Dock Workers (Pay and Conditions)

– in the House of Commons at 12:00 am on 19 June 1972.

Alert me about debates like this

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham 12:00, 19 June 1972

With permission, Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a statement.

Since I made a statement to the House on 26th May the National Joint Council has met three times. The last meeting was on 13th June. The Transport and General Workers Union held a national delegate conference on 14th June as a result of which it was decided to accept offers made by the employers and to defer the notice of strike for a period of six weeks.

The employers' offer on pay and conditions which have now been agreed were, first, an increase of 60p in the daily guaranteed payment. This increases the weekly fall-back guarantee from £20 to £23. Secondly, men on the temporarily unattached register who apply for severance payment under the terms of the industry's agreement and are selected will receive in addition to their severance pay a terminal resettlement grant of £500. Thirdly, a disturbance payment of £50 will be paid to a dock worker who comes on to the temporarily unattached register and does not leave within four weeks. This payment will be made to all dockers who are at present on this register for reasons of redundancy. Lastly, the annual holiday agreement has been adjusted to provide an extra two days' holiday in 1972 and a further three days' holiday in 1973. The agreement providing for these four changes will operate from Monday, 26th June.

As I informed the House in my previous statement, the union's claim also included a demand that registered dockers should carry out the work of stuffing and stripping containers at group-age depots. On 24th May the employers proposed that an authoritative joint committee should be established to examine and report on this matter and other associated questions affecting the future employment of dock workers. This was agreed.

This committee has met on three occasions under the chairmanship of Lord Aldington, Chairman of the Port of London Authority, and Mr. Jack Jones, General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union, and is to meet again this evening.

A preliminary statement by this committee was reported to the docks delegate conference on 14th June. The committee expects to produce an interim report, and it is the union's intention to submit this to the next delegate conference which it is calling.

As the House knows, unofficial strikes were called in all major ports on Friday, 16th June, in protest against an order made by the National Industrial Relations Court in connection with the Chobham Farm dispute. This is a dispute between men in two separate sections of the Transport and General Workers Union as to who should carry out the work of stuffing and stripping containers at this depot. I understand that decisions have already been taken to resume work in some ports, and I hope that by tomorrow a general resumption will have taken place.

The House will welcome the fact that the pay issues involved in the national dispute have been settled. The underlying employment problems are complex. It is for this reason that the employers suggested setting up the joint committee which was an essential part of the recommendation put to the union's delegate conference on 14th June.

The House will join me in hoping that the joint committee will be able to pursue its difficult task in an atmosphere free from industrial action.

Photo of Mr Reginald Prentice Mr Reginald Prentice , East Ham North

At the end of the railways dispute when the right hon. Gentleman made a statement I was unkind enough to chide him for hiding his embarrassment by making a brief statement. May I at least on this occasion congratulate him on changing his technique? This time he has made a long involved statement, which misses the main point.

Would the right hon. Gentleman at least agree that in the last few weeks this country has been dangerously close to a national dock strike and that we all owe a great debt to those who have been working to avert that strike and settle the issues? In his statement the right hon. Gentleman mentioned the work of Jack Jones and Lord Aldington, and they and others deserve all our support.

Is it not clear that all their efforts have been sabotaged by all the ridiculous goings-on in the National Industrial Relations Court on a series of cases during this period which have made the whole situation much more difficult for those working for a peaceful solution? Was not a climax reached on Thursday and Friday of last week when we were almost plunged into a national dock strike because of the events arising from the Chobham Farm case?

Would not the right hon. Gentleman acknowledge that the Government and the country were rescued from this disaster by the fortunate and unexpected appeal that was heard in the Appeal Court and by the decision of Lord Denning and his colleagues last Friday evening? Does the right hon. Gentleman expect that the Government will be as lucky as this next time?

Is it not clear that as long as the Industrial Relations Act remains on the Statute Book any small or local dispute in any industry in the country can escalate into a national crisis of this kind which can have disastrous effects for the national economy?

Finally, may I put it to the right hon. Gentleman that industrial relations, which are worse under the present Government than they were under any post-war Government, will get worse still as long as this Act is on the Statute Book, and that the only sensible course is to repeal it without delay?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I do not think that the House has listened for some time to a greater distortion of the facts than that.

There are two main points about this dispute. The first is that the national dispute on the extremely difficult problem of stripping and stuffing containers—a problem which has been bedevilling the docks for some time—was brought into the open by the National Industrial Relations Act, and a major step forward towards solving it was taken in setting up the committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jack Jones and Lord Aldington. It was the setting up of this committee, together with the agreement of the employers to some of the points put to them by the dock workers, that enabled the docks delegate conference to call off the national strike.

What brought the trouble back again was a dispute between two sections of the TGWU, which all the efforts of Mr. Jones have been unable to resolve. All that the NIRC did was to give to one group of work people the right of the law to take another to court, a right which was used by that group. The situation which was the immediate occasion of the latest industrial action could have arisen out of any action by any court; that is to say, against an order made for contempt.

As to the future, I hope that we shall be able to settle inter-union disputes as easily as we have been able to establish the Aldington-Jones Committee.

Photo of Mr Gilbert Longden Mr Gilbert Longden , South West Hertfordshire

Since it is clear that with the best will in the world, and through no one's fault, many hundreds of dockers will be redundant in the near future, what steps are the Government taking to retrain these men and place them in suitable alternative employment?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

The problem of redundancy among dock workers is one which the Aldington-Jones Committee is considering. There are two aspects of it. One is the work which may be provided for dock workers in the docks, which the committee is considering, and the other is severance arrangements and training, which also is a matter for its consideration.

Photo of Mr Eric Heffer Mr Eric Heffer , Liverpool, Walton

Even if one accepted the view of the right hon. Gentleman that it was an argument between two sections of workers, which I do not accept—[HON. MEMBERS: "What is it then?"] Even if one accepted that argument, is it not clear that the action of Sir John Donaldson and the National Industrial Relations Court made the situation far more difficult than it needed to be? Is it not clear that the time has come when the National Industrial Relations Court needs to be swept away as a first contribution towards good industrial rela- tions in this country? Would he not agree that the basic issue cannot be solved by offering dockers £500 as a terminal payment? The basic issue is to ensure that the work which has always been traditionally dockers' work will become part and parcel of an agreement with the Transport and General Workers Union involving the dockers and giving them the continuity of employment which they need?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I understood that the union concerned did not regard the basic issue as one which could be solved by depriving one set of members of the union of their jobs and giving them to another set. This is certainly a dispute between employees. The employer concerned has made it plain that he is willing to agree to any reasonable solution put forward by the union if it can reach agreement on what the solution can be. As to the action of the Court in this, the hon. Member is right only on the assumption that the dock workers are entitled to consider themselves above and beyond the law.

Photo of Mr Michael Fidler Mr Michael Fidler , Bury and Radcliffe

Would my right hon. Friend care to remind hon. Members opposite that the law of the land is the law binding on all, both employee and employer in industry, and hon. Members on both sides of this House? Would he be good enough to appeal to hon. Members opposite not to exacerbate situations but to obey the law which defends the rights of those engaged in industry on both sides, rather than fan the dangers of revolution to which we have been subjected—[Laughter.]

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I am sure that no hon. Member could seriously defend any people or any section of the population who sought to defy the law.

Mr. J. T. Price:

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Select Committee on Nationalised Industries, of which 1 am a member, has been conducting an inquiry into the nationalised dock industry for the last twelve months, that its report was laid on the Table a few days ago, that, although it has not yet been published because of printing delays, it will put before the House a recomendation that would go far to solve this insane dispute which Government policies have only exacerbated, and that it contains a definite reference to stuffing and stripping and all that flows from it, which we have heard about today? Is he further aware that it is only my natural courtesy that prevents me saying that the Minister himself should get stuffed and stripped?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I thank the hon. Gentleman for his information, if not for his courtesy. The problems of containerisation and other forms of handling cargo are considerable. This is why it is so important—I hope that all sides will agree with this—that the authoritative committee under the chairmanship of Mr. Jones and Lord Aldington should be allowed to consider all possible suggestions for solving these problems. The unions and the employers are represented on this committee, so in this case it is a committee which can justly be called authoritative.

Several Hon. Members:

rose

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. I do not intend to stop questions now, but I would point out that this is an Opposition Supply Day on unemployment in Yorkshire and Humberside and that, so far as I can make out, every Yorkshire and Humberside Member wishes to speak. Therefore, I hope that questions will be brief.

Photo of Mr Robert Redmond Mr Robert Redmond , Bolton West

Would not contempt arise in any case in which people ignored any part of the High Court? Is it not true that we would not have got to this present result if three people had been rather less stupid and had appeared at the Court to make a defence of their situation, instead of waiting for the Official Solicitor to do it for them?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

Yes; there have been cases in the past in which this sort of situation has arisen over an action brought before other courts.

Photo of Mr Charles Loughlin Mr Charles Loughlin , Gloucestershire West

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that almost everyone in the House will be delighted at the progress made on wages and the fact that the committee has met to discuss the various issues with which the docks industry is faced? But would he also agree that the situation which was produced last week in which three dockers were liable to be arrested and imprisoned is a lesson that he should learn from the operation of the Industrial Relations Act? This will happen time and time again unless something is done to remove this Act from the Statute Book.

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

When—especially when—a committee consisting of employers and employees has been set up, it is not at all unreasonable that a court should not give a judgment on the substantive issue but should seek to provide the conditions in which that issue can be settled generally and the blacking stopped in one particular situation. This is particularly so when that Court was doing so in response to an appeal from other members of the same trade union. It is the refusal of the dock workers concerned to respond to that court which led them into the situation they got into.

Photo of Mr Norman Fowler Mr Norman Fowler , Nottingham South

Would my right hon. Friend not agree that the last Government's proposals on industrial relations gave just as much potential for martyrdom as anything in the present Act? Would he not agree also that the essential point about the rule of law in industrial relations is that it still has the overwhelming support of the mass of the population?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I think that my hon. Friend is correct. I would also think that if these matters had got to any other form of court, the same sort of situation could of course have arisen. The answer is that it is not unreasonable that, in dealing with these matters, the law should be observed, and by all concerned.

Photo of Mr John Pardoe Mr John Pardoe , North Cornwall

Reverting to the pay and conditions offer which the right hon. Gentleman described, exactly what percentage does that offer represent? Was the Government's intention when they passed the Industrial Relations Act the same as that of the Appeal Court? If not, should the Act not be repealed or dramatically amended?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

It is far too soon to say what, if any, amendment the Act will need in due course. Events have shown that it should in no circumstances be repealed. As to the amount of the increases, it is not an amount in a normal pay award but an increase paid out on a fund raised from a levy on the employers, and it is on their fall-back guarantee only.

Photo of Mr Stephen Hastings Mr Stephen Hastings , Mid Bedfordshire

If, as a result of recent events, it may be found that there is some flaw in the Industrial Relations Act, would not my right hon. Friend agree that the answer then must be to strengthen it and in no circumstances to abandon it?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

My hon. Friend is being a little previous in assuming that there is a massive flaw in the Industrial Relations Act. Certainly the intention of the Act is that these matters should be conducted within a framework of law. The Government will certainly see that that is just what the Act will do.

Photo of Mr Michael Maitland Stewart Mr Michael Maitland Stewart , Fulham

In view of the answer that the Minister has now given to four of his hon. Friends about the importance of the rule of law, would he not agree that the law is binding on us all—all, including Sir John Donaldson?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

That is not a matter into which I should like to go too deeply, but I hope that the right hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that Sir John Donaldson is quarrelling with any decision of the higher court.

Photo of Sir Gerald Nabarro Sir Gerald Nabarro , Worcestershire South

While recognising that this is in considerable measure a dispute within a union, would my right hon. Friend tell the House and guide the general public on this single important point: how can the court or any other body deal with an internecine dispute within a union and within the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act when apparently there is no provision for dealing with a problem of that particular kind?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

The court never sought to deal with the issue in an internecine dispute. It merely said that the parties to that dispute should refrain from acting illegally by blacking lorries until that dispute had been settled.

Photo of Mr Norman Atkinson Mr Norman Atkinson , Tottenham

Does the Minister recollect the assurances given by his predecessor and the Solicitor-General, that shop stewards would not be arrested and imprisoned in these circumstances? Therefore, would he accept the genuine thanks of all those on this side of the House who are deeply interested in industrial relations that the Government have found a way of not sentencing these shop stewards to imprisonment? Would he accept our thanks for that act?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I must make it plain that the hon. Gentleman is totally mistaken. I understand that the Master of the Rolls made a statement in which he made it plain that there was no Government intervention.

Photo of Mr Derek Walker-Smith Mr Derek Walker-Smith , Hertfordshire East

In view of what the right hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Michael Stewart) saw fit to say about Mr. Justice Donaldson, is not it rather premature to crow over a judgment of first instance which has been reversed by the Court of Appeal where there is an appeal to the higher court in the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

Yes. I am grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend for reminding the House that such an appeal has been lodged.

Photo of Mr Stan Orme Mr Stan Orme , Salford West

Would not the Minister agree that the container dispute in the docks is not between two sets of union members but was created by the ship owners and dock employers by creating container ports and refusing to have dockers originally because they would have to pay them more money? Is not that the basis of the problem? Regarding the operation of the National Industrial Relations Court at present and the threat of imprisonment—which the present Leader of the House said would not be possible under the Industrial Relations Act because the Government were taking action so that that could not happen, but which has happened, although it has been set aside by the Appeal Court—would the Minister agree that Sir John Donaldson is a disaster and ought to be removed?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

The hon. Gentleman has suggested that containers were introduced in the United Kingdom—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) is not allowed to say that. A reflection on a judge of the High Court can be made only on a substantive Motion. The hon. Gentleman must withdraw the phrase "a disaster".

Photo of Mr Norman Atkinson Mr Norman Atkinson , Tottenham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is totally out of place for remarks of that sort—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. It is going too far to describe a judge of the High Court as a disaster. It is one of the rules of the House that a reflection, indeed, upon the Chair, or upon a number of people, or upon a judge of the High Court, can only be made by substantive Motion. I must ask the hon. Member for Salford. West to withdraw that phrase.

Photo of Mr Stan Orme Mr Stan Orme , Salford West

Mr. Speaker, your ruling, which I respect, brings in the whole issue of what we want, which is open political discussion and dispute—[HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."]

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

May I help the hon. Gentleman? There is no objection to that kind of discussion on a substantive Motion, but it requires a substantive Motion. Therefore, I must ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the phrase now from his supplementary question.

Several Hon. Members:

rose

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

On the question of the withdrawal of an unparliamentary expression I must insist.

Photo of Mr Stan Orme Mr Stan Orme , Salford West

I was about to accede to your request, Mr. Speaker, and I withdraw the remark I made, but say that Sir John Donaldson's decision was national disaster.

Photo of Mr Michael Foot Mr Michael Foot , Ebbw Vale

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, In view of the replies that have been given in response to questions from this side of the House in this exchange, has not the Secretary of State for Employment on a number of occasions given replies which appear to support the Donaldson court as against the Denning court—if I may use that kind of shorthand—and has he not on a number of occasions appeared to give his approval to the earlier ruling as against the second ruling?

My point of order, which is quite separate from that of my hon. Friend, is this. Is it not intolerable that the House of Commons should have to proceed to discuss these matters without being able to debate the implications of the sub judice ruling or advice given by the Procedure Committee? May we have your support, Mr. Speaker, in view of the rulings that you have to give on these matters, in urging, as the Opposition have urged, that we should dispose of this matter as speedily as possible in the sense of having a debate in the House about the Procedure Committee's Report, and the question of sub judice and whether it is tolerable for a Minister to make the kind of remarks which have been made by the Secretary of State about one court as against another?

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

That would appear to be a very appropriate question for business questions on a Thursday. It is not a point of order. Right hon. and hon. Members are entitled to express opinions as long as they do not cast reflections. If they want to cast reflections—I agree that it is a difficult line to draw—there must be a Motiton. I take note of the fact that the hon. Member for Salford, West has withdrawn the phrase, and I am grateful to him for that. That phrase went beyond our line.

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

I was about to call the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) for a supplementary question shortly, but he may have forfeited his right.

Photo of Mr Norman Atkinson Mr Norman Atkinson , Tottenham

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I think that it is fair that we should challenge your ruling, because what you now seem to be saying—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. The hon. Member may certainly challenge it, but he must do that by Motion.

Photo of Mr Norman Atkinson Mr Norman Atkinson , Tottenham

Are you now saying, Mr. Speaker, that it is not within the power of the House to discuss the competence of a judge in coming to a particular conclusion?

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

In my view, the ruling of a court can be discussed in certain circumstances. I indicated the other day where I thought the onus, the burden, lay. As I said on the other occasion, if it is a matter of wide political and industrial relations interest, the onus must be upon those who wish to assert the sub judice rule. I do not think that at present there is anything sub judice, in connection with this particular statement. There is nothing sub judice on that at present, so no question arises. But, when it comes to casting aspersions or casting reflections, there are certain rules, and when it comes to disagreeing with the ruling of the Chair it must be done by Motion.

Photo of Mr Eric Heffer Mr Eric Heffer , Liverpool, Walton

Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Although hon. Members on the Government side of the House may not regard this as important, it is important. I attended a conference of my trade union last week, at which a matter was raised with me in relation to the judge, and it was said—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. With great respect to the hon. Member, I cannot possibly be expected to rule upon what took place at a conference. I have dealt with this matter. I have to bear in mind all the Yorkshire Members who wish to speak in the debate later. I must try to protect their interests. I have ruled absolutely clearly that there is nothing sub judice at present on this statement. I will not allow reflections upon a Member of the High Court. The reflection has been withdrawn. If there is any criticism of my ruling, it must be done by Motion. We must now conclude the business on this statement.

Photo of Mr Eric Heffer Mr Eric Heffer , Liverpool, Walton

On a point of order. You did not hear me out, Mr. Speaker. I was going to say that if I then wished, during a speech or question in this House, to refer to statements made at my trade union conference, or made anywhere else for that matter, which might be considered as a reflection upon a judge, would I, or any other hon. Member, be allowed to make a statement of that kind? You may not consider it important, but I consider it to be a matter of grave importance because of the position hon. Members and the whole trade union movement have been placed in by the Court in relation to the—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. The hon. Member has no right to say that I do not regard the matter as important. I do regard it as important, and I shall certainly rule should the situation arise. The hon. Member is asking me a hypothetical question. The curious thing about all this sub judice argument is that I have only once stopped a question and only once agreed to the stopping of a Motion and on the Motion it was in regard to its terms and not because it was a Motion. I will rule on the lines I have indicated as and when each question arises.

Photo of Mr Kenneth Lewis Mr Kenneth Lewis , Rutland and Stamford

Would my right hon. Friend agree that, whatever the results of the last few days in connection with the National Industrial Relations Court of the Industrial Relations Act, it is clear to the public and everyone else that the Court and the Act, and the working through of the Act up to now, have not been detrimental in any way to the trade unions as a whole or to any single trade unionist?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I think that is so, but it must be remembered that the trouble that arose over Chobham Farm was related not directly to the nature of the dispute but to a refusal of one group of workers to attend the Court and the consequent judgment of contempt

Photo of Sir Elwyn Jones Sir Elwyn Jones , West Ham South

That is the third time that the Secretary of State has taken the view that the decision of Sir John Donaldson is the correct one, and he seems to be repudiating the decision of the Court of Appeal, which has certainly quashed the contempt orders. Is it not imperative that the right hon Gentleman should be more cautious in making observations of this kind?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I have made absolutely no comment whatsoever upon the judgment of Sir John Donaldson or that of the Appeal Court. I have said only that the action arose out of contempt and not out of the issue involved.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

The Chobham Farm depot is in my constituency, as you know, Mr. Speaker. I wrote to you hoping to be able to put a question about the matter. I was the only Member of Parliament who took the trouble on Friday to go down and see these people. I spoke to them, and I paid tribute to the police and to the men for their good humour and for the way in which they conducted themselves. I was asked to convey to the Prime Minister and to the Ministers concerned the views of these men. They said that they could not believe that there would be any honesty or sincerity on the part of the Government. Before the "Good Fairy" arrived they said that they thought the whole thing was crooked. They believed that the Government would take action to see that they did not go to gaol, and they said they felt that the Industrial Relations Act was crooked also. They said that as a political man, who was supposed to be a judge and who was a former active Tory, was involved, they had no confidence—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

That is enough. The rest of this interesting communication must be made in writing.

Photo of Mr Kenneth Lewis Mr Kenneth Lewis , Rutland and Stamford

Can I finish by saying—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Enough is enough. Mr. Macmillan.

Photo of Mr Edward Short Mr Edward Short , Newcastle upon Tyne Central

On a point of order. You have ruled, quite rightly, Mr. Speaker, that we cannot say anything which impugns the integrity or competence of a High Court judge. But surely we can point out that he was a Conservative Party official a short time ago? [Interruption.]

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Order. I was intervening not because of the content of the question but because of its length. Mr. Macmillan.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

On a point of order—

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

Does the Minister wish to reply?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

I must remind the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) that the application that was heard by the National Industrial Relations Court on 12th June was an application by representatives of the workers at Chobham Farm and that on 14th June the plaintiffs reported to the National Industrial Relations Court.

Photo of Mr Arthur Lewis Mr Arthur Lewis , West Ham North

They reckon that it is all crooked. What about Friday?

Photo of Mr Maurice Macmillan Mr Maurice Macmillan , Farnham

Therefore, any action which stemmed from it which the hon. Gentleman's constituents complained about was action taken by fellow members of the Transport and General Workers Union.

Photo of Mr Selwyn Lloyd Mr Selwyn Lloyd , Wirral

The hon. Member must keep quiet. I now call the Minister for Aerospace to make his statement.