§ (By Order).
§ Not amended, considered.
§ Motion made, and Question, "That Standing Orders 223 and 243 be suspended, and that the Bill be now read the Third time," put, and agreed to.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
§ A verbal Amendment made.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINI desire to move
That this Bill be recommitted, and that all petitions against the Bill deposited within three days before the meeting of the Committee be referred to the Committee.This Bill is the outcome of a combination of a large number of railway companies. They have got a large number of Bills through this House. They are a powerful corporation or trust. I am opposing the Third Reading of this Bill in the interests of the public, and of my constituents, according to their complaints, and in order that the public may be adequately protected against the powerful corporation and the large trust. Looking at the Bill, I find on page 2 that charges may be levied, and from time to time altered by orders made by the Minister of Transport. I find that where any alteration 2575 has been made it has always been an increase. It seems to me that the only way of attempting to object to a powerful trust of this description is to oppose the Bill in this House, otherwise the public have no redress. There is no competition in this part of the country, because this Southern Railway Company bought up all competitors. The thing is all in their hands, except the House desires to alter it. The power given to enable the company to alter, levy or make rates means that the rates will be higher rates, and this is not in the interests of the public. Looking further, I find that it says:The company shall until the 1st day of October, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-nine——.That means, if this Bill passes in its present state, that the people in that district have to put up with what these railway companies impose upon them. Reading further, I see:The Minister may if he thinks fit at any time after the fifteenth day of February, 1925, make an order revising all or any of such rates, dues, tolls, or charges as aforesaid.That means that those in that part of the country that find that the charges about which they complain most bitterly must wait for a year before taking action, for, the charges once fixed, they must bear with for a year. Again I read:(2) No application may be made under this Section for a general revision of rates, dues, tolls, and charges for the time being authorised under this Act within 12 months after the date of an order.Again, the public have to put up with the matter for a year once the Order is made. I have in my hand letters from various authorities, including the Whitstable Urban District Council, objecting generally to the Bill. The letter from Whitstable says, amongst other things, that there is a great deal of competition in the coal trade, and that the coal has suffered considerably from the heavy dues. This is not in the interests of the public. The rates ought to be brought to a reasonable level. That would be in the interests of the public, and in the interests really of the railway companies, and in the interests of my constituency. As I have said before, and repeat with your permission, where you have a large and powerful trust of this description the public have no redress against it, 2576 and it is for that reason that I am bringing this matter before the House. Again, the Whitstable and District Council asked that there should be a reduction in the dues in their port, and I have, also, letters from the Urban District Councils of Folkestone and Newhaven. I have letters, also, dealing with the matter. Before a Bill of this description passes the House, though we may not have had any great experience of what this company proposes to do in connection with certain docks, we do know, and have known for many years, how they have managed in that part: how their service has been antiquated and antedeluvian——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe hon. and gallant Gentleman is getting outside the scope of the Bill, which is dealing with dock charges.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1NOf course, I bow to your ruling entirely, but may I mention that the docks are of no use without railways. You must have a railway to reach the dock. However, after what you have said, may I just mention two matters that are intimately connected, and that perhaps I am entitled to bring in—the docks by means of the railways——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThat would not be in order.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1NI bow to your ruling. I turn now to the rates, and I think that these will be within the limit of the discussion. The South Eastern Railway have a charge for carrying goods and a charge for freightage——
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Bill deals with harbours, docks and piers, and not with railways.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDK1NI bow again to your ruling: but I understand that there is a rate for freightage, and also a rate on the railway, so that if you want to put your goods in a vessel you have to get them there through the railway which runs down to the docks. You could do this, I think, without any alteration of rates, and the concern is also under the management of one company. Therefore, under these circumstances, I would wish to say a few words about the rates which, I understand, are through rates both on the railway and to the vessel——
§ Mr. SPEAKERNo. The Bill deals with dock charges only.
§ Lieut.-Colonel RUDKINI think I have said enough——[Laughter.] I have not finished yet. Perhaps when I have, the hon. Gentleman the Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) will not cheer. I have, I think, said enough to show that this combine with no competition whatever in the district, is not in the public interest. I ask Members on all sides of the House who have the interests of fair play and the interests of the public at heart to consider the Bill, and support the Motion which I have put forward.
§ Mr. SPEAKERThe Motion suggested by the hon. And gallant Member is one that cannot be taken without giving notice on the Paper.
§ Bill read the Third time, and passed, with an Amendment.