FERRIES (ACQUISITION BY LOCAL AUTHORITIES) BILL. [H.L.] (Hansard, 29 March 1911)

VISCOUNT GALWAY
My Lords, I ask you to give a Second Reading to this Bill because it is to remedy a grievance. There is not sufficient power under the County Councils Act to enable a county council to take over a ferry. I will give your Lordships a distinct instance where there has been great hardship. There are two bridges over the River Trent ten miles apart, and there is a ferry half way between the two bridges which has been in existence for centuries, but at present the ferry has ceased to exist because the riparian owner will not choose to put a boat on it and no deed has been found under which it would be possible for us to compel that riparian owner to take those steps. Neither is there power under the Act to enable the county council in conjunction with other county councils to take over and carry on the ferry. I ought to say that both counties are put to the expense of keeping the county road open to the edge of the river, and although everybody sees a ferry marked on the map, they find, when they get there, only a very little boat, and even that may not always be there. I ask your Lordships, therefore, to admit the principle of this Bill which is that a county council should be enabled either by themselves or in conj unction with a neighbouring county council to take over a ferry and work it, to put on whatever tolls may be necessary, and 761 generally to carry it on for the convenience of the public.

§ LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH
One word, my Lords, in support of this Bill, which is greatly supported by the county councils in England. I am glad to say that since the Bill appeared in 1905 it has been considerably improved by giving to county councils the power not only of acquiring a ferry but also of freeing it.

§ LORD ALLENDALE
My Lords, I cannot say that I had very much knowledge of this question before the Bill which the noble Viscount has just introduced was brought to the notice of the House. The noble Viscount has given an example of the inconveniences that arise in certain districts owing to perhaps an old-established ferry very often not being in working order, or where the private owner has taken no steps to work it, or has discontinued working it, the machinery and plant having got into bad order. In such a case the local authority have apparently no power to take over the ferry. I think the noble Viscount has certainly made out a prima facie case for the Bill, and the Government have no intention of opposing it, 'and would be glad to support him in 762 carrying out its principle. A similar Bill was, I understand, introduced in 1905 in another place by Mr. Grant Lawson, but it made no progress, although it was supported by the Local Government Board at that time. I believe that that Bill did not propose that the county council should be the local authority for the purposes of the Bill. There does not, however, seem to be any objection to this proposal. But as a ferry is very often of more purely local utility than of general county utility, I think it would probably he sufficient if the urban district council or the rural district council should be the authority; and if a ferry was serving a larger area the several rural district councils or perhaps the county council with the other local authorities concerned should have power to join to contribute towards the expenses incurred. This is a point which might, perhaps, be considered in Committee. As I have said, the Government have no wish to oppose this Bill. On the contrary, they support it, and although it cannot have widespread application it will prove of utility in certain districts, as is shown by the example which the noble Viscount gave us this evening.