Commons Sitting of 14 July 1911

Preamble
The House met at Twelve of the clock, Mr. Speaker in the Chair.

PRIVATE BUSINESS.
Dover Graving Dock Bill,
Liverpool Overhead Railway Bill,
Lords Amendments considered, and agreed to.
Star Life Assurance Society Bill [Lords],
Read the third time, and passed, with Amendments.
London and South-Western Railway Bill [Lords] (by Order),
Third Reading deferred till Tuesday next.
Port of London (First Election of Members) Provisional Order Bill,
Read the third time, and passed.
Local Government Provisional Order (No. 15) Bill,
As amended, considered; to be read the third time upon Monday next.
Local Government Provisional Orders (No. 1) Bill (by Order),
Consideration of Lords Amendments deferred till Monday next.

TELEPHONE TRANSFER BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
Mr. SAMUEL ROBERTS: I am glad to be able to announce to the House that an arrangement has been come to between the National Telephone Company and the Postmaster-General on the points raised in this Bill. I have got a Motion down to refer the Bill to a Select Committee in case the Second Reading is carried, and I thought it right I should state the reason why I do not move.
Mr. JOYNSON-HICKS: I have a Motion down to resist the Second Reading of the Bill in order that I might discuss further with the Postmaster-General the claims which the staff of the National Telephone Company have made, through me, for the consideration of their position, but I am pleased to say it will not be necessary to proceed with that Motion. I saw a deputation of the staff two nights ago, and they told mo they had been received by the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General, and they had placed a very full statement of their views before them. They had been met by the Postmaster-General and the Assistant Postmaster-General with great kindness, and they have every reason to hope and believe—and in that I quite concur—that their just claims, which are the only claims they and I desire to press, will be met with justice and fairness by the Postmaster-General. The Postmaster-General has-not, I quite understand, come to a decision on some outstanding points, but he has-given the staff an assurance that he will very shortly put before them a memorandum embracing his decisions; and in any case, if there are some points outstanding, ample time will be given for the staff to-discuss them before the Committee stage, and I or some other Member will be able-to deal with them then. Under those-circumstances, it will not be necessary for me to move the rejection. There is one point with regard to the senior or superior staff I should like to mention to the Postmaster-General. There are, in addition to the ordinary trade union type of employés, some twelve members of the staff who are in receipt of salaries of upwards of £700 a year. Those gentlemen, who have really made the Telephone Company, who most of them have been in its service for many years past, and who have devoted their lives to the extension of the system, are not at present taken over by the Post Office. I am bound to say, speaking from the public point of view, I cannot conceive how the Government will be able to take over such a vast undertaking with such an enormous number of servants and with ramifications in all parts of the country unless they come to some arrangement with at least a fair proportion of these twelve senior members. As far as I can gather from the correspondence between the Postmaster-General and one of the seniors of these twelve gentlemen, the Postmaster-General is not averse to taking some of them into his service, but there seems to be a difference of opinion on the

637
question of salary. These gentlemen are in receipt of larger salaries than those which the heads of the Post Office have hitherto received or are now receiving. I can quite understand the difficulty the Postmaster-General will have, but, so far as I have been able to gather, it really is a question of coyness on both sides. Some of these senior officials, at all events, are by no means indisposed to enter the service of the Government, and I really gather from such correspondence as I have received—I cannot read it, because it is marked by the Post Office "Confidential"—the Government are not indisposed to consider the question of taking some of them, but they are rather staggered by the salaries they are now receiving. All I venture to suggest is that no question of dignity should be allowed on either side to stand in the face of the public interest. I am speaking now not entirely on behalf of the staff, but on behalf of the public interest; and I say it would be desirable the Postmaster-General and the members of this higher section of the staff should come together without loss of time. I think it would be only right and not inconsistent with his dignity that the Postmaster-General should have an interview with them, and himself suggest what he would be prepared to pay. I believe his views are that he is unable himself to suggest a figure, and naturally these gentlemen do not like to suggest a lower figure. Here are two parties more or less at arms length. A little courtesy on both sides would be very much to the public advantage as, without the assistance of at least some of these, if you like, highly paid, highly technical, and highly intelligent officials, it would be exceedingly difficult to really carry out the transfer in the public interest. I think the Postmaster-General is treating the ordinary staff with a fairness which gives rise to the hope that their claim will be satisfactorily met in the public interest. I hope, therefore, he will be able to make some arrangements with the higher officials.
Mr. LEACH: I want to ask the right hon. Gentleman one or two questions. Can he assure the House that the ordinary staff, when taken over, will not suffer in their wages, hours of labour, or as to their superannuation? Will they be treated like all other employés of the Post Office staff? Upon the answers to these questions much depends.
Mr. JAMES HOPE: I was prepared originally to oppose this Bill by every method which my Parliamentary experience suggested, but after the very satisfactory statement of the hon. Member for the Brentford Division (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) I will reserve my energies for some other-measure of the Government. I do not propose to oppose this Bill further. The only matters I have to raise now are obviously points which can be dealt with more appropriately in Committee. I should like to congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on having come to what I understand to be very reasonable terms with those concerned.
Sir GILBERT PARKER: I, too, have no desire to detain the House. I do not propose to persist in my Amendment for the rejection of the Bill. There were points of difference between the Post Office and the company, and had they not been settled there might have been a Debate which would not have been very satisfactory to the Government. I am extremely glad that an agreement has been come to, both on account of the employés of the National Telephone Company and of the company and of the Post Office. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on his conciliatory methods which have produced so satisfactory a result.
Mr. BRADY: I join in the congratulatory references to the arrangement which: has been come to between the Postmaster-General and the staff of the National Telephone Company. I speak especially with reference to the staff in Dublin, and I am glad to say I have heard to-day that arrangements have been arrived at which are satisfactory not only to the Postmaster-General, but to the staff. Should it be necessary at a later stage to place the views of the staff again before the right hon. Gentleman I feel sure he will be, as in the past, prepared to give adequate consideration to them. I congratulate the right hon. Gentleman on the result which has been arrived at.
Mr. WATT: I should like to point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the authorities in Scotland are desirous that nothing should be done to prejudice the existing rights of local bodies to apply to the Postmaster-General for a licence to carry on a telephone service in their own area, under the provisions of the Act of 1899. They would like to see words inserted in the Bill securing that, and they would also like a distinct assurance to the

639
same effect at this stage. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will not discourage the establishment of these local exchanges.
Mr. ARNOLD WARD: I do not propose to persist with my Motion to refer this Bill to a Select Committee, but I should like to emphasise the point made by the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks) that the case of the officials of the National Telephone Company receiving over £700 a year should be very carefully considered by the Post Office. I feel sure it is in the public interest that the men who have trained up this great army of subordinates and who enjoy their confidence should be taken over and should continue to fill offices of responsibility after the business has been transferred to the Post Office. I quite recognise the difficulty of the situation, and I am quite sure a suggestion from the Post Office would form the basis of a very satisfactory settlement as to their position.
The POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Mr. Herbert Samuel): I am very glad that the House is not to be troubled to-day with a prolonged Debate on the subject of this Bill. On a recent occasion, when moving the Money Resolution, on which the Bill is founded, I found it necessary, I am sorry to say, to detain the House for a long period in dealing with the many considerations which are raised by this large and important measure. To-day my remarks may be compressed within a much smaller compass. It is the case, as has been stated by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. Roberts), that we have been able to arrive at an understanding with the representatives of the company with regard to two or three outstanding points which were really the result of misunderstanding rather than of disagreement. The company appear to have formed the opinion that I was anxious to vary the terms of the agreement entered into with them by the Postmaster-General of the day in. 1905 to the company's disadvantage, and to bring in legislation to alter that legal agreement. No such thought entered my mind. I think it would be a very improper procedure that, a legal agreement having been entered into, a Minister should ask Parliament to intervene and alter it to the prejudice of one party. I never intended to introduce any provisions into this Bill which were inconsistent with the agreement made with my predecessor,
640
who was then Lord Stanley, in 1905. However, after personal discussion with the representatives of the company, I have been able to arrange that the wording of the Bill—in some cases the point at issue is only a question of drafting — shall be altered in order that there shall be no room for doubt that the Bill does tally with the agreement. In certain matters, such as the right of access for the purposes of inspection, we have both agreed that it can be as effectively arranged by mutual interchange of undertakings as by a Clause in the Bill. In a quarter of an hour all these points have been settled, and the House need not be troubled with them.
With respect to the staff, I am obliged to the hon. Member for Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks), who has taken so much interest in the matter, and to the other hon. Members who have spoken, for the remarks they have made. It is, of course, my desire, and I have often expressed it, in dealing with this question to do full justice to the members of the staff, and to secure that their interests shall be properly safeguarded. I can assure hon. Members that the new employés of the Post Office will be treated with the same consideration as the old employés who are doing similar work; and in several respects the position of the National Telephone Company's employés will be greatly bettered by the transfer. About 10,000 of them will for the first time have pensionable rights. That is no small advantage to that large body of people. Several points of detail have been under discussion between the associations, which are very representative of the company's staff, and myself, and I have been in communication with the Treasury with respect to several of them. Many of them have been already settled. One or two are not quite completed. My hon. Friend, the Assistant Postmaster-General, has given a pledge on my behalf, that I will again meet the staff before the Committee Stage of the Bill, if they desire to see me. I think all the remaining points, or almost all of them can be satisfactorily settled. We shall be able, I hope, to settle the position of a considerable proportion of those classes of the staff whose position was previously unsettled. The Treasury has consented to the establishment of a number of them, and with regard to the rest we propose that an equitable allowance will be made to safeguard them against loss. The question has also

641
been raised of the twelve senior officers who are receiving salaries of over £700 a year. Of the twelve, for the present the Company are unwilling to part with five of them, as the Company will need their services to assist in the preparation and prosecution of their case before the arbitrators. With respect to some of the others they have nearly attained the age of sixty, which is the ordinary age for retirement from the Civil Service, and it will not be considered desirable to continue the employment of such men as are very nearly at the age of retirement. With respect to the others, there are some certainly whom we hope we shall be able to bring into the Post Office employment, and shall be very glad indeed to have the advantage of their long experience and their capacity. Final arrangements are not yet completed; but I can assure the hon. Members that no exaggerated desire to maintain the dignity of myself and my Department will keep me from approaching them as to the actual terms of remuneration they may receive.
The hon. Member for Glasgow (Mr. Watt) asked me whether there is anything which would prejudice the opportunity of municipalities to undertake municipal telephone services if they so desire in future. There is nothing in the Bill to prejudice them. The Act of 1899, which empowers the local authorities to conduct telephone systems if they so wish, remains, and is not affected by the new measure. My own inclination, as I have made quite clear on various occasions to the House, is opposed to the municipalisation of telephones, and I think expert opinion throughout the country is also opposed to the municipalisation of telephones. I have received no request from any corporation to embody any municipal system of telephones in this Bill. The Association of Municipal Corporations has not approached me, nor has the Glasgow Corporation passed any resolution. Only a certain number of individuals are interested in the matter. I fully recognise and agree, however, that nothing should be done to prejudice future municipalities in the matter. Nothing is being done to prejudice them now. If some of my -successors, or a future House of Commons, come to think that a municipal service is the best for the management of telephony it will be fully within their power, without legislation of the Post-
642
master-General or the House of Commons, to secure that municipal licences should be issued. I think these remarks cover all the points that have been raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield (Mr. J. Hope), for St. Stephen's Green (Mr. Brady), and Brentford (Mr. Joynson-Hicks). I thank the House for the reception which has been given to the Second Reading of the Bill.
Lord HENRY BENTINCK: I am sorry to have to rise at a rather unfortunate moment, but I wish to say a few words on the case of the corporation of the city of Nottingham. I have been asked to point out to the Postmaster-General the position of some corporations with regard to wayleaves. Some of these corporations have in the past been in receipt of substantial sums for the right of way-leaves. It is now assumed that when the Bill becomes law the Postmaster-General will have the privilege of wayleaves without any payment at all. The corporation of Nottingham have not been in the habit of charging the telephone company for wayleaves, but in return they have had the privilege of having instalments at a reduced rate. I hope the Postmaster-General will see the reasonableness of the request that, if there is to be no right of payment for wayleaves, the corporation should have the right of having instalments inserted at a lower rate. I hope he will be able to give us some assurance upon this point, and, if he can, the corporation will be extremely grateful.
Mr. HERBERT SAMUEL: I can only speak by leave of the House, having exhausted my right to speak on the Second Reading. I am sorry I am unable to give the Noble Lord the assurance which he desires. The Postmaster-General does not pay for wayleaves either for the telegraphs or the telephones to the local authorities. He does not pay the local authorities for the use of the public streets for the existing Post Office telephone service, and it would create a great inequality if in respect of the new telephone service we were to pay certain towns for wayleaves, whereas in respect to the old telephone service we pay nothing to other towns. The Post Office telephone service is a public service for the use of the community, and the effect of paying wayleaves to the local authorities for the use of their streets would be that they would get something for their ratepayers, whilst those of the general community who

643
were using the public service would have to pay more. In the opinion of Parliament, in the past, there is no reason why the public highways, which are for the use of all, should not be used for this public service. Of course there are many conditions which apply to a public service which could not apply to a service worked by a company for private profit. I certainly should not be prepared to ask the House to depart by legislation, for it would be necessary to have legislation, from that policy which has been adopted in years gone by, with the approval, I may add, of both sides of the House, for in the late Government Lord Stanley, the Postmaster-General, held the same view as that which I am now expressing. "With respect to giving the telephone service at a lower rate to certain people for the grant of wayleaves, that would give rise to very great difficulties, because if that concession were made to a local authority, then, at once, private individuals who granted wayleaves would require their telephones also at a cheaper rate, and would probably threaten to terminate the agreements for "wayleaves unless we gave them telephones at a lower rate. That would involve a very heavy cost on the telephone service which would have to be recouped from the pockets of the taxpayer or else from the subscribers to the telephone service in the form of higher subscriptions.
Mr. BURDETT-COUTTS: I wish to ask the right hon. Gentleman if we shall have an opportunity in Committee of discussing the very important question to the taxpayers of the amount to be paid to the National Telephone Company for apparatus. The record of the National Telephone Company is a very unworthy one, as providing an efficient telephone service for a great commercial community, and this must be owing, in large measure, to the inefficiency of its apparatus. In the interest of the taxpayers I think the greatest possible care should be exercised as to the condition of the apparatus in order to avoid this country being saddled with the matériel of an organisation which has shown itself, compared with other countries, particularly the United States of America, incapable of providing an improved and satisfactory service for the Metropolis. Will this question come under review?
The ASSISTANT POSTMASTER-GENERAL (Captain Norton): There will be ample opportunity before the arbitra-
644
tors. Provision was made in 1905 that it should be referred to the arbitrators.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Monday next, 17th July.

POULTRY BILL.
Read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

ISLE OF MAN (CUSTOMS) BILL.
Considered in Committee.
(IN THE COMMITTEE.)
[Mr. WHITLEY in the Chair.]
Question proposed, "That Clause I stand part of the Bill."
Mr. BOOTH: I should like a word of explanation as to why special legislation is necessary for the Isle of Man. It is a very interesting island, and the connection between it and this country I know is very complicated, both in legal and in political procedure. The question arises—and that is why I want a little light thrown upon it —in reference to the National Insurance Bill. If the Secretary to the Treasury would give some explanation of what the financial relations are, it might simplify matters.
The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the TREASURY (Mr. Hobhouse): This is an annual Bill which has to be passed in order to regulate the importation and exportation of the articles as set out in this Clause. The duties which are referred to are, in the first instance, an additional Customs Duty on tea, 1d.; a Customs Duty on tobacco and spirits, 6d. in each case; and a duty on beer of 4s. for thirty-six gallons. The Bill is brought in in accordance with immemorial custom.
Question, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill," put, and agreed to.
Bill reported without Amendment, and ordered for Third Reading upon Monday next.

GENEVA CONVENTION BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Colonel Seely): This Bill arises out of the Geneva Convention which met in 1906, and the actual matter was first raised by our own Minister at Berne, under the directions of Lord Lansdowne. In a letter which he addressed to the President of the Swiss Republic, he said:—
"The Red Cross flag and armlet prescribed by Article VII. of the Convention are, in most countries, not protected by legislation, and their employment is open to serious abuse. Having regard to this abuse, the British military authorities are of opinion that authority to use the Red Cross flag and badge should be granted only to specified naval and military departments; that the unauthorised use should be subject to heavy penalties; and that improper, fraudulent or dishonourable employment of the flag or badge by authorised persons should be subject to severe punishment."
On that letter the matter was brought before the Geneva Convention, and it was unanimously decided that measures should be taken to prevent fraudulent or dishonourable employment of the flag, and to limit it entirely to the Red Cross Societies which assist the sick and wounded in time of war. All the great Powers except two have passed the necessary legislation, namely, Austria, Germany, Russia, Italy, and the United States. France has introduced a Bill which I think has not yet passed through all its stages. We have also to fulfil our part of the bargain, which no doubt the House will be willing and indeed anxious to do, seeing that it was at our instigation that this necessary reform was first suggested. Turkey has not yet completed her adhesion, owing to the difficulty of the acknowledgment of the Red Crescent, but that does not affect its binding nature upon us. The Bill consists of only two Clauses, and it will be seen that while penalties are provided for the improper use of the Red Cross, in the third Sub-section the time of four years is given to those who have been in the habit hitherto of using this emblem. I trust the House will give its assent to the Second Reading of the Bill, as it will fulfil our obligations to the other great Powers of the world and will, of course, help forward to a certain degree the great work of the Red Cross.
Question, "That the Bill be now read a second time," put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

EDUCATION (ADMINISTRATIVE PROVISIONS) (No. 2) BILL.
Order for Second Reading read.
Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Trevelyan): I do not think there is anything in the Bill which is objected to generally in the House. Its provisions are quite small and unimportant matters connected with administration, but there is one Clause which I understand there is some objection taken to—Clause 4. We are perfectly ready in regard to that Clause to satisfy objectors to it who think it is too wide an extension, and although I am very anxious to get it I would not press it if I could not satisfy the objections which are raised.
Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: I have had some private conversation with the hon. Gentleman, and I understand that he will in Committee endeavour to meet my objections. I am very anxious, if possible, to come to an agreement with him. I understand that if he cannot, he will drop the Clause.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: I should like to have some further particulars with reference to Clause 3. I find that Clause deals with by-laws under which the architectural arrangements as to the disposition and placing of schools are to be removed practically out of the control of the local authority. They will have comparatively no control in these matters, because the Board of Education will be able to override any decision of a local authority. That does not seem a desirable arrangement, because the local authority and the people in the locality, who have to pay out of the rates for the erection of buildings, have the buildings continually before them, and if the plans are not satisfactory to them, then clearly they have an eyesore in their midst over which they have no control. Before we pass the Second Reading of the Bill I think the hon. Gentleman should give us some sound reason why it should be necessary to take statutory powers to override the decision of the local authority in the matter.
Mr. TREVELYAN: I should like to tell the hon. Gentleman what the origin of this Clause is. We have been making in-

647
quiries through a Departmental Committee as to how local authorities could cheapen buildings for schools, and it was found from the evidence that in certain districts the local authorities were working under antiquated by-laws, which resulted in plans having to be made for buildings which were very much more expensive than the education authority or the Board of Education considered necessary. The local authorities will always, of course, be able, in the interest of sanitation, or any other sufficient reason, to insist on what the plans should be where there are antiquated by-laws, which really cause unnecessary local expense. The Clause will enable the local authority to go past these antiquated by-laws. There is no objection on the part of the local authorities that I am aware of.
Sir HILDRED CARLILE: May I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the local authority will be consulted, not only upon the sanitary arrangements, but the esthetic arrangements to be made.
Mr. TREVELYAN: In most cases we do not get the plans until they have come before the local authority.
Question put, and agreed to.
Bill accordingly read a second time, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Monday next.

SMALL LANDHOLDERS (SCOTLAND) [SALARIES, ETC.].
Considered in Committee.
Resolved, "That, for carrying out the provisions of any Act of the present Session to encourage the formation of Small Agricultural Holdings in Scotland, it is expedient to authorise—

(i.) the payment, out of the Consolidated Fund, of the salaries of the Chairman and of each of the other Members of the Land Court;

(ii.) the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament, of—

(a) the salaries and remuneration of the Agricultural Commissioners (or any other body constituted for the purpose of dealing with agriculture in Scotland) and other persons appointed or employed by them and by the Land Court, and the expenses incurred by the Land
648
Court and the Agricultural Commissioners (or any other body as aforesaid) in the execution of their duties;

(b)an annual sum not exceeding one hundred and eighty-five thousand pounds for the use of the Agricultural Commissioners (or any other body as aforesaid);

(c)compensation in certain cases to members and officers of the Crofters Commission, and officers of the Congested Districts (Scotland) Commissioners."—[Mr. Gulland.]

Resolution to be reported upon Monday next.

BILLS NOT PRINTED.
Mr. GULLAND: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
Mr. BOOTH: I wish to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I have been to the Vote Office and that I find there are six Bills which are not yet printed. One of them was only introduced in the House a few days ago, and I have taken the trouble to ascertain that it will be printed to-morrow. The other five which are not printed are: Cottage Homes (No. 2) Bill, Imprisonment of Debtors (Abolition) Bill, Old Metal Dealers Act (1861) Amendment Bill, Public Health Act (1875) Amendment (Water Rights) Bill, and Sale of Intoxicating Liquors on Sunday Bill. I want to know whether I am entitled to put a question on the Notice Paper to the Member who introduced each Bill asking when he intends to have the Bill printed.
Lord BALCARRES: I do not see the Old Metal Dealers Bill on the Paper.
Mr. BOOTH: It was introduced by the hon. Member for the Ecclesall Division of Sheffield (Mr. Samuel Roberts).
Mr. SPEAKER: It is not on the Paper to-day. It is perfectly open to the hon. Member to put any question relating to any Order of the day.
Question put, and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly, at Seven minutes before One o'clock, till Monday next, 17th July.

PETITIONS PRESENTED DURING THE WEEK.
The following Petitions were presented during the week and ordered to lie upon the Table:—

TUESDAY.
Telegraph Construction Bill—Petitions against (praying to be heard by counsel)— from Great North of Scotland Railway

651
Company, and, London, Tilbury, and Southend Railway Company; referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

WEDNESDAY.
Workmen's Compensation Amendment (Share Fishermen) Bill — Petitions in favour, from Fleetwood, and Hull.

THURSDAY.
Burgh Police (Scotland) Amendment Bill—Petition from Glasgow, against.
Telegraph Construction Bill—Petition of the Glasgow and South Western Railway Company, against (praying to be heard by counsel); referred to the Select Committee on the Bill.

FRIDAY.
Asylum Officers (Employment, Pensions and Superannuation) Bill—Petition from Banffshire, against.