HC Deb 06 May 1909 vol 4 cc1281-300

Order for Second Reading read.

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

Mr. G. J. WARDLE

I rise to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months, and I do so on the ground that I am opposed to the granting of further powers to this company, because they have not strictly observed the powers that they already possess. In my opinion they have, as a matter of fact, abused the law, and therefore ought not to be granted other powers in this House. I may say, in opposing this Bill, that there is a precedent for the rejection of a Bill of this company only so recently, I think, as 1902. A Bill was then thrown out because the company had not fulfilled its obligations with regard to the rehousing of certain classes of people, I believe round Euston-square, and the present case is much more serious than that. It raises once again the question of amalgamations and working agreements which were discussed not so very long ago in this House. In 1905 the London and North-Western Railway entered into an agreement with the Lancashire and Yorkshire Railway. In 1908 they entered into an agreement with the Midland Railway. Both of these agreements are of a very far-reaching character. Both are without Parliamentary sanction, and both of them are secret. The "Railway News" on 8th August, 1908, referring to this matter, said:— In the case of the 1905 agreement between the London and North-Western and Lancashire and Yorkshire - which has worked so admirably without in any way interfering with the facilities offered to the public, but rather improving them—no Parliamentary sanction was required, and doubtless the arrangement with the Midland will be on the same lines, and will also, therefore, not require to be submitted to Parliament. When the announcement was made with regard to the Midland, also on 8th August, the "Railway News" said:— We are authorised by the Companies concerned to say that the London and North-Western and Midland Companies have arrived at an arrangement of a comprehensive character to endure for a long period of years. —I believe 99 years— Which will it is hoped be the means of enabling considerable economies in working expenses to be effected, while at the same time the public will obtain the advantage of increased facilities for passenger and merchandise traffic. This question of facilities between these two companies is of very large importance. The companies have an immense capital, and serve two very large areas in the country, and the effect of those agreements is a question which has to be considered. The question is not one for the companies alone, although they seem to consider that they can enter into these arrangements, make these working agreements, cooperate in this fashion, without the consent of this House, and that therefore the arrangements must be agreed to. But there is a great deal of mistrust and agitation in the country in consequence of this action on their part, and when a Bill of theirs comes before this House it is practically the only opportunity we have of raising this question publicly, and that is why I desire to do so on this occasion. These companies, both the Midland Company and the North-Western Company, who are both concerned in Bills here tonight—these two companies were granted their powers in order that they might compete. Now, however, they are co-operating, and therefore they are going against the declared intention of Parliament when they granted them the powers which they at present possess. There is an extract here, which I have from the "Birmingham Post," with regard to this particular agreement which I should like to read:— So far as it was possible to gauge the feeling of the commercial world in Birmingham at a time when so many of the leading freighters are away on holiday, the announcement of the proposed combination is regarded with interest but without any great disquiet. But it says:— Siding rebates have been withdrawn and owner's risk imposed which in many directions have gone to the extent of the harm that it lies in the power of the railway monopolists to inflict upon the trader. If the economies which the companies may be able to effect on their working arrangement were to lead them to encourage trade by lightening the burden on railway rates, which has been so sorely complained of, such a result would be cordially welcome. The prevailing feeling, however, is that the shareholders' dividends will be the first care of the railway directors, and that any benefit to the trading community is remote. The question of these companies making these working agreements is one of serious consideration to the public, to the employés, and to the traders of this country. It has resulted, I believe, already in reduced facilities for passengers, in a decreased staff so far as the employés are concerned, and in the withdrawal of some of the facilities for trade. The question that I want to raise here to-night is this: Are these working agreements legal? Are they within the scope of the powers which the companies possess? If they are not, has the President of the Board of Trade, whom I am glad to see in his place, power to interfere with these agreements, and, if so, why has he not exercised that power? These are the plain questions which I want to ask, and may I point out the position with regard to these working agreements? It is a very serious one. When this agreement was first mooted, the "Westminster Gazette" said:— The announcement tells us that this arrangement of a comprehensive character to endure for a long period of years has been arrived at,' and the assumption apparently of all concerned is that Parliamentary sanction or revision is unnecessary. It goes on to say:— The North-Western and the Midland Companies tell us their arrangements would enable considerable economies to be effected, while at the same time the public will obtain the advantage of increased facilities for passenger and merchandise traffic. It may be so; a joint system is not unthinkable which would effect economies without injuring the public, but we have no guarantee of this result other than the assurance of directors whose first interest and duty is to look after their shareholders, and who are going to be relieved by the removal of competition from at least one motive for cultivating the public. It is not the first time this Question of railway amalgamation has been before the House. There is a large number of public Acts dealing with railways. A large number of these Acts deal also with the question of working agreements. The first Act with regard to this matter was passed in 1844, and contains a clause which reads:— Be it enacted that whenever it shall appear to the Lords of the said Committee that any of the provisions of the several Acts of Parliament regulating any railway company or the provisions of this Act or of any general Act relating to railways have not been complied with on the part of any railway company or any of its officers or that any railway company has acted or is acting in a manner unauthorised by the provisions of the Act or Acts of Parliament relating to such railway or in excess of the powers given and objects defined by the said Act or Acts and it would appear to the Lords of the said Committee that it would be for the public advantage that the companies should be restrained from so acting the Lords of the said Committee shall take action to get an injunction in the ordinary way. There is also an Act of 1863, which is very specific with regard to this question of agreements. This Act says that agreements are not to take effect until a vote has been taken of the shareholders, and then only when three-fifths of the votes are in its favour. It further says:— Before the companies enter into the agreement notice of their intention to do so shall be given by them or one of them in a form to be approved by the Board of Trade inserted once at least in each of three successive weeks in some newspaper circulating in the city prescribed in the special Act and if no county is prescribed then in the county or one of the counties in which each railway to the maintenance management use or working whereof the proposed agreement relates or some portion of the railway is situate and the notice shall set forth within what time and in what manner any company or person aggrieved by the proposed agreement and desiring to object thereto may bring the objection to the Board of Trade. Then it goes on to add:— The agreement shall not have any operation until it has been approved by the Board of Trade. I should like to ask whether all these specific requirements have been carried out. I know since then these powers which were then vested in the Board of Trade have been put on to the Railway and Canal Commissioners. An Act was passed also in 1864 which said when companies desired to enter into agreements they might do so, but they had to obtain the consent of the Board of Trade, and then they could do it without a private Act, but they must have a certificate from the Board of Trade. I want to know whether the London and North-Western and Midland Railways in entering into this agreement have carried out all the provisions of these Acts of Parliament, whether they are not going beyond the scope of the Acts which have been passed in their favour, and, therefore, whether this is not a fair opportunity for this House to bring these companies to book for not carrying out the law, and for bringing once more this question of the amalgamation of railway companies to the notice of the House. When the last Bill, the Great Northern, Great Central, and Great Eastern Bill, was before the House the right hon. Gentleman said there was a number of things which these railway companies could do without an Act of Parliament, and he cited some. He cited certain quotations from the Committee which was appointed by this House in 1872 to inquire into the question of railway amalgamation. There are apparently some of these things which they may do, but they do them with certain risks. The right hon. Gentleman did not quote this from the Select Committee which sat on railway amalgamation:— Whether the division of traffic receipts on the joint purse principle is valid at law or not is open to considerable doubt. It is clear that the Courts will not set aside such an arrangement on the ground that it is illegal, in the sense of its being contrary to public policy. But the doubt is whether such an arrangement, which is in fact a sort of partnership, is not ultra vires of each company, and whether it may not therefore be set aside at the instance of a single shareholder. This doubt, the Committee are advised is such as to make it unsafe for companies to enter into such agreements without the sanction of Parliament although there is evidence that they sometimes do so. It goes on to say these arrangements are very objectionable on other grounds. If these working agreements which take place behind the back of Parliament are illegal, I think, for the dignity of this House, it is time that we put our foot down and prevented any more of them being made. Then, further, if competition is to stop on railways, if amalgamations and working agreements are to be the order of the day and the policy for the future, that policy ought not to take place until this House has had a full opportunity of considering the question in all its bearings. I want to know whether the right hon. Gentleman is prepared to appoint some Committee or Commission to go into this question of railway amalgamation. The question is exceedingly important. It is not a mere matter for the shareholders of railway companies. It is not a matter in which the interests of the employés alone are concerned. It is a matter with which the trade and the commerce of this country are also concerned, and upon which industry largely depends. It was said in the last Debate that the capitalists come forward openly to this House, and that there was an opportunity, therefore, of inserting a clause in the Bill which would protect the interests of the employés. We were given the instance of this very agreement as a case where the companies had entered into agreement, and where they were able to do as they liked with regard to their employés without having any such safeguard as it is intended to insert in that Bill. That is one reason why this whole question of railway amalgamation should be inquired into. As a matter of fact a large number of men have been dismissed from the Midland, and at the present moment there is a considerable feeling on the part of a number of the London and North-Western men that their positions are insecure. I believe what they call a kind of Commission is going about inquiring into the status of the staff and the requirements at various places with the object of reducing the staff or disposing of any surplus. Therefore, from whatever point of view we look at this question, I am convinced that one of the most important things which this Parliament has to do is to consider this whole question of railway policy, to do it on this Bill or in some other way, with a view to the requirements of the country, and I beg to move that this Bill be read a second time this day six months.

Mr. WALTER HUDSON

I rise to second the Amendment which has been moved by the hon. Member for Stockport. I do so on the ground that when Parliament gave the power to the companies which they already possess it was not contemplated that that power was exclusively their own to bargain with, and to enable them to make themselves into larger concerns than what had been sanctioned. It was a power, in other words, that the State delegated to those companies, and to claim now the same right as a private firm would do outside in the country to use that power in agreeing with other companies who have like power in creating huge concerns is to claim a right which was never intended. We say that they have no right to vary the power already given. Moreover, this is becoming one of the largest Questions of the present day so far as the future of rail- ways is concerned. We readily admit that we must keep advancing according to the time, and we have no objection to sensible and rational evolution with regard to the railway system of the country, but we do say that the companies at the present time under statute law have not the power which they claim to exercise according to their own will, and to the detriment of the trading community and of the future well-being of their employés. We are aware that if large combinations of railway companies have to be brought about for the public well-being it will mean a diminution in the number of those employed upon railways. To that, if properly regulated and reasonably ordered, we have no objection whatever. Only two or three weeks ago the London and Northwestern Railway Company dismissed a number of their men at Leicester, and told them to go to the Midland Company for employment. I merely mention that as an illustration of what is taking place, and if we are to have a reorganisation of the whole railway system of the country I reiterate what my hon. Friend has said, that we should have a fair and candid inquiry into the whole circumstances. Let us give power to the State Department, if it does not already possess it, to control and order the arrangement properly. We have argued, I think, with a considerable amount of logic that that Department already possesses the power if it would only exercise it. But we are not inclined to quarrel on that point if it has not. We say that before we go any further and before the railway companies put in practice what they have now bargained to do outside of Parliament, let the Government order a proper inquiry in order that Parliament may be enabled to decide upon what lines these huge combinations shall be conducted. After the Debate we had a week or two ago, a very interesting comment was made in the "Westminster Gazette," as follows:— There are extraordinary difficulties in approaching this question piecemeal, and the joint committee will, we predict, quickly find itself compelled to lay down a general policy which more or less covers the whole subject. That is with reference to the Committee Set up on the Bill for the amalgamation of three railway companies quite recently. The paper went on to say:— Behind it all, in our opinion, lies the problem of finding some strong central authority which will act on its own initiative in the defence of the public interest if the guarantee of competition is withdrawn. This is what we want, and we say that the matter should not go a step further, and that the companies should be told distinctly that they must hold their hands and not put into operation any agreement arrived at until this inquiry has been held and a properly ordered system has been arranged if we are to have these combinations of companies. I think the representatives of the railway companies themselves will see the reasonableness of this. I hope they will at least. We are not at all in any captious spirit objecting to this Bill. What we want is a fair understanding in order that we may know exactly what the State is now going to do in the matter of allowing these companies to extend their power, because it is a borrowed power from the State they already possess, and they have no right to take further power without the permission of Parliament. I have pleasure in seconding the Amendment, because I think we shall get a better understanding by discussing the matter. I have something to say on the next Bill when it comes forward. The two Bills stand in the same category with respect to the making of arrangements.

Amendment proposed: "To leave out the word 'now,' and at the end of the Question to add the words 'upon this day six months.'"—[Mr. Wardle.]

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

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Churchill)

I think it might possibly shorten the labours of the House on this Bill and the succeeding Bill if I intervene at this present stage. The Bills themselves are, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, quite unobjectionable. Some of the powers asked for in these Bills are not merely necessary to enable the railway companies to deal with their services, but they also ask for some useful powers, which offer opportunities for employment. Therefore, I do not think there will be any disposition on the part of the House to deny to these Bills that consideration before a Committee, which is all they ask for at the present time, and which they are entitled to receive. There are, however, other aspects of the railway policy which we cannot conceal from our minds, and which were referred to by the two hon. Gentlemen who have just spoken. Even though these Bills have nothing to do in themselves with railway combination, pooling arrangements, amal- gamation, or anything of that character, nevertheless they are opportune. There are two things that I think the House should be informed of. Questions were asked some time ago about the character of the agreement which exists between the Midland and the London and North-western Companies sometime ago. I said I had no statutory powers to require the railway companies to furnish me with particulars of that agreement. Nor have I, but, as a matter of fact, in confidence we were afforded a copy, but only to use in confidence and in good faith, and if I had made the text public I should not deserve to be treated in a confidential manner again. Therefore, I did not answer the question in any decided sense one way or the other, but now that this Bill has come to the House I think it would be right that the House of Commons should ask the companies concerned to place the agreement before the public. I had some conversation with the general managers and superintendents of the railway companies this morning, and I gathered from them that they would authorise me to lay the agreement which they had confidentially shown on the Table of the House. I do not know what the right hon. Gentleman opposite will have to say to that; but I gathered that that might be done. As to the second point, I will be very brief. The loss of the Great Northern, the Great Central, and the Great Eastern Amalgamation Bill was regretted by me. [An HON. MEMBER: "The withdrawal."] Well, the withdrawal. I would have wished to see that measure deliberated upon by a Committee. I believe we would have got a great deal of invaluable information from the examination of that measure. I do not believe that the Committee would have applied excessive pressure to the promoters. I think they would have gained and pointed the moral and the House would then be in a position to deal with other measures of this kind.

However, there is no use in taking up the time of the House even for one moment in deploring and bewailing events which we cannot recall. I agree with hon. Gentlemen opposite when they say that the situation now created does call for amendment. The railway companies have come forward and informed us that there are great economies and improvements, conferring benefits on all parties affected, to be gained by amalgamation. That tallies with the information of the Board of Trade. I have come forward and I have said officially in this House that I believe that these advantages could be obtained. I have always said that I am advised there is great danger of stagnation of development in our railways if amalgamation on proper lines is made impossible, and I have further stated that it is possible for railways to enter into considerable agreements without asking for the sanction of Parliament at all. When those statements have been made and not challenged—I do not think they can be challenged by whichever side—when they are made openly and publicly a situation is created which we cannot leave untouched which we cannot leave with contentment as it stands. Therefore I have been considering very carefully the form which an inquiry should take. I thought of a Royal Commission. I say nothing against Royal Commissions, but in this particular province a Royal Commission generally means that nothing will be done for a very long time, so I am personally very reluctant to place railway matters under the seal and ban so far as action is concerned of a Royal Commission. I have considered the question of a Select Committee or a Joint Committee, and I think a great deal is to be said in favour of that course, especially from the point of view of satisfying the House of Commons and Members of this House. But we are already at the end of the first week in May, and I very much doubt whether a Select Committee could conclude its labours in time by the end of the Session. In fact, I am certain it would be sitting all next year, and it would therefore only to a less extent than would a Royal Commission prevent any Government action in regard to pressing matters in the railway world which require legislation. In those circumstances I have come to the conclusion that the best course at the present time would be to appoint a strong Departmental Committee. I do not mean a Committee of officials, I mean a Committee of powerful experts and persons of public repute that I can summon. Some of them will be Members of Parliament, Members of both Houses of Parliament; others will be experts—though I wish to keep the numbers small. My idea is such a Committee beginning its labours quickly might report to the Board of Trade before the end of the present year, and if the Report suggested the possibility of action there would be time for legislation to be introduced next Session if it was thought necessary. I think on the whole that that is the most practicable course. What we want is not merely inquiry. We want action. It is quite clear that the law as it stands at present is unsatisfactory for all parties, for the parties interested in the railway, for the general public, and for the employés. With the view of facilitating, or at any rate not preventing, action at the earliest possible date that I am led to the conclusion which I venture to put before the House. Assuming that we get satisfactory assurance as to the publication of this agreement, I would suggest in view of the statement I have made that hon. Gentlemen opposite should allow these small Bills to go forward.

Mr. A. MOND

I think the hon. Members who Moved and Seconded this resolution may congratulate themselves on its result so far. The declaration of the President of the Board of Trade is of a satisfactory character so far as concerns those who have been taking an interest in this question of railway amalgamation. All those who have studied this matter are perfectly well aware that it is a difficult and complex subject, and cannot be determined by the President of the Board of Trade in a precipitate manner. We are very pleased indeed to know to-night that his cogitations, which have covered a considerable time, since this question was first brought under his notice, in 1908, by the hon. Member for Stockport, have resulted in the proposed appointment of a strong Departmental Committee, and it is hoped that this Committee when appointed will proceed promptly, and that the evidence required to enable us to form an opinion as to the advantages and disadvantages both to the railway companies, the public, and the employés, will be forthcoming. Whether it will be found that the advantages are as great as are imagined to the railway companies themselves I am a little doubtful, but at any rate the report of a Committee like that seems to be absolutely necessary in order to get the matter out of its present position. The position we are in at present is really rather a curious one, and I am sure we shall be very glad to hear that there is some prospect, in fact we have the assurance, that this agreement, the only knowledge of which we have officially is the Press notice of 1908 between the important companies, the London and North-Western and the Midland, is now going to be placed before us. The position is very curious, because Parliament has passed two important Acts which deal with the question of railway agreements. Parliament has never given the railway companies power to make agreements behind the back of Parliament without coming here or going to the Board of Trade. It seems a most curious anomaly that whereas the Board of Trade has been charged with the duty of seeing whether or not such agreements are or are not ultra vires, the Board of Trade have no power to see what those agreements are. How the Board of Trade can carry out this duty which is thrown upon it by the Acts of 1863 and 1864, sections 3 and 4, without knowing whether such sections do or do not come into operation—and that they cannot possibly do unless they have seen the agreement—seems to me quite incomprehensible, and certainly whatever else is done in the matter, it is obvious that this lacuna in our railway legislation will have to be filled. The Board of Trade have taken rather too humble a view of their powers. I would like to refer to section 17, a very important section of the Railways Regulations Act, 1844, which contains a special provision enabling the Attorney-General to commence proceedings in cases where there is any breach of the statutory provisions, or where the Board of Trade considers that anything is being done detrimental to the public welfare, and that the public interest is endangered. Surely these agreements between two railway companies of the character published in the Press, do certainly endanger the public interest, and I myself think that if the Board of Trade had taken its courage in both hands, and, under that section authorised the Attorney-General to commence proceedings, as they are entitled to do under that section, to settle the legality of the action of the railway companies, I think myself they would have had a very good chance of succeeding before the Railway Commissioners. We are to have copies of the agreement, and then we can form our own opinion as to whether or not it is ultra vires. Up to now we have had to be satisfied with the opinions expressed by the railway companies and their lawyers. It would be more satisfactory to us to form our own opinion on this subject. But the speech made by my right hon. Friend certainly, so far as I am concerned, alters the situation, and I certainly think that if he gets the assurance, which I understand he will get, the Mover and Seconder of the Resolution will be well advised in withdrawing their opposition to the Bill, so as to show clearly that what they are opposed to is not the progress of railway companies in this country in any sense whatsoever, but that we do not want stagnation. We do want to know not only that they keep to the law as it is, but that the law will be put on such a basis that the rights and interests of all parties will be duly safeguarded. If the railway companies would treat the community with more frankness and with less legal technicality, a good deal of the difficulty which has occurred in the past would not occur in the future. After all, if they would only treat the traders as partners with them in their business, interested in their welfare as they are in ours, they would very soon find a basis of accommodation. The railway companies must know that they have no interest in hampering us in a vexatious manner, and if we knew that some part of the savings were to be handed over to those who are the life-blood of the companies—namely, the traders, on whose prosperity the companies depend—if we saw that every time amalgamation did not lead to the withdrawal of facilities and the restriction of facilities, and, in many cases, an increase of the rate, I think this Question that has divided so long the traders and railway companies, and which has created a great deal of bitter feeling which ought to be unnecessary, we might hope for railway development in this country, bringing with it not only security, but the friendly co-operation of the trading community.

Colonel LOCKWOOD

I thank hon. Members below the Gangway for the extremely courteous and kindly terms which they used in bringing forward this Motion. The matter is one which concerns the companies very deeply, and still more the public. The President of the Board of Trade has foreshadowed the whole question as to the powers of amalgamation. The companies believe that they are acting entirely in conformity with their powers, and that they are not straining those powers in the slightest degree. Of course, when Parliament makes further regulations and rules as to the amalgamation of railways we shall observe them not only in the letter, but in the spirit. It is not always convenient to railway companies to produce the terms of an agreement. At the same time I should like to assure hon. Members below the Gangway that there is nothing to conceal in those terms, and they are therefore perfectly ready to make public the terms of the agreement between the London and North-Western Railway Company and the Midland Company. The hon. Member for Stockport has raised the question as to the positions of the men in the future. We are extremely anxious that we should not dismiss men in consequence of the agreement, and I should like to tell him that out of a total staff of 1,717 persons affected we are making arrangements between the London and North-Western and the Midland Company in regard to that matter. None have been dismissed, and only 51 have been reduced in their pay, the average reduction being 1s. 6d. per week per man. The average reduction per man being 1s. 6d. per week, we have found a place for every man discharged, and only in 51 out of 1,717 cases have there been any reductions in pay. In all cases, whether salaries or wages, they retain their positions on the provident and insurance funds, so that hon. Members will see that besides being careful about dividends, about which railway companies usually are so careful, we have thought a great deal of the men who might be affected.

I see below the Gangway my hon. Friend, who might be likely to raise a question connected with third-class sleeping carriages. I should like, if possible, to shorten the Debate, and I will take this opportunity of referring to the matter. Last time he raised the question, I told him I would do my best to impress it on the general manager to provide third-class sleepers, at all events, for my hon. Friend. I know my hon. Friend the Member for Sutherland will give me credit for having endeavoured to impress on the general manager his wishes on this subject. I am sorry to be obliged to tell him unequivocally that I have been absolutely unable to convince the general manager of the necessity for this accommodation, and the reason that he gave me for that is this: Cost of maintenance, additional rolling stock, increased expense of running additional trains long distances, and the reduction that would occur by the migration of first and second-class passengers to third class without any compensating advantage in the number of passengers. I am anxious, if possible, to induce my hon. Friends below the Gangway to withdraw their Amendment and allow the Bill to get a second reading.

Mr. W. P. BEALE

I think it is right I should follow my right hon. Friend by saying that I am in favour on the part of the Midland Railway Company, and that we are equally willing that the agreement should be open to examination by any hon. Gentleman who would like to see it. I think there is a certain amount of misapprehension about the nature and about the supposed secrecy of those agreements. I do not see any reason why they should not see them, except that the directors of the company do not put every detail of their administration before the mass of the shareholders, who have many diverse and conflicting interests in other ways. I think that there is nothing in this agreement that can be called illegal, but, however, hon. Members may judge of that for themselves. To clear away every misapprehension, I should like to make one remark about the point of view from which hon. Gentlemen below the Gangway have referred to this agreement. That seems to be a misapprehension expressed in so many words by the Mover of the Amendment that railway companies were granted their powers in order that they might compete. I know where the idea has sprung from, and I think I can show hon. Gentlemen exactly how it was. In old times it was with great difficulty that any company could get a Bill passed to compete with companies in existence, and even up to the present time the fact that a proposed Bill will compete with a company, and that competition is offered gives primâ facie the right to the company in existence to oppose. Such a position should be regarded to such an extent as a monopoly, and when they did not serve the company properly then the competing man came in. Up to the present time that view has been taken.

I know in recent years when the cry of cheap coal for London came in the competition then increased, but it has never been a fundamental proposition that railway companies should be encouraged to compete with one another. I think if hon. Gentlemen will consider the matter they will see that it is impossible that such should be looked upon as an obligation, for by what possible machinery could you force two people to compete with one another when they did not want to do so? The real point is if they do not serve the public properly, if they use freedom from competition to reduce fair terms to traders, or to withdraw existing facilities to traders then in that case, of course, you meet them, as the hon. Member for Chester meets them, by opposing them when they come here for further facilities. We have heard about the result of these agreements being the discharge of employés. I am sure at the present day they do not object to reasonable economic arrangements for saving labour. They would not object to the introduction of a crane that might economise a certain amount of labour. The day has gone by for that kind of objection. They recognise that reasonable economies tending to the development of the railway are as much for their interests as for the companies themselves. I hope on those grounds that hon. Gentlemen will be willing to allow the second reading.

Mr. A. C. MORTON

I am very much obliged to the hon. Member for what he has said, and for the kindly interest he has taken in the question of the provision of third-class "sleepers" at all times. I am only sorry he has not been successful, but that is no reason why we should not continue the agitation until we get justice done to all classes of His Majesty's subjects. The point I always wish to make is this, that if the companies give sleeping accommodation to first-class passengers, then third-class passengers are entitled to it, because a railway is a monopoly, and subject to the fixing of price each class ought to have similar accommodation. I should like to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether this inquiry he has mentioned will cover this question of third-class sleeping accommodation.

Mr. CHURCHILL was understood to reply in the negative.

Mr. MORTON

Then what I complain of is the desertion of the Board of Trade on this subject. When I brought this matter forward in 1906 the Board of Trade promised an inquiry. I do not know why they now throw overboard the late Parliamentary Secretary, as apparently they do. They promised an inquiry as to what could be done to induce the companies to carry out this proposal, which the Board of Trade at that time admitted was fair and reasonable. Why have the Board of Trade now given up the matter altogether? All that they have done is apparently to allow the railway companies to increase the cost of week-end tickets between Scotland and London by 20 per cent.; so that instead of doing us good the Board of Trade have allowed evil to be done. This is what the Parliamentary Secretary said on 19th March, 1907:— As regards the question of third-class sleeping accommodation he last year had given certain pledges— They were pledges which ought not to be so lightly repudiated. as to the action of the Board of Trade on the ground that it was thought, judging by the growing feeling in the House, that something should be done by the companies. This grievance had been placed before the representative of the railway companies in the House, and an opportunity had been taken to see the general managers of the two lines whose Bills were, then before the House. The general managers of the various railway companies had communicated their decision to the Board of Trade on the 3rd October (1906) wherein it was said that after fully considering the suggestion mentioned by the hon. Member, the heavy pecuniary loss that would be incurred induced the companies to come to the conclusion that they would not be justified in providing the suggested accommodation. Later in the same speech, the hon. Gentleman said:— The Board of Trade had not the opportunity of helping the hon. Gentleman that night in his desire to obtain that accommodation save by expressing their sympathy. The Instruction which his hon. Friend wished to move was out of order. If it had been in order the Board of Trade would have accepted it. Therefore it is clear what the Board of Trade meant at that moment:— He now suggested to his hon. Friend that he would benefit the cause which he had at heart if he withdrew his Motion and allowed the Bill to have its second reading. He hoped he would take cognisance of the fact that the Board of Trade would press to have the experiment tried in order to see if it was, as they thought it was, a paying proposition. Instead of pressing them in the direction I wanted, the Board of Trade now apparently repudiate the matter altogether, and will not even have an inquiry:— That was not an unfair proposal. Although they were sometimes charged with making expensive changes on railways, they had not done so, and he would not advocate the third-class sleeping car experiment if he was not absolutely convinced that it would open to the company not a losing but a profitable trade. He hoped the right hon. gentleman representing the North-Western Railway would believe him when he said that he had only spoken in the way he had because he thought the railway company in this matter were standing in their own light. On 18th July, 1907, when I brought up the matter on another company's Bill, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said:— The Board of Trade always endeavoured to induce railway companies to supply third-class sleeping accommodation, and personally he believed that they would not find it a losing matter. The only point raised by the Board of Trade is that it was suggested that I should try and pass a Bill to compel the companies to do this. That suggestion did not come from the Board of Trade. It came from Mr. Speaker, who once suggested, when I had an Instruction down which he had to rule out of order, that I could bring in a Bill. But it is impossible to carry out that suggestion, because it is nonsense to suppose that I can carry a Bill through this House in reference to railway companies. I do not know that the Government themselves would have time to carry a Bill of that sort, and certainly for me to get the time or opportunity is absolutely impossible. I am very sorry that the Board of Trade should in so short a time alter their policy. The Board of Trade should represent the public, not the railways companies. They ought, in the first place, to consider and consult the representatives of the public, and leave the railway companies to look after themselves. The railway companies are much stronger than the right hon. Gentleman and his Department, and, therefore, they have no right to his assistance in the first place, but the public have. Why is the policy laid down for the Member for Devonport, who stated that he spoke in the name of the Board of Trade, to be thrown overboard? The only point of any value put forward by the railway companies is that the provision of third-class sleeping accommodation would not pay. They have even gone so far as to say that the first-class sleeping accommodation does not pay. I believe that that is quite correct, and also that the first-class carriages do not pay. You have only to look at the empty first-class carriages and the packed third-class coaches to realise that the profits made by the railways come from the third-class passengers, and not from the first. But if they do not make money out of their present sleeping accommodation, who has to make up the loss? The third-class passengers. It is they who pay the railway companies, and if favour is to be shown to any class it ought to be to the third class. If all these things were taken into consideration they ought to lead the companies in the same direction as I am glad to say my right hon. Friend has been led, namely, in favour of this accommodation; because it is a well-known fact that every one of the reforms which from time to time we have pressed upon the railway companies has in the end been in their favour, and done them good rather than harm. The better the railway companies treat their customers the better they will pay. I do not know that it is worth while taking a Division to-night, because I am not opposing this Bill, nor have I opposed any other, simply for the purpose of getting rid of the Bill or of doing the company any harm. What I want is third class sleeping accommodation and any other improvements I can get. I desire, if possible, to have some reply from the Board of Trade, and to tell them that it will not do for them to lay down a policy one year and repudiate it the next. That will neither do for the Members of this House, nor for the public outside, who are the masters of the Board of Trade. I want to have it distinctly understood, although I may not take a Division tonight—because this is somewhat wrapped up with other matters—that there will be other stages of this Bill to be taken on which I can take a Division. I do want the Board of Trade, and the House, to take a serious view of this, and at least to go so far as to say that the company should try it. The Board of Trade should give us their influence to get this reform carried out. I hope, although this is the eleventh hour, that the right hon. Gentleman will allow the Committee of Inquiry that he has spoken of to also consider this question.

Mr. WARDLE

In view of the very satisfactory statement which we have received from the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Epping, and from the right hon. Gentleman the President of the Board of Trade, I desire the leave of the House to withdraw this Motion. In doing so, I should like to say that I made no charge with regard to their action towards their employés of the London and North-Western Railway Company. I desire to say that I appreciate the action they have taken in this matter.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. HODGE

had given notice of the following proposal: "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following Clause:—

"The company shall pay to all its workmen employed in the construction, repairing, and engineering establishments, and any contractor engaged on work for the company shall pay to all the workmen in his employ, not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies in the district where such men are employed, and shall observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour; and if there shall be no such standard rate of wages or recognised hours and proper conditions of labour in such district, the company or the contractor shall pay to such workmen not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies customarily executing such class of work, and observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour prevailing in respect of the particular trade in which such men are employed. These conditions shall also apply to any sub-contractor engaged on work for the company."

Mr. SPEAKER

The Instruction of the hon. Member is not in order, because it would seek to impose on one or two railway companies a clause which should be imposed on all by general legislation. It is also in a wrong form, as it dictates to a Committee the express terms of a clause before the Committee has had an opportunity of considering the Bill.

Mr. BOWERMAN

had given notice of his intention to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to insert the following Clause:—

"The company shall pay to all its workmen employed in the construction, repairing, and engineering establishments, and any contractor engaged on work for the company shall pay to all the workmen in his employ, not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies in the district where such men are employed, and shall observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour; and, if there shall be no such standard rate of wages or recognised hours and proper conditions of labour in such district, the company or the contractor shall pay to such workmen not less than the minimum standard rate of wages recognised by trade societies customarily executing such class of work, and observe the recognised hours and proper conditions of labour prevailing in respect of the particular trade in which such men are employed. These conditions shall also apply to any sub-contractor engaged on work for the company."

Mr. SPEAKER

The same ruling applies to the hon. Member for Deptford.

Bill read a second time, and committed.

Main Question put, and agreed to.