DOCK WORK REGULATION BILL

HL Deb 26 October 1976 vol 376 cc343-406

6.12 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.)

House in Committee accordingly.

[The LORD NUGENT OF GUILDFORD in the Chair.]

Schedule 3 [Descriptions of work which may, and those which may not be classified as dock work]:

Lord TREFGARNE moved Amendment No. 96: Page 26, line 17, at end insert ("either by structure or contract").

The noble Lord said: Schedule 3 of this Bill is divided into two Parts: Part I which lists work which may be classified under this Bill together with a number of definitions. and Part II which is work to he excluded from classification. Paragraph 10 of the Schedule provides a certain category of work in Part II. It defines work which shall he excluded from classification. It is: The work of persons employed in a retail, wholesale, manufacturing or other business, at premises"— which, if I may paraphrase, are premises principally belonging to the person running the business, or work carried on in relation to which the owners are an associated company.

It is this definition of an associated company that I seek to clarify by means of my Amendment. I am anxious that the definition should be rather more easily understood than is presently the case. I believe it would be appropriate for the words that I have tabled to be added at the end of line 17. The words are: either by structure or contract". Thus, if my Amendment is accepted, the last part of the paragraph would read: … or a company which in relation to the owners is an associated company either by structure or contract". I think this is an important point because it would give scope for associated companies to be more fully defined, and will therefore, I think, be useful. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

The Amendment is presumably intended to extend the meaning of "associated company" to include one which has any kind of contract with the owners of the business who own or produce the goods in question. The noble Lord is seeking in this way to exclude from classification work at third-party warehouses which have contracts with their clients to store goods on their behalf. The Government cannot accept that cargo-handling work at third-party warehouses should be automatically ex—cluded from the Bill. Moreover, the Amendment would also seem likely to exclude from classification a great deal of ordinary stevedoring work, and probably any cargo-handling work except where the contract by the firm handling the goods was not with the owner but with an intermediary, such as a forwarder. While this may frequently be the arrangement, it is certainly not so in all cases, and could in any case be changed by the parties if they found it desirable to avoid classification.

I must say that I would regard this as a wrecking Amendment, even though the noble Lord may not have intended it as such. May I put it in simple language? If the person who owned the goods had a contract with the port employer, then it would mean that the handling of those goods at the port could not be classified because there was an association by contract. This is certainly an Amendment which the Government could under no circumstances accept.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

The noble Lord, in rejecting this Amendment, is I think taking no account of the small man and the smaller business. For example, in food and other commodities protection is given to the enormous chains that have their own exclusive warehouses but the many other smaller companies, or divers companies, which may draw from different warehouses, are in no similar way protected, and it will merely add additional cost and expense to the middle-sized company, the middle-sized firm and the middle-sized distributor. I think the Government might give some consideration to them, because the big chains, with their exclusively-owned warehouses, can bring the muscle in and tell the Government it is not on, but the small businessman suffers all the time.

Lord JACQUES

This has nothing to do with the size of the firm. The whole question here is whether, in addition to the goods belonging to the company or an associated company, it should also cover the goods which belong, not to an associated company but to a company with whom the principal company has a contract.

Lord TREFGARNE

I am obliged to the noble Lord for his answer, although disappointed. I must say I am flattered to think that my Amendment should be classed as a wrecking Amendment, because, as the noble Lord rightly surmised, that was far from my intention. One of the purposes of tabling this Amendment was to try to extract from the Government their idea of what is an associated company. Is it a company simply owned by the parent company? Is it a company in business in some way with the principal company? I thought that my Amendment would give the Government an opportunity to expand on that point and I hope that the noble Lord is able to do that.

As for the second phrase in my Amendment, namely, the words "or contract I agree that as defined by the noble Lord this would widen the scope quite considerably. I can, however, confirm to the noble Lord that the thought that was in the mind of my noble friend Lady Hornsby-Smith when she was talking about the smaller company was that it was most certainly my intention to try to provide some easement for these kind of people and that was one of the reasons why the Amendment was tabled. But the definition of an "associated company" is an important point and while I am pondering upon what to do with this Amendment perhaps the noble Lord could help me there?

Lord JACQUES

The definition is in Clause 15(3), page 19.

Lord TREFGARNE

I shall not weary the Committee while I look that up and ponder on it. I will take the noble Lord's word for it, and with that I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, with drawn.

6.22 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 97:

Page 26, line 17, at end insert— ("10A. The work of persons employed in a business on premises occupied for the purposes of business where the terms and conditions of employment are mainly or exclusively the subject of a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is concerned with the concept, and I might call it the expression, of loading and unloading cargo and the handling of cargo. We believe, and indeed I think noble Lords will accept, that the Committee has found these two concepts have been more than a little difficult to define. We believe that these varying, different definitions could result in some work which is being done currently, and indeed properly at dockside areas and in dock areas, where this work should be under-taken by members of any particular trade union and it should be classified and regarded as dock work, under the Bill becoming work reserved for registered dock workers.

We hope, and we firmly believe, that the Government do not wish the provisions of the Bill that we are discussing to promote any form of strife or dispute or demarcation arguments between one set of employees and another, nor indeed do the Government hope that the. Bill will act as an irritant between employers and employees. All that this Amendment seeks to do is to recognise that there are existing agreements between employers and employees, and we hope that the Amendment may go some way, indeed a long way, towards preventing a ay possibilities of inter-union disputes. In the course of our last debate at Committee stage the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that 8 per cent. of disputes, I think it was in the last 12 months, were caused by disputes between one set of employees and another. We feel that 8 per cent. is certainly a figure that is too high, but that other disputes should be prevented rather than cured, and we are fearful that, if this Amendment is not put into the Bill, disputes could arise fairly easily.

Noble Lords have pointed out at earlier discussions on the Bill that it seeks to remove casual employment and that it seeks to remove a certain category of workers and employees who have been named as "cowboys". Maybe that language is a trifle florid but noble Lords will understand what we are seeking. The Bill seeks to remove "cowboys" from the areas around dockland and harbours and ports. That is why we commend this Amendment and stress again that where there is a collective agreement between one or more employers and one or more set of employees—there may be more than one trade union, there may be several of them—it would be unwise and inadvisable to overturn it. That is why we should like to see this Amendment in the Bill. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

The consequences of this Amendment as it stands would be that in any case where there was a collective agreement with a recognised trade union the work in question could not be classified as dock work—even if the union and the management were both anxious that it should be so classified. It would, for example, prevent classification of the work of the tally clerks at Liverpool. The tally clerks at Liverpool are working in very close association with registered dockers. It is the wish of both the employers and the employees that this work should be classified, but this Amendment would prevent classification.

In discussing an earlier Amendment I also mentioned that on the North-East coast fish bobbers at all ports except at Hull are registered dockers, and the Hull fish bobbers claim that this is entirely due to an accident of history and they want the work classified. They have a very strong case for the work being classified, but this Amendment would prevent that classification. Consequently, we hope that with this explanation the noble Lord will see his way clear to withdraw this Amendment.

6.27 p.m.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

I am sure we are grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, for his response to my noble friend's Amendment; but is it really fair to suggest that for the sake of classification, arrangements which have been in force in some places for very many years should be upset? I know that in Southampton a number of jobs are done by dockers by agreement with other employers and unions. Surely, as the Bill stands, there will be a case for classification—with all the trauma that that is likely to bring.

If one takes the case that the noble Lord has cited, at Hull, if those workers are currently excluded from having their work classified as dock work, instead of going through the rigmarole of classifying the work throughout all the ports, surely a collective agreement as is provided for in this Amendment could be entered into and then they would have the same status? If such an arrangement, as suggested by my noble friend in moving the Amendment, is good enough for all parties, why do we need to make a law which will upset it?

I am told that at Southampton there has been a great deal of harmony over the years in agreeing different types of work. Certainly a trade union leader and road haulage official told me about ten days ago that they thought that the Bill was quite stupid in this respect, and quite unnecessary because with good will and good intention on both sides everybody could be satisfied. Surely that is all my noble friend Lord Lyell is seeking, an area in which people of good intention can be satisfied without having to resort to the law.

Lord JACQUES

But that is not the effect of the Amendment. The effect is that where both the employers and employees wish for classification, it could not happen in a case where there is a collective agreement if this Amendment were passed. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement. They want the work to be classified and they want to come within the Scheme. The employers do not object, but if this Amendment were carried they would be excluded. In our opinion that is an intolerable position.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

Either I have not made myself clear or I have quite misunderstood what the noble Lord has said. Surely, if the tally clerks have a collective agreement they have got what they want.

Lord JACQUES

No.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

And by coming within the Scheme, it is the same thing but called by a different name.

Lord JACQUES

No.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

Then could the noble Lord tell me what real, and not the imagined, difference, would occur in the case of the tally clerks so they could get what they do not have under their collective agreement?

Lord JACQUES

There are many collective agreements associated with dock work covering non-classified work, where the workers are quite happy with the agreements. But the agreement is quite different from the terms and conditions that would operate if they were registered dockers. There are advantages and disadvantages. There are certain advantages in not being classified and being subject to a collective agreement which they have had for years, and to be able to belong to the union they want to belong to. All those things count. In the case of the Liverpool tally clerks there is a collective agreement, but there could be further advantages to the staff if they were registered dockers, and the employers wish them to join the Scheme. I imagine that what has happened here is that most of the employees are already registered and covered. But there is a sector, the tally clerks, who want to be covered and the employers want them to be, even though they have a separate collective agreement.

Viscount SIMON

With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, I think the Government are absolutely right on this matter and I have the feeling that the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, has not quite appreciated the point. Part II of this Schedule, as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said, covers work excluded from classification. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, talked about tally clerks at Liverpool, but it would apply to ordinary dockers in the ports of London, Southampton or elsewhere. They all have collective agreements and therefore would be excluded. It must be appreciated that Part II refers to work excluded from classification. Part I covers work that is subject to classification, but it does not follow that it will always be classified. If you include it in Part II it is excluded from classification. That is the point which the noble Lord is making. As regards the difficulties that have been mentioned, I wonder whether they not be met by Amendment No. 107. That might help the noble Lord, Lord Lye11, if the Government can be persuaded to accept it.

6.34 p.m.

Lord MOTTISTONE

I must apologise for not having been here at the beginning of this discussion. As I see it, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is saying that this Amendment is unreasonable because there may be some workers in a particular occupation who will get advantage by having their jobs classified as dock work and would be prevented from seeing that happen because of this Amendment. I seek the indulgence of my own Front Bench as well as that of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, but it seems to me that this Amendment is talking about the state of affairs that will result when the Bill becomes law. Then, people who are working in a certain business or on certain premises and have a collective agreement with a recognised trade union will, by means of this Amendment, be able to remain with that trade union and with that particular type of work without its being classified as dock work.

It seems to me that there is nothing within this Amendment—and here I must ask the advice of the noble Lord, Lord Lyell—to prevent the workers, if they so wish, seeking to have another collective agreement with their employers. In my experience, collective agreements are not rigid things which never change. As I see it, the Bill would not prevent a group of workers from having discussior s with their employers and negotiating, if they wish, on whatever grounds there may be, to have themselves switched over. It would seem to me, therefore, that the particular clause is more a holding of the status quo at the time the Bill becomes law, rather than a long-term thing which would stop changes ever happening in the future. Perhaps I have gained the wrong impression.

Lord JACQUES

I would not agree with that interpretation. My interpretation of this Amendment is that at any time if the workers doing certain work have a collective agreement, their work could not be classified.

Lord SANDFORD

First of all, may I say that I am afraid the exigencies of our business has meant that the Front Bench team is having to be changed in mid-play. I hope the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, and other members of the Committee will bear with me if we have to go a little more slowly when I am taking part. It seems to me that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has not registered the intention as expressed by my noble friend Lord Lyell. I thought he had made it abundantly clear that this Amendment—which after all is more or less on a par with what is set out in paragraph 10—seeks to do no more than secure that everything was left well alone when the arrangements that obtained were based upon a collective agreement with a recognised trade union.

If I may say so to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, it is really no answer to that to say that there are collective agreements which, if this Amendment were passed, would prevent those concerned from having their work classified as dock work, because, as my noble friend Lord Mottistone said, all they would have to do then would be to cancel their collective agreement as the first of a series of steps to get their work on to a different basis. Once the collective agreement is there, the proposed new paragraph would not bite. We should find it helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would give an indication of the Government's attitude towards the intention expressed by my noble friend; namely, would they not agree that where work was being done that was based on a collective agreement with a recognised trade union it is better to leave well alone? That is the purpose of this Amendment. What my noble friend will do concerning this Amendment at this stage will be a matter for him to decide, but it would be helpful if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help us on that point.

Lord WIGODER

May I rise for the first, last and only time in the course of this long series of debates to support the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I venture to suggest that this Amendment would have an effect which is far wider than is intended. What it would do, in fact, would be to make an already rather meaningless clause totally meaningless. It would mean that in no conceivable circumstances could work ever be classified if a collective agreement was in force, and even if a new collective agreement came into force it would be caught by the terms of the Amendment. The only time work could be classified, if this Amendment were accepted, would be if there were no collective agreement in force at all. That, with respect, is surely a recipe for industrial anarchy.

Lord JACQUES

In answer to the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Sandford, I would say that we can go a very long way with him. In fact, under Clause 8 if the Board have under consideration the classification of work, a trade union recognised by an employer as from the end of decasualisation in 1967 can veto the proposal.

Lord LYELL

The noble Lord said that the date is the end of decasualisation, and we shall be coming to that later. But I should like to thank him for some of his answers, particularly when he said that the Government go a long way with my noble friend Lord Sandford. As the noble Lord said, there are defects in the Amendment and it prevents classification. He quoted the example of the tally clerks at Liverpool who, I presume, do not belong to the docks section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, because if they did there would be no difficulty. I understand that the tally clerks in the Port of London belong to that union, but I suppose that different ports have different customs. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that there would be advantages to the employees in belonging to a union of their choice. I hope that there would also be advantages to an employer in allowing his employees to belong to a union of their choice, and this is what the Amendment seeks to preserve.

I take the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, and the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. They are probably valid points, but not so valid as our good points. I was very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, accepted the fact that we are setting out in a constructive spirit. I appreciate that the effect of the Amendment will be to prevent classification when the work force wishes it, but we are of the opinion that when there is a collective agreement between an employer and employees or a trade union it should be upheld. The noble Lord's reply had considerable merit, and I should like to take this opportunity of withdrawing the Amendment and will consider it for a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

6.43 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 98:

Page 26, line 18, leave out paragraph 11 and insert— ("11. Driving any vehicle whose normal use is mainly on public roads, whether inside or outside any dock labour scheme area; supervision of loading or unloading such a vehicle; seeing to the security of its load;")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is particularly concerned with the transport section of the Transport and General Workers' Union and the road haulage industry, and it would replace paragraph 11 of Schedule 3. Its purpose is to permit drivers of transport and other vehicles, whose normal use is mainly on public roads, to drive their vehicles right inside the dock area if they so desire. Noble Lords will be aware that the roll-on/roll-off ports, together with the road haulage industry, are particularly concerned about this paragraph. It does not make it clear that the driving of normal commercial road vehicles within the port area is not dock work and would not necessarily be classified as such. We are a little worried that the Bill as drafted would allow registered dock workers, who may not have heavy goods vehicle licences or the necessary experience, to drive such vehicles whether they are fixed axle lorries or have trailers. We believe that there is a risk that operators of road transport vehicles might not want to use the larger ports, and might seek to use non-Scheme ports or the smallest ports. This appears to be a fairly minor Amendment, but we should be grateful for guidance on the Government's thinking from the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

This Amendment is very similar to Amendments which were considered during the Committee stage in another place, and which were negatived on a Division. In the debate which took place in the other place the Secretary of State made it clear that it was certainly not envisaged that the driving of such vehicles within dock estates should in general be classified as dock work. He explained that there were, however, some cases where it might be considered appropriate to classify such work; for example, there could be cases where, as a matter of practice, convenience or efficiency, vehicles were left in cock parks by their drivers and driven on board by dockers. Another case was that of cars or lorries for export or import. The fears expressed in some quarter; that the effect of the Bill as drafted will be to lead to a general take-over of driving lorries within dock estates by registered dock workers, are unjustified. It is the, Government's views that the various tests to be applied under the Bill, before work is classified as dock work, are adequate to ensure that the work of driving vehicles normally used on public roads will be recommended for classification only in those exceptional circumstances when it would be appropriate to do so.

Viscount SIMON

I should like to support the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, on this Amendment, which is sound. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained very carefully that classification would be sought only in special cases. This seems to be introducing a great complication, unless these special cases are all itemised. Is it not better to accept this Amendment, which excludes from classification the driving of any vehicle within the port limits?—because there is nothing to prevent someone from employing Registered dock workers to do unclassified work, and it is still possible, in the kind of case which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned, when by custom, or whatever it may be, dockers are employed to drive a vehicle on to a ship, for them to do so.

6.50 p.m.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is not going to answer the noble Viscount, I shall have to try to prompt him into a reply. This is a good Amendment, because it will satisfy one set of workers as against another. Those members of the road haulage industry who are engaged in going to and from the docks are extremely worried. No amount of assurances in the other place have satisfied them.

It is not good enough for the Minister to say, as he has just said, that the Secretary of State made it clear that he did not envisage that this work would become registered as dock work but that there might be some cases where classification may be sought. The members of the truck driving industry feel, rightly or wrongly, that they are the poor relation. They see themselves as highly skilled men, in that the vast majority of them have to hold an HGV Class 1 licence. You do not pick up such a licence by sending £1 to the Post Office; it can cost a man or his employer £300 or £400 to get that licence.

Perhaps I may quote from the August 1976 issue of Headlight, the independent journal of road transport: We can only judge what the dockers will do from their record in the past. Such as at Chobham Farm container depot, in East London. Once the dockers moved in, they soon elbowed out the people who were already working there". These men may arrive at a dock having driven a long distance over many hours. I have known of drivers waiting outside a dock to get in for as long as two days, for a variety of reasons, without enjoying any kind of facilities bar the street. Why should these men work under the threat that one day their job will be taken away from them and given to somebody else, or that they may be required to join either another union or another section of a particular union?

This Bill is so incompetent. It holds out promises to a wide variety of people, so much so that along the South Coast there are already moves by the docker section of the Transport and General Workers' Union to persuade the drivers within that union that they should register, albeit in an unofficial capacity, as drivers who regularly do work in and around the port area. They will be issued with a card. Those firms which send a truck into the dock with a driver who does not hold a card may find that it is a little difficult to get their work done. That is the kind of suggestion the Bill is already creating. That there may be vehicles left in a pound and therefore unaccompanied is not germane to the argument because an unaccompanied vehicle, whether it is a new motor car, a new land rover, a new lorry, a private motor car being shipped to Le Havre for collection by somebody who flies over, or a loaded lorry, has then passed, surely, into other hands. Different rules will apply because then it is under the guardianship, as it were, of a shipping company.

If the arguments are correct which the Government advanced when we discussed Amendment No. 88, which was moved by my noble friend Lord Gowrie, and were trying to decide when goods became cargo, it may be that that would be the case, but what happens in the case of a rigid vehicle or an articulated vehicle that is accompanied? Why should there be any reason to suggest that the law should provide that on a private road or in a private part of a dock that vehicle could be, might be, may be driven by a docker who may or may not have (my contention is that he will not have) the requisite qualifications? Nor, indeed, is he likely to be covered by insurance. These are the kind of cases which the haulage industry feel could he upset by the Bill.

The drivers are responsible at all times not only for the safety of the vehicle but also for the safety of the load. This is not to say that loads are not well looked after, particularly in ferry boats, in terms of lashing down vehicles. At this point it might be appropriate to pay a tribute to those workers on board the ferries who so well looked after commercial vehicles and their loads during the recent gales. Nobody would deny that they did a good job. Nevertheless, why should they move wagons on or off a boat? We have spoken a good deal about roll-on/roll-off. This is only the current expedient for moving goods about; later on there could be another one, although I do not know what it might be. I do not believe that it is fair that there should remain in a Bill a clause whereby this group of people may have their jobs taken away.

At col.621 of our Second Reading debate I asked what would be the situation with drivers coming from Common Market countries if the provisions now contained in the Bill obtained. I know full well what happens in practice. Whether the vehicles are usually, by custom, or by a collective agreement driven by dock workers, no foreign driver that I have spoken to or heard of will ever allow his vehicle to be moved by any person other than himself. I asked at that time whether the Bill impinged upon our commitment to the relieving EEC regulations. A good deal more traffic will be moving across the Channel and, it may be, across the oceans. The development of the movement of goods in whole wagons, whether they are rigid, whether they are the train type vehicle or whether they are the tractor-trailer type vehicle, means that more drivers will be employed, and they are not going to give up one part of their job to another group of people. It is not right that there should he any gap in the Bill that would enable one group to ease out another.

Unless the Minister can give very much better reasons for refusing the Amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Lye11, I think that my noble friends will have to test how the entire Committee feels about it.

The Duke of ATHOLL

If the Amendment were written into the Bill rather than paragraph 11 which is already contained in it, would it preclude dockers from doing the jobs they already do which the noble Lord instanced that the Secretary of State had given as examples in another place? As I read the Bill, it means that driving these vehicles not only on public roads but also on private roads within the ports could be done by transport workers who are not dockers. Presumably if it has been the normal practice so far it could also be done by dockers. Is this reading of the Amendment correct or would it prevent dockers from doing this work? I think this is an important point.

Lord JACQUES

If the work was not classified it would not prevent dockers from doing it but they would not have a right to claim it as their work.

The Duke of ATHOLL

But if it had been the normal practice for them to do it up till now presumably they would be perfectly entitled to continue to do it?

Lord JACQUES

I think the noble Duke is now supporting my case of rejecting this Amendment. Let me tell the Committee what the position is. Work within a dock site driving lorries we say would not normally be classifiable because it would not get over the tests which are laid down in Clause 8 and Schedule 4. Let us look at the tests which they have to get over. It is a two-stage procedure in Schedule 4. First, the Board has to consider whether there is a prima facie case and in order to do that they have to take three things into account: first, whether the work is in substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers; secondly, whether the work needs the training, aptitude and experience of a registered dock worker; thirdly, whether the work is for the time being wholly or mainly done by workers employed as casual labour. They have to take those things into account, and having done so they come to a decision as to whether or not there is a prima facie case.

During the course of that any parties can make representations anti if they decide that there is a prima facie case they have to start afresh with a second procedure. They have then to inform the parties that they have decided there is a prima facie case and in conseatence they propose to give further consideration to the matter. They have to allow time for further representations and when the second procedure is completed they have to decide whether it is sensible having regard to the efficiency and the effect upon industrial relations, to classify this work. In my view ordinary driving would never get over those tests. We have gone out of our way to prevent it from got ting over those tests. Consequently we say that without this Amendment ordinary lorry drivers need not fear for their jobs. It is only in very exceptional cases, such as those which I have mentioned, where by normal practice they take their lorries into the car park and leave then for the dockers to drive them on to the ship. We do not think that the normal drivers have anything to fear, and if I may say so I do not think that the Transper ort and General Workers' Union would be very unhappy if drivers were threatened in that way because I imagine that they have far more drivers than dockers in their membership.

Lord LYELL

If I may intervene briefly, I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is very close to admitting that this Amendment is valid, in that I think I heard him say that should this Amendment be written into the Bill, in the exceptional cases that he me mentioned much earlier on, where registered dock workers do indeed drive such vehicles within the dock areas, they could continue to do so. Is that the position?

Lord JACQUES

I think I made the position clear. I said that if the work was not classified the registered dock worker could do it but he could not claim the right to do it. Even though he had been doing it he could not claim the right to do it because as a result of this Amendment it would be unclassifiable. We are considering Part II of Schedule 3, which lays down that work which is not classifiable. Noble Lords opposite are trying to make this not classifiable so therefore even if the dock worker is doing it at the moment I am saying that he could continue to do it, but he would not have the right to continue to do it.

Lord LYELL

This is the whole purpose of the Amendment. We agree that where by custom and practice—I think that is mentioned earlier in the Bill although we should need to have it defined more clearly—registered dock workers do indeed drive these vehicles, there is mutual agreement between the owners of the vehicles and the dockers that this should be allowed. I thank the noble Lord for clearing up that point but I think my noble friend has something more to say.

Lord MOTTISTONE

It seems to me that the real point of this is where the balance of advantage is to be left. It is all a matter of privilege of one set of workers against another, and as at present written the Bill gives the opportunity of privilege to the dockers; the Amendment gives the retention of privilege by the ordinary transport driver under what might be called a "disputed area situation" regarding a vehicle being driven in a dock scheme area. It would seem that, on the whole, knowing the sensibilities of the long-distance drivers as well as appreciating something of the sensibilities of the dock workers, it is fairer on balance that a vehicle which is normally used on the main roads should not be one to which the dockers have any special rights.

The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, said that of course under agreed situations there is nothing to prevent the dockers from driving these vehicles, but the issue arises on the special rights. It seems to me to be very reasonable that they should not have special rights with regard to long distance lorries, the main purpose of which is to drive on the public roads. Therefore, I do not quite see why the noble Lord is pressing his case, because on the whole one would have thought that once this Bill is through and the dock workers are in a position to exploit what they can from it, then surely they are going to do that. We know from past experience that this is what they do and therefore we want to safeguard as much as we can other types of worker where there is any possibility of conflict, particularly where, as in this case, there is opportunity for the dock workers to do whatever is necessary without having a statutory right to do it. I think that is really the point at issue.

Lord JACQUES

I should like to put it another way. I believe that both sides of the Committee have the same objective. We both want to have the best possible industrial relations; we do not want rows between one group of workers and another. It is our experience that we shall get that situation if there is flexibility but we shall not get it if we have rigidity. The Amendment seeks to give rigidity whereas the Bill as it stands is seeking flexibility. Noble Lords are saying that it shall not be classifiable; we are saying that it shall be classifiable in only the most exceptional circumstances. But we are leaving the door open because we know that there are those exceptional circumstances. Consequently, I would suggest that we have the same objectives but that the method we are using is more likely to get the results.

7.10 p.m.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

The noble Lord has not answered my question about the effects in regard to the European Community. I want to know the answer to that, and having asked the question a long time ago I think I deserve an answer. However, on his main point the noble Lord says—

Lord JACQUES

I should like the noble Lord to repeat his question on the European Community because I am afraid I completely missed it.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

I shall find a way of raising the matter at the next stage, because if the noble Lord has missed it now, I feel confident that he will not be able to answer it. It is written down. The question can be found at col.621 of Hansard for the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 30th September 1976. Perhaps in due course he could let me know the answer.

Lord JACQUES

I certainly will.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

His main argument is that the drivers need have no fears because the Government are absolutely sure that this work will not. be taken over and that it will be only in the most exceptional circumstances that a classification will be sought; and there are all the safeguards that he has outlined. That may well be so in the warmth and comfort of an October evening in your Lordships' House. However, on the dockside when someone has driven 300 miles with 32 tons up it is not such a comfort.

I assure noble Lords in this Committee that notwithstanding assurances of that kind, which are a repetition of those given in the other place, the employees of the haulage industry have fears—the whole record vis-à-vis dock work and other work gives them the grounds for those fears. Given one little chink, they feel that the dockers will he right through and that their jobs will be in jeopardy. Already the two sides are facing up for a fight about it. Remove the basis of the fight and there will not be one—everyone will be happy. It may be argued, "Why should the haulage drivers be given this privilege of exclusion?", to which I suppose they might counter, "Why, indeed, do the dockers have their privilege, which they have had for years and which is now being extended? For God's sake! give us our little bit and then we shall know where we are". Surely that is what this is about. It is not about flexibility or a difference of opinion; it is to ensure that one branch of the transport industry knows exactly where it is, with no "ifs", "ands", or "buts", no exceptions, no special cases and no long drawn out procedures. It is their work; let them keep it.

Lord SANDFORD

I beg the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, to heed the word of my noble friend Lord Lucas. He is absolutely right. It is not a question of flexibility; it is a question of making the position as clear as we possibly can to those concerned about where they stand. There is no doubt at all that the assurances that have been given so far on this Bill have done nothing whatever to allay the fears of an attempt at a takeover in this area. As drafted, there is no doubt at all that the Bill is open to a widespread take-over by the dockers of all or any driving of transport vehicles on the private roads inside the docks. That is one loophole which must be closed. It is no good the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, saving, as he has repeatedly, that there will be only a few reasonably special cases when he has not given us one example. It would be helpful if he could give us such an example.

Lord JACQUES

I gave two examples in my first reply to the Amendment.

Lord SANDFORD

I will read it. We must have many more than that, because many more occur to me as possibilities, and we should like to know them. We have received an answer to the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, about using dockers for unclassified work. That has been useful and helpful. It is. probably true that our Amendment could be modified, leaving the intention intact, so that vehicles which are themselves cargo and are waiting in a pound, whether they are cars or transport vehicles, could continue to be driven by dockers as of right, if that is the position al present. I beg the noble Lord to take the point of my noble friend, Lord Lucas, that in this particular instance, whatever may be the merits of flexibility elsewhere in legislation, it will not be a merit in this case, and we want this Schedule and this paragraph to be as precise as possible. I hope also that in answering my noble friend's point by correspondence the noble Lord will realise that it must go on the record, because a number of other interests will be able to read it only if it is in Hansard. I hope that my noble friend, Lord Lucas, will raise the matter again.

Lord JACQUES

A good dealer as been said by both sides. Things have teen said which ought to be considered quietly and carefully. May I suggest that at this stage the Amendment be withdrawn to give the Opposition an opportunity to see just what we have said and to decide whether they should carry on with the Amendment or a similar one at the next stage of the Bill.

Lord LYELL

I thank the noble Lord for that suggestion. In particular, I should like to thank my noble friend, Lord Lucas, who gave a very clear explanation of the problems of the road haulage industry as we see them. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may think that he gave the examples when he replied after I had moved this Amendment. Am I right in thinking that he mentioned, as examples, the tug masters and the cars and lorries being driven from the pound by the dock-side on to the ship? We believe that this might come under the classification of loading or unloading cargo. Nevertheless we shall look at it. We wondered whether that was a particularly good example.

However, there is one query on which the noble Lord may be able to help me at this stage. He was looking at Clause 8(4) of the Bill, where it is pointed out that: The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation … The noble Lord then mentioned the three criteria. The first criterion would be substitution for work previously done by registered dock workers. That would clearly not be the case here. Secondly, the persons employed on this particular work of driving these very large and often complicated vehicles on the public roads or within the dock area, or manoeuvering them on to a ship, do indeed need special skills and training which are not the same as or similar to those of registered dock workers. I think that the noble Lord would agree that the skills are different. My noble friend, Lord Lucas, said that often such a skill may cost as much as£300 or£400 in time, training and fees to acquire. Certainly I do not envisage—and I do not think that the Committee would envisage—such work being done by casual labour.

The noble Lord mentioned that this was the first hurdle or obstacle to classification, and that there would be another. I am not quite sure what the other hurdle would be. The one thing that has worried me—and it has probably worried the Committee—throughout our discussion on this Amendment is that the noble Lord said that registered dock workers would not have the right to drive vehicles within the dock areas, even where such work is agreed and is carried on under custom and practice at the moment. Is that flexible? The noble Lord may believe that our Amendment will lead to rigidity, but we believe very strongly that where the noble Lord says the dockers claim a right to do something which they do not have at the moment and which is not covered in custom and practice, there is a danger of a similar rigidity. It is a very real fear. However, the matter has been much more eloquently expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth. We are grateful for the comments that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, has made. We should like to withdraw the Amendment at this stage and come up with something similar at a later stage which we hope may meet our particular point. So I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.20 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 99:

Page 26, line 21, at end insert— ("12. Maintenance of vehicles and their equipment.")

The noble Lord said: This is a follow up to the previous Amendment. We felt that the maintenance of particular vehicles and equipment should be done by the lorry drivers themselves where there is a need for such routine maintenance, as I would call it, to be done. I think that all the arguments we have used in the previous Amendment, so far as particular skills and training are concerned, fit this particular Amendment, too. Therefore, I think I need say no more. I beg to move the Amendment.

Viscount SIMON

Before the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, replies, may I just say to the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, that as drafted this Amendment appears to include the maintenance of any vehicles and their equipment. I think the noble Lord must mean vehicles whose normal use is mainly on public roads; but as drafted, it is not so. Of course, there are vehicles used entirely within the port estate by stevedores and others. I do not think the noble Lord means to suggest that this should be the work of registered dockers.

Lord LYELL

That is indeed the case.

Lord JACQUES

I submit that this Amendment is not necessary. The Government Amendment on Report stage in the other place amended paragraph 5 to read as follows: … containers, crates, boxes, pallets or other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo". Those words cannot be interpreted as covering vehicle maintenance and repair. We think we have fully satisfied the undertaking which we gave in the other place.

Lord LYELL

We felt that this Amendment was necessary in that we wished to ensure, beyond peradventure I think is the phrase, that such work would not be classified. If the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would permit it, we wanted certitude and rigidity in this particular case. Nevertheless, I am prepared to look at what he has said, because probably there could be a case where repairing vehicles is excluded from paragraph 5 under work which may be classified; but we would like it written in that where specialist skills are needed to repair vehicles this will not be classified, because of the reasons I gave when I was speaking to Amendment No. 98, as far as special skills were needed.

The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, may remember that at an earlier stage in our proceedings, during the last session of the Committee stage, I was speaking about executing minor repairs to containers. I believe special skills are definitely needed there for welding, and other such skills which would not be applicable to dockers. These skills are needed in Amendment No. 99. Nevertheless, I believe there might be a gap here and, subject to what my noble friends might want, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Lord LUCAS of CHILWORTH

Before the noble Lord, Lord Lyell, withdraws the Amendment, could the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, tell me this: Under Schedule 3, Part I, paragraph 5—the one he has just quoted "other articles used for packing or loading and unloading cargo"—can "other articles" really be held to include something like a fork lift truck or, indeed, a tugmaster? The trouble is that one thing leads to another. While my noble friend Lord Lyell, and I think most of us, really had in mind the maintenance and emergency repair of a road vehicle and its trailer or other gear, it gives rise to other automotive engineering works which would normally be carried out, for example, by a fork lift truck or a tugmaster. I do not think it really is protected under the clause which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, quotes as "any other article". I was really thinking more in terms of a porter's trolley or a four-wheeled hand-drawn trolley as "any other article", not a piece of mechanised equipment.

Lord JACQUES

I always thought the Opposition were against lines of demarcation. We have a case here where we are trying to get away from lines of demarcation, to allow the dock worker to make a minor repair instead of holding up the whole job while he sends for the engineer.

First of all, we are dealing with Part I, Schedule 3, work which will be classified. This excludes minor repairs— to containers, crates, boxes, pallets, or other articles used"— and I think that when one says "other articles", one must continue— used for packing or loading or unloading cargo". I would say that possibly this could include a very minor repair to a truck of the kind mentioned by the noble Lord, the kind of repair the driver himself would make without holding up the job.

Lord LYELL

That is just the basis of my argument. In fact the noble Lord was saying that we were speaking to Part I of Schedule 3. With the greatest respect, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, introduced this. I am speaking, and I think probably the noble Lord, Lord Lucas of Chilworth, is speaking, to Amendment No. 99, which seeks to amend paragraph 11 of Part II.

The noble Lord mentioned just now the case where a driver might carry, out a minor repair. I believe that what might be a minor repair to a driver who would have skill in this particular facet of maintenance of his vehicle, would not be a minor repair to a registered dock worker, for reasons which we have already discussed in Clause 8(4), in that different skills are involved. But I hope that the noble Lord will consider the points raised by my noble friend Lord Lucas of Chilworth. However, I still believe that different skills are involved, and that that which is a minor repair by a driver would not be a minor repair to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, or, perhaps, to many others of your Lordships. Subject to that, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment at this stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.29 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 100: Page 26, line 22, beginning insert ("(a)")

The noble Lord said: I beg to move Amendment No. 100, which paves the way for Amendment No. 101. I suggest that it would be to the convenience of the Committee if we discussed both Amendments together. Our main point is that while paragraph 8, to which we turn now, provides a necessary and a welcome exclusion from classification, in our view it is neither wide enough, precise enough nor flexible enough for its purpose. In this particular case, as in some others, we wish to strive both for precision and flexibility.

May I remind the Committee that the broad processes to which the exclusion of paragraph 12 refers are these, namely, preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo—paragraph 6 of Part I—and preparing ships for departure after loading or unloading cargo. That is paragraph 7. You do not have to be a seafarer—so perhaps that is why I have been drafted on to this Bill—to appreciate that here we are right on the demarcation line between the work of the docker in the port and the work of the sailor on the ship. It is no surprise, therefore, that in the past it has often, if not always, been difficult to draw that demarcation line. It has not always been drawn at the same point, and it is not everywhere drawn at the same point today.

There are two further factors which we must have in mind because they bear upon the matter. The first is that of the ship's company it may not only be the seamen—they are the only ones mentioned in the Bill as drafted—it may not only be members of the National Union of Seamen who may be involved in preparing ships for handling cargo or preparing ships for sea after they have taken on cargo; the shipwrights may also be involved, though, strangely, they are members of the Boilermakers' Union. They may also be involved in doing parts of this work, and the more skilled parts in particular. That is the first point: that shipwrights are involved as well as seaman.

The second point is this. It may well be that some shipowners choose to employ for these duties not seamen from the crew of the ship's company, who after a spell at sea are entitled to go on leave and may well be discharged to go on leave, but instead experienced men specially registered to do the work on behalf of the crew. The "local custom and usage", which is the term used in paragraph 12—quite rightly because that is what we want to preserve—has varied and still varies because the demarcation is quite difficult. But in London, for example, the following has been the pattern for some years. Originally all shipping companies using the port employed their own shore gangs to go abroad and replace those members of the crew who were going on leave. They were needed to prepare the ship for cargo handling. Now only two companies still do that, but contractors provide the gangs for them instead, all registered. Although these men, known as "riggers", work for a contractor, the predominant majority of the individual members of these teams, 200 out of 216 at the Port of London, remain attached to the ships of a particular company and therefore become skilled and experienced in operating their equipment, much as they did when employed directly by the shipowners themselves.

I should like to specify rather more precisely the kind of work which is involved here, so that your Lordships may imagine more readily what it is we are talking about. This is the kind of work under-taken by the riggers in lieu of the seamen of the ship's crew: preparing the ship's derricks, opening and closing hatches and cleaning holds, discharging edible oil with portable pumps and cleaning deep tanks in preparation for dry cargo, the rigging of jumbo derricks for heavy lifts—and your Lordships can see that that is something which may well require the services of a shipwright—the supervising and carrying out of heavy lift operations (the shipwrights again), the laying and removing of dunnage (the shipwrights again in some circumstances), the lashing and securing of cargo in general cargo vessels in conjunction with shipwrights who chock the cargo and build beds for heavy lifts, the lashing of containers, and the fendering of vessels inwards and outwards. From this list it is easy to see that at certain points shipwrights will need to be working with the seamen and/or the riggers; there is no mention of them in the Bill as drafted. We think there should be, and have so provided. The position as I have described it for London is roughly similar in the other principal ports like Southampton and Liverpool; but, of course, it differs in the smaller ports, where the provision of registered riggers for the shipowners may not always be practical; they may not always be available.

I hope your Lordships will now see that paragraph 12 as it stands is not enough to preserve the status quo, the local custom and usage. It is inadequate, in that it omits to mention the shipwrights or the other possible members of the ship whose skills are quite often needed for the work in question which I have described. It is inadequate in that it makes no provision for the registered members of the shore gangs of riggers to continue to be engaged for the work that they have done for ages. And it is inflexible, as there is no scope in paragraph 12 as drafted for devising and adopting fresh usages and customs by agreement among all those concerned, which is the last leg of my Amendment No. 101. I submit to the Committee that the phrase "agreed by all … concerned" acts as a very valuable curb to any attempt by any one party to overturn existing agreements arbitrarily, but provides for the flexibility which I am sure we should have within the precision we are providing. I hope that I have indicated sufficiently clearly to the Committee, and to the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, in particular, the reasons why we are not satisfied with paragraph 12, and the justification for the Amendments which I propose. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

This is probably the most complicated of the Amendments that we have dealt with in its effect. I will therefore go very slowly, hoping that we shall all understand what is being said. The question of work customarily done by shipwrights and riggers was discussed in Committee in the other place. The Minister of State explained that there were circumstances in which it was considered it would be appropriate to classify such work and that an absolute exclusion for such work could not be accepted. The Amendments now before this Committee modify the Amendments discussed in the Commons Committee in two ways: first, by confining the exclusion to work done on board ship; and, secondly, by adding the proviso allowing for classification if this is agreeable to all parties concerned. We have considered this wording most carefully, but still do not feel that it provides an acceptable basis for an exclusion of the work of ship-wrights and riggers.

So far as the words "on a ship" are concerned, it is true that most of the work of those normally described as shipwrights and riggers is done on board ship. But some is also done in shore workshops, where it involves preparing equipment, rigs and so on, for use in loading and unloading, or in container group age depots, where rigger. may lash down the cargo inside the container. But there is no reason to suppose that the work which shipwrights and riggers do on board ship is in some way less appropriate for classification than flat which is done on shore. Indeed, in so far as the work on board ship involves battening down hatches, sheeting up deck cargoes, et cetera, this is work which in some places is already done by rigger; who are registered dock workers. In other words, it is already classified work and is the sort which, in certain circumstances, might be appropriate for classification elsewhere. The work on shore, on the other hand, is of a more specialised nature and seems generally less likely to be appropriate for classification. In brief, we are saying that very often the work on board the ship is more appropriate for classification than the work ashore.

The Amendment would permit classification of the work of riggers, shipwrights and seamen and others on board ship where a change in local custom and usage was agreed by all the parties concerned. It is not clear what is meant by the phrase "agreed by all the parties concerned". Does it mean the unions and the employers? If so, what is to be the situation if three out of four employers agree to classification but the fourth, who employs, say, 5 per cent. of the workers, disagrees? Alternatively, if the union are agreed but a small unofficial group of men disagree, are they to have the right of veto? The Amendment does not indicate what is meant by the parties.

The Amendment also refers to the work of others on board ship. This could be taken to refer to stevedores working on board, stowing or unloading gods in the hold. The effect of the Amendment would therefore be to prevent the. scheme from applying where casual labour was being used on a regular and constant basis to unload ships, unless, of course, the employer voluntarily agreed to change the existing custom and usage. The Scheme could then not be used to end casual working, and whatever the difference between the two sides of the Committee there has been general agreement that this is a desirable objective.

The Government have taken serious note of the views expressed by some groups of riggers to remain outside the Scheme. This is not a new problem. Paragraphs 5 and 6 of Schedule 3, which make riggers potentially liable to the Scheme, form part of the enabling powers of the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. The Government believe that the procedures for consultation and examination in the Bill, and the very close scrutiny which is being given to industrial relations implications, means that the Scheme will not be applied when it is undesirable and contrary to their wishes. The question does not arise to the same extent with shipwrights because only a small part of their work is within this scope, and in any case would not satisfy the criteria in Clause 8(5).

Lord SANDFORD

I think that this has been a most useful and valuable exchange. I would not attempt, because I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, that this is a complicated business, to respond straight away. I should like to study what the noble Lord has said. I felt as he was speaking that although he was making entirely valid points they could be met, and not perhaps by the Amendment as it stands but by relatively minor modifications of it. I am encouraged to attempt that because the noble Lord started off by saying that he was in sympathy with our intention. This is, as far as possible, to preserve the local custom and usage where it is operating to everybody's advantage, and to make it possible to adapt and to change such usage where there is general agreement—and I agree that that has to be defined more precisely than we have done so far—but at the same time to give people whose interests are at stake a sense of security that their jobs are not to be jeopardised by the operation of the Bill when it is on the Statute Book. I think that we also want to do everything we can—and this is highly relevant at the present time—to make sure that the charges of handling cargoes in British ports do not rise as a result of this, and that the work is done by skilled and experienced men as efficiently and quickly as is consistent with safety. I am most grateful to the noble Lord for his response. I shall carefully study what he has said, and return with a modified Amendment at the Report stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 102: Page 26, line 35, leave out ("the cargo-handling zone") and insert ("a dock labour scheme area").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is consequential to, I think, Amendment No. 11A, if the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would confirm that. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

It is consequential.

7.47 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 103:

Page 26, line 45, leave out paragraph 15 and insert— ("15. Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom; oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form, where such bulk liquid commodity is unloaded from or loaded into deep tanks of ocean vessels, ocean tankers, sea-going tankers or tanker vessels including tank barges. Any work with natural gas including work at a site where the gas is piped ashore; any work at a site or fixed installation for the bulk storage of hydrocarbon oils, bulk liquid chemicals, bulk liquefied gases or products derived from hydrocarbon oils, crude liquid petroleum and natural products in hulk liquid form.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment, in spite of its length and in spite of some of the complicated chemical descriptions, I hope will appear to be reasonably simple. The main point that we seek to make in moving this Amendment is that, even if the Government did not admit that many specialised skills were, and still are, necessary in loading and unloading liquid chemicals and liquefied gases, all the products mentioned in this particular Amendment, we should be interested to know why registered dock workers have been able to work alongside and, in many cases, in association with the specialist workers who are well qualified by their skills and training to handle what I might call these dangerous and often volatile cargoes. We hope that it would be reasonably efficient to have classified work which is carried out at present on the dockside or the quays.

The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, during proceedings on this Bill commented that where there were vacancies for registered dock workers these vacancies should he taken up by the registered dock workers. But we would submit that there are certainly going to be no vacancies in these specialised categories, and we wonder what the noble Lord and the Government would have to say to this particular Amendment, because we understood that paragraph 15 in Schedule 3 does not cover the specialised skills in loading and unloading, and in piping ashore and to and from ships, these particular commodities. I beg to move.

7.50 p.m.

Lord JACQUES

I am surprised that this Amendment should have been moved. Indeed. we came to the conclusion that somebody had been looking at the wrong Bill, or that the Bill had been examined as it came through Committee in another place rather than after the Report stage. Strong criticism of paragraph 15 of Schedule 3 was made in Committee in the other place. On Report, however, we submitted an entirely new draft in which we responded completely to the points that had been made in Committee. We thought that we had given the Opposition exactly what they wanted. That is the first reason why I am surprised that the Amendment should have been moved.

There is a second reason. In Committee in the other place we were criticised for the use of certain words, in particular the use of "bulk hydrocarbon oil". Those words having been severely criticised, we avoided their use in the new paragraph. In the Amendment, however, the words which we were asked to avoid have reappeared. Noble Lords opposite seem to be going round in circles and it seems clear that there is some misunderstanding here. Having said that, I will deal with some of the differences in words between the Amendment and the Bill. The phrase: Work with liquid chemicals, liquefied gases, bulk hydrocarbon oils and chemicals derived therefrom …". would exclude all work with these substances. The Government think that quite wrong. Such substances are very often handled in cans or drums in a normal cargo-handling dock. If cans of paraffin or weed-killer are being handled in this way, it is entirely appropriate for registered dock workers and would be quite wrong to exclude them. Therefore, paragraph 15 refers to work at a site for the talk storage of the substances specified and will thus apply to oil terminals or chemical tank farms which arc normally established separately from the rest of the dock and which contain machinery and plant installations which required highly specialised skills.

The Amendment goes on with the phrase: … oils and chemicals derived from natural products including vegetable oils, natural rubber latex and other commodities shipped in bulk liquid form …". It is open to doubt whether the intention is to exclude only the oils and chemicals derived from commodities or whether any commodity is to he excluded, if handled in bulk liquid form. it would seem to be the latter because natural rubber latex "is clearly not al oil or chemical derived from a natural product. We believe that wine, spirits, beer and non-toxic substances such as vegetable oils, which are handled in normal dock facilities by registered dock workers, would be excluded by the Amendment. The Government see no reason to exclude such substances from the potential scope of the Scheme. I might add that the words "ship or other vessel" comprehend the list of boats given in the Amendment. We therefore think that the Amendment would be a retrograde step and would lead us into difficulties of industrial relations.

Lord LYELL

I thank the noble Lord for that answer. I agree with h m that it is a complicated subject, although I had hoped that it would not prose more than a drafting Amendment. The noble Lord I think said that latex was not in the classification in the Amendment and that it would not be derived from natural products. I understood that it might fall into this classification. However what also concerned me was my understanding that the handling of latex required a considerable amount of skill at the point where latex in its different forms is unloaded or brought ashore. Hero there is a slight similarity with several of the categories of work which I mentioned when we were discussing Amendment No. 86, at which point we were talking about docker checkers and specialised and skilled checkers who were able to classify a particular product at the quayside before it was transmitted further to the client's warehouse. I understand that this also concerns the importers and handlers of the material which is known as latex.

I moved the Amendment because we and certain sectors of the chemical industry were not entirely satisfied with the assurances that had been given in another place by the Minister. We understood that the Minister had not proved that several of the exceptions which he quoted were valid in this case. We also felt that bulk liquids of the type described in the Amendment required skilled and often specialised handling and, as I pointed out earlier, identification at the point of landing, either at the point of import or piping it away from land on to a ship at a tanker point. There may be a case for saying that dockers might be able to turn a handle and open a pipe or valve, but I am told that often further skill and considerable training is required.

Thus, I cannot say that we have been totally satisfied by the noble Lord's reply. I assure him that we were in no way attempting to go round in circles. The term "hydrocarbon oil" was mentioned by some of the concerns which have been in touch with us, and this question of liquid chemicals and liquid gases gave a great deal of concern to one company. I know that liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are mentioned in the Bill, but we understood, as did this company, that the processes whereby they are handling liquid chemicals and liquefied gases are not specifically covered by paragraph 15 as now drafted. This is a very technical process, as are all these processes. Having taken note of what the noble Lord said, I shall endeavour to acquire greater skill in chemistry before the next stage of the Bill, when I shall have more to say on the subject. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

7.59 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105:

Page 27, line 5, at end insert— ("17. The work of persons wholly or mainly engaged in the storage of perishable foodstuffs in controlled temperature conditions.").

The noble Lord said: This Amendment seeks to remove from classification the industry which, for want of a better term, we would call the cold storage industry. Cold storage is an enormous industry which is spread right across the country. As far as we understand it, the Bill, for all its benefits, has certain defects and we believe that these are producing a great deal of uncertainty for all the companies operating in cold stores and ware-houses. We think that the Bill places future investment in the industry in jeopardy and puts it at risk, making the future more uncertain for people who might like to invest in certain areas of the cold storage industry.

So far as we can understand it, the Bill will not provide a solution to the problem of the docks and it has caused fear and alarm and will extend the problems that have been apparent in the docks in the past 10 years and more beyond the cargo handling industry, to the detriment of the nation. The proposals in the Bill represent a fairly major threat to the national interest as far as cold storage is concerned because cold stores now have a very large capacity and are capable of holding over 1 million tons of food. If any of these cold stores is subjected to the provisions of the Bill as it stands, we believe that there is a risk that the food stocks concerned could be in jeopardy when an industrial dispute affected one or more ports.

Secondly, there are the interests of the consumer. We believe that the extension of the Bill now proposed will increase the costs of handling and storing food and we can see no escape from a rise in prices to the consumer. Also, we believe that the Bill will harm the interests of the employees in this industry. It has grown very greatly in the last 10 years since 18th September 1967, which marked the end of casualisation. It has a very enviable record of industrial relations that is sadly somewhat different from the record of the docks. Of course we understand that there are problems of industrial relations in the docks, but we hope that those problems will not spread to outside industries. Unfortunately, we feel there is a risk of this happening with the Bill as at present drafted. We think that the proposals in the Bill threaten the record of good industrial relations in the cold storage industry and they have created great fears among the people now working in the industry. This is not just pure propaganda. There have been considerable representations made by the cold storage industry within the last six weeks or so since the Bill was considered in another place. We believe that the fears expressed could be genuine—though we do not say that they are—and that there is risk and uncertainty.

We also believe that the Bill is affecting the efficient working of the cold storage industry because it is a very varied and sophisticated industry which is becoming more so every year. The industry does not provide mere freezing facilities; it does a lot more. It handles goods and, above all, the work force is having to acquire new skills and flexibilities. This was something that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, stressed that we needed. He hoped that the Bill provided it, but we cannot say that we agree with him. In the industry there is a great deal of inter-change between one job and another in the same warehouse.

We believe that the future of this industry will be much affected by the Bill because the proposals which it embodies create great uncertainty not just for the employees but also for the employers in the cold stores. We believe that the viability of many of the stores will be in doubt under the Bill as at present drafted. There is a risk that expansion and development of facilities may not go ahead and that employment opportunities will continue to be limited until this uncertainty is removed in one way or another.

The industry has grown a great deal in the last 10 years. Its capacity has expanded two and a half times, the acreage of farmland which is used for growing quick freeze foods has expanded in the same proportion and frozen food sales have trebled. Noble Lords will therefore see that this is a major industry which affects every family in the land. Apart from these figures, we also know that foods emanating from the cold storage industry arrive in containers and that containerisation, which has really taken off since 1968, has not necessarily shifted dock work to the cold stores themselves because there is no difference at all at the cold store between unloading a refrigerated lorry and unloading refrigerated containers. Therefore, part of the dock work has been eliminated.

Noble Lords will be aware that a great deal of traffic comes from overseas and is sent into cold stores—for example, South American meat and Australian butter and cheese, which constituted a major part of the cold stork e capacity about 10 years ago. However, this has been replaced by supplies from sources much nearer home—for instance, EEC meat and dairy products and other foods such as home produced poultry and vegetables. I could give enormous numerical examples, but I shill not go into that now because it may weary the Committee. We recognise that: some of these cold stores were at or near or virtually on the quayside. They employed registered dock labour. Unfortunately, for various reasons and not entirely through the volition of the employers at the dockside, these stores have closed. I understand that all the cold stores owned and operated by the Port of London Authority have closed. I had hoped that the noble Viscount, Lord Simon, might be able to say whether I was correct about this, but unfortunately he is not in his place. I hope that he will come back. The stores that have closed have in part been replaced by new stores within the dock areas, but today there are cold storage facilities far afield inland. This has arisen totally as a result of the growth of quick freeze vegetables. The development has arisen from the demands of the housewife, as we must appreciate.

As we see it, the Bill risks affecting such inland container cold stores because we believe that there is liable to be an increase in cost owing to the imposition of the levy payable by the employers who will be included in the Scheme. There is of course a risk of inflexibility resulting from the traditions of the dock workers who will be moved to the new stores and who will come under the aegis of the new Scheme. This, too, we believe risks increasing costs. I believe I have said enough to make it clear to the Committee that we feel that there is too much uncertainty and risk to this enormous industry which concerns the whole nation. We are not entirely convinced by the exclusions that have been written into the Bill. Indeed, the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, mentioned earlier that many things could be done by custom and practice b it that there were very often areas in which people felt that they should have rights. What we fear is that the Bill may give dockers rights to come to the cold stores. We are not against dockers who might wish to leave the port areas and work in cold stores in or around dock areas, or indeed inland at a reasonable distance from their homes, if they wish to do so. But we wonder whether it is wise to allow dockers to have a right to come and work in the cold stores, which we believe would be the case if the Bill went through in its current state. I beg to move.

8.11 p.m.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

I should like to support my noble friend Lord Lyell on this matter. Overall, these cold stores are almost entirely concerned with food. There is also the mixture: at some times of the year the store is filled with home grown produce, which never yet has been known as cargo, and the dockers technically could only provide and expect the work which means either importing and bringing in food or exporting goods. In many of these stores, with the home grown produce that is frozen, and in other sections taking in imported food, there is a duality of interest between those who perfectly legitimately will be dealing with home grown produce, and those who will say that because a section of this comes in and is imported foodstuffs, they as dockers are entitled to handle it.

This activity has grown over the past 20 years into a highly skilled, highly complicated operation, with enormous capital expenditure going into the cold stores. Different sections of the plant operate at different temperatures for different commodities, and there is all the care that has to be taken in taking in the stocks so that the first in is first out, and later stocks are not put on top of some stocks which have been in for some weeks. Scrupulous timetables have to be kept because of the variation of the staying power and the lasting power of even frozen commodities, which vary in terms of the time for which they can he kept. It appears to me that yet again in another sphere the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, so sweetly puts the idea that the dockers would be denied the right, but does he not appreciate that by giving these rights in a dozen new spheres, and widening this into many spheres, he is deeply worrying many other skilled and genuine trade unionists in other trade unions who feel that their right will increasingly become the subject of a demand by others to take over their work?

I should like to mention just one other aspect of the matter; namely, the enormous pressure of consumer interests. I believe that the Minister for consumer affairs has an inquiry on foot at the moment about the period between food, even frozen food, being processed and its reaching the consumer; all the ramifications which require a staff dedicated to that type of work, a staff trained in it, knowing it, and which is flexible with all that is required, with the varying stocks coming in from home or abroad from time to time. There is the flexibility and the right, at least on any normal historical count, of having the right to deal with all the home produce. Therefore it seems reasonable that when the food gets to the store, the work of the store and the handling to and from that store should be under-taken by those who are specially trained for these very large and very costly centres.

Viscount ROCHDALE

I should like to support my noble friends on this Amendment. If ever there was an industry which ought to be exempted from classification this is it; unlike, shall we say, the development of containers. I can under-stand the point of view of the dock worker who sees his old-fashioned trade slipping away because this traffic is now coming through the ports in containers. I would not agree with him, but I can quite see his point of view. The containers are a substitute trade for the original way of handling cargo over the quay. But this is not a substitute trade at all; it is something relatively new. Historically it is true to say that only a relatively small part of this trade was handled by dock workers. But as my noble friends have pointed out, what we are now discussing really amounts to public cold storage. I realise that the wording in the Amendment goes rather wider than cold storage, but basically we are talking about public cold storage, and as my noble friends have said, this has developed quite enormously over the past 20 years.

It has developed for a variety of reasons, only partially due to dock work. It is due to the tremendous growth of the frozen food industry throughout the country as a whole. It has a relatively small labour force, about 5,500. It is a labour force which, as my noble friends have pointed out, is flexible, but at the same time is highly trained and highly skilled and is working on full-time engagements. It is most important that the whole possibility of uncertainty which now exists should he laid aside and put to rest. The reason why this arises at all is that tremendous capital expenditure has already taken place. It so happens that not all of it, but a very large proportion of it, is within the present cargo handling zone, and that is why it is at risk.

I believe that the industry has a great potential for further development, but it is capital intensive and if it is to expand it needs a tremendous amount of further capital. While there is this uncertainty, there is a danger that this development will be delayed or held back: and as my noble friend said, this would be to the detriment not only of those intimately connected with the industry, but to every man and woman living in the country who increasingly uses frozen food.

Therefore I urge that this industry, which can show a fine record of service to the country, should be included in this part of a Schedule, the exclusion part. I believe that it would be of no consequence—it would do no harm—to dock workers seeking work, but would be of great benefit to those who rely, day in, day out, on the services it provides.

Lord WIGODER

May I ask the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, whether he would he kind enough to resolve one difficulty which I cannot at the moment follow? It is this. Is the highly skilled work of trained engineers who are engaged in operating and maintaining expensive and complicated equipment classifiable as dock work under the Bill as it now stands?

Lord JACQUES

In our view it would not be classifiable because of the rigid tests which are in Clause 8. It should be remembered that here we have the two-stage procedure, and in our opinion it would never get past the first stage, which is Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c).

This Amendment would prevent classification of work in cold stores or cool warehouses, or even in sheds with warm temperatures which are used to ripen fruit. Furthermore, this would be the case even if such stores or sheds were situated on the dockside and the work involved was fully integrated with the work of loading and unloading ships because the store or shed in question was used temporarily while the goods were in transit awaiting collection prier to transportation to a further destination. This situation occurs at present and is likely to continue to occur in the future. A transit cold store, for example, has fairly recently been opened on the Seaforth docks in the port of Liverpool. Such developments will continue to occur in the future because over 80 per cent. of all food by weight imported into this country is imported through t le existing Scheme ports. I should like the Committee to note that: 80 per cent. of imported food is imported through the existing Scheme ports.

Moreover, dramatic changes have taken place in the handling of imported refrigerated foods. In 1963 the Port of London handled 840,000 tons of refrigerated meat and dairy produce. Ten years later this was 313,000 tons. The cold storage which was there to back it up in 1963 was 20 million cubic feet, but by 1973 this had fallen to 5 million cubic feet. It had fallen to a quarter of what it had formerly been. The means of bringing about these changes did not always show the proper concerr for good industrial relations and full cor sultations which could have helped mitigate the difficult problems involved in the run-down of dock work in the Port o' London. The move by certain companies away from the London dockside led directly to the 1972 dock strike. It was for picketing cold stores in the vicinity of the port that the five dockers were imprisoned under the Industrial Relations Act for contempt of court, and there have beet several other cases in London of industrial action directed against cold stores which refused to enter into negotiations about the possible employment of dock workers.

One of the aims of this Bill, and indeed of the ILO Convention on Dockwork, is to ensure that in drawing up the local definitions of dock work account can be taken of technological changes on the employment opportunities of dock workers. We cannot accept the argument that because refrigerated foods now frequently reach cold stores in containers this has not meant a shift of dock work inland to the cold store. Cold stores away from the ports have always unloaded refrigerated lorries. However, they now also unload refrigerated containers. It is precisely because part of dock work has been eliminated by using an integrated transport system to move the cargo from producer to consumer that it is necessary to include cold stores within the description of work which may be classified so that, if appropriate, dock workers may perform such work.

The noble Baroness talked of other trade unionists being concerned that their work may be taken away from them by dockers. That is not possible under the Bill. The Bill provides, first of all, that work can be classified only in the exceptional conditions which are described in Clause 8, and under Schedule 4 there is a two-stage operation for this. Then, in a later clause in the Bill there is complete protection for the people who are already doing the work. So I say to the noble Baroness that what she said is quite impossible under this Bill.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

The noble Lord is pleading in clause after clause for the conditions. Does he really think that some of the companies which have moved away from the docks at enormous capital cost would have clone so if they had not felt they could not get a proper service for their food when they were there? Does he really believe that the pressure will not be put on, once the opportunity is given for the dockers to say, "This is our work and we are going to have it"? They will use, as they have used in the past, their opportunity to stop the goods getting through unless they get the terms they want. This is what is terrifying people, and nothing in those clauses will help that situation.

Lord JACQUES

When the noble Baroness talks about their having to move away from the docks so that the work will not be classified, perhaps I may point out that, under the Bill as it is, if they move five miles away they are not classifiable, and under the Bill as amended if they move half a mile away they are not classifiable. So they have not got to move very far to be outside the scope of the Bill altogether.

Should this Amendment be accepted, then it would create a nonsensical situation in existing Scheme ports because the Scheme could not be applied to new developments on the dockside. It would moreover mean that instead of the orderly and sensible procedures laid down in the Bill for dealing with the proper application of the Scheme outside existing port areas, this House would in effect be saying to the dockers, "Continue your picketing and any other means you have which are legal. We are not going to give you orderly and peaceful procedures for settling your problems". That is the issue before the Committee.

Lord WIGODER

I wonder whether I might revert for one moment to the question of engineers which I raised, because I am not entirely sure that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in his answer. It appears from Schedule 3, Part I, as to the work which may be classified, that that includes, Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo". It is at the very least arguable, is it not, that a maintenance engineer's job is work done in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo; and therefore it passes that test? If one then goes back to page 11 of the Bill, to Clause 8(4)(a), it states: The Board may … determine that there are prima facie grounds for making a recommendation if it appears to them that the work … is, or is to be, done by way of substitution for other work previously done by registered dock workers, whether at the same premises or elsewhere …". Is it not at the very least arguable that if at one time registered dock workers were unloading ships so that the cargo could be delivered, let us say, direct to the wholesaler, and that has now been replaced by a mechanised process under which the goods are sent to cold stores, then the work done at the cold stores is work done by way of substitution for other work previously done by the Registered dock workers? Is there not therefore a danger that these words could be interpreted, together with Schedule 3, as meaning that skilled, trained, qualified engineers will find their work classified as dock work, which I am sure the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, would agree would be quite ridiculous?

Lord JACQUES

I do not think for one moment that the obstacles laid down in Clause 8(4)(a), (b) and (c) could ever be surmounted.

Baroness SEEAR

Following my noble friend, may I say that the point that is worrying us is how widely do you interpret "substitution"? If "substitution" is to be interpreted as including the introduction of an advanced technical process which takes the place of what was pre-viously a manual process—and, after all, this is how a great many changes take place—then you would require new skills on that technical process, but it would still be "substitution", I should have thought you could argue. This new technical process has taken the place, is in substitution of, the work previously done manually by a docker. It is then substitution, is it not?

Lord JACQUES

I should not think for one moment that it is possible for it to be supposed that the engineer at a cold store is doing work which was formerly done by the docker. The docker has not been an engineer.

Lord WIGODER

It is in substitution for other work "previously done by …".

Lord JACQUES

I would not think that the engineer's work is in substitution. What we are getting at here when talking about substitution is work which was done at the dockside and is now being done away from the dockside. It is substitution of work that was being done by the docker. That is the significance there.

Baroness SEEAR

My question was a slightly broader one, as to whether when you substitute a mechanised process for a job previously done by a docker largely manually—not necessarily cold storage, but in any case of substitution—it is substitution. It may not have been meant to be when the Bill was drafted, but it is surely arguable that if you have introduced a mechanised process in substitution for a manual job, then the man doing it is operating in substitution of the previous job.

Lord BROWN

May I interject here? I am not very much in favour of this Bill but I believe my noble friend is right in this matter. It becomes a technical matter. I take it that Clause 8(4) is also governed by Schedule 3, Part I. Schedule 3, paragraph 1 says "handling cargo". It lays that down. The cargo is specified as goods which are to be shipped. An engineer working on plant in a cold store is not handling cargo.

Lord WIGODER

I was not referring to paragraph 4 of Schedule 3, the handling of cargo, but to paragraph 3 which seems to me to be much broader: Work in connection with the storage or warehousing of cargo.

Lord BROWN

Nevertheless, Schedule 3, Part I, is definitive and contains definitions. The deft ditions lay down what cargo means and Part I refers to the handling of cargo. That literally says: This includes any movement of cargo by means of manpower, machinery or lighterage. If you include the engineer locking after a refrigeration plant in that, then I cannot possibly see that it could be included in the terms of Clause 8 or Schedule 3.

Lord LYELL

May I help the noble Lord, Lord Brown? Handling cargo does not cover the whole of Part I. Handling cargo is only paragraph 1. What the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, was attempting to inquire about was paragraph 3. It seems to me that there could be a difficulty here. That says: Work in connection with storage or ware-housing of cargo. I think that the noble Lord's copy of the Bill will be about the same as mine, and as I see it that is not part of handling cargo. Handling cargo is one of the categories, but work in connection with storage or warehousing is another.

Lord BROWN

You can destroy this argument by use of the reductio ad absurdum. If you interpret this Bill in that way then you can attach to almost any work almost any other work, a ad if you will say that handling cargo and work in connection with storage and warehousing of cargo includes the work of an migineer who is concerned with the construction and maintenance of a compressor for maintaining a refrigeration part, then anything goes in any Bill.

Lord LYELL

The noble Lord could not have put it better. Those are the fears that have been expressed to us, and if the noble Lord thinks that this is scare-mongering and propaganda, he has explained it beautifully and briefly and much better than any of us could do it.

Lord BROWN

I resist the noble Lord's argument because I do not think you can interpret Bills in that way.

Lord MOTTISTONE

May we come back to the Amendment instead of the other possible interpretations. It seemed to me from the way, with the very powerful peroration, that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, ended his argument that he was dead against this proposed Amendment in any form. It would seem to me that this is not honouring the various statements that were made in another place.

Lord JACQUES

I never made any such statement.

Lord MOTTISTONE

Perhaps the noble Lord did not make any such statement, but he certainly did not say he was going to accept it. Is he going to accept it or offer to put something in its place? Perhaps I might remind him that in another place at Second Reading the Minister said: Long established warehousing, storaging, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related direct to work transferred from the docks and not connected with port operations would most certainly not be classified as dock work and therefore subject to the new scheme. That is a very firm statement. At a later stage, the Committee stage, at col. 1482, Mr. Booth said: We hope to come forward at a later stage with an indication that classification would only in general apply in places where the overwhelming bulk of the work was classifiable work, where it was a majority activity. As a general rule that is what we seek, and we shall seek to apply that as much to cold storage as to any other. I read those quotations as the Government in another place accepting that there is a special point about cold storage.

I shall not repeat to your Lordships what my noble friends, both on the Front Bench and on the Back Benches, have said which covers all the points as to why cold storage needs to have special treatment. There are only two fundamental reasons: one is its importance, because it handles the food supplies, and not only the food supplies from overseas but those from within the country as well; and the other is that experience has shown, and the Government in another place clearly endorsed this in my second quotation, that under any circumstance split labour is to be avoided if possible. I am sure that experienced people like the noble Lord, Lord Brown, would agree with me that a split labour force with trades unions which have different traditions and terms and conditions can be very troublesome.

Those are the two particular points: one, the importance of cold storage in the storing of all sorts of food on which we all depend—and even in your Lord-ships' House we are allowed to go away for food from time to time; and, secondly, because one wants to avoid a split labour force. On the whole, a cold store is not one that will have more than a few jobs which would be registerable as dock labour. It is almost impossible within the provisos to which the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, draws our attention repeatedly that only a few jobs would be dock jobs, and therefore a split labour force is almost inevitable in the cold storage environment.

It would seem therefore that there is a very good reason for having an Amendment on these lines. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, explained that perhaps it was rather wide, and my noble friends might think that we could word it better. But, better still, perhaps the Government could endorse the undertakings which they gave in another place and produce a suitable Amendment of their own to back that up.

Lord JACQUES

I ought to reply to the last point first. The Government did this a long time ago, and it will be found in Clause 8(5)(c). I should now like to reply more fully to the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder. The work of maintaining machinery is not included in Part I of Schedule 3. Therefore, it is not even potentially liable to classification. So far as paragraph 3 is concerned, we take the view that it is not the case that "work in connection with" would cover maintenance work. The words are used in the 1946 Act and have never been held to have such a wide meaning. In other words, we have had this problem for 35 years and it has not given rise to the kind of difficulty which has been referred to.

Lord WIGODER

Would the noble Lord help me a little further? Is there any decision that the phrases "work in connection with storage" or "work in connection with warehousing" excludes people working on machinery?

Lord JACQUES

Does the noble Lord mean in a court case? I could not give an answer off-hand, but I will find out and make sure that a reply is given to the noble and learned Lord.

Lord BROWN

I can assure the noble Lord, having had some experience of court cases over industrial action, that the wording "in connection with" does not embrace anyone who might have had anything to do with machinery or with the buildings, and so on. The contention put forward by the noble Lord that mechanical engineering people working with cold storage are in fact classified because of this wording "in connection with" as cargo handlers is very far out-side my own experience of a good deal of industrial law.

Viscount MASSEREENE and FERRARD

If we turn to paragraph 6 of Part I, Schedule 3, referring to preparing ships for sea and the discharge of cargo, surely that wording could cover machinery, derricks and cranes on board, and so on? It seems extremely widely drawn, far too wide for me. I am referring to paragraph 6 of Part I: Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo.

Lord JACQUES

I do not think that has anything whatever to do with this Amendment.

Lord SANDFORD

What has happened is that earlier in the debate the noble Lord was arguing that "articles" embraced vehicles. I read out the specific things included in, Preparing ships for the receipt or discharge of cargo", and that certainly would include the operations of derricks. Therefore, despite the assurances the noble Lord has been giving to us, I am left in almost as much doubt as I was when the noble Lord, Lord Wigoder, first raised this point.

Lord BROWN

In paragraph 12, Part II, Schedule 3, we have the words: Such work on a ship as by local custom or usage is left to seamen on the ship. No one can deny that looking after derricks on ships is something which by custom and usage has been left to seamen on the ships. I think that if the noble Lord would read that paragraph again, he would have his doubts totally resolved.

8.43 p.m.

Lord LYELL

It seems that this particular Amendment has engendered a very lively debate. The noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a very impressive array of figures, and he mentioned—I have noted it carefully and will retain what he has told us—that 80 per cent. of our food comes through Scheme ports. I hope he will be able to enlighten us further as to whether the food came in by container, on roll-on/roll-off vessels, by conventional means or whether it was put into cold store in or around Scheme ports. While I accept the accuracy of this figure, I wonder how that is latched on to his main argument. I know, of course, that the Scheme ports play a most important part in the import of our foodstuffs and also concern the food storage industry.

The noble Lord mentioned that the Port of London Authority have closed down all the cold stores, and indeed I mentioned the point myself in moving the Amendment. I wonder why all that happened. It seemed to me that employers did not behave irresponsibly and that they did not want to leave the docks. Something must have made them wish to leave the docks. I therefore wondered whether they had perhaps been wrong, in some cases, in following fir. trade. For instance, there has been a great increase in the use of frozen vegetables; this has grown very rapidly in the period we are discussing. The noble Lord mentioned 1963, and I wandered whether employers and the users of cold stores did the wrong thing in moving away from these particular areas since, as the noble Lord said, it was something that inflamed the employees which they saw what had been their traditional work leaving these traditional areas. I cannot think that is necessarily the case, but obviously there were considerable reasons to make the employers leave the docksides and remove their cold stores beyond the perimeter or coastline and certainly 3eyond the old five-mile limit.

The noble Lord ended by saying it was totally impossible that work could be taken away from the existing employees in cold stores and they had complete protection. He mentioned Clause 3(5)(b), but from my reading of that I do not see that protection is provided nor does it seem to me to spell out the protection which the noble Lord says is inherent in this clause. However, I do not think we should turn this Committee into a court of law and attempt to argue that particular section tonight. The noble Lord tells us that the dock workers will work alongside the existing workers and I would ask him: Is it really intended, if the cold storage industry is to be classified, that dockers should go to some of the largest inland cold stores such as Peter-borough and Droitwich, which are certainly two of the largest inland cold storage depots?—because the employees at such cold stores are genuinely apprehensive that such will he the case.

According to our reading of the Bill, this is perfectly feasible and I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said has removed these fears from our minds. I do not know how the employees at cold stores would interpret the words of the noble Lord, but I think he was perhaps a trifle extravagant in suggesting that if we exclude the cold storage industry from classification there would be a consequential rise in industrial unrest and activity. That is certainly not what we intend, and I think perhaps that was a trifle extravagant. Possibly it was under-standable, but I am afraid that nothing the noble Lord has said quietens our fears. He may say that the jobs of the employees in cold store are assured, but that is only one half of the argument. If registered dockers who are not able to gain employment in or around the dock areas are to be offered vacancies, which may be theoretical vacancies, in inland or other cold storage depots, I am afraid the employers will seek to take other steps, as they may have taken in dockland since 1967–68, which has led to the removal of cold storage facilities from the quay-sides and the dock areas. I totally fail to see how the noble Lord has answered this question. People are afraid for their jobs: of course they are—

Lord JACQUES

May I tell the noble Lord that the protection of existing workers is not in Clause 8, but is in Clause 10.

Lord LYELL

We can probably have a fruitful discussion after the Committee stage. But I believe the noble Lord said earlier that it was Clause 8(5)(b). However, I would stress that the noble Lord has not gone far enough in answering. He said that no work can be taken away, but I believe that if vacancies in cold stores are found for dockers that will make their present operation totally uneconomic, which will have a grave effect on the national interest as well as on the consumer interest. I have not been at all convinced by the arguments, but at this stage I should like to withdraw the Amendment. However, I must say that we look for a much more constructive series of arguments from the noble Lord opposite when we discuss this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

8.51 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 105A:

Page 27, line 5, at end insert— (". The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of constructions or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975.")

The noble Lord said: This Amendment is very much concerned with the construction industry in and around ports and harbours. From our present reading of the Bill, it seems that certain construction work, which we believe ought not to be included as dock work, might be classifiable. In particular, there is the question of tendering for contracts, which may or may not be sizeable, around the coastline. When firms tender for contracts they will be required to show the Board why the work should not be considered for dock labour, which we think is a trifle harsh on them. The work carried out by these construction firms is not permanent, and it has been stated that they might be said to use casual labour, but most construction contracts run on for a considerable period, even up to 10 years. We believe that the criteria set out in Clause 8(5)(b) are a little too general in their application to the construction industry, and we are a little worried that the position of these firms will be inhibited when carrying out work in a dock area. Therefore, we should like to hear what the Government have to say on this Amendment. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

May I first remind the Committee of the terms of the Amendment? It states: The work of persons employed in a business where the work involves handling of goods ancillary to the carrying out of construction or of dredging operations (as defined in Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance (No. 2) Act 1975. Part I of Schedule 13 to the Finance Act (No. 2) Act 1975 defines "construction". It specifically excludes delivery of materials or equipment to sites. Whether or not the handling of goods will be construed as ancillary to construction operations would therefore depend on the normal meaning of the words. We therefore believe that this Amendment, if incorporated into the Bill, would certainly give rise to disputes.

We also believe that the great majority of the work concerned would be unlikely to be classified, because it would not satisfy the criteria of Clause 8(5). However, the delivery of materials for construction of off-shore oil-rigs, undertaken from ports, is certainly work which could be appropriate for consideration for classification. Some such work is done by registered workers now. There is other work which would be excluded from classification by this Amendment, which might well be appropriately done by registered dock workers. For example, we understand that registered dock workers handled the stone from the old London Bridge which was exported to the United States of America, but by this Amendment they would be excluded.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

Can the noble Lord say whether the Bill in its present form would include as classified work, or exempt, the building of pontoons for a marina, or the dredging which frequently has to be carried out? At some of the marinas around the smaller ports they often have to bring in contractors, and have regular dredging.

Lord JACQUES

We are concerned here not with dredging but with the handling of cargo.

Baroness HORNSBY-SMITH

What about the building of pontoons where materials have to he brought into an area which is not a commercial port, but is merely a marina port?

Lord BROWN

I declare myself as being a person who does not at all like this Bill—

Lord SANDFORD

You are not the only one.

Lord BROWN

But having failed to get it defeated or amended in a major way in another place, and having to accept the idea that dockers are to have preserved areas of employment, is it any use nit-picking around it? I ask your Lord-ships to look at this Amendment. You could say "all handling of goods ancillary to the running of canteens" or "to road making in docks" or "to building or repairing ships in docks". They would all be equally worthy of an Amendment similar to this. You could go on piling up the agony, because if you use the words "ancillary to" it can mean almost anything. We had the same argument over engineers, and if the words in the Bill are to be interpreted to include almost anything, then there it is.

You cannot word a Bill in such a way as to exclude these things; that is what courts of law are for. One knows perfectly well what are the precedents in these matters. The docks were not built yesterday. I was chairman of the Ports Modernisation Committee for two years and have heard all this stuff before, and to a large extent one has to go on what has happened before in interpreting laws of this kind. As I said, I am against the Bill, but must we waste time on nitpicking things like this, which will not help what it is intended to help? This type of Amendment would merely limit certain things, and because of that limitation would include all the rest. So I am against this Amendment, although I am not at all in favour of the Bill.

Lord SANDFORD

I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brown, but, alas!we are left with making the best of a bad job. There are hundreds and thousands of people whose interests are at stake, and we have to do our best to defend them.

Lord BROWN

With great respect—I do not mean to be insulting—the noble Lord is making the worst of a bad job, in one sense, because that would not at all achieve his aims. That would tend to include by omission all the things that the noble Lord does not want to include. That is the principle which always operates. If you specify a lot of little things, then all those you do not specify are included.

Lord LYELL

Certainly they will be included under the definition of the Bill. The noble Lord shakes his head, but, as my noble friend Lord Sandford said, this Bill affects thousands of people. They want certitude: that is what the law is about, I believe. If the noble Lord says, "We want a specific exclusion here; you are including thousands of other people", and if other people feel they are concerned or that their interests are affected, this is what another place and, indeed, this House in Committee is deliberating upon. We are seeking to discuss the Bill. The noble Lord says that this is a nitpicking Amendment. Perhaps every Amendment that we have put down is a nit-picking Amendment. Does the noble Lord accept that we should just say that we do not like the Bill, do a rain dance and go away? No. We believe in discussing this particular interest, and I am sorry that the noble Lord thinks that it is nit-picking.

This was in the nature of a probing Amendment and we believed that it was well drafted and well founded. I cannot say that we are totally satisfied by the reply of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. He mentioned one or two amusing and interesting examples. I am thinking in particular of the moving of London Bridge, which I should have thought could in no way be classified as dock work by custom, practice or any other method. Nevertheless, this is probably one very good example that the noble Lord might be able to use at a later stage where, by custom or practice, something has been tolerated. I think that the French language expresses it just like that: it is tolerated; it is permitted.

Lord JACQUES

I do not think that it is fair to say "tolerated". May it not be that the inherited skill of the registered docker is so great that those who took down London Bridge knew where to go to get the right kind of expertise?

Lord LYELL

I am indeed fascinated but I would not necessarily agree with the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. This may be one of a thousand exceptions. Nevertheless, we accept that the Bill excludes delivery.—Certainly we are worried by certain aspects of the handling of these materials. The noble Lord has gone one-third or one-half of the way towards enlightening us on this Amendment. Therefore we seek leave to withdraw the Amendment, find out more and come back at a later stage.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Schedule 4 [Repeals]:

9.3 p.m.

Lord LYELL moved Amendment No. 107: Page 28, line 40, leave out ("18th September 1967") and insert ("10th February 1976")

The noble Lord said: In the absence of my noble friend Lord Drumalbyn, beg leave to move this Amendment which we regard as one of the more important Amendments that we are seeking to make to the Bill. The effect of the Amendment will, we hope, he to substitute the date on which the Bill was introduced in Parliament in another place in lieu of the date in Paragraph 8(2)(b) of Schedule 4. This was the date, we understand, when the 1967 Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) (Amendment) Order came into operation. This was the date, as the Minister expressed it in Committee in another place, on which decasualisation of registered dock work was completed.

First, may we discuss the context of the Amendment? Schedule 4 seeks to amplify the provisions of Clause 8 of the Bill, which in its turn permits the Board to recommend to the Secretary of State that work which is done at premises in a Dock Labour Scheme area, and previously the cargo-handling zone, should be classified as dock work if the work falls within a particular category of Part I of Schedule 3 which we have been considering. However, Part I of Schedule 4 deals with the consultations which have to take place before such a recommendation is made. Not only all employers who employ workers on this type of work but also all trade unions which are recognised by such an employer in respect of the work in question have to be notified. Then the Board have to consider any representations that are received from the employers or trade unions who may have been notified—or it might be persons acting on behalf of either the employers or the trade unions—and also from any other persons who, in the Board's view, are interested.

During the Committee stage in another place an assurance was given that this would include the users of ports. It seems to us that the Board then have to tell all those who have made representations to them what work the Board propose to recommend should or should not be classified and then invite further representations. The Board also have to state what safeguards they recommend to the Secretary of State for the existing work force, whether they propose to recommend that any of the existing work force should not he eligible for Registration as dock workers, and why, and what they recommend should happen to the rest of the existing work force, but in particular for how long they should be put on the extension register.

Paragraph 8 was added to the Bill during the Committee stage in another place as part of a Government Amendment, following discussions with the TUC and several individual unions. We think that it goes some way towards allaying the fears of existing work forces in premises at which the Board propose to recommend that work should be classified as dock work, but unfortunately we believe that it does not go nearly far enough. The Secretary of State under—took on Second Reading to put down an Amendment, although he indicated that in his view it was not really necessary. Nevertheless, the Government put down an Amendment and paragraph 8 is the result. The paragraph gives a qualified independent trade union recognised by the employer in respect of the work in question the power to veto the proposed recommendation but only if the recognition agreement was made before 18th September, 1967, and also if this recognition has been in operation ever since.

Lines 42 to 47 on that particular page mean that the veto will not necessarily apply if different methods of handling cargo have been adopted. Let us take, as an example, containerisation or roll-on/roll-off, even if the employer has moved to other premises outside the particular port area. The Minister said in another place that 1967 was the year in which the first of seven berths of containerisation of freight were ready for use, but he did not go on to say when they actually came into use. We are not sure when they did come into use, but we think it was certainly some time after 1970.

Nevertheless, the main point of the Amendment is that we regard as unsatisfactory the date, 18th September 1967, because containerisation only really began to get off the ground in 1968. As we believe this to be the case, the provision as set out now in the Bill would cut out from the exemption all agreements in respect of container bases and also many agreements which have been made in cold stores, warehouses and in other places of work which started work after 1967.

We think this is a very strange provision to come from this Government, because certainly we should not have expected them to interfere with agreements which have been freely entered into between employers and employees, let alone, as we believe is going to be the case, to favour one union against others. It is one thing for legislation to provide that from a given particular date no new recognition agreements shall be entered into on the part of any industry except in accordance with certain provisions, but it is quit e another thing to disregard or to cancel any existing recognition agreements which have been entered into quite legally and in accordance with the good labour relations practice which is endemic in that particular industry. We believe that the lea that we in this House and the Members of another place—and indeed the unions—are entitled to demand is respect for all re cognition agreements entered into before the date on which the Bill was introduced, giving warning that from the date of the intro—duction such agreements could—and often would—be overridden. We want to make it clear that if the date remained as it is in the Bill, the 18th September 1967, that would not necessarily mean that in no circumstances would recognition I agreements entered into after that date be overridden. I believe it was Mr. Harold Walker in another place who mentioned that the existence of the veto would be accepted and that indeed account would be taken of it.

Nobody—I hope not even in this House—would deny that in some cases this veto would and could be overridden. We believe that is wrong and we hope to put it right. Certainly to keep the date 18th September 1967 as it is at present written in the Bill could also lead to industrial friction, which we believe to be needless. Certainly it would not improve industrial relations because it would engender resentment as far as the existing work force was concerned in various premises which would be affected. We think this resentment would continue to grow and would fester. We also believe that the respect for recognition agreements which have been freely and legally entered into would come under heavy pressure.

The date that we have suggested in the Amendment, the 10th February of this year, is not of any particular significance. It might be earlier by a few weeks—perhaps a month of two—or perhaps a little later; but we think it is a reasonable starting point, it being the date of Second Reading, the first major consideration of this Bill, in another place. We hope this Amendment will promote good industrial relations, efficiency and fairness. I beg to move.

Lord JACQUES

The Bill as drafted would give an independent trade union the right to veto the classification of work in long established warehouses, cold stores and other classifiable work in respect of which it has been continuously recognised since 18th September 1967. I would emphasise that "long established" are the operative words in that sentence. This date marks the completion of decasualisation with the introduction of the 1967 Dock Workers' Employment Scheme. Broadly speaking, it was also about this time that the farreaching changes in cargo handling techniques, which have revolutionised the industry, were beginning to take place, with consequential changes in the nature and location of dock work. It is not, and it has never been, the Government's intention that long-established operations, not related to work transferred from the docks, should be capable of classification as dock work. It is most unlikely that such work would be classified under the provisions of Clause 8. Paragraph 8 of Schedule 4 simply removes any such possibility when the union concerned objects.

This Amendment, if accepted, could frustrate a principle objective of the Bill. That objective is to make possible, when the Board so recommends and the Secretary of State so agrees, the classification of work which registered dock workers were performing under the 1967 Scheme but which was transferred outside the port area and undertaken by unregistered workers. It would clearly be incompatible with the intention of the Bill that such work should be subject to automatic union veto.

The choice of the date, 10th February 1976, is presumably the date of the Second Reading debate in the other place. It would give the right of veto in respect of virtually all containerisation work, and work in certain warehouses and cold stores which has been the subject of such industrial relations trouble in recent years. This does not, of course, mean that the views of the trade unions concerned will not be taken fully into account. There is adequate provision in the Bill to ensure that a trade union which objects to the classification of any particular work has every opportunity to make its views known, and these would clearly carry great weight. However, it does not seem right that the Board should automatically be precluded by union veto from making a thorough examination of all the circumstances to determine whether or not to recommend that any particular work should be classified.

There may be cases when some conflict of interest exists which may not be wholly reconcilable to the complete satisfaction of all concerned. However, the Bill provides a sensible means, where none exists at present to procedures in Clause 8 and in Schedule 4, of seeking the best solution to many of the difficulties which have arisen through changes in the nature and location of dock work in recent years. The extension of the right of veto, as the Amendment proposes, could undermine these arrangements and prevent the introduction of orderly and sensible procedures to deal with very difficult problems, and would leave difficulties unresolved. It cannot be over-emphasised that the Trades Union Congress, in the form of its Transport Committee, gave full agreement to the principles of the Bill but said that it thought drafting Amendments should be brought forward to ensure the intention of the Bill, that long-established ware-housing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations which are not related to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, should not be classified as dock work and, therefore, not subject to the Scheme. The union veto was brought forward during the progress of the Bill in another place in response to that request. Those who have studied the Committee proceedings in another place will be aware that the Members of Parliament who are sponsored directly by the unions affected expressed their satisfaction with the Bill as amended.

Therefore, Amendment No. 107 proposes a change which has not been suggested by the trade unions concerned and which would, in the opinion of the Government, be less rather than more conducive to good industrial relations in the docks.

Lord MOTTISTONE

I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, is right in making rather an issue of "long-established". However, I should have thought that in a working life nine years is a pretty long time. It is just about nine years since I left the Navy and I have had three jobs since then. One of them was in a newly-established organisation. It was not in connection with the docks, but that is not the point because it might have been if I had been in a different environment. If, after this new job had been going for three years—and we started it from scratch and had to work out new ways of doing things—suddenly someone had come along and said: "Some of your jobs look as though they are classifiable as dock labour", we should have been very upset indeed.

It is not reasonable to look at this entirely from the point of view of the dockers and their long history. Of course their view has to be taken into account, and on Second Reading we made this point very fully. But it seems to me that it is almost detaching from reality to feel that someone, not today but in five years' time or even ten years' time, because the system rolls on, should be caught by this Bill, whether in the form in which it now is, or as it is amended before it leaves this House. However it may appear, it really does not matter in this context.

The whole procedure is very tight, even in the original form of the Bill. It means that a relatively long time will elapse before all the less important ports have been considered, and in due course possibly engulfed. Whether it be another cargo handling zone system or a dock labour scheme system does not matter in this respect; both are possible under the Bill. People who work in dock areas, people who are trade unionist; in other types of trade, have said to me, "It is all very well; they are not interested in us now, but in ten years' time they might be."

If we leave the Bill as the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, wants it to be left, it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that something like 14 to 19 years after this magic date in 1967, someone will be told, "Oh well, yours is not a longestablished job"—even though he has been working that way for half a working life-time—" because the Bill says the key date is 1967. I know it is now 1981, but that is not long enough to count as a long-established job". You really cannot argue about what is so magic about 1967. The only magical thing about it is that it is the theoretical date of the end of casualisation. That is a point.3ut when we recast this in terms of people working rather than theory, history and taking ourselves back to the last century, and all sorts of other things that we do as we read about the docks, which the 11 of us have done who take part in these debates, we really want to think whether this is a reasonable date.

Personally, I would not support my noble friends on a precise date in 1976, any more than any other particular it date. But I would think it reasonable to have the date nearer to the present time, observing that nine years have gone by since the now key date in the Bill. In some people's terms, particularly if they are youngish men, that is a long time. It might be for the whole of their twenties. Noble Lords are a long way from their twenties in most cases, as I look round the Chamber, but if they cast their minds back, and if they had done the same job from the age of 21 to the age of 30 and someone had then said, "Well, old boy, your job is going to be altered into a dock one", and they did not want it to be—and it must not be presumed that they would—it seems to me that it is our reasonable to put this sort of time-scaly; on it. If noble Lords can think of a better date than the Second Reading in another place, by all means do it, but do not put it back much before 1976.

If the Bill becomes law in the reasonably near future, it will take a few months, if not years, before this is brought into effect in whatever form. So it would seem to me that it is important to think of the attitude of the ordinary chap who is not a docker, nor the son of a docker, nor the grandson of a docker, who has not been brought up in that environment, and how he and his job will be affected by the Bill.

Lord BROWN

If this Amendment had read as follows, "It appears that the Board should have been so recognised by the employer and his predecessors at all times during the last ten years", I would have supported it. But it is quite a serious thing to give a trade union a right of veto over a proposal that has been approved by the Secretary of State and presumably by the Government; and to give that right of veto to what may be a trade union that has only been in existence just over a year seems to me to be going too far, and that is what the Amendment would do. I do not think the Amendment is sound at all. It should have implied giving a right of veto to a union which has been recognised for 10 or 15 years, or what-have-you, but not one that has been recognised for one year plus.

Lord MOTTISTONE

May I take up the noble Lord's point very briefly. Is that not a little unreasonable? There are lots of new trades. The noble Lord, Lord Brown, is a distinguished engineer and he would know this very well. There are lots of new trades which are now thinking that they ought to have trade union representation, and on the whole I applaud that. I think it is very unreasonable to make a distinction between a trade union that has been in existence many years as opposed to one which might have recently been established.

Lord BROWN

There may be lots of new trades, but not lots of new trade unions; in fact there are very few new trade unions. Reading behind this, one can see an existing trade union getting members in an old established location—we know how these things are done—and then getting the veto power because it has only got to be recognised for a year and a bit. I would say it is quite reasonable to suggest that it should have been recognised for ten years, and that will take care of the future.

Lord WIGODER

I do not want to be controversial at the end of an amicable evening. In order that I might be accurate should we return to this point at a later stage, I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, could help me by referring me to other Statutes where similar powers of absolute veto have been given to non-Parliamentary bodies?

Lord JACQUES

I will certainly look into that, but I cannot give the answer offhand. I would explain that this is not vetoing something which the Board has proposed and the Secretary of State has ordered; this is vetoing something which is under consideration by the Board. It drops the matter immediately because it has been vetoed. So it is not quite as bad as it was thought to be.

Lord LYELL

I should like to thank all noble Lords who have spoken on this particular Amendment. I think the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, produced a number of sound points, such as where there were long-established recognition agreements these could easily be, and indeed should be, accepted, but I am afraid I did not follow the logic of why newer recognition agreements should not be accepted. He made a sound point when he said that agreements which were long established should indeed be allowed, and he made a valid point again when he said that this veto by the trade union is going to be in respect of something which is merely proposed, but I must admit that nothing in his reply convinced me or some of my noble friends of the validity of striking out the power of veto which might be granted to another trade union, indeed to a long-established trade union.

The noble Lord, Lord Brown, had a perfectly reasonable case when he suggested that there might be new wildcat or splinter unions which might wish to frustrate the Bill in this particular way, but I think the argument is just as reasonable where there is a long-established trade union but in, say, a new container store or a new area of work. This trade union might have perfectly good standing, and yet because the work at this new location had only been carried out for two years the power of veto would not be available to that trade union.

Lord JACQUES

May I explain that I did not use the term "long established" in relation to a trade union. I raised the term in relation to cold stores, and what-have-you.

Lord LYELL

I appreciate that, but the noble Lord commenced his reply by mentioning a long-established, I think he called it, recognition agreement. He did use "long-established" meaning nine years from October 1976 back to this arbitrary date. He accepted that our date was arbitrary, but we accepted that his was a little arbitrary. Nevertheless, the noble Lord produced a further argument saying that this Amendment could frustrate the Bill in its intention so far as the veto is concerned. But I wonder why should container bases and cold stores, or newer types of depot or work places be singled out as not being allowed to have this veto?

Lord JACQUES

Because it is dock work being taken away.

Lord LYELL

The noble Lord says it is being taken away, and this is particularly arbitrary. Who is to say whether it has been taken away? We understand that whether the work shall or shall not be classified will be under discussion. Yet the noble Lord is saying arbitrarily that it has been taken away, and in that case we are not going to allow the trade unions to veto it. I thought that whether the work had, or had not, been taken away was under discussion.

Lord JACQUES

But it would not be under discussion if you carried this Amendment. What you are saying is that the trade union should be able to veto it. I say no, the trade union should not be able to veto it; it should be under discussion.

Lord LYELL

Why, then, is the trade union able to veto what the noble Lord called a long-established recognition agreement?

Lord JACQUES

Because the long-established places existed before the changes in techniques. They were there long before the present changes. They are not doing work in substitution for dock work. Many of the modern ones are doing work in substitution for dock work.

Lord LYELL

If the noble Lord believes that, will he be able to tell us what proportion of container bases in cold store areas which are going to be affected by unions not being able to use this veto have arisen as a result of new technologies, and what proportion have arisen as substitution for dock work? I do not believe, and I do not believe that the noble Lord, Lord Jacques, believes, that it is entirely 100 per cent. That is a valid point, and one he did not raise. He said that new techniques have been learnt since 1967, 1968, let us say, and that this is substitution for what has been accepted as, or what lie says is, dock work. I do not know whether it is what he says, or the dockers' section of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and perhaps indeed the Transport Committee of the Trades Union Congress, that 12 unions have signed this. Nevertheless, I wonder whether we have got to the bottom of this particular Amendment.

I am not happy with being told that, because the new areas are in substitution for dock work, therefore they should not have this power of veto, which is a pretty powerful weapon. I am not entirely happy with that, yet the noble Lord has a point when he says that there are some areas which are indeed substitutions for what has been regarded as dock work. I am inclined to withdraw this Amendment at this stage, but I must way that I am not convinced by the arguments of the noble Lord, Lord Jacques. I look forward to discussing this again at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Schedule 4 agreed to.

9.35 p.m.

Lord SANDFORD moved Amendment No. 109: After Schedule 4 insert the folk wing new Schedule—