Lords Sitting of 2 November 1976

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR On the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwell.

DROUGHT ACT AND WATER RESTRICTIONS
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government when, in view of the statement made by the chairman of the National Water Council with regard to water supplies, they propose to repeal the Drought Act 1976 and lift restrictions on the use of water for commercial cleaning purposes.
The PARLIAMENTARY UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE, DEPARTMENT of the ENVIRONMENT (Baroness Birk): My Lords, we need to keep the powers of the Drought Act in reserve, but those powers enabling water authorities to restrict the use of water for non-essential purposes are of limited duration. However, water authorities are already relaxing restrictions or treating cases of special hardship sympathetically.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness the Minister for her Answer. Could she assure us that an Act of Parliament of this nature will be taken off the Statute Book as soon as it ceases to be relevant to day-to-day affairs, rather than for it to be left there? Secondly, is she aware that local water authorities are requiring that individual applications be made for the easement of prohibition orders in those industries to which I have referred in my Question; that is, the cleaning industries?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, with regard to the first part of the noble Lord's supplementary question, I cannot possibly
1072
either put any date to the repeal of this Act or give any hope that it will be repealed. The noble Lord will remember that at the time we introduced this Bill many noble Lords thought that action should have been taken sooner, and it seems to me that it would be incredibly foolish to repeal an Act of Parliament when we might need to use it in the future. It should be there in reserve. On the noble Lord's second point, I may say that where restrictions are being taken off by water authorities, which has been happening in many areas, that is a general taking off of restrictions. Where the restrictions still apply and there is a case of special hardship, the individual firm must apply to the water authority. That seems to me to be quite in order and has in fact been happening.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, would my noble friend agree that in an island such as this, with our huge rainfall, it is absolutely disgraceful that after a few weeks during which there has been a lack of rain we find ourselves in the shocking position we were in a few weeks ago; and would she try to ensure that there is now an effort to conserve water on a far greater scale than we have ever attempted before?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, it is difficult for me to say that what was almost an act of God is an absolute disgrace. On the second part of my noble friend's question, I would point out that it is also true that when the chairman of the National Water Council, the noble Lord, Lord Nugent of Guildford, made a statement recently he stressed the need for us still to conserve water. That is why the restrictions are being lifted with some considerable caution and why, at the same time, people are still being asked to be as economical as they possibly can be, because we do not know what lies ahead.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, since this has been the worst drought for 250 years, does the noble Baroness realise that the whole House will admire her far-sightedness in retaining permanent powers which may well be needed as soon as the year 2226?
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, is my noble friend aware—I am sure she is—that owing to

1073
the very long, dry spell that we had, there are still many reservoirs only partly full and a large number of aquifiers which are showing no response yet to the recent heavy rain?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, that is absolutely true. That is why we are still asking for the greatest possible economy and why, in the area of the Thames Water Authority, for instance, because it is taking so long to replace the under-ground water sources, it is still necessary to maintain restrictions, despite the torrential rain we have had recently. Although the drought may be at an end, the water shortage is not.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, will my noble friend not accept that, as indicated by the noble and learned Lord opposite, this drought has been very exceptional indeed; but has it not taught the Department and the nation as a whole the lesson that we should look upon water resources as a whole? Instead of our having the independent authorities that we have now, would it not be possible for some thought to be given to establishing a national grid scheme, somewhat on the lines of the gas and electricity industries, in order to see that the rivers, which have so much water which flows to waste, as it were, are harnessed to meet any future emergency?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Minister for Sport and Recreation and recently the Minister for Drought, will be making a Statement on the water supply prospects very shortly.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, has all this anything to do with the low temperature of the Chamber today?
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, does my noble friend recall that during the Second Reading of the Drought Bill it started to rain outside in torrents, with accompanying thunder and lightning? If ever there should be a recurrence of the severe drought and this Act should ever lapse, that might be a suitable moment to reintroduce it.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, there is one final question. Would not the Minister agree that it seems unfair
1074
that two industries, car cleaning and building, are the only industries to be affected by total prohibition?
Baroness BIRK: My Lords, there is, I agree, an element of rough justice about this. But if the noble Lord will cast his mind back to the time when this prohibition was brought in, he will recall that we were in the middle of a severe drought in which agriculture and domestic water supplies were very badly affected. We had at that time to decide our purposes and these two industries were non-essential in this respect and were conspicuous at a time when it was necessary to secure maximum economy and the greatest co-operation. My right honourable friend will certainly be looking at exactly what happened during the operation of the Act during the drought.
Lord MAELOR: My Lords, would the Minister agree that it is high time that England should pay for the water it gets from Wales?
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, with the permission of the House may I answer the noble Lord, Lord Derwent? The temperature of the Chamber has been observed, engineers have been told, and we are hoping for a little warmer temperature later.
Lord DERWENT: My Lords, I have noticed that the Government Chief Whip always moves very quickly.

LICENSING COMPENSATION FUND
2.45 p.m.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they will ensure, now that a formula has been agreed between the Brewers' Society and the trade protection and charitable bodies for the distribution of the Licensing Compensation Fund, that at least 25 per cent. of the income thereof shall be paid annually to the National Council on Alcoholism.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, the proposals which the Brewers' Society and the licensed trade associations have jointly put forward for the disposal of these funds are not free from difficulties and require further discussion. We are therefore not yet able to formulate firm proposals on how the funds should be disposed of and what interests might benefit.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, while thanking the noble Lord for that Answer, may I ask whether he would consider looking favourably on the National Council because it is not just a figurehead but must support 18 regional councils? Would he also look at the situation of the Medical Council on Alcoholism? Further, could he say whether the Home Office has received the delegation which was announced a fort-night ago in the Morning Advertiser?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, if and when money is available for distribution among the organisations who are concerned with the remedial side of this problem, obviously the Government will give very favourable consideration; but I must point out to the noble Earl that there are quite a number of organisations that would have some claim. The two organisations which he has mentioned already receive quite substantial grants, and have done so for some time, from the Department of Health and Social Security. On March 23rd this year, I told your Lordships that the Home Office were having discussions with the Magistrates' Association, the Justices Clerks' Society, the Brewers' Society, the National Federation of Licensed Victuallers and the Licensed Victuallers' Society. These discussions have been going on simultaneously with the Brewers' Society.
Lord SOPER: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, if bids arc in order, there is a paramount need at the moment to support those voluntarily organisations which are caring for alcoholics and that it is on the cards that, unless such subventions can be made available, it is likely that many of them will have to lose, to the general disadvantage of the attempts to deal with alcoholism? Is the noble Lord further aware that, if some people regard this money as tainted, we are prepared to baptise it, and would be only too eager to do so?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I can only repeat that certainly the Government would give favourable consideration to where the need is most urgent. But it depends entirely upon the conditions of the trust fund that would be set up and in which direction the money could be spent.
Lord AMULREE: My Lords, does the noble Lord realise what a large amount of research work into the prevention and cure of alcoholism is being carried out under the auspices of the Medical Council for the Care of the Alcoholic?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: So much so, my Lords, that I think I am right in saying that the Department of Health and Social Security make a substantial grant to them for that purpose.
Lord JANNER: My Lords, in view of the fact that this money has been lying idle for so many years—from the end of the last war—is it not time that it was used for the purposes for which it was originally set aside? Will the Government see to it that something is done rapidly? It seems a grave injustice to have funds which should be available for charitable purposes put aside like this without being used.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not know whether my noble friend is aware that the money was set aside originally to compensate licensees of public houses who were made redundant. It was not set aside originally for research purposes at all. This is one of the problems. I do not want to spend too much time on it, but the Erroll Committee came forward with certain recommendations and the Brewers' Society came forward with certain others. There will be a need for a certain amount of discussion to reconcile the different points of view.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, is it correct to say that over the last few years there has been a very alarming increase in alcoholism and alcohol-related disease, to such an extent that treatment of these diseases under the National Health Service is costing something of the order of hundreds of millions of pounds per annum? If the suggestion of my noble friend were accepted, is it correct that

1077
the amount which would be available to the National Council would be of the order of £100,000 per annum which is three orders of magnitude less than the cost of the treatment of alcoholism and alcohol-related disease?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I do not think there is any voluntary organisation that can say what percentage of the money that may be available it should receive. The suggestion of the Brewers' Society at the moment is that 50 per cent. shall be put aside by way of trust to help various bodies who are trying to combat, by way of research and in other ways, the evils of alcoholism. As I said earlier, there are a number of organisations and if and when that money is available their claims will have to be considered. I do not think it would be right for any organisation to feel that they would be entitled to a certain percentage.

ART EXHIBITIONS: GOVERNMENT AID
2.51 p.m.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government how much of the money disbursed by the Arts Council is devoted to the promotion of exhibitions of (a) British, and (b) foreign artists.
The MINISTER of STATE, DEPARTMENT of EDUCATION and SCIENCE (Lord Donaldson of Kingsbridge): My Lords, the Arts Council of Great Britain spent a net sum of £392,500 on their own exhibitions. The cost for exhibitions of British art was £187,000; for foreign art £71,000; and for exhibitions covering both £134,500. The Council's relevant expenditure on staff and general publicity and overheads totalled £255,500. In addition, a number of bodies in receipt of grants from the Arts Council spend some of their resources on exhibitions.
Baroness SHARPLES: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord the Minister for that Answer. Is he aware that the
1078
Federation of British Artists have some 20 organisations associated with them, of which there are seven Royal institutes or societies, and they have some 4,000 professional artists? Their galleries are next door to the Institute of Contemporary Art in the Mall; they pay savage rates, yet they receive no grant whatsoever from any sources.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I am aware of these facts. I think that "savage rates" is rather an extravagant epithet. A great deal is done by the Arts Council for British art in various ways. The fact that £187,000 of the money they spend on exhibitions is entirely on British art gives some indication of that. In any case, noble Lords would prefer that decisions of this kind be left to the Arts Council and that the Arts Council should not be interfered with by Parliament, and still less by Ministers who, by definition, are supposed to have no taste.
Lord WADE: My Lords, without suggesting interference by Parliament, can the noble Lord give any indication as to the breakdown between London and other parts of the country?
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I do not have that information with me; I will write to the noble Lord.
Viscount ECCLES: My Lords, while I agree that these decisions should be left to the Arts Council—and they do their work very well—it is reasonable for my noble friend to point out that the Federation of British Artists do an extraordinary good piece of work right alongside the ICA. Surety there are a large number of people who would rather have the subsidy paid to the Federation of British Artists than the ICA.
Lord DONALDSON of KINGSBRIDGE: My Lords, I never suggested for one moment that what the noble Baroness said was unreasonable.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2.53 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that this Report be now received.
Moved, That the Report be now received.—(Lord Jacques.)
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think it would be appropriate for me to make a few remarks on this Motion before we move to the first Amendment. There has been a great deal of exaggerated talk recently about defiance, delays and the defeats which we are inflicting on the Government. The latest example of some of these absurd remarks is to be seen in the Press today. When we come to a particular stage of a particular Bill there is an opportunity which one ought to take to rebut some of this nonsense. as to defiance, this is early days to be talking in those terms. As to defeat, all we are doing is obliging or inviting another place to look again at matters which we think require further attention. To judge from the correspondence and calls we are having from several unions, even today, their members are looking to Parliament—not just this House but both Houses—as they have every right to do, for the protection of their interests which they feel to be threatened. As to delay, I invite your Lordships to compare the procedures on this particular Bill as between the two Houses.
We have just handled the Committee stage of this Bill in the course of four sessions spread over less than two weeks in which every Amendment that was tabled has been considered, as opposed to the other place where only selected Amendments were considered, and in which all the Members of your Lordships' House have been able to take part, in contrast to the limited number on Standing Committee G in the other place. Compared with those four sessions occupying less than two weeks, the other place—some of whose Members are accusing us of delay—had 36 sittings, as compared with our four, spread over more than three months, in comparison with our time of less than two weeks. It is unreasonable to talk about this House causing delays when that is the actual situation.
Another point which is raised is that when the Tories are in power and leading this House everything goes much faster. That is not so. I looked up a comparable Bill which I had handled dealing with the reorganisation of the water industry. That was a longer Bill but it did not take so long in Committee. It was dealt with
1080
in three sessions. Nevertheless, instead of allowing only six days between the Committee stage and the Report stage, we allowed 13 days—twice as long. There is no question about everything going faster here when the Conservative Party is in power. It is simply not true.
The final point I want to make is the situation in which this haste places us. I should like to start by quoting the relevant part of the Renton Report. This concerns the intervals between stages of Bills.
"On some occasions there is too little time between the various stages of a Bill to permit Members of Parliament, Peers and those whom they consult, to give adequate consideration to the drafting of the proposed legislation and framing of Amendments. This problem is especially acute between the end of the Committee stage and the start of the Report stage"—
which is where we are—
"especially on Bills of substantial length and complexity".
I am sure your Lordships will agree that that is the case here.
"No doubt Parliamentary draftsmen also find themselves at a disadvantage when there is insufficient time between stages. We recommend therefore that, unless there is need for special urgency"—
and we shall no doubt take different views about that—
"there should always be at least two weekends before the first publication of a Bill and the debate on Second Reading in the first House, 14 days between Second Reading and the start of the Committee stage, and on all Bills of considerable length and complexity, 14 days between the publication of the Bill as amended in Committee and Standing Committee and the start of the Report stage."
It is because we have not had such time for consideration that we are in trouble. It has really not helped to try to push the business through as fast as this.
The first thing I should like to do is to compliment the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and his Department, who must have exerted themselves in the most strenuous way in order to deal with this situation, and to apologise to him and his Department for the very considerable inconvenience we, in our turn, must have caused to them. What is happening is that replies to points on which the noble Lord under-took to communicate with us reached us—and I must say I am grateful to him for having copied them to all noble Lords who were concerned—at noon yesterday.

1081
That was too late to effect any of the Amendments we had been preparing and which had to be tabled by 5.30 in the afternoon. It was too late, because by that time we were locked in close consultation with a very considerable number of interests who wanted to see us during the course of the afternoon and with whom we were deliberating until 6 o'clock. By that time it was too late to table any Amendments resulting from that consultation. As a result, this morning the noble Lord has been confronted by a whole set of Amendments from us of which I was not able to give him any previous notice. We shall be debating that this afternoon. On top of that, I have had to table no fewer than eight manuscript Amendments which I thought it was important to get on the record today but which it was too late to have tabled last night. That is the basis on which we are having to conduct this debate. We start today with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, not having seen any of our Amendments until this morning, with eight manuscript Amendments which he has only just seen and with the Amendments following Clause 12 incomplete.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should like to make only one comment. I think I can fairly claim that the Government are not entirely to blame for the shortness of the interval between Committee and Report. It was agreed between the usual channels that there should be three sessions set aside for the Committee stage. At the second stage, before we had gone the whole of the time, the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, requested that we should finish at that point. He wished the next Amendment to be considered on the third day. I agreed, on condition that he gave us every co-operation to complete on time; that is, to complete the third session. Unfortunately, in the event we did not complete in the third session and a fourth session was necessary. That was largely because we did not work the full time on the second session, at the request of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie; so I would say we are not entirely to blame. The noble Lord, Lord Carrington, shakes his head, but I was the one who was personally involved.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, if I may correct the noble Lord, the Government are entirely to blame for what has
1082
happened. They are pushing five Bills through Parliament in six weeks, which should take about six months, that is the reason.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am not discussing the main issue. I am discussing the shortness of the interval which has occurred for this Bill.
Lord CARRINGTON: But that is why it is short.
Lord JACQUES: I am saying that the interval would have been greater had I not agreed to the suggestion made by the Opposition to curtail the second session of the Committee stage. I would only add one more thing; that is, if we really want to get on with the business I suggest that we cut this short and get on with the Report stage.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that, even if we had completed the Committee stage in three sessions as was hoped, there would still not have been enough time to do all the work that was necessary between Committee and Report? We have been put under the most intolerable strain, and so have our advisers. I suspect that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and his advisers have also been under intolerable strain. The kind of time interval quoted by my noble friend is a much more reasonable one, but that would have been out of the question because of this absurd attempt to push through so much legislation in such a short period of time.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, when the other side were in power I christened the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, "Stonewall Jackson". In opposition, the Front Bench on that side of the House are a whole collection of "Stonewall Jacksons". They do not in any circumstances seek to see the Government get any of their legislation through if at all possible because, whatever the Government may seek to bring forward, they are stone-walling all the time. That is due to bad leadership on that side from the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, and others, who ought to be able to control their people in a much better fashion and with a much better system than we have operating within this Chamber.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, that is really an almost outrageous accusation to make. Part of the trouble is that there is so much legislation that people have now become used to the notion that an idea floated by way of legislation shall become law, irrespective of what Parliament has to say about it, whether this is in the other place or in your Lordships' House. Members of this House seek to do only that which they think is right. If on occasion anger and frustration on the other side, or indeed outside both Chambers of Parliament, arise, it is because of this ridiculous attitude that seems to have become prevalent that because a Bill has been introduced that Bill shall become law, whether or not Parliament has had any time to consider it, to amend it or to make it better if possible. That is the trouble. It has nothing to do with bad leadership on our part.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, I think perhaps this might be the moment for me to say a word. I do not think there is a Government in the world who exist who do not intend their legislation to become law, admittedly after proper discussion and so on. I should like to point out that, if the agreement which we have come to had been observed, there would have been exactly the correct fortnight of interval between one stage and the other. I think all sides of the House, including the Opposition, wish to make the best possible use of the time now within reasonable limits, and I suggest that we get on with the Report stage of this Bill.
On Question, Report received.
Clause 1 [Reconstitution of Board as body corporate]:
3.9 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 12, leave out ("twelve") and insert ("sixteen").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 1. It is the first of a number of Amendments dealing with the size and composition of the National Dock Labour Board. The context in which I want to propose this Amendment is to get the other place to
1084
think again about its size. Although my Amendment suggests that the membership should be increased to 16, I am not wedded to any particular number, except that I would hold to the view that it ought to be reconsidered and that some number larger than 12 should be substituted. This Amendment will secure that reconsideration.
The reason for moving the Amendment goes back to the initial Consultation Document of March 1975, in which at paragraph 34 the point is made that the proposals it contains would add considerably to the duties and responsibilities of the National Dock Labour Board. That is clearly so. At every point in this Bill we can see, by reading this clause and that, that the Board's responsibilities are to be wider, covering more functions, more activities and enterprises, and wider in a geographical sense as well. Certainly, the previous Board have not been able to master satisfactorily even their more limited agenda. The employers will still need to have the four people who have hitherto represented them, and the employees likewise. This would certainly not be the moment to argue for any reduction in the numbers of people on the Board to represent those two groups, even if the people concerned might be chosen for their width of vision. But in addition to those considerations, which completely preclude any question of reducing the number of the two basic ingredients, there are three separate factors which together call for additional members to sit beside these two main groups, and those three factors are as follows.
First, I should have thought that experience since 1946 has shown all along that it is difficult for a board consisting of only employee representatives and employer representatives in equal numbers to deal adequately with all the conflicts and tensions that arise. In fact, a confrontation situation is really built into the structure of the Board. In any case, they have not managed to do it, and that is one of the reasons why we have this Bill and have had to look so radically at the whole question of dock work regulation. That is one factor.
Another factor is that experience has also shown that a board composed of limited numbers such as this, and designed

1085
to represent limited interests, does not take properly into account the interests of those many people beyond those who are directly represented because they happen to work in the docks as employees or employers. It is perhaps in this respect that the shortcomings, the failures and the ineffectiveness of the National Dock Labour Board up to now have been most marked.
Thirdly, there is a further and different point that, with the greatly enlarged duties and responsibilities and with the enhanced status and increased role of the Board, it is important not only that other interests in the ports should be properly considered and weighed by the National Dock Labour Board but that many other interests outside the docks and ports, but nevertheless served by them and dependent on them and making use of them, should also be considered. They certainly need to be considered more than they have been in the past, and our belief is that this can be done satisfactorily only by a number of representatives which roughly balances and matches those whose duty it is mainly to represent the employers and the employees working in the docks. It is for these three reasons, coupled with the fact that the effectiveness of the National Dock Labour Board up to now has been so far from satisfactory, that I move this Amendment.
Your Lordships will appreciate that Amendment No. 3 flows from it naturally. I should have thought it would be helpful to concentrate particularly on this Amendment and possibly on Amendment No. 3 and not so much on the others, because it is only if this Amendment is accepted and sent to another place for consideration that it will be realistic to discuss any of the subsequent Amendments which are included under this clause. If we can get the agreement of the Government that the numbers should be reconsidered and that some enlargement should be thought about, then of course it will be entirely realistic to think about how that can be done, what consultation should be under-gone and what increase in the Secretary of State's discretion needs to be in-corporated in the Bill for it all to happen. My Lords, I beg to move.
3.15 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, had put the
1086
proposition that instead of having 16 members of the Board, or even 12, it should consist of a chairman with perhaps two vice-chairmen, with power to consult assessors, experts and people employed in the industry, whether on one side or the other, responsible for the operations associated with the Bill, I could have supported him. There are far too many boards in the country. We are being cluttered up with boards. Even quite a number of Members of your Lordships' House are associated with boards—very influential, very useful, very constructive I have not the least doubt, but that is not the way to run business. You do not run business through boards; you run business through people who are constructive and who have the expertise.
Occasionally, I have had to refer to past experience. I have to go back to the nationalisation of the mines, or the nationalisation of electricity supply, which I had to deal with. I should never have appointed boards of that kind. I should have appointed a head of the coal industry, responsible for policy which could be corrected by the Secretary of State or by Members of both Houses of Parliament as and when necessary. That is what I should have done. We have had nothing but trouble as a result of having too many people on boards.
I cannot understand it. It is bad enough to have 12 members, but the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, wants 16. What are they going to do? Let us see what they are going to do. Will noble Lords look at what their operations are to be? They will do nothing but talk. They will talk and talk until they are black and blue in the face. They will engage in disputation. What is it that we are driving at? The Bill is bad enough, as I have said before, but this will only make it worse. So I suggest that we ought to reject the Amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, and that the Government should reconsider the matter and decide to have a chairman with perhaps two vice-chairmen, and those three persons should be responsible for the formulation of policy and should utilise all the expertise that exists on both sides of the industry.
3.19 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, as usual, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, has

1087
been both constructive and radical. Our Amendment was not so radical. After all, this is mainly a regulatory board, not a commercial board. Secondly, according to the rubric to Clause 1, we are talking about the reconstitution of the Board. As I see it, the Board have three roles. First, there is the administrative role—a continuation, more or less, of the 1967 National Dock Board. Secondly, there is the supervisory role—that is to say, keeping the local boards under review. Thirdly, there is the advisory role—advising the Secretary of State.
Surely the great difference between the functions of this Board and the Board which it is to replace is that this Board will have to formulate proposals on what work is to be done and by whom. This may mean exercising judgment as to whether work done by members of one trade union should be done by another trade union, with all the implications that that may have for industry, morale and industrial relations. The last thing that one expects from a body with these responsibilities is that it should have an inbuilt or, if you like, a built-in majority representing one particular interest. The Board have to consider not just the interests of dock workers and their employers; they have to consider the best and most economical way not only of handling goods within the ports but of seeing that the food, raw materials and exports are brought to the port and from the port by methods which will keep down costs in the interests of the nation and the nation's ability to compete in the world. For this purpose, surely the need is for a widely-based and balanced Board.
When a body like this is being reconstituted there is no particular merit in maintaining the existing Board and adding a minority of other members. The size of the Board does not matter very much. After all, most of the work will have to be done by the staff for submission to the Board—as the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, says, for discussion by the Board. However, the interests must be represented in that discussion.
Lord SHINVVELL: Not at all, my Lords.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the noble Lord says, "Not at all" but in that
1088
case you have to devise other and much more complicated machinery. What matters is that the interests involved should be fully represented and that the public interest should be adequately represented, too. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or the noble Lord, Lord Oram, or whoever is to reply thinks that 18 are too many, then there is no reason why the NJC representatives should not be cut to six, provided that they are matched by an equal number of other interests.
Perhaps the reason is the need to have as wide a representation as possible among the non-NJC members. The criterion should be: are those other interests adequately represented? Even by adding eight it will be difficult enough to ensure that all those interests are fully represented. There is transport; there is food; there are raw materials; there is finance; there is the law and the rest. That is why it seems to us that it is preferable to have a Board of 18 rather than a Board of 14. As my noble friend has said, the main principle is that there should be a balanced Board. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, may shake his head and think that this is not the right approach, but we are trying to build on what is there already, taking into account the changed circumstances provided for in the Bill.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, has experience of industry and he must know that it is quite unnecessary to have a board of 16, 18 or 14 members in order to determine what is best in the public interest. If you have a chairman and a couple of vice-chairmen at the top, they are quite capable of determining what is best in the public interest, having consulted everybody concerned. Moreover, what are we doing just now? When we are dealing with this legislation we are determining what is best in the public interest. There is a bit of a dispute between the two sides of the House as to what is best in the public interest, but that is what we are debating. We are preparing legislation which will eventually determine what is best in the public interest, and we are asking a number of people to decide how to administer it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, the point is that it is not just one matter of public interest or one system which has to be decided. To a large extent the Secretary of State will decide that in the new dock

1089
Scheme. The point is to decide every single individual case. It is for that reason that one needs a widely based Board to make certain that the conclusions will lead to efficiency and will be seen to be fair.
3.25 p.m.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, the paradoxical situation is that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right and that my noble friend is right. The real problem is whether one wants to nationalise the industry at all. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is absolutely right that to have this number of people trying to make detailed decisions will waste time; and, more likely than not, they will not come to the best conclusion. The organiser of the Coventry Fête always said, "The idea is to have a sub-committee of three, with two who won't turn up, so that one bashes on". However, the problem when you do it on a national scale, which is what nationalisation means, is that you do away with the variety and conflict of several private ownerships.
Where there are various groups of organisations putting their points of view from their different standpoints, if one of them makes a mistake it does not bring down the whole house. It can make a mistake and overcome it because the others have not made the same big mistake and they can learn from it. Therefore, if we want efficiency and results the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is quite right to say that this is not the way to achieve it. However, we are now in a situation similar to the man who asked for directions in the country lane. He was told, "You go along and turn to the left; no, you turn to the right. As a matter of fact", his informant said, "I wouldn't start from here". But we are starting from here and there is a nationalised Board that covers everything. Therefore one needs a big enough Board to give the impression that all of the considerations have been taken into account.
When, for those reasons, there is a bigger Board my noble friend is right. If you build into the Board four employees and four employers, you know that they go to every Board meeting with pre-conceived ideas which fit in with their general points of strategy and thinking, so they are not really good members of
1090
the Board. That is why on private enterprise boards—and I sit on a few of them—I believe in having non-executive directors as distinct from having it completely overburdened with executive directors. Executive directors who come from departments are biased in favour of their own department before they go to meetings. They are positively incapable of taking an overall view of what in this instance is the public interest. They have to make a success of their departments and they have definite ideas.
So if you must have a bigger Board in order to give the impression that everything is being taken into account—and now you have nationalised the industry I am afraid that that is what you have to do—and if you are to have four employees and four employers, it is wise to have more non-executives on the Board, since they are not precommitted, in order to add balance to the very commendable bias that the others bring to the Board. The only other way to do it is to reduce the number of employers and employees from four down to two or one. Then you can have something nearer to what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, wants; namely, a smaller Board. If, however, you start from the point where there have to be four employees and four employers, which adds up to eight, then it is very wise that you should have on the Board at least more than eight others. Then, having taken advantage of the pre-conceived ideas of those two groups—honestly held and well intentioned ideas when they put their arguments—in order to balance their very natural and healthy bias there should be a non-executive majority that could come to a conclusion and take a rather wider view than could be taken by those two groups.
There is the paradox. The noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is absolutely right. My noble friend is absolutely right. However, in the circumstances of where we start from it looks to me as though the Amendment, or something like it, is likely to bring the kind of efficiency that we want, so far as we can get efficiency, once we have made the drastic mistake of having nationalised the industry.
3.30 p.m.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, I am rather perplexed by the arguments

1091
advanced for increasing the numbers on this Board from 12 to 16. Part of the propaganda of the Tory Party has been the need for reducing public expenditure, yet here is an outstanding example of a plea to give more jobs to the boys and increase public expenditure. The two things do not tie up. It is a well-known adage that if you want to make a thing efficient you do not want a cumbersome board in order to decide and carry out policy. You need a reasonable number. The larger the board the longer the discussion on policy matters and un-productive time taken by the board. Surely the best thing is a rather smaller Board to devote themselves to policy, with executive members to carry out the policy decided. In the past we in the Labour Party have been accused of the principle of jobs for the boys. But what is now happening? More jobs for the boys. If we look at the record we see the number of jobs that are available for the boys and now we have the plea for more. It just does not make sense.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, will the noble Lord allow me to intervene. When he is talking about jobs for the boys he will appreciate that the services which members of the Board, other than the chairman and vice-chairman, will be asked to perform are services which are not jobs. They are there in an advisory capacity and they are paid fees and allowances. Schedule 1(5) shows that these are not jobs for the boys.
Lord POPPLEWELL: My Lords, my noble friend Lord Slater referred to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, a little earlier as being a Stonewall Jackson. I would not have attempted that but it is confirming what my noble friend Lord Slater said only a little time ago. The general duties of the Board are laid down here and are as defined under the relevant section. Increased numbers on the Board only lead to endless argument, difficulty and dispute. Surely the best thing is to have as small a Board as possible to represent the respective interests. Let the Board decide the policy and let the executives carry out the policy. We complain about the length of time these Bills arc taking to go though Parliament. I suggest that the two debates we have had on this subject, starting with the noble
1092
Lord, Lord Sandford, in the initial stages and the discussion now taking place, indicate—I will not altogether say filibustering but something very near to it, dragging out to unreasonable length discussion on the Bill.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, my mind has been working in the same direction as the minds of the noble Lords, Lord Shinwell and Lord Harmar-Nicholls. I had a premonition that, as constituted in the Bill, this presages a cosy feather-bedded industry run by warehousemen, employees and employers, and I do not think that the extra four mentioned in the Bill will be able to break out of that circle. Far from adding extra numbers, I think the right thing to do is to reduce the numbers who represent the employees and employers and bring in more outside people. At the next stage of the Bill we should reduce to two each the representatives of employers and employees and replace with four outside people to represent the consumers. After all, it is the consumers who are interested in the ports. We want to get our exports out and our food and raw materials in, handled as cheaply as possible. We do not want the thing to be bossed by employers, employees and warehousemen.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, to take up the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, as we are all agreed that the Government should save money, surely the most economical course would be for the other place to chuck this Bill out altogether. That would save the money. As for the point of filibustering, with the greatest respect to the noble Lord I should have thought that his was one of the best filibustering speeches I have heard in this House for many a long day.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, listening to the noble Lord—
Several noble Lords: Order!
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is the Report stage and we should start as we mean to go on. Noble Lords are not allowed to speak more than once.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, I have not spoken yet. I was listening to my noble friend Lord Shinwell and he was talking

1093
about having only two or three people. He spoke about those who were responsible for nationalisation in the first place. Too much power can be placed in the hands of one or two individuals in certain industries in this country. Then, instead of making a success of what they are responsible for, it becomes a failure and someone has to come and extricate them from the position they have got themselves into; they begin to clamour for that form of assistance. As to the number of people recommended, I recollect that I had something to do with a service industry which had a board. It is the easiest thing to work a board. You can work a board by breaking 12 or 14 members into small sub-committees. They come back at the end of the month and report on their findings on particular aspects of the situation.
The noble Lord, Lord Popplewell, was informed that these people are there in a voluntary capacity and will be paid expenses and so on. That may be the case, but you still have to find the money for the chairman and the vice-chairman. God only knows what the fees for that will be. If a board is to work at all, the best way is to break it up. Leave the Bill as it is; leave the number as proposed in the Bill, rather than adding to it. The more you add, the more trouble you are bringing upon your own shoulders.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, this Amendment is broadly similar to the one which I tried to move at the Committee stage. We heard then from the Government that the Secretary of State would have the discretion as to whom he was going to appoint. Of course we want to accept this, but we are still concerned about the huge area and the huge range of interests which are or are likely to be or may be covered by the scope of this Bill. At the Committee stage I explained that we are still concerned that the employers and employees, not all of whom will be dock employers or dock employees, or even employers of registered dock labour or even registered dock workers. But we were also worried as to how they were able to obtain an effective voice on the Board. At the earlier stage we mentioned public interest and the consumers, and we shall certainly do that again later today, but I believe that the same arguments apply to this Amendment.
1094
First, this Bill will concern and will affect many persons beyond the confines of the dock area, both employees and employers. Secondly—something which has not yet been mentioned—the National Board will, even at its present size of 12 with a chairman and vice-chairman in addition, be much more of a policy board, leaving many of the day-to-day decisions to the local boards and, we hope, taking advice from them. Thirdly, the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman will affect the Board, in that either or both of them will require to draw together the various interests represented, while at the same time avoiding a fifty-fifty confrontation which would lead to direct deadlock on the Board. Thus we believe that far more compromise will be needed than has been the case so far, because the position where the chairman or vice-chairman uses his casting vote will wreck the whole Board.
At the earlier stage of this Bill the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quoted my right honourable friend Mr. Prior in another place, and indeed I requoted Mr. Prior. Both of us believed that at an earlier stage Mr. Prior had relevant arguments to this Amendment. On both occasions we were disputing the size of the Board. I do not believe that the changes we are proposing today will harm that Board, nor will they damage the interests which must be represented, because the question of its becoming unwieldy or ineffective or even inert will not arise solely from the size of the Board.
We believe that there is far greater risk when certain interests which ought to be heard or to be represented are not represented. The interests which are drawn into the scope of the Scheme may grow in number and in complexity, given the changing pattern of the freight and the cargo handling. It will be invaluable for the Board to have representations from outside interests whose knowledge of what will be dockwork will be most detailed. It is for that reason that I support this Amendment.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I first apologise to my noble friend Lord Slater; he spoke on the preliminary Motion and not on this Motion. Let us be clear when we are talking about nationalisation. Nothing is being nationalised. We are not talking about a board which is going

1095
to manage a commercial concern. We are talking about a board whose first function is to administer a dock labour scheme. That is its first and most important function.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, may I ask a question on that?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, am I not to be allowed to make a speech?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: My Lords, I only wish to ask whether it is a national scheme that they have to administer or a regional scheme. If it is a national scheme, then that is nationalisation within the meaning of the word.
3.43 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: Then, my Lords, we have a good deal of nationalisation in private enterprise. I suggest that I now be allowed to get on with my speech; I have not interrupted anybody else. The first and primary function of this Board is to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. That includes the organisation of dock labour, welfare, training, pensions and severance pay, and it is right that if that is its proper function the Board should consist largely of both sides of that industry. It is true that it has a second function; that second function is not to extend the Scheme but to make proposals for extending the Scheme, and those proposals arc decided upon by the Secretary of State. So far as the second of its two important functions is concerned, it is merely a body to make recommendations; it does not itself make the decisions. On the first and primary function of administering the Scheme, it makes the decisions. Therefore that is by far the most important of its functions.
When we consider the size of this Board, we have to count in the chairman and vice-chairman who are, of course, members of the Board. At the present time there are 10 members of the Board. Because the Board will have that second function of making proposals—no decisions—on the extension of the Scheme the Government have suggested in the Bill that there should be four additional representatives outside the industry, making a total of 14. We do that, first, for the reason which I have given, but, secondly, because we believe that for work of this
1096
kind a board of 10 to 15 is somewhere about right. As the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, mentioned a few minutes ago, we had the support of Mr. Prior on this point in the Committee stage in another place. At col.26 of the Official Report of the other place he said:
"We felt on the whole 14 was about right."
So that in the other place the Opposition agreed completely that the Government are about right on the size of the Board. So our first opposition to the Amendment is that it would make the Board unnecessarily large.
But there is a second reason why we would oppose this Amendment. As have indicated, the main purpose of the Board will continue to be the administration of the Dock Labour Scheme. I think it would be unreasonable for the industry to be expected to accept a decision in which people from outside the industry were in a majority on the Board when the chief function is to administer the Dock Labour Scheme. We believe that is completely unreasonable and, in our opinion, it would not be acceptable to the industry. Furthermore, it would give rise to the kind of pressures which we ought to avoid.
In the appointment of the eight there are to be consultations with the TUC and the CBI—quite properly—but the employers in the dock industry are members of the CBI and the trade unions in the dock industry are members of the TUC and since they will obviously be dissatisfied, having been placed in a minority in the administration of their own scheme, hey will put pressure upon the TUC and the CBI for some additional members from the industry to be included on the Board, and for that to be put forward when those two bodies are consulted. So we shall create pressures which we should try to avoid. We have here an opportunity of avoiding that pressure; the proposals in the Bill avoid that pressure. We say that in total there should be 14 and that, as at present, only eight should be appointed by the Joint Boards Council. Instead of there being two from outside there should be six, because of the second function which the Board will have. We believe that gives a proper balance.
Someone suggested that we should reduce the number coming from the

1097
Joint Boards Council, but I would point out that, if the Scheme is extended, then the representatives from the Joint Boards Council will represent more people than they do at the present time. At present they represent the people in the Scheme ports. If more ports come within the Scheme, then they will represent more people and therefore there is not a strong case for reducing their representation.
It was suggested that, if there is an equal number of employers and employees, there will be deadlock, but that is not something new; that has been going on throughout the whole of the old Scheme. There has been an equal number of employers and employees throughout the whole scheme. We have had no deadlock there, so why should we expect deadlock in the future? We are inventing difficulties. I suggest that we should allow this scheme so far as possible to go on entirely as it was, but having four additional representatives, provided for in the Bill, to take care of the outside interests.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wish the record in the docks was such that we could, with confidence, leave everything to go on as it was before. But the fact that the Government recognise that that will not do is the reason for the Bill. We agree with them to that extent. I should like to wind up the debate on this Amendment by referring to the importance of the public interest, an Amendment which we have down as Amendment No. 9. It is a failure to have regard for the public interest to a sufficiently large degree to which a lot of our present troubles go back. Therefore, we set a great deal of store by that Amendment which we will come to in a moment. It needs to be imported into Clause 1 on the composition and size of the Board as well.
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, made the tempting suggestion, in which he was followed by my noble friend Lord Hawke, that we ought to have a nice small, crisp, executive body. If I may say so, that was a constructive and radical proposal. If the noble Lord put down an Amendment to that effect, there would be many to applaud it, but if I put down an Amendment to that effect, it would be regarded as a wrecking Amendment, because, as my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, has said, we are not
1098
starting from scratch. We hive to build on what is here already.
My noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls posed a dilemma. I am afraid I have to agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that it would be impractical, unrealistic and politically "not on", to use the Bill as an opportunity to reduce the Board in size to something which would be crisp and executive in style. As my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn reminded your Lord-ships, we are not dealing with an executive board, but with a regulatory board. That is their main function. They have a staff which will take various executive decisions and steps from day to day. This Board is one which deals with matters of policy and regulation in a complex and strife-torn industry and will have to contend, as the Bill is implemented, with a growing, not a diminishing range of interests.
My Lords, I said at the beginning that there is no magic in the figure that we have proposed. Any change will have to be a change upwards. All I am seeking to do is to import into the Bill an Amendment which will have the effect of inviting another place, on whose decision so much will rest, and properly rest, to think again about size.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, not think that his suggestion will be unwieldy? Why is he sticking to a figure of 18? Why not 20?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I have just said that I am not wedded to any particular number. Number 16 is the one on which my Amendment is based, but I want, by importing this into the Bill, to secure a reconsideration of the size of the Board by another place. The most important thing in the Bill is to get right the composition of the National Dock Labour Board. Many of the ills in the industry go back to the ineffectiveness, the shortsightedness and the narrowness of outlook in a number of places in the industry. Alas! the Board itself cannot be excluded from that. Alas! it is one of the factors which has contributed to the desolation we see in the London and Liverpool Docks.
Before we pass the Bill, we must ensure that the shortsightedness, the pettiness and the bitterness which has dealt such damage in dockland does not spread, by

1099
the same ineffectiveness in the Board's structure, to the ports and the docks which are at present efficient and prosperous and through which the lifeblood of this nation flows. Do not let us forget—and I am sure noble Lords opposite are only too well aware of this—that we have enemies in our midst who see only too clearly that this is the case, and that the lifeblood of this country flows through the docks, particularly in the form of our export trade. Our contention is that we need a widely based and properly balanced Board to do battle with this very considerable force.
My Lords, I conclude by saying that this Amendment is there, not in order to prescribe a Board of that particular size—because I would not claim any kind of omniscience as to what precise size of
Board is best—but because I believe that another place needs to reconsider it now that the Bill has been debated in both Houses. The second reason for wanting this Amendment in is that, unless it is in the Bill, it will be unrealistic to discuss the other important matters included in Amendments Nos.2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8, all relating to Clause 1, all of which require a degree of enlargement and flexibility in the Board itself. I beg to move Amendment No. 1.
3.57 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 1) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 105; Not-Contents, 87.

CONTENTS

Allerton, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Newall, L.

Amory, V.

Energlyn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Ashbourne, L.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Nunburnholme, L.

Atholl, D.

Exeter, M.

O'Hagan, L.

Balerno, L.

Faithfull, B.

Onslow, E.

Barnby, L.

Ferrers, E.

Rathcreedan, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Ferrier, L.

Redesdale, L.

Belstead, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Reigate, L.

Berkeley, B.

Gray, L.

Rochdale, V.

Bessborough, E.

Gridley, L.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Bourne, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Sackville, L.

Brentford, V.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hanworth, V.

St. Davids, V.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Carrington, L.

Hawke, L.

Sandford, L.

Cawley, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Chelwood, L.

Inchyra, L.

Sharples, B.

Clancarty, E.

Killearn, L.

Spens, L.

Clwyd, L.

Kinloss, Ly.

Stamp, L.

Coleraine, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Strang, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Strathcarron, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Long, V.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigavon, V.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L

Craigton, L.

Lyell, L. [Teller.]

Strathspey, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Mancroft, L.

Sudeley, L.

Daventry, V.

Margadale, L.

Tenby, V.

De Freyne, L.

Marley, L.

Thomas, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trefgarne, L.

Derwent, L.

Mersey, V.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Molson, L.

Vivian, L.

Dundee, E.

Monck, V.

Waldegrave, E.

Effingham, E.

Morris, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Elles, B.

Mottistone, L.

Wellington, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Wolverton, L.

Elton, L.

Munster, E.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Gardiner, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Amherst, E.

Garner, L.

Northfield, L.

Amulree, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Oram, L.

Banks, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Birk, B.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Blyton, L.

Hankey, L.

Pargiter, L.

Brimelow, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peddie, L.

Brockway, L.

Henderson, L.

Platt, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Popplewell, L.

Buckinghamshire, E.

Hunt, L.

Raglan, L.

Burntwood, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Byers, L.

Ilchester, E.

Roberthall, L.

Caradon, L.

Jacobson, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Jacques, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Janner, L.

Seear, B.

Chorley, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Shinwell, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Leatherland, L.

Simon, V.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Slater, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Crowther-Hunt, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Longford, E.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Maelor, L.

Walston, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Mais, L.

Weidenfeld, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Maybray-King, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller]

Evans of Hungershall, L.

Melchett, L.

Wigoder, L.

Fletcher, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.5 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 1, line 13, at end insert—
("( ) The chairman and the vice-chairman shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry, as being impartial as between employers and workers and between one trade union and another and between one employer and another.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will be glad to know that I can be quite brief on this Amendment. Its purpose is to secure that the chairman and the vice-chiarman should both be independent and also be seen to be impartial. They should also be acceptable to the National Joint Council, to the TUC and to the CBI. It may be, and I hope it is, the intention of the Government that they should be independent. If so, I suggest to your Lordships that the Bill should make that intention abundantly clear. So many interests have to be reconciled that the chairman and the vice-chairman must be people accustomed to obtaining agreement and to carrying the Board with them. They certainly do not need to be experts in cargo handling. They do need to be experts in handling
1102
people, the staff, the Board, the local boards, the Press and the public, and the rest.
These considerations do not apply to the non-NJC members—that is to the eight, those members we have just increased from four to eight. It seems to me better, therefore, to make separate provision for the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman. So there are these two propositions that I put before your Lordships' House, first, that the chairman and vice-chairman should be independent and should be seen to be impartial; and, secondly, that the provision for their appointment ought to be different from the provision for the appointment of the four members we have just increased to eight. I hope that the Government on reflection—and I realise they have not had much time to reflect—will agree with these propositions and will accept this Amendment, at least in principle. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Secretary of State would certainly not wish to appoint as chairman or vice-chairman anybody who he believed would fail to pay proper regard to the relative merits of opposing arguments or who would prejudge situations without due regard to the facts. We believe this Amendment

1103
would narrow the field and in some ways be undesirable. It would narrow the field because in order to get a strict guarantee of impartiality one would almost be compelled to go to a university, a civil servant, or a lawyer. Most other people in public affairs are connected either with the employers' or the employees' side of industry. This we think unnecessarily narrows the field for the choice of chairman and vice-chairman.
We also think that the chairman and vice-chairman should be people who are acutely aware of the day-to-day problems arising in the industry. That is the first essential, that they should know the industry and should know the problems that arise from day to day; because their principal function is the administration of the Dock Labour Scheme and in our view that should be the first priority. What matters most in these appointments is that there should be confidence in the people appointed, and we believe that this can best be achieved by consultation with the TUC, the CBI, and the National Joint Council.
We understand the intentions behind the Amendment, but we find it extra-ordinary that the noble Lord should want to state it in legislation. This is something entirely new. For example, the Employment Protection Act provided for the appointment of the chairman of ACAS, a very important position applying not just to the docks but for the whole of industry, but Parliament did not seek to lay down the kind of thing which the noble Lord is seeking to lay down. They had confidence in the Secretary of State and the likelihood of his appointing somebody who would be a fit and proper person to be chairman. Similarly with the Manpower Services Commission. Legislation had to provide for the appointment of a chairman, but Parliament did not seek to lay down the kind of thing which the noble Lord is seeking to lay down when they passed the Employment and Training Act 1973. We think the Amendment narrows the field; we believe that in some ways it is undesirable, and finally we think that it is unnecessary to put in legislation what the noble Lord seeks.
4.12 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, agree
1104
that the opening remarks of his speech were somewhat at variance with what he said later, in that he said that the Secretary of State will never appoint an unsuitable person, and he then went on to tell us that he must have the ability to choose someone who might find himself coming from one side or the other of two contentious, or two potentially contentious, parts of the Board that we are discussing. He quotes examples of the selection of the chairman of ACAS and the chairman of the Manpower Services Commission, but would he not agree that there is a considerable difference in both those bodies? So far as ACAS is concerned, I do not think that anybody would suspect that there would ever be marked contention within the administration of ACAS itself as between the members of its managing board.
Again, although no doubt there are differences of opinion within the Manpower Services Commission—and I perhaps can claim to have a little knowledge of what it might be like, having served under a training board which is somewhat similarly constituted—the differences of opinion are not very acute problems, whereas what is worrying us all, and why we are trying gradually to work this Bill into a shape which is acceptable to all of us (by that I do not mean all of us in this House, I mean all of us in this country) is that there is a record within the dock industry generally of contention, of strife, of people getting at loggerheads with one another, which is rather greater than either of the bodies which the noble Lord quoted, or indeed any other public body that could readily come to mind. I would suggest, therefore, that this is a rather special case, and that my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn's Amendment deserves rather special consideration as a result. I would very much like to think that the Government would not dismiss it on the grounds which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, advanced.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, is it not obvious that the Secretary of State, in deciding to appoint a chairman and a vice-chairman, or two vice-chairmen, or anybody, is likely (I will not rate it higher than that) to consult with representative interests? That always happens anyhow. What is wrong with this Amendment is that it includes the term "impartial". I would be delighted if somebody would

1105
explain to me how it is possible to be impartial. It always reminds me of the mayor of a particular industrial centre who sought to ingratiate himself with the electors, and who, on his appointment, assured them that his intention was to be neither partial nor impartial.
Who is an impartial person? A Conservative? One would hardly expect that. A Liberal? Hopeless. They have got fixed ideas. Labour? Well, we have based our whole philosophy on decisions reached in the 1920s and 1930s. Who else is impartial? A judge? No, I am having none of that. The fact is that it is impossible for anybody to be impeccable in this matter of being impartial. It cannot be done. It has never been attempted, and for a very good reason.
I would suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, if he wants, can have the rest of the Amendment, but excluding the term "impartial". When he has done that, then it is practical; otherwise it is quite hopeless. In any event, if he withdraws the term "impartial" he does not require the Amendment, because I know from experience in Government that when people have to be appointed to various boards, corporations, or what have you, a great deal of discussion takes place. There is discussion with the Civil Service; discussion with a great variety of people, and indeed very often before a person is appointed you have to hawk all round the place to get somebody. Very often suggestions have been made to people who are reluctant to accept appointments on boards that if they watch their step and keep their noses clean, in due course they might be awarded a CBE, or an OBE, or even indeed a knighthood. I know all about this caper, and I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who is a very practical person, that he should display his pragmatism by withdrawing this Amendment.
4.18 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is really right about all this. There are two things. First is the search for the impartial person, and I agree that that is difficult; and secondly is the freedom of the Secretary of State to consult widely, and my Amendment No. 8 is designed to secure this. I do not think it is there at the
1106
moment. Perhaps I could deal with the impartiality of the members of the Board. The fact of the matter is that hitherto this has not been secured successfully, and that is one of the problems we are dealing with. The Board has been made up of two components in a situation of confrontation. That is what has made the Board so ineffective, so I think my noble friend is right in requiring something to be said about this. There are many other boards where it has long been the custom for the members on it to be as impartial as possible, and their impartiality is the quality that has been sought, but I suggest that it has not been the case in the National Dock Labour Board hitherto. That is one thing.
The other component is the freedom of the Secretary of State to consult. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, is right that this should be secumd, but if your Lordships look at the Bill you will see that only in respect of the chairman and the vice-chairman is this so. The members to which subsection (3) relates are appointed on their nomination or renomination of that body specifically to represent partial interests. There is no impartiality there; they are not designed to be impartial. As for the others, they are selected, maybe for impartiality but as the result of a limited amount of consultation which is specified in the Bill. The Secretary of State is, therefore, not free to consult where he will. On Amendment No. 8 we will come to a suggestion that he should be freed so that he could do what the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, suggested.
Viscount SIMON: Would the noble Lord elaborate on his statement that in the past the chairman of the National Dock Labour Board has not been impartial?
Lord SANDFORD: I am sorry if I mislead the noble Viscount or the Committee. I hope I did not say that. I thought I said that apart from the chairman and vice-chairman, the other two components were specially selected in order to represent partial interests.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques for his reply which was reassuring so far as it went. However, I do not think he has sufficiently

1107
taken on board the fact that this is a different kind of Board. As my noble friend Lord Sandford said, there are aspects of it which differ profoundly from the usual type of board. A provision of this kind may often say that the Secretary of State shall appoint the chairman, possibly the vice-chairman, and so many members to the board and that is because they are to be drawn from people with varying experience of different fields—industrial relations, commerce, finance and so on—and those fields are sometimes specified and sometimes they are not. However, this is a different kind of Board in that it consists of two arms, as it were, with the chairman as the head in between the arms. It is not unusual to have a separate provision for the appointment of the chairman and of course in Schedule 1 the chairman and other members of the Board are dealt with separately.
Lord Jacques said it was absolutely essential—so essential that he emphasised it—that there should be an intimate knowledge of the working of the ports. Has this always been the case? Have we not in your Lordships' House two distinguished people who have run port authorities who did not have very great day-to-day experience of the running of the ports beforehand? Surely by far the most important considerations are the others to which Lord Jacques referred, and that of confidence in whoever is appointed is paramount, for on that confidence will depend the personality and reputation for impartiality and fairness of the chairman. I think Lord Jacques went too far in saying that this would limit the field to a very narrow area indeed. People need not be said to be partial merely because they do not belong to the judiciary or because they are not barristers, accountants or, if it comes to that, even ministers of religion. The field is very much wider than that. There are people in many professions and areas of industry who could be seen to be impartial in circumstances of this kind. Nor do I share the rather cynical view of the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who expatiated on his personal experiences.
I think there is something to be said for this suggestion, and if Lord Jacques does not like the word, "impartiality" perhaps he will consider, as a matter of common sense, in view of the different kinds of
1108
members of the Board, having a separate subsection for the appointment of the chairman and vice-chairman. That would make it much tidier, would not be without precedent and, in the circumstance of the case, would seem desirable. I do not propose to press the Amendment now and I beg leave to withdraw it.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 1, line 18, leave out ("four") and insert ("eight").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is the substantive Amendment for which Amendment No. 1 was the paving Amendment and as we incorporated that in the Bill following the debate and division on it, I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree to our incorporating this one without further debate.
4.27 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN had given Notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 5:
Page 1, line 20, leave out ("the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, my Amendment No. 5 puts me in some difficulty because it is in a sense consequential on Amendment No. 2, but perhaps we can discuss the matter with which it deals on a later Amendment. In the meantime, I will not move it.
Lord WIGODER Lord WIGODER moved Amendment No. 6:
Page 1, line 21, after ("Industry") insert ("The National Consumer Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it is idle to conceal the fact that we on these Benches have some grave reservations about the whole way in which this Board has now been constituted because it appears that the combined effects of the proposals by the Government and the Opposition are to create a Board containing as many warring factions as possible, artificially devised so that each can fight the other on equal terms. We have reached the situation in which the Government's proposals involve having eight members of the Board, four representing

1109
dock employers and four representing dock workers. Now, as the result of an Opposition Amendment, we have a further eight members, four appointed after consultation with the TUC and four after consultation with the CBI, and we find it difficult to believe that this will lead to the prospect of an amicable and harmonious relationship on the Board.
Indeed, we go further and doubt whether it is wise to direct the Secretary of State to have consultations with any particular interest before making appointments to the Board. We say in this modest little Amendment that if the Secretary of State is to be directed to have consultations with various bodies such as the TUC, the NJC, the CBI and the National Association of Warehouse Keepers, it is not unreasonable to add that he should also consult the National Consumer Council. This is in a sense a symbolic Amendment. I accept entirely the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in Committee that no doubt writing in the National Consumer Council as one of the bodies to be consulted will in practice not affect the decisions of the Secretary of State. It will, however, formally give effect to the view that the Board not merely represents employers and employees but is taking decisions affecting the consumer.
Those decisions will affect the consumer because the result of the extension of the scheme will be to raise prices to the consumer. I do not need to go over the ground that was covered in Committee when it was made clear that the extension of the levy to employers who were not paying it at the moment was bound to raise prices. The fact that even more people would now he paid for a full week's work even if they were not doing a full week's work must raise prices. The fact that some small ports that depend on contented casual labour would not be allowed to do so, must raise prices. Indeed, your Lordships will remember that we ventured to ask the Government whether they agreed with the figures of the Cold Storage Federation that the resulting increase in costs might be as much as £6 per ton in the handling of goods in the cold stores. Your Lord-ships will also remember that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that the Government were satisfied that that was an exaggeration but that they had made no attempt at all apparently to work out for
1110
themselves the likely increase in costs that would arise from the operation of the extension of the Scheme.
In those circumstances, we would suggest that clearly the consumer has an interest in the operation of the Dock Board and that therefore there should be given a token representation of that fact by this Amendment which requires the Secretary of State to consult the National Consumer Council, among other bodies, in making his appointment to the Board.
4.32 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, if the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is asking that the National Consumer Council should be consulted, I would accept it at once, but if his interpretation is that consultation means that some member of the National Consumer Council should be appointed a member of this Board, then I object. If it is merely a question of consultation, there is no reason why any objection should be raised to it, because if the Secretary of State has any common sense at all he will consult the National Consumer Council because obviously there is a consumer interest. If that is what the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, is proposing, then I hope that my noble friend Lord Jacques will accept it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I say one brief word on this matter? I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, in this case. It seems to me that the Government has created the National Consumer Council and, having created it, it is only sensible to consult it in a matter where the consumer interest looms so large.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in moving this Amendment at the Committee stage, the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, laid great stress on the question of the burden that would be borne by the consumer. At col.319 he said:
"… it will very materially add to the burden that the housewife will have to bear in future."—[Official Report, 13/10/76; col.319.]
That theme was taken up by a number of other speakers. I should like the House to bear in mind that four-fifths of the cargo that is handled already comes through Scheme ports, 80 per cent. already comes through Scheme ports. What is left is the remaining one-fifth.

1111
We made a calculation based upon an estimate which was made by the National Ports Council, a body which is completely independent of the National Dock Board and the matters which we are considering at the moment. Based upon that, we can say that if there was an increase in the costs or an increase in the revenues of the non-Scheme ports as a result of a spread of the Scheme, then the cost to consumers would be less than one-hundredth of 1 per cent. of the GNP.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, to save me working it out could the noble Lord say what that is?
Lord JACQUES: It would be better perhaps to say GDP—gross domestic product.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, could the noble Lord translate that into pounds per ton?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords, I cannot. In the time we have had available, I have had to use what figures are available. I can tell you what the gross domestic product is and what the 25 per cent. increase would be.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, what we want is the simplest thing of all, the actual amount.
Lord JACQUES: The 25 per cent? The gross domestic product is £62 billion.
Lord BYERS: Can I help the noble Lord?
Lord JACQUES: Surely.
Lord BYERS: My Lords, I do not honestly think that the housewife will be so interested in the £62 billion. What she really wants to know is what in the 25 per cent. in the non-Scheme ports is the tonnage handled and what will be the extra cost. In that way we can get it in either pence per pound or pounds per ton. What is the tonnage that will be affected here and by what amount will the costs be increased?
Lord JACQUES: I cannot give those figures, but I can say that the amount per ton is infinitesimal.
A noble Lord: Like a couple of pounds?
Lord JACQUES: Yes, my Lords, like a couple of pounds. It is so small that I cannot be very far wrong. It is infinitesimal. If it works out to be 25 per cent. of the gross domestic product, a 25 per cent. increase which we categorically deny is ever likely to happen, that works out to one-hundredth of 1 per cent. which is infinitesimal. We would not expect an increase of 25 per cent. in the non-Scheme ports for several reasons. First, one distinguishing feature of the ports industry is that in many cases it is capital intensive. A huge amount of capital is sunk in port installations and in cargo-handling machinery; it is these that are more significant in determining the charges and the labour costs. Furthermore, the passing of this Bill would not allow the Board in any way to interfere with existing collective agreements.
In Clause 5(7) the Bill specifically provides that the Scheme cannot be used to override existing collective agreements concerned with remuneration and hours of work. We think it is totally wrong to assume that there will be enormous increases of wages in the non-Scheme ports if the Scheme is spread. The issue of costs is so important that I should like to give a very brief analysis of at least one example of the propaganda that has received a good deal of publicity. A confederation of importers has claimed that if implemented the Bill would increase the cost of imports up to £150 million a year and that figure has been widely quoted. If true it would mean that every employee at existing non-Scheme ports concerned with handling imports would be costing his employer an extra £100,000 per annum. That is based upon the number of employees at the non-Scheme ports.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord but he is just talking about the number of employees in small ports. What about the number of employees in warehouses?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I am dealing with what would be the cost of the spread to non-Scheme ports. If this figure of £150 million were true as being the cost of a spread to non-Scheme ports, then it would mean that each employee

1113
in the non-Scheme ports would cost the employers an extra £100,000 a year. Or, alternatively, it would mean that, as a result of the Scheme, it would need an extra 20 employees to do work which is at present being done by one man: an extra 20 for every one that is there now. If that were the position, there would be more workers in the non-Scheme ports handling one-fifth of the cargo than there are at present in the Scheme ports handling four-fifths. That is the kind of nonsense underlying the propaganda.
The statistical method used by this Confederation to achieve the figure of £150 million was totally inaccurate. Let me give an example. In comparing costs between the Scheme and non-Scheme ports, the Confederation quoted a number of examples of low-cost non-Scheme ports. But many of the so-called non-Scheme ports are already in the Scheme, and have been in the Scheme since 1946. In other words, the Confederation did not know who was in the Scheme and who was not. A body which does not know these elementary facts should not be taken seriously. A number of other assertions about costs have been made, none of which is based upon hard evidence. The procedures in the Bill for case by case examination of whether it is appropriate to apply the Scheme means that we cannot give accurate estimates except to say, from the arguments already advanced in this and the previous debate, that if there is any increase at all it is likely to be extremely small indeed.
I should now like to come to the question of representation. I believe that the Government's view was stated quite well by the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, himself. When we were debating whether or not there should be consultations with the Consumer Council, he said:
"… 'consumers ' covers a very wide band of the population. It is not just housewives, or consumer associations or anybody like that. It is industries and anybody who is importing or exporting through the ports and, indeed, many other trades and skills apart from what we understand as cargo handling and dock work."—[Official Report, 13/10/76, col. 310.]
The Government agree with that. The best persons to represent those interests are the persons appointed by the two sides of industry in consultation with the TUC and the CBI.
Now I should like to come to this problem of consulting with the Consumer
1114
Council. Consultation for consultation's sake would be useless, and I think it follows that if there is going to be consultation then the Consumer Council have a right to expect that an appointment is likely to arise out of that consultation; otherwise, I would say that a provision for consultation is not worth putting into the Bill. We believe that they would expect an appointment arising out of the consultation. If there were to be an appointment arising out of the consultation then either it would disturb the balance which was implied in the Bill as it stood before we had a Division a few minutes ago or there would have to be an additional member. It is the intention of the Secretary of State that the Board shall consist of an equal number of representatives from each side of the industry. You have the eight appointed by the National Ports Council and you have an additional four or eight, as the case may be, who are going to be appointed in consultation with the TUC and the CBI. It was the Secretary of State's intention, and still is, that they should be in equal numbers. He will take notice of what the CBI and the TUC have to say, and if he appoints two employers he will also appoint two representing the employees' side. That is the intention.
There would therefore be a board on which there was a number of employees' representatives and an equal number of employers' representatives, but not necessarily from within the industry, because some of them would be appointed after consultation with the TUC and the CBI, and they would be expected to recommend people from outside the industry. So the appointment of a consumer representative would mean that either that balance would be disturbed or there would be an additional appointment. We believe that an additional appointment would not be satisfactory. At the present time there are equal numbers of employee and employer representatives on the Board, and we believe that that should continue. If one side wants to get a point agreed, it has to use arguments and pressure to break down the other side; and it has worked very smoothly in that way since the Scheme started. But if there was one additional representative as a result of consultations with the Consumer Council, then that person would be subject to enormous pressures from both sides,

1115
from both the employers' side and from the employees' side. We believe that that representative would be in an untenable position.
Consequently, having regard to the debate which we had at Committee stage, the Government feel that they should be prepared to accept the Amendment to Clause 2, that the Board should act in the public interest. This, we believe, takes into account not only the interests of the consumer but the interests of the community as a whole on the question of the use of manpower at ports. We believe that that is more important and gives rise to far fewer difficulties than consultation with the Consumer Council, which could give rise, and we think would have to give rise, to the appointment of a consumer representative.
4.47 p.m.
Baroness PHILLIPS: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, I must say that I think the Minister has put up a very unsatisfactory answer to this case. There are people in industry who do not seem to think that the CBI satisfactorily represents them, just as there are employees who do not feel that the TUC completely represents them. I am a member of the Consumer Council, and there have been cases in recent times showing that there is need for a third voice. If we are going to have, as we are indeed, a large number of new boards set up, it seems that this is the moment when the Government should see the force of this argument. I could not follow the logic in saying that this member would be in an untenable position (I think that was the word used by my noble friend) and under pressure from both sides. Surely, this would apply equally to any other member of the Board. If you are appointed to a post of this kind—and many of your Lordships will have had this experience—you seek, in a way, to represent your own interests solely, but you are always conscious of the fact that you must be the voice of that particular group. I think this would be a very good point of time for the Government to recognise that there is a need for a third voice, and that this will not be wholly covered by the two organisations that the noble Lord has named.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would my noble friend claim that the appointment of a Board to administer the National Dock Labour Scheme is the right time at which to make this representation?
Baroness PHILLIPS: Yes, I would, my Lords; because, as has been pointed out, despite the figures produced by my noble friend, there is, of course, the question of costing—and surely the Board is going to be involved in costing various projects—and, in the end, the consumer is the one who has to pay the price. The point has been made many times that the voice of the worker must be heard in relation to any scheme which is being set up, whether it be in private industry or in the public sector. Equally, the one who at the end of the day has to pay the price should also be heard. This is now becoming common practice. It has been asked for in the car industry, and it has been asked for on all sides. I think there is an excellent case here for including a consumer representative.
4.50 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: My Lords, I was very saddened by the reply given by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, if he will not mind my saying so, because he kept returning to the balance between the two sides. It seems to me that we have rather a poor outlook in the development of industrial democracy if we are going to go on with the idea that if you have a bipartite board people will always be on one side or the other. The whole object of having people drawn from the two sides of industry is that when they get on to this Board they try to see things through the same eyes, with perhaps a slightly different angle of vision; that they do not think of themselves as being six or eight members who are employers and eight members who are employees. It seems to me very sad that we should look at it in the way suggested. Regarding the Consumer Council, I would not entirely agree with the noble Lord that if you consult people they always expect to be represented directly—although I take the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, that in this case there may be a good case for that. If we are going to have four extra members, is it necessary for them to be identified either with employers or with employees?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, that was the intention of the Secretary of State. The intention was to appoint two in consultation with the CBI and two in consultation with the TUC.
Lord SHINWELL: My Lords, may I with the leave of the House ask my noble friend a question? He agrees that there is no detriment to the Board in consulting the Consumer Council so long as it is not specified that somebody must be appointed from the Consumer Council. Is there not a psychological advantage, even from the Government point of view, that the Secretary of State should consult the Consumer Council to inform them of what is going on? Indeed, did it not occur to him when we were discussing earlier the question of somebody impartial, who is likely to be more impartial than somebody from the Consumer Council to express an impartial point of view? From the psychological advantage, is there not something to be said for accepting the Amendment?
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, might I make a point here? Since this Bill is obviously going to increase the prices of goods to the consumer, I heartily agree with what the noble Baroness, Lady Phillips, said. I think it will be unfair if the consumer is not represented on this Board. I would fully support this Amendment.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, we are getting a little awry on this point. First, might I say that I am chairman of a consumer committee and I understand the pleas of the consumers to have rights of representation, but so far as the consumer is concerned the rights are continuous; it is not just on one occasion that the consumer wants the right to consult. Consumers want it all the time as problems crop up. This is surely a question of representation of a new Board—just one occasion—and the Bill is laying down how that Board should be appointed and who is to be consulted in that appointment. I think that this consumer argument for appointment to the new Board is fallacious. It is quite clear that this is an extension of the existing body to control labour relations. This matter has been discussed between the employers and the trade unions and the Government
1118
and this is a method that will be acceptable to the industry. You are dealing here with industrial representation. I do not think this debars the consumer. The consumer could make representations to the Secretary of State to be consulted on the effect of this Bill on costs and so on; but not on representation to the Board. This is a pretty domestic issue and it should be so because it must be done by the people who are going to work it.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should like to say just a word before the noble Lord decides what he is going to do with his Amendment. I personally am in some difficulty in supporting him because my own Amendment No. 8 is designed to free the Secretary of State to consult with whom he will, because it does not seem to me that he has the freedom he should have under the Bill. Therefore, I would not want to make a great thing about which particular people be consulted. On the other hand, I must say that I think in the debate we have had the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has had very much the worst of the argument. I should have thought that if I had been in his shoes I should have wanted to give some fairly firm assurance that whatever is in the Bill—and I still think that my Amendment No. 8 has the edge on Amendment No. 6—the National Consumer Council was certainly among the bodies that the Secretary of State would consult in securing that consumers, port users and their employees were able to express a view about the appointments being made on this Board. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, that it may not be appropriate to have them there represented on it.
I would not agree with Lord Jacques when he said that everybody who is consulted about an appointment expects to be represented as a result of it. That is not my experience. In the course of three years in the Department of the Environment we had the business of forming and reforming and constituting a very considerable number of boards. We consulted far more widely than we eventually appointed.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, may I first say how grateful I am to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his kindness in seeing

1119
me personally yesterday and explaining his views on this Amendment. It was part of the courtesy that he has always shown in the course of the proceedings in this House on this Bill. I hope he will not think I am being discourteous if I venture to suggest that in his reply he was using a well-known forensic technique of totally ignoring the question and answering a quite different question firmly; because all the figures that he gave to demolish another set of figures were figures which have never been raised in this House at any time by me or by any other Member. The noble Lord gave some figures for the increase in costs where the scheme is extended to small ports. I would accept that this is not the major part of the increase to be expected. There were no figures given where the extension of the scheme was to warehouses and cold storage depots within the five-mile zone. It may be that the most substantial part of any increase in costs to the consumer will arise there.
May I add that your Lordships are discussing not the original Bill in the original form but a very different matter, the Bill in its present form. In its present state Clause 1(4) reads:
"The remaining four members of the Board … shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry and the National Association of Warehousekeepers."
We must accept that at the moment as part of the Bill. It is not unreasonable in the circumstances to suggest that where
there are going to be eight further members of the Board the Secretary of State, in the light of the peculiar and important position of consumers in this matter, should also consult with the National Consumer Council. If he has eight members to appoint it may be that the Secretary of State will wish to consult with the National Consumer Council. It may be that he will feel there is a place available for someone to represent specifically the consumer interest on the Board. That is a matter to be left to the Secretary of State and is not determined by this Amendment.
I would only add that the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, drew attention to his Amendment No. 8 where he proposes to add at the end of this subsection the words:
"and any other bodies appearing to him to have an interest in ports and cargo-handling".
May I suggest that there is nothing mutually exclusive between the two Amendments. His is dealing with quite a different interest from the consumer interest. In the light of the support that has been received from all parts of the House, I would suggest that there is a point to be achieved here by specifically referring to the consumer interest by way of this Amendment.
4.59 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 6) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 120; Not-Contents, 63.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Camoys, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Aldenham, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Allerton, L.

Carrington, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Amory, V.

Cawley, L.

Exeter, M.

Ampthill, L.

Chelwood, L.

Faithfull, B.

Amulree, L.

Clancarty, E.

Ferrers, E.

Atholl, D.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Ferrier, L.

Auckland, L.

Cobham, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Balerno, L.

Coleraine, L.

Gage, V.

Banks, L. [Teller]

Cork and Orrery, E.

Gainford, L.

Barrington, V.

Cornwallis, L.

Gray, L.

Belhaven and Stenton, L.

Craigton, L.

Gridley, L.

Belstead, L.

Cross, V.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Berkeley, B.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Hampton, L. [Teller]

Bessborough, E.

Daventry, V.

Hankey, L.

Birmingham, Bp.

De Freyne, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Boothby, L.

Denham, L.

Hawke, L.

Bourne, L.

Derwent, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Brentford, V.

Drumalbyn, L.

Hunt, L.

Byers, L.

Dundee, E.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Ilchester, E.

Munster, E.

Sharples, B.

Inchyra, L.

Norfolk, D.

Shinwell, L.

Killearn, L.

Northchurch, B.

Simon, V.

Kimberley, E.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Southwell, Bp.

Lauderdale, E.

Onslow, E.

Stamp, L.

Lloyd, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Phillips, B.

Strathclyde, L.

Long, V.

Platt, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Lothian, M.

Rankeillour, L.

Strathspey, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Sudeley, L.

McNair, L.

Redesdale, L.

Tenby, V.

Mancroft, L.

Reigate, L.

Teviot, L.

Margadale, L.

Sackville, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Marley, L.

St. Davids, V.

Trevelyan, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

St. Just, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mersey, V.

Saint Oswald, L.

Vivian, L.

Meston, L.

Sandys, L.

Wade, L.

Morris, L.

Seear, B.

Wigoder, L.

Mottistone, L.

Selkirk, E.

Wolverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Sempill, Ly.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Pannell, L.

Birk, B.

Henderson, L.

Pargiter, L.

Blyton, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Brimelow, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Caradon, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Castle, L.

Leatherland, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Steward of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Mais, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Vaizey, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Northfleld, L.

Walston, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.8 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 7:
Page 1 line 22, at end insert ("to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports.").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is an Amendment about whom the eight members of the Council, referred to in subsection (4), are to represent. The outline of it is that the remaining eight members of the Board, and the chairman and vice-chairman, shall be appointed by the Secretary of State after consultation to represent consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports. It is not intended to represent
1122
anything like confrontation between the two "eights"—to bring in rowing language here. It is intended to make clear that the interests of the dock workers and employers are not necessarily the same as the interests of those whom they serve.
In particular, there are mentioned the consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council. In a way this Amendment anticipated the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, on an earlier Amendment when he was talking about the enormous pressure that will be exercised by the two sides of the National Joint Council in order to get more members of the port employers and employees appointed among the additional eight. That was not the intention. It was suggested that the four should be increased to eight, so far as the members of the Board were concerned.
This is a totally logical approach. I do not agree with the noble Lord in thinking

1123
that necessarily employers and employees should be balanced in the eight. The interests should go very much wider than that. I believe that once you have a Council constituted in this way they will be much more likely to tend to lose their original identity in the general discussions. The danger is that if it is overloaded by one interest—that is, the interest of the dock workers and employers—you would get a kind of confrontation; whereas, if you have it clearly stated that the other eight members will represent, as I described it before, the wider interests, you will not get that kind of confrontation. You will have a much more rational discussion and approach within the Board.
If this Amendment is accepted, there will be no point in discussing who consulted with the National Joint Council as to whom should be appointed to fill these eight vacancies on the Board. They would have their eight and it is not sensible to run this as a kind of club to which other members will be admitted only after consultation with the National Joint Council. This would be quite wrong: it would be a mistaken way of reconstituting the Board. The purpose of reconstitution should surely be, as the next but one Amendment of mine shows, to make certain that there is due regard to the public interest. It is for that purpose that this Amendment was put down: to see that the public interest in the wider sense and in the interests of other port users and people connected with the ports should be properly represented on the Board. I beg to move.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I support my noble friend and agree with what he has said. One point has so far been left out of account as regards the constitution of the Board. Through the many hours of discussion, we seem to have moved dock work and port work into a very special position. My noble friend Lord Sandford referred to the ports as being the channel through which our lifeblood flows. If we accept that, and if we accept the main principles behind the Bill—preserving a certain amount of dock work, making things better and establishing who does this and who does that—it is even more vital that all those people who have any kind of interest concerned with that area of work
1124
should become involved. The only way that that can be done is to ensure that the parent body, the National Board, is fully representative of their interests. As we have agreed, it is the National Board who will administer, decide the policy and supervise, as distinct from the actual doing. It will be from that body that will flow the instruction, the authorisation, and so on, to the local boards. Therefore, provided that we get the constitution of the National Board right, there should be a smoother flow right down to the actual people who will do the work.
I feel that the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn would in some measure help to achieve this. A number of arguments might be made as to why the Amendment may possibly confuse certain things but, on the other hand, there is much to be said for having a situation in which people believe that their aims and objects can best be achieved in a certain way. Whether or not the Dock Board can do that remains to be seen, but certainly a great number of bodies believe that the Board will not be seen to be able to do the job unless they have these wider interests represented among its members, as suggested. It is for that reason that I support my noble friend.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I, too, should like to support briefly the Amendment of my noble friend, because I think that his arguments and also those of my noble friend Lord Lucas are unanswerable. As I see it, what we are talking about are bodies which have to be consulted before the membership of the Board is established. We are not talking about representatives as such. It would seem to me that the more emphasis given to the Government's being seen to consult, the better. That would allay the fears which have been referred to many times in discussion in this debate—and I will not labour the point now—that is, that the interested parties feel that somehow the docks, on which our lifeblood depends, are not going to be run by a small, tightly-knit group of people who will have only their own interests at heart. I think it is terribly important that the Government should be seen—and I hope the Government like the thought of being seen, to be appreciated by the country,

1125
because they do not have many opportunities for that these days—to be agreeing to a suggestion which shows that they understand the problems and the concern of those who are affected in any way by the working of the country's docks.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, because I feel that this Bill has been brought forward on advice from people who are used to the working of the large commercial ports where the Docks Labour Scheme operates. They have an obvious desire to extend it. One must not forget the very real fears of those people in areas which are likely to be taken over and put under this Scheme. They are afraid that their views and interests, their local experience and some of their local diversities will be ignored by a central juggernaut which is able to say: "What is good enough for London, Cardiff, or Southampton is good enough for the West Country and the more northerly parts of Scotland."
One has to appreciate that in many of these areas there is a tripartite interest in the docks. Some of the smaller ports have become viable because they have an area which is commercial and could perhaps be described as a commercial dock. They may have another and entirely separate area which is exclusively concerned with trawler fishing. They might also have a third, which is a marina. At the moment, they are locally run. People who know the area and know the demands get together and sort things out when occasionally there are rival claims by the different interests for land, space, harbourage or whatever it may be. But they very sincerely fear that when this great national Board comes in, the registered dock workers—perhaps in only one half of their small port—will be able to say, "Ah, but we have got all the might and muscle of this Bill and this national Board behind us." Those who serve other interests equally well, very much to the advantage of the community, feel that they will lose out every time if they want to challenge the facilities, space or whatever it may be.
Therefore it is essential, when there is in these ports this enormous co-operation between friendly rival interests which are doing different jobs that are wanted by
1126
the community, to allay the fears that there will be this "Big Brother" coming from London to a local port, through which most of the people will be appointed, because it will be said that they have experience of the registration scheme as well as experience of the big commercial docks. There are many homely little ports which do a wonderful job, which are viable and which work out locally what is required, and I believe that those interests, some of them exclusive to one area, should be taken into consideration by the consultation which my noble friend suggests in his Amendment.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I should like a little clarification of what is meant by the Amendment. It circumscribes the Secretary of State and it will no longer be simply a matter of consulting somebody and then making appointments. These are people who must be appointed to represent certain interests. I ask your Lordships to see how wide the Amendment casts. For example, should we have people who manufacture port equipment and machinery, which adds to the efficiency of the port or the workers in those industries? Just think, my Lords, how many different types you can collect before you get down to what this Amendment means, if everybody wants to push it to the logical conclusion. The Secretary of State could not possibly operate this provision and satisfy all those interests, and it would put him in an impossible position. I suggest adding the words, "Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all", because that is practically what it would amount to.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I wonder whether the noble Lord is under some misapprehension. We are dealing with Amendment No. 7, not No. 8.
Lord PARGITER: My Lords, both have the same effect.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before the noble Lord replies, I wonder whether I may make one further point. I am looking forward very much to Amendment No. 9, because I think I detected a hint from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that he might be able to accept it—I hope so. If he does, then the Board will have a specific duty spelled out in the Bill to

1127
have regard to the public interest, and in those circumstances it is very desirable that it is made clear to these additional members, when they are appointed to the Board, that that is their purpose in being there.
5.24 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, whether or not we accept Amendment No. 9, I do not think that that should be only their purpose on the Board; it should be the purpose of the whole Board, if it is laid down in the Statute, and not the purpose of certain members who have been appointed. If the Statute says that the Board shall have regard to the public interest, then the whole Board will have regard to it; not a few additional members.
Amendment No. 7 does two things. We are concerned with the appointment of what I would call the additional members—four according to the original Bill, and eight according to the Amendment on which we divided earlier. The first thing which the Amendment does is to take away the right of the National Joint Council to consultation. In the Bill as it stands, in appointing these additional members the Secretary of State will consult with the TUC, the CBI and the National Joint Council. This Amendment takes away from the National Joint Council the privilege of being consulted. The Government consider that the National Joint Council ought to be consulted about all appointments to the Board, even where they are to represent non-NJC interests. The major task of the new Board will still be to administer the Scheme. All its functions are concerned with manpower in the port transport industry. We therefore think that if the Board is to work harmoniously the two sides of the industry ought to be able to express a formal view on appointments from outside the industry.
Secondly, the Amendment lays down the interests which shall be represented,
"… consumers, port users and their employees and others not represented on the National Joint Council but with an interest in the efficient working of the ports."
We cannot understand why the TUC and the CBI, or even the NJC, should be consulted in regard to the consumer interest. I should not have thought that
1128
either the CBI or the TUC was an appropriate body to consult in regard to the consumer interest. I agree with what was said earlier, and if we are to have consultation on the consumer interest it should be with the Consumer Council.
There is one group of people, above all, who are interested; that is, the employers and employees who are doing work such as cargo-handling at non-Scheme ports which may be considered for classification, and these are not at all mentioned. So the group with the greatest interest has been ignored. According to the Bill, that group would be represented, because the CBI and the TUC would be consulted and would be able to choose the proper people to represent both their interests and other interests which are relevant. The Bill intentionally does not specify particular interests which the four other members should represent. It will be up to the TUC and the CBI to indicate which interests, in their view, most justify representation.
We believe that they are in such a position, with their first-hand knowledge, that they will not make the mistake which has been made in this Amendment. Their first thought will be that the people whose work is likely to be classified should be represented on this Board, whether they be employers in the case of the CBI, or employees in the case of the TUC. We have confidence in the process of consultation with the TUC and the CBI, and we are also confident that with the provision in the Bill the appointments are likely to be satisfactory to all concerned.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, if I understand correctly what the noble Lord has been saying, he expected that I would take Amendment No. 5 and this Amendment together. This Amendment, as it stands by itself, does not exclude consultation with the National Joint Council.
Lord JACQUES: I apologise to the noble Lord.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I thought I ought to make that point clear. I quite understand how this happened. The noble Lord has attacked the Amendment mainly on two grounds. The first ground was that it specifies two sets of people—or possibly three, because port users and

1129
their employees could be regarded as separate—and not others. In particular, the noble Lord said that those people whose work is likely to be classified should have been mentioned. It is not very easy to find a formula to do so. Had I found a formula to do so I should have used it. After using it the other way round to me before, the noble Lord is not able to put the argument to me that the Secretary of State will take into account those whose interests are obviously in need of being taken into account. Therefore I do not believe that this is a very important argument. It is the principle of the Amendment that I commend to your Lordships.
Put very briefly, the principle is that inevitably we have two sides. The one side consists of those who have a direct interest as dock workers or dock employers, while the other side consists of the rest of the country which has an indirect interest. The noble Lord may be right in saying that there are some who have a direct interest because their work is not at present classified as dock work, and that they are in danger of being classified under the Bill. I should have thought that it was perfectly obvious that these interests would be taken into account by the Government, for the very good reason which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, himself found necessary to mention. The port users are obviously the direct customers of the dock workers and dock employers. Therefore they should be mentioned. The indirect customers are all the people in this country whom the port users serve: the manufacturing interest dealing with raw
materials, the ultimate consumer interest and so forth.
The Amendment makes quite clear what is intended. The noble Lord said that it is difficult to classify a consumer and that there are many people—manufacturers and the like—who are also consumers. So there is no particular difficulty about that case. The Bill already states that the National Consumer Council will be consulted. No doubt the Council will have views regarding the kind of consumer they would like to represent them—as, indeed, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress will have views regarding the kind of consumers that should represent them.
The point is that there should clearly be somebody to represent the interests of the consumer on the Board. Equally there should clearly be somebody to represent the interests of the port users. That may take two out of the eight members, which leaves six to cover a fairly wide range whose interests could properly be thought to be represented on the Board. Therefore, I should not have thought that this Amendment was in any way vague. I believe that A meets the case as succinctly as it is possible, in the circumstances, to meet it and I hope that your Lordships will support me in this Amendment.
5.34 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 7) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 108; Not-Contents, 69.
Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
5.42 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 8:
Page 1, line 22, at end insert ("and any other bodies appearing to him to have an interest in ports and cargo-handling").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this point has been referred to sufficiently in the course of the earlier discussion on this clause for me not to need to add very much more. Perhaps I should stress my main reason in putting down the Amendment is that it seems to me that in the Bill as drafted the Secretary of State does not have the authority to consult as widely as we are all now agreed he should consult. For that reason I think this Amendment is needed and I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will agree. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, of course this Amendment would not be after the Amendment last inserted. It would be before it; otherwise it would not make sense.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this Amendment would require the Secretary of State to consult with an indefinite number of bodies having an interest in the ports and cargo handling. There are hundreds of bodies who might claim to have an interest. Over 700 bodies, including companies, trade associations, chambers of commerce—
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I interrupt the noble Lord because I think it will save time? The Amendment reads:
"… and any other bodies appearing to him…"
It is entirely at the discretion of the Secretary of State how many he consults.

1133
I agree that without those words it would produce just the situation which I think the noble Lord is about to adumbrate to us.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I still stick to what I said; you are inflicting upon the Secretary of State the duty of having to consult with everybody who might have an interest. He may receive inquiries from 700 bodies who show an interest; they have shown the interest by making the inquiry. In point of fact, of the 700 bodies who applied for the Consultative Document over 400 sent comments. If this Amendment were in the Bill, it would be reasonable to say that the Secretary of State noticed that they not only had the Consultative Document but they made comments on the Document and therefore showed some interest. No matter how many bodies he consulted there would be others who would claim that they had an equal or greater interest to those who had been consulted. Finally, if this Amendment were carried most of those who would be consulted would be members of the TUC or the CBI, and in our opinion it is consultation with those two bodies which is a practical proposition. May I, with all respect, point out that that was the attitude taken by a Conservative Government when they were in office.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I despair of making any headway in our efforts to get the consultations we need for the composition of this Board in order that it should properly reflect the public interest. For the last three hours we have tried over and over again and I despair of going on any longer. I would have thought that the wording of the Amendment made it quite clear that the extent and degree of consultation would rest with the Secretary of State. He would not be under any obligation to consult more widely than he wanted to.
Before I ask the leave of the House to withdraw this Amendment, could I ask the noble Lord to do this. Despite the wording of Clause 1, and subsection (4) in particular, could he assure me that the Secretary of State will be free and will exercise his freedom to consult more widely than is specified. My main fear is that he would be constrained by the clause as at present drafted and not
1134
permitted or authorised to go beyond the bodies specified in the Bill. I think that really would be unfortunate.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, unless it is forbidden by the Statute the Secretary of State is free to consult with anybody, but of course he must specifically consult all the people named in the Statute.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, that helps us quite considerably, and with the assurance that the Secretary of State is free to consult and will consult as freely as he wishes I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 2 [General duty of the Board]:
5.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 9:
Page 2, line 11, after ("Board") insert ("having regard to the public interest").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in seeking to move this Amendment I think the House would not want me to repeat all the points and arguments which I made on virtually the same Amendment at the Committee stage. Noble Lords will have noted how the debate then ranged far and wide. Indeed the Amendment gained what we regard as much valued and welcome support. The noble Lord who spoke for the Government recognised that the issues which appear before the Secretary of State in respect of the scheme are important and not readily discernable. There is also the problem of flexibility and, we believe, of relevance because all that has been said on the earlier Amendments concerning the composition and the numbers of the board is very important. The pattern of trade, of cargo handling and differing skills required of employees will also affect the decision which is going to be made by the Secretary of State. The port users, industry, commerce, the consumer and the Government all have a stake in the port industry and the Secretary of State has to reconcile these different factors of our life. Much has been, and we believe will be, said concerning the food industry, but our ports are even more important when we consider our exports of machinery and other industrial equipment and how these leave our shores.

1135
Our customers, be they in Europe or over the oceans, do not require excuses nor comments that our ports structure is being modernised. These customers want our particular goods. The Secretary of State must consider their interests, and indeed our national interest, when he is drawing up plans to modernise the port and the cargo-handling industry. We believe that he will bear in mind these points at all times. Nevertheless, we believe that the Amendment as set out provides at least some kind of yardstick against which his actions can be judged, both in Parliament and in the country.
The employment of registered dock workers provides emotive descriptions when this Bill and other similar Bills are discussed, but we think it right to have this kind of yardstick in the Bill so that the Secretary of State can be seen to be absolutely impartial. At the Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Gram, wondered how we could define the public interest when we were discussing this Amendment. I do not necessarily consider that the Amendment will restrict the Secretary of State at any point, but I hope and trust that it will provide him with just a reminder of the main priority when he comes to prepare the Scheme.
Indeed, the Government made very conciliatory noises at the Committee stage and earlier in my remarks I mentioned that support was forthcoming from all parts of the House. We look upon the Amendment as a most desirable addition to the Bill. In connection with that, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who unfortunately temporarily is not in his seat. He wrote a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and was kind enough to send me a copy of it, and in that letter were a number of favourable comments. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Like my noble friend Lord Lyell, I do not wish to repeat what I said on this same Amendment at Committee stage, but I think perhaps it is in the public interest to remind the House that as my noble friend said it is of paramount importance that it should always be in the forefront of the thinking of both the Government and the Dock Labour Board that the country is dependent for its food on the docks. As I said during the Committee stage, on every day
1136
of every year half the country's food comes through the docks. This means that it is extremely important that those who administer the docks, like the Dock Labour Board, should have that kind of interest—which above everything is the public interest because we must all feed—in the forefront of their thinking whenever they are making decisions as to how the docks should be administered and all the other things that they will decide upon under this Bill. Therefore I should—and I got an indication from my noble friend Lord Sandford on an earlier Amendment that perhaps this might be the case—greatly appreciate the thought that the Government also have appreciated the great importance of the national interest in relation to the docks.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, we have been reminded that we had a long and indeed vigorous debate during the Committee stage on this point, and I agree with the two noble Lords who have spoken that little purpose would be served in repeating those arguments, particularly as I am in a position to confirm the rumour that seems to be going around that the Government are prepared to accept this Amendment. I think that is all I need to say; but perhaps I may be allowed to say two other sentences, because I want to repeat briefly the view of the Government that these words are not really necessary. As I said at Committee stage the Board will be a responsible body and there is no reason to suppose that it would put forward proposals that it considers to be contrary to the public interest. That was the case that I put forward at Committee stage. However, as I have indicated, the Government are prepared to agree to this Amendment if the House considers—as I think the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said—that it is desirable to give the Board a reminder of the public interest. If the House considers that to be a useful thing, the Government will not resist this Amendment.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am absolutely delighted that the noble Lord has been able to confirm what he calls this "rumour". Once again I should like to express how grateful we were for the nice way in which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, sent a letter to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, and to myself. Indeed,

1137
we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for the way in which he has accepted this Amendment and, above all, for the stress that he has laid on the public interest. I just hope that this Amendment will be taken as a yardstick against which the Secretary of State can judge his actions, and indeed can be judged, when he is considering this Scheme. I think it would be churlish and ill-mannered of me to say anything further, apart from the fact that we are extremely grateful.
5.58 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 10:
Page 2, line 12, leave out ("affect") and insert ("improve").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in this greatly improved climate I beg to move Amendment No. 10 which stands in the name of myself and my noble friends, and perhaps I may link with it Amendment No. 11. These two Amendments do not radically alter the Bill, but they alter the emphasis in a way that I think is important. At the moment, the wording in the Bill reflects the rather neutral, passive and detached attitude of the Board towards developments in the modernisation of the docks. I should like to see the words changed as indicated so that they read:
"… appear to them to improve, or be likely to improve, the efficiency of work classified under this Act as dock work".
That is not to say that they are not to continue to have regard to everything which is likely to affect dock work, including those things which are likely to impair it, delay it or hinder it.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, in view of what the noble Lord has just said, that paradoxically these words do not alter the Bill in any way, do I take it that these Amendments effect no alteration at all?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I do not think that is what I said. I said that this does not seek to effect any substantial or radical change. It is not a very fundamental matter, but it is a shift of emphasis. That is what I am seeking to do, because my reading of the state of the docks is that the National Dock Labour Board has adopted—as I think I said—a somewhat
1138
passive, neutral and detached attitude to the progress of the modernisation of the docks and various steps which might have increased their efficiency. I should like to stress this, but at the same time make clear that of course they must have regard to those factors in dockland which tend to hamper, hinder and impair the work of the ports. I want to stress no more than that. I would like to get the reaction of the noble Lord to that modest and mild suggestion. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, when I saw that these two Amendments had been tabled, I wondered whether they had been tabled under a misconception. Having listened to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I believe that may well be the case. The noble Lord said that the Amendments were intended as a modest improvement, and to change the emphasis, but it is my understanding that they would do considerably more than that. In fact, they would entirely change the nature of the duties of the Board in Clause 2, and would do so in a quite inappropriate way.
The concern of the Board is clearly with developments likely to affect the performance of work. These developments might be developments which, to use the words of the noble Lord, would improve efficiency, but equally the developments might seem, for one reason or another, likely to lead to a deterioration in efficiency. It is a major intention of the clause that the Board should be on the look-out for changes likely to lead to such a deterioration and that, having spotted them, they should initiate action designed to change it.
On the other hand, there might be some developments in the situation which would lead to an improvement in efficiency of work, but they may not significantly affect the performance of dock work at all; for instance, improved recording systems. So if I may say so, if the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, will ponder what I have said, he will see that the effect of his Amendment would not be as he intended, and would bring about a situation which he himself would not wish to bring about.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am happy to accept the invitation of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to look at what he has

1139
said. It certainly was not my intention to have that effect. By these Amendments my intention was that the Board would be encouraged to shift the emphasis from being less of the detached observer to more of a positive influence in improving the efficiency of the docks. I will certainly withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.4 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 12:
Page 2, line 25, leave out ("adequately") and insert ("efficiently").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 12 which is akin to but not identical with Amendments Nos.10 and 11. This Amendment questions the value of the significance of the words "adequately deployed". I should have thought that, however one looked at it, it should be the duty of the National Dock Labour Board, in the course of their review, to see that dock workers are efficiently employed in the kind of deployment described as "adequately", which is really almost meaningless, unless you go on to define what is meant by "adequately" in that context, whereas the word "efficiently" is clearly what is to be desired. It is something which can be measured in a number of ways. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I would hope to persuade the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, in connection with the two previous Amendments that, although I fully accept that he has a constructive purpose in moving this Amendment, his purpose is not really to be served by this Amendment. This subsection is concerned with the use being made of the existing labour force. In part, this clearly implies that this use should be efficient. It could well be that the existing labour force is deployed as efficiently as possible on the work available, but we might have the situation where there are too many workers for them all to be usefully employed, either in general or at some particular places where they are at present. If the noble Lord will look at subsection (3)(b) he will see the connection. Subsection (3)(b) requires the power
"to adjust the strength and disposition of the labour force".
1140
If the noble Lord will look at subsections (3)(a) and (3)(b) together he will see that his Amendment would not help the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am not sure that I do see that. In what way would the strength and disposition of the labour force be adjusted if it were not in the direction of making that deployment and disposition more efficient? I am sure that is exactly what we all want.
Lord SLATER: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that we can play around with words? What does the word "adequately" really mean? It means good. Why cannot we say "properly served" instead of "adequately"? We can play around with words and get a different interpretation. I think the noble Lord is wanting to be helpful on this issue, and I can see what he is after. But I do not think it will make any difference whatever if we put in the word "adequately" against the words already in the Bill.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, may I ask whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is going to answer my second point?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, with the leave of the House, in response to the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I can say, yes, under subsection (3)(b) one would expect that any adjustment would be in the interests of efficiency. I agree. But the Amendment of the noble Lord proposes to change the word "adequately" to the word "efficiently" in subsection (3)(a). As I explained in my opening statement, the Board should keep under review the extent to which dock workers are adequately deployed. They may be efficiently employed; but it may be necessary to make changes, to persuade people to move. It may be necessary to have a different kind of deployment if there is too much labour in one place when the matter is reviewed by the Board.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: My Lords, I think there is a misunderstanding here. This sentence deals with the availability of work. It says:
"… are adequately deployed, having regard to the amount of such work that is available".

1141
This registered Scheme is mounted in order to preserve work and share it out, so that if we put in the word "efficiently" it is rather a contradiction. It may not be efficient according to some tests of efficiency but it can be adequate if you have a fair share of the work that is going on. I think that is the intention.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I say that I am grateful for that point from Lord Cooper because I think it has cleared my mind quite a bit. But I still think that the concept of greater efficiency needs to be imported somewhere here, and after listening to the noble Lord, Lord Cooper, and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, I think it is perhaps in paragraph (3)(b). At any rate, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment for the time being.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.11 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 13:
Page 2, line 40, after ("employers") insert ("consumers and public funds").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 13 which is on quite a different point and it is in paragraph (4)(c). I want to move this because I do not think the paragraph as drafted is wide enough or precise enough. I do not think it will really do for the Board in formulating its proposals just to consider the probable cost of what they are going to do to employers. They obviously must consider that; but they could make proposals which were successful in avoiding any additional cost to the employers but would have the effect of passing the cost on to the consumers or to public funds. They ought not to be free to do that without having any regard to the effects on public funds and on the consumers. The clause as drafted would not require them to have any regard to the probable cost to consumers or to public funds, unless we put the Amendment in.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend's Amendment. It seems to me very important that the public fund's interest should be put into this paragraph in an appropriate place. It is very much a factor in these present days and one that really should not be overlooked at any
1142
time. As to the consumers, of course, their interests must be safeguarded, but I will not labour that point, because it was well argued on earlier Amendments. In the end the consumers are going to be involved, because ultimately extra costs fall on either the consumers or public funds; and even if they fall on public funds they fall on the consumers in another way. I suggest to the Government, therefore, that this is an Amendment that is well worth taking and it is possibly in accordance with their general thinking in having this clause in the Bill when it came to this House.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I should like to support the Amendment. So often in discussions about increased wage costs, handling costs, freight costs or anything else, the employer is told, "Well, you can pass it on to the consumer". It is the consumer in the ultimate who will pay the additional costs that may result from such a scheme, particularly in the smaller ports. It is very essential indeed that we should have a realisation that at the end of the line it is the consumer who pays.
6.15 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am not sure whether noble Lords opposite appreciated, in moving this Amendment, that in doing so they were criticising the actions of their colleagues in another place, because Clause 2(4)(c) was in fact inserted in the Bill in response to difficulties expressed by their colleagues there. I make no complaint that they should look carefully at what their colleagues have done, and if they find things are wrong there, as I believe they often are, they should try to correct them in this House. But I think they will find that this Amendment does not really stand up to examination. If the Amendment had simply made Clause 2(4)(c) read something like this, "the probable cost of implementing the proposal', a more general phrase, we should have been far more sympathetic, although it would not have taken account of the more particular concern expressed in another place about the cost to employers. But it is impossible for the Board to know the actual cost to consumers of any particular proposal. Port charges as a whole are only one very small element in the total cost of a particular product

1143
to the consumer, and therefore the Board could not make a meaningful estimate.
So far as public funds are concerned, your Lordships may be assured that both the Department of Employment and the Treasury would want to make their own estimate of any cost and examine such questions very thoroughly indeed. There seems no need to require the Board to duplicate the work that would be done in any case by other bodies. Moreover, if the Secretary of State needed a particular appraisal and it was not provided, he has always the powers under Clause 2(6); he could ask for such an appraisal to be made. With those points, I would ask noble Lords to reconsider their wisdom in putting this Amendment forward.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord said that it would be too difficult to work out the cost to the consumer. Perhaps I am getting the wrong point, but did not the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in answer to an earlier Amendment, say that increased costs could be calculated as one hundredth part of 1 per cent. of gross domestic product? Therefore a calculation has been done which has a bearing on the sort of calculation that might have to be done under my noble friend's Amendment.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I think my noble friend was referring to an overall costing based upon an assumption, I think it was from the Ports Council, which my noble friend did not necessarily accept; but given that basis, then some kind of calculation would be possible. The difficulty to which I was pointing here was the impossibility of calculating the effect on the consumer of any particular proposal which might be brought forward.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I point out that I was dealing with a firm proposal. The question was what was the cost of loading and unloading at the non-Scheme ports. That was a known calculation.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in the hustle that is being urged on us it is not always possible to remember exactly all the considerations that have to be borne in mind, and one of them is what one's colleagues in another place have been doing.
1144
All we are doing here is to add a refinement to what they have already done, not to contradict it; but even if we were doing the latter I should not be all that abashed. At the end of the day we have to do what we think is right. I am not too satisfied with what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has been saying. I do not think the importing of the words of this Amendment into the Bill would require the Board to be able to make precise calculations about the cost to the consumers and the cost to public funds of what was going on. Obviously they will be able to examine the probable cost to the employers in the docks of implementing proposals with more precision than they will be able to apply to the other considerations, but they will be able to form some view of the probable cost to the consumer or public funds, and I should have thought that that is what they should be required to do.
However, what I should like to ask the noble Lord to do—and on Clause 2 we have got on very well and got through it in half-an-hour; he has accepted one of our Amendments, and I have withdrawn three of mine and agreed to consider them—if he would be prepared to speak once more, with the leave of the House, is to say that he, for his part, would be prepared to consider this particular proposition. It may be that my point could be met not by inserting those words exactly in paragraph (c) but by making an Amendment—and I think that he and his Department could devise it better than I could—to ensure that the broad costs to consumers and public funds were borne in mind in the course of formulating proposals under this clause. Would the noble Lord be good enough to say that he would look at it in that spirit and in that light, because if he would I should at this moment very happily withdraw it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, on the point about public funds, I did not say that it was impossible for the Board to make a calculation in regard to a particular proposal. What I was saying was that it was not necessary for the Board to do it because both the Department of Employment and the Treasury would be doing this work, and we wanted to avoid a duplication of work of this kind. Therefore, I should not like to hold out any hope if I agree to what the noble Lord has said—and I, in general terms,

1145
would wish to. I would not, nevertheless, wish that to imply that I am likely to come back at Third Reading with an Amendment to this effect. I shall certainly be prepared to look at the position again.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Lord. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 4 [Secretary of State to prepare new Scheme]:
6.23 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 14:
Page 3, line 38, leave out ("in draft") and insert ("and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 14, and to couple with it Amendments Nos. 15, 16 and 17.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I agree that it would be appropriate to couple those with Amendment No. 14, but would he not consider also that Amendments Nos.26, 27, 57 and 68 are similar Amendments and might be considered all together?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think that may well be so. I would prefer just to have these four in front of me, but I think I can give an assurance to the noble Lord that when we come to those others I shall be able to be very brief, but I would rather not be committed to regarding them as absolutely consequential at this stage. If I had longer to brood on this Report stage I believe I might be happy to agree with him. What we are concerned with here is the Amendments to do with applying the procedures of the new Schedule 5 to various parts of the Bill, and what we are doing here is to alter the way in which they are applied at this particular point, and the other Amendments to which the noble Lord referred do so in other different ways.
I think all that happens is that the reference to Schedule 5 is imported in subsection (1)(a), and there is enough in Schedule 5 for it to be unnecessary to spell things out as they are in paragraphs
1146
(b), (c) and (d). As we get on there will be other instances where we have been able to tidy the thing up, which I should like to be able to explain briefly. I hope that that is sufficient explanation for the way in which it is done here. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, has used the phrase "tidy up" to characterise these Amendments. I accept what he says about the last four to which I drew attention, that he may wish to return to them briefly at a later stage. Yes, to tidy up is the purpose of these Amendments. I have in mind somewhat the picture of a butcher when serving some meat. He takes a good whack at the joint but does not hit it quite where he intended, and afterwards does a bit of slicing. I think on the Committee stage noble Lords opposite were butchers in regard to this Bill, not only in relation to the public inquiry but more particularly in relation to the five mile corridor. They did their rough, crude butcher's effort on that occasion and now they are finding that it was a very untidy thing and they have to do a bit of tidying up.
I think I need not emphasise that the Government remain utterly opposed to what they have done to the Bill in this particular instance in relation to setting up public inquiries. We made our position perfectly clear on Committee stage that we are totally opposed to the procedure, but nevertheless since that was done by your Lordships' House the Government do not wish to make any detailed comment about the more detailed tidying-up process, and will not seek to oppose these Amendments.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 15:
Page 3, line 41, leave out paragraph (b).
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 16 and 17:
Page 4, line 4, leave out paragraph (c).
Page 4, line 10, leave out paragraph (d).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 16. It would

1147
save time if I moved Amendment No. 17 at the same time.
6.30 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 18:
Page 4, line 36, leave out ("1000") and insert ("1750").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, it was sad that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, ended on the note he did when he last spoke, because I felt that it was an opportunity for people to see that the Amendments which had been made were not butchering the Bill but were in fact giving it gentle treatment; that they were a genuine attempt to modify the Bill so that everybody, not just the dockers, might think it was reasonable for them, and that goes very much for people belonging to other unions. It will be a tragedy if the Government see this as butchering and will want to do some rebutchering of their own in another place. If only they could clear their mind and look at it basically! I appreciate that these remarks are out of order, in that they are not related to the Amendment, but I could not resist making them after what Lord Oram said.
Noble Lords will remember that in Committee I warned that I would re-introduce this Amendment, when I withdrew it at that stage in the hope that the Government would he able to look into the question of what the implications of this proposal would be and whether it would make any great difference moving from the figure of 1,000 tons as a limit which is in the Bill now. I must express my gratitude to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for writing to me on the subject. I appreciate that he has been under even greater strain than we have, but sadly his letter did not reach me until I had tabled this Amendment. Nevertheless, I think that in the event it would not have affected the issue, but I thank him for his letter.
The noble Lord told me that the Government had been unable in the time available to them to carry out a survey of the sort for which I had asked. Of course, a survey means different things to different people and I should not have expected him to send a boat out with lead and line
1148
to find out what the situation was. I suggested to noble Lords opposite that perhaps they might have invoked the assistance of the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence, and I should be interested to know whether the Government did that, because, as I suggested earlier, they might have got a swift answer.
Lord Jacques went on to say that he had been advised that the depth of water required for a ship of 1,750 tons would be the same as for one of 1,000 tons. That is probably true. It would, therefore, seem to me that there is no difference in practical terms between having a figure of 1,000 tons or of 1,750 tons, and for that reason the Government may be prepared to accept the Amendment. Although the Government were unable to get the detailed information for which I asked, I was able to get some information myself from the British Ports Association, who said that an increase in the figure to 2,000 tons would bring within the definition ports such as Cowes, Ramsgate, Torbay and Whitby, and they went on:
"You will appreciate that in some small Scottish ports, such as Stornoway and Lerwick, they have very deep water and so therefore the matter does not really arise".
They also said that they had checked with Poole and Weymouth, which are Scheme ports at the moment.
The noble Viscount, Lord Simon, expressed concern that it would make a nonsense if we introduced an Amendment which would exclude ports which were already Scheme ports. I agree, and I am assured that that would not be the case; those ports could handle ships of 1,750 tons now. It seems, therefore, that nothing would be lost against the framework of the Bill as we now have it to make this Amendment, which would serve as an added safeguard to those small ports where, for reasons which were advanced on Second Reading and in Committee, they have no wish to have a split labour force or to have a few jobs declared as dock jobs, possibly by misadventure. The Government may feel, as they have with recent Amendments, that here is one they can readily accept.
6.36 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, said, he raised this matter in Committee and asked us to

1149
look in appropriate quarters for information that would support or otherwise his Amendment. It was thought that the best place to find the kind of information he was seeking was with the Shipping Department of the Department of Trade, and, as my noble friend Lord Jacques indicated in the letter to which Lord Mottistone referred, seeking the kind of information he required would he an expensive exercise. My noble friend wrote:
"In any case, I foresee considerable difficulties as I am advised that the depth of water required for a 1,750-ton boat could be the same as for a 1,000-ton boat".
I assure Lord Mottistone that we looked seriously at the possibility of getting him the kind of information he wanted, but we must have certain standards of judgment as to how much expense can be involved. This is a standard of judgment which is used in relation to Parliamentary Questions. Governments of both persuasions have to insist on such a standard, and in this case it was considered that the expense involved would be far beyond that which is normally justified in seeking to satisfy noble Lords or Members of another place when they ask Parliamentary Questions. I hope therefore that Lord Mottistone will believe me when I say that we genuinely approached his suggestion but were not able to give him fuller satisfaction.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Oram, did not answer my noble friend's question. Did he make enquiries of the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence or anywhere else in the Ministry of Defence? Because I cannot believe that an answer which would at any rate bear on the question would not readily have been available at very little cost.
Lord ORAM: I believe that that particular approach was not made, my Lords, but if it helps the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I will see that an approach is made. I suspect, however, that the answer might well support the conclusions that have already been reached.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lord, I hesitate to correct the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it is not normally common to refer to such vessels as boats, except in the old days of the destroyer world,
1150
and we are not talking about destroyers. Ships of 1,750 tons will draw as much or the same amount as ships of 1,000 tons; therefore it seems to me that there is no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted, because it would not make any difference in the context of the Bill as drafted. Can the Minister clarify that point for me?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, if the noble Lord is saying that there is not much difference between the two, then we may as well leave it at 1,000 tons rather than raise it to 1,750 tons.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Not really, my Lords. The point is that one wants to exclude the small ports for the reasons that have been advanced in the past, and I will not labour the whole point again now. On the whole, the larger the ships which these ports will normally accept as being the exclusion point the better to protect the ports from being within the Scheme. But perhaps noble Lords opposite have a different viewpoint.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, I have some experience of this matter, having at one time been in shipping in a small way. Is the noble Lord, Lord Oram, aware that one can build a ship of 1,750 tons that draws less than a ship of 1,000 tons? An old ship of 1,000 tons might have a very deep draught, which shows that my noble friend Lord Mottistone has a point here.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, the noble Lord is not going to make any more remarks?
Lord ORAM: I am conscious, my Lords, that we are on Report stage and constant conversation, so to speak, is not appropriate in these circumstances.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I appreciate that. It was a question I had asked. In view of the uncertainty of this position and the fact that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, kindly undertook, in response to my noble friend Lord Sandford, to see whether or not the Hydrographic Department of the Ministry of Defence could assist him, not only much more cheaply but also more quickly than his other sources of information, I hope we might

1151
reconsider this matter at Third Reading and I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.41 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 19:
Page 4, line 38, leave out from ("basis") to end of line 41 and insert ("and where the terms and conditions of service are no less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is in the manner of a drafting Amendment to the Amendment that I moved at Committee stage. Noble Lords will see from the Committee stage that the Amendment I moved then concerns the smaller ports which are dotted around our coastline. We moved an Amendment then which was accepted, but we believe that the original Amendment needed to be clarified and we hope that this Amendment will remove any doubts as to the meaning of Clause 4(6)(c). I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government take an attitude to this Amendment similar to that which I indicated in relation to the long list of tidying-up Amendments which the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, moved earlier. This is another tidying up. The Government remain resolutely opposed to the Amendments which remove the cargo-handling zone from the Bill which they regarded as totally wrecking. I concede that this Amendment is a drafting Amendment as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, says and we would not wish to oppose it. But if I can momentarily become a butcher's assistant, there is one further piece of tidying up which I suggest is needed even in this tidying-up Amendment because ports are not "affiliated" to the National Joint Council. That body is comprised of employers and unions. I do not wish to make much of it but it is a fact I thought worth pointing out.
Viscount ROCHDALE: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord the Minister one question? In the Amendment there is a reference to the "National Joint Council", but in the clause which is being amended the reference seems to be to the "National Ports Council". I wonder which is the correct one?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the National Joint Council is a joint council of port employers and employees. The National Ports Council is a completely independent statutory body concerned with entirely different things.
Viscount ROCHDALE: So, my Lords, with the leave of the House, that means that the clause as it now stands is incorrect because it refers to the National Ports Council?
Lord ORAM: I think not, my Lords. I believe that subsection (5) is the one to which the noble Lord is referring and that would stand as an appropriate body with which the Board should maintain regular consultation. I do not think there is any need to remove or to alter that.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his comments on this Amendment. I had hoped that we had got it right, but I take his kindly correction—if that is the proper word to use—and also take his comments that he, might I say, "affiliated" to the earlier Amendments moved by my noble friend Lord Sandford. We felt that this was a reasonable Amendment and put it forward at the Committee stage. We shall have to see what will be the effect of this Amendment when the whole Bill is discussed in another place. I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his correction and also for accepting the Amendment at this stage.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 20:
Page 4, line 43, at end insert—
("(7) The Secretary of State may by order amend (or having made one or more previous orders under this subsection, further amend), by substituting some other number, the number of hours laid down in subsection (6)(a) or the number of tons laid down in subsection (6)(b) above.
(8) An order shall not be made under subsection (7) above unless a draft of it has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this continues what I prefer to call a delicate work of surgery on a Bill which badly needs it and which because of time and pressure we are not able to approach with the delicacy which we should like.

1153
But once again, this imports not a change but a refinement to the new parts of the Bill incorporated at the Committee stage. It is not an Amendment to something which was done last time but it is done in order to introduce some measure of flexibility for which the debate on Amendment No. 18 illustrated the need.
The reference in what is now Clause 4(6) to "subsection (5) above" embraces three separate criteria for judging what is meant by a small harbour. Two of them are by reference to numerical factors—the hours worked at (a) and the tonnage of the vessel at (b). The discussion we have had about whether that should be 1,000 or 1,750 illustrates that there is room for debate as to what figure is appropriate. I have to admit that any figure in there is bound to be in some sense arbitrary and may not prove to be the very best in the light of experience.
Of course, those of us who regard this clause as being one in which we need to build in protection for small harbours for whom the operation of this Bill will be what will be a baleful and baneful business so far as we can see it, will think twice about giving the Secretary of State power to modify that protection or remove it by altering these criteria in what we would regard as the wrong direction. On the other hand, there may be occasions when we want to see the thing moved in the other way and therefore on balance I am in favour of giving the Secretary of State—whatever his complexion might be—the discretion to modify either of these in the light of experience. In any case, we should like very much to hear what the Government have to say about what we regard as a piece of very refined surgery. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the Government, through me, do not wish to say very much because this, again, is a case of noble Lords seeking to improve upon the work—if that is the right word—that they did at an earlier stage. All I wish to say is that the Government are still totally opposed to Clause 4(6) and we would not therefore wish to divide the House on any Amendment which noble Lords opposite now see as consequential to provisions, which, in the view of the Government, wreck the purpose of the Bill. I think we would simply be
1154
taking unnecessary time if we entered into a debate on this kind of issue.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think probably the best thing, then, is to move this into the Bill. I do not feel strongly enough about it to want to divide the House, but I understand from what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said that he would not resist it. I think it introduces a flexibility into the consideration of what is a small harbour which would be welcome; and, therefore, on the whole and on balance, I think I should like to move the Amendment into the Bill without further ado.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if it would be to the convenience of the House, as we were due to break at seven o'clock I would be very reluctant to embark now on introducing the new clause set out as Amendment 21, which will take us, I would judge, quite a considerable time. On the other hand, I am in the hands of your Lordships. I see that the two Front Bench spokesmen for the next business are now here, but if it was the wish of the House for me to make my opening remarks on the next Amendment for seven minutes I would of course be glad to do so. My original message was that we should try to keep the business going until not later than five minutes to seven. I am sorry that we have not been able to achieve that, but I can easily make a start if that is what is wished. On the other hand, I would not think that it would be a very convenient way to handle our business. I shall be happy to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, has to say.
Lord STRABOLGI: My Lords, I really did not want the noble Lord to make heavy weather of this. We always try to meet the Opposition and all your Lord-ships. If it is a question of only a few minutes, I absolutely agree with the noble Lord; and, in view of what he has said, if it is agreeable to your Lordships I think this might be a good moment to halt the Report stage until 7.45 in order to take other business. I therefore beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
6.53 p.m.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
7.55 p.m.
Report stage resumed.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before speaking to Amendment No. 21, I suggest that we deal with manuscript Amendment No. 21B. It is to Amendment No. 21, as amended by No. 21B, to which I should
1176
like to address my remarks. I therefore move manuscript Amendment No. 21B:
Line 5, leave out from ("employed") to end of line 7 and insert ("for a minimum of two years in work which becomes classified as dock work;").
My Lords, I am afraid that this is one of the instances to which I referred in my opening remarks in today's proceedings where, owing to the great speed and pace which is being urged upon us, this Amendment was not drafted in quite the form that had been originally intended. I do not want to say anything more to Amendment No. 21B itself, if the House will allow me to move it.
Lord SANDFORD then Lord SANDFORD then moved Amendment No. 21 as amended by Amendment No. 21B:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Transfer from Extension to Main Register
.—(1) Subject to final determination by the local dock labour boards, transfer of men from the extension register to the main register shall be restricted to those—

(a) who have been employed for a minimum of two years in work which becomes classified as dock work;

(b) who have satisfied the Medical Officer of the National Dock Labour Board that they are fit to perform the work concerned;

(c) who have attained the necessary levels of skill to perform the work in question; and

(d) who have not, while previously employed in the port transport industry, accepted severance pay under any redundancy scheme.

(2) Where a person is employed on premises classified under the Act and is unable to meet the requirements of subsection (1) above, that person shall be allowed to continue in that employment on the extension register.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 21 as amended by Amendment No. 21B. We come now to a matter of some substance. We discussed it at some length, but I do not think as comprehensively as it might have been, at column 430 of the Official Report of 13th October. My noble friend Lord Gowrie said that his original version of this Amendment, together with two subsequent Amendments, was a probing Amendment seeking information from the Government about the number of jobs that would be created about recruitment, about transfer from extension to main register and about severance payments. He suggested that no new jobs would be created by the Bill and that its effect would be that the number of men

1177
on the main register unable to find work and consequently the demand for severance payments would be increased. To that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in brief replied that a minimum period of two years on the extension register would not always be required, for example, in the case of men working at a previously non-Scheme port that became classified and it would not be necessary for all registered men to have a high level of physical fitness or to have all the skills necessary to do any work that might be required of a dock worker. If there was to be any expansion of classified work such jobs would be given to men on the extension register thus reducing the need for severance payments.
All that we have weighed and considered. No mention was made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, of the case of men who had already received severance payments and whose jobs which they were now doing then became classified. I hope that he or the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will be able to deal with that point which was not covered adequately at that time. I want to stress that this Amendment (No. 21) has been tabled mainly to protect those men who are already on the main register and that it is an attempt to restrict entry on to the main register to those who properly qualify for transfer and who have not already received severance pay.
We have tried hard to give full weight to all the points that were made to us at the earlier stage, as follows. The current Amendment differs from the previous Amendment in a number of ways. The title has been altered to show that it deals particularly with the transfer of men from the extension to the main register rather than, as perhaps was not made clear last time, the initial recruitment to the extension register. In paragraph (a)—and this is the one which I have amended to make it even clearer—the Amendment seeks to comply with the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that in some areas it might be necessary to place dock workers immediately on to the main register in cases where a non-Scheme port is brought within the Scheme.
In an attempt to control the size of the main register, however, we suggest that a period of two years should elapse between the time when a dock worker
1178
starts work and the date when he is placed on the main register, whether this time is spent on an extension register or not. In other words, if an employee has already been working for a minimum of two years at a port which is currently a non-Scheme port but which under the terms of the Bill becomes a Scheme port, that employee can be placed on the main register immediately, if and when the work that he has been doing is classified as dock work. I hope noble Lords opposite will realise that we have moved quite a long way in consideration of the points that they made to us about that.
Paragraph (b) we have also modified. This is the one that seeks to ensure that men are not transferred to the main register if they are not physically fit to undertake the job which they do. Noble Lords will recognise that as another modification. Though it is an obvious point, we should consider that in the light of past and present experience something of this sort should become part of the Bill, and the current experience is to take figures that applied in London this summer. We had on the London register 399 men in category B medically unfit for the full range of dock work and 1,000 in category A, fit for light duties only, amounting altogether to 15 per cent. of the registered work force. That is not a situation which we want to perpetuate and that is the reason for subsection (1)(b).
Paragraph (c) qualifies the original Amendment because the original version might have been understood to imply that registered dock workers should have the necessary levels of skill to undertake classified dock work. This was an objection which noble Lords put to us and we have tried to reflect that in the wording we have now used. If this new version were accepted it should ensure that men who transferred from the extension register to the main register have the necessary skill to maintain their present standards in the work which they are doing. Paragraph (d) remains as in our original Amendment mainly because we did not get the response we wanted from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to what we had said about severance payment. I will just make the case again because we think it is important, especially in view of the current economic situation generally and in the ports in particular.
We consider that men who have already received severance payments should be specifically excluded from transfer to the main register, otherwise, as my noble friend Lord Gowrie said, we shall pile severance payment upon severance payment, and we do not think that the general conclusions contained in Clause 10(3) will quite do. A specific exclusion for such men would reassure members of the work force who see potential job opportunities reduced by the possibility of such men being able to return to the main register, and it would also ensure that public money has not been wastefully expended.
All I have sought to do in introducing this Amendment is to explain what it is we are trying to do and the extent to which we have modified our position in the light of what noble Lords said to us at Committee stage. In the light of what they say now I may want to go back over the ground and say something further about the main reasons behind the need to have this clause in the Bill at all. But I hope we shall not have to revert to that and that we have satisfied noble Lords that the Amendment, modified in the light of what they said, is now acceptable to them. I beg to move Amendment No. 21, as amended by Amendment No. 21B.
8.12 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Amendment to the Amendment is a substantial improvement on the Amendment.
Lord SANDFORD: Oh, good!
Lord JACQUES: It takes away half of my case; but the other half is so substantial that I am still confident. As I understand it, what the Opposition are saying is that before being transferred from the extension register to the main register the worker concerned must have satisfied four conditions: he must have been in the industry for two years; he must pass a medical examination; he must show that he has the skill to perform the task in question and he must not have accepted severance pay.
In view of the Amendment to the Amendment I shall make no comment on paragraph (a), but so far as paragraphs (b) and (c) are concerned the fact that a worker is employed in a particular job is
1180
prima facie evidence that he is fit and has the skill to perform it. There would be serious difficulties in imposing special tests of fitness and skill as the new clause provides. To give some examples, as I said at Committee stage, the Liverpool tally clerks, whose work is closely associated with that of registered dockers, are anxious that their work should be registered. Their employers likewise have been willing and eager that the Liverpool tally clerks' work should be registered, and they have been insisting upon registration for some time. That is the kind of work that would be registered under this Bill. I submit that it is quite unreasonable to expect the Liverpool tally clerks, who in some cases have been doing this work for the greater part of their lives, to now undergo a medical examination and a test of skill. I believe that is putting an unreasonable impediment in the way.
The same applies to the fish bobbers at Hull. I explained at Committee stage that all the fish bobbers in the North-East Coast ports are registered with the exception of those at Hull, and the dockers at Hull have been saying, "We have been left out of registration by way of an accident of history and we feel that, like the fish bobbers at other North-East ports, our work should be registered". There again, there may be men who have been doing the job for years. We think it is unreasonable that they should be expected to have medical tests and tests of skill before being transferred from the extension register to the main register.
My Lords, I come now to paragraph (d) which deals with severence pay. Paragraph (d) as drafted could operate in a completely arbitrary way. It could refer only to dock workers, but to non-registered men, since severance pay is not defined. For example, it might be seeking to exclude from the main register men who were employed at one non-Scheme port but who were made redundant and moved to another non-Scheme port. If this is not the intention, then the Amendment is distinguishing unfairly between men who are registered, and men who are not registered, but who both previously worked in the industry. If it is the intention, then the body responsible for taking the decision as to whether the conditions in paragraph (d) have been satisfied must be given the necessary

1181
powers to discover whether a man left a port industry employer voluntarily or under a redundancy scheme. This must involve functions of some kind.
With all these matters the Government believe that the best way to proceed is on a case by case approach in the light of a detailed examination of particular circumstances under procedures for consultations and discussions set out in the Bill. The Bill already enables the Board to recommend that particular workers should be allowed to continue doing the work, but not to be eligible for registration on the extension register, if they consider there are special reasons justifying this. This power is in Clause 10(3), and therefore we feel that the Bill is best left as it is.
8.17 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, there are two points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, which I wish to take up. I do not see why the noble Lord is so much against the medical examination. Admittedly, in past years, this has not been a requirement, but in my experience increasingly it has been a requirement for people when they change jobs, particularly responsible jobs. One imagines that if people are being moved off the extension register on to the main register there is some distinction between them. For example, when I changed my job a year ago I willingly accepted a medical examination, and, indeed, I was grateful for it because it said how extremely fit I was. That will not apply to everyone. But increasingly it is becoming the case that when people take on a job, a medical examination is the accepted thing. That is very wise, particularly for people over the age of 40 which one imagines, broadly speaking, these people will be. It could be to the advantage of the men to be medically examined. I suspect that what gave rise to the noble Lord's remarks was a natural reluctance for a medical examination, but it seemed that the people concerned are not moving with the times. This is part of the problem behind the arguments over this Bill: that people are trying not to move with the times. But the times do move on, and medical examination arguments do not really stand up in the modern world for this particular group of people.
As to the question of a test, as I read paragraph (c), there is nothing there to
1182
say that there is a test. One can be said to have attained a level of experience or skill on the "say so" of someone who knows what he is talking about. One does not have to have a test. The noble Lord laid great emphasis on the test. But if someone has been doing a job for some years, a test might be thought to be not only unnecessary but possibly even insulting for him. There is nothing here to say that the measurement of the attainment of the skill is as a result of a test. I suggest to the noble Lord that he is making rather more of a fuss a3out that than perhaps is reasonable.
To come now to paragraph (d), it seems to me we have a problem here. Admittedly, severance pay is not defined, but it is generally understood in this general theme of the Dock Bill that severance pay has a special meaning under earlier enactments, a meaning which is not used in wider circles. On the whole, outside the dock world, one talks about redundancy. I think the noble Lord had a point when he said that it might be unfair as between someone in a Scheme port who could get severance pay, as against someone else who was in a non-Scheme port and received redundancy money. The latter under this clause would not be restricted by it. This is perhaps something worth looking at.
On the whole, I think that what the noble Lord is seeking to do in this paragraph is to make quite certain that people do not get the same benefit from the funds available to the Docks Scheme time and time again as they move on from one place to another, or from one type of job to another. It seems to me perfectly reasonable that there should be within this Bill some provision to avoid duplication of payment of severance pay. Perhaps one must look carefully at the question of what is fair for one sort of man and what is fair for another sort of man. Apart from that, I think the principle of paragraph (d) is reasonable. I think the noble Lord was being too unkind to it in what he said.
Therefore, I suggest that paragraphs (b) and (c) are very reasonable. Paragraph (d) maybe requires refinement to take care of the particular point at issue, accepting the general view that it should not be possible for people to move on and get successions of severance pay. That would seem to be

1183
unreasonable to the rest of us who, in the end, have to pay for it. Perhaps the noble Lord might like to think again about his criticisms of this general clause. This proposition is a very reasonable thing which, if it were not in the Bill, would have to be in the Scheme. Because it indirectly affects more people than just the dock community, it is reasonable to put it into the Bill as guidance for the Scheme. It would seem that we must have something like this in order to ensure fairness both to the people concerned and to the people as measured against other types of employee and, in the end, in the public interest.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I put a question to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, before he sits down? May I take, by way of example, a Liverpool tally clerk of, say, 55 years of age. He has been doing the job very well all his life, but now he is just a little failing in health and a little slower than he used to be. Does the noble Lord think it is right that he should have a medical examination and a skill test before becoming registered? His younger colleagues who had been doing the job for far less a period would get through quite easily because they would not be his age, or have his handicaps resulting from age. It seems to me unreasonable that that man should be handicapped in that way, bearing in mind that if he is sick in the future there is no question of sick pay under the Scheme. The Dock Board Scheme does not provide for sick pay or anything like that. Therefore I cannot understand the need for a medical examination. The Dock Board Scheme includes training, welfare, severance pay and pension.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I was asked a question, so perhaps your Lord-ships will permit me to reply. I do not see that the mere fact of having a medical examination automatically rules someone out from employment. I should have thought that anyone aged 55, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, suggested, would welcome a medical examination in order to know what his health is like. It does not mean to say he would be ruled out just because he had had a medical examination. It does not mean to say that he would be ruled out of going on to the main register. It depends on what
1184
standards are set. One would hope at this stage that the Dock Scheme would provide guidance as to what standard should be set. It is just the principle of the medical examination that I would have suggested is very necessary at the age of 55. I was delighted to have that at 54. That is one point. Again the noble Lord used the word, "test" when he asked me the question. I tried to explain that there is nothing about a test. Surely a tally clerk who has been doing the job for a long time can be declared as adequately doing the job without having to do a test. We all know experienced people who can do all sorts of things very readily, which other people can describe as being done very readily, but who baulk at and find it difficult to do a test.
I quite agree with the noble Lord that it would be ridiculous to have a test, and there is nothing about a test in paragraph (c). I do not know where he has got it from. I suspect somebody had imagined it into the situation because they were thinking about much younger people. It may be that some noble Lords have had experience of making a judgment on the skill at performing their job of older people. If they have, they would under-stand quite well that you do not have to test them to do it. I have spoken long enough, and I hope I have answered the two points which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, so kindly put to me.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, can I confirm one point the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned. He said that tally clerks might be slower, or not able to get around so quickly. It seems to me that this is the essence of paragraph (b), because it says they:
"have satisfied the medical officer … that they are fit to perform the work concerned".
I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would agree that one does not have to have the fitness of an Olympic athlete to perform the work of a tally clerk. The work of a tally clerk is different from that of a normal docker, who is attaching slings and pulling ropes and loading crates. The tally clerk would not need such a high standard of fitness as a docker doing general duties, or perhaps specialised duties of a certain type. I think Lord Jacques was weakening his own case when he said that there might have to be a medical examination which would show

1185
that the tally clerk was not fit even to do the tally clerk's job, let alone that of the general docker. I think that is the point my noble friend Lord Sandford was seeking to make.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that it is one thing having a medical examination and a test of skill, however you may interpret "test", when you are entering a new occupation, but to have these tests in relation to the job you have been doing for years is a little untenable?
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I do not think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can be at all fair in saying that to undergo a medical test during the course of work which you have under-taken for a number of years is untenable. With great respect to him, that really is nonsense. We have, unhappily, suffered some accidents in underground railways; we have, unfortunately, suffered some accidents involving coaches; we have, unfortunately, suffered some accidents in factories as a result of the gantry-drivers dying. The cry has always come from the newspapers, from the general public, through the factories, through the trade unions, "These men should be insured to be fit to do their job where other people's lives are at stake". There are very few people in their heart of hearts who deny this. If one is going to undertake a job upon whose safety others depend, then one must be fit to do it. I am not talking about tally clerks, as the noble Lord was.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I suggest to the noble Lord that I am relevant in talking about tally clerks, because they are the kind of people who would be registered. The noble Lord is irrelevant when he talks about train drivers, because there is no question of their becoming registered.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: My Lords, I am talking about people in docks who have jobs to do which may have a bearing upon other people's safety. We are talking of a crane driver who may be transferred from one scheme to another scheme, who may be transferred from one register to another, who may have been redundant in one place and come to another. All my noble friend is saying is that, before he shall
1186
qualify, he must satisfy four criteria, one of which is satisfying the medical officer of health as to his fitness to perform the duty. That is all it says; satisfy the medical officer as to his fitness. You cannot say, in a docks scheme, that that is all right for the straddle-carrier driver, for the crane driver, for some other group, and exclude this that and the other. All in, all out, because all being in does not preclude anybody, unless he is so unfit as to be at home in his sick bed. It is only to satisfy the medical officer of his fitness to perform that work. Nobody is asking a tally clerk to run 100 yards to satisfy the medical officer that he can run 100 yards, because his work does not call for that. If the noble Lord reflects on what he has said, that it is unreasonable to expect a man after x-number of years to subject himself to a health test, he must see that that is not fair. Wherever one is looking, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, throughout business and commerce, through schools, through the Services, we are now so very conscious that no undue stresses and strains should be placed upon people, that they are continually kept fit for their jobs, and if not move to others. There can be nothing wrong with this at all.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I remind the noble Lord that the Amendment is not asking for tests of skill and medical fitness for the purposes of public safety. If it had been, I would rot have responded as I did. It is asking for these tests before he is transferred from one register to another, which is quite a different matter.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, will not the noble Lord agree that the word, "tests" is in neither of these paragraphs.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, is this all in order? Are we not treating this as if it were a Committee stage?
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I think perhaps it will be necessary—I had hoped it might not—for me to rehearse rather fully the case underlying this Amendment, so that at the end of it I can ask noble Lords opposite to consider what I am about to say, and perhaps communicate with me and with my noble friends before the next stage, to see whether we can pursue it then. I shall

1187
have to decide what to do with this Amendment meanwhile.
To go back to the underlying situation with which this Amendment seeks to deal, the position is that the fluctuating demand for dock labour which makes the regulation of this industry so difficult has gradually evened out with the application of modern systems, and there has been a steady reduction in the size of the work force in most British ports. Unfortunately, partly because the medical requirements provided for in the Dock Labour Scheme have not been properly observed in ports such as London—and that is all water under the bridge—the industry now is having to carry a considerable surplus of labour, with the majority of that surplus in restricted medical categories. I quoted examples from the Port of London in introducing the Amendment. Just to reinforce that, the National Dock Labour Board have put the national daily average of surplus men at more than 5,000 during 1975, and the Port of London Authority are carrying between 1,250 and 1,500 surplus men today over the past year.
Noble Lords opposite are not satisfying us so far that they have looked closely enough at this serious problem. It is a problem which has been underlined for us again in the second report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee set up by the PLA with representatives of all the trade unions concerned and of trade and industry using the port, under the chairmanship of Mr. Frank Cousins, and it was published this month. That report has had to recommend that the Government—that is us as taxpayers—should assume responsibility for at least some of the extra costs of this surplus manpower within the Port of London. The central fund administered by the National Dock Labour Board is suggested, into which the Government should pay an agreed sum for each person surplus to the requirements on any given day. It may well be that some such solution will have to be found. The Amendment does not have to deal with that, but this illustrates the basic problem. Some such solution will have to be found unless the medically restricted men, who form a consistent majority in this surplus manpower, can be persuaded to accept severance. That is a fact we have to face and deal with somehow; or else they have
1188
to face training to prepare them for other work which, as the noble Lord has been saying, may well be within their capabilities, such as tally clerks.
Meanwhile, this very large surplus of some 5,000 men is the shadow hanging over the future, not just of the port authorities trying to balance their work-force and make their operations profitable but also of all those further employers who may, as a result of this Bill, have all or part of their business classified as dock work, and find themselves in the same predicament as the port authorities are now. At present there are fewer than 300 employers of registered dock workers in the country, and port authorities carry-two-thirds of the 32,000 registered dock workers on their books. Ten years ago there were 1,300, so that is an improvement. How that can be sustained is a matter we come to on a later clause.
Under the existing Dock Labour Scheme when a licensed port employer finds that he is facing insolvency and closes down, those registered dock workers allotted to him are, as it were, returned to the local dock labour board to be re-allocated among the remaining port employers in the Board's area, and this adds very greatly to their burden because they are surplus to their requirements and a large majority of that surplus are unfit. This has meant an increasing burden for the main employer, the port authority, with private stevedoring firms being forced closer and closer to bankruptcy and closure themselves as they are compelled to carry more and more dockers surplus to actual requirement, most of whom are less than fit.
This Bill provides that operators of premises where work is classified as dock work will also become registered dock employers and, as such, they will almost certainly become liable to the levy imposed to provide finance for the new scheme, and also to the allocation and re-allocation of whatever number of registered dock workers the national or local dock labour board may impose upon them. This is the problem which so many people are so anxious about because it will not be a case of the operator of a cold store, or warehouse, or an inland cargo consolidation depot deciding how many men he needs to conduct his business efficiently and economically—that is what

1189
he has been used to doing; he will find himself also having to absorb the number of dockers, the majority of whom will be unfit, decided upon by a third party; namely, the Board, as his share of the surplus manpower. We really must grapple somehow with this problem, and this is what my Amendment seeks to do.
In the earlier stage in Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, admitted that this Bill cannot produce more than a handful of new jobs for the surplus dock workers. When we were dealing with what was Amendment No. 22 on 13th October, he said at column 435 of the Official Report:
"… we hope to transfer registered dockers rather than have to pay them severance pay."
Certainly; but this is the sort of situation we are actually dealing with in the world as it is today. For some time the London Port employers, needing an additional two or three hundred fit men to work at Tilbury, have been trying to persuade some of those surplus dockers allotted to the up-river sectors of the port to transfer to Tilbury. Under the arrangements agreed when many of the up-river berths closed down dockers are entitled to extra for fares and turning-up money, and for extra inconvenience when compulsorily allocated to other sectors where work is available, and this is a situation which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said would arise. But this has not been enough to tempt—and this is something extra—the 500 men involved, although many of them live nearer to Tilbury than they do to the Millwall and West India docks.
About 700 dockers live near Tilbury but prefer to work in the Royal and Millwall docks despite the travel involved. The port employers offered a once only inducement payment to a maximum of £1,000 to try to persuade the men living near Tilbury to work there, nearer their homes, rather than up-river, and when the
1190
unions found that the Inland Revenue intended to tax such payment they refused to move unless the payments were made tax free.
If dockers will not move when they are offered a £1,000 inducement to work nearer their homes, on what does the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, base his hope, on which he set so much store, that they can be persuaded to transfer to jobs in cold stores and warehouses five miles or more from their homes? These are the kind of problems which exist at the moment, and this Amendment is our attempt to come to terms with it and deal with it. I wish the Government would indicate how they propose to deal with these problems, or alternatively help us to get this Amendment into better shape.
I am glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, agrees that in respect of paragraph (a) we have been successful. He has not said anything which leads me to suppose that there is much the matter with paragraph (c). I should like to believe that in paragraph (b) we have successfully reflected what he said before. Nothing he has said so far about medical examinations leads me to suppose that there is much the matter with this. So my inclination, having listened to this debate, is to press this Amendment into the Bill, but to continue to do what we can to improve it. If the noble Lord will write to us between this stage and the next stage we shall do whatever we can to make the Amendment fit the case. But the problems which I have just enumerated are the ones with which we are seeking to deal, and I hope that, noble Lords will agree that they are very real ones. I beg to move Amendment No. 21.
8.41 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 21), as amended, shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 73; Not-Contents, 38.

CONTENTS

Abinger, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Falmouth, V.

Aldenham, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Ferrier, L.

Allerton, L.

Cornwallis, L.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Amory, V.

Craigton, L.

Gage, V.

Ampthill, L.

Cross, V.

Gainford, L.

Auckland, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Geoffrey-Lloyd, L.

Balerno, L.

Daventry, V.

Gray, L.

Belstead, L.

De Freyne, L.

Greenway, L.

Berkeley, B.

Denham, L.

Gridley, L.

Boothby, L.

Dormer, L.

Grimston of Westbury, L.

Bourne, L.

Drumalbyn, L. [Teller.]

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Brentford, V.

Dundee, E.

Hankey, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Carr of Hadley, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Hawke, L.

Carrington, L.

Elton, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Chelwood, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Ilchester, E.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Exeter, M.

Inchyra, L.

Coleraine, L.

Faithfull, B.

Killearn, L.

Kimberley, E.

Newall, L.

Sandford, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Norfolk, D.

Sandys, L.

Lloyd, L.

Northchurch, B.

Sempill, Ly.

Long, V.

O'Hagan, L.

Sharples, B.

Lothian, M.

O'Neill of the Maine, L.

Strathcarron, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L. [Teller.]

Onslow, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Lyell, L.

Orr-Ewing, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Pender, L.

Strathspey, L.

Mancroft, L.

Rankeillour, L.

Sudeley, L.

Margadale, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Tenby, V.

Marley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Terrington, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Reigate, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Merrivale, L.

Rochdale, V.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Mersey, V.

Ruthven of Freeland, Ly.

Vickers, B.

Molson, L.

Sackville, L.

Vivian, L.

Morris, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Mottistone, L.

St. Davids, V.

Wolverton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

St. Just, L.

Young, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Annan, L.

Hanworth, V.

Pargiter, L.

Birk, B.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Blyton, L.

Henderson, L,

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Brockway, L.

Jacobson, L.

Popplewell, L.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Jacques, L.

Raglan, L.

Caradon, L.

Janner, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Castle, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Rusholme, L.

Champion, L.

Leatherland, L.

Shinwell, L.

Chorley, L.

Lee of Asheridge, B.

Slater, L.

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cudlipp, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Darling of Hillsborough, L.

McCluskey, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

MacLeod of Fuinary, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Maelor, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Donaldson of Kingsbridge, L.

Mais, L.

Strang, L.

Douglas of Barloch, L.

Melchett, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Morris of Grasmere, L.

Vaizey, L.

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor.)

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Fisher of Rednal, B.

Northfield, L.

Walston, L.

Gordon-Walker, L.

Oram, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Hale, L.

Pannell, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L.

Grey, E.

Rankeillour, L.

Aldenham, L.

Hampton, L.

Rathcreedan, L.

Alport, L.

Henley, L.

Redesdale, L.

Amory, V.

Hives, L.

Reigate, L.

Ampthill, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Rochdale, V.

Auckland, L.

Kemsley, L.

St. Just, L.

Balerno, L.

Killearn, L.

Saint Oswald, L.

Barrington, V.

Kinnaird, L.

Sandford, L.

Belstead, L.

Lindsey and Abingdon, E.

Sandys, L. (Teller)

Berkeley, B.

Lloyd, L.

Schon, L.

Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

Long, V.

Seear, B.

Colwyn, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Selkirk, E.

Cottesloe, L.

Lyell, L.

Stokes, L.

Cullen of Ashbourne, L.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Strathcarron, L.

Denham, L.

McNair, L.

Sudeley, L.

Dormer, L.

Margadale, L.

Swansea, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

Massereene and Ferrard, V.

Trevelyan, L.

Ellenborough, L.

Molson, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Vernon, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Vickers, B.

Faithfull, B.

Wade, L.

Gough, V.

Newall, L.

Wigoder, L.

Gowrie, E.

Northchurch, B.

Wolverton, L.

Gray, L.

O'Hagan, L.

Young, B.

Greenway, L.

Platt, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Ardwick, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Brockway, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Popplewell, L.

Caradon, L.

Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe, B.

Raglan, L.

Castle, L.

McCluskey, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Rusholme, L.

Collison, L.

Mais, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Davies of Leek, L.

Melchett, L.

Stone, L.

Davies of Penrhys, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Elwyn-Jones, L. (L. Chancellor)

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Houghton of Sowerby, L.

Noel-Buxton, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

Jacques, L.

Oram, L.

Wynne-Jones, L.

Janner, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal)

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
8.48 p.m.
Lord LYELL moved Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 21A:
After Clause 4, insert the following new clause:
Local Boards
.—(1) Where under subsection (2) of section 4 above the Secretary of State shall make orders designating areas as dock labour scheme areas, the Board shall be required to establish local dock labour boards responsible for areas as may be determined by the Board.
(2) Each such local board shall be constituted with any independent chairman and such numbers of members as the Secretary of State shall designate. Excluding the Chairman, an equal number of such members shall represent respectively employers and workers engaged in commercial and industrial activities taking place in the local dock labour board area as determined.
(3) The Secretary of State shall appoint the
1192
independent chairman of each such local board after consultation with the Board, the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
(4) The Board shall appoint members of each local dock labour board other than the independent chairman after consultation with the Confederation of British Industry and the Trades Union Congress.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is broadly the same and, I should like to think, aspires to achieve the same ends as one I moved in Committee. Noble Lords will be aware that local boards will, under this Scheme, have a number of overriding and, we believe, vital duties to perform. They will be taking decisions on whether or not to classify any work as registered dock work, and it is to this, among other aspects, that I come.
The cargo handling and port industries have such a wide public interest that any decisions taken by local boards will

1193
concern a far larger cross-section of commerce and industry than might at first be apparent. We have already discussed the need for the National Board to consider the wider public interest, but the local boards will be taking decisions that are far more practical in application. For this reason the composition of these boards requires careful deliberation. Noble Lords will note that in subsection (3) of the proposed new clause the National Board, the CBI and the TUC will all be consulted by the Secretary of State when he appoints the chairmen and vice-chairmen of the local boards.
Noble Lords will see also that the Amendment allows the Secretary of State discretion in deciding such numbers as he sees fit to comprise each local board. We consider, however, that the chairman and vice-chairman have the most important role in local boards, because at all times the chairman has to beware of being compelled to use his casting vote and so far as possible the local boards must act in consensus and any threat of confrontation, deadlock or split between employers and employees must so far as possible be removed.
Matters of discipline at particular ports and harbours and within the dock areas could cause some small problems. Indeed, there may even be great problems. But we feel that employee representatives will adopt a responsible attitude in this particular area, espeicially when they are sitting on a board with representatives of other employees in other industries within the local board area.
This aspect will be, we believe, the key to the success of local boards and we consider that in this particular respect subsection (2) will be most important in that the local board will implement the provisions of the Bill and the new Scheme within what I call the "parameters" set out by the National Board. This process of acting as a link between the policy making of the National Board and the practicalities of industrial relations in the port industries will be the major factor in the success of the new Scheme which is being drawn up.
Certainly we take the point which was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, when we were discussing an Amendment similar to this one at Committee stage,
1194
when he said that he considered that to write into the Bill the term "to represent" had a somewhat dangerous connotation in that such representatives might be likely to form up in respective camps and there would be the traditional deadlock between employers and employees. But once again we consider the chairman and vice-chairman to occupy the most important role of these local boards so that deadlock must be avoided.
Noble Lords will also notice in sub-section (4) of the Amendment that the National Board will appoint the members to the local boards and we hope that this will mean that the overall policy will have some chance of being successfully implemented at the local and practical level. We believe it right for the National Board to consult both the CBI and the TUC before making such appointments since both these bodies will be the channels through which industrial relations in the local board areas can, and we hope will, be settled. This Amendment w e hope contains the flexibility desired by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in his comments at column 428 of our Committee stage debate. Paragraph 6 of Schedule 2 does indeed give the power to the National Board to set up local boards, but we wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Oram, would agree that this particular paragraph gives the required boost to the local boards, because as we see it and as the paragraph seems to be set out, it enables local boards to be considered, as we regard it, as something of an after-thought while we here consider that they should act as the executives of the National Board's policy. My Lords, I beg to move.
8.54 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend in this particular new clause. It seems to me that there is a gap in the Bill. I know that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, at Committee stage said that this was something which would be in the Dock Labour Scheme so why put it in the main Bill, but it seems to me that than is at variance with the rest of the Bill, even without the Amendments with which we have sought to improve it over this past month. It goes into a lot of detail of various sorts and, as was said earlier by my noble friend, the local boards are

1195
a key element. The noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, enforced that. Though he did not like the wording, I think he liked the idea at Committee stage. The local board is a key element for the implementation of the new Dock Scheme and it seems to me to be extremely odd that there should be no mention of it, not even an outline plan. After all, this clause, the wording of which I hope will now satisfactorily meet the needs of the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, sets out the basic parameters. It does not go into any detail of any significance at all. I should have thought, therefore, that not only is it an essential part of the Bill—and I hope the Government will accept it as such—but it has also got over the deficiencies which the earlier Amendment had.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said, we went over this ground fairly fully in Committee stage. He has explained the change that he has brought in to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The difference between the approach of the Bill to the local boards and the approach of the new clause is that the Bill, as it stands, provides that matters relating to the establishment of local boards shall be solely a matter for the new Dock Labour Scheme.
The new clause which the noble Lord has proposed seeks to specify in the main legislation the composition of the local boards, the manner of their establishment, and the appointment of their members. I fully accept that the composition of local boards will be of great importance. It is not a case, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, suggests, that they are something of an afterthought. That is not the case. What divides us is how they should be brought into being and not any consideration of whether they are important or not. The point is that the appropriate membership of the boards can be decided effectively only in the light of the functions they will have to perform. Since that can be determined only by the Scheme it would seem logical that their composition should likewise be a matter for the Scheme. The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggested that in some way the Bill's present proposal in regard to the local boards is at variance with the rest of the Bill. But it seems to me more that the
1196
Bill's proposal is a logical consequence of the rest of the Bill.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the text of Amendment No. 21A leaves the composition of the National Board? It is only the outline that is here and it seems to me that that absolutely meets what he is saying. It is left totally flexible with just the framework. Every board has to have a chairman. It is the only thing which is specified outside the National Board and seems to meet his requirements absolutely.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, that is a matter of judgment and in my judgment the provisions in the proposed new clause are not as flexible as the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, suggests. Furthermore, changes in the Scheme, and consequently changes in the appropriate composition of the local boards, could well become necessary to adapt to changing circumstances in the industry. It will be important that there should be the necessary flexibility in the arrangements to ensure that such modifications can be made expeditiously. It is therefore considered right that these matters should be dealt with in the Scheme.
The Amendment is no doubt inspired by the concern that the interests of those who may be affected by the extension of the Scheme should be adequately represented on local boards. Under the 1967 Scheme, a local board must consist of an equal number of persons representing dock workers and persons representing employers of such dock workers. The Scheme provides that they shall be appointed by the National Board on the nomination of the relevant local joint committees of the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry. Each local board is required to appoint its own chairman and deputy chairman, but every such appointment is subject to the subsequent approval of the National Board. I suggest that there is no question that these arrangements would be inappropriate under the circumstances of the new Scheme, and it is accepted that provision will have to be made so that interests brought within the Scheme are properly represented on local boards.
Subsection (2) of the new clause proposes that members of a local board shall be

1197
representatives of employers and workers
"engaged in commercial and industrial activities taking place in the local dock labour board area …"
This envisages that interests other than registered dock workers and their employers may be involved in the operation of the Scheme, and such an arrangement would run counter to the long-established principle of joint control of the Scheme to which the Government—and I must make this quite clear—are firmly committed. It has in the main been successful in the existing Scheme, and we believe that it should be carried into the extension of the Scheme.
It is true that the Bill provides for the representation of outside interests on the National Board, but there is an essential difference, because it is only the National Board which will have the power to make recommendations to the Secretary of State for the classification of work. I am not sure that I heard the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, aright in his introductory sentences, but it seemed to me that he was saying that in some way the local boards are responsible in respect of the classification of work. That is why I insist that it is only the National Board which will have power to make such recommendations, and that is a crucial distinction between the National Board and the local boards. Any involvement of local boards in the procedures adopted will be at the direction of the National Board, which alone will have the power of decision.
Perhaps it would help noble Lords if I say that no firm view has yet been taken on the detailed provisions to be included in the draft Scheme for the composition of local boards and related matters. Some views have already been expressed, but further consultations will be needed with those concerned before a final decision can be taken. I assure the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, who moved this Amendment, and the other noble Lords who have joined in, that the debate on this Amendment has been a useful one. Even though we conclude that the Amendment itself is not an appropriate one, I assure noble Lords who have spoken that the views that they have expressed in this debate will be fully taken into account.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I share the interest shown by the noble Lord,
1198
Lord Lyell, in the composition of the local dock labour boards, which clearly have a crucial part to play if the Scheme is to be successfully administered. The reservation I still feel about the wording which has been put forward in the proposed new clause is really the sentence which begins:
"Excluding the Chairman, an equal number of such members shall represent respectively employers and workers …"
I cannot help querying whether it is desirable to appoint a board on which there are equal numbers of people who are specifically there to represent their particular class, to represent the employers or to represent the workers.
The local dock boards will have important functions to perform, one of them being, of course, certain disciplinary functions. It seems to me that if there is this wording then quite inevitably the employers, on each occasion that a disciplinary problem arises, must stand together, because they are there to reprsent employers, not to solve the particular dispute. Similarly, the workers' representatives must stand together; and in those circumstances the disciplinary proceedings will in effect become a trial by the chairman alone. If that is what one wants, one might as well say so. I am doubtful about the wisdom of endeavouring to appoint boards in this way, with two halves specifically ordered by an Act of Parliament to represent their own particular section of the community.
Lord LYELL: Certainly, my Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, for the comments that he has just made on the Bill and for his (I hope I can call it) qualified support. I accept the reservations that he again introduced. I think I must clear up one point with the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I perhaps did not make myself totally clear on the matter of the classification of what would be dock work or not; I am sorry. This would be, perhaps, carried out by the National Board, but I think he would agree with me that the National Board would in very few circumstances disregard the opinion and the recommendation of the local board. Probably that is what I meant, and I am sorry I was unclear in that particular respect.
I was also grateful for what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, had to say. It was a little softer, and our two points of view

1199
were a little nearer to meeting than they were last time. But I think noble Lords are aware that we are running out of time in our deliberations on this particular measure, and there is not a lot more time for us to discuss and to close our respective points of view so that we can come to some workable agreement. I must say that I cannot share the opinion of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that the Amendment is inflexible. We hope that our particular qualification so far as the Secretary of State is concerned would give him the flexibility and the framework to implement and to operate the Scheme or give recommendations so that the local boards could carry out the policy of the National Board at a local level. We accept that the functions to be performed will be decided by the Scheme, but certainly—and I believe this applies to many of us—I am not totally convinced by the argument that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, put forward that the local boards were considered to be an after-thought. He said they would be considered in the Scheme. I should have thought that a small paragraph at the end of Schedule 2 did not bring out the importance which I think Lord Oram himself admitted belongs to the local boards.
It was for this purpose that we raised this Amendment again. We had altered certain details in the hope that it might be more acceptable. We are slightly mollified by the noble Lord's comments this time. I do not think it is our intention to press this Amendment, but we should like to see whether we can get even nearer the Government's point of view. We have had a reasonable amount of success since the last stage of the Committee and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has made conciliatory noises this evening. I wonder whether, if we raise it at the last stage, we can get any closer. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 5 [Objects of the new scheme]:
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 23:
Page 5, line 1, after ("section") insert ("and section (Transfer from Extension to Main Register) above").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 23 because, having moved and pressed Amendment No. 21, it will be necessary for that new clause to be referred to at this point. I hope the noble Lord will agree with me to that extent, even if he may not agree with the substance of the new clause that we have moved in.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
9.11 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 24:
Page 5, line 10, after ("provide") insert ("and the local dock labour board may allow").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is relevant to Amendment No. 21A which I have just spoken to and withdrawn. I believe that this small Amendment provides a valuable safety warning, if I may call it that, to the National Board, in that the local boards will have to implement the National Board policy at the local dock level. Surely the local board which will be set up by the Secretary of State, so we were told—with the appointments filled by the National Board, as we had hoped, but we shall see what the Scheme has to say about this—should have the first and most important say in work which may or may not be classified, and it will pass on its recommendation to the National Board. Since the local hoard would have full and satisfactory representation from employers and employees and other interests, we hope that the local board will have the power to issue the small caveat as exemplified in this Amendment. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I had assumed that Amendments Nos.24 and 25 were alternatives.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I had hoped to speak briefly to Amendment No. 25. I wonder whether it would be in order for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to speak to Amendment No. 24 or whether it would assist the noble Lord if I were to speak to Amendment No. 25 now.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, are they alternative?
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I did not intend them to be so.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, in that case I will speak to Amendment No. 24. This is a new Amendment, unlike Amendment No. 25 which was discussed in Committee. It was explained in Committee that this type of Amendment is unnecessary because the words, "subject only to such exceptions as it may provide" enabled the Scheme to allow local boards to make exceptions in appropriate cases. This Amendment is less satisfactory than Amendment No. 25 because its intention and effect are unclear. It leaves doubt as to whether the local board discretion is to be limited by the Scheme or not.
The Opposition's apparent concern—and the new Amendment (No. 24) presumably represents an attempt to ensure this—is that the Bill itself should guarantee local boards the right to make exceptions irrespective of what the Scheme might say. This cannot be done as the Bill stands, because the establishment of local boards is itself a matter for the Scheme. The Scheme could establish local boards and guarantee them the right to make exceptions. The new clause "Local Boards", if carried at a later stage would have an effect so far as this Amendment is concerned. It would provide for the establishment of local boards independent of the Scheme.
If the new clause were added to the Bill, Amendment No. 24 could be held to mean that the Scheme would have to give local boards complete freedom to make exceptions as they wished—each local dock labour board would have a discretion to allow the employment of non-registered dock workers and this power would not be regulated in any way by the new Scheme. The power of local boards to allow the employment of non-registered dock workers along the lines of Clause 10 of the 1967 Scheme has been a part of the Scheme since its inception in 1947. But it is a limited power. Under the present Scheme, the local board has to be satisfied that the work is urgently required to be done and that it is not reasonably practical for it to be done by a registered dock worker. In other words, they can make a decision in an emergency. The Government's view is that, if there is a need for a permanent
1202
exception, then it should not be remedied by giving a local board power. The work should be declassified and be finished with.
The Government believe that the whole question of the employment of non-registered workers is a matter for the Scheme and that a power should be retained so that it could be possible to ensure common practices throughout the country. This can be done only if the powers of local boards are set out in the new Scheme and not in the enabling legislation.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I am grateful for that. I will leave it to my noble friend to answer the points of detail. Our anxiety is whether it is right for Parliament to leave out of the Bill any reference to the existence of local boards. The noble Lord has continually reassured us that local boards will still be a feature of the scene and the Scheme will provide for them. I am sure that will be so. It will be impossible to operate and regulate the dock work without the local boards. They are such an essential and integral part of the whole scheme that I am still wondering whether we are right in Parliament not to include proper provision for them.
In the course of the debate on my noble friend's previous Amendment, we were seeking to find out whether it was possible to specify in the Bill that there shall be local boards and say something about them rather than leaving the whole thing for non-statutory provision. This is the main and underlying anxiety and the reason why we may need to return to this again. Clearly, we do not want to put into the Bill details which, as the noble Lord rightly said, would be better dealt with in the Scheme. This is the underlying reason behind our Amendments.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for setting out his objections—if I could put it that way—to the Amendment. He mentioned one or two points that he raised at an earlier stage. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will have an opportunity to modify or refurbish them in the next Amendment. My noble friend Lord Sandford has shown the way and said that it might be wrong to overburden the legislation at this stage. Things might

1203
be dealt with better in the Scheme. I take that advice, thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and seek leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 25:
Page 5, line 12, at end insert ("except with the permission of the local dock labour board")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment is very germane to one which was raised at Committee stage. We have been talking about local boards in previous Amendments. The same reasons for moving the earlier Amendment apply in this case, except that Amendment No. 24 dealt with the exceptions to work which may be classified, and we believe that this Amendment is concerned with the exceptions and exemptions in the work-force performing the work at the port or the dock. We also believe that all the points relevant to local tradition and practice should apply in this case.
I should like to refer the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to an earlier reply made at Committee stage when he mentioned exemptions. He also made some comments in column 439 of the Official Report which may hold out something of a straw or something even more substantial for me to grasp and towards which I would certainly reach. The noble Lord mentioned that local boards could authorise classified dock work to be done by dock workers, as he said, "in an emergency". Would the noble Lord be able to tell us whether he has any further news as to the intention of the Government to have a similar clause in the new Scheme, in the same way as I believe is done in Clause 10 of the 1967 Scheme? We should be grateful to know whether the noble Lord has any further news to give us at this stage.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, there are three points which I ought to deal with. Taking first the question of local boards mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, the Government are continuing the general procedure that was followed in relation to the present Scheme: that is the National Board was mentioned in the enabling legislation and the local
1204
boards were mentioned in the Scheme. We have every intention of continuing to do that.
Referring to the work to be done by non-registered labour and its authorisation, in the present Scheme there is power enabling a local board to authorise such work to be done in an emergency. It is the Government's intention to have powers not less than that in the new Scheme. The third point concerns cases where work should be permanently exempt. We believe the solution there is to declassify it. In this Bill, as distinct from previous Bills, there is provision for declassifying it and getting rid of it completely. We think that is the better method.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, may I just ask one question here? When we come to Clause 12 there are penal provisions involved for anybody who does that kind of work if they are not registered dock workers. I am not quite certain whether that might not require some special power in the Bill, so as to gain exemption from the penal provisions, even in an emergency. It seems to me that to do that by a doubly indirect method—first, through a scheme which is subordinate legislation and then possibly through some further direction from the Board—might well not provide the exemption from penalty that is obviously necessary in a case like this. It is common sense, my Lords, but the law has an unfortunate way sometimes of not providing for common sense and I think we have to make sure that common sense is provided for in the law.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, may I direct attention to Clause 12, page 15, line 29, the second part of which states:
"… then except in so far as provision excluding this subsection is made by the Scheme".
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I think that that covers the point.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his explanation. I agree with him that, where there is a need for permanent exemption, there should be declassification, and we are pleased that this Bill sets out the procedures for doing that. We

1205
were a little worried about temporary exemption, and were wondering whether, as the noble Lord suggested at Committee stage, we could have a further explanation on Report. But he has gone a little way in explaining the position, especially to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, so shall beg leave to withdraw this Amendment and consider the position.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendments Nos. 26 and 27:
Page 6, line 26, leave out from ("shall") to end of line 31 and insert ("comply with the provisions of Schedule 5 to this Act").
Page 6, line 32, leave out subsection (11).
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we are now returning to the delicate remedial surgery which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said we could probably consider all in one piece. I was not quite sure when he said it, and reserved my position to speak to these two Amendments separately, but I do not think there is any need to say any more. These two Amendments, together with Amendments Nos.57 and 68, do rather more elegantly what a different series of Amendments did in Committee. My Lords, I beg to move.
On Question, Amendments agreed to.
Clause 6 [Review of what is now dock work]:
9.27 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 28:
Page 6, line 42, after first ("the") insert ("National Board, after consulting each appropriate local").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the case for this Amendment is the same as that which we put earlier when we were dealing with local boards. Under the Scheme, we believe that local boards will have an overriding interest in indicating to the National Board the circumstances at the different ports, because we believe that the pattern of trade, and of cargo and freight handling, will probably have changed in the nine years since the last Scheme was set up. That is why this Amendment is a little different from
1206
Amendments Nos. 24 and 25. We believe that this matter is of more importance and calls for more urgency. I take the points made by noble Lords opposite, about the work and composition of local boards being matters for the Scheme, and I agree that we do not wish to over-burden local boards with precise duties at this stage. But we should like to hear what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has to say about including the duties of the local boards at this juncture in the Bill. I beg to move.
9.30 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, what I have to say is comparatively simple and I hope that it will be accepted as quite straightforward. The noble Lord, Lord Lyell, is pushing at an open door in insisting upon the importance of the local boards. On that we are in agreement. However, the noble Lord must not assume that the door is open so far as acceptance of the Amendment is concerned because, quite frankly, it is unnecessary. The purpose which the noble Lord wishes to achieve will automatically be achieved. It will be quite impossible for the National Board to prepare the reports without consulting the local boards. It is the local boards only which have access to the necessary information. Therefore it would be elementary that the National Board should consult the local boards and consequently quite unnecessary to put in an Amendment requiring them so to do.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, why, then, object? I said earlier that we are a little anxious lest the local dock labour boards, which are clearly an integral part of the whole matter, should be left out. If local boards are to be established under the Scheme, I should have thought that it was rather important that the need for them to be consulted should be established within the Statute. Otherwise, it would be possible, although I do not think it is very likely, for the National Board to overlook the local boards or to take action without consulting them. I agree that it is inconceivable that they should do so at this point because it would be quite impossible for the National Board to prepare the report without getting information which can be supplied only by the local dock labour boards. Indeed, they are mentioned on the next page. However,

1207
I think it would be an improvement if all the cases where the national Board should consult or do something through the local board, or where it is desirable for this to be done, or where it needs to be done, were spelled out on the face of the Bill.
While I am on my feet, I wonder whether I might make a separate point. I should have liked to propose an Amendment to the rubrics to Clauses 6 and 7. The intention of the rubrics is to make the Bill clear to people who have to use the Bill and help them to find their way around it. The distinction between Clauses 6 and 7 is that Clause 6 refers to "Review of what is now dock work" in the 1967 Scheme ports while Clause 7 refers to "Loading and unloading operations" other than in the 1967 Scheme ports. If I am right about that, I should like to suggest to noble Lords that the rubrics ought to be amended in that sense in order to make the matter clearer to people who are finding their way around the Bill or the Act as it will be in due course. I am sorry to introduce it in this way but my advice is that it is not possible to move formal Amendments to rubrics. Now that for the first time we have reached a clause where I should like the matter to be considered, I feel that I should mention it now in order to get the noble Lord's reactions to it before we leave Clause 6.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, my quick reaction to the rubric point is that included in the rubric to Clause 6—"Review of what is now dock work"—is the word "now". I should have thought that the inclusion of the word "now" was the answer to the noble Lord's point. It distinguishes between the purpose of Clause 6 and the purpose of Clause 7. However, as the noble Lord has noted, this is not quite the time at which one can take up suggestions regarding other Amendments which might have been made. Regarding the particular Amendment with which we are dealing, he has acknowledged my point that the Board could not report as required in Clause 6(1) unless it consulted with the local boards. The noble Lord used the words "at this point"; he acknowledged that the wording was sufficient and it is that wording with which we are dealing. In so far as he would wish the existence and purposes
1208
and activities of local boards to be advertised, so to speak, or encouraged throughout the Bill, that is a much wider question. But in dealing with this particular Amendment I return to my point that it is unnecessary to have the words in.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am afraid that noble Lords may feel that I am becoming a trifle repetitive in trying to move these Amendments dealing with the local boards. I shall be fascinated to see how far we can go and how many further comments we can get from the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I fear we may exhaust his charm and kindness in rebutting our Amendments. He says that of course the National Board will have to consult with the local boards. If, as he says, this is so self-evident, and it would seem innocuous, we wonder why it cannot be written into the Bill at this stage. As I pointed out in trying to move this Amendment, it is a little different from Amendments Nos.24 and 25. We believe that it is very relevant at this stage and considerably more important. However, we take what the noble Lord says, that before the National Board can come up with a workable scheme it will have to make the fullest consultation with the local boards.
Of course the local boards will first of all have to be set up and then the National Board will have to consult them. I think there are 395 ports all round the coastline of the United Kingdom, and we believe that there will be a great deal of work which will have to be done by local boards. We believe that it is important that the Amendment should be written into the Bill, particularly in view of what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said is self-evident. He has given us very kind assurances that the local boards will be recommending courses of action to the National Board, but we believe that the Bill as at present drafted should contain the provision.
Industrial relations cannot be enforced by writing laws; nevertheless, this is not just a case of industrial relations. This is setting up a course of conduct and setting out rules of conduct for the National Board. Of course there are arguments for the noble Lord, Lord Oram, although we are not totally convinced by them. He says that the scheme would contain provisions, so we shall have to accept his

1209
assurances, kind as they are, at this stage and regretfully beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.40 p.m.
Lord ORAM Lord ORAM moved Amendment No. 29:
Page 7, line 35, leave out from ("until") to ("above") in line 36 and insert ("all those mentioned in subsection (3)").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Amendment would allow other persons to whom a copy of a report has been sent by the Board to the Secretary of State under this clause at least one month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State. It was the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who drew the attention of the Committee to this point. He questioned then why it was that employers and trade unions concerned should be allowed a month in which to make representations to the Secretary of State but not other persons concerned. We reviewed the matter in the light of what the noble Lord had said and I think he will agree that this Amendment meets the point that he made. If it is accepted it will make subsequent Amendments unnecessary. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I should like to express my gratitude to the noble Lord. This is an eminently sensible Amendment which I think should be accepted.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I should add my gratitude and admiration to the noble Lord for having done far more elegantly in one Amendment what I should have done inelegantly in three.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 33:
Page 8, line 5, leave out ("and section 7 below").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, perhaps we can discuss Amendments Nos.33 and 34 together because they deal with the same point. Clause 7 incorporates a definition of "cargo" and "ship"—a special definition for the purpose of Clause 7. There is also a special definition for the purpose of Clause 7 of "port" but it is not contained in that clause. One has to look to Clause 6 in order to find the special
1210
definition of "port". This is a trap for the unwary, busy lawyer because busy practitioners do not read the Statutes straight through; they dodge about and read only the sections which bear upon the particular problem they are considering, and it really is rather much to expect the reader to suppose that the definitions in subsection (1) of Clause 7 are incomplete and that if he wants to find the special definition of "port" he must look elsewhere in the Bill in order to find it.
These two Amendments seek to put that situation right and to remove the trap. They insert the definition of "port" for the purpose of Clause 7 in Clause 7 alongside the definitions of cargo" and "ship" in that clause. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, these two Amendments are very helpful drafting Amendments. We are indebted to the noble Lord and we unhesitatingly accept them.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 7 [Loading and unloading operations]:
Lord AIREDALE Lord AIREDALE moved Amendment No. 34:
Page 8, line 14, at end insert ("and "port" means the same as in section 6 above").
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 35:
Page 8, line 36, after ("of") insert ("work which is done at any small harbour as defined in subsection (6) of section 4 above or in respect of").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, what a delightful Report stage we are having! I beg to move Amendment No. 35 to the very last part of Clause 7(3). This is a clause which covers loading and unloading of cargo other than in the 1967 Scheme ports. On this side, we do not want all that is involved here to be applied unnecessarily to any port or activity, because it is a laborious and expensive procedure. My noble friend Lord Drumalbyn will be arguing in a moment that it will not really do as it stands, and if it is to operate at all it may have to be made rather more elaborate than at present. The purpose of this Amendment is to exclude from any of the operations of this

1211
clause the work which is done in any small harbour as at present defined in subsection (6) of Clause 4. It would seem only logical to do that at this point if it is done in Clause 4, because that takes small harbours as defined in subsection (6) (a), (b) and (c), out of consideration of the Scheme. Therefore we should not want it to be included, as it were, inadvertently in the operation of Clause 7.
I do not suppose noble Lords opposite will like this because they do not like the Amendments we have made to Clause 4, but I hope they will agree that while those Amendments are in the Bill, it would be sensible and right to include this Amendment as well. I shall be interested to hear what the noble Lord opposite has to say. I beg to move Amendment No. 35.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, rises to reply, I should like to add my support to the Amendment moved by my noble friend, since it was I who moved this particular series of Amendments in Committee, because I was particularly concerned with the position in small ports. In spite of comments such as "butchery" made by the noble Lord, Lord Oram, earlier this evening, I thought we had a flicker of support in Committee on the small ports aspect. I seek to support my noble friend.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, we do not like this Amendment any more than we like the principal Amendment. I must point out that this Amendment would place the onus upon the employer for deciding whether the harbour in which he has conducted his business was excluded under Clause 4(6). We do not think it reasonable to place such a requirement upon the individual employers, particularly since there would be criminal sanctions under Clause 7(5) if the employer took a wrong decision. This seems to us to be totally unreasonable.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I agree with that. In order to avoid any such disastrous effects of one of our Amendments, we will take that point away and think about it. But I remind noble Lords opposite that we may return to it at the next stage of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.49 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 36:
Page 9, line 2, leave out from ("during") to ("the") in line 3 and insert ("each of the twelve months immediately preceding").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord opposite will remember that on "Clause 7 stand part" in the previous debate in Committee, I went into a few difficulties that I foresaw in the operation of this clause. This Amendment refers to one of them, namely, the value of a statement such as is required under this clause for the purposes for which it is demanded. As I understand it, the purpose for which it is demanded is to show the amount of work that is being done in the various ports around the country. But if we are only going to do that for one month, it will not necessarily be representative of what happens throughout the year.
The Amendment that has just been discussed and withdrawn would, of course, have very much reduced the objections to this, because in the larger ports, I would imagine—I do not mean the big ports, but the larger ports between the small ports and the very big ports—the rate of movement of cargo in and out is probably a good deal more constant than it is in some of the small ports, at least. The difficulty is that this clause, in the way it is framed, requires anyone who does dock work or an employer for whom dock work is done in the period of one month beginning with the appointed day to put in this written statement, and the written statement is apparently to relate to that one month.
I have said that this is by no means satisfactory, because of the possible fluctuations in trade in many of the ports. For that reason the logical thing is for the report to relate to the 12 months before the appointed day, in the same way as is required in the case of 1967 Scheme ports under Clause 6(2). This is the logical thing to do. I quite recognise that the question is whether it is practicable, whether the statistics will necessarily have been compiled. But I do not think it would be possible for the Government to reach any kind of firm conclusions as to whether trade fluctuates in any of the ports in respect of which they receive these statements without inspecting all of them on the site. I put down this Amendment

1213
as being the logical and sensible thing to do, and I can only commend it to the House. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I do not think there is any difference of principle between us here. If there is any difference at all, it is due to misunderstanding. The purpose of this survey based upon one month is not to determine whether to classify or declassify. Something much deeper would be required before coming to that kind of conclusion. The purpose here is a preliminary survey to determine priorities. After the priorities are decided, then there will be a full investigation, and it is upon that full investigation that the question of whether to recommend classification would arise.
We feel that it could put a lot of work upon employers to get out the information during the past 12 months for each separate month. We do not think that is necessary. In the case of many employers, the information would simply not be available; for example, they may know for each month how many were on the pay roll, but they may not know what work these people were doing, whether they were loading or unloading or doing other cargo handling. So far as the one month is concerned, by publicity they will be given preliminary notice of that. They will know that the information is required for the one month and, consequently, they will be able to keep the information without difficulty. We feel that to go back for 12 months would create difficultties for employers which ought to be avoided. I can assure the noble Lord that the Board will need to take into account the position over a much longer period if the question of classification is the question under consideration.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, before my noble friend decides what to say to that, I wonder whether the noble Lord could tell me for what purpose the information is required if it is not in order to form a view leading to a recommendation about classification? How is this information used? What is the purpose of it? What happens next?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I think I mentioned that it was for the purpose of determining priorities. The Scheme will come into operation in the non-Scheme ports one after another. It is to determine which is the port which should
1214
be considered first, and then there will be a full investigation before a recommendation is made or not made on classification.
9.56 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, we gradually unfold the mysteries of this Bill. I am not clear what is meant by the priorities in this case. I take it that, before priorities can be dealt with at all, there has to be designation of the area in which the port is situated under Clause 4. In other words, one has to know whether or not it is a dock area. It is only then that priorities would be relevant. It seems that the first step that has to be taken is to designate those areas in which the Dock Labour Scheme is to apply; in other words, the Dock Labour Scheme areas.
I wonder whether the noble Lord could enlighten us on this. I have not yet been able to fathom what the stages in this Bill are. Clause 4 talks of the Secretary of State making his proposals for the new Scheme, "as soon as may be". We ought to have some idea what, "as soon as may be" means in this connection. Is it anticipated that he will do it before these reports and statements under Clauses 6, 7 and 8 come in? It seems very germane to the consideration of what information is required at what stage.
I share the mystification of my noble friend Lord Sandford as to the purpose of this group of statements. One would almost have thought that the Government had somehow lost some of the ports and they were reporting, so to speak, round the country. It is curious that they seem to want to get information which, at the best, is going to be very sketchy and, at the worst, could be positively misleading. I do not see how they can determine priorities on the basis of one month's return. I think that the Government ought to look at this again.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is a Report stage.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, there is such a thing as leave of the House, and I have asked a question.
Lord JACQUES: With the leave of the House, my Lords, I can only emphasise what I said; that it is intended that the Board shall have the facilities for making

1215
a survey of non-Scheme ports and the purpose of this return is to enable it to make that survey. It will be sizing up the problem and then, after that has been done, it can designate, investigate and recommend classification if it so concludes. The first step is to size up the whole problem and that is the intention of the return.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am doubtful whether I am taking a step forwards or backwards. If the statement in sub-section (3) means the arriving at some sort of priorities, may I ask the noble Lord—because I am rather at a loss to understand the purpose—the point in referring that statement to a trade union under sub-section (6)? We will be discussing this on a later Amendment, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord could explain this in slightly more detail because there seems to be something of a clash here.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I suspect that this is designed to save money and time. The trade union has the power of veto under the Bill, although perhaps I should not mention that at this stage because I believe that the veto comes under Clause 8 rather than Clause 7. Presumably this provision is designed to inform the trade union so that it can make its submissions immediately. At this stage it is merely a general survey and much further research will be required before there is a decision whether or not to recommend classification.
Lord SANDFORD: The mystery grows deeper all the time, my Lords. Fortunately, I have an Amendment down to leave out Clause 7, which means that we can debate this matter later. If that does not succeed perhaps we shall have to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 7. The Government cannot have it both ways. Either the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was right when he said to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn that the purpose of the statement—and it is a very crude
1216
statement—indicating what has happened in these ports in one particular month will be used as a sort of broad indication on which the Board will make up its mind as to which non-Scheme ports are surveyed first (which is a defensible and respectable answer), or he should have said, as he went on to say, that in addition to that it is somehow going to save money to refer it to a trade union at that early stage and that that trade union will then use that information as a sort of trigger to some power it has of vetoing something, presumably the survey. This is too bizarre even to contemplate.
I will leave it at that for now because fortunately, as I say, we have an Amendment to leave out Clause 7. We shall then be able to have a general review of what has been said. However, if that is not satisfactory we may have to recommit the Bill in respect of Clause 7 and then, in Committee, thresh the whole thing out properly.
Lord JACQUES: That would be quite unreasonable, my Lords. I was asked for an explanation and I gave it. I explained that there was a misunderstanding; the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, assumed that this report was sought for the purposes of determining whether or not to recommend classification. I am giving an assurance that that is not its purpose. Its purpose is a preliminary survey to get a picture as a whole and to establish priorities.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House may I, in anticipation of withdrawing this Amendment, say that I do not know why the noble Lord made that assumption as to the reason why I was asking for this information? I did not know what it was all about and that was why I was asking for information. Perhaps we can come back to this matter when we discuss clause stand part. With the leave of the House, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment?
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 7 [Loading and unloading operations]:
10.6 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 37:
Page 9, line 23, after ("representations") insert ("to the Board").
The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 37. This is needed to page 9, line 23, because it is not clear on the face of the Bill to whom those representations should be made. The general logical trend of Clause 7 is that we start off with a statement which has to be put in by every employer and this, as it were, goes up the line, gets referred to a trades union, then the Board has to deal with it and it eventually goes up to the Secretary of State. We know from the debate in Committee that this particular representation does not go on to the Secretary of State for him to bear in mind when he deals with the recommendation from the Board but goes back to the Board for them to take into account before the Board makes the recommendation to the Secretary of State.
It is possible to misunderstand this. One or other of my noble friends misunderstood it at the previous stage and assumed that the representation would go on to the Secretary of State. I think it was the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, who assured us that that was not the intention and that the representation went back to the Board. But it must be made clear in the Bill, and we would like to hear what noble Lords have to say about it.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, this Amendment is unnecessary. In the context of the Bill it surely means that representations under Clause 7(6) must be to the Board. At that stage no report has been made to the Secretary of State, so the representations clearly at that stage are to the Board. I do not think that any additional words are necessary to make clear what is, I should have thought, already clear.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, perhaps this throws some light on the previous point about what the representations are likely to be about. I should have thought
1218
they were likely to be questioning the information given under subsection (4)(d),
"the name of any trade union which is concerned with the classification of the work.".
The rest is more or less factual. That is supposed to be factual also but would be the thing that would interest the trade unions. Having said that, may I say that I agree with the noble Lord that one would read that as meaning representations to the Board if one read it carefully. I am bound to say, however, that when I first read it I also made a mistake.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, in view of that, and of what happened at Committee stage, I think it is a pity that the noble Lord cannot be persuaded to insert this Amendment in the Bill. It could not possibly do any harm. Two people have already made a mistake or been doubtful about it, and I should have thought that that was not very good going at this stage. When an enormous number of people have to start operating the Act, it may become quite serious, or at any rate lead to a lot of unnecessary confusion. However, we will not make too much of it. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.10 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 38:
Page 9, line 24, leave out ("nine") and insert ("twelve").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a probing Amendment to see whether the Government have thought again about the basic time (let me put it that way) which ought to be allowed to the Board to make its report to the Secretary of State. I dealt with this matter in some detail at the Committee stage, and I showed that 4½ months were likely to be taken up by the preliminary stages, during which the information would be coming to the Board, trade unions would be informed and an opportunity would be given for them to make representations. That, then, leaves only 4½ months for the Board to compile their report, to make any visits that are necessary and to consult

1219
with the National Ports Council, the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food and, of course, the Secretary of State for Scotland.
I should have thought that it was unnecessary to provide too tight a schedule on this. The longer you give, I think, the more likely you will be able to get in accurate information, particularly in cases of this kind. The likely-hood is that some statements may have to be referred back to ports because they are not in a correct form. So for the full time required before the Board would be able to report I should have thought 12 months was more appropriate than nine months. From the mechanism of working the Scheme, it is, I think, better to be on the generous side; and, as I say, I believe that the Government will get better results if they were a little more generous in the amount of time they allowed the Board to make its report to the Secretary of State. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the Government's position is that they believe that in most cases nine months will prove a sufficient period for this purpose. The intention of this clause is that the work of loading and unloading ships at non-Scheme ports and wharves should be considered quickly and brought under the new Scheme as soon as is reasonably possible. The period of nine months from the appointed day allows the Board six months to undertake its consultations and make its report. We think that reasonable, and that the existence of a deadline will ensure that proceedings do not become unnecessarily protracted. There will no doubt be a few cases where a report cannot be prepared within the nine months. In these cases the Secretary of State will be able to extend the period under Clause 7(6)(b).
Lord DRUMALBYN: Yes, my Lords, I appreciate that. One scrap of valuable information we have obtained from what the noble Lord has just told us is that the priorities are priorities for being brought into the new Scheme, and not priorities for classification of dock work. My Lords, we are getting on. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 39:
Page 9, line 34, leave out ("would be") and insert ("is").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, this is a rather curious Amendment to make, but again it is intended to obtain some information from the Government. This, I think I am right in saying, is an Amendment which was made at Committee stage. The point here is:
"On receiving the statement the Board shall… recommend that the whole or any part of the work specified in the statement, so far as done at the premises … be classified for the future as dock work.".
Then the provision continues:
"the Board shall not so recommend if … the work is done at premises which would be outside a dock labour scheme area designated under subsection (2) of section 4 …".
If it had been designated already the Board would know whether or not it was outside a Dock Labour Scheme. If it has not been designated the Board would not know whether it is going to be and therefore "would be" would be inappropriate. I am not certain—and this is not a political point; it is rather a grammatical point—whether "premises", that is, one premises, is singular or plural. In order to make the matter clear that I was dealing with it in a single context, I put down "is", treating it collectively. That could be changed to "are" if it were thought to be more elegant or correct.
The point again is that what we want to know is at what stage the new Scheme to be made under Clause 4 is going to appear and how soon it will be before the Dock Labour Scheme areas are designated. If I am right in interpreting what the noble Lord said on the last Amendment, the Government are going to do this piecemeal—to designate areas one at a time or certainly piecemeal—and it is very difficult to see what the correct words would be to cover that point; for the Board could not know for certain whether the premises in question would be outside a Dock Labour Scheme area if the area had not been designated as a Dock Labour Scheme area. If it had been, it would know and the right word is

1221
"is", and not "would be" or "is" or "are". But I hope the noble Lord will be able to tell us something of the time-scale. We cannot consider this Bill and get it into perspective without knowing the time-scale. Perhaps he could tell us in more precise terms what "as soon as may be" in Clause 4 is intended to mean.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, the noble Lord's second thoughts were best. Estate agents say, "These premises are desirable" and not "This premises is desirable".
Viscount BARRINGTON: My Lords, I would add to that, before the noble Lord answers, the substance of the question that it may be that "premises" like "assets" is a singular word but it is not an elegant word. Would not a better form of the Amendment be simply to say, "premises outside", obviating the whole question of whether it "is" or "are" but not "would be"?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, this is an Amendment to a previous Opposition Amendment made to the Bill at Committee stage. The previous Amendment was accepted by the Government as consequential to those Amendments to Clause 4 which removed the cargo-handling zone from the Bill. As this Amendment does no more than modify the Opposition's own wording, the Government would not wish to resist it. However, the Amendment would seem to create something of a nonsense. It would have the clear effect of preventing any work from being recommended for classification under this clause unless the place where it was being done was already within a Dock Labour Scheme area. But Clause 4(2) says that Dock Labour Scheme areas are areas for which the Scheme has been brought into force by order of the Secretary of State. The Scheme would therefore have to be applied in advance to all areas where it seemed possible work might be recommended for classification, even if none eventually was classified. The Secretary of State would have to decide what he thought he might want to do about an area so that the Board could make a recommendation about whether the
1222
Scheme should be applied. That would not be a sensible arrangement. I advise the Opposition not to accept this Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I shall have to look again at what the noble Lord said. The one thing we agree on is that these words are in the Bill as a result of an Opposition Amendment. It is difficult to get any inkling from what the noble Lord said as to the answer to my question on timing. It looks as if, by and large, most of the classification decisions as to premises in particular areas will be taken before the new Scheme is made, at any rate before a particular area is designated as a dock area. That seems to follow from one of the things he said. But, nevertheless, there will be scope for classification after that. This does not bring us any nearer the time-scale. I regret that. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
10.22 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 40:
Page 10, line 15, at end insert—
("( ) The Confederation of British Industry regarding the handling of food and other perishable goods;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, your Lordships will remember that a similar Amendment was moved by me at Committee stage. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was cavalier with it. Looking at the time on that occasion, lie may have been hungry as it was rather late after lunch. I was certainly hungry. He made two points: one, the Amendment was unnecessary because the CBI was going to be consulted about the composition of the Board and there would be people on the Board who would speak for the CBI. It was not necessary to ensure that they were consulted under the heading of subsection (9). Secondly, he made the same play about the fact that there might be subjects which might not be suitable for other employers' bodies which I had included. I did not entirely accept that point for the reasons given at the time.
I have accepted that it is probably reasonable for the CBI to represent all employers' organisations, notwithstanding

1223
the fact that food in particular is perhaps the most important commodity that passes through the ports, because we all have to eat. Therefore, I have modified my Amendment considerably. I hope it appeals more to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. On the question of duplication, because the CBI has a say in the composition of the Board, I suggest that duplication already occurs in the Bill as put forward by the Government.
It will be noted that subsection (9) says:
"they shall in particular consult—"(a) the National Ports Council …".
If your Lordships would turn to Clause 2(5) you will find this:
"the Board shall maintain regular consultation with the National Ports Council".
So there is a certain duplication there which I should have thought was no more of a duplication than that which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was pointing out earlier. I do not really see that it matters if an important body has to be consulted. Where bodies are required to make decisions, perhaps that is another matter; but if it is just consultation, as I endeavoured to say at Committee stage—I will not go into further detail about it now—the question of food supplies of the country is very important and the Confederation of British Industry can be relied upon to look after the interests of the food trades. Indeed, they have given me an assurance that of course they will consult the trade associations concerned if they themselves are consulted under this proposed Amendment. It would therefore seem to me not unreasonable to include them in this subsection.
Finally, perhaps I might remind your Lordships of the point I made during Committee stage, which is that if they were consulted they would be representing in fact the only people who have the technical experience of running the industries which are concerned with the goods that have to be imported and exported. I do not know whether I should begin to talk about something else for a moment but, as I am just coming to my conclusion, perhaps I could have the attention of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques—
Lord JACQUES: You have never lost it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am glad to hear that: how splendid. I might have lost my attention in the circumstances. But if I might just come back to my thread, there is in fact the important point that the other bodies which compulsorily have to be consulted under the subsection are themselves official bodies without specialist knowledge of the problems of the goods which have to be exported and imported—in particular, the handling of food and other perishable goods. So it would seem to me there is a special case and that this time perhaps the Government might accept this Amendment as being reasonable in the circumstances. if it pleases the House, I would be happy to consider with this Amendment No. 40, Amendment No. 50, which is very similar. I beg to move Amendment No. 40.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, like the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, I shall try to save time by speaking to Amendments Nos.40 and 50 at the same time. The effect of Amendment No. 40 is to require the Board always to consult the CBI under Clauses 7 and 8 on procedures in the way in which the Amendment indicates. Similar Amendments were tabled at the Committee stage, except that the requirement then was also to consult the Food and Drug Industries Council and the National Cold Storage Federation—
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, if the noble Lord will forgive me, it is the Food and Drink Industries Council.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg the noble Lord's pardon. The Government's position has not changed. Clause 7(9) and Clause 8(7) require the Board, for the purposes of their recommendation, to consult such persons as appear to them to be concerned with the subject matter. There seems to us to be no reason to single out food as a commodity for which there should be consultation with the CBI. Why food and food only? A further point is that the amount of food that is likely to be affected, so far as non-Scheme ports are concerned, is about 10 per cent. of the food of this country. About 50 per cent. of our food is imported, but 80 per cent. comes through the Scheme ports, so that a spread of the Scheme to the non-Scheme ports would affect only 10 per cent. of the food supply. I would also point out that the Amendment is also unsatisfactory, in

1225
that it provides for some consultation with the employers' side but not with the employees' side. That, we think, is undesirable.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, perhaps I might answer the noble Lord's questions before we conclude on this Amendment. I suggest that perhaps he is rather over-simplifying the case in trying to separate out the non-Scheme ports, the percentages of food and so on, because are we not, under this clause and the later one, talking about consultation with regard to the classification of jobs as dock jobs?
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, what we are largely concerned about in Clause 8 is classifying as dock work that which has left the docks and is being done elsewhere as a result of containerisation.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, my Lords; but not necessarily containerisation. It is the classification of jobs as dock jobs, and this is by no means limited to the non-Scheme ports. It will certainly apply in the non-Scheme ports, but part of our worries is that certainly in the Bill as originally written, though it is in much better shape now, there was all kinds of scope for all kinds of jobs, not just relating to containers, to be classified as dock jobs, and this applied to existing ports, to the hinterland above existing ports and it still applies to half a mile outside existing ports. All kinds of jobs could fall within the various classifications which the Bill now has, and there will be even more if it is ruined by another place when it goes back there. So, altogether, I do not think it is fair to imply that we are talking about only 10 per cent. of the food imports, because that is what goes through the non-Scheme ports. I suggest to the noble Lord that that is almost by way of being a red herring, and perhaps he should rap his advisers over the knuckles for suggesting such an approach to your Lordships' House.
So let us think for the moment about all the jobs that there might be in existing dock areas in the non-Scheme ports and the like, and consider why it is that I have sought to single out food and perishable goods—but particularly food—for special consideration, and for the CBI to be the agent for consideration. The reason is that we all have to eat, as I have said many times,
1226
and 50 per cent. of our food, on each and every day in every year, come, into this country through the ports. Therefore, we find ourselves in the position that if there is any form of an embargo on a major scale upon our importing and exporting we shall starve. It is as simple as that and it is very serious. I do not suppose that it will actually happen, but think what a weapon this is if a fair amount of safeguards are not contained in the Bill to try to make sure that a blackmailing power is not granted to relatively few people. It is the power that is important rather than whether it would be used.
This is one of the underlying threats in the Bill and why, in particular, we need to safeguard our food supplies. It is because of that threat that we believe the Confederation of British Industry ought to be an obligatory consultant when it comes to the two stages—both the report and, under Clause 8, the actual classification of dock jobs—because they represent people who will be able to give practical advice as to the effects of making this or that job into a dock job.
I would strongly recommend to the Government that the people who, in the end, stand to lose the most by not having the necessary regulatory powers contained within the Bill are the Government themselves. When it comes to threats of blackmail and stopping the food supplies, we shall find that it is the Government who are losing the battle, not anybody else. It is the Government's power to govern which in the last resort could be under threat from the Bill. We have to make sure that there are enough safeguards to prevent the Government's powers to govern from being threatened by this otherwise perhaps innocuous Bill.
On Question, Amendment negatived.
10.36 p.m.
Lord JACQUES Lord JACQUES moved Amendment No. 41:
Page 10, line 37, leave out from ("that") to ("have") in line 38 and insert ("they").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, Amendment No. 41 follows an earlier Government Amendment to Clause 6 by giving others, as well as employers and the unions concerned, one month within which to make representations. I beg to move.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, again we are grateful for this Amendment as it follows very much the lines of the previous Amendment.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord SANDFORD Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 42:
Leave out Clause 7.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 42.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, deals with Amendment No. 42, may I direct his attention to the Companion to the Standing Orders in which we read near to the foot of page 123:
"An amendment to leave out a Clause or Schedule is not desirable on Report if the purpose underlying the amendment is to initiate a general debate, rather than a genuine desire to leave out the Clause or Schedule".
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I absolutely agree. That is why so far I have done it only once. However, I am very glad that I did. While working on the Bill over the weekend I had a hunch that we might be left with one or two unresolved mysteries, but I must confess I had no idea that the mystery would deepen as much as it has. I agree absolutely with the noble Lord that this is a very undesirable practice and, had we had more time, I should have framed an Amendment instead, which is a much better way to proceed.
I do not want to have a very wide-ranging debate, but I want to probe the mystery that has arisen from some of the answers which the noble Lord gave to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn. We must start by going to the overall purpose of the clause. So far I have rested my understanding of it on the Explanatory Memorandum to which I shall draw your Lordships' attention?
"Clause 7 requires employers, who are paid in the course of their business to load cargo into sl ps or unload cargo from ships within the cargo handling zone"—
that is the dock labour area now—
"during a period of a month beginning on the appointed day, to give details of such work and the names of relevant trade unions to the Board within 3 months of that day. There are specified exceptions"—
1228
and we have debated some of those—
"including work in a port where the 1967 Scheme is in force. Within 9 months of the appointed day the Board is required to report to the Secretary of State whether it recommends that such work"—
that is presumably work of the same kind as that referred to in the statement—
"should be classified as dock work."
It was on the basis of that statement, with all its shortcomings, that I, and I think my friends, had assumed that a final recommendation would be made as to whether the work to which the statement referred should be classified. Therefore I regarded Clause 1 as one of the clauses which would lead in the end to classification and a recommendation to the Secretary of State accordingly. What is the purpose of the statement if it is not the basis for classifying work? The noble Lord has now said that it will serve in some way to indicate the priorities by which ports are to be surveyed in more detail prior to being introduced—one after the other, I suppose—into the overall dock labour scheme. That is the impression he left me with.
The third question that follows is: If the work is not to be classified on the basis of the statement—and in the course of his remarks he has said that that is not the case, despite what it says in the Explanatory Memorandum—then we want to know on what information the decision to classify the work is to be taken. How is it to be arrived at? And, if it is not to be done as part of the machinery under Clause 7, under which clause is it to be done? If it is to be done under some other clause, does the statement referred to in Clause 7 play any other part different from that indicated in the Explanatory Memorandum or different from what the noble Lord has said about giving an indication of priorities?
The fourth question which we need to probe is what is meant by the trade unions vetoing something? What can they veto in this clause or anywhere else in the Bill? I hope the House will agree with me that these are mysterious matters which ought to be resolved now, or, if that is asking too much, in correspondence which will have to go into the Official Report between now and the next stage. I beg to move.
Viscount KEMSLEY: My Lords, I should like to support my noble friend

1229
in this case. I, too, have listened to all the debates on the various Amendments moved on this clause. I started by being very mystified as to what it was all about. I do not think I have learned a lot since, but trying to trace it through I found that starting, as it were, in subsection (2) one finds:
"… the employer … shall send to the Board a written statement …"
and then in subsection (4) one finds reference to the particulars required in the statement as to the number of individuals employed during the month. And then on to subsection (6) which says:
"On receiving the statement the Board shall"—
(a) invite unions to make representations, and (b) recommend that the whole or part of the work be classified. If they receive the statement and invite the union to make representations, surely the representations might be made to the employer who originated the statement and not to the Board, as was pointed out by the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, when he said that the Amendment moved by my noble friend was no longer required.
Secondly, as my noble friend has just said, when the statement is received by the Board, it decides what work shall be classified. There is no mention there of the priorities or full investigation which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, indicated earlier, and I should like to have some information about it.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will first deal with the main issue, which is to leave out Clause 7. The effect of the Amendment would be to remove the special procedures for ensuring that non-scheme ports could, where appropriate, quickly be brought within the new scheme.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, if I may interrupt the noble Lord, I really think this would be a waste of time. I clearly indicated that it was not my intention to leave out the clause.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I should have thought that the purpose was under the Standing Orders—Standing Orders makes that clear.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, the noble Lord of course read that part of the
1230
Standing Orders which supported his case, but if he had read on he would have found that it said:
"Such an amendment is not, however, out of order; it may, indeed, he appropriate when, for instance, a Lord wishes to learn the outcome of an undertaking given in Committee".
That was what I wanted to do, and I thought that I had made it clear.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I will deal with the points raised by the noble Lord when we were discussing Amendment No. 36. Subsection (6) requires the Board to tell the union which is named in subsection (4)(d) the contents of the statement so that the union can comment. Under Clause 4, the Board is responsible for issuing the first notice to both employers and unions, indicating what work is under consideration and what is carried out. The statement under Clause 7 is intended to fulfil the purpose of a first notice; in other words, to make clear exactly what is under consideration and where it is to be carried out.
There should be no argument about the information in subsection (4)(a), (b) and (d) going to the union. In the case of subsection (4)(c), we take the view that the union recognised by the employer would be aware of what the employer has said, so that he could make representations, for example, that the manpower situation in the month is untypical. The point of Clause 7(4)(c) is that it enables the Board to determine priorities and should lead employers and unions to say whether the figures in that month are typical. It will not matter in large non-scheme ports; it will only matter in the smaller ports. I think that clears up some of the points raised by the noble Lord.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I really cannot say that that is in the least satisfactory. I asked the noble Lord four questions; I have not really received answers to any of them. The noble Lord has clarified a little of what my noble friend Lord Drumablyn asked before. I am afraid that this means we will have to raise the matter in some detail and put down a series of Amendments to probe each of the points when we get to the Third Reading. If the noble Lord would like to help me by writing to me on these points, I should be most grateful, because then the time we spend on this clause on Third Reading will be put to better use.

1231
I must say that having listened to the discussion, and having ploughed through this clause, I am not at all sure that a more orderly way of dealing with it would not be to recommit the clause to Committee, and then we could have the kind of debate it seems to me we need to have. That is something I will think about between now and the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 8 [Cargo-handling operations in general]:
10.51 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 43:
Page 11, line 5, leave out from beginning to second ("work") and insert—
("( ) Where more than one half of all the hours worked by persons engaged in the handling of cargo on the premises in any continuous period of twelve months within the preceding five years have been spent on").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, with this particular Amendment we come to Clause 8, which as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, was saying, deals with cargo handling. The noble Lord thought that this was particularly apposite to work that had left the dockside and moved inland. I think that is a paraphrase of what the noble Lord said, but his meaning was clear.
My Lords, the Amendment that we are now discussing follows one which I moved on Committee stage, and as noble Lords who were with us then will be aware, it concerns work on premises which the Board shall not classify as that which must be done by registered dock workers. This is the vexed question of premises where there is what we would call a split labour force, where some handle cargo coming from overseas, either by roll-on or roll-off vehicle, or by inter-modal container, and where we find some employees handling home-produced goods.
Many of the fears expressed in respect of the Bill arise from work done in substitution for work at present or in the past few years carried out by registered dock workers at the port side. Noble Lords will notice that the Amendment attempts to give a definition of what we
1232
were seeking in a similar Amendment which I am afraid was not correctly drafted on Committee stage. It appears fairly reasonable where a small proportion of the work done is quantified in man hours, and is classifiable, that the major part of the work carried out on such premises should not be classified, but we cannot see that the figures would require to be taken in absurd detail in order to determine the basis for whether the work might or might not be classified.
My Lords, the Amendment itself does not affect any work which has been transferred from dock areas, so we hope we can discount fears from registered dock workers. The Amendment is concerned with the inland warehouses and stores where the employees are not, and never have been, registered dock workers.
My Lords, at the earlier stage I pointed out the fears of those unions who represent employees other than dock workers or transport drivers. There are also fears among employers at the inland depots that their existing agreements and practices, and the flexibility of their workforce, may be jeopardised by the Bill. Whatever has been said in this House on earlier stages of the Bill, these fears continue to be expressed to us by employers who already have satisfactory arrangements for dealing with a split labour force working on their premises. We consider this is a reasonable Amendment. It also seeks to define more clearly what we moved and intended to mean on Committee. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I have not a long brief, although it is quite substantial, and on the second page I have a last sentence. The last sentence is that: "The Opposition wish to press the Amendment; the Government will not, however, seek to oppose it". I am prepared to leave it at that.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
10.56 p.m
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 44:
Page 11, line 30, leave out ("other").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the purpose of moving this Amendment is to find out just how mischievous this particular clause is. This word "other"

1233
which I am moving to leave out comes in the sentence which says:
"The Board may under that Schedule"—
that is, Schedule 4—
"determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work—
(a) is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …"
What I want to know is just exactly what "other work" means and what are the limitations placed here. In this clause we are setting down the main conditions for the classification of dock work. This is laid down first of all in Clause 5(4) where it is said:
"… the work that may be classified is any which—

(a) is done or to be done at premises in a dock labour scheme area; and

(b)is within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule".

Part I defines work that may be classified as dock work, and Part II excludes work and makes it not classifiable as dock work. That subsection starts with the disruptive words, "Subject to this Act". In other words, you are setting out a principle and immediately qualifying it. Here again Clause 8 starts up very nearly, but not quite the same—I do not know why it is different—" Subject to the provisions of this Act", and goes on:
"and in particular to subsection (2) below the Board may, in the case of any work done or to be done at premises in a dock labour scheme area and within Part I of Schedule 3 to this Act and not within Part II of that Schedule, report to the Secretary of State with a recommendation that the work, or some specified part of it, so far as done at those premises, be classified for the future as dock work".
That lays down the principle of what may be done "subject to the provisions of this Act", and here we have what I think is one of the most objectionable provisions in the whole Act, the one I have read out. It refers to, "work which is done or is to be done by way of substitution for other work". What I want to know is whether "other" means different work. Must that work in all cases still come under Part I of Schedule 3, or is that somehow or other made invalid also by the qualifying words, "subject to the provisions of this Act"? We do not know where we are when you state principles of this kind and then immediately start to take away what has been made clear.
Noble Lords are well aware of our real difficulty here. We simply cannot understand why, when an employer has shown enterprise and initiative n finding ways of reducing transport and shipping costs, he should then be penalised in this way by having the work done on his premises classified as dock work when it was precisely because it was impracticable in the ports, because the difficulties were so great, that he simply had to go elsewhere, and moreover when he showed the initiative of adopting modern methods. For that reason, the system that he has established is going to be disrupted by classification as dock work for work which is done elsewhere—I should not have minded if it were done on the same premises—which has absolutely nothing to do with the work previously done by registered dock workers.
The point I am trying to make here from the point of view of clarity of definition is that the Board car make a recommendation if it appears to them that the work is,
"done by way of substitution for ether work previously done by registered dock workers …"
This, I take it, means different work done by registered dock workers. How can anybody say that a particular job on a particular premises is being done in substitution for some other work which at some time in the past was done elsewhere? I cannot understand it. You would have to identify the particular work done, the particular work for which it was being substituted, before you could operate this at all.
I disagree wholly with the purposes of this, but I do not believe that it will work unless the law is stretched considerably. I think that the noble Lord owes us an explanation. I suggest that the word "other" might be left out altogether, because I do not think it adds anything whatsoever to the definition. I should like to be assured that it means different work, and I want to be assured that it must at any rate be work which is defined under Part I of Schedule 3. My last point is that I simply do not see now you can identify what has been substituted for what. I beg to move.
11.4 p.m.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I would support what the noble Lord, Lord

1235
Drumalbyn, has said, and put a specific point by way of example to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. Work which may be classified under Part I of Schedule 3 as dock work includes:
"… recording the time spent in handling, loading or unloading cargo."
May we assume, as is not improbable, that at some time in the future that manual job will be replaced by computers? Am I right in thinking that under the provision as drafted, registered dock workers would have a right to the work of the computer programmers and would be entitled to the vacancies as and when there were shortages of existing computer-programmers? That seems to be exactly what the provision means.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the omission of the word "other" would make no difference to the sense of the clause. If work is done in substitution, then the work for which it substitutes was necessarily "other" work, whether or not the word is used. The use of the word "other" helps make clear that there is a difference between the work which the Board is considering for a possible recommendation and the work which it is in substitution for. That deals with the use of the word. I think I can best deal with the matter in principle by answering the point made by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Wigoder, because in so doing I will cover the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn.
The deletion of the word "other" would not in the Government's view affect such questions as whether skilled engineering work on complex machinery might be considered to be in substitution for work done by registered dock workers, in cases where that machinery replaced manual cargo-handling. This point was raised in Committee, in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, whose remarks can be found at column 384 of Hansard. Because the matter was raised, we have given it special consideration. The Government's view is that if the work is of a sort requiring specialised skills which registered dock workers would clearly never have been expected to do, had it arisen in the previous situation, then it cannot in any meaningful sense be considered to be done in substitution. In other words, we do not think that the
1236
work of an engineer who was looking after the maintenance of, say, a cold store, could be regarded in any way as work which was in substitution for manual work which was previously done by a docker as handling. I would say the same about the clerical work mentioned by the noble Lord. Recording by computer would obviously be in substitution for handwork that was done by, say, the tally clerk. In our view, work on computers requires a skill and is the kind of work that is never required of a registered docker and therefore could not be regarded as work which was in substitution. The ultimate result was in substitution but not the work itself; the work was entirely different.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, is there anything in the Bill—I do not think there is—which provides that the work is to be regarded as being in substitution only provided no special skill is required?
Lord JACQUES: No, my Lords, there is nothing in the Bill to that effect, but in our view it is not work in substitution if the work is entirely different. The work is different. It is the effect that is the same and not the work that is the same.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for taking so seriously the point we raised in Committee about this subject. I agree with what he says about the intention of the Government in saying that it should not be in substitution, but I am still not happy—nor is my noble and learned friend Lord Wigoder, in view of the question he asked—that the phrase "work as it stands" means what Lord Jacques tells us it means. It seems to me that, "in substitution" as it stands must mean that work which is in substitution is work which is done "in the place of". While I am entirely in agreement with the meaning that the noble Lord has given to it, I very much doubt whether that is a proper interpretation of the wording as it stands. Could he therefore look at the wording again. We are in agreement as to what we would like it to mean but I very much doubt that it means that.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I take the point that the noble Baroness has made. We will certainly have a look at this matter and will write to the noble Baroness

1237
and to other Members of the House who have taken part—in particular, the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn. We will look in particular to see whether any qualification is required in order to meet the point. I can assure the House that there is no difference on this issue between those who have spoken on this Amendment and the Government.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, I must make one comment on what the noble Lord has said; that is, that we all know that in this particular field the intentions of Government can be over-ruled from outside Government. It may very well be that a strong trade union will come along and say, "We think this computer work ought to be classified as dock work", however unreasonable it may seem. How can you distinguish? Where will you draw the line? There is a real difficulty here and it would be unsafe in the Government's own interest to leave this matter to the discretion of the Minister. He has been talking in the course of this debate today about pressures being brought on people before. Pressures can be brought on the Government, too, and they may be forced to change their intentions. Having said that, may I say that the noble Lord has been using the word, "different" in regard to work instead of the word "other". I very nearly left out "other" and put down "different". I wonder whether he might wish to consider this, especially as "other work" is used in another context on the next page of the Bill. Perhaps he could have a look at that in the meantime.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down I will make two remarks: first, we will certainly look at that. But, secondly, would he agree that he has stated the case for the Bill? He says that a trade union might take it into its head that computer work was in substitution and act accordingly. Might I point out to him that it can do that now and under the present law there is no proper procedure. We have provided the proper procedure. There has to be a recommendation from the national Board to the Secretary of State and the Secretary of State has to make an order. We are trying to get things working smoothly and, if ever I heard a case for the Bill, the noble Lord gave us it.
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, with the leave of the House, I think I can treat that as an interruption because I have not yet withdrawn the Amendment. I agree with the noble Lord that what we are trying to do is two things: first, we are trying to make the Bill better; and, secondly, we are trying to understand what the Government intends by the Bill. That is what we arc trying to do at the moment. What we are saying in this case is: "All right, the Government have provided a better machinery here; let them make it better still." That is all. Can they look at it from that point of view? I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.14 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 45:
Page 11, line 38, leave out ("both") and insert ("more").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, the noble Lord will have a note about this Amendment. It is perfectly clear. It will be within the recollection of the House that we were going rather fast at this time and somebody said, "Consequential" and an Amendment was passed which ought not to have been passed. This Amendment puts it right. I beg to move.
Lord AIREDALE: My Lords, does the first line and a half of subsection (6) really serve any purpose except to confuse, even as amended? Would it not be better to leave out that first line and a half and simply say:
"The Board shall not make a recommendation without considering …",
and then follow the wording of subsection (6)(a), (b) and (c)? I think that first line and a half of the subsection is only confusing.
Lord JACQUES: May I make two remarks? First, this is a matter for Committee stage, not Report stage. Nevertheless, we will look at the point and I will do something about it or write to the noble Lord.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
11.16 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 46:
Page 12, line 14, at end insert—
("( ) the cost and efficient performance of the work;").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, there are three Amendments here which are fairly closely linked, but I think this one is independent. They all have to do with the cost of the work which it is proposed to classify. Among the things the Board has to consider is
"whether classification of the work would adversely affect"
a number of things. One thing conspicuously missing from the things they have to consider whether classification of the work would adversely affect is the cost and efficient performance of the work itself. It goes on thereafter to specify that the Board should consider,
"whether classification of the work would adversely affect … the efficient performance of other work done at the same premises",
but what about the work itself? Obviously, I think it should have to consider this and take it into consideration in making its recommendations. I beg to move.
Baroness SEEAR: My Lords, I should very much like to support this Amendment, if only because we had the astonishing statement made earlier this evening that efficient performance, as that term is normally understood, is not something which is the purpose of this Bill. We from the Opposition Benches should like to stress that efficient performance still must remain one of the purposes of the reorganised docks.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, the effect of the Amendment is to require the Board to consider whether classification of the work and the consideration for classification would adversely affect its cost and efficient performance. Whether classification would adversely affect the cost as well as the efficient performance of other work not being considered for classification but carried out at the same premises—
Lord DRUMALBYN: My Lords, would the noble Lord forgive my interrupting him? We were specifically not taking these Amendments together. I
1240
rather think he is wishing to take them together. Would it not be better to dispose of them separately?
Lord JACQUES: I was proposing to speak to Amendments Nos. 46, 47 and 48, which in our view have a very similar purpose.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I have moved only one, and I did not ask the House to consider the others in conjunction with it.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, a series of similar Amendments were tabled to Clause 7 and to this clause at Committee stage. In replying to the discussion on Clause 7, I said that we would be prepared to consider the matter in relation to Clause 8, but not Clause 7. I repeated this when the Clause 8 Amendments were formally put.
The Government have considered this matter carefully but are unable to advise the House to accept any of these Amendments for the following reasons. First, the Amendments would direct the Board to consider whether classification would adversely affect "the cost of the work". What exactly is meant by the phrase? The cost of the work is determined not only by labour costs but also by the over-heads such as interest charges on fixed installations and machinery and also by the level of profits. It is probably not the intention of the movers of the Amendment that the Board should go into such matters or to require it to consider whether, if the application of the scheme seemed likely to increase costs, the employers' profit margins should be reduced so as to ensure that costs were not adversely affected.
We have also tried to consider what particular aspects of costs the movers of the Amendment might have in mind. Whenever the term, "efficient performance" is used in the Bill and it has rightly been pointed out that this is closely linked to the question of cost, the Board's attention is directed towards particular matters which may affect efficient performance. Thus, in Clause 7(7)(ii) before it was amended, the engagement of a permanent labour force and similarly in Clause 8(6)(b) and (c). These tests are most important and we think it right that they should be clear and leave the Board in no doubt as to what is expected of it.

1241
Reading through the debates gave no clue as to exactly what the Opposition had in mind and what tests they thought appropriate. If the Opposition simply had in mind a generalised sentiment that the Board should not forget about or ignore the question of cost, we think that any Amendments on these lines are unnecessary because Clause 8(6) directs the Board to consider,
"all other matters appearing to them to be relevant".
It is open to the employer and the unions in their representations to give precise examples of how they think classification would affect a particular aspect of all the matters comprehended in the term "cost". It really does the House of Lords' reputation as a revising Chamber no good to seek to include imprecise exhortations of the kind which are in the Amendment.
11.23 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Really, my Lords, I think it does the reputation of the noble Lord's advisers no good at all to suggest that he addresses us in those terms. Costs are well and easily identifiable by those who have to deal with costs and expenses day by day. There is no need to spell out in a Bill what you mean by "cost". There were various aspects of costs which the noble Lord told us about, some of which were relevant and a number of which might not be; but it is perfectly easy for any competent person—and one imagines that the Board, if themselves not competent, will have competent people to serve them—to identify the costs of particular work under different circumstances.
It is quite wrong, I would suggest, and indeed almost beneath the dignity of Parliament to spell out how costing should be done. It is a technical exercise which can perfectly easily be described in the terms in which this Amendment puts it. As to the question of "efficient performance" of work, this admittedly might be, in some cases, a subjective judgment. It is difficult to anticipate, when you examine a job in the abstract, exactly what, in particular circumstances, efficient performance will mean. But it should be perfectly possible, again for a competent person, to make a judgment on these lines.
1242
It is necessary for the whole question of cost and efficiency to be particularly included in those items to which the Board's attention is directed. When he answered my noble friend, the noble Lord was almost complaining that the Board should have its mind directed in this direction. He said that they should consider in particular the beginning of subsection (6) as well as other matters appearing to them to be relevant. He implied that, if it was important, they would deal with it, anyhow. Then in another way he was saying that it is not important under this clause, and so therefore it is almost wicked to include it. That was the impression. The noble Lord will correct me if I am wrong.
The fact of the matter is that any work at any time must be seen against a cost and efficiency background. It is a fundamental for assessing whether work should be done at all, let alone who should do it. It seems to me ludicrous to suggest that it is wrong to include it in this clause. It is also wrong to suggest that it cannot be taken into account in the terms of this clause in a sensible way by reasonably competent people. As he has had to do this, I am sure the noble Lord understands exactly what I am saying. I suggest that the noble Lord thinks again before providing the same answer to the Amendments which follow. Perhaps, in the meantime, he can consider whether this Amendment is reasonable and do what seems to be sensible and agree with us that it should be accepted.
11.27 p.m.
Lord SANDFORD: My Lords, I started the proceedings on this stage by complimenting the noble Lord on the strenuous efforts he has been putting into meeting the requirements of the House. I am still full of admiration for what he and the noble Lord, Lord Oram, have done in the circumstances. He had not seen any of these Amendments until this morning. The fact that he has been able to answer them as well as he has is greatly to the credit of him and his Department. But from about the end of Clause 7—and certainly now—we have reached the point where I suspect that neither his Department nor the noble Lord have had the time to get to the bottom of what we are dealing with.

1243
Maybe we should continue for a little longer; there is an understanding to go on until midnight. I do not think we can regard his answer as a satisfactory one. When the noble Lord reads this debate he will see perfectly well what we are getting at when we talk about costs. I mentioned one of them when dealing with Amendment No. 21; it is the cost of bearing a share of the 5,000 surplus men—most of whom are unfit—whom every employer of registered dock labour has to take on. That is one of the costs. There are many others which are simple to understand if somebody has had the time to address their mind to the Bill. I do not think any of us have had time to do this Bill justice. I doubt whether we are serving a useful purpose in going on much longer. We will do the best we can if this is what is wanted.
Lord DRUMALBYN: The noble Lord has been so courteous so far in dealing with Amendments that I am sorry he was provided at this stage with such an appalling brief. I have every sympathy with his advisers, because they have had a terrible time. I think their nerve must be beginning to crack at this point. When they had a thoroughly impossible case to defend, they committed the obvious error of attacking the opposing attorney. I think we shall have to come back to this later. It is a most unsatisfactory situation. My noble friend Lord Mottistone has absolutely torn to shreds the reply given by the noble Lord. I think the best thing here is to look at the other Amendments as a whole to see whether we cannot co-ordinate them in an effective way at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
11.31 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendments Nos. 47 and 48:
Page 12, line 15, after ("the") insert ("cost or")
Page 12, line 20, at end insert ("the cost or efficient performance of the work; or
(iii)")
The noble Lord said: My Lords, if it would be to the convenience of the House, I should like to move Amendments Nos.47 and 48 together. At Committee stage I moved these two Amendments in
1244
conjunction with others which attempted to amend Clause 7. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in replying to Amendment No. 46, referred to these two Amendments. At Committee stage, the Amendments relating to Clause 7 were accepted, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out—
Lord JACQUES: The noble Lord is mistaken, my Lords. The Amendments relating to Clause 7 were not accepted: they were taken to a Division.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I apologise. They were taken to a Division and are now in the Bill. Those pertaining to Clause 8 were withdrawn because the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, pointed out in, I think, column 721 of the Official Report during Committee stage, that there were far stricter tests so far as costs were concerned which would have to be applied in Clause 8. He took great trouble to point out that he was prepared to look at the question of costs on this clause. Indeed, he gave us his answer earlier in reply to my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn over Amendment No. 46. I was going to ask the noble Lord what attitude the Government would take over costs and costefficiency, as they are crucial to this part of the Bill. However, the noble Lord gave us a fairly firm answer as to the Government's attitude to these concepts.
So far as cost and cost-efficiency are concerned, these are matters that the Board "shall consider". The problem of the port industry is mainly one of cost and cost-efficiency, not forgetting that there are other problems which cannot be quantified in money or measurable terms. We consider that the provisions of Clause 8(6)(c) have a major bearing on costs and finance. How else can any indication of efficiency, which is written into the Bill, be given or even quantified?
I am at a loss to understand, as also was my noble friend Lord Mottistone earlier, how work could be deemed to be efficient without any indication of how this could be measured. Efficiency is not merely some nebulous concept. Furthermore, we believe it would be a damaging blow to classification of dock work if this process were to lead to a measurable reduction of cost-effectiveness in respect of other work which would not be classified in any circumstances at all.

1245
Here I raise the same point which was raised earlier when speaking to Amendment No. 43 regarding the proportion of work done where there is a labour force which is split, with some performing work which is classified.
The same points are relevant here. Noble Lords will be aware of the strength of the provisions in subsection (6), where it is stated what the Board shall consider. Paragraph (a) deals with casual work, which we do not dispute; paragraph (b) deals with creating and maintaining an adequate labour force; and paragraph (c) is vital, because it deals with the effect of classification on the whole work force at a port or other premises. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, hoped to be able to tell us whether he had had an opportunity for considering the points which I raised in Committee. I have put down these Amendments as he bade me do in Committee, and I now wonder whether he can give me any cause for hope, particularly in view of what he said on Amendment No. 46. My Lords, I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, at the Committee stage I said, particularly when we were discussing a similar Amendment to Clause 7, that in our opinion the question of efficient performance was a matter for the Board, and it was right that it should be laid down in the Bill that the Board should give proper attention to the efficient performance of the work, which is done in this clause. I went on to say that the question of cost was a much more difficult matter and, in our view, was not one which could be handled by the Board. The question of cost, and the bearing upon the overall results of the business concerned, was a matter which should be considered by the Secretary of State rather than by the Board. We felt that the Board was equipped to deal with the question of efficient performance of the work, but not with the technical question of cost.
I also pointed out that it may well be that the employers concerned would not feel inclined to give information as to their costs and results to the Board, bearing in mind that the Board will consist mainly of employers and employees in similar businesses. We felt that it was much more appropriate, if representations were to be made on costs, that they should be made to the Secretary of
1246
State and full facilities are given in the Bill for representations to be made to him. We think that, while the Board should take into account efficient performance, any representation on costs should be made to the Secretary of State who will be able to treat the matter in confidence. The information will never be available to competitive businesses, and that is the most practical method. We feel that in the ultimate object there is no difference between us, but there is a substantial difference in the procedure which should be followed.
Lord MOTTISTONE: My Lords, I am a little confused by what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has just said, because he got me in a muddle over Clause 7. He has told us what he said about Clause 7, but we are now discussing Amendments to Clause 8. In column 720, the noble Lord said:
"When we were dealing with Clause 7 I went out of my way to point out that the Bill took a different attitude towards loading and unloading in Clause 7 and other cargo handling in Clause 8."
The noble Lord went on to say:
"Arising out of that, I am prepared to look at the whole question of costs in Clause 8, but not in Clause 7. But so far as Clause 8 is concerned, I am quite prepared to look at the whole question of whether the costs cannot be introduced and if this matter cannot be, I am quite prepared to let the noble Lord know …".—[Official Report, 15/10/76].
It seems to me that this is slightly different from what the noble Lord has just said, and I would ask him to reconsider it in order to find out whether or not there has been a slight misunderstanding regarding Clauses 7 and 8.
As to the question of the advantage of referring everything to the Secretary of State so that there is no question of rivalry between corn panics, competent cost accountants can work on jobs per se without necessarily having to go into the details of what individual companies have in their accounts. In this kind of exercise may I suggest to the noble Lord that he could stick by what he said at the Committee stage and allow these Amendments, which involve costs, to Clause 8. It seems to me that they fit the line of thought of the noble Lord at the Committee stage.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I said that we were prepared to look at it. We have

1247
looked at it and our conclusion is the one that I gave to the House a few moments ago.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Oh!
11.42 p.m.
Lord LYELL: My Lords, I am tempted to reiterate that comment of my noble friend Lord Mottistone because the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, gave us various indications at the Committee stage which we were pleased to receive. I accept that the noble Lord has considered the matter and has given us his opinion at this stage, but he went on to speak about efficiency. I mentioned in my comments on the two Amendments that efficiency is written into the Bill. The noble Lord believes that the Secretary of State will be able to deal with the practical aspects, but I submit that it will be the port employers and employees who also will be able to deal, in a far more rational and practical way, with costs and cost-efficiency. I do not see why there should be any particular secrecy about it.
The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is less than fair with many of the port employers and employees whose main object (and I believe that it is the object of us all) is to see that the port industry in this country becomes efficient. However, it is no good putting something which I referred to as "nebulous" into the Bill and just saying the industry will be efficient without giving any indication of how to achieve efficiency or how to measure it. Without some "teeth" being given to paragraph (c) I think that the paragraph as drafted is entirely nebulous. It may mean well, but that is a very damning phrase and is totally meaningless. However, I accept that the noble Lord believes that he has given us a reasonable answer. I cannot say that we are totally satisfied but, as my noble friends have pointed out, it is getting late and possibly we might reconsider the matter. I see that later on there are one or two more Amendments which are in the same vein. That said, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendments, albeit fairly reluctantly, at this stage.
Amendments, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE: My Lords, this might be an appropriate moment for me to move, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.
Moved, That further consideration on Report be now adjourned.—(Baroness Llewelyn-Davies of Hastoe.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

CROMARTY HARBOUR ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Bill read 3a, and passed.

ELECTRICITY (FINANCIAL PROVISIONS) (SCOTLAND) BILL
The SOLICITOR-GENERAL for SCOTLAND (Lord McCluskey): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time. Your Lordships will recall that in his speech on the Second Reading of this Bill the noble Earl, Lord Selkirk, suggested that when a Bill such as this one comes to your Lordships' House from another place endorsed with the Speakers' Certificate that it is a Money Bill then the fact that it is a Money Bill should be stated clearly on the text of the Bill. I undertook to take up this suggestion, which appeared to me, with respect, to be a valuable one. I have now done this, and I can tell the noble Earl that his proposal is at present being considered by the House authorities, and I am optimistic that we may be able to take one small step towards greater clarity as a result of his initiative. My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, that the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord McCluskey.)
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to make one small point. I must apologise to the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, that I omitted to give him his "learned" appellation in my congratulations on his maiden speech. I had not appreciated at the time that all Law Officers of the Crown in this House were "learned". I now do know that, and I apologise to him for the omission.
The Earl of SELKIRK: My Lords, may I thank the noble and learned Lord for what he has said. It is a wonderful thing in this House actually to get something done; and may I say that the noble and learned Lord has already made a deep impact in this House in the short time he has been here.
Lord FERRIER: My Lords, I would not take the time of the House on the Third Reading of a Money Bill especially when we are so pressed as we are if it were not for a very exceptional circumstance. When the Bill was debated on Second reading last Tuesday the noble and learned Lord, Lord McCluskey, made his businesslike maiden speech which I am sorry I missed. But he devoted a significant part of it as your Lordships will see in col.412 to the provision of capital expenditure for the nuclear power station at Torness in East Lothian where I live. The figure he mentioned—and it is commonly known; it came out in a Government Paper—was £600 million at current price levels. On that very day came the announcement of the proving of some 50 million tons of good quality coal under the Forth near Musselburgh some 25 miles away and right beside the existing Cockenzie Power Station. The Scottish Press rang with the news and The Scotsman's headline was:
"Major coal find may mean end of nuclear power plan".
The local weekly papers in East Lothian reacted in the same strain.
My object in taking your Lordships' time is simply that I feel this should go on the record as we give this Bill its Third Reading, as we must, especially because this announcement came the same day as the Second Reading—and that is what is so odd. Torness is already beset with difficulties. Inevitable indecision as to the type of reactor to be employed, as the noble and learned Lord said in his speech; bitter technical objections to the selection of the site and its costly seawall—a problem which is still unsettled so far as I know—local fears about nuclear dangers; loud local protests on environmental and amenity grounds not only in regard to the powerhouse which is not necessarily unattractive thing but the labyrinth of power lines which must radiate from it; there are local demands for more labour-intensive undertakings and now next door work for almost 500 miners for 100 years. These were the figures of the East Lothian Courier; they are not mine.
There it is, my Lords: The space in the Cockenzie—Musselburgh area for more generating plant with an existing cats-cradle of power lines. I hope your Lordships will agree that, in giving this Bill a Third Reading, these factors should

1157
be recorded—as they must now be registered in the mind of the Government which I am sure they are. That was the object of my intervention; and of course willy-nilly I support the noble and learned Lord's proposal that this Bill should be read a third time.
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I wish to support my noble friend. He used the very mild word "odd". It is indeed a most odd situation that we should be engaged on a Bill to deal with a nuclear power station and suddenly there is sprung upon Scotland—at least, upon those in Scotland who are not closely involved in the coal industry—this marvellous discovery of coal under the Forth. Of course, it had been known that there was coal there, but not, I suppose, the extent of it. Suddenly to have this discovery made at the same time as we arc talking about making plans for building a nuclear power station seems most extremely odd. I should like to reinforce what the perspicacity of my noble friend has brought to the surface today.
Lord McCLUSKEY: My Lords, if I may say so, the Government endeavour to be farsighted and farseeing but, in fact, the consent which is issued under Section 2 of the Electric Lighting Act 1909 for construction of the Torness generating station followed a public local inquiry in February 1975. The consent carried with it planning permission for the use of the site for the erection of the nuclear power station but, as I said in my speech on Second Reading, no work on the construction of the station will be undertaken before the completion of the examination of the future of the steam generating heavy water reactor programme. An examination is now being carried out by the Government. I think my remarks are contained in column 411. While acknowledging what the noble Lord, Lord Ferrier, has said, I do not think I used the expression "beset with difficulties".
On Question, Bill read 3a, and passed.

LICENSING (SCOTLAND) BILL
7.2 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, SCOTTISH OFFICE (Lord Kirkhill): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a third time.
Moved, That the Bill be now read 3a.—(Lord Kirkhill.)
Lord BALERNO: My Lords, I cannot let this occasion pass without registering my regret concerning the composition of the licensing boards and the fact that the Bill as it now stands makes the boards virtually another committee of the local authority. With all the pressures on councillors, it is almost a certainty that the licensing boards will not infrequently find themselves short of a quorum. Last week-end I took the opportunity of consulting informally with members of both a district and a regional council. On the grounds that I have mentioned, I found considerable apprehension among them and also regret that the Amendment of the Committee was reversed by the Government. This Bill has been long delayed and the need for a proper reform of the drink laws of Scotland goes back a very long time, at least 20 years. My regret is that due to purely political, or very largely political, exigencies it contains so many half measures. However, it is better than nothing. It is rather longer than three years since the Clayson Committee reported, and something like 12 years since the Guest Committee reported, so I wish it well.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, I bid this Bill farewell with mixed feelings, as well on account of what may yet happen to it as on account of what has or has not been achieved in this House. Since our Report stage, when he and I were obviously at cross purposes in points concerning any clash between an application for permanent transfer and one for essential renewal of a licence, I have corresponded with the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill. The noble Lord has written to me to the effect that he can see no reason why, when coincidental, they should not be taken together; that the drafting of Clause 13 does not prohibit this dual consideration; and that the Government view this as the common sense approach which licensing boards will have adequate discretion to adopt.
I thank the noble Lord for that reassurance and his very prompt response and also for the several occasions when he has been able to meet the points that I have raised. I wish to add a word of thanks to the Scottish Office team who

1159
dealt with the points I have raised in correspondence and at short notice for the way in which they have dealt with them. Let us hope that when this Bill becomes an Act the reforms will benefit Scotsmen and Scotswomen who enjoy a social dram in licensed premises.
7.6 p.m.
Baroness ELLIOT of HARWOOD: My Lords, I should like to add a few words on this occasion. I should like to support wholeheartedly my noble friend Lord Balerno in what he has said about the composition of the licensing boards. I wish that in another place they would look at this and realise how vitally important it is not to have simply another county council committee, the members of which will be people who have been elected and that there will be no, as it were, outside wisdom or interest on the licensing boards. The licensing boards are very important because it is on them that the standard of public house and licensed premises will depend. As I said on Second Reading and on Report I should like to have seen a mixture of people on the licensing boards some of whom undoubtedly would be members of the elected county council or town council, as the case may be, but others who would bring to the licensing boards a wider experience, one which is not influenced by the electoral system but one which will help to raise all standards of the licensing authorities. Of course, I do not mean to imply that people who represent the county councils will not also be of high standard; but that it would be a good thing to have two types of persons on the licensing boards and not only as the noble Lord said, where we are satisfied entirely with the elected representative. I am not satisfied with the elected representatives on this particular matter. I should be entirely satisfied with them on elected committees like education Committees or social work committees, but this goes further. It affects more people and it is a matter in which we should have advice from outside and from knowledgeable people in the districts or regions.
My Lords, the second thing I hope another place will look at with extreme care—I feel strongly about it; we did not divide on it here because we wanted another
1160
place to have the opportunity of discussing it—is that there shall not be one law for the licensed premises and one law for clubs that are licensed. In my opinion, the police should be able to go into club premises and inspect them in the same way as they can go into public houses and inspect them. I can see no reason at all for differentiating between the clubs and the licensed premises.
I am particularly worried about this because of the enormous increase in so-called drinking clubs in the last few years. I do not bear the figures in my head, but at Report stage I gave the noble Lord figures. The simple reason for people starting these clubs is that they should be private and open on Sundays. Now that we are going to have liberalisation of the licensing laws on Sundays, these clubs are not in the least necessary. An ordinary club, perhaps a political club, which people can join is one thing; but a lot of these little clubs, enormous numbers of which have sprung up, are simply drinking booths and nothing else. That is a great mistake.
I should like to see the same treatment for the private club as for the licensed premises in relation to inspection by the police. The good private clubs will have nothing to worry about. They will be open to inspection and they will not mind the fact that an inspector has asked to see them. The ones that do not have so high a standard will object. Those are the clubs that I want to get at. I hope that when the Bill is discussed in another place people will realise that this is an opportunity to improve the standard of ordinary licensed premises, to see that the standard in clubs is also of the highest quality and to try and do away with those clubs which have simply sprung up because we were, in my opinion, illiberal on the subject of Sunday licensing laws. Now that has been done away with we should be in a better position to demand that all licensed premises shall be of the highest quality and shall, if need be, be open to inspection. With those remarks, I hope this Bill will go through another place and we shall have a great improvement in the licensing laws in Scotland. I thank the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, for the patient way in which he has listened to us and the way in which he conducted the Committee in the Moses Room.
7.12 p.m.
Lord TANLAW: My Lords, I wish to add a couple of words to what the noble Baroness said to the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, to thank him for his patience and courtesy in helping us with this Bill. I wish it well through its passage in another place. It is a subject which has been chewed over for some 40 years by Committees and by both Houses of Parliament, rather like the cud of a cow. I like to think that we are as far as the sixth stomach—there is one still to go. The subject of this Bill is intensely Scottish. The problems in it are entirely Scottish. The attitudes have been Scottish throughout. The local elected assembly—properly elected I hope—will have one final chance of looking at our work in both Houses of Parliament to see if there is one final Scottish touch that can be put on it before we can say at last that the drinking laws in Scotland have included the improvements we have been wanting for so long.
Lord CAMPBELL of CROY: My Lords, I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Kirkhill, will speak; I know that his voice has been troubling him for the past two days and I sympathise with him in having a painful throat. I should like to take this opportunity of thanking him for being able to deal with most of the points which we raised during the passage of the Bill through your Lordships' House. At the same time, I should also like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Strabolgi, who was on the Committee and dealt with a number of the Amendments. I should like to express appreciation to all the members of the Public Bill Committee who took part—it was a small, select group—particularly my noble friends who played prominent parts in the Committee stage. This is the kind of Bill on which there is bound to be disagreement on certain points about the best ways of achieving the agreed aims. I am glad that has not stopped the reform going through. As the noble Lord, Lord Tanlaw, reminded us, reform has certainly been due in Scotland. The difficulty has been to get enough agreement to enable it to be carried out.
I should also like to express appreciation of what must have been a very difficult task for the officials helping the Minister. On the Conservative side, this was a Bill in which there were free votes. The appearances in another place were that
1162
there was something similar on the Government side, too. I know this causes a great deal of difficulty and problems for the Parliamentary draftsmen, among others, who have to try to make the Bill consistent after a number of unexpected Amendments have been made. I know a lot of work has gone on behind the scenes. I should like to express appreciation to the officials.
Some useful Amendments have been made where the Government listened to the arguments which were put and responded. They came back with Amendments or accepted our Amendments. There were other points on which the Government were clearly not prepared to move in your Lordships' House and where the Minister clearly had not been given latitude, I believe they are to be considered tomorrow in another place. I hope that the observations made by my noble friends and also the Cross-Benchers who took part in the debates will be considered carefully in another place when they decide what to do about those Amendments. We are modernising the licensing law in Scotland, which has been a task waiting to be carried out for some years.
I think the principle aims which should underly this, and which we have observed throughout these debates, are first to reduce drunkenness in Scotland; secondly, to improve the quality of life generally in Scotland, not only for residents but for visitors. The Scottish tourist trade will welcome this Bill. In giving this Bill our blessing as it goes from us—though there are some Amendments we should have liked to see made to it—I hope that it will go through the other place and that as a result there will be improvements in Scotland.
7.16 p.m.
Lord KIRKHILL: My Lords, as your Lordships can hear, I have difficulty with my voice. But it would be churlish not to mention those noble Lords who took part so effectively and constructively in the discussions on this Bill in its various stages. I need not have troubled: in a typically Scottish manner noble Lords have presented their cases again this evening. I am delighted to have heard the main points made again by those who felt very strongly earlier and who sustain that strength of conviction now. I personally appreciate the co-operation within the tolerable limits

1163
between an Opposition and a Government Front Bench which was afforded me by the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy. This has helped to put the Bill to the other place in a shape where decisions which will be taken there can be properly voted upon.
On Question, Bill read 3a, with the Amendments, and passed, and returned to the Commons.

EAST KILBRIDE DISTRICT COUNCIL ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL
Read 3a, and passed.

MOTOR-CYCLE CRASHHELMETS (RELIGIOUS EXEMPTION) BILL
7.19 p.m.
Read 3a.
Clause 1 [Amendment of Road Traffic Act 1972]:
Lord MONSON Lord MONSON moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 1, line 6, leave out second ("subsection") and insert ("subsections").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, although the noble Lord, Lord Wells-Pestell, was kind enough to apologise on my behalf for my absence last Thursday, I should like to make my personal apologies to the House for having been unavoidably absent on that day to move these Amendments—or virtually identical ones—in Committee. As noble Lords will know, the date of the Committee stage was altered at twenty-four hours' notice and I had a very long-standing engagement on the revised date in question. It was a pity in so far as we could have had a more wide-ranging and probing debate on these Amendments, and indeed on the Bill as a whole, than we are allowed under Third Reading procedures.
It will probably be for the convenience of the House if I speak to all the Amendments together. I feel that a fairly full explanatory preamble will be necessary; and perhaps I could take the opportunity to clarify something I said on Second Reading, because I understand that some members of the Sikh community were,
1164
unhappily, upset by my references to "agitation". Such are the pitfalls of leaning over backwards to be tactful! One is consequently ambiguous and vague, and remarks are misinterpreted: I was not actually referring to agitation over crash-helmets. I believe that peaceful demonstrations, on this or any other topic, are entirely justified, provided that third parties are not thereby harmed or inconvenienced. In "peaceful demonstration" I would include seeking the martyrdom of courting arrest. Indeed, if I were myself a Sikh, I might well have acted in the same way, whether or not I was a practising Sikh, if I wanted to ride a motor-cycle. However, I am not a Sikh but I come from what is still, for the time being at any rate, the majority community in this country; and so I believe it is incumbent upon me to scrutinise legislation of this kind carefully to see that the rest of us are not inadvertently put at a disadvantage by what may superficially appear to be innocuous and, indeed, welcome legislation in so far as it is of liberalising nature.
I see three possible dangers in this Bill. Granting exemption in respect of what I hold to be a religous custom rather than a religious obligation could lead to demands for exemptions on the grounds of religious obligations of a less innocuous nature. I am thinking of the possible demand for the right to carry the kirpan—that is, the kirpan as such rather than the symbolic indentation in the comb. Secondly, I wonder whether passing a Bill like this towards the end of a Session might not slam the door on the possibility of extending similar liberalising legislation to other members of the community who ride motor-cycles. Thirdly, I wonder whether it might not cause resentment among the majority of motor-cyclists, who are not Sikhs, and perhaps thereby contribute to a worsening of community relations, which I am sure noble Lords would agree would be highly undesirable.
There has been a great deal of discussion in this House and in another place on whether or not the wearing of the turban, as opposed to the non-cutting of hair—which I entirely accept as being a religious obligation—is a religious obligation or merely a religious custom which has grown up over the years as a consequence of the hair not being cut. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and

1165
Stourton, voiced the opinion on Second Reading that this was not a fruitful line of discussion and perhaps we ought not to go into it hut simply accept what the Sikhs themselves say.
The Sikhs themselves are divided in their views about this. I have heard differing views from Sikhs, to which I shall refer in a moment; and the danger of the attitude of simply accepting the assertions of people that it is indeed a religious custom is borne out by the report published in August in a South London local newspaper that certain West Indians had demanded the right to wear knitted woollen caps in court because it was their religious custom. The judge allowed them to do so. But, as anybody who knows the West Indies will know the wearing of woollen caps has nothing to do with religion. It is simply a Black Power symbol found in the English-speaking islands in the Caribbean though not, in my experience, in the French or Spanish speaking islands. Sir Herbert Thompson, who was Resident in the Punjab, wrote in The Times in January 1975 that in his view the wearing of the turban was not an absolute religious requirement. He was opposed by Mr. Neville Sandelson in another place, who said that as far as he was concerned if Sikhs nowadays believed that it was a religious requirement that was all there was to be said about it.
My information on this point, which came from a Sikh lady of some eminence, is that the practice is comparable to the wearing of a nun's habit. That is to say, it is not an absolute religious requirement: it is the custom that nuns should cover their knees but it is not, of course, universal. It might be compared to the way in which many Methodists and Presbyterians abstain from alcohol. Unlike members of the Islamic faith, it is not a sin for them to indulge in alcohol but simply considered bad form. Again, it might be compared to the custom which prevailed until a few years ago among peasants in Mediterranean countries, who believed not simply that it was incumbent upon them to abstain from meat on Fridays, but that there was a positive obligation to eat fish on that day. That was not in fact the case, but they believed it to be so. I hold that it is a religious custom and not a strict religious requirement.
Other religious customs are not always given the sanction of law in this country: they are not always catered for. Many years ago, I remember that we had a passionate debate over the orthodox Jewish custom of slaughtering meat; and I am bound to say I was finally convinced by the argument of a noble Lord from these Benches who possessed great medical knowledge and explained that in his opinion virtually no cruelty was involved. For that reason I voted for a continuance of the practice. Other noble Lords felt differently; as also do the Norwegians, who are a liberal people. On the other hand, we do not allow Moslems in this country, as far as I know, to slaughter sheep on the feast that commemorates the intended sacrifice of Isaac by Abraham. That may be partly for public health reasons, but partly because the average lay Moslem may not be able to carry out such a task without causing suffering. We do not allow Parsees to dispose of their dead in the way that—
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, I hope the noble Lord will forgive me, but I must remind him that before the House are his Amendments and he should be moving them. He is not doing so and, if I may say so—I hope without giving offence—he is really making a Second Reading speech which he virtually made at Second Reading. I think I must remind the noble Lord that his Amendments are before the House.
Lord MONSON: I am sorry, My Lords. I had thought it necessary to give a very full preamble to explain the reason behind my Amendments. Certainly I will cut short the preamble. What I really wanted to know was whether it is the Government's intention to continue to be selective about whether to legislate on certain religious customs, depending on whether or not these conflict with the interests of the community as a whole—because if the Government continue to take this attitude the first doubt I had about this Bill can be completely disposed of. The other two doubts, that is, that the Bill would slam the door on the extending of benefits of such liberalising legislation to the rest of the community and that it might lead to bad community relations, are dealt with by my Amendments.

1167
The Amendment to extend this legislation to those with a conscientious or religious objection (other than those pertaining to the Sikh religion) is comparable to the Amendments moved by the Conservative Party in connection with the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Act and indeed the Employment Protection Act in 1975. I should have thought that they would commend themselves to the Opposition Front Bench for that reason. Off hand, I cannot think of any other religions which object to wearing helmets, but I can see that there might well be some. As regards extending the benefits of the Bill to other members of the community who cannot prove a genuine religious or conscientious objection, upon payment of £10 to the Secretary of State as indemnification for any increase of burden on the National Health Service, this was inspired by an article in the Sikh Courier to which I referred on Second Reading.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, the question of the £10 insurance comes in Amendment No. 3. Can the noble Lord not take the hint of the noble Lord the Minister and move the Amendments, because all these matters will be discussed again individually.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, I had not intended to do that. I intended to discuss all the Amendments together, and if the House objected to them I would have withdrawn the first and not moved the others.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord was meeting the wishes of the House when he suggested that he would discuss all five of his Amendments in the one debate.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, they all hang together and it is for that reason that I am proceeding in this way.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, are we therefore to have just one discussion and no more, and have the Amendments moved en bloc or rejected en bloc?
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, as I understand the situation, that is so.
1168
The noble Lord, Lord Monson, will move all his Amendments in one speech, and any Member of your Lordships' House who wishes to participate will deal with them on that basis.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, if I may slightly correct the Minister, the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is moving the first of his Amendments, but he is speaking to all of them. Of course, any noble Lord is free to touch on any of the matters raised in subsequent Amendments as he thinks fit.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, has interpreted correctly what I said at the beginning of my speech. I took paragraph (c) of Amendment No. 3 from an Amendment tabled in another place by a learned Member on the Third Reading of the Road Traffic (Seat Belts) Bill, which was not in the event moved, and I have adapted it slightly. I have also provided that the Secretary of State could vary the amount by the Affirmative Resolution procedure, if it were found that the amount of £10 was too little or too great. It may be the feeling of the House that the Amendments should be dealt with separately, but Amendment No. 3 is the one on which there is more than one issue presented. The others are all conesquential or to do with the Title, but we cannot divide Amendment No. 3 into its constituent parts.
I have said that I felt that granting exemption to one small section of the community could lead to bad community relations, and that suggestion was rather dismissed in another place on Second Reading by Mr. Sidney Bidwell. But I have some information which is not generally available. The Motorcycle Rider took a poll among members of the British Motorcycle Federation—quite a large sample of just under 900 people—and of those who gave a positive reply 69 per cent. were opposed to granting Sikhs an exemption which was not available to the public at large. This is a significant figure, and I believe that my Amendments would dissipate any feeling of antagonism or hostility towards the Bill as a whole. My Lords, I beg to move.
Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD: My Lords, may I just say

1169
a few words? I cannot understand how anyone could possibly object to persons of the Sikh religion not wearing crash helmets, and I cannot support these Amendments. I understand that we are dealing with the Amendments en bloc, and as regards the sum of £10 to cover anyone who does not come into the categories covered in paragraph (b), I would say that if you fall off a motorcycle and crack your skull because you are not wearing a crash helmet, it will probably cost £400 to £500 to reimburse the Health Service. With due respect to my noble friend—he is not of the same Party, but he is my friend—I do not think he is on the right lines here. If persons are to be exempted through the payment of money, which is a bad principle in itself, it should be more like £400 or £500. Having said that, I will sit down, but I cannot support these Amendments. I do not want to be rude, but I would say that they are rather nonsense.
7.37 p.m.
Lord MOWBRAY and STOURTON: My Lords, I should like to say a few words. I appreciate what the noble Lord, Lord Monson, is trying to do. He has the idea that this is a Bill favouring a minority and I accept that, in principle, one does not like legislating for minorities to be exempted from what the rest of the country is doing. But, as I said on Second Reading, we have already in two world wars allowed the Sikhs to fight for us in units organised, commanded, led and paid for by the Crown, and they have died for the Crown wearing their turbans instead of the regulation steel helmet. The principle has been accepted throughout this century. The present Government of India—this is slightly irrelevant—still allows Sikhs to keep their turbans in the Air Force and the Army of India.
With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I found some of his remarks about nuns' habits slightly irrelevant. Then he talked about peasants in Mediterranean countries feeling that they had to eat fish. So far as I know, everyone in the Roman Catholic Mediterranean countries—peasants, nobles, industrialists, merchants, the lot—merely has to abstain from eating meat on certain days; and since Vatican II, as the noble Lord knows, that does not apply. But, as he also knows, it was never a mortal sin and when there
1170
is starvation this rule will obviously not apply.
These religious arguments are slightly immaterial; they are not comparing like with like. Equally, I do not regard Moslems slaughtering sheep in their houses as comparing like with like. Far more important, we should consider the police who have to enforce all these Acts. Here we have a simple Bill which the Government have put before us—not, with great respect, the Government of the noble Lord, Lord Avebury—mind every time we legislate we make the life of the police more complicated. If we were to accept the noble Lord's widening of the defence to include all other people who have a genuine religious or conscientious objection, plus the people who are willing to pay an annual insurance of £10, the task of the police would be that much harder. Are the police to ask to see a motor-cyclist's insurance certificate or something like that? It is too much to ask, and it is not necessary. The noble Lord mentioned things like seat belts, but let us not be drawn into that discussion, either. The question of scat belts is not before us at the moment and we should waste a lot of time if we discussed it. Let us keep the discussion simple because it is a simple Bill.
The Sikh community feel and have always felt passionately about this matter and their reasons were understood by Governments during two world wars and before those wars. With the greatest respect to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, I cannot accept, from what I have learned by speaking to people, that anything like 69 per cent. of the population objects to the Bill. I find that it is a most unacceptable percentage. If you said to anybody, "I suppose you know that Sikhs usually wear turbans and that they wear them in the Army and in the Air Force. If they are willing to take this risk on motor-bikes, a turban is a good protection", I do not believe that he would argue with you. I have met only one or two people who think that it is slightly unfair that, although Sikhs can wear their turbans, they cannot wear their ordinary headgear. It goes no further than that.
I do not believe that the Bill can possibly arouse the racial tension that the noble Lord is worried about. If I believed that I should be much more with the noble

1171
Lord, but I do not believe that it is true. Much though I admire the noble Lord, Lord Monson, and his intentions, so far as I and these Benches are concerned I recomment the House not to accept these Amendments.
7.42 p.m.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, I am extremely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, who has said just about everything that there is to be said on the group of Amendments that is before us and who has said it much more eloquently than I can. I must begin by apologising to the noble Lord, Lord Monson, for the very short notice which was given, stating that it was necessary to change the day of the Committee stage last week, thereby causing him some inconvenience, as I am aware from the correspondence which we have exchanged. At the same time may I offer my congratulations to the noble Lord on the happy family event which prevented him from being with us during the Committee stage last week, something which I perfectly understand.
We have to ensure, as the noble Lord has said, that the rest of us are not put at a disadvantage by legislation which we introduce in favour of a particular religion. May I point out to your Lordships, if it needs pointing out, that there is nothing in the Bill which in any way affects the status of motor-cyclists other than those who are of the Sikh religion. They are still subject to the restrictions imposed by the Road Traffic Act. There is no alteration whatsoever to those restrictions.
I want to say also that I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that the figure of 69 per cent. of responses to the poll which was mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Monson, probably requires considerable examination, more examination than we have time to give to it this evening. However, if you invite people to say what is their opinion of a particular change it is human nature that nearly always you get the people who are strongly opposed to something writing in and expressing an opinion. If those were the figures which arose from the request by this magazine for the opinions of its readers, I am not at all surprised but I think that
1172
I should tell your Lordships that after the Second Reading of the Bill, when the debates in our House were presumably reported in the motor-cycling Press, I had a total of two letters. One was couched in neutral terms but commented on what that person had read in the motor-cycling journal. The other letter was from a person who is mildly against the exemption of Sikhs. I would not put it any more strongly than that. From the discussions that I have had with non-Sikh motor-cyclists I do not believe that there is any resentment whatsoever against the concession that we are proposing to make. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, that it would be a disaster if, by passing legislation such as this, we were in any way to undermine the good relationships which have always existed between the Sikhs and the rest of the population.
If the noble Lord, Lord Monson, will forgive me, I do not propose to follow him in detail regarding the general points he has made on exemptions because we are not dealing with the wider issues that he was seeking to raise: whether the Government might feel, if we were to pass this legislation, that it would in any way inhibit their thinking on future changes to the Road Traffic Act. It is not for me to interpret the mind of the Government. However, one is bound to say to the noble Lord that of course the Government are always going to say that they are open to representations on a matter of this kind and that they do not close their mind from one Session to another but that it is extremely unlikely that, having gone down this road, any arguments which might be produced would convince them to make the kind of modifications that the noble Lord is suggesting in these two Amendments.
I say that for two reasons. First, prior to the introduction of the compulsory wearing of crash-helmets I believed that the percentage of voluntary crash-helmet wearing had increased to something like three-quarters of the total number of motor-cyclists on the road, that the increase was beginning to slacken off at that stage and that we had probably reached the limit of what could be accomplished by voluntary persuasion. Therefore if we start to water down the regulations we might very quickly find ourselves back in the situation that we

1173
were in prior to the introduction of compulsion and there would be no point in having the legislation on the Statute Book.
Secondly, if we grant the concession that people who pay a penalty of £10 should not be required to wear crash helmets, there are in the first place the powerful objections voiced by the noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton. Also it would extend the concessions so widely as virtually to nullify the whole of the Road Traffic Act. My honourable friend Mr. Bidwell whom I have consulted is not prepared to accept such an enormous widening of the Bill, since it was never his intention when he first introduced the Bill to do more than take care of the very carefully defined and limited claims which had been made by the Sikhs. There is no other religious group which has any objection to wearing crash helmets.
May I suggest to your Lordships that the first part of the Amendment virtually invites the creation of such groups. Also, it invites an individual to declare that he has a genuine conscientious objection to wearing a crash helmet without saying how that objection is to be tested. I believe that it would wreck the principle of compulsory crash helmet wearing if we were to accept this series of Amendments. Therefore I must ask your Lordships to reject them.
7.48 p.m.
Lord WELLS-PESTELL: My Lords, at this stage perhaps I should say something on behalf of the Government, although I do not want to repeat in detail what I said at Second Reading. The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, has put the Government position very well. As your Lordships will recognise, this Amendment would extend the exemption from Sikhs to many more people who object to wearing creash-helmets. The Government remain convinced of the value of compulsory crash-helmet wearing and could not remain neutral to a Bill which went beyond the Sikhs.
The Government take a neutral view at this stage. They recognize that an adequate case has been made out so far as the Sikhs themselves are concerned, but they have no intention to extend that exemption to any other group. If Amendment No. 3, moved by the noble Lord,
1174
Lord Monson, were passed, the cause of an exemption for Sikhs would be gravely jeopardised as a result. It is because the Government attach considerable importance to the wearing of crash-helmets, recognise that in their view the Sikhs have made out an exceptionally strong case for exemption and have no intention to extend that exemption to any other group that I ask your Lordships to reject the Amendments which are before you.
Lord MONSON: My Lords, if I may, I shall deal first with a point made by my noble friend Lord Massereene and Ferrard. He spoke about the cost of a cracked skull being £400 to £500. Of course the £10 which I suggested was purely as an insurance premium. I am sure he does not believe that every time anybody gets on a motor-cycle they are going to fall off on to their heads. It might be useful at this point to mention the American experience. We have had a compulsory crash helmet law in this country for about 3½ years; the Americans have had it for 10 years. They have found that, although the incidence of fractured skulls is greatly reduced, the incidence of broken necks has increased because the weight of the helmet adds to the weight of the skull and causes a whiplash effect, upon sudden braking. It may be useful to point out that both the American Senate and the House of Representatives have voted overwhelmingly to rein back, as it were, upon compulsory crash helmet legislation.
The noble Lord, Lord Mowbray and Stourton, rather implied that I was opposing the Bill. In fact I am not opposing it and I hope I made that clear. I am trying to extend its benefits to more people; and I have certain doubts about it. The point about the nun's habit was made to me by a very respected Sikh lady. It is not the case, as he believes, that every Sikh is for the Bill as it stands. Some do not care very much either way, while others would like the Bill widened to include other members of the community, because they do not want to feel that they are specially privileged. It may be that they are in a minority; but they are a significant minority. The noble Lord spoke about the difficulties that would be imposed on the police. There is not time to go into how I suggest that that might be overcome.

1175
I suggest that there are equal difficulties in trying to establish who is and who is not a Sikh. Supposing somebody, a Hindu or Moslem or Indian Christian or indeed someone from the Near East or a Mediterranean country, wants to put on a turban, how are they going to know, if they are doing that simply to challenge the law? Mr. Sydney Bidwell in another place believed that the Bill would apply only to those who practised the full faith, that others who had turned away from the full faith would not qualify for exemption under the Bill. The Bill does not say this. Nobody has to prove or produce a certificate to say that they are practising Sikhs, so I suggest that the task for the police, even with the Bill as it stands, will not be as easy as the noble Lord suggests.
The noble Lord also cast doubt on my figure of 69 per cent. of motor-cyclists opposing the granting of exemption to Sikhs alone, as did the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. The poll was not confined to this one question only. There were many questions about the wearing of helmets, and about motor-cycling generally. Not only people who felt strongly about Sikhs replied. We shall know tomorrow morning whether the opinion polls in the United States are wrong, but more often than not they are reasonably accurate. I fear that if these Amendments are rejected, as it appears they will be, there will be resentment. Perhaps it will not be great but there will be some. I think it is a great pity, particularly as so many Sikhs would have liked the Bill extended to other sections of the community. Obviously I am in a fairly small minority tonight and therefore I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Bill passed.

DEVELOPMENT OF RURAL WALES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with Amendments; the said Amendments to be printed.