LORDS AMENDMENTS (Hansard, 15 November 1976)

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I beg to move that this House doth not insist on their Amendments Nos. 1 to 6 en bloc, to which the Commons have disagreed for Reason No. 7. I would point out that the Bill is now in an entirely different state from the original Bill. The half-mile limit as distinguished from the five-mile limit makes a difference to the need for enlarging the size of the Board. Furthermore, I would point out that four-fifths of the cargo-handling is already going through Scheme ports, so that so far as the loading and unloading of ships is concerned we are concerned with only one-fifth of the imports and exports.
I would also point out that the Government have agreed to the Lords Amendment that when considering classification or declassification the National Dock Labour Board shall have due regard to the public interest. We believe that the Amendments would have resulted in the Board being too big and would have given people outside the industry a majority of places on the Board which, in relation to both sides of the industry, would have been unreasonable, since their primary task is to administer the Scheme.
In the circumstances in which we now find out ourselves, I would suggest that there is even less good reason for these Amendments than there was before and I hope the House will not insist upon them.

§ Lord TREFGARNE
My Lords, I am sorry that the Government have found themselves unable to agree to some form of consultation with consumer interests on 989 the Board. There were two Amendments which were designed to attain that purpose, one that I moved and the House agreed to on Division, and also Amendment No. 4 which, if I recall correctly, was a Liberal Amendment to include consultation with the National Consumer Council. One of the Bill's many defects is that the consumer interest is really nowhere represented, and, as many noble Lords said at the time, the difficulty is that even in the now narrowly defined dock labour areas the warehouses and other facilities which may in due course become operated by dockers will give these new dock labour forces what some would call a stranglehold on the food supplies of the nation. As a House we are resolved not to insist upon these Amendments, but I could not let the matter pass without saying clearly that the failure to make provision for consultation with consumer interests is a fundamental defect of this Bill.

§ Lord DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I would agree with what the noble Lord has said, that now the area of suzerainty of the Board is going to be less wide there is less reason for increasing the numbers as proposed in the Amendment which we sent to the Commons. That is not to say that there is no reason at all. I hope that in some way or other the Government will provide for your Lordships and the other place to know how the Board is voting on these matters regarding premises and the like on which they are recommending. This is important in order that the Board may be seen to be impartial, and we are not all the time getting a majority of the interest directly concerned, that is of the National Joint Council, over-riding the rest. Can the noble Lord give an indication as to how some kind of publicity will be given to the Board's decisions and how both Houses will be able to find out how they are working?

§ Lord SHINWELL
My Lords, I do not want to make a speech but only to ask a question. I do not know who will answer it. Are we going to debate these matters all over again? Already there is an attempt to do it. The noble Lords, Lord Trefgarne and Lord Drumalbyn, have indicated their disagreement. If we are going on to debate this case again we can all take part. I suggest that we decide what we are going to do. Either we are going to vote against the Motion or leave the matter alone.

§ Baroness LLEWELYN-DAVIES of HASTOE
My Lords, I suggest that the House will proceed with its usual good sense. One understands that Peers from all sides of the House will want to ask questions, but in view of the Statement made by my noble friend the Leader of the House which was unequivocal, and in the spirit in which it was received particularly by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, I should very much hope that we shall keep these proceedings in the normal good temper and as brief as possible.

§ Lord JACQUES
My Lords, in reply to the discussion may I say that during the previous stage of this Bill I was at pains to show how, in the Government's opinion, the consumers' interest was negligible. Four-fifths of the cargo-handling is already done by regulated dock workers. For that reason we did not think that there should be that consultation. On the other hand, it is provided in the Bill that there shall be consultation with the TUC and the CBI. What the Government have in mind, which I think will be agreed on all sides is fair and reasonable, is that that work which could be classifiable should have the opportunity of representation by both sides on the National Dock Labour Board—I refer not to work that is classified, but to work that is classifiable—so that before the event they can have a say as to whether or not it should be classified. That was the main reason for the additional numbers on the Board. I have noted what the noble Lord has said about publicity. I think it is a point which we should bear in mind and see what can be done.