CLAUSE 5.—(Definition of freight-transport hereditaments.)

HC Deb 04 July 1928 vol 219 cc1477-522

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON

I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: (iii) a railway or tramway attached to an industrial hereditament for purposes ancillary thereto and used primarily for the transport of minerals and/or produce from the mine or factory to a railway, canal, dock, or shipping place. This Amendment is of importance to the coal trade, particularly in Durham and Northumberland. While the Bill seeks to give a relief to productive industries of three-quarters of their local rates, it also seeks to relieve railways, docks and canals of three-quarters of their local rates in order that they may, as far as the relief permits, pass it on in the charges on coal and coke and other requirements of the productive industries. A serious anomaly arises in this respect, particularly in Durham and Northumberland. While this rebate or relief is given to railways of a public and semi-public character, no relief is given either under Clause 3 or under Clause 5 to the privately-owned railways which are distinctly in touch with various collieries. The importance of this matter will be realised by the Committee when I tell them that in Durham and Northumberland alone 16,000,000 tons of coal are conveyed over private lines with direct connections between the collieries and the points of shipment and these will be excluded from any benefit or relief under this Bill. In the definition of "industrial hereditament" I find that the railways in connection with these pits or collieries will be excluded, and as far as relief is given generally in connection with railways they will be prevented from participating. They will be at a total disadvantage.

8.0 p.m.

It will be a very serious thing, not only in regard to the interests of one colliery or of a few collieries but in regard to the interests of the great coal trade, if the products of these pits are excluded from the benefits of the Bill. It might be suggested that it might be possible to treat these lines as an hereditament, but even then I do not think the relief would be anything like adequate in view of the passing of this great quantity of coal over these privately-owned railways. If the Committee will permit me, I will give a concrete instance. There are three collieries in Durham contiguous to each other. Two of them run over partly privately-owned lines and the other runs over a privately-owned line. Two of the collieries will participate in the benefits of the Bill, and the third colliery will be entirely excluded. I do not know that I need labour the point any further. It seems so palpable and so patent that I have great confidence in submitting this Amendment to the Committee, and I sincerely trust that the Minister will look at it sympathetically and will give careful consideration to it as he generally does to these questions, and, if possible, give the relief which I seek through this Amendment.

Sir K. WOOD

My hon. Friend, as he always does, has stated his case with great fairness and has, I think, put-forward every possible reason that can be advanced for the proposition which is now before the Committee. Of course, it-is designed to bring within the definition of a freight transport hereditament a private railway or tramway used only for the conveyance of the owner's traffic. I must say at once- that the de-rating of these lines as freight transport hereditaments would be contrary to the framework of the Bill. I am very much afraid that it would lead to complications in the Bill which has to follow in the autumn and provide for the passing on to users of relief on freight transport hereditaments. The attempt to bring the private railway into the railway pool would, I am afraid, lead to very undesirable complications. What I will say to my hon. Friend—and it must be quite clear that I am not giving any undertaking—is that I will look into this matter, and so will my right hon. Friend, more particularly, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, between now and the Report stage, in order to see if any of the objections—which at the moment are very difficult to see—can be overcome. I cannot go further than that. No doubt my hon. Friend will be satisfied with the undertaking which I have given. I need hardly say to him and to hon. Members who may be associated with this Amendment, that any further evidence or arguments that can be put forward between now and the Report stage will be gladly considered by my right hon. Friend. I wish I could go further than that, but that is the position of my right hon. Friend at the moment. I hope that under the circumstances my hon. Friend will withdraw the Amendment.

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Are we to understand from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health that because a certain length of railway is owned by a railway company relief will be granted for the whole length. I have an instance in mind where a railway company serves a number of collieries. There is a private line on land belonging to the colliery company, and, for the sake of convenience and the better control and productiveness of the colliery, the colliery company have erected a large number of what are called sidings. They run the whole of their coal from a group of collieries for a distance of nearly three miles to the railway owned by the Great Western Railway Company. If that private line was in the hands of the Great Western Railway Company, that company would get relief to the extent of 75 per cent. of their rates and this would be handed over to the colliery company. But because this particular section is privately-owned, the colliery company are not going to get any relief. The Parliamentary Secretary says that there are some difficulties in the way. I fail to understand where the difficulties are that prevent a private length of railway serving a group of collieries being treated in precisely the same way as though it were owned by the Great Western Railway Company.

Mr. ROBERT HUDSON

I think those of us who were associated in putting down this Amendment appreciate very much the action of the Parliamentary Secretary in saying that he will give it consideration. I know that it bristles with difficulties, but at the same time I would like to point out to him, that if we do not do something to remedy the state of affairs, it will create a very great injustice to the colliery company who happens to own a railway. After all, what are the factors that enter into the cost of carriage on the railway? They are the original cost of construction of the railways, wayleaves, annual maintenance and rates. Under this Bill the public railway is going to be relieved of a large portion of those charges and that is going to be handed over to any colliery company who sends their coal over that particular railway. You are going to get the position of two collieries, possibly neighbours, one sending its coal over a public railway and getting lower rates and the other sending its coal over its own railway and having to pay higher rates. I think that some of the difficulty may possibly have arisen through the fact that in many parts of the country—at any rate, in my part—private railways and private shipping facilities are not separately assessed. I gather that the effect of Clause 3 in this Bill will be that in future railways and shipping facilities will be separately assessed. The colliery company will be relieved of rates on its colliery undertaking, on its mines and shops, but it will have to pay full rates on that portion of its undertaking assessed as railway and shipping facilities. I think that when the right hon. Gentleman realises the unfortunate position in which the colliery company is put very largely through historical reasons, namely, that it had to build private railways long before the Railway Act was brought in, he will see that there are really very serious grounds for this Amendment and, as he has suggested, for trying to meet us. I am sure we are very grateful indeed for the promise he has made.

Mr. HARNEY

It seems to me that the reply of the right hon. Gentleman is really no answer to this Amendment. It is quite obvious that the first two Sub-sections refer only to public light railways. As I understand the position, it is this. Suppose you have a colliery similar to those dealt with in this Amendment, carrying coal up to the railway that is called a public railway, the colliery-owner will find that he gets a reduction of his rates in respect of his colliery, but that he gets no benefit whatever in respect of that portion of the transport of coal between his colliery and the public railway. I cannot for the life of me see why, in the interests of production, the right hon. Gentleman cannot say: "Not only will we allow a rebate to the colliery of three-quarters of the rates, but we will also give the colliery the benefit of three-quarters reduction upon the transport of goods through to their destination."

Mr. WHITELEY

I want to call the attention of the right hon. Gentleman to the situation in connection with inland coal mines, especially as he made a promise to take this matter into consideration. There is a large number of inland collieries possessing private lines extending for a good many miles which are used for the transport of coal. If there is going to be ease given to production it is essential, when the right hon. Gentleman is considering the proposals in this Amendment, that he should give at least some little assistance in this direction. We have in one instance a colliery with a privately-owned line that extends from a place called Hetton right down to Sunderland. The line is something like nine or 10 miles in length and the whole use to which that line is put is the transit of coal. If this position is not taken into consideration, the right hon. Gentleman will put collieries of this type into a far worse position than the collieries near the coast. The collieries near the coast have practically no transport at all. They simply put their coal on to the ships at the docks, and they have a tremendous advantage over the inland colliery which has many miles of private lines to lay down in order to transport coal to the seaports. I sincerely trust that in taking this matter into consideration the right hon. Gentleman will have regard to the position of inland collieries and will place them in something like an equal position to other collieries.

Mr. BARKER

I do not think the Parliamentary Secretary has realised the importance of this Amendment. He has given us a very shaky promise with regard to it. He is afraid to adopt the Amendment, and he only says that he will consider it. The Amendment is of very great importance, and it affects a great many collieries and I should like to have some further information with reference to this matter. I take it that a railway siding is part of the colliery and will be derated, but I should like an assurance on that point. Can the Parliamentary Secretary say definitely that colliery sidings are part of the colliery and will, accordingly, be de-rated? If not, a very serious injustice will be done and there will be a very great anomaly created. I have in my mind a colliery which is three-quarters of a mile from a railway station. This colliery sends its coal to the railway sidings by its own private railway. Are we to understand that rates are to be levied upon the three-quarters of a mile of private railway because it belongs to the colliery company and not to a railway company? That is surely an anomaly that cannot be overlooked. In drafting this intricate Bill I think this detail has been overlooked. We desire something more than a mere empty assurance that the matter will be looked into. We want a definite promise from the Parliamentary Secretary that he will realise the gravity of the position and that he will rectify it, either by accepting the Amendment or by putting the matter right on the Report stage of the Bill.

Mr. JAMES BROWN

I think everybody is agreed that if any industry requires relief, it is the mining industry, and surely that should be taken into consideration, in addition to the anomaly of railways, getting something which private companies cannot get. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman to take into consideration the position of the mines, the mincowners and the miners, and to realise that they need more assistance probably than any other industry in the country. We are agreed that if what we desire can be done, it will be done, and that the Parliamentary Secretary will get his right hon. Friend to acquiesce in our proposal.

Mr. KELLY

I agree as to the difficulty in regard to the mining position, which has been expressed sufficiently to impress itself upon the mind of the right hon. Gentleman; but I would point out that this matter extends much further than the mines. It will create a very-great difference between, say, the railway shops and the engineering shops. The railway shops will have the railway lines belonging to the company running into their shops with the relief that comes, whereas the big engineering shops, particularly those where the railway company has not been enterprising enough in the past to run their own lines into the works, and where the particular company has had to construct its own lines, will be at a disadvantage in not securing the relief of 75 per cent. This question requires something more than an assurance that it will have consideration. I agree that it bristles with difficulties. It applies not only to the engineering trade but to the chemical trade, where the railway companies have not been enterprising enough, and the owners of the chemical works have constructed their own lines and purchased locomotives which run upon those lines. The same argument applies to other industries which could be enumerated. I hope the right hon. Gentleman will give consideration to this matter and see that companies are not placed at a disadvantage where the railway company has not been enterprising enough to run their own lines to the works.

Mr. LAWSON

This matter is so important that I do not think the promise given by the Parliamentary Secretary is sufficient. It seems to me that the Parliamentary Secretary and those who advise him and the Minister of Health must not have realised the overwhelming importance of the matter, or they could have done none other than assent to this proposal. In the north-west part of Durham County there is a great network of private railways bringing coal from the pits to the railways, and on the other side of the county there is a long network of private railways which run down to the Tyne docks, some for long distances and some for short distances. It is no exaggeration to say that as far as the Durham coalfield is concerned, this question of subsidising the railways which are connected with the mines is to the coal companies at least as important from the point of view of getting relief as it is that relief should be given to the public railways. The cost of carrying coal over these private railways is, at least, as great as the cost of carriage over the public railways. I do not know how far the colliery companies have realised that these branch railways will be outside the calculations on which relief will be granted, but I am certain that the whole weight of the mining industry, particularly on the side of the owners, will make the Government consider this matter very seriously. It is such an injustice to leave these branch railways outside the calculation for purposes of this Bill, that it is not good enough to give us a promise. If he does not accept the Amendment, I suggest that we should go to a Division in order to emphasise its importance.

Sir K. WOOD

I do not think the hon. Member need take that drastic step, so far as the Government are concerned. He knows very well, as one who has occupied a position in a Government, that while a matter may appear very easy on the face of it, there are a good many difficulties of an administrative character. I made a careful statement, because I did not want to raise undue hopes or to-promise anything that I could not perform; but I have heard the expressions of opinion from all parts of the Committee, and I can assure hon. Members that those views will be taken into consideration. Hon. Members will realise the difficulties of the position when I mention that the money which will be available in cases of this kind does not go to the particular railway but goes into-a pool, and, while it is not very difficult to arrive at the amount of money that is to go into the pool in respect of particular railways, it is more difficult when we have to determine how the money is to go from the pool and the particular application which has to be made in the circumstances of the particular railways. I can assure hon. Members that we do appreciate the point, and that this matter shall be reconsidered between now and the Report stage.

Mr. R. HUDSON

Am I right in assuming that in the case of canals or docks there is no distinction whether they are privately owned, or not?

Lieut.-Colonel WATTS-MORGAN

Will the Parliamentary Secretary consider this point? There may be two collieries both 15 miles from the seaport. One has 12 miles of publicly-owned railway over which to transport its goods, and the other has 15 miles. In the one case the colliery has three or four miles of privately-owned lines, and it would mean that the money coming in relief out of the "pool" to this colliery would not be on the same level as the relief given in the other place. As a matter of justice each colliery should reap the same reward from relief of rates. It is not merely a question of money but a question of the money being meted out to groups of collieries on the same level.

Sir K. WOOD

I thought of that, and it is one of the points which will have to be considered. With regard to the point put by the hon. Member for Whitehaven (Mr. R. Hudson), that matter is not on a par, because in the case of canals they have to accept public merchandise.

Mr. E. BROWN

There is another Amendment on the Order Paper on this point which brings in ropeways and tramways.

The CHAIRMAN

That matter cannot be argued now; we cannot have it over again.

Mr. BROWN

I only rose to express the hope that the Parliamentary Secretary would take this wider Amendment into consideration, in which case it will obviate the necessity for my moving it.

Mr. KELLY

I should like to find out what the pool is. Does a privately owned line pay something to itself in order to pay something into the pool? I understand that the question we are discussing is whether these lines shall be relieved of 75 per cent. of rates——

Mr. AMMON

I think we could dispose of this matter if it was agreed that the question should be put down for Report stage. It would give the Parliamentary Secretary an opportunity of making a statement.

Mr. LUKE THOMPSON

Personally, I am entirely satisfied. The Committee have recognised the fundamental value of this Amendment. I do not propose to press the Parliamentary Secretary to give an absolute undertaking now, and I am perfectly prepared to accept his statement that the matter will be considered between now and Report stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. MARCH

I beg to move, in page 5, line 30, at the end, to insert the words: (b) A hereditament occupied and used wholly or partly in connection with an undertaking for the conveyance of merchandise by road. This is another of those little intricate problems with which the Government will have to deal. It is as intricate as the previous question. A large number of people at the present time are doing cartage work for docks and railway companies and have a portion of the warehouses as stables or garages at the various goods stations or dock companies' properties. They pay rent to the company for the use of a part of their sheds as stables or garages. They are private contractors, as it is only part of their-duty to do the cartage work for the railway or dock company. They do work for other people as well. Sometimes they have to get away from the goods station or the dock or the canal and take a hereditament close at hand, from which they do their work of carting goods for the company with which they are associated. We contend that these people, if not assisted by this relief of rates, will be at a great disadvantage as compared with the dock company or the railway company for whom they work. Already they have to pay a penalty in tile increase of the price of petrol which they use. They are really helping those who are competing with them. We are told that the railway companies will pass on this relief. They will not pass it on to the cartage agents who are doing their work.

In my Division we have five docks and live railway goods depots; and a good deal of cartage work is done to and from the railway goods station and from the docks We have also the canals where timber is unloaded, yet no relief is to be given to these people, although they are carting general merchandise which is very useful to other industries. Coke and coal too is unloaded at the wharves in my Division. Coal is brought to one wharf by barge and unloaded and to the other by railway. It is carted away to various factories in the district, but those who take the coal away from the railway siding to the factories, unless this Amendment is accepted, will get no relief for the hereditaments where they keep their horses and vans or motor lorries. In some cases these agents have taken a part of the warehouse or shed as a garage or stable, paid rent for it, and are, of course, always at hand. In other instances, they have gone as near as possible to the docks or railway, so that they could render the assistance that is required to take goods to the various factories. I hope that the Minister will give the matter serious consideration.

Sir K. WOOD

Of course, the effect of this Amendment would be to add a new class of transport hereditament and to extend the scheme of the Bill. As the Committee know, the object in derating freight transport hereditaments is to benefit the basic industries. Hon. Members will remember the speech of the Chancellor of the Exchequer in that connection. The whole object of the relief is to benefit those basic industries which certainly require assistance. From the point of view of the objects of the Measure, this Amendment would be of no assistance whatever. The agencies that we are discussing operate on public roads, which are provided for them and upon which they pay no rates. From the point of view of relief there would be very little in it, and to bring in fresh hereditaments would destroy the principle of the scheme.

Mr. GOSLING

I was hoping that the Minister would give us some little relief. When he speaks of wanting to help the basic industries of the country he ought to keep in mind that transport as a whole is one of the most important industries of the country, and that if he is not very careful he will be breaking it up. We have seen how quickly an hon. Gentleman on the back Benches opposite volunteered to go to York to demonstate that this Bill would be an advantage. As he was talking I wondered whether, after he left York, he would go on to Hull and prove to the dockers that the Bill would also be an advantage to them. The Government will have to be very careful in their treatment of docks as against wharves, or else they will be putting these bodies into very unfair competition. If the Government give the money to the railways so that they become unfair competitors with the roads, or if they give preference to the railways as against the canals, they are going to cut right against what they gave us a day to discuss recently and afterwards made the subject of a promise—that the whole question of transport shall be considered. It is no secret that the Government intend to put up some very important machinery for the purpose of dealing with the whole question of the transport of the country, the idea being to utilise transport to the greatest advantage of the industries of the country.

No greater disservice can be done to transport than to begin to pick out a portion of it in order to give it special treatment. Unless road transport is to be as fairly treated as railway transport, and unless canal transport and dock trnsport and river transport, including wharves, are also to be treated as fairly as the railways, we shall be getting rid of one difficulty and making for ourselves another very serious difficulty, and upsetting the whole system of transport which, as the Government realise, calls for consolidation and better use. If one section of transport is put into unfair competition with other sections, the Government will be frustrating the very object that they have in the Bill. While I would not seek to abstract a favourable answer from the right hon. Gentleman to-night, I must tell him that we shall have to follow up this question in the next phase of the Bill unless some relief is given in the direction I have indicated.

Mr. SEXTON

I have no wish to repeat what has been so very well said by my two hon. Friends. The Parliamentary Secretary says that he is anxious to assist basic industries. I would point out to him that the species of transport whose case we are advocating is part of basic industry. I leave the high roads alone, for they have already been dealt with. I confine myself to the transport contractors who live in the immediate neighbourhood and whose hereditament is in the immediate neighbourhood of the docks. They are saddled with local rates and in addition with the Petrol Duty. I could give case after case from Liverpool. The whole of the work of these contractors is the carting of raw material from the docks to the local factory. They never go on the highway at all; they never leave the environs of the city. Yet they are not to be relieved of rates and they will have to pay 4d. a gallon duty on their petrol. The Parliamentary Secretary must see the iniquity of the whole business.

Mr. PALIN

The more we go into the details of this Bill the more difficulties arise. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman in charge will be entitled to all our sympathy before he has got through the Committee stage of the Bill, because as he casts out one devil another devil arrives. With regard to the relief of basic industries, I cannot see how he can do this if he leaves out of account any other form of transport but railways. I have said all along that for the railways to become dereliet would be a very bad proposition for the country. They are certainly entitled to some protection, but it looks to me as if they have gone to the other extreme, because, owing to the lack of imagination and stupidity of the railway companies—and they have been stupid—numbers of industries have almost been strangled. But quite a number of basic industries have prospered in spite of every obstacle placed in their way by the railway companies. I could quote numerous cases,

and they will occur to the mind of every business man, where firms have pleaded and petitioned railway companies to afford facilities so that they could send their goods by rail, but they have been refused, and they have had to build up their business on road transport. It seems to me that not only will the road transport contractors be penalised, but that particular basic industries which depend on road transport for their raw material and for their finished product are also going to be left out in the cold by this very benevolent scheme which the Government have sat up at nights for the last two or three years to bring forth, and there are going to be so many dissatisfied claimants upon their beneficence that I am afraid the next General Election is going to be decided, not by those who are grateful, but by those who have been left out in the cold and, for their protection, the Government will be wise to accept the Amendment.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 193.

Division No. 244.]	AYES.	[8.50 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Griffith, F. Kingsley	Oliver, George Harold
Adamson, W. M. (Staff, Cannock)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Palln, John Henry
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Groves, T.	Paling, W.
Ammon, Charles George	Grundy, T. W.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Attlee, Clement Richard	Half, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Ponsonby, Arthur
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Potts, John S.
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Bar[...]es, A.	Hardle, George D.	Riley, Ben
Barr, J.	Harney, E. A.	Ritson, J.
Batey, Joseph	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Bondfield, Margaret	Hayday, Arthur	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W.R. Elland)
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Hayes, John Henry	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Broad, F. A.	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Scrymgeour, E.
Bromfield, William	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Scurr, John
Bromley, J.	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Sexton, James
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Buchanan, G.	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Shinwell, E.
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Cape, Thomas	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Smillie, Robert
Charleton, H. C.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Cluse, W. S.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Connolly, M.	Kennedy, T.	Snell, Harry
Cove, W. G	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Crawfurd, H. E.	Kirkwood, D	Stamford, T. W.
Dalton, Hugh	Lawrence, Susan	Stephen, Campbell
Dennison, R.	Lawson, John James	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Duncan, C.	Leo, F.	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Dunnico, H.	Lindley, F. W.	Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Livingstone, A. M.	Thurtle, Ernest
Fenby, T. D.	Lunn, William	Tinker, John Joseph
Gardner, J. P.	Mac Donald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Townend, A. E.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Varley, Frank B.
Glbbins, Joseph	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Viant, S. P.
Gillett, George M.	March, S.	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Gosling, Harry	Mitchell, E. Rossiyn (Paisley)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edin., Cent.)	Montague, Frederick	Wellock, Wilfred
Greenall, T.	Mosley, Oswald	Westwood, J.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Muraln, H.	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Naylor, T. E.	Wiggins, William Martin
Williams, Dr. J. H. (Llanelly)	Windsor, Walter	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)	Wright, W.	Mr. Allen Parkinson and Mr. Whiteley.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Penny, Frederick George
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Grace, John	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Perkins, Colonel E. K.
Atholl, Duchess of	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Perring, Sir William George
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w, E)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Grotrian, H. Brent	Preston, William
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Gunston, Captain D. W.	Price, Major C. W. M.
Bethel, A.	Hacking, Douglas H.	Radford, E. A.
Betterton, Henry B.	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Raine, Sir Walter
Bevan, S. J.	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	Ramsden, E.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Harland, A.	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Harrison, G. J. C.	Roberts, E. H. G. (Flint)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Robinson, Sir T. (Lanes., Stretford)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Haslam, Henry C.	Ropner, Major L.
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)	Ruggies-Brlse, Lieut.-Colonel E: A.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Salmon, Major I.
Brass, Captain W.	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Briggs, J. Harold	Hopkins, J. W. W.	Sandeman, N. Stewart
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N).	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Hume, Sir G. H.	Savery, S. S.
Burman, J. B.	Hunter-Weston, Lt. Gen. Sir Aylmer	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. O. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Burton, Colonel H. W.	Hurd, Percy A.	Shepperson, E. W.
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Hurst, Gerald B.	Skelton, A. N.
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon
Calne, Gordon Hall	Iveagh, Countess of	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Campbell, E. T.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Smithers, Waldron
Carver, Major W. H.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Jephcott, A. R.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Chapman, Sir S.	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston)	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Christie, J. A.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Storry-Deans, R.
Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer	Knox, Sir Alfred	Streatfeild, Captain S. R.
Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Lamb, J. Q.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Clarry, Reginald George	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Colman, N. C. D.	Loder, J. de V.	Templeton, W. P.
Cope, Major Sir William	Long, Major Eric	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Couper, J. B.	Lougher, Lewis	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harmon	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Lumley, L. R.	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Lynn, Sir R. J.	Waddington, R.
Culverwell, C. T. (Bristol, West)	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Curzon, Captain Viscount	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Dalkeith, Earl of	Macintyre, Ian	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	McLean, Major A.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Macmillan, Captain H.	Watts, Sir Thomas
Davies, Dr. Vernon	MacRobert, Alexander M.	Wells, S. R.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Dawson, Sir Philip	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Margesson, Captain D.	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Duckworth, John	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Eden, Captain Anthony	Meller, R. J.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Mitchell, S. (Lanark, Lanark)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Withers, John James
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Womersley, W. J.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Moore, Sir Newton J.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Wragg, Herbert
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Nelson, Sir Frank	Yerburuh, Major Robert D. T.
Ford, Sir P. J.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Forrest, W.	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Oakley, T.	Captain Bowyer and Sir Victor
Gates, Percy	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Warrender.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Oman, Sir Charles William C.

The CHAIRMAN

I feel a certain difficulty with regard to the Amendment in page 5, line 32, to leave out the words as part of a canal undertaking whereof the canal is used for the conveyance of merchandise. If the canal is not used for the conveyance of merchandise, I hardly see how it can be a freight-transport hereditament, but, in view of the complexity of the subject, I shall be glad of some explanation from any of the hon. Members whose names appear attached to the Amendment. On the face of it, it would appear to give relief to hereditaments that are not freight-transport hereditaments at all.

Mr. E. BROWN

The intention of the Amendment is to bring wharves within the definition of a canal, and I think that is not merely the intention but the effect of the Amendment. As I understand it, Sub-section (1, b) of Clause 5 makes canal property entitled to relief from rates subject to two conditions. The first is that it is occupied wholly or partly for canal transport purposes, and the second is that it is occupied and used as part of a canal undertaking. Unless this Amendment be made, there will be excluded from relief all hereditaments which are not part of the actual canal property, such as wharves owned by carrying companies engaged in the transport of merchandise on the canal.

Sir K. WOOD

On a point of Order. From the Government point of view, the only possible meaning that this Amendment could have would be to bring within the scope of de-rated canals, canals used for the conveyance of passengers. I am afraid it would not cover the point that the hon. Gentleman has in mind, so far as I am advised.

Sir HERBERT NIELD

I wish to move the Amendment in question, and to point out that its object is to give the same facility to a canal undertaking as is possessed by a railway. At present, there is a very unfair differentiation, so far as the carrying trade is concerned, between railways and canals, and the canals are struggling to get on an equality with the railway companies. If the Ministry consider the definition with regard to a railway undertaking, they will see that it is far wider in its application than that which is included in Subsection (1, b) in regard to canals. By leaving out the words proposed to be left out in this Amendment, we shall therefore be able to get back some of the unrestricted user and the privileges which this Bill is proposing to confer in respect of canal traffic. There need be no misapprehension on the part of the Ministry with regard to our desiring to cover passenger traffic.

The CHAIRMAN

Is the right hon. and learned Member explaining or moving the Amendment? I am not yet quite satisfied that it is in order to move it.

Sir H. NIELD

I am prepared to move it if it has not been already moved by the hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown).

Mr. BROWN

I understood you to say, Mr. Hope, that you were not clear whether it was in order to move it, and I did not move it.

Sir H. NIELD

I am prepared to move it and to deal with the question at somewhat greater length on this first Amendment, as being applicable to all the others, or most of them, that follow. There is only one difference, and that is——

The CHAIRMAN

I must ask the right hon. and learned Member to address himself to this point. It appears, on the face of it, that the effect of the Amendment would be to bring under the definition and relief of a freight-transport hereditament, a hereditament which, as a matter of fact, was part of a canal which was not used for the conveyance of merchandise. I do not know that there is such a canal—I should imagine not—but on the face of it that would appear to be the effect of the Amendment.

9.0 p.m.

Sir H. NIELD

That is not the intention of those who put the Amendment down in association with me. It is apprehended that this restriction, which we seek to remove, will exclude from relief hereditaments belonging to by-traders. There is a canal which is well known as the Grand Junction Canal, and which runs, with a variety of branches, from Birmingham to the Thames. At one part of its area it changes to another company, but they are in friendly relations with each other.

The CHAIRMAN

I do see the point, and I will admit the Amendment if the right hon. and learned Member or those who act with him will think out some words, when these are omitted, which will make it clear that this applies to hereditaments which are on the banks or in connection with canals, though not part of the undertaking of a canal company, used for the carriage of merchandise.

Miss LAWRENCE

On the point of Order. I have an Amendment designed to secure the same purpose, in page 6, line 39, which proceeds rather by extending the definition of docks to the definition of canals. If we are to debate the point of substance now, we should decide by which method we are going to proceed, whether to extend the definition of a canal or of a dock.

The CHAIRMAN

The real difficulty arises on the words "as part of a canal undertaking," and I think it will be in order to move the omission of these words, though I think it will be necessary, if I admit that, to find some other words, either in this place or some other place, to make it quite clear that the canal in question must be used for the conveyance of merchandise.

Sir H. NIELD

I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "purposes" in line 32, to the end of line 34.

I am quite willing to deal with it in that spirit, and to allow it to be negatived here with a view to an undertaking that between now and the Report stage words shall be found to carry out that intention. At present, unless we get the Amendment, there are various undertakings, companies and firms, such as carriers who have wharfside premises, that ought to have the full benefit and the privileges conferred by this Bill but which will be shut out unless these words are removed. If the right hon. Gentleman the Parliamentary Secretary will accept that solution of the matter, I will allow the Amendment to be negatived, subject to what my hon. Friends may have to say, on our undertaking to agree with him on such words as will carry out our intention on the Report stage.

Mr. E. BROWN

I would like to make this quite clear to the Committee. We have not only considered these wharves in connection with the railways, but also in connection with the harbours and docks, and our intention is to secure that traders who use wharves for the carrying of merchandise shall have the benefit of de-rating as well. I agree with the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sail. Nield) that if the Parliamentary Secretary will meet us on the Report stage, it will not be necessary to pursue this matter now.

Sir K. WOOD

I am in a difficulty, because the Amendment on the Paper clearly does not carry out what was apparently the intention of the Members who put it down. We thought that they were endeavouring to bring within the scope of the definition canals or inland navigation concerned only with passenger traffic. Now my right hon. and learned Friend puts another point of view. As I understand it, wharves for carrying merchandise are covered, but I would like to examine this matter. Every Member of the Committee must appreciate my position and that obviously, on a technical point of this kind, it would be difficult for me to answer immediately when the Amendment on the Paper does not carry out the intention of the hon. Members, but I quite see that the hereditament must firstly be used as part of the canal undertaking which conveys merchandise, and secondly be used wholly or partly for canal transport purposes, as defined in Sub-section (2, b) of the Clause. I know that the Committee will permit me to examine this. I cannot give an undertaking until I have had an opportunity of doing so, but I will examine it between now and the Report stage, and confer with the hon. Gentlemen as to what it is that they desire.

Mr. BROWN

This point really arises on the construction of the Minister in his speech on Second Reading, and we thought that the Bill as drafted had a narrower interpretation than he put upon it when he explained the matter of the relation of wharves to canals on Second Reading.

Sir WALTER GREAVES-LORD

May I carry a little further what the hon. Gentleman has said? On Second Reading, the Minister, dealing with the docks said: Docks include not only the properties belonging to the statutory undertakings, but also wharves owned by private wharfingers and used for public traffic."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th June, 1928; col. 191, Vol. 218.] There are wharves owned by private companies engaged in the transport of merchandise, which would be part of the canal undertaking in the sense that they would belong to the statutory undertakers, and therefore, in order to bring this within the principle, it is necessary to omit these words, so that some opportunity can be taken of including these wharves, which are privately owned and which fulfil the purposes of the canal undertakings, but are not part of the canal undertaking

The CHAIRMAN

Do I understand that the right hon. and learned Gentleman asks leave to withdraw the Amendment?

Sir H. NIELD

If you please, Sir.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper in the name of Miss LAWRENCE: In page 5, to leave out from the word "purposes," in line 36, to the end of line 39.

The CHAIRMAN

This Amendment really raises the same point in connection with docks. That is to say, it is a question of the words "as part of a dock undertaking," and I imagine that the Committee will be willing to defer the two questions, as they really relate to the same point.

Mr. GOSLING

As the right hon. Gentleman knows, there have been big harbour authorities and wharfingers who wish to make arrangements, not only for a fair deal in this matter——

The CHAIRMAN

We must have a Motion before us if the hon. Gentleman desires to speak.

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out from the word "purposes," in line 36, to the end of line 39.

Mr. GOSLING

I was wondering whether some promise could not he made to see that these people got a fair deal. This seems to me not the best way of doing it. It is not that they want to get more money out of the Government. Perhaps that is one of the reasons in the Parliamentary Secretary's mind for being very careful, but that is not their object. They will be quite grateful for what money they get, but what they want is to get it in the simplest possible way, and, if some arrangement could be made with these big harbour undertakers and wharfingers, it would be better for all parties and help the progress of the Bill. The great wharfingers along a river like the Thames must have some similar treatment to the docks, or it will be a very unfair arrangement. I would much rather that they made these arrangements for themselves, and perhaps the Minister would undertake to see them.

Sir K. WOOD

I need hardly tell the hon. Gentleman, whose experience is unequalled in this particular subject, that I will take into account what he has said, and if any representative bodies to which he refers desire to consult the Department between now and the Report stage, I will see that they are able to do so. We had better leave this matter in the same way as we left the last matter. I will therefore not comment upon the exact wording of this particular Amendment. It conveys a different meaning to me than it does to the hon. Members who put it on the Paper. Perhaps my hon. Friend will communicate with me in regard to the people whom he desires me to see.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Sir K. WOOD

I beg to move, in page 5, line 38, after the first word "the," to insert the words "volume of."

The object of this Amendment is simply to provide for the volume of business referred to in this Clause being taken as the test to decide whether a substantial portion of a dock undertaking is concerned with shipping or unshipping merchandise.

Mr. E. BROWN

I am glad that the Amendment has been moved, because as the Clause was drafted, the question could arise whether a substantial portion of the business was to be estimated on the value or on the volume.

Amendment agreed to.

Sir H. NIELD

I beg to move, in page 5, to leave out lines 40 to 44, inclusive.

I am proposing to delete the proviso at the end of Sub-section (1) of the Clause. It is felt by those who are concerned with this particular traffic that their offices will in all probability be valued as a separate hereditament and that they will not obtain the relief which is intended to be given under the Bill. It is not always possible to have the offices of a wharf upon the wharf or upon the premises where the goods are dealt with. In many cases it is necessary to have the offices where the whole of the business is transacted in some central part of the town. Let us take Birmingham, a city where there is a great water traffic, as an illustration. In many cases it is not possible to have the offices in immediate proximity to the place where the goods are handled, but it would be very unfair not to de-rate those offices on account of their being situate some distance away if they are solely concerned in dealing with the transport of goods. The case of a dock company is different, because the area of a dock is sufficiently large to allow of the offices being concentrated at the one centre, and inasmuch as the expense of the upkeep of the offices, wherever they are situate, falls upon the trader, it is difficult to understand why in the case where the offices are within the area of the curtilage of a wharf they should be included for relief and should be excluded if, for the sake of convenience and, it may be, of economy, they are situated elsewhere.

Mr. E. BROWN

I associate myself with all that the right hon. and learned Member for Ealing (Sir H. Nield) has said, and I wish to put a point of view from Scotland which backs up the case for the Amendment and provides a further argument. I cannot do better than read a short letter which I have received this morning from the Clyde Navigation Trust. Dear Sir, I refer to the proposed deletion in the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill, Clause 5, page 5, and the lines 40 to 44, and as a further argument in support of our contention that the offices, where separately situated, of a freight transport undertaking should be treated as part of the whole, I would point out that, under the Rating (Scotland) Act, 1926, First Schedule, paragraph 8, the offices of my trustees, which come under the definition in that paragraph of "heritages used wholly or mainly for the purposes thereof,' are granted a deduction of 20 per cent. from the gross annual value in arriving at the net or rateable value. It would appear, therefore, that on that precedent there is a good case for the relief from assessments on the valuation of offices of freight transport undertakings under the Rating and Valuation (Apportionment) Bill. That is the position under the Scottish law at the moment, and I think it should afford the right hon. Gentleman a precedent for giving us what we desire, as these undertakings cannot be carried on as complete undertakings without their offices.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

On behalf of the Dundee Harbour Trustees I wish to support this Amendment. It is a perfectly reasonable one. These docks and wharves are all supervised and controlled from the headquarters, and the offices ought to be regarded as part of the undertaking which is to receive this relief of rates.

Sir K. WOOD

I am afraid I cannot advise the Committee to accept this Amendment. We must follow the analogy which is contained in Clause 3 of the Bill. The hon. Member for Leith (Mr. E. Brown), who is so constant in his attendance at these proceedings on the Bill, and has contributed so very much to it, will remember that in the case of industrial hereditaments where the general offices are entirely separate these will not come within the proposals of this scheme, and it is very difficult to see why there should be any differentiation in this case. I understand that the object of the Amendment is to secure that the hereditaments primarily occupied and used as general offices should be de-rated, but, as a matter of fact, the Amendment leaves it open for argument as to whether the hereditament is or is not used for transport purposes. There may be a large block of buildings like those of the Port of London Authority on Tower Hill, which certainly would be excluded under this particular provision. It has been decided that where the administrative offices of a railway station are on the station itself they may be included as part of the station, and I think there is a good deal to be said for that point of view, but we must draw the line somewhere, and while I would be very anxious to meet my right hon. Friend as far as possible, there must be some limit, and I think the limit which has been drawn is a logical one. If we go beyond that we open a very wide gate. I must resist the Amendment.

Miss LAWRENCE

The Minister has made a considerable concession in respect of railway offices. There is an Amendment on the Paper to this Clause in the name of the Minister of Health, to leave out the words "and control," so that any part of the offices of a railway station which deals with the control of the station will be de-rated. I cannot see why there should not be a similar concession in respect of dock property. The offices of docks are used for the general control of the shipping, and so forth, in the same way that the offices of a railway management are used for the control of a station, and if we want to put all forms of transport on all-fours there is every reason why this concession should be made to the docks. This series of Amendments have behind them the authority not only of the Port of London Authority, but of the Docks and Harbours Association and of the Public Wharfingers' Association. They are important commercial Amendments, dealing with an extremely technical and difficult part of commerce. People talk of basic industries. I should like to know what the basic industry of London is, except these commercial enterprises, which make it the market of the world. I think a similar concession to that made to the railways should he made to the docks.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

May I point out that in the great majority of cases it is almost necessary, from the point of view of commercial convenience that the offices should of a dock undertaking be in such a situation as would necessitate their being treated as a separate hereditament. Though the office is an essential part of the undertaking it is almost impossible to conduct the business unless it is separate, and if relief is given to the undertaking it is surely necessary to include the office, which would be excluded if this proviso were not taken out.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

I am disappointed with the answer of the right hon. Gentleman. I can quite understand the desire he has, as representing the Government, to see the line drawn somewhere, but he has conceded the point regarding a railway station and its offices thereon, and I think that is absolutely identical with the case with which we are now dealing. The offices are on the ground in the same way as in the case of a railway. In regard to control, it was felt that it was necessary to meet the railways on that particular point. This does appear an anomaly and you give to the railways generally, from the Government standpoint, facilities far ahead of others. We have the power of the railway companies shown in a situation where otherwise the Government is defending the position very tenaciously. The whole basis of this Bill is one in regard to which the Minister is bound to be occasionally in a very awkward predicament about drawing the line. We, as representing the constituencies, are having put before us a most reasonable case from the standpoint of the business people. We mast readily recognise the strength of their case, that there should be the same latitude given in regard to those docks and wharves as in the case of the offices pertaining thereto in the case of the railways.

Sir H. NIELD

We have been arguing as to the general principle in the case of passenger traffic in relation to canals and docks. The Minister has already guarded himself carefully in the earlier part of the Sub-section by excluding, in relation to railway undertakings, that portion of their premises with regard to the conveyance of passengers by train. I should be perfectly content if a similar proposal were put in in regard to canals, but there is the essential difference that a canal to-day does not carry passengers for hire in the ordinary sense. There may be the case of the barge man and his family, but there is no payment for that, and therefore passenger traffic as such does not exist on the canals in this country. I plead for absolute equality between the concession made to the railways and the concession made to the canals. They are all engaged in a common purpose, and that is the conveyance of products.

The CHAIRMAN

I think there is some misapprehension about this matter. I understood from the argument that the word "control" should be left out, that that referred only to railway companies. As I read this paragraph if the word "control" is left out, that would apply to the railways, canals or dock undertakings, and if that be the case this argument really seems to be about a matter which really does not arise in the Bill at present. The words in the Clause apply to railways, docks and canals, and I think the omission of the word "control" would equally apply to railways, docks and canals alike.

Sir H. NIELD

Hardly that, because there is a special reference to it in the concluding words of paragraph (a, i) of the Clause. I understand the Minister was about to get up, and I shall be very glad indeed if he will give an assurance that there shall be absolute equality in the dealings with these three different kinds of undertakings, in order that in relation to the de-rating of property there shall be equality for all.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am glad that you, Mr. Hope, intervened to put the point that you did, because that is exactly the truth of the matter. I am rather at a loss to understand how any misapprehension upon this point can occur, because the Amendment standing in my name a little lower down on the Paper which deals with the slight alteration in the wording of the proviso which we have here, does not in any way alter the fact that that proviso applies not merely to railways but also to railways and canal and dock undertakings. I do not want to anticipate in any way what I may have to say on coming to the proviso as to the reasons for it. What I want to make- quite clear is that the Amendment which I am going to move later on is not one which applies only to railways, but equally to all three branches of freight-transport hereditaments in this matter.

Although I can quite understand that the proviso may give rise to some criticism on the part of those who think it takes something from them that otherwise they might have, it is only following strictly logically the line we have taken from the beginning in respect of the various kinds of hereditaments that are to be relieved. We have taken as the foundation of relief the fact that properties are within the curtilage or precincts of the business, and properties which are outside that curtilage, even though they may be strictly industrial hereditaments, nevertheless because they are outside, have been excluded from the benefits which will be given to industrial hereditaments. For instance you may, and generally do, find offices which are concerned in the management and control of a factory inside the precincts and curtilage of the factory. I think, probably, you will find there is the case where the office would actually not be inside the factory, but perhaps on the other side of the street. That is an anomaly, if you like, but there it is. It is not inside the factory, and, accordingly, it does not come in for the de-rating. Similarly, in the case of the railways, the ordinary booking offices are generally offices which are concerned in the control of the railway undertakings and a part of the station. In that case, following the examples in the case of the industrial hereditaments, they will be de-rated but where you have a case, and I think there is such a case, of the principal management offices of the railway being separated from the railway station, and occupying a curtilage of its own, that is excluded from the de-rating provisions which apply to the station itself.

So, again, in the case of a dock undertaking. Take the case of the Port of London Authority. There you have an office which is entirely separate from the actual dock undertaking itself, and that will not be de-rated. I may say this, perhaps, for the consolation of hon. Members who feel that this is a grievance. We made it clear from the beginning that we regard the relief that is being given to freight-transport at present, not as relief to those hereditaments for their own use and benefit, but as a means of giving still further assistance to productive industry. That, of course, is subject to a definite arrangement with the railways. In the case of the docks, no such definite arrangement has been made, but, nevertheless the conditions which there exist—the statutory conditions, under which they work—practically ensure that any relief that they obtain shall be passed on to their consumers. Therefore, it is not merely the dock, railway or canal undertakings that are going to suffer by the fact that certain properties of theirs do not come in for de-rating. It is the consumer to whom otherwise the relief would be passed on, and that is a much more indirect form of relief. Of course we have, in that connection, always to consider the fact which I have mentioned so often, that any extra relief that is being given has got to be made good out of the funds provided by the general taxpayer. We think that, in the circumstances, we should not be justified in adding to the burdens of the taxpayer in respect of these particular offices which, after all, could give very little in the way of extra assistance to productive industry. That is the general ground of the distinction which has been made, and I am happy to be able to assure hon. Members that at any rate there is no invidious distinction being made between one kind of transport hereditament and another.

Mr. SCRYMGEOUR

What will be the determining factor? Will it be the geographical distance?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Whether it is within the close, curtilage or precincts or not.

Sir W. GREAVES-LORD

It is almost a universal practice that the offices are part of the undertaking in regard to railways, whereas in the case of docks it is nearly always necessary that the offices should be separate.

Mr. TOWNEND

It is true, as the Minister has said, that the relief in these cases has to be passed on to the consumer, but whatever anomalies exist in connection with other industries there are differences in the case of railways even between station and station. It is an actual fact that in many cases the offices that deal exclusively with the operative side of railway traffic, and particularly that affecting the accountancy side of the operative side of the railways apart from management, are today in one company within a set of offices that are outside the goods siding; while in the case of another company in the same town the accountancy work and the office work is attached to the station and would obtain no relief. In the one case de-rating would apply because the office dealing with goods station work apart from management work is away from the station. It is because this happens in nearly every city, not as an exceptional case but because it operates all over the Kingdom that this Amendment has been put down. Nothing the Minister of Health has said has dealt with this very important and very serious anomaly, and I suggest that before the Bill reaches a final form, if the right hon. Gentleman is going to distinguish between administrative and operative clerical work on the railway companies, he shall take some other standard than that the work is done within the close, curtilage or precincts of the stations.

Amendment negatived.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

I beg to move, in page 5, line 40, after the word "hereditament" to insert the words other than a dining room, recreation room, or recreation ground for the use of workpeople. I do not know whether the Minister of Health is prepared to accept this Amendment. If he is willing to do so, that will shorten my remarks. We have just heard from the Minister that certain premises in a railway station will receive de-rating relief. He mentioned the booking office, and apparently the restaurant will receive relief, but it is not certain that the workpeople's dining room, recreation room or recreation ground will receive relief. We want to encourage all undertakings to take every possible economic measure for the comfort and recreation of their workpeople. What is known as welfare work in connection with large firms has made enormous progress, and firms take immense care in regard to the well-being of their workpeople. I think that kind of work should be encouraged in every possible way.

With regard to dining rooms, there has been an immense change in recent years in this respect, and I have seen myself immense improvements made in the Royal Dockyards since I was a boy, and now they have well-appointed dining rooms and decent messing arrangements. I think all these places ought to have the same de-rating relief because in the end such things are bound to reduce the cost of transport. With regard to recreation grounds, we have on foot at the present time a movement headed by the Duke of York to provide more recreation grounds and playing fields, and I am glad to say that a great many large firms up and down the country have within the last few years provided recreation grounds for their workpeople, and I think such places ought to have rate relief. Surely the Minister of Health will agree that open spaces provided for the recreation of the employés of any firm or any transport undertaking should receive all the help which the State can give. I do not know what the acceptance of this Amendment would cost, but it could not be a great deal, and it would not be much compared with the added happiness, comfort and contentment of the employés of the firms dealt with in this Clause. I think the case for my Amendment is overwhelming.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I am indeed overwhelmed, not by this Amendment but by the mentality of the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) who apparently thinks that it is possible that a dining room, recreation room or a recreation ground for the use of the workpeople would be primarily occupied and used as offices for, or for purposes ancillary to, the general direction management and control of a railway canal or dock undertaking, shall not be deemed a freight-transport hereditament. The hon. and gallant Member, I think, can hardly have taken the trouble to see exactly what the effect of his Amendment would be if it were inserted in this place, or even if it were made in some other form; but perhaps I may assume that he did not intend to indicate that recreation grounds or dining rooms were to be used primarily for this purpose, but that all that he intended to do was to demonstrate his assent to and approval of the general idea of the promotion of the welfare of employés of great public undertakings by the provision of facilities for recreation and so on. I have to inform him that there is nothing in this Bill which would exclude dining rooms and recreation rooms for the use of the employés of a railway, canal or dock undertaking from the benefits of derating under the provisions of the Bill, and, if he would be good enough to cast his eye upon a later Amendment in my name to Clause 6—in page 7, line 39, to leave out from the word "shall" to the end of the Clause, and to insert instead thereof the words: be deemed to be occupied and used for transport purposes, except in so far as it is occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling house, hotel, or place of public refreshment,…"— he will see that that Amendment of mine, while it does not really alter the effect of the Clause, puts the matter in a slightly different form, and, of course, gives to these hereditaments the benefit of de-rating except in so far as they are occupied and used for the purposes of a dwelling house, hotel or place of public refreshment. The hon. and gallant Member will see that my Amendment is deliberately worded so as to differentiate between the public refreshment room and the refreshment room, dining room or recreation room provided for the use, not of the public, but of the employés of the undertaking. The effect will be to provide that all parts of the transport undertaking are to be deemed to be used for transport purposes with the specific exceptions named, and that will apply, therefore, to recreation rooms or dining rooms.

It does not necessarily apply to recreation grounds, but the hon. and gallant Member will see that a recreation ground, although it may be provided for the employés of a railway company, stands in rather a different position from the room which is part of the precincts or premises of the railway company, and I think it would hardly be subject to the de-rating proposals. The recreation ground of a railway, dock or canal undertaking will be in exactly the same position as the recreation ground of an industrial firm, and it would, of course, be clearly an anomaly to say that a recreation ground which was provided by a railway company, and on which the company paid the rates, should be de-rated, while a ground hired by the employés themselves should be left fully rated as before. In any case, the rates on such grounds would not be a very serious affair, but there is that distinction between the recreation ground and the recreation room. I think, however, that the hon. and gallant Member will see from what I have said that this matter has had the attention of my Department, and has been provided for in the way that we think best in the practical machinery of the Bill.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

The right hon. Gentleman has chosen to be amusing to himself and one or two other hon. Members because I and my hon. Friend the Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) consider the general direction and management to include the provision of facilities for recreation for the workpeople. I still think so.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Primarily?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

If the right hon. Gentleman still thinks that it is not a necessary part of the general direction and management of the undertaking to provide for the well-being of the workpeople, I can do nothing for him; he is a representative of the type of employer, rapidly becoming obsolete, who thinks that all that sort of thing is nonsense. The course of nature will remove those whom he represents, not only from industry, but from government. in due time. The right hon. Gentleman, apparently, intends to meet us, in his further Amendment, with regard to recreation rooms, but not with regard to recreation grounds, and he says that it would be an anomaly if he acceded to our request in that respect. This Bill, however, is full of anomalies. One more will not hurt it, and I think it is so necessary to encourage the provision by

great undertakings of open playing spaces for their workpeople that I am going to ask the Committee to support me and my hon. Friend in pressing this Amendment to a Division.

Question put, "That those words be there inserted."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 129; Noes, 220.

Division No. 245.]	AYES.	[9.52 p.m.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Griffith, F. Kingsley	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Adamson, W. M. (Stall, Cannock)	Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Riley, Ben
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')	Groves, T.	Ritson, J.
Ammon, Charles George	Grundy, T. W.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Attlee, Clement Richard	Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Baker, J. (Woiverhampton, Bilston)	Hall, G. H. (Merthyr Tydvil)	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Hardie, George D.	Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A.	Harney, E. A.	Scurr, John
Barr, J.	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph	Hayday, Arthur	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bondfield, Margaret	Henderson, Right Hon. A. (Burnley)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shinwell, E.
Briant, Frank	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Broad, F. A.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bromfield, William	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)
Bromley, J	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Smillie, Robert
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Buchanan, G.	Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)	Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Cape, Thomas	Kelly, W. T.	Snell, Harry
Charleton, H. C.	Kennedy, T.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cluse, W. S.	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Stamford, T. W.
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.	Kirkwood, D.	Stephen, Campbell
Connolly, M.	Lansbury, George	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Cove, W. G.	Lawrence, Susan	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Lawson, John James	Thurtle, Ernest
Crawford, H. E.	Lee, F.	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	Lindley, F. W.	Townend, A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lunn, William	Varley, Frank B.
Day, Harry	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Duncan, C.	Malone, C. L' Estrange (N'thampton)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H.	March, S.	Wellock, Wilfred
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)	Mitchell, E. Rosslyn (Paisley)	Westwood, J.
Fenby, T. D.	Montague, Frederick	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gardner, J. P.	Mosley, Oswald	Whiteley, W.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Murnin, H.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gibbins, Joseph	Naylor, T. E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Gillett, George M.	Oliver, George Harold	Windsor, Walter
Gosling, Harry	Palln, John Henry	Wright, W.
Graham, Rt. Hon. Wm. (Edion., Cent.)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Greenall, T.	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Potts, John S.	Mr. Hayes and Mr. Paling.
NOES.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, S.)
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.
Apsley, Lord	Brass, Captain W.	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Brassey, Sir Leonard	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.
Astor, Viscountess	Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Christie, J. A.
Atholl, Duchess of	Briggs, J. Harold	Churchill, Rt. Hon. Winston Spencer
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Brittain, Sir Harry	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Clarry, Reginald George
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Cobb, Sir Cyril
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.
Bennett, A. J	Brown, Brig.-Gen. H. C. (Berks, Nowb'y)	Colman, N. C. D.
Bethel, A.	Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Cope, Major Sir William
Bevan, S. J.	Burman, J. B.	Couper, J. B.
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Cadogan, Major Hon, Edward	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Calne, Gordon Hall	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Campbell, E. T.	Crookshank Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)
Bowater, Col. Sir T. Vansittart	Carver, Major W. H.	Curzon, Captain Viscount
Dalkeith, Earl of	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)	Ropner, Major L.
Davies Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert	Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.
Davies, Sir Thomas (Cirencester)	Jephcott, A. R.	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Davies, Dr. Vernon	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)	Salmon, Major I.
Dawson, Sir Philip	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Dixey, A. C.	Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Sandeman, N. Stewart
Duckworth, John	Knox, Sir Alfred	Sanders, Sir Robert A.
Eden, Captain Anthony	Lamb, J. Q.	Sanderson, Sir Frank
Edge, Sir William	Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Savery, S. S.
Edmondson, Major A. J.	Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)
Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Loder, J. de V.	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A. D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)
Elliot, Major Walter E.	Long, Major Eric	Shepperson, E. W.
Everard, W. Lindsay	Lougher, Lewis	Skelton, A. N.
Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Slaney, Major p. Kenyon
Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Lumley, L. R.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.
Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Lynn, Sir Robert J.	Smithers, Waldron
Fielden, E. B.	Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)
Ford, Sir P. J.	McDonnell, Colonel Hon. Angus	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.
Forrest, W.	Macintyre, Ian	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G.F.
Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	McLean, Major A.	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Ganzoni, Sir John	Macmillan, Captain H.	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Gates, Percy	Mac Robert, Alexander M.	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John	Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Glyn, Major R. G. C.	Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Templeton, W. P.
Gower, Sir Robert	Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Grace, John	Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.	Heller, R. J.	Tinne, J. A.
Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter	Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w,E)	Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Tomlinson, R. P.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)	Moore, Lieut.-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Grotrian, H. Brent	Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Waddington, R.
Gunston, Captain D. W.	Nelson, Sir Frank	Wallace, Captain D. E.
Hacking, Douglas H.	Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston-on-Hull)
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)	Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Hammersley, S. S.	Oakley, T.	Warrender, Sir Victor
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry	O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Harland, A.	Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Watts, Sir Thomas
Harrison, G. J. C.	Pennefather, Sir John	wells, S. R.
Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)	Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple
Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)	Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Wiggins, William Martin
Haslam, Henry C.	Perring, Sir William George	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd,Henley)	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.	Preston, William	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Ean
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard	Price, Major C. W. M.	Withers, John James
Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)	Radford, E. A.	Wolmer, Viscount
Hopkins, J. W. W.	Raine, Sir Walter	Womersley, W. J.
Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)	Ramsden, E.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
Hudson, R. S. (Cumberrnd, Whiteh'n)	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Wragg, Herbert
Hume, Sir G. H.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)
Iveagh, Countess of	Robinson, Sir T. (Lancs, Stretford)	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
		Captain Margesson and Mr. Penny.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 5, line 42, after the word "direction" to insert the word "and."

This Amendment and the next Amendment on the Paper—in line 42, to leave out the words "and control"—are to be read together, and they amount to the leaving out of the words "and control" and the insertion of the word "and" in order to make the Clause read "general direction and management." There is no particular significance to be attached to this alteration, but it has been represented to me that the word "control" used in this connection might carry us further than we intend. The word "control" as applied to railway offices, might include such offices as a stationmaster's office or a train control office and that is not intended. This provision is intended merely to apply to the general offices of the undertaking, and it is thought that the words "direction and management" will sufficiently describe that intention and will not give rise to any possibility of misinterpretation.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 5, line 42, leave out the words "and control."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 6, to leave out from the word "merchandise" in line 9, to the end of line 11, and to insert instead thereof the words: including the construction, maintenance and repair of all ways, works, machinery and plant used in connection with the undertaking. This Amendment is little more than a drafting Amendment. The words of the Bill refer specifically to locomotives, rolling stock and so forth and it is thought that this might possibly be interpreted as meaning that any other matters in connection with the railways, which were not specifically mentioned, were intended to be omitted. Therefore I propose to insert the more general words of the Amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 6, line 18, leave out from the word "merchandise" to the word "undertaking" in line 20 and to insert instead thereof the words: including the construction, maintenance, and repair of all ways, works, machinery, and plant used in connection with the."—[Mr. Chamberlain.]

The following Amendmens stood upon the Order Paper:

In page 6, line 18, after the word "with" to insert the words: the making, conditioning, or repairing of vessels, locomotives, rolling stock, or canal or railway plant or materials or."—[Miss Lawrence, Mr. Gosling, Mr. March, Sir H. Nield, Sir J. Nall, Mr. E. Brown.]

In page 6, line 25, after the word "conveyance" to insert the words "or transport."—[Mr. Chamberlain, Miss Lawrence, Mr. Gosling, Mr. March, Sir H. Nield, Sir J. Nall.]

Mr. BROWN

On a point of Order. May I ask by what authority is a Member's name, once it has been put down to an Amendment, removed from the Order Paper. I ask, not for my own purpose, but for the protection of private Members in future.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I think the point to which the hon. Member is referring is a well-known one in the rules and customs of the House of Commons, under which not more than a certain number of names are put down to any one Amendment.

Mr. BROWN

May I point out that it used to be the case that only the first Member who went to the Table had the Amendment put down in his name. Now I understand the method is that if the official Opposition put down an Amendment and if a Conservative Member and a Liberal Member put down the same Amendment, the official Opposition comes first. In this case, I handed in an Amendment, first, in common with a number of others, but my name appears sixth. I do not object to the Minister's name going on top in this case, but there may be occasions in the future when there will be a difference of opinion as to the six names to an Amendment, and the rule may work very harshly in connection with a minority party in the House. That is the reason why I raise the point now. I think the name of a Member who puts down an Amendment ought not to be dropped without any notice to him and without his consent.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I am glad the hon. Member is only contemplating a possible grievance in the future and not one that has transpired.

Further Amendments made: In page 6, line 25, after the word "conveyance," insert the words "or transport."

Leave out from the word "undertaking" in line 26 to the word "undertaking" in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words: including the construction, maintenance, and repair of all ways, works, machinery, and plant used in connection with the."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Mr. HARNEY

I beg to move, in page 6, line 28, to leave out from the word "undertaking" to the end of line 30.

It does occur to me that these words ought to be left out. Premises used for dock purposes, including that portion of a dock which is connected with the provision of accommodation for the reconditioning or repairing of ships, ought to come within the freight-transport. If they come within the freight-transport, it means that, though they get a reduction of three-quarters of their rates, they have to pass it on to the customers. It is quite possible that there may he shops that are connected with the reconditioning or repairing of ships quite apart from anything in association with docks. If work is done in these places that are not associated with docks, they will get a reduction of three-quarters of the rates, which the owners can put into their pocket. If the same work is done in places that are associated with docks, they get a reduction of three-quarters of their rates, and they have to pass it on to the Customs authorities.

I do not see why the same Amendment should not have been moved earlier in reference to the reconditioning and repairing of locomotives, rolling stock or railway material. I do not pretend to have a great deal of material at my disposal, but that is the thought which has occurred to me. I know that in the north engines are made sometimes by the railway companies, and sometimes by a body that is wholly unconnected with the railway companies. If the engines are made by the railway companies, then three-quarters reduction is granted, but that three-quarters reduction has to be passed on to the consumers. If a light engine is made by a body unconnected with the railway company, there is a three-fourths reduction which goes to the profits of the concern. Does not that handicap railway companies and dock companies who do the work themselves? A man wants an engine built. He will say: "Shall I have it built in my own yard, where, when I get the reduction, it will pass away from me, or shall I have it built elsewhere, where the reduction will be granted that will not pass away?" It seems to me to have a tendency to take away from these undertakings, dock concerns and railway companies, the doing of their own work, because if it is done on their own premises they will not get the benefit of the de-rating. They will get it in the first instance, but they have to pass it on. These points have occurred to me, and I think they ought to be considered. [Interruption.] I am very sorry. My attention has been called to this point. I look at the next Amendment and I see that the right hon. Gentleman has anticipated my arguments.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I paid very great attention to the weighty arguments adduced by the hon. and learned Member and to the various thoughts which occurred to him, in the course of the observations he made upon an Amendment which I had, I think, only seen at the moment of his rising. He is mistaken in thinking that the Amendment next on the Paper has anything to do with the Amendment which he has just put forward with such force. I venture to explain that the real effect of the hon. and learned Gentleman's Amendment will be to exclude from de-rating a graving yard or a ship-repairing yard belonging to a dock undertaking. It is not necessarily the fact that in the case of a dock undertaking possessing, let us say, a ship-repairing yard and being derated in respect of that yard, the resulting relief would go to the customers of the dock undertaking. I cannot say that it would, but I may perhaps put this further explanation. If this Amendment were carried and the particular kinds of premises which are covered by these words were excluded from the benefits of de-rating, as part of dock undertakings, that would not exclude them from de-rating, because they would be de-rated as industrial hereditaments. Therefore, the only question before the Committee is whether the ship-repairing yards or graving docks should be de-rated as industrial hereditaments or as dock undertakings. That can make no possible difference to the dock undertaking itself, and I suggest that, as the hon. and learned Member's purpose has been achieved by the discussion which has taken place, he should not press his Amendment further.

Mr. HARNEY

The effect of the Amendment would be to put the work done by dock firms on the same footing as similar work done at purely industrial works. The point I was making was, that if you have the same work done at a purely industrial place of business, there is a three-fourths effective de-rating, but if you have the work done by a dock undertaking, there is a three-fourths ineffective de-rating, because the de-rating there has to be passed on. Why does the right hon. Gentleman say that, after his remarks, I should withdraw my Amendment?

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

Because the benefit in both cases accrues to the dock undertaking. It does not make the slightest difference to the dock undertaking in which category it comes.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

Does the hon. and learned Member persist in his Amendment?

Mr. HARNEY

I will withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 29, to leave out the words "the reconditioning or repair of ships," and to insert instead thereof the words vessels and their stores, equipment, and tackle (including fishing tackle), whether for purposes of repair or otherwise. This Amendment is designed to include the provision of accommodation by dock undertakings for vessels that are lying up. In connection with the fishing industry certain vessels have to lie up for very considerable parts of the year. This Amendment has been drafted to remove a doubt as to whether accommodation provided by a dock undertaking for storage or equipment or tackle such as may be used in connection with these purposes, is really a dock purpose. I have no doubt that this slight Amendment will be welcomed by those who are interested in the fishing industry.

Commander WILLIAMS

This Amendment deals with a point which I raised at a much earlier stage of the Bill, and affects the position of certain docks in regard to the fishing industry. I thank the right hon. Gentleman for making it perfectly clear that a place which provides accommodation for fishing vessels, tackle, etc., will be covered. I thank him most sincerely for the help that he has given in the matter.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. E. BROWN

I beg to move, in page 6, line 33, at the end, to insert the words 'Canal' includes any inland navigation, also wharves and landing-places of and belonging to such canal or navigation and used for the purposes of public traffic, and the expression 'canal undertakings' shall be construed accordingly.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

On a point of Order. May I ask whether you are passing over my Amendment to insert the words "or connected with deep sea fishing"? I wish to move it in order to clarify the position. It may be already covered in the Bill.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

I have not selected that Amendment on the ground that it is covered by the previous Amendment.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY

My point is that merchandise is mentioned several times in the Bill, but fish is not mentioned anywhere; and the Amendment we have just passed only included fishing tackle.

Sir K. WOOD

The word "merchandise" includes fish.

Mr. BROWN

The point at issue in the Amendment I am moving is that we think the words we propose are a better definition. They are taken from the Canal Traffic Act, 1854, and safeguard the interests of wharves concerned in the traffic of merchandise along the canals.

Sir K. WOOD

With the hon. Member's permission, it would be better to deal with the matter in the next Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend, which is in the form which the Parliamentary draftsman desires.

Mr. BROWN

May I put one point. There is an Amendment later on in the name of the hon. Member for North Edinburgh (Sir P. Ford) and myself in connection with the definition of a dock undertaking. May I ask if the Parliamentary draftsman has considered that? It makes no difference to the Bill, but those interested in wharves and docks would prefer the alternative as put forward by the hon. Member for North Edinburgh and myself.

Sir K. WOOD

When we get to that Amendment we shall be able to accept it in principle, although it will have to be re-drafted.

Mr. BROWN

I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. Amendment made: In page 6, line 34, after the word "any," insert the words "inland navigation."—[Sir K. Wood.]

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, in page 6, line 39, at the end to insert the words "'Dock undertaking' includes any undertaking comprising a dock as part thereof."

At an earlier stage in our proceedings the Minister of Health, in dealing with an Amendment I proposed on Clause 5 with regard to canals, said that he would consider the point raised, but was not satisfied with the drafting. This Amendment is intended to fulfil substantially the same purpose, and is, in fact, an alteration of the Amendment I proposed on Clause 5. I do not intend to speak on this Amendment, but only to ask the Minister that when he considers the question of wharves and canals he will take this Amendment also into consideration.

Sir K. WOOD

I want to say that, as far as the Amendment on the Paper is concerned, we consider it to be too wide. But we will look into this matter between now and the Report stage, and have regard to this Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Miss LAWRENCE

I beg to move, in page 7, to leave out from the word "Act," in line 2, to the end of line 5.

Light railways can be used, and are used, and ought to be used more extensively, for the transport of light produce, particularly agricultural produce, from place to place, and we say that where a light railway enters in any way into the transport of merchandise it ought to be treated in precisely the same

way as a heavy railway and ought to receive the benefit of this Bill. One of the most important things in the development of agriculture is the provision of new, cheap, and extended means of transport.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. CHAMBERLAIN

I beg to move, in page 7, line 17, at the end, to add the words: 'Vessel' has the 6ame meaning as that assigned to it by Section seven hundred and forty-two of the Merchant Shipping Act, 1884.

This Amendment is moved merely to add to the Clause a definition of the word "vessel."

Amendment agreed to.

Motion made, and Question put, "That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 243; Noes, 119.

Division No. 246.]	AYES.	[10.30 p.m.
Agg-Gardner, Rt. Hon. Sir James T.	Cautley, Sir Henry S.	Gates, Percy
Ainsworth, Lieut.-Col. Charles	Cayzer, Maj. Sir Herbt, R. (Prtsmth, C.)	Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Alexander, E. E. (Leyton)	Cazalet, Captain Victor A.	Glyn, Major R. G. C.
Allen, Sir J. Sandeman	Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)	Gower, Sir Robert
Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.	Charteris, Brigadier-General J.	Grace, John
Applin, Colonel R. V. K.	Christie, J. A.	Grattan-Doyle, Sir N.
Apsley, Lord	Churchman, Sir Arthur C.	Greaves-Lord, Sir Walter
Ashley, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Wilfrid W.	Clarry, Reginald George	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Sir H. (W'th's'w.E)
Astbury, Lieut.-Commander F. W.	Cobb, Sir Cyril	Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Astor, Maj. Hn. John J. (Kent, Dover)	Cochrane, Commander Hon. A. D.	Griffith, F. Kingsley
Astor, Viscountess	Colman, N. C. D.	Grotrian, H. Brent
Atholl, Duchess of	Cope, Major Sir William	Gunston, Captain D. W.
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley	Couper, J. B.	Hacking, Douglas H.
Balfour, George (Hampstead)	Cowan, D. M. (Scottish Universities)	Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Banks, Sir Reginald Mitchell	Crawfurd, H. E.	Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Barclay-Harvey, C. M.	Croft, Brigadier-General Sir H.	Hammersley, S. S.
Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)	Crooke, J. Smedley (Deritend)	Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Bennett, A. J.	Crookshank, Col. C. de W. (Berwick)	Harland, A.
Bethel, A.	Crookshank, Cpt. H. (Lindsey, Gainsbro)	Harrison, G. J. C.
Betterton, Henry B.	Dalkeith, Earl of	Hartington, Marquess of
Bevan, S. J.	Davies, Maj. Geo. F. (Somerset, Yeovil)	Harvey, G. (Lambeth, Kennington)
Birchall, Major J. Dearman	Davies, Dr. Vernon	Harvey, Major S. E. (Devon, Totnes)
Bird, E. R. (Yorks, W. R., Skipton)	Dawson, Sir Philip	Haslam, Henry C.
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)	Dean, Arthur Wellesley	Headlam, Lieut.-Colonel C. M.
Bourne, Captain Robert Croft	Dixey, A. C.	Henderson, Capt. R. R. (Oxf'd, Henley)
Bowater, Colonel Sir T. Vansittart	Duckworth, John	Heneage, Lieut.-Colonel Arthur P.
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.	Eden, Captain Anthony	Hennessy, Major Sir G. R. J.
Boyd-Carpenter, Major Sir A. B.	Edge, Sir William	Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Braithwaite, Major A. N.	Edmondson, Major A. J.	Hope, Capt. A. O. J. (Warw'k, Nun.)
Brass, Captain W.	Edwards, J. Hugh (Accrington)	Hopkins, J. W. W.
Brassey, Sir Leonard	Elliot, Major Walter E.	Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mosslty)
Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive	Ellis, R. G.	Hore-Belisha, Leslie
Briggs, J. Harold	Erskine, Lord (Somerset, Weston-s.-M.)	Hudson, Capt. A. U. M. (Hackney, N.)
Brocklebank, C. E. R.	Evans, Capt. Ernest (Welsh Univer.)	Hudson, R. S. (Cumberland, Whiteh'n)
Brooke, Brigadier-General C. R. I.	Everard, W. Lindsay	Hume, Sir G. H.
Broun-Lindsay, Major H.	Fairfax, Captain J. G.	Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Brown, Brig.-Gen. H.C. (Berks, Newb'y)	Falle, Sir Bertram G.	Hurd, Percy A.
Brown, Ernest (Leith)	Fanshawe, Captain G. D.	Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Burman, J. B.	Fenby, T. D.	Jackson, Sir H. (Wandsworth, Cen'l)
Butler, Sir Geoffrey	Fielden, E. B.	James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Cadogan, Major Hon. Edward	Ford, Sir P. J.	Jephcott, A. R.
Calne, Gordon Hall	Forrest, W.	Jones, Sir G. W. H. (Stoke New'gton)
Campbell, E. T.	Gadie, Lieut.-Col. Anthony	Jones, Henry Haydn (Merioneth)
Carver, Major W. H.	Ganzoni, Sir John	Kennedy, A. R. (Preston).
Kindersley, Major Guy M.	Perring, Sir William George	Stanley, Lieut.-Colonel Rt. Hon. G. F.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement	Peto, Sir Basil E. (Devon, Barnstaple)	Stanley, Lord (Fylde)
Knox, Sir Alfred	Peto, G. (Somerset, Frome)	Storry-Deans, R.
Lamb, J. O.	Pownall, Sir Assheton	Stuart, Hon. J. (Moray and Nairn)
Lister, Cunliffe-, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip	Preston, William	Sugden, Sir Wilfrid
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)	Price, Major C. W. M.	Tasker, R. Inigo.
Loder, J. de V.	Radford, E. A.	Templeton, W. P.
Long, Major Eric	Raine, Sir Walter	Thorn, Lt.-Col. J. G. (Dumbarton)
Luce, Major-Gen. Sir Richard Harman	Ramsden, E.	Thompson, Luke (Sunderland)
Lumley, L. R.	Rawson, Sir Cooper	Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
Lynn, Sir R. J.	Rees, Sir Beddoe	Tinne, J. A.
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)	Rhys, Hon. C. A. U.	Titchfield, Major the Marquess of
Macdonald, Capt. P. D. (I. of W.)	Roberts, Sir Samuel (Hereford)	Tomlinson, R. P.
McDonnell, Colonel Hon, Angus	Robinson, Sir I (Lancs., Stretford)	Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.
Macintyre, Ian	Ropner, Major L.	Waddington, R.
McLean, Major A.	Ruggies-Brise, Lieut.-Colonel E. A.	Wallace, Captain D. E.
MacRobert, Alexander M.	Runciman, Hilda (Cornwall, St. Ives)	Ward, Lt.-Col. A. L. (Kingston- on-Hull)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.	Runciman, Rt. Hon. Walter	Warner, Brigadier-General W. W.
Manningham-Buller, Sir Mervyn	Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)	Warrender, Sir Victor
Margesson, Capt. D.	Rye, F. G.	Waterhouse, Captain Charles
Marriott, Sir J. A. R.	Salmon, Major I.	Watts, Sir Thomas
Mason, Colonel Glyn K.	Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)	Wells, S. R.
Meller, R. J.	Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)	White, Lieut.-Col. Sir G. Dalrymple.
Moles, Rt. Hon. Thomas	Sandeman, N. Stewart	Wiggins, William Martin
Monsell, Eyres, Com. Rt. Hon. B. M.	Sanders, Sir Robert A.	Williams, Com. C. (Devon, Torquay)
Moore, Lieut-Colonel T. C. R. (Ayr)	Sanderson, Sir Frank	Williams, Herbert G. (Reading)
Morrison, H. (Wilts, Salisbury)	Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.	Wilson, R. R. (Stafford, Lichfield)
Morrison-Bell, Sir Arthur Clive	Savery, S. S.	Windsor-Clive, Lieut.-Colonel George
Nelson, Sir Frank	Shaw, R. G. (Yorks, W.R., Sowerby)	Winterton, Rt. Hon. Earl
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)	Shaw, Lt.-Col. A.D. Mcl. (Renfrew, W.)	Withers, John James
Nield, Rt. Hon. Sir Herbert	Shepperson, E. W.	Wolmer, Viscount
Nuttall, Ellis	Sinclair, Major Sir A. (Caithness)	Womersley, W. J.
Oakley, T.	Skelton, A. N.	Wood, Rt. Hon. Sir Kingsley
O'Connor, T. J. (Bedford, Luton)	Slaney, Major P. Kenyon	Yerburgh, Major Robert D. T.
Oman, Sir Charles William C.	Smith-Carington, Neville W.	Young, Rt. Hon. Sir Hilton (Norwich)
Pennefather, Sir John	Smithers, Waidron
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)	Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—
Perkins, Colonel E. K.	Spender-Clay, Colonel H.	Captain Viscount Curzon and Mr. Penny.
NOES.
Adamson, Rt. Hon. W. (Fife, West)	Hall, G. H. (Marthyr Tydvil)	Riley, Ben
Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)	Hardle, George D.	Ritson, J.
Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hllisbro')	Harney, E. A.	Roberts, Rt. Hon. F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Ammon, Charles George	Harris, Percy A.	Robinson, W. C. (Yorks, W. R., Elland)
Baker, J. (Wolverhampton, Bilston)	Hartshorn, Rt. Hon. Vernon	Salter, Dr. Alfred
Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)	Heyday, Arthur	Scrymgeour, E.
Barnes, A.	Hayes, John Henry	Scurr, John
Barr, J.	Henderson, Rt. Hon. A. (Burnley)	Sexton, James
Batey, Joseph	Henderson, T. (Glasgow)	Shepherd, Arthur Lewis
Bondfield, Margaret	Hirst, W. (Bradford, South)	Shiels, Dr. Drummond
Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.	Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)	Shinwell, E.
Briant, Frank	John, William (Rhondda, West)	Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Broad, F. A.	Johnston, Thomas (Dundee)	Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John
Bromfield, William	Jones, J. J. (West Ham. Silvertown)	Smilile, Robert
Bromley, J.	Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)	Smith, Ben (Bermondsey, Rotherhithe)
Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)	Kelly, W. T.	Smith, Rennie (Penistone)
Buchanan, G.	Kennedy, T.	Snell, Harry
Buxton, Rt. Hon. Noel	Kenworthy, Lt.-Com. Hon. Joseph M.	Snowden, Rt. Hon. Philip
Cape, Thomas	Kirkwood, D.	Stamford, T. W.
Charleton, H. C.	Lansbury, George	Stephen, Campbell
Cluse, W. S.	Lawrence, Susan	Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Connolly, M.	Lawson, John James	Thurtle, Ernest
Cove, W. G.	Lee, F.	Tinker, John Joseph
Dalton, Hugh	Lindley, F. W.	Townend, A. E.
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)	Lunn, William	Varley, Frank B.
Day, Harry	MacDonald, Rt. Hon. J. R. (Aberavon)	Viant, S. P.
Dennison, R.	Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)	Watson, W. M. (Dunfermline)
Duncan, C.	Malone, C. L'Estrange (N'thampton)	Watts-Morgan, Lt.-Col. D. (Rhondda)
Dunnico, H	March, S.	Wellock, Wilfred
Gardner, J. P.	Mitchell, E, Rosslyn (Paisley)	Westwood, J.
Garro-Jones, Captain G. M.	Montague, Frederick	Wheatley, Rt. Hon. J.
Gibbins, Joseph	Mosley, Oswald	Whiteley, W.
Gillett, George M.	Murnin, H.	Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)
Gosling, Harry	Naylor, T. E.	Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)
Greenall, T.	Oliver, George Harold	Windsor, Walter
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)	Palin, John Henry	Wright, W.
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)	Parkinson, John Allen (Wigan)	Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)	Pethick-Lawrence, F. W.
Groves, T.	Ponsonby, Arthur	TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—
Grundy, T. W.	Potts, John S.	Mr. Charles Edwards and Mr. Paling.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)	Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)