AT THE HEART OF THE ROAD TRANSPORT INDUSTRY.

Call our Sales Team on 0208 912 2120

Discounting the Bill

20th February 1976
Page 34
Page 34, 20th February 1976 — Discounting the Bill
Close
Noticed an error?
If you've noticed an error in this article please click here to report it so we can fix it.

Which of the following most accurately describes the problem?

Keywords : Dock, Gnustep, Next

ALTHOUGH a handful of defections can make the Government's overall majority disappear, few people seemed to think that the Dock Work Bill would be defeated on the second reading. In spite of this, the margin of eight votes has been treated as a serious setback for the Opposition.

In the debate, Mr Michael Foot, Employment Secretary, • concentrated on the fears of • some of his own back-benchers that the legislation would help the Transport and General Workers Union at the expense of some smaller unions. Reassurance on this point seemed more important, or perhaps easier, than a review of the benefits to the general public.

Mr Foot may not have been able to think of any on the spur of the moment I or he had another theme in mind—refutation of the claims that businesses of every kind would be adversely affected. Whatever the soothing effect on his own supporters, he failed to convince speakers from any of the other parties or to influence the voting.

Road operators, like the many other interests concerned, and frequently in conjunction with them, will now seek to have changes introduced in the Bill while it is at the committee stage in the House of Commons. The aim will be to water the main provisions down as much as possible, and to press for better representation of the road transport industry on the bodies to be set up or inquiries instituted.

The new national Dock Labour Board is to have 12 members apart from the chairm9n and vice-chairman, and eight of them will come from dock employers and dock workers. The appointment of four more members' after consultatiol with the National Joint Council, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry will not prevent the majority

within the port sector from always having their own way— the concordance between Lord Aldington and ,Mr Jack Jones is still well remembered—within an area that will extend to five miles from the waterfront.

Hauliers are justified in asking for their own representative or representatives on the Board, and for a right to consultation when the Board is considering whether particular activities should be classified as dock work.

There will be pressure for deletion of the clause in the Bill which will enable the Secretary of State to extend the cargohandling zone as far as he pleases or to incorporate additional areas. More optimistically, the opponents of the Bill will seek a reduction to a much smaller distance of the five miles prescribed for the zone ,limit.

Close attention will be paid to the detailed classification of dock work, as well as •the kind of work which the Bill excludes. The game is to transfer as many items as possible from the first to the second category.

Candidates for the switch are bound to include what is inelegantly described as the " stuffing and stripping " of bulk containers, and the checking and recording of cargo, work •which the average haulier certainly believes he must keep within his own control.

Some surprise has been expressed that the work of driving a vehicle, supervising its loading and unloading, and checking the security of the load, has been excluded from the scope of the Bill only when it takes place on a public road. Vehicle owners cannot delegate responsibility for these activities within a dock area, and there will be particularly strong controversy on this issue if an amendment is rejec-, ted.

Naturally, own-account operators are left outside the Bill, whatever some government supporters may have wished. Slightly less expected is the exclusion of the National Freight Corporation. It must appear unfair to other hauliers, who take it for granted that their own inclusion will be very much to their disadvantage.

Mr Foot himself appeared to be agreeing with this verdict, to judge from his emphasis on the width of the range of activities fortunate enough not to be disturbed by the Bill.


comments powered by Disqus