Road Transport Activities
Page 60
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.
IN the course of the proceedings of the Joint Committee on the adjustment of clauses in the London Passenger Transport Bill, consideration was given to questions which arose out of the decision of the Committee that the TranSport Board should not be allowed power to manufacture. When -this decision was announced by the chairman It was stated at the same time that the Committee would be prepared to consider the question of allowing the Board to continue to manufacture bua bodies at the premises at Chiswick, which are to be transferred to the Board by the Undergromid Group.
Mr. Wilfrid Greene, K.C., representing the Government, said that the L.G.O. Co." had been engaged in the manufacture of bus bodies for its own use dining the past 70 years, and until a few years ago had manufactured the whole Of its requirements. When there were rapid changes in construction and a large temporary demand for new bodies some of the work was placed outside, but it was incorrect to say that there had been a steady placing of orders outside. He asked the Committee to empower the Board to continue to manufacture bodies, and he submitted an amendment for that purpose.
The chairman, Lord Lytton, afterwards announced that the Committee did not wish or intend to deprive the Board entirely of the manufacturing powers that passed to it under the settlement with the Underground Group. On the other hand. the Committee wag not prepared to cede to the Board right to the unlimited use of the premises at Chiswick, and it-wished the manufacturing powers of the Board to be limited to bus bodies and to an amount which should be represented by the average manufacture of bodies at Chiswick during the past five years'. The Committee had also decided that trolley-buses were not included in the works at. Chiswick.
Some discussion took place on the " C" stock dividend. The.,chairman had previously announced that the Committee did not wish' to alter the, standard 5i4 per cent, dividend proposed in the Bill, but it wished to make it clear that it should be recognized as the Board's duty after the first two years to pay .0. dividend of 6 per cent.• on "C "stock and to build up an adequate reserve fund.
At a later stage the Committeegave its decision to the effect that it must be the duty of .the Minister to have regard to the establishment of a reserve fund and dint the surplus of the working should be divided, half for reserve and the other half to increase the standard 5i per cent, dividend on "C" stock to '6 per cent.
A long discussion took place on the question of whether the petitioners who had not reached a settlement should receive compensation as favourable as that of undertakings which had reached a settlement. The Conitnittee had decided that the arbitrator should have regard to the principles applying in the case of the settlement with the Underground Group. The Committee announced that its final decision would be embodied in a special clause to be brought up later.