LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

HL Deb 22 July 1924 vol 58 cc850-99

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:—

1. (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;
2. (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;
3. (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—

1. (a) the approved routes upon which he intends to establish a regular service of omnibuses;
2. (b) the time at which the service on each route is to commence and end on each day;
3. (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;
4. (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;
5. (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—

1. (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
2. (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—

1. (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:
2. (b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths
3. (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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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 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.

A NOBLE LORD

What is a genuine dispute?

LORD THOMSON

A dispute in which both parties think they are in the right. 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 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—

1. (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.

1. (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 restricted street, the Minister may make regulations—

1. (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;
2. (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
3. (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 moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (1), to leave out "in proximity thereto" and insert "along adjacent streets." The 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 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. 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 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 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 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. 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 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, 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 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 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 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, 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 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 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. 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 modification, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder.

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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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 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.