HC Deb 10 November 1976 vol 919 cc487-602

Lords amendment: No. 8, in page 3, line 38, leave out "in draft" and insert and publish in accordance with the provisions of Schedule (Public Inquiries (Notices and Procedures)) to this Act,".

Mr. Harold Walker

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Myer Galpern)

With this we may take Lords Amendments Nos. 9, 10, 20, 42, 43 and 58.

Mr. Walker

The amendments are directed to what those who participated in the Committee and in other proceedings will recognise as familiar ground. They require that in the case of the new Dock Labour Scheme, in any subsequent amendments to the scheme, and in proposed orders classifying or declassifying work, contrary to the Board's opinion following consideration under Clause 9, there shall be compliance with the procedure set out in the new schedule. We discussed similar amendments in Standing Committee for the best part of two hours. I have no doubt that the Con- servatives will point out that the procedure in the schedule closely follows that provided for in the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946.

In Standing Committee my right hon. Friend said that the Government believed that the procedure in Clause 4 was a significant improvement on the procedures provided in the 1946 Act. We have neither seen nor head anything since to persuade us that our position then was wrong.

Under the 1946 Act the Secretary of State was required to prepare a draft embodying the scheme, to give notice where copies could be obtained, to allow not less than 40 days for objections, and then to appoint the public inquiry. In the light of the results of that inquiry he was required to make an order, either in the terms of the draft, or subject to such modifications as he thought fit—the order under the 1946 scheme being subject to the negative resolution procedure.

The Government believe that to establish such a public inquiry is no substitute for proper parliamentary scrutiny and debate—not only on the laying of an initial scheme before the House, but in the case of any subsequent amendment to it. Consequently the Bill provides that the draft new scheme, and any amendments to it, will be subject to the affirmative procedure.

Although the Bill does not expressly provide for this, the draft of the new scheme will in practice be drawn up after consultation with the Board and those interests represented on it, and after taking account of any views expressed by those concerned with the industry. A few bodies have already commented on matters concerned with the new scheme, and any further views of this kind would of course also be examined. The formal procedure in the Bill for representations to be made to the Secretary of State about the draft of the scheme, and for the draft to be amended, if appropriate, gives further opportunity for the views of those who may be affected by the operation of the scheme to be made known and taken into account. Subsequently, there will have to be the affirmative resolution in both Houses of Parliament to approve the draft scheme.

These procedures allow full opportunity for interests concerned to make their views known. To provide for a public inquiry as well would make the procedure unnecessarily cumbersome. The report of a public inquiry would in any case simply be an additional factor which the Secretary of State would have to take into account in considering whether and in what way to amend the draft scheme. He could not—and the new schedule does not propose that he should—be obliged to make any particular changes as the result of the inquiry. The Government believe that in this context, the public inquiry procedure would be time-consuming, cumbersome and unnecessary.

7.15 p.m.

Mr. Prior

It will come as no surprise to the Government that we strongly approve of what their Lordships have done in this case. Perhaps it would be appropriate at this stage, since we have now moved on to one of the main amendments, to look back and consider the point that the Bill has reached.

It seems to have very few friends left. Perhaps the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is one of them. It certainly has fewer friends among the dockers now that they have discovered that it is not what they anticipated it would be a year ago. It also has very few friends left in the House. One has only to move through the corridors to hear Labour Members saying that it is the worst Bill ever introduced into the House of Commons. Cabinet Ministers are prepared to say in private that it is a shocking Bill and that they cannot understand why the Government are introducing it.

If one wants further evidence one has only to read the Press, particularly the leading articles in every newspaper which do nothing but run the Bill down. One has only to consider the country's economic situation to see just how inappropriate the Bill is at this time. It is totally irrelevant in every way to the country's needs. It has no relevance to the needs of dockland or of the dockers, to the surplus of dockers in the Port of London, and perhaps one or two other places, or to the needs of the consumers, the cold storage industry and so on. We are not surprised at the bad state of the economy when we see the Government's determination to press ahead with the Bill in its present form and to disagree with the Lords amendments which would at least do something to improve the Bill.

We have just discussed amendments dealing with the composition of the National Dock Labour Board. One of the points raised was that since the Board will have much increased power and authority it should have a wider composition. There is no provision in the Bill, however, for a public inquiry. It is extraordinary that a public inquiry can be called on the most trivial and detailed matters relating to planning agreements, but that on a major issue such as this, involving the employment, prosperity and future of large organisations, a public inquiry is ruled out.

It is wrong to suggest that the affirmative resolution procedure is in any way a substitute for a public inquiry. We know that resolutions introduced under that procedure can be debated for one and a half hours, generally late at night and if there is time, and that otherwise they tend to go through on the nod. But there is no means by which such a resolution can be amended and no adequate chance to scrutinise it.

The Government have got their business into the state where they have to guillotine even the Lords amendments. To suggest in those circumstances that the affirmative resolution procedure would provide the opporunity for what the Minister described as proper parliamentary inquiry and debate is a travesty of the truth.

I do not believe that those outside the House will derive any confidence from the fact that an hour and a half's debate in the House is considered an adequate substitute for a proper public inquiry. We strongly support the whole concept of a public inquiry. As the Minister of State has said, the power of inquiry was available under the Dock Workers (Regulation of Employment) Act 1946. Indeed, it was used on a number of occasions although the procedure was not so vital under the old Act as in this legislation.

Why do we think that the procedure is so necessary now? First, under this legislation there has been a radical extension of port legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination can be described as port areas. I refer to the five-mile cargo-handling zone that can be extended by order. That is one reason for its being necessary to have a proper public inquiry.

Secondly, the definitions and criteria written into the Bill are ambiguous and uncertain. They will give the National Dock Labour Board a most difficult and unenviable task. They will take up a vast amount of time for both unions and employers. I do not know how employers will be able to get on with running their businesses and I do not know how others will be able to do their own jobs while they are having to make these recommendations to the Secretary of State.

I do not believe that the Civil Service or the Government have thought out these matters for one moment. That is one of the great fears about legislation that is passed by the House nowadays. We are not engaged in the practicalities of running a business, and there is criticism outside not only from Conservative businessmen but from all sections of the community about the lack of experience in the Chamber. The criticism that we lack ability to determine what is suitable for legislation and the way that legislation should be framed is rising to a crescendo. We are all fed up with the amount of legislation, and nowhere is that feeling more prevalent than in industrial relations legislation. We have had far too much of it, and it is largely incomprehensible.

This legislation will place obligations and duties on the National Dock Labour Board that will take an enormous amount of time, and I suggest that at the end of the day it will not be possible to come to definite and certain decisions. That is another reason for our thinking that there should be a public inquiry.

Thirdly, there is the dispute about the precise extent of the cargo-handling zone and the relevant premises included therein. Fourthly, there is contention about the precise definition of Schedule 3—namely, what is classified and what is not. There is dissension and uncertainty about the effect of the criteria laid down in Clauses 8 and 9, to which the National Dock Labour Board must have regard when deciding on its recommendations.

We believe that the Bill as it stands is a recipe for dispute, misunderstanding, conflict and misrepresentations. It is likely to create far more problems than it will solve. We have argued throughout that it will set union against union, employer against employer, docker against others and achieve precisely nothing. Is it too much to ask the Government, even at this stage, to withdraw the Bill and think again? If that is too much, is it too much to ask them to have a public inquiry?

Mr. Nigel Spearing (Newham, South)

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned the definitions in Clauses 8 and 9 and Schedule 3. He has suggested that there are uncertainties that the local dock labour boards will have to determine. How can he suggest that a public inquiry will be of any assistance in making decisions in borderline cases? Surely the local boards will be available in a judicial capacity. How can a public inquiry help?

Mr. Prior

A public inquiry would bring out all the factors involved at an early stage. It would enable the National Dock Labour Board to reach far better decisions than would otherwise be the case. Surely the widest possible consultation and inquiry should be available. The publicity that would come out of an inquiry at an early stage would considerably influence any attitude that the National Dock Labour Board took.

It is the element of publicity that is so important. It would give the wider public a chance of making up their minds and the Secretary of State a chance to examine all the evidence that it laid out in front of him.

That is the publicity side, but there is the public interest side as well. We believe that those who have strong feelings need to have the right of a public inquiry at which to put their point of view. That right is to be denied to them.

I know that people will be allowed to make their representations to the Minister, but that is nothing like the same as being able to have a public inquiry. I wonder what attitude Labour Members would take if instead of their being able to have a motorway public inquiry, for example, it was said " We shall allow individuals to make objections to the Minister, the Minister will decide and there will be no method by which the public can make their views known in public."

We are dealing with matters of great importance. We are extending the dock area to five miles. For the first time we shall include a great many people who have hitherto been excluded from dock work. We shall include a great many people working in the industry, a great many who have warehouses and a great many who provide employment. But we are saying that they are not to have the right to have a public inquiry, a right that they had under the 1946 Act when the circumstances were far more narrowly defined than they are now.

Surely we have no right to take away the right to have a public inquiry. I do not believe that it is any substitute or an adequate safeguard to deal with the matter by way of affirmative resolution. That procedure may have been adequate 50 years or 100 years ago but it is not today. I say frankly, flatly and plainly that we know it is not adequate.

Even for those of us who do not like the Bill, who would do all we could to kill it straight away, it seems essential to be able to have a public inquiry. It also seems essential from the Government's point of view to provide such hearings if they want acceptance of the Bill in the dockland areas. If public inquiries are not provided, it will be thought again that this is another way in which the covering up of the machinery is taking place. I beg Labour Members to compare the circumstances in which we have public inquiries with the failure to grant one in this case.

Given all the circumstances and the need for such an inquiry, surely the Government should change their minds. It would not be a matter of great principle if they were to change their minds on this issue. They know that the House is fairly evenly divided. Is it suggesting too much that on this issue they give way at this stage, agree with the Lords and accept the amendment? Surely that would not be too much.

If the Government took that course, they might be making their job considerably easier not only for the rest of the Bill but when the Bill comes into operation. If the amendment is not accepted, I doubt very much whether there will be many people in the industry who will have confidence in what the Government are seeking to do.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has made it clear that he does not like the Bill and that he would prefer it to be withdrawn. He has argued that from his point of view even a public inquiry is nothing more than a cosmetic operation. He said that the Bill has few friends, but he has been saying that ever since Second Reading. The Press has been saying that since Second Reading. Indeed, it was doing so before the Bill was published. There is nothing new in that. That is partly because the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have set out to distort the meaning and the purpose of the Bill. They have sought to put union against union and to put the worst possible construction on every clause and facet of the Bill.

7.30 p.m.

Now, after many hours of discussion, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is reduced to quoting in the House corridor gossip by Cabinet Ministers saying that it is a bad Bill and they do not know how it came to fruition. If he expects us to believe that, he expects us to believe anything. The right hon. Gentleman must live in a world of his own where Members and Ministers shout at the tops of their voices, especially in his hearing on the day when we are discussing the Bill, "We do not like the Bill." I suggest that is farcical.

The right hon. Member for Lowestoft sought to elevate the public inquiry to an issue of principle, although he said that it was not. The suggestion was that without a public inquiry we were in for a great deal of difficulty in dockland.

The right hon. Gentleman rightly said that the public inquiry has been with us for a number of years and has been used on different occasions. What problems has it solved in dockland? Why is it that, over the years, we have had so many problems in dockland? Why is there trouble and strife? Why, with the existence of the public inquiry, have the problems in dockland not been resolved? I do not know. The answer is that the public inquiry might in certain circumstances produce some good. However, it cannot be elevated to the status where, if it is not in the Bill, it will destroy dockland.

I do not understand how the public inquiry fits in here. I thought that if we were agreed on anything regarding dockland, it was that both sides of the industry—employers and unions—should have early consultations with the National Dock Labour Board on the future of the ports, and so forth. That was the way that we saw the future of the ports and the industry developing.

Why have a public inquiry headed by some outside person who may not know anything about dockland? We know from other inquiries that a Queen's Counsel is plucked from a panel of assessors, if that is the right description, to hold an inquiry. He may have experience of other inquiries, but he may know nothing about the subject on which he is holding the inquiry. That could happen with a public inquiry into dockland. If we had someone inexperienced and ignorant—I use the word "ignorant" in its true sense—of dockland in charge of a public inquiry and eventually making recommendations to the Minister, we could have a complete disaster.

Who will come to the inquiry? Will it be people from outside the industry? Will it be the unions and the employers in dockland? If it is to be the latter, not people from outside the industry, why should they want a public inquiry? Surely they would be better employed in sitting down together and working out solutions to the problems in dockland.

Mr. Loyden

I think that my hon. Friend will recognise that dockland has been the most inquired into industry in the whole of the United Kingdom from Shore to Devlin. With one or two honourable exceptions, most of the inquiries created more problems than they solved. Many of the problems in the docks industry can be resolved better and more effectively by co-operation between management and labour than by inquiries.

Mr. Hughes

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for reinforcing the point that I was making. The only way to achieve a healthy, efficient industry which can be of service to the nation is by consultation and co-operation between employers and workers in dockland.

The right hon. Member for Lowestoft referred to motorway inquiries. We have heard of Rent-a-crowd and demonstrations. People from different parts of the country attend motorway inquiries not only to put their points of view—one could argue that they were entitled to do that—but apparently to deploy disruptive tactics. Indeed, a motorway inquiry cannot start unless the objectors agree to the terms on which the inquiry is to be held.

Is the right hon. Member for Lowestoft advocating that people from outside the docks industry should attend a public inquiry into that industry? I can imagine what he would say if, at the first public inquiry, elements of the militant Left—the extreme fringe organisations of politics—turned up and disrupted the proceedings, saying that they would not allow the inquiry to start until the basis of the inquiry was what they wanted it to be. Surely the right hon. Gentleman would not want to encourage that kind of proceeding.

Mr. Prior

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that that is a good reason for not holding an inquiry?

Mr. Hughes

I think that many people are beginning to look at the worth of public inquiries generally. Public inquiries, if they are to be held, ought to be open. People should be allowed to make known their views. But in fact the opposite is happening. People's views are not being heard. At a recent motorway inquiry, people living in the area were not heard because of the disruptive tactics of others. We must take that into account.

Mr. Giles Shaw (Pudsey) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is going beyond the scope of the debate. We are discussing not the future or set-up of public inquiries, but public inquiries as they are now constituted.

Mr. Hughes

Of course we are, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft led me along the path of motorway inquiries. I should not have thought of bringing motorway inquiries into the debate if the right hon. Gentleman had not mentioned them.

Public inquiries are expensive. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft must not imagine that a public inquiry, as an alternative to what we would like to see in the Bill, will release employers from the onerous tasks which he said they now have and will have under the Bill and will free them for productive work. If there is a public inquiry, they will have to brief not only themselves, but everybody else involved.

Trying to explain matters to the public or to whoever is in charge of the inquiry can be more expensive in terms of both time and cost than face-to-face discussions with the other parties involved. Indeed, if the parties are not satisfied with the way things are working out, they can be involved in more time and money in making representatives of the Minister. Therefore, the right hon. Member for Lowestoft is making a great mistake in elevating the public inquiry into a principle.

I side with the Government. We should not agree with the Lords. However well a scheme may be drafted and however much consultation there might be, some people will still be dissatisfied. There will not be perfect agreement every time. If we hold out the possibility of a public inquiry either in advance or after consultation, we shall be wasting time.

Again, I would agree to a great extent with the right hon. Member for Lowestoft about the way in which legislation passes through the House. I shall not divert too far into that.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No, I should hope not.

Mr. Hughes

I am glad that I anticipated that, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

I was disappointed to hear the right hon. Gentleman denigrate the affirmative procedure. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, know better than most the argument in Scottish Grand Committee about the use of affirmative procedure as opposed to negative procedure. But if I were in Scottish Grand Committee, I would only just be warming up.

We should not denigrate the House of Commons procedure and I criticise those who ask why we bother with the affirmative procedure, claiming that it is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time. There should be the fullest discussion within the House on regulations. Perhaps there is fault here on both sides of the House, because we may have accepted the principle that regulations have to be accepted in total or not at all.

The right hon. Gentleman made it plain that he does not like the Bill and would prefer not to have it. He says that there is far too much legislation dealing with various facets of industrial lime and industrial relations. But the truth is that if we go back through the history of dockland, the absence of legislation has not improved industrial relations. Over the years we have had a number of different Bills and a number of inquiries and these have led to improvements and to legislation which has improved industrial relations in dockland. Dockland has been greatly transformed and if we want to see industrial peace in dockland, we need legislation which removes the possibility of employers deliberately exploiting the situation.

Mr. Richard Buchanan (Glasgow, Springburn)

My hon. Friend is talking in terms of legislation relating to industrial relations. Is he in favour of proposals such as those contained in the document "In Place of Strife"?

Mr. Hughes

In that White Paper there were many proposals which would have been of value to the trade union movement. The difficulty was that some parts of it were unacceptable.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Gentleman is going far too wide of the Lords amendment.

Mr. Hughes

We are now in a position to pass legislation dealing with the difficulties which have arisen because private employers of one kind and another are determined to exploit their position for themselves, their profits, and their shareholders. Many are prepared to go to any lengths to do so.

I believe that this Bill makes a positive contribution to dockland and the prosperity of this country. I have no hesitation in saying that I am one of the Bill's friends, and I hope that we will get it on to the statute book quickly.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. David Price (Eastleigh)

I shall be brief, but first of all I declare an interest in many matters in this Bill. I must also declare that I have a very heavy cold.

The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) repeated one of the errors made by him and some of his hon. Friends throughout the passage of the Bill. He talks about the docks as if they were a closed world. That might have been so in the past, with the old dock wall and the dock gate. If it were true then, which I doubt, it is certainly not true today because of the extension of dockland. Another factor, which gives occasion for this Bill, is the revolution in cargo handling. One can no longer look at the dock phase of the movement of cargo as completely separate. Therefore the arguments of the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North no longer hold any validity, if they ever did.

The case for a public inquiry is perfectly well made in the old Act. The hon. Member referred to the number of inquiries made under the old Act and the major changes which were made in the arrangements of the then National Dock Labour Scheme. There was an inquiry in 1947 under Mr. George Isaacs, the then Minister of Labour, and another was conducted under John Cameron. Subsequently, decasualisation in 1967 was preceded by an inquiry under Sir George Honeyman in 1966.

I thought that the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North suggested that these inquiries were helpful and improved relations in dockland. But he cannot have it both ways. The case for change has to be made by the Government, not by the Lords amendments which are only reverting to the old procedure. I would go along with the Government more if they were proposing a change in procedure here in Parliament. I do not believe that for this type of scheme the affirmative procedure is the proper course of action. Had the Secretary of State said that we would have a Select Committee procedure I would have been more inclined to go along with him. In fact, this Bill might have proceeded through its parliamentary stages rather more smoothly if, when the White Paper was published, the Government had put it through a Select Committee before legislation. Then these details could have been examined. That procedure lends itself to this sort of thing better than the sequential examination of the Bill according to number.

In this Bill the area designated as a cargo-handling zone will be extended, and this means that new businesses and new employees will be brought within its scope. Parliament should be able to hear the supporting evidence, so that the Government would be on much stronger ground if they proposed a Select Committee-type of procedure rather than relying purely on the Statutory Instrument procedure. In default of the Government's coming forward with a Select Committee procedure, it is preferable to fall back on the former arrangements of the 1946 Act which are incorporated in the Lords amendment. The assumption that debate across the Floor of the House is the most effective, or indeed the only, way to proceed, is a myth. We would do far better by the Select Committee method whereby people can give evidence to hon. Members and answer their questions. Hon. Members sit together to discuss the issues at stake and a lot of party rancour goes when we combine to study a problem.

If the right hon. Gentleman is not able to meet the point that I am making, I must tell him that the former arrangements under the 1946 Act are preferable to his new procedure.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I reinforce two aspects of the case for public inquiries. One is the use of the word "public". It seems desirable that in the handling of this Bill and in its implementation, if it is ever enacted, the public should have an opportunity to see how it is working and be able to have their voice heard, albeit through a third party who may be conducting the inquiry.

The other aspect that must be recognised is the sheer complexity of the legislation. It is of a nature that is almost certain to produce disputes between the parties involved in the port. Where there is an arrangement for classification or designating cargo-handling zones, and it is a matter of striking a balance between the Dock Labour Board, the employee representatives and the employer representatives, the chances of a decision being taken about which one or two of the major parties involved disagree must be substantial. Therefore, it seems desirable that there should be a procedure whereby such difficulties can be resolved.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) said, the statutory instrument procedure is hardly a vehicle that can be satisfactory either to the parties in disagreement or to the public for ensuring that this measure, if it ever becomes an Act, is worked properly. The case for the public inquiry is important and should be handled effectively rather than be swept on one side, as the Government may seek to do.

Mr. Loyden

As I said in an earlier intervention, during the last century the docks industry has been one of the most inquired into industries in the United Kingdom. Anyone listening to Opposition Members would think that no attempt had been made to find an alternative method of solving the problems that face dockland because of the technological changes.

We recognise, as I am sure registered dock workers have long since recognised, that this industry is changing almost daily and will continue to do so in the techniques for handling goods. It is not that that the dock worker resists. What he resists is the movement of the industry away from its traditional places and the fact that the definition of dock work has become so vague that the future of the industry and the employment opportunities within it are a source of grave concern. During the last 10 years the industry's labour force has been reduced by about 50 per cent. If one bears that in mind, one realises the justification for the fears of the dockers.

As a nation, it is important for us to recognise that, no matter what changes take place, there will always be a dock industry.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. We are not discussing the dock industry as such on this amendment. I hope that the hon. Member will relate his contribution to the amendment.

Mr. Loyden

I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

The point is that attempts have been made to deal with this industry in a number of ways. One proposal in 1972 by those employed in the industry was that those who manage it and those who work in it should get together to try to solve the problems of the industry, bearing in mind the changes to which I have referred. There was a flat rejection of that idea by the employers. They refused to enter into any mutual consideration of the problems facing the industry because of the technological changes that were taking place almost daily. That being so, there can be no suggestion that the industry has not tried to deal with its problems.

Although there have been many inquiries into the dock industry, nothing has emerged that has resulted in solving the problems of the industry on a long-term and permanent basis. That is why, in one sense, the Bill is setting out an entirely new base that will give the industry an opportunity for an almost constant review of what is going on. The idea of a public inquiry is important, because one must bear in mind the factors that exist in the locality for determining the work to be done.

Mr. Spearing

The House might be under some slight misapprehension about this matter of public inquiries because, on the face of it, a public inquiry is something that looks at all the facts and uncovers information which hitherto has been private.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price), in his reasonable speech, forgot that the public inquiries during the history of dockland—these were referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden)—were about general arrangements—I do not think anybody would quarrel with that—whereas the public inquiry to which the Lords amendment refers, and which is set out at length in new Schedule 4A, is not about an arrangement in general. That is the subject of the Bill. This inquiry will be into individual and perhaps collective designation orders. That is a different question.

We found in Committee—I think that we have this in common across the Floor of the House—that matters of designation and definition in dock work are extremely technical. The best people to determine that sort of thing are the local boards, on which employees, employers and others will sit. They will come to some continuing relationship, as they do now. In the local environment, tuned to local custom and practice, they will come to agreements across the table on awkward definitions and perhaps on awkward designations.

New Schedule 4A, which runs to one and a half pages, says that there can be public inquiries in respect of what will be Section 11(4). The Clause 11 proce- dure, and that in subsection (4) in particular, relates to classification orders. It may come down to a classification of work in particular premises or in detailed form. To put into a provision the whole of the public inquiry procedure, including all the provisions of Section 250 of the Local Goverment Act 1972, which presumably could be triggered off by statutory objections, to deal with a relatively small technical matter seems, on the face of it, to be a good idea, but when one comes to think about it one realises that the practical way of dealing with a matter of this sort is by a local board. Such a board—and this has not been emphasised so far—will, under the terms of the Bill, have a wide discretion, so that instead of being shackled by statutes that do not fit local circumstances, it will be able to take all the local considerations into account.

Clause 9 deals with references by the Secretary of State to the Board. Rather than everything being done in private, as those who have heard the debate so far might think will happen, that clause says that the Secretary of State shall publish notice that he has done so, informing persons interested where they can obtain a copy of the direction, and giving them at least sixty days in which to make representations to the Board. Subsection (5) says: The Secretary of State shall publish the Board's report, together with a statement". I know that that does not go as far as the Opposition would like, but, contrary to what might have been suggested, a considerable amount of information will be available to those who are properly connected with any matter at issue. Indeed, there is the 60-day period—a fairly long time—in which representations can be made.

Some of these provisions will make it likely—I hope it will be proposed to adjust the Bill if it does not actually work—that many of these issues will be resolved on a local basis resulting from day-to-day contact and trust between employers and employees, just as in this House we do not often refer to Standing Orders because we have come to understand how things work on the basis of familiarity and trust.

8.0 p.m.

Despite what the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) has said, I hope that the Bill will create that sort of situation in each local area so that reference to the Bill itself will be relatively incidental. We need something of this sort. Then the situations for which Opposition Members envisage a public inquiry will not occur. I sincerely hope that will be the case because all of us in the House want a proper framework for the definition of dock work in the dockland areas. That is what the Bill attempts.

Mr. Harold Walker

With permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should like to reply to the points which have been made in the debate. I echo what my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) said about the docks industry being the most inquired into industry in this country. I shall not inflict on the House a recitation of the inquiries which have taken place over the years. But we are entitled to bear in mind that the inquiries which have taken place were not general inquiries but were related to specific issues.

There was the Bristow Committee, which was set up in 1969 and which made recommendations. Subsequently there were the Jones-Aldington talks and their recommendations. There were the recommendations of the National Ports Council and, more recently, the ACAS report. As the House will recall, we have said many times that the Bill is very much based on and takes account of the recommendations of these various committees and inquiries.

It is fair to recall that it was the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) himself who, speaking in Committee in general terms about inquiries, said that there had been far too many inquiries, particularly into planning matters. I hope that I am not misrepresenting the view that he expressed on that occasion because he went on to say "none the less"—and he talked of the reasons why he thought there should be provision for public inquiries in this situation.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh (Mr. Price) will be the first to recognise that we are here debating a specific proposal which has come from the House of Lords and that whether a Select Committee of this House would be an attractive alternative is not a question for me or for a Government Department. That is a question for the House itself. The effectiveness or otherwise of Select Committees for dealing with these matters is very much a matter for the House.

The hon. Member for Eastleigh referred to the old Act. My hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) said the 1946 Act had not been effective in eliminating dockland strife and that perhaps we should regard with some scepticism, not to say cynicism, its provisions and procedures. The hon. Member for Eastleigh pointed out that what we traditionally thought of as dockland and the dock industry had undergone a fundamental and radical change over the years and that we were now dealing with a concept of docklands and dock work different from that which prevailed when the 1946 Act was introduced.

Without in any way suggesting that the hon. Gentleman accepts the provisions that we have brought forward in this legislation, I think that implicit in his remarks is an acceptance that the 1946 legislation is no longer the proper way of dealing with the matters we are seeking to tackle. As my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North properly pointed out, the present procedures we are seeking to change and the provisions for inquiries have not diminished or removed the conflict in dockland. That is a case for not returning to the procedures of the past.

I would refer to some of the points made by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft who recognised, along with his hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh, the radical changes which have taken place within the industry. I think he said "the radical extension of ports legislation into areas which by no stretch of the imagination could be considered port industries". The right hon. Gentleman criticised the various criteria in the Bill as ambiguous and uncertain.

He did not specify to which criteria he was referring. Did he mean the criteria to be taken into account in determining the scope of the proposed new scheme, or the objects of the scheme, or the procedure for classification under Clauses 7 and 8? I recall that these were matters—if that is what he meant—on which there was an enormous amount of debate in Committee. Criticisms were expressed from both sides of the Committee to say that perhaps the criteria laid down were too inflexible and rigid. The right hon. Gentleman has to make up his mind about what he wants in the Bill.

A set of such firm and clearly defined criteria would have no effect other than imposing a rigidity over the whole system. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to acknowledge that there needs to be sufficient flexibility to take account of the varying situations and the different kinds of problems which arise in different areas as well as willingness to operate a different approach which will respond to those needs?

Here I am echoing the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Garston who saw the advantage of all these new arrangements being in the hands of those who have experience of the problems which arise in this industry in order to allow some scope for the exercise of judgment by those individuals. I hope that the House is not suggesting that we should not leave an adequate rôle for the judgment of those familiar with the industry.

Mr. Giles Shaw

Surely when the Minister discusses those involved in the industry making use of their judgment he must recognise that the Bill involves other industries which are not currently within the dock work scheme. The case for an inquiry surely becomes stronger since the Bill embodies industries such as distribution, warehousing and so on which do not currently come within dock work.

Mr. Walker

The hon. Gentleman served on the Committee and made a creditable contribution to its work. I hope that he would be the last to overlook the provisions that are in the Bill for representations and the time during which representations may be made. There are also obligations both on the Board and on my right hon. Friend to take account of those representations. The hon. Gentleman will recall that in response to Opposition suggestions in Committee we strengthened those provisions. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get some satisfaction from that.

The right hon. Member for Lowestoft argued that the affirmative resolutions are no substitute for an inquiry and that the inquiry procedure would give an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and would give the Secretary of State the opportunity to take account of views expressed when preparing the scheme or any extensions to it. The right hon. Gentleman went on to draw a parallel with motorway inquiries. I should have thought that the provision for these representations to be made to the Secretary of State would at least satisfy him that there would be an opportunity for interested parties to make representations and for my right hon. Friend to take them into account.

We have added to that the provision to which the right hon. Gentleman has not referred—the superimposing of the ultimate decision of Parliament. I should have thought that he was the last person to suggest that hon. Members were not responsive to and aware of the public interest and the sectional interests involved.

Mr. Prior

If they were, they would not be supporting this Bill.

Mr. Walker

That surprises me. The right hon. Gentleman has acknowledged in Committee and elsewhere that he has expressed the views of sectional interests, as he is doing tonight. It is up to him and other hon. Members to seek to persuade the House that those interests are not being adequately considered or safeguarded.

When the right hon. Gentleman draws a parallel with motorway inquiries, he overlooks entirely the fact that, unlike a motorway inquiry, which stops at the Secretary of State's desk and in which no one publicly knows why he disagrees with the inspector, there will be an ultimate stage, here and in another place. Issues will be thoroughly debated and the Secretary of State will be required to give the reasons for his decision and to say what representations have been made and what factors have led him to his conclusions.

The right hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had few friends and listed its enemies, including the newspapers. If that is true, it is a tribute to the campaign of misrepresentation and distortion over a long period, encouraged by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. Once the Bill is on the statute book, some of us will face a major task in dispelling some of the mythology built up by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends and presenting the truth, not only to the dockers but to the other interests involved.

Mr. Barney Hayhoe (Brentford and Isleworth)

Of course we have done our best to expose the shocking character of the Bill. Our debates over many months have shown that it has surprisingly few friends, even among Labour Members.

Although the public inquiry system is by no means perfect and cannot guarantee a fair and reasonable decision, it is at least some safeguard against the increasing power of the Executive and the increasing tendency for matters of public interest to be settled by small groups in the Civil Service and the Government. It is essential to retain the system initiated in 1946, and no case has been made againt it. The Minister's suggestion that it is cumbersome and the suggestion in another place that it is time-consuming and unnecessary are quite unacceptable. By abolishing public inquiries, they are saying that the Minister and the civil servants know best.

I have been shocked by what Ministers have said about public inquiry findings being ignored. My constituency has suffered from road building, and what worries my constituents most is that Ministers can ignore those findings. But how much worse it would be if there were no inquiry at all. The Government are seeking to push on one side the public inquiry concept in relation to the dock labour scheme.

8.15 p.m.

If they followed the logic of their argument, it would not be long before they would be trying to do away with public inquiries about roads, planning applications or many other matters. This is a slippery slope and we should resist being pushed down it. [Interruption.] I am glad that the hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) agrees about this aspect of the importance of public inquiries.

Mr. Spearing

I disagree.

Mr. Hayhoe

He disagrees. Presumably he is in favour of having some public inquiries, but not into dock work.

The Government have also urgued that the affirmative procedure is a valid sub- stitute for the old system of public inquiry followed by the negative procedure. The Minister said that this would afford proper public scrutiny. Considering the cavalier way in which the Government have been treating Parliament, it is asking a good deal to expect us to believe that a one-and-a-half hour debate is sufficient to expose the truth of a complex situation.

The present Leader of the House is treating Parliament in a most oppressive fashion. He was an awful Secretary of State for Employment and he is now well on the way to being one of the most oppressive Leaders of the House. Sometimes one has a tinge of regret that Ted Short has gone. I could make no greater condemnation that that.

We should also recognise how the virtue of loyalty has been debased into near-absolute subservience by the so-called Labour moderates. Many Labour Members in their hearts and in their private conversations do not like this Bill. We know what Labour Peers, distinguished members of former Labour Governments, have said about the Bill. I am astonished that not one Labour Mem-

ber is prepared to vote for the continuation of public inquiries. Not one will join their former colleague, Lord George-Brown, in making this significant change in what he rightly described as the "Jack Jones (Special Responsibility) Bill". Not one Labour moderate will buck the party Whip and vote his true feelings by supporting the amendments. As a result, the power of the Executive increases.

My support for continuing the inquiry system stems partly from my real concern about this trend in lessening the power and influence of Parliament and increasing that of the Executive. This has been contributed to in great part by the present docile behaviour of the so-called Labour moderates. By any standards, this is a shocking Bill, utterly irrelevant to the problems of the moment. It will make matters worse rather than better. At least these amendments will improve the Bill and I hope that the Government's motion will be defeated.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:

The House divided: Ayes 309, Noes 309.

Division No. 389.] AYES [8.20 p.m.
Abse, Leo Cartwright, John Eadie, Alex
Allaun, Frank Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Edge, Geoff
Anderson, Donald Clemitson, Ivor Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Archer, Peter Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Armstrong, Ernest Cohen, Stanley Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Ashley, Jack Coleman, Donald English, Michael
Ashton, Joe Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Ennals, David
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Concannon, J. D. Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Atkinson, Norman Conlan, Bernard Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Evans, John (Newton)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Corbett, Robin Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Cowans, Harry Faulds, Andrew
Bates, Alf Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Bean, R. E. Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Crawshaw, Richard Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Cronin, John Flannery, Martin
Bidwell, Sydney Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Bishop, E. S. Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cryer, Bob Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Boardman, H. Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Ford, Ben
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Forrester, John
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Dalyell, Tam Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Davidson, Arthur Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Bradley, Tom Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Freeson, Reginald
Bray, Dr Jeremy Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Davies, Ifor (Gower) George, Bruce
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Gilbert, Dr John
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Deakins, Eric Ginsburg, David
Buchan, Norman Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Golding, John
Buchanan, Richard de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Gould, Bryan
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Gourlay, Harry
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Dempsey, James Graham, Ted
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Doig, Peter Grant, George (Morpeth)
Campbell, Ian Dormand, J. D. Grant, John (Islington C)
Canavan, Dennis Douglas-Mann, Bruce Grocott, Bruce
Cant, R. B. Duffy, A. E. P. Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Carmichael, Neil Dunn, James A. Hardy, Peter
Carter, Ray Dunnett, Jack Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Mahon, Simon Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Hatton, Frank Mallalieu, J. P. W. Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Marks, Kenneth Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Marquand, David Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Heffer, Eric S. Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Hooley, Frank Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Horam, John Mason, Rt Hon Roy Sillars, James
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Maynard, Miss Joan Silverman, Julius
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Meacher, Michael Skinner, Dennis
Huckfield, Les Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Small, William
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Mendelson, John Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Mikardo, Ian Snape, Peter
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Spearing, Nigel
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Spriggs, Leslie
Hunter, Adam Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Stallard, A. W.
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Molloy, William Stoddart, David
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Moonman, Eric Stott, Roger
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Strang, Gavin
Janner, Greville Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Jeger, Mrs Lena Moyle, Roland Swain, Thomas
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
John, Brynmor Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Johnson, James (Hull West) Newens, Stanley Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Noble, Mike Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Oakes, Gordon Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Ogden, Eric Tierney, Sydney
Jones, Dan (Burnley) O'Halloran, Michael Tinn, James
Judd, Frank Orbach, Maurice Tomlinson, John
Kaufman, Gerald Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Tomney, Frank
Kelley, Richard Ovenden, John Torney, Tom
Kerr, Russell Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Urwin, T. W.
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Padley, Walter Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Kinnock, Neil Palmer, Arthur Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Lambie, David Park, George Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Lamborn, Harry Parker, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lamond, James Parry, Robert Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Pavitt, Laurie Ward, Michael
Leadbitter, Ted Pendry, Tom Watkins, David
Lee, John Perry, Ernest Watkinson, John
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Phipps, Dr Colin Weetch, Ken
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Weitzman, David
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Prescott, John Wellbeloved, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Price, C. (Lewisham W) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Lipton, Marcus Price, William (Rugby) While, James (Pollock)
Litterick, Tom Radice, Giles Whitehead, Phillip
Lomas, Kenneth Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Whitlock, William
Loyden, Eddie Richardson, Miss Jo Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Luard, Evan Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Williams, Alan (Swansea W)
Lyon, Alexander (York) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Robertson, John (Paisley) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Robinson, Geoffrey Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
McCartney, Hugh Roderick, Caerwyn Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Rodgers, George (Chorley) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
McElhone, Frank Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
MacFarquhar, Roderick Rooker, J. W. Wise, Mrs Audrey
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Roper, John Woodall, Alec
MacKenzie, Gregor Rose, Paul S. Woof, Robert
Mackintosh, John P. Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Maclennan, Robert Rowlands, Ted Young, David (Bolton E)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Ryman, John
McNamara, Kevin Sandelson, Neville TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Madden, Max Sedgemore, Brian Mr. Joseph Harper and
Magee, Bryan Selby, Harry Mr. James Hamilton
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Adley, Robert Blaker, Peter Burden, F. A.
Aitken, Jonathan Body, Richard Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Alison, Michael Boscawen, Hon Robert Carlisle, Mark
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Bottomley, Peter Carson, John
Arnold, Tom Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Channon, Paul
Awdry, Daniel Bradford, Rev Robert Churchill, W. S.
Bain, Mrs Margaret Braine, Sir Bernard Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton)
Baker, Kenneth Brittan, Leon Clark, William (Croydon S)
Banks, Robert Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Beith, A. J. Brotherton, Michael Clegg, Walter
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Cockcroft, John
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Bryan, Sir Paul Cooke, Robert (Bristol W)
Benyon, W. Buchanan-Smith, Alick Cope, John
Berry, Hon Anthony Buck, Antony Cordle, John H.
Biffen, John Budgen, Nick Cormack, Patrick
Biggs-Davison, John Bulmer, Esmond Corrie, John
Costain, A. P. Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pink, R. Bonner
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) James, David Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Crawford, Douglas Jenkin, Rt Hon P.(Wanst'd & W'df'd) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Critchley, Julian Jessel, Toby Prior, Rt Hon James
Crouch, David Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Crowder, F. P. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Raison, Timothy
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rathbone, Tim
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Jopling, Michael Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Drayson, Burnaby Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees-Davies, W. R.
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Reid, George
Dunlop, John Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
Durant, Tony Kilfedder, James Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Dykes, Hugh Kimball, Marcus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridsdale, Julian
Elliott, Sir William Kirk, Sir Peter Rifkind, Malcolm
Emery, Peter Kitson, Sir Timothy Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Knight, Mrs Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Eyre Reginald Lamont, Norman Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Lane, David Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fairgrieve, Russell Langford-Holt, Sir John Ross, William (Londonderry)
Farr, John Latham, Michael (Melton) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fell, Anthony Lawrence, Ivan Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lawson, Nigel Royle, Sir Anthony
Fisher, Sir Nigel Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sainsbury, Tim
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lloyd, Ian Scott, Nicholas
Fookes, Miss Janet Loveridge, John Scott-Hopkins, James
Forman, Nigel Luce, Richard Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) McAdden, Sir Stephen Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Fox, Marcus McCrindle, Robert Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) McCusker, H. Shepherd, Colin
Macfarlane, Neil Shersby, Michael
Fry Peter MacGregor, John Silvester, Fred
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Sims, Roger
Gardiner, George (Reigate) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Sinclair, Sir George
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Skeet, T. H. H.
Gilmour Rt. Hon Ian (Chesham) Madel, David Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Glyn, Dr Alan Marten, Neil Speed, Keith
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Males, Michael Spence, John
Goodhart, Philip Mather, Carol Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Goodhew, Victor Maude, Angus Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Goodlad, Alastair Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Sproat, Iain
Gorst, John Mawby, Ray Stanbrook, Ivor
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Stanley, John
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Mayhew, Patrick Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Meyer, Sir Anthony Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Gray, Hamish Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stewart, Donald (Western Isle)
Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Griffiths, Eldon Miscampbell, Norman Stokes, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stradling Thomas, J.
Grist, Ian Moate, Roger Tapsell, Peter
Grylls, Michael Molyneaux, James Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hall, Sir John Monro, Hector Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Montgomery, Fergus Tebbit, Norman
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Moore, John (Croydon C) Temple-Morris, Peter
Hampson, Dr Keith More, Jasper (Ludlow) Thatcher, Rt. Hon Margaret
Hannam, John Morgan, Geraint Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Thompson, George
Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Havers, Sir Michael Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Townsend, Cyril D.
Hawkins, Paul Mudd, David Trotter, Neville
Hayhoe, Barney Neave, Airey Tugendhat, Christopher
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Nelson, Anthony van Straubenzee, W. R.
Henderson, Douglas Neubert, Michael Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Heseltine, Michael Newton, Tony Viggers, Peter
Hicks, Robert Normanton, Tom Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Higgins, Terence L. Noll, John Wakeham, John
Hodgson, Robin Onslow, Cranley Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Holland, Philip Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Hooson, Emlyn Osborn, John Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Hordern, Peter Page, John (Harrow West) Wall, Patrick
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Walters, Dennis
Howell, David (Guildford) Page, Richard (Workington) Warren, Kenneth
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Paisley, Rev Ian Watt, Hamish
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Pardoe, John Weatherill, Bernard
Hunt, David (Wirral) Pattie, Geoffrey Wells, John
Hunt, John (Bromley) Penhaligon, David Welsh, Andrew
Hurd, Douglas Percival, Ian Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Hutchison, Michael Clark Peyton, Rt Hon John Wiggin, Jerry
Wigley, Dafydd Wood, Rt Hon Richard TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton) Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Winterton, Nicholas Younger, Hon George Mr. Cecil Parkinson
Mr. Deputy Speaker

I cast my vote for the Bill as it left the House of Commons. I vote for the Ayes, so the Ayes have it.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 9 and 10 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 11, in page 4, leave out lines 11 and 12 and insert but the whole of any area so designated must be comprised within a definable dock area.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this we are taking Lords Amendments Nos. 11 to 15, 18, 23, 25, 27, 28, 34, 39, 41, 44 and 55.

Mr. Booth

I beg to move, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment.

The batch of amendments that we are about to debate deals with the issue of the cargo-handling zone. The combined effect of the amendments is to delete the provision for the cargo-handling zone and all the consequential provisions, including that for the extension of the zone, and to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57—

Sir David Renton (Huntingdonshire)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It seems that many hon. Members do not wish to hear the Minister, but, speaking for myself, I do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Oscar Murton)

Will any right hon. and hon. Members who do not desire to hear the moving of the amendment kindly withdraw from the Chamber quietly?

Mr. Booth

I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was explaining that the effect of the combined amendments was to substitute a provision that " definable dock areas " may not extend beyond half a mile from harbours or harbour land as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964, and may not apply to small harbours as defined in Lords Amendment No. 13, or by subsequent changes made by affirmative resolution order under Amendment No. 14. I take it that in this case some of the objections which were voiced to an affirmative procedure will not be redeployed.

These amendments would seek to substitute for the cargo-handling zone this much more restrictive concept of a "definable dock area", and would mean that work could be subject to examination and survey for classification purposes with a view to being brought into the new dock scheme only if it were undertaken within half a mile of a harbour or harbour land, providing that the harbour was not a small harbour as defined in Amendment No. 13.

Our first objection to the proposition in these amendments is that the proposed distance of half a mile is far too short. I do not think that anybody—in the light of what has been said about the changes that have taken place with the introduction of new technology and new handling methods in the industry—would suggest that modern dock work stops at 880 yards from a harbour as defined in Section 57 of the Harbours Act.

The Bristow Report of 1970 proposed that work of the sort accepted as dockers' work should be done by registered dock workers if it were done up to five miles from the waterside. The employers involved in this consideration actually agreed in this conclusion. I know that it has been argued, when I have previously quoted the Bristow Report in support of my contention as to the five-mile limit, that Bristow was concerned only with London. But, having re-studied the Bristow Report, I am of the view that the same sort of examination, had it been applied to Merseyside or Clydeside, would have been bound, on the geographical considerations, to come to very much the same conclusions.

Whether others share that view with me or not, it cannot be denied that, in several places other than London, dock scheme work is, as of now, being carried out as much more considerable distances than half a mile from the harbour area. In fact, at the Aintree groupage terminal in Liverpool, which is over four miles from the waterfront, registered dock workers are employed, and the present Dock Labour Scheme is applied to the work they perform.

There are many other places well over half a mile away from the docks where work is done which effectively replaces work formerly done by registered dock workers. Therefore the limit must clearly be more than half a mile, and the five miles suggested by Bristow seems to us to be right, bearing in mind that this was the limit of the survey procedure of Clause 8 of the Bill.

I turn next to the idea of a zone as opposed to a specified distance from the harbour or harbour land. It would, in my view, be quite wrong to limit the area within which work can be classified to an area a given distance from harbours or harbour land, even if we had agreement about an appropriate distance, and I do not contend that we have that. The exact limits of "harbours" and "harbour land" at any harbour may not always be known without doubt at any time. The information is not generally accessible and would leave employers and employees in very considerable doubt about whether their work could be surveyed by the Board. The mean high-water mark—which is the datum used in the Bill—at any place can always be determined from an ordnance survey map.

The limits of harbour land will change from time to time, because "harbour land" is defined in the 1964 Act as land adjacent to a harbour and occupied wholly or mainly for the purposes of activities there carried on ". That, obviously, is an area which can vary, not because of the scope of particular decisions of this House but simply because the harbour authority might choose to add another acre or 20 acres to its existing holdings. By doing that, it would change the area of harbour land to which the new concept suggested in the Lords amendment would apply.

Sir David Renton

Does the Secretary of State agree that, on the definition he has given us, the Palace of Westminster would be "harbour land"?

Mr. Booth

I was quoting the definition in the 1964 Act. That is the one which is the subject of this amendment. I do not argue that there is any significance in the fact that it covers the Houses of Parliament. The definition in the Bill does the same, in that we have tidal water flowing past the Terrace. That is not a difference between the Bill as it stands and the amendment. Both would cover the Houses of Parliament and both would enable activities within our purview to be surveyed for classification if there were any dock work being carried on here. That is not a difference between us.

A "harbour" is defined by reference to Section 57 of the Harbours Act, and this means any harbour whether natural or artificial, and any port, haven, estuary, tidal or other river or inland waterway navigated by sea-going ships". Here we come to the essential difference between this Lords amendment and the original proposition contained in the Bill. Sea-going ships can travel as far as Nottingham up an inland waterway, which means that Nottingham would become an area which could be defined for the purpose, whereas in the Bill it is only those places which are within five miles of a major inland waterway, which is precisely defined in the Bill, or five miles from the high-tide mark which are subject to the survey. So that there is a sense in which this amendment could bring into survey areas which could not be surveyed under the terms of the Bill as it stands.

But I am more concerned about the proposition to exclude the small ports or harbours which are referred to in the amendment. In some ways, this is an even more difficult proposition to accept. I think that we can argue with some logic about choosing between one geographical definition and another, and we can have a very proper difference of opinion about whether four miles, five miles or six miles is right. But it is very different to do what the amendment does in respect of the small ports and seek to set up a definition which is related not to geographical area but to matters such as the maximum size of ship which can be accommodated, the amount of dock work done in the port, or other criteria such as the depth of the navigable channel, without any reference to the sort of criteria that we use in the Bill which are much more closely related to proper considerations of what should be registered dock work One of the tests applied in the Lords amendment concerns the period within which ships can enter a port. The effect wouldbe almost ludicrous in many cases.

The Bill already contains adequate and satisfactory procedures to deal with small harbours. It covers the small harbour question more effectively than the criteria contained in Lords Amendment No. 13. Clauses 7 and 8 already provide for the Board to take account of all relevant considerations and in particular whether the work requires for its efficient performance the engagement of a permanent labour force. Hon. Members who served on the Committee will agree that that is relevant when considering whether work should be classified.

8.45 p.m.

The Government's general position on small ports—which has been stated repeatedly—is that the absolute exclusion of particular places, either by name or by reference to some standard criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment, is not a sensible way to proceed because there is such a wide variety of factors which could be relevant. The Bill does not require classification of the work of a port if that port is too small to warrant arrangements for a permanent labour force or if there are other relevant considerations.

I recognise that there are a number of small ports which, by their geographical location, irregular nature of cargoes and a number of other factors, will not be suited for the dock work regulation scheme. I would not lay before the House a Bill which would have the effect of requiring every small port to be included in the scheme if those factors did not apply. That is agreed by many who have spoken on the issue. They believe that the factors in the Bill, particularly that requiring the efficient performance of a permanent labour force, should not apply to a number of small ports.

Criteria of the kind proposed in the amendment would lead to arbitrary distinctions between ports. For example, in Amendment No. 13, paragraph 2D(a) refers to average hours worked on loading and unloading cargo to and from ships. Under that criteria the Port of London and many other scheme ports could be excluded because many of the dock workers work only a short time in a year on ships. They spend the rest of their time working on the quay or in warehouses and the average time worked would be less than the 28 hours a week allowed—allowing for four weeks holiday. On the other hand, the criteria would include a port where one man worked for 40 hours a week for only 33 weeks in the year.

If one tries to apply that rigidly, one makes a nonsense of the definition of small ports and one excludes from the scheme places which, on any objective test by people with any knowledge of the industry, must obviously be ports which fall within any scheme to decasualise dock working.

Mr. Stephen Ross

I have listened with great care to the Minister's words. He has repeated what he told the House earlier—that it is not the Government's intention to include large numbers of very small ports. Nevertheless, does he accept that it would be a great burden on these ports and harbours and those who work in them to have to make returns within three months, as I understand it, to the local board and put their case? Why should they have to go through that procedure? Why can he not exclude them now?

Mr. Booth

The ports which are engaged in loading and unloading vessels will have to make a return to the Board. The basic reason for that, which I commend to the House, is that a proper distinction should be drawn in legislation between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of dock work. On the question of loading and unloading vessels, a fairly straightforward case can be gleaned from the basic facts relating to the quantities, the times, and a number of other issues. That does not apply to much other dock work. Therefore, the Bill properly draws a distinction.

In the case of many small ports the tonnage factor alone would rule out any prima facie assumption that they require a permanent dock labour force to perform the work efficiently. The requirement to make that submission is not an unduly arduous one. It is useful in that it isolates loading and unloading from the much wider area of cargo handling with which the Bill is concerned.

The requirement also has the advantage of imposing a much tighter time scale. The returns have to be in within a set time of the Bill becoming an Act. The more detailed and complex consideration of reviewing other types of dock work is better handled in a different way.

I take the hon. Gentleman's point that in some areas there are those who will say that the place at which they work is obviously not a port and that they will feel it rather unreasonable even to have to return the basic information about the cargo they load and unload. However, it is better that that aspect should be isolated than that they should come under the survey at large.

Mr. A. P. Costain (Folkestone and Hythe)

The Secretary of State makes it all sound so simple from the theoretical angle. Dungeness is in my constituency. It is or it is not a port. I assume that it is not. However, because it will make up the coastline and build coastal defences it will have ships unloading sand and ballast, probably over a number of years. Does that qualify it for the description of a port? There could be quite a large tonnage, but of only one commodity, being unloaded for one specific purpose. Does that mean that the five-mile rule will apply?

Mr. Booth

Loading for a particular construction site is not dealt with under that part of the Bill. I was addressing myself to the question of a small port. As I understand it, separate provision is made in one of the schedules to cover the unloading of materials for particular construction sites.

I was dealing with the distinction between Clauses 7, 8 and 9. This is valuable, because in practice we can distinguish between loading and unloading vessels and other forms of cargo handling. It is useful that the people involved in that should know the extent and the time scale so that they know where they stand, leaving the more complex issue of the survey of other cargo-handling work in the zone to be dealt with under a separate clause.

I hope that the House will accept that some of the criteria advanced in this set of Lords amendments in place of the cargo-handling zone concept, whatever other merits they have have, would result in an intolerable situation in many ports and harbours. They would bring into areas of survey those which the Bill would seek to exclude and take out of the scheme places which everybody who has looked at cargo handling and the whole problem up to now has agreed to be suitable for a dock work regulation scheme. Therefore, I hope that the House will support us in disagreeing with the Lords amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Baker (St. Marylebone)

As the Secretary of State said, we have now come to the most important and serious group of amendments, going to the heart of the Bill. The piquancy of the debate is made all the sharper by the fact that we have just had a tied vote.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (Newham, North-West)

Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins).

Mr. Baker

The hon. Gentleman is saying that the right hon. Member for Birmingham, Stechford (Mr. Jenkins) was the Labour Member who was missing. I do not know what kept the right hon Gentleman out of the Division Lobby. Perhaps it was the still, quiet voice of moderate conscience, or a rather good first-growth claret. Whatever it is, I hope that the reasons will still apply next time and that perhaps one of his colleagues will also be missing.

Sir Anthony Meyer (Flint, West)

Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman wants to receive answers to his letters.

Mr. Baker

These are domestic difficulties. Before I deal with the arguments I should remind the House that, as I frequently said in Committee, I am a director of Geest, a company involved in cargo handling.

I have said that we have come to the essence of the Bill, which is the corridor and the small ports. In my view, and I think in the view of all those who have been dealing with the Bill, certainly of their Lordships, this is the most important set of amendments. We have opposed from the very start the whole concept of a corridor in dealing with the problems of the dock industry. We have accepted that it is an industry with a unique and difficult problem, an industry which has been subjected to the most rapid technological change. In 1945 there were about 100,000 registered dockers. Today there are about 30,000, and it is generally recognised that about 2,000 of them are probably redundant in the sense that there is no regular employment for them.

The first seat for which I fought in 1964 was a dockland constituency, Poplar. Even then it had declined as a dock work area, but it has since declined even more. The decline is not due to the nefarious activities of the cold-storage industry or to businesses building warehouses for the breaking up of cargoes inland. There has been such an enormous rundown because of technological change.

The simple main reason is containerisation and the continuing and expanding use of roll-on/roll-off ferries. It is estimated by the employers and unions that by 1980 the work force needed will probably be down to about 25,000. That is because of the containerisation of the South African and New Zealand trade, not because of employers building cold stores back in the hinterland well away from the docks.

We must recognise the reasons. Only in that way will a constructive policy be formulated for dealing with the problems of dockland. Those problems will not be dealt with by this Bill and its piecemeal approach. One cannot separate dockers in the dock areas from the port installations. The investment in men has to go with the investment in resources, and so the Bill looks at only one side of the coin.

9.0 p.m.

It is profoundly wrong to try to meet the problems of great technological change by giving dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs. I believe that the proposals worked out by Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington in 1972 were basically on the right lines in that they recognised that there was a substantial surplus of dockers particularly in London, to a small extent in Liverpool, and to some extent in Hull and other ports. As a result the Jones-Aldington proposals, as they became known, provided for substantial extra redundancy payments to surplus dockers. That resulted in a rundown of between 8,000 and 9,000 men in the dock industry.

I believe that a scheme of that nature is needed now to deal with the problem. That problem will not go away; nor will it be solved by giving the dockers the legal right to claim other men's jobs.

The essence of the Bill is the corridor. We have consistently pointed out how absurd it is to have a corridor running around the coastline of Britain, England and Wales and up the tidal rivers—

Mr. Douglas Crawford (Perth and East Perthshire)

The hon. Member said that he was talking about Great Britain, England and Wales. He must therefore mean that Great Britain by definition means Scotland.

Mr. Baker

I am quite sure that that is what the hon. Gentleman thinks, but it is an absurd suggestion.

It is wrong to have such a corridor round the coastline. In Scotland the corridor will be so wide that it will include most of the islands and will manage to join the conurbations of Edinburgh and Glasgow. That is absurd. I know that I carry the Scottish National Members with me on that point.

The rest of the country suffers, too. The corridor takes in that well-known port of Taunton and the harbours of the New Forest. It laps around the outskirts of Doncaster racecourse. It goes halfway through London Airport. It is an absolute monstrosity and an absurdity. We have pointed out many time that drawing lines in this way, in a sort of latter-day colonial exercise, is not the way to deal with a major industrial problem.

I believe therefore that their Lordships were right to restrict the corridor to half a mile. The Secretary of State said that half a mile was too short, but he has drawn the figure of five miles out of the air. He thinks that one and a half miles is too short, but he has no idea because he rests his case upon the extraordinary Bristow Report of 1970.

That report, upon which the dust should be allowed to accumulate, has betn dug up to justify the Bill. But it dealt specifically and exclusively with London—it was commissioned as a result of the London dock strike—and it is disingenuous to say that it should apply equally to Hull or Liverpool. The report recommended a solution for London and for London alone.

The right hon. Gentleman then spent some time dealing with small harbours. He said that the definitions, on the advice he has received, would include ports which are not small harbours or parts of ports which are small harbous. The legal advice we have received is that the definition does not bear that interpretation. If it does, no doubt their Lordships will have another opportunity of tightening their definition.

The purpose of the amendment on small harbours is to exclude small harbours. We recognise, as do their Lordships, that the effect of the Bill on small harbours will be catastrophic. They render a vital service to the local communities, but their trade is sporadic, irregular in operation and small in volume. Therefore, flexible arrangements are necessary.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

I think it should be recognised that the Bill is not wholeheartedly supported by all Labour Members. We shall wander through the Lobby, as is our way, in a reluctant posture.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing (Moray and Nairn)

We noticed.

Mr. Lomas

I do not want the Scottish nationalists to intervene.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

I dare say the hon. Gentleman does not.

Mr. Lomas

I say to the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that if I had been in charge of the House, I should have scrubbed the Bill, because I do not think it will do much good.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

You are telling me.

Mr. Lomas

I take the view that it the Conservatives, or others on the Opposition Benches, would only be a little more responsible in their approach to these matters, some arrangement could have been arrived at between them and the usual channels—namely, the Whips Office.

Mr. Baker

I must congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his courage. Here is a Member who is opposed to the Bill. He finds it distasteful and he has the courage to get up and say so, but when we divide this evening he will troop through the Lobby and support the Government Whips.

He should have the courage of his convictions. If he believes that the Bill is bad, he should vote against it. He has his own conscience to answer, his own union to answer and his own constituents to answer. It is exceedingly cowardly for anyone to get up in the Chamber and say "I disagree, but I shall be craven and go along with the Whips". The House always respects Members who get up and say " I disagree and then show their disagreement in the Lobby.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Gentleman must not use the expression "cowardly". It is an unparliamentary expression.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) used the expression in a general sense. He said "cowardly" of Members. He never particularised.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Chair must be allowed to decide. I am sure that it the remark has been misconstrued, it will be withdrawn.

Mr. Baker

If I used it generally, it had better stand in the record. If I used it personally, I unreservedly withdraw it.

Sir Anthony Meyer

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not a rule of the House that a Member's vote must agree with his voice? In view of the intervention of the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), does that not bind him in his subsequent vote?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That does not arise at this moment.

Mr. Lomas

Perhaps I should make it clear that in my 12 years in the House of Commons, even during the days of the European debate when we had a six-line Whip, Tory, Labour and Liberal, I voted according to my conscience. In fact, I voted for Europe. I shall continue to vote according to my conscience tonight. I shall wait with some anticipation to hear what the hon. Member for St. Marylebone has to say about the Bill.

Mr. Baker

I shall try to persuade the hon. Gentleman to vote with my right hon. and hon. Friends or to abstain.

I do not believe that the Bill addresses itself to the problems of the docks. It will have harmful effects on the cargo-handling industry. Its various provisions will produce endless opportunity for trade union disputes and disputes within unions. We have said this time and time again and our view has been extremely clear.

We believe that to impose a system of permanent employment in small harbours, which would require the payment of a labour force for five days a week whether or not there was work available, will mean a substantial increase in costs if, on the odd days when a ship is in harbour, the present speed of ship turn-round is maintained.

This is a particular problem for many of the small ports in Scotland and the islands on the West Coast of Scotland. The Scottish islands and isolated communities of the Scottish Highlands, which are served by the small ports in that region, are in a particularly vulnerable position as their ports are virtually their lifeline. The dock workers in the major ports cannot claim that those ports have attracted traffic from the larger ports. Not even the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) can make that claim.

The Secretary of State for Employment today and on Monday afternoon in the guillotine debate the Secretary of State for Social Services made great play of the argument that the Bill was essential. Perhaps I may also address these remarks particularly to the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas). Essential for whom? Is it essential for the National Union of Railwaymen? No because that union has been excluded from the Bill by the exclusion of British Rail's docks and ports.

Is it essential for the National Freight Corporation? No. This, the biggest body handling the most cargo in the country, has been excluded from the provisions of the Bill. Is it essential for the drivers' section of the Transport and General Workers Union? No, because I understand that the Government will accept an amendment excluding driving in dock areas.

Is it essential for the General and Municipal Workers Union? No, because much of its case has been met by the veto cut-off in the year 1967.

Is it essential for the Labour Party? No, it is not even essential for the Labour Party, because it was not in its manifesto for either February or October 1974. Therefore, this is not a commitment which the Government must meet to finish their programme. It was not in their programme when they went to the country in February and October 1974.

Is it essential for the economy? Would it create one more job? No. Will it enable goods to move more quickly either to or from the ports? No.

Will it regenerate the wasted dockland of London? No, of course not. Indeed, since the Bill has been in their Lordships' House, Frank Cousins has produced the Second Report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee. That is an important report for the dead areas of the East End of London, which are decaying further daily. That report does not even mention the Bill. It does not mention the corridor. It does not say that the corridor is the salvation of East London.

It comes up with much better constructive proposals—in fact, to increase payments to the surplus dockers in London and to encourage investment in that dying area. What investment will be encouraged when everyone knows that the corridor is killing investment? Who will build warehouses or cold stores or any business handling goods in the five-mile corridor? No one. That is the reality. Therefore, it is not even essential for London.

Mr. Ted Leadbitter (Hartlepool)

The hon. Gentleman knows that there is a need to examine with care the question of corridors. We discussed this matter in Committee at great length. I have some difficulty in understanding the objectives of the amendment when I see what Lord Sandford said in the other place on Third Reading on 8th November. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider his words. The noble Lord said: But again as with classification orders, in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area within the definable area that may be defined in due course as a Dock Labour Scheme."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.] I have interpreted those words to mean that the definition of the half mile around a dock area will be dependent upon the scheme as it is developed. Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting that we should take from Parliament the defining of the corridor, whatever it might be, and leave it in the hands of the Board to devise the scheme?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Baker

The hon. Member was on the Committee and he knows that he is making a false point. In fact, the definition of five miles is fairly precise, as the definition of half a mile is precise. The only one thing which is certain about this Bill is the way the line of the corridor runs.

The Secretary of State has said that there are many other hurdles over which the local docks boards will have to get in their examination and reclassification of premises. They have a wide degree of discretion. We are not suggesting that power should be taken from this House. We are trying to simplify this Bill and make it less damaging.

The Government conceived and gave birth to this Bill in order to satisfy one particular interest. But we want things to be done in the interests of the general public and not just of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The Bill will hand over responsibilities for the future to a tiny, tightly-knit and perhaps questionably directed section of the community. Those are not my words. They were spoken by a former Deputy Leader of the Labour Party in another place. This Bill is friendless. It is the shabbiest Bill of a very shabby Session.

I was absolutely staggered to hear the remarks of the hon. Member for Garston in our debate last Monday. The hon. Member spoke many times in Committee upstairs and I admit that he speaks for the dockers' interests better and more eloquently than anyone in this House. He has made his interests absolutely clear from the word go. On Monday, he spoke of the possible and growing likelihood of a clash between the Lords and the Commons. He said, If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place."—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.] As always, the hon. Member was frank and open. But I ask the Secretary of State whether he agrees with that statement. I ask him to reflect on it, and when he winds up this debate to say whether he agrees with it, or whether he thinks that it is surpremely irresponsible as I do. I hope that the Secre- tary of State will dissociate himself from that statement.

This Bill is irrelevant. It is absurd that when the country is going through a great economic crisis, we should be wasting our time debating a measure of this sort, which will do nothing to make us richer or stronger. It will not create jobs, nor will it make us more efficient. It has nothing to do with national recovery, and will result only in endless opportunities for dispute between unions. It is unnecessary, and therefore should not pass. These clauses which we are debating are crucial, and I believe that the House would be well advised to agree with the Lords.

Mr. Leadbitter

The suggestion, made from time to time, that this Bill is shabby and ill-considered is highly emotive and interesting to listen to—occasionally. However, at this stage, after 140 hours of consideration, we must get down to dealing with the Bill in such a way as to get it working, within reasonable time, to the advantage of the ports and harbours industry.

It occurs to me that their Lordships were in a dilemma about the half-mile definition, and it is no good the House of Commons asserting, on the one hand, the problem of the five-mile limit without on the other, accepting that there were terrific problems of a kind which their Lordships recognised about the half-mile definition. If we were to agree to the amendment considerable damage would be done to dock work relationships, bearing in mind that part of dock work activity is in what might be called recognisable and self-evident dock work areas. Some people are already working four or five miles away from known port areas. Therefore it would be futile to accept the amendment and find ourselves, on that one count alone, presented with all the problems that I have briefly described.

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that the purpose of the amendment was not to take away from the House of Commons the authority that it has to define an area for which the proposed Board can work out a dock scheme. Lord Sandford said in the other place—

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It was always my understanding that one could not quote in the House of Commons what was said in the House of Lords unless one quoted what had been said by a Minister there. I am not trying to get at anyone in particular, but I should like to know the rule. It was my impression, at least until recently, that one could quote a Minister in the other place but not one of their Lordships who was not a Minister. May we be told the position?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The position is slightly equivocal, because it is broadly correct that it has been more honoured in the breach than in the observance.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but either there is a rule or there is not. This matter has been raised many times, and it was always my understanding that one could quote in the Commons what a Minister in the Lords had said, but one could not quote one of their Lordships who did not have a ministerial appointment. I am not being pedantic or awkward. This is a vital matter. We can sometimes get into difficulties. I am not getting at my hon. Friend the Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter), because the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) quoted Lord George-Brown.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

In fact, "Erskine May" says: The daily publication of the debates in Parliament offers a strong temptation to disregard this rule.

Sir David Renton

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I find myself in the unusual position of supporting the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). Is not the true position that when it comes to quoting speeches in the current Session one can quote ministerial speeches verbatim, but if one wishes to quote the speeches of other than Ministers in the other place one should paraphrase them?

Mr. Douglas Henderson (Aberdeenshire, East)

Would not this be a case of an extract from Gibbon's "The Decline and Fall of the British Empire"?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) intervened. There are historic reasons for the practice that is adopted. I should expect the right hon. and learned Gentle- man, as a good House of Commons man, to understand that this is not a silly issue but one of vital importance.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The hon. Member is correct in his reasons for it. In its original form—this is from the 19th Edition of "Erskine May", at page 424—it was: to guard against recrimination and offensive language in the absence of the party assailed. That is the point.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I do not want to get at Lord George-Brown and I do not want to stretch the rules. I now know that I would be banned from doing that. That is all.

Mr. Crawford

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We are living through the last days of Pompeii. Could we please forget the niceties of the rules and get on with the debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

It is entirely for the Chair to decide whether the House has been satisfied with the rulings which the Chair has given, which I hope perhaps the House now is.

Mr. Leadbitter

Now that we have got rid of that important matter we might be able to get on with the Bill. I hope that those who observe the proceedings of this House will understand that often hon. Members would be better preoccupied with the business of the House than with historical anachronisms.

If I may paraphrase what was said in another place—taken from the Official Report, of course—and seeking not to incriminate anyone, no matter who he is or how he got to the other place, I would suggest that I might be allowed to come back to this important point. I do not think that there is any difference on either side of the House in terms in examining this thorny problem of the corridor and the half-mile limit. I may have a great deal to say about the five-mile corridor, but I shall not be so dishonest as to indicate that I feel so strongly about it that I will consider whether I shall not vote.

I find that here in the House of Commons, as we found in Standing Committee, we have a serious problem. We can accept without recrimination that there is no perfection about any kind of solution to such a problem which comes before us.

In other words, we have to consider both the five-mile corridor and the half-mile area around a definable port area. Both present the House with major problems and I seek to develop part of those problems further because I feel that they have grave consequences for everyone. It will need a great deal of patience in the months to come. No doubt there will be a great deal of heartache. Later hon. Gentlemen may say, "I told you so. You were wrong". But that is the history of the House of Commons and the history of democracy.

We have a situation where the noble Lord in the other place thinking about the matter with great care, had to confess that they had overlooked that the same consideration applied to the definition or designation of these dock areas as applied to the definition and classification of dock work. In other words, one had to provide in the Bill for two stages in each category. In the way in which Schedule 3 listed what might and might not be classified as dock work, other processes in the Bill—culminating in classification orders in Clause 11, now Clause 13—specified in point of policy and in particular cases that what were the things that could be classified were in fact to be classified. That is what the noble Lord said.

In other words, it was expressed in the other place that what had to be classified had to be determined in accordance with Schedule 3 and, therefore, it was quite clear that there had to be a second stage of determination when the scheme eventually came before the House of Commons for Parliament to decide upon the scheme.

Therefore the noble Lord related that particular kind of development to the nature of the definition of dock work area, namely, that it should be left to the board to determine and define the dock area in the scheme so that classification orders can come to the House of Commons. Would it be sensible to give the Board rather than this House the responsibility of defining dock areas or of classifying dock work without a definition of dock areas?

9.30 p.m.

On Third Reading in another place, these words were used: But again, as with classification orders in respect of dock work it will be the new Scheme and the Amendments thereto which will actually designate the dock labour area".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8th November 1976; Vol. 377, c. 43.] The hon. Member for St. Marylebone said that the amendment would not take power from the House of Commons, but that quotation shows that the argument is that, because it is difficult to define a dock area, the responsibility should be given to the Board. If that is the purport of the amendment, the outcome will be worse than the controversial determination of the corridor.

I concede that there will be problems about the corridor, but the idea is supported by those directly affected, who do dock work and have been deprived of it by the removal of industries from the dock area. That is a fundamental reason for at least two decades of bad industrial relations in the docks. Increasing insecurity and the reduction of the labour force from 340,000 to 92,000 in a few years created that problem.

If we have to choose between an amendment giving the responsibility for definition to the Board, and the five-mile scheme, with all its difficulties, we should surely choose that course to which every union on the TUC Ports Committee gives its wholehearted support.

Mr. Crawford

Not every one.

Mr. Leadbitter

There is no question about my flexibility. Every group in a democracy contains people who do not agree with the general view, but I repeat that the TUC Ports Committee and all the unions affected were in total agreement.

Mr. Crawford

The hon. Gentleman said that the Bill had the wholehearted support of the trade union movement. The Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.

Mr. Leadbitter

I have conceded that there can be no perfection in any situation. The House will vote tonight one way or the other and it is the responsibility of those who are in disagreement with the result to accept the democratic vote. When a vote is taken and a principle accepted, every good trade unionist will accept that decision and uphold the rule of law.

This matter has been thoroughly debated in the House. The spokesman in another place had grave doubts about the amendment and could not define what he sought to do in it. I do not intend to go into the history of the docks. It would be too long a story. But the more we know about the history, the more we realise the clarity and sense of the Bill. The House must not be allowed to jump the gun.

The Bill is in two parts. One part lays down the statutory requirements and provides for flexible democratic representation. I do not see a great deal coming from the Bill inside two years, because the old scheme goes back to 1967 and we are a few years late in updating it and bringing it into line with the modernisation in the docks.

The other part of the Bill is the scheme. That is where the modifying influences will come in to provide the kind of security of employment enjoyed by estate agents, solicitors and doctors and many other groups. There is nothing wrong with a Bill that seeks to provide security of employment for the people who handle the materials which create the wealth of the nation.

In this revolutionary process there is an admission that we cannot get perfect answers where there has been a bad history of industrial relations. The Bill will bring confidence to the industry and if it is handled with patience by the other side, as we have handled it with the trade union movement, it will be successful.

If the five-mile corridor raises problems, are those problems sufficiently large to justify replacing that provision by an amendment upon which the House cannot decide a definable area and upon which the other place had doubts? Are we to pass the buck to the National Dock Labour Board and ask it, not the House of Commons, to define an area before getting on with the classification of work? If we do that, instead of waiting two years for answers we shall wait five years, and that will test the patience of the working people too much.

Sir David Renton

If the arguments put by the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) were to become of general application, the country and its labour forces would find themselves in a very remarkable situation. I want to make an analogy between dock workers, or at any rate those for whom the hon. Gentleman was speaking, and farm workers.

Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)

And lawyers?

Sir D. Renton

We can apply it to any section the hon. Gentleman would like. I hope that he will hear me out.

The Government's proposal is that because certain technological changes have been affecting certain dock workers, they and their sons—this introduces an hereditary principle—should be given the opportunity of going into work already being done by other workers. In farming, too, there have been great technological changes, and we now have many fewer farm workers. Is the hon. Member for Hartlepool prepared to argue that therefore farm workers who find themselves displaced, perhaps through lack of skill in the new technologies, should be found jobs in other areas of work, some not akin to farm production—let us say, canning factories—and that their sons should be found jobs there, too? That would be a preposterous situation.

That the Government should try to extend the hereditary principle in this way is quite remarkable. I know that they extended it for tenant farmers' sons, and that some years ago the hereditary peerage was turned into a closed shop. Fair enough! But for the hon. Gentleman to argue in principle as he did is not within the realms of reality.

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree about three propositions which are strictly relevant to these amendments, which are crucial. Acts of Parliament should, first, be necessary in the general public interest; secondly, they should he intrinsically clear and workable; thirdly, they should do justice to all the people affected by them—and in this case I mean not only dock workers and their sons, but the people whose jobs might be lost. The clause which the Lords suggest should be altered does not pass those tests, and the Government should be grateful to another place for getting them off the hook that Mr. Jack Jones got them on to, because that is the simple reality of the situation.

The truth is, as has been said on both sides of the House, that the workers in the country are very much divided about the Bill, including some dock workers and including members of the T & GWU. This is one of those occasions when the Lords are on the side of the workers and the workers are on the side of the Lords. [Laughter.] Before the hon. Members laugh, they had better listen to what the chief shop steward at the largest cold store in Europe, which is in my constituency, wrote to me last Friday. His letter said: Once again we are obliged to prevail upon you to support us in our campaign with regard to the Dock Work Bill. Contrary to suggestions made in the local Press letters, we sought your support in the earlier stages and continue to do so. They did indeed seek my support, and I gave it to them. I shall not bore the House by reading out the long speech that I made on Report in support of those workers.

The letter was written when the intention to use the guillotine had been announced, and it goes on to say: We are deeply concerned with the possibilities of the operating of the guillotine and the consequent lack of time it leaves for correspondence. We know now, that, of course, alas, the guillotine motion was carried. The senior shop steward—this is my justification for having risen, Mr. Deputy Speaker—concludes by saying: Therefore, we must take this opportunity to ask you to give your wholehearted support to the amendments made by the Lords which would exclude Peterborough and Salvesens from being included in the Bill. 9.45 p.m.

I am very glad to see the hon. Member for Peterborough (Mr. Ward) in his place. I told him that in the course of my speech I intended to refer to his constituency—which adjoins mine, I am happy to say—and that I would be referring to the hon. Gentleman, to his part on this Bill, and to his position in his constituency.

The hon. Gentleman has had similar representations from those same shop stewards representing the workers and their factory. He has been asked, as I understand it, to take the sort of line that I have taken against the Bill. He has declined to do so. He has voted for the Bill consistently. The hon. Gentleman is in another party, and I say to him with deep respect, but without being fulsome, that as a constituency neighbour I have respected in general the way in which he has handled our boundary problems and our common interests for our constituents. But I say to him that his votes and everybody else's on this group of amendments will be a supreme test of political integrity and courage.

Mr. Michael Ward (Peterborough)

Is it not incorrect to say that Christian Salvesen is included in the Bill, as the right hon. and learned Gentleman said? Surely it is quite clearly excluded by the Bill, and it would only be possible to include it if there were a most elaborate and complicated public examination procedure undertaken for it to be included.

Is not the right hon. and learned Gentleman also aware that, despite the fact that I have invited my constituents who work at this plant to make representations to me, in the nine or 10 months since the Bill, was published, I have had only one letter from the chief shop steward to whom he has referred? The Peterborough trades council has unanimously supported the view that I have taken on the Bill and the view of all the trade unions which nationally support the Bill.

Sir D. Renton

No constituent of mine has to write me more than one letter to get my help if I consider that that help should be given. The hon. Gentleman is wrong about the effect of the Bill on that particular factory and upon his constituency and mine. There is a geographical doubt about the distances involved, and I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has dragged me into the boring process of having to repeat something that I mentioned on Second Reading. I hope I shall be forgiven for repeating that I wrote to the Minister asking him to clarify this position. The Minister quite rightly pointed out to me in a letter: There is a power in the Bill for the Secretary of State to extend the five-mile cargo-handling zone by Order. Any such Order would, however, be subject to approval in draft by both Houses of Parliament. This is conceived as being very much a reserve power. I grant that point. The letter continues: There is certainly no present intention to make early use of it. Obviously, that did not satisfy my constituents. The threat was left hanging over their heads.

But the Lords have removed that threat entirely, because they have completely removed from Clause 4 the badly drafted, wide reaching and, I think, vicious provisions of subsections (3) to (7).

I take it, therefore, that no one can reasonably dispute after what I have said that the Lords are on the side of the workers and that the workers are on the side of the Lords in this matter.

I ask the House to bear in mind that the Government seem to be legislating in what appears to me, not without some experience, to be entirely the wrong manner. We ought to be proud of the way in which we legislate. Certainly we should not confine ourselves to legal niceties in our approach to the task but there is no point in indulging in legal nastiness either, and that is what these subsections of Clause 4 did. They introduced the strangest legal fictions.

For example, subsection (4), which the Lords say should be left out, reads: For purposes of this section 'the sea' includes any area submerged at mean high water and … also includes, so far as the tide flows at mean high water, an estuary or arm of the sea and the waters of any channel, creek, bay or river". Until I read that subsection, I had no idea that my constituency was on the sea. I had always thought that it was 40 miles inland. However, the River Great Ouse is tidal up to the boundary of my constituency, to Earith, where there is the great sluice which divides the salt-water section from the fresh-water section of the river; and five miles from that sluice takes us to the little country town of St. Ives.

After I spoke about this matter in the House before, I had representations from workers at St. Ives saying "Thank goodness you made that point. We do not want a lot of dockers coming into St. Ives and taking the work from us"—[Laughter.] It is all very well for Government supporters to laugh, but St. Ives is a very pleasant place—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Taking jobs away where there are too few jobs already. What is funny about that?

Sir D. Renton

It also has a very good golf course, which would suit the dockers and their sons. So this is not a laughing matter.

The Lords have put all this right. They have driven some sense into the Bill. They have removed the legal fictions—what I call the legal nastiness.

The worst nastiness of all, in my opinion, occurred in Clause 4(6), which enabled the Secretary of State by order, no doubt backed by the Whips, to make any part of Great Britain, in the Bill as originally drafted, into "a cargo-handling zone". Rightly, the Lords have got rid of that expression "cargo-handling zone" altogether. It is a most unsuitable expression, especially in the circumstances. In its place they have put the expression "definable dock area". That is a bit more certain.

They have also explained exactly how it should be defined, and not ungenerously. After all, if we say an area within half a mile of any of our docks, that gives the dockers opportunities for doing work which no one has contemplated their doing so far in the handling of cargo.

I know that many Government supporters have serious conscientious doubts about the original drafting of the Bill. I implore them to consider whether it would not be much more in the interests of workers and less divisive within the Labour movement, for which the Secretary of State tries to do his best, if he were to let the Lords get him off the hook.

If we accept the proposition that whenever there is technological change there should be not a natural but an artificial adjustment introduced by compulsive laws passed by both Houses, we would bring Parliament into great contempt. The credibility of Parliament, I regret to say as one of the older Members of the House, is sometimes much in question. If we pass measures such as Clause 4 as it was before the Lords amended it, that credibility will rapidly disappear. I suggest that this is a crucial test of the credibility of the legislative method in our parliamentary democracy.

With deep sincerity, I ask the Secretary of State—even at this late stage and bearing in mind the mixed feelings that we know so many of his supporters have—to reconsider the matter. In the House of Lords there are men who are undoubtedly wise and they are not all Tories. On this occasion the working Tory peers were in the minority among those who voted. They were dependent upon the Liberal peers for support and sometimes the Tories supported the Liberals. Both parties were supported by men of no party, august people sitting on the Cross-Benches.

In such circumstances it would be utterly wrong to seek refuge in the cheap party jibe that the Lords have flouted the majority in the Commons. They have done nothing of the kind. The Lords have done a lot to try to save the reputation of Parliament. I implore the Secretary of State to think again.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) declared an interest as a director of Geest. I declare an interest in that I represent—and have done for longer than any other hon. Member—a dock area. I have represented that dock area for the past 32 years. I am also the only hon. Member who for between 30 and 40 years has been a fully paid up member of three trade unions, from which I get no subvention whatsoever, no grant, nothing at all. I therefore speak without being tied to anybody other than my constituents.

The Bill arises from an incident which took place in my constituency. Some hon. Members will remember the Chobbam Farm incident at the time of the Chobham strikes. On that occasion the Official Solicitor, of whom few of us had heard, was dug up to rescue the then Government from the difficulties and problems they had created by the arrest of five dockers. I declare an interest in and a knowledge of this subject.

In my constituency there are two or three large warehouse freezing depots, including one of the biggest in Europe. That was why I challenged the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) to name his warehouse. I wondered whether the warehouse in his constituency was larger than that in mine.

10.0 p.m.

Sir David Renton

It is the Christian Salvesen depot on the Woodstone industrial estate near Peterborough.

Mr. Lewis

Mine is Frigoscandia, which is Norwegian or Swedish. It has a large area of the old Temple Mill railway depot which is now given over to freight services. All this is material to the issue. I have the docks and the dock workers. I have Chobham Farm where incidents which were prophesied have actually happened. I have freight warehouses and freezing depots and I have members in each of the unions concerned.

Originally there was an argument, as Temple Mill was a railway depot and the membership was National Union of Railwaymen, about whether that union should be responsible. That was resolved and the Transport and General Workers' Union got the membership within the warehousing and packaging and the freezing depot. Then we had the Chobham Farm affair.

As a lifetime friend of the dockers I know their history. I fought and suffered with them. I remember the days of the rats and all the rest of it. I know how they were hired and fired. I know that by hard work and trade union organisation they dragged themselves up from the gutter and established themselves. I shall not attack them.

Most powerful organisations and most powerful people—whether they be in the House of Lords, whether they be lawyers or political parties—feel their power and hold on to it. This applies to the Whips on this side and to the Tory Whips, to the lawyers on this side and to the Tory lawyers. The dockers have found their power and, rightly, they want to hold on to it, just as the Whips do, as the Tory Party does and as the Labour Party does. I do not blame them.

This matter must be looked at fairly and properly to ensure, if the dockers are to use their muscle and endeavour, that they use it in a fair, proper and reasonable way. If they do that, I am all for them. If they seek to use it to improve their hours, wages and working conditions, I am all for them.

I have seen the shop stewards and the workers at both places—the dockers, and the workers at Frigoscandia and like places. The Minister knows that there are grave doubts and worries on the part of members of the Transport and General Workers' Union who work in these places. We cannot shut our eyes to that. They are members of the same union, although in different branches.

Mr. Crawford

I made a similar point in Committee. The hon. Gentleman has spoken about members of the Transport and General Workers' Union having grave doubts about the Bill. Members of that union in Perth have extremely grave doubts about it.

Mr. Lewis

I agree. I was speaking about members of the TGWU in my area, and not only the shop stewards. They are men who work for a 100 per cent. trade union firm, a very good firm which gives everything in the way of trade union conditions. I can say nothing but the best about the firm. But the workers themselves had doubts. I told them "You must take it up with your branch, which is different from that of the dockers." They have not obtained satisfaction.

I am not afraid of voting against the Government or abstaining on this or any other question if I wish. I have doubts myself. I agree that the five-mile limit is ludicrous and creates many problems. But I cannot see that the alternative of half a mile is any good either.

Will the five-mile limit be extended, and will bad action be taken against workers in the docks and warehousing industry? Will there be a chance of Mr. X, with 40 years' membership of the TGWU, 40 years as an active trade unionist in a depot, then finding a dock worker shop steward with only 10 or 12 years in the union telling him "Look, brother, you must now leave your branch and come in with the dock scheme even though you may not want to do so"? I want to be sure that such a person is safeguarded.

Will there be a stretching and stretching of the principle of the Bill? Suppose the workers in Fleet Street say that they want to operate a five-mile limit and that all work connected with printing, even that of the girl serving the tea, shall come under the printing union? Where do we draw the line? There could be a similar process throughout the country. Let us take the miners, for example. God bless them. They are entitled to the best that they can get. Nothing is too good for them. But what happens if they say that within five miles of a pit all work connected with it shall be classified as miners' work and all the workers concerned shall be members of the NUM?

Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend is being misled by Opposition Members who argued this case on Second Reading, in Committee and on Report. I am sure that my hon. Friend advances his argument with much sincerity, but it is obvious that he does not understand the true position. It is not the five-mile limit that determines whether certain work is dock work. It must stand up to rigorous examination. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) spoke about the various tests. It is misleading to suggest that the only test for classification as dock work is the five-mile limit.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I could not understand a word of that intervention. Is there any way in which it could be explained to the House? I do not think that the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who uttered it, understood it himself.

Mr. Speaker

There are many accents in this House. I wish that I had one myself.

Mr. Loyden

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The hon. Lady, who comes from Scotland, ought to know that I come from Scotland Road. That is probably why I cannot understand her and she cannot understand me.

Mr. Lewis

Perhaps I may put it in the Cockney vernacular and tell the hon. Lady that if she will take a ball of chalk down the frog and toad to have a butcher's hook, everyone will be happier. If she wants that translated I shall do so later.

Let me return to the Bill. The definition and designation of dock work is set out in it. Where there is inter-union rivalry, and even inter-membership rivalry, the strongest tend to get their way over the weakest. The principle of the corridor could spread to other areas, especially if it worked successfully, although I have my doubts about that. Other unions might want to get in on the act. For example, the miners might insist that all work that could by any stretch of the imagination be connected with the pits should within a five-mile area be the work of miners. It could extend to the loading and unloading of coal trains, for example.

I want a guarantee from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that no man or woman who has been doing the job satisfactorily and in a way which complies with the trade union rules and regulations will be removed from that job to make room for a docker. That has happened, as it did in the case of the Chobham Farm depot where constituents of mine were affected. Once such a person had left the job, if the dockers wanted it and could establish an entitlement to it, I would be happy. But I want to safeguard workers who have held jobs, whether for only a year or for 20 years. If I can have that guarantee I shall be happy to support the Government because to me a half mile is the same in this context as two miles or five miles.

Mr. Crawford

I wish to apologise first to the hon. Member from Scotland Road for my accent and to the Secretary of State for having missed the opening minutes of his speech.

I declare the total opposition of my party to the Government on the amendment. The Bill will lead to the centralisation in London of decision making which will affect business in Scotland. That is total and utter anathema to my party.

I must declare a constituency interest. My constituency contained two ancient boroughs—Blairgowrie and Perth—which were swept away by the Conservative Party's local government reorganisation. Like the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton) I have in my constituency a Christian Salvesen depot. It is a very successful depot. There is another such depot in Inverness which employs constituents of mine and of my hon. Friend the Member for Moray and Nairn (Mrs. Ewing). I realise that that is not totally within the confines of the amendment so I shall confine my brief remarks to the port of Perth. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made great play of the small ports in Scotland and I am grateful to him for those remarks. I shall address my brief remarks to the Minister in the form of several questions.

10.15 p.m.

The Minister will be aware that Perth was the ancient capital of Scotland. I speak for myself and not for my party when I say that I should like Perth to be the seat of the future Parliament of Scotland. I am sure that my hon. Friends have other ideas about that. The Minister will also be aware that Perth is a port and that ships—perhaps not very large vessels—load and unload at Perth. Unfortunately it is a tidal port. It is open for only half the year, approximately, because at times the ships can get in and at other times they cannot.

From that point of view Perth is an important port for the surrounding agricultural industry, including East Perthshire and West Perthshire. T am sorry that my colleague the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn) is not in the Chamber. The hon. and learned Gentleman takes a close interest in this matter.

The Minister will be aware that Perth is the centre for a large agricultural area. A large part of the hinterland could suffer if Perth, along with other smaller ports in Scotland, comes under this scheme.

The right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire mentioned St. Ives. I have a fairly close knowledge of what happens in East Anglia, including St. Ives and other East Anglian ports.

Sir David Renton

It is not a port.

Mr. Crawford

But there are ports in East Anglia that come roughly within the definition of Perth. I am well aware that the problems of East Anglia are not totally dissimilar from ports in parts of Scotland.

Sir David Renton

St. Ives is not a port in reality, but if the Bill were passed, as the Government are hoping, it would be an imaginary port.

Mr. Crawford

That is the precise point that I was trying to take up.

I ask the Minister two categoric and straightforward questions. First, is the port of Perth exempt from the terms of the Bill? Secondly, in his summing up will the Minister name the ports in Scotland, the small ports, that are exempt under the terms of the Bill?

Mr. Stephen Ross

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford) will be unhappy with the reply that he receives, because none of the ports is exempt from the terms of the Bill.

I was interested in the speech of the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis). I only wish that he had made it earlier in the Session and that he had rather more influence with Ministers. Possibly had they listened to him we might not now be faced with such an appalling situation during the last hours of the Session—namely, having to argue about a measure that should never have been going on the statute book.

I have always been under the impression that the Bill was drafted to deal with the situation in London. I think that that was indicated by the hon. Member for Newham, North-West. That is why so many Members have so much objection to the Bill. We object because it has been applied to the rest of the United Kingdom. I respect what the hon. Gentleman had to say, but I wish that he would think again about how he intends to vote. The difference between half a mile and five miles means a great deal of trouble for many people in areas five miles from London, taking in Dagenham, who are very concerned about what will happen.

The Minister has deal with the Bill extremely fairly. I know that he will be glad to reassure the hon. Gentleman that those who are already in unions will not be forced to change over until they leave their job. I think that the hon. Gentleman will get that assurance. However, I plead with him not to take that as a reason for supporting the Government tonight. He would do the country a service if he were to abstain.

The same goes for the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), whose intervention I very much welcome. The hon. Gentleman had great courage to make it. I have not been in the House for very long, but I know that many Members on both sides of the House have gone into the Lobby on occasions with grave doubts about whether they should be there. I have done that on one or two occasions. It is not a cowardly act. The hon. Gentleman spoke from the heart. I hope that he will seriously consider how he should vote tonight.

I support Lords Amendments Nos. 12 and 13. Amendment No. 12 deals with the half-mile to five-mile corridor. I cannot believe that the members of the Bristow Committee appreciated what they were recommending when they talked about a five-mile corridor from the mean level at high tide. They could not have meant to include places such as St. Ives, Newark or even near to York. It is a pity that the Bill has been based on the Bristow Committee's recommendations.

The Secretary of State and his predecessor, now the Leader of the House, said that the Government did not intend to include some of the smaller ports in this measure, but that they would all have to go through the process set out in the Bill—namely, that, within three months of local dock boards being set up, they would have to make their returns and argue whether they wished to be included, and that the local dock boards would make their decisions. Presumably they are to make trips to the different ports.

Why we should go to all this expense when we have an economic crisis on our hands I do not know. Presumably the local dock boards will make exhaustive investigations. People will be forced to plead their cases at a time when they ought to be concentrating on getting on with their business and exporting. They will have to fill in God knows how many forms. Ultimately a recommendation will be made to the Secretary of State, and I assume that many months later—I cannot imagine that the Isle of Wight would be included—a decision will be made.

should go because it will do us no good long. It would have been better had the Government accepted the Lords amendment dealing with the small ports. If they found it defective—we had an assurance from the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) that he had legal advice that it was all right and properly drafted—they could put something in which was acceptable to them. I suggest that the small ports ought to be kept out of the Bill. This part is a nonsense.

Great play has been made of the position of the House of Lords in regard to this Bill. I think that of all the measures which we should defeat before the Session ends, this should be one. I believe that this is the worst of the lot and that it should go because it will do us no good at all. It would have been better to have left matters as they were.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) spoke with great knowledge of the port of Liverpool. But I think that he will accept that custom there has been honoured because things are working very well. I wonder whether he really wants this legislation. Those remarks apply to other ports, such as Southampton.

If the Government win the Division and this question goes back to the Lords, I suggest that their Lordships will be within their rights to put it back. I have no doubt that the country would be on the side of the Lords. [Interruption.] I challenge the Government to put it to a referendum. I know who would win.

Mr. Flannery

The hon. Gentleman has given what we must accept is a Liberal definition of democracy—that when this elected Chamber makes a decision the completely undemocratic anachronistic House of Lords, where there is no democracy, but an inbuilt majority of Tory Peers who always agree with the Cory Party, should be able to reverse it. Is that what he understands to he democracy?

Mr. Ross

I think that on this occasion their Lordships are speaking for the nation. We have heard Labour Members express grave doubts about the Bill. I remind the hon. Gentleman that several of his former colleagues, who are now in the other place, went into the Lobby against the Government on this measure.

Mr. Ron Thomas (Bristol, North-West)

I represent a constituency which contains the port of Avonmouth. I have had many talks with the dockers and those working in cold stores and associated jobs close to the ports. I want to expose some of the myths which have been created in the debate today and by Aims of Industry, the Tory Party and employers generally about this legislation. I do not know of any other piece of legislation which has been so distorted by the Tory Press, the employers and Aims of Industry and their allies.

The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) made the point that there has been a rapid rate of technological change in the docks industry. There has been containerisation and roll-on/roll-off traffic. No one would dispute that. But it is also being suggested that this technological change is wholly and solely the reason why there are fewer job opportunities for dockers. That is incorrect, indeed nonsense. The real situation is that over a long period of time the dockers and some responsible employers have built up a dock labour scheme, and that scheme places obligations on employers to give rights and responsibilities to dockers, as well as decent conditions of employment, training and pensions. Most important of all, has injected an element of industrial democracy into the industry. There were certain cold-store firms and multinationals which were not willing to face up to those obligations, so they moved out of the scheme areas and built their cold stores and warehouses elsewhere. They were not prepared to give the same security of employment, rates of pay, and worker involvement as firms in the National Dock Labour Scheme. There are the jobs we are talking about—jobs which were deliberately moved out of dockland areas in order to exploit much lower level of pay, and so on.

The second myth I shall dispel is that we are dealing with a powerful trade union—the Transport and General Workers' Union—which is imposing this piece of legislation on the Government and everyone else. At the same time, we are told that over the last 10 years the number of dockers has been halved. Yet they are supposed to have a powerful trade union representing them. Heaven help them if they had a weak trade union there would be no dockers left. It is nonsense to create this image of a great, powerful trade union.

The next myth is that thousands of dockers will descend down on jobs all over the country from Perth to Doncaster, to Camborne, to Birmingham and so on. Yet there are only 30,000 dockers now. I assume that Conservatives will admit that a certain number of dockers will be required to unload all the food and the semi-manufactured and manufactured imports even if they are not loading exports. What number of these 30,000 are we talking about? How many will descend en masse on the places I have mentioned and steal jobs from other trade union members?

Mr. Crawford

The only point I was making—I have made it repeatedly—is that the Transport and General Workers' Union in Perth is opposed to the Bill.

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Thomas

That point has been answered adequately. I doubt if we could have any piece of legislation which affected a group of workers and have 100 per cent. of them in favour of it. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman and to my hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) that many of the doubts which he spoke of and the vote which went against in Perth was because of the way in which the object of the Bill has been distorted by Aims of Industry, employers, the Tory Press and the Tory Party.

The assumption has been made, and hammered home by Members of the Tory Party and their allies, that if someone has a job within five miles of the corridor there is a docker ready to take his job away from him tomorrow. The BBC put on a "Tonight" programme—my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) knows this—in which a reporter said to a burly lorry driver "When a docker comes and takes your job, what will you do?" The lorry driver replied in no uncertain terms what he would do if that were to happen. The legislation does not provide for dockers to take over people's jobs in that manner. My hon. Friend the Member for Garston has made the point over and over again, but it seems that it has to be made once more.

The five-mile limit is the first preliminary step—[Interruption.] That may cause some laughter, but had it been left to me I should have started from the premise that what is classifiable as dock work should be done by dockers. I should not have given a damn whether it was in Birmingham or anywhere else. If it was classifiable as dock work, it would have come into the scheme.

The first question is whether the work is within the five-mile limit. The next question is whether it is covered by a detailed definition of classified dock work as defined in the legislation. Most of the examples that we have been given by Tory Members are not covered. We are talking about a tiny handful of people. There are only 30,000 dockers, and about 25,000 or 27,000 of them or some higher figure will still be required to unload and load cargoes in the normal way. We are talking about a situation in which dockers will be able to move into jobs if vacancies arise. There is no question of kicking anyone out of a job. No one will take a job from anyone, and anyone who says otherwise distorts the purpose of the Bill.

Reference was made to the comment by my hon. Friend the Member for Garston that the dockers may take industrial action. I think that my hon. Friend has every right to make that kind of statement. Knowing as he does the frustration suffered by the dockers over the decades, it is legitimate for him to say that if an unelected group of people defy the will of this elected Chamber the dockers may take industrial action. Aircraft workers have said to me that if the Tory Party and the House of Lords hold up the Aircraft Bill any longer they will take industrial action. There is nothing unusual about that. It required the dockers to take action under the Industrial Relations Act to bring the Tories to their senses.

My right hon. Friend was right to mention the Chobham Farm situation. We were told by the media and the Tory Press that a powerful union was taking on a small employer, but then we found that the Vesty Group was one of the biggest multinational companies in the world. That was the real situation, but that was not what the Tories were saying.

The main attack against the Bill arises from the fact that the Dock Labour Scheme, apart from dealing with conditions and providing security of employment, provides a certain amount of industrial democracy for the workers who are covered by it. Industrial democracy frightens the Tories to death, and the employers too. That is what worries them, and that is why they have mounted their attack against the Bill.

I agree that the House should have spent time on these amendments, not because they are important, as the Front Bench of the Tory Party has said, but because in essence they are wrecking amendments. If we accept amendments of this kind and restrict the distance to half-a-mile and leave out all the small ports, we may as well rip up this piece of legislation. The Tories know that, and so does the House of Lords.

The House of Lords is not the watchdog of the constitution. It is the Tory Party's poodle, and it is high time that we put that poodle quietly to sleep.

Mr. Richard Luce (Shoreham)

It was interesting that hon. Members opposite, particularly the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) used certain reasons for justifying the introduction of the Bill. They used the reason that the dockers have had an insecure past in the years since the war. That is absolutely true. They used the reason that industrial relations in the docks have been extremely poor. That is also true. They used the reason that there has been a serious rundown in that industry. That is perfectly true. They are perfectly justified in making those statements.

What is totally unbelievable is that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use those as reasons for giving the dockers privileges which are unsurpassed in almost any other walk of life. Were we to follow their argument through, it should also apply to workers in the steel industry and in agriculture. Indeed, some hon. Members with marginal seats are in an insecure situation. Perhaps we should pass a Bill to give them privileges unsurpassed in other walks of life. It is unbelievable that hon. Gentlemen opposite should use this argument as a justification for the Bill.

I would pay tribute to the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) and the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who both made speeches of enormous courage. To my mind, they are seeking the truth of the situation that faces the country with regard to the Bill.

The hon. Member for Newham, North-West told the House that he has a good reputation for making up his own mind about the direction in which he will vote. He has proved that once this week already. He produced his own reason for the way in which he voted earlier this week. It was for him to judge whether that was important or not. If he felt that the reason then for voting against his own party was important, I would suggest that the reason he should produce now for voting against his own party is even more important. I hope that lie will show courage and do just that.

The only issue on which I disagreed with my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) was when he implied that the hon. Member for Huddersfield, West had not shown courage. I think that it does show courage to stand up and say that the party system is so strong today and the pressure put on by the Whips is so strong that he is reluctant to go against them. Nevertheless, the hon. Gentleman opened his mind to the House about the importance of the clauses that we are debating. I hope that he, too, will have the courage of his convictions and vote for the amendment.

I represent a constituency which contains the important non-scheme port of Shoreham. I want to say why this group of amendments is essential to the future of that port, and why, if they are not passed, it will be serious not only for that port but for the country as a whole. This port has a great reputation. It is efficient and has attracted a great deal of trade, particularly in wine and timber, from the scheme ports over the last decade.

The first reason why Shoreham has flourished despite our economic difficulties is the contribution of the dockers themselves and the management. Equally important, it is a non-scheme port. The Bill will spoil all that. It is an insult to the dockers because it implies that they need unsurpassed manning privileges which they know they do not need.

I have not had one representation from a Shoreham docker that the Bill is essential to his future. I have sought the views of dockers while walking around the port, and many have said that the Bill is an embarrassment to them. The dockers of Shoreham do not want the privileges of guaranteed minimum earnings, guaranteed jobs for life, the redefinition of dock jobs and the extension of the limits, because it hurts their pride.

The Bill will strain dockers' relations in the port with lorry drivers, warehousemen and tally clerks. It will give them a monopoly which, as Labour peers have said, is not a good thing in a democracy, where we need to disperse power as much as possible. Particularly in a port like Shoreham, which has a fine industrial relations record, the Bill is likely to lead to deteriorating industrial relations. It will introduce a third party, the NDLB, into the relationship between the dockers and the management. It will make for more impersonal relationships and will harm industrial relations.

Mr. George Grant (Morpeth)

The hon. Member is telling us of his knowledge of Shoreham, but I am not so sure. Does he realise that throughout the country the Bill has the blessing of the TUC?

Mr. Luce

This gets more and more revealing. The hon. Member has confirmed where power lies now in this country. What is uppermost in his mind is that the TUC says that this should be done—and it will be done. That is what is wrong with the country at present.

Shoreham's present competitive charges will rise, because the Bill will ossify manning and encourage overmanning. It will make for the inflexible use of labour. Private employers in the port already provide an excellent service but the levy will impose an extra burden on them and therefore, indirectly, it could have a serious effect on the port.

Lastly, the Bill will stifle competition in a port which has a marvellous reputation. The result will be higher prices, less competition, less investment and worse industrial relations. It will do harm to the people of Shoreham and the country and it is a great insult to the dockers of Shoreham. The hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Grant) has no right to claim that he speaks for the dockers of Shoreham. He has the right to speak for his constituency but no right to express a monopoly of interest in mine.

It is shameful that the people of the country and the House of Lords are on one side and the elected Chamber is on the other. The House's arrogant disregard of the national interest can be rectified if the Government will concede the amendments before us.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Loyden

My hon. Friend the Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) dealt adequately with the reasons for the concern of dock workers about job opportunities. In analysising the reasons for the decline of employment in the dock industry, the hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that it was not exclusively the result of new technology, but he attributed most of the blame to new technology. He also referred to the Port of London and the tears that were shed by Opposition Members at the tragedy of the London docks.

Having worked in the docks for 29 years, I have some understanding of what has happened in London, Merseyside and the other major ports, and Opposition Members also know the reasons for the decline in the industry. Liverpool is living evidence of how a traditional port can be transformed into a modern port, given the necessary investment, thus enabling work which is traditional to the area to remain there.

The major docks began to decline because the employers, instead of developing traditional ports and modernising them, sucked every ounce of profits out of them, deserted them and built new ports in greener fields, with no traditional dock workers and no National Dock Labour Board. That was the motivation behind the employers of Shoreham, Felixstowe and similar ports. Under Tory Governments, employers left obsolesence in the North-East and North-West and fled to greener pastures, leaving social misery behind them.

That is why dock workers were justified in getting an agreement from employers not to leave the traditional port areas but, if they did, to continue to employ registered dock workers. Those people broke faith with the dock workers, and the dock workers began to look beyond the dock gates to see what was happening.

The work being done at Chobham Farm had previously been done by registered dock workers in the Port of London. The employers wanted to smash the National Dock Labour Board, and Conservative Members have made clear that that is their intention as well. Let us be honest about the motive behind the opposition to the Bill. It is the smashing of the Board because, for the first time, the Board gives security in the industry. That is the blatantly obvious reason why the Opposition want to see an end to the Bill. That is why they have introduced such distortions of the truth.

Hon. Members who did not serve on the Standing Committee should read some of the things said by the Opposition there. For example, the hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), dealing with the question of classification of work, said: Now cargo is packed in aeroplanes. Really, the thought of the dockers executing minor repairs to aeroplanes makes one fear for one's safety. I can imagine the sweating passengers being told that there was half an hour's delay while minor repairs were executed, thinking of the dockers having a go at the altimeter or trying to clear the automatic pilot with their sledge hammers down on the tarmac. That is the sort of nonsense we had to listen to from hon. Members opposite who were alleged to know something about the docks industry and the Bill. The fact is that this is a modest reform and that they never treated it seriously from the start. The hon. Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury went on: What is there to stop the dockers taking over the jobs of air hostesses …?—[Official Report, Standing Committee G, 25th March 1976; c. 559.] Even that was said in a serious manner. But he went even further by suggesting that dockers could take over jockeyships at certain racecourses.

The five-mile test is not the only test and not always the most important in this context. Hon. Members opposite have bemoaned the surplus of dock labour in London and on Merseyside. That arose because employers left the traditional ports and developed such places as Felixstowe. They deliberately set out to smash the dockers' organisations which had been built up over the years.

There are sufficient safeguards in the Bill to ensure that work not being performed by registered dock workers remains in the hands of those doing it at present, but fears to the contrary have been engendered in the minds of those workers by the Tory Party and the Press which supports it.

Nearly 2,000 dockers in London and between 2,500 and 3,000 in Liverpool left the register, followed, in the last few months, by another 1,500. If that does not convince the Opposition that there is no resistance to the technological changes in the docks, changing the requirements of the labour force, nothing will. The dockers have accepted that technological changes mean a smaller labour force.

The attack on the dockers has been motivated by the fact that the Opposition want to see an end to the National Dock Labour Board and to have virtually no protection for the dockers. But the Government are taking account in the Bill of the changes that have come about. The Government recognise that they cannot continue to accept the principles which obtained 30 years ago, or even in 1967, when there was a revision of the scheme. There has to be recognition that dock workers have lost their warehousing and cold-storage work to the container bases which began to flourish around the areas of the docks. This loss has been conservatively estimated as between 12½ and 15 per cent. of total cargoes handled.

What do people expect the dock workers to do when they lose their work in that way? We are not talking about goods which can be delivered from the place of manufacture without the dockers touching them. We are talking now about the centres which were set up to take the place of the normal receivers of cargoes. We are talking of the filling of containers away from the docks, as opposed to doing that work in the docks. That is one of the reasons why the employment opportunities in the dock industry have been reduced so dramatically.

The conditions prevailing inside the docks were far superior to those of the fly-by-night, cowboy outfits which set themselves up around the docks. At one time containers were being filled in prison yards for as little as 7s. 6d. per week. That was where the industry was going The dock workers realised, therefore, that unless there was legislation to provide a definition of dock work and to do what is set out in the Bill, there would be no future for their industry and no employment in the future.

Sir Anthony Meyer

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) speaks with passion and knows what he is talking about, but it does not follow that the House should necessarily agree with what he has to say. As a spokesman for the dockers, he has performed in the House tonight, as he has performed many times in Committee, the invaluable service of making quite clear to everybody the purposes of the Bill and what its effect will be.

The debate so far has shown that a substantial number of Labour Members are unhappy and uncertain about the consequences and intentions of the Bill. It therefore behoves us on the Conservative side to be careful, in our choice of words and in our use of arguments, not to exaggerate or make the kinds of wild claims to which the hon. Member was resorting at some moments in his speech.

The Bill will not, of course, put in jeopardy every single job within that enormous cargo-handling zone. None the less, moderate men and women in the Labour Party should surely reflect very carefully on the inexorable processes which have brought the Bill before the House at this time. They should reflect very carefully on the mechanism whereby a minority element within one single union has been able to commit the entire Labour movement to a Bill which sets out to protect the interests of that one minority.

Having reflected on that inexorable process, they should then, I suggest, go on to consider very carefully how the Bill and the apparatus it sets up will work in practice. Will not the very pressures which have brought the Bill before the Commons ensure that the Board operates almost exclusively for the benefit of that section of the community which put the Bill before the House?

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

If the hon. Gentleman had been present when my right hon. Friend spoke earlier on this matter, he would have heard him refer to the many amendments which had been accepted by the trade union concerned and, indeed, by trade unions throughout the country which are involved in cold storage, and so on. In view of that, surely it cannot be said that they take the kind of view that the hon. Gentleman alleges.

11.0 p.m.

Sir A. Meyer

I readily agree that the National Union of Railwaymen was able to exert a countervailing pressure in order to protect the interests of its members, but I dispute the ability of the great mass of trade unionists to look after their interests as the NUR has been able to do.

I find it extraordinary that the Opposition should at all times have to be upholding the general interest against the Government. It is the Government, surely, who are trustees of the general interest. Yet, in this matter, they have constituted themselves the sole arbiters. If the Government will not uphold the general interest, it becomes almost impossibly difficult for moderates within the Labour Party and the unions to do so. Never was this demonstrated more convincingly than in the embarrassment with which Mr. Tom Jackson was obliged to go along with the action of members of his Union of Post Office Workers, which he knew to be illegal, precisely because he knew that if he stood up for the general interest and the law of the land he could not be sure of the Minister's backing. How right he was.

I hope that the Government will consider carefully before they finally insist on the rejection of the Lords amendment, which is designed to ensure that a substantial number of small ports throughout the country remain unaffected by the Bill's provisions. If these small ports were operated in a way that exploited their workers and paid them very low wages for their work or subjected them to poor conditions, that would be a matter for legitimate concern, but I suggest that that would be dealt with by well-established labour relations channels or by invoking the now substantial body of legislation governing working conditions. Certainly it would not be necessary or useful to invoke the cumbersome machinery of the Bill in order to protect the interests of the workers in the small ports.

But it is not to protect the interests of workers in the small ports that they are to be brought within the Bill, despite the efforts of the other place to keep them out of it. What is more, it is no good the Government saying that the other place is unrepresentative. I think that that argument has been exploded convincingly. [Interruption.] I did not notice Government supporters laughing so loudly when the electors of Walsall, North and Workington demonstrated their attitude in support of the ideas which the House of Lords was unholding and against the self-appointed guardians of the public weal. This Bill is intended to eliminate the small ports because they take work away from the scheme ports, and it has been the consistent aim of the hon. Member for Garston to remind us that this is what the Bill is about.

In terms of my own constituency, the tiny port of Mostyn must be shut down because it takes away the odd ship from the great port of Liverpool. People go to Mostyn in preference to Liverpool not because it is more conveniently situated—because it is not—not because it is better equipped—because it is not—and not because it is necessarily cheaper. The reason is that shippers know that they get their ships dealt with better at Mostyn than they do at Liverpool.

In Committee I argued as fiercely as I could the case for Mostyn being allowed to continue because of the vital importance of it and other small ports along the coast. They are vital to the hinterland which they serve. In standing up for them we are not only standing up for the jobs of those who work in them—although workers may fondly imagine that if their jobs are taken away they will take other jobs from other workers—but are arguing for the many hundreds of other jobs which depend on our small ports. They represent a key element in our economy. Since the Committee stage, the employment prospects in my constituency have gravely deteriorated and the importance of preserving these jobs is greater than ever.

As my hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said, nobody seriously believes that the Bill will create a single extra job. The best that can be claimed is that it will encourage a game of General Post in which A takes B's job and B takes C's job. It will be a case of hunt the slipper and lose it.

The amendment seeks to limit the damage which the Bill can do. The distance of half a mile is not one which I would have chosen. It is far more important to define the cargo-handling zone in terms of existing ports than to try to reduce the distance. The most nonsensical part of the Bill is that nearly the whole of the United Kingdom is included in the cargo-handling zone.

Mr. Spearing

Did the hon. Member say that almost all the United Kingdom will be included in the cargo-handling zone? If he did, he should reconsider.

Sir A. Meyer

I cannot wave a map in the Chamber as hon. Members did in Committee but, bearing in mind the vast tracts of the country which are to be included in the cargo-handling zone and the extra powers of the Minister under the Bill, I am right to say that the whole of the Kingdom could be classed as a cargo-handling zone.

The pressure of a minority of the minority has been able to force the Labour Party into supporting that concept. The whole country will be covered by the cargo-handling zone. I hope that the Government will at least give an assurance that they will provide a proper definition of the cargo-handling zone.

Mr. Giles Shaw

I refer to Amendments Nos. 23 and 25, which concern the new definable dock areas. In the Lords' suggestion lies a ray of hope for the way in which the Bill will operate. Hours were spent in Committee trying to explain that the Government intended to extend and classify as dock work areas of industry such as distribution and warehousing which are not traditionally dock work. That is of great concern to the nation.

It will not do to say merely that, because of the dreadful and hazardous history of dock work in traditional docks, it is now necessary to start to re-classify chunks of the industrial sector of the economy outside as susceptible to being classified as dock work. I do not exaggerate and say that every job in every cold store and every warehouse will be so classified, but it has been pointed out that the Government are involved in establishing an elaborate means test to ensure that those depots will be so classified if the Secretary of State directs. This system is being established to support the continuation of the register and of the 30,000 members thereon for whom the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden) is so eloquent and persistent a spokesman.

It is now likely that areas of British industry, and, in particular, distribution, will be classified as dock work. When the miners were faced with the inevitable closure of numerous pits, there was not on behalf of that industry the same view expressed by the National Union of Mineworkers—that jobs in areas around the pits or near the pits should be re-classified as miners' work.

This is a peculiarity attached to this legislation. It is a preservation order, so to speak. It is an expression of the belief that the dinosaur image which the docks have traditionally had but which they no longer deserve should be preserved and carried through into other aspects of distribution. This is selling the dockers short in relation to the reputation that they enjoy.

We on this side do not say that there should be no future for the registered and well-organised dock worker. We as an importing and an exporting country recognise the essential rôle that dockers play in the national economy, but we are bound to ask the Government: why is it necessary to preserve this register in this way, so that other sectors of the industrial process which have no traditional link with dock work will be classified as such? Why cannot dockers, if they seek employment in other sectors of industrial life, join the appropriate union and company and take the appropriate job? Why must they come in and bring with them the peculiarities that pertain to dock work when they say, reasonably, as the work is reducing at the ports "We seek alternative employment and a more secure future"? Surely the correct view has always been, and must remain, that if we are to be viable and efficient in running our economy we must pay due regard to the fact that working conditions and practices must change. Nowhere is this more obvious than when transferring dock work to distribution depots and parts of cold-storage depots.

I ask the Secretary of State to direct his attention to two statements. The first is a statement made on Second Reading by his predecessor as Secretary of State for employment: As a result of…discussions we have agreed…that long-established warehousing, storage, packaging and cold storage operations, which are not related directly to work transferred from the docks and which are not connected with port operations, would most certainly not he classified as dock work".—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 267.] I contrast that statement with that made by Lord Jacques, the Minister in charge of the Bill in another place: The Government's view is, however, that cold storage work away from the immediate dock area and not now integrated with the loading and unloading of ships needs to be classifiable."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 4th November 1976; Vol. 376, c. 1608.] Those two statements are in direct contradiction. Why has the guarantee given by the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) when he was Secretary of State for Employment been set aside by the noble Lord leading for the Government in another place? What are the changes which have come about which have led to this guarantee being thrown away? The Secretary of State will remember that I referred to the cold-storage industry at some length in Committee as vital not only to our national survival in terms of food supply but to the development of many aspects of distribution and storage It is not in large measure associated with traditional dock work. It is not associated with the refrigerated cargo industry, which was so often a part of natural dock employment. It developed as a separate attribute of food manufacture and distribution, located in many inland areas which now come within the proposed cargo-handling zone. I ask for a clear explanation from the Secretary of State. Why should he believe that the guarantee offered by his predecessor should no longer be offered at the House of Lords Report stage?

11.15 p.m.

In this series of amendments we have the core of the case. Another place has suggested a new way of defining the cargo-handling zone. To relate it specifically to historical dock work is a much more satisfactory way of describing what the docker really seeks. He has every right to be proud of his craft. He seeks something where that craft can have a secure future. The "definable dock" is much to be preferred to the cargo-handling concept. It would almost certainly remove many of the areas of real disagreement felt by the warehousing and distribution sectors of the economy over the proposals in the Bill to make sure that the dockers, who have supported the country very well for many years, working under difficult circumstances, should have a secure future.

What this House cannot accept is that the preservation of 30,000 jobs in exactly the same way as they have always been carried on is more important than the development of new industry, with new methods and new technology to contribute to our economic growth. To do anything which sacrificed the prospect of economic growth would be a damning indictment of the Government.

Mr. David Price

I do not see why the Secretary of State cannot accept subsection (2D) of Lords Amendment No. 13, the definition of "small harbour". The right hon. Gentleman told us a number of times in Committee that in practice the small harbours would be excluded. The definitions used in Committee produced rather larger harbours than those produced by the definition in the amendment. I do not believe that in terms of the protection of employment, for which the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Leyden) has been arguing throughout the consideration of the Bill, it would give anything away to concede this definition. It would be an enormous relief to people in the remote fringe areas of the country, particularly in the islands and Cornwall. I do not believe that they will be brought in. I accept the right hon. Gentleman's implicit undertaking in Committee that they will not. Therefore, lie would give nothing away by accepting the amendment.

We argued the five-mile zone as against the half-mile zone in Committee. I personally have been consistently against a geographical definition. I preferred to rest on the broader definitions in Clauses 6 to 12. The hon. Member for Newham, South (Mr. Spearing) and I found common cause in this, and the hon. Member for Bristol, North-West (Mr. Thomas) seemed to have the same idea. The moment one starts defining geographical limits one finds the non-senses that have come up throughout the passage of the Bill.

Mr. Spearing

I do not think that we agreed on the question of the five-mile zone. What I think we agreed on was that the difficulty about the Bill was that if it was to work properly it was impossible to provide definitions which, legally applied, would not produce nonsenses. To that extent the hon. Gentleman and I were in accord in Committee.

Mr. Price

That matter raises wider issues. As I said in the debate on an earlier amendment, if we had had a Select Committee to consider the question when the Bill was in the form of a White Paper the hon. Gentleman and I and many other hon. Members would have been much closer together. The scheme was presented to us as a fait accompli. One of the distressing aspects is the extent to which the Government have not been prepared to modify it during its passage through both Houses.

The concept of the five-mile zone was produced in the report of the Bristow Committee, which was specifically charged to deal with the problems of the Port of London, and no other port.

The other important point about the Bristow report was that it dealt with employers and unions involved in the industry. It did not deal with any of the other activities which might be brought within the Bill. It was made clear in that report that evidence was not taken from any of the other interests. When the Minister in the other place persisted in treating the Bristow report as a sort of Bible, therefore, he was wrong.

The report said We reached the unanimous conclusion early in our deliberations that, while we must obviously take into account if we were to make any useful and realistic recommendation that many interests not represented on the Committee would be affected and ought to have their views considered, for us as a Committee to attempt to hear them and evaluate their objections to the proposals we mean to recommend would make it impossible for us to put forward any agreed recommendations whatever within the foreseeable future. The members of the committee realised that they could not make such a recommendation; so, rather than look at the subject intelligently and sensibly, they preferred not to look at it at all. Therefore, to use the report as a justification for the five-mile zone is to rest the dockers' corridor upon a faulty base.

Let me remind Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Garston, that since the Bill was given a Third Reading the report of the Joint Port Trade Development Committee has been issued. It contains extremely important recommendations. The committee recommended that the Government should resume responsibility for some of the costs of the surplus manpower within the port. The committee came to the conclusion that the PLA and the employers were in danger of pricing themselves out of the market because of the burden of carrying this surplus labour. Labour Members should bear that in mind.

Mr. Iain Sproat (Aberdeen, South)

I wish to deal with the question of the small ports. How infinitely depressing it is for us all to have sat through the many long hours in the Committee and to have read what the other place said about the Bill only to find that the Government have not moved an inch in their attitude to the small ports.

They still display the stupid obstinacy with which they started the Bill off. Labour Members, including the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), admitted that the Bill was produced not in response to the will of the nation but because it is the will of the TUC. That demonstrates exactly what is wrong with the Bill and the country.

There are more than 120 small ports in Scotland. I can give three examples to show how ludicrous it is to apply the principles of the Bill to them. In Committee the hon. Member for Hartlepool (Mr. Leadbitter) said that we should all realise that what was good for London was not necessarily good for anyone else in the United Kingdom. He was right. It is clear that the Bill, which was largely based on the needs of London, is grotesquely absurd in its application to the small ports of Scotland.

Take the case of Montrose. The port estimates that the Bill will add between £75,000 and £80,000 a year to its costs. It will be priced out of business. The 60 dockers in Montrose do not agree with Labour Members who say that the dockers in the small ports agree with the Bill. The men from Montrose came to the House and made clear their total opposition. Those men will lose their jobs and the port will be closed.

Let us consider the port of Perth—

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

Before the hon. Gentleman leaves Montrose, will he give us some idea of how the extra expenditure is to be allocated?

Mr. Sproat

Of the 63 dockers who work at Montrose, 30 are regular and 33 are part-time. Under the scheme they would all have to be regular and, therefore, the wages bill would increase. That is the simple reason. Why should the men who wish to work part-time be forbidden from that employment by the Government?

Mr. Spearing rose—

Mr. Sproat

No, I must get on.

Another example is the small port of Stornoway. All the goods that come into the Western Isles have to come by sea. We know that the Bill will increase costs. It will increase the cost of living for everyone on the islands. Why should their cost of living be increased to accommodate the ideological obstinacies of the Government? I ask the Government to give a categorical assurance that the small ports of Scotland, which have nothing to do with the principles upon which the Government appear to base the Bill, will not be included in the Government's plans.

Mr. Booth

I have listened with great care to ascertain whether a case would be deployed in support of the Lords amendments. The hon. Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) said that this group of amendments took us to the crux of the Bill. If I may paraphrase him, he said that it took us to the very centre point and that the corridor concept is all wrong. I do not think it matters very much whether we talk about a definable dock area or a cargo-handling zone, because the issue at stake is quite clear, although only one Opposition Member touched upon it while completely rejecting the idea of having any geographical test.

Whether it is called a corridor, a cargo-handling zone or a definable dock area, the issue is the same. All that is before us in the amendments is whether we choose one sort of corridor or another. That is the issue before us on any of the tests put before the House.

I contend that the cargo-handling zone in the Bill has a great deal in its favour. A great deal can be said for it that cannot be put forward for the amendment. Let us use some of the tests put to us by the right hon. and learned Member for Huntingdonshire (Sir D. Renton). The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that whatever else the legislation must be if it is to win the support of the House, it must be clear. However, he was not clear about the effect of the amendment. He was not clear about the area that would be covered, along with a great many Opposition Members. They do not seem to realise that it would drive corridors across the map of Great Britain one mile wide based upon the centres of rivers and navigable canals and waterways that are so defined for the purposes of another Act.

The objections that have been raised have been applied only to the Bill and not to the amendments. Hon. Members may take the view that one type of area corridor or width that is based upon one type of waterway as opposed to a high-tide mark is better than another. I should have been happy to listen to arguments advanced to support the superiority of one area of survey as opposed to another, but that has not been done. It has been said that the proposition contained in the Bill is a ludicrous limitation to put on an area of survey and that another one put forward by another place is totally acceptable. Even if one could leave that aside—does the hon. Gentleman wish to intervene?

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

Yes. Does the right hon. Gentleman intend to accept it?

Mr. Booth

No, I certainly do not.

11.30 p.m.

Sir John Rodgers

The right hon. Gentleman said that one of the House of Lords' propositions was acceptable. Now he says that it is not.

Mr. Booth

I did not say that the House of Lords' proposition was acceptable. The hon. Gentleman did not hear me aright. I said that one part of the House of Lords' proposition, in so far as one could apply the criticism of a corridor approach to it, was just as much a corridor approach as the Government's approach.

But there is another objection to the House of Lords' proposition which cannot be applied to the Government's relating to the small ports. It seems surprising that hon. Gentlemen have not taken the trouble to read it, having expressed concern about the small ports. As a criticism of the Bill, they have said that the Government are taking power to extend the cargo-handling zone. Has any Opposition Member made a single reference to the fact that if we agree with these Lords amendments the Government will have power to lay an order to change the effective definition of the small ports?

The proposed subsection (2D)(a) defines a small port by the number of hours worked. Lords Amendment No. 14 would enable the Secretary of State by order to change the number of hours.

Subsection (2D)(b) defines a small port—this is one of the alternatives—by the gross registered tonnage of the vessels which can go in and be accommodated at mean high water. Lords Amendment No. 14 would give the Secretary of State power to change that tonnage.

In answer to the hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire (Mr. Crawford), I say that, while I cannot run round the coast of Scotland tonight—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I have not only physical limitations but obligations to this House. I am sure that the prospect would be more pleasing if I were attempting to do that than looking in this direction at the moment.

The hon. Member for Perth and East Perthshire asked me to name ports which would be exempt. In all fairness, I cannot do that on the Lords' proposition, for the reasons which I have already given—namely, that it allows for the limits of the small ports to be changed—any more than I can on the proposition in the Bill.

Mr. Prior

That is a weak argument.

Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Booth

I will give way in a moment. The right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior), from a seated position, said that it was a weak argu- ment to say that the Lords' proposition allows the definition of small ports to be changed.

Mr. Crawford rose—

Mr. Booth

The House must surely accept that if one of the objections to the definition of the cargo-handling zone is that it can subsequently be changed by order, it is equally an objection to the Lords' proposition for defining small ports if it can subsequently be changed by order.

Mr. Crawford

I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. If the Secretary of State, who is de jure the author of the Bill, cannot name the small ports in Scotland which are exempt from the scheme, which is a very sad state of affairs, how can we in Scotland decide whether he knows anything about the Bill?

Mr. Booth

The hon. Gentleman must study the terms of the Bill. He will see that the tests which determine whether a port will be covered by the Bill are set out there, and the procedure is set out as well.

I cannot name the ports as of now because the Bill is not designed to deal only with the immediate situation. It is meant to serve us in the future as well. As a port may change in the future, so it may, by the definition of the Bill, be subjected to survey, and possibly brought within the scope of the scheme.

It is not possible to say, on the basis of either the Lords amendment or the Bill, that any one small port will, for all time, be inside or outside the scheme. This is understood by all those who have studied the Bill from the outset.

Mr. Prior

The right hon. Gentleman mentioned "for all time". It would help us to know the number of small ports excluded from the Bill, given the Lords amendments as they are now, and not given the additional safeguard that a small port can be expanded at a future date. How many small ports are excluded from the Bill as it is drawn up in subsections (2A), (2B), (2C) and (2D).

Mr. Booth

It is not possible to answer. [Interruption.] We are not being asked tonight only to reject or accept Lords Amendment No. 13. The proposition to which I must address myself is that Lords Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 should be passed together. If we were to do that, the definition of a small port could and would be changed by order.

Mr. Leon Brittan (Cleveland and Whitby)

Of course it can be changed by order, but the order has not been passed, and until such an order is passed the definition in the Lords amendments is perfectly clear. The Secretary of State should be able to say what the position would be.

Mr. Booth

If that is the basis on which the hon. Gentleman is making his assertion, I could, by exactly the same test, say that the Bill is perfectly clear also.

Mr. John Wells (Maidstone)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. By my calculations there are six Ministers and suchlike on the Government Front Bench, and eight officials and suchlike in the Official Box. Why cannot these gentlemen give the Secretary of State the bit of simple help he needs to answer us?

Mr. Speaker

The hon. Gentleman know too well that he is exploiting the phrase "on a point of order".

Mr. Wells rose—

Mr. Speaker

Did the hon. Gentleman not hear what I said? I shall repeat it. He has been here long enough to know that he is exploiting the phrase "On a point of order".

Mr. Wells

Yes, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Booth

If I may respond to the last point made by the hon. Member for Cleveland and Whitby (Mr. Brittan), who asked me to consider the hypothetical proposition that we have Amendments Nos. 13 and 14 before us, and that the Bill does not contain any provisions for changing the cargo-handling zone, my answer is that in that case the Bill is infinitely clearer than the Lords Amendment. In the Lords amendment the area which we are forced to consider for the purposes of the survey test can be changed, and it is so unclear that it has been misunderstood by all the hon. Members opposite who have spoken.

Mr. Donald Stewart (Western Isles)

There are 23 dockers in Stornoway, and they are all members of the Transport and General Workers' Union. They tell me that if the Bill goes through their employment will come to an end. We have the highest transport costs in the United Kingdom, and the highest cost of living. Is Stornoway to be exempted, or is the employment of those men to come to an end?

Mr. Booth

The basis of the Bill is such that there is no automatic geographical location that is exempt or included within the Bill. That has been the case from the outset.

I now turn my attention to the question of costs.

Mr. Patrick Cormack (Staffordshire, South-West)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have a short adjournment while the Minister gets some information?

Mr. Speaker

I think that the House is getting a bit too excited.

Mr. Booth

Perhaps it will help hon. Members who have not taken the trouble to study the previous debates on the Bill if I remind them that we have considered at some considerable length the merits or demerits of reconstructing the Bill in a way that would lay down for the life of an Act of Parliament which precise geographical areas, ports, and so on, are to be covered by the scheme and which are not, and that we as a House have rejected that proposition in favour of what we consider to be a more flexible and appropriate instrument to use when dealing with an industry that is changing rapidly because of the introduction of new technologies.

Sir Anthony Meyer

I know that the right hon. Gentleman knows the Bill inside out. Can he confirm my understanding that any small port that finds itself excluded may, none the less, later be included without the need for fresh legislation, or, conversely, that any port now included may find itself subsequently excluded without the need for fresh legislation? Is that the case?

Mr. Booth

That is certainly the case. [Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite might find that highly amusing, but those who even begin to understand the changes that take place in dock work and in the cargo-handling industry will see that it makes a great deal more sense to recognise that these changes may make it appropriate or inappropriate for the scheme to apply in an area, and they might also understand why we have constructed the Bill in this way.

A question was asked about the costs of operating the scheme. It has again been alleged that the cost of the scheme is one of the principal objections to it. This issue was raised for the first time, if I recall correctly, by the right hon. Member for Lowestoft on Second Reading, when he said: We all know that costs will rise enormously. The British Importers Confederation says that the figure will be as high as £150 million."—[Official Report, 10th February 1976; Vol. 905, c. 280.] That figure has been widely quoted. I have examined the basis for the figure, and, in view of the repetition of the argument that a major objection to the scheme is that it will bring about additional costs, the House may like to know that the figure is totally fallacious.

It was fallacious because statistically what was used to achieve that figure was totally inaccurate. What the British Importers Confederation did was to include in the low-cost non-scheme ports a number of small scheme ports. The confederation therefore got its figures completely wrong. Among the ports included as low-cost non-scheme ports were Ipswich, Sheerness and Rochester—all scheme ports. That made the figure completely wrong.

If one divided the figure of £150 million by the number employed in the ports which are proper non-scheme ports one would be adding £100,000 a year to the wages of the workers concerned or, alternatively, increasing the labour force in those ports twenty-fold. Any hon. Gentleman who makes these assertions about the enormous cost of the scheme should check his figures more carefully and certainly not listen to some of the misleading propaganda which has been advanced in opposition to the Bill.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Wells

I am grateful to the Minister. He has mentioned Sheerness and Rochester. He must be aware that the Medway and the Severn are the only two tidal rivers, besides the Thames, which are specifically mentioned in Magna Carta. He must also be aware that Sheerness and Rochester are both located on the Medway. He will, therefore, be aware that the Medway, as a tidal river, reaches Maidstone. Is he aware that one of the most important elements in my constituency is the import of paper wood pulp? Wood pulp comes to Maidstone and Aylesford through Sheerness and Rochester in barges loaded off the side. Is the Minister really saying that with the inclusion of Sheerness and Rochester we are to suffer dock workers in the paper mills of Mid-Kent?

Mr. Booth

Most hon. Members attach their attention to legislation which is slightly more recent than Magna Carta when making comparisons with the purpose of the dock work scheme.

I do not necessarily accuse the hon. Gentleman of that particular sense of perspective, but on the basis of the tidal waters datum for determining the cargo-handling zone, of course it is the case that the factors which the hon. Gentleman mentioned are only appropriate in the survey in so far as all other tests apply. Therefore, I do not think anyone is likely to suggest, from a serious reading of the Bill, that the work of paper workers in paper mills can by any stretch of the imagination be turned into dock work by the provisions in the Bill.

Sir John Hall (Wycombe)

The Secretary of State has poured scorn on the estimate of £150 million as the additional cost, but has not told the House what the figure is in his estimation. Has he himself made an estimate of the additional cost?

Mr. Booth

I examined at length in Committee the relative positions of scheme and non-scheme ports. I cannot call the figures to mind at this stage. Perhaps if the hon. Member had come into the Chamber earlier and displayed some interest in the debate, we might have had the figures available by now, but since he did not I have not.

My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Lewis) raised a point which was also raised by the hon. Member for St. Marylebone, but in a rather different way. The latter addressed the House as he has done several times before. He said that the Bill gave dockers a legal right to claim other men's jobs. That is part of the malicious propaganda campaign waged against the Bill by its opponents—the suggestion that an extension of the scheme will lead to existing employees losing their jobs and being replaced by registered dock workers.

There may have been some scope for misunderstanding long before we began to enact this measure. But before we did so, my predecessor answered a parliamentary Question so as to make it perfectly clear that that was not the case. The issue was raised again on Second Reading, when my predecessor again made it clear that if there was any doubt about whether or not jobs would be put in jeopardy, we would table in Committee any amendments necessary to safeguard the position. That we have done.

Let the House consider how seriously we can now take the hon. Member for St. Marylebone when he says that the Bill will give dockers a legal right to take other men's jobs. In Committee, he and his Front Bench colleagues made similar suggestions, saying that the people who needed protection were not dockers but others whose jobs were in jeopardy. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I take it that that is endorsed. At least there is no disagreement on that. But not one of the 230 Lords amendments has been concerned with giving additional protection to other workers. So anyone who says that they were concerned about protection for other workers is not borne out in his claim that the House of Lords is representing the country and serving the interests of those workers.

I repeat again tonight what I have said many times before, for the benefit of those whose view of the Bill might still be influenced by the skilful and misleading propaganda put out by groups like Aims of Freedom and Enterprise. Any workers employed in jobs which might be brought within the scheme will remain in their jobs and will retain all existing statutory rights, including protection against unfair dismissal, or will have those rights further improved by becoming fully-registered dock workers.

That is the position: we have sought throughout these debates to ensure protection. The amendments before us do not contain any proposition that would improve the Bill, and I therefore hope that the House will reject them.

Mr. Brittan

During our three-and-a-half hour debate there have been several extremely cogent and powerful speeches from my hon. Friends in support of the amendments. Without disrespect to my hon. Friends, by far the most powerful speech—

Mr. Robert Hughes

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it not the convention of the House that when an hon. Member is addressing the House he should do so without turning his back on you?

Mr. Brittan

That just confirms my view that, although my hon. Friends made several powerful speeches in support of the amendments, by far the most powerful speech in favour of them came from the Secretary of State. He did not substantiate anything he said. He told us that on Second Reading his right hon. Friend the then Secretary of State estimated the cost of the scheme at £150 million. Now, after the debates in Committee and on Report, for the first time he tells us that the basis of calculation of that figure is wrong. We cannot challenge it here and now, but we can have our doubts and express them when the right hon. Gentleman is unable to put forward an alternative figure. How can we have any confidence in him? How can we avoid asking whether that calculation made by his Government and his Department is any more accurate than is the Treasury calculation of the public borrowing requirement for next year?

We have had a long debate, and hon. Members on both sides of the House have expressed their concern about small ports and the corridor. There has been no filibustering—and here I speak as much for Government supporters as for my hon. Friends. The fact that we have debated one group of amendments seriously for three-and-a-half hours illustrates that there was no possible justification for imposing a timetable motion.

Criticisms of the House of Lords have been made by Government supporters. It is clear from the debates and the seriousness of the issues raised that the House of Lords, far from defying the constitution, has implemented it and done its job in passing the amendments.

Everything that has been said confirms the Opposition's view that the extension of the dock labour scheme to small ports would disastrously threaten their survival and confer no compensating benefits. As for the cargo-handling zone, its width is irrational, its extent is excessive and its effect would give a small section of a powerful union a wholly unjustifiable stranglehold on the nation's food supplies.

The Minister said that acceptance of the amendments would replace one type of corridor for another, and he complained that the amendments were not clear. He omitted to take into account that we do not support the idea of a corridor at all, nor do we support the Bill. What we do support is the attempt made by their Lordships to reduce the ill effects of the Bill. Given material of this kind, as harmful as it is, of course the results even of these amendments are bound to continue to be harmful, but not one-tenth as harmful as the original proposals.

12 midnight.

If the right hon. Gentleman cannot see a difference in effect between a zone which goes for five miles all round the country and a zone which only goes for half a mile extending from the ports, and only from the ports, he is incapable of understanding his own Bill. There is an enormous difference.

The right hon. Gentleman says that the five-mile zone is really only one of the tests, that many others have to be applied and that the small ports might escape But he will not be pinned down on that statement. It is merely an impression he seeks to give that the small ports will escape. When he wrote to Captain Joyner, Chairman of the Small Ports Consultative Committee, he was more candid. He said: It would be misleading if I did not make it clear that the Government remains firmly of the opinion, expressed in paragraph 23 of the Consultative Document "Dock Works" that the Scheme should apply wherever significant third party loading and unloading opera. Lions are carried out. I recognise that the extension of the Scheme would cause problems for some non-Scheme ports, but on an overall view we believe that it could give rise to difficulties both now and in the future if the Scheme were not extended to virtually all third party loading and unloading. That is the measure of the lack of protection that the Bill gives.

Now the right hon. Gentleman tries to have it both ways. He says on the one hand that the small ports have nothing to worry about. On the other hand, he is incapable of giving the smallest justification to those representing the small ports for taking a crumb of comfort to their constituencies. That is the reality of the situation.

My hon. Friend the Member for St. Marylebone (Mr. Baker) issued an invitation to the right hon. Gentleman to deal with the point raised in the guillotine debate by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Mr. Loyden), who said: If the House of Lords persists in its attitude of making the decisions of the House of Commons abortive, it may compel people in the docks industry outside to take action against the decisions of the other place…—[Official Report, 8th November 1976; Vol. 919, c. 72.] What is that but a threat of industrial action if the constitution of the country is carried out? My hon. Friend invited the right hon. Gentleman to denounce that statement and make clear that he opposes such threats. The right hon. Gentleman did not spare the House all sorts of detail, but he spared it the barest of answers to that simplest of questions. He has not denounced that threat.

The Lords amendments do not achieve everything that we wish to see. The only way of doing that would be by not having the Bill at all. But they do provide a measure of protection to the small ports and against a threat which exists, the extent of which we do not know but which exists deliberately because of the way the right hon. Gentleman has framed his Bill.

The most pernicious part of it all in many ways is the provision in Clause 4(6) that The Secretary of State may by order extend…the cargo-handling zone, either by substituting for the distance specified…a greater distance, or by directing that some specified additional area of Great Britain be treated as part of the zone. What that means is that the whole of the country is under threat. The House of Lords has not removed that threat. It has reduced it. We should support it in its work.

Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said amendment:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 310.

Division No. 390.] AYES [12.05 a.m.
Abse, Leo Edge, Geoff Leadbitter, Ted
Allaun, Frank Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Lee, John
Anderson, Donald Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough)
Archer, Peter Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Lever, Rt Hon Harold
Armstrong, Ernest English, Michael Lewis, Arthur (Newham N)
Ashley, Jack Ennals, David Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Ashton, Joe Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lipton, Marcus
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Litterick, Tom
Atkinson, Norman Evans, John (Newton) Lomas, Kenneth
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Loyden, Eddie
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Faulds, Andrew Luard, Evan
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Lyon, Alexander (York)
Bates, Alf Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Lyons, Edward (Bradford W)
Bean, R. E. Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Flannery, Martin McCartney, Hugh
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) McDonald, Dr Oonagh
Bidwell, Sydney Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McElhone, Frank
Bishop, E. S. Foot, Rt Hon Michael MacFarquhar, Roderick
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ford, Ben McGuire, Michael (Ince)
Boardman, H. Forrester, John MacKenzie, Gregor
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Maclennan, Robert
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Freeson, Reginald McNamara, Kevin
Bradley, Tom Garrett, John (Norwich S) Madden, Max
Bray, Dr Jeremy Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Magee, Bryan
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) George, Bruce Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh)
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Gilbert, Dr John Mahon, Simon
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Ginsburg, David Mallalieu, J. P. W.
Buchan, Norman Golding, John Marks, Kenneth
Buchanan, Richard Gould, Bryan Marquand, David
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Gourlay, Harry Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Graham, Ted Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Grant, George (Morpeth) Mason, Rt Hon Roy
Campbell, Ian Grant, John (Islington C) Maynard, Miss Joan
Canavan, Dennis Grocott, Bruce Meacher, Michael
Cant, R. B. Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert
Carmichael, Neil Hardy, Peter Mendelson, John
Carter, Ray Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mikardo, Ian
Carter-Jones, Lewis Hart, Rt Hon Judith Millan, Rt Hon Bruce
Cartwright, John Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Hatton, Frank Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N)
Clemitson, Ivor Hayman, Mrs Helene Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Healey, Rt Hon Denis Molloy, William
Cohen, Stanley Heffer, Eric S. Moonman, Eric
Coleman, Donald Hooley, Frank Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Horam, John Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Concannon, J. D. Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Conlan, Bernard Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Moyle, Roland
Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Huckfield, Les Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick
Corbett, Robin Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King
Cowans, Harry Hughes, Mark (Durham) Newens, Stanley
Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Noble, Mike
Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Oakes, Gordon
Crawshaw, Richard Hunter, Adam Ogden, Eric
Cronin, John Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) O'Halloran, Michael
Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Orbach, Maurice
Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley
Cryer, Bob Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Ovenden, John
Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Janner, Greville Owen, Rt Hon Dr David
Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Padley, Walter
Dalyell, Tam Jeger, Mrs Lena Palmer, Arthur
Davidson, Arthur Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Park, George
Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Parker, John
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) John, Brynmor Parry, Robert
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Johnson, James (Hull West) Pavitt, Laurie
Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Johnson, Waller (Derby S) Pendry, Tom
Deakins, Eric Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Perry, Ernest
Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Jones, Barry (East Flint) Phipps, Dr Colin
de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Jones, Dan (Burnley) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Judd, Frank Prescott, John
Dempsey, James Kaufman, Gerald Price, C. (Lewisham W)
Doig, Peter Kelley, Richard Price, William (Rugby)
Dormand, J. D. Kerr, Russell Radice, Giles
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kilroy-Silk, Robert Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Duffy, A. E. P. Kinnock, Neil Richardson, Miss Joe
Dunn, James A. Lambie, David Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dunnett, Jack Lamborn, Harry Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Lamond, James Robertson, John (Paisley)
Eadie, Alex Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Robinson, Geoffrey
Roderick, Caerwyn Spriggs, Leslie Watkins, David
Rodgers, George (Chorley) Stallard, A. W. Watkinson, John
Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham) Weetch, Ken
Rooker, J. W. Stoddart, David Weitzman, David
Roper, John Stott, Roger Wellbeloved, James
Rose, Paul B. Strang, Gavin White, Frank R. (Bury)
Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Strauss, Rt Hon G. R. White, James (Pollok)
Rowlands, Ted Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley Whitehead, Phillip
Ryman, John Swain, Thomas Whitlock, William
Sandelson, Neville Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Sedgemore, Brian Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Selby, Harry Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E) Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW) Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Thorne, Stan (Preston South) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter Tierney, Sydney Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) Tinn, James Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Tomlinson, John Wise, Mrs Audrey
Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Tomney, Frank Woodall, Alec
Sillars, James Torney, Tom Woof, Robert
Silverman, Julius Urwin, T. W. Wrigglesworth, Ian
Skinner, Dennis Varley, Rt Hon Eric G. Young, David (Bolton E)
Small, William Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Smith, John (N Lanarkshire) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Snape, Peter Walker, Terry (Kingswood) Mr. James Hamilton and
Spearing, Nigel Ward, Michael Mr. Joseph Harper.
Adley, Robert Drayson, Burnaby Heath, Rt Hon Edward
Aitken, Jonathan du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Henderson, Douglas
Alison, Michael Dunlop, John Heseltine, Michael
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Durant, Tony Hicks, Robert
Arnold, Tom Dykes, Hugh Higgins, Terence L.
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Hodgson, Robin
Awdry, Daniel Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Holland, Philip
Bain, Mrs Margaret Elliott, Sir William Hooson, Emlyn
Baker, Kenneth Emery, Peter Hordern, Peter
Banks, Robert Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Beith, A. J. Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Howell, David (Guildford)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Eyre, Reginald Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Fairbairn, Nicholas Howells, Geraint (Cardigan)
Benyon, W. Fairgrieve, Russell Hunt, David (Wirral)
Biffen, John Farr, John Hunt, John (Bromley)
Biggs-Davison, John Fell, Anthony Hurd, Douglas
Blaker, Peter Finsberg, Geoffrey Hutchison, Michael Clark
Body, Richard Fisher, Sir Nigel Irving, Charles (Cheltenham)
Boscawen, Hon Robert Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) James, David
Bottomley, Peter Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Fookes, Miss Janet Jessel, Toby
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Forman, Nigel Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead)
Bradford, Rev Robert Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Braine, Sir Bernard Fox, Marcus Jones, Arthur (Daventry)
Brittan, Leon Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Jopling Michael
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Freud, Clement Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Brotherton, Michael Fry, Peter Kaberry, Sir Donald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine
Bryan, Sir Paul Gardiner, George (Reigate) Kershaw, Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Kilfedder, James
Buck, Antony Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Kimball, Marcus
Budgen, Nick Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) King, Evelyn (South Dorset)
Bulmer, Esmond Glyn, Dr Alan King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Burden, F. A. Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Kirk, Sir Peter
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Goodhart, Philip Kitson, Sir Timothy
Carlisle, Mark Goodhew, Victor Knight, Mrs Jill
Carson, John Goodlad, Alastair Knox, David
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Gorst, John Lamont, Norman
Channon, Paul Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Lane, David
Churchill, W. S. Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Latham, Michael (Melton)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Gray, Hamish Lawrence, Ivan
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Grieve, Percy Lawson, Nigel
Clegg, Walter Griffiths, Eldon Le Merchant, Spencer
Cockcroft, John Grimond, Rt Hon J. Lester, Jim (Beeston)
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Grist, Ian Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Cope, John Grylls, Michael Lloyd, Ian
Cordle, John H. Hall, Sir John Loveridge, John
Cormack, Patrick Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Luce, Richard
Costain, A. P. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McAdden, Sir Stephen
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Hampson, Dr Keith MacCormick, Iain
Crawford, Douglas Hannam, John McCrindle, Robert
Critchley, Julian Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) McCusker, H.
Crouch, David Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Macfarlane, Neil
Crowder, F. P. Hastings, Stephen MacGregor, John
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Havers, Sir Michael Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Hawkins, Paul McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury)
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Hayhoe, Barney McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest)
Madel, David Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Price, David (Eastleigh) Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Marten, Neil Prior, Rt Hon James Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Mates, Michael Pym, Rt Hon Francis Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Mather, Carol Raison, Timothy Stokes, John
Maude, Angus Rathbone, Tim Stradling Thomas, J.
Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter Tapsell, Peter
Mawby, Ray Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Rees-Davies, W. R. Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)
Mayhew, Patrick Reid, George Tebbit, Norman
Meyer, Sir Anthony Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) Temple-Morris, Peter
Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Mills, Peter Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Miscampbell, Norman Ridley, Hon Nicholas Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Ridsdale, Julian Thompson, George
Moate, Roger Rifkind, Malcolm Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Molyneaux, James Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey Townsend, Cyril D.
Monro, Hector Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW) Trotter, Neville
Montgomery, Fergus Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Tugendhat, Christopher
Moore, John (Croydon C) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) van Straubenzee, W. R.
More, Jasper (Ludlow) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight) Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Morgan, Geraint Ross, William (Londonderry) Viggers, Peter
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire) Wakeham, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Royle, Sir Anthony Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Sainsbury, Tim Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Mudd, David St. John-Stevas, Norman Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
Neave, Airey Scott, Nicholas Wall, Patrick
Nelson, Anthony Scott-Hopkins, James Walters, Dennis
Neubert, Michael Shaw, Giles (Pudsey) Warren, Kenneth
Newton, Tony Shaw, Michael (Scarborough) Watt, Hamish
Normanton, Tom Shelton, William (Streatham) Weatherill, Bernard
Nott, John Shepherd, Colin Wells, John
Onslow, Cranley Shersby, Michael Welsh, Andrew
Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Silvester, Fred Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Osborn, John Sims, Roger Wiggin, Jerry
Page, John (Harrow West) Sinclair, Sir George Wigley, Dafydd
Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Skeet, T. H. H. Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Page, Richard (Workington) Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) Winterton, Nicholas
Paisley, Rev Ian Smith, Dudley (Warwick) Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Pardoe, John Speed, Keith Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Parkinson, Cecil Spence, John Younger, Hon George
Pattie, Geoffrey Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Penhaligon, David Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Percival, Ian Sproat, Iain Mr. John Currie and
Peyton, Rt Hon John Stanbrook, Ivor Mr. Anthony Berry.
Pink, R. Bonner Stanley, John

Question accordingly negatived.

Lords amendment: No. 12, in page 4, line 12, at end, insert— (2A) A definable dock area shall comprise any place in Great Britain which is within half a mile (in a direct line) of a harbour to which this Act applies or of the nearest harbour land adjacent to such a harbour. (2B) For the purposes of this section, "harbour" and "harbour land" have the meanings

assigned to them by section 57 of the Harbours Act 1964."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth.]:—

The House divided: Ayes 308, Noes 311.

Division No. 391.] AYES [12.21 a.m.
Abse, Leo Bray, Dr Jeremy Conlan, Bernard
Allaun, Frank Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cook, Robin F. (Edin C)
Anderson, Donald Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Corbett, Robin
Archer, Peter Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Cowans, Harry
Armstrong, Ernest Buchan, Norman Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Ashley, Jack Buchanan, Richard Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill)
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Crawshaw, Richard
Atkinson, Norman Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Cronin, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Campbell, Ian Crowther, Stan (Rotherham)
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Canavan, Dennis Cryer, Bob
Bates, Alf Cant, R. B. Cunningham, G. (Islington S)
Bean, R. E. Carmichael, Neil Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten)
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Carter, Ray Dalyell, Tam
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Carter-Jones, Lewis Davidson, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney Cartwright, John Davies, Bryan (Enfield N)
Bishop, E. S. Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Davies, Denzil (Llanelli)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Clemitson, Ivor Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Boardman, H. Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Cohen, Stanley Deakins, Eric
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Coleman, Donald Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Colquhoun, Ms Maureen de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Bradley, Tom Concannon, J. D. Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Dempsey, James Kaufman, Gerald Radice, Giles
Doig, Peter Kelley, Richard Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S)
Dormand, J. D. Kerr, Russell Richardson, Miss Joe
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Kilroy-Silk, Robert Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Duffy, A. E. P. Kinnock, Neil Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock)
Dunn, James A. Lambie, David Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dunnett, Jack Lamborn, Harry Robinson, Geoffrey
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Lamond, James Roderick, Caerwyn
Eadie, Alex Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Rodgers, George (Chorley)
Edge, Geoff Leadbitter, Ted Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Lee, John Rooker, J. W.
Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Roper, John
Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Lever, Rt Hon Harold Rose, Paul B.
English, Michael Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Ennals, David Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Rowlands, Ted
Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Lipton, Marcus Ryman, John
Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Litterick, Tom Sandelson, Neville
Evans, John (Newton) Lomas, Kenneth Sedgemore, Brian
Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Loyden, Eddie Selby, Harry
Faulds, Andrew Luard, Evan Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Lyon, Alexander (York) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Filch, Alan (Wigan) Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE)
Flannery, Martin McCartney, Hugh Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) McDonald, Dr Oonagh Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McElhone, Frank Sillars, James
Foot, Rt Hon Michael MacFarquhar, Roderick Silverman, Julius
Ford, Ben McGuire, Michael (Ince) Skinner, Dennis
Forrester, John MacKenzie, Gregor Small, William
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Maclennan, Robert Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Snape, Peter
Freeson, Reginald McNamara, Kevin Spearing, Nigel
Garrett, John (Norwich S) Madden, Max Spriggs, Leslie
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) Magee, Bryan Stallard, A. W.
George, Bruce Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Gilbert, Dr John Mahon, Simon Stott, Roger
Ginsburg, David Mallalieu, J. P. W. Strang, Gavin
Golding, John Marks, Kenneth Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Gould, Bryan Marquand, David Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Gourlay, Harry Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Swain, Thomas
Graham, Ted Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mason, Rt Hon Roy Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Grant, John (Islington C) Maynard, Miss Joan Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Grocott, Bruce Meacher, Michael Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Mendelson, John Tierney, Sydney
Hardy, Peter Mikardo, Ian Tinn, James
Harper, Joseph Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Tomlinson, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Tomney, Frank
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Torney, Tom
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Urwin, T. W.
Hatton, Frank Molloy, William Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Hayman, Mrs Helene Moonman, Eric Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Heffer, Eric S. Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
Hooley, Frank Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Ward, Michael
Horam, John Moyle, Roland Watkins, David
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Watkinson, John
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Weetch, Ken
Huckfield, Les Newens, Stanley Weitzman, David
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Noble, Mike Wellbeloved, James
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oakes, Gordon White, Frank R. (Bury)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Ogden, Eric White, James (Pollock)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) O'Halloran, Michael Whitehead, Phillip
Hunter, Adam Orbach, Maurice Whitlock, William
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Ovenden, John Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Padley, Walter Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Janner, Greville Palmer, Arthur Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Park, George Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Jeger, Mrs Lena Parker, John Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Parry, Robert Wise, Mrs Audrey
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Pavitt, Laurie Woodall, Alec
John, Brynmor Pendry, Tom Woof, Robert
Johnson, James (Hull West) Perry, Ernest Wrigglesworth, Ian
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Phipps, Dr Colin Young, David (Bolton E)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Prentice, Rt Hon Reg TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Prescott, John
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Price, C. (Lewisham W) Mr. Joseph Ashton and
Judd, Frank Price, William (Rugby) Mr. David Stoddart
Adley, Robert Alison, Michael Arnold, Tom
Aitken, Jonathan Amery, Rt Hon Julian Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne)
Awdry, Daniel Glyn, Dr Alan Marten, Neil
Bain, Mrs Margaret Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Mates, Michael
Baker, Kenneth Goodhart, Philip Maude, Angus
Banks, Robert Goodhew, Victor Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald
Berth, A. J. Goodlad, Alastair Mawby, Ray
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Gorst, John Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Mayhew, Patrick
Benyon, W. Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Meyer, Sir Anthony
Berry, Hon Anthony Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove)
Biffen, John Gray, Hamish Mills, Peter
Biggs-Davison, John Grieve, Percy Miscampbell, Norman
Blaker, Peter Griffiths, Eldon Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Body, Richard Grimond, Rt Hon J. Moate, Roger
Boscawen, Hon Robert Grist, Ian Molyneaux, James
Bottomley, Peter Grylls, Michael Monro, Hector
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Hall, Sir John Montgomery, Fergus
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Moore, John (Croydon C)
Bradford, Rev Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) More, Jasper (Ludlow)
Braine, Sir Bernard Hampson, Dr Keith Morgan, Geraint
Brittan, Leon Hannam, John Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral
Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Morris, Michael (Northampton S)
Brotherton, Michael Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester)
Bryan, Sir Paul Havers, Sir Michael Mudd, David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick Hawkins, Paul Neave, Airey
Buck, Antony Hayhoe, Barney Nelson, Anthony
Budgen, Nick Heath, Rt Hon Edward Neubert, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond Henderson, Douglas Newton, Tony
Burden, F. A. Heseltine, Michael Normanton, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hicks, Robert Nott, John
Carlisle, Mark Higgins, Terence L. Onslow, Cranley
Carson, John Hodgson, Robin Oppenheim, Mrs Salty
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Holland, Philip Osborn, John
Channon, Paul Hooson, Emlyn Page, John (Harrow West)
Churchill, W. S. Hordern, Peter Page, Richard (Workington)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Howell, David (Guildford) Paisley, Rev Ian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Pardoe, John
Clegg, Walter Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Parkinson, Cecil
Cockcroft, John Hunt, David (Wirral) Pattie, Geoffrey
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Hunt, John (Bromley) Penhaligon, David
Cope, John Hurd, Douglas Percival, Ian
Cordle, John H. Hutchison, Michael Clark Peyton, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pink, R. Bonner
Corrie, John James, David Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Costain, A. P. Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Jessel, Toby Prior, Rt Hon James
Crawford, Douglas Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Critchley, Julian Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Raison, Timothy
Crouch, David Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rathbone, Tim
Crowder, F. P. Jopling Michael Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Reid, George
Drayson, Burnaby Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Kilfedder, James Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Dunlop, John Kimball, Marcus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Durant, Tony King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridsdale, Julian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Kirk, Sir Peter Rifkind, Malcolm
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kitson, Sir Timothy Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Elliott, Sir William Knight, Mrs Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Emery, Peter Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lamont, Norman Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Lane, David Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eyre, Reginald Langford-Holt, Sir John Ross, William (Londonderry)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Latham, Michael (Melton) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fairgrieve, Russell Lawrence, Ivan Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Farr, John Lawson, Nigel Royle, Sir Anthony
Fell, Anthony Le Marchant, Spencer Sainsbury, Tim
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lester, Jim (Beeston) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fisher, Sir Nigel Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott, Nicholas
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Lloyd, Ian Scott-Hopkins, James
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Loveridge, John Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fookes, Miss Janet Luce, Richard Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Forman, Nigel McAdden, Sir Stephen Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) MacCormick, Iain Shepherd, Colin
Fox, Marcus McCrindle, Robert Shersby, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) McCusker, H. Sims, Roger
Freud, Clement Macfarlane, Neil Sinclair, Sir George
Fry, Peter MacGregor, John Skeet, T. H. H.
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gardiner, George (Reigate) McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Speed, Keith
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chatham) Madel, David Spence, John
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcester) Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S) Watt, Hamish
Sproat, Iain Thompson, George Weatherill, Bernard
Stanbrook, Ivor Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon) Wells, John
Stanley, John Townsend, Cyril D. Welsh, Andrew
Steel, David (Roxburgh) Trotter, Neville Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Steen, Anthony (Wavertree) Tugendhat, Christopher Wiggin, Jerry
Stewart, Donald (Western Isles) van Straubenzee, W. R. Wigley, Dafydd
Stewart, Ian (Hitchin) Vaughan, Dr Gerard Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Stokes, John Viggers, Peter Winterton, Nicholas
Stradling Thomas, J. Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Tapsell, Peter Wakeham, John Young, Sir G. (Eating, Acton)
Taylor, R. (Croydon NW) Walder, David (Clitheroe) Younger, Hon George
Taylor, Teddy (Cathcart) Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Tebbit, Norman Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Temple-Morris, Peter Wall, Patrick Mr. Fred Silvester and
Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret Walters, Dennis Mr. Carol Mather
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth) Warren, Kenneth

Question accordingly negatived.

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In a situation in which we have the Government defeated twice on a major piece of legislation—

Mr. Thomas Swain (Derbyshire, North-East) rose—

Mrs. Winifred Ewing

Do you recollect, Mr. Speaker, with your wide knowledge of precedents, whether it is in accordance with the precedents of the House that the Prime Minister should not be on the Treasury Bench on such an occasion?

Mr. Speaker

That is not a point of order.

Lords amendment: No. 13, in page 4, line 12, at end insert— (2C) A definable dock area shall not include any small harbour or any place within half a mile (in a direct line) of a small harbour, being a place which is not also within a similar distance of a harbour to which this Act applies.

(2D) In subsection (2C) above "small harbour" means a harbour or wharf—

  1. (a) at which the hours worked in the twelve months ended 3rd December 1975 by a person in loading cargo into, or unloading cargo from, ships did not exceed (on being averaged with the hours so worked by other pesons so engaged during that period) 1,350; or
  2. (b) which cannot, at mean high water, accommodate ships of a gross registered tonnage more than 1,000 tons; or
  3. (c) where the labour foce is employed substantially on a permanent basis and where the terms and conditions of service are no less favourable than the national terms laid down for ports affiliated to the National Joint Council; and for the purposes of this subsection "cargo" and "ship" mean the same as in Schedule 3 to this Act."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Booth]:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

Division No. 392.] AYES [12.37 a.m.
Abse, Leo Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Davies, Ifor (Gower)
Allaun, Frank Campbell, Ian Davis, Clinton (Hackney C)
Anderson, Donald Canavan, Dennis Deakins, Eric
Archer, Peter Cant, R. B. Dean, Joseph (Leeds West)
Armstrong, Ernest Carmichael, Neil de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Ashley, Jack Carter, Ray Dell, Rt Hon Edmund
Ashton, Joe Carter-Jones, Lewis Dempsey, James
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Cartwright, John Doig, Peter
Atkinson, Norman Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Dormand, J. D.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Clemitson, Ivor Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Duffy, A. E. P.
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Cohen, Stanley Dunn, James A.
Bates, Alf Coleman, Donald Dunnett, Jack
Bean, R. E. Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Concannon, J. D. Eadie, Alex
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Conlan, Bernard Edge, Geoff
Bidwell, Sydney Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE)
Bishop, E. S. Corbett, Robin Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cowans, Harry Ellis, Tom (Wrexham)
Boardman, H. Cox, Thomas (Tooting) English, Michael
Booth, Rt Hon Albert Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Ennals, David
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Crawshaw, Richard Evans, Fred (Caerphilly)
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Cronin, John Evans, Ioan (Aberdare)
Bradley, Tom Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Evans, John (Newton)
Bray, Dr Jeremy Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Ewing, Harry (Stirling)
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Cryer, Bob Faulds, Andrew
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Fernyhough, Rt Hon E.
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiten) Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Buchan, Norman Dalyell, Tam Fitt, Gerard (Belfast W)
Buchanan, Richard Davidson, Arthur Flannery, Martin
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston)
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Foot, Rt Hon Michael Luard, Evan Rooker, J. W.
Ford, Ben Lyon, Alexander (York) Roper, John
Forrester, John Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Rose, Paul B.
Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin) Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock)
Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd) McCartney, Hugh Rowlands, Ted
Freeson, Reginald McDonald, Dr Oonagh Ryman, John
Garrett, John (Norwich S) McElhone, Frank Sandelson, Neville
Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend) MacFarquhar, Roderick Sedgemore, Brian
George, Bruce McGuire, Michael (Ince) Selby, Harry
Gilbert, Dr John MacKenzie, Gregor Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South)
Ginsburg, David Mackintosh, John P. Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne)
Golding, John Maclennan, Robert Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Gould, Bryan McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv WE)
Gourlay, Harry McNamara, Kevin Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford)
Graham, Ted Madden, Max Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich)
Grant, George (Morpeth) Magee, Bryan Sillars, James
Grant, John (Islington C) Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) Silverman, Julius
Grocott, Bruce Mahon, Simon Skinner, Dennis
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mallalieu, J. P. W. Small, William
Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife) Marks, Kenneth Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Hardy, Peter Marquand, David Snape, Peter
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Spearing, Nigel
Hart, Rt Hon Judith Marshall, Jim (Leicester S) Spriggs, Leslie
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy Mason, Rt Hon Roy Stallard, A. W.
Hatton, Frank Maynard, Miss Joan Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Hayman, Mrs Helene Meacher, Michael Stoddart, David
Healey, Rt Hon Denis Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Stott, Roger
Heffer, Eric S. Mendelson, John Strang, Gavin
Hooley, Frank Mikardo, Ian Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Horam, John Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H) Miller, Dr M. S. (E Kilbride) Swain, Thomas
Hoyle, Doug (Nelson) Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Huckfield, Les Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey) Molloy, William Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Moonman, Eric Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Tierney, Sydney
Hunter, Adam Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Tinn, James
Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill) Moyle, Roland Tomlinson, John
Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford) Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Tomney, Frank
Jackson, Colin (Brighouse) Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Torney, Tom
Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln) Newens, Stanley Urwin, T. W.
Janner, Greville Noble, Mike Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Jay, Rt Hon Douglas Oakes, Gordon Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Jeger, Mrs Lena Ogden, Eric Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) O'Halloran, Michael Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Orbach, Maurice Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
John, Brynmor Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Ward, Michael
Johnson, James (Hull West) Ovenden, John Watkins, David
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Watkinson, John
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Padley, Walter Weetch, Ken
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Palmer, Arthur Weitzman, David
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Park, George Wellbeloved, James
Judd, Frank Parker, John White, James (Pollok)
Kaufman, Gerald Parry, Robert Whitehead, Phillip
Kelley, Richard Pavitt, Laurie Whitlock, William
Kerr, Russell Pendry, Tom Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Perry, Ernest Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Kinnock, Neil Phipps, Dr Colin Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Lambie, David Prentice, Rt Hon Reg Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Lamborn, Harry Prescott, John Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Price, C. (Lewisham W) Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Leadbitter, Ted Price, William (Rugby) Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Lee, John Radice, Giles Wise, Mrs Audrey
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Woodall, Alec
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Richardson, Miss Joe Woof, Robert
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Young, David (Bolton E)
Lamond, James Robertson, John (Paisley)
Lipton, Marcus Robinson, Geoffrey TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Litterick, Tom Roderick, Caerwyn Mr. Joseph Harper and
Lomas, Kenneth Rodgers, George (Chorley) Mr. Frank R. White
Loyden, Eddie Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton)
Adley, Robert Beith, A. J. Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown)
Aitken, Jonathan Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent)
Alison, Michael Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Bradford, Rev Robert
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Berry, Hon Anthony Braine, Sir Bernard
Arnold, Tom Biffen, John Brittan, Leon
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Biggs-Davison, John Brocklebank-Fowler, C.
Awdry, Daniel Blaker, Peter Brotherton, Michael
Bain, Mrs Margaret Body, Richard Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Baker, Kenneth Boscawen, Hon Robert Bryan, Sir Paul
Banks, Robert Bottomley, Peter Buchanan-Smith, Alick
Buck, Antony Hayhoe, Barney Nelson, Anthony
Budgen, Nick Heath, Rt Hon Edward Neubert, Michael
Bulmer, Esmond Henderson, Douglas Newton, Tony
Burden, F. A. Heseltine, Michael Normanton, Tom
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hicks, Robert Nott, John
Carlisle, Mark Higgins, Terence L. Onslow, Cranley
Carson, John Hodgson, Robin Oppenheim, Mrs Sally
Chalker, Mrs Lynda Holland, Philip Osborn, John
Channon, Paul Hooson, Emlyn Page, John (Harrow West)
Churchill, W. S. Hordern, Peter Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby)
Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Page, Richard (Workington)
Clark, William (Croydon S) Howell, David (Guildford) Paisley, Rev Ian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Pardoe, John
Clegg, Walter Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Parkinson, Cecil
Cockcroft, John Hunt, David (Wirral) Pattie, Geoffrey
Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Hunt, John (Bromley) Penhaligon, David
Cope, John Hurd, Douglas Percival, Ian
Cordle, John H. Hutchison, Michael Clark Peyton, Rt Hon John
Cormack, Patrick Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Pink, R. Bonner
Corrie, John James, David Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch
Costain, A. P. Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E) Jessel, Toby Prior, Rt Hon James
Crawford, Douglas Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Pym, Rt Hon Francis
Critchley, Julian Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Raison, Timothy
Crouch, David Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Rathbone, Tim
Crowder, F. P. Jopling Michael Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford) Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal)
Dean, Paul (N Somerset) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dodsworth, Geoffrey Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Reid, George
Drayson, Burnaby Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts)
du Cann, Rt Hon Edward Kilfedder, James Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex)
Dunlop, John Kimball, Marcus Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Durant, Tony King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Dykes, Hugh King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridsdale, Julian
Eden, Rt Hon Sir John Kirk, Sir Peter Rifkind, Malcolm
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kitson, Sir Timothy Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Elliott, Sir William Knight, Mrs Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Emery, Peter Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen) Lamont, Norman Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray) Lane, David Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Eyre, Reginald Langford-Holt, Sir John Ross, William (Londonderry)
Fairbairn, Nicholas Latham, Michael (Melton) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Fairgrieve, Russell Lawrence, Ivan Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Farr, John Lawson, Nigel Royle, Sir Anthony
Fell, Anthony Lester, Jim (Beeston) Sainsbury, Tim
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fisher, Sir Nigel Lloyd, Ian Scott, Nicholas
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Loveridge, John Scott-Hopkins, James
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Luce, Richard Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Fookes, Miss Janet McAdden, Sir Stephen Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Forman, Nigel MacCormick, Iain Shelton, William (Streatham)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) McCrindle, Robert Shepherd, Colin
Fox, Marcus McCusker, H. Shersby, Michael
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Macfarlane, Neil Silvester, Fred
Freud, Clement MacGregor, John Sims, Roger
Fry, Peter Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Sinclair, Sir George
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Skeet, T. H. H.
Gardiner, George (Reigate) McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) Madel, David Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Speed, Keith
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Marten, Neil Spence, John
Glyn, Dr Alan Mates, Michael Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Mather, Carol Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Goodhart, Philip Maude, Angus Sproat, Iain
Goodhew, Victor Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Stanbrook, Ivor
Goodlad, Alastair Mawby, Ray Stanley, John
Gorst, John Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Mayhew, Patrick Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Meyer, Sir Anthony Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Gray, Hamish Mills, Peter Stokes, John
Grieve, Percy Miscampbell, Norman Stradling Thomas, J.
Griffiths, Eldon Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Tapsell, Peter
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Moate, Roger Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Grist, Ian Molyneaux, James Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)
Grylls, Michael Monro, Hector Tebbit, Norman
Hall, Sir John Montgomery, Fergus Temple-Morris, Peter
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Moore, John (Croydon C) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) More, Jasper (Ludlow) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Hampson, Dr Keith Morgan, Geraint Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Hannam, John Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Thompson, George
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Townsend, Cyril D.
Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Trotter, Neville
Havers, Sir Michael Mudd, David Tugendhat, Christopher
Hawkins, Paul Neave, Airey van Straubenzee, W. R.
Vaughan, Dr Gerard Warren, Kenneth Winterton, Nicholas
Viggers, Peter Watt, Hamish Wood, Rt Hon Richard
Wainwright, Richard (Colne V) Weatherill, Bernard Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
Wakeham, John Wells, John Younger, Hon George
Walder, David (Clitheroe) Welsh, Andrew
Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Walker-Smith, Rt Han Sir Derek Wiggin, Jerry Mr. Spencer Le Marchant and
Wall, Patrick Wigley, Dafydd Mr. W. Benyon.
Walters, Dennis Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Mr. Speaker

As the House knows, my vote is guided by precedent, and I vote with the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

It now being six hours after the commencement of the proceedings it is my duty under the Order which the House made on 8th November to put forthwith the necessary motions in respect of Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, to which there are Government amendments. These motions are, in each case, first, That the amendment to the Lords amendment be made, and, secondly, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment, as amended.

Lords Amendments Nos. 19 and 52, as amended, agreed to.

Mr. Speaker

I now call the Minister formally to move in succession any motions to disagree with the remaining Lords amendments. I am explaining the position to the Minister and the House so that the House knows exactly what it is doing.

Lords Amendment No. 14 disagreed to.

Lords amendment: No. 15, in page 4, line 13, to leave out subsections (3) to (7).

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to the Order this day, That this House doth disagree with the Lords in the said Amendment.—[Mr. Harold Walker]:—

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 310.

Division No. 393.] AYES [12.55 a.m.
Abse, Leo Cook, Robin F. (Edin C) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Allaun, Frank Corbett, Robin Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Anderson, Donald Cowans, Harry Ford, Ben
Archer, Peter Cox, Thomas (Tooting) Forrester, John
Armstrong, Ernest Craigen, J. M. (Maryhill) Fowler, Gerald (The Wrekin)
Ashley, Jack Crawshaw, Richard Fraser, John (Lambeth, N'w'd)
Ashton, Joe Cronin, John Freeson, Reginald
Atkins, Ronald (Preston N) Crosland, Rt Hon Anthony Garrett, John (Norwich S)
Atkinson, Norman Crowther, Stan (Rotherham) Garrett, W. E. (Wallsend)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Cryer, Bob George, Bruce
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cunningham, G. (Islington S) Gilbert, Dr John
Barnett, Rt Hon Joel (Heywood) Cunningham, Dr J. (Whiteh) Ginsburg, David
Bates, Alt Dalyell, Tam Golding, John
Bean, R. E. Davidson, Arthur Gould, Bryan
Benn, Rt Hon Anthony Wedgwood Davies, Bryan (Enfield N) Gourlay, Harry
Bennett, Andrew (Stockport N) Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Graham, Ted
Bidwell, Sydney Davies, Ifor (Gower) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Bishop, E. S. Davis, Clinton (Hackney C) Grant, John (Islington C)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Deakins, Eric Grocott, Bruce
Boardman, H. Dean, Joseph (Leeds West) Hamilton, W. W. (Central Fife)
Booth, Rt Hon Albert de Freitas, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Hardy, Peter
Bottomley, Rt Hon Arthur Dell, Rt Hon Edmund Harper, Joseph
Boyden, James (Bish Auck) Dempsey, James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bradley, Tom Doig, Peter Hart, Rt Hon Judith
Bray, Dr Jeremy Dormand, J. D. Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Brown, Hugh D. (Provan) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hatton, Frank
Brown, Robert C. (Newcastle W) Duffy, A. E. P. Hayman, Mrs Helene
Brown, Ronald (Hackney S) Dunn, James A. Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Buchan, Norman Dunnett, Jack Heffer, Eric S.
Buchanan, Richard Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth Hooley, Frank
Butler, Mrs Joyce (Wood Green) Eadie, Alex Horam, John
Callaghan, Rt Hon J. (Cardiff SE) Edge, Geoff Howell, Rt Hon Denis (B'ham, Sm H)
Callaghan, Jim (Middleton & P) Edwards, Robert (Wolv SE) Hoyle, Doug (Nelson)
Campbell, Ian Ellis, John (Brigg & Scun) Huckfield, Les
Canavan, Dennis Ellis, Tom (Wrexham) Hughes, Rt Hon C. (Anglesey)
Cant, R. B. English, Michael Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Carmichael, Neil Ennals, David Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Carter, Ray Evans, Fred (Caerphilly) Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Carter-Jones, Lewis Evans, Ioan (Aberdare) Hunter, Adam
Cartwright, John Evans, John (Newton) Irvine, Rt Hon Sir A. (Edge Hill)
Castle, Rt Hon Barbara Ewing, Harry (Stirling) Irving, Rt Hon S. (Dartford)
Clemitson, Ivor Faulds, Andrew Jackson, Colin (Brighouse)
Cocks, Rt Hon Michael Fernyhough, Rt Hon E. Jackson, Miss Margaret (Lincoln)
Cohen, Stanley Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Janner, Greville
Colquhoun, Ms Maureen Fill, Gerard (Belfast W) Jay, Rt Hon Douglas
Concannon, J. D. Flannery, Martin Jeger, Mrs Lena
Conlan, Bernard Fletcher, L. R. (Ilkeston) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Stechford) Miller, Mrs Millie (Ilford N) Silverman, Julius
John, Brynmor Mitchell, R. C. (Soton, Itchen) Skinner, Dennis
Johnson, James (Hull West) Molloy, William Small, William
Johnson, Walter (Derby S) Moonman, Eric Smith, John (N Lanarkshire)
Jones, Alec (Rhondda) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Snape, Peter
Jones, Barry (East Flint) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Spearing, Nigel
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon) Spriggs, Leslie
Judd, Frank Moyle, Roland Stallard, A. W.
Kaufman, Gerald Mulley, Rt Hon Frederick Stewart, Rt Hon M. (Fulham)
Kelley, Richard Murray, Rt Hon Ronald King Stoddart, David
Kerr, Russell Newens, Stanley Stott, Roger
Kilroy-Silk, Robert Noble, Mike Strang, Gavin
Kinnock, Neil Oakes, Gordon Strauss, Rt Hon G. R.
Lambie, David Ogden, Eric Summerskill, Hon Dr Shirley
Lamborn, Harry O'Halloran, Michael Swain, Thomas
Lamond, James Orbach, Maurice Taylor, Mrs Ann (Bolton W)
Latham, Arthur (Paddington) Orme, Rt Hon Stanley Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Leadbitter, Ted Ovenden, John Thomas, Mike (Newcastle E)
Lee, John Owen, Rt Hon Dr David Thomas, Ron (Bristol NW)
Lestor, Miss Joan (Eton & Slough) Padley, Walter Thorne, Stan (Preston South)
Lever, Rt Hon Harold Palmer, Arthur Tierney, Sydney
Lewis, Arthur (Newham N) Park, George Tinn, James
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Parker, John Tomlinson, John
Lipton, Marcus Parry, Robert Tomney, Frank
Litterick, Tom Pavitt, Laurie Torney, Tom
Lomas, Kenneth Pendry, Tom Urwin, T. W.
Loyden, Eddie Perry, Ernest Varley, Rt Hon Eric G.
Luard, Evan Phipps, Dr Colin Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne V)
Lyon, Alexander (York) Prentice, RI Hon Reg Walden, Brian (B'ham, L'dyw'd)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford W) Prescott, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mabon, Dr J. Dickson Price, C. (Lewisham W) Walker, Terry (Kingswood)
McCartney, Hugh Price, William (Rugby) Ward, Michael
McDonald, Dr Oonagh Radice, Giles Watkins, David
McElhone, Frank Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn (Leeds S) Watkinson, John
MacFarquhar, Roderick Richardson, Miss Joe Weetch, Ken
McGuire, Michael (Ince) Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Weitzman, David
MacKenzie, Gregor Roberts, Gwilym (Cannock) Wellbeloved, James
Mackintosh, John P. Robertson, John (Paisley) White, Frank R. (Bury)
Maclennan, Robert Robinson, Geoffrey White, James (Pollok)
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow C) Roderick, Caerwyn Whitehead, Phillip
McNamara. Kevin Rodgers, George (Chorley) Whitlock, William
Madden, Max Rodgers, Rt Hon William (Stockton) Willey, Rt Hon Frederick
Magee, Bryan Rooker, J. W. Williams, Alan Lee (Hornch'ch)
Maguire, Frank (Fermanagh) Roper, John Williams, Rt Hon Shirley (Hertford)
Mahon, Simon Rose, Paul B. Williams, Sir Thomas (Warrington)
Mallalieu, J.P.W. Ross, Rt Hon W. (Kilmarnock) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Marks, Kenneth Rowlands, Ted Wilson, Rt Hon Sir Harold (Huyton)
Marquand, David Ryman, John Wilson, William (Coventry SE)
Marshall, Dr Edmund (Goole) Sandelson, Neville Wise, Mrs Audrey
Marshall, Jim Sedgemore, Brian Woodall, Alec
Mason, Rt Hon Roy Selby, Harry Woof, Robert
Maynard, Miss Joan Shaw, Arnold (Ilford South) Wrigglesworth, Ian
Meacher, Michael Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-u-Lyne) Young, David (Bolton E)
Mellish, Rt Hon Robert Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Mendelson, John Short, Mrs Renée (Wolv NE) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Mikardo, Ian Silkin, Rt Hon John (Deptford) Mr. James Hamilton and
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce Silkin, Rt Hon S. C. (Dulwich) Mr. Donald Coleman
Miller, Dr M. S. Sillars, James
Adley, Robert Brocklebank-Fowler, C. Costain, A. P.
Aitken, Jonathan Brotherton, Michael Craig, Rt Hon W. (Belfast E)
Alison, Michael Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Crawford, Douglas
Amery, Rt Hon Julian Bryan, Sir Paul Critchley, Julian
Arnold, Tom Buchanan-Smith, Alick Crouch, David
Atkins, Rt Hon H. (Spelthorne) Buck, Antony Crowder, F. P.
Awdry, Daniel Budgen, Nick Davies, Rt Hon J. (Knutsford)
Bain, Mrs Margaret Bulmer, Esmond Dean, Paul (N Somerset)
Baker, Kenneth Burden, F. A. Dodsworth, Geoffrey
Banks, Robert Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Drayson, Burnaby
Beith, A. J. Carlisle, Mark du Cann, Rt Hon Edward
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torbay) Carson, John Dunlop, John
Bennett, Dr Reginald (Fareham) Chalker, Mrs Lynda Durant, Tony
Benyon, W. Channon, Paul Dykes, Hugh
Biffen, John Churchill, W. S. Eden, Rt Hon Sir John
Biggs-Davison, John Clark, Alan (Plymouth, Sutton) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Blaker, Peter Clark, William (Croydon S) Elliott, Sir William
Body, Richard Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Emery, Peter
Boscawen, Hon Robert Clegg, Walter Evans, Gwynfor (Carmarthen)
Bottomley, Peter Cockcroft, John Ewing, Mrs Winifred (Moray)
Bowden, A. (Brighton, Kemptown) Cooke, Robert (Bristol W) Eyre, Reginald
Boyson, Dr Rhodes (Brent) Cope, John Fairbairn, Nicholas
Bradford, Rev Robert Cordle, John H. Fairgrieve, Russell
Braine, Sir Bernard Cormack, Patrick Farr, John
Brittan, Leon Corrie, John Fell, Anthony
Finsberg, Geoffrey Lane, David Ridsdale, Julian
Fisher, Sir Nigel Langford-Holt, Sir John Rifkind, Malcolm
Fletcher, Alex (Edinburgh N) Latham, Michael (Melton) Rippon, RI Hon Geoffrey
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Lawrence, Ivan Roberts, Michael (Cardiff NW)
Fookes, Miss Janet Lawson, Nigel Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Forman, Nigel Le Merchant, Spencer Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Fowler, Norman (Sutton C'f'd) Lester, Jim (Beeston) Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)
Fox, Marcus Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Ross, William (Londonderry)
Fraser, Rt Hon H. (Stafford & St) Lloyd, Ian Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Freud, Clement Loveridge, John Rost, Peter (SE Derbyshire)
Fry, Peter Luce, Richard Royle, Sir Anthony
Galbraith, Hon. T. G. D. McAdden, Sir Stephen Sainsbury, Tim
Gardiner, George (Reigate) MacCormick, Iain St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gardner, Edward (S Fylde) McCrindle, Robert Scott, Nicholas
Gilmour, Rt Hon Ian (Chesham) McCusker, H. Scott-Hopkins, James
Gilmour, Sir John (East Fife) Macfarlane, Neil Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Glyn, Dr Alan MacGregor, John Shaw, Michael (Scarborough)
Godber, Rt Hon Joseph Macmillan, Rt Hon M. (Farnham) Shelton, William (Streatham)
Goodhart, Philip McNair-Wilson, M. (Newbury) Shepherd, Colin
Goodhew, Victor McNair-Wilson, P. (New Forest) Shersby, Michael
Goodlad, Alastair Madel, David Silvester, Fred
Gorst, John Marshall, Michael (Arundel) Sims, Roger
Gow, Ian (Eastbourne) Marten, Neil Sinclair, Sir George
Gower, Sir Raymond (Barry) Mates, Michael Skeet, T. H. H.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow C) Mather, Carol Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)
Gray, Hamish Maude, Angus Smith, Dudley (Warwick)
Grieve, Percy Maudling, Rt Hon Reginald Speed, Keith
Griffiths, Eldon Mawby, Ray Spence, John
Grimond, Rt Hon J. Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin Spicer, Jim (W Dorset)
Grist, Ian Mayhew, Patrick Spicer, Michael (S Worcester)
Grylls, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony Sproat, Iain
Hall, Sir John Miller, Hal (Bromsgrove) Stanbrook, Ivor
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mills, Peter Stanley, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Miscampbell, Norman Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Hampson, Dr Keith Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Steen, Anthony (Wavertree)
Hannam, John Moate, Roger Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Harrison, Col Sir Harwood (Eye) Molyneaux, James Stewart, Ian (Hitchin)
Harvie Anderson, Rt Hon Miss Monro, Hector Stokes, John
Hastings, Stephen Montgomery, Fergus Stradling Thomas, J.
Havers, Sir Michael Moore, John (Croydon C) Tapsell, Peter
Hawkins, Paul More, Jasper (Ludlow) Taylor, R. (Croydon NW)
Hayhoe, Barney Morgan, Geraint Taylor, Teddy Cathcart)
Heath, Rt Hon Edward Morgan-Giles, Rear-Admiral Tebbit, Norman
Henderson, Douglas Morris, Michael (Northampton S) Temple-Morris, Peter
Heseltine, Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Thatcher, Rt Hon Margaret
Hicks, Robert Morrison, Hon Peter (Chester) Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)
Higgins, Terence L. Mudd, David Thomas, Rt Hon P. (Hendon S)
Holland, Philip Neave, Airey Thompson, George
Hooson, Emlyn Nelson, Anthony Thorpe, Rt Hon Jeremy (N Devon)
Hordern, Peter Neubert, Michael Townsend, Cyril D.
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey Newton, Tony Trotter, Neville
Howell, David (Guildford) Normanton, Tom Tugendhat, Christopher
Hodgson, Robin Nott, John van Straubenzee, W. R.
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk) Onslow, Cranley Vaughan, Dr Gerard
Howells, Geraint (Cardigan) Oppenheim, Mrs Sally Viggers, Peter
Hunt, David (Wirral) Osborn, John Wainwright, Richard (Colne V)
Hunt, John (Bromley) Page, John (Harrow West) Wakeham, John
Hurd, Douglas Page, Richard (Workington) Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Hutchison, Michael Clark Page, Rt Hon R. Graham (Crosby) Walker, Rt Hon P. (Worcester)
Irving, Charles (Cheltenham) Paisley, Rev Ian Walker-Smith, Rt Hon Sir Derek
James, David Pardoe, John Wall, Patrick
Jenkin, Rt Hon P. (Wanst'd & W'df'd) Pattie, Geoffrey Walters, Dennis
Jessel, Toby Penhaligon, David Warren, Kenneth
Johnson Smith, G. (E Grinstead) Percival, Ian Watt, Hamish
Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Peyton, Rt Hon John Weatherill, Bernard
Jones, Arthur (Daventry) Pink, R. Bonner Wells, John
Jopling Michael Powell, Rt Hon J. Enoch Welsh, Andrew
Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith Price, David (Eastleigh) Whitelaw, Rt Hon William
Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt Hon James Wiggin, Jerry
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs Elaine Pym, RI Hon Francis Wigley, Dafydd
Kershaw, Anthony Raison, Timothy Wilson, Gordon (Dundee E)
Kilfedder, James Rathbone, Tim Winterton, Nicholas
Kimball, Marcus Rawlinson, Rt Hon Sir Peter Wood, Rt Hon Richard
King, Evelyn (South Dorset) Rees, Peter (Dover & Deal) Young, Sir G. (Ealing, Acton)
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rees-Davies, W. R. Younger, Hon George
Kirk, Sir Peter Reid, George
Kitson, Sir Timothy Renton, Rt Hon Sir D. (Hunts) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Knight, Mrs Jill Renton, Tim (Mid-Sussex) Mr. Anthony Berry and
Knox, David Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Mr. Cecil Parkinson
Lamont, Norman Ridley, Hon Nicholas
Mr. Speaker

The House understands that my vote is guided by precedent. My vote is for the Ayes.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Lords Amendments Nos. 16, 17, 18, 20, 23, 25, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, and 44 disagreed to.

Back to
Forward to