LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

HL Deb 22 July 1924 vol 58 cc780-849

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Motion agreed to.

House in Committee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the chair.]

Clause 1.

Constitution of Advisory Committee.

1.—(1) With a view to facilitating and improving the regulation of traffic in and near London, there shall, for the purpose of giving advice and assistance in manner provided by this Act to the Minister of Transport (hereinafter referred to as the Minister) in connection with the exercise and performance of his powers and duties in relation to traffic within the area described in the First Schedule to this Act (hereinafter referred to as the London Traffic Area) be constituted a committee, to be called the London and Home Counties Traffic Advisory Committee and hereinafter referred to as the Advisory Committee consisting of a chairman appointed by the Minister and such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.

(2) Of the ordinary members:

One shall he appointed by a Secretary of State:

Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:

One shall he appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:

Two shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several metropolitan boroughs:

One shall be appointed by the Minister from among nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying north of the Thames:

One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule hereto other than the administrative county of London, lying south of the Thames:

One shall be appointed by the Minister from amongst nominees selected by the councils of the several county boroughs within the London Traffic Area:

One shall be a representative of the metropolitan police appointed by a Secretary of State:

One shall he a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London:

One shall be appointed by the Minister, but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport:

Every ordinary member appointed by a local authority other than the representative of the City police and every person selected by a group of authorities shall he a member of the local authority or of one of the grouped authorities, as the case may be.

(3) Of the additional members:—

Three shall be representatives of the interests of labour engaged in the transport industry within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister of Labour after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think fit:

Four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable.

(4) The ordinary members shall form part of the committee on all occasions, and the additional members shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising the Minister upon any matter referred to the committee under or by virtue of Section seven or Section ten of this Act, or any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with the matters specified in Part I of the Second Schedule to this Act:

Provided that the Minister may if he thinks fit, direct that in any particular case the additional members, or such one or more of them as he may direct, shall form part of the committee when considering and reporting to and advising him upon any matter or question referred to the committee under this Act in connection with any of the matters mentioned in Part II of the said schedule.

(5) A person shall be disqualified for being appointed or being an ordinary member of the Advisory Committee if he is a director of a company or a partner in a firm or is in the employment of a company or firm engaged in providing means of transport within the London Traffic Area.

(6) The term of office of the chairman and other members of the Advisory Committee first appointed shall be from the date of appointment, until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-live, and subject to the provisions as to the term of office of persons appointed to fill casual vacancies, the term of office of persons subsequently appointed shall be three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.

(7) If any member of the Advisory Committee without having received leave of absence by a resolution of the committee fails for a period of six months to attend duly summoned meetings of the Committee, or of a sub-committee on which he has been appointed to serve, his seat shall thereupon become vacant, and lie shall not be eligible for reappointment in respect of that vacancy.

(8) On a casual vacancy occurring on the Advisory Committee by reason of death, resignation, or otherwise, the vacancy shall be filled by the appointment of a new member in like manner as the member in whose place he is appointed, and he shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place ho is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.

(9) The Minister may place at the disposal of the Advisory Committee the services of such of the officers and servants of the Ministry of Transport as appear to him to lie required for the purpose of the proper discharge of the duties of the Committee.

(10) The Advisory Committee may subject to the approval of the Minister, make rules for regulating their procedure (including the fixing of a quorum, and the appointment, powers, duties and procedure of sub-committees), and for regulating the procedure at any inquiry held by the Advisory Committee or by any members thereof under this Act; and the additional members shall form part of the. Advisory Committee when considering and making such rules of procedure.

(11) The Advisory Committee shall make an annual report of their proceedings to the Minister, which shall be laid before Parliament.

(12) The proceedings of the Advisory Committee shall not be invalidated by any vacancy in their number or any defect in the appointment of any member.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had an Amendment on the Paper to move, in subsection (1), to leave out "and near" ["in and near London"], and after "London" to insert "and the suburbs thereof." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is to some extent consequential, but it is introductory because it is an alteration of the words of the first clause to meet the changes which I hope "ill be made at later stages. Possibly it would be more convenient if I did not move it here, and allowed my noble friend Lord Buxton to move the next Amendment, which is really the one on which the discussion will take place.

EARL BUXTON moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "described in the First Schedule to this Act" and insert "of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts." The noble Earl said: The Amendment which I have on the Paper describes, I think clearly, the alternatives before your Lordships in considering the extent to which the authority given by this Bill should go. The two alternatives are: The proposal of the Bill, which gives an area of twenty-five miles from Charing Cross, and the one which I propose, called the Metropolitan Police District, which, of course, includes the City Police District, and extends for fifteen miles from Charing Cross. It seems to me that there are very great objections to the twenty-five miles proposed in the Bill. In the first place, it is a purely artificial area, and in the second place, it does not correspond with any existing local area. It includes a large number of rural districts in which there is really no congestion of traffic, and it will undoubtedly lead to a conflict of authority between the Ministry of Transport and the outside county councils and local bodies. On the other hand, the Metropolitan Police area is a well known one, which has been in existence for many years. It is controlled by the Metropolitan Police, and efficiently managed. It is homogenous, and it includes the most congested areas of London, those really with which this Bill has to deal. The alternatives, then, are the twenty-five miles radius mentioned in the Bill, which I consider an artificial circle, and the well known recognised boundary of fifteen miles from Charing Cross.

This is a provisional Bill. It is to last for three years only and, as I pointed out on Second Beading, it was introduced as a matter of urgency without having been properly considered. The Government at that moment had no intention of introducing a traffic Bill, but they brought in this measure because of a strike. Therefore, the matter in regard to the area has not been thoroughly thought out. In those circumstances it would be much better to adopt an area which is well known and easily worked, rather than an artificial area. We shall have plenty of opportunity, during the three years' experimental period, of seeing how this proposal of an area of fifteen miles' radius will deal with the congestion of traffic and how far it may be desirable to extend it. Your Lordships should look at the map which has been issued by one of the various committees which has considered this question. It will show that the real congestion of traffic, which is what we all desire to deal with, is confined to the inner area and not to the outer area. The most congested area of traffic is in the City of London, Oxford-street, Regent-street, Piccadilly, and not in the outskirts

I cannot think that the control of the traffic by the Minister of Transport in such places as Chertsey, Watford and Sevenoaks, which would come within the extended area of a twenty-five mile radius, would have any appreciable effect on the congestion at the centre. No doubt, if the traffic is dealt with well at the centre where it is serious there will be some improvement in the outside districts, but that the handling of the traffic in the narrow streets of Watford, where it is well-managed by the police, will have any effect on traffic in the City and the Strand is an idle idea. If noble Lords will look at the First Schedule they will find that the area includes not only the places I have mentioned but all sorts of small villages and rural areas in which there is no congestion and where the proposals of the Bill are entirely unnecessary.

I should like to ask why it is that this particular area of twenty-five mile radius has been drawn. I live in Sussex, some forty miles from London on the Brighton road, and if there is a road out of London —the same applies to the Portsmouth road—which requires control it is the Brighton road. The Government do not include that area at all, but they do include other districts in which there is no congestion. When the Bill was before the House of Commons the Minister of Transport said that if the larger area was not included then Tilbury, Southend and other dock areas would be excluded, and that there was considerable congestion of traffic at these places. There is, of course, congestion of traffic there, but the simple solution would lie to include these ports in the Bill. The Bill itself admits that there is a difference in regard to the inside and outside areas, because, on the question of licensing, it schedules certain streets and Clause 6 and 7, which are the two most important in the Bill, are confined to the Metropolitan Police area and do not extend to the larger area in the Bill.

It may be said with some truth that the traffic is sufficiently controlled outside the actual London congested area by the various local authorities, and that it is a serious matter for the Minister of Transport to interfere with the traffic control of these authorities in the larger area with the mere idea of drawing an artificial line. It introduces dual control over the police and brings the Minister of Transport as the overriding authority in regard to the control of the traffic in the particular area. I mentioned Watford just now, with its narrow streets and considerable traffic. The traffic there is much better managed by the Corporation of Watford than it could possibly be managed by the Minister of Transport, sitting in Whitehall. Some parts of Berkshire have been omitted from the schedule. It only shows what a purely artificial area is this one of twenty-five miles radius. There is an Amendment on the Paper to exclude Buckinghamshire. That again only shows how very artificial are these boundaries. This particular Amendment was carried in the other House by 29 votes to IT and only reversed on Report stage through Government pressure. This is not a matter of vital importance in regard to the principle of the Bill. The Bill would be just as effective whether the area is one of twenty-five miles radius or fifteen miles, and it seems to me that the balance of advantage is greatly in favour of the more restricted area rather than the larger and more artificial area. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("described in the First Schedule to this Act") and insert ("of the City of London and Metropolitan Police Districts").—(Earl Buxton.)

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (LORD PARMOOR)

I should like in the first place to dissipate the idea of the noble Earl that the area has not been carefully considered. It is the area suggested by the Committee, over which Viscount Ullswater presided, which was appointed for the purpose of considering the traffic area. And let me say, in addition, that as regards what are called outside areas many of them are situated on the great arterial roads, and many of them are on the ordinary omnibus routes which are in use at the present time. I will give an illustration of what I mean. The noble Earl referred to the County of Buckingham. As a matter of fact, that County was cut out in Committee and restored afterwards in the House of Commons by 238 to 119. I happen to know Buckinghamshire very well and, as I have stated before, I wish that the traffic regulations had been extended even so far as I live in Buckinghamshire, because: we experience both danger and congestion owing to the conditions of traffic.

This is what happened as regards Buckinghamshire at the time when it was cut out of the Bill and before it had been restored in the House itself. The Report of the Highways Committee for Buckinghamshire was in the following terms:— It appears, however, that the Bill has been amended in the Committee Stage so that Buckinghamshire is excluded from its operation. In your Committee's view it is important that this Amendment should not be allowed to remain in the Bill and it is proposed to approach Members of Parliament for the County in the matter. At the same time—and this shows how the case really stood—the Buckinghamshire County Council pointed out that all this traffic was really London traffic of a kind likely to lead to congestion, and they based upon that point the plea that the whole expense should be paid from central sources and not from the local rates. Now, this is either London traffic, or it is not. There can be no doubt in the mind of any one who has travelled along the Bath road as often as I do that there is congestion of a very serious kind consequent upon the London traffic, and I believe that 99 per cent, of the people of Buckinghamshire desire that this traffic congestion should be properly regulated. The Highways Committee brought this very point to the notice of the House of Commons.

The noble Earl has pointed out that Clauses 6 and 7 do not affect this point, but that it is only Section 10 which really applies and deals with the regulation of traffic. I beg the House not to deprive my County of Buckingham at any rate of the enormous advantage that we should derive from the proper regulation of this very heavy London traffic. The noble Earl is presenting an absolute chimera, I can assure him as one who has been for a long time on the Buckinghamshire County Council (though it was years ago), when he suggests that there will be any difficulty in applying this regulation as proposed in the Bill. I must say that I hope very much that this innovation in the Bill, if I may so call it, will not be made. There was only one County that did not like it—Berkshire—and it has been taken out. Watford and these other places are perfectly content. There has not been a single move against it. The same applies in an eastward direction where it is very important that the arterial roads should have the traffic properly regulated. This is a very heretical suggestion of the noble Earl, if he will allow me to say so. The only County where the matter has been really discussed is Buckinghamshire, and they have pointed out how important it is to have this heavy traffic regulated. Why should they not be left in? The Highways Committee have asked for it, the County Council have taken the same view, and, as I say, this matter has been carefully considered. I hope your Lordships will maintain (his area, which we think is very important if we are to have proper regulation.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

As my name has been mentioned in connection with this matter I should like to make a few observations. I was Chairman of the Commission which was appointed to consider questions of London government and the setting up of an area larger than the present one. We had all these matters before us. We sat for a year and a half and, of course, transport was one of the most important matters that we considered. I should like to read to your Lordships one or two extracts from the Report which we presented. On page 67, in paragraph 252 of our Report, we say:— There is a further general opinion that any centralised powers in relation to transport should extend to a wider area than that of Greater London. That is the fact. We had a great deal of evidence, and that evidence was practically unanimous in favour of dealing with this question of traffic over a large area. It was pointed out that the Greater London area merely would really be of no use. A great deal of evidence went very much further, even to suggesting that places such as Brighton and Southend should be included. That, I think, was rather more than we could swallow at the time, but we were practically unanimous in favour of taking a larger area and we took the twenty-five mile radius chiefly for the reason that within that twenty-five mile radius you had a population which sleeps out of London but comes into London for its work and uses whatever means of traffic are open to it.

Here is another extract from our Report. We say, in paragraph 299:— The maximum area which the witnesses have had in mind includes at least the whole of the five Home Counties (Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Middlesex and Surrey) as well as the Administrative County of London. Without going so far as that we feel that it is desirable to include a fairly wide circuit of country round the Metropolis. The country within a radius of about 25 miles appears to us to be a suitable area. It is true that we contemplated handing over to the Advisory Committee, which we suggested, other matters besides traffic, but this does not detract at all from the strength of the argument in favour of including a very considerable area for traffic purposes.

We selected the electricity area because it was a known area and because it was a radius of about twenty-five miles from Charing Cross. The area in the schedule of the Bill is practically the electricity area: I think there is hardly any difference at all, though a small parish or township or two are left out or included. I have been again through the evidence, and I hold in my hand here one volume of it only. In this volume I find that Hertfordshire was in favour of the larger area, that Surrey was in favour of it, that Essex also gave evidence in favour of it, that Kent gave evidence in favour of it, and that Croydon also gave evidence in favour of it. This evidence was not given by a single person who took upon himself to represent a county, but was evidence laid before us by committees which had been specially appointed to consider this matter of the different local authorities.

Here is the reply of Surrey to Question 3,506, which ran as follows:— Have you any views as to the extent of the area for which the traffic authority should have control? Answer [from Mr. E. J. Holland]: No except this: that we are quite sure that it ought to he an area larger than the Metropolitan Police Area … Exactly how far it would be desirable to go I would rather leave for, let us say, the experts, but I am quite sure that you could not stop the work of your traffic authority at, let us say, our Metropolitan Police boundary. That is a very clear pronouncement from the County of Surrey. We had a similar view from Essex, in reply to Question 4,470, which ran:— With regard to this Advisory Board, do you share the views of Surrey, and, I think, of Hertfordshire also, that the area over which the consideration ought to extend should be very much larger than London and its immediate surroundings? Answer [from Mr. Musgrave]: I do. I think certainly, so far as Essex is concerned, it should take us in up to the coast. Question: That it should include the whole of Essex right up to Colchester? Answer: Yes … We are having a large amount of growth in traffic, and I see no advantage in cutting it off at Epping Forest. So it goes on. I will not weary your Lordships by reading a number of these answers, but, I can assure your Lordships that the evidence was practically unanimous that if the traffic Advisory Committee, or whatever the authority was which was to be set up, was to do any good at all it was useless to confine it to a small area and absolutely necessary that it should include a much larger area. For those reasons I hope your Lordships will keep to the proposals which are contained in the Bill.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I was very interested to hear from the noble Viscount how they came to the conclusion on the Commission over which he presided that the London area for this purpose should be made as wife as is proposed in this Bill. I think the noble Viscount explained this, but I want your Lordships to realise that this area was not proposed for transport alone but for many other purposes as well, including housing, town planning and many other kinds of purposes. Therefore, I am afraid that, from the point of view of those who think with me, we cannot admit that that is quite a valid argument. On page 40 of the Report they say: There were differences of opinion as to the precise limits of the area. Most witnesses would restrict it to Greater London or to London and the Home Counties; others thought that it should extend even beyond the latter limits, at any rate in certain directions. I would remind the noble Lord also and the. House that the Report in favour of this great area is only signed by four members out of ten and that two members, Mr. Walsh, the present Secretary of State for War, and Mr. Robert Donald held very strong opinions that the Metropolitan Police area should be the area.

Another point which has not been mentioned is that in the Bill you have appointed the Metropolitan Police, as licensing authority in the first place, and if you make your area in the Bill coincident with the area administered by the Metropolitan Police it is obvious that this is the logical thing to do. If you make it wider than that there may be some question in regard to motor licences to Sevenoaks or Guildford where the Metropolitan Police have no authority. If we go back a little further than the Commission we find that the Royal Commission on London traffic reported in 1905 strongly in favour of the Police area and Greater London, as we know it. Again the Advisory Committee on London traffic in 1920 favoured also this smaller area and in the original Bill in the other House, as has been mentioned, the Committee, by a very considerable majority, threw out the larger area and substituted for it the Police or Greater London area.

Having regard to these facts the argument, I think, is in favour of the smaller area rather than the bigger one. I do not know whether the noble Lord has any idea what an enormous area the London Police area is. It extends to Dartford, it goes north and south about fifteen miles from Charing Cross, and it has a population of over seven and a half millions. Surely that is a sufficiently large area to begin with. This Bill is in the nature of an experiment, and if, later on, the experiment is successful, then is the time for the Government to come to Parliament to extend it. That is better than taking a big leap in the dark now. I do not know with what truth, but it has been said that promises have been held out by the Ministry of Transport to the local authorities that if they come in and accept this Bill they will get extra grants for their roads.

LORD PARMOOB

That is not so.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I only know that it was so stated in another place, and there appears to be some reason why these local authorities are willing to come in. But, apart from the suggested reason which I have mentioned, the reason why they are willing to come in is that they do not want to be roped in with Greater London for other purposes. They think that if they get an ad hoc authority they will escape being roped in for drainage, water and other purposes. I think they are mistaken there. If they are roped in for transport they are to be roped in for other purposes as well, and I do not believe they want to be roped in. I suggest to the House that the area of Greater London is quite sufficient for the purposes of this Bill, and that this House would be wise to go back to the position adopted by the Committee in the other House.

EARL RUSSELL

I have an Amendment very late on the Paper dealing with the First Schedule, and it has the same effect as the Amendment before the House. Therefore, I think it would be convenient if I said what I have to say in the discussion on the present Amendment. The arguments which have been presented to us in favour of the larger area seem to me to some extent to contradict themselves. First, we are told that you ought to take a large sweep of twenty-five miles from the centre. That would be a simple thing to put in the schedule, but that is not in the schedule. On the contrary there are a number of places, here, there and everywhere, and some places are left out. Can the Lord President of the Council give to the House any sort of reason why Seven-oaks and Guildford should be put in and Maidenhead be left out?

LORD PARMOOR

Maidenhead is in Berkshire.

EARL RUSSELL

Even so, I am not aware that it has the right to dictate to this or the other House.

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Lord asked me the reason.

EARL RUSSELL

When considering the question of traffic, although, no doubt, due consideration will be given to their wishes, their wishes are not final and are not binding on the House. Maidenhead, it is true, is in Berkshire, but it stands in very much the same position as Guildford. I think I am right in saying that it is a few miles less distant from London, and it stands on a main road. If we take an area let us take an area that we know—namely, the Metropolitan Police area, where they are the only licensing authority and exercise police control, and I would ask the noble Lord, or any of the defenders of the Bill on the Front Bench—I am not aware that there are an friends of the Bill, but I would ask any noble Lord who is going to follow me in defence of the Bill—to say what steps are to be taken, and what direct effect is going to be given to any provision of this Bill which will be of the slightest use to Guildford or Seven-oaks?

One noble Lord talked a good deal about the unanimity of these local authorities. I think my noble friend who has just sat down showed that when they were giving evidence they were not limiting themselves to a mere question of traffic, but were considering a good many other questions. I think the noble Viscount who presided over the Commission proved a little too much, because, in reading out the answer to one question, he somewhat rashly said they wished the area to be extended to Colchester. That shows that there was not that complete unanimity about this exact area that we are given to understand. Do not create a new and unknown area from which we have not been shown any benefit that will follow, but stick to an area which you know and lot this experiment be tried in that area. If it is successful there, nothing could be easier than for the Government of the day to come I o Parliament and ask for the area to be extended, and if the experiment has been proved to be of advantage to outlying districts everything will be in favour of extending the area.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, I was very much interested in considering what were the particular reasons why the noble Earl, Lord Buxton, was so anxious to advocate this smaller or Metropolitan area, but he really said very little in favour of it. All he said was that it is a well-known area, and that it has existed since 1847. This area, no doubt, was established then, and I think has not been changed in the intervening period of nearly eighty years. It was established for police purposes. Is it really credible, without a great deal of proof, that an area that was established eighty years ago for the purposes of police, is now the exactly right area for the purposes of transport—transport which has been revolutionised, not once but ten times, during that period? I should have thought that the presumption would have been strongly against an area of that kind, considering that it was established for totally different purposes.

The debate has very largely assumed that the only business of this Advisory Committee is to deal with the control of traffic. Its purpose is much wider than that; it will deal with new roads and development of roads. I understand that some big schemes are in contemplation. They have been in contemplation for some time, but unfortunately these schemes are only carried out twenty-five years after they ought to have been carried out. One scheme is a big tunnel under the Thames, in order to obviate the tremendous congestion of traffic from the docks. If the area was restricted that scheme would be entirely knocked on the head, or, at least, made exceedingly difficult to carry out.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Why?

VISCOUNT PEEL

Because this advisory body will only be able to advise on subjects inside its own area.

EARL RUSSELL

What power is there in the Bill to make or contribute to new roads?

VISCOUNT PEEL

I did not say the Committee could either make or contribute to new roads. I was referring, of course, to the schedules, where it is stated that the authority has the right to deal with the development, improvement, or extension of the existing system of road communication within the London Traffic Area. I pass to another observation of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu. He was trying to get over the awkward fact, for those who are opposed to the larger area, that all these local authorities outside London are anxious for the Bill in its present form, in order to get over that my noble friend bad to resort to the device of saying that they were in favour of it, not because they desired to be included in the area, but because they were afraid of some other terrible thing that might happen to them. It is sufficient that you have the decision of the local authorities, without going into the question of their motives.

The noble Earl has referred to this scheme as an experiment. I hope it will last longer than three years, because I do not think you can do anything in three years. I assume that when your Lordships come to a later Amendment you will see that some latitude should be given to the people who are going to work on this advisory body. But is it not a great mistake, if you are dealing with this very old question, which is becoming a larger and larger question every day, to seek to limit the activities of this new body by restricting its area? The noble Earl made a challenge as to what advantage was to be got by some of these outlying towns being included in the area. The advantage is this: that for the purposes of traffic the larger area is a traffic unit. The omnibuses and motor cars run and ply between these places and if you draw a narrow area of fifteen miles you will halve the benefits, perhaps altogether destroy the benefits, that you might be conferring upon London and its surroundings by taking at once the larger area. The fact is that you are faced with a very large problem indeed. You have a system of roads which is utterly unsuitable for the enormous traffic of London, and if you are going again to make your roads fit for the traffic that will go over them you have to take a larger and bolder line.

A great point in reference to traffic is that you cannot deal with it where the congestion arises; you have to deal with it at a point perhaps very far away from that point. It seems to me that you have the local authorities with you, while the Report of the Ullswater Commission is in favour of this area; and when you see the very great advantages' to London of dealing with the matter in a large way, I urge your Lordships not to take this narrow area merely because of some interpretation that may be put upon the views of the local authorities and because my noble friend Lord Buxton thinks it is so experimental that the experiment ought not to be allowed to succeed.

EARL STANHOPE

I confess that I am one of those who sleep in the country and work in London and I come within the traffic area defined in the Bill. My noble friend Lord Peel has said that the whole of the local authorities are in favour of this area. I wonder how he knows that. I know that the county council of my county are in favour of it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I said so because the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, read out their views in the speech he made the other day.

EARL STANHOPE

He read out the views of the county councils. He did not read out the views of the district councils, the parish councils and the other local authorities. There are many parishes included in the schedule to this Bill that have not a single first-class road running through them—not a single road which comes under the county council. They are kept up by the local authorities who, to the best of my belief, did not give evidence before my noble friend's Commission and know nothing about this Bill. I asked several of them about it and they were amazed to hear that they came within the London Traffic Area. I think the Government have quite rightly kept their Committee for the management of the London Traffic Area small; but the result of making it small is that you have one representative for the whole of the counties south of the river and one representative for the whole of the counties north of the river. I ask how can that single individual have any possible local knowledge of the width of roads, or whether they are possible for one kind of transport or another? If you put a vast area of that kind under a small Committee obviously you will stultify that Committee, because they cannot have the local knowledge of the traffic which is necessary on the by-roads.

When we come to the main roads I admit that we must have them on a large scale but when we come to the local byroads it is an entirely different matter. They will never in our lifetime, or probably for long after, become anything more than local roads and will probably never be used for main line traffic. Therefore, it seems absurd to crowd the work of the Committee to such an extent by putting under its control such a large area. A very large amount of this area is purely rural and agricultural, and to put that area under a Committee which may be a most competent body for the management of traffic in the streets of London, does not seem to be the best plan because, being experts in traffic in crowded districts, they probably know very little about rural areas.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

The object of this Bill is the regulation of traffic in the streets of London. That being so it is proposed to deal with the traffic in Eton and to say that you must not deal with it in Windsor. My noble friend Lord Peel tells me that in order to avoid congestion in the streets of London—a subject in which I have taken great interest for many years; I drove about the streets of London for many years—you have to arrange what the traffic is in Eton or places equally distant. The noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, says that you have to deal with people who come to London daily. People living twenty to twenty-five miles from London come in by train and this Bill does not touch trains. The Lord President talked about the Bath road. I come up on the Bath road.

LORD PARMOOR

And the Bucks road.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

It is the same thing. I come up by motor two or three times a year, and I find that there is no congestion whatever. It may be that I have been exceptionally lucky, but I find that there is no congestion until I get to Hounslow. When I reach Hounslow there is a little congestion by the "Bell" Inn, but there is no congestion then until you come to Zion House. After you pass Zion House, which is a long way less than twenty-five miles from London, there is congestion in Brentford. Why? Because of the trams. The trams have been allowed to go down the narrow street. I have not often had the pleasure of agreeing with the noble Earl, Lord Buxton. In ninety-nine cases out of one hundred I think we have found ourselves in different Lobbies, but I shall have much satisfaction in finding myself in the same Lobby with him in regard to this matter.

VISCOUNT HAMPDEN

I speak to-day on behalf of the local authorities of Hertfordshire. The County Council of Hertfordshire met the other day and this Bill was before them. It was unanimously agreed that every possible support should be given to the schedule as it stands in the Bill. We have heard something about the motives of local authorities. I will not go into that question beyond saying that to us there appears no reason whatever for adopting the Metropolitan Police district as an area and every reason for taking the London omnibus routes from their start to the finish. They ought to be under one control. It is worthy of note also that the advocates of Greater London in another place took the same view as the movers of this Amendment. We have a certain suspicion of that in Hertfordshire. Up to date we have had every success in keeping off and defeating those who are in favour of Greater Loudon. That may have had some weight with us, possibly, but we thought that this Bill would only be an effective Bill if this schedule, remained as it was and we were included.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I must admit to your Lordships that I have been very much divided in my mind as to the vote which I ought to give in respect to this Amendment. I am bound to say that I am very much impressed with the evidence in favour of the unanimity of the great local authorities in the neighbourhood of London, of which my noble friend and colleague on the County Council of Hertfordshire has just spoken. I do not think we can ignore the views of those great local authorities. It is their business, after all, to speak in the name of their counties. I am very far from saying that they ought to control the votes of your Lordships' House in the least, but I think their opinion ought to have great weight with you. It is true that great congestion does not exist round about Hatfield, as it does in the City of London. I am also bound to say that the condition of things round about Hatfield on Saturday and Sunday leads residents in that district to wish that there could he greater powers of regulation. That is really the point.

I want your Lordships to realise—it has already been said in the debate but I should like to repeat it—that the very drastic powers contained in Clause 0 and Clause 7 of the Bill do not apply as the Bill stands to anything outside the Metropolitan Police area. That is a very-important matter. The regulations which apply outside the Metropolitan Police area are of a very much slighter kind as the Bill stands. We have to consider whether it is not right that the great County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, Essex, and so forth, who ask to be included should be included having regard to the regulations contained in the Third Schedule, the Schedule under Clause 10. May I ask your Lordships to look for a moment at the Third Schedule? Take, for example, paragraph 3 in that Schedule. The Third Schedule prescribes the powers which, under Clause 10 (that is, in the wider area) if your Lordships leave the Bill as it stands, the traffic authorities would have to make regulations. Paragraph 3 says:— For regulating the relative position in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds or types.'' Anybody who has come up in the crowded periods of the day from Hatfield to London will realise how important it is that there should foe some power of regulation in that respect, There are these big, comparatively slow-moving lorries which hold up the traffic and interfere with it very greatly. Surely, there ought to be some power to regulate them and to say how they shall go. I think you have not the power without this Bill.

Again, in paragraph 5 the words are:— For prescribing the conditions subject to which, and the times at which, articles of exceptionally heavy weight or exceptionally largo dimensions may be carried by road. That appears to be a matter for which the Minister has power to make regulations. Then take paragraph 9, which reads:— For prescribing rules as to precedence to be observed as between vehicles proceeding in the same direction, or in opposite directions, or when crossing. There is nothing more important for the safety of the travelling public than that there should be regulations as to crossing these great main roads. The noble Earl opposite recognises that. There is tremendous traffic up and down our main roads, and there ought to be some means of prescribing regulations so that the parties shall not discharge their unfortunate passengers in such a way that they are swept into eternity by the fast moving traffic on the main roads. There is a minor regulation in paragraph 11— For requiring the erection, exhibition, and removal of traffic notices, and as to the form, plan, and character of such notices." There, again, there ought to be greater powers of regulation. Those are the things which can be done by this Traffic Board, and those are the things which the County Councils of Hertfordshire, Kent, and, as I now understand, Buckinghamshire—I thought that Buckinghamshire might have been different—ask that this traffic authority should be allowed to do. I really think that it is a matter in which the opinion of these County Councils ought to have the greatest weight, though I agree with my noble friend in his desire that this new traffic authority should not be unchecked in its power. I shall have an opportunity of saying something to your Lordships on that aspect of the matter later on. I do not want the traffic authority to act in a tyrannous way, but I do think that in this matter of area it would be wise to support the opinion of the great local authorities.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

I wish to say one or two words with reference to this Amendment, which, I am afraid, I cannot support. I have had a little experience of the control of traffic, and if there is one thing which is more essential than another to the efficient control of traffic it is a small authority. The noble Earl who moved this Amendment proposes that the authority for the control of traffic in the Metropolitan area outside London, within a certain area, shall be divided into two. If you do that you must of necessity decrease the efficiency of the control of the traffic in and around London, In these days, with the increase of motor traffic, of charabancs and motor omnibuses, it is becoming the custom of people living a long way from London to concentrate in and near London, especially during the summer season, with the result that the authority which is vested with the control of the traffic has found it almost impossible to deal with that traffic when it arrives at its destination.

There are two instances which I am sure your Lordships will remember. One was the great football match that took place at Wembley last year, and the other was the Derby at Epsom this year. On both those occasions the congestion of traffic was so great that a considerable number of people failed absolutely to arrive either at Wembley or at Epsom. If there had been one single authority to deal with the control of that traffic within, say, twenty or thirty miles of the heart of London, that would never have occurred. Anybody who has had any experience of traffic control knows perfectly well that you must deal with the traffic from its source. There is no use in waiting till it arrives. If you do that you get chaos such as we see now.

There is one other thing which I should like to say, and it is in support of what the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, said with reference to the Third Schedule. There you will see that paragraph 3 deals with regulating the relative positions in the roadway of traffic of differing speeds and types. That is a question of education. During the war we found that the French nation, so far as military traffic was concerned, were far more able to control the traffic than we were. The reason was that for a long time before-many, many years before—the French military authorities had trained their men, and taught them how to proceed and when to proceed. We had never done that, and the result was that their traffic was far better ordered than ours. One of the things which you require to do to-day in England, so far as the control of traffic is concerned, is to teach the people that it is necessary to keep on one side of the road or the other, and to obey certain rules of traffic, and unless you have one small authority to deal with these matters you will not get any order out of the chaos which exists to-day. The smaller the authority which you appoint to deal with the traffic the better, and if it was my duly to have anything whatever to do with the control of traffic throughout this country I should certainly desire to be an autocrat and not a democrat.

EARL BUXTON

I will only trouble the House with two observations in reply. One is in reference to the speech of my noble friend, Lord Ullswater. A reference has been made to his Report, and to the evidence given before the Commission over which he presided, and a good deal of weight ha" been attached to the fact that the county councils at that time, two years ago, gave evidence before the Commission in favour of this larger area. I think your Lordships ought to remember that that Commission was not set up to deal specially with the traffic question. A very large number of other matters quite as important were dealt with by it. The county councils which gave evidence at that time were not dealing solely with

traffic, but also with other important questions. I think that to a large extent the evidence given at that time may now be discounted, because we have now before us the evidence as to what they would desire if it were solely a question of traffic. The other point on which I would desire to make an observation has relation to what was said by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury. He seemed to think that the regulations made under (he Third Schedule would be of great advantage to the neighbouring county councils. So far as my knowledge goes—I speak subject to correction—all the particular points to which he referred can already be dealt with by the Police and in other ways by the county councils. Those are the only observations I desire to make.

On Question, Whether the words proposed to be left out shall stand part of the clause?

Their Lordships divided—Contents, 75; Not-Contents, 48.

CONTENTS.
Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Bertie of Thame, V.	Dynevor, L.
	Cave, V.	Ernle, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)	Cecil of Chelwood, V.	Faringdon, L.
	Chelmsford, V.	Hawke, L.
Argyll, D.	Devonport, V.	Hunsdon of Hunsdon, L.
	Falkland, V.	Jessel, L.
Bath, M.	Falmouth, V.	Knaresborough, L.
Curzon of Kedleston, M.	Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)	Lawrence, L.
Lincolnshire, M. (L. Great Chamberlain.)		Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.
	Knutsford, V.	Meldrum, L. (M. Huntly.)
Salisbury, M.	Novar, V	Monson, L.
	Peel, V.	Morris, L.
Ancaster, E.	Ullswater, V.	Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]
Balfour, E.	Younger of Leckie V.	Newton, L.
Bradford, E.		Olivier, L
Clarendon, E.	Auslow, L.	Oranmore and Browne, L.
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Arnold, L	Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Drogheda, E.	Ashfield, L.
Kimberley, E.	Ashton of Hyde, L.	Riddell, L.
Lindsey, E.	Askwith, L.	Rowallan, L.
Lovelace, E.	Avebury, L.	Saltersford, L. (E. Courtown.)
Lucan, E.	Beaverbrook, L.	Saltoun, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Boston, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Mayo, E.	Brownlow, L.	Southwark, L.
Midleton, E.	Cawley, L.	Stuart of Wortley, L.
Onslow, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Thomson, L.
Selborne, E.		Wharton, L.
Strafford, E.	Clwyd, L.	Wyfold, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Portland, D.	Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Grey of Fallodon, V.
Wellington, D.		Long, V.
	Morton, E.
Normanby, M.	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Annesley, L. (V. Valentia.)
	Russell, E.	Banbury of Southam, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Stanhope, E.	Buckmaster, L.
Buxton, E. [Teller.]		Carson, L.
Chesterfield, E.	Allendale, V.	Channing of Wellingborough, L.
Denbigh, E.	Churchill, V.
Charnwood, L.	Lamington, L.	Ruthven of Gowrie, L.
Clinton, L.	MacDonnell, L.	Sempill, L.
Danesfort, L.	Moston, L	Shandon, L.
de Mauley L.	Mildmay of Flete, L.	Stanmore, L.
Denman, L.	Monckton, L. (V Galway.)	Strachie, L.
Desborough, L.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]	Sydenham, L.
Elgin, L. (E. Elgin and Kincardine.)		Terrington, L.
	O'Hagan, L.	Treowen, L.
Erskine, L.	Rathcreedan, L.	Wemyss, L. (E. Wemyss.)
Hemphill, L.	Redesdale, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment disagreed to accordingly.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "appointed by the Minister." The noble Lord said: This Amendment is really to give the Advisory Committee more power. As the Bill stands the Committee will be controlled and directed by the Minister and his officials. That may be right up to a certain point, but I think it would be much better to make it more independent. If the Chairman, who is usually the most powerful person on a Committee, is to be appointed by the Minister of Transport he will be nothing more than a gramophone giving expression to the wishes of the Minister. Our experience of these Committees in the past is that they practically do nothing. If the Committee is allowed to appoint its own Chairman, I think we may reasonably hope to have not only an efficient Chairman but an independent Chairman. It has been suggested, I believe, that they could not possibly elect a person so capable as, let us say, Sir Henry May-bury, who might be appointed by the Minister, but I think we ought to trust a Committee of this kind to exercise common sense, and I think it is very likely that Sir Henry Maybury, if he is the person contemplated, would be elected by the Committee. If the Committee is to be really useful and independent it should. I think, have a Chairman elected by itself, and not merely appointed by the Minister.

As regards Committees which have been appointed in the past under the powers given to the Minister in the Ministry of Transport Act which passed through this House in 1919, I may remark that many of these Committees have never been called together at all and that the Roads Committee met only three times in one year. That obviously shows that no use is made of these Committees. I maintain, and many of my friends agree with me, that if we are to make this Committee a strong and useful body it should have the power of appointing it" own Chairman and that the Chairman should not be practically a nominee of the Ministry of Transport. In those circumstances I hope the House will see its way to insert this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 1, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("appointed by the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu)

LORD PARMOOR

I think it might be convenient to state at once the views of the Government. They are in favour of maintaining that the Chairman should be appointed by the Minister, not on any-ground of his competence to take a permanent position, but on the ground that the whole scheme is likely to go more smoothly in that way. I quite agree that it is an arguable matter, but we must also remember the point of view that this Bill, whether rightly or wrongly, is framed on the assumption that the Minister shall be responsible to Parliament. It is not framed along the ordinary lines of local government, but with the idea that the Minister should be given powers, no doubt wide ones, and, as a consequence, should be directly responsible to Parliament. I hope that your Lordships will leave the Bill as it is in this respect.

LORD RATHCREEDAN

As an Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper deals very closely with that of my noble friend, I beg to support his Amendment. I think that all of your Lordships who have had much experience in these matters will admit that, if a Committee is not allowed to elect its own Chairman, the direct result is, as a rule, continued friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee. The members of the Committee will invariably feel that they are being controlled by the Minister and are not a body that has complete control of its own doings. Those who have had experience of official life know perfectly well that this produces continual friction between the Chairman and the members of the Committee, and in consequence the members of the Committee will not be acting in sympathy with their own Chairman or with the Minister, and inefficiency will be the result.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

I would ask the Government to consider (he action which they are taking in this matter. I have been a member of a good many Committees, and I have been in the chair on more than one occasion. I remember a remarkable, instance—I will not quote the particular Committee now—where we had the administration of a very large fund, and the Government of the day decided to appoint the Chairman themselves. There was every desire on the part of the Committee to welcome its Chairman and to accept the decision of the Government, but the early stages of its work under his Chairmanship were marked by the fact that there was a strong feeling that it ought to have been left to the Committee to elect its own Chairman.

A good deal of the work of this new body is going to be of an extremely controversial character. If yen want proof of that yon can find it in the recent Division, when only a majority of 27 of your Lordships marked their approval of the proposal of the Bill. If the Minister happens to appoint a man who is specially remarkable for his views on a particular side of the question, or for his political views, you are making matters difficult for the Committee, and you will' very likely lead to the result that, when the Minister in question ceases to be a Minister and changes his side of the House, a considerable section of the Committee will urge upon the new Minister that he should make a new appointment and supersede the Chairman already chosen. I am certain that if you want this work to proceed harmoniously you ought to allow an important Committee like this to elect its own Chairman, and not to leave it to the Minister. A great deal too much is put in the hands of Ministers in these days, particularly in this Bill, which is one of the worst instances that I have come across of bureaucracy as we now know it. To make it the duty of the Government to appoint the Chairman of a body of this kind is to ask the Government to do a thing which they could not do satisfactorily, even if they were composed of archangels from Heaven. I shall therefore support my noble friend.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

Your Lordships may or may not be guided by that which my Commission reported, but I think it is advisable that I should inform you that, in paragraph 303 of our Report we state as follows.— We recommend that the Chairman of the Committee should be elected by the Committee from the r own number or as a supernumerary member from outside.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I hope that the Government will give way on this Amendment. Your Lordships should realise that there is a very considerable feeling, though I believe we are unanimous in favour of the Bill itself, that too much power is left in the hands of the Minister. I think it "should be remembered that the Minister may not always be rightly guided, and that he may get under the influence of a narrow clique of opinion which may gradually guide, the policy in such a way as to throw the power into the hands of a monopoly. This is certainly made possible through the powers given in the Bill. We should all be very glad, I think, if we could minimise that danger by making the Advisory Corn-mil tee a ready independent body. It cannot be so described as it is constituted under the terms of the Bill, for the greater part of it is appointed by the Minister himself. No doubt it is an advisory body and net an executive body, but we may draw all the more courage in proceeding to make it independent from the fact that it is not in possession of executive authority. But although it is not an executive body it is a body of very considerable influence, and I, for my part, should be very glad to see it more independent of the Minister. I think this would reassure, public opinion, and I suggest that the Government should give way on this Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

Having regard to that which has been stated, and very well stated, by noble Lords regarding the appointment of the Chairman by the Committee itself, and particularly to the remarks of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, I do not think that the Government would desire to stand by the Bill if your Lordships' view generally is in the other direction In that case we would accept the Amendment. We desire to do all that we can to meet your Lordships.

LORD RATHCREEDAN moved to omit the concluding words in subsection (.1): "such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned," and from subsection (2) the words: "Of the ordinary" and to insert "the following." The noble Lord said: It is. I may say, something quite exceptional in the way of legislation that in a Bill of this kind you should introduce the representation of special interests when they are already represented by members appointed by the public. You have three members appointed by those engaged in working the various industries concerned, then there are no fewer than four members appointed to represent those who work these industries; in other words, the interests of the public are to be placed in the hands, to a great measure, of a syndicate—the great "Combine" which controls the Metropolitan Railway, the Underground Railways, a certain number of tramways, and the greater number of the omnibuses. Almost the whole of the traffic which affects the travelling population of the area of London is to be placed at the mercy, as it were, of this great syndicate. What would be the result'! In the event of a strike taking place the public would be placed absolutely at the mercy of the strikers, or at the mercy of this "Combine," as the case may be. In those circumstances, I see no reason why the usual course should be departed from and why additional members should be added to a Committee already sufficient and very fairly manned.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out from the first ("and") to ("members") in line 20, and insert ("the following").—(Lord Rathcreedan.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

I suggest that in order to save later Amendments I should only put the first two words of the Amendment.

THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR AIR (LORD THOMSON)

The object of this Amendment is presumably to do away with the additional members, or to alter the composition of the said additional members. The view of the Government is that this Committee is purely advisory, and it is necessary to have on it a certain number of people representing the interests concerned with, transport as expert advisers and a certain number of additional members, including three representing labour. They are merely there to give advice, and they will not interfere with what are more purely municipal matters which are advised upon by the eleven ordinary members referred to in the clause. The real point, I repeat is that this is an advisory committee and you want to introduce into it, as far as possible, an expert element. The four members representing the interests would be the experts. The other three representing labour might be of great use in cases of strikes, or threats of strikes, or labour troubles, because their presence on the Committee would give satisfaction to a great number of workers. That, briefly, is tile Government point of view.

LORD HEMPHILL

As the noble Lord who moved the Amendment said, the proposal in the Rill introduces a very unusual principle. There have been several Committees which have considered the question of London traffic—a Royal Commission in 1905 and Committees in 1913, 1919, 1920—and all these Committees more or less recommended a small body of experts. In the case of the last three Committees they recommended three, and I believe the Commission on road traffic recommended five. In any case, they all recommended a small number, and the members were to be experts particularly qualified to deal with the subject. Now this is called an Advisory Committee, but when one looks at it and examines it the one thing one does not find on the Committee is an expert, unless, indeed, the three members who are going to represent labour can be classed as experts. I suppose they would be experts. Otherwise, there is no sign of an expert. Then four members are to represent the interests of those providing transport and users of vehicles. We are not told how those four members are going to be divided, or whose interest they are going to represent, but it is quite obvious that four members cannot represent all the numerous interests that are concerned in the use of the streets.

There is an Amendment a little further down on the Paper in the name of Lord Montagu of Beaulieu dealing with various classes who ought to he represented, such as omnibus proprietors, cab drivers, pedestrians and bicyclists. Everyone who uses the streets is entitled to have his interest represented, but apparently, according to this Bill, the only interests that are going to be represented are the financial interests. The noble Karl who opposed the Second Reading of the Bill, Lord Buxton, explained how this Bill originated. It originated in a suggestion that if there was a body appointed to deal with fares, and so on, higher wages would be paid, and this Advisory Committee is constituted so that there will probably be a combination on the Committee to advise the Minister in each other's benefit. I think it is a very new and a very extraordinary proposal.

I have been trying to find out where the idea of this particular Advisory Committee came from, and in this very valuable Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission we find a reference to the Roads Committee which was appointed under Section 22 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, and of which the Constitution is prescribed by that Section as follows: The Roads Committee shall consist of not less than eleven members, of whom five shall he representative of highway authorities, appointed after consultation "with such authorities, and five shall be representative of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic, appointed after consultation with the interests concerned, and one shall be a representative of Inborn appointed after consultation with the interests concerned. That seems to me to be the origin of this Committee, but if you examine that particular Committee appointed to advise the Minister of Transport, you will see that there were five representatives of highway authorities for the whole of England, and five representatives of horse and mechanical road traffic, again out of the whole of England. You could hardly get a trust or a combine over the whole of England, and so in that case it was a pretty safe Committee to constitute. It certainly must have given the very minimum of representation to the highway authorities, and it was harmless, but in this case it is different, because you are giving special representation to a very powerful "Combine.''

I would further like to call your Lordships' attention to the fact that the London County Council, in 1921, passed a resolution, which stated:— That the Council earnestly desires the introduction by His Majesty's Government of legislation to make provision for the unified operation of local passenger transport undertakings in Greater London, and for the setting up for such area of a municipal traffic control authority (to be appointed by the local authorities affected), it being understood that the establishment of such an authority shall be regarded as a temporary expedient;, pending the settlement of the question of the reorganisation of local government u Greater London, and that in the event of a new governing authority being set up for the area, with the requisite powers, such authority shall take the place of the municipal traffic authority herein referred to. So clearly the London County Council, which, probably more than any other body in England, had considered the question of traffic for many years, was of opinion that the authority which should be set up should he, not an authority of the London County Council, but a joint authority of the municipal authorities in the area, which seems to be a perfectly reasonable proposition. That being so, it seems to me that your Lordships will be very well advised to accept this Amendment, and allow the Committee to be composed of the representatives of the municipal authorities.

I might point out one reason why it is extremely desirable that municipal and county authorities should be strongly represented on the body. Though this Bill makes no immediate demand for money, of course it is money that is wanted. You will never get traffic regulated through the centre of London without the expenditure of money. How-many millions will be needed? I do not think a hundred millions will even be very near what will be required. In order to get public support you will have to have the public, authorities behind you, and, if they are the actual people responsible, they are much more likely to help than if they are not. I may say that I should like to see the Committee made slightly larger, and greater representation given both to the London Borough Councils and to the county councils outside. I do not see any reason why this Committee should not consist of twenty members, if it had strong support behind it.

EARL BUXTON

I seems to me that the proposal for appointing additional members on this Advisory Committee is an entirely new precedent in matters of local government. It is admitted that traffic is largely a municipal question. Under this Bill the Minister has too autocratic powers, but at least he has an Advisory Committee to assist him. The basis of that Committee is municipal representation, and it seems to me a new-principle that members should be appointed to such a Committee dealing with local government questions, who have a direct pecuniary interest in the policy which the Advisory Committee may recommend to the Minister. It is that to which we object. A noble Lord who supported this Amendment said that it was an advantage in a matter of this kind to have experts on the Committee. That is quite possible, but surely these three representatives of labour and four representatives of the omnibuses and other means of transport can hardly be called experts.

As I pointed out on the Second Reading, the origin of this Bill was a strike of omnibus and tramway men, and in the Inquiry which took place it was suggested that if those who were interested in running the omnibuses and the tramways had a larger monopoly they would get greater profits, and higher wages would be paid. The two contending sections made it a condition that the Government should give an undertaking to that effect. I am not blaming the Government, but this Bill was introduced with that purpose in view. Since the Bill was introduced in another place I am glad to think that certain safeguards have been put in to prevent what we feared—namely, a pure monopoly by the omnibus proprietors in London, to the detriment of the public. All these safeguards were inserted in the other House against the will of the Government. In the first place, there was nothing in the original Bill dealing with the question of fares, or with the question of an appeal by the City Corporation and the County Council if the fares were too high. That provision was put in, though opposed by the Government, as a safeguard against an undue raising of the fares. There was another safeguard inserted against the will of the Government in the interests of the small proprietors, and the provision for the control of Parliament was also put in against the will of the Government as the Bill went through Committee. Therefore, as the Bill was introduced, it could only be called a "Combine" Bill, introduced because of the dispute to which I have referred.

The Bill, especially in Clauses 6 and 7, gives the Minister full power to determine what facilities for transport shall be given, and power to grant or withhold them from certain persons and in certain streets. Thus, it enables him, at his own sweet will, to grant a franchise to any monopoly or any person running omnibuses. That being so—and I am afraid that these great powers possessed by the Minister will all tend towards a monopoly it is too much to place also on the Advisory Committee these representatives of the interests of labour on the one hand and of the "Combine" on the other. The representatives of labour do not profess to have any particular knowledge of the way in which the traffic should be conducted. Their interest is solely that of wages and of continuous employment, and, as for the "Combine," their knowledge, no doubt, will be great, but their interests—and I do not blame them—obviously will be mainly in regard to the questions of fares and profits.

The noble Lord referred to the constitution of the Committee. If the Bill goes through as it stands the Committee will consist of eight members representing more or less the municipal interests. Against those it is proposed to put on the Committee seven to represent the public, three representing labour and three representing the "Combine," who will directly represent those whose interests are, in a sense, opposed to the interests of the public. Is it not certain that those seven will form what is called abroad a bloc which will have all their interests in common? They are seven as against eight who, in my opinion, are not direct representatives of the municipalities as they ought to be. Those eight persons represent no fewer than forty different authorities without any unanimity among them at all. Therefore, on the one hand, there would be the seven combined in one direction and, on the other hand, the eight combined in the interest of the public. I think that is a very dangerous position to take up in regard to the Advisory Committee and I trust that your Lordships will see well to drop out the additional members.

In this matter none of us desires to go in for giving unrestricted power to any one to run trams or omnibuses, or anything else. Indeed, licences ought to be more restricted than they are at present, and I am sure that we are all in favour of such a policy. But we desire to protect ourselves, the smaller men and the public against the monopoly which I fear this Bill will bring into existence. I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President, will reconsider this matter as, in my opinion, it goes to the root of the whole principle of the Advisory Committee and introduces very dangerous elements into local government of this sort.

LORD PARMOOR

It is impossible for the Government to make any alteration in the composition of the proposed Advisory Committee. It is what I may call a balanced Committee, which has been constituted after the consideration of a very large number of interests. When similar arguments were addressed in another place to those which have been addressed to your Lordships there were, 293 to 90 in favour of the Bill as it stands. The noble Earl, Lord Buxton. I think has not really appreciated what is meant by the additional members, and I will ask hi" very careful attention to this. The object of having additional members is that they shall have only limited power in particular cases. They are "additional" members in order to prevent them having the same powers as those possessed by the other twelve members. As a matter of fact, there are twelve other members. The distinction is made in order that the additional members shall not have the same full powers as are possessed by the ordinary members.

This matter has been, very carefully thought out, and if your Lordships will look at subsection (4) of Clause I you will see that the additional members can only advise the Minister upon any matter referred to the Committee under or by virtue of Clause 7 or Clause 10 of the Bill or any matter or question referred to them as specified in Part I of the Second Schedule. If these proposed members were all brought in as ordinary members there would be something to be said for the argument which the noble Earl addressed to your Lordships that they might have too much power on matters which, in my opinion, certainly ought to be settled by the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee.

EARL BUXTON

I am very loath to interrupt the noble and learned Lord, but I would draw his attention to this. There are certain things in which the additional members are not to be brought in. That we know.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes.

EARL BUXTON

The matters in respect of which they are to be brought in are stated in Part II of the Second Schedule to be among other things: The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on streets in the London Traffic Area. The whole point o' Clause 6 and Clause 7 fits in with the suggestion of a possible monopoly.

VISCOUNT PEEL

It is not that they are to bo, but that they may be.

LORD PARMOOR

There is somewhat of a misunderstanding on the part of the noble Earl. It is a rather difficult Bill, and you have to take into consideration the safeguard which is included. If the noble Earl wants any special words inserted in the Bill to make clearer the powers of the additional members I am perfectly prepared to do that; but it is clear and the intention of the Bill is—and the Bill is so drafted—that the additional members shall not have the same powers as the ordinary members but shall only have powers for special purposes. Whether, when we come to the details, those special powers ought to be further curtailed is a different matter altogether, but I suggest to your Lordships that a distinction in a ease of this kind between the ordinary members of the Advisory Committee who shall have full powers and the additional members who have only limited powers for certain purposes, is quite in a proper direction.

When the noble Earl talks about a monopoly, they are only additional members in order not to constitute any element towards a monopoly on the part of what he is pleased to call the "Combine." I may point out to him that as regards the representatives in subsection (3), four of the seven representatives are representatives of a very wide body, as has been pointed out more than once. They are the representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled and horse-drawn road vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister after consultation with such bodies representative of those interests as he may think desirable. I am not sure, but I think there is an Amendment on the Paper to increase the number because four are considered hardly sufficient to cover the interests of the persons named. They cover all the interests for which the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, stands. It is one of his own Amendments further on.

All these matters of detail have been thrashed out, but I hardly think that the noble Earl has had time to thrash them out. When we come to the real details of the Bill, as I tried to point out on Second Reading his complaint is a complaint in the wrong direction. It is that at the present time those additional members ought to be ordinary members, and the very distinction which is sound and right—that these particular members should only have limited powers—would be excluded if this Amendment were carried. That seems to me to be a contradiction, if one may say so, of the whole of the argument he addressed to your Lordships. He wants them not to have these wider powers, and yet the first step he takes is to suggest that all members shall be ordinary members, and that proposal excludes the idea of special members with limited powers. That would be the result if his Amendment was carried.

EARL BUXTON

No.

LORD PARMOOR

That is the consequence of it. The noble Earl is complaining of the powers of these additional members. If they were brought in as ordinary members they would have the powers of which he is complaining and which they have not at the moment.

EARL BUXTON

That is a consequential Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I am dealing with the Amendment as it stands at this stage. I beg your Lordships not to alter this carefully balanced constitution. It is open to criticism. There is no constitution which could not be criticised in the terms that the noble Earl has used. One can always say: "Why do you not do this or that?" Here, as I say, is a balanced Committee which has been agreed to by a large number of people and has been thoroughly considered and thrashed out. It was finally adopted in another place by 293 votes to 90, which shows that all Parties were in its favour, because we cannot command 293 votes there. Mr. Harris raided this point in another place and it was dealt with there. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to permit those who are trying to make better arrangements for London traffic to preserve the form for the Advisory Committee which, after careful and detailed inquiry, they consider to be the best. As for this particular Amendment. I say it would have the very contrary effect to what the noble Earl has suggested.

EARL RUSSELL

I do not propose to follow the noble Lord who has just sat down in the amazing special pleading which he used towards the end of his speech, when he suggested that this Amendment was designed to give additional powers to the additional members. That, it is obvious, is not the effect of the Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I must ask the noble Earl not to misrepresent me. I said "not to diminish the powers."

EARL RUSSELL

I understood the noble Lord to say that the effect of turning them all into ordinary members would be to give these men powers to deal with everything. That is what I understood, and that, I am pointing out, is special pleading, because that is neither the effect nor the intention of the series of Amendments which has been put down. The object at which we are aiming is a simple one. It is to remove the seven additional members altogether from the Committee. The noble Earl tells your Lordships that the Government cannot accept that. I sincerely hope that this House will impose that upon the Government, whether they will accept it or not. He also tells your Lordships that this is a very carefully balanced and very carefully thought out thing, and that it is the result of a discussion and a scheme. And so it is, and it, is precisely the murky origin of this scheme in the confusion and welter of a strike that makes one rather suspect it. It is not a matter upon which it is in the least necessary to split hairs. The noble Lord also pointed out that these additional members do not take part in all the deliberations. I will ask your Lordships to look at the Second Schedule. In that Schedule certain matters are set out under letters from (a) to (j), and the only one of those matters in which any additional members cannot form part is under the last one (j). In regard to the whole of the first six matters they are to form part of the Committee; in regard to the next three they, or some of them, may form part. In regard to only one are they not to form part, so that it is not enough to tell your Lordships that they are debarred by this Schedule from taking part.

The issue is a much more simple one than that. The issue is whether we are going to start a precedent—a precedent which I confess I am astonished to find a Labour Government starting—of setting up a Committee which professes to be a Committee representing the public and representing municipal interests, and to man that Committee as to something like one half its personnel with people who have a direct financial interest in its decisions. Both labour and the "Combine" have a direct financial interest in the decisions to which this Committee comes, as to how traffic shall be conducted, by what means it shall be conducted, and along what streets it shall be conducted. I submit to your Lordships that that is a very undesirable precedent. I hope this House will show the courage which it generally shows in these matters, and will insist that this precedent shall not here be made.

The noble Lord says: "Give us the Advisory Committee we ask for and that we think will work." Who does he think is going to complain because these financially interested persons are not on the Committee? Are the other councils going to complain? Is the London County Council to complain because the financially interested persons are not to be on the Committee? The noble Lord, Lord Thomson, spoke about experts. This is not a Committee of experts. If it were a Committee of experts it is obvious that you would appoint and pay your experts, and you would not have people financially interested in the matters upon which they give their advice. It is primarily a municipal Committee. The proper place for experts is in the witness chair, from which they could tell the Committee their expert opinion, and give their expert advice about things which the Committee wished to know. I can only say that if the noble Lord was sitting, as he used to sit, on the Bench opposite, and if this proposal had been brought in by a Liberal Government, he would, I am convinced, have been one of the first to take the same line that I am taking to-day, and to say that we ought not to start this precedent.

I hope the House will keep him to what I think would be his better mind, and that we shall not allow this Committee to be imposed upon us. Nothing can be gained by it, except a continual block, for all these people must act together now and again to get things done which are not in the public interest but are in the private financial interest of these parties. That cannot help the deliberations of the Committee. But for this bargain of which we have heard, and as to which I do not know who were the parties or what were the objects, we should never have heard of this proposal. I hope your Lordships will make a short end of it.

VISCOUNT ULLSWATER

I cannot help thinking that we should make a great mistake if we made any alteration in the Committee as proposed. The object of the Committee is to get together those who are best qualified to deal with this very difficult subject. You bring into the Committee representatives of the police because they control the traffic, you bring in the representatives of the different-municipalities and county councils because they are the local authorities in whose hands these matters rest, and you surely cannot leave out the representatives of those who own the omnibuses and the other vehicles which ply about the streets. You have to get them to work with you. If you are going to have the best results from this Committee you must get ail parties together who are concerned in this gigantic business.

Surely you are not going, at this time of day, to leave out the representatives of labour? The thing is unthinkable when you have this mass of labour employed in various capacities in connection with the traffic of London. You at once arouse a grievance in their minds, or you are likely to arouse a grievance, if you are going to leave them out. I cannot help thinking that this is really a very fairly balanced Committee, and one which has been selected for the purpose of arriving at the best possible result. Incidentally, I may say, although I am afraid your Lordships may be getting bored with the Report which I have on previous occasions quoted to you, that the Commission on London Government specially recommended that "there should be representatives on this Committee of the users of horse and mechanical road traffic within the area, and of all labour organisations operating within the area.''

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not know if it would be for the convenience of the House that I should on this Amendment discuss other Amendments that I have on the Paper which deal with the same subject. I would rather postpone anything that I have to say until this question is decided. I should like to explain, however, that I share the opinion of the last speaker entirely. You cannot in these days deny that labour has a right to be represented on an Advisory Committee of this kind. On the other hand, I take the view that you should make this Committee really representative instead of being partly so, and that you should add to it certain members. I have an Amendment on the Paper to that effect. If you are to make this Committee respected and really useful you must not leave people outside with a sense of grievance, and when the time comes I shall ask the House to agree to an Amendment which will enlarge the constitution of this Committee.

I hope the Lord President will not lay it down as a law of the Medes and Persians that this Advisory Committee must be limited in its constitution, because I think everything is capable of improvement. If I demonstrate that this Committee is not really representative, I hope the noble Lord, on behalf of the Government, will see his way to give sympathetic consideration to the Amendment which I shall move later. I shall reserve my further remarks until then.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I confess that the debate which has taken place upon this Amendment has made a considerable impression on my mind. I think there is a great deal to be said for the contention of the noble Earl opposite, Lord Russell, that the interested parties ought not to be represented on this authority, but, on the other hand, it is important to consider the position of labour. I think it would be a very serious step to take if your Lordships resolved to exclude from the Advisory Committee the representatives of labour. I am afraid that would be misinterpreted outside and the effect would be rather disastrous. I need not assure you that I do not suspect your Lordships of any sinister purpose. I do not suspect the noble Earl opposite, who might have been expected to speak more for labour than for anything else in this House, but I do think very strong arguments indeed are required for your Lordships to strike out the representation of labour from the Advisory Committee. I should be sorry to do it.

The powers left in the hands of the additional members, as the Bill is drawn, are very extensive, so far as any advisory body has any powers, which is always a doubtful matter. I observe, in reading the clause with perhaps greater care than I have done before, that the provisions in Clause 7 with regard to the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district are included amongst those things of which the additional members on the Advisory Committee are to have cognisance. Clause 7 is the most important in the Bill. It is the clause under which a monopoly can be granted to a particular combination, and I should like to reserve my opinion as to whether interested parties ought to have a vote, in so far as the Advisory Committee is authoritative, on a question as to whether there should be a monopoly or not. That appears to me to be a matter of considerable importance. My conclusion is that I am not prepared to vote for this Amendment; I am not prepared to vote against labour having representation on the Advisory Committee. I should like to reserve my judgment to a later stage on the question as to whether it would be right to reconsider the powers granted to the additional members.

EARL BUXTON

There is one point on which I should like further information from the Lord President of the Council. He said that the additional members had practically no control over matters in which they are personally interested, and he specifically referred to Clauses 6 and 7, which relate to the power to attach conditions to a grant of omnibus licences in the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district and the power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district, under which the question of a monopoly may arise. I understood him to say that if it was not clear that these two clauses were withdrawn from the purview of the additional members he was prepared to reconsider lie matter.

LORD PARMOOR

I said I would do so if there was any doubt with regard to Clause 6. I said nothing about Clause 7.

EARL BUXTON

Perhaps he will consider Clause 7.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes. I will do so.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am not sure whether there is a cross division or not—whether, for instance, matters included under Parts I, II and III, of the Second Schedule are really exclusive of those under this particular clause, and whether, if these particular people are excluded from dealing under subsection (4) of this clause with matters under Clause 6, they come in again under any of the other clauses.

LORD PARMOOR

In my opinion it is certainly exclusive. They do not come in under any clause of the Bill; they have only these powers.

LORD RATHCREEDAN

In view of the statements made by the noble Marquees and Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, and the fact that the noble Lord has another Amendment later on which will probably meet my point, I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved in subsection (1) to leave out "ordinary and additional." The noble Lord said: Perhaps the House has no idea how the representation given to this Advisory Committee will work. I have worked out exactly how it will be constituted. The Advisory Committee will consist of nineteen members. Local authorities will be represented by eight, labour by three, transport owners and users by four, the Home Office and Police-by three, and the Ministry of Transport by one. As the Bill stands there is only one subject, and that is mentioned in the Second Schedule, on which the additional members cannot take any part. If you are to have an Advisory Committee of this sort you had better, I think, trust all the members, those who are interested as well, and make it one Committee. I propose to balance the Committee by adding certain extra members representing local authorities and county councils, and certain other representatives of transport, who in my view have a larger claim to representation than some of those mentioned in the Bill.

The distinction Between additional and ordinary members is a distinction without a difference. For instance, the four transport representatives proposed in the Bill are insufficient, for the adequate representation of the, traffic which moves along our streets. Think how that will work. Lord Ashfield and his men might rightly claim one representative, the independent omnibus people might claim one, and there would be only two members left to represent all the other interests—taxicabs, which number 8,000 as against 4,000 omnibuses, private motors which number 150,000 as against 4,000, motor lorries which are not represented at all, including the railway companies who have a very large number of lorries operating from their depots, cyclists, who are by far the biggest portion numerically of the traffic in the area, horse vehicles, tramway authorities and the travelling public. You cannot possibly represent all these important, interests by giving them two members, and I suggest that the Lord President should think very carefully as to whether he ought not to enlarge this representation and double it by giving eight representatives instead of four. Whatever the labour representatives might do, whatever Lord Ashfield and his friends might do, you would then have a sufficient majority on the Advisory Committee to prevent anything in the nature of a monopoly being granted.

That is the right way to tackle this problem. It would increase the members of this Committee from 19 to 25 or 26, but nobody pretends that a Committee of 19 can really do the work they are asked to do, and there is really not much difference between a Committee of 19 and one of 25 or 26 members. The work will be done by sub-committees. I suggest that this is the best way of meeting this admitted difficulty of putting on this Committee people who have direct financial interest in its decisions. I hope that this suggestion will commend itself to the House as the best way out of the difficulty. The words "ordinary" and "additional" are quite uncommon, and are not met with in other measures of this kind. My suggestion does away with the fear that a certain number of representatives might unduly influence the decision of this body, and, as has been shown already by Lord Russell and confirmed by Lord Salisbury, they really would be voting on matters with which their pockets are concerned, and that, I think, is a wrong thing to allow.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 18, leave out ("ordinary and additional").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Lord has really dealt with two matters which, I think, are somewhat inconsistent. I thought it was practically decided, when the last Amendment was withdrawn, that we should have a distinction between ordinary and additional members. The question of the increase of the additional members will have to be argued when the time comes, and I say nothing about it now. But I think it has been already agreed that the additional members should be included only for certain purposes. I hope that your Lordships will not go against that principle. The question will arise when we come to the question of the number of additional members, though I do not give any kind of undertaking to meet the ideas of the noble Lord upon that point. It does not really arise now, and I hope, therefore, that the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I will not trouble the House to go to a Division, because I think it is much more important that we should have the increase in the additional members referred to in a subsequent Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD HEMPHILL moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "Two" ["Two shall be appointed by the London County Council"] and to insert "Four." The noble Lord said: The reason of this Amendment to increase the representation of the London County Council from two members to four members is pretty obvious. The London County Council controls the most important and the most valuable part of the area. In the County of London there is a population of 4,500,000, and a rateable value of £50,000,000. It is decidedly the most important part of the area, and it seems only fair that it should have greater representation. For my part, I think that the proper way to represent all these outside interests that have been mentioned by Lord Montagu, and also the additional members, is through a directly elected body like the County Council. If you want interests represented, a body like the London County Council, or any other county council, represents all the interests in their area.

There does not always seem to me to be a very friendly atmosphere in this House towards the London County Council, though, after all, the majority on the London County Council has for a very long time been of the same political opinion as the majority of your Lordships. The same is true of the majority of the other county councils in England, which remain of a Conservative tendency. Consequently, I think your Lordships should be inclined to have a sympathetic feeling towards county councils, and to support municipal authority. It is very necessary that municipal authority should be supported, because it is important to have these bodies efficient and highly thought of in order to secure good members for them. There are so many Amendments on the Paper that I do not propose to detain your Lordships any longer on this point. I only hope that you may give this Amendment your favourable consideration.

Amendment moved— Page 1, line 22, leave out ("Two") and insert ("Four").—(Lord Hemphill.)

LORD THOMSON

If the representation of the London County Council is increased from two to four, there will undoubtedly be a demand from other local authorities for a corresponding increase, and the number of people on this Advisory Committee will be unduly swollen. There is this other point, that the inhabitants of London have more representation than is shown by the two members of the London County Council. There are three other members, one appointed by the Corporation of the City of London and two nominated by the Minister upon the selection of the Borough Councils. This surely should be sufficient for the representation of the people of London in regard to traffic. The Government are strongly opposed, for the reasons which I have given, to the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I trust that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment. He knows, I am sure, that as a member of the London County Council for many years I should have every sympathy with an Amendment for giving more representation to that body. One reason why I oppose it is that I understand that the London County Council itself is satisfied with the representation which it has, and I do not know why the noble Lord wishes to press upon it more representation than I desires. It is obvious that, if you increase the number of members of the London County Council along with the other representation which it has, it will be quite impossible to refuse representations from other bodies, and the size of this Advisory Committee will become absolutely unmanageable. As a friend of the London County Council, I hope that the noble Lord will not press his Amendment.

LORD HEMPHILL

In view of that which the noble Viscount has said, I do not propose to press the Amendment, but I still think that it is very desirable that the representation of local authorities on the Advisory Committee should be strengthened.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed by the Minister," to leave out "Minister" and insert "councils of the Metropolitan Boroughs." The noble Lord said: This proposal is to allow Metropolitan Boroughs, or councils of other boroughs, according to a subsequent Amendment of the same character, to choose their own representatives, instead of the Minister selecting from their nominees the man whom he chooses. I am sure that the Minister will before long find himself in considerable trouble. If he selects men, say, from one particular Metropolitan Council over and over again, or if he selects people in a particular district, he will be accused of favouritism. If he chooses people of one political colour he will again be accused of favouritism. Surely these groups of Boroughs should be trusted to select their own representatives. It may be said that machinery does not exist within the Bill, but if machinery needs to be set up it could be done by a Joint Committee. If a group of authorities failed to appoint the appropriate number of members, then, in the terms of an Amendment which I shall move later, the Minister could choose a man from among the nominees selected.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 3, leave out ("Minister") and insert ("councils of the Metropolitan Borough").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD PARMOOR

I think I can answer this point very shortly. The noble Lord says that this would mean a change in the framework of the Bill, and that there is no provision for it at the present time, but it goes a little beyond that. You have a number of nominees selected by the councils of the administrative comities. Each council can put forward the nominee whom it desires. There are a largo number of these councils—I am not sure of the exact number.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Twenty-nine.

LORD PARMOOR

There are twenty-nine councils, and surely it is the fairest way that each should put forward its nominee, and then the Minister should select two. I thought that the only way in which it ought to be done is the way in the Bill.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry that the Government take this view, because I think the Amendment is a good one. It may be that it requires to be supplemented by some machinery, and I think I could suggest, if necessary, that which would be requisite. Do let us, in the interest of the Government themselves, and in the interest of the Bill, got out of the public mind the idea that this is going to be a hole-and-corner affair, in which the Minister is all powerful and appoints the members of the Advisory Committee. I have not very great confidence in this Advisory Committee, but do give it the best chance and let the public really believe that they have got an independent body of men who will speak their minds to the Minister. If the Minister has the right to select whom he likes people will say: "Of course, it is a packed affair." Therefore, I suggest to the Government that as far as possible they should agree to any of these Amendments which take the power out of the hands of the Minister and leave it to the constituent bodies to appoint the Advisory Committee.

If the noble and learned Lord asks how it can be done, I would reply that I have been in communication with a very important municipal body and with its clerk, in whom I have great confidence, and I have seen words drafted by the latter which will make the matter perfectly simple. The method is that the constituent bodies should appoint a Joint Committee of their number and that Joint Committee should have the right of appointment. If it be necessary to bring up words to provide machinery of that kind, I will engage, to do it on the Report stage, and I hope your Lordships will accept the Amendment.

LORD PARMOOR

I would like to say to the noble Marquess that if we were to see a suggestion as to how this proposal could be carried out we would willingly consider it on the Report stage, but I do not take the view that he does with regard to the ease with which these matters can be carried out. I have had some experience of these matters and in my experience these Joint Committees have not been satisfactory. I do not, however, want to go into that now, and if the noble Marquess will make some suggestion before Report, I will undertake to consider it.

LORD ASKWITH

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to dictate to my noble friend, but I should have been inclined to pass his Amendment, and then bring the matter up on Report.

LORD PARMOOR

May I point out that the Amendment has been withdrawn, and I think most rightly, by the noble Lord.

LORD ASKWITH

I thought the noble Marquess was advising that it should be withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

If there is one dissentient voice the withdrawal is not permitted. I do not know if I should take the noble Marquess as having dissented?

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Yes.

LORD PARMOOR

You said the Amendment was, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

But that was before the noble Marquess had indicated dissent. There was apparently some misunderstanding.

LORD PARMOOR

I have stated my view, but if this Amendment is carried I give no undertaking that here, or in another place, it will be maintained. I made a Very fair offer, I thought—namely, that if an Amendment were put down on the Report stage showing how this proposal could be carried out it would have every consideration. I think that is a much more likely way in which to come to an arrangement.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I do not want to be polemical with my noble friend, or with anybody else, but I think that if we put the Amendment in the Bill now he will see the words which I shall propose and if the House finds those words are not workable then, on the Report stage, we shall have to reconsider the Amendment.

LORD ASKWITH

I beg to move the next Amendment, which is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 6, leave out ("by the Minister").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out the paragraphs relating to representatives selected by the administrative counties mentioned in the First Schedule other than the administrative county of London, and to insert: "Five shall be appointed by the Councils of the Administrative Counties of Middlesex, Hertford, Essex, Kent, and Surrey, each Council appointing one member." The noble Lord said: The five great Counties mentioned in my Amendment deserve every consideration because they are very much affected by London traffic, and it seems to me that they are not sufficiently represented. As the Bill stands, one representative would be selected from nominees from the counties on the north side of the Thames, and one from nominees from the counties on the south side. I think this would put the Minister in a very difficult position. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is not very much in favour of this proposal, but I am quite prepared to press it if I set support.

Amendment moved— Page 2, leave out lines 6 to 16 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

This proposal really means four additional members of the Committee. I think it is very unwise to increase the Committee in that way. It is quite large enough.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

We shall get into great difficulties if we begin to tear this Committee to pieces, and to have a totally different set of members. I do not share with the Lord President the view that everything that has been done in the House of Commons is necessarily right, but I do think that when matters have been settled in consultation with the various local authorities (which I imagine has been the case) and have all been submitted to them, it is rather a pity to upset the balance that has been come to.

EARL BUXTON

A little while ago a noble Lord proposed to increase the representation of the London County Council from two to four and I thought that reasonable, but once you start doing that you disturb the whole foundation of the Committee. Clearly if you are going to have five representatives of the county councils outside London you ought to have six representatives of London.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD ASKWITH

I have a number of consequential Amendments on the Paper.

Amendments moved—

Page 2, line 6, leave out ("By the Minister")

Page 2,line 10, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")

Page 2,line 11 leave out ("by the Minister")

Page 2,line 16, after ("Thames") insert ("by those councils")

Page 2,line 17, leave out ("by the Minister")

Page 2,line 20, after ("area") insert ("by those councils").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "but only if, and shall hold office only so long as, the Chairman is not an official of the Ministry of Transport." The noble Lord said: This is consequential on the Amendment which the House accepted that the Chairman was to be selected by the Committee, and not by the Minister.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 26, leave out from ("Minister") to the end of line 29.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD ASKWITH had on the Paper an Amendment, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "If any group of authorities fail to appoint the appropriate number of members of the Advisory Committee the appointment of a member representing such group shall be made by the Minister from amongst the nominees selected by that group of authorities." The noble Lord said: Amendments which have been previously moved are complete without mine, and as my noble friend suggested a form of words to meet the difficulty, it would be better for me not to move this Amendment now, but to bring up a more considered Amendment on the Report stage.

LORD PARMOOR

Yes, perhaps this Amendment might stand over for consideration.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved to omit the second paragraph of subsection (3), and to insert The following shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the undermentioned interests on the nomination of the bodies representative of those interests respectively— Two to represent omnibus proprietor": One to represent tramway proprietors: One to represent cab proprietors: One to represent the owners of commercial goods vehicles: Two to represent the owners of private motor cars: One to represent railway companies: One to represent the owners of horse-drawn vehicles: One to represent cyclists: One to represent motor car manufacturers and traders: One to represent undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets.

The noble Lord said: In the "Report of the Commission of the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, there are set out certain interests which should be represented, and it is suggested that they should not exceed twenty in number. The Committee as it stands numbers nineteen. The Report suggests that there should be representation of all the interests affected by the traffic on the roads. At present there are four members to be appointed by the Minister, though I would rather have it by the constituent representative bodies. It is impossible within those limits to get sufficient representation for these large interests. For instance, I suggest that it would be fair that the omnibus proprietors should be represented by two members—one to represent my noble friend Lord Ashfield's companies and the other to represent what are called the "pirate" omnibuses. It is obvious that if we include at a later stage the tramways, they should have representation Then there are 8,000 taxi-cabs, and I think they certainly ought to have representation.

The heading "commercial goods vehicles" embraces all those belonging to the railway companies and all the private lorries which move on the roads, and that is a very big and increasing interest. As regards private motor cars, they are the largest section of the traffic of London to-day. They number well over 150,000 vehicles, and at present they are not represented at all. The next interests on my list are the railway companies, the horse-drawn vehicles and the cyclists. With regard to motor manufacturers and traders, if the Government would concede something of this point the representation could be arranged with those previously mentioned. The last in the list are the undertakers with statutory powers to break up streets. My noble friend, Lord Gainford, asked me to say that as the interests of the Water Board are very much affected by this Bill they should have representation.

I agree that the Government cannot concede all the new representatives that I wish to have appointed, but I think they might increase the representation of the street-using public by another four, making eight in all. That would enable us to have represented the majority of the interests affected, and it would tend to make the Bill work more smoothly. You must remember that unless you carry with you the good will of the chief users of the streets you will have constant criticism and constant opposition in Parliament. You ought, at any rate, to give the impression to the chief people affected that they are being treated fairly. I suggest that if the noble Lord in charge of the Bill cannot give me all the representatives that I desire he should undertake to give this matter serious consideration on the Report Stage and let us have four more representatives who will represent practically all the interests that I have mentioned. This is a very important point and I hope that your Lordships' House will agree to the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, leave out lines 1 to 7 and insert the said words.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

All the different interests which would be represented under the noble Lord's Amendment are all capable of being represented under the Bill as it stands, because subsection (3) of Clause I provides that four shall be representatives of the interests of persons providing mean" of transport and users of mechanically-propelled and horse-drawn vehicles within the London Traffic Area appointed by the Minister, and so on. Therefore, all these omnibus proprietors, tramway proprietors, cab proprietors owners of commercial vehicles and private motor cars, railway companies, and so on, are capable of being given full representation. They all come within the general terms. I am afraid that I cannot give any hope that, putting on one side general terms, we should specify in any way and probably leave out some very important interest which ought to be represented. I think the words are wide enough as they stand. The noble Lord considers that four are too few and that the number ought to he increased. It is almost impossible to increase the representation of one body without having to go back and reconstitute the whole Committee. He proposes that there shall be twelve instead of four.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Eight; I ask for four additional.

LORD PARMOOR

Whether it is twelve as they stand on the Paper or even eight, we could not assent to increase this representation. We should have to meet again the objection of the noble Lord who argued that these bodies were given too much representation. He wanted none at all. I think we must say that this balanced representation must remain as it is.

EARL BUXTON

Many of your Lordships would not agree with this proposal of my noble friend Lord Mantagu because we have objected already to the number of the original members—namely, seven as against eight representing the municipalities. If there are to be twelve to eight the numbers will be overwhelming. I am surprised at what fell from the Lord President in regard to the representation. My noble friend Lord Montagu specifically stated (and I agree with him) that eight different sections ought to be represented by additional members, if we are going to have the additional members as well. My noble friend the Lord President says that the clause is so drawn that the four mentioned in subsection (3) of Clause I will represent the twelve. These twelve have different interests, and I do not see bow you are going to manage that four shall represent those twelve different interests. It is one of the real difficulties of this Bill that the number of representatives is so small that it is almost impossible for the representatives to be really representative. When the Ministry of Transport comes to work them out I think it will be found that the four cannot possibly give adequate representation. At the same time, I must confess that I do not want the number to be increased.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

Whether yon are going to control omnibuses, cabs or motor cars, I cannot see why there should be any necessity for all these representatives on the Committee. I presume that the unfortunate Minister is to have this great crowd of representatives on his Advisory Committee, all giving different advice—one with a horse and cart which must go along the. Strand, another with a bicycle which must go along the Strand, and so on. Why should there be all these representatives? You have to control the traffic of London as a whole and not piecemeal, as one would imagine from the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Montagu of Beaulieu, which seeks to bring in every conceivable representative one can think of. If you wish to help the Minister who is to be in charge of this Department and of the traffic of London, you must reduce the size of the Committee to the smallest possible limits. If you do not, the Minister will be interfered with and stopped at every conceivable point and will not be able to carry out what he deems to be the; right policy at any moment because he, will be hampered by representations of all sorts and kinds. I hope that your Lordships will not accept the Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I should like to call the attention of your Lordships to the words of the subsection we are now discussing, which state that these four are to be representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of vehicles. This seems to me the only chance for the straphanger to be represented, and I should be glad to know whether there is any idea in the mind of the Ministry of Transport as to how many of these four places are to be given to real members of the public as against representatives of transport interests. I do not know whether there is to be one. I need hardly say I am unable, objecting as I do altogether to these people being on the Committee, to support the Amendment of my noble friend, Lord Montagu. I would point out that although he has considered a good many interests there is one which seems never to have occurred to him and which he has left out—that is, the pedestrian.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I am willing to withdraw this Amendment, but I should like the noble and learned Lord to understand that I want to bring up words on Report with the object of increasing the number of representatives who can be appointed to represent these interests. That is probably the better way of doing it. These interests are represented, and I only want to widen the representation in order to give larger interests a chance.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

My noble friend, Lord Gainford, has asked me to move his Amendment to insert at the end of subsection (3): "One shall be appointed by the Minister to represent the electricity supply companies within the London Traffic Area on the nomination of the companies concerned." Ho represents an electricity supply company and is of opinion that such bodies should be represented on the Committee After what has been said by the noble and learned Lord I think, on Lord Gainford's behalf, I should state that the Amendment is not now moved.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The Amendment is not moved.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (5), after "firm" where that word first occurs, to insert "or holds any beneficial interest in a company or firm." The noble Lord said: My object in placing this Amendment on the Paper was to emphasise my opinion, which is shared by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, that members of these Committees should not vote on matters which affect their own pockets. They should be excluded, as far as possible, from petitions which affect them beneficially or affect their financial interest. I want rather to extend the words in the Bill because people may hold beneficial interests in the firm which may not be partnerships, and so on. If the recasting Amendment suggested by the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is brought forward, my Amendment will fall because such members would not then be called upon to decide matters in which they were beneficially or financially interested. I understand that the noble Marquess, Lord Salisbury, is going to move an Amendment later on.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I will consider it.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If the noble Marquess does not put it down I think I should like to put it down oh Report stage. On this occasion I will not press it. I only want to state now that I think it is inadvisable that people having a financial interest should vote on this matter.

LORD PARMOOR

I believe it is universally the case in regard to local authorities that directors are not allowed to take part in matters in which they are interested, but the ordinary shareholder is allowed to do so. He is in a different position altogether.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6) to substitute "thirty-first" for "first." The noble Lord said: The Bill gives the date of the termination of the appointment of members of the Committee as December 1, 1925. It seems to me that it would be better that the date should be December 31, making it the end of the year. I suggest that the end of the year is the proper time.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 33, leave out ("first") and insert ("thirty-first").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD THOMSON

This date has beer, fixed after careful consideration One of the reasons for fixing the first was that it was the earliest convenient date following the municipal elections. Another reason is that the Act terminates on December 1, 1927. Therefore, it is convenient that the date should coincide with, the term of the appointment of this Advisory Committee. It is not a very vital point, but it is one that has been fully considered, and I suggest that it would be rather inconvenient to alter it now.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

After what the noble Lord has said I will not press my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (6), to substitute "one year" for "three years." The noble Lord said: I think it would be advisable to have these persons nominated for one year and not for three years. There may be very strong public feeling in regard to some things that the Advisory Committee may do, and if we want to get real representation I submit that the period of three years is a wrong one.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 37, leave out ("three") and insert ("one").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD THOMSON

The proposal made by the noble Lord would involve annual appointments. The Ministry of Transport advises that just as the members were becoming useful they would disappear from the scene. I do not know that I need say anything further, but there are other arguments.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I can quite see the point made by the noble Lord, but my contention is that if you are to make the Advisory Committee representative, and to ensure that it shall really be in touch with public opinion they should be elected every year and not every three years. I do not, however, press the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (10), to leave out "subject to the approval of the Minister.'' The noble Lord said: This is rather an important Amendment. Pursuing the policy which the House has already endorsed of making this Advisory Committee a real body with a certain amount of power, I think that it would be only right and proper to give them the power of making their own rules and of regulating their own procedure. As the matter stands it savours somewhat of dictation, in that they are only to make rules subject to the approval of the Minister. If it is to be an important and representative body surely it will be quite capable of making its own regulations and rules. The House has already eliminated the Minister in several respects, and I think it should do so in this one, and permit the Advisory Committee to make their own rules.

Amendment moved— Page 4, lines 17 and 18, leave out ("subject to the approval of the Minister").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

I am told, and it is certainly my experience, that these rules are always made subject to approval by the Minister. In this case it would be the Minister of Transport. I do not think it is the least likely that there will be any difficulty. I think the Committee would be only too glad to have the assistance and approval of the Minister in making rules of procedure. This is quite a common thing.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

The matter is not of great importance, but on the whole I should be inclined to advise the Government to accept the Amendment. There is no reason why the Advisory Committee should not make their own rules. The policy of your Lordships' House, as displayed this afternoon, has been to give as much autonomy as possible to the Advisory Committee, and it would be thoroughly in harmony with the decisions of your Lordships' House if this Amendment were accepted.

LORD PARMOOR

I would certainly prefer that it should be left as it is. It is not a very important point, but I think it is for the benefit of the Committee itself. When you have a Committee of this kind you must have some administrative body to refer to in order to have rules drawn up and approved. I am told this is always done. I do not wish, however, to keep up the controversy about it, as it is a small point.

On Question, Amendment negatived.

Clause 1, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 2:

Duties of Advisory Committee.

2. It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to report to and advise the Minister upon such matters and questions as may be referred to them under this Act, or as the Minister may from time to time refer to them in connection with any of the matters mentioned in the Second Schedule to this Act.

EARL BUXTON moved, after "It shall be the duty of the Advisory Committee to ", to insert "consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to." The noble Earl said: This is rather an important point. I think the House generally appreciates that it is the desire of your Lordships to strengthen the powers of the Advisory Committee, to give them greater powers of initiating matters in which they are interested, and to diminish the power which the Bill gives the Minister over them. I have put down this Amendment in order to enable the member" of the Committee not merely to consider and report on matters referred to them, but themselves to initiate any matters that they themselves desire should be considered. This would give them the opportunity of considering and reporting to the Minister on any matters coming within the scope of the Bill. I think this is not an unreasonable proposal.

The general opinion of the House seems to be that the Minister has too great powers over the Advisory Committee, and that as it is the Advisory Committee which represents the municipalities, it should have greater powers of control and initiative. It is for that reason that I move this Amendment. I would point out to your Lordships that this Amendment, or one similar to it, was voted upon in Grand Committee, and the vote was even—fourteen to fourteen, the Chairman giving his casting vote against. If the Lord President of the Council can see his way to accept the Amendment, it will give considerable satisfaction to all who desire the Bill to be a success.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 33, after the first ("to") insert ("consider and report to the Minister on any matters within the scope of the provisions of this Act, and to").—(Earl Buxton.)

LORD THOMSON

This Amendment is intended to give the Committee a power of initiation and, therefore, it introduces a change of principle. The Bill is based on the principle that this is an Advisory Committee to advise the Minister, who is responsible, and not to initiate. In fact, the Minister has to consult the Committee before exercising any of his powers under the Bill except his power to hear appeals under Clause 6. The Government are opposed to this Amendment for the reason that the Committee will have enough to do as it is, and if any member of the Committee, or any group of members, can go round and discover and initiate fresh work, they will not get through their work.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I have listened to the speech of the Secretary of State for Air with attention, but I think he has confused the meaning of the words "advisory" and "initiate." It is true that the Committee is only advisory, but it does not follow that the Committee may not initiate advice. I think the noble Lord will see that there is a logical lacuna in his argument. I should have thought it was wise to allow the Committee to give advice if they thought fit. It seems a reasonable thing to do. After all, the question is whether your Advisory Committee is going to be a real thing or not, and the Government, who mean to make their Bill a success, will be wise to show that they intend this Committee to be a real Committee and give them this power of initiation, which is only a very natural thing to do. It is a method by which the Government will be able to reassure the general public.

LORD PARMOOR

I am always most anxious to accept the advice of the noble Marquess. He always means it kindly, and I think we can accept this Amendment on his recommendation.

Clause 2, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 3:

Power of Advisory Committee to hold inquiries.

3.—(1) In any case where the Advisory Committee think it desirable or expedient so to do, the Committee may, before advising and reporting to the Minister on any matter referred to them in pursuance of this Act, appoint one or more of their number to hold, or may if they think it advisable, themselves hold such public inquiry into the matter as they may think fit, and when one or more members of the Advisory Committee are appointed to hold the inquiry they shall make a report thereon to the Committee.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (1), to leave out "one or more," where that phrase first occurs, and insert "not less than three." The noble Lord said: This is rather an important, though small, point. The clause says that the Committee may appoint one or more of their number to hold an inquiry. It will therefore be in their power to appoint one person or even two. I suggest that the words "not less than three" would be more satisfactory, because an important inquiry should be held by at least three members of the Advisory Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 42, leave out ("one or more") and insert ("not less than three").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

Some of these so-called inquiries will be very small matters and it is valuable that the Committee should have the power to hold them with one person. You do not want to burden the Committee with work that is unnecessary. I have no doubt that in any important inquiry there will be at least three members. It is a matter of convenience and utilising the power of the Committee.

EARL RUSSELL

I hope the noble Lord will not press the Amendment. There are really very small matters on which they may want to send one member of the Committee to come back and tell them what the position is.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAUL1EU

I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 3 agreed to.

Clause 4:

Closing of streets for works.

4.—(1) With a view that the times for the execution of works of road maintenance and improvement by various road authorities within the London Traffic Area may be so arranged as to mitigate as far as possible the congestion of traffic duo to the closing of streets for the purposes of the execution of such works, it shall be the duty of every road authority within that area to submit to the Minister, on or before such half-yearly dates in each year as the Minister may fix, a statement in such form and containing such particulars as the Minister may require of all work" of road maintenance and improvement proposed to be commenced and carried out by the authority during the periods of six months commencing at the expiration of such interval, not being less than two months, after the said half-yearly dates as the Minister may fix, being works of such a nature as will involve the closing to vehicular traffic of any part of any street to which this section applies either absolutely or to the extent of one-third or more of the width of the carriageway.

(3) With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers copies of the proposals of the road authorities when received by him under this section so far as they relate to streets to which the powers of the undertakers extend and shall consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works ot road maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have be3n executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not be lawful for any such undertakers within twelve months of completion of those works to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute whilst the street or part thereof was closed the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street, and that it is essential that the works should be executed or commenced within the said twelve months.

LORD PARMOOR

My Amendment is simply drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 6, line 5, leave out ("and carried out") and insert ("or continued").—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (3), to insert: Provided that the breaking up of the streets, the execution of the last-mentioned works, and the repair of the streets rendered necessary thereby shall, except by leave of the Minister previously obtained, be carried out at night by commencing the same alter the hour of eight in the evening and completing the same by the hour of eight in the morning, and if not then completed, by carrying on the same continuously by day and night.

The noble Lord said: This Amendment really explains itself. We have all suffered the inconvenience when, in the middle of the morning, men appear in our public streets to put the gas or water supply right, or do something with some services under the street. They work all day, but about five o'clock in the afternoon disappear. Ai; night they do no repairs. I suggest that this obstruction to the traffic on our streets should not be carried out in bits, as it is at present, and just within the ordinary working hours. When the tramways or railways repair their permanent ways they do so with the least inconvenience to traffic—that is, at night time—and with the utmost expedition. I asked a friend of mine to tell mo exactly what had been done in regard to taking up the streets in London, and he has made a census of the number of times which the road between Piccadilly and Hammersmith has been up. There have never been less than eleven breaks in that particular line, and the average time taken has been about eight days. At one time there were sixteen breaks in the road between Hammersmith and Piccadilly, and in every one of these cases work was stopped by five o'clock in the afternoon. This is, of course, a route which carries the whole of the great traffic to the West of England, and yet no effort is made after five o'clock in the afternoon to carry on the work. Common sense would dictate that these repairs should be carried out continuously, and, if possible, by night. That is when Lord Ashfield's concern and the tramways carry out their repairs, and the same policy should operate in the case of the roads. This is an important Amendment, and I hope I shall find some support.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 25, at end insert the said proviso.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD THOMSON

This Amendment has the appearance of penalising the undertakers—namely, that as a condition precedent to be allowed to execute works they should satisfy the Minister that they deserve no penalty. The actual work by undertakers on the streets, within twelve months of previous repairs, is dealt with in another clause of the Bill, and the Minister is advised that, however desirable it may be that work should be completed as quickly as possible, there are strong objections to passing legislation which will require men to work at night. That is the reason for the opposition to this Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

I always think we deal too leniently with these statutory undertakings. On the Second Reading of this Bill I brought before your Lordships' notice the extraordinary leniency shown to them. Where there is a conduit put under the road to take pipes and wires, they can continue to pull up the roads if they like. I think that Parliament has been a great deal too tender with them. There is substance in this Amendment, and merit in it as well, though whether it is a wise thing to introduce what might be called pretty heavy control of statutory undertakings into this Bill by a side wind is another matter. If the noble Lord presses this Amendment to a Division, I should certainly vote for it, because I think, and have thought for a very long time, that these undertakings ought to work at night in busy streets, although people may reasonably be asked to find alternative routes where there is little traffic. If the middle of Whitehall or Piccadilly is broken up and traffic is interfered with for twelve or fifteen hours out of the twenty-four, I certainly think that something should be done to hasten the work. I believe that the undertakers, though no doubt they would complain very loudly, would have no legitimate cause for complaint if they were obliged to work at night. I wish that Parliament would take its courage in both hands and do this, though I do not expect that it will.

LORD PARMOOR

May I say one word in answer to the noble Earl? I think he forgets the very stringent regulations under which undertakers are put under the terms of the Bill as it stands. They can interfere with the streets only at the same time as a, local authority which is carrying out repairs or improvements, unless there is a particular emergency. All the matters to which the noble Earl and the noble Lord have referred are already dealt with in the Bill. The only question is whether, in addition, we should impose an obligation only to work at night. It may be a very difficult matter indeed to oblige workmen in all circumstances to work at night. I hope that the Amendment will not be pressed.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

They are not to be obliged to work only at night, but to work day and night, and power is given to the Minister, if he thinks that the work should not be carried out continuously day and night, to order it otherwise. I am sorry to see a difference, I think for the second or third time, between the noble Lord, Lord Parmoor, and his supporter. On this particular occasion I agree with the supporter and not with the noble Lord. Why on earth, in these days of unemployment, should not men be given a chance to work at night in order to do away with the congestion of traffic which is caused by the roads being up? We see every day that a million people are unemployed. Why should they not come and work at night? If we are going to do anything to restore the prosperity of this country, we have all got to work, not only at night, but whenever we get the chance, and I shall certainly support my noble friend if he goes to a Division.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I almost dislike cooling down the enthusiasm of my noble friend's eloquence by saying a word upon this subject, but while I agree that in many eases it might be quite useful that work in the streets should be done at night, even though, of course, it would be much more costly, I cannot help thinking that to put a matter of this kind into the Statute, and to lay this as an obligation upon undertakers in addition to the very strict regulations under which they come in different parts of the Bill, would be to do more than ought to be done in an Act of Parliament. I submit that it should be left to arrangement rather than to direct orders in the Statute itself.

LORD SANDHURST

This is a, traffic Bill, and I think perhaps we are a little in danger of forgetting that there are other interests to be considered besides those of the people who use the roads. It may be important to get work done quickly, and it may be necessary to work at night, but a very large number of people have to sleep over the streets, and the noises at night in London are such that it is not always easy to do so. I should therefore deprecate anything which compelled working at night in a manner which is certainly calculated to disturb the citizens of London.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am not sure whether I might suggest to my noble friend that there is a little difficulty about this Amendment. It is not that I do not agree with the Amendment. I agree that this work ought, if possible, to be carried out at night, subject to that which the noble Lord who has just sat down has said. I must say that I think the interests of the peaceful inhabitants of London in their warm beds ought to be considered also, but it is a great thing if you can get rid of obstructions at night, and so free the traffic in the daytime. The question is whether we ought to make it an absolute obligation upon the undertakers to work at night. I think there might be a little difficulty in that respect. It would seem to me to be wiser that we should obtain an assurance from the noble Lord, speaking on behalf of the Transport Minister, that he would insist to the utmost of his power and so far as his influence extends, that it should be done at night. If the Government would give that assurance, I think it would be a better way of treating the difficulty than to make it an absolute statutory obligation.

I should like to point out to my noble friend a further little difficulty. So far as I understand the matter, this clause applies only to the undertakers, but the local authority is, of course, very often a great sinner in breaking up the roads, and I think my noble friend ought to reconsider his Amendment from that point of view, ever if he desire" to press it. I think it really wants a little more consideration, if my noble friend will allow me to say so. Are we going to say that the local authority is never to break up the road except at night?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I do not say that.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Then you make a distinction between the local authority and the undertakers, and that is difficult to defend. Altogether, I would rather ask the Government if they would not either now or, if the noble Lord wishes to consider the point, between now and the Report stage assure your Lordships that to the utmost extent of his Tower the Minister of Transport, working under this Bill, will use his authority to get this work done at night. If he will do so, I should prefer that course to inserting a statutory obligation.

LORD PARMOOR

I should like to point out to the noble Marquess the difficulty that would arise. It is true that we are dealing here with undertakers and not with road authorities, but in the Bill itself there is a provision that they shall work together, and that the undertakers shall take advantage of the improvements or alterations made by the road authority to carry out any work mat is necessary in connection with their pipes. That is to prevent the road being broken up, first by the local authority and then by various undertakers. The noble Lord will agree that there is no suggestion here that the local authority should work at night, and I do not know exactly what the position would be, since the undertakers are to do their work only whilst the local authority are at work in the same place.

THE MAEQUESS OF SALISBURY

I suppose the undertakers would work by night and the local authority by day.

LORD PARMOOR

But you must have them working together, because they are very often breaking up the streets for a common purpose.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I should like to make one small suggestion which I hope the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, will be good enough to consider before we come to the Report stage. My suggestion will be in the direction of giving more power to the Minister. What I would venture to suggest is that this Amendment should be so turned round that, if the Minister to desires and issues orders to that effect, the work should be begun in the evening and carried on throughout the night. This would not be the normal procedure, but power would be given to the Minister to issue orders if he thought desirable in certain cases. With regard to the position of those people who may be disturbed while lying in their beds, I venture to think that most probably the Minister would use his powers rather in main thoroughfares, consisting of shops and business premises, than in residential quarters. Apart from that point, I would venture to make an appeal to His Majesty's Government to consider the suggestion which I have made, and, if they think that there is any usefulness in it, they might perhaps put down an Amendment to that effect on the Report stage.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Before the noble Lord replies, may I point out that I have not overlooked the safeguards in this matter? I have expressly put in the words "except by leave of the Minister previously obtained." Then the clause itself says, in subsection (4): Nothing in this section shall prevent any road authority or any such undertakers as aforesaid from carrying out works in any streets in cases of emergency. That also limits the effect of my Amendment. Then, in subsection (5), it says: The streets to which this section applies are such streets or streets of such classes within the London Traffic Area as may be prescribed by an order made by the Minister. That means ho can order the repair to go on continuously night and day in Piccadilly, Oxford-street, St. James's-street and Regent-street, where there is no residential population, but prevent it being done opposite the house of the noble Lord on the Front Bench.

LORD PARMOOR

I cannot give any undertaking except this, that I will consult with the Minister of Transport and his advisers, and if the views expressed here can be carried out, I will try to do it. I could not accept the Amendment in its present form, and I cannot give any other undertaking without first consulting the Ministry.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.

EARL RUSSELL

Before the noble Lord withdraws his Amendment I am not certain that he has not misapprehended what the clause applies to. Subsection (3) provides that:— With a view to securing that, so far as possible, all works involving the breaking up of streets by any undertakers having statutory powers to break up streets (including any Government Department) shall be carried out at the same time as or in connection with works of road maintenance and improvements, the Minister shall send to all such undertakers' copies of the proposals of the road authorities"; and towards the end of the subsection it says that it shall not be lawful for them to break up the street or part of the street so closed unless they prove to the satisfaction of the Minister that there were reasonable grounds for their failure or omission to execute, whilst the street or part thereof was closed, the works for the execution of which they require to break up the street. And this Amendment your Lordships will notice only applies to the execution of the last mentioned works—that is, the works which normally ought to have been done when the street was up. Therefore, it is a bit limited in its scope

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment, and I will bring up the matter again on Report.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

I think probably that this will be a convenient time to adjourn, and I suggest that we adjourn proceedings on this Bill until a quarter past nine o'clock.