§ Mr. WATTasked the Secretary for Scotland whether an Order called the Caledonian Railway Order, 1912, was promoted this Session by the Caledonian Railway Company; whether the preamble of this Order was found proved subject to a Clause being put in prohibiting the use of certain lands in Oban for a herring kippering factory; whether the company sought ineffectively to induce him to override this agreed upon Clause; whether the company are promoting in the 1913 Session of Parliament a new Order leaving out the valuable Clause; and, if so, what action he proposes to take to prevent rich companies wearing out poorer opponents who may win in the first and second rounds?
Mr. McKINNON WOODThe answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. The Order as introduced contained a Clause which was opposed by certain owners and occupiers of property in Open, with the result that the Commissioners who inquired into it inserted a protective Clause of the nature mentioned in the question. Whether this Clause was an agreed Clause is a question as to which the parties differed. The company subsequently approached me with a request to delete the Clause, but were informed that I was unable to do so, whereupon the company withdrew the Order. It is the case that the company are promoting a new 2297W Order without the protective Clause. This course is within their rights according to the practice of Parliament, and I have no power to prevent such action.