HC Deb 28 March 1906 vol 154 cc1353-62

Order for Second Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."

MR. BARNARD (Kidderminster)

said his objections to this Bill would not take long to express, for the reason that since he put his Motion for its rejection on the Paper the railway company had circulated a document among Members of the House which made it much easier for him to explain his motives. That document said that the Company noticed two notices of Motion for the rejection of the Bill had been put on the Paper, and the Company understood that one was in relation to the objections taken to the boring operations in which the Company were engaged on their own property adjoining Carshalton Station. He desired the House to understand that, while the assurances the Company now gave in that regard were largely satisfactory to him they did not affect, in any degree, the reasons why he ventured to object to this Bill. He contended that if a company possessing a great monopoly came to Parliament for powers with regard to their ordinary business, with which he had no desire to interfere, it was within the province of this House to review the position and contemplate whether that particular company had avoided or evaded the law or had arrogated to itself powers which, in the ordinary understanding of the words, its monopoly did not give it. In that sense he objected to this Bill. When he found a company like the London, Brighton, and South Coast Railway Company indulging in matters which had very little to do with their ordinary business he considered it was quite proper to bring it to the notice of the House. It was well understood by the precedent of the Wolverhampton Bill that it was not permissible for any water undertaking to secure water in one district for the benefit or use of another district if it could be shown that the district from which the water had been obtained was likely to require it. They had within their own knowledge the Report of the Commission, of which Lord Balfour of Burleigh was the President, which laid it down that no water ought to be taken out of the Surrey district. It was specifically stated that it should remain there for the benefit, of the locality. The next point upon which he wanted to lay stress was that in all the recent municipal undertakings of Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool, and other places, it was an accepted condition and Parliament insisted that if water was taken from one district to be used in another district the people along the route should have the right to tap the supply and take what they required from it. There was a third well - accepted conclusion which Parliament had adhered to, that no one district should take water from another if they could get water inside the district in which it was desired that the water should be used. This company absolutely sought by its monopoly rights without coming to Parliament to violate every one of these three conditions, and he ventured to maintain that it was altogether foreign to the work of a railway company to be allowed to use monopoly rights granted to it for one purpose to secure competitive rights with other statutory companies. It was for this reason that he made his objection. Since he had put his Motion on the Paper he had had the opportunity of having a conversation with the representatives of the company. That interview was not at all satisfactory. He then had the advantage of representing his arguments to the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade with a much more beneficial result, because the effect of his remarks to that gentleman apparently was that the Brighton Company were ready to acknowledge his contention and to bind themselves down to use this water within the district in which they raised it. He asked the House to bear in mind that although it was apparently a small matter it was a point of far-reaching character. It meant that when a great monopoly and statutory company came to Parliament only mentioning certain of the things which they required, if this principle which he put forward was accepted, it would be in the power of every humble individual to object if the company were not doing their duty in every respect. He was perfectly willing to withdraw his opposition if the assurance given to his hon. friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade was carried out, and if it was put into official language that the Brighton Railway Company would not use water which they were raising at Carshalton outside a radius of six miles from the place at which they brought it to the surface.

MR. WARDLE (Stockport)

said the objects which led him to put down the Motion on the Paper had now been largely attained, and he did not propose to go into them at any length. He did, however, desire to make one or two observations on the matter. It was said by the promoters of this Bill that its main object was the authorisation of certain widenings and alteration of its main or branch lines. If that had been all he should have raised no objection to its passing in the ordinary course. But it was what was called an Omnibus Bill An Omnibus Bill was a favourite device for getting certain little concessions through Parliament which it would be impossible to get by any other means. These other objects were masked under the statement, "The Bill also contains other powers of a miscellaneous character." By means of these miscellaneous clauses, railways had succeeded in passing through this House many Bills granting powers—and very wide powers too—in regard to pension, provident, and other funds, which had been given to few, if any, other corporations. They had also been permitted to extend the scope of their operations in a manner which had not always been to the public interest. Notably was this the case with regard to canals. The plea put forward of finding employment by the carrying out of new works did not absolve the House from the duty of examining closely every such Omnibus Bill, and especially the new powers sought by great monopolist corporations. It was precisely because of the miscellaneous powers asked for in this Bill that he put down the Motion to oppose the measure. A further statement was made that the Bill was of a very ordinary character and raised no questions of any general importance. What was it the Bill proposed to do? First it asked for very large and comprehensive powers in regard to omnibuses— The company may provide own work and use in connection with or in extension of their railway system or otherwise in any district to which their said system affords access omnibuses coaches cars and other road veheicles to be drawn or moved by animal power or electric or any mechanical power and may therein convey persons luggage parcels and goods whether to and from any of their stations or otherwise and may make and recover charges in respect of such conveyance and may enter into contracts or agreements with any company or person for the supply or working of any such omnibuses coaches cars and other road vehicles and may apply their corporate funds to the purposes aforesaid or any of them. This clause as it stood proposed to confer very great powers indeed. It proposed to allow the company to compete within its district with all other road carrying firms whether they carried passengers or goods. Such a proposal might have developed into a great monopoly and acted seriously against the public interest. Since he had put down his Motion, however, he had seen representatives of the company, and he was assured that a new clause had been drafted which would take the place of the clause he had just read. If that were so the new clause would be satisfactory to him, and he would withdraw his opposition with regard to the omnibuses. But it only serves to show with what great care Bills of this kind should be scrutinised by this House. The next point which he objected to was the clauses with reference to the promotion of a guarantee fund, and here again it was not so much to the principle of the fund that he objected to as to the very wide powers which were sought under the Bill. On these, too, the company have now agreed to insert a clause which defines and limits these powers and this clause largely disposed of the objection he raised, which objection had reference to dividing the funds after a certain period of three or five years as the case might be. The company now agreed that the fund should be divided among the men, and with that he was perfectly satisfied. He thought it right, however, to say that in his opinion they should go further and return all contributions to men who left the service with clean and honest records during the intervals between such divisions. There was only one other thing to which he objected, and that was the clause raising the fares between Newhaven and Dieppe. He commended that part of the Bill to the Board of Trade who he thought had a duty to perform to the public in looking into that matter. In 1862 a Bill was passed through this House granting to this company powers to charge for first class accommodation between Newhaven and Dieppe the sum of 13s., for second class, 9s. 6d., and for third class 6s. 6d. They now proposed by this Bill to raise those fares to 16s., 12s. 6d., and 10s. respectively. That seemed to him to be a retrograde policy which he recommended to the attention of the Board of Trade.

SIR W. EVANS GORDON (Tower Hamlets, Stepney)

said the point upon which he took exception to this Bill was of great and vital importance to a large industry conducted in some cases by large and important firms, but in which many small men were engaged and had capital invested. He referred to Clause 16 of the Bill which provided that the company might— Provide, work, own and use in connection with any extension of their railway system or otherwise in any district to which their said system affords access, omnibuses, coaches, cars and other road vehicles to be drawn or moved by animal, electric or any mechanical power and may therein convey persons, luggage, parcels and goods whether to or from their stations or otherwise, and to make and recover charges in respect of such conveyance and may enter into agreements with any company or persons for the supply or working of such omnibuses, coaches, cars and other road vehicles and may apply their corporate funds to the purposes aforesaid or any of them. If that clause were allowed to stand the business of carting would be most seriously affected. The House would readily understand that a large railway company like the London and Brighton were not dependent on the profit they made out of carting solely. It was only, so to speak, a by-product of their business, and therefore they would be able to make rates and undercut the people engaged in this trade in such a way as seriously to affect or even destroy this most important industry. His primary objection therefore to the Bill was that a railway company should not have-power to carry on the business of common carriers outside their ordinary business. Of course they had to have waggons and so forth for the purpose of conveying goods in certain directions to and from their stations, but he contended that if these powers were granted to them they might at once become competitors in the carrying trade which it was never intended they should. But there was a broader principle involved. He thought that in the interests of the community generally a railway ought not to be granted statutory rights and powers to engage in competition with carmen or any other branch of trade other than that incidental to railway traffic. They should be restricted to such trade as concerned their business as a railway company, and therefore in defence of these private interests he had spoken. The points he had brought before the House were of considerable importance and it was with the object of getting the sense of the House upon them that he moved the Motion standing in his name

MR. GODFREY BARING (Isle of Wight)

formally seconded.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.' "—(Sir William Evans-Gordon.)

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

THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. KEARLEY,) Devonport

said that in answer to the hon. Member for Kidderminster he might say that what the Company proposed to do was to draw a supply of water from a well near Carshalton and bring it to London. That, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, was an enlargement of the powers of. railway companies. He had conveyed to the Company the opinion of the Board of Trade, which was, that that was rather beyond the powers for which a railway company should press—that, in fact, they would constitute themselves a quasi-water company, and that he did not think the House would view such a thing with great favour. The railway company gave assurances that they had no intention of doing anything of the kind, or rather if they had any such intention they abandoned it, and that all they wished to do was to supply water to the immediate vicinity. He then pointed out that it would be desirable for them to give an undertaking, and they greed to restrict the supply to an area of six miles from the point at which the well was sunk. With regard to the observations of the hon. Member for Stockport he saw some possible danger in the proposals of the Company to establish a guarantee fund among the employés, but the Company had agreed to meet the hon. Member by accepting a clause upstairs which would still his apprehensions. The question of boat fares was also a question to be dealt with in Committee. The Company were quite prepared to accept a modification with regard to third class fares, and the hon. Member had had an assurance on that point. The hon. Member had raised another point—a point to which the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney also referred. That was a matter the Bill did deal with. It was the question of the power of the Company to provide omnibuses, etc. The hon. and gallant Member for Stepney objected to the Company's enlarging their powers so as to become general carriers. The clause, as framed in the Bill, went rather a long way, but he had succeeded in inducing the London Brighton and South Coast Company to modify that clause, with a result that they were now no longer asking for enlarged powers. He hoped that assurance would satisfy the hon. and gallant Member for Stepney also. He might say, generally, that the Company had shown every willingness to meet all the criticisms brought to bear upon this Bill. Before he sat down he might say one word with regard to the growing tendency of raising objections to private Bills on Second Reading, on points which were essentially Committee points. Some of the points brought! forward to-day were points which ought to have been brought forward in Committee. The point, however, brought forward by the hon. Member for Kidderminster was not of that kind, but a point of principle, and therefore it was that the Board of Trade felt it their duty to convey to the Company their views that it would not be wise for them to insist upon it. All the other points were points that might have been dealt with upstairs. He hoped, having made these observations, the Bill might now be allowed to pass its Second Reading.

MR. EVELYN CECIL (Aston Manor)

said his name appeared on the back of the Bill as the nominal proposer, and although he had no connection with the Company, he had been asked to put their case so far as necessary before the House. After what had been said by the Secretary to the Board of Trade, he need trouble the House very little. He would only say that the Company had done their best to meet the objections and had fully consulted every interest in accepting the proposals of the Board of Trade. Re added his protest to that of the hon. Gentleman opposite against the practice which had grown up of opposing private Bills on Second Reading on points which had nothing to do with the Contents of the bill. In this particular case it was perfectly possible to have obtained an injunction against this Company if they had broken the law; but they had not, and their opponents knew it. In the next place, if the public were injured the proper course would have been to have brought in legislation to have dealt with the injury, and not to make a private company the victim of the want of legislation. He contended that a Second Reading of a private Bill ought not to be lightly stopped, because it often brought needless hardship on individuals. The Company was boring on its own grounds, and had a perfect right to deal with the water; The water was to be used to wash out the carriages. The public had often complained of the condition of some of the carriages of this railway company, and why should difficulties be put in the way of the railway company if they wanted to improve their rolling-stock for the convenience of the public?

MR. COURTENAY WARNER (Staffordshire, Lichfield)

congratulated the Secretary to the Board of Trade on having made some arrangement in regard to this particular Bill; but he hoped that the Bill would not be taken as a precedent. Very stringent conditions ought to be laid down in such Bills in regard to public companies taking water. There was no doubt that land had been permanently injured by public companies taking water from deep wells, and the private interests of farmers had suffered very severely therefrom.

MR. MORTON (Sutherland)

said he wished to protest against the attempt of the Secretary to the Board of Trade to prevent opposition to such Bills Second Reading as this. The right hon. Gentleman must know that people interested in such Bills could not find the money to oppose a wealthy public company in Committee. The Board of Trade officials were paid to look after the interests of the public in an impartial way and not to act or to seem to act on behalf of any company whatever.

MR. CLOUGH (Yorkshire, W.R., Skipton)

wished to ask, as a point of order, whether it was a rule, Written or unwritten or a point of honour, that no hon. Member who was a shareholder in the london and Brighton Railway should vote upon a bill promoted by the company in which he had a financial interest.

MR. SPEAKER

The hon. Member has put to me rather a difficult Question, and as it does not immediately arise on this Bill, I would rather defer the reply to it until the actual occasion arises. It is always open to the House to strike out the name of an hon. Member who happens to have voted in a division when that Member has been directly furthering his pecuniary interests by the vote which he has given. On each question, as it arises, it is for the House to decide.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Original Question put, and agreed to.