LONDON ELECTRIC RAILWAY COMPANIES (FARES) BILL. (Hansard, 21 June 1920)

§ Mr. CLEMENT EDWARDS
I wish to ask for your ruling and guidance, Mr. Speaker, on a matter which, I respectfully submit, is of supreme importance to the rights and privileges of this House. It will be within your recollection that on 25th March last, as the result of very prolonged negotiations between the promoters of the London Electric Railway Companies (Fares) Bill and the Members for the Metropolitan area, a compromise was reached in regard to that Bill. The compromise was that the London Members would not offer opposition to the Second Reading on conditions that the promoters accepted a definite mandatory instruction from this House to the Committee. The mandatory instruction was moved by the right hon. Member for Hammersmith (Sir W. Bull), and was to the effect that it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be committed, to inquire into the financial position of the various companies named in the Bill, 1758 and to amend the Bill as follows: (a) so as to provide that the maximum fares to be charged in excess of the fares which the companies are now authorised to charge shall not be more than are required to provide from time to time for working expenses, efficiently maintaining and renewing the undertaking and a reasonable return on capital. The two essential points there are, first, that there shall be an inquiry into the finances of the companies in the combine, and, secondly, that the Committee itself shall fix such fares as shall be sufficient only to provide for a fair return. When the Bill came before the Committee on 9th May there was submitted by the Ministry of Transport a Memorandum involving two essential things which were contrary to the express mandatory instructions of this House. The first was that the Committee itself should not inquire into the finances of the companies, and the second was that they should not fix the fares, but that they should delegate to the Ministry of Transport that duty. When that Memorandum came before the Committee 1759 it took everybody, promoters and opponents alike, by surprise, and there was an adjournment. Subsequently, on the fourth day of the Committee meeting, the Chairman of the Committee gave a ruling that the Committee had found the preamble proved, but he took an opportunity of protesting against the conduct of the Ministry of Transport in the following words: We desire, however, to express some surprise at the action of the Minister in suggesting to ns in a Memorandum, considerable alterations in the Bill as passed by the House of Commons on Second Reading, and apparently at that time accepted by him. It would have been in the opinion of the Committee more suitable if the Minister had communicated to the House at the time of the Second Reading the views he ultimately put before us. The Committee, in spite of this protest that considerable alterations had been proposed by the Ministry of Transport, formally report that, "in pursuance of Standing Order 105A, a Supplementary Report of the Ministry of Transport relative to the Bill was laid before the Committee and considered by them. The Committee inserted in the Bill the Clause annexed to the Supplementary Report and also amended the Bill to give effect to the recommendation of the Ministry of Transport." The two points upon which I would ask, respectfully, for your ruling and guidance are these: First of all, is it competent for a Government Department to make recommendations to a Private Bill Committee of this House, which recommendations are contrary to the express mandatory instructions of this House; and, secondly, is it competent for a Private Bill Committee, having received express mandatory instructions from this House to perform a certain duty—in this case to fix fares, according to the finances as they are ascertainable of the company, to give a fair return and only a fair return—to delegate that duty to a Government Department?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The hon. and learned Gentleman has put his two questions very clearly. It is not competent for me to interfere in the matter. I have no control whatever over the Ministry of Transport, nor over the Committee of this House. The House of Commons has control over both, and when this Bill comes on for Third Reading?—I believe it 1760 is down for Third Reading to-morrow—it will be open to the hon. and learned Member to point out wherein he considers that the Ministry of Transport have violated the instructions of the House, and wherein he considers that the Committee have not carried out the instructions of the House. I notice that in the Report of the Committee they specially say: The Committee, in accordance with the instruction of the House of 25th March last, have inquired into the financial position of the companies named, and have amended the Bill so as to give effect to the instruction. Primâ facie, that is the view that the Committee take, but of course that does not conclude the matter. It is open to the hon. and learned Member to raise any objection on the Third Reading and to call the attention of the House to any points wherein he thinks that either the Ministry of Transport or the Committee have not fulfilled the desire of the House.

§ Mr. EDWARDS
Arising out of that reply, may I respectfully ask as to two points. First of all, as you are aware, it is not usual for the evidence that is given before a Private Bill Committee to be circulated among Members of the House. I must put my point in an interrogatory form. Are you aware that in this particular case there are no copies of the evidence available? That is my first point. Secondly, inasmuch as this raises a matter of grave principle concerning the control and privileges of this House over the Committee, would you give directions, or arrange for them to be given, that this Bill be not put down for Third Reading until the evidence, together with the Memorandum from the Ministry of Transport and the Report of the Committee, are in the hands of the whole of the Members of this House who desire to have them. Of course, on the face of the Report one is bound to accept your ruling that primâ facie it does show that there has been a compliance by the Committee with the instructions of the House, but I submit, when the evidence is in the hands of Members, that they will not only see that part of the instructions have not been carried out in reality, but also the precise reasons which transpired before the Committee why that part of the instruction was not carried out. Therefore, I would ask for your guidance and ruling that this Bill shall 1761 not be taken until the Members of the House are enabled to have all the evidence which will place them in such a position that they can arrive at a right judgment, as the trustees for the privileges and traditions of this honourable House.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Report of the evidence taken is the private property of the promoters of the Bill or of the petitioners against the Bill. I have no control over that matter and the House has no control over it. It is taken at the expense of the parties; the House and the country have been put to no expense in regard to it, and it is entirely the private property of those particular persons. With regard to the fixing of a date for the Third Reading of the Bill, that is entirely a matter for the Chairman of Ways and Means under the Standing Orders.

§ Mr. EDWARDS
There is, I believe, a Standing Order which enables this House to give an instruction for the printing and publication of the evidence. I believe it is Standing Order No. 161 or No. 162. All I would ask is that such arrangements be made that the Third Reading of the Bill be postponed, to enable the necessary Order to be given by this House for the printing and publication of the evidence.

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Perhaps the hon. and learned Member will communicate with the Chairman of Ways and Means. The whole direction of Private Bills is his business.

§ Captain W. BENN
Have we any means of securing the presence of the Minister concerned (Sir Eric Geddes), in view of the fact that he persistently absents himself from his place in this House?

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the hon. and gallant Member wish me to send the Sergeant-at-Arms to bring him here?