§ Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the Clause stand part of the Bill."
§ The DEPUTY-CHAIRMANI have observed the Amendment, but it appeared to me that the matter would be more conveniently raised on the Question, "That the Clause stand part." Accordingly, I did not select it.
§ 6.25 p.m.
§ Mr. REMERUnder this Sub-section we are providing what is, in effect, a subsidy to the Associated Equipment Company. I have nothing whatever to say about the company, because I know their works very well and they are efficient and well-managed. Having seen most manufacturing works in the country, I should say this is the best equipped and most efficient in the kingdom. This company, which very largely builds the chassis for the London General Omnibus Company, is also in very serious competition with all the other chassis manufacturers for ordinary commercial vehicles. The effect of the Clause in its present form is that the board will have to say to the Associated Equipment Company, "We must either give you a contract for the chassis that are required for the new undertaking or, in default of that, we shall have to pay you compensation for the fact that you do not receive these orders." In my opinion this is thoroughly wrong. The Associated Equipment Company, by their efficiency and knowledge of what is required, will probably be able to secure their proper share of these contracts without any difficulty. People like the Leyland Motors suffer very severe competition from this company. It seems to me to be grossly unfair to give what is in effect a subsidy to enable the company to compete more easily with its competitors. Something, of course, has to be done in reference to the company but I see no reason why the contract referred to in the Clause should not he left out altogether.
I have heard some rather curious stories about this contract. I have been informed that it was only given after the House had given a Second Reading to the Bill. It was only in existence after the Underground Company discovered that this was going to be done. It seems strange to me that compensation should be given for a contract made after the Bill has received its Second Reading. We are entitled to know what the contract is and to ask that it shall be laid on the Table, so that we shall see its terms and what is going to be involved in compensation or extra cost to the board. We are entitled to know the whole facts—when it was made, what it provides for and what is likely to be the cost of it to the board. I hope that we shall be given an 1301 explanation on these points before the Clause is passed.
§ 6.30 p.m.
Lieut.-Colonel MOOR E-BRABAZONMy hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Remer) seems to think that by this Clause we are granting a subsidy to the Combine because of the Associated Equipment Company. If I were to interpret it in my own language, I should look at it as rank robbery, because the whole of the Underground Undertaking must be looked upon as one unit, and the Associated Equipment Company is owned in its entirety by the Combine. It is part of that vast organisation. They repair and make their omnibuses. One must look upon the thing as a whole. You could not buy shares in the Associated Equipment Company; they are all held by the Underground Company. In that connection it is worth while saying to the Committee exactly what occurred. When the various omnibus running companies were combined, it was obvious that the garages would be put into one. They were more or less centralised. Then the War came, and the centralised garage and manufacturing concern owned by the London General Omnibus Company was forced by the Government to become a big manufacturing concern, so much so that it was able to, and did, make more omnibuses and vehicles than could be consumed by the London traffic.
From that moment it was thought better to keep the thing as a separate company, and the Associated Equipment Company was formed, although it was already owned by the Combine. It is true to say that, though competing with the world in vehicles, it is entirely a London General Omnibus Company affair. Being a London General Omnibus Company affair, naturally they had an arrangement whereby the Combine should buy their vehicles from this company. The arrangement was that they should have a contract for 100 years. When this Bill was considered by the Select Committee, they took the view that it was undesirable that the Combine should be linked up with one particular manufacturing entity, and to-day we have discussed more or less that particular view and have come to the same conclusion. To obviate this difficulty an arrangement was made whereby, instead 1302 of the Associated Equipment Company getting compensation on the basis of 100 years, they were to get compensation on the basis of 10 years if the board did not want to use them at all. The arrangement was, that if the board took on the Associated Equipment Company for 10 years, that was to suffice them for compensation, and if they did not want them at all they should pay compensation as if a contract was made for 10 years. It was a very liberal gesture on the part of the London General Omnibus Company, and I cannot help pointing out to my hon. Friend that if he were to delete the Clause it would impose on the board the onus of paying compensation on the basis of 100 years instead of on the basis of 10 years.
§ Mr. REMERThe point only arises through the fact that I was not allowed to move the Amendment standing in my name on the Paper to leave out Subsection (3).
§ Lieut.-Colonel MOORE-BRABAZONOne must consider the Clause in its entirety. To take out one particular Sub-section and absolutely to indulge in robbery of the most disgraceful kind is not, I am sure, the intention of my hon. Friend. That is what would happen if the proposal were carried. I hope that the Clause will be left as it stands. It seems to be equitable and, on the whole, a very generous action on the part of the Combine.