The comments made by Grant Shapps, the Secretary of State for Transport, on 19 April 2022.
For the first time ever, operators across the rail industry are coming together to help passengers facing rising costs of living by offering up to 50% off more than a million tickets on journeys across Britain.
There’s no better time to visit friends, family or just explore our great country, so book your tickets today.
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 31 March 1969.
As hon. Members will recall, following the dispute last year between B.A.L.P.A. and B.O.A.C., I appointed Professor Wood as independent chairman to assist the parties in their negotiations over pay and related matters. Agreement was reached in August on the principle of an hourly rated system to replace the existing annual salary structure, thus relating pay directly to work-load. Discussions on the details of pay and conditions have continued under Professor Wood’s chairmanship since then, but last Friday Professor Wood reported to me that the parties had failed to reach agreement on the detailed application of the principles agreed.
Further discussions between the parties took place on Saturday but no solution was reached. I therefore asked both the Corporation and B.A.L.P.A. to meet me yesterday to discuss the position. In view of the parties’ inability to agree on the salaries which the new structure would produce and the productivity which could flow from it, I urged on the parties the need for an independent assessment. The constitution of the National Joint Council for Civil Air Transport provides for arbitration, and in my talks yesterday the possibility of arbitration was considered by both sides. The Corporation was prepared to agree to arbitration but B.A.L.P.A. insisted on interim increases in pay, rising on 1st April, 1969, to £7,000 per annum for senior captains from the present rate of £5,880 as a prior condition of arbitration. This condition was not acceptable to the Corporation. I regret to say therefore that it was not possible to find a basis for calling off the strike, which began at midnight last night.
The National Joint Council is meeting today to consider the matter, and I understand that its deliberations were still proceeding a short time ago. I am, of course, ready to give whatever further help I can. As discussions on the N.J.C. are still continuing, it would, however, be inappropriate for me to say anything further at this stage.
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the then Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 19 March 1969.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Ford dispute.
I am glad to be able to tell the House that the Ford strike is now over.
When I last reported to the House, on 12th March, talks had broken down at my Department following the rejection by the trade union side of the Ford N.J.N.C. of the company’s proposals for a resumption of work and their insistence on a prior commitment by the company that the pay increases in the package deal would be improved. In an effort to resolve this deadlock, I invited company representatives, Mr. Jones of the Transport and General Workers Union and Mr. Scanlon of the A.E.F.—the two major unions in dispute with the company—and Mr. Cannon of the E.E.T.U., one of the unions which had supported the February package deal, to discuss the situation with me last weekend.
As a result of these discussions, joint talks were resumed on 15th March, and on Saturday night the following formula was agreed for recommendation to the full trade union side of the N.J.N.C. the following day:
1. Normal working will be resumed on the basis of the increased rates in the agreement which commenced on 1st March, 1969.
2. Additional holiday benefit and lay-off benefit and their qualifying clauses shall be held in abeyance pending re-negotiation but alternatives have been agreed in principle which will ensure continuity of production and payments not less than those proposed in the agreement referred to above.
3. The company has agreed that it withdraws its requirement of 21 days’ strike notice.
At the outset of the discussions on Sunday, 16th March, however, a difference arose between the company on the one side and Mr. Scanlon and Mr. Jones on the other on a central point in the alternative arrangements for financing the layoff benefit and holiday bonus which it was believed had been agreed in principle: the unions insisting that the holiday bonus of £25 which the firm had offered should be paid in full to all employees irrespective of whether they had engaged in unconstitutional industrial action or whether the payments by the company into the fund, which were themselves dependent on freedom from unconstitutional action, were sufficient for the purpose.
After two days of intensive discussions on this and related points, an outline holiday bonus and lay-off benefit scheme to replace the corresponding provisions of the February package deal was agreed. The scheme is in two parts: first, the company has undertaken to set up a fund on a company-wide basis into which it will pay 4s. per employee per week in order to finance lay-off benefit. In any week in which unconstitutional action takes place in any plant, no payment will be made into the fund in respect of any employee in that plant. This sum of 4s. per employee per week should in all normal circumstances be more than sufficient to meet the outgoings and the surplus will be available to improve the benefits in the second part of the scheme.
Under this, a second fund will be created on a plant basis for the payment of a holiday bonus. This will be financed by weekly contributions by the company of 10s. per employee, which, in the same way, will not be payable in the event of any unconstitutional action in the plant. Subject to a guaranteed minimum of £15, the size of the holiday bonus payable to employees will, therefore, vary according to the extent to which plants have been affected by, and individual employees have taken part in, unconstitutional industrial action.
This outline scheme and the basis for a resumption of work agreed on 15th March were accepted yesterday by the executive of the A.E.F., the trade union side of the N.J.N.C. and by a Transport and General Workers Union delegate conference. The unions agreed to recommend a return to work today, with the exception of the Transport and General Workers Union, which, by resolution of the union’s delegate conference, recommended a full return tomorrow in order to allow union officials to explain the settlement at meetings of strikers today.
I understand that production in Ford plants has restarted this morning. The House will be relieved that this protracted and damaging dispute, which has resulted in a loss of between £30 and £40 million of production, half of it for export, and nearly £3½ million loss of wages for Ford employees, is at an end, and I hope that there will be a speedy and complete return to work.
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 10 March 1969.
With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the strike at Ford Motor Company plants.
Following an application from the unions for a pay increase and growing pressure for the provision of a guaranteed week to insulate its workers against layoffs resulting from strike action elsewhere, the company, in November last, entered into negotiations with the trade union side of the National Joint Negotiating Committee through a working party consisting of representatives of the company and the six unions covering the great majority of their employees.
After a series of meetings and an interim report to the N.J.N.C., the company put forward on 10th February an improved “package deal” offer which the trade union representatives agreed to recommend unanimously to the full trade union side of the Ford N.J.N.C. On 11th February the trade union side accepted the offer by majority decision.
The following are the main features of the package deal: increases in rates averaging about 8 per cent.; measures to facilitate productivity improvements; lay-off and short-time payments on condition that the employee has not engaged during the previous six months in action in breach of the procedure agreed by the National Joint Negotiating Committee; a £20 holiday bonus, provided that the same condition is fulfilled during the previous 12 months; improvements in the disputes procedure, and an accelerated joint procedure for dealing with appeals against disqualification from lay-off payment and holiday bonus; equal pay for women employees, subject to acceptance of the same conditions as for male employees.
These terms, subject to certain reservations in respect of equal pay, were to come into operation on 1st March.
On 18th February, the A.E.U. Executive Council rejected the deal and demanded renegotiation. A few days later, the full trade union side of the N.J.N.C. decided to request the company to suspend the package deal pending reexamination. Nevertheless, when the company and the unions met in the N.J.N.C. on 25th February, the trade union side, by majority decision, confirmed their acceptance of the deal and requested the company to implement it from 1st March.
The company therefore asked my Department for an urgent reply to the request that it had already made for Government approval under the prices and incomes policy for implementation of the deal. This was granted on an assessment of the productivity savings flowing from the deal as a whole and subject to review after six months.
On 25th February, however, the A.E.U. had called an official strike of their members in Ford plants, a number of which were already affected by unofficial strikes. Similar decisions followed from the T. & G.W.U., the Patternmakers and the National Union of Vehicle Builders. Although about 7,000 employees have remained at work, vehicle production in the company’s plants is virtually at a standstill, with serious loss of exports.
On 27th February, the company obtained an interim injunction against the A.E.F. and the T.G.W.U. restraining them from taking further action in pursuance of the strike.
On the same day, a meeting of representatives of the unions on the N.J.N.C. took place at Croydon, under the chairmanship of Lord Cooper, immediately following the T.U.C. conference of union executives. Following this meeting, an approach was made to the company requesting withdrawal of legal action, renegotiation on the basis of dropping conditional lay-off benefit and holiday bonus and consideration of alternative productivity proposals, in return for all of which, the unions in dispute with the company would instruct their members to return to work.
The company replied by offering to withdraw legal action, provided that there was a return to work on the following Monday, and the package deal was recognised as being in operation until replaced by an agreement negotiated in accordance with the N.J.N.C. procedure. There was no response from the union side. On 6th March the interim injunction was discharged by the High Court.
On the following day, last Friday, at the T.U.C.’s invitation, representatives of the unions on the N.J.N.C. were called together, and this was followed immediately by a joint meeting of the two sides of the N.J.N.C. As, however, no basis for a resumption of work was found at this meeting, officers of my Department held exploratory talks with the two sides on Saturday, and further talks are taking place this afternoon.
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity, in the House of Commons on 7 March 1969.
Production at the Vauxhall plants at Ellesmere Port and Luton has been seriously affected by shortage of components caused by a strike of 10 platers employed at the Ellesmere Port factory. The strike, which began on 26th February, has resulted in 11,000 employees being laid off, 6,000 at the Ellesmere Port plant and 5,000 at Luton and further lay-offs are threatened.
The men are claiming an additional payment because of the conditions in which their work is done. The company maintains that it has an understanding with the union side of the joint negotiating committee that claims of this nature will be considered only in the general review of the company’s whole pay structure for manual workers, at present under discussion in that committee, and that, therefore, it is unable to deal with this particular claim in isolation. The company has, however, expressed its willingness to consider this matter at a meeting of the joint negotiating committee on Tuesday next.
Officials of the Amalgamated Union of Engineering and Foundry Workers, to which the strikers belong, have made several attempts to secure a return to work, but these have so far been unsuccessful. I understand that after the failure of the latest of these attempts yesterday, the company has stated that it now considers the men on strike as having terminated their employment with the company.
I am deeply disturbed that a stoppage this nature should have resulted in such widespread stoppage of production and loss of employment. Officers of my Department have already been in touch with the union and the company and they are seeking urgent consultations with both sides to see what further steps can be taken.
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 7 March 1968.
The Board submitted their Report to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs and to me on Thursday last, 29th February. It is being laid before the House today.
The National Board confirm the proposals by London Transport for fares increases, for reasons which are set out at length in the Report. They have deferred consideration of British Rail’s proposals until they report upon the wider question of passenger and freight charges outside London, which has also been referred to them. In the light of this, the Government have decided that there are no grounds for continuing to force their requests to the London Transport Board to withhold their proposed application to the Transport Tribunal, and to defer introducing the changes authorised by the Transport Tribunal in July, 1966, in concessionary fares for employed juveniles. The corresponding proposals by British Rail cannot, however, go forward at present. I have told the Chairmen of the two Boards of these decisions.
The London Transport proposals must now go through the full statutory procedures of the Transport Tribunal, including a public inquiry.
The National Board have also made recommendations relating to the operation, costs and staff of the London Transport Board, to the future organisation of London Transport in relation to the Greater London Council, and to studies by my Department of social costs. I am already having wide-ranging discussions with London Transport and the Greater London Council on various matters. They include in particular those about the proposed transfer to the G.L.C. of responsibility for London Transport, to which I referred in the Answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) on 15th December last. In further discussions on these matters, I will take fully into account the National Board’s recommendations.—[Vol. 756, c. 250.]
The statement made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 7 February 1968.
I am aware of a recent survey which shews that many road users do not yet recognise the new road signs, though the situation is on the whole improving gradually.
A large-scale publicity campaign to familiarise the public with the new road signs and their meaning has been in progress for the past three years and will continue. Every medium of publicity available has been used. More than nine million copies of a special booklet in colour have been issued, half of them sold through booksellers and newsagents, the remainder issued free to learner-drivers, trainee cyclists and foreign visitors. Every L-driver gets a free copy with his first provisional licence. This free issue is continuing at the rate of about 1¾ millions a year. The new traffic signs will be illustrated in the revised Highway Code now in preparation. So far, more than six million free leaflets illustrating a selection of the signs have been issued through the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. About 135,000 wall-charts have been issued to schools, garages, libraries etc. for continuous display, and some 2½million other visual aids for all ages. A successful mobile exhibition featuring the signs has been on tour since 1964. It has so far visited 130 towns and been seen by about 600,000 people. The tour continues this year. In addition to generous editorial space given by Press, television and radio, 27 specially produced short films on the subject have been given more than 1,200 showings on B.B.C. and I.T.V., and seven more films are still to come.
I have given careful consideration to the hon. Member’s suggestion but apart from the fact that it would be surprisingly expensive to carry out I do not believe that it would add much to the campaigns I have already put in hand and which are continuing. I believe that the Ministry’s campaigns do give road users the means to educate themselves in the meaning of the new signs. It is for road users themselves to make the necessary effort to learn.
The comments made by Barbara Castle, the then Minister for Transport, in the House of Commons on 24 January 1968.
Thomas Cook and Son Ltd. are a valuable national asset which must continue to be maintained and vigorously developed. I have every confidence in the ability and determination of the Company’s Chairman, his Board and staff to do this. The transfer of most of the Transport Holding Company’s other existing assets to the new bodies to be set up as a consequence of the proposals in the Transport Bill now before the House may, however, later make it desirable to make new arrangements for the continued control in the public sector of the Holding Company’s holdings in Thomas Cook. This is under consideration.
The comments made by Stuart Andrew, the Housing Minister, on 12 April 2022.
Up and down the country, street names often form a key part of an area’s history, cherished by the local community for the memories they hold and the places they represent.
These proposals will strengthen local democracy by ensuring that councils in England get agreement from local residents in advance of any street name changes.
The speech made by John Hynd, the then Labour MP for Sheffield Attercliffe, in the House of Commons on 20 December 1967.
Unlike the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster), I rise to give my warmest support to the Bill. The hon. Member for Worcester (Mr. Peter Walker) suggested that the Bill was the result of the thinking of an extreme Left-wing Socialist. He will probably be surprised to find the Bill receiving unanimous support on this side of the House from all sections of the Labour Party.
I support the Bill because it accepts many of the principles which many of us have been advocating for many years. It accepts the principle that we can no longer go on with our overcrowded roads, with their daily death toll, while our railways are under-used. It accepts the principle of reducing the unfair charges which the railways have had to pay for far too long. It does this by proposing to write off the debts which have been accrued by the railways, largely because of these unfair charges. It also accepts the principle of assessing the true costs of transport under the different methods which are available to us.
I agree with the hon. Member for Worcester that it is a pity that we have been given only one day to debate a Bill of this size. This Measure contains at least four other Bills. I do not know why he should complain about this, because for this problem to be tackled comprehensively, if this Measure had not been introduced, four other Bills would have had to be brought before the House. The hon. Gentleman seems to be complaining about my right hon. Friend’s productivity in bringing these four Measures together in one Bill so that everyone can balance one aspect of the problem with another when these issues are discussed in Committee.
Why is my right hon. Friend being so modest about road haulage charges vis-à-vis those in the great centres of private enterprise which are so often lauded by hon. Gentlemen opposite, for example, West Germany? Many of us would have liked to have seen a much more realistic approach, perhaps on the German lines, but no doubt this will follow the discussions on the true costs.
The hon. Gentleman repeated the usual charge that no such Bill as this should be introduced when the economy is in such a parlous state. It is just when the economy is in a parlous state that it is necessary to get on with reorganising the very basis of our economy, and in particular reorganising this great national service on which our economy and industry depends.
The hon. Gentleman also repeated, in slightly different terms, the charge made from the Front Bench opposite during our last debate on transport, that the Bill merely represented further nationalisation, and proposed substituting for a highly competitive industry a monolithic State enterprise….”.—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th November, 1967; Vol. 753, c. 750.] This is being said by hon. Gentlemen who represent the party which was responsible for the establishment of public ownership of London transport to deal with the chaos which existed then. After the 1951 General Election, one of their first acts was the nationalisation of MacBrayne Steamers in Scotland, part of the transport industry. Hon. Gentlemen opposite were also responsible for keeping the greater part of British Road Services nationalised, after their fruitless attempts to destroy it, and the reason for this was that our road haulage services had proved to be more highly efficient and effective than private enterprise had been, and even their own supporters demanded that they put an end to denationalisation.
The interesting thing to note about the phrase “substituting for a highly competitive industry a monolithic State enterprise” is that when the Conservative Party calls for sacrifices from the common people of this country, for one purpose or another, hon. Gentlemen opposite refer to us as a nation, but when they are opposing Labour or Socialist Measures they refer to us as a state. This is supposed to be an epithet, but it refers to the same thing.
The hon. Gentleman talked about a highly competitive industry. It is interesting to note that he did not say a “highly successful competitive industry”, a phrase which one usually hears from the other side about private enterprise. The reason for this is that it has not been a highly successful competitive enterprise in any sector of the national transport scheme.
It may be that the hon. Gentleman is too conscious, of the fact that the present situation is a direct result of too much interference and hesitation by Tory Governments during the 13 years from 1951 to 1964. The Tory Government were never tired of praising the efficiency and enterprise of the British Transport Commission, but the hon. Gentleman is aware that the British Transport Commission, and the railways themselves, were, for the first time, earning a profit in 1951–52, when the Conservative Government took over and started interfering with them? This is where and when the story of the growing deficits began, and hon. Gentlemen opposite know this only too well.
In 1958, hon. Gentlemen opposite were claiming that but for the temporary economic recession at that time the B.T.C. would have been “right on target”. Three years later, in November, 1961, they were telling us that despite the growing deficit in the railways’ accounts everything was going to be all right. They chided those of us who had been talking of transport as a social service with the fact that if such wild ideas were put into practice we might have vast deficits amounting to as much as £100 million a year. The Minister then said, “We believe we have got the balance right”. How did they get the balance right? The right balance, according to what was said in introducing the 1962 Bill, was a loss not of £100 million but £150 million, with an estimated £160 million for the following year, followed by a loss of £134 million in 1963 and £121 million in 1964—and now we understand that we are faced this year with a loss of £153 million.
The story of deficits in the railway industry began under a Conservative Government, and these deficits were maintained under Conservative Governments. We are therefore delighted that we are now reaching the point where we can say goodbye to this sorry story, which was described by a Tory Minister as “the right balance”. Incidentally, in 1961, after Dr. Beeching’s appointment, we were promised enormous savings to balance these deficits. During the six years since that time the savings arising from these wholesale railway closures have amounted to only £17 million.
Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)
The hon. Member is expressing delight that the railways will be relieved of this deficit. Does not he appreciate that the deficit is being wiped out purely by a currency device?
Mr. Hynd
It is an accounting arrangement, but when a continual deficit of about £150 million, year by year, is loaded on to the railways—a deficit which will never be repaid, anyhow—it cannot make any difference if the deficit is written off and the railways are given a chance to begin to earn a reasonable profit on their activities.
We have had ample opportunity to hear what many hon. Members opposite have been saying about the closures under the Beeching regime, and we hope that they will take this opportunity of following us into the Lobby this evening.
The interesting thing is that neither in the last debate nor in this have we heard a word about any alternatives from hon. Members opposite, although they have opposed everything the Government propose. Is it that they are satisfied that the present situation should be allowed to rip? Are they satisfied that we should go on with these great deficits—£150 million a year—adding again to the existing confusion on the roads? Do not they want to do anything about this confusion on the roads, which costs so much in terms of the daily toll of lives, to say nothing about the estimated £1,000 million cost to the nation arising from delays and accidents? What is their policy? So far as we can judge from what they have said during the debate they are happy to continue with the impossible situation that they created during their 13 years of office.
I speak for many thousands of railway-men and others outside the industry in giving a warm welcome to the Minister for her courage and her practical new approach, which seeks to bring an end to the confusion and disasters of the Marples regime and restore the policy of integration of our transport services which, right from the 1920 Commission, has been the policy advocated by every independent body that has inquired into transport problems.
A Bill of this size cannot adequately be covered in the time available to a back bench speaker, involving as it does a complete reorganisation of this immense and complex industry, and containing so many proposals and involving so many facets of the industry’s activities.
I confine myself to asking the Minister one or two questions about the details of the Bill. First, and probably most important, when may we expect to receive the results of the investigation into the true costs of road and rail transport, taking into account the £179 million annually loaded on to the railways in respect of tracks and signalling, for which there is no comparable burden on road transport?
Secondly, why should not all the pending and further railway closures be suspended until such time as this assessment has been made and the true comparative costs established? Until, for that matter, the results of the review of the Regional Economic Councils will be made known? It may prove, as it has in the past, that certain lines should not be closed. For example, under the Beeching Plan the railway line to Fort William was to be closed down, although another Minister in the same Tory Government was arranging for the building of a great new factory at Fort William. In the end, they had to cancel the idea of cutting out the railway line.
This could happen again. As a result of the investigation into the true costs of road and rail transport it could be that many of the lines and services which are now proposed to be closed down will turn out to be more economical than any available alternative form of transport.
Is my right hon. Friend satisfied with the set-up, and especially with the freight services organisation? Would it not have been a much more practical proposition to restore the old British Transport Commission which, during its lifetime, proved so effective as the blanket organisation for the sectors of transport which it then covered? With all the separate organisations which now exist, or which will exist—the British Railways Board, the National Freight Corporation and Passenger Transport Authorities, to, say nothing of British Road Services, the port authority and, even, now the air services—there are bound to be clashes of interest, and decisions will have to be taken, many of them quickly.
I do not see how decisions can be taken effectively and speedily by the Minister or by an advisory council. Many situations are bound to arise in which urgent decisions are needed at top level which cannot be dealt with promptly and adequately by a Government Department, and which ought to be dealt with by an overall body. I would have preferred to see the restoration of the British Transport Commission.
My next point concerns the separation of the National Freight Corporation from the railways. Sufficient has been said about this to make it unnecessary for me to go into details, but nobody has yet made the point that the Bill provides that the National Freight Corporation will cater for traffic originating by road and the railways for traffic originating by rail. Is the Minister satisfied that such a distinction can always be clearly drawn? Those with practical experience of transport know that it is not always easy to say where the traffic substantially originated. If a question of this kind arises, who will decide? If it is to be the Freight Integration Council it will not be adequate. It will not work speedily enough. I ask my right hon. Friend to look closely at this question.
I agree with what has repeatedly been said that the separation of the N.F.C. from the railways is taking from them one of the services upon which everyone had assumed they would largely depend for their financial viability. In the last year traffic increased by about 400 per cent., representing £2½ million. We understand that it will treble next year, if things continue as they are going. This must be a serious blow to railway finances. I do not understand the object of separating it from the railways, which are quite capable of managing the freight services.
Finally, there is the question of safeguarding the interests of both the railway employees and the public. It is true that the Bill proposes a certain extension of opportunities for appeals to the T.U.C.C.s, but most people who have had anything to do with those organisations are worried not so much about the opportunities for appeal but about their lack of powers and nothing in the Bill extends those powers to enable the councils to make more effective recommendations and take account of all the factors involved in considering whether a service should be maintained.
I know that my right hon. Friend fully realises the vital importance in this great new experiment of carrying the employees with her and bringing confidence into the ranks of the workers in the railways and elsewhere, but there is no clearly stated provision in the Bill about the rights of employees to full consultation up to the top level. What forms of consultation will be created—so far as I understand the Bill from a rapid reading, and no one could have done more in the time that we have had—are apparently to be left entirely to the Minister to decide later. She has not said on what considerations she will base decisions. This is highly important.
The unions are greatly concerned. They are already concerned about who will be catering for whom in these new centres where roads and railways will be mixed up and there will be freight liner employees, local passenger services and area passenger services employees, railwaymen, local authority employees and others. The delineation of some of these fields may be extremely difficult. It would reassure the workers affected by the Bill if the Minister made an early statement about what form consultations will take and about how the problem of who employs whom is to be resolved.
As so many hon. Members wish to speak and time is so short, I will confine myself to these questions at this stage, although I hope to have an opportunity of asking a number more later on. I hope that the Minister will consider that my questions are constructive and sufficiently important to justify an answer, since they urgently concern many thousands of railwaymen as well as others besides myself.
I repeat what I said at the beginning, that I give the Bill and its general purposes and principles the warmest possible support. I hope that it will be given overwhelming support in the Lobbies. I can assure the Minister that, given certain assurances, it will have the full support of the workers in the railway industry.