HC Deb 25 July 1898 vol 62 cc1109-13
MR. H. LEWIS (Flint Boroughs)

I wish to offer a few remarks before this Bill is accorded a Third Reading, although I may say that I do not intend to oppose the Third Reading. This is the second of two Bills introduced for the purpose of widening a portion of the Chester and Holyhead line, and relieving the congestion of traffic. In itself that is a most desirable undertaking, and if carried out with due consideration for the interests of the traders of North Wales and those of the local authorities in the districts where the widening of the line interferes with public rights no one could raise any objection to it. The Bill in its original form lacks several necessary provisions to secure the rights of the road and other authorities whose interests are affected. Prolonged negotiations have taken place between those bodies and the railway company, with the result that fairly satisfactory arrangements have been arrived at. The Flintshire County Council has, however, had an immense amount of trouble to secure free and unimpaired access to Mostyn Quay, one of the most important ports on the river. It is essential that nothing should be done to prevent free and fair competition between the sea and the railway, and had it not been for the action of the county council the facilities of access to that port might have been very seriously curtailed. But there still remains unredressed an undoubted grievance on the part of the general body of traders on the Chester and Holyhead section of the London and North Western Railway. In 1896 an attempt was made by the county councils of Flintshire and Carnarvonshire to obtain a reduction of the maximum rates charged on this section. There can be no doubt that the rates that prevailed were more appropriate to a branch line than to one of the main lines of the London and North Western Railway Company, and a number of witnesses were brought to London to give evidence as to the high rates charged on this section of the railway. It is a remarkable and significant fact that, rather than face that inquiry or the action that might follow that inquiry, the railway company decided to withdraw their Bill for that year, and the evidence was therefore never published. The Bill was reintroduced in 1897, and in the meantime the company, having made concessions to individual traders, although not to the general body of traders, and the local authorities being unable to undertake the great cost of a fight on rates, and a great and powerful company has an enormous advantage over a small community in this respect, did not raise the question, nor has it been raised in connection with the Bill introduced this Session. But before the present Bill passes into law I think it right that a protest should be made against the existence of higher maximum charges for the carriage of goods under Table A than are charged on other portions of the main line, up to North Western Company's system. Here is a company whose traffic on a section of its line is so heavy that it is obliged to lay down two extra pains of rails, insisting upon maximum charges which up to 20 miles are 25 per cent, higher than on other portions of the main line up to 50 miles, 32 per cent, higher, and beyond 50 miles, 60 per cent, above the charges on many other parts of the main line. The Chester and Holyhead section is the most profitable line of the company. It carries the enormous Irish traffic of the company, and if there were neither goods nor passenger trainee on this railway, it would be well worth their while to maintain it for the sake of the Irish trade alone. In the early history of this railway it was right and proper that it should be allowed to charge exceptional rates; but the justification for such an imposition upon traders and the public has long ago ceased to exist. I have listened very carefully to the reasons given by the counsel who appeared for the company in 1896, why these exceptional rates should be maintained, and to every statement made on behalf of the company since then, but they have entirely failed to establish a case for special rates. The first reason assigned for their maintenance was that the question had been settled by the Joint Committee of both Houses which sat in 1891. Unfortunately the North Wales traders were not separately represented in a collective capacity before that Committee; only one trader appeared, and his interests were chiefly those of a branch line in Carnarvonshire. The traders on the Chester and Holyhead Railway were not represented, and a perusal of the Minutes of Evidence taken before the Committee of 1891 will show that there was no adequate presentation of their case before that Committee. The next argument was that the gathering ground of the Chester and Holyhead Railway was on one side of the line only, and that the sea prevented the company from having that amount of traffic which it would receive if it passed through the interior of the country. I will deal with that reason, and very briefly. ["Hear, hear" from the Ministerial benches.] Yes, but this is an important matter to North Wales, and I am trying to deal with it with every possible consideration to the London and North Western Railway. There are reasons which, in the case of the Chester and Holyhead Railway, make this argument absurdly inapplicable. The fact that the railway runs along the coast line has induced manufacturers to establish large concerns which would never have been started but for the convenience of water carriage, and those concerns have added very largely to the land traffic of the London and North Western Railway. Moreover, it is the presence of the sea which has caused the rapid rise of watering places on the North Wales Coast, which contributed largely to both the local and the through traffic of the line, and the very ruggedness of the coast lime, which the company put forward as a reason for exceptional rates on account of the increased cost of construction and maintenance, is an inducement to tens of thousands of holiday seekers to use their railway. But the question of exceptional cost of construction does not really arise, because the line has been bought by the company at a low price, and because the company has been allowed to charge very high rates for a very long period. Owing to the construction of the line along the coast the North Western has obtained all the positions of vantage, and it has become difficult for any other company to construct a parallel line along the sea front. Moreover, this line forms the chief connecting link between England and Ireland. It confers upon the North Western. Company the largest and most lucrative share of the Irish traffic. The fact that the company has come to Parliament for powers to widen their line shows that the volume of traffic has increased enormously; it also indicates that they are determined, if possible, to preserve their monopoly in North Wales. It is too expensive an undertaking for any public body in North Wales to fight the question of rates with a powerful and wealthy monopoly like the London and North Western. It is quite evident that the public are helpless in the matter, and that the only hope of removing a grievance from which the public of North Wales will continue to suffer is the entrance of a competing company into this very promising field. That event may not, perhaps, be very far distant, and it will probably be very considerably hastened by the determination of the company to maintain the maximum rates under Table A in the present unfair position. A conference of representatives of North Wales county councils has taken place, at which other great railway companies have been urged to extend their systems into North Wales, and that is only one of many indications of public opinion in the same direction. I speak without any feeling against the company, from whose officers in the country I have invariably received every consideration. It is simply a matter of business between the company and the public, who through Parliament have granted the company an extremely valuable and lucrative monopoly. I do not intend to vote against the Third Beading of the Bill, because the widening of the line is necessary to relieve the congestion of traffic. My only object in speaking is to protest against the continued existence of excessive maximum rates on the most profitable section of the main line of the London and North Western Railway.