HC Deb 12 July 1928 vol 219 cc2543-623

As amended, considered.


I am sure that it will be for the advantage of the House if we come to some agreement as to the procedure to be followed in the discussion of this Bill and the three other Bills which are set down for consideration. I am entirely in the hands of the House, but, if I remember aright, these four Bills were treated as one on the Second Beading, and I believe the same procedure was adopted in the Select Committee. The Bills are pracically identical and the different Amendments which have been put down seem to apply to all. If the House agrees to take a general discussion on the first Bill, namely, the London, Midland and Scottish Bill, I think it would meet the general convenience.


What you have said, Sir, is strictly in accord with the view of your predecessor. The same principle is involved and the same difference of opinion exists in regard to all the Bills, and there is no useful purpose to be served by having four Debates on the same principle. It will suit the convenience of the House, and of everyone concerned, if the procedure which you suggest can be followed.


On behalf of the other railway companies, may I say that we are quite agreeable to that course being taken.


The first of the New Clauses which I select is that in the name of the hon. Member for South-Western Norfolk (Major McLean)—(Review of exceptional rates by Railway Rates Tribunal).


On a point of Order, Sir. May I ask if, in making your selection, you have noticed the proposed New Clause—(For protection of light railways)—in the name of the hon. and gallant Member for Bromley (Lieut.-Colonel James), the hon. Member for Cardigan (Mr. Morris) and myself? The New Clause on which you now propose to call deals only with one portion of the qualified passenger traffic. The proposed New Clause which stands in the name of myself and the hon. Members whom I have just mentioned is a comprehensive one, including every type of passenger and goods traffic. If it be ruled out, no fewer than 15 municipalities, who have public money concerned in these light railways, will be penalised and will not have an opportunity of placing their views before the House.


I would draw your attention, Sir, to the fact that there is on the Order Paper—I do not know whether you will accept it or not—a proposal which deals not with certain municipalities but with all municipalities, and I respectfully suggest that it gives the opportunity for a general discussion, rather than the proposed New Clause of the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden).


I should be proceeding strictly in accordance with the Standing Orders if I were to select Amendments without giving any reason whatever for so doing, but I can assure the House that it has not been an easy task to make a selection from these New Clauses and Amendments. What I have endeavoured to do is to see that all points of view have an opportunity of being expressed on the different points arising from these Bills. I think the hon. Member for the Hartlepools (Sir W. Sugden) will find that in my selection there is an Amendment lower down covering all the points which he desires to raise.

  1. NEW CLAUSE.—(Review of exceptional rates by Railway Hates Tribunal.) 1,546 words
  2. cc2549-59
  3. NEW CLAUSE.—(for protection of statutory transport services.) 3,994 words
  4. cc2560-8
  5. CLAUSE 3.—(Provision and use of road vehicles.) 3,333 words
  6. cc2568-605
  7. CLAUSE 4.—(For protection of transport services of local authority in own area.) 14,876 words, 2 divisions
  8. cc2605-7
  9. CLAUSE 8.—(Fares, rates, and charges.) 466 words
  10. cc2607-19
  11. CLAUSE 11.—(Working Agreements, etc.) 4,380 words
  12. cc2619-23
  13. CLAUSE 18.—(Inquiries by Minister.) 1,584 words