Road Transport Activities
Page 45
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
in PARLIAMENT
By Our Special Parliamentary Correspondent
The London Passenger Transport Bill.
BElf ORE the Joint Committee on the London Passenger Transport Bill Mr. Evan Charteris, KG., submitted the case of the London County Council in respect of its objections to the Bill, apart from the financial aspects upon which an agreement has been reached. He regarded the statement of the Minister of Transport in evidence as making it clear that the centre of power would reside in the new Board itself. The L.C.C. owned what he believed to be the largest tramways system in the world and it had been hitherto worked entirely in the interests of the public.
Under the Bill the system was to be taken over and divorced from the management under which it had grown up, and joined to a monopoly, the predominant duty of which would be to recover revenue. It had been said that the proposalwas a transfer from one public authority • to another, but the • neiv authority was an entirely new invention which had never been suggested in local-government or public-ownership concerns before.
The new Board was a public body, hut yet not responsible to the public. There was to be no leaven of municipal influence. He contended that it was highly desirable that in the process of transfer the London tramways should not lose altogether its municipal cornplexam and that those chosen by the community for local government should have a wider authority in Connection with the scheme and closer relationship with the working of the instrument which they had created and which had been adapted to public needs.
The checks were insufficient. The Board was accountable to no one except that the Minister could appoint its members and remove them if he thought fit. The L.C.C. claimed that the influence of municipal considerations should be permitted to make itself felt.
"Board of Directors" Suggested.
SIR 0. WARBURG, chairman of the committee of the L.C.C. on Transport, giving evidence, suggested on behalf of the L.C.C. that there should be a body of 12 or 14 persons corresponding to a board of directors of a private company which the Board of management of five would have to satisfy as to the soundness of the policy of the Board.
He proposed that this body should consist of persons with different types of experience, some appointed by the Minister of Transport, some by. local authorities in the area, others with financial experience, others who might be appointed by the Governor of the Bank of England or some recognised financial authority and others appointed by the Minister of Labour.
In cross-examination he stated that there had been no resolution of the county couriejl in favour of this pro
posal, but such a resolution was not necessary.' lie had put forward the suggestion in his capacity as chairman of the special committee on Transport and it was within the principles approved by the county council.
Proposal to be Approved.
rpHE witnessi informed the chairman _Is that the proposal had not been formally put before the council, but it was one which it would approve. He admitted that the Proposal had. not been submitted to any lohal authority in the area.
Mr. Wilfrid Greene, KG.: You are proposing another body, which would be a " super " Board? Witness : I think that would be a good. term for it. Witness expressed the opinion that the controlling board should appoint the members. of the Transport Board after . consulting the Minister of Transport. • Management by the Transport Board would not be interfered With where quick decisions were necessary.
Thereafter the -ease of Thomas Tilling, Ltd., was submitted in respect of objection to the financial terms proposed in the Bill for the 'transfer of its undertaking.
L.C.C. and the Board.
.T thefollowing sitting of the Coin
anfittee Mr. Charteris 'said, with reference to Sir 0. Warburg's siatemeat, that a meeting of the Parliamentary Committee of the L.C.C. had since been held, at which . it was resolved that the principle laid down by the L.C.C. in its resolution of December 16th, 1930, cOuld bust be applied to the London 'Passenger, Transport Bill by providing that the proposed Transport Board should be responsible to a larger body that this larger body should in broad outline be composed of members specially selected and equipped as regards financial, labour and other considerations, and that one-third of them should be appointed by local authorities.
The evidence of Sir 0. Warburg With regard • to constitutional aspectswas approved by the Committee. He added that the Parliamentary Committee was appointed to deal with all matters relating to the county council coming before Parliament.
Position of the A.E. Co.
"FiVIDENCE regarding the financial 1' settlement with certain bus companies was given by Sir William M'Iantock.
In reply to Mr. Bruce Thomas, KG., for the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders, who cross-examined him regarding the proposed contract between the Associated Equipment Co. Ltd:, and the Transport Board, Sir William said it was proposed that the Board should purchase for the first 10 years 90 per cent, of its standard fleet of buses from the company. Counsel remarked that in that case his 'elient would be exs
eluded from the market to that extent. • The witness stated that from 1921 to .1030, inclusive, the total purchases of the London General Omnibus Co., Ltd., from the A.E. Go. amounted to an average of £870,000 a year, and it was calculated that ,under the new Board these would amount to £750,000 a year.
A Free Hand.
OUNSEL then submitted to the
)Committee that the Board should be left free to make whatever contracts it thought fit fol\ the purchase of busea, and that it should not be bound either by the old contract or the new contract with the A.E. Co. He agreed that compensation would have to be -made in
respect of the old contract. , Sir II. Cautley, a member of the Committee, asked the witness whether he could give the name of one big commercial concern which purchased its requirements on the basis proposed, namely, net cost, plus 10 per cent. The witness replied that from the investigations he-had made into the prices paid by the L.G.O. Co., as compared with other companies, ha, reached . the conclusion that the proposed arrangement between the A.E. Co. and the Transport _Board would operate perfectly fairly.
Bus Companies and Land Tax.
LEN the Finance Bill was con sidered on Report Sir F. Hall movedan amendment to include among the land units exempted from the Land Tax land owned by bus companies in respect of their actual business of the conveying of passengers in public vehicles.
Municipal undertakings and the railway companies were, he said, exempt from tax in respect of the land on which their garages were built. There were certain bus companies, he knew, which worked under a special Act and had.the, advantage of exclusion from taxation, but in his opinion the whole of the motorbus industry should be placed in the same category. The Government was going to obtain a distinct advantage from the Land Tax in respect of the improved value of land that bad been created owing to the operation of these bus concerns and his amendment was a reasonable one. The tax meant an additional penalty on privately owned concerns.
The Solicitor General, in resisting the amendment, pointed out that the transport companies in this country were probably among the most prosperous of all companies. The amendment would lead to wide exemptions, because it dealt with factories used for construe:ing vehicles. If these works for manufacturing motor vehicles were exempt, why not other factories? On a division the amendment was rejected by the House by 276 votes to 181.
Frivolous Opposition to Licences.
REMER proposed that when .1.V.1. in the opinion of the Traffic Commissioners opposition to an application for a road-service licence was frivolous or trivial an order should be made for the payment to the successful applicant of his costa incurred in the application. The Parliamentary Secretary, Mr. Parkinson, stated that the Minister had no power to make such a regulation. B27