GREAT CENTRAL RAILWAY (GRIMSBY FISH DOCK) BIXL [Lords].— [By Order.] (Hansard, 25 November 1912)

§ Mr. JOHN WARD

As the House will see, I and my hon. Friend the Member for the Blackfriars Division (Mr. Barnes) have Motions on the Paper to recommit this Bill, and enable the Committee to insert a Clause "providing for a minimum rate of wages of not less than 6d. per hour for all navvies and labourers employed in the construction of the works authorised by the Bill." But you, Mr. Speaker, have intimated that on this Bill such a Motion would be out of order, and under these circumstances, of course, it will be impossible for me to proceed with the Motion which stands in my name. I should like, however, to make one or two observations relating to the situation. On the point of Order, I am given to understand by you, Sir, that this is a public question—a question of public policy which can only be decided either by a Resolution proposed as an Amendment to the Address, or as a Motion on Private Members' 976 day, such as Wednesday or Friday, at the beginning of the Session. I just wish in this respect to announce the fact that I and my Friends associated with me have decided by some means or other that this question must be considered in future in connection with such Bills as this, and the promoters may take it for granted, as far as the future is concerned, we will direct our opposition to measures of this description which do not fulfil reasonable requirements as to wages and working conditions. They will therefore know that during the next Session of Parliament, at any rate, we shall do everything we can to obstruct measures of this kind unless they comply with these terms. There is one question I would like to put to you, Sir. When the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill was discussed, it was, except that it was promoted by a Government Department, practically in the position of a private Bill. It was brought up some time last week I think, and a Motion was received that the Bill be rejected unless it contained a Clause dealing with the question of housing and the minimum wage, such as is suggested in this instruction. I suppose that the ruling on that occasion was caused by the Bill being promoted by a public Department, and that the House had full control to decide the matter. At any rate, I should like some information as to the reason for 977 the difference in treatment in this case from that of last week.

§ Mr. SPEAKER

I do not remember the circumstances under which the Motion was made with regard to the North Killingholme (Admiralty Pier) Bill, but I presume it must have been with reference to some special circumstance arising in connection with that Bill. I will look into the matter and see whether it differs at all from this case. The reason which the hon. Member gave for my not allowing his instruction is a sound one, namely, that on Private Bills you cannot deal with matters which are of general public policy. It has been several times ruled in this House both by my predecessors and by myself that matters such as the application of an eight hours' day to workers, a minimum standard rate of wages, the provision of third-class sleeping cars on trains, and so forth, are matters of public policy, which, if made applicable, should be made applicable to all railway or dock Bills, and the House 978 is not at liberty to take the Bill of a dock or railway company and apply general provisions to it. It was relying on these former decisions that I intimated to the hon. Member that his Motion on this occasion would not be in order. He has quite correctly stated the general proposition that matters of that kind must be brought up for the general consideration of the House, and if approved they can be embodied in a general statute.