§ Order of the Day for the Second Reading read.
§ THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (VISCOUNT PEEL)My Lords, on behalf of my noble friend Lord Lytton 268 I beg to move the Second Reading of this Bill, which is introduced in order to fulfil a pledge given by the Minister of Transport to the Joint Industrial Council when they were considering the question of increased wages for the employees. Under the Bill of 1918, the statutory companies were permitted to increase their charges—that is to say, non-municipal companies and also municipalities operating tramways. The Bill of 1918 was a wide extension which applied to statutory companies generally, but this Bill deals only with tramways and with light railways running along roads. Their position is a very unfortunate one, especially that of the tramways.
There are something like 263 of these undertakings, of which 66 are municipal. The 66 municipal undertakings have a surplus of only £73,695, quite apart from any money which may be required as regard renewals, and, as your Lordships know, renewals cost now about three times what they did before the war. Moreover, in no less than 20 cases of municipal tramways the undertakings have had to go (as the expression is) upon the rates and to appeal to the rates for assistance. Some of the unfortunate cases are West Ham and East Ham where, respectively, they have had to subsidise their tramways to the extent of 9.85d. and 5.41d.; and the case is not very much better for other undertakings—the companies—which represent something like £15,000,000 capital, and their last balance was only £455,000 in order to meet all priority charges.
On the top of this comes the award of what is called the Whitley Committee of 5s. a week extra to be paid to each employee, and 1s. further from the beginning of June. It is impossible, of course, for these undertakings to pay these higher wages, therefore the Minister of Transport agreed to bring in this Bill. It would have been possible, although it would have been rather absurd, for 263 Private Bills to have been brought in, and the Minister has naturally preferred to go by a general Bill which gives him power, after certain inquiries set out in the Bill, to enable fares to be raised so that these undertakings may be able to pay these higher wages. But there are two limitations upon his power. One is, in the case of municipal tramways, that the fares must not be raised to any greater extent than would enable the tramways to be carried on without loss; and the other is, in the ease of the company-owned 269 tramways, that they should have a reasonable return on their share capital after paying their priority charges.
The Minister is assisted by an Advisory Council, which body consists of the Light Railway Commissioners and certain members from the Advisory Panel set up under Section 23 of the Transport Act. But the matter is so urgent that under the Bill the Minister can make Orders which last for six months and then they would be reconsidered with the Advisory Council and, if necessary, they can be made more permanent. They cannot be made very permanent because the duration of the whole Bill is only until February 15, 1923. The reason for this apparently mysterious date is to bring it into line with the powers of the Minister with reference to railways. He was to have two years and then another eighteen months, and February 15, 1923, makes the two dates coincide. I think it is obvious that without this liberty to raise fares tramways will find it utterly impossible to meet the award of the Committee. I beg to move.
§ On Question, Bill read 2a, and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.