§ 66. Mr. BETTERTONasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Mr. E. Somerfield, of West Bridgford, Nottingham, who has a siding on the Midland Railway at Nottingham and has placed orders with Mr. A. W. Plumb, of Mansfield, for tar, whose siding 601 is also on the Midland Railway, is involved in an additional expense for cartage at both ends of the journey, amounting to £4 16s. for each 4-ton lot, by reason of the fact that this material has to be carried by the Great Central Railway in consequence of the system adopted by the railway companies for allocating traffic; and whether he will give directions that the present system be revised and altered with a view of avoiding the heavy loss incurred by traders in this and similar cases?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI was not aware of the particular case referred to in the question, but the attention of the Railway Executive Committee is being called to it. The railway companies are considering the arrangements which have been made, at Nottingham and elsewhere, for the allocation of traffic with the object of securing the most efficient handling of goods in the general public interest, and they will endeavour to minimise, as far as possible, any inconvenience caused by those arrangements.
§ Mr. ATKEYMay I ask the hon. Gentleman to bring pressure to bear on the Railway Executive, so that in allocating traffic they shall not divert it to a railway where the trader has no siding and that the trader shall be enabled where he has a siding on a particular railway to use that railway?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI think they endeavour to do that as far as possible.
§ 72. Mr. ATKEYasked the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that when the Midland station at Nottingham was built it was deemed necessary to provide three entrances and exits in order to accommodate the travelling public; that two of these are closed; that this is causing the greatest inconvenience both to arriving and departing passengers; and that great indignation prevails in Nottingham against the Government, who are held responsible for the refusal of the Midland Railway Company to reopen their entrance in Station Street; whether he is power-loss in the matter; and, if so, will he suggest what other authority can be approached?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANI am aware of the facts stated in the first part of the question, but for the reasons given in the reply to the question on the subject put by my hon. Friend on the 1st July, I fear the Board of Trade cannot press the railway company to reopen the two entrances and exits referred to.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKAre not the powers of the Board of Trade sufficient to prevent the railway company penning the travelling public in like sheep and inflicting upon them the very greatest inconvenience?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANThis is a question of economy, and I am not prepared to press the railway companies to indulge in extravagance, but if, of course, there was any danger to the public using the station, then it would be the duty of the Board of Trade to intervene.
§ Lord H. CAVENDISH-BENTINCKWill the hon. Gentleman accept my assurance that the station is a very crowded one and that a great number of people are suffering very great inconvenience?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANYes; but it is a question of danger. Most stations are crowded and very inconvenient.
§ Mr. ATKEYMay I ask when the question of economy is supposed to out-balance the public convenience? And will he ascertain from the railway company the exact alleged cost of this restriction on the travelling public in the city of Nottingham, so that we may be able to offer some remedy to the Board of Trade if they cannot find one?
§ Mr. BRIDGEMANIf he means that they are ready to bear the extra expense I will put the matter before the railway company.