HL Deb 03 May 1933 vol 87 cc705-14

VISCOUNT ELIBANK rose to ask His Majesty's Government what steps are

VISCOUNT BERTIE THAME

Admiral Hall is not infallible, and I am loth to say this, but much as I admire Admiral Hall, if your Lordships will read Captain von Rintelen's book you will see that Admiral Hall was somewhat indiscreet. He gave Captain von Rintelen, after he had arrested him, a very great account of how he had been trapped and also how Admiral von Spec had been lured into a naval battle. And this Captain von Rintelen in his book said: I knew that as an interned officer at Donnington Hall I should sooner or later have been able to communicate with Germany. With regard to the reply of my noble friend Lord Lucan, I look upon it as extremely unsatisfactory. I consider it is an offence for this man to be here. I think it is an offence to have him here, when powers are held by the Home Secretary to get rid of him. I do not think the noble Earl's answer in the circumstances is satisfactory. I very seldom press to a Division any of my Motions, lint on this occasion I feel so strongly that I must do so, as I do not think your Lordships would like it to go on recora that you think this person should remain here.

On Question, Whether the Motion shall be agreed to?

Their Lordships divided: Contents, 15; Not-Contents, 29.

CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. Askwith, L. Harris, L.
Mount Edgcumbe, E. Auckland, L. [Teller.] Phillimore, L.
Carrington, L. Swinfen, L.
Bertie of Thame, V. [Teller.] Deramore, L. Teynham, L.
Elibank, V. Fairfax of Cameron, L. Wharton, L.
Falmouth, V.
NON-CONTENTS.
Iveagh, E. Barnard, L. Newton, L.
Lucan, E. [Teller.] Clwyd, L. Parmoor, L.
Plymouth, E. Darling, L. Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.
Rothes, E. Denman, L. Rankeillour, L.
Dickinson, L. Redesdale, L.
Churchill, V. Gage, L. (V. Gage.) [Teller.] Sanderson, L.
FitzAlan of Derwent, V. Hay, L. (E. Kinnoull.) Snell, L.
Hailsham, V. Howard of Glossop, L. Strathoona and Mount Royal, L.
Mersey, V. Jessel, L.
Marley, L. Templemore, L.
Banbury of Southam, L. Mildmay of Flete, L.

Resolved in the negative, and Motion disagreed to accordingly.

taken to ensure proper inspection of taxicabs in London before they go out in the streets to ply for hire; whether there is any official record kept of accidents occurring as a result of defective taxicabs: if so, what have been the numbers of accidents during the past three years respectively; and whether His Majesty's Government will cause an examination to be made into the whole subject with the object of tightening up the Regulations; and to move for Papers.

The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I make no apology for the Motion that is down in my name, because I believe that this question requires attention from the Home Office, as also does the whole subject of taxicabs in London. The principal reason why I raise this Motion is that shortly before Easter a lady relative of mine was going across Hyde Park in a taxicab to meet a friend at Paddington, and half-way across the Park the near front wheel of the taxicab came off, and the taxicab tumbled over on its side. The occupant was subsequently extracted from the taxicab through the window of the door, and she had sustained a bad fracture of the arm, two broken ribs, and cuts and bruises on her legs and different parts of the body. After Easter I communicated with the Home Secretary, asking him whether he could give me particulars of this accident and what the position was with regard to inspection of taxicabs in London before they went out on to the streets to ply for hire. He very kindly sent me a reply in which he informed me that so far as the particular accident was concerned it was not due to any constructional defect in the cab, but was due to the fact that the wheel had not been properly tightened up; the nuts and security bolts of the near-side front wheel apparently had worked loose without attracting the driver's attention, and this caused the wheel to come off.

At the same time he sent me a copy of the Regulations governing taxicabs in the London district. That taxicab was insured in the usual way, and no doubt the occupant will receive certain compensation to cover the cost of possibly seven or eight weeks in a nursing home, and she may receive some damages also, but that by no means covers the physical shock to the system of an individual who has reached a certain stage in life and who may never perhaps recover from such a shock as she received upon that occasion. Therefore, it is not sufficient to say that compensation will be paid for this accident through insurance. I think we have to go further and ascertain whether it is not possible to do something through the Home Office or Scotland Yard, or whoever is responsible for these taxicabs, in order to prevent accidents of such a nature happening in the future, or at any rate minimising them as far as possible. I have put down my Motion so as to make this matter public and to obtain public support in asking the Home Office to take some action to stop this sort or thing. This question of taxicab inspection—and I agree there is possibly a good deal of difficulty in arranging the inspection of a large number of taxicabs every day before they go out into the streets—does not stop there. I think the whole question of taxicabs in London requires consideration by the authorities.

Noble Lords like myself have the opportunity of using, and do probably use taxicabs almost daily in the City. They also have an opportunity of hearing what the general public who use taxicabs are saying about the condition of the taxicabs which ply in the streets of London to-day. The number of taxicabs, I found from the Report of the Police Commissioners which is published to-day, was 8,152 in the year 1931, and in 1932 there were 8,121 taxicabs plying in the streets of London, or thirty-one less than in the preceding year. I submit that that is far too great a number of taxicabs to ply for fares in the City of London. You can go into any quarter, in Westminster, or Piccadilly, or any part of London where there is a good deal of traffic and you will see not only many taxicabs along the streets but also rows of taxicabs on the ranks waiting for hire. I venture to suggest that the number of taxicabs in this City could be cut down by nearly a third at least and still leave a sufficient number for the passengers who use them.

Why is it that you see so many taxicabs on the ranks and other taxicabs plying up and down the streets? You generally find that the taxicabs which are concentrated on the ranks are the old ones, the worst of their kind in the City, and that those going up and down the streets trying to obtain hire are the better class of taxicabs, which do not go on the ranks for the reason that not only are they not called for unless they ply about the streets, but they find them- selves in competition with the worst class of taxicab of which so many exist in the City. I suppose nearly a quarter of the taxicabs in London are aged from fifteen to twenty years. Within the last 48 hours I have taken two taxicabs haphazardly off the streets. As I got out of one I asked: "What is the age of this cab?" and the driver replied, "Eighteen years." This morning I took another taxicab and when I got out I asked the same question: "What is the age of your taxicab?" The driver answered: "Nineteen years and it will last for many years yet." I think that everyone will agree that taxicabs or any motor vehicles at the age of fifteen or eighteen or nineteen years have long passed their best days and are certainly not fit to be used in a City like London, which is supposed to be the most modern and the most up-to-date in every way in regard to transport.

I have had the opportunity of examining the Regulations which are made by the Home Secretary governing taxicabs in London and I do not find in those Regulations a single reference to the age of taxicabs. The Regulations deal with various questions concerning the suitability of the taxicab, but there is not a single reference to the age of the taxicab. Unless the question of age is taken into consideration by the authorities who license these taxicabs, I do not see how you San ever succeed in getting the best class of taxicab on the streets. Last year there were 8,121 taxicabs in London—a figure which I have already given you—and during the same year only 513 new motor cabs were licensed. That means that each year only one out of every twenty taxicabs in London is a new taxicab. Therefore taxicabs reach the age of twenty years before they are replaced. I venture to submit that that is wrong and that there should be no taxicab on the streets which is over the age of ten years, or twelve years at the outside.

One of the reasons why taxicabs are kept for so long on the streets is their cost. I understand that a taxicab to-day under the Regulations laid down by the licensing authorities costs between £600 and £700. I venture to submit to your Lordships that no taxicab in London ought to cost in the present day more than £400 or £500 at the outside. If taxicabs were designed so that they would riot cost more than that sum it would take a shorter time to amortise them—to pay off the capital cost—and then you would not have on the streets so many shaky, ramshackle taxicabs as we find to-day. Looking at the Regulations I find that No. 32 says that every taxicab must be provided with an approved means of communication between the passenger and the driver. How many taxicabs that your Lordships get into provide approved means of communication between the passenger and the driver? I personally very seldom find them. Theo Regulation No. 34 says that means must be provided to enable the passenger to adjust the amount of opening of the windows. Constantly I get into taxicabs in London and I am unable to pull up or to lower one of the windows because it is stuck.

Then Regulation 35 says that the glass of the front window should be of the reinforced variety—that is, the safety variety—and that where in the opinion of the Commissioner further protection for the passenger is requisite, reinforced glass elsewhere may be required to be fitted. There are many taxicabs plying in London which have no reinforced glass at all in any part of the taxicab, so that this Regulation is being broken every day. I venture to submit to your Lordships that not only the front glass of a taxicab ought to be of the reinforced variety, but the side glass as well. In fact all the glass in a taxicab should be of the reinforced variety in order to safeguard the passengers and the driver if there is an accident. I find also that Regulation No. 37 says that some effective means must be provided to prevent the rattling of window frames and glass. How can you prevent the rattling of window frames in taxicabs that are twenty years old?

I venture to say that the whole of the Regulations relating to taxicabs in London require very careful revision. An expert Committee was set up in 1928. Five years have elapsed since 1928, and I venture to submit that the conclusions of that expert Committee which are embodied in these Regulations once more require revision, and very careful revision at that. I am quite aware that there is a sentimental side to this question. There are many owner-drivers of taxicabs in London who are dependent for their living upon their taxicabs, and consequently they go on driving these taxi- cabs as long as they can for their livelihood. But there are a great many taxicabs that are owned by companies—small companies and large companies—which have not the same reason to advance. My belief is that this question ought to be taken up by the Authorities concerned, and that they should weed out these old taxicabs so that we shall have in the streets of London taxicabs of which we can be proud. There are taxicabs in Paris and in New York which are infinitely superior to any you can find in this City. In Paris there are two classes of taxicabs, the first-class and the second-class. You pay more for the first and less for the second, so everybody's purse or pocket is satisfied.

Then there is another point, the question of tipping. Over and over again the drivers of taxicabs receive 25 per cent. or 50 per cent. more than their fares and object to those tips. The other day I took a taxicab from the top of Victoria Street to Eaton Place, a sixpenny fare. I got out and paid the driver ninepence and he left me standing on the pavement blessing me with all the words at his command. But the question of tipping is a far more serious one for the female sex, because the drivers very often demand tips from ladies, with sometimes insulting language to frighten them, and they are forced to give much higher tips than otherwise they would do. I should like to see something included in the Regulations to deal with that matter. I do not propose to take up the time of the House longer. I have raised this question because there is a great deal of feeling in the City of London on the part of those who object to the great congestion which is being caused as a result of the excessive number of taxicabs. I believe this matter to be one that requires early and very serious consideration by the Home Office or by whatever authority it is that deals with the subject. I beg to move for Papers.

THE EARL OF LUCAN

My Lords, before I begin to answer the noble Viscount's Questions I am sure I may say that every one of your Lordships feels the deepest sympathy with him in the cause which induced him to put down these questions, and that we all very much hope that his relative will be restored to health and be none the worse for the accident in future. My noble friend has told us that the Home Secretary has given him a certain amount of information. I think the Home Secretary did explain that the unfortunate accident in which this lady was involved was not due to any constructional defect, but to the fact that the wheel had not been properly tightened up and that some of the nuts worked loose without the driver noticing the fact—which I take it might really happen in the case of any of our cars. I think the Home Secretary also informed my noble friend that the stock of the proprietor to whom this cab belongs had been inspected five times this year, the last occasion being on April 11. Your Lordships will realise that it would be quite impracticable to have a daily inspection, but the police are doing as much as they can to have inspections as frequently as possible, especially of the older cars. I think my noble friend mentioned that he had heard that the conditions of fitness were last revised in 1928 in conformity with the recommendations of an expert Committee which was set up the previous year. While no drastic revision is contemplated or would appear to be required the conditions are at the present time in course of revision.

The noble Viscount asked whether records were kept of accidents. A record is kept by the police of all accidents in which taxicabs are involved. This shows that in 1930 out of 8,167 cabs licensed there were four accidents due to defects in the vehicle and one person was slightly injured. In 1931 out of 8.152 cabs licensed two accidents were due to defects in the vehicle and two persons were slightly injured. In 1932, 8,121 cabs were licensed, the number of accidents due to defects in the vehicle was four, and one person was injured. These figures would seem to show that taxicabs, as far as their structure goes, reach a fair standard of efficiency.

The noble Viscount went through a great many points which I should like to be able to answer. One point of which he made a great deal was as to the age of the vehicle, but I think it is conceded that this matter is not really so much one of age as of maintenance and condition. It was stated in reply to a Parliamentary question in the House of Commons last March that there were 211 cabs on the streets over twenty years old and 1,794 between ten and twenty years old. All cabs of fifteen years and over are subjected to special examination over the pit at the Public Carriage Office, Lambeth, before the licences are renewed, and it is the intention to extend this special examination to cabs of ten years of age in the near future. It may be mentioned that already the activity of the police in regard to the elimination of old cabs from the streets is causing much concern; especially in the present hard times, to those owners whose sole livelihood depends on their one cab, and strong representations have been made for the police to relax their requirements so as to allow time to tide over the period of depression. As to there being too many cabs on the streets I am not sure that when I am coming out of a theatre on a wet day, or am overtaken by a storm, I think there are too many cabs. There may be in' normal times, but the numbers have decreased to a certain extent. In 1930 the vehicles licensed numbered 8,167 and the number of new vehicles licensed was 806. In 1931, the vehicles-licensed were 8,152 and the new vehicles 643. In 1932, 8,121 vehicles were licensed and there were only 513 new vehicles licensed.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

May I ask whether those new licences were replacements or new altogether?

THE EARL OF LUCAN

I am afraid I cannot answer that for certain, but I imagine they are included in the total figure and would replace those that have got out of date and been scrapped. I will find out the answer to that and let my noble friend know. With regard to pulling up the window of a cab. I have certainly found that I sometimes have difficulty, and perhaps some of the older cabs are not sufficiently up-to-date; but I de not think one can expect perfection. My noble friend compared Paris with London. From my own personal point of view, I am rather surprised to hear that he thinks the Paris taxicabs are better. As regards tipping, the only remedy which. I can suggest,—it does not want any further legislation—is that if a taxicab driver will not take his threepence, which I should have thought was a very good addition to a sixpenny fare, one has only got to report him. I have no doubt that all these things are taken into consideration by the licensing authority, and it would be considered when the mail applied for a licence. I hope I have answered all the questions of the noble Viscount.

VISCOUNT ELIBANK

My Lords, I thank the noble Earl for his reply. I would also like to thank him for his kind expression of sympathy in the case which I mentioned in my speech. Naturally, the noble Earl was not able to say what could actually be done to remedy some of the points that I mentioned. He was, however, sympathetic, and actually agreed with some of my points, and thought that some ought to be remedied. What pleased me most in his speech was that he told your Lordships that the Home Office, or Scotland Yard, or whoever the authority may be, are engaged now in revising the Regulations. Naturally, no one would be so unreasonable as to expect that you could have a revision of the whole system at a moment's notice, but I am glad to hear from the noble Earl that the Government have got this matter in hand, and that they are really going to do something about it. I sincerely hope that one result of these measures will be ultimately to get a much better class of taxicab on the street, and make the taxicabs worthy of the transport of London. I beg leave to withdraw my Motion.

Motion for Papers, by leave, withdrawn.