RAILWAYS (PREVENTION OF ACCIDENTS) BILL. (Hansard, 13 July 1900)

§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD
I wish to add another important subsection to Clause 13. When the question of these accidents was before the Royal 1439 Commission their attention was called to the fact that there were certain railways in connection with factories and mines belonging to private owners which did not come under the Board of Trade or the Home Office. The Commission recommended that these lines should be brought in in some way, and my Amendment gives jurisdiction over them to the Home Office.

LORD AVEBUBY
My Lords, I beg to move an Amendment providing that new debentures or debenture stock issued may not be "in priority to" any existing debentures or debenture stock of the company. The Bill as it stands authorises the creation of a new charge in priority of the debentures which at present are by Statute a first charge on the companies concerned. The debenture - holders are not shareholders, but creditors. The majority of debenture stocks of our great English railways are stocks in which trustees are permitted to invest by Act of Parliament on the faith of their being, as they now are by law, a first charge upon the company, and it is now proposed for the first time to place another charge before them. I know it is argued that there is a precedent in an Act passed in 1889, but I venture to think that that Act is rather an example to be avoided than a precedent to be followed. It is not really a precedent. In that case the charge was created in the interest of the community as a whole; here it is for the benefit of a class—no doubt a very meritorious class, and for a very proper object; but still in the interest of a class. The acceptance of the Amendment would be no real hind- 1440 rance to the carrying out of the provisions of the Bill, because if any company was unable to raise the money it would go into the hands of a receiver, who would then be able to rearrange the debt. I submit that to over-ride the present law and the rights of present debenture-holders and place new creditors in priority to those who have at present by Act of Parliament a first charge is a very dangerous precedent. It is true that this Amendment was rejected in the House of Commons though brought forward by a Member of great weight and experience; but it came on late at night, and from what I have heard since, I have no doubt that under other circumstances it would have received the general support of Members with commercial experience. Second debentures are, as everyone knows, an inferior security. Millions of money—a large proportion in trust—have been invested in railway debenture stock on the faith of Parliamentary enactments that they are a first charge upon the undertakings. But if this Bill passes in its present form the existing debenture stocks will cease to be a first charge; they will sink to the position of second debentures. It is to maintain them in their present position, to uphold the character which Parliament has itself conferred on them, that I move to omit these words.

§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD
I mentioned in the Standing Committee the course which I thought it was right to take on this matter. The Government will not now adhere to the words "in priority to" for the reason that if we place all these debentures in priority to the other debentures we should place them in priority to the debentures of 1889. Therefore we will not maintain that position, but we must maintain the position that the debentures may be issued pari passu with any existing debentures or debenture stock of the company, I hope my noble friend and your Lordships will accept, if I may call it so, this compromise.

§ LORD AVEBURY
After what the noble and learned Lord has said, I withdraw my Amendment to omit the words ''pari passu with."

§ LORD JAMES OF HEREFORD
My Lords, before the question is put "that the Bill do pass," I should like to say that when this question was before the Royal Commission, it was stated, probably correctly, that many accidents which occur to railway servants result from their own conduct—not necessarily from un-meritorious conduct, but from excess of zeal. This is not a matter that legislation can deal with, as to punish railway servants for desiring to fully perform their duty is repugnant to their employers and to public feeling. Therefore, nothing has been done in this Bill in reference to these accidents. It has been suggested, and I have done my best to see whether it can be carried into effect, that the best course would be to form a Conciliation Board, composed of three representatives of the railway companies, three representatives of the men, and one independent and impartial person, to formulate rules and to suggest methods by which these accidents can be mitigated. Such a Board would also be of great assistance to the Board of Trade if they made suggestions as to the best rules that could be made for carrying out the provisions of this measure and so preventing accidents. I hope this suggestion will be carried into effect. It will be a most valuable supplement to this Bill, and will be a great service to the railway servants of this country.

CONTENTS.
Grafton, D.	Balfour, L.	Macnaghten, L. [Teller.]
	Boyle, L. (E. Cork and Orrery.)	Morris, L.
Ripon, M.	Brougham and Vaux, L.	Reay, L.
	Burghclere, L.	St. Levan, L.
Dartrey, E.	Clonbrock, L.	Sandhurst, L.
Egerton, E.	De Ramsey, L.	Sudley, L. (E. Arran.)
Kimberley, E.	Heneage, L. [Teller.]	Tweedmouth, L.
Spencer, E.	Herries, L.	Welby, L.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.)	Kenmare, L. [E. Kenmare.]	Windsor, L.
	Leigh, L.

NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.)	Denbigh, E.	Alverstone, L. [Teller.]
Devonshire, D. (L. President.)	Lindsey, E.	Calthorpe, L.
Cross, V. (L. Privy Seal.)	Morley, E.	Churchill, L.
	Mount Edgcumbe, E.	Farquhar, L.
Ailesbury, M.	Waldegrave, E.	James, L.
Salisbury, M.		Pirbright, L.
Zetland, M.	Frankfort de Montmorency,
	V. [Teller.]