HL Deb 23 July 1901 vol 97 cc1250-2

Bill read 3a (according to Order).

THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Lord BALFOUR of BURLEIGH)

My Lords, it is necessary for me to ask your Lordships to allow some Amendments to be inserted in this Bill, Amendments which, after consultation with the Chairman of Committees, it was not thought expedient I should make upon my own authority, inasmuch as they contravene the Standing Orders of this House. The circumstances are these: When a local authority is given power to make and work a tramway in the district of another local authority, that is only done subject to the restriction that the second local authority, after a certain period of years, usually fixed at twenty-one or forty-two years, may purchase and work the tramway for itself. Variations of this order are not altogether unknown, although, perhaps, there is no such conspicuous instance of the order having been varied as in the case of Glasgow. In 1875, Glasgow was given in perpetuity the power to make and work tramways in a district subject to another local authority, but immediately contiguous to its borders. This policy has been continued, and power was given to extend them in 1879, 1885, 1893, and 1899. The present order is promoted largely in the interests of districts outside the city of Glasgow, and the extensions which it proposes to make are undertaken at the instance of the inhabitants of those districts and with the concurrence of the various local authorities interested. All these local authorities are willing that the extensions should be made on the same terms as those agreed to in previous extensions of the Corporation tramways into their territory, and I think it would be a serious matter if Parliament were now to withdraw from the policy it has pursued for so many years in regard to the Glasgow tramways. I do not anticipate any opposition from my noble friend the Chairman of Committees to the insertion of these Amendments, but we thought this course should be taken in the House and not simply on the authority of the Secretary for Scotland.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (The Earl of MORLEY)

My Lords, my noble friend is quite right in thinking that I do not propose to offer any opposition to the Amendments. I would remind the House that the case of Glasgow is absolutely unique. Ever since 1870, five years before the date my noble friend mentioned, Glasgow have obtained powers to extend their tramways beyond the district over which they have municipal control, without being confined by the action of the Standing Order or of the clause of the Bill of 1870, which gave the local authorities through whose district the tramways were constructed power of purchase. Under these circumstances I have had communications with my noble friend on the subject, and I have had an opportunity of hearing what the Corporation of Glasgow think with regard to it. It appears that the extensions of tramways proposed this year are not very large, and, to a considerable extent, though perhaps not absolutely, they take in a given area. It would be extremely inconvenient if this particular system of tramways were constructed on different terms and on different conditions from the tramways already in existence, and I think the House would do well to allow the concession asked for to the Corporation of Glasgow. But I do not think it is a concession that ought to be allowed in every future extension of tramways. I put that in a sort of caveat. I think future cases must be considered carefully on their merits, but in this particular case I cannot advise your Lordships to oppose the Amendments.

THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWN

My Lords, I do not differ in any way from what the two noble Lords have said in regard to these Amendments, but I rise to make a protest against Glasgow claiming to have a right to purchase tramways out and out. I was in Scotland this year upon a Commission which had to inquire into one or two cases similar to this, and the Corporation of Glasgow appeared. They mentioned that in several cases Parliament had allowed them to purchase their tramways absolutely, and they founded on that a claim that they must be allowed to purchase outright any tramways they were allowed to make. If you give to any corporation an absolute right to purchase tramways, you extend their fingers into the districts of other local authorities, and give them a sort of prima facie claim towards at some time absorbing those local authorities. I merely say this for the purpose of expressing a hope that no Committees or Commissions will ever treat this claim on the part of Glasgow as anything in the nature of a right. So far as I know, it has been done in no other case except that of Glasgow, and why the Corporation of Glasgow, excellent as their management is, should be given by Parliament, or should claim to have from Parliament, a right of purchase which is not conceded to any other local authority, I do not know.

Amendments agreed to.

Bill passed, and sent to the Commons.