Single or Return - the official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association

Chapter Twenty-Six

• Labour returns to Power;
• The Transport Act (1968);
• In Place of Strife;
• The 1970 General Election.

"It is incredible, looking back over years of unprecedented activity, that we have not been able to organise the public element to better advantage. Much of the responsibility for this failure must rest with the authors of the 1968 Transport Act. It comes as no satisfaction to say I told you so."

T.G. Bradley MP

President TSSA, 1975 Annual Conference

Labour Returns to Power

As the Conservative Government approached the end of its term of office in 1964, it was in a state of disarray. Moreover, its economic policies had led to a deteriorating balance of payments, a run on the pound and a drop in gold reserves. Action to resolve the crisis had been taken by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, Selwyn Lloyd, in 1961, when he borrowed substantially from the International Monetary Fund and introduced a series of monetary and credit measures. These included an increase in the Bank Rate from 5 to 7 per cent, a 10 per cent surcharge on all Customs and Excise duties, and a pay pause. On the lOth January 1962, the Chancellor told the TUC1 that wages were the cause of Britain's economic difficulties and that after the pay pause there would be a transitional period of slightly less rigid restraint, but eventually a permanent incomes policy would be introduced.

By this time Macmillan's 1959 election slogan - You've never had it so good, had a hollow ring. The consumerism of the Tory years had disguised the reality that 14.2 per cent of the population were living at, or below, the poverty level.2 Many sought a change of politics at Westminster and when the Liberals won a devastating by-election at the former Tory stronghold of Orpington in March 1962, the signs that the Government was nearing the end of its tenure were visible.

This was re-enforced when Tom Bradley contested a by-election at Leicester North-East on 12th July 1962. Bradley, who had been the youngest candidate to contest the 1950 General Election, had participated in every election since, and had acquired considerable experience as a County and Borough Councillor. Victory was secured, but the result was in one way disappointing. Both the Tory and Labour candidates' share of the vote had been reduced since the 1959 General Election, whereas the Liberal, whose Party had not contested the constituency since 1950, achieved a substantial vote. The result was:

• T. G. Bradley (Labour) 11,274
• D. Bond (Liberal) 9,326
• R Marlar (Conservative) 6,578

Tom Bradley delivered his Maiden Speech to Parliament during a debate on the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Bill that was to introduce minimum standards of working conditions and accommodation - legislation that the RCA had sought for the railway industry since 1912. As a former railway clerk, Bradley was able to describe in graphic detail the poor working conditions which he, and his colleagues, had inherited from the private railway companies and which, despite considerable public investment since 1948, remained a fact of life for many.3 Ray Gunter, on behalf of the Labour Party, criticised the Bill as being too limited, a point of view the TSSA shared, but it was not opposed, and during the committee stage a number of positive amendments were accepted. Harry Hynd chaired the committee which also included Tom Bradley and the Bill was enacted on 31st July 1963. This did not resolve all the problems of accommodation and complaints continued to be made at the TSSA's Annual Conference.4

With Conservatism now in a deep crisis, Harold Macmillan dismissed one-third of his Cabinet, including his Chancellor Selwyn Lloyd, but this failed to improve the Government's credibility. In February 1963, unemployment reached 878,000, 3.9 per cent of the work force; political debate was heightened by the notorious affair between John Profumo, the Secretary for War, and the prostitute Christine Keeler, but Profumo's eventual resignation failed to diminish the growing unpopularity of the Tory Government. In due course, political pressure and ill-health led to Harold Macmillan's resignation in October 1963, and he was replaced as Prime Minister by Sir Alec Douglas-Home. The Government's attempt to create a new image failed and the Labour Party was increasingly seen as a force that could modernise Britain's industrial base and meet the growing challenge of foreign competition.

With over 87 per cent of the Association's membership paying the political levy5 the EC donated £7,500 to the Labour Party Election Fund and hopes were high that Labour would be returned to power. The West Yorkshire Divisional Council established a new Political Advisory Committee covering an area embracing 40 parliamentary constituencies of which 24 were held by Labour. The inaugural meeting was held at Leeds on 13th June 1964 with Merlyn Rees, the MP for Leeds South, as the speaker; Sylvia Morris was elected as secretary.

The General Election took place on 15th October 1964, but the substantial popularity which Labour had built up over the previous two years suddenly evaporated just prior to the election, resulting in a mere 203,200 votes separating the two major political parties. The Labour Party won 59 seats more than in the 1959 election but had a majority of only 4. The TSSA managed to secure the election of all its sponsored members and was the sixth most successful of the 27 unions that had supported Labour candidates. The TGWU had 21 MPs, the TSSA 7, the NUR 6 and ASLEF 1.

Table 31

* Unsponsored

When Harold Wilson announced his new Government, Ray Gunter became the Minister for Labour, the first TSSA member to hold Cabinet rank; it was a position he later described as his bed of nails. George Rogers was Lord Commissioner of the Treasury and Lord Lindgren, Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Transport; Tom Bradley was appointed as PPS to Roy Jenkins, the Minister for Aviation. Ray Gunter resigned his position as TSSA President and Tom Bradley, who had been the Association's Treasurer since 1961, was appointed by the EC to take over his duties, whilst retaining his office as Treasurer. This decision was contested within the Executive by Tom Patterson and Ralph Whitehead, who maintained that the Treasurer's position should be filled by Harry Moor, the unsuccessful candidate at the last election, but this was defeated by 20 votes to 7. At the 1965 Annual Conference, Bradley's presidency was confirmed by the membership when he defeated Ralph Whitehead by 53,550 votes to 11,375. Johnny Johnson was elected as Treasurer.

The Labour Party had contested the election with a manifesto which sought to reverse the decline of the previous thirteen years and to mobilise the nation's resources, particularly those of science and technology, within a national plan. It was an exciting prospect and the Labour Party undertook to prepare a transport plan co-ordinating the road, rail and canal networks with air, coastal shipping and port services. New regional planning authorities were to be asked to draw up transport plans for their respective areas, and while these were being prepared, major rail closures would be halted. Furthermore, BRS would be given the necessary powers to develop a national freight service, and action would be taken to stop haulage firms flouting regulations that covered vehicle maintenance, loading and driving hours.

Shortly after Labour took over the reins of Government, representatives from the TSSA met the new Minister for Transport, Tom Fraser, and on 4th November he confirmed to Parliament that he would withhold his consent to any railway closures conflicting with the Government's regional plans. However, he also said that he did not possess the statutory powers to halt those closures that had been approved by his predecessor, nor was he able to instruct the BRB to resume any services which had been withdrawn.

On 8th February 1965, Tom Fraser announced that he had established a Transport Advisory Council, which included one trade unionist - W. J. P. Webber. At the same time he appointed Lord Hinton, the former Chairman of the Electricity Board, as his special adviser to carry out studies to advance transport co-ordination. Hinton outlined his views to the Transport Advisory Council and the Minister in October, but Fraser decided not to publish his report, the excuse being that technically Hinton was a civil servant. Charles Mapp raised the matter in Parliament, but he failed to move the Minister from his decision.

The appointment of Hinton was quickly recognised as a mistake and his view that co-ordination could best be obtained through natural competition and evolution was hardly what Fraser expected. Indeed, it was no different from that expressed by the 1928 Royal Commission on Transport. When Barbara Castle published her diaries, she revealed that Lord Hinton was totally opposed to the integration of transport being based along the lines of the Attlee administration6 - an objective which the TSSA had firmly within its sights.

Tom Fraser was a guest speaker at the 1965 TSSA Eastbourne Conference and he told the 556 delegates that the Government would bring forward legislation to enable the nationalised industries to have greater freedom to develop their commercial potential, and confirmed that the Transport Holding Company was now free to acquire additional private businesses. Furthermore, he had removed the ban preventing the Railway Workshops from tendering for the manufacture of privately owned railway equipment. Fraser received a warm reception at the conference, but railway lines continued to close, and branches complained to the EC that they saw little change in policy from that of the former Government Moreover, there was also evidence to suggest that the BRB was deliberately running down railway services as part of an ongoing policy to ensure that their closure became inevitable.7 Alarmed at the Government's failure to change course, the leaders of the railway unions met Harold Wilson and Tom Fraser on 6th October 1965 and the Minister was asked to stop the closures until the Government's plans for the industry had been completed. The unions sought clarification of the Government's interpretation of major line closures and Wilson responded by saying that a major closure was considered to be one which would interfere with, or retard, those services covered by a Regional Economic Council.8 More ominous was the Government's National Plan which indicated that by 1970 there would be a reduction in the railway work force of over 113,000 - a policy which the TSSA resolved to oppose.9

When the Labour Government was elected it was faced with an economic crisis far worse than it had expected. It was not simply incompetent government that had led to this state of affairs - the British economy had been going through a period of relative decline for some time and had seen its share of world trade drop from 19.3 per cent in 1953, to 13 per cent in 1964. Since 1958, Britain's share of the world's export of engineering goods had fallen from 21 per cent to 16 per cent and, with a manufacturing base that had been steadily eroded, its volume of imports was now a matter of serious concern. This had been aggravated by the Conservative Government's desire to maintain Britain as a world military force and with £350 million being spent on overseas bases this was a luxury the nation could no longer sensibly afford. The railway industry was not immune from the developing economic crisis. Although some modernisation had taken place under the Conservative administration, investment in BR had fallen from £182 million in 1960 to £116 million in 1964. At the same time fares had increased by more than 25 per cent.

As soon as Wilson became Prime Minister he was advised by his civil servants that the economic crisis would deepen over the next two years and urgent remedial action was required. Harold Wilson, along with James Callaghan, Chancellor of the Exchequer, and George Brown, the Secretary of State for Economic Affairs, agreed that a 15 per cent levy on non-essential imports, combined with a massive package of tax relief for exporters, should be introduced. Pensions, unemployment and sickness benefits were announced, but not immediately paid; taxes were increased; when the City forced a run on the pound, interest rates were raised by 2 per cent and the Government was forced into borrowing £1,040 million from a consortium of foreign banks. Labour's commitment to abolish National Health Service charges was dropped; devaluation was ruled out and for three years the Government sacrificed everything to save the pound, but eventually, on 18th November 1967, it was obliged to devalue. In the meantime, and for the remainder of the Government's term, wages became an important political issue.

On 16th December 1964, Cabinet Ministers, representatives of the trade unions and employers' organisations signed a Declaration of Intent; this was designed to increase output in order to foster a growth in social services. The Government agreed to establish machinery that would keep a watch on prices. The first phase of a prices and incomes policy was born, but within 24 hours came news that the cost of living had experienced its sharpest increase since 1961. As the financial crisis continued, international pressure led to a further strengthening of the Government's incomes policy, and a special conference of Trade Union Executive Committees, representing 174 unions, was held on 30th April 1965 at the Central Hall, Westminster. This approved a report from the TUC General Council, which set out the machinery and conditions for a productivity, prices and incomes policy by 6,649,000 votes to 1,811,000. The TSSA and NUR gave it their support, but the TGWU and ASLEF indicated opposition.

In May, a National Board for Prices and Incomes was established under the former Conservative Minister, Aubrey Jones. When the TUC met for its traditional gathering in September, Ray Gunter was the fraternal delegate from the Labour Party and he appealed to the trade union movement to accept voluntary wage restraint. Resistance to this had strengthened somewhat but it still had majority support and was backed by 5,251,000 votes to 3,312,000. By approving the report, delegates accepted that if voluntary restraint failed, statutory means would be introduced. With the TSSA traditionally reluctant to use strike action to persuade a stubborn management to effect improvements in pay and conditions, many of its members saw the Government's incomes policy as a positive step towards obtaining fairer pay increases. Jim Mills10 (Euston No.2) urged delegates at the 1965 Annual Conference to endorse the decisions made at the Special TUC and welcomed the Government's attempt to bring some order into wage bargaining. He suggested that it was the opportunity that the trade union movement was looking for to improve pensions and social benefits; others on the left were not convinced but Mills emphasised that he would not tolerate a wage freeze if prices and dividends continued to rise. The delegates supported him and on 15th October 1965, George Brown suggested to the railway unions that they submit their claim to the Prices and Incomes Board. They agreed to do so and on 14th January 1966 the Board noted that between 1960 and 1965 the earnings of the Wages Grades had advanced by 37.6 per cent, keeping pace with the general movement of industrial earnings. During the same period the salaries of clerical staff had increased by only 27.9 per cent, largely owing to the absence of incentive payment schemes.

The report recommended that productivity increments should be negotiated, with a programme of objectives to be tabled tor discussion by October 1966.11 The Board approved a 5 per cent pay increase for those in the Clerical Grades as against management's offer of 3½ per cent. The TSSA accepted the report, but it had deep reservations about the suggestion that the practice of determining pay claims in relation to the Guillebaud Report should be dropped. Much more controversial was the Board's judgment that the BRB's offer to the Wages Grades was acceptable. The NUR rejected the award and decided to strike from 14th February. The Prime Minister intervened on 11th February and, following beer and sandwiches at 10 Downing Street, the strike was called off. The result was a 3½ per cent increase for clerical staff, operative from 4th October 1965, which was converted to a 5 per cent increase from 3rd January 1966. A further 3½ per cent for all wages and salaried staff was awarded from 5th September 1966 with a 38 hour week for salaried staff and a 40 hour week for wages staff being introduced on 28th February 1966.

Faced with the constant problem of a small majority in Parliament, Harold Wilson decided on 28th February 1966 that the time was right to call a General Election. This was held on 31st March under the slogan - You know Labour Government works. The TSSA officially sponsored five of its MPs. Henry Hynd, who had served as an MP for Accrington since 1950, retired, but Stanley Cohen,12 although unsponsored, was given financial support for the Barkston Ash Constituency, as was J. A. Wardle at Kidderminster. Charles Mapp, who no longer qualified for sponsorship because of the age limit imposed on members of the Parliamentary Panel, was provided with financial assistance.

Harold Wilson was returned to power with a national swing to the Labour Party of 2.7 per cent giving Labour 364 MPs, the Conservatives 253 and the Liberals 12. Labour now had a real opportunity to create the basis for a society that would act in the interests of working people and secure the future for which many yearned. All 5 TSSA sponsored MPs, along with Charles Mapp, were returned to Parliament, but Stan Cohen and J. A. Wardle were defeated. Ray Gunter continued as Minister for Labour and Tom Bradley as PPS to Roy Jenkins, now the Home Secretary. As part of the Government's reorganisation, Lord Lindgren was moved from Transport to become PPS to the Minister for Power.

The majority of TSSA members welcomed the return of a Labour Government, but many quickly became disillusioned at the effect of the prices and incomes policy. Just after the election the TSSA deplored the Government's attempt to control pay without a corresponding firmness in respect of prices, dividends and profits, and said that the National Plan would fail unless all incomes and prices were controlled.13 With the economy moving into a deepening crisis the Prime Minister, in a statement to the House of Commons on 20th July 1966, announced a series of measures that reduced domestic demand by £500 million and cut overseas military and civil expenditure by £100 million. In his speech, Harold Wilson said that the Government sought a six month standstill on all incomes, and a further six months of severe restraint. A similar standstill was required of prices, and companies were asked to hold down their dividends for twelve months. The City was reassured, but it resulted in the harshest attack on the living standards of working people since the days of Ramsay MacDonald and his National Government.

The Government's White Paper Prices and Incomes Standstill was considered at a special meeting of the TSSA's Executive on 5th August and the following statement was agreed:

"This Executive Committee recognises that the economic difficulties confronting the Nation imposed upon the Government an imperative duty to take immediate and effective action to remedy the situation. We regret, nevertheless, that the measures which the Government have felt obliged to take include a standstill on incomes but, in the belief that the alternative would be still more unpalatable, we are, with reluctance, prepared to acquiesce in the standstill, which will involve a delay of six months in the payment of the 3½ per cent increase which was due to be paid from 5th September 1966, as well as affecting other settlements. In the meantime, we shall press on with our discussions on a revised salary structure."14

As the pay policy began to take effect, members were worried that with merit awards not being paid from 1st January 1967, their company pension entitlements would be affected. This, and other matters dealing with superannuation, were raised with Ray Gunter, the Minister for Labour, on l0th November 1966, but he had very little to offer and only BR staff employed abroad escaped the rigours of the Government's incomes policy. A conference of Trade Union Executives took place on 2nd March 1967, and subject to reservations at the lack of emphasis on rewards for skills, responsibilities and differentials, the TSSA, along with the majority of trade unions, supported the TUC's Report on the Incomes Policy. This was endorsed by the 1967 Annual Conference at Hastings, but by now there was a growing realisation that the Government's policy was not simply temporary, designed to deal with a short-term economic crisis, but one that could become a permanent feature as envisaged by Selwyn Lloyd in 1961. Once again there were complaints at the increase in prices and, against the advice of the EC, a proposal from Harry Moor15 (Hull No.1) was carried, calling on the Government to operate a standstill on prices with the same stringency that had been applied to wages. In April 1967, the Association submitted a motion to the Annual Conference of the NFPW, deploring the fact that as a result of pay increases being deferred and merit increases cancelled, salaried staffs in the nationalised industries were suffering a reduction in their pension entitlements.16 This was passed to the Financial Secretary at the Treasury, but he was unable to offer any hope that a special arrangement could be made to deal with the problem.

Following the period of severe restraint in July 1967, Part 2 of the Prices and Incomes Act was introduced and further strengthened by the 1967 Act. When the TUC met at Brighton in September it was overshadowed by the announcement that electricity prices would be increased to industry by an average of 6 per cent and to the domestic consumer by 14½ per cent - a decision which the Government decided not to refer to the Prices and Incomes Board. The main economic debate centred on prices and incomes, and John Bothwell supported a successful proposal which asked for differentials in skills, comparability and cost of living movements to be recognised as criteria for pay increases. When Congress was asked to accept that the planning and control of prices and incomes should be continued, this was narrowly defeated by 4,277,000 votes to 4,109,000. In April 1968, the Government outlined the need for a further two years of pay restraint and laid great emphasis on relating pay to productivity. Any increase was subject to a ceiling of 3½ per cent, and all advances above this figure could only be obtained through productivity agreements. With the Government's pay policy now deeply unpopular, the 1968 TUC, its 100th, opposed wages legislation by 7,746,000 votes to 1,022,000. When the Labour Party held its conference the NEC was sharply divided and delegates opposed legislation by 5,098,000 votes (including those of the TSSA) to 1,124,000 votes.17

Prices and Incomes, along with productivity negotiations, dominated the work of the TSSA, and led by the ebullient Percy Coldrick,18 who had replaced John Bothwell as TSSA General Secretary in January 1968, the TSSA tried to obtain the best deals possible. The negotiations were of long duration but Coldrick eventually won considerable benefits. In addition to substantial improvements in conditions of service, arrangements were made for BR to deduct TSSA subscriptions through the members' paybill. This had commenced in 1967 under John Bothwell's leadership and by the end of Percy Coldrick's first year in office it encompassed 84 per cent of the membership. A similar scheme was introduced on CIE in January 1973, and when Northern Ireland's Railways introduced pay bill deductions in 1968, they indicated it was their wish that salaried staff should belong to a trade union. This was partly in response to the Association's long-standing demand for the Closed Shop whereby employment would be restricted to those who were members of a recognised trade union. The TSSA's view was that as all conditions of service and rates of pay were negotiated by the trade unions it was quite wrong that nonmembers should avail themselves of these improvements without contributing towards the expenses of their appropriate trade union.

This had not always been the position of the TSSA - on the contrary. From its birth, the Association had obviously sought to win every potential recruit, sometimes straying beyond its recognised remit under the TUC's Bridlington arrangements, but it also maintained a strong libertarian tradition, and since the era of Alexander Walkden, the EC had consistently opposed compulsory membership. Even in the post-war climate of 1946 Charles Gallie remained a firm and unrepentant believer in voluntary trade unionism.19 The TSSA repeatedly upheld this view, and although demands came at the 1954, 1959, 1961 and 1962 Conferences for a closed shop to be introduced, it had always been defeated on the advice of the EC. At the 1962 Conference, the proposition had only been lost by 2,850 votes and the following year Jim Mills, supported by Harry Moor, attempted once again to convince delegates that the time had come when trade union membership should be a condition of service. Against the recommendation of the EC and strong objections from Ray Gunter, Mills carried the day by 49,100 votes to 29,400. The TSSA then attempted to have its policy adopted by the various managements with whom it negotiated, but it was strongly resisted. At the 1968 Conference the EC was instructed to treat the subject as a matter of urgency and, whilst some progress was made with LT, BR remained opposed. The following year pressure was once again brought to bear at the annual conference and after consulting the other two rail unions, it was decided to pursue the closed shop policy within the context of Pay and Efficiency negotiations.

The constant pressure from the trade union movement changed the political climate and on 1st January 1970 trade union membership as a condition of service was introduced on BR and LT for the majority of grades, but not for the most senior managerial and executive staff. During 1970-1971 the Association's membership advanced from 69,346 to 75,163, and while there were some complaints from those who were now obliged to join their appropriate railway union, these were relatively few. At the first meeting of the Appeals Body held on 17th August 1970 to examine the cases of those who objected to compulsory membership, four appeals involving Salaried Grades were heard, one of which was granted on religious grounds. The life of the closed shop was cut short when the Conservatives were returned to power and Parliament passed the Industrial Relations Act (1971), but in 1974 and 1976 the Labour Government introduced legislation restoring the right of employers and trade unions to operate the closed shop. In August 1975, the TSSA negotiated a closed shop arrangement with BR covering its major groups, and a similar arrangement was made for LT staff in May 1976. These were again eliminated under laws passed by the Thatcher administration. Repeated calls were made for the closed shop to be extended to CIE but this did not take place until 1976 when it became a condition of service that employees must join and remain in a trade union catering for their grade.

The Transport Act (1968)

When Dr. Beeching left the railway scene on 21st April 1965 to return to his former company ICI, he received the customary life peerage but no tears were shed on his departure by members of the TSSA. He was replaced by the BRB's Vice-Chairman, Stanley Raymond, who was at one stage of his career Assistant Secretary to the Society of Civil Servants. Tom Fraser, who was generally considered to have been an amenable but ineffective Minister, was replaced by Barbara Castle on 23rd December 1965. The new Minister for Transport quickly and efficiently set about her task, but by the time she took over her duties railway workers were very disheartened by the Government's attitude towards their industry; the BRB's deficit was increasing annually, the railway continued to lose business to road transport, and services were still being cut.

During the early months of 1966, Barbara Castle held a series of meetings with the Regional Planning Councils and established a Transport Co-ordinating Council composed of representatives of the trade unions, the London Boroughs, the Greater London Council, (GLC) LT and BR, to prepare proposals for improving London's traffic. Barbara Castle attended the TSSA's 1966 Annual Conference at Folkestone and despite her warning that there would have to be more rail closures, she received a standing ovation. As far as railway workers were concerned, the Minister for Transport was at the height of her popularity and there is ample evidence that the majority of TSSA members saw her appointment as the best thing that had happened in transport for many years. Typical was the comment made by Harold Kent20 who considered her to be the most forward looking and go-ahead Transport Minister in memory.21 This admiration quickly receded when the final results of her deliberations were seen.

On 24th May 1966, all the railway trade union leaders met Barbara Castle and Stanley Raymond to be told that it was the Government's intention to close a further 3,000 miles of track, and that the network would be retained at 11,600 route miles rather than the 8,000 miles proposed by Beeching. There was almost a sense of relief. On 27th July Barbara Castle published her White Paper Transport Policy which set out to modernise transport's infrastructure, to give greater priority to dealing with the problem of traffic conditions in towns, and to take account of the social, as well as the economic needs of the country. The White Paper also announced that the Government was to provide subsidies to enable socially necessary but uneconomic services to be kept in operation, and to modernise the nation's port facilities. This was followed by White Papers on British Waterways, Railway Policy, Transport of Freight and Transport in London.

Politicians and union leaders gave these papers a mixed response. Tom Bradley congratulated Barbara Castle and said that there was much in them that was welcomed by the TSSA, but he criticised Transport Policy for failing to indicate the future of "C" licenses. Later, his criticisms sharpened considerably. Similar views were expressed by Johnny Johnson and Sidney Greene, who said that the White Paper may have provided one or two solutions, but it certainly did not resolve the difficulties of all railway workers and it left many problems unanswered.22 Tom Steele's comments were much sharper.23 He severely criticised the Labour Party for not having formulated a new transport policy since the Tories had brought in the 1953 Transport Act, and suggested that the White Paper would have been acceptable as a statement of aims if it had been published a few months after the Labour Government had taken office, but after two years in power, with the promise of further reviews, it was inadequate.

The criticisms were well-founded. When the Labour Party pamphlet Signposts for the Sixties was published in 1961, it had set out the way in which a Labour Government would manage the nation's affairs. The only mention of transport was to state the obvious, that the investment in publicly-owned railways had been insufficient, and its main emphasis was to criticise the Tory Government's poor road-building programme. This was rectified in the 1964 Labour Party Election Manifesto, but no mention was made of an integrated and co-ordinated transport system when the Government's National Plan was published.

As the transport debate continued within the labour and trade union movement, Barbara Castle made a tactful intervention at the 1967 Labour Party Conference and persuaded the TSSA and the NUR to agree to a relatively harmless composite, which nevertheless still contained their demand for an overall authority to co-ordinate all nationalised transport. In his speech, Percy Coldrick foresaw areas of dispute and administrative difficulties arising from the Government's proposals, and insisted that it was essential that there should be some form of central transport authority. Coldrick pleaded with the Minister to rethink this part of her policy, to strengthen the road licensing system and to appoint to the various boards people who had a belief in public ownership. Barbara Castle defended her programme, and although she insisted that it was wrong to establish a transport authority, supported the NUR and TSSA resolution. This she later ignored, and in her diary24 she arrogantly wrote that the concept of a transport authority was Good enough, so long as they recognise that I am going to be the overall authority!

Barbara Castle did consult widely and met rank and file members in addition to National Officers, but she consistently refused to accept that road licensing should be strengthened and that a Transport Planning Authority was essential to the success of an integrated transport system. Her proposal to separate the Freightliner service from BR and place it within a new National Freight Corporation (NFC) was considered to be fundamentally flawed, and its establishment was not only opposed by the labour movement but also by her own civil servants. Such were the disagreements, that Sir Stanley Raymond's hostility to some of her policies, including passing the Freightliner business to the NFC, eventually led to his early departure.

When the Minister presented her massive Transport Bill to Parliament in December 1967, it contained 260 pages with 169 clauses and 18 schedules - it was the largest Bill to be debated in the House since 1945. The NFC, composed of Freightliners Ltd, (which had been operating since 1965) and National Carriers Ltd (NCL), was to take over the total assets of BR's collection and delivery service, the subsidiary companies within the Transport Holding Company, and BRS. This placed BR in the position of trying to obtain traffic, whilst at the same time being unable to control its initial collection and final delivery service. Instead of establishing a co-ordinated freight transport system all the main publicly-owned freight companies were now in competition. Not only that, in spite of the fact that BR was obliged to use NCL, the freight company was under no obligation to use BR, as the Transport Act required NCL to use the railway only if it could provide an efficient and economic service. Tom Bradley described the relationship between the NFC and BR as an incredible complex of customer, supplier, competitor and partner.25 Conscious of the criticism, but determined to see her plan succeed, the Minister established a Freight Integration Council whose function was to give advice on any problems that arose, but its meetings were few and its role was largely ineffective.

Carriers' licensing remained an extremely contentious issue. A committee, chaired by Lord Geddes, had been set up by Ernest Marples in October 1963 to examine this matter, and it reported to the Wilson Government on 22nd June 1965. The enquiry revealed a widespread disregard of safety regulations, and said that approximately 10 per cent of Britain's 1,500,000 lorries were unfit to be on the road, with 45 per cent in some way defective. Geddes recommended, to the bitter disappointment of the TSSA and TUC, that the licensing system be abolished. The Labour Government was favourably disposed to the Geddes recommendations but a compromise was reached. The Minister eventually decided that all haulage vehicles under 30 cwt would be free from obtaining a licence but quantity licensing was proposed. All vehicles over 5 tons unladen weight were obliged to have a licence for journeys over 100 miles, with much higher standards of vehicle maintenance. This part of the Act was designed to be introduced in stages and it was as much disliked by the road haulage sector as it was by Barbara Castle's successor at the Ministry, Richard Marsh. To the disappointment of the TSSA, its terms were never implemented, and following the election of the Conservative Government in 1970, the Minister for Transport wasted little time expunging quantity licensing from the Act.

The TSSA's hopes of industrial democracy had been put on hold during the 13 years of Tory Government, but in 1964 they were revived. The TSSA supported the Labour Party's document Industrial Democracy but when the Government issued its White Paper Transport in London, in July 1968, the EC criticised it for not making provision for workers' participation at all levels.26 Trade unionists were appointed to the new Passenger Authorities that were established under the 1968 Transport Act,27 but the TSSA considered their numbers to be inadequate and the EC decided to approach the Minister for Transport and seek improvements.28 Barbara Castle was not moved from her position. In the meantime the Authorities were composed, in the main, of local councillors, with the Minister appointing up to one-seventh. The function of the Authorities was to plan and operate an integrated network of public transport services within their respective areas, and these were established at Merseyside, Tyneside, the West Midlands and Manchester.

At the 1968 TUC Centenary Conference, Percy Coldrick supported a motion on Industrial Democracy calling upon the Government to introduce legislation providing for trade union representation on the Management Boards of all nationalised undertakings. Coldrick emphasised that one trade union officer on a Board of 20 did not represent democracy29 and asked the Government to expedite the study of industrial democracy in the transport industry.30 A similar motion was supported at the 1968 Labour Party Conference. When the new Minister for Transport, Fred Mulley, addressed the 1970 TSSA Annual Conference, he stressed the need for worker participation at all levels of the railway industry, but when the General Election was held in June, the Tories were returned and the opportunity was lost.

With the passing of the 1968 Transport Act on 25th October, £1,200 million of historic capital debt was written off, and the BRB made a profit of £14.7 million in 1969 and £9.5 million in 1970. The publicly-owned bus undertakings in England and Wales came under the control of the National Bus Company, and in Scotland all the nationalised road and shipping services came under the Scottish Transport Group. The country bus division of LT, which covered the Greater London area and nine counties, saw its 1,300 buses transferred to London Country Bus Services Ltd, which became a subsidiary of the National Bus Company on 1st January 1970. The London Transport Board was abolished and its property passed to the London Transport Executive (LTE) which was responsible to the GLC.

On 1st January 1969, NCL Ltd and Freightliners Ltd joined the NFC which by 1975 controlled approximately 60 companies, nearly 1,000 depots and 25,000 vehicles. With 60,000 employees it became the largest company of its type in Europe. Then, as part of a restructuring programme, NCL saw its staff reduced from 26,000 in 1969 to 14,000 in 1977, and the number of NCL depots decreased from 250 to 100.31

A new and exciting development had already taken place in 1966 when BR Hovercraft Ltd, more commonly known as Seaspeed, was introduced. The first service commenced between the mainland and the Isle of Wight, and in August 1968, when BR ran its last steam locomotive, the world's largest Hovercraft, the SRN4 Princess Margaret, came into service on the Dover-Boulogne route. BR's Shipping and International Services Division was established in 1968 and became fully operational in August the following year. Its assets embraced the considerable fleet of BR vessels and harbours, and TSSA members in offices all over Western Europe eventually joined a new Shipping Division HQ branch. Shortly afterwards the Shipping Division joined a consortium of shipping companies owned by the French Railways, the Belgian Marine and the Dutch Zeeland Steamship Company, to be marketed as Sealink. In 1979 it became a separate but wholly-owned subsidiary of the BRB, and one of the biggest shipping companies in the world. BR Engineering Ltd (BREL) was established on 1st January 1970 along with Transmark, (Transportation Systems and Market Research Ltd) offering its considerable expertise as a consultancy to the benefit of railway companies worldwide. In all of these new undertakings, the TSSA had a significant membership and recognition was obtained.

In Place of Strife

On 2nd February 1965 Harold Wilson announced that a Royal Commission on Trade Unions would be established - the first of its type since 1903. Initiated by Ray Gunter, it was chaired by Lord Donovan, and the TUC's General Secretary, George Woodcock, was a member. It was asked:

"To consider relations between management and employees and the role of trade unions and employers' associations in promoting the interests of their members and in accelerating the social and economic advance of the nation with particular reference to the law affecting the activities of these bodies."

The following day Ray Gunter told a meeting of the NFPW that the purpose of the Royal Commission was to take an objective look at the trade unions in a world that was totally different from the one in which they had been created. In his address Gunter said that in the years ahead he was convinced it was in the white collar field that the trade union movement would find its main scope for advance.

The Commission took submissions from 430 organisations and individuals, and when it reported in June 1968 it urged swift measures to reduce unofficial strikes but rejected pre-strike ballots. It also called for negotiators to move away from centralised pay bargaining and a Commission for Industrial Relations was proposed to investigate labour problems. Its recommendations were generally well received and even though the Confederation of British Industry and the Conservative Party would have preferred to have seen it go much further, some of the recommendations were welcomed. Indeed, in their evidence to the Royal Commission, employers' organisations had called for the state to regulate the affairs of trade unions, to make their procedural agreements legally enforceable, and to outlaw unofficial strikes. A few unions were critical, but the harshest opposition came from the CP who saw it as an opportunity for the Government to reform the trade unions to their liking, to curb trade union rights and to restrict their ability to secure higher wages.

Barbara Castle, who had already alienated thousands of railway workers with sections of her Transport Act, was now in her new post as Secretary to the Department of Employment and Productivity. When she published her White Paper In Place of Strife on 16th January 1969, the CP's warnings about the potential danger of the Donovan Report were vindicated and her proposals were bitterly resented by trade unionists. Commenting on In Place of Strife, the Sunday Times said:

"The Conservatives are wise, therefore, to give this White Paper, which owes so mucn to their prompting, their general support, for it lays down foundations on which they can build."32

Many of Barbara Castle's proposals went much further than the recommendations of the Donovan Commission and to soften union resistance the White Paper announced a number of concessions including recognition, appeal against unfair dismissal, more information about employers, encouragement for employers to introduce trade union pay bill deductions and further experimentation with worker directors - concessions which many considered should have been a right rather than a bargaining tool. At the same time, Barbara Castle sought to impose a 28 day conciliation period before a strike could be held and a compulsory ballot prior to a national strike, with the wording approved by the Minister. Statutory changes were proposed to make certain trade union agreements enforceable in a court of law, and an Industrial Board would have the power to impose a fine on trade unions and individuals who defied the Minister's orders. A Commission on Industrial Relations was established in January 1969 with George Woodcock as its chairman.

The TSSA had reaffirmed its belief in the fundamental right to strike in 1968 and resolved to oppose any effort, from whatever source,33 that attempted to take away this right. Tom Bradley described the White Paper as a flight from reality34 and at the 1969 TSSA Conference an emergency motion, proposed by Bob Ayres35 (Euston No.2), opposed the conciliation pause, strike ballots, and the Industrial Board. Ayres, a gifted orator, expressed his abhorrence of the penal clauses and passionately declared that it was incomprehensible that a Labour Government should seek to place legislation on the Statute Book which would penalise trade unions and their members. One delegate, from the Road Haulage City branch, indicated his support for In Place of Strife and suggested that the majority of trade unionists and the public favoured the proposals, but his was a lone voice. Percy Coldrick, now a member of the General Council, supported Ayres and insisted that the membership was at one with the TUC, which totally opposed the penal clauses. Virtually the whole labour and trade union movement was united against In Place of Strife and when it was debated in Parliament on 3rd March 1969, 55 Labour MPs voted against the Bill and 40 abstained; the Government obtained a majority of 162. Later that month the Labour Party NEC opposed the policy by 16 votes to 5. May Day rallies that year gave vent to their anger, the Scottish TUC rejected the White Paper and a special TUC on 5th June opposed the penal clauses by 8,252,000 votes to 359,000; the minority was composed of the ETU and two small white collar unions. So great was the opposition that the Bill was dropped in June 1969, following an arrangement with the TUC that it would encourage union mergers and play a positive role in resolving disputes.

The resignation of Ray Gunter as Minister for Power on 29th June 1968, merely three months after his appointment, caused a flurry in political circles, although some trade unionists were more than pleased to see his departure. In his former role as Minister for Labour, Gunter had consistently taken a tough line with the trade unions and regularly discovered red plots behind industrial unrest. He was certainly extremely disappointed at Harold Wilson's decision to move him from his bed of nails as he had intended to produce his own trade union legislation.36 What the result would have been is a matter of speculation but an indication of his intentions was revealed when he said that In Place of Strife was feeble in many respects but it should be supported as a start.37

Gunter was by now a bitter man. Not only had he seen Barbara Castle take over his project, but her Ministry and authority had been greatly expanded. Following his resignation he accused Harold Wilson of overloading the Cabinet with intellectuals who fail to understand how ordinary people think38 Other comments were equally unhelpful and Michael Foot and a number of other MPs complained that he had breached Labour's Code of Conduct. He was exonerated from this accusation and his constituency Labour Party gave him their support by 33 to 1, but two TSSA branches indicated their displeasure, and told the EC that his sponsorship should be withdrawn and that the TSSA should sever its connections with its former president.39

The 1970 General Election

Whatever hopes and aspirations working people may have had in 1964, by 1969 many Labour voters were deeply disillusioned. Factory closures had become the order of the day and unemployment was at the then unacceptable level of 2-2½ per cent. Rising prices, cuts in the welfare system, harsh budgets and the incomes policy had taken their toll. The National Plan, which had been so enthusiastically unveiled on 16th September 1965, had disappeared beyond trace. Despite all of this, TSSA members to a large extent remained loyal, but the wounds inflicted by the 1968 Transport Act remained a constant irritant for many years. There were certainly no criticisms expressed on any aspect of the Government's foreign policy and at the Annual Conference political motions were few and far between. Even in 1967, when the Government was beset by criticism from all sides, the TSSA pledged continued support to the Labour Government.40 At the 1968 TUC, the TSSA carried a resolution to this effect. The following year, in a similar debate, Harold Kent reminded the TUC that even though the Tories had been out of office since 1964, the leopard had not changed its spots and its principles remained the same as ever. The point was well made.

This commitment has to be placed in perspective. There was a distinct drop in the work of the Political Advisory Committees, indicating disenchantment. The West Yorkshire Political Council began to experience problems as several branches refused to affiliate owing to lack of funds, and it ceased activities in 1967. The Merseyside Political Advisory Council, which only had 6 branches in membership and whose activities now centred on a weekend school, closed in 1969. This disillusion was also reflected in branch affiliations to local Labour Parties whose number dropped substantially from 238 in 1966 to 137 in 1969.

In 1967, Labour lost control of London for the first time since 1934, and in September a Gallup Poll placed Labour at its lowest point of popularity since the war. On 28th March 1968 the TSSA Treasurer, Johnny Johnson, contested a by-election in Acton following the death of the Labour MP, Bernard Floud, who had obtained a majority of 4,941 in 1966. Even though Johnson was well known as a councillor in the neighbouring constituency he had a difficult task and failed to retain the seat, coming second to the Tory, Kenneth Baker, by 3,720 votes. On the same day, three other relatively safe Labour seats were lost to the Conservatives, who also retained Warwick and Leamington with an increased majority. Overall, there was a swing to the Conservatives of 18.4 per cent - the biggest electoral set back for Labour since the 1966 General Election.

During the early months of 1970 the rate of inflation was approximately 5 per cent, although there was a substantial balance of payments surplus. Harold Wilson was certainly more popular than the Conservative leader Edward Heath, who had replaced Sir Alec Douglas Home in July 1965. With Labour now ahead in the polls, the Prime Minister announced that a General Election would take place on 18th June. The TSSA's Political Fund now stood at £37,285, and £5,000 was donated to the Labour Party Election Fund and £100 to the Northern Ireland Labour Party.

The Government still had the legacy of its economic policies to contend with but it had many positive achievements to its credit. Amongst these was an Act, passed in 1967, which enabled the holders of long-term leases to purchase the freehold of their homes. Public expenditure on education had increased as a proportion of the nation's gross national product, major changes had taken place in the provision of social security and in 1967 the steel industry had been nationalised. Casual employment was ended in the docks, the legal aid scheme and earnings-related unemployment pay were introduced. The Open University had become operational, and Barbara Castle brought in the breathalyser. The Equal Pay Act, although far from perfect, was a major breakthrough. National and regional sports councils were established to foster amateur sport and there had been a positive encouragement of the arts. Eighteen year olds were enfranchised by an Act of Parliament in 1969 but, by now, many traditional Labour supporters had been alienated, and young people, particularly students, had become more radical and saw little future in Labour's programme.

Wilson's strategy, as in 1966, was to win the support of the floating voter, and most opinion polls indicated that this tactic was correct, but they were either unreliable, or public opinion changed sharply during the last few days. Certainly, when a £31 million trade deficit was announced on 15th June, Labour's popularity fell. The unemployment statistics, also released just before polling day, revealed the worst June figure since 1940, with 521,101 people, representing 2.4 per cent of the work force, out of work.

The cost of living, disillusion and apathy, lost Labour the General Election, with 287 Labour MPs returned to Parliament compared with 364 in 1966. The Tories improved their representation to 330, and the Liberals were reduced from 12 to 6. The death of Harry Howarth at the age of 52 on 8th August 1969, and the retirement of George Rogers and Tom Steele, had been a loss for the Association, but others had stepped forward and secured nomination as Labour candidates. Ray Gunter and Tom Bradley were returned to Parliament and Bradley was appointed as opposition spokesman on transport. Johnny Johnson and Stan Cohen were elected for Derby South and Leeds South-East constituencies respectively. Robert Eccles, who contested Newcastle upon Tyne and Peter Kent,41 Shrewsbury, were both defeated.

As soon as the result was known the Stock Exchange was jubilant, the value of shares increased by £1,500 million and sterling closed 10 points higher. The Labour Government had certainly made mistakes, but working people now faced an even more depressing future.

Table 32

Chapter Twenty-Six - Footnotes

[1]. TUC Annual Report 1962.

[2]. The Poor and the Poorest Professor Abel-Smith, Professor Peter Townsend 1965.

[3]. House of Commons, Parliamentary Debates, 15th November 1962 Vol. 667 Col. 615.

[4]. At the 1974 TSSA Annual Conference, one speaker gave examples of offices over-run with mice and rats and in some cases the accommodation was worse than in 1939.

[5]. The Scottish Eastern Divisional Council had the highest level of political levy payment in Britain with 96.6%. The lowest was London North-West with 79.9%.

[6]. The Castle Diaries 1964-1970 B. Castle, Page 38.

[7]. TUC Transport Policy Document 1965.

[8]. TSSJ November 1965.

[9]. TSSA Annual Conference Minutes 1966. Item 72, 74.

[10]. J. Mills (Eversholt House). Joined RCA 1940. National TSSA Treasurer 1977-1981; TSSA President 1981-1987; TSSA Trustee since 1987. Treasurer NFPW 1978-1982. Auditor ITF; Governor Ruskin College 1985-1994. President Socialist Fellowship 1977-1980.

[11]. Report No.8 National Board for Prices and Incomes (Cmnd. 2873).

[12]. S. Cohen (Leeds). Joined TSSA 1952. Chairman West Yorkshire Divisional Council; TSSA EC 1965-1971; TSSA National Treasurer 1981-1984. Leeds Councillor and Alderman. MP 1970-1983.

[13]. TSSA Annual Conference Minutes 1966 item 91.

[14]. TSSA Annual Report 1967.

[15]. H. Moor (Hull No.1). Joined RCA 1930. Chairman East Yorkshire Divisional Council; EC 1953-1959. Parish and Rural District Councillor. Constituency Labour Party Secretary. Contested 1959 General Election. President Socialist Fellowship 1955-1967. Parliamentary candidate 1959.

[16]. TSSA Annual Report 1968.

[17]. TSSA Annual Report 1969.

[18]. Albert Percival Coldrick OBE (Wigan then Central and Head Office). Founder member and Chairman, Wigan Fabian Society. Joined LMS 1929 as a messenger and the RCA staff 1948. Western and then LM Line Secretary. Appointed Assistant General Secretary 1965, TSSA General Secretary 1968-1973. ITF Management Committee 1970-1974; TUC General Council 1968-1973. Member, Road Industry Training Board, Gas Board, Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and the Western Region Railways Board 1975-1977.

[19]. The Railway Service Journal October 1946.

[20]. Harold Kent (Crewe No.2). Joined RCA 1929. Treasurer Liverpool, North Wales and Cheshire Divisional Council. EC 1957-1963; Chairman SOC. Labour Councillor, Crewe Borough Council 1946-1968, Mayor 1961-1962.

[21]. TSSJ November 1967.

[22]. TUC Annual Report 1966.

[23]. TSSJ September 1966.

[24]. The Castle Diaries 1964-1970 Page 302. B. Castle.

[25]. TSSJ June 1970.

[26]. TSSA Annual Report 1969.

[27]. T. Patterson (Birmingham No.1) was appointed to the West Midlands PTA

[28]. TSSA Annual Conference 1968 Minutes item 116.

[29]. TUC Annual Report 1968.

[30]. The Tavistock Institute carried out an investigation into Worker Participation on behalf of the BRB. The three railway unions, the CSEU and the TUC participated in the Joint Steering Committee along with Ministry officials. The first meeting took place on 3rd November 1969.

[31]. Such was the discontent within NCL that Sir Dan Petit became the only invited EC guest to be refused permission by delegates to attend a TSSA Conference.

[32]. The Sunday Times 19th January 1969.

[33]. TSSA Annual Conference 1968 Minutes item 135.

[34]. TSSJ June 1969.

[35]. R.T. Ayres (Euston No.2). Joined RCA 1950. Chairman North London Divisional Council; EC 1972-1978. President Socialist Fellowship 1975-1977.

[36]. The Times 1st July 1968.

[37]. The Times 23rd April 1969.

[38]. The Times 3rd July 1968.

[39]. TSSA EC P&GP Minutes 7th November 1969.

[40]. TSSA Annual Conference 1967 Minutes item 86.

[41]. P. Kent (Crewe No.3). Joined TSSA 1961. Chairman SOC. Formed Crewe Labour Party Young Socialists and was its National Vice-Chairman in 1967-1968. Labour Councillor Crewe and Nantwich Borough Council since 1971 and was its youngest Mayor in 1985-1986. Parliamentary candidate 1970, 1983.

Transport Salaried Staffs' Association Registered Head Office: Walkden House, 10 Melton Street, London, England
© 1996-2008 TSSA. All rights reserved.