It may be for the convenience of the House if I indicate very briefly the attitude of the Government upon the Amendments which have been made to the Bill in another place. The great majority of those Amendments are either drafting Amendments, or for the better placing of the provisions in the Bill. There are only a very limited number to which I shall draw the attention of the House. I think there is very little that will be contentious, and no Amendment has been made to which the Government takes exception. The Amendments upon which I should desire to invite the consideration of the House are the Amendments to Clauses 3, 5, 11, 19, 21, 27, 31, 58, 59, 71, and 76.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments considered accordingly

CLAUSE 2.—(Preparation and settlement of amalgamation schemes.)

(4) Any two or more constituent companies in any group may at any time after the passing of this Act, submit to the amalgamation tribunal a preliminary scheme for the amalgamation of such companies upon such terms as they may agree, and the amalgamation tribunal shall approve any such preliminary scheme unless after hearing such of the other constituent companies in the group as may desire to he heard, the tribunal shall consider such preliminary scheme to be not in conformity with the requirements of this Act or to be inconsistent with or prejudicial to an amalgamation scheme for the group in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

In the confirmation or preparation and settlement of an amalgamation scheme for the group, the amalgamation tribunal shall give effect to any preliminary scheme which shall have been so approved, but so that the interests of the other constituent companies in the group shall not be prejudiced thereby.

Any preliminary scheme so approved shall, subject to such provisions in that behalf as may be therein contained, come into force forthwith and the provisions of Sub-sections (2) to (6) of Section seven of this Act shall apply thereto.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (4).

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 3.—(Provisions to be contained in amalgamation schemes.)

(1) An amalgamation scheme under this Act—

( b ) shall provide generally as to the terms and conditions of amalgamation and for the winding-up of the constituent companies; and

( d ) shall give effect to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act with respect to the direction of the amalgamated company, or in the case of a preliminary amalgamation scheme to such alternative provisions in that respect as may be agreed between the companies affected and embodied in the scheme, and may with the consent of the proprietors provide for the payment of compensation out of the assets of a constituent company to the directors of the company who suffer loss by abolition of office; and

( f ) may make such incidental and supplemental provisions as appear necessary or expedient in order to give full effect to the provisions of the scheme and the purposes of this Act:

Provided that the scheme may provide for the postponement for a period not exceeding five years, or, if for special reasons the amalgamation tribunal think fit, ten years of the winding up of a constituent company with or without any change in the name of the company in order to enable such company to continue to exist for the purpose of receiving and holding any securities of the amalgamated company for the benefit of any class or classes of the holders of any loans, debenture stock, rentcharge, lien, guaranteed preference ordinary, preferred ordinary, or deferred ordinary, or other stock or shares of the constituent company or of any company the interest or dividends of which is guaranteed by or secured on the revenues of the constituent company, according to their respective rights and interests in pursuance of and in accordance with any arrangement which may be approved by the amalgamation tribunal and included in the scheme, and during such postponement of winding up a constituent company shall cease to be a railway company within the meaning of section two hundred and sixty-seven of the Companies (Consolidation) Act, 1908, but any securities of the constituent company which are at the date of amalgamation securities in which trustees are by law entitled to invest trust funds, shall continue to be such securities.

(2) With respect to the Western group the following provision shall have effect—

( b ) For the purposes aforesaid the scheme may provide for increasing all or any of the existing classes of loan and share capital of the Great Western Railway Company, or creating new classes of loan or share capital of that company, with such rights, priorities, and conditions as may be specified in the scheme, and for allocating to the holders of the loan and share capital of the other constituent companies the additional and new capital of the Great Western Railway Company so created to such amounts and in such manner as may be provided by the scheme;

( c ) Notwithstanding anything in any special Act affecting the Great Western Railway Company, or the holders of any class of loan or share capital in that company, the additional capital of each class shall form part of, and rank pari passu with, the existing capital of that class, and any new class of capital may with the consent of the majority of the holders of the class of security affected rank before any existing class of capital;

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1,

"including the allocation to holders of securities of the constituent companies in substitution therefor and in satisfaction of all claims arising thereunder of such securities of the amalgamated company and of such amounts as may be specified in the scheme."

I beg to move. "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

May we not have an explanation of these Amendments? They may be most important. We have already struck out a Sub-section, and we ought to have some explanation. The House ought not to be treated as a dummy.

May I put this to the Minister? We do not want in any way to delay the business, but if the right hon. Gentleman would simply say in each case whether the Amendment in question is simply drafting, or grammatical, or something of that sort, it would not take more than a second or so, and would put our minds completely at ease.

Sub-section (4) of Clause 2, which we have just agreed to leave out, comes in again as a new Clause after Clause 7. It is a matter of rearrangement The Amendment with which we are now dealing is of very little more than a drafting nature.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1,

"or in the case of a preliminary amalgamation scheme to such alternative provisions in that respect as may be agreed between the companies affected and embodied in the scheme."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of Sub-section (1,

"( e ) shall contain such provisions with respect to the management of any superannuation, pension, provident, widows and orphans' and other benefit fund or funds established by any constituent company as may be necessary in consequence of amalgamation so, however, as to preserve in all other respects the management of such funds unaltered until other provision is made by Parliament; and."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This provision is put in in redemption of a pledge given to my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) and those associated with him, to provide for the continuance of these funds after the amalgamation.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1,

"loans, debenture stock, rentcharge, lien, guaranteed preference ordinary, preferred ordinary, or deferred ordinary, or other stock or shares of "

and insert "loan or share capital."

Agreed to.

I beg to move, in Sub-section (2, b ), to leave out the word "the" ["the additional and new capital of the Great Western Railway"].

There is a Lords Amendment to Clause 5, to insert, in Sub-section (1, c ), after the word "undertaking" ["consideration for the transfer of the undertaking"], the words "and of such amounts as may be specified in the scheme." That Amendment stipulates that such amounts as are provided in the scheme shall be allocated to these constituent companies, but Sub-section (2, b ) refers to additional and new capital of the Great Western Railway Company, and without this Amendment there would be no power to divide any new capital between these companies and the Great Western shareholders.

I do not quite understand what Amendment this is. Are we amending the Lords Amendment?

I am sorry I have not made it clear. The Lords have made an Amendment in Clause 5, and, consequentially upon that, I am moving to leave out the word "the" in Sub-section (2, b ) of Clause 3, because the two are inconsistent.

Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2, c ), after the word "majority" ["with the consent of the majority of holders"], insert "in value."

Leave out the word "the" ["the class of security"] and insert "any."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 4.—(Preparation and approval of absorption schemes.)

(4) A constituent company may at any time after the passing of this Act submit to the Amalgamation Tribunal a preliminary scheme for the absorption of any subsidiary company upon such terms as may be agreed between such companies, and the Amalgamation Tribunal shall approve any such preliminary scheme unless after hearing such of the other constituent companies in the same group as may desire to be heard the Amalgamation Tribunal shall consider such preliminary scheme to be inconsistent with or prejudicial to an amalgamation scheme for the group in accordance with the provisions of this Act, and any preliminary scheme which shall have been so approved shall come into operation in accordance with such provisions in that behalf as may be therein contained.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (4).

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 5.—(Provisions to be contained in absorption schemes.)

(1) An absorption scheme under this Act—

( a ) shall provide in such manner as appears necessary or expedient for the transfer to the amalgamated company or to the constituent company in the case of a preliminary absorption scheme of all the property, rights, powers, duties, and liabilities, whether statutory or otherwise, of any subsidiary company to which the scheme relates; and

( c ) shall provide for the winding up of the subsidiary company or companies, and may provide on any such winding up for the holder of any securities or the subsidiary company receiving in substitution therefor and in satisfaction of all claims arising thereunder securities of the amalgamated company forming part of the consideration for the transfer of the undertaking and may, with the consent of the proprietors, provide for the payment of com pensation out of the assets of a subsidiary company to the directors of the company who suffer loss by abolition of office; and

( d ) shall incorporate the provisions of Part V of the Railways Clauses Act, 1863, subject to the provisions of this Act; and

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1,

"or to the constituent company in the case of a preliminary absorption scheme"

In Sub-section (1, c ), after the word "thereunder" ["all claims arising thereunder"], insert the word "such."

After the word "undertaking" ["consideration for the transfer of the undertaking"], insert the words "and of such amounts as may be specified in the scheme."

After paragraph (

( e ) shall contain such provisions with respect to the management of any superannuation, pension, provident, widows and orphans' and other benefit fund or funds established by any subsidiary company as may be necessary in consequence of absorption so, however, as to preserve in all other respects the management of such funds unaltered until other provision is made by Parliament; and

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 7.—(Supplementary provisions as to schemes.)

(1) Every amalgamation scheme and every absorption scheme shall be so framed as to come into operation on the first day of July, nineteen hundred and twenty-three, or such earlier or later date, as the amalgamation tribunal, with the consent of the Minister, may fix:

Provided that each amalgamation scheme shall be deemed to come into operation immediately before the absorption scheme or schemes by which subsidiary companies are absorbed by the amalgamated company formed by the amalgamation scheme.

(2) Before an agreed amalgamation or absorption scheme is submitted to the amalgamation tribunal, the scheme shall be submitted to the proprietors and debenture stock-holders of each constituent and subsidiary company affected thereby in the manner provided in order sixty-two of the standing orders relative to private business in the House of Commons, and that order shall apply accordingly as if the scheme were a Bill, and any statement required by the order to be deposited at the Private Bill Office shall be deposited with the amalgamation tribunal.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "with the consent of," and insert "after consultation with."

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "submitted" ["or absorption scheme is submitted"], and insert "referred."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After Clause 7 insert

CLAUSE A.—(Preliminary scheme.)

(1) Any two or more constituent companies in any group may, at any time after the passing of this Act, submit to the Minister for reference to the amalgamation tribunal a preliminary scheme for the amalgamation of those companies, or for the absorption by one of such companies of the other or others of them.

(2) A constituent company may at any time after the passing of this Act submit to the Minister for reference to the amalgamation tribunal a preliminary scheme for the absorption by that constituent company of any subsidiary company or companies in the same group upon such terms as may be agreed between those companies.

(3) The amalgamation tribunal shall approve any such preliminary scheme so referred to them unless it appears to them that the provisions of this Act relating to the procedure preliminary to the submission of a scheme, have not been complied with, or unless, after hearing such of the other constituent companies in the group as desire to be heard, the tribunal consider the scheme to be inconsistent with or pre- judicial to an amalgamation scheme for the whole group made in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

(4) Every such preliminary scheme shall, subject to such provisions in that behalf as may be contained therein, come into operation forthwith after it is approved.

(5) Subject to the provisions of this Section all the provisions of this part of this Act relating to amalgamation and absorption schemes shall, with the necessary adaptations, apply respectively to preliminary amalgamation and absorption schemes except that a preliminary amalgamation scheme shall, instead of giving effect to the provisions contained in the Second Schedule to this Act with respect to the direction of the company make such alternative provision in that respect as may be agreed between the companies to be amalgamated.

(6) In the confirmation or preparation and settlement of the amalgamation scheme for the group the amalgamation tribunal shall give effect to any preliminary scheme approved by them, but so that the interests of the other constituent companies in the group shall not be prejudiced thereby.

(7) Any company formed by a preliminary amalgamation scheme shall be deemed to be a constituent company for the purposes of this Act in lieu of the companies amalgamated by the scheme, and shall not be deemed to be an amalgamated company within the meaning of this Act.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a new Clause, which brings together and combines the various provisions with reference to preliminary schemes scattered in other parts of the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 8.—(Constitution and procedure of amalgamation tribunal.)

(2) The commissioners shall be Sir Henry Babington Smith, G.B.E. (who shall be chairman), Sir William Plender, G.B.E., and George John Talbot, Esquire, K.C., and in the event of any vacancy occurring amongst the commissioners by death, resignation, or otherwise, before the expiration of the term of office of the commissioners, His Majesty may appoint a person to fill the vacancy.

(6) The amalgamation tribunal or person holding an inquiry under this section shall take into consideration all objections to an amalgamation or absorption scheme which may have been lodged by any class or body of persons within the prescribed time and in the prescribed manner and, where any objections have been so lodged, shall hear any objectors whom the tribunal consider entitled to appear.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "The" ["The Commissioners shall be"], insert "first."

Leave out the word "chairman" ["who shall be chairman"], and insert "president."

After the word "commissioners" ["vacancy occurring amongst the commissioners"], insert "for the time being."

In Sub-section (6), after the word "scheme" ["amalgamation or absorption scheme"], insert "or in respect of the subject-matter of the enquiry."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 10.—(Composition of Claims under railway agreements.)

(10) The railway companies to which this Section applies are the railway companies of whose undertakings possession is retained under the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, up to the end of the period of possession; that is to say, the period, ending on the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, during which possession of those undertakings is under the said Act authorised to be retained by the Minister.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (10), leave out the word "fourteenth" ["fourteenth day of August"], and insert "fifteenth."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 11.—(Allocation of compensation under railway agreements.)

(1) Out of the first instalment of thirty million pounds referred to in the last preceding Section—

( a ) the sum of twenty-five million pounds shall be forthwith distributed amongst the companies to which the said Section applies in proportion to the net receipts of those companies, respectively, during the year nineteen hundred and thirteen, covered by the first seven items in account No. 8 of the First Schedule to the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911, as already agreed for the purpose of the compensation accounts between the Government and the railway companies (but excluding any receipts classified as miscellaneous receipts (net) in the said Account No. 8), supplemented by—

(ii) the addition of any sums payable by the Government to the said companies respectively for the year nineteen hundred and twenty under the agreements or arrangements aforesaid in respect of interest on capital expenditure; and

( b ) the sum of five million pounds shall be set aside for distribution subject as hereinafter provided amongst those railway companies who are able to show to the satisfaction of the amalgamation tribunal (hereinafter called the "tribunal") that they have suffered abnormally by the standardisation of rates of pay, hours of duty, and other conditions of service. For the purpose of determining the basis of compensation owing to abnormal increase in working expenses due to such standardisation the cost of salaries and wages for the last four months of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one of the railways to which the said section applies compared with the cost of salaries and wages of the same railways for the same four months of the year nineteen hundred and thirteen shall be ascertained and the average percentage increase shall be deemed to be the normal ratio of increase for the purpose of this section. Any company whose ratio of increase is above such normal ratio shall make out a claim showing the extent above the normal ratio of increase to which it has suffered by standardisation during the said four months. The claims of all the companies presenting such claims shall be considered by the tribunal, who shall allocate amongst such last-mentioned companies in proportion to the claim which they may establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal, the said sum of five million pounds or such lesser sum as may sufficient to satisfy such claims as so established; and

( c ) any sum remaining out of the five million pounds after payment to the various railway companies under the preceding paragraph and including any interest which may have accrued, shall be distributed between the whole of the companies as if such sum and the interest thereon had been added to the twenty-five million pounds referred to in paragraph ( a ) of this Sub-section.

(2) Out of the second instalment of thirty million pounds payable under the said Section of this Act—

( a ) the sum of twenty-five million pounds shall be distributed amongst those companies who on the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty, were in arrear in respect of the maintenance and renewal of way and works and/or rolling stock (abstracts A and B set out in the form of accounts scheduled to the Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911) in ratio to the extent to which they were so in arrear. The amount of such arrear shall be ascertained in accordance with the arrangements agreed between His Majesty's Government and

( b ) The sum of five million pounds shall be set aside for distribution subject as hereinafter provided amongst those railway companies who shall have established or shall establish to the satisfaction of the tribunal their right to participate in the distribution of the sum of five million pounds mentioned in Sub-section (1) ( b ) of this Section in accordance with the provisions of that Sub-section except that the words "the year nineteen hundred and twenty-two" shall be deemed to be substituted for the words "last four months of the year nineteen hundred and twenty-one" and the words "year nineteen hundred and thirteen" shall be deemed to be substituted for the words "same four months of the year nineteen hundred and thirteen" in the said Sub-section;

( c ) Any sum remaining out of the five million pounds after payment to the various railway companies under the preceding paragraph, and including any interest which may have accrued, shall be divided between the whole of the companies as if such sum and the interest thereon had been added to the twenty-five million pounds referred to in Subsection (1) paragraph ( a ).

(3) No portion of the sum of sixty million pounds referred to in the said Section of this Act or the interest thereon shall be allocated to any company which is neither itself conducting its traffic nor maintaining its undertaking unless the tribunal shall determine, on the application of such company, that such company would, but for the provisions of the last preceding Section, be entitled to receive compensation from the Minister of the Crown under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871, the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, or otherwise arising out of or in respect of possession of their undertaking by the Crown, but no such application shall be made after the thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1, a ), leave out the words "twenty-five million," and insert "twenty-four million five hundred thousand."

I should point out that this and a series of other Amendments are privileged Amendments. It is open to the House, of course, to waive its privilege.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is one of a series of Amendments which centre around the sum of £500,000 and which are really machinery. We provided in this House that certain sums should be paid, in accordance with the adjudication of the Amalgamation Tribunal, to worked companies, but it was found that unless we set aside a sum out of the lump we had already included in the Bill, the whole settlement would be hung up until the accounts of these smaller companies were settled. What we are doing is to set aside a sum of £500,000, which is generally agreed to be ample, and out of that the claims of the smaller companies will be met. The remainder of the money is, therefore, released for division as provided in the Bill.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1,

"(other than the companies referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section)."

After paragraph (

"( b ) The sum of five hundred thousand pounds shall be set aside for the payment thereout of such compensation as may be awarded by the amalgamation tribunal to any of the companies referred to in Subsection (3) of this Section; and"

In paragraph (

"to whom the said Section applies (other than the companies referred to in Subjection (3) of this Section) and"

Leave out the words "(hereinafter called the tribunal)."

After the word "the" ["considered by the tribunal"] insert "amalgamation."

After the word "the" ["satisfaction of the tribunal"] insert "amalgamation."

In paragraph ( c ), after the word "the" ["the five million"], insert "two said sums of five hundred thousand pounds, and."

After the word "companies" ["railway companies"] insert "to whom the said Section applies (other than the companies referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section)."

After the word "the" ["under the preceding"] insert "two last."

Leave out the word "paragraph" and insert "paragraphs."

After the word "companies" ["the companies as"] insert "entitled to participate in the said sum of twenty-four million five hundred thousand pounds."

Leave out the word "sum," and insert "sums."

Leave out the words "twenty-five million pounds referred to in paragraph ( a ) of this Sub-section," and insert "twenty-four million five hundred thousand pounds."

In Sub-section (2, a ), after the word "companies" ["those companies who"], insert "to whom the said Section applies (other than the companies referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section) and."

Leave out the word "ratio" ["in ratio to"], and insert "proportion."

In paragraph ( b), after the word "the" ["of the tribunal"], insert "amalgamation."

In paragraph ( c ) leave out the word "and" ["paragraph, and"].

After the word "companies" ["companies as if"], insert "to whom the said Section applies (other than the companies referred to in Sub-section (3) of this Section)."

Leave out "twenty-five million," and insert "twenty-four million five hundred thousand."

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "thirty-first day of December, nineteen hundred and twenty-one," and insert

"thirtieth day of April, nineteen hundred and twenty-two. The amount of such compensation shall be determined by the tribunal and shall be paid out of the said sum of five hundred thousand pounds."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 12.—(Power of constituent companies to issue redeemable debenture stock.)

(1) It shall be lawful for any constituent company and, with the consent of the constituent companies in the group, for any subsidiary company, prior to amalgamation under this Act, with the sanction of the Minister, and notwithstanding any limitation on the powers of borrowing of the company, to borrow on mortgage of its undertaking by means of terminable securities to such amount, at such rate of interest, redeemable within such period, and subject to such conditions as the Minister may sanction, with the consent of the majority in amount of the proprietors and of the holders of the existing mortgage securities of the company, at a special meeting called for the purpose, and of the existing preference stockholders, but the amount so borrowed shall in no case exceed one-eighth of the existing mortgage securities of that company.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words, "a special meeting," and insert "special meetings."

Leave out the words "and of the existing preference stockholders."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 14.—(Power of trustees to invest in securities of amalgamated companies.)

For the purposes of the provisions of the Trustee Act, 1893, and the Trusts (Scotland) Acts, 1861 to 1910, relating to the securities in which trustees are authorised to invest trust funds, an amalgamated company shall be treated as it were a railway company in Great Britain incorporated by special Act of Parliament and had in each of the ten years immediately before the date of amalgamation paid a dividend at the rate of not less than three per centum per annum on its ordinary stock.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "company" ["amalgamated company shall,"] insert the words "or a company constituted by a preliminary amalgamated scheme."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 15.—(Power to make orders as to working of railway companies.)

(1) With a view to securing and promoting the public safety, or the interests of the public, or of trade, or of any particular locality, the Railway and Canal Commission may, on the application of any body of persons representing any such interests, by order require any railway company or companies, or the Minister may on the application of any such company or companies by order authorise the company or companies, to afford such reasonable railway services, facilities, and conveniences upon and in connection with its undertaking (including the provision of such minor alterations and extensions and improvements of existing works as will not involve in any one case an expenditure exceeding one hundred thousand pounds) as may be specified in the order:

Provided that, if on any such application a company satisfies the Railway and Canal Commission that under all the circumstances the capital required for the purpose cannot be provided or expended as proposed without prejudicially affecting the interests of the then existing stockholders, the order shall not be made:

Provided further that the powers under this Sub-section shall be in addition to and not in derogation of any other existing powers of requiring measures for securing the safety of the public or the provision of reasonable facilities.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), after the word "undertaking" ["its undertaking"], insert "or their undertakings."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 16.—(Power to make orders as to acquisition of land, etc.)

For enabling railway companies to effect alterations, extensions, and improvements of existing works in pursuance of an order of the Railway and Canal Commission or the Minister under this Part of this Act the Minister may make any such order authorising the acquisition of land or easements and the construction of works as could have been made under paragraph ( d ) of sub-Section (1) of Section three of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919, for the purposes specified in that paragraph, and that paragraph and Section twenty-nine of the same Act, and the rules made under that Section, and the regulations contained in the Second Schedule to the same Act shall, so far as they relate to railways, apply accordingly.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "Act" ["same Act, and"], insert "other than the proviso to Sub-section (3) of that Section."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 19.—(Rates Tribunal.)

(4) Of the permanent members of the rates tribunal one shall be a person of experience in commercial affairs, one a person of experience in railway business, and one, who shall be the chairman, shall be an experienced lawyer.

(5) Any person appointed a permanent member of the rates tribunal under this Act shall, within three calendar months after his appointment, absolutely sell and dispose of any stock, share, debenture stock, debenture bond, or other security of any railway company in Great Britain or in any industrial or other company concerned with or interested in the carriage of traffic by railways which he shall, at the time of his appointment, own or be interested in for his own benefit, and it shall not be lawful for any person appointed a permanent member of the Rates Tribunal under this Act, so long as he shall hold office as such permanent member, to purchase, take, or become interested in for his own benefit any such security as aforesaid, or if any such security or any interest therein shall come to or vest in such permanent member by will or succession for his own benefit he shall, within three calendar months after the same shall so come to or vest in him, absolutely sell and dispose of the same or his interest therein.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (4) leave out the word "chairman," and insert "president."

Agreed to.

Lords amendment:

Leave out Sub-section (5).

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is an Amendment of some importance. We provided, in Sub-section (5) of Clause 19, that members of the Rates Tribunal should not be allowed to hold shares in railway companies or industrial or other companies concerned in carrying traffic in Great Britain. The intention was to prevent any interest at all on the part of the individuals who formed the Rates Tribunal in the carriage of goods or in the success of railways—that they should hold no financial interest which could be affected. There is a good deal to be said upon both sides. In putting this in the view I took was that it was desirable that no such interest should exist. On the other hand, this is a court which is in a highly responsible position, and it undoubtedly makes difficulties in getting suitable gentlemen to undertake this work if they have to surrender or sell out any investments in this country, because that is practically what it means. In another place this Clause has been omitted so as to leave these gentlemen entirely free, as the members of any other court are free, to hold such shares as they like. The omission was in fact moved, I think, by those Members of another place who spoke for the traders, and it was supported both by the spokesmen of the traders and the spokesmen for the railway companies. In these circumstances I suggest that we should accept this Amendment. It may or may not be desirable—I am not sure—but as both parties, the users and the railway companies, desire it out, I suggest that we should accept the Amendment.

I was called out for a moment, and I just heard the last sentences of the right hon. Gentleman. I think they are to the effect that the House is invited to accede to this Amendment, which deletes the proviso that the members of the tribunal shall not hold stocks. It seems to me that is a very serious matter. It is true that these people will be in a judicial posi- tion, and no one would make any complaint against judges who are called in to adjudicate in a matter of this sort having holdings in industrial undertakings or in railways. But after all the position here is somewhat peculiar, and there are bound to be, I am afraid, things being as they are, complaints made by traders, suspicious people, who have been disappointed perhaps in the findings of the tribunal or the attention given to their cases. I have a sufficiently high opinion of my fellow-countrymen who will serve on this tribunal, and would never suspect them of being swayed in any way by personal interest, but there are people in the country who may make this sort of accusation. I do not mean by any means only people who try to rouse the working classes. I mean business people themselves. Accusations are being continually made against Government servants by disappointed persons. They may be in a minority, but they say these things. It would be very much better if it had been possible for this Clause to be left in. The reason given by the right hon. Gentleman is a very peculiar one to give to the House at this stage. This Amendment of substance made in another place is hardly known to members of this House. What chance has the trading community had of making its wishes known in this case? Who speaks for the trading community? We have heard the hon. Member for Moseley (Mr. Hannon), who has been in this House a shorter time than I, claim to speak for the trading community. I do not know whether he claims to speak for traders in my constituency or his own constituency, or for the whole people of England, or whether he claims to speak only for his own native country, Ireland. This is a matter of importance. I for one must protest against this sub-section being left out for the reasons for which I have given. There should be no possible ground for raising suspicion against the findings of this tribunal. Speaking for myself, although I was opposed to this Bill yet now that it is certain to pass I trust that it will work well, and I cannot see why the gentlemen who are appointed to this great position on the rates tribunal cannot divest themselves of their railway shares. I make this protest, and, if I get any support, I shall divide the House as a matter of principle.

Though I do not disagree with much of what has been said by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), may I point out that as a matter of practice and experience I do not think that it will matter. I would prefer the provision left in in order to destroy the excuse for mud slinging by certain people, but do not let us blind ourselves to the fact that the same people who would say that the tribunal were influenced because of holding shares in railways would be the people who would bring accusations of another kind if members of the Tribunal did not hold shares if these people were disappointed. It is no use pretending that by this sub-section you get over the difficulty that a person is influenced by his holding shares, because the people who really believe that a man occupying this position can be influenced by such financial considerations would believe that he had some relative interested equally in the same way, and I do not think that you could get any further. Therefore, I think that it must resolve itself into the discretion of the members themselves. You cannot, in the settlement of an ordinary Clause, lay down hard and fast rules that will govern everything.

Take a concrete case. Suppose a gentleman to be appointed, and that he has large railway interests. If we are all agreed that he is appointed not for his railway interests but because of his knowledge, we are all satisfied that his railway interests are immaterial. If you are going to deprive the tribunal of an impartial, judicial and competent man, and you put a penalty on him because he happens to hold large railway stocks and that these stocks were hopelessly down in the market, and that he is to be compelled to sell at a loss in order to serve on the tribunal, you would do an injustice in that way. On balance I have no hesitation in saying that it does not really matter, because the people who will be appointed to this position will use their own discretion, and they will be above suspicion to those who have confidence in the tribunal, and the disposal of railway shares would not remove suspicion in the case of those in whom the holding of such shares would create suspicion.

May I point out the practice in matters of this kind which obtains in courts of law? Learned judges are in the habit of saying to counsel, "Mr. So and So, I hold shares in this company. Have you any objection to my sitting in this case?" And I have never heard learned counsel raise any objection, and the learned judge invariably tries the case. As long as the practice is observed there is no objection to the judge holding an interest in a company in connection with which he has made an adjudication, and if a judge is objected to, as he might be by some unreasonable litigant, he can get another judge to take his place. Unfortunately in the case of this tribunal this could hardly be possible, because two members of the tribunal could not adjudicate in the absence of the third. For that reason the example of the judiciary could not be followed in this case, and I think it would be better to keep the Sub-section, but I cannot see that it is a matter upon which I should take such a strong view that I should resist the opinion which my right hon. Friend offers by going to a Division. At the same time as we are legislating for a permanent, tribunal, and all the people who speak for traders or for railway companies speak for those whom they represent, but cannot speak for future generations, I think it a pity to make a breach in the judicial practice, and that it would be better to keep the Clause in unless it is possible by some subseequent legislation or regulation to provide that one or two permanent members of the tribunal shall be able to adjudicate in the absence of the third. On these short grounds I differ from my right hon. Friend, though I shall not resist him upon a Division.

On behalf of trading organisations which have followed carefully the process of the Bill through both Houses, and have given careful consideration to the substance of this Amendment, may I say that they agree that it would be extremely difficult to appoint the quality of person who could be really competent to discharge these functions as a member of this tribunal if this condition were imposed, and after giving the whole subject very careful thought they agree that it is unnecessary that this Sub-section should be inserted. We had a consultation with the railway company, and they also agree, and, unless for some reason which has been urged by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), I do not think that the Sub-section is necessary. I hope that the House will forgive me if I make no comment on the reference which has been made by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy).

I very much hope that the House will not consent to have this Sub-section struck out. The matter is very different from the case of an ordinary judge. A judge is not trying railway matters only every day all through the year. He tries all sorts of matters and you cannot say that he is not to have any investment. There is no reason for excluding railway investments more than industrial investments or investments in foreign matters. You cannot exclude a judge from every kind of investment. Here are people who are to try cases which concern the value and vitally affect the value of one particular class of investment, and if you want to have public confidence in the judgment of these people they must be free from any possible suspicion of being influenced by their own investments in those securities, the value of which they are determining from day to day. It is all very well to say that certain gentlemen representing big traders here, or anywhere else, have agreed to this Amendment, but we have to remember that there are hundreds of thousands of small traders up and down the country, and there are very large numbers of the general public who are directly and indirectly interested in this matter, who are not in the position of big traders. No man, however good a man he is, can always be quite sure, even in his own mind, that he is not influenced by his own material interests, and the only safe thing in the circumstances was as provided in the Bill, when it left this House that the gentlemen who are appointed on this tribunal should be free from financial interests in the matters which they are deciding. Upstairs in Committee, in connection with private Bills, if we have any financial interests in the company concerned we are disqualified from acting. Does anybody suggest that one Member of this House in a thousand would be really influenced by his financial interests in the matter. It is necessary, however, in order to give confidence, and it is equally necessary in this case. Therefore, I hope the Government will not accept the Amendment.

This Sub-section was one with which I was in complete sympathy when it was moved by, if my memory serves me right, the hon. Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Thomson). He moved an Amendment that no member of this tribunal should hold railway shares, and I think I moved to put in industrial shares. There was no enthusiasm for that Amendment so far as I recollect upstairs. In another place I think there was only one Noble Lord who spoke in favour of it. It is not possible to say who speaks for the users of a company, but there are certain Noble Lords in another place who certainly did voice those interests. I cannot say that those hon. Members and those Noble Lords who were voicing those interests did show the slightest inclination to back this Sub-section. With great respect to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Central Bristol (Mr. Inskip), I think there is a great difference between this tribunal and the judges in the courts, for this reason, that a decision affecting one railway given by this tribunal affects other railways, so that if one member of the tribunal held, railway shares he would have to declare that he held those shares upon every single occasion when he heard a railway rates case. Further, if he held industrial shares, he would be continually having to declare that he held industrial shares. I will tell the House my own experience. I bought some shares in an electric supply undertaking, and within a very limited time I was called upon as chief goods manager of the North Eastern Railway to settle the rates for coal for that company. It was a very big contract they were going to make. A penny a ton one way or the other made a great difference, and I had to sell the shares. I then put the same money into some shares in a large soap undertaking, and within a couple of months I had to settle rates for that company, and I had to sell the shares again. With the same money I bought shares in another electric supply undertaking, and within another month I had to settle the charges which were to be made in the contract to supply current to the North Eastern Railway. That shows how difficult it is to keep clear of interests when you are dealing with railway rates. Railway rates touch every single industry in the country. It was for that reason that I was in favour of this Sub-section. Personally I am in favour of the Sub-section. If this matter is raised as a question of principle I will endeavour to meet the views expressed. I do not wish to force any decision against the wishes of the House generally.

Speaking as a trader, I would like to say that I do not think this Sub-section-is required.

I agree that this is a point Upon which there must be wide differences of opinion. When the Sub-section was inserted in the Bill I saw no objection to it, but now that the other House has cut it out, there are certain points which need to be considered. First of all, whether the Sub-section remains in or goes out it will not make any practical difference, for the gentlemen who might be appointed to this high office are not the sort to speculate in railway shares or to give a decision this way or that as their personal interests lead them to do so. Further, if they did want to speculate it would be quite easy for them to do so through a third party, and they would not be found out. The practical effect, therefore, is nothing. The real point of the Sub-section is that you ought to remove suspicion and the chance of unconscious bias in the minds of the judges. A man must invest his money somewhere. Railway investments are almost universal; there is hardly anybody with the smallest amount of money invested who has not something invested in railways. This Sub-section prohibits investments in industrial or other companies concerned with or interested in the carriage of traffic by railway. Therefore every industrial company that consigns goods by rail is concerned. If you retain this Subsection either you limit your tribunal to people whose business is so unsuccessful that they have no money to invest, or you compel them to take their money out of the country and invest it elsewhere. I can imagine no business concern that is not interested in the carriage of goods by railway. It must be so. On the whole, therefore, although I feel as much as anyone the necessity for absolute rectitude in this matter and the importance of the principle, and I personally accepted the Sub-section in Committee, still, looking at the time of the clock and the hour of the day, I see no practical use in the Subsection. I understand we have to swallow this en bloc or take it out. I think the Sub-section is absolutely unworkable and that therefore we ought to accept the Lords Amendment.

12 N.

As the Sub-section is in the Bill the onus of getting it out rests on those who wish to see it eliminated. On the abstract ground of principle there is no doubt that the Sub-section should remain. It is desirable to remove from any tribunal any suspicion of being interested in the cases on which they are judging. The only ground for eliminating the Sub-section is that if it remains in we shall not be able to get the kind of persons we ought to have on the tribunal. That has not been made clear to the House. If that were so, the first person to raise objections would be the Minister himself, for if there is any person interested in the working of this Bill it is the man who is responsible for it. If the retention of the Sub-section meant that we could not get a tribunal of the character that we must have, that would be a reason for taking out the Sub-section. So far from that being the case we have the Minister expressing his personal view in favour of the Sub-section. The House appears to be evenly divided on the matter. That being so, I think the Sub-section should be retained.

I suggest a Division on the Amendment.

There is clearly more support for this Sub-section than I anticipated. It is not a matter of principle, but of personal opinion. The point raised about the difficulty of getting men of the necessary experience to serve on the tribunal, if you say they must hold no shares in industrial undertakings or railways, is one which applies more to the trading representatives on the tribunal than to the other two. You could get an experienced lawyer. In fact we have been fortunate enough to secure the services of Sir Francis Gore-Browne, and he has raised no objection to this Sub-section. Probably you could get a gentleman experienced in railway rates to serve, but you may have difficulty in getting a traders' representative. That is a difficulty which the Board of Trade have already experienced, and those who speak for the traders know of the difficulty. On the other hand, I feel personally that in this case these gentlemen can touch no rate at all which does not affect their holding either in railways or in industries. Personally I am in favour of the Sub-section, and in view of the opinions expressed I think it might be left to an open Vote of the House without the Whips being put on.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 96; Noes, 61.

CLAUSE 21.—(Procedure.)

(1) The rates tribunal may from time to time, with the approval of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord President of the Court of Session, and the Minister, make general rules governing their procedure and practice and generally for carrying into effect their duties and powers under this Part of this Act, and such rules may, amongst other things, provide for—

( c ) the constitution of local joint committees in such centres as the tribunal may determine;

( f ) the right of audience before the tribunal, provided that any party shall be entitled to be heard in person, or by a representative duly authorised in writing, or by counsel or solicitor;

(3) The rates tribunal shall annually make a report to the Minister of their proceedings under this Act.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1) leave out paragraph ( c ).

I beg to move, "That the House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is practically a drafting Amendment. It leaves out from the functions of the rates tribunal under this Clause the constitution of local joint committees but they are empowered to determine the question by another Amendment to Clause 27.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1, f ), after the word "representative" ["by a representative duly authorised"], insert "in the employment of the party."

At the end of Sub-section (3), insert "which report shall be laid before Parliament."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 23.—(Additional members of tribunal.)

(3) If a vacancy occurs amongst the permanent members of the rates tribunal, or if any permanent member of the rates tribunal is incapacitated by prolonged illness or other unavoidable cause from attending meetings of the tribunal, then pending the filling up of such vacancy or during such absence,

( a ) in the case of the chairman, the Lord Chancellor may appoint a person to act in his place;

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3, a ) leave out "chairman" ["in the case of the chairman"] and insert "president."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 27.—(Functions of tribunals.)

The rates tribunal shall, in addition to any other powers conferred upon them under this Part of this Act, have power to determine any questions that may be brought before them in regard to the following matters:—

( h ) The articles and things that may be conveyed as passengers' luggage.

Lords Amendment:

After paragraph (

"( i ) The constitution of local joint committees and their functions and the centres at which they are to be established."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

After the words last added insert a new Sub-section—

"(2) The powers of the rates tribunal under paragraphs ( b ) to ( f ) of this section shall not be excusable until the appointed day"

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is only to prevent overlapping between the two authorities—the rates tribunal and the Railway and Canal Commission.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 31.—(Limitations on powers of the tribunal to increase charges.)

(1) The rates tribunal when first fixing the standard charges shall prescribe and report to the Minister a limit beyond which an increase in those charges shall not be lawful without reference to Parliament.

(2) The Minister shall submit the report for approval to both Houses of Parliament, and upon a resolution being passed by both Houses of Parliament approving the report, either without modifications or subject to modifications agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, the report shall have effect as if enacted in this Act, subject, however, in the event of modifications being so agreed to by both Houses of Parliament, to such modifications.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the Clause.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The omission of this Clause is an Amendment to which we can attach exaggerated importance. The Clause was put in at the request of certain representatives of the trading interests in the first place, not because they thought it was going to be of real practical advantage, but because they wished the theoretical principle that maxima of some kind should be imposed, embodied in the Bill. They agreed it could have no practical effect at the present time, and they only asked for it as a peg to hang a case upon, some time in the future, if other legislation is under consideration, in order to try to get back to the maxima when times become more normal. I think it is generally agreed that the practical effect of it was nil. The omission of it has therefore no practical effect; it merely deletes an inoperative Clause. It is true that its inclusion has certain disadvantages, because if the Rates Tribunal, when first fixing the standard of charges, have to fix maxima, they will have to fix them at something higher than the present abnormally high charges, and therefore the maxima they fix would be abnormally high if they were to apply in five years' time, so that the practical effect of it would be nil, while it places a very onerous task on the Rates Tribunal, which will be much overburdened at the time of fixing charges. Personally, I think the Bill is better without the Clause.

What the right hon. Gentleman says is that for the next year this Clause will be inoperative, and he holds out the hope that when the time arrives when it might inure to the benefit of the trading public they can then come to Parliament and get what they want. Those of us who have some knowledge of coming to Parliament and asking for what we want know how very difficult it is to get the protection which is sought in any particular case in the middle of a busy Parliamentary Session. I admit at once, as I know it from practical experience, the force of what my right hon. Friend has said, that to fix maxima now, when the rates are so high, would be a perfectly formal thing to do, but at the same time I very much regret seeing this Clause go out. Is it not possible to insert some words fixing a limit? I am very anxious to keep this protection in the Bill in some form, and could we not insert some such words as these, that the Rates Tribunal, "after a certain period," shall prescribe, and so on—a period of, say, two or three years? This is a new departure in our railway system and the attitude of Parliament to it, and I am most anxious that this protection shall in some form or another remain in this new charter of the railways between Parliament and the public.

It will be some considerable time before this works, two or three years, say, but I have never thought this Clause would work. I did not suggest, as my right hon. Friend indicated, that in substitution for this Clause the public should come to this House to get maxima fixed. What I said was that traders attached importance merely to the mention of the word "maxima" in the Bill, because they thought that if and when the time arrived to apply to this House for fixed maxima against the railway companies, they would like to have the principle already enacted, though it was useless from an operative point of view. I do not think that sort of peg is necessary. If maxima are wanted and this system is to be abandoned, I do not think the mere mention of maxima in this Bill would be of very much importance in the future, and, as I say, it will give a large burden of work to the Rates Tribunal. The Rates Tribunal, although I do not in any way wish to deprecate its judicial capacity, is hardly the best machine to use for this purpose. You give to the Rates Tribunal the obligation to fix rates at a level which, as nearly as possible, will, subject to certain conditions, give a certain amount of net revenue, and that tribunal is naturally going to keep as much head room as it can. It is not going to set to work to limit itself very closely in its freedom of movement, and therefore your maxima, be they fixed now by the tribunal under the existing abnormal circumstances, or be they fixed in two or three years' time as my right hon. Friend suggests, would inevitably be fixed higher than they would be fixed by a tribunal set up for that purpose when the time arrives. I therefore do not think this Clause is of much use.

My right hon. Friend represents the traders as being anxious to obtain the word "maxima" without any other meaning to it, but I do not think that is the case. The trading community abandoned the system of maximum rates for exceptional rates and power to make arrangements with the railway companies, and they hope to see the present system of fixing rates by a Rates Tribunal, whose first duty is to obtain a certain net revenue for the companies, abandoned. They do not think it is workable or that it will last very long. I agree with my right hon. Friend that his particular Clause will not alter the principle of the Bill, and will be inoperative at present. Its only effect would be to give traders some assurance that there was a point beyond which rates could not be raised against them, but in effect they have the protection that if the rates are too high traffic on the railways will drop off, and the railway companies will lose money. I do not think the Clause is necessary in the interests of the traders.

Question, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment," put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 33.—(Application of schedules to non-amalgamated companies.)

As respects railway companies, other than light railway companies and railway companies whose powers of charging have since the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and nineteen, been increased by special Act either generally or in relation to any particular class of traffic, the Rates Tribunal shall apply to each such company the schedule of charges of such one of the amalgamated companies as, after considering any objections thereto which may be lodged within the prescribed manner and after giving the company in question and all other parties whom they consider to be entitled to be heard before them an opportunity of being heard, appears to the tribunal to be most appropriate to the case of that company, and may so apply it either without modification or subject to such modifications as the tribunal may think fit; and where a schedule has been so applied to any company, the last foregoing Section shall apply to the company as if it were an amalgamated company.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "than" ["other than light railway"], insert "amalgamated companies and."

After the word "prescribed" ["within the prescribed manner"], insert "time and in the prescribed."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 34.—(Repeal of existing provisions.)

(2) In the case of the rates fixed under paragraph (v) of Sub-section (1) of Section 6 of the Cheap Trains Act, 1883, or in any case where it is proved to the satisfaction of the Rates Tribunal that any charge in operation on the fourth day of August, nineteen hundred and fourteen, and fixed under any subsisting agreement or special statutory provision was originally so fixed for valuable consideration, the Rates Tribunal shall, and in any other case may, by order continue the charge, subject to such modification as to the tribunal may appear fair and equitable, and in making such modification the tribunal shall, as far as practicable, provide that the relative position between persons entitled to the charge and other persons as existing on the said fourth day of August shall not be prejudiced or improved.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "modification" ["subject to such modification"], and insert "adjustment if any."

Leave out the word "modification" ["making such modification"], and insert "adjustment if any."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 35.—(Subsequent modifications of standard charges.)

Any amalgamated company or any railway company to which a schedule of standard charges has been applied, or any representative body of traders or any person who may obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade that he is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a proper person, shall be entitled at any time to apply to the Rates Tribunal to modify the standard charges or any of them, or any conditions relative thereto, and if any such company or body of traders or person, as the case may be, prove to the satisfaction of the Rates Tribunal that the standard charges or conditions or any of them ought to be modified, the tribunal shall make such modifications as they think fit, and shall fix the date as from which the modified standard charges or conditions shall be effective:

Provided that Sub-sections (3), (4), (5), and (6) of Section 59 of this Act shall apply to any application for a general revision or variation of standard charges of an amalgamated company under this Section as if such application were a review of standard charges and exceptional rates under Section 58 of this Act:

Provided also that where the schedule of standard charges of any amalgamated company has been applied to any other company the tribunal may modify the charges or any of them in the schedule as applied to the amalgamated company without modifying them in the schedule as applied to such other company, or modify them in the schedule as applied to such other company without modifying them in the schedule as applied to the amalgamated company.

Lords Amendments:

After the word "person" ["a proper person"], insert "for the purpose."

Leave out the words "rates under Section fifty-eight of this Act," and insert "charges under that Section."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 39.—(Review of competitive exceptional rates.)

If and whenever representations are made TO the Minister by any body or persons who, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, are properly representative of the interests of shipping or canals, that exceptional rates are being charged which are competitive with coastwise shipping or canals in such a manner as to be detrimental to the public interest, and which are inadequate having regard to the cost of affording the service or services in respect of which the rates are charged, the Minister shall (if satisfied that a primâ facie case has been made out) instruct the Rates Tribunal to review such rates, and the Rates Tribunal may, after hearing all parties whose interests are affected, vary or cancel such rates or make such other Order as may seem to them expedient.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words "instruct the Rates Tribunal to review such rates," and insert "refer the matter to the Rates Tribunal for review."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 43.—(Settlement by tribunal)

(1) The Rates Tribunal shall consider the terms and conditions so submitted " or, if the companies fail to submit terms and conditions within the time so allowed, shall themselves prepare and publish provisional terms and conditions," and after hearing all parties whom they consider entitled to be heard, together with any representative body of traders who may desire to be heard or any person who may obtain a certificate from the Board of Trade that he is, in the opinion of the Board of Trade, a proper person, shall settle, and when settled publish in the London and Edinburgh Gazettes the terms and conditions which they consider just and reasonable, and shall fix a date, not earlier than two months after such publication, upon which those terms and conditions are to come into force.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "all parties whom they consider entitled to be heard, together with."

After the word "person" ["a proper person"], insert "for the purpose and any other party whom they consider entitled to be heard."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 46.—(Owner's risk rates.)

(1) When settling a schedule of charges, or within twelve months or such longer period thereafter as in any case the Minister may allow, the Rates Tribunal shall determine what reductions shall be made from the standard charges for any damageable merchandise carried by railway under owner's risk conditions, and such reductions shall be shown or indicated in the schedules in such manner as the tribunal prescribe.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words "for any" ["for any damageable merchandise"], and insert "where"

After the word "merchandise" insert "is."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 47.—(Through rates and fares.)

(2) The rate or fare shall come into operation at the expiration of the prescribed period.

Provided that if before that expiration any such objection as aforesaid has been sent, or if, in the case of a rate, the rate is less than five per cent. or more than forty per cent. below the combined standard charges of all the forwarding companies, the matter shall be referred to the rates tribunal for their decision.

(5) If there is no objection except as to the apportionment of the rate or fare, the rate or fare shall come into operation as provided by Sub-section (2) of this Section in the case where no objection has been sent by a forwarding company, but the decision of the Rates Tribunal as to its apportionment shall be retrospective; in any other case the operation of the rate shall be suspended until the decision is given.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2), after the word "the" ["the prescribed period"], insert "said ten days or other."

In Sub-section (5), after the word "rate" ["operation of the rate"], insert "or fare."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 49.—(Collection and delivery charges.)

(4) Any dispute as to whether or not any charge for the services of collection and delivery is reasonable shall be determined by the Rates Tribunal.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (4), after the word "reasonable," insert

"or whether the length of notice for the termination of an agreement under this Section is reasonable."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 50.—(Dangerous goods.)

(2) If on or after the appointed day any such company accepts dangerous goods for conveyance the goods shall be conveyed subject to such bye-laws, regulations and condi- tions as the company may think fit to make in regard to the conveyance or storage thereof, and the owner or consignor of such goods shall indemnify the company from and against all loss or damage which may result to the company or to which the company may be or become liable owing to non-compliance with the before-mentioned regulations and conditions as to such goods and will pay full compensation for all injury to their servants and damage to their property so arising unless it be proved that the injury or damage is due to the wilful misconduct of the company's servants, but subject as aforesaid the provisions of this Part of this Act as to ordinary rates and owner's risk rates shall apply.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), after the words "before-mentioned," insert "bye-laws."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 54.—(Publication of schedules of standard charges, etc.)

(4) On and after the appointed day every railway company shall for a period of ten years keep the books, schedules, or other papers specifying the rates, charges, and conditions of transport in use upon such railway on the fourteenth day of January nineteen hundred and twenty, open for inspection at its head office, and shall upon demand and upon payment of a reasonable charge supply copies of or extracts from such books, schedules, and papers.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (4), after the word "keep" ["keep the books"], insert "open for inspection at its head office."

Leave out the words "upon such railway."

Leave out the words "open for inspection at its head office," and insert "upon the several railways owned or worked by the company."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 55.—(Miscellaneous provisions as to rates.)

The provisions contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act (being provisions similar to those now contained in the various railway rates and charges orders) shall apply to the amalgamated companies and the railway companies to which a schedule of standard charges has been applied.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "shall" ["shall apply to"], insert "as from the appointed day."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 57.—(Interpretation of Part III.)

For the purposes of this Part of this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,—

The expression "exceptional rates" means rates below the standard charges.

The expression "exceptional fares" means fares below the standard charges.

Lords Amendment:

Leave out the words

"'rates' means rates below the standard charges.

The expression 'exceptional fares' means fares below the standard charges"

and insert

"'charges' means charges below the standard charges including special charges continued subject to adjustment under the provisions of this part of this Act, and the expressions 'exceptional rates' and 'exceptional fares' shall be construed accordingly."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 58.—(Adjustment of powers of charging to revenue.)

(1) The charges to be fixed in the first instance for each amalgamated company shall be such as will, together with the other sources of revenue, in the opinion of the Rates Tribunal, so far as practicable yield, with efficient and economical working and management, an annual net revenue (herein-after referred to as the standard revenue) equivalent to the aggregate net revenues in the year nineteen hundred and thirteen of the constituent companies and the subsidiary companies absorbed by the amalgamated company, together with—

( b ) such allowance as may be necessary to remunerate adequately any additional capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the fourteenth day of August, one thousand nine hundred and twenty-one: and

(2) Subject as aforesaid, the tribunal when fixing charges in pursuance of the provisions of this Section shall fix such charges as in their opinion are best calculated to ensure the maximum development and extension in the public interest of the carriage by railway of merchandise and of passengers and their luggage, and shall accordingly ascertain as far as may be practicable the effect which the existing charges, or any of them, have had upon the merchandise or passenger traffic to which they are applicable, and in particular whether the application of such charges has tended or, if continued, would be likely to tend towards causing the increase or diminution of the said traffic.

Lords Amendment;

In Sub-section (1,

"first day of January nineteen hundred and thirteen and not included in the expenditure referred to in the last preceding paragraph unless it can be shown that such expenditure has not enhanced the value of the undertaking."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House will, I think, desire to know what this Amendment does. We are adopting, as one of the considerations to be given effect to in building up the standard revenue, an allowance on capital which was spent during the period of control, and upon which the Government, under the War-time Agreement, gave an allowance. We were then looking at the expenditure of capital, if I may so express it, with a short view, and we did not allow any interest on capital expended upon such objects as the acquisition of land which was in the market, but for which there was no immediate need, but which it was prudent for the company with a long view to acquire. That, obviously, should receive allowance now, and, with the safeguard that it must have enhanced the value of the undertaking, I recommend the House to accept the modification.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the words "Subject as aforesaid."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This merely throws the weight slightly more towards the development of trade in fixing rates than before. It gives more power, for instance, to add sidings.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the words "fix such charges as," and insert "have regards to the means which."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 59.—(Periodical review of standard charges and exceptional rates.)

(2) The Minister may direct as respects any year after the third annual review that a review shall not be held, and the directions may extend either to all the amalgamated companies or to any one or more of those companies:

Provided that no such direction shall extend to any company which has applied to the Minister for a review, or in respect of which the Board of Trade on the application of any representative body of traders have requested that a review shall be held.

(4) If on any such review the Rates Tribunal find that the net revenue or the average annual net revenue obtained by the company during the period on the experience of which the review is based is less than the standard revenue of the company, with such allowance (if any) as appears to the tribunal necessary to remunerate adequately any additional capital which may have been raised or provided in respect of expenditure on capital account incurred since the date upon which the standard charges were fixed in the first instance, and that the deficiency is not due to lack of efficiency or economy in the management, the tribunal shall, unless in their opinion owing to change of circumstances the deficiency is not likely to continue, make such modifications in all or any of the standard charges and such a corresponding general modification of the exceptional charges of the company as they may think necessary to enable the company to earn the standard revenue with such allowance (if any) as aforesaid:

Provided that no such modifications of the standard charges shall be made as will increase any of those charges beyond the limit imposed in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act.

(5) Whenever on any such review such an excess as aforesaid is found, then, for the purposes of subsequent reviews, Sub-section (3) of this Section shall have effect as if for the standard revenue there were substituted a sum (hereinafter referred to as the "increased standard") equal to the standard revenue with the addition of twenty per cent. of such excess, and whenever on any such subsequent review an excess is found above the increased standard together with the allowance (if any) for additional capital, then, for the purpose of subsequent reviews, the increased standard shall be increased by a sum equal to twenty per cent. of such excess, and so on:

Provided that if at any time after such an excess has been found the standard charges and exceptional rates are modified in pursuance of Sub-section (4) of this Section Oil account of a deficiency no such substitution shall be made until an excess above the standard revenue together with the allowance (if any) for additional capital is again found.

(6) Subject as aforesaid, the Rates Tribunal, when modifying charges on any such review, shall have regard to the like considerations as when fixing charges in the first instance.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2), leave out the word "third" ["third annual review"], and insert "second."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This has the effect of removing the obligation to have an annual review from three years to two years. It gives power to have the review just the same, but it was thought possible that the third review might not be necessary.

Question put, and agreed to.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (4), leave out the words

"Provided that no such modifications of the standard charges shall be made as will increase any of those charges beyond the limit imposed in pursuance of the provisions of this Part of this Act."

In Sub-section (5), leave out the word "rates" ["exceptional rates are modified"], and insert "charges."

In Sub-section (6), leave out the words "Subject as aforesaid."

Agreed to.

Lords Amendment:

At end of Sub-section insert

"Provided that the tribunal shall have regard to the financial results obtained from the operation of any ancillary or subsidiary business carried on by the company, and if satisfied that the net revenue resulting therefrom is, having regard to all the circumstances, unduly low, may for the purpose of such review make such deductions from the charges which would otherwise have been fixed as they think proper."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is simply giving effect to what has already been accepted as the intention of the Bill It is little more than a drafting Amendment.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 60.—(Transitory provisions as to charges generally.)

A constituent, subsidiary, or amalgamated company, or any railway company which is liable to have applied to it a schedule of standard charges shall, notwithstanding anything contained in any special or general Act or in any agreement, be entitled till the appointed day to make such charges in connexion with the conveyance of merchandise and passengers as may be in force as respects the railway on the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and

Provided that at any time after the said fourteenth day of August, and before the appointed day,

Lords Amendments: Leave out the word "conveyance" ["in connection with the conveyance"], and insert "carriage."

After the word "passengers" ["of merchandise and passengers"] insert "or otherwise."

Leave out the word "fourteenth" ["on the fourteenth day of August"], and insert "fifteenth."

Leave out the word "fourteenth" ["after the said fourteenth"], and insert "fifteenth."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 61.—(Provisions as to charges in connexion with private sidings.)

Provided that nothing contained in this Section shall give rise to any presumption as to the value of the aforesaid accommodation and services, and in fixing any sum which the siding owner is to pay the rates tribunal shall have regard only to what sum is reasonable in all the circumstances of the case.

Lords Amendment:

At the end of the Clause insert a new Sub-section—

"(2) The Railway and Canal Commission shall not, after the passing of this Act, exercise any jurisdiction with respect to the matters to which this Section relates."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is simply to give effect to the previous Amendment to prevent overlapping of the two tribunals.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 66.—(Application of Part IV.)

(2) The railways hereinbefore referred to are, until the amalgamation schemes come into operation, the railways of the railway companies mentioned in the second and third columns of the First Schedule to this Act of whose undertakings the Minister was in possession on the fourteenth day of August, nineteen hundred and twenty-one, and any railways jointly owned or worked by two or more of such companies, and after those schemes come into operation the railways of the amalgamated companies and any railways jointly owned or worked by two or more of those companies.

Lords Amendments:

In Sub-section (2) leave out the word "railways" ["The railways hereinbefore"], and insert "railway companies."

Leave out the words "the railways of" ["operation, the railways of the railway companies"].

Leave out the words "fourteenth" and insert "fifteenth."

Leave out the word "and" ["twenty-one, and any railways"], and insert "including as respects."

After the word "companies" ["of such companies, and after"], insert "a joint committee of those companies."

Leave out the words "the railways of" ["operation the railways of the amalgamated"].

Leave out the word "and" ["companies and any railways jointly"], and insert "including as respects."

At the end of Sub-section (2), insert the words "a joint committee of those companies."

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 71.—(Power of councils to give guarantees.)

(1) The council of any county or borough or district may be authorised by an Order under the principal Act to guarantee or to join with any council, person, or body of persons in guaranteeing the whole or any part of the interest or dividends on any loan or share capital of a light railway company for such period and on such terms and subject to such conditions as may be approved by the Minister after consultation with the Minister of Health:

Provided that a council, before giving or joining in giving any such guarantee, shall, by means of voting papers, ascertain the opinion of the local government electors for the county or borough or district, as the case may be, on the proposal, and shall not give or join in giving the guarantee unless the majority of the answers are in favour of the proposal.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (1), leave out the words

"a council, before giving or joining in giving any such guarantee, shall, by means of voting papers, ascertain the opinion of the local government electors for the county or borough or district, as the case may be, on the proposal, and shall not give or join in giving the guarantee unless the majority of the answers are in favour of the proposal."

and insert

"the procedure laid down in the Borough Funds Acts, 1872 and 1903, shall apply when a council propose to give or join in giving such a guarantee in like manner as it applies when a council propose to incur expenditure in opposing a Bill in Parliament."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This Amendment is merely put in in the interests of economy, and to avoid a poll of the ratepayers having to be taken on a comparatively unimportant matter.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 75.—(Facilities.)

(3) Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act with respect to circuitous routes, in the case of a route competitive with its own by which traffic passes the through rates or fares charged by any amalgamated company shall not, unless the Rates Tribunal for good cause shown so order, be higher than those charged by its own route.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (3), leave out the words "This Part of" ["provisions of this Part of this Act"].

Agreed to.

CLAUSE 76.—(Allocation of receipts on worked railways.)

Where under any Act or agreement passed or made before the passing of this Act any railway is maintained and worked on terms based upon the receipts from the traffic on such railway, the amount which shall be payable to the owning company out of such receipts shall be such as would have been payable to them if the rates, fares, tolls, dues, and charges in respect of such traffic had been the same as those in operation during the year nineteen hundred and thirteen, but not less than the amount actually paid in that year, and the balance of such receipts shall be retained by the company maintaining and working the said railway.

Lords Amendment:

After the word "year" ["the amount actually paid in that year"] insert

"with the addition of an amount in respect of interest on capital expenditure at the same rate per annum as was payable by the Government to any such company in respect of the year nineteen hundred and twenty under the agreements or arrangements relating to the possession by the Crown of the railway of such company."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This provides an addition to the minimum amount which these small working lines are to receive of interest upon the capital expended on the same basis as they have been allowed interest during the period of control. This merely has an adjusting effect.

Question put, and agreed to.

CLAUSE 77.—(Accounts, Returns, and Statistics.)

(2) It shall be the duty of every railway company to compile and render to the Minister the statistics and returns set out in the Eighth Schedule to this Act, subdivided in the case of an amalgamated company in accordance with such operating areas as may be agreed between the Minister and the company, subject, nevertheless, to such variation as may from time to time be agreed between the Minister and the Railway Companies' Association.

Lords Amendment:

In Sub-section (2) after the word "variation" ["such variation as may from time to time"], insert "of those statistics and returns."

Agreed to.

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This light railway was originally in one group, and was afterwards transferred to another. The district council desired, however, having again considered the matter, that it should be left out. So far as the Government have been able to ascertain, that is the desire. The railway was put in as an exception and under exceptional circumstances, and upon request, and we accordingly move to leave it out.

I trust the hon. Gentleman will give us some more explanation, because I think we had better have more explanation. I have no hesitation in saying if the evidence I have obtained in connection with this matter is true, that there has been some very sharp practice involved in this matter. It is quite true, as the hon. Gentleman said, that this railway was first put into one group and then transferred to another. But that is no different to dozens of other railways in this Bill Do not let the House be deceived in the least about any argument on that head. Anyone who knows, anything about the Schedule knows perfectly well that numerous companies have been transferred after further explanation. But the curious thing in connection with this is that this particular railway has suddenly changed its shareholders. The Festiniog railway is very near the Prime Minister's residence—and I shall have something to say about the actions of the railway in a moment. This railway suddenly changes it ownership. The principal owner at the moment is a gentleman named H. J. Jacks, the managing director of the North Wales Power and Traction Company. I shall show the connection between that company and the railway company in a moment. Before I proceed I want to ask the hon. Gentleman, did he not write to a quarryman's association in North Wales in connection with this matter and intimate that he was going to oppose this railway being taken out of the scheme? There is a letter from the hon. Gentleman?

indicated dissent.

Well, from the hon. Gentleman or from his Department! I will leave it at the Department. But the facts are, this company was grouped first with the North-Western group. There was no justification for it being grouped there. After representations by the local authority and by the people in the district, who made an effort to get it out and into the Great Western group, it was put into the Great Western group, and so left this House. Those persons who have got now the controlling interest have also a controlling interest in the electricity undertakings of the whole of North Wales. Suddenly, whilst the Bill is in the Lords, and before we can discuss the question on its merits—because, remember, they made no effort to get it out here—all these negotiations were taking place when this Bill was in this House, and we had no opportunity at all to discuss it; suddenly, I say, they transfer their efforts and get this Clause into the Lords. The Lords then are influenced apparently by this fact that, I understand, the local authority requested the railway to be taken out. My hon. Friend said the same.

I have a statement from a member of the local authority who says that a private meeting was suddenly called to ask the local authority to reverse its decision. They waited for an hour before they could get a quorum, and then, when they managed to get a quorum, they rushed a wire through to the Ministry and asked them to turn the railway out. That was done in the Lords, and the statements made in the whole of North Wales and in this district is that this is not only sharp practice, but it is a deliberate attempt to help this company that is trying to control the electrical undertakings in North Wales to have a complete monopoly. This railway is no different to scores of others that are in the various groups. I protest against this House of Commons not having had a chance to discuss the thing on its merits, and at the fact of the matter being rushed through in another place.

I hope the right hon. Gentleman will go to a division on this, and if he does I shall certainly support him. The maintenance of this railway is really vital to the slate quarries of Blaenau Festiniog. The Festiniog Railway has only a few miles to take the slates and so through to the seaport whence they are shipped overseas. If the quarry owners of Festiniog are dependent on the land haulage of the Great Western and the North Western Railways and are deprived of the use of the Festiniog Railway, they will not be able to carry on. It is a question of communication and of through transport. Everybody knows the keen competition between these quarries. When we discussed this in Committee upstairs, an hon. Member for Cardiganshire, and the hon. Member for Merionethshire made it quite clear that the reasons why the Festiniog Railway should be included in the Cambrian group. The original proposal was that it should be in the North Western group, and it was transferred to the Cambrian Railway, where it was a constituent company of the Great Western group. I want to know whether the Cambrian Railway Company, who supported this, have changed their mind, and why? We want a little more light upon the darkness that obscures this matter. It was not clearly explained by the Parliamentary Secretary. I very much regret that the hon. Member for Cardiganshire and the hon. Member for Merionethshire are not here to take part in the Debate. I am only interested as a person who lives near the railway, and I have a direct interest in the slate quarry industry. This railway is most valuable to the slate quarry industry in North Wales, and if it goes out of the Bill altogether it will be very disastrous to the people of that neighbourhood. I hope the House will disagree with the Lords Amendments, and have no regard for those obscure transactions of big capitalists outside.

I am sorry my right hon. Friend the Member for Derby (Mr. Thomas) had not an opportunity of telling us that he was about to raise this question.

It only happened at the last moment. When the Bill left this House, this railway was in, and I did not know that it had been left out until quite recently.

I have not the papers here dealing with this particular matter, and I must speak from recollection on this question. With reference to the statement made by my right hon. Friend that I personally addressed a letter to a quarrymen's association, I have no recollection of it, and my private secretary says that no such letter has been sent with his knowledge. I do not think that I should be likely to write letters which should be dealt with officially in the Ministry. This is the only light railway which finds itself placed in either of the columns of the Schedule of the Bill. This railway was originally attached to the North Western Group. Representations were made to me by representatives of the district and by my hon. Friend who represents that district, that leaving this railway with the North Western Group had caused trouble in the district because they thought the effect would be that the slate traffic might be diverted from Port Madoc to another port, and the interests of Port Madoc in that way would be adversely affected in the grouping. In view of that expression of opinion, I communicated with everybody concerned as far as I could, and there seemed to be some grounds for that fear. The Government ultimately consented to this railway being transferred from one group to the other. That was the position when the Bill left this House, this being the only example of a narrow gauge light railway being taken over. I am told that this company has changed hands, and that it was one of three companies.

Will you give the names of the companies?

No, I cannot, because they are Welsh names, but it was one of the three companies. They were all three light railways, and it was a question of inserting all three in the Group or none. That was the representation made to me. I at once referred to the hon. Member representing the district to find out if he had any objection to this railway being left out. My hon. Friend made inquiries, and he afterwards told me that there was no objection. I received personally a telegram from the Port Madoc Council objecting to this railway being left out. I then caused further inquiries, and there was a second telegram saying that the Port Madoc Council did not object to it being left out of all the Groups. Thereupon some Noble Lord moved its deletion.

Did the hon. Gentleman consult the Cambrian Railway Company, who made representations in Committee that they wanted this railway?

I am not sure if that company was consulted. Certainly, in the first instance, they were willing, and we see no reason for maintaining as an exception this very small gauge railway, when everybody concerned says it is not necessary to have it in.

Question put, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

The House divided: Ayes, 132; Noes, 35.

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph (2), column 3, leave out the words "the Shropshire Railway (Nantmawr Branch) Company."

I beg to move, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."

This is a branch railway, and it is impossible to take over part of the undertaking. The effect of the Amendment would be that it would continue to be a worked line.

Question put, and agreed to.

Fifth Schedule

Miscellaneous Provisions as to Rates

11. A company may charge for the services hereunder mentioned, or any of them when rendered to a trader at his request or for his convenience a reasonable sum. Any difference arising under this paragraph shall be determined by the Rates Tribunal at the instance of either party, provided that, where before any service is rendered to a trader, he has given notice in writing to the company that he does not require it, the services shall not be deemed to have been rendered at the trader's request or for his convenience:—

(i) Services rendered by the company at or in connection with sidings not belonging to the company in respect of which no rate or charge is otherwise provided;

(viii) Any accommodation or services provided or rendered by the company within the scope of its undertaking, and in respect of which no provisions are made by this Schedule.

Subject to the provisions of this paragraph any charge hereunder made by a company in accordance with an order of the Rates Tribunal in force for the time being may be recovered by action in a court of law.

13. The standard station terminal is the charge which the company may make to a trader for the use of the occupation (exclusive of coal drops) provided and for the duties undertaken by the company, for which no provision is made in this Schedule at the terminal station for or in dealing with merchandise as carriers thereof before or after conveyance.

Lords Amendments: In paragraph (11), leave out the words

"Any difference arising under this paragraph shall be determined by the Rates Tribunal at the instance of either party, provided that, where before any service is rendered to a trader, he has given notice in writing to the company that he does not require it, the services shall not be deemed to have been rendered at the trader's request or for his convenience:—"

After paragraph (II, viii), insert

"Any difference arising under this paragraph shall be determined by the Rates Tribunal at the instance of either party, provided that, where before any service is rendered, a trader has given notice in writing to the company that he does not require it, the service shall not be deemed to be rendered at the trader's request or for his convenience."

In paragraph (13), leave out the word "occupation," and insert "accommodation."

Agreed to.

Eighth Schedule

Schedule of Statistics to Be Supplied by Railway Companies of Great Britain in Addition to Those Furnished Under Railway Companies (Accounts and Returns) Act, 1911

Lords Amendment:

In paragraph (1), at the beginning, insert "Freight receipts."

Agreed to.

I beg to move, given of words which are used in conjunction with any Irish proposals is distorted. All the Government have to say has been said in the two letters sent by me as the head of the Government to Mr. de Valera. Not only were the proposals very carefully considered, but the very words were carefully chosen.

In negotiations, there are two courses which you may adopt. Men who are accustomed to negotiations know that you can always, if you like, leave something in hand, to use later on to purchase settlement. That is one course—a course to which my right hon. Friends (the Labour Party) opposite are very accustomed.

But there is another course, and that is to put all your cards on the table. After considering carefully which of these courses we should take, without hesitation we adopted the latter, because of the importance of ranging on the side of our proposals all sane opinion, not merely in this country and in Ireland, but throughout the world. That is what decided us in putting the whole of our terms into the letters, without keeping anything back. I think the sequel proves that we were right in adopting that course, for I have heard of no suggestion from any quarter in this country, and no suggestion from any quarter in any part of the world excepting Ireland, that in these proposals we have not gone to the very limit of possible concessions. Indeed, I have heard it said that we have gone too far. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear!"] I was certain that the moment I made that statement, it would be justified on the spot by very vocal expressions.

Therefore I want to make it clear, if I have not done so before, that we have not put forward what I would call haggling terms. We have put forward everything we thought it was possible to concede, in order to purchase peace and the goodwill of the Irish people. In Ireland itself, as far as I can see, the doubt is not so much as to the terms, but as to what they really mean. It is not a question of working out the terms. It is a question of explanation, of elucidation and elaboration, and not of change in the terms. The outline cannot be altered nor the basis changed. In view of the fact that the House is about to separate, and that we cannot conceal from ourselves the fact that very disquieting statements have been made, and a few even disquieting facts which I regret, we are bound as the Government responsible, to take thought of all possible contingencies. We are bound to take thought of all contingencies, however unpleasant they may be.

There are two contingencies, one agreeable, and one an eminently unpleasant one. The first is the possibility of agreement. What would be the position then? We should then have to thresh out the details. That would undoubtedly take time. There are many details in the outline we have sketched which will have to be discussed, determined and agreed upon. It is very important that there should be no misunderstanding about any detail, because a detail about which there is a misunderstanding is apt to become a principle, especially in Ireland. I have had some experience of that, and there is always, in the atmosphere of suspicion that surrounds the relations between the two countries, very apt to be a suggestion—if there be a misunderstanding on a question of detail—of treachery. That is fatal to any agreement between the two peoples, because of the disastrous history of the past. Therefore, all these details must be very carefully discussed and determined upon, so that nothing should be left which would justify anyone in saying we have broken faith in even the slightest degree.

On the assumption that there is agreement as to the basis, a Bill will have to be framed. As soon as there be agreement on all details, as well as on principles, and as soon as the Bill is framed, then, I think, it would be the duty of the Executive to take steps immediately to submit that Bill to the judgment of Parliament and of this country, and to invite Parliament to give it legislative enactment and force without delay. Here, again, speaking from experience, I know how dangerous delay is once you arrive at an agreement.

I have dealt with the more pleasant contingency first, and I wish it were not necessary for me to dwell on the other side. But we are bound to take the other into account, especially in view of certain statements which have been made. The second contingency is the alternative of rejection. Were that misfortune—that final misfortune—to befall the relations between these two islands, whose history has been so full of such unfortunate incidents, we should be faced with a graver situation with reference to Ireland than any with which we have ever been confronted, for whatever the terms may accomplish, and whatever they may have done, there is one thing that they have changed. They have defined the issues more clearly than they have ever been defined before, and their rejection would be an unmistakable challenge to the authority of the Crown and the unity of the Empire. We are the very heart of the Empire, and no party in the State could possibly pass that over without notice.

I am using no language of menace. It would indeed be folly—where there are so many existing difficulties—to use threatening language. It would aggravate old difficulties and create new ones. But now that Parliament is separating I am bound to give a reason for this Motion. If there be a rejection, and a final rejection beyond the hope of negotiation, steps would undoubtedly have to be taken which the Executive ought not to take, and which the Executive will not wish to take, without first consulting Parliament, and giving the representatives of the people a full opportunity of expressing either approval or disapproval of the steps which we proposed to take.

This, therefore, will be the position under this Motion, if the House think fit to adopt it: If, on the 18th October, an agreement has been reached, or if negotiations proceeding satisfactorily, then the House will meet only to receive the Royal Message of Prorogation. It will be a purely formal meeting. That is what we contemplate, and propose to the House. If, on the other hand, negotiations break down, and the position be hopeless as far as any chance of agreement is concerned, then Mr. Speaker would be authorised, in consultation with His Majesty's Government, at very short notice—I think that when a similar Resolution was passed about 12 months ago, in reference to the Polish situation, it was contemplated that there should be a notice of 48 hours—to summon Parliament. It does not mean that Parliament would meet only on the 18th October. Parliament can be summoned, after 48 hours' notice by Mr. Speaker, on the authority of this Resolution, and then the Executive would lay before Parliament the whole of its plans in reference to the Irish situation. A similar Resolution, I believe, has been submitted to the House of Lords, where action will be taken by the competent authorities.

I ought to say, to prevent any misunderstanding, that this does not mean that the Executive will not be authorised to take any emergency measures which may be necessary even before Parliament meets. But we shall certainly not delay suggesting to Mr. Speaker the meeting of Parliament, because any such responsibility as we contemplate taking upon ourselves would be to meet an emergency, and we feel that Parliament ought to have an opportunity of expressing its opinion upon the whole of our plans.

The Government, I think it will be agreed, are sincerely desirous that peace should ensue—that the mischievous, long misunderstandings, sometimes sulking, sometimes, I am sorry to say, savage, which make so many chapters of British history painful reading—the misunderstandings between those two peoples who ought to live in peace, harmony, and even affection, with each other—should be brought to an end. In spite of disquieting facts, I hope that reason will prevail, even over logic—that Irish leaders will not reject the largest measure of freedom ever offered to their country, and will not take the responsibility of renewing a conflict which would be robbed of all glory and of all gratitude by its overshadowing calamity.

I think the Government have been well advised in proposing that, instead of a Prorogation, we should now adjourn our Sittings to a fixed date, with power, in the event of an emergency occurring, for that date to be accelerated through the agency of Mr. Speaker. The situation is one in which, it appears to me, Parliament ought to retain control, instead of having to regain it by the cumbrous and dilatory procedure which necessarily attends the opening of a new Session. So far, therefore, as I am concerned, I heartily support the Motion which the Prime Minister has moved. But it would be a great misfortune if it were interpreted, or misinterpreted—for I think it would be a misinterpretation—in any quarter outside, as indicating, I will not say an abandonment, but even a relaxation of hope of a peaceful settlement of the Irish question. I agree with the Prime Minister that this is not a time when it is wise to use many words—or, I am almost disposed to say, any words—in regard to the pending negotiations. With regard to what he has said, I should like to be permitted, in only two or three sentences, to express my own view, which I know is the view of a very large number, not only of my political friends, but of people throughout the Empire. The proposals which have been recently made on behalf of the Government proceed in substance on lines which entirely commend themselves to me. A much more important and significant fact is that we have had, during the last two or three weeks, abundant and world-wide evidence that, in principle and in essentials, they have behind them British opinion throughout the Empire, and not only that, but outside the British Empire, in that great kindred community, the United States of America.

If I rightly interpret the intention of the Government and some of the language which the Prime Minister has just used, it is not a question of being called upon for a blindfold acceptance of an ultimatum. It is a question, rather, of free conference and discussion upon an entirely new basis, with the avowed object on both sides of founding upon that basis the means of giving full satisfaction to the national aspirations of Ireland. It is not a question merely between Government and Government. It is a question between people and people. All the evidence shows it. As I have said, it comes in from every quarter of our Empire. The British people at this moment are saying to the Irish people, without any question of relative size or strength, material or military: "Put an end to our old estrangement and come together to settle the terms of an even and an equal partnership for all time to come."

The silence of any party at this moment would be misunderstood, and it would be unfair if, on a Motion of this kind, and with the issues which are involved in it, some statement as representing our opinion was not given. I believe we have reached a stage where the question of Ireland ceases to be a party qustion, and should not be viewed from the standpoint of party or political advantage. The issues involved in the statement made by the Minister either way are of such far-reaching consequence that we at least ought to take our stand, not on the ground of party, but rather on the broad general grounds of the interest of the State as a whole. Therefore we support the Motion of the Prime Minister, first because it gives an opportunity to this House to keep control of the situation. That would be in accordance with the general desire of the country as a whole. In the second place I hope there will be no Debate on the merits to-day because things may be said which will be misunderstood, and I can only hope that when the House reassembles it will be to ratify a settlement. I hope the calling together of Parliament will result in a true reconciliation between the people of this country and the people of Ireland, and I hope in the meantime no action on the part of the Government, military or other, and no action on the part of the other side will be taken which will be calculated to break the truce or render peace more difficult. My final word is, Do not let the Government make the mistake, do not let us make the mistake, of assuming that because individual speeches have been made, the answer of the Irish people has been given. I hope the Irish people will be able to give an answer. I hope nothing will prevent that answer being given and the clear judgment of the Irish people taken on the matter. In any case, I feel sure the Government in this matter will not use any language which could be interpreted as a threat, but merely want to indicate their position, and we on these benches join with them in hoping that if we are called on again, it will be to ratify a settlement which will not be a weakness in the Empire, but will enable these two peoples to say we have healed a wound which has been open too long, and we car both work together for the benefit of the Empire.

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman, in the arrangements which he contemplates and which I profoundly hope may lead to peace, does he intend to secure the interests of two very important bodies, the Royal Irish Constabulary and the Dublin Metropolitan Police? Will the Government make themselves responsible for the interests of these two bodies?

Certainly. That is an obligation of honour on the part of the Imperial Government. The loyalty and gallantry of their services have been such that it would be a dis-honour for any Government or any party to neglect their interests.

May I ask whether that very satisfactory assurance applies not only to the pensioners, as I understand it, of the Royal Irish Constabulary, who are in bitterly desperate straits in regard to money, but also to the existing members of the Royal Irish Constabulary, and will their interests be guaranteed by the Imperial Government?

I am not going to raise questions leading to debate, but I think something should be said, even on this Motion for the Adjournment, to protest against the basis which the Government have taken in their endeavour to establish peace in Ireland. Those who do not agree with them in what they have done and, as the Prime Minister says, think the Government have gone much too far, are at least as anxious that there should be peace in Ireland as any of those who support the Government. We believe the Government have taken the wrong line and have gone far beyond the authority conferred upon them by the people of this country at the last General Election, that their proposals are in fact the dismemberment of the United Kingdom and it is a complete reversal of policy. We hold that those persons with whom they have entered into negotiations are not truly representative of the Irish nation and cannot be under the circumstances in which Ireland is to-day, and the events leading up to these negotiations which are taking place are such as should have prevented the Government opening negotiations with Mr. de Valera and his friends. I am not going further than to say that it would be the greatest mistake if it is held that the Prime Minister and his colleagues in the Government have the unanimous or universal support either of this Parliament or the nation outside. They have raised among many people feelings of alarm and humiliation at such a course being taken by the Government. As the facts are better understood, and as the action which the Government has taken is better appreciated, these feelings of resistance and resentment are bound to increase and to become more prominent. The Prime Minister has indicated two possible courses, either that the basis of the proposals should be accepted by the Sinn Fein Parliament, in which case negotiations will proceed, or that they should be rejected. I suggest to the Prime Minister and his colleagues that there is a third course. Negotiations may be prolonged almost indefinitely, and meanwhile the Sinn Fein Parliament is again summoned by the authority and at the request of His Majesty's Government. That Sinn Fein Parliament has a considerable measure of support among the officials of His Majesty's Government in Ireland, many of whom are strongly Sinn Fein in their sympathies. It would be possible for that Parliament, little by little, to take over the functions of His Majesty's Government.

Are the Government going to accede to such a course Are they going to allow the process of long negotiation to go on, while the authority and the whole of the organisation which remains to the British Government in Ireland are swept away and undermined by the Sinn Fein Parliament which, while not agreeing with the basis of negotiations, can become the de facto and the powerful Government in Ireland. That might happen. What course do the Government propose to take to meet such a situation? I deplore the course which the Government have taken, I believe that it cannot lead to any permanent peae in Ireland, nor will it lead to peace between Great Britain and Ireland or a permanent settlement of the difficulties which have arisen. I believe it is dangerous to the whole future of the United Kingdom, and that the Government have gone too far. As it is impossible to carry the matter further to-day on the Motion for the Adjournment, I do not propose to do so.

I will not make any comment on the last speech, which I profoundly deplore. I would like to put a question to the Prime Minister. The right hon. Gentleman said that in the event of agreement being reached or negotiations proceeding satisfactorily, Parliament will be called together for formal Prorogation on 18th October. If that is so, what is to happen to the Bill which he has promised to press forward without any delay? He said that delay would be inadvisable. May we have some indication of the course which the Government intend to pursue in regard to actual legislation?

I want to clear up a point which the Prime Minister did not make quite clear. In case of a settlement, we are to be called together without doubt. The Prime Minister went on to say that in the case of a breakdown, that is, the rejection of the proposals or the counter-proposals, that we should be called together then, but that that did not preclude the Government taking certain emergency measures. I do not want to dispute that. They have a perfect right to take such measures, because their first duty is to secure the safety of their servants, but I want to make quite sure on one point. In the case of the truce coming to an end, and emergency measures, that is, military measures being adopted, is it intended that Parliament shall be called together as soon as possible? Will the Speaker be advised on those terms? It is very important that if shooting starts again—it starts with little things and goes on to much larger things—Parliament shall be called together. We ought to have some pledge given to us on that matter before we part.

As one of the Ulster Members, I should like to put a question. The Prime Minister said that if negotiations came to something, this House would be called together some time in October to give legislative effect to the terms. He said that a Bill would be introduced. Is it proposed that legislative effect should be given to proposals so wide as those which the Government have made, without any appeal being made to the country? It seems to me that if that be done, the Government will be absolutely going back on the promise they made at the last General Election, and I suggest that it would be hardly a fair way of dealing with the vast constitutional change which such legislation must mean.

After what the Prime Minister has said, I do not propose to say anything about the Irish question, but I want to ask whether, when the House reassembles, it is the intention of the Government to take any legislation except that which relates to Ireland?

Certainly not. I shall put on the Paper a notice that, in the event of the House being summoned, we shall take all time of the House for Government business, and we shall proceed only with the business necessitated by circumstances which require the calling together of the House.

I am much obliged That statement will be received with great satisfaction by the law publishers

I did not quite follow the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). Perhaps he will tell me what is the point. I do not feel that I can give an answer on that point at the present moment without a little more explanation of its exact purport. With regard to the other question put by the hon. Member for the Isle of Ely (Captain Coote), I may say that, if there be an agreement, we shall proceed without any delay. There will be no delay except such as is inevitable in the threshing out of the details of the terms and the preparation of the Bill. I can scarcely think it possible that, even if there were an agreement, everything would be in trim by the 18th October. I do not think that possible.

With respect to the question put by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Ken-worthy), I think that, on the whole, he had better look at the words which I used. I considered them very carefully. There is such an infinite variety of things which may happen that the Government must have some latitude in dealing with the situation. It is no use my going into all sorts of possibilities such as those raised by the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). We certainly could not allow the government of Ireland gradually to slip out of Imperial control in the manner described by my hon. Friend. That is one of the contingencies which we have had in mind. There is no use in entering into all the possibilities. We have to consider the situation from the facts and, at any rate, we are only adjourning until 18th October.

The House will be summoned if the truce come to an end?

If my hon. and gallant Friend will look at the words which I have used, I think he will find that every reasonable contingency which can be foreseen at the present moment is provided for.

Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly answer the question of the hon. Member for Cromac (Mr. Lindsay) as to a General Election?

That really is a question which cannot properly be discussed across the Floor of the House, and therefore I am afraid that it is impossible to give an answer.

Question put, and agreed to.

Resolved,

"That this House, at its rising this day, do adjourn till Tuesday, 18th October, provided always that if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with His Majesty's Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at any earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time."

A Royal Commission having been appointed, I will now leave the Chair. I will give instructions to have the bells rung when the Commission approaches.

Sitting suspended at Twelve Minutes before Two o'clock.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at one minute before Five of the clock.

I desire to inform the House that technically this is a privileged Amendment, but it is open to the House to waive its objection.

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment."—[ Mr. T. W. Brown. ]

What is this all about?

Section 14 deals simply with the application to Ireland and Section 13 to Scotland, and I am sure the House will have no objection to that.

Question put, and agreed to.

A Royal Commission has been appointed, and I will leave the Chair until it is announced.

Sitting suspended at Five of the Clock.

Mr. SPEAKER resumed the Chair at Seven minutes after Five of the Clock.