YORKSHIRE (WOOLLEN DISTRICT) TRANSPORT BILL [Lords]. (Hansard, 11 May 1931)

§ Mr. BEN TURNER
I should like to make a few observations on this Bill and to say, quite frankly, that, on principle, I do not agree with it. I do not like to give way on a principle of any import- 897 ance of this character. I happen, however, to be the only Member representing our own town in this House, and I am authorised by the corporation of that borough to give the Bill my support. There are at present six authorities in this area who own or semi-own the present tramway system. Formerly, there were 11 bodies. It is one of those strange, incongruous things that certain of the places do not own the tramlines, but the tramways. Others own nothing except a short stretch of land. In other places they own nothing whatever.
The time has gone for trams and they must now go by the board. The suggestion is that the tramways should be abandoned and that there should be established an omnibus system covering the whole area. It has been asked why do not the authorities agree to run the new service themselves. I am the only person in this House who was a member of one of the public bodies who went through this stage 30 years ago, when we tried our best to get the then authorities to agree to take up the tramway services under a joint authority. We failed to get agreement then, and there is no possibility at the present time of an agreement being arrived at for joint action in this direction. There has been general agreement by six authorities as to the position of affairs at this moment, and each of them has signed what is termed an agreement, which is a schedule of the Bill itself, which arranges not only for the establishment of omnibuses but for the pulling up of the old tramways and for the sharing of profits as well. All these six authorities are for the Bill. In regard to one town, opposition has been raised by a considerable number of ratepayers. In the six areas referred to there are four trades councils. One of the trades councils has opposed the Bill, but three have not opposed it at all. The same applies, I think we may say, to the ratepayers as a whole. The opposition to the Bill from one body of ratepayers is very honest in principle, and one which I would support most heartily if the circumstances were favourable and suitable, but towns like my own cannot afford at the present moment to go deeply into expenditure, because our rates are so high, our resources are so low and our trade is so bad.
898 This is a Bill that I think ought to be amended in Committee. I am not quite certain whether I am in order or not, but I hope that I am. I do not like all the parts of the agreement that are contained in the Schedule of the Bill. The first part contains a lease for 99 years, with the right of the local authorities to make a bargain at the end of 25 years or at the end of 50 years, and it seems to me that a prospective 50 years in 99 years is altogether inadequate. As to the question of sharing profits, which has been arranged by the various authorities, I have no grumble. The 60 per cent. of net profits seems to me quite a proper arrangement, although it drops down to 55 per cent. in certain periods. There are four things missing from the Bill. I do not know whether it is feasible for the Committee upstairs to insist that local labour shall be applied in pulling up the tramway track. There is no provision for the human element in connection with the pulling up of the tramway track or in the establishment of omnibuses. I think it ought to be said that they should employ the displaced tramway men upon the omnibuses.

§ Mr. PALIN
There is an undertaking to that effect.

§ Mr. TURNER
But it is not in the Bill. I know that some undertakings have been given. They were given last Monday downstairs. I am not opposing the official agreements that were come to, but I want to see them in black and white in the Bill. Moreover, we ought to have British omnibuses and none of those foreign contraptions that may sometimes be called for because of economy. That has nothing to do with tariffs, you know. Clauses 6, 16 and 22 need careful consideration and revision, and if these things are done the Bill will be more acceptable. I conclude by saying that I regret that these authorities could not agree to have this system under their own control, to create and manage it themselves, as we tried to do 30 years ago, and failed. It has been tried again and yet it has failed. Therefore, I am compelled, for the sake of expediency, to support the Bill.

§ Mr. KELLY
I should like to raise a point in regard to the men who are now employed. I do so because I have had experience of accepting from those who 899 are undertaking new methods or forming new companies promises that they would give compensation or work to those who happen to be displaced. I refer to the Chatham undertaking particularly in which, owing to the position at which we found ourselves at a particular stage, we accepted an undertaking that compensation would be paid. There has been some difficulty about that because of its not being in the Bill. I hope that during the passage of this Measure through its stages there will be put into it a provision that if the company do not find work and an equal position for the men who are displaced, that they will compensate them for the whole of the service that they have given to the companies by whom they happen to be engaged at this particular time. I press that very strongly, and if it is not done I hope to have an opportunity of opposing the Bill and, if possible, preventing it becoming law.

§ Mr. PALIN
The House would make itself ridiculous to go on discussing details of a Bill of this character. So far as the local authorities are concerned in regard to the position that we are in there is no one to blame but themselves. They only own a very small portion of the track within the old area.

§ Mr. TURNER
Batley owns all its tramways.

§ Mr. PALIN
As a matter of fact they do not. This tramway is a very long one and the local authorities only own a very small part. As the hon. Member for Batley and Morley (Mr. Turner) has challenged it, there is in the Borough of Batley only 6.27 miles of tramway of this particular system. The corporation do not own all the tramway in Batley, because the company own a small portion within the borough. In Birkenshaw, the urban district council own only 22 yards of the tramway, the remainder being owned by the company. In Birstal the same thing applies. In Dewsbury, the corporation own 48 miles of tramway, which is leased to the company until the 10th April, 1933. The corporation also own 2.46 miles of light railway leased to the company, and the company own 3,08 miles of light railway inside the borough.
It is very difficult to present a Bill and to do all the things that the hon. 900 Member for Batley and Morley desires. He wants to have a little bit on the company and a little on the local authorities. So far as the hon. Member for Rochdale (Mr. Kelly) is concerned, the men employed by this undertaking are thoroughly well organised, and their organisation is quite capable of looking after their conditions of service. Up to now the relations of the company with the workpeople have been most harmonious, and there is no ground for complaint or fear that the company would not honour their word if they gave an undertaking to see that any men displaced by the abandonment of the tramways are either amply compensated or found other employment. Therefore, there seems to be ample reason why this Bill should be committed to a Committee for full consideration, where any points that require amendment will no doubt be considered, with the assistance of that expert advice that we get from the Ministry of Transport and the learned counsel engaged in connection with the Bill.