Lords Sitting of 17 December 1928

Preamble
The House met at a quarter past four of the clock, The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Cosmo Gordon, the Lord Archbishop of Canterbury—Was (in the usual manner) introduced.
MINISTRY OF HEALTH PROVISIONAL ORDERS (No. 6) BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order) on re-commitment of the Bill: Amendments proposed by the Committee made.
PUBLIC WORKS LOANS BILL.
House in Committee (according to Order): Bill reported without Amendment.

WESTERN HIGHLANDS AND ISLANDS (TRANSPORT SERVICES) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (THE DUKE OF SUTHERLAND): My, Lords, this Bill is really a measure agreed between all parties and is required to carry out new arrangements which have been made with the assistance of the Government for transport services to the Western Highlands and Islands of Scotland. Until October, 31, 1928, the services in question were provided by Messrs. David MacBrayne, Limited, under an agreement with the Government. For certain reasons that company has given up the services and is in process of liquidation. Its vessels and other assets have been acquired by a new company called David MacBrayne (1928) Limited, which is now carrying on the services under a contract for ten years

661
with the Government. The formation of this new company is part of a scheme recommended by a Select Committee of the House of Commons which has been adopted by the Government.
Under that scheme the shares of the new company are to be held primarily by Coast Lines, Limited, or one of its subsidiary Companies, and by the London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company. The London and North Eastern Railway Company may possibly come in later. At the present time the only shareholder in the company is a subsidiary company of Coast Lines, Limited. The main purpose of this Bill is to enable a railway company to be authorised by the Ministry of Transport to hold shares in the new company. That is necessary in order to carry out the scheme which the Government have adopted. The capital which the railway company will subscribe is required to assist in providing four new vessels which the company are to build for the purpose of improving the existing services. The Bill also empowers a railway company to provide services in the Western Highlands and Islands by air, sea and land, with the assent of the Ministry of Transport.
Briefly the history of this question is that in April, 1928, the Government made a contract with the old MacBrayne Company for a period of five years. It required the provision of two, or possibly, three new vessels and some reductions in freight charges. The payment by the Government was £36,000 a year. When this contract was submitted for the approval of the House of Commons, as required by a Standing Order, there was considerable criticism of its provisions, and the Government thereupon agreed to refer it to a Select Committee for reconsideration. Shortly afterwards the MacBrayne Company, who had been subjected to considerable criticism in the debate in another place, intimated their retirement from the contract, but agreed to carry on the existing services until October 31, 1928. The Select Committee had therefore to consider the possibility of new arrangements. They issued a notice to the Press inviting firms or companies to submit proposals. No comprehensive offer having been submitted, the Select Committee decided to prosecute a search on their own account, and they invited
662
representatives of the London, Midland and Scottish Railway and London and North Eastern Railway Companies and Coast Lines, Limited, to discuss the situation with them. Eventually, at the request of the Committee, two alternative schemes were submitted and in their Report the Select Committee recommended these schemes to the attention of the Government.
The Government decided to adopt one of these schemes as a general basis, and after lengthy negotiations with representatives of Coast Lines, Limited, and the railway company, they concluded, on November 16, the contract with the newly registered MacBrayne Company. This contract was approved by a Resolution of the House of Commons on November 20, 1928. It provides for the construction of four new vessels and for a larger measure of reduction of freights and fares than the abortive contract. The payment by the Government is a maximum of £50,000 a year, as compared with the fixed payment of £36,000 a year under the abortive contract. As I have already stated, the services are now being worked by the new company under this contract, but its full operation requires the participation of the railway company, in particular for the purpose of securing the necessary capital to provide the new vessels for the improvement of the services. The new arrangements for the services in the Western Highlands and Islands have been very favourably received. The new contract, as I have told your Lordships, was approved by the House of Commons on November 20, and the Bill passed through the House of Commons without amendment. Its early passage is desirable in order that the arrangements may speedily be put into full operation and, in particular, that the construction of the four new vessels may be proceeded with. I beg to move.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(The Duke of Sutherland.)
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE): My Lords, I do not rise with any intention of criticising the scheme that has been outlined by the noble Duke, nor, above all, with any intention of opposing the arrangements that have been made, but I think that I ought to draw your Lordships' attention in a few words to the

663
rather remarkable form of this Bill. As I understand it, the intention of the Bill is to empower a railway company to subscribe part of the capital of another company. That is nothing unusual, either for a railway company or for any other company, but I do not quite understand why it should not be done in the ordinary way, by one clause in a Railway Bill. This would have been the method which your Lordships always prefer, for you would have had specifically outlined in the clause what is being done, instead of passing a Bill of this kind, which is in very general terms. The noble Duke says that the Bill is merely to carry out an agreed arrangement between the parties. Your Lordships will see that it is in very wide terms indeed. It begins:—
"If there is incorporated, whether before or after the passing of this Act, a company having for its principal objects—"
and so on, and it then outlines, in very general terms, what can be done. I think it would be a pity if this were to become part of the ordinary procedure of Parliament. I think that the existing procedure is much better because it gives people quite definitely the powers that they want, after Parliamentary criticism, and it gives them nothing more. I think that it is dangerous to be too general in your language on these occasions.
EARL BEAUCHAMP: My Lords, I venture to hope that His Majesty's Government will give us a little time in which to think this Bill over. I am always suspicious when we are told that a Bill is an agreed Bill, especially if it means increased expenditure north of the Tweed. I think you generally find that there are a number of people who are not quite so ready to agree to the Bill as we are sometimes led to expect. This Bill was, I think, read a first time only last Wednesday, and I do not think it is very much to ask of His Majesty's Government that, they should allow us to consider it in Committee and on Third Reading after Christmas. The noble Duke, in moving the Second Reading, told us that there had been a great deal of controversy with regard to this Bill in its early stages, or perhaps not so much in regard to the Bill itself as to the negotiations that led to its being introduced. I hope, therefore, that the noble
664
Marquess will be good enough to allow me to consult my friends in Scotland before the Bill is put down for the Committee stage.
LORD PARMOOR: My Lords, let me say one word in reference to what was said by the Lord Chairman. I entirely agree with him, if I understood him aright. In the ordinary course a provision of this kind would appear in a Private Bill. Due notice would have been given to everyone, and everyone interested would have had the right to appear and be heard before a Committee of your Lordships' House or of the other House, as the case may be. I quite agree with the noble Earl, Lord Beauchamp. We have no knowledge of this matter, which is merely described in general terms in the first subsection of Clause 1. I do not want in any sense to oppose the Bill, for I know nothing about it, but I do suggest that on future occasions the ordinary procedure should be followed. I think it is very important in our procedure in these matters that everybody should have notice, that every interested person should have an opportunity of being heard, and that we should then know what the agreed arrangement is.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (THE MARQUESS of SALISBURY): My Lords, there is no question whatever that, any departure from established practice ought to be viewed with great jealousy. I understand that in this particular case the difficulty is something of this kind. The railway company had no desire whatever to enter upon this business. It was not worth their while to take much trouble about it, and they were not prepared to undergo the expense of promoting a Bill in Parliament. The line that they took was that, if His Majesty's Government thought that this was in the public interest, by all means let them go ahead, but the company did not want to be asked to undertake the burden and expense involved in a Private Bill. Upon those grounds, and with a view to studying the public interest in these localities, this Bill was promoted.
I was certainly under the impression until I came down to the House this afternoon, that this Bill was quite uncontroversial, and it, was for that reason that I provisionally sanctioned the variation from the rule which, I hope, is

665
becoming established in your Lordships' House, that business should not be unduly hurried through. But three noble Lords, each of them holding a position of the greatest importance in your Lordships' House, have called the procedure in question, and I would suggest, therefore, that we should proceed in this way. If your Lordships will allow us to have the Second Reading to-day, I will make it my personal business to inquire between now and to-morrow as to the exact bearing of all the circumstances of the case. If I am able to satisfy your Lordships to-morrow that there is no reason to delay the Bill, then I should ask leave to take the other stages on successive days and pass the Rill through as an uncontroversial Bill If, on the other hand, I am not able to satisfy myself and your Lordships, then I shall place myself in the hands of your Lordships before I proceed further.
On Question, Bill read 2ª, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

CONSOTIDATED FUND (No. 1) BILL.
Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
THE EARL or PLYMOUTH: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
Moved, That the Bill he now read 2ª.—(The Earl of Plymouth.)
On Question, Bill read 2ª: Committee negatived.

HOUSE OF LORDS OFFICES.
Order of the Day read for the consideration of the First Report by the Select Committee.
The Committee reported inter alia:—
1. RE-APPOINTMENT OF SUB-COMMITTEES.
The Sub-Committee on the Library was reappointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Marquess of Crewe,

The Earl of Ilchester,

The Viscount Finlay,

The Lord Wigan (Earl of Crawford),

The Lord Hylton,

The Lord Colebrooke,

The Lord Ernle,

The Lord Darling,

With the Clerk of the Parliaments.
The Sub-Committee on the Refreshment Department was re-appointed, consisting of the following Lords:—

The Earl of Clarendon,

The Viscount Younger of Leckie,

The Lord Muir Mackenzie,

The Lord Lambourne,

With the Clerk of the Parliaments
2. APPOINTMENT OF ASSISTANT LIBRARIAN.
The Committee approved the recommendation of the Library Sub-Committee to appoint Mr. Frank G. G. Carr to the office of Assistant Librarian. The appointment to date from the 1st January next.
THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now considered and adopted.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

CONSOLIDATION BILLS.
LORD MUIR MACKENZIE: My Lords, in moving the Motion that stands in my name on the Paper, I find that the last of the names of the proposed members of the Committee has been incorrectly printed, and I would ask your Lordships to allow me to substitute the name of Lord Warrington of Clyffe for that of Lord Blabesburgh. With that correction, I beg to move.
Moved, That a Committee of five Lords be appointed to join with a Committee of the House of Commons as a Joint Committee to consider all Consolidation Bills, which are not Private Bills, in the present Session:
That the Lords following be named of the Committee—

E. Lucan,

L. Sandhurst,

L. Muir Mackenzie,

L. Askwith,

L. Warrington of Clyffe:

That such Committee have power to agree with the Committee of the House of Commons in the appointment of a Chairman.—(Lord Muir Mackenzie.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Ordered, That a Message be sent to the Commons to acquaint them therewith, and to request them to appoint five members of that House to be joined with the said Committee.
House adjourned at twenty minutes before five o'clock.