GREAT INDIAN PENINSULA RAILWAY COMPANY BILL [ANNUITIES]. (Hansard, 19 June 1900)

MR. GIBSON BOWLES (Lynn Regis)
I regret I had yesterday to move the postponement of this motion. I only did so because we really had no information on the subject till the Motion was read out at the Table. The figures involved are very large; they amount to nearly thirty-five millions. I do not for a moment dispute the propriety of the purchase of the railway, nor do I question the method by which the purchase is effected—namely, by the payment of annuities for a certain term of years in lieu of a lump sum down. I should, however, like to ask the noble Lord one or two questions. First, what is the period for which these annuities will run—is it thirty, forty, or fifty 418 years? Then I wish to draw attention to the second part of the resolution. It is clear that the annuities are to be a charge upon the Indian revenues, but I doubt whether the clause with regard to the expense of passing the Act may not constitute a charge on the revenues of the United Kingdom. If the noble Lord will look at the fifth line and onwards he will see what I mean. It refers to the expenses incurred by the Secretary of State, and it appeal's to me from the wording that they may become a charge on the revenues of the United Kingdom. I thought so yesterday when I heard the resolution read at the Table, and hence I asked to have the matter postponed in order that we might get an explanation from the noble Lord. I have one further observation to make, and it is a suggestion which I commend to the consideration of the noble Lord and of the Government generally. It is that when a resolution is to be moved dealing with a large sum—and this one deals with nearly thirty-five millions—the terms should be given us not on the Blue Paper, because, perhaps, that is too much to ask, but on the White Paper, or, if that cannot be done, on a separate Paper, so that hon. Members may be enabled to gather some idea as to what is asked of them. Otherwise, they are rendered practically incapable of discussing the matter. I am aware that this has not hitherto been the practice, but I suggest that the practice is a faulty one, and as there is, as far as I know, no law, written or unwritten, enforcing the observance of what is admittedly an extremely inconvenient practice, I submit that it might well be amended in the manner I have indicated.

§ THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Lord G. HAMILTON,) Middlesex, Ealing
This is a Bill for the acquisition by the Government of India of a great railway by means of an arrangement which I am glad to say will be financially advantageous to the Government. The Government of India had the option of acquiring the property by two methods of purchase, either by paying a lump sum or by annuity, and they have adopted the latter system for convenience. In fact, they have pursued an analagous course to that adopted in the case of all Bills by which they have in past years required possession of similar under- 419 takings. The annuity is to run for fifty years, and includes a sinking fund. No charge whatsoever will be placed on the revenues of this country. The words in the latter part of the motion have been inserted because it is possible that the surplus profits of this line, which passes at once into the hands of the Government, may not be sufficient to meet all the expenses of this Act. I quite agree with my hon. friend that when a transaction of this magnitude is brought before the House, it should be done in such a way that hon. Members may understand what they are about. This is a private Bill, and therefore I am not, in that sense, responsible for the method by which it is introduced to the House; if I had known that it was coming before the House, I would have taken care that in some way or other this resolution was so far brought to the notice of hon. Members, that they would have understood the nature of the transaction.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON (Dundee)
I do not dispute that the motion is in order, but I wish to ask whether it would not be possible to make this a public instead of a private Bill. This is a great measure for the nationalisation of an Indian Railway, and I think we ought to have some little further information with regard to it. Is this stage merely a preliminary to the introduction of the Bill?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
We have followed exactly the precedent which has always been adopted in these cases. The railway is purchased under a contract, and it is necessary to get the assent of the House in order that the annuities may be substituted for the Government guarantee of interest.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I want to know at what point we are now. Is this a motion preliminary to the introduction of the Bill?

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
The Bill has been brought in and read a second time.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
It seems to me absurd that a Bill such as this should go to the Unopposed Private Bill Committee. It imposes an enormous charge upon the revenues of India, and I do not think it is proper that it should be dealt with as a private Bill.

*THE CHAIRMAN
Order, order! That is not the question now before the House.

§ MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON
I am only suggesting that it might be possible, although the Bill has been brought in as a private Bill, to switch it off into the line of public Bills. It is very inconvenient that a Bill of this magnitude should be brought in as a private Bill.

§ MR. JOHN ELLIS (Nottinghamshire, Rushcliffe)
I also wish to enter the strongest possible protest against the procedure which has been adopted in this case. I thought this was the usual financial resolution preparatory to the introduction of the Bill. I know of no precedent for a Bill which is practically in the charge of the Secretary of State for India being brought in by a private Member.

§ LORD G. HAMILTON
But it is a private Bill.

§ MR. JOHN ELLIS
I say it ought not to be a private Bill.

*THE CHAIRMAN
. That objection should have been taken before the Second Reading.

§ MR. JOHN ELLIS
I do submit that the Secretary for India should have taken care that the House was well informed of the meaning of this resolution before it was asked to pass it.

§ MR. HERBERT LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)
The noble Lord has informed us that he is not responsible for the form in which this Bill has been introduced into this House. But he must have known perfectly well what its contents were, and it was only due to the House, even if it was a private Bill, that he should have made it acquainted with the details of a transaction involving a sum of thirty-five millions sterling, before he asked it to sanction the arrangement. Great issues are involved, and it is only right that the House should have some opportunity of discussing the important question raised by this resolution. Our hands, however, are practically tied by the manner in which the Bill has been introduced.