HL Deb 05 February 1959 vol 213 cc1177-85

3.5 p.m.

THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)

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

Moved, That the Bill be now read 2ª.—(Lord Merthyr.)

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I shall detain your Lordships for only a very few minutes. I would not in any way endeavour to oppose the Second Reading of this Bill, and my reason for rising to my feet is purely to draw your Lordships attention to what I consider to be a regrettable trend, in that every year these Private Bills come before your Lordships with a view to obtaining powers to do away with electric traction. I think it is a most regrettable trend, and I feel that the evil-smelling transport which will replace this electric traction does not, in many cases, give the public complete satisfaction.

The arguments put forward in this case are similar to those put forward in previous Private Bills. In this case they read as follows: … the requirements for passenger transport within the area at present served by the Oystermouth railway and the Mumbles railway would be met more efficiently and economically by services of public service vehicles co-ordinated with other services of the Transport Company. Those arguments are put forward more or less in the same manner each year. I think it is most regrettable that this Bill should come forward, because I happen to know that part of the country, although not very well. It is a number of years since I was down there, but I have travelled on that railway between Mumbles and Swansea—a distance of about five miles—and it is rather an attractive journey. I think the disappearance of this railway will cause concern to a number of the people who have been attracted to that part of the country. Among the amenities it has to offer is the Oystermouth Castle, which dates back to the 13th/14th century, the proximity to the Gower Peninsula, and also the attractive sandy beaches. Moreover, I do not think that this trend is in agreement with the policy of the British Transport Commission, which is to increase the electrification of our railways. In fact, in this case it is a light railway.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, in view of what has fallen from the noble Lord, possibly the House may expect me to say a few words about the Bill. In the ordinary way I should not have done so, because it is not normally the practice for the Chairman of Committees, when moving the Second Reading of a Private Bill, to make a speech upon it. However, the noble Lord was good enough about half an hour ago, to acquaint me with the fact that he wished to speak on this Bill. May I say now that I am grateful to him for giving me that notice and also that I appreciate the interest which he is taking in this Private Bill.

I hope I have justified the fact that I did not make a speech when moving the Second Reading of the Bill. May I now say only this. The normal machinery for the passage of a Private Bill through your Lordships' House is, I need hardly say, available to this Bill, and it will proceed in the usual way if your Lordships give it a Second Reading this afternoon. I understand that it is not the intention of the noble Lord to divide against the Bill. Had it been so, and had he warned me, I would have followed the normal practice of not moving the Bill myself, because it would not be right for me to indicate either assent or dissent on the merits of the Bill. But since so much has been said, may I tell the House, extremely briefly, what the Bill does? In effect, it closes a short length of railway from the town of Swansea to what I might call a suburb called The Mumbles, the railway running along the seashore. The Long Title of the Bill says that it is An Act to provide for the closing of the Oystermouth Railway and the Mumbles Railway the dissolution of the Swansea and Mumbles Railways Limited and the Mumbles Railway and Pier Company. … Then follow other matters.

There is one fact about this Bill which I think the House may find interesting: it repeals a Private Act which was passed by Parliament in the year 1804—that is the Act referred to in this Bill: 'the Act of 1804 means an Act of the forty-fourth year of the reign of King George the Third entituled ' An Act for making and maintaining a Railway or Tramroad from the town of Swansea into the Parish of Oystermouth in the County of Glamorgan'. I mention that only for this reason: I do not know, but it appears to me that this must be one of the oldest railways, if not the oldest, in the country. If my history is correct, it was built before the invention of steam. I thought your Lordships might be interested in that, in view of the fact that the noble Lord has raised one or two points on the Bill.

Perhaps I should just add this comment. I said earlier that the usual machinery would be used in the passage, or otherwise, of this Bill. That means, of course, that full opportunity has been given or will be given to anyone who wishes to oppose this Bill to do so, by Petition or otherwise. As your Lordships know, the latest date for the deposit of Petitions against Private Bills is tomorrow. So far no Petitions have been put down against this Bill, but there are still another twenty-four hours in which that can be done. Apart from that, there will, of course, in any event be a Committee stage of the Bill, and your Lordships will be asked to give it a Third Reading and, in due course, pass it, after which it will go to another place. I hope I have said enough to help the House in deciding on the merits of the Bill. If not, I will naturally do my best to remedy the defect.

3.15 p.m.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am sure we are all grateful to the noble Lord, the Chairman of Committees, for the very correct manner in which he has dealt with this Second Reading and for the guidance he has given to the House. On the other hand, we on this side of the House are quite happy to have had an opportunity of listening to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, on a matter of substance and interest. There are people on these Benches who have a much better knowledge of the Oystermouth Railway than I have, but I am concerned about the general principle mentioned in almost the first phrase of the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale; that is to say, the increasing tendency to seek by Private Bill to denigrate (if I may use the word) the use of electric traction.

I have always been concerned on behalf of those who get their living by the provision of power for electric traction, starting in the mines; and the big sweep-over from electric traction is not helping that particular problem of the Minister of Power. There are some people who say that modern transport arrangements on the road are much improved by the abolition of electric traction, and I should say that that is probably correct; but to say that it applies equally to electric trolley-vehicles seems to me to be going far wide of the mark. At any rate, as a motorist myself I found much improvement from the transfer from the electric tram locomotion to the electric trolley locomotion, but I have noticed no similar improvement, in London for example, from the transfer from electric trolleys to buses. Therefore I am interested in the general principle; and it is, of course, one of the great traditions and benefits of Parliament that one can on special occasions raise upon the Second Reading of a Private Bill a general principle. An important principle at least ought to be given expression to, and I am sure, from what the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees has said, that it will be noted that on Second Reading Parliamentary expression has been made of these general facts.

3.17 p.m.

LORD SILKIN

My Lords, I had no idea that it would he possible to say anything on this Bill at this stage, and we are all grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for having drawn our attention to this Bill. My reason for intervening is that as a boy I often rode on this railway. I remember the times when I had to help the railway along; for sometimes it got into difficulties on its journey. It is one of those lines that in my opinion ought to be preserved. It is serving a very necessary purpose.

My reason for intervening is to ask this question: if we pass the Second Reading, is not this House committed to the principle of closing this line, which would be a very great pity? On the Committee stage there is nothing we can do, except possibly to discuss in what way the line should be closed. Those of us who feel that it ought not to be closed at all are in some difficulty in agreeing to the Second Reading. The noble Lord has told us that we can lodge a Petition within the next twenty-four hours. I do not know how that is done. Perhaps the noble Lord will help me to lodge a Petition to-day. I certainly led that we ought not to approve the principle; we ought not to let it go without taking the opportunity of expressing our ideas on the general question as to whether or not this line should be closed. If, for instance, we did not pass the Second Reading to-day, and the noble Lord took the Bill back, as I imagine he is quite able to do, would that enable us to extend the time for the Petition?

LORD MERTHYR

No.

LORD SILKIN

That Petition has to go in whether we give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon or not. In that case perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, and I could get together—and I think my noble friend Lord Ogmore is also interested—to see what we can do between now and to-morrow. But I certainly feel that we ought not to commit ourselves to the principle of this Bill before doing something about it.

3.20 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I, too, should like to express my thanks to Lord Merrivale. I had not heard that this contemplated vicious attack upon this old railway was taking place, and I am most grateful to him for drawing our attention to it. It is, as the noble Lord, Lord Merthyr, so rightly said, a very old railway—in fact one of the oldest; and in my experience it has served that area, Swansea and Mumbles, very well indeed. I travelled on it first when I was a very small boy, and it is a distinct memory in my mind that as we went along the railway, which runs along the foreshore, there were little boys tumbling on the sands for pennies, and I persuaded my mother to give me some pennies to throw out to the little boys. Owing to the Welfare State the boys are no longer there, and very soon, Welfare State or not, the railway will no longer be there either. While I rejoice at the absence of the boys, I am very sad indeed to feel that the railway is no longer to be there.

I feel that one of the weaknesses of this procedure is that we are asked to-day to agree to this principle without being given any reasons for it. I believe that a Parliamentary principle is that Parliament should not be asked to agree to change without a case being made for that change. Here, no case is made out at all. We are told, of course, that the Lord Chairman cannot make it out: he is in the position where he cannot be an advocate either for or against the Bill. But it seems odd that in this procedure we have no method, before we have to decide, of knowing whether we ought to decide in this way or not. That seems to me to be a weakness in our procedure.

This railway—or, at least, one of the viaducts over which the railway runs—appears, I may say, in one of Dylan Thomas's most famous short stories. It is an integral part of Swansea life and of the life of the whole of that very famous and beautiful bay. I feel very sad about this proposal, and I hope that something can be done, at least to give us the necessary facts upon which we can decide whether or not this is the right thing to do.

3.22 p.m.

LORD REA

My Lords, may I support the noble Lords who have just spoken in regard to this matter? It seems to me to be a Parliamentary responsibility to delve into it a little more, and from the sentimental point of view also that would seem the right course. I am connected with a small railway which runs along the coast in Cumberland and which might be closed or affected in exactly the same way without anybody knowing about it, and I should like to join in any protests that may be made in this matter.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees what would be the position if we declined to give this Bill a Second Reading this afternoon? In what position would that put the Promoters of the Bill? Could they reintroduce the Bill next month, or would they have to wait for another Session?

3.23 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I can speak again only by leave of the House, but if I have that leave may I say one or two things in an attempt to help noble Lords in this matter? Before doing so, may I begin by saying that I am not to be outdone, because I, too, have travelled on this railway. Noble Lords have asked whether it is essential to pass the Second Reading to-day and whether, if it is passed to-day, the House is committed in principle to the Bill. That is a big question and one capable of a good deal of debate and thought; but I think I can safely say this. I have already said that the normal machinery of all Private Bills is operating in respect of this Bill. That, I think, disposes of the point—I hope it does—of the noble Lord who used the words "without anyone knowing".

The fact is, as I have already mentioned, that until after two o'clock this afternoon I did not know that anyone was going to say a word about this Bill. Therefore the ordinary arrangements have been made. But then I was told by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale—and I am most grateful to him for warning me—that it was going to happen. I think the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, asked whether this Bill could be debated. The answer is, unquestionably: Yes, it can be debated. I apprehend that the noble Lord will remember that on the day of the Second Reading of the Liverpool Corporation Bill in the last Session, the debate was not over until after five o'clock.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I do not think I asked whether the Bill could be debated. I know that it can be debated. What I asked was whether there was any procedure by which we could be informed of the arguments which may be adduced by the Promoters in favour of the change. I was pointing out that this House is being asked now to give sanction to the Second Reading of a measure, and that it has had no details whatsoever to enable it to decide whether it should agree to that proposal or not. That is the point I was making.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, one of the questions that arises is this: is this Bill an opposed Bill or an unopposed Bill? Until after February 6 we do not know the answer to that question, because (I am now dealing with another point that was raised) every year February 6 is the latest date for the putting down or depositing of Petitions against all Private Bills. It is just a fortuitous circumstance that the Second Reading is down twenty-four hours before the time when the period expires, as it does on exactly the same day every year. That is just chance. Had I known earlier, a few days ago, that this debate was going to take place, I should have followed the usual procedure and tried to secure someone else to move the Second Reading and, in doing so, to put the arguments before the House, as was done, as your Lordships may remember, in the cases of the Kent County Council Bill and the Liverpool Corporation Bill. I think that certainly in the latter case the. Chairman of Committees did not move the Second Reading. That is what I would have done to-day; but, as I said earlier, I did not know until after lunch this afternoon that this was going to happen. So that cannot be done to-day.

If your Lordships do give a Second Reading to this Bill this afternoon, I would say that it would not irrevocably commit this House in principle to this Bill, because of course there is not only a Committee stage but there is also the Third Reading; and there could be a debate on Third Reading. There is nothing whatever to prevent a debate of any length. In the meantime, we shall know, if we adopt that course, whether any Petitions are put down against this Bill. We shall know that very soon. As I have already said, in any event, whether it is opposed or not, there is a Committee stage, and therefore there is no question at all of any secrecy about it.

If there is a real desire that this Second Reading should be postponed, I see no harm in withdrawing this Motion and putting it down for another day. In that event, however, I should like to put it down at an early date, because I am sure that your Lordships will appreciate that I ought not to do anything in any way to impede the normal progress of this Bill. After all, it seeks to get through both Houses of Parliament in a limited time, and in that limited time has to face any opposition that may arise. So if your Lordships were to indicate now a wish to postpone the Second Reading, I would agree. If not, I would ask the House to give the Bill a Second Reading to-day and then debate it on Third Reading. I am in the hands of the House.

3.29 pm.

VISCOUNT ALEXANDER OF HILLSBOROUGH

My Lords, I am sure that the House is grateful to the noble Lord the Chairman of Committees for the advice he has given us. There is certainly a very strong point for the freedom of Parliament in these matters in regard to the Third Reading of a Private Bill. On the other hand, of course, if there are strong objections in principle to the Bill, it is always a pity to put all the interests concerned to a great deal of legal expense that might otherwise be avoided. The actual position in regard to Petitions and the costs involved are often a factor against those who object strongly in principle on a Third Reading.

Whilst, of course, it is quite possible that your Lordships will pass the Second Reading, we have had the kind suggestion from the Lord Chairman of Committees that he would be willing to withdraw the Bill to-day if there was an early opportunity of having a Second Reading debate. I should be very happy, if it pleased the rest of your Lordships, if that course could be followed. I am, obviously, considering the state of Parliamentary Business—I have my eye upon the noble Earl the Chief Whip opposite—and if that course appealed to the House I should not myself object, if they did not object, to having the debate, say, on Tuesday.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, in view of all that has been said, may I move, as a compromise, as I hope it will be, that this debate should be adjourned until Tuesday next? I beg to move, therefore, that this debate be now adjourned till Tuesday next.

Moved, That the debate be now adjourned till Tuesday next.—(Lord Merthyr.)

On Question, Motion agreed to, and debate adjourned accordingly.