HC Deb 02 May 1958 vol 587 cc719-26
Mr. Robens

(by Private Notice) asked the Minister of Labour whether he has any further statement to make in connection with the London bus dispute.

The Minister of Labour and National Service (Mr. Iain Macleod)

As I have stated on more than one occasion, I could not take any action which would have the effect of seeking to vary an award of the Industrial Court. These awards, although not legally binding, are almost invariably accepted and I hope that this one will be.

The London Transport Executive has offered to implement the award. The House will also be aware of Sir John Elliot's letter yesterday, which suggested a pay review in the autumn.

I still hope that a settlement can be reached, and an unnecessary strike avoided.

Mr. Robens

I believe that the only man who can now prevent a London bus strike breaking out on Monday is the Minister of Labour, and I am sure that he would want to do that. May I ask him, therefore, whether I am right in assuming from Press reports about the letter that Sir John Elliot has sent to the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers' Union that Sir John has offered to accelerate a review in connection with the Green Line and London buses and also to review the whole situation in the autumn? Does not this offer now make a departure, and show that there is room for negotiation?

In those circumstances, does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it would be very valuable, as he is the only man who can do it, to invite the two parties to sit under his chairmanship for the purpose of discussing the situation in general but with particular reference to the last letter that Sir John Elliot has sent to Mr. Frank Cousins, which seems to me to permit of some negotiation and a possible settlement? I believe that the right hon. Gentleman can prevent this strike if he brings the parties together.

Mr. Macleod

Certainly, the strike can be prevented—I have no doubt about that—and in my statement I said that it was an unnecessary strike. To complete what I have said, I will, with permission, circulate Sir John Elliot's letter in the OFFICIAL REPORT. It is true that his letter refers to an acceleration of the review. I believe that the award of the Industrial Court and the letter of Sir John Elliot offer a basis on which the strike should be at once called off—I have no doubt of that—but that is a matter for the parties. It is for them to accept the award that has been made by the Industrial Court. I would not take any step that would weaken the authority of the Industrial Court.

Mr. Robens

Nobody would deny that, as the right hon. Gentleman has said, in the final analysis it is the parties who make the decision. At this stage, however, as anyone with experience of these matters knows, it is necessary to find a platform on which the contending parties can meet. It has always been my understanding that one of the functions of the Minister of Labour is to provide this sort of platform. I am asking the right hon. Gentleman, particularly in view of what he has just said, whether he will bring the parties together today to do no more than discuss the matter that he has just reported to the House. I invite him to do that because I believe that he could possibly prevent a strike if he were prepared to do it.

Mr. Macleod

The right hon. Gentleman must remember that when we discussed this matter two days ago he urged upon me a proposal which had then already been rejected by the men. It has always been accepted, by all Ministers of Labour, that the final stage in any dispute as far as the Ministry is con is either a court of inquiry or, as in this case, an arbitration award. It is quite improper for a Minister, because that award is unacceptable to one of the parties—not to both of them, but to one—to try to invent stages after the arbitration award has been made.

What I have said in the House, and I repeat it again, is that if there is any change in the attitude of the parties, I will be very glad to see them. Of course I want to stop the strike. The simple position, as far as I see it, however, is that there is only one chance of averting the strike, and that is on the basis of the arbitration award. On the contrary, I ask the right hon. Member to join with me in urging acceptance of that award.

Mr. Robens

I am sorry that the right hon. Gentleman is apparently not prepared to do what seems to me to be a perfectly easy thing and which would not deprive him of the attitude which he has adopted. I am not asking him, as Minister of Labour, to vary the position that he has taken up on the Industrial Court's award. What I am saying—and it has now come from the right hon. Gentleman in his supplementary answer—is that the letter of Sir John Elliot has changed the situation as it affects the Green Line and London country bus employees who were to get nothing under the award. Sir John has said he would be prepared to consider accelerating a review of the situation, and within those terms there is now room for negotiation on the basis of the Industrial Court award, plus Sir John Elliot's letter.

All I am asking the right hon. Gentleman is, if he has the time, could he not spare two hours this afternoon and invite both sides to meet him to consider the Industrial Court's award and the letter of Sir John Elliot? If the right hon. Gentleman is not prepared to do that, one must deduce that the conclusion that the Government want a showdown with the unions—which is in the minds of many people—is the truth. The right hon. Gentleman can, if he so desires, prevent the strike by bringing the parties together to discuss all the latest matters which have been put to the House this morning.

Mr. Macleod

That is a childish observation which is not worth replying to. Time, of course, does not come into this.

There is one important matter which the right hon. Gentleman mentioned. With respect, he reads too much, perhaps, into Sir John Elliot's letter when he says that there is an entirely new situation. If I may read the appropriate sentence from it, it is this: If this is now agreeable to you and your Committee we would, as offered on Monday, accelerate the review of wages of the Green Line Single Deck Coach Drivers. Therefore, this particular offer was already put and rejected, as I understand this letter, on Monday.

The right hon. Gentleman feels it his duty on these occasions—it has happened before—to press the point of view of the union. I press neither the point of view of the union nor the point of view of the employers. I do not believe that it is my business to do either. It is my business to uphold an arbitration award. If a new situation has genuinely been created in any way by Sir John Elliot's letter, then by all means let the parties come together and call the strike off; and no one will be more delighted than I shall be.

Mr. Robens

I am not putting the case of the union at all. This has emerged from the supplementary answer which the right hon. Gentleman has given this morning. What I am saying, as one who has occupied the right hon. Gentleman's position, is that his duty to the country is to bring the parties together and that he has the opportunity to do it without sacrificing any of the principles to which he has referred.

Mr. Gresham Cooke

If my right hon. Friend has to comment on the matter in the future, would he bear in mind and point out that the London public are well aware that the present award will cost £1 million and will add to the costs of London Transport, which, indeed, may mean reduced services and increased fares in the future? If we were to have a long bus strike, the London public, already deserting London Transport to some extent, would more and more desert London Transport as a means of getting to work, by the acquisition of scooters, mopeds, bicycles, and so on. This would lead to decreased profitability of London Transport, would make wage claims in the future much more difficult to accede to, and, therefore, a strike would really bring irreparable damage to London Transport and——

Mr. Speaker

Order. These are all considerations which, no doubt, are in the minds of the negotiating parties, but I do not think that this supplementary is on the same lines as the Question asked by the right hon. Member for Blyth (Mr. Robens).

Mr. Gibson

May I remind the Minister that one of his functions as Minister of Labour is to act as a conciliator? It would not be the first time, at any rate in my long experience of trade union negotiations and Industrial Court awards, where there has been a difference between the parties on whether an agreement was just and fair, that his Department has called the parties together and succeeded in creating an atmosphere which has led to a settlement. Surely all we are asking is that that should be done without the Minister himself being committed one way or the other either to the award or to Sir John Elliot's letter.

May I remind the right hon. Gentleman of a letter which Mr. Cousins himself sent out, saying, among other things: If the opportunity arises, either before the stoppage or after it has commenced, to reach a settlement which can be regarded as just and equitable, we shall act immediately I suggest that "immediately" could mean this afternoon.

I hope that the Minister will cease to be a little too rigid on these matters, because we all want to see a strike avoided. Having been through many of them, I know what suffering they can bring. It seems to me that the Ministry of Labour should use its powers, as a conciliator, to get both sides together and let them talk among themselves, in that way perhaps creating an atmosphere which can produce a settlement.

Mr. Macleod

I agree with very much of what the hon. Gentleman has said. I do not mind in the least being accused of being rigid where, in my view, a point of principle is at stake, as it is in this case. [HON. MEMBERS: "What is the principle?"] The point of principle is acceptance of an arbitration award and that the Minister of Labour should not take the initiative in breaking that award.

As far as meetings are concerned, the position is this. On the basis of the arbitration award as interpreted, if one likes, in the light of Sir John Elliot's letter, which, in one respect, goes further but has not necessarily taken a new step since Monday—I quoted that point from the letter—it is for the parties to meet—such a meeting, of course, can and no doubt will take place today if the parties so wish—and see whether that forms a basis. If the two parties then wish to see me, as I have said in the House, I will, of course, be prepared to see them. There is no question of time or anything else like that involved.

Mr. Gibson

Why wait?

Mr. Macleod

We are waiting for the reason that when an arbitration award is made it is made to the parties and it is for them to agree on a settlement on that basis. That is what should happen, and a wholly unnecessary strike which nobody wants would easily be averted.

Mr. Gaitskell

May I ask the right hon. Gentleman once more if he will reconsider his attitude? Let me say, first, that we are not asking him to take sides in this dispute. We are not asking him to abandon the principle of an arbitration award. I would, however, ask him this. Is he really saying that either the arbitration award must be accepted exactly as it was made, or that there must be a strike? Is he saying that it is his business to try to force the parties to accept the arbitration award? Has he not said to us himself that if they choose to vary the award he does not mind?

Is it not the case—he has admitted it in what he has said just now—that Sir John Elliot's latest letter involves a departure from the arbitration award in so far as Sir John Elliot has offered to accelerate the review of the wages paid to the other categories of workers who were not to receive anything under the award? In those circumstances, does he not feel that it is his duty to exercise a little initiative here and to invite both parties, in the light of the exchanges of letters which have taken place, to meet under his chairmanship?

Mr. Macleod

I disagree with the Leader of the Opposition. Whether I am being asked to take sides or not today, I certainly was when this was discussed two days ago. I was asked to intervene in support of one particular proposal by the union, which would have amounted to a complete rejection of the award.

As to whether Sir John Elliot's letter is a variation of the award itself, that is a matter for interpretation. It accepts the award in its entirety, but it does suggest a review. Whether that is a difference or a variation of the award I do not know.

Mr. Robens

The right hon. Gentlemon knows it is not.

Mr. Macleod

I do not say that I do not mind whether the award is varied. I do say that arbitration awards are not legally binding and that, therefore, the parties can, if they so wish, come together about it. But I come back to the point that arbitration awards are almost invariably accepted, and so they should be.

My view of what should happen, as I have said, is that on the basis that has been discussed, the two parties should consider that position. I am entirely at their disposal if they wish to see me. But I will not myself call together a meeting which has as its object—and which could have as no other object—a variation of the arbitration award.

Several Hon. Members rose——

Mr. Speaker

Order. The same question has been answered several times. I do not think that we can carry this any further.

Following is Sir John Elliot's letter:

1st May, 1958.

Dear Mr. Cousins,

In view of the happenings since our meeting on Monday, I write to reiterate the offer which I made to your negotiating Committee, namely, to implement the award of the Industrial Court of a wage increase of 8s. 6d. per week to Central Road Services Drivers and Conductors, to be dated back to 12th March in accordance with the award, and to review in the autumn the wages of all grades to whom no award was made. If this is now agreeable to you and your Committee we would, as offered on Monday, accelerate the review of wages of the Green Line Single Deck Coach Drivers.

The wage award to the Central Road Services would be applied at once and, as I told the negotiating Committee, the Executive and the Union would consider concurrently with the review in the autumn the best means of securing the most economical operation and maintenance of the London Transport Road Services. My colleagues and I genuinely believe that these proposals provide a fair and honourable way of resolving the difficulty.

I understand that a mass meeting of busmen is to be held in London tomorrow and I take this opportunity to make it clear to you and to them that our proposal remains open in a further endeavour to avoid the hardships which are inevitably involved in a strike, and which I am confident nobody wants.

Yours sincerely,

John Elliot.,