§ 42 Mr. THOMASasked (1) the Under-Secretary for War whether a ticket collector employed by the Great Eastern Railway Company, having volunteered for service and having been accepted and served 60 days, was eventually discharged from the Army as being medically unfit owing to bad teeth; that he immediately reported himself to his former employers, the Great Eastern Railway Company, and asked to be reinstated in accordance with the promise made by the railway company that all men's positions would be open to them on returning to civil life; that he was told that he would be informed if his services were required further; having regard to the fact that this man is now out of employment and not receiving any payment from the Government, will he state in what way the Government contemplates recompensing men who have been deceived in the promises held out to them; and whether he is aware that actions of this 420 kind have a deterrent effect upon recruiting; (2) whether a man named Charles John Beaumont, an Army Reservist, was called up for service and went through three engagements, was eventually injured and, after being in hospital, was discharged from the Army as being medically unfit owing to hernia; that he immediately applied to the Rhymney Railway Company for work in accordance with the company's previous promise to reinstate all men, but, after having been examined by the railway company's doctor, was told that he was no longer fit for duty and was dismissed; and, as this man is not now receiving any payment from the Government, and the railway company have broken their promise to reinstate all men who volunteered to serve their country, what steps he proposes to take to see that this man is at least given an opportunity to live; and (3) whether two men, named E. J. Smith and C. J. Austin, employed by the Great Northern Railway Company, were called up as National Reservists, and in accordance with the company's published statement that their wages should be made up to four-fifths of their ordinary earnings and all privileges hitherto enjoyed by wives and families would be continued; that these men's wives have been informed that privileges to them are stopped owing to their husbands having enlisted; and that no money was to be paid by the company to them; whether, having regard to the fact that the Government are now nominally controlling the railways, he will take steps to see that men are not deceived by promises held out in order to induce men to enlist and eventually refused immediately when men do their duty; and whether he is aware that actions of this kind are calculated to destroy all confidence in the efforts or inducements made for men to enlist?
Mr. RUNCIMANMy right hon. Friend has asked me to reply to this and the two following questions. I am in communication with the railway companies concerned and will inform my hon. Friend of the result.
§ Lord CLAUD HAMILTONAs Question No. 42 contains an aspersion on my honour and the honour of the company I represent, may I be permitted to state the facts of the case? The question—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. Member can make a personal explanation at the conclusion of questions, not in the middle of questions.
§ Lord C. HAMILTONIf this question remains on the Paper there is a continued aspersion of the company I represent, and I am prepared to state accurately—
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord should not mind. I have had a Motion which aspersed me on the Paper through nearly the whole of one Session.
§ Lord C. HAMILTONSome are more sensitive than others.
§ Lord C. HAMILTONrose at the conclusion of the questions—
§ Mr. PRINGLEThe question to which the Noble Lord intends to refer deals with the Great Eastern Railway Company. Is a reference to a public company such a reference as would be considered to include a personal reference to a Member of this House, and in virtue of which reference he is to be allowed to make a personal explanation?
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is pretty well known that the Noble Lord is chairman of that company. I suppose the suggestion in the question is that the Noble Lord, acting in that capacity, has given some promise which apparently has not been carried out.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASI desire, on the point of Order, to ask you whether it is in order for a Member to speak for and represent a company as against his constituents when this fact is borne in mind? The question on the Paper has reference to a promise made not by an individual but by a corporation. In the ordinary way an attempt to break through that promise could be negotiated, but if that corporation refuse to recognise any communication whereby redress can be obtained, and it can only be raised on the floor of the House, is it in order, under these circumstances, for an hon. Member to speak for a company and not for his constituents?
§ Mr. SPEAKERHe is speaking, I understand, in the same way as the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of the Government. If the suggestion is made that the Government have not done something or other, the Prime Minister speaks on behalf of it. The suggestion is made that the Great Eastern Company has not done something or other, and the representative of the company is here and wishes to make a personal explanation.
§ Mr. J. H. THOMASHaving regard to the answer of the President of the Board of Trade that he was in communication with the railway company, would that not be the time then for the railway company to give their explanation to a Government Department?
§ Mr. SPEAKERI quite agree. I think that would be the best time, but the Noble Lord seems to think there is some aspersion cast on him in this question, and he is desirous of clearing his personal character at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. PRINGLEAre we to understand that the Great Eastern Railway is responsible to this House in the same sense as His Majesty's Government?
§ Lord C. HAMILTONMy only reason for wishing to make a statement is that, as one of the results of that statement, this question may be removed from the Order Paper. The question is with regard to a man who was discharged from the Army on account of bad teeth. He applied for reinstatement at the station where he had been previously employed before joining the Army. The local station-master, acting in error at that station, told the man he could not be immediately re-engaged because his character, his discharge from the Army, was not quite satisfactory. In making that statement the stationmaster was doing what was wrong. His duty was at once to reinstate the man, quite apart from what character he may have possessed. The moment this information was reported to the chief traffic manager of the Great Eastern Railway, the man was reinstated and his wages were ordered to be paid from the moment he was discharged from the Army. What I wish to point out to the House is that the whole of this took place prior to the question appearing on the Paper of this House.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat is not a personal statement. It may be a very satisfactory one, but it should not have been introduced as a personal statement.
§ Lord C. HAMILTONIt vindicates my honour.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Noble Lord is not affected in the least by the mistake of the stationmaster.