§ The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. John Wakeham)I beg to move,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
§
Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House, on or before that day.
§
Report and Third Reading
2.—
§
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
§
Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
§
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§
Extra time on allotted days
7.—
§
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
§
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.
(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
§
Supplemental orders
10.—
§
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
§
Reccommittal
12.—
§
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.
The House will be familiar with the simple aim of the Dock Work Bill—to bring the national dock labour scheme to an end quickly, but in an orderly fashion and with continued special provision for dock workers' severance. There are many arguments in favour of abolishing the scheme—including the desirability of ending restrictive practices and reducing the burden that they impose on the taxpayer—but the most potent, in my view, is that the scheme will ensure a better future for the ports industry in this country, and a better future for those working within the industry.
I recognise, of course, that the Labour party does not agree with that view, and that even if I possessed the persuasive powers of Socrates I should probably still not succeed in diverting its members from their chosen path. The merits of the measure, however, are not the central issue in this debate. We are concerned this afternoon with whether or not to establish a timetable for the consideration of the Bill in Committee and when it returns to the Floor of the House.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Will the Leader of the House answer a question to which I have been trying to find an answer ever since the White Paper was published? All parliamentary questions and all correspondence with the Secretary of State for Employment made it clear that the Government had no plans to abolish the national dock labour scheme in this Parliament. Why have they suddenly changed their mind?
§ Mr. WakehamI do not think that that statement is correct. I remember answering many questions from this Dispatch Box, and I have no doubt that I consulted my right hon. Friend before we said that we had no plans "at present" to abolish the scheme. We then made a statement and proceeded from that date. I do not think that we completely ruled out such action at any time. The Bill was brought in in a perfectly proper fashion.
The arguments for a sensible timetable are compelling. The Labour party is on record as being committed to resisting the Bill by all means at its disposal. The hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) said so on Second Reading, and his hon. Friends have said as much in Committee. We do not have to look far to see what those means will be. What action they are or are not taking outside Parliament is not a matter for this motion, but inside Parliament the Official Opposition's hand was revealed during the first sitting of the Committee, when the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) said:
It may sound naughty and public opinion may be a little shocked, but all we can do is delay the legislation."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 25 April 1989; c. 24.]The hon. Gentleman has certainly commenced his attempt to do so. During one of his two-hour speeches, I noticed that he was brought to order no fewer than 10 times by the Chairman as he sought to widen the debate to include the reasons why he had not turned up to a previous sitting, the education of members of the Committee, his inability to spell the word "chasuble", television crews' visits to Rotterdam, dock workers' dinners, and component assembly work. He spoke about almost everything except the amendments in question.It is as well for the hon. Member that he obeyed, for a few seconds at least, the Chairman's injunction to
return to the amendments …— or else.His hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing) did not do quite so well. He was brought to order by the Chair for tedious repetition a mere nine times in one of his speeches. The philosophy behind these tactics was expressed in typically disarming fashion by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby. He said,We are saying, 'Hang on a minute, mate. Don't rush it.andWe shall be in power shortly."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 137–150.]My colleagues and I on this side of the House are unwilling to wait so long to make progress with the Bill. I think that the best way forward to enable the Bill to be discussed in a sensible and balanced manner is thus to pass a timetable motion at this stage of the Committee proceedings. The Committee has now sat for 29 hours. My motion today would allow it to sit for at least another 30. For what the Opposition have repeatedly referred to as a one-clause Bill, that is a very generous amount of time. In addition, there will be a full day until midnight for the remaining stages.
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)Is there any precedent for the imposition of the guillotine after 29 hours, except for the consideration of Bills by a Committee of the whole House?
§ Mr. WakehamThere were certainly guillotines immediately after Second Readings of the Scotland Bill and the Wales Bill. They were introduced by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot). [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman can argue his case later. The right 561 hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent has said on a number of occasions in this House that there is always a first time for everything.
§ Mr. MeacherAnd that is now.
§ Mr. WakehamThis is a one-clause Bill. The timetable motion will allow plenty of time to debate it.
In the debate last week on the timetable motion for the Self-Governing Schools etc., (Scotland) Bill, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) accused me of celebrating the 200th anniversary of the French revolution by dressing up as Madame Defarge and guillotining everything in sight. However, he has an inaccurate sense of historical analogy. I am surprised that the hon. Member did not know that the relevant anniversary is the 150th birthday of Bradshaw's railway timetable, first published in 1839. It is this difference between the guillotine and the timetable which the Opposition do not or pretend not to understand.
The guillotine, as operated by their right hon. Friend the Member for Blaenau Gwent during his version of the Terror, was designed to cut short debate in its prime. My timetable motions, introduced for the most part at an earlier stage, aim to ensure satisfactory scrutiny of the whole Bill. In deciding whether to move such motions, I have in mind the views of the Procedure Committee report in the last Parliament: that the introduction of a timetable motion too late in the Committee stage can lead to inadequate consideration of a Bill's later clauses. In the debate on procedure last November, I said that, while I preferred to proceed on the basis of agreement wherever possible, and this in the majority of cases, I shared the desire of the Committee to move towards timetable motions, where they are necessary, at a time which allows for properly apportioned consideration.
In the timetable motion debate the other night, I was glad to receive support for this concept from the Social and Liberal Democratic party, in a thoughtful speech by the hon. Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie). My approach, therefore, is based on a considered timetable for, rather than guillotining of, debate: George Bradshaw rather than Madame Defarge.
The Dock Work Bill is undoubtedly controversial, and I regret that this controversy makes it difficult to reach informal agreement with the Opposition on the Bill's progress. Judging by the reports of the Committee stage that I have read, the Opposition have not exactly been short of time in which to make their points, and, indeed, have been spinning things out for as long as possible.
I hope that the motion that I am moving this afternoon will, by establishing a definite though distant time for debate to finish, concentrate minds and ensure proper scrutiny of this worthwhile and beneficial measure. I commend the motion to the House.
§ Mr. Frank Dobson (Holborn and St. Pancras)I do not want to get into lengthy disputes with the Leader of the House about historical analogies, but it might be worth putting on record the fact that we shall not be able to celebrate the anniversary of the guillotine for another three years, because I believe that it came into operation in 1792. If everyone were given their credit, the guillotine would not be so called because, using an anachronistic method of putting things out to tender, after M. Guillotine had 562 proposed the idea, the revolutionary French put it out to tender and the guillotine was built by a German called Schmidt. Perhaps we should be discussing a Schmidt motion today, but I shall not do that, because it will confuse those who do not understand.
This is the 11th guillotine motion that has been moved by the Leader of the House since he was replaced as Government Chief Whip and given the job of upholding the rights and privileges of the House. Each time that he speaks on guillotine motions he gives different justifications, which boil down to a restatement of Wakeham's law —"When debate becomes embarrassing to the Government, I use our majority of 100 to stifle it." That is what he intends to do with this Bill.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. DobsonCertainly not at the moment.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)Give way.
§ Mr. DobsonI said that I will not give way at the moment. I will do so in a minute or two.
The rush to curtail debate on the Dock Work Bill is all of a piece with its sudden and unheralded appearance on the parliamentary agenda. In January this year, the Prime Minister confirmed that she did not propose to abolish the dock labour scheme. The Under-Secretary of State for Employment said that the Government had
no plans to change or abolish it."—[Official Report, 14 March 1989; Vol. 149, c. 276.]On 20 March, when pressed to abolish the scheme by the hon. Member for Bridlington (Mr. Townend), the Secretary of State referred him to the Prime Minister's answer in January.Out of the blue, on 6 April the Secretary of State announced that the dock labour scheme was to be abolished. In an attempt to justify this peculiar timing, he talked of
an emerging consensus … that the scheme should go."—[Official Report, 6 April 1989; Vol. 150, c. 345.]It was a strange emerging consensus, because unless the Secretary of State was lying on 20 March—I am sure that he was not—until that date the consensus appeared to exclude him and the Prime Minister. Few things in nature have a life cycle as short as this rather peculiar emerging consensus. The only example of which I can think is the emergence of a blowfly from a decaying carcase, which takes from two to three weeks depending on how warm things are getting, which is significant in itself.Everyone knows that the Bill was introduced in the hope that it would provoke a strike, which the Government believed would make the Labour party unpopular and, at the same time, make it possible for the Government to blame someone else for the worsening trade figures. That is why it was rushed forward. If the Secretary of State wishes to dispute what I am saying, I challenge him to make public every document and record of discussions between Ministers, civil servants, port employers and shippers over the past six months. If he fails to do so, it will be because he knows that the publication of that evidence will incriminate him.
§ Mr. Tony Banks (Newham, North-West)Perhaps my hon. Friend should also ask that the menus of the lunches between the port employers and Conservative Members be 563 placed on record. They were large and expensive lunches. On this occasion, the port employers must have felt that they had invested their money most wisely.
§ Mr. DobsonIt seems quite possible that they made what they considered to be a wise investment, although there are other investments that would be wiser.
§ Mr. Nicholas BennettI am interested in the hon. Gentleman's arguments about a dock strike, which were also put forward by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) in Committee. Can he explain to the House why he believes that a national dock strike, which would lead to imports being held up until the end of the strike and then flooding in, but which would, at the same time, damage our long-term export potential, would help the balance of payments? How can he believe that to be good economics? Perhaps this is the economics of the Socialist madhouse, but it is not the economics of the real world.
§ Mr. DobsonNothing the dockers do could do as much harm to Britain's balance of trade and balance of payments as the combined efforts of the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister. However, any interruption through industrial action would mean that the Government would be able to cast further doubts—I say "further doubts" deliberately—on the accuracy of the trade figures, which the Government are already calling into question now that they have become an embarrassment.
The announcement was geared to the Vale of Glamorgan by-election. Barry, the biggest town in the constituency, is a scheme port and from the word go, the Tories made every effort to turn the dock labour scheme into an issue on the door-step. The Tory candidate tried repeatedly to breathe life into this artificial issue. If any Conservative Members doubt that, they should read the Western Mail for 8 April, which said that the issue had enabled the Tory candidate to bring an end to the phoney way and start the campaign. At early Labour press conferences, each newly arrived Tory newspaper reporter could be relied on to raise the issue. But look what happened: the people of the Vale saw through the Tory contrivance, and the swing to Labour was the biggest since even before the dock labour scheme was introduced, which was a long time ago.
The reasons the Government give for abolishing the scheme do not bear close scrutiny, which is why they want to curtail the debate. They assert that some scheme ports have lost passengers and cargo. Some have, but that has little or nothing to do with the dock labour scheme. Most of the difference results from technological changes, shifting patterns of trade and the introduction of bulk carriers and containerisation. There are other reasons apart from technological changes in the docks. Most of the passengers who once sailed in and out of Liverpool and Southampton now fly in and out of Heathrow and Gatwick. Some goods that used to go by sea are now air freighted. Who would have believed, 25 years ago, that the economics of flying would eventually have permitted the air freighting of such a common cargo as potatoes?
There has also been a shift in the direction of our trade towards Europe, so that ports in the south-east have tended to do well—whether new, non-scheme ports such as 564 Felixstowe, old, non-scheme ports such as Dover or previously small, old scheme ports such as Ipswich. The increase in traffic since 1982 in the non-scheme ports has been matched by that in the scheme ports. Major investment is planned or under way in such scheme ports as Immingham, Southampton, Bristol, King's Lynn, Goole, Hull, Ayr, Swansea, Newport and Tilbury. Most of the investment required has been made by opponents of the dock labour scheme who, unlike the Government, have not been taken in by their own propaganda. Their actions have cast doubt on their assertions that the scheme ports cannot compete with non-scheme ports.
The Government's arguments in the House have themselves been contradictory. The Secretary of State for Employment talked about the scheme providing "jobs for life". In the same speech he said:
Jobs have gone … and long lines of workers have volunteered to leave the industry altogether."—[Official Report, 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 43–44.]Both those statements cannot be right, and most people realise that the second assertion is much nearer the truth than the first.What of the remaining scheme dockers—those whose main fear is a loss of reasonable job security and a return to casual working instead of regular guaranteed work? By its very nature, demand for dock work can fluctuate from day to day. The Government want the dock workers to bear the brunt of that fluctuation, and some of the Government's supporters think that dock workers should get paid only when they are loading or unloading ships. Why should dock workers be different from anyone else? Soldiers are not paid only when there is a war, or MPs only when they are voting. Parliamentary correspondents do not get paid only when they are sitting in the Press Gallery; if they did, many of them would have their money stopped at this moment. Industrial correspondents are paid even when there are no disputes and when their newspaper contains no stories of disputes.
Both the Government and the employers say that they do not intend to reintroduce casual working in the scheme ports. If the employers mean what they say, they should negotiate with the Transport and General Workers Union to reach a binding agreement not to introduce casual working. If the Government mean what they say, they should pass a law to guarantee just that. To provide statutory backing for regular working would make no difference if the port employers are telling the truth; such legislation would come into operation only if it turned out that the employers had been lying. The Secretary of State should show some confidence in the good faith of his friends, the port employers.
The port employers are, indeed, the good friends of the Tory party and, to be fair, the Tories have been good friends to the port employers. That is only in accordance with the Tory maxim that a friend who gives £100,000 to party funds is a friend indeed.
§ Mr. Nicholas BennettWill the hon. Gentleman tell us how friendly the Labour party is with the Transport and General Workers Union—the union that supports the dockers? How much has the TGWU given the Labour party to oppose the measure?
§ Mr. DobsonAs everybody knows, the TGWU gives substantial sums to sustain the Labour party. It is worth remembering that the union is there to represent the dockers, not to tell them what to do. We should remember 565 the basic democratic arrangements in the trade unions—different from the rather undemocratic arrangements surrounding some of the port employers. The Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, which is part of P and 0 —the owners of the Herald of Free Enterprise, who have still to be prosecuted—in effect bought planning permission from the Tory party for further development at Felixstowe. To get the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill through the House, the Prime Minister stayed up half the night and the Government sacrificed a whole day of Government business.
§ Mr. Don Dixon (Jarrow)They had a champagne party.
§ Mr. DobsonAs my hon. Friend the Member for Jarrow (Mr. Dixon) says, they had a champagne party to help sustain the weaker brethren through the long watches of the night. Similar Tory help has been given to Associated British Ports, to help it to promote some if its Bills. At the time, some of my colleagues asked whether there was no end to this dubious Government's dubious help for the port employers. The answer appears to be no. The Bill is unique; it quite reverses the usual role of an Employment Minister. Previous holders of the post have seen it as their job to promote good industrial relations and to keep disputes to a minimum, and have introduced measures which they believed, rightly or wrongly, would achieve that.
The Dock Work Bill is different. It is intended to do quite the reverse—to provoke an industrial dispute. If not, why was there no consultation? Take the proposed reform of the legal profession. In response to threatened industrial action, the judges got their consultation period extended. That happened after a long debate in the House of Lords, where they really do have jobs for life. In his discussions about the future of the National Health Service, the Secretary of State for Health has occasionally behaved as though he thought he was dealing with dockers rather than doctors but it seems that his recent personal and party experiences in Vale of Glamorgan have weakened his resolve.
Now it is only the scheme workers who are being treated like the loyal workers at GCHQ and told without warning that their rights are being taken away. This Bill has been introduced not in the interests of the country or even in the interests of the ports industry—it has certainly not been introduced in the interests of the port workers —but in what the Government wrongly believe will be the short-term interest of the Tory party. It is seen by it as a piece of news management, not something which affects the lives of dock workers and their families.
The timing of this guillotine was intended as another piece of news management, but it has gone wrong. Today was originally to have been devoted to a debate on the Finance Bill. That was changed. This guillotine debate was planned so that it would coincide with the tube strike which the Government believed would occur today, so, at one and the same time, industrial strife would have been the topic both in and out of Parliament. Alas for the Government, in Burns' immortal words
The best laid schemes o' mice an' menGang aft a-gley.No doubt with unintended irony, London Regional Transport has upset the Government's timing of the debate by using the Government's own industrial relation laws to stop a tube strike starting today. Things are getting bad. Even Bernard Ingham appears to be losing his grip.566 If Ministers and the Leader of the House challenge what I say, will the Leader of the House explain why this guillotine motion was suddenly brought forward and why it became more important than the Finance Bill, and the debate later this week on the future of the National Health Service? From experience, we have come to know that everything that now takes place in this House is geared to news management to maximise what the Government believe will be political benefits for the Tory party.
The Government should abandon this guillotine and withdraw the Bill. If they are really interested in the future of the ports industry, they should bring employers and employees together to work out a future for the docks industry that enables it to modernise and expand and, at the same time, meet the legitimate wishes of dock workers for secure and regular work. All hon. Members have relatively secure and regular work. We should not wish to reduce the working conditions of others who are worse off than ourselves, as a bit of party political spite and news management. That is why Opposition Members oppose the guillotine today.
§ Mr. Ian Gow (Eastbourne)The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) criticised the Government because, in his view, they changed their mind about the abolition of the dock labour scheme. At the very moment at which the hon. Gentleman addressed the House, a meeting of his party's national executive was taking place. It is a matter of deep regret to you, Mr. Speaker, as it is to me that neither the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Fool.) nor the right hon. Member for Bethnal Green and Stepney (Mr. Shore) is a member of the national executive. Their stabilising influence would have been much in demand.
The remarks that characterised the hon. Gentleman's speech—those about changing policy—could not have been made at a more opportune time. We are told that the Labour party's most important sovereign body—its national executive, no less—is examining every aspect of Labour party policy. Judging from some of the criticisms that have come from Left-wing members of the Labour party, it is certainly possible—
§ Mr. SpeakerOrder. The hon. Member has just started his speech, but I hope that he will relate his remarks to the timetable motion.
§ Mr. GowI was saying that an accusation that was levelled at my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment was that the Government had changed their policy. That accusation can properly be levelled at my right hon. Friend—it is a fair allegation—but there is no sin in changing policy.
§ Mr. Robert HughesI am sorry, but the hon. Gentleman has got it wrong. There has never been any doubt in the Government's mind or in their proposals that at some stage—they have said this in writing—they intended to tackle the national dock labour scheme. The deception in the change of policy is that they said that it would not be tackled this Parliament, but suddenly, with no more than 24 hours' notice, a White Paper and a Bill were produced.
§ Mr. GowI reject the charge of deception that has been levelled at the Treasury Bench. Although I agree that there 567 has been a change of policy, it lies ill on the lips of the shadow Leader of the House to rebuke us for changing our policy when today and tomorrow of all days the Labour party is engaged on what purports to be a change in its policy.
§ Mr. Ron Leighton (Newham, North-East)Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that we are different? My right hon. Friend the leader of the Labour party said two years ago that it was his intention to review his policy, but the Government were saying that they had no plans to abolish the dock labour scheme precisely when they were feverishly working on the White Paper. The Labour party has been completely honest and open, whereas the Government have been completely dishonest.
§ Mr. GowThere is certainly room for two views on the openness of the Labour party when conducting its policy review. We are told that the great documents that are under consideration today will not be published until next week. I do not want to stray too much into the policy of the Labour party—
§ Mr. McLoughlinrose—
§ Mr. GowNo, I shall not give way, because I should like to make a bit of progress.
There is another aspect to the charge that has been levelled at my right hon. Friend with which I wish to deal. Almost 30 years ago, I made a journey to Blackpool. The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent was also there. We both attended the Labour party conference that followed the then unprecedented third successive defeat of the right hon. Gentleman's party. He will remember as vividly as I do the speech made by Aneurin Bevan, who said, "You know, comrades, to change policies is not a confession of sin; otherwise the whole of history would be a series of confessions." I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman will remember those words.
I advise my right hon. Friends on the Treasury Bench that I welcome most warmly the change of policy or change of timing that led to the introduction of the Dock Work Bill. I do not wish to rebuke my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council or my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment for having decided to introduce that measure at this time. If I have any criticism of my right hon. Friends, it is that they did not introduce the Bill earlier. The Government having made the courageous and correct decision to introduce the Bill, and my having studied what happened in Committee, having read the speeches of some Opposition Members and having been reminded of the 29 hours that have passed, it is perfectly clear that my right hon. Friend's timetable motion would have been justified, even had he introduced it earlier. Therefore, my right hon. Friend, who has expounded the principles upon which the introduction of a timetable motion should rest, is entirely justified in what he has done.
I go further. I believe that there is a case for such actions when it becomes clear—as it frequently does, even before we embark on the Committee stage of a Bill—that there will be deep controversy and deep hostility. Had I been in the shoes of the hon. Member of Holborn and St. Pancras —it is difficult to put myself into the mind of a Socialist, but I shall try—had I been a member of the Opposition 568 and had I been strongly opposed to the Bill, of course I should have deployed precisely the tactics that have been employed by the Labour party in Committee. Nobody is rebuking Opposition Members for doing that. All we are saying is that the Government have a responsibility to secure the passage of their legislation. While ensuring a reasonable opportunity for debate and in relation to the length of the Bill, this timetable motion is most generous.
Therefore, that which we are being asked to do this afternoon is entirely reasonable. I hope that the Bill, which has been too long delayed, will reach the statute book in the minimum time.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)Does the hon. Gentleman not recognise that it is not necessarily the number of clauses in the Bill that matters, but the effect that one clause will have on the entire industry? Therefore, his argument that it requires only a brief period of discussion does not face up to the reality that those eight clauses will overturn completely the practices in one of this country's key industries.
§ Mr. GowI do not under-estimate for one moment the importance and significance of the Bill or the far-reaching consequences that it will have for our docks and for our dockers. The hon. Gentleman is right. I believe that the situation that will apply in our docks after the Bill has reached the statute book will be greatly superior to that which we have endured for so long to the great disadvantage of our country and of those who work under the present scheme.
I reject the accusations of the shadow Leader of the House. I believe that the motion is entirely justified. I look forward to the Bill reaching the statute book.
§ 4.5 pm
§ Mr. Michael Foot (Blaenau Gwent)As the hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) and others have said, it is inevitable that Ministers and others will change their minds about particular forms of legislation that have been before the House. Nobody would advance the idea that such changes should be denounced just because they are changes. That would be utterly absurd on any day of the week, let alone on a day when my party may be discussing policies elsewhere.
However, it is a matter of great importance to the House that, when changes are made—especially dealing with previous agreements that may have been made with great sections of the community—those changes should be carried through in a way which at least to some degree conforms with the House's conventions, which have been established to protect people's good faith and previous agreements.
I have a sort of double interest in the dock labour scheme and what the Leader of the House has proposed. I am interested because I recall what happened both when I was Leader of the House and when the dock labour scheme was discussed. It is bad faith for the Government to do what they are proposing, partly for the reasons that have been elaborated by my hon. Friends, which I will reiterate, and partly because of what happened some years ago.
Between 1970 and 1979, both under the Administration of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath) and under the Labour Government, there were many discussions between dockers' leaders and employers 569 and people engaged in the dock industry, after which it was agreed to continue the dock labour scheme, partly because of what occurred just after the war—casual employment and all the horrors associated with that—and because later we wished to establish the scheme on a more far-reaching basis. That was why we introduced the Dock Work Regulation Bill in 1976 on which there was a guillotine motion.
However, the Leader of the House and, I am sorry to say, the Secretary of State for Employment appear to forget the agreements that were made between dockers' leaders, the trade unions—chiefly the Transport and General Workers Union, although it was not the sole union dealing with the docks—and the dock employers. There was an agreement between Lord Aldington and Jack Jones, which was known as the Jones-Aldington agreement. It was the basis on which they provided for the future of the industry for a number of years ahead.
As often happens in properly conducted industrial affairs, concessions were made on both sides, and agreement was reached between the representative of the employers, Lord Aldington, and Jack Jones, who represented the Transport and General Workers Union. They came to a bargain, but the Government have torn it up.
I am sure that Lord Aldington would never have been a party to such a procedure as this. Indeed, I wonder whether the Government have ever asked him or those who speak for him on these matters what he thinks about it. An agreement was reached between the employers, represented by Lord Aldington, and the unions, represented by Jack Jones. If, for whatever reasons, it is to be departed from, the Government should say, "Let us negotiate. Let us see what we agreed before and how we may change it." The Department of Employment should have followed that procedure, whatever Lord Aldington had to say. That is why it is so disgraceful for the Department to proceed in this way without any offer of negotiations.
Time and again when the Bill was discussed the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) put the Government on the spot when he said, "Won't you agree to negotiations? Why have you rejected them? Why not have negotiations now? There is still a chance." Every offer and every suggestion of a way to settle the matter by negotiation rather than by dispute was mooted by my hon. Friend in a most admirable speech for the Opposition.
If peace breaks down, the guilt will rest directly on the Government Front Bench. The chief guilt lies with the Secretary of State for Employment, but now it must be shared by the Leader of the House, who is a party to this method of deceiving the House of Commons. This is a deceit. Not many weeks ago, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) and I were present when the matter was discussed. The Government gave not the slightest sign that they would change their mind and depart from the agreement. In a sense they accepted our arguments and rejected those on the Order Paper tabled by Tory Members. Again, that does not bind the Government for ever, but if they wished to be honest in changing the position they should have talked to the unions, the dockers and the House of Commons about it. Instead, they did the whole manoeuvre behind everybody's backs.
That is why I say that the Leader of the House has behaved disgracefully. He could have stopped this. He 570 could have said, "All right, first let's see if we can negotiate with those with whom we negotiated previously. Let us see whether the unions consider the circumstances to be a s much changed as the employers do."
The Government have torn up an agreement which was reached despite great difficulties in the docks. They have torn it up unilaterally. How can they think that they can ever say convincingly to workers, "You must stand by your agreements. You must not break any agreement," when they have broken up most brazenly the whole agreement between employers, the Government and dock workers?
The other day we had exchanges about how the Government would operate these guillotine motions. The Leader of the House has come near to telling us that he favours a permanent system of timetable motions. We all know that that has been debated frequently in the House and that the Chairman of the Select Committee on Procedure favours the proposal, but the House has always rejected it, and rightly so.
Even when I was in government and wanted to use timetable motions—I was forced to use them in certain circumstances, to maintain any sort of rights for the Government—I was opposed to having a system of gullotine motions settled in advance, which is what the right hon. Gentleman is now moving towards. The Leader of the House is doing so surreptitiously. He did not have the nerve to tell the country and the House about the exact procedure for dealing with the dock labour scheme and, in the same way, he has not told us exactly what he intends to do about this procedure. He seems to favour a settled system of timetable motions, and he is moving pretty fast towards it. He has introduced more guillotine motions than any other Leader of the House. That is all the more indefensible for a Leader of the House whose Government have such a huge majority. Almost all the measures would have been passed through the House quite easily without being guillotined.
This Bill may have taken a bit longer, but, with the Government's huge majority, it would still have been passed. Therefore, the right hon. Gentleman would not have forfeited the measure. It appears from what the right hon. Gentleman says that he favours a full timetable system before Bills are introduced. I oppose that, as should all Opposition parties and Governments with any sense about Parliament's future.
Such automatic and wide-ranging timetable motions play straight into the hands of the Government. They give the Government every power to complete the business, whatever the opposition from whatever quarter, and however deceitfully the Government have operated, even if they have gone behind the backs of the House, as they have with the dock labour scheme. The Government know that the legislation will go through. I hope that the House of Commons will always reject regular timetable motions which the right hon. Gentleman seems to be moving towards, even if he has not yet had the nerve to put it forward as a general proposition.
§ Mr. WakehamThe right hon. Gentleman makes a serious point. However, he is not being in any way fair. I made it abundantly clear that I did not agree with the report of the Select Committee on Procedure that recommended the automatic timetabling of public Bills, and I got into a fair amount of trouble for doing so. I have resisted following that recommendation. I have brought in 571 timetabling earlier than in the past, although not by an enormous number of hours, in order to give better consideraton to the legislation. It is better for the House to work as closely as possible with agreement on both sides. A strong body of opinion in the House wants automatic timetabling of Bills. However, I do not agree with that, for the reasons described by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot).
§ Mr. FootI am glad to hear the right hon. Gentleman say that. Anybody who was listening to him a few minutes ago would have drawn a different conclusion. He was near to applauding the Liberals' most ill-advised proposal that timetabling should be done on a regular basis. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has had a conversion on this heavily trafficked road to Damascus and that we have plucked him back to righteousness on that crowded thoroughfare, although I do not know how long he will stay there.
The right hon. Gentleman and I had a slight difference of opinion one evening last week. I quoted to him the extraordinary statement about guillotine motions made by Lord Whitelaw. Lord Whitelaw was being interviewed by Mr. Brian Walden and, as I said, I was not sure who was interviewing whom. Brian Walden laid it on thick about the wretched, shoddy, fifth-rate legislation that was being passed through the House of Lords and the House of Commons with no proper preparation. No hon. Member would doubt the truth of his allegations about the quality of the Government's legislation. However, to my surprise—because he is a genial fellow—Lord Whitelaw said that I was responsible for this position.
When I come to my final day I shall be perfectly prepared to answer for quite a number of parliamentary sins and I know them better than any other hon. Member. However, I shall not be made answerable for the shady and shoddy legislation which the right hon. Gentleman shovels through the House in the most disreputable manner. This is another example of it. The legislation being forced through the House is deteriorating rapidly.
I do not blame the draftsmen; I know what pressures are put on them. Bad legislation was pushed through last year—the poll tax, and so on—and at the fag end of the autumn the right hon. Gentleman had to introduce another half dozen guillotine motions to get the stuff through by the final day. Now, it is happening again.
It is even worse in this Session. All who sat through the two debates on the official secrets Bill know what a shoddy piece of legislation it is. Yet the Government hardly permitted a single amendment of substance to the measure, in this or the other place. The right hon. Gentleman and the Conservative party have an even bigger and more irresponsible majority in the House of Lords than they can manipulate here; that is becoming a dangerous thing for British democracy.
I do not believe that pleas from me or others will change the right hon. Gentleman's mind. The House now has no proper access to the Cabinet. The first business of the Cabinet should involve the Leader of the House telling the Prime Minister and reporting faithfully to the elective dictatorship what has occurred in the House. If the right hon. Gentleman had done that job properly in recent weeks and months, he would have had to report that the Government might have won a few votes but had hardly 572 ever won a debate. I challenge anyone to deny that what I am saying was true of the official secrets debate and of the last measures on which the right hon. Gentleman introduced a guillotine. He left it a bit late last time—we still had quite a good debate. He will not run that risk again. This time the chopper comes down even more quickly.
It is even more evil when the guillotine is applied to a measure that is of importance not only to the way in which we conduct our affairs here but to people of the country who are of great importance—the dockers. They have as many rights as others. The judges can tell the Government that they must have a chance to discuss proposals before they are shovelled through over their heads; the dockers have as much right to say that as the judges.
The right hon. Gentleman has made a grave mistake by introducing this measure, and he has done great injury to the House. In Cabinet on Thursday he should report that fact and advise the Government not to have another guillotine for a few weeks, because the British House of Commons will not stand for this for ever.
§ Mr. Patrick McLoughlin (Derbyshire, West)I welcome the motion. It is important to move on and reach conclusions on this subject.
In Committee, it has been openly admitted several times, particularly by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), that Opposition Members intend to string out the proceedings as long as possible. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has diligently attended when he has made speeches—but that is about all. He has been quick to leave as soon as he finishes.
I was interested to hear the shadow Leader of the House say that things were going from bad to worse. He implied that today's business had been changed to try to coincide with the tube strike. Next he will accuse the Government of having been behind the Underground management's move in the courts to try to have the strike delayed—a strange accusation. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is short of accusations to make, but he cannot defend the sort of tactics which his fellow hon. Members have deployed in Committee. They have tried to keep the Committee going for as long as possible without contributing to the debate. He said that he wanted the debate to be long. Nobody objects to lengthy debates, so long as they are genuine, but the Chairman of the Standing Committee, my hon. Friend the Member for Staffordshire, Moorlands (Mr. Knox), has had to call hon. Members to order. For example, he said recently:
I must admit that I am waiting with eager anticipation for the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) to refer to the amendments rather than explaining why he was not present during the previous sitting."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 124.]The Chairman has had to make that sort of statement on many occasions.Labour Members have made the strange suggestion that we introduced this legislation to promote a strike. That is an odd claim, even by their standards, because we take pleasure in the knowledge that the number of strikes has fallen dramatically since we have made unions more accountable to their members for their actions. Strikes hurt the nation's economy and its reputation.
§ Mr. LoydenIs the hon. Gentleman aware that the number of strikes has been reduced, not for the reasons 573 that he suggests but because trade unions have had a steel ring put round them by legislation? That makes it virtually impossible for strike action to occur without endangering not just union finances but possibly the unions themselves. But workers continue to worry about what is happening to their industries as a result of measures being taken by the Government.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI cannot see the hon. Gentleman's objection to trade unions having to ballot their members before strikes are called. He may be right to say that that impedes the activities of the unions, but it gives rights to trade unionists, those who must earn a living and who sometimes must accept action which is imposed on them and which they would prefer not to take. If we are charged with having returned trade unions to their members, I plead guilty with pleasure. Indeed, it could be said that trade union legislation has not gone far enough. After all, a strike lasting 12 months occurred against British Coal, when a number of us wanted to go to work and in the end succeeded in doing so.
§ Mr. Martin Flannery (Sheffield, Hillsborough)The hon. Gentleman knows about mining—[HoN. MEMBERS: "No."] He represents part of Derbyshire and I believe he was a miner. He occupies one of the greatest Tory seats in the country, embodying, among other places, Chatsworth house. Is he not aware of the fundamental difference between dictatorship and democracy—the right to withdraw one's labour? It is now virtually impossible for workers to engage in that democratic right because the anti-trade union laws make it likely that unions will have their funds sequestrated.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Gentleman is obviously at total odds with all the trade unions reforms that we have introduced. Perhaps that is why the Labour party does not intend to repeal a number of them—[Interruption.]— according to those attending a great meeting that is taking place today at the home of the very trade union that has most to fear from the legislation that we are discussing.
What will be the effect of the Bill at the end of the day? We have been told of non-scheme ports—
§ Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport, East)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI shall complete the point that I am making before I give way to the hon. Gentleman.
We know that some workers in non-scheme ports are earning more than their counterparts in scheme ports, and it seems that the Opposition are determined that that should continue. They are not prepared to allow individuals to earn the money they want.
§ Mr. Roy HughesIs the hon. Gentleman suggesting that Transport house is still the headquarters of the Labour party? If so, he is some years out of date.
§ Mr. McLoughlinOf course I am not suggesting that. I know that the Labour party's headquarters is at Walworth road. The meeting of today's national executive committee is taking place at Transport house. At least, that is what the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) said when he was about to attend the meeting to condemn everything that appears in the documents that are to be discussed. The right hon. Gentleman agrees with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Mr. Flannery). He 574 thinks that every piece of trade union reform legislation that the Government have introduced should be repealed. That is not what the Leader of the Opposition is saying.
I am aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, that I am being side-tracked. I am sure that you would soon call me back to order if I were to continue to stray, as it were.
§ Mr. Nicholas BennettI am glad to have the opportunity to intervene in my hon. Friend's speech before he leaves the important issues of industrial relations in the docks and the Labour party's attitude to them. I understand that a meeting will take place today and tomorrow to fudge and mudge, to quote the hon. Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) and the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn). Has my hon. Friend seen the transcript of the television programme "On the Record"? I refer to the programme on 23 April entitled "Union Powers Under a Labour Government", during which the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) promised that a Labour Government would bring back secondary picketing. What does my hon. Friend think the effect of that would be on labour relations?
§ Mr. McLoughlinI think that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who leads for the Opposition in Committee, found himself in a dilemma. We learned after he made that statement that he w as not speaking for the Labour party officially. Instead, he was speaking in a personal capacity. My hon. Friends and I asked the hon. Gentleman in Committee whether he was speaking as an Opposition spokesman or in a personal capacity. I do not want to dwell on that issue any longer.
Shortly after it was announced that the Bill would be introduced to the House of Commons, I heard an interesting interview with the hon. Member for Oldham, West on the Jimmy Young programme. Jimmy Young asked the hon. Gentleman whether the Labour party felt so strongly about the Bill that it would reintroduce the dock labour scheme as a matter of urgency if there were another Labour Government. The hon. Gentleman gave an interesting answer. He said that Jimmy Young had asked a purely hypothetical question. I was not sure what was hypothetical—another Labour Government or the reintroduction of the dock labour scheme. The hon. Gentleman did not make that clear. Probably both events are hypothetical. The Labour party has been reluctant to declare that it feels so strongly about this measure—
§ Mr. MeacherI have given no interview to any Jimmy Young show on this issue. What the hon. Gentleman says is pure rubbish.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Gentleman had better find out— [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] In view of the hon. Gentleman's statement, I most definitely withdraw. I can only say that someone who gave the name of the hon. Member for Oldham, West was interviewed on B13C Radio 2 about three or four weeks ago. I shall check the record, as I am sure will the hon. Gentleman. However, if he says that he gave no interview on the Jimmy Young show, I withdraw.
Throughout our consideration of the Bill in Committee, the hon. Member for Oldham, West has been reluctant to say that there would be circumstances in which the Labour party would be eager to reintroduce the dock labour scheme.
§ Mr. Robert G. Hughes (Harrow, West)Does my hon. Friend agree that the Jimmy Young programme often picks up news interviews and that it may well have used an interview from another part of the BBC? Was it not noticeable that the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) did not say that he disagreed with my hon. Friend's argument? He did not say that that was not what he was saying in other interviews. Perhaps it is merely that he did not say what my hon. Friend has suggested was said by him during a Jimmy Young programme.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Member for Oldham, West was certainly very reluctant to say that a Labour Government would reintroduce the scheme. In Committee, he found it difficult even to justify the present scheme. Instead, the Opposition referred back to other documents, saying that they would like to talk about the scheme and expressing the view that it needs changes—but they have not made any concrete proposals.
However, in Committee we heard a number of comments such as that made by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby about my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman). The hon. Gentleman said:
The hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) is a new Member and does not know the ways of Parliament. In these circumstances the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay. It is our only weapon, especially against a Government who so shamelessly misuse their powers.When I challenged the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, he replied:I shall underline the simple constitutional point for the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), who seems too obtuse to grasp it. The Opposition's only weapon is delay. That weapon will be deployed in proportion to the Government's intransigence in trying to force the Bill through. If they behave in this fashion the weapon of delay will be mobilised at length."—[Official Report, Standing Committe A, 2 May 1989; c. 216, 225.]Any negotiations that may have taken place had no impact on the activities of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who was recently sacked from the Opposition Front Bench because he started work with a new television company. Incidentally, his attendance at Standing Committee A was a little questionable, but that is fair enough. He still made speeches of great length and took up the time of the Committee. He let the cat out of the bag, saying that the Opposition's only intention was to delay the Bill's progress through the Committee, come what may.
§ Mr. Ernie Ross (Dundee, West)The hon. Gentleman, in quoting from the Official Report of Standing Committee A, attempts to suggest that it was only the Opposition who tried to introduce delay. If that is so, perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the remark made by the Chairman of that Committee, who is not a member of the Labour party, when he said:
It must be about two hours since I heard anything relevant to the amendments.Then, in response to my hon. Friend the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell), the Chairman commented:My remarks applied to hon. Members on both sides of the Committee, including the Minister.Perhaps the hon. Gentleman can explain the misuse of time by the incompetent bunch of Ministers who serve on the Committee. It is their inability to answer questions properly that delayed the proceedings. That was highlighted by the Committee's Tory Chairman when he said: 576Thoughts have been expressed on both sides of the Committee, from the Treasury Bench and elsewhere, in interventions."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 221.]From that it is clear that ministeral team's incompetence has delayed the Bill.
§ Mr. McLoughlinI agree that the Chairman of the Committee made that point. However, in fairness to the Under-Secretary of State for Employment, my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Mr. Nicholls), who wound up the debate, I point out that he was trying to respond to some of the spurious points made by Opposition Members. I should be happy to produce a full breakdown of the time taken by Opposition Members in that Committee. A lot of time wasting went on, but most of it came from those hon. Members who spoke the longest. A full breakdown of the time taken by the various speakers will give my right hon. and hon. Friends nothing to worry about, because their interventions were short and to the point. Many of the comments that have been quoted suggest that the Opposition have wasted a tremendous amount of time.
§ Mr. Ernie RossLike me, the hon. Gentleman is a member of the Committee. Can he cite one occasion on which any Conservative Back Benchers have made any contribution whatever?
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Gentleman cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse us of delaying the Committee and making spurious points, and tell us off for not taking part. That, I think, sums up our case. The charge against Conservative Members this afternoon is that we have not taken part in the debates—that we have stood back to let the Opposition have their say if they want, and that after 29 hours we have still not managed to complete the stand part debate on clause 1.
For a number of reasons, I think it absolutely right for us to move forward to get the Bill on to the statute book —not least for the benefit of those employed under the dock labour scheme. I do not know whether Labour Members are going round saying, "We are fighting this tooth and nail in the House of Commons and we will try to stop it getting through," but that is unfair on those employed in the dock labour scheme: their uncertainty must be put to an end as quickly as possible. I think that all Conservative Members will give wholehearted support to the motion.
§ Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)Much of the debate has proceeded on the basis that the Government have either changed their mind or not done so; that there is a reason for the Bill, or no reason for it. The interesting thing is, however, that from beginning to end no single Minister or Back Bencher has said why it was necessary to introduce the Bill at this time.
We know, of course, that there have been discussions about the dock labour scheme for many years. The Government sometimes seem to operate as though they were in a fog of ignorance: they keep saying that the scheme must be changed, but the truth is that the scheme as it is now is quite different from the scheme as it was first introduced. Several changes have been made, and each of those changes has been arrived at through discussion and sometimes argument. Both sides have recognised that nothing is immutable: when a scheme is in operation for 577 more than 40 years, some wrinkles may be expected to develop. Alterations in technology and in patterns of trade are expected to warrant change, which should be considered openly.
Our charge against the Government is that they have not considered the issue openly. Every time that it has been raised in this Session, they have said—certainly by implication, and in some instances specifically—that they have no plans to tackle the dock work labour scheme in the current Parliament. I defy anyone to produce a precedent—other than emergency war legislation, for instance—for the publication of a White Paper on one day and a Bill on the next, and the application of the guillotine within a month. There is neither precedent nor reason for such action.
There is an inconsistency that no one can understand in what the Government are saying, which is why the Bill must be debated fully. The Secretary of State has trumpeted that this grand design will produce 50,000 jobs; the strange thing is that the Bill provides for £25 million in redundancy pay, which means that between 1,400 and 2,500 people are to be made redundant. That is an odd way of creating jobs—sacking nearly one third of the labour force at the outset. It will not bear close examination.
The White Paper and the Minister's speech on Second Reading cited Aberdeen harbour as one of the reasons why it was essential that the Bill should be introduced with such haste. The record must be put straight. There have been no industrial relations problems in the port of Aberdeen of any kind that would justify the legislation. There has been a dispute in the fish market, which is part of Aberdeen docks, but the record has to be set straight. The difficulties were not due to the fish market porters. There have been many problems in the fishing industry. There have been quota changes; much less fish has been landed throughout the United Kingdom; there have been changes in the pattern of catches; the big trawlers no longer sail from Aberdeen, partly because of economic circumstances. The fish landing company therefore went bust; it could not pay its way. Only 12 months ago it under-estimated how much fish would be landed in Aberdeen. That had nothing to do with the scheme: it was purely circumstantial.
After the company virtually went into liquidation, the Aberdeen harbour board took up the burden of trying to obtain a new licence and establish a new company. I do not blame the harbour board for seeking to make changes in working practices and in the hours worked. However, it was more than reasonable that the fish market porters should say, "If you want to change our working conditions and if you want us to work longer, we expect some recompense for it." If their working conditions were to be changed, why should they not expect to receive some recompense for it?
These matters were still under discussion when the White Paper was published. It seems that in his haste the Secretary of State did not realise that there were difficulties at Aberdeen. As there have been no consultations and discussions, the establishment of a new fish landing company is in abeyance. Neither the Aberdeen harbour board nor the trade union knows how to continue the discussions. They do not know what is to happen. That is crazy.
The result of the Secretary of State's precipitate decision is that some fish market porters are being treated differently from others. Had I spoken in a debate when the White Paper was published, I might have commended the 578 Secretary of State for acceding to the request of Aberdeen Members of Parliament to meet the whole of the redundancy cost—£25,000—to compensate those who have to leave the industry as a result of restructuring. Even today I might also commend him for that. However, it is quite clear that he deliberately and provocatively deceived those people into taking £25,000 in severence pay, hoping that it would all be out of the way before the offer of £35,000 came on the scene.
Some of the fish market porters accepted the £25,000 redundancy payment, while others were allowed to take their names off the list. Those who applied for the £25,000 redundancy payment were told after the £35,000 announcement, "Hard luck, your name has already gone in. The Secretary of State, by not letting on what was happening, has cost you £10,000, but that's your hard luck." I do not understand how the Secretary of State, on his salary, could justify deliberately deceiving men into accepting a lower redundancy payment than the one which would be on offer a couple of days later. It was a disgraceful abuse of his parliamentary privilege.
The Secretary of State was not concerned about the loss of £10,000 by each man. All he was concerned about was getting as many people as possible to take the £25,000, which he said he would meet in full, so that—I hope that the Secretary of State is listening because, although he may think it is of no account, this is a very serious matter—by this deceitful method he could save his friends, the employers, £17,500 per man. That will be their share of the transitional payments. We have a right to be told when the Government made up their minds to introduce the Bill. On what day did they decide to introduce it? Did they realise the discrimination that they would create in Aberdeen by announcing, in the middle of discussions about restructuring the fish landing company, that they intended to introduce the Bill?
I have written to the Secretary of State about one case. I hope that he will at least be generous enough to say that some people were caught out. He will plead his innocence—I should be surprised if he pleaded his guilt—and say that it is unfortunate. I hope that the Secretary of State will be prepared to consider the issue of fish market porters who negotiated in good faith but accepted a lower redundancy payment than is currently available.
On Monday 3 April—again, the deception involved was enormous—negotiations between the Aberdeen harbour board and the trade union appeared to be moving smoothly. Fair concessions were being made and much hard bargaining was being done, but negotiations were moving. I am told by union representatives in Aberdeen that on Wednesday the board suddenly did not want to know. I have not consulted Aberdeen harbour board, which might hold a different view, but the men feel bitter and sour. They believe that the Government tipped off employers and that employers decided that all negotiations were off and prepared to ride out the storm because they knew that the Government were to scrap the scheme. I hope that the Secretary of State will stop pretending that the position at Aberdeen fish market had anything to do with the abolition of the scheme.
Aberdeen has had a magnificent investment and trade record over the years. A few years ago, the harbour was in such a rotting state that if its gates were not closed when the tide went out the harbour would collapse. In negotiations with employers, a trade union convenor used to say, "If you do not settle by 5 o'clock, I will wave my 579 hankie at the window and the dock gates will not be shut." Employers capitulated immediately, because they knew that the port would collapse.
I accept that Aberdeen has benefited from North sea oil and changing industrial conditions. The dock labour scheme has done nothing to hold back Aberdeen's development as a port. Investment in, and industrial relations at, the port have been very good, so the Minister cannot use that as a reason for this precipitate action or the guillotine.
No reason has been given for the lack of discussion between the Government, unions and employers. It is not as though there has not been sufficient time for those discussions to take place. When I was the Labour party's shadow transport spokesman, I had extensive discussions with trade unions and the National Association of Port Employers. We held long and detailed discussions about the way forward. The National Association of Port Employers always said that it was willing to negotiate and discuss matters, but again no explanation has been given for its change of mind. It was seized of the need for moderation and understood that change would occur only through discussion with unions. I warned it—and I warn it now—that if change were required and desirable, it would come about only if a proper package were put before unions and employers.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)Surely the point that the hon. Gentleman is making—I appreciate that he is making it in good faith and for the highest reasons—is undermined by the fact that Mr. John Connolly, who is convenor of the docks section of the Transport and General Workers Union, made it abundantly clear that there was no negotiation on the dock labour scheme and that it was outside consideration altogether.
§ Mr. HughesThe hon. Gentleman displays his complete ignorance of industrial relations. Any initiative had to be taken by port employers; no package had been put before the unions. If employers had been asked, "Will you be prepared to negotiate at the end of the dock labour scheme?" they would not have said, "Yes, we will negotiate," without any idea of what was in mind. What utter nonsense. I do not know what business the hon. Gentleman is in, but if he signed a contract on the understanding that its conditions would be changed later and its details thrashed out, he would be bankrupt before very long.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennettrose—
§ Mr. HughesI should like to get on; many hon. Members wish to speak.
I told the National Association of Port Employers that it would have to be prepared to accept a national negotiation scheme. It said, "Yes, we understand that." I said, "You must realise that the national pension scheme will have to be maintained." It said, "Yes, we understand that." On Second Reading, the Secretary of State said that nothing in the Bill would change the pension scheme, but that does not appear to be what employers think. They are saying, "These things will have to be discussed later." In every privatisation of a public company, be it railways, buses or airports, the Government have always frozen the existing pension scheme and said that new pension 580 arrangements must be negotiated with the new company. Under the Bill, there will be individual discussions port by port. I warn employers that workers will not wear that.
I warned the National Association of Port Employers that the national training scheme would have to be maintained. It said, "Yes, of course; that is what we want to happen." Part of the employers' case—I am surprised that Conservative Members have put the employers' case so badly—has been that the national dock labour scheme made it difficult to recruit and train new employees. That is nonsense, but it is what they said. If we take the Government at face value, it is clear that they have reneged again on this issue, because the White Paper makes it clear that these matters are best dealt with port by port.
The national medical scheme for dockers, which is one of the best of its kind in any industry, is to be broken up and decided port by port. I told the National Association of Port Employers that there would have to be some sort of national contract and some security of employment. After 10 years of Tory government, we know that no one in industry has security of employment in the sense that we should like, but there must be some security, guarantee or promise that there will be no return to casual labour. Employers have said, "We shall not return to casual labour," but the truth is that they are doing so. Port employers have said that they want a core labour force to meet the minimum throughput of a port. They want to take on additional labour as and when it is required. If that is not casual labour, I do not know what is. They must stop using language that is completely different from reality.
The Bill will scrap all the negotiations and agreements that have been built up over many years, which is why it must be properly discussed. It is unprecedented, because I do not know of any Bill that says that, in the interests of haste, a public body will be directed to sell its assets at below market value simply to get things through. That is astonishing and would be fraudulent in ordinary business—it is certainly fraudulent in thought.
The Government are not concerned about industrial relations. I do not know what will happen about the dockers' ballot, and it is not a matter in which I should intervene. I am a member of the Amalgamated Engineering Union, and I should resent it if my colleagues advised me how to deal with industrial relations. Therefore, I shall not presume to advise the Transport and General Workers Union on a matter with which it must deal.
Whatever the outcome, the Secretary of State must be in no doubt that relationships in the ports industry will be soured for many years to come. There will be a running sore, port by port, as employers scramble to drive down conditions as hard as they possibly can. The Secretary of State shakes his head, but I must confess a sense of disappointment and bitterness, to put it mildly, that the National Association of Port Employers allowed itself to be carried by hysteria whipped up by Conservative Back Benchers, or, to be more suspicious, connived in the whipping up of that hysteria. I am deeply disappointed that the many hours of negotiations I had with it, in which I accepted what was said in good faith, have been set aside, either because it was unwilling to stand up to the Government or for some other reason. People will draw their own conclusions.
I am proud that the voters of the Vale of Glamorgan took the decision they did. It marks a turning point in history. The witch's spell has been broken and the 10 years' 581 celebratory events which were supposed to happen last week turned out not to be a celebration. People's minds have been concentrated on events. They are beginning to understand that the Government, who have had an unprecedented opportunity, with their large majority and the large North sea oil revenues, to make this country one of the best industrially—
§ Mr. McLoughlinWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. HughesNo, I will not.
The Government have destroyed every opportunity and ordinary people's belief in Government. The time will soon come when they will rue the day.
§ 5 pm
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)Debates on timetable motions have become a ritual in recent years. It is interesting to look back at the history of timetable motions to see how debates were prolonged in the 19th century and how Governments then tackled the problem of Opposition Members speaking for the sake of speaking without wishing legislation to progress. The record for speaking in the House is held by Henry Brougham who, on 7 February 1828, spoke for six hours on law reform. In more recent times, my right hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Sir B. Braine) and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) have both spoken at great length. In the past week, we have had an example of a three-hour speech by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Sillars), following in the footsteps of the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner), who spoke for three hours earlier this year.
Long speeches in the House, although rare, are not unknown and in Committee, the records are even longer. The record is held by the Gas Bill in 1948, when the debate lasted for 49 hours non-stop from 10.30 am 11 May 1948 to 12.8 pm on 12 May. A fairly recent example was the former hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme, Mr. Golding, who spoke for more than 11 hours on the British Telecommunications Bill in 1982.
The Government of 1887 brought in a guillotine, because they became frustrated by the fact that legislation on Irish matters was continually held up. The record for a sitting of the House was on an Irish matter in 1881, when the House sat for 41½ hours continuously on the Protection of Personal Property (Ireland) Bill. Although we have not had so long a sitting recently, I recall that in the past year, we sat for about 29 hours on a private Bill and lost the following day's business.
Debates on timetable motions tend to be rather ritualistic.
§ Mr. Richard Holt (Langbaurgh)Just to get the record correct, the longest speech recently was made by our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton (Mr. Lawrence) in the debate on fluoridation. His speech was longer than that of Mr. Golding.
§ Mr. BennettI do not think that my hon. Friend is absolutely correct. Our hon. and learned Friend the Member for Burton spoke for about four hours, whereas Mr. Golding spoke for 11 hours in Committee. Our hon. and learned Friend did not speak for as long as that in the Chamber.
§ Mr. BennettI am referring to debates in the Chamber.
§ Mr. McLoughlinMy hon. Friend is going through history and saying that long speeches are rare occurrences. Does he intend to do a repeat performance—if so, he should perhaps warn the House first—or is he merely saying that such events happened in the past?
§ Mr. BennettMy hon. Friend is being a bit unfair. He spoke for 19 minutes, whereas I have been speaking for only three minutes. I was merely giving a little historical background to the debate, which would not come amiss.
It was interesting to listen to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) who, as always, managed to get the facts wrong, when he used them, and to get the arguments wrong, when he put any forward. He told us that the Government wanted a timetable motion today because a tube strike was due to take place, so the public would tie the two events together and rush to vote Conservative in the European elections on 15 June. He told us that the Government wanted a dock strike. He did not tell us how that could be the case, given that a national dock strike would damage the economy and would lead to imports being held up, only to flood in later. Our export potential would also be damaged.
§ Mr. Robert HughesThere are reports in today's papers that the Government seek to defend the unprecedented balance of trade deficit while employers are stocking up ready for a dock strike.
§ Mr. BennettAny employer who employs dockers or who uses the ports would be foolish if he did not take account of the words of the Transport and General Workers Union and of the fact that the ballot is taking place now. That is merely to be far-sighted. It does riot mean that the Government wish to have a dock strike; it is the Opposition who want a dock strike. The Government have nothing to gain from a strike because it would have long-term adverse effects on our export potential.
The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras went on to talk about by-elections and, as usual, got his facts wrong. He said that the result in the Vale of Glamorgan last week was the best swing to the Labour party in more than 50 years, going back to the Liverpool, Toxteth by-election in 1935. The hon. Gentleman, who is not in the Chamber now, has a short memory. If we look at the results in the past 20 years, at the Hayes and Harlington by-election in 1971, there was a 16.5 per cent. swing to Labour. In Southend, East in 1980, there was a 12.9 per cent. swing. In Brecon and Radnor, there was a 15 per cent. swing and Labour nearly won the seat, narrowly coming second to the Liberals. Only three years ago in Fulham, there was a swing of 10.9 per cent. It is not unexpected for a Government to do badly in mid-term by-elections and we know, as do the victors of Fulham and Ryedale by-elections in 1986, that winning a by-election is no long-term predictor of the next general election. It is a pity that the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras could not get right a simple matter such as that.
§ Mr. HindMy hon. Friend will remember that, between 1976 and 1979, under the last Labour Government, the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot), who was Leader of the House, introduced many guillotine motions. It is interesting to note that during that period, there were some spectacular Labour party losses, with 583 massive swings against them, especially in mining constituencies in the midlands, such as Ashfield, which was won by our hon. Friend the present Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Smith).
§ Mr. BennettMy hon. Friend is right. When the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) was Leader of the House, he guillotined five Bills in a day. The Wales Bill and the Scotland Bill had guillotines introduced immediately after Second Reading. We need take no lessons from the right hon. Gentleman when he speaks to the House about liberty and freedom, because his record of introducing guillotines in one day is unmatched by any other hon. Member.
§ Mr. HoltDoes my hon. Friend care to remind the House of the swing in the Glasgow, Govan by-election?
§ Madam Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)Order. There are several hon. Members who wish to speak in the debate, which, as the hon. Gentleman knows, is short. I appeal for brief speeches and, even more, for hon. Members to keep to the subject on the Order Paper.
§ Mr. BennettI can resist the temptation to answer the question, although my hon. Friend knows that there was no swing to Labour in Glasgow, Govan.
Those of us who serve on the Standing Committee on the Bill will have been pleased to hear our right hon. Friend the Leader of the House describe some of the agonies we suffered in Committee. We had to listen to the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) speak for two hours, with 10 interruptions. The hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Wareing), who is not in the Chamber, was interrupted no fewer than nine times in just five minutes and was warned by the Chairman for tedious repetition.
As has been recalled by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin), the hon. Member for Great Grimsby said:
the only power available to the Opposition is that of argument and delay.My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West challenged him by saying that he had let the cat out of the bag. The hon. Gentleman said:This Committee is rather like an educationally sub-normal class on constitutional law. The Opposition's only effective weapon is delay, which has to expand to counter the brutality of the Government's unacceptable tactics."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 2 May 1989; c. 216.]We do not complain about the hon. Member for Great Grimsby speaking at great length. To have an audience of more than 10 after his second job, to which he has "bobbed off", to use a dockers' term, must be a great pleasure for him.Opposition Members have asked why we need the Bill. I refer them to an editorial in The Times of 22 January 1988 about the
Dark ages in the Docks".It said:Some flavour of the rule book under which registered dockers work is provided by the injunction that dockwork shall exclude 'the loading of carts by horse drivers in the ports of Penzance, Hayle, Portreath, Porthleven and Newlyn' and references to work connected with 'sailing barges and other self-propelled vessels' in the port of Medway.The leader in The Times concluded: 584A Government which believes that adaptability and hard work are the best guarantee of prosperity and employment should have the courage to allow working practices in the docks to be brought into the 1980s.
§ Mr. LoydenThey would, wouldn't they?
§ Mr. BennettPerhaps a quotation from Tribune would be more to the taste of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden). An editorial of 21 April said:
On so many major issues of economic and industrial policy where the Tories have made really radical proposals over the past decade, Labour has managed to appear to be caught on the hop. A good example is the docks. When did Labour last offer a creative thought about the docks industry that made any impact at all?In case Tribune is too Left-wing for the hon. Member for Garston, I refer him to a pamphlet issued by the Labour party—admittedly in 1966. The report of Labour's port transport study group said:The scheme has failed to bring full decasualisation any closer … The evidence we have heard has … been unanimous in questioning the value of the NDLB.That was in 1966, so the Labour party recognised 23 years ago that there were things wrong with the scheme.
§ Mr. McLoughlinDoes not my hon. Friend find it strange that although that document was produced 23 years ago, and although Labour Governments have been in power since, we still do not know what the Labour party would put in place of the national dock labour scheme? Does my hon. Friend agree that, given 23 years and now a policy review, even the Labour party ought to be able to reach some sort of conclusion?
§ Mr. BennettMy hon. Friend has a good point. We await the outcome of the policy review discussions that are taking place today and tomorrow. It is interesting to note that an exit poll in Vale of Glamorgan last week showed that only eight of the 250 people interviewed voted Labour because of the credibility of Labour policies. I suggest that, after the review documents have been analysed and debated, no one will vote for the Labour party on the basis of its policies.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) asked why the Bill had been introduced without consultation and so quickly and why there had been no discussion with the employers. We have all the evidence that we need that the Transport and General Workers Union is not prepared to discuss the dock labour scheme. For years, the union has said that there can be no debate on the scheme and that it cannot be amended. When challenged in the national joint council's executive committee on 19 March 1986, Mr. John Connolly is reported as saying that
he doubted … whether the employers wanted that kind of discussion, and suggested that they wished instead to talk about the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme. He said that the trade union was not prepared to discuss the abolition of the Scheme.We have many other quotes from Mr. Connolly. For example, on 12 November last year he said on Channel 4 that any attempt to amend or abolish the national dock scheme would be met with a national dock strike. How can the Government talk to people who will not even consider amending the scheme, let alone accept its abolition? The Opposition are wrong to say that the TGWU is willing to discuss amending the scheme.In 1986, the director of the National Association of Port Employers wrote to Mr. John Connolly, at the 585 suggestion of the then Secretary of State, to propose that a meeting be held. Replying on 21 April 1986, Mr. Connolly said:
In reply to your letter of 6 April 1986, I can advise you that, having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I can see no point in having joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal.We have it in black and white, in correspondence, speeches and television programmes: in the eyes of the TGWU, the scheme must remain. It is not true that the TGWU wants discussion and debate. It is not interested in getting rid of the scheme. It is up to Parliament to legislate for the end of the scheme.
§ Mr. George Galloway (Glasgow, Hillhead)Given the hon. Gentleman's grandparentage, I doubt whether I am alone in finding the degree to which he seems to welcome this move to do down the dockers pretty unseemly. In his ire against the dockers, however, will he not find time to remember that Mr. Connolly and Mr. Todd visited the National Association of Port Employers last month? They offered to negotiate new arrangements for the dockers in the scheme ports on the basis that the workers' conditions would be no less favourable than they are now. Does the hon. Gentleman regard that as an unjustifiable bottom line for a trade union?
§ Mr. BennettThe hon. Gentleman knows that that discussion took place merely so that the trade union could seek to protect itself from any legal proceedings that might result if a strike were called. The simple fact is that the TGWU is having a political dispute with the Government. The employers are not directly concerned with the merits of the dock labour scheme, because they are not in charge of it. It was set up by legislation and only the Government and Parliament can dispose of it. There is no dispute with the employers about the dock labour scheme. The TGWU is trying to persuade the courts, therefore, that the dispute is with the National Association of Port Employers. The TGWU cannot even get away with that, because dockers are employed by individual port employers and not by the National Association of Port Employers. The members of the trade union and Opposition Members in Committee are not interested in getting rid of the scheme; they merely want to replace it with another scheme that is equally restrictive and damaging to our export possibilities.
§ Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock)At the meeting referred to by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), the employers made it clear that, once the scheme has been abolished, they will be employing people who have been in the scheme on exactly the same basis and with exactly the same terms and conditions as their employees who have never been in the scheme. Does my hon. Friend agree that that is perfectly justifiable and morally acceptable?
§ Mr. BennettMy hon. Friend is absolutely right. There is no reason why the dockers should be treated differently in law from any other group of workers or why they should have the restrictive practices and protection that they have at present. With the increase in Britain's export potential and the strengthening of the economy, there is no doubt that plenty of jobs will be available in the docks in the coming years. We merely wish to remove this 586 ridiculous scheme, which is holding up the redevelopment of inner-city areas and clamping down on dock development.
It is interesting to examine the question asked by the Transport and General Workers Union of the registered dock workers this week. The ballot paper is headed:
Trade dispute with your employer"—that brings me back to the point made by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) —including all matters arising out of and in consequence of that dispute".The question is:Are you prepared to take part in a strike?and the dock workers are asked to answer yes or no. The ballot paper does not tell the registered dock workers what the dispute is. This must be the first secret ballot in which the question itself has been kept secret. It is extraordinary that the trade union is not prepared to include in the ballot paper the nature of the dispute. It has done that because it knows that there is no trade dispute with the employers, that it is a dispute with the Government, who are introducing a Bill to get rid of the scheme.The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) has a long record of making speeches about the dock work scheme and the strike. The hon. Gentleman challenged remarks made by my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West about quotations from speeches that he may or may not have made on the radio, and I accept what he said about that. It turns out that it may have been the Leader of the Opposition who was speaking. The hon. Member for Oldham, West said on Radio Lancashire news on 10 April this year, in answer to the question whether there would be a dock strike:
frankly we have no alternative but to support, if there were a strike.The views of the hon. Member for Oldham, West are clearly on record. It is the Labour party that wants a strike, not the Government.I gave the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) notice that I would mention his comments earlier in the debate, although I understand that he has now gone to meet the President of Nicaragua. The hon. Member may have a good time when he is there. He talked about Tory Members having dinners with the port employers. That is very interesting, but I have a list of dinners that Labour Members have had with the port employers.
At the National Association of Port Employers reception at the Queen Elizabeth II conference centre on 15 December last, the hon. Member for Garston was taking the entertainment of NAPE. The hon. Members for Great Grimsby, for Liverpool, West Derby, for Edinburgh, East (Mr. Strang) and for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross) were also invited. They accepted, but, unfortunately, did not turn up. Other hon. Members attended, but they did not sign the visitors' book. In June 1988, the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North had lunch with the port employers. On 2 March, the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) was at the Mayfair hotel to discuss the dock labour scheme. On 7 March, the hon. Member for Oldham, West had a meeting at the House of Commons with the National Association of Port Employers about it. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, East had two lunches with NAPE in July 1988 and in Jaunary 1989.
Opposition Members not only have lunch with the Transport and General Workers Union but are busy lunching off the National Association of Port Employers. 587 The hon. Member for Newham, North-West should be careful when he talks about people who lunch, as though it were some way of getting into hock with employers, when Labour Members on the Committee appear to dine more frequently with port employers than Conservative Members might.
The real reason we are getting rid of the scheme is that it is totally indefensible. When one looks at the examples of ports where registered dock work schemes are in use, time and again, one finds that ghosting takes place. For those hon. Members who are not on the Dock Work Bill Committee, I should explain that ghosting occurs when a registered dock worker stands by while another man does the job and they both get paid for doing it, thus doubling the cost of the work. It is specially prevalent in the constituency of the hon. Member for Garston. There are plenty of examples. It takes place in Liverpool, Glasgow, Middlesbrough, Cardiff, Bristol and Newport. Wherever one looks one sees examples of ghosting. It occurs on the Medway and in Hunterston.
There is a good example in Grangemouth, which shows why the Bill is necessary. The docks in Grangemouth have been fully automated and require no docker involvement. However, dockers in the port insisted that a ghost docker must be in attendance while unloading takes place. Recognising that there was absolutely no work for that docker to do during the operation, the men demanded that he be provided with a Portakabin fitted with a colour television and a microwave oven. That was so that he might "overcome boredom". The prospective employer did not enter into the contract, and lucrative business was lost to the port.
That sort of behaviour goes on in ports which are under the registered dock work scheme. Not only is ghosting taking place; there is also "bobbing". A registered dock employee signs on and "bobs off' to another job, perhaps running a pub or taxi driving.
§ Mr. GallowayWhat about Tory Members?
§ Mr. BennettThe hon. Gentleman shouts about Tory Members not being present. I will tell the hon. Gentleman about Labour Members on the Committee and their voting records. The hon. Member for Newham, North-West had a 60 per cent. voting record in the House last year. He was 324th in the league. The hon. Member for Newport, East (Mr. Hughes) came 480th in the league, with a 51 per cent. record. The hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) had a 59.7 per cent. record, and he came 339th. Who came top of the league? Tory Members. I came 19th in that league. I do not take lectures from the hon. Member for Hillhead. He is the part-timer in the House when it comes to attending debates and taking part. We will look at his voting record, too, if he wishes.
§ Mr. LeightonOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps the reason my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) does not take part in debates is that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) filibusters for so long that it prevents him from doing so.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerIn the past 10 minutes, I have already appealed to the House for short speeches. There 588 are a number of hon. Members on both sides of the House who have served on the Committee and are seeking to speak. I should like to call as many hon. Members as possible.
§ Mr. BennettI am grateful for your ruling, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was provoked by the part-time hon. Member for Hillhead, who spends most of his time bobbing around on trips abroad. He should not lecture us about the people who do the work in this House.
It is worth while to point out why the scheme must go. For years, the national dock labour scheme has ruined opportunities for expanding our ports in inner-city areas. If we examine the record of Felixstowe, which is outside the scheme, contrast it with Ipswich and look at dock labour schemes on both the east and west coasts and compare them with non-scheme ports, we will see the improvements in productivity and trade in non-scheme ports. In 1970, dock scheme ports accounted for 90 per cent. of non-fuel imports into and exports from this country. They now account for 70 per cent. Non-scheme ports are improving their productivity and the amount of trade that they take. They are taking on more workers, but, on their own, they cannot take the full burden of the national economic expansion that is taking place.
We need to make sure that scheme ports are able to operate without restrictive practices—without overmanning—and that they can operate in such a way that they can improve their facilities and compete with continental ports. With 1992 approaching and with the need to make management decisions today and not in 1992, it is right that we should abolish restrictive practices and ensure that our ports and docks have an opportunity to expand to meet the challenge of an expanding economy.
§ Mr. Archie Kirkwood (Roxburgh and Berwickshire)If the House were looking for a good example of how to waste 25 minutes of parliamentary time discussing a guillotine motion, it could not find a better example than the speech of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett). He talked about everything under the sun, such as who had lunch and who had dinner with the port employers. It is with some sadness that I tell him that nobody invited me to lunch or dinner. I am always in the market for a good meal and a good discussion.
§ Mr. Nicholas Bennettrose—
§ Mr. KirkwoodI will not give way. I do not have time. The hon. Gentleman's speech was a good example of spirited irrelevance.
I have a rather questionable right to take part in the debate, and I do so only because my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) is prohibited by adverse weather conditions from getting out of his constituency. He would have been in his place as Chief Whip of the Social and Liberal Democrats. His absence puts me in a good position. I am spared the worst excesses of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). His speeches are always long and arduous, but I find them entertaining. That is a saving grace. The debate gives me the opportunity to look at the terms of the guillotine motion in an objective manner.
Although, as a party, my hon. Friends and I are not prepared to defend the continuation of the dock labour scheme, by no stretch of the imagination does it mean that 589 we are prepared to abandon dockers. Important matters must be resolved and guarantees must be secured before we would be prepared to allow a return to the casual system of dock labour. The Government must give some important guarantees in Committee.
Although, on balance, I favour the terms of the legislation, my hon. Friends and I cannot support the introduction of the guillotine at this time. There are two matters before the House. First, I refer to the use of guillotines in the first instance. The hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) was right: there is a worrying trend in the frequency with which the House resorts to guillotine motions. The hon. Gentleman said that the House had resorted to 11 guillotines in his time in the House. That is a serious matter. Of course I understand that Governments need to get legislation through. Of course I understand that, on previous occasions when Governments have survived by wafer-thin majorities, there are circumstances in which guillotines are necessary. Of course guillotines may have to be imposed when important constitutional questions are involved. But the Government have no impediment in terms of a lack of majority, nor are they troubled by any restraints on parliamentary time this year. As someone who is an objective observer and not a member of the Standing Committee, I advise the Leader of the House that I do not think that he made a case for bringing forward a guillotine after only 29 hours in Standing Committee.
It was admitted earlier that this is essentially a one-clause Bill and if it is, I do not see any danger in having a later guillotine. If the Government had come to the House much further into the Committee's proceedings, they would have found, at least on this Bench, a more willing acceptance of the need to resort to the guillotine. However, in our present position and looking at the special character of this legislation, which I fully understand is party politically contentious—that is obvious to anyone who considers the issue for longer than a second—why have the Government decided to timetable the Standing Committee so soon? We have not had an effective answer to that question and until we do, the House should consider rejecting the motion.
I go further, and say that there are special circumstances with this Bill which make the Government's position even more untenable than the purely constitutional case of the number of hours that the Standing Committee has been able to deliberate on the Bill in detail. The way in which the White Paper and the Bill were suddenly introduced out of the blue bears heavily with me when trying to decide how to vote on the timetable motion.
If one listens to what Conservative Back Benchers have said this afternoon, one realises that they are not interested in any legislative scrutiny. They have said that as there is no prospect of changing the Bill, we should introduce the law straight away, never mind any parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, that is the way in which the Government are operating more and more. Parliament has been swept aside time after time on contentious issues, despite the Government having a majority in excess of 100.
Special circumstances are involved because of the way in which the Bill was introduced and the transition from the Government saying that there was no need for reform, to the White Paper being introduced on one day, with the Bill on the next, and the guillotine being introduced just one month and 29 hours in Committee after the Bill was published. That is a scandalous timetable for any 590 Government, even for one with a wafer-thin majority, but especially so for one that is dealing with such a finely tested constitutional issue.
The Government have not proved their case. Indeed, from a political point of view, it is inept to bring forward a guillotine this early because it is bound to exacerbate the present delicate state of industrial relations. It will not make anybody's job any easier. It would have been perfectly proper and, indeed, statesmanlike for the Secretary of State for Employment to say, "We will run the Standing Committee slowly. We will take time and allow hon. Members of all parties to table new clauses at the end of our Committee proceedings." However, the Government are bringing forward a timetable motion just 29 hours into the Committee's deliberations. That is a scandalous abuse of procedure.
This is an important Bill and we are anxious to see removed from the statute book what we regard as continuing restrictive practices. However, we do not want to return to the bad old days of casual labour. We need some assurances from the Government and a Government strategy for the ports, not just a return to free markets. We need assurances that go far further than those that we have been able to get to date in the Standing Committee about the need for training and retraining. Above all, we need more time in the Standing Committee to cross-examine the Government, to scrutinise their programmes and to test their plans for the future of the docks industry, which is important to the future of this country.
§ Mr. Kenneth Hind (Lancashire, West)I welcome the opportunity to speak in this guillotine debate and must declare an interest to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) because I, too, have lunched with the port employers.
The guillotine motion is important. Many Conservative members of the Committee have not taken part in the Committee. We have listened and have said nothing on occasions, and we have heard nothing to make us change our minds during the 29 hours that the Bill has been debated. After 29 hours, we have not got beyond clause I stand part because the Opposition—I acquit the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) of this charge, because like us he has sat and listened and has not said a great deal—have attempted to replace the dock labour scheme, which the Bill clearly attempts to abolish, with a different scheme. In effect, it would be "son of the dock labour scheme". That idea has been put forward cleverly by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) and his hon. Friends, who want to build a new scheme under an entirely different name. We have listened, we have seen that for what it is and we have voted against it time and time again. We have not accepted that any of the arguments have any credence.
Some Opposition Members have spoken at great length in Committee. On one occasion, the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) spoke for two and a half hours. Much of his speech was an attack on the Government and on Conservative Members, couched in abusive terms. Four of the Opposition members of the Committee are sponsored by the Transport and General Workers Union. The view that I have formed—I am probably not alone in this on the Government side of the Committee—is that they are earning their sponsorship 591 money by fighting Ron Todd's war—the war of the general secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union—in Committee. They have been dangling like puppets on a string and dancing to his tune.
I can quote the hon. Member for Newham, North-East (Mr. Leighton) who is not in his place, when he told us during one of his long interventions—
§ Mr. LeightonOn a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The hon. Gentleman is in the House.
§ Mr. HindI apologise to the hon. Gentleman. I meant his hon. Friend the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks), who is not in his place.
The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told us that he viewed the role of the Labour party in Parliament as that of the political arm of the trade union movement and said that that is how he acts. Like Nelson when he put the eyeglass to his blind eye and said, "I see no ships," that is the way in which the Labour party has continued the debate in Committee. Indeed, it could be said that the problem of the dock labour scheme is that, unfortunately, not enough ships are seen in dock labour scheme ports. That is why it was necessary to introduce the Dock Work Bill, which I commend to the House.
In Committee, the Opposition have totally failed to address the major issue that the Bill attacks. In the past, the dock labour scheme has clearly deterred investment because companies will not invest in ports covered by the scheme. That has deprived inner cities of investment in thousands of acres of derelict land in cities such as London, Glasgow and Liverpool, which is on the edge of my constituency. For that reason above all, it has been necessary to introduce the Bill. Employment in scheme ports has contracted, but that point was not addressed by the Opposition in Committee. Trade in scheme ports has declined and the number of registered dock workers has fallen.
In contrast, we have seen the growth in non-dock labour scheme ports that at one time did not exist. They have grown only because of the existence of the dock labour scheme. Non-scheme ports that handled little or no cargo in the 1940s, such as Felixstowe, have adapted, prospered and expanded; they show how modern, well-managed ports can use technology to secure prosperous and well-paid employment. I am afraid that that is in marked contrast to what has happened in dock labour scheme ports.
One point that Conservative Members have tried to address in Committee—the Opposition have totally failed to address this—is that the contract of employment in scheme ports must be the only contract of employment known to English and Scottish law that contains a criminal sanction if the employer employs somebody who is not a registered dock worker, or whatever the scheme implies. Such criminal sanctions are nonsense in this sort of society.
The second point not addressed by the Opposition is the question of jobs for life. In Committee, the Opposition tried to suggest that doctors, lawyers and other people in our society have jobs for life. Although those people can all be made redundant from their jobs, under the dock labour scheme, redundancies to reduce the work force are impossible. When the dock labour scheme is abolished, 592 dockers in scheme ports will find that their terms and conditions will be the same as those for the rest of the working population, which cannot be a bad thing.
It is important to note some of the abuses within the dock labour scheme—for example, ghosting and bobbing. There are examples in Garston and also in Liverpool, where three registered dock workers must be employed each day between Monday and Friday for the reception of scrap on to the quay prior to loading. Those men are ghosts. They play no part in the operation. If the ships are bigger, upwards of 16 ghosts can be employed there. They must he employed by the employers.
Recently in Liverpool, T. and J. Harrison and Bulk Cargo Handling Services were closed. The local employers, who already employed far more labour than they needed, refused the local board's request to take on workers who had been laid off. The unions on the board threatened an immediate local strike, with the possibility of a national strike, if the local employers did not reconsider their decision or if there was any move to place the men on the total unattached register.
§ Mr. Pat Wall (Bradford, North)Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. HindI apologise, but I shall not give way.
Liverpool, like many other dock labour scheme ports, has been crucified by this ridiculous scheme. There was no possibility of any meaningful discussions with the Transport and General Workers Union about this scheme. The section convenor, Mr. Connolly, said that there would be no discussion about it. He was supported by the hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher), who has been quoted in the Morning Star and many of the Left-wing journals as saying that, effectively, the Labour party will support the union, as one would naturally expect the Labour party to stand by unions should they find themselves in difficulty over the operation of the dock labour scheme. As recently as the end of March, he is quoted in the Lancashire News as saying that that is what will happen. That is what we expect.
We have no intention on this side of the House of forcing a strike. We do not want to force a strike. It is interesting to note that we have seen on the television a combination of Mr. Connolly and the hon. Member for Oldham, West sitting together discussing the matter. Is it not peculiar that there has been no strike during the period of the local government elections? Should we draw the conclusion that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is right in saying that the Labour party is nothing more than the political wing of the trade union movement?
It is clear that, if dockers consider what we are trying to do, they will realise that there is no need for any strike and that the reason the Bill is going through as quickly as possible is that the Government are interested in protecting the national interest. We would be foolish to stand by like Caligula feasting while Rome burns. We on this side of the House and Conservative Members on the Committee have no intention of doing that. I regard the guillotine motion as essential. I hope that the entire House will join me in the Lobby to support it.
§ Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston)The hon. Member for Lancashire, West (Mr. Hind) on a number of occasions referred to Liverpool. I remind the House that those slogans, which are thrust about day by day by Conservative Members, are a thinly disguised way of hiding the real reasons for the Government wanting the abolition of the national dock labour scheme. Ghosting and bobbing were practices that came about with the co-operation of the employers, because when ships were loading or discharging the employers demanded that the derricks were working and the hook was moving for the entire period for which that vessel was being loaded or discharged. The intense labour involved in loading and discharging vessels of cargoes, such as hides, beef and chemical cargoes, required men to take breaks from time to time. That system meant that the employer was maximising his labour to the absolute. The welting that went on in those days was necessary so that people could maintain the levels of production that the employer demanded.
It has been clear from the outset that the real reason for the Government wanting to abolish the national dock labour scheme—with the co-operation and collusion of employers who for the past 30 years have wanted to abolish it—is that they detest the trade union movement and the rights that workers have won through negotiations with the industries to which they belong. It is absurd for the party of privilege to refer to the dockers as privileged people. The Conservative party demands the retention of its power and privilege over the masses in this country; it has done so from the dawn of political history. Conservative Members should be the last to refer to dockers as privileged people and to raise that red or blue herring.
It is clear that the Bill is being railroaded through by the Government to remove as quickly as possible from the statute book all the present conditions in the dock industry. However, they have suggested nothing to put in their place.
I went on the Committee reluctantly. I believed that it was ritualistic to go on the Committee, because of the present Tory majority and its determination to abolish the scheme. No answers were given to questions raised by other members of the Committee. The Government now see fit to guillotine the Bill. One can argue that, in those circumstances, that Committee could be seen as a jury as appointed after the death sentence had been passed. The Secretary of State then hastily arranged for the execution by bringing in the guillotine.
Hon. Members talk of delay on clause 1, but clause 1 is in fact the Bill. The seven clauses that follow are consequential. Clause I abolishes the scheme. If clause 1 is the Bill, it is reasonable and proper that those Opposition Members who are opposing it should be given, first, the greatest opportunity to examine and probe the Government on the issues and, secondly, to discover what the Government intend to do about replacing the existing conditions as they apply to training, welfare, discipline and such other matters as are governed by the national dock labour scheme. So far, we have not been told.
Conservative Members have said that they are not prepared to respond to the suggestions of the Opposition on any matters. They have turned deaf ears to the forthright suggestions put to them, such as that a key 594 industry cannot be left in a void. The docks are a key industry, and it appears that the Government are dealing with them in a cavalier fashion. Both in peace and war, the industry has played a key part in the creation of wealth in Britain. Indeed, when the second world war started, the main concern of Winston Churchill and Ernie Bevin was what would happen to the docks. Because of the pre-war conditions, the docks were in turmoil and chaos, and that situation continued into the post-war period. The state had to intervene to ensure that the ports were secure and that there was an understanding of the agreements under which the men were working. They made a major contribution to the war effort, and that was understood at that time.
I wonder what would happen in the unhappy event of a similar situation arising in the not-too-distant future. Would the Government leave the docks in the position that they will be in after the abolition of the scheme? Of course not. They would ensure that a similar scheme, if not the scheme itself, was in place to see that the whole of the docks industry was influenced by these disciplines.
There is no doubt in the minds of those serving on the Committee that the Government have not been prepared to listen to any of the arguments advanced about what will happen after the abolition of the scheme; nor have they shown any sign that they are worried about what will happen. It is obvious that the Government have been absolutely doctrinaire and dogmatic in taking this decision, which is why they will not move on the issue.
It is the height of hypocrisy by those who have spoken today to say that the number of hours spent on the Bill so far is an abuse of parliamentary democracy and Committee procedures. In all probability there is no precedent for a Bill being guillotined as this one will be. One can only put it down to the fact that the Government do not want to hear the case or listen to the questions being asked about the docks industry, the scheme ports and what will happen to them after the scheme is abolished.
There is utter confusion among dock workers about the outcome of the Bill and what will happen to their industry. Already, dock workers are leaving the industry en masse. This direct interference, based on pure political dogma, will create great difficulties in the port transport industry.
It has been evident from today's debate that Tory Members intend to get this legislation on the statute book without paying full regard to what is happening in the industry. To them, the scheme is the last bastion of trade union influence in this industry. They have made relentless attacks on the trade union movement since 1979 and they see this as the culmination of their attempts to take away the influence and power of trade unionism in the industry.
This is not the first or second time that attempts have been made to damage trade unionism. They go back to its birth, but it has survived and it will survive. The trade union movement will see through the Government as the public are now seeing through them. In the past four months we have seen ever greater criticisms of the Government's vindictiveness and inability or lack of desire to listen to anybody. Other sections of industry are becoming aware of what is going on.
There can be no justification whatever for the Government's actions. We should see the fullest possible debate in Committee and on the Floor of the House so that the Government answer our questions and the industry is not left in the mess in which they intend to leave it.
§ Mr. Tim Janman (Thurrock)Before I say why it is in the interests of my constituents to have this simple legislation passed as quickly as possible, I shall make a couple of points to the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood).
§ Mr. DobsonWill the hon. Gentleman give way?
§ Mr. JanmanNo, we are short of time.
In the mid and late 1970s, the Liberal party supported guillotine motions introduced by the Labour Government. I remind the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire that, during a debate on procedure in February 1986, his party voted for the guillotine to be applied to all Bills which spent more than 25 hours in Committee. I will give way to the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras (Mr. Dobson) now, if he wishes.
§ Mr. DobsonIf the hon. Gentleman is so convinced that the abolition of the dock labour scheme appeals to his electors, why, last Thursday in the county council elections in Thurrock, did the Labour party win 56 per cent. and the Tory party 35 per cent. of the vote?
§ Mr. JanmanI shall bring two points to the hon. Gentleman's attention. First, in the ward of Tilbury and South Grays, the turnout dropped to 21 per cent. The Labour party had a much lower vote than it would normally expect. That was mainly due to the opposition of the Tilbury Labour party to the Royal Navy coming to the civil port of Tilbury. Many loyal Labour voters in that part of my constituency are beginning seriously to reconsider whether to continue voting for the Labour party.
Secondly, in 1981 the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock and the Conservatives won the 1983 general election. In 1985, the Labour party won all eight county seats in Thurrock, and we went on to win the 1987 general election. The hon. Gentleman will be interested to know that, in 1989, the Conservatives gained a seat from the Labour party in the borough of Thurrock. Two thirds of the ward is in my constituency. We had an excellent turnout of our supporters and we gained a seat in the borough which has helped to re-establish overall Conservative control in Essex. If the hon. Gentleman thinks that the Labour party doing worse in the 1989 county elections in my constituency is pertinent to its doing better in the next general election than in the past two, I am at a complete loss to understand how he can justify his logic and analysis.
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder. Perhaps we can get back to the motion.
§ Mr. JanmanI shall save the hon. Gentleman further embarrassment, Madam Deputy Speaker; that would be a good idea.
Since the proposed abolition of the scheme, a large number of companies have already started to contact the chief executive of the port of Tilbury and are showing great interest in coming to Tilbury to carry out many different types of process work. They have long been prevented from coming to Tilbury because of the dock labour scheme. It is extremely frustrating that the Opposition are filibustering on the Bill and making 596 inordinately long and tedious speeches, because every day that the Bill is delayed, masses of new jobs that will be created in my constituency are being further delayed.
Opposition Members have said that it has taken the Government 10 years to introduce the Bill. I remind them that it has taken the Labour party 10 years to produce its policy review. Once the scheme is abolished and it is clear that the dock industry is free of it, the results will be much more positive for the docks, although it has taken us 10 years to introduce the Bill, than the results of the Labour party policy review, although it too has taken 10 years to produce.
This is only an eight-clause Bill. The Committee has been sitting for 29 hours. Even of one subtracts the small amount of time that we have taken off for bio-breaks and something to eat, we have been debating the Bill for 27 hours 33 minutes. That means that an average of more than three hours has been spent on each clause.
As I said, in terms of parliamentary perspective, the Bill is simple and short, and there is certainly no need for it to stay in Committee any longer than 1 pm on 18 May. It seems perfectly reasonable and justifiable to bring debate to a close in that period. We will have plenty of time in which to debate all eight clauses fully, to examine the Bill in detail and for the Committee to report back to the House. I am pleased to be able to support the Government's timetable motion.
§ 6.1 pm
§ Mr. Michael Meacher (Oldham, West)It is good to listen to a valedictory from the hon. Member for Thurrock (Mr. Janman); the county council elections last week showed that he is firmly headed for oblivion.
It is customary for Oppositions, whose job it is to oppose, to condemn the use of the guillotine as an unwarranted restriction on parliamentary debate. However, I submit to the House that on this occasion, the violation of parliamentary prerogative is out of all proportion to previous use of this procedure.
My research discloses that the Government have guillotined at least 25 Bills in the past 10 years. Excluding Bills debated in Committee of the whole House, which are special, the average time a Bill spent in Committee before the guillotine was used was no less than 83 hours. That time ranges between 115 hours and 44 hours. The number of Committee hours spent on the Dock Work Bill, as the Leader of the House said, was 29 hours, which is scarcely more than one third of the previous average during the past 10 years. That is why the Opposition are so angry. We do not want to make a merely ritualistic demand but, as the Leader of the House was forced to admit, the Government have set a new precedent, for which there are good reasons.
As far as I can discover, there is no precedent for anywhere near so brief a Committee stage before the imposition of a guillotine. The Government have been forced into using artificial devices to bring the number of hours even to 29. We are entitled to ask why the Government, having clearly decided by the beginning of last week to impose a guillotine, forced the Committee and my hon. Friends to sit into the night last Tuesday until 4.5 am on Wednesday, as Hansard records. Having already decided to use the guillotine, why was there a sittings motion on that day alone of almost 12 hours? There is a pretty obvious answer to that question.
597 The Government clearly wanted to provide a figleaf, however threadbare, for the guillotine that they had already decided to impose. That is not their first abuse of Parliament during the passage of the Bill. The Government have treated the House with contempt at every stage of the handling of the Bill. They produced a White Paper without any consultation and contrary to repeated assurances that we had from Ministers, including the Prime Minister, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) so strongly pointed out in a passage to which he did not receive a reply. The Bill was published the very next day. The Second Reading debate was held on the first permitted day thereafter. The Bill was sent to Committee after only eight days, instead of the usual fortnight, and an afternoon sittings motion was moved by the Minister immediately at the start of the first day in Committee, which is, I believe, without precedent for so short a Bill. Now, to cap it all, a guillotine has been imposed after the Bill has been in Committee for a uniquely brief time. After such a catalogue, all I can say is that the longer the Government are in office, the more arrogant they become day by day.
The indecent haste that the Government have displayed over this Bill can be illustrated by comparison with their treatment of their Pilotage Bill which began its journey through the House five years ago. It was not dissimilar to the Dock Work Bill. It involved 1,300 marine pilots and deregulated pilotage. A Green Paper was produced in 1984 and a White Paper in 1985. The Bill went through Parliament in 1986 and 1987 and a day was appointed for its implementation on 1 October 1988. Therefore, we are entitled to ask why the Government allowed four years for the Pilotage Bill but insistently demand that the Dock Work Bill should be in Committee for only four weeks. That is a relevant question, to which we have never received an answer.
I shall suggest an answer. The reason for the Government railroading the Bill headlong through the House with an arrogant contempt for Parliament—an arrogance matched only by the contempt for the Government shown by the electorate last week—was made clear by the Tory newspaper which sometimes has access to inside information, The Daily Telegraph. I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman reads that newspaper, and he may have react the issue of 13 April in which it said:
Dock employers who use outside workers to break a strike against the abolition of the Dock Labour Scheme could risk court action and possibly jail, it emerged last night. Ministers have been alerted to a legal trap facing employers wishing to keep the 40 scheme ports running.Until the Bill scrapping the 52-year-old scheme is on the statute book later this year, it will remain illegal to employ non-registered dockers in ports maintained by the Dock Labour Boards.At present, if an employer taken on non-registered workers without the approval of the local Dock Labour Board he is liable to prosecution and imprisonment for up to three months, or a fine or both.The threat of legal action … is likely to dissuade employers from bringing in non-registered workers.This is the point:It has also convinced Ministers that the Bill should go through Parliament swiftly.There we have it. The guillotine has nothing to do with parliamentary niceties.
§ Mr. Nicholas Soames (Crawley)It is a scandal.
§ Mr. MeacherI am glad that the hon. Gentleman, who has just bowled in in his customary fashion, thinks that it 598 is a scandal; so do we, but for more serious reasons. The guillotine has nothing to do with the niceties of Parliament, about which the Government care not a fig. The Bill is being driven through the House at unprecedented speed because it is a strike-breaking measure in the event of a strike. That is the real, unspoken reason why the Government are ready to breach all previous parliamentary rules and why they turned the Committee stage into such a farce, in which amendments were not even being seriously considered.
§ Mr. McLoughlinThe hon. Gentleman used that extract in Committee, but he cannot have it both ways. He cannot accuse the Government of trying to engineer a strike and at the same time engineering a method of overcoming a strike if it happens. Will the hon. Gentleman please clarify his position?
§ Mr. MeacherThe hon. Gentleman is extremely naive if he thinks that the Government are incapable of doing both. Many people are suspicious that they are doing just that. The Government have adopted a cynical posture. The Secretary of State says, for public consumption, that the Government will not become involved in the current trade dispute, and that negotiation is purely a matter for the local employers. However, at the same time, behind the scenes, the Government break every rule in the parliamentary book in order to abolish the scheme as fast as possible to hand the employers the most potent strike-breaking weapon to use if industrial action occurs.
The trouble with the Government is that they are far more interested in precipitating a strike and then making political capital out of it, as a distraction from their mounting economic and political difficulties, than they are in trying to prevent a strike in the first place. They are uniquely in a position to prevent one if they choose to make a real effort to do so. That is why the Secretary of State keeps intoning in committee that the abolition of the scheme is a matter for the Government and that the role of Parliament must not be usurped, yet he refuses point blank, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Biaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) so eloquently pointed out, to negotiate on what might follow the scheme, saying that that is a matter for the employers. When the Transport and General Workers union tries to negotiate with the employers, it is told that this is all a political matter for the Government. If the Government would only put half the energy into negotiating to prevent a strike that they are putting into provoking one by adamantly refusing to negotiate, Britain could be saved a dangerous, lengthy and damaging strike which no one except the Government wants.
The Secretary of State's assurances do not carry much credibility when he forecasts a smooth transition to local collective bargaining in which employers will respect employee rights and local trade union bargaining. That was the story that the Minister repeatedly put across in Committee. A letter from one local employer sent out on 27 April from Mersey Container Terminals Ltd. gives the lie to these claims by the right hon. Gentleman:
If after a ballot has been held and by a majority of strikers called some of the men go on strike and some stay in work those men on strike would be dismissed for breach of contract … if once again a strike has been called and all men go on strike they will all be dismissed for breach of contract.599 That lets the cat out of the bag. It means that, under the new regime, there will be no right to strike or to withdraw labour. So much for the preservation of basic employee rights.This same employer goes on to set out an 18-item employment contract which each worker is required to sign and return to the employer. So in future, there will be no collective bargaining—so much for all the smooth talk about a natural return to normal trade union bargaining rights. This shows clearly what abolition of the dock labour scheme is all about.
Abolition is not about efficiency. A recent study states:
A crude measure of efficiency, the tonnage moved per docker per year, reveals an even result between both scheme and non-scheme ports. For 1987, the last year that complete figures were available, each scheme docker moved 13,346 tonnes of cargo, compared with 13,655 per docker in non-port schemes".So by that efficiency measure, there is no difference between scheme and non-scheme ports.Abolition is not about productivity. The scheme ports have had a productivity gain of no less than 720 per cent. over the past 20 years. That is an indisputable fact, and it is a record almost unmatched in British industry.
Abolition is not even about profits. Associated British Ports, the largest port employer, returned profits last year 22 per cent. up—£46 million; its dividends were up by 33 per cent. and the chairman's salary went up a miserable 22 per cent. to a mere L119,000 per year. Abolition is all about power, the ending of joint determination, and the reassertion of the unilateral prerogative of the employers to hire and fire at will.
I end by quoting the words of a Tilbury docker, who expresses this much more clearly than anyone here could:
The say we have in our industry is the say that every working man should have in his industry. We have it and they are trying to take it away from us. Doing away with the scheme has nothing to do with port efficiency. It is purely political. Under the national dock labour scheme we have an input into how our industry is run, something that is totally foreign to this current Government's way of thinking. No working man should have a say in how his industry is run—that is what they think and that is really what it is all about. It has got nothing to do with efficiency; it is all to do with dogma.It is because this Bill is about political dogma, not economic efficiency, and about strike breaking, not the national interest, that we utterly reject this unprecedented, partisan and self-serving use of the guillotine.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Norman Fowler)It must be pointed out first that, as my hon. Friends the Members for Derbyshire, West (Mr. McLoughlin) and for Thurrock (Mr. Janman) said, after 30 hours debate in Committee we are only part way through clause 1. At that rate of progress we shall be in Committee until 1990. This motion will make it possible to hold a further 30 hours of debate, making a total of 60 hours for an eight-clause Bill.
The hon. Member for Oldham, West (Mr. Meacher) incorrectly referred to a lack of precedents. There are precedents, and I think he knows them—
§ Mr. MeacherName one.
§ Mr. FowlerMy right hon. Friend the Leader of the House named two: the Town and Country Planning Bill of 1946–47 was introduced by a Labour Government, and the Social Security (No. 2) Bill of 1979–80 was introduced by this Government.
The flavour of the Committee proceedings can be sampled by reflecting on the conduct of the Opposition whip. Whips are traditionally the silent men of Westminster. In this case, the Opposition Whip has been warned nine times from the Chair for tedious repetition.
There have been lengthy contributions by the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell). Looking around the Committee Room, he said how nice it was, after Sky Television, to have such a big audience. I do not object to that. The trouble is that it went entirely to his head and led to a speech of more than two hours.
§ Mr. McLoughlinWill my right hon. Friend give way?
§ Mr. FowlerIf my hon. Friend will allow me, no.
The hon. Member for Great Grimsby has frankly admitted that his intention has been to delay. I am not saying that we have not learnt from the Opposition in Committee. Sometimes we have not learnt much about the dock labour scheme, but we have learnt about a whole range of other matters—the after-hours activities of television crews visiting Rotterdam, the printing of Chiang Kai Shek's banknotes, employee relations in the Japanese mushroom-growing industry and the frustrated ambitions of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks).
To this gallery we have now added the shadow Leader of the House, who predicts that there will be a return to casual work. We have heard the hon. Gentleman's predictions about transport before. When I denationalised the National Freight Corporation, he predicted that no one would want the shares, and certainly not people working for the company. That became the most famous employee shareholding scheme of all time. The hon. Gentleman's predictions have about as much authority as those of the weathermen before the great storm of 1987.
§ Mr. DobsonIf the right hon. Gentleman is so confident that there will be no return to casual working, why will he not insist that the employers guarantee that in negotiations with the union? Why will he not give the assurance statutory backing so that, if the employers turn out to be lying, a law will be in place to offer dockers the protection they ask for?
§ Mr. FowlerWe are moving away from a statutory scheme. I should have thought that virtually every commentator in this country accepts that the undertakings given by the employers about no return to casualism take the position a great deal further than it has ever been before. The Opposition should accept that, too.
§ Mr. MeacherIf that is the case, why was it that in 1970, when employers gave exactly the same commitment, within 18 months we were back to casualisation in quite a major fashion?
§ Mr. FowlerOpposition Members need only look at the position in the non-scheme ports—there is no need to look into the crystal ball—where trade and employment have increased and there has been no return to casual labour. It is about time that Labour Members accepted that.
601 The suggestion of the shadow Leader of the House, the hon. Member for Holborn and St. Pancras, that we had planned the debate for today because there might be a tube strike must rank as one of the silliest suggestions ever heard in the House, even from the current occupants of the Opposition Front Bench.
The right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) raised a number of points. As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) said, we need not be prepared to take lectures from him, considering that he introduced five guillotine motions in one day.
The right hon. Gentleman particularly asked about the view of Lord Aldington. We have that on record, in response to the statement made in the other place. The noble Lord said at that stage that he was wholly in agreement with the line that had been announced. In short — I paraphrase his remarks—he said that he was delighted that a scheme based on entirely different conditions, not there today, which involved damaging casual labour, not there today, would be ended and that all the ports would be put on level pegging. That position of the noble Lord adds authority and support to the case that we are putting.
Several hon. Members referred to the position of people in the industry from the point of view of consultation. The positions of those involved have been irreconcilable. The Transport and General Workers Union has stated repeatedly its attachment to the fundamentals of the scheme and has regularly threatened national strikes in the event of any suggestion that the scheme's damaging restrictions should be reduced. The union has refused five approaches from the employers to consider voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme.
When the then Secretary of State for Transport, now the Secretary of State for the Environment, invited the unions and employers to discuss voluntary arrangements to replace the scheme in 1986, the national secretary of the TGWU docks group, Mr. Connolly, replied:
Having in mind our position that the Dock Labour Scheme is to remain, I see no point in joint discussions to provide for arrangements which might follow its removal.In 1987 he repeated that by saying:The policy of the Docks and Waterways Group has not changed. There will be opposition to the amendment or revision of the scheme, and that opposition will take the form of a national docks strike.It is significant, that in the debate in Committee and indeed in the debate outside, little attempt has been made to defend the dock labour scheme. When it has been defended, that has been done on arguments that applied to a position 40 or 50 years ago. The debate is now establishing that, in the context of the 1980s and 1990s, the dock labour scheme cannot be defended.It is impossible to defend a statutory monopoly which makes it a criminal offence to employ other than registered dock workers in many of the ports of this country. It is impossible to defend a scheme which acts as a disincentive to investment, not only in scheme ports but in the areas around the ports. It is impossible to defend a scheme which, in spite of all its restrictions and regulations, has seen employment fall and trade disappear to non-scheme ports and to ports on the continent.
In the final analysis, the dock labour scheme is against the interests of the ports, against the interests of the areas adjoining the ports and against the interests of those 602 working in the ports industry. In particular this is the case when the employers have given the clearest assurances that there will be no return to casual working.
The Government put the case for the Bill in the White Paper and in the Second Reading debate, when abolition had a majority of over 100. The time has come for decision. Prevarication and delay can be in nobody's interest. In particular it can be in nobody's interest when registered dockers are being balloted on strike action. Against that background also, there can be no case for uncertainty about what Parliament intends.
Whatever may be the view of the Opposition on strike action—we still await a statement from the hon. Member for Oldham, West on industrial action and his response to it—we do not believe that a strike can be justified. A strike can only harm the scheme ports and ultimately the work force taking the action. More than that, it cannot be justified because the right place for the decision to be taken on a statutory scheme is in Parliament. That is particularly the case remembering that the hon. Member for Oldham, West put forward in Committee the case for a new statutory dock labour scheme. He made the position of the Opposition clear when he said twice in Committee:
we believe in a regulated dock work industry rather than moving towards either national or local collective bargaining."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 27 April 1989; c. 40.]Thus, the Labour party is committed to a new statutory dock labour scheme. In those circumstances, a strike would be entirely unjustified. Whether there should be a statutory scheme should be decided by Parliament, not on the picket line.We look forward to that political debate. It will be important because, according to amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Oldham, West, he wants not just a new statutory scheme but a scheme which includes provisions from the 1976 legislation and which were rejected by the House when the Labour party was in office.
The effect of the hon. Gentleman's amendments would be to extend the scheme to new occupations such as warehousing, packing and unpacking containers, and to new areas within half a mile of any harbour area. So the hon. Gentleman, not content with taking us back to the 1970s in industrial relations, arid not content with his plans to legalise the secondary picket, now plans to go back to the mid-1970s for his dock work scheme.
We believe that the case for abolition is overwhelming. Whatever may have been the position at the time of the second world war, the restrictions of the scheme are not relevant to the needs of the ports industry today. Even less do they match up to the challenges that British ports will face in the 1990s. [Interruption.] It is a pity that the hon. Member for Oldham, West, who leads temporarily for the Opposition, is not even prepared to listen to the argument on this issue.
We want to ensure a good future for our ports and for those working in them. But that future will not be assured by the antiquated restrictions of the dock labour scheme.
§ Mr. Dobsonrose—
§ Mr. FowlerNo, I will not give way.
I do not doubt the sincerity of Opposition Members such as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), but I must tell him and those who put forward similar arguments that they are fighting yesterday's battle on dock work. If they doubt that, they need only look at 603 the experience of the ports outside the scheme, where trade has expanded, employment has grown and nobody has seriously claimed that that progress has been achieved by the exploitation of the dockers in those ports.
§ Mr. Dobsonrose—
§ Mr. FowlerNo, I have only two minutes left, and the hon. Gentleman has spent five minutes talking to his colleagues on the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Mr. Dobsonrose—
§ Mr. FowlerNo.
§ Mr. Dobsonrose—
§ Madam Deputy SpeakerOrder.
§ Mr. FowlerPay, hours and working conditions in the non-scheme ports are negotiated by the Transport and General Workers Union, the same union which conducts the negotiations in the scheme ports. Every assurance has been given that there will be no return to casual working. It is not revolutionary to suggest that dockers should move up to the position occupied by virtually every other worker in this country.
It is now in nobody's interest that there should be delay. Without the restrictions, the scheme ports will be able to compete better. Our proposals are for the benefit of the ports industry, the work force and for the inner city areas around the ports.
We know what has happened in the non-scheme ports—we have seen the development of trade and of employment. That is in stark contrast to everything that has happened in the scheme ports. That is why we believe that the dock labour scheme should be abolished. The motion provides ample time for a full debate on the remainder of a short Bill. The time has come for decision and it is for Parliament to decide the issue. The decision should be taken in Parliament and not on the picket lines that the Labour party is so enthusiastic to reinstate.
§ Question put:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 170.
606| Division No. 188] | [6.30 pm |
| AYES | |
| Adley, Robert | Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard |
| Aitken, Jonathan | Brandon-Bravo, Martin |
| Alexander, Richard | Brazier, Julian |
| Alison, Rt Hon Michael | Bright, Graham |
| Allason, Rupert | Brooke, Rt Hon Peter |
| Amess, David | Brown, Michael (Brigg & Cl't's) |
| Amos, Alan | Browne, John (Winchester) |
| Arbuthnot, James | Bruce, Ian (Dorset South) |
| Ashby, David | Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon Alick |
| Atkins, Robert | Buck, Sir Antony |
| Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N) | Budgen, Nicholas |
| Baldry, Tony | Burns, Simon |
| Banks, Robert (Harrogate) | Burt, Alistair |
| Batiste, Spencer | Butler, Chris |
| Beaumont-Dark, Anthony | Butterfill, John |
| Bellingham, Henry | Carlisle, John, (Luton N) |
| Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke) | Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln) |
| Blackburn, Dr John G. | Carrington, Matthew |
| Body, Sir Richard | Carttiss, Michael |
| Boscawen, Hon Robert | Chalker, Rt Hon Mrs Lynda |
| Boswell, Tim | Channon, Rt Hon Paul |
| Bottomley, Peter | Chapman, Sydney |
| Bowis, John | Chope, Christopher |
| Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes | Churchill, Mr |
| Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford) | Key, Robert |
| Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S) | Kirkhope, Timothy |
| Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe) | Knapman, Roger |
| Colvin, Michael | Knight, Greg (Derby North) |
| Conway, Derek | Knowles, Michael |
| Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest) | Lamont, Rt Hon Norman |
| Cope, Rt Hon John | Latham, Michael |
| Couchman, James | Lawrence, Ivan |
| Cran, James | Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel |
| Currie, Mrs Edwina | Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark |
| Curry, David | Lester, Jim (Broxtowe) |
| Davies, Q. (Stamf'd & Spald'g) | Lightbown, David |
| Davis, David (Boothferry) | Lilley, Peter |
| Day, Stephen | Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant) |
| Devlin, Tim | Lloyd, Peter (Fareham) |
| Dorrell, Stephen | Luce, Rt Hon Richard |
| Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James | Lyell, Sir Nicholas |
| Dover, Den | McCrindle, Robert |
| Dunn, Bob | Macfarlane, Sir Neil |
| Dykes, Hugh | MacGregor, Rt Hon John |
| Eggar, Tim | Maclean, David |
| Evennett, David | McLoughlin, Patrick |
| Fallon, Michael | McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) |
| Favell, Tony | Major, Rt Hon John |
| Field, Barry (Isle of Wight) | Malins, Humfrey |
| Fishburn, John Dudley | Mans, Keith |
| Fookes, Dame Janet | Maples, John |
| Forman, Nigel | Marlow, Tony |
| Forsyth, Michael (Stirling) | Marshall, John (Hendon S) |
| Forth, Eric | Marshall, Michael (Arundel) |
| Fowler, Rt Hon Norman | Mates, Michael |
| Fox, Sir Marcus | Maude, Hon Francis |
| Freeman, Roger | Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick |
| French, Douglas | Meyer, Sir Anthony |
| Gale, Roger | Miscampbell, Norman |
| Gardiner, George | Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling) |
| Garel-Jones, Tristan | Mitchell, Sir David |
| Gill, Christopher | Moate, Roger |
| Glyn, Dr Alan | Montgomery, Sir Fergus |
| Goodhart, Sir Philip | Moore, Rt Hon John |
| Goodlad, Alastair | Moss, Malcolm |
| Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles | Neale, Gerrard |
| Gow, Ian | Nelson, Anthony |
| Greenway, Harry (Ealing N) | Nicholls, Patrick |
| Greenway, John (Ryedale) | Nicholson, Emma (Devon West) |
| Gregory, Conal | Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil |
| Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth N) | Patnick, Irvine |
| Grist, Ian | Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey |
| Ground, Patrick | Portillo, Michael |
| Hague, William | Raffan, Keith |
| Hamilton, Hon Archie (Epsom) | Raison, Rt Hon Timothy |
| Hamilton, Neil (Tatton) | Renton, Tim |
| Hanley, Jeremy | Rhodes James, Robert |
| Hannam, John | Riddick, Graham |
| Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr') | Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas |
| Harris, David | Ridsdale, Sir Julian |
| Haselhurst, Alan | Roberts, Wyn (Conwy) |
| Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney | Rost, Peter |
| Hayward, Robert | Rowe, Andrew |
| Heddle, John | Sackville, Hon Tom |
| Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael | Sainsbury, Hon Tim |
| Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE) | Shaw, David (Dover) |
| Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L. | Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey) |
| Hind, Kenneth | Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW) |
| Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm) | Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge) |
| Hordern, Sir Peter | Shersby, Michael |
| Howard, Michael | Skeet, Sir Trevor |
| Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A) | Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield) |
| Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey | Soames, Hon Nicholas |
| Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford) | Speller, Tony |
| Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W) | Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W) |
| Hunt, David (Wirral W) | Spicer, Michael (S Worcs) |
| Hunter, Andrew | Squire, Robin |
| Irvine, Michael | Stanbrook, Ivor |
| Jack, Michael | Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John |
| Jackson, Robert | Steen, Anthony |
| Janman, Tim | Stern, Michael |
| Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N) | Stevens, Lewis |
| Jones, Robert B (Herts W) | Stewart, Allan (Eastwood) |
| Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine | Stewart, Andy (Sherwood) |
| Stokes, Sir John | Wakeham, Rt Hon John |
| Stradling Thomas, Sir John | Waldegrave, Hon William |
| Sumberg, David | Walden, George |
| Summerson, Hugo | Walker, Rt Hon P. (W'cester) |
| Taylor, Ian (Esher) | Waller, Gary |
| Taylor, John M (Solihull) | Wardle, Charles (Bexhill) |
| Taylor, Teddy (S'end E) | Watts, John |
| Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman | Wells, Bowen |
| Temple-Morris, Peter | Wheeler, John |
| Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret | Whitney, Ray |
| Thompson, D. (Calder Valley) | Widdecombe, Ann |
| Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N) | Wilshire, David |
| Thurnham, Peter | Wood, Timothy |
| Townend, John (Bridlington) | Woodcock, Mike |
| Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath) | Yeo, Tim |
| Tracey, Richard | Young, Sir George (Acton) |
| Tredinnick, David | |
| Trippier, David | Tellers for the Ayes: |
| Twinn, Dr Ian | Mr. Tony Durant and |
| Waddington, Rt Hon David | Mr. David Heathcoat-Amory. |
| NOES | |
| Abbott, Ms Diane | Fraser, John |
| Allen, Graham | Fyfe, Maria |
| Anderson, Donald | Galloway, George |
| Archer, Rt Hon Peter | Garrett, John (Norwich South) |
| Armstrong, Hilary | Golding, Mrs Llin |
| Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy | Gordon, Mildred |
| Ashton, Joe | Gould, Bryan |
| Banks, Tony (Newham NW) | Graham, Thomas |
| Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich) | Grant, Bernie (Tottenham) |
| Barron, Kevin | Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S) |
| Battle, John | Griffiths, Win (Bridgend) |
| Beckett, Margaret | Grocott, Bruce |
| Bell, Stuart | Harman, Ms Harriet |
| Benn, Rt Hon Tony | Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy |
| Bermingham, Gerald | Hinchliffe, David |
| Bidwell, Sydney | Hogg, N. (C'nauld & Kilsyth) |
| Blair, Tony | Home Robertson, John |
| Boateng, Paul | Hood, Jimmy |
| Boyes, Roland | Howarth, George (Knowsley N) |
| Bray, Dr Jeremy | Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd) |
| Brown, Gordon (D'mline E) | Hughes, John (Coventry NE) |
| Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith) | Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) |
| Buckley, George J. | Hughes, Roy (Newport E) |
| Caborn, Richard | Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S) |
| Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley) | Hughes, Simon (Southwark) |
| Campbell-Savours, D. N. | Illsley, Eric |
| Carlile, Alex (Mont'g) | Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside) |
| Cartwright, John | Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W) |
| Clark, Dr David (S Shields) | Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald |
| Clarke, Tom (Monklands W) | Kennedy, Charles |
| Clelland, David | Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil |
| Cohen, Harry | Kirkwood, Archy |
| Cook, Frank (Stockton N) | Lamond, James |
| Cook, Robin (Livingston) | Leadbitter, Ted |
| Corbett, Robin | Leighton, Ron |
| Corbyn, Jeremy | Lestor, Joan (Eccles) |
| Cousins, Jim | Lewis, Terry |
| Cryer, Bob | Livingstone, Ken |
| Cummings, John | Lloyd, Tony (Stretford) |
| Cunliffe, Lawrence | Lofthouse, Geoffrey |
| Darling, Alistair | Loyden, Eddie |
| Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli) | McKelvey, William |
| Davies, Ron (Caerphilly) | McNamara, Kevin |
| Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'l) | McWilliam, John |
| Dixon, Don | Madden, Max |
| Dobson, Frank | Mahon, Mrs Alice |
| Doran, Frank | Marek, Dr John |
| Eadie, Alexander | Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) |
| Eastham, Ken | Martlew, Eric |
| Evans, John (St Helens N) | Maxton, John |
| Fatchett, Derek | Meacher, Michael |
| Fearn, Ronald | Meale, Alan |
| Field, Frank (Birkenhead) | Michael, Alun |
| Fisher, Mark | Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley) |
| Flannery, Martin | Moonie, Dr Lewis |
| Flynn, Paul | Morgan, Rhodri |
| Foot, Rt Hon Michael | Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe) |
| Foster, Derek | Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) |
| Mowlam, Marjorie | Skinner, Dennis |
| Mullin, Chris | Smith, Andrew (Oxford E) |
| Murphy, Paul | Smith, C. (Isl'ton & F'bury) |
| Nellist, Dave | Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E) |
| O'Brien, William | Snape, Peter |
| O'Neill, Martin | Soley, Clive |
| Orme, Rt Hon Stanley | Spearing, Nigel |
| Patchett, Terry | Steinberg, Gerry |
| Pike, Peter L. | Stott, Roger |
| Powell, Ray (Ogmore) | Strang, Gavin |
| Prescott, John | Straw, Jack |
| Primarolo, Dawn | Taylor, Matthew (Truro) |
| Quin, Ms Joyce | Turner, Dennis |
| Radice, Giles | Vaz, Keith |
| Randall, Stuart | Wall, Pat |
| Redmond, Martin | Wallace, James |
| Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn | Walley, Joan |
| Reid, Dr John | Wardell, Gareth (Gower) |
| Richardson, Jo | Wareing, Robert N. |
| Roberts, Allan (Bootle) | Wigley, Dafydd |
| Robertson, George | Williams, Rt Hon Alan |
| Rogers, Allan | Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then) |
| Rooker, Jeff | Wilson, Brian |
| Ross, Ernie (Dundee W) | Winnick, David |
| Rowlands, Ted | Wray, Jimmy |
| Ruddock, Joan | |
| Sedgemore, Brian | Tellers for the Noes: |
| Shore, Rt Hon Peter | Mr. Frank Haynes and |
| Short, Clare | Mr. Allen McKay. |
§ Question accordingly agreed to.
§
Resolved,
That the following provisions shall apply to the remaining proceedings on the Bill:—
§
Committee
1. The proceedings on the Bill in the Standing Committee to which the Bill is allocated shall be brought to a conclusion at or before 1 p.m. on 18th May 1989, and the Standing Committee shall report the Bill to the House on or before that day.
§
Report and Third Reading
2.—(1) The proceedings on consideration and Third Reading of the Bill shall be completed in one allotted day and shall be brought to a conclusion at midnight on that day; and for the purposes of Standing Order No. 80 (Business Committee) this Order shall be taken to allot to the proceedings on consideration such part of that day as the Resolution of the Business Committee may determine.
(2) The Business Committee shall report to the House ills Resolutions as to the proceedings on consideration of the Bill, and as to the allocation of time between those proceedings and proceedings on Third Reading, not later than the third day on which the House sits after the day on which the Chairman of the Standing Committee reports the Bill to the House.
(3) The Resolutions in any Report made under Standing Order No. 80 may be varied by a further Report so made, whether or not within the time specified in sub-paragraph (2) above, and whether or not the Resolutions have been agreed to by the House.
(4) The Resolutions of the Business Committee may include alterations in the order in which proceedings on consideration of the Bill are taken.
§
Procedure in Standing Committee
3.—(1) At a sitting of the Standing Committee at which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion under a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee the Chairman shall not adjourn the Committee under any Order relating to the sittings of the Committee until the proceedings have been brought to a conclusion.
(2) No Motion shall be made in the Standing Committee relating to the sitting of the Committee except by a member of the Government, and the Chairman shall permit a brief explanatory statement from the Member who makes, and from a Member who opposes, the Motion, and shall then put the Question thereon.
607
4. No Motion shall be made to alter the order in which Clauses, Schedules, new Clauses and new Schedules are taken in the Standing Committee but the Resolutions of the Business Sub-Committee may include alterations in that order.
§
Conclusions of proceedings in Committee
5. On the conclusion of the proceedings in any Committee on the Bill the Chairman shall report the Bill to the House without putting any Question.
§
Dilatory Motions
6. No dilatory Motion with respect to, or in the course of, proceedings on the Bill shall be made in the Standing Committee or on an allotted day except by a member of the Government, and the Question on any such Motion shall be put forthwith.
§
Extra time on allotted days
7.—
(1) On an allotted day paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted Business) shall apply to the proceedings on the Bill for two hours after Ten o'clock.
(2) Any period during which proceedings on the Bill may be proceeded with after Ten o'clock under paragraph (7) of Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) shall be in addition to the said period of two hours.
(3) If an allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, a period of time equal to the duration of the proceedings upon that Motion shall be added to the said period of two hours.
§
Private business
8. Any private business which has been set down for consideration at Seven o'clock on an allotted day shall, instead of being considered as provided by Standing Orders, be considered at the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill on that day, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the private business for a period of three hours from the conclusion of the proceedings on the Bill or, if those proceedings are concluded before Ten o'clock, for a period equal to the time elapsing between Seven o'clock and the conclusion of those proceedings.
§
Conclusion of proceedings
9.—(1) For the purpose of bringing to a conclusion any proceedings which are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or the Business Sub-Committee and which have not previously been brought to a conclusion, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the following Questions (but no others)—
and on a Motion so made for a new Clause or a new Schedule, the Chairman or Mr. Speaker shall put only the Question that the Clause or Schedule be added to the Bill.(2) Proceedings under sub-paragraph (1) above shall not be interrupted under any Standing Order relating to the sittings of the House.
(3) If an allotted day is one on which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 (Adjournment on specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration) would, apart from this Order, stand over to Seven o'clock—
608
(4) If the allotted day is one to which a Motion for the adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 20 stands over from an earlier day, the bringing to a conclusion of any proceedings on the Bill which, under this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee, are to be brought to a conclusion on that day shall be postponed for a period equal to the duration of the proceedings on that Motion.
§
Supplemental orders
10.—(1) The proceedings on any Motion made in the House by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order (including anything which might have been the subject of a report of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee) shall, if not previously concluded, be brought to a conclusion one hour after they have been commenced, and paragraph (1) of Standing Order No. 14 (Exempted business) shall apply to the proceedings.
(2) If on an allotted day on which any proceedings on the Bill are to be brought to a conclusion at a time appointed by this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee the House is adjourned, or the sitting is suspended, before that time no notice shall be required of a Motion made at the next sitting by a member of the Government for varying or supplementing the provisions of this Order.
§
Saving
11. Nothing in this Order or a Resolution of the Business Committee or Business Sub-Committee shall—
§
Reccommittal
12.—(1) References in this Order to proceedings on consideration or proceedings on Third Reading include references to proceedings, at those stages respectively, for, on or in consequence of, reccommittal.
(2) On an allotted day no debate shall be permitted on any Motion to recommit the Bill (whether as a whole or otherwise), and Mr. Speaker shall put forthwith any Question necessary to dispose of the Motion, including the Question on any amendment moved to the Question.
§
Interpretation
13. In this Order—
allotted day" means any day (other than a Friday) on which the Bill is put down as first Government Order of the Day provided that a Motion for allotting time to the proceedings on the Bill to be taken on that day either has been agreed on a previous day or is set down for consideration on that day;
the Bill" means the Dock Work Bill;
Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Sub-Committee as agreed to by the Standing Committee;
Resolution of the Business Committee" means a Resolution of the Business Committee as agreed to by the House.