§ Mr. O'GRADYAs a result of the unsatisfactory reply of the Prime Minister in connection with the Port of London strike, I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, the failure of the Board of Trade through its representatives to bring pressure to bear on the Port Authority to carry out its obligations under the Port of London Act, which has resulted in the growing congestion of traffic of the Port, and the casualisation of labour.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI regret that I am not able to accept the Motion of the hon. Member. The Port of London is an Authority set up by Parliament and quite independent of the Board of Trade. I have looked through the Act which set up the Authority, and I can only find some three Sections which introduce the Board of Trade at all as a controlling authority. Those Sections deal with audits if required, with the question of increases of duties, and with complaints about warehousing. As far as I can ascertain, those are the only Sections in the Bill which give the Board of Trade any power whatever, or any control over the Port Authority. That being so, it is clear that the Board of Trade have no such control as the hon. Gentleman would wish to imply in his Motion.
§ Mr. O'GRADYMay I ask you, Sir, whether you have considered Section 27 of the Act and its Sub-section? The whole of that Section and its Sub-sections do-refer to certain action which the Board of Trade can take. My point in asking to move the Adjournment of the House is that the Board of Trade have not done anything in the matter. My second point is that the Board of Trade have two direct representatives upon the Port Authority, and they have given no instructions to those representatives either in the matter of the casualisation of labour, the congestion of the Port, or the necessity of the Port Authority to meet the representatives of the men on strike. On those two grounds I submit that my Motion would, perhaps, meet your view.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIt is true that the Board of Trade have certain representatives on the Port Authority, but they have no controlling power through those representa- 817 tives. With regard to Section 27, that is one of the Sections which I have specially considered. It appears to me to relate entirely to any complaints "by reason of the mode in which the Port Authority carry on their dock or warehousing business," including charges made in respect of such business, and so forth. It all seems to me to relate entirely to complaints as to warehousing, improper charges, the Port hours, and things of that sort.
§ Mr. LANSBURYArising out of that Section, is it not a fact that the docks are congested, and that the merchants are unable to move their goods? Does not that bring the Port Authority into default, and make it imperative on the Board of Trade to take action to remove the block which at present exists?
§ Mr. SPEAKERBut a considerable number of preliminary steps have to be taken first.
§ Mr. LANSBURYThey are taking none.
§ Mr. SPEAKERIf preliminary steps are taken, and the Board of Trade then decline to act, then I think the hon. Member might have a case to present.
§ Mr. O'GRADYThe point that I raise is whether the Board of Trade did give any instructions to their representatives on the Port Authority, and I submit that if they have not given those instructions they are therefore to blame for the present state of things.
§ Mr. SPEAKERI do not know whether they have given instructions or not, but it seems to me that even if they have given instructions they have no control, and they cannot compel the independent Authority to take a particular line.