HL Deb 22 March 1916 vol 21 cc421-6

Debate on the Motion for the Second Reading resumed (according to Order).

THE EARL OF PLYMOUTH had given notice, in the event of the Bill being read 2a, to move, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into consideration the requirements of the traffic over the river at this point, 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."

The noble Earl said: My Lords, I want to apologise for not being present when this matter was discussed a fortnight ago. On that occasion my noble friend Lord Beauchamp was kind enough to move the Instruction that I had placed on the Paper, and I do not wish to cover any of the same ground except to make one or two points clear. I understand that the House thought that I referred, in my reference to "traffic" in the Instruction, to traffic on the water. I regret that my Instruction was not more clearly worded, for I had no intention of making any reference whatever to water traffic. But I thought a reference to vehicular traffic necessary because neither the Royal Institute of British Architects, nor the London Society, nor any person interested in the improvement of London at this point could put forward a scheme without making some reference to road traffic facilities.

I hope I may make a further point clear. The noble Viscount, Lord Chilston, on the last occasion—I am quoting from the OFFICIAL REPORT—said: So far as the æsthetic appearance of the present bridge [Charing Cross Railway 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. I desire to assure the noble Viscount that I had no intention whatever of trying to induce your Lordships to impose upon the railway company a much larger expense than their own requirements justify. The only point that I wished to make was this. I wanted to ask your Lordships not to confine the inquiry by the Committee to whom the Bill will be referred solely to the railway case, but to agree that other people—quite apart from the Port of London authority and the London County Council, Who might appear before the Committee to plead on the points which particularly concern them—people who have devoted a great deal of time and thought to this question of London improvements and who represent a large number of intelligent and thoughtful persons desirous of seeing such improvements made as will add to the dignity and beauty of the metropolis, should have an opportunity of stating their views before the Committee. I therefore hope that the House will consider it right not to pass this Bill without giving the representatives of the Royal Institute of British Architects and the London Society an opportunity to explain their views, and to give such assistance as they can to the Committee on the treatment generally of this very important part of London.

One word with regard to the question of traffic. It seems to me to be so closely connected with the question of any London improvement of this sort that to rule out altogether evidence referring to traffic would be practically to prevent the witnesses I have in mind from stating their case. Therefore although I do not wish to introduce into the labours of the Committee any matter which is not germane to this Bill, I hope the House will see that if the words referring to traffic are struck out the Committee to whom the Bill is referred might very likely say, "We are obviously precluded from touching the question of traffic because it was struck out of the Instruction to us." I therefore trust that if your Lordships agree to witnesses from the Institute of British Architects and from the London Society being heard you will not limit their evidence entirely to questions of an æsthetic nature, but will allow them fully to state their case, which must inevitably involve reference to traffic as well as to beauty in London improvements.

VISCOUNT CHILSTON

My Lords, in the course of the debate a fortnight ago I agreed, on behalf of the railway company, to the Instruction suggested by my noble friend Lord Plymouth. I pointed out that we had no objection to hearing evidence which might be given by the Institute of British Architects or by the London Society; indeed, that we would welcome any assistance that they could give us in beautifying, if possible, this structure, which is certainly at present an eyesore. We were not then quite sure what the object of my noble friend was, but by the new words which have been placed in the Instruction on the Paper its meaning is perfectly clear. It is that there should be a locus standi to discuss on a Private Bill some general improvements which I think are more germane to a Public Bill. The only traffic over this bridge at the present moment is railway traffic and traffic by a foot-bridge. So far as the foot-bridge is concerned, that is a matter for the London County Council, who have already petitioned in respect of this Bill. They ask that the means of communication should not be interrupted or interfered with by the construction of the works proposed by this Bill, but they do not ask for any further or enlarged facilities for foot passengers. If the noble Earl means by his Instruction that a new bridge for all kinds of traffic should be constructed, then I venture to think that your Lordships will agree that such a proposal is not germane to the purpose of this Private Bill, by which we seek only to strengthen and to render more efficient the existing bridge.

Then it has been suggested that the powers asked for in this Bill should not be given because if they were, and the bridge hereafter were by any other Act condemned or sought to be removed, a larger amount of compensation would have to be paid. That, my Lords, is not the case. The railway company at the present moment have powers to construct a bridge on the City side alongside the existing bridge. If the powers sought by this Bill are refused and the railway company are compelled to fall back upon their existing Act, a very much larger sum of money will have to be expended, and I take it that it is everybody's desire that at the present juncture unnecessary capital should not be spent. But if it were spent under the existing Act in the way I have indicated and it was sought hereafter to remove the bridge, a larger amount of compensation would have to be paid.

It seems to me that in this Instruction the noble Earl seeks to establish a novel principle and one which has not hitherto, I think, received the support of your Lordships' House. We have always understood that Instructions to Committees on Private Bills must not deal with questions of public policy which are properly the subject of Public Bills, but that they must be relevant and cognate to the provisions of the Private Bills. But, after all, that is a matter for the consideration of your Lordships' Chairman, and I am perfectly certain that we shall be safe in his hands. On behalf of the railway company, therefore, I can say this, that we raise no objection to the admission of the evidence which is sought to be heard, and we trust that the Chairman will see that the rules are strictly adhered to, because it is, in my opinion, a dangerous principle if on the ground of art or philanthropy we set up a new precedent by which questions of large public policy can be discussed under Private Bill legislation.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL of DONOUGHMORE)

My Lords, I agree with what the noble Viscount has just said. Out of evil, in a way, good has come. We all regretted the absence of the noble Earl (Lord Plymouth) the other day; but we have had an opportunity, owing to the adjournment, of giving this matter further consideration. I confess that my view remains what it was on the previous occasion. I welcome the precedent which will allow bodies such as those mentioned to come before your Lordships' Committees to discuss matters that they know about. I recognise the Royal Institute of British Architects as being able to give most valuable evidence from the æsthetic point of view, but I am not prepared to admit that they know more than anybody else about traffic. From the point of view of precedent, therefore, I should have preferred that the Instruction should be passed with the three central lines of it struck out. In conversation the other day I suggested that I had no objection to it, but one is unfortunate sometimes and goes a little further than one means in the course of desultory conversation. My feeling is that we are going a little too far in passing this Instruction in its present form. At the same time, if the noble Viscount opposite representing the railway company has no objection to it, I do not feel that it would be fair to oppose it strongly or to ask your Lordships to divide upon it.

On Question, Bill read 2a and committed, the Committee to be proposed by the Committee of Selection.

Then it was moved, "That it be an Instruction to the Committee to take into consideration the requirements of the traffic over the river at this point, 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."—(The Earl of Plymouth.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and ordered accordingly.