The London Passenger Transport Bill
Page 53
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
Mi-IE Government has lost no time in _L the new Session in proceeding with the Loudon Passenger Transport Bill, the committee stage in the House of Commons having been placed first on the programme of business immediately after the conclusion of the debate on the address in reply to the King's speech. Incidentally, this document contained no reference to legislation dealing with road-transport interests and the prospect of legislation arising out of the Salter Report was left without mention.
A mass of amendments was placed on the paper for committee on the London Passenger Transport'Bill, a large batch of them being designed to carry out the modifications which the Government proposed in the white paper issued some months ago. It was there indicated that the appointment of the Transport Board was to be taken out of the hands of the Minister of Transport and transferred to an independent body of trustees, the powers of the Minister being further restricted by transferring to the Railway Rates Tribunal powers of making orders for new or improved services or facilities and the scheme for pooling of railway receipts. The amendments also included the incorporation of the agreement with the Metropolitan Railway Co.
Another long series of amendments referred to the proposal of the L.C.C. and local authorities to establish a special board of 14, including the chairman, with a definite representation of the L.C.C. and local authorities, which would appoint an executive committee to operate the undertaking of the board. There were other amendments to provide that the board should consist of persons representing the various undertakings.
Revised Balance Sheet and Statement.
It was pointed out last week by Sir Kenyon Vaughan-Morgan that a pro forma balance sheet and statement, showing the liabilities and assets and the application of the revenue of the London Passenger Transport Board in accordance with the terms of the Bill, were handed in to the select committee on the Bill, and he asked the Minister whether he would issue a revised pro forma balance sheet and statement to show the effect of the settlements with various interests which had been made since they were presented to the Select Committee, also the effect of the fall in traffic receipts.
Colonel Headlam,. Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry i74 Transport, said that he did not think that any useful purpose could be served by attempting to draw up statements based on the traffic receipts of the various undertakings during the recent period of exceptional depression. It was proposed, however, before the committee stage of the Bill, to issue a statement showing the effects upon the pro forma statement presented to the joint select committee of the settlements reached since they were prepared.
When the House of Commons went into Committee on the Bill on Tues day, some two hours were spent in a preliminary .general discussion based on a statement made by Mr. Pybus, the Minister of Transport, as to the changes which the Government proposed to make on the Bill. A number of members, including Unionists, expressed dissatisfaction, and some members considered that the Bill should be withdrawn and a new Bill substituted. The Attorney-General (Sir T. Inskip), having made a further explanation of the changes which the Government proposes on the Bill (all of which were already known), the House passed to consideration of the amendments after a division in which the opponents secured 322 votes against 223 for the Government.
The first question raised was one of finance, on an amendment by Sir K. Vaughan-Morgan, when several members took the view that the scheme was not financially sound and might lead to great difficulties. The Attorney-General gave assurances that, so far as could be foreseen, the finance of the scheme would be satisfactory, and he quoted the authority of Sir Wm. MacLintock, the Government's financial adviser on the matter, who had made a supplementary report since that originally presented to the Joint Committee. The subsequent discussion was largely taken up by supporters of the amendment, members against it preferring to save time by keeping silent.
The Attorney-General added that the Tilling concern was one of the bestmanaged undertakings, and it was most competent to judge the value of transport stock as the price of its undertaking. The agreements made with the
L.G.a. Co., Ltd., and the Underground company were also on a strictly commercial basis, but it was impossible .for him to say how many years' purchase had been given.
Mr. Pybus moved an amendment increasing the personnel of the Transport Board from four to six, excluding the chairman, in order to provide for the appointment of two members of local government experience. Sir William Ray, who wanted the Board te have 13 members, welcomed the one-third representation of local government members, but still considered there should be a large policy authority and an executive board.
Sir Percy Harris took the same view, regretting that Sir W. Ray was not continuing his aggressiveness on the Bill, because he (Sir Percy) considered a board of seven members was not large enough to control 91 companies with an aggregate capital of £120,000,000. The amendment was agreed to.
Government Amendment Regarding Apppointtnent.
The Attorney-General moved the deletion of the clause empowering the Minister of Transport to appoint the members of the Transport Board, and, after several Labour protests, explained that the Minister would still have the power to fix the remuneration of the board and call for annual reports of the board's work and for the traffic returns. It would not be open for M.P.s to question the Minister about the board's work. Mr. Lansbury protested as an occasional straphanger in the Underground trains against the disability upon members to protest in the House, and he joined with Mr. E. Briant in asserting that the Bill was not worth while if the public could have no access to the controlling body of London's traffic. Col. Moore-Brabazon said the board would be a negative board, and Mr. C. Atkinson said it would be kaleidoscopic. The amendment was carried by 234 votes to 43.
The debate was then adjourned ; few lines of Clause 1 out of 107 clauses were passed after seven hours' debate.