HC Deb 06 December 1932 vol 272 cc1486-91

6.26 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS

I beg to move, in page 42, line 12, to leave out from the word "Committee," to the word "as," in line 14, and to insert instead thereof the words: within twelve months from the appointed day or such longer period. The Joint Committee is charged with the duty of preparing a pooling scheme between the board and the amalgamated railway companies in accordance with the provisions of the Eighth Schedule of the Bill, submitting it to the board for their adoption and subsequently to the arbitration tribunal for confirmation. The purpose of the Amendment is to secure that a period of 12 months may be left far the preparation of the pooling scheme. The Bill as it left the Joint Committee contemplated only three months for the purpose, but we now consider that such a period is inadequate. The appointed day, by an Amendment to he moved later, in page 44, line 16, means the earliest day fixed by, or under, this Act as the appointed day in relation to the transfer of any undertaking to the board.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendments made: In page 43, line 8, after the word "date," insert the words "not being earlier than the appointed day."

In line 10, after the word "to," insert the words "or is to be deemed to have."

In line 13, leave out the word "or," and insert instead thereof the word "and."

In line 14, after the word "companies," insert the words "or between any of those companies."

In line 25, leave out from the second word "the" to the word "may," in line 28, and insert instead thereof the words: rates tribunal for their decision; and, where any matter is so referred, the rates tribunal.

In line 32, leave out the word "he," and insert instead thereof the words "the rates tribunal."

In line 34, leave out the word "Minister," and insert instead thereof the words: rates tribunal in considering whether any order should be made under this section shall have regard to the desirability of the establishment and maintenance by the board of an adequate reserve fund, and.

In line 35, leave out the words "under this Section."

In line 35, after the word "would," insert the words "in their opinion."

In line 40, leave out the words "or an application to Parliament for additional powers."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Mr. PYBUS

I beg to move, in page 43, line 43, at the end, to insert the words: or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

I hope we may have an assurance from the Minister that in this matter we are not abdicating the powers of Parliament. The matter is highly technical and I must confess that I do not understand what is means, but it is the duty of Members of Parliament to see that Parliamentary powers are not being handed over to some outside body.

Mr. PYBUS

The effect of this Amendment and the one that precedes it is quite simple. It is not appropriate to impose an order on a body which would necessitate their applying to Parliament for powers, even with their consent, since this might be deemed to anticipate the decision of Parliament in the matter.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

On this occasion you are instituting a board which is not only above all courts of appeal, but absolutely above Parliament. I am glad to have that admission by the Minister. We are setting up something which is above Parliament.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I would like the Minister to amplify his explanation. The words in the Bill are: or which would necessitate the raising of additional capital, or an application to Parliament for additional powers. 6.31 p.m.

Does the Amendment mean that no application to Parliament is necessary, or will be made I Is it the intention to relieve the Transport Board of the necessity of appealing to Parliament? If so, it means removing this particular authority still further from the power of Parliament, a position to which we have already drawn attention.

Mr. PYBUS

I can assure the hon. Member that this will necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers.

Mr. C. WILLIAMS

But those are the very words you are proposing to leave out. You are leaving out the words: or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers.

Mr. PYBUS

If the hon. Member will look at the Amendment he will see that we propose to insert the words: or which would necessitate an application to Parliament for additional powers.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

I think that I understand the position. The words are taken out in one place and re-inserted in another.

Mr. PYBUS

That is so.

Amendment agreed to.

Further Amendment made: In page 44, line 16, at the end, add the words: and the expression ' the appointed day ' means the earliest day fixed by, or under, this Act as the appointed day in relation to the transfer of any undertaking to the board."—[Mr. Pybus.]

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause, a; amended, stand part of the Bill."

6.33 p.m.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I think the importance of this Clause is such that it is worth a few minutes' debate. In this Clause we propose to bring into being the arrangement to co-ordinate all the services of the board and those of the main line railways within that part of their area which is defined as suburban traffic. I was not a Member of Parliament when this Bill was first introduced, at which time I understand that the main line railways were bitter opponents of it. They are now enthusiastic supporters, so enthusiastic that my hon. Friends who have any connection with them say not one word on the subject of this Bill because they do not by their contributions to the Debate wish to delay its passage into law. I wonder why what was hatred has now become love. In Sub-section (5) we are told that a scheme (in this Act referred to as the pooling scheme ') is to be drawn up. They are given 12 months after the Act becomes law, in accordance with an Amendment which we have made this afternoon, before the scheme is to be drawn up. In the Eighth Schedule there is set forth rather complicated provisions —I find them complicated; I have read them several times to understand what they mean—under which the pooling scheme will be worked. I am not quite sure whether the pooling scheme which is to be drawn up under Sub-section (5) in accordance with the Eighth Schedule is a scheme the form of which is a mathematical certainty, that is, purely a question of accountancy, or whether to a certain extent it is a question of arrangement. My impression is that it is to some extent a matter of negotiation, or that it would be a matter of negotiation. I may be wrong. Perhaps we may have some information on the point. I do not think that it is a pure matter of accountancy, because there are too many doubtful items set forth to be taken into account in the Eighth Schedule to say that it is automatic.

If I am right and there are negotiable elements in the Bill, and since we know that certain people who opposed the Bill are now favourable to it, I am speculating whether there has not been some anticipatory negotiations, some friendly understanding as to what form the pooling scheme is ultimately to take. Those of us who read Scripture have heard of the Pool of Siloam. The effect of dipping into the Pool of Siloam was to make people see better than they did before. I wonder to what extent the main line railway people have dipped into the pool, which has caused them to see better than they did in the past. I may be wrong in my assumption. I may be making suggestions without any foundation, but it would be most helpful to the Committee if we had some information on this subject, and it would be useful to have some information from those hon. Members who are in a position to supply it.

When we were discussing Clause 6 we had a very interesting and lucid explanation from an hon. Member who told us, quite frankly and properly, that he was a director of the Associated Equipment Company. There is no reason why on this Clause we should not have some statement by an hon. Member who will tell us that he is a director of one of the main line railways. I should like to have a little more information than has so far been disclosed to the Committee or to the world outside.

6.38 p.m.

Mr. PYBUS

I think I can best answer the hon. Member by quoting the words which were spoken by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden), who is a director of one of the main line railways, on the Second Reading of the Bill. The hon. Member for South Croydon (Mr. H. Williams) has said that the main line railways were bitterly opposed to the Bill and then, quite suddenly, overnight, and for some apparently disreputable reason, they became supporters of it.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

I did not say disreputable.

Mr. PYBUS

The inference was there. I will read a few words from the speech made by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester: It must be admitted that these suburban traffics are an integral and important factor in the problem with which this Bill seeks to deal, and one which cannot be left out of consideration. The Minister recognises this fact, and makes it clear in the Bill that coordination of all forms of transport is to be aimed at, but the provisions which he has incorporated in the Bill with regard to the main line companies are incomplete and inadequate to ensure co-ordination between the services to be provided by the board and those to be provided by the main line companies. The companies consider that their line of action, to fulfil the duties that they are called upon to perform in regard to their shareholders and the interests of the travelling public, is that, if the Bill receives a Second Reading: the main line companies will endeavour to introduce Clauses designed to remedy this lack of co-ordination and to ensure that the main line companies shall be entitled to take their due part in the general scheme."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 23rd March, 1931; col. 116, Vol. 250.] I trust the hon. Member will accept the words that I have read, as an answer to the remarks that he has made.

Mr. H. WILLIAMS

The fact remains that the hon. Member for the Exchange Division (Mr. Fielden) did not like the Bill at that time, but changes have since been made which have altered his affections. I want to know what the financial effect of those changes is.

6.41 p.m.

Sir K. VAUGHAN-MORGAN

The Minister of Transport has drawn our attention to what was said by one hon. Member who is associated with one of the main line railways as a director. Will he pay attention to what was said by one of the hon. Member's colleagues on the board of the same railway, the hon. and gallant Member for Abingdon (Major Glyn)? If so, it might alter his opinion as to the favourable views expressed by railway directors on this Bill. While I accept the opinion expressed by the hon. Member for the Exchange Division of Manchester (Mr. Fielden), I only desire to point out that that opinion was not so universal or so generally accepted at the time as the Minister appears to believe.

Clause 32 (Application of provisions relating to amalgamated railway companies) ordered to stand part of the Bill.