DOCKS STRIKE (Hansard, 28 July 1972)

§ THE MINISTER WITHOUT PORTFOLIO (LORD DRUMALBYN)
My Lords, with the leave of the House I will repeat a Statement which has been made by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment in another place. These are his words:
" With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a Statement.
" The National Docks Delegate Conference yesterday rejected the interim report of the Aldington/Jones Committee. As a result an official national dock strike started today.
" The joint chairmen, Lord Aldington and Mr. Jack Jones, together with the members of their committee—working dockers, trade union officials and employers—worked very hard to achieve a just and fair arrangement, which has been commended on all 1670 sides by those with the true interest of dock workers at heart.
" I am sure the House will share my deep regret that the Docks Delegate Conference rejected these recommendations and that the ports are now stopped.
" This strike will damage the interests of dock workers, for until it is over the men on the temporary unattached register cannot be offered permanent employment nor can the older and unfit dockers be offered the special severance terms.
" The economic viability of the industry and the competitive position of British ports will also suffer ; this must affect the capacity of the industry to offer secure long-term employment to dock workers.
" Many people will find it difficult to believe that the general body of dockers have fully understood what benefits have been rejected on their behalf by 38 delegates out of the total of 84 who represented them at the Docks Delegate Conference.
" I have already discussed the situation with Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington. They are meeting to-day and I hope means will be found to enable their proposals to be put into action and get normal working resumed.
" In the meantime, the Government is giving immediate consideration to the action they may need to take to protect the general interests of the economy and the consumer."

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, we are grateful to the noble Lord for repeating this extremely serious Statement. We are so bludgeoned by serious Statements now that we almost take them in our stride. Clearly it is a great disappointment that the constructive proposals of Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington have been rejected so far. I hope that the Government are aware that a major factor in this rejection is the extraordinarily bad atmosphere which has been created by the Industrial Relations Act and the way it is working. While it is our duty to obey the law, however bad the law may be, I none the less ask the noble Lord to ensure that the Government will not have recourse to 1671 the Industrial Relations Act in this case. To do so will only once again make a dangerous situation worse. Secondly, may I ask the noble Lord whether really special efforts will be made to get across the nature of these proposals to the dockers, not by hammering the thing out in the Industrial Relations Court or somewhere like that, but by a direct approach to the dockers and the dockers' delegates. In particular, may I ask the Government to do what they can in a conciliatory role—and it is a conciliatory role that is needed—and possibly to see whether the guarantees in the Aidington/Jones proposals could be made rather clearer so that they are better understood?
Finally, in the light of the last part of the Statement, and the fact that this dispute represents a serious threat not merely to the dockers themselves, but to the country, will the noble Lord bear in mind that we may need to debate the situation? If it goes on, presumably we may expect Emergency Regulations, and in that case we shall need to debate the matter. Meanwhile, I again make a plea that the Industrial Relations Act, which as I say has been such a disaster in recent weeks, will not be used. Had it not been for that Act and the atmosphere it has created, I believe that these proposals would have been accepted.

§ LORD BYERS
My Lords, this is a matter of great seriousness and urgency, for under the Jones/Aldington proposals I think I am right in saying that it was hoped to deal with the men on the temporary unattached register and the older and unfit dockers by September 4. Have the Government still got that in mind if an early resumption of work takes place? May I endorse what has been said by the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, about the need to explain individually to the dock workers themselves the very real benefits which appear to be contained in these proposals—and, if one might make a plea to the mass media and the Press, to ask them to endeavour to bring home factually to the people of this country what the effects of these proposals are?

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
My Lords, may I ask the Minister this question. I had intended—

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
My Lords, before the Minister replies to those questions—

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, it is normal, I think, to reply first to the questions put by the Leaders of the Parties. I shall be glad to listen to the noble Baroness later. I welcome the serious and deliberate observations of noble Lords, sombre though they may be—and of course this is a sombre situation. The noble Lord, Lord Shackleton, asked me first whether I was aware that this situation was due in part to the atmosphere created by the Industrial Relations Act. I think one must make it quite clear that this matter really arises out of the sense of insecurity of the dockers, with which the Government clearly have great sympathy, and also the apparent threat of containers to their employment. This of course is precisely what the Jones/Aldington Committee are now proceeding to consider in the second stage of their deliberations. We have had an interim report as a result of the first stage. The noble Lord asks for an assurance that the Government will not have recourse to the Industrial Relations Act in the present circumstances. However, the noble Lord went on to say that the law has to be observed. It would be entirely wrong for me to give an assurance in that regard. On the other hand, the Government have no present intention of doing so.
Then the noble Lord asked—as did the noble Lord, Lord Byers—for special efforts to get across to the dockers and the dockers' delegates the nature of these proposals. I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Byers, that this is a matter for the Press ; and a cursory look at the Press this morning suggests that they are well aware of the need in this regard. It would probably be wrong for the Government to take special measures to do this, because, after all, the Jones/Aldington Committee was a Committee set up by the industry itself, and it is for them to make certain that, so far as is humanly possible, all concerned are aware of the proposals and of the benefits that they 1673 will bring to dockers. As to the conciliatory role, the Government are always willing to adopt this attitude, and in every possible case they do so. So far as Lord Byers's question is concerned, the date remains of course, but it will be difficult to get the necessary arrangements under way until there is a settlement.
With regard to the possibility of a debate, this is a matter for the usual channels—and I am glad to see that the usual channels are represented on the Front Benches at the moment. So far as Emergency Regulations are concerned, all I can say is that I am sure we all very much hope that these will not be needed and that within the next day or two the Delegate Conference or the dockers as a whole will change their view on the proposals. I am sure we should all agree that it is to the benefit of everybody that these proposals should gain acceptance.

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for butting in—

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
My Lords, could I please ask the Minister this—

§ LORD BALFOUR OF INCHRYE
My Lords, I should like to put this point to the Minister. It is a question that I was going to raise had there not been a Statement, but the noble Lord the Leader of the Opposition has dealt with the point and I should like to reinforce what he has said. May we have a very early opportunity to debate this matter? It is, after all, the gravest industrial crisis since 1926. The other place are debating it on Tuesday. Surely we in this House should have a similar chance as the other Chamber of discharging our responsibilities? We have in all parts of this House a wealth of experience and, I believe, also a wealth of good will towards the general body of citizens. I do not believe that we should be fulfilling our duties if we did not press for a debate at a very early date—and I say that in spite of the congested timetable. If the usual channels could possibly arrange that the debate, by general good will, is confined to a period of three hours, or something like that, no doubt we could cover the field. But I think that it would be wrong to start the long and dreary path of the 1674 European Communities Bill Committee stage before we give expression in this House to the views held, in all parts of the House, on the very grave industrial crisis that the country is now facing.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I take note of what my noble friends says, and of course it will be considered. The first point, as to the debate, is that we all hope that a settlement will be reached, in which case a debate will be rendered unnecessary. The second point is one for consideration between the usual channels as to whether a debate would be likely to help the situation—because I am sure that this must be the major consideration in the minds of us all.

§ BARONESS GAITSKELL
My Lords, I apologise to the noble Lord for intervening on several occasions, but I should like to ask him whether he would remind us of the vote which the delegates took on this occasion when rejecting the proposals—because this vote, with its large abstentions, is very significant in all our deliberations on this issue.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
Yes, My Lords, and I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised this point. There were 84 delegates. My information is that 38 voted against the proposals, 28 were in favour and 18 abstained.

§ LORD DAVIES OF LEEK
My Lords, while trying to follow the lead of my noble friend the Leader of the Opposition and the constructive lead indicated by the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Inchrye, and without wishing to exacerbate the situation, may I ask the noble Lord whether he would think it too long-distance a project to point out to the Government that, no matter what Government are in power at the moment, we are being met with the problem of growth and productivity in the machine? May I ask whether he thinks there would be an opportunity to start a study of the relationship of production to employment? Such a study might take time, but it would indicate that all Governments in the world are concerned about the influence of the machine.
Finally, is the Minister aware that Walter Reuther summed this up some time ago (I was in Detroit at the time) when, in reply to a remark by the head of General Motors that, "We will put in 1675 more machines", Mr. Reuther said, "How many motor cars can a machine buy?" That summarises the problem we are now trying to face in this great crisis.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, as the noble Lord says, this is a long-term matter. I think it would be a mistake to suppose that this is not being studied at the present time. After all, we have the Manpower Services Division in the Department of Employment, and I am sure that they have this very much in mind.

§ LORD CHORLEY
My Lords, would the Minister look into what was done during a similar grave crisis during the First World War, when strikes were occurring in all the great munitions centres in England? In that case the Minister of Munitions did in fact send round leading members of his Department—some of them I think were actually working at the Ministry—to explain the situation to the men. This had a considerable effect and was very valuable. I was sorry that the noble Lord rather brushed off the wise suggestion made by my noble Leader, and supported by the noble Lord the Leader of the Liberal Party, on the ground that the Jones/Aldington Report is not a Government document. Surely in a crisis like this the Government are not going to rely on small points of this kind. I am quite sure that this is a valuable suggestion, and if the noble Lord will put his people on to looking into what happened, I think, in 1917, I cannot help feeling that he will find this was a very valuable precedent.

§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND
My Lords, before the noble Lord sits down, may I make an appeal for as little interference as possible for the moment with people who have got to deal with this problem? I have had to deal with a number of negotiating problems in my life, and if anything has prevented conciliation coming to the surface it has been outside interference which too often provoked dissension rather than conciliation.
Let us examine the position of the Union itself. Jack Jones is co-drafter of the proposals and one of the cochairmen. The proposals have not been 1676 entirely rejected: they have been rejected by a majority of those voting. He has a most serious situation on his hands. His Union will have to pay strike pay to some 42,000 or 50,000 men—I do not quite know how many. This is a very serious thing so far as the Union finances are concerned. His Union will have to deal with dockers for years to come, and all the problems which are now being dealt with will reflect themselves in what happens in that Union in the years to come. I am afraid there is an assumption that the officials of the Union themselves are not knowledgable about the problems that exist in this particular situation. When I was negotiating in the trade union world—

§ THE MINISTER OF STATE, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND SOCIAL SECURITY (LORD ABERDARE)
My Lords, would the noble Lord allow me to interrupt? I am sorry to do so, for we always listen with the greatest interest to what he has to say on trade union matters. But he is going slightly beyond our Rules of Order, which call for short comments or questions on a Statement. If we are perhaps to have a debate later on, perhaps the noble Lord could take part in that and make his points then.

§ LORD DOUGLASS OF CLEVELAND
My Lords, I am in order in asking a question, am I not? The question was: would it not be better to leave this to the union? I was trying to illustrate the reasons why I thought that was so. If I am out of order, I will sit down, but I regard this as a most serious situation where, with a little latitude, a qualification from an experienced trade union leader might be helpful. If it is not, well. I will sit down—perhaps at this point I had better sit down.

§ LORD ABERDARE
My Lords, I ask the noble Lord's pardon, but I think that on this occasion he would be out of order in going on after I have drawn his attention to the fact that our Rules of Order do not allow for a debate on this question but only for short comments.

§ LORD SHACKLETON
My Lords, I must, I fear, though I entirely endorse the noble Lord's opinion of the value of my noble friend's contribution (it is always a delicate point to say how long 1677 explanation of a reason should go on), say that in my experience, if I were in the position of the noble Lord, Lord Aberdare, I should have had to do what he has done.

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Douglass of Cleveland, for his question and for what he has said. It reflects entirely the view of the Government in this matter. I think his words were very wise, and in view of that perhaps I need not add to what I said before in answer to the noble Lord, Lord Shackleton. But I should like to say that I take very careful note of the pressure that has been brought from the opposite side of the House that the Government should in this case seek to explain the situation. This is, if I may say so, a change of view. The war-time parallel is not perhaps entire, for reasons which I think will be obvious to the House.

§ LORD PARGITER
My Lords, would not the noble Lord agree that the point which is particularly important appears to be the question of guarantee with regard to containers? That appears to be the sticking point and may need some further explanation. Indeed, I am very doubtful whether I myself understand it properly.

§ LORD DELACOURT-SMITH
My Lords, while I agree that we do not want to drift into a debate to-day, and that the situation may not be helped by prolonged questions, I feel that, in the light of the tone of the noble Lord's reply to my noble friend Lord Shackleton, I must put two questions to him. Do the Government really recognise the widespread—I think I could almost say universal—view, to put it in its most uncontroversial way, that an important contribution to the breakdown of negotiations in the docks, and the serious situation with which we are all faced, has been the atmosphere created by the Government of which the Industrial Relations Act is one expression. My noble friend the Leader of the Opposition asked for a conciliatory attitude on the part of the Government. We earnestly hope that Ministers will refrain from the provocative speeches that have been made in the course of previous industrial disputes. There are 1678 some Ministers—and I will not seek to name them—from whom a dazzling burst of silence on the subject would be welcomed, because whatever they say, even with the best of intentions, they seem always to find the wrong words and the wrong attitude. May I earnestly hope that a sincerely conciliatory attitude is going to be adopted by the Government?

§ LORD DRUMALBYN
My Lords, the noble Lord can have every confidence that any speeches that are made will be directed towards urging the acceptance of these very sensible proposals that have been widely accepted. I do not think I need say more on that, although I ought to add that it is difficult in circumstances of this kind not to provoke somebody by almost anything one says. As to the other point, the noble Lord knows that there is a profound disagreement between the two sides. In these circumstances, I hope that he will not press to-day what he has said.