HASTINGS TRAMWAYS BILL [H.L.]

HL Deb 05 February 1957 vol 201 cc411-4

2.35 p.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (THE EARL OF DROGHEDA)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2^a.—(The Earl of Drogheda.)

LORD PAKENHAM had given Notice of his intention to move, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

1. (a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;
2. (b)any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and
3. (c)suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.

The noble Lord said: My Lords, the House has many 'matters of great import to discuss in a moment, and therefore I will not detain your Lordships for any length of time. I would mention, however, that this Bill would, if passed, transfer the undertaking of the Hastings Tramways Company to Maidstone and District Motor Services, Limited, and would authorise discontinuance of the trolley vehicles. It is being petitioned against by the Corporation of Hastings, and, I believe, also of Bexhill. I would add only that an all-Party committee of citizens has been formed in Hastings, officially representing the political Parties of the town, and that committee, on January 26, passed unanimously a resolution to this effect: That…the proposals of the Hastings Tramways Bill are—

1. (a) opposed to the overwhelming demand of the local public;
412
2. (b)designed to abolish, without justification, the electric trolley bus service. which is most suitable for this hilly seaside town, and to deprive the Corporation of ids quinquennial option to purchase the Hastings Tramways undertaking; and
3. (c) contrary to the national interest, which demands the minimum use of oil and the maximum use of electric power."

The meeting, therefore, requested that the Bill be turned down.

My Lords, I know that the House does not believe that matters of this kind can be threshed out in the full Chamber, and therefore after consultation I have ventured to put down the instruction which appears on the Order Paper. I feel sure that justice will be done by the Select Committee, and I therefore express the confident hope that even if the Battle of Waterloo was won on the playing fields of Eton, the battle of Hastings will not be lost on the playing fields of Westminster. I beg to move the Motion standing in my name.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR (VISCOUNT KILMUIR)

My Lords, if the noble Lord will allow me, matters of the House are not for me, but he will notice that his Motion on the Order Paper is prefaced by the words: In the event of the Bill being read a second time. Therefore, with the noble Lord's agreement, I will now put to the House the Question, That the Bill be now read a second time, and will then put the noble Lord's Motion.

On Question, Bill read 2^a, and referred to the Examiners.

THE LORD CHANCELLOR

I now put to the House that the Motion of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, be agreed to.

Moved, That it be an Instruction to the Committee to which the Bill may be referred, that before authorising the discontinuance of the services of trolley vehicles they should satisfy themselves that—

1. (a) the substitution of motor omnibuses for trolley vehicles will be to the advantage of the travelling public;
2. (b) any financial advantages resulting from the substitution will be passed on to the local travelling public; and
3. (c) suitable financial arrangements will be made by the Maidstone Company for satisfying the claims of the local authorities.—(Lord Pakenham.)

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, before the proposals of the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, are decided by the House, I should like to say a few words. Although what the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, has suggested is a somewhat unusual course, it has, of course, many precedents. But, at the same time—and I am sure the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, will correct me if I am wrong—it is an unusual procedure in the case of an opposed Bill. Where such directions are given to a Committee, they are usually of a rather general nature, expressing the hope that the Committee "will have due regard to" the preservation of agricultural land, or the amenities of a national park, or something of that sort. The directions proposed by the noble Lord are of a different type. They deal with the matters which will be argued fully before the Select Committee, and the local authorities will then be given ample opportunity of putting their representations in great detail. In my view we should not attempt to prejudice the case without having all the facts before us, May I, therefore, before I sit down, say a few words about the proposed directions?

The first one is, I suppose, harmless enough; but, to put it succinctly, is it not a case of "teaching your grandmother to suck eggs"? It is exactly what the Select Committee will be assembled to decide: whether the substitution of motor omnibuses will be to the advantage of the travelling public or not. I have sat on a number of Select Committees, including that on the Gateshead Tramways Bill, which was almost identical to this case. We of course heard evidence from all the interested parties. With regard to proposal (b), I think this matter is much better left to the discretion of the traffic commissioners, who normally decide these things. Such a direction might prejudice the negotiations between the omnibus company and the local authorities, as well as once again tying the hands of the Select Committee. Direction (c) is extremely vague and, I imagine, refers to the poles supporting the overhead lines of the trolley buses. As it is drafted, it seems to direct that all claims should be settled, whether they are just or not, Surely all these points are Committee matters, My view is that these directions are unnecessary and undesirable, and I hope that the House will not support them.

THE EARL OF DROGHEDA

My Lords, it is, of course, the case that, as a general rule, the House is reluctant to give instructions to Select Committees, and I think that this is one of those cases where it is best that the important points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Pakenham, should be left to be dealt with by Petition against the Bill, in the ordinary way, as I understand from him is going to happen. As these are matters which it is very difficult to decide on the Floor of the House, and which are much better dealt with when evidence is given before the Select Committee. I hope that the noble Lord will not press his instructions.

LORD PAKENHAM

My Lords, without wishing to accept or reject any views, either on the merits of the Bill or on the principles at stake, may I say, in view of what has just been said by the Lord Chairman of Committees, that I do not wish to press the instructions further this afternoon.

Motion, by leave, withdrawn.