HL Deb 21 March 1901 vol 91 cc667-71
LORD MONKSWELL

My Lords. I rise to call the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary of the Board of Trade to the dangerous condition of the Ludgate Hill and Snow Hill passenger stations, and to ask whether the matter has been brought to the notice of the Board, and whether the Board can take any steps to compel the South-Eastern

On Question, their Lordships divided: —Contents, 45; Not Contents, 51. Resolved in the negative.

CONTENTS.
Argyll, D. Scarbrough, E. De Freyne, L.
Bedford, D. Spencer, E. Heneage, L.
Hobhouse, E.
Ripon, M. Falkland, V. Monkswell, L.
Wolseley, V. [Teller.] Muncaster, L.
Camperdown, E. Northbourne, L.
Carlisle, E. Aberdare, L. Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)
Carnwath, E. Acton, L. Reay, L.
Carrington, E. Annaly, L. Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)
Dartrey, E. Brassey, L. Sandhurst, E.
Feversham, E. Braye, L. Tweedmouth, L.
Lichfield, E. Chelmsford, L. Wandsworth, L.
Northbrook, E. [Teller.] Crofton, L. Wantage, L.
Portsmouth, E. Davey, L. Welby, L.
NOT-CONTENTS.
Halsbury, E. (L. Chancellor.) Morley, E. Cottesloe, L.
Mount Edgeumbe, E. Dunboyne, L.
Northesk, E. Dunmore, L. (E. Dunmore.)
Devonshire, D. (L. President.) Roberts of Kandahar, E. Fairlie, L. (E. Glasgow.)
Stanhope, E. Haliburton, L.
Salisbury, M. (L. Priry Seal.) Strange, E. (D. Athole.) Harlech, L.
Tankerville, E. Hothfield, E.
Vane, E. (M. Londonderry.) James, E.
Marlborough, D. Verulam, E. Kelvin, E.
Waldegrave, E. [Teller.] Kintore, L. (E. Kintore.)
Ailesbury, M. Westmeath, E. Lawrence, L. [Teller.]
Hertford, M. Wharncliffe, E. Lindley, E.
Lansdowne, M. Manners of Haddon, E. (M. Granby.)
Clarendon, E. (L. Chamberlain) Llandaff, V.
Montengle of Rrandon, L.
Cranbrook, E. Manchester. L. Bp. Newton, L.
Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.) Rochester, L. Bp. Raglan, E.
Robertson, L.
Hardwicke, E. Aldenham, L. Rosmead, E.
Harewood, E. Ashbourne, L. Sinclair, E.
Howe, E. Avebury, L. Somerton, L. (E. Normanton.)
Leven and Melville, E. Bateman, E. Stanmore, E.
Lindsey, E. Belhaven and Stenton, L. Stratheden and Campbell, E.
Lucan, E. Btythswood, L. Windsor, E.
Mansfield, E. Cotville of Gulross, L.

and London, Chatham, and Dover Bail-way Companies to make more adequate provision for the safety and accommodation of the public. In calling attention to this matter I am acting with the approval of the Corporation of the City of London. The facts with regard to Ludgate Hill Station are as follow: The Corporation of the City of London called attention to the state of this station as far back as the end of 1898, and in January, 1899, they made a specific complaint to the Board of Trade. Sir John Monckton wrote— I am directed to point out that the station is merely a timber structure, badly lighted, and has more the appearance of a temporary building than a station of considerable importance; that the approaches to the station and platforms are inadequate and badly arranged; that the platforms, which have to serve both the up and the down traffic, are very low and narrow, and are in consequence a source of danger to passengers, particularly where the staircases occupy a large portion of the platform; that there is insufficient lavatory accommodation, and that the arrangements, generally, are ill-adapted to the exigencies of modern requirements and the increasing traffic.

The Board of Trade took the matter up, and the City Corporation heard nothing more about it till the end of October, 1899, when the Hoard of Trade sent to the Corporation a, letter from the General Manager of the railways, in which it was stated that plans were being prepared showing what improvements could be effected, especially with regard to the access to the platforms. But from that time to this nothing whatever has been done, except to improve the lighting of the station. What the company say is that if they are to do any good they must spend a, large sum of money to obtain compulsory powers to purchase. The City Corporation do not admit the plea of the companies that they can do nothing without compulsory powers of purchase; on the contrary, they (the Corporation) think that a very great improvement could be effected by utilising the vacant land that the companies have at the station itself, and that, comparatively, at small expense.

With regard to Snow Hill Station, the question of the insufficiency of the accommodation was originally taken up by the County Council in April, 1899. The Council complained of inadequate traffic accommodation, and made various suggestions, with which I shall not trouble your Lordships. Three days afterwards—on 8th April— the secretary to the companies replied to the effect that he hoped to be in a position to write definitely in a week or two. There the matter rested till 9th January, 1900 — about nine months— when the County Council thought it was time they got an answer. They wrote asking for a reply by 15th January. They got no answer, and up to 22nd November last they had received no answer to their letters beyond a formal acknowledgment. The County Council then handed the correspondence over to the Corporation of the City of London. This is the statement of the City Corporation with regard to this station— The station is entirely in a tunnel, and the line is on a curve at that point. It is extremely dangerous by reason of the steam, smoke, etc., having no means of escape, and consequently obscuring the lights. The want of ventilation is aggravated by bad sanitary accommodation on the platforms.

One would naturally suppose that in a matter of this kind the Railway Commissioners would have jurisdiction, but I am told that the Board of Trade have come to the conclusion that the Railway Commissioners have no jurisdiction. I am also told that the Board of Trade have no jurisdiction, and it does not seem that there is any power anywhere to compel these railway companies to do that which it is their obvious duty to do. These companies have come to your Lordships' House for a Bill to give them further powers. Under the circumstances, I should have thought that their conduct was so contumacious that I should be justified in moving an instruction to the Committee that they should take into consideration the condition of those stations before agreeing to the Bill. But I do not propose to take that course, for I know your Lordships have a great objection to interfering with the discretion of any of your Committees. It certainly does appear to me, however, that as there is apparently no other means of compelling the railway companies to do their duty, this is a case in which the Committee might very well take into consideration the conduct of these companies with regard to these stations. I hope the, noble Lord who will reply to this question will say that this is his view also. Perhaps he will at the same time say whether he does not consider it to la; an unsatisfactory state of things that neither the Railway Commissioners nor the Board of Trade have any jurisdiction, in this matter; and I hope that when the Bill which is being promoted by these companies gets before the Committee there will be some indication on the part of noble Lords that they think it desirable that the Committee should take some cognisance of the dereliction of duty to which I have called attention.

THE EARL OF HARDWICKE

In the absence of my noble friend the Secretary to the Board of Trade, I have been asked to reply to the noble Lord 's question. Towards the close of his speech the noble Lord suggested that I should express my private opinion on certain matters connected with the, powers of the Board of Trade over this railway companies. I am sorry that I cannot do more than read the answer which has been forwarded to me from the Department. The Board of Trade have received no recent communication with regard to Snow Hill Station. As to Ludgate Hill Station, the attention of the Department has more than once been called to the matter, and they have been in communication both with the railway company and the Corporation of the City about the accommodation provided. The Board of Trade are not in a position to say that an improvement in the accommodation of Ludgate Hill Station is not desirable for the convenience and, to some extent, the safety of the public, but it must be obvious that any adequate alteration of the station would cost an enormous sum of money, and a comprehensive scheme might necessitate the alteration of the viaduct over Ludgate Hill, which would be a doubtful advantage to the public, and the Corporation would probably have good reason to object. The Board of Trade possess no legal powers under which they can compel the company to make alterations in either case, but the Department has used its good offices, with the result that the company have agreed to meet the Corporation with the view to the preparation of a plan for altering Ludgate Hill Station. The Board of Trade will continue to use their good offices, and, if necessary, instruct one of their inspecting officers to confer with the City Corporation and the company on the subject,