§ 5.50 p.m.
§ Sir Percy HarrisI want to turn the attention of the House away from foreign affairs to affairs nearer home. With a due sense of responsibility I gave notice of my intention on the Adjournment to raise the question of the omnibus dispute, 1384 which has now been going on for very nearly six days. As we are adjourning for something like a fortnight I thought it would be open to misinterpretation by the great public outside if this House ignored its existence and gave the Minister no opportunity to make a statement. Of course, I realise the difficulty of his position, as a Court of Inquiry has been set up. I am informed that the right hon. Gentleman is now in a position, at any rate, to make a statement as to the interim report of that Committee, and it is right and proper that it should not appear for the first time in the Press but that it should be made in the House of Commons.
There are only two or three points to which I would like to refer. There are three parties to this dispute. First there are the men concerned. I would like to remind the House. that they are the very cream of London's workmen; there is a very severe test for entering the company's service, not only for the drivers but for the men, and it is perhaps not going too far to say that a very large number of the working class in London become the servants of the public on the omnibuses. Secondly, there is the London Passenger Transport Board. I know both Lord Ashfield and Mr. Pick, and there is no question of their ability and their administrative capacity. The third party to the dispute is the great London travelling public. It has often been said that there is no one more patient than the London public. Anybody who sees the lively struggle at the various stopping places, even at ordinary times, knows how good-tempered and patient they are. They have endured great suffering without complaint during the last few days, and they at any rate should have a tribute paid to them. The right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister yesterday referred to the testing time of democracy. Any stranger visiting London would hardly have been conscious that we were going through a very serious and important dispute affecting a very large number of men employed in London services. We can carry on in our difficulties in the utmost good temper.
Just one word in conclusion. It has been said in criticism of my raising this question in the House that it really is not a matter for the Government or for Parliament, but it is well to remind the House that Parliament deliberately, first 1385 in 1924 and again in 1931, passed special legislation affecting London, and therefore Parliament cannot divorce itself from its responsibility. Lastly, I would say that this is no mere local dispute. It affects a population of 9,000,000—over one-quarter of the whole population of the whole of England and Wales. Traffic is the very life-blood of a modern city, and it is vital to London, and so we hope that a settlement will be arrived at and that it will be on just lines, and that the statement of the right hon. Gentleman tonight will prove satisfactory.
§ 5.55 p.m.
§ Mr. Benjamin SmithI believe that the Court of Inquiry has finished its sessions and we shall no doubt hear what its Report is before we break up for the Adjournment. But I would ask this House, in the light of any statement the Minister may make, not to enter into a controversial discussion on the merits or otherwise of the dispute. But, sorry as we all are for the dispute, it is there, and we want to get it settled by the people most competent to settle it, with the best conditions for the men and the public. I would ask the House therefore, after hearing the Minister's statement, to permit the negotiations to continue in the hope that the dispute will be quickly settled.
§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. Ernest Brown)I am sure the hon. Member has interpreted the wish of the whole House, but the hon. Baronet has given me an opportunity to inform the House that I have received from the Court of Inquiry an Interim Report of their conclusions, and I wish to thank them for the expedition which they have shown. I will not read the whole Report because it will be available in the Vote Office; it will be sufficient if I read the conclusions, which begin in paragraph 5:
5. On the statements and evidence submitted to the Court we have reached the following conclusions which we feel should be placed before you forthwith:
- (a) There is a widespread feeling amongst the London Central Omnibus workers that their work is unduly exacting in its conditions and injurious to their health in its effect;
- (b) the conditions chiefly complained of are: speeding up of services, too frequent alteration of schedules, irregularity of meal times, and, in some cases, inadequacy of standing times and of facilities at terminals;
1386 - (c) conditions of employment have hitherto been governed by the terms of the Agreement of 1932 made before the establishment of the Transport Board, which Agreement was in its nature experimental and was brought into existence before the present intensified system of working was in full operation.
6. We are of opinion that some of the schedules which have originated since the 1932 Agreement, while strictly in accord with its terms, operate somewhat onerously upon the men and are not such as could have been accurately foreseen by the parties at the time the Agreement was reached.7. It is agreed between the parties that in all the matters raised in the discussions that have taken place for the modification of the 1932 Agreement, other than the men's demand for a seven and a-half hour day, accommodation could have been found between the men's Union and the Transport Board.8. We consequently feel that negotiations for the settlement of matters in difference, other than that of a reduction of the working day, should proceed at once in accordance with the method ordinarily adopted between the parties.9. As regards the claim for a seven and a-half hour day, which is based fundamentally on the grounds of injury to health, the evidence placed before us is inconclusive. Nevertheless, we are of opinion that a prima facie case has been made out for further investigation by a properly qualified body specially constituted to deal forthwith with this important matter.Should such a body find that the complaints as to injury to health made upon behalf of the men are substantiated, then, in our judgment, immediate and appropriate steps should be taken, either by reduction of hours and/or by such other measures as may be agreed, to meet the position.We recognise that any recommendation under this head must inevitably place an increased liability upon the Transport Board; but, should satisfactory proof of the need for remedy be forthcoming, we cannot but think that the Transport Board would be assured of the goodwill of the public when budgeting for any extra cost involved.On receiving the Report the following letter was at once sent to the parties concerned:I am directed by the Minister of Labour to enclose a copy of the Interim Report of the Court of Inquiry concerning the stoppage of the London Central Omnibus Services, 1937, and to express the hope that you will give immediate consideration to the position in the light of the Court's Report.I think further comment at the moment, as the hon. Member has just said, would be inadvisable, except to say that the House will, I know, join with me in expressing the hope that the consideration of these conclusions may take place in 1387 the spirit of the Prime Minister's speech yesterday, and that a happy issue may speedily be found.