§ Mr. Ronald BellI beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation at Grunwick with particular reference to the decision of the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Grunwick.The Standing Order requires that the matter should be specific, urgent and important. I do not think that I need persuade you, Mr. Speaker, that this matter is specific, because it plainly is, nor that it is important, because again it plainly is.Certain aspects of this subject are within the consideration of the courts and it would therefore be wrong that they should be debated in the House. But on other aspects, which are in no way before the courts, which are of the highest national importance and which are being discussed and commented upon in every newspaper in the country and in countless broadcast programmes, I submit that it would be unacceptable that the House should not be heard. I think that that sentiment will command the approval of the House, whatever view hon. Members take of the merits of the issue.
The particular matter to which I have referred in my notice arose out of a decision taken last night by the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers, I believe against the advice of the union. That decision is probably already in operation.
Even when I last raised this question with you, Mr. Speaker, on an application under Standing Order No. 9, 85 sacks of mail destined for or dispatched from Grunwick Processing Laboratories were held immobile. Since then the position has deteriorated. Now the proposal is that all movement of mail should be stopped and also—I have not included it in my notice, because I was not fully informed about it—that telephonic communication should be interrupted. In those circumstances it is clear that a question of principle of the utmost importance might emerge from this dispute not solely linked to the dispute, namely, whether 456 the rule of law shall prevail in this country.
I submit that this matter should have the immediate consideration of the House, because the Attorney-General, when answering a Private Notice Question recently, said that he would make inquiries about the probable reaction if he were to prosecute for breaches of the Post Office Act. We have heard nothing since and no prosecution has been launched. If it be conceded that a hostile reaction from those whom the Attorney-General sounded is enough to prevent the application of the law, important constitutional questions arise. Therefore, I submit that the Attorney-General should have the earliest opportunity of coming before the House and explaining his inaction and accounting for the manner in which he has exercised his discretion.
You will remember, Mr. Speaker, that when the question of the Attorney-General's discretion arose in another matter he said that he was accountable for it not before the courts but before Parliament. I ask that, in accordance with his own repeated declaration, he should come before Parliament and account for the manner in which he is exercising his discretion in this important and urgent matter.
§ Mr. SpeakerThe hon. and learned Member for Beaconsfield (Mr. Bell) and several other hon. Members gave me notice this morning that they wished to move the Adjournment of the House, under Standing Order No. 9, for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration, namely,
the situation at Grunwick with particular reference to the decision of the London district council of the Union of Post Office Workers to ban all movement of mail to and from Gran-wick.I indicated to the House that I have had applications from both sides of the House on this matter, and in the plural on both sides. I have realised from the beginning of this dispute that there was bound to be a time when the House should have the chance to discuss the national issues involved. Since my previous rulings on the matter there have been other developments in connection with the dispute.I want the House to know that if I accede to this request the matters that 457 are sub judice will still remain sub judice in any debate that follows. Secondly, it is possible if other legal action is taken this day or tomorrow morning that it could still prevent our discussing the Post Office matter. That subject would become sub judice and would be added to the list. I remind the House further that if I agree to this request the debate will be on the Adjournment and therefore everything will be in order except those matters which are sub judice.
Bearing those considerations in mind, I believe that the time has come when I must agree to the request. I am satisfied that the matter raised is proper to be discussed under Standing Order No. 9. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman have the leave of the House?
§ The leave of the House having been given—
§ Mr. SpeakerI must tell the House that the motion for the Adjournment of the House now stands over until the commencement of public business tomorrow.