Lords Sitting of 19 October 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 Wakefield.

FIRE RISK AND PUBLIC ACCESS
2.37 p.m.
Lord GISBOROUGH: 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 enable the responsible authorities to close certain public footpaths and areas of public access during periods of high fire risk, in view of the damage to agriculture, forestry and wildlife by fires during the drought which the overstretched fire services, even when helped by massive voluntary labour, were often unable to extinguish.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, where access to land is permitted by an agreement or order, powers to suspend that access already exist and were used this summer; but there is no provision for temporary closure of public rights of way. The introduction of such statutory provision would involve difficulties: enforcement over extensive areas of countryside would be impracticable; exemptions would be needed for people living or working in the area concerned; and farmers and other landowners could suffer restrictions in the use of their own land. We prefer to rely on the public's common sense when they have been alerted to the danger, but we appreciate that this is a serious problem and we are keeping the matter under consideration.
Lord GISBOROUGH: My Lords, in thanking the noble Baroness for that reply I should like to ask whether she is aware that the small number of people who cause trouble in fact cause an enormous number of man hours to be spent by the fire brigade and by voluntary labour putting out the fires? Is she also aware that their occupation on the moors, particularly in North Yorkshire, seriously affected and impaired the ability of the fire brigades to deal with other fires, and in particular the
1122
one on Seal Sands which was lit quite deliberately? Had the fire reached the chemical tanks—and it was only a few feet away—it was estimated that Flixborough would have looked like a firework by comparison?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords, and I should like to pay my tribute to the work of the fire services during the recent drought and the way in which they dealt with the fires, not only the whole-time firemen but the retained firemen and their employers who gave them free time for hours and days on end in order to put out the fires. We are not satisfied that all the fires were caused by picnickers, by ramblers and so on. Some arose from much more natural causes; some were by means of spontaneous combustion and unfortunate accidents that might have occurred at any other time but were much more serious in the very dry weather. Unfortunately there are always a few people who do not heed any warnings at all, but it is difficult to enforce the closures of the footpaths.
Lord HAILSHAM of SAINT MARYLEBONE: My Lords, have the Government made any serious survey to ascertain how many of these widespread fires were due to thrown-away cigarette ends, how many were deliberately caused as a wicked form of prank, how many were caused by broken bottles and how many by spontaneous combustion? I should have thought the present situation deserved such an inquiry on a national scale.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not aware that any such inquiry has been instituted, but I will bring the suggestion to the notice of my right honourable friend.
Lord TRANMIRE: My Lords, will the noble Baroness take notice of the fact that the damage done by these fires will spoil the amenities for generations, whereas if she blocks the public footpaths it will mean merely a sacrifice for a week or a fortnight?
Baroness STEDMAN: I accept that, my Lords.
Lord SANDYS: My Lords, while I recognise that the Government are keeping the subject under review, may I ask the noble Baroness to pay particular attention to the comments made by the chief fire officers of the services throughout the

1123
country, especially those made by the chief fire officer of the county of Hereford and Worcester, which are especially germane in this regard?
Baroness STEDMAN: Yes, my Lords; and I am also forced to take notice of what the chief fire officer of Cambridgeshire tells me, as the ex-chairman of his committee.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, one knows that the difficulty of closing a public footpath is that it has legal repercussions, but is not the English public sufficiently sensible so that if a notice was put up saying, "Fire danger: please turn back" it would be obeyed?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, we hope they are sensible but there are always just a few people who cannot or will not read and understand notices.
Lord MOYNE: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that as many fires have been caused by stubble burning with inadequate precautions as by ramblers?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I have no information as to the number of fires that were caused by stubble burning. I know that the National Farmers' Union have a very strict code with regard to the way in which stubble is burnt and that they were trying to discourage their members from setting fire to stubble at the height of the drought.
Lord CULLEN of ASHBOURNE: My Lords, have the Government considered calling a conference of fire chiefs and chief constables in the affected areas to advise on methods of avoiding these fires in the future? Have they also considered studying the techniques of aerial water spraying such as are used in France and Canada?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am sure that our fire chiefs have considered ways of dealing with the fires from the air. I should have thought that the local authorities in the areas most involved were giving serious consideration as to how they had reacted when the danger came into their areas and what plans they ought to lay for the future.
Earl FERRERS: My Lords, it is probably my fault for misunderstanding,
1124
but did the noble Baroness say that there are no powers to close these footpaths or that there are powers to close them but that the implementation of those powers would very be difficult?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I said that the implementation of any powers would he very difficult because of the restrictions that would be put on people who wanted to get on to the land for their legitimate purposes. But there are powers. The Road Traffic Regulation Act has been used, perhaps inappropriately, to close footpaths; indeed that was used in parts of Yorkshire. That order can remain in force for six weeks after it has been made. But, if the footpaths are closed, there are problems for the people who live in the area.

WATER CONSERVATION: AUTOMATIC FLUSHES
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: 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 take steps to ensure that when the day's work is completed on building sites the automatic flushes in the toilets are turned off and not left operating night and day, seven days a week, in view of the waste of water and the feelings of nearby residents exhorted to economise on water supplies.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, the Drought Act 1976 enables the water authorities to seek powers to prohibit or restrict the use of water in the particular circumstances described by the noble Baroness, and many authorities have done so. it would be for the authorities concerned to enforce any such restriction.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that when representations were made both to the water authority and to Westminster City Council, the reply received was that the site had diplomatic immunity? So incensed were the residents that they took the trouble to discover that in the existing embassy of a particular foreign Power they were scrupulously following all the regulations and doing all they could to exhort their staff to save water. Is it

1125
not monstrous that an English contractor with an English staff can use this as a cover for such a wanton waste of water?
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am not aware of the details of the case referred to by the noble Baroness, Lady Hornsby-Smith. Where a drought order or drought direction has been enforced by the water authority one of the restrictions in force concerns the operation, in relation to any building or other premises, of any system that flushes automatically during any period when the premises are wholly or substantially unoccupied. If the noble Baroness would like to let me have details of the actual case to which she is referring, I will put it to my Department.
Baroness EMMET of AMBERLEY: My Lords, is this not a case where the contractor pleaded diplomatic immunity quite wrongly, to my mind? I am perfectly certain that if the diplomat had been personally approached this wastage would have been stopped. This contractor should be advised that he should not do that again.
Baroness STEDMAN: My Lords, I am inclined to agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Emmet of Amberley, but without all the details I should not like to commit myself or my Department.

GOVERNMENT ADVERTISING EXPENDITURE
2.45 p.m.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the second Question which stands in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government what is the total Government expenditure on advertising for each of the last five years.
The LORD PRIVY SEAL (Lord Peart): My Lords, total Government expenditure on advertising in the last five financial years was as follows: 1971/72, £10,093,200; 1972/73, £13,270,400; 1973/74, £17,042,300; 1974/75, £15,658,000; 1975/76, £17,528,900. These figures represent expenditure by the Central Office of Information, Department for National Savings, Civil Service Commission and the Scottish Office.
Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal not consider that at the present time, when very strict financial stringency is necessary, a look should be taken at this rapidly escalating figure of Government advertising?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I would not say that the figure has escalated rapidly when one considers the timespan that I have read out. This year's figure compares reasonably with that of other years; but I agree that we should always watch this matter. On the other hand, information is important for the citizen.
Lord AVEBURY: My Lords, would the noble Lord take a look at the amount spent on notifying citizens of their right to claim social security and supplementary benefit? Would he consider the experiments made on combined assessment, where a person who claims one benefit is then asked to give enough information for an assessment to be made of his eligibility for a number of other benefits? This has resulted in an enormous increase in the take-up of benefits in the areas where it has been applied. It might considerably reduce the ineffective advertising undertaken by the Government over the years in informing citizens of their rights.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will look at that point, but it is not easy. The question of social benefits is important, apart from the issue of the amount of money spent on advertising. But I will look at the matter carefully.
Lord PAGET of NORTHAMPTON: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Minister tell us whether the money spent on advertising by the nation is considerably less than that spent by the pools promoters?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I should like to have notice of that question. I do not know whether the noble Lord, Lord Paget of Northampton, fills in his "Little-wood's", but I will look at it.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree that the escalation in the cost of advertising is due to the increased cost of space, and not so much to an absolute increase in the advertising undertaken?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I accept that
Lord TAYLOR of MANSFIELD: My Lords, would the noble Lord the Lord Privy Seal say through which avenues this advertising is done?
Lord PEART: My Lords, as I have said, the figures we have relate to the Central Office of Information, the Department for National Savings, the Civil Service Commission and the Scottish Office. Other Departments, particularly Defence, are involved very much in this matter, quite naturally, from the point of view of recruitment.
Lord CARRINGTON: My Lords, since the figures do not include advertising for nationalised industries, would the Government look at the amount of advertising done by the nationalised industries—advertising encouraging people to use more fuel, more electricity, more gas, and so on, when surely it must be contrary to the national interest that they should do so?
Lord PEART: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Carrington, has a real point here. I will look at it and convey it to some of my colleagues.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that under a Directive of the Common Market every contract above £400,000 put out in Britain must be advertised? Is there any national advertising to the Common Market included in this?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I cannot say, quite honestly, to be frank with your Lordships. But I will look into the matter.
Lord SEGAL: My Lords, since most Governments are berated for their lack of communication. is not advertising a valuable outlet for putting right this rather sinful omission?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I agree that the money is well spent. It is carefully monitored. Several campaigns are conducted, as I mentioned earlier—for instance, recruitment for the Armed Services, road safety, crime prevention, explaining social legislation such as family income supplement and, indeed, also counter-inflation.
The Lord Bishop of NORWICH: My Lords, does not the noble Lord feel that there is a possible danger of overkill by over-advertising? Is the noble Lord
1128
aware that a Scottish ticket collector asked me to show my blue card when I wanted to buy a ticket the other day? It turned out that I am five years too young to show a blue card, which he knew all about. I could have got a cheap ticket if I had been 65, but I am 60. It seems to me there is a danger of overkill and over-advertising.
Lord PEART: My Lords, I was not aware that one had to have a blue card. I have not reached that age yet—but you never know.
Lord HAWKE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that we view with some dismay the fact that a Cabinet Minister seemed unable, when reading the figures, to distinguish between thousands and millions?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I thought I admitted my mistake. My maths were always very good at school, I assure your Lordships, but I was up all night.
Lord GRAY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether his specific reference to the Scottish Office was because it undertakes in Scotland advertising on behalf of the other agencies to which he referred, or is there some other reason?
Lord PEART: My Lords, I will examine carefully what the noble Lord has said. There is no sinister motive in it.

CONCORDE MARK II DEVELOPMENT
2.52 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 have endorsed a Treasury recommendation that the developed Concorde project should not be funded now, nor in 1977, thereby jeopardising up to 10,000 jobs in the United Kingdom and the E.E.C.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I am not sure what the noble Lord means in his reference to a "developed Concorde project". If he could amplify this, I should be ready, of course, to look into that matter.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, the project referred to is the Mark II—not any of the 16 existing aircraft.
Lord ORAM: My Lords, the noble Earl possibly knows that there is to be a Ministerial meeting on 2nd November where the project to which he now refers will be discussed. A communiqué will be issued after that Ministerial meeting.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this developed Concorde project has been on the Government desk almost since the day they came into office? Can he now assure us that the matter will be moved ahead with all due expedition?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I have indicated that there is to be a meeting quite soon at which this matter will be discussed. I am not, of course, able at this stage to indicate what the Government's attitude at that conference will be.
Lord TREFGARNE: My Lords, is it likely to come to a decision or just consider the matter further?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, as I understand it, the latter.
The Earl of KIMBERLEY: My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord this question? In the Government Paper on public expenditure, published in February this year, there is from 1975 to 1980 a budget of £79.4 million for research and development. If this is not going to be spent on the new Concorde, what is it going to be spent on?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, I shall have to ask the noble Earl to give me notice of that question.
Lord THOMAS: My Lords, would the noble Lord agree that it is much more important to sell the remaining 15 Concordes, for which parts have already been machined ready for putting together, than to embark on a Mark II Concorde. When there are so many of the existing type to be sold, would it not be better to put more sales pressure behind the existing types?
Lord ORAM: My Lords, indeed the sales aspect of the existing Concorde is most important, as the noble Lord rightly says. At the same time I think it is necessary also to look into the future. In
1130
terms of funds, it is a question of balance between the two.
Lord HANKEY: My Lords, would it not be better to press on with the development of an aeroplane which is probably the best aeroplane flying than to spend money on nationalising an industry which is doing quite well by itself?
Lord BOWDEN: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that we have already spent as much on Concorde as would have sufficed live years ago to buy up the entire American aerospace industry?

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
2.55 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, that the House do again resolve itself into Committee.—(Lord Jacques.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[The EARL OF LISTOWEL in the Chair.]
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 67:
After Clause 9, insert the following new clause:
Appeals against classification
(" .—(1) If any person being an employed of persons carrying out work which sections 7, 8 or 9 apply or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining by any such employed shall dispute whether any work is dock work which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that Schedule, he may give notice to the Secretary of State.
(2) Any such notice under this section shall state—

(a) the name and address of the person giving the same and the facts entitling him to give such notice;

(b) the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient details to enable a reference to be made hereunder including the address or description of the premises at which such work is carried on;

and a copy of such notice shall be sent by the person giving the same to the Board and to all other persons being employers and trade unions as aforesaid and in any way concerned or interested in the subject matter of the dispute.
(3) Unless the dispute shall be withdrawn or otherwise settled the Secretary of State shall refer the dispute for decision to the Central Arbitration Committee of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service.
(4) No report or recommendation shall be made by the Board and no order under section 11 of this Act may be made by the Secretary of State until a dispute relevant to such report or order and referred to the Central Arbitration Committee under subsection (3) above has been finally decided.").
The noble Earl said: After long interruption we now return to the appeals section of this Bill, and it is our contention that it is better to deal with appeals at this stage of the Bill, that is to say, before we reach Clause 11. Our contention is that we ought to be able to envisage the possibility of appeals before we get to the orders in Clause 11 which are the effects of the principle we have been discussing. In short, we want to get the appeals against the principle first, rather than the appeals simply against the effects.
The point of our new clause is to specify circumstances in which an appeal can be made as to whether any work is or is not dock work. The new subsection (1) extends to Clauses 7, 8 and 9 the general provisions dealing with the whole of the dockers' corridor. We say in the new subsection (1) that if an employer of persons—and I now quote from the new clause—
"… or any trade union recognised for the purposes of collective bargaining … shall dispute whether any work is dock work which falls within Part I of Schedule 3 and not within Part II of that Schedule, he may give notice to the Secretary of State."
That means that the Secretary of State is, therefore, in a position to do something; he has to do something. But we say that a notice under this provision shall state
"the name and address of the person"
and
"the nature of the dispute identifying the work in question and the facts relating thereto in sufficient details to enable a reference to be made hereunder".
In short, if there is still a disagreement between an employer and the union about whether work should be classified in such an instance as dock work or not, we say that the appeal should first go to the ACAS, and if it cannot be decided there it should eventually go to the Central Arbitration Committee.
What we are trying to do, in short, is to find yet another way of avoiding inter-union industrial conflict. It has been a consistent theme of those of us on this
1132
side of the Committee that most industrial disputes in Britain are in fact inter-union disputes. What we feel happens in practice in many ports, should there be a dispute between groups of men as to whether work should or should not be done by registered dockers, is that the two unions will first try to solve the dispute, and in their attempts to resolve the dispute naturally they will bring in the employer, because the employer is involved. A frequent practice at the present time is for an official, if that is the right description of him, of the ACAS to come along and do his best to resolve the dispute.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I interrupt the noble Earl; I do apologise. He made an important statement. What evidence has the noble Earl for saying that most of the disputes are inter-union disputes? I was not aware of that fact, if it is a fact. I should like to know whether there is evidence of that before it goes on the Record.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I can tell the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Leek, how to go about collecting this evidence. He should look carefully at all industrial disputes during, let us say, the last five years. He takes a red pencil and a green pencil. He can use the green pencil for those disputes which are mainly concerned with quarrels with the employers, and he can take the red pencil for the disputes which are demarcation disputes, and the like. In fact, he will find that the red will very largely outweigh the green—may I just finish the point: the point is not a contentious one, as noble Lords opposite seem to think. Obviously when people are working within a single economy, within an advanced industrial economy such as ours, there will be demarcation disputes and the like. This is simply common sense. If you like, this is what unions partly exist to try to resolve.
Lord POPPLEWELL: The noble Earl makes the assertion that most of them are, and now instead of giving any figures to support it he gives this weird explanation, which I am sure no one requires because they would know how to get down to the root causes of all these difficulties. Will the noble Earl now amplify his statement and give the numbers of the disputes which support the allegation that he has made?
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord will remember that we spent a great deal of the last Session discussing the Employment Protection Bill, which was a Bill, now an Act, put forward by the noble Lord's noble friends. It seems to me that part of the point of all our deliberations on the Employment Protection Bill was to try to lessen the degree of demarcation inter-union disputes within our industrial economy. I do not think that that is really a contentious point at all.
Lord POPPLEWELL: Do I understand that the noble Earl has no figures to support his case? It is just an assumption that he is trying to imply?
Lord JACQUES: May I give the figures? About 8 per cent. of industrial disputes are disputes between unions.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not picking up my point. I am not talking about disputes which necessarily result in industrial action, or in strikes. I am talking about the day-to-day management of union affairs. If the noble Lord is solemnly going to tell me and the Committee that most, or a very large part, of perfectly justified, perfectly professional, perfectly useful union activities are not designed to avoid such demarcation disputes in our industrial economy, I simply, with respect to him, do not believe him. I do not think that that shows the kind of acquaintance we would expect of him as to how the Trades Union Congress in this country really works.
Lord DAVIES of LEEK: May I thank the noble Earl for his reply. He has now admitted that he was using an emotive statement, not backed by fact but merely by fancy. May I say to him that, being ambidextrous, I was brought up with a red pencil in one hand and a green one in the other.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Obviously I have inflamed noble Lords opposite, and this is not my intention. I did not wish to inflame noble Lords opposite.
Several noble Lords: Withdraw!
The Earl of GOWRIE: I do not see what noble Lords are asking me to withdraw. I am simply making the point and after that I will pass on, withdrawing if you like, that noble Lords opposite spent
1134
a great deal of last Session setting up ACAS; admitting that a conciliation and arbitration service would have to exist within our industrial economy. Are they now denying the usefulness of their earlier work?
Lord JACQUES: We are saying that ACAS is mostly needed where there are disputes between employees and employers, and not between unions.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Well, I shall put the point on one side, but I have to say that I do not accept that this is the case. It seems to me to be a valuable and needed service in any industrial economy that there should be the right procedures for appeals, whether it is between unions, between employees and employers, or not. I do not see why it is upsetting to noble Lords to acknowledge that such disputes can exist. I do not think it an anti-union point whatever.
May I pass on—and I think in a way this connects our little argument, and I apologise to noble Lords opposite if I have inflamed them; I certainly did not mean to do so—and say that we feel, as I said on both last Wednesday and Friday in the earlier stages of this Bill, that this Bill makes increased demarcation disputes much more likely because dockers will be given the statutory right which, we would claim, no group of workers has ever had before in the history of the country, to claim the work of another group of workers. Because this right is there in the Bill, we claim that there must be an appeals procedure, and what better appeals procedure than to use the ACAS which noble Lords opposite, the Government themselves, set up last year? I beg to move.
3.6 p.m.
Lord PARGITER: Could the noble Earl explain some words of this Amendment on the last line but one in the first page? It says:
"employers and trade unions as aforesaid and in any way concerned or interested in the subject matter of the dispute."
The word "interested" seems to carry this very wide and throws a very onerous responsibility on the person making a complaint. All sorts of people can be regarded as "interested" in problems which are the subject of a dispute.
The Earl of GOWRIE: Were I a Minister I suppose I could say that I would look at the noble Lord's point. It seems to me perfectly clear that maybe the noble Lord is on to a valid point here, but if you have a dispute you have parties to a dispute and those parties are interested in the dispute. What we are concerned with is an appeals procedure here to try and get the differing interests of the parties sensibly sorted out.
Lord HANKEY: A great deal is being said about the workers in the docks and the workers in the establishments which are liable to be taken over under the provisions in this Bill. I am concerned about the working of the British economy and the interests of all the businesses which use the docks. I want to say that the efficient operation of ports and docks is absolutely essential and vital for the working of our economy and for the full employment of our workforce. I have been engaged a great deal in export promotion, and you would hardly believe the difficulties which have been met.
In a previous speech in your Lordships' House I mentioned some of the difficulties which have occurred. For instance, a man who exports buses to America can no longer use the port of Southampton because the facilities there are bad and the buses are often rifled during the night. He now drives them through Dover and ships them from Antwerp. One often hears it said that the reason that ships do not come into the port of London so much any more is because it is too far up the river. Antwerp is even further up the river and their trade is increasing enormously. This is incredibly bad for the enormous number of gifted workers in our motor car industry, machinery industries, and engineering industry, and all the other industries.
I want to know whether, when the dockers receive these great facilities which no other group of workers, to my knowledge, have ever received, the Government are going to make sure that these abuses do not continue to occur, because they are abuses. I do not say this in order to be abusive. I am really speaking from the Cross-Benches. I am speaking because I have experience of this matter and it breaks one's heart to hear of the things that happen, and the things that are said to one by ships' captains and ships'
1136
owners abroad who will not send their ships to the great British ports. Our dockers have to some degree cut their own necks because they have not kept the business of dock work in good order. If the unions would stop strikes which are in support of people who really misbehave, this might now be put right. If we give the dockers these facilities, a great many other industries and firms such as the noble Earl mentioned are going to be interested, and I think they are entitled to be consulted. But I should like to know what the Government have to say about improving the use of the facilities in our ports because that is what is really relevant for the future or even survival of the British economy. Whether one group of men does the work or another group of men does not matter much. The relevant thing is whether the ports are efficient, up-to-date, and soundly run.
Lord DERWENT: May I ask my noble friend whether there is a misprint in the Amendment? The first line reads:
"If any person being an employed of persons …"
Should that read "employer" or "employee" of persons?
The Earl of GOWRIE: It should be "employer".
Lord HARMER-NICHOLLS: I urge my noble friend not to be too eager to water down his proposed new clause as a consequence of the interventions of noble Lords opposite, who I think misunderstood the point my noble friend was making. My noble friend and indeed the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, will remember that I sent to both of them a copy of a petition that was handed to me last week by shop stewards and trade unionists at one of the works in Peterborough who felt that they might be affected by the Bill. As the result of an Amendment which noble Lords passed the other day, those people in Peterborough are clearly now outside the boundary where they would be affected. Nevertheless, at the time when they thought they would be affected, those trade unionists were very disturbed at the possibility of members of another trade union or part of a union with more power than they had coming there and affecting their livelihood.
The whole temper of what they said to me, the whole spirit behind the petition

1137
which I passed on to the two noble Lords who are leading in this Committee stage, and the whole purpose of what they had in mind was that if it came to the point when there was a dispute and they felt that they were being affected by the intervention of another union, they wanted to feel that they had some appeal procedure at which their point of view could have been impartially and objectively taken into account. Thus, meeting that particular circumstance, which is real and on the record, confirms, I should have thought, that this new clause is desirable in order to keep equanimity among the various members of the different trade unions who do not see eye to eye on the effects of the Bill.
Lord Jacques tried to suggest that the inter-union point need not be taken greatly into account because, he said, only 8 per cent of disputes were inter-union disputes. I think that if the noble Lord examines that 8 per cent. he will find that the effect of them was very harmful indeed and that they usually occurred in areas where it is likely that the very strength of the nation's economy could be undermined. Just because the figure is 8 per cent. does not mean that the problem of inter-union differences can be passed over as though it does not exist, for the 8 per cent. is confirmation that it exists and that, in turn, is confirmation that some appeals procedure where both sides can feel that their points are being objectively examined is more desirable than ever. I therefore urge my noble friend not to be too eager to water down his proposal in recognition of the intervention of noble Lords opposite, who I do not think really understood the point he was making.
Lord JACQUES: Perhaps I may bring back the Committee to the subject of the Amendment, which is what we are here to discuss. The new clause does not provide a procedure for appeals against classification generally but only as to whether work is legally capable of being considered for classification. That is the important point to remember and that is the issue behind the Amendment. We ourselves had similar thoughts and noble Lords will find in the Consultative Document Dock Work that we envisaged a procedure under which questions as to whether work was port transport work would be determined by the Central
1138
Arbitration Committee, so our thoughts were on the same lines as those of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I ask the noble Lord to help by saying in which paragraph of Dock Work those same ideas appeared?
Lord JACQUES: I do not have the number to hand, but I will have it looked up and let tile noble Lord know. As a result of consultations, it became clear that the matter would be completely inappropriate for the Central Arbitration Committee. That Committee was set up under Section 10 of the Employment Protection Act 1975 and is concerned with matters of arbitration about terms and conditions of employment; it is in no way competent to give findings on the proper interpretation of words and phrases in legislation. That function is for the courts and should remain for the courts. That is now our attitude, after exploring the whole idea fully, long before it was an Opposition idea.
We are not opposed to appeal, but we say that an appeal should go to the proper place and that the interpretation of words in a Statute is not a matter for the Central Arbitration Committee but for the courts. Since it is a matter of the interpretation of words in the vast majority of cases, noble Lords should bear in mind that in general there will be no dispute and no problems whatever. There will of course be borderline cases and in those cases we do not believe that it will be possible to surmount the tests which are in Clause 8. In any case, I would remind the Committee that the Secretary of State, in deciding whether to classify work, would wish to be entirely satisfied that it was classifiable; otherwise the vires of any order would be open to attack. As a last resort there is of course the question of the courts, the final place for appeal. I can now answer the question I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone; the reference to which I referred in the Consultative Document was in paragraph 31.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I ask the noble Lord to say who would be the parties to any court proceedings? Would the Secretary of State or the Board be one of the parties? If there was doubt about this, who would be the other party?

1139
Would it be the person challenging and could that be any person?
Lord JACQUES: I understand that it would be the interested party who objects and the Secretary of State; they would be the parties.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I am bewildered. I remember having to fight two very tough Elections while great criticism was being thrown at the then Industrial Relations Bill. It was said that it was the most wicked thing ever to be sought to be placed on the Statute Book. That was said by my opponents. The main basis of their criticism was that it was supposed to take trade unions to court. They thought it was wicked that the court should be the arbitrator and they said that those with the wigs and gowns were not the people who understood. Now, however, if I understand the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, aright, he is saying that while this matter could be kept in the area of trade union understanding, he would prefer it to go to the court. Thus, the wig and the pen are not so horrible now as they were when noble Lords opposite were using them as a propaganda weapon against something which was trying to straighten out the trade union problems of this country.
Lord JACQUES: That is not true. I have not suggested in any way that anyone would take a trade union to court. I am suggesting that if the vires of an order made by the Secretary of State were attacked, the trade union could take the Secretary of State to court, which is quite the opposite. The noble Lord's intervention was, therefore, a bit unfair. Furthermore, we are saying that where it is a question of the interpretation of the Statute, that should remain a matter for the courts and not for the Central Arbitration Committee. It is the wording of the Statute that must be interpreted and we say that there should be an appeal but that it should be heard in the proper place, which is the court.
Lord BURTON: Because in our previous deliberations on the Bill it became apparent that the Government had no idea of the effect the Bill would have on Scotland—indeed, they appeared to have no regard to what effect it would have—this morning I took the trouble to make
1140
some inquiries in London to find out what effect it would have and the depot at which I made inquiries turned out to be manned by National Union of Railwaymen. When they were asked what effect the Bill would have on them and if they realised that it would have to be manned by dockers, the answer was, "This is now a matter before the House of Lords and they are amending the Bill. We will be all right when they have finished with it". Otherwise I foresee that the National Union of Railwaymen are going to be put out of work and it will then he manned by dockers. If that is not something which is going to cause inter-union strife, I do not know what is.
Lord JACQUES: Under the Bill as it stands, the dock work which is done by the National Union of Railwaymen is not classifiable, but if the Amendment which the Opposition has put down today is accepted it will be classifiable, so I hope you put the blame in the right quarter.
The Earl of CORK and ORRERY: May I put a question on a matter of drafting by my noble friend Lord Gowrie. The ante-penultimate and penultimate lines of the new clause refer to:
"… all other persons being employers and trade unions …"—
a rather novel concept and not a very easy one. Is it not possibly intended to read:
"… to all other persons being employers and to trade unions",
on the one hand, or as another possibility—
"… to all other persons being employers or members of trade unions ".
I feel that one of those must be right.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I do not feel unhappy with the sentence as I have drafted it, but my noble friend Lord Cork and Orrery has a lynx eye for these things and I will certainly look at what he has said. So far as I can see the preposition there governs both cases.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like to probe a little further with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, into this question of why the Central Arbitration Committee are not suited for this sort of inquiry. It would seem to me that a great deal is being made of why the Government thought this way but changed their mind, and why we should

1141
go to the courts when there is this new body which is already making a tremendous name for itself in solving problems between people. Let us forget the fact that the people may belong to different trade unions. To a certain extent I would not go along very far that way with my noble friend. It is more a question of a dispute between people whose jobs have to be identified as to whether they belong to the one or the other.
It seems to me that the wording of this clause could be improved and happily we have the Report stage to do that. This clause would seem to be a very useful intermediate step, a way of using this new body to resolve problems which are going to affect individuals. Of course the individuals will be backed by trade unions, and they may be different trade unions or different branches of the same trade union. I would have thought that the important thing in industrial relations problems of this sort is to use a well-established body which people are coming to respect, because it is in being to deal with industrial relations and the avoidance of disputes between people rather than going in the first instance to the courts. As my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls said earlier, certainly some five years or so ago noble Lords opposite were dead against the courts, and I must confess I was largely convinced by their arguments. I think they were right that you do not want the courts in these disputes and that is a very good reason to use the ACAS for these purposes. Possibly the wording could be improved or tightened up; there are all sorts of things that we could do or the Government could do on Report, but I would suggest that the principle which this proposed new clause is putting forward is in everybody's interest and is well worth supporting from both sides of the Committee.
Lord JACQUES: We have a great deal of sympathy with this, otherwise we would not have contemplated the use of the Central Arbitration Committee in the original Consultative Document. I think everybody in this Committee knows that our sympathy lies in getting matters settled through ACAS and the Central Arbitration Committee rather than the courts. We are saying to the Committee that, in the particular circumstances—that is, the interpretation of the words of the Statute—it is not the function of the
1142
Central Arbitration Committee, nor is it equipped to make the kind of decision which would be required. It is essentially one for the courts and should remain so.
3.27 p.m.
Lord SHINWELL: I have been wondering why this Amendment has been proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie. Some of my colleagues seem to resent the submission of this Amendment in the absence of adequate evidence of inter-union disputes. I suggest that we forget all about inter-union disputes and try to discover why the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has submitted this Amendment. I suspect that it is because he is hoping that there will be a great many inter-union disputes. He shakes his head in dissent, but what other reason could he have for advancing this Amendment? He is suggesting that his Amendment should be accepted as a separate clause after Clause 9. Had he looked carefully at Clause 9 he would have seen that all the provisions to prevent anything in the nature of inter-union disputes, or indeed any dispute at all, are contained in that clause. On the assumption that this legislation is carried through both Houses of Parliament it provides that the Board that is to be set up have to announce their intention not only to the TUC but also to the CBI, on the one hand to employers who may be involved and to the trade unions affiliated to the TUC, on the other, who are certain to be involved.
As a result of their submission to those very important bodies, when the Board receive their replies they will come to some conclusion. If there is any dispute in the Board, the matter is then referred to the Secretary of State who has to make further inquiries before any positive action is taken. That is all contained in Clause 9. What more is required? We cannot understand why this submission has been advanced.
There are bound to be some complications, but I do not believe that there will be many difficulties or obstacles in the way of implementation of the provisions of the Bill regarding who should handle the dock work remote from the dock side, because the matter will begin to resolve itself. Indeed, to use the language of the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, when he began this debate, that before we come to the fundamental principle of whether or not

1143
we should proceed with it we should decide appeals, is putting the cart before the horse. We have to decide whether the fundamental element of the Bill is to be accepted. If it is, we can then decide whether there should be appeals; but do not decide appeals before the case has been adequately heard. I do not suggest it is filibustering but it is very near it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: May I, on behalf of my noble friend, make a reply to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, who has surprised me by being rather "off track". I suggest that what we are talking about is individuals and individual jobs and, with the greatest possible respect to the TUC and the CBI, they are very remote bodies with offices in this great City of London. They may be miles away and one of the problems in this country at the moment—and I know this from talking to individuals including both trade unionists and non-trade unionists—is that people find that their own unions are remote from them now that they have become so vast. They do their best, but they cannot really achieve local interest to the same degree. None of us can. This is our problem. We are talking about people whom probably none of us will ever see and we are trying to lay down laws which will meet their needs.
The great thing about ACAS is that it goes to people and talks to them on the spot. That is the important thing to do. Your Lordships cannot do that. The TUC and the CBI cannot do it themselves. They have to get reports from people. So, with the greatest possible respect, I suggest that this sort of leavening influence needs to be exploited to the full. In fact, I believe that the trouble is that, as a country, we cannot afford to have a big enough staff for ACAS, but that is another matter. I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, that he is not following his normal theme of recognising where the problem of the individual creeps in. I suggest that this is a very important Amendment.
Lord COOPER of STOCKTON HEATH: As a question of fact, the TUC has an inter-union disputes committee and this does a magnificent job of work. The facts are there for everybody to see in the annual report. All the cases of inter-union disputes are reported with the
1144
findings of the TUC, and the findings are invariably honoured by whichever party is found to be in the wrong. It seems to me that this is a protective clause. It suggests that the Secretary of State should consult with the TUC and the CBI. Although I have always said that the TUC is better organised than the CBI, I do not believe that the CBI is that far behind and I think it right that, where there is a suggestion that the TUC should be consulted, the CBI, representing those it does, should be involved as well. I say this as a question of fact: I do not believe that there is any doubt about the competence of the TUC to deal with the latent inter-union difficulty and to do so effectively.
Lord WIGODER: I suggest that we are being led just a trifle astray by what I would, with every possible respect to the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, call the slightly provocative way in which the Amendment was moved. May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether the position is that there are two quite separate issues that might arise where work is classified as dock work? First, there is the issue, is the work properly classifiable in the sense that it comes within the provisions of Part I of Schedule 3, as being work that may be classified? As I understand it, the position is that the Government are saying that the issue there can be determined by reference to the courts and the noble Earl is saying that it ought to be determined not by reference to the courts but by reference to the Central Arbitration Committee. If that is the only issue—that is, whether work that has been classified is properly classifiable within the terms of Part I—would the noble Earl not agree that it might be that the courts are the more appropriate body, rather than the Central Arbitration Committee, to determine what is really a matter of law?
May I then ask if we are not perhaps getting a little confused with a wholly separate issue—that is, whether, when work is classified under Part I which is properly classifiable, it should have been classified or not? Am I right in understanding from the noble Earl that his Amendment does not deal with that situation at all but only with whether the work is properly classifiable? Also, am I not right in thinking that we have already dealt with

1145
the situation where work is classified which is properly classifiable and it is desired to dispute that? That is to be done by means of the public inquiry procedure which we have already written into the Bill in earlier proceedings in this Committee.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think it may be for the convenience of the Committee if I now wind up the debate and answer some of the points made to me. It would seem to be a first rule of political life that when a fly is cast at one by a very experienced fisherman like the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell, the one thing one should not do is to rise to it. But I have to say that I feel a little flustered at accusations of filibustering. No one who spent most of last night and even up to breakfast this morning in your Lordships' House would want to continue any kind of filibuster. I also minded a little (I shall not use as strong a word as "resented") the, I hope, teasing reference to my being eager to promote inter-union disputes, perhaps in order to vindicate myself against the guns of noble Lords on the Back-Benches opposite at the beginning of this debate. Seriously, no citizen of this country in our present economic state should be accused of wishing that.
What we are concerned with—and this is a point that has been made many times before—is that the Bill may create a great many potentialities for damaging, inter-union disputes. That will be bad for us. Let us suppose that, as noble Lords opposite have suggested, the Bill is entirely useful and beneficial. Suppose noble Lords opposite are right and that this is the kind of legislation that the situation in our docks, which we all agree is crucial to our economy, needs. Let us suppose that it is the best of all possible Bills that we could get on this matter. It is not my views that are causing trouble here. It is the fact that, as my noble friend Lord Harmar-Nicholls pointed out, there are very many groups of workers, and, indeed, of employers—I am not loading the whole thing on to employees—who are worried for their jobs and who think, rightly or wrongly, that, as a result of the Bill, jobs which are theirs may be taken from them. Let us acknowledge only that this worry exists. What we are here suggesting is a constructive attempt to build up, in effect, an appeals procedure
1146
lest such tensions and anxieties arise, as we believe they will.
The noble Lord, Lord Cooper—and I acknowledge his experience in this area—spoke highly of the TUC disputes committee. I would not wish to contradict anything he said but only to add as a footnote that, whatever one thinks of the TUC or the CBI, they are, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, perhaps somewhat remote bodies. However, let us waive that point and say that they are much more closely in touch than any other body. Then why did the noble Lord and his friends take the trouble to set up ACAS and the Central Arbitration Committee? If everything could be done by the TUC, the CBI and the Secretary of State in conclave, one would not need this kind of body.
It is no secret—and no embarrassment to me to admit it—that many of the principal energies of the Conservative Party in recent years have been directed towards trying to hammer out a policy on industrial relations. We have had the extraordinary experience, which may perhaps be our own fault, of seeing our own old Act, the Industrial Relations Act; both vilified and enshrined. That is to say, we have been attacked on every side for introducing it, and yet we find many of its provisions and procedures enshrined in subsequent legislation. The history of this is water under the bridge. It is past politics. It is a very interesting piece of political history, if I may say so, but what we have been trying to do—and this is where I feel our Amendment is pursuing our own and also the national interest—is to take industrial relations out of courts procedures, as my noble friends Lord Mottistone and Lord Harmar-Nicholls suggested, and not only out of courts procedures but also to some degree out of politics.
Time and again we have argued that industrial relations are too important, if you like, to be left to the day-to-day cut and thrust of Party political warfare, and as a result—we have not always won great popularity with our own troops, with our own political Party, on that—we have given great emphasis to the importance of the ACAS. It seems to us therefore ironic that we come back on a Bill of this kind and are rapped on the knuckles for trying to build up the ACAS and for being dubious of the role of the

1147
courts and the Secretary of State in this light.
All that said, I thank my noble friend Lord Mottistone for the remarks he made, but I do stand very strongly on the principle of appeals that we have here. I do acknowledge that many members of the Committee, including some who might be disposed to support me, feel that some of my wording is defective or that there are some aspects of the Amendment which are not entirely clear. I would therefore say to the Committee, and perhaps especially to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, who last intervened, that I will on this occasion not press the Amendment. I will go away and try to tidy it up. But my impression, my feeling of the Committee, is that we on this side are wholeheartedly behind principle and we shall look to the Report stage for a chance to demonstrate our feelings.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 [Registration after work is classified]:
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 68:
Page 13, line 33, after ("work") insert ("immediately").
The noble Lord said: This is a comparatively minor Amendment. We are in Clause 10 discussing safeguards for the existing workforce where clause states that the Board shall include in their recommendation to the Secretary of State, or their report to him without making such a recommendation, that any work which they have recommended for classification or have considered on the reference:
"should be classified, as to the safeguards which should be provided for the existing work force, that is to say those persons who will have been employed to do that work prior to its classification."
I merely seek to point out that that leaves a time gap which I think should be closed. They are making recommendations at one time, and possibly, if those recommendations are accpeted or the Secretary of State takes action at another time, a later time, the classification will actually take place. Within those two dates there is room for changes in the existing workforce. It is purely to say that, because of that ambiguity, it would be better to insert the word "immediately" before
1148
"prior to its classification", so as to put the matter beyond any doubt at all. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The objection to this Amendment is that it would prevent the Board's making proposals in respect of workers who were normally employed on the work in question but for some reason or other could not be said to have been employed to do it immediately prior to classification. There might be workers who had been taken off their work to do some other work for a few days, or even a few hours. It could be open to doubt at least whether workers normally employed to do the work, but who were sick or on holiday, would be covered if the word "immediately" were inserted, particularly if they had long-term sickness and their jobs were being done by others.
It seems equitable that safeguards should be provided for workers who are in these categories; but it is certainly not the intention that provision should be made for all workers employed by the firm who happen to have been employed on this work at some point in the past but are now regularly employed on other work. The board would clearly not wish to make proposals in respect of such workers, not would the Secretary of State cover them in the order if the Board were to do so. We therefore have sympathy with the intention of the Amendment, but we feel that the Amendment would have those adverse effects, which I am sure the noble Lord did not intend.
Lord DERWENT: May I say just one word on this subject? The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has admitted that there are certain people in this connection who have to be protected, if that is the right word. Are the Government not prepared to try themselves to have an Amendment, so that these people will be protected?
Lord JACQUES: No, they are already protected. They are protected in the Bill. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, is giving them less protection, and we are objecting to their having less protection. For example, if a man has been taken off the job for a few days or a few hours he would be excluded from the protection if this Amendment were carried. We want to give him that protection, the protection

1149
that is in the Bill. I would say to the noble Lord that the position is exactly the opposite to that which he has visualised.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am grateful to the noble Lord for saying that he has sympathy with the purpose of this Amendment. For my part, I might have sympathy with the view that he has taken about the interpretation that is likely to be placed upon it. I should myself have thought that "the existing workforce" must mean the people who are on the books at any given time for the purpose of that kind of work. However, if the noble Lord is advised that that is not the right interpretation, I quite agree that, in line with the 1967 Dock Labour Regulations, there should be latitude in this matter. I hope that the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of having a further look at this matter to see whether my interpretation is correct or not. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Classification orders]:
3.48 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 14, line 3, leave out ("the cargo-handling zone") and insert ("a dock labour scheme area").
The noble Earl said: This Amendment is consequential on our Amendments on the zone. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 11, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I say a word about this clause. In my view, subsection (4) of this clause is far from clear. I submit that while it is very neat, I am not sure that what is neat is necessarily sound. In this clause we are dealing with the power of the Secretary of State to make an order that work done at specified premises should be classified or declassified. Under subsection (2) such orders are to be made on the basis of the Board's reports under Clause 6 or their recommendations under Clauses 7, 8 or 9. As I understand it, Clauses 6 and 7 relate to reports and recommendations
1150
which have to be submitted to the Secretary of State within a certain time.
I think that the Secretary of State may cause the Board to consider recommendations or proposals at any time in regard to particular work on specified premises, which should be classified. Under Clause 9 the Secretary of State may direct the Board to consider particular work and to make a recommendation as to classification where it is not classified already, or declassification where it is at the time classified. But this does not apply to the other clauses, Clauses 6, 7 and 8. There is no question of declassification there because the act of classification is, so to speak, the culmination of the process in those three clauses.
So after the initial classification process the Board may, under Clause 8, initiate action for classification but not for declassification. The Secretary of State may initiate under Clause 9 action either for classification or for declassification. Nobody else can initiate action for either, however badly classification or non-classification may he working. I think that that is an important point—that there is no initiative from any other place. If one is not satisfied one simply complains to the Board and to the Secretary of State.
No doubt the noble Lord will say that anybody can make representations to the Board for classification or to the Secretary of State for either classification or declassification. But the Bill gives them no right to do so, and I wonder whether it ought not to do so. As I have said this clause may be neat, but is it necessarily sound? What worries me most is What on earth is the word "this" in line 25 supposed to refer to? I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: I have listened carefully to the points made by the noble Lord and I assure him that I will have a look at what he said and communicate with him.
Clause 11, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 12 [Effect of introducing the new Scheme]:
3.52 p.m.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 71:
Page 14, line 42, leave out paragraph (a).
The noble Earl said: In order to retain some semblance of control over the

1151
organisation of port employment, it is essential that the present system of licensing of port employers, which we would contend has been very successful in reducing the number of firms in the business over the past 10 years, should be retained. We feel that the Bill should be amended in order to retain licensing; that is to say, to retain the licensing provisions of the 1966 Act, an Act, I need hardly point out, brought into effect by noble Lords opposite and their honourable and right honourable friends.
I am engaged here in a probing Amendment because I want to hear from the Government why they are leaving out the licensing provisions of the old Scheme. As drafted, the Bill would, as I have said, have the effect of scrapping the present system of licensing port employers as the new Scheme was applied to areas at present covered by that licensing system. Both the port employers, who are subject to the present licensing Scheme, and the port authorities, who are themselves the licensing bodies, wish the system to be retained. It was introduced, as I said, by a Labour Government following the Devlin inquiry. It 'vas fully accepted by the industry and we contend that it has served a useful purpose.
Under the prelicensing arrangements—that is to say, before the 1966 Act—any employer could engage in cargo handling operations simply by obtaining registration from the National Docks Labour Board, and there are indeed no limiting criteria for so obtaining that registration. In the present circumstances, where we are trying to create permanent employment, it is highly desirable to maintain a control over both the quality, in terms of management and equipment and so forth, and the number of employers operating in any port, and the port authority has for these past 10 years been accepted as the appropriate body to carry a licensing system. We need to avoid creating difficulties in the field of dock labour employment, in particular where a new or unlicensed employer—a fly-by-night employer, to put it colloquially—recruited dock labour on to the permanent register and then went broke or closed down, leaving other employers to hold the baby; that is to say, the other employers would then find themselves faced with workers who had
1152
statutory rights under this legislation to retain their jobs, and of course the employers might not have jobs for them.
The Government have given no reasons for abandoning these arrangements, but they may have in mind their intention ultimately to reorganise the ports. Unfortunately, or fortunately, depending on one's policital point of view, we understand that the Government are in some disarray about their intentions as to port reorganisation, and if reports in the Press are to be believed it looks now as if this legislation will not, as we anticipated, be introduced in the next Session. But this notwithstanding, we believe that the licensing arrangements would in time be reviewed if and when such a re-organisation were pressed, if it got through your Lordships' House and another place; but that in no wise, our contention is, affects our need for it or to continue the Scheme at present. Our proposal is that the licensing system be retained in the ports where it now operates. There is certainly no need for it in the case of companies outside the ports and it need be introduced at ports to which the Scheme is extended only if those ports so select. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: We agree with the noble Earl that licensing of employers has in the past served an exceedingly useful purpose, but we believe that its usefulness is now exhausted. Following the Consultative Document, and before the Bill was published, we received no representations to the contrary, and since the debate in another place we have had a further meeting with the National Association of Port Employers. The matter has been considered again, but it is not believed that any change should be made in the provisions in the Bill. When the Amendment was moved in the Commons—and today the noble Earl has said the same thing—it was readily accepted that licensing need not be extended to companies or ports outside the present Scheme. That position is only tenable if 9 years after decasualisation there is evidence that the kind of problems present in the Scheme ports before 1967 are likely to recur, or that they cannot be dealt with through the protections afforded by the Scheme. We have not received any such evidence. The number of registered employers has fallen from 1,300 in 1966 to 298 in March of this

1153
year. All the indications are that technological changes will bring about a further reduction in the number of employers.
As for the ability of employers to carry out the tasks which they purport to do, we do not think that this is a matter directly related to the manner of employing dock workers. It may well be that private and port authorities think it right to seek powers under the Private Bill procedures to control employers who operate in their ports—as some have already done—but it would be wrong to say that that was the purpose of licensing when it was introduced or that it was a proper function under the existing legislation. In other words, in relation to the regulation of dock work we believe that the licensing of employers has fulfilled a purpose but that that purpose is now exhausted, and we believe also that the Opposition's statement that it need not go into the non-Scheme ports is tantamount to admitting that it can also be discontinued in the Scheme ports.
Viscount SIMON: As I have some interest in this matter from days gone by, I should like to understand a little more clearly what lies behind the Government's thinking. I was very much involved with the port industry when the registration scheme was brought in, and it seemed to me a very useful addition to the arrangements. Of course, we arc going to have a new Scheme, and this makes the great difficulty of discussing it: we do not know what the new Scheme is going to contain. In the old Scheme, however, if you did not have registered employers then among whom would you distribute the surplus labour which arises when some employer goes out of business? At the moment they are distributed among the licensed employers. If there are no licensed employers, how are you going to decide among whom the surplus labour is to be distributed?
Lord DRUMALBYN: In that connection, may I also ask whether, in the case of an employer at whose premises there is classified work done but where there is also other work done, lie will be a registered port employer (or a registered dock employer, as he becomes later, I think), and will he be a registered dock employer only in his capacity vis-à-vis the registered dock labour that he employs?
1154
This is a very difficult matter. There is a good deal to be said for continuing the licensing of dock employers, because they then know precisely where they stand. But this seems to be a nebulous arrangement. It is a consequence of extending the Scheme beyond the ports themselves, beyond the areas contained within the ports. I hope the noble Lord will go a little further than he has done, because it was a little difficult to follow exactly what he meant in his previous contribution.
Lord JACQUES: What I am saying is this. It has been accepted by the movers of the Amendment, both in the other place and here today, that licensing in the non-Scheme ports would not become necessary if they become Scheme ports. That has been said by both the mover here and the mover in the Commons. We are saying that we accept that, and we go on further to say that we cannot understand why it is now necessary in the Scheme ports. Since we are now nine years from the decasualisation of labour, we think it has fulfilled its purpose.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord said that he could not understand why it should be retained in the Scheme ports, if I followed him correctly. That was exactly the difficulty pinpointed by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. Here is a Scheme; here is a system of licensing, which has placed obligations upon but has also given protections to employers. This licensing system is to be abolished under a Scheme which we as yet wot-not-of. We have feared that obligations on employers to provide efficient management services may not be there, but also that the protections to employers on the question of redundant dock labour having statutory rights to be employed by them also will not be in the new Scheme; and that is why we would wish to see it retained.
I said to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that this was a probing Amendment. I wanted the Government's reasons for leaving out the licensing provisions of the old Scheme; and my point is about existing ports within the Scheme. I cannot pretend that I find his answers very reassuring or very satisfactory, but I did say that I would not press the Amendment myself. If it is the Committee's wish that I should withdraw it, I will,

1155
but I think we shall have to have a more satisfactory answer on this at a later stage—and I hope that that will not be accepted simply as a formula by the noble Lord. I hope he will look at this real difficulty of the protection of employers, particularly, to see whether he can come up with some way to ameliorate the very great anxiety which has been expressed to us.
Lord JACQUES: We shall certainly look at what has been said in this debate, but I also hope that the noble Earl will look at what I have said. I think I have made a complete case as to why it is no longer needed. It served a very useful purpose, but it is no longer needed. The Scheme will apply to both what are Scheme ports at the moment and what are non-Scheme ports, and there does not seem to be any logic in requiring licensing at one group of ports and not at another when they are both being subjected to the same Scheme.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I am sorry, but I must return to this. The noble Lord said that in his own view he had made a very complete case. Our contention is that his case could not be complete because he did not mention this anxiety by employers within the Scheme that they should be protected from the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and indeed by myself earlier, that in fact they might have statutory obligations to employees who had come into the Scheme because of non-registered employers. That is to say, I could set up some get-rich-quick outfit, if I may put it like that, within the Scheme; I could utilise the labour profitably to myself, to my company and to the workforce involved; but then, for some or other reason, I could withdraw from the activity I was promulgating and, under the noble Lord's suggestion, other employers would be left with statutory duties towards the workers that I had employed. This seems to me to be inequitable, and it also seems to be an arena where people might justifiably be anxious. So when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, says that he has made a complete case I would point out to him that this anxiety has not been touched on by him once. What we really want from him on Report or at a later stage is some attempt to grapple with this anxiety, which I assure the noble
1156
Lord contains no political point but is very widespread.
Lord JACQUES: Perhaps I may point out that licensing does not mean the end of registration and it does not mean the end of the duties and obligations which arise from registration. There was no licensing between 1947 and 1966. Licensing was introduced only to bring about decasualisation, which in the Scheme ports has fairly well been achieved. While we consider that registration may be desirable in Scheme ports or in non-Scheme ports which become Scheme ports, we are saying that licensing is not necessary in either. In reply to the noble Earl, may I say again that, following the debate in the Commons, we took the trouble to have a further discussion with the port employers, and, in spite of what had been said in the Commons, we again came to the same conclusion after consulting the port employers.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Is the noble Lord saying—he appears to be—that there was no criterion for licensing at all? Is it not the case that those who were licensed had to comply with certain requirements as to equipment and suitability to be licensed, and was it not then to a large extent on the basis of the license that they became registered port employers within the meaning of the 1967 regulations? This touches on the next Amendment, to which we are coming, because I do not really understand what is going to be the criterion for being a registered port employer if there is no requirement for licensing. Is it just a case of application and acceptance; and what are the criteria of acceptance? I do not really understand this; and it has particular relevance, of course, under subsection (4), where there are prohibitions against doing things unless you are registered. What is the purpose of registration?
Lord JACQUES: I think there are two main questions arising here. First, I did not say anything about criteria in licensing; I did not mean to imply anything. I would not know what were the criteria so that I had no intention of making any implication at all. So far as registration is concerned, the main point is that only registered employers can employ registered dockers.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think that we are still very unhappy here, but I gave an undertaking and will honour it. We will return to this at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 71A:
Page 15, line 5, at end insert—
("Provided that, where a harbour authority continues after the coming into operation of the order to maintain welfare amenities which in pursuance of a welfare amenity scheme it had provided or was maintaining immediately before the coming into operation thereof, the harbour authority shall be deemed for the purposes of section 28 of the 1966 Act to be maintaining the amenities in pursuance of a welfare amenity scheme.").
The noble Lord said: It may be to the convenience of the Committee to discuss with this Amendment, Amendment No. 73A, because we believe that the two are linked. Noble Lords will see that the Amendments aim to cover the various amenities which are supplied in the ports around the coastline by the port authorities. As we understand it, when the new Scheme is introduced the financial provisions which will support these amenities will be in some danger. Clause 12(1)(b) seems to provide that as the new Scheme is gradually applied to the ports—and we find this in Schedule 1 to the 1966 Dock and Harbours Act—any welfare amenity scheme which is incorporated and set up under Part II of that Act will cease to have effect in relation to that port when the new Scheme comes into effect under the Bill. Also, in Clause 17—and Amendment No. 73A applies here—we find some powers for the Secretary of State to repeal Parts I and II of the 1966 Act when he may be satisfied that the 1967 scheme is no longer in operation for any particular port in Great Britain.
Section 28 of the 1966 Act gave powers to the harbour or port authorities to levy charges on the employers in a particular port so that the port authority could prepare some welfare amenities for the employees in the port and the port was able to set up these welfare amenities in pursuance of a particular scheme there. The 1966 Act enabled the harbour and port authorities to recover from the port employers some proportion of the cost of setting up and of running these welfare amenities. We understand that at least three of the ports in the United Kingdom—
1158
London, Liverpool and, I believe, Bristol—still rely to a large extent on this levy from the port employers to maintain these amenities.
We are seeking the Goverment views on this because we believe that, should the Bill go through in its present form so far as Clauses 12 and 17 are concerned, the port authorities will lose this power to obtain a levy from the port employers. We believe that these welfare amenities should not go by the board and that the cost of running them should not be borne totally without support by the harbour and port authorities. We should be glad to hear the Government's views on this.
4.15 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: Part II of the 1966 Act requires the Board to prepare for each port a scheme for the provision and maintenance, whether by registered employers or by harbour authorities, of appropriate welfare amenities. The Factory Inspectorate (now a part of the Health and Safety Executive) are responsible for enforcement of the scheme. Provisions dealing with welfare amenities were included in the Docks and Harbours Act 1966 because in the circumstances then prevailing it was considered that this arrangement would be more effective in securing the expeditious provision of new amenities than the use of the regulation making powers in the Factories Act 1961. The "Scheme" approach had the advantage of pinning responsibility on those concerned; much of the past neglect in this field had been due to confusion as to who should be responsible. But it was envisaged that at a later stage welfare arrangements should eventually be covered by regulations made under the Factories Act. There is now provision under the Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974 to make regulations dealing with welfare amenity. It is more appropriate that the Health and Safety Commission should be responsible for welfare in docks as in the rest of British industry. The Commission has been consulted and accepts these responsibilities.
The proposal to repeal Part II of the Docks and Harbours Act was first proposed in the Consultative Document Dock Work, issued in March 1975. The only comment on the proposal was to welcome the ending of what was generally

1159
regarded as unnecessarily complex and bureaucratic requirements. However, within only the past two weeks it has been pointed out that at some ports harbour authorities charge other registered employers both for the capital and maintenance costs involved in providing welfare amenities.
The Government are therefore considering this matter. It may well be that the power to make transitional and saving provisions under Clause 12(1)(b) and Clause 17(3)(b) could be used to preserve the right of harbour authorities under Section 28 of the Docks and Harbours Act to charge to recover the cost of maintaining welfare amenities if this seems satisfactory to all concerned. The intention would be to use such a power until such time as suitable provision can be made under the Health and Safety at Work etc Act 1974. The Government believe this to be the appropriate legislation for a provision of this kind and that it would therefore not be right to perpetuate in effect these provisions in the 1966 Docks and Harbours Act.
Viscount SIMON: I listened with great interest to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I hasten to explain that I am quite out of touch with things, having been out of this industry for some years. There is a special difficulty here and I am sure that what the noble Lord has said indicates that he understands that. The difficulty arises that when we try to apply legislation like the Health and Safety at Work Act directly to the docks we come across the problem that premises on the docks are not always being operated by the same people. You may have a dock shed where for one week one particular firm of stevedores and their men may work and where for another week it is another firm and, perhaps, the port authority itself. This was the difficulty which necessitated these provisions under the 1966 Act to share the cost between the employers because the employers are not, as it were, anchored to any particular place of work. Therefore, if the port authorities provide the facilities, these facilities are being used by employees of a whole number of other people.
From what the noble Lord has just said, he recognises that there is a difficulty here. He rightly said that the transitional
1160
provisions provided for in Clause 12 may cover this point. But I am not sure that I would agree with him that it may in the end be found possible to apply directly the provisions of the Health and Safety at Work Act.
Lord JACQUES: This is an old issue which we have debated once or twice before, the question of whether the Health and Safety at Work Act and the Health and Safety Commission should cover all categories and not just some. We considered this on agriculture. The Government take the view that, having set up this body, it should cover all and should be able to use its experience of one field in another field. I am sure that while every occupation, especially docks, has characteristics of its own, there are other industries which have characteristics which are somewhat similar but not exactly the same. We believe that we shall get better results by putting this matter under the Health and Safety Commission, who will be able to use their very wide experience which we think will be helpful to the docks. We also think there may have to be a saving provision which can be made under the Bill.
Viscount SIMON: I fully agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has said. The practical difficulty is not that nobody wants to draw on the experience of the Health and Safety Commission and make use of their expertise. I suspect there are not many industries in which the workforce of any particular employer is not anchored to a particular place of work but is constantly moving about. That requires some pooling of expenses and distribution among the various employers.
Lord JACQUES: The facts stand up for themselves. It would involve some pooling; we think the supervision should come under the Health and Safety Commission.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for saying that the Government appreciate that there is a transitional problem. I agree with the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, that in one particular wharf or shed facilities may be shared at some stage or another and therefore there would be the difficulty of finding who was responsible for particular aspects of employees. But as

1161
the noble Lord pointed out, this is a transitional period when the new Scheme comes in and he gave reasonable assurances that the Government will keep this matter under review while the scheme is coming in. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.23 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN Lord DRUMALBYN moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 15, line 28, leave out ("an") and insert ("a registered dock").
The noble Lord said: The subsection in which this Amendment falls deals with criminal offences, with penalties of a fine of not more than £400 on summary conviction or on conviction on indictment to a fine—and that means an unlimited fine, of course. It behoves us therefore to make certain that the people who are referred to in this subsection, who might come within the ambit of the criminal penalties, are very clearly defined. I hope I have taken down correctly what the noble Lord said earlier about registered dock employers. I understood him to say that a registered dock employer is one who employs a registered dock worker. If that is so, what about subsection (4)(c), which at line 27 says:
"… it shall be an offence…for a registered dock worker to do such work there otherwise than under an employer …".
I hope that the noble Lord will be able to explain this. In order to give him an opportunity to do so, I have referred in my Amendment to "a registered dock" employer.
The difficulty that we are in here is that "registered" is defined in the interpretation clause in a rather curious way. It means registered under the 1967 scheme or under the new Scheme. As the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said, we do not yet know what is going to be put in the new Scheme. By definition, we cannot know what a registered dock employer is going to be in the future. It is extraordinarily important, since we are laying down penalties, that we should know exactly to whom these penalties are going to apply. For example, subsection (4)(d) says that it shall be an offence,
"for a registered dock employer to engage a person for employment, or employ him, in either case to do such work there, unless the person is a registered dock worker".
1162
There we have the registered dock employer again but we do not have it in subsection (4)(c). I suggest that this is a fairly important word. I hope that I am not being pedantic and I hope that I am being logical in saying that if a registered dock employer is someone who employs a registered dock worker, then subsection (4)(c) cannot stand as it is.
Lord JACQUES: Subsection (4)(c) creates an offence on the part of the worker. It is intended to preclude registered dock workers from working on a self-employed basis. The Amendment would also make it an offence on the part of a registered worker to do classified work if the employer for whom he was working was not a registered employer. It could be the case that the worker did not know the employer was not registered. It would, for example, create an immediate offence by the worker if the employer were for any reason removed from the register. We think that this is unreasonable and we believe that the Amendment is also unnecessary because it would be an offence under paragraph (a) for an employer to employ anyone to do classified work, as the noble Lord has told us. That makes the Amendment unnecessary, but the most important point is that it would be unreasonable on the worker.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I am not certain that I understood the logic of the penultimate remark of the noble Lord, but he has convinced me that there is good reason for not making this Amendment. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
4.29 p.m.
Lord HANKEY: The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is always very helpful on these matters and I am sure he has tremendous experience about the transport of goods for the co-operative societies coming in through our ports. The point which concerns me is this. We give these great advantages to our dock workers in the organisation of our ports. So in return I think we should insist that there should be a correction of the abuses in our ports. I believe that the noble Lord agrees with me. The question is, how can we do it? Hitherto people have not wanted to make a fuss about

1163
abuses like the loss of a third of a great many consignments that come in and go out. For example, motor-car spare wheels, headlights and even generators are taken. This is very bad for our trade, but people have not wanted to make a fuss about it because there was no means of settling the disputes.
This is really a failure of industrial organisation and industrial relations. I quite see that the Government do not want it to go to the courts but should they not arrange that there should be an accepted method of settling these disputes without damaging strikes which harm our economy and the interests of other workers, and that these things should be sensibly, equitably and justly dealt with in a short time and the necessary corrections made?
I went so far as to take this matter up with the insurance industry. What happens at present is that importers and exporters just send the bill to the insurance company and the insurance company pays. The insurance people say they would rather pay heavy losses and charge good premiums than risk causing more touble at the ports by making a fuss or taking police action. This is bad for our trade, and it is bad for our workers at Coventry and Fords. It seems to me, to be fair, that as the Government have such good relations with the trade unions now—and I am very much in favour of the Social Contract—that there should be a counter-party to the Social Contract and that the unions should somehow help to get a procedure adopted which will put this thing right. Should we use the Conciliation and Arbitration Service? Like my noble friend Lord Mottistone, I am very much in favour of that. I think something should be done about it and I would be most grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could be helpful on the subject.
Lord JACQUES: I think there are two issues here: first, the general issue of conciliation and arbitration. I believe one of the most successful things that this Government have done is the setting up of the Advisory Conciliation and Arbitration Service. Its record is far better than we ever imagined in the short period of time that it has been in existence. Its success is one of the reasons why we have had fewer days lost this year through industrial disputes than for many a year. That is in
1164
general, so there appears to be little difference between the noble Lord and myself on that issue.
Now I come to the dockers. We have had difficulties in the docks since 1970 but the record in the docks is not all that bad. I should like to point out that up to 1970 there had never been a comprehensive dock strike except the General Strike of 1926. The first one came in 1970 and was followed by another in 1972, and it was because there was ill-feeling that their work was being taken away from them and was being done by somebody else as a result of technological progress and they were left to do all they could within legal limits; that is, they were allowed to do picketing and anything else that was legal.
We are now saying in this Bill that there are more sensible ways of doing it than that and we are laying down procedures which will help the docker and whoever is in dispute with him—the employer who is now doing the work which otherwise would have been done for him. We have laid down procedures which will settle this peacefully and in an orderly manner rather than doing what we can under the law as it stands. Therefore, so far as I can see, we are entirely in line with the noble Lord.
Lord HANKEY: With due deference, I do not think the noble Lord has really covered my point. The point is that when an importer has a third of his consignment stolen, what can he do about it? He cannot very well take legal action because nothing ever happens, and if he does the whole port goes on strike.
Lord SLATER: Listening to my noble friend replying to the noble Lord in the first place indicates to me that, if this Bill is passed in its present form, it contravenes the regulations laid down in the Bill, and people are left open to punishment. Anyone who has studied labour relations knows full well that if you have conciliation machinery between the two parties there is very little reason to worry. if there is a dispute it can be settled within a period of days with no worry at all.
Lord DRUMALBYN: May I revert again to the point I was dealing with before. I feel that with criminal provisions it is important to get this right;

1165
if the noble Lord will look at subsection (6) it says:
"In subsection (4) above "registered", in relation to a dock worker, means registered under the new Scheme, whether in a main register or an extension register"
whereas under Clause 15 he will find the word "register" subject to Clause 12(6), which is the one I have just read out, which means registered under the 1967 Scheme or under the new Scheme. I think it would be worth while for the noble Lord to ask his advisers to have a look at this so far as the registered dock employer is concerned.
Lord JACQUES: We will certainly look at it again but I should like to reply to the noble Lord's point about thieving and industrial action. It has been my experience very often that management is to blame. I have spent almost the whole of my working life in management and where you get these circumstances management is largely to blame. It happens this way: they allow things to go on and then come down with a bang; but what is allowed to go on the workers think they can continue to do. There should be a thorough understanding with the trade union, and once there is a thorough understanding with the trade union that trade union will make it known to its members and in my opinion—and this is certainly based on my experience—you would not get the kind of thing that has been mentioned. In the societies that I managed thieving meant that the person was out. Everybody knew that and it was a fact.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clauses 13 and 14 agreed to.
Clause 15 [Interpretation]:
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 17, leave out lines 36 and 37.
The noble Earl said: This is the definitions clause. We removed the definition of "cargo handling zone" consequential on its earlier removal from the Bill. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 [Commencement and repeals]:
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 73A:
Page 20, line 3, at end insert—
("Provided that, where a harbour authority continues after the coming into operation of the order to maintain welfare amenities which in pursuance of a welfare amenity scheme it had provided or was maintaining immediately before the coming into operation thereof, the harbour authority may (without prejudice to any other enactment or any instrument under an enactment which authorises a harbour authority to make and recover charges for the use of any welfare amenities) make and recover from the employers of persons using the amenities reasonable charges for their use by those persons.").
The noble Lord said: I spoke to this Amendment in connection with Amendment No. 71A. I was glad to receive some assurances from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and as a result I do not intend to move this Amendment.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Schedule 1 [Replacement of old Dock Labour Board by new Board]:
4.40 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 22, line 4, leave out from beginning to ("any") in line 5 and insert ("The Minister for the Civil Service shall be advised of").
The noble Lord said: As some noble Lords will know, I moved a somewhat similar Amendment last week on the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. Indeed, the Government may perhaps feel that I am being a little tedious in repeating it, but I am directing the eyes of the Committee away from what might be called the good of the worker at the dock wall to the good of us all, so we are spared unnecessary over-government from the centre. I beg your Lordships' pardon for raising this matter again so soon, but I am guided in so doing by a very wise phrase I came across many years ago, written by Admiral Godfrey, the Director of Naval Intelligence for the first half of the last major conflict. He said:
"It is only by iteration that unfamiliar truths can be forced on stubborn minds".
The object of Amendment No. 74 and also of Amendment No. 75, which I ask the leave of the Committee to take together, is to ask the Government to consider in the wider sense whether it is necessary for the Civil Service Department to have quite such a tight say in the handling of terms and conditions of

1167
persons who are in subordinate employ, such as in this case the chairman and vice-chairman of the Dock Labour Board, and the other Board members. It seems to me that all these Acts of Parliament which we have been passing for quite some time now have within them a clause saying, "with the consent of the Ministry for the Civil Service".
I will not bore your Lordships with repetition of what I said in my speech last week. Suffice it to say I have practical experience of this kind of thing operating, which is perhaps rather more than have many of your Lordships. The problem is that, on the one hand, time is wasted when trying to negotiate with the trade unions new terms and conditions for junior employees. I fully admit that in this particular case, it is unlikely that the chairman, vice-chairman and members of the Dock Labour Board will at present belong to a particular trade union. But who is to know now the influence of the TUC may spread over the years? It is the principle I am dealing with rather than the particular case.
The fact of the matter is that because the rules are written so tightly as to require the consent of the Minister for the Civil Service, it means that changes in terms and conditions have to be referred to the Department which, happily, is not desperately overstaffed. Therefore, as there are more and more bodies of this nature about which details have to be referred to it, it is unable to deal with them as fast as is reasonable in ordinary industrial relations terms. Where junior staff, or pension funds and the like, are concerned, this, indeed, could be frustrating both for staff and management.
The second point is that in a subtle way, it deprives the Board or managing unit concerned of its authority. Everyone knows that in the last resort it is the Civil Service Department who will say " yea " or " nay " on the terms and conditions of the people concerned. Therefore, there has been a move on the part of trade unions to seek direct access to the Civil Service Department, on the principle that if you wish to negotiate terms and conditions you must do it at the level where ultimate decisions are taken.
Those are two examples of why tight control is written into many Acts of
1168
Parliament. I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, when he replies, will say this is a well-established practice and maybe I am trying to turn against the tide in a Canute-like way. But at some time one must make a stand, particularly if one has had the privilege of experiencing this at the working end.
The point that really was not taken up by the noble Lord, Lord Winterbottom, when I raised the subject last time was that I am not seeking to question the need for ultimate Treasury and/or Civil Service Department authority for the expenditure of public funds, from which this particular type of clause stems. Your Lordships will see that in my Amendment I am merely asking that instead of the consent of the Minister being sought, he should be advised, with the object that it is obligatory to advise him so that the Civil Service Department can always know what is going on, but so that no delays need to take place while executive action is taking place by another Ministry working directly with the agency or board concerned. This is really a labour-saving and speeding-up process that I seek, without trying to derive from the long-stop authority of the Civil Service Department. That I do not question. It is an important point that by adopting my Amendment, not only here but in every other Act of Parliament where this will appear—and there are many new Acts because there is so much State control, but that is another argument—the authority of the subordinate bodies accordingly will be strengthened if there is only one Minister to deal with, and I hope that the working Minister with whom the bodies have to deal on a day-to-day basis will be someone who understands the problems of the subordinate bodies concerned. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I fully understand the motives of the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, as he described them in moving this Amendment. He is anxious to cut out any unnecessary steps in Government procedure. The noble Lord advocates his Amendment in terms of speeding up the process and so on. He asked whether the wording in the Bill is necessary. I would assure him that, as the Government see it, the wording is necessary. The noble Lord, said that i might merely say that it is a well-established practice.

1169
Well, I do say that, but that is not the sole basis of my case; of that I can assure the noble Lord.
There is a very practical reason for the Bill being drafted in the way that it is. It is standard practice to require the approval or consent of the Minister for the Civil Service in the case of compensatory payments of the kind covered by Amendment No. 74, and scales and rates, fees and allowances of the kind covered by Amendment No. 75. But there is a very respectable reason for this standard practice.
It is desirable that the levels of such payments of scales and rates should not vary widely from case to case. If it were left for each Minister immediately responsible in a board or body, without some Minister who has an overall view of these things, there could well be an imbalance, a getting out of line between very similar cases. It is for that reason that the Minister for the Civil Service is brought in, because he it is who is best placed to play that role that I have described, of ensuring that scales and payments do not vary widely from case to case. I commend the noble Lord for what he said; he is pursuing something of a campaign in these matters and hopes eventually to wear down stubborn minds. I think he will acknowledge that my mind is not very stubborn in these matters, but I warn him that on this occasion I may be a little resistant.
Lord PARGITER: May I ask my noble friend whether, in the event of the Minister recommending a lower scale than might be prevailing elsewhere, the Civil Service would necessarily approve it, or would they say that a higher scale has to be paid?
Lord ORAM: I think the Minister for the Civil Service would call attention to comparable rates in comparable instances.
Lord PARGITER: He would not only have to call attention to that; he has to approve it.
Lord ORAM: There would be discussion between the Ministers, and ultimately I agree, the Minister for the Civil Service would have to approve.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, very much for the temperate way in which he replied. I certainly would not accuse him of having a stubborn mind, and he will, of course, realise that I was making a quotation. But I would not be so naive as to feel that there are not lots of stubborn minds on this issue stuck away somewhere in Whitehall.
Of course one recognises the need for a co-ordination of salaries and other benefits, but against that is the fact that there is a wide range of different types of subordinate body of this nature. In fact there is a recently published booklet, which I am sure many noble Lords will have read, showing the vast number of what one might described as patronage jobs in the care of the Government. There is an extraordinarily wide range of different sorts of salaries and remuneration which over the years one might have thought the Civil Service Department would have prevented arising. Perhaps even the system as it is is not working very well. I am being very serious; I am talking from a deeply felt practical knowledge of some parts of this. The fact is that these jobs are different; they, therefore, require different application, and there is a need, therefore, for guidelines rather than detailed instructions. I am sure the noble Lord is not suggesting that all people like this should go on Civil Service salaries, because they get all sorts of different rewards. It is also a question not just of salaries, but of terms and conditions generally. It is like your Lordships' expenses, for example; they come within this general purview. It would seem to me reasonable that guidelines would be better than detailed application. It is " consent " which sticks, because that is what causes the delay. " Advised " could give the Civil Service Department time to protest.
We come back to something we were plugging away at over the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill. There are many features in that Bill which make one think that the Government consider the people who are going to run those Boards are moronic idiots who could not be trusted with a child's pram, let alone a vast corportaion. There are aspects of it which read like that. The sort of people who are going to be the chairman and vice-chairman and members of this

1171
Board are responsible people; they are not going to recommend ridiculous figures and ask for ridiculous terms and conditions. The Secretary of State for Employment, who presumably is the Secretary of State within the meaning of this Bill, is not an irresponsible character; he is served by very good, capable advisers who are perfectly capable of running the show without having to go back to " Auntie Civil Service Department " for approval for every little thing, which is the way this is put into effect. Though I would ask your Lordships' permission to withdraw this Amendment, I hope the Government will give it rather more thought, and perhaps do a little pushing, joining me in this great battle to free us all from unnecessary control from the centre.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4.56 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 75A:
Page 22, line 45, at end insert—
("Provided that a person shall not be qualified to be so appointed as auditor unless he is a member of one or more of the following bodies:—

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales;

The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Scotland;

The Institute of Chartered Accountants in Ireland;

The Association of Certified Accountants;

or of any other body of accountants established in the United Kingdom and for the time being recognised for the purpose of section 161(1)(a) of the Companies Act 1948; but a Scottish firm may be so appointed if each of the partners is qualified to be so appointed.").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment which stands in the name of myself and my noble colleagues concerns something that is very far from the matters we have so far been discussing. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, touched upon it this afternoon; he believed that the wig and the pen had no place in industrial relations. This particular Amendment concerns another group of experts, if one may so term them. qualified persons who are allowed under the terms of the Companies Acts to carry out audits, members of various bodies, among whom are chartered accountants—and I have a minor interest to declare in that I am a member of one of the bodies in this particular Amendment.
The Amendment is referring mainly to the role of the auditor in relation to the accounts of companies, other concerns, and public bodies. The role of an auditor when dealing with these matters, we believe, is of very great significance. The appointment of auditors to limited companies in business and commerce is covered in Section 161 of the Companies Act 1948, and this deals with what we might term Companies Act companies. We believe that the appointment of the auditors to public bodies, such as this Dock Labour Board we are discussing, should be governed by similar considerations.
When Parliament is legislating for the appointment of auditors for the accounts of public bodies it specifically recognises members of certain accountancy bodies as properly qualified in the public interest to audit such accounts as may be presented to them. There is one major exception—and for reasons which I shall come to I do not think this particular exception is applicable here. This major exception is where it is provided in a particular Act or particular Statute that the accounts, or the financial considerations, details and records should be audited and verified by the Comptroller and Auditor-General. We believe that this particular public Board, the Dock Labour Board, is among the public bodies which should fall within what we might call the Section 161 qualifications of auditors.
Various other enactments have been passed in the last five years which contain this particular clause which we are seeking to insert, the subject of the Amendment; for instance, the Civil Aviation Act—the British Airways Board—and the Act relating to the British Gas Corporation both have a similar clause to this one. We believe that there is reason to insert this particular Amendment in the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that there is a Companies (No. 2) Bill now in another place, and in Clause 13 of that Bill the various accountancy bodies mentioned in this Amendment are specifically mentioned as bodies recognised by the Secretary of State for the purpose of Section 161 of the old 1948 Companies Act. It might he thought that the financial provisions in this Bill are specifically referring to the Secretary of State and to the Treasury. I think it is Clause 3 that refers to the Secretary of

1173
State and how the Board may borrow such sums from the Secretary of State or from anyone else with his particular authority. We believe that the role of auditors as they carry out their functions for a normal limited company, or indeed in other public boards, as I was mentioning, is apposite to this particular Board, if we look at Schedule 2, paragraph 4, where the matters for the new Dock Labour Scheme include the establishment and collection of a levy payable by dock employers.
It has been felt that since funds are going to be collected on behalf of and from non-statutory and non-Government bodies, there ought to be a qualification that an audit should be carried out, as we understand it, in line with the thinking of the Board of Trade, as it was in 1948, and indeed as is carried on in the current Companies Bill which is in another place. In the context of the particular Bill we are discussing, the provisions of Clause 13 of the Companies (No. 2) Bill emphasise the point that strict control is very necessary over the appointment of auditors.
We see in paragraph 10 of Schedule 1 that the duty of the Board is to keep proper accounts, and to prepare such accounts once a year, and to submit the accounts for audit by auditors appointed by the Secretary of State. We hope that the Government will consider favourably this particular Amendment, because we understand that in various other Acts which incorporate similar bodies to the dock labour boards which we are discussing in this Bill, the qualifications of such persons who shall be empowered to carry out audits and are accepted as such by the Board of Trade are classified as set out in this Amendment. It is a relatively simple point and we shall be grateful to hear the noble Lord's opinion on this matter. I beg to move.
5.3 p.m.
Lord ORAM: I hope to persuade the Committee not to insert the words that the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, suggests, but at the same time hope to persuade the Committee that there is not a great deal in principle dividing the two sides of the Committee on this matter. The fact that we propose not to accept the Amendment and include these words in the Bill should not be taken to suggest that the Secretary of State proposes to appoint auditors who
1174
are not members of one of the institutions listed in the present Amendment. Indeed, the very reverse is the case.
The present National Dock Labour Board's auditors are of the highest reputation. They are members of an appropriate institution, and the Secretary of State has no proposal to make a change. However, the issue before the Committee is whether this requirement should be written into the Bill. At the moment the Bill requires that the National Dock Labour Board's auditors shall be appointed by the Secretary of State, as the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, pointed out, and I wonder whether anyone would suggest that anyone occupying the position of the Secretary of State would be liable to act irresponsibly in this matter of appointing auditors and act so irresponsibly as to appoint auditors who had not got satisfactory qualifications or reputations. I do not suppose that anyone would suggest that things would go that far. If they did—and let us suppose that that most unlikely circumstance should arise—then I suggest that they should look at sub-paragraphs (2) and (4) of paragraph 11 of Schedule 1. This requires that the Board's report for each year shall be accompanied by a copy of the auditors' report, and that that report shall be laid before each House of Parliament. So it will be the case that Parliament will be aware each year of the appointment of the auditors, and, through that, if there were any doubt about it there would be ample opportunity for Parliament to question the Secretary of State about the exercise of his function under the Act.
With those considerations in mind, I urge the noble Lord and his colleagues to consider whether it is necessary in this case to insert the detailed provisions proposed in this Amendment, because it seems to me that it is adding words which are really not necessary. I made this point in connection with another Amendment last week. I am sure that I have the noble Lord with me, not necessarily in regard to these words but as a general proposition, that if words are innocuous and unnecessary then we ought not to clutter up the Statute Book with them. Judgments will vary, of course, as between each particular set of words. My judgment is firmly that these words are not necessary. Therefore, I advise the Committee not to include them.
Viscount SIMON: I am astonished by the reply that the noble Lord has given to this. He says that we are all sure that any Secretary of State would appoint qualified auditors. Well, surely why not say so? If the noble Lord is complaining about the number of words, they could be shortened down by leaving out the names of the various institutions and saying, "Any auditor who is qualified for the time being to audit the accounts of a public company under the Companies Acts." That would reduce the number of words. It seems extraordinary to say, "Of course he will not appoint an unqualified person, so why do we have to write it in?"
Then the noble Lord went on to say that if he had by some mischance appointed an unqualified person, Parliament would be aware of it and could complain. But of course by that time the audit would have been completed, and though he might alter matters again next year it would not affect the accounts laid before Parliament. Could the noble Lord look at this point again?
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: Perhaps the noble Lord will want to look at it again. The common sense approach of the noble Viscount who has just spoken is right. To take up the words of the noble Lord in his reply, he asked whether anybody would seriously expect the Secretary of State to act irresponsibly. I do not think anybody would, but when you are framing this sort of protection, whether it is for a private company or as in this case a public concern, you have to work on the basis that somebody might be irresponsible. That is the reason you have to do these things. As regards the Companies Acts, private companies are asked to do many things which are against common sense. The idea of people doing the irresponsible things against which we provide protection in Statutes is inconceivable; but if you want to spell out these things and make absolutely clear that its standing cannot be questioned, you have to work on the basis that someone at some time might be irresponsible. The fact that in a later part of the Bill the matter must be brought to the attention of both Houses of Parliament and can be examined in that way is the long way round; better to take out insurance now simply by adding a few words to the Bill.
1176
In my view the words proposed are neither innocuous nor unnecessary. If we want to put this organisation in the same position as every private company, then the words are both necessary and desirable. We never expect a Secretary of State to be irresponsible, but we must work on the basis that, like anybody else, he might be; so it is better to have a preventive provision of this kind.
Viscount BRIDGEMAN: It seems that the difference between the two sides of the Committee on this issue is that my noble friends want to lock the door before the horse is stolen while noble Lords opposite would rather wait until afterwards.
Lord LYELL: I reiterate what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, said. We are unanimous in saying that the words are relatively innocuous. If the noble Lord, Lord Oram, believes that what he said is true, may I ask him to explain why words very similar to those we propose currently appear in, for example, the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill; the Iron and Steel Act, which incorporates the Briitsh Steel Corporation; the Industry Act 1975, which incorporates the National Enterprise Board; and the Policyholders Protection Act 1975, which incorporates the Policyholders Protection Board? Have those measures been spoilt because of the inclusion of these words? In the view of the Minister, do those Acts contain an unnecessary qualification? Why is it that only in respect of this Bill does the noble Lord say, "Of course the Secretary of State would not be irresponsible and therefore we do not need this Amendment?" I appreciate that there comes a time with legislation when one must call a halt because a Bill is becoming too long, but that is not the case here and if, in such important enactments as I have quoted, these words appear, we cannot consider that the Minister's reasons are adequate for opposing the Amendment, which is mild and innocuous.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: I am not sure what constitutes a responsible auditor. I say that in view of the rather unfortunate balance sheets that we have heard about in certain quarters in recent weeks and months. Those balance sheets were audited meticulously and expensively by

1177
well-known firms of auditors on whose competence none of us would dream of casting the slightest aspersion. Should we judge the competence of a firm of auditors by whether the report which it presents to us finds that the accounts are meticulously drawn up and are absolutely in order, only to discover later that they are anything but in order? I am not suggesting that this proves that that firm of auditors is irresponsible or incompetent and it may be that the Committee is on the wrong foot. Should we not be demanding a far more exhaustive kind of account to be presented to us, rather than blaming some poor unfortunate auditor afterwards for putting his name to something which is quite fraudulent?
5.15 p.m.
Lord ORAM: My reply to my noble friend Lord Lee of Newton is that we all wish to ensure by one means or another that the auditors appointed are respectable and responsible. I acknowledge that the Amendment would go some way to make sure of that. That is not to say that there are not black sheep who are members of one or other of the organisations referred to in it; but, then, one cannot, when enacting legislation, take care of every black sheep who happens to be about. The question is what should be in the Bill in respect of membership and qualifications. I acknowledge at once what the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, said about similar wording being in a number of important enactments. Indeed, at 5.30 this morning I was more alert than I was expecting to be and I noticed in the Bill that we were then considering a provision not as long as that proposed in the Amendment but much more in keeping with the form of words suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon.
The reason why I suggested earlier that in relation to this Bill we need not absolutely ensure this matter in this way is that the kind of bodies in the Acts to which Lord Lyell referred are in general much more vast and more complex, and their accounts are very different from those that are likely to be the accounts of the Board we are considering. However, I accept that it is not a very good argument to say, as the housemaid said, that the baby is but a small one. I listened with respect, as always, to what the noble Viscount said and I will undertake to look at it again, as he suggested. I would resist, and I
1178
think I shall continue to resist, the particular form of words suggested because I think it is unnecessarily complex; but if we can find a form of words perhaps in line with the Bill we were considering earlier, or in line with what the noble Viscount suggested, then, subject to what I said about it being a different kind of body that we are setting up, we can examine the matter again on Report.
Lord LYELL: I thank the Minister for that assurance. We were in danger of getting slightly away from the point I sought to raise when we seemed to get on to the subject of the colour of sheep and various unfortunate cases that have recently appeared in the media about the verification of balance sheets, and what the noble Lord, Lord Lee of Newton, said was of particular relevance to the accountancy profession; I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Oram, will in the course of the next year or two be engaged in fairly lengthy discussions with the bodies set out in the Amendment. We will study the Minister's remarks and it may be possible for us to trim down the length of the Amendment on the lines suggested by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, or we might be able to find a suitable abbreviated Amendment such as that which the Committee was discussing at 5.30 this morning on another Bill. We need not, indeed must not, at this point go into the question of the colour of sheep and the whole question of auditing. That would be an intrusion into our present discussion of the Bill. I am obliged to the Minister for the assurance he has given and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 1 agreed to.
Schedule 2 [Matters for new Dock Labour Scheme]:
5.20 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 24, line 31, leave out from ("rights") to ("termination") in line 33.
The noble Lord said: When we come to consider Schedule 2 to this Bill we on these Benches are a little worried as to the meaning and application of various portions of paragraph 3:
"… matters relating to dock workers and their work …"

1179
Noble Lords will see that we seek assurance on amending part of this paragraph, particularly with relevance to discipline, in what I might call dockland or in and around the ports and harbours. Noble Lords will be aware that discipline between employers and employees and settlement of disciplinary matters in the dock is very complicated and difficult. We take note of what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, had to say earlier this afternoon, that where matters can be settled in the docks it is best to do so without recourse to weird procedures, to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, referred, involving wig and pen. This is what we seek to do by this Amendment.
Noble Lords, particularly those who have experience of industrial relations in the ports and docks, might agree that there can often be disputes and arguments and differences of opinion regarding conduct, behaviour and various points which can and ought, so far as possible, to be settled in the employer's office, or possibly at the local level in the port or dock. We believe that discipline in these matters could give rise to industrial disputes, and we wonder whether it is necessarily something that should be part of the National Board remit and would ask what the Government have in mind on this point.
We wondered whether or not this Amendment goes some way towards enabling some disciplinary procedures to be operated by employers in a more normal way, as indeed they are for workers other than registered dock workers at ports, and indeed in every other industry in the country. We wondered why it is felt that discipline on the dock-side or in the port areas should be treated differently from elsewhere, outside dockland. We hope the Committee will not consider that this should mean totally arbitrary discipline at the whim of an individual employer, and that there are safeguards against this, though not necessarily in this Bill.
The practice generally in industry is that discipline by employers has to be, and is, founded on well tried and well publicised procedures with scope for such appeal as may be necessary, and above all for consultation with the relevant trade unions. We believe that this system works particularly successfully and well throughout
1180
industry, and wonder why such disciplinary procedures should be sought as part of the remit of the Dock Labour Board under this new scheme. I beg to move.
5.24 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: I completely disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment. If he asks why a different scheme should be adopted in the docks from elsewhere, the answer is that this has always been an essential part of the Dock Labour Scheme, and to cancel it at this stage would be unacceptable to employers as well as to the trade unions. Of course the actual disciplinary arrangements will be handled by the local dock labour board, not the national Board, although possibly the national Board will hear appeals from a local board. The local boards will have members drawn from the employers and from the trade unions. On issues such as discipline it is by no means impossible for there to be a true meeting of minds between employers and trade unions.
I agree that experience shows that perhaps men drawn from the trade unions, seeing matters from their point of view, are inclined to be more lenient, to give a man another chance; whereas men drawn from the employers, seeing matters from their point of view, are inclined to be a little tougher. In practice this has worked successfully. My recollection—and I do not know whether it has much worth—was that the principal complaint was sometimes that there would be pressure from those members of the Board who came from trade unions to reconsider a case. A man would be suspended and the Board would be asked to reconsider and bring him hack. When one thinks of people's livelihood I do not think that is too bad.
My impression is that representatives on the Board who come from trade unions are quite well aware of what indiscipline means, potentials such as the noble Lord, Lord Hankey, referred to, such as thefts from the docks, and would be prepared to impose suitable penalties, and that the members who come with the background of employers are, generally speaking, quite aware that in its administration justice has to be tempered in appropriate cases. It would be a most retrograde step to try to remove this arrangement which has worked well for a very long time.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Taking up the point made by the noble Viscount and asking the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, a question, am I not right in believing—and I am sorry I have not had time to check this—that the 1967 Scheme was based on its predecessors, but before industrial tribunals had the authority which they now have to take appeals of this nature? Would it not now be the case, under the recent legislation, that any worker, whether he be a dock worker or any other, has the right of appeal to an industrial tribunal, and that all workers now have the sort of privilege which perhaps in the period to which the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, was referring was rather pioneered with the dock workers? If I am right (and I fully accept that I may not be right) would it not be a good plan that the dock workers should not he seen to be treated any differently from other workers in this respect? This is the one thing we want to get away from, where it is unnecessary. If I am right, I would suggest that industrial tribunals would do all that is necessary. If I am wrong I should be delighted for the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to tell me so.
5.29 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: Paragraphs 14A to 18 of the 1967 Scheme are central to the principles of joint control on which that Scheme is based. The effect of these paragraphs is to provide disciplinary procedures for registered dock workers and in particular for their suspension and termination of employment. Under that Scheme such matters are under joint control. Decisions are taken by local boards which comprise equal numbers of persons representing registered dock workers and those representing employers. The legislation relating to unfair dismissal does not apply to registered dock workers and it would not apply to them under this Bill. Therefore it is necessary that they have some kind of procedure.
I give you an example of the kind of thing that could happen under paragraph 14A. In the case of serious misconduct, an employer may terminate the employment without notice and in other cases he can suspend a worker for a period of up to five working days. However, in both cases, there is a right of appeal to a local board. We believe that there should be such a right of appeal and that since
1182
there is a machinery established within the industry to deal with this there should be no change unless there is good reason. No good reason has been presented to us as to why this should be changed.
The Government think it right that there should be at the very least the possibility of including similar provisions in the existing Scheme in the new Scheme, particularly as they have been a feature of the Scheme since 1967. The Amendment would arbitrarily close this option. The Government are firmly committed to the principle of joint control and, if the new Scheme is to be so based, it is essential that the matters for which it is to make provision should include those that the Amendment would seek to delete. Effective worker participation in the industry through joint administration of the Scheme has long been established and any attempt to change the fundamental basis of the Scheme would be wholly detrimental to industrial relations in the docks. I believe that the same answer applies to what the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, was saying. Theoretically, he has a strong case but, in practice, it would disturb existing industrial relations because we have established practices.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord for the reply that he gave. It has cleared up one or two of the doubts in my mind, though there are one or two other doubts that have been raised by this. I am still a little mystified as to why dockers should be treated differently, particularly as we now have the opportunity to unify industrial practice. But I take the point made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and I imagine that conditions have not greatly changed since he left the active side of the port industry. Changes have taken place under the 1967 Scheme, and the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, spelt out the provisions of paragraph 14A. I am grateful to him and, though I may possibly ask a different question at Report stage to seek to tighten up the provision, at this stage I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
5.35 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 77:

1183
Page 24, line 37, leave out from ("workers") to end of line 40 and insert—

("(a) provision for training and welfare in so far as provision does not exist apart from the Scheme;

(b) the administration of any severance in accordance with the terms of any national agreement of the National Joint Council or other relevant joint industrial negotiating body.").

The noble Viscount said: The noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, has been kind enough to allow me to propose the Amendment to which I put my name because it follows the speech that I made on Second Reading. The purpose of the Amendment is to remove what I believe to be a very serious flaw in the Bill as originally presented and as it passed through another place. I shall recapitulate as briefly as possible what I said during the Second Reading debate, for most noble Lords were here on that occasion. The position is that the Dock Labour Board, which jointly represents the trade unions and the employers, is, in so far as it is acting as a Board, there to administer the Scheme and to do the various other things set out in the Bill. While it is doing that, I visualise the Board as sitting round a table and a meeting of minds taking place between the members who come from an employer background and those who have a trade union background. Their whole purpose should be to weld the Board into one so that the members are jointly seeking the right course to pursue in carrying out their duties.
However, when it comes to discussing remuneration, hours of work and everything set out in paragraph 3 of Schedule 2, the members of the Board are performing a quite different function. The employers are sitting on one side of a long table and the trade unions on the other and there is a lot of hard bargaining going on. If these two functions are muddled up by being carried out by the same people, one of two things is likely to happen. One possibility is that the arguments—and let us admit that tempers are sometimes lost and that there is some rancour—during the bargaining sessions will be carried over into the Board so that the Board is divided into two right down the middle instead of trying to get together to pursue a common policy on the matters entrusted to it.
That is one possibility and, I believe, the more likely. The other is equally
1184
damaging; it is that when the representatives of the trade unions come to bargain with the employers and they do not always, as we know, achieve everything they want, the workers outside may begin to fear that their trade union officials have not done all they could because they are too close to the management. One of these two things is all too likely to happen and I urged on Second Reading that noble Lords opposite, particularly those with trade union experience, should give careful thought to these points before we came to the Committee stage to see whether this is really a wise provision.
There was some discussion about it on Second Reading and reference was made to an ILO Convention which it was thought we wished to ratify but could not ratify unless there were some provision of this kind. I hope that when the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replies, he will explain quite where this ILO Convention comes in because I obtained a copy of it with the help of the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and I cannot see in what way we should be in breach of the Convention if we proceeded on the lines that I have suggested.
I go one step further in saying that if, technically, there is some breach, I wonder whether we shall be wise to ratify the Convention. Not all the wisdom in the world resides in the ILO, any more than it does ill the United Nations. Resolutions are passed and we do not have to adopt them unless we think that they fit in with our particular form and structure of society and industry. I feel that what I have suggested is really essential if the Board is to make a success of its task. If that is contrary to some section of the Convention, I respectfully suggest that we should not ratify the Convention rather than that we should ratify it and make the Scheme absolutely unworkable as, in my view, it would be. I beg to move.
5.39 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I believe that it will be helpful to the Committee to have the Government's view now. To the best of my knowledge, paragraph 3 of the Schedule has no relation to Convention 137. I certainly would not rely upon that to justify the paragraph. Paragraph 3 of the Schedule has been drafted deliberately in wide terms so as to permit maximum flexibility in the design of the new Scheme.

1185
But the Bill does not require there to be provision for any or all of the matters raised. There is no intention, for example, that the Scheme should fix in absolute terms remuneration, hours of work or holidays with pay, or disturb existing collective agreements in respect of these matters. But it may well be found desirable to make provision to set minimum standards. The scheme could be extended to employers and workers who were not parties to the National Joint Council agreements and whose pay, hours of work, et cetera, were not determined by collective agreement or even by a grant under the Employment Protection Act.
In its 1973 Report the National Ports Council said that in the special circumstances of the port transport industry the Council believed that there was a strong case for conformity by non-Scheme ports and wharves with those terms and conditions which are nationally agreed for dock workers by the industry's National Joint Council. The Government accept the validity of this recommendation in those circumstances where there is not a collective agreement. There is of course no intention that the Board should he concerned with collective bargaining or negotiations.
As far as training and welfare are concerned, the Board's function in the 1967 Scheme was to make satisfactory provision for training and welfare only in so far as such provision did not exist apart from the Scheme. It is not envisaged at present that the new Scheme will go further than this. But here again, we have to take into account the fact that there is no industrial training board in the industry and it may be desirable for the Board to he able to play a more positive role in training and in welfare.
The draft new Scheme is not sufficiently advanced for us to he able to say with any certainty what provisions will have to be made in the Scheme in relation to the matters listed in paragraph 3, and it is considered necessary that the options represented by those enabling powers should be kept open so that the Secretary of State, in drafting the new Scheme, will not be precluded from taking full account of the views of those concerned; that is, both sides of the industry.
Viscount SIMON: I am obliged to the noble Lord for his reply but I am afraid
1186
it does not get me very far. I noted what he said about training and welfare, but if he will look at Amendment No. 77 he will see that it still retains the paragraph which relates to provision for training and welfare in so far as provision does not exist apart from the Scheme, so training and welfare is taken care of.
It still seems to me that to include in the Scheme, as one of the matters relating to dock workers which is the concern of the Board, remuneration and hours of work, including weekly periods of rest and holidays, is really going very far. The noble Lord says that it is not intended. I was hoping the Government were going to accept this Amendment, because on Wednesday last, 13th October, Lord Jacques said:
"I would also point out that the Dock Labour Board is not concerned with negotiation of wages. Wages are negotiated in the National Joint Council. That is not the function of the Board at all."—[Official Report, 13/10/76; col. 323.]
When I heard that I thought, "This is splendid, the Government are going to accept our Amendment". The noble Lord now says he wants to leave it in, in case, in some circumstances which cannot be visualised, the Board might want to do something about this. Quite frankly, I do not want them to do anything about it in circumstances not yet visualised, and that is why I should like to have those words removed from the Schedule. I do not know whether my noble friend Lord Lyell would want to add to that?
Lord LYELL: I would only add to what the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, has said, that our main and very serious objection, and our reason for supporting this Amendment, is that we believe there is a very great risk of the Board's acting—not consciously, not actually wanting to do so—as a passive harrier between employers and the employees in the matters of remuneration and hours of work, which we believe should be left to be settled on a much more local basis. I think the noble Viscount, when he was moving this Amendment at the start, said that in the main there are very hard bargaining sessions carried out between employers and employees, and we believe that this should be the forum for remuneration, hours of work and welfare and training, rather than its being under the aegis of the Board.

1187
We do not necessarily believe, we do not necessarily say straight out, that the Board is going to be a hindrance in such matters, but we do believe that the risk of the Board's causing unnecessary uncertainty and confusion, and indeed mistrust, in many of these circumstances is too great. Indeed, the noble Lord has drawn attention to the ACAS, and we wonder, could this not be a better forum? Still we believe that it is far better done over a table, without the invisible watchfulness of the Board, and I would beg to support the noble Viscount's views and this Amendment.
5.48 p.m.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I found the noble Viscount's argument in this case very convincing, but I am still in some puzzlement about what the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, had to say about the permissive nature of the provisions in this Schedule. The Schedule is introduced of course, from Clause 5(1),
"Subject to this section, the new Scheme may provide for any of the matters specified in Schedule 2 to this Act."
It does not say that the Board itself will necessarily have to administer all the things that the new Scheme provides for. The Government must have in their minds already a good deal of what is proposed to be contained in the new Scheme, and I should have thought that, above all, they would have this kind of problem in their minds, because it is so crucial. I do not know whether the noble Lord can lift the curtain a little for us and tell us what the Government have in their minds about this, as to whether the negotiation of remuneration will continue to be as it is now, or whether in some part there will be powers on the part of the Board to lay down minimum scales or merely to recommend minimum scales in different parts of the country.
Then, of course—this is something which we discussed right at the beginning of the Bill—that the new Board will be a very different animal from the old Board. The old Board, as I understand it, was virtually a sort of nucleus of the National Joint Council, four from the employers' side and four from the employees' side; but now, as the Government originally drafted this Bill, there will be four outsiders, so to speak, added to the eight NJC members or representatives. This
1188
is going to give an entirely different slant to the Board, and I should have thought it stood to reason that they should have nothing to do with remuneration if remuneration is to continue to be negotiated between the two sides.
We have always heard so much stress laid by trade union spokesmen on the need to have free negotiation; but what appears to be happening here—the noble Lord has said that this may not be quite so, but it does appear to be happening—is that the Board is being established in the field of remuneration as a sort of tertium quid, a third party, a piece of wadding between the two sides. If I understood the point of the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, on this, it was that it was very much better that the negotiations on remuneration should take place directly between the two sides and that there should not be a Board established between them. I can only think that that would lead to a great deal of confusion and probably a good deal of ill feeling at the same time, for the reasons he stated.
If only the noble Lord could tell us what the Government have in their minds we should know what advice to give them on this point. But at the moment, so far as I am concerned—and I suggest that other noble Lords may feel the same—no case has been established for having these words in the Bill. It is not so much for us to argue that they should be left out as it is for the Government to show cause why they should be in the Bill, and I must say that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not yet established a case.
5.50 p.m.
Lord JACQUES: I had better have another try. First, let us look at what I said on Second Reading. I said that the Board would not negotiate wages. I have repeated that. This is one of the occasions when I am on record before Hansard comes out. There is of course no intention that the Board should be concerned with collective bargaining negotiations. So, in effect, I have repeated what I said on Second Reading. I have here the ILO Convention 137, and in particular Article 22, which deals with the point in question. It says:
"In any case, dock workers shall be assured minimum periods of employment or a minimum income, in a manner and to an extent depending on the economic and social situation of the country and port concerned."

1189
It is our intention that the Scheme shall be such that it would allow us, so far as that paragraph is concerned, to be a party to the Convention. At present the Dock Labour Board can, when work is classified, require that local or national agreements shall be observed. I should point out that there is already a provision in the Protection of Employment Act which enables action to be taken for fair wages to be paid when compared with people doing light work. What we intend so far as wages is concerned is to allow the new Scheme to say that the minimum conditions of employment, as determined by the National Joint Council of the industry, shall be applied where there is no agreement. That is what we are after so far as wages is concerned: the minimum set down by the National Joint Council—not by the Board—which is similar to a JIC and which represents both sides of the industry. We intend that the Board shall be able to say that the minimum laid down by this other body, this joint body, shall be applied where there is no collective agreement or where there is no award under the Employment Protection Act.
Viscount SIMON: I do not find this very convincing. The noble Lord has
now brought in the ILO Convention 137—if that is it; but a little earlier he told me that that had no relevance to the argument, and so I was a little surprised when it was brought out of the locker again. Surely if we believe in collective bargaining the right course for those areas within the Scheme in which there is at present no collective agreement is to get a collective agreement there. That can be done with good will by the employers and the trade unions. It seems to me to be very dangerous to bring this aspect of industrial relations into the Dock Labour Board. I am not quite sure what view the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, and his noble friends will take, but I should like to seek the opinion of the Committee on this point. I should like to send the Amendment back to another place, and if they choose there to restore it we shall know who is responsible for saddling this new Dock Labour Board with something which I believe will make it unsuccessful in its efforts. I beg to move.
5.55 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 77) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 118; Not-Contents, 53.

CONTENTS

Airedale, L. [Teller.]

De Freyne, L.

Lauderdale, E.

Alport, L.

Denham, L.

Lloyd,L.

Amory, V.

Deramore, L.

Lloyd of Kilgerran, L.

Amulree, L.

Dormer, L.

Long, V.

Atholl, D.

Drumalbyn, L.

Lonsdale, E.

Auckland, L.

Ebbisham, L.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Avebury, L.

Elles, B.

Luke, L.

Balerno, L.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Banks, L.

Elton, L.

Mackie of Benshie, L.

Barnby, L.

Emmet of Amberley, B.

Macleod of Borve, B.

Barrington, V.

Erroll of Hale, L.

Mancroft, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Falmouth, V.

Marley, L.

Belstead, L.

Ferrers, E.

Meston, L.

Berkeley, B.

Ferrier, L.

Monck, V.

Blakenham, V.

Fraser of Kilmorack, L.

Mottistone, L.

Boothby, L.

George-Brown, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gisborough, L.

Newall, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Gladwyn, L.

Northesk, E.

Burton, L.

Glasgow, E.

O'Hagan, L.

Byers, L.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Caccia, L.

Gray, L.

Perth, E.

Caithness, E.

Grey, E.

Platt, L.

Carrington, L.

Hailsham of Saint Marylebone, L.

Redesdale, L.

Chelwood, L.

Halsbury, E.

Reigate, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Hampton, L.

Roberthall, L.

Cork and Orrery, E.

Hanworth, V.

Robson of Kiddington, B.

Cottesloe, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Craigavon, V.

Hawke, L.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Craigmyle, L.

Hewlett, L.

St. Davids, V.

Craigton, L.

Hives, L.

Salisbury, M.

Cranbrook, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Sandys, L.

Daventry, V.

Ilchester, E.

Selkirk, E.

de Clifford, L.

Kinnaird, L.

Shuttleworth, L.

Simon, V. [Teller.]

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Vernon, L.

Somers, L.

Swansea, L.

Vickers, B.

Spens, L.

Swaythling, L.

Ward of North Tyneside, B.

Stamp, L.

Terrington, L.

Ward of Witley, V.

Strang, L.

Tranmire, L.

Wigoder, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Trefgarne, L.

Strathcona and Mount Royal, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Ritchie-Calder, L.

Blyton, L.

Lloyd of Hampstead, L.

Sainsbury, L.

Bowden, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Shepherd, L.

Brock way, L.

McCluskey, L.

Shinwell, L.

Champion, L.

Maelor, L.

Slater, L.

Chorley, L.

Melchett, L.

Stedman, B.

Collison, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Stewart of Alvechurch, B.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

Morris of Kenwood, L.

Stone, L.

Cudlipp, L.

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Stow Hill, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Oram, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Douglass of Cleveland, L.

Paget of Northampton, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Greenwood of Rossendale, L.

Pannell, L.

Vaizey, L.

Hale, L.

Pargiter, L.

Wallace of Coslany, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Peart, L. (L.Privy Seal.)

Wells-Pestell, L.

Henderson, L.

Pitt of Hampstead, L.

Wigg, L.

Jacques, L.

Ponsonby of Shulbrede, L.

Winterbottom, L. [Teller.]

Kirkhill, L.

Popplewell, L.

Wootton of Abinger, B.

Leatherland, L.

Raglan, L.

On Question, Amendment agreed to.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
6.4 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 24, line 44, leave out ("dock employers") and insert ("employers of registered dock labour").
The noble Lord said: This is just in the manner of a minor, probing Amendment on which we would seek the Government's opinion. In paragraph 4 of Schedule 2—I referred to this earlier in connection with the Amendment dealing with accountants—there is mention of:
"The establishment and collection of a levy payable by dock employers …"
We should like the Government's opinion on the words "dock employers" because, as we understand it, it is not 100 per cent. clear that levies would be made on employers in such premises as those which might be used part of the time or the whole time as cold stores, warehouses and other particular areas. That is why we suggest that the term "dock employers" might be changed to "employers of registered dock labour". This is not merely adding words to the Bill but, we hope, is clarifying the situation, because we believe it is a little ambiguous: and, above all, it concerns the payment of a levy. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: The purpose of the Amendment is to delete the words "dock employers" and to insert "employers of registered dock labour", and it would mean that the levy would apply only to registered dock employers. Although Clause 12(4) of the Bill provides that, in general, work classified as dock work shall be done only by registered dock workers, exceptions may be made by the Scheme or by an order of the Secretary of State under Clause 11. It is envisaged, for example, that, as in the present Schemes, provision will be needed in the new Scheme to permit the employment of unregistered men on "dock work" in certain circumstances when registered men are not available to undertake the work. The Amendment as drafted could preclude the levy provision to be included in the new Scheme from applying in any form to employers in such circumstances. The levy is payable under the 1967 Scheme by employers in respect of unregistered workers employed by them on dock work with the permission of the local dock labour board. The paragraph as presently drafted will allow account to be taken of such circumstances in the new Scheme, and the Government believe it is necessary to have the enabling power to make such provision in that Scheme.
One can divide the levy into three elements. There is, first, administration

1193
and training and welfare; secondly, there is severance pay; and, thirdly, there arc pensions. What the Government intend to do is to take the views of the parties to find out which, if any, of these elements should be charged to the employers on their employment of non-registered labour. Clearly it would appear that some are relevant and some are irrelevant.
Lord LYELL: We should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his reply, which has probably given us a lot more information than we were in fact seeking by this Amendment. Nevertheless, we are grateful for his clear and detailed exposition of what he believed our Amendment was seeking. I hope we were not delving too much into unregistered dock labour under the 1967 Scheme, which I suggest would be classed as "tolerated". But the noble Lord has clarified at least one aspect of our Amendment. He has answered our question so far as that is concerned, and we should like to consider his comments. I therefore beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Schedule 2, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not, be classified as dock work]:
6.10 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 80:
Page 25, line 16, leave out from ("lighterage") to end of line 17.
The noble Lord said: I hope I shall be able to persuade the Government to accept the assertion that work that has always traditionally been dock work should remain dock work but that work that has not been traditionally dock work should not necessarily be entrusted to the dockers. Containers are a new phenomenon and therefore are not traditionally the prerogative of any particular group of people. When they were first introduced some 10 to 15 years ago dockers viewed them with suspicion and there were a good many minor local disputes about what is called the stuffing and stripping of containers. As the Bill is drafted, any container loaded or unloaded in cargo handling zones will need to be handled by dockers. My Amendment seeks to remove that class of work from the work that dockers do.
I mentioned a moment ago that when
1194
containers were first introduced dockers viewed them with suspicion and that there were numerous difficulties. Because of that, a number of inland container depots were constructed and came to be widely used. Those depots are now not operated by dock labour and, by and large, are working very satisfactorily. Some of them, however, are located in areas which will come within the ambit of this Bill if it proceeds as we expect. It is for that reason that I seek to move this Amendment. To be specific, I am moving an Amendment to line 17 on page 25 where under Part I of Schedule 3 to the Bill the stuffing and stripping of containers is listed as work which may be classified as dock work. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: The noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, began by hoping that he could get the Government to admit a certain proposition. I think he defined it as follows: that work that has always been dock work should remain dock work and work that has not been dock work should remain not dock work. I am afraid that that is a proposition which, on behalf of the Government, I cannot accept, because embodied in the whole nature of this Bill is the proposal that work that is clearly done in substitution for what has been dock work should be classifiable. In the Second Reading debate—and I do not want to go back over the whole general purpose of the Bill—we said that in our judgment it is justified by technical changes which have taken place in the nature of the dock work. The Amendment that the noble Lord is dealing with points to one of the most important technical changes in recent years, the use of containers.
The noble Lord has explained that his purpose is to exclude stuffing and stripping of containers from work which may be classified as dock work. I am afraid that I must tell him that his Amendment is technically defective because that objective would not be achieved by the adoption of his Amendment, for this reason. Stuffing and stripping containers involves the handling of cargo and it would, therefore, in our view still be covered, even if the words "stuffing and stripping" were omitted. The noble Lord might ask why we have put them in. They have been included because it seemed useful to mention specifically this important activity so as to put beyond any doubt

1195
the Government intention that, subject to Part II of Schedule 3, the work of stuffing and stripping containers could be classifiable as dock work under the procedures of the Bill.
It is most important that stuffing and stripping containers should be classifiable. Such work when done within a short distance of a port is frequently work which is clearly done in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. Disputes as to whether registered dock workers should do stuffing and stripping at certain container bases have been responsible for many of the industrial troubles in the docks in recent years. Therefore I would suggest that the noble Lord's Amendment strikes at one of the most important considerations behind the Bill. It is clear therefore that the Government cannot recommend the Committee to accept it.
Lord TREFGARNE: I do not think that I can accept for a moment that my Amendment is as defective as the noble Lord suggests, because, although I would accept the bald facts as he has stated them, I should perhaps have said earlier that this Amendment hangs together with Amendment No. 104A where, beyond peradventure of doubt, stuffing and stripping containers would become work which could not be classified. However, be that as it may, we are really concerned with the principle, which I am sure the noble Lord will accept is more important in this context. I think that the primary rebuttal of what the noble Lord has said is this, namely, that dockers have in the 15 years, say, that containers have been with us consistently rejected on some occasions the idea that they should allow anyone else to do them, and on others that they themselves should do them. As the noble Lord has agreed, there have been numerous disputes on this matter. It is for that reason, as I am sure the noble Lord will agree, that major inland container depots have been constructed. I am not suggesting that that is the only reason, but it certainly is one of the reasons. It is a matter of major principle. I am not going to press it now, but I reserve the right to consider the matter again more carefully and perhaps return to it on Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 81:
Page 25, line 18, at end insert ("within 100 metres of mean high water mark of the sea or of a major inland waterway as defined in section 4 of this Act."
The noble Lord said: I suspect that I am going to have some more difficulty here, because the assertion with which I introduced my remarks to the last Amendment applies in this case, too, but to a different activity. This Amendment seeks to provide that loading and unloading of cargo principally from vehicles—but the Bill is not specific on that point—should, where it is within the confines of a dock area, clearly be dock work, but that where it is more than 100 metres from the waterside should not be work which may be classified. Again, I am advancing this Amendment on behalf of those warehouse operators who have warehouses alongside docks, not necessarily right in the dock area but close to dock areas, and who have not traditionally employed dock labour. The arguments in favour of this Amendment are very similar to the ones I have advanced. I hope that the noble Lord will be able to be more helpful to me on this occasion. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: The noble Lord was in some little difficulty in connection with the earlier Amendment he moved, in that he had not mentioned a subsequent Amendment, No. 104A. I am wondering whether in connection with this Amendment (No. 81) he is not liable to get into just the same difficulty, in that I notice that there are two later Amendments in his name, one dealing with line 19 and one dealing with line 39, which seem to be on essentially the same point. Perhaps he would agree, though he did not mention them, that I might comprehend them in my remarks.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am much obliged. I am sure that it will be for the convenience of the Committee if we followed that course.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): Does the noble Lord wish to withdraw his Amendment?
Lord TREFGARNE: Indeed, not; I am waiting for the noble Lord to reply to the Amendment.
Lord ORAM: And I am about to give that reply. I am not sure whether the noble Lord has taken the opportunity to reconsider these Amendments in the light of the Amendments to Clause 4 which were adopted by the Committee.
Lord TREFGARNE: The noble Lord is clearly trying to help me. I have considered the impact of the earlier Amendments upon my Amendments. It is fair to say that my resolution on these Amendments may have weakened somewhat since the passage of the earlier Amendments moved by my noble friend. However, I have moved this Amendment and I cannot be sure that the earlier Amendments which were carried will not be reversed by the Commons or at a later stage here. I should like to hear the noble Lord's answer.
Lord ORAM: I accept that. I was not trying to avoid giving the answer. I was making the point that the three Amendments that the noble Lord has put before the Committee include definitions of the sea and major inland waterways which are now removed as a result of an earlier Amendment. He is quite right: we can still discuss the Amendments, and who knows what may happen in later stages of the Bill? Discussion may be very valuable. As they stand, the effect of Amendments Nos. 81 and 84, taken on their own, is uncertain. "Loading and unloading cargo" is simply a special and major case of "handling cargo", and much "work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo" is also covered by paragraphs 1, 2, 4 and 5 of this Schedule. However, the noble Lord clearly does not intend to single out this particular work, since he has also tabled an Amendment to restrict the definition of "cargo" to goods which are within 100 metres of the sea or a major inland waterway (Amendment No. 89). If that Amendment were passed, both Amendment No. 81 and Amendment No. 84 would be superfluous, since goods would not be cargo and work with them would not be classifiable if done more than 100 metres from the sea or a major inland waterway.
Lord TREFGARNE: The noble Lord is quite right. I thought it wise to give the noble Lord an alternative possibility of meeting a point I wanted to make.
Lord ORAM: I accept that the point I made was somewhat technical. I believe that it is helpful for the Government spokesman to make these technical points at an early stage. The main point is to discuss the effect of the Amendments, leaving aside drafting technicalities. In this connection, the Government's general argument as to why it is considered desirable for work to be classifiable anywhere within five miles of the mean high water mark was presented at an earlier stage. The Committee however took the view that a limit of half a mile from harbours, and excluding smaller harbours, was appropriate. These three Amendments would reduce the limit to a point where a great deal of work within the docks themselves—including work actually on board ship at many wharves in enclosed docks—would be excluded from classification. As has been made clear earlier, the half-mile limit is, in the Government's view, far too restrictive; a fortiori, therefore, a limit of 100 metres is even more defective. A limit of 100 metres would, as I have made clear, he unacceptable to the Government.
Lord TREFGARNE: I am obliged to the noble Lord. Knowing of the difficulty with which we persuaded the Committee to accept the requirement for a half-mile limit, I concede that it is going to be more difficult to persuade the noble Lord to accept readily in some cases 100 metres. I shall therefore need to reconsider this matter, particularly in the light of the earlier Amendments which have been passed, and consider what is going to be the effect of this new arrangement (which was not originally envisaged in the Bill) upon the operators of warehouses whose interests I am seeking to protect by means of these Amendments. I therefore beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 81.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.28 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 25, line 18, at end insert—

("(a) into or out of a ship or barge;

(b) into or out of a warehouse to or from
quayside or third party vehicle; or

(c) from or onto quayside to or from third
party vehicle.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is in the nature of a probe and also to ask

1199
the Government whether they consider that the mention of loading and unloading cargo by itself is sufficiently definitive. Many of us have had a lengthy study of Clause 7 of the Bill. It starts off by saying:
"This section applies to any work of loading … or unloading cargo from ships."
We looked for work which might be classified under Schedule 3 for some further definitions. We felt it was too vague. We have offered this particular Amendment because we felt it might be more apposite and more closely define what we believe the Bill should, and indeed tends to, define and mean by conventional loading and unloading of cargo:
"into or out of a ship or barge".
We understand that is very important in certain ports, such as the Port of London. Also:
"into or out of a warehouse to or from a quayside or third party vehicle"—
That is not freight being loaded into the owner's actual vehicle. Thirdly:
"from or onto quayside to or from a third party vehicle."
We felt this particular definition made the meaning of loading and unloading clearer. We seek the Government's views on this point. We did not seek to exclude anything but felt that the definition of loading and unloading was unnecessarily vague. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I understand the purpose that the noble Lord seeks to serve; that is, to get—as he sees it—a greater precision in the meaning of the words, "loading" and "unloading". But I think in seeking to get greater precision he would in fact make matters more obscure, as I shall try to explain. But may I first, as I did in an earlier Amendment, deal with certain technical objections, not seeking to advance them as being more than technical objections but they are worth putting on the record.
The practical effect which this Amendment would have is uncertain. "Loading and unloading cargo" is in fact comprehended within the phrase "handling cargo" in paragraph 1 of Schedule 3 although its special significance warrants a separate paragraph in the Schedule, particularly as it is used elsewhere in the Bill. The aim was to avoid any possible
1200
doubt about the matter because although one cannot load or unload cargo without also "handling" it, previous experience has shown the need for the greatest possible care in these matters. Certain court decisions about the definitions in the Dock Work (Regulation) Employment Act 1946 and labour schemes made under that Act were more restrictive than might have been expected and therefore the Government believed it right to put their intentions in this legislation beyond doubt. Since the phrase "handling cargo" would not be subject to the restriction in this Amendment, it is not thought that passing the Amendment would serve any useful purpose.
As I said, these are technical arguments, but the intentions underlying the Amendment also appear to be basically unsatisfactory. The three categories which the Amendment specifies, cover much of the work which might be described as "loading and unloading". There is of course no mention of a number of other important areas—loading or unloading on to or from conveyors or conveyor belts, timber pontoons or semi-immersible rafts, railway waggons or bulk liquid containers. There is no indication whether the Amendment intends the word, "barge"' to mean the same as, "lighter"; or whether the term, "vehicle" includes fork-lift trucks or straddle carriers not used on the public roads. It is a matter of great uncertainty whether the Amendment is seeking to include warehouses but exclude transit sheds, and include the quayside but exclude jetties, piers, wharfs or storage yards not on the quayside. These are points which I think illustrate what I said earlier; that is, in seeking greater precision the noble Lord may have raised all sorts of obscurities. But what seems to be clear is that the Amendment wishes to remove from the categories of classifiable work, loading and unloading of non-third-party vehicles.
This is presumably meant to cover the situation where goods and vehicles are in common ownership. If loading and unloading work were done on premises occupied by the business which owned the goods, then providing the work is done by employees of that business, it could not be classified as dock work because of paragraph 10 of Schedule 3. That would invariably be the case. But if the work is not done on such premises

1201
but on third-party premises such as a wharf or warehouse in a port or at a container groupage depot, then there seems to be no justification whatever for providing that the work should not be potentially classifiable as dock work. The loading and unloading into or out of third-party vehicles at that place would be classifiable and therefore it would be most unsatisfactory if the same operation on the same premises could, under no circumstances, be classifiable as dock work. The noble Lord said that he was probing for more information. I have given him a certain amount of information and I hope it is of the order of the information that he wanted. Perhaps some of it is a little complex to follow, but I hope he will read it and will return to the subject at a later stage.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord. If the noble Lord thinks that what he has said is complex, I beg him to wait until we come to another Amendment standing in my name later this evening, and then we really shall get down to some very complex chemical terms. The noble Lord said that he hoped to clear up some facts, but he has done just the opposite, in that he mentioned in paragraph 2 that "loading and unloading" cargo could be perfectly well categorised as handling cargo, movement of cargo by means of manpower, machinery or lighterage. So would it not be more convenient to say this? He said that it was necessary to have the loading and unloading of cargo as it now stands in the Schedule, and I think that that part of his argument was the least convincing. Nevertheless, the intentions behind this Amendment, as the noble Lord suggested—
Lord DRUMALBYN: I think my noble friend is about to withdraw his Amendment, but before he does so I should like to say a word about it. I do not know whether other noble Lords are finding the same difficulty in understanding this Bill. I have tried very hard but I should really like to know, in absolute total simplicity, what is expected here. Let us take the first point. If one can remove from a process a stage, that must be to the economic benefit of the country. In other words, if it is possible to remove one loading and unloading in the course of transport from a point,
1202
let us say, in this country to a point in Germany, that is valuable, and of course this is what containerisation and other methods are all about.
The first example that the noble Lord took may have led somewhat to my confusion. The first example was, I think, more or less the roll-on/roll-off example where goods are loaded outside the port and then go straight on to the ship. It would be difficult to argue that the original loading of the roll-on/roll-off was classifiable within the terms of the Bill. But what I am still not certain of, apart from the remarks that he made immediately after giving that example, is whether the loading that is within the cargo loading zone, or whatever we call it—the dock labour area—is counted as loading if the goods are loaded, let us say, at an inland cargo warehouse, then delivered on to the docks and then loaded from the docks into the ship. Is that first loading considered to be cargo loading or is the cargo loading only the loading from the docks on to the ships? I should have thought logically it should only be the latter, and I hope that that is so.
It is extremely important in considering this Bill that we should be absolutely clear as to what is intended, because I personally, have heard different interpretations in different places. Before we part from the Amendment, I think my noble friend has done a useful service in bring out into the open some of the difficulties inherent in the definitions in connection with this Bill.
Lord SOMERS: Surely some specified distance is necessary because the mere loading and unloading of cargo, as the noble Lord points out, may be by a third party vehicle. Incidentally, I venture to suggest that a railway truck is a vehicle. What happens when it gets to the other end of its journey? It is the same cargo and will have to be unloaded, but will not be subject to the same restrictions.
Lord LYELL: So much has been pouring down on the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that I hope it may be in order to allow him to reply at this stage while the questions and the slings are still fresh in his mind. Perhaps I might then conclude.
Lord ORAM: Since the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, was about to withdraw his

1203
Amendment, I was anxious not to interrupt him unduly. If I may refer to the last intervention by the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I do not think that distance is involved in this Amendment. It is more the nature of the loading and unloading operations that is under consideration. The noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, started off engagingly by suggesting that it is a good thing if we could make things one stage simpler. As a general proposition I would not dispute that at all. But it is my experience that, so often when one tries to do that, there is some complication lurking somewhere else which rushes in and what seemed a commendable operation in making it simpler in fact introduces complications. I think there may be something in that here.
As I explained towards the end of my earlier remarks, the Amendment would differentiate in the wrong sort of way between third party and non-third party vehicles, and operations taking place in different vehicles in the same location, doing essentially the same kind of work, would be treated differently as a result of the acceptance of this Amendment. With reference to the specific case given by the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, frankly I would prefer to take advice on that before committing myself to an answer. I see the significance of it, but if the noble Lord would agree, I should like an opportunity of looking at it in closer detail. Perhaps I can write to the noble Lord on that point.
Lord DRUMALBYN: That is very good of the noble Lord.
Lord LYELL: I, too, am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for his remarks and for the fact that he has answered the questions. I hope he will agree that valid points have been raised. The noble Lord said the more we try to define the Bill, the more difficulties there are. I hope he will accept that there are very many difficulties already as the Bill is drafted. The noble Lord himself spoke of differentiating in the wrong sort of way. We hope that there will be no question that we are differentiating in one way or another. We are seeking clarification. I hope there are no base or wrong motives behind differentiating.
We are seeking clarification because there is a great deal of confusion, as I
1204
think the noble Lord accepts. On the other hand, the noble Lord made a very full intervention before we had the admirable intervention of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn who always seeks clarification, and I believe adds a great deal to the clarification of measures such as this. I think I must take the opportunity to read what the noble Lord, Lord Oram, has said, but on this occasion I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Baroness Wootton of Abinger): I have to call the attention of the Committee to the fact that if the next Amendment, No. 83, is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 84.
6.45 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 83:
Page 25, line 19, leave out paragraph 3.
The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very much in line with Amendment No. 82 to which I spoke, and which I withdrew. I believe it is a question of work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo. I believe this is, I will not say unnecessarily vague, but many of the arguments I put to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, in connection with somewhat loose phraseology are applicable here, particularly in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargoes. I will not go into all the different types of transport, such as fork lift trucks. I think the noble Lord mentioned sledges. I am sure we can find a different means of transport in every different locality we go to. Would the noble Lord accept that we still find this a little vague, and I am wondering what the noble Lord can give us on this.
Viscount SIMON: When the noble Lord, Lord Oram, replies, could he comment on my feeling that this clause is extraordinarily widely drawn? It would surely include people working in the accounts office. They are doing work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo. I do not think they are meant to be be included, but it seems to me that the wording is quite extraordinarily wide.
Lord ORAM: I welcome the opportunity afforded by the noble Lord, Lord

1205
Lyell, and the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, to clear up some points in this connection. The paragraph is necessary to enable work which is not actual handling, loading or unloading, and is not in the specific categories mentioned in paragraphs (4) and (5) to be classified when appropriate. There is a range of miscellaneous and ancillary work which it may clearly be appropriate and convenient for dockworkers to do in certain cases and which do not directly involve the handling, loading or unloading of cargo at various places under the existing Scheme definitions. For example, registered dockworkers undertake sampling; they clean and sweep quays; they clean out railway wagons; they rope and sheet cargo on quays and in warehouses and sheds; they saw pit props. These are some examples of the kind of work that noble Lords are inquiring about.
Clearly, this indicates that there is a variety of miscellaneous tasks directly ancillary to cargo handling which it may sometimes be appropriate to classify. If the paragraph were excluded from the Bill, the effect would be to exclude from classification work both in ports and outside them which in many cases it might be appropriate to classify.
I come now to the point raised by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon. It is true that this paragraph, taken by itself, possibly could be interpreted in the way that the noble Viscount suggested; that is, to mean that all types of work carried out in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo was work which could be classified as dock work. Taken by itself, this could mean not merely all clerical work, but also that of managers, company accountants, solicitors, or even, perhaps, the chairman. But the point I would like to draw attention to is that there are prima facie grounds in Clause 8(4) for restricting work which may be classified to work done in substitution for work previously done by registered dockworkers or work which is such as to require training, aptitudes and experience the same as or similar to those of registered dockworkers. I can see the noble Viscount is nodding his head, and I think he would agree with me, therefore, that accountancy and similar tasks would clearly be ruled out by the provisions of Clause 8(4), as would the great majority of clerical work.
Lord LYELL: Once again we are very grateful to the noble Lord for attempting—I think this time he has gone a lot further—to relieve our fears so far as this is concerned. He mentioned other skills; I think he mentioned accountants, lawyers and others, and I think we shall be discussing those other skills later on. I hope the noble Lord will accept that we are a little worried about the vague phraseology. We accept that it is "Work which may be classified". The noble Lord said there were many different tasks; I think he mentioned cleaning out holds, some jobs on ships and on lorries and railway wagons. In this context we accept that sometimes registered dockworkers will do these jobs and in other cases there will be non-registered dockworkers who may happen to be on the quayside; they may be lorry drivers or employees connected with third-party vehicles.
But we believe that there is a certain amount of apprehension when such very varied tasks are categorised under work which may be classified. This is what gives rise to a great deal of the confusion. This is why we are seeking further clarification, so that workers who are likely to be engaged in the tasks the noble Lord mentioned will know exactly what their job prospects will be, whether their work is likely to be classified, and hence they will have to become registered dockworkers or will be unable to continue doing work which they do, perhaps sometimes, perhaps all the time, perhaps 75 per cent. of the time, and the other 25 per cent. of the time it is done by registered dockworkers.
Will the noble Lord accept that there is a great deal of confusion and fear, certainly in our minds, and I am sure in the minds of many of these workers whose work may be classified. It is this which makes us ask for further clarification. Nevertheless, the noble Lord has made a very kind attempt to clarify this particular paragraph, and having said that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
6.54 p.m.
Lord TREFGARNE Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 25, line 20, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: I beg to move

1207
Amendment No. 85 to delete paragraph 4 of Part I. I think that these particular tasks cannot be claimed, like the others, to be traditional dock workers' work. "Sorting, checking and recording cargo"; I do not really think one can envisage dockers, as they are colloquially called, doing that sort of work. "Recording the time spent in handling, loading or unloading cargo"; I do not think these are typical tasks of what we should call registered dock workers. I am not going to go through all the arguments again, but I believe that, if the noble Lord, Lord Oram, wishes to counter this proposal, he will have to deploy some different arguments from the ones we have heard.
Lord ORAM: I shall try to do just that. This paragraph is intended principally to enable classification, where appropriate, of the work of those who are generally known as tally clerks, and such work is at present done by registered dock workers at some Scheme ports and not at others. Tally clerks are, for example, generally registered in London but not in Liverpool. Those at Liverpool and other Scheme ports are known to want to be brought within the Scheme.
This is clearly, therefore, work of a kind which it should be possible to consider—I stress the word "consider"—for classification, because what is often an artificial distinction between registered and non-registered dockers performing basically the same jobs can lead to damaging demarcation and other industrial relations problems. I think that these words are necessary in order that this kind of work can be carefully considered before the Scheme is drawn up. I do not need to remind the noble Lord that this also is an area which has brought forward a number of disputes, and in order that they should be avoided in the future I hope he will agree that these are necessary words and will agree to withdraw his Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I fully accept what the noble Lord says about the tally clerks. But I am a little puzzled—I do not know whether he can give us any further clarification—about "recording the time spent in handling, loading or unloading cargo". In most industrial enterprises, people who record the time spent on operations are
1208
very unpopular. I imagine people standing there with stop watches seeing how long it takes to unload a particular cargo. I do not know what is behind this.
Lord ORAM: I think I can offer a little help. At one port at least, Liverpool—which is an important consideration—one of the jobs undertaken by tally clerks is to record the time spent by individual employees in loading and unloading and other work of handling cargo for the purpose of calculating pay. This job would clearly not be covered by the words, "sorting, checking and recording cargo"; so it was felt necessary to add the words the noble Viscount mentions.
Viscount SIMON: I am much obliged.
Lord TREFGARNE: I was, of course, aware that the words in this paragraph 4 covered those persons known as tally clerks, and I think I was also aware that in the Port of London, at least, tally clerks are registered dockworkers. My fear was that the types of work specified in paragraph 4, taken with paragraph 3, would cause some difficulty; that is, if the work specified in paragraph 4 was classified and took place inside warehouses. I am not going to pursue the point now. I shall need to consider this matter more carefully and consult with those people who are specifically interested in this point and perhaps return to the matter at the next stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord STRABOLGI: This may be a good moment to interrupt the Committee in order to take other business. It is proposed, subject to the completion of the other business, that the Committee should reassemble at 7.45. if that is acceptable to your Lordships. I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

SEXUAL OFFENCES (SCOTLAND) BILL [H.L.]
Read 3a, and passed, and sent to the Commons.

HOUSING (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
7.1 p.m.
The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett)The MINISTER of STATE, NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICE (Lord Melchett) rose to move, That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 27th September, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, before I deal with the proposals in the draft order, I should like to go into a little detail about the appalling housing problems which exist in Northern Ireland. These problems are very serious indeed and have been described in detail in the Northern Ireland Housing Condition Survey and the Northern Ireland Household Survey. Many of the housing problems existed before the disturbances of the last few years, but they have been greatly aggravated by recent violence.
Nearly 40 per cent. of the housing stock in Northern Ireland needs to be replaced or is in urgent need of repair and improvement: this is almost twice the percentage in Great Britain. Some 17 per cent. of households are overcrowded. The worst conditions are to be found in the inner areas of Belfast and in rural areas in the West of Northern Ireland. In Belfast, 31,000 houses need to be replaced, 17,000 need urgent repairs and 15,500 require improvement to modern standards. In County Fermanagh no fewer than 41 per cent. of the houses are unfit. Nearly half of the privately rented houses in Northern Ireland are unfit and 7 out of 10 lack at least one basic amenity. The civil disturbances have involved damage to around 25,000 homes; there has been a massive movement of populations; some areas of quite reasonable housing have fallen into dereliction or are in serious decline. These are grave problems which demand new and strong measures specially tailored for Northern Ireland. This draft order is one of the measures which the Government will be bringing forward over the coming months.
The intention to prepare this new legislation was announced in December 1974. Since then there has been a considerable amount of detailed discussion with the Housing Executive, which is the sole public housing authority in Northern Ireland; with the Housing Council which consists of one representative from each of the district councils; with the voluntary
1210
housing movement; and with many other bodies. The proposal for the draft order was published at the beginning of June this year and was widely welcomed in Northern Ireland. There has, therefore, been a lengthy period of consultation before this draft order was laid before Parliament.
The draft order contains four major proposals. First, Parts II, III and IV of the draft order deal with housing associations. These Parts consolidate the existing Northern Ireland law with respect to housing associations and introduce in Northern Ireland broadly the same grants and controls which the Housing Act 1974 introduced in Great Britain. Housing associations have not played a major role in the past in Northern Ireland, partly because the available financial assistance was inadequate. The Government are keen to see their role expand, expecially in catering for special groups like the elderly and handicapped, and in enlisting local community action in tackling rehabilitation of existing homes. The major difference between Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be that the Department of the Environment for Northern Ireland will carry out the functions which the Housing Corporation exercises in Great Britain. The Department will, however, be working closely with the Northern Ireland Committee of the National Federation of Housing Associations. Otherwise, the provisions in the draft order about registration and control of housing associations and about housing association grant, revenue deficit grant and hostel deficit grant follow very closely the Housing Act 1974.
As in Great Britain only associations registered with the Department will be eligible for loans and grants. Broadly, the same criteria for registration will apply in Northern Ireland. Tenants in housing association houses will be eligible for rent rebates, and the rents to be charged by housing associations will be determined by the Department of the Environment, whose policy will be to ensure that such rents are similar to those charged by the Housing Executive. The Department will have extensive powers to deal with associations which do not operate properly. I believe that these provisions are a new charter for the voluntary housing movement in Northern Ireland and that we can look forward to

1211
housing associations making a significant contribution over the coming years.
The second major proposal in the draft order is contained in Part V which enables the Housing Executive to declare housing action areas. These will be relatively small areas of existing housing where urgent action is needed to deal with both housing and social stress. Again, the provisions follow closely the equivalent provisions in the Housing Act 1974. It is not, however, intended to have general improvement areas or priority neighbourhoods in Northern Ireland, mainly because of the relatively high number of housing action areas which will have to be tackled. Many of the areas, particularly in Belfast, which will be given housing action area status, are areas where there are a large number of vacant and vandalised houses. The Housing Executive's task will therefore involve urgent action over a five-year period: first, to improve the condition of the housing stock; second, to encourage people to return to these areas; and, third, to encourage existing house owners to upgrade their homes. The speed at which progress can be made in many areas will depend to a large extent on a reduction in the level of violence. A number of pilot rehabilitation areas have already been identified and work has started on acquiring and improving houses. I hope, therefore, that if Parliament approves this draft order, a number of housing action areas can be declared very quickly and thus help to save many houses from further decline.
The third major proposal is contained in Part VI which proposes the introduction of a new structure of grants for house renovation. Again, these grants—repair, intermediate and improvement—are based on those introduced in Great Britain by the Housing Act 1974. There are, however, two very important differences, both of which we believe are warranted by the problems of disrepair and the absence of basic amenities in the housing stock in Northern Ireland. The first difference is that the grants will be payable at 75 per cent. of the eligible expense, as against 50 per cent. in Great Britain, with provision to pay up to 90 per cent. in cases of special hardship in housing action areas. The second difference is that the repair grant will apply throughout North-
1212
ern Ireland and not just in housing action and general improvement areas as it does in Great Britain. There are provisions to prevent abuse of the grants and to direct grants to those in greatest need. For example, applicants for improvement and intermediate grant will have to sign certificates of future owner-occupation or of availability for letting and all the grants will only be available in respect of property below prescribed valuation levels. The Government look to these grants to provide a substantial stimulus to individuals to take action to solve their own housing needs.
The fourth major proposal is contained in Part VII, which would give the Housing Executive new powers to take more effective action to deal with unoccupied premises. These are special provisions which have been made necessary by the civil disturbances in Northern Ireland. As I indicated earlier, many thousands of houses have been damaged by explosions, petrol bombs, and vandalism. These houses are frequently left vacant and have to be bricked-up to prevent further vandalism or to protect adjoining property. The people living nearby become unhappy about remaining in the area and start to leave; often they cannot readily sell or rent their homes, and so these houses too become vacant, are vandalised or are bricked-up; with quite alarming speed, an area can decay. In many of these areas, the Housing Executive has been trying to arrest and reverse this slide, but the normal processes of finding the owner of a house and negotiating a price take far too long in circumstances where action needs to be taken in days and weeks rather than months.
Article 66 will give the Executive new powers to ensure that, where necessary, unoccupied premises are secured or demolished. More important are the provisions in Articles 63 to 65, which will enable the Executive to take possession of, and repair and let, an unoccupied house. The Executive will have to be satisfied that the owner is unable or unwilling to occupy or let the house. The Executive must, within a month of taking possession, apply for an order to compulsorily acquire the property. The owner will, of course, be able to object to the compulsory purchase of the house and will be entilted to proper compensation if it is acquired. The Government

1213
are satisfied that these powers are needed to help tackle the sad housing conditions in parts of Northern Ireland, but we accept that the unusual powers in Part VII should lapse after five years unless renewed by order.
I have sought to identify the key points in this draft order, but, as noble Lords know, it is a sizeable document of 80 Articles and six Schedules, and I shall be glad to try to answer any questions or to explain in more detail any points which are not clear. The Government are determined to give a very high priority to improving housing conditions in Northern Ireland and we regard such an improvement as an important ingredient in establishing greater stability in the community. This draft order should permit significant progress to be made by encouraging the voluntary housing movement and by enabling more effective action to be taken to preserve the existing housing stock. I commend the order to the House.
Moved, That the draft Housing (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 27th September, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)
7.12 p.m.
Lord BELSTEAD: My Lords, I believe that this is the first piece of Northern Ireland business that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, has dealt with in your Lordships' House. I am grateful to him for the clear way in which he has explained this long and complicated order and I hope it will not be too long before he will be able to cast off the shackles of the Aircraft and Shipbuilding Industries Bill and be able to concentrate on his job in Northern Ireland.
I welcome the order especially for the provisions relating to the voluntary housing movement. I believe I am right in claiming that in Great Britain voluntary housing associations have been producing about 15 per cent. of new housing. The noble Lord said that the Government are keen to see the voluntary movement expand in Northern Ireland and he referred to the provisions in the order as a new charter for the voluntary movement in the Province. Clearly, there is an opportunity in Northern Ireland for the voluntary housing association movement to move along the same lines as if
1214
has done in Great Britain. Perhaps the noble Lord can say at what level the Department of the Environment in Northern Ireland believes that grants will be made to voluntary associations under Part IV of the order.
I should also like to welcome the provisions in Part V which deal with the housing action areas and which the noble Lord explained in some detail, and I was particularly glad that he said that the housing action areas, or some of them, are to be designated very soon. Lord Melchett mentioned the Housing Conditions Survey which was published just over 18 months ago and which I remember showed one in five of the total stock of houses in Northern Ireland as statutorily unfit compared with less than one in ten in England and Wales. The noble Lord considerably amplified that piece of information which I had, and I must say that what he said in that part of his speech gives one cause to be deeply concerned and to realise that the order is most necessary.
It is fair to claim that in the last few years housing policy in Northern Ireland has been to try to build as quickly as possible new houses on new sites, and of course in the process many older houses have deteriorated seriously. I am aware that the Housing Executive is now concentrating more on redevelopment and housing improvement, and perhaps the noble Lord can say what sort of level of expenditure the Department envisages to finance the powers of the Housing Executive under Part V and, so far as it may be relevant, Part VI of the order.
There must surely be encouragement, as much encouragement as possible, of owner occupation in Northern Ireland if housing policy is to be really successful, and I think that that was implicit in what the noble Lord said. I believe that the number of new houses built in the Province fell from 7,500 in 1971 to only 5,000 in 1975 and it would be interesting to know whether the total housing stock in Northern Ireland is now increasing or decreasing. It was very welcome, I thought, when last January the then Secretary of State, Mr. Merlyn Rees, announced that he would not reduce the amount of money available for the home loans scheme for people unable to get loans from building societies. In this

1215
context, I should be interested to know what is the take-up of mortgages in Northern Ireland this year and whether people have difficulty in obtaining loans for houses in particular areas where terrorism is especially prevalent.
The fourth major proposal with which Lord Melchett dealt was Part VIII, dealing with unoccupied premises, and the noble Lord will soon be becoming much more familiar than are many of your Lordships with the appalling tragedy in Northern Ireland where, despite all the efforts of the Housing Executive, one finds areas of housing, to which Lord Melchett referred, where the houses are bricked up, where nobody dare go and where very often gradually the tide of bricked-up houses creeps more and more in a particular direction, according to which sectarian movement is the stronger in that area. One can only hope that such movements as the women's peace movement will have some success now in Northern Ireland because, whatever the provisions of this order may be, this problem to which I have attempted to refer is, I suppose, the most deeply ingrained in the whole of Northern Ireland. If, while Lord Melchett is working there, he and his colleagues and his Secretary of State can do something to overcome this intractable problem, they will have earned the gratitude of everybody in the British Isles.
7.18 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Belstead, for his welcome of the order which, I think it is fair to say, has received a fairly unanimous welcome throughout Northern Ireland. I certainly share his enthusiasm for the potential which the voluntary housing movement has in Northern Ireland and I share his hope that it will play a very significant part in future in the Province. The noble Lord asked me about the level of grants payable under Part VI. The grants will be higher than those available in Great Britain; 75 per cent. of eligible expense, with provision for up to 90 per cent. in cases of special need in housing action areas. That compares with 50 per cent. up to 75 per cent. in Great Britain.
On the question of expenditure, to which the noble Lord referred, the main items of
1216
expenditure under the order will be, first, the grants from the Department of the Environment to housing associations under Part IV; secondly, the Housing Executive's costs on acquiring and improving houses, in housing action areas and on environmental works, which will arise under Part V; thirdly, the Housing Executive's costs in paying repair, intermediate and improvement grants under Part VI; and, fourthly, the Executive's costs in dealing with unoccupied premises, which arise under the final part of the order, Part VII. All the Executive's costs will in effect be recouped by the Department. The expenditure on these items depends to a large extent on the response to the new incentives by housing associations and private owners of private property and, as I said in my opening speech, we hope that one of the effects of the order will be to encourage people to repair and look after their own homes to a greater extent than has been the case in the past.
The total current public expenditure in Northern Ireland on new house building, housing subsidies, grants to housing associations and action to improve the existing housing stock is in the region of £150 million a year. The balance will shift and is shifting marginally over the coming years largely from new building to action on existing stock. As the noble Lord said, and it is clear from the short time I have been able to spend in Northern Ireland, gradually the expenditure on new housing that has gone on in recent years may have been somewhat to the detriment of the existing housing stock. It is the Government's desire to see that emphasis shifts slightly over the coming year.
Under Part IV there is no prescribed percentage grant for housing associations. As in Great Britain the housing association grant will be calculated on the basis of the net cost of each project. Under Part V the Department will meet the Executive's costs in housing action areas and the noble Lord might like to know that the financial relationship between the Government and the Executive is in the process of being altered and a draft order will be laid before Parliament in the new year.
The noble Lord also asked me about the housing stock. There are around 460,000 houses in Northern Ireland. Completions in 1973 were 10,557, in 1974 10,073 and

1217
in 1975 8,919; so there was a slight drop in 1975. Completions for 1976 are I understand, likely to be up again in the region of 9,000 houses. Comprehensive information about the number of houses lost from the housing stock is not available and would be very difficult to acquire. But the annual figure is believed to be well below the number of new houses built each year, so actual loss from the housing stock is not overtaking the number of houses built.
The noble Lord also asked about mortgages. Building societies have been reluctant to lend on older houses and in areas which have been badly affected by civil disturbance. The Housing Executive administers a home loans scheme, to which the noble Lord referred, designed to help people who cannot get a loan from a building society. The Executive has lent £22 million to date. Since the beginning of this year the Executive has had about £600,000 available for lending, and I understand that this is proving to be adequate to meet the demand which I think the noble Lord would agree is quite encouraging.
My Lords, on the final point which the noble Lord made, I entirely agree with him that a lot of the serious problems of unoccupied housing and the fact that that can creep from one area to another will only be solved if the civil disturbances come to an end. I agree with him that we all hope that the feeling which is epitomised in the women's movement for peace in Northern Ireland continues to have what I think everyone would agree is already a very good effect on the problems in the Province.

FIREARMS (AMENDMENT) (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1976
7.24 p.m.
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th August, be approved. The noble Lord said: My Lords, this Order-in-Council amends the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969 by raising certain maximum penalties on indictment for offences related to the illegal possession of firearms. The order was made on 17th August 1976 under the procedure provided for by paragraph 1(4)(b) of
1218
Schedule 1 to the Northern Ireland Act 1974 under which, for reasons of urgency, an order can be made without a draft having been approved by a Resolution of each House of Parliament, subject to subsequent approval by Resolution of each House within a prescribed period. In another place, my right honourable friend the Attorney-General announced on 2nd July 1976 that, on examination of the penalties prescribed by the Firearms Act (Northern Ireland) 1969, it was considered that some were quite inadequate and should be increased.
Three particular offences are affected by this order: first, carrying a loaded firearm in a public place; second, trespassing with a firearm in a building; and, third, possessing a firearm or ammunition in suspicious circumstances. The maximum penalties on indictment for these offences are now doubled from five years to 10 years.
I do not need to remind noble Lords of the considerable extent to which the carrying of illegal firearms contributes to the violence in Northern Ireland. It is often the case that the only offences for which people carrying illegal firearms can be charged when apprehended are offences under the Firearms Act, and this is why we feel it is necessary to increase the maximum penalties laid down in this Act.
The Government's policy, as noble Lords will know, is to deal with anyone committing a criminal offence in Northern Ireland through the courts. Under these circumstances it is essential that penalties which the courts can impose should be kept constantly under review, and adjusted if necessary. That is what we are doing here. The penalties not affected by this order are considered adequate. A number were increased as recently as last year in the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1975.
At a time when people are dying almost daily as a result of the illegal use of firearms, noble Lords will I am sure appreciate the need for this order, and the reasons why it was made without a draft being previously laid before them for approval.
My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the Firearms (Amendment) (Northern Ireland) Order 1976, laid before the House on 18th August, be approved.—(Lord Melchett.)

INDUSTRIAL COMMON OWNERSHIP BILL
7.27 p.m.
Report received.
Clause 1 [Grants and loans]:
Lord MELCHETT Lord MELCHETT moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 19, leave out from ("enterprises") to end of clause.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, back to my old hat again! During the Committee stage on this Bill an Amendment in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Seear and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was accepted by your Lordships' House after a Division. The effect of the Amendment was to delete the requirement that the relevant body mentioned in the Bill must include among its members one or more representatives of trades unions. In its place was inserted a requirement that the body must include one or more representatives of employees of existing common ownership enterprises. This Amendment in my name would delete all reference to membership of the relevant body. In moving this Amendment I should like to make clear that I in no way accept the arguments put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, or the noble Baroness, Lady Seear, or indeed of noble Lords on the Conservative Benches during the Committee stage in your Lordships' House, nor indeed during the Committee stage in another place, for deleting the reference to representatives of the trades unions.
It is still the Government's view that if the relevant body is to function efficiently and workpeople's interests are to be properly represented, it must include such a person among its membership and that this should be specified in the Bill. Nevertheless, I recognise that it is the wish of this House that the reference to trade union representation should be omitted, and in view of the pressures on the timetable and because we are all in favour of the general principles of the Bill and have no wish to see it fall through default, I do not attempt in this House to reinstate the original wording. But I cannot of course rule out the possibility that attempts may be made to do this in another place.
In any case, the present wording as inserted in the Bill at the Committee stage in this House has two substantial defects.
First, it relates only to employees of existing common ownership enterprises and makes no mention of co-operative enterprises, although the "relevant body" must be one which has the purpose of encouraging the development of both common ownership enterprises and co-operative enterprises. This means that a body concerned solely with encouraging the development of co-operative enterprises cannot qualify as a "relevant body", unless it can include among its membership at least one representative of an existing common ownership enterprise.
It would be inappropriate for an organisation with the sole aim of encouraging the development of co-operatives to include such a person among its membership but, unless it does so, the Secretary of State will not be able to make grants or loans to it under the provision because the body could not be classed as a "relevant body". The present wording clearly discriminates against co-operative enterprises. I am sure that this is not what was intended by the proposers of the Amendment or by those who voted for it. Nevertheless, the Amendment has that unfortunate effect.
There is one other smaller flaw in the present wording, in that it almost certainly ensures—again, no doubt, inadvertently—that there would be some considerable and unnecessary delay before the provisions of the Bill could come into force. This is because, before the Secretary of State can recognise a "relevant body", it must, as the Bill is now drafted, include among its members one or more representatives of existing common ownership enterprises. The definition of a "common ownership enterprise" appears in Clause 2(1) and lays down that this is a body that has been granted a certificate by the Registrar of Friendly Societies that certain conditions have been satisfied. Such a certificate cannot be granted until after the Bill has become law and the Registrar has considered applications made to him. This will undoubtedly take some time and would involve delay before the Secretary of State could recognise a "relevant body" and consider making any grants or loans even for the purpose of assisting the advisory function.
The difficulty really is that we have put the cart before the horse in the Amendment because we had always envisaged that the advisory executive of the body

1221
would be set up almost immediately upon the Bill's receiving Royal Assent so that it could help existing new common ownership enterprises and co-operative enterprises to go to the Registrar and obtain registration under the Bill. Unfortunately, that will not be possible until somebody has obtained registration and has been put on the advisory body. Again, I am sure that this was not an intentional effect of the Amendment, but I believe that it would complicate setting matters in motion once the Bill gets Royal Assent.
For those reasons, the Government consider it essential that the clause should be amended as I have suggested in Amendment No. 1. The proposal removes any element of discretion from the Secretary of State in considering whether or not to recognise "a relevant body". If the body appears to him to have been constituted for the purpose of encouraging the development of common ownership enterprises or co-operative enterprises, he will be obliged to accept that it is "relevant" regardless of its membership or organisation. However, the Secretary of State will not be obliged to grant or lend money to an unsuitable body. His discretion under subsections (1) and (2) remains and, before funding the relevant body, it would again be necessary to consider whether its membership was sufficiently broad and encompassed the necessary expertise to carry on efficiently the responsibilities envisaged by the Bill.
I am sure that, in assessing the suitability of a relevant body to receive grants or loans, the Secretary of State will wish to ensure that the membership in fact includes a representative of trade unions. As I made it clear when discussing the Amendment at the Committee stage, I know that that will be the wish of those involved in setting up the relevant body and of those involved in existing common ownership bodies and in supporting and encouraging new common ownership enterprises.
As I said at the start, the Government would prefer to reinstate the original wording requiring trade union representation on the body, but it might well be that, if the Bill returned to another place as a contentious piece of legislation, it would fall for lack of time. As I have made clear throughout the passage of
1222
the Bill through your Lordships' House, this is a Private Member's Bill but it has the support of the Government. Frankly, I am not prepared to put its chances of reaching the Statute Book in jeopardy because of Party political point scoring. If we can find time in another place, we shall of course seek to reinstate the Bill as it came to your Lordships' House but, if time cannot be found, the present Amendment will ensure that the Bill will reach the Statute Book in a sensible form, and I commend it to your Lordships. I beg to move.
7.36 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE: My Lords, I am very pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, is moving this Amendment, particularly because it takes the provision back to what was proposed on my original Amendment which I withdrew saying that I would return to it at Report. I take the points that the noble Lord has raised. I appreciate his unhappiness, but nothing in life is perfect, as we shall see as well on the next Amendment. Clearly, there must be a considerable amount of give and take in this area. I am slightly surprised that the noble Lord said that this might be changed in another place if time is found, because he assured me that time could not be found. I hope, therefore, that I do not detect a change of heart on this point.
We, of course, supported the Liberal Amendment when it was proposed but as I said when speaking in Committee, I feel that our Amendment is the cleaner and I believe that this has been borne out by what the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, said. I am only too anxious that the Bill should have a speedy passage and I hope that it will not be changed at a later date.
Lord WIGODER: My Lords, I suppose that I have heard an Amendment moved less graciously, but I find it difficult to recall when. The position is perfectly simple: there was found by a substantial majority of your Lordships' House to be a phrase in the original Bill that was thoroughly obnoxious. Two Amendments were put down, one in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, and another in the name of the Liberal Party. We made it perfectly clear in Committee that we slightly preferred our

1223
Amendment to the Conservative Amendment, but that we were prepared to support the latter if ours was not thought to he marginally better.
What the noble Lord now seeks to do is to remove the Liberal Amendment and substitute the Conservative Amendment. Entirely consistently with what we said in Committee, we accept the position and fully support the Bill and the principles behind it. I have made that perfectly clear and we have no intention whatever of taking any steps at this stage to prejudice the Bill's passage on to the Statute Book this Session. Therefore, we do not oppose the Amendment. In all the circumstances I can only add that I should have liked to say, but unfortunately am not able to, that we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, for his courtesy in notifying us of his intentions to table this Amendment before he did so.
Lord LEE of NEWTON: My Lords, I do not want to make too wide an issue of this as we are discussing a small, though very useful, Bill. However, when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, suggests that my noble friend was not very gracious in introducing the Amendment, I must say that for my part, I do not feel very gracious about the manner in which the noble Lord referred to the contents of the Bill when discussing the Liberal Amendment. I should like to put it in this way: the function of a trade union has always been to look after the best interests of its members.
In my young days in the trade union movement one had to fight hard to get trade union recognition. But the coming of more power carried with it more responsibility. Therefore we have spent some years of our lives trying to get recognition within trade union movement that they must move further than merely to argue that their job is to safeguard the best interests of their members and that managerial problems are for managment to solve. That was the straight, simple issue.
I know that in a small Bill of this kind it can even be said that the trade union movement has not displayed a great amount of interest in this kind of thing. On the other hand, if we are to see Amendments carried which deliberately delete the mention of a trade union
1224
representative, I can visualise some trade union members saying, "All right, if our services in management are not required we will revert to where we were and we will deem our job to be simply to improve the rates of pay and conditions of employment of our people"; because what we are here discussing, when all is said and done, is the acceptance of trade union representatives on what are virtually boards of management.
I do not want to go too widely with this. But it goes a little against the grain with people like myself, and very many of my colleagues, who believe that our work has not been in vain in getting trade unions to a point at which they accept a very wide degree of responsibility, which a few years ago would have been unthinkable—indeed the Social Contract itself exemplifies the manner in which they have moved from their previous position—when we see Amendments to delete the name of a trade union representative. As I said, some time ago they would not have permitted the name of a trade union representative to be on it. If we are to have that kind of thing, which I thought was a very retrograde step indeed, then we must not be too surprised if the speed that has been made in obtaining a responsible attitude in areas over which they now have great power becomes eroded. I am pleased that there is to be no attempt to resurrect the Liberal Amendment, and I commend the Amendment as it is to the House.
Clause 2 [Common Ownership enterprises and co-operative enterprises]:
7.43 p.m.
Lord REDESDALE Lord REDESDALE moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 2, line 38, after ("description") insert ("which do not discriminate between persons by reference to politics or religion").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, we were subjected on the last Amendment to a whole lot and, of course, I could not reply. I had no sympathy for the noble Lord's remarks; in fact, I thought they did something to destroy the good will existing on this Bill and what was happening. I deplore very much what he was saying, because it did not really apply all the way along the line. However, as I said earlier, nothing in life is perfect.

1225
I was prepared to go along and I still try to offer good will and I am not sure the noble Lord, Lord Melchett, does on this point. I am showing good will on this Amendment, in that I am not entirely happy with it, I must confess. Perhaps it is ironic to move an Amendment which one is not happy with, but I hope it is acceptable to the noble Lord. I would have preferred to have taken out the words "of any other description". However, I accept that that is not perfect, taking those words out, in the Amendment that I did originally propose. This one is not perfect either but it does go a long way towards meeting my particular worries on this, which were mainly of politics or religion. Therefore I will go along with this particular wording.
I hope it is not thought that I am being ungracious in moving this Amendment. I would not do this, and I repeat, as I said earlier, that I wish this Bill a speedy passage and I hope it is not changed in any way, because if it was going to be changed I think I might have to come back to my original Amendment on it. But I have accepted this wording, as I say, because I felt that if it is to go through, and to go through on the nod, this is the way to do it. Consequently, my Lords, I hope graciously, I move this Amendment.
Lord MELCHETT: My Lords, I would not accuse anybody of moving the Amendment ungraciously and I entirely accept that the noble Lord moved it with very great grace indeed. During the Committee stage debate on 28th September I undertook to reconsider the point of principle at stake at this point in the Bill which is, broadly, whether or not the expression "other factors of any description" goes too wide. Fears have been expressed on a number of occasions, both in your Lordships' House during the Committee stage and also in another place, that this drafting opens the door to unfair and undesirable discrimination, and that it might constitute an unfortunate precedent for future legislation. The noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, mentioned in particular the two factors which he has now covered in his Amendment, discrimination on grounds of politics or religion, and he gave us the unfortunate and unthinkable example of someone being discriminated against on the grounds that he was a member of the Conservative Party, which of course none of us could
1226
possibly imagine happening in any circumstances whatsoever.
My Lords, as I say, I promised to have a further look at the point to take account of the views expressed in this House and in another place. Having done so, I am bound to say that, on legal advice, I remain unconvinced that objectively the dangers that have been seen by noble Lords are very real or very significant. The Government still feel, and are advised, that a general formula in the clause is preferable to the alternative of specifying a number of factors, since it is virtually impossible to determine in advance for all circumstances the sort of factor which would be reasonable in each individual case.
I merely make that point as it has been the advice I have offered your Lordships' House and which my honourable friend offered in another place, and which stays the same. However, I recognise the very real fears that have been expressed and which are met by the noble Lord's Amendment. I make the point again that this is not a Government Bill, it is a Private Member's Bill, and my understanding—my noble friend Lord Lee will be able to confirm whether I have this right—is that in this part of the Bill the Bill's sponsors are aiming to put a statutory definition of the common ownership enterprise on the Statute Book. My understanding is that the sponsors are content to accept the amended definition, since this would remove an obstacle to the progress of the Bill.
It is in the spirit, I hope, of reasonable compromise that the Government are prepared to recognise the force of the anxieties—the very real anxieties, I accept—which have been expressed. As I see it, the Amendment has the very real advantage that it retains a flexible general formula and at the same time excludes the right to make rules which discriminate on the two grounds about which the noble Lord, Lord Redesdale, has expressed most concern. Therefore, I am certainly happy to suggest to your Lordships' House that the Amendment should be accepted.

DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL
7.43 p.m.
House again in Committee on Schedule 3.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 25, line 21, at end insert ("except for checking and recording as to quality where skilled inspecting and/or measuring and/or weighing and/or sampling is involved.").
The noble Lord said: With this particular Amendment I shall be continuing where we left off before our little dinner break, in seeking some clarification from the Government in respect of various definitions in Schedule 3 on the work which may turn out to be classified in the terms of the Bill. Noble Lords will be aware that there are many very specialised and intricate tasks which are carried out on or around or near the quayside, or within what we might term the dock area under the Bill as it stands amended in your Lordships' House. Amendment No. 86 is concerned with particular aspects of checking and quality weighing and sampling, and it is in these areas that we should look for some further clarification of the Government's thoughts on the particular application of these strange tasks and trades, some of which were referred to before dinner when mention was made of tally clerks and checkers. We were hearing that tally clerks in the Port of London were already covered, and we discussed them. I wonder whether the noble Lord who is to reply for the Government will be able to give some indication of the Government's opinion or their thinking—in cases where the work done by some specialised clerks and other employees of particular firms which are unloading cargo—on whether these particular skills are of a nature which I think is not covered under Clause 8(4), which we were hearing about, and whether they would be roughly equivalent to those et present carried out by registered dock workers.
What I had in mind was where particular employees of owners of cargo are checking not merely for quantity, not merely for a given weight, but for a given type or grade, or for a particular kind of cargo or goods. Perhaps I could give an example of timber. I understand that in the timber trade at the docks much work is carried out by the tally clerks, who check that there are, say, 4,500 planks unloaded from a ship, which can easily be verified by weight or by checking or by numbers, but considerable further work is carried out virtually at the dockside, or on the quay, or adjacent to the quayside or
1228
warehouse, and a great deal of this work saves further checking and sorting at the ultimate destination of the timber.
This requires a very detailed knowledge of what is being handled, in this case timber. I am sure that it could also involve a detailed knowledge of other goods. In a later Amendment we shall be considering chemical liquids, oil and similar items. I have in mind at the moment a particular skill which may appear to be the same as that which tally clerks possess and which may indeed be virtually the same type of work as they are doing. But this example which I mention of timber, although I am sure it holds good for other bulk cargoes, involves a higher skill for which, let us say, an apprenticeship or training of three, sometimes five, years is needed.
The information we have received goes so far to suggest that these skilled checkers are indeed members of other unions besides the Transport and General Workers' Union, which I understand covers tally clerks and registered dock workers and—I think they are called—dock checkers, a category which I understand exists in the Port of London and I believe in other ports. I believe that they are more or less part-time tally clerks who might be, say, foremen of a group of registered dock workers and the foremen might carry out a tallying task from time to time to save a permanent tally clerk being in attendance, thereby saving costs.
We believe that Amendment No. 86 covers a group of workers whose skills are different, although they may appear to be broadly the same. They are different and they require greater training, greater experience and greater knowledge than could be possessed by the existing definition of registered dock workers. We should be grateful if the noble Lord could give some indication of the Government's thinking on this matter. I beg to move.
Lord ORAM: I am grateful for the way in which the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, introduced the Amendment and for the explanation he gave of the kind of work which he hopes his Amendment will cover. It is work which is dealt with by commodity cargo superintendents, and the noble Lord is quite right—they have an association of their own, called the Association of Commodity Cargo Super

1229
intendents, and their work is distinguished from simple clerical work in the way that he has indicated. The actual work can of course include simple work. It can vary from simple counting or straightforward taking of samples to ensure that goods are sound, through to quite sophisticated tests in such commodities as oil and chemicals. So I think that we have the same category of work in mind as we discuss the Amendment.
However, I am afraid that I cannot advise the Committee to accept the Amendment, the main difficulty being over the interpretation of the word "skilled" which is included in the Amendment. Most work of the kind described will call for some measure of expertise, and it would be a matter of judgment whether or not the expertise required was such as to justify calling the work "skilled" work. But the case which has been put to us by the Association for the exclusion of the work of commodity cargo superintendents is based on the argument that their work is of a specialist character, requiring long training and skills which registered dock workers do not possess. But unless work was work which had been done elsewhere, or previously, by registered dock workers, it would not satisfy the prima facie ground in Clause 8(4) unless it called for
"training, aptitudes and experience the same as, or similar to, those of registered dock workers."
This, I suggest, provides a reasonably objective test which would clearly prevent the classification of work of a genuinely specialised character. But we think it wrong to include in the Bill words such as "skilled", to which I have referred, which could need interpretation by the courts—and very difficult interpretation by the courts—before anybody knew what they meant. Moreover we believe that the Bill's procedures, which we have discussed many times, would prevent classification of skilled men where it was inappropriate. So though we recognise that the fears are genuinely held fears, we really believe that the Bill will remove those fears in practice.
Lord LYELL: I thank the noble Lord for what he has said and I should like to intervene at this stage. He mentioned that he found some difficulty in accepting the word "skilled" in our Amendment,
1230
but I hope that this is not going to be a prima facie case of where the courts would be asked to interpret; at least I had not that in mind. It might well come to that. It might be in the mind of the noble Lord that the courts would have to interpret the meaning of the word "skilled", but I hope that it could be decided and agreed by the owner of the goods which, as in my example of timber, might be unloaded at the quayside. I hope that it would be the timber trade that would be involved. The noble Lord mentioned a particular group of specialised workers—did he call them commodity supervisors? I hope that it would he what I think one calls the consignees of the cargo which is being landed who would be involved, and that this particular group would be able to settle the meaning of the word "skilled" as we have it in the Amendment. I should have thought that the courts would not necessarily come into the matter at this stage to interpret the word "skilled".
I think all of us in this Committee, and I hope elsewhere, can agree on the meaning of the word "skilled" in the Bill in this particular respect. It is that skill which is required for the particular tasks which are already carried out on the quayside in the docks. All we are seeking to do by this Amendment is to continue to allow these specialist groups to carry on their tasks. I do not think we are seeking to go further than that, or indeed to ask for amendment or clarification in the courts. I hope that such skills as are needed by this particular group—I will not call them registered dock workers, but workers at the quayside who are probably working alongside and in conjunction with registered dock workers, being checkers or tally clerks—can be determined by agreement with the ultimate client, who probably owns and is importing this cargo, specialist or otherwise. Could the noble Lord enlighten me further?
Lord ORAM: I accept that the noble Lord would not wish this point to be settled in the courts, and I should be with him in that. I think difficulty would arise, however, if we wrote the word "skilled" into the Bill. Then, even though he would not wish to contest it in the courts, someone might.
Lord LYELL: I would ask the noble Lord: Who is going to contest this word "skilled"? Because this begins to sow a doubt in my mind as to someone else outside this group of men who are already carrying out this skilled task and, indeed, the ultimate owners of the cargo that is being landed. These two groups of people understand what has to be done, and I think both groups and we understand that registered dock workers do not now possess the (let us call them) skills; that is, the technical knowledge, the expertise, the training. I understand they do not wish to possess it, nor, indeed, wish to carry out what I will call this skilled work. If the noble Lord wishes to say that the courts might be involved because we shall have to define this word "skilled" and somebody else who does not at present possess this expertise or knowledge may say, "I believe I have the skill to carry out this work and therefore this group of expert checkers are redundant and unnecessary", then I think we may have trouble; but I hope that this will not arise. I hope that there will be agreement between the owners of the cargo and their agents or representatives who are working alongside the docker checkers or the tally clerks.
Lord ORAM: I think there is in fact very little between us, in that the noble Lord used the words "by agreement" between these two sets of people, and I agree that the practical solution to the problem that he raises would be found by agreement under the procedures in the Bill. It is because I am confident of that that I do not think any writing in of an Amendment is necessary, particularly an Amendment which includes words which might be challenged by someone or other—I cannot define whom, but they might be challenged in the courts, and this would lead to difficulties. A lot of practical work on classification could be held up pending a decision in the courts as to what was in fact the meaning of the word "skilled" in this context, so I think it would add to the difficulties rather than remove them.
Lord LYELL: I think the point is very much the same as the one I was raising earlier so far as auditors are concerned, in that here is a group of people who carry out a specific task and who are agreed to have special technical skills. I do not think there will be a malevolent
1232
group of people coming along and saying that anybody is irresponsible and that another group of different persons will attempt to take over the job of these skilled checkers at the dockside, the agents of the cargo owners. I think the argument I raised earlier in relation to auditors is apposite here, and I am wondering whether the argument that the noble Lord put forward in answer to my argument about auditors is the same here.
Lord ORAM: No, I should not think so. When we were talking about auditors we were not considering whether or not their tasks were classifiable under this Bill. There is a difference. I agreed then that I should have another look at it later, but on that occasion I was suggesting that the words were not necessary. In this case it is not that I do not think the words are of that character: I think they could do harm. They could hold up the work of classification; and, for the reasons I gave, I do not think there is any real difficulty about the work that these people do not being classified. I think they were perfectly entitled, of course, to have raised the difficulty as they saw it from the point of view of their occupation, but I believe their fears have been ill-founded.
Viscount SIMON: Before we dispose of this Amendment, I wonder whether I could use the opportunity to ask one question of the noble Lord. He raised again the matter of Clause 8(4). I am wondering about the people who will have to interpret this Bill and work to it, and whether it would not be easier for them if the noble Lord would consider before the next stage of the Bill inserting at the beginning of Schedule 3 some such words as, "Subject to Section 8(4)", and then just going on. It is merely to call attention to the fact that the Schedule is subject to that clause. Otherwise people can so easily look at the Schedule and forget that Clause 8(4) has anything to do with it.
Lord ORAM: I accept that if even the noble Viscount missed the point—and he did—there will be many others who, in handling the Bill, or the Act as it will then be, might well miss it and that it might be helpful. There may be difficulties, and I would not commit myself, but I

1233
take the point that the noble Viscount has made.
Lord LYELL: I think we have had a fair discussion of this point and the noble Lord has gone some way towards answering some of the queries I had in mind. He certainly has not confused me as much as he did on Amendments Nos. 82 and 83, I think it was, previously. There are still some doubts in my mind, but I should like to consider this matter to see whether we can achieve a slightly better definition of what we seek to put into the Bill. I know the noble Lord says that there is a risk of confusion, but I think the noble Lord was making millimetric moves in our direction. I felt we were coming towards agreement, in that he concurred that there were groups of specialist checkers who worked alongside the tally clerks, and there is this word "skilled". We will see whether we can achieve a better meaning; but, given that, I would beg leave to withdraw this Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.10 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 87:
Page 25, line 22, leave out from ("repairs") to end of line 23 and insert ("involving unskilled general work in the dry coopering, needlemen and "box knocking" categories").
The noble Lord said: This particular Amendment is very much in the nature of Amendment No. 86, which I have just withdrawn, but in this case we are not looking at particular or outstanding skills but much more at categories of work which are carried out at and around the dockside. The noble Lord, Lord Oram, will possibly be much more familiar with these categories than I am. I have received excellent explanations and definitions of them, but I understand that, in general, they are not restricted to any particular group of skilled worker but that in some cases they are carried out by, and in fact in most cases are usually restricted to, or would be restricted to, registered dockworkers under the Scheme who are not or might not be fully fit for the normal category of dock work and who therefore might be placed on light duties. I understand that the categories set out in the Amendment—dry coopering, needlemen and "box knocking"—are three categories of light
1234
work which is carried out in or around the port area and which is apposite to the persons who would be registered dockworkers, but at the same time it might be done by other workers who would not necessarily need to be registered dockworkers, simply because much of the work is, I understand, part-time or will be carried out from time to time as the need arises.
I understand that dry coopering and box knocking is very much the same now in that dry coopering has gone out considerably, and while wet coopering is still carried on it requires a considerable apprenticeship and therefore would be covered under Clause 8(4) or it might come under another category and definitely is excluded from classification. I should be pleased to hear what the Government view would be of these particular categories which can be carried out at present either by registered dockworkers or by other, non-registered, dockworkers. The latter category could not possibly be said to be placing the livelihood or the work of registered dockworkers in jeopardy. I beg to move.
8.12 p.m.
Lord ORAM: I would not claim to be more expert in defining these crafts than is the noble Lord. Some of the names remind me of a once popular television programme, "What's my Line". I should prefer in answering the noble Lord to keep to the more general principles. Perhaps I could remind the Committe that this Amendment was moved in Committee in another place. The words in the Bill at that stage were:
"executing minor repairs to anything in which cargo is packed".
This wording was criticised on the grounds that it would enable a wide range of minor repair work which was clearly outside the dockworkers' field to be considered for classification.
My honourable friend the Minister of State in another place accepted that the wording in the Bill as it then was might be too broad, and the present wording (which is now the subject of the noble Lord's Amendment) was substituted at the Report stage by a Government Amendment. The present wording is designed to make it clear that the paragraph is intended to cover repairs to all kinds of containers in which cargo might

1235
be packed and also things such as pallets on which cargo is stacked, as distinct from repairs to lorries, ships or fixed installations such as warehouses which might conceivably have been held to he things in which cargo is packed. I think the noble Lord will recognise that this is a distinct improvement in wording; but that it seems reasonable in appropriate cases that work of minor repairs to all such containers and pallets should be capable of being classified as dock work. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will see fit not to press his Amendment.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Before my noble friend decides what he is going to do, and as the noble Lord is going through this category of general port work which may be classified, may I make one comment? We hear more and more about appropriate cases and varying circumstances, and I cannot help thinking that this rather makes nonsense of the general classification of dock work that we were considering before when it was suggested that the appropriate place to challenge what was dock work and what was not was in the courts. Here you have such fluctuating meanings of all these things and so much uncertainty that it does not seem to be a matter for the courts at all. It seems to me that it should be a matter very much more for some kind of expert technical decision. It is merely the words the noble Lord used at that time which prompted this remark. I should have raised the matter sooner had not someone withdrawn the Amendment on which I was about to raise it. I wonder whether the noble Lord and his noble friend could look at this point before the next stage. It seems to me that if you are going to cover matters in regard to which the only challenge is to be in the courts their definitions must be absolutely cut and dried.
Lord ORAM: I was not suggesting that there would be a wholesale resort to court decisions. I was speaking in relation to one particular word about which I saw a particular difficulty. Of course there will be different judgments as to how appropriate are certain definitions in the Bill. There always are and will continue to be. I think it will, in practice, be a common sense application
1236
of the procedures in the Bill. It will be for the Board, having received all the detailed local information about traditions and so on, to place its recommendations before the Secretary of State. I will look at this point, but as I stand at the moment I am not really so fearful as the noble Lord seems to be.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Possibly the noble Lord was not here when we discussed this matter, but he is falling into the same trap as my noble friends seemed to have done. We are talking here not about the classification of dock work but about the definition of dock work in this part of the Bill. I understood from his noble friend Lord Jacques that this is a matter which could only be challenged in the courts and that it was not a proper subject for the appeal procedure.
Lord JACQUES: It is common practice that if it is necessary to interpret the words of a Statute, whether in the Schedules or the clauses, the proper authority for giving the interpretation in the last analysis is the courts and not the tribunal.
Lord LYELL: I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Oram, and my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, for attempting to enlighten us on this Amendment. I was relatively satisfied with the reply from Lord Oram, but he mentioned that the paragraph as it stands includes "minor repairs to containers, crates, boxes, pallets" or other articles. It struck me that everything after containers "might be construed as requiring relatively simple repairs. It would not require a great deal of skill to repair a wooden crate or to knock in a nail. But containers are made from steel or from steel and aluminium or glass reinforced polyester, and therefore minor repairs to containers is a different matter. The subject involved two or three debates at the Committee stage in another place. They chased a number of hares—even to London Airport. Mr. Ridley suggested that the dockers might be carrying out minor repairs to aircraft at London Airport because the area fell within the original five-mile limit.
Repairs to containers present a problem in that they require metalwork, skilled welding and treatment of aluminium and other complicated tasks which I should not like to see possibly being classified as general dock work. In view of what the

1237
noble Lord has said in respect of my original Amendment, and in deference to the comments made by my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, I beg leave to withdraw this Amendment but reserve my position to seek further clarification at a later stage.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.20 p.m.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 87A:
Page 25, line 33, after ("baggage") insert ("or possessions").
The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 87A with which I should like to couple Amendment No. 87B. I have something of a privilege: we have been discussing a lot of rather abstruse qualifications which apply to dockers, and I am going to talk about ordinary people. The Government have a great advantage because, having looked at all the Amendments, these are ones on which they might be able to do a demonstration run in the acceptance of them. They have not done that for any others up to now. This is their great moment. They are talking about the common people, not anyone else.
I unashamedly say that this relates to ferries in small places such as the one between the mainland and the Isle of Wight. I come from the Isle of Wight, as I confessed at Second Reading to your Lordships. It also applies to such as the ferry I know which runs from the vicinity of Greenock to the Isle of Arran. There are no doubt many others which I have not the privilege of knowing.
Some people walk on to those steamers with their own baggage. In another place the Minister said that baggage might be carried on board by a porter. So it is not just the owner, though that is what it says in the Bill. But one also motors on board these ferries in one's own vehicle. On top of the vehicle there might be a dinghy. That can hardly be described as baggage. That is why I have included the words "or possessions" in my Amendment. A car may have a trailer, and also the car may be driven by a wife, daughter, son or even a friend.
Likewise, when one walks on board a steamer with some luggage, the luggage may be carried by a son, and he would not like
1238
to be called a porter. Though in another place they cleared the word "porter", they did not clear "son". The phrase is rather precise at the moment: "carried on board by him". That implies that a person has to walk and, furthermore, he has to carry his own baggage. There is not much option.
It is reasonable that those things should not be thought of as cargo within the meaning of this great Bill. It is something which is much better done by the person himself, the ordinary citizen who is as free as he dares to be in the world that we have around us. He hopes to drive his own vehicle on board, using his own resources, family and relations, to carry his bits and pieces; to be able to tow his trailer with a boat on it or something of that nature.
These are things which are going on every day, and I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, with his great connections in Portsmouth, will know this only too well. I should have thought he would be on my side. Perhaps he has been on holiday to the Isle of Wight, or visited the island on business. It is a world which is so separate from the complications and long history of difficulties of the dockers' endeavours to get things right and to make sure of the privileges which they can reasonably have, taking into account other people. We are not talking about that. We are talking about ordinary people, travelling perhaps on business or on holiday to little places in this country where they have to travel by boat either because there is no alternative—as with the Isle of Wight—or because it is very much quicker, as with certain parts of Scotland and no doubt other parts of England and Wales.
I suggest to the Government that this is their big moment; this is the time when they can say, "There are no problems. We accept both Amendments". I invite the noble Lord, Lord Oram, to say that to me now.
8.25 p.m.
Lord ORAM: I have been looking for my big moment ever since I came to your Lordships' House; but I am sorry that I cannot go all the way with the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone. I can offer him some consolation in relation to his interesting Amendment. I have listened

1239
with interest to what he said about the motor car and trailer. I should like to look at the points he raised. We shall be having a debate later covering road transport. I should like to consider what the noble Lord has said with any points that may be raised when we come to that, and also in connection with the point about the authorised representative for carrying luggage. In practice, the noble Lord will find that there is no great problem here. However, I am prepared to look at this.
Under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act, for 25 years the possibility of this difficulty about friends taking baggage on board has always existed. It has never arisen. In practice, if we apply common sense and are not stubborn—as the noble Lord urged me not to be—we shall find our way through this. Regarding the first point, about possessions, I am not in a position even to suggest that this is worth taking back. It is the last two points which are worth looking at and I give the undertaking.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Am I right in saying that the noble Lord will look at Amendment No. 87B, but rejects the "or possessions" part in Amendment No. 87A? Is that right?
Lord ORAM: Yes, that is the position.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Could the noble Lord explain why not "or possessions"? I had a long discussion with the Public Bill Office about the appropriate word, because it was clear that "baggage" is not good enough to cover a boat on top of a car or carrying the family silver in a box. That is hardly baggage. There are all sorts of things which you might want to take on a ferry. Those noble Lords who are not used to being separated from the great mainland—not to mention these other little countries to the North which are troublesome—do not realise that things are taken which ordinary travellers do not carry which cannot properly be described as "baggage". I appreciate that he is going to look at Amendment No. 87B, but I should like to know why he rejects "or possessions".
Lord ORAM: I agree that I was a little eliptical in dealing with the first Amendment that the noble Lord put forward.
1240
I thought that he would be so gratified that I was going to look at the second and the third that he would not seek to ask for an explanation. I agree that an explanation is due to him. It seems that it adds an unnecessary gloss to existing words to include the word "possessions".
The term "personal baggage" must cover the various possessions which a passenger personally accompanies on board. The paragraph is so drafted so that the work, for example, of moving a passenger's baggage by crane into the hold of a ship can be classified as dock work because that obviously involves the same work as putting other cargo into the hold of a ship. In our view the word "possessions" does not add anything to the Amendment. Possessions are either part of the baggage or else are carried about the person of the passenger. But I see that the noble Lord had in mind possessions in the motorcar, and I see that in his mind the three are linked and therefore, although I think that the result of my looking at these things again will be firmly to reject the point about possessions, I will agree to look at all three, since they are obviously connected, before returning to the point at Report stage.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord and, with that in mind, I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 87A.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
8.31 p.m.
Viscount SIMON Viscount SIMON moved Amendment No. 87C:
Page 25, line 34, after ("him") insert ("but").
The noble Viscount said: In the unavoidable absence of my noble friend Lord Airedale, I hope I may be allowed on his behalf to move this Amendment. As the Committee is aware, my noble friend is very interested in the correct use of English and I think it upset him very much that there were two clauses numbered (i) and (ii) with no connecting conjunction. Obviously if there is a connecting conjunction the correct word is "but". If my noble friend were here I do not think he would want to divide the Committee on this point; he merely wanted to draw attention to the fact that it would look better if the word "but" were inserted after the word I "him". I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I wish strongly to support the noble Viscount, particularly as it gives the Government an opportunity to be conciliatory for yet another time consecutively.
Lord ORAM: I think twice so quickly would be too much. I agree with the noble Viscount that his noble friend Lord Airedale raises some interesting and valid points concerning drafting matters and the correct use of English—as he puts it—and I often have congenial personal exchanges, not only in the Chamber but outside the Chamber, on these points. In this case, however, I think it will be conceded that adding the word "but" really adds nothing to the sense. I do not want to make much of this, but to a slight degree the word detracts, because if one puts the word "but" there it implies that there is a connection between the personal baggage exclusion, which is in paragraph 8(a)(i) and the inclusion of things taken on board from the sea or the seabed, which occurs in the next line. I think the linking word implies in some way that there is a connection between them. So I was rather glad to hear the noble Viscount say that he was not proposing to divide the Committee and I shall take courage from that and resist the Amendment.
Viscount SIMON: I am much obliged to the noble Lord. I will make only one last suggestion, which I will just leave with him. This is again a matter of presentation. I believe if he reads the two clauses he will see that it would be better if (i) was the included thing and (ii) was the thing it did not include. Oddly enough, that balances it a little better. I leave that thought in the noble Lord's mind and I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 88:
Page 25, line 38, leave out from ("be") to end of line 40 and insert ("loaded as cargo become "cargo" when they are physically received by the stevedore, wharfinger or lighterman from the sender or his agent").
The noble Earl said: We now start to deal with the definition of "cargo". I want to take Amendment No. 90 with this Amendment. In Amendment No. 88 we want to find precisely the point at which goods become cargo, and in
1242
Amendment No. 90 we wish to define precisely the point at which goods cease to be cargo. Your Lordships will be aware that last week the Committee voted to remove the five-mile zone; that is to say, we objected to what we thought was a geographical arbitrariness and we tightened up this geographically arbitrary area, as we saw it, into a much more precisely defined area within the reach of harbours. In a similar way, in these Amendments we are seeking to tighten up the definitions of "function"—not merely where dock work takes place but what dock work actually is.
Amendment No. 88, referring to the stage at which goods become cargo so far as exports are concerned, should be taken with Amendment No. 90 which refers to the reverse position in respect of imports. The purpose of the Amendments is to confirm the already accepted understanding of those who are employed within the port transport industry as to the point where registered labour is to be employed and where non-registered labour may undertake operations, and to do this by providing an acceptable and practical definition of the term "cargo" which accords with custom and practice within the docks industry—and I would also say, following noble Lords opposite, which accords with common sense, and indeed which has been confirmed in the past by the decisions of industrial tribunals. In other words, these Amendments seek to define "cargo" in such a way that the point at which goods become cargo on their way to the ship or cease to he cargo in the case of imports, cannot be argued or considered contentious.
May I first consider the case of those goods which are to be loaded as cargo; that is to say, Amendment No. 88. These arrive at the receiving point, whether it be dock, wharf or quay, in the vehicle designated by the consignor or his agent. The goods are unloaded from the vehicle by the registered dock workers employed by master stevedores or wharfingers. Such work is traditionally dock work. Our Amendment seeks to make this the stage where the goods become cargo, when unloading of the goods from the vehicle commences. Before this point registered dock workers would not have been interested in the goods and after this point the consignor or his agent hands over responsibility for further handling of the goods to

1243
the employer of the registered dock workers. He is then given a receipt for his goods and is not directly concerned with the loading of the goods on to the vessel. Your Lordships will see that we are trying to be as precise as possible here.
In the same way, cargo which is unloaded from a vessel is unloaded by registered dock workers who are responsible for transporting such cargo to the vehicle designated by the receiver or by his agent. That is Amendment No. 90. Obviously the receiver has neither the wish nor the necessary skill—and this Bill is partly engaged in trying to define which skills are the skills properly belonging to dock workers—to become involved with the cargo handling process. In other words he is not poaching. In accordance with custom and practice the cargo is then loaded on to the receiver's vehicle by registered dock workers and at this stage, when the cargo is physically handed over, it ceases to become the work of dock workers and becomes the responsibility of the receiver.
May I give a simple example of a coffee merchant importing bags of coffee? The merchant does not attempt to unload his bags from the ship: his responsibility begins when the bags of coffee are loaded on to his vehicle. Correspondingly, even if the coffee is to be stored in a warehouse within—under our definition—half a mile of the harbour, the dock workers who unloaded the coffee should not be concerned with it any longer. Their responsibility for the cargo ceased once it was loaded on to the receiver's vehicle. The Dock Workers Employment Scheme 1967 stated one of its objects as being:
"To ensure greater regularity of employment for dock workers".
This Dock Work Regulation Bill states as one of its purposes to:
"Provide for new arrangements for classifying work as dock work for the purposes of the scheme and in particular to provide stability of employment for dockworkers".
We feel that Amendments Nos. 88 and 90, if implemented, would provide for greater regularity and stability of employment within the port and transport industries by confirming within the Dock Work Regulation Bill the exact stage where dock work commences and where dock work ends, already accepted by custom and practice in the docks. We consider that the Amendments would go
1244
a long way towards avoiding the possibility of disputes by removing a controversial geographical limit, replacing it with an unmistakable, unarguable and already accepted physical definition of the stage at which goods become cargo and at which they cease to be so. In sum, if the concept of an arbitrary geographical zone is to be retained—and we have at least tightened it in earlier Amendments—it remains, nevertheless, essential that there be a clearly defined breakpoint at which goods that have been discharged from a ship cease to be cargo and those that are loaded on to a ship become cargo. We are, incidentally, particularly concerned with the effects of this section of the Bill on the cold storage industry, about which much mention was made at an earlier stage of the Committee. I beg to move.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I should like strongly to support my noble friend, if only to make sense of the Bill. It could be argued that the two Amendments of my noble friend are consequential on Amendment No. 11A, and something has to be done to make sense of it. It so happens that my noble friend has greatly improved the general character of this particular subsection. I am sure his arguments will be easily acceptable to the Government.
8.43 p.m.
Lord ORAM: Both the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, and the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, in supporting this Amendment, have referred to the work we did, or undid, last week in relation to the cargo handling zone. Of course, there is a link between what this Amendment proposes and the decision that the Committee reached last week. The noble Earl said that he and his friends are trying to be precise. They are entitled to have that as their objective. They do it, and I do not think the noble Earl would dispute this, by seeking also to be more restrictive in relation to the classification of dock work. He claimed that the principle of the restrictions he is seeking to introduce was a functional principle, and that he was doing it on functional grounds.
It seems to me that this Amendment, as indeed some others—I have not made this argument strongly in connection with some of the other Amendments—precisely because it makes classification more precise, is capable of leading to more

1245
rather than fewer industrial relations problems. The reasons why the Government believe that it should be possible to classify work undertaken up to five miles from the high-water mark were given during the debate last week on the Amendments to which I have referred.
As is well known, the Committee passed Amendments restricting the area within which work could be classified to half a mile from harbours. These two Amendments, however, could prevent much cargo handling work undertaken even within half a mile of the docks from being classified, and could lead to illogical distinctions between various situations. The point has been made before that difficulties have arisen under the present scheme because legal decisions as to when goods cease to be cargo have been related to the number of handlings of the goods after they have been unloaded.
This has led to situations where some work undertaken in or very near dock areas has been declared not to be dock work when other similar work undertaken nearby is dock work. As I said earlier, this kind of distinction is bound to cause industrial relations problems. It is most desirable, if we are to avoid it, that we should do so by the procedure set out in the Bill.
The Earl of GOWRIE: The noble Lord, Lord Oram, began by using a very reasonable and conciliatory tone because he seemed to be on the verge of accepting that these Amendments were in spirit, if you like, consequential on the geographical Amendments we carried earlier. The noble Lord then hardened somewhat. I am not surprised at his hardening, but he puzzled me when he said that our Amendments were capable of leading to more rather than fewer industrial relations problems. It would seem to me that the first thing one would wish to do in seeking to avoid industrial relations problems would be to define with some precision, as we have tried to do, who does what, where. It seems to me that what we are after is to try to decide what dock work is.
It is quite untrue to say that we on this side of the Committee do not accept that there have been considerable changes in the docking profession, and that following the report of my noble friend Lord Aldington in collaboration with Mr. Jack Jones we may need new definitions of docking activity. But to say that we
1246
need new definitions of docking activity with one breath, as it were, and with the next breath to slap down any attempts to find what, in the new circumstances, docking activity should be, I would contend would surely yield to the sort of problems between one group of worker and another which we on this side are seeking to avoid. I gave the fairly obvious and homely little example of the coffee merchant. Let me try to think of another.
Imagine that one were bringing goods into Liverpool for ultimate sale in this country. Imagine that for some reason or other—perhaps some dispute in connection with customs and excise, or some problems with delivery, perhaps even as a result of industrial action—it became necessary to store goods which had come in to the Port of Liverpool somewhere within the five-mile zone. f am perfectly well aware that we have amended this to a half-mile zone, but that is because we are an eminently sensible and reasonable body of people, but we cannot always assume that another place will be as reasonable. It may well be that they will have a stab at putting back the five-mile limit. I cannot judge whether they are going to do that. But let us come back to the situation before the Amendment, the situation where there is a five-mile zone.
In my example, let us assume that here are goods in bond or store for some reason or another near Liverpool. Then, the problem is solved. The goods can be shipped to another area within five miles of Southampton. While I acknowledge that other tests would then be applied, it might be that their unloading within a zone of five miles from Southampton or even, under my earlier Amendment, within half a mile of the Port of Southampton, would be classified as dock work. This would seem to me, much more than the option suggested by noble Lords, the kind of situation where there would be ambiguity as to the number of handlings of goods after they have been unloaded.
I hope the noble Lord can give me a little more assistance on this, because I cannot imagine that the Department has not had representations on this score. We know to our certain knowledge that groups of workers within the Transport and General Workers' Union—and this is widely conceded to be something of a TGWU Bill—have shown a great deal of disquiet about its effects. The noble Lord has never tried to deceive us and has

1247
never been naive with the Committee, and I do not believe he is being now. I would welcome his comments on this.
Lord DRUMALBYN: In the approach of the Government to this problem, I detect that they are looking at it from only one point of view; from the dockers' point of view. It seems to me that to them almost every lot of goods is cargo, whereas the ordinary trader, the manufacturer, the businessman, the merchant, does not talk in terms of cargo, except in regard to insurance on board ship and bills of lading and so forth; he talks in terms of consignments, and a thing is a consignment until it becomes a cargo. What one has got to fix on principle, is when a consignment becomes a cargo, and I would have said myself that the definition in this Amendment is apt to settle the principle. Will the Government approach this from a matter of principle and not constant expediency in order to pacify one section of the working community? I do not think that is the right way to approach it.
Lord MOTTISTONE: Perhaps I might say a few words in support of my noble friend. I am a little concerned at the statement the noble Lord, Lord Oram, made, I think at the end of his speech, that this Amendment would lead to more industrial relations troubles rather than less, and my noble friend Lord Gowrie picked this up. I should very much like to ask the noble Lord, Lord Oram, whether he would expand on that a little, because it seems to me that if this is true there is something wrong somewhere. We all recognise that the dockers want to protect their position; they do not want to have their jobs swept away because of the introduction of containers and other methods of modern cargo handling, and that is why we are sitting here today and trying to tackle this Bill.
But I think most of us also recognise that if they get assurances of one sort or another that are more than a certain degree of reasonableness they are going to have to take other people's jobs. They may not take jobs immediately from people who are actually doing them now, but they may as a group of people prevent other people from having the same open markets of jobs, if you like, as they had before. It is a sort of narrowing, restrictive effect on other people, all of which to
1248
me seems to indicate that we must have some sort of definition.
If we do not have a fairly tight definition, my judgment is that, so far from having worse industrial relations problems because we have got a tight definition, we will have worse industrial relations problems because we have not got a tight enough definition. There will be more room for people to be jealous, in a given area, of a group of dockers, who perhaps are more vociferous than in another area, persuading the local dock labour board, and ultimately the Secretary of State and all these grand people, that they justify holding jobs X Y and Z, which in the end narrows the market for the main line of people who might otherwise be able to use it. I hate to say this to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, because he has been so kind to me on earlier Amendments, but it seems to me that he has got the situation upside down. I am sure this cannot be due to a brief or anything as primitive as that; he must believe it. Can he tell us why he has got the situation, as it seems to me, upside down?
Lord SOMERS: Could the noble Lord tell us whether he agrees that one of the chief sources of had industrial relations is uncertainty; uncertainty as to whether you are being given the amount of work which is right, uncertainty whether you are being asked to do more than you should and other areas of uncertainty. Surely this Amendment is doing the very thing to remove that; it removes all uncertainty, and it lays down absolutely in black and white what is and what is not dockers' work.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: While the noble Lord, Lord Oram, is being bombarded with questions, could I ask him one other? Is his reluctance to agree to Lord Gowrie's Amendment due to the position which obtains at the moment? In certain ports agreements have been entered into which have enabled dockers to take on new type works, and if the Amendment were agreed to there would have to be, as it were, a climbing down. For example, at Southampton, I understand, much of the container work within and outside the five-mile limit is carried out by agreement by dock workers, Scheme workers. I must confess that my support is for the Amendment because one has to know exactly where one is. Is his reluctance to accept the Amendment because such

1249
an agreement as has been entered into in Southampton would be void, and would have to be undone? Is it perhaps the fear that something which has by custom arisen is going it be put out of court, and would have to be undone? Is this the reason for his reluctance to accept this fine definition of what are goods and when they become cargo?
8.59 p.m.
Lord ORAM: May I begin with one point of agreement as between the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and myself; that is, what we are about is seeking new definitions as a result of changes in dockland. But that, I think, is the extent of our agreement, because we divide on the methods by which those definitions are to be brought about. The Amendment we are now discussing, which the noble Earl suggests should be put into the Bill, would, in my view, provide restrictive definitions, and it is for this reason that difficulties rather than improvements in industrial relations would arise.
In my view—and I am not beginning to suggest that I am now producing arguments which will convince noble Lords opposite—the best way to handle tricky industrial relations problems is by the procedures laid down in the Bill; that is, the procedures provide for a very careful consideration of all the many local considerations of custom and tradition, and what is and what should be dock work and so on. I believe that that is the method which is best used rather than attempting, within the Bill itself, to lay down hard and fast lines. It is that which would lead to difficulties.
In reply to the noble Lord, Lord Somers, I believe that it would create uncertainty rather than remove it. Uncertainty will be to a very large extent removed when the Scheme is brought into being. That will be a crucial new stage following the passage of this Bill. To the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, I would say that it is not a case of any particular group of workers climbing down. It is our fear that new definitions in the Bill, such as the noble Earl proposes, would in themselves raise difficulties which would upset industrial relations. It is not a case of we do not want people to climb down from postures at present; it is more our fear that these Amendments would lead to increased rather than lessened difficulties.
1250
May I give an example. The Amendment would have this effect: suppose a stevedore had a warehouse on the dockside which stored coffee. Goods handled by that stevedore would be cargo even in the warehouse. But if another stevedore sent goods to that warehouse for storing, then the Amendment would say that all associated work on those goods would be classifiable. We would have the same goods, the same job in effect, in one case classifiable and in one case not.
Another difficulty that I see arising if the Amendment is adopted is that it would prevent work in container groupage depots being classified. I recall to the Committee that it was one of the principal recommendations in the Aldington-Jones Report, which I think all will recognise as having been quite a milestone in dealing with dockland's problems. Perhaps I should read the recommendation of Aldington-Jones in relation to container groupings:
"Container groupage work should to the greatest practicable extent be carried out by registered dock workers. But if by other workers then only under proper conditions of work, and all undertakings which handle groupage containers should satisfy themselves that these requirements have been met."
I am advised that, if the Committee were to accept the Amendment, then it would prevent the carrying out of that recommendation of the Aldington-Jones Report.
9.3 p.m.
Viscount SIMON: I do not know whether the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, is contemplating pressing this Amendment. If he is, I wonder whether he could answer one question, because I am puzzled. May we go back to his coffee merchant. The bags of coffee have been discharged from the ship and moved to a warehouse. I was not clear from what he was saying whether, if the warehouse was within the five-mile limit—if he was assuming that it might go back to that, or even within the half-mile limit—if the work in that warehouse had been classified, he was arguing that it should not be dealt with by registered dock workers discharging from the vehicle into the warehouse.
Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH: Before my noble friend replies, could the noble Lord, Lord Oram, explain to us his interpretation of the recommendation of

1251
the Aldington-Jones Committee which he has just read to us. While that recommendation is of a general nature, it seems to me that it is the noble Lord who is putting a particular accent upon it. Could he explain what he sees that recommendation meaning? If it is of a general nature, then anything to do with a container can he classed as dock work, because it happens to be in a container depot, because it happens to have been used for, or is to be used for, the carriage of cargo. For example, does the noble Lord think that the engineering work that is necessary to maintain a container should be dock work? In fact, if he accepts that recommendation in its general terms, how can a true division of labour be made?
Lord ORAM: No, it is not the case that all work in a container depot would be classifiable. The provision to which attention has been called on a number of occasions by myself and by my colleagues is that the work would need to be in substitution of work previously undertaken by dockworkers. If the noble Lord reflects on that, he will realise that other categories of work would not qualify for classification.
Lord DRUMALBYN: Could I suggest one consideration that we might have in mind here. The noble Lord has been urging on us greater flexibility, and suggesting that what is contained in the Bill at present will allow greater flexibility than precise definitions laid down. I would suggest to him that you cannot have it both ways. If you are going to have a single national Scheme, you are bound to create that on principle, and you arc bound to apply the principle equally everywhere. At the opposite end to that you get the local port schemes where, within your local port areas, you can make your own decisions to suit your own circumstances. The discussion so far on this Bill has shown how far it is deviating from what I would think were the right lines on which to go. I would have conceived that it would be far better to leave the discretion at local level, and that it is going to be chaotic to take the discretion to board level on a national scale. If one is going to deal with this on a national scale, then it can be dealt with only on principle firmly applied and not in the loose way that the noble Lord seemed to be suggesting.
Lord ORAM: I was not suggesting anything loose. Principles, yes—they have been debated and they are contained in the middle clauses of the Bill, and that is the general guidance, with the more detailed procedures enabling the local circumstances to be taken into account. The noble Lord may not agree—obviously he does not agree—with the content of these provisions, but they meet the point he has raised.
Lord DRUMALBYN: I should have thought that the clauses in the middle of the Bill did not deal with principle at all but with certain circumstances and the ways in which they will be dealt with. There is nothing about principle there. On the contrary, the Board is left to decide classification on particular premises and is given wide discretion. Although the Government seek to define what dock work is, they are still given a great deal of discretion as to whether in fact work will be classified in those premises. I am saying that unless we can get the principles on which that discretion will be used, we shall be in trouble.
The Earl of GOWRIE: With the leave of the Committee. I will answer a question put to me by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, as to the meaning of my little anecdotal illustration about a coffee importer. My example was looking forward to the road haulage debate. I was contending that one of the reasons why we need reasonably precise definitions of what dock work should be is to enable us to decide when dock work stops being dock work. I was contending that even if coffee were to be stored in a warehouse within half a mile of a harbour—or, should the Bill suffer the misfortune of having the five-mile zone put back, within five miles of a harbour—it would then cease to be the concern of dock workers any more; it would then become the responsibility of the merchant, coffee importer or whoever it might be.
That answer to the noble Viscount responds also to the point made by the Minister when he accused me of seeking restrictive definitions. One could argue that all definitions are to some degree restrictive; it would be hard to define without a sense of exclusion and, to parody or imitate the last Prime Minister, one could say that we feel that one man's restriction may be another man's protection, and that is partly what we are seeking to do by the Amendment.

1253
May I make a brief comment on the question of containerisation, and I do not want to anticipate the later debate, either tonight or on another occasion, that we shall be having on this subject. I suggest that the Minister and his noble friends should be aware of a danger to dockers themselves in persistently thinking of containerisation, that technological innovation to which we must adapt in this legislation as being the way of the future. In fact there is a strong case for arguing that containerisation in this fast-moving technological age is something of the past because what we can see—one could demonstrate this quite easily—is a marked growth in roll-on, roll-off traffic. One of the things that we on this side are contending is that if one constantly has an ambiguity as to who does what and where in dockland—perhaps I should say in the profession of docking—one will increase the economic viability of roll-on, roll-off, increasing the likelihood that importers and exporters will not risk using docks if they can avoid it. This is a problem to which noble Lords opposite have not addressed their minds. My instincts are that we should press the Amendment, because although t he Government have made criticisms of it, I cannot
see that those criticisms are substantial. At least this may concentrate their minds furiously on how to amend it.
Viscount SIMON: Before the Question is put, may I tell the noble Earl, Lord Gowrie, that he did not quite reply to my question? Returning to his coffee merchant, he said that once the coffee was put into the warehouse, albeit within the half-mile limit, it ceased to be cargo for the purpose of the Bill. I was not clear whether he admitted that the act of putting the cargo from the lorry into the warehouse was cargo handling within the meaning of the Bill.
The Earl of GOWRIE: We defined it that once the initial cargo was unloaded from the harbour—and the noble Viscount will be aware that we have now tightened up the definition of "port" and given legislative value to the phrase "harbour"—it ceases to be the responsibility of the docker; it then becomes the responsibility of the merchant.
9.14 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 88) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 54; Not-Contents, 37.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Mottistone, L.

Atholl, D.

Elton, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L. [Teller.]

Balerno, L.

Ferrier, L.

Belstead, L.

Glasgow, E.

Newall, L.

Blakenham, V.

Gowrie, E.

Pender, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Gray, L.

Redesdale, L.

Burton, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Rochdale, V.

Caithness, E.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

St. Aldwyn, E.

Carrington, L.

Inglewood, L.

Salisbury, M.

Chelwood, L.

Ironside, L.

Sandford, L.

Clitheroe, L.

Killearn, L.

Somers, L.

Colville of Culross, V.

Lauderdale, E.

Stamp, L.

Colwyn, L.

Lloyd, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Long, V.

Strathmore and Kinghorne, E.

Cranbrook, E.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Tweedsmuir, L.

De Freyne, L.

Lyell, L.

Vernon, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Macleod of Borve, B.

Vickers, B.

Drumalbyn, L.

Monck, V.

Wise, L.

Elles, B.

NOT-CONTENTS

Aylestone, L.

Henley, L.

Phillips, B.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Popplewell, L.

Blyton, L.

Jacques, L.

Simon, V.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Snow, L.

Brockway, L.

Kennet, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Champion, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Strabolgi, L. [Teller.]

Collison, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Wells-Pestell, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wigoder, L.

Foot, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Grey, E.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seal.)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Resolved in the affirmative, and Amendment agreed to accordingly.
9.22 p.m.
The DEPUTY CHAIRMAN of COMMITTEES (Lord Henley): Amendment No. 88 having been agreed to, I have to tell your Lordships that I cannot call Amendment No. 89 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. Amendments Nos. 91 and 90 appear in the Marshalled List in the wrong order, but I understand that they are to be called in that order. I understand that Amendment No. 91 is not moved.
The Earl of GOWRIE The Earl of GOWRIE moved Amendment No. 90:
Page 25, line 40, leave out ("and") and insert—
("( ) goods which have been loaded as cargo in a ship cease to be so when they have been physically handed over by the stevedore, wharfinger or lighterman to the receiver or his agent; and").
The noble Earl said: This is consequential upon the vote that we have just had. I beg to move.
On Question, Amendment agreed to.
Lord MOTTISTONE Lord MOTTISTONE moved Amendment No. 91A:
Page 25, line 41, leave out ("capable of carrying cargo") and insert ("normally used for carrying cargo on the open sea").
The noble Lord said: This Amendment, rather like the ones I moved earlier, seeks to protect the position of those small steamers that operate between, shall we say, Hampshire and the Isle of Wight or other coastal areas where, effectively, the ships are not going on the open sea. If I may be allowed to do so, I should like to quarrel with the use of the phrase
"a seagoing ship capable of carrying cargo".
I need only mention Dunkirk. Your Lordships will remember that ships that were not designed to operate on the open sea—and there were some of our Isle of Wight steamers which had the honour of taking part in that operation—are perfectly capable of doing so if the emergency arises. Furthermore, "seagoing ship" is a very wide phrase. One can imagine one of those little ferries which cross the Mersey as being a seagoing ship. It is seaworthy. It is a good ship in a seaway. It is not designed to go on the open sea, but if an emergency which made it necessary came about, it might be described as being capable of carrying
1256
cargo as a seagoing ship. Therefore what I am saying to the noble Lords on the Government Benches is that this is a very wide sort of definition which can be extremely misleading, and although I would not guarantee that mine was very much more precise it is, I think, an attempt to reach what the definition was seeking to cover rather more precisely than the existing one does. I should be grateful if the noble Lord, Lord Oram, could give me his view of the rival definitions and say whether he does not think it would be reasonable to accept mine in the meantime while we both thought about it for something even better still.
Lord ORAM: The noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, always puts a nice little bit of bait on his hook as he concludes his speech, and I have learned not to nibble. The Bill as drafted defines as "cargo" "goods which are or are to be or have been loaded as cargo in a sea-going ship". "Sea-going ship" is a term of art used in the merchant shipping legislation and basically means a ship which is legally permitted to go to sea, and it excludes ships not entitled to go outside sheltered estuarial waters. The term is often used in other legislation. For example, it forms the essential part of Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964, which formed the basis of Amendment 11A which removed the concept of the cargo-handling zone from the Bill.
As the noble Lord has explained, the object of his Amendment is to exclude ships normally traversing narrow stretches of water, such as across the Solent to the Isle of Wight, from the definition. The term "the open sea" has, however, no legal meaning and the Amendment would probably not have this effect. Indeed, the Amendment might have the effect of excluding from the definition of "cargo" some goods which were going on to the open sea and even abroad. There are some vessels which can go to sea but are generally engaged in estuarial traffic. Goods loaded in such a ship would under this definition never be a cargo, even on an occasion when the ship was bound for abroad. So I think the noble Lord will see that there are difficulties in his definition, just as he believes that there are difficulties in the Government's definition.
Lord SOMERS: Would the noble Lord say where the fishing fleet stands as

1257
regards this matter? They are sea-going ships and they carry cargo, their own cargo of course. And, incidentally, what happens to that cargo when it arrives ashore? Is it handled by dockers or by special men of the fishing fleet service?
Lord ORAM: On that specific point I am afraid I have not got the answer readily to hand, but I will seek it and let the noble Lord know.
Lord MOTTISTONE: That is really very disappointing of the noble Lord, Lord Oram. I thought he was doing so much better earlier on. It really does seem rather unreasonable. I must not interrupt; there might be a good message coming through, but perhaps the rest of your Lordships would like to know that as far as I can see the definition in the Harbours Act 1964, to which I am referred, does not occur in latter publications. Perhaps those in the Officials' Box might like to listen and find out whether they can tell me where it is. I am sorry, my Lords; perhaps I should now address myself to the Front Bench. I did not want to interrupt in case there was important news coming, from wherever it comes from.
Lord JACQUES: That is a little unreasonable. We were collecting information, which had been requested by a Member of the Committee, so that we could give it to the Committee.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I hope that your Lordships will forgive me, but I think that when one is in the middle of a speech and there are not many Members on the Benches opposite, it is rather disappointing if one has to go on talking when one waits for discussions to take place. I should now like to return to the charge. I fully admit that it is very difficult to find a suitable definition, and I fully admit that mine has all kinds of flaws, but I suggest to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, that so has his. I fully accept what he said about my Amendment, but he did not really hoist in what I thought was quite a good explanation of how one might find a ship which is described in my way as being able to go all the way to the West Indies with a cargo unexpectedly. I have in my Amendment the word "normally" which the noble Lord's description of where my Amendment was faulty did not seem to
1258
take into account. He was really faulting it on the abnormal use of the vessel concerned, rather than on the normal use, because I believe that the key point is to get this word, "normally" into the matter.
On the other hand, as well as rather striking my definition down without due consideration to what was really behind it, the noble Lord did not really recognise that his definition is not very much better. It is faulty on the other side. As I was saying while he was busy with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, he referred to a definition in the Harbours Act 1964, and I have turned up the section with definitions in it and there is nothing in it about sea-going ships. It says:
"'ship', where used as a noun, includes every description of vessel used in navigation, seaplanes on the surface of the water and hover vehicles, that is to say, vehicles designed to be supported on a cushion of air."
Forgive me for laughing: there is nothing about a sea-going ship. There may be another Part of the Act which describes a sea-going ship—
Lord ORAM: Is the noble Lord looking at Section 57?
Lord MOTTISTONE: Yes, I was looking at Section 57, and reading from it. So I think that perhaps there is some advice missing here. In view of the fact that the advice is not as full as it might be, I suggest to the noble Lord that his acceptance of the possible fault in the existing wording of the Bill is not quite as generous as it has been in the past. But perhaps he would agree to look at his wording to try to match what I am trying to do. I am not trying to be unreasonable. If that were done, I would agree not to press my own version.
Viscount SIMON: Before the noble Lord replies, I should like to say that I think the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, is being just a little unreasonable here, which he is not often. He complained that the definition in the Bill made no reference to what was done normally. But if he reads it he will see that that is exactly what it says:
"… a sea-going ship capable of carrying cargo (but not including any in whose case cargo-carrying is an abnormal or exceptional use)".
Surely this is exactly the point. We have a sea-going ship which does not normally

1259
carry cargo. It might be somebody's yacht. It might occasionally carry a few pieces of cargo, but that is an abnormal or exceptional use of the ship.
Lord MOTTISTONE: If the noble Viscount will forgive my saying so, I think we are at variance about what is normal. It is the "normally" in terms of being on the ocean that I am concerned about, not the "normally" in terms of carrying cargo. It is the ocean-going part which I wish to have as a normal operation, the instance in which the noble Lord, Lord Oram, talked about the ship that could go to the West Indies when you were not looking, but normally did something else. I entirely agree with the noble Viscount about the term, "normally" in relation to cargoes.
Lord ORAM: It is obvious that I have not given my usual degree of satisfaction to the noble Lord, Lord Mottistone, and I am anxious to keep up my record. I therefore undertake to look at what he has said. I do not anticipate that I shall be bringing forward any Amendment to meet the point that he raises, but I will seek to bring forward a better explanation than possibly I have been able to give this evening. I hope that, with that undertaking, he will agree to withdraw his Amendment; but while I am on my feet may I now give the information for which the noble Lord, Lord Somers, was asking? If he will refer to the second Part of the Schedule that we are now considering, Part II of Schedule 3, and to paragraph 13, he will find that that paragraph excludes small fishing vessels, and I think he has the information in that paragraph.
Lord SOMERS: I must apologise to the noble Lord because that point had been drawn to my attention after I had spoken, and I am afraid I asked the noble Lord a quite needless question.
Lord MOTTISTONE: I am deeply grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Oram, for being so courteous in undertaking to look at this as deeply as he can—perhaps I write a little too much into it—and perhaps we can have something hopeful for the future. I beg leave to withdraw my Amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
9.37 p.m.
Lord LYELL Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 92:
Page 26, line 12, at end insert—
("(c) by the National Freight Corporation or any subsidiary of that corporation;").
The noble Lord said: With Amendment No. 92 we come to take a closer look at Part II of Schedule 3. We might call this the sunny side of the Schedule, in that here we are going to look at and examine work which is, we hope, fairly definite and which will, at last, bear some semblance to that for which we on these Benches have been searching for most of the long hours of this afternoon and, indeed, throughout the Committee stage. We are looking for some definition, some certitude, of the kind of tasks and the kind of work which will or will not be classified. This Part is headed,
"Work excluded from classification",
and it seems that the Government have laid out a very wide strata of types of work which they intend shall not be included as classified work under this Bill.
When we come to look at paragraph 9 we see that this paragraph deals with, I think it is, corporate bodies but, above all, industries and undertakings under national ownership or control. Then it goes on to say,
"or … any subsidiary of a body corporate so established".
Then it produces two exceptions to this work which is excluded from classification, the British Transport Docks Board and the British Waterways Board. Noble Lords may not be aware that there is another very large concern which I think falls into the category of paragraph 9. It is a wholly-owned subsidiary, and it is called the National Freight Corporation. This body corporate, we believe, presents several problems to some—I am sorry; the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has a point?
Lord JACQUES: May I suggest that it would perhaps be to the convenience of the Committee to discuss Amendments Nos. 92 and 93 together.
Lord LYELL: I had proposed to deal with No. 93 separately at a later stage. May I reserve the position? I do not intend to speak to Amendment No. 93 with this Amendment. If the noble Lord wishes me to, I might make a mention

1261
of it; but my major comments were going to be on Amendment No. 92. Such comments as I have on No. 93 I should like to deal with separately, if that would be to the convenience of the Committee. The National Freight Corporation has a very large subsidiary which has invested very heavily in recent years in the public cold storage industry. During the last two years or so it has entered the commercial field of cold storage and food processing in a fairly substantial way—a field in which we understand it has had not much previous expertise or experience. Apart from the difficulty that we and others have found in verifying and pursuing the financial considerations of these particular operations, there are some problems that we should like resolved by the Government. Some estimates that we have been able to make show that approximately 10 per cent. of the cold storage industry in the United Kingdom is operated by the National Freight Corporation's subsidiary. Yet, according to paragraph 9 of Part II of Schedule 3—and I had been happy to come to this Part of Schedule 3 where I thought that, at last, we were going to have some certainties—this wholly-owned subsidiary of a body corporate, publicly-owned, is going to be totally exempt from all the uncertainties which afflict the rest of the cold storage industry.
Apart from these uncertainties and fears for the future and the additional costs which are now threatening 90 per cent. of the privately-owned cold storage concerns, we should be interested to hear why the Government believe that the National Freight Corporation should be excluded from the effects of the Bill which we have before us. We believe this presents—I would not go so far as to say "unfair competition"—a problem of competition which we feel is unjustified.
In addition to entering into the cold storage industry, the National Freight Corporation has in the last two years expanded rapidly in the United Kingdom as well as on the mainland of Europe, not merely in the cold storage industry but also in various other fringe activities of cold storage, such as tank storage and waste disposal. So far as operations across the water in Europe are concerned—and these will impinge on the finances of the British National Freight Corporation—the development on the mainland of continental Europe does not seem to have
1262
matched up to the forecasts which have been made for this operation.
From the research we have made, we are unable to discover much information about the success or otherwise of what is now being carried on in Europe, and we should be interested to see whether the Government could enlighten us on this or give some indication of how the operation carried on in Europe is different from any operations carried on by their competitors in this field.
Fairly substantial investments have been made in this field of cold storage in the United Kingdom as well as on the Continent of Europe. These investments have been made in cold store depots and other acquisitions. I have mentioned tank storage. Other roll-on/roll-off services are included in this. We are concerned at being unable to find any reasonable commercial, financial or economic justification for the Freight Corporation entering into this field. Also we wonder what is the chain of responsibility in the National Freight Corporation and who is responsible for this particular subsidiary.
Lord JACQUES: May I suggest that the noble Lord is asking these questions at entirely the wrong time. It has nothing to do with this Bill. I certainly cannot give him the answers.
Lord LYELL: Would the noble Lord agree that cold storage has some interest in this Bill? We understand it does.
Lord JACQUES: Cold storage has, but not the questions which the noble Lord was posing.
Lord LYELL: I believe—and I think the noble Lord and the Committee will agree—that we have been through finance, commercial viability, and financial efficiency in the Bill. Many believe that the commercial and financial viability of a major competitor to the privately owned cold store industry is of relevance in this Bill. We believe it is fairly relevant to this sector of the Bill. We may have more to say on specific attitudes and specific concerns in the cold store industry at a later stage. So far as we can judge, this is the right time to discuss this problem which concerns us. I would hope for an indication from the noble Lord on this. Naturally, in raising a fairly substantial subject, we could not expect the noble Lord to give detailed

1263
answers tonight; but he could give an indication.
Lord HARMAR-NICHOLLS: I want to confirm that my noble friend's judgment as to this being very much the concern of the Bill was substantiated by the petition that I sent to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. The concern in Peterborough is that the cold storage under the facility of the privately owned one is very relevant. The questions my noble friend is asking— if they cannot be answered now—are relevant and the answers ought to be given at some stage.
Lord JACQUES: Clearly, the financial viability of a nationalised undertaking is not relevant to the Bill. It is an Unstarred Question. I have no objection to answering, but it is not relevant to this Bill.
Lord LYELL: Could the noble Lord tell me if the financial viability of a major participant in the cold store industry is relevant to the Bill? I believe it is, particularly where the increase in freight which might or might not accrue to this large concern, the National Freight Corporation, could, and I believe will, be affected by the financial support that is available. For an Unstarred Question we would ask for specific and narrow details. There are large sums of money involved, £10 million or £100 million, or whatever the figure is, and that is some indication of what we have been able to achieve so far as this very large participant in the cold store industry is concerned.
The noble Lord may think that 10 per cent., 11 per cent., or 12 per cent. of the cold store industry in the United Kingdom is not relevant, but we believe that it is. There are fears among other members of the cold store industry in the United Kingdom who wonder why this wholly-owned subsidiary of a body corporate, which is publicly owned, wishes to enter into the cold store industry. There is no reason why it should not wish to do so on commercial terms; but the indications that we have been able to find are that the commercial aspect is receding into the distance. We believe that there is a desire on the part of those large concerns to enter a sector, which is the cold store industry—I will not say "cost what may", but with a financial and cost efficiency which is moving further and further down the list of priorities.
Lord JACQUES: I hope the noble Lord has evidence to support such statements.
The Earl of GOWRIE: I think we are out of order here because until the Question has been put I understand we are not allowed to engage in debate. In fairness to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I think it was my noble friend who was initially out of order and I suggest that we should wait until the Question has been put and then engage in as many fireworks as we see fit.
Lord JACQUES: I will suffer in silence.
Lord LYELL: If I may put at rest the mind of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, I regret that I could not find evidence tonight before we rise, but certainly I would endeavour to have a decent array of figures for him should he wish them. I have not mentioned specific figures because I have not got the accounts before me. If I had, perhaps I should be able to make an even stronger speech; I should be able to condemn this practice outright.
I should like to move on swiftly. The National Freight Corporation appears, from the researches that have been done by the cold storage industry and the National Freight Corporation—and the National Freight Corporation, naturally, is a part of that industry, but is a publicly owned sector of the cold storage industry—to be pursuing a somewhat unfettered, and, we would consider misguided, policy of acquiring businesses without due regard to the cost. We believe this is somewhat unjustified and unreasonable in view of the pressures that are being brought upon the cold storage industry by the Bill. Yet this major competitor, with already 10 per cent. and possibly even a growing share of that cold storage industry is, it would appear, exempt from the pressures and the additional costs which the Bill will place on the cold storage industry. The National Freight Corporation's subsidiary is exempt from that.
We have been able to do some research into the profit and loss record of the particular wholly owned subsidiary of the National Freight Corporation, and it appears from the records that we can obtain, and which naturally are available to the public, that the financial viability

1265
of this operation is not really satisfactory, as might be acceptable for a private company or for a member of the 90 per cent. which is at present in private hands, and we would seek some justification or explanation from the Government as to why this very large competitor in the cold storage industry is to be excluded from all responsibilities and the additional costs of the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: There is a subsequent Amendment which seeks to bring in British Rail in addition to the National Freight Corporation. The Government believe that the historic and close links between the National Freight Corporation and British Rail make it equally desirable to apply a similar exclusion. Consultations have been held with the employers—that is the Corporation—and all the trade unions concerned. From these consultations the Government are satisfied that it is never likely to be appropriate to classify any of the work of these clearly defined groups which are not connected with the docks industry.
In the public sector the Government can be certain that there are proper terms and conditions of employment, and proper forms of worker participation and other protections which the Scheme provides. The Government feel that this is a case where both employer and trade unions have agreed that it is not likely to he necessary to come within the Scheme for the regulation of dock labour, and accordingly they do not propose that they should be brought within the Scheme.
Viscount SIMON: I took it that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in fact was speaking to both this Amendment and the next one.
Lord JACQUES: I suggested that, but my suggestion was not accepted.
Viscount SIMON: Then the noble Lord is speaking only of the National Freight Corporation. I must say I find it difficult to see quite why this nationalised body should be treated differently from the other nationalised bodies which are concerned, in one way or another, with activities within the scope of this Bill. The noble Lord says that the nationalised body over whose Board no doubt the Government exercise some influence and the trade unions concerned are happy that it should not be so included. Does the
1266
noble Lord mean by that that the employees of the National Freight Corporation in fact will have the same benefits as the employees on the dock side, and that they will have the same security of employment? He says it is unnecessary for them. Why is it unnecessary for them? I do not follow the logic of this argument at all.
Lord JACQUES: I usually find that the trade unions say it is unnecessary when the status quo will give them better results than a change would give them.
Lord WIGODER: Would the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, help me with one question? Accepting, as I am sure he does, that this is in no way decisive as to what the wishes are of the Corporation or a company as to whether it should be included or excluded from a particular Bill, is it not the wish of the National Freight Corporation that they should be included in this Bill?
Lord JACQUES: I can say that the National Freight Corporation and the trade unions concerned have been consulted. After those consultations, it is the view of the Government that they should not go in at the moment. There is not likely to be any occasion when there will be pressure for them to go in, either from the employer or the trade union.
Lord WIGODER: I am sure the noble Lord must realise that he has not answered the question. Have the National Freight Corporation expressed the wish to be included in the Bill?
Lord JACQUES: My understanding is that the National Freight Corporation have said that it is unnecessary for them to be brought within the scope of the Bill.
Lord LYELL: I may not have phrased my question clearly. I was concerned with the financial viability and with some of the reasons why we felt that the National Freight Corporation should not be given the exclusion which it appears to have under paragraph (9) of Schedule 3. It seems that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is replying on a parallel line, but is not replying to the question to which we are seeking an answer. The noble Lord says that the trade unions and the National Freight Corporation are happy with the status quo. I wondered about the trade unions and the cold storage industry, the 90 per cent. which we have

1267
not mentioned. I do not think they are very happy. Above all, it is the trade unions and some of the employers, but in many cases it is the employees of the cold storage industry, of the 90 per cent. not covered by the National Freight Corporation and the wholly owned subsidiary who are most unhappy. I really cannot say that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has given us any answer as to why the Corporation subsidiary should be treated differently from any other nationalised concern or, indeed, other concerns in the cold storage industry. I beg to move.
Lord JACQUES: Before the Question is put, may I remind the noble Lord that in the Bill as it stands, and as amended in
Lord STRABOLGI: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
House resumed.

RESALE PRICES BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
the other place, if there is a proposal before the National Docks Board to bring a particular work within the Scheme, the proposal can be vetoed by a trade union; presumably a trade union which has workers in private industry. I cannot see a great deal of difference between that and consulting a trade union in the nationalised industry, discussing it with them and coming to a conclusion that it is unlikely there will be any desire for classification either now or in the foreseeable future.
10 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said Amendment (No. 92) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 55; Not-Contents, 30.

CONTENTS

Amory, V.

Elles, B.

Lucas of Chilworth, L.

Atholl, D.

Elliot of Harwood, B.

Lyell, L.

Balerno, L.

Elton, L.

Mottistone, L.

Balfour of Inchrye, L.

Ferrier, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L

Belstead, L.

Foot, L.

Pender, L.

Blakenham, V.

Gainford, L.

Redesdale, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Glasgow, E.

Rochdale, V.

Burton, L.

Gowrie, E.

St. Aldwyn, E. [Teller.]

Caithness, E.

Gray, L.

Salisbury, M.

Carrington, L.

Harmar-Nicholls, L.

Sandford, L.

Chelwood, L.

Henley, L.

Simon, V.

Clitheroe, L.

Hornsby-Smith, B.

Somers, L.

Colville, of Culross, V.

Inglewood, L.

Strathclyde, L.

Colwyn, L.

Ironside, L.

Vernon, L.

Craigmyle, L.

Killearn, L.

Vickers, B.

Cranbrook, E.

Lauderdale, E.

Ward of Witley, V.

De Freyne, L.

Lloyd,L.

Wigoder, L.

Denham, L. [Teller.]

Long, V.

Wise, L.

Drumalbyn, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Beswick, L.

Jacques, L.

Phillips, B.

Brimelow, L.

Janner, L.

Popplewell, L.

Brockway, L.

Kirkhill, L.

Ritchie Calder, L.

Champion, L.

Lee of Newton, L.

Snow, L.

Collison, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Stedman, B. [Teller.]

Cooper of Stockton Heath, L.

McCluskey, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Davies of Leek, L.

Maelor, L.

Taylor of Mansfield, L.

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

Murray of Gravesend, L.

Wells-Pestell, L. [Teller.]

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Oram, L.

Winterbottom, L.

Hirshfield, L.

Peart, L. (L. Privy Seat)

Wynne-Jones, L.

Moved accordingly, and on Question Motion agreed to.

TRINIDAD AND TOBAGO REPUBLIC BILL [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to.
House adjourned at eight minutes past ten o'clock.