporation of Watford than it could possibly be managed by the Minister of Transport, sitting in Whitehall. Some parts of Berkshire have been omitted from the schedule. It only shows what a purely artificial area is this one of twenty-five miles radius. There is an Amendment on the Paper to exclude Buckinghamshire. That again only shows how very artificial are these boundaries. This particular Amendment was carried in the other House by 29 votes to IT and only reversed on Report stage through Government pressure. This is not a matter of vital importance in regard to the principle of the Bill. The Bill would be just as effective whether the area is one of twenty-five miles radius or fifteen miles, and it seems to me that the balance of advantage is greatly in
786
favour of the more restricted area rather than the larger and more artificial area. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("described in the First Schedule to this Act") and insert ("of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts").—(Earl Buxton.)
THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR): I should like in the first place to dissipate the idea of the noble Earl that the area has not been carefully considered. It is the area suggested by the Committee, over which Viscount Ullswater presided, which was appointed for the purpose of considering the traffic area. And let me say, in addition, that as regards what are called outside areas many of them are situated on the great arterial roads, and many of them are on the ordinary omnibus routes which are in use at the present time. I will give an illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl referred to the County of Buckingham. As a matter of fact, that County was cut out in Committee and restored afterwards in the House of Commons by 238 to 119. I happen to know Buckinghamshire very well and, as I have stated before, I wish that the traffic regulations had been extended even so far as I live in Buckinghamshire, because: we experience both danger and congestion owing to the conditions of traffic.
This is what happened as regards Buckinghamshire at the time when it was cut out of the Bill and before it had been restored in the House itself. The Report of the Highways Committee for Buckinghamshire was in the following terms:—
"It appears, however, that the Bill has been amended in the Committee Stage so that Buckinghamshire is excluded from its operation. In your Committee's view it is important that this Amendment should not be allowed to remain in the Bill and it is proposed to approach Members of Parliament for the County in the matter."
At the same time—and this shows how the case really stood—the Buckinghamshire County Council pointed out that all this traffic was really London traffic of a kind likely to lead to congestion, and they based upon that point the plea that the whole expense should be paid from central sources and not from the local rates. Now, this is either London traffic, or it is not. There can be no doubt in

787
the mind of any one who has travelled along the Bath road as often as I do that there is congestion of a very serious kind consequent upon the London traffic, and I believe that 99 per cent, of the people of Buckinghamshire desire that this traffic congestion should be properly regulated. The Highways Committee brought this very point to the notice of the House of Commons.
The noble Earl has pointed out that Clauses 6 and 7 do not affect this point, but that it is only Section 10 which really applies and deals with the regulation of traffic. I beg the House not to deprive my County of Buckingham at any rate of the enormous advantage that we should derive from the proper regulation of this very heavy London traffic. The noble Earl is presenting an absolute chimera, I can assure him as one who has been for a long time on the Buckinghamshire County Council (though it was years ago), when he suggests that there will be any difficulty in applying this regulation as proposed in the Bill. I must say that I hope very much that this innovation in the Bill, if I may so call it, will not be made. There was only one County that did not like it—Berkshire—and it has been taken out. Watford and these other places are perfectly content. There has not been a single move against it. The same applies in an eastward direction where it is very important that the arterial roads should have the traffic properly regulated. This is a very heretical suggestion of the noble Earl, if he will allow me to say so. The only County where the matter has been really discussed is Buckinghamshire, and they have pointed out how important it is to have this heavy traffic regulated. Why should they not be left in? The Highways Committee have asked for it, the County Council have taken the same view, and, as I say, this matter has been carefully considered. I hope your Lordships will maintain (his area, which we think is very important if we are to have proper regulation.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: As my name has been mentioned in connection with this matter I should like to make a few observations. I was Chairman of the Commission which was appointed to consider questions of London government and the setting up of an area larger than the present one. We had all these
788
matters before us. We sat for a year and a half and, of course, transport was one of the most important matters that we considered. I should like to read to your Lordships one or two extracts from the Report which we presented. On page 67, in paragraph 252 of our Report, we say:—
"There is a further general opinion that any centralised powers in relation to transport should extend to a wider area than that of Greater London."
That is the fact. We had a great deal of evidence, and that evidence was practically unanimous in favour of dealing with this question of traffic over a large area. It was pointed out that the Greater London area merely would really be of no use. A great deal of evidence went very much further, even to suggesting that places such as Brighton and Southend should be included. That, I think, was rather more than we could swallow at the time, but we were practically unanimous in favour of taking a larger area and we took the twenty-five mile radius chiefly for the reason that within that twenty-five mile radius you had a population which sleeps out of London but comes into London for its work and uses whatever means of traffic are open to it.
Here is another extract from our Report. We say, in paragraph 299:—
"The maximum area which the witnesses have had in mind includes at least the whole of the five Home Counties (Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey) as well as the Administrative County of London. Without going so far as that we feel that it is desirable to include a fairly wide circuit of country round the Metropolis. The country within a radius of about 25 miles appears to us to be a suitable area."
It is true that we contemplated handing over to the Advisory Committee, which we suggested, other matters besides traffic, but this does not detract at all from the strength of the argument in favour of including a very considerable area for traffic purposes.
We selected the electricity area because it was a known area and because it was a radius of about twenty-five miles from Charing Cross. The area in the schedule of the Bill is practically the electricity area: I think there is hardly any difference at all, though a small parish or township or two are left out or included. I have been again through the evidence, and I

789
hold in my hand here one volume of it only. In this volume I find that Hertfordshire was in favour of the larger area, that Surrey was in favour of it, that Essex also gave evidence in favour of it, that Kent gave evidence in favour of it, and that Croydon also gave evidence in favour of it. This evidence was not given by a single person who took upon himself to represent a county, but was evidence laid before us by committees which had been specially appointed to consider this matter of the different local authorities.
Here is the reply of Surrey to Question 3,506, which ran as follows:—
"Have you any views as to the extent of the area for which the traffic authority should have control?"
"Answer [from Mr. E. J. Holland]: No except this: that we are quite sure that it ought to he an area larger than the Metropolitan Police Area … Exactly how far it would be desirable to go I would rather leave for, let us say, the experts, but I am quite sure that you could not stop the work of your traffic authority at, let us say, our Metropolitan Police boundary."
That is a very clear pronouncement from the County of Surrey. We had a similar view from Essex, in reply to Question 4,470, which ran:—
"With regard to this Advisory Board, do you share the views of Surrey, and, I think, of Hertfordshire also, that the area over which the consideration ought to extend should be very much larger than London and its immediate surroundings?
"Answer [from Mr. Musgrave]: I do. I think certainly, so far as Essex is concerned, it should take us in up to the coast.
"Question: That it should include the whole of Essex right up to Colchester?
"Answer: Yes … We are having a large amount of growth in traffic, and I see no advantage in cutting it off at Epping Forest."
So it goes on. I will not weary your Lordships by reading a number of these answers, but, I can assure your Lordships that the evidence was practically unanimous that if the traffic Advisory Committee, or whatever the authority was which was to be set up, was to do any good at all it was useless to confine it to a small area and absolutely necessary that it should include a much larger area. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will keep to the proposals which are contained in the Bill.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I was very interested to hear from the noble Viscount how they came to the conclusion on the Commission over which he presided that the London area for this purpose should be made as wife as is proposed in this Bill. I think the noble Viscount explained this, but I want your Lordships to realise that this area was not proposed for transport alone but for many other purposes as well, including housing, town planning and many other kinds of purposes. Therefore, I am afraid that, from the point of view of those who think with me, we cannot admit that that is quite a valid argument. On page 40 of the Report they say:
"There were differences of opinion as to the precise limits of the area. Most witnesses would restrict it to Greater London or to London and the Home Counties; others thought that it should extend even beyond the latter limits, at any rate in certain directions."
I would remind the noble Lord also and the. House that the Report in favour of this great area is only signed by four members out of ten and that two members, Mr. Walsh, the present Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Robert Donald held very strong opinions that the Metropolitan Police area should be the area.
Another point which has not been mentioned is that in the Bill you have appointed the Metropolitan Police, as licensing authority in the first place, and if you make your area in the Bill coincident with the area administered by the Metropolitan Police it is obvious that this is the logical thing to do. If you make it wider than that there may be some question in regard to motor licences to Sevenoaks or Guildford where the Metropolitan Police have no authority. If we go back a little further than the Commission we find that the Royal Commission on London traffic reported in 1905 strongly in favour of the Police area and Greater London, as we know it. Again the Advisory Committee on London traffic in 1920 favoured also this smaller area and in the original Bill in the other House, as has been mentioned, the Committee, by a very considerable majority, threw out the larger area and substituted for it the Police or Greater London area.
Having regard to these facts the argument, I think, is in favour of the smaller

791
area rather than the bigger one. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea what an enormous area the London Police area is. It extends to Dartford, it goes north and south about fifteen miles from Charing Cross, and it has a population of over seven and a half millions. Surely that is a sufficiently large area to begin with. This Bill is in the nature of an experiment, and if, later on, the experiment is successful, then is the time for the Government to come to Parliament to extend it. That is better than taking a big leap in the dark now. I do not know with what truth, but it has been said that promises have been held out by the Ministry of Transport to the local authorities that if they come in and accept this Bill they will get extra grants for their roads.
LORD PARMOOB: That is not so.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I only know that it was so stated in another place, and there appears to be some reason why these local authorities are willing to come in. But, apart from the suggested reason which I have mentioned, the reason why they are willing to come in is that they do not want to be roped in with Greater London for other purposes. They think that if they get an ad hoc authority they will escape being roped in for drainage, water and other purposes. I think they are mistaken there. If they are roped in for transport they are to be roped in for other purposes as well, and I do not believe they want to be roped in. I suggest to the House that the area of Greater London is quite sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, and that this House would be wise to go back to the position adopted by the Committee in the other House.
EARL RUSSELL: I have an Amendment very late on the Paper dealing with the First Schedule, and it has the same effect as the Amendment before the House. Therefore, I think it would be convenient if I said what I have to say in the discussion on the present Amendment. The arguments which have been presented to us in favour of the larger area seem to me to some extent to contradict themselves. First, we are told that you ought to take a large sweep of twenty-five miles from the centre. That would be a simple thing to put in the schedule, but that is not in
792
the schedule. On the contrary there are a number of places, here, there and everywhere, and some places are left out. Can the Lord President of the Council give to the House any sort of reason why Seven-oaks and Guildford should be put in and Maidenhead be left out?
LORD PARMOOR: Maidenhead is in Berkshire.
EARL RUSSELL: Even so, I am not aware that it has the right to dictate to this or the other House.
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord asked me the reason.
EARL RUSSELL: When considering the question of traffic, although, no doubt, due consideration will be given to their wishes, their wishes are not final and are not binding on the House. Maidenhead, it is true, is in Berkshire, but it stands in very much the same position as Guildford. I think I am right in saying that it is a few miles less distant from London, and it stands on a main road. If we take an area let us take an area that we know—namely, the Metropolitan Police area, where they are the only licensing authority and exercise police control, and I would ask the noble Lord, or any of the defenders of the Bill on the Front Bench—I am not aware that there are an friends of the Bill, but I would ask any noble Lord who is going to follow me in defence of the Bill—to say what steps are to be taken, and what direct effect is going to be given to any provision of this Bill which will be of the slightest use to Guildford or Seven-oaks?
One noble Lord talked a good deal about the unanimity of these local authorities. I think my noble friend who has just sat down showed that when they were giving evidence they were not limiting themselves to a mere question of traffic, but were considering a good many other questions. I think the noble Viscount who presided over the Commission proved a little too much, because, in reading out the answer to one question, he somewhat rashly said they wished the area to be extended to Colchester. That shows that there was not that complete unanimity about this exact area that we are given to understand. Do not create a new and unknown area from which we

793
have not been shown any benefit that will follow, but stick to an area which you know and lot this experiment be tried in that area. If it is successful there, nothing could be easier than for the Government of the day to come I o Parliament and ask for the area to be extended, and if the experiment has been proved to be of advantage to outlying districts everything will be in favour of extending the area.
VISCOUNT PEEL: My Lords, I was very much interested in considering what were the particular reasons why the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, was so anxious to advocate this smaller or Metropolitan area, but he really said very little in favour of it. All he said was that it is a well-known area, and that it has existed since 1847. This area, no doubt, was established then, and I think has not been changed in the intervening period of nearly eighty years. It was established for police purposes. Is it really credible, without a great deal of proof, that an area that was established eighty years ago for the purposes of police, is now the exactly right area for the purposes of transport—transport which has been revolutionised, not once but ten times, during that period? I should have thought that the presumption would have been strongly against an area of that kind, considering that it was established for totally different purposes.
The debate has very largely assumed that the only business of this Advisory Committee is to deal with the control of traffic. Its purpose is much wider than that; it will deal with new roads and development of roads. I understand that some big schemes are in contemplation. They have been in contemplation for some time, but unfortunately these schemes are only carried out twenty-five years after they ought to have been carried out. One scheme is a big tunnel under the Thames, in order to obviate the tremendous congestion of traffic from the docks. If the area was restricted that scheme would be entirely knocked on the head, or, at least, made exceedingly difficult to carry out.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Why?
VISCOUNT PEEL: Because this advisory body will only be able to advise on subjects inside its own area.
EARL RUSSELL: What power is there in the Bill to make or contribute to new roads?
VISCOUNT PEEL: I did not say the Committee could either make or contribute to new roads. I was referring, of course, to the schedules, where it is stated that the authority has the right to deal with the development, improvement, or extension of the existing system of road communication within the London Traffic Area. I pass to another observation of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. He was trying to get over the awkward fact, for those who are opposed to the larger area, that all these local authorities outside London are anxious for the Bill in its present form, in order to get over that my noble friend bad to resort to the device of saying that they were in favour of it, not because they desired to be included in the area, but because they were afraid of some other terrible thing that might happen to them. It is sufficient that you have the decision of the local authorities, without going into the question of their motives.
The noble Earl has referred to this scheme as an experiment. I hope it will last longer than three years, because I do not think you can do anything in three years. I assume that when your Lordships come to a later Amendment you will see that some latitude should be given to the people who are going to work on this advisory body. But is it not a great mistake, if you are dealing with this very old question, which is becoming a larger and larger question every day, to seek to limit the activities of this new body by restricting its area? The noble Earl made a challenge as to what advantage was to be got by some of these outlying towns being included in the area. The advantage is this: that for the purposes of traffic the larger area is a traffic unit. The omnibuses and motor cars run and ply between these places and if you draw a narrow area of fifteen miles you will halve the benefits, perhaps altogether destroy the benefits, that you might be conferring upon London and its surroundings by taking at once the larger area. The fact is that you are faced with a very large problem indeed. You have a system of roads which is utterly unsuitable for the enormous traffic of London, and if you are going again to make your roads fit for the traffic that will go over them you have to take a larger and bolder line.

795
A great point in reference to traffic is that you cannot deal with it where the congestion arises; you have to deal with it at a point perhaps very far away from that point. It seems to me that you have the local authorities with you, while the Report of the Ullswater Commission is in favour of this area; and when you see the very great advantages' to London of dealing with the matter in a large way, I urge your Lordships not to take this narrow area merely because of some interpretation that may be put upon the views of the local authorities and because my noble friend Lord Buxton thinks it is so experimental that the experiment ought not to be allowed to succeed.
EARL STANHOPE: I confess that I am one of those who sleep in the country and work in London and I come within the traffic area defined in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Peel has said that the whole of the local authorities are in favour of this area. I wonder how he knows that. I know that the county council of my county are in favour of it.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I said so because the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, read out their views in the speech he made the other day.
EARL STANHOPE: He read out the views of the county councils. He did not read out the views of the district councils, the parish councils and the other local authorities. There are many parishes included in the schedule to this Bill that have not a single first-class road running through them—not a single road which comes under the county council. They are kept up by the local authorities who, to the best of my belief, did not give evidence before my noble friend's Commission and know nothing about this Bill. I asked several of them about it and they were amazed to hear that they came within the London Traffic Area. I think the Government have quite rightly kept their Committee for the management of the London Traffic Area small; but the result of making it small is that you have one representative for the whole of the counties south of the river and one representative for the whole of the counties north of the river. I ask how can that single individual have any possible local knowledge of the width of
796
roads, or whether they are possible for one kind of transport or another? If you put a vast area of that kind under a small Committee obviously you will stultify that Committee, because they cannot have the local knowledge of the traffic which is necessary on the by-roads.
When we come to the main roads I admit that we must have them on a large scale but when we come to the local byroads it is an entirely different matter. They will never in our lifetime, or probably for long after, become anything more than local roads and will probably never be used for main line traffic. Therefore, it seems absurd to crowd the work of the Committee to such an extent by putting under its control such a large area. A very large amount of this area is purely rural and agricultural, and to put that area under a Committee which may be a most competent body for the management of traffic in the streets of London, does not seem to be the best plan because, being experts in traffic in crowded districts, they probably know very little about rural areas.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The object of this Bill is the regulation of traffic in the streets of London. That being so it is proposed to deal with the traffic in Eton and to say that you must not deal with it in Windsor. My noble friend Lord Peel tells me that in order to avoid congestion in the streets of London—a subject in which I have taken great interest for many years; I drove about the streets of London for many years—you have to arrange what the traffic is in Eton or places equally distant. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, says that you have to deal with people who come to London daily. People living twenty to twenty-five miles from London come in by train and this Bill does not touch trains. The Lord President talked about the Bath road. I come up on the Bath road.
LORD PARMOOR: And the Bucks road.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: It is the same thing. I come up by motor two or three times a year, and I find that there is no congestion whatever. It may be that I have been exceptionally lucky, but I find that there is no congestion

797
until I get to Hounslow. When I reach Hounslow there is a little congestion by the "Bell" Inn, but there is no congestion then until you come to Zion House. After you pass Zion House, which is a long way less than twenty-five miles from London, there is congestion in Brentford. Why? Because of the trams. The trams have been allowed to go down the narrow street. I have not often had the pleasure of agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred I think we have found ourselves in different Lobbies, but I shall have much satisfaction in finding myself in the same Lobby with him in regard to this matter.
VISCOUNT HAMPDEN: I speak to-day on behalf of the local authorities of Hertfordshire. The County Council of Hertfordshire met the other day and this Bill was before them. It was unanimously agreed that every possible support should be given to the schedule as it stands in the Bill. We have heard something about the motives of local authorities. I will not go into that question beyond saying that to us there appears no reason whatever for adopting the Metropolitan Police district as an area and every reason for taking the London omnibus routes from their start to the finish. They ought to be under one control. It is worthy of note also that the advocates of Greater London in another place took the same view as the movers of this Amendment. We have a certain suspicion of that in Hertfordshire. Up to date we have had every success in keeping off and defeating those who are in favour of Greater Loudon. That may have had some weight with us, possibly, but we thought that this Bill would only be an effective Bill if this schedule, remained as it was and we were included.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I must admit to your Lordships that I have been very much divided in my mind as to the vote which I ought to give in respect to this Amendment. I am bound to say that I am very much impressed with the evidence in favour of the unanimity of the great local authorities in the neighbourhood of London, of which my noble friend and colleague on the County Council of Hertfordshire has just spoken. I do not think we can ignore
798
the views of those great local authorities. It is their business, after all, to speak in the name of their counties. I am very far from saying that they ought to control the votes of your Lordships' House in the least, but I think their opinion ought to have great weight with you. It is true that great congestion does not exist round about Hatfield, as it does in the City of London. I am also bound to say that the condition of things round about Hatfield on Saturday and Sunday leads residents in that district to wish that there could he greater powers of regulation. That is really the point.
I want your Lordships to realise—it has already been said in the debate but I should like to repeat it—that the very drastic powers contained in Clause 0 and Clause 7 of the Bill do not apply as the Bill stands to anything outside the Metropolitan Police area. That is a very-important matter. The regulations which apply outside the Metropolitan Police area are of a very much slighter kind as the Bill stands. We have to consider whether it is not right that the great County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, Essex, and so forth, who ask to be included should be included having regard to the regulations contained in the Third Schedule, the Schedule under Clause 10. May I ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the Third Schedule? Take, for example, paragraph 3 in that Schedule. The Third Schedule prescribes the powers which, under Clause 10 (that is, in the wider area) if your Lordships leave the Bill as it stands, the traffic authorities would have to make regulations. Paragraph 3 says:—
"For regulating the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types.''
Anybody who has come up in the crowded periods of the day from Hatfield to London will realise how important it is that there should foe some power of regulation in that respect, There are these big, comparatively slow-moving lorries which hold up the traffic and interfere with it very greatly. Surely, there ought to be some power to regulate them and to say how they shall go. I think you have not the power without this Bill.
Again, in paragraph 5 the words are:—
"For prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the times at which, articles of exceptionally heavy weight or exceptionally largo dimensions may be carried by road."

799
That appears to be a matter for which the Minister has power to make regulations. Then take paragraph 9, which reads:—
"For prescribing rules as to precedence to be observed as between vehicles proceeding in the same direction, or in opposite directions, or when crossing."
There is nothing more important for the safety of the travelling public than that there should be regulations as to crossing these great main roads. The noble Earl opposite recognises that. There is tremendous traffic up and down our main roads, and there ought to be some means of prescribing regulations so that the parties shall not discharge their unfortunate passengers in such a way that they are swept into eternity by the fast moving traffic on the main roads. There is a minor regulation in paragraph 11—
"For requiring the erection, exhibition, and removal of traffic notices, and as to the form, plan, and character of such notices." There, again, there ought to be greater powers of regulation.
Those are the things which can be done by this Traffic Board, and those are the things which the County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, and, as I now understand, Buckinghamshire—I thought that Buckinghamshire might have been different—ask that this traffic authority should be allowed to do. I really think that it is a matter in which the opinion of these County Councils ought to have the greatest weight, though I agree with my noble friend in his desire that this new traffic authority should not be unchecked in its power. I shall have an opportunity of saying something to your Lordships on that aspect of the matter later on. I do not want the traffic authority to act in a tyrannous way, but I do think that in this matter of area it would be wise to support the opinion of the great local authorities.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I wish to say one or two words with reference to this Amendment, which, I am afraid, I cannot support. I have had a little experience of the control of traffic, and if there is one thing which is more essential than another to the efficient control of traffic it is a small authority. The noble Earl who moved this Amendment proposes that the authority for the control of traffic in the Metropolitan area outside London, within a certain area, shall be divided into two. If you
800
do that you must of necessity decrease the efficiency of the control of the traffic in and around London, In these days, with the increase of motor traffic, of charabancs and motor omnibuses, it is becoming the custom of people living a long way from London to concentrate in and near London, especially during the summer season, with the result that the authority which is vested with the control of the traffic has found it almost impossible to deal with that traffic when it arrives at its destination.
There are two instances which I am sure your Lordships will remember. One was the great football match that took place at Wembley last year, and the other was the Derby at Epsom this year. On both those occasions the congestion of traffic was so great that a considerable number of people failed absolutely to arrive either at Wembley or at Epsom. If there had been one single authority to deal with the control of that traffic within, say, twenty or thirty miles of the heart of London, that would never have occurred. Anybody who has had any experience of traffic control knows perfectly well that you must deal with the traffic from its source. There is no use in waiting till it arrives. If you do that you get chaos such as we see now.
There is one other thing which I should like to say, and it is in support of what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said with reference to the Third Schedule. There you will see that paragraph 3 deals with regulating the relative positions in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds and types. That is a question of education. During the war we found that the French nation, so far as military traffic was concerned, were far more able to control the traffic than we were. The reason was that for a long time before-many, many years before—the French military authorities had trained their men, and taught them how to proceed and when to proceed. We had never done that, and the result was that their traffic was far better ordered than ours. One of the things which you require to do to-day in England, so far as the control of traffic is concerned, is to teach the people that it is necessary to keep on one side of the road or the other, and to obey certain rules of traffic, and unless you have one small authority to deal with these matters you will not get any order out of the

801
chaos which exists to-day. The smaller the authority which you appoint to deal with the traffic the better, and if it was my duly to have anything whatever to do with the control of traffic throughout this country I should certainly desire to be an autocrat and not a democrat.
EARL BUXTON: I will only trouble the House with two observations in reply. One is in reference to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Ullswater. A reference has been made to his Report, and to the evidence given before the Commission over which he presided, and a good deal of weight ha" been attached to the fact that the county councils at that time, two years ago, gave evidence before the Commission in favour of this larger area. I think your Lordships ought to remember that that Commission was not set up to deal specially with the traffic question. A very large number of other matters quite as important were dealt with by it. The county councils which gave evidence at that time were not dealing solely with
traffic, but also with other important questions. I think that to a large extent the evidence given at that time may now be discounted, because we have now before us the evidence as to what they would desire if it were solely a question of traffic. The other point on which I would desire to make an observation has relation to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. He seemed to think that the regulations made under (he Third Schedule would be of great advantage to the neighbouring county councils. So far as my knowledge goes—I speak subject to correction—all the particular points to which he referred can already be dealt with by the Police and in other ways by the county councils. Those are the only observations I desire to make.
On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided—Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS.

Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)

Bertie of Thame, V.

Dynevor, L.

Cave, V.

Ernle, L.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Faringdon, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Hawke, L.

Argyll, D.

Devonport, V.

Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.

Falkland, V.

Jessel, L.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Knaresborough, L.

Curzon of Kedleston, M.

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Lawrence, L.

Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)

Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.

Knutsford, V.

Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)

Salisbury, M.

Novar, V

Monson, L.

Peel, V.

Morris, L.

Ancaster, E.

Ullswater, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Balfour, E.

Younger of Leckie V.

Newton, L.

Bradford, E.

Olivier, L

Clarendon, E.

Auslow, L.

Oranmore and Browne, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Arnold, L

Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)

Drogheda, E.

Ashfield, L.

Kimberley, E.

Ashton of Hyde, L.

Riddell, L.

Lindsey, E.

Askwith, L.

Rowallan, L.

Lovelace, E.

Avebury, L.

Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)

Lucan, E.

Beaverbrook, L.

Saltoun, L.

Malmesbury, E.

Boston, L.

Sandhurst, L.

Mayo, E.

Brownlow, L.

Southwark, L.

Midleton, E.

Cawley, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Onslow, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Thomson, L.

Selborne, E.

Wharton, L.

Strafford, E.

Clwyd, L.

Wyfold, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Portland, D.

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Grey of Fallodon, V.

Wellington, D.

Long, V.

Morton, E.

Normanby, M.

Mount Edgcumbe, E.

Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)

Russell, E.

Banbury of Southam, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Stanhope, E.

Buckmaster, L.

Buxton, E. [Teller.]

Carson, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Allendale, V.

Channing of Wellingborough, L.

Denbigh, E.

Churchill, V.

Charnwood, L.

Lamington, L.

Ruthven of Gowrie, L.

Clinton, L.

MacDonnell, L.

Sempill, L.

Danesfort, L.

Moston, L

Shandon, L.

de Mauley L.

Mildmay of Flete, L.

Stanmore, L.

Denman, L.

Monckton, L. (V Galway.)

Strachie, L.

Desborough, L.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Sydenham, L.

Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)

Terrington, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Treowen, L.

Erskine, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)

Hemphill, L.

Redesdale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appointed by the Minister." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really to give the Advisory Committee more power. As the Bill stands the Committee will be controlled and directed by the Minister and his officials. That may be right up to a certain point, but I think it would be much better to make it more independent. If the Chairman, who is usually the most powerful person on a Committee, is to be appointed by the Minister of Transport he will be nothing more than a gramophone giving expression to the wishes of the Minister. Our experience of these Committees in the past is that they practically do nothing. If the Committee is allowed to appoint its own Chairman, I think we may reasonably hope to have not only an efficient Chairman but an independent Chairman. It has been suggested, I believe, that they could not possibly elect a person so capable as, let us say, Sir Henry May-bury, who might be appointed by the Minister, but I think we ought to trust a Committee of this kind to exercise common sense, and I think it is very likely that Sir Henry Maybury, if he is the person contemplated, would be elected by the Committee. If the Committee is to be really useful and independent it should. I think, have a Chairman elected by itself, and not merely appointed by the Minister.
As regards Committees which have been appointed in the past under the powers given to the Minister in the Ministry of Transport Act which passed through this House in 1919, I may remark that many of these Committees have never been called together at all and that the Roads Committee met only three times in one year. That obviously shows that no use is made of these Committees. I maintain, and many of my friends agree with me, that if we are to make this Committee
804
a strong and useful body it should have the power of appointing it" own Chairman and that the Chairman should not be practically a nominee of the Ministry of Transport. In those circumstances I hope the House will see its way to insert this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("appointed by the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)
LORD PARMOOR: I think it might be convenient to state at once the views of the Government. They are in favour of maintaining that the Chairman should be appointed by the Minister, not on any-ground of his competence to take a permanent position, but on the ground that the whole scheme is likely to go more smoothly in that way. I quite agree that it is an arguable matter, but we must also remember the point of view that this Bill, whether rightly or wrongly, is framed on the assumption that the Minister shall be responsible to Parliament. It is not framed along the ordinary lines of local government, but with the idea that the Minister should be given powers, no doubt wide ones, and, as a consequence, should be directly responsible to Parliament. I hope that your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is in this respect.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: As an Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper deals very closely with that of my noble friend, I beg to support his Amendment. I think that all of your Lordships who have had much experience in these matters will admit that, if a Committee is not allowed to elect its own Chairman, the direct result is, as a rule, continued friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee. The members of the Committee will invariably feel that they are being controlled by the Minister and are not a body that has complete control of its own doings. Those who have had experience

805
of official life know perfectly well that this produces continual friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee, and in consequence the members of the Committee will not be acting in sympathy with their own Chairman or with the Minister, and inefficiency will be the result.
VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL: I would ask the Government to consider (he action which they are taking in this matter. I have been a member of a good many Committees, and I have been in the chair on more than one occasion. I remember a remarkable, instance—I will not quote the particular Committee now—where we had the administration of a very large fund, and the Government of the day decided to appoint the Chairman themselves. There was every desire on the part of the Committee to welcome its Chairman and to accept the decision of the Government, but the early stages of its work under his Chairmanship were marked by the fact that there was a strong feeling that it ought to have been left to the Committee to elect its own Chairman.
A good deal of the work of this new body is going to be of an extremely controversial character. If yen want proof of that yon can find it in the recent Division, when only a majority of 27 of your Lordships marked their approval of the proposal of the Bill. If the Minister happens to appoint a man who is specially remarkable for his views on a particular side of the question, or for his political views, you are making matters difficult for the Committee, and you will' very likely lead to the result that, when the Minister in question ceases to be a Minister and changes his side of the House, a considerable section of the Committee will urge upon the new Minister that he should make a new appointment and supersede the Chairman already chosen. I am certain that if you want this work to proceed harmoniously you ought to allow an important Committee like this to elect its own Chairman, and not to leave it to the Minister. A great deal too much is put in the hands of Ministers in these days, particularly in this Bill, which is one of the worst instances that I have come across of bureaucracy as we now know it. To make it the duty of the Government to appoint the Chairman of a body of this kind is
806
to ask the Government to do a thing which they could not do satisfactorily, even if they were composed of archangels from Heaven. I shall therefore support my noble friend.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: Your Lordships may or may not be guided by that which my Commission reported, but I think it is advisable that I should inform you that, in paragraph 303 of our Report we state as follows.—
"We recommend that the Chairman of the Committee should be elected by the Committee from the r own number or as a supernumerary member from outside."
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I hope that the Government will give way on this Amendment. Your Lordships should realise that there is a very considerable feeling, though I believe we are unanimous in favour of the Bill itself, that too much power is left in the hands of the Minister. I think it "should be remembered that the Minister may not always be rightly guided, and that he may get under the influence of a narrow clique of opinion which may gradually guide, the policy in such a way as to throw the power into the hands of a monopoly. This is certainly made possible through the powers given in the Bill. We should all be very glad, I think, if we could minimise that danger by making the Advisory Corn-mil tee a ready independent body. It cannot be so described as it is constituted under the terms of the Bill, for the greater part of it is appointed by the Minister himself. No doubt it is an advisory body and net an executive body, but we may draw all the more courage in proceeding to make it independent from the fact that it is not in possession of executive authority. But although it is not an executive body it is a body of very considerable influence, and I, for my part, should be very glad to see it more independent of the Minister. I think this would reassure, public opinion, and I suggest that the Government should give way on this Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: Having regard to that which has been stated, and very well stated, by noble Lords regarding the appointment of the Chairman by the Committee itself, and particularly to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I do not think that the Government would desire to stand by the

807
Bill if your Lordships' view generally is in the other direction In that case we would accept the Amendment. We desire to do all that we can to meet your Lordships.
LORD RATHCREEDAN LORD RATHCREEDAN moved to omit the concluding words in subsection (.1): "such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned," and from subsection (2) the words: "Of the ordinary" and to insert "the following." The noble Lord said: It is. I may say, something quite exceptional in the way of legislation that in a Bill of this kind you should introduce the representation of special interests when they are already represented by members appointed by the public. You have three members appointed by those engaged in working the various industries concerned, then there are no fewer than four members appointed to represent those who work these industries; in other words, the interests of the public are to be placed in the hands, to a great measure, of a syndicate—the great "Combine" which controls the Metropolitan Railway, the Underground Railways, a certain number of tramways, and the greater number of the omnibuses. Almost the whole of the traffic which affects the travelling population of the area of London is to be placed at the mercy, as it were, of this great syndicate. What would be the result'! In the event of a strike taking place the public would be placed absolutely at the mercy of the strikers, or at the mercy of this "Combine," as the case may be. In those circumstances, I see no reason why the usual course should be departed from and why additional members should be added to a Committee already sufficient and very fairly manned.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out from the first ("and") to ("members") in line 20, and insert ("the following").—(Lord Rathcreedan.)
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: I suggest that in order to save later Amendments I should only put the first two words of the Amendment.
THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON): The object of this Amendment is presumably to do away with the additional members, or to alter the composition of the said additional
808
members. The view of the Government is that this Committee is purely advisory, and it is necessary to have on it a certain number of people representing the interests concerned with, transport as expert advisers and a certain number of additional members, including three representing labour. They are merely there to give advice, and they will not interfere with what are more purely municipal matters which are advised upon by the eleven ordinary members referred to in the clause. The real point, I repeat is that this is an advisory committee and you want to introduce into it, as far as possible, an expert element. The four members representing the interests would be the experts. The other three representing labour might be of great use in cases of strikes, or threats of strikes, or labour troubles, because their presence on the Committee would give satisfaction to a great number of workers. That, briefly, is tile Government point of view.
LORD HEMPHILL: As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, the proposal in the Rill introduces a very unusual principle. There have been several Committees which have considered the question of London traffic—a Royal Commission in 1905 and Committees in 1913, 1919, 1920—and all these Committees more or less recommended a small body of experts. In the case of the last three Committees they recommended three, and I believe the Commission on road traffic recommended five. In any case, they all recommended a small number, and the members were to be experts particularly qualified to deal with the subject. Now this is called an Advisory Committee, but when one looks at it and examines it the one thing one does not find on the Committee is an expert, unless, indeed, the three members who are going to represent labour can be classed as experts. I suppose they would be experts. Otherwise, there is no sign of an expert. Then four members are to represent the interests of those providing transport and users of vehicles. We are not told how those four members are going to be divided, or whose interest they are going to represent, but it is quite obvious that four members cannot represent all the numerous interests that are concerned in the use of the streets.
There is an Amendment a little further down on the Paper in the name of Lord

809
Montagu of Beaulieu dealing with various classes who ought to he represented, such as omnibus proprietors, cab drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Everyone who uses the streets is entitled to have his interest represented, but apparently, according to this Bill, the only interests that are going to be represented are the financial interests. The noble Karl who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, Lord Buxton, explained how this Bill originated. It originated in a suggestion that if there was a body appointed to deal with fares, and so on, higher wages would be paid, and this Advisory Committee is constituted so that there will probably be a combination on the Committee to advise the Minister in each other's benefit. I think it is a very new and a very extraordinary proposal.
I have been trying to find out where the idea of this particular Advisory Committee came from, and in this very valuable Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission we find a reference to the Roads Committee which was appointed under Section 22 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and of which the Constitution is prescribed by that Section as follows:
"The Roads Committee shall consist of not less than eleven members, of whom five shall he representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation "with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, and one shall be a representative of Inborn appointed after consultation with the interests concerned."
That seems to me to be the origin of this Committee, but if you examine that particular Committee appointed to advise the Minister of Transport, you will see that there were five representatives of highway authorities for the whole of England, and five representatives of horse and mechanical road traffic, again out of the whole of England. You could hardly get a trust or a combine over the whole of England, and so in that case it was a pretty safe Committee to constitute. It certainly must have given the very minimum of representation to the highway authorities, and it was harmless, but in this case it is different, because you are giving special representation to a very powerful "Combine.''
I would further like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the
810
London County Council, in 1921, passed a resolution, which stated:—
"That the Council earnestly desires the introduction by His Majesty's Government of legislation to make provision for the unified operation of local passenger transport undertakings in Greater London, and for the setting up for such area of a municipal traffic control authority (to be appointed by the local authorities affected), it being understood that the establishment of such an authority shall be regarded as a temporary expedient;, pending the settlement of the question of the reorganisation of local government u Greater London, and that in the event of a new governing authority being set up for the area, with the requisite powers, such authority shall take the place of the municipal traffic authority herein referred to."
So clearly the London County Council, which, probably more than any other body in England, had considered the question of traffic for many years, was of opinion that the authority which should be set up should he, not an authority of the London County Council, but a joint authority of the municipal authorities in the area, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. That being so, it seems to me that your Lordships will be very well advised to accept this Amendment, and allow the Committee to be composed of the representatives of the municipal authorities.
I might point out one reason why it is extremely desirable that municipal and county authorities should be strongly represented on the body. Though this Bill makes no immediate demand for money, of course it is money that is wanted. You will never get traffic regulated through the centre of London without the expenditure of money. How-many millions will be needed? I do not think a hundred millions will even be very near what will be required. In order to get public support you will have to have the public, authorities behind you, and, if they are the actual people responsible, they are much more likely to help than if they are not. I may say that I should like to see the Committee made slightly larger, and greater representation given both to the London Borough Councils and to the county councils outside. I do not see any reason why this Committee should not consist of twenty members, if it had strong support behind it.
EARL BUXTON: I seems to me that the proposal for appointing additional

811
members on this Advisory Committee is an entirely new precedent in matters of local government. It is admitted that traffic is largely a municipal question. Under this Bill the Minister has too autocratic powers, but at least he has an Advisory Committee to assist him. The basis of that Committee is municipal representation, and it seems to me a new-principle that members should be appointed to such a Committee dealing with local government questions, who have a direct pecuniary interest in the policy which the Advisory Committee may recommend to the Minister. It is that to which we object. A noble Lord who supported this Amendment said that it was an advantage in a matter of this kind to have experts on the Committee. That is quite possible, but surely these three representatives of labour and four representatives of the omnibuses and other means of transport can hardly be called experts.
As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the origin of this Bill was a strike of omnibus and tramway men, and in the Inquiry which took place it was suggested that if those who were interested in running the omnibuses and the tramways had a larger monopoly they would get greater profits, and higher wages would be paid. The two contending sections made it a condition that the Government should give an undertaking to that effect. I am not blaming the Government, but this Bill was introduced with that purpose in view. Since the Bill was introduced in another place I am glad to think that certain safeguards have been put in to prevent what we feared—namely, a pure monopoly by the omnibus proprietors in London, to the detriment of the public. All these safeguards were inserted in the other House against the will of the Government. In the first place, there was nothing in the original Bill dealing with the question of fares, or with the question of an appeal by the City Corporation and the County Council if the fares were too high. That provision was put in, though opposed by the Government, as a safeguard against an undue raising of the fares. There was another safeguard inserted against the will of the Government in the interests of the small proprietors, and the provision for the control of Parliament was also put in against the will of the Government as the Bill went
812
through Committee. Therefore, as the Bill was introduced, it could only be called a "Combine" Bill, introduced because of the dispute to which I have referred.
The Bill, especially in Clauses 6 and 7, gives the Minister full power to determine what facilities for transport shall be given, and power to grant or withhold them from certain persons and in certain streets. Thus, it enables him, at his own sweet will, to grant a franchise to any monopoly or any person running omnibuses. That being so—and I am afraid that these great powers possessed by the Minister will all tend towards a monopoly it is too much to place also on the Advisory Committee these representatives of the interests of labour on the one hand and of the "Combine" on the other. The representatives of labour do not profess to have any particular knowledge of the way in which the traffic should be conducted. Their interest is solely that of wages and of continuous employment, and, as for the "Combine," their knowledge, no doubt, will be great, but their interests—and I do not blame them—obviously will be mainly in regard to the questions of fares and profits.
The noble Lord referred to the constitution of the Committee. If the Bill goes through as it stands the Committee will consist of eight members representing more or less the municipal interests. Against those it is proposed to put on the Committee seven to represent the public, three representing labour and three representing the "Combine," who will directly represent those whose interests are, in a sense, opposed to the interests of the public. Is it not certain that those seven will form what is called abroad a bloc which will have all their interests in common? They are seven as against eight who, in my opinion, are not direct representatives of the municipalities as they ought to be. Those eight persons represent no fewer than forty different authorities without any unanimity among them at all. Therefore, on the one hand, there would be the seven combined in one direction and, on the other hand, the eight combined in the interest of the public. I think that is a very dangerous position to take up in regard to the Advisory Committee and I trust that your Lordships will see well to drop out the additional members.

813
In this matter none of us desires to go in for giving unrestricted power to any one to run trams or omnibuses, or anything else. Indeed, licences ought to be more restricted than they are at present, and I am sure that we are all in favour of such a policy. But we desire to protect ourselves, the smaller men and the public against the monopoly which I fear this Bill will bring into existence. I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President, will reconsider this matter as, in my opinion, it goes to the root of the whole principle of the Advisory Committee and introduces very dangerous elements into local government of this sort.
LORD PARMOOR: It is impossible for the Government to make any alteration in the composition of the proposed Advisory Committee. It is what I may call a balanced Committee, which has been constituted after the consideration of a very large number of interests. When similar arguments were addressed in another place to those which have been addressed to your Lordships there were, 293 to 90 in favour of the Bill as it stands. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton. I think has not really appreciated what is meant by the additional members, and I will ask hi" very careful attention to this. The object of having additional members is that they shall have only limited power in particular cases. They are "additional" members in order to prevent them having the same powers as those possessed by the other twelve members. As a matter of fact, there are twelve other members. The distinction is made in order that the additional members shall not have the same full powers as are possessed by the ordinary members.
This matter has been, very carefully thought out, and if your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause I you will see that the additional members can only advise the Minister upon any matter referred to the Committee under or by virtue of Clause 7 or Clause 10 of the Bill or any matter or question referred to them as specified in Part I of the Second Schedule. If these proposed members were all brought in as ordinary members there would be something to be said for the argument which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships that they might have too much power on matters which, in my opinion,
814
certainly ought to be settled by the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee.
EARL BUXTON: I am very loath to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I would draw his attention to this. There are certain things in which the additional members are not to be brought in. That we know.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes.
EARL BUXTON: The matters in respect of which they are to be brought in are stated in Part II of the Second Schedule to be among other things:
"The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on streets in the London Traffic Area."
The whole point o' Clause 6 and Clause 7 fits in with the suggestion of a possible monopoly.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It is not that they are to bo, but that they may be.
LORD PARMOOR: There is somewhat of a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Earl. It is a rather difficult Bill, and you have to take into consideration the safeguard which is included. If the noble Earl wants any special words inserted in the Bill to make clearer the powers of the additional members I am perfectly prepared to do that; but it is clear and the intention of the Bill is—and the Bill is so drafted—that the additional members shall not have the same powers as the ordinary members but shall only have powers for special purposes. Whether, when we come to the details, those special powers ought to be further curtailed is a different matter altogether, but I suggest to your Lordships that a distinction in a ease of this kind between the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee who shall have full powers and the additional members who have only limited powers for certain purposes, is quite in a proper direction.
When the noble Earl talks about a monopoly, they are only additional members in order not to constitute any element towards a monopoly on the part of what he is pleased to call the "Combine." I may point out to him that as regards the representatives in subsection (3), four of the seven representatives are

815
representatives of a very wide body, as has been pointed out more than once. They are the representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable. I am not sure, but I think there is an Amendment on the Paper to increase the number because four are considered hardly sufficient to cover the interests of the persons named. They cover all the interests for which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, stands. It is one of his own Amendments further on.
All these matters of detail have been thrashed out, but I hardly think that the noble Earl has had time to thrash them out. When we come to the real details of the Bill, as I tried to point out on Second Reading his complaint is a complaint in the wrong direction. It is that at the present time those additional members ought to be ordinary members, and the very distinction which is sound and right—that these particular members should only have limited powers—would be excluded if this Amendment were carried. That seems to me to be a contradiction, if one may say so, of the whole of the argument he addressed to your Lordships. He wants them not to have these wider powers, and yet the first step he takes is to suggest that all members shall be ordinary members, and that proposal excludes the idea of special members with limited powers. That would be the result if his Amendment was carried.
EARL BUXTON: No.
LORD PARMOOR: That is the consequence of it. The noble Earl is complaining of the powers of these additional members. If they were brought in as ordinary members they would have the powers of which he is complaining and which they have not at the moment.
EARL BUXTON: That is a consequential Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I am dealing with the Amendment as it stands at this stage. I beg your Lordships not to alter this carefully balanced constitution. It is
816
open to criticism. There is no constitution which could not be criticised in the terms that the noble Earl has used. One can always say: "Why do you not do this or that?" Here, as I say, is a balanced Committee which has been agreed to by a large number of people and has been thoroughly considered and thrashed out. It was finally adopted in another place by 293 votes to 90, which shows that all Parties were in its favour, because we cannot command 293 votes there. Mr. Harris raided this point in another place and it was dealt with there. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to permit those who are trying to make better arrangements for London traffic to preserve the form for the Advisory Committee which, after careful and detailed inquiry, they consider to be the best. As for this particular Amendment. I say it would have the very contrary effect to what the noble Earl has suggested.
EARL RUSSELL: I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in the amazing special pleading which he used towards the end of his speech, when he suggested that this Amendment was designed to give additional powers to the additional members. That, it is obvious, is not the effect of the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I must ask the noble Earl not to misrepresent me. I said "not to diminish the powers."
EARL RUSSELL: I understood the noble Lord to say that the effect of turning them all into ordinary members would be to give these men powers to deal with everything. That is what I understood, and that, I am pointing out, is special pleading, because that is neither the effect nor the intention of the series of Amendments which has been put down. The object at which we are aiming is a simple one. It is to remove the seven additional members altogether from the Committee. The noble Earl tells your Lordships that the Government cannot accept that. I sincerely hope that this House will impose that upon the Government, whether they will accept it or not. He also tells your Lordships that this is a very carefully balanced and very carefully thought out thing, and that it is the result of a discussion and a scheme. And so it is, and it, is precisely the murky origin of this scheme in the confusion and welter of a

817
strike that makes one rather suspect it. It is not a matter upon which it is in the least necessary to split hairs. The noble Lord also pointed out that these additional members do not take part in all the deliberations. I will ask your Lordships to look at the Second Schedule. In that Schedule certain matters are set out under letters from (a) to (j), and the only one of those matters in which any additional members cannot form part is under the last one (j). In regard to the whole of the first six matters they are to form part of the Committee; in regard to the next three they, or some of them, may form part. In regard to only one are they not to form part, so that it is not enough to tell your Lordships that they are debarred by this Schedule from taking part.
The issue is a much more simple one than that. The issue is whether we are going to start a precedent—a precedent which I confess I am astonished to find a Labour Government starting—of setting up a Committee which professes to be a Committee representing the public and representing municipal interests, and to man that Committee as to something like one half its personnel with people who have a direct financial interest in its decisions. Both labour and the "Combine" have a direct financial interest in the decisions to which this Committee comes, as to how traffic shall be conducted, by what means it shall be conducted, and along what streets it shall be conducted. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very undesirable precedent. I hope this House will show the courage which it generally shows in these matters, and will insist that this precedent shall not here be made.
The noble Lord says: "Give us the Advisory Committee we ask for and that we think will work." Who does he think is going to complain because these financially interested persons are not on the Committee? Are the other councils going to complain? Is the London County Council to complain because the financially interested persons are not to be on the Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke about experts. This is not a Committee of experts. If it were a Committee of experts it is obvious that you would appoint and pay your experts, and you would not have people financially interested in the matters upon which they give their advice. It is primarily a
818
municipal Committee. The proper place for experts is in the witness chair, from which they could tell the Committee their expert opinion, and give their expert advice about things which the Committee wished to know. I can only say that if the noble Lord was sitting, as he used to sit, on the Bench opposite, and if this proposal had been brought in by a Liberal Government, he would, I am convinced, have been one of the first to take the same line that I am taking to-day, and to say that we ought not to start this precedent.
I hope the House will keep him to what I think would be his better mind, and that we shall not allow this Committee to be imposed upon us. Nothing can be gained by it, except a continual block, for all these people must act together now and again to get things done which are not in the public interest but are in the private financial interest of these parties. That cannot help the deliberations of the Committee. But for this bargain of which we have heard, and as to which I do not know who were the parties or what were the objects, we should never have heard of this proposal. I hope your Lordships will make a short end of it.
VISCOUNT ULLSWATER: I cannot help thinking that we should make a great mistake if we made any alteration in the Committee as proposed. The object of the Committee is to get together those who are best qualified to deal with this very difficult subject. You bring into the Committee representatives of the police because they control the traffic, you bring in the representatives of the different-municipalities and county councils because they are the local authorities in whose hands these matters rest, and you surely cannot leave out the representatives of those who own the omnibuses and the other vehicles which ply about the streets. You have to get them to work with you. If you are going to have the best results from this Committee you must get ail parties together who are concerned in this gigantic business.
Surely you are not going, at this time of day, to leave out the representatives of labour? The thing is unthinkable when you have this mass of labour employed in various capacities in connection with the traffic of London. You at once arouse a grievance in their minds, or you are likely to arouse a grievance, if you are going to leave them out. I cannot help thinking

819
that this is really a very fairly balanced Committee, and one which has been selected for the purpose of arriving at the best possible result. Incidentally, I may say, although I am afraid your Lordships may be getting bored with the Report which I have on previous occasions quoted to you, that the Commission on London Government specially recommended that "there should be representatives on this Committee of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic within the area, and of all labour organisations operating within the area.''
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the House that I should on this Amendment discuss other Amendments that I have on the Paper which deal with the same subject. I would rather postpone anything that I have to say until this question is decided. I should like to explain, however, that I share the opinion of the last speaker entirely. You cannot in these days deny that labour has a right to be represented on an Advisory Committee of this kind. On the other hand, I take the view that you should make this Committee really representative instead of being partly so, and that you should add to it certain members. I have an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. If you are to make this Committee respected and really useful you must not leave people outside with a sense of grievance, and when the time comes I shall ask the House to agree to an Amendment which will enlarge the constitution of this Committee.
I hope the Lord President will not lay it down as a law of the Medes and Persians that this Advisory Committee must be limited in its constitution, because I think everything is capable of improvement. If I demonstrate that this Committee is not really representative, I hope the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, will see his way to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which I shall move later. I shall reserve my further remarks until then.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I confess that the debate which has taken place upon this Amendment has made a considerable impression on my mind. I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention of the noble Earl opposite,
820
Lord Russell, that the interested parties ought not to be represented on this authority, but, on the other hand, it is important to consider the position of labour. I think it would be a very serious step to take if your Lordships resolved to exclude from the Advisory Committee the representatives of labour. I am afraid that would be misinterpreted outside and the effect would be rather disastrous. I need not assure you that I do not suspect your Lordships of any sinister purpose. I do not suspect the noble Earl opposite, who might have been expected to speak more for labour than for anything else in this House, but I do think very strong arguments indeed are required for your Lordships to strike out the representation of labour from the Advisory Committee. I should be sorry to do it.
The powers left in the hands of the additional members, as the Bill is drawn, are very extensive, so far as any advisory body has any powers, which is always a doubtful matter. I observe, in reading the clause with perhaps greater care than I have done before, that the provisions in Clause 7 with regard to the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district are included amongst those things of which the additional members on the Advisory Committee are to have cognisance. Clause 7 is the most important in the Bill. It is the clause under which a monopoly can be granted to a particular combination, and I should like to reserve my opinion as to whether interested parties ought to have a vote, in so far as the Advisory Committee is authoritative, on a question as to whether there should be a monopoly or not. That appears to me to be a matter of considerable importance. My conclusion is that I am not prepared to vote for this Amendment; I am not prepared to vote against labour having representation on the Advisory Committee. I should like to reserve my judgment to a later stage on the question as to whether it would be right to reconsider the powers granted to the additional members.
EARL BUXTON: There is one point on which I should like further information from the Lord President of the Council. He said that the additional members had practically no control over matters in

821
which they are personally interested, and he specifically referred to Clauses 6 and 7, which relate to the power to attach conditions to a grant of omnibus licences in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district and the power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district, under which the question of a monopoly may arise. I understood him to say that if it was not clear that these two clauses were withdrawn from the purview of the additional members he was prepared to reconsider lie matter.
LORD PARMOOR: I said I would do so if there was any doubt with regard to Clause 6. I said nothing about Clause 7.
EARL BUXTON: Perhaps he will consider Clause 7.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes. I will do so.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I am not sure whether there is a cross division or not—whether, for instance, matters included under Parts I, II and III, of the Second Schedule are really exclusive of those under this particular clause, and whether, if these particular people are excluded from dealing under subsection (4) of this clause with matters under Clause 6, they come in again under any of the other clauses.
LORD PARMOOR: In my opinion it is certainly exclusive. They do not come in under any clause of the Bill; they have only these powers.
LORD RATHCREEDAN: In view of the statements made by the noble Marquees and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the fact that the noble Lord has another Amendment later on which will probably meet my point, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved in subsection (1) to leave out "ordinary and additional." The noble Lord said: Perhaps the House has no idea how the representation given to this Advisory Committee will work. I have worked out exactly how it will be constituted. The Advisory Committee will consist of nineteen members. Local
822
authorities will be represented by eight, labour by three, transport owners and users by four, the Home Office and Police-by three, and the Ministry of Transport by one. As the Bill stands there is only one subject, and that is mentioned in the Second Schedule, on which the additional members cannot take any part. If you are to have an Advisory Committee of this sort you had better, I think, trust all the members, those who are interested as well, and make it one Committee. I propose to balance the Committee by adding certain extra members representing local authorities and county councils, and certain other representatives of transport, who in my view have a larger claim to representation than some of those mentioned in the Bill.
The distinction Between additional and ordinary members is a distinction without a difference. For instance, the four transport representatives proposed in the Bill are insufficient, for the adequate representation of the, traffic which moves along our streets. Think how that will work. Lord Ashfield and his men might rightly claim one representative, the independent omnibus people might claim one, and there would be only two members left to represent all the other interests—taxicabs, which number 8,000 as against 4,000 omnibuses, private motors which number 150,000 as against 4,000, motor lorries which are not represented at all, including the railway companies who have a very large number of lorries operating from their depots, cyclists, who are by far the biggest portion numerically of the traffic in the area, horse vehicles, tramway authorities and the travelling public. You cannot possibly represent all these important, interests by giving them two members, and I suggest that the Lord President should think very carefully as to whether he ought not to enlarge this representation and double it by giving eight representatives instead of four. Whatever the labour representatives might do, whatever Lord Ashfield and his friends might do, you would then have a sufficient majority on the Advisory Committee to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly being granted.
That is the right way to tackle this problem. It would increase the members of this Committee from 19 to 25 or 26, but nobody pretends that a Committee of 19 can really do the work they are asked to

823
do, and there is really not much difference between a Committee of 19 and one of 25 or 26 members. The work will be done by sub-committees. I suggest that this is the best way of meeting this admitted difficulty of putting on this Committee people who have direct financial interest in its decisions. I hope that this suggestion will commend itself to the House as the best way out of the difficulty. The words "ordinary" and "additional" are quite uncommon, and are not met with in other measures of this kind. My suggestion does away with the fear that a certain number of representatives might unduly influence the decision of this body, and, as has been shown already by Lord Russell and confirmed by Lord Salisbury, they really would be voting on matters with which their pockets are concerned, and that, I think, is a wrong thing to allow.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("ordinary and additional").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: The noble Lord has really dealt with two matters which, I think, are somewhat inconsistent. I thought it was practically decided, when the last Amendment was withdrawn, that we should have a distinction between ordinary and additional members. The question of the increase of the additional members will have to be argued when the time comes, and I say nothing about it now. But I think it has been already agreed that the additional members should be included only for certain purposes. I hope that your Lordships will not go against that principle. The question will arise when we come to the question of the number of additional members, though I do not give any kind of undertaking to meet the ideas of the noble Lord upon that point. It does not really arise now, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, because I think it is much more important that we should have the increase in the additional members referred to in a subsequent Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD HEMPHILL LORD HEMPHILL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Two" ["Two shall
824
be appointed by the London County Council"] and to insert "Four." The noble Lord said: The reason of this Amendment to increase the representation of the London County Council from two members to four members is pretty obvious. The London County Council controls the most important and the most valuable part of the area. In the County of London there is a population of 4,500,000, and a rateable value of £50,000,000. It is decidedly the most important part of the area, and it seems only fair that it should have greater representation. For my part, I think that the proper way to represent all these outside interests that have been mentioned by Lord Montagu, and also the additional members, is through a directly elected body like the County Council. If you want interests represented, a body like the London County Council, or any other county council, represents all the interests in their area.
There does not always seem to me to be a very friendly atmosphere in this House towards the London County Council, though, after all, the majority on the London County Council has for a very long time been of the same political opinion as the majority of your Lordships. The same is true of the majority of the other county councils in England, which remain of a Conservative tendency. Consequently, I think your Lordships should be inclined to have a sympathetic feeling towards county councils, and to support municipal authority. It is very necessary that municipal authority should be supported, because it is important to have these bodies efficient and highly thought of in order to secure good members for them. There are so many Amendments on the Paper that I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer on this point. I only hope that you may give this Amendment your favourable consideration.
Amendment moved—
Page 1, line 22, leave out ("Two") and insert ("Four").—(Lord Hemphill.)
LORD THOMSON: If the representation of the London County Council is increased from two to four, there will undoubtedly be a demand from other local authorities for a corresponding increase, and the number of people on

825
this Advisory Committee will be unduly swollen. There is this other point, that the inhabitants of London have more representation than is shown by the two members of the London County Council. There are three other members, one appointed by the Corporation of the City of London and two nominated by the Minister upon the selection of the Borough Councils. This surely should be sufficient for the representation of the people of London in regard to traffic. The Government are strongly opposed, for the reasons which I have given, to the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. He knows, I am sure, that as a member of the London County Council for many years I should have every sympathy with an Amendment for giving more representation to that body. One reason why I oppose it is that I understand that the London County Council itself is satisfied with the representation which it has, and I do not know why the noble Lord wishes to press upon it more representation than I desires. It is obvious that, if you increase the number of members of the London County Council along with the other representation which it has, it will be quite impossible to refuse representations from other bodies, and the size of this Advisory Committee will become absolutely unmanageable. As a friend of the London County Council, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
LORD HEMPHILL: In view of that which the noble Viscount has said, I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I still think that it is very desirable that the representation of local authorities on the Advisory Committee should be strengthened.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed by the Minister," to leave out "Minister" and insert "councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs." The noble Lord said: This proposal is to allow Metropolitan Boroughs, or councils of other boroughs, according to a subsequent Amendment of the same character, to choose their own representatives,
826
instead of the Minister selecting from their nominees the man whom he chooses. I am sure that the Minister will before long find himself in considerable trouble. If he selects men, say, from one particular Metropolitan Council over and over again, or if he selects people in a particular district, he will be accused of favouritism. If he chooses people of one political colour he will again be accused of favouritism. Surely these groups of Boroughs should be trusted to select their own representatives. It may be said that machinery does not exist within the Bill, but if machinery needs to be set up it could be done by a Joint Committee. If a group of authorities failed to appoint the appropriate number of members, then, in the terms of an Amendment which I shall move later, the Minister could choose a man from among the nominees selected.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 3, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("councils of the Metropolitan Borough").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think I can answer this point very shortly. The noble Lord says that this would mean a change in the framework of the Bill, and that there is no provision for it at the present time, but it goes a little beyond that. You have a number of nominees selected by the councils of the administrative comities. Each council can put forward the nominee whom it desires. There are a largo number of these councils—I am not sure of the exact number.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Twenty-nine.
LORD PARMOOR: There are twenty-nine councils, and surely it is the fairest way that each should put forward its nominee, and then the Minister should select two. I thought that the only way in which it ought to be done is the way in the Bill.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry that the Government take this view, because I think the Amendment is a good one. It may be that it requires to be supplemented by some machinery, and I think I could suggest, if necessary, that which would be requisite. Do let us, in the interest of the Government themselves, and in the interest of the Bill, got out of the public mind the idea that this is going to be a hole-and-corner affair,

827
in which the Minister is all powerful and appoints the members of the Advisory Committee. I have not very great confidence in this Advisory Committee, but do give it the best chance and let the public really believe that they have got an independent body of men who will speak their minds to the Minister. If the Minister has the right to select whom he likes people will say: "Of course, it is a packed affair." Therefore, I suggest to the Government that as far as possible they should agree to any of these Amendments which take the power out of the hands of the Minister and leave it to the constituent bodies to appoint the Advisory Committee.
If the noble and learned Lord asks how it can be done, I would reply that I have been in communication with a very important municipal body and with its clerk, in whom I have great confidence, and I have seen words drafted by the latter which will make the matter perfectly simple. The method is that the constituent bodies should appoint a Joint Committee of their number and that Joint Committee should have the right of appointment. If it be necessary to bring up words to provide machinery of that kind, I will engage, to do it on the Report stage, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I would like to say to the noble Marquess that if we were to see a suggestion as to how this proposal could be carried out we would willingly consider it on the Report stage, but I do not take the view that he does with regard to the ease with which these matters can be carried out. I have had some experience of these matters and in my experience these Joint Committees have not been satisfactory. I do not, however, want to go into that now, and if the noble Marquess will make some suggestion before Report, I will undertake to consider it.
LORD ASKWITH: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to dictate to my noble friend, but I should have been inclined to pass his Amendment, and then bring the matter up on Report.
LORD PARMOOR: May I point out that the Amendment has been withdrawn, and I think most rightly, by the noble Lord.
LORD ASKWITH: I thought the noble Marquess was advising that it should be withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: If there is one dissentient voice the withdrawal is not permitted. I do not know if I should take the noble Marquess as having dissented?
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Yes.
LORD PARMOOR: You said the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: But that was before the noble Marquess had indicated dissent. There was apparently some misunderstanding.
LORD PARMOOR: I have stated my view, but if this Amendment is carried I give no undertaking that here, or in another place, it will be maintained. I made a Very fair offer, I thought—namely, that if an Amendment were put down on the Report stage showing how this proposal could be carried out it would have every consideration. I think that is a much more likely way in which to come to an arrangement.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not want to be polemical with my noble friend, or with anybody else, but I think that if we put the Amendment in the Bill now he will see the words which I shall propose and if the House finds those words are not workable then, on the Report stage, we shall have to reconsider the Amendment.
LORD ASKWITH: I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("by the Minister").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the paragraphs relating to representatives selected by the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule other than the administrative county of London,

829
and to insert: "Five shall be appointed by the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Middlesex, Hertford, Essex, Kent, and Surrey, each Council appointing one member." The noble Lord said: The five great Counties mentioned in my Amendment deserve every consideration because they are very much affected by London traffic, and it seems to me that they are not sufficiently represented. As the Bill stands, one representative would be selected from nominees from the counties on the north side of the Thames, and one from nominees from the counties on the south side. I think this would put the Minister in a very difficult position. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not very much in favour of this proposal, but I am quite prepared to press it if I set support.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: This proposal really means four additional members of the Committee. I think it is very unwise to increase the Committee in that way. It is quite large enough.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: We shall get into great difficulties if we begin to tear this Committee to pieces, and to have a totally different set of members. I do not share with the Lord President the view that everything that has been done in the House of Commons is necessarily right, but I do think that when matters have been settled in consultation with the various local authorities (which I imagine has been the case) and have all been submitted to them, it is rather a pity to upset the balance that has been come to.
EARL BUXTON: A little while ago a noble Lord proposed to increase the representation of the London County Council from two to four and I thought that reasonable, but once you start doing that you disturb the whole foundation of the Committee. Clearly if you are going to have five representatives of the county councils outside London you ought to have six representatives of London.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD ASKWITH: I have a number of consequential Amendments on the Paper.
Amendments moved—
Page 2, line 6, leave out ("By the Minister")
Page 2,line 10, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")
Page 2,line 11 leave out ("by the Minister")
Page 2,line 16, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")
Page 2,line 17, leave out ("by the Minister")
Page 2,line 20, after ("area") insert ("by those councils").—(Lord Askwith.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the Chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport." The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the Amendment which the House accepted that the Chairman was to be selected by the Committee, and not by the Minister.
Amendment moved—
Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 29.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD ASKWITH LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "If any group of authorities fail to appoint the appropriate number of members of the Advisory Committee the appointment of a member representing such group shall be made by the Minister from amongst the nominees selected by that group of authorities." The noble Lord said: Amendments which have been previously moved are complete without mine, and as my noble friend suggested a form of words to meet the difficulty, it would be better for me not to move this Amendment now, but to bring up a more considered Amendment on the Report stage.
LORD PARMOOR: Yes, perhaps this Amendment might stand over for consideration.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit the second paragraph of subsection (3), and to insert
"The following shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the undermentioned interests on the nomination of the

831
bodies representative of those interests respectively—
"Two to represent omnibus proprietor":
"One to represent tramway proprietors:
"One to represent cab proprietors:
"One to represent the owners of commercial goods vehicles:
"Two to represent the owners of private motor cars:
"One to represent railway companies:
"One to represent the owners of horse-drawn vehicles:
"One to represent cyclists:
"One to represent motor car manufacturers and traders:
"One to represent undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets."
The noble Lord said: In the "Report of the Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, there are set out certain interests which should be represented, and it is suggested that they should not exceed twenty in number. The Committee as it stands numbers nineteen. The Report suggests that there should be representation of all the interests affected by the traffic on the roads. At present there are four members to be appointed by the Minister, though I would rather have it by the constituent representative bodies. It is impossible within those limits to get sufficient representation for these large interests. For instance, I suggest that it would be fair that the omnibus proprietors should be represented by two members—one to represent my noble friend Lord Ashfield's companies and the other to represent what are called the "pirate" omnibuses. It is obvious that if we include at a later stage the tramways, they should have representation Then there are 8,000 taxi-cabs, and I think they certainly ought to have representation.
The heading "commercial goods vehicles" embraces all those belonging to the railway companies and all the private lorries which move on the roads, and that is a very big and increasing interest. As regards private motor cars, they are the largest section of the traffic of London to-day. They number well over 150,000 vehicles, and at present they are not represented at all. The next interests on my list are the railway companies, the horse-drawn vehicles and the cyclists. With regard to motor manufacturers
832
and traders, if the Government would concede something of this point the representation could be arranged with those previously mentioned. The last in the list are the undertakers with statutory powers to break up streets. My noble friend, Lord Gainford, asked me to say that as the interests of the Water Board are very much affected by this Bill they should have representation.
I agree that the Government cannot concede all the new representatives that I wish to have appointed, but I think they might increase the representation of the street-using public by another four, making eight in all. That would enable us to have represented the majority of the interests affected, and it would tend to make the Bill work more smoothly. You must remember that unless you carry with you the good will of the chief users of the streets you will have constant criticism and constant opposition in Parliament. You ought, at any rate, to give the impression to the chief people affected that they are being treated fairly. I suggest that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill cannot give me all the representatives that I desire he should undertake to give this matter serious consideration on the Report Stage and let us have four more representatives who will represent practically all the interests that I have mentioned. This is a very important point and I hope that your Lordships' House will agree to the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: All the different interests which would be represented under the noble Lord's Amendment are all capable of being represented under the Bill as it stands, because subsection (3) of Clause I provides that four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing mean" of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister, and so on. Therefore, all these omnibus proprietors, tramway proprietors, cab proprietors owners of commercial vehicles and private motor cars, railway companies, and so on, are capable of being given full representation. They all

833
come within the general terms. I am afraid that I cannot give any hope that, putting on one side general terms, we should specify in any way and probably leave out some very important interest which ought to be represented. I think the words are wide enough as they stand. The noble Lord considers that four are too few and that the number ought to he increased. It is almost impossible to increase the representation of one body without having to go back and reconstitute the whole Committee. He proposes that there shall be twelve instead of four.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Eight; I ask for four additional.
LORD PARMOOR: Whether it is twelve as they stand on the Paper or even eight, we could not assent to increase this representation. We should have to meet again the objection of the noble Lord who argued that these bodies were given too much representation. He wanted none at all. I think we must say that this balanced representation must remain as it is.
EARL BUXTON: Many of your Lordships would not agree with this proposal of my noble friend Lord Mantagu because we have objected already to the number of the original members—namely, seven as against eight representing the municipalities. If there are to be twelve to eight the numbers will be overwhelming. I am surprised at what fell from the Lord President in regard to the representation. My noble friend Lord Montagu specifically stated (and I agree with him) that eight different sections ought to be represented by additional members, if we are going to have the additional members as well. My noble friend the Lord President says that the clause is so drawn that the four mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause I will represent the twelve. These twelve have different interests, and I do not see bow you are going to manage that four shall represent those twelve different interests. It is one of the real difficulties of this Bill that the number of representatives is so small that it is almost impossible for the representatives to be really representative. When the Ministry of Transport comes to work them out I think it will be found that the four cannot possibly give adequate representation. At the same time, I must confess
834
that I do not want the number to be increased.
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: Whether yon are going to control omnibuses, cabs or motor cars, I cannot see why there should be any necessity for all these representatives on the Committee. I presume that the unfortunate Minister is to have this great crowd of representatives on his Advisory Committee, all giving different advice—one with a horse and cart which must go along the. Strand, another with a bicycle which must go along the Strand, and so on. Why should there be all these representatives? You have to control the traffic of London as a whole and not piecemeal, as one would imagine from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which seeks to bring in every conceivable representative one can think of. If you wish to help the Minister who is to be in charge of this Department and of the traffic of London, you must reduce the size of the Committee to the smallest possible limits. If you do not, the Minister will be interfered with and stopped at every conceivable point and will not be able to carry out what he deems to be the; right policy at any moment because he, will be hampered by representations of all sorts and kinds. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I should like to call the attention of your Lordships to the words of the subsection we are now discussing, which state that these four are to be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of vehicles. This seems to me the only chance for the straphanger to be represented, and I should be glad to know whether there is any idea in the mind of the Ministry of Transport as to how many of these four places are to be given to real members of the public as against representatives of transport interests. I do not know whether there is to be one. I need hardly say I am unable, objecting as I do altogether to these people being on the Committee, to support the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Montagu. I would point out that although he has considered a good many interests there is one which seems never to have occurred to him and which he has left out—that is, the pedestrian.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I am willing to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like the noble and learned Lord to understand that I want to bring up words on Report with the object of increasing the number of representatives who can be appointed to represent these interests. That is probably the better way of doing it. These interests are represented, and I only want to widen the representation in order to give larger interests a chance.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: My noble friend, Lord Gainford, has asked me to move his Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (3): "One shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the electricity supply companies within the London Traffic Area on the nomination of the companies concerned." Ho represents an electricity supply company and is of opinion that such bodies should be represented on the Committee After what has been said by the noble and learned Lord I think, on Lord Gainford's behalf, I should state that the Amendment is not now moved.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not moved.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (5), after "firm" where that word first occurs, to insert "or holds any beneficial interest in a company or firm." The noble Lord said: My object in placing this Amendment on the Paper was to emphasise my opinion, which is shared by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that members of these Committees should not vote on matters which affect their own pockets. They should be excluded, as far as possible, from petitions which affect them beneficially or affect their financial interest. I want rather to extend the words in the Bill because people may hold beneficial interests in the firm which may not be partnerships, and so on. If the recasting Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is brought forward, my Amendment will fall because such members would not then be called upon to decide matters in which they were beneficially or financially interested. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is going to move an Amendment later on.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I will consider it.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: If the noble Marquess does not put it down I think I should like to put it down oh Report stage. On this occasion I will not press it. I only want to state now that I think it is inadvisable that people having a financial interest should vote on this matter.
LORD PARMOOR: I believe it is universally the case in regard to local authorities that directors are not allowed to take part in matters in which they are interested, but the ordinary shareholder is allowed to do so. He is in a different position altogether.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6) to substitute "thirty-first" for "first." The noble Lord said: The Bill gives the date of the termination of the appointment of members of the Committee as December 1, 1925. It seems to me that it would be better that the date should be December 31, making it the end of the year. I suggest that the end of the year is the proper time.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 33, leave out ("first") and insert ("thirty-first").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This date has beer, fixed after careful consideration One of the reasons for fixing the first was that it was the earliest convenient date following the municipal elections. Another reason is that the Act terminates on December 1, 1927. Therefore, it is convenient that the date should coincide with, the term of the appointment of this Advisory Committee. It is not a very vital point, but it is one that has been fully considered, and I suggest that it would be rather inconvenient to alter it now.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: After what the noble Lord has said I will not press my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6), to substitute "one year" for "three years." The

837
noble Lord said: I think it would be advisable to have these persons nominated for one year and not for three years. There may be very strong public feeling in regard to some things that the Advisory Committee may do, and if we want to get real representation I submit that the period of three years is a wrong one.
Amendment moved—
Page 3, line 37, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: The proposal made by the noble Lord would involve annual appointments. The Ministry of Transport advises that just as the members were becoming useful they would disappear from the scene. I do not know that I need say anything further, but there are other arguments.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I can quite see the point made by the noble Lord, but my contention is that if you are to make the Advisory Committee representative, and to ensure that it shall really be in touch with public opinion they should be elected every year and not every three years. I do not, however, press the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "subject to the approval of the Minister.'' The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment. Pursuing the policy which the House has already endorsed of making this Advisory Committee a real body with a certain amount of power, I think that it would be only right and proper to give them the power of making their own rules and of regulating their own procedure. As the matter stands it savours somewhat of dictation, in that they are only to make rules subject to the approval of the Minister. If it is to be an important and representative body surely it will be quite capable of making its own regulations and rules. The House has already eliminated the Minister in several respects, and I think it should do so in this one, and permit the Advisory Committee to make their own rules.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("subject to the approval of the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am told, and it is certainly my experience, that these rules are always made subject to approval by the Minister. In this case it would be the Minister of Transport. I do not think it is the least likely that there will be any difficulty. I think the Committee would be only too glad to have the assistance and approval of the Minister in making rules of procedure. This is quite a common thing.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The matter is not of great importance, but on the whole I should be inclined to advise the Government to accept the Amendment. There is no reason why the Advisory Committee should not make their own rules. The policy of your Lordships' House, as displayed this afternoon, has been to give as much autonomy as possible to the Advisory Committee, and it would be thoroughly in harmony with the decisions of your Lordships' House if this Amendment were accepted.
LORD PARMOOR: I would certainly prefer that it should be left as it is. It is not a very important point, but I think it is for the benefit of the Committee itself. When you have a Committee of this kind you must have some administrative body to refer to in order to have rules drawn up and approved. I am told this is always done. I do not wish, however, to keep up the controversy about it, as it is a small point.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 2:
Duties of Advisory Committee.
2. It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to report to and advise the Minister upon such matters and questions as may be referred to them under this Act, or as the Minister may from time to time refer to them in connection with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.
EARL BUXTON EARL BUXTON moved, after "It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to ", to insert "consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to." The noble Earl said: This is rather an important point. I think the House generally appreciates that it is the desire of your Lordships to strengthen the

839
powers of the Advisory Committee, to give them greater powers of initiating matters in which they are interested, and to diminish the power which the Bill gives the Minister over them. I have put down this Amendment in order to enable the member" of the Committee not merely to consider and report on matters referred to them, but themselves to initiate any matters that they themselves desire should be considered. This would give them the opportunity of considering and reporting to the Minister on any matters coming within the scope of the Bill. I think this is not an unreasonable proposal.
The general opinion of the House seems to be that the Minister has too great powers over the Advisory Committee, and that as it is the Advisory Committee which represents the municipalities, it should have greater powers of control and initiative. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment. I would point out to your Lordships that this Amendment, or one similar to it, was voted upon in Grand Committee, and the vote was even—fourteen to fourteen, the Chairman giving his casting vote against. If the Lord President of the Council can see his way to accept the Amendment, it will give considerable satisfaction to all who desire the Bill to be a success.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 33, after the first ("to") insert ("consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to").—(Earl Buxton.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment is intended to give the Committee a power of initiation and, therefore, it introduces a change of principle. The Bill is based on the principle that this is an Advisory Committee to advise the Minister, who is responsible, and not to initiate. In fact, the Minister has to consult the Committee before exercising any of his powers under the Bill except his power to hear appeals under Clause 6. The Government are opposed to this Amendment for the reason that the Committee will have enough to do as it is, and if any member of the Committee, or any group of members, can go round and discover and initiate fresh work, they will not get through their work.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I have listened to the speech of the Secretary of
840
State for Air with attention, but I think he has confused the meaning of the words "advisory" and "initiate." It is true that the Committee is only advisory, but it does not follow that the Committee may not initiate advice. I think the noble Lord will see that there is a logical lacuna in his argument. I should have thought it was wise to allow the Committee to give advice if they thought fit. It seems a reasonable thing to do. After all, the question is whether your Advisory Committee is going to be a real thing or not, and the Government, who mean to make their Bill a success, will be wise to show that they intend this Committee to be a real Committee and give them this power of initiation, which is only a very natural thing to do. It is a method by which the Government will be able to reassure the general public.
LORD PARMOOR: I am always most anxious to accept the advice of the noble Marquess. He always means it kindly, and I think we can accept this Amendment on his recommendation.
Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 3:
Power of Advisory Committee to hold inquiries.
3.—(1) In any case where the Advisory Committee think it desirable or expedient so to do, the Committee may, before advising and reporting to the Minister on any matter referred to them in pursuance of this Act, appoint one or more of their number to hold, or may if they think it advisable, themselves hold such public inquiry into the matter as they may think fit, and when one or more members of the Advisory Committee are appointed to hold the inquiry they shall make a report thereon to the Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "one or more," where that phrase first occurs, and insert "not less than three." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important, though small, point. The clause says that the Committee may appoint one or more of their number to hold an inquiry. It will therefore be in their power to appoint one person or even two. I suggest that the words "not less than three" would be more satisfactory, because an important inquiry should be held by at least three members of the Advisory Committee.
Amendment moved—
Page 4, line 42, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("not less than three").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: Some of these so-called inquiries will be very small matters and it is valuable that the Committee should have the power to hold them with one person. You do not want to burden the Committee with work that is unnecessary. I have no doubt that in any important inquiry there will be at least three members. It is a matter of convenience and utilising the power of the Committee.
EARL RUSSELL: I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. There are really very small matters on which they may want to send one member of the Committee to come back and tell them what the position is.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAUL1EU: I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 3 agreed to.
Clause 4:
Closing of streets for works.
4.—(1) With a view that the times for the execution of works of road maintenance and improvement by various road authorities within the London Traffic Area may be so arranged as to mitigate as far as possible the congestion of traffic duo to the closing of streets for the purposes of the execution of such works, it shall be the duty of every road authority within that area to submit to the Minister, on or before such half-yearly dates in each year as the Minister may fix, a statement in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may require of all work" of road maintenance and improvement proposed to be commenced and carried out by the authority during the periods of six months commencing at the expiration of such interval, not being less than two months, after the said half-yearly dates as the Minister may fix, being works of such a nature as will involve the closing to vehicular traffic of any part of any street to which this section applies either absolutely or to the extent of one-third or more of the width of the carriageway.
(3) With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers copies
842
of the proposals of the road authorities when received by him under this section so far as they relate to streets to which the powers of the undertakers extend and shall consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works ot road maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have be3n executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not be lawful for any such undertakers within twelve months of completion of those works to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute whilst the street or part thereof was closed the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street, and that it is essential that the works should be executed or commenced within the said twelve months.
LORD PARMOOR: My Amendment is simply drafting.
Amendment moved—
Page 6, line 5, leave out ("and carried out") and insert ("or continued").—(Lord Parmoor.)
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert:
"Provided that the breaking up of the streets, the execution of the last-mentioned works, and the repair of the streets rendered necessary thereby shall, except by leave of the Minister previously obtained, be carried out at night by commencing the same alter the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed, by carrying on the same continuously by day and night."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment really explains itself. We have all suffered the inconvenience when, in the middle of the morning, men appear in our public streets to put the gas or water supply right, or do something with some services under the street. They work all day, but about five o'clock in the afternoon disappear. Ai; night they do no repairs. I suggest that this obstruction to the traffic on our streets should not be carried out in bits, as it is at present, and just within the ordinary working hours. When the tramways or railways repair their permanent ways they do so with the least inconvenience to traffic—that is, at night time—and with the utmost expedition. I asked a friend of mine to tell mo exactly what had been done in regard to taking up the streets in London, and he has made a census of the number

843
of times which the road between Piccadilly and Hammersmith has been up. There have never been less than eleven breaks in that particular line, and the average time taken has been about eight days. At one time there were sixteen breaks in the road between Hammersmith and Piccadilly, and in every one of these cases work was stopped by five o'clock in the afternoon. This is, of course, a route which carries the whole of the great traffic to the West of England, and yet no effort is made after five o'clock in the afternoon to carry on the work. Common sense would dictate that these repairs should be carried out continuously, and, if possible, by night. That is when Lord Ashfield's concern and the tramways carry out their repairs, and the same policy should operate in the case of the roads. This is an important Amendment, and I hope I shall find some support.
Amendment moved—
Page 7, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment has the appearance of penalising the undertakers—namely, that as a condition precedent to be allowed to execute works they should satisfy the Minister that they deserve no penalty. The actual work by undertakers on the streets, within twelve months of previous repairs, is dealt with in another clause of the Bill, and the Minister is advised that, however desirable it may be that work should be completed as quickly as possible, there are strong objections to passing legislation which will require men to work at night. That is the reason for the opposition to this Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: I always think we deal too leniently with these statutory undertakings. On the Second Reading of this Bill I brought before your Lordships' notice the extraordinary leniency shown to them. Where there is a conduit put under the road to take pipes and wires, they can continue to pull up the roads if they like. I think that Parliament has been a great deal too tender with them. There is substance in this Amendment, and merit in it as well, though whether it is a wise thing to introduce what might be called pretty heavy control of statutory undertakings into this Bill by a side wind is another matter. If the noble Lord presses this Amendment to a Division, I
844
should certainly vote for it, because I think, and have thought for a very long time, that these undertakings ought to work at night in busy streets, although people may reasonably be asked to find alternative routes where there is little traffic. If the middle of Whitehall or Piccadilly is broken up and traffic is interfered with for twelve or fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, I certainly think that something should be done to hasten the work. I believe that the undertakers, though no doubt they would complain very loudly, would have no legitimate cause for complaint if they were obliged to work at night. I wish that Parliament would take its courage in both hands and do this, though I do not expect that it will.
LORD PARMOOR: May I say one word in answer to the noble Earl? I think he forgets the very stringent regulations under which undertakers are put under the terms of the Bill as it stands. They can interfere with the streets only at the same time as a, local authority which is carrying out repairs or improvements, unless there is a particular emergency. All the matters to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord have referred are already dealt with in the Bill. The only question is whether, in addition, we should impose an obligation only to work at night. It may be a very difficult matter indeed to oblige workmen in all circumstances to work at night. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: They are not to be obliged to work only at night, but to work day and night, and power is given to the Minister, if he thinks that the work should not be carried out continuously day and night, to order it otherwise. I am sorry to see a difference, I think for the second or third time, between the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and his supporter. On this particular occasion I agree with the supporter and not with the noble Lord. Why on earth, in these days of unemployment, should not men be given a chance to work at night in order to do away with the congestion of traffic which is caused by the roads being up? We see every day that a million people are unemployed. Why should they not come and work at night? If we are going to do anything to restore the prosperity of this country,

845
we have all got to work, not only at night, but whenever we get the chance, and I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes to a Division.
VISCOUNT PEEL: I almost dislike cooling down the enthusiasm of my noble friend's eloquence by saying a word upon this subject, but while I agree that in many eases it might be quite useful that work in the streets should be done at night, even though, of course, it would be much more costly, I cannot help thinking that to put a matter of this kind into the Statute, and to lay this as an obligation upon undertakers in addition to the very strict regulations under which they come in different parts of the Bill, would be to do more than ought to be done in an Act of Parliament. I submit that it should be left to arrangement rather than to direct orders in the Statute itself.
LORD SANDHURST: This is a, traffic Bill, and I think perhaps we are a little in danger of forgetting that there are other interests to be considered besides those of the people who use the roads. It may be important to get work done quickly, and it may be necessary to work at night, but a very large number of people have to sleep over the streets, and the noises at night in London are such that it is not always easy to do so. I should therefore deprecate anything which compelled working at night in a manner which is certainly calculated to disturb the citizens of London.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure whether I might suggest to my noble friend that there is a little difficulty about this Amendment. It is not that I do not agree with the Amendment. I agree that this work ought, if possible, to be carried out at night, subject to that which the noble Lord who has just sat down has said. I must say that I think the interests of the peaceful inhabitants of London in their warm beds ought to be considered also, but it is a great thing if you can get rid of obstructions at night, and so free the traffic in the daytime. The question is whether we ought to make it an absolute obligation upon the undertakers to work at night. I think there might be a little difficulty in that respect. It would seem to me to be wiser that we should obtain an assurance from the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Transport Minister, that he would
846
insist to the utmost of his power and so far as his influence extends, that it should be done at night. If the Government would give that assurance, I think it would be a better way of treating the difficulty than to make it an absolute statutory obligation.
I should like to point out to my noble friend a further little difficulty. So far as I understand the matter, this clause applies only to the undertakers, but the local authority is, of course, very often a great sinner in breaking up the roads, and I think my noble friend ought to reconsider his Amendment from that point of view, ever if he desire" to press it. I think it really wants a little more consideration, if my noble friend will allow me to say so. Are we going to say that the local authority is never to break up the road except at night?
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not say that.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Then you make a distinction between the local authority and the undertakers, and that is difficult to defend. Altogether, I would rather ask the Government if they would not either now or, if the noble Lord wishes to consider the point, between now and the Report stage assure your Lordships that to the utmost extent of his Tower the Minister of Transport, working under this Bill, will use his authority to get this work done at night. If he will do so, I should prefer that course to inserting a statutory obligation.
LORD PARMOOR: I should like to point out to the noble Marquess the difficulty that would arise. It is true that we are dealing here with undertakers and not with road authorities, but in the Bill itself there is a provision that they shall work together, and that the undertakers shall take advantage of the improvements or alterations made by the road authority to carry out any work mat is necessary in connection with their pipes. That is to prevent the road being broken up, first by the local authority and then by various undertakers. The noble Lord will agree that there is no suggestion here that the local authority should work at night, and I do not know exactly what the position would be, since the undertakers are to do their work only whilst the local authority are at work in the same place.
THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY: I suppose the undertakers would work by night and the local authority by day.
LORD PARMOOR: But you must have them working together, because they are very often breaking up the streets for a common purpose.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I should like to make one small suggestion which I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, will be good enough to consider before we come to the Report stage. My suggestion will be in the direction of giving more power to the Minister. What I would venture to suggest is that this Amendment should be so turned round that, if the Minister to desires and issues orders to that effect, the work should be begun in the evening and carried on throughout the night. This would not be the normal procedure, but power would be given to the Minister to issue orders if he thought desirable in certain cases. With regard to the position of those people who may be disturbed while lying in their beds, I venture to think that most probably the Minister would use his powers rather in main thoroughfares, consisting of shops and business premises, than in residential quarters. Apart from that point, I would venture to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government to consider the suggestion which I have made, and, if they think that there is any usefulness in it, they might perhaps put down an Amendment to that effect on the Report stage.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out that I have not overlooked the safeguards in this matter? I have expressly put in the words "except by leave of the Minister previously obtained." Then the clause itself says, in subsection (4):
"Nothing in this section shall prevent any road authority or any such undertakers as aforesaid from carrying out works in any streets in cases of emergency."
That also limits the effect of my Amendment. Then, in subsection (5), it says:
"The streets to which this section applies are such streets or streets of such classes within the London Traffic Area as may be prescribed by an order made by the Minister."
848
That means ho can order the repair to go on continuously night and day in Piccadilly, Oxford-street, St. James's-street and Regent-street, where there is no residential population, but prevent it being done opposite the house of the noble Lord on the Front Bench.
LORD PARMOOR: I cannot give any undertaking except this, that I will consult with the Minister of Transport and his advisers, and if the views expressed here can be carried out, I will try to do it. I could not accept the Amendment in its present form, and I cannot give any other undertaking without first consulting the Ministry.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
EARL RUSSELL: Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I am not certain that he has not misapprehended what the clause applies to. Subsection (3) provides that:—
"With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers' copies of the proposals of the road authorities";
and towards the end of the subsection it says that it shall not be lawful for them to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute, whilst the street or part thereof was closed, the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street. And this Amendment your Lordships will notice only applies to the execution of the last mentioned works—that is, the works which normally ought to have been done when the street was up. Therefore, it is a bit limited in its scope
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I will bring up the matter again on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 5 agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: I think probably that this will be a convenient time to adjourn, and I suggest that we adjourn proceedings on this Bill until a quarter past nine o'clock.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.
THE MARQUESS CURZON OF KEDLESTON: My Lords, before your Lordships separate, it is, I think, desirable to say a word about our future course of business. As matters at present stand it is contemplated that we should take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill at 12 o'clock on Friday. At the same time I think your Lordships will be desirous of avoiding a sitting on that day if we can conveniently do so, and a suggestion has been made, and I have had the pleasure of discussing it with the Lord President. On Thursday, at the present moment, there are a number of Bills on the Order Paper at the commencement of the proceedings, none of which, I understand, will take very long. In fact, the whole of them should be dismissed in a quarter of an hour or twenty minutes. Then there comes a very important discussion initiated by Viscount Grey of Fallodon, dealing with the question of the League of Nations, which it is very desirable should not be deprived of its priority of place.
In view of the fact that the preliminary-proceedings will be short, the suggestion is that we should meet on Thursday, say, at a quarter past three, get rid of the preliminary business, have the discussion on the League of Nations, and then, a Motion having been put down for leave, take the Second Reading of the Unemployment Insurance Bill after the debate on the League of Nations is over. Such a plan would have this treble advantage. In the first place, if it be accepted, it will save us from a Friday sitting. In the second place, it will enable my noble and learned friend, Viscount Cave, who is anxious to speak on the Second Reading, to be in his place for the purpose on Thursday, whereas on Friday he is presiding over the Privy Council and cannot attend. Thirdly, if we lake and get the Second Reading of the Insurance Bill on Thursday, we shall be in a position to take the Committee stage on Monday,
850
which would be unusual and difficult if we only got the Second Reading on Friday. I therefore make this suggestion to the noble and learned Lord.
LORD PARMOOR: I am entirely in agreement with the suggestion, and I think it would be for the convenience of everyone. I should certainly desire to meet the convenience of Lord Cave in every possible manner, and, as the noble Marquess has pointed out, there are other directions in which I think the change would be satisfactory to your Lordships. I entirely assent to the suggestion of the noble Marquess.
[The sitting was suspended at a quarter before eight o'clock and resumed at a quarter past nine.]

LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.
House again in Committee (according to Order):
[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]
Clause 6:
Power to attack conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
6.—(1) As respects the area consisting of the city of London and the metropolitan police district, any licensing authority may, with the view to securing the public safety and the convenience of traffic, define, by reference to terminal points and to the course to be followed between those points, the routes (hereinafter called "approved routes") within the area of its licensing jurisdiction upon which regular services of omnibuses may be established. Any person who proposes to establish a regular service of omnibuses within the area of the licensing jurisdiction of any such licensing authority upon a route which is not an approved route may apply to the licensing authority to define that route as an approved route, and in the event of the licensing authority refusing so to define such route an appeal shall lie to the Minister, who may, if he thinks fit, define the route, either as originally proposed, or subject to such alterations as he thinks proper, and any route so defined by the Minister shall be deemed to be an approved route.
(2) When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister given by subsection (3) of section fourteen of the Roads Act, 1920, attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—

851

(a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such condition shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof;

(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of general application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;

(c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service;

and if any person to whom a licence is granted subject to any such condition fails to comply with the condition, he shall be liable, on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, revoke or suspend the licence for the omnibus in respect of which the second or subsequent offence was committed.
(3) Where a licensing authority have defined approved routes, the authority may with a view to attaching such conditions as aforesaid to licences require in writing that all or any licences for omnibuses to ply for hire within the area aforesaid issued by them shall within fourteen days of such requirement be surrendered to them, and may issue in substitution for the licences so surrendered licences expiring on the same date as the licences so surrendered, and attach to any such substituted licences all or any of such conditions as aforesaid, and any licence, so required to be surrendered shall, if not surrendered in accordance with the requirement, cease to have effect at the expiration of the said fourteen days, and if so surrendered shall cease to have effect on the issue of such substituted licence.
(4) A person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining such a regular service as aforesaid shall, within seven days or such other period as the Minister may fix after such condition has been first imposed, deposit with the licensing authority a schedule in such form and identified in such manner as the licensing authority may require, showing—

(a) the approved routes upon which he intends to establish a regular service of omnibuses;

(b) the time at which the service on each route is to commence and end on each day;

(c) the service to be maintained on each such route, distinguishing,
852
if the service to be maintained on different days or at different hours is to vary, the service to he maintained on the several days or at the several hours;

(d) the maximum number of omnibuses to be used to maintain such service on each such route distinguishing, if the service is to vary on different days, the maximum number to be so used on the several days;

(e) the stages into which he intends to divide each route and the fares which he intends to charge in respect of such stages, distinguishing, if the stages and fares are to vary on different days or at different hours, the stages and fares on the several days and at the several hours;

and shall supply to the licensing authority such number of copies of the deposited schedule as the authority may require.
(5) On any such schedule being deposited with the licensing authority in accordance with the foregoing provisions, the same shall come into force, but the licensing authority shall send copies thereof to every person who is providing a regular service of omnibuses upon any route or any substantial portion of any route included in the schedule, and any such person shall have the right within seven days, or such other period as the Minister may fix, of receiving such copy to appeal to the Minister on the ground—

(a) that having regard to the number of omnibuses to be used for maintaining the service on any route, an increase in the service on that route specified in the schedule may reasonably be required either generally or during particular hours; or

(b) that having regard to the service to be maintained on any such route the maximum number of omnibuses to be used in maintaining the service is excessive;

and the Minister on such appeal, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, may make such order amending the schedule as he may think fit.
The Corporation of the City of Loudon and the council of any county, or borough, or district wholly or partly within the area aforesaid, shall have the right at any time of appealing to the Minister against any schedule for the time being in force on the ground that any of the stages specified therein are unreasonably short or inconvenient or that any of the fares so specified are unreasonably high, and the Minister on such appeal, after giving the holder of the licence an opportunity of being heard, may make such order amending the schedule as he may think fit.
When an order amending a schedule has been made under this subsection the schedule shall have effect subject to the amendments made in the order.
(6) The holder of such a licence may at any time, but, subject as in the next following section provided, only at intervals of not less than four weeks, amend any such schedule or substitute a new schedule therefor by depositing with the licensing authority the proposed amendment or new schedule in such form and identified in such manner as the licensing authority may require, and shall send to the licensing authority such, number of copies of the proposed amendment or new schedule as the licensing authority may require; and on the deposit of the amendment or new schedule the schedule proposed to be amended shall have effect subject to the amendment or, as the case may be, the new schedule shall be substituted for the schedule previously in force, subject in either case to the like right of appeal to the Minister as in the case of the original schedule:
Provided that where a schedule has been amended on appeal to the Minister, no amendment to the schedule, nor any schedule to be substituted therefor, shall be so deposited within four weeks after the schedule as amended by the Minister came into force.
(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the procedure on appeals under this section, and those regulations may provide for the appointment of a person or two or more persons to hold an inquiry into the subject matter of the appeal and for enabling the person or persons so appointed—

(a) to determine by whom and in what manner the costs of the appeal (including the remuneration of the person or persons appointed to hold the inquiry and any other expenses of the Minister) are to be borne:

(b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths

(c) by order to require any person subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of attendance to attend as a witness and give evidence or produce any documents in his possession or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law.

If any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement contained in any such order he shad on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.
(8) Where a person deposits a schedule (whether original or substituted) or an amendment to a schedule under this section he shall send to the Minister such number of copies thereof as the Minister may require, and the copies so sent to the Minister shall he open to inspection by any person at all reasonable hours, and any person shall be entitled to make copies thereof or extracts therefrom
(9) If a person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service, fails to deposit a schedule as required by this section, or, except when prevented by accident or other unavoidable cause, or when otherwise authorised by the licensing authority, fails to establish or maintain a service in accordance with the schedule for the time being in force with respect to Ins omnibuses, or uses for the maintenance of any service a greater number of omnibuses than the maximum specified in such schedule or charges different fares or fares with respect to different stages from those specified in such schedule, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, but subject to a right of appeal to the Minister, revoke or suspend all or any of the licences granted to the offender.
(10) Proceedings or an offence under this section shall not h instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "regular services of omnibuses may be established", and insert: "services of omnibuses may be maintained by plying for hire at the times specified by the person making application for the licence in the Schedule for the approved route to he deposited by him in pursuance of this section (hereinafter called ' a regular service of omnibuses'".
The noble Lord said: My Amendment, which is somewhat complicated, should be read in connection with the next Amendment appearing n my name on the Paper, to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert a new paragraph. To start with, however, I am only attacking the question which is raised in the first Amendment. It is rather curious but while the expression "regular service" is used many times in this Bill no definition is given of it. A regular service may be a service run daily, hourly or weekly, and the word "regular" does not apply, for example, to traffic which is peculiar to Saturday and Sunday. There are many routes, such as Fleet-street, which are more or less abandoned on Saturday afternoon, the omnibuses which usually work on that particular route being probably diverted to South London or elsewhere. My Amendment seeks to cure this curious omission and to provide that a regular service is such as may be proposed by an omnibus proprietor to suit his own business and

855
not one proposed by a rival omnibus proprietor with the intention of killing his business off.
If the Amendment is not made there is a real danger that subsection (8) may be used by a powerful combine to crush competitive omnibus companies out of their trade and to get even a larger monopoly than they have to-day. In the first three lines of Clause 6 it will be seen that it only deals with the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district, and outside the Greater London area the county authority or any other authority may proscribe what is to be done, and there must be, to a certain extent, unrestricted competition. The whole of this clause is really directed to the point that the Minister will have power to regulate the omnibus services on approved routes. There has been a good deal of objection in another place to the clause, and the Government were unable to give a satisfactory explanation of its operation. Perhaps the noble Lord, the Lord President, will be able to give us an explanation that will be satisfactory.
There is another important point which is, as those who have studied the Bill know, that the police are to be the licensing authority. There is an appeal to the Minister. But I suggest to the House that it is very inadvisable to bring in the police in this case to discriminate between various and rival interests. One of the reasons why we all pay such great attention to the orders of the police and admit the impartiality of their treatment of London traffic is that they do not have to discriminate between different classes of traffic in giving licences. I hold very firmly that if you once destroy that impartiality which the police possess beyond all question to-day, and make them the arbiters as to who shall and who shall not have licences, you will destroy the faith that people have in their impartiality in directing the traffic without fear or favour.
In regard to the words "a regular service of omnibuses" which appear in my Amendment, I do not want that expression to be used as an engine of oppression. If it means that a man must run on a particular route all day long, I think it might be used as such an engine. An omnibus may come in the
856
morning from the Crystal Palace full and return full in the evening, but it-would be very hard on the person running that service if he were compelled to run during the hours when there is no traffic at all. Many of the omnibus services are excellent, and we all admit that they run them where there is a thin traffic as well as where there is a good deal. At the same time, the object of my Amendment is to prevent a monopoly being set up, and I suggest to the Government that it is a reasonable Amendment for them to consider. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 8, lines 30 and 31, leave out ("regular services of omnibuses may be established") and insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: It must be recollected that we are dealing here with licences. When we come to the next clause we shall be dealing with a different matter—the traffic question. I can understand, and I appreciate, what the noble Lord has said. This Amendment with which we are now dealing does nothing more really than give what he thinks is needed—a definition of the words in the Bill "a regular service." I do not think there is any question as to the meaning of "a regular service." It does not mean that all through the day, for twenty-four hours, omnibuses are to run every three minutes. It is like the regular service of trains that you find in Bradshaw. When this matter was in the other House an eminent lawyer, Sir Thomas Inskip, said that it was better not to try to define it as it would only make the matter obscure. I should have thought that the words "regular service" spoke clearly enough for themselves. I ask the noble Lord to leave the Bill as it is in this respect. It is a matter of the definition of wording and not a matter of substance beyond that. I think it is in the best form as it stands.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not know that I can leave it there. If the noble Lord tells me that on the Report Stage, or later, there may be a possibility of avoiding the risk which I am anxious to avoid—namely, that by means of the enforcement of regular services the smaller competitor is to be practically eliminated—that is the risk I

857
wish to avoid. As the words stand now I am afraid they will be used to eliminate the small competitor; you cannot run what is called a small service, and I think, it is most important that there should be some provision to prevent the risk I fear.
LORD PARMOOR: I say at once that anything the noble Lord puts down on Report will be carefully considered, but I cannot say more than that.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Could there be a definition put in on Report defining a regular service as one running two or three times, or something of that sort?
LORD PARMOOR: The only answer to that, I think, is that you often become more obscure through attempting to define than by taking the words in their ordinary natural meaning. The matter will be considered. When it came on in the other House Sir Thomas Inskip, who represented the Party opposite, advocated that there should be no definition. Ho thought it was much clearer as it is.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: Probably the most convenient course would be that my noble friend, who has an immense knowledge of this subject, should put upon the Paper exactly what he does mean by a regular service. No one in your Lordships' House is more qualified than the noble Lord to do that and the Government might consider it and possibly might meet my noble friend. At any rate, we shall be able to deal with it on the next stage of the Bill. I am impressed to some extent with his observations.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: I should suggest to my noble friend that the definition might be "omnibus plying regularly on the route" just as a railway company plies regularly on its own route. The hours need not be specified to a point of ten minutes or fifteen minutes.
LORD PARMOOR: Whatever the noble Lord puts down for the Report stage will be carefully considered. Of course, I cannot go beyond that.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I understand the noble Lord will give very
858
careful and, if possible, sympathetic consideration to the matter, and I shall be glad to withdraw my Amendment and put something down for the Report stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert the following new paragraph:—
"(b) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon a specified approved route except in maintaining the regular service of omnibuses proposed by the applicant for the licence on that approved route, but with liberty to the proprietor of the omnibus to discontinue or vary the regular service on Sundays, holidays, and other occasions when a less or more frequent service is required."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment deals with conditions in relation to a regular omnibus service. I have looked at the reports of the debates in the House of Commons on a similar stage, and I find that the Minister of Transport was unable to satisfy the House of Commons as to the effect of the paragraphs (b) and (c). He promised to reconsider the matter later, but apparently he did not do so. I submit that the only conditions required will be found in the new paragraph. In my opinion this clause: as it stands might operate somewhat hardly against the smaller and independent proprietors. I object to the police being a licensing authority, although I admit there is an appeal to the Minister. Still, the police ought not to be brought into this. I think it is a serious departure from our present procedure.
I do not know any case in which the police are asked to discriminate between A and B in the grant of a licence. In the case of a licence for a public-house the police produce a report, and the Bench decide upon the renewal or otherwise of the licence, but in this case the police are actually to give the licence. I do not believe Scotland Yard wants this power: in fact, I am informed that they would sooner not have it, because, they think, and quite rightly, too, in my opinion, they should be independent people in this matter. I am also informed that the Minister promised to reconsider the matter of imposing these conditions. I do not know whether the Lord President has any further information for the House on that point, but the Minister of Transport promised in another place to reconsider it.
Put broadly, the point really is this, that conditions which are fair to the bigger omnibus companies are not fair to the smaller man. We must be careful in dealing with this matter to see if we can put in words—it may be difficult to do so—which will give some safeguard to the smaller people that they will not be asked to do impossible things. A man may own only two or three omnibuses and he may be called upon to do a thing which Lord Ashfield may be able to do with his magnificent fleet. I desire to guard the smaller man against being squeezed out by the large and important companies, and if the Lord President will allow me to bring the question up again on Report, and in the meantime give it his sympathetic consideration, I will withdraw the Amendment. It is one of sub-Stance, and it is not hostile in any way to the Bill. All it does is to protect the smaller man to whom great injustice might possibly be done.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, lines 12 to 20, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c) and insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think great care has been taken, and is being taken, in the Bill to protect the smaller man. That is a matter of great importance, and if the noble Lord will put down an Amendment on Report it will be carefully considered.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I accept that suggestion.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of paragraph (c), of subsection (2), to insert: "Provided that the right to ply for hire on an approved route shall not be limited to the omnibuses of any proprietor or combination of proprietors so as to restrict competition." The noble Lord said: This is more or less the same idea, but much more specific. I propose that the fact that a person or combine has established a regular service shall not be taken as pegging out a claim against other people. A company owning 4,000 or 5,000 omnibuses has an enormous advantage. The Amendment is a fair attempt to prevent this overwhelming advantage having a serious effect on the
860
smaller man. However, if the noble Lord will give me the same undertaking, I will withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: It is all part of the one subject.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after paragraph (c) of subsection (2), to insert the following new paragraph:
"(d) it shall be a condition attached to every such licence that the same shall be held and (shall be valid only so long as the persons on behalf of whom the licence is held shall not either by themselves or by others manufacture motor vehicles, or parts thereof, or apply their funds to the manufacture of such vehicles, or parts thereof, except for use on approved routes."
The noble Lord said: This is quite a different subject. At the present moment there is a company called the Associated Equipment Company, of which Lord Ashfield is chairman, which is a part of the business of the great "Combine." I am not saying that it is not an excellent firm. They certainly make good vehicles. I have tested them and driven them, but that is not the real point. The point is this. Take an analogy from the railways. You do not allow the Great Western Railway at Swindon, or the South Western Railway at Eastleigh, to make engines for export; you allow them to make locomotives for their own use. But Lord Ashfield, in the Associated Equipment Company, makes not only for his own consumption, but for export and for other people. It follows that in a good year when he makes a good profit on the omnibuses and railways, he can afford to undersell other manufacturers who are making lorries. The result is that we have world-renowned firms like Leyland, Thorneycroft, and so on, utterly crushed out because my noble friend can tender for competition at very much lower prices than any isolated manufacturer. That has never been allowed to our railway companies, and I do not think it should be allowed to these great omnibus concerns.
At one stage I believe my noble friend Lord Ashfield was willing to give up this power, but I understand he is no longer willing to do so, because, as many of your Lordships know, some of these companies who are hard hit have helped to finance ex-Service men and ex-officers to start smaller ventures. The noble Lord said, therefore—and I think it is quite a fail-debating retort, though I do not admit that there is much force in it—that, as they are helping what he calls the "pirates," there is no reason why he should not attack them in the export market. Personally I do not agree. I do not think that you ought to allow a great carrying company like the "Combine" to make vehicles and to bid against already existing manufacturers. It is most important for our foreign trade that firms like Thorneycroft, Leyland and the Daimler Companies should not be driven out of foreign markets in what I consider a rather unfair manner. Nobody would object to the noble Lord making vehicles for himself, or for any of his allies, but to make them for the whole world in competition with these firms does. I think, savour of injustice, and I suggest to the noble Lord in charge of the Bill that some words such as I have suggested might well be inserted.
Amendment moved—
Page 9, line 20, at end insert the said paragraph.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that this is a matter which can find its place in a Bill like this. The effect would be to alter either the statutory or the Common Law rights which these bodies now have. I know of oases, such as those to which the noble Lord drew attention, in which it has been held that railway companies have not an independent power to manufacture locomotives except for their own purposes, but this matter still has to be decided as regards particular statutory or Common Law rights, and I think it would be a very wrong principle, in a Bill of this kind, to attempt to interfere with those rights, statutory or otherwise, which companies now possess. It really would be, if I may so put it, an extremely radical suggestion,
862
and I hope that your Lordships will nut entertain it.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: I am glad that my noble friend is coming back to Conservative ideas and dislikes radical suggestions.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should have thought that, being a radical suggestion, it might have found favour on those Benches. It is really a very-important point, and I do ask the Government to consider it carefully. Perhaps my noble friend Lord Ashfield would like to say something about it.
LORD PARMOOR: On behalf of the Government, I can give no hope whatever of this Amendment being accepted We think it wrong in a Bill of this kind.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I do not press it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had on the Paper an Amendment to insert in subsection (5), immediately before the paragraph beginning "The Corporation of the City of London," "Provided that the Minister shall not give any advantage to any person who is providing a regular service of omnibuses as aforesaid over any other such person." The noble Lord said: If I might say one word or two this is more or less the same point that I have raised be fore, but it puts in specific words what I wish to see incorporated in the Bill in some form In other words, I want free trade to continue, and competition. Otherwise, we shall get back into the state in which there will be an absolute monopoly of the "Combine." I will not, however, move the Amendment.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Amendment not moved.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (9), after "cause" ["by accident or other unavoidable cause"] to insert "or by a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute." The noble Lord said: This is an Amendment which I think will be agreed to. This particular subsection declares that—
"If a person to whom a licence for an omnibus has been granted subject to the condition

863
that it shall not ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service, fails to deposit a schedule as required by this section, or, except when prevented by accident or other unavoidable cause, or when otherwise authorised by the licensing authority, fails to establish or maintain a service in accordance with the schedule"…
those are reasons why the person to whom the licence is granted shall be penalised.
I suggest to the House that this may happen and, in fact, has happened lately—that there was a stoppage of work caused by a strike in a particular branch of the transport trade which affected that particular branch. Other men came out in sympathy and the result was that every form of that transport was stopped. Omnibuses were stopped, tube trains were stopped and certain tramways also. A man ought not to be penalised on that account. A union interested in the bigger companies might engineer a strike of the smaller omnibuses and prevent them running This Amendment is only to give the Minister power to consider a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute as one of the excuses which may be taken for not continuing the service. I suggest this is reasonable.
Amendment moved—
Page 12, line 42, after ("cause") insert ("or by a stoppage of work caused by an industrial dispute").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment, if followed to its logical conclusion, would give protection to the owner even if he was the sole cause of the industrial dispute. The clause contains a proviso in regard to industrial disputes, because any dispute which is a genuine dispute comes under the words "unavoidable cause." It is better to leave the construction of the question of fact in each case, rather than endeavour to draw a hard and fast line as to what constitutes an industrial dispute.
NOBLE LORD: What is a genuine dispute?
LORD THOMSON: A dispute in which both parties think they are in the right.
864
This Amendment would give protection to the employer who had been the sole cause of the industrial dispute. On that ground the Amendment is opposed.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I follow the reasoning of the noble Lord, but I am not quite happy about these words, for the reason that the noble Lord says the fact that possibly a man or firm may be prevented from running his omnibuses by an industrial dispute is covered by the words "unavoidable cause." It may be so, and if the Government are advised by their legal advisers that it is so it would have great weight with me. I should have thought that the word "unavoidable" was not a very apt word in the circumstances, because it is clear that the employer could avoid a strike by giving way. The natural significance of the word "unavoidable" is what is sometimes called, I believe, an "act of God"—such a case, for example, as a fire in the owner's premises in which all his omnibuses have been destroyed. A strike is not exactly unavoidable in that sense. I suggest that the Government should reconsider the word. I can see that their intention is exactly the same as that of my noble friend, but, if they have any doubt about it, I suggest that some such words as these of my noble friend should be inserted.
LORD PARMOOR: As was staled by my noble friend Lord Thomson, the Government have been advised that the words "other unavoidable cause" do meet the difficulty. All words, of course, when you come to analyse them, may give rise to difficulty. The matter, however, will be further considered.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I would point out that this matter is not in the discretion of the Government. This is a penal clause. The magistrate before whom the matter came would have to, find whether in point of law it was avoidable or not.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: If there is a strike the strike leaders might contend before the magistrates that all that the omnibus proprietors had to do in order to maintain a regular service

865
would be to concede their demands, which were very reasonable. The magistrates would then have to consider whether the demands were reasonable, and, if, so, whether the dispute could be called an unavoidable one. I hope my noble friend will adhere to his Amendment.
LORD PARMOOR: I hope the noble Lord will accept the suggestion of the noble Marquess. I have stated that we will consider the question before the Report stage.
LORD RIDDELL: May I suggest that it would be better to substitute the word "reasonable" for "unavoidable"?
EARL BUXTON: It seems to me that the best course would be to put in these
Resolved in the affirmative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 7:
Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the city of London and the metropolitan police district.
7.—(1) Where as respect any street or part, of a street within the area consisting of the city of London and the metropolitan police district, the Minister is of opinion that by reason—

(a) of the width of the street or part of the street or the density of traffic thereon; or

words, and then we shall have them before us on Report. If the Government, after consideration with their legal advisers, find that the words include too much we could then have them amended on Report. We are all in agreement with regard to the object we have in view, and I suggest that the, Government should accept the words.
LORD PARMOOR: No, really, I am unable to accept the words now. I cannot go further. I think far the more reasonable way would be to leave it over till the Report stage.
On Question, Whether the proposed words shall be there inserted?—
Their Lordships divided:—Contents, 27; Not-Contents, 14.

(b) of the existence of alternative facilities for the conveyance of passengers along the street or part of the street or in proximity thereto, or of the omnibus accommodation on the street or part of the street being excessive;

it is desirable that an order under this section shall be made, he may by order declare the street or part of the street to be a street in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to be prohibited or restricted either generally or during particular hours, and a street or part of a street with respect to which such an order is made is hereinafter referred to as a "restricted street."

CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Stanhope, E.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Salisbury, M.

Allendale, V.

Dynevor, L.

Ancaster, E.

Falmouth, V.

Erskine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Hutchinson, V.(E. Donoughmore.)

Jessel, L.

Buxton, E.

Kylsant, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]

Doncastster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Balfour of Burleigh, L.

Redesdale, L.

Grey, E.

Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]

Sandhurst, L.

Lucan, E,

Shandon, L.

Strachie, L.

Terrington, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Arnold, L.

Olivier, L.

Ashfield, L.

Riddell, L.

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Faringdon, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Meston, L.

Thomson, L.

Chelmsford, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

Knuteford, V.

Newton, L.

(2) Where the Minister has so declared any street or part of a street to be a

867
restricted street, the Minister may make regulations—

(a) prohibiting or restricting the plying for hire by omnibuses in the street either generally or during particular hours, or limiting the aggregate number of journeys which may be made in either direction along the street during particular hours by omnibuses plying for hire;

(b) determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid; but so, nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also; and

(c) conferring on a licensing authority such powers as he may deem necessary to enable them to secure the observance of the regulations;

and the regulations may provide for dispensing with or relaxing the restrictions imposed thereby in such circumstances and in such manner as may be provided in the regulations.
(3) Where in consequence of any such regulations it is necessary for any proprietor to amend the schedule of services for the time being in force with respect to his omnibuses, he may do so notwithstanding that such an interval of four weeks as is mentioned in the last preceding section has not elapsed.
(4) If any person contravenes or fails to comply with any such regulations, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and on the conviction of a person for a second or subsequent offence under this subsection, the licensing authority shall notify the Minister of the conviction, and the licensing authority, if so directed by the Minister, shall thereupon revoke or suspend all or any licences to ply for hire in the area aforesaid which they may have granted to the offender in respect of omnibuses:
Provided that proceedings for any such offence shall not ho instituted except by or on behalf of a licensing or police authority.
(5) Before making an order declaring any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, or making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall give such notice of his intention to make the order or regulations, as the case may be, as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected and shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "in proximity thereto" and insert "along adjacent streets." The
868
noble Lord said: This might appear at first sight to be rather an insignificant Amendment, but as a matter of fact it is rather an important one. I will give the House an instance of what might occur. Up the Fulham-road, between the Brompton Oratory and Hyde Park Corner, or round towards Bond-street there are excellent underground services, but there is also a service of omnibuses, and if a passenger wanted to go from Kensington to the North of London he would have to go underground to Hyde Park Corner, get out there, and then get on one of the omnibus services which ply up Park-lane.
I do not think we ought to force people to go underground if they do not want to do so, and my Amendment seeks to substitute the words "in proximity thereto" by the words "along adjacent streets." I do not think you ought to deprive the Londoner of the opportunity of going above ground if he wants to do so, and before, you interfere with him you should consider the facilities "along adjacent streets.'' If a man wants to go overground from his place of residence to his business he should be allowed to do so. There are a great many people who do not like going underground, preferring to travel on the surface, and I am one of them. I think it a hardship to compel a person to travel underground, and I hope your Lordships will give careful consideration to this Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line 24, leave out ("in proximity thereto") and insert ("along adjacent streets").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think the noble Lord overlooks the fact that one of the difficulties we are dealing with here is the congestion of traffic in the streets, and what this clause really does is to have regard to the congestion of traffic in the streets when you are considering the alternative facilities for the conveyance of passengers along the street or part of a street or in proximity to it. It seems to me that that is a fair thing to consider, and I would point out that it is only a matter for consideration. The noble Lord would be justified in what he said if we were not dealing with congestion of traffic, but as that is what we are dealing with, we cannot accept his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: This might help the Government airships.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (i), after "omnibus" to insert "or tramway ear.'' The noble Lord said: This is rather a big subject. I feel very strongly that the tramway car should be brought within the purview of the Bill; it should be regulated like other vehicles. It is to-day one of the most obstructive, and when the Minister is considering the question of congestion it should be taken into account. If we are not to take into consideration the tram ears then it reduces the lull to a futility. Take Vauxhall Bridge-road. Do you mean to say that the Minister is not to take the tramway car traffic on that road into consideration? Obviously, he ought to do so. The London County Council, I know, provide a magnificent service of tram cars, but is that not to be taken into consideration when you are considering whether such a service is excessive or not? There are times when a, stationary or stopping car causes far more obstruction than any other kind of vehicle, but under the Bill the Minister will have no power to deal with if.
The Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area, which reported in 1919, selected the taxi-cab as the unit, it being very mobile and the cause of the least amount of obstruction. From that the Committee produced a table of trade vehicles and passenger vehicles. Amongst the trade vehicles the light motor was given as one point of obstruction, and the slow two-horse vehicle as ten points of obstruction. The slow two-horse vehicle was considered the most obstructive in the streets and that is probably the view of most of your Lordships. When they came to the passenger vehicles the Select Committee put the electric tramway car at the head of the list with nine points of obstruction as against one point by the private motor. This is a comparatively recent Report and this Committee, therefore, considered that the tramway car was eminently a subject for regulation and that it was one of the vehicles which needed more regulation than others. I entirely agree with that view, and it would be perfectly futile to attempt to regulate the traffic of London unless you take the tramway car into consideration.
870
Last Wednesday, on Westminster Bridge, there were no fewer than 26 tramway ears standing in a line and it was only with the greatest difficulty that the policeman on point duty at St. Thomas's Hospital got the traffic through to the South of London. Under this Bill the Minister and the Advisory Committee will have no power whatever to deal with the tramway car which, I think, should be included.
Amendment moved—
Page 13, line, 25, after ("omnibus") insert ("or tramway car").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I should like to support what Lord Montagu of Beaulieu has said. When you have any fixtures such as tramway lines and refuges they interfere very considerably with the efficient control of traffic. If your Lordships were to take the time to watch the traffic over Westminster Bridge in the middle of the season, when a vast amount of traffic is collected both in this square and across the, bridge, you would see that the mere existence of tramlines carrying tramcars makes it almost impossible to control the traffic with any degree of despatch. You have a fixed object which it is quite impossible for a man to divert and the policeman, or whoever it is who has to control the traffic, cannot divert it or keep the traffic flowing so that he cannot prevent blocks occurring. I know of nothing in the traffic of London which causes so many block" as a tramline. I would support the Amendment of my noble friend because I am quite sure that anybody who has in the future the duty of controlling the traffic will find that the tram is the greatest obstacle with which he has to contend.
LORD PARMOOR: Again I think that there has been a misunderstanding about this matter. I do not deny for a moment that it would be a good thing for traffic if we could regulate the tramway cars, but the tramways have certain statutory rights as great within their limitations as those of the railways. It was settled long ago, by judicial decisions in this House when the tramways were taken over by the local authorities both here and in Scotland, that they had what is called a monopoly right of using tram-way lines on flanged wheels as no other

871
vehicle has the right to do. I admit that it astonishes me to find that noble Lords opposite are in favour of interfering, in a Bill of this kind, with the statutory rights now existing. It would be exactly as if we were to deprive railway companies and other companies of statutory rights in the same way. I say quite frankly that this Bill was framed in order not to interfere with statutory rights of this kind, and I do not know any Bill that seeks to interfere with statutory rights of this quality and character. If your Lordships wish to interfere with statutory rights which are considered to be amongst the most solemn forms of proprietary rights, it is in your Lordships' hands. I only want to protest against the entirely novel doctrine concerning the statutory rights of a company being included in a Bill of this sort.
VISCOUNT YOUNGER OF LECKIE: There would be a precedent for this in the case of Westminster Bridge. I myself sat on the Committee in another place which allowed the tramways to cross Westminster Bridge in order to link up the tramway systems north and south of the Thames, and we were faced with this troublesome statutory privilege. We were desirous that the lines should be joined together for the convenience of the travelling public and we made certain regulations which were, I think, inserted in the Bill—namely, that the tramway cars must be bunched on each side, that they must not stop on the bridge unless held up by traffic, that they must not pick up or set down on the bridge, and that they must begin their bunching at a particular point on the south side and end it at a particular point on the north side. These were inserted in the Bill in order to get over particular statutory advantages which tramways have, and if it is done in one ease I suppose it can be done in another.
LORD PARMOOR: I do not think that exactly meets the point I have raised. Of course, when statutory powers are conferred and you get over Westminster Bridge for the purpose of joining up then Parliament can do as is suggested. That is part of the statutory powers which Parliament has conferred, but the question here is quite different. You are interfering with existing statutory rights, which is a different matter.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Might I ask this question: Ave not some statutory companies interfered with already by this Bill, as to their rights of disturbing streets, and so on?
LORD PARMOOR: If I might answer the noble Viscount I think that here again there is a difference. The business is not interfered with at all. You might perfectly well, if you like, say that a statutory tramway company should be restricted as regards interfering with streets and matters of that sort, but there is no interference with any of its business. That is very carefully provided for in the Bill. The only matter in which there is interference is in regard to taking up the streets, and, even there, a provision is introduced to meet the case of emergency and it can always do it if it is for the purpose of carrying on its business. That is an entirely different thing from interfering with a business which is created by statutory rights.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Is it not strictly a limitation of their statutory rights I Those limitations may be introduced into the Bill, but they are strictly an interference with statutory rights.
LORD PARMOOR: Speaking in one sense, yes; but in another sense it is entirely different. We are placing regulations on interfering with and taking up streets, which is entirely a different thing from interfering with the actual business which the company is carrying on under its statutory rights. For instance, with regard to electric mains. If you were to say that the electric mains were to stop for two or three days that would be an interference with the business, but interfering with the taking up of streets for the purpose of laying pipes is quite a distinct thing. However, I have made my point.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Before the noble Marquess answers, may I read to the House an opinion which I got from a very high authority as to the legal position in regard to this matter? If I were to mention the name to the noble and learned Lord, I am sure he would treat it with respect:—
"The legal position of a tramway authority under Clause 7 is that it would be required to submit to an order of the Minister limiting the number of tramway

873
cars per minute or per hour which it may send along a ' restricted street ' in which the tramway is laid. In this respect the tramway authority's rights to use the streets do not differ from the rights of any other vehicle owner. The only difference between the tramway authority and the owner of other vehicles is that the tramway authority has obtained under its Act of Parliament the exclusive right to run tramway care or flange wheel vehicles along the tramway track which it has laid down. The tramway authority has no greater legal right to overcrowd or obstruct the streets with vehicles than any oilier user of the road. Physically it does cause obstruction because the vehicles cannot draw to one side of the road. Power to the local authority and the police to regulate the tramway traffic is expressly reserved under Section 61 of the Tramways Act, 1870; and the rights of the public to pass along and across every part of the road where the tramway is laid are also reserved by Section 62 of the Act of 1870 and by-laws have been made which require a minimum space between successive tramway cars. The police to-day in London have the right to regulate the tramway traffic at crossings just as they regulate the other street traffic, By this Bill further powers of regulation are to be given and orders are now to be made under Clause 7 for the purpose of relieving congestion. Suppose it be found that at some crowded point, such as Westminster Bridge-road or Vauxhall, congestion of the general traffic is caused at certain times of the day by a procession of half empty tramway cars, would it not be well to give the Minister power under this clause to make an order dealing with such an evil? He is to have the power over omnibuses; why not tramway cars also?"
If you cut tramways out of this Bill you will not clear London of congestion in many of its main thoroughfares, but the traffic will be still obstructed worse than ever by tramway cars.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I admit that this is an important matter, but I would recall your Lordships' attention to what the object of the Bill really is. The object is to relieve the congestion of London. We are no longer dealing with the outside districts: we are now at the very heart of the question, the thing which has made this London Traffic Bill absolutely essential—namely, the gross overcrowding and congestion of the streets, and the Government is given power under this Bill to control this traffic. What does the traffic consist of? It consists of a great number of different classes of vehicles—carts, lorries, taxi-cabs, omnibuses and tramways. One of the worst offenders in the matter of congestion, as everybody knows who drives about London, is the tramway car. Yet
874
what the Government suggest is that this traffic authority should have power to control all traffic which runs on wheels in London, with the exception of the tramways. Why are the tramways to be excepted? If they are not only an integral part but, in many parts of London, the principal part of the congestion, how shall we have solved the problem if we have left the tramways out? We shall be left with the very difficulty that we seek to remove.
Then comes the Lord President, who says: "Oh, but they have statutory rights," and he seems to think that that is an absolute answer. Why, we spend our time in modifying statutory rights; that is what we are here for. Is the noble and learned Lord never a party to Bills which modify she statutory rights of the railways? We do it every day. There is no statutory right belonging to the tramways which is more sacred than the statutory rights belonging to the railways They are exactly on the same footing, so far as I know, except that the railways have spent a great deal more capital. And yet, by private Acts of Parliament and public Acts of Parliament, we have modified, almost every year, the statutory rights of railways. Of course, there is no objection from that point of view at all. The tramways exist in order to serve the public, and the fact that they enjoy a certain monopoly by reason of their having statutory rights is no reason why they should be exempt from regulation, but rather a reason why they should be subject to it, because they have received what ordinary users of the highway have not received—special advantages from the Legislature. We have, of course, always reserved to ourselves the right in Parliament to modify those conditions where it is necessary in the interests of the public. This is an essential matter for the interests of the public. Unless you regulate the tramways you will not have solved the problem. Therefore, there seems to me a clear case for the inclusion of the tramways in the scope of the Bill. This is the first occasion on which the matter arises, and if my noble friend goes to a Division I shall be glad to support him.
EARL BUXTON: Your Lordships agree that similar regulations to those which apply to omnibuses and other vehicles ought to be put on to tramways as well.

875
If the noble and learned Lord has some other alternative in another part of the Bill to offer that is one thing. I have no particular desire to insert it in this or in another clause so long as the Minister, the Advisory Committee and the public have some security that the tramways shall not add, as they do now, to the difficulties and congestion of the traffic. The Lord President made a great point of the statutory rights of tramways, but I think my noble friend Lord Salisbury has disposed of that altogether. What are their statutory rights? The statutory right they have is to put down rails in a certain street and to run along those rails. Nobody wishes to dispose of that statutory right because the tramways are a great, if subsidiary, addition to our method of transport. What we desire, and what the public desire, is that they should be placed under such control as will prevent what my noble friend described as the scandal of eight or ten empty tramcars standing in a street obstructing the traffic and being of no assistance to the public. Some regulations are wanted which will not interfere with their real statutory rights but will make those rights subject to the public convenience.
What is this clause to which my noble friend desires to add the words "tramway car"? It deals with the question of the congestion of traffic in certain streets. It says that where
"it is desirable that an order under this section shall be made, he may by order declare the street or part of the street to ho a street in which the plying for hire by omnibuses ought to be prohibited or restricted either generally or during particular hours."
Nobody wishes to prohibit tramways; that would not arise. But we should all desire that they should be restricted. I cannot see for a moment that their statutory rights are interfered with, and I think that in some way or other, in some part of the Bill, the word "tramway" ought to be put in so as to make sure that tramcars will come under the strict regulations to which omnibuses are subjected.
LORD PARMOOR: I have done what I could to protect a very important proprietary right—a statutory right. If your Lordships think that it should be dealt with in the way suggested I am glad to hear it in one sense, although I think it is extremely unsound as regards any real
876
question of what is meant by proprietary rights. I think nothing could be more unsound. I have done my best, on behalf of the Government, to preserve those rights, and if your Lordships wish to include tramcars it must be done. I maintained before that we were not going to interfere with statutory rights; that was the basis of the Bill. If your Lordships think that in a case of this kind private rights have to give way, well and good.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: The next three Amendments are purely consequential.
Amendments moved—
Page 13, line 30, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars")
Page 13, line 39, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars")
Page 13, line 43, after ("omnibuses") insert ("or tramway cars").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
LORD NEWTON,LORD NEWTON, in whose name there appeared upon the Paper an Amendment to omit all words in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after "proprietor" and to insert "or combination of proprietors," said: I repudiate any responsibility for this Amendment. I did not place it on the Paper, and I do not know how it got there. I presume that somebody has been using my name in vain.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: Lord Montagu of Beaulieu and Lord Newton have the same Amendment standing in their names.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Mine is a little different. There must be some mistake in putting down the name of Lord Newton. I beg to move to omit all words in paragraph (b) of subsection (2) after "proprietor." This is another Amendment intended to prevent the Minister favouring one omnibus proprietor and excluding others. I see no reason for giving the Minister discretion. I think it ought to be laid down that he cannot favour one set of proprietors against another.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 7, leave out from ("proprietor") to ("and") in line 10.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: The effect of this Amendment would be that the Minister would be unable to make regulations in the case of Bond-street where only one company has plied, or proposes to ply. It is not possible to fetter the Minister in this way. His decision is liable to most acute attacks in the House of Commons, or in this House, if he happens to be a member of it. That ensures that his decisions will be equitable. You must give him a certain amount of discretion. This Amendment will make it impossible to regulate omnibuses in Bond-street where only one company plies. There is no one more closely controlled than the Minister in a matter of this kind, and if he were suspected of unfair decisions he would be open to attack in the House. Whereas this Amendment suffers from the defect I have mentioned, it gives him no power of making regulations in a case where only one proprietor runs omnibuses in a, certain street, as is the ease in Bond-street.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE moved, in subsection (5), after "Committee," to insert "and load authority." The noble Earl said: I trust the Government will accept this Amendment. Before making an order the Minister should consult not only the Advisory Committee but also the road authority—that is to say, the local authority concerned. Your Lordships will see that under this clause the Minister has power to make, orders declaring a street a restricted street for certain periods and for various kinds of traffic. My noble friend Lord Montagu told the House that the Metropolitan district is 697 square miles in extent. It is obvious that no Committee, unless it had a horde of officials serving it, could possibly report as to what should be a restricted street for the various types of traffic during all hours of the day. I suggest also to your Lordships that when a Minister makes orders under this clause he would be very greatly strengthened if he could report to Parliament that he had consulted the local authority concerned, and had received their approval of the orders which he proposed to make. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, after ("Committee") insert ("and road authority").—Earl Stanhope.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think the Advisory Committee ought to be taken as a safe authority to consult. To a very great extent it is a representative authority, although no doubt it has other members upon it. This matter has been carefully considered, and I hope the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.
EARL STANHOPE: After all there is only one representative each for the districts south and north of the River, and that is a wide area. I do not suggest that local authorities should have a power of veto, but that the Minister should obtain their opinion.
LORD PARMOOR: The area is certainly very large, and even the largo Advisory Committee can only be partially representative, but at the same time it is inadvisable to introduce further authorities whom a Minister ought to consult in matters of this kind. We want the thing done, we do not want it complicated.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (5), to insert "and after receiving such advice and report the Minister shall lay before both Houses of Parliament a draft of the proposed order or regulations, and the order or regulations, as the case may be, shall not be made unless and until a Resolution is passed by both Houses approving of the draft."
The noble Lord said: This is in order to make the advice of the Committee an important factor in settling this question. The subsection reads as follows:—
"Before making an order declaring any street or part of a street to be a restricted street, or making any regulations under this section, the Milliliter shall give such notice of his intention to make the order or regulations, as the case may be, as he may think best adapted for informing persons affected, and shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report."
I desire to add the words of the Amendment which will give the Committee much more power and make it a really responsible body. If you do not put in some such words it will have no power at all. It will also mean that this House, and the other House will have an opportunity of putting in a word when some important question is under consideration, such as the diversion of traffic, a question upon which noble Lords have opinions

879
well worth hearing. Members representing places like Islington, Fulham, and Balham in the other place would be able to make their voices beard. I hope the Government will be able to accept the Amendment.
Amendment moved—
Page 14, line 43, at end insert the said new words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM: I cannot support this Amendment. After the essence of the Bill, which is control of the traffic, the great point is time. If this Amendment is accepted it would cause considerable delay. Imagine what might happen when Parliament was not sitting. If this Advisory Committee recommended that some street should be restricted the opinion of Parliament might be delayed for months, certainly for weeks. Meanwhile, the necessary regulations would be hung up; and I cannot see that the representative of Balham would be able to give a better opinion as to whether a street should be restricted than the Advisory Committee.
LORD PARMOOR: In a subsequent clause which deals with real Regulations these have to be submitted to Parliament. These are very small matters. You are really trying to make Parliament the controlling authority. It is reducing the Bill to an absurdity to say that all these little matters at Balham shall be discussed in Parliament, and I hope your Lordships will not support it.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: May I point out the exact situation under this Bill? There are two important clauses, Clause 7 and Clause 10. Under the latter, as the Government introduced the Bill, there was a power that the orders and regulations should lie on the Table of both Houses of Parliament and be subject to objection. That protection was not considered sufficiently drastic in the House of Commons, and a very much stronger form of safeguard was inserted. It is a remarkable circumstance that the orders that can be made under Clause 10 are far less important than those which can be made under Clause 7. I am not saying that the Amendment, is exactly right in the form in which it stands, but I should like your Lordships to realise what can be done under Clause 7. If you will be good enough to turn to page 14,
880
you will see that the Minister may make regulations—
"determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire on the street and apportioning amongst those proprietors such aggregate number of journeys as aforesaid."
In other words, it is possible for the Minister to give an absolute monopoly to a particular firm. This power is complete, and though there are subsequent words in the paragraph, yet, when they are analysed, they do not amount to much. The clause continues—
"but so, nevertheless, that the right so to ply shall not be limited to the omnibuses of one proprietor in any case where it appears to the Minister to be reasonable and practicable that the right should be exercised by other omnibuses also."
This too, it will be seen, is subject to the Ministerial decision as to what is "reasonable and practicable." In other words, all the fears expressed in this House, I think with some justice, that too autocratic powers are entrusted to the Minister, even to establishing an absolute monopoly, and their kernel and complete embodiment in this paragraph. This is the very centre of the Bill.
It is a remarkable circumstance that, as the Bill is presented to us, there is no Parliamentary control of the powers here conferred. The moment the Bill is passed, your Lordships, and the other House, will have parted with all power. And yet, under Clause 10, by which regulations of a comparatively trivial character are made, full Parliamentary powers are maintained, even under the Government's version, while under the House of Commons' version the most extreme Parliamentary control is imposed. But under Clause 7 far greater powers are given than under Clause 10. Even if it be held, therefore, that my noble friend's wording may require consideration, I would suggest to your Lordships that something ought to be done to limit this clause. I think it would be wise to insert words by which Parliamentary control could be maintained. Otherwise, you may find that, once you have parted with this Bill, there is no power left to you to prevent the Minister giving an absolute monopoly.
And, after all, do not let us be personal in this matter. I am not making criticism of the present Minister of Transport, who, so far as I know, would be

881
a most admirable judge in matters of this kind. You cannot tell, however, what Minister there may be in the future. There may be another next year. I think that is very probable. In those circumstances he might be a man who had a great belief in monopolies, and a determination to confine his patronage to a very limited number of omnibus proprietors or only one. The point is that once you have passed this Bill, unless some provision is introduced Parliament will be absolutely powerless to check it, beyond the ordinary power of the House of Commons to question Ministers. This House will have no power to check it at all. Therefore I think some provision is necessary.
The question is whether my noble friend's proposal is the right one. It has been pointed out that it would have this effect, that when Parliament was not sitting no order or regulation could be passed. I am sure that is going too far. I am sure we do not mean that or intend that, and therefore it might be necessary to modify the words to meet that particular case. I may say I am familiar with this particular provision in an Act of Parliament. I have seen it in a great many, and have been instrumental in inserting it in others, and it is easy to cover the point that Parliament is not sitting. You merely have a provision by which the thing operates until Parliament does sit. I do, however, think I should be wanting in my duty if I did not warn your Lordships that this is an important matter, and that if you allow Clause 7 to go through without any Parliamentary check you may live to regret it.
EARL BUXTON: I think, if noble Lords will really consider Clause 7 and the schedule, they will see that although the regulations deal with some things which are of a trivial description there are other things which need to come before Parliament. There is no triviality about them at all. They affect the whole question whether particular streets shall be allowed for particular traffic. They raise the whole question of the franchise of streets, whether there shall be a monopoly of omnibuses, and so on. The whole of these questions are left to the control of the Minister and I am sure it is not too much to ask when dealing with these big questions that they shall also
882
come within the purview of Parliament. I am sure that my noble friend will agree with the view of the noble Marquess that his Amendment as drafted will not do, simply for this reason, that he deals with the question when Parliament is sitting, and they are not to come into force if Parliament is not sitting. I am sure he will see, on reflection, that they must come into force, but they can be reviewed by Parliament at an early date.
LORD JESSEL: I am sorry that on the first occasion that I address this House I find myself in disagreement with my leader. I think that if Lord Montagu's Amendment were carried it would lead to a considerable amount of delay, and you would prevent the very thing which this Bill is intended to do—namely, to relieve the congestion of London traffic. You provide elaborate machinery for the laying of orders before Parliament, and there would be great delay. If you want to lay it down that omnibuses are to go only one way down Bond-street you would have to get the consent of both Houses of Parliament and you would have a debate on every trivial little subject in both Houses. So far from this power that we ask for being autocratic, every authority—for instance, Liverpool and Manchester—can do exactly as they please. They can prescribe the streets which are to be used by motor omnibuses, and they have absolute power to do what they like. Here in London this Advisory Committee, which is representative not only of London itself but of many places round it, is not allowed to do anything without an elaborate form of procedure before both Houses of Parliament. I do not think that is fair to the Advisory Committee, or to the Minister.
If you are going to limit the powers, I suggest that you should take Lord Newton's Amendment to Clause 10. It states:—
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may he after it is made, and it an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it, praying that the regulation may he annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."

883
If you insert that subsection you give Parliament a certain power over these big questions. The provision would work much better, it would save delay, and it would safeguard rights, which might or might not be attacked.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I should be quite willing to follow out the suggestions which have been made, and to bring up an amended clause on Report more or less in the same words as appear in Clause 10. Subsection (7) of Clause 10 is more or less the same as this. I think that might work very well, but, after what the noble Marquess has said about the powers in Clause 10, I warn the House that if we once give up our control under Clause 7, Parliamentary control over all these things will practically vanish. With regard to Parliament not being in Session, there are only two months this year, for instance, when Parliament will not be sitting. Therefore, there cannot be any great interval of time, which is important. If the Minister knew there was something important coming on he would not be such a fool, if I may be permitted the expression, as to bring it forward in the first days of August; he would do so at the beginning, or at any rate in she middle, of the Session. I ask the Lord President to give the matter his consideration, and I will put down on Report a similar provision to that to which I referred in subsection (7) of Clause 10, which has been accepted by the Government already, as a suitable means of dealing with the matter.
LORD PARMOOR: So far as direct Parliamentary intervention is concerned, I regard these as small, though important, matters with which the Minister has to deal from day to day in order to carry out his duties under the Bill; such, for instance, as the determination of an omnibus route. Are you going to bring that up to Parliament and prevent a determination of it by the Minister for some months? Every other administrator has powers of this kind. By-laws do not come to Parliament. They may be important, but are mere administrative work. Administration cannot be carried on under such a condition. It would be only fair to say, therefore, that in my view it would make the Bill almost unworkable.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: The noble and learned Lord must not confuse Clause 6 and Clause 7.
LORD PARMOOR: I am not confusing them at all—
"determining the omnibus proprietors whose omnibuses alone may ply for hire …"
You determine who they are, and rightly so if you are to have the power. It is absolutely ridiculous, I think, to suggest that these are matters which ought to come before Parliament. I only want to make my view clear. I do not want it to be said hereafter that I encouraged this matter in any way, because I really think that it is not appropriate.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I only told the noble and learned Lord what I intended to do.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 8 and 9 agreed to.
Clause 10:
Power to make Regulations.
(4) Before making any regulations under this section, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report.
(5) Before making any regulations under this section which will impose new or additional duties on the police the Minister shall consult the Secretary of State.
(6) The making of any regulations under this section shall be conclusive evidence that the requirements of this section have been complied with.
(7) If at the time when it is proposed to make any such regulations the Commons House of parliament is sitting or is separated by such adjournment or prorogation as will expire within one month, the drafts of the proposed regulations shall be laid before that House, and the regulations shall not he made unless and until a resolution is passed by that House approving of the drafts either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution, and upon such approval being given the regulations may be made in the form in which the drafts have been approved. In any other case regulations may be made forthwith, but all regulations so made shall be laid before the Commons House of Parliament as soon as may be after its next meeting, and shall not continue in force for one month after such meeting unless a resolution is passed by that House declaring that the regulations shall continue in force, either without modification or subject to such modifications as may be specified in the resolution; and, if any modifications are so made as respects any regulation, the regulations shall thenceforth have effect subject to such

885
modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.
EARL STANHOPE EARL STANHOPE had on the Paper an Amendment, in subsection (4), after "Committee," to insert "and road authority." The noble Earl said: This is not quite the same point as has been already discussed, because these are orders which have to come before Parliament; whereas under Clause 7 as it now stands they have not to do so. I submit to the noble and learned Lord that the Minister should consult the local authority before making these regulations They are, I agree, smaller orders and regulations than those under Clause 7, but they are of considerable importance in rural localities. The Third Schedule provides that the Minister may make regulations in regard to driving horses, cattle, sheep and other animals along streets in the Metropolitan, Police district. Being a Conservative I am more of a democrat than the noble and learned Lord, and I am prepared to consult the local authorities, "who are properly elected by the people of the locality. I do not press the Amendment if the noble and learned Lord cannot accept it.
THE LORD CHAIRMAN: The Amendment is not moved.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection:—
"(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder."
The noble Lord said: This Amendment restores the form of the Bill as I believe it was originally drafted by a Conservative Government, and as it was adopted by the present Government. I understand that this Amendment appeared in the original Bill. It survived Committee and, so far as I can ascertain, was upset on Report in another place on a snap vote. I listened with some surprise to the various speeches of my noble friend Lord
886
Salisbury in the course of these discussions, in which he has continually expressed the hope that the control of Parliament will not be lost. I say it surprises me because we are always hearing about the congestion of business in another place. Yet here is my noble friend and other noble Lords solemnly proposing that every trumpery regulation and rule that is made under this Bill should go through the ordeal of both Houses.
I may be mistaken, but so far as I read the Bill if a regulation is to be made regarding a costermonger's cart or an organ grinder's pitch it will have to be solemnly discussed and passed through both Houses of Parliament. It is no use disguising the fact that this Bill is intensely disliked by a certain set of politicians whom I will not particularise. What will happen when all these trumpery regulations come up is that you will have art acrimonious discussion in all probability upon the question of Greater London. It must be obvious to everyone that it can only lead to intolerable delay. This contingency has been pointed out by the present Minister of Transport. It really would be an encouragement to block all regulations. I submit that the public interests are already sufficiently protected. Parliamentary control can be secured easily in this House because you can ask a question upon any subject that you choose, and express an opinion upon any subject that occurs to you. There is no difficulty whatever in bringing the matter up in this House, and I do not imagine that there would be much difficulty in another place. Put quite shortly, what this subsection does is to make Parliament the traffic authority instead of the authority that is proposed under the Bill. I beg to move.
Amendment moved—
Page 16, line 32, to page 17, line 12, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Newton.)
LORD PARMOOR: The Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. It is not necessary to add anything to what the noble Lord has said.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I do not understand on what ground my noble friend behind me delivered a considered attack upon myself. I will not defend this particular provision in the Bill. The noble Lord always thinks it is necessary

887
to attack the Front Bench. He exists for that purpose. He does it extremely well and generally amuses the House. So far as this particular provision is concerned. I think the Government are right to accept it. I do not think the clause as it reached us would be, apt to deal with the Third Schedule. The matters in the Third Schedule, unlike those in Clause 7, are trivial. I doubt even if my noble, friend has read the Bill.
LORD NEWTON: Yes, I have.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: There is no doubt that in respect of these matters the provision as it reached us is impracticable. I noticed that the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, called attention on Second Beading to certain discrimination as between the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and I am glad that by the efforts of my noble friend and of the Government that matter will be put right.
LORD STRACHIE: May I point out something which, I think, has escaped the noble Marquess"? This is not the usual form which your Lordships generally insist upon, which safeguards your Lordships' rights. This differs very much from the provision which is designed to protect the rights of the House of Commons. There it is mandatory. In this particular case it is not mandatory. It is that "His Majesty in Council may if he thinks fit." That is all very well as regards the House of Commons when the majority there support the Government. There is naturally a Minister advising His Majesty. But if your Lordships pass anything of this sort when you are a majority here but in a minority in another place, then all that happens is that the Minister does not advise His Majesty.
The noble Lord knows perfectly well that when the Government were in a majority in another place and in a minority in this House a Resolution passed by your Lordships was treated with contempt by the Government of the day. That is exactly what would happen in this case, and the right way is to ask the Government to accept my Amendment, which is to leave out "the Commons" in subsection (7) and insert "either." That would retain the power of your Lordships to annul any of these regulations. This is only permissive; it
888
should be mandatory. Resolutions passed in this House are constantly ignored by the Government of the day when it happens that they have a majority in the House of Commons. I hope the Amendment will be withdrawn.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: The Amendment will do no good because it is merely permissive. It must be mandatory to be of any use. Good will be done, not harm, if such matters as this are discussed in the other House, because it will prevent hasty and bad legislation being introduced. The only reason for the congestion of business in another place is that they try to do foolish things. If they would content themselves with administering the affairs of the country there would be no congestion whatever. I hope the Amendment will not be accepted or, if it is, that it will be made mandatory.
EARL BUXTON: I regret that the Government have acceded to this Amendment so quickly, unless we are told that later on the matter is to be brought under Parliamentary control. This proposal was in the original Bill, and the House of Commons by a large majority defeated the Government on the matter and put in the present clause. If the Lord President accepts the Amendment I am afraid he will bring himself into conflict with the other House. I am sorry he accepted it with such alacrity, although I admit there is much to be said for it. Some of the regulations are trivial but there are some of considerable importance, and the House of Commons I know—I cannot speak for the House of Lords—is jealous of the power which this Bill gives to the Minister to issue regulations without any sort of control.
It is no use disguising the fact that unless the House of Commons has an opportunity of considering these regulations they will go through automatically; that is the effect of the Amendment. Practically, unless there is some scandal in connection with any of these regulations, the Amendment withdraws all control over them from the House of Commons. They come on late at night, and though members have an opportunity of raising the question, the Government do not want their regulations

889
annulled or even criticised, and the Whips take care that the House is counted out, or whatever it may be. The House of Commons has no real control over these regulations, whereas, if they have to he assented to by both Houses, in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred they will be proper and legitimate regulations and will not be objected to except in very exceptional cases. If there is an objection, your Lordships ought to have an opportunity of considering it. I regret that the Lord President accepted this Amendment. I think he will get into trouble in the other House, but that is his affair, not mine. It seems to me that it deprives Parliament of power which it ought to have, and I should be more satisfied, I am bound to say, if the withdrawal of this Amendment were to lead, as I understand that Lord Salisbury will press, to full control under Clause 7
LORD PARMOOR: On the Second Heading I indicated my view that both Houses should be put on the same footing, and that this form, which is a common form, would be accepted for that purpose. I cannot accept any other form as regards control by both Houses, because difficulty and friction would arise. I think it is rather hard that, because I accepted Lord Newton's Amendment, the statement which I made on the Second Heading should not satisfy your Lordships.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I apologise to your Lordships for not mentioning that, as Lord Strachie has said, this is not a mandatory provision. I agree with all his criticisms. It ought to be mandatory in form. His Amendment is not quite the same, because it would leave it in the affirmative form instead of its lying on the Table. It would be quite easy to put Lord Newton's proposal in a mandatory form, and if Lord Strachie applied his mind to this and conferred with me, we could between now and Report put it in a mandatory form, if your Lordships were willing that we should take this course. It cannot be done simply by striking out "may" and inserting "shall," because you cannot apply the word "shall" to His Majesty, and it therefore has to be put in a different form. If your Lordships care to leave it to us, between now and
890
Report Lord Strachie and I could construct an Amendment in a proper shape and submit it to Lord Newton.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: I do not feel sure that the noble Marquess quite appreciates the point r used by Lord Strachie. We all agree that both Houses should be on an equal fooling. As the Bill was introduced into this House, no regulation was to be effective until a Resolution had been passed. That is perfectly simple. Hut under the Amendment which the Government are anxious to accept, it is not a question of "may" and "shall." The point is that everything shall be legal unless a Resolution is passed against it. I confess I very much prefer the original draft of the Bill as introduced by the Government. I think what they originally proposed was very much the best form, and as it is common ground that both Houses should be put upon the same footing I hope they will agree that this House shall be placed upon the same footing as they suggested with regard to the House of Commons in the original draft of the Bill. Lord Newton's Amendment goes to the other extreme, and says that everything shall become law unless we pass a Resolution against it. We want that nothing shall become law unless a Resolution is passed by both Houses. That was in the original draft of the Bill and that is what we want. Perhaps the noble Marquess, if he agrees with me, will, before the Report stage, endeavour with Lord Newton and Lord Strachie to find some form of words which may be satisfactory.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am not sure that your Lordships would be quite willing that we should arrange all these things privately. I am not certain whether Lord Beauchamp has been present since dinner, but I may perhaps give a résumé. I agree with him, that the positive or affirmative form of Resolution is a much more effective Parliamentary weapon than one worded in what I may call Lord Newton's form, but it was contended on behalf of the Government that under Clause 10 the regulations are so trivial that they do not deserve the honour of an affirmative Resolution. Whereas they would be sufficiently protected by a negative Resolution, provided it was in a mandatory and not permissive form, I may

891
say that I contended a short time ago, with regard to Clause 7, that there an affirmative Resolution was required, and that is a matter left over for further consideration on Report. Under those circumstances I can only, with great respect, recommend your Lordships to allow Lord Newton's Amendment to go through as it stands. It ought to be turned into a mandatory form on the Report stage, and then, as you wish, your Lordships can deal with Clause 7 when the time comes.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 (Notice of and Inquiries into Accidents):
Amendment moved—
Page 17, lines 19 and 20, leave out ("mechanically propelled").—(Earl Stanhope.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
LORD PARMOOR: The Amendments to this clause standing in my name are drafting Amendments.
Amendments moved—
Page 17, line 27, leave out ("such") and insert ("the")
Page 17, line 27, at end insert ("of the road or of the vehicle")
Page 17, line 33, leave out from ("the") to ("vehicle") in line 34, and insert ("accident was due to the nature or character of any road or road surface or to a defect in the design or construction of any vehicle or in the materials used in the construction of any road or")
Page 17, line 36, leave out ("Minister as may be prescribed") and insert ("Ministry of Transport as the Minister may direct").—(Lord Parmoor.)
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 12, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 13:
Protection of Public Interests.
13.—(1) It is hereby declared that nothing in this Act is to be treated as conferring on any omnibus proprietor any right to the continuance of any benefits arising from the grant of licences, or from any conditions attached to licences, or from any orders, schedules or regulations for the time being in force under this Act.
(2) In the event of any undertaking providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area being purchased compulsorily by any local or public authority, any enhancement in the value of the undertaking
892
attributable directly or indirectly to this Act, or to any orders, schedules or regulations made thereunder, shall not be taken into account.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "any enhancement in" and to insert "that part of." The noble Lord said: This is a question which affects the value of a transport undertaking.
LORD PARMOOR: I look upon this as merely drafting, and I will accept the words.
Amendment moved—
Page 18, line 15, leave out ("any enhancement in") and insert ("that part of").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 14 agreed to.
Clause 15:
Expenses.
15. All expenses incurred in connection with the execution of powers and duties under this Act by the Minister or the Advisory Committee or the members thereof (including the remuneration of any officers and servants of the Ministry of Transport placed at the disposal of the Committee by the Minister, or such apportioned part of such remuneration as the Treasury may determine to be proper) shall, to such amount as may be sanctioned by the Treasury, be defrayed out of the Road Fund.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to leave out the clause. The noble Lord said: I wish to raise a protest. In 1908 and since then every successive Government has given an undertaking that the money raised by Motor Taxes shall be used for road repairs and bridge maintenance. This is a very serious infraction of that Parliamentary undertaking, and I have put down this Amendment in order to call attention to it. No previous Government has broken its word in this respect. I believe that the Minister has given some undertaking that it shall not be used as a precedent, and I shall be rather glad to hear what the representative of the Government will say.
Amendment moved—
Leave out Clause 15.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD THOMSON: This Amendment attacks the putting of the charge for the

893
financial provisions of the Bill on to the Road Fund. In a sense it is a choice of evils. What Lord Montagu has pointed out is, in a sense, true; there is no desire to establish a precedent. The alternative was to put the charge either on to the taxpayers as a whole, or on the local authorities. To put it on to the taxpayers would have been about as open to attack as to put it on to the Road Fund. To put it on to the local authorities was impracticable, because it was clearly ascertained that the local authorities would not pay.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: Could it not be put on the traffic authority? Ships pay for the lighting of the coast. It is only fair that the charge should be levied on the various kinds of traffic in London.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16:
Definitions.
16. For the purposes of this Act unless the context otherwise requires—
The expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-banc, wagonette, brake, stage-coach, or other carriage (not being a tram car or trolley vehicle) plying for hire by, or used to carry, passengers at separate fares;
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved, in the definition of "omnibus," after "stage-coach," to insert "tramcar, trolley vehicle." The noble Lord said: It is necessary to put "trolley vehicle" in, because that is a vehicle which runs on the road and requires looking after just as much as an omnibus, or anything else.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, line 17, after ("stage-coach") insert ("tramcar, trolley vehicle").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
LORD PARMOOR: I think this is consequential.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Amendment moved—
Page 20, lines 18 and 19, leave out ("(not being a tramway or trolley vehicle)").—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 10, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 17:
Short title and commencement.
17.—(1) This Act may be cited as the London Traffic Act, 1924, and shall come into operation on the appointed day, and the appointed day shall be such day not being later than tin: first Cay of October, nineteen hundred and twenty-four, as the Minister may by order appoint, and different days may be appointed for different purposes and for different provisions of this Act.
(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:
Provided that the expiration of this Act shall not affect any penalty, forfeiture, or punishment previously incurred under this Act or under any regulations made under tins Act, or affect any legal proceeding or remedy in respect of any such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment, and any such legal proceeding or remedy may be instituted, or Continued, or enforced, and such penalty, forfeiture, or punishment may be imposed as if this Act had not expired.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU: I have had an explanation from the noble and learned Lord as to the dates, and I do not move (he next three Amendments which stand in my name for their alteration.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved to substitute "nineteen hundred and thirty" for "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven." The noble Lord said: I hope the Government will see their way to accept this extremely modest suggestion to prolong the Act for another three years. When this question was raised the Minister of Transport (whom I take to be a convinced democrat) observed that he thought it was much better to leave it without any positive date for its termination. I think that almost everybody who has spoken has expressed the opinion that three years is too short a time. I venture, therefore, to hope that this Amendment will be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 0, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Lord Newton.)
VISCOUNT PEEL: I entirely agree with what the noble Lord has said, that it really is absurd to give a life of only three years to this Bill. If you give it such a life hardly anything will be done under it, because all these schemes, of

895
roads, developments, tunnels and what not, take a considerable amount of time first of all for negotiation with and apportionment among the local authorities. Ii those who go upon this Advisory Committee feel that their life is limited to three years, I do not believe that anybody of any standing or force will serve upon it, and that the work of the Committee will be entirely nugatory. I had hoped that my noble friend would put down an Amendment that the Bill should be permanent, because it is a very good Bill. It is a Conservative Bill, and the fact that it is brought in by the Labour party does not make it an entirely bad Bill in my view, considering its origin. If Parliament finds that the Bill is being badly worked it is perfectly easy to bring in another Bill to amend it, or to substitute another in its place. What happens is that Parliament is forced in three or six years to introduce new legislation on the subject. It is almost certain when the time arrives that Parliament will he congested with work, us it always is, and that no new legislation will be possible. It will be placed, I suppose, under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, and will be carried from year to year under it.
Those who deal with it and work under it will not know from year to year what is going to happen. They cannot bring great schemes into operation. Great schemes of road development take many years to bring to fruition, and the mere fact of giving this temporary nature to the Bill will be a blow to any development under it. I think that my noble friend is too modest, and I would urge him to extend it to nine years because
the people who will go on this Committee will feel then that they are able to demonstrate their value and usefulness, and will be able to show some schemes which will convince the public that they are really capable of doing what they set out to do.
LORD NEWTON: I will withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
VISCOUNT PEEL: Seeing that the noble Lord has withdrawn his Amendment, I will move that the Bill shall have a life of nine years.
Amendment moved—
Page 21, line 6, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert (nineteen hundred and thirty-three").—(Viscount Peel.)
LORD PARMOOR: I am afraid I cannot accept this Amendment,. There is much to be said in its favour; but the Bill throughout its passage in another place was referred to as a "stop gap" Bill; at any rate, as a temporary measure. I have no doubt that it will be continued under the Expiring Laws Continuance Act as all these laws are. But I could not accept a different date at this stage.
VISCOUNT PEEL: It would be quite futile then.
On Question, Whether the word proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 19; Not-Contents, 17.

CONTENTS.

Parmoor, L. (L. President.)

Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

Banbury of Southam, L.

Erskine, L.

Bathurst, E.

Morton, E.

Lamington, L.

Beauchamp, E.

Meston, L.

Buxton, E.

Chelmsford, V.

Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

Chesterfield, E.

Churchill, V.

Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]

De La Warr, E. [Teller.]

Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

Stanmore, L.

Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.

Bath, M.

Falmouth, V.

Fairfax of Cameron, L.

Knutsford, V.

Faringdon, L.

Ancaster, E. [Teller.]

Peel, V. [Teller.]

Jessel, L.

Clarendon, E.

Younger of Leckie, V.

Newton, L.

Lucan, E.

Redesdale, L.

Ashfield, L.

Stuart of Wortley, L.

Cecil of Chelwood, V.

Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed with accordingly.
Clause 17 agreed to.
First Schedule agreed to.
Second Schedule:
SECOND SCHEDULE.
Particular matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee.
LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the heading of the Schedule, to leave out "may" and insert "shall". The noble Lord said: May I ask for some information on this point? At the beginning of this Schedule are the words "Particular matters which may be referred to the Advisory Committee," but in Clause 10 subsection (4) you have the words "Before making any regulations under the section, the Minister shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report", I suggest that, to make the two agree, the word "may" should be substituted by "shall".
Amendment moved—
Page 24, line 8, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)
LORD PARMOOR: I do not object to that. It seems to have the same meaning.
On Question, Amendment agreed to. Second Schedule, as amended, agreed to.
Third Schedule:
THIRD SCHEDULE.
Purposes or matters for or with respect to which Regulations may be made by the Minister.
(22) For enabling any police, local or other public authority, in the event of any person failing to do anything which under the regulations he ought to have done, to: do such act, and to recover the expenses thereof from the person so in default summarily as a civil debt.
LORD NEWTON LORD NEWTON moved, at the end of the Schedule, to insert: "(23) For prescribing rules with regard to pedestrians". The noble Lord said: During this discussion we have heard a great deal about Parliamentary control, democratic control and the powers of local authorities, but not a single allusion has been made to pedestrians, and I put this Amendment on the Paper to ensure that their
898
case should not be forgotten. There is nothing in the Bill which protects them. If I am mistaken, then there is no need to move the Amendment; but if I am right, then I think the Amendment should be accepted.
Amendment moved—
Page 27, line 11, at end insert: ("(23) For prescribing rides with regard to pedestrians".)—(Lord Newton.)
LORD THOMSON: There is nothing in the Bill which deals with pedestrians and I doubt whether anybody could devise anything which would make pedestrians keep to the right or left. The difficulty of enforcing any such regulation is very great
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Is it in order to introduce a proposal dealing with pedestrians in a London Traffic Bill? Pedestrians are not traffic.
LORD NEWTON: Oh, yes they are.
LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM: Oh, no they are not.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: My impression is that the gentleman who wanted pedestrians to walk on the right—or was it left?—and chalked the advice on the pavement got severely snubbed for his pains. Nobody paid the slightest attention to his chalk marks. I do not know whether Lord Thomson wants them to go to the right or left——
LORD THOMSON: I do not mind which.
THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I think that pedestrians, whatever your Lordships may say, will go exactly as they please.
LORD NEWTON: What is the harm in ensuring that this question shall be considered? I am not asking that pedestrians shall be made to keep to the left of the road. I am merely asking that the Minister, assisted by the Committee, shall prescribe rules for them.
LORD PARMOOR: I sympathise with the noble Lord. I know what care he has taken in the matter. But really the Bill has nothing to do with pedestrians at all. It deals with road traffic and I do not think it can be inserted in this Bill.
LORD NEW'TON: May I remind the noble and learned Lord that the late

899
Minister of Transport and his predecessor were insistent that this was a necessary protection. They were strongly in favour of it, and if the Lord President will refer to the proceedings in Committee in another place he will sec that when the question arose a vague assurance was given that it would not be lost sight of.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
Third Schedule, as amended, agreed to.

WEIGHTS AND MEASURES (MEASURING INSTRUMENTS) BILL. [H.L.]
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, this is a small Departmental Bill to bring measuring instruments under the same regulations as apply to weights and measures. I beg to move that it be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Parmoor.)
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I was not quite able to catch what the noble Lord said, as there was a good deal of talking going on, but I notice that under this Bill certain Regulations can be made. I should be very much obliged if the noble Lord would tell me if the Bill permits Regulations such as those which we have been discussing, and whether these Regulations are to be laid upon the Table and passed unless a Resolution of both Houses is passed against them, or whether they will not come into force unless a Resolution in their favour has been agreed to by both Houses of Parliament. Perhaps the noble Lord could tell us that.
LORD PARMOOR: These Regulations are made from time to time by the Board of Trade. They have never been submitted to either House, so that neither form mentioned by the noble Earl is applicable, as he will see if he looks at the Bill. This would be an innovation which is certainly not contemplated.
On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Arnold, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a Second time. It is certified as a Money Bill coming up from the other House. Il is in a common form, and is presented, I think, every year.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Bill read 2a: Committee negatived.

ST. HELENS CORPORATION (TROLLEY VEHICLES) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL.
Brought from the Commons; read 1a; to be printed and referred to the Examiners.
MORECAMBE CORPORATION BILL.
Returned from the Commons, with the Amendments, agreed to.
THAMES CONSERVANCY BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.
LONDON COUNTY COUNCIL (MONEY) BILL.
Reported without Amendment.
STAFFORDSHIRE POTTERIES WATER BOARD BILL.
The King's consent signified, and Bill reported with Amendments.
BRIGHTON CORPORATION WATER BILL.
Reported from the Select Committee with Amendments.

NEWCASTLE-UPON-TYNE AND GATES- HEAD CORPORATIONS (BRIDGE) BILL.
The Order made on Wednesday the 9th instant appointing certain Lords the

901
Select Committee to consider the Bill discharged.
Report from the Committee of Selection, That the following Lords be proposed to the House to form the Select Committee for the consideration of the said Bill; namely:—

E. Malmesbury,

V. Allendale,

L. Teynham,

L. Armstrong,

L. Meston (Chairman);

agreed to; and the said Lords appointed accordingly: The Committee to meet on Monday next at twelve o'clock; and all Petitions referred to the Committee, with leave to the Petitioners praying to be heard by Counsel against the Bill to be heard as desired, as also Counsel for the Bill.
The LORD CHANCELLOR The LORD CHANCELLOR acquainted the House, that the Clerk of the Parliaments had laid upon the Table the Certificates from the Examiners that no Standing
902
Orders are applicable to the following Bills:

Pier and Harbour Provisional Orders (No. 2).

Keighley Corporation (Trolley Vehicles) Provisional Order.

The same were ordered to lie on the Table.

PARLIAMENT (QUALIFICATION OF PEERESSES) BILL. [H.L.]
Adjourned debate on the Amendment to the Motion for the Second Reading, namely: That the Bill be read a Second Time this day six months (which stands appointed for to-morrow) put off sine die.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Second Report from the Select Committee made, to be printed, and to be considered on Monday next.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before twelve o'clock midnight.