London Busmen's Wages (Hansard, 25 November 1985)

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Transport (The Earl of Caithness)
My Lords, the Government's view is that LRT and its subsidiaries should be left to manage their businesses without political interference.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, does the Minister not agree that there has already been political interference by the Government in so far as the Government refused to consider any amendment to the London Regional Transport Bill to provide for equal competition in wages and other conditions? The Government also made it quite clear that they would not consider any question of equal wages or social conditions of work in connection with the recent national Transport Bill. Is this not a travesty when all the men affected are working under one-man operation and efficiency deals? What will happen if this is made a general policy throughout the country? Do the Government have no policy to deal with it?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, what was passed by Parliament in its wisdom is something we do not want to look back into at this stage. What we want to look forward to is making a very out-of-date and inefficient service into a highly competitive one

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I am sorry to come back again, but I emphasise that all these garages are operating under the one-man operating scheme and 731 they have efficiency deals. We have been told from the Government Dispatch Box that there can be nowt for nowt, but here we have efficiency deals where the men affected by tendering will be able to hold their present jobs only if they accept wage cuts.

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords, with due respect to the noble Lord, I do not think that is the case. What the chairman of LBL has said—and this is quoted in LRT News—is: No one in London Buses has said to bus men: 'You've got to take a £40-a-week cut in wages'. That was not said. What has been said is that they must look into every way of improving efficiency.

§ Lord McIntosh of Haringey
My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister will agree to make the very severe attack that he has just made on London Regional Transport and its operations at the garages of the men themselves, rather than just at the Dispatch Box here.

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, what I said about the inefficiency of London buses is appreciated, because the first round of tendering led to a 2½ per cent. increase in services, plus a 20 per cent. reduction in costs.

§ Lord Avebury
My Lords, I accept entirely that businesses must be left to managers, without interference from the Government. However, does the noble Earl not consider that when proposals are made for wage cuts, as has been done in this case, the workers concerned will compare their situation with that of top people in industry, in the Civil Service, in the judiciary and in the armed forces, where the Top Salaries Review Body has recently made proposals for an increase from £51,000 to £75,000 in the top levels of remuneration? Does he not agree that it is conducive to the utmost disharmony in industrial relations when people compare their own wretched situation with that of others at the top who are treated unequally?

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords, what we are comparing is like with like, which is bus driver with bus driver. When the initial routes were put out to tender LBL lost about 50 per cent. of the routes.

Lord Wallace of Coslany
My Lords, the noble Earl said in his earlier Answer that LRT are free to run their business as they think best. How does this tie up with the steep increases in fares which are to be made next January and which are obviously a result of Government policy? If that is not so, why are they to be increased?

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords, the increase in fares was announced in September. At the time the rate of inflation was 6 per cent. and the increase in fares was 6.5 per cent. overall. The remit to LRT is to increase fares broadly in line with inflation.

§ Lord Shepherd
My Lords, has the noble Earl any information to give to the House as to the comparisons between the pay of LRT drivers and those who also work within the vicinity, engaged in similar 732 occupations? Are they overpaid, are they roughly comparable, or are they less well paid? Can the noble Earl give any indication as to whether they are a very privileged part of the London driving industry?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I should have thought that, with his vast experience, the noble Lord is better qualified than am I to answer that question. However it is not purely busmen's pay we are discussing, but the whole efficiency of the operation. When compared with other operators it appears that LBL was less efficient, or it would not have lost 50 per cent. of its routes when it tendered for the first time.

§ Lord Teviot
My Lords, I think on this occasion the noble Earl has his heavy boots on rather too firmly. Perhaps the asking of an oral Question is not the best way to deal with this matter. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, that, however the system might have been, London Transport garages have a one-man operation. Perhaps we should not deal with it by means of an oral Question. May I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, or another noble Lord asks an Unstarred Question on this subject fairly soon, so that we can discuss it rationally and quietly?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, as the noble Lord will be aware, not all London buses are run on a one-operator basis. I think that my noble friend mentioned other garages, too, at one stage earlier on.

§ Lord Teviot
My Lords, I was aware of the fact that in his Question the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, was saying that where the pay cuts might have to take place, or are proposed to take place, is in the outer areas, where there is basically one-man operation and where there are services out to tender. I give London Regional Transport my wholehearted blessing. I think they are doing an absolutely excellent job. But this is a very sensitive area——

§ Lord Teviot
My Lords, is my noble friend aware that I think he was being slightly heavy-handed over this? I say that to him with the greatest respect. Does he not agree that we should debate this matter further at a suitable time?

The Earl of Caithness
My Lords, I am prepared to debate this with noble Lords at any time. Now that my noble friend has confined his remarks to the outer areas, which are increasingly one-man operated, perhaps I may say that this is in competition with other operators which are one-man operated and in most municipal areas.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, the Minister has now given part of the Answer which I wanted at the beginning. I referred to 21 garages. I have with me the names of all the garages that are affected; they are outer London services, one-man operated. The chairman of London buses has said in so many words—and I have his quotations with me—that costs must come down. If there is already an efficiency deal, how else can costs come down except by cutting wages? The chairman of London buses has as good as 733 said that. Will the Government not recognise that their policy on tendering and their refusal to listen to Opposition amendments has brought about this position, and may bring it about in other parts of the country?

The Earl of Caithness
No, my Lords. Tendering is not a Government requirement; it is a statutory obligation under Section 6 of the 1984 Act, as the noble Lord knows. If by tendering LBL are able to increase their services by 2½ per cent. plus a reduction of 20 per cent. in costs, surely that suggests some inefficiency in the first place.