§ 3.37 p.m.
§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)My Lords, with permission I will repeat a Statement, in answer to a Private Notice Question, made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. The Statement is as follows:
" The dockers are on unofficial strike in nearly all ports throughout the country. There has been some industrial action in sympathy in other industries. This action is in protest against the imprisonment of five dockers for refusing to obey a Court order. This order had been made in relation to a 1058 complaint by Midland Cold Storage Limited that blacking led by the men concerned was ruining their business. As the Court explained in its judgment the order was made to provide a period of truce while the merits of the complaint were examined. The Court drew attention to the fact that the men concerned had rejected the constitutional processes of their own unions and the joint negotiating machinery of their industry.
" The Government have all along recognised that the pace of technological change in the docks is giving rise to serious human problems. We accordingly welcomed the establishment of a joint Special Committee on the Ports Industry, under the joint chairmanship of Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones. This Committee, which includes lay dockers, was set up by both sides of industry to seek agreed solutions and it has worked hard to produce an Interim Report on this complex problem in six weeks.
My right honourable friend the Minister for Transport Industries and I saw the joint chairmen of the Special Committee this morning, prior to a meeting later to-day at which the Committee will finalise its Report and publish it this evening. The joint chairmen indicated the Committee's broad conclusions and conveyed to us their request for financial assistance over and above industry's own award to enable the measures they had in mind to go ahead. We said that the Committee could count on a sympathetic response from the Government, bearing in mind the industry's special problems—technological and social. We made it clear that Government assistance would start as soon as normal working is resumed in the ports.
" The Joint Special Committee have made real progress in getting to the roots of the present troubles in the docks. I am sure that the whole House will wish to join with me in expressing gratitude for the hard and persistent work it has done. Its report will show what can be achieved by discussion and negotiation. I believe that when the general body of dockers see the report they will recognise that unofficial ' blacking ' is not the way 1059 to achieve a solution and that the approach adopted by the Committee is the only way to reach sensible arrangements which are fair to all concerned."
My Lords, that is the end of the Statement.
§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITHMy Lords, I am sure the whole House will be grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, for the Statement he has just made, in so far as it relates to the joint special report concerning the problem in the dock industry, which, as the noble Lord said, indicates what can be achieved by discussion and negotiation. I am sure the noble Lord would agree—or, rather, I would ask him whether he does not agree—that it is a tragedy that this report, produced as he indicated with such a sense of urgency, should have appeared at a time when developments have produced a situation which can hardly fail to make a settlement of the specific problem much more difficult.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, the House will recognise that we are faced, potentially at any rate, with a situation of great seriousness. It is hard to know how one can usefully proceed at the present stage by question and answer across the Floor of the House. It may well be that at a fairly early date we shall have to press for other methods of considering these matters. While we all recognise the vital importance of maintaining the law, and while the trade union movement of this country has a very fine tradition of respect for the law over a very long period, it is necessary to ask whether the noble Lord opposite and his colleagues ought not seriously to take account of the feeling that the law, as the Government have brought it into operation, has become inappropriate and ill-balanced in the field of industrial relations to the point at which it may bring the law of this country, in so far as industrial matters are concerned, into dangerous disrepute.
My Lords, may we associate ourselves with the tribute paid by noble Lords to the work of Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington? We very much hope that their Report will lead to an improvement in industrial relations, as the noble Lord anticipates. Can he tell us a little more about the scale of the financial assistance 1060 recommended by the Committee? Does his promise to give a sympathetic response to the recommendations indicate that the Government are already fully committed to assistance on the scale which Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones have suggested?
May we also associate ourselves with the remark that, generally speaking, Parliament should be very careful about making any comment on the decisions of the courts, or in any way interfering with the courts but that, nevertheless, when the law is self-evidently repugnant to many millions of our fellow citizens it is the duty of Parliament to look very carefully at it with a view to amending it and removing grievances which many millions of people regard as justifiable? Further, is the noble Lord satisfied that proper advice is available to the dockers who have been committed to prison as a result of the proceedings in the Industrial Relations Court as to how they might purge their contempt?
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, can the noble Lord opposite make it clear that the Government are committed to providing the necessary funds to enable the Aldington/Jones Report to be implemented? However one may feel about the way in which the dockers who have been committed to prison or their friends have behaved, I would remind the Minister that his Government will not be the first one to do it this way and to find their actions unsuccessful. The war-time Government tried, as did the Labour Government of which I was a very junior member. Both failed; both Governments found themselves in worse trouble when they had men in custody, and both had to back out very fast. Whatever may be said about the law or about the behaviour of the people concerned, the sooner we get out of this situation in which there are hostages, the sooner we can all talk about the best way to deal with the problem. If we have gone the wrong way, then we have gone the wrong way. But would it not be wise to get out before these men have been in prison too long? As I heard someone say on the wireless early this morning, the longer they are in, the harder it will be to get them out and to come back.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I am grateful to noble Lords for what 1061 they have said, at least so far as the work of the Aldington/Jones Committee is concerned. It is important to distinguish between the kind of action being taken by way of negotiation and the kind of action which is being taken unofficially. I do not wish to go into the broader questions to-day, because we are really talking about the offer which is likely to be made this afternoon, as a result of the Committee's discussions. The Committee will be having a Press conference at, I think, five o'clock. I was asked what support the Government will give in that regard. As the statement said, the Committee can count on a sympathetic response from the Government, but it would not be proper for me to say exactly what that response will be until the Committee has made known its findings. So far as I am aware, at no time have the dockers involved in the Midland Cold Storage dispute sought negotiations. They have been taking unofficial action outside the constitution of their union.
The other point which I think it extremely important to get over is that the committals do not result from a change in the law. The situation would have been exactly the same under the old law, as Mr. Justice Megarry's judgment makes clear. I do not think I ought to go into the situation in great detail, but if only one could get it over to the public at large, it would have a very important effect on opinion. It is simply not true that the Industrial Relations Act has altered the situation in this regard.
§ 3.50 p.m.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, the noble Lord makes it impossible for us to leave this subject in view of some of the observations that he has made. As my noble friend made clear, it was our intention so far as possible not to get involved too much. First of all, the noble Lord said that there is to be some sort of statement made at a Press conference. Why is it not being made in Parliament? We are to-day confronted with as dangerous an industrial situation as any of us has ever seen. Furthermore, the noble Lord—and we are in grave difficulty here—has chosen to discuss the decision of the Court to indicate that in fact action could have been taken under another law, presumably by an injunction. I do not know of any such case. We are now 1062 in the situation, as my noble friend Lord George-Brown and others have said, when people are in prison and there is no obvious way to get them out. The story of Betteshanger was an indication of what could happen, and we warned the Government repeatedly. I do not wish to go further into this matter, but it may make it all the more necessary to debate the situation. It is the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, who has introduced the question as to how the Court arrived at its decision.
§ LORD POPPLEWELLMy Lords, does not the noble Lord realise how serious is the statement he made when he said that these men are in prison not due to the Industrial Relations Act but according to a different law? Does he not remember that, when we discussed the Industrial Relations Bill, an argument was advanced that the trade unions were above the law? The statement now made by the noble Lord indicates that they have never been above the law. In the interests of good relations, which we were told the Industrial Relations Act was going to bring about, will not the Government think again about this before the economy of the country becomes in worse jeopardy than it now stands?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I certainly did not want to raise any question that had not already been raised, but the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, asked me whether it was not the case that the law is self-evidently repugnant to many millions of people. What I was pointing out—as I think I am entitled to—was that the arrest and imprisonment of the dockers for contempt of court could have arisen before the passing of the Industrial Relations Act. That is the advice that I have been given, and it seems to accord with the judgment of Mr. Justice Megarry. I wanted to avoid a wide discussion on the Industrial Relations Act, but I think it is important that this point should be made abundantly clear.
§ LORD AVEBURYMy Lords, is the noble Lord aware that this point was made by his right honourable friend over the weekend, but that it seems to many of us to depend on an interpretation of the Trade Disputes Acts of 1906 and 1961, which were mentioned by the noble Lord's right honourable friend, as to 1063 whether this was action taken in the furtherance of a trade dispute within the meaning of those Acts? This matter was not tested by the courts. Does not the noble Lord agree, therefore, that irrespective of whether the employers could have taken action against the dockers under the previous legislation, it is highly unlikely that they would have done so had it not been for the climate created by this Government in steamrollering the Industrial Relations Act through both Houses and encouraging employers to take this kind of action? Would the noble Lord please now also answer my question about whether he is satisfied that proper advice is available to the men who have been committed to prison as to how they should purge their contempt?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, in reply to the last question, I think I am right in saying that the services of the Official Solicitor are available in this respect. It is his duty to examine contenders, to report to my noble and learned friend on the Woolsack and to take any necessary steps on their behalf. As to the other question raised by the noble Lord, I would answer it in this way. These disputes as a whole have arisen out of the rundown in the docks and out of the very natural fear on the part of the dockers about their jobs. That has been the cause of these disputes. The present inquiry, set up jointly, with Mr. Jones, Lord Aldington and 13 other members, was designed to remove the causes of this concern. When the result of that inquiry is announced—and it is perfectly proper that the committee should announce its own decisions before they are announced anywhere else—it will be possible for the unions to review their position to see whether the course of action that is outlined by the Aldington/Jones Committee will commend itself to them.
§ LORD HARVEY OF PRESTBURYMy Lords, can my noble friend say whether his right honourable friend in another place is giving details of the Aldington/Jones recommendations? Also, can he say whether the Government have made up their mind as to how far they are willing to go? Surely it is far better for a statement such as this to be made in both Houses of Parliament and not at a Press conference. I think that both 1064 Houses are entitled to hear at first hand from the Government.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, if I may, I would point out that I am replying to a Private Notice Question that has been asked. I do not think it would necessarily be right to announce the findings of a Committee in answer to a Private Notice Question that did not actually touch on the point.
§ LORD SHINWELLMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord, in view of the favourable impression that appears to have been created in anticipation of the Aldington/Jones Report, whether it would not have been advisable (because the Government must have known that this Report was going to be produced at an early stage) to suggest to Sir John Donaldson that he should not take the precipitate and, in the circumstances, foolish action of sending these men to prison? If that had been made know through the Official Solicitor, as apparently it was made known before in another context, it might have avoided this trouble. This is a very serious situation, and I should like to ask this question. What are the Government going to do about this? Are they just going to wait until something happens—until there are more strikes and more dislocations throughout the country; or are they going to take some kind of action to impress upon Sir John Donaldson to withdraw the decision he made and allow these men to be released?
§ LORD PLATTMy Lords, may I ask a question, for enlightenment? Are these men being treated as if they were common criminals, like people committed to prison for robbery with violence, or is some distinction made? I ask only for my own reassurance.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's question, I understand that they are being treated like remand prisoners.
§ BARONESS SEROTAMy Lords, may I ask the noble Lord whether that means that they are locked in cells for 23 hours out of 24?
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, no.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, my noble and learned friend informs me that that is not necessarily a consequence.
§ LORD GARDINERMy Lords, does that mean that they are being treated better than untried people on remand are treated?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I do not think that I should be drawn into these particular questions, especially as many noble Lords will have watched television, as I did, and will know how these men are being treated, at least according to those reports.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, we are getting into some difficulties here. I hope I have answered sufficiently the questions that have been asked, but if any noble Lord would like to remind me of one which I have not answered I will endeavour to do so.
§ 4.0 p.m.
§ LORD GEORGE-BROWNMy Lords, may I remind the noble Lord of one put by my noble friend the former Member for Easington; that is, what do the Government intend to do now? The longer this situation goes on, the greater the likelihood that people will resist in the only way they know, which is to stop work. The longer it goes on, the worse the price we shall pay. I think the noble Lord should do us the credit of telling us what the Government intend to do now, the situation having got this far. I repeat what I said earlier. The longer it does on, the worse the price we shall pay, in terms of encouraging people to believe that breaking the law pays. It is no good the noble Lord telling us that we saw television just as he saw television. Television cameras are not in the cells yet. So we do not know anything from television; at least I may assure him of that, speaking for myself. I have never been regarded as a soft trade union official, but his approach to this is only making me the more angry and it can have only the same effect on trade unionists in the country. If the Government do not want to provoke real conflict and a real confrontation between a lot of people and themselves, they had better tell us in Parliament how they think they are going to get out of a situation into which they should never have got us.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, would the noble Lord—
§ LORD DERWENTMy Lords, are we not completely out of order? This was a Private Notice Question. We have pretty wide latitude when a Statement is made in answer to a Private Notice Question, but supplementary questions are supposed to be put. So far we have listened to one long speech, apart from the supplementary questions. I think we are getting out of order.
THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (EARL JELLICOE)My Lords, I think everyone knows that our rules of order are very wide. I think also that your Lordships know that it is not within the custom of the House to extend into a debate the reply to a Private Notice Question of this sort. Having said that, I would add that I think there is no noble Lord in your Lordships' House who would dissent from the proposition that we are faced in the industrial sphere with a situation of acute and extreme danger. What I would suggest to your Lordships, following what the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has said, is that if it would be fruitful and helpful that we should probe this further by all the means available, this is something that can be discussed through the usual channels. I feel that at present we are probably not helping towards the solution of a very dangerous situation.
§ LORD SHACKLETONMy Lords, we appreciate the frankness of the noble Earl. It is because we regard the situation as of such deep seriousness that we have been extremely careful in the sort of points we have been making. With respect to the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, I appreciate that he is not in the best position to help us at the moment. None the less I would ask him and the Leader of the House to consider very carefully the point made by, I think, the noble Lord, Lord Harvey of Prestbury. If an important Statement is to be made, and the Government are going to reveal their plans, it should be made in Parliament, preferably later today. The second point is that if we discuss this Statement we shall expect an answer to the points which my noble friend Lord George-Brown has been putting to the Government. In particular, I would ask them whether they are not entirely powerless 1067 now. They cannot instruct the court: it would be improper. In the Industrial Relations Act they have created a Frankenstein monster.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I was asked by the noble Lord, Lord George-Brown, what action the Government will now take. They will give immediate consideration to the Report and, as I indicated in the opening Statement, their response will not be ungenerous. I pointed out before, in the original Statement, that the Secretary of State, together with the Minister for Transport Industries, met the Special Committee this morning. I hope therefore the the question can now be left with just this one point. I think that noble Lords understand thoroughly that the legal position has to be dealt with separately from the industrial position. It is the industrial position with which my Statement is designed to deal today. As I have said, I do not think that noble Lords or the industry will be disappointed at the outcome of the Special Committee's conclusions.
§ THE LORD CHANCELLORMy Lords, may I say something? There is one point that I should like to make clear. The Official Solicitor does not have to report to me before taking action. He can operate on his own initiative. It would be wrong that anyone should suppose that I have to sanction any action he takes. I should like to make that absolutely plain. I do not think it was quite plain from what my noble friend said.
§ LORD BOOTHBYMy Lords, there is one question that I should like to put. I do not think that the noble Lord, Lord Drumalbyn, answered one very crisp supplementary question put by the noble Lord, Lord Shinwell; that is, why these dockers were allowed to be imprisoned before publication of the Aldington/Jones Report.
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, this depended entirely on the action that was taken by the applicants in Court proceedings. An interim injunction had been given; it was not observed, and the applicants came back for Court action. This is how it came about. It had nothing whatever to do with the Government.
§ LORD LEATHERLANDMy Lords, may I ask the Government when it is intended to issue the Aldington/Jones Report as a White Paper? Is the noble Lord further aware that the holding of a Press conference is no substitute for presenting that Paper to Parliament because at the present time there is no Press in this part of the country wherein we can read it?
§ LORD DRUMALBYNMy Lords, I will endeavour to see that copies of the Report are available to noble Lords at the earliest possible moment.