HC Deb 23 July 1915 vol 73 cc1910-6

(1) Where coal is conveyed from the pit's mouth over any railway in trucks not belonging to a railway company the seller of such coal shall not be entitled to charge for the use of the trucks any sum exceeding by more than fifty per cent. the sum which the railway company conveying the coal was actually charging for the provision of trucks at the commencement of this Act.

(2) If any person charges or attempts to charge for the use of any trucks in contravention of this Section he shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding one hundred pounds.

Clause brought up, and read the first time.

Sir E. CORNWALL

I beg to move, "That the Clause be now read a second time."

This Clause provides for the limitation of the charge for wagon hire. The President of the Board of Trade will realise, without any argument or long speech, that a colliery supplying coal under the Bill should not charge 5s. per ton for wagon hire in addition to the coal. The present rate is 1s. to London or 1s. 3d. to South London, and in some cases during the War already about 30 per cent. extra has been charged. This Clause is to provide that a colliery who are owners of wagons as well as of the coal, in supplying coal under this Bill, shall not be entitled to charge more than 50 per cent. above what the railway companies are now charging for their railway wagons. It fixes the price. I think this is a very reasonable Amendment, and I hope the President of the Board of Trade will accept it.

Mr. DENNISS

Why put it at 50 per cent.?

Sir E. CORNWALL

The London rate is 1s. and the 50 per cent. would make it 1s. 6d., which in view of the delays on the railways and other circumstances appears to be fair.

Sir C. CORY

Will it mean also 50 per cent. on demurrage?

Sir E. CORNWALL

I am not talking about demurrage. The railway charge is 1s., whether there is demurrage or not.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It is essential that this Clause should be inserted, although there are certain words in it with which I do not agree. If this provision is not included the colliery owners would charge what they liked for the use of their wagons, and they would be able to set the Act at defiance, and what little good it is going to effect will be lost altogether. They could easily say they would charge 2s. per ton for the use of the wagons, and if there was a shortage of coal they would easily get the extra sum. The new Clause would prevent that. I am not quite sure whether the main Act itself does not cover the point, but I should like to have the opinion of the President of the Board of Trade. Certainly if it does not there will be an easy way of evading the Act, because the railway companies have nothing like a sufficient number of coal wagons, bearing in mind the total amount of coal carried. The hon. Member who moved the Clause referred to the case of London. But there are other places the rates for which vary considerably from 3d. upward.

Sir E. CORNWALL

I only used London as an illustration.

Sir A. MARKHAM

London, of course, is a big place, but there are other places besides—Mansfield, for instance. Again, it should be borne in mind that in fixing the toll the railway companies do not include the charge for the use of the wagons, as some people have their own wagons. It is essential there should be some limit, and if the Clause is read a second time I shall move to amend it by leaving out the words "by more than 50 per cent." There is no reason why the owners of colliery wagons should get more than 1s.; they are getting quite enough. Wagons are a very profitable form of investment. If we leave out the words "by more than 50 per cent.," the charge will be the same as for the conveyance of coal in private wagons.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

It is true that this proposal may to some extent be covered by Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, but in the event of there being any doubt about it I think we might, for the present at all events, accept the Clause moved by my hon. Friend, as it is quite clear that if there is no limitation it will leave the way open for a practical evasion of the Act by increasing the charges for wagon hire. I propose, therefore, to accept the proposal as made by my hon. Friend. It is true that he has been good enough to give us illustrations drawn from London, but I must say this in commendation of him, that he has the good sense to talk about things of which he knows a good deal, and his illustrations drawn from London have certainly been of value to the Committee.

Question put, and agreed to.

Clause read a second time.

Sir A. MARKHAM

I beg to move, in Sub-section (1), to leave out the words "by more than 50 per cent."

Mr. RUNCIMAN

I do not know what my hon. Friend proposes to put in place of these words. As a matter of fact, 50 per cent. is a very small margin in some cases, although it may appear large in others. It might be well to leave a certain amount of elasticity. I do not see my hon. Friend's special object in taking out the 50 per cent. If he has a special object, perhaps he will explain it to us.

Sir A. MARKHAM

The words are not necessary. If my Amendment is accepted, the owner of wagons would not be enabled by the Clause to charge a rate exceeding that which is fixed under the railway regulations, which provide for specific charges for specific distances. There have been very few cases where colliery people have raised the rates for wagon hire above those of the railway companies. I admit that the price of wagons has risen considerably within the last six months, but the bulk of the wagons in this country have been purchased at prices not extending, in the biggest colliery companies, beyond £60 or £70. I am not going into the much debated question of the earnings of railway wagons. Perhaps we had better leave the matter until the Report stage, when we can have a talk after the right hon. Gentleman has had an opportunity of consulting his people at the Board of Trade. I think they will tell him that the wagons yield a substantial profit. I am a large wagon owner. I provide wagons and charge the same rate as the railway companies, and deduct the amount the railway companies get. One of the most profitable businesses I have is that of supplying wagons. I do not see why we should put the extra cost on the consumer, which we shall do if we give the owner 50 per cent.

Mr. RUNCIMAN

My hon. Friend suggests that this is giving a profit of 50 per cent. for wagon hire all round. That is a misreading of the new Clause. The cost of wagons at the present moment has undoubtedly gone up. One of my hon. Friends made the point, in reference to the increased cost of wagons, that at the present moment it is extremely difficult to add to the supply of wagons, because the wagons are largely taken for other purposes. It is doubtful whether there can be a replenishing of the supply of wagons all over the country, and especially in the Midlands, at the present time. We must leave some margin above the rates now charged by the railway companies. We are bound to take into account depreciation and the difficulty of replacement. In these circumstances, perhaps, we had better leave the words in for the present.

Mr. BOOTH

There is another consideration, namely, the increased cost of repairs. At the present time it costs considerably more to repair these wagons. I do not think there would be the same objection to lowering the 50 per cent. a little if the Clause did not say at the commencement of this Act. I gather that the hon Baronet's (Sir A. Markham) point is that he does not want private colliery firms to charge more than the railway companies charge. If you go back to the "commencement of the Act," and do not allow any margin, you may be doing a grave injustice, because railway companies will be charging more for wagons, and they may in the course of this Act at any time, because the cost of repairs in particular has been going up and the colliery owner may be in such a position that he can charge what the railway companies actually are charging in the future.

Sir C. CORY

I do not think it is quite such a simple question as appears on the face of it. My hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) says there are statutory charges on all the railway companies. I do not think that applies to South Wales.

Sir A. MARKHAM

No, it does not.

Sir C. CORY

I do not think the railway companies supply the wagons. I do not believe it obtains on the Lancashire and Yorkshire or the London and Northwestern. On the North-Eastern I think it does.

Sir A. MARKHAM

It does on the North-Western.

Sir C. CORY

I do not know how you are going to arrive at it. Then my hon. Friend (Sir E. Cornwall) suggested that the rate should be 1s. a ton for both wagon hire and demurrage. It is very easy for anyone to understand that in these days when wagons are away four, five, six, seven, or eight weeks on a journey which at other times they would have done within a week, 1s. would be an inadequate sum to charge for demurrage. Further, the railway company I have to do with charge demurrage on other goods over the couple of days they allow for unloading. If this is to cover demurrage the wagon business will be a very unprofitable one.

Sir W. BEALE

I should like to say a word to avoid possible confusion which may arise. Under Sub-section (4) of Clause 1, if a man now makes a contract for delivery, including the use of his wagons, he is only entitled to charge the actual cost to him of the delivery. That is what I understand my hon. Friend (Sir A. Markham) means. They do not want to charge any more than the actual ordinary cost of carriage. But the object of the Amendment appears to be to prevent that being evaded by the people making two contracts, one for the sale of the coal and the other for delivery, and the use of his own wagons for delivery of the contract to the purchaser. The same principle should be applied to both. If you are going to allow 50 per cent. addition in one case you should allow it in the other. I should have thought the whole thing would be better met by saying if there was a separate contract for delivery and the use of wagons the whole thing should be lumped together and come under Subsection (4) of Clause 1. I merely wished to offer a word of caution to prevent inconsistency arising for applying a difference and having a percentage in the one ease which, according to the strict construction of the Act, you will not be entitled to in the other.

Mr. GLYN-JONES

I wish to emphasise the danger of inserting these words unless my right hon. Friend is quite clear that they will not whittle down the words, "or other incidental services," in Sub-section (4). I should have thought surely "railway or other incidental services" would include the hire of wagons used on the railway. I am anxious lest by accepting this Amendment we should whittle down the effect of these words.

Mr. DENNISS

In my Constituency there are a good many companies which do not supply wagons, and I am particularly anxious that this should be cleared up, whether the hon. Gentleman (Sir E. Cornwall) means that the shilling which he mentioned includes demurrage or not, because if we are going to have demurrage in addition to the shilling and 50 per cent. of the shilling and of the open money it would be a great deal too much. I do ask the President of the Board of Trade to consider on the Report stage whether that 50 per cent. is not too much and whether it does or does not include demurrage.

Sir E. CORNWALL

The reason I proposed any increase at all was because there is much greater delay on the railways now than there was before the War. Otherwise I would have proposed a new Clause, keeping the charge down to the present companies' charges of 1s. in one place, 3d. in another, and so on. If I had proposed it in that form there would have been no elasticity. It would not be fair to the collieries, whose wagons are delayed much longer, not in the form of demurrage, but on the railways. It is nobody's fault. What we do say is that they shall not be entitled, at all events, to charge more than 6d. per ton for wagons if it is London, 1½d. if it is on the 3d. rate, or 3d. if it is on the 6d. rate.

Sir A. MARKHAM

We must make it quite clear about demurrage. The demurrage on some of the railway companies is 3s. I understand that demurrage has nothing to do with this question.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Question, "That the Clause be added to the Bill," put, and agreed to.

Clause added to the Bill as Clause 2.

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN

The next new Clause [Consignment of Coal—Sir E. Cornwall] is outside the scope of the Bill. The Clause Definitions (Sir E. Cornwall) has been dealt with.