§ 66. Mr. FORDasked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport whether he is aware of the serious hardship entailed upon large numbers of small investors whose sole capital is locked up in North British Railway stock by the Government's action in refusing to accept the finding of the Railway and Canal Commissioners with regard to the £430,000 deducted by the Government from the company's claim for December, 1920, for actual expenditure on repairs of engines and wagons, and in deducting from the company's claim for the first 7½ months of 1921 further sums of £690,000 actually expended on repairs of engines and wagons; and whether, in view of the growing resentment on the part of all interested in the railway and its stocks because of the impression that is gaining ground that the Government are purposely preventing the early trial by the chosen arbitrators of the real dispute between the parties with a view to postponing payment as long as possible, the Government will expedite legal proceedings?
§ Mr. NEALI am fully aware of the hardship involved to shareholders who do not receive their dividends, but I cannot agree that the Government is responsible therefor. The hon. Member alleges that the Government refused to accept a decision of the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and I can only presume that he is unaware that this finding was reversed by a unanimous decision of the Court of Session. He further implies that the Government is improperly seeking to prevent or delay the trial of a dispute with the company. There is no foundation for this suggestion. The only dispute which can arise is whether the company, in compiling their account, have given credit for the receipts due to the Government and charged only the expenditure for which the Government is liable, and that issue cannot be formulated until the company have rendered their final claim in the agreed manner and until such claim has been examined in the usual way. The hon. Member will perceive that the claim is not simply one of actual expenditure upon rolling stock, though I may point out that upon repairs of rolling stock alone the company claims about £2,000,000 more than their charge 953 in 1913, after that charge has been adjusted to meet the increase in wages and prices—
§ Mr. FORDDoes it convey an accurate impression to say that the finding was reversed by the Court of Session on the facts; and are we to take this necessarily lengthy and detailed answer as really implying that the Government is not going to take refuge behind a technicality but will endeavour, as soon as possible, in the interests of the shareholders, to have this matter decided?
§ Mr. SPEAKERThis is not a time for speeches by Members, or by Ministers. Lengthy and detailed answers should always be circulated in the OFFICIAL BEPORT.
§ The following is the completion of the reply prepared:
§ I received from the company on the 24th instant an account for £13,978,419 6s. 2d., against which they state that they have received on account £12,222,711 16s. 3d., and claim a balance of £1,755,707 9s. 11d. without prejudice to other claims not stated. The company filed an application to the Court on the 23rd instant, the day before I received their account. It would be improper for me to discuss the matter now, but I explained the position fully to a deputation consisting of directors and shareholders on the 14th of March, and am sending the hon. Member a copy of the statement then issued.