§
Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £1,110,200, be, granted to His Majesty, to defray the Charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March, 1920, to meet Expenditure in respect of refunds of excess cost of conveyance by Coastwise Transport over transport by Rail and of Dock Congestion Relief.
§ Mr. HOGGEI do not know whether any right hon. Friend will look at this 1848 Estimate in. connection with No. 18, which comes later. There is an item here which I confess I do not understand. I understand that it is a payment in respect of refund to traders who were compelled to send their traffic coastwise instead of by rail. There is an item for £19,200, dock congestion relief. If the right hon. Gentleman looks at the footnote he will see in the first sentence a reference to expenses in connection with Government lorries lent to railway companies under the Traffic Emergency Dock Congestion Relief Scheme. There is an asterisk after the word "scheme." It is explained that receipts in connection with these services will be reclaimed by the railway companies in reduction of their claim for deficiency on net receipts.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe difficulty is that the Chairman of Committees usually gets these Votes through very speedily, and, unless somebody intervenes, nothing is said.
§ Mr. NEALThis Vote is under two heads. There is a sum of £1,100,000 for refunds to traders and a second sum of £19,200 against which there is a set-off of £9,000 for dock congestion relief. This is the first time that the Committee has been asked to give a Vote for money in respect of these services, though the fact of the establishment of the services has been brought to the notice of the House on numerous occasions, particularly at Question-time. What has led up to this request being made may be very shortly stated. The coastwise trade is one of the essential forms of transport and one of the best means of relieving the congestion at ports and assisting the railways. But unfortunately there has been a very great decline in the volume of traffic carried by coastal steamers. In 1913 approximately 35,000,000 tons of traffic were so carried. In 1918 that had fallen to 17,000,000 tons, a decrease of 52 per cent. Dealing with the present year on an estimate based on the first ten months it is believed that that will not increase to a greater extent than 4,000,000 tons, making 21,000,000 tons, as against the pre-war 35,000,000 tons, or a decrease of 40 per cent. The effects of this are both direct and indirect. Directly they interfere with the course of trade and industry in the coastal and coastwise towns. Indirectly they are of the factors making 1849 for difficulty of traffic problems on the railways. In July of this year the War Cabinet decided that special steps should be taken to try and bring back the coastwise service to a state of efficiency, and in August a scheme was introduced for the purpose. Very briefly, the scheme is this, that traffic which can be carried by boat is encouraged to use that form of transit. Most of the coastal rates are higher than the railway rates, as rail-day rates are by virtue of the agreement made when control was taken, and are charged at present to a greater or less extent upon the public purse, and many persons are now sending goods by rail which normally and ordinarily would go by sea. Under those circumstances it was determined through the good offices of port committees to try and secure a maximum amount of use of coastwise traffic, and the amount which is due is disbursed by the railway companies. It is hoped that that state of things may not exist for any prolonged period. The real remedy will be the adjustment of railway freightage rates. Under Section 21 of the Transport Act, the Minister is empowered to set up, which he did as promptly as he could, a Railway Rates Committee. That Committee has been working with great diligence and assiduity, and it is hoped that their report will be available at a very early date, and that it may then be possible for the Minister to take such steps as may result in the necessary adjustment of freightage rates. During the fifteen weeks to the 6th of December the tonnage carried by sea entitled to a subsidy was 450,000 tons, and the refunds varied from 16s. to 20s. per ton, showing how important it was that something should be done in this matter when you bear in mind that in order to reconcile railway rates and coastwise rates it was necessary to make so large tonnage payments. The amount involved was £430,000. The best estimate which can be formed of the sixteen weeks to the end of the financial year is that there will be 166,000 tons, making a total of £670,000, and the sum in the Vote of £1,100,000. The other matter to which the hon. Member for East Edinburgh called attention is with reference to dock congestion relief. It was determined after the railway strike that the lorries which were Government property and which had been in the hands of the Ministry of Munitions should be availed of to the fullest extent to try and relieve the congestion of the docks. The 1850 plan adopted was to let them to local haulage contractors at the general rate prevailing. The sum estimated as cost is £19,200, and there is an anticipated revenue from the haulers of £9,000, so that the Vote is £10,200. My hon. Friend asked why this is not dealt with under the Railway Agreement Clause, but it was thought to be more appropriate to do it in this way
§ 4.0 P.M
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYWe are much obliged for the statement of the hon. Gentleman, but it is worth noting that this matter of coastal transport was not tackled until July of this year, and surely it must have been obvious to anyone who thought about these things long before-that. We all know the causes of the decline of coastal traffic during the War. I am sure the Minister of Transport will be the first to agree, in spite of his personal love of railway traffic, that the decline of British coastal traffic is very undesirable. First of all, it relieves the block on the railways, and secondly, the seamen employed on that traffic are a potential reserve for the Navy. Although the block existed on the railway, hampering trade and delaying building, no steps apparently were taken until July, when it must have been evident long before the Armistice that something would be required to be done as soon as possible.
§ Sir FORTESCUE FLANNERYThe, hon. and gallant Gentleman forgets that during the period he refers to the seas were infested by mines which made the coastwise traffic impossible.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI am glad to say that by the Mine Sweeping service we have been able to get all our coasts swept of them. Really there was no reason at all because of mines why this traffic should not have been gone on with, and I do not think that since the Armistice many mines have been found in the channels. Might I have an assurance on this point: Is it intended to raise the railway freights to such an extent that it will be commercially attractive for coastwise traffic to be applied for without any subsidy at all? This affects the Constituency I represent, and many other hon. Members will be interested as well. Is that going to be a basic principle?
§ Mr. NEALBefore the Minister is entitled to come to any conclusion he must, 1851 under the Statute, await the advice of the Committee set up under the Statute. I think my hon. and gallant Friend will see that it would be improper to give any more definite answer than that until that advice has been tendered.
§ Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHYI cannot agree altogether, because this is a matter of high policy, and surely we can have an answer on that. Is it intended that the freights on the railways shall be economic freights, which is all we want, because then, water transport being cheaper than railway transport, coastal traffic will be able to look after itself? Finally, might I ask a question with regard to the motor lorries? It would be interesting to know if the right hon. Gentleman could tell us if he considers that these lorries will become a permanent feature, and, if so, is it intended that they shall go on being Government property or that the matter shall be left to private enterprise? I particularly ask that because an important question has arisen at several of the ports, namely, that of accommodation for these lorries. For a fleet of lorries working at a port you want a large sheltered garage, and it would be very helpful to have the right hon. Gentleman's opinion as to whether he thinks this very valuable system of relieving the dock congestion will be permanent or not.
§ Mr. HOGGEI think the point last raised by my hon. and gallant Friend has not been sufficiently referred to, namely, the use made of the motor lorries and how far this practice is going to be continued. Judging by the Estimate which is drawn, there is a loss of £10,000 on this particular transaction, and obviously the State cannot go on subsidising at a loss of that kind. It would be interesting to hear my right hon. Friend on that point, particularly in view of the stories we hear about the congestion of goods in the docks. I am not yet satisfied about this £19,200. I did not ask whether it could be dealt with better on the railway agreement yesterday, but I referred to the railway agreement yesterday, and the note placed on it dealing with the £19,100. The railway agreement deals with an estimated deficit for 1919–20 on the railways of £45,000,000, and in that sum are the expenses in connection with Government lorries lent to the railway companies. I take it that that is this item of £19,200, on which there is a loss of £10,000. I may be rather stupid, 1852 not being accustomed to double entry or figures which are involved. But is £9,000 not being counted twice over?
§ Mr. NEALI am much obliged to my hon. Friend for making his point clear to me. The position indicated is this: there are accounts between the railway companies and the Government. The railway companies are carrying to the credit of the account any moneys they are receiving for this service. It is merely a question of accounts.
§ Mr. HOGGEThe £19,200 can be recovered in the cross-entry made between the railways and the Government. I wanted that to be made quite plain, because the explanatory notes at the bottom of the Estimates are not, in my view, detailed enough to make one understand those intricate figures, and you find this reference in this one, and in 18, which really ought to come before 18a. It is very easy for a large amount of money to slip through without the proper amount of criticism.
§ Colonel P. WILLIAMSThe hon. Gentleman opposite made use of a certain phrase, "goods entitled to receive subsidy." Could he tell us what special circumstances entitle goods to receive a subsidy? Is it at the discretion of the Ministry, or are they tabulated in such a form that traders know exactly what goods are entitled to receive subsidy or not, or is preference given to a certain class of trade and not another? How is it worked out?
§ Sir E. GEDDESI would like to reply to one or two points that have been raised. With regard to that put by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy), as my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry said, I could not say in advance what rates the Advisory Committee will advise, but, as the House will remember, the Government has the power of reviewing their advice. What I can tell the House is that, under the powers of the Ministry of Transport Act, the Minister can refer to the Rates Advisory Committee the problem how to obtain so much additional revenue by organisation of the rates, reduction of service, and so on, and the line on which the Government has proceeded is merely to put railways on an 1853 economic basis from the railway point of view—that is to say, to make them no longer show a deficit in their working and in the guarantee, but not, on the whole, to provide for the penalising of the railway user to the advantage of the steamship owner who works a coastal service. That is to say, the ground, as a whole, on which the Government has asked the Rates Advisory Committee to advise, is to put railways on an economic basis and allow competition on land and sea to go on with a non-subsidised service competing.
The first point that was raised was as to which goods were entitled to subsidy. This was an arrangement come to, as the House will remember, before the responsibility passed to the Ministry of Transport. The problem which confronted the Department that dealt with it was that there was a limited amount of coastal shipping available. It was desirable not to give a subsidy out of the taxpayers' pockets to goods which, anyhow, had to go by water—goods, for example that had to go to the waterside or to waterside premises. The course adopted as a temporary expedient—and it is only temporary, and we are going to get out of it as soon as possible—was that these allowances should be made after the railway had shown it was unable to carry the traffic which was either imported or exported to and from a port. The traffic actually between two ports was not to be included because of the difficulties I have mentioned. That is broadly what is intended by the goods entitled to subsidy. It was an expedient to get over a temporary state of affairs which, I hope, will shortly be got over in another and more logical way.
As to the lorries at; the ports—this was action taken, as the House will recollect, immediately at the close of the railway strike. The ports were congested more so than even they are now. As these lorries were all over the country it was considered it would be a wise and prudent thing to put them on to try and make up, at any rate, some of the arrears at the ports. They were sent to certain ports. They were a scratch lot of lorries. They had come over from France. Many of them had not been properly repaired. They were of a nondescript character. They were sent down to the ports, but their working has been, I frankly confess, disappointing. The experiment, I think, was justified by the exceptional circumstances of the time, but I have given in 1854 structions that, with the exception of Liverpool and Manchester—where they are doing better and more nearly justify themselves—although by no means wholly —with these exceptions, they are to be withdrawn. They are really not justifying their existence now. As to the question of a permanent lorry fleet to clear the ports, I have certainly no intention of starting any such service to be run directly by the State. If, when the organisation gets into the former peace time working, the railways find it a convenient and economic way to deal with traffic, instead of carrying it all by rail, no doubt they will supply the lorries. But the Ministry of Transport has no intention of embarking upon lorry fleets at the ports in order to carry goods about the streets.
Question put, and agreed to.