§ This Act shall continue in force for three years after the passing thereof and no longer, unless continued by Parliament.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI beg to move,
That the Clause be read a second time.I do not propose, at this time of night, to take up the time of the Committee on this Amendment, in view of the fact that we had at an earlier period of the Session another Bill, which attempted to deal, in a small way, with a long standing grievance, or some of the more salient grievances, of the traders. We have now before us a Railway Bill, and only a Railway Bill produced in order to satisfy the railway companies. What I do ask in my Amendment is that this Bill, which has been introduced into the House in a great hurry in an overcrowded Session, and which is a very one-sided Bill, giving the traders no quid pro quo whatever, should be only in operation for a limited time, namely, three years. I ask that during that interval the Government will take the opportunity of introducing a Bill which will deal with such questions as owners' risks, and the lack of a cheaper tribunal than the Railway and Canal Commissioners. About these matters the traders feel very strongly. I will not take further time, because I think the Committee is fully cognisant of the point. I do not intend to withdraw my Amendment unless I get some assurance from the Government that in the course of next Session they will introduce some sort of Bill dealing with the more serious grievances of the traders, even if it be but a one-Clause Bill which shall deal with the most serious of all the complaints of unfairness—that of owners' risks rates, especially as they affect the consignment of agricultural produce.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Member appears only to have raised this point in order to get from me some assurance with reference to the future. He desires that I should say somthing as regards the possibility of a future Railway Bill. I very much regret that I was unable to proceed with the Railways (No. 1) Bill, for then all these various points might have been adequately discussed, and dealt with. I attach very great importance to many parts of that Bill, and I very much desire at some future time to have an opportunity of reintroducing it, more or less in the same form as last year, but I cannot promise to give an undertaking for next Session. Everybody desires that that Session should be a short on. The time is already heavily mortgaged, and it would be idle for me to give any promise that a Bill, of a complicated and controversial nature, could possibly be introduced next Session. The hon. Member makes a practical suggestion that a Bill dealing only with owners' risks might be introduced. I believe that was the subject of a previous Bill, founded on the report of a Departmental Committee. I should be willing to endeavour to see how far such a Bill could be made non-controversial.
But the difficulty about the point is this, that it does raise a large number of other questions, and it is quite hopeless to expect that larger questions can be raised if that Bill is to be proceeded with. But I will endeavour to see, in negotiation with the hon. Member (Mr. Bathurst) and the other interests concerned, if it is possible to introduce a Bill which will be of a more or less non-controversial nature, and I shall be very glad to place my services at the disposal of the House. To meet the views of the hon. Gentleman to some extent, I shall be very glad to do what I have said.
Mr. WALSHI listened to the right hon. Gentleman, and I did not hear a single word that he said why this Clause should not be accepted. He spoke about some possible negotiations, that might take place between the hon. Gentleman on the other side (Mr. C. Bathurst), and himself, at a little later date, but he did not say a single word against this Clause. Now, in the Coal Mines (Minimum Wage) Act, 1912, which admittedly embodied a new principle, these words are continued, namely: "That it shall exist for three years, and no longer, unless continued by Parliament." Here, admittedly, we have a Bill contain 1132 ing a new principle. Will that principle justify itself or not within three years? Surely, if it has justified itself in three years' time, Parliament, in all probability, will continue it. If it has not justified itself within three years, ought it not to be within the competence of Parliament to put an end to it? There is not the slightest doubt that, rightly or wrongly, the public do feel some serious alarm about the principle that is contained in this Bill. Now, three years' probation will be at least sufficient in which either to justify or to remove the fears of the public. After all, the inclusion of the words "unless continued by Parliament," can do no possible harm. If the Bill proves to be a good one, and if the fears of the public prove to be unfounded; if no real harm has arisen; if the men's wages have risen, in accordance with the general desire, and if the railway companies prove, to the satisfaction of the Railway Commissioners, that they are entitled to the increased rates—if all these matters are proved—undoubtedly Parliament would exercise its power, and continue the measure.
But, in the meantime, surely three years is a sufficiently long period for what is admittedly a quite new experiment in the trading life of the country. I would be very glad to hear why that which is good enough under a Minimum Wage Act for miners is not to be good enough under a Bill of this character? Surely, there is no difference in the principle! This Bill is a bad Bill, from beginning to end. I should not be in order in debating it at all, and I do not intend to say another word about that, but I think it must be patent to everybody in this House that, however slight the improvements that have been sought to be effected, every one has been resisted by the Treasury Bench. This proposal is a slight improvement; it does, at least, go to modify, if not entirely to remove, the genuine alarm which is felt by the trading public, and at the very least, we are entitled to ask, either that the Treasury Bench should accept this Clause, or that they should give us sufficient reasons why they reject it. At present, not a single word has been said as to the merits of the Clause itself. The only thing was a very kindly Debate with the hon. Member for Wilton, as to some possible thing that may happen in the future, or that may not happen. I think the Committee is entitled to a better reply on a Clause of this character, and that that which was good enough for the 1133 Minimum Wage Act is good enough for a Bill like this.
Mr. ROBERTSONThe hon. Gentleman has censured my right hon. Friend because, in reply to the hon. Member for Wilton, he did not discuss this Clause. The hon. Member for the Wilton Division did not press the Clause.
Mr. ROBERTSONIf he did not get a satisfactory assurance. I understood the hon. Member for Wilton to put the ease in this way—that his Clause was a kind of safeguard, and his object was to secure the bringing before Parliament, in the next two or three years, of another Railway Bill, dealing with the grievances of traders. I understood him to say that unless he got sufficient assurances as to the introduction of a fresh Railway Bill some time ahead—
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTI specifically said next Session.
Mr. ROBERTSONOf course, if he is dealing with that point of view. My right hon. Friend explained the difficulty of promising it for next Session, but expressed his great desire to introduce it as early as possible; the difficulty of next Session being practically unanswerable. Therefore, the protest against the non-discussion of the Clause does not appear to hold. The hope was that the Clause need not be discussed, especially as there was—as the Chairman pointed out—an hon. Member's discussion before, on the question of the time limit. The main arguments are these: That the promise given was not a promise applying merely to one set of increases of wages. As the object of the pledge was to induce the railway companies to raise wages, surely the limitation of time must be a limitation on the inducement to the companies to increase the wages. The hon. Member for Ince (Mr. Walsh) argued that the Bill is bad from beginning to end.
Mr. ROBERTSONThe hon. Member characterised the Bill as bad from beginning to end. Even from his point of view, I do not know, after he puts in a three years' limit, that be ought to seek 1134 to negative the measure. It is for those who think that the encouragement of railway companies to raise wages is a good thing to support the Bill. If such a limit is introduced, you will simply stimulate the companies to make hay while the sun shines, and to raise their rates as far as possible, and you practically will make of no effect the Clause for revision which has been introduced.
Mr. WALSHIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the object of the Minimum Wage Act was to establish a, minimum wage for miners. Is he under the impression that this House wanted that minimum wage to cease after three years? Yet here the same Clause is suggested, and the House might want to revise the whole machinery for settlement.
Mr. ROBERTSONSurely the hon. Gentleman does not oppose Conciliation Boards in the case of railway companies. The whole scheme turns round the machinery for conciliation. I am afraid some hon. Members of the House, perhaps, have forgotten the situation under which the pledge was given, in regard to this Bill. We were faced by a most dangerous and disastrous dispute, and the object was to save the country, on the one hand, from intense anxiety, and on the other hand from actual loss, and we wished to set up machinery to avert such strikes in future. We wanted, not merely to avert them for three years but in perpetuity. But the hon. Member must remember that no railway company can get any benefit under this Bill at all, except as the result of raising wages. So that the benefit to the railway company is absolutely dependent on the improvement in the condition of the workers. Surely, the hon. Gentleman, of all hon. Members, should not object to the continuity of the measure. I hope the Committee will not carry this Clause.
§ Mr. MORRELLI do not want to continue this argument at any length, because I quite realise that it has been discussed before, but the arguments in favour of a limiting period of this sort seem to me overwhelming, especially considering the circumstances under which the House is being pressed to pass this Bill, and the way in whch all Amendments have been resisted by the Government. But I only want now to bring forward one special point with regard to what was said upon the Second Reading of the Bill. The President of the Board of Trade has 1135 said he cannot promise to introduce legislation, but I should rather like to know how the Government stands with regard to a promise, or a sort of promise, they gave that there would be an inquiry into railway management. I have here a speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer on this point on the Second Reading of the Bill. He said it was extremely desirable to have an inquiry as soon as possible. That was in answer to a request made by my hon. Friend the Member for York (Mr. Rowntree). The Chancellor of the Exchequer said that he did not think an inquiry by Royal Commission was desirable, but that he thought there should be a committee of some sort upon it. He said he did not think an inquiry by Royal Commission would be desirable, but that he thought a committee of some sort should be appointed. He then said:
When I was at the Board Of Trade my hon. Friend was a member of a Committee appointed to inquire into the matter. It was a Committee on which railway managers were present, and I ant sure it did excellent work. I am sure it would be possible to have come inquiry of that kind again. My right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade is considering the matter, and he is hopeful of being able to make an announcement at no distant date."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 30th January. 1913, col 1642, Vol. XLVII.].What I want to know is, is that a promise for an inquiry or not? I should like to know how the Government stands in this matter? It seems to me that I hose of us who think this is an unsatisfactory Bill being carried in an unsatisfactory way, would be a good deal reassured if we knew the whole question of railway management was going to be properly investigated at no distant date. I think there is nothing which has been more conspicuous in these debates than the distrust which has been shown in all quarters of the House of the existing railway management. That is what makes us unwilling to give a sort of blank cheque, which we are asked to give by this Bill to railway companies. That is why we want to have a limiting period, and my own attitude towards this Amendment certainly would be considerably influenced if I knew for certain what the Government meant by the sort of promise made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
§ Mr. JOWETTI think any Member who has listened to most of the speeches on this Bill will agree that no more unpopular Bill has ever been introduced into this Chamber, and, if that is agreed, it goes without saying surely that a strict limit should be placed upon the operations of 1136 the Bill in order to limit its mischief, if it proves to be a mischief, as Members generally seem to think it will. We have been told to-night that the reason for this Bill is to encourage the railway companies to pay better wages, but neither the President of the Board of Trade nor the Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade has added the words that should have followed, namely, at the public expense. The railway men of this country did not conic out on strike and suffer week after week all that a strike entails for the sake of throwing the expense involved in their demands on to the public. There is money enough in the railways, and if ever there were a good reason for limiting the period of operation of a Bill it is to be found here. The trail of the serpent is over every line of the Bill, and the House would be acting in accordance with public opinion if it limited the period, not to three years, but even to one year.
§ Mr. KINGI venture to give to the Committee one or two reasons against adopting this new Clause. First of all, if it were introduced it would really have no effect, because the Government would put it into the Schedule of Expiring Laws Continuance Bill.
§ Mr. JOWETTWe could have a discussion on it.
§ Mr. KINGAt what time of the morning?—three or four o'clock. Really hon. Members who think that by carrying this Clause they are going to have this discussion again in three years' time, must have very little knowledge of this House, and very little knowledge of the possibilities of the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill. There is another reason why I strongly object to this Clause. I do not want to have the speeches in the last few days over again in three years or even in ten years. We shall have the same hon. Gentlemen who have been speaking very often on this Bill or whatever the subject is before the House, and I think they will have a better effect on other subjects than on this.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI do think that before we have a Division we ought to press the Front Bench for an explanation as to what was exactly the Prime Minister's pledge, because I, certainly in common with many others, thought that that pledge was given in order to meet the increased wages due to the strike, and those of us,—I am not one—who feel bound by this pledge to vote for this Bill have a 1137 right to know whether this Bill as it stands without this Amendment, is not going a great deal beyond the pledge. Under this Bill we are building up conciliation courts and practically compelling the public to bear for all future time the charge for every increase in rates.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Gentleman's arguments should be addressed on the Third Reading of the Bill. We have nor yet reached that.
§ Mr. WEDGWOODI submit that when we are discussing whether the Bill should be temporary or not it is of the utmost importance that we should take the Prime Minister's pledge into account because anything that comes up after three years can have nothing whatever to do with the great strike of 1911, but would be due to some subsequent arrangements between the railway companies and their men. Therefore, on this point it does strike one that the actual wording of this pledge is essential. Of course if the Prime Minister said to the railway companies we will give the right for all time to raise rates when raising wages, that would have some effect on the Committee, but if it were made simply for the strike of 1911 I do not think we have any right to vote against this Amendment under the impression that we are doing what we are bound to do by that pledge. The public, I feel quite certain, will make their voice heard in connection with this Bill during the next three years, and will say some pretty forcible things to those who voted for this Bill. I believe, apart altogether from the fact that this is entirely outside the pledge given by the Prime Minister, we have a right to demand that every three years this matter should come up for rediscussion, just in the same way as the Agricultural Rates Bill and other doles to vested interests come up.
1.0 A.M.
There is one other thing would like to say. I think that the speech made by the hon. Member for Bradford (Mr. Jowett) in reply to the Under-Secretary to the Board of
§ Trade was a very valuable one. I feel quite sure that the Government in introducing this Bill underestimated the Labour party. I am sure they were mistaken in the idea that they could catch the Labour party.
§ The CHAIRMANThe hon. Member is now making a general statement.
Mr. BUXTONThe hon. Gentleman has asked me what were the terms of the Government pledge. It has already been published twice as a public document. I should have thought the hon. Member would have taken the trouble to see what the words of the pledge were. They were as follows:—
The Government will propose to Parliament next Session legislation providing that an increase in the cost of labour due to the improvement of conditions for the staff would be a valid justification for a reasonable general increase of charges within the legal maxima, if challenged under the of 1894.With regard to the question of my hon. Friend the Member for Burnley, all I can say is that I am in consultation with the Prime Minister on the matter. The Prime Minister is ready after the Recess to discuss the matter with them. Therefore, I am not in a position at the present moment to make any statement. We do desire, I agree, that some of these questions to which the Chancellor of the Exchequer referred should be inquired into in order to see what can be done in the matter. But, as I say, the Prime Minister has the matter in hand between himself and the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I hope that for the moment that will satisfy my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. MORRELLI want to understand whether we are discussing the methods of the inquiry, or whether the investigation is to be held or not. Is an investigation promised? Is that understood or not?
Mr. BUXTONI cannot at present say more than I have said.
Question put, "That the Clause be read a second time."
§ The Committee divided: Ayes, 42; Noes, 139.
1139| Division No. 603.] | AYES. | [1.5 a.m. |
| Adamson, William | Grafton, John | Marshall, Arthur Harold |
| Baird, J. L. | Harvey, T. E. (Leeds, West) | Morrell, Philip |
| Barnes, George N. | Higham, John Sharp | O'Grady, James |
| Bathurst, Charles (Wilts, Wilton) | Hogge, James M. (Edinburgh, E.) | Parker, James (Halifax) |
| Benn, Arthur Shirley (Plymouth) | Hope, Major J. A, (Midlothian) | Pointer, Joseph |
| Bentham, George Jackson | Hudson, Walter | Ponsonby, Arthur A. W. H. |
| Bowerman, Charles W, | Hughes, S. L. | Price, C. E. (Edinburgh, Central) |
| Brace, William | John, Edward Thomas | Rendall, Atheistan |
| Bryce, John Annan | Jones, J. Towyn (Carmarthen, East) | Richardson, Thomas (Whitehaven) |
| Courthope, George Lloyd | Jowett, Frederick William | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Goldstone, Frank (Sunderland) | Lambert, Richard (Wilts, Cricklade) | Rowlands, James |
| Rowntree, Arnold | Sutton, John E. | Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton) |
| Rutherford, Watson (L'pool, W. Derby) | Wardle, George J. | |
| Sherwell, Arthur James | Wedgwood, Josiah C. | TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—Mr. |
| Smith, Albert (Lancs., Clitheroe) | Whyte, A. F. (Perth) | Peto and Mr. Stephen Walsh. |
| NOES. | ||
| Abraham, William (Dublin, Harbour) | Hackett, John | O'Doherty, Philip |
| Acland, Francis Dyke | Harcourt, Rt. Hon. L. (Rossendale) | O'Dowd, John |
| Agg-Gardner, James Tynte | Harcourt, Robert V. (Montrose) | O'Kelly, E. P. (Wicklow, W.) |
| Ainsworth, John Stirling | Harmsworth, C. B. (Beds, Luton) | O'Malley, William |
| Baker, H. T. (Accrington) | Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth) | O'Neill, Dr. Charles (Armagh, S.) |
| Barrie, H. T. | Havelock-Allan, Sir Henry | O'Shaughnessy, P. J. |
| Beauchamp, Sir Edward | Hayden, John Patrick | O'Shee, James John |
| Benn, W. W. (T. Hamlets, St. Geo.) | Hayward, Evan | O'Sullivan, Timothy |
| Bigland, Alfred | Helme, Sir Norval Watson | Parry, Thomas Henry |
| Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine | Henderson, J. M. (Aberdeen, W.) | Pease, Rt. Hon. J. A. (Rotherham) |
| Boland, John Pius | Hickman, Colonel T. E. | Phillips, John (Longord, S.) |
| Booth, Frederick Handel | Hills, John Waller | Pringle, William M. R. |
| Brady, P. J. | Howard, Hon. Geoffrey | Pryce-Jones, Colonel Edward |
| Bridgeman, W. Clive | Isaacs, Rt. Hon. Sir Rufus | Rea, Rt. Hon. Russell (South Shields) |
| Brunner, John F. L. | Jones, Edgar (Merthyr Tydvil) | Reddy, Michael |
| Burn, Colonel C. R. | Jones, H. Haydn (Merioneth) | Redmond, John E. (Waterford) |
| Burns, Rt. Hon. John | Jones, William (Carnarvonshire) | Redmond, William (Clare, E.) |
| Buxton, Rt. Hon. S. C. (Poplar) | Joyce, Michael | Redmond, William Archer (Tyrone. E) |
| Carlile, Sir Edward Hildred | Keating, Matthew | Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln) |
| Cassel, Felix | Kerry, Earl of | Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside) |
| Cawley, H. T. (Lancs. Heywood) | Kilbride, Denis | Robinson, Sidney |
| Chaloner, Col. R. G. W. | King, Joseph | Roch, Walter F. (Pembroke) |
| Clancy, John Joseph | Lardner, James C. R. | Sanders, Robert A. |
| Clough, William Law. | Hugh A. (Donegal, West) | Scanlan, Thomas |
| Collins, G. P. (Greenock) | Lewis, John Herbert | Seely, Col. Rt. Hon. J. E. B. |
| Cornwall, Sir Edwin A. | Locker-Lampson, O. (Ramsey) | Sheehy, David |
| Crumley, Patrick | Lockwood, Rt. Hon. Lt.-Col. A. R. | Smyth, Thomas F.(Leitrim, S.) |
| Cullinan, John | Lundon, Thomas | Strauss, Edward A. (Southwark, West) |
| Dalrymple, Viscount | Lynch, A. A. | Talbot, Lard E. |
| Dawes, James Arthur | Maclean, Donald | Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe) |
| Denman, Hon. R. D. | Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J. | Taylor, Thomas (Bolton) |
| Doris, William | MacVeagh, Jeremiah | Tennant, Harold John |
| Duffy, William J. | McGhee, Richard | Toulmin, Sir George |
| Edwards, Sir Francis (Radnor) | McKenna, Rt. Hon. Reginald | Verney, Sir Harry |
| Esmonde, Dr. J. (Tipperary, N.) | M'Laren, F. W. S. (Lincs., Spalding) | Warner, Sir Thomas Courtenay |
| Eyres-Monsell, B. M. | M'Laren, H. D. (Leics.) | Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney) |
| Farrell, James Patrick | Mason, James F. (Windsor) | Watt, Henry A. |
| Ffrench, Peter | Meagher, Michael | Webb, H. |
| Flumes, Hon. Eustace Edward | Millar, James Duncan | White, James Dondas (Glasgow) |
| Flavin, Michael Joseph | Molloy, Michael | White, Patcick (Meath, North) |
| Gibbs, G. A. | Moorley, J. J. | Wilson, Rt. Hon. J. W. (Worcs., N.) |
| Gilmour, Captain John | Morgan, George Hay | Winfrey, Richard |
| Gladstone, W.G. C | Morison, Hector | Wortley, Rt. Hen. C. B. Stuart |
| Greene, W. R. | Muldoon, John | |
| Greig, Colonel J. W. | Munro Robert | |
| Griffith, Ellis J. | Nolan, Joseph | TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—Mr. Illingworth and Mr. Gulland. |
| Guest, Hon. Frederick E. (Dorset, E.) | O'Brien. Patrick (Kilkenny) | |
| Gwynn, Stephen Lucius (Galway) | O'Connor, T. P. (Liverpool) |
Question put, and agreed to.
§ The CHAIRMANcalled upon Mr. Hudson to move a new Clause.
§ Mr. PETOMr. Whitley, have you debarred the Clauses standing in my name on the Paper before that of the hon. Member?
§ The CHAIRMANI think the objects of these Clauses have already been dealt with. The second one proposes to introduce a provision with regard to rates, including books of rates. That is introducing matter for the general reform of the railway law, and is not relevant to this Bill. It is true that the hon. Member has ingeniously attempted to bring it in by putting at the beginning the words, "In respect of every increased rate which has been increased for the purposes mentioned in Section 1 of this Act" and so on; but 1140 there are others besides he who have attempted in that way to bring in extraneous matter.
§ Mr. PETO. I should not rise, even to put a point of Order before you, Mr. Whitley, if it were not that this particular Amendment is one which has the support of practically the whole trading community.
§ The CHAIRMANThat is part of the hon. Member's speech on the Clause. It is distinctly not a point of Order, but a comment on my ruling.