HC Deb 10 February 1976 vol 905 cc383-403

Queen's Recommendation having been signified—

Motion made, and Question proposed, That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of any increased administrative expenses of the Secretary of State which are attributable to provisions of that Act and of any sums required by him—
    1. (i) for making loans to the Board up to a maximum amount outstanding at any one time by way of principal of £10 million or such higher amount not exceeding £30 million as may be specified by order;
    2. (ii) for making grants to the Board towards their expenses in pursuance of provisions of the Act requiring them to make reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State; and
    3. (iii) for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office; and
  2. (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans made by him to the Board or its predecessor, and interest thereon.—[Mr. Foot.]

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Nicholas Ridley (Cirencester and Tewkesbury)

The Money Resolution does not involve a large amount of money, but I think that the House will wish to oppose it. I certainly have some questions to ask about it. I approach it more in anger than in sorrow because, small though the sum is, the purposes for which it is destined should have been avoided. It comes ill from the Government to seek public money for the purposes of the Bill to which we have just—only just—given a reluctant Second Reading.

The National Dock Labour Board last year cost the taxpayer £2 million. It supports 516 people, 338 in administration, 62 in nursing and 116 in manual labour. The Bill would add another £150,000 and another 25 people. I wonder why we should incur further ex- penditure and add to the number of people employed by the State for purposes which are entirely commercial and which should be able to earn in the market the remuneration which it is necessary to pay.

I cannot find from the Board's accounts what the chairman and vice-chairman are paid. In the best practice of private enterprise, the salaries of directors have to be specified by law—how many fall into which bracket of income. Why in the public sector are the accounts so sloppy and slipshod that we are not told what these people earn?

The Bill tells us that the moneys comprised in the resolution are to cover the salary of the chairman and vice-chairman. Doing the arithmetic according to the Bill, it seems that they will get £40,000 between them. Is that right? We are not told in the Bill or in the accounts of the previous Board.

The Secretary of State is a tribune of egalitarianism. Does he intend that the chairman of the Board of the future should be paid a large sum of this sort? We want to know not because we disagree with his being paid a proper salary but because it accords odd with the right hon. Gentleman's principles, just as the payment of £40,000 a year to Mr. Alex Park, the managing director of British Leyland, accords odd with his principles. Why can the right hon. Gentleman parade his egalitarianism in some quarters?—

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is not a debate on a Money Resolution limited to what is in the resolution and not what is in the Bill? Surely the debate is going too wide if we are to ask what compensation was or was not paid to a director of Leyland. I do not want to know, and I am sure that my hon. Friends do not.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Paragraph (a)(iii) says: for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office". Therefore, I think that the hon. Gentleman is in order.

Mr. Lewis

I am grateful for your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but that paragraph does not apply to Leyland. The resolution is headed "Dock Work Regulation [Money]". It is true that British Leyland is an important business, and one day we may have the chance to debate it, but I suggest that this is not the time to do so.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman is probably drawing too fine a point. I think that the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) was using that as an illustration in his argument.

Mr. Ridley

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am disappointed in the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who is usually so keen to rake over other people's salaries. I am sorry that he did not agree with my point, but rather than move remotely out of order I leave it there and come to the more important point that the loans under the resolution are £10 million, which can be increased to £30 million by order. The loans are for severance pay and for helping, by compensation payments, dockers who have to leave the industry. That is a cause for which many people will feel great sympathy, and I am one.

We have already spent £2¾ million of public money on this. It is easing the problem of overmanning in the docks by encouraging dockers to leave. Therefore, I think that the House will support the general purpose, as it has done in the past. But I am astonished to find in the Board's report that 134 sons of dockers were taken on the permanent register in 1974 and 278 sons of dockers were taken on the supplementary register, making a total of 412, and thereby swelling the ranks. I understood that the point of the money was to reduce the number of dockers. Therefore, why do we have a Board which increases the number by the hereditary principle?

Who am I to talk about the hereditary principle? Who is the Secretary of State to talk about it? I remember the right hon. Gentleman at his parliamentary best and most eloquent on the Parliament (No. 2) Bill, engaging with the right hon. Member for Down, South (Mr Powell) in a major operation to preserve the hereditary composition of another place. I supported him. Little did I believe that his motive was so pure and simple—that he believed in the hereditary principle. It runs through his whole lineage, his noble features, the look of aristocratic superiority on his face.

Now we know that the Secretary of State is arch-king of the hereditary principle. It is enshrined in this Money Resolution—£30 million for hereditary, for prolonging families of dockers, generation after generation working their fiddles, overmanning, operating their restrictive practices, father after son, until we reach the fourteenth in line. That is the right hon. Gentleman's contribution to the industrial relations and productivity of the country.

Why should we subsidise this? Why should we provide £30 million in loans and £2 million in annual grants? Why should we, when the ports of Rotterdam and Antwerp do not take subsidies, make contributions to the national finances of Belgium and Holland? Why is it that they have grown tenfold whereas our dock industry has shrunk by the same multiplier? Why is it that we should have to subsidise when those countries can draw from the revenues of their docks to support other ailing industries?

It is because we have enshrined practices of employment and subsidy—and, indeed, restrictive practices—in our legislation which make it impossible to operate our docks profitably. If that is the reason, and if by any chance the Secretary of State agrees that that is in some measure the reason, to pass the Bill and this Money Resolution is to add further impediments to the recovery of Britain's transport industry.

Therefore, the money which the House is being asked to vote is deliberately counter-productive. It is the payment of money by this House to slow down efficiency and restrict our progress. It is the Bill of Ludd, and the payment for it is the money which Ludd has demanded from those who work harder and more effectively in our community.

For those reasons, I suggest that it would be unwise for the House to pass this Money Resolution.

10.56 p.m.

Mr. Geoffrey Dodsworth (Hertfordshire, South-West)

I ask the House to reject the resolution on the ground that it is inappropriate, uncertain and misleading.

I want to question the way in which the resolution is put before the House. It states: That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise The resolution then lists the matters referred to in Clauses 3 and 13 of the Bill.

It is strange that we should be asked to approve a resolution which is certain in sums of money but uncertain in respect of the legislation to which it refers. I understand that Her Majesty's recommendation must be signified before the Bill goes into Standing Committee, where the expenditure provisions are dealt with in detail. Parliament, however, has no authority to spend money on its own initiative without Crown consent. Parliament has a duty to act as a check on Government spending. Hence the necessity for Money Resolutions.

However, as no money, approved or not, can be spent until after the Bill has received Royal Assent, why is it so vital for Crown approval of expenditure to be taken immediately after the Second Reading debate? Surely the mere fact of reaching the Committee stage does not involve the spending of any money. It may be that there is a clear exposition of the procedure that I do not understand, but that is the point that I have sought to raise. I should like to be clear about it.

It seems to me a curiously inappropriate time. If the resolution is approved, the sums of money are set, and whatever changes are made in the Bill will surely require that there be a further Money Resolution, which will require yet another debate. Putting it at its best, it seems an unnecessary duplication and a misuse of the time of the House.

A further point to which I want to refer is the procedure of the utilisation of affirmative orders for increasing the expenditure of the House. It is made clear in this case that there shall be a limit of £30 million, but that we begin with £10 million and there is the right, by order of the Secretary of State and subject to affirmative order of the House, to increase it. I should like to know exactly how the sum of £10 million is calculated and how the sum of £30 million is calculated. Perhaps we would then have some indication from the Minister of when we might expect the next application. What is the merit of £10 million now and £30 million in total? There must be a basis of calculating those figures, and the House is entitled to know what it is.

My hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) has referred to the purpose of these loans. I quote from the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum: The amount of additional loans that may be required is dependent on the extent to which further run-down of the Labour force becomes necessary. What forecast has the Secretary of State made of the run-down of the Labour force? What levels of redundancy and severance pay are we to expect?

Furthermore, I find it a curious choice of phrase that we should think in terms of financing payments of this nature by way of loan. After all, once they are given, severance pay and redundancy pay are lost and gone—paid out. Am I right in assuming that this is a way of fudging the figures of public expenditure? This is a cost. It is a public expenditure which should be written off rather than referred to as a loan and a borrowing.

I should like to refer to one last item. The resolution refers to the Bill. That refers to the further levies which may be exacted from dock employers. That is also part of the operation of the finance. We should like to know the amount of the levy that is expected to be charged upon employers. What is the revenue that is likely to be raised, and how is that money likely to be spent?

On those three grounds I hope that the House will reject this inappropriate resolution.

11.3 p.m.

Mrs. Lynda Chalker (Wallasey)

During the last six hours I have wondered and wondered how any democratic Government, whatever their hue, could try to put dock work into a dreamland of economic unreality while the rest of our work force, particularly on Merseyside, is struggling against the reality of unemployment. The more I have heard, the more convinced I have become that the present Government do not deserve one penny of the £10 million that they ask for first in this motion. Who is to say that the £30 million, to which that sum may be raised, will be the limit? As far as I can gather from the documents that I have read in the last few months, the realistic estimate of the cost of the Government's proposals is not £10 million but £15 million. If the Government are out by 50 per cent. now, who is to say that their £30 million estimate is not out by 50 per cent., in addition?

If the Government are prepared to forward £100,000 for the first two years for the expenses of the chairman and vice-chairman. I fail to see why they think that they will be able to cut that money down to £40,000 after those first two years. At a time when the world does not seem to be seeing the end of inflation—heaven knows, this country is not—it seems incredible that they could be so foolhardy as to reduce, three or four years ahead, a sum that they are putting forward now.

Another matter which I do not think has been mentioned is the layer upon layer of bureaucratic decisions that are contained in the machinery that the Secretary of State is proposing in order to passify some of the organisations that have raised objections to the Bill. The extra burden of the process that the Secretary of State has proposed is surely not included in the Money Resolution that we are discussing tonight.

The Secretary of State has talked of bringing in the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service. I wonder when there will be an extra foray to the House for more money to enable it to pursue the aims of the Bill.

When we deal with the extra power of the Money Resolution, which is not—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I have raised this matter with you before. The hon. Lady has admitted twice that the point that she is about to discuss is not in the Money Resolution. Sir, you, like I, have been here long enough to know that the Chair always insists that one must be careful to go no wider than—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman does not need to inform the Chair of its duties or knowledge. The financial provisions of the Bill cannot be considered in Committee unless the necessary expenditures have been authorised. We are discussing the Money Resolution, which is, as the hon. Gentleman has said, narrow. However, arguments can be advanced on the question whether the money is sufficient.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that you could have heard the hon. Lady say, on two separate occasions, that the matter she wanted to discuss was not covered by the Money Resolution. If that is so, surely she must, of her own volition, rule herself out of order. That is the only point I am making. The hon. Lady has said that the matter she is raising and pressing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I never heard the hon. Lady say such a thing.

Mr. John Peyton (Yeovil)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I should like to pay a small tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker), because she is being rebuked from a very wrong source. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who has again and again strayed way beyond the rules of order, is hardly the one to invoke your assistance in rebuking my hon. Friend.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. Gentleman has now raised with you a matter which cannot be in order, because he has referred to something that has happened and which has nothing to do with the debate.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair suggests that the debate continues on the Money Resolution.

Mrs. Chalker

If the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) had listened more carefully he would have heard that although the matters are not expressly written into the Money Resolution, as we cannot discuss them in Committee unless the Resolution is passed tonight, as the Chair has said. I think it only right that they should be raised on the Floor of the House. Had the hon. Gentleman listened to the debate he would have realised how concerned hon. Members are about this matter. If the Bill becomes law it will require further levies to be paid by port owners for those dock workers who do not have work. If the owners go bankrupt, but the levies still have to be paid, will not the Government be responsible for the payment? Will it not be this legislation that will require that the levies be paid? They are currently at the rate of 10 per cent. in Liverpool.

We know that investment has already been driven away from firms that will not risk coming within the terms of the Bill. How much greater will be the cost? The legislation is surely undercosted by 50 per cent. We want to know the precise amount of undercosting. We need the figures, but we have never been given them.

11.11 p.m.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey)

This is a sad day, because at this time we should be debating measures to save expenditure, not increase it. Although the £30 million provided for in the Money Resolution is a small amount by comparison with other Government expenditure, the figures are, nevertheless, highly significant. The Bill will mean higher expenditure for port employers, and the increased costs will be passed on. The Money Resolution deals with increased costs, which the consumer must ultimately pay.

Even those of us without ports in our constituencies recognise that the agonising feature of the Bill is the effect it will have on industrial costs. The Government should be introducing only that legislation which will make some contribution to the attack on inflation. I oppose the Money Resolution as I opposed the Bill—in a spirit of genuine anger. This is "Jonesgeld" paid for in "counterfoot" money, and the Government should be ashamed of seeking the approval of the House for such an absurd measure.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Neil Marten (Banbury)

Although I seek to take part in the debate I should explain that Banbury has no docks. It has an agreeable canal, but it has no docks. However, having listened to the remarkable speeches of my hon. Friends I am encouraged to question the Money Resolution. It says that for the purposes of the Act it is expedient to authorise…payments in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries". That one accepts, but then it refers to "fees". Why would the chairman need both a salary and fees? It also refers to "allowances". We accept that, because there must, of course, be cars, flats in London, and all the usual things that go on with these chairmen, such as trips to Brussels in special jet aircraft.

Then comes the reference to "pensions". Surely the chairman and vice-chairman will be pensioners, anyhow. The next item is "gratuities". What sort of a tip will these people get? Are we expected to pass a Money Resolution providing that these well-paid pensioners, who are enjoying salaries, fees, allowances and pensions, are also to get tips? Cannot that part of the Resolution be withdrawn?

We are then asked to approve the provision that these people should receive compensation upon leaving office. I can understand that this will be important. My right hon. Friend will, before long, be Prime Minister, and I hope that the Act will then be repealed. The chairman would then need compensation. Will the Minister clear up the questions surrounding this curious wording?

11.15 p.m.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

Unlike my hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), I rise both in sorrow and in anger. I rise in anger at the rather squalid compact that we have debated and voted upon, and in sorrow at the financial consequences that have been presented to us. Various items are contained in the motion, and one of them—I say this advisedly, in case the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis), who represents his constituency so eloquently, should take me to task—relates to the salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office for the board that is to be established.

My hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) has perceptively pointed out that the Explanatory and Financial Memorandum at the front of the Bill provides that the total sums will amount to approximately £100,000 during the first two years, after which they should not exceed £40,000. This is a curious reversal of roles. I suggest that on this occasion severance payments should be paid in advance to members of the Board, bearing in mind that when my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition is presiding over our destinies in a few months' time, as she assuredly will be, the chopper will fall swiftly, albeit painfully, for those so ill-advised as to accept offers of employment from the Secretary of State.

There are other more serious matters to be debated. I note that the Board's capital debt is not to exceed £10 million, subject to an increase up to £30 million, by Order. Apparently we are to underwrite the Board's liabilities up to £10 million, and then, perhaps, up to £30 million. But in the same breath we are told that the Board's expenses will be met principally by levies on dock employers. There is a certain inconsistency, which may be resolved at a later stage. Apparently the loans are to finance the current level of voluntary severance payment, but that does not apply to members of the Board, their payments being met in a different way.

Are severance payments to be made to existing registered dock workers or to those who will be taken on the register when non-scheme ports are brought within the scheme? Are they to be made to those working in container depots whose jobs may be threatened by the Bill? I hope that we shall have some elucidation. It would be taken very amiss in Dover, which is a non-scheme port, if it were necessary to finance severance payments to dock workers in Liverpool, for example, or the Port of London. These are matters about which the right hon. Gentleman should have more to say.

Finally, we come to the Board's expenses, which will be met partly by levies on dock employers. Who in the port of Dover, for instance—I have a particular interest in Dover—will be regarded as dock employers for the purposes of the Bill? Will it be the Dover Harbour Board or the Dover Stevedoring Com- pany? What kind of liabilities are we loading on to them? Is it right that they should be forced to underwrite the past activities, perhaps even the past follies, of other ports which, to their misfortune, have been embraced by the Scheme hitherto? My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Shaw) reminded us of rather shameful episode in our country's past when we were raising Danegeid for the Danish invaders. With a happy turn of phrase, my hon. Friend transmuted it into "Jonesgeld".

I believe that this country will look back with shame on this little legislative episode. But it will reserve its deepest contempt for the Secretary of State for Employment who, as a Back Bencher, made his reputation as a stern and unbending defender of the liberties of minorities. The right hon. Gentleman owes it to the House—and, if not, the Chief Secretary, who now reposes beside him, owes it to us—to explain what is comprised in the "Jonesgeld" of the Money Resolution.

11.20 p.m.

Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)

This debate reflects nothing but discredit on the Government Front Bench. On the Government Front Bench the Secretary of State for Employment is now flanked by the Chief Secretary to the Treasury—the man whose principal responsibility to the House is the scrutiny of public expenditure, and the Chief Secretary is now flanked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who did not even do the House the courtesy of being present a little earlier when we were discussing a proposal to increase the public sector borrowing requirement.

The fact that this vitally important debate is taking place at this hour of night, and that the initial sum of £10 million stands to be increased to £20 million or £30 million, amount to a massive indictment of the financial rectitude of the Government. It is time the House was treated with greater courtesy by the Government Front Bench. It is time that measures of this kind were not debated late at night, and certainly not against the background of the Chief Secretary's sniggers. It is time that the Government Front Bench devoted itself to curtailing public expenditure rather than to increasing it in this regrettable way.

11.23 p.m.

Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)

I wish to wind up this short debate in which a number of my hon. Friends have made some potent points.

Will the Minister give us details of the salaries of the chairman and vice-chairman of the Board? That information would be of considerable interest to the House. Will he explain why, even before the Board is set up, we are considering a motion to pay compensation to people on leaving office? May we be told why that part of the Money Resolution is necessary at this stage?

Why do the Government think that this money will be needed? I thought that one great purpose of extending the scheme was to provide more jobs for dockers and to replace those workers who drift away to jobs in cold stores and warehouses, but the commitment is to rise from a figure of £10 million to one of £30 million. About £2½ million of that sum has already been spent. Therefore, there remains about £7½ million on which to draw.

The Dock Labour Board considers that there will be about 3,000 redundancies in the coming year. At a payment of £5,250 for each worker, the total will reach a figure of £15 million. Indeed, since a figure of £2½ million has already been spent, why is not a greater sum than £10 million now being sought?

What is the anticipated run-down figure in the dock industry this year? Many dockers are under the impression that there is to be no further run-down of dockers in the industry. It would be useful for the House to be told those figures.

We now come to the end of a pretty discreditable performance by the House of Commons. I am glad the Chancellor of the Exchequer is here to see not only the amount of money being spent under the terms of this resolution but also the extra costs that the Bill will add to industry and the housewives of this country. He does not sit on the Front Bench very often. I hope he now realises what some of his hon. and right hon. Friends are doing to destroy his policies.

11.26 p.m.

The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)

I shall gladly seek to give the House what information I can in the time available.

I agree with what the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley) said about the difficulty in obtaining information from the existing Scheme. It is for that reason we have included in Schedule 1 special provisions requiring the Board to keep accounts and make information available. If the hon. Member looks at Schedule 1, he will see that among the information which has to be included in the Board's report is the remuneration of its members for their services. There will be less reason to complain on those grounds if the schedule goes through unamended.

There are three bands of additional cost which can fall to the Exchequer under the Bill. The first is the salaries of the new chairman and vice-chairman of the Board. The salaries of the present part-time chairman and vice-chairman are £3,500 and £2,000, respectively. They are met by the industry through the levy imposed by the present Dock Labour Scheme. The Bill will give the Board wider powers to look at work outside the present scope of the negotiating arrangements for the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry and we felt it right to provide for the possibility of payment of the chairman and vice-chairman from public funds. They will probably need to be full-time appointments and therefore should be paid rather more than the present chairman and vice-chairman, but no rates have yet been determined.

Mr. Ridley

We would like to know how much these two new sinecures are to be worth. We shall have to vote the money—and justify it to the taxpayers—for these salaries. What do the Government intend to pay these people.

Mr. Booth

I object to the term "sinecure". Additional duties are required of the chairman and the vice-chairman under the Bill. It is right that we should consider higher salaries than those received by the present chairman and vice-chairman.

The figures calculated by the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury cannot be correct, because there are additional costs to be met out of the total amount in the resolution. These costs include six additional staff in my Department to handle and advise on recommendations for classification and the making of Orders. Another cost will be the grants paid towards the expenses of the Board in carrying out its functions under the Bill in connection with the classification of work. All these costs have to be met within the total sum contained in the Money Resolution.

I have also been asked about the amount spent by way of levy for severance. The figures of the hon. Lady the Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) embraced not only severance pay but the levies for administration and pensions. The amount attributable to the levy for severance is 4 per cent.

Mr. Gow

As the chairman and the other members of the Board are appointed by the Secretary of State, is the Minister telling the House that he does not know what salaries he is proposing to offer these gentlemen?

Mr. Booth

I am telling the House that no salaries have yet been determined for these gentlemen. What we have determined and put in the Money Resolution is the total sum that will be required

for all the purposes I have described to the House under those three headings.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

Can the right hon. Gentleman guarantee that they will not be superannuated union officials?

Mr. Booth

It is most unlikely that they will have union connections, as special provision is made under the Act that union representatives and employers' representatives shall serve on the National Dock Labour Board. It is, therefore, unlikely that the chairman and vice-chairman will have a direct interest in that aspect of the Board's activities. There are three bands of expenditure that have to be covered by that one sum.

I have also been asked to explain the provision of loans to the Board to meet the cost of voluntary severance payments—

It being three-quarters of an hour after the commencement of proceedings on the Motion, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 3 (Exempted business):—

The House divided: Ayes 30, Noes 295.

Division No. 60.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Abse, Leo Cant, R. B. Duffy, A. E. P.
Allaun, Frank Carmichael, Neil Dunn, James A.
Anderson, Donald Carter, Ray Dunnett, Jack
Archer, Peter Carter-Jones, Lewis Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Armstrong, Ernest Cartwright, John Eadie, Alex
Ashley, Jack Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Edge, Geoff
Ashton, Joe Clemitson, Ivor Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cocks, Michael (Bristol S) Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Atkinson, Norman Cohen, Stanley Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Coleman, Donald English, Michael
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Colquhoun, Mrs Maureen Ennals, David
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Concannon, J. D. Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Bates, Alf Conlan, Bernard Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Bean, R. E. Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Evans, John (Newton)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Corbett, Robin Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Faulds, Andrew
Bidwell, Sydney Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Bishop, E. S. Crawshaw, Richard Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cronin, John Flannery, Martin
Boardman, H. Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Booth, Albert Cryer, Bob Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Ford, Ben
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Dalyell, Tam Forrester, John
Bradley, Tom Davidson, Arthur Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Broughton, Sir Alfred Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Freeson, Reginald
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Deakins, Eric Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) George, Bruce
Buchan, Norman de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Gilbert, Dr John
Buchanan, Richard Delargy, Hugh Ginsburg, David
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Golding, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Dempsey, James Gould, Bryan
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Doig, Peter Gourley, Harry
Campbell, Ian Dormand, J. D. Graham, Ted
Canavan, Dennis Douglas-Mann, Bruce Grant, George (Morpeth)
Grant, John (Islington C) Magee, Bryan Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Grocott, Bruce Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Mahon, Simon Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Hardy, Peter Mallalieu, J. P. W. Short, Rt Hon E. (Newcastle C)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Marks, Kenneth Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Marquand, David Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Sillars, James
Hayman, Mrs Helene Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Silverman, Julius
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Mason, Rt Hon Roy Skinner, Dennis
Heffer, Eric S. Maynard, Miss Joan Small, William
Hooley, Frank Meacher, Michael Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Horam, John Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Snape, Peter
Howell, Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Mendelson, John Spearing, Nigel
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Mikardo, Ian Spriggs, Leslie
Huckfield, Les Millan, Bruce Stallard, A. W.
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Stoddart, David
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Stott, Roger
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Molloy, William Strang, Gavin
Hunter, Adam Moonman, Eric Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Morris, Charles R. (Openshawe) Swain, Thomas
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Moyle, Roland Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Janner, Greville Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Jeger, Mrs Lena Newens, Stanley Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Noble, Mike Tierney, Sydney
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Oakes, Gordon Tinn, James
John, Brynmor Ogden, Eric Tomlinson, John
Johnson, James (Hull West) O'Halloran, Michael Tomney, Frank
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) O'Malley, Rt Hon Brian Torney, Tom
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Orbach, Maurice Tuck, Raphael
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Urwin, T. W.
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ovenden, John Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Judd, Frank Owen, Dr David Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Kaufman, Gerald Padley, Walter Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Kelley, Richard Palmer, Arthur Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Kerr, Russell Park, George Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Parker, John Ward, Michael
Kinnock, Neil Parry, Robert Watkins, David
Lamborn, Harry Pavitt, Laurie Watkinson, John
Lamond, James Peart, Rt Hon Fred Weetch, Ken
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Pendry, Tom Weitzman, David
Leadbitter, Ted Perry, Ernest Wellbeloved, James
Lee, John Phipps, Dr Colin White, Frank R. (Bury)
Lester, Miss Joan (Eton and Slough) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg White, James (Pollok)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Prescott, John Whitehead, Phillip
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Price, C. (Lewisham W) Whitlock, William
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Price, William (Rugby) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Lipton, Marcus Radice, Giles Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Litterick, Tom Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Loyden, Eddie Richardson, Miss Jo Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Luard, Evan Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Lyon, Alexander (York) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilson, Rt Hon H. (Huyton)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Roderick, Caerwyn Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
McCartney, Hugh Rodgers, George (Chorley) Wise, Mrs Audrey
McElhone, Frank Rodgers, William (Stockton) Woodall, Alec
MacFarquhar, Roderick Rooker, J. W. Woof, Robert
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Roper, John Wrigglesworth, Ian
Mackenzie, Gregor Rose, Paul B. Young, David (Bolton E)
Mackintosh, John P. Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Maclennan, Robert Rowlands, Ted TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Sandelson, Neville Mr. James Hamilton and
McNamara, Kevin Sedgemore, Brian Mr. Joseph Harper.
Madden, Max Selby, Harry
Adley, Robert Biffen, John Buck, Antony
Aitken, Jonathan Biggs-Davison, John Budgen, Nick
Alison, Michael Blaker, Peter Bulmer, Esmond
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Body, Richard Burden, F. A.
Arnold. Tom Boscawen, Hon Robert Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Bottomley, Peter Carlisle, Mark
Awdry, Daniel Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Carson, John
Bain, Mrs Margaret Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Baker, Kenneth Braine, Sir Bernard Channon, Paul
Banks, Robert Brittan, Leon Churchill, W. S.
Bell, Ronald Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Brotherton, Michael Clark, William (Croydon S)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Benyon, W. Bryan, Sir Paul Clegg, Walter
Berry, Hon Anthony Buchanan-Smith, Alick Cockcroft, John
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Cope, John Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Rees-Davies, W. R.
Cordle, John H. Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Reid, George
Cormack, Patrick Jopling, Michael Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Corrie, John Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Costain, A. P. Kaberry, Sir Donald Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Crawford, Douglas Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Critchley, Julian Kershaw, Anthony Ridsdale, Julian
Crouch, David Kilfedder, James Rifkind, Malcolm
Crowder, F. P. Kimball, Marcus Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kirk, Peter Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James Kitson, Sir Timothy Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Drayson, Burnaby Knight, Mrs Jill Ross, William (Londonderry)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Knox, David Rossl, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dunlop, John Lamont, Norman Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Durant, Tony Lane, David Royle, Sir Anthony
Dykes, Hugh Langford-Holt, Sir John Sainsbury, Tim
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Latham, Michael (Melton) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Lawrence, Ivan Scott, Nicholas
Elliott, Sir William Lawson, Nigel Scott-Hopkins, James
Emery, Peter Lester, Jim (Beeston) Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Lloyd, Ian Shelton, William (Streatham)
Eyre, Reginald Loveridge, John Shepherd, Colin
Fairbairn, Nicholas Luce, Richard Shersby, Michael
Fairgrieve, Russell MacCormick, Iain Silvester, Fred
Farr, John McCrindle, Robert Sims, Roger
Fell, Anthony McCusker, H. Sinclair, Sir George
Finsberg, Geoffrey Macfarlane, Neil Skeet, T. H. H.
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) MacGregor, John Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Speed, Keith
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Spence, John
Fox, Marcus Madal, David Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Fry, Peter Marten, Neil Sproat, Iain
Galbraith, Hon T. G. D. Mates, Michael Stainton, Keith
Gardiner, George (Reigate) Mather, Carol Stanbrook, Ivor
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Maude, Angus Stanley, John
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Mawby, Ray Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Glyn, Dr Alan Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Mayhew, Patrick Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Goodhart, Philip Meyer, Sir Anthony Stokes, John
Goodhew, Victor Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stradling Thomas, J.
Goodlad, Alastair Mills, Peter Tapsell, Peter
Gorst, John Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Moate, Roger Tebbit, Norman
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Molyneaux, James Temple-Morris, Peter
Gray, Hamish Monro, Hector Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Griffiths, Eldon Montgomery, Fergus Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Moore, John (Croydon C) Thompson, George
Grist, Ian More, Jasper (Ludlow) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Grylls, Michael Morgan, Geraint Townsend, Cyril D
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Trotter, Neville
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Tugendhat, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hannam, John Mudd, David Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Neave, Airey Viggers, Peter
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Nelson, Anthony Wakeham, John
Hastings, Stephen Neubert, Michael Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Havers, Sir Michael Newton, Tony Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Hawkins, Paul Normanton, Tom Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Hayhoe, Barney Nott, John Wall, Patrick
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Onslow, Cranley Walters, Dennis
Henderson, Douglas Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Warren, Kenneth
Hicks Robert Osborn, John Watt, Hamish
Higgins, Terence L. Page, John (Harrow W) Weatherill, Bernard
Holland, Philip Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Wells, John
Hooson, Emlyn Paisley, Rev Ian Welsh, Andrew
Hordern, Peter Pattie, Geoffrey Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Penhaligon, David Wiggin, Jerry
Howell, David (Guildford) Percival, Ian Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Peyton, Rt Hon John Winterton, Nicholas
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Pink, R. Bonner Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Hunt, John Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Hurd, Douglas Price, David (Eastleigh) Younger, Hon George
Hutchison, Michael Clark Prior, Rt Hon James
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pym, Rt Hon Francis TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
James, David Raison, Timothy Mr. Cecil Parkinson and
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Rathbone, Tim Mr. Spencer Le Merchant.
Jessel, Toby Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved, That for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to reconstitute the National Dock Labour Board and make further provision for regulating the allocation and performance of the work of cargo-handling in and about the ports of Great Britain, it is expedient to authorise—

  1. (a) the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any increased administrative expenses of the Secretary of State which are attributable to provisions of that Act and of any sums required by him—
    1. (i) for making loans to the Board up to a maximum amount outstanding at any one time by way of principal of £10 million or such higher amount not exceeding £30 million as may be specified by order;
    2. (ii) for making grants to the Board towards their expenses in pursuance of provisions of the Act requiring them to make reports and recommendations to the Secretary of State; and
    3. (iii) for making payments to and in respect of the chairman and vice chairman of the Board by way of salaries, fees, allowances, pensions and gratuities, and compensation on leaving office; and
  2. (b) the payment into the Consolidated Fund of any sums received by the Secretary of State by way of repayment of loans made by him to the Board or its predecessor, and interest thereon.

  1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
Forward to