LONDON TRAFFIC BILL.

HL Deb 28 July 1924 vol 58 cc1071-108

Amendments reported (according to Order).

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 elected by the Committee and such ordinary and additional members as are hereinafter mentioned.

(2) Of the ordinary members:

One shall be appointed by a Secretary of State:

Two shall be appointed by the London County Council:

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

One shall be appointed 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, by those councils:

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

One shall be appointed by the Minister: 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 be 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 ho may think fit:

Four shall by 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.

(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, ninteen hundred and twenty-five, 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 he three years; but a person going out of office may be re-appointed.

(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 lie is appointed, and lie shall hold office until the time when the member in whose place he is appointed would have gone out of office, and shall then go out of office.

LORD PABMOOR moved, in subsection (2), in the paragraph beginning "Two shall be appointed," to leave out "councils of the metropolitan boroughs," and to insert "Minister." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I must explain this matter, because the Bill was alterered in Committee on the understanding that administrative Amendments would be introduced in order to make it workable in its new form. I undertook to see the Minister of Transport and the draftsman upon this point. Let me explain, if I may, quite shortly, particularly to the noble Lord opposite, who took an interest in this matter, exactly how it stands. The nominations all come in the first place from the local authorities. No person can be appointed to one of these committees except by the nomination of a local authority, whom he will represent. I think the idea upon which the Bill was founded was that probably you would not have more nominations than persons to be elected, and therefore that the duty of the Minister would really he to a great extent formal. In order to make that quite clear, I propose to introduce an Amendment a little later to the effect that, where the nominees do not exceed the number of persons to be elected, those nominees shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport.

The difficulty that arises as regards the other method of dealing with this matter is this. I can speak from experience of one of the Counties north of the Thames, namely Buckinghamshire, and I think the noble Lord has the same experience regarding Hertfordshire. These county councils meet only four times a year, and that makes it very difficult to arrange for the joint action which is suggested, in the event of there being any difference of opinion concerning these nominations. I do not know why there should be any difference of opinion, but, in regard to that point, I might add that, although the only power given to the Minister here is to select between nominees if they are more than sufficient to fill the membership, yet it is a point of practical importance, because the Minister wants to get these committees into working operation at the earliest possible date.

I have looked at the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Askwith, and I do not think that it really meets the difficulty. It leaves matters in a condition which it may take a long time to settle. This may be a small point in itself, and it is quite possible that there will be no such selection by the Minister as is contemplated, because there will not be more than a sufficient number of nominees, but I am urged by the Minister to press this point on the ground that, for administrative purposes, any other method might introduce a considerable complication in the sense of delay. The Minister is very desirous, as, I am sure, are all of your Lordships, to bring this Bill into operation speedily, and I suggest that this solution may be accepted by your Lordships as adequate. I should like also to call attention to another Amendment standing in my name which makes the point clear, and which provides that where only sufficient nominees are nominated they shall be accepted as representatives by the Minister of Transport. In that case, no kind of selection will be performed by him. From the administrative point of view I am sure that this is far the simplest plan, and I hope, therefore, that your Lordships will adopt it.

Amendment moved— Page 2, lines 3 and 4, leave out ("councils of the metropolitan boroughs") and insert ("Minister").—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I see great difficulties in the way of this Amendment. Let me say at the outset that I quite recognise the spirit in which the Lord President of the Council has met the Amendments which your Lordships passed in Committee. He is evidently very anxious to carry out, so far as he can, the spirit of those Amendments, but I am afraid that I do not think that the form in which he tries to meet us on Clause 1 is good, and I would suggest to him, although it is not in order to discuss the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Askwith, which follows, that it is far better than the Amendment of the Government.

There are several objections to the form proposed by the noble and learned Lord. In the first place, he reintroduces the Minister, and that is contrary to the general wish of the House. It is clear from the votes that your Lordships gave that you wanted to exclude the influence of the Minister so far as possible. I do not mean from the Bill itself, because it is really a Bill to erect the Minister into an autocrat, but I mean so far as the Advisory Committee is concerned. We do not want to have what we decided in Committee weakened in any way on the Report stage, and on the face of it the Amendment of the noble and learned Lord proposes to put back the Minister, and that is an objection. Now, when we come to the Amendment dealing with the position where the number of nominees does not exceed the number of members to be appointed, which is consequential upon the other Amendments of the noble and learned Lord, we find that it provides no machinery whatever, and he must have some machinery. He pointed out to your Lordships that the difficulty about these appointments is that the county councils only meet four times a year. But he will find that that difficulty besets him every way, and even on his own Amendments there must be some machinery by which the county councils must come together to make the nominations. There must be some means of appointing a joint committee of the county councils. If we had time it would be possible for the county councils to meet in October, correspond with other county councils, and eventually to consummate the business in the spring or summer of next year.

But we find that an immediate decision is required, and there is only one way of getting it. When they meet in October they must appoint some subordinate body of joint representatives, and give them plenary power to make the nominations. That has got to be done in any case, and my noble friend's Amendment does, at any rate, provide for Regulations being made by the Minister under which it can be done. The Amendment of the noble and learned Lord does not provide Regulations, and I do not think that the words of his Amendment will do. Of course, if he wants to go into great detail, and have a statutory committee, I should not object, but the words as the Government have printed them will not do, and they have the additional vice of reintroducing the Minister where we do not want him to come in.

LORD ASKWITH

I quite realise the importance of time in this matter, and also that the nominations which in certain cases appear to have been made before this Bill goes through, are not legal nominations under this Bill when it becomes an Act. There will have to be some means of appointing persons representing these different bodies. I do not know whether it is possible to get rid of the double stage and say that the councils shall appoint and that if they fail to appoint then the Minister shall appoint the representatives. I do not know whether it would be better to do that on the Third Reading or at the present moment.

LORD PARMOOR

I am much obliged to my noble friend for the suggestion which I understand him to make. We all, I think, desire to get the appointment from the local authorities, and to avoid delay. The noble Lord's suggestion, as I understand it, is this, that if you are to really get appointments from the local authorities the double stage—first, the nomination and then the election—might be avoided. I think that might be done. My only desire is to assist to make the Bill such as will work, and I will not press the Amendments which I have suggested at the present time, having regard to what has been said. If an Amendment such as has been suggested can be carried out on an agreed basis, we, of course, could introduce it after the Third Reading, and I think that might be a great advantage. We all want the Bill to work effectively, and without delay, and in those circumstances I will withdraw the Amendment now standing in my name.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think that is the best course.

LORD ASKWITH

I am agreeable to that, and I think that with a few minutes of consultation between the parties we shall be able to arrive at an agreement.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after "One shall be a representative of the City police appointed by the Corporation of the City of London," to insert "One shall be a representative of the users of privately owned and noncommercial, mechanically propelled vehicles, and shall be appointed by the Minister, after consultation with such bodies as are representative of suck traffic." The noble Lord said: My Lords, nay I state shortly my reasons for asking the leave of the House to move this Amendment, instead of an Amendment which I have on the Paper?

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

It can only be moved with general assent. because there is no Notice of the Amendment on the Paper.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I hope I can have the leave of the House because it will avoid the necessity of moving two other longer Amendments.

NOBLE LORDS

Hear, hear !

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

If I may proceed, the point is this. There are four members of the Advisory Committee to be appointed by the Minister as representative members of various interests which use the streets. I will assume that one will represent Lord Ashfield's group, one the independent omnibus interests, one probably the heavy interests—the motor hauliers—and one probably the railway companies, or somebody else. Rut among all these nineteen members of the Advisory Committee there is not one who can possibly speak for privately owned, non-commercial vehicles. Yet in London it is estimated that there are over 150,000 of such vehicles, as compared with 4.000 omnibuses, 8,000 taxi-cabs, and certainly not more than 10,000 heavy lorries. Therefore, the biggest interest on the streets is not represented; only the commercial interests are represented. These people, however, will be regulated to a large extent under the Bill. They will be told where to park their cars, and to use this or that street, and I submit it is fair that they should have at least one representative out of nineteen.

The Report of Lord Ullswater's Commission proposed that this body should number twenty-one. It is nineteen now. One extra representative was given in the other House to labour, and from that I do not dissent. But, the original proportion having already been interfered with, I claim that the most important interest, the interest which is paying 65 per cent, of the whole motor taxation, should have representation. After all, it is not a question of the owners of expensive motor-cars. The proportion of expensive motor-cars to non-expensive cars is only one to sixty or seventy. The car will be used more and more by the poorer sections of the community, by the shopkeeper, and the superior artisan, and there ought to be some representation of non-commercial interests on the Advisory Committee.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

Will this be an extra member?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

Yes, an extra member. But even then it does not bring the number up to the maximum recommended by Lord Ullswater's Commission. I appeal to the Government to consider this Amendment. I have the united support of the great automobile bodies behind me, representing over a quarter of a million privately-owned cars.

Amendment moved— Page 2, after line 25, insert the said words-.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

I congratulate the noble Lord on the perseverance he has shown, but I am sorry to be obliged again to give a negative answer. You cannot upset the balance of the representation, which has been carefully considered. Directly you introduce a new member you upset the balance as regards the local authorities and as between the additional members. Representation of private users and others can be obtained under subsection (3), which provides for four representatives of the interests of persons providing means of transport and users of mechanically propelled vehicles. These are users of mechanically propelled vehicles, and the representation of all these persons combined is to be four. That has been very carefully considered. The noble Lord brought forward what is really the same question on the Committee stage, and I think your Lordships determined to adhere to the number of the Advisory Committee as it has been constituted. If we once begin to break in upon that, claims may come in from all sides.

EARL BUXTON

In this case I am afraid I cannot support my noble friend, for the very reasons that the Lord President has given. Personally I am much opposed to this outside representation. But it is clear that if you are only going to have eight representatives of the municipalities, and you are going to increase the representation of other interests, you must increase the proportion of the municipal representation, and that would upset the whole basis of the Advisory Committee, which has been agreed to. The Lord President said that under subsection (3) one of the four representatives there mentioned might represent these non-commercial elements. If he is prepared to give an undertaking, so far as he can, to carry out that view, I should think my noble friend would be well advised to accept it. That seems to me the way in which this representation ought to take place. It would have the additional advantage of giving a smaller representation to those who are directly interested pecuniarily in these matters. At the same time, I think that these private motor-car owners ought to have some representation.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I have some sympathy with this Amendment, although it is a sympathy of a. rather peculiar kind, because I would rather have had a Committee which was without all these special interests. I would rather have had the disinterested form of Committee, before which people could come and give evidence. But, after all, if you opt for the other kind, and if you are going to decide that interests are to be represented, I think you must represent—I will not say all interests (that would be impossible), but you cannot leave out, or it is difficult to leave out, one large interest. Here is a gap really which it is suggested might be filled. I think my noble friend moved his Amendment as applying to the ordinary members and not to the additional members.

LORD MONTAGU OR BEAULIEU

I did.

VISCOUOT PEEL

Possibly it would have appeared better in the other place. I only want to say two things. One is that the noble and learned Lord has laid tremendous stress upon all these numbers being fixed. He rather brought it before us as if it was a settled policy after long consultation that you could not alter one without altering all the others. I think I could criticise that statement because I understand that in another place, possibly when things were in a more fluid condition and before they had been crystallised into form, several alterations were made. One was, I think I am right in saying, that whereas two labour representatives had been proposed in the Bill there are three now. That is a considerable change, and I do not know why we should be brought up suddenly against this rigidity now.

May I remind him that I am the last person to want to make this Committee a large body? It is smaller, I think, than that proposed by the noble Viscount, Lord Ullswater, and therefore on the ground of size there is very little to be said. But in Committee I think the noble and learned Lord was sympathetic to the idea that this particular large interest should be represented, and he seemed to suggest that it could in fact find representation already under subsection (3) of Clause 1. I should like to ask the noble and learned Lord whether he could give any undertaking to do his best to secure that the Minister should appoint a representative of this interest as one of those four. If he says he can give no undertaking at all, I would offer another suggestion—that possibly before Third Beading some Amendment might be drawn up which the Minister might see and then, possibly, it could be introduced after Third Reading. If the Minister will look carefully into that and sec whether it is possible to accept such an Amendment after Third Reading, my noble friend might feel inclined not to press it at this particular moment.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

May I say two things in reference to what the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, has said? The first is that I think it is unnecessary and unwise to overweight this Advisory Committee. You should keep it as small as you possibly can. The second is that so far as special representation is concerned, I can see no necessity for it whatsoever If you are controlling traffic you do not question whether it is a motor car, a motor omnibus or a horse and cart that you have to deal with; you deal with the thing as a whole. For that reason I see no necessity whatsoever for special representation.

LORD PARMOOR

I am afraid I cannot speak again on Report, but by permission of the House I may say that I could not give any undertaking but that any proposal will have careful consideration. I cannot go beyond that, because I have already stated the general principles which underlie this Bill.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

By leave of the House, I should like to say that I accept what the noble and learned Lord has said in the spirit in which it is offered. At the same time, if my information is correct, there is no chance of getting a representative amongst these four, and perhaps the noble and learned Lord will allow me to put an Amendment on the Paper after Third Reading to the effect that of the four "one shall be a representative of" or something of that sort. If he will give that his careful consideration possibly he could collaborate with the noble Marquess and myself in arriving at a suitable form of words. This is a vital matter, and if I do not ask the House to divide upon it now it is only out of consideration for the House and because I have a belief that we shall be met on the matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LORD PARMOOR moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert "and if he cease to hold such qualification shall cease to be a member of the Committee." The noble and learned Lord said: This Amendment is obviously necessary. The representatives are to be members of the local authorities and the proposal I make is to odd words to subsection (2) to provide that if any one ceases to be a member of the local authority he shall cease to be a member of the Committee.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 32, at and insert the said new words.—(Lord Parmoor.)

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY moved, in subsection (4), to leave out "section seven or." The noble Marquess said: Your Lordships will remember that there was a great discussion in Committee as to what the extent of the interest of these additional members of the Advisory Committee should be. I share what I believe to be the prevailing view of your Lordships, that the additional members are a mistake altogether; but we consented in Committee to retain them and I shall not attempt to go back upon that decision. But the power, or the sphere of interest, of the Advisory Committee was expressly left open in Committee and I should have thought it was clear that these additional members, who are ex hypothesi all interested parties, ought not to have authority over that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be accorded to a particular interest; that is to say, Clause 7 of the Bill, which is the most difficult clause of the Bill, as your Lordships are aware.

Under Clause 7 a monopoly or a quasi-monopoly can be granted. I am not saying that is inevitable in all circumstances, but I am prepared to contend that we are faced by such a tremendous difficulty in the ease of the London traffic that it may end in a monopoly, notwithstanding all the precautions we may take. Al any rate, I do not think that interested parties ought to have a voice in regard to that part of the Bill under which a monopoly can be granted. Clause 7 is that part of the Bill, and I propose, therefore, that the words "section seven or" should be left out of subsection (4). The effect would be that the attention of the additional members would be directed only to Clause 10 and to Part I of the Second Schedule, and they would have regard to those two matters only. If your Lordships turn to Clause 10 you will find that really is the same thing as the Third Schedule, because the clause generally merely introduces the Third Schedule. The Third Schedule deals with all sorts of tiny little matters of regulation about which the expert opinion of those interested generally might be of very great value. Therefore, it may very well be admitted that the additional members should have, their attention directed to the Third Schedule. The same is true, though perhaps quite not to the same extent, of Part I of the Second Schedule, which is the other matter that is left.

What I want to convey to your Lordships is that the Third and Second Schedule differ entirely from Section 7, under which the Minister may say that these omnibuses are to be allowed to ply, and that no other omnibuses will be allowed to ply, on this area—that this company is to be allowed to have the whole control of this part of the traffic, or these two companies, or whatever the number may be. That is what he can do under Section 7. Upon that matter it is quite clear the interested parties ought not to have a vote. When I say the "interested parties" I mean not only those representing the employers, but also those who represent labour. They are both interested, and they ought not to be able to say this or that should be done, because they are obviously pecuniarily interested in the answer. I am not saying that they would necessarily make a corrupt decision, but it is our practice, in this country not to allow people to adjudicate upon that in which they are financially interested. Everyone knows that a magistrate does not sit upon a case the decision upon which will help him pecuniarily. In the same way those who are interested in the drink traffic are not allowed to sit a? magistrates when licensing questions are being decided, because they are financially interested in the result. That is the general rule which we always adopt, and I. submit that it should apply here, because these interested parties are financially interested in the result of the advice they give to the Minister. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, lines 12 and 13, leave out ("section 7 or").—(The Marquess of Salisbury.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I do not think that the principle to which the noble Marquess has referred is really applicable in a case of this kind, because the persons referred to would not be interested in such a way as would a magistrate or Judge who would be disentitled to hear a certain case. On the other hand, I realise that it may be said that these two parties, whose interests we are discussing, might be affected. What induced the Government to put in this provision was that in their view it would be very important, in dealing with these matters, to have the benefit of the experience of these people, who would be people who have had a great experience, and who could therefore help the Government in a most effective way; but if the noble Marquess desires to press his Amendment I shall not oppose it.

EARL BUXTON

My Lords, I am sure the decision announced by the Lord President will give great satisfaction. There has been a feeling, I think, throughout this House, and also to a great extent in the House of Commons, that the persons financially interested in advice should not be in a position to give that advice. It is considered very objectionable that persons who have a direct pecuniary interest in a particular case should be the very persons to decide that particular case. I am sure what the Lord President has said will remove from the minds of every one any question of suspicion regarding the additional members.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in the proviso to subsection (4) to leave out "or such one or more of them as he may direct." The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is a small one, but think it rather important. The clause deals with the Minister's powers to direct that additional members may form part of the Committee when considering certain questions. As the Bill stands now he would have the power to select one or more of these additional members, and no others. I do not say he would select those interested in the question under consideration, but that might have a great bearing upon his selection. He might, for instance, put on those specially familiar with tramway questions and exclude those familiar with motor omnibus questions. If he appoints any at all I think he ought to appoint all of them. He should not have the power to discriminate between the additional members. If he is to have this power he ought not to be allowed to pick and choose. All road dues are liable to be affected by the advice. Therefore, I think that if any are to sit upon the Committee all ought to do so; otherwise, you may have the Minister possibly selecting people who would be pecuniarily interested, or whose decisions might affect another large and important body of persons. I do not think there can be any objection to this Amendment. It is in harmony with the decisions of the House, and I hope the Lord President will see his way to accept it.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, leave out ("or such one or more of them as he may direct").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD THOMSON

My Lords, the Amendment of the noble Lord would mean that if the Minister wished to add any additional members to a Committee he would be compelled to add them all. In framing the Bill the idea that animated those responsible was that, certainly in many of the subjects in the second part of the schedule, it would be quite unnecessary to seek the advice of all the additional members on many points, notably, on those in paragraphs (h) and (i). Some would be suitable for giving advice under one head, and some for giving advice under the other. In tile ease of (i) it says: The exercise of any of the powers of the Minister from whatsoever source derived in relation to traffic on street." in the London Traffic Area. It might be even desirable to exclude some of the additional members who might be too interested in the matter to be proper advisers upon it. As the noble Lord has pointed out, this is a very slight Amendment, but it does deprive the Bill of a certain elasticity which at present it possesses. It is not only a question of giving the Minister power to discriminate, but it is a question of simplifying the work of the Committees, and not having to put on all the members but giving the Minister the power to exclude some whose advice might be interested. I therefore hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his Amendment.

VISCOUNT LONG OF WRAXALL

My Lords, I would venture to ask the Government to reconsider this matter, not on the. grounds put forward by my noble friend below me, but speaking for Ministers of the future I am not concerned in this, I need hardly say, but I think Ministers really have difficult jobs enough already without adding to their difficulties, and preparing a bed of thorns for those who are to come after the present Ministers. How on earth is any Minister to make his selection? He can only do it in one way, and that is by consulting those who in the first place, are familiar with the work arising particularly in the immediate question before, him, and, in the second place, those who have some knowledge of the members out of whom the selection is to be made. He cannot do it himself, because he has not the knowledge. I do not suggest for a moment that he will be guilty of appointing men for his own benefit, or anything of that kind, but he will not know whom to appoint, and he cannot know. It is not practical politics. He has a multitude of duties to perform. He has plenty to do already, and you are adding to his work every day. You are here giving him a very heavy job; you are giving him power to appoint men and then telling him he is to make his own selection. You are inviting him to perform a task which is more likely to lead him into difficulties and make, him unpopular than anything else you have asked him to do.

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I think the noble Viscount is really exaggerating the difficulty. It is simply this, that out of a body which has been appointed specially like this, it is competent for the Minister to ask one or two, or three, or four, to act in a particular ease as against asking them all to act. There might be a difficulty in many cases in getting them all to act. I should have thought it was a very simple administrative matter, and I do not appreciate the difficulty. If you have a panel out of which a Minister can select one or two for a particular duty I, for one, trust that the duty would be carried out. I think the Amendment is an undue interference with the discretion which the Minister is quite entitled to exercise, and would, I agree, exercise in an impartial manner.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

This Advisory Committee will be all at sea at first. They will not know anything about their duties. How many will know anything about the greater or smaller questions of the control of traffic? But in time they will learn, or we hope they will. Then when they have learned their duties it is suitable that the Minister should be able to delegate one of their number to inquire into a particular and specific object. Why not? I can see no reason why he should not; and I should have thought it was a good idea to enable the Minister to appoint one member instead of half a dozen.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

I think the Amendment is a very good one. The noble Viscount-, Lord Long of Wraxall, has stated one objection to the proviso as it stands. There is this further objection. There are only seven members. The Minister desires the opinion of these additional members and he informs these seven that on a certain date they will be asked to attend to give an opinion on certain matters. They are under no obligation to attend, and those who know nothing about the question probably will not attend. The Minister picks one member, and if the decision arrived at is unpopular what on earth will happen in another place? At once several members will ask questions as to whether or not this decision was arrived at by an interested person, and whether the Minister did not of malice prepense appoint this particular person in order that the decision might be given. I am speaking in the interests of the Lord

Resolved in the negative and Amendment agreed to accordingly.

LORD PARMOOR: moved, in subsection (6), to omit "Chairman and other." The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, these words are necessary because the Chairman is no longer an appointed member but an elected member, and is consequently in the same position as all other members.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 31, leave out ("Chairman and other").—(Lord Parmoor.)

LORD PARMOOR

The remaining Amendments to this clause are drafting.

Amendments moved—

Page 3, line 39, at end insert ("the Chairman shall go out of office on the day

President and the Labour Government. I wish to prevent them being subjected to the sort of question which in these I circumstances I should ask if I were in another place. I hope he will accept, the Amendment.

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

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 17: Not-Contents, 49.

CONTENTS.
Haldane, V. (L. Chancellor.)	Chelmsford, V.	Faringdon, L.
	Ullswater, V.	Jessel, L.
Parmoor, L. (L. President.)		Lawrence of Kingsgate, L.
	Arnold, L.	Muir Mackenzie, L. [Teller.]
De La Warr, E. [Teller.]	Ashfield, L.	Newton, L.
Lucan, E.	Clanwilliam, L. (E. Clanwilliam.)	Olivier, L.
		Riddell, L.
		Thomson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Salisbury, M.	Long, V.	Montagu of Beaulieu, L. [Teller.]
	Peel, V.
Balfour, E.		O'Hagan, L.
Beauchamp, E.	Askwith, L.	Pentland, L.
Bradford, E.	Banbury of Southam, L. [Teller.]	Plumer, L.
Buxton, E.		Ponsonby, L. (E. Bessborough.)
Chesterfield, E.	Brownlow, L.
Chichester, E.	Clinton, L.	Raglan, L.
Doncaster, E (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)	Crawshaw, L.	Redesdale, L.
	Daryngton, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Malmesbury, E.	Desborough, L.	Shandon, L.
Morton, E.	Emmott, L.	Southwark, L.
Onslow, E.	Fairfax of Cameron, L.	Stanmore, L.
Stanhope, E.	Gainford, L.	Strachie, L.
	Harris, L.	Sydenham, L
Allendale, V.	Hemphill, L.	Templemore, L.
Bertie of Thame, V.	Lawrence, L.	Terrington, L.
Falkland, V.	Merthyr, L.	Waring, L.
Falmouth, V		Wharton, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

on which the members of the committee by whom he is elected ordinarily go out of office:").

Page 4, line 10, at end insert ("the foregoing provision shall apply to the Chairman with the substitution of 'election' for 'appointment' and of 'elected' for 'appointed'.

"If an ordinary member or an additional member is elected chairman his election shall not create a casual vacancy").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question. Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4:

Closing of streets for works.

(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 shah consider any representations made to him by such undertakers; and where works of mad maintenance and improvement involving the closing of a street to such extent as aforesaid have been executed in accordance with any such scheme, it shall not he 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 wore 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 he executed or commenced within the said twelve months.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, in subsection (3), after "closed" ["street so closed"] to insert "without the previous consent of the Minister and." The noble Lord said: My Lords, I bring forward by this Amendment, in part, I think, at the suggestion of the Lord President,, the question of repairing streets at night. I am only following in this case the recommendations of the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area of 1919, who, in their summary of recommendations, state that evidence has shown, among other things, the need of systematisation of road repair, much of which, especially in the main streets, might be carried out at night and at such times as will best meet traffic conditions. On the Committee stage I elaborated instances, and gave arguments as to why I thought this step should be taken. My noble friend Earl Beauchamp suggested that the clause should be turned round the other way, and that the Minister should be given power, where he thought it advisable, to insist that these repairs should be done at night. I have carried out the noble Earl's suggestion, and, as noble Lords will see if they look at the Paper, I have turned the clause round.

I think it is important that this Amendment should be adopted, because we have all suffered in this way, and traffic will suffer still more if these obstructions continue. Since the Committee stage I have had counted the repairs going on between Hammersmith Broadway and Hyde Park Corner, and I learn that there are now twenty-six such interruptions to the highway between those two points. I think I am correct in saying that in only one case are the repairs being carried out continuously. In all the other cases the work ceases at about five o'clock in the afternoon, and does not commence next morning until, say, eight o'clock. In other words, when the traffic is least no work is being done upon these road repairs. That, I think, is a scandal at this period. This is only one instance, and I could put before the House other instances equally strong. In the circumstances I ask your Lordships to take my Amendment in its new form, as suggested by the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. It was, I think, the subject of some sympathetic remarks by the Lord President.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 19, after ("closed") insert ("without the previous consent of the Minister and").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

To appreciate the noble Lord's Amendment we must, I think, also look at the next Amendment, to add words to subsection (3) to give the Minister power to make a condition that work shall be carried out at night.

THE MARQUESS OR SALISBURY

It is really all one Amendment.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

That is so.

LORD PARMOOR

The Amendment raises the question of work in connection with street repairs being carried on at night. I suppose everyone would desire that, though one member of your Lordships' House suggested that some people would not appreciate the noise at night. I wish all this work could be done at night, but there art two objections. First of all, you have to get people to work at night, and then, as I pointed out, we are dealing here with works by the undertakers.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULLEU

Works done both by public authorities and by undertakers.

LORD PARMOOR

It applies in this case to all works, whether carried out by the road authority or by the statutory undertaker. Is that so?

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

That is so.

LORD PARMOOR

As regards the great mass of works of this kind, it would be difficult and expensive to have them carried out at night. I am not aware of any objection apart from the practical one, but my information from the Ministry is to the effect that, in their opinion, there would be great difficulty in carrying out all these works by night. The suggestion of the noble Lord might perhaps be put in rather a different way. Powers might be given to the Minister, under the head of Regulations, with the object of seeing how far works of this kind might be carried out at night, and such Regulations would come before your Lordships' House and the other House before the matter was finally settled. The actual obligation goes, I think, rather too far, but I must take your Lordships' decision in the matter.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

My Lords, I almost think that if the noble Lord, the Lord President, will look at the words of this Amendment he will see that my noble friend has been more careful than he gave him credit for. My noble friend, I am sure, recognises, as any one of your Lordships would, that to make it obligatory that the work should take place at night would be very difficult. But that is not really suggested by my noble friend's Amendment, which merely gives the Minister power, if he thinks fit, to take such a step. It does nothing more than that. If the Lord President wanted to make it clearer, the words might be "the Minister may if he thinks fit," or something of that sort. We could quite easily alter the words if necessary, but the Amendment is merely designed to give the Minister power to insist upon the work being carried on at night. From that point of view, I think the Lord President will see that this is a valuable power to possess.

It is quite true that it would not be of universal application, and, as the Lord President points out, there might be labour difficulties which would make it impossible, but all those matters would be taken into consideration by the Minister. Where you are dealing with one of these great thoroughfares it is most important to do away with obstructions, and where the Minister had ascertained from persons who could advise him—the local authority and so forth— that there would be no special difficulty in the way, he might make it an absolute condition of his consent that the work should be carried out at night. I should have thought that this would be a very valuable power, and as, standing at this Box, I have spoken on many occasions in favour of limiting the power of the Minister, I had rather hoped that, when it was proposed to give him additional powers, we should have found that we were pressing against an open door, so far as the Government are concerned.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

If the noble Lord is the parent of this Amendment, I can claim to be the grandparent, and grandparents being notoriously proud of their offspring, I am as proud as he, if not prouder, of this Amendment. I urge upon the Government the advantage which it confers upon the Minister, and having regard to the approval which has been expressed I trust that the noble and learned Lord opposite will not oppose it.

VISCOUNT PEEL

I am not clear, and I do not think the noble and learned Lord himself was quite certain, whether this Amendment would apply both to the ordinary undertaker and also to the local authority.

LORD PARMOOR

The noble Lord said to the two.

VISCOUNT PEEL

But the noble Lord not being quite so eminent a lawyer as the noble and learned Lord, I should like to ask whether the Government view is the same.

LORD PARMOOR

I am not sure it is my view, to be frank. It is a rather difficult point, and I rather understand that the noble Lord intended the Amendment to apply to both cases. After what the noble Marquess has said the Government will not oppose the Amendment, but I would suggest the addition after the word "may" in the proposed addition to the subsection, of the words "if he thinks fit."

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

That would be quite clear.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Would it be possible for the noble and learned Lord to make sure in his own mind whether it does apply to both parties?

LORD PARMOOR

I will look into the matter again. I quite appreciate the point.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Amendment moved— Page 7, line 25, at end insert ("and the Minister may if he thinks fit make it a condition on giving his consent under this subsection to the breaking up of the streets that all works in connection therewith shall be carried out at light by commencing the same after 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").—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 6:

Power to attach conditions to grant of omnibus licences plying in the city of London and the metropolitan police district.

(2) When licensing an omnibus to ply for hire within the area aforesaid, the licensing authority may, subject to the right of appeal to the Minister given by subsection (8) of Section fourteen of the Roads Act, 1920, attach to any such licence all or any of the following conditions, that is to say:—

1. (a) a condition that the omnibus shall not ply for hire upon specified approved routes or any specified parts thereof, but such conditions shall be imposed only on the ground that the omnibus is by reason of its construction or equipment unsuitable for use on such routes or parts thereof;
2. (b) a condition that the omnibus shall not, without the consent of the licensing authority, which consent may be either of special or of genera] application, and may be either absolute or subject to any conditions, ply for hire except upon approved routes;
3. (c) a condition that the omnibus shall not without such consent as aforesaid ply for hire except in maintaining a regular service;

and if any person to whom a licence is granted subject to any such condition fails to comply with the condition, he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding five pounds, and if a person is convicted of a second or subsequent offence under this subsection the licensing authority may, if they think fit, revoke or suspend the licenco for the omnibus in respect of which the second or subsequent offence was committed.

(7) The Minister may make regulations with respect to the procedure on appeals under this section, and those regulations may provide for the appointment of a person or two or more persons to hold an inquiry into the subject matter of the appeal and for enabling the person or persons so appointed—

1. (a) to determine by whom and in what manner the costs of the appeal (including the remuneration of the person or persons appointed to hold the inquiry and any other expenses of the Minister) are to be borne;
2. (b) to take evidence on oath and for that purpose to administer oaths;
3. (c) by order to require any person subject to the payment or tender of the reasonable expenses of attendance to attend as a witness and give evidence or produce any documents in his possession or under his control which relate to any matter in question at the inquiry and are such as would be subject to production in a court of law.

If any person fails without reasonable excuse to comply with any requirement contained in any such order he shall on summary conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five pounds.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, at the end of subsection (2), to insert: Provided that the licensing authority and the Minister, in the exercise of their respective powers under this section, shall have regard to the maintenance of competition in omnibus services, and shall, so far as practicable, prevent my person or persons from obtaining a monopoly of omnibus service on any approved route where, any other person or persons propose to establish or maintain a regular service of omnibuses.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the Amendments standing in my name are really all devoted to the same subject, and are intended to prevent, so far as possible, a monopoly growing up. I told the House in Committee my view as to the danger of this monopoly growing up, and I pointed out that the 600 independent motor omnibuses which are now running were justified and that their service was beneficial to the travelling public. I think I shall shorten time this afternoon if I omit to move the first three of the Amendments on the Paper, and confine my remarks to the Amendment at the end of subsection (2) to insert a proviso that the licensing authority and the Minister shall have regard to the maintenance of competition. With the leave of the House I would like to say what I have to say in moving that Amendment. The Royal Commission, the Select Committee on Transport in the Metropolitan Area, and Lord Ullswater's Commission, in its Report, all lay stress upon the point that the preferential treatment of the "Combine" service would tend to create claims to vested rights. I agree with that, and unless some words such as I have suggested are inserted in this clause there is very grave danger that the Minister, wittingly or unwittingly, will be forced into the position of giving a monopoly to one section only of those who provide public services, and others may be driven off the road.

I say again that I am aware of the improvements made in the London traffic services by Lord Ashfield, but I think this House should be very careful to avoid any monopoly being set up, and to preserve, if possible, the element of competition. My Amendment, in the opinion of those whom I represent, is the best way of preventing any such monopoly growing up and of giving the Minister the power to prevent such a thing happening. I ask your Lordships to consider the Amendment very carefully. I think it will tend to preserve competition, which is important in the interests of the general public, and will not really do any damage to the service of the "Combine," because they have omnibuses enough to continue for a long time as the most powerful item in London traffic.

LORD PARMOOR

The difficulty about this is one that I have already pointed out on the Committee stage. The noble Lord proposes to introduce this Amendment in Clause 6. Clause 6 has nothing to do with what he calls the monopoly question at all. It is a mere licensing clause. The question which he is seeking to raise really arises on Clause 7, which is the traffic clause, and his proposal here is really quite inapplicable to Clause 6. I pointed that out in Committee. We all sympathise with the noble Lord in his desire to prevent what he calls a monopoly, but that question does not arise on this clause.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

There is nothing in this Bill that I know of which prevents any number of omnibuses being allowed to ply on the streets of London, on application to the Minister. He can issue licences for as many omnibuses as he likes, but this Amendment, like one which the noble Lord moved in Committee, and which I did not speak against because I had said so much already, would have this effect, that any number of what are commonly called "pirate" omnibuses would be allowed to appear in the streets at any moment. So far as the control of the traffic is concerned, that is the worst thing you can think of. Nothing makes more difficulties than that would make. Naturally, everybody would like to see fair competition among omnibuses, in the interests of the public, but now we are considering purely the question of the control of traffic, and if you allow "pirate" omnibuses in any numbers, or impose the necessity on the Minister to issue licences for any number of omnibuses, to appear at any moment they choose, it would make the chaos far worse than it is now.

The noble Lord, Lord Ashfield, will forgive my saying that the omnibuses, next to the tramcars, are the greatest difficulty in the efficient control of traffic in London, chiefly owing to their size, but also owing to their number. If you are going to allow large numbers of extra omnibuses to arrive in London on great occasions, like national festivals, when crowds of people come to London, you will make traffic control practically impossible. At the present moment the omnibuses are very well controlled. The Advisory Committee will be able to find out how many omnibuses are on the roads, when they are running, and when they stop, and it is perfectly easy for them to control them, but if you have extra omnibuses appearing at any moment the owners like, it will be quite impossible to control the traffic efficiently. I should be very much averse from accepting this Amendment.

EARL BUXTON

The noble Earl has misunderstood the aim of this Amendment. There is no question of giving unlimited licence to what he calls the "pirate" omnibuses. What I understand my noble friend desires is to pre-vent the complete monopoly of the streets. On the Second Reading I called the "pirates" "benevolent pirates," and I am in favour of a certain number of them, but it is essential that the present system of uncontrolled licensing should be made much more stringent. That the Bill does. It gives full control to the Minister, and enables him to restrict the numbers. We want unrestricted competition, but we do not want unrestricted monopoly. As regards the place where this Amendment should come in, the Lord President suggests that it is in Clause 7 instead of Clause 6, and there is some force, I think, in that objection. He is very much in favour of Clause 7, subsection (b), as to the omnibuses of one proprietor. I think he has forgotten that that safeguard, like others, was not in the original Bill. It was put in against the will of the Government, and that and other safeguards have greatly improved the Bill. But I think my noble friend would be well advised when he gets to Clause 7 to strengthen it there rather than to do it here.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU

I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

LOUD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (7), to leave out "an inquiry" and to insert "a public inquiry in such manner as may be prescribed."

LORD PARMOOR

The Government will not oppose the noble Lord's suggestion. I accept the, Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 12, line 7, leave out ("an inquiry") and insert the said words.—(Lord Askwith.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 7 (Power to limit the number of omnibuses plying on, certain streets within the City of London and the Metropolitan Police district):

LOUD PARMOOR

I have a series of drafting Amendments to this clause. The words are necessary now that the tram-cars have been included. That point was decided on the Committee stage, and I do not wish to raise it again. It is necessary to draw a. distinction between the omnibus, the trolley vehicle, and the tramcar. The Amendments really carry out the decision at which your Lordships arrived.

Amendments moved—

Page 13, line 26,. after ("omnibus") insert ("trolleyvehicle")

Page 13, line 31, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")

Page 13, line 40, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")

Page 14, line 2, utter ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicles")

Page 14, line 36, after ("omnibuses") insert ("trolley vehicle" or tramway ears").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM moved to add to Clause 7 the following new subsection:— (6) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, I should have liked to move the Amendment in a stronger form, and to have insisted that before any Regulation was made it must meet with the approval of either House or both Houses of Parliament. But I understand that there might be some objection to moving the Amendment in that form, on the ground that members might take advantage of it to raise unnecessary discussion. In the form in which the Amendment is at present it is not of very much use in the other House, unless the Regulation is so bad that there is a very large and strong body of feeling against it. But in your Lordships' House there are better facilities for moving, and therefore I think this form of Amendment may effect some good. A possible objection is that there may be a large number of Regulations to be made, and that this might cause delay. But Clause 7 really only deals with the licensing of omnibuses, and therefore it cannot be said that a very large number of Regulations under it will have to be made.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 5, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Banbury of Southam.)

LORD PARMOOR

The question here is whether Regulations made under Clause 7 shall be subject to a provision of this character. I want to dissociate that from a question arising later, because there I think the House and the Government are agreed, if not on the actual form, at any rate on the principle of the provision which ought to be in sorted. The objection which the Government have to the insertion of this subsection at this stage is that the sanction of Parliament to Regulations is not suitable to the subject-matter with which you are dealing in Clause 7. That clause is intended for two purposes—the first is for making orders declaring particular streets to be restricted streets. Is that a matter in which Parliament can give any opinion at all, unless you have some legislation in the nature of Private Bill legislation? The other purpose is to make Regulations with regard to streets which have been declared restricted streets, and restricting the number of omnibuses or tramway cars which may ply thereon. The Minister will consider what omnibuses ought to ply on a particular restricted area, after considering all the conditions and taking any necessary evidence. Is that a matter to come up again for decision in Parliament? It is clear that, if it did, you must hear the parties in order to act fairly. You would have to have something in the nature of Private Bill legislation in order that the parties concerned might be heard. Otherwise, you would have Parliament, on a merely general statement, over-ruling a determination that had been come to, after hearing the parties themselves.

That is the objection which I have to the insertion of these words. I have no objection when we come to Regulations which are of such a character that they ought to be subject to Parliament, both to this House and the other House, and I hope that the form—I do not care what form is adopted exactly—is right. But do not let us make the mistake of making these semi-judicial decisions upon matters which affect different private individuals the subject of Regulations to be submitted to Parliament. If you do I think there ought to be some provision under which those individuals may be heard if the original decision is to be upset. I hope this Amendment will not be insisted upon.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I am sorry that His Majesty's Government have taken this line because we congratulated ourselves upon our own immense moderation in this Amendment. Your Lordships will remember that on the last occasion a discussion took place upon a proposal under which an affirmative Resolution would be required for clause 7. But my noble friend has thought fit to take a much more moderate line and has only put forward the ordinary form of a Regulation lying on the Table, and has left it to Parliament to object. I would like to call your Lordships' attention to the great difference that makes. The argument used against us in Committee was that delay would be caused. What was said, in effect, was: "Here are these awful difficulties about the traffic of London, and you are putting into the Bill all sorts of precautions which will lead to infinite delay and, therefore, any emergency which ex hypothesi has to be met will only be met after delay." Under the form in which my noble friend has moved his Amendment, there will be no delay whatever, not even a delay of five minutes. The Regulation of the Minister will take effect immediately. Its further operation will be restricted only if Parliament objects. Everything done under it up to the moment of objection by either House of Parliament will stand good, but from that moment, of course, the will of Parliament will prevail. Therefore, there is no delay whatever under this procedure and the emergency will be met.

The noble and learned Lord has said that this Amendment is not apt to Clause 7. He said that it applied, first, to declaring a street to be a restricted street. That is not so because that is an order under subsection (1). My noble friend's Amendment applies only to Regulations, and Regulations do not appear in subsection (1); they only appear in subsection (2). Therefore the power of Parliament will apply only to subsection (2) of Clause 7. I hope the noble and learned Lord will observe again how immensely moderate we are and that we have cut the Amendment to the bones and to the very last point which we could recommend to Parliament. Then the noble and learned Lord said that the parties ought to have the right to be heard. Does he provide that the parties are to be heard? He proposes that the Minister shall have absolute power in this matter. He does not propose that the parties are to be heard. It is provided at the end of the clause that they shall be informed. That will be good in either case, and whether Parliament intervenes or "not the parties will have been informed. But the tender solicitude of the noble and learned Lord that the parties should be heard is not expressed in his clause as it stands.

LORD PARMOOR

It is intended.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

It is not provided.

LORD PARMOOR

Notice is given.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

Notice is given certainly. My point is that if notice is given, that will be good in either case. They will be heard, of course, when the notice is given to them, before the matter is laid before Parliament at all and, therefore, they will not be judged without their case having been heard. Everything, therefore, is provided for—justice, rapidity and, I hope, efficiency. That is where I am a little doubtful. I am not sure that the new subsection as it stands will provide a sufficient check by Parliament. However, I prided myself, and we ventured in your name to pride ourselves, on the moderation we had shown, and I earnestly hope that the Government will accept this Amendment as a compromise.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 9 (Penalties for disobedience to directions of police):

LORD PARMOOR

My Amendment to this clause is entirely a matter of drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 15, line 27, after("is") insert ("for the time being").—(Lord Parmoor.) On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 10:

Power to make regulations.

(7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before each House of Parliament as soon as may be after it is made, and if an address is presented to His Majesty within twenty-one days on which that House has sat next after any such regulation has been laid before it praying that the regulation may be annulled, His Majesty in Council may annul the regulation, and it shall thenceforth be void, without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done there-under.

LORD STRACHIE moved to leave out subsection (7) and insert the following new subsection: (7) Any regulation made under this section shall be laid before both Houses of Parliament forthwith; and if an address is presented to His Majesty by either House of Parliament within the next subsequent twenty-eight days on which that House has sat after any such regulation is laid before it praying that the regulation may he annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

The noble Lord said: I beg to move the Amendment which stands in my name on the Paper.

Amendment moved— Page 16, line 37, leave out subsection (7) and insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Strachie.)

LORD PARMOOR

The only point upon this Amendment is that the noble Lord, Lord Newton, proposed subsection (7) as it stands. So far as the Government are concerned, they are really neutral as between his view and that expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Strachie.

LORD STRACHIE

The noble Lord, Lord Newton, said that he had no objection to his subsection being left out and mine being inserted.

LORD PARMOOR

Then the Government have no objection if Lord Newton has none.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Clause 16:

Definitions.

16. For the purpose of this Act unless the content otherwise requires— The expression "omnibus" includes every omnibus, char-a-banc, wagonette, brake, stage-coach, tramcar, trolley vehicle, or other carriage plying for hire by, or used to carry, passengers at separate fares; The expression "trolley vehicles" means a mechanically propelled vehicle adapted for use upon roads without rails and moved by power transmitted thereto from some external source;

LORD PARMOOR

The three Amendments which stand in my name in regard to the definitions of "omnibus" and "trolley vehicles" are drafting Amend ments, and I beg to move them.

Amendments moved—

Page 20, line 14, leave out ("tramcar, trolley vehicle.")

Page 20, line 14, after ("carriage" insert ("not being a trolley vehicle or tramway car.")

Page 20, line 14, line 20, at end insert ("the expression 'tramway car' includes any carriage used on any street or road in the London traffic area by virtue of an order made under the Light Railways Act, 1890;").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendments agreed to.

Clause 17:

Short title and commencement.

(2) This Act shall continue in force until the first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-seven:

LORD NEWTON had given Notice to move, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty-three." The noble Lord said: In view of the Amendment which stands in the name of my noble friend, Lord Askwith, I do not move my Amendment.

LORD ASKWITH moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "nineteen hundred and twenty-seven" and insert "nineteen hundred and thirty." The noble Lord said If the date remains as it stands in the Bill—1927—these authorities will not have time to settle down and the Act will not have a fair chance. There has been a great deal of talk about making it "in perpetuity," but if it remains in force until 1930 some chance will be given of seeing how the thing works and what Amendment", if any, should be made in it. That will not be the case if it comes to an end in 1927. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 21, line 2, leave out ("nineteen hundred and twenty-seven") and insert ("nineteen hundred and thirty").—(Lord Askwith.)

LORD PARMOOR

My Lords, I regret that I cannot accept this Amendment. It was explained in another place that the Bill was a stop-gap measure and experimental in character. I hope that your Lordships will not alter the date. Should the experiment prove satisfactory, no doubt it will be canned on. This point was raised during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, and the Amendment was negatived by a very small majority—by 19 votes to 17—but it was negatived.

VISCOUNT PEEL

That was in regard to nine years—not six.

LORD PARMOOR

I think the noble Viscount, Lord Peel, raised the point.

VISCOUNT PEEL

Yes; but it was in reference to nine years.

LORD PARMOOR

It was not a question of whether it was nine years, or three years, or six years. The view of the Government was that this was a temporary Bill. Certainly it is an experimental Bill, and if the experiment turns out successful I have not the slightest doubt that it will be continued. Still, it was looked upon as being an experimental Bill. It is not a very big matter. I do not want to say it is a point upon which the whole fortunes of the Bill depend: at the same time, the Government think that the basis on which they introduced the Bill and on which it was discussed in the other House should be maintained—namely, that it is a bill of a temporary character.

LORD NEWTON

My Lords, we have heard several times the expression that this is a stop-gap Bill, but I should like to remind the noble Lord, the Lord President of the Council, that the Minister of Transport was strongly averse from having a time limit-to it. If any one takes the trouble to read the debates they will see that the Minister of Transport was most insistent upon the fact that it was very important there should be no time limit to the Bill. I have noticed, reading the debates, that the Minister of Transport, in spite of his democratic characteristics, was extremely anxious on many occasions to do the right thing. It was only when he was too much bullied by his own Party, the Labour Party, and by the Progressive members of the London County Council, that he was forced to give way. In this particular instance he was evidently overborne by these gentlemen, and if I am not mistaken he voted against the time limit when the Division took place in the House of Commons. I hope that my noble friend will adhere to the Amendment. I certainly will support him.

LORD BANBURY OF SOUTHAM

My Lords, in Committee this question was raised, and we decided by a majority of two to leave the date at 1927, and, so far as I am concerned, I see no reason why we should change that decision. Supposing that this Bill is a success, when 1927 comes there is nothing whatever to prevent it being renewed, for all time if necessary. I am not surprised that the Minister of Transport wanted it for all time, because that would perpetuate his office, and my desire is to do away with as many of these superfluous offices as we possibly can. My noble friend Lord Newton is so afraid that the Bill, if it comes into being, will be a failure, that he wants to prevent anybody before 1927 saying: "This Act is a failure; let us alter it." There can be no earthly reason why we should not for three years see what is going to happen—whether we are going to be dragooned out of our lives, and monopoles set up, or whether this experiment is going to be a success. I shall vote as I did in the Committee stage.

VISCOUNT PEEL

My Lords, I quite understand my noble friend behind me (Lord Banbury of Southam) voting for the shorter period, because he is against the Bill altogether. Therefore, he wants the evil thing only to go on for a certain limited time. Perhaps he will allow me to say, as an ex-Minister of Transport, that I am not so enthusiastic as he is about the destruction of that valuable office. I only want to say a few words on this Amendment. The Bill has been described as an experiment, and I think an experiment ought to have a fair trial. I submit to your Lordships—and I speak with some knowledge of London's transport—that it really is quite impossible for this Bill properly to function in so short a period as that proposed in this clause. It must take some little time before this Committee is set up. At the utmost it can only have two and a half years to run, and if the members of this Committee know that their period of life may be cut off so rapidly they will not be able to commence and develop those schemes for the improvement of London's traffic that we wish to see. We shall have the whole thing over again. We have been trying to get a scheme for London traffic for the last twenty years, and we are always being defeated. Now, at the last moment, when we have a Bill to deal with it, that Bill is to come to an end in two and a half years. If you do that you will destroy the whole value of the experiment. You will prevent Parliament knowing what might have been done if you had given a little longer time.

LORD PARMOOR

I am not going to oppose the extension of time if that is the general view of the House.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Second Schedule (Particular matters which shall be referred to the Advisory Committee):

LORD PARMOOR moved to substitute "may" for "shall" in the heading to the Schedule. The noble and learned Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment on the Second Schedule is drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 24, line 8, leave out ("shall") and insert ("may").—(Lord Parmoor.)

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU had several Amendments on the Paper relating to the Second Schedule. The noble Lord said: I do not think that I need move any of the Amendments, because the Amendments that we have adopted deciding that the additional members should not take part in matters in which they have a pecuniary interest meet my point. I need not trouble the House with these Amendments.

Third Schedule (Purposes or Matters for or with respect to which regulations \may be made by the Minister):

LORD MONTAGU OF BEAULIEU moved, after the fifth clause, to insert:— (6) For proscribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that where more than one trailer is drawn a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment which I think will have the sympathy of your Lordships. We must all have experienced the trouble of driving behind lorries, or some other vehicles, which wore drawing one or more trailers and of being unable to attract the attention of the driver so as to pass them. In the case of one trailer what I desire by my Amendment is not so necessary, but in the case of two trailers I submit there ought to be someone on the hindmost vehicle who could communicate with the driver in regard to following traffic which wanted to pass. What I propose by my Amendment is already in operation in the form of bylaws in several counties, and I think we could well put it into the Bill. Since I put down my Amendment it has been brought to my notice that Section 1 of the Locomotives on Highways Act, 1896, legalised motor cars and heavy motor cars as distinguished from locomotives, and permitted a motor vehicle not exceeding two tons in weight unladen, drawing one trailer, to be treated as a motor car. I should like to ask the noble Lord in charge of the Bill whether that is so. Whatever the legal point may be, we know that unless you have an attendant on the second trailer the traffic is apt to be blocked, because the man who is driving the leading vehicle does not know that you are overtaking him, and you cannot make him know. I am informed that this Amendment has the full support of the Transport Workers' Union, who think that it is a scandal that two trailers should be allowed to be on the road in charge of only one man driving, and with no means of communicating to him what traffic is overtaking him. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 26, line 8, at end insert the said subsection.—(Lord Montagu of Beaulieu.)

LORD PARMOOR

The real point, I think, has been stated by the noble Lord himself. The question is that the general law is laid down in the Locomotive Act, 1896, and in the Motor Oar Acts and Orders which are made thereunder. Therefore, if you give this particular power as part of this Bill you would have two statutory directions, which might be decided under differing conditions. It was on consideration of that point that these words were deleted in the other House. There can be no objection to what the noble Lord wants, but I think it will raise complications, because you have an existing law and existing machinery for dealing with these very matters, and that law and machinery might be inconsistent with the decision given under this Bill. I will leave the matter in your Lordships' hands, hoping that-the Amendment will not be inserted. It would only produce complications.

THE EARL OF CLANWILLIAM

I agree entirely with the Amendment with this exception, that I wish the noble Lord would exclude the second trailer. It would be more advisable to insist on a man being on the trailer if only one is being towed by a motor lorry. It is just as impossible for the driver to see what is going on behind him with one trailer as it is with two, and if the noble Lord could alter the Amendment in that respect I should be glad. The danger and the difficulty are just as great with one trailer as with two.

EARL BUXTON

I understand from the Lord President that this matter is dealt with under Statute elsewhere. That may be so, and I am glad to hear it. But so far as my experience goes its effect is very small. These trailers are an unmitigated nuisance and a danger to traffic. The whole object of this Bill is to deal with traffic difficulties and the Amendment would be very useful, it would do no harm at all. I do not like the words of the proviso in the Amendment, and perhaps the noble Lord may be able to see his way to alter them a little.

THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY

I think the noble and learned Lord might allow us to put this Amendment in now and then, if there is any reason to question it hereafter, it can be referred to on the Third Beading. Like the noble Earl who has just spoken I have a slight objection to the form of the proviso. I think it might run something like this: "Provided that the Regulations shall prescribe that s man shall be carried at the rear of the trailer."

LORD PARMOOR

In reference to what the noble Marquess has said, if it is clearly understood that should further objections be entertained this question will be reconsidered, then I do not object to the insertion of the Amendment now.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I will put the Amendment in its amended form:— Page 26, line 8, at end insert "(6) For prescribing the number and maximum size and weight of trailers which may be drawn on streets by vehicles or vehicles of any particular class or description either generally or on streets of any class or description: Provided that the regulations shall prescribe that a man shall be carried on the rear trailer for signalling to the driver."

On Question, Amendment, as amended, agreed to.

LORD PARMOOR

I propose to put down the Third Reading for Wednesday.