§ 3.57 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I will with permission repeat a Statement being made by my right honourable friend the First Secretary of State about the present difficulties which are preventing the operation of the 0.C.L./A.C.T. modernised terminal at Tilbury. The Statement is as follows:
"Overseas Containers Limited and Associated Containers Transportation yesterday announced that in the light of the continued refusal of the No. 1 Docks Group Committee of the Transport and General Workers' Union to lift their ban on the implementation of the agreement reached in January this year, covering the operation of the O.C.L./A.C.T. terminal at Tilbury, they have decided to place on a more permanent basis at Antwerp the alternative arrangements introduced in March for the handling of the United Kingdom-Australia traffic. O.C.L./ A.C.T. are also taking steps to place their Tilbury terminal on a care-and-maintenance basis and to redeploy staff. O.C.L. is giving further consideration to the dismantling of equipment at Tilbury. I also understand that O.C.L./ A.C.T. are seeking an increase in freight charges to and from Australia to cover additional costs of transshipment of cargoes to and from the Continent.
"Although before January, 1968, a number of modernised terminal berth agreements negotiated by the Transport and General Workers' Union had come into operation, the No. 1 Dock Group Committee then decided to impose a ban on the further implementation of modernised berth agreements until a Stage II Devlin agreement had been reached for London as a whole. The lead in these negotiations has been taken by the employers in the Enclosed Docks and by the T. and G.W.U., and after intensive discussions, an offer by the employers, which provides in return for 2-shift working and flexible manning a standard weekly wage of £33 10s. 0d. for the great majority of dockers and £36 for those working on ships, was put to the men by ballot 1402 earlier this month. It was rejected by 3,090 votes to 2,442. Following the ballot, the No. 1 Docks Group Committee confirmed their ban on further modernised berth agreements, and at Tilbury yesterday the men rejected by a narrow majority a proposal that they should nevertheless bring the modernised berths at Tilbury into operation. It was these two events which precipitated the 0.C.L./A.C.T. decision to which I have referred.
"My Department has been in close touch with the two sides throughout these negotiations and has assisted in bringing them together. It has had joint meetings with the employers and with the full No. 1 Docks Group Committee in order to try to get the ban removed. I fully appreciate the concern of dockers over their future employment prospects in view of the reduced labour requirements which follow the introduction of modern cargo handling methods. In view, however, of the special protection against redundancy afforded to dockers by the Dock Labour Scheme, the successful operation of agreed voluntary severance arrangements introduced in June, 1969, and the introduction from the same date of improved pension and a lower retirement age, and also of the terms of the Enclosed Docks employers' offer to which I have already referred, I would urge the union to reconsider their attitude and, without waiting further on the conclusion of the Stage II Devlin negotiations, to lift the ban —in the interests of the country, the port and the men themselves.
"I am seeking an early meeting with Mr. Victor Feather of the T.U.C. and Mr. Jack Jones of the Transport and General Workers' Union to discuss the serious position which has now arisen."
§ LORD CARRINGTONMy Lords, the House will be grateful to the noble Lord the Leader of the House for having repeated that Statement, which reveals a deplorable position. As I understand it —and the noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong— O.C.L./A.C.T. have paid a high wage to a number of dockers at their container terminal for over nine months in return for very little indeed; and this, I suppose, in the hope that sanity would return in a Devlin Stage II 1403 agreement. But as the noble Lord has said, it has not done so. I must say that many of us, including, I should have thought, noble Lords on both sides of the House, are baffled and cannot understand how any thinking man could make a decision of this kind; knowing, as he must, that that decision would certainly mean the decline of London as a port and, consequently, put his own job at risk.
So far as I am concerned, it is unbelievable, and it is up to the Government, I should have thought, to safeguard the national interest. As the noble Lord said in the Statement, freight rates to Australia must, and undoubtedly will, rise as a result of this action and the double handling necessary for sending the freight and the containers from Ipswich to Antwerp. And this now, of all times; just when our exports are rising and trade figures are doing better. My Lords, I think that this is a case where the Government really must intervene. Otherwise, goodness knows where we shall end!
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, I, too, thank the noble Lord for having repeated the Statement, which shows a grave situation—indeed, a shameful situation. I would certainly wish the Minister all success in the new initiative and new talks, but I hope that it will be possible to bring home to the people involved that this really is a very serious situation, and that if we in London refuse to accept these modern methods we are going to lose this container business for ever. There is no major port in Europe that is not trying to wrest this business from us.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the situation is a little more complex—the Statement cannot cover all the complexities—than I think the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, realises. Although I entirely share the view of all noble Lords about the seriousness of the situation I am a little hesitant about using words like "shameful" or just saying that it is "up to the Government" regarding matters which are the subject of free negotiation. This is not the type of area where this sort of issue arises for those of us who may have disagreement in relation to dealing with strikes and suchlike matters. I am sure that noble Lords 1404 appreciate this. I fully accept that the situation is serious, and I appreciate that noble Lords hope that my right honourable friend's efforts to get the seriousness of this matter fully understood will lead to a satisfactory conclusion.
§ LORD BYERSMy Lords, the noble Lord is surely not saying, that free negotiation means that one has no concern for the national interest at any time.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, it is always interesting to hear a noble Lord who sits on the Liberal Benches seeking to give the Government the power to tell workers and trade unionists what to do; and that he should confuse this situation with the obligation of the Government to encourage, persuade and get people to face their responsibilities. No one in this House, I believe, would wish the Government to order people to enter into a particular agreement. For that reason I think the important thing to be recognised is what is in the national interest and is good sense, and what is in the interest of the men concerned as well as of the country.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, can the noble Lord the Leader of the House give some further clarification? Before I proceed with my question, may I declare an interest, having been a member of a firm that built the Tilbury dock which is the cause of all this trouble? By reason of that, and my continuous visits down there, I am familiar with the actual circumstances which are producing this great difficulty. Is the noble Leader of the House able to say anything further about the likely progress in dealing with this problem? I should also like to add, in support of what the noble Lord, Lord Byers, has said, that the delay over this matter of the container traffic, particularly as it affects the wool textile interests, is very great; and the transfer to the Continent as is being done now, is delaying any shipment. Any change from London would considerably increase the freight charges, and it is a matter of extreme urgency that a solution should be accelerated.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, we know that the noble Lord, despite his youthful appearance, is of a considerable age; and whether he built the original Tilbury Dock or whether it was the 1405 present containers, or the present container agency, I am not clear.
§ LORD BARNBYMy Lords, I made clear that it was the dock about which this discussion has arisen, not the original one.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, I do not disagree with what the noble Lord has said. I do not want to prolong this discussion too much, but it may help, particularly in the light of Lord Carrington's remarks, if I explain, briefly, the difficulty. There is a potentially satisfactory agreement in relation to Tilbury, and the P.L.A. had agreed terms and conditions for the operation; but the No. 1 Docks Group which covers the whole of London is refusing to allow this agreement to be implemented. The fact that the decision taken last night was taken only by a small majority clearly shows a division of loyalties. I think one needs to recognise this. We may consider that the men were misguided in their decision; and it is noteworthy that a very large number of people, including their own shop stewards, did urge the Tilbury men to implement their agreement and not to relate it to the delay and the failure to reach agreement on Devlin Stage II. It is in this direction as well as in respect of the implementation of Devlin, that one must hope for a solution. But I entirely agree that this is a very serious and important matter.
§ LORD MACPHERSON OF DRUMOCHTERMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord one question? There are many noble Lords here this afternoon who would like to speak on this matter. Would it not be possible to consider giving some time to debating it, so that we may all have a chance to make a contribution?
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, unfortunately we cannot do that to-day, because notice has to be put on the Order Paper. But one hopes that negotiations and further efforts will produce the necessary results. It is of course always open to noble Lords in this House to debate aything. I am inclined to think that in a matter of this kind, where the Government are actively engaged in seeking a solution, it is not helpful to a difficult negotiation to have statements which may give rise to further exacerbation. But that is my personal opinion, 1406 and I have noted what the noble Lord has said.