HC Deb 04 March 1921 vol 138 cc2167-8
Major DAVID DAVIES

I desire to make a personal statement with reference to a speech made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) in Monday's Debate on Supply, when, owing to a long-standing engagement in my constituency, I was unable to be present. My right hon. Friend, as reported in the OFFICIAL REPORT, said that in a speech at the annual meeting of the Cambrian Railway Company I informed the shareholders that A signal box man who earned 21s. in 1914, now obtained 134s. 6d. per week, and in another case a man who earned 17s. a week, now received 133s. a week. He also said, in reply to a question put by the right hon. Baronet the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury): I say it is simply not true. If that is the explanation, why was not that said?"— [OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February, 1920; col. 1484, Vol. 138.] May I be allowed to quote what I actually did say in the speech to which my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby referred? I said: The result to us"— that is to say, the Company— has been that whilst our wages bill for 1913 amounted to some £120,000, for last year the amount paid was nearly half a million. It may be interesting perhaps to have a few instances given to you showing how far-reaching these changes have been. We estimate that the eight-hours days alone has cost us some £70,000 per annum. A signal box which cost us 21s. per week to work in 1914 now costs us 134s. 6d. per week. Another signal box which cost 17s. per week now costs 133s. per week. At another station wages amounting to 73s. per week have risen to 311s. 6d. per week. The House will observe that I gave specific instances of the present cost of working signal boxes as compared with the cost in 1914, whereas my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby told the House that these figures referred to wages paid to individual signalmen. I made it quite clear that the increased costs were due not only to the increases in wages, but also to the operation of the eight-hours day. As the accuracy of this statement has been challenged and my veracity has been impugned, and as I have not had an opportunity of refuting the charges brought against me, I thought it only right that I should ask the indulgence of the House to allow me to make this statement. Had I been informed by my right hon. Friend that he intended to raise these points, I should have been very happy to have placed all the facts and figures at his disposal, and I feel sure he would not wish to mislead the House and the public with regard to this matter. I regret that he is not in his place. I informed him on the 2nd March that I intended to raise the matter to-day, and understood that this was the first available day on which he could be present.