§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Colonel Ashley)
I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
This Bill, in the opinion of the Ministry of Transport and the Government, is necessary in order to deal with the probable continuance of unemployment during the coming winter, and it proposes to effect a small Amendment in Section 16 of the Railways Act, 1921. We are only taking power however to continue this amended provision for two years so that the House does not part for more than two years with any control 862 which it had before. Section 16 of the Railways Act provides that the Ministry of Transport may, on the application of any railway company, authorise that company to afford such reasonable railway services, facilities and conveniences in connection with its undertaking as may be specified under the Clause. That includes the provision of such minor alterations, extensions and improvements of existing works, as will not involve, in any one case, an expenditure exceeding £100,000. The powers invested in the Ministry at the present time, enable them to authorise works up to £100,000 in the case of any one particular work, and the object of the present Bill is to extend that power and raise the limit from £100,000 to £500,000. The main purpose of the Bill to enable the railway companies, more rapidly, to undertake works for the relief of unemployment. We must face the fact that unemployment will exist next winter. It may not be as bad as last winter—that we cannot tell—but unemployment will be with us, and I am seeking to enable the railway companies, when they have works which they want to put in hand for the relief of unemployment, to proceed without being hung up by this £100,000 limit. At present, any work costing over that sum, has to come before the House, and we know that a private Bill introduced, say, in the autumn, could not possibly get through for a good many months and that practically nothing could be done in that way. We therefore wish to get this extended power, for a period of two years only, to raise the limit to £500,000.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
That is the amount for a particular work. If a railway company comes to us at the present moment and says there is a work to be carried out which will cost £90,000, the Ministry can authorise that work, but if it is anything over £100,000 we cannot authorise it, and we want to raise that limit to half a million. We could, as a matter of fact, last year have authorised both the Midland and the Great Western Companies to undertake works which were urgently needed, and which would have given a great deal of employment, only we had not this power, and there was not time to get a Bill through, and so these works fell through and the 863 employment was not given. The procedure, as far as public control is concerned, will not be altered by the Bill. Public notification must be made of the works proposed to be carried out; then objections are sent in to the Ministry, who consider them, and at their discretion a public inquiry is held in the locality to ascertain what the objections are. I am much more concerned, however, as to the Parliamentary control.
§ Mr. HARDIE
Is the sum of £8,000,000, accumulated by the companies during the War, and still unspent, to be regulated by this rate of £500,000?
§ Colonel ASHLEY
This has nothing at all to do with that. I see that the hon. Member for Central Edinburgh (Mr. W. Graham) is in his place, and as he has a Motion down to reject the Bill, I would like to put a point or two to him. Parliamentary control is, in my opinion, amply retained under the provisions of Section 29 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, which secure that any draft Order made by the Minister must be submitted to the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means in the House of Commons, and that if either of these officials—not both, but either—considers that the proposals are of such a character or magnitude that they should be submitted to Parliament by the ordinary method of a Bill, the Order can only be made after it has been approved by Resolution of both Houses of Parliament. I submit that if we have the consent of both the Chairman of Committees in the House of Lords and the Chairman of Ways and Means here, and they consider these works are proper works to be done in the same way as the works hitherto done up to the limit of £100,000, we have ample safeguards against any loosening of Parliamentary control.
It is not as if this were a new principle, because this procedure has been carried out for some years past, and all that I am asking is to extend that procedure from works up to £100,000 to works up to £500,000. I ask the House to give this Bill a Second Reading, because undoubtedly there are railway works which can be carried out, and which ought to be carried out, this winter for the relief of unemployment. I honestly consider that if I had this power given to me, I 864 should be able during the coming winter to secure some works, at any rate, for the relief of unemployment, and thereby help that condition.
Mr. W. ADAMSON
I am certain that Members in all parts of the House have every sympathy with the object for which the Minister is asking the Second Reading of this Bill, but before a Second Reading be given, or the spending of any more money by our railways be authorised, I think the House ought to understand whether the railway companies are going to carry out their responsibility to the public of this country in a better way than has been the case up till now. There is no doubt that the recent amalgamations of the railway companies have placed the people of this country more completely than ever in the hands of those companies. When the amalgamations were under consideration there were many Members of this House who readily supported the idea, under the impression that it would be an advance on things as they had obtained up to that time, but I think there are a number of us who gave a ready assent to these amalgamations who have changed our minds to a considerable extent since then, and who to-day feel that those amalgamations are putting the people of this country more completely in the hands of the railway companies than ever they have been before. That being the case, we ought to see that, before their powers are extended, the railway companies are compelled to give more reasonable facilities to the public, and to treat the public all over the country in an equitable manner.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
The right hon. Gentleman said that the railway companies' powers were proposed to be extended. May I point out that their powers are not extended, but that it is the Ministry's powers that are to be extended, which is rather a different thing.
It is perfectly true that the Minister is asking an extension of his powers, but, at the same time, that extension will make it possible for the railway companies of this country to spend up to £500,000 on works, whereas at the present time they can spend only up to £100,000 without coming to this House for a Bill to authorise that expenditure. That is extending the power 865 of the companies through the Ministry, and I think hon. Members of this House are quite entitled to take advantage of this opportunity to discuss, particularly with the representative of the Ministry of Transport, the manner in which the railway companies are carrying out their responsibilities to the people of this country. I intend to bring to the notice of the Minister in charge a few of the ways in which I think the railway companies of the country are not carrying out their responsibilities to the people, and, first, there is the case of workmen's tickets. It will be within the recollection of the House that a few months ago there was a reduction of fares, amounting, I think, to taking off the last additional 25 per cent. that was put on to railway fares; but that did not apply to workmen's fares at all. Workmen's fares are continued at the same rate as that at which they had been charged since the fares were raised, and they are not getting any advantage from the reduction that was made in the fares, generally speaking.
For the last four months I have been in communication with the officials of the London and North Eastern Railway Company regarding this matter, on behalf of the miners in my own district. I have been asking that the miners in my district should be given the advantage of the reduction that was made to the travelling public generally. They have had it under consideration, but I have not been able to get any fruitful result from my negotiations, and they still have it under consideration. Not only have I been in communication with the railway companies regarding this matter, but the Executive of the Miners' Federation of Great Britain have had this same question up with the representatives of the whole of the railway companies, and their efforts have been as unfruitful as my own. Up till now, we have not been able to get any reduction in the fares of the miners in travelling to and from their work, notwithstanding that a general reduction of 25 per cent. was made in the fares throughout the whole of the country. What applies to the miners, applies to all other bodies of workmen. It is not the miner alone who is suffering this disability. All other workmen are being treated in the same way. I do not think the representative of the Ministry of 866 Transport would deny that that is unfair treatment as between one section of the community and another. That ought to be straightened out before we extend the powers of the railway companies.
Let me take another case in which different parts of the country are being treated differently by all our railway companies. Take the question of tourist tickets. It is possible for the people of London to get tourist tickets to various parts of the country, particularly to large areas in my own country, Scotland; whereas, on the other hand, people living in the areas to which those tourist tickets apply from London, cannot get a tourist ticket to London. They are placed under a disability, therefore. Take another instance of the manner in which the railway companies are treating one part of the country differently from another. It is possible for the people of London to get a one-day excursion ticket—and it applies to Sunday—to certain places outside the London area, at a fare and a quarter, whereas in the provinces you have not facilities from those places to London. Then take the question of the cheap Saturday fare and cheap Wednesday afternoon fare. In that matter, the railway companies are treating the travelling public in exactly the same way as they have been doing in other respects. You can get a cheap Saturday fare from certain places to certain other places, whereas some places are excluded from the privilege, particularly those where there is no competition from motor omnibuses. The places that readily get cheap Saturday railway fares are the centres where motor chars-à-banc are running in competition with the railway companies. Wherever there is no competition of this kind, it is a very difficult job indeed to get those facilities. It ought to be the duty of the representative of the Ministry of Transport to see that that unfair and inequitable method of treating one part of the country as compared with another is ended at the earliest possible moment. As a matter of fact, before he agrees to extend the spending power of the railway companies, to increase the power of those monopolies, he ought to see to it that they carry out their responsibilities. He read out to us what are the responsibilities of the railway companies to the Ministry 867 of Transport, and he ought to see that those responsibilities are carried out. Take another example. Within recent times, reductions in freights have taken place, and there you have the railway companies treating certain industries in exactly the same way as they have been treating certain parts of the country with regard to fares. You get a more substantial reduction of freights applying to one district than another. At certain times, reductions in freight took place in regard to the commodity that was purchased by certain industries, whereas other industries did not participate in the reduction. I do not think there is any section of British industry that has suffered more in this respect than the industry in which I have been interested the whole of my life, namely, the mining industry. There, again, I think it ought to be the duty of the representative of the Ministry of Transport to require the railway companies to treat all sections of the people on equitable and just principles. I find that, since amalgamation took place, some of the companies have taken advantage of the reduced competition between themselves to keep running, particularly on the main lines, old and worn-out stock. Had there been the old competition that used to exist, they would not have dared to do it. I myself have complained again and again to the representatives of the London and North Eastern Railway Company with respect to this, but it goes on. You even find old and worn-out stock being used on the principal trains between Edinburgh and London, and the people who are using that service have great reason to complain. I think, admirable as is the object which the representative of the Ministry of Transport has in view, that before we give any further powers to the railway companies, this House ought to see to it that the companies are compelled to stand by their responsibilities and to treat people of this country in the same equitable and just manner.
A considerable section of the people of Scotland, at least, were under the impression that the linking-up of the railways was going to be of general benefit, but we are finding that, as far as Scotland is concerned, we are not getting the same treatment as other parts of the 868 country with respect to fares, freights and the stock that is being used on the lines between Scotland and England. If it is to continue, it will be another one of the things that are gradually ripening the idea, that unless Scotland gets fair play, it will have to cut the painter. I think that would be such a serious matter to the predominent partner, that you ought to think seriously about it, or you will allow these things to accumulate, until they reach such proportions that the people of Scotland will demand Home Rule. I hope that this Bill will not get a Second Reading until we get, from the representative of the Ministry of Transport, some definite assurance that these inequalities of treatment are going to be remedied, and that he is going to ask the railway companies to carry out their responsibilities in regard to fares and facilities to his own Department. He has read out to us what are the responsibilities of the railways to that Department. The companies should be compelled to give the facilities and to carry out their responsibilities to a greater degree than at present.
§ Mr. W. GRAHAM
My right hon. Friend the Member for West Fife (Mr. Adamson) has properly taken this opportunity to draw attention to those inconveniences under which a certain section of the people labour, as a result of the railway services at the present time. I wish very briefly to recall what happened in Committee upstairs when the Railway Act was being considered in the summer of 1921, and when this precise proposal which we are asked substantially to amend this afternoon was under consideration. The House will recollect that the Railway Act introduced a radical change in the railway organisation of this country, in that it wiped out, as from 1923, 130 odd railway companies of this country and replaced them by four great railway amalgamations or trusts. That is a very important element when we are considering what is at stake in this Bill. In Committee Members, I think, of every political feeling, took the view that, having regard to the very large powers which the railway trusts were going to obtain, and to the fact that we were wiping out all effective railway competition in this country and that £1,300,000,000 or £1,400,000,000 of capital was at stake, we must maintain under the particular form of guarantee we were 869 giving to the railway companies effective Parliamentary control. We laid down—and this was not a party contention—that one of the effective methods of Parliamentary control was frequent regard to all forms of railway capital expenditure.
What is the proposal which the Ministry of Transport makes this afternoon? The Minister asks the House to go back upon the Clause which we inserted in the Railway Act of 1921, under which we provided that the capital expenditure might, under the Ministry, proceed up to £100,000, while anything more than that would have to be carried out by an ordinary Bill promoted by the railway companies themselves. Now the hon. and gallant Gentleman comes to us, not two years after the Bill was passed, and asks us to extend his powers of authorisation from £100,000 to £500,000, which is—I think he will agree—a very important proposal when we pass to the next consideration, namely, the capital expenditure allowable under this Bill. Let me make it perfectly plain—and I am sure in this I am expressing the feelings of my colleagues here, and probably that of all Members—when I say that we are not opposing the proposal so far as unemployment goes. We recognise that it will provide a certain amount of employment which is urgently required, and we should be the very last to stand in the way of a proposal like that now. However desirable that may be, it does not relieve us of the duty of drawing attention to the very important principle which affects the traders of the country, the travelling public, and the whole relation of this House of Commons to these four amalgamations or trusts.
That issue is sharply raised in regard to this matter of capital expenditure. The Railways Act, 1921, limited the amount to £100,000 because they wanted a very effective form of Parliamentary control. I admit that that control does cot wholly disappear under this proposal, but there is not the slightest doubt that it is modified, and it will be difficult for this House to keep in close touch with an amount up to £500,000, the decision for which really rests with the Chairman of Committees in either House. That after all is where the real decision rests. Under this Bill the matter will only come to the House of Commons in the event of 870 there being some difficulty or doubt in the mind of the Chairmen of Committees. We take the view that the matter should come to Parliament for decision, and that that is a very important consideration.
Under the Railways Act, 1921, a form of guarantee—I have not put it higher than that—was given to the four great railway undertakings in Great Britain. We guaranteed the net revenue of 1913 and made an allowance on account of capital expenditure in the past, present and future, so long as it remained unremunerative. The important point is that capital expenditure ranks as an item to be taken into account before the Rates Tribunal. That tribunal fixes freights, charges, and fares, and all the rest of it for 44,000,000 people who depend upon the railway services in Great Britain.
For that reason, it is important that this House should retain the most complete form of Parliamentary control. In the Committee stage we shall seek to make substantial Amendments in this Bill. I say quite candidly that I would vote against the Second Reading, and go to a Division, even if I only had two supporters, except for one reason, that I do not want to penalise unemployment. If this means employment, many of us are prepared to sacrifice a good deal, but we, must make this protest, and we may even yet go to a Division if we do not get a satisfactory reply. In any case, we shall propose substantial Amendments during the Committee stage.
§ Sir C. WARNER
All that has been said by the hon. Member who has just sat down as to the origin of this Clause is absolutely correct. I have the greatest fear as to the enormous powers given to the great railway companies. This House must keep control over them, and the Minister must have very close control over them as well. Sir Eric Geddes urged that the Minister should keep a watch on the railway companies for the benefit of the public, and he said that they should not be allowed to do things without the consent of this House. Nobody wants to stop the unemployed getting more work. We all want to see this work done, and there is no reason why it should not be done with the consent of this House. The more often we can get the railway companies under the review of this House the better. We do not want them simply to go to the Ministry and get an Order 871 without coming to this House. I should like to make the suggestion that that can be done under this Bill. I will wait until the Parliamentary Secretary comes back, because it is rather important that he should hear it and see whether he can give his consent, because, otherwise, I shall be inclined to vote against the Second Reading of the Bill. Now that the hon. and gallant Gentleman has returned, I will make my suggestion. Would he, in Committee, insert at the end of Clause 1 the wordsEvery Order made under this Bill shall lie on the Table of both Houses for thirty days before the Order becomes effective.It is the same precaution that we take with regard to Orders in Council. Then before the Order became effective, the matter could be raised in this House. In ordinary cases, where it was quite evidently for the benefit of the unemployed, and there was no incursion by the railway company upon the privileges of this House, the Order would lie on the Table and at the end of 30 days it would become effective. It would, however, give this House power, whenever one of these Orders was made and when a railway company had been disobeying, to haul that company over the coals on that particular subject. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman could accept that Amendment or say that he would consider the insertion of words on the Committee stage, it would remove the difficulties not only of myself, but of many other Members who have some fear of the railway companies, and I make the suggestion in the hope that the hon. and gallant Gentleman will agree to it.
§ Mr. HARRIS
This is a very innocent-looking little Bill, and so short that there might be a temptation to let it go through without opposition. But I think the House will see that there is a very great constitutional principle involved. Parliament has given very great monopoly powers to the railways, and that has been accentuated by the legislation of the last few years, whereby competition has been eliminated and monopolies practically set up. The great handle that the House of Commons has always had over the railway companies has been the necessity for them to come to Parliament from time to time in order to get the necessary powers to promote works. On every 872 such occasion local Members raise grievances, and, in return for giving the companies their powers, they have been able to get very substantial concessions. I remember many cases where the railway companies have had to come to this House and where the London County Council have been able to wrest from the railway companies concessions as to workmen's fares and cheap tickets, as was very well put forward by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson).
I agree with the hon. Baronet the Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner) that if we are to let this little innocent Bill go through, we ought to make it clear that in Committee it will need considerable Amendment. A special appeal has been made to the House because the Bill is likely to give productive work to the unemployed. It is a serious responsibility to delay even for a short time anything likely to bring these men useful employment, to take them off the insurance scheme, and to make them users. It is quite another thing to make unemployment an excuse for giving very much larger powers to railway companies. When the figure of £100,000 was fixed, it was a sensible figure, because ordinary work ought to be covered by that amount, but when the Minister practically asks for autocratic powers to sanction work up to a half-a-million sterling, it is quite another story. The kind of work we want to go on is the improvement of permanent ways. I do not want to see under this Bill the Minister have power, without the consent of Parliament, to sanction great alterations in railway stations. We had an example of that the other day in London when it was proposed to seriously interfere with an important traffic centre under a Railway Bill. Fortunately the authority representing the London area was able to get very considerable alterations in the interests of the general public. If, under the cover of this Bill, railway companies are going to be allowed to make great extensions in their railway stations and great changes in the organisation of their traffic systems, then that would be a very serious matter and the Bill ought to be resisted. When we come to Committee we might put in Amendments limiting the scope of the Bill to schemes that will merely give employment, schemes of a purely productive character, 873 but not those that will alter methods of transport. The House of Commons has always been able, through its power to require railway companies to come to it for sanction for any big undertaking or scheme of work, to keep a check on what they do. The House should be very jealous of that power, and should see that the Bill is so amended in Committee as to secure its retention.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
I agree with the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner) that the more frequently railways come under review in this House, the better it is for the whole community. I do not think we should grant any great concessions to the railway companies, without making them realise that they should do something for the agricultural community. I want to show how that community is penalised by the railways. I do not think "penalised" is too strong a word. Recently I had a pleasing experience. My hon. and gallant Friend who is in charge of this Bill met me with extreme courtesy and went to a great deal of trouble to redress a grievance which had arisen in my own constituency. A complaint was sent to me that the railway company were charging, for the conveyance of poultry houses, at the rate of £4 9s. 9d. for two. I felt almost ashamed to bring such a trivial matter to my right hon. Friend's notice, but it did seem very unjust that such a charge should be made, and therefore I was forced to pursue the question. My right hon. Friend went to the trouble of making investigations, with the result that the railway company agreed to reduce their charges to £2 10s. 2d. What I want to know is, will the railways persist in charging the agricultural community extortionate freights for carrying their goods, unless and until a Member of Parliament brings each individual case to the Minister, and the Minister insists upon their reducing the freight?
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I should like to point out to the hon. Gentleman that I am afraid it is not a case in which the Minister can insist. He can only use such powers of persuasion as he may possess in order to get the charges reduced.
§ Dr. CHAPPLE
Exactly. I intend for the future to make use of my hon. and gallant Friend, and I recommend all Members on these benches, whenever they have brought to their notice cases of 874 penalisation by the railways of the agricultural community, to go to my hon. and gallant Friend, who is courteous always, capable always, and has the power to persuade a railway company that it is robbing their constituents. If I had known of this six months ago, I should have been able to render much better service to my constituents. In future, I shall know that it is no use making speeches in this House, but that the right thing to do is to go to the Minister of Transport and say that the charges which are made ought to be reduced, and will he please get them reduced. My hon. and gallant Friend has confessed that he is able to do these things. The railway company, if it recognised its duty to the agricultural community, would not require the intervention of myself as the representative of Dumfrieshire, or of my hon. and gallant Friend.
I should like to mention one or two of the exorbitant charges made to the agricultural community by railway companies, which have brought the matter home to me in a much more aggravated form because I know what the agricultural communities in other parts of the world are charged, and I think I can state, as a general proposition, that wherever you get cheap agricultural transport you get a prosperous state of agriculture. It is cheap transport that the farmer wants. It is the cost of transport to-day that renders necessary Agricultural Rates Bills and Agricultural Credits Bills; all not worth a snap of the fingers compared with a reduction of freights to a reasonable rate. I will give some examples of what is being paid now. I have been collecting these particulars for a considerable time. It costs 40 per cent. of the wholesale price in freight to supply agricultural produce to the London community. That is the cost of freight that the farmers in Norfolk and in some parts of the Midlands have been paying. It works out in the case of potatoes to £52 per acre on produce, and £8 on manure, so that altogether £60 per acre goes in railway freights. That has to be paid before the farmer gets anything, and in the end the consumer has to pay it. What is the use of passing Agricultural Rates Bills or doing some little tinpot thing that only means a few shillings, when there are these charges which mean pounds to the farmer?
875 Here is an instance in which 3½ tons of carrots were carried. The carrots yielded £8 11s. 3d. The cartage to Liverpool was £1, the railway freight £4 18s. 4d., tolls 10s. 11d., and commissions £1 15s. That adds up to £8 4s. 3d. for the 3½ tons, and the total return to the farmer who grew the carrots was only £8 11s. 3d. It is quite easy for the railways to alter that. In every one of the Dominions the railways are put primarily at the service of the agricultural community. In South Africa, railway freights on agricultural produce to the farmers is only half the full rate on all other goods. That is their policy. I should like to read one or two extracts to enforce this argument. This is what appeared in "Country Life" a short time ago:Nothing would be more materially helpful to the farmer, especially the small farmer, the small holder (a large class which it is most important to encourage and keep on the land), than an immediate reduction in the parcels post rates for food to the old scale of 3d. per lb., followed up by a general reduction in railway rates of not less than 33⅓ per cent. for agricultural produce.Unless we have cheap transport, we have dear food and penalisation of the farmer. The journal I have quoted goes on to say that agricultural produce can be sent from France and Denmark at less than half the rates that the home producer pays. Here are some other figures of great interest to bring this fact home. The agricultural freights on goods in South Africa—I have worked this out from an official document from the Minister of Railways—come to £15 per acre for a distance of 200 miles compared with £52 in this country on potatoes. In many of these countries the agricultural freights rate is made just to pay expenses and in some cases there is a loss but it is made up in other things, because they all realise that the farmer, of all the producers in the country, deserves consideration because he is producing the food of the country. If we want to encourage agriculture, instead of dealing with things that are not essential we have to focus our attention on essentials; and what interferes with his profits and cripples his productivity is the enormous freight rates. I have asked the hon. and gallant Gentleman frequently about these railway freights on agricultural products and he always shelters him- 876 self behind the Railway Rates Tribunal, which is not worth a snap of the fingers to the farmers. They manipulate them right enough. They have made very few concessions and what they have made do not count. If the hon. and gallant Gentleman is going to extend the powers and increase the facilities of railway companies he must bring home to them that they have a duty to the community which they are not discharging, and especially to the agricultural community.
§ Mr. HARDIE
I wish to put a question to the Minister, in order to try to clear up a point I have raised before. Whether it is that I cannot make myself clear, or that there is no desire on the other side to answer the question I do not know, but I am going to have another try. During the War it was agreed that, since the railway companies could not get the labour to carry out necessary repairs, a sum of money would be allowed to accumulate in order to be used to absorb the unemployment that was bound to come after the cessation of hostilities. I understand that sum accumulated to £8,000,000. I have asked before why it was that since that sum had been allowed to accumulate in the hands of the railway companies, and since we have been overtaken with a time of distress and unemployment, they were not called upon to put it into circulation as wages and thereby make things better. The Minister of Transport to-day said it had nothing to do with this Bill. Has it not? Does the House of Commons require to give its signature to the expenditure of the £8,000,000 which has accumulated or not? I am always suspicious when someone comes along with the idea of making the railway companies appear as great philanthropists in the interests of unemployment. I am always suspicious when anyone who wants to get more power in his hands comes with his left hand clean and says he is going to do something for unemployment, and then says behind his back, "That sort of thing will keep the Labour men from speaking against us, and in that way we will pull in more with the right hand than we give as a promise with the left." I am not taken in by promises like these. If they were honest and sincere men who loved their country and desired to benefit the unemployed, they would do it without making a condition of getting something for doing 877 that which is the duty of every man who claims to be a noble citizen. They do not do that. They make no concessions without getting twice what they give. In suburban areas in Scotland, the railway rates for passengers and goods stand almost at war level. Where pre-War the passenger paid 6d. it is now 10½d. That is the average of suburban rates. We as a community are asked to give new powers to companies that treat the public in this way. In one suburban area, they spent £1,500,000 in putting up a railway in stupid competition in order to frighten off some other railway from that area. This stupid expenditure forms portion of the company's capital, and profits have to be paid upon it, with the result that we have to pay for it in increased fares. That and other reasons induce me to give whole-hearted opposition to this or any other Bill that comes along of the same sort.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport said that £100,000 in any one particular was the old arrangement. I understand now that the idea is to substitute five in place of one. Does that mean, "in any one particular" job? Or can a railway company come forward, and say that they want to spend £500,000 on a station south, and then afterwards come along and say they want to spend £500,000 on a station north, east or west? Are we to have 'repeated the business of spending £1,500,000 on a golfing station, away up in the hills, where only the rich men can go twice a week, while down in our city we have one station, built in 1846, which still stands as an empty shell, with only the plant holding it together. Are we to be treated by rich men's companies in this way, that they build huge stations for our own and American millionaires, while we are to stand by and see our workmen's fares kept up at high rates, our suburban business man's rates kept up, and our agricultural rates kept up, and all to give power to men who are interested in golf or some other sport. I hope that we shall refuse to extend a single item of the existing powers over the £100,000, and that in Committee the Government will bring forward some explanation of why they have been approached. I am not in the least deluded by the talk of helping the unemployed. All sorts of methods have been adopted since the combination have been able to 878 get together and to get their managers appointed. There is an underlying scheme and a game in all this. Unless the representative of the Ministry of Transport is able to answer the questions which have been raised by myself and others, we are going to see that he does not get the Second Reading.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
I have no criticism to offer of the way in which this Bill has been discussed. I understand that hon. Members opposite think that there is some deep-laid plot underlying this proposal. I assure them that there is nothing more than what appears in the Bill, namely, enabling the Minister to authorise the construction of works up to a limit of £500,000. The hon. Member for West Fife (Mr. W. Adamson), the hon. Member for Dumfries (Dr. Chapple) and other hon. Members raised the question of railway charges, workmen's tickets, tourist tickets and one-day excursions. Though these are not strictly relevant to the subject-matter of the Bill, I appreciate that it does give them an opportunity of raising these questions. Therefore, I do not complain that they have been raised. I have no power over these charges, no power either to reduce or to raise them. Parliament in its wisdom two years ago handed over the revision and fixing of these other matters to the Railway Rates Tribunal. One hon. Member said that he had no confidence in that tribunal. I have no power in reference to that as the tribunal which has been set up by Parliament stands.
The railway companies are allowed to charge the rates which were in force in August, 1921, and any representative body, traders, local authorities, and others, can make, and do make, representations to the Railway Rates Tribunal and ask them to reduce the fares. I never heard of any representative body asking that fares should be increased, though no doubt there is the power if they so wish. I quite appreciate what has been said as to the grievance in reference to all these matters of rates, especially in connection with agriculture, which is fighting for its life at present, but if any representative body, even if a small one, goes to the tribunal with a complaint as to rates, the matter is investigated fully, and if the case is made out, they will get a reduction. When the appointed day comes, which I 879 hope will be in a very short time, next year, when the tribunal has gone through all the fares—and there are thousands of them—what are called standard charges will be fixed, and it will be the duty of the tribunal to review those charges, and any revision which is thought necessary will be made. I have put the position clearly, and I advise those two hon. Members who make these complaints about railway fares to tell those who complain to them that their remedy is open to them through this Railway Rates Tribunal. One or two hon. Members have stated that this Bill is a concession to the railway companies. I strongly dissent from that statement. The Bill is not a concession to the railways.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
It all depends on the way in which you think that the Ministry carries out its duties. If it has carried out its duties satisfactorily under the £100,000 limit, why should it not do so equally fairly under the new limit?
§ Mr. LINFIELD
It is a very great concession to relieve them of the obligation of introducing a Bill.
§ Colonel ASHLEY
It is also a concession to the unemployed. I must say something with reference to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner). On the spur of the moment the hon. Member cannot expect me to accept his suggestion unreservedly, but I promise that I will immediately, and very carefully, consider it, and, if at all possible, I will try to embody it in the Bill in Committee.
§ Sir C. WARNER
If my words be not possible would the Parliamentary Secretary offer us some equivalent, so as to give this House power to stop these Orders should it not approve them?
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I wish to put a question to the Parliamentary Secretary in reference to the point raised by the hon. Member for Lichfield (Sir C. Warner). It is very difficult to ascertain what is the 880 position of Orders under this Bill. I find this proviso in Clause 1:Provided that any Order by the Minister under that Section authorising the alteration, extension, or improvement of works involving an expenditure exceeding one hundred thousand pounds shall be subject to the same procedure as an Order under Section seventeen of the said Act authorising the acquisition of land and the construction of works.That is an illustration of how futile it is to have this kind of legislation. I turn to Section 17 of the Railways Act of 1921 and I find this:For enabling railway companies to effect alterations, extensions, and improvements of existing works in pursuance of an Order of the Railway and Canal Commission or the Minister under this Part of this Act, the Minister may make any such Order authorising the acquisition of land or easements and the construction of works as could have been made under paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919"—That is one reference—for the purposes specified in that paragraph, and that paragraph and Section twenty-nine of the same Act"—Another reference—other than the proviso to Sub-section (3) of that Section, and the Rules made under that Section, and the Regulations contained in the Second Schedule to the same Act shall, so far as they relate to railways, apply accordingly.That is a further reference. Paragraph (d) of Sub-section (1) of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, states:For enabling any directions given by the Minister under the last foregoing paragraph as to alterations and improvements and additions to be carried into effect, the Minister may, by Order, authorise the owners of any undertaking to acquire any land (or easements) and to construct any works, and the Order may incorporate the Lands Clauses Acts"—Another reference—subject to such modifications as may be specified in the Order, being modifications of those Acts made or authorised to be made by the Development and Road Improvements Funds Act, 1909"—Still another reference—or any other enactment.I ask the House to mark that, "any other enactment." Then there is the proviso that nothing is to be deemed to empower the Minister to authorise the acquisition otherwise than by agreement, of any land belonging to the owners of another under- 881 taking or a local authority, and so on. Then there is a reference to Section 29 of the same Act, and the proviso to Subsection (3) of that Section throw some light on the question put by the hon. Member for Lichfield. In Section 29, the following words occur:The Minister may make Rules in relation to matters preliminary to the making of Orders and Orders in Council under this Act. … Any Rules so made shall be laid before Parliament as soon as they are made.The rules in relation to the making of the Orders have to be laid on the Table, but not the Orders themselves. We are making a new departure, and it seems to me that under the Railways Act, 1921, Parliament was concerned as to the extensions to be made. We find in Subsection (1) of Section 16 of that Act the following words in parenthesis:(including the provision of such minor alterations and extensions and improvements of existing works as will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding one hundred thousand pounds).Obviously the House of Commons was then concerned that such an Order should only made for minor alterations and extensions, and if the House then agreed that only the Rules and not the Orders were to be laid on the Table it was on the express stipulation that they only related to minor alterations. Here we have a proposal which goes beyond minor alterations and deals with substantial capital undertakings up to half a million. That raises an entirely new situation and takes the scheme of this Bill altogether outside what was contemplated under Section 16. If Parliament was content that Orders made under Section 16 should not lie on the Table, that gives no reason at all why a similar exemption should apply to the far more important and extensive Orders contemplated in the present Bill. The right hon. Gentleman should give an undertaking that when an Order of such an extent and kind is to be made it should lie on the Table and Parliament should be made aware of exactly what was being done. I have no desire to prevent any necessary works being done. Everybody is agreed that in many respects our railway facilities are inadequate as they stand, and that the facilities which are offered in connection with many railway stations 882 are totally inadequate to the public needs. The House will be glad to know that railway companies, even at this late hour, are willing to carry out such developments, but it is natural that the House should have some assurance that the developments which are to be carried out and the extensions which are in view are really extensions and developments which are directed to supplying public needs, and not purely for luxury purposes, as the hon. Member for Springburn pointed out. It is easy to put forward the plea of providing for unemployment. Undoubtedly, in the places where unemployment exists to the greatest extent, you frequently find that there is the greatest need for railway extension also. It is in the crowded urban centres where you have the largest amount of unemployment, and a great deal of recent railway work has not been done there at all, but where there is not much unemployed population. If we pass this Bill without any provision that the Orders of the Ministry are to be subject to the supervision of Parliament, we have no security that the works will be undertaken for the relief of unemployment where the unemployed people actually live
§ Colonel ASHLEY
Will my hon. Friend allow us to get the Second Reading of the Bill now? I will do all I can to meet the points he has raised.
§ Mr. HARDIE
May I ask the Minister in charge for a reply to my question whether a railway company under this Bill can come for powers once, twice, or three times?
§ Mr. PRINGLE
I am very reluctant to do anything that is disagreeable to the general sense of the House, but it has been represented to me that there are other hon. Members who desire to take part in the Debate on the Second Reading of this Bill, and if I am reluctant to assent to the appeal of the hon. and gallant Gentleman opposite, it is not out of any discourtesy to him, but because I think there are a number of hon. Members here who desire to put points before him, and who think the Second Reading—
§ Question put, "That the Question be now put."
§ The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 81.885
|Division No. 269.]||AYES.||[4.0 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Molloy, Major L. G. S.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Murchison, C. K.|
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)||Furness, G. J.||Nall, Major Joseph|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Garland, C. S.||Nesbitt, Robert C.|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin||Gates, Percy||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Goff, Sir R. Park||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague||Hall, Rr.-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)||Paget, T. G.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Halstead, Major D.||Parker, Owen (Kettering)|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perring, William George|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Harvey, Major S. E.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)||Hawke, John Anthony||Raeburn, Sir William H.|
|Berry, Sir George||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Roberts Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hewett, Sir J. P.||Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)|
|Bowyer Capt. G. E. W.||Hiley, Sir Ernest||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Hopkins, John W. W.||Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Hudson, Capt. A.||Sandon, Lord|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hume, G. H.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hurd, Percy A.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley||Singleton, J. E.|
|Cadogan, Major Edward||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)||Stanley, Lord|
|Clayton, G. C.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Lamb, J. Q.||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Lever, Sir Arthur L.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Cope, Major William||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Tubbs, S. W.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Wallace, Captain E.|
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||Lort-Williams, J.||Waring, Major Walter|
|Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Wells, S. R.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lumley, L. R.||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Dawson, Sir Phillip||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||Whitla, Sir William|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Wise, Frederick|
|Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Manville, Edward||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|Fawkes, Major F. H.||Margesson, H. D. R.|
|Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Flanagan, W. H.||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Gibbs.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Edmonds, G.||Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Irving, Dan|
|Barnes, A.||Entwistle, Major C. F.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)|
|Batey, Joseph||Fairbairn, R. R.||John, William (Rhondda, West)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Gardiner, James||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Gosling, Harry||Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)|
|Bonwick, A.||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Kenyon, Barnet|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Greenall, T.||Lansbury, George|
|Broad, F. A.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Lawson, John James|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)||Leach, W.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Groves, T.||Linfield, F. C.|
|Cape, Thomas||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Lowth, T.|
|Chapple, W. A.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)|
|Charleton, H. C.||Hancock, John George||M'Entee, V. L.|
|Collie, Sir John||Hardie, George D.||March, S.|
|Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell||Harney, E. A.||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Harris, Percy A.||Marshall, Sir Arthur H.|
|Duffy, T. Gavan||Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||Middleton, G.|
|Duncan, C.||Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Millar, J. D.|
|Dunnico, H.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Ede, James Chuter||Hinds, John||Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)|
|O'Grady, Captain James||Sitch, Charles H.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Phillipps, Vivian||Snell, Harry||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Potts, John S.||Thornton, M.||Wright, W.|
|Pringle, W. M. R.||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Roberts, C. H. (Derby)||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Saklatvala, S.||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)||Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. A. V. Alexander.|
|Scrymgeour, E.||Weir, L. M.|
|Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)||Welsh, J. C.|
§ Question put accordingly, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."886
§ The House divided: Ayes, 156; Noes, 73.887
|Division No. 270.]||AYES.||[4.7 p.m.|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Furness, G. J.||Molloy, Major L. G. S.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Gardiner, James||Murchison, C. K.|
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)||Garland, C. S.||Nall, Major Joseph|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Gates, Percy||Nesbitt, Robert C.|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Goff, Sir R. Park||Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Nield, Sir Herbert|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)||O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh|
|Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague||Halstead, Major D.||Parker, Owen (Kettering)|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Perring, William George|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Harvey, Major S. E.||Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Hawke, John Anthony||Raeburn, Sir William H.|
|Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)|
|Berry, Sir George||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Hewett, Sir J. P.||Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)|
|Blundell, F. N.||Hiley, Sir Ernest||Roundell, Colonel R. F.|
|Bowyer, Capt G. E. W.||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)|
|Brass, Captain W.||Hopkins, John W. W.||Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Hudson, Capt. A.||Sandon, Lord|
|Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Hume, G. H.||Shepperson, E. W.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer||Shipwright, Captain D.|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Hurd, Percy A.||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley||Singleton, J. E.|
|Butcher, Sir John George||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)||Skelton, A. N.|
|Cadogan, Major Edward||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Kelley, Major Sir F. A. (Rotherham)||Stanley, Lord|
|Clayton, G. C.||King, Captain Henry Douglas||Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Lamb, J. Q.||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Lever, Sir Arthur L.||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Collie, Sir John||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Cope, Major William||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)||Tubbs, S. W.|
|Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)||Wallace, Captain E.|
|Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Lort-Williams, J.||Waring, Major Walter|
|Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)||Lumley, L. R.||Wells, S. R.|
|Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Dawson, Sir Phillip||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm||Whitla, Sir William|
|Edmondson, Major A. J.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)||Wise, Frederick|
|Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)||Manville, Edward||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Margesson, H. D. R.||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|Fawkes, Major F. H.||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Ford, Patrick Johnston||Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel Gibbs.|
|Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)|
|Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Charleton, H. C.||Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Darbishire, C. W.||Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Barnes, A.||Duffy, T. Gavan||Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)|
|Batey, Joseph||Duncan, C.||Groves, T.|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Dunnico, H.||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Ede, James Chuter||Hancock, John George|
|Bonwick, A.||Edmonds, G.||Hardie, George D.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Harney, E. A.|
|Broad, F. A.||Entwistle, Major C. F.||Harris, Percy A.|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Fairbairn, R. R.||Hay Captain J. P. (Cathcart)|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Gosling, Harry||Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)|
|Cape, Thomas||Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)|
|Chapple, W. A.||Greenall, T.||Hinds, John|
|Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)||M'Entee, V. L.||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Irving, Dan||March, S.||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Marshall, Sir Arthur H.||Snell, Harry|
|John, William (Rhondda, West)||Middleton, G.||Thornton, M.|
|Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Millar, J. D.||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Kenyon, Barnet||Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)||Welsh, J. C.|
|Lansbury, George||O'Grady, Captain James||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Lawson, John James||Phillipps, Vivian||Wright, W.|
|Leach, W.||Potts, John S.|
|Linfield, F. C.||Pringle, W. M. R.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Lowth, T.||Saklatvala, S.||Mr. MacNeill Weir and Mr. A. V.|
|MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Scrymgeour, E.||Alexander.|
Bill read a Second time.
§ Motion made, and Question put, "That888
§ the Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House.—[Mr. W. Adamson.]
§ The House divided: Ayes, 75; Noes, 152.889
|Division No. 271.]||AYES.||[4.15 p.m.|
|Adamson, Rt. Hon. William||Groves, T.||Middleton, G.|
|Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)||Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Millar, J. D.|
|Barnes, A.||Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)||Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)|
|Batey, Joseph||Hancock, John George||Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)|
|Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)||Hardie, George D.||O'Grady, Captain James|
|Berkeley, Captain Reginald||Harris, Percy A.||Phillipps, Vivian|
|Bonwick, A.||Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)||Potts, John S.|
|Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.||Hayes, John Henry (Edge Hill)||Pringle, W. M. R.|
|Broad, F. A.||Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (N'castle, E.)||Saklatvala, S.|
|Buxton, Charles (Accrington)||Hinds, John||Scrymgeour, E.|
|Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)||Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)||Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)|
|Cape, Thomas||Irving, Dan||Sitch, Charles H.|
|Chapple, W. A.||Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)||Snell, Harry|
|Charleton, H. C.||John, William (Rhondda, West)||Thornton, M.|
|Darbishire, C. W.||Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)||Warner, Sir T. Courtenay T.|
|Duffy, T. Gavan||Kenyon, Barnet||Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)|
|Duncan, C.||Lansbury, George||Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)|
|Dunnico, H.||Lawson, John James||Weir, L. M.|
|Ede, James Chuter||Leach, W.||Welsh, J. C.|
|Edmonds, G.||Linfield, F. C.||Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)|
|Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)||Lowth, T.||Wintringham, Margaret|
|Entwistle, Major C. F.||MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)||Wright, W.|
|Gosling, Harry||M'Entee, V. L.|
|Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)||March, S.||TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—|
|Greenall, T.||Marshall, Sir Arthur H.||Mr. T. Griffiths and Mr. A. V.|
|Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)||Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'dine, E.)||Alexander.|
|Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)|
|Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte||Collie, Sir John||Hewett, Sir J. P.|
|Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)||Cope, Major William||Hiley, Sir Ernest|
|Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)||Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell||Hoare, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir S. J. G.|
|Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.||Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)||Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)|
|Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Col. Sir Martin||Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry||Hopkins, John W. W.|
|Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.||Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)||Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.|
|Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence||Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)||Hudson, Capt. A.|
|Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley||Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)||Hume, G. H.|
|Balfour, George (Hampstead)||Dawson, Sir Philip||Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer|
|Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague||Edmondson, Major A. J.||Hurd, Percy A.|
|Barnett, Major Richard W.||Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith||Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley|
|Barnston, Major Harry||Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)||Hutchison, G. A. C. (Midlothian, N.)|
|Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)||Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray||Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.|
|Berry, Sir George||Fawkes, Major F. H.||Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul|
|Birchall, Major J. Dearman||Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.||Joynson-Hicks, Sir William|
|Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)||Ford, Patrick Johnston||Kelley, Major Sir F. A. (Rotherham)|
|Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.||Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot||King, Captain Henry Douglas|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.||Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.||Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement|
|Brass, Captain W.||Furness, G. J.||Lamb, J. Q.|
|Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive||Gardiner, James||Lever, Sir Arthur L.|
|Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)||Garland, C. S.||Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)|
|Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)||Gates, Percy||Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.|
|Buckingham, Sir H.||Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John||Locker-Lampson, G. (Wood Green)|
|Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.||Goff, Sir R. Park||Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)|
|Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James||Greenwood, William (Stockport)||Lort-Williams, J.|
|Cadogan, Major Edward||Hacking, Captain Douglas H.||Loyd, Arthur Thomas (Abingdon)|
|Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.||Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)||Lumley, L. R.|
|Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)||Halstead, Major D.||Lyle-Samuel, Alexander|
|Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)||Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry||Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm|
|Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)||Harvey, Major S. E.||McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)|
|Clayton, G. C.||Hawke, John Anthony||Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)|
|Cobb, Sir Cyril||Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)||Manville, Edward|
|Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.||Hennessy, Major J. R. G.||Margesson, H. D. R.|
|Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips||Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)||Marks, Sir George Croydon|
|Milne, J. S. Wardlaw||Roberts, Samuel (Hereford, Hereford)||Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)|
|Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)||Robertson-Despencer, Major (Islgtn, W.)||Thorpe, Captain John Henry|
|Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)||Roundell, Colonel R. F.||Titchfield, Marquess of|
|Molloy, Major L. G. S.||Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)||Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement|
|Murchison, C. K.||Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)||Tubbs, S. W.|
|Nall, Major Joseph||Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.||Wallace, Captain E.|
|Nesbitt, Robert C.||Sanderson, Sir Frank B.||Waring, Major Walter|
|Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)||Sandon, Lord||Wells, S. R.|
|Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)||Shipwright, Captain D.||Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.|
|Nield, Sir Herbert||Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)||Whitla, Sir William|
|Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John||Singleton, J. E.||Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George|
|O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh||Skelton, A. N.||Wise, Frederick|
|Parker, Owen (Kettering)||Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)||Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward|
|Perring, William George||Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furness)||Yerburgh, R. D. T.|
|Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton||Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.|
|Raeburn, Sir William H.||Stanley, Lord||TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—|
|Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)||Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.||Colonel Leslie Wilson and Colonel|
|Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)||Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-||Gibbs.|
Bill committed to a Standing Committee.
§ The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.890
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 3.
§ Adjourned at Twenty - three Minutes after Four o'Clock till Monday next (9th July).