HC Deb 21 February 1967 vol 741 cc1589-603

10.55 p.m.

Mr. Terence L. Higgins (Worthing)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Temporary Restrictions on Pay Increases (No. 3) Order 1966 (S.I., 1966, No. 1630), dated 30th December 1966, a copy of which was laid before this House on 30th December, be annulled. This Order, made under Section 28 of the Prices and Incomes Act, 1966, is another Order in a succession which we have debated and each of which raises an important point of principle as well as dealing with individual cases. The point of principle which is foremost in this Order is that, effectively, the result of the Government's policy on prices and incomes is to lead to a situation in which employers who have previously negotiated a wage agreement with their employees are obliged to break that agreement. That is the first important principle with which we are concerned in this Order and the basic approach of the Opposition was spelt out by my right hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, West (Mr. Iain Macleod) in the debate on 13th December which was concerned with the newspaper industry. I do not want to elaborate what he said then except to stress that we think it totally wrong that the law of contract should be jeopardised in the way it has been by Government policy.

This Order not only raises that point of principle but also the point of principle as to whether or not the Government should protect those who break their contracts as a result of the Government's policy. This point was made during the Committee stage of the Act. I recall the occasion vividly. It began the debate on new Clause 12 at 8.45 a.m. one day after we had been sitting since 10.30 a.m. the previous day.

The point which arose in that debate was that, if an employer was to be forced to break his contract, it was right and proper that the Government should protect him from the consequences of that unfortunate act. This was the point foreseen in that debate in the Committee stage and which is now illustrated by this Order.

There is some illusion in the country that the Government are in some sense being tough with the unions, or that the Prime Minister is. We want to be clear that what the Government are, in fact, doing is interfering piecemeal with the whole basis of collective bargaining rather than carrying out the long run reforms in the law which are necessary if we are to bring that process of collective bargaining up to date within a reasonable framework.

The Order should surely bring home to the Government once again the fact that the policy of compulsion cannot be fair or equitable. While the general deflationary measures they have taken may effectively restrain prices and incomes to some extent, none the less the policy they are pursuing by putting down individual orders on individual firms or individual workers cannot, I am sure, possibly be fair.

When we debated a recent Order on 30th January, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department suggested that there was some comprehensive principle in the Government's policy and that this meant that in some sense the freeze policy was fair. But that is complete nonsense. Large sectors of the economy are completely avoiding the freeze and to suggest that this kind of discriminatory order is justified on the basis of this Government's policy is comprehensive is, as I say, a complete nonsense.

I want to outline the background of the case we have before us. In July, 1965, the Society of British Printing Ink Manufacturers negotiated a three year national wage agreement with the Society of Graphical and Allied Trades— known as S.O.G.A.T.—and this included a cost of living clause for annual adjustments at 1st January each year according to what the index of retail prices was the previous October, which normally be the latest month for which figures were available. A situation arose last year whereby, as a result of the increase which had taken place in the cost of living, an extra eight shillings on the weekly rate for adult men was due to be paid on the 1st January, 1966, and a rate of six shillings for women and four shillings for juveniles. This arrangement covered, under the Society of British Printing Ink Manufacturers, about 39 firms, and about 2,000 workers. This agreement is somewhat larger than some of the earlier ones that we have discussed on previous Orders.

In addition to this, there was the British Printing Ink Company, which is not a member of the Society, but which had a similar agreement with S.O.G.A.T. The Government, in introducing its freeze, made it clear that the operative date of pay increases, under the cost of living sliding scale agreement, which were originally due to be paid in the first 6 months of 1967, should be deferred for six months. As a result, the particular agreement which we are considering was nullified by the Government and the pay increase was put back.

I will not go into the question of whether or not one approves of cost of living clauses in wage agreements. That is a separate question. The important thing is that an agreement had been made, which was clearly undertaken by both sides. It was freely entered into and, as a result of the Government's policy, the agreement was not carried out. The Society of British Printing Ink Manufacturers tried to agree with S.O.G.A.T. that they should defer this increase on a voluntary basis. Although they tried this, the union refused to agree to such a voluntary agreement and, consequently, the Secretary of State made the Order under Section 28, which we are now discussing.

The effect of this Order is to make it illegal for the employees in question to have been paid on the date when they might reasonably have expected to have been paid. If the employers were to infringe such an agreement, then, of course, severe penalties are imposed under the Prices and Incomes Act.

The situation which then developed is somewhat surprising. The Forrest Printing Ink Company employees, in particular, demanded that, despite the Order, the increase should be paid, or if it was not paid to them that it should be paid to some other body such as OXFAM, or it should be paid in the form of an incentive bonus. When they did this, it appeared that they were clearly in conflict with the Order. But they proposed to introduce, and did introduce, various restrictions on actual operation within the company by whom they were em- ployed. It is reasonably clear that the purpose of this was to bring pressure on the company to carry out its original agreement.

My point here is, what were the Government prepared to do in this circumstance, because clearly the company itself was put in a very difficult position? If it conformed with the Government's policy, it would run into these impossible restrictions on work, as a result of which its own viability would be jeopardised. What happened was that the workers did employ a number of restrictive practices of this kind, as a result of which the company decided that it had no option but to give them notice of dismissal. It did this on 17th January. Apparently, at the same time it notified the Ministry of Labour that this was so, but instead of the Minister of Labour taking some rapid and positive action to prevent the company from suffering from implementing the Government's own policy, I gather that nothing further happened until the 23rd January. Eventually the employees left and were transferred, as members of S.O.G.A.T., from employment by the Forrest Printing Company to other work on night shift in a quite different firm.

Effectively, what was happening was that the labour of the workers concerned was withdrawn from the firm by whom they were employed and pressure was being put on the company, through no fault of its own. There was not a strike and there was not a lock-out, but conditions were made impossible for the firm. Yet the Government took no action to protect the firm from suffering from the implementation of the Government's policy. That is the crux of the case which we are making tonight.

This naturally brings into question the whole idea of the sanctity of contract. I understand that as a result of this case there have been discussions between S.O.G.A.T. and other firms raising the whole issue of whether the contract itself is affected by Government policy. I hope that we shall be clearly told by the Parliamentary Secretary whether the impact of the Order is to bring into question the whole of the working arrangements which were embodied in the contracts of employment.

I would also like the Parliamentary Secretary to say what the position in law is. Is a new contract needed? It would clearly be impossible to negotiate it in the present circumstances, but if that is so, does that mean that there is likely to be a complete breakdown in the industrial relations in this industry, because industrial relations in individual firms are clearly being jeopardised? Individual firms affected by the results of the Government's policy also have their competitive positions seriously affected.

I hope that as a result of this debate my hon. Friends will join with me in voting against the Order, which is part and parcel of the Government's compulsory prices and incomes policy, which is not comprehensive and which singles out individuals, individual firms and individual workers. This example shows quite clearly that the Government are not prepared to protect firms which comply with Government policy from the consequences of doing so. It ought to be opposed.

11.8 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour (Mr. Roy Hattersley)

I hope the House will forgive me if, like the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins), in the short time which I intend to allow myself, I take hon. Members through some of the chronological facts which have surrounded the Order. For it is not possible fully to understand the nature of the troubles in the printing industry—troubles which we do not minimise, for we do not pretend that the industry is as tranquil as we would choose—without going through the chronological events in rather more detail than the hon. Gentleman gave himself time to do.

The agreement whose application we are debating is the agreement of July 1965. The hon. Gentleman was right to say that the increase at issue is the cost-of-living increase which would have been paid on 1st January this year. But between the two events there was a fact of some substance which would certainly have been marked if we had been debating other Orders on other principles. These men received a substantial increase in 1966, a few days before the announcement of 20th July would have made it impossible. This is a point which would have been made with some force if we had been debating other Orders. On other occasions we have been told that a particularly mitigating factor has been that some of the wage demands against which Orders have been made have been in respect of men who had not had increases for many months.

The hon. Gentleman said that every Order raised a different question of principle; he might have said that the attack on every Order produces a different form of tactic. We ought to put on record points which have been recorded on previous occasions. A few days before the stand-still a substantial, 4½ per cent., increase on the basic wage was awarded to the union.

The hon. Gentleman is right to say that immediately before the 8s. cost of living increase was turned down the Government advised the members of the Manufacturers' Society that this would be a clear breach of the incomes policy, at para. 32 of the White Paper, Cmd. 3150. He is also correct in saying that the Manufacturers' Society accepted that this would be a clear breach and began to negotiate what it hoped would be a voluntary postponement with S.O.G.A.T. It is equally right to say that it failed in its endeavours.

It is important to understand that from that moment that the Manufacturers' Society decided to consult the Government and to consider the best way to implement what it freely acknowledged to be Government policy, it asked if it was appropriate to apply for a Section 30 Order, and was advised by the Government that this was essentially a matter for the Society. But that whether it chose to postpone the increase in that way or any other way, irrespective of that decision, a payment of the increase would clearly be in contravention of the Government's prices and incomes policy.

Properly, in my view, the manufacturers chose to talk again to the union and the Ministry of Labour—the first example of the intervention by the Ministry, which has been constant and assiduous. The T.U.C. in the form of its General Secretary was asked to speak to the union and ask for a postponement on a voluntary basis. The sort of advice given to the General Secretary of the T.U.C. by S.O.G.A.T. was that on no consideration would the union agree to a voluntary postponement, and that for its part the cost of living increase payable on 1st January must be paid and no other alternative could be accepted.

As a result of the clear decision by the union to press for the increase, on 15th December last the Manufacturers' Society Council recommended that its members should pay the increase from 1st January. It recommended this for two reasons. First, the Council had no confidence that if it gave advice that the increase should not be paid, all of its members would conform with that advice. It had some hope that a majority would but it felt that a few would choose to ignore the advice. It pointed out that the printing industry in general, and the printing ink industry in particular, is especially vulnerable to industrial action, and that goods and orders, once lost, can never be recouped. Therefore it understood that some of its members would feel reluctant, indeed incapable, of applying any form of voluntary restraint without some sort of Government backing.

Because of that on 30th December, a Section 28 Order was made, coming into operation on the next day, limiting the remuneration to the average level paid in the industry during the previous three months. As the House will know the Order covered parties to the national agreement, the house agreement, between the British Printing Ink Company and S.O.G.A.T., and as the Order says, "expressly or by implication", other unions, other firms which paid rates similar to or corresponding with the going rate.

Mr. Higgins

Does it also cover other forms of bonus?

Mr. Hattersley

Yes, it covers other forms of bonus, because it clearly specifies that the remuneration is limited to the level of the previous three months, and this is an all-embracing net, which would catch any increase, irrespective of how it was paid.

The hon. Gentleman said that the disturbance of the industry in general and the printing ink industry in particular was the result of general Government policy. It is almost invariably the case that even those unions which have expressed publicly, volubly and consistently their disagreement with the Government's incomes policy, and particularly with Part IV of the Act, nevertheless feel it their duty to comply with the Orders, once they are made. We have no reason to believe that S.O.G.A.T. would have chosen to behave any differently to that. Indeed the General Secretary of S.O.G.A.T. made exactly this point. I must make it clear on his behalf that he and his union have said that they are in fundamental disagreement with Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act. Notwithstanding that, it is the policy of that union as it is the policy of other unions to co-operate with, or not act against, an Order once it has been made.

This information was passed on by the General Secretary to his members in printing ink firms throughout Great Britain. This Order was, by and large, accepted and that advice, by and large, was taken. There were only two or three firms which chose to take some sort of action or other and which chose to be critical of the union's position and critical of the Government's decision to insist that the cost of living bonus was not paid. In part it was because these firms, which are in one or two geographical areas—the southeast of England and London—feel that they had some extenuating circumstances to make them particularly aggrieved at what the Government had, in their opinion, done.

Johnston Cumbers of Stratford, East submitted an application for a wage increase under the criteria which allow increases because of productivity agreements. It was turned down because, by the Government's standards, it was not a genuine productivity increase. This made the workers feel additionally aggrieved at the Government's policy. Louleaux and Bolton of Harlow submitted a similar claim that they were entitled to miss the period of severe restraint. Once again the Government could not agree and in consequence they felt that they had particular cause to complain about the Government's action.

The most important of these firms is Forrest Printing to which the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) referred and to which the hon. Lady the Member for Finchley (Mrs. Thatcher) referred when a previous Order was discussed in the House three weeks ago. She said that as a result of Government policy this firm had gone out of business. As I understand it, the hon. Member is not saying that tonight. He is saying that the firm is in some difficulty but not that they have gone out of business altogether.

The firm of Forrest Printing had difficulties not encountered by other firms in the industry before this Order came in. The difficulties it suffered were as much the result of its decision to cut down on regular overtime as the outcome of the Prices and Incomes Act and the Order.

On 4th January, that company abandoned its previous work schedule. As a general rule it offered substantial amounts of overtime to all its work people. From 4th January, regular Saturday morning overtime was abandoned and it is the opinion of the company, the union and the General Secretary of the union, Mr. Briginshaw, that the disadvantages, inconveniences and embarrassments which afflict that firm are as much attributable to the reduction of overtime, reduction in demand, reduction in activity and short-time working as to the Order. I do not deny for a moment that some of the reductions are a result of Government economic policy in other fields. The Government have never suggested that the 20th July measures were not likely to cause contractions in various parts of the economy.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will realise how unfair he has been. It is clear that this flows from Government policy. To suggest it flows from the employers' misdemeanours is not fair.

Mr. Hattersley

I do not know how the hon. Member can be so far away from what I have been saying. I admitted clearly and frankly that there was a reduction in demand in the printing ink industry, which affected this firm which supplies ink to glossy and expensive magazines. This may well be the result of the Government's decisions announced on or immediately after 20th July. As I understand the speech of the hon. Member for Worthing, he is saying that it is a result of the Order that the firm is facing a problem. I am insisting that in the opinion of the firm, the trade union and those more objective viewers who have studied this case, much of the trouble at Forrest Printing does not stem from the Part IV Order but from a general reduction in demand.

Mr. Higgins

Would the hon. Gentleman not agree that effectively the union took action which was designed to bring pressure to bear on the firm and that the workers were certainly reallocated to another task? Yet despite this, the Government did nothing which would confirm the view which they had put forward previously, that anyone deliberately trying to bring pressure on employers, standing up against the freeze, should have action taken against them.

Mr. Hattersley

It is by no means certain—indeed, the balance of evidence suggests the opposite—that the action taken by the employees of this company was directed against the freeze, as he describes it. I certainly reject the point that from this time the Ministry of Labour took no action whatsoever. The Ministry was in constant touch with the union and with the T.U.C. There were at least four meetings in which the Ministry of Labour participated and which the Ministry suggested should take place. There were at least four meetings that would not have taken place had it not been for suggestions and pressure by the Ministry.

The hon. Gentleman is clearly wrong to suggest that during this time when the negotiated agreement was possible, when it was likely or conceivable that the men would return to work of their own free will, when it was possible that harmony might be restored voluntarily to the industry, the Government should have been taking the powers under Sections 22 and 16 of the Prices and Incomes Act. The hon. Gentleman should not sidestep these issues. I forgive him for saying that we should not pass judgment on the principle of the cost of living increases, but I find it difficulty to forgive his implied suggestion that the Government should have taken stronger action. The logic of his suggestion is that we should have taken the powers contained in the Act. On other occasions when this matter has been debated we have been challenged on whether those powers should ever be invoked. We have been told that if that course were adopted it would be tragic and terrible. The threat of some sort of legal sanctions being held over the heads of the trade unions has been regarded as an appalling draconian measure. Now the hon. Gentleman complains that we have not brought those powers into effect as quickly as we should.

In a few moments I shall have left the House only five minutes in which it is allowed to continue this debate, but may I still refer to one point of substance raised by the hon. Gentleman. He ask what was the position of those employees in those firms who felt that their contracts no longer existed. The case is not altogether clear, and we are presented with the ludicrous position of two economists arguing against each other on points of law. As I am advised, there is no reason to believe that automatically the original contract is void because one increment is not to be paid. Even if that were the case, even if a court of law were to decide that the basic contract was no' longer operative, irrespective of the cost of living bonus, the position of the employees is totally secure. The legal doctrine of quantum meruit makes it absolutely certain.

Mr. Quintin Hogg (St. Marylebone)

Hear, hear.

Mr. Hattersley

I am grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's approval. I am certain that any court of law would award the men the sort of remuneration that they were receiving in the previous job before the Order was made. Their level of remuneration would be certain to remain what it was before 31st January. In the inconceivable event of the company contesting the right to receive that level of remuneration, any court of law acting under the dictum of quantum meruit would award remuneration at the same level.

In fact this is a classic case where a few men, geographically separated from the rest of their industry, have chosen to pursue a wage increase with more vigour and with more determination than their industry in general. By and large, the printing ink industry and its members were prepared to accept voluntarily a postponement of the cost of living increase, but a few men in the South-East, in a certain part of London and just outside the capital, wanted to insist on an increase immediately. This was the sort of case Part IV of the Prices and Incomes Act envisaged, a case in which a general agreement to postpone might be undermined by a percentage of workers refusing to put it into operation. For that reason I am sure the Government were right to make the Order, and my hon. and right hon. Friends will resist this Prayer this evening.

11.26 p.m.

Mr. John Biffen (Oswestry)

I want to protest against the attitude of the Joint Parliamentary Secretary. I can perfectly well appreciate that he was very anxious to entertain the House with the brief prepared for him by the Ministry of Labour, but he might have had the courtesy to have waited to hear further back bench contributions before winding up.

Mr. Hattersley

rose——

Mr. Biffen

No, I am staying on my feet now. I am on my feet because there are one or two questions I should like to put which arise out of paragraphs (a) and (b) of the Schedule to the Order.

The Order talks about the Society of British Ink Manufacturers. I should like to know how many companies which are ink manufacturers are in fact members of the Society to which this Order applies. We already know from my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) that one company, the British Printing Ink Co., Ltd., is not a member, and there may be others. Anyone interested in the supposed comprehensiveness of this case must be most interested to know how many ink manufacturers are included in the Society.

Secondly, one would like to know how many employees who, possibly in the traditions of this industry, receive cost of living bonuses, are covered by the designation in the two paragraphs in the Schedule to which I have referred.

Again, one would be interested to know how many of the companies which are members of the British Printing Ink Manufacturers Society are themselves close companies, and which, to the extent they benefit by the freezing of these wages, will subsequently be obliged under the provisions of the Finance Act, 1965, to increase the distribution of dividends by a certain amount relative to the increase in profits which they obtained by pegging somebody's wages.

These are all reasonable points which arise from the schedule to the Order. They are, I suspect, of widespread interest not merely to critics of Government policy on this side of the Chamber. When the Joint Parliamentary Secretary says the House will be allowed five minutes to discuss this, I think he underestimates the growing resentment against these kind of Orders which come to the House at this time of night. I think that this short time may have to be enough this evening, but I think that when we come to discuss the limb fitters, whose case comes next, and other cases, the atmosphere will be a little less charitable.

Finally, I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman how he thinks these new Orders in some way or another manage to control the general level of incomes movement in the economy, and how they contribute to the general level of stability, as the Government say they do. Do the Government really know this? After all, only today there is a Written Answer to a Question asking the Minister of Labour what is the total number of wage earners who have received increases in income during the period of severe restraint; what is the average expected increase in rates and earnings of the workers affected; and what are the corresponding figures for those in receipt of salaries. To which the Minister of Labour replied:

Division No. 275.] AYES [11.30 p.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Murton, Oscar
Astor John Grant, Anthony Neave, Airey
Baker, W. H. K. Gurden, Harold Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Balniel, Lord Hall, John (Wycombe) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Batsford, Brian Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Biffen, John Heseltine, Michael Peel, John
Biggs-Davison, John Higgins, Terence L. Pink, R. Bonner
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel Hogg, Rt. Hn. Quintin Pounder, Rafton
Black, Sir Cyril Holland, Philip Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Body, Richard Hordern, Peter Pym, Francis
Brinton, Sir Tatton Howell, David (Guildford) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hunt, John Russell, Sir Ronald
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hutchison, Michael Clark Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Sinclair, Sir George
Campbell, Gordon Jopling, Michael Smith, John
Carlisle, Mark Kershaw, Anthony Steel, David (Roxburgh)
Chichester-Clark, R. Kimball, Marcus Stodart, Anthony
Clegg, Walter King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Corfield, F. V. Kitson, Timothy Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Costain, A. P. Lambton, Viscount Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver Langford-Holt, Sir John Wainwright, Richard (Colne Valley)
Crouch, David Loveys, W. H. Webster, David
Dalkeith, Earl of MacArthur, Ian Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.) Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Cromty) Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford) Magginis, John E. Winstanley, Dr. M. P.
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Doughty, Charles Mills, Peter (Torrington) Wylie, N. R.
Elliott, R.W.(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Miscampbell, Norman
Fortescue, Tim More, Jasper TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Foster, Sir John Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Eyre and Mr. Monro.

"I regret this information is not available."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th February, 1967; Vol. 741, c. 196.]

It is upon such evidence as this that the whole confidence trick is perpetrated.

Mr. Hattersley

By leave of the House, I will answer the two points the hon. Gentleman has raised, reminding him that when the House debated the last Order of this kind hon. Members opposite were parties to an arrangement by which the Government were not given time to put their case. It is not easy therefore, for hon. Members opposite to complain this evening, even though they have not had as much time for the debate as they would have liked.

As to how many firms are in the Manufacturer's Society, the hon. Member for Worthing (Mr. Higgins) and I both gave the figure: 39. I was also asked how many firms, federated or not, are covered by the Order? I believe—I am sure—I made it clear that the Schedule says that "expressly or by implication" all firms in the printing ink industry, whether federated or not are covered by the Order.

It being half-past Eleven o'clock, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question pursuant to Standing Order No. 100 (Statutory Instruments. &c. (procedure)):—

The House divided: Ayes 93, Noes 137.

NOES
Abse, Leo Hale, Leslie (Oldham, W.) Oswald, Thomas
Albu, Austen Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)
Anderson, Donald Harper, Joseph Owen, Will (Morpeth)
Armstrong Ernest Haseldine, Norman Paget, R. T.
Ashley, Jack Hattorsley, Roy Palmer, Arthur
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Henig, Stanley Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Baxter William Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret Pavitt, Laurence
Bence, Cyril Hobden, Dennis (Brighton, K'town) Pentland, Norman
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hooley, Frank Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton) Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.) Probert, Arthur
Bishop, E. S. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Randall, Harry
Blackburn, F. Howie, W. Reynolds, G. W.
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hoy, James Rhodes, Geoffrey
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Richard, Ivor
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hunter, Adam Robertson, John (Paisley)
Cant, R. B. Hynd, John Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Carmichael Neil Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Chapman, Donald Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Rose, Paul
Coleman, Donald Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham) Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Concannon, J. D. Judd, Frank Rowland, Christopher (Meriden)
Conlan, Bernard Kelley, Richard Sheldon, Robert
Crawshaw, Richard Kenyon, Clifford Shore, Peter (Stepney)
Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway) Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Davies, Robert (Cambridge) Lawson, George Slater, Joseph
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Small, William
Dewar, Donald Lomas, Kenneth Spriggs, Leslie
Diamond, Rt. Hn. John Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Steele, Thomas (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Dobson, Ray Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Taverne, Dick
Doig, Peter McCann, John Thornton, Ernest
Dunn, James A. McGuire, Michael Tinn, James
Dunnett, Jack Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen) Urwin, T. W.
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e) Mackie, John Wainwright, Edwin (Dearne Valley)
Eadie, Alex Mackintosh, John P. Watkins, David (Consett)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) maclennan, Robert Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Macpherson, Malcolm Wellbeloved, James
Ensor, David Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Faulds, Andrew Manuel, Archie Whitaker, Ben
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mapp, Charles Whitlock, William
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Milian, Bruce Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Ford, Ben Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Winnick, David
Forrester, John Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Wlnterbottom, R. E.
Freeson, Reginald Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.
Galpern, Sir Myer Noel-Baker,Rt.Hn,Philip(Derby,S.)
Gardner, Tony Oakes, Gordon TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Garrett, W. E. Ogden, Eric Mr. McBride and Mr. Walter Harrison.
Grey, Charles (Durham) O'Malley, Brian