To ask the Secretary of State for Employment what recent representations he has received about the effect of the end of the dock labour scheme; and if he will make a statement.

None, Sir. The complete absence of such representations is further proof that the fears of damage to the economy, increasing industrial problems and general dislocation in ports that were expressed vociferously by the Opposition during the passage of the Dock Work Act 1989 were without substance or foundation.

May I commend to my hon. Friend a paper produced for Aims of Industry entitled "The End of the Dock Labour Scheme—An Interim Appraisal", which contains clear and irrefutable evidence that the abolition of the scheme has been of much benefit to workers in the ports industry and to the nation as a whole? Does not my hon. Friend find it bizarre that, in the face of that compelling evidence, the Labour party refuses to deny that if it took office it would reintroduce the scheme?

My hon. Friend, whose knowledge of the matter is great, is absolutely right. The publication to which he refers shows that new life has been breathed into several ports since the disappearance of the dock labour scheme. Many areas, communities and people can look forward to a happier future thanks to the measures that were introduced so courageously by, among others, my hon. Friend. It is remarkable that no Labour Members—official spokesmen or otherwise—have sought to distance themselves from the deplorable dock labour scheme, which cost so many jobs. I invite them to do so today.

Is not there something wrong with the Minister's records? To my knowledge, dockers in Leith have protested strongly about the ending of the dock labour scheme, which benefited employers and employees. What has gone wrong with the information that the hon. Gentleman collates? Not only Leith dockers but the labour movement are complaining about the ending of the dock labour scheme. Its restoration may not be official Labour policy, but I assure the hon. Gentleman that one person in particular—me—will argue for that restoration to be included in the Labour party manifesto.

I am delighted that a Labour Member has now said unequivocally that he at least wants a return to the old scheme. If Leith has a certain reputation in the House for eccentricity, that is perhaps understandable, but there are few who would agree with the hon. Gentleman, because all the evidence, from Hull, Liverpool and nearly all the great ports of the country, is that since the abolition of the scheme, with the willing support of dock workers, we have witnessed a revival of activity in the ports, which are offering a new level of service and efficiency and are bringing customers back. I hope that any of the hon. Gentleman's constituents who take the view that he described will think again and if they look positively at the opportunities facing Leith and them, they will see a revival of their opportunities.