NORTH BRITISH RAILWAY ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL [BY ORDER]. (Hansard, 17 November 1908)

§ THE PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY TO THE BOARD OF TRADE (Sir H. KEARLEY,) Devonport
said the Order Paper showed that different views were taken on this measure by many Scottish Members, and perhaps it would be convenient if he made an explanation in 1182 justification of the Motion he should make that the debate should be adjourned. From representations made to the Board of Trade they had been able to glean what was the important ground of complaint in connection with the Bill. It arose in connection with the dislocation of the mail service from Aberdeen to London occasioned by some change in the departure time of mail trains. The effect, according to the representations made to the Board of Trade, was that the country north of Aberdeen had lost the mail connection which it had enjoyed without interruption for a considerable period of years. He was so much impressed by the seriousness of the matter that he had felt it his duty to put himself in communication with the North British Railway Company. He had had the opportunity of discussing the matter that day with the chairman and some of his colleagues, and he had suggested that in the interests of a possible settlement it would be advisable that the Second Reading of the Bill should be postponed till a later date. The reason of the postponement was this: The North British Railway Company had agreed to a responsible suggestion he made to them that there should be a conference between the various interests next Monday. They had consented to attend the conference and they were in process of consulting the various interests that might be deemed to have a voice in the matter. Of course when he used the word interest he included in the invitation Members of Parliament who were directly responsible to their constituents for seeing that the question was solved as far 1183 as possible in a peaceful manner. It would be altogether contrary to the interests of the Bill itself were they to take the Second Reading, and then endeavour to adjust matters by conference afterwards. He had thrown out the suggestion, which he was very glad to acknowledge had been accepted in a kindly spirit by the North British Railway Directorate, that the Second Reading should be deferred until the conference had taken place. He was hopeful that it would load to an adjustment of this very serious question.

§ MR. YOUNGER
thought that on the whole the hon. Gentleman had taken a wise course in the interests of the Bill in moving the adjournment. He was not himself concerned in the matter to which the hon. Gentleman had specially alluded, but he had on the Notice Paper an Amendment dealing with Clause 26 of the Bill, and he thought it extremely unfortunate that the agreed-on date should once again be postponed when counsel and solicitors and all the rest of the usual hangers-on had been brought to London and now had to go back in entire uncertainty as to when the Bill would be brought forward. He did not think he would be present next week to move the Amendment of which he had given notice. His object in rising was to ask that those who were interested in that particular question should in some way be consulted as to the fixing of the date.

§ MR. MORTON (Sutherland)
quite agreed that the question of the delivery of the mails ought to be settled before they let the Bill have a Second Reading. But there were other matters which they wanted to consider, and he did not want anybody to forget the question of the provision of third-class sleepers.

MR. KEIR-HARDIE (Merthyr Tydvil)
hoped the hon. Baronet would consider whether the rights of the employees of this company might not be considered at the same time. He had brought before 1184 the House at Question time a case where six of the emlpoyees had been compelled under a threat of dismissal to withdraw from a public body to which they had been duly elected. That seemed to him a very serious matter, and he was sure in all quarters of the House there would be a desire that that condition of things should not be allowed to continue. The interests affected by the Bill were all matters which might be considered and adjusted on Monday, but unless some action was taken to consult and safeguard the interests of the employees their opposition to the Bill would still be continued. He hoped the hon. Baronet when convening the conference would consider whether the employees could not be represented so as to put their case before, the Board of Trade.

§ SIR H. KEARLEY
said that the conference had been summoned to deal with the mail question, and there would be an opportunity on the Second Reading to raise any other point. If the hon. Member would place himself in communication with him he would be very happy to embrace the opportunity of putting his case before the directors when they were in London.