THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

Otago Witness, Issue 3860, 6 March 1928, Page 32

THE HOUSE OF COMMONS

EIGHT HOURS’ CONVENTION. LONDON, February 27. In the House of Commons, in committee on the Civil Estimates, Mr T. Shaw moved a reduction 'as a protest against Britain’s non-ratification of the Washington Eight Hours’ Convention, declaring that Britain’s failure to honour her bond had torpedoed the convention. Mr fl. B. Betterton, in replying, said that the reason the Government had not ratified the convention, despite the fact that 95 Pjer cent, of the people in Britain worked only 48 hours per week, was that existing industrial agreements affecting hundreds of thousands of British workers would be imperilled by ratification of the convention as it was at present drafted. If the Labourites really wanted to secure the position of the workers throughout the world they would support Britain s efforts to amend the convention, which was at present variously interpreted in different countries.

Sir Arthur Steel-Maitland, in closing the debate, said there was never any obligation on the part of the Government, to ratify the convention, so that there could not be any question of a breach of faith. It was clear that the Labour Party wished to ratify the Washington Convention as it stood. Mr Shaw, interrupting, indignantly denied this. Sir A. Steel-Maitland: ” Then I do not know where Mr Shaw stands. A 4dhour week would be illegal in many industries under any domestic legislation founded on the Washington Convention.” If we pressed for a division he did not think there would be any fundamental difference between ourselves and France. The motion was defeated by 214 to 98, and the vote wa s agreed to. ROAD TRANSPORT. LONDON, February 28. The House of Commons has op’ened a two days’ debate on Bills promoted by the Big Five railways, giving them powers to run motor services of passengers and goods in opposition to the road transport companies. Mp J. Q. Lamb, in moving the rejection of the Bill, said that the railways already had 35,000 vehicle® on the road, of which 4000 were motor vehicles. He objected to giving them power enabling them to embark in entirely new business, and he believed that the existing competition ensured lower charges to farmers and other producers. _Mr A. C. N. Dixey, in seconding the rejection, said that the Bill would give the companies power to squeeze out every small motor omnibus company. Rather than give the railways a monopoly, he would prefer to see the railways nationalised. Mr Edward Grenfell said the question was whether the railways should be prevented from competing’ with the rOad transport companies, which at present had a stranglehold upon the railways. He re pudiated the idea that the Bill would enable the railways to establish a monopoly. Lieutenant-colonel Sandars said that the railways had a prana facie case, which should be referred to a committee for investigation. The fear of the agriculturists that if the railways got thefee powers the rates would go up was unfounded. Mr J, Bromley (Labour) earnestly supported the Bill. The railway employees were meeting the unregulated competition of men who were driving ramshackle vehicles_on the roads at wages as low as 33s to oss a week.

MARCH 1. Mr r. Kennedy expressed the opinion thot the railways w’ere seeking the statutory right to go on the roads to the exclusion of their competitors. Their complaint regarding the rate burden was a pretence Tne railways’ aggregate rate worked out at one-fortieth of a penny per ton per mile of goods carried.

Colonel Ashley said that no new prin cipie was involved; the railways were simply seeking an extension of their existing powers to participate in road traffic. The railways were taking an increasing part in road traffic in every country. He knew of no case of a rigid refusal to give such powers. _ Was the world problem being dealt with in different ways in different countries? He agreed that'ther e were objections to monopoly powers, a nd he did riot regard Bills and safeguards against them as adequate. He would propose •amendments to strengthen them. obliging the railways to obtain the Ministry of transports sanction to institute or withJw b n t thm W3S no reason time th<3 B 1 should not be read a second

Mr .T H Thomas sm’d that railwaymen feared that their standard of living mmlit be lowered bv the competition of other ‘■’■ansport workers, but the interests of noth the railwaymen and the companies be served by passing th e Bill. amendment was negatived hv 399 to 42, and the Bill was read a second time. mi -r. . March 1. I he Evening Standard says that the latest development in the railway versus motor vehicle war behind the legislation discussed in the House of Commons last bight is the building of a great motor station in the middle of London, which will have arrival and departure platforms for 80 motor coaches running express services, but it is hoped that there will soon be 100 long-distance non-stnp motor services running thence to leading provincial towns, and from London to Newcastle there will be only two stops. There will, be a kitchen for light meals in the back of each car, and a soda fountain cigarettes, and newspapers. RUGBY. March T. The financial correspondent of the Evening • Standard, referring to the projmsed motor fetation. savs a site has been purchased near Russell square, and it is

anticipated that the station will occupy the same position in the motor transport services as does one of the great termlmi in railway services. It is not stated whether any individual company is responsible for the scheme.

The motor coach services as a body hope to consolidate their position before the railways received new powers for road transport from Parliament, and to build up an organisation so complete and efficient that they will be able to take still fuither traffic from the railway com panics. March 2. The amalgamation of three of the biggest road traction companies—Tillings, the British Automobile, and the British Electric—which is announced with a captal of £2,000,000, to operate 4000 to 5000 vehicles, is certain prelude to a gigantic road war, which the passage of the new transport Bill is likely to intensify. This statement is simultaneous with the an nouncement that preliminaries have been undertaken for the construction of a big motor coach station in central London. The cheapness of fares on the road services already in existence is astonishing in comparison with rail fares, the speed, and luxury of the new motor coaches rivalling first-class railway Pullman accommodation at under the third-class fares. The run from London to Southampton (79 miles) costs 6s 6d return, against the railways 19s lOd. Tb e coaches mantain 30 miles an hour average speed. The rapid multiplication of inter-urban door-to-door services is one of the secrets of the coaches’ popularity. The big five of the railways are making urgent efforts to secure competitive road rights, and the latest types of motor coaches are equipped with kitchens, lava tories, and seating 30 or more. Drawing attention to the fact that the London and North-Eastern group of railways carried 47,000,000 fewer passengers last year than in 1025—an average of 17 fewer per train—despite the increased mileage, tbe chairman, Mr William Whitelaw, attributed the decrease chiefly to the competition of road vehicles.

The railways had reduced fares in many districts, a move that had been partly successful, byt more frequent and more intensive service was the only effective answer to the attractions of road transport. The company had, accordingly, successfully increased excursion facilities, and was also introducing steam rail coaches capable of two journeys at the cost of one by train. He denied that railway companies were aiming at a monopoly in road traffic. They had no intention of flooding the roads with motor vehicles; on the contrary, they desired a combined road aud rail service, and were ready to co-operate with others in the desire. He added that large omnibus companies were claiming a monopoly, and feared that the railways’ entry of traffic would involve speed regulations, inspection of vehicles, inquiry into accidents by qualified inspectors, and control of labour and wages which railways were at present compelled to observe. REPLIES TO QUESTIONS. LONDON, February zi. Mr Amery, in answer to a question in the House of Commons, said he had decided to appoint a special commissioner to inquire into the murders in the Solomon Islands. The commissioner would reach the protectorate in May. Sir Austen Chamberlain, in reply to a question, said that the United State® had not offered a multilateral treaty to Britain, as she did to France. Mr Walter Guinness (Minister of Agriculture) told a questioner that Argentina had forbidden the export to Britain of carcasses of cattle infected with foot-and-mouth disease, as well a® those that had been in immediate contact with the former. • Uruguay and Brazil had adopted similar regulations.

February 28. Replying to a question in the House of Commons, Sir W. Mitchell-Thompson (Postmaster-general) said that he was considering the inclusion of television in the existing radio legislation, though experts advised that it was still in the experimental stage Mr Winston Churchill said that he could not say when he would be able to make a definite statement on the restoration of penny postage, but the time for making a definite statement would be when introducing the Budget. RUGBY, February 29. Replying to a question in the House of Commons, Sir Austen ChambeiTain said that the British Government had for some time been making representations to the Portuguese Government on the subject of flag discrimination. He understood that a decree would shortly be issued abolishing all such discrimination of any kind in Portugal and the Portuguese dominions. In regard to the question of the loan which Portugal was seeking through the League of Nations, this would be dealt with on Hs merits.

Mr W. C. Bridgeman (First Lord of the Admiralty) said that the attitude of tbe Government on the question of abolishing the submarine remained the same as originally initiated by Lord Lee, of Fare nam, at the Washington Conference in 1921, when he urged the abolition of the submarine. That attitude was reaffirmed by himself at the recenj, naval conference in Geneva.

The Prime Minister, in response to a request by Mr Ramsay MacDonald, undertook to find at least' half a day for discussion of the Board of Inquiry report on the so-called “ Franca case, with special reference to Zinovieff.

Sir Austen Chamberlain said that he had written on at least half a dozen occasions to the British representatives, and had approached the authorities of foreign countries seeking tbe excision op modifications of portion of kinema films which appeared derogatory to British prestige.

Mr Baldwin told a questioner that until the Wireless and Cables Conference made recommendations to their respective Govrnments he could not make a statement on the subject.