CLAUSE 31.—(Co-ordination of services of board and amalgamated railway companies.) (Hansard, 13 February 1933)

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
Mr. Pybus!

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
On a point of Order. Are you calling my Amendment in page 45, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (10)?

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I was under the impression that the hon. and learned Member's Amendment fell with the Amendments that were moved to Clause 30. In addition to that, my impression is that if this Amendment were carried, it would leave out certain machinery which is necessary and would not substitute other machinery for it.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
If the Amendment were carried, it would leave the matter to be determined by a joint committee. That will be the satisfactory method of determining the matter if it is left like that in the Bill.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
May I point out that the body to whom it would be left would consist of four persons representing one set of interests and four representing another, and there would be no machinery for deciding in case of an equal division.

§ Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER
I do not think that that puts it out of order, although it may be an answer to the hon. and learned Gentleman. If the hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to move his Amendment I think that I must allow him to do so.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I beg to move, in page 45, line 28, to leave out Sub-section (10).
The object of this Amendment is to get from the right hon. and learned Gentleman some elucidation of the position as between the Railway Rates Tribunal and 706 the Railway and Canal Commissioners, because in this matter we are dealing with main line facilities. Sub-section (9) says: any substantial alteration of those services or facilities or (b) the introduction of any new service or facility or (c) the undertaking of any extension or development necessitating additional capital expenditure shall be submitted to and determined by the Joint Committee. "Those services or facilities" will normally come within the jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, who will be able to order those facilities, if their jurisdiction is sought, upon the application of any person. It may well be that precisely the same facility will be sought from the two tribunals by different persons and there may be different decisions as to those facilities, one tribunal ordering them and another not ordering them. In such a case the amalgamated railway or other party which has to act upon those orders would be in the position of having to do two diametrically opposite things, and if it failed to do so it would be guilty of contempt of court. That seems to be an unsatisfactory way in which to leave things, almost more unsatisfactory than to leave it to the decision of a body on which four members are representing one side and four members the other, because they at least would have to decide negatively if they could not come to a decision or positively if they did come to a decision, but would not decide both ways at the same time. This is a difficulty we are anxious to have solved one way or another—in another place if it cannot be done now—so that this duplication of authority shall not persist.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
The hon. and learned Gentleman prefaced his observations by saying that the main object of this Amendment was to enable me to make some observations regarding the exercise of powers between the Railway and Canal Commission and the Railway Rates Tribunal. Perhaps the best observation I can make is to read Clause 36 which says: 707 Any existing functions of or powers exercisable by the Railway and Canal Commission shall, in so far as they are exercisable by the rates tribunal by virtue of this Act, cease to be the functions of or powers exercisable by What Commission. The hon. and learned Gentleman shakes his head.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
May I tell the right hon. and learned Gentleman why? Because the only jurisdiction here is if the Joint Committee are unable to agree. Then the rates tribunal would have jurisdiction. But, in a matter of ordinary facilities, anyone who applies will go to the Railway and Canal Commission. They will not be excluded, because there will be no disagreement on the Joint Committee.

§ The ATTORNEY-GENERAL
So far as the main line services are concerned, the ordinary jurisdiction of the Railway and Canal Commission, as long as the Commission is in existence, will be exercised, but the Sub-section with which we are dealing covers, rather, questions connected with suburban traffic, which is the subject of an appeal provided for in the Bill. Really, we are back as you, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, were inclined to think at one stage, at the question of whether the Railway Rates Tribunal is the proper body to settle the questions which may arise. We have already given that tribunal jurisdiction in connection with fares and facilities, and the case now is really a cumulative one, and, at any rate, one for making them the appropriate court of appeal from the joint committee which is set up under this Sub-section. The Bill as originally introduced provided that the Minister should be the body or, rather, the authority to deal with these questions in the event of disagreement. There was no proposal then that the power of appeal should be exercised by the Railway and Canal Commissioners. If the Minister and those who devised the Bill were of opinion that the Minister was the proper tribunal, obviously that excluded the Railway and Canal Commission, so it does not lie in the hon. and gallant Gentleman's mouth now to say that the Railway and Canal Commission is the proper tribunal to sit as a court of appeal. We have simply preferred the Railway Rates Tribunal to the Minister. It is not a question of substituting the Railway Rates Tribunal 708 for the Commission. That is the question which the House has to consider, and I ask that this Sub-section should be retained as providing the only machinery for settling questions upon which the Joint Committee are not able to agree.