§ The Minister of Labour (Mr. R. J. Gunter)With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement. I apologise in advance to the House for its length, but it is important that all the facts should be clearly understood.
One feature of the agreement on guards' pay and productivity reached earlier this month between the British Railways Board and the National Union of Railwaymen was that the brake vans would be eliminated from fully-fitted freight and parcels trains and the guard would be accommodated in the rear cab of the locomotive. It is estimated that this arrangement will save £250,000 a year in capital costs and maintenance of the brake vans.
The agreement followed negotiations on the lines recommended by Professor 662 Robertson in his report last October on the guards' pay and productivity.
The new arrangement will come into effect next Monday.
The Associated Society of Locomotive Engineers and Firemen has instructed its members from that date to take industrial action which would result in immediate and widspread disruption of both freight and passenger services, including the London commuter services. I have twice met its Executive Committee to make clear my view that there is no justification for this action. It has objected to the new arrangement on various grounds, all of which in the Government's view are clearly untenable:
First, that it had not been consulted. The B.R.B. has informed me that A.S.L.E.F. members are in no way affected by the new agreement; the B.R.B. did, however, inform the A.S.L.E.F. of its intentions as soon as agreement with the N.U.R. seemed likely. This is in any case no longer a practical issue.
Second, the A.S.L.E.F. argued that the arrangement was dangerous. There is no substance in this argument; the B.R.B. has obtained the official assurance of Colonel McMullen, the Minister of Transport's Chief Inspecting Officer of Railways, that it is perfectly safe; the guard will be able to carry out his safety functions to the full satisfaction of the Board and of the Chief Inspecting Officer from the rear cab; the rules already provide for guards to ride on locomotives in certain circumstances and many other persons have passes authorising them to travel in the rear cab in the course of their duties.
Third, the A.S.L.E.F. argued that the new arrangement could be injurious to the health of the guard. The B.R.B. has obtained expert medical advice to the contrary.
Fourth, the A.S.L.E.F. suggested that the B.R.B. could make a greater saving by eliminating the guard altogether. This is no argument against making this saving as a first step. The B.R.B., in fact, has put forward, in the pay and efficiency talks under my chairmanship, proposals for amalgamating guards with the second men on 663 the footplate, which would enable savings to be made all round. These proposals are, of course, a matter for negotiation between the B.R.B. and the unions.
Finally, the A.S.L.E.F. argued that the new agreement between the B.R.B. and the N.U.R. conflicts with the Single Manning Agreement of 1965, to which A.S.L.E.F. as well as the B.R.B. and the N.U.R. were party. Mr. Scamp has today given me his finding that there is no such conflict.
I have this morning written to the A.S.L.E.F. urging it in the light of Mr. Scamp's report to reconsider and withdraw its threatened action. I have offered to meet it again immediately if that would assist to this end.
I have reminded it of the serious consequences for the future of the railway industry, and all who work in it, as well as for the community at large, of prolonged disruption of railway services.
I must make clear the Government's position in this matter. There is no justification for keeping the brake van. Elimination of unnecessary brake vans reflects determination to bring new life and efficiency to the railways, as an integral part of the whole transport system.
Here is an arrangement which will save £¼ million a year. The men directly affected—the guards—and their union—the N.U.R.—have accepted this arrangement. The footplatemen are not affected by the change; Mr. Scamp has confirmed that it in no way conflicts with the earlier agreement. Neither the Railways Board nor the country can afford to spend £¼million keeping on unnecessary brake vans.
I very much hope that in the light of Mr. Scamp's report it will withdraw from a damaging course of action which from the very nature of the case can achieve nothing.
Meanwhile, the Government must take all necessary steps to see that essential services are maintained. This will inevitably mean considerable diversion of traffic from rail to road.
§ Mr. R. CarrWe on this side of the House support the right hon. Gentleman in his appeal to the A.S.L.E.F. to think again, and we, too, say that neither the 664 public nor the House will have patience with a dispute which would cause so much damage and inconvenience and which would be based on such petty and ridiculous grounds.
I have four questions. First, in view of the public feeling to which I have referred, will the right hon. Gentleman realise that the public will not be satisfied with words? If possible, will he therefore be a little more specific about the closing words of his statement, on the necessary steps the Government are taking?
Second, has the right hon. Gentleman asked the T.U.C. to intervene in any way, bearing in mind that it is essentially an inter-union dispute? If the T.U.C. has been asked to intervene, has it replied, and, if so, how?
Third, in investigations which may take place into the threatened dispute, will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that perhaps the one justified ground for the A.S.L.E.F.'s reaction is that there is really no need for guards in the locomotive, and that in the long run steps should be taken to deal with this, thereby setting at rest the A.S.L.E.F.'s only real fear?
Fourth, do the Government now recognise that their leisurely procedures over modernisation of industrial relations have now been overtaken by events? Will the right hon. Gentleman therefore undertake to introduce at least a first instalment of the legislative reform which is necessary, which is supported by a wide range of the public, regardless of political opinion, and which is advocated by newspapers as widely divergent as the Daily Mirror, the Daily Express and the Daily Mail?
§ Mr. GunterThe right hon. Gentleman will understand that the Government are today considering the measures that might be required. I have only to remind him of what his Government did in 1955 for him to understand what I am talking about.
I have been in touch with the T.U.C. on a number of occasions, and I understand that it has requested the presence of the national officers of the A.S.L.E.F. at a meeting tomorrow morning.
On the question whether a guard is necessary, as an old railwayman I cannot 665 foresee a time when a second man of some sort will not be required on a train. On 5th December I am taking the chair at a meeting where we shall discuss whether there can be a combination of the guard's traditional duties and the duties of the second man. It is a matter for negotiation. It may be that in the long run we shall have no men on trains; the Germans are experimenting with this. But I emphasise that it is a matter for negotiation between the unions and the B.R.B.
The right hon. Gentleman knows my views on legislation. I do not know how one would legislate for the present circumstances. What sort of legislation would it be? I do not know how one can prosecute a man for saying that he will obey the rule book.
§ Mr. LubbockIs the Minister aware that the whole nation deplores the Luddite mentality of the A.S.L.E.F. leaders? Will he make it abundantly clear to them that the Government cannot and will not tolerate their attempts to sabotage improvements in productivity, which are essential to the nation?
What steps is he taking to ensure that the long-suffering commuters of the Southern Region, who have had to put up with disorganisation and chaos in recent weeks, can get to work at all on Monday? Will he consider emergency measures, such as compulsory staggering of hours, so that there is not a complete snarl-up on the roads?
§ Mr. GunterOn the latter part of that supplementary question, I have said that these are subjects to which the Government are giving consideration.
As to the first part, I have done my best, at some stormy meetings, to impress upon A.S.L.E.F. the fact that the day is passed when the standards of recruitment and promotion can be adhered to in the way they were adhered to in the days of the old steam locomotives for as far back as Stephenson's Rocket.
Mr. Edward M. TaylorWhile appreciating the Minister's very hard work in trying to avoid the dispute, may I ask whether it is not tragic that, for five weeks, there has been complete dubiety about the chairmanship of the Railways Board at a time of major dispute? Will he make representations to the Minister 666 of Transport with a view to clearing up the dubiety immediately?
§ Mr. GunterI am glad to say that that has nothing to do with me.
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder.
Does the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) wish to raise his point of order now?