Second Schedule. — (Purposes or matters for or with respect to which regulations may be had by the Minister.)

London Traffic Bill. – in the House of Commons at on 26 June 1924.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Harry Gosling Mr Harry Gosling , Stepney Whitechapel and St George's

I beg to move, in page 21, to leave out lines 4 to 9 inclusive.

This paragraph it is almost impossible to get through. It contemplates setting up special regulations as to traders applying generally throughout the area, and it is different from the general law of the country laid down in the Locomotives Act, 1898, and in the Motor Car Act. It is clearly undesirable, and so far as it may be necessary to deal with the question of traders, this can be done under the other provisions of the Schedule. In so far as it is not undesirable, the paragraph is unnecessary, and, in view of the extreme difficulty in inserting the paragraph, I propose to leave it out altogether.


We have not heard a word!

Photo of Mr Benjamin Smith Mr Benjamin Smith , Bermondsey Rotherhithe

I am rather surprised at the Minister asking that this paragraph should be removed, but I have

rather a shrewd idea that the knowledge that this paragraph was rather impotent was discovered through an Amendment I was successful in getting carried in Committee. That was an Amendment to the effect that where a trailer was licensed for a particular road, it should carry an extra man, on the ground that more people have been killed through there being no control of trailers than there has been, on a percentage basis, by anything else in the country. That Amendment was carried practically unanimously, and to avoid the consequences of that Amendment is has been discovered that the paragraph should go out altogether. The Minister, has apparently made up his mind, but if this paragraph goes out, will never leave the matter until trailers are off the road, or until they have an extra man on them.

Photo of Hon. Charles Rhys Hon. Charles Rhys , Romford

Does not, the next paragraph cover the points raised by the hon. Member?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."

The House divided: Ayes, 96: Noes, 165.

Division No. 114.]AYES.[12.45 a.m.
Ackroyd, T. R.Collins, Patrick (Walsall)Grigg. Lieut.-Col. Sir Edward W. M.
Alstead, R.Comyns-Carr, A. S.Grundy, T. W.
Aske, Sir Robert WilliamCostello, L. W. J.Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Barclay, R. NotonDarbishire, C. W.Harris, John (Hackney, North)
Barnes, A.Dickie, Captain J. P.Harvey, T. E. (Dewsbury)
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)Duckworth, JohnHindle, F.
Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)Dudgeon, Major C. R.Hirst, G. H.
Birkett, W. N.Edwards, G. (Norfolk, Southern)Hobhouse, A. L.
Black, J. W.Edwards, John H. (Accrington)Hodge, Lieut.-Col., J. P. (Preston)
Bonwick, A.Emlyn-Jones, J. E. (Dorset, N.)Hore-Belisha, Major Leslie
Bowyer, Captain G. W. E.Falconer, J.Horlick, Lieut.-Colonel J. N.
Briant, FrankFletcher, Lieut.-Com. R. T. H.Horne, Sir R. S. (Glasgow, Hillhead)
Broad, F. A.Foot, IsaacHoward, Hon. G. (Bedford, Luton)
Brown, A. E. (Warwick, Rugby)George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)Jenkins, W. A. (Brecon and Radnor)
Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)Gorman, WilliamJohnstone, Harcourt (Willesden, East)
Jones, C. Sydney (Liverpool, W. Derby)Moulton, Major FletcherStanley, Lord
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)Murrell, FrankStarmer, Sir Charles
Kay, Sir R. NewbaldNaylor, T. E.Steel, Samuel Strang
Kedward, R. M.Oliver, P. M. (Manchester, Blackley)Stranger, Innes Harold
Lansbury, GeorgeOwen, Major G.Sturrock, J. Leng
Lawrence, Susan (East Ham, North)Phillipps, VivianSutherland, Rt. Hon. Sir William
Lessing, E.Pringle, W. M. R.Terrington, Lady
Linfield, F. C.Raffan, P. W.Thompson, Piers G. (Torquay)
Loverseed, J. F.Raffety, F. W.Thornton, Maxwell R.
McCrae, Sir GeorgeRathbone, Hugh R.Vivian, H.
Macfadyen, E.Rea, W. RussellWhite, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Maden, H.Rees, Sir BeddoeWilliams, A. (York, W. R., Sowerby)
Mansel, Sir CourtenayRoyle, C.Williams, Lt.-Col. T. S. B. (Kennington)
March, S.Rudkin, Lieut.-Colonel C. M. G.Wood, Major Rt. Hon. Edward F.[...]
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dlne, E.)Scurr, John
Masterman, Rt. Hon. C. F. G.Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir JohnTELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Mond, H.Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, South)Mr. Percy Harris and Mr.
Montague, FrederickSpero, Dr. G. E.Benjamin Smith.
Morrison, Herbert (Hackney, South)
Adamson, Rt. Hon. WilliamHarmsworth, Hon. E. C. (Kent)Potts, John S.
Ainsworth, Captain CharlesHartshorn, Rt. Hon. VernonRaynes, W. R.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')Harvey, C. M. B. (Aberd'n & Kincardne)Remer, J. R.
Ammon, Charles GeorgeHastings, Sir PatrickRhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.Hastings, Somerville (Reading)Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Attlee, Major Clement R.Haycock, A. W.Ritson, J.
Ayles, W. H.Henderson, A. (Cardiff, South)Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Baird, Major Rt. Hon. Sir John L.Henderson, T. (Glasgow)Ropner, Major L.
Baker, WalterHenderson, W. W. (Middlesex, Enfld.)Rose, Frank H.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. StanleyHennessy, Major J. R. G.Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Banton, G.Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Barnston, Major Sir HarryHodges, FrankSamuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Becker, HarryHoffman, P. C.Samuel, H. Walter (Swansea, West)
Blundell, F. N.Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)Shepperson, E. W.
Bondfield, MargaretHoward, Hn. D. (Cumberland, North)Sherwood, George Henry
Bourne, Robert CroftHudson, J. H.Smith, T. (Ponterfract)
Buchanan, G.Huntingfield, LordSmith, W. R. (Norwich)
Buckle, J.Illffe, Sir Edward M.Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C.Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Clarke, A.Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)Spence, R.
Cluse, W. S.Jewson, DorotheaSpoor, B. G.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.John, William (Rhondda, West)Stamford, T. W.
Colfox, Major Wm. PhilipJohnston, Thomas (Stirling)Stephen, Campbell
Compton, JosephJones, T. I. Mardy (Pontypridd)Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-
Cope, Major WilliamJowett, Rt. Hon. F. W. (Bradford, E.)Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Crittall, V. G.Kennedy, T.Sullivan, J.
Curzon, Captain ViscountKing, Captain Henry DouglasSutton, J. E.
Dalkeith, Earl ofKirkwood, D.Thurtle, E.
Davies, Evan (Ebbw Vale)Lamb, J. Q.Tinker, John Joseph
Dawson, Sir PhilipLaw, A.Tout, W. J.
Dickson, T.Lawson, John JamesTurner-Samuels, M.
Dukes, C.Leach, W.Warne, G. H.
Duncan, C.Loverseed, J. F.Watson, Sir F. (Pudsey and Otley)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)Lumley, L. R.Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Egan, W. H.Lunn, WilliamWatts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)Webb, Rt. Hon. Sidney
Ferguson, H.M'Entee, V. L.Wells, S. R.
Gardner, B. W. (West Ham, Upton)Mackinder, W.Welsh, J. C.
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.Marley, JamesWestwood, J.
Gavan-Duffy, ThomasMartin, W. H. (Dumbarton)Whiteley, W.
Gibbins, JosephMaxton, JamesWilliams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gibbs, Col. Rt. Hon. George AbrahamMills, J. E.Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)
Gillett, George M.Milne, J. S. WardlawWilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gosling, HarryMitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)Windsor, Walter
Gould, Frederick (Somerset, Frome)Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Graham, D. M. (Lanark, Hamilton)Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Greenall, T.Murray, RobertWise, Sir Fredric
Greene, W. P. CrawfordNewman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)Wolmer, Viscount
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)O'Grady, Captain JamesWragg, Herbert
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)O'Neill, Rt. Hon. HughWright, W.
Groves, T.Paling, W.Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Guest, J. (York, Hemsworth)Palmer, E. T.Young, Andrew (Glasgow, Patrick)
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.Penny, Frederick George
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)Perry, S. F.TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Hannon, Patrick Joseph HenryPethick-Lawrence, F. W.Mr. Robertson and Mr. Parkinson.
Harland, A.Philipson, Mabel

Question put, and agreed to.

Photo of Hon. Charles Rhys Hon. Charles Rhys , Romford

I beg to move, in page 21, line 28, at end, to insert the words "within the Metropolitan area."

The paragraph to which the Amendment refers gives powers for prescribing the conditions subject to which and the times at which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on streets. I know we have heard a great deal from the point of view of London traffic, but the Schedule covers a very wide area of the country, and in the purely rural areas it appears to me you are giving too much power to the Board in London over the agricultural life of those districts. In many of the areas you have fairs, and you have new arterial roads, and I am very much afraid of the possibility of an Order being made that cattle should not be moved across these arterial roads at certain hours of the day. We have had very many vexatious restrictions, and I do not want to see any further restrictions added to the difficulties of farmers in carrying on. In view of the fact that this Bill is now limited to three years, it will be quite easy to see how it is going to work.

Photo of Viscount  Wolmer Viscount Wolmer , Aldershot

I beg to second the Amendment.

It is a very important Amendment and it has only become necessary by reason of the alteration of the area to which the Bill applies on the Report Stage. As long as the Bill only applied to the Metropolitan Police area, it was perfectly right to give the Ministry of Transport the power to prescribe the conditions subject to which and the times at which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on the streets. But now we have extended the area to which the Bill applies, to a radius of 25 miles around London, unless the Amendment that my hon. Friend proposes is carried, no horse show or agricultural show which would necessitate the movement of stock without the permission of the Ministry of Transport in London could be held, and it would introduce wholly unnecessary and vexatious complications and interfere with the agricultural and farming life of those districts. I submit that now we have so widely extended the area to which the Bill applies, the power of the Ministry of Transport to control the prescribed conditions under which cattle can be moved should be confined to the previous area to which the Bill applied, namely the Metropolitan Police Area. I very much hope the Government will accept this Amendment. I think if they do not, and directly the farmers tumble to it, the Minister will have a swarm of bees about his ears.

Photo of Mr Harry Gosling Mr Harry Gosling , Stepney Whitechapel and St George's

I am sure that the House does not think anyone would be so foolish as to make regulations that would do what the Noble Lord suggests. What I am afraid of is that this Amendment would prevent regulations, possibly highly desirable from the local point of view, being made in places such as Watford, where there are narrow streets.

Photo of Viscount  Wolmer Viscount Wolmer , Aldershot

Would not the town of Watford have power to make regulations?

1.0 A.M.

Photo of Mr Harry Gosling Mr Harry Gosling , Stepney Whitechapel and St George's

It would also prevent them making any regulations at all. It would prevent regulations being made, not only in the country districts, but also in the City, which is equally outside the Metropolitan police district. I would ask the Noble Lord and his colleague to withdraw their Amendment. I do not want to press too hardly in the matter, and if the House feels that this Amendment ought to be accepted. I suggest that the words "and the City of London" be added, and that the word "area" should be "district." It would then read, "Within the Metropolitan police district and the City of London." If the hon. Members will accept those alterations, then I will consent.

Photo of Hon. Charles Rhys Hon. Charles Rhys , Romford

I am quite prepared to accept that.

Photo of Mr John Whitley Mr John Whitley , Halifax

Had not the House better have it in the new form? The hon. Member had better withdraw his Amendment, and move it in the new form.

Photo of Hon. Charles Rhys Hon. Charles Rhys , Romford

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendrnent, by leave, withdrawn.

Photo of Hon. Charles Rhys Hon. Charles Rhys , Romford

I beg to move in page 21, line 28, at end, to insert the words within the Metropolitan police district the City of London.

Photo of Mr Dennis Herbert Mr Dennis Herbert , Watford

I beg to second the Amendment.

I would like to say one or two words on the reference which the Minister made to Watford. Watford is a town which labours under great difficulties by reason of the narrowness of some of its streets and other things of that kind, but it is only within a matter of months that there has been a very important cattle market moved just off the main street of the town, and there are certain cases where there are animals feeding regularly only a very short distance from roads of great importance. It is a ease in which I suggest the Corporation of Watford know a great deal more about what is necessary than the Minister of Transport and the Advisory Committee, and I hope that in cases of this kind the Minister will see that the local authorities concerned are allowed to manage this part of the business. They will do it a great deal better in the interests of traffic than the London Ministry.

Photo of Mr Harry Becker Mr Harry Becker , Richmond (Surrey)

in Committee the Minister said that, if he accepted this Amendment, such places as Tilbury would be out of his control and he could not regulate the traffic. How does he now propose to regulate the traffic in such places?

Photo of Major James Burnie Major James Burnie , Bootle

This Amendment, which appears to me very reasonable, seems to place the Minister in rather a difficulty. He will have to make regulations under the whole of this Second Schedule which refers to some 23 districts, and I presume the regulations will be posted throughout the whole of the area. In that case the general public will find difficulty in knowing precisely to which area the regulations refer.

Photo of Mr Arthur Comyns Carr Mr Arthur Comyns Carr , Islington East

The County Council of Essex and other counties apparently from one document read by the Minister are under the impression that they are going to make some money out of the Bill. They ought to have the pill as well as the jam, and they should be prepared to submit themselves to the jurisdiction of the Minister. It would be entirely unjust to my constituents in Islington, where, I believe, there has been a cattle show once or twice, that their rural amenities should be restricted while those of Essex and Buckinghamshire are allowed to go free. I never visit my constituency without recollecting that there was a time when there was a bailiff's daughter in Islington, when the pleasantries of rural courtship were carried on on the banks of the New River. I am given to understand that there are still bailiffs in Islington, but they are different from the one referred to in the song. But Islington is entitled to all the benefits of the rural neighbourhood which are now being claimed for those county councils which desire to get something out of the Bill. What they imagine they are going to get except trouble, I am not clear about, but it is a monstrous injustice that they should want to come in for what they think they can get, and then want to be left out of those things which they think are inconvenient. I would ask the Minister to stand by his guns and resist the Amendment.

Photo of Mr Harcourt Johnstone Mr Harcourt Johnstone , Willesden East

I am surprised at the frivolous and indeed cynical manner in which the hon. and learned Member for East. Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) is opposing this Amendment. His point of view seems to be that the object of the Minister of Transport should be to inflict as many inconveniences on local authorities as he can. The Amendment will remove all inconveniences and assist local authorities to carry out the principles of the Bill in accordance with the wishes of the inhabitants. I am extremely distressed to find on these Benches an hon. and especially a learned Member who will go so far as to deny to Buckinghamshire or Watford the conveniences which are denied to his own district in the spirit, not so much of the Bailiff's Daughter but the dog in the manger. I earnestly hope that he will withdraw his opposition. I can scarcely understand any Member of the House desiring to go to a Division on this Amendment which is conceived in a most reasonable spirit. All of us who know the rural districts know it will suit the convenience of all farmers for the driving of live stock from one district to another. My hon. and learned Friend knows that the driving of cattle in the streets is not a daily occurrence in his constituency as it is in more rural districts. I very strongly deprecate the cynical attitude of the hon. and learned Member and I trust the Amendment will be accepted without a. Division.

Photo of Mr Thomas Naylor Mr Thomas Naylor , Southwark South East

I may perhaps be permitted to remind the hon. and learned Member for East Islington (Mr. Comyns-Carr) that whether the words are inserted or not we shall still be under the control of the Minister so far as cattle are concerned. If he has his mind fixed on what takes place may I say that cattle are conspicuous by their absence in the greater part of the constituency. I would just like to remind him, as he made reference to the Bailiff of Islington, that the Bailiff's Daughter did not live in East Islington but in the constituency represented by the hon. Member for South Islington. I hope therefore that my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Photo of Mr Sidney Webb Mr Sidney Webb , Seaham

I beg to move, "That the Bill be recommitted to a Committee of the whole House in respect of a Clause (Particulars to be supplied by license holders) inserted on Consideration of the Bill, as amended in the Standing Committee."

I have to ask the House to accept an Amendment to the Clause, for it is in pursuance of a pledge given. The Amendment is proposed in order to make that pledge effective. The pledge, was given on the Committee stage.

Bill considered in Committee.

[Mr. ROBERT YOUNG in the Chair.]