STATE OF EMERGENCY (Hansard, 27 July 1949)

§ LORD AMMON

My Lords, I crave your indulgence for intruding in a very busy programme a matter that is of a 558 somewhat personal nature. At the same time, I feel that some statement is due to your Lordships and to myself to account for the fact that in a very short space of time I have found myself catapulted from the Front Bench to a position of greater freedom and less responsibility on the Back Bench. It is not my intention to review the whole of the case, because that has been amply carried out in the Press. I want just to put the main facts before your Lordships and to make a brief comment on some of the inaccuracies that were voiced in yesterday's debate in another place. I need only point out to your Lordships, as a very remarkable fact, that the whole of the Press of the country from The Times downwards have supported the position taken up by my Board and by me as their representative. In addition, I have had a tremendous spate of correspondence from all over the country. Only two of the letters have been against me, and those two had remarks to pass on my ancestry and my possible future destination !

It is not my purpose to embark on the question which of the words "imperil" or "jeopardy" is the most potent. I am, however, a little intrigued to know why the expression is more heinous in the mouth of a junior Minister than in that of a responsible Cabinet Minister and head of the particular Department concerned. So far as the facts of the case are concerned, I want only to say that the article for which I was responsible in one of the weekly newspapers is accurate in every detail; it has never been challenged, and it was carefully "vetted" in order to see that it contained no mistakes whatever. Why has there been, so far as one can see, something of a furore created by the action which is now under consideration? My Lords, I venture to say that, more than anything else, it was a sense of relief that, after a long time during which people found it difficult to understand the reason why these ships were held up in the ports, someone, rightly or wrongly, had given a definite lead. Someone had to give a lead, and in this particular connection I have a right to remind your Lordships and others concerned that the Board were unanimous and the action of tae Chairman was simply the carrying out of the directions of the Board.

559 I have this to say, also: that, speaking both for myself and for my Board—and I speak with definiteness for myself—the only concern I had was concern for the country and the Government. One was appalled that this sort of thing should go on in the manner in which it did at a time of the nation's greatest peril, bringing discredit upon the Government for allowing it to continue. Again and again Ministers—the Prime Minister and others concerned—were approached by myself individually and personally, by letters of which copies can be seen, asking that action should be taken against the fomenters of this trouble, and raising the point which I had discussed with many noble Lords with legal experience, as to whether or not there was an Act under which such people could be proceeded against for bringing about a state of public mischief. I had no intention of doing anything against the dockers themselves. But they were being exploited; the country was rapidly being brought to ruin and the Government brought to discredit, and our stock and prestige in other lands was falling.

I asked that action should be taken against overseas agitators. I asked that some step should be taken in order that this trouble should not be allowed to break out again, and as far back as July 5 I wrote a letter to the Prime Minister in which I stated that I was feeling worried because the strike was approaching a stage when the unofficial leaders would say to the men: "You go back, and no victimisation," thus retaining the initiative. I pointed out that it was likely that the last stage would be worse than the first, because there would be no guarantees that the trouble would not break out again in a few months' time. I may have been wrong, but that was the position which I took up. I will be quite frank about this; again and again I suggested, in my position as Chairman of the Board, that there was then a good opportunity, and that never would there be a better opportunity, either of calling the bluff of the leaders of the strike or, if necessary, of forcing a showdown—which was bound to come some day or other. Never would they have a better opportunity than they had then, I said. The strike was being denounced on all sides, and there was no industrial dispute. People were at a loss to know what 560 it was all about. Though there was, of course, a general idea that the strike had been called concerning a difficulty which had arisen in another country, it was known that no industrial issue was involved in it.

I wish now, if I may, to turn to two of the points which were brought up in the debate in another place yesterday. They concern the authority of the Dock Labour Board vis-à-vis the Emergency Committee. The Home Secretary and I have been pretty close friends—that, indeed, is the hardest part of all this, that a cleavage should arise involving friends with whom one has been associated for many years. The Home Secretary admitted that he was batting out of turn— and probably he was batting on a wrong wicket—and he certainly showed that he had not been properly primed with the facts of the case. As a matter of fact, quite early on in the dispute the National Dock Labour Board tried, and tried hard, to get some definition as to their position vis-à-vis the Emergency Committee. To that end the General Manager of the Dock Labour Board, and the Secretary, waited upon senior officials of the Ministry of Labour. After discussion it was agreed that except for the powers given the Emergency Committee to employ non-registered labour under Regulation 27, the Board continued as the body responsible for the administration of the scheme.

In that connection, I would call the attention of your Lordships to something that was said in another place on July 12. I will now quote from Hansard for July 12, Column 210. The Minister of Labour made a statement in the House of Commons which really gave effect to what I have just said. This, he said, was the notice issued by the National Dock Labour Board in agreement with the Minister himself: The National Dock Labour Board notes that in some parts of the Port some dock workers have not returned to work in the mistaken belief that since the introduction of emergency powers the dock labour scheme no longer applies. The Board announces that the scheme is still in operation, and dock workers should continue, therefore, to make themselves available for work at the normal times and places in accordance with the scheme. Following the interview which I have mentioned, that notice was issued. Then there came another interview between Ministry of Labour officials and officials 561 of the Dock Labour Board, and a specific question was put and an answerwas given. The question was: Was the authority of the Board affected by the Emergency Regulations? The answer from the Ministry was that the operation of the scheme and the Board's responsibility for its administration were not affected by the Emergency Regulations. I suggest, therefore, that the Board had every reason to feel that they were acting within their powers, as they contended all along.

And not only that: the Board took legal advice as to whether or not Regulation 1 (2), which empowers the Emergency Committee in such circumstances to give such directions to the port authority or any other person", allowed them to give directions to the Board. We were advised that the particular Regulation did not confer such powers; nor, indeed, did any other Regulation. I submit that the statement made by the Home Secretary yesterday in another place is entirely at variance with these facts which I have just ventured to put before your Lordships. The Home Secretary said that there had been no agreement and no consultation as to the position of the Board vis-à-vis the Emergency Committee.

There is one other point with which I wish to deal. A question was raised as to a notice of dismissal. I might tell your Lordships the true history of this matter, which does not in any way resemble that put before another place by the Home Secretary. Unfortunately, some weeks ago I met with an accident which laid me aside for a short time. During that time the Board met, and there being no deputy chairman appointed by the Board, a temporary chairman took my place. At that meeting the Board passed a resolution which stated in effect that a datum line should be set, after which, if the dockers had not returned to work, they should be dismissed. That resolution was discussed with the Ministry of Labour. Herein I think the Government have not acted as fairly as they might. When the resolution was discussed with them, the Government asked that it should not be published. They had talked it over and agreed that it should not be published; and we also agreed to that course.

When I returned from illness I, as chairman, was asked to take the resolu- 562 tion which the Board had passed to the Emergency Committee. There were appointed to go with me Sir Douglas Ritchie, who represents the Port of London Authority but was acting as a member of the Board, and Mr. Bird, the leader of the dockers. For some reasons —good reasons—they were unable to go that day, so I went, accompanied by the General Secretary. It is untrue to say that a statement was presented to the Emergency Committee, because there was no statement. All I had was this resolution, which I presented to the Committee, and it was then discussed. It was agreed that I should go back to the Board with it and point out that the Committee did not agree with it. The Home Secretary was grossly misinformed when he said that a statement was submitted to the Committee and was amended by them. At that time the document did not exist, except in manuscript draft at the offices of the Board. The only document I circulated to the Committee was a copy of the Board's original resolution. The Board, therefore, in issuing the statement were fully convinced that they were acting in accordance with the intention of the Committee, and at no time, even in what the Home Secretary has called "the closing courtesies," was there any suggestion that the statement should be communicated to the Committee. Nor in issuing the statement, did the Board think that they were either discourteous to the Committee or acting beyond their normal powers as the employer of dock labour under the scheme.

When I went back to the Board, the Board began to consider other ways whereby they could take some steps towards getting a solution. So they drafted the statement which was afterwards issued. Your Lordships will bear in mind that nothing has altered. Nothing that has happened since then, not even in the debate in another place yesterday, has altered the position. It was the unanimous opinion of the Press that our reading of the situation was right, and that what we intended was to give a lead which we had every reason to know would be accepted and would end the strike. Never have the Board attacked the dockers. It is absurd even to suggest they might do so. I venture to say that no other body understands or is likely to understand the psychology of 563 the dockers better than the National Dock Labour Board. It is composed of the leading employers in the industry and the leading trade union officials. They are in constant touch with the men. In this industry there is the biggest measure of workers' control to be found in any industry in the country. Local boards are formed on similar lines in every port. What happened was the abuse and exploitation of a very fine trait and sentiment in the dockers—namely, the solidarity of the workers. That has been prostituted. It was in order that that might be ended that we took action, knowing, as we did on very good authority, that the men only wanted some umbrella under which they could go back.

We are fully conscious of the difficulties in dockland. The dockers will take a long time to shake down. It is not easy for men who have inherited centuries of being able to work when they like, where they like and for whom they like, suddenly to be brought into a disciplined industry. There are bound to be some upheavals and unrest, as we have now seen. By their action, the National Dock Labour Board ended the strike. But the Government spoiled it, and the strike has ended in a manner which now leaves us in a state of uncertainty about what will happen in future. I put it to the Prime Minister as long ago as July 5 that this position would arise. It has arisen exactly as we foresaw. The astute leaders of the men sensed the sweep of public opinion, that the lead that had been given would have effect, and took the opportunity of ordering the men back just to keep the initiative. The men have gone back, but there is no guarantee that this position will not break out in future.

I have said my say. I am sorry, naturally, that this difference has come about. It is not easy to find oneself in a difference of opinion like this with those with whom one has been associated as personal friends over a period of forty years and in a work to which one has given one's best days and energies; but it does happen now and again in a man's lifetime when he has either to lose his self-respect or take a stand on what he considers to be the right and proper thing. I want to make it clear that I have nothing to regret, nothing to withdraw 564 and nothing to apologise for. I want it to be clear that in practically forcing the Prime Minister's hand with regard to my resignation I did not refuse to resign because I wanted to remain in office or because I wanted to be a martyr; I did so because I felt that if I were wrong, I would admit it and recognise that I had made a mistake. I say now that had the action of the Board been followed up—and it was the position we had taken all along—the whole outcome would have been different.

As long ago as May 6, there was in this country a communication from the Canadian Government to the High Commissioner on this very situation. I found that out by accident. I went along to the Commissioner and was informed that it was the fact, and that copies of the document had been sent to the Ministry of Labour and the Ministry of Transport. I immediately went round to these Ministries to find out whether that was true. I found that it was. This document had been pigeon-holed, because it was thought to be of no importance. There is an acknowledgment by the Ministry of Labour of the receipt of copies of the document from the High Commissioner of Canada. In those circumstances I felt that something had to be done in order to put an end to this inertia of waiting for something to turn up instead of endeavouring to give a lead to dockland in the matter. I have no doubt in my own mind that had that particular document been read in Parliament, and published in the Press, the strike would never have occurred, because the people would have had a clear perception and understanding of all the issues involved; and that is something they have been unable to get, because they were so muddled later on.

That is the position. I am sorry that this trouble has meant a breach with my colleagues whom I have known for so many years. I am sorry, too, that it has caused my withdrawal from an office where my associations have been the happiest of my life. But having said that, and with an admission that possibly some of the judgments may have been mistaken, I must say that every action taken was taken with the best intention and believing that it was the right one. And I am convinced that had this particular incident not been muddled in the way it was, 565 the strike would have ended a little sooner.

Before I sit down, may I say that there is one thing Which I have overlooked? The question was raised in the other place yesterday whether or not any steps had been taken to get into consultation with myself or others with a view to amending the document. I heard it said there that it was found impossible to get into touch with me. It takes about ten minutes to get to my house in a car, and when the Prime Minister wanted to see me about the terms of my resignation a car was home before I was, and was waiting there to bring me back. On this question let me say this. The General Manager and the Secretary were in the office during the evening, and were advised by Sir Robert Gould at about 10.30 p.m. that the Government proposed to repudiate the document and they advised me accordingly. But no attempt whatever was made to get into touch with me. It might have been possible to reconsider the document if that had been done. That is the position, and I leave it to your Lordships to judge.