HC Deb 22 July 1913 vol 55 cc1955-61

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be considered."

Mr. BOOTH

This is the first opportunity I have had in the House to ask.a question as to whether these Amendments—which in this case are substantial, and which were inserted in another place—have been before the Chairman or any Members of the Committee of this House? It would alter my whole attitude to the Bill if such an assurance could be given.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. Whitley)

I can give the hon. Member the assurance for which he asks, and I think it due to him to say that it was on his initiation that this impovement in our practice was instituted I think a year or two years ago. It is the case that those Amendments made in the other House are always submitted to the Chairman of the Committee in this House, and also to myself and to the Speaker's counsel, so that they have investigation before they are brought into the House.

Question proposed, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered."

Mr. WEDGWOOD

On a point of Order. I desire your ruling, Sir, as to whether a further Bill can be put down on the same day as it has been proposed at 2.45 p.m. On the 9th August, 1905, this question came up:— Mr. Caldwell said he would put the Bill down again at the evening sitting. The hon. Member for Dublin County (South) asked if it was in order to put a Bill down for the same day, and was it not bound to go over until another day. The hon. Member for North Louth argued that the fixing of the date was a question open to debate, and that when a private Bill was objected to it lapsed altogether for that day, and could not be put down again in the same sitting. Mr. Speaker ruled that it was within the province of the Chairman of Ways and Means, on whose behalf the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark was acting, to fix it for the evening sitting. Sir Joseph Leese (Lanarkshire, Accrington) drew attention to the fact that the Rathmines and Rathgar Bill had been placed on the Order Paper for the morning sitting. The Bill had been objected to, and the hon. Member for Mid-Lanark, acting for the Chairman of Ways and Means, put the Bill down fur consideration that evening. Objection was taken to that course of action, and the question was whether the Bill could not be taken to-morrow. Mr. Speaker read Standing Order No. 8, regulating the days on which private business should be set down for consideration. The Chairman of Ways and Means now informed him that it had been decided to take the Bill to-morrow. Basing myself upon that change in postponing the Rathmines and Rathgar Bill from the evening to the next day, I ask you, Sir, whether this Bill, which was objected to at 2.45 to-day, can, in accordance with the rules, be taken at 8.15 tonight, and whether it ought not, rather, to be taken again to-morrow, or at 8.15 in the evening.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member will look at the ruling which I gave on that occasion, and which he quoted, he will find that I ruled it might be taken. It is true that towards the end of the discussion an arrangement having been come to, the Bill was postponed until the next day. The ruling given by the Speaker on that occasion was that the Bill could be taken that night. It is obvious that it is so. If the hon. Member looks at Standing Order 8, Sub-section (2), he will find that private business shall be postponed until such time as the Chairman of Ways and Means may determine. The question lies with the Chairman of Ways and Means, if he wishes to postpone business. The occasions on which this has been done was on the 29th October, 1908, the 22nd November, 1910, and the 26th June, 1911. Those were the three occasions. I think there can be no doubt about the matter.

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I am much obliged for your ruling, Sir.

Mr. BOOTH

While I do not wish to contest the point that the power does vest in the Chairman of Ways and Means, yet it is a very unusual thing. I am not objecting to it, but I take it that, if there were serious opposition in some quarters of the House, which would be shown on the Order Paper by hon. Members having put down Motions or Amendments which would indicate that there was serious opposition on the merits, the Chairman of Ways and Means would take that into account. I submit that as the case now stands there should be some distinction drawn.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS

I think I can tell the hon. Member that I quite recognise that this power given to the Chairman of Ways and Means is only to be used in rather special circumstances. I hope the House will recognise that there are rather special circumstances on the present occasion. It will be in the recollection of hon. Members that yesterday and to-day something like ten or a dozen Bills, I think, were objected to and their progress was prevented. I am charged by the House with the care of the private Bills in this House. They have to conform to the rules which we ourselves have made. Every time a Bill is set down and it makes no progress, it involves very considerable cost to its promoters. Ever since I have occupied my present position in this House my endeavour has been to cheapen the cost of private Bills. It is already a very heavy burden, particularly upon the ratepayers in the promotion of Municipal Bills, and I have felt bound on this occasion to take unusual action. I think that I am only fulfilling the duty I owe to the House in marking my sense of what I believe will be the feeling of the House as a whole that to block private Bills by the dozen is not a fair use of our procedure. I have made it my practice to meet every hon. Member who desires to put to me any point raised in connection with a private Bill. I hope hon. Members will use that opportunity rather than occupy time in this House.

Mr. MARTIN

I quite appreciate what the Chairman of Ways and Means has said with reference to these private Bills, but it seems to me that Members of the House have some rights as well as the promoters of private Bills, and I must say in regard to the Great Northern Railway Bill, that I have been completely prevented from making the remarks which I would like to have made upon it by reason of my having to rise on so short notice. I understood that if the Bill was opposed today it could not go on. I could not make any remarks about it earlier, but I wanted to criticise some of the Amendments. I understood that it would go over until a subsequent day. I had a lot of material which I could not get at short notice, and which I have been unable to get at on account of this very summary proceeding. I am not in the habit of blocking private Bills. I do not think I ever blocked one before, with perhaps one exception. Why I should be punished so severely in the matter, having done it for the first time in regard to a, Bill affecting my own Constituency, does appear to me to be a little hard. I have to apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the House, for not being able to present my case in the way I should like to do if I had a fair opportunity of doing so.

Sir A. MARKHAM

You have blocked four Bills to-day.

Mr. MARTIN

I do not know that that is any business of the hon. Baronet.

Sir A. MARKHAM

You said you never blocked one before.

Mr. MARTIN

I never did block one before, except perhaps one. The hon. Baronet is very much concerned with the duties of every Member of this House except his own. He gets up and makes speeches in which are the wildest and most erratic statements.

Mr. SPEAKER

Order, order.

Mr. MARTIN

The hon. Baronet has no business—

Mr. SPEAKER

Will the hon. Member kindly address himself to the point now before the House, which is that the Lords Amendments be now considered.

Mr. MARTIN

The Amendments to which I objected are two.

Mr. SPEAKER

We have not reached the Amendments yet.

Question, "That the Lords Amendments be now considered," put, and agreed to.

Clauses inserted by the Lords for the protection of the Lincoln Corporation, the London Electric Railway Company, and the Hendon Urban District Council, agreed to.

The Lords had amended the Preamble by inserting the word "books," instead of "a book" of reference.

Mr. BOOTH

I have here a list of the Amendments to the Great Northern Railway Bill, and I do not see anything about "books." The first Amendment on the Paper supplied to me is one concerned with the protection of Lincoln Corporation. I think that the Clerk is reading the wrong Amendment.

Mr. SPEAKER

If the hon. Member (Mr. Martin) will indicate which Amendment it is from which he dissents, and from which he proposes to ask the House to disagree, we can have that one specially read out.

Mr. MARTIN

That is what I was going to do.

Mr. SPEAKER

Where is it?

Mr. MARTIN

It is Clause 19.—(For Protection of St. Pancras Borough Council.)

"Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or shown on the deposited plans and sections the following provisions for the protection of the Mayor, Aldermen, and Councillors of the Metropolitan Borough of St. Pancras (hereinafter called 'the Council' and 'the borough' respectively) shall unless otherwise agreed between the Great Northern Company and the Council apply and have effect (that is to say):—

(5) The provisions of the Section of this Act the marginal note whereof is 'Power to deviate in construction of new railways railway widening and works' shall not apply to the alterations of the gradients of Wharf Road and Cambridge Street authorised by this Act but the gradients of the said road and street shall be altered in accordance with the lines shown on the deposited sections relating respectively to the said road and street."

Mr. BOOTH

May I point out that the difficulty has arisen, because the Paper is printed wrongly? The White Paper with which we had been supplied from the Vote Office shows that page 97 relates to the Great Northern Railway Company, and 98 and 99 relate to some other matters.

Mr. SPEAKER

Is it Clause 19A to which the hon. Member objects?

Mr. MARTIN

It is Clause 19.—(For Protection of St. Pancras Borough Council.) It commences, "Notwithstanding anything contained in this Act or shown on the deposited plans," and so on.

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS

Perhaps I may explain to the hon. Member. I think he is misled as to the White Paper. He appears to think that the other House has inserted a new Clause for the protection of the St. Pancras Borough Council, whereas what they have done is in the Clause only to insert two words, "new railways," and that is the Amendment now read out.

Sir F. BANBURY

The hon. Member has stated what he objects to. The Borough Council Amendment was put in in this House, and not in the Lords.

Lords Amendment: After Clause 19 insert Clause 19A.—(For Protection of Gas Light and Coke Company.)

Mr. WEDGWOOD

I would like a word or two about this new Clause put in for the protection of the Gas Light and Coke Company. I think it is most undesirable that these Amendments, of which this is a sample, should be put in in another place.= If we are to put Amendments into Bills of this sort for the protection of various vested interests, it ought to be done in the House of Commons, or in Committee, and not reserved for another place. We have in these Amendments no less than four Clauses put in afresh for the protection of different vested interests. This one in respect to the Gas Light and Coke Company appears to be the most remarkable of them all. As the Bill was originally passed through the House of Commons Committee certain powers were given to the railway company to make deviations from the plans and to make alterations in the height of roadways. They were allowed, amongst other things, to close up a certain road called Battle Bridge Road. There are underneath Battle Bridge Road some mains belonging to the Gas Light and Coke Company. No objection was taken to the closing of this road by the Gas Light and Coke Company before the House of Commons Committee, or if any objection was taken it was overruled as of no importance, but directly the Bill gets up to the House of Lords, the closing of this road is made a, ground for the obtaining of pecuniary compensation from the Great Northern Railway Company. These mains presumably run underneath this road, and I fail to understand how the closing of that road can make it necessary, as it is made necessary under this new Clause, for the railway company to buy up these mains, and to put the gas company to the expense of changing the line of route, and making further connections. It seems to me that if there is any good claim upon the railway company, it ought to have been made in the House of Commons, instead of waiting for the House of Lords to consider it. It is easy enough for the Chairman of Ways and Means to urge us to cheapen the process by which Bills are got through the House of Lords and the House of Commons.

I entirely sympathise with what, was said by the Chairman of Ways and Means, but I protest against these changes, and so long as it is possible for vested interests, that may be affected by these railway company Bills, to fight these Bills both in the Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords, and to get changes made in the House of Lords, the expenses of passing these Bills must be enormously magnified. We find page after page of new provisions put in to protect vested interests, and I think that is the way in which most of the money of the promoters of these Bills gees. Here you have a claim on account of the blocking up of the roadway, but the public, whose right of way is stopped, get no compensation; but the Gas Light and Coke Company, whose mains run under the road, make that the subject of a claim upon the railway company. That may be a just ground for compensation. But, if it is, the claim should be made before the House of Commons Committee, and not reserved for the House of Lords. Vested interests, I agree, stand a better chance of having their claims recognised by the House of Lords Committee, bat it is better that they should be made before the House of Commons Committee.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

Further Amendments made.