Messenger Newspaper Group: Dispute (Hansard, 29 November 1983)

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I now repeat an Answer given in another place about the dispute at the Stockport Messenger newspaper group. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Employment delivered a Statement which reads as follows:
"Before reporting on the current situation of the dispute between the Stockport Messenger Group and the National Graphical Association about the establishment of closed shop arrangements at the firm's subsidiaries at Warrington and Bury, I should 574 advise the House of the further developments in connection with the High Court actions that have occurred since I spoke in the House last Wednesday. The court on Friday imposed a further £100,000 fine following the failure of the National Graphical Association to pay the fine of £50,000 previously imposed and to obey the injunction to refrain from organising unlawful industrial action.
"The court also ordered the sequestration of the union's assets. Later the same day the union appealed to the Court of Appeal for a stay of the High Court's orders, pending a substantive appeal against the orders which is due to be heard tomorrow.
"I understand that the Court of Appeal asked the union for an undertaking that it would pay the fines. No such undertaking was given and the Court of Appeal accordingly refused to stay the orders of the High Court, but did limit the sequestration to £175,000. I understand the commissioners have now secured this amount.
"I also advised the House last Wednesday that the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service was seeking to arrange a further meeting between the parties to resolve the dispute. Following certain preliminary discussions over successive days a meeting under the chairmanship of the conciliation service took place between the parties on Sunday in Manchester, and a further one took place yesterday. Regrettably, agreement did not prove possible.
"Nevertheless, the conciliation service continued until late last night and again this morning to explore whether an acceptable basis could be found for a further meeting today.
"The union made clear that they were willing to travel to Manchester for a meeting with Mr. Shah and his fellow directors. Mr. Shah confirmed his willingness to attend provided he could have assurance that the mass picketing threatened for Warrington this evening did not occur. The union were not able to give such an assurance. I much regret therefore that it now seems clear that it will not be possible for a meeting to take place today. I confirm that the conciliation service will continue the efforts that they have been making throughout the dispute to find an agreed solution, but it is clearly not helped by the further threats of mass picketing which have been made.
"I have to say to the House that mass picketing has no place in industrial relations in this country. Moreover, in this dispute mass picketing has already been determined by the courts to be unlawful, and is now positively frustrating the chance of a settlement".

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, may I first of all thank the noble Lord the Minister for his Statement delivered in reply to the Private Notice Question tabled in another place. Parts of the Statement refer to legal processes, and my information is that Mr. Shah has activated some other legal processes today. So I do not propose, nor would it be right, to comment on those.
575 The Minister must be aware that this was a local dispute concerning the reinstatement of six workers. It has been escalated into a serious national dispute because of the effects of Conservative Government employment legislation. Is it not a serious fault that in these Acts a legal process is set in being that makes conciliation more difficult? Can I urge upon the Minister once again to continue to press the Secretary of State as a matter of urgency to seek to bring the parties involved in this dispute together in order to resolve the dispute in the interests of all.

§ Lord Rochester
My Lords, from these Benches I join in thanking the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin, for having repeated the Statement. I have little to add to what I said in response to the Statement upon the dispute last week when I spoke on behalf of my noble friends and allies. We share the regret expressed in the Statement that it has not been possible to reach an agreement.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Dean, I do not propose to get involved in the merits of the dispute, elements of which, as he said, are sub judice, save to make one thing abundantly plain; that is that in the serious situation which looks like developing in Cheshire tonight we regard the primary need to be to uphold the law. Will the noble Lord confirm that it is not simply unlawful, as the Statement puts it, but a criminal offence for pickets to obstruct the highway or the entrance to premises or to seek physically to bar the passage of vehicles? Does he further agree that Section E of the code of practice on picketing, approved by both Houses of Parliament, gives specific guidance that when people seek by sheer weight of numbers to stop others delivering goods what is intended is obstruction? Finally, even at this late hour we would urge those who may be contemplating taking part in illegal mass picketing tonight to desist from it.

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I should like to thank the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, and the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, for the way in which they have responded to this Statement, and for doing their best to keep this unfortunate situation as one of regret and not trying to make too much political capital out of it. I would, however, say to Lord Dean of Beswick that the law has become involved only because of the intimidatory picketing which has taken place, and indeed if this picketing were ended a settlement would be more easily achieved. I strongly refute his suggestion that this has anything whatever to do with the legislation which the Government have introduced. Indeed, I would further say to him that those who break the law must first of all act within the law. I am sure the whole House would agree with that sentiment.
To the noble Lord, Lord Rochester, I would say that it is correct—he is absolutely right—that criminal offences have taken place, and it is for the police to deal with those, as they have been doing. I would agree entirely with him in his attitude and the attitude he has expressed on behalf of noble Lords in his party.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, may I ask the noble Lord two points arising from the Statement? First, would he confirm, notwithstanding what the noble Lord, Lord Dean of Beswick, said, that the 1980 and 1982 Acts in no way changed the law so far as illegal picketing was concerned; that in fact it has always been unlawful to do what was done in Warrington last week and what it is suggested is going to take place in Warrington this evening?
The second point is this. It has been suggested in the press and on television and radio that a special train is being sent from London tonight to carry demonstrators to Warrington and this has been arranged by the National Graphical Association. I have no idea whether this suggestion is true, but would he not agree that were it to be true it would be a serious matter for a nationalised industry to take to Warrington several hundred demonstrators who would be participating in what the courts have held to be unlawful assembly?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Harris, for his comment. He is correct that the 1982 Act changed nothing which previously referred to unlawful picketing. So far as his second point is concerned, it just could be—I am being as charitable as I can be—that British Rail feels bound to ensure that ordinary passengers do not suffer because of the presence of pickets. Nevertheless, I can only agree with the noble Lord that if this special train is designed for the pure purpose of picketing then it is a very regrettable step.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that the trade union solidarity which is being demonstrated by members of the National Graphical Association is the same trade union solidarity which the noble Lord would so warmly applaud, indeed has warmly applauded, when it has occurred in Poland?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I really think that the noble Lord is rather confused in his thinking on this issue. I would certainly not agree that it is the same solidarity.

§ Lord Boyd-Carpenter
My Lords, is it not great confusion of thought to mix up trade union solidarity with a deliberate attempt at intimidation by the mass attendance of people whose purpose is intimidation, and which quite apart from any breach of the law is thoroughly uncivilised behaviour which must cast doubt on the merits of the claim of those who adopt it?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely correct and I am sure that he expresses the sentiments of the whole House when we condemn any form of violence on picket lines.

§ Lord Marsh
My Lords, would the noble Lord not agree, on reflection, that it is impossible to keep politics out of this particular dispute, which has long since ceased to be an industrial dispute and is clearly being conducted in its implications as a direct challenge to the courts and Parliament?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I agree entirely with the noble Lord. What I said earlier was that I acknowledged that those who had spoken on behalf of other political parties in your Lordships' House had not sought to make particular political points out of it, and that I appreciated. But I entirely agree that the action itself is highly politically motivated.

§ Lord Campbell of Alloway
My Lords, would my noble friend the Minister not agree that, if the information given by the noble Lord, Lord Harris of Greenwich, is correct, a most serious situation has arisen, where it is impracticable for the court of its own motion to deal with those in open defiance of the law, because a nationalised industry will be assisting a party in legal proceedings, a party found to be in contempt, to continue and extend the measure of that contempt?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I agree with my noble friend that this is a very serious matter but I think it would be of little benefit for me to comment on a matter which is virtually for the courts.

§ Lord Ardwick
My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that many of us would be relieved if every effort were made to minimise a horrible situation?

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, I am sure that every effort will be made, but I do not believe that this is a matter for Government action.

§ Lord Dean of Beswick
My Lords, may I once again reiterate to noble Lords, as I did last week, that my party is not prepared to instruct, encourage or suggest violence in any industrial situation? I think it is to be somewhat regretted that there have been undertones in some of the utterances in the Chamber today that that might not be the standpoint of my party. We completely and utterly reject that. We are saying that people must on all occasions act within the law as it stands. If there are bad laws they need changing. I rest my submission on that.

§ Lord Gray of Contin
My Lords, of course I accept that. I am delighted that the noble Lord joins me in total condemnation of violence on picket lines.