§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read a second time."
§ MR. FIELD (Dublin, St, Patrick)said he thought the House was entitled to some explanation with regard to that 689 Bill, which raised issues of importance which were not ordinarily raised by railway Bills. Questions of public policy were involved. The House was now beginning to take an intelligent interest in English railway matters, and he hoped to see that interest directed to Irish Bills. He had not risen for the purpose of opposing or obstructing this Bill, but he had a particular grievance. He was not opposed to railway amalgamation, particularly in Ireland; on the contrary, he thought it a public advantage for a large railway to take over a small one, provided, of course, that the public interest was properly safeguarded. But, so far as he could see, that was not done in this case. The Derry Central Railway was under this Bill being absorbed by the Northern Counties Railway. Now the latter railway, he understood, was one of the few well-managed lines in Ireland; its charges were moderate, its officials were civil and courteous, and it served its district well. However, there were some peculiar features in connection with the Bill. It seemed that the Derry Central Railway Company was indebted to the Commissioners of Public Works in the sum of £113,720 18s. 4d, in respect of a loan and interest, and under the Bill the Commissioners were to receive £85,000, while £28,720 was to be divided among the shareholders of the company and officials who were being deprived of their positions. The preference shareholders were to get 4s. 6d. for every £1 share, and the ordinary guaranteed shareholders 3s. 1d. Surely some explanation ought to be forthcoming of that. Again, he had to complain that in no clause was there any guarantee whatever that the public rights would be protected and safeguarded, or that greater facilities and better accommodation would be provided for travellers. It was simply a transfer of the line from one company to another, under certain financial arrangements, and he did think the promoters should vouchsafe some explanation to the House.
§ *MR. O'NEILL (Antrim, Mid)explained that the Government advanced £100,000 for the making of this particular line, but, unfortunately, the company had not been able to pay the agreed instal- 690 ments, and the indebtedness had consequently risen to £113,720. The Government were bound to look after the interests of the taxpayers, and so they foreclosed, with the result that after considerable negotiations the Northern Counties Company had agreed to take over the line on the terms mentioned by the hon. Member. It was in the public interest, therefore, that this Bill should be passed; otherwise the Government might get no return at all on their loan. The Bill cited the maximum rates and charges which the company were to be entitled to charge as those which were fixed under the original Act.
§ *MR. O'NEILLnext referred the hon. Member to the agreement on page 11 in the schedule of the Bill between the Government and the Northern Counties Railway Company, and expressed a hope that the opposition to the Bill would not be persisted in.
§ MR. O'MARA (Kilkenny, S.)said he did not feel at all satisfied that the rates, of this railway under the amalgamation scheme would not be raised, and great care should be taken to protect the interests of the public in this respect. Owing to the many amalgamations which had taken place in Ireland, railway traffic in Ireland had gone into the hands of very few companies, and competition had disappeared. This House should be very careful to guard against matters of this kind, and under no circumstances whatever—
§ *MR. SPEAKEROrder, order! It is extremely unusual to discuss, upon the Second Reading, details such as rates, which, if they are considered unsatisfactory, can be amended at a later stage. The point the hon. Member is raising hardly relates to the principle of the Bill.
§ MR. O'MARAthen said he would move as an Instruction to the Committee—
§ *MR. SPEAKERThe hon. Member cannot move an Instruction upon the Second Reading.
§ THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY TO THE TREASURY (Mr. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN,) Worcestershire, E.I think it will perhaps be for the convenience of the House that I should now state the position of the Government in regard to this Bill. My hon. friend opposite has spoken of this Bill as being promoted by the Northern Counties Railway and the Government, but that hardly expresses the position which the Government are in. The Government are interested in the Derry Central Railway in consequence of a loan they made. By the aid of that loan the railway was constructed, and since its construction it has been purchased by the Northern Counties Railway under an agreement between the Northern Counties Railway and the Government. Unfortunately, the Derry Central Railway has been surrounded by another system, and it cannot get through by itself at all to the north or south, and it is not in a position, in my opinion, and in the opinion of my advisers, to work successfully as an independent line. The position is that the loan is outstanding, expenses are being incurred, and arrears of interest are accumulating. Therefore the Government had to consider what they should do under the circumstances. The debt is mounting up, and as it appeared to the Government that the line was not likely to be successfully worked as an independent line, we had to consider what steps should be taken to remedy the position in which we were placed. The Derry Central Company approached the Treasury in 1899 for a revision of the existing conditions, and the Treasury decided that they must cither sell their interest in the line or they must foreclose and sell the line itself. They were inclined to sell their interest, together with their rights, but they did not find it easy or possible to get a suitable purchaser. After having called for tenders to see what other companies would give, and having only one offer, and that a very inadequate one, they decided to foreclose, and now, as the mortgagees in possession, they have decided to sell the line to the Northern Counties Company. This Bill is promoted by the Northern Counties Company to carry out the agreement which, subject to the sanction of Parliament, 692 they have made with the Government for the purchase of the line. We have three main interests to deal with. The hon. Gentleman opposite asks what is the position of the taxpayer who advanced the money. The position of the taxpayer is that he gets back £85,000 of the loan of £100,000 which he made, and he saves the loss of any further interest which he would otherwise have to put up with. As a matter of fact, the Government were advised by an independent valuator whom we sent down to value the line that £85,000 was a fair value of their interest in the line. The taxpayer gets back £85,000, he is secured against any further loss of interest, and he gets the full value of his interest.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINThat is not all a loss of capital, but it is partly arrears of interest, which under other circumstances he has no chance whatever of recovering. There is also the interest of the shareholders. We felt that the shareholders who had put their money into the Derry Central Company had some equitable right to consideration, and that it was in accordance with the practice in such cases of purchase or amalgamation that their case should be considered. We therefore arranged that £20,000 should be set aside for the shareholders of the Derry Central Company as compensation for losing all further interest in the line. We also provide that the secretary should have a small sum as compensation, and the hon. Member opposite did not dispute the justice of that as regards the distribution of this compensation among the shareholders. I think this is evidently a question for the shareholders themselves, and one in which we ought not to interfere, and, moreover, it is one upon which we have consistently refused to express any opinion. The only position we take up in the matter is that the Northern Counties Company, which is itself a considerable shareholder, shall have no part in the compensation. Then there is the interest of the public which is served by this line, and it is that interest which hon. Gentlemen opposite are parti- 693 cularly anxious about. I say that, in my opinion, this line cannot be worked independently with any prospects of success. If hon. Gentlemen from Ireland would look at the railway map of Ireland they would see that it needs no elaboration to prove that it cannot be worked successfully as an independent line. I do not think, therefore, that there would be any prospect of the line being worked to the satisfaction of the districts concerned by the Derry Central Company if we had sold to them, as they are not a rich company, and they would have had some difficulty in equipping the line satisfactorily. We have, therefore, sold it to the Northern Counties Company, which is one of the best of the Irish railways, a line which, in the words of the hon. Gentleman opposite, is well managed, charges moderate rates, and gives a good service. I think that in doing this we have probably done the best we could for the district to be served by the line. We have, however, taken some precautions. In the first place, it may be true, and I know the allegation has been made, that the Northern Counties Railway, under the working of their agreement, have rather starved the line. Under the arrangement made in this Bill it will be no longer to their interest to starve the line, for this line will become part of their general system, and it will be as much their own line as any other part. If the hon. Gentleman will look at the schedule on page 14, which has been referred to by my hon. friend, he will see that we have taken further precautions. I refer to Clause 3 of the schedule, and not to Clause 2, which the hon. Gentleman opposite mentioned. Under Clause 3 the actual rates charged at the date of this agreement on the railway are not to be increased directly or indirectly without the consent of the Railway and Canal Commissioners. It provides, further, that the rates charged in respect of traffic conveyed on the railway shall, where higher, be reduced to the level of the rates charged by the purchasers in respect of corresponding traffic conveyed or carried under similar circumstances, and for similar distances on the Northern Counties Railway; and, lastly, that the purchasers shall afford at least the same facilities to the public as 694 at present, and shall in no way or under no circumstances work or use the railway to prejudicially affect the full and free flow of traffic of every description over the same for and from Dublin, Belfast, Londonderry, Larne, and all intermediate points. I think the hon. Gentleman will see that while it is the duty of the Treasury to consider the interest of the taxpayers, who have made this line, we have not been unmindful of the interests of the district, and we have done all that we fairly could do to secure that those interests would be safeguarded by the agreement we have made for the sale of the line. I very much hope the House will read this Bill a second time, and if there be any questions in dispute I think they may safely be left for settlement by the Committee. I do not think the objections raised are such as ought to induce the House to refuse its assent to the Bill.
§ MR. MURNAGHAN (Tyrone, Mid)wished to know who would be responsible to this House for the precautions alluded to being carried out. The House ought not to part with the control of an Irish railway without serious consideration. There ought to be somebody in the House of Commons to answer complaints about Irish railways, for at the present time they had no department to which they could apply for information in regard to railway matters. He thought he was entitled to have some information from the Government as to how these precautions were secured.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINAny aggrieved person has his remedy, and he will not need the assent of the Government or of any Government department.
§ MR. MURNAGHANsaid that they had been told that there would be other opportunities to consider their grievances, and that this was not a question of great public utility. But he maintained that the House of Commons should insist that some person representing the department of the State responsible should be there to see that those arrangements were properly enforced. At the present moment they could get no redress for private grievances in regard 695 to railways in Ireland. They were told by the Clerks at the Table that they should go before the Railway Commissioners, but the Railway Commissioners had no standing in this House, and he declined to be shunted about by the Clerks at the Table.
§ MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member would have other opportunities of raising grievances of this kind. Details could not be gone into upon this occasion.
§ MR. MURNAGHANsaid that a Member of the House of Commons was entitled to see that any law passed by Parliament was enforced, and he maintained that they should not give a Second Reading to a Bill without getting some assurance that the arrangements made in that Bill would be carried out.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELL (Tyrone, S.)hoped the hon. Gentleman would not persist in his opposition to the Second Reading of the Bill. He thought the Treasury had made a very fair bargain, under all the circumstances. The Treasury would get £65,000, where, without this agreement, they would have got nothing.
§ MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAINsaid the Treasury would receive £85,000. The £20,000 for the shareholders was in addition to the sum paid to the Treasury.
§ *MR. T. W. RUSSELLsaid that that made the case better than he thought, and therefore that the Treasury had made the best possible settlement by arranging for the purchase of the line by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company. He wished, however, to draw the attention of the House to one matter which would require consideration. If there was one line of railway in Ireland that had been badly managed, and was a nuisance rather than an advantage to the country, it was the Derry Central Railway. Many a long and weary hour he had spent at Magherafelt Junction. What he wanted to direct attention to in the agreement of purchase by the Belfast and Northern Counties Company 696 was that the latter were not required to give any better facilities to the public than the Derry Central had done. Of course, it would be to their interest to do so, but if they did not agree to do that he would oppose the Bill when it came down from Committee.
§ MR. JAMES O'CONNOR (Wicklow, W.)agreed that the interests of the taxpayers had been fairly well looked after in the agreement, but he thought the shareholders had some ground of complaint against the Government. When the Government advanced £100,000 to the Derry Central Company, that seemed a guarantee to investors that the railway was going to be a success, whereas it appeared that the Government were aware that the undertaking could not possibly be successful.
§ Question put, and agreed to.
§ Bill read a second time, and committed.