---

Column 1118

Sackville, Tom

Sainsbury, Rt Hon Sir Timothy

Scott, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

Shaw, David (Dover)

Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)

Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian

Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)

Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)

Shersby, Sir Michael

Sims, Roger

Skeet, Sir Trevor

Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)

Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)

Smyth, The Reverend Martin

Soames, Nicholas

Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)

Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)

Spink, Dr Robert

Spring, Richard

Sproat, Iain

Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)

Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

Steen, Anthony

Stephen, Michael

Stern, Michael

Streeter, Gary

Sweeney, Walter

Sykes, John

Tapsell, Sir Peter

Taylor, Ian (Esher)

Taylor, Rt Hon John D (Strgfd)

Taylor, John M (Solihull)

Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)

Temple-Morris, Peter

Thomason, Roy

Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)

Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)

---

Column 1118

Thornton, Sir Malcolm

Thurnham, Peter

Townend, John (Bridlington)

Townsend, Cyril D (Bexl'yh'th)

Tracey, Richard

Tredinnick, David

Trend, Michael

Trotter, Neville

Twinn, Dr Ian

Vaughan, Sir Gerard

Viggers, Peter

Waldegrave, Rt Hon William

Walden, George

Walker, Bill (N Tayside)

Waller, Gary

Ward, John

Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)

Waterson, Nigel

Watts, John

Wells, Bowen

Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John

Whitney, Ray

Whittingdale, John

Widdecombe, Ann

Wiggin, Sir Jerry

Wilkinson, John

Willetts, David

Wilshire, David

Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'ld)

Wood, Timothy

Yeo, Tim

Young, Rt Hon Sir George

Tellers for the Noes: Mr. Derek Conway and Mr. Roger Knapman.

---

Column 1118

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments) and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker-- forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,

That this House welcomes the huge success of the National Lottery and the enormous sums of extra money it is raising for the Good Causes Fund to go to the arts, sport, the heritage, the caring charities and the celebration of the Millennium; believes that the operator, whose selection was endorsed by the NAO, is running the lottery efficiently and cost-effectively; congratulates the distributing bodies on making an excellent start in spreading the benefits of the Lottery throughout the land; and calls upon the Opposition to recognise this success and the opportunity it brings to improve the quality of life.

---

Column 1119

Mersey Docks and Harbour Company

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.-- [Mr. Streeter.]

10.15 pm

Mr. Eddie Loyden (Liverpool, Garston): I welcome the opportunity of raising a problem concerning the port of Liverpool and its dock workers. I declare an interest as a member of the Transport and General Workers Union for 50 years, a record of which I am proud. I served on union committees at both district and national level in the docks and waterways section. Those are my credentials for understanding the history of the docks industry. I hope that the Minister accepts that.

The dispute was brought to a head by the conduct of the employer and the deterioration of industrial relations. The House will know that the Government, through the Dock Work Act 1989, abolished the national dock labour scheme. That was done on the basis that the industry had moved ahead. It was no longer labour intensive but moving towards being more capital intensive.

However reluctantly, the dockers accepted that situation. Nevertheless, they felt, and I think that their fears were well founded, that the result of the abolition of the scheme would be a return to casual labour.

Ms Angela Eagle (Wallasey): That is what they are worried about.

Mr. Loyden: As my hon. Friend the Member for Wallasey (Ms Eagle) says, that is what they are worried about. Everything that the dock company has done recently confirms that fear.

I and my hon. Friends the Members for Wallasey, for Bootle (Mr. Benton) and for Liverpool, Riverside (Mr. Parry), met the dock company which said that it wanted casual labour. It referred to it as permanent casual labour. I do not know what that means; perhaps the Minister will be able to explain it. It must mean either permanently casual or casually permanent. I do not know which of those the company meant.

There is no doubt that the dock workers fear a return to the sort of days that I can remember. The Minister probably does not remember them. I can tell him that men in those days were treated worse than animals. They were herded into tightly packed pens. The selection of men was based on discrimination of all sorts; it could be based on religion, or on whether men had blue eyes or anything. The dignity of those men was taken from them; they were lowered to the status of animals. Men were hired, and the rest were sent home without work or wages. It was through the struggle of dock workers throughout the country that the conditions that they endured were recognised as inhuman and undeniably barbaric.

The campaign lasted throughout the century, up to and after the war. The campaigners wanted a scheme to end casualisation and give dockers the dignity enjoyed by other workers. The industry in Liverpool provided the life blood for the local economy--not only in Liverpool, but in the hinterland on both sides of the river. Liverpool's wealth grew out of that work force--dockers, seamen and others. As recently as pre-1989, that force consisted of 6,000 people; now it consists of only 500.

---

Column 1120

The Minister must understand that the events that brought the present situation to a head were not instantaneous; they had been building up as a result of poor labour relations. Let me also stress that massive support is coming from areas that no one would expect to give such support. Religious leaders have condemned the company; the Liverpool Echo --which I have never known to praise or support any striker, let alone dockers, at any time in its history--has made rousing comments about the way in which the company has handled the situation. Further support has been provided by the local community. Recently, even the head of Radio Merseyside-- [Interruption.] --I mean Radio City--said, at a dinner for business men, no less, that the company was acting like the mill owners of the 19th century. That shows the depth of feeling in Liverpool about the way in which the company has treated its dockers. These are decent men, who stayed in the docks rather than taking £35,000 and walking away. They wanted to continue to work in the docks, and they had a right to do so. Those who have met the board and the dockers have gained the impression that the company set out to ensure a disturbance, so that the men would finally go through the gate. The company could then attempt to recruit outside, abandoning responsibility for the container base so that it would be taken over and scabs would be drafted in to take the jobs. I make no apology for calling them scabs: they would undermine dock workers by walking in and working for lower wages, under the conditions that prevailed before and even after the war.

The Minister may ask what that has to do with him. The Government, however, have shares in the company; they have a responsibility to tell it--as I hope that they will--that, in return for the tranches of money that they have given for its modernisation, the company must deal with this problem, and respond to the feelings expressed by local people.

Liverpool is a successful port. It is now turning over £35 million-- the highest amount that it has turned over in its history. That has happened because dock workers have accepted the change, no matter how bitterly it has taken place, and they are the people who have created the wealth for the company. They have created the success. It is not made in offices or boardrooms. It is made by the people who work on the coal face of industry--in the docks. They are the people who have made it possible for the port to be probably the most successful in the post-war period.

I say to the Government that that position will not go away. There is now a great deal of strong feeling about the way in which the dockers have been treated. I remind the House and the Minister that the right hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Fowler), who was the Secretary of State for Employment at the time when the Dock Work Bill was passing through the House--and I have played a part in every dock Bill that has been discussed in the House since I have been a Member of Parliament--said:

"Dock work is now highly skilled specialist work that often requires the use of sophisticated machinery. It requires a permanent and well trained work force. The days when large numbers of unskilled workers assembled waiting to see if"

they were to work

"have gone for good--and everyone is glad of that. To underline that point, the employers in the present scheme ports have given an assurance that after abolition there will be no return to casual employment."--[ Official Report , 17 April 1989; Vol. 151, c. 45.]

---

Column 1121

We refer to ourselves in this place as honourable men.

Mr. George Howarth (Knowsley, North): And women.

Mr. Loyden: And women. I thank my hon. Friend.

The Secretary of State has made statements of that type and the director of the Mersey Docks and Harbour Company has made a similar statement that there would be no return to casualisation. The incident that triggered off that position occurred at a company that was set up with the consent--or agreement--of both the company and the dock workers. That was Torside.

Among the workers at that company were young men--younger than the existing age range among the dock workers--and they formed part of the company in the port of Liverpool. Five of those young men, many of whom were dockers' sons, some not, who were keen to get into dock work, keen to obtain a job in the docks, were asked--or told, I should say--to work overtime. There was a dispute about the conditions of that overtime, which resulted in the men refusing to work overtime. They were summarily dismissed--or, as we say, sacked on the spot. That was what triggered off the present position.

For several days, reconciliation was tried, but it fell on deaf ears on the dock company's part. We, as Members of Parliament, met representatives of the company and tried to instil in them the importance of what was going on. The issue was a minor matter that could have been settled at a later date.

As a result of the strength of feeling among those men, they formed a picket of the dock gates the following week. Obviously, the rest of the container base men would not cross a picket line. Dockers do not know what it means to cross a picket line--they will not do it. As a consequence, the dock company sacked the lot.

It is 1995, and we are returning to the dark days of threatened casualisation. I believe that that is a serious threat. I believe that people are entitled to work with dignity under conditions that are human, and to be part of the process of developing the industry in the way that they have.

At one time, the dockers were the butt of the jokes of some poor comedians, but they themselves have a sense of humour that no one can match and they are men, in that sense, who are proud to be dockers. They are proud of the work they do and proud of the port in which they work, and so are their families and friends and their communities.

With the indulgence of the House, I shall read a letter sent by a docker's wife on the matter. The letter states:

"I am speaking as the wife of a man who has worked on the now booming and highly profitable Liverpool Docks for 28 years, through good times and bad. He has constantly refused severance pay because he wants to work.

I do not work, I look after my elderly parents, our children are still in the education system on inadequate grants, that we have to subsidise. We are totally dependent on my husband's income and I stand firmly beside him whatever the outcome.

I am not political. The only organisations I am a paid up member of are Amnesty International and the Christmas Hamper Club. On Thursday, when the letter threatening dismissal arrived, I put it in the folder with the others. On Friday when he was sacked, I felt perversely relieved, because over the last 3-4 years, we have

---