PORT OF LONDON AUTHORITY. (Hansard, 1 April 1925)

§ Mr. SCURR

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to alter the constitution of the Port of London Authority. This Bill when introduced last year met with a favourable reception, and I hope that there will be a similar result on the present occasion. The Port of London Authority at the present time is constituted by a certain representation of Government Departments of trading interests, and of the London County Council, the latter having four members, 1320 one of whom has, by a convention, to be a representative of Labour. There is also one representative of the Ministry of Transport, who also, by a convention, represents Labour. But there is no direct representation of Labour on this authority. It will thus be seen that Labour has to come in in a very roundabout way, whilst, on the other hand, it is perfectly open to any of these authorities to throw the convention aside and so allow its Labour representation to lapse.

It is very important that on a body of this kind, charged as it is practically with the conduct of the whole of the trade of the Port of London, that all interests should be fairly represented. At the present time the only interest which is really represented, and is overwhelmingly represented, is the interest of the wharfingers and the traders. First of all, there are the London authorities, the City Corporation and the London County Council. But the authorities which are particularly concerned with the administration of the docks are the county boroughs of West Ham and East Ham and the Metropolitan boroughs of Bermondsey, Stepney and Poplar. These have no representation, although their rateable value is very largely affected by the presence of the docks. Many of the problems which arise in regard to the administration of the Poor Law arise by virtue of the presence of these docks, and the existence of the casual labour. Although there is a responsibility thrown by the original Bill of 1908 upon the Port of London Authority to deal with the question of the decasualisation of labour, nothing of a serious character has yet been done. During the existence of this Authority, over 15 years, there has arisen from time to time many very serious labour disputes. When these disputes are on, they particularly affect the trade of the Port of London.

Many of us contend, and I think we are in every sense of the word right, that if the great working-class interests—

4.0 P.M.

the transport workers, the stevedores, the lightermen, and the others engaged in the work of the Port of London Authority—had representation equal to that of the employers of labour, it would be in every way better for the trade of the port. The unfortunate labour disputes which have arisen in the past would not be likely to arise in the future, because the 1321 workers would be directly interested and able to have their say in the management of the undertaking. It is not a question of private enterprise; it is a question of the conduct of a public utility concern, which has already been established as a public service, and is no longer dependent upon private profits for securing its revenue. Therefore, it ought to be conducted in the public interest and not in the interest simply of those who are concerned in the Port of London merely for the purpose of making profit for their own trade and not for the benefit of the whole of the people of London.