HC Deb 19 February 1968 vol 759 cc21-2
38. Mr. Holland

asked the Minister of Labour why, on 27th January, he took administrative action under Part II of the Prices and Incomes Act to postpone the payment of£1 per week award to be paid from 4th February to bus drivers and conductors in the City of Nottingham.

Mr. Gunter

Because the Government were not satisfied that the proposed increase was consistent with prices and incomes policy.

Mr. Holland

Does the Minister believe that, by putting an obstacle in the way of Nottingham Corporation's attempt to overcome the problems of transport staff shortage, he is helping the growth of the economy? If he does not—I do not believe that he does—will he give an undertaking not to put further obstacles in the way of implementing this award?

Mr. Gunter

I could give no guarantee that I shall not impede settlements which are out of accord with the prices and incomes policy. The hon. Gentleman rightly mentions Nottingham, but this was part of a national settlement which was quite out of accord—it was 7.8 per cent. and without any element of productivity at all.

Mr. Shinwell

If my right hon. Friend will not endorse this award—he may have good reasons for not doing so—how do the Government propose to deal with the position of lower-paid workers? What is their policy to deal with that situation?

Mr. Gunter

I have asked the parties to go back to the Prices and Incomes Board to discuss this matter in detail. One of the dilemmas to be faced, in talking about the Prices and Incomes Board and the lower-paid worker, is that in this case, although I fully concede the point about the number of hours worked, the average gross pay of municipal drivers was£22 6s. 5d. and of conductors 19 1ls. 11d. In the circumstances, I asked the parties to go to the Prices and Incomes Board to discuss this fact, and, more particularly, whether they would sit down and talk about increased productivity.