HC Deb 26 July 1883 vol 282 cc672-81

Order for Committee read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That Mr. Speaker do now leave the Chair."—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer.)

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, he wished to ask a question upon something more than Privilege. This Bill proposed to give to the Board of Trade, under certain conditions, power to restore a tax which Parliament, by the Bill, abolished; and the question he wished to ask was, whether it was Constitutional that power should be given to a Department to re-impose a tax which Parliament had abolished, without special permission being given by Parliament to do so; whether, in fact, the proposal did not, practically, vest in a mere Executive Department the taxing power belonging to Parliament alone? He had requested the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to give the House, at least, an evening for this matter; but the right hon. Gentleman said he should bring the Bill on at any hour, and under any circumstances, and he was new ruthlessly carrying out that intention. He (Sir Edward Watkin) desired, therefore, to ask whether the proposal now to be made was Constitutional?

MR. SPEAKER

This is a matter not of Order or Privilege. It is a matter entirely for the discretion of the House; and I have no ground for interfering if the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the House thinks proper to proceed with the Bill.

MR. WARTON

said, he wished to ask the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer what was the position of those season ticket holders who had paid for their tickets a few months ago, and the 1s. duty upon them? What would be their position with regard to the rest of the year? Would the duty be refunded, or were the Railway Companies to be allowed to put the money in their pockets?

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

, in reply, said, he did not know whether that was a proper question on going into Committee; but he should say that it was a matter entirely between the ticket holders and the Company.

Question put, and agreed to.

Bill considered in Committee.

(In the Committee.)

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 (Abolition of passenger duty for cheap trains, and reduction on urban traffic).

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, the hon. Member for Stirlingshire (Mr. Bolton) had the two following Amendments to this clause upon the Paper:—In page 1, line 9, after "one penny per mile," insert "for the distance calculated under any Act of Parliament;" and in line 12, at end, add— Provided, That any section of a railway, in respect of which special or exceptional charges have been authorized by Parliament, shall, for the purposes of this enactment, be treated as a separate railway, both of which he (Mr. Childers) recognized as just; and, therefore, he should propose, instead of the hon. Member's Amendments, to introduce a new clause having exactly the same effect. That would be the more convenient course, as the Amendments affected the whole Bill rather than one clause.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, that before the clause was agreed to, it would be very satisfactory to know what the Amendments of the right hon. Gentleman were. It was a quarter past 2 in the morning, and Government was at that hour proposing to sequester the rights of £250,000,000 of Railway property.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, they would be exactly to the same effect as those of the hon. Member for Stirlingshire, except that they would take the form of a separate clause. If they w ere inserted in the clause under notice they would only affect that clause; but, as a separate clause, they would affect the whole Bill in the interests of the Companies.

Clause agreed to.

Clause 3 (Provision for proper third class accommodation and workmen's trains).

Amendment proposed, in page 2, line 14, leave out "eight," and insert "seven."—(Mr. Bolton.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'seven' stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he could not assent to the Amendment. There were many cases in which 7 o'clock was too early for workmen's trains. In many industries the work hardly com- menced before 8 o'clock, or even 9; and 8 o'clock, he thought, was a very fair compromise, which he hoped would be accepted.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

wished to know what power the Government really intended to retain to the Board of Trade? Did they intend that the Board of Trade should have power to put on as many workmen's trains, and at any times of day or night as they chose? If so, it was obvious that, while supporting the Corrupt Practices Bill, they were giving power, in the event of a General Election, to a Department to corrupt constituencies, by enabling that Department to give something to popular demand at the cost of the railway proprietor. What was this power? He wished to understand the extent of the power which the Board of Trade proposed to take.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

said, he was anxious that the working people should get the greatest possible benefit from the abolition of the railway passenger duty. The board of Trade would have power, under the Bill, to get concessions from the Railway Companies for more cheap trains, and for the running of cheap trains at more convenient hours. He Would like to ask the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) whether, in the concessions which he would be able to get from the Railway Companies -under the Bill, he proposed to take power to obtain advantages for the public as to the two points which were suggested by Major Marindin, in his Report to the Board of Trade on the question of workmen's trains on the Metropolitan lines? He referred to the two points which Major Marindin specially mentioned as calling for improvement. Those points were, that more information should be given in the official time-books as to the times at which workmen's trains were run, and that bills giving similar information should be placed in prominent positions in the stations of the Companies. He (Mr. F. Buxton) believed that this was a question of great importance, and that, if more information could be obtained as to workmen's trains, those trains would be much more greatly used than at present. He would also like to know whether the right hon. Gentleman would take power to get from the Railway Compa- nies a concession as to the issue of weekly as well as daily tickets by cheap workmen's trains? On many of the lines it would save time, and would be a great convenience to the working classes who used the trains. Major Marindin believed that the difficulties of overcrowding and the want of more trains might be met in one or more of the following ways. First, by increasing the number of trains; secondly, by adding to the length of them; and, thirdly, by running trains made up entirely of third-class carriages, and used as workmen's trains only. If, before they passed the 3rd clause, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade would tell them what lino he would follow in getting these concessions from the Railway Companies it would greatly facilitate the discussion.

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he would answer the questions asked him from opposite interests in this matter. In regard to the question of the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin), he thought a perusal of the Bill would give the hon. Baronet the information he desired to have. The hon. Baronet asked what power the Board of Trade would have under this Bill. Clearly, after inquiring whether or not a sufficient number of workmen's trains had been provided on any of the lines, if they found the accommodation provided was insufficient, they would have power to secure increased accommodation. The hon. Baronet ingeniously suggested that such power might be used in order to corrupt constituencies. There was, at all events, this safeguard against anything of that kind. The Railway Company would have the right of appeal to the Railway Commissioners; and it would only be after the decision of that tribunal that the Board of Trade would be able to enforce a demand for more accommodation. In answer to his hon. Friend the Member for Andover (Mr. F. Buxton), he had to say that if Railway Companies were running workmen's trains, it would be to their advantage and to their own interest that they should provide, and the Committee might rely on their providing, due and proper accommodation. The question of weekly tickets was a matter of detail, in respect of which they had not thought it right to impose statutory obligation on the Companies. He thought, however, the subject was one well worthy the consideration of Railway Companies.

MR. BOLTON

regretted that the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had not thought fit to accept the Amendment proposed. It was with some reluctance that he asked leave to withdraw it.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On the Motion of Mr. BOLTON, the following Amendments made:—In page 2, line 17, leave out "if they think fit;" line 18, leave out "shall;" line 24, after "accommodation," insert "or workmen's trains;" line 25, leave out "is" and insert "are;" line 27, after "accommodation," insert "or workmen's trains;" and in line 31, after "accommodation," insert "or workmen's trains."

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

moved, as an Amendment, to leave out all the words after the word "order," in line 33, to the end of the clause, and to insert— Such Company shall forfeit to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding twenty pounds for each day during which such refusal, neglect, or evasion shall continue. He said the object of the 3rd sub-section of the 3rd clause was to impose a penalty on any Railway Company which should not provide the extra accommodation required by the Board of Trade. The penalty that was proposed by the Bill was that the tax on the cheap trains, which, in the earlier part of the Bill, had been abolished, should be revived in the case of a delinquent Company by the action of the Board of Trade. The right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Childers), in his speech on the introduction of the Budget, said he intended to abolish the passenger duty on cheap trains. It would be in the recollection of the Committee that those words were received with general approval by the Committee at the time. It was understood, however, that the abolition was to be a complete abolition of the duty on cheap trains. He (Mr. F. Buxton) believed that all those who, like himself, had had the honour of sitting on the Select Committee on Artizans' Dwellings must have been convinced, by the evidence adduced before the Committee, that the best way of dealing with overcrowding in large towns, and more especially in the Me- tropolis, was to give every facilities to the working classes to come in from the suburbs to their work by early and cheap trains. That, certainly, was the recommendation made in the Report of the Committee; and he believed it was the opinion of all the Members of the Committee. He was of opinion, from what the Committee were told, that the Great Eastern Railway Company and other Railway Companies had done all they could for the working men by giving them cheap trains, and that they could do no more, unless the duty on cheap trains were repealed. It was now proposed by the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer to abolish that duty in certain cases; and all who had the interests of the working classes at heart would thank the right hon. Gentleman for the very great step He had taken in the direction, as he (Mr. F. Buxton) hoped it was, of the total abolition of the passenger duty. It was quite true that the right hon. Gentleman told them, in the Budget speech, that he did not intend to move in the direction of total abolition; but, whatever might be the right hon. Gentleman's individual wishes on the point, it could hardly be doubted that the Committee would look upon what was now being done as a step in that direction. He supposed there were reasons why the Chancellor of the Exchequer had attempted to deal with the question in this Bill. It was conceded on all hands that every opportunity should be given for the accommodation of the working classes; but he (Mr. F. Buxton) believed that the Board of Trade and the Board of Inland Revenue had found great difficulty in levying the tax in a fair and equitable manner on the different Railway Companies, owing to the running of cheap trrins. He was sorry to detain the Committee; but he was anxious to do all he could to put his Amendment in the most favourable light. The Amendment he proposed was in the direction of enforcing a different penalty to that which the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer had proposed. The right hon. Gentleman had arranged that, in the case of a Railway Company not giving the required accommodation, the tax, which in the earlier part of the Bill had been abolished, should be revived. The right hon. Gentleman would thereby revive all the difficulties of the tax which the Board of Trade had had to deal with; and he would not be abolishing the tax at all as he promised, in his Budget speech, he intended to do. He (Mr. F. Buxton) proposed that, instead of reviving the tax, a fine should be levied on the Railway Company for every day during which the requirements of the Board of Trade were not fulfilled. In his Amendment he had used the words which were employed in the Cheap Trains Act of 1844. Under that Act, the Railway Companies had to make certain concessions, and if that provision were not complied with they had to forfeit to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding £20 for every day the "refusal, neglect, or evasion continued."; He had thought it well to use these exact words, and he now submitted the proposal to the judgment of the Committee.

Amendment proposed, In page 2, line 33, after "order," to leave out to the end of the Clause, and insert "such Company shall forfeit to Her Majesty a sum not exceeding twenty pounds for every day during which such refusal, neglect, or evasion shall continue."—(Mr. Francis Buxton.) Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Clause."

MR. CHAMBERLAIN

said, he was rather surprised that the hon. Member for Andover (Mr. F. Buxton) had moved this Amendment, considering the view he entertained on the subject. What the hon. Gentleman desired was to make it absolutely certain that the Railway Companies would provide reasonable and sufficient accommodation. In case of refusal, the provisions of the Bill would impose a far greater penalty than the hon. Gentleman now suggested. There would, in fact, be a tremendous penalty imposed upon Railway Companies if they neglected to comply with the requirements of the Board of Trade. He believed that, as a matter of fact, the London and North Western Railway Company paid in passenger duty as much as £80,000 a-year. For that penalty, his hon. Friend the Member for Andover proposed to substitute a much lesser one—namely, £20 a-day. In the interest of his clients, the hon. Member would do well to leave the clause as it at present stood.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) had now let the cat out of the bag, for he had admitted that what he wished was that, in the case of the London and North Western Railway Company, for ' instance, he should be able to impose as large a fine as £80,000 a-year upon them if they did not obey his orders. He (Sir Edward Watkin) did not think it was consistent with Constitutional liberty that a Department of the Government should have power, rightly or wrongly, without appeal, to fine the shareholders of the London and North Western Railway Company £80,000 a-year.

MR. C HAMBERLAIN

begged the hon. Baronet's (Sir Edward Watkin's) pardon. He did not say anything of the kind. He did not say he desired to have power to fine the London and North Western Railway Company £80,000 a-year. What he said he desired to have was power to make it absolutely certain that the London and North Western Railway Company and other Railway Companies should fulfil the obligations imposed upon them by this Bill. As a matter of fact, a distinct appeal to the Railway Commission was granted.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

said, he merely wished, by means of this Amendment, to raise the question whether the tax should be revived or not. The right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade (Mr. Chamberlain) said the punishment that he (Mr. F. Buxton) proposed to inflict would not be as severe as that provided by the Bill itself. He should have thought, however, that the Board of Trade would have been able to have gained the object in view just as much by the provisions of his Amendment as by a revival of the tax. He should, therefore, take a Division, with the view of insisting on the total abolition of the tax.

THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. CHILDERS)

said, he hoped the hon. Gentleman the Member for Andover (Mr. F. Buxton) would not press his Amendment to a Division, as he threatened. If a Railway Company deliberately and intentionally failed to carry out the requirements of the Board of Trade, was it not better that that Company should be put outside the privileges conferred by the Bill? It was only in cases of deliberate violation of the law that the tax would be re- vived. He thought the Committee would make a great mistake if they accepted the Amendment.

SIR EDWARD WATKIN

said, he must deny that the question raised was one of the violation of the law. It was a question of the violation of the orders of the Board of Trade. As a matter of fact, the Board of Trade were to be the law in future. They were no longer to have Acts of Parliament; but to have the views of the Board of Trade carried out just exactly as its President pleased, without the chance of any appeal against them.

MR. FRANCIS BUXTON

said, that, if the hon. Baronet (Sir Edward Watkin) did not feel inclined to vote with him, he would not put the Committee to the trouble of a Division. He would, therefore, ask permission to withdraw his Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.

New Clause (Provision as to special mileage and exceptional charges,)—(Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer,)—brought up, and read the first time.

Motion made, and Question, "That the Clause be read a second time," put, and agreed to.

Clause agreed to, and added to the Bill.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered To-morrow, at Two of the clock.