CLAUSE 30.—(Right of railway company, with approval of Rates Tribunal, to make agreed charges for the carriage of merchandise.) (Hansard, 20 July 1933)

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 29, line 14, to leave out the word "section," and to insert instead thereof the words "Part of this Act."

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 29, line 21, to leave out from the word "and," to the second word "the," in line 24,

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I think this is not an Amendment arising out of the previous Amendment, but is in order to insert the same words in the new Sub-section.

Mr. STANLEY
That is so.

Mr. STANLEY
I beg to move, in page 30, line 22, to leave out the words "merchandise of the same description as," and to insert instead thereof the words: the same merchandise as or similar merchandise to. The subject of the Amendment I now move was discussed at considerable length during the Committee stage. It arose from an Amendment I moved in Committee to meet the wishes of the traders with regard to fears they expressed of a form of undue preference following the granting of these agreed charges. The object of the Amendment was to make it possible for the Railway Rates Tribunal, if it allowed the railways to give to a particular trader an agreed charge, to fix a rate for other traders who applied for such a fixed rate, and this particular definition is a definition which defines the class of trader who will be entitled to this privilege. As I moved the Amendment in the first instance, the trader who might apply to the Tribunal had to apply for a charge for the carriage of merchandise which was of the "same 2066 description" as any merchandise of the agreed charge. These words "same description" were taken out of the Railways Clauses Act of 1845, which deals with equality of charges, and it was on these grounds that I defended their inclusion in the Bill.
It was pointed out in Committee 1888, a more recent Act was that of 1888, dealing with undue preference, and it was suggested that by adopting the wording of the earlier Act I had perhaps, in some way, limited the rights which traders would to-day enjoy under existing law with regard to standard and exceptional rates. My intention was that we. should not deprive them of their existing guarantees, although I was adverse to any suggestion for increasing them. On thinking the matter over between the Committee and Report stages I thought there was some force in the argument that, on the whole, the proper analogy to the present procedure was the procedure with regard to undue preference, and, in view of the fact that the Act was of a later date than that from which I had taken these words, I considered it would be fair if I adopted the wording of the 1888 Act, rather than the wording of the earlier Act. I do not know whether this meets the views of hon. Members who moved Amendments of this kind and desired that they should go further than I was prepared to go. This Amendment will leave the trader in the same position as he is under the Act which deals with undue preference.

§ Mr. CLARRY
I beg to move, in page 31, line 43, at the end, to insert the words: and if the agreed charge relates to the carriage of merchandise to or from a harbour or dock belonging or leased to the railway company, and in the opinion of the tribunal the making of the agreed charge is likely to place. or has placed, some other harbour or dock belonging or leased to the same railway company at an undue disadvantage as compared with the first-mentioned harbour or dock, the tribunal shall not approve, or shall order the withdrawal of, the agreed charge. I move this Amendment on behalf of the Newport Corporation, which is 2067 greatly apprehensive as to the effect if the Great Western Railway Company, which has the railway monopoly in that area, and also owns all the docks in South Wales, were to start discriminating as between one port and another in the matter of rates. The Amendment is put down in the hope that it will make the position a little clearer in that respect. I do not, however, wish to press it.

§ Sir BASIL PETO
I beg to second the Amendment.

Mr. STANLEY
I understand that the hon. Member, with his long association with the district, felt that this was a matter which he ought to raise in the House, but I confess I am extremely surprised at my hon. Friend the Member for Barnstaple (Sir B. Peto) lending himself to such a revolutionary suggestion as this.

§ Sir B. PETO
May I mention that my hon. Friend said that he did not intend to press it.

Mr. STANLEY
That does not alter the fact that the hon. Baronet has given great weight to the Amendment, and I have no doubt that he has lent his support to this rudimentary Socialism owing to the commendations that were bestowed on him by an hon. Gentleman opposite. The principle behind the Amendment is that if the railway company owns two docks—it is no question of a railway dock being in competition with another dock—it is not to be allowed to distribute its traffic between the docks as is most convenient for the working of the railway and is, therefore, presumably most convenient to the traders. But the local authorities in whose areas the docks happen to be situated are to be entitled to object to the arrangements the company makes with regard to its own property, and to say that even if it is more inconvenient and more expensive to send traffic to one dock it has to he sent there, for the sake of the local interests. It is a principle that could be extended to railway stations as well as to docks. A local authority may say that whether traders dislike it or not, traffic has to be sent to a station in its area because it will increase the rateable value of the area. I should like to do anything I can to assist my hon. Friend, but this Amendment raises 2068 a principle of too great importance and of too drastic a nature for me, at any rate, who, I am afraid, in comparison with him, am only a right wing Conservative.

§ Sir S. CRIPPS
I must. protest against the hon. Gentleman calling this rudimentary Socialism. It is the worst form of municipal individualism that can be imagined, and I am not at all surprised at the hon. Baronet, with his individualistic views, supporting it. It is exactly the opposite to proper Socialist planning.

§ Mr. CLARRY
The whole point of the Amendment is to provide against the Great Western Railway endeavouring to shut up Newport altogether. That is a very proper apprehension, and that is the reason the Amendment has been brought forward. The Minister has not assured us that there is nothing to prevent that taking place.

Mr. STANLEY
I realise my hon. Friend's reason for moving the Amendment, but I wonder if he understands the implications of it. If we were to interfere with the railway company's management of its own property, it could only be followed by taking over the responsibility for the loss which the railway company might incur in that way. It is for that reason that I still hold that the Amendment is rudimentary Socialism.

§ Mr. CLARRY
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.