HC Deb 02 June 1921 vol 142 cc1337-41

Considered in Committee.

[Mr. JAMES HOPE in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to provide for the re- organisation and further regulation of railways, and the discharge of liabilities in connection with the possession of railways, and otherwise to amend the law relating to railways, and to extend the duration of the Rates Advisory Committee, it is expedient to make provision for the payment, out of moneys provided by Parliament—

  1. (a) of a sum of sixty million pounds in satisfaction of claims which might have been made by railway companies in Great Britain for compensation under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, or the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of, or in respect of, the possession by the Crown of the undertakings, railroads, or plant of such railway companies, or in the exercise of the powers conferred by those Acts;
  2. (b) of the expenses (including the remuneration, of members and staff) of any tribunals which may be established by the said Act;
  3. (c) of contributions by the Treasury to any pension or superannuation fund of which any officer or servant of a railway company transferred to the Minister of Transport may remain a member, and of allowances for the disturbance of officers and servants;
  4. (d) of the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as the committee is continued in existence by the said Act."—[Mr. Hilton Young.]

Mr. SPENCER

I beg to move, in paragraph (a), to leave out the word "sixty" and to insert instead thereof the word "ten."

I understand that the Committee which investigated the claim made by the railway companies against the Government were of opinion, after very careful consideration of the whole of the evidence submitted to them, that the only sums due to the railway companies were very insignificant sums; but for some reason the interpretation put by the Government upon the recommendations of that Committee is a sum of £60,000,000. How the Government have come to give so liberal an interpretation passes the comprehension of some of us who have not the privilege of being in possession of the Government's secrets. The Committee had before them the evidence upon which they based their conclusions, and those conclusions in no sense whatever supported the sum of £60,000,000. If this Resolution is passed there will be no further opportunity of seeking to reduce the amount when the Bill goes before the Committee upstairs or is taken on the floor of the House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to support the Amendment.

It is extraordinary that the Minister of Transport should not be here to explain this Resolution. I say that without any reflection on my very capable Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry. This Bill was introduced with a tremendous flourish of trumpets, and was to save the country sums ranging from £25,000,000 upwards. I see the Resolution is asking for money. I do not refer to the £60,000,000 to be paid to the railway companies, but to the fact that the expenses include the remuneration of the members and staff of any tribunals established under the Act, and the expenses of the Rates Advisory Committee so long as that Committee continues in existence. We are entitled to know how much those expenses are likely to be. Speaking for the part of the country I have the honour to represent, for the merchants and shippers and traders of Hull, I suggest that the appeals to the Rates Advisory Committee and to the tribunals will be frequent and costly, and will entail a great deal of work.

The opposition to the present arrangement is being hardened daily in my constituency. There they anticipate grave disadvantages as a result of the system. Those disadvantages were mentioned by two hon. Members who represent Hull. The statement of the hon. Member for East Hull (Mr. Murchison) was waived on one side by the representatives of the Government, who said that the hon. Member's statements could be dealt with in Committee upstairs. I am sorry to say that the hon. Member for East Hull has not been put on the Committee, and therefore will not be able to make his objection heard or to put forward alternative proposals. On the Second Reading the hon. Member for North-West Hull (Colonel Lambert Ward) also raised objection, but the Minister of Transport made no answer whatsoever, and did not attempt to meet us in any way. I took the opportunity of reminding him, and he said it was a matter that had been dealt with long before I was ever heard of, or words to that effect. If that sort of treatment is a sample of the way the community is to be treated, if that is the spirit which is to animate the tribunals and the working of the railways under this arrangement, then Heaven help the trading community, and Heaven help the Government after the trading community and the general public have had a few months' experience of the working. I desire to reinforce the remarks of my hon. Friend (Mr. Spencer), and I do most seriously press this matter as regards the not unimportant city which I represent, and which is the fourth seaport of the world—

It being a quarter past Eight of the Clock and there being Private Business set down by direction of the Chairman of Ways and Means under Standing Order No. 8, further Proceeding was postponed without Question put.