HL Deb 05 March 1929 vol 73 cc67-78

Order of the Day for the House to be put into Committee read.

Moved, That the House do now resolve itself into Committee.

House in Committtee accordingly:

[The EARL OF DONOUGHMORE in the Chair.]

Clause 1:

Application of Act.

(2) The powers conferred by this Act on a highway authority shall be exercisable— (b) in the case of a bridge in an urban district, if the road at each end of the bridge is vested in the county council, and in the case of a bridge in a rural district, by the council of the county in which the bridge is situate;

Where a bridge is situate partly in one area and partly in another, any council may exercise the powers of a highway authority in relation to the bridge if the council could have exercised those powers in relation thereto had the bridge been situate wholly within the area for which the council acts.

For the purposes of this subsection "bridge" includes the road carried thereby and the approaches thereto.

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (2), after paragraph (b), to insert— (c) In the case of a bridge in an urban district, if the road at each end of the bridge is vested in the council of the urban district by virtue of a claim made by that council under subsection (2) of section eleven of the Local Government Act, 1888, or under any enactment amending that Act, either by the council of the county in which the bridge is situate or by the council of the urban district.

The noble Lord said: I move this Amendment in order to cover a point which it seems to me is not covered by the Bill.

Amendment moved— Page 2, line 5, at end insert the said new paragraph.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I have spoken to the noble Lord about the Amendment which is one we cannot accept. The principle is accepted and the point is already covered in paragraphs (b) and (c) of the subsection.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 1 agreed to.

Clause 2 agreed to.

Clause 3:

Power to make orders as to reconstruction, maintenance, etc., of bridges.

3.—(1) If the owner of a bridge, or a highway authority, considers that the bridge is or may be, by reason of its construction, position, or state of repair, dangerous or unsuitable for the requirements of road traffic as then existing or the anticipated development thereof, or that the responsibility for the maintenance and improvement of the road carried by the bridge or the approaches thereto should for any reason be transferred from the owner to a highway authority, the owner or authority may apply to the Minister for an order to provide for the reconstruction or improvement or maintenance of the bridge or road carried thereby or the approaches thereto.

(2) The Minister on any such application may make an order, and may by the order—

  1. (b) determine and direct by Whom the bridge and the read carried thereby and the approaches thereto shall be subsequently maintained;
  2. (c) in the case of a swing bridge, determine and direct by whom and in what manner it shall be operated;

(3) Before making any order under this section with respect to a bridge crossing tidal lands, the Minister shall consult with the Board of Trade, and any order made by him with respect to such bridge shall include such provisions as the Board of Trade may deem necessary.

Loan STRACHIE moved to insert at the end of subsection (1) "or for the transfer of the responsibility for the improvement and maintenance of such road". The noble Lord said: I formally move this to get an assurance from the noble Marquess.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 18, at end insert the said words.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment is also covered.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE MARQUESS OP LONDONDERRY moved, at the beginning of subsection (2), to insert "Subject to the provisions of this Act." The noble Marquess said: This is purely drafting.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 19, at the beginning insert ("Subject to the provisions of this Act").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Login STRACHIE moved, in paragraph (b) of subsection (2), to leave out "subsequently". The noble Lord said: I understand the noble Marquess will accept this Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 27, leave out ("subsequently").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE MARQUESS or LONDONDERRY

This is a drafting Amendment and I accept it.

LORD FARINGDON had an Amendment on the Paper to add a proviso to paragraph (c) of subsection (2). The noble Lord said: I understand die noble Marquess in charge of the Bill is about to move the next Amendment on the Paper and as my Amendment becomes unnecessary I do not move it.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to add to paragraph (c) of subsection (2):— so, however, that in the case of a swing bridge crossing a canal, he shall not direct that the bridge shall be operated otherwise than by the owner of the canal unless he is satisfied, after considering any representations made to him by the owner, that the facilities for traffic on the canal will not be prejudiced thereby.

The noble Marquess said: I am moving this Amendment in substitution of the one which the noble Lord, Lord Faringdon, had upon the Paper. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 30, at end insert the said words.—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD BLEDISLOE

With regard to this Amendment I should like to ask the noble Marquess whether the word "canal" ought not to be amplified to include other water courses, because to my knowledge as Chairman of the Land Drainage Royal Commission, there are quite a considerable number of water courses that are employed for drainage purposes that are every bit as wide as some of the canals and carrying at least as much water. Although I am not conscious that any of them are spanned by swing bridges at present, it is quite possible they may be hereafter. Perhaps the noble Marquess will consider, before the next stage, whether the words "or other water courses" ought to be added so as to cover such a drainage water course employed for land drainage purposes as well as a canal.

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

I hardly think that what the noble Lord suggests is necessary, but I will consider the matter before the next stage.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 43, leave out ("bridge") and insert ("railway or canal").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

Lord Banbury of Southam has handed in an Amendment in manuscript at this point, but he does not seem to be present.

VISCOUNT CHURCHILL moved, in subsection (2) (e), to leave out "below" and insert "of." The noble Viscount said: I understand the noble Marquess in charge of the Bill has no objection to this and it is agreed to by all the parties. I beg to move.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 44, leave out ("below") and insert ("of").—(Viscount Churchill.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment and the next one in the name of the noble Viscount we are able to accept. They are designed to preserve on the reconstruction of a bridge any existing statutory provisions governing the width of the canal.

Amendment moved— Page 3, line 44, after ("bridge") insert ("or the width of the canal").—(Viscount Churchill.)

LORD BLEDISLOE moved, after subsection (3), to insert as a new subsection:—

"(4) Before making an order under this section for the reconstruction or improvement of a bridge, the Minister shall take into consideration the desirability of special facilities or accommodation being provided for carrying across the bridge the mains, pipes, cables or wires of public utility undertakings:

Provided that in any case where the provision of facilities or accommodation greater than those available in the bridge before reconstruction or improvement would increase the cost of the reconstruction or improvement, he shall have regard to the amount of any contribution towards such cost which any public utility undertaking may be willing to make."

The noble Lord said: I think this Amendment speaks for itself. It is to provide that in the case of these improvements or reconstructions there shall be special facilities for carrying across bridges the mains, pipes, cables or wires of public utility undertakings. These are the mains by which gas, electricity, water and other public utility requisites are carried. I understand that the noble Marquess is prepared to accept this Amendment, so I will not elaborate the argument.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 16, at end insert the said new subsection.—(Lord Bledisloe.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord has stated the case very clearly. This is in accordance with good engineering practice and the Government are willing to accept the Amendment.

Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 4:

Provisions as to bridges of railway and canal companies.

4.—(1) An order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a railway company which carries a road over a railway of the company, or carries both a road and a railway of the company, shall not. without the consent of the company, either require works for the reconstruction or improvement of the bridge to be carried out otherwise than by the company, or direct the structure of the bridge to be maintained otherwise than by the company, or transfer the property in the structure of the bridge to a highway authority, or, in the case of a swing bridge, direct the bridge to be operated otherwise than by the company.

(2) In the case of a bridge owned by a railway company or a canal company and crossing a railway or canal of the company, nothing in any order made under this Act shall empower any highway authority, without the consent of the company, to alter or reconstruct that bridge in such a manner as to necessitate any alteration in the level, or reduction in the width, of the railway or canal, or to reduce the headway below the bridge as existing at the date of the order.

(4) Nothing in this Act or in any order made thereunder shall be construed as authorising the stoppage of traffic on any canal without the consent of the owner thereof, and any highway authority carrying out any works authorised by this Act or by any order made thereunder shall take such steps as may be necessary to prevent, so far as practicable, any interference with traffic on that canal.

LORD CLWYD moved, in subsection (1), after the third "company," to insert" or an order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a dock authority." The noble Lord said: The Amendments in my name to this clause and all subsequent clauses are designed for the purpose of affording dock and harbour authorities the same measure of protection in regard to bridges as is given to canal and railway companies. I believe the Government are prepared to accept the Amendments; therefore I content myself with moving.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 36, after ("company") insert ("or an order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by a dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

This Amendment is the first of a series intended to provide that dock undertakings shall have similar protection and safeguards as those which are afforded to railway and canal companies.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 37, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)

LORD STRACHIE moved, in subsection (1), before the second "bridge," to insert "structure of the." The noble Lord said: In moving this Amendment I may say it is generally agreed that, for obvious reasons, the reconstruction and improvement of a railway bridge should be carried out by the railway company unless they consent to the contrary. Perhaps the noble Marquess will explain something that I do not understand—namely, what the difficulties are in this case.

Amendment moved— Page 4, line 38, after the second ("the") insert ("structure of the").—(Lord Strachie.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The Amendment the noble Lord has just moved is unnecessary because the initial reconstruction or improvement of the bridge mentioned in the clause can only relate to the structure. The references to the "structure of the bridge" in the latter part of the subsection are necessary in order to differentiate between the future maintenance of the structure itself, which cannot be transferred to the highway authority without the company's consent, and the future maintenance of the roadway, which can be so transferred without such consent.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

THE LORD CHAIRMAN

The next four Amendments are all on the point raised by Lord Clwyd.

Amendments moved—

Page 4, line 39, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").

Page 4, line 41, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").

Page 4, line 44, after ("company") insert ("or dock authority").—(Lord Clwyd.)

LORD CLWYD moved, in subsection (2), after the third "company", to insert "or owned by a dock authority and crossing any railway, lock, passage or other work of the dock authority." The noble Lord said: This is consequential.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 3, after ("company") to insert the said words.—(Lord Clwyd.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved, in subsection (2), to leave out "empower any highway authority." The noble Marquess said: This is a drafting Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 4, leave out ("empower any highway authority").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 5, after ("company") insert or deck authority"). (Lord Clwyd.)

Amendment moved— Page 5, lines 5 and 6, leave out ("to alter or reconstruct that bridge") and insert ("require the bridge to be altered or reconstructed").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, after canal") insert ("or lock, passage, or other work").—(Lord Clwyd.)

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 8, Lave out ("below") and insert ("of").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 22, after ("thereunder") insert ("with respect to a bridge crossing a canal").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

LORD STRACHIE moved to add to subsection (4): Provided that such consent as aforesaid shall not be unreasonably withheld, and any dispute between the owner and the highway authority in this respect shall be determined by the Minister.

The noble Lord said: I move this on behalf of the County Councils Association because they are not satisfied. They think there ought to be some provision in case of dispute between the owner and the highway authority, as in other cases, for the Minister to have the power to intervene. If the noble Marquess assures me that this is unnecessary and that the authorities are properly protected, I do not wish to press the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Page 5, line 24, insert the said proviso.—(Lord Strachie.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

It is only reasonable that the consent of the canal company should be required to the execution of works in such a manner as to cause complete stoppage of traffic. It is very unlikely that even the refusal of consent would render the execution of the work impossible or would even add seriously to its cost. The span of these bridges would naturally always be small, and the engineering difficulties in the way of carrying out the work without interrupting the traffic on the canal would not be great. The noble Lord will understand that the position taken up by the canal companies is that they will do every-thing to promote the operation of this Bill provided that steps are taken to avoid unreasonable interference with the canal traffic.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 5 agreed to.

Clause 6 [Apportionment of Costs]:

Amendments moved—

Page 6, line 15, after ("canal") insert ("or any railway lock passage or other work of a dock authority")

Page 6, line 16, after ("canal") insert ("or by the clock authority")

Page 6, line 18, after ("canal" insert ("or work of the clock authority")

Page 6, line 19, after ("company") insert ("or authority")

Page 6, line 40, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage")

Page 7, line 4, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage")

Page 7, line 5, after ("canal") insert ("or lock or passage").—(Lord Clwyd.)

Clause 6, as amended, agreed to.

Clauses 7 to 11 agreed to.

LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEY moved, after Clause 11, to insert the following new clause:—

For protection of Weaver Navigation Trustees.

". An order made under this Act with respect to a bridge owned by the Weaver Navigating Trustees shall not without the consent of the trustees either require any reconstruction or improvement of the bridge to be carried out otherwise than by the trustees or direct the structure of the bridge to be maintained otherwise than by the trustees or transfer the property in the structure of the bridge to a highway authority or in the case of a swing bridge require the bridge to be operated otherwise than by the trustees."

The noble Lord said: The new clause that I desire to insert a designed, as your Lordships will see, for the pro- tection of the Weaver Navigation Trust. This is an old public trust, founded in 1721 and administered by trustees representing the toll-payers, nominees of the county council and representatives of two urban districts that are served by the canal. There are 38 trustees in all, of whom 14 are elected by the toll-payers; 12 by the Cheshire County Council from among members of their own body; 10 are life members of the old trust and will within a year or two he nominated by the county council, not from their own body but from the ratepayers of the County of Cheshire, while the remaining 2 are elected by the district councils of Winsford and Northwich. Your Lordships should know that, even at present, 8 out of the 10 to whom I have referred are nominated by the county council, and ultimately 22 out of the 38 trustees will be directly nominated by that council. The Trust is very different in character from the ordinary canal company or undertaking in this country.

Those who are familiar with the salt district of Cheshire will know that the River Weaver flows through that district and that the navigation starts at the upper end of the river at the town of Winsford, passing clown the salt belt and emerging into the sea at Frodsham. This river was canalised and made navigable by the Trust over 200 years ago, and is operated by them. They claim that what is advantageous for the ordinary canal companies of the country is gravely disadvantageous to themselves, and that they are entitled to separate consideration in view of their exceptional conditions. I will state these exceptional conditions. In the first place, the ordinary canal company deals with barges carrying up to twenty or thirty tons freight. The River Weaver is navigated by oceangoing vessels up to 500 tons, operated under their own power and carrying masts which are used as derricks. The traffic of the river is quite different from inland traffic on ordinary canals. The Weaver, being a river, is subject to floods in rainy weather and, further, as is not found as a rule in ordinary canals, there is sometimes a strong current running down. A further point is that the River Weaver, running through the salt area, is subject to subsidences and, if the control of the bridges and approaches is taken away from the Trust, there is a danger that navigation of the river may be impeded by those subsidences and the trustees may find it difficult, if not impossible, to maintain the navigation of that river. As I have said, the navigation is carried on by vessels up to 500 tons. The amount of tonnage carried on the navigable river in the last year was nearly 800,000 tons, and the tolls collected in the last year were over £70,000. It will thus he seen that the Trust is a very considerable body.

I think I may claim that there is no fear of antagonism between the Trust and the County Council of Cheshire, inasmuch as the council is represented by a majority on the Trust. Accordingly any anxiety which the Government may feel regarding possible conflict with the county council may, I think, be safely set on one side, since the County Council is the predominant partner in this concern. The effect of the clause that I propose will be to retain to the existing trustees the control of their bridges and approaches and of the navigation, and thus to retain control of the precedence of traffic upon the river, a point to which the trustees attach very considerable importance. As I said, this river may sometimes come down in flood and it would be extremely difficult to manage the river traffic with heavy boats up to 500 tons burden coming down stream. It is essential in the view of the trustees that they should have power to give precedence, in the case of swing bridges, to allow these heavy boats to pass through without endangering the very important works, swing bridges and so on, which they have over the river. The bridges are in every case of the most substantial kind. There are none of those humpbacked bridges for which this Bill is, I understand, primarily designed, and none of the little steep approaches and narrow passages that are found on other canals. The majority are swing bridges operated by extremely competent engineers, and where they are not swing bridges they are lofty bridges with a minimum headway of sixty feet.

I think at this late hour I have perhaps said enough to convince the noble Marquess that there is a considerable ease to be made for the Weaver Navigating Trustees and if I have said enough I do not wish to spoil a good case by overburdening him with facts. I trust that he will be able to accept the Amendment or, if he, is unable to do that at once, that he will give some assurance that the matter will be carefully considered by the Department concerned between now and the Report stage.

Amendment moved— After Clause 11 insert the said new clause.—(Lord Stanley of Alderley.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY

The noble Lord has made out a very strong case, if I may say so, on behalf of the Weaver Navigating Trustees. I think he is aware that the Bill has been drafted after prolonged negotiations with the representatives of local authorities and of the Railway Association and of the Canal Association. I feel sure that he will realise the difficulties in introducing special exemptions in favour of individual undertakings. Nevertheless, after what the noble Lord has said I will give him the assurance that this matter will be very carefully considered between now and the next stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12 agreed to.

Clause 13 [Definitions]:

Amendment moved— Page 9, line 21, at end insert ("clock authority' means any harbour or dock undertaking established by Act of Parliament").—(Lord Clwyd.)

THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY moved to insert "'trolley vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927." The noble Marquess said: I move this Amendment because it is necessary to have some precise definition of a trolley vehicle to avoid ambiguity.

Amendment moved—

Page 10, line 8, at end insert ("trolley vehicle' has the same meaning as in the Road Transport Lighting Act, 1927").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Amendments moved—

Page10, line 12, leave out ("the expression 'owner' in relation to") and insert ("any expression referring to the owner of")

Page10, line 13, leave out include") and insert ("shall ho construed as including a reference to").—(The Marquess of Londonderry.)

Clause 13, as amended, agreed to.

Remaining clauses agreed to.