Sir Eric Geddes: In each case the man has got to consent.
Sir Eric Geddes: It is not a question of compensation, but of allowance. You may wish to transfer a man, for instance, who is a clerk or a draughtsman, and to bring him from Derby or Crewe to London but he can only come with his consent, and you say to him, "Here is the salary, and you remain in the superannuation fund just as you were, and will you come if I give you such-and-such an allowance?" Paragraph...
Sir Eric Geddes: I have evidently failed to make myself clear. Under Sub-clause (vii.) arbitration is provided, and that covers any officer or servant who is affected by Sub-clauses (iv.), (v.), and (vi.). There is arbitration in Sub-clause (vii.), and there is arbitration in Sub-clause (ii.). In Sub-clause (iii.) there is no arbitration.
Sir Eric Geddes: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1, iii.), to leave out the word "undertakers," and to insert instead thereof the words owners of the undertaking." This is purely a drafting Amendment. The owners of the undertaking is the wording which has been used throughout, and I wish, therefore, to substitute it in this Sub-clause for the word "undertakers."
Sir Eric Geddes: I fully sympathise with my right hon. Friend in his point, but the House has already agreed, in Sub-section (1) (i) of this Clause, that an officer or servant may be transferred permanently with his consent. I think it would be a serious thing for this House to accept this Amendment when it debars an officer or servant from accepting an appointment which ho wishes to accept permanently with...
Sir Eric Geddes: I do not think I said "any officer." I said it might prevent an officer entering the service of the State.
Sir Eric Geddes: I beg the hon. Baronet's pardon, but I did not say "my own Ministry."
Sir Eric Geddes: I accept it.
Sir Eric Geddes: If the facts were as my right hon. Friend opposite supposes, I think, undoubtedly, his proposal would increase the charge, and therefore, Sir, it would possibly be out of order. But I do not think the facts are as he has stated. Perhaps I could better help matters if I explain. I see where the mistake is. Prior to 1909—the date given by my right hon. Friend—the compensation given was...
Sir Eric Geddes: I am very sorry I cannot answer that question, but that is the position.
Sir Eric Geddes: The provision covers the whole period of possession by the Government, and if the word "Minister" is inserted it is of vital importance to the undertaking.
Sir Eric Geddes: I do not think this Amendment really improves the wording. There is no intention of any subtlety in the words "income thereof." This question was carefully considered in Committee, and if it has no further import, I hope the proposal will not be pressed. Furthermore, if it has any bearing upon the next Amendment the Government must resist it.
Sir Eric Geddes: The intention was that the revenue basis should be taken on a comparison with the period preceding possession by the Government—that is, the pre-war period—and that seems to me to be the only fair comparison to make. If we were to adopt this Amendment it would mean that we would have to take the revenue for the two years preceding the passing of this Act. Whatever we wish to do in regard...
Sir Eric Geddes: I do not think so, because, owing to the War, the accounts were made up and the basis taken was 1913, and the agreement was to compare on the 1913 basis, and it is on the 1913 net revenue that we undertake to make good, so that the actual words would not apply. If there is any doubt as to whether the period is properly laid down, and I am told that it is, an Amendment can be introduced in...
Sir Eric Geddes: That is a point which no one here can decide. There are innumerable ways in which undertakings conceivably might be affected, and, therefore, it would only be a matter of bargain or arbitration. It would be equally unfair to deal with every undertaking on a pre-war basis.
Sir Eric Geddes: I think the right hon. Baronet has a little misapprehended what has been said. The Mover of the Amendment withdraws his Amendment, the Government undertaking to see whether the point raised is not clear, and, if it finds it is not clear, it will provide other words in another place.
Sir Eric Geddes: I beg to move, in Subsection (1), to leave out the words the natural growth of traffic on any railway belonging to a company which had not before possession was taken by the Government paid a dividend of four per centum on its ordinary capital, and in each case capital expenditure by the owners of the undertaking on any works brought into use in the interval, then and to insert instead...
Sir Eric Geddes: There are two points in this Amendment. One is that the State shall not have a claim for any enhancement of the value, either on capital or income basis, due to the natural growth of traffic. I confess I thought that when the Amendment was proposed it would probably be accepted by the right hon. Baronet (Sir F. Banbury), who speaks for the railway companies and who is chairman of one company...
Sir Eric Geddes: I quite understand my hon. and gallant Friend's point, but anything done under those powers would have to be by a specific Order. It would be quite impossible ever to keep track of your prospective liabilities if you were to be responsible for everything that every railway or dock or light railway servant did everywhere in the Kingdom whatever grade he was. So that anything that the Minister...
Sir Eric Geddes: The Amendment to this part of the Clause, which it is obvious from reading the Clause, was for protecting the Treasury, is, in the opinion of the Government, an improvement of the Clause. These words cannot, so far as I can see, and as I am advised, make the least possible difference to the railway company.