Can we have some indication from the Government as to their general attitude towards these Amendments?

In the main, I propose to accept these Amendments. But there are two matters with which the Government must disagree. One is the question of the introduction of the regulation of trams, and the other the length of time which the Bill is to run. It is only on those two points that I ask the House to disagree.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly.

May I congratulate the other place upon giving us what we fought for both on the Committee stage and the Report stage, because it has secured to the Committee the right to select its own chairman. To that extent the Committee is likely to be a greater safeguard of the rights of the people of London, and it will give them some power to bring forward their grievances and express their views.

Question put, and agreed to.

With regard to the remainder of the Lords Amendments to Clause 1, I propose to ask the House to accept them.

Lords Amendment:

In page2, line3, leave out from "the" to the end of line5, and insert "councils of the metropolitan boroughs."

Motion made, and Question proposed, "that this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[ Mr. Gosling ]

I am not quite sure that it is wise that this Amendment should be accepted. The point familiar to the House was that under the provisions of the Bill as it was introduced it was provided that the Minister should select from nominees made by certain local authorities in certain areas. On the face of it, the Lords Amendment would appear to be more democratic, but in practice I am very uncertain whether it would be so. There has already been some action taken in the County of London by the Metropolitan Boroughs Standing Joint Committee, under which they have met and chosen two nominees in readiness for the passing of the Act, and those two nominees happen both to come from the South side of the river, one from Wandsworth and the other from Camberwell, and they both happened to be of one political party. It seems to me that boroughs, perhaps not necessarily of another political complexion, such as the boroughs in the East End of London, with separate traffic problems to those in Wandsworth and Camberwell, ought to have a representative on the Advisory Committee so far as those borough councils are concerned. The provision as it stands means that the existing majority of the groups of local authorities can settle quite apart from those considerations who the nominees shall be. That is so far as London is concerned, but we have to consider the county of Middlesex and other counties where even graver considerations may arise, where a majority for either party or political or geographical reasons desire to secure that one or two or three nominees from a certain area or party shall be appointed. My feeling in regard to the minorities in connection with such matters is that each locality which has a vital interest in the matter should have the freedom to send nominees direct to the Minister and in the absence of an agreement the Minister should have power to make the selection, having regard to the rights of minorities in the areas not represented. Therefore, I am rather sorry that the Minister has decided to recommend the House to agree to this Amendment, because. I think it will work an injustice to areas so far as representation on the Advisory Committee is concerned.

It is one of the fundamental faults of the constitution of this Committee that there are only two representatives to divide amongst 28 bodies. There are different points of view in connection with those in the North, South and West of London, and in my view it is immaterial whether this particular form is confirmed or the original form. We get two representatives in any case.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments down to page 7, line 19, agreed to.

If you are going to carry out the work at night, obviously the cost will be more than if it were carried out during the day. On whom will the obligation rest to find the extra money involved?

Undoubtedly, it will he upon those who have to carry out the work, and that is why the greatest discretion will have to be used in the matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 12, line 42, agreed to.

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment. This and the following Amendments on this Clause give power to restrict the running in the streets of trolley vehicles and tramway cars as well as of omnibuses. The Amendments, after discussion in the other place, were agreed to without a Division after the Noble Lord in charge of the Bill had resisted their insertion. Amendments were proposed at various stages in the passage of the Bill through the House of Commons with the object of bringing tramway cars within the purview of this Clause, but on each occasion they were rejected. The reason for excluding tramway cars from the Clause is that tramway cars differ essentially from omnibuses, in that they can run only upon a special, fixed permanent way, which has been made at great expense, and which represents a very large amount of sunk capital.

If the number of omnibuses in a particular street be restricted, they can move at once to another street in which the restrictions do not operate, but this does not apply in the case of tramway cars, which are absolutely tied to the streets in which the permanent way has been made. The same considerations apply to trolley vehicles, which, though they have no permanent way, are, in this respect, on the same footing as tramway cars, because they are tied to their overhead trolley wires and equipment, and cannot be transferred to another route, if prevented from using a particular route. Although the fact that statutory rights have been conferred on tramway companies is not conclusive, because naturally it is open to Parliament to change the rights it itself has given, still tramway cars and trolley vehicles do differ from omnibuses in this respect. The London County Council, I think, have asked Members generally to support them, and, speaking as a member of that Council, I do feel that the claim they make to the House is one which should be supported, and, in these circumstances, I beg to move to disagree with the Lords in these Amendments.

We are now on a subject which always excites tremendous controversy, that of omnibuses against trams, and, as I have said before in this House, we should never have this particular controversy at all if local authorities were allowed to run omnibuses as well as trams. It is because they only look at the traffic problem from one point of view that they are for the trams and against the omnibuses. It is really absurd to make a party question of trams versus omnibuses. Frankly, I hold no brief for one more than for the other. But do not let it be thought, because you are not in favour of trams and are in favour of omnibuses, that you are not democratic. The number of passengers carried by omnibuses and trams during the year in London is practically equal. It is rather curious that the Labour party and the Liberal party are undoubtedly supporting vested interests when they support the trams. They do so because of the undoubted advantages given to the trams in the past—advantages which it is desired to continue to hold. Although trams may he run by municipalities, they are run primarily with the idea of making a profit. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] At any rate, they have to be run on commercial lines and we have to look to the fact that in running them on a commercial basis you may find yourself directly up against the public interest in London. You may deliberately crowd your congested areas by giving powers to the tramway company which are not really to the advantage of London as a whole. It is quite useless to pretend that you get control of the traffic in London when you leave out control over one particular vehicle which is notoriously at times one which obstructs traffic. I quite agree with the point of view advanced by the other side as to the statutory right of trams. For myself, taking neither one side nor the other, I should like to see the trams included, although I should feel doubtful whether it were wise for any Minister to take action with regard to the tram unless they deliberately crowd particular areas in London, which they do not do. That is the case I wanted to put to the House.

I do not wish to go into the controversy of omnibus versus tramways, or of municipal trading versus private enterprise. Those points do not really arise on this particular Amendment because it applies nut only to municipal tramways but also to other tramways, and there are still in and around London very large companies owning a very great number of tramways which are likely to be involved. Here is where the tramways come under exactly the same category as omnibuses; they are in an entirely different position because before a tramway line can be laid not only has the consent of this House to be obtained, but that also of the local authorities in whose area the lines are proposed to be laid. These local authorities have an absolute veto at present to hold up any proposed tramlines which they think likely to interfere with the amenities of the neighbourhood or the general traffic. Before a tramway line is laid a Bill has to be passed through Parliament. A very strong case has to be made out showing the streets are suitable and wide enough, that the tramways are necessary and required, and that they are an economic proposal. When that is done, then the company or the local authority has to spend very large sums of money in putting the trams down. If the lines are not a success, the capital is absolutely wasted. When the line is made it is necessary that so many feet of roadway should be maintained out of the profits of the tramway, and, in addition, the undertaking is rated just in the same way as railway lines. Therefore I submit they are in an entirely different position, and it would be a very serious proposition once this House has authorised and encourage a company public authority to put down tramway lines to limit their user and perhaps permit a fresh kind of opposition to come in and interfere with the tram company's running rights. If you stop an omnibus running along a particular road because it is too narrow, another road can be found for it both in London and in any other part of the country. That is where the omnibus has a very great advantage over the tramway. It is always possible to divert it to a new route of traffic if the Minister finds the existing route unsuitable, but with tramway lines it is quite different. The tram is there for all time. It has to be paid for, and therefore it is not a sound thing to interfere with its general use.

As I anticipated, we have had the usual speech from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris). He has already delivered it in this House to my knowledge on two or three occasions, although I admit it is always pleasant to listen to him, The question is that, by this Amendment, omnibuses and trams are brought within the same category. The hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green says that that is not so. I should be glad if that were the case, but when you pass this Bill you are going to fix the routes of omnibuses just as much as you are going to fix the tramway routes, and no one will be able to change the omnibus route unless the approval of the Minister is first obtained. The moment you pass this Bill the omnibuses will be tied down to particular routes in the same way as the trains now are. If you take the trains out of the Bill, you will be dealing piecemeal with the traffic question. After all the trams are as much responsible for the congestion of public traffic as any other vehicle on the streets, indeed some people think they are more responsible. What excuse can you have when bringing in a Bill dealing with congestion of traffic for leaving out of consideration one vehicle which causes it as much as any other vehicle. The Minister is to have the power to deal with these things if he thinks fit, and you are going to set up to assist him a very able advisory committee fully representative of all the interests involved. Surely that Committee will be very able watch dogs on the Ministry and will act as a check on him, even though he may share the views which hon. Members attribute to me. In any case, we have an assurance from the Minister that whatever he does will come before Parliament, and we shall always, no doubt, for many years, have the same speech from the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green, or, if he is not here, no doubt some other representative of the London County Council will make it. The interest will always be represented in this House.

Some people think that those who wish to see trams included in this Bill are anxious to see trams uprooted from the streets altogether, but that is not a practical suggestion, and no man in his senses would make it. The traffic in this great city could not be carried on without trams, as things are at present. It may be that in the course of years, as the loss on the trams becomes cumulative, and it becomes impossible for the London County Council to carry on any further, they will themselves take a different view, and we shall have them endeavouring to get statutory powers to run omnibuses or something of that sort. I venture to think that the day when that happens will be a great day for the ratepayers of London. At the same time, as things are at present, we could not do without trams, but it is, surely, only reasonable to include them in the Bill. Hon. Members should not forget that, where trams are run in quick succession, ordinary wheeled traffic of all classes is concentrated on the other parts of the highway, between the outer rails and the kerb. They must remember, also, the obstruction to traffic that is caused by trams, the effect that they have upon houses and so on, and the effect that their rails have upon other classes of traffic.

Hon. Members opposite are always anxious to tell us that they are, like ourselves, trying to represent the underdog, and the underdog of modern traffic is, surely, the bicycle. I am sure that the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) does not want to mislead the House, and that he is just as anxious as any other Member to look after the interests of cyclists. Does he not realise the effect that tramlines have upon cyclists, and how difficult they make it for them under modern traffic conditions? The Chief Commissioner the other day drew attention to the very grave danger caused to cyclists, and to other traffic generally, by the presence of cyclists in London traffic. This danger is very largely added to where there are greasy tramlines, which make it very difficult for cyclists to ride. Therefore, I think there is a great deal more in this question than has been represented by the Minister. What we want to know is a really good reason why trams should not be included in the Bill. If the Minister could give me a better reason than he has given yet, possibly I should be ready to withdraw my opposition, but in the absence of a better reason and a little more argument for not having trams in the Bill—that is to say, for not dealing with the other half of London traffic—I, for one, shall certainly endeavour to get a Division on this Motion. I am very sorry that my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-

Brabazon) has run away, but at any rate I am not going to retire from the position which I have taken up, and I do think we have a right to some better answer from the Minister than we have yet had with respect to the non-inclusion of trams.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes. 171; Noes, 30.

Lords Amendments:

In page 13, line 30, after "omnibuses" insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."

Line 39, after "omnibuses" insert " trolley vehicles or tramway cars."

Line 43, after "omnibuses" insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."

In page 14, line 33, at end insert "trolley vehicles or tramway cars."

Disagreed with.

Lords Amendment:

In page 14, line 43, at end insert as a new Sub-section— (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 be annulled, it shall thenceforth be void, but without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done thereunder or the making of a new regulation.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[ Mr. Gosling. ]

I am interested to see that the Minister accepts this Amendment, because it is rather different from his original Bill. As he introduced it, any regulations of this kind were in his own hands, and although they had to be subjected to the scrutiny of the Advisory Council they were powers which he was able to control without any Order in Council. I do not say that is a bad thing to have this Parliamentary control but I very much doubt whether the Orders which he will issue are subjects which it would be very proper to discuss in this House. I know the actual prescribing of routes will come under this Amendment but any regulations he issues and such regulations as to what omnibuses should go down that particular route are very intricate subjects upon which the Minister would have both sides of the case supplied to him, because he has to give notice before making such a regulation, and he would be able to see exactly the whys and wherefores, whereas Parliament would not have both sides of the case put before it. It is not really such a serious matter to grant these regulations because, as put in the Bill in another place, they are only for one year, when they can be revoked. Probably therefore the Minister is wise to accept it.

12 N.

This wording is merely a form and is not going to give this House any serious power of interference with any particular Regulations. Everyone who has any experience of the House knows that the mere formal laying on the Table is a mere nominal power to Members to criticise or ventilate any opinions on particular Regulations. For many years it has been found almost impossible to get a House for a proper full discussion. These words are harmless but they do not satisfy us when we come to Clause 10, when we think it is important that Parliament should have real control over the very important Regulations that appear in Schedule 3. When we come to that I shall raise the point.

I thought the hon. Member's speech was going to be a sort of preliminary attack upon the Regulations which we shall discuss under Clause 10, and I was not wrong in thinking so. I will deal with the control later on when we come to that Clause. The hon. Member at the beginning of our Debate praised another place for its democratic Amendments, which gave more popular control. In this case also another place has given, I think, a considerable measure of control to the House over regulations made under Clause 7. When the Bill was originally introduced there was no control over the regulations in either House. The Minister was absolutely uncontrolled in any orders he might make, but another place has put in this proviso, which is a considerable advance over the original proposal. It gives very considerable control to Par- liament. There may be occasions on which a private Member can intervene in this House in the 28 days and there is another place, which the hon. Member says is a democratic place, which is not so congested in business and where they have very little to do. If they consider a regulation interferes with the liberty of the subject a Motion can be made in the 28 days and the regulation automatically becomes void. Therefore I submit that in this we have a very substantial advance in Parliamentary control over the Act.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is purely drafting.

I hope I shall not be considered hypercritical, but I do not understand why this particular Amendment has been introduced. I presume I shall be told that this is a drafting Amendment. A drafting Amendment is designed for the purposes of correcting faulty construction or making clear what is not already clear. This Amendment does neither. If these words are included, I can well understand that a legal argument may arise as to whether a costable for the purpose of this Clause was regularly engaged in the regulation of traffic or merely engaged "for the time being." It may be argued that a constable who is regularly engaged in this work is also engaged "for the time being." I hope the Minister will be able to explain the reason that prompted the other place in suggesting this Amendment.

The difference is this. A police constable, say Sergeant Jones, in uniform, is regularly engaged day by day in the regulation of traffic. Therefore, persons disobeying his orders would be liable to prosecution for obstruction. The intention surely is that he shall only have that authority when he is actually engaged in regulating traffic. Although for the whole of the period that he is working he may be engaged day by day in the regulation of traffic, we do not want him, even if he is in uniform, thinking that he has power to give directions somewhere else in London where he happens to be. I think the other place is to be commended in this respect for suggesting an Amendment for the protection of the subject.

While accepting the explanation, the words appear to me to be inserted in the wrong place. They should come later.

I suppose the President of the Board of Trade is deputising for the Attorney-General. He has fulfilled many duties in his time, and we are quite prepared to see him occupying the position of a Law Officer of the Crown "for the time being." It may be worth while looking at this point. I do not know Whether the right hon. Gentleman has consulted the Law Officers of the Grown on the matter. Apart from the legal question, it seems to me that difficulties may arise as to whether the officer is "for the time being" engaged in this work. My Noble Friend the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) has had more experience of this kind than I have, and perhaps he will add a few words. I only want to warn the President of the Board of Trade in his new capacity that he had better be very careful, and I hope he is reassured in his statement by the advice of the legal authority at the disposal of the Government.

I am sorry that the Minister of Transport is accepting this Amendment. We had a very long Debate in the House on this point, which resulted in a non-party Division, and I had the honour to be supported as Teller by the hon. Member for Oxford University, who has always been a guardian of the privileges of this House. His long experience enabled him to point out that if were to retain any control over these most important Regulations it was essential that we should adopt this particular form—a form followed in the case of the Housing Bill, the Dyestuffs Act and other legislation concerned with Regulations—in which we must pass the appropriate Resolution in a positive form rather than in a mere passive or negative form. The only opportunity that this House has of discussing matters of this kind is after Eleven o' clock at night, when Members are anxious to hurry away home. In those circumstances it is not likely that a purely London matter of this kind will attract proper attention or get proper consideration, unless there is this security that Parliament will have the power of really controlling the powers that the Minister has by Regulation.

The power of making regulations on matters prescribed in Schedule 3 is almost unique in municipal government. The Minister is going to have autocratic powers to interfere with the whole traffic, not only in London but throughout the metropolitan area. Undoubtedly these regulations, necessary as they may be, will cause friction and irritation. They will interfere with the rights and privileges of thousands of individuals and cause, very often, heavy financial loss to thousands of people, not only motor-omnibus owners but owners of other is thoroughly unsound. If this House is to keep complete control of these Regulations we must have regard to the form and character and wording of them and the effect they are likely to have on traffic in London.

It was pointed out in another place that the supposed alternative words were not likely to give the Lower House much power. On the other hand, the other place will have powers which are practically denied to the representative body. That is not a position which this House should accept, and we should take the first opportunity to restore the position. If the original words were retained, I would be prepared, if it would meet the views of hon. Members opposite, who are anxious to protect the rights of another place, to accept the words "both Houses of Parliament." I am anxious to retain the rights of the House of Commons to control the Minister and to control these important Regulations.

We discussed this matter on the Report stage, and in this matter I was bold enough to plead the case of the Order in Council as compared with a Resolution of both Houses. I regret to say that I did not receive the support I should have received from the Minister in charge of the Bill. The hon. and gallant Member for Leith (Captain Benn) called me a "bureaucratic fledgling." The hon. Member opposite says that these Regulations are going to be of tremendous importance. Let us look at the Schedule and see what would come up to this House to be passed by Resolution. The collection of refuse, broken down vehicles, cabranks, queues waiting in streets and the lighting of street works. These are the sorts of things we have got to pass. I have had a certain experience of London Members. I sat upstairs in an atmosphere of London Members which I shall never forget, and I have come to the conclusion that London Members as a whole are particularly assiduous, and will not assist in having rights taken away from them. On that account I think that it is very unlikely that any Order it Council affecting London is likely to go through this House unnoticed, but that London Members will be sufficiently wideawake to raise the question, especially as it is exempted after 12 o'clock.

I am exceedingly sorry to interfere in this particular matter. The only thing which tempts me to vote for agreeing with the Lords Amendment would be the view that it would make the Bill largely unworkable. That tempts me to a very large extent because, as the House knows, I have the most profound contempt for and dissatisfaction with this Bill. But after all is one entitled, because one has contempt for a Bill as I have, of the deepest character, for this Measure, therefore to pursue a policy which is designed by a side issue to make the thing unworkable? I think that the Minister of Transport—I am not talking of him as the present Minister, but as an institution—is bad enough as being the instrument to control London questions, but if I may say so, with the greatest respect, I think that the House of Commons is infinitely worse. If Members will read the Third Schedule to the Bill they will see, as the hen, and gallant Member for Rochester (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) pointed out, that they deal with matters of local detail as to whether omnibuses shall go on this route or that. They may even deal with street trading or questions of collecting street refuse, and queues at places of entertainment, I think, though I am not sure. They concern matters of detail. The practical question is: Are hon. Members representing constituencies in Scotland, Wales, Lancashire, Yorkshire or Ulster fit to decide Regulations affecting the streets of the Metropolis? The whole case against the Bill is that the House of Commons is not fit to do it.

It is true that Ministers can receive the representations of London direct, and give them consideration, and his officers can advise him, but can the House of Commons, with its varied composition, possibly be capable of settling the details of London streets? As one who believes that the whole of this Schedule raises issues which are appropriate to local government, and can be settled properly only by the people of London, I think that the Minister who can get into contact with London—if one has to choose between two evils—is more fit to do it than the House of Commons, which consists of representatives from all over the country, and which on many occasions has not dealt fairly with London questions. The whole question to be settled is how far do the words of my hon. Friend secure control. We must all know that the question of approval or disapproval of Regulations in this House is very largely a matter of form, whether the onus is upon Members to object or, upon a Minister to get the Regulations through.

The great bulk of the Members do not come from the area concerned. The great bulk of the Members are not from the Metropolis. The procedure will be that Members will approach the door and the party Whips will say "Aye'' or "No," so that what happens is that the House of Commons wastes the time which could be better given to something else, and we really get no efficient administration. The mere assertion that the House of Commons ought, with the greatest seriousness and pomp, to decide on how street refuse ought to be collected at Hackney Wick or at Wick Road, Hackney, is an absurdity. I am sure that the House of Commons has sufficient knowledge of its own weaknesses and shortcomings to know that it is not fit to do any such thing. These duties are appropriate to the London County Council, or the borough council, and ought never to be taken away from the people of London. It is an outrage when that is done, but Parliament has so willed, and, that being so, we must not pass an Amendment which will make a farce of the administration of the Act and the making of Regulations thereunder.

I was interested to hear the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The House will enjoy the spectacle of the divorce which is now taking place between the London Labour party and the London Liberal party. [HON. MEMBERS: "Progressive."] The point in which I am interested is the speech which has just been made. We cannot forget that in another place he is the keeper of the London Liberal party, or the London Labour party. They are the same thing: I get mixed between the two. I only hope that the hon. Member will remember the speech he has just made when the. London County Council makes its next attempt to extend its octopus like control over the muncipalities surrounding the present administrative area of the county of London. I hope that he will realise their point of view a little better, when he criticises the right of hon. Members of this House, who may have just as great experience in municipal affairs as either he or anybody else on the London County Council, to come to Parliament with these problems of London government. Personally I think the more help and guidance we can get from those who speak with experience of the great municipal corporations throughout the country, Manchester, Glasgow and Birmingham, the better it will be for London government as a whole, and I hope that he will not forget the speech which he has just made.

Like the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I was astonished at the speech made by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison). The hon. Member told us that if these Regulations were discussed in this House the vast majority of hon. Members would only vote as the Whips told them at the door. Whether coming events cast their shadows before, and that the course which the hon. Member defined is that which he proposes to take on this Amendment, I do not know, but it may be that the explanation of the attitude which he has adopted is not wholly unconnected with circumstances such as those to which he has referred. The suggestion that, in asking the House of Commons to pass a Resolution affirming or disaffirming Regulations which it is proposed that the Minister shall make under this Section, the House of Commons will be invited to deal with the collecting of refuse in Hackney Wick or anywhere else, is absurd. It is not proposed that this House shall pass a Resolution regarding questions of administration of the Regulations, but questions of the making of the Regulations. What I wish to point out is that, by Sub-section (3) of Clause 10, it is provided that fines may be imposed for breaches of the Regulations. It says: (3) Any such regulations may provide for imposing fines recoverable summarily in respect of breaches thereof not exceeding in the case of a first offence twenty pounds, or in the case of a second or subsequent offence fifty pounds, together with, in the case of a continuing offence, a further fine not exceeding five pounds for each day the offence continues after notice of the offence has been given in such manner as may be prescribed by the regulations. I quite agree with the hon. Member that the control of such questions are are contained in the Schedule to this Bill ought to be in the hands of the elected representatives of London; but it is an outrage to suggest that the making of Regulations which are to involve the imposition of substantial penalties, such as are mentioned in the Section, should be left at the substantially uncontrolled discretion of a Department of State, and that no effective power should be given either to this House or to any other democratically elected assembly to supervise the making of those Regulations. We all know that the laying of Regulations on the Table of this House and the power to move a resolution, having regard to the congestion of business and the nature of our procedure, is practically a farce. There is no effective control obtainable by this means. But if, on the other hand, a resolution has to be passed affirming the Regulations before they come into force, there is some substantial control, and there is no reason why there should be any undue congestion of business as a result. We all know that such Resolutions are passed almost every evening in the week after eleven o'clock. It is only in the event of there being something which raises a matter of controversy and to which there is serious objection that any time would be taken up at all. But, putting it in that form, there is given an opportunity to any Member to raise any real objection to the making of the Regulation. The Amendment to which we are asked to agree gives an effective power to the other place, because, by the procedure there and the comparative leisure in which their deliberations are carried on, it is always possible for them to find an opportunity of introducing a Resolution objecting to any such Regulation. Therefore, the effect of this Amendment is to give substantially to another place a power to supervise these Regulations which is denied to this House. I most strongly protest against a Government with the pretentious of the present Government accepting from another place an Amendment such as this, and I hope it will be defeated.

It would not be denied that the attitude of Liberal Members regarding this Amendment is one of frank hostility to the Bill. They have always been against the Bill, and they want to kill it if they can. This new-found desire to maintain the liberties of the House of Commons and the scrutiny of Ministers is directed to killing the Bill more than to maintaining such liberties or to restricting the activities of Ministers. This Amendment marks a very substantial advance on the Section which was rejected by the House some weeks ago. The criticism of the Bill as originally introduced was directed to two points. One was that there was not sufficient Parliamentary control, and, further, that if there was Parliamentary control and a Resolution was passed by either House, then the Minister only might revoke the Regulation; it was not mandatory. This Amendment makes it mandatory on the Minister, or a Regulation becomes automatically void if the Resolution is passed. As to Parliamentary control, let us be quite frank. It is very difficult in these days, with the congestion of business, whichever way you approach it, to get proper Parliamentary control. That is the great trouble. I understand that Lord Salisbury in another place has set up, or is setting up, a strong Committee to go into the question of Parliamentary control as far as it affects another place, to see if some better formula may be devised for insertion in Bills so that more Parliamentary control may be secured.

I do not think that any hon. Member would seriously deny that if the wishes of Liberal Members were carried out it would be impossible to work this Bill at all. This Bill is going to last for three years only. I understand that hon. Members of both parties opposite are determined to maintain the three years limit. If they so determine, three years it will be. Nobody pretended that this Bill was more than an immediate attempt to deal with an urgent problem. I had had a great deal to do with the devising of the Bill and I have never contended that it was a perfect Measure. All I can say is that the London traffic problem is so urgent that you cannot wait until the Greek Kalends to do something. At the end of the three years you can have a new Bill or carry on this Bill from, year to year under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. The House will have an opportunity of seeing whether these Regulations work well and if they do not work well the House can put in something else. I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government.

The statement just made was first that this is a new enthusiasm for a certain method of control. It is no new enthusiasm at all. The Bill as it stands, with the Lords Amendments rejected, is the Bill that was passed by the House of Commons. It was passed by the House of Commons very largely owing to the support of hon. Gentlemen opposite. We are now told from the Front. Bench opposite that the Bill is practically unworkable. Why did not the friends of the last speaker think of that when they voted for the Bill at the time? An overwhelming majority of the party opposite voted for the Bill as it stands. If there is any question of a compromise to make it more suitable, it can be done if we now disagree with the Lords Amendment. I, therefore, appeal to hon. Gentlemen opposite to show the consistency which we always expect of them, especially the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood), and, having carefully thought out the vote that they gave last time, not to let themselves be drawn away by such statements as have been made, but to support the Motion to disagree with the Lords.

If we go back to the merits of this Amendment the right hon. Member for Rusholme (Mr. Masterman) will see that apparently his party are suggesting that every Regulation made under this Bill may, if they so desire it—if any hon. Member desires it—come before this House. That would render the working of this Bill absolutely impossible. The third Schedule sets out the purposes for which Regulations may be made. One of these purposes is that of prescribing routes if necessary, the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) could hold up a Regulation made for prescribing routes until it had received the approval of the House. Another one in which hon. Gentlemen opposite will take particular interest is No. 12 in the third Schedule, which deals with broken-down vehicles. That no doubt raises some feelings in the breasts of hon. Gentlemen opposite. Then No. 10 relates to prescribing conditions subject to which horses, cattle, sheep and other animals may be led or driven on streets within the Metropolitan police district. Whether the author of this Bill had any vision of right hon. and hon. Members opposite approaching Westminster to support the Government I do not know, but perhaps that is the real reason why hon. Members opposite desire that these matters should be continually brought before the House of Commons. I should think in their own interests and in the interests of the Bill the less said about these matters the better, and we should be well advised to accept the Lords suggestions.

I do not intend to follow the comic interlude, if I may so describe it, to which we have just listened. I had hoped that some hon. Member would rise to point out how the interests of country Members are affected under the first Schedule of the Bill. I observe that the greater part of my own constituency is included. That being so, the argument advanced by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Herbert Morrison) that this is merely a matter for the London Members is one with which I totally disagree because this first Schedule must affect the constituencies of Members in the Home Counties. Therefore I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green (Mr. P. Harris) because I think it is a matter of considerable interest to those in the country districts if they are to be told by the Minister of Transport how to light and guard their street works. That seems to be an entirely local matter, in which local people ought to have something to say, and therefore on behalf of the Home Counties Members I support the hon. Member for South-West Bethnal Green.

I ask the House to consider this question from another point of view. I am not speaking as the deputy of my right hon. Friend the Attorney-General, but simply as one who has had some experience of the difficulties connected with these matters and of the difference which exists between the two propositions now before the House. The proposition which has come down from another place suggests that the Regulations should become effective unless they are disapproved of by a Resolution of this House, and the alternative proposition is that they should not become effective until the House passes an affirmative Resolution. It may be that in matters in which great interest is not taken or in which there is no intention to obstruct, there is not much practical difference between these two courses as regards the amount of control possessed by the individual Member. I suggest to the House that it makes all the difference to the Government when it is in the position of a beast of burden having a great many loads to carry. I first of all wish to deal with this matter from the point of view of the Government as the beast of burden having to carry the load. If it is decided that an affirmative Resolution must be passed for every one of these Regulations, it means that the Government must allot the time necessary to get those affirmative Resolutions passed. It may be that there is a desire to take up Government time. It may be that there is a desire to talk on these Regulations—a desire not wholly unconnected with the fact that it is wished that the Government should not do some other things.

My particular interest in the matter is, I confess, not so much concerned with the exact degree of control which an individual Member may exercise because a Member or a group of Members will always exercise very considerable control. My interest is rather in the question of how we are going to carry on the business of this House—the business in which Members are interested and which they want to get done. The particular Session which is now closing has been marked by the regrettable fact that a great many Measures which a majority of the House desire to see passed have not been passed owing to lack of time. If the House asks the Government to find time for the possible discussion of every one of these Regulations they are not merely affording an opportunity for making the Bill unworkable—which I fear would be taken advantage of to some extent—but they are seriously interfering with the possibility of passing other Measures from time to time which the majority of the House for the time being would wish to see passed. That is the real distinction between these two propositions—the amount of Government time, of the effective time of the House which will be taken up. It is not enough to say that in both cases the discussions would be after 11 o'clock. It is a draft on the available time which the Government can induce the House to grant. If I were speaking only in the interests of this particular Measure and the working of this Measure I would point out that if every one of the Regulations has to wait until time can be found for the House to pass an affirmative Resolution, even though they may be quite innocuous Regulations and may not excite any great resentment, it will always be possible that we shall be told through the ordinary channels that they will cause Debate and that will involve delay. I am much more concerned, I confess, with the effect upon the other business of the House and upon Bills in which I am interested and other Members are interested. The Government time is time which should be utilised in the interests of democracy, and we should not dissipate it.

I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that time and again, the House has risen as early as seven and eight o'clock.

I do not know that that interruption need have been made. My small observation of these things goes to show that accidents of that kind cannot be prevented. When the House adjourned at an early hour the other day it was because it had not been foreseen that you, Mr. Speaker, would take a certain view of a certain Amendment. That could not have been foreseen. The mere fact that some hours were not utilised in those circumstances would not have enabled the Regulations under this Bill to have been dealt with, because it could not have been foreseen or arranged. I myself have one or two quite non-contentious Bills which the House want, and I have not been able to get them on because there have not been the necessary arrangements among those responsible for the business of the House. I suggest it would be very unwise for any of us who really desire that the time of the House should be used for urgent problems of legislation, to fritter away that valuable time, which is all too short now, on business of this kind. So far having carried that principle, I think it is right that this House should have an opportunity of making a demonstration, if any Regulation be made to which objection is really taken by hon. Members, and it will always be possible, in a matter of this sort which excites public interest, for sufficient members of this House to make their wishes felt. One further word. This has constantly been referred to as if it were an arbitrary act of the Minister. The hon. Member said, quite rightly, that these things ought really to be decided by the directly elected representatives. I am a county council man myself, and those who have experience know how these matters are settled by the watch committee, with, possibly, very little interference by the whole council. But, at any rate, the whole council has an opportunity of interfering. Surely it is common ground that it is not possible here and now to get a body for London and larger London.

The right hon. Gentleman promised, when the Bill was introduced, to appoint a committee to inquire into London government. Can the right hon. Gentleman tell us when that committee is going to be appointed?

The hon. Gentleman knows very well, first of all, that I did not make that promise, and, secondly, that as I am not even deputising for the Prime Minister, I cannot respond to the hon. Gentleman's kind invitation. As a matter of fact, it would be desirable, in my opinion, that these matters should not trouble this House at all, and should be dealt with by the directly elected representatives of the locality concerned. Meanwhile, there has been a body created by this Measure which is the best thing that can be done to represent the opinion of the elected representatives of the localities concerned. It has been the subject of immense discussion, and no better body can be suggested until we get a directly elected body for the areas concerned. Before a Regulation can come into force, it is provided that the Minister "shall refer the matter to the Advisory Committee for their advice and report." Does anyone suppose the Minister could bring forward any Regulation which had not the support of this Committee? There has been a little exaggeration about automatic control. We limit the automatic control below and above, at one end in the case of the Advisory Committee, which is the nearest we can get to a democratic body for this purpose, and, at the other end, if the Minister goes seriously wrong, the House of Commons will be able to pull him up.

[HON. MEMBERS: "Agreed!"] I am sorry I cannot agree with the statement that has been made. The earnest, almost pathetic, appeal of the right hon. Gentleman leaves me quite unmoved. He made exactly the speech which we would have expected from him, perhaps more than from anybody else. He has the firmest possible faith in bureaucratic government. He is prepared, I should say, at any time to take from a Department the considered judgments they have formed, and announce them as wisdom, which the House ought, without comment, to accept. I demur from his description of the Government as a patient beast. I regard them as autocratic controllers of the time of the House. This earnest desire, constantly professed, to have more time for Members for discussion really has a rather insincere ring. There has been no such desire on the part of the Government. It has been with the utmost difficulty that we have been able to secure opportunities of discussing questions that we wish to raise, and I am bound to say, looking back on the Session, there has been a great deal of waste of time, owing to want of careful arrangement in the putting down of Government business. The early adjournments for the last two nights are evidence of that, and, therefore, I feel quite unmoved by the statement as to time for Members of this House to discuss matters. We put this Amendment in against the Government in the Committee stage. It went to another place, which has inserted an Amendment re-arranging the method by which we are to conduct our business here.

I say we ought not to go back on our decision, and take from the other place instructions as to how we are to conduct our business here. The other place is not in the same position as we are with regard to these Regulations. In another place, they can Debate them under their procedure. They are not controlled by an autocratic Government, as we are, so that the House of Lords is in a far better position to discuss these regulations than the House of Commons. I think we did the right thing in inserting the provision we did. We had support for the Amendment from all quarters of the House, and I think all old Members of the House who have had experience of laying Orders on the Table, know that it is always a form, and almost a farce. It is not the case that when there is a pretty strong feeling on the part of even a large num-

ber of Members of this House, time can be got out of the Government for the discussion of Regulations. I think the House did right in the Committee, and I hope we shall disagree with the Lords Amendment.

I agree with the Lords Amendment. I am surprised that the right hon. Gentleman who has just sat down, who has been a long time in the House, and never attempted to help London traffic, should now oppose something that will help it. The hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison) has opposed the Bill right through and endeavoured to defeat it from its inception. It is not surprising, therefore, that he should try to make it an unworkable Bill. We have now got a Bill brought forward under the only control that, for the moment, can be devised. Here we are going to give London a chance to control its traffic, and I hope the House will agree with the Lords in their Amendment.

I would like the House to understand that these Regulations, once made, are exactly in the same position as the Clause of a Bill. They have exactly the same authority and interpretation. Anybody who has any practical experience—I speak only as a young Member—knows that the chance of getting Government time to disapprove of the Regulations made by a Minister of that Government is infinitesimal. The consequence is that the provision for laying the Regulations on the Table of the House, while it seems to give greater authority, really gives the House no control whatever. If the Government have to find time to pass Regulations they can, if they are pressed for time, suspend the Eleven o'Clock Rule and pass them in that way, but if a private Member wishes to object, he has no chance of securing time—the Government of their own accord never give time in order to give the House a chance of expressing its opinion. I suggest that we disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 184; Noes, 50.

Subsequent Lords Amendments, down to page 18, line 15, agreed to.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a purely drafting Amendment.

Is it not consequential?

It was inserted at the instance of the Government, having been inadvertently omitted from the Amendments.

I think we had better have a little explanation of this. It sounds very much to me as though this were a consequential Amendment upon one originally introduced into the other place. I should not like the Minister of Transport to have anything in this Bill that he does not want. I would suggest to him he had better give us a complete explanation as to what is the meaning and effect of this Amendment.

Is not this an alteration of the position previously decided by this House which disagreed with the Lords Amendment? Surely the only safe thing to do at this stage of the Bill with its reference to tramcars and trolley vehicles is to disagree with the Lords Amendment?

Was not this passed by the Lords and not printed by mistake? Is it not consequential? If there is anyone to blame, is it not the authorities of the other place?

It is a question of definition. The definition has been made right in another place and it does not affect the operative Clauses. It does not in any way affect or import to have control over the tramways as some hon. Members seem to think.

We ought to know something more about this. It is not clear how the thing stands.

I am satisfied that this Amendment is not consequential, but. I will read it again: In page 20, line 18, leave out "tramcar or trolley vehicle," and insert instead thereof "trolley vehicle or tramcar".

Lords Amendment:

In page 20, line 24, 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, 1896.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[ Mr. Gosling. ]

I trust the House is not going to agree to this Amendment of the Lords. This is brought in for the purpose of bringing the tramways under the Act, and I hope the House will disagree with the Lords, and that this will not be included in the Bill.

I suggest that this House should agree in this case, because under certain transport systems in the area commonly spoken of as that "tramway system" are technically "light railways."

I beg to move, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This matter, as to how long this Bill should operate, was one upon which we spent very many hours upstairs. I do not think I am disclosing any secrets when I say that the Minister did accept a certain period of time. I cannot but believe that the Government are really doing a serious thing in suggesting that this Bill should operate only for three years. By that time someone else may be in power, but traffic is a thing which at present is changing so quickly that any Traffic Bill which now we pass might be a bad Act in five years' time. What, however, I want the House to think about is this: It is really proposed that at the end of three years the Traffic Regulations of London which we propose to give by this Bill are going to collapse. What will happen is that this Act will automatically come under the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. That does not pre- judice introducing another Traffic Measure, but I cannot see what advantage we are going to get out of it, or what hon. Members can get out of this particular provision by making the Act operative only for three years. It is very curious that in connection with this Bill we have not discussed traffic in any way, but local government. In that connection the Labour party have proposed to give the transport authority power over London traffic, whereas the Conservatives have opposed giving the power over London traffic to the Conservative London County Council. I do not think, in the pressure of Parliamentary time, we are likely to have another Traffic Bill for three years. Eventually this Measure can be put into the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and consequently we are really quibbling about a matter which does not come into practical politics.

I hope the Minister will stand by what he has just said. If there is going to be any extension of the time no facilities will be taken to improve the traffic, or get this Measure to work as we want it worked. If the matter is left over for another six years things will roll on just as they have done in the past. For these reasons I hope the Minister of Transport will stand by the proposition he has made.

I wish to support what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) in regard to this proposal. I cannot understand why we should be threatened with a collapse of this Bill in three years time. That is a very odd attitude to take up, because this Measure has been hurried on as a result of the negotiations arising in the case of the recent transport strike in London, and, therefore, it is in the interest of the transport workers and the general public that something should be done to regulate traffic conditions. We all know the strain that is put upon those who drive the heavy vehicles in London today, and therefore it is very urgent that we should get from the Minister, if he is not going to accept the Lords Amendment, some idea of what he has in mind at the expiration of 1927. Can he tell us what the view of the Government will be in 1927. Of course I do not anticipate that the Socialist party will be in power then, but I think the country should know what is his view now as to what should be done with London traffic at the end of 1927.

I answer that question very much in the same way as I put the matter to the House in the first instance. This Bill was introduced as a temporary Measure, and this was done because all sides felt that the question of London traffic should not be left, as it was, and the real remedy was to deal with the question of local government in Greater London. It is quite clear that what the Government wish to safeguard is not to put in a longer period which might lead to other matters being dropped. I hope before the expiration of three years we shall have produced legislation dealing with the larger question of local government, and if by any chance at the end of three years we have not been able to do all we want to do, we can easily go on by extending the period from year to year. For these reasons and not for the reasons given by the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon), I ask the House to disagree with the Lords Amendment.

After a very long Debate the date of 1927 was inserted as a reasonable period to give the Government time to really deal with London government. I suggest that 1927 is quite long enough.

I am surprised at the attitude which the Minister has taken up in regard to this point. He suggested that the reason for making the term short was that this was admitted by everybody to be an emergency Measure. It may have been introduced as an emergency Measure, but if was not a very bad Bill when it was first introduced, and after the help and assistance given by my hon. Friend and others on these benches the Measure has been turned into one which is likely to work exceedingly well. We do not see for one moment why we should make it merely an emergency Measure in the sense in which it was introduced, because it is now a Bill which it might be advisable to continue for more than three years.

We know perfectly well what the object of hon. Members in this House is in attempting to keep in this period of three years. There are those who want to smash this Bill up, and if they cannot do that, then they want to continue for only a short time. There is another class who are interested in a fantastic scheme for Greater London which has already been turned down by a Royal Commission, whose decision they have absolutely refused to accept, although they have not been able to put forward any good reasons for refusing those recommendations. Here we have a Bill absolutely in accordance with the recommendation of that Commission that we should have certain definite ad hoc authorities or Committees to deal with particular matters such as traffic. I hope the House will accept the Lords Amendment in this case, and give this Bill a reasonable chance, and not take the rather foolish and futile course of endeavouring to limit future Parliaments in the way which has been proposed.

Originally the Bill contained an open date, but by agreement in Committee a date was added,

and this was carried by a majority, and as a democrat I accept that conclusion. Three years was inserted, but the Bill now comes back with six years added. The reason I oppose the Lords Amendment is that the problem as it is now is a serious one, and the shortest possible time you can give to it will give the greatest impetus to the local authorities to tackle the traffic problem. As soon as we insert the period of six years in the Bill, we shall find that no serious effort will be made to tackle the problem at all. In three years' time changes will have to be made to fit in with new requirements, and to give a period of six years, which will probably stabilise the anomalies that exist to-day, and which will exist later, is far too long. For these reasons I hope the House will disagree with the Lords Amendment.

Question put, "That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 175; Noes, 63.

May we ask what this Amendment means? Is it a drafting Amendment? Might I suggest that it would be well if we had a Law Officer present? I see the Lord Privy Seal (Mr. Clynes). I have no doubt that he has observed the inconvenience in which the House is placed. Where is the Attorney-General this afternoon? Where is the Solicitor-General? Perhaps the Minister of Transport will tell us that at the same time that he explains the Amendment.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

It is really reducing the Debate to an absolute farce if Members of the Government cannot tell us what the Amendment is that they are asking us to agree to or disagree with, as the case may be. As I understand it the words in question are "of them." That means absolutely nothing unless the Transport Minister gives us the full text, and he ought certainly to be able to explain the matter. If the Minister, cannot do it, perhaps the Deputy-Leader of the House will do it or will allow one of the Law Officers to do it. This is a very bad example of making a laughing stock of the House.

The last difficulty that arose was over the word "if," and we got no definition of that. Now I understand the difficulty is about the words "of them." May we hear from the Minister exactly what is referred to by these words. I submit that the House has a definite right to know from the Minister exactly what the Amendment means. I hope the information will now be forthcoming, in order that our minds may be set at rest.

On the first Clause in page 3, line 19, a certain Amendment was moved, and this present Amendment is purely consequential on that Amendment.

Lords Amendment:

In page 25, line 17, at end, insert with the exception of any matters dealt with by him in virtue of Section seven of this Act.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment which is purely consequential on the exclusion of the additional members for the consideration of Clause 7.

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, after the word "description," to insert, the words either generally, or on streets of any class or description.

Is it not usual first to put the Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords Amendment," before making any Amendment in it?

No. The Amendment to the Amendment is first made.

May we have a little explanation of this Amendment? The hon. Gentleman simply got up and read the Amendment and his further Amendment. He gave us no information as to the meaning of it.

Should not the Motion that we agree or disagree with the Amendment be put before the Amendment is amended?

No. But I think it would be well if the Minister would let the House understand why he is proposing the Amendment to the Amendment.

Surely it is not an unusual thing to ask a Minister to indicate why he is inviting the House to take a certain course?

I confess I am not as well acquainted with the Procedure of the House as other Members, but I may explain that the Amendment as printed on the Paper is not complete and the words I am proposing to add are necessary in order to make it work. For some reason or other they were left out, but they should be put in.

That sounds all right.

I am surprised at the Minister having accepted this Amendment. It seems to me that what he wants to do could have been done better by Regulations. He is introducing a curious practice in English law by making the provinces subject to quite different Regulations as compared with those obtaining in the London area. If it is right and proper to carry a man on a trailer in order to see that they are not obstructing the roads in London, surely such a Regulation should be of general application throughout the country. If it is a bad thing that a trailer should be without a man in London it must be an equally bad thing that it should not carry a man outside London. I think the Minister of Transport should have proposed to disagree with this Amendment and have promised to introduce legislation affecting the whole country on this particular point.

I should like to reinforce, if I may, the argument put forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon). My first point is that the Minister already has power to deal with trailers generally under the Highways Act of 1896, under the Motor Car Act of 1903, and under the Roads Act of 1920. Under all these Acts he has power to make Regulations.

I think it would be better if the Amendment to the Amendment were disposed of before we discuss the question whether or not this House agrees with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Amendment to Lords Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment, as amended."—[ Mr. Gosling. ]

My point is that the Minister already has power under no fewer than three separate Acts of Parliament to make Regulations with regard to the use and construction of trailers. These Regulations are now in force right throughout the country. It is sought by this Amendment to impose upon these three Acts of Parliament a fresh series of Regulations applying only to London. This seems to me to be piecemeal legislation not of a very practical character. What is going to happen if this Amendment is agreed to and the Bill passes into law? What is going to be the position of a driver of a very heavy motor vehicle with a trailer coming up from the country to London. When he arrives at the boundary of the area covered by this proposal would it not mean that a man would have to be waiting there to take a seat on the trailer? Or must a man be carried on the trailer during the whole of the trip. I suggest that this really is not a practical suggestion. I have every sympathy with the spirit of the Regulation, because I know that it is proposed in the interests of public safety. I do think, however, that great difficulty and confusion will be caused if this proposal passes. I cannot help thinking that the proper time for an Amendment of this sort is when legislation in introduced embodying the recommendations of the Second Interim Report of the Departmental Committee on the Taxation and Regulation of Road Vehicles. The Minister himself, and I think also his predecessors, have indicated that such legislation is on the stocks. In fact, I believe that it has gone even further, and is actually ready for the Minister to introduce it whenever he wants to do so. I think that that legislation should the occasion for bringing in a restriction of this sort. When this matter was dis- cussed during the Committee stage the Minister said: I must warn the Committee that this Amendment would be an alteration of the general law and that it is not a matter with which the Committee can deal. Therefore, I should like to know from the Minister what, if anything, has taken place in the House of Lords to alter that view, and whether he still holds to it. If he does, I think he should explain to the House why, in spite of that view, he is now prepared to agree with this Amendment. A lot of people think that many accidents are caused through trailers having no one in charge of them, and that the noise made by a vehicle and its trailer prevents the driver from hearing overtaking vehicles; but I do not think that a man sitting on the rear of a trailer is necessarily in the best position to prevent small children from jumping on to the drawbar. I would also submit that there are many trailers now in use on the roads that have no accommodation for a man to sit at the rear and warn the driver of over taking traffic, and that, therefore, the proposal is impracticable from that point of view.

Another point that I would suggest to the House is that it is economically somewhat unsound. As things are to-day, many traders who employ motor vehicles to draw trailers to take their goods about have adopted that practice on a definite understanding, knowing the regulations and legislation as they stood. If, on the top of that, you are going to bring in legislation which is hound to put them to considerable expense, what is likely to be the point of view of those traders in the future? It is a matter which definitely concerns the workers now employed in the transport industry, because, should it become impossible for traders to use this means of transport, it may result in these men losing their employment. The goods might be transferred to a more economical method of transport, which might in that case be a railway, and people who are now working on the roads might lose their jobs. Suppose that, on the other hand, the result were that traders, instead of employing one vehicle drawing a trailer, employed more motor vehicles, would it not have the effect of still further adding to the congestion on the streets? The House ought to go somewhat carefully into the ramifications of this proposal before they agree with the Amendment which the Lords have inserted.

I hope the Minister will stand firm in his acceptance of the Lords Amendment. It is intended for the protection of life and limb in London, and, surely, in the case of a trailer coming from some distance, we have first of all to consider the protection of life here. We argued this matter out in Committee, and I believe this provision is necessary to protect the weakest of the users of the roads, namely, the ordinary passengers. Therefore, I hope the Minister will stand to his guns.

I hope the House will agree with the Lords in this Amendment. The hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) and the Noble Lord the Member for South Battersea (Viscount Curzon) ask why we are dealing with this matter in a piecemeal fashion. In answer to that I would ask why are we dealing with the question of London traffic in a piecemeal fashion? It is simply because of the anomalies of London traffic, and because the point of saturation in regard to the roads has been reached. That is why we are dealing with it in this way, and one of the greatest causes of congestion is the trailer. There is not a motorist using the streets of London, whether a passenger driver, a commercial driver, or a private driver, who will not admit that a trailer not only adds to the density of the traffic, but because of there being no supervision on the trailer, its continual sideways movement is a danger in manipulating closely organised traffic.

I do not admit it.

The Noble Lord cannot do so at the moment.

Perhaps I may be allowed to point out that I have some authority to speak on the matter, as I have been driving motor vehicles since 1898.

Unfortunately, too fast! That, however, is just a little banter, and I am sure the Noble Lord is not offended. There is not a coroner in the country who at some time or other has not commented on the great danger of a second vehicle controlled by the driver of the first vehicle, so far as braking is concerned, and who has not recommended in some form or another the abolition of these trailers. When one thinks of the juvenile life that has been lost owing to there being no man on the second vehicle, that in itself ought to compel the House to exercise its sympathies and its discretion in favour of the Lords Amendment. It is suggested that the only reason for the man on the rear of the trailer is where a second trailer is added to the first, but, when there is only one trailer, the man will be there, not only to watch the conditions of the traffic, but to manipulate that vehicle, so far as he can, in order to synchronise it with the operations of the man in front of him, and thus secure safety. If it is uneconomic, the trailer will go; if it is economic, it will relieve unemployment by adding the second man on the trailer.

Instead of another lorry?

Instead of another lorry. The trailers are here, and hon. Members opposite do not want them to go. I do. I believe it is far better that they should be off the streets altogether. The continual lateral movement of a heavily-laden trailer on a country road does, in my view, far more harm to the road than is done by any other vehicle, because if does not follow dead in the wheel-track of the vehicle that is leading it. The continual lateral movement of the second vehicle churns up the track of the vehicle in front of it. Having regard to all the circumstances, I hope the House will do as the Committee did, and support this Amendment.

2.0 P.M.

I think there is a little misunderstanding about this Amendment. The point of our opposition is not that we do not recognise the danger which there may be from using trailers, or the advisability of some Regulation of this kind, but it strikes me that a provision such as is proposed in this Amendment is really, I will not say outside the scope of the Bill, but is one of those things which ought not really to be dealt with by this Bill. One of the great objections to putting it in here is that there is already power in certain existing Acts to deal, to a certain extent, with trailers, and those provisions which enable trailers to be dealt with extend to the whole country. If you have some different kind of provision with regard to trailers in the London area, you are creating confusion and probably making greater difficulties, and, perhaps, causing greater trouble than if they were left alone altogether. Apart from that, there is this new Bill on the stocks, in which it is proposed to deal with something of this kind, and, judging by what has been said in the House to-day on another part of the present Bill, in regard to what the House ought to do in order to try to force Parliament to do something in future, I do not think we ought to allow this Regulation to go into the Bill. If it is a desirable Regulation for London and the district, it is a desirable Regulation for the whole country, and we are only inviting delay on the part of a dilatory Government Department in bringing forward this Bill to deal with the question as a whole. Therefore, I hope, in the interest of the Bill, and in the interest of the streets of the country as a whole, and of safety to life and limb throughout the country, the House will disagree with the Lords in this Amendment.

I hope the House will refuse to accept the Lords Amendment for a very different reason from that which has been advanced. I think everyone in every quarter of the House wishes to do everything possible to benefit agriculture. It seems to me if you are going to insist either on trailers being done away with altogether or upon a man being put on every trailer you are going greatly to increase the cost of carriage. The best way to help agriculture is to decrease as far as possible the cost of carriage. By making it necessary to employ several motor-cars, or to employ a man on each trailer, you are going to do agriculture a very great disservice.

Ordered, "That a Committee be appointed to draw up reasons to be assigned to the Lords for disagreeing to certain of their Amendments to the Bill."

Committee nominated of Sir Kingsley Wood, Mr. Dennis Herbert, Mr. Gosling, Mr. Percy Harris and Mr. Webb.

Three to be the quorum.

To withdraw immediately.—[ Mr. Gosling. ]

Reasons for disagreeing to certain of the Lords Amendments reported later, and agreed to.

To be communicated to the Lords.—[ Mr. Gosling. ]

I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."

I make this formal Motion, for the purpose of making a statement on the business, which has been revised, for next week. It has been found advisable and convenient to make an alteration the effect of which is not to take the Factories Bill on Monday, and to move the Adjournment Motion, if possible, on Wednesday. Whether than can be done on Wednesday will depend upon our receiving the Amendments from another place with respect to the Housing Bill. Accordingly, I announce the business for next week in the following order:

Monday: Appropriation Bill, Second Reading; National Health Insurance Bill, Second Reading, if it is not disposed of to-day; Arbitration Clauses (Protocol) Bill, Report; China indemnity (Application) Bill, Report and Third Reading; Workmen s Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, Second Reading.

Tuesday: Appropriation Bill, remaining stages; and, if received, Lords Amendments to the Housing Bill and Agricultural Wages Bill.

Wednesday: Lords Amendments, if not previously disposed of, and Adjournment Motion until 28th October.

All the approved societies are most anxious that the National Health Insurance Bill shall become law at an early date. It is simply a consolidating Bill, and a certificate has been given that there is no alteration in the law whatever. The present condition of things is very awkward to people who are engaged in the work of the approved societies, and I therefore hope it will be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to arrange that all stages of the Bill, on which there is no controversy whatever, may be taken to-day.

I understand the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill is not printed yet, and therefore I think the right hon. Gentleman must be content with advancing it a stage. I do not think there will be time to do more than that before the Recess. With regard to Wednesday, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if the Government will consider meeting at Eleven o'clock. If there were no Lords Amendments, we could adjourn till a later hour in the day, but in case there were any, it might be convenient to meet at Eleven.

I understand the Deputy-Leader of the House does not intend to take the National Health Insurance Bill to-day.

The Second Reading.

We are only too anxious to get that Bill through. It is essential before we consider the whole national insurance question. Not taking the Factories Bill on Monday means that it will be left over till after the Recess. The third point is that my hon. Friends have asked me to make some reservation in connection with the China Indemnity Bill. They do not object to the Government programme in the least, but there will be some discussion and, perhaps, proposals made in connection with it. Otherwise we are only too pleased to fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's suggestions.

I have no fault to find with any of the observations which have been addressed since I made the announcement. With respect to the Factories Bill, it is the intention to take it in the first week after we assemble, probably on the first day. I shall be glad if the House could agree to the whole of the stages of the National Health Insurance Bill being completed this afternoon. If time allows, there will be no objection. There is certainly no objection on the part of the Government. I accept the view that we should be content with obtaining only one stage of the Workmen's Compensation (Silicosis) Bill, if it be the fact that the Bill is not printed. It is a small and, I think, non-contentious Measure, to bring within the compensation law men who suffer from this disease as the result of their work. I agree that it ought not to be pressed too far if the Bill has not been printed.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.

I beg to move, That the Indenture made the twenty-eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Marconi House, Strand, in the county of London (hereinafter called the Company), of the one part, and the right honourable Vernon Hartshorn, O.B.E., M.P., His Majesty's Postmaster-General (hereinafter called the Postmaster-General), on behalf of His Majesty, of the other part, with reference to the construction of a Wireless Telegraph Station on the Beam System, be approved. The question of an Empire wireless system has engaged the attention of Governments during the past 14 years, and, I think everybody must admit, with very indifferent results. I do not think it is necessary for me this afternoon to say anything in support of the contention that such a scheme of wireless service is a real necessity and ought to be brought into existence at the earliest possible moment. Since it was first mooted in 1910 its importance strategically, politically and commercially has been recognised in all quarters. I have been recently in conversation with representatives from the Dominions, and they told me that whenever they get out to sea, whether from Africa, Australia or India they immediately find themselves supplied with news from France, Germany or other foreign sources, which is coloured by its origin. As a matter of fact, foreign countries are to-day able to send from their wireless stations news to receiving stations on land and sea to the uttermost parts of the earth. This fact was noted and commented upon by Admiral Field in his recent visit to the Antipodes, and very strong pressure has been brought to bear upon successive Governments by the Dominions to bring about such a scheme as is contemplated in this agreement.

Whatever anxiety there may be in this country to set up an Imperial wireless system, the anxiety for such a scheme is even more intense in the Dominions. Unfortunately, as years have gone by the Dominions and ourselves have developed somewhat different ideas and methods of solving this problem. When it came into my hands I discovered that the Marconi Company and the Governments of the different Dominions had made arrangements to enter into commitments which made it necessary for continuous discussion to take place between myself, the Marconi Company and the Dominions before any definite arrangement could be entered into. Having regard to the complicated nature of the problem which presented itself, when I first endeavoured to make myself conversant with the facts, I came to the conclusion that it would be a good policy to set up a Committee. I was fortunate in having as Chairman of that Committee Sir Robert Donald, whose unflagging interest in Imperial wireless is universally recognised. I also had his very valuable assistance in a personal capacity in connection with this proposal. The Committee was set tip with these terms of reference: To consider and advise upon the policy to be adopted as regards an Imperial wireless service so as to protect and facilitate public interest. It was impressed upon the Committee that the matter was urgent, and it will be within the knowledge of the House that the Committee issued their report in record time. Their main recommendations were two-fold in character; first, that it should be the policy of the Government to insist that all the stations in this country used for communication with any part of the Empire should be in the hands of the State, and, secondly, that the Post Office should operate directly, under an improved business organisation, all the Empire stations in Great Britain. The Committee suggested the kind of station that should be erected in order to complete the Empire scheme.

At the time the Committee was considering this matter, it had not been made known that the experiments which had been conducted during a year or two previously by Marconi in connection with the short-wave directional system, known as the beam system, had reached such results as were afterwards made known. When we attempted to adopt the kind of high-power station for this purpose which had been recommended by the Committee, we found that the Marconi people were placing before us the results of their experiments on the beam system. They pointed out that it would be possible to get a service under this system of wireless communication at a very much lower cost than would be possible under a high-power station. We made known to the Dominions what had been placed before us by Marconi as to the merits of the new beam system, and informed the Dominions that if they cared to adopt this system we would be prepared to have corresponding stations in this country.

During the discussions we had with the representatives of the Marconi Company that company agreed to co-operate with the Government in whatever policy was decided upon. Naturally, they did not care for the policy of having all the stations owned in this country by the Government, but they said that if that was the Government's decision they would accept it and loyally co-operate with us. They also agreed to carry out any decision that the Dominions might reach in relation to the kind of stations that they would have if the Dominions preferred to go in for high-power stations, the company said they would erect them in accordance with the arrangements made out there. If the Dominions said that they wanted the beam system the company said they would erect beam stations also.

As the House will be aware from the statement I have already made, Canada has definitely decided, and arrangements are being made there for the erection of a station on the beam system. I understand now that the same arrangement is being made with Australia and South Africa. It is only right to say that nothing in the beam system in any way suggests that it can effectually take the place of high-power stations either in communicating over long distances at any time or for long distance communications in all directions simultaneously. The Government are convinced that, notwithstanding the fact that we propose to give this beam system a fair trial, it is essential that we should go on and complete the high-power Rugby station which our predecessors began.

Members of this House have I assume in their hands the agreement entered into which this Resolution proposes to ratify. The agreement has attached to it a summary of its provisions, but it may assist hon. Members if I briefly recapitulate the principal provisions. The agreement provides for erection by the Marconi Company, as contractors to the Post Office, of a beam station for communicating with a corresponding station in Canada, with provision for its extension so as to provide similar communication with corresponding stations in South Africa, India and Australia. It becomes the business of the Post Office to provide sites for the company upon which to erect these stations. The agreement provides that the company shall complete the station communicating with Canada within 26 weeks from the date on which the sites for the sending and receiving stations are placed at their disposal, and they also undertake to have a similar station available in Canada for communicating with this country within the same period. It is provided that the English station is to be constructed of the best materials and in a manner satisfactory to the engineer-in-chief of the Post Office, who is to be consulted as to the lay out of the buildings and plant. The station is to be capable of communicating at a speed of 100 words per minute each way during 18 hours per day. That would be the average over the year.

When that station has been completed there is to be a demonstration. The company are to demonstrate by actual working that the guarantees which they give are complied with in the actual working. If the Government's engineer-in-chief is satisfied after a seven days' test of that kind that the station does comply with and fulfil the guarantees given by the company, then the company will receive 50 per cent. of the cost of the station. The station will then be handed over to the Government and the Post Office will work it. If after six months it is found that the station is working satisfactorily, and in accordance with the guarantees, the company will then receive a further 25 per cent. of the cost. There will be a further period of six months' working, to see if the system is working throughout all the seasons, and if at the end of a complete year the engineer-in-chief is satisfied that the guarantees in the contract are really embodied in the service, then the company will be paid the remaining amount of the cost if the station does not satisfactorily comply with the test at any of the stations any time, before we have had the 12 months' test completed, or if the company fail to establish a corresponding station in Canada, it is open to the Postmaster-General to reject the English station altogether, and in that event the company would be under an obligation to return any money which had been paid to them in respect of the stations.

The consideration to be paid to the company for the station is the actual cost, 5 per cent. being allowed for establishment charges, plus 10 per cent. for contractors' profits. Various safeguards are imposed to prevent any excessive charges, and it is provided that the maximum cost-exclusive of the percentages shall not be greater than £44,920 if a public electricity supply is available, or £50,420 if a public supply of electricity is not available. We have further provided that if South Africa or Australia decides to go in for the beam system, and the Government give the Marconi Company an order for an additional unit, that additional unit, which will be capable of communicating with either Dominion, must be completed within six months. If we give an order for two units for communicating with two Dominions that order must be completed within nine months. I have already said that the guarantee in connection with Canada is a speed of 100 words per minute each way for 18 hours a day, as an average throughout the year. The guarantee in connection with the other Dominions is the same as to speed, but the guarantee as to hours is as follows: Between England and South Africa there would be 11 hours per day, between England and India 12 hours per day, and between England and Australia seven hours per day. The Post Office is to pay a royalty of 6¼ per cent. of the gross receipts of the beam stations.

How much does the right hon. Gentleman anticipate that that will bring in?

I am afraid that it is not possible to give anything approaching an estimate, because it is not yet known what type of business will be attracted to this station or what the actual volume will be. The Marconi Company is to be paid a royalty of 6¼ per cent. so long as any Marconi Company patents essential for the working of this station are employed therein. After taking over the station the Postmaster-General may, if he feels so disposed, or if he see fit to do so, discard the Marconi patents, and if so the royalty ceases. The company undertake that any telegrams for this country which come under the control of the affiliated companies in the Dominions shall be forwarded to a Government station in this country, and they also give a similar undertaking in regard to any telegrams for the Continent of Europe which are not ordered by the senders for transmission by some other route. There is an arbitration clause in the agreement which is limited to any dispute arising as to the cost of the station. The agreement has been signed on behalf of the directors and the Government, but it is not binding unless and until it has been approved by Resolution of this House. It is for the purpose of securing such approval that this Resolution has been put down, and I hope that this House will now see its way to adopt the Resolution.

It is always a pleasure to listen to a statement on the work of the Post Office, because it is seldom that we have an opportunity of hearing the Postmaster-General tell us the story of what is going on in his Department. Frankly, I have great admiration for the Post Office. It does not show that dead hand which so many Government Departments are rather liable to show. But one of the troubles at the Post Office during the last few years is that there have been too many Postmaster - Generals. Although from a private point of view I would like to see the present occupant of the office there for many years, yet I feel that from a political point of view I must qualify that good wish. When I see the result of the Boston Election coming in, it suggests the swallow which is the sign of the coming summer. One of the difficulties of the Postmaster-General in regard to wireless is that he has to negotiate with the Marconi Company, and anybody who has negotiated with that company must have a very long spoon indeed. Consequently, in looking at this agreement one has to look at it in some detail to see if one can find any holes in it. The Postmaster-General told us of the recommendations of the last Committee on Imperial Wireless. I wonder if every hon. Member present has read the former recommendations of the Committees on Wireless? Perhaps the best of the lot is that known as the Norman Committee. That recommended practically the same as the right hon. Member told us was recommended by the last Committee. That was that Empire wireless should be operated by the State. The recommendations of the Norman Committee were most unjustifiably reversed, and I am happy to see that the last Committee has gone back practically to the original recommendation of the Norman Committee.

We have it laid down that the policy in future in this country, with regard to Empire wireless, is that the stations should be controlled by the State. With that I cordially agree. But let us remember that the Marconi Company have manœuvred us into a very difficult position. They have control of the other end. In all the Colonies and throughout the world we are not free to transmit and receive messages from another Government or another Dominion station, but always at the other end we have to communicate with the Marconi Company. I am not free who says that private enterprise is not better than State control, but this is not a question of private competition against the Government. The question which we have to bear in mind always is whether the Government or a pure monopoly should run it. I would rather that the Government ran it. One of the difficulties in the last negotiations was that the Marconi Company refused to allow the Post Office to run a station erected by themselves. On that the negotiations broke down. I am surprised to see that in the operation of this more complex system the Marconi Company are allowing the State full control, whereas with the simpler higher-power stations they "kicked" at the last minute and broke down the negotiations. I do not think that the Postmaster-General made clear to the House what is happening with the very high-power station at Rugby. I quite see that when an enterprising body like the Post Office fathers the hope of communicating long distance by a short-wave system, one should take advantage of it. But we are, at the same time, going on with the building of a high-power station, 500 kilowatts or more, at Rugby, with masts over 800 feet high.

In this Agreement the hours guaranteed by the system are laid down. They show that the short-wave, beam system is practically a night system of transmission; it does not attempt to penetrate the difficulties of ether during the day. I have never been able to get any data as to whether one can, with a high-power station, transmit during the day. The difficulty of transmitting to India, with all the thunderstorms between, and to South Africa, are very nearly as bad with the high-power station as with the beam station. I doubt whether this particular system is going to be better than the One originally thought of, because if the modern system cannot deal with atmospherics, as is clearly shown in this memorandum. I cannot see where the great advantage comes in, except perhaps from the point of view of interruptions to other wireless. On one or two points in this Agreement I wish for information. I see that the company are to receive 6¼ per cent. gross on the receipts. That is all right if everything goes well. On the other hand, it may mean that the Government are making a dead loss upon the whole scheme, and yet the Marconi Company are making a dead profit. That wants to be modified by some provision dealing with the question whether the enterprise as a whole is a success or not. It seems preposterous that the Government should lose money and that a private company should make it during operations of that kind. This is a very new business. We do not know what is going to happen to wireless to-morrow. Yet I see on page 13 of the Agreement the following paragraph: Any patent which the company may purchase or become entitled to use after the date at which the apparatus covered thereby is installed in the Beam system, shall not be regarded as a Marconi patent for the purposes of this Clause. Frankly, that seems a very dangerous thing to put in the Agreement. It may be that we shall be able to get over our difficulties only by a new invention. Con- sequently the whole thing would fail or be a success by the employment of a new invention. By this Agreement, whoever has that invention has the Government in his hands. That is the great danger. H the company own or get into their possession patents which would improve the Beam system, before we sign this Agreement we ought to know on what terms we are going to have the use of any further patent. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will be able to answer those two simple questions before we proceed to vote upon this matter. Apart from these few remarks I am very glad to observe the outlook of the Post Office in this respect, and I only hope that the small power wireless will be a success.

I am very glad to note the attitude taken by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) towards this proposal because, having regard to the past history of negotiations between the Marconi Company and the Government, we must look at it carefully and critically. I am given to understand by experts that the Beam system is immature and has not been successfully demonstrated by results. I am not in a position to say whether that is the case or not, but the first step to be taken, before this contract is definitely signed, is to call upon Senator Marconi to demonstrate the success of his Beam experiments before the Wireless Telegraphy Commission, the Wireless Board and the engineering advisers of the Government. If we can be given these safeguards I shall have no fear with regard to this contract, but if this contract is to be signed without these safeguards I have the gravest fears to the future. I am altogether at a loss to understand why the Beam system should have been introduced into the discussion at this particular point. Again I am speaking, not from personal knowledge, but from information received. Our experience as a nation in relation to this problem appears to differ entirely from the experience of the French nation. I gather that the high-power station outside Paris is able to communicate with the whole of the French colonies and that the French Government are quite satisfied with that system. As the possibilities of high-power stations are so well known and appreciated, it seems difficult to understand why at this point the Marconi Company should endeavour to persuade the Government to embark on something which is untried and unknown, but I submit there is a good reason why we should be asked to undertake a connection with these experiments at this particular moment. In my view, the basis of the whole move is the fact that the advantage of the Marconi Company lies in delay. Everything which would produce delay has been resorted to in the past, and the whole of the public propaganda has been designed to prove that the Post Office is utterly unfit and unsuitable to undertake this work, and that the nation would be well advised in permitting the Marconi Company to perform this service for it. We are told we are amply safeguarded in this agreement. We may be safeguarded with regard to nonessentials. It may be we are safeguarded with regard to the price, although on that point I am far from being satisfied. It would surely be better to have a definite specification for the station to be erected and definite public tenders for that work in order that we might be satisfied that a fair price is being paid for the station. Quite apart from that point, I am inclined to think that the desire for delay lies at the root of the problem because in the event of the Postmaster-General not being satisfied with the station and declaring that it did not meet the terms of this Memorandum, the Marconi Company would be in the favourable position of having the station erected under its control and it would be backed by public opinion, still further inflamed by the delay which had taken place, and it would then be able successfully to demand a licence to operate the system between this country and the Dominions. I regard that as a particularly serious and important matter. I fear it is useless for me to ask the Postmaster-General to postpone the vote on this particular question until consultations have taken place and experiments have been carried out to demonstrate the system in the way I have suggested, but I am glad to have an opportunity of pointing out what I regard as dangers in this connection.

As one who has been for a good many years in this House a fairly constant critic of the delay in the development of the Empire wireless chain, I sincerely hope the agreement outlined by the Postmaster-General will be allowed to go through. This is, at last, a definite step. We have for many years awaited a definite step in regard to what is almost the most important feature of Empire communication. I wholeheartedly endorse the Postmaster-General's reference to Sir Robert Donald, whose excellent work in this matter as Chairman of the Empire Press Union, I have known since 1909. He has worked sincerely in this connection and the Committee which met under his Chairmanship gave a splendid example of celerity in arriving at results. As a long-distance critic in these matters, I should like to say that I think the Postmaster-General has dealt with this question in a spirit of fairness and with sole regard to the interests of the British Empire.

I am not going to stop this agreement from going through, and, as far as that is concerned, I support the hon. Member for Acton (Sir H. Brittain), but I agree with what has been said by the hon. Member for East Bristol (Mr. Baker) as to the need for being certain that this agreement is for the benefit of the public. Such agreements in the past have not always been to the benefit of the public, and I remember taking a deputation to the Postmaster-General's predecessor in regard to an agreement which was afterwards altered. I draw the attention of the Postmaster-General to page 3 of the memorandum, with regard to the consideration to be paid to the company for the station. The consideration is to be the actual coat, plus 5 per cent. for the establishment charges and 10 per cent. for contractor's profits. I do not think that is a reasonable agreement. If I were in business I would not agree to having the establishment charges and the contractor's profit beyond the contract price. I think the various safeguards are rather misleading. The memorandum states that the various safeguards are imposed to prevent any excessive charges, and a provision has been made as to the maximum cost. If this is to be put out to tender, as I conclude it will the Postmaster-General must realise that a contractor would go very near the maximum cost. To-day, with the rings there are, naturally there would be some arrangement between contractors, and there would not be the opportunity of getting a reasonable contract at, perhaps, a reduced price when the maximum cost is stated in the Agreement. Also, I should like to ask why is there this difference of £5,500 between the maximum cost if a public electrical supply be available, and if a public electrical supply be not available. It seems to me it is a large amount, and that there will be rather a large profit. Also, I would like to mention what was brought forward by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) with regard to the 6¼ per cent. on the gross receipts. That is not reasonable. You find a few lines lower down it is stated, "on the gross revenue." There is a big difference between gross receipts and gross revenue. I think, certainly, it should be on the gross revenue.

What is the difference between gross receipts and gross revenue?

One is a revenue, and the other is not necessarily a revenue. It is a very big difference. Anybody who has had anything to do with figures must, realise that receipts and revenue are very different matters. Then I should like to ask the Postmaster-General a question with regard to the Canadian Marconi Company. What is the arrangement with regard to this Agreement and the Canadian Marconi? It is a very important point when you are dealing with a monopoly such as this Agreement is giving. I feel that if the Postmaster-General will answer these questions with regard, especially, to the Agreement, which I do not think is all satisfactory so far as the public is concerned, I will not altogether oppose the Agreement.

I shall be very pleased to give what, I think, will be very satisfactory replies to the questions that have been raised. First, I would like to reply to the question raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Chatham (Lieut.-Colonel Moore-Brabazon) with reference to patents. The matter is dealt with in Sub section(6) of Clause 16 of the Agreement: Any patent which the company may purchase or become entitled to use after the date at which the apparatus covered thereby is installed in the Beam Station shall not be regarded as a Marconi patent for the purposes of this Clause. The object of the provision is this: The Agreement provides that we may at any time take out of the station any Marconi patents, but, so long as we use any of them, we pay a royalty on them. It is quite possible, if we took their patents out, and used other patents, if they were entitled to purchase these, and call them their own, we might then be charged a royalty on such patents. We have put this in as a safeguard against any possibility of the Marconi people purchasing something we have put in in place of their patents, and calling them their patents, and getting royalty payment thereon. With regard to the suggestion of my hon. Friend that he would like to have this thing demonstrated before sanctioning the Agreement, I do not know whether he has read the Agreement, but I do not know what more complete demonstration can be given of any system than is provided by the Agreement. The company have to erect the station at their own cost, and they have to give a seven-day test of its actual working. If during that period they comply with the guarantee, they get half the cost. It has to be tested again over another six months, and if, during that period, it proves satisfactory, they get another quarter of the cost. Then the demonstration goes on for a complete year, and if at the end I certify that it must be rejected, that decision is final, and they must refund any money they have already received.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is a, precedent for such demonstrations? When the Marconi Company undertook to work point-to-point demonstrations, they gave two demonstrations working between Stonehaven and Newcastle before the contract was signed. I am afraid the Postmaster-General did not hear my reference to the position that would arise if he would not give a certificate.

I do not know what obtained in the case to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I do know what is in this Agreement, and it was felt desirable that we should have, for the purpose of this new system, not merely short tests, but tests during the whole year, summer and winter, so as to get all atmospheric conditions. That is why we have adopted this method rather than a short method. It has been sug- gested that the royalty of 6¼ per cent. is not a fair royalty. I can only say that in 1912 or 1913 contracts were entered into on behalf of the Government under which the Marconi Company agreed to erect six stations, and the royalty provided for in those agreements was 10 per cent., and not 6¼ per cent.

Gross?

Yes. It has been suggested that we make this 6¼ per cent. while it is a losing concern. All I can say is, that if at the expiration of the 12 months' test we take over a service which complies with the guarantees provided here, if we have got a station handed over to us that will give an 18 hours' service at 100 words a minute each way, it seems to me we have got a substantial and profitable business to take over at the end of the year.

Will the right hon. Gentleman alter the words to "gross revenue" instead of "gross receipts"?

This Agreement has been signed, and it must be ratified or rejected as it stands. I do not think anything could be altered in the Agreement in this discussion. A great deal has been said about the Marconi Company. I hold no brief for them, but I want to be fair, and we must keep this fact in mind, that the Marconi people have done an immense amount of pioneer work. They have built up a business between this country and Canada. They have been on the top for 15 years. We are taking the whole of that business from them and transferring it from their stations to our stations, and I think, having regard to the provisions of this Agreement, it must be admitted that the Marconi people have met the Government fairly in this matter, and have nothing in this Agreement except that to which they are fairly entitled. My hon. Friend opposite (Sir F. Wise) called attention to the fact that there is the cost plus overhead charges. If my bon. Friend will look at the provisions in Clause 11 on page 10 of the White Paper he will see that it is only the actual cost of each item of manufacture that is taken into account. Instead of including overhead charges in that cost, and ascertaining just what proportion of the overhead charges should be allocated to each particular item of work, we have agreed to an overall overhead figure of 5 per cent.

Fifteen per cent. in all.

It is 15 per cent.; but you must allow for the overhead charges in any statement of cost. A further objection is raised that as we have indicated a maximum the contractors will get as near the maximum as possible. If my hon. Friend will read this Agreement he will find that is quite impossible. Time books are to be kept, sheets are to be kept with accounts of the actual work done, the time spent, the wages paid. There is to be an account of everything in connection with the purchase of material—any allowance made to the company; all that is to be accounted for. Only the actual cost is taken into account, and whether the amount is the maximum, or half the maximum, that is what they will be paid. If you look carefully through the provisions of this Agreement I think you will see that is very carefully safeguarded in all respects.

What is the position with regard to the Canadian Marconi Company

Under this Agreement the Marconi Company in this country, with whom we are dealing, and who are parties to this Agreement, undertake as part of this contract to provide a station in Canada by the time this one is ready in this country, and if they do not do it they have broken this contract.

What about the receipts and revenue?

The position in relation to that will be this: they must send through their stations to our stations all business that arises in the Dominions. As is customary in these transactions, whatever is received for the messages will be evenly divided as between the receiving and the sending stations, after deducting terminal charges. I think that is the usual thing in these cases.

If this Agreement is entered into, can we take it that the work is to be put in hand immediately, and that there will be no further delay of any kind?

The position is that until we have provided a site the work cannot proceed, but when we provide the site for the receiving and the transmitting station the station must be completed within six months. The engineers of the Post Office and the Marconi Company are at present considering the suitability of certain sites which have been suggested, and I am hoping that almost immediately on the ratification of this Agreement work is will be proceeded with.

Question put, and agreed, to.

Resolved, That the Indenture made the twenty-eighth day of July, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-four, between Marconi's Wireless Telegraph Company, Limited, whose registered office is situate at Marconi House, Strand, in the county of London (hereinafter called the Company), of the one part, and the right honourable Vernon Hartshorn, O.B.E., M.P., His Majesty's Postmaster-General (hereinafter called the Postmaster-General), on behalf of His Majesty, of the other part, with reference to the construction of a Wireless Telegraph Station on the Beam System, be approved.

This is a Bill which was introduced in the House of Lords. It is a Bill of 135 Clauses, a very heavy Bill indeed. I understand it was referred to the Joint Committee on Consolidation Bills. They introduced some hundred or more Amendments, and the Bill was ordered to be reprinted. So far as I am aware, it has never been before this House at all. The Bill has not been reprinted, there is no copy obtainable in the Vote Office; not a single soul has seen this Bill at the present time. It was strongly impressed on me a short time ago by two members, one on the opposite benches and one on this side, that the Bill ought to be allowed to go through all its stages to-day. That is absolutely impossible. It is grotesque enough to allow a Second Reading of a Bill which not a single Member of the Government has ever seen in print, especially when it is a Bill of 135 Clauses. True, it is a Consolidating Bill, and I have not a word to say about it—as far as I am aware it is a perfectly good and highly desirable Bill—but I do protest against Bills being brought before us without a print being obtainable. It would get this House a very bad name if it went out that this House passed a particular Bill without a single person having seen it. That is not a thing which would add to the dignity of the House, nor to its respect, at all events, among the legal profession. I understand there are very special reasons for saying the Bill should go, through—I am not saying a word against the Bill, I know nothing about it—but I understand the Government are not now going to ask for more than this stage to-day, and I hope that before it goes through the other stages the Bill will be printed, and that we shall have an opportunity of seeing it. I appeal to the Government in future not to come down to the House to ask us to pass Bills which have not been printed, because it is merely luck whether anybody comes here to raise any objection, and it is an invidious thing to do.

When I asked that the Bill should be taken through all its stages to-day and pressed for it, I was not aware that it had not been printed. The Bill is very much wanted by the insurance societies of the country, who are very anxious to have the law consolidated so that they can get to work upon it. I quite agree that, seeing the Bill is not printed that we ought to have it printed. My right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) is as interested as I am, but under the circumstances he has suggested that we should not take it any further than the Second Reading. I trust that this will be arranged and that the right hon. Gentleman opposite will see that the Bill is properly printed before we take it through its other stages. The matter is not likely to be much delayed, because there will be a certificate given that there is no alteration in the law, and, seeing that this is simply a matter of consolidation, I do not think we shall be any worse for not going beyond the Second Reading. But there is a good deal in what my right hon. Friend has said, and so far as I am concerned, I am quite prepared that the Bill should have its Second Reading, but we ought not, I think, to go beyond that to-day.

When I asked the Leader of the House to pass this Bill through all its stages, to-day, I was under the same delusion as the hon. Member for West Woolwich (Sir K. Wood) that the Bill was printed. I know it is purely a consolidating Measure, and that we want it, especially in connection with the Royal Commission. I quite agree with the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Cambridge University that it would be quite unfair on our part to try to press for anything more than the Second Reading until the Bill has been printed. Therefore I trust the Government will be content with the Second Reading and have the Bill printed by Monday.

The House, I feel sure, will feel grateful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge University (Mr. Rawlinson) for his vigilant care in this matter. We have protested again and again against Measures coming to this House with Amendments unprinted. I trust, now that the matter has been raised, that we shall have no recurrence of this very serious difficulty which, though this may be the worst instance, is only one of a number.

We shall not press for more than the Second Reading to-day. We are the victims of circumstances. We only received the Bill last night, and we were very anxious that its stages should be completed before the Houses rises, because, following upon this, it will be necessary to revise and consolidate the Regulations. It is most desirable, indeed essential, that these should begin to operate on 1st January of next year, and that would not be possible if we held over the consideration of the Bill until the Autumn. I am sorry that the Bill has not been printed, but it is purely a Consolidation Bill, and in no way amends the law.

The order for printing was made on 9th July, and it is now August. Such a Bill ought to be printed as early as possible.

It is not quite fair that the ordinary Member should be asked to go into a Measure of this kind without having seen it. I think we ought not to go further to-clay than the Second Reading.

Certainly, I thought I had made that clear.

I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."

This Bill only proposes to give powers in regard to the holding of motor car races similar to those given in other countries. The motor car industry has suffered very serious difficulties in this respect, and it is undoubtedly admitted that racing leads to many new improvements in motor cars. This Bill gives power to the Minister of Transport to authorise races upon certain roads. The application for leave has to come to the Minister of Transport from the local authority and therefore it would have the consent of the people in that particular district. It is only proposed to have these races in places which are very remote from towns. I do hope the House will see their way to getting us have the Second Reading of this Bill, because, if there be anything to which the Government object, and I do not think there is, we shall be quite ready to meet them in Committee.

This Bill is very topical and timely, because I understand, exercising the rigidity of the law with all its antiquated procedure, there is about to be a prosecution for motor racing on the Sabbath in Wales. I should like to know whether the promoters of this Bill have made provision for dealing with this Statute of Queen Anne, which I understand operates against so-called Sunday amusements.

There is no intention of having any racing on Sunday.

Motor racing on Sunday is expressly forbidden in this Bill, so the point of the hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) is already met. I do not think, however, that it is very desirable to give power for the public highways to be used for motor races. The object of the highways is that people should be able to pass and repass upon them for the purpose of going to and from particular places, and should be able to do so in reasonable safety. I know that it is probably somewhat out of place to say this from the position I now occupy, but I venture most strongly to oppose the Bill. Motor racing at the best is a very doubtful form of amusement, and there are certainly ample tracts on which motor races can be held. It seems to me that a Bill enabling MEP public highways to be used for motor races ought not to be allowed to go through in a small House on a Friday afternoon, and I should like to move, "That the Debate be adjourned until a quarter to Four o'Clock." No one anticipated that a private Member's Bill would be taken after Government business, and, in ordinary circumstances, at the conclusion of Government business, the Government would have moved the Adjoins-intent, but they have not done so owing to the fact that our pressure is soon to be required elsewhere. If it be not in order for me to move the Adjournment, I shall simply oppose the Bill, and, if necessary, divide upon it at the proper time.

The right hon. Gentleman would be in order in moving, "That the Debate be adjourned," and that would mean that the Bill would not be taken to-day.

I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words, "upon this day three months."

I sincerely hope that the course proposed by my right hon. Friend (Mr. Rawlinson) will not he followed. He has addressed the House under some misconception as to what the Bill proposes. It is in no sense a mandatory Measure. No one proposes that the House of Commons should compel different localities to indulge in motor racing. It is a Bill to enable any local corporation to apply to the Ministry of Transport for powers to have such races on a limited number of days in one year. It seems to me that the Bill is really a very reasonable Measure and one worthy of having a Second Reading in this House. We are anxious to do all we can to foster the motor car industry in this country, and there can be no reason for objecting to motor races taking place under well-regulated conditions in suitable parts of the country. I submit that Parliament, in its wisdom, may well allow local authorities to make application to be allowed to carry out such races, and if they do so and secure the approval of the Minister of Transport, my right hon. and learned Friend can have no real ground for objecting to the user of the roads for the purposes concerned, both in the interests of the motor trade and of sport. I therefore hope the House will give the Measure a Second Reading to-day.

Notice taken at twenty-five minutes after Three of the Clock that 40 Members were not present; House counted, and 40 Members not being present—

There not being 40 Members present, I shall resume the Chair at a quarter to four when a Royal Commission is expected.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at a Quarter before Four o'Clock.