EXCLUDED AREAS

HC Deb 26 July 1976 vol 916 cc95-171

'This Act shall not apply to any place which is not within five miles (in a direct line) of a harbour.'—[Mr. Brittan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

With this we may take New Clause 4 (Small harbours) and the following amendments:

No. 21, in Clause 4, page 4, line 14, leave out 'five miles' and insert 'half a mile'.

No. 22, in page 4, line 15, leave out from 'of' to end of line 32 and insert 'any dock estate or harbour but excluding any establishment not capable of handling cargo direct from waterborne craft unless such establishment is to a material extent engaged in work transferred from a dock estate or harbour, being work which immediately before the date of this enactment was work exclusively undertaken by registered dockworkers'. No. 23, in page 4, line 15, leave out 'the nearest point on the sea' and insert 'any harbour—

1. (i) which is capable at mean highwater of handling ships having a draught in excess of twenty feet; or
2. (ii) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended on 3rd December 1975 by a person engaged in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships exceeded (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other persons so engaged during that period) 1,350'.

No. 24, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any airport or market'. No. 25, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'. No. 26, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Whitby'. No. 27, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'. No. 28, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Wivenhoe. No. 29, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Mistley No. 30, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'. No. 31, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the district of Bournemouth'. No. 32, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the district of West Norfolk'. No. 33, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Wells'. No. 34, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part Newhaven, Sussex'. No. 35, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the District Harborough' No. 36, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Watchet' No. 37, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Lymington' No. 38, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the District of Rochford' No. 39, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the District of Maldon' No. 40, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Maldon' No. 41, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Burnham on Crouch'. No. 42, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the District of Castle Point'. No. 43, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Folkestone. No. 44, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the district of Tewkesbury'. No. 45, in page 4, line 18, at end add 'but shall not include any part of the Borough of Beverley'. No. 46, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby' No. 47, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Bromborough Dock.' No. 48, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling' No. 49, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Annan'. No. 50, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Dumfries'. No. 51, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Gloucester'. No. 52, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Richborough'. No. 53, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Dover'. No. 54, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'. No. 55, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Teignmouth' No. 56, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the port of Scarborough'. No. 57, in page 4, line 18, at end insert 'but shall not include any port of the ports of Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'. No. 58, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of Braehead, Renfrew, in the District of Renfiew' No. 59, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'. No. 60, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include part of the District of Chester' No. 61, in page 4, line 18, at end add: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Margate'. No. 62, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs' No. 63, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the harbour at Lamlash, Arran'. No. 64, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Bridport' No. 65, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Lyme Regis'. No. 66, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the airport of Manston' No. 67, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the hoverport of Pegwell Bay'. No. 68, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Ramsgate' No. 69, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Broadstairs'. No. 70, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'. No. 71, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any of the part of the ports of Lancaster or Glasson Dock'. No. 72, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham' No. 73, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Littlehampton' No. 74, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'. No. 75, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Gainsborough' No. 76, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: but shall not include any part of the port of Keadby'. No. 77, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Montrose'. No. 78, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Lancaster'. No. 79, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Exeter'. No. 80, in page 4, line 18: 'but shall include any part of the Port of Topsham'. No. 81, in page 4, line 18, at end add: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Southport'. No. 248, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the harbour of Hastings'. No. 250, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove or Portland, Swanage'. No. 252, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Colchester'. No. 254, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Southwold'. No. 260, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any port on the islands of Coll, Tiree, Mull, Iona, Lismore, Colonsay, Jura, Islay, Giglia and Luing, or any part on the mainland of Argyll'. No. 261, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Cullercoats'. No. 263, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any port in the islands of Lewis, Harris, North Uist, South Uist, Benbecula or Barra'. No. 281, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the district of Huntingdon'. No. 282, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the district and City of Peterborough'. No. 283, in page 4, line 18, insert: 'but shall not include any part of the ports of Torquay or Brixham' No. 286, in page 4, line 18, at end insert.

'but shall not include any part of the port of Chepstow'. No. 288, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Looe' In page 4, line 18, at end insert: 'but shall not include any part of the port of Polperro' No. 292, in page 4, line 18, at end add: 'but shall not include any part of the Districts of Woodspring or Sedgemoor' No. 82, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: '(c) this zone shall not include any port where the annual average tonnage of cargo landed is less than 1 million tons; (d) this zone shall not include any part of the following island groups; the Outer Hebrides, the Inner Hebrides, the Orkney Islands, the Shetland Islands and the Isle of Wight.' No. 83, in page 4, line 18, at end insert: '(3A) The port of Shoreham and the relevant cargo-handling zone is defined in subsection (3) above shall be excluded from the operations of the draft Scheme'. No. 268, in page 4, line 23, after 'river', insert: 'until such waters reach a point inland at which they cease to be one hundred metres wide at mean high water'. No. 269, in page 4, line 26, at end insert: 'or anywhere incapable of being navigated by ships of gross registered tonnage of 6,000 tons or more'. No. 84, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsection (6).

No. 270, in page 4, line 33, leave out subsections (6) and (7).

No. 85, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the port of Whitstable, Kent'. No. 86, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the port of Whitby'. No. 87, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the port of Harwich (Navyard)'. No. 88, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the port of Wivenhoe'. No. 89, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Mistley'. No. 90, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the port of Mostyn or the Borough of Delyn'. No. 91, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the district of Bournemouth'. No. 92, in page 4, line 37, at end insert: 'other than any part of the district of West Norfolk'. No. 93, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the Port of Wells'. No. 94, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Newhaven, Sussex'. No. 95, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the district of Harborough' No. 96, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Watcher' No. 97, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Lymington' No. 98, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the District of Rochford' No. 99, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the District of Maldon' No. 100, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Maldon' No. 101, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the putt of Burnham on Crouch'. No. 102, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the District of Castle Point'. No. 103, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the port of Folkestone'. No. 104, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the district of Tewkesbury'. No. 105, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the Borough of Beverley'. No. 106, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Selby' No. 107, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Bromborough Dock'. No. 108, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the ports of Fawley and Eling' No. 109, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the harbour at Annan'. No. 110, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the harbour at Dumfries'. No. 111, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Gloucester' No. 112, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Richborough'. No. 113, in page 4, line 37, at end, insert 'other than any part of the port of Dover'. No. 114, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of a port or shipping place on the coasts of North Yorkshire and Humberside between Filey and Spurn Point'. No. 115, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Teignmouth' No. 116, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the ports at Newburgh (Fife), St. Andrews, Crail, Anstruther, Pittenweem, Cellardyke, St. Monans, Elie, and Largo'. No. 117, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the District of Braehead, Renfrew'. No. 118, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the town of Winsford, Cheshire'. No. 119, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the District of Chester'. No. 120, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the port of Margate'. No. 121, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the docking or wharfage facilities at Largs' No. 122, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the harbour Lamlash, Arran'. No. 123, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Bridport'. No. 124, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Lyme Regis'. No. 125, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the airport of Manston' No. 126, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the hover-port of Pegwell Bay'. No. 127, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Ramsgate'. No. 128, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the harbour of Broadstairs' No. 129, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'but shall not include any part of the area within the jurisdiction of the Milford Haven Conservancy Board as defined in the Milford Haven Conservancy Acts 1958–1975 or of The Milford Dock Company'. No. 130, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any of the ports of Lancaster and Glasson Dock'. No. 131, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the ports of Cley, Cromer or Sheringham' No. 132, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Littlehampton' No. 133, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the commercial port of Portsmouth'. No. 134, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Gains-borough'. No. 135, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Keadby'. No. 136, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Montrose'. No. 137, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'Other than any part of the port of Lancaster'. No. 138, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Exeter'. No. 139, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Topsham'. No. 140, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the port of Southport'. No. 249, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the harbour of Hastings'. No. 251, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the ports of Lulworth Cove, Portland or Swanage'. No. 253, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Colchester'. No. 255, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Southwold' No. 262, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the port of Culler-coats'. No. 284, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the ports at Torquay or Brixham'. No. 287, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Chepstow'. No. 290, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Looe'. No. 291, in page 4, line 37, at end insert 'other than any part of the port of Polperro'. No. 293, in page 4, line 37, at end add 'other than any part of the Districts of Wood-spring or Sedgemoor'. No. 141, in page 4, line 39, leave out subsection (7).

No. 264, in Clause 18, page 18, line 35, at end insert or to Scotland'.

Mr. Brittan

The purpose of this new clause and the amendments which are being taken with it is to exclude small ports from the operation of the Bill and to reduce the Government's powers in relation to the dockers' corridor, euphemistically described as the cargo-handling zone.

The Bill is genuinely reactionary because the whole progress of our history has been to progress from status to contract. The Bill seeks to operate in the opposite direction—it is a regression from contract, freely entered into between employers and employees, to status, where one's position in life depends not on what group one is in but on whether one is a docker.

The Bill originates from the problems of the Port of London and one or two other large ports. It is wholly inappropriate to deal with the problems of the small ports. One thing is clear. If there is the slightest merit in the Bill for large ports, the fact is that if it is imposed on small ports as well it will do immeasurable damage to them without in any way improving the position of the large ports. To extend the scheme to small ports is a misguided attempt to cure the disease by spreading the infection. It will add to costs, reduce flexibility of operation, and increase inefficiency.

Some small ports will be destroyed, others will be maimed. The overall result will be to increase unemployment in the ports concerned and to bring about severe hardship in many ports of the country, particularly in rural or outlying areas.

How will that come about? At the moment in the small ports there is usually a permanent labour force in the docks, supplemented when necessary by casual labour. In the smallest of the small ports, there is a system of labour employed as and when necessary to deal with traffic as and when it comes into the port.

What happens if the scheme is extended to these small ports? The answer is that there will be no more labour of a seasonal kind employed as and when necessary, and, therefore, one of two things could happen. Either all those employed on a permanent basis will be registered as dock workers, or casual workers who are employed from time to time will also be registered as dock workers. In the latter case, if the irregular casual labour force is given permanent employment and added to those who are already employed on a permanent basis, it is obvious that this will lead to huge increases in the operating costs of these ports, because there will be people employed on a permanent basis for whom there is only seasonal work. This will mean that the port will become less attractive to use and trade will go elsewhere. All the economic obscurantism of this misguided measure will not prevent decease and decline of the ports concerned.

What will happen if only the people who at the moment are employed on a permanent basis are registered as dock workers? I shall give an illustration. Whitby, in my constituency, is absolutely typical of what would happen in this situation. First of all, those who enjoy seasonal employment from time to time when they are required will lose their jobs altogether. They will be deprived of work in towns where unemployment is often a serious problem. The regular dock workers will gain nothing from the extension of the scheme to them in ports of this kind. They will not earn a penny more, because they already receive the same rates of pay, the same holiday pay, the same pensions and the same bonuses as those in the Dock Labour Scheme. In almost every case there is already a proper agreement with a union, usually the Transport and General Workers' Union. Therefore, it cannot be said that there is a lack of adequate labour relations.

We are not talking about some maverick private enterprise concern or some kind of shark outfit in which speculators are concerned. These ports are all owned by the local authorities or comparable public bodies.

What will happen when the harbour is full and only the present permanent labour force is engaged? The normal irregular seasonal work force cannot be employed, so registered dock workers will have to be brought in from outside—from Teesside or the Humber. This will involve extra transport costs, delays and congestion on rural roads, and other problems which inevitably will be involved in so farcical a procedure as is envisaged in the Bill.

At present, the port of Whitby provides a service in which the turn-around time for a 700-ton ship is less than four hours. That service will no longer be available because the port's competitors will inevitably take its business away.

Mr. James Johnson

We have just heard a somewhat stilted and exaggerated sketch of the future scenario at Whitby. We have been told about the highways and byways being clogged with dockers going to Whitby to work from Humberside and Teesside. Does the hon. Gentleman have any figures to back this up?

Mr. Brittan

The hon. Member is not doing justice to his argument by invoking a case which I have not put. What I have said is clear. What is more, it is a fact. It is the hon. Member's embarrassment about this which has led to his introducing a diversion of that kind.

If the situation is that only the present permanent people in any port of which Whitby is an example can be registered and employed at times when casual employment would normally be provided, people will have to be brought in from other registered ports. It is as simple as that, and the extent and scale of the problem will vary from place to place. But the service at present provided by a port which is able to turn round a 700-ton ship in four hours will no longer be available and the competitors will take the business away.

If the port declines as a result of the increased costs and as a result of the reduced flexibility which will obtain in ports of this kind, what will be the situation? The registered dockers will certainly have their pay, because that is assured under the scheme. For their part, however, they will not find the consequences very congenial. As trade declines in the port in question, they may be compelled from time to time to work far afield. Ultimately, dockers who have made their homes nearby may have to move.

In short, therefore, the Bill will be a disaster for the small ports concerned. It will add further to unemployment, destroying small but efficient ports which are providing a uniquely valuable service for the areas surrounding them. Whitby is the example which comes naturally to me, but there will be many places which will be far worse off as a result of the decline or the eventual closure of their ports. There will be some cases in the remote areas where the port provides a lifeline to the surrounding hinterland or to the islands concerned. If the costs go up and the port cannot carry on on that basis, that lifeline will be destroyed. The commodities and goods upon which everyone in the area depends will have to be brought in from more distant ports. That will mean not only that supplies will be less assured in times of bad weather but that the costs will go up and rural and outlying areas will find that they are subject even more than usual to the high prices and difficulties from which rural areas suffer.

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman (Lancaster)

Will not this be particularly serious in ports serving the farming areas? Specialist treatment is required for the transhipment of livestock, but not on a regular basis.

Mr. Brittan

That is a particularly vivid example of the ill that I am seeking to describe and which will be very widespread. Not only will the ports suffer. The towns to which the ports are attached will lose income and rates and will waste investment which has been sunk in the harbours concerned.

This is a recipe for disaster for the small ports which will have the scheme extended to them. What conceivable justification is there for damage of this kind being inflicted on a nation-wide basis? It cannot be to further industrial relations, because the present situation is that those who are permanently employed in such ports are no worse off than those employed in the scheme ports. Those employed on a casual basis will be out of work altogether. It is difficult to see, therefore, what industrial relations argument there is in favour of the extension of the scheme to the small ports.

It is noteworthy that, according to the survey by the National Ports Council, the number of casual workers in the entire docks industry is 357, which is just over 1 per cent. of the total number of registered dock workers. Even in the non-scheme ports that represents only 14 per cent. of those employed. Therefore, it is farcical to present that—

Mr. Prescott

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Britton

I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman's Government have chosen to guillotine the Bill, and he and his hon. Friends must take the consequences of that in this debate, one of which is to have the pleasure of not hearing the hon. Gentleman's intervention.

7.15 p.m.

It has been argued as an alternative justification for this measly measure that the non-scheme ports have been expanding at the expense of the scheme ports and that there has been unfair competition by them which the big brothers in Liverpool and Hull cannot face. If that is so, one might ask whether it is coincidental that the ports which do not have the affliction of the scheme upon them seem to be doing so well. Is it right that the way to deal with that problem is to hang the albatross around everyone's neck?

The argument that the scheme ports have been losing to the non-scheme ports has been dropped by the Government. In an interesting exchange in Standing Committee, after a series of questions and answers, I said of the Secretary of State I am trying to get the right hon. Gentleman to agree—in fact, I believe that he does agree—that, if the figures that he gave are correct, whatever other merits there may be to the Bill, there is one argument which cannot be made, namely, that the Bill is necessary to protect dock workers in Scheme ports against the threat or potential threat of those in non-Scheme ports. We should be greatly assisted if the Minister would say that the Bill may have other merits, but that the proposition…is not its intention…and the Bill will not achieve such an aim. Mr. Booth: I certainly agree that the hon. Gentleman's point does not form the sole merit of the Bill. It has never been part of my argument that that factor was a main justification for bringing forward the Bill. Mr. Brittan: Or any justification. Mr. Booth: I have not been reluctant to give way to hon. Gentlemen when we debate these matters. If that results in some degree of agreement between the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby and myself, that is a good thing. We are now agreed that non-Scheme ports will not flourish indefinitely and provide a threat to Scheme ports merely because they do not come within the conditions of the present Scheme."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 4th March 1976; c. 263.] Therefore, that argument is exploded out of the water.

The other argument put forward which always struck me as being particularly doubtful was that it was necessary to introduce the scheme to the small ports because of the ILO Dock Work Convention of 1973. But the convention and the accompanying recommendation contain a degree of flexibility which renders it quite unnecessary to pass this legislation merely to comply with the convention. Under Article 1(1), the convention applies to persons who are regularly available for work as dock workers and depend on their work as such for their main annual income. The term "dock workers" means persons defined as such by national law or practice. In addition, paragraph 36 of the recommendation provides that appropriate provisions should, as far as practicable, also be applied to occasional and to seasonal dock workers in accordance with national law and practice.

The truth is that there is absolutely nothing in that convention or the recommendation to require us to pass the legislation affecting small ports. Any suggestion to the contrary is a red herring drawn across the trail to disguise the inadequacy and unnecessary nature of this legislation for the small ports.

It is then said in defence of the extension of the scheme that we do not have to worry very much because the Bill will not be extended to all the small ports. It does not have to be, it is said. Representations, we are told, can be made, and if the small ports can persuade the Secre- tary of State they will not have the scheme extended to them. One asks why they must have this uncertainty hanging over them in the first place. Why should they have to wait and see whether they can persuade an unseen Secretary of State by representation that the scheme should not be extended to them?

On Second Reading, the Government sought to give assurances that were no doubt designed to allay fears. We were told by the then Secretary of State that it did not mean that the scheme would automatically be extended to all small docks irrespective of the amount of trade or the regularity of traffic. We were told that very small docks, where satisfactory arrangements could not be devised to sustain the permanent labour force, however small, would not be brought within the scheme. Those were the honeyed words of the Secretary of State. Similar words were spoken by the present Secretary of State in winding up the debate.

One is bound to be suspicious because of the extremely narrow terms in which that assurance was given—that only the very smallest ports where there could be no permanent labour force would be brought within the scheme. It is significant that, when the Government seek to give assurances to the House, there is something which, unless we read the small print—and my God, we know that we have to do that—sounds as if it means something.

When the Secretary of State wrote to Captain Joyner, the Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was rather more candid. He said: It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion expressed in para. 23 of the Consultative Document 'Dockworks', that the scheme should apply wherever significant third-party loading and unloading operations are carried out. I recognise that the introduction of the scheme could cause problems, for some non-scheme ports. On an overall view, however, we believe it could give rise to major difficulties both now and in the future, if the scheme were not extended to substantially all third-party loading and unloading. Can the right hon. Gentleman be surprised if, with that letter, we are not satisfied with the assurances given to the House? When we take into account the further fact that no Government amendments dealing with this point have been put forward, our anxieties are redoubled. This is the reason why we are putting forward the new clause.

New Clause 4 would prevent the extension of the scheme to small ports, and New Clause 3 would limit it to places within five miles of existing large harbours. The definition of a small port has been drafted by reference to the size of vessel which the port is able to handle at mean high water—namely, 1,000 tons.

As some of the small ports in Scotland are deep-water ports, we have also produced an alternative criterion dependent on the average number of hours worked, so that there would be an exclusion where the average was less than 1,350, which amounts to 65 per cent. of the total hours of employment of individual workers. The purpose is to exclude the small ports which are least able to sustain a permanent system of employment.

If the Secretary of State finds defects in the clause, we shall listen with interest to any alternative he chooses to put forward. This combination of criteria would have the effect of removing small ports such as Stornaway, Montrose, Colchester, Exmouth and Whitby from the operation of the scheme. There are also amendments and new clauses which would have the effect of removing altogether from the Bill one of its most iniquitous powers. It is bad enough to have an utterly indefensible five-mile zone around our coast which extends, because of the way it is defined, into the heart of Yorkshire and all sorts of places which do not remotely consider themselves to be anywhere near dockland.

To add insult to injury, under Clause 4(6) the Secretary of State may by Order extend the cargo-handling zone either by substituting for the five-mile distances a greater distance or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain should be treated as part of the zone. The Secretary of State can pluck out of the air any place as far from the sea as he chooses and say "That is part of the cargo-handling zone." Warwick or Nottingham or anywhere else can be introduced in this way.

One of the amendments which we are supporting would remove that iniquitous power from an already iniquitous Bill. The five-mile zone is wholly arbitrary and wholly indefensible. A vivid illus- tration of its extraordinary character is provided by the fact that the cold storage depots about which we are especially concerned are affected in this ridiculous way. Some 69 per cent. of cold storage depots are within the zone and 31 per cent. are outside it. What possible basis can there be for introducing a kind of unfair competition between one cold storage plant and another in that way?

Mr. Robin Maxwell-Hyslop (Tiverton)

Before my hon. Friend leaves that point will be remind the House that the Order to which he has been referring comes under the negative resolution procedure? Therefore, it will not be debated in the normal course of events unless the Government give time, and the House cannot amend one word of it.

Mr. Brittan

I am obliged to my hon. Friend.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I am rather concerned about New Clauses 3 and 4. Will the hon. Gentleman tell the House whether we shall be voting on New Clause 4 first? I should prefer that we were voting on an amendment to provide for a half-mile zone. I think that five miles is too much. If that were applied to small ports, it would cover the whole of the Isle of Wight.

Mr. Brittan

The key clause is New Clause 4, which we shall seek to vote upon if the Chair is agreeable.

Leaving aside the question of the small ports and the iniquitous provisions of Clause 4(6), the extension of the scheme will do not good anywhere in the country. That is why we opposed the Bill from the beginning. It will do a great deal of harm in many places, and it will do most harm to the small ports. Many of those are in areas which are already suffering from rural unemployment and associated problems. To threaten their very existence by the extension of the scheme in this way has nothing to do with Socialism as I understand that term. I do not see how rural unemployment has anything to do with Socialism. It has nothing to do with trade unionism and certainly it has nothing to do with modernisation. It is sheer, unadulterated, misguided folly.

Sir David Renton

I agree with the arguments put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) with such force and conviction.

The biggest cold store in Europe is in my large and mainly rural constituency. It is just outside the cargo-handling zone as defined in such an extraordinary way in the Bill. The district organiser and the shop stewards of the union principally concerned in that cold store asked to see me because they had read the Bill and realised that the cargo-handling zone could be extended in the way that my hon. Friend has mentioned, merely by ministerial Order subject to the negative resolution procedure.

Mr. Harold Walker

If the right hon. and learned Gentleman's hon. Friends the Members for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) and Tiverton (Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop) will not correct him, may I point out that the Order is subject to the affirmative procedure as provided in Clause 4(7).

7.30 p.m.

Sir D. Renton

I am obliged for the correction. However, that does not to any extent diminish my argument.

In an exchange with the Secretary of State this afternoon on the question of the parliamentary procedures for handling Orders subject to affirmative resolution, it became abundantly clear that these Orders would not be discussed in the daytime in major debate on the Floor of the House. The best that we could hope for—I am grateful to the Minister for reminding me of the procedure—was that a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments would discuss the merits and that the matter would be brought to the House at some time for voting.

Mr. Booth

I hope that I have misunderstood what the right hon. and learned Gentleman was saying. I should make it absolutely clear to the House that I did not say that the affirmative procedure on Orders would not be discussed in the normal way. I said that it could be proposed that they should go to a Merits Committee, but my attention was drawn to the fact that on the affirmative resolution procedure that was not necessarily so. Therefore, I readily agreed that, where the Government proposed such a procedure, it was within the control of 20 Members to ensure that any affirmative Orders were debated in the Chamber.

Sir D. Renton

I suggest that the right hon. Gentleman should apply his mind not to the details of our procedure, which we hope will be improved with regard to these matters, but to the genuine fears of workers who consider that their jobs should not be taken over by dockers or dockers' sons by the making of an extension Order extending indefinitely, if necessary, the cargo-handling zone.

The cold store to which I referred, which is most efficient as well as being the largest in Europe, has a happy,wellpaid work force, and the management is on excellent terms with that work force. The workers concerned contacted not only me but the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward). I think that, although the hon. Member is a political opponent, he and I respect each other when handling constituency interests. However, I was surprised that the hon. Gentleman, when the Bill was still in Committee, should claim that the firm in question was outside the cargo-handling zone and that it was "a mischevious distortion" to suggest that dockers could somehow walk into local jobs.

Therefore, I thought that I should get the matter cleared up by correspondence with the Ministers concerned, Accordingly, I wrote and asked what would be the position of this cold store in the context of the cargo-handling zone. The letter that I received from the Minister of State confirmed my worst fears. If the House will bear with me, I should like to read a brief extract from it. The letter is dated 1st July. The Minister thanks me for my letter about the position of the cold store.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

That was good of him.

Sir D. Renton

Yes. He then said: There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power. There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it. Therefore, I do not consider that the hon. Member for Peterborough should accuse us of scaremongering when we say that there is a potential threat to the jobs of the people employed at that cold store.

more especially as the letter goes on to say: 'I obviously cannot guarantee that it would never be used in such a way as would bring the Christian Salvesen store at Peterborough within the zone, but I think you can take it that this is very unlikely. I am concerned not with what Ministers write in their letters, or even with the assurances they give on the Floor of the House, but with the laws that they are asking Parliament to make.

For many years now—today is the thrity-first anniversary of my return to Parliament—I have considered that the natural and logical outcome of there being a Socialist State would be the direction of labour in one form or another. As far as I know, this is the first Bill that has been put before Parliament which in peace time potentially involves the compulsion of labour. It is being done, against the law of supply and demand, to create favourable conditions for a particular privileged class of workers and their sons. I do not think that is right in any event, especially when there is the potential threat to people who are already doing satisfactory work.

I should make it clear that the trade union representatives who came to see me asked me to fight the Bill tooth and nail. I did not speak on Second Reading, I was not a member of the Committee, and I did not see those people until after the Committee stage had started. However, they made it clear that they objected to the Bill most strongly. Indeed, they used language about the threat to their jobs which it would be wrong for me to repeat in your presence, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

My constituents are generous people. In the last 20 yeatrs they have welcomed about 30,000 people from London under town development schemes. Very few constituencies can make such as claim as that. They have welcomed these strangers, some of whom had been dockers, although not doing dock work. They had gone away from London and taken jobs on the industrial estates at Huntingdon and elsewhere in my constituency. But when it comes to people being forced upon them to take up work not provided for them because they are coming voluntarily under town development schemes, my constituents naturally have a very different attitude towards the matter.

The definition of the cargo-handling zone in the Bill is not only much too wide and can be extended by Order, but in its application to my constituency it is quite ludicrous. For example, the small market town of St. Ives is 40 miles from the coast, 40 miles from the port of King's Lynn and 30 miles from the inland port of Wisbech, but it is within the cargo-handling zone because the New Bedford river is tidal as far as Earith Sluice, which is on the boundary between my constituency and the Isle of Ely, and St. Ives is less than five miles from Earith Sluice. St. Ives has an industrial estate on which food processing is going on satisfactorily.

This seemed such an oppressive and ridiculous situation that I asked the Secretary of State to give me the reason and justification for it. The only reply that he was able to give was that the only definition that they could come up with unfortunately led to a somewhat anomalous situation in my constituency. That is not good enough.

There is one St. Ives on sea in Cornwall, but the idea of "St. Ives on sea" in Huntingdonshire is ridiculous. Technically, that is what it will become because of the definition of "the sea" in Clause 4(4).

We have done our best to help the Government by tabling various amendments which would drive some sense into the Bill, limit these excessively wide definitions and stop the law from becoming an ass. I should have thought that, in particular, the Government ought to accept Amendment No. 21 which seeks to limit the corridor from within five miles to within half a mile of scheme ports and harbours.

Because of the absurd anomaly which has been created, I draw attention to Amendments Nos. 281 and 282, which would leave out the whole of the Huntingdon district, which is really a vast rural area with some small towns, and the district and city of Peterborough. part of which is represented here by the hon. Member for Peterborough and part by myself.

The Bill is so far-reaching that the Government should heed what we are saying. This unprecedented measure involves compulsion and is unpopular among trade unions. It will add to the costs of handling food grown in my constituency. If the Government persist with the Bill, they will get themselves into terrible trouble.

The last witch to be burned in England was burned at Warboys in my constituency. That conflagration will be nothing compared with the conflagration of all the paper which will have to be circulated if the Bill is implemented, let alone extended. I implore the Secretary of State, in his own and the country's interests, to think again.

Mr. Loyden

I do not want to follow the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) too far, but I must comment on some of the points made by Opposition Members. The clause deals with the cargo-handling zone, and the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Britton) referred to that exclusively in his speech. To listen to hon. Members opposite, one would imagine that the five-mile zone is the only criterion in the definition of dock work. That is entirely untrue.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire said that the cold store to which he referred came within the five-mile zone and would be subject to takeover by registered dock workers. There is no uniformity in registered dock work behaviour towards cold stores, warehousing and other work, but let me give the right hon. and learned Gentleman an example to contradict his argument.

In the port of Liverpool, there is a cold store in the middle of the docks where work has not been carried out by registered dock workers. I have discussed with members of my union their attitude to that cold store in future and it is clear that, where work has traditionally been done by another group of workers, it is not desired that it should become registered dock work. That is the attitude of my union's members to a cold store which is not just in the centre of dockland but in the centre of the docks themselves.

Location will not be the only factor which determines whether premises should be subject to classification. Other tests will have to be applied.

7.45 p.m.

Some employers have established themselves in the docks industry in London and have employed generations of registered dock workers. One firm in the cold storage industry decided to end this association and, in negotiations with the Transport and General Workers' Union, said that there was no question of its re-establishing a business in a different area.

Later, a new cold store appeared outside dockland and Questions were asked in the House about whether it was being operated by the firm which had been established in dockland and had employed registered dock workers. The then Prime Minister said that it was a small firm which had nothing to do with the large combines operating in the cold storage industry. It was then disclosed that this small firm was in fact Vestey's. In a deliberate act of policy the firm moved it work out of the docks, despite having agreed with the unions and workers to retain that work there and not to re-establish any work outside the docks.

This is why dock workers are rather cynical about employers who say that they have no intention of moving work from the docks. The establishment of the NDLB brought the first state of order into the industry and removed the criminal activity of casualisation. The Opposition have at least come clean on that point by admitting that there is the possibility of far more exploitation and greater use of casual labour in small ports. The Opposition then argue that these ports should be protected so that they can continue to employ casual labour with all its consequences.

A new element was revealed in the speech of the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby. Dockers have been blamed for virtually every sin ever committed, but the hon. Member apparently now holds them responsible for rough weather. He suggested that delays which occurred because of rough weather had something to do with dockers from Tyneside and Teesside flooding Whitby to load oysters into container ships in the harbour. This is the sort of exaggerated nonsense we have had throughout the proceedings on the Bill. The Government's proposal for a five-mile zone is common sense. If there is to be an examination of an area, that area has to be laid out. There is no magic in the figure of five miles any more than there is in two miles or half a mile.

The point is that the question whether premises will be included will not rest solely on their location. We could draw the zone as wide as the United Kingdom, and it would not make any difference because that will not be the basis on which Orders to extend the scheme are made. There will be other tests, including how the work has been done previously, what has been the traditional method and whether an agreement was established before 1967 to ensure that there is no question of a takeover by dock workers.

We are bringing up to date the regulations and a system of working which has been operating satisfactorily in this country. It is now time to review it, and that is exactly what the Bill does.

Several Hon. Members

rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I would remind hon. Members that the guillotine on consideration of the Bill falls at 10 o'clock. I have never seen such a list of hon. Members anxious to take part in the debate. I have made a rough calculation—I hope that hon. Members will not use the language that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said that he would not repeat—and I suggest that five-minute speeches might allow all hon. Members to take part.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop

The port of Teignmouth in my constituency—as is the case with ports which other hon. Members will want to describe—is a tidal port and is vital to the employment of a large number of people in the clay industry. The industry is meeting new competition from Brazil such as has never been experienced before. Were this port to founder by being made uneconomic, it is not just the livelihood of fewer than two dozen people in the dock that would be affected but the livelihood of several thousand people in the ball clay industry, which ships through it.

One factor that keeps down the cost in that port is that third party merchandise is handled there—particularly timber, and fertiliser, grain and other substances. That helps to make it more viable for the clay industry. That is no reason why it should fall within the scope of the Bill and be extinguished.

The road system in that part of Britain is very poor, the ground is hilly and the roads are serpentine and narrow. I see nothing about that in the Bill. We need that port not just for the clay industry but to save large loads of timber and similar merchandise having to be transported along roads quite inadequate for them.

I have received a letter from the organisation representing trade unions, not just in Torbay in the formal sense but including Teignmouth and Dawlish in my constituency. They are worried about unemployment, particularly unemployment of young people in that area. I am arranging to see them urgently, but the problem that we shall all have on our plate if this tidal port is made uneconomic is one with which neither they nor any Government are likely to be able to cope.

The Secretary of State visited that port recently. He did not have the courtesy to inform its Member of Parliament that he was doing so. When I wrote to his private office, it said that it thought that it was in Torquay or Newton Abbot or Totnes, so incompetent is it. I hope that at least the right hon. Gentleman will admit that this is the sort of thing that should be dealt with by statutory exclusion, as Amendment No. 55 proposes.

If the Minister makes an Order to bring in a port, that Order cannot be amended by the House. It may not even be debated. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) said, it may be considered in the Statutory Instruments Committee by only 20 hon. Members, to the exclusion of over 600. Let us never put up with a Minister who says in effect "The Bill may be a legislative nonsense but after all you can depend on the delegated legislation procedure to make it work." We all know that we cannot depend on that. We must get the Bill right in the first place, so far as a non-sense like this can ever be got right.

There is much more that I should like to say, but I shall not because of your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for speches of not more than five minutes.

Mr. J. Grimond (Orkney and Shetland)

Had this Bill not been printed, no one would have thought that it was conceivable that it should ever appear. I hope that the Government will take some notice of what has been said about Clause 4 (6), which, apart from its practical disadvantages, is surely constitutionally quite unacceptable. Whether it is done by one procedure or another, it is almost unbelievable that it should be suggested that this House should take it upon itself to designate any part of the country as a cargo-handling zone. I have been told in correspondence that Ministers will not do these silly things. But could there be a sillier thing than introducing the Bill in the first place? What confidence can one have in Ministers who have done that?

I want to draw attenton to the effect of the Bill on the islands of Scotland. The greatest handicap of all the islands around Britain, and particularly around Scotland, are freight and transport charges. We have tried for years to decrease them. The Government are paying millions of pounds in subsidies to MacBrayne's to try to make transport reasonably cheap on the West Coast of Scotland. If the Bill does anything, it can only increase the cost of freight and transport around the coast of Scotland.

At present, the Bill could apply to every pier and jetty. The Government have said that they will not do that, but what guarantee have we? If they are not going to do it, why not exclude the islands? Boats have to be loaded and unloaded on islands. How could it be otherwise? They are unloaded by trade union labour, although not necessarily dock labour, and by crofters, fishermen and part-timers.

This Bill is a direct blow at crofters and fishermen. This is not a Bill about Socialism. It is designed to penalise not the rich and idle but the poor and hard-working. It will make every cost larger if it does anything at all. If it does nothing, it is simply a piece of bureaucratic nonsense, and dangerous too. It will hang over our heads and there is no telling when it might be introduced—with disastrous results.

We have dockers in Lerwick and Kirkwall. They work hard and they are well paid. If anyone thinks that Lerwick dockers need the protection of this Bill, let him speak to Jack Jones. He will tell him that Lerwick dockers are perfectly able to look after themselves, and do so, and that the Bill is wholly unnecessary.

I must therefore make a powerful plea that, whatever happens to the Bill, we must be clear that any attempt to apply it to the islands of Scotland would be detrimental, reactionary and a serious blow at the effective part of our economy.

Mr. Prescott

I will bear in mind, Mr. Deputy Speaker, what you have said about five-minute speeches, but there have been very few from this side and after I was refused the opportunity to intervene at the beginning, I should like to answer some of the points made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) from the Opposition Front Bench, who addressed most of his argument to the case for exempting the small wharves and reducing the size of the corridor.

Many hon. Members have talked as though the Bill were not a radical Bill. In the sense that it seeks to extend proper working wages and conditions to the workers in these areas, it is an advance in labour legislation. It is certainly wanted in my area and even in some of the non-scheme ports. Whatever the controversy about the ownership of the port of Felixstowe, the dockers there have made it clear that they want to enter into this scheme.

8 p.m.

The debate has shown a considerable lack of understanding about the industry and its problems. The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby referred to Whitby, and that port illustrates the point I want to make, because in one way it is within the Humberside complex. The report of the National Ports Council and other reports on traffic in the area show that there has been competition between the ports from Whitby down to Felixstowe with alternative ports in the Humberside estuary. Most traffic comes to our estuarial areas, and Humberside has an important part to play in the argument about Whitby. Most of the arguments I shall put are reproduced in the National Ports Council report. I am not quoting dogma. I am quoting from the tremendous amount of factual data in the report.

I want to address my remarks particularly to small non-scheme wharves, not to the main five ports mentioned in the report. The report shows that the major concentration of small non-scheme ports is in the Humberside area. I am speaking about non-scheme, third-party ports and not about single users—for instance, the man who for 50 years has been importing his own grain or flour. Even the proposal to nationalise the docks did not include single users. I am talking about the developing third-party, commercial, non-scheme ports on the estuary.

To put the problem into perspective, 85 per cent. of port traffic goes via the scheme ports. Of 32,000 registered dock workers, only 1,000 work in non-scheme ports. That represents only a small proportion of the labour force. We are trying to establish for those 1,000 workers decent wages and conditions. If there is any doubt about wages and conditions of work, hon. Members should read the National Ports Council report, which clearly shows that many workers were receiving about £45 for a 60-hour week.

Hon. Members should not take my word for it: it is in the report. As a token of justice, the Government have agreed to give to workers in this fast growing sector of the port industry a guarantee of good wages and working conditions, and I should have thought that we would all be at one in agreeing that.

I want to address my attention to the consequences of the growth of the small wharves in the context of port development. The decision we have to make is about the allocation of resources, the future of our ports and whether the philosophy is that all ports should compete as if they were equal. That is the philosophy of the Conservatives, which was embodied in their financial policy report for the ports in 1971. It is now recognised that that was a disastrous policy which had considerable consequences on the development of small wharves.

The development of small wharves has increased for two reasons. The first is that the customs licensing was taken from London in 1965 and given to local areas. The second is the development of the system of trans-shipment from large ships to small ships, which had certain economic consequences. Traffic which is diverted into small ships find it more convenient to come to the smaller wharves. There has been a growth in grain, timber and oil cargoes, so much so that two million tons of traffic has bypassed the port of Hull, with a consequent loss of income to Hull of £1,250,000 in 1972.

Why has that traffic gone? It could be said that it is because of industrial disputes, but sometimes we have to have industrial disputes to achieve certain objectives. An industrial dispute is the only kind of strength that is recognised. I want to answer the question in economic terms.

I have spent a considerable time examining the economic costs. The two parts of this industry are not equal. Hull is a major port and, like all other major ports, invested in roll-on/roll-off container developments. It is not a specialist port such as Southampton, which specialises in passengers and oil and can thus achieve economies of operations. Massive investment is needed in the major ports. Hull has had investments of £36 million since 1946 and £16 million since 1964.

Nationalised industries are required to make a profit and to give a return on investment. In 1971 the Conservative Government said that they expected ports to be self-supporting and competitive. They went on to lay down that there must be a return on investment. If a port is losing traffic, it will not get a return on investment, and its only alternative is to increase charges.

In the early 1970s, in a period of six months Hull increased its charges by 50 per cent. What happened? It lost more traffic to the wharves. It might be said that that is more efficient, but when millions are invested that investment has to be reflected in charges if there is to be a return. The Hull charges for grain and timber were twice as high as were those in the wharves. Traffic was coming for Hull, going down to the wharves 60 miles away and being brought back by lorry to Hull. That is crazy. People living in the rural areas complained about the lorries and local authorities complained about the damage done to the roads.

I give an example of one small wharf on the Ouse. The wharf cost £70,000 to build. The Selby local authority gave £4,000 because it could see the rates potential. The river authority saw the chance of having its river banks built up and gave £20,000. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food gave a grant for building the wharf. Nearly £30,000 was raised towards that capital investment. It is not possible for the wharf to make charges that reflect that capital investment. It is not economic sense to attempt to compete on those grounds.

By the Bill the Government are seeking to ensure that workers in the small ports get the same pay as other port works—a fair rate for the job, which is a trade union principle. But that does not solve the economic problem. We shall still have the problem of traffic being diverted and we have to decide how to establish a rational ports policy. Our nationalisation proposals go some way towards that. The Bill is part of the rational approach to economic and social problems.

BACAT reflects the same sort of problem. That only seeks by another technological development to divert more traffic down the river away from the port of Hull, with consequences for shipbuilding yards and transport firms. The argument is not so simple as has been suggested. It is not just a question of efficiency and competitiveness. I welcome the Bill as one move towards getting a rational ports policy, quite apart from Socialism.

It should be put on the record when discussing whether to reduce the area of dock work coverage to five miles, as suggested, that the dockers in my area point to what has happened since the introduction of the Labour Government's scheme in 1947. It has been argued that workers in this country are not subject to direction of labour. However, since 1946 seamen have been directed to jobs and a number of other classes of worker have been subject to this direction. For many years dockers have been sent from one port or area to another. Those who argue to the contrary reveal a lack of knowledge.

There have been several reports on the Dock Labour Scheme. There have been joint industrial reports, there was the Rochdale Report and then there was the Devlin Report, all recommending an end of the system and an extension of the area. The last report—in 1969—was the Bristow Report, which advocated 10 miles for London. The principle was that where dock work had gone from the dock side, the area should be extended to 10 miles.

The Government chose not to follow that recommendation, even for London. If the Government had implemented the Bristow Report, they might have avoided many of the problems that they encountered in 1972. All those who have inquired into this matter have recommended that we should take this action.

I welcome the action that the Government propose and I am very glad that, a guillotine has been introduced on the Bill. I see this as only the first step to the proper nationalisation of the industry.

Mr. R. Bonner Pink (Portsmouth, South)

I rise to support the large number of amendments designed to exclude the smaller ports. There should be two more amendments seeking to exclude the commercial port of Portsmouth. Those amendments were tabled last week but do not appear on the Notice Paper. However, my remarks apply in general to many of the harbours specified in the amendments. They consist of small harbours which have limited facilities—facilities which limit their activities virtually to small coasters, and in consequence their activities are limited geographically and limited to narrow types of trading.

For example, Portsmouth's trade is confined very largely to imports of fresh fruit and vegetables from the Channel Islands with return traffic of general goods but particularly building materials. Other imports consist of timber and other materials for the local building trade.

But although shipping is very limited, such ports are becoming increasingly important as industrial areas. Some firms, such as IBM at Portsmouth, have worldwide interests but considerable business in the United Kingdom. Firms such as this want to be free to employ whom they wish and not to be forced to employ registered dock workers just because their factory happens to be within five miles of a port in which they have no interest and which they never use.

We have a concrete example in Portsmouth where developers have refused to express any interest in a vacant warehouse in the city. The reasons are very plainly set out in a letter from the South-East Hampshire Chamber of Commerce. It quotes the cost of moving grain in Avonmouth at £2.75 a ton compared with 75p at Portsmouth. It quotes the example of Fyffes at Barry. When the firm was forced to employ dockers, its staff increased from seven warehousemen to 14 dockers, costing an additional £1,500 per week. Incidentally, the seven warehousemen lost their jobs.

These are just examples of the bad effects of the Bill. Undoubtedly, if it is brought into force many small ports will be hard hit or even forced to close. It will be increasingly difficult to attract industry into coastal areas affected by it. Moreover, many people will lose jobs that they have done well and conscientiously for many years, and the overall cost to the country may be anywhere between £80 million and £150 million a year. If the Government persist in forcing through the Bill, I hope that at least they will accept these amendments.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. MacCormick

I support the new clause, particularly because of the amendments that my colleagues and I have tabled and that are grouped with the clause. The time factor means that I shall not be ale to deal with nearly as many aspects as I should have liked. I shall deal with only one.

Earlier the right hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Grimond) characterised the Bill as being unnecessary. From the point of view of the people of Scotland, I regard it as not only unnecessary but deeply anachronistic. We are in a period of great constitutional change affecting Scotland, yet here we are faced with the type of Bill that could have come straight from the 1940s—the sort of blanket nationalisation, the unthinking unitary type of nationalisation that used to characterise Socialist Government and that we on the Opposition side thought had disappeared.

Nothing that happened on Second Reading and in Committee, nor indeed anything that happened today, has changed my mind one whit about the evils of the Bill. I wonder whether the people of Scotland, or, indeed, many hon. Members, are aware of what the Secretary of State said in Committee, namely— I see the relationship between the Scottish Assembly and the Docks Scheme as being very remote."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G; 19th February 1976, c. 21.] The Secretary of State may have many qualities: he may be hard-working and he may be a worthy man. However, if he thinks that the people of Scotland will accept such nonsense in these days, he has another think coming.

After all, Scotland above all as a maritime nation is a trading country. It is very difficult to live far from the sea, as the cold storage industry and many other industries there are about to find out if the Bill is enacted. The Secretary of State was totally unconvincing in Committee as to the ways in which any form of democratic control could be exercised over the National Dock Labour Board by the people of Scotland and by Scottish politicians. In Committee the Secretary of State spoke of the Secretary of State for Scotland passing on the views of the Scottish Assembly to the Secretary of State for Employment, but he spoke in the same kind of way as other hon. Members have—namely, by giving airy-fairy assurances rather than by using concrete terms, which are all that would impress my colleagues and me.

Finally, the whole idea that we should accept that all small ports and island ports should be included in the Bill, even though it is not to apply, reminds me of the famous conjurer's trick that we used to see at children's parties when a man started with a large sign saying "Fresh fish sold here daily" and then one by one took each word off saying "You do not need this word" until he ended up with nothing. The same twisted logic applies to the Government's approach to the Bill.

I recommend my hon. Friends in the Scottish National Party to support the new clause in the hope not only that it will be a narrow vote, but that this time it will be a victory for common sense and justice.

Mrs. Kellett-Bowman

It is extremely important that we do not impose on the small ports and those which may blossom forth from very small beginnings the dead hand of the past. It is very important that tiny places such as Lancaster and Glasson Dock should have the potentiality and the chance that places like Felixstowe have seized upon so successfully.

Mine is an area of very high unemployment. We have few opportunities. We are right at the top of the north of England. We have a tidal river and the port would be included within the scheme. I believe that as time passes and we establish a greater industrial base, we could develop a thriving port. It would be wrong for the Bill in any way to impede the progress that we might make.

We have very few male industrial vacancies at present. We want to hang on to the employment that we have. We do not want the dockers of Merseyside marching up to Lancaster. They take far too much from us as it is. We want to keep our independence and keep open the opportunity of establishing better facilities and a thriving community. We do not want these dock labour people marching in and taking jobs from us and preventing us from establishing ourselves should the opportunity occur. We want to hang on to what we have and to develop a better life for our own workers.

For these reasons, I ask the House to support Amendment No. 71 to exclude Lancaster and Glasson Dock from the scheme.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

The more I hear of the nervous laughter from the Government side of the House, the more it confirms my belief that their principle is that muscle is what pays and that the big fry should swallow the small fry.

I wish to speak briefly to Amendment No. 83, which appears in my name and the names of others of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Hove (Mr. Sainsbury). Part of the port of Shoreham is in my hon. Friend's constituency. It is one of the largest none-scheme ports in the country. It is extremely accessible to the South-East and to the European Community. It has an extremely high reputation, thanks in large measure to the dockers at the port. It is efficient, reliable and flexible in its service, and it has had good industrial rela- tions. It has a good rate of productivity and its charges are competitive.

Taking the record of the port over the last decade or so, we find that its trade has expanded substantially and it has imported far more goods than in the 1960s, largely wine and timber. Overall, the non-scheme ports in this country in 1960 handled 4.9 per cent. of all timber and by 1974 they were handling 17.7 per cent. The port of Shoreham, which, as I have said, is a non-scheme port, was handling 1.3 per cent. of all the timber trade in 1960 and by 1974 it was handling 5.6 per cent.

We are entitled to ask why the port of Shoreham has been so successful over the past 15 years. There are many reasons, one of which is that the dockers have contributed enormously to the efficiency of the port. The second reason, and one that I believe is the most significant, is the fact that it is a non-scheme port, and this has led to its outstanding success in the last decade or so.

The sword of Damocles is hanging over the port of Shoreham, because the scheme is bound to hamper the efficiency of the port and damage the trade of this country. The product of the Bill, which one might almost describe as a mad hatter's tea party, will be catastrophic in its consequences in the long term and will do a disservice to the dockers not only in Shoreham but in other ports. Not one docker has told me that he wants the Bill introduced. I have been round the port of Shoreham talking to the dockers and giving them a chance to express their views. Labour Members, who think that they have a monopoly of interest in and knowledge of dockers and their problems, display an absolute arrogance. They have no right whatsoever to speak for the dockers of Shoreham.

Mr. Loyden

Ask the dockers of Shoreham.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I deprecate sedentary interventions.

Mr. Luce

The Bill will give to a group of people privileges unsurpassed in any walk of life—guaranteed jobs for life and guaranteed minimum earnings, whether or not one has a job. In the past, people have acquired privileges by power, but here we are actually granting by law privileges in excess of privileges which any other group in the community ever had.

Anyone who is concerned about people will wish to ensure that the employees in this industry who are affected by containerisation and so on are looked after. We must make sure that we do as much as possible to find them alternative jobs. As in other industries which are being run down, such as the motor vehicle and steel industries, railways and farming, the dockers are entitled to sympathetic treatment. They should be retrained and the industry should be run down in an orderly fashion.

Mr. Loyden

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Luce

No, I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman. He has spoken more than enough.

It will be catastrophic to apply the Bill to the port of Shoreham. It will strain industrial relations between dockers, lorry drivers, warehousemen, tally clerks and administrators. It will give an extra monopoly position to those people at a time when we ought to be dispersing power. The Bill will introduce strain into a port such as that at Shoreham which has a fine record of industrial relations. It will interpose a third party in the National Dock Labour Board, which will make relationships between the four main employers and dockers far more impersonal and more difficult to handle. It will exacerbate and increase operating costs. It will ossify the manning system and will increase restrictive practices and the inflexible use of labour. It will impose extra burdens through the levy system and administrative costs. It will stifle competition.

At Shoreham we have a port whose reputation for reliability and flexibility will be stifled, and it will suffer very badly as a result of the Bill. The Government are insulting not only this House but the country. They are insulting the dockers of the country, including those at Shoreham, by saying that they can survive only through privileged manning treatment. That is not what the dockers of Shoreham want. They want to be treated on an equal basis with everyone else. For that reason I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Marcus Kimball (Gainsborough)

This Bill is making a deep incision into the rural hinterland and into my constituency, as far as Newark, including the wharves at Keadby. It was only when the timetable motion was tabled last week that I appreciated that the Government really meant to go ahead with the Bill. I believe that it is a Bill which should have been quietly allowed to run out of time. Once the Government's intention was clear, however, I immediately tabled an amendment to exclude the wharves at Keadby from the Bill. I hope that the Minister will be able to indicate whether he can accept Amendment No. 135 and exclude Keadby from the Bill.

Keadby is famous for the part that it played in beating the 1972 dock strike. Hon. Members will be familiar with the scenes there on 15th August 1972 when flying pickets from Hull injured three policemen and eventually had to be driven off by a counter-demonstration of housewives. It is no wonder that Keadby gets under the skins of Mr. Jack Jones and hon. Members opposite.

It has taken four years to settle the score at the 1972 dock strike by means of the Bill. The Minister will appreciate that Keadby is the port furthest up the Trent before the first bridge. The moorings at Keadby are uniquely placed for the development of the motorway system in that area. In an area of high unemployment such as exists in North Lincolnshire, further development at Keadby and its expansion is vitally important to the people in my constituency. I wonder whether that in vestment will be forthcoming if the dockers get a stranglehold on this enterprising and courageous port.

There is a major development of the port of Gainsborough which survives on a delicate relationship between the lightermen and the dock labour men in Hull. There are 85 lightermen who work the barges, and although they have asked me not to press Amendment No. 134 it is right to mention the threat that the Bill represents to other employees in the port of Gainborough. The people who at present use the river may not be too worried about the Bill, but what about the maltings and feed mills in Gains-borough? In Gainsborough we are fortunate to have two major schemes for the expansion of two of the feed mills.

Gainsborough is a good distribution point. It is easily accessible to the barges from Hull and it has a great tradition of malting and milling. There are good relationships between workers and management. The danger is that the Bill could put a stranglehold on the nation's food supplies, particularly at Gains-borough. I hope that the Minister will indicate that he is prepared to accept Amendment No. 135.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I did not intend to speak in the debate until I listened to some of the tripe from Opposition Members. I listened, for example, to the hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), who spoke about the dockers of Shoreham. He gave the impression that those dockers are not in favour of being included in and others working in non-scheme ports the scheme. In fact, the dockers in all the non-scheme ports throughout the country have clearly stated that they are in favour of the Bill and in favour of being included. [Interruption.] Hon. Members can shout as much as they like, but when the hon. Member for Shoreham really represents the dockers in this House I shall listen to him.

Mr. Luce

rose—

Mr. Heffer

I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman did not give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr Loyden), who knows far more about the docks—because he has worked in them—than the hon. Member will ever know.

Mr. Luce

rose—

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

Hypocrite.

Mr. Heffer

The issue that we are discussing tonight—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Bryant Godman Irvine)

Did I hear an hon. Member use the word "hypocrite"?

Mr. John Mendelson

Yes, I did. The hon. Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce) refused to give way to an hon. Member who has spent a lifetime in the industry that we are discussing, and now he asks my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to give way.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

I ask the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Mendelson) to reconsider his position.

Hon. Members

Withdraw.

Mr. John Mendelson

I respect your chairmanship at all times, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It you ask me to withdraw I shall do so immediately, but my contempt for the hon. Member for Shoreham is not diminished.

Mr. Heffer

There has been a great deal of hypocrisy from the Opposition side of the House, and the more I listen to it the more hypocritical the speeches seem to become. While I am not prepared to name any particular individual as a hypocrite, Opposition Members have been hypocritical because they know full well that wages and conditions in the non-scheme ports are worse than those in the scheme ports. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] That is what the issue is about and that is what dockers are interested in. There are genuine Conservatives who believe in keeping the wages of workers as low as possible, and the "National Ports Council Survey on Non-Scheme Ports and Wharves" clearly explains that position.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn (Kinross and West Perthshire)

rose—

Mr. Heffer

I shall not give way.

That is the issue. The hon. Gentleman referred to the levy. It is to ensure that dockers receive a proper pension. Conservative Members shed crocodile tears about workers having proper pensions, but when it comes down to it they do not want them to have proper pensions.

I am sorry that the hon. Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) is not here. I do not think that the dockers of Merseyside are likely to be marching to Lancaster. Apart from anything else, if they met the hon. Lady on the road it would be enough to frighten them. One look at the hon. Lady, and they would turn round and march back to Merseyside. [Interruption.] That was a joke. [Interruption.] If Conservative Members do not want to accept it as a joke, it is not a joke and I shall say it bluntly. The dockers would not want to meet the hon. Lady on the road, and neither would I.

Mr. Peter Rees (Dover and Deal)

As the hon. Gentleman has now said that that was not a joke, he is casting most unchivalrous aspersions at my hon. Friend. He should be asked to withdraw them, Mr. Deputy Speaker

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must take responsibility for whatever he says.

Mr. Heffer

I accept responsibility for what I said, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The House can decide what I meant. The hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is one of the most pompous little men in the House, both mentally and physically.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We have now had some moments devoted to personal observations. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will now get on with the debate.

Mr. Heffer

I should love to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but for the stupid interruptions of hon. Members such as the hon. and learned Member.

Mr. John Mendelson

The Opposition do not like being caught out in their humbug.

Mr. Heffer

The issue in New Clause 4 is clear. It has been explained by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who has told us that the growth of some of the small ports and wharves is due to the fact that the conditions of work, wages and so on are that much worse than they are in the scheme ports. All that the Government are doing is to say that there must be proper wages and conditions, with uniformity throughout the country.

Mr. Loyden

Does my hon. Friend realise that in some ports men have got up at 4 o'clock in the morning to milk the cows, have gone to work in the docks at 7 o'clock and at night have worked the projector in the local cinema? That sort of practice is encouraged by Conservative Members.

Mr. Heffer

Once such men obtain proper wages and conditions, they should settle for one job instead of three. I think that genuine dockers in such ports want proper wages and conditions. Whatever the Opposition say, the Bill is well supported by those who work in the industry at the dock work level.

Mr. Tim Sainsbury (Hove)

If we ignore the personal abuse indulged in by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) in his characteristically blinkered address, what he said did, I suppose, show genuine concern for the wages, conditions and pensions of dock workers, but what he and his hon. Friends totally fail to realise is that there will not be any work for dock workers unless British industry can be efficient. It cannot be helped to be efficient by having a monstrously inefficient method of dock labour regulation imposed upon all our harbours.

Does the hon. Member for Walton want to see every port like the Port of London, with 1,500 people being paid to do nothing? Is that the way in which to improve the productivity of British industry and enable us to pay better pensions not only to dock workers but to everybody else?

If the hon. Member were to think a little wider than the purely selfish interests of those who are now registered dockers, he would realise that there is a wider issue in New Clause 4, and anybody who has listened to the contributions from this side of the House, particularly that of my hon. Friend the Member for Shoreham (Mr. Luce), must realise the threat that the Bill poses not only to the efficiency of British industry but to the consumer, because the extension of this measure to all the small harbours, and potentially to cold stores, will be damaging to the consumer.

I have in my constituency a cold store dealing directly in goods intended for the consumer—largely frozen poultry and meat. It is virtually the only public cold store between Southampton and Dover. That store, like to many others, is staffed by workers not one of whom wishes to see the Bill introduce a potential threat to his job. It is no good the Secretary of State saying that there is no early intention to give a direction. By this Bill he is being given the power to make a direction, and that is not a power which those who work in the cold store and other industries threatened by the Bill wish to see given to any Secretary of State.

In Shoreham harbour, not a small one —a smaller harbour perhaps, but a rather prosperous and efficient one and an expanding port providing a good service to industry, particularly in Sussex—one finds no support for this proposed legislation. It is for that reason that I particularly draw the attention of the Secretary of State to Amendment No. 83.

No rational argument has been advanced in favour of this legislation. It is doctrinaire interference in the working of ports. It will be damaging to the efficiency of British industry and damaging to the consumer. I hope that the Secretary of State will recognise that and withdraw his Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter

I shall be brief because I have noticed that a number of hon. Members wish to take part in the debate. For that reason I shall respect the time about which they are worried as the clock moves on.

The point that my hon. Friends are trying to get over is that the National Ports Council, which was set up by the Conservative Administration, produced certain recommendations in 1973. It stated specifically, clearly and without any doubt that it was time for the Department of Employment to bring non-scheme ports into line with the scheme ports.

So that there may be no doubt about the point that I am making, I quote from the council's report: The Council recommend that the Secretary of State for Employment be invited to consider what steps are open to him to take to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis", and, the council went on to say, to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry", and as adopted by the scheme ports.

The recommendation went on to state that there should be an upgrading of the amenities in those ports equivalent to the standards in the scheme ports. It also said that there should be an improvement in safety. In other words, in regard to conditions of work, recreation, training and the provision of amenities for workers, the National Ports Council, set up by a Conservative Government, made a recommendation to the Minister of Transport in 1973. Yet three years later, in 1976, we have all this quibbling about the Bill.

8.45 p.m.

No Bill should come through the House of Commons without a proper scrutniy by both sides. That is perfectly obvious. The objective of the House of Commons is to question the Government at every stage throughout a Bill. I have criticised some aspects of the Bill myself. But criticism must be objective and for the purposes of improving the Bill. This aspect should have the wholehearted support of both sides of the House.

Surely there cannot be anything wrong with good employers admitting that if conditions and standards are constitutionally right in this country for one section of workers, it is totally wrong for another section, doing the same kind of work in different areas of the country, not to have those standards. Opposition Members have shown perhaps an understandable exuberance in attacking the Bill. As I have said, the Bill is by no means perfect. As was made clear earlier, Labour Members had a policy which, to our regret, has not been followed. We wanted the ports to be nationalised in the beginning. Then we could have talked about conditions for the workers right across the board.

Management, too, could then have understood the totality of a United Kingdom port strategy within the larger totality of a transportation strategy—particularly in view of the closer links that we have with Europe and the rest of the world and the speed-up of transport of all kinds. There is an interface required between air, road, rail and sea. That was the great vision.

This Bill has been brought forward, I understand, because of the aching concern among the workers themselves in an industry which has lost many thousands of workers over the past decades and is now down to 32,000. We are concerned with the 1,000 workers in the non-scheme ports. The 32,000 port workers are enjoying good standards. We hope to negotiate for even better standards, for that must be our ultimate aim. We must always try to care for our workers. But is there any reason why the other 1,000 workers—one thirty-second part of the total force—should not have the same treatment? That should tie our objective.

In their exuberance in attacking the Bill Opposition Members have forgotten about the good and worthy elements in it. There were arguments earlier about the five-mile corridor. There are arguments about the British Transport Docks Board. There are great arguments on both sides about dock workers and those who are not dock workers. But here we are talking about the conditions of men who have been treated in many ways as casual labour.

The hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan) talked earlier about seasonal work. That is another way of describing casual labour. There are some non-scheme ports with reasonably good conditions, but it is interesting that where conditions improved in the successful non-scheme ports, such as Felixstowe, they came round in the end to the view that they would have a better future by joining the scheme ports. Indeed, the Felixstowe management was not averse to accepting 150p per share to be nationalised under the British Transport Docks Board. We have, therefore, the natural evolvement of port reorganisation and working conditions within the ports. In the case of the one outstanding success in the private sector of the ports industry, namely, Felixstowe, both management and men came round to the idea of nationalisation and entering the scheme ports.

Mr. Tim Rathbone (Lewes)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Would I be correct in interpreting this speech more as a Third Reading speech than as a Report stage speech?

Mr. Leadbitter

I shall accept the ruling of the Chair if I am told that I am attempting in any way to deviate from the main theme of this debate. Until that happens, I shall continue to discuss the non-scheme ports, which are the subject under discussion.

I appeal to the Opposition not to continue the feeling that they have tried to engender during the past few hours but rather to take this opportunity to show to the workers in those ports, which they may even represent, how well they appreciate the great error of judgment that they will be making if they go back to their constituencies and their small ports believing that they will be thanked by any docker who is not in the scheme for having attempted to keep them out. That would be a grave error of judgment on their part.

I am satisfied that there is no occupation in the country that would accept the Opposition's proposals. Would the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Kimball), who is a landlord, a fisherman and a member of Lloyds, accept conditions of the kind that the Opposition ask dock workers to accept? Would the lawyer from Cleveland, for example, accept different lawyer's fees simply because he happened to live in another part of the United Kingdom? Would he like that differential?

The House had better accept that we are talking about dockers doing dock work, that we have the National Ports Council saying that it represents the whole industry and seeking to provide an investment programme in the whole industry and to follow the objectives of the Conservative Party in the early 1970s. Simply because the Conservatives are now in opposition, they make a grave error of judgment if they attempt to make a mountain out of this one when only 1,000 workers ask for the conditions that 32,000 already enjoy.

Mr. Hector Monro (Dumfries)

I shall not take up any part of the irrelevant nonsense to which we have just been subjected. I wish to add my strong support to the effort of my right hon. and hon. Friends to remove from the Bill the small ports and harbours and to avoid their being brought under the control of the Dock Labour Scheme and much more besides. Hence my Amendments Nos. 49 and 50 to remove Dumfries, Glencaple and Annan from the Bill and keep them clear of the tentacles of the scheme. In any event, if dockers were required to unload ships in this area, presumably they would have to come from as far afield as Glasgow or Newcastle.

But there are many Scottish ports which will be covered by the Bill. I mention Montrose, for example. Despite what the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, there has been a petition to the House from the dock labour force there against being involved in this Bill in any way, and there is unanimous support from the fish merchants, the timber merchants and the local authorities to keep the port clear of any form of interference. My hon. Friend the Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) has played a leading part in the campaign to save Montrose and many other Scottish ports.

Then we have the port of Perth. We hear that a firm such as Fife Growers will have to spend £250,000 more to ship produce in and out of Perth if the Bill is passed in its present form. It is surprising that there is no amendment tabled by the Scottish National Party to exclude the port of Perth. There is one in the name of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), but not from the SNP.

Mr. MacCormick

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Scottish National Party wishes to exclude all the ports in Scotland?

Mr. Monro

I have made a statement of fact that there is no amendment from the SNP excluding Perth specifically. The ports that I have mentioned in the amendment carry out comparatively little trade. However, as has been pointed out, these and other ports may well develop. At present they take in cargoes of fertiliser and timber and export roofing tiles. Dumfries comes within the five-mile zone, with all the complications that follow.

I appreciate that the Government are taking power only to make a direction. I am against the Government having blanket control of my small ports. I am particularly concerned in view of the unemployment situation. In Scotland as a whole 165,000 people are unemployed. In my constituency the unemployment figure has risen from 1,300 to 2,300 in two years of Socialism. I do not want to see any jobs going to incoming dockers when they could perfectly well be given to my constituents. This is a senseless Bill which will do nothing to help our tottering economy. I hope that we shall carry the amendment.

Mr. Antony Buck (Colchester)

The position in East Anglia is much as my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) has described the situation in Scotland as it affects the small ports. What I resent is the feeling of some Labour Members that they have a monopoly of compassion for the "working man". What I am concerned about is the preservation of the jobs of dockers in my constituency and their welfare. It is the considered opinion of everyone to whom I have spoken about Colchester's small dock that the Bill is liable to bring about the loss of the jobs of the 30 permanent workers and deprive the five to 10 casuals employed there of any prospect of work. In addition, there would be the effects on warehousing and warehousemen.

I want to see these men keep their jobs. Those concerned confirm that the probable effect of the implementation of the Bill, if it were to apply to Colchester, would be to put the dock out of business. That has been reiterated by the district council in Colchester, which I regret to say does not have a Conservative monopoly. I do not say that everyone on the council supports the view that the scheme should be rejected, but that is the view of the council and the substantial majority of those to whom I have spoken. As far as I can see, in its application to the small ports the Bill has no support save for the support given by doctrinaire Socialists.

In Colchester we have a small dock that handles vessels up to 1,000 tons. The annual throughput is about 200,000 tons. The users attribute the success to its overall efficiency, high quality and flexibility. It is the view of the users and of the Colchester Dock Transit Company Limited that the operation of the scheme outlined in the Bill would cost it a great deal of money, thought to be around £60,000 per annum. That would have the likely effect of putting the company out of business. There would also be an effect on the seasonal trade. From time to time a small number of casual dock workers are employed. This would appear to be impossible under the Bill.

I summarise the position with the aid of documents drawn not from one political source but from all sources concerned for the future of Colchester as a port. It is thought that by putting the docks out of commision the scheme would probably cost about £60,000 a year, that the district council would lose harbour due revenue of about £40,000 a year, and that the loss of rates to Colchester District Council would amount to about £40,000 a year. There would be a loss of export potential for the grain trade and other exports that go through Colchester dock.

9.0 p.m.

I have not met anyone concerned with the Colchester dock who does not believe that the effect of the Bill being applied to Colchester would do anything but be likely to close down the dock. Therefore, when Labour Members talk about the future of the dockers, let me tell them that that is indeed one of the main things I am concerned about. I am concerned about the relatively small but significant number of dockers in my constituency who, in the opinion of almost everyone to whom I have talked about the Bill, will lose their jobs if the specific amendment tabled in my name to exclude Colchester is not agreed.

I end on a general observation. This is yet a further example of the present Government pursuing policies supported by only a minority of a minority. Even within the Labour Party in my constituency, as far as I am able to judge, it is only a minuscule number who would support the application of this scheme to the port of Colchester.

Therefore, here again the present Government, who are themselves a minority, are forcing forward policies which are supported by only a minority in their own ranks. I hope that the House will see sense and that some Labour Members will have the sense to support the amendments, particularly those in my name to exclude Colchester from the provisions of this iniquitous Bill.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies (Thanet, West)

I think that I am the first of those from East Kent to be called, and there are a number of us present. I think we all stand with very much the same views. I should like merely to deal with the Thanet provisions. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, East (Mr. Aitken) will probably join in with a further word in due course.

New Clause 4 entirely covers our needs. We say that the Bill should not apply to any small harbour or to any place within five miles of a small harbour where the men working for the last period of 12 months engaged in loading cargo into or unloading cargo from ships have been engaged for a working period of less than 1,350 hours.

I want to speak straight to the point of the new clause. Concerning ports, we have Margate, Ramsgate, Broadstairs and Pegwell Bay, and the airport of my hon. Friend, Manston. What I want to say spreads over other ports. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees) is present. He has a rather separate case. The Bill is an economic disaster for us for the simple reason that there are so few men employed in the ports who will be covered by the scheme.

With the exception of Ramsgate there is purely casual labour, and very few in number. Ramsgate employs 20 men, with an earnings average of just over £2,000 a year—about £50,000—and those men work an average of 12 hours a week. The average throughout the year comes to less than 750 hours per annum for each man. This is so small as to be negligible and it is not worth bringing it into a scheme. If it was brought into a scheme, in the case of Ramsgate, for example, the port would require an operating minimum of 15 men, which would give a wages bill of £90,000. That would be a 60 Der cent. increase, and 25 per cent. of the labour force would lose their employment.

It would raise the cost by 60 per cent. It would mean that the handling charges would not be worth while, and the business would therefore case. Ramsgate would have to work around the clock, and it is reckoned that the men who did this work, with the overtime which would be necessary with the basis of the 40-hour week, because of the hours that the ships come in, would earn an extra £40 a week—namely, £6,000 per annum.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken (Thanet, East)

I am most grateful to my hon. and learned Friend for putting the case so well for our joint constituencies. Does he accept that these costs which he rightly stresses will result not just in the 20 non-scheme dockers being put out of work but in another 200 ancillary jobs around Ramsgate Harbour being put in jeopardy?

Mr. Rees-Davies

My hon. Friend puts it very well. I hope that he will have the opportunity to elaborate on the other aspects which affect Ramsgate.

How did the Bill come about? It is opposed by USDAW, and I am surprised that I have not heard representatives of USDAW in this House speaking out in opposition yet. It is also opposed by a large number of container men. Therefore, one may well ask how it came to see the light of day. I am advised that this is a real East End dockers' Mafia scheme.

The East End has suffered greatly, and I am sorry for that. As a result, however, dockers have taken over sections of the T&GWU and foisted this measure on the Labour Party. It is not part of Socialist philosophy as such, and it has rent the party opposite in twain. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that in some sort of shambles Labour hon. Members will get together to vote for it tonight.

But for the troubles in the East End of the metropolis we would not have had the Bill. There will be plenty of opportunity in future to do something about Surrey Docks. and it is most unfortunate that we should have to suffer this Bill, which is totally unnecessary and which does not even accord with the philosophy of the Labour Party.

It is wholly wrong to include small ports within the ambit of the Bill. They are just not worth including. As a result of their inclusion, 20 to 30 workers in each, who are well looked after and who are able to earn a decent living, will lose their jobs altogether and then the Bill may lead to the closure of the activities of these ports.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-West)

I cannot for one moment accept the comments that the hon. and learned Member for Thanet, West (Mr. Rees-Davies) has made about that nonsense of an East End Mafia. I represent a constituency in which we have the ports of Bristol and Avonmouth, and there is no East End Mafia operating there. The dockers in my constituency, while they would like to see certain amendments and changes in the Bill, certainly support it in principle.

We should not be surprised at all to hear Conservative Members making claims that the Bill will be an economic disaster and will impose a considerable financial burden on companies. That is the kind of response we have had from Tories ever since the dawn of the Industrial Revolution. It has happened every time we have tried to improve the working conditions of working people in this country. It is like the time when they claimed that it was essential to send youngsters down the mines, otherwise the mining industry would collapse, or the time when they claimed that the twelfth hour brought in the profits, which would be lost if we introduced a shorter working week. They claimed then that companies up and down the country would collapse and that there would be economic disaster.

I am surprised at the kind of crocodile tears that the Conservatives shed about the imaginary threat of unemployment when they will rush into the Lobby to vote for massive cuts in public expenditure which will put perhaps hundreds of thousands more people into the dole queues. They want a continuation of the fragmented docks system. That suits the stevedoring and other private companies which are then able to set one group of dockers off against another, undermining the wages, conditions and procedures that have been built up in the docks by threatening one group of dockers that if they do not cut their manning scales or conform in some other way the cargo will be shifted to another dock. That is all part of the philosophy that the Tories support.

There has been reference to casual workers. One wonders how many of these casual workers are then presumably, for a good deal of their time, supported from the public purse. We are asked to accept the situation where private enterprise can exploit these working people when it suits them and then when the casual workers become unemployed they become a liability on public expenditure which the Conservatives want cut. I am amazed that the Conservatives should be taking this line, against their constituents. I am amazed that they do not demand for their constituents the rights, wages and conditions of employment which are enjoyed by registered dock workers.

The Dock Labour Scheme is an important beginning in industrial democracy. It involves the working people in decision-making. I would have thought that the Opposition, who often pay lip service to the involvement of working people in the decisions which affect their working lives, would have been demanding that the dockers in their constituencies should be treated equally with the dockers in Avonmouth, Bristol, London, Liverpool and elsewhere.

I have never known a piece of legislation to be so distorted by the media, by the Opposition and by their friends. They have created the image that thousands of dockers will be rushing into the cold storage units, grabbing jobs and making other people unemployed. That is nonsense. They have created the image of a trade union which is so powerful that it can hold the country to ransom. Yet the number of dockers has been cut by almost half in a decade. If that is the sign of strength, heaven help the dockers if they had a weak trade union. There would have been no dockers left.

We know that the multinational companies and the international companies have in many cases set up business outside the docks because they were not prepared to bear the kind of responsibilities for their working people that any decent employer should be prepared to accept.

Mr. David Price

Rubbish!

Mr. Thomas

I can assure my right hon. Friend that the Government have the full support of the dockers of this country in this legislation, and the sooner we get the Bill on to the statute book the better.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Fairbairn

There stands in my name an amendment to except, first, the port of Perth, and, second, the whole of Scoland, and hon. Members for the Scottish National Party have similar amendments.

Having listened to the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) I find it almost amazing that he is interested in any human being at all. Let us be absolutely clear of the situation as it will happen. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller) unfortunately upset his speech by being offensive about little people. I am concerned in Perthshire with the little people and I am concerned with all little people. Let us be clear about the effect of the scheme on the port of Perth. It will increase prices and make that port uneconomic as it has part-time workers.

It will put up the price of the goods that come to the farmer, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. It will put up the price of exports, which means it will put up the price for the housewife. I have never understood the especial concern of Labour Members for dockers. In the Port of London we have between 1,500 and 2,000 dockers who draw their wages and do nothing. That is added to the price that the family has to pay to keep those people who do nothing. This scheme is intended to extend that addition to the wage earners' burden.

I do not understand the logic of Labour Members. It is all very well to speak of enormous ports, but do they not care for the little ports? Do they not care for the people who depend on the little ports? Do they not care for the people who have to pay the prices? In my constituency and in all rural constituencies in Scotland people pay higher prices while earning far lower wages. Do Labour Members not care that they are going to add to it? Do they not care that people working part time on low wages will be put out of their jobs in favour of people who will draw higher wages for doing nothing? When it comes down to the human being, they do not mind.

I trust that the Minister will listen to pleas for the exclusion of Scotland from this wretched, dictatorial, expensive scheme which will do nothing for the individual in our rural areas, our unemployed, or for our low-wage earners. It will greatly add to the prices that they have to pay. That is the penalty that the working man has to pay for Socialism.

Mr. Peter Rees

The amendments to which we are speaking read like a Gazetteer of the United Kingdom and demonstrate the range of interests likely to be affected by the Bill. It is nothing short of a public scandal that we should be having to debate these amendments under the guillotine so that a large number of my hon. Friends, perhaps my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Costain), will be unable to defend their constituency interests. It is particularly scandalous that we should have inflicted on us against this timetable the irrelevant nonsense spoken from the Government Benches.

I ask through you, Mr. Speaker, the hon. ber for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas), who is posing as the bare-throated defender of dockers' interests, whether he has ever heard of Lord Shaftesbury. I suggest that he should concern himself with housing problems of which he has special knowledge and in which, apparently, he has a special interest.

I shall leave my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster (Mrs. Kellett-Bowman) to appraise the physical characteristics of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). I tell him, through you, Mr. Speaker, that his speech was as usual a compound of arrogance, prejudice and ignorance, and the thinness of his case was barely concealed by the vulgar personal abuse to which he descended. I hope that when he comes to make a contribution on the Devolution Bill, because curiously he may find himself in sympathy with some of the comments made from the Opposition Benches, he will moderate his language as he may like us to fold him to our bosom, but not tonight.

Mr. Leadbitter

rose—

Mr. Rees

The hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) asked us to be objective in our contributions. The hon. Gentleman's standards of objectivity are certainly not mine.

I wish to speak to Amendments Nos. 52 and 53. Amendment No. 52 relates to the port of Richborough, whose capacity in peace and contribution in war has passed signally unrecognised.

As the time at my disposal is limited, I should prefer to pass on to the port of Dover. Some of my hon. Friends were disposed to describe this as a debate on the small ports. I hope that they will forgive me if I correct them. Dover is not only the premier Cinque Port—I speak with some diffidence in the presence of my hon. Friend the Member for Folk-stone and Hythe, but I, too, represent another Cinque Port—Sandwich—but the premier passenger port of the kingdom. With its roll-on/roll-off business, it ranks third or four in fright traffic.

What will the Bill do for the harmony and efficiency of the port of Dover? [Interruption.] There is someone, who probably affects to represent the Patronage Secretary, who may wish to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker. I should be willing to give way to the hon. Gentleman. Does he wish to intervene? Apparently the hon. Gentleman is prepared to intervene from a sedentary position, but has nothing to contribute on his feet.

Every contribution from the Government Benches has stressed—it is perfectly proper to do so—the interests of the dockers. But what do hon. Gentlemen have to say about the other interested parties who work in or near the docks? They might broaden their horizons a bit.

I should like to pose three important questions relating to Dover, and I hope that the Minister will condescend to answer them. First, operating from the port of Dover, as the right hon. Gentleman alone on the Government Benches will know, because all the other speeches from his hon. Friends have been suffused with incredible arrogance and ignorance, are British Rail and Sea Speed, which is a subsidiary of British Rail, and a range of private interests—the Dover Harbour Board and private stevedoring companies. How will Dover operate in the context of the Bill? Is it to be fragmented into two or three parts? I should like the Minister to deal with the practical implications for a port such as Dover.

Dover's problems are not the same as those of Harwich, which is controlled entirely by British Rail, or as those of Folkestone, which is also controlled by British Rail. I have no doubt that my hon. Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe will deal with the problems at Folkestone if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker.

Three unions operate at Dover. Tonight listening to Labour Members, one would imagine that only the Transport and General Workers' Union was represented in this House. But three unions operate at Dover: the National Union of Railway-ment, the National Union of Seamen and the Transport and General Workers' Union, some of whose members have dockers' cards and others of whom do not. How will their interests be reconciled under the Bill? I should be interested to hear the Minister's reply on that matter.

Finally, there is the question of roll-on/roll-off freight. I have studied Part II of Schedule 3. I should like a positive assurance from the Minister that roll-on/roll-off freight will not be affected and that those who drive the trailers on or off the boats will not be regarded as carrying on dock work.

Study the Bill as I can, I cannot see that it will be good for Dover, for port users, or for all but a small fraction of those who work there. The Bill has been introduced by a Government blinded by prejudice and dogma. At the end of the day the country will recognise—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman who affects to represent the council house owners of Bristol, North-West might ponder this. The country will recognise that this Bill is nothing more than a crude bribe offered to Mr. Jack Jones on whom for the next four months the future of this Government depends.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

The hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) made great play of the Bill doing something for the well-being of the poor dockers in the non-scheme ports. I have news for him. The dockers in the non-scheme port of Mostyn in my constituency have wages and conditions that are every bit as good as those in the scheme port of Liverpool. They are members of the same union—the T &GWU—which has given full approval to the terms that the men have negotiated. The reason why the Bill will deprive workers in Mostyn of their jobs is that it will add so much to the costs of the port and similar ports that they will be put out of business.

The case against the Bill and against the inclusion of small ports is so overwhelming that we have had to take special care not to spoil our case by exaggeration, and we have not done so. We know that the board will be composed of sensible chaps who will do their utmost to safeguard the jobs of all dockers, but they will come under powerful pressure from dockers in the scheme ports to squeeze out the small ports that they see as a threat to their continued existence. This is a fact that the Government try to push into the background, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) constantly drags it into the light and makes clear that the object of the Bill is to enable the scheme ports to absorb the non-scheme ports, drive them out of business and get the jobs.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) touched on this point in his most unfortunate speech. The tragedy of the dockers in the non-scheme ports is that they will not face up to what the Bill involves for them. Many dockers in Mostyn believe that, even if the Bill drives their port out of existence, they will get good jobs at the expense of others in the dockers' corridor and that they will get the warehousing, transport and distribution jobs in place of their own. But this is not a game of general post. It is a game of musical chairs in which a chair is removed every time, making one less place for the people to sit. As the number of ports is reduced, the number of jobs is also reduced.

I am concerned about the effect of including small ports on the unemployment situation in my part of Wales, which is greatly dependent on the activity of Mostyn and the firms working there. I am even more concerned about the effect of the Bill on what has been a healthy climate of industrial relations in North Wales and also that it might cause dockers to look enviously at the jobs of warehousemen, cause the warehousemen to look enviously at the transport jobs, and so on down the line.

I fear that the Bill will poison the happy atmosphere in industrial relations. For these reasons and because of the unemployment rate in my constituency, which is one of the highest in the United Kingdom, I hope that the Government will amend the Bill to exclude small ports from its operation.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

I cannot imagine how the Bill was conceived, unless, as an hon. Member suggested, it was a form of Danegeld promised to Mr. Jack Jones.

Sir David Renton

It is Jonesgeld.

Mr. Stewart

I wish to deal with Amendment No. 263, which relates to the port of Stornoway in my constituency. I can tell the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) that there will be nothing imaginary about the unemployment there—whatever may happen in the port of Bristol. In Stornoway, 20 or 23 dockers will inevitably lose their jobs if this legislation goes through, because the two stevedoring companies cannot afford to employ them full-time. The men are all members of the Transport and General Workers' Union.

The object of the Bill may be to give better wages and conditions, but what will the Government say to the men in my constituency? Will they say that they have arranged better wages and conditions and that it is a pity that the men are not in work to enjoy them?

9.30 p.m.

My area has the highest unemployment in the United Kingdom—month after month, year after year, decade after decade. It is 15.5 per cent. this month and male unemployment is 23 per cent., and it will grow. We have a cost of living which is near that of London. It is so high that the local authority has to give a weighting allowance of £3.50 a week. It is so serious that the Chairman of the Highlands and Islands Development Board wrote to the Secretary of State for Scotland concerned about the effects of the Bill on the ports of Lerwick and Stornoway. He said: The Board considers that an increase of this magnitude, which will apply in varying degree to other small ports, can only exacerbate the already serious problems of Island prices in relation to agriculture, construction and industry of all kinds. In drawing your attention to these adverse aspects of the proposed legislation the Board has asked me to express a hope that the Government may be prepared to consider appropriate amendments to the Bill. I echo that wish on behalf of my constituency and all the small ports.

The Government have introduced a lot of unnecessary and mischievous legislation, but this Bill is the most lunatic of the lot.

Mr. David Crouch (Canterbury)

It will not be immediately apparent to many hon. Members, perhaps, but as the Member for Canterbury I am also known as the Member for Whitstable, a very old Roman port in my constituency. It is a small port and this is a small matter, but it is nevertheless very important.

Many of us have been accused of having no knowledge of the great ports, of the Transport and General Workers' Union or of the dockers and their rights. The question is not whether we understand all these points of magnitude. Other hon. Members may have worked all their lives in this industry and be able to speak with more passion and understanding of what it means to be a docker, but every hon. Member has a duty to speak about his part of the country, no matter from what party he comes, and to see that it is well served by Parliament.

Every hon. Member, even on the Government side, has recognised the duty of Members of Parliament to serve the interests of their own areas and to ensure that this legislation does good to their part of the country and those who work there. Some parts of the Bill do not seem to do good to our parts of our country and to those who work there, whatever union they belong to.

The port of Whitstable has had for many years a flourishing coastal trade under the Dock Labour Scheme. Since 1963 that trade has been diminishing because it has been inhibited by the working of the scheme. It is not just that the scheme makes the operations more expensive, although that has been proved. I am not arguing for any diminution of wages. I am a great believer in the highest possible wages being paid where they can be paid and earned. What I am concerned about is the diminution of trade and the decline of business in the small port of Whitstable.

The Minister—I pay him this compliment—has been here throughout the debate. He is obviously concerned to hear those of us who wish to speak about 150 amendments and is concerned that all is not right with the Bill.

But we are not talking about the whole Bill. We are talking mainly about the extension of the scheme to small harbours and ports. This extension will inhibit the growth of trade in those ports. Since 1963, under the National Dock Labour Board, Whitstable has lost the timber trade that it used to have, with 500-tonners plying the coast and across the North Sea. We have lost the brick trade —the import of bricks from Denmark of a special type for our furnaces, particularly in electricity generating plants. We have lost it because of the inefficiency of the Dock Labour Scheme, which caused the coasters to remain idle not for a few hours but for days on end, so that it was no longer economic to use this small port.

I may not be able to speak with the greatest authority about the intricacies of the working, but I can say that trade has gone from Whitstable, and it is believed by those who operate the port that it has gone because of the inflexibility of the scheme.

I ask the Minister to accept the pleas made on behalf of famous ports and small ports. This inflexible scheme to be applied by the Bill will not work to the advantage of the country. It will not necessarily work to the advantage of the new strategy which the Cabinet has embraced—that of extending industry and increasing the trade and wealth of the country. There are parts of the Bill which will positively act as a deterrent. This part of the Bill will do much more than that. It will promote an extension of inefficiency. I hope that the Government will listen with care to what we have said tonight.

Mr. Michael Marshall (Arundel)

I know that several of my hon. Friends wish to speak before the guillotine comes down, and I shall, therefore, be brief. I want to touch on the problems of the port of Littlehampton. Labour supporters who have tried to steer us into emotional arguments must recognise that Opposition Members are fully entitled to speak from practical experience of the problems of their areas.

Littlehampton is typical of several small ports about which there is the greatest suspicion and doubt. As my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said, the power which the Secretary of State reserves unto himself, if applied, could result in the livelihood of those who work in small ports being directly threatened. As I shall show, the whole infrastructure upon which the area depends is also likely to be affected.

I am concerned that this is the thin end of the wedge and that the scheme may in future be extended to include road haulage. I shall be interested to hear whether the Secretary of State gives us an assurance on that.

I want to take the industries which are related to small ports. In my area they include horticulture, boat building and construction, all three of which are dependent on the small port's activities in employing part-time workers, who are employed part-time in turn by those industries. If part-time employment is taken away from the docks, those three industries will be seriously undermined.

We know about the boat builders' problems with VAT. Horticulture has difficulties with the subsidisation of oil, and so on. The difficulties experienced by the whole infrastructure will be compounded if the scheme goes through and applies to small ports such as Littlehampton.

It is not good enough for the Government to say that they are reasonable people who will apply the law reasonably. They must make clear beyond peradventure that they are willing to recognise the detailed arguments put forward tonight. The Government have in many ways tended to drive in blinkers and they feel that once they set out along a road, the acceptance of amendments suggests a loss of virility.

One can at least say that in putting forward misguided and doctrinaire measures the Government are making the way easier for those who believe that they will sow the seeds of their own destruction. I urge the Government to accept the amendments, because at least if they do that the country as a whole will be better in the short term as well as in the long term.

Mr. Aitken

The idiocy of the Bill, whose main effect is to pay Danegeld to Mr. Jack Jones's dockers at the expense of jobs and the economic survival of small ports, is nowhere better highlighted than by the tragic fate that lies in store for the port of Ramsgate in my constituency.

Ramsgate is a successful non-scheme port which handled more than £45 million of cargo last year. There are 20 unregistered dockers who work uncongenial hours because it is a tidal port. This causes them to operate at tidal times, even in the small hours of the morning. These dockers earn an average wage of £56 a week. They deserve that wage even though it is paid for only 12 to 15 hours per week on average.

The future for them and for many others who work in ancillary trades around the harbour of Ramsgate is bleak and depressing if the Bill goes through and the scheme is extended to Ramsgate, because rising costs are such that there is no way that the employers could afford to go on keeping dockers at the scheme rate of pay for hours which they cannot in any case work. As a result, the plain truth is that Ramsgate harbour will have to close down from the point of view of handling trade.

If we were to stop there, that would be bad enough. In addition, there are the Pegwell Bay hoverport which will be affected and also Manston Airport, which are both within the five-mile zone. All these jobs creating centres which contribute so much to East Kent will be ruined if under the scheme high costs are imposed artificially and against the interests of the local community and the dockers themselves. I greatly hope that the Minister will note Amendments Nos. 67 to 69 in my name and will listen to the voices of others who have spoken for east Kent and other parts of the country.

Mr. Rathbone

In the two minutes and fifty seconds remaining before the winding-up speeches I wish to draw the Government's attention to the peculiarities of Newhaven, which is not confined to British Rail but which also has extensive back-up terminals. Contrary to what Labour Members have said, I wish to point out that the people who will be losing their jobs because of a loss of business are earning, for example, £55 or £51 per week minimum, or £82 a week on average last year. These are the people who will be put out of work by this idiotic piece of legislation.

Mr. Booth

I am replying to a debate in which the Government have been accused of being Socialist, doctrinaire and failing to act in accordance with their own philosophy. That is not an easy proposition to which to reply.

The attacks have been based upon two features of the Bill. One is the inclusion therein of the concept of a cargo-handling zone and the other is the Bill's failure, as its opponents see it, specific- ally to exclude small ports from its provisions. I shall try succinctly to deal with both criticisms.

On the first criticism—that of including the concept of a cargo-handling zone—I want to say that in modern terms it is very difficult—more difficult than it has ever been previously—to define what is dock work without some recognition of a geographical limit. Work which has been historically performed at the quayside and on the docks has, with modern cargo-handling developments, in many cases moved inland. For instance, stuffing and stripping operations have moved to inland depots.

Had we brought before the House a Bill which ignored this factor and not said that there must be a geographical limit beyond which any other definition of dock work could go, we should have been criticised for doing that and should have been told quite properly that it was wrong to describe anything as dock work which could take place such a distance from the high water mark of our rivers or ports.

Sir David Renton

Then why is the right hon. Gentleman taking power in Clause 4(6) to do this by Order?

Mr. Booth

I shall come to that. The general proposition of Clause 4, and the point that it attacked by the new clause, is that there should be a geographical limit as such. I contend that it is genuinely required, particularly in view of modern developments that have taken place in cargo handling. What may be—indeed, what is—regarded as modern dock work when done within a few hundred yards of the quayside—for instance, the stuffing and stripping of containers—should not be regarded as modern dock work if it is done 30 or 40 miles from the high water mark.

I accept that we have in the Bill a provision by which we can extend the limit. There are some circumstances which one can envisage in which, with modem techniques, an extension might be necessary, but that would only be done with the approval of both Houses of Parliament and under the affirmative procedure.

9.45 p.m.

The difficulty of debating briefly the cargo-handling zone concept is that one tends to concentrate upon the matter as if it were a sole or major test. In that way it cannot be seen in perspective and debated constructively, because alongside the test whether the work is done in a cargo-handling zone must be set the test of Schedule 3. Then one must look at the provisions of the Bill which will apply the more sophisticated tests.

One test is whether the work is being done under the present scheme. That test is applied by Clause 6. I hope that the House will not object to that test. More important for the purpose of the debate are the tests in Clause 8—for example, whether the work to be done is done by way of substitution for other work previously done by other registered dock workers; whether they require training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers; whether the work is done wholly or mainly by workers employed as casual labour.

If any of those tests is satisfied, that is not sufficient for the board to make a recommendation. One also has to inquire whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force, whether classification of the work would assist the making or improvement in the arrangements for creating and maintaining an adequate labour force, for rationalising the deployment of labour on any such work, and for removing anomalous distinctions between different categories of workers.

These are some of the many detailed and specific tests which the board has to take into consideration before it can make a recommendation to the Secretary of State that the work should be classified. To view the cargo-handling zone, as so many hon. Members have done in Committee and on the Floor of the House, as if that were the only test, as if every bit of work was to be classified, is to make a nonsense of the debate. I cannot believe that hon. Members who have studied the Bill can really believe that the cargo-handling zone has the significance that some have sought to attach to it.

I turn to the question of the small ports, which understandably has created so much concern. This has been a useful part of the debate since it has con- centrated attention on the extent of casual labour that still goes on at our small ports. I recall particularly the words of one hon. Member who referred to casual labour in his constituency averaging 12 hours a week in the local port. In modern terms one cannot accept that there can be a case for people being employed on a 12 hours-a-week basis, unless there are special considerations and unless we are prepared to test by modern labour standards whether such an arrangement is necessary and whether we are prepared to test a better way of employing people and safeguarding their working conditions.

Mr. Aitken

May I intervene, as it was my constituency to which the right hon. Gentleman referred? Those dockers, who are members of the Transport and General Workers Union, are averaging £56 a week for working those 12 hours. They are well satisfied. They do not want to be in a dock labour scheme that will put them out of work completely.

Mr. Booth

But what people earn for doing casual work is not the only test whether these are acceptable labour conditions. One might consider the position at Montrose where there are only two registered dock workers and the rest of the work is done by men who have been out all night in fishing boats.

I now turn to the amendments and the places that they seek to remove from the Bill. Some of the places that the amendments seek to exclude do not even handle cargo. Some of the places deal only with account operations and they are, therefore, not affected by the Bill. Other places that the amendments seek to exclude fall to the test of Clause 7(7).

I remind the House that one of the tests applied by that clause is whether the work of a small port requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. But if the work of a small port is such that it does not require that, it could not fall to be classified. We have explained the situation in Committee and in writing to hon. Members to make that crystal clear.

I draw the attention of the House to a Government amendment making it clear to all those concerned with the small ports that reports by the board resulting in classification have been taken into account. Amendment No. 170 will require the board, when considering a recommendation for the classification of a small port, to provide copies of the report to all those employees and workers to which the report relates, to any trade union recognised by such an employer and to any other person concerned with the subject matter of the report. The amendment also requires that notice be given to employers and unions that one month is allowed for recommendations to be made to the Secretary of State. No one who is an employer or employee in a small port will be unaware of the intention of the board to make a report or that he may make representations to the board.

The subject of small ports arose not as a piece of Socialist doctrine, or as a result of a debate by the Fabian Society, but out of a report called for by a Conservative Minister of Transport, who asked the National Ports Council to make a survey of non-scheme ports and wharves. The right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) received a recommendation from the National Ports Council that the Secretary of State for Employment should consider what steps were open to him: to eliminate casual engagement in those cases where it is used as a normal source of such cargo handling labour as is required on a relatively constant basis". He was also recommended: to ensure that for regular employees at non-scheme undertakings handling third-party traffic, the terms and conditions of employment on cargo handling including the basic rate of pay, hours of normal work, overtime rates, holiday entitlement, sick pay and pension arrangements and daily and weekly guarantees of payment should be not less favourable than the standards laid down for the industry as a norm. The recommendation included a whole host of things which will not be brought about unless there is an extension of the scheme to a number of ports.

I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited to the scheme. But that can be tested by the Bill and the House. I therefore hope that the Government amendments will be accepted and that the other amendments will be rejected.

Mr. David Madel (Bedfordshire, South)

The 25 Opposition Members who have spoken have shown why we so strongly oppose the Bill in trying to bring small ports within its provisions. My hon. Friends have done a thorough job of consultation with employees in the small ports.

I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Dumfries (Mr. Monro) said about the petition organised by the employees at the port of Montrose. There is no question of someone else having organised it for them. Their petition is yet another example of the opposition to incorporating small ports in the Bill.

We agree with Amendment No. 84 of the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) and his Liberal colleagues to delete subsection (6) of Clause 4.

If there had been more time, we should have wished to discuss our Amendment No. 21 dealing with the half-mile zone. Our case is simply that once a five-mile zone is created it leads to trouble. The creation of zones results in arguments about classification of work. That is where the heart of the difficulties occurs. If the Government want to do a proper job of consultation with employees in small ports, they should design their promised industrial democracy Bill carefully and allow those people to say whether they want to come under the scheme.

There have been careless speeches from Labour Members, who have been confused about casual and seasonal work. Seasonal work is sometimes unavoidable. If Labour Members are worried, as they say they are, about working conditions and safety in non-scheme small ports, they should use the existing legislation, such as the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act and the Employment Protection Act, to improve conditions if they believe that conditions need improvement. There is no need to make general attacks on our attitude to docks or whether we do or do not want adequate pensions for dockers. We want adequate pensions for every employee in the country. If hon. Members study the Official Report of the Committee proceedings, they will see what we have said about that.

Are the Government certain that they have evidence to show that the Bill is necessary and will lead to an improvement? Clause 4 is an attempt to deal with the manpower problem in the London Docks area. In a discussion paper from the National Economic Development Office, Mr. John Hughes, who, one would imagine, is not normally a Conservative supporter, said at page 53: It is likely, too, that the new government proposals"— those in the Bill— may reduce but not remove the continuing problems of development and planning that result from continuing technological changes, and locational changes in trading patterns. The Secretary of State said in Committee: Of course, in practice, what has happened up and down the country is that many of the places, the premises, and the work have been established by voluntary agreement—much more than by legal definition."—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 23rd March 1976; c. 537–38.] He referred to the case of the Aintree container depot. We constantly argued in

Committee, with regard to the definition of dock work and its classification, "Of course, proceed by voluntary agreement but do not ram the Bill and Clause 4 down the throats of the small ports and people involved in industries within the five-mile zone."

The Government would like to feel that they have the support of the trade union movement for the Bill, but they do not have that support. We have all the evidence from members of unions who do not like the Bill and think that the Government should think again about putting it on the statute book. The least the Government can do at this late hour is to think again about Clause 4 and to incorporate our amendments to it.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 298, Noes 302.

Division No. 279.]	AYES	[10.00 p.m.
Adley, Robert	Crawford, Douglas	Grylls, Michael
Aitken, Jonathan	Critchley, Julian	Hall, Sir John
Alison, Michael	Crouch, David	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Arnold, Tom	Crowder, F. P.	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)	Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)	Hampson, Dr Keith
Awdry, Daniel	Dean, Paul (N Somerset)	Hannam, John
Bain, Mrs Margaret	Dodsworth, Geoffrey	Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye)
Baker, Kenneth	Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James	Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss
Banks, Robert	Drayson, Burnaby	Hastings, Stephen
Berth, A. J.	du Cann, Rt Hon Edward	Havers, Sir Michael
Bell, Ronald	Durant, Tony	Hawkins, Paul
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay)	Dykes, Hugh	Hayhoe, Barney
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham)	Eden, Rt Hon Sir John	Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Benyon, W.	Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)	Henderson, Douglas
Bitten, John	Elliott, Sir William	Heseltine, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John	Emery, Peter	Hicks, Robert
Blaker, Peter	Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)	Higgins, Terence L.
Body, Richard	Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)	Holland, Philip
Boscawen, Hon Robert	Eyre, Reginald	Hooson, Emlyn
Bottomley, Peter	Fairbairn, Nicholas	Hordern, Peter
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)	Fairgrieve, Russell	Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)	Farr, John	Howell, David (Guildford)
Bradford, Rev Robert	Fell, Anthony	Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Brittan, Leon	Finsberg, Geoffrey	Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Brotherton, Michael	Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N)	Hunt, David (Wirral)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Hunt, John (Bromley)
Bryan, Sir Paul	Forman, Nigel	Hurd, Douglas
Buchanan-Smith, Alick	Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd)	Hutchison, Michael Clark
Buck, Antony	Fox, Marcus	Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Budgen, Nick	Freud, Clement	James, David
Bulmer, Esmond	Fry, Peter	Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Burden, F. A.	Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D.	Jessel, Toby
Butler, Adam (Bosworth)	Gardiner, George (Reigate)	Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Carlisle, Mark	Gardner, Edward (S Fylde)	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Carson, John	Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham)	Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Chalker, Mrs Lynda	Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife)	Jopling, Michael
Channon, Paul	Glyn, Dr Alan	Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Churchill, W. S.	Godber, Rt Hon Joseph	Kaberry, Sir Donald
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)	Goodhart, Philip	Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Clark, William (Croydon S)	Goodhew, Victor	Kershaw, Anthony
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)	Goodlad, Alastair	Kilfedder, James
Clegg, Walter	Gorst, John	Kimball, Marcus
Cockcroft, John	Gow, Ian (Eastbourne)	King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)	Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry)	King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Cope, John	Grant, Anthony (Harrow C)	Kirk, Sir Peter
Cordle, John H.	Gray, Hamish	Kitson, Sir Timothy
Cormack, Patrick	Griffiths, Eldon	Knight, Mrs Jill
Corrie, John	Grimond, Rt Hon J.	Knox, David
Costain, A. P.	Grist, Ian	Lamont, Norman
Lane, David	Oppenheim, Mrs Sally	Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Langford-Holt, Sir John	Osborn, John	Sproat, Iain
Latham, Michael (Melton)	Page, John (Harrow, West)	Stainton, Keith
Lawrence, Ivan	Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)	Stanbrook, Ivor
Lawson, Nigel	Paisley, Rev Ian	Stanley, John
Lester, Jim (Beeston)	Pardoe, John	Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Parkinson, Cecil	Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Lloyd, Ian	Penhaligon, David	Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Loveridge, John	Percival, Ian	Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Luce, Richard	Peyton, Rt Hon John	Stokes, John
McAdden, Sir Stephen	Pink, R. Bonner	Stradling, Thomas J.
MacCormick, Iain	Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch	Tapsell, Peter
McCrindle, Robert	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Macfarlane, Neil	Prior, Rt Hon James	Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
MacGregor, John	Pym, Rt Hon Francis	Tebbit, Norman
Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)	Raison, Timothy	Temple-Morris, Peter
McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)	Rathbone, Tim	Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)	Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)	Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Madel, David	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)	Reid, George	Thompson, George
Marten, Neil	Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)	Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Mates, Michael	Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)	Townsend, Cyril D,
Mather, Carol	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Trotter, Neville
Maude, Angus	Ridley, Hon Nicholas	Tugendhat, Christopher
Maudllng, Rt Hon Reginald	Ridsdale, Julian	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mawby, Ray	Rifkind, Malcolm	Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin	Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)	Viggers, Peter
Mayhew, Patrick	Roberts, Wyn (Conway)	Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Meyer, Sir Anthony	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)	Wakeham, John
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)	Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)	Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Mills, Peter	Ross, William (Londonderry)	Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Miscampbell, Norman	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)	Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)	Wall, Patrick
Moate, Roger	Royle, Sir Anthony	Walters, Dennis
Molyneaux, James	Sainsbury, Tim	Warren, Kenneth
Monro, Hector	St. John-Stevas, Norman	Watt, Hamish
Montgomery, Fergus	Scott, Nicholas	Weatherill, Bernard
Moore, John (Croydon C)	Scott-Hopkins, James	Wells, John
More, Jasper (Ludlow)	Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)	Welsh, Andrew
Morgan, Geraint	Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)	Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral	Shelton, William (Streatham)	Wiggin, Jerry
Morris, Michael (Northampton S)	Shepherd, Colin	Wigtey, Dafydd
Morrison, Charles (Devices)	Shersby, Michael	Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)	Silvester, Fred	Winterton, Nicholas
Mudd, David	Sims, Roger	Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Neave, Airey	Sinclair, Sir George	Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Nelson, Anthony	Skeet, T. H. H.	Younger, Hon George
Neubert, Michael	Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Newton, Tony	Smith, Dudley (Warwick)	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Normanton, Tom	Speed, Keith	Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Nott, John	Spence, John	Mr. Anthony Berry.
Onslow, Cranley	Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
NOES
Abse, Leo	Buchan, Norman	Davidson, Arthur
Allaun, Frank	Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green)	Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Anderson, Donald	Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE)	Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Archer, Peter	Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P)	Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Armstrong, Ernest	Campbell, Ian	Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Ashley, Jack	Canavan, Dennis	Deakins, Eric
Ashton, Joe	Cant, R. B.	Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N)	Carmichael, Nell	de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Atkinson, Norman	Carter, Ray	Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Cartwright, John	Dempsey, James
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)	Castle, Rt Hon Barbara	Doig, Peter
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood)	Clemitson, Ivor	Dormand, J. D.
Bates, Alt	Cocks, Michael (Bristol S)	Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Bean, R. E.	Cohen, Stanley	Duffy, A. E. P.
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood	Coleman, Donald	Dunn, James A.
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N)	Colquhoun, Ms Maureen	Dunnett, Jack
Bidwell, Sydney	Concannon, J. D.	Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Bishop, E. S.	Conlan, Bernard	Eadle, Alex
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)	Edge, Geoff
Boardman, H.	Corbett, Robin	Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert	Cox, Thomas (Tooting)	Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty	Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)	Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur	Crawshaw, Richard	English, Michael
Boyden, James (Bish Auck)	Cronin, John	Ennals, David
Bradley, Tom	Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony	Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Bray, Dr Jeremy	Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)	Evans,loan (Aberdare)
Broughton, Sir Alfred	Cryer, Bob	Evans, John (Newton)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)	Cunningham, G. (Islington S)	Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W)	Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh)	Faulds, Andrew
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S)	Dalyell, Tam	Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.

Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Loyden, Eddie	Rowlands, Ted
Fitt, Gerard(BelfastW)	Luard, Evan	Sandelson, Neville
Flannery, Martin	Lyons, Edward(BradfordW)	Sedgemore, Brian
Fletcher, L. R.(Ilkeston)	Mabon, Dr J.Dickson	Selby, Harry
Fletcher, Ted(Darlington)	McCartney, Hugh	Shaw, Arnold (IlfordSouth)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael	McDonald, Dr Oonagh	Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Ford, Ben	MacFarquhar, Roderick	Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Forrester, John	McGuire, Michael (Ince)	Short, Rt. Hon E.(Newcastle C)
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)	Mackenzie, Gregor	Short, MrsRenée (Wolv NE)
Fraser, John(Lambeth, N'w'd)	Mackintosh, John P.	Silkin, Rt Hon John(Deptford)
Freeson, Reginald	Maclennan, Robert	Silkin, Rt Hon S. C.(Dulwich)
Garrett, John (Norwich S)	McMillan, Tom (Gasgow C)	Sillars, James
Garrett, W.E. (Wallsend)	Madden, Max	Silverman, Julius
George, Bruce	Magee, Bryan	Skinner, Dennis
Gilbert, DrJohn	Mahon, Simon	Small, William
Ginsburg, David	Mallalieu, J. P. W.	Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Golding, John	Marks, Kenneth	Snape, Peter
Gould, Bryan	Marquand, David	Spearing, Nigel
Gourlay, Harry	Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)	Spriggs, Leslie
Graham, Ted	Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)	Stallard, A.W.
Grant, George (Morpeth)	Mason, Rt Hon Roy	Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Grant, John (Islington C)	Maynard, Miss Joan	Stoddart, David
Grocott, Bruce	Meacher, Michael	Stott, Roger
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)	Mellish, Rt Hon Robert	Strang, Gavin
Hardy, Peter	Mendelson, John	Strauss, Rt. Hon G. R.
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Mikardo, Ian	Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Hart, Rt Hon Judith	Millan, Bruce	Swain, Thomas
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy	Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)	Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Hatton, Frank	Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)	Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hayman, Mrs Helene	Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)	Thomas, Mike(Newcastle E)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis	Moonman, Eric	Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Heffer, Eric S.	Morris, Alfred(Wythenshawe)	Thorne, Stan (PrestonSouth)
Hooley, Frank	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Tierney, Sydney
Horam, John	Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)	Tinn, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)	Moyle, Roland	Tomlinson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)	Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick	Tomney, Frank
Huckfield, Les	Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King	Torney, Tom
Hughes, Rt Hon C.(Anglesey)	Newens, Stanley	Tuck, Raphael
Hughes, Mark (Durham)	Noble, Mike	Urwin, T. W.
Hughes, Robert(Aberdeen N)	Oakes, Gordon	Varley, Rt. Hon Eric G.
Hughes, Roy (Newport)	Ogden, Eric	Wainwright, Edwin(Dearne V)
Hunter, Adam	O'Halloran, Michael	Walden, Brian(B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (EdgeHill)	Orbach, Maurice	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)	Orme, Rt Hon Stanley	Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)	Ovenden, John	Ward, Michael
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)	Owen, Dr David	Watkins, David
Janner, Greville	Padley, Walter	Watkinson, John
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas	Palmer, Arthur	Weetch, Ken
Jeger, Mrs Lena	Park, George	Weitzman, David
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Parker, John	Wellbeloved, James
John, Brynmor	Parry, Robert	White, Frank R. (Bury)
Johnson, James (HullWest)	Pavitt, Laurie	White, James (Pollok)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S)	Peart, Rt Hon Fred	Whitehead, Phillip
Jones, Barry (East Flint)	Pendry, Tom	Whitlock, William
Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Perry, Ernest	Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Judd, Frank	Phipps, Dr Colin	Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Kaufman, Gerald	Prentice, Rt Hon Reg	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Kelley, Richard	Prescott, John	Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Kerr, Russell	Price, C. (Lewisham W)	Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Kilroy-Silk, Robert	Price, William (Rugby)	Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Kinnock, Neil	Radice, Giles	Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Lambie, David	Richardson, Miss Jo	Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Lamborn, Harry	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Wise, MrsAudrey
Lamond, James	Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)	Woodall, Alec
Latham, Arthur (Paddington)	Robinson, Geoffrey	Woof, Robert
Leadbitter, Ted	Roderick, Caerwyn	Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lee, John	Rodgers, George (Chorley)	Young, David (Bolton E)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rooker, J. W.	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lipton, Marcus	Roper, John	Mr.James Hamilton and
Litterick, Tom	Rose, Paul B.	Mr.Joseph Harper.
Lomas, Kenneth	Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)

Question accordingly negatived.

It being after Ten o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [20th July] to put forthwith the Questions on the amendments to the Bill, moved by a Member of the Government, of which notice had been given.