LORDS AMENDMENT (Hansard, 15 November 1976)

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendment No. 49 to which the Commons have disagreed for the Reason numbered 50.

§ Lord SANDFORD
My Lords, perhaps the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, can help me. The original Consultation Document about dock work envisaged that both the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service at one point and the Industrial Tribunal at another could be involved, and should be invoked in order to deal with disputes about what should be and what should not be arising from proposals or decisions to classify particular pieces of work as dock work. The Commons disagreed to the Amendment which we eventially put into the Bill after a good deal of discussion, and they say that there are now adequate procedures for determining disputes as to whether or not work should be classified. I think it would be interesting to know from the noble Lord just exactly where we can find those in the Bill.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, I think that the procedures are set out in Clauses 7 and 8 and in one of the Schedules to the Bill, which sets out the procedure for dealing with the classification of work. For example, where the work is other than loading and unloading, there is a two-stage procedure. First, the Board has to give notice that it considers there to be a prima facie case for classification. It sends a copy of that notice and receives representations. It has to consider the whole question again, and, if it decides that there is a prima facie case, it has to start all over again and give notice again. After receiving representations the second time, it has to decide whether or not it is reasonable to recommend classification. It then recommends to the Secretary of State, and, again, there is an opportunity for representation. So, in that case, there are three opportunities for representations, two to the Board and one to the Secretary of State. That is the kind of procedure to which we are referring when we say that the procedures in the Bill are adequate.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
The noble Lord may feel that there are adequate procedures in the Bill but he has only given an example from one clause. There may possibly be other clauses within which representations may be made and I do not necessarily agree with everything that he has said about Clause 8. I believe that it would be helpful to the House if the noble Lord could spell out what the Government are proposing instead of the Amendment which was made at the Committee stage in this House.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, the Government rely upon the procedures in the Bill. There is another procedure in Schedule 4, paragraph 13, which was the Schedule to which I was referring a moment ago. There, it says that the Secretary of State, if he thinks it appropriate in consequence of representations made to him, through him or otherwise, may refer questions to ACAS for its opinion and advice.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I am sorry but the noble Lord is now dealing with only one clause. It would be necessary for him to show on the other clauses—Nos. 6 and 7—that there were parallel procedures. However, there are not; there is only the right to make representations.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, so far as ACAS is concerned, the Secretary of State has the power to refer any industrial relations matter to ACAS now.

§ Lord SANDFORD
My Lords, for the life of me, I cannot see why this should not go into the Bill in a way that covers all these procedures. The main procedures are directed towards deciding whether work should be classified or not; they are not directed towards disputes that arise as a result of those decisions. However, at this stage, I think that we despair of pursuing the matter any further.