HC Deb 12 February 1913 vol 48 cc1142-4

"This Act shall not apply to Scotland."

Mr. WATT

I beg to move, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second tune."

At this late hour, I shall take up a very little of the time of the Committee. The reception which the Government gave to the last Amendment moved, namely, the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill, gives me sonic hope of this Motion. I cannot see how the President of the Board of Trade can refuse to Scotland the advantage which he has just given to Ireland. If he does so. I think we must infer from it that the Irish hon. Members must be a very stiff-backed body, and the Scottish hon. Members must be something of the dead jelly-fish order, because they cannot force their will on the Government like the Irish hon. Members. The arguments for the exclusion of Scotland are: that the strike did not extend to Scotland; that the advance of wages was not given in Scotland; and that therefore, the promise of the Government did not apply to the Scottish railways, and that there is absolutely no necessity for it there. Unfortunately, it is the method of the House, and of the Government, that when a Bill is objectionable and burdensome, Scotland is always included; if it is intended in the way of a boon and a blessing to men, Scotland is carefully left out. I venture to think that this is a burdensome and objectionable Bill, and I plead that the Government should leave Scotland out, as they left Ireland out; otherwise I fear that most of the Scottish hon. Members will have to get the backbone to act together, to get some measure of relief.

Mr. ROBERTSON

I trust the hon. Member will not press this Clause. The Scottish railways are obviously on an entirely different footing in the matter from the Irish railways. They did come within the Conciliation Scheme. The hon. Member is mistaken in saying that no rise of wages was there made. There was a rise of wages. But even if it were accurate that no rise of wages had been given, then the railways would not have come under the operation of the Bill. They can only come forward and gain the benefit of the Bill as regards rates if there has been an improvement in the conditions of the labour staff. As the rise of wages has actually been given, and as the companies are within the scheme, and as no such objection can be light in this case, as has been brought in the case of Ireland, I trust the hon. Member will not press the Clause. I believe there is some specially hostile feeling on the subject of the Scottish railway companies, based on the ground that some facilities have been withdrawn. I do not know if that is what is in the mind of the hon. Member who moved this Clause, but the withdrawal of the facilities would be one of the matters to be considered by the Railway Commissioners under Section (C) of the Bill. Under Bill (No. 1), it was actually provided that the withdrawal of facilities should be treated as a raising of rates, and would have to be justified, or it would come within the Act of 1894. That is one-of the benefits that has been lost by the unfortunate forcing of the Government back on to the One-clause Bill. In view of the circumstances, I do not think there is any case for the withdrawal, and I hope the hon. Member will not press the Clause.

Mr. HUDSON

I speak on behalf of railway men, and with the intimate knowledge that all the railway companies in Scotland have complied with the findings of the Commission, and also with the findings of the joint meeting which was authorised to deal with some portion of the Commission's Report. A number of them have also worked the scheme, up to the point of having cases decided by independent chairmen, and so forth, and a large number of them are going on with the new conditions, following on the cessation of the old terms in June, 1912. Under those circumstances, I will take no responsibility at all for opposing Scotland coming into the Bill.

Mr. CATHCART WASON

I wish to make just a few remarks with regard to what the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade said about the remarks which have reached him as to the withdrawal of facilities for Scotland. I only wish to say, in reference to that, that we do feel that we have suffered very considerable inconvenience through the action of the railway companies in regard to enabling passengers to get the usual facilities to the southern parts, and we did represent those views, as strongly as we could, to the President of the Board of Trade. I am one whose constituents have suffered very considerably by the action of the companies, but I am, at the same time, not prepared to support the hon. Member for Glasgow in asking for the exclusion of Scotland. But I think that should be accounted to us for righteousness in the eyes of the Board of Trade.

Question, "That the proposed new Clause be read a second time," put, and negatived.

Bill reported; as amended, to be considered to-morrow (Thursday); and to be printed. [Bill 365.]