HC Deb 06 July 1966 vol 731 cc554-6
Mrs. Shirley Williams

I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 3, line 44, to leave out from "he" to "the" in line 45 and insert: makes or is likely to make efficient use of the services of". This is mainly a drafting Amendment and meets a point made by a number of my hon. Friends in Committee about a possible misunderstanding over the use of the phrase proper supervision over the dock workers". There are two possible bases for this misunderstanding. The first is that the phrase might imply certain disciplinary powers which, as we know, are exercised, to a very large extent, by the Dock Labour Board in this industry; and, secondly, that it might well be misunderstood and disliked by a number of dock workers.

The Government are most anxious that the Bill shall be seen as part of the effort to make the industry more efficient and sharply to improve industrial relations in the docks on both sides.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

The hon. Lady was very modest in suggesting that this is a drafting Amendment. I regard it as an improvement on the words previously used, but I think that it makes quite a difference. It could mean—I hope that it will—a good deal more than just a drafting Amendment.

It is easy to supervise. One can supervise badly. An inefficient business may be supervised. An unproductive business may be supervised. I have an idea that the hon. Lady, on behalf of her right hon. Friend, may have put this forward more in hope than in expectation, because I am not sure how the licensing authority will ascertain whether efficient use is made of the services of dock workers. But the Bill provides that the authority must do just that.

On this side of the House, we applaud the intention and we hope that the authority will make sure that employers make more efficient use of their labour force. But will it take account of a situation in which an employer finds that he is inhibited by restrictive practices from making efficient use of his labour force? Will pressure be brought upon the unions concerned to see that the employer is assisted in making use of the force of workers employed by him?

If there is an over-employment of labour, for example, will the authority say to the employer, "There must be a reduction in employment of labour here because, if there is not, you will not be making efficient use of your labour force"? If there is need to introduce improved mechanisation, will the authority be able to say, "We ought to mechanise here because it will save a certain number of workers and, therefore, produce a more efficient use of the labour force"?

These matters are important. I regard the Amendment as an improvement, but I hope that there will be more than lip-service to its terms. I hope that it will mean in practice that there will be a good look at the use of labour and that the authority will take every opportunity to see that the employers are not only encouraged but are assisted, through pressure being brought to bear, where necessary, on the unions with which they are working, to enable them to make more efficient use of the labour they employ.

Amendment agreed to.