WOULD LABOUR FREE BRISTOL?
Page 40
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.
FROM OUR POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
nESPITE Mr. Marples' declaration that
he would let Bristol Commercial Vehicles Ltd. be sold if he received a good offer, there have been no firm bidders during the past 13 months. Now that there is a reasonable assurance that no outside bidders are interested, the Transport Minister is looking at another offer, this time from workers in the company to change •its ownership and so release it from the restrictions imposed by the 1962 Transport Act.
Following the dismissal of some 130 workers because of lack of orders a meeting of about 600 employees was held and a request has been sent to Sir Philip Warter, chairman of the T.H.C., and Mr. Marples to allow employees to buy shares in Bristol, thus breaking its wholly owned subsidiary status and allowing the firm to trade on the open market.
Sir Philip has said that this raises an important question of principle and has passed on the issue for ministerial decision by Mr. Marples, who is considering it.
Mr. Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Labour M.P. for South East Bristol, who has been an important figure in this move, said this week that it seemed absurd to put a manufacturing limitation on a large, wellequipped firm which could sub-contract out when it was busy but which could not accept sub-contracts when it was light.
It is claimed that the move will restore freedom of manteuvre to Mr. Marples to free Bristol from the shackles of the Transport Act—shackles which he did not propose in the first place anyway. By allowing co-ownership no new legislation would be needed.
I understand that this move has the support of the Labour Party leadership. If Mr. Marples does not agree it is broadly accepted that a Labour Government, if elected, would use this method of removing an unwanted condition of the 1962 Act without having to bring in a new Bill.