HC Deb 29 July 1919 vol 118 cc2074-6

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn."—[Colonel Sunders,]

Mr. RAPER

In rising to draw attention to the unsatisfactory reply which I received yesterday regarding the Committee appointed to inquire into Mr. Gattie's claims, I have a full appreciation of the seriousness of the step I am taking, but it is essential in the interests of the country that we should realise that the people of this country will not be satisfied with the white-washing inquiries to which they have had to submit in the past. A few days ago, in a paper edited by the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. Bottom-ley), I read an article to the effect that, in his opinion, the only means by which this House could overcome the difficulties which necessarily constitute the aftermath of a great war was first by justifying an alteration of their reputation as a talking shop to that of a real, sound business Committee. Many of us disagree with the hon. Member in certain of his views, but on this point I feel we are all in agreement. The history of Mr. Gattie's scheme, so far as the negotiations with Government Departments are concerned, gives rise to the gravest apprehensions that the Special Committee which has now been appointed to inquire into the scheme will be quite ineffective unless it is held with open doors, and unless it is assisted by suitably qualified commercial and scientific men. For eleven or twelve years past Mr. Gattie and the many commercial and scientific men who support his claims have been vainly endeavouring not to obtain the immediate adoption of his scheme, but a full, impartial inquiry.

The London Traffic Branch of the Board of Trade, which I believe was appointed about ten years ago, was primarily the body which apparently should inquire into Mr. Gattie's scheme, but they did nothing, in spite of the fact that that scheme is so closely allied to the question of street congestion. Sir Herbert Jekyll, who was at that date head of the Department, simply refused to hold an inquiry and adopted the attitude that in his opinion the railway arrangements were excellent. The London Traffic Branch, so far as my knowledge goes, came to an end after several years, having attempted nothing and having done nothing, but we may now all congratulate Sir Herbert Jekyll on being director of three railway companies. The then Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade made a statement that this particular Department had no authority to inquire into Mr. Gattie's claims. I venture to say this is entirely incorrect, as the terms of reference gave full authority to inquire into Mr. Gattie's scheme, as instanced by the fact that they inquired into a road-widening scheme. The next attempt which we made to obtain an impartial inquiry was in 1912, when Sir William Marwood was chief of the Rail way Branch of the Board of Trade. That gentleman declined to investigate the scheme at all, and took up an attitude of unintelligible obstruction, which was not supported by any reasonable arguments or figures. Mr. Gattie has persistently published figures—

Notice taken that forty Members were not present: House counted, and forty Members not being present,

The House was Adjourned at Seven minutes after Eleven o'clock till To-morrow.