§ 6.30 p.m.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettI beg to move, in page 3, line 10, to leave out "Council" to "may" in line 13.
It might be for the convenience of the Committee if, with this Amendment, we were to discuss that in page 3, line 1370 40, as the words we propose to add by that Amendment are in substitution of those we propose to leave out by this one.
The words proposed to be left out were inserted in Committee as a result of an Amendment moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster). When we accepted that Amendment we made it clear that 1371 in the Government's opinion the words did not go wide enough, and we reserved the right to move on Report the much wider form of words we now ask the House to accept in the other Amendment.
I must say, in passing, that we have never been wholly convinced that it is necessary to write into statutes a provision that responsible bodies like the National Ports Council should be required to consult people whom they obviously would consult. However, there was a consensus of opinion on both sides of the Standing Committee that some wording on the present lines was desirable. That being so, we thought it very important that the words chosen should be wide enough to embrace all the most likely persons and organisations whom we would wish the Council to consult in these matters of research and development on the one hand, or education and training on the other. I hope that the House will agree that the words proposed will achieve that purpose.
§ Mr. MellishThe Amendment moved by the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) was the only Tory Amendment moved in the Standing Committee, and brought forth the only worth-while Tory speech that was made there. We support the Amendment, because if the National Ports Council is to do its job it should be made clear to harbour authorities, in particular, that there will be consultation all down the line. The Parliamentary Secretary said that he did not think that these words were necessary, but we think they are, and we think the motive for the Amendment is a very good one.
§ Mr. WebsterI thank my hon. and gallant Friend the Parliamentary Secretary, and I also thank the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish) for the exceedingly gracious way in which he has treated me today. I hope that he will do better later. This Amendment is acceptable to me.
§ Dr. KingThe Parliamentary Secretary is a striking illustration of the saying, "The man convinced against his will is of the same opinion still." He does not believe it necessary to write into the Clause what the hon. Member 1372 for Weston-super-Mare (Mr. Webster) and we, together, insisted in Committee was necessary. I seem to remember that on that occasion it was a question of the wording, and I went on record as saying that the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare had produced a much more acceptable Amendment than we had.
The Parliamentary Secretary has now done what he set out to do, and very generously. What he now proposes is a great improvement on anything that either side suggested in Committee. He has written consultation firmly into the Bill. He has brought in, as we wanted him to do, the Docks and Harbours Association as a body that is representative of dock and harbour opinion, and has gone even further by ensuring that the National Ports Council will fully consult anybody who can in any way be affected by the great proposals the Council will make. I thank the hon. and gallant Gentleman quite sincerely for the way in which he has done this.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 26, after "Minister", insert:
(after consultation with them)".—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
§ Mr. HoyDoes this Amendment mean exactly what it says? The proposed wording would be:
…It shall be the duty of the Council, if directed in writing by the Minister (after consultation with them) so to do…Is my reading of the Amendment correct?
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettThis Amendment, and that in page 3, line 29, require the Minister to consult the Council before directing it to undertake any schemes of research, training or education. We have put down the Amendment in fulfilment of an assurance I gave to try to find some form of words to safeguard the Council and the industry against the possibility of the Minister directing the Council to undertake some enormously costly scheme and then not making a grant towards the cost. After much thought, we decided that the best plan was to require the Minister to consult the Council before giving them a direction. That, at least, 1373 provides some safeguard against what I hope and believe is a risk more theoretical than real.
I admit that these words come very close to those put down in Committee by the hon. Member for Manchester, Exchange (Mr. W. Griffiths) which we were not able to accept and, looking back, I think that it might be better for me to have said that we accepted his Amendment in principle. However, I think that hon. Members on both sides will admit that this particular danger did not emerge until it was brought out by the hon. and learned Gentleman the Member for Liverpool, Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). As soon as he pointed out the risk to which we might expose the industry of footing the bill for a big programme of research, I realised that we must put something into the Bill. What we have now tabled is the best we can do. I recommend it to the House. The Amendment in page 3, line 29 is consequential upon it.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Further Amendments made: In page 3, line 29, after "directed", insert:
by him after such consultation so to do".
§
In line 40, at end insert:
(3) In the exercise of their powers under subsection (1) of this section and in the discharge of a duty imposed on them by virtue of subsection (2) of this section, the Council shall act in consultation with—
as the Council think appropriate in the circumstances, and with any other person who appears to them to be concerned.—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettI beg to move, in page 3, line 40, at the end to insert:
(4) Where the Council promote research, or training and education, by others, they may give assistance (including financial assistance) therefor.
§ Mr. MellishOn a point of order Mr. Speaker. I understood that this Amendment, which is No. 10 on the Notice Paper, was not discussed with the previous Amendment, but stood on its own.
§ Mr. SpeakerI have just called the Minister to move the Amendment in page 3, line 40, which is No. 10.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettIt so happens that, for some reason, Amendment No. 11 comes before Amendment No. 10 on the Notice Paper. This Amendment goes with that immediately following it in page 3, line 44—No. 12 in the Notice Paper.
The Amendment I have just moved is no more than a drafting one. It separates the provisions relating to charges which the Council may make for research, training and education from the provisions for assistance which the Council may give to persons carrying out research', training and education on the Council's behalf. It does no more than that.
§ Amendment agreed to.
§
Amendment proposed: In page 3, line 44, leave out from second "of" to end of line 47 and insert:
subsection (2) of this section; but shall not, in exercise of the power conferred by this subsection, exact a charge from a person other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations."—[Vice-Admiral Hughes Hallett.]
§ Mr. MellishIf the Parliamentary Secretary refers to the Amendment we passed in page 2, line 26, and then refers to this one, he will see that the same form of words is used in the two cases to exclude and to include the dock workers. When we were discussing the former Amendment, the hon. and gallant Gentleman told us that he had been legally advised that that was the correct form of words to use. Can he tell us what legal experts have advised in this case, because, at the moment, we are confused?
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettI think that I went a little too fast. I should have said that the Amendment in page 3, line 40, which the House has just agreed, is really a paving Amendment to the Amendment in page 3, line 44, which is now before us.
This Amendment fulfils the undertaking which we gave that the Council should be precluded from making charges to the workers in the industry and should charge only the people carrying out the management functions. 1375 With respect to the hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish), I do not think that there is any confusion. I think that we have it right.
§ Mr. A. J. IrvineWith respect, I think that the Parliamentary Secretary has not quite met the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish). It is provided in the Amendment that the Council shall not exact a charge
from a person other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations".We understand that the purpose there—the hon. and gallant Gentleman has made clear that this is the purpose—is to ensure that a docker, for example, will not have to carry the burden of paying for his training and will not be subject to a charge.However, there is still a difficulty and, perhaps, even at this late stage, the question could be further considered. It is a drafting point. If the Parliamentary Secretary looks at his earlier Amendment in Clause 1, page 2, line 26, he will find that almost precisely the same form of words is resorted to in order to ensure that a dock worker can be eligible for appointment to the Council. It is a narrow drafting point, but it clearly calls for further consideration.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettMay I say, with the leave of the House, that we certainly undertake that the question will be examined before the Bill is considered in another place. However, we are advised that this wording meets what we intend it to meet.
§ Dr. KingI wish, first, to comment on the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary just now about possible confusion caused by the numbering of Amendments. I am sure that every hon. and right hon. Member appreciates that the numbering of Amendments is such an enormous advantage that one would not wish to seem to criticise it. The simple fact is that Amendments appear on the Notice Paper at the points where they make the Amendments in the Bill, but their numbering has to do with the time at which they come in. Obviously, it will happen often that the numbering will not be consecutive on the Notice 1376 Paper. It is only fair to say this to those who have to do the numbering of Amendments. We find the numbering procedure a tremendous convenience.
On the issue itself, the Parliamentary Secretary is quite right. We were worried in Committee about Clause 2(3), the first few words which provide that
The Council may make charges in respect of training and education of persons undertaken by them…We wish to promote research. We wish to promote the training of brilliant or able young people in the industry. We are anxious that they should not themselves pay. We have it in mind that the docks association, the harbour industry itself or the dock authorities should meet the cost of such training, or, if necessary—and this is what the Minister's paving Amendment does—the Council itself might provide financial assistance so that no person who goes on a training course will have to pay the bill himself.What my hon. Friends are worried about is whether the wording of the Amendment actually does this. It provides that no person shall be charged
other than one engaged in the improvement, maintenance or management of a harbour or the carrying out of harbour operations".Almost anyone in the industry is covered by those words, so it seems to us. I want the Parliamentary Secretary to make sure that the wording of his Amendment does what he wants and what we ask him to do.
§ Vice-Admiral Hughes HallettI can give that undertaking, though I assure hon. Members that the words have been used consistently throughout the Bill to describe the management authorities. It will be noted that the words here are not quite the same as in the Amendment to Clause 1, page 2, line 26, which speaks of persons having "wide experience as persons employed", and so on.
§ Mr. MellishIn view of the assurance which the hon. and gallant Gentleman has given, that he will look at the wording, I think that we can accept the Amendment. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) was most unhappy about this, and, if I may say so, his legal judgment on these matters proved very valuable in Committee. Indeed, there have been occasions when Parliamentary 1377 counsel have had to admit that he was right and they were wrong.
We want this to be cleared up before the final stages of the Bill. It must be remembered that the whole idea has been to ensure the promotion of research and education and that dock workers would be eligible. We envisage that, at the end of the day, a dock worker could, perhaps, be trained for the highest executive jobs. If that is the intention and spirit of the Government's approach, we are happy to accept the Amendment, but perhaps the other place could be asked to look at the wording in case, once again, my hon. and learned Friend proves to be right.
§ Amendment agreed to.