1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115
116
117
118
119
120
121
122
123
124
125
126
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
140
141
142
143
144
145
146
147
148 
Commons Discuss Unions and the Holding Company
Page 55
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM OUR PARLIAMENTARY CORRESPONDENT
THE new State-transport Holding I Company will not be compelled to consult with trade unions about terms and conditions of employment. An Opposition attempt to place this obligation on the company, in the same way that it will apply to the Boards, was rejected during Committee discussion of the Transport Bill last week.
The Amendment would not be of great practical significance, claimed Mr. John Hay, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport. Already all the subsidiary companies which would pass to the Holding Company had extensive voluntary negotiating arrangements with the major unions. Since voluntary arrangements existed in the case of a great number of the subsidiary companies under the Commission, he did not think that it would be right to require by statute that there should be an obligation to consult and provide machinery in respect of those companies.
Earlier, during discussion of Transport Consultative Committees, Mr. Hay was asked whether the Railways Board would be prepared to subsidize for a number of years bus services provided as an alternative to withdrawn railway services. That was largely a matter of judgment for the Board-,. said Mr. Hay. The Board's obligation and 'duty. to these people who used its services •at the moment, and from whom its ser:Viecs were being Withdrawn, could not be a
permanent thing.. • Mr. Hay fended off attacks from both the Conservative and Labour sides about the arrangements_ proPosed in the Bill for the running of services outside the capital by London Transport and inside London by private operators.
The Tory amendments, put forward by Mr. Geoffrey Wilson, were designed, he said, to deal with a number of technical points which had caused concern among some operators in the London area.
He eventually withdrew his amendments after being assured that the Commissioners leaned over backwards to give the benefit of the doubt to a person who said he was affected. If the Commissioners decided against the operator, he had another right of appeal to the Minister.
Opposition objections centred round the clause which allows a private operator who wants to compete with the London Board to appeal to the Traffic Conimissioners and, if they decide against him, to the Minister, who can override the CommiSsioners. "That is monstrous," declared Mr. Strauss,and he condemned the Government for giving the Minister power to break the London Transport monopoly which it had held for over 30 years.
Mr. Hay replied that these somewhat alarmist views were quite unjustified. There was no great danger for London Transport. The Government did not intend that this should be the thin end Of the wedge, or that it should give the outside operator the opportunity of coming into London on a large scale. But they did think that there was a case in equity and in practice for giving this rather limited right of 'appeal.