HL Deb 21 July 1970 vol 311 cc948-66

8.53 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE rose to move, That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920. The noble Earl said: My Lords, in rising to move the first Motion in my name I should perhaps remind your Lordships that last Thursday, with your Lordships' permission, I repeated two Statements which had been made in another place. The first announced the setting up of a Court of Inquiry into the national docks strike and the second related to the gracious Message proclaiming an emergency and the making of Emergency Regulations. There are, as your Lordships know, two Motions in my name before the House this evening and I think it would be in accordance with your normal practice and, indeed, your wishes, as a matter of convenience for us all, to discuss them together. I hope, therefore, that the House will agree that the second Motion regarding the Regulations should be taken formally later this evening.

I think it may be helpful if I say briefly what ground I propose to cover in these remarks. I should like, first, to say something about the State of Emergency and the Regulations which have been made. Then I should like to say something about the Court of Inquiry, its terms of reference and the probable timing of its report—the matter about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, asked me when we were discussing this grave matter last week. Finally, I wish to say something about the measures which the Government are taking to deal with the present situation. I deliberately do not propose to say anything at all about the merits or the rights or the wrongs of the dispute itself, and I suspect that your Lordships will probably agree with me that it would be inappropriate, and indeed positively unhelpful, for us to discuss those very issues which the Court of Inquiry has been set up to consider.

As I reminded your Lordships, the Proclamation was made on Thursday, July 16, and on the same day the Emergency Regulations 1970 were made, which came into operation on July 18. If I may, I should like to repeat what Section 1 of the Emergency Powers Act provides. I quote the words: If at any time it appears to Her Majesty that there have occurred or are about to occur events of such a nature as to be calculated, by interfering with the supply and distribution of food, water, fuel or light, or with the means of locomotion, to deprive the community, or any substantial part of it, of the essentials of life Her Majesty may by Proclamation declare a State of Emergency exists.

I am confident that most of your Lordships would agree that, in the circumstances which prevailed last week, the Government really had no alternative but to advise Her Majesty that the time had come for a Proclamation to be made. But I should like to emphasise that the action which the Government took then, and are continuing to take, is essentially precautionary in its nature. The Government have no intention of using the various powers which they have taken unless the pressing needs of the situation compel them to do so. Even then, such use will be made only of those powers which are directly relevant to that situation, and those powers themselves will be used to the minimum necessary to ensure the essentials of life for the community.

Under Section 1 of the 1920 Act the Proclamation of Emergency continues for a period of one month; that is to say, unless the duration of the Emergency is extended by a further Proclamation it will end on August 16. Similarly, if your Lordships approve these Regulations tonight they will remain in operation for the same period; as long, indeed, as the Proclamation of Emergency continues. It is of course our earnest hope—and I am sure it is one which is shared by every Member of your Lordships' House—that the State of Emergency should be ended as soon as possible. If your Lordships wish this assurance I gladly give it: that should the circumstances which gave rise to the Proclamation no longer exist, the Government would advise Her Majesty to revoke the Proclamation of Emergency, and when that is done the Emergency Regulations would automatically lapse.

The only power which at present has been exercised is that in Regulation 1(4), to appoint port emergency committees to exercise day-to-day control of operations at the major ports. These committees are continuing to assess the daily situation in their ports and to keep the appropriate Minister informed. The main concern of the Government at this stage has been to ensure the supply of essential foodstuffs, including particularly perishable items. I am sure your Lordships will wish to join with me in welcoming the degree of co-operation given by officials and members of the unions—which has been very real—towards helping with the maintenance of essential supplies to our offshore islands, and handling perishable cargoes in ships and dockside warehouses in this country.

It is the Government's declared policy—and I again emphasise this—to seek the co-operation of the unions in moving perishable goods and in maintaining those essential supplies to the offshore islands—excluding the Isle of Wight, which, fortunately (I say this having been an inhabitant of the particular island) has yet to detach itself from the mainland. My Lords, that is the Government's declared policy: to seek the co-operation of the unions. Should this not prove possible, and only should it not prove possible, then the Government will have to consider taking further action.

My Lords, although I shall of course be happy to deal with any specific points which your Lordships may wish to raise on the Regulations, I do not think your Lordships will wish me to trouble you with going through them one by one, and it may be sufficient for me to say that they are substantially the same as those introduced by the previous Administration during the seamen's strike four years ago. They have, however, been modified in some respects, and I think it might be useful if I just explained where the modifications have been made.

The first three Regulations are perhaps the most relevant to the present situation. Regulation I contains a new provision under which ships can be directed to leave port to avoid congestion. The movement of tugs, other harbour craft and floating apparatus can also be directed—and this, I must say, strikes me as sensible. Regulation 2 is also new, and enables any ship or equipment in a port to be moved if the persons directed to take such action under Regulation I fail to do so. It also enables the cost of the operation to be recovered from those who fail to comply with the original direction.

The next nine Regulations relate to the relaxation of certain restrictions on road transport Of those, Regulation 12 is new, and enables Regulations concerning the conveyance by road of petroleum spirit and other dangerous substances to be relaxed. Of Regulations 13 to 26, which cover public services and similar facilities, Regulation 19 has been extended to cover normal feeding stuffs; Regulation 22 is new, and enables directions to be given to public service vehicle operators analogous to those given under Regulation 21; and Regulation 24 has been extended to cover passengers as well as cargo, and to include all United Kingdom registered ships. The remaining Regulations repeat the 1966 provisions for the maintenance of law and order and for the enforcement of the Regulations themselves. In this connection, perhaps I should make it clear to your Lordships that, as provided in Section 2 of the Act of 1920 and in the proviso—an important proviso—to Regulation 34, it is not (I repeat, not) an offence for persons to take part in a strike or peacefully to persuade any other person to take part in it.

It may now be helpful to your Lordships if I read the terms of reference of the Court of Inquiry. They are: To inquire into the causes and circumstances of the dispute between the parties represented on the National Joint Council for the Port Transport Industry arising from the claim of the workpeoples' side for an increase in the national basic minimum time rate, and their rejection of the employers' offer, having regard to all the relevant factors, including the present pay structure, and negotiations for its reform, and to report". The members of the Court of Inquiry, as your Lordships are doubtless aware, are Lord Pearson, who was chairman of the Court of Inquiry which investigated the seamen's dispute; Mr. Grint, who was until 1969 the independent chairman of the National Dock Labour Board; Mr. Will Paynter, a member of the Commission on Industrial Relations and previously General Secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers; and Mr. Fielding, past President of the Engineering Employers' Federation.

As to the timing of the Report, the Court of Inquiry met yesterday for the first time and started formal hearings this morning. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, is of course fully seized of the importance, as indeed we all are, and the urgency which surrounds this Inquiry. Your Lordships will probably not expect me to-day to make any firm forecast—indeed, it would be impossible for me to do so—as to when the Court of Inquiry's Report will be published, but on past precedent it would not, I think, be unreasonable to expect a Report some time early next week. If that should prove possible-—and I think it is likely to prove possible—then I doubt whether any useful purpose would be served by an Interim Report.

My Lords, I do not wish to be drawn into hypothetical questions as to the Government's attitude to the Report when it reaches them. We shall of course hope that the Court's recommendations will prove acceptable to both sides in the dispute, and that it can perhaps form the basis of an early resumption of normal working. In any event, the Government will continue, as they have throughout this dispute, to use their best endeavours to obtain a satisfactory settlement which will enable this emergency, which is costing this country so dear and which will cost it dearer still, to be brought to a speedy end—and by that, of course, I mean that as and when the Report is received the good offices of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity will naturally be available if, in the circumstances of the time, a useful purpose will thereby be served.

Finally your Lordships may wish me to say something about the question of rising prices, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, also asked me last week. Regulation 19, as your Lordships will see, gives the Minister the necessary powers to make an order fixing maximum prices for foodstuffs and also for animal feeding stuffs. At this stage the Government trust that it will not be necessary to utilise these powers in order to prevent excessive rises in the prices of imported foods, but we are watching the situation closely and should it later prove necessary the Government would not hesitate to take that action. We do not pretend (and it would be idle of me so to pretend) that the enforcement of any such orders would be an easy matter in present day conditions, but I hope that your Lordships will agree that it would probably be contrary to the public interest—I feel it to be contrary to the public interest—to announce at this stage precisely how our enforcement measures would operate. But I would again emphasise that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture is keeping very closely in touch indeed, personally closely in touch, with the supply and prices situation. I should like to emphasise that at this moment there are no grounds for alarm. We look with confidence to the good sense of the housewives and to the good sense and sense of fair play of the wholesale and retail traders to ensure that no unavoidable hardship is felt by the consumer. I beg to move.

Moved That an Humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, thanking Her Majesty for Her Most Gracious Message communicating to this House Her Majesty's Declaration that a state of Emergency exists within the meaning of the Emergency Powers Act 1920.—(Earl Jellicoe.)

9.8 p.m.

LORD SHEPHERD

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Earl for the manner in which he has spoken to the first Motion. I agree that we should take these two Motions together. I would also agree with the noble Earl that we should not say anything tonight about the basic cause of the dispute between the two sides in the docks industry. On Thursday I gave a welcome to the announcement by the noble Earl of the appointment of the Court of Inquiry. We on this side of the House congratulate the Government on the appointment of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Pearson, as Chairman and of his colleagues on the Court of Inquiry. I am quite certain that the noble and learned Lord meets the requirement I made on Thursday, that the Chairman should clearly have the confidence of both sides of the industry, and I am very glad to see that the parties to this dispute have welcomed not only the appointment of a Court of Inquiry but have welcomed, in particular, the Chairman and the Commission. On Thursday I indicated our support of the Government decision of a State of Emergency. I think that it would have been premature if it were not for the fact that Parliament was going into Recess this coming Thursday. But since Parliament is going into Recess, clearly the Government must have the necessary powers to deal with a difficult and potentially dangerous position.

I have only a few words to say on the Regulations themselves, but before doing so, may I say something about the handling of the Report when it is received, as I hope it will be received, early next week. Until now the Minister, Mr. Carr, has adopted a posture of impartiality, has been willing to talk and use his good offices to the two sides; he has not wished to become deeply involved in the negotiations. As a consequence of the State of Emergency and the setting up of the Court of Inquiry, the Government are now at the centre of the dispute. The Report of course will come out; and it will be a Report to Her Majesty's Government. We have on the one side the workers with their determination—and we know the dockers' determination—to remain on strike until a settlement has been achieved. On the other side, we have the employers who have said that they are not prepared to negotiate until the men go back to work. Therefore, when the Report is issued clearly an initiative will have to be taken by someone to bring the two sides to the table. There is no doubt at all—and one sees this in many disputes—that sooner or later someone has to bring the parties to the table and to take up a less independent position than has previously been the case in this particular dispute. Therefore, I would ask the noble Earl whether he could give some indication of what the Minister has in mind on how this Report should be received and what steps the Minister has in mind to take in bringing the two sides together. I hope that the employers and the workpeople will adopt a flexible position when this Report becomes available and that both sides, whatever their feelings, will be willing to come to the table; and I hope that the coming to the table will be made easier for them by the initiative of the Minister.

My Lords, so far as the Regulations are concerned, one aspect to be considered is the use of troops. I recognise that in certain circumstances the Government would be fully justified in the use of troops in the docks. I would hope, since this strike so far has been conducted without rancour or bitterness, that troops will not be used unless that course of action is absolutely forced upon the Government. I welcome the statement of the noble Earl and the credit he has given to the trade union officials and workpeople for the views they have adopted and the work they have done in dealing with certain cargoes for the outlying islands. I hope that there will be no question of troops being brought into the docks until all possible avenues have been explored with the unions, and particularly with the local officials at the docks concerned.

I now come to an issue which I think important, not only in terms of the nation and the shopper in particular but also in terms of the use of troops. Last Thursday, in a matter of two days since the commencement of the strike, I drew the attention of the House to already steeply rising food prices, particularly in the wholesale markets. The noble Earl may have read the article in to-day's Financial Times reporting particularly more steeply rising prices in Birmingham and other provincial markets as opposed to London. All the information—and the Government have confirmed it—is that there are ample supplies of food in this country for at least two months. All those who know are aware that there is no justification whatsoever for these steeply rising prices in the wholesale markets. What we must remember to-day is that these prices have not yet been felt in the retail shops. They have yet to be felt, and if these prices are rising now and there is no control, what could be the situation later this week and early next week?

My Lords, it is no good the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food advising housewives to shop around a bit. True, they may have more retailers to go to, but those retailers are dependent on a narrow band of wholesalers. Those of us who watched the television last night may have seen the debate about oranges between a wholesaler, I think in Manchester, and a supplier in London, and will recall that, according to the Manchester wholesaler, large quantities of oranges which were supposed to have been disposed of had apparently disappeared. Presumably, someone is waiting to make a "killing". All this is boun to have a serious effect on the retailer who will have to bear the burden of the complaints of housewives. But the point is that in the end the housewives have not a great deal of opportunity to shop around to-day because the retailers are dependent on this narrow band of wholesalers.

I am not suggesting that at the moment the movement of prices would justify price control, but I hope that what the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has said is not going to represent a complacent view of the situation. We heard from the noble Lords opposite during the Election of the consequencies of market forces. My Lords, I have been a businessman, and I know one of the consequencies of market forces: if you can create a shortage you make a "killing"; and it seems to me, from one or two things that I have read and heard, that there are people who are deliberately creating a shortage in order to make a "killing". I am not suggesting to the noble Earl at this moment that price controls should be brought into being; but I will say to the Government that they will be answerable to Parliament, when we resume, if, through failure to impose some control, they allow prices to go sky high, and large profits to be made by a few middlemen.

My Lords, I come back to the question of troops. If troops are brought into the docks to move perishable goods—and many of the things I have been talking about are perishable goods—and if "killings" can be made by wholesalers and retailers, then I can only say to noble Lords opposite that there will be great difficulties within the docks. The dockers will not be quiescent at the use of troops; nor will other trade union members in the country. We shall watch with the greatest possible care and interest the way in which the Government handle what is admittedly a very difficult situation.

I hope that it will not be necessary for Parliament to be recalled to keep these Orders in being. I hope that a settlement will be reached next week, when the Report of the Inquiry is available. I am convinced that the Report will be helpful, but in the end, of course, success will depend on the Government's bringing the two sides together and, in the meantime, maintaining an atmosphere between them which makes negotiations possible.

9.21 p.m.

LORD BROCKWAY

My Lords, I find this an extraordinary occasion. We are discussing a Message to Her Majesty to thank her for communicating to this House the declaration of a State of Emergency I look round the House in this state of emergency and see that there are fewer than twenty Members present. I find this very significant. I find it an indication that the declaration of a State of Emergency does not reflect either the situation or the psychology of the public. I recognise at once that if this dock strike continues a serious situation will arise, but I am going to argue to the House that the declaration of a State of Emergency last week helped to create the crisis, rather than reflected it.

There are two immediate points which should be in our minds. The first is the control of prices, which has been emphasised by my noble friend Lord Shepherd. A control of prices could have been imposed by regulations, distinct from this vast area of a State of Emergency which Her Majesty's Government have proclaimed. The second thing is the proposal for a Court of Inquiry, of which I am entirely in favour. There was no necessity for a declaration of emergency in order that this Inquiry might be held. Noble Lords on both sides of the House have urged this evening that we should refrain from discussing the issues under dispute, but those who take the view of the minority in another place, who last night voted against the declaration of a State of Emergency, cannot, if we are going to argue that Her Majesty's Government should take another course, refrain from looking at the causes of the present situation.

Whenever a strike occurs, largely because of reports which have appeared in the Press and on television there is a wide view that the workers are responsible for the situation. I am arguing to-night that Her Majesty's Government, instead of declaring a State of Emergency, should have looked at certain causes of this dispute and used their influence to prevent those causes from arising. When I look at those causes I come to this view: that if we are to take an objective and long view of this dispute, the main responsibility rests with the employers who are involved.

First, there is the fact that these negotiations have been proceeding for eighteen months. I do not think anybody can look at the discussions which have been taking place during the last eighteen months without coming to the conclusion that the employers have stalled these negotiations; and a suspicion must inevitably arise that that policy has been deliberately pursued, because the employers knew that legislation was before Parliament which would transfer the ownership of the docks from the private employers to a public corporation, and they hoped in that situation, by stalling the negotiations, to place the responsibility of meeting the costs on a public corporation rather than on private employers.

I am not thinking of that long-term process which has led to this dispute. I am thinking of two immediate issues. Can any Member of this House remember the occasion of a strike of an official character of this extent when the employers have refused to consider the main complaint which the trade union movement was putting forward? Their demand has been for a basic wage. The employers have refused entirely even to discuss that proposal which has been made by the trade unions. Secondly, there is this extraordinary situation. We have an official strike, which may, I admit, have grave consequences on our economy, and yet the employers say that unless this official strike, with all its effects on exports and imports, on the cost of living and everything else, is called off they will not even discuss the issues with the trade unions.

In view of those three facts, I am submitting to the Government that before declaring a State of Emergency they should have brought pressure and influence to bear upon the employers' organisations to change their attitude, both about the refusal of a discussion of the basic wage and, secondly, the almost unprecedented refusal even to enter into negotiations during the period of an official strike. Because I take that view very strongly indeed, I dissent from the Government's action in declaring a State of Emergency in a situation where an emergency need not have arisen if Her Majesty's Government had sought to influence the employers to change the two extraordinary decisions which they took in this case.

I should like to sound a most serious warning against any action of Government which would use the troops in this situation. I want to recognise at once that the noble Marquess in his speech indicated that—

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I wonder whether I might correct the noble Lord. He is promoting me.

LORD BROCKWAY

Well, my Lords, I apologise. I would not regard it as a promotion. The noble Lord—is that correct?

SEVERAL NOBLE LORDS

The noble Earl.

LORD BROCKWAY

I recognise that the noble Earl said in his speech that before the Government would use troops they would enter into discussions with the trade unions. I want to express very grave warning that if Her Majesty's Government turns to the employment of troops, the effect will be to extend on an immense scale the present dispute in the docks. One has not only the warnings which have been given by trade union leaders—and anyone who is in touch with the organised workers knows how deeply they feel on this issue. The Minister for Agriculture is very worried about it. He goes to Smithfield Market and he goes to Covent Garden, and hears the expressions of opinion of ordinary workers if troops are used.

I want to say this to Her Majesty's Government—and on this I think there will be a response. In the first place, they should have the frankest, fullest and most friendly discussions with the trade unions involved in this dispute, for they will find them moderate. If Her Majesty's Government had brought the kind of influence which I have suggested, this dispute would never have occurred. There was that small vote with, I believe, a majority of three. A dispute would never have happened if the Government had exerted their influence upon the employers in the two respects which I have mentioned. The leadership would be prepared to respond; I know that the leadership do not want to cause hunger in this country. I am begging Her Majesty's Government, before they resort to any kind of extreme measures, to have this consultation with the leaders of the trade unions in order that perishable goods which are necessary for our people to be fed will be moved without the use of Her Majesty's Forces.

9.34 p.m.

LORD SANDYS

My Lords, however late the hour, I do not feel anxious to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, into the fascinating labyrinth of the polemics and hypothetical theories that lie behind the strike. I should like to welcome most warmly what my noble friend the Leader of the House has said in regard to his reassurances in relationship to food. In the interests of price stability of foodstuffs, I should like to ask one question only: Will Her Majesty's Government give some assurance that daily publication will be made of current prices, provided by the Ministry of Agriculture, using the usual channels of publication of the B.B.C.?

9.35 p.m.

LORD HOY

My Lords, I do not apologise for intervening once more because for 25 years, as I have already said, I represented the docks. If I claim one other thing it is that for very nearly six years I was Parliamentary Secretary at the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food. I was interested to hear the noble Earl who introduced this Motion speaking about enforcement of price stability and control of prices. I think I quote him correctly when I say that the noble Earl said, "enforcement is not easy." I think those were his exact words—"enforcement is not easy." I found a great distinction between that and what the noble Earl and his friends were saying right up until polling day. They thought that price control could be enforced with comparative ease; but apparently that is not their opinion to-day.

I agree with the noble Earl that one of the things that any Government in this country must do to-day is to ensure that food is distributed equitably and fairly, and at reasonable prices. It is all very well for the noble Earl to pay tribute to certain dockers for supplying what I think he called off-shore areas—indeed, he cited one in which he lived himself. As a Scot, I think of the islands in the North. It is terribly important that, whatever happens in an industrial dispute, supplies to these people should be met. On this I agree with him entirely. However, if their needs are to be met, a natural corollary is that not only the people in the islands and the off-shore areas which he described but people on the mainland must have prices they can afford to pay. If it is necessary to control the workers in the dock areas, surely it is equally important to control those who are exploiting the situation for private profit.

As one who was associated with the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food over that long period, I should like to take this opportunity of paying tribute to the efficiency., the skill and the devotion of every single person in that Department. But surely, on the other hand, they are expected to carry out the Government's policy; and if the Government are in earnest about this particular problem they must show firmness in dealing with those who exploit shortages—a firmness at least equal to that which they are prepared to show in dealing with the workers.

It is not altogether good enough for the Minister of Agriculture, for whom I have a great friendship—I have been associated with him for a long number of years in another place—to tell the housewives of this country that if prices have gone up they must "shop around"; nor to suggest that they may buy peaches instead of oranges and apples. After all, while peaches may be very pleasant to eat—and I would agree with him in that respect—what we are thinking about in this connection is the price of meat. All that the Minister of Agriculture could find out, if he found out anything at all—and this is undeniable—was that the price of meat had gone up, and gone up fairly substantially. The workers in Smithfield were able to tell him that it was going up from 6d. to 1s. per lb. I hesitate to think what noble Lords opposite would have said if it had been the former Government that had put prices up by that extent.

The noble Earl must accept responsibility for this problem, and whereas enforcement may not be easy, if in fact he is going to prove that he is being fair, or that the Government are being fair, as between the workers and the consumers and those who have food to sell then he must show the country that he is being equitable in using the same force with regard to each section affected by this dispute. The noble Earl has said that the Government of the day have power under (I think he said) Regulation 19. If the noble Earl has power under that Regulation I think we are entitled tonight to ask him whether the Government will in fact use powers to control these prices. Indeed, they ought to be looking at the matter very carefully now, if they are going to act fairly to the consumers of this country.

It is easy to blame either side in this dispute. For myself, I should hesitate to go into what has caused the dispute. We all have our opinions on this, but undoubtedly it is with us to-day and we cannot ignore it. In the circumstances, what we all have to do is to act as fairly as we possibly can, and if we are going to do this then the greatest responsibility rests upon the Government, and for this reason. The noble Earl has said that it will be early next week, at the very earliest, before the Report of this Inquiry is available. But early next week the Houses of Parliament will not be sitting. The Government will not be responsible either to another place or to your Lordships' House, and it is for this reason that this important matter rests clearly on their shoulders.

Perhaps I may respectfully suggest to the noble Earl that if in fact he and the Government want to act fairly, and even to appear to act fairly, then there is responsibility on their shoulders to prove to the housewives of this country that just as they might take action to ensure supplies reaching these shores they will be no less efficient in taking action to see that those who have supplies in their hands do not exploit the position for private profit at the expense of the housewives of this country.

9.44 p.m.

EARL JELLICOE

My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, for his remarks and I should like to take this, the first opportunity I have had, of saying with what pleasure I listened to the noble Lord, Lord Hoy. To-day has been the first occasion on which I have been able to listen to him. I should also like to add, with reference to Lord Brockway's words, that although I cannot say that I went along with him in most of what he said, and although he must get rather bored of hearing this, I respect the sincerity lying behind what he said. For the reason that I gave in my opening remarks, I am not tempted to follow the noble Lord, Lord Brock-way, down the path that he might like to lead me, although I suspect that he does not expect me to go down it. I do not believe that at this stage it would be helpful if I were to be drawn into a discussion on the merits of this dispute. I felt that last week, and I feel it even more so now, given the fact that a Court of Inquiry has been appointed and this matter is, as it were, sub judice. The noble Lord, Lord Brockway, spoke about the causes of this dispute—and I am certain that here I shall carry him with me—and I think we all know that when there is trouble in the docks the basic cause goes very deep indeed. In these circumstances I believe that it would be wrong for me to be tempted at this moment into any substantive comments on the rights and wrongs of this sad dispute.

I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, and the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, and indeed other noble Lords for the welcome they have given to the establishment of the Court of Inquiry. I believe, with the noble Lords, that the Court is composed of people of very high standing indeed; of proved impartiality, and also of exceptional qualifications for this peculiarly difficult task with which they have been entrusted. As to the handling of its Report, about which the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd asked me, all I can say is that I cannot possibly at this stage, nor could any of us, foresee the circumstances, a week or so from now, when that Report may be available. Therefore I am not in a position to forecast the action which my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment and Productivity or other Ministers will feel they are emboldened to take when the Report is received. I would echo what the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, said: that it is incumbent upon both sides to show a suitable flexibility and accommodation when that Report is available.

I would only here again repeat the tenor of what I said in my opening remarks, that the Government in general, and the Minister in particular, will most certainly use their best endeavours as and when the Report is received with a view to finding, or helping to find, a satisfactory settlement So far as other powers and the use of powers are concerned, I feel that it would be right again for me to be very guarded in following the remarks which have been made about the use of troops. But once again I would—and this is becoming perhaps rather a refrain—re-emphasise what I said in my opening remarks, that it is the intention of Her Majesty's Government to seek the co-operation of the trade unions and trade union officials in securing the essential supplies to the outlying islands of the United Kingdom and the movement of perishable goods. It is only if that co-operation is not forthcoming—and we all hope and pray that it will be—only in those circumstances will the Government contemplate taking further action. I would agree with the noble Lord, Lord Brockway, although I do not follow him in a lot of what he said, that further action could entail very grave repercussions. I think we are all at one in that.

As regards prices, I will not be tempted into fighting the last General Election over again with the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, on price rises. He is asking me, more or less rhetorically, whether the Government are in earnest on this front, and I will say categorically that we are. It is essential to have the powers, and I can confirm that the powers would be conferred by Regulation 19. I can again confirm that the Government will not hesitate to use those powers to deal with any situation where there was a real threat of exploitation such as the noble Lord, Lord Shepherd, was talking about, and indeed to protect the majority of public-spirited traders from perhaps a less scrupulous minority.

I think we should all recognise that orders made under Regulation 19 could not in the very nature of things be as comprehensive and as universally enforced as, for example, would have been the case for a food control scheme designed for permanent use in war time—the sort of control to which we became accustomed in war time, and indeed in the post-war years. But the Government are confident that they would be widely effective in holding down prices, and what is most important from the point of view of example, that the more flagrant cases could be dealt with. All I can say is that my right honourable friend the Minister of Agriculture—I was glad to hear the tribute paid to him by the noble Lord, Lord Hoy—is in earnest here, and is watching the situation closely. We as a Government recognise our responsibilities, and we will not shirk those responsibilities should the occasion arise. I hope that the situation will not arise. Indeed, I hope that other situations will not arise. But if the price situation does arise, then all I can do is to repeat what I have just said, that the responsibilities which, as the noble Lord, Lord Hoy, rightly said, fall upon the Government in this field in this sort of situation, will not be shirked.

On Question, Motion agreed to: Ordered, That the said Address be presented to Her Majesty by the Lords with White Staves.