J. E. Hanger & Co. Ltd.: Industrial Dispute (Hansard, 17 October 1986)

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they are making representations to the artificial limb makers J. Hanger of Roehampton to withdraw the dismissal of 300 workers from 16th September, and whether they can confirm that the management has refused arbitration offered by ACAS.

§ The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health and Social Security (Baroness Trumpington)
My Lords, the J. E. Hanger & Co. Ltd. industrial dispute is a matter for negotiation between the work force and the management of the company and it would be inappropriate for Her Majesty's Government to intervene. ACAS remains as ever available to assist but it is for the parties involved to decide whether they wish to avail themselves of ACAS.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. But is it not a case in which the Government should intervene? Is it not a case in which a multinational has taken over a small company; the multinational has no understanding of the business: and it has acted with the utmost brutality by dismissing the workers out of hand in what my Conservative successor as Member for the constituency, Mr. David Mellor (who is a member of the Government) has described as a gross over-reaction to a minor dispute? As a result of that brutal lockout 300 men are out of work and the 1,500 amputees in the area are suffering severely. Is it not a matter in which the Government should intervene to bring to an end an unnecessary dispute which, if the parties could get round a table reasonably, could be settled overnight?

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, my department is not party to the dispute in any way, nor has the department been informed by either side of the causes of the dispute. But we understand that a proposal by Hanger management for a substantial increase in productivity at the factory triggered the action. My department's concern is with the services to patients. We have therefore inquired of Hanger management orally and in writing what action is being taken to maintain supply and what, if any, long-term plans are being made. The company has refused to reply substantively to either approach.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
My Lords, does not the noble Baroness's reply underline the gravity of the situation as described by my noble friend? Can she say what contact she has had with her noble friend the Secretary of State for Employment? Can she say whether that department is taking any steps to bring the parties together at an early stage?

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, the question of the noble Lord, Lord Cledwyn, brings me back to my original Answer. The dispute is a matter for the company and its employees. It is not the result of any action taken by Her Majesty's Government.

§ Lord Cledwyn of Penrhos
Really, my Lords, that is a philosophy of despair. Is it not the case that the Government themselves at this stage should take some initiative to bring the parties together? That has been done in the past. Rather than that this unnecessary dispute should be prolonged, with damage to the National Health Service, to the workers concerned and to the reputation of the firm, should not the Government take some prompt action?

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I have to say that Vessa and Hanger have initiated legal proceedings against the Government to compel them to give further contracts on the same terms as in 1985. Those terms were roundly criticised by the McColl report. We cannot intervene in the dispute under those circumstances.

§ Lord Harris of Greenwich
My Lords, with great respect to the noble Baroness, the fact that there is a sub judice issue in relation to one partner in the dispute does not explain why the department should not initiate action immediately to bring the parties together. Is she aware that many of us hope that action will be taken next week to ensure that this is done?

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, our main responsibility is to make sure that the effects of the dispute at Hanger's Roehampton factory on the service to patients in the country as a whole is minimal with a relatively small number of appointments being cancelled. We do not envisage any amputee being left immobile as a result of the J. E. Hanger dispute.

§ Lord Jenkins of Putney
My Lords, is it not clear from what the noble Baroness has just said that the Government are definitely quite involved in the matter? They must be involved because of their concern for the amputees. I believe that if the noble Baroness were to look further into this issue she might find that the situation is not precisely as she has just said. There is a very serious question. It could be resolved very easily. The amputees are, in fact, suffering. If she would be good enough to take note of what has been said by my noble friend and from elsewhere on this side of the House and give the matter a little further thought, I believe that a little intervention by the Government at this point could bring the matter to an end to the benefit of all concerned.

§ Baroness Trumpington
My Lords, I note the remarks of the noble Lord.