HL Deb 17 June 1959 vol 216 cc1229-51
THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (LORD MERTHYR)

My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Observing that there is on the Order Paper a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, and learning that there are a number of your Lordships who wish to take part in a debate, I think it would be for the general interest of the House if I now said no more but reserved any further remarks which I should like to make until I come to reply to this Motion.

Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Merthyr.)

2.37 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment standing in my name upon the Order Paper—namely, that this Bill be read a third time this day three months. I hesitate to take up valuable Parliamentary time on a matter which to many noble Lords may seem relatively unimportant and which has gone through a Select Committee of this House, and in so doing I trust that I shall not incur the wrath of your Lordships or the displeasure of the House. At the outset I would stress that my remarks are in no way a criticism of the decisions reached by the Select Committee, which were reached on the evidence produced before them, for I have the greatest esteem for the members of that Committee.

To-day I propose to approach this question from two aspects which I believe the Select Committee did not have to consider: first, the present-day trend to abandon electric forms of urban transport; and, secondly, the point of view of the user of this light railway. On Second Reading I drew your Lordships' attention to the first aspect, so I do not propose to dwell on it at any length, but solely to remind your Lordships what effect this trend has, bearing in the saying that a mickle."

Let us take into account the reduction in electricity consumption with regard to three undertakings which I have in mind. Consider, for instance, the Hastings Tramways Company, whose Bill went through Parliament two years ago, the South Lancashire Transport Company's Bill and this present Bill. The consumption of electricity involved in those cases in an average year is 20,540,931 units, which is equivalent, according to my calculations, to 11,499 tons of coal. If one considers the recommendation to switch over from electric urban transport in Glasgow to diesel buses one realises that the effect there would be to cut down the amount of electricity consumed by just over 135 million units, which is equivalent to 75,666 tons of coal; and I am told that, according to the estimates of the Scottish Coal Board, the amount of coal involved is even greater and is equivalent to the closing down of two mines.

May I turn now, my Lords, to the second aspect? On June 9 I deposited a petition with 12,311 signatures which had been drawn up by the Mumbles Railway Passenger Association, and the exact words of their petition were that they were: Praying that the discontinuance of the Mumbles Railway should not be sanctioned by this House. Since then I have received a further batch of 1,655 signatures. This local feeling came about only when people down in South Wales, in the area concerned, realised that they might be losing their railway. Also, meetings were held and these meetings were very well attended. In fact, the exact words of a correspondent of one local paper are: During the recent local elections there were seats to spare at meetings at the Regent Casino hall. With the future of the local railway the subject of discussion, it was 'standing room only' at a meeting convened last night by members of the Light Railway Transport League. Although the fact that only approximately 14,000 people have signed a petition to the effect that they would like to see the continuance of this railway may not have a great effect upon your Lordships, it does denote a way of feeling which I consider should not be completely ignored. That is why I should like to see a referendum carried out by the Swansea Borough Council to ascertain exactly what the feelings of the people are down there with regard to the maintenance or the rejection of their railway.

I can well understand a desire to retain this form of transport, for it has the great advantage of operating on a reserved track, and therefore does not in any way affect road traffic conditions. That has been proved in America, where reserved tracks are quite extensively used, as they are on the Continent. As an example, and purely on the basis of comparison, I should like to quote some figures produced by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation of America, which show how people can be moved—because that it what is important; to move people, not vehicles. Therefore, purely for the purpose of comparison, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to these figures by the Westinghouse Electric Corporation of America. They state that, in a single line of traffic, in an hour 9,000 people can be moved by bus; 11,000 by trolley-bus; 20,000 by electric rail car on a reserved track, and so on. So I think that in this case, when it is a question of moving people, this light railway does offer certain advantages.

Finally, I should like to draw your Lordships' attention to what can be done to provide the public with, say, an electric urban service, provided that the undertaking has the will to do it and also the "know-how". I would refer, very briefly, to a recommendation made by the general manager of the Blackpool Corporation Transport to the chairman and members of the transport committee in November of last year. In this recommendation he says: The coastal tours by trailer tramcar were a remarkable success, and as the season progressed and more people realised that such a vehicle was available, we were so busy on a number of occasions that we had to augment the service with normal tramcars. In addition, we found that the increased seating capacity was a boon at peak periods, when the trailer tramcar was used on normal service operation. The unit was also very popular for illumination tours. After very full consideration of our future requirements, I recommend the transport committee to consider the purchase of ten new lightweight trailers …. In fact, my Lords, these trailers have now been ordered.

I feel that when somebody in charge of an undertaking, who can view quite impartially the advantages of certain types of transport, makes such a recommendation as that, it should carry some weight with your Lordships. It is interesting to note how he proposed that this acquisition should be financed—because one always hears so much about who is going to pay for it and how it is going to be paid for. The general manager's recommendations were that the method of financing should be by means of a 15-year loan. I am sorry if I am wearying your Lordships with too much detail on this subject, but I should like to put this matter as fairly as possible. Last year I was up in Blackpool, and I happened to be travelling on this twin-car unit. The general manager was kind enough to explain to me how he had had to modernise his own undertaking; change certain sleepers, certain lengths of track, and similar matters. If that can be done in Blackpool, in order to bring an undertaking up to date, it seems to me that there is no reason why it cannot be done in South Wales.

I therefore ask your Lordships to support a suggestion that I would make to the South Wales Transport Company: that they should request an independent expert to investigate and report as to the feasibility of modernising and retaining this light railway; taking into consideration the state of the rolling stock, the permanent way, overhead equipment, and so forth. Such a man as the general manager of the Blackpool Corporation Transport would seem to be eminently suitable in view of the fact that he has most effectively co-ordinated his light railway services and his bus services. My Lords, I beg to move the Amendment.

Amendment moved— Leave out ("now read 3a") and insert ("read 3a this day three months").—(Lord Merrivale.)

2.48 p.m.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I should like to say a few words in support of this Bill, and also to tell your Lordships why I entirely disagree with Lord Merrivale's Amendment, which is tantamount to rejection of the Bill. First of all, I think it is only right to say that this procedure is very unusual. I think it is almost unheard of that, when a Bill has been before Private Bill Committee and all the evidence has been heard, it should be rejected on Third Reading.

I should like to deal with this matter, first of all, on local grounds. At the Committee stage in the Private Bill Committee, the Swansea Council, which presumably represents local opinion, raised no objection to the Bill except on minor points, which I think have been largely met. I want to emphasise that they did not oppose the Bill in principle. It is true that holiday visitors enjoy using the line for sentimental and historic reasons, but also a great many people use it for business and for getting to work throughout the year. There is no doubt that for the latter a bus service would be much more convenient, as in certain cases they would avoid a change of vehicle in getting to their destination. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, did not refer to the question of traffic congestion which might be caused by using buses, but it has been mentioned, and am told that there would be only twenty vehicles an hour extra in use against the high density of about 1,800 vehicles an hour during peak periods, so that the buses would not make any appreciable difference.

Suggestions have been made that this railways should be modernised, but the cost of this would be fantastic. The noble Lord mentioned the case of the Blackpool tramway, but there, I gather, it was merely a case of ordering a number of new vehicles. In this case, it means that the entire track, which is nearly worn out, would have to be renewed, as well as the vehicles, and something of the order of £300,000 would have to be spent on an undertaking that is now losing about £8,000 a year. I think that the noble Lord said that the railway was a reserved track. Perhaps he will correct me if I am wrong. I should like to say that this is not altogether so, because there are many places on the route where there are open crossings and speed limits of 5 and 10 miles per hour.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, may I be permitted to interrupt the noble Lord, as he has referred to me? In effect, this service gives an average speed of 16½ miles per hour, although the trains may have to slow down at certain places. I do not think that buses could keep up that average speed. I contend that it is a reserved track.

LORD GIFFORD

My Lords, I am not going to argue with the noble Lord over that. I should like your Lordships to remember that this railway is only 5½ miles in length, and there are nine stops en route, so that any question of a modern monorail, or something of that sort, is quite fantastic. I would emphasise that the Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Strang, heard all the evidence and, as your Lordships know, this is carefully considered in great detail in Committee. That Committee reached the conclusion that the Bill should proceed. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, said that there is certain new evidence. Why was that evidence not put before the Committee? That was when it should have been heard.

I will not say any more about local matters, but the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has raised the broader policy of not replacing electric transport with buses because of the coal situation; he says that we have a surplus of coal and therefore we should leave these electrified transport systems in being. I do not think that this tiny railway should be considered as a matter of national principle. After all, the policy which has been generally agreed for a vast concern like London Transport, is to go over to buses. The number of trolley-buses is rapidly decreasing, because they are so inflexible. In the case of this very small undertaking, I do not think that there is any ground for deviating from accepted national policy as a ground for rejecting this Bill. I feel most strongly that we ought to support the decision of Lord Strang's Committee and give the Bill a Third Reading to-day.

2.56 p.m.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, I should like to say a few words on this Bill, not so much on the substance as on the fact that this is the oldest railway in the world, and I, for one, feel that it is a good thing that it has had a couple of "toots", as it were, in your Lordships' House before it disappears into the limbo of past history. I feel grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, for his vigilance, because if he had not found out what lay behind the somewhat misleading Title of the Bill, the South Wales Transport Bill, we should not have learned, either on Second Reading or even on Third Reading, that this was the result of a takeover bid, which is going to bring about the closing down of this ancient railway in favour of road transport.

In its passage through your Lordships' House the Bill has had a rather unique experience, inasmuch as to some extent it has altered the procedure of the House. As your Lordships will remember, as a result of what happened on Second Reading, and the protests that came from all sides on that occasion, the Lord Chairman now examines all Bills and has very kindly undertaken to draw the attention of the House to any matters he thinks we ought to consider in these Private Bills.

Whether, as the noble Lord, Lord Gifford, has said, this scheme entails any matter of public policy or not this is perhaps not the occasion to consider; but, looking at it from the point of view of public policy, it seems to me odd that when we have raw material which comes a few miles up the valley used for the propulsion of the trains on this railway, there should be substituted raw material brought from thousands of miles away from what is an explosive part of the world to use in the buses which are to replace the trains. I cannot help feeling that, whatever we may say, and whatever has been said by Lord Strang's Committee, who I am sure have done their work admirably, the public—at all events, the visiting public, the tourists—will be worse off. In place of a pleasant ride in a smooth, or fairly smooth, electric train—there is some doubt about that in the minds of many people, so we will say a ride along possibly one of the most beautiful foreshores in the United Kingdom—people will now have to queue up for buses and travel along a main road. Whatever the residents may think of that, I cannot help feeling that visitors will feel that it is to their disadvantage.

I think I should have objected strongly to this Bill were it not for Clause 12 (2), which says that the transport company which bought out the railway: … shall not cease to operate the railways unless and until they shall have satisfied the traffic commissioners that … the needs of the public for passenger road transport in substitution for the services afforded by the railways will be met by … the Transport Company. That, I feel, is a safeguard to us. It is possibly giving the traffic commissioners powers that we should exercise, in that we ought to be satisfied on that point, but perhaps it would be difficult for the Select Committee or ourselves adequately to perform that duty. In passing this measure we have this safeguard that the point will be looked at, and the bus company will not be able to close down the railway until the traffic commissioners are satisfied on the matter. Without that clause in the Bill, as I have said, speaking purely from a personal point of view and not on a Party basis, I should not have been prepared to accept it. But the fact that the clause is in the Bill provides, I think, some safeguard for your Lordships.

3.1 p.m.

LORD STRANG

My Lords, as previous speakers have said, this Bill came in the usual way before the Select Committee appointed by your Lordships' House for that purpose. After due consideration, the Committee came to the conclusion that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, with certain Amendments proposed by the Promoters, the South Wales Transport Commission. Since the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is, in effect, asking your Lordships to reject the advice of your Committee, it may perhaps be of assistance to the House if, as Chairman of that Committee, I make a short report—and it will be short—upon our proceedings. The main purpose of the Bill, as stated in the Title, is to provide for the closing of the Oystermouth railway and the Mumbles railway … I need not recite to your Lordships the case put forward by the Promoters of the Bill—that has been done quite clearly by the noble Lord, Lord Gifford—but I will, if I may, say a word or two about the Petitions.

When the Bill reached the Committee only two Petitions remained: one was from the local authority, the Corporation of Swansea, and the other was from the Amusement Equipment Company, a company who are lessees of the Mumbles pier, the Mumbles pierhead and the Mumbles Pier Hotel. The Swansea Corporation did not ask for the rejection of the Bill. They were willing not to oppose the closing of the railway provided that they could secure the fulfilment of certain conditions by the Promoters. Some of those conditions were accepted by the Promoters before the Bill reached the Committee; some of them were accepted during the discussions in the Committee, and some were not accepted—and upon these the Committee had to take a decision. I shall refer only to one of those conditions, and it is one of those which were accepted before the Committee met.

The Corporation asked that the provision of adequate alternative transport facilities for the public should be a condition precedent to the closing of the railway. That condition, as I have said, was accepted by the Promoters, and a clause was drafted and inserted into the Bill; that is the clause to which the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, has rightly drawn attention as being perhaps one of the crucial clauses in the Bill. That clause lays down, in effect, that the railway will not be closed down until the promoters have satisfied the traffic commissioners that they will provide adequate alternative bus services to meet the needs of the public. Your Lordships will note, therefore, that the local authority, the Swansea Corporation, the elected representatives of the people of the Borough of Swansea, have not called for the rejection of the proposal to close down this railway. I would add that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, in his report to the Committee said this: It is the Minister's opinion that the issues raised by the Bill are essentially local, and he has no comment to make on the provision of substitute services. If, however, Parliament decides that a clause should be included in the Bill relating to the provision of substitute services, the Minister thinks that it may he for the convenience of Parliament to note the following recent precedents. He then quoted for information four recent precedents for a clause of the kind which we now have under consideration. Therefore there is ample precedent for the solution which this Bill provides for this important problem of providing substitute transport facilities. So much, my Lords, for the first Petition.

The second Petition, which was that of the Amusement Equipment Company, the lessees of the pier, the pierhead and the Pier Hotel, was a different matter. The company did ask for the rejection of the proposal for the discontinuance of the railway. They did so because they maintained that the Promoters would not be able to place at the disposal of their clients as good an alternative service, a bus service, as the railway now provides. That was the case the company put, and it was argued at considerable length.

I do not think need say more about the proceedings of the Committee. Having heard the evidence of the witnesses, and having listened to the arguments of counsel on all the points raised, your Committee saw no reason to stand in the way of the progress of this Bill, as amended, and they reported accordingly to your Lordships. The noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, has said that some of the considerations which he has brought forward this afternoon were not before the Committee when they examined the Bill; and that, of course, is true. There may well be a case for maintaining the general proposition that electric power is to be preferred to the internal combustion engine as a basis for mechanical transport. That case, in its general sense, was not argued before your Committee. It would have been open to those who hold that view to lay it before us and to have it tested in the way these things are tested in Select Committees. They did not do so. I would recall, also, that the Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation, who might have had an opinion on this general point, made no reference to it in his report to Parliament.

Then again, it might be said that there is a substantial body of opinion in Swansea that objects to the closure of the railway. Here again it was open to objectors to have their views brought before the Committee. They did not do so. No such body of public opposition was reflected in the Petition of the Swansea Corporation, and there was no special Petition in this sense before the Committee. If your Lordships, as I hope you will, give this Bill a Third Reading, it will go to another place. There it will, I believe, if necessary, be subject once again to examination by a Select Committee in the usual way. If there are any submissions to be made about this Bill which were not made to the Committee appointed by your Lordships' House, this further step in the established procedure would seem to me to give the objectors, if they so wish, an opportunity to repair the omission. I beg to support the Third Reading of this Bill.

3.20 p.m.

LORD AMULREE

My Lords, my noble friend Lord Rea unfortunately cannot be in his place this afternoon, and therefore it falls to me to put before your Lordships a few points which we discussed before he left to go abroad. They are not quite on the same line that has been taken by previous speakers this afternoon; they refer back to speeches made on the Second Reading of this Bill. One of the points which my noble friend and I both thought extremely misleading was the Title of the Bill. My noble friend is concerned in some way with a similar light railway in Cumberland. He is not very close to it, but he has a certain interest in it. It appeared to him that if he saw a Private Bill called "The South Cumberland Transport Bill", he would have no idea that it meant that the railway in which he was interested was going to be shut down. Therefore, I think it was misleading for the Promoters of the Bill to use this particular Title. Would it not have been possible for the Promoters to add a sub-title, which could have been published in your Lordships' proceedings, so that we should have known the purpose of the Bill, and not leave it to the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, to find out what was going on and bring the matter before your Lordships now? I know that the Lord Chairman, as a result of our previous discussion on this Bill, has promised to give explanations on any points he thinks will interest the House. In a case like this the Lord Chairman would be spared the trouble if the Promoters of the Bill would include an explanatory title when they publish the Bill for the first time.

There is only one other point I wish to mention. It fills me with a certain amount of alarm when I read that people are to be transferred from a railway to travel on the road, because in most parts of the country the roads are extremely full. Does this mean that the road from Mumbles to Oystermouth is going to be more full with charabancs, buses and coaches than it can conveniently take? I imagine that that point arose before the Private Bill Committee, but it seems to me an important one. If there were any question of the road being overburdened with traffic, I think I would support the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale.

3.13 p.m.

LORD SOMERS

My Lords, I doubt very much whether I have any right at all to intervene in this debate, because I have no personal experience of the railway. I am speaking merely on such evidence as I have heard and read, and also on several abstract points which seem to me to arise. My noble friend Lord Gifford said that the postponement of the Third Reading was tantamount to the rejection of the Bill. With the greatest possible respect, I should like to differ from him, because I do not think that my noble friend Lord Merrivale had anything of that sort in his mind. I hope I am not putting words which he did not mean into his mouth, but I think he merely meant the Bill to be postponed until the full evidence of the case could be put before your Lordships.

That would seem to imply that I have not the greatest respect for the work which the Select Committee have done. That is certainly not so. I have the greatest respect; but one must remember that it is possible that not all the evidence of the case has come before them. It is possible for legal evidence to be absolutely convincing on paper but in fact to be entirely misleading. Also, one must remember that the weight of public opinion, which I think is something which should be considered—perhaps if Parliament has a fault it is that it is a little too apt to override public opinion and disregard it altogether—probably did not come before the Select Committee at all. Looking back on the days before I had the privilege of joining your Lordships' House, I remember perfectly well that the average person had no idea of what went on inside it, or any idea of how to apply to Parliament in order to make a Petition for the postponement or the cancellation of a Bill. That is probably so in this case. I think that public opinion in South Wales is strong, but the public have no idea how to get into contact with the Select Committee. In fact, I doubt whether they even knew there was such a thing.

As to certain aspects of the relative merits of the railway and of buses, I can only point out that you have heard my noble friend say that the railway is capable of an average speed of 16½ miles per hour. Buses on the road which, at its narrowest point, is only 17 ft. in width, would certainly not achieve that average speed. I can say, too, from my experience as a motorist, that the worst form of congestion which one can find on the roads anywhere is caused by buses. Congestion caused by lorries is absolutely nothing compared with that caused by buses, because buses are constantly stopping and starting, and although the drivers are excellent they cannot overcome the disadvantage of the size of their vehicles. Therefore, apart from the aesthetic pleasures of either one or the other, it would be a great pity to cause congestion on a road of such small width in its narrow part and to transfer this railway traction to the internal combustion engine. I believe it is true that the Chairman of the South Wales Transport Company has said that a great cost will be involved in bringing the railway up to date. It is already modernised to a certain degree, with electric traction and so on, but he believes that more will be necessary. If buses are going on that road, the road will certainly have to be widened, and the cost of doing that will be a great deal more than anything which will have to he spent on the railway.

The point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore, is worthy of consideration. This is the oldest railway in the country. It is, to those who are railway enthusiasts, and even to those who are not, of historic interest and part of our national condition. It is a pity that we who, after all, treasure our historic features, should throw away, for no very convincing reason, what is really a great historical landmark in railway transport.

3.19 p.m.

LORD DOUGLAS OF BARLOCH

My Lords, there is no suggestion that the noble Lord, Lord Strang, and his Committee dealt with this in any other than a perfectly proper manner. They acted upon the evidence which was put before them. But the point which has been raised in the Amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, is that there were other considerations which should have been taken into account by Parliament—namely, whether it is in the national interest that electric traction should be abandoned in favour of internal combustion engines using imported fuel.

The noble Lord, Lord Strang, has suggested that there is still an opportunity of raising this point when the Bill goes from this House to another place. I wonder whether that is correct. I wonder whether anybody would have the locus standi to lodge a Petition on broad grounds of that kind, especially in the other place where the rules of procedure are very strict indeed. I do not gather from what the noble Lord, Lord Strang, said about the proceedings of his Committee that any report was placed before it by the Minister who could have dealt with this particular point, namely, the Minister of Fuel and Power. If that is so, it raises a very important question of principle; namely, whether a series of Private Bills might not go through Parliament which in the course of time would alter completely the nature of public transport and abandon electric transport in favour of means of locomotion involving imported fuel with all the dangers and risks which that may entail. That is a much wider question than anything which was placed before the Select Committee, and I am anxious that we should have some elucidation about how these questions of broad public interest should be brought into consideration on Private Bills of this kind.

3.23 p.m.

LORD HAWKE

My Lords, several noble Lords have galloped a lovely hare across my nose—electric power versus the internal combustion engine—but I will refrain from the temptation to chase it because it might be rather a long chase. The noble Lord, Lord Amulree, grumbled at the title of the Bill and I am quite certain that the Lord Chairman of Committees will be able to answer that point. When the noble Lord, Lord Somers was speaking I think he made two points with which I could not agree. I believe that the Motion of my noble friend, Lord Merrivale, as he admitted himself, is in effect a Motion for the rejection of the Bill, not just postponement in order that some more arguments can be heard. Then, when talking of the congestion on the roads he spoke of the 17-foot road, and I understand from the evidence of the Committee which I have read that those particular points where the road is only 17 feet wide will not be used because the transport company have arranged to bring in certain land of their own to relieve the congestion there.

It is almost a sentimental occasion, because as the pioneers of tramway and railway construction throughout the world we are entitled to our sentiment, I think, whether we be little boys writing down the numbers of engines or whether we be those enthusiasts who hope to raise £30,000 to buy a bit of derelict line in Sussex. We who are perhaps not quite so starry-eyed as those can still have our sentiments in this House. But times do change and the questions of change have to be decided on merits and not on sentiment. Of course, the merits are not always all one way. The advantage that one could clearly expect to get from this electric line is that it potentially could be more speedy. On the other hand, we have heard how, owing to crossing the road in various places and so on, speed limits have to be imposed, and as a result the average speed goes down to 16½ miles per hour. There is some argument as to whether or not the bus can equal that. The bus manager's evidence, on page 35 of the Report of the Committee, showed that he clearly thought that except in exceptional conditions the bus could beat it.

Electricity carries certain disadvantages as well. The chief disadvantage, of course, is that it operates on fixed lines from fixed points. In this particular case it starts from what I understand to be the middle of Swansea docks, which I presume is not a residential area. The result is that anybody wanting a trip out to the pier, and so on, must either walk or go on some other transport to catch the electric line.

LORD OGMORE

My Lords, my recollection is that there are various halting places in rather more salubrious areas than the docks, where you can catch the train if you want to go to the Mumbles. I do not think you have to go to the docks.

LORD HAWKE:

I have no doubt that there are many salubrious areas in Swansea. I believe that the South Wales Transport Company buses after conversion would be able to run services direct from those most salubrious housing estates to the Mumbles, which, of course, is not possible at the moment except in the case of the one locality mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Ogmore.

Another point we must remember is that an electric line, if it is carried out in perpetuity, means the segregation of a large amount of fixed capital on that fixed route. More and more people are having private motor cars to-day, and it is anybody's guess whether much of a bus service is going to pay in ten years' time; there are so many motor cars on the roads. Moreover, in this particular case the electric line is wearing out, because it is thirty years old and the track wants renewing. I do not say necessarily, that it wants doing tomorrow, but it has to be done soon, and that renewal was estimated to cost something in the neighbourhood of £300,000.

LORD MERRIVALE

Was that figure of £300,000 brought before the Select Committee? It has been mentioned but I do not think it has been substantiated. I do not know whether the Committee mentioned that figure or whether it has been agreed as the correct amount.

LORD HAWKE

The proceedings of the Select Committee is a rather long document and I have not got it well tabulated, but my impression is that in the course of reading it last night I found that figure there. I may be wrong. But, at any rate, to amortise and service a capital of that nature would, I suggest, require something at least of the order of £20,000 a year. I am informed that this line is already losing £8,000 and that its total receipts are in the neighbourhood of half a century. The addition of the service of this new capital would bring it up to an operating ratio in the neighbourhood of 150 per cent., which, though not strange to many of the railway companies of the world, at the same time is impossible to continue as a private concern.

I believe that the main objections to the closing are sentiment, in that it is the oldest line in the country; and I remind your Lordships that when it is closed there will be another oldest line in the country, so we are not abolishing the oldest line. There has been doubt in some people's minds whether the alternative service will be satisfactory. Well, that is up to the Traffic Commissioner, surely. Buses are much more flexible, and at the moment buses are taking traffic away from this railway, so that in a few years' time it might be left with less traffic than at present. The only case where I believe there is some justification for doubts—and I freely give it to my noble friend Lord Merrivale—is that at the height and peak of the traffic season the line under electric power could, I think, move more passengers in a given period than the transport company will be able to do by road. But that does not amount to many days in the year, and against that you must put the advantages to all the users of the line which will accrue through the other 360-odd days. I submit that, in spite of sentiment, we must move with the times and go for the greatest advantage of the greatest number, and therefore I support the Third Reading of this Bill.

3.31 p.m.

LORD DYNEVOR

My Lords, may I, without prolonging this debate much further, say one word of valediction to this line, if it does have to close, because it is one with which I am very familiar. As a child I frequently travelled on it when it had the open-top cars and very old-fashioned steam engines. I do not think your Lordships should reject the Motion for Third Reading now, but I feel that the debate which has taken place may well serve to focus public attention on the Bill when it goes to another place.

I have not the slightest doubt that my noble friend Lord Strang did a very good job of work in his chairmanship of the Select Committee, and considered every aspect that was put to the Committee. But I cannot help feeling that, apart from the sentiment which we may all have, here at least is a line which can and does relieve road congestion. It runs almost within touching distance of the roadway for a mile or two, and it is never more than from 50 to 100 yards from the road all the way round the sweep of Swansea Bay. It is sometimes said in Swansea, that if you cannot see the Mumbles lighthouse it is raining; if you can see it, it is going to rain. I think that this summer is disproving that. Although we do not always get good summers, with the increasing industrial and residential populations large numbers of people will want to travel round to the Mumbles and then along to the beautiful bays.

If, as my noble friend Lord Hawke has just said, in a few years' time there are going to be so many cars on the roads that there will be no room for the buses, it would seem rather foolish, except on hard economic grounds, to do away with the alternative form of transport for passengers which is already there. However, I feel that I myself am a little to blame in regard to this matter, because I had not appreciated that this Bill was to come before the House. I think I was abroad when the Second Reading took place, and with the pressure of other matters I had overlooked the implications of it. As I have said, I do not think your Lordships' House should reject the Bill at this stage, but I hope that the discussion that has taken place this afternoon will focus attention upon it in another place.

3.33 p.m.

LORD CROOK

My Lords, I had not intended to intervene in this debate. I am one of those who must confess that I have not read the Bill or the Report of the Committee. I am also one who must confess to having nostalgic feelings towards old railways. The noble Lord, Lord Dynevor, has referred to the open-top carriages of some forty years ago, when the smuts came in over the sides. I saw the conversion of these to rather more modern electric lines. Unlike many noble Lords perhaps, I know the railway, and within the last few weeks I have travelled on it. What is more, within the last few weeks I have driven my car along the road by the side of the railway.

Whilst I should not oppose the Report of this Select Committee, in view of the suggestion that another place will look at this Bill, I would make just a few observations. The Minister of Transport has, we are told, offered certain observations, and I should like to offer another observation in regard to the road conditions. To drive a car along that narrow end of the road, through the shopping area and on the bends, is a matter of considerable difficulty, even at ordinary times of the year, quite apart from holiday times. The congestion. with the tramway running away in a different direction, is pretty bad. I hesitate to think what problems the holiday traffic is going to present in regard to road congestion when that railway is closed.

I welcome what my noble friend Lord Ogmore said about Clause 12 (2). I am satisfied that my noble friend Lord Strang, like any other Chairman of a Select Committee, will have seen that every piece of evidence that was tendered was well and truly looked at. But I should like to see more attention given to the fact that not only must an adequate service of buses be provided when the trams are done away with, but there must be an adequate surface on which the wheels of the new trams or buses may run.

3.35 p.m.

LORD FERRIER

My Lords, I am in two minds. I had intended to support Lord Merrivale's Amendment, but I am not clear—and perhaps the noble Lord who is to reply will let us know—whether in fact his Amendment would kill the Bill. There is one small contribution which I am tempted to make on what the noble Lord said in regard to electric traction. It seems odd to me, knowing nothing about the railway, although I have attended all the debates, that an electric railway should be closed down in this day and age, especially when there is talk of its being re-equipped. The Bill is still to go forward to another place for further reconsideration of the matter. But it is well to remember that re-equipment could still include the provision of battery traction. Battery traction means the consumption of off-peak electricity, if, indeed, traffic conditions permit. The real point that I have to make is: does Lord Merrivale's Amendment kill the Bill or not?

3.36 p.m.

LORD MERTHYR

My Lords, I think that before this question is decided this afternoon your Lordships would perhaps like to have a little more from me on this Bill. First of all, I should like to say that it is, I think, beyond dispute that any Member of your Lordships' House has the undoubted right to propose an Amendment to a Private Bill; to oppose the Bill, if he so wishes; and, indeed, to endeavour to have the Bill rejected. Here, may I take the opportunity of answering the last point that was made in the debate—namely, that made by the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, who asked me, if I understood him aright, the question: if the Amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, should be carried this afternoon does that in effect kill the Bill? In my view the answer is, Yes, it does. Because, as your Lordships are well aware, we have a kind of Parliamentary fiction, to the effect that if an Amendment delaying the passage of any Bill for a substantial period, as this would be, is carried, in effect it is regarded, whatever the literal interpretation of the words may be, as the decision of the House to throw out the Bill. So I would answer without hesitation, that it does kill the Bill.

At this stage it is perhaps a little unnecessary for me to remind the House that this Bill has been given a detailed examination by a Select Committee presided over by the noble Lord, Lord Strang. May I take this opportunity of voicing my appreciation—and I feel the appreciation of the whole House—to Lord Strang and his Committee for the trouble which they have taken in this matter? I understand that it occupied them two or three days, and I am sure they gave the closest attention to everything that was put before them on both sides. The Select Committee having made a Report to the House recommending to the House that the Bill should be allowed to proceed, I think it is my duty to remind the House that, for the House to reject that Report is almost, if not quite, without precedent.

This matter has been raised before. There have been, on a few occasions, attempts to challenge the Third Reading of a Bill, but my researches, so far as I have undertaken them, show that at least for fifty years past no Bill has been thrown out by your Lordships on Third Reading. I believe that, on very rare occasions, a Bill has been thrown out on Second Reading, but not on Third Reading; and therefore I am bound to suggest to the House this afternoon that after this careful examination of the Bill, and after this debate, which I feel has been a valuable one, your Lordships should give this Bill a Third Reading and send it on its way to another place—because this is one of the Bills that originated in this House.

It might be of interest if I briefly mention former occasions on which this situation has arisen. In the year 1933, in this House, the Adelphi Estate Bill was challenged on Third Reading and a statement was made by the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, the then Lord Chairman of Committees, in much the same way as I am making this statement now; and the House gave the Bill a Third Reading. In 1955 there was the Kent Water Bill, which many of your Lordships will remember, where an Amendment was moved on Third Reading, if I mistake not by the noble Lord, Lord Teynham; but after debate your Lordships again gave the Bill its Third Reading. I do not think I could possibly do better this afternoon than to repeat, if I may do so, the words of my predecessor, the noble Earl, Lord Drogheda, when he said on Third Reading of the Kent Water Bill [OFFICIAL REPORT, Vol. 193, col. 766]: The House can accept these Amendments only if it makes two assumptions: first, that the Committee, after hearing witnesses and considering … the Bill for a long time, came to a wrong decision; and secondly, that this House is more likely to reach the proper decision after a debate of perhaps no great length and hearing no witnesses. If we decide to make these two assumptions, I myself think that we shall be breaking new and very difficult ground. That is what the noble Earl said on that occasion. I respectfully echo his words to-day. The third example was the Liverpool Corporation Bill of 1957, which I believe several noble Lords will remember, where the Third Reading was challenged but the House nevertheless decided that it should proceed.

All that I have said, my Lords, is in no way to dispute the fact, as I began, that the noble Lord, Lord Merrivale, was, and is, absolutely within his rights in saying what he had to say this afternoon and in putting down his Amendment; and I believe that although your Lordships will not wish to be troubled with all Private Bills at such length, you may agree that there are occasions when they do deserve the amount of time that has been given to this Bill this afternoon.

There are just one or two other matters on which I should like to speak. Both the noble Lords, Lord Merrivale and Lord Somers, put forward arguments to which I am sure the House has listened with attention, on the question of whether motor transport should be substituted for electric traction. I certainly do not want to enter into any kind of argument on that point this afternoon, but I must make the point that if that argument was not put before the Select Committee, it could have been; and if it was not, as I understand is the case, I do not think that anybody here is to blame. I am here to say that the Standing Orders of this House were carried out in every detail in respect of this Bill, and those Standing Orders are the result and product of very long experience as to exactly what the procedure with regard to Private Bills should be. I would again remind your Lordships that all Private Bills are subject to a very nice timetable. They all start at the same time of the year, and the object is to allow them to receive Royal Assent, if the House so wishes, before the end of the Session, if possible—although they can be carried on to the next Session.

So I contend that ample and sufficient time was given for objection to be taken and made to this Bill. After all, we know that the Swansea Corporation, who are the elected representatives of the people of Swansea, at least knew about it in ample time for their Petition to be heard by the Committee; and proper notice of course was given under the Standing Orders to those to whom notice should be given. I may say that the Standing Orders of this House are very strictly carried out, and rightly so. And so, when the noble Lord, Lord Somers, says that not all the evidence was before the Select Committee, I would say that, even if that is so, it could have been, and it is no fault of anybody here to-day that it was not. The Bill was deposited in the month of November. It had a Second Reading in this House early in February, and upon that there was wide publicity in the local Press, as I know of my own personal knowledge. That was early in February. The Committee sat in the month of April—that is, two months after the Second Reading. I contend, therefore, that there was time for objections to be made to this Bill.

Finally, the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, raised the question of the state of the locus of Petitioners who may want to object to the Bill in another place. I have never been a Member of another place, and I am certainly not an expert on the procedure there. But, as I understand it, the locus of Petitioners, at least so far as the Rules are concerned, is precisely the same as it is in your Lordships' House; and since this is not a Corporation Bill the position, as I understand it, is that any resident of Swansea or elsewhere can petition against this Bill if he so chooses. I hope that I have dealt with the other points that have arisen during this debate, and that your Lordships, after hearing the arguments on both sides, will agree to give this Bill a Third Reading this afternoon.

3.48 p.m.

LORD MERRIVALE

My Lords, provided I obtain the leave of the House, I should like to say a few words, first of all to thank most sincerely noble Lords who have supported this Amendment, and secondly to add one or two very brief comments. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Strang, when he says that this is also a local matter and that there will be an opportunity for Members of another place to take the matter up if they so desire. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Douglas of Barloch, made a very interesting point when he raised the question of the effect of Private Bills on the transport of this country. I should like to answer the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Hawke, when he referred to the question of the 17 ft. width of road. I believe that that is the width of road at the Dunns and in fact buses are not passing there; but from Blackpill to Oystermouth the road is mainly of 23 ft. width, which is not very wide.

Also, I would draw particular attention to the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Amulree, on the question of relieving road congestion. I would also agree that this debate should focus the attention of members of the public and Members in another place on the Bill. In view of the recommendation of the noble Lord, the Lord Chairman of Committees, I do not propose to divide the House on this Amendment, as this Bill is going to another place, and therefore I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

Back to