Felixstowe Dock and Railway Bill

§ Mr. Andrenn F. Bennett (Denton and Reddish)

On a point of order. Mr. Deputy Speaker. I wish to raise two points, the first of which is on the procedure on the Bill.

I am sure that you will agree, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it is an extremely unusual procedure for a Bill to start in the House in 1984 and for us to continue to consider it now. You will further agree that for some of that time delay occurred as a result of Labour Members objecting to the principle. But for more than 12 months the Bill made no progress as a result of a decision by the promoters not to press for time for the Bill to continue. The result is that the Bill was introduced in 1984, had its Second Reading in 1985, and was considered in Committee in 1986.

The information put to that Committee is obviously out of date. In particular, the company that originally started to promote the Bill has been taken over and many of the officials who gave evidence to the Committee are no longer able to represent the company, so there must be considerable doubt about some of their evidence. We are now supposed to consider the Bill on the basis of the evidence from the report of that Committee, when clearly circumstances have changed.

At the end of Committee proceedings nothing was done except to table two carry-over motions, so now the Bill is returned to us. We are halfway through consideration and there are considerable difficulties in recapping the evidence given to the Committee because of the change of ownership of the company and changing circumstances, such as the progress made on the Channel Tunnel Bill.

Will you also consider, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that we now have a different elected body. Many hon. Members of the present House could not consider the earlier proceedings. It is possible for them to check on the debates in this Chamber, but as I understand it a transcript of the evidence given in Committee is not easily available. Therefore, it is extremely difficult for new hon. Members to get the historic information.

This is an unsatisfactory procedure. I understand that the House has set up a Committee to consider private business. Mr. Deputy Speaker, you may feel that, rather than give a ruling now, it would be better to refer the procedure of this Bill to that Committee for it to consider whether this is the way in which legislation on private business should be considered.

My second point is that when our proceedings were suspended—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker)

Order. I had better deal with one point at a time. I remind the hon. Gentleman that the motion that enables us to consider the Bill was approved by the House. Therefore, our proceedings today are completely in order.

§ Mr. Bob Cryer (Bradford, South)

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am a fairly new Member and I seek your guidance because I was not in the House from 1983 to 1987.

As I understand it, on page 273, Erskine May gives us guidance that at the end of a Parliament everything before the House is quashed. I know that there has been a new Standing Order which allows business to be carried from 547 one Session to the next, but the guidance in Erskine May is to ensure that limitations are placed on Parliaments to stop one Parliament from binding all future Parliaments. Indeed, that is an important principle of our British constitution.

I seek an assurance that new hon. Members, like me, will have the opportunity to consider the Bill in a reasonable period because there are rumours that attempts will be made to force closure motions without adequate debate. I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, would not be keen on that and I appeal to you and your sense of fair play to ensure that we have a proper opportunity for consideration of the Bill. It is this Parliament, not any past Parliament, which makes the decision and we should like a proper opportunity to reflect and to make the correct decision.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

These matters will be for the occupant of the Chair at the relevant time. What the hon. Gentleman has said will, as always, be taken into account by the Chair.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I seek your guidance.

When our proceedings were suspended on 15 July 1986 we had debated a group of amendments which were designed to ensure that any application to proceed would have to be put to the Secretary of State. Following a closure motion, we voted on the first group of amendments, which was headed by a new clause. We were pleased that the new clause should be added to the Bill. However, when we started that debate on the first group of amendments the occupant of the Chair said: With this new clause it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 6 … No. 8 … No. 9 … No. 10 … and … No. 11."—[Official Report, 15 July 1986; vol. 101, c. 917.] We could not vote on those amendments because of lack of time. From looking at the selection of amendments before us now, I see that amendment No. 6—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the amendments before the House this evening and have been selected by Mr. Speaker for debate.

§ Mr. Bennett

I cannot see amendments Nos. 6, 10 and 11, but I can see amendments Nos. 8 and 9. If they have been renumbered, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I should be grateful if you could tell me the changed numbers.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I understand that the amendments to which the hon. Gentleman refers are included in the second group selected.

§ Mrs. Ann Clwyd (Cynon Valley)

I beg to move amendment No. 1, in the preamble, in page 2, leave out lines 15 to 18.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 3, in clause 3, in page 4, line 37, at end insert `and provided that the framework of the Dock Workers Employment Scheme is in no way impaired consequent on the removal of any area from the jurisdiction of the Ipswich Port Authority.'. No. 4, in page 4, line 40, leave out clause 4.

No. 41. in title, line 3, leave out from 'dock' to 'to' in line 5.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

As you know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I have a long association with this Bill going back over several months. I have heard many arguments about the Bill and have taken a keen interest in those of the promoters, particularly as they were major contributors to the Conservative party. I am afraid that they appear since to have ceased their contributions, but, over a long period of time, we heard some of the arguments of the promoters of the Bill and of those who objected to its passage.

The Bill has some critical repercussions that affect trade unions and employment in registered ports, even though its provisions relate particularly to the ports of Felixstowe and Ipswich. If the Bill became law it would have repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. It is important not to lose sight of that when we are discussing the Bill tonight.

In its expansion up the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. If it acquires that new area, the company will be taken into an area of jurisdiction which, at present, belongs to the Ipswich port authority. That expansion will take a chunk out of the Ipswich port authority, so the Bill, in effect, alters the boundaries. Whereas Ipswich is a scheme port — that is relevant — Felixstowe is not. [Interruption.] Therefore, the expansion takes place into an established area of registered dock work.

§ Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours (Workington)

Did my hon. Friend hear the intervention from the Conservative Front Bench referring to the dock labour scheme? It appears that Conservative Members are very sensitive to these matters. Could it be that they are unwilling to underwrite by reasonable law and decent regulations the working conditions of men and women in this country, and that they wish to extend the principle which was turned around 70 or 80 years ago in this country?

§ Mrs. Clwyd

My hon. Friend has made an interesting point. I heard the intervention to which he referred, and I think that I should respond to it.

Perhaps the suggestion is that I have some pecuniary interest in the Bill. As the intervention made the point that it was something to do with the Transport and General Workers Union, I should make it clear at the outset that my interest in the Transport and General Workers Union is not a monetary one. I am sponsored by that union but I do not receive one penny in my pocket. If one looks at the register of Members' interests, one will see that, unlike those of some Conservative Members, my interests are registered in full; I want to encourage other hon. Members to do the same.

§ Mr. Peter Snape (West Bromwich, East)

While my hon. Friend is accurately and correctly refuting some of the sedentary allegations that are being made from the Conservative Benches, will she draw the attention of the House to the debate on this matter that was held on 14 July 1986, when an impassioned plea against the Bill was heard from the hon. Member for Southampton, Test (M r. Hill), who is not a member of the Transport and General Workers Union and who has never been seen in the front of a demonstration for better working conditions for dockers in Southampton or anywhere else?

§ Mrs. Clwyd

I thank my hon. Friend for his interesting point. It has apparently silenced Conservative Members; it must have wounded them deeply.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett (Pembroke)

Is the hon. Lady aware that in the last general election my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), in whose constituency this dock is, had posters put up for him by the dockers there? That shows what their real interest and concern is.

§ Mr. Snape

It goes to show.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Betty Boothroyd)

Order. It would be helpful to the whole House and to me if the hon. Lady could now deal with the amendment.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

That would be a great pleasure, Madam Deputy Speaker. The point about the scheme ports is relevant to the argument. It means, in a nutshell, that if the Bill goes through, it will be used as the political vehicle to roll back the dock labour scheme without any negotiations. As far as I am aware, this is the first time that the scheme has been breached unilaterally in this way. That sets a bad precedent. Port workers in Ipswich certainly take that view, and the Transport and General Workers Union, which has a national policy of supporting and extending registered dock work, believes the same.

§ Mr. Michael Irvine (Ipswich)

Might I remind the hon. Lady that the electorate of Ipswich at the last general election removed from the House of Commons the principal opponent of the Bill and substituted for him an hon. Member—me—who, during the election campaign, included in his campaign literature strong arguments in favour of the Bill. The people of Ipswich have therefore had the chance to pronounce their verdict on the Bill, and they have done so in its favour.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

I am sure that the electorate of Ipswich will have cause to rue the day that it elected the hon. Gentleman. When we have the next general election he will find that his slim majority was nothing to boast about at this stage in his brief career in the House.

The port of Ipswich and its workers operate under the scheme. That means that the authority has to be registered with the dock labour board. Dock workers, too, have to be registered, and have negotiated protection against redundancies. A negotiated disciplinary procedure operates under the scheme, as does a minimum wage—I am sure that there is not universal acclaim for that from Conservative Members. However, the minimum wage operates there, and there is also pay if work is temporarily not available.

No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it cannot operate non-scheme work in one part of its port and scheme work in another. However, that ignores the fact that the national scheme is being eroded unilaterally, without the semblance of any agreement. That has repercussions for ports throughout the whole of Britain. No doubt Felixstowe will argue that it needs to be entirely non-scheme to be competitive. That omits the fact that many scheme ports in Britain—there are about 80 of them— substantially improved their competitive performance. Some of those are east coast and Wash ports, such as Great Yarmouth, Ipswich, Lowestoft, King's Lynn and Wisbech.

This debate will doubtless range into general arguments about registered dock work and the scheme. For the sake of the Conservative hon. Members who may not be fully aware precisely of how the 1967 dock work employment scheme operates, and how important a development it was for dockers in this country, I shall briefly remind the 550 House of the position. I shall not list all 80 ports—that would be stretching your tolerance too far, Madam Deputy Speaker—but I shall list some of the areas of the country where those ports are, because it is important to show their spread throughout Britain. There are scheme ports in Tyne and Wear, Middlesbrough and Hartlepool, in Hull and Goole, Grimsby and Immingham, and in the Wash ports; there are scheme ports in East Anglia and in London, in Medway and Swale on the south coast, and in Bristol on the Severn; in south Wales—I know most of these ports, as might be expected—there are Barry and Cardiff, Penarth, Newport, Port Talbot and Swansea. I think that every Welsh Member recognises how important it is to the dockers who work in those ports that they are registered under the dock workers employment scheme. There are scheme ports in the Liverpool area, Manchester, Fleetwood, Cumbria, west Scotland, Plymouth—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

In Workington.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

—in Workington, Cornwall, Aberdeen and east Scotland. I hope that Conservative Members, when they see the scheme's benefits, will want to support its continuation and to promote the non-erosion of the scheme in other ports.

The scheme's essential element is limitation of entry to dock work through the requirements that port employers engaged in dock work should be registered with the National Dock Labour Board and that dock workers should be registered and through the restriction on dock workers to he registered dock workers. In addition, under the Docks and Harbours Act 1966, port employers in scheme ports are required to obtain a licence before engaging or employing a person as a dock worker. The scheme covers the centralised hiring and allocation of dock workers, a guaranteed minimum weekly wage for dock workers, a temporary unattached dock workers' payment for attendance for work if none is available, and a disciplinary procedure in relation to registered dock workers.

Dock workers can be dismissed from the industry only with the approval of the local dock labour board. Once registered, a dock worker—anyone who believes in good employment practice must support this scheme—is likely to enjoy absolute job security, unless he is convicted of misconduct or opts for voluntary severance under the relatively generous terms offered by the National Dock Labour Board.

The cost of the scheme is met from a levy of 3 per cent. on registered employers' gross wages bill. Additional Government grants and loans have been made available —I pay tribute to the Government for that—to assist in the financing of severance schemes, the latter having become an essential instrument in combating overmanning in the industry.

§ Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend accept that Conservative Members cannot object to the principle, which she has just outlined, under which a levy is paid to provide enhanced redundancy payments? They support a similar scheme for steel workers which is provided under the European Coal and Steel Community programme and is supported through the treaty of Paris by the Common Market, which they avidly support, so Conservative Members cannot take issue with my hon. Friend on the point of principle.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

That is an important point. Those of us who know what happened with large-scale redundancies in the steel industry know how important that protection was. Given that there may be even more redundancies in the steel industry following what we have heard today in the House, people in all parts of the country are grateful for that provision.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett

The hon. Lady is talking about a comparison between the dock labour scheme and Felixstowe. What are the wages in the Felixstowe docks? Are they higher or lower than in other docks in the scheme?

§ Mrs. Clwyd

I do not think that that is particularly relevant to the point that we are discussing. My argument is that there should not be an erosion of the policy which successive Governments have approved. The policy should not be eaten into by this kind of hack-door, hole-in-the-wall approach to the problem throughout Britain. If that happens with this Bill, similar things will happen throughout Britain. That will be a negative development in the proper planning of port provision in Britain. I shall develop my argument and I am sure that the new Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) will gradually come to applaud our point of view.

The numbers covered by the dock workers employment scheme have fallen from a peak of 82,500 in 1951 to 12,438 in 1984, the last year for which figures were available. Employers are seeking 2,000 more voluntary redundancies over the next few years. Reductions in requirements for dock workers generally are due to a variety of factors, such as containerisation and the development of roll-on, roll-off facilities at ports. A reduction in the requirement for registered dock workers is attributable to business preference shifting in geographical terms from traditional ports such as Liverpool to those in the south-east, nearer foreign markets, and to some businesses taking their trade to non-scheme ports, which are often cheaper.

Non-scheme ports are often cheaper because the port employers are not paying the DWES levy and because the earnings of non-registered dock workers are less than those of registered dock workers.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

That is the answer for the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett).

§ Mrs. Clwyd

That is his answer.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

The hon. Gentleman is not listening.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

He is not listening because he does not want to know the answer. He would have heard it had he waited just a little while.

The advantages of the DWES must be seen in their historical context when pre-DWES workers were without employment protection and often had a precarious existence. Consequently, importers and exporters suffered because the labour necessary for loading or unloading was not always available. Anyone who remembers the dockyard schemes when dockers were queuing and scrabbling for jobs would not want to see a return to that unedifying sight.

Protection for dock workers still exists, but the decline in dock work, the financial costs of the DWES, and difficulties encountered in reducing manning have 552 contributed to undermining the position of scheme port employers vis-à-vis employers in non-scheme ports, who are unfettered by any restrictions on the use of labour.

The Bill gives added strength to the port employers' long-term ambition to whittle down the numbers and the geographical areas that come under the scheme's jurisdiction. I maintain that, if' there is to be such a reduction. it should be within a national strategic framework, not in the way proposed in the Bill. Many similar measures in the Bill, such as those dealing with environmental policy, should be more properly discussed in the House by the responsible Ministers, rather than by bringing such a Bill in through the back door.

For many months, the Opposition have vigorously opposed this legislation. There were long sittings in Committee and eventually the Bill was considered on the Floor of the House. Because of various difficulties within the Government, we are dealing with it yet again. The principles which we enunciated at the beginning of the debate on the Bill still hold good. They are that environmental policy, ports policy and employment policy should not be determined in this way. Certain basic questions about the advisability of extending this type of scheme have never been properly answered. The need for the Bill has never been properly explained in Committee, on the Floor of the House or in written answers from the relevant Ministers. I hope that the Minister w ill not support bringing such important policy decisions forward in this hole-in-the-wall way. I appeal to Conservative Members to show their objection to the Bill and to support the amendment.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I support the amendment. Perhaps I should start by making it clear to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) that, while Ken Weetch fought hard against the Bill and for the interests of the people of Ipswich, who did not want extra traffic passing their homes or the disruption of the port facilities, Opposition Members also expounded much wider principles involved in the Bill. Many of us felt that the destruction of the natural habitat of wild birds was a matter of major national concern, as were the attempts to over-provide this country with container port facilities— particularly in view of the Channel tunnel proposals— and the attempt to disrupt the dock workers employment scheme. Those matters were of concern not merely to Ipswich and Felixtowe but to the country as a whole.

Opposition Members have always argued that for legislation such as this the private Bill procedure is inappropriate, first, because the procedures for debates in the House are unsuitable and, secondly, because it does not give people in the local community a proper opportunity to argue their case, as a planning inquiry would. Furthermore, the procedure lacks the vigorous discipline normally applied to Government or private Members' Bills which have to get through the House in one 12-month period. Earlier, on a point of order, I referred to the farcical nature of a procedure that allows us to be debating a Bill introduced in 1984—so that people petition against it on the basis of circumstances pertaining in 1984 — three years later, when many of those circumstances have changed dramatically.

The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) asked about the comparative rates of pay for dock workers inside and outside the scheme. He should examine more carefully the reasons why the dock work scheme was introduced.

553 Some people in the scheme have made some sacrifices in the rates of pay that they enjoy but that has all been a part of the attempt to introduce an orderly dock policy and orderly employment arrangements as distinct from those that applied before the scheme. Before the scheme, the conditions and the exploitation of workers in the docks were appalling.

§ Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend agree that, when comparing union and non-union labour, one should remember that union labour is essential? Without union-organised labour there is no incentive to keep rates of pay higher. As soon as trade union membership is taken away, the whole thing sinks. For example, Marks and Spencer is anxious to deter people from joining a trade union, but were it not for the fact that USDAW negotiates basic rates of pay Marks and Spencer would not have sought to pay above those rates to discourage people from joining the union.

§ Mr. Bennett

I thank my hon. Friend for that helpful intervention, and I look forward to further interventions from him, as he has considerable knowledge of employment legislation.

Before the dock labour scheme was introduced, people had to turn up each day in the hope that they would get work. That would depend on factors such as whether their face fitted and on whether they had a reputation for behaviour that suited the employer. On many occasions many more people turned up than were likely to be employed and wages varied substantially from day to day and from week to week. Those conditions were always intolerable, but as dock work declined and containerisation came in so that the number of people employed fell, they would have become more so had it not been for the dock work scheme. I pay tribute to the scheme because the scheme and the redundancy payments made available through it allowed an orderly rundown of the numbers employed in the industry to take account the new practices and the use of containers.

7.45 pm

It is a worrying and deplorable fact that, while the cost of the scheme has been borne by all the registered ports and their workers, one or two ports have managed to get a free ride and avoid any collective responsibility. Felixstowe is one of the ports that got that free ride and attempted to take work away from the other ports. Anyone who was concerned to see justice for those who work in the dock industry would have applauded the scheme rather than attacking the ports involved in it.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

Would not the hon. Gentleman accept that, in broad terms, dock labour in Felixstowe is better paid and more secure than in most other ports and that if Felixstowe has succeeded in attracting more traffic it has done so because it is more competitive and people prefer to go there?

§ Mr. Bennett

I do not accept those arguments. I repeat that Felixstowe got a free ride, whereas all the other ports contributed to ensuring that the industry was organised in a reasonable way and that workers were not suddenly thrown on the scrap heap with no redundancy payment or exploited in other ways. If, on occasions, their rates for handling cargo were slightly higher and their rates of pay 554 lower than in Felixstowe, it was because those ports took collective responsibility for the industry. It is worrying that Felixstowe seems to be proud of the fact that it showed no collective concern for dockers anywhere else or for other ports but simply hoped that it could prosper at the expense of others.

I know that Conservative Members like the idea of one person making a profit out of others' misery and suffering. However, Opposition Members — and, I think, the majority of people in this country—do not believe that that is the way to behave. That is the basis of our major objection to the Bill. It represents a further attempt to improve conditions for a small group of people involved with the Felixstowe Dock and Harbour Company and those who have taken it over and to allow them possibly to make further profits. Perhaps it will result in extra jobs in Felixstowe, although I understand that on the grapevine, at least, there is considerable concern that there will be a substantial number of redundancies at Felixstowe in the not-too-distant future. When economic circumstances make operations less viable, Felixstowe will discover that it would have been better to participate in the dock labour scheme which would have offered an organised way in which to run down the numbers employed.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett

I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman's argument. The number of people employed in the registered docks has decreased, whereas at Felixstowe, which is not in the scheme, there was a 36 per cent. increase in the number of people employed between 1976 and 1983. If the Bill goes through, there will he further job opportunities — possibly a further 1,000. What is more, so far from being a dock without trade union representation, Felixstowe has 100 per cent. Transport and General Workers Union membership.

§ Mr. Bennett

The hon. Gentleman has made several points in his intervention to which I shall be delighted to reply. First, there has been a substantial change in dock practice. When I was a youngster, I used to go to Manchester docks from time to time, where a substantial amount of cargo was manhandled out of ships' holds. It was often passed along a human chain from the hold on to the deck and then on to the dockside. In some instances, carts were used to take the produce away to warehouses. Bags of flour and other produce were taken out of ships in that way. Since then, there has been a major revolution in the way in which cargo is handled. It is no longer handled physically by workers on the dock. In most instances, there is containerisation, the containers being moved by mechanical means that require considerable skill. This great change in the method of handling has led to a dramatic fall in the number of dockers required to load and unload.

How was that dramatic decrease in employment achieved? There was no free-for-all in which many dockers lost their jobs without compensation with no alternative work being offered. A dock labour scheme was introduced that brought about an orderly decline in the number of dockers employed. It produced reasonable compensation for those who lost their jobs and ensured that Britain had a modern dock system with modern handling equipment. It ensured also that the few workers who remained in the docks were able to be paid a decent wage. I contend that the scheme enabled those things to happen.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

Does my hon. Friend agree that the intervention of the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) is most surprising when we consider that unemployment in Pembroke is among the highest in Wales? His lack of sensitivity towards the problems of the unemployed is highlighted by his intervention. It provides further evidence of the north-south divide and the inability of Conservative Members to understand that we want to spread employment more evenly throughout Britain rather than concentrating it once again in the south-east of England.

§ Mr. Bennett

I am grateful to my hon. Friend for her intervention, but I hope that she will not discourage the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) from intervening. I think that the hon. Gentleman may serve a useful purpose in illustrating the arguments that are being advanced by both sides of the House.

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett

I assure the hon. Gentleman that I do not intend to join him in his filibuster. In other words, I do not intend to participate further in the debate. However, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) has referred to me and unemployment in the industry, I shall tell the House that my great grandfather, Tom Mann, was one of the leaders of the 1889 dock strike, when conditions were appalling. We are talking now, however, of a modern industry and not of conditions 100 years ago.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

What is the unemployment rate in Pembroke?

§ Mr. Nicholas Bennett

We are talking about a modern industry that uses containerisation and we are looking for more jobs. The hon. Lady talks about my constituency and high unemployment, and she is right to say that there is high unemployment in Pembroke. I would be delighted to have a company such as the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company at Milford Haven, and I would be delighted to bring jobs there. I do not believe that artificial restrictions and restraints on trade at Felixstowe will help my constituents. I want to see a company in my constituency that is something like the Felixstowe company.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I am not sure whether the hon. Gentleman has much hope of getting the likes of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company in his constituency. It would be difficult geographically to justify that, and there is the much more serious problem of overcapacity within the dock system.

Since the Bill first appeared before the House and our discussions this evening, we have seen the Monopolies and Mergers Commission's report on the P and O takeover of European Ferries, and a substantial section of the report is devoted to over-capacity. I have argued already that a dock labour scheme is necessary if we are to cope with over-capacity. When there is over-capacity, too much dock space, too many pieces of equipment for the unloading of containers and too many workers in the industry, it is crazy that we should be confronted with a Bill that is seeking to increase capacity. If capacity is increased at Felixstowe, it is inevitable that capacity will have to he reduced elsewhere. If the reduction in capacity elsewhere means that we end up with unused dock areas that cannot be used by wild birds that have been chased off the marshes and tidal flats at Felixstowe, wildlife will suffer accordingly.

556 Conservative Members say that it is ridiculous that we cannot have extra jobs at Felixstowe without losing them elsewhere. Is the hon. Member for Ipswich arguing that the volume of trade and dock activity can be increased overall? Account must be taken of the Channel tunnel development and the fact that volumes of materials entering and leaving the United Kingdom have tended to reduce although their value has tended to increase. This means that the likelihood of extra dockland capacity being needed is extremely remote. We have over-capacity, and it is likely that we shall see it increase because of the miniaturisation of so many products. It is likely that many containers will pass through the Channel tunnel rather than being shipped to ports.

It will be interesting to hear from Conservative Members whether they can give a guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe. The rumour that is current at Felixstowe is that the labour force will face redundancies very soon. The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. Is he prepared to guarantee that there will not be redundancies at Felixstowe in the next six months? I shall be pleased to give way if he is prepared to give that undertaking. I am sure that the Felixstowe dock workers will be delighted if someone from the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company or P and O were prepared to give the guarantee of no redundancies at Felixstowe.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

Perhaps my hon. Friend should be clearer and say specifically that he addressed his comment to the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine). Will he repeat what he said? He asked the hon. Member for Ipswich to give a guarantee to his constituents that there would be no redundancies at a particular dock in his constituency. The hon. Gentleman has refused to give that undertaking to the House and his constituents.

§ Mr. Irvine

rose—

§ Mr. Bennett

It seems that the hon. Member for Ipswich would like to intervene.

§ Mr. Irvine

Of course I am not in a position to give guarantees. However, the hon. Gentleman should remember that the United Kingdom is now the fastest growing economy within Europe. A growing economy is the way to generate trade, and if trade is generated at the rate that has prevailed over the past three or four years, and if other docks are prepared to be as efficient, productive and hard working as the Felixstowe dock, there will be general prosperity.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

rose—

§ Mr. Bennett

I understand that my hon. Friend wishes to intervene.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

The intervention of the hon. Member for Ipswich was important. The hon. Gentleman knows that one of the responsibilities and duties of a Member of Parliament is to keep in contact at every stage with companies in his constituency—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The duties of a Member of Parliament are not relevant to the amendment. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who has the Floor, should confine himself to the amendment.

§ Mr. Cryer

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. This has been a useful and important 557 interchange, but I am worried that a Conservative Member has left his place to talk to other Conservative Members who have been seeking information. I hope that there is no attempt to intimidate Conservative Members and to prevent them from participating in the debate. One of the important principles of this place is that hon. Members should be free to air their views without any intimidation, arm twisting or any other influence to stop a free exchange of views within debate.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Any intimidation between hon. Members has nothing to do with the Chair. There will be no intimidation so far as I am concerned. Every hon. Member who wishes to speak will be called.

§ Mr. Bennett

It is regrettable that some Conservative Members are discouraged from intervening. If the hon. Member for Pembroke wishes me to give way again, I shall be happy to do so if he stands, but I shall not do so if he remains in a sedentary position. It would be unfortunate if the advice of the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was to shout rather than to ask to intervene.

Government Members are promoting the extension of the Felixstowe dock, an area of outstanding natural habitat, on the basis that they clearly see the need for such expansion. One of the fundamental things that they should have done before they signed up with the promoters was to ask whether there would be any redundancies either at Ipswich or at Felixstowe. They should give a guarantee that there will be no redundancies at Ipswich or Felixstowe. We know that they cannot guarantee that there will be no redundancies elsewhere because of the existing surplus port capacity and the likelihood that, if the proposals go ahead, there will be even greater surplus capacity. I realise that Conservative members are not prepared to guarantee to the people of Pembroke and other parts of the country that there will be no dock redundancies, but I am amazed that they are not prepared to guarantee that there will be no redundancies in Ipswich or Felixstowe docks. If there are to be redundancies, I am amazed at their objection to the docks being within the dock labour scheme that will enable an orderly framework for such redundancies to occur.

It is sad that we have to debate the dock labour scheme when discussing an amendment to a private Bill dealing with one dockland area rather than being able to discuss legislation in a national context and examining whether the scheme is working well, how it can be amended and how we can ensure that all docks in the country participate in the scheme and make their contribution to the orderly reduction of manpower within the industry, rather than allow one or two people to opt out and freeload by not taking part in the scheme.

It would have been useful to look at the way in which the scheme operates within the rest of East Anglia and satisfy ourselves that the expansion at Felixstowe will not have a detrimental affect on Great Yarmouth, Ipswich or Lowestoft. It is also important to try to find out whether P and O has the resources to fund the development. In Committee, the then directors of European Ferries assured us that they were determined to go ahead with the expansion, that they had the resources to do it, and that it would take place in the near future.

558 In regard to the last group of amendments, we were told that it would take place so quickly that our proposals for a safeguard—that it would have to go to the Secretary of State before the development could take place—were unnecessary. It was argued that the company was waiting to go ahead. We quickly realised that European Ferries was not in quite the financial position that it had led the Committee to believe. It was in a difficult financial position, and a takeover emerged.

Rumour suggests that P and O has not been over-impressed by the way in which the Felixstowe docks were managed and is looking for considerable change. There seems to be some doubt about whether it has the money to develop the proposed dock, particularly when the company has surplus capacity in other docks around the country, as the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report suggested. There is a strong possibility that it does not intend to carry out the development but that it wants the option simply to have the Bill so that it can try to sell off Felixstowe dock and that, when it sells it, it can claim that it is a slightly more attractive asset because there is the possibility that, at some future date, someone will want to develop the tidal areas and extend the dock. There is no certainty that the company wants to continue with the development.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

Since the matter that the hon. Gentleman raised relates to the promoters of the Bill, may I say that I had the honour to serve as its promoter in the House. Before agreeing to resume promotion of the Bill in the House, I asked to see the chairman of P and O. I wanted to satisfy myself that the new owners of Felixstowe dock wanted to continue with the Bill and had the means to do so. I was totally satisfied by the chairman's personal assurances that that was the wish of the owners of Felixstowe dock and that resources were available. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not disseminate rumours that he now knows to be untrue.

§ Mr. Bennett

I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman has assured us that the chairman of P and O is determined that the development will go ahead and that the rumours that it is trying to sell the Felixstowe dock and that there is no prospect of it going ahead on the basis that it is not prepared to invest the money are untrue.

§ Mr. Cryer

Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that Sir Freddie Laker, the chairman of a large aircraft company, gave similar assurances only a couple of days before Laker Airways went bust?

§ Mr. Bennett

I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention.

We had all sorts of assurances from European Ferries that it was in a position to go ahead with the development. It was quickly taken over, and one got a different impression of its financial viability. I refer to the report of the Mergers and Monopolies Commission. Obviously, I happily accept that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds sought and received such an undertaking.

The House may still have a little doubt about the matter, but it will be extremely reassuring for the people who work at Felixstowe dock to be guaranteed that they are not likely to be subject to a sell-out and that their jobs will remain. I noticed that there was no undertaking that there would be no redundancies. Again, as the promoter, if he had wished to allay such fears, the hon. Gentleman 559 would have jumped up quickly and made it absolutely clear that there was no prospect of redundancies at Felixstowe. We can only draw our own conclusions if he is not prepared to give that undertaking. Perhaps he did not ask the chairman of P and O for an undertaking with regard to redundancies. I should have thought that he would have pursued that matter, since that rumour, together with the one about the company's future, are going around.

Did the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds ask P and O what its proposal was in regard to Southampton? It has considerable opportunities for expansion in Southampton. Did he find out what the balance would be between the ports of Felixstowe and Southampton? The implications of the Channel tunnel development certainly suggest that Southampton might become a more attractive port for container ships. They could call at Southampton to unload, using the Channel tunnel, rather than unloading at Felixstowe. No doubt P and O carefully examined such investment possibilities.

It still seems that, if P and O is concerned about the best interests of the docks and their operations in this country, it should not he too unhappy about having a dock workers' scheme extended to those ports of the development which come within the existing area of the Ipswich dock. That is basically the Opposition's argument in favour of the amendments. I suspect that my hon. Friends wish to participate in the debate, so I shall conclude my remarks in support of the amendments.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

I do not profess to know much about this matter, and perhaps that makes me uniquely qualified to speak in the debate. My objections to the Bill arise from what happened a year and a half ago, when its promoters adopted tactics that were unbecoming to Parliament to try to secure its passage through a Private Bill Committee of the House. They know what I am talking about. I am sure that they are here today somewhere in the House, and they will remember that I made a point of visiting the Committee during its proceedings to see what was happening. They will know how people were appointed to that Committee. They will know that many of us objected in the strongest terms to the way in which it was presumed that Members of Parliament could he placed on a Committee and used to push through a Bill that could have been pressed in other ways.

As a result of that incident, we hope that the entire procedure will be changed. I am told that a Committee will be set up to examine the possibility of changing the procedure and, to that extent, the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has been more than successful, because it has contributed to ending a practice which many of us believed to be wrong.

The hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Bennett) made several interesting points. I shall address one of them before I venture into the body of my modest contribution. It relates to wages, salaries and conditions. The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Ipswich (Mr. Irvine) suggested that the workers in the new port would be better off than those who currently work at Ipswich. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman suggested that those who work at Felixstowe now are better off than those who work at Ipswich.

§ Mr.Irvine

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

If that is not the case I stand to be corrected, but I thought that was what he said. I thought that his intervention was designed to prose to the House that the workers in the new dock company or in the expanded Felixstowe company would be better off than those at Ipswich.

That is not my understanding, and the hon. Gentleman's predecessor told us repeatedly that that was not the case. He said that they would be worse off, and he pointed to the representations made by the trade unions on these matters. The trade union briefs which my hon. Friends may have received today in no way argue the case for the company. We must presume that trade unions, by instinct, set out to protect the wages and conditions of the workers whom they represent. I must assume that, in the briefs which they have provided to those of us who take an interest in these matters, they are putting an objective case when they say that they do not want the development to go ahead in this form.

The trade unions give many reasons for their view. One is that the development of new container handling facilities in the United Kingdom while the present surplus capacity exists is completly unnecessary and will undoubtedly generate more unemployment, which will, under the current arrangements between the Government and the National Association of Port Employers, mean an initial cost to the taxpayer by way of severence and redundancy payments and the ongoing cost of unemployment benefits. Those are not my words, but those of the trade unions, which appear to oppose what is happening.

As a matter of background, they say—

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

Who says?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

The Transport and General Workers Union. The hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) seems to wish to intervene, Madam Deputy Speaker. Perhaps you will invite him to do so.

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

I do not invite hon. Members to speak. They seek to catch my eye.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

In that case, Madam Deputy Speaker, you will understand it if I ignore the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds.

According to the union, the cargo handling services provided by British ports have been drastically reduced since 1967. The most prominent of those ports are Liverpool, Hull, Glasgow, London and Bristol. The union says: The loss of jobs of registered dock workers has also been reflected in job losses to the other non-registered workers in the industry. The port employers and port authorities associated directly with these ports are at this time seeking to reduce the number of workers both registered and non-registered because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

My hon. Friend will be aware that the whole case for the Felixstowe development is the contention that traffic will continue to grow. Is he aware that that contention is not backed by any information based on the volume of container traffic that will be carried through the Channel tunnel? Is he aware that we have never been given an estimate of how much container traffic will go through the Channel tunnel, and does he agree that the case for national need has not been made out?

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

All I know is that I have not received any of the evidence that one would have thought the promoters would submit to hon. Members before the debate. Perhaps the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds will give us the information to which my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) referred. Once again, we are being refused information which the House clearly recognises is important to the debate.

I am interested in the phrase, because of under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities. As I understand it, it means that some cargo handling facilities in the United Kingdom are under-utilised. I understand the phrase "under-utilisation" to mean available for use but not being used. Therefore, we must assume that if this development took place, it would further aggravate the current under-utilisation of existing cargo handling facilities within the United Kingdom. The Minister was looking at me most attentively when I made my case, and then he shook his head. From that, I understand that he believes that what I am saying is of interest, but he does not agree with it. Perhaps the Minister will get to his feet and clarify the position for me, because it might help me in my later comments.

§ The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell)

I did not want to intervene in the debate now, but I was hoping to catch your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker, fairly soon. I was listening attentively to the hon. Gentleman. It is not self-evident that providing a capacity in a part of the country where there is no demand will ensure that demand is created when, in another part of the country, there is demand that one is seeking to suppress. The danger is that what does not go to Felixstowe will go to Rotterdam, not to the west country ports.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

The Minister has spoken of providing capacity in parts of the country where there is no demand. However, as I understand it, the phrase under-utilisation of the existing cargo handling facilities does not refer to the prospect of creating further capacity in other parts of the country. It relates to existing capacity which is not being utilised. I put it to the Minister; if that capacity exists, why not use it?

§ Mr. David Mitchell

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

Again the Minister shakes his head. I believe that his policy is to ensure the under-utilisation of capacity, for reasons which I do not quite understand.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

Does my hon. Friend agree that, given the evidence that the Minister has failed to produce, the Bill seems to be—

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. I do not think that it is a practice that we would wish to follow for a Member to go to the Chair to express views which he should express during the course of the debate. We have repeatedly asked—

§ Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. It is perfectly in order for any Member of the House to approach the Chair, and that is not a point of order.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

Does my hon. Friend agree that the Bill appears to be introduced solely in the interests of the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company, and not in the national interest as the promoters have tried to say in Committee and elsewhere? Their case has failed.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend is right. This whole affair is riddled with interests — people and organisations. That interest may be represented by the contribution of the company to the Conservative party —that fact was only drawn out during the proceedings on the Bill. My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley was a member of that Committee.

I apologise profusely to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for presuming that the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) was raising matters which he would otherwise raise in the debate. Clearly, I was mistaken. As invariably when I am mistaken, I apologise, and I apologise to the hon. Member for Bury St. Edmunds for presuming that he was raising a matter, but perhaps he would care to raise it—

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths

indicated dissent.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

Obviously not.

I wish to deal with the background to this scheme as it relates to the Felixstowe proposals. Over the years debate has taken place about the lack of a national ports policy. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley referred to that.

There is a need for a national ports policy to ensure that where redundancies must take place they do so within an agreement between the Government, trade unions and the promoters of the particular ports. No such agreement currently exists in the United Kingdom. Such a national policy is needed for plans to develop the port industry. There is also an urgent need for new port developments to have regard to existing, available port facilities. Government direction should be given to developments of that nature. Clearly there is no Government consideration of existing available port facilities. Indeed, when the Minister intervened he was unable to suggest the existence of agreement between port authorities and trade unions on these matters. If I am wrong, I am sure that the Minister will intervene again.

The effects of containerisation, roll-on/roll-off and unitised cargo have already reduced the registered dock labour force from approximately 65,000 in 1967 to 12,000 at the present time. That represents a major sacrifice by our dock workers. Gone are the days when there was industrial action in every port in the country because of the inflexibility of the employers and the lack of understanding of the need for reasonable working conditions and indeed a guaranteed week for port workers. One would have thought that the changes that the Government are proposing and those changes which the port authorities are promoting would take into account the sacrifice of those dock workers and ensure the widest possible consultation with workers in particular ports, and specifically in the ports that we are debating today.

An equal loss of jobs has occurred within the non-registered labour force and in associated companies in the immediate vicinity of ports and docks. Government grants and loans under various Finance Acts have provided the money to pay for the cost of severence and redundancies. In the ports of Liverpool and London those costs amounted to £360 million. However, previously people were more willing to accept unemployment and substantial redundancy pay when there was alternative employment available. That is not the case today. Therefore, there is a national reluctance on the part of people employed in the docks to take a risk—if I may use that term—and place 563 their employment in jeopardy. A national scheme that underwrites the right to work and ensures some continuity of employment is obviously a major consideration when the trade unions consider the Bill and the proposals of P and O.

The recent decision by the Government to increase the assistance for severence and redundancy costs by £140 million suggests that they are convinced that more job losses are necessary. To what extent are the promoters of the Bill aware of the inevitable job losses that will occur despite the undertakings that some have given as to possible job creation? The promoters talk on the one hand of job creation, but on the other they plan to increase the amount of money available for redundancy. Some double talk appears to be taking place.

The use of the additional £140 million facility will include the removal of a debt of £45.5 million outstanding from the National Dock Labour Board that arose from previous severance costs in ports other than London and Liverpool. Part of the money will also be used for future severance costs in all ports until 31 March 1988 on a reducing scale. That started on 31 October 1985 at 100 per cent. of costs; it reduced to 75 per cent. from 31 March 1986, and has gone down to 50 per cent. for the final period until 31 March next year.

Should any employer decide to deregister during the two and a half year period, the whole of the cost of severing his registered workers will be met by the Government. Therefore, the Government are obviously bending over backwards to ensure that moneys are available. It seems to me that the Government are working to an unofficial policy of running down certain ports, making redundancies and even extending the tentacles of those port authorities that wish to operate outside the national dock scheme and thereby undermine the conditions of employment that have been built up over the years.

§ Mrs. Clwyd

Is my hon. Friend aware that there is no precedent in Britain for removing a small part of a dock area from that covered by the dock workers employment scheme when the remainder of that area continues to employ registered dock workers? If the Bill becomes law we will create a precedent.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

I believe that this is an appalling precedent. So that the public clearly understand what is happening, let me explain that effectively we have here two separate organisations — one operating a national scheme, with laid down minimum standards of wages and conditions, and another authority, next door, operating what the unions would describe as a "lesser scheme". The Government are backing the organisation that runs the lesser scheme by allowing it to spread its tentacles into the area where better wages and conditions exist. That undermines the better employer.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

We must be careful about the use of the term "better employer". I understand that Ipswich docks have been owned by P and O for some time. Felixstowe docks are now owned by P and O as a result of its acquisitor of European Ferries. I understand that the P and O management is very satisfied with the way in which the Ipswich docks are managed. That is a scheme port and it is extremely efficient. I understand that the 564 management was horrified when it went to Felixstowe dock and discovered the way in which it had been managed. The management were not impressed with it. Felixstowe is both outside the scheme and, I understand from P and O, is not very impressively managed either.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

When I talk about a better employer, I mean irrespective of ownership. The relationship with the trade union is underpinned by the national scheme, and that makes that port a better employer. If, as my hon. Friend says, P and O has expressed surprise at the distinction that exists, one must hope that if at some stage in the next century, the Bill is passed, P and O will seek to redress the imbalances that currently exist.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

P and O says that operations are better at Ipswich than at Felixstowe. It amazes me that we did not get a swift intervention from Conservative Members to say that they will accept the extension of the dock labour scheme to this port because it appears that it has brought about better management practices at Ipswich than at Felixstowe where the scheme does not apply.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

My hon. Friend is correct and I understand his point. Paragraph (8) of the preamble to the Bill says: It is expedient that the Dock Workers Employment Scheme 1967 should cease to relate to any part of the limits of the dock being the limits as previously defined and as further extended and redefined as aforesaid". I understand my hon. Friend to say that P and O should have sought to amend that paragraph. If it believes that what is happening in Ipswich is so good, why has it not sought to delete that and perhaps to insert a clause guaranteeing the future of the dock workers employment scheme for the whole of the dockyard operations that it intends to manage in the coming year?

§ Mr. Cryer

Does my hon. Friend accept that, strangely enough, the position might well he the reverse of maintaining good management at Ipswich, because the Monopolies and Mergers Commission report for 1986 says, on page 44, at paragraph 764, that European Ferries reported that it would be possible for P and O services from Ipswich to be moved to Felixstowe. That would remove the traffic from that port down to Felixstowe, so perhaps P and O does not care about the dock workers scheme at Ipswich, but will simply remove the traffic from that port.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

That will obviously be a problem, because if, in effect, one company has a monopoly in that part of the country it will be able to manipulate traffic to the port that best suits it.

§ Mr. Andrew F. Bennett

I think that perhaps my hon. Friend is a little out of touch with the way in which the proceedings work. At the stage at which European Ferries was making great claims for the possibility of moving trade from Ipswich to Felixstowe, it was making its own representations to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission about why the merger should go ahead. I think that it was only subsequently, when P and O took over the management, that it realised that all was not quite as well at Felixstowe as it might have been. Perhaps the possibility of a takeover and a move from Ipswich receded a little at that point. Obviously, that fear still exists for the people of Ipswich.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

It seems to be a case of horses for courses. The case that one makes seems to depend on the stage that one has reached in representations. My hon. Friend is obviously very knowledgeable in these matters, but it might well be that P and O has simply sought to change its tune because of the different conditions and the different groups that it has to convince. Whatever the case, we oppose the Bill, and I am sure that during the course of the debate we will be able further to advance and marshal all our other arguments.

§ Sir Eldon Griffiths (Bury St. Edmunds)

I am anxious to help the hon. Gentleman because I admire the diligence with which he addresses these matters. We are dealing here with a portion of the estuary which at the moment has no registered or unregistered dock workers. It is simply mud flats. No work goes on there now. The question is what would happen if the Bill were to be given passage. Therefore, there is no debate about the present functioning of either port.

§ Mr. Campbell-Savours

I understand that in its expansion of the Orwell estuary the Felixstowe Dock and Railway Company has to acquire new legal and operational limits. This will take it over into the area of jurisdiction of the Ipswich port authority.