§ 27. Mr. Ridleyasked the Minister of Transport what applications he has received from the railway companies to increase their rates and fares; and whether he proposes to remit them for decision to the Railway Rates Tribunal?
§ Captain WallaceThe financial arrangements between the Government, the four amalgamated railway companies and the London Passenger Transport Board provide that rates, fares and charges will be adjusted to meet variations in working costs and certain other conditions arising from the war. I explained to the House on 13th February the machinery which would be provided for this purpose, and, in accordance with the agreed procedure, the Railway Executive Committee have submitted to me estimates of increases in working costs amounting to £26,750,000 in respect of the 19 months from the commencement of control to 31st March, 1941. These estimates have been scrutinised in my Department, and I am satisfied that increased working costs, to the extent of £22,250,000 have been proved. This figure is made up of £9,750,000 for increased labour costs, £2,500,000 for allowances to men serving with His Majesty's Forces, and £10,000,000 for increased prices of fuel and materials. The balance of £4,500,000, representing 954 increases due to black-out and other precautionary measures, is to be examined in the light of further experience.
The Railway Executive Committee have submitted to me that the proved increases justify an all-round addition to railway charges of10 per cent., which is estimated to yield £18,000,000 in a full year. I am satisfied that the facts fully justify this increase, and I have, therefore, made an Order authorising, as from 1st May, 1940, an addition of 10 per cent. to all railway charges, including fares on the railways of the London Passenger Transport Board. This Order does not cover the road services of the Board, which give rise to special difficulties in the adjustment of fares for short stages. I am, therefore, asking the Consultative Committee, comprising the members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, to advise me as to the best means of obtaining a corresponding increase from the Board's road services.
§ Mr. RidleyIs the right hon. and gallant Gentleman aware that the widespread criticism of the announcement that he has just made would have been at least allayed if he had taken the normal course of remitting the application to the Railway Rates Tribunal, for public hearing and judicial decision, instead of choosing to be judge and jury in his own case?
§ Captain WallaceThe reason why I did not remit this proposal to the members of the Railway Rates Tribunal, in a consultative capacity, was that time is the essence of the contract. This deficit has been running on for some time, and, under the terms of the Agreement which this House approved on 13th February, His Majesty's Government are liable to reimburse to the controlled undertakings a sum approximating to £400,000 a week. The longer that is allowed to run on without the necessary adjustment of charges, on principles already approved by this House, the more danger there is that the adjustment will have to be more drastic.
§ Mr. John WilmotDoes the right hon. and gallant Gentleman appreciate that, by abolishing the judicial protection of the railway users which the Railway Rates Tribunal afforded, he is getting into a position where only one side of the case is being heard, and that, since the Government now have an interest in the profits of the railway companies, the users' interest is not being heard at all?
§ Captain WallaceIf the jurisdiction of the Railway Rates Tribunal in regard to the general level of charges had not been suspended by me, it would have been open to the railway companies to apply to the Railway Rates Tribunal for an increase of charges sufficient to bring their income up to the standard revenue. The Railway Rates Tribunal, if it thought that this could be achieved—which I think is very probable—would have been bound, under Statute, to grant that increase. It is, therefore, for the protection of the railway users that I have suspended the functions of the Railway Rates Tribunal in this regard.
§ Mr. WilmotThe Minister will appreciate that the Tribunal would have heard evidence from the other side, and that that has not been done in this case?
§ Captain WallaceIt is not a question of evidence from the other side. This House approved an agreement on 13th February, under which the controlled undertakings are to be reimbursed by the Government for these particular increases. The only point at issue is whether these increased charges have been incurred or not. I am satisfied that they have been incurred. Therefore, with great respect, the Government must fulfil their obligations.
§ Mr. RidleyOwing to the unsatisfactory nature of the reply, I shall raise the matter on the Adjournment.