§ Order for Second Reading read.
§ The PARLIAMENTARY SECRETARY to the MINISTRY of TRANSPORT (Mr. Neal)I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
It may be convenient if I say in a few-words what is the history of the charging powers of canals which it is proposed to extend for 12 months. The canals were taken possession of by the Government in the following way. Firstly, as to 17 canals which were railway-owned, they came into the possession of the Government at the outbreak of war, when the railways were taken over under the Regulation of the Forces Act, 1871. In 1917, 32 other canals were taken possession of under the provisions of Regulations made under the Defence of the Realm Act. Those provisions gave no power to deal with charges, and agreements were made with the individual canals to guarantee them an income which was equivalent to their 1913 income. The result of those agreements was a direct loss to the State in some 3½ years, up to the end of control, of a little over £4,000,000.
When my right hon. Friend Sir Eric Geddes became Minister of Transport, in accordance with his policy to make undertakings self-supporting as far as he was 2085 able, he terminated these agreements. The canals then asked that they might be taken possession of under the provisions of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act, and they were so taken possession of. Under that Section the Minister had power to increase their charges from the statutory maxima which were in existence before the War. Investigation was made in every case, and the charges were increased, under the direction of the Minister, in, I think, some 54 cases. Those charges are now operative, and remain in force by virtue of the Ministry of Transport Act until the 15th February next. On that date the whole of these canals would revert to their pre-War charging powers, and I think I am right in saying that every one of them would be reduced to a state in which it would be impossible for them to balance their accounts. In the autumn of last year that position was represented to the Minister, and it was pointed out that, unless the Government gave some promise of introducing legislation, it would be necessary to introduce private Bills in the present Session of Parliament—those Bills would have been something like 40 or 50 in number—to continue the charging powers. In these circumstances, a public announcement was made that the Government would promote the Bill of which I now have, the honour to move the Second Beading. I cannot give the House any precise figures to show exactly what is the present income of the canals, but I can say that the loss which I have mentioned, and which fell upon the State under the old agreements, would still accrue, because the tonnage has fallen since the year 1920, which in eight months showed a deficiency on revenue account of £1,800,000. That was in respect of a tonnage of, in round figures, 14,250,000 tons. In the year 1921, however——
§ Sir D. MACLEANWhy do you take that period?
§ Mr. NEALBecause control ended in August, 1920. As I have said, the tonnage in 1920 was, in round figures, 14,250,000 tons, and in 1921 it had fallen to 10,250,000 tons—again in round figures—showing therefore, a decrease of some 4,000,000 tons, or a percentage decrease of 28 per cent. It therefore seems to be essential to continue the charging powers of the canals for some little time further. As to what the future may be I hesitate to 2086 say. The whole question of the canals is one of the most difficult problems with which we have to deal, and we are very much indebted to my hon. Friend the Member for the Ladywood Division of Birmingham (Mr. N. Chamberlain) for presiding over a Committee which is considering that very troublesome question. It may well be that the period which we are now suggesting, namely, one year, may not turn out to he quite sufficient. In fact, representations have been made to the Government by the Canal Association asking that this period be increased by another year. That is a matter with which, I think, it would be most convenient to deal on the Committee stage, and, if that concession were to be made by the Committee, I should myself think that it ought to be accompanied by some power of revision vested, upon due inquiry, in the Ministry. In these circumstances, I hope the House may see its way to give a Second Reading to the Bill.
§ Sir D. MACLEANIt will be well if the House will take careful notice of Clause 1 of this Bill, which refers to Section 3 (1, e) of the Ministry of Transport Act, 1919. The opening words of Subsection (1) of Section 3 of that Act are the governing words, and are as follows:
With a view to affording time for the consideration and formulation of the policy to be pursued as to the future position of undertakings to which this Section applies, the following provisions shall, unless Parliament otherwise determines, have effect ….The special reason for bringing in this Bill is that of charging powers. I understand that the policy has not yet been determined, but is still the subject of inquiry by a Committee. Is that so?
§ Mr. NEAL indicated assent.
§ Sir D. MACLEANAnd I understand that meanwhile it is desired to continue those charging powers. The commercial community at present is suffering acutely from the heavy transport charges levied by railway companies and all other undertakings which operate under grants of monopoly powers by Parliament, and therefore the House ought to be jealous of every Measure which is brought before it for further extending the powers already given by Statute. I observe that the hon. Gentleman states that the traffic fell in one year from 14,000,000 tons to 2087 10,000,000 tons. Why was that? It was a year of very good trade—1920.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI should suggest that while there was a diminution of trade one of the reasons the traffic fell off was the high charges levied by the canal system.
§ Sir F. BANBURYIt was because the railway companies carried the traffic so well.
§ 7.0 P.M.
§ Sir D. MACLEANI do not expect any enthusiastic support for my point of view from the right hon. Baronet on this occasion at any rate, because the attitude of the railway companies to canals in this country has not tended to the general lowering of the freightage and transport charges of this country. I think that is an observation that will carry a large amount of assent. The most important canals which came under the control of the railway companies have had as much traffic taken from them to the railways as possible, so depriving the traders of this country of a most useful means of transport.
§ Sir F. BANBURYThat is quite a mistake.
§ Sir D. MACLEANThe right hon. Baronet will no doubt hold that view for the rest of his natural life.
§ Sir F. BANBURYI will.
§ Sir D. MACLEANWhat I would like to know is when the hon. Gentleman anticipates that the Committee will lay before the House their Report, so that we shall have the occasion for considering what the policy recommended to the Government may be with regard to the expansion of the waterways of this country. I anticipate that this will be an almost hardy annual or bi-annual, and that every time they will come for further extensions of the powers to levy these largely increased rates. I hope the House will seize every opportunity carefully to examine any proposals made by the Ministry of Transport or by the Board of Trade, as I hope it very soon will be, for the extension of these powers. The whole natural tendency of monopoly associations is, of course, to retain all the 2088 powers of charging, and of increased charging, that they at present possess. Take the increased charges at the docks of this country. There is not the slightest doubt that they are throttling business in a way which cannot go on very much longer without doing even more serious harm than has already been occasioned to it. I hope when this Bill goes to Committee a further, and, indeed, meticulous, inquiry will be made on these points, to which I hope an answer will be forthcoming before the Debate concludes.
Major BARNESThere may be some very good reason why this particular Bill should be passed, but I dislike most intensely the principle embodied in it, which is continuing and leaving the power of determining what charges shall be remedied by great companies, or small companies for that matter, in the hands of a Department. We have practically a whole round of these things now. We have a sort of system of indirect taxation that is clean outside the control of this House. This House has passed Bills dealing with the charges for water, charges for gas, charges for railway transport. Here we are dealing with one of the charges for canal transport, all these things are taken outside the purview of Parliament, and put into the hands of somebody appointed by the Board of Trade or the Ministry of Transport who, by the application of his judgment, is to determine what the public should pay. The Minister who introduced this Bill has made the point, which is of some substance and weight, that if we do not pass this Bill, it means that in a year's time we shall have about 50 private Bills coming before the House in respect of these different canals. There is something very plausible, on the face of it, in the idea of saving that sort of expense and the amount of time given to the consideration of these Bills, but I do think the time will very shortly arrive when we shall have to consider in this country whether we are not losing, on the whole, more than we gain by taking out of the purview of Parliament a great many questions that used to come before Parliamentary Committees. I have no doubt that in these private inquiries the best is done, but the fact remains that you do not get the publicity and the public interest, nor do you give the chances to the persons who suffer by high charges to put their case before a 2089 Department that they do get when the matter comes before a Committee of this House.
We are asked in this Bill to continue the power which the Ministry of Transport have of fixing the charges for transport by canals. That may be inevitable. I do not propose to oppose the passage of this Bill, but I do want to take this opportunity of pointing out how serious a matter these transport charges are, and how important a matter it is that we shall, as soon as possible, get some competition in the matter. What is the position at the present time? It is that the charges for transport by rail are under the control of the Rates Advisory Committee, which is linked up with the Ministry of Transport. The charges for transport by water along these canals is under the control of the Ministry of Transport, and it is very, very difficult to believe that there is any element of competition entering into these different forms of transport. We shall never, I think, get to a satisfactory economic position in this country until we get, in some shape or form, real live, active, vigorous, competition between the different forms of carrying goods. While, therefore, I do not propose to offer any opposition to the passage of this Bill through its Second Reading, when it does come to pass the Committee Stage I think we shall be entitled to give very careful consideration to the provisions embodied in it.
§ Mr. NEALPerhaps the House will allow me to say a few words in reply to what has been said by my right hon. Friend (Sir D. Maclean) and by my hon. and gallant Friend (Major Barnes). I do not quite agree with my right hon. Friend as to the meaning of Section 3 of the Ministry of Transport Act. The charges were continued for 18 months beyond Control in the hope that within that period conditions might have become more stable than they have become, and it might have been found possible to know what was the proper basis of charge for the future. I do not think anybody will suggest that we have reached that period of stability at the present time, that we are likely to do so in the next 12 months, or even in the further period that my right hon. Friend indicates. However that may be, it does seem necessary to avoid flooding the House with 2090 Private Bill legislation, with a great waste of money. I do not quite know the alternative that my hon. and gallant Friend has in mind, but I would like to reassure him by saying that as the Bill stands at present the Ministry of Transport has no control whatever over the charges. I am not quite sure that on further consideration the Minister might not desire to have that power so that he might reduce the charges as the fall in costs make it advisable so to do. At present it is open to the canal com panies, none of which are in a prosperous state, to reduce their charges, but as the law stands, and unless the Bill is amended, there would be no compulsory power in any Government Department
§ Lord R. CECILDo I understand that under the present law the Ministry of Transport merely fixes the maximum, that they do not compel the canals to charge up to that price, and that that is a matter for the canal companies?
§ Mr. NEALIn substance the Noble Lord is right, but not quite in detail. The charges in operation on the date when control ceased remain operative as voluntary maxima. The companies may charge such lower sum as competition or other circumstances may make them think it wise to do.
§ Lord R. CECILWhat I wanted to know was whether the effect of this Bill will be to compel the canal companies to keep up their charges. Many of us are very anxious that nothing should be done to injure the canal interests.