GRUNWICK PROCESSING LABORATORIES LTD. (DISPUTE) (Hansard, 2 November 1976)

§ The Minister of State, Department of Employment (Mr. Harold Walker)
I understand that some 140 employees of this company have been on strike since 23rd August, initially in support of 10 other employees who, it is claimed, were dismissed unfairly. The strikers themselves were subsequently dismissed by the company.
The strike has been made official by the Association of Professional, Executive, Clerical and Computer Staff, which is claiming recognition. At the request of the Association, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service has several times sought to persuade the company to accept its assistance in seeking an end to the dispute but the company has so far refused to meet the union.
On 15th October the union referred the recognition issue to ACAS under the statutory procedure provided in the Employment Protection Act. An inquiry by ACAS is, I understand, proceeding.
Members of other unions are taking sympathetic industrial action, including action by members of the Union of Post Office Workers which is affecting postal services to the company.
1200 Given the history and circumstances of this dispute, I would hope that the company will even now agree to participate in meetings with the union under the auspices of ACAS in a search for the earliest possible settlement of the issues in dispute.

§ Mr. Gorst
I thank the Minister for his reply. It is possible that there may well be a dispute about some of the facts, as seen by the management. The managing director is a constituent of mine. I put to the Minister that the action by the Union of Post Office Workers is in direct contradiction to the provisions of Section 58 of the Post Office Act 1953, which states that any officer of the Post Office who wilfully fails to handle mail is guilty of a misdemeanour.
Will the Minister say whether this provision has been brought to the attention of the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers? If so, will he, in the light of that, be withdrawing this industrial action? If industrial action is not withdrawn, will proceedings under the Act be taken against those who are involved?

§ Mr. Walker
I think that what is beyond dispute is that there is interference with the mail—although this started only yesterday, I understand. I am sure that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers is quite familiar with the law in this respect. It is not for me to judge the legality or illegality of such action. I understand, however, that if the company would respond to the proposals of ACAS for conciliation and the use of the Section 11 procedure under the Employment Protection Act, the union would immediately call off its action.

§ Sir G. de Freitas
Is the Minister aware that this firm employs Asians who work in disgraceful conditions and that immediately they join APEX they are sacked? Will the Minister, therefore, explain to the firm that the first step in avoiding liquidation is to negotiate with APEX in order to get a settlement?

§ Mr. Walker
I have heard some very disturbing stories about the behaviour of the company, but we all recognise that what is necessary now is that steps should be taken to bring the dispute to a speedy end. I hope that the company will take 1201 advantage of the willingness of ACAS to conciliate and to use the Section 11 procedure to which I have referred.

§ Mr. Tebbit
Without entering into the merits of the dispute one way or the other, may I ask the Minister whether he will now advise Post Office workers that it is no part of their job to discriminate in the delivery of mail in response to industrial disputes, political likes and dislikes, or any other factor whatsoever? The Minister should make the position clear now. Is he aware that, if he does not do so, it will be assumed that he is at least conniving in—if not giving complete approval to—the use of the mails as a weapon of industrial warfare?

§ Mr. Walker
No, I think it is perhaps a symptom of the character of this dispute that reasonable and moderate men feel sufficiently outraged to take the action they have taken. I have no doubt that the General Secretary of the Union of Post Office Workers—the action taken has now been made official—is fully aware of the law. The whole House will recognise him as a reasonable and moderate man who would not take such action unless provoked into it.

§ Mr. Pavitt
Is the Minister aware that most of the workers in this factory are in my constituency, and that the factory itself is in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson)? We have had no notification from the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in the usual courteous manner.
Is the Minister also aware that the history of this dispute goes back over many years, and that the company is intransigent and sends rude letters to me and to my right hon. Friend? We get no proper response to our letters. It is the only firm in the whole of my constituency which treats its workers in this deplorable fashion. [Interruption.]

§ Mr. Walker
I am bound to say that I am surprised at the reaction of Conservative Members to what my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, South (Mr. Pavitt) has just said. He and my right hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Freeson) have played a thoroughly useful and constructive role throughout this long dispute, urging the company to take advantage of the conciliation machinery 1202 provided by the Government—machinery which has secured the approval and support of all parties in this House.

§ Mr. Prior
Following what my hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) has said about the attitude of the Post Office workers, will the Minister join me in hoping that reasonable and moderate men in the Union of Post Office Workers will be very careful not to break the law in this case, although they may feel aggrieved at the treatment being meted out to other workers?
In view of the fact that an inquiry is proceeding into a recognition dispute under Section 11 of the Employment Protection Act, and that ACAS has the necessary power now to decide on a recognition issue, would it not be better in those circumstances if advice were given to the people concerned to return to work pending the ACAS report? We may otherwise have an increase in the number of unemployed people, and I am sure that we wish to avoid that.

§ Mr. Walker
I am sure that we all want people in disputes anywhere to observe the law. We are all as anxious as the right hon. Gentleman that any possible loss of jobs arising from this sorry dispute should be avoided. I regret that the right hon. Gentleman did not see fit to encourage the company to use the conciliation machinery which has his blessing. The right way in which to bring a speedy end to the dispute is to get the parties to sit down together—as they will have to do eventually—under the auspices of the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service.

§ Mr. Ashton
Is it not a fact that this firm has been exploiting coloured immigrants by paying them as little as £23 a week? As the firm's business is conducted mainly by mail order, is it not obvious that a sympathetic union such as the Union of Post Office Workers will take action to prevent this sort of exploitation, and that if the firm refuses to negotiate with ACAS the best thing it can do is to go into liquidation?

§ Mr. Walker
I said earlier that I had heard disturbing reports about the company's conduct. What we all want now is to seek to bring the dispute to a speedy end and to avoid at this stage the use of any words which might impede that 1203 process. However, there may well be some wider issues deserving of more careful consideration once the dispute has been resolved.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. We cannot debate it now.

§ Mr. Skinner
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. We all appreciate that when applications are made for Private Notice Questions affecting matters of national importance, there is some sort of general convention that they are raised by Opposition Front Bench spokesmen. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, other applications are made which involve direct constituency interests, and on some of those occasions, although not all, a Private Notice Question will be accepted in the first place by you and then answered.
Having listened to these proceedings for the last 10 minutes, I feel bound to wonder—as, indeed, do some of my hon. Friends—how the hon. Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst), who was responsible for putting down the Private Notice Question, managed somehow or other, in very unusual circumstances, to get it through the tight control exercised by you before allowing a Private Notice Question.

§ Mr. Pavitt
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I do not question your ruling. I know the procedure very well. But will you also bear in mind that it is not the practice of Mr. Speaker's Department to inform hon. Members if their constituencies are affected by a Private Notice Question? For future reference, would you look into whether that decision should be altered?

§ Mr. Speaker
It is quite impossible for me—as I must take responsibility—to have a map in order to see where particular factories are and in whose constituency they are. I deal with the issue. The House has vested me with this discretion, which I exercise very carefully, as the House has discovered. I realise that I am very cautious in my attitude. If I think that a Question should go to the Order Paper and not jump the queue, I am not slow in indicating so.
1204 I can only say to the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) that I went into this matter with great care before the Question was allowed. I felt that there was some urgency and that a statement was required. That was my judgment.

§ Mr. Speaker
Order. I will not allow a debate on what I have said.

§ Mr. Spriggs
On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am trying to be helpful in my point of order. May I put it to you that an hon. Member applying for a PNQ should state definitely whether it is a constituency matter?

§ Mr. Gorst
On a point or order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether I might make three points on this. First, the matter was brought to my attention by a constituent of mine who is the managing director of the firm concerned. Secondly, the Member of Parliament for the constituency in which this dispute has arisen is in fact a Minister and, therefore, would be unable to raise the matter on the Floor of the House in the way that I could. Thirdly, the issue is much more important than the jobs of 300 people, important as they may be. It has national connotations in that the action of the Post Office workers is a threat to the nation as a whole.

§ Mr. Speaker
I find it a very difficult task to deal with Private Notice Questions because I have to have the interests of the House as a whole at heart as well as those of the hon. Member who asks the Question.
With regard to the helpful point of order raised by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), I am afraid that I cannot decide Private Notice Questions on the basis that a Private Notice Question is only a constituency matter. It may well be a matter of national concern. But I shall bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman said.

§ Mr. Buchan
I have followed your ruling, Mr. Speaker, in the course of which I think you have answered the point that I wished to make, that in the future, it would be seen as a convention of the House that, where it is a constituency matter, that should be said, and, 1205 where it is not, that also should be said in the application.

§ Mr. Ridley
Many hon. Members, myself included, feel that it is quite intolerable for the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) to have questioned your decision, Mr. Speaker, to call this Private Notice Question. Your job would become quite intolerable if you had to answer and defend every decision to call or not to call a Private Notice Question. May we, therefore, assure you that from the Opposition Benches there will be no support for the bullying line of questioning on bogus points of order adopted by Government supporters?

§ Mr. Speaker
I try to deal courteously with everyone in the House who raises any question, and I assume that an hon. Member who does intends to be courteous.

§ Mr. Peyton
Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. I hope that we can all agree that it would be most unfortunate if, every time a Private Notice Question were allowed, there were to be an inquest into the way in which you had exercised your discretion or an attempt to rewrite Standing Orders. There are other ways of doing that. I hope very much that, simply because of the rather spiteful disappointment of one hon. Member that something with which he does not happen to agree has been allowed, there will be no suggestion that applications for Private Notice Questions should be in any way limited to constituency interests.

§ Mr. Speaker
I think that I made that clear earlier. I am very much obliged to the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Peyton) for what he said in his opening remarks. I think that the House must accept the ruling of its Speaker on these matters.

§ Mr. Faulds
Further to that point of order— —

§ Mr. Speaker
This must be the last point of order that I shall take on this matter.

§ Mr. Faulds
I trust that it will be. In view of the conduct of the disgraceful Member for Hendon, North (Mr. Gorst) in not informing the Members more immediately concerned, would it not be 1206 advisable that you Mr. Speaker, or his own conscience, should prick him to apologise to the Members more immediately concerned?

§ Mr. Speaker
Relationships between hon. Members are not my concern. But I hope that they are always of top quality.