HL Deb 08 March 1916 vol 21 cc295-301

Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2a.—(The Chairman of Committees.)

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My noble friend Lord Plymouth has given notice of his intention, in the event of this Bill being read a second time, to move— That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into consideration the traffic requirements at this point of the river, and the effect that this Bill, if passed, will have upon them, and to hear evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Society, and others on the treatment generally of this very important part of London. I think, however, it would be convenient that the discussion upon this Instruction should take place upon the Motion for the Second Reading of the Bill. Unfortunately, the noble Earl (Lord Plymouth) is unwell and unable to be present tonight, and he has asked me to take his place.

I understand that on the part of the railway company the proposed Instruction does not present insuperable difficulties. If that is so, it will be unnecessary for me to detain your Lordships at any length. There is, however, one point on which I ought to say something, because it may lead to misunderstanding. The word "traffic" in the Instruction of which Lord Plymouth has given notice does not refer to traffic on the river but to traffic over the river—not to traffic in ships and boats, but to vehicular traffic. It has been an old-standing question whether something might not be done to improve London traffic by giving facilities for vehicular traffic at this point. Your Lordships will agree, at any rate, that in that magnificent prospect of the Thames there is nothing so universally condemned as the appearance of Charing Cross railway bridge, and it is unfortunate that so far as one can gather from this Bill there is little or no prospect of an improvement in that respect. I am not sure that I can add anything useful until we have heard what is to be said by other noble Lords who are interested in this question. In any case I do not think there is any extreme urgency, and I deprecate very much the idea that this Bill should be hurried through without having plenty of opportunity for discussion and allowing public opinion outside to inform itself on the matter. The work certainly would not be proceeded with at once. Therefore there does not seem to be any particular reason for immediate action in the matter, and if there was any likelihood of opposition to this Instruction on the part of those who are anxious that the Bill should go through, I would ask your Lordships to defer the Second Reading until a subsequent date, when the noble Earl who has given notice of this Instruction might himself be present, and, out of completer information, speak to your Lordships more fully on the subject.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, perhaps I may say a word at this point, following the good example of the noble Earl, before we reach the Instruction of which Lord Plymouth has given notice. As regards actual urgency in dealing with this to-day, we are in a somewhat unfortunateposition. We have come down prepared to discuss the matter now; and as I understand from the noble Viscount opposite (Lord Chilston), who is in close touch with the railway company, that he does not object, to this Instruction being carried, I should have hoped that your Lordships would have been ready to deal with it to-day—subject only to this, that I am afraid I cannot go quite so far in complacency as the noble Viscount opposite. I know that your Lordships do not like Instructions to Committees—I believe one has not been passed for the last ten years; and Committees do not care to have their discretion fettered. Were this Instruction in its present form persisted in, I should have felt bound to ask your Lordships not to agree to it owing to the existence of the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river." A specific Instruction on such a point as this would have been most undesirable. After all, this is almost the most important point with which the Committee will have to deal when the will goes before them, as it is raised specifically in the Petitions which have been deposited against the Bill. The Port of London Authority, which is represented, by the noble Lord behind me, has lodged against the Bill a Petition which is mainly concerned with the traffic requirements at this point.

LORD DEVONPORT

It is to give us a locus standi to watch our interests.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

And, of course, the interests of the Port of London Authority are traffic requirements. In the same way there is a Petition from three gas companies, who use the river for bringing up supplies by barge; and this is concerned with traffic requirements. I must confess that I, like others, read the words in the Instruction as it stands on the Paper as referring to water traffic. I suggest that good English could be made of the Instruction if the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river" were omitted, and if, after the word "upon," we inserted the words "the appearance of the river." The Instruction I to the Committee would then be "to take into consideration the effect that this Bill, if passed, will have upon the appearance of the river, and to hear evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects, the London Society, and others on the treatment generally of this very important part of London." That would be giving a locus standi to the bodies referred to, and in the particular circumstances of London it is very desirable, in a case like this, that they should be heard. I believe that the railway company themselves would welcome the advice of these bodies on this subject. In that form I would gladly support the passing by your Lordships of some such Instruction as this. Whether any great scope will exist for the inquiries of these experts in the case of this particular Bill I do not know, as the Bill, after all, is concerned only with the strengthening of a part of the present Charing Cross railway bridge. But it is, in my opinion, desirable that they should be heard, and I think we should be setting a good precedent if your Lordships were to agree to the Instruction in some such words as I have suggested.

VISCOUNT CHILSTON

My Lords, perhaps it would be convenient if, on behalf of the promoters of this Bill, I stated their views. They are quite ready to agree to the instruction in the form suggested by the Lord Chairman—that is to say, they object to the Instruction so far as the words "the traffic requirements at this point of the river" are concerned, but they are prepared to agree to give a locus standi to the Royal Institute of British Architects and to the London Society, and to welcome their assistance in the matter. We think, however, that there is a good deal of misunderstanding with regard to the railway company's proposals in this Bill. Our proposals are for the strengthening of the existing bridge rather than the construction—for which we already have Parliamentary powers—of a new bridge alongside it, which we think would be a still greater disfigurement. I have heard it said that it is thought that if the bridge were afterwards removed at the instance of some philanthropic or public body for the purpose of the improvement of London, there would be more to pay in the way of compensation if the railway company's present proposals are carried out than would otherwise be the case. But I would point out that the new bridge which we have already Parliamentary powers to construct alongside the existing bridge would be a much greater impediment to river traffic; and, further, it would cost a great deal more money, and consequently additional compensation would have to be paid. So far as we arc concerned, all we want to do is to strengthen the existing bridge so as to enable it to carry to the full extent the traffic which is necessary in ordinary circumstances, and which necessitates the use of very much heavier locomotives. So far as the æsthetic appearance of the present bridge is concerned, the railway company are perfectly ready to admit that it is certainly unsightly, and they would be very glad to see the bridge removed but, after all, they are practical people, not philanthropists, and they are not prepared to build a new bridge for the benefit only of those who possess æsthetic tastes. But they are quite ready to welcome the assistance of the noble Earl (Lord Plymouth) and to admit any evidence from the Royal Institute of British Architects and from the London Society; and if your Lordships would agree to the Instruction as amended by the Chairman of Committees, so far as we, the railway company, are concerned we should raise no objection.

THE LORD PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL (THE MARQUESS OF CREWE)

My Lords, I hope that the House will fall in with the proposition made by my noble friend the Lord Chairman and agreed to by the noble Viscount opposite. I confess that, like, I believe, the rest of the House, I assumed that the word "traffic" as used in the Instruction placed on the Paper by my noble friend whose absence we all regret, referred to river traffic and to nothing else. It never occurred to me that the further but no doubt important point of the vehicular facilities of London by carriage bridges had entered into my noble friend's contemplation. I conceive that if your Lordships give this locus standi to the societies named in the Instruction, that particular point could be raised, if desired, amongst others in the evidence which those bodies might desire to give. In those circumstances I hope that my noble friend below the Gangway (Earl Beauchamp) will agree to the amendment of the Instruction which the Lord Chairman has suggested. On the general subject I would only say that I am sure we all agree that this question of a possible improvement in the appearance of the river at this point is one of supreme importance. I rejoice, therefore, that the Lord Chairman has cordially agreed to the admission of evidence of this character—rather unusual, I think I am right in saying, in Committees of your Lordships' House, but of a class which I am certain not only your Lordships but the public generally will be glad to see admitted.

LORD DEVONPORT

My Lords, I desire to take the opportunity of saying that the Instruction as it appears on the Paper did seem to impinge on the statutory rights of the Port of London Authority, and I am glad to hear that the wording of the Instruction is to be amended in a form which will give us no apprehension. I may remind your Lordships that Parliament committed to the predecessors of the Port of London Authority the control of the navigation of the river. We, the Port of London Authority, have inherited that responsibility, and we naturally watch every application that comes to Parliament to execute works or do anything that is calculated to impair or to interfere with in any shape or form the navigation of the river. We are petitioners against this Bill not with any hostile intention, but merely for the purpose of enabling us to have a locus standi to watch these important interests. It is satisfactory to understand that there is no desire to interfere with our statutory rights. That, of course, would be an unwarrantable interference with the powers and duties conferred upon the Port Authority by Parliament. So far as I am concerned, I shall be happy to support the Instruction in its amended form.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

My Lords, I am glad to think that we are all very near agreement in regard to this matter. I do not think there is any point of substance between us. But I submit to the Lord Chairman that his Amendment, to which I have no objection on any other ground, omits the use of the word "traffic." I do not know whether the noble Earl could see his way to the insertion of words providing that the Committee should consider "the treatment of traffic generally at this point of the river." That would bring in the question of traffic. If objection is taken to the insertion of some such words as these, I would suggest the postponement of this discussion so that we may have an opportunity of agreeing upon the wording of the Instruction. The striking out of the word "traffic" makes a very big difference in the Instruction as it appears on the Paper.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

If the noble Earl would insert "road" before "traffic," I would have no objection to his proposed words. But I object to any suggestion of including water traffic.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I suggest the words "vehicular traffic."

VISCOUNT CHILSTON

If the noble Earl presses for the insertion of these words, I think the debate should be adjourned. The whole effect of the Instruction is altered, and it is only right that the promoters of the Bill should have time to consider the new words.

THE EARL OF DONOUGHMORE

The most convenient course, in my opinion, would be to pass the Instruction this afternoon in the form to which we are all agreed. It is not my intention to ask any of your Lordships' Committees to sit before Easter. There would therefore be plenty of time for the noble Earl who originally gave notice of this Instruction to raise the matter again, if he desired to do so, before the Committee sits.

EARL BEAUCHAMP

I think that in the circumstances it would be much better to postpone the discussion on the whole matter. That would enable us to agree upon a form of words to which no objection could be taken in any part of the House. I therefore move that the discussion on the Motion for the Second Reading be adjourned until, say, Tuesday next, if that suits the convenience of noble Lords.

Moved accordingly, and, on Question, the further debate adjourned to Tuesday next.