§ 57 and 58. Mr. CHARLES BATHURSTasked the President of the Board of Trade, (1) if he is aware that the forthcoming increase of 4 per cent. in the railway rates charged upon goods traffic will, on the basis of last year's trade and apart from increases in passenger fares, yield to the nineteen leading railway companies an increased revenue of £1,191,000, or a sum exceeding by £200,000 the estimated increased cost of labour; and whether, seeing that this proposal violates both the letter and the spirit of the Railways Act, 1912, he proposes, in the interests of the farmers and the poorer traders, who are otherwise powerless, in the absence of any cheaper tribunal than the Railway and Canal Commission to take steps to secure some modification of such proposal prior to its being brought into force on the 1st July next; and (2) if he is aware that the proposed 4 per cent. increase as from the 1st July next in rates on goods traffic will, in the case of the North-Eastern Railway Company, bring in an additional revenue of £146,353, against an increase in their wage bill of £66,581 only, and in the case of the London and South-Western Railway Company will bring in £50,740, against an increase in their wage bill of £13,253 only; and whether, if the proposed uniform 4 per cent. rise in railway charges is based exclusively on an actual increase of wages under the Railways Bill, 1912, railway companies whose increase of their wages bill has been relatively small will be permitted by the Board of Trade to increase their income by this means far in excess of their increased costs under this heading?
§ The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Mr. Buxton)I do not know what basis the hon. Member has for his estimates of the increased cost of labour, nor whether, in considering the yield of a rate, he has taken into account the statutory maxima. As he is aware, however, the Board of Trade have no power to permit or prohibit increases of rates. 322 As he is also aware, the railway companies cannot claim the benefit of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of last Session, except so far as they can prove, on complaint made, that the whole of the increase in rate is required to meet the increased cost of labour since 1911. No increase of rate in excess of that amount can be claimed under that Act. As regards the question of a cheaper tribunal, I should have been glad if I had been able to obtain the assistance of the hon. Member last Session in passing No. 1 Railway Bill, which contained such a provision in regard to certain matters.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTWould the right hon. Gentleman suggest that this very large increase of rates is not to be attributed to the increase of pay which, under the Railways Act of last Session, was to be given to the workers of these railways?
§ Mr. BUXTONI did not say so. What the hon. Gentleman asked was how far the increased rates were due to the increased cost of labour, and my reply was that the companies cannot claim to benefit under the provisions of the Act of last Session except by the amount that they are able to show that their labour bills have increased.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTDoes that mean that the right hon. Gentleman does not in any way propose to interfere prior to these new charges that have been made coming into operation on 1st July?
§ Mr. BUXTONIn the first place, I have no power to interfere. Under the Act of last year, so far as these particular cases are concerned, provision was made in order to meet that point by these matters coming before the Railway and Canal Commission.
§ 59. Sir ALFRED MONDasked what is the total increase of wages paid by the railway companies to their employés since August, 1911; and what is the increase per head of the employés?
§ Mr. BUXTONI have no official information which would enable me to answer my hon. Friend's question.
§ Sir A. MONDWould it not be possible for the right hon. Gentleman to obtain the information from the railway companies?
§ Mr. BUXTONI will consider that question.
§ 60. Sir A. MONDasked the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been drawn to the increase of railway rates on merchandise by the railway companies; and whether he will order an inquiry to ascertain whether the proposed increases do or do not exceed the increase of wages granted by the railway companies to employés since August, 1911?
§ Mr. BUXTONA railway can only obtain the benefit of the Railway and Canal Traffic Act of last Session if, on complaint made, they prove to the satisfaction of the Railway and Canal Commission that the whole of the increase of the rate claimed under this Act is required for the purpose of meeting the increased cost of labour since August, 1911.
§ Sir A. MONDIs it intended that each aggrieved small trader in the country shall go before the Railway and Canal Commissioners, and does the right hon. Gentleman propose to take no steps to ensure that the Act passed last year is fairly used by the railway companies?
§ Mr. BUXTONThe Act was passed with the intention of enabling the railway companies to raise their rates if they could prove an increased cost of labour. Complaint being made that they had raised their rates beyond the increased cost of labour, they would have to prove their case before the Railway and Canal Commission. They are the tribunal, not the Government, to whom the matter is referred.
§ Mr. C. BATHURSTIs it not in the power of the Board of Trade to insist that the railway companies shall keep accounts which are sufficiently intelligible to allow the increased rates to be traced to the sources suggested?
§ Mr. BUXTONBy the Act Returns have to be made, and they will contain the information, and that information will be available.