CENTRAL LONDON AND METROPOLITAN DISTRICT RAILWAY COMPANIES BILL. (Hansard, 22 May 1924)

§ Mr. H. MORRISON
On the Order Paper, I notice that an Amendment has been put down for the rejection of this Bill. Do I understand that the Amendment is not to be moved by the hon. Member in whose name it stands and, if so, will it be in Order for me to move either the Amendment which stands upon the Paper or a Motion to re-commit the Bill?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. Entwistle)
If any hon. Member move an Amendment to the Question before the House, I must consider it.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I beg to move to leave out the words "now read a Third time," and to add instead thereof the word "recommitted."
I am sorry that the hon. Members who put down the Amendment for the rejection of this Bill have not persisted in their Amendment. I consider it desirable in view of the contents of the Bill that it should be discussed by the House at this stage. I should not have taken an interest in this particular Bill had it not been that I saw on the Order Paper of the House notice of an Amendment for its rejection, and as it was a London Bill 2514 I thought it was proper that London Members should take some interest in it. Returning from Toxteth this morning I took the opportunity of reading through the Bill and I am very much surprised at the way in which the questions dealt with by the Bill are handled, and with the contents of the Bill in certain important respects. The points which I wish to bring before the House are a little complicated, and I am afraid it will be necessary to detain the House for a short time in dealing with the provisions. In Clause 5 the Bill as it left the Committee, it is provided that the use of the sub-soil under public streets and thoroughfares shall be without any payment of compensation. I have had experience of public authorities, and if a tramway wishes to use the lower part of a railway bridge for the purpose of connecting overhead wires, it has to seek the consent of the railway company and has oven to pay a rent in recognition of the legal rights of the railway company, although such overhead wires are in the public interest and are necessary for the purposes of the tramway.
Here we have a private Bill promoted by the Central London Railway and the Metropolitan District Railway, which secures the right to tunnel under the property of public authorities, without any legal recognition of the right of the municipality over its own streets and the sub-soil thereunder, and without any payment to the ratepayers of London for this very valuable concession. I do not wish to press the point too far, as to whether they should pay rent for such use, because it is probable the cost would be made up out of the fares which passengers pay, and I would not have raised the point had it not been that Clause 7 provides that where the company tunnels under private property they pay an easement to the property owners. They have compulsory rights to tunnel under property in public ownership, but they have to pay to tunnel under privately-owned property—which, I submit, is not equitable and is not sound public policy. This is typical of the way in which private monopoly rides roughshod over the rights of ratepayers, while always willing to pay tribute to the interests of private concerns. We are entitled to some explanation from the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) and from the right hon. Member 2515 for South Hammersmith (Sir William Bull) as to why there should be this marked distinction in the treatment of private interests compared with public interests. Clause 6 gives some indication, though only a rough and inadequate indication, as to the erection and the situation of a subway from street to station. Those who have travelled by Underground Railway in London are aware that it is sometimes a serious question whether, considering the time taken to walk from the surface to the tube station or to walk to a main line station, like Liverpool Street, it would not be quicker to walk to the destination which one desires to reach rather than take the roundabout routes provided.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not think that what the hon. Member is saying now is strictly relevant to the subject of recommittal. The Motion to recommit is very definite, and the hon. Member must give reasons for that recommittal, but he cannot go into a long argument on the details of the Bill.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am in your hands, Sir. I wish to recommit the Bill because in my judgment it is unsatisfactory in many respects and should be given further consideration by the Committee on certain points of detail. I am bringing before the House points which do not appear to have been adequately considered in Committee. If it is necessary that I should move another Motion in order to give a wider discussion I shall do so.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member should confine himself to the reasons and the arguments in favour of recommittal. He cannot go right into all the details of the Bill.

§ Mr. MORRISON
The difficulty is that I wish to go through the provisions of the Bill which, in my judgment, are unsatisfactory, and I am prepared to move a different Motion, if it is necessary to do so, in order to enable me to discuss these points adequately, and at the same time keep within the ruling of the Chair. I am not satisfied on the wording of Clause 6 that adequate consideration has been given to the point that the subway laid down will be the most expeditious route from point to point, because of my experience with various 2516 subways in connection with these railways in London. The journeys that one has to walk in these subways are considerable, and it is for that reason that I am anxious that the Committee shall reconsider the point, in order that it may be satisfied, as I think it is not satisfied—certainly I am not—that it has adequate guarantees that the shortest route for that subway has to be made. The way in which people have to walk long distances through many of these monotonous subways is scandalous. There is a further point, which is raised in Clause 8 of the Bill, as to which it seems to me that the interests of property are likely to be endangered, and as to which it is not at all clear that the Committee has given proper consideration to the points raised. Clause 8 is rather a remarkable Clause, which appears to provide that an individual property, which may be an extensive property, can be cut in half or can even be cut to a greater extent. From the wording of the Clause it appears to me that adequate consideration has not been given to the point that it really is a serious matter for the owners of property to have their property dismembered and split up in this particular way.
In Clause 11 of the Bill there is rather a remarkable provision, as to which I am very lacking in clearness, on the question as to whether proper consideration has been given to it by the Committee. There is apparently a general plan which determines the route that the subway must take, but there is a remarkable provision that the subway may deviate vertically from the levels on the plan to an extent of 10 feet. We ought to receive an assurance that the Committee gave full consideration as to whether or not coming up from that level to 10 feet above would endanger buildings and so on which would be above the street level and above the soil. I am not satisfied that this provision is really safe, and I think the Committee should reconsider it. Indeed, I am not at all sure that the whole structure of tubes in London is not unsound from the point of view of the most economical working, but this deviation from a plan seems to be a very serious thing, and I think we ought to have proper assurances that that deviation will not endanger the property which may be above.
Clause 12 is another Clause which appears, within restrictions, it is true, to 2517 give the company the power to disturb the surface of streets and to use the streets in connection with the works proposed in the Bill. There is a Bill going through the House, which has now gone through Standing Committee B, the London Traffic Bill, for which the Minister of Transport is responsible, and that has laid down very severe restrictions on the opening up of streets, and I want to be clear whether the Committee has taken into account the effect of Clause 12 of this Bill upon the restrictions on the opening of streets laid down by the London Traffic Bill. I submit that that in itself is a very substantial reason why the Bill should go back to the Committee, in order that its relation to the London Traffic Bill should be adequately considered. Clause 13 deals with the question of compensation for damage by the working of subways. It is evidently contemplated that the making of a subway may risk the subsidence of property, and it has apparently been appreciated by the Committee that that might not be felt for a considerable time. But has the Committee taken into account whether two years is an adequate period, and whether it is not quite possible that after the expiry of two years subsidence might take place? I think it is in the experience of some hon. Members, particularly those associated with the mining industry, that sometimes subsidence consequent upon tunnelling takes years before it takes place, and it does not appear to me, on the face of it, that two years is an adequate time.

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. May I ask whether the hon. Member is in order in calling attention to these details in the text of this Bill after they have had full and adequate examination upstairs?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have already told the hon. Member that he must restrict himself to the Motion he is moving, which is a Motion for re-committal, and the reasons for it. He has strayed somewhat from that ruling, and I must now once more warn him to keep strictly within the ruling.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am exceedingly sorry. The last thing that I wish to do is to get outside your ruling. Would it be competent for me, because I want to raise these points, which are points of 2518 substance, to withdraw my Motion and substitute for it an Amendment that the Bill should be read upon this day six months, so that my remarks and those of the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) might not be unnecessarily restricted?

§ Sir H. NIELD
Never mind me!

§ Mr. MORRISON
I wish to be in order, and it would simplify the situation if I could substitute that Motion.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is not my business in the Chair to give advice, and I am afraid the hon. Member must take what course he thinks fit. He said he was moving to recommit the Bill, and I am ruling on that. He has not made the Motion, however, and he can please himself on that point.

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. May I ask whether it would be helpful to the difficult task of Committees upstairs dealing with private Bills if all their work is reviewed in this House, as is being done by the hon. Member?

§ Mr. MORRISON
I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and, at the end of the Question, to add the words "upon this day six months."

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. Is that Motion in order, without previous notice on the Paper?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
It is an Amendment to the Question, and it is in order.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am obliged to you, Sir. I feel now very much more free. It is entirely my fault that I began to move a Motion on which I was rather more restricted, and I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and to the House. Clause 18 of the Bill, in view of other provisions to which I shall shortly draw attention—

§ Mr. NEIL MACLEAN
On a point of Order. May I ask, for my enlightenment, if it is in order for an hon. Member to move that a Bill be read upon this day six months without having handed in an Amendment, even a manuscript Amendment, but by merely springing it as an Amendment in the middle of a speech in which he was ruled out of order?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have already ruled on that question. It is not necessary to give notice, and an Amendment can be moved to leave out the word "now," and to insert at the end of the Question the words "upon this day six months."

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. Has it not always been the custom for a Member moving the rejection of a Bill to give notice to Members who support the Bill?

§ Captain HACKING
On a point of Order. Is it not a fact that there is on the Order Paper an Amendment to read the Bill upon this day six months?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Yes, but no hon. Members rose to move that Amendment. I have already dealt with the point of Order. It is usual to give notice, but I am afraid that I cannot rule the hon. Member out of order on the point.

§ Mr. MORRISON
It has been pointed out to hon. Members that there is on the Order Paper a notice so that hon. Members were ready for opposition to the Bill. I was proceeding to show that Clause 18 of the Bill does provide that the works sanctioned by the Bill shall be completed within five years, or, at any rate, if they are not completed by that time then certain other things have to be done. There are other provisions in the Bill—a whole series—where powers have been granted to this company, and they have not exercised those powers, and have come to this House for a second or a third time to secure an extension of the time in which these powers should be exercised. It really is a waste of Parliamentary time, both of the House and of the Committee upstairs, if Parliament has to take up time in passing legislation and then the time is extended later. I am perfectly sure that if this was a Bill of any local authority, excepting perhaps the Middlesex County Council—

§ Sir H. NIELD
I protest. This is purely provocative and quite outside the Bill, which does not touch the county of Middlesex. The hon. Gentleman opposite is never content unless he is girding at the Middlesex County Council. I beg, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, that he may be ordered by you to confine himself to the relevant portions of the Bill.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have already ordered the hon. Member to do so.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I am extremely sorry, Mr. Deputy-Speaker. I was only trying to point out that local authorities if they desired perpetually to postpone work, and the time in which they must—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member must not get into generalities about local authorities; he must confine himself to the Bill.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
On a point of Order. Is it not quite in order for an hon. Member to compare the treatment that might be given to a railway company in a Bill of this description with what treatment might be meted out to a local authority in a similar Bill, and to show the difference?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is always a matter of degree, and it is within the discretion of the Chair as to how far such comparisons may be used.

§ Mr. MORRISON
That is all I wished to do, to point out how the proposals in this Bill compare with others, and to show in what spirit hon. Members would face similar proposals from another quarter; but I will not, in the circumstances, pursue the point. There are two Clauses in the Bill dealing with the relations between the companies and the two Metropolitan councils—the Marylebone Borough Council and the Westminster City Council. Although dealing with very similar matters, they deal with them in an entirely different way, and it does seem to me that from the point of view of simplicity that they could have been dealt with in a similar way. Further, in some provisions of the Clauses dealing with the City Council of Westminster and the Marylebone Borough Council, there are provisions as to the use of hoardings which seem to me to be dangerously in conflict with the provisions of the London Building Act. As indicating the rather careless way in which, in my judgment, the Bill has been drafted, there is a provision in Clause 23, Subsection (5), which enables the companies actually to use, in fact stipulates, that the motive power for driving the plant shall be electrical, and in another provision there is a stipulation that the lighting of the works shall also be by means of 2521 electricity. The question upon which I should like some assurance would be as to whether they are going to take electricity from the companies at Lots Road station, or whether they will generate electricity for the purpose of motor power for the railway itself. If that is so, it seems to me to be usurping the functions of the Marylebone Borough Council as to a possible electrical supply, for it says that the company shall not itself provide electricity from its works, which are in the ordinary way used for driving the trains and for the purpose of driving the machinery used to light it. I think we ought to have an assurance, in the interest of the electricity supply undertakings, that the electricity will be drawn from the statutory suppliers of electricity who are so authorised by Acts which have been passed by Parliament.
There is a provision in Clause 24, on page 25, which provides that the central company may use capital, properly applicable as capital, any of the monies which they are by any Act relating to the central company authorised to raise and which may not be required for the purposes of those Acts. This is a profoundly important question of Parliamentary control over the capital expenditure of companies. I have a distinct recollection of Acts of the London County Council. If it wishes to use capital for one purpose which Parliament sanctioned for another it has to secure Treasury sanction. The point does arise whether in this case the transfer of capital from one purpose to another purpose ought not similarly to secure Treasury sanction. Again, without in any way getting outside the point of the Act, I do insist that companies ought not to be given greater protection than are local authorities. This is constantly being done. There follows in Clauses 25 to 29 a whole series of extensions of time of such statutory obligations which may be further extended. A considerable number of Clauses in this Bill whereby—

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. May I ask why in this elaborate discussion of the Bill, in the moving of its rejection, we have not on the Treasury Bench either the Chairman of Ways and Means—it is very important that he should hear these speeches—or the President of the Board of Trade, who should hear the point raised by the hon. Member.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. MORRISON
I think hon. Members might appreciate the fact that I have a very difficult task in going into the technical details of this Bill, and I do think it is unfortunate that I should be subjected to these constant interruptions.

§ Captain HACKING
Is the hon. Gentleman in order in dealing with the question in the way he is? Ought he not simply to confine himself to the details of this Bill.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. and gallant Gentleman must leave that to me. If the hon. Member does not keep within the terms of his Amendment I shall have occasion to deal with him.

§ Mr. HANNON
Is it not important that the Chairman of Ways and Means should be present?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not a point of Order for the Chair.

§ Mr. MORRISON
London Members have their rights in connection with a Bill of this kind.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
Parliament has decided that Scottish Members have rights, and we think that this Bill should go through unopposed.

§ Mr. MORRISON
In regard to Bills affecting London, I think we have a right to be heard without being treated in this way. I claim the right of Home Rule for London.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member that this Bill has had its Second Reading and has been through Committee. We are now discussing the Third Reading, and he is not entitled to go into minute details. The hon. Member must deal with the subject of his Amendment. I really think the hon. Member had better resume his seat

§ Mr. THURTLE
As a citizen of London I wish to support the Amendment which has been moved by my hon. Friend for the rejection of this Bill. I regret that I have to trespass on the time of the House in discussing this Amendment, but my obligation to my constituents who reside in the great City of London makes it incumbent on me to give the reasons why I think this Bill ought not to be given 2523 a Third Reading this evening. The traffic facilities for London are of immense importance for London citizens, and any extension of tube facilities would, in the ordinary course of events, be welcomed by London citizens. Having particular and definite proposals placed before us in this Bill, I am bound to say after a careful examination of the Clauses and the general intentions of this Measure, I cannot honestly do my duty to my constituents by supporting the Third Reading.
I notice that this Bill, among other things, proposes to effect improvements in connection with the existing Bond Street Station. London is a very important city and Bond Street is a very important part of that city, and I believe it is the fashionable part. I believe that the owners of great wealth congregate around Bond Street at certain parts of the day, and it is essential for the comfort and well being and the general social convenience of those who congregate around Bond Street that there should be a well appointed, well thought out, and well-constructed tube station there. I welcome the general intention of this Bill to improve the existing Bond Street Tube Station. Probably my Scottish friends have never had the privilege of being in the Bond Street Tube Station.

§ Mr. MACLEAN
Is that a privilege?

§ Mr. THURTLE
Perhaps "privilege" is the wrong word to use. I do not wish to libel the existing Bond Street Station, but I think those familiar with it will agree—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Simply because the hon. Member sees the words "Bond Street" in the Bill, I cannot allow him to enter into a discussion of the merits or otherwise of that locality. This railway is underneath Bond Street, and the hon. Member's remarks are quite out of order.

§ Mr. THURTLE
I bow to your ruling, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and I leave Bond Street, with regret. I ask the House to consider with me the general effect these tubes have on the general health of the community—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not in order, and if the hon. Member persists 2524 in this way, I shall have to ask him formally to second this Amendment.

§ Mr. THURTLE
May I call attention to what is not merely a detail, but a very material part of this Bill. I refer to Clause 12. If there is one thing which the people of London suffer from at the present time it is the grave inconvenience of having our broad highways torn up by excavation work—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot deal now with the general question of the condition of the streets of the whole of London. He must restrict himself to this particular proposal. Does the hon. Member second the Amendment?

§ Mr. THURTLE
I beg to second the Amendment.

§ Mr. MILLS
I have no desire to prolong this discussion, because I feel that the sooner we apply our Parliamentary time to discussing the wisdom or the failure of the provision made for unemployment the better. I approach my opposition to this Bill in the light of that particular problem. I think this Measure should be rejected again and again until such time as this modern jigsaw puzzle of ours called London comes in for the attention of Parliament on a comprehensive basis. The proposed extension contained in the framework of this Bill may be all very well for Westminster and Bond Street, but I represent the southern part of London, and the extension of this particular railway, and the immediate absorption of unskilled labour finds no mention whatever in the framework of this Bill. In the visualisation of a London Traffic Bill and the solution of the problems of London citizens, I submit that the least this Bill ought to have contained would have been a realisation of the tremendous volume of traffic that now obtains from north to south and in a circular form, and, consequently, if we are to give sanction at all to any extension of the underground railways of this great city, it should be in such a way that the outer rings of London, connecting Barking on the north with Erith, Dartford, Crayford, Eltham and Sidcup, going up to the other dead end at New Cross—

§ Mr. HANNON
On a point of Order. May I respectfully ask whether New Cross and Sidcup have anything whatever to do with the scope of this Bill?

§ Mr. MILLS
You are well aware, Sir, of the proposed extensions that are in this Bill, and that in this respect the right of a Member to object to the limitation of extensions is something that ought to be articulated in this House. If the hon. Gentleman were condemned for his sins to live on the lines known as the Southern Railway, if he had to put up with the limitations—

§ Captain HACKING
On a point of Order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to refer to other hon. Members as "sinners"?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is apparently trying to refer to everything that this Bill does not contain. We should have no limit to the discussion if that were in order. He must restrict himself to the Bill.

§ Mr. MILLS
If you will allow me to make my protest as general as possible, we have had Parliamentary time taken up with the London Traffic Bill, which has gone before a Committee and is now coming back again. Here we have London with about five bridges over the Thames and two or three tunnels, while the City of Paris has 26 bridges over the Seine to our half-dozen tunnels.

§ Mr. BUCHANAN
I hope that my colleagues on this side of the House will give this Bill its Third Reading and allow it to pass. I have listened to three speeches in opposition to the Bill, and not one of them has shown that the Bill will do anything to militate against the carrying on of the improvement of London. Further, it is going to do something in the way of giving most useful work, and the quicker we can get on in that direction the better it will be for all concerned. I think that the more speedily we can get the Third Reading of this Bill the better, and I hope my colleagues will allow it to go through.

§ Mr. HANNON
May I intervene for just a moment? I am authorised to say that as soon as this Bill gets its Third Reading the works comprehended in the Bill will be proceeded with with as little delay as possible.

§ Mr. SHORT
I think it would be unfortunate if it went forth that all of us on these benches took the same view as those who have spoken in opposition to this Bill. The hon. Member for Dartford (Mr. Mills) said that he would not delay the House, because he thought it would be fitting if we addressed ourselves to the problem of unemployment. In that I think there will be general agreement, but when he asks that this Bill shall be rejected, I would remind him that it is a Bill which provides work by the construction of subways and other works under the auspices of the Central London Railway. It is true that that work is being provided by private enterprise, and I have expressed my opinions on more than one occasion upon that issue, but this Bill is introduced for that specific purpose, and my hon. Friends ask that it should be rejected. I think we ought to hesitate before we reject it in that manner. I do not know what is the total sum of money involved. I have inquired, but have been unable to obtain any information, and I think it would be useful if the promoters of a Bill of this character had supplied us with something in the nature of a White Paper on the matter. I have heard no good reason up to the present which would justify me in opposing the Bill. The speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney (Mr. H. Morrison), who is not now in the House, would certainly appear likely to lead the House to misunderstand some of the provisions of this Bill. He led me to believe that there was nothing in the Bill which protected the interests of municipal authorities, that it was possible for this company to do this, that and the other, and that, while it would have to give compensation or do something for a private individual, there was nothing here to protect the rights of municipal authorities. I regret that the hon. Member is not now in the House, for I venture to say that that is entirely foreign to the provisions of the Bill. I do not think any good purpose is served by trying to create misunderstanding on matters of such vital importance as this. I find in the Bill page after page protecting the rights of the municipal authorities concerned in regard to the disturbance of roads and 2527 other matters of that kind. It says, for instance: The Central Company shall not alter or in any way interfere with any refuge, sewer, drain pipe, lamp, column, or other property vested in the City Council without the previous consent in writing of the City Council which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Then there are two or three other pages devoted entirely, I believe, to the rights of the City of Westminster, within whose province this work is to be done. On page 12 we find this: The Central Company shall repay the City Council all reasonable expenses incurred by the City Council in executing any necessary alterations or reconstructions of any roadways"— and so on. Again: The Central Company shall not under the powers of this Act enter upon or open up any part of the surface of any street in the City … The Central Company shall not deposit any subsoil or materials anywhere within the City.… It shall not be lawful for the Central Company to remove any soil or material from under any road.… The Central Company shall make full compensation to the City Council for any subsidence of, or damage to, any road or footway, sewer, drain or other work vested in or under the jurisdiction or control of the City Council.… My hon. Friend the Member for South Hackney would have us believe that no compensation is provided in the Bill.

§ Captain HACKING
On a point of Order. As the speech of the hon. Member for South Hackney was out of order, is it in order to reply to it?

§ Mr. MORRISON
Is it accepted that the whole of my speech was ruled out of order?

§ Mr. THURTLE
Is not the hon. and gallant Gentleman's suggestion a reflection upon your ruling?

§ Mr. SHORT
I rose quite legitimately for the purpose of meeting the point raised by my hon. Friend. He was speaking in a way that appeared to me, I do not say intentionally, to lead to some misunderstanding, or possibly to mislead the House.

§ Mr. POTTS
Is it right to attempt to lead the House to believe that compensation for subsidence will be given with a limitation of two years? Subsidence can take place after two years, and even after 2528 20 or 30 years, and yet they get no compensation.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. SHORT
We must be guided by the terms of the Bill. If my hon. Friend can make any more of this than I can, if he can read something in it—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member must address the Chair, and not invite interruptions.

§ Mr. SHORT
I was only desirous of making it perfectly clear to my hon. Friend that these words carry with them what I say.

§ Mr. HANNON
Is this not really deliberate waste of time?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I am watching the hon. Member very carefully, and I think if he does not keep to the point, he had better not continue.

§ Mr. SHORT
I am endeavouring to confine myself to the terms and provisions of the Bill. Seeing that the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon) has interfered, may I remind him that, up to now, no one has said a word in support of the Bill, despite the challenge which has come from my hon. Friend, to whom I am replying.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is again not addressing the Chair. He must address the Chair.

§ Mr. SHORT
The point I have been attempting to make by reading extracts from the Bill is that there is ample provision for the protection of local authorities. I find the promoters of the Bill are not satisfied with protecting the City of Westminster, but they are also protecting the Mayor, Aldermen and Burgesses of the Metropolitan Borough of St. Marylebone. I have had experience of the work of a municipal council which governs the lives of half a million people, and I know something of the difficulties that arise from the spasmodic opening up of streets and interference with the surfaces of roads. I have always felt that it was right and proper that there should be some protection for municipalities. Here, as far as I know, we get it. It is set out very clearly in the Bill. Therefore the arguments which have been advanced by the hon. Member for South Hackney leave me cold. Every provision is made apparently for the protection of local authorities, including compensation.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member has repeated the same argument so often, that I think he had better resume his seat.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I am rather concerned over one of the Clauses of the Bill upon which one would like a little information or explanation, and that is the Clause relating to the period allowed within which to perform the works coming under Part 2 of the Bill, that is the construction of subways and general work. Clause 18 says: If the subways and works by this part of this Act authorised be not completed within five years from the passing of this Act, on the expiration of that period the powers by this Act granted to the Central Company for making and completing subways and works, or otherwise in relation thereto, shall cease except as to so much thereof as is then completed. One is anxious that the whole of this work, for which powers are being sought, should be carried out at the earliest possible moment in order to relieve the large numbers who at the moment are unemployed. It is possible for certain of this work to remain unfinished at the expiration of five years, and such portion as may be a key to the usefulness of that already completed. That already completed will be quite all right under the powers of the Bill, but there is no provision for an extension of the period to complete that which may become a very necessary unit of the work to give us the whole system complete. In the event of any unascertained obstacle being found during the course of the work, and the work not being completed within the period of five years, it would be to my mind very harsh if this obstacle, over which the contractors and even the Central Railway authority itself had no control, could not be overcome within the five years, the powers then lapsed. I do not know whether there is any other general provision outside that Clause, but if there is not, it certainly appears to me to be too tight and too abrupt. I think hon. Members will follow what I have in my mind. [HON. MEMBERS: "We do not!"] Then I will repeat it for the hon. Members' information.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member must address the Chair and must not repeat anything to any Hon. Member.

§ Mr. HANNON
May I again respectfully suggest, on a point of Order, to 2530 one of the Lords of the Treasury, now on the Front Bench, that the Chairman of Ways and Means ought to be invited to be present during this discussion?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
That is not a point of Order.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
I am the last to transgress the rules of this House. I did think that some hon. Member who might have discussed this Clause when the Bill was being drafted might be able to give the information for which I was asking. As an old Public Works man, I know full well that in an undertaking such as that suggested by this Bill unforeseen obstacles arise, which interfere with the carrying out of the contract, particularly in connection with subways. Subways may be too deep or too shallow. There may be within the period of five years some obstacle which cannot be overcome within the five years period. If it cannot be so overcome, then, suddenly, at the end of the five years the power ceases, without any provision being made for representation such as would give an extension of time. If the purpose of the Bill—

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I have heard the hon. Member use the same argument at least three or four times, and I must ask him to resume his seat.

§ Mr. T. JOHNSTON
I trust that the experience through which the House is going to-night will convince hon. Members opposite of the necessity for some kind of devolution. Here we have the spectacle of a great Debate on unemployment, the most vital and necessary subject which confronts this House, being interrupted for more than an hour by this discussion on a private Bill.

§ Mr. THURTLE
Is the hon. Member in order in discussing unemployment upon this particular Measure?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member had better confine himself to this Bill.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
Interrupted for an hour, as it has been by discussion upon this Measure.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
An important Measure.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
It seems to me to be a misuse, I put it no higher, of Parliamentary time.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is himself taking up the time of the House.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
I want to enter my most respectful protest.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I should not have intervened had it appeared to me that this Bill was being discussed seriously. I am not saying by which side, nor am I referring to any particular Member.

§ Mr. HAYDAY
This is an important Bill.

§ Mr. JOHNSTON
If it were an important Bill hon. Members should not be discussing it in a spirit of levity, organised outside this House. I want to utter on behalf of some hon. Members my most respectful protest against the time of this House being wasted as it has been during the last hour.

§ Mr. VIANT
It is exceedingly unfortunate that any steps should be taken to prevent this discussion. It is vital for those people who live in the suburbs of London, and who have to come into the centre of London each day. As a new Member of this House, I want to avail myself of this opportunity of drawing attention to what I consider to be a very wrong principle which is embodied in the Bill. I refer to the provision in Clause 5 with respect to the distinction made between public property and private property in connection with the payment of compensation. It is provided that where certain soil is taken, compensation is to be paid for such soil where it belongs to a private person, but in respect of soil which is the property of the ratepayers no compensation is to be paid. I express my strong objection to that principle.
I do not want it to be assumed that I am desirous of objecting to or offering obstruction to any private Bill that is likely to contribute towards mitigating the problem of unemployment, but this principle is one against which I must protest, in that it discriminates between public and private property. Againt that principle I shall object every time and all the time that I have the opportunity. I expect that this soil, when it is removed, will be dumped into the poor areas. Provision ought to have been made and some promise given that this soil would be taken away from those 2532 areas. We are offering this objection, not because we are desirous of obstructing the Bill, but in the hope that these points may be borne in mind when Committees subsequently are considering Bills of a similar character. In Clause 8, permission has to be given for the dismemberment of property. One might walk through the city to-day and be struck by the ghastly spectacle of property that has been dismembered. No proper provision has been made for that property being put into such a condition as to appear even respectable to the public eye. Such conditions do not tend to improve the appearance and the general outlay of the city.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member is now dealing with generalities which could be applied to half a dozen different Bills. That is not in order. This is a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, and he must stick to that.

§ Mr. H. MORRISON
With great respect, I understood that I was ruled out of order for sticking to the details of the Bill.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
The hon. Member knows why he was ruled out of order. It was not for the reason that he has given.

§ Mr. VIANT
I have every desire to obey your ruling. At the same time, being desirous of supporting the rejection of the Bill, I am endeavouring to offer good reasons for my objection. I considered that the two points I had already raised were of vast importance in that respect. In view of the fact that many of the points I have to make in connection with the Bill will deal with a similar objection, and as you have ruled me out on these two points, I think it advisable not to pursue the others.