LONDON OMNIBUS DISPUTE (Hansard, 10 June 1958)

§ Mr. Robens
(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he had any statement to make in connection with the present London bus dispute.

§ The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)
Before the House rose for the Whitsun Recess I invited representatives of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the London Transport Executive to have separate talks with the Chief Industrial Commissioner on Wednesday, 21st May, to see if there was then sufficient common ground on which the parties might get together with a view to reaching a settlement. As a result of this, the parties met on the 23rd but were unable to find a basis on which negotiations could be resumed.
On Thursday, 29th May, the Trades Union Congress approached me and I met their representatives. This discussion was followed by their meeting with the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport on 30th May.
The Trades Union Congress deputation urged that negotiations should be resumed, on the understanding that the workers excluded from the arbitration award should be included in the negotiations.
The Prime Minister said that he was not prepared to bring pressure upon the Transport Commission or the London Transport Executive to alter their present position. Nevertheless, he felt that the sensible course would be for the two sides to discuss ending the strike on something like these terms:

1. The acceptance of 8s. 6d. for the Central London busmen.

2. The inclusion of the Green Line men in this settlement.
37
3. That negotiations should take place between the London Transport Executive and the Union in order to fix definitely the date for the review of the remaining men not included in the award.

As a result of the Trades Union Congress mediation, talks were resumed on 31st May between the London Transport Executive and the Union on the basis suggested by the Prime Minister. The talks continued on 1st June, but then broke down. The Trades Union Congress again saw the Prime Minister on 4th June and, following upon further discussions on the Trades Union Congress General Council, an invitation to further talks was issued by the London Transport Executive; these talks took place on 5th June, but again broke down.
The Government are, naturally, anxious to see an end to this unhappy dispute, but there does not seem to be any immediate prospect of a resumption of negotiations.

§ Mr. Robens
I think that the House and particularly the users of London buses will be extremely disappointed with the terms of the right hon. Gentleman's reply. While he concludes by saying that the Government would like to see a resumption of negotiations, does he not feel that the time has arrived, in view of the narrowness now of the disagreement between the parties, for him to try once again to act as a mediator in the dispute? Does he not think it is clear that the small differences which remained in the direct negotiations can, possibly, be finally settled only by a form of mediation? Therefore, would he not consider it worth while at this stage to act as a mediator in the dispute between the two parties?

§ Mr. Macleod
Nothing in my statement excludes that, but it makes it clear that there have been a great number of interventions of one sort and another. The parties have been brought together on three or four occasions. I genuinely regret that a basis of settlement was not secured in the way outlined, or something near the way outlined, by the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made it clear then that he did not feel it right—he said this in response to the T.U.C.—to ask the London Transport Executive to go beyond its stated position. That, of course, is the present position.
38 As to the future, the fact that at the moment no negotiations are taking place does not mean that negotiations will not take place. Of course they will, though at present it is hard to see exactly how they will be resumed.

§ Mr. Robens
I think that the right hon. Gentleman slightly misunderstood the point that I was making. There have been direct negotiations as the result of the various interventions which have taken place, and they have failed. There is now a very narrow difference between the parties. The suggestion that I am making is that the difference would, possibly, now best be settled under the chairmanship of a mediator with the two parties present, and I am asking the right hon. Gentleman whether, in these circumstances, he feels that he could provide such a mediator to try to settle the final small difference that lies between the two parties in view of the fact that direct negotiation between the two parties have failed to bring about a settlement.

§ Mr. Macleod
No, Sir. As I said, I myself do not think that at this moment a settlement would follow from such a bringing together as the right hon. Gentleman suggests. We have succeeded three times, or perhaps more than that, in bringing the two parties together, so far without success. I am bound to say that I do not agree with the right hon. Gentleman when he says that the differences are narrow. The differences are still very serious indeed.

§ Mr. Gibson
Will not the Minister start a fresh initiative to try to get the two parties together? Surely it is unfair to say that the Government think that the London Transport Executive ought not to move from the position which it took up, but expect the Union to move. The Minister knows that the two parties got very close to an agreement. It seems to me, and, I suggest, to the public of London generally, who, I believe, are behind the busmen—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that it is the duty of the Government not to cease trying to bring the two sides together and to produce a settlement, which, it seems to most of us, ought to be easily possible.

§ Mr. Macleod
I have not ceased trying. It is a fallacy to assume that because negotiations are not taking place 39 there are not contacts between my Ministry and the two sides. Anybody who knows anything about industrial relations knows that contacts go on all the time. The London Transport Executive, first by including the Green Line men in the offer, secondly by offering a review first in the autumn and then bringing it forward to the summer and to July, and, finally, in giving what I called in a speech last night a wide and generous interpretation of the Prime Minister's third point in relation to the review, has itself moved a very long way indeed.

§ Mr. Mellish
Prior to the Recess the Minister conceded that a very difficult situation existed vis-à-vis the relationship between the nationalised industry, the unions, and the Government, and admitted that it is a problem which has to be faced some time in the future. Meanwhile, the dispute is going on. I suggest to him that as the Government are so very much involved in the reasons for the dispute, special action ought to be taken by him and his Department to solve it. Will he please make arrangements to call these people together to try to sort out the problem now?

§ Mr. Macleod
If I thought that it would result in a solution, I would do so.
With regard to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question, I am content to leave it to the people of this country to judge where the responsibility for the strike lies.

§ Mr. W. Edwards
In view of the right hon. Gentleman's reference to the Prime Minister's proposals, in which it was said that the Government agreed to the arbitration award plus an allowance for Green Line drivers and a review of the position of the other men concerned in the pay claim, is it to be understood that no steps will be taken to solve the dispute unless the Transport and General Workers' Union agrees to the Prime Minister's proposal? If that is the case, is it not a sheer case of the disruption of collective bargaining as it has existed in this country for years?

§ Mr. Macleod
It would be equally easy to put the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question precisely the other way round and ask whether there can be a 40 settlement only if the London Transport Executive agrees in full to the union's claim. That is not the position. The position is that negotiations which were patiently achieved have broken down, and that has happened on three or four or five occasions. The parties will, of course, again come into negotiation, and when they do I shall be very happy to see it, but I cannot see that a resumption of the negotiations would be fruitful at the present time.

§ Mr. Shinwell
Assuming that there are faults on both sides—on the side of the Transport Executive and the busmen's union—is there not some responsibility resting on the shoulders of the right hon. Gentleman? Is he not concerned with the convenience of the general public—[HON MEMBERS: "The busmen are not"]—I am saying, assuming that there are faults on both sides, is it not the responsibility of the Government, in the interests of the general public, to try to bring the dispute to an end? Although there may be a certain amount of amour propre or face-saving, is it not desirable, in the interests of those who are concerned and who have to walk and who wish to use public transport, that the Government should seek some form of mediation?

§ Mr. Macleod
I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that I am not interested in the personalities of this dispute and I have made no reference to them in my statement or speeches about the dispute. I have done that quite deliberately. I certainly accept that the Government, and the Ministry of Labour in particular, have some of the responsibilities outlined by the right hon. Gentleman. It is merely a question of how those responsibilities can best be discharged.
As my statement made clear, on many occasions the parties have been brought together, but the immediate present position, following on the latest breakdown of negotiations, does not seem to me to be one in which I can helpfully intervene at this stage.

§ Mr. Gaitskell
Is it not the case, nevertheless, that throughout the whole of the dispute the Minister of Labour and the officials of the Ministry of Labour have not participated as mediators? Is it not a fact that, although there have been direct negotiations, there has been no attempt 41 to find a formula to settle the dispute? Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that the difference between the two sides now is certainly no greater than the difference, for instance, between the railway union and the Transport Commission a few weeks ago?
In those circumstances, would it not be worth while inviting the Chief Industrial Commissioner to meet both sides to see whether he could not find a formula to close the gap, so that the great inconvenience and discomfort being suffered by the general public could be brought to an end at the earliest possible moment?

§ Mr. Macleod
As the Leader of the Opposition will remember, I said in response to an earlier question that I did not exclude that. These things are always a matter of timing. The intervention which I made immediately before Whit-sun did not, in the end, prove successful, although it seemed at the time that that was a suitable time to try to move. My officials and I have tried, by bringing the parties together in the one instance and by meeting the T.U.C. in another and by being closely concerned with other meetings, even if not physically present, to do what we could to bring the sides together towards an honourable settlement. I believe that an honourable settlement, in the interests of all those in the transport industry and all those who use transport, can be achieved on something like the principles laid down at No. 10 by the Prime Minister to the leaders of the T.U.C.

§ Mr. Speaker
We cannot carry this matter further today.

§ Mr. Mellish
On a point of order, Sir. Are we not to have a statement about the docks dispute?

§ Mr. Speaker
I have not had any notice of a statement about the docks dispute. I had notice of the Private Notice Question of the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens), but that was concerned solely with the bus strike.

§ Mr. Mellish
Further to that point of order. Is it not typical of the ineptitude of the Government that we have a strike at the docks involving—

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. The hon. Member cannot raise that matter now.