HC Deb 26 June 1906 vol 159 cc891-4

Order for Third Reading read (King's consent signified.)

Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Bill be now read the third time."

MR. O'SHEE (Waterford, W.),

in moving the rejection of the Bill, said the House of Commons was being asked by this railway company to allow them to evade the Parliamentary obligations which they undertook in 1898. Under the Bill the counties concerned were being asked to contribute £25,000 out of the public funds for the purpose of completing the link line which the railway company solemnly undertook to build with their own money. The county of Waterford, a part of which he had the honour of representing, had a strong moral claim that the fund out of which this money had been promised should be devoted to purposes for the benefit of the county. Waterford in the past undertook an enormously heavy guarantee for the building of this railway, and it was afterwards found that the line could not be completed for the £280,000 which was the full extent of the capital raised by the company, and consequently an application was made for a loan to enable them to complete the line, and they obtained a loan of £93,000. The county ratepayers were not consenting parties to the arrangement, but they got, in consideration of their guarantee of £14,000 a year, a right to the surplus profits of the company in excess of the 5 per cent, interest on the £280,000 share capital. Just at the time when it seemed likely that the county ratepayers might be recouped for the enormous amount they found for maintaining the railway an arrangement for the purchase of the line under an agreement with two other railway companies was made. When the through route was completed the ratepayers expected some recoupment of the large advances they had made during all those years, but nevertheless they consented to forego their claim to be recouped the £292,000 they had paid, which had been increased to £350,000, in consideration of those companies building a direct line from Cork to Fermoy, and the ratepayers got a remission of half the £14,000 a year, but were still liable for £7,000 a year. Parliament was now being asked to allocate some of this money for the benefit of people who had never spent a penny upon the undertaking. He heartily approved of the works that were to be done under the Bill, but these railway companies, having come under obligations to Parliament, should be asked by Parliament to discharge them. There was no excuse for them whatever. Hon. Members on that side of the House who were supporting the Bill were guilty of complicity in helping the companies to evade their Parliamentary obligations. A large proportion of the ratepayers of the county of Cork were not in favour of the allocation of the money which would be made if the scheme in the Bill were carried out, for they had hoped that it would be devoted to the making of the Cork and Fermoy direct line. They were not in favour of an allocation of the money which would relieve these railway companies of their obligations. In his own experience of Parliament he had never known such a flagrant evasion of Parliamentary obligations. The Committee who considered the Bill were not to blame for passing it, because they had not before them all the evidence which could be brought forward against it. The question which the House had to decide was whether the Treasury was to be allowed to give £25,000 to enable the railway companies to evade their obligations. He did not see why the House should help them with public funds to get out of their undertakings. Parliament should treat with scant ceremony any Bill promoted by these companies until they had carried out the obligations they had already undertaken in the matter. He begged to move.

MR. POWER (Waterford, E.),

in seconding said he had all along thought that the case against the Bill was unanswerable. The Treasury was now going to do what on two previous occasions it had refused to do, namely, to assist two great companies to evade their statutory obligations. In corroboration of the views laid before the House, he would read an extract from a speech delivered by the Chairman of the hybrid Committee who considered this matter some years ago. Speaking in this House on July 23rd, 1901, with reference to the construction of the Cork and Fermoy Railway, Sir U. Kay-Shuttleworth, now Lord Shuttle-worth, said: Before he sat down he would refer to the idea mooted by the company, that they would offer an alternative to the construction of this railway. But what did they offer? They offered as an alternative to carry out a second obligation—one of many, but a second obligation which they equally solemnly undertook, namely, with the cooperation of the City of Cork, to connect this new system with that particular district for the benefit of the fishing and agricultural industries. He hoped the House of Commons and the Government would not for a moment entertain the idea that, because the company offered to carry out one of their obligations, they therefore, should be let off carrying out the other. That was the view of a Gentleman who had studied the matter well. The Bill would probably get through its various stages, and he wished to know whether it would be competent for the Treasury to put an estimate on the Paper during the autumn session for the money which the company was to receive, or whether it must be deferred until next year, when they would have further opportunity of discussing the matter and of showing the scandalous way in which the railway companies had acted.

Amendment proposed— To leave out the word 'now,' and to add the words 'upon this day three months'"—(Mr. O Shee.)

Question proposed, "That the word 'now' stand part of the Question."

THE FINANCIAL SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY (Mr. MCKENNA, Monmouthshire, N.)

said he hoped the hon. Member for West Waterford would excuse him if he did not answer him in detail. He would remind the hon. Gentleman that this subject had been fully debated at various stages, and that after every argument that could be used had been heard the House was in favour of the Bill by 196 votes to 27 against. After such a crushing defeat he should have thought that the hon. Member would not have had the courage to discuss the case again. He would have ample opportunity of discussing the whole question when the £25,000 was put on the Estimates next year. He trusted that the Bill would now be read a third time.

Main Question put, and agreed to. Bill read the third time, and passed.