Dock Strike (Hansard, 10 July 1984)

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, with the leave of the House, I shall now repeat in the form of a Statement the Answer which has been given to a Private Notice Question in another place on the dock strike. The Answer is as follows:
"Yesterday the Docks and Waterways Group of the Transport and General Workers Union called upon its members in all ports to stop work from midnight last night. I understand that the reason for their decision was that they consider there was a breach of the Dock Labour Scheme in connection with the handling of iron ore at Immingham.
"First indications are that registered dock workers are on strike at most major ports within the Dock Labour Scheme but dockers have been working normally so far in virtually all non-scheme ports and in a few scheme ports.
"The National Joint Council for the Ports Industry is meeting later this afternoon to discuss the issue. I very much hope that the employers and unions will quickly agree on a basis for ending the strike".
That concludes the Answer.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, the House will be grateful to the Minister for repeating the Statement in answer to a PNQ in the other place. I am pleased that in the Statement it was made absolutely clear that any association that there might be with the current mining dispute is minor; it is another matter altogether.
The Statement makes quite clear that the union sees the engagement of contractors with unregistered labour to handle ore at Immingham as a breach of the Dock Labour Scheme. I understand that the terminal at Immingham is owned jointly by the NCB and the BSC and is definitely registered under the Dock Labour Scheme.
776 Would not the Minister agree that there has been concern expressed over a period of time by the union concerned about the pressure being exerted by the National Association of Port Employers to end the Dock Labour Scheme, which has been with us since 1948, and that the union sees the action at Immingham as the thin edge of the wedge? Is it not correct that the Government have given somewhat broad hints of their own intentions as regards the Dock Labour Scheme, that the unions believe that both the employers and the Government want to scrap the scheme, and that they believe that their action is in defence of the dock workers' terms and conditions of employment?
I am certain that no one in your Lordships' House today would wish to do anything other than try to ensure a speedy end of this dispute, bearing in mind that 80 per cent. of our export and import trade is sea-borne. We must keep in mind that some 20,000 dock workers' jobs have been lost since 1979, and that is an indication, I believe, of the readiness to face the new conditions.
Did the Minister hear Mr. Alex Kitson, the Assistant Secretary of the T and GWU today on Radio 4 make it quite clear that the union is prepared to meet at any time to discuss this matter? We hope that there will be a speedy settlement.
I must ask one or two questions of the Government. What is the Government's position? With an important dispute of this kind the Government cannot stand on the sidelines, as they are doing regarding the coal dispute. There must be action by the Government. A decision needs to be taken as to whether or not the action a Immingham is in breach of the Dock Labour Scheme.
Has the Minister seen the article in today's Daily Telegraph, in which I note that Mr. Richard Douglas, legal adviser to the Association of Dock Employers said that it was "not very enthusiastic" about the continuation of the Dock Labour Scheme. He then added that while it was in force it should not be breached by members; that it was for the Government to abolish it, not the employers.
A national dock workers' delegate conference is to be held tomorrow, and there is also the meeting of the joint council, to which the Minister referred. The Government can help by making quite clear their position on the future of the Dock Labour Scheme. That is what the dispute is about. If, instead of hedging, the Government along with the dock employers, made it quite clear that they do not propose to abolish the scheme, there could be an early end to this unfortunate dispute.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, from these Benches I should like to join the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in thanking the noble Lord the Minister for repeating this Statement. We greatly deplore the very serious situation that has arisen and join with the Government and the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, in saying that we very much hope that the parties concerned will quickly reach an accord which will enable normal dock working to be resumed.
I want to say nothing at all which could possibly make such a solution more difficult. However, I have 777 one question to ask the Minister which, from an industrial relations point of view, we regard as being of considerable importance. Despite what I have already said, is it not the case that this dispute appears rather suddenly to have escalated into a national stoppage in circumstances where the normal negotiating procedures do not appear to have been observed? I wonder whether the Minister would care to comment on that point in his reply?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I am most obliged to both noble Lords for the way in which they have received this Statement. The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, made a number of interrogatory statements, but his main point was when he asked whether the Government would intervene in this dispute. I must say that the Government will not intervene. It is for the industry to settle the dispute. The national joint council meets today and, as I said, we would not want to say anything here which might prejudice its negotiations and efforts to get the dispute back to the proper procedures.
The noble Lord, Lord Underhill, asked me about the Dock Labour Scheme. I repeat, I would not wish to be drawn into that because the dispute is not about that. There is an alleged breach of the agreement at Immingham, and whether or not that is so is not for me to say. There is a perfectly good procedure to be followed, and I hope and urge that it will be followed; it is for the Dock Labour Board to investigate whether or not the particular action is in breach.
The noble Lord, Lord Rochester, asked me about procedure and I think that I have answered that point. I should like to make one small point of correction. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, spoke about 80 per cent. of our exports going through the ports; in fact, 95 per cent. of our exports go through the ports.

§ Lord Renton
My Lords, in addition to that last point, is there any hope that the employers and the Transport and General Workers' Union, in considering how to settle this dispute, will bear in mind that thousands of jobs in the steel industry are at stake?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, of course my noble friend Lord Renton is quite right to remind us of that. Perhaps I should also advise him that not only is the Transport and General Workers' Union involved here. Also involved is the General, Municipal, Boilermakers and Allied Trades Union, and some members of the dock industry belong to the National Union of Railwaymen.

§ Lord Underhill
My Lords, I should like to press the noble Lord the Minister on the one point that I made. It is quite definite that the Association of Dock Employers would like to see an end to the Dock Labour Scheme. If at the joint council meeting the question is pressed whether the Government have any intention of ending the scheme, it might help to bring the dispute to an end if the position were clarified. Do the Government have an answer?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Underhill, has asked me a hypothetical question. I do not know what the national joint council will discuss; it is not for me to say what it will discuss. If the noble Lord wants me to give the Government's view with regard to the Dock Labour Scheme this afternoon, I can only say that it remains exactly the same as was stated in a Written Answer in another place by my honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment, at col. 42 on 2nd July. He said: Whilst the operation of the dock labour scheme continues to be questioned, there are no plans to abolish it at present.

§ Lord Bruce-Gardyne
My Lords, is not it possible that if this strike is prolonged it might prove the most comfortable way in which to dispose of the Dock Labour Scheme, as trade would automatically shift to the ports which do not suffer the dead hand of this appalling incubus?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, I cannot contemplate the extension of this strike, nor its 'continuation for any length of time. I am afraid that I cannot he drawn by my noble friend into discussing the Dock Labour Scheme this afternoon.

§ Lord Taylor of Gryfe
My Lords, would it be true to say that the decision to strike locally was carried on a narrow majority? Would it be true to say that there is an agreed procedure for settling local disputes, and that therefore there can be no justification for calling a national strike? Would it be true to say that the non-registered ports are continuing to operate, and can the Minister give us some idea of how much traffic is handled by the non-registered ports?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, in response to the last question of the noble Lord, Lord Taylor of Gryfe, I do not know the split between the scheme and non-scheme ports. So far as I am aware, there is a procedure for abandoning the Dock Labour Scheme, provided that notice has been given and agreement reached. As I understand it (but I cannot be held to this because obviously I was not present), no application for a departure from the scheme was made. I do not know anything about the numbers involved in deciding to strike—whether it was a majority or a minority.

§ Lord Thorneycroft
My Lords, will my noble friend agree that all of us who regard unemployment as a serious problem in this country must deplore the calling of a strike of this character in circumstances of this kind, which is so damaging to the opportunities for work?

§ Lord Lucas of Chilworth
My Lords, of course my noble friend Lord Thorneycroft is quite right and I am glad to hear him say this. While I am on my feet, perhaps I may answer one of the questions which the noble Lord, Lord Taylor, asked about volumes of traffic. I understand that about a quarter of trade goes through non-scheme ports.

Lord Paget of Northampton
My Lords, does the noble Lord, Lord Thorneycroft, also on this occasion, deplore the actions of the employers, who appear to 779 have acted recklessly and illegally? I think that Monsieur Talleyrand put it like this on one occasion: It was not only illegal, it was a mistake".