MUNICIPAL BUSMEN'S PAY (Hansard, 31 July 1968)

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, I beg leave to ask Her Majesty's Government the Question of which I have given Private Notice—namely,

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, my right honourable friends the First Secretary and the Minister of Transport have spared no effort to find a basis for settlement consistent with the Government's policy for productivity, prices and incomes. Last week they hoped that such a basis had been found, but the proposals submitted included a provision that the 10s. bonus to be paid for the acceptance of one-man operation should be backdated to December 14, 1967. As the agreement on this matter was not reached by the National Joint Industrial Council until 311 June 13 of this year, the Government could not agree to a retrospective payment which would be so clearly inconsistent with the recommendations of the National Board for Prices and Incomes. The employers and the unions were so informed. But they were also informed that the Government were prepared to accept all the other provisions of the proposed settlement.
This proposed settlement would give all busmen covered by the National Joint Industrial Council an immediate increase of £1 a week within a framework providing for acceptance of one-man operation and the negotiation at national level of guidelines for local productivity agreements. The £1 would be made up of 10s. on the basic rate payable from December, 1967, and a 10s. bonus payable from June 13 which would be consolidated into the basic rate at the end of the year. In addition, the premium rates paid to drivers of one-man buses would be increased to the levels recommended by the National Board for Prices and Incomes.
My right honourable friends and I deeply regret that the unions have so far not been prepared to accept these proposals and that the Government therefore had no alternative but to extend the standstill by Order on July 26. Since then the Executive Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union has given authority for a strike of municipal busmen from August 12. An agreement on the lines suggested would bring immediate and substantial benefits to the busmen; and by encouraging genuine increases in productivity it would also be in the interest of the fare-paying public. My right honourable friend the First Secretary has made it clear that she will raise the standstill immediately an agreement acceptable to the Government is reached. I join with her in appealing to the trade unions to reconsider their position and to avoid plunging this industry into a damaging strike.

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for his considered statement, I should like to ask the following supplementary question. Is the noble Lord aware that on December 26 this money will become payable retrospective to December of last year? There- 312 fore, what is the point of withholding the increase now except for the purposes of saving the face of the Prices and Incomes Board, and in the meantime causing a strike which would be utterly disastrous to the country?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, what happens in December will have to be faced when December comes. In the meantime, it is, I would hope the noble Lord would agree, intolerable to breach the policy to the extent that would be involved if the backdating of a productivity agreement for the future went back to December of last year.

§ LORD TEVIOT
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware of the refusal of the Prices and Incomes Board to recognise that this is a low-paid industry, in view of the very long hours which municipal busmen work in order to accrue sufficient earnings to attain a reasonable standard of living?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, the fact that it is in the lower paid reaches of industry is all the more reason, I should have thought, for the busmen to accept the very reasonable offer which is now being made.

§ LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD
My Lords, would the noble Lord, Lord Beswick, confirm that the first supplementary question put by my noble friend is correct: that in fact these increases will be automatically paid next December, and retrospective to last December? If so, is the noble Lord aware that this seems a very surprising result of the existing prices and incomes policy?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, there is nothing in the law, as it now stands, about retrospection. The question of retrospection will, of course, have to be considered when it arises.

THE EARL OF SELKIRK
My Lords, may I ask whether the Government have considered the proposal of the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Board; namely, that incomes should be frozen and funded where it is not in the public interest that they should be paid?

§ LORD BESWICK
My Lords, that is a very interesting proposal, but does not arise immediately out of this Question.