Sir Eric Geddes: It will be convenient if I intervene to tell the House the view of the Government on the point raised by the Noble Lord. The words which he has just read, namely, that "if the Minister considers it desirable in the national interest that the transport facilities and accommodation of the harbour, dock, or pier of the owners should be improved or extended or that the method of working should be...
Sir Eric Geddes: The point raised by my hon. and gallant Friend was before us this morning and I am advised that the Port of London Authority is not a statutory railway company. They have certain limited powers as a statutory railway company, but the intention is that they shall be excluded exactly as the Manchester Ship Canal is excluded.
Sir Eric Geddes: I beg to move to leave out the words, Provided that, if the owners consider that any such requirements of the Minister are unreasonable, they may appeal to an arbitrator to be appointed in the case of an undertaking situate in England or Wales by the Lord Chief Justice of England, in the case of any undertaking situate in Scotland by the Lord President of the Court of Session in Scotland, and...
Sir Eric Geddes: I will confine my remarks to the simple point of this Road Advisory Committee. In agreeing to adopt a special Advisory Committee for roads the Government was actuated by the somewhat peculiar position in which roads are compared with any other form of transportation, and I include them as one of the means of transport. There are 2,000 authorities in this country dealing with roads and they...
Sir Eric Geddes: The Committee is appointed by the Minister and not by the highway authorities.
Sir Eric Geddes: My hon. Friend will not deny that the highway authorities have amongst them some very eminent specialists in road construction on their staff, and I cannot imagine that it is in the least likely that they will appoint someone who knows nothing about roads. The appointments rest with the Minister right through.
Sir Eric Geddes: This is giving a power to the Minister which he may exercise or not, as he likes. I feel that it would be ungracious of me to do anything but accept powers which the House wishes to give to the Government.
Sir Eric Geddes: I cannot answer for the Board of Trade or for any estimate that the Board of Trade has made. Any figures which I gave—and there has been a great deal of comment on what I said in my Second Reading speech—were supplied to me by the Board of Trade, because, as the House will know, I have no Department of my own. Speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill, I made several references—
Sir Eric Geddes: It is largely a matter of taste as to whether it is to be a Ministry of Transport or a Ministry of Ways and Communications. I agree with the Mover of the Amendment that the word "Transport" is applied to a certain extent in speaking of the new Ministry, but recently I have observed an improvement in the references to the Ministry and it has been increasingly called "Ministry of Ways and...
Sir Eric Geddes: You have ruled that we will go by what was printed in the Bill before the House on. Second Reading. Looking very briefly at what I said, although I admit that the wording—when one rereads one's speeches, or possibly those of other Members, they are not always clear—but I think there the reference was intended to be made that the municipal tramways were in a special category and possession...
Sir Eric Geddes: We are at present on Clause 2.
Sir Eric Geddes: I shall be very glad to consider what modification may be made in Clause 3. I think I cannot say anything more on this point, except that I feel very strongly that it would be a blot on the whole scheme to leave out this important matter of subsidiary transportation which we most require. To leave out tramways and light railways would be a hopeless blot on the Bill.
Sir Eric Geddes: If my hon. and learned Friend will look at Section 3, Sub-section (1, b), he will see where the tramways belonging to a local authority are excluded.
Sir Eric Geddes: We are dealing with Clause 2 of the Bill, which transfers certain duties and powers of other Departments, to be notified by Order in Council, and in relation to tramways of all kinds it is proposed that they should be transferred. I do not know if it is in order for me to deal with what is in Clause 3—
Sir Eric Geddes: The White Paper which has been circulated relating to the-transference of powers shows what it is intended at the present time to take from the Board of Trade and other Departments in connection with the rivers and waterways in this country. This Amendment selects one particular class of power and defines what the Minister shall and shall not take. It is not intended to go beyond. the powers...
Sir Eric Geddes: There is, of course, nothing in the Bill which gives any Minister power to take over the shipping, or pilotage, or anything of that kind as the hon. and learned Gentleman on this side has just said. On page 6 of the White Paper, in that portion which refers to harbours, docks, and piers, I would like to read just two examples of the difficulties which I have mentioned. After showing those...
Sir Eric Geddes: I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), after the word "Act" ["after the passing of this Act"], to insert the words or where as respects any particular provisions a longer period is expressly provided, for such longer period. This provision is merely for the purpose of giving effect to paragraph (e) of Sub-section (1), and if this is passed when we come to it, it enables the period to run for the...
Sir Eric Geddes: I think this is the sixth time I have had the pleasure of replying at this box for the national shipyards, and on this sixth occasion I find myself compelled to repeat what I have said before. I have heard nothing new in the Debate to-day except the very kind personal references to myself. Apart from that, what we have heard to-day about the national shipyards is exactly what we have heard on...
Sir Eric Geddes: He certainly said these yards when proposed were a good scheme.
Sir Eric Geddes: His opinion, I think, in July, 1918, was given in the letter I have already read to the House. This was Lord Pirrie's letter, in reply to a request from me: You put two questions to me, and I answer them with pleasure. The first is—Was the national shipyard scheme a wise and prudent undertaking a year ago? My reply is—that taking all the circumstances as they were, I am decidedly of the...