§ 1. Where the Secretary of State proposes to make an order extending or further extending a definable dock area, he shall refer the proposal to the Board and invite them to report to him with their opinion and advice on it.
§ 2. He shall also publish the fact that he has referred the proposal, and the manner in which the area in question is proposed to be extended—
- (a) in at least one national newspaper and at least one newspaper circulating in and around the area proposed to be extended, and
- (b) without prejudice to section 15(2) of this Act, in such other ways as he thinks most appropriate for bringing the proposal to the notice of the persons likely to be affected by an implementation of it.
§ 3. The Secretary of State shall allow at least 60 days for representations to be made to him (by the Board and others) with regard to the proposal, and shall consider any representations that are made.
§ 4.—(1) For the purpose of determining whether to proceed with the proposal, the Secretary of State may cause a public inquiry to be held; and he shall cause such an inquiry to be held if it appears to him, from representations made by the Board and others, that there are objections to the proposal (other than objections appearing to him to be merely frivolous).
§ (2) Any such inquiry shall be held by a person appointed by the Secretary of State from among persons appearing to him to be impartial as respects the subject matter of the inquiry; and the person so appointed shall report his findings to the Secretary of State, together with such recommendations (if any) as he thinks it right to make.
§ (3) In relation to any inquiry held for the purposes of this paragraph, section 250(2) and (3) of the Local Government Act 1972 (power to require witnesses' attendance etc.) apply as they do in relation to a local inquiry held under section 250(1) of that Act.
§ 4.42 p.m.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Albert Booth)I will deal first with Lords Amendment No. 1. I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)With this we may consider Lords Amendment No. 2 and the following Lords amendments:
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 5, line 30, to which the 1595 Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 3, in page 5, line 28, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) The work that may be classified is any which—
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 7, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 4, in page 8, line 3, leave out from "Scheme" to end of line 7 and insert—
(6) In this section 'port' means any one of the individual ports listed in Appendix I to the 1967 Scheme, together with any area.
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 8, line 16, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 5, in page 8, line 16, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
at premises situated in a definable dock area
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 10, line 32, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 6, in page 10, line 32, leave out
in the cargo-handling zone and
and insert
situated in a definable dock area and falling
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 12, line 28, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 7, in page 12, line 28, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
situated in a definable dock area
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 14, line 3, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 8, in page 14, line 3, leave out "in the cargo-handling zone" and insert
situated in a definable dock area
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 17, to leave out lines 36 and 37, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 9, in page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37 and insert—
'definable dock area' has the meaning given by section 4.
§ The Lords do not insist on their amendment in page 25, line 38, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following amendment in lieu thereof—
§ No. 10, in page 25, line 39, leave out "the cargo-handling zone" and insert "a definable dock area"
§ The Lords disagree to the Commons amendment in line 3 of the Lords Amendment in page 26, line 18, for the following Reason—
§ No. 11, because Clause 4 of the Bill, as agreed by both Houses to be amended, does not relate to a cargo-handling zone but to definable dock areas.
§ The Lords do not insist on their Amendment in page 26, line 35, to which the Commons have disagreed, but propose the following Amendment in lieu thereof—
§
No. 12, in page 26, line 35, leave out "outside the cargo-handling zone" and insert
not situated within a definable dock area
§ Mr. BoothThese amendments were put forward by the Government in another place and accepted without dissent by all sides in another place as being the only amendments to the Bill which should be reconsidered in the Commons. The amendments take full account of the decision which this House reached last week and seek to make an effective working measure of the Bill in light of the view of this House that the concept of a cargo-handling zone should be changed for that of a definable dock area.
The Government believe that the Bill, as amended in this House and assuming that these further amendments are agreed to, can still effectively serve the interests of the dock industry. The fact that the Lords rejected their earlier amendments to the Bill and accepted other Government amendments helped to emphasise the measure of understanding among all parties of the need for effective modern legislation in this area.
1597 The Government amendments sought to substitute throughout the Bill the concept of a definable dock area for that of a cargo-handling zone. They would ensure that a new dock labour scheme would be applied to all work to which the 1967 scheme is now applied, whether or or not located in a definable dock area. They would provide that objections to a proposad to extend any definable dock area would be subject to a public inquiry and that any subsequent order for such an extension would be laid in draft before Parliament and would need to be approved by a resolution of each House.
If these amendments are passed, we believe that we shall have gone a very long way towards meeting the original objectives of the Government as set out in a statement made to the House by my predecessor on 15th July 1974. On that occasion he said:
Successive Parliaments have recognised that in the special circumstances of the docks there is a continuing need for control over employment arrangements. We must ensure that the coverage of that control is appropriate to modern conditions."—[Official Report, 15th July 1974; Vol. 877, c. 32.]The Bill can play a positive part in achieving that end.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. James Prior (Lowestoft)The Secretary of State made a statement on Monday in which he set out the Government's view and the action which they proposed in the Lords. Their Lordships have now taken decisions, and today we have the agreed amendments back in this House.
I think that we should express our gratitude for the fact that we have a second Chamber and that, as a result of it, we have been able to make these changes. Although the Opposition think that the Bill should never have been brought before the House, it is now a considerably better Bill than it was when it first arrived.
On many occasions, Oppositions claim that Bills are better as a result of going through the House, but that is not always true. On this occasion, however, we can all honestly say that this is a very much better Bill than it was, and we are grateful for that.
We hope that the Act, as it will become, will result in a period of peace and stability in dockland and that the dockers 1598 and the other unions and workers involved will settle down so that we can achieve what we need to achieve in dockland, which is the proper reduction of the labour force as it becomes necessary with new technologies and, at the same time, a speeding up of goods going through the docks. The fact that the cargo-handling zone and the five-mile corridor have been removed from the Bill will enable confidence to return to the area so that warehouses may be built and the industry can settle down.
The message which needs to go out from this House today is that we believe that the Bill as it is now will be a better one. We hope that it will lead to peace in dockland and that everyone can work together. The one factor that we all have to face at the moment is that we cannot afford to have unnecessary disputes at a time of economic crisis or at any other time. It is with that understanding, and the wish not to prolong proceedings this afternoon, that I hope we can come now to a rapid decision on these amendments.
§ Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)I do not want to rupture the new-found harmony between the two Front Benches, but I must record the continuing disquiet felt by a large number of small ports up and down the country which are uncertain about their future.
Certainly the port of Mostyn in my constituency is in a state of great anxiety. At present it is not known whether the scheme will be extended to the port. I cannot satisfy this uncertainty. I urge the Minister to end the uncertainty at the first possible opportunity. In assessing the criteria for bringing small ports into the dock scheme area, will he bear in mind the vital importance of them to the hinterland which they serve?
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)I, too, shall be brief. I think it is necessary, however, to make some comment on the situation which this Bill now presents for the docks industry. In spite of what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) said in very sweet tones about the future of the industry, the reality is that the amended Bill has been met with serious disappointment among trade unionists operating the ports of this country.
The decisions of this House and of the other place indicate the lack of understanding which exists on the problems in 1599 the industry, and the Government's attempt to tackle them. Misunderstandings and distortions outside have led to a general feeling that this Bill is intended to do something quite different from what the Secretary of State said it would do in Committee and on the Floor of the House.
In my opinion, without the five-mile zone this Bill becomes less meaningful than it was in its original form. This fact will not be fully understood by those who do not know the history of the industry in the past 10 to 15 years. The Bill was an attempt, not for the first time, to recover a position in the docks whereby there was an adequate classification of dock work. Most disputes in the deck industry have stemmed from the lack of a clear definition of dock work and the lack of a clear classification. This Bill was intended to set out the arrangements to deal with such matters.
Those who hope for peace in the docks must look carefully at the decisions taken by Parliament to reduce the Bill to the meaningless state in which it is now. I hope that at the first opportunity the Government will take the necessary steps to bring back into the Bill the spirit and the intention of what it set out to achieve originally. No less than that will solve the problems of the industry.
§ Mr. Stephen Ross (Isle of Wight)I remind the House that Liberals have opposed the Bill from the beginning. Indeed, it was our motion on the Queen's Speech last year which objected to it originally, and our position has been consistent all the way through.
Having said that, I go along with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) in saying that this is a better Bill than the one we had in Committee, even if it had to be brought about by abstentions on the Government side.
I do not agree with the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) in what he said about the five-mile corridor. I believe that the inclusion of such a corridor would have led to inter-union confrontation. I, too, hope for peace in the docks, but the five-mile corridor would not have assisted that.
I join with the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) in what he said 1600 about uncertainty in small ports. I wish that the Minister had accepted the amendment on small ports because it was a very minor one. It would have taken out of the Bill the very small ports which I am sure it is not intended to include. This would have resolved the situation in places such as my constituency, where small ports are still in a state of uncertainty. I can tell them that I am sure that they will not be included, but nevertheless they have to go through the procedure laid down in the Bill, and that seems unnecessary and bureaucratic.
However, I welcome the Secretary of State's acceptance of the position and the amendments which he has drafted to meet the decision of the House the other day. I hone that now there will be peace in the docks industry.
§ Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)I echo the closing sentence of the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) in hoping that now there will be peace in the docks industry. But I must point out that this was the objective of the Bill originally.
There has been so much misunderstanding about the purposes of the Bill, and the nature of the changes made to it last week. This misunderstanding is still rife in London dockland because communications in the industry are appalling and as low as anything I have come across anywhere. In fact, we cannot congratulate ourselves on the communication about the Bill between the two Houses of Parliament. Continually during the last year, and particularly in the last week, the popular media have been talking about dockers having a monopoly on certain types of job.
I appeared on television where the introduction from the apparently neutral commentator was a travesty of the purposes of the Bill. People have not been told that all those working on their own account, inland waterways, navigation, and the petroleum industry, as well as airports, are specifically excluded from the Bill. That has not been made clear. Nor has it been made clear that in order to qualify for inclusion in the scheme a port must pass a 10-category test and three other tests. Perhaps this lack of understanding is due to the fact that the Government, for reasons best known to themselves, did not produce a White 1601 Paper on the way in which the Bill would have worked in its original form.
I hope, therefore, that in this last debate on the Bill this Session we can at least agree across the Floor of the House that communications in public life and in the docks particularly are not good enough. Historically that has been one reason why things have gone wrong. In accepting these amendments, which still provide a very viable basis for extending the scheme, I hope that the Bill will provide a proper definition of what dock work is and what it is not.
5.0 p.m.
The Bill will take out of the hands of magistrates' courts the invidious task of deciding very technical matters and will put that properly in locally appointed boards. It will provide a basis upon which we can go forward. Certainly in London it will include all the work classified up to now. It will provide an opportunity for the Secretary of State, albeit after public inquiry and affirmative resolution of both Houses of Parliament, to extend the scheme. Therefore, many of the rumours and misrepresentations that have been flying around in the last week are without basis.
The Bill will provide something of a basis whereby we can go forward. Contrary to the screaming headlines, such as "Bill in tatters", "Bill disembowelled" and so on, the structure of the Bill and the definitions and machinery that it provides are still there.
Therefore, I hope very much that even in its present state the Bill will provide a sound and workable basis for better understanding in dockland. But that means hard work. It means understanding by not only employees but employers. In passing the Bill in its present state, I hope that we shall have a basis for going forward, and not, as the hon. Member for Brentford and Isleworth (Mr. Hayhoe) and his right hon. Friend the Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) indicated on Second Reading, the start of a dismantling of the present scheme. That was what right hon. and hon. Gentlemen said on Second Reading and what they indicated in Committee. I hope that they will at least agree that we have a reasonable basis from which we can all progress.
§ Mr. Graham Page (Crosby)It is the power of the Secretary of State to extend this scheme about which I am most concerned. I represent a constituency that contains a very large dock area. There was great consternation there about the five-mile limit. There is some satisfaction about the reduction of that limit, but it is also noticed that the Secretary of State has the power to extend it back again. Therefore, one is apt to look at that power of extension very closely.
I do not know whether I have an early print of the Lords amendments, but there must surely be a misprint in subsection (5) of Lords Amendment No. 1. The previous subsection says,
The Secretary of State may—by order extend that area".Then subsection (5) says,An order shall not be made under subsection (4) in relation to a definable dock area unless a draft of the order has been laid before Parliament—it is all right as far as that—and approved by a resolution of the House.
§ Mr. Deputy SpeakerI am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has drawn the attention of the House to that matter. The subsection should read "each House" instead of "the House".
§ Mr. PageI am much obliged, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I hope that I have not held up the House unnecessarily. How ever, if we may now understand this to be in the proper form, I am very grateful.
§ Mr. BoothPerhaps I may try to sus-stain the atmosphere of agreement between the two Front Benches for as long as possible. I agree with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) that the Bill is a better one for having gone through this House. My reasons for coming to that view may be slightly different from the right hon. Gentleman's reasons. I have in mind particularly the amendments made in Committee to make clear beyond peradventure that anyone whose work was classified as dock work would have complete statutory protection. These were very useful improvements to the Bill.
I speak with some trepidation on the subject of small ports particularly the point made by the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and that made by the hon. Member for Isle of Wight 1603 (Mr. Ross), because small ports, as such, are not specifically covered by these amendments. However, I think that some of the remarks made reflected a misunderstanding of the debate of last week, because the option before the House was not one of agreeing with the Bill provided that the tests that are now in the Bill for the small ports permanently define small ports for all time. The alternative before the House was a formula for small ports, with a power to amend the formula. Therefore, there was a flexibility in the alternative that the House considered and rejected. The method that remains in the Bill for determining whether small ports should be brought within the scheme is one that lends itself to modern dock working conditions.
My hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool. Garston (Mr. Loyden) has said that without the five-mile limit the Bill is less meaningful. I shall not comment on that in a way that suggests agreement or disagreement with the decision taken by the House last week on the issue. That is a decision of the House which I am doing my best to implement very fully.
However, I think I am entitled, as it is a matter that is subject to the present amendments, to say that under the amendments now before us there is scope for moving from the definable dock area by extension, as there was in the alternative considered by the House.
The power of extension in the amendment now before us makes the power to extend subject, first, to public inquiry if there is objection to the proposed draft extension. It also limits the power in such a way as it may be applied to only one definable dock area at a time, and it retains the proposition that has been in the Bill from the very outset that the extension shall take place only where the proposition was affirmed by both Houses of Parliament.
Therefore, while there is a change in the concept, there is no change in the basic proposition—that whatever geographical area we take within the Bill, under modern dock work conditions and with the changes that are taking place in the industry, a power to extend by examination of the situation on the 1604 ground is a desirable feature. This has been retained in the Bill.
§ Sir. A. MeyerI fully accept that the Lords amendment which the House rejected would not have given any greater certainty to the small ports as to their future than they have under the present situation. However, will the right hon. Gentleman respond to my earlier appeal and say that he will give the earliest possible indication, if not of those ports which are to be included and those which are to be excluded, at the very least of the criteria that he will adopt in assessing which ports are to come in and which are not?
§ Mr. BoothI seek to be helpful to the hon. Gentleman by saying, first, that the Bill in the form in which we proposed it to the House placed. in so far as we are considering the work now done by small ports, a limit on the amount of time in which there would be uncertainty, and there is a time limit attached to the requirement placed upon the Board both to review what is now the dock work and to consider the activities of loading and unloading operations. It would be only to the extent that a port changed its practices or increased or diminshed in its trade at some time in the future, that the question of any uncertainty—to use the hon. Gentleman's word—would again arise, and there would be a further survey.
I think that the Bill is constructed in a way that helps by putting in a time limit. Obviously, while we may have disagreements about how long should be allowed, we can agree that the Bill limits the time. The initial survey must take place within the limitations imposed by the Bill.
There is one other feature of the Bill that provides a partial answer to the question posed to me by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston when he questioned how useful the Bill is without the five-mile limit within it. As a result of the decision of the House, we have changed "cargo-handling zone" to "definable dock area", but that is not in every case a limitation of the area which comes under the survey of the Board. In some cases that change means that areas are open to survey which were 1605 not open to survey under the concept of a cargo-handling zone.
For example, the constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Nottingham, East (Mr. Dunnett), Nottingham, West (Mr. English) and Nottingham, North (Mr. Whitlock) are now within a definable dock area but were not covered by "cargo-handling zone". The constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Mr. Bishop) has just been brought within a definable dock area. It previously fell some half a mile short of his constituency, which is now brought in by "definable dock area". The constituency of Worcester has been brought in by this change, as has Leeds, which is represented by hon. Members on both sides of the House. The constituencies of my hon. Friends the Members for Wakefield (Mr. Harrison) and York (Mr. Lyon) are now within a definable dock area. That is the decision of the House to which I have responded, I hope properly.
But I must make it clear that the definable dock area is not so precise a geographical concept and is open to be surveyed in the way that the House, I take it, intended it to be surveyed, so that we can not only produce orders to set out the new dock areas or dock areas under the new scheme but also produce suitable classification orders to follow.
§ Mr. SpearingThis point is important in view of what I have said about understanding. Will the order to which the amendment refers and by which my right hon. Friend can extend the definable dock area be pre- or post-survey? If it is the latter, has he the powers to conduct the survey before that order is made? If it is pre-survey, does that mean that premises can be examined in the way in which the original Bill intended?
§ Mr. BoothThe initial survey of the area can take place prior to the order making the definable dock area. Classification can take place after that. That is to say, an initial classification is not a classification for all time. If dock work is started in new premises, that can be subject to survey and under the procedures of the Bill subsequently to classification. So classification can take place before and after survey. The most com- 1606 mon form which will be practised will be to bring at least two orders in respect of each area—one to state that there is a definable dock area and the second to say what is classified work within the area. But subsequent classification can take place. One effect of the amendments is that existing dock work under the present scheme can remain and will remain dock work under the new scheme even if it is outside the definable dock area.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) said that there has been wide misrepresentation and misunderstanding of the Bill. I hope that we can do much to deal with that problem now, but I have to point out the limitations which were on my hon. Friends and me as Ministers in dealing with this issue. We brought forward a consultative document rather than a White Paper. I do not apologise for that. For an issue such as this, it was most important that there should be consultation.
However, having done that, the Government cannot spend funds publicising a Bill. The Government cannot use public funds to combat propaganda. What we can do when the Bill is enacted. and what I hope we shall be able to do, is spend public funds on publicising the measure in the form in which Parliament has decided that it wants it enacted. I hope that in doing that we shall remove some of the misrepresentations and misunderstandings and make a contribution to ensuring what I hope the whole House wants—that the Bill will work smoothly and make for better working in the docks industry.
§ Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)As I have made clear from Second Reading onwards, I do not like this Bill. However, this is not the occasion for a Third Reading review of whether we like it or not, except to say that it is clear that every hon. Member on this side and many Labour Members do not like the Bill. Nevertheless, I think that we would all agree that it is a better Bill than it started. That at least is to Parliament's credit.
I emphasise what has been said by my non. Friend the Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) and the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) about small ports. There is still concern about what 1607 will happen both to the small ports which are scheme ports and to those which are not. Clearly, uncertainty can lead to difficulties for the future. Therefore, I underline the request which has been made that we should remove as much uncertainty as fast as possible.
This is the last time that we shall deal with this Bill in this Session and one hopes that it will achieve the objective of improving conditions in the docks industry. I hope that the fears which we have expressed about some features of the Bill will not come to pass. However, even though it has been amended, it would have been much better if we had cut its throat at the start.
§ Question put and agreed to.
§ Lords Amendments Nos. 2 to 10 agreed to.