Clause 5

HC Deb 26 June 1968 vol 767 cc648-79

DEFERMENT OF WAGES REGULATION ORDERS AND AGRICULTURAL WAGES ORDERS.

Mr. Biffen

I beg to move Amendment 49, in page 4, line 35, after ' orders', insert— 'in respect of recommended rates of £12 a week and above'. This Amendment raises the whole question of wages council awards, and by the choice of the figure of £12 one seeks almost entirely, if not entirely, to delete the Clause. Almost all wages council awards refer to rates—I emphasise the term "rates"—well below £12. Therefore, the effective consequence of the Amendment would be not significantly different from that of Amendment 62, in the names of hon. Members opposite, which has not been selected.

Mr. Orme indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) nods assent to that, he being one of the signatories to that Amendment, which would do little more than my Amendment 49.

Mr. Orme indicated assent.

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Gentleman again assents.

Last evening, a number of us were privileged to join the hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) in the Lobby on an Amendment of his with which we agreed, and tonight we should like to think that he will be persuaded to reciprocate. We have the dilemma of not knowing what might be the position of the Liberal Party, if only for this reason, that when this Clause, a Clause of vital significance for lower-paid and agricultural workers, was before the Standing Committee, the representative of the Liberal Party was not there to record his vote.

Mr. Eric Lubbock (Orpington)

Cheeky sod.

Mr. Biffen

Whether I am a cheeky sod I know not, and whether it be Parliamentary to call me a cheeky sod I know not. All I am doing is recalling what occurred. I am sure that the hon. Member for Orpington (Mr. Lubbock) will be able to contribute to the debate in his own inimitable way, and that we look forward to hearing from him.

Mr. Lubbock

Not worth it.

Mr. Biffen

If the hon. Gentleman is is saying that his contribution is not worth it, he should not anticipate; perhaps it might be.

The Amendment has obvious connotations for the lower-paid, and undoubtedly it was with much the same purpose in mind that hon. Members opposite put down their Amendment 62. Incidentally, it touches closely the question to which the House addressed itself earlier today, namely, the whole question of equal pay. Anyone who refreshes his memory by looking through all the wages council regulations made so far this year, as I have done, cannot be struck by the very considerable difference between the rates recommended for male and female workers. I think that the House will be anxious to have at least this chance of a second reflection on this vital issue of different rates of pay for men and women.

Mr. F. Blackburn (Stalybridge and Hyde)

Not again.

Mr. Biffen

The hon. Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Blackburn) says "Not again", but when the Secretary of State says that the wages bill is planned to go up by £500 million over the next seven years, when she adds it almost as an aside at the end of a debate, there must be some consequences for sterling. There must be a general assessment by people outside of what is likely to be the course of our economy as they wonder how this is to be brought about.

We are discussing a specific issue, the question of wages council awards, which will give the Government a very clear chance to say just how they see their policy leading to ultimate equal pay.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Eric Fletcher)

Order. I cannot allow the hon. Gentleman to raise the question Of equal pay on this Amendment.

Mr. Biffen

I appreciate that, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was going to draw your attention to the wording of my Amendment, which refers to £12. I think that I can demonstrate its relevance to the question of equal pay, because the Wages Council Regulation (Milk Distributive Trades), England and Wales, Order, 1968, … in respect of round salesmen being workers aged 21 years and over, in respect of male workers employed in areas B and C…", offered rates of £12 and £12 4s. respectively, whereas for round saleswomen of exactly the same age it offered £11 6s. and £11 11s. 6d. respectively.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I dare say, but even that does not entitle the hon. Gentleman to argue the case for equal pay on this Amendment.

Mr. Biffen

It is not my intention to open up the whole question of equal pay, for which we all suffered a surfeit earlier. I am merely saying that one of the consequences of the £12 figure in the Amendment is that it touches on the question that in many wages council orders the distinction between the rates paid to men and to women will be brought fully into the open and will be capable of debate, interpretation and amendment. This must be so, judging from the case I have quoted, which shows the relevance of £12 in that instance.

But I do not want to argue the general case of how this affects the lower paid workers and the relevance of rates of £12 to whatever might be the actual earnings, because I know that these are arguments that hon. Members opposite and certain of my hon. Friends will wish to develop.

I should like to turn my attention to one other aspect of the Amendment. Throughout the Bill, we on this side have been seeking to limit the extent of Government interference. The wages council industries, ironically enough, are a very good example of where the market economy is at work. This is of particular significance on this Amendment because since Second Reading and the Committee stage we have had the advantage of seeing the Donovan Report. Therefore, I wish to direct my remarks to the wages councils as they were examined and the incomes policy as it was adjudged by the Donovan Report, because we were unable to do this on Second Reading and in Committee.

2.15 a.m.

A very useful starting point is Donovan's own indication of what he thought was the aspiration of an incomes policy contained in paragraph 210, which is a good paragraph to get on the record: Incomes policy must continue a lame and halting exercise so long as it consists in the planning of industry-wide agreements most of which exercise an inadequate control over pay. This is fairly important when related to wages councils—

Mr. Lubbock

This is boring.

Mr. Biffen

—because Donovan went on to show that the reality of most wage council negotiations was that they did not have a particularly significant effect over the rates which were being earned or the earnings being paid in those industries.

In paragraph 260—and this will enthral the hon. Member for Orpington, whose rapt attention I enjoy so much—the reality of the wages council system as seen by Donovan was described thus: Wages Councils are even less capable than most voluntary industry-wide collective bargaining bodies of exercising effective control over actual pay and conditions of work. I conclude that those industries covered by wages councils are industries in which the market economy is remarkably effective. I am delighted by this. I am a defender of the market economy. Therefore, I naturally want to keep the hands of the Government off wages councils if what is described by Donovan is the reality.

Paragraph 278 of the Report reads: Wages Council chairmen were reported generally to hold that Councils were not debarred from taking the prices and incomes policy into account and to assert that they commonly did so. It was always the Government's argument that theirs was a voluntary policy. In the case of one award, the Minister said,"I shall be glad if you would con- fine this award to the lowest paid". I remember the case being made by the present Minister of Power that this was a policy which was voluntarily agreed. This used to be the justification for so few Orders—because the policy was working. If those exhortations were sufficient, I wonder why we have this Clause.

Probably there was a degree of optimism whenever the Government used to say that all was well and that the only incomes which ever moved contrary to their policy were those which were being caught by an Order. The truth is that the law of the market has a remarkable ability to survive even this Government and a prices and incomes policy. As the Donovan Report said— and this will no doubt clinch the argument which will take the Liberal Party into the lobby with us—

Mr. Lubbock

When I saw this Amendment on the Notice Paper I was disposed to vote for it. The longer I listen to the hon. Gentleman the more I am persuaded against it.

Mr. Biffen

The disposition of the Liberal Party to become the lap dogs of the Government is well known. It was demonstrated last night. No speech of mine is necessary to drive the hon. Gentleman into the Government Lobby. But I do not want to be distracted by interventions from the Liberal Chief Whip.

Hon. Members: Where are all the Liberals?

Mr. Lubbock

They only come in to listen to important speeches. I have to listen to the hon. Gentleman for my sins. If he goes on much longer, I shall not remain.

Mr. Biffen

The conclusion of the Donovan Report, if I may get back to my peroration—

Mr. Lubbock

The hon. Gentleman always makes such long speeches.

Mr. Biffen

—is argued in paragraph 279, However, even if wages councils were able to take a wider view of their function they would still be faced with the fact that they do not and were never designed to exercise effective control over actual earnings and conditions in the industries with which they are concerned and are, therefore, in no position to secure the observance of the incomes policy. I suspect I may have anticipated an argument of the Under-Secretary of State but whereas it may appear to him as a means of rejecting the Amendment, how much it must appeal to all of us who believe in economic freedom to feel that it supports our contention that the wages council provision of Clause 5 should be deleted. In a non-unionised and fragmented industry it is impossible for the Government to control the movement of incomes. That is the reality of the wages council situation, and hon. Members opposite below the Gangway know that the concomitant of that is that it is unionised wages which will receive the attention of the Government. This is at the heart of so much of their sensitivity, and it is a sensitivity which I genuinely share.

The Amendment recognises the futility of Government supervised income negotiation. Whether this Amendment will commend itself to those who believe that the earnings in wage council industries are low enough to qualify those workers as lower-paid workers—and we are anxious to hear the Under-Secretary's views about that—or whether it is an argument for economic freedom, on which I base my case, at least we are united in agreeing that it is a deliberate attempt to limit the Government's ambitions—

Mr. Eric Heffer (Liverpool, Walton) rose—

Mr. Biffen

This is the peroration— and on that basis there should be the unity between hon. Members opposite below the Gangway and the Opposition tonight as there was last night.

Mr. Trevor Park (Derbyshire, South-East)

During the debate last night my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) declared that it was a prime objective of the Government's incomes policy to assist the lower-paid workers and to protect them against the higher-paid who, because of their powerful bargaining position, would force them even further down the scale. He was saying that the Bill contained a redistributive element and that one of its purposes was to protect the poorer and the weaker elements of the com- munity against the richer and more powerful.

My right hon. Friend the First Secretary was being cast in the guise of Robin Hood and militant trade unions were being given the rôle of the Sheriff of Nottingham. In view of some of the things which have been happening recently, I hope that hon. Members will feel that the casting director was singularly inefficient.

However, my hon. Friend is entitled to his view. After all, he can pray in aid many statements which have been made from the Government Front Bench. But tonight is the test of the sincerity of those statements, because if the Government intend to assist the lower-paid workers, if they are determined to exempt poorer people from the restrictions which their approach would otherwise place upon them, they should be prepared to accept the Amendment. If they do not, their claims will be revealed as being totally without foundation, and the whole country will know that the words chime very strangely when compared with the deeds of the incomes policy.

Some of us hope to show in more detail in a later debate that not only are the Government not taking any action to protect the lower-paid, but that they are, under the terms of Schedule 2, placing on the lower-paid workers a restriction on retrospective pay awards which do not apply to other workers covered by the Bill.

2.30 a.m.

People on £35 or £40 a week may recoup what they have lost on standstill Orders by negotiating with their employer to secure retrospection, but workers in agriculture or wages council industries generally will have no such rights. They will be deliberately delayed under Schedule 2, paragraphs 3 and 7. The Amendment under discussion will limit the applicability of Clause 5 and in seeking to exempt workers earning under £12 a week from the provisions of the Schedule they will ensure that lower-paid workers do not have to bear the brunt of sacrifices which others may have to make.

The Amendment will assist the cause of the lower-paid worker and I hope that the Government will be prepared to consider it seriously.

Mr. Kenneth Lomas (Huddersfield, West)

Is it possible to draw my hon. Friend's attention to the speech of the Under Secretary in Committee? This is where my hon. Friend is chasing shadows. The Under Secretary said: 12 per cent. of the entire agricultural industry is on this minimum rate. The other 88 per cent. are not getting the minimum— currently 11 guineas or slightly more. The other 88 per cent. are getting more than that." —[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee F, 12th June, 1968; c. 752.] We are dealing with a minimum. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I was attacked by my hon. Friend and I am entitled to reply. Is he aware that the White Paper on which the Bill is based says that there can be above-ceiling increases for lower-paid workers under the criteria. He is chasing shadows in pursuing this point.

Mr. Park

That sounded more like a speech than an intervention. I would be taking up the time of the House if I were to chase all the shadows for which my hon. Friend has been responsible. Many agricultural workers whose wages may be a little above 11 guineas a week are, nevertheless, paid at considerably lower than average rate and can undoubtedly be classed among the less well paid members of the community.

Mr. Christopher Norwood (Norwich, South)

Would my hon. Friend agree that, apart from the question of the agricultural worker, we should look at some other wages council rates which fall well below £12 a week for a 42-hour working week?

Mr. Park

I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I intend, shortly, to develop this point. All the evidence we have of wages council industries shows that workers in them are among the lowest paid members of the community. They secure wages increases less often, and, when secured, they are smaller increases than those of workers in other industries. Take the pay of women workers covered by the Catering Wages Council—

Mr. Lomas

On a point of order. We are talking about Clause 5, which is specifically related to agriculture.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Clause relates to deferment of wages regulation orders and agricultural wages orders.

Mr. Park

I was saying that women workers covered by the Catering Wages Council receive only £7 a week. The last pay increase that they had was in 1965. Male workers in agriculture have been mentioned as receiving 11 guineas a week. There are many other cases of a similar nature which I could cite. We must bear in mind that for such workers the basic rate of pay, minus deductions, represents the actual take home pay. Are the Government seriously maintaining that the only way in which they can make the incomes policy work is to subject the lower-paid workers to a standstill at a time when living costs are going up?

The Government may prefer to claim that their aim is not to hold back the lower-paid workers, but to hold back those on higher rates. I suggest that the Government's policy will not achieve this aim. We already have experience, during the operation of the 1966 and 1967 Acts, of what is achieved by a policy of statutory control. Taking the period October, 1966, to October, 1967, which includes the period of the freeze and of the nil norm, among the biggest increases in earnings have been in industries such as motor vehicle manufacturing, chemicals, and insulated wires and cables where wages are well above the average rate at the start.

The lowest increases in earnings have been in industries such as road passenger transport, laundry, and water supply, where wages have been below the average. The policy has not succeeded in assisting the lower-paid workers; it has imposed heavier burdens on them than on those higher up the scale.

Mr. Ron Ledger (Romford)

Can my hon. Friend give any examples, under the old system of free-for-all, where the lower-paid workers have done better than the higher-paid workers, because we have come to the conclusion that it is the old free-for-all system which has perpetuated the lower-paid workers? This policy is meant to redress that situation.

Mr. Park

But this policy is having the effect which my hon. Friend has described of placing heavier burdens on the lower-paid workers' basic rates of pay than on workers in industries where the pay is higher. This point illustrates that lower-paid workers and less well organised workers, far from gaining special advantages from the Government's policy, emerge as the chief casualties. That is why something should be done to provide such workers with measures of protection against the full effects of the statutory policy.

I commend this Amendment to my right hon. Friend. It is completely consistent with what she claims is her policy and should have no hesitation in accepting it. If my right hon. Friend is not willing to accept it, out of a feeling of the seriousness of the situation and the depth of my own conviction, I shall not hesitate to go into the Lobby with hon. Members opposite.

Mr. Mikardo

The hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) enjoyed himself while moving the Amendment. He caused some hilarity, and it was borne in on me, after nearly 20 years' experience here, and many late sittings, that something special comes over our debates during the hour between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. It is the hour during which hon. Members seek to escape from compulsive, and indeed almost irresistible somnolence into a second wind, and an hour which always seems to lead to hilarity.

It is a pity that at this hour, when some hon. Members are in this mood, we should come to an Amendment which, for the first time, touches on what, in my judgment, is one of the most serious aspects of this Bill. This is the first opportunity that we have had of looking at the effect on the Bill and on the incomes policy of the introduction formally into that policy of millions of workers covered by wages councils and by the Agricultural Wages Board.

I very much regret, but I make no criticism about it, that we have not the opportunity of voting to eliminate those workers from this legislation. I should have been happier if Amendments in the names of my hon. Friends and myself to achieve that end had been selected. I could have voted for them much more cheerfully.

During an earlier discussion I said that one of the difficult features of this legislation is its escalation. The 1967 Act was tougher and wider than the 1966 Act, and this Bill—I said earlier arith- metically, but, I think, truthfully, that it is a geometrical progression—is tougher and wider than the 1967 Act. It goes on for longer, the standstills are longer, it starts earlier and finishes later, and the penalties are more severe. In fact, the greatest difference between this Bill and the earlier legislation is that for the first time millions of workers—and I repeat that there are millions of workers, and I shall go on repeating it until my hon. Friend the Member for Hudders-field, West (Mr. Lomas) and others take the point—who are covered by wages councils and the Agricultural Wages Board are included.

In Committee, an Amendment was moved to delete the provisions under which these workers come into the Bill. The case for the Amendment was argued on the basis that since the Government claimed that their policy was designed to defend the lower-paid workers they ought to be left out of this legislation. The Government's reply was, "You are being a little too general. You are painting with a little too broad a brush. It is true that the wages councils cover a large number of workers who are very low paid, but not all of them are low paid. It is true that in agriculture there is a substantial number of workers who are low paid, but some are paid very much higher wages"—the point made just now by my hon. Friend the Member for Hud-dersfield, West—"and, that being so, you ought not to argue for the blanket omission of these workers because some of them are highly paid. It is right that their claims, like the claims of other workers, should be referred. Those who are low-paid will be looked after by the fact that unduly low paid is a criterion for permitting wage increases".

I think that everyone will agree that that sounds good. It sounds good to suggest that we ought to concern ourselves with low-paid workers, whether they are covered by agricultural councils or wages councils or any others, but it seems to me that this Amendment is the logical extension of that argument.

Here we are only talking about the very lowest-paid workers and I cannot conceive for the life of me on what basis the Government can refuse to accept this Amendment and put us on this side of the House in the agony of having to cast a vote about it.

2.45 a.m.

We are talking about men who put in a wage claim the effect of which, if their claim is granted, will leave them still with a wage of less than £12 a week. Will they engage in orgies of consumer spending on a wage of less than £12 a week which will rock the economy to its foundations? Does anyone really believe that the success of our economic policy is dependent on keeping wage earners on wages of £12 a week? Does my right hon. Friend believe that? Does anybody, except perhaps Pierre-Paul Schweitzer, believe that this country cannot recover its economic strength without many people being kept on wages below £12 a week? That is what we are talking about, and do not let us be mealy-mouthed or mince words about it.

Twelve pounds a week is less than some hon. Members spend on marginal luxuries. We are talking about people living on it. My hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West says there are not many agricultural workers who are on that level. This really is like the little girl who had a baby and who said, "It is only a little baby." There are still many thousands of them, and in the wages council there are millions of them, and I ask my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West, whether he will go to his constituency and tell people who are on £11 a week that if they put in a claim to bring their wage up to £12 a week they ought to go through all the apparatus of this Bill.

Mr. Lomas

I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. I apologise if I am under any misapprehension on agricultural wages. May I say to him that I agree that £12 a week is a low wage, but under the criteria in the Bill and in the White Paper surely these people are allowed to get through? I do not see what he is arguing about.

Mr. Mikardo

I will tell my hon. Friend what I am arguing about. He misread the Bill before, and now he has misunderstood the argument. It may well be that under the criteria the agricultural workers will come through, but I want to point out two things to my hon. Friend. The first is that they might come through in the end, but why should they have to hang around for 11 months? The second is, as my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said, what the Bill provides is that the rights given to other workers to backdate an agreed wage settlement are denied to these workers. Therefore, even if they might come through in the end they could lose several months of their increase from £11 8s. a week to £12 a week.

I should like my hon. Friend to talk to some of his lower-paid workers in the textile industry in Huddersfield—a section covered by the wage council—and seek to justify that. I wish him joy, so long as he does not ask me to support him in it.

We are talking about the hard, basic knuckle of this question—we are talking about people who, when they fall out of work, are not allowed to get their full social security entitlement under the minimum National Asistance scales because of the wages stop—because if they get their National Assistance scales which, by definition, are the minimum scales necessary to keep people going in health and decency, they are getting more than the wages they receive when they are in work.

Those are the people we are talking about, and all that the Amendment asks is that when people who are working for wages which, by definition of the Ministry of Social Security, are below the necessary to maintain them in health, put in a wage claim which will bring their wage up to the munificent sum of £12 a week they should not be mucked about for 11 months so as to see whether, under the criteria, they should get their money and, when they get it, should be debarred from having any retrospective settlement.

For the life of me I cannot understand why the Government cannot accept the Amendment, even if they reject every other Amendment that has been put down on these many pages of the Notice Paper. While I was considering how far I should go in support of the Amendment a member of the Whips' Office came by and said, "You are going to support Enoch Powell." If that is to be the attitude, it helps me to make up by mind—if we are here talking about the mechanics of Parliamentary niceties and not about people living on wages below the minimum described by our own Government as the lowest necessary to keep people in decency and in health.

I apologise if I seem to be getting heated about this, but I care about it. I am a lucky man. I have a large income. That does not make me feel any the less for those who have not. There are many lucky men and women in this House, but that does not relieve us of the obligation of thinking about those less fortunate than us; it imposes on us more than ever the obligation to do so. I feel deeply about this. Thousands of my constituents will be affected by the Amendment.

I have a great regard for my right hon. Friend. She has been a friend of mine for many years and I hope that she will remain a friend for many years more. I beg her to think about this and not to put her hon. Friends in a position of torture about the Amendment. I cannot conceive why the Amendment cannot be accepted. I beg her to accept it, in her own interests. If she resists it nobody again will ever believe that the purpose of the incomes policy is to assist the lower-paid worker.

If, in resisting the Amendment, my right hon. Friend says, "We will put even the lowest-paid workers through the grinding machinery of the Bill in exactly the same way as if they were earning £5,000 a year," nobody will ever believe —I assure her that I shall take this view —her claim that one of the purposes of the Government's incomes policy is to protect the lowest-paid workers. I therefore see no case in logic why the Amendment should be resisted.

Mr. Hattersley

I have on many occasions debated prices and incomes in Parliament, almost invariably with or against the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and often those debates have been about the definition of a "lowest-paid worker". Invariably, I have refused to give a precise figure by which the Government judge what constitutes a lowest-paid worker, basically because I have believed that to be the sound thing to do, both intellectually and socially.

Despite that, I say tonight categorically that if there are hon. Members who believe that a man earning £12 a week for a basic week's work of, say, 40 hours should be regarded as one of the lowest-paid, and should be granted the exemptions under this policy for the lowest paid, then certainly my right hon. Friend and I agree with them. This is the first time that we have attempted to put a figure to this category of people. Perhaps this figure is inadequate and it may be that figures above it should be included. In any event, I repeat that those who say, in connection with the Amendment, that a man earning £12 a week for a basic week's work should receive the exemptions that the policy allows, can be assured that there is no division between them and my right hon. Friend, who is an enthusiastic supporter of their point of view.

Mr. Norwood

My hon. Friend has agreed that a man earning £12 a week is lowly paid. Would he care to add that a woman earning that sum is equally lowly paid?

Mr. Hattersley

I would not care to add women, not only because we have already been reminded that this debate is not about equal pay, but because my right hon. Friend made a categorical statement about our progress towards equal pay which was so forthright, and which offered promises so precise, that some of my hon. Friends who had tabled an Amendment on the subject felt able to withdraw it. I trust that no hon. Member would suggest that my right hon. Friend's assurance was not adequate, because it was regarded as adequate by most of my hon. Friends earlier in the day.

I say for the third time that a man earning £12 for a working week seems to us to be within the category of the lowest paid. Nothing we seek to do in this policy would result in that sort of man being prevented from enjoying the exemptions for the lowest paid. However, that is not what the Amendment says. If it did say that we might have been voting for it. And if we were voting for it I suppose that the hon. Member for Oswestry would not have tabled it. The hon. Gentleman's speech was enjoyable and brilliant. His Amendment is equally clever because it is carefully calculated to include people on low basic rates who may have much more substantial take-home earnings.

Mr. Biffen

To anticipate the hon. Gentleman, he will recollect that I specifically said that I realised that the Amendment related to rates and that I did not propose to deduce from that what would be the level of earnings applicable in this connection because I believed that that argument would be effectively adduced by hon. Gentlemen opposite. He should, therefore, be addressing this part of his argument to his hon. Friends and not to me.

3.0 a.m.

Mr. Hattersley

I am about to do that. Whatever else I am accusing the hon. Member of, I certainly am not accusing him of not understanding the implications of his Amendment. He knew very well that it referred to rates; and my hon. Friends have referred to earnings. Those of my hon. Friends who have had substantial experience in industry, as has my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo), know perfectly well that to talk about basic rates is not to talk about what a man takes home. I take one random example, a wages council covering 17,000 employees where the basic rate for men is well below £12 a week. In fact, it is £9 0s. l0d.—a derisory rate my hon. Friends would say, and I would agree—but in that industry the average wage for a 41-hour week is £17.

When calculations are made of where the lowest paid are to be found they must be real calculations based on earnings rather than on rates. Earnings are a more legitimate test of what a man is receiving, what his income is. In case the House should feel that the example I gave was not a random one, I point out that in all the wages councils industries there is virtually no category where the basic rate is not less than £12 a week. Equally, there is virtually no category where earnings are not 50 per cent. above the rate.

Mr. Heffer rose—

Mr. David Winnick (Croydon, South) rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker

The Undersecretary must decide to whom he is giving way.

Mr. Hattersley

I am giving way to my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Winnick).

Mr. Winnick

Although these Amendments are put forward by Conservative hon. Members for propaganda purposes, does not my hon. Friend agree that if workers on £12 a week basic rate are taking home much more, that is because of excessive overtime working?

Mr. Hattersley

Not necessarily. The simple example, which I do not pretend was of a large wage, was £17 for a 41-hour week. I have not chosen these figures because they represent wages inflated by vast amounts of overtime pay. They often represent wages which begin with a basic pay to which is added bonus and other payments.

Mr. Heffer

Will my hon. Friend say what percentage of workers covered by wages councils receive above basic rates laid down by wages councils?

Mr. Hattersley

That is very difficult to give in terms of numbers. I am not quoting erstwhile secret information. The annexe to the Donovan Report says that the average earnings of every employee in the industry concerned is substantially more than the basic minimum. While we insist that our policy is to give this special exemption for the lowest paid, we must have the opportunity of discovering where the lowest paid are likely to be found. By applying a rule as arbitrary as that advocated by the hon. Member for Oswestry, we may be exempting from the policy people whose real earnings do not qualify for the description, lowest paid.

Those are the technicalities of the position. I shall say something about the emotional issue, because I do not reject the idea that this is a matter which should be looked at with sincerity. My hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Park) said that this issue was a test of the sincerity of my right hon. Friend and of the Government as a whole. It is the misfortune of members of the Government concerned with incomes policy that they are constantly judged according to criteria chosen by their critics.

I ask him to consider another criterion of our sincerity—that is, our record concerning wages council industries. I offer only two examples. The first is that quoted in Committee, not of a wages council, but of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Agricultural Workers' Union went to pains to point out that under the prices and incomes policy and the lowest-paid description, the agricultural worker had done very well.

My other example is that of the retail drapery wages council, which was submitted to the Prices and Incomes Board as a potential category of lowest-paid workers. I remind my hon. Friend that the Board found that the workers in the retail drapery industry were on the margins of the lowest paid and felt, therefore, that the wage increase should, perhaps, not go ahead. The Government's reaction was to feel that they should be rather more liberal, let us say, rather more generous and forthcoming, than the judgment of the Board. They believed those people to be genuinely lowest paid and let their increases go ahead.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson (The High Peak)

My hon. Friend quotes the journal of the Agricultural Workers' Union and the commendation which, he claims, that union has given to the prices and incomes policy. Will he, therefore, say why, for the first time, that union has gone on record at its biennial conference in opposition to the prices and incomes policy?

Mr. Hattersley

I must correct my hon. Friend. I was not claiming that the agricultural workers said that. I was stating that their union said it. I do not comment on what pressures, industrial and political, resulted in their union making its decision. I say as a statement of fact that their journal says that they are satisfied with the policy as operated last year.

I ask my hon. Friends to consider our record in this matter and our intention that where the lowest-paid are to be found they should be exempted from the policy. I ask them to consider the Government's claim that we have not simply a right, but an obligation, to make sure that the exemptions for the lowest paid go to the genuine lowest paid and to reject the Amendment, not only because of the intentions of, and the way it was moved by, the hon. Member for Oswestry, but because of the implications of the preservation of the free market economy, which appeals to few of us on this side, and to reject it because they know that the Government choose only to make a more accurate diagnosis of where lowest-paid workers are, so that the benefits which the policy certainly offers them by way of exemption should continue to be theirs, as they have been during the last two years.

Mr. R. Carr

The hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) referred to the subject of our debate on the Amendment as an example of the escalation which we see in the Bill and to the Amendment as an attempt at least to limit that escalation. When considering the Amendment, hon. Members should bear in mind the point of escalation and how each year we have this sort of legislation, which covers a wider field and does so with more severe powers.

The rest of the Bill tends merely, concerning wages at least, to lengthen the period of delay. The Clause extends control to an entirely new sector, namely, workers covered by wages council orders and orders of the Agricultural Wages Board. The Amendment is an attempt, since it is no longer possible at this stage to reject the escalation outright, at least to limit that escalation. That is the basis on which we wish it to be considered.

Whenever we discuss wages councils, I cannot help remembering—because at the time I was in the position now occupied by the Under-Secretary—the violent reaction of the Labour Party, then in opposition, when the Conservative Government so much as dared to suggest to the chairmen of wages councils that in coming to their decisions and helping their councils to reach a decision the overall public and national interest should enter into their minds.

Even that suggestion was met with the most violent opposition and complaint from the Labour Party when it was in opposition. Yet tonight the Government wish to force through not only control over the decisions of wages councils, but also a decision against an Amendment which seeks to limit that power by a relatively small amount. This, I am sorry to say, must either be hypocrisy or the adoption of control for control's sake.

What are wages councils for? By very definition, they are concerned with lower-paid workers—workers who, through lack of union organisation or employer organisation or for other reasons, need special protection. Also by definition, wages councils include, not only representatives of employers and workers, but also independent elements, which are well able to weigh the balance and which could be made in the way that we wished to make them ten years ago, when the independent element was at least asked to take into account the overall purpose, the overall national interest, and certainly the overall requirements of a voluntary incomes policy. That is all we asked for.

I cannot help recalling, too, that there is a very big difference between the way the Government in the Bill seek to treat statutory wage-fixing bodies and the way in which they treat statutory price-fixing bodies. Statutory price-fixing bodies are specifically exempt from control under the prices and incomes policy. There is a special Clause in the Bill which does that. The full rigour of the control is to be applied to statutory wage-fixing bodies. As we discovered in Committee, the full rigour of the control is such that powers written into the Bill will allow the Government to delay wage increases granted under wages council and Agricultural Wages Board Orders for longer than they can be delayed for any other class of worker. Surely if the Government will not agree to exclude altogether from the statutory power of their incomes policy those who have their earnings fixed by wage regulations of that kind, they should at least exclude them to the very limited extent we ask for.

We are told over and over again that the policy is meant to help the lowest-paid workers. We heard from the Secretary of State today that she means to initiate negotiations immediately to bring into play over the next seven years equal pay. As my hon. Friend the Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) said, the examination of wages council orders shows more clearly than anything else—more clearly than, perhaps, any other concrete evidence on which we can lay our hands —that there is both inequality of pay between men and women workers and inequality in the lower brackets. In other words, it is in this field where the first move needs to be made, if the right hon. Lady means at all what she says, in the direction in which, however wisely or unwisely, she made her promise this afternoon and also where the lowest-paid men workers exist.

Mr. Winnick

Railwaymen tend to come into the category with which we are dealing here. During the last few days, I have noticed a complete lack of enthusiasm on the part of the Opposition for the railwaymen's case in the claim which they are now pursuing. Why this inconsistency? Why the lack of support for the railwaymen, and now the shedding of tears for workers supposed to be affected by wages councils?

3.15 a.m.

Mr. Carr

I do not suppose, Mr. Speaker, that you would either wish or allow me to reply to that intervention. We are opposed to a statutory incomes policy, whatever the category of income or worker to which it is applied. In that we are completely consistent.

All we are able to do in this debate is try to limit the degree of statutory power and compulsion in one limited sector. We ask that Orders affecting wage rates of less than £12 a week should be excluded from the statutory powers of the incomes policy. As I said, there would be nothing to stop the Government saying, if they really believe in a voluntary incomes policy, that these bodies, which have independent chairmen and members, should have regard to the overall needs of the country and of the incomes policy.

To pretend to the House that it is necessary to have this panoply of statutory power backed by penal sanctions for Orders affecting wage rates of less than £12 a week is evidence either of hypocrisy—which I hope and believe it is not—or that the Government have gone mad on control and want control for control's sake.

Mr. Peter Mills (Torrington)

I am concerned about the effect of the Clause on the agricultural worker and his wages and, in the long run, on agriculture as a whole. What will be the effect of the Government's efforts to control agricultural wages still further and to delay and limit increases? Since the last war, over 300,000 men have left the industry. I remind the House of the excellent report which the National Union of Agricultural Workers produced, called "Farming for the Future", in which the union's aims were stated as being to seek proper wages and conditions for its members and to secure for those employed on the land the same wages and conditions as are enjoyed by industrial workers.

The Bill works against those aims, and for that reason I support the Amendment. The Clause will aggravate an already serious situation. More men will leave the land. This process cannot be allowed to go on. We cannot afford it. It will have a serious effect on the expansion of agriculture. In the latest Report of the "Little Neddy" for agriculture, we are clearly told: Manpower is likely to continue to decline at least as fast as in the recent past. The expansion may not be obtainable in full if the decline is at the high rates forecast. In other words—[Interruption.]—manpower is needed, but manpower will continue to decline further if we accept Clause.5 in its present form.

Mr. Speaker

Order. We cannot have more than one debate at a time.

Mr. Mills

The decline must be halted. It can be halted only by better wages and conditions. The Clause acts against what we are trying to do. This decline must be slowed down, and a fair and proper wage is the only way to do it. That is why I oppose the Clause and support the Amendment. I hope that the Minister will at least consider this very carefully. If we want agriculture to play the part it can and should play we must have the necessary workers, and nothing must be put in their way.

Mr. Cranley Onslow (Woking)

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I invite the hon. Member for Poplar (Mr. Mikardo) and his hon. Friends to conduct their running battle with the Whips outside the Chamber.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I had already asked for one debate at one time in the Chamber.

Mr. Mills

My point is serious and valid. We must decide what we want. If we want agriculture to play its part we must have the workers. Nothing must prevent their having a fair return for the work they do.

Mr. Peter M. Jackson

It is not very often that I have an opportunity to congratulate an hon. Member opposite on the content of his speech, but I have no hesitation in congratulating the hon. Member for Torrington (Mr. Peter Mills).

There is nothing in the principle of the Amendment—I emphasise the word "principle"—that my right hon. Friend cannot accept. It clearly accords with the need to assist the lower-paid workers, which is one of the criteria of the policy on awards. The Minister has laid down that claims which try to help raise the living standards of lower-paid workers will be met.

Like the hon. Member for Torrington, I wish to refer to agricultural workers. No one would argue that wages in agriculture have not been outstripped by wages in manufacturing industry. No one would argue with my general assertion that the average take-home pay of an agricultural worker is about 30 per cent. less than that of his counterpart in manufacturing industry, and that on average he works longer hours—an average of three hours a week—more than his fellow worker in manufacturing industry.

I want to quote from the Ministry of Labour Gazette, and in doing so I shall perhaps give some comfort to my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West (Mr. Lomas), who rightly said that the awards are minimum sums and that certain workers in agriculture, as in all industries covered by the awards, take home sums in excess of the minimum.

In January, 1967, the average take-home pay of all adult male workers in manufacturing industry was £20 5s. For agricultural workers it was £14 3s. The Minister may argue that I am not being completely fair because workers in manufacturing do not receive rewards in kind to anything like the same extent as agricultural workers. I am sure that this was true in the past, but it is not the situation today. The Ministry of Labour Gazette show that a mere 5.4 per cent. of workers in agriculture received any increase in kind last year.

At the last biennial conference of the National Union of Agricultural Workers on 5th May, 1968, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that the Government were conscious of the claims of the lower paid section of the community". This sentiment has been echoed on both sides of the House. He went on to boast that during the standstill of 1966 the agricultural workers were given a "princely" increase—6s. He said that this award was honoured; there was no attempt to impose a standstill. In February, 1968, a further award was given which I draw to the attention of my hon. Friend the Member for Huddersfield, West—15s. These are not large sums. Yet the Government, in the Bill, are taking powers to restrict or defer payment of them. I hope that no hon. Member suggests that increases of 6s. and 15s. are inflationary.

It is hardly surprising that for the first time the N.U.A.W. has gone on record in opposition to the Government's prices and incomes policy. I understand that in Committee my hon. Friend claimed that the union was well satisfied with the results of the policy. I can well understand that it is not well satisfied, because the position of agricultural workers relative to that of workers in manufacturing industry has not altered one iota over the period 1966–67.

The second justification which my right hon. Friend the First Secretary gives for allowing awards in excess of her norm is in terms of productivity, to which the Prime Minister referred with some pride on 5th May. He drew attention to the fact that 10 years ago there were 750,000 workers in the industry and that that figure had dropped to 500,000. He went on to say:

"In recent years the growing output per head has been more than twice that of the economy as a whole".

On grounds of productivity, it is appropriate that the references to the Agricultural Wages Council should be deleted from the Bill.

I refer to the pertinent point made by the hon. Member for Torrington. He drew attention to the serious problems which the industry is experiencing because of the drift of workers from it. There is no doubt that workers are being replaced by machinery, and that productivity is increasing, but the opinion of the N.F.U. and of many farmers to whom I have talked is that this drift has not been compensated by mechanisation Therefore, the industry is facing problems.

I wish to put two questions to my right hon. Friend the First Secretary. Why were not these powers taken in the legislation introduced in 1966 and 1967 and why has it been felt necessary to take them now? Secondly, would she have an Amendment moved in another place to accept the principle of a minimum rate of earnings?

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes 236.

Division No. 251.]	AYES	[3.30 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Campbell, B. (Oldham, W.)	Eyre, Reginald
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Campbell, Gordon	Farr, John
Astor, John	Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Fisher, Nigel
Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Cary, Sir Robert	Fletcher-Cooks, Charles
Awdry, Daniel	Charnon, H. P. G.	Fortescue, Tim
Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Chichester-Clark, R.	Foster, Sir John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)	Clark, Henry	Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford & Stone)
Balniel, Lord	Clegg, Walter	Gibson-Watt, David
Batsford, Brian	Cooke, Robert	Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Cooper-Key, Sir Neill	Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Bell, Ronald	Cordle, John	Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Corfieid, F. V.	Goodhart, Philip
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Cos. & Fhm)	Costain, A. P.	Goodhew, Victor
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Crosthwaite-Eyre, Sir Oliver	Gower, Raymond
Biffen, John	Crouch, David	Grant, Anthony
Biggs-Davison, John	Crowder, F. P.	Grant-Ferris, R.
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Cunningham, Sir Knox	Gresham Cooke, R.
Black, Sir Cyril	Dalteith, Earl of	Grieve, Percy
Blaker, Peter	Dance, James	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	d'Avigdor-Goldsmld, Sir Henry	Gurden, Harold
Body, Richard	Dean, Paul (Somerset, N.)	Hall, John (Wycombe)
Bossom, Sir Clive	Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Digby, Simon Wingfieid	Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)
Braine, Bernard	Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Brewis, John	Doughty, Charles	Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Drayson, G. B.	Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Hastings, Stephen
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Eden, Sir John	Heseltine, Michael
Bryan, Paul	Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Higgins, Terence L.
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Elliott, R.W.W (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne.N.)	Hiley, Joseph
Bullus, Sir Eric	Emery, Peter	Hill,J.E.B.
Burden, F. A.	Errington, Sir Eric	Holland, Philip
Hordern, Peter	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Hornby, Richard	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Howell, David (Guildford)	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Royle, Anthony
Hunt, John	Miscampbell, Norman	Russell, Sir Ronald
Iremonger, T. L.	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Scott, Nicholas
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)	Montgomery, Fergus	Scott-Hopkins, James
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	More, Jasper	Sharpies, Richard
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Silvester, Frederick
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Jopling, Michael	Murton, Oscar	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Joseph, Rt, Hn. Sir Keith	Neave, Airey	Speed, Keith
Kaberry, Sir Donald	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Stainton, Keith
Kerby, Cant. Henry	Nott, John	Stodart, Anthony
Kershaw, Anthony	Onslow, Cranley	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
Kimball, Marcus	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.	Summers, Sir Spencer
Kirk, Peter	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian	Tapsell, Peter
Kitson, Timothy	Osborn, John (Hallam)	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Knight, Mrs. Jill	Page, Graham (Crosby)	Temple, John M.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Page, John (Harrow, W.)	Tilney, John
Lane, David	Park, Trevor	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Langtord-Holt, Sir John	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Peel, John	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Percival, Ian	Vickers, Dame Joan
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Peyton, John	Walker Peter (Worcester)
Longden, Gilbert	Pike, Miss Mervyn	Wall, Patrock
Lobbock, Eric	Pink, R. Bonner	Walters, Dennis
MacArthur, Ian	Pounder, Rafton	Webster, David
Mackenzie, Alasdair(Ross &Crom'ty)	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch	Wells, Jihn (Maidstone)
Maclean, Sir Firzory	Price, David (Eastleigh)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn William
Macleod, Rt. Hn. lain	Prior, J. M. L.	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
MacMaster, Stanley	Pym, Francis	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Macmillan, Maurice Farnham)	Quennell, Miss J. M.	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Maddan, Martin	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Maginnis, John E.	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter	Woodnutt, Mark
Marten, Neil	Rees-Davies, W. R.	Worsley, Marcus
Maude, Angus	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David	Wylie, N. R.
Maudling, Fit. Hn. Reginald	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon	Younger, Hn. George
Mawby, Ray	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.	Ridsdale, Julian	Mr. Hector Monro and
	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey	Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
NOES
Abse, Leo	Crawshaw, Richard	Grey, Charles (Durham)
Albu, Austen	Dalyell, Tam	Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Alldritt, Walter	Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Griffiths, Eddie
Allen, Scholefield	Davies, Ednyfed Hudson (Conway)	Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Anderson, Donald	Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Hamling, William
Archer, Peter	Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Hannan, William
Armstrong, Ernest	Davies, Harold (Leek)	Harper, Joseph
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Davies, Ifor (Gower)	Harrison, Waiter (Wakefield)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffroy	Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Barnes, Michael	Dell, Edmund	Haseldine, Norman
Barnett, Joel	Dempsey, James	Hattersley, Roy
Bence, Cyril	Dewar, Donald	Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Dobson, Ray	Henig, Stanley
Binns, John	Doig, Peter	Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret
Bishop, E. S.	Dunn, James A.	Hilton, W. S.
Blackburn, F.	Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Horner, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur	Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Eadie, Alex	Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)
Boston, Terence	Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)
Boyden, James	Edwards, William (Merioneth)	Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Bradley, Tom	Ellis, John	Howie, W.
Bray, Dr. Jeremy	English, Michael	Hoy, James
Brooks, Edwin	Ennals, David	Huckfield, Leslie
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.	Ensor, David	Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Brown,Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)	Evans, loan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	Hunter, Adam
Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)	Fernyhough, E.	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)	Foley, Maurice	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)
Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)	Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n& St. P'cras, S.)
Buchan, Norman	Ford, Ben	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)	Forrester, John	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)	Fowler, Gerry	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)
Cant, R. B.	Fraser, John (Norwood)	Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carmichael, Neil	Freeson, Reginald	Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Carter-Jones, Lewis	Gardner, Tony	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Garrett, W. E.	Judd, Frank
Coe, Denis	Ginsburg, David	Kenyon, Clifford
Coleman, Donald	Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)
Conlan, Bernard	Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Lawson, George
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Ledger, Ron

Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Lestor, Miss Joan	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Moyle, Roland	Skeffington, Arthur
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Slater, Joseph
Lomas, Kenneth	Murray, Albert	Small, William
Loughlin, Charles	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Snow, Julian
Luard, Evan	Ogden, Eric	Spriggs, Leslie
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	O'Malley, Brian	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Oram, Albert E.	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn, John
Mabon, Or. J. Dickson	Oswald, Thomas	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
McBride, Neil	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Swingler, Stephen
McCann, John	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Taverne, Dick
MacColl, James	Palmer, Arthur	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
MacDermot, Niall	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)	Tinn, James
Macdonald, A. H.	Pavitt, Laurence	Urwin, T. W.
McGuire, Michael	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred	Varley, Eric G.
McKay, Mrs. Margaret	Pentland, Norman	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)	Wallace, George
Mackie, John	Prentice Ht Hn R. F	Watkins, David (Consett)
Mackintosh, John P.	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & amp;Radnor)
Maclennan, Robert	Price, William (Rugby)	Wellbeloved, James
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Probert, Arthur	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
McNamara, J. Kevin	Randall, Harry	White, Mrs. Eirene
Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Rees, Merlyn	Whitlock, William
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Richard, Ivor	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Manuel, Archie	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Marks, Kenneth	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Marquand, David	Robertson, John (Paisley)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard	Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Robinson, W. O. J. (Walth'stow, E.)	Willis, Rt. Hn. George
Mayhew, Christopher	Rodgers, William (Stockton)	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Roebuck, Roy	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Millan, Bruce	Rose, Paul	Winnick, David
Miller. Dr. M. S.	Ross, Rt. Hn. William	Woof, Robert
Milne, Edward (Blyth)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)	Yates, Victor
Mitchell, R. C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
Molloy, William	Shcidon, Robert	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Moonman, Eric	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)	Mr. J. D. Concannon and
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N. E.)	Mr. Alan Fitch.

Sir E. Brown

I beg to move Amendment 51, in page 4, line 36, at end insert 'but in any event not later than 11th August 1969'. I will not repeat all the arguments we have had on Amendment No. 49, but simply say that it was in expectation of that Amendment being defeated that this was tabled, to give the Government an opportunity to carry out their expressed intention to assist these classes of workers. They have spoken of phasing out and phasing in and we can give them the opportunity to phase out this section of the community, to receive its priorities not later than 11th August, 1969.

The Government have said that they have an interest in these two classes of workers and we are putting the Government to the test of seeing if they can be honest in their purpose. If not, I ask my hon. Friends to press this Amendment to a Division.

Mr. Harold Walker

This Amendment is similar to one discussed with a number of others in Committee and covers again the ground fully tilled my by right hon. Friend and the Under-Secretary on Second Reading and in Committee, at length and exhaustively. They showed clearly why we need the powers in the Clause and the Bill up to the end of 1969, the period recognised by the Government as critical, during which it is essential that the competitive advantage gained by devaluation is not eroded. It was said by the Chancellor in his Budget speech that the full period in the Bill is necessary to achieve the turn round in the balance of payments and to come into surplus in 1969. It is for that reason that we cannot accept the Amendment.

Question put, That the Amendment be made: —

The House divided: Ayes, 215, Noes 237.

Division No. 251.]	AYES	[3.45 a.m.
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)	Atkins, Humphrey (M't'n & M'd'n)	Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)	Awdry, Daniel	Balniel, Lord
Astor, John	Baker, Kenneth (Acton)	Batsford, Brian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton	Cresham Cooke, R.	Nott, John
Bell, Ronald	Grieve, Percy	Onslow, Cranley
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)	Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)	Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Bennett, Or. Reginald (Got. & Fhm)	Gurden, Harold	Orr-Ewing, Sir Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony	Hall, John (Wycombe)	Osborn, John (Hallam)
Biffen, John	Hall-Davis, A. G. F.	Page, Graham (Crosby)
Biggs-Davison, John	Hamilton, Lord (Fermanagh)	Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Birch, Rt. Hn. Nigel	Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)	Pearson, Sir Frank (Clitheroe)
Black, Sir Cyril	Harrison, Brian (Maklon)	Peel, John
Blaker, Peter	Harrison, Col. S r Harwood (Eye)	Percival, Ian
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)	Hastings, Stephen	Peyton, John
Body, Richard	Heseltine, Michael	Pike, Miss Mervyn
Bossom, Sir Clive	Higgins, Terence L.	Pink, R. Bonner
Boyle, Rt. Hn. Sir Edward	Hiley, Joseph	Pounder, Rafton
Braine, Bernard	Hill, J. E. B.	Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Brewis, John	Holland, Philip	Price, David (Eastleigh)
Brinton, Sir Tatton	Hordern, Peter	Prior, J. M. L.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)	Hornby, Richard	Pym, Francis
Bruce-Gardyne, J.	Howell, David (Guildford)	Quennell, Miss J. M.
Bryan, Paul	Hunt, John	Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Buck, Antony (Colchester)	Iremonger, T. L.	Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Bullus, Sir Eric	Irvine, Bryant Codman (Rye)	Rees-Davies, W. R.
Burden F. A.	Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)	Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Campbell, B. (Oldham W.)	Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)	Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Campbell, Cordon	Johnston, Russell (Inverness)	Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert	Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)	Ridsdale, Julian
Cary, Sir Robert	Jopling, Michael	Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Channon, H. P. G.	Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith	Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Chichester-clark, R.	Kaberry, Sir Donald	Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Clark, Henry	Kerby, Capt. Henry	Boyle, Anthony
Clegg, Walter	Kershaw, Anthony	Russell, Sir Ronald
Cooke, Robert	Kimball, Marcus	Scott, Nicholas
Cooper-Key Sir Neill	Kirk, Peter	Scott-Hopkins, James
Cordle, John	Kitson, Timothy	Sharples, Richard
Corfield, F. V.	Knight, Mrs. Jill	Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Costain, A. P.	Lancaster, Col. C. G.	Silvester, Frederick
Crosthwaite-Eyre Sir Oliver	Lane, David	Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Crouch, David	Langford-Holt, Sir John	Smith, John (London & W'minster)
Crowder, F. P.	Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry	Speed, Keith
Cunningham, Sir Knox	Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)	Stainton, Keith
Dalkeith, Earl of	Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)	Stodart, Anthony
Dance, James	Longden, Gilbert	Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. (Ripon)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry	Lubbock, Eric	Summers, Sir Spencer
Dcan, Paul (Somerset, N.)	MacArthur, lan	Tapsell, Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. (Ashford)	Mackenzie,Alasdair(Ross&Crom'ty)	Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Digby, Simon Wingfield	Maclean, Sir Fitzroy	Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas	Macleod Rt. Hn. Iain	Temple, John M.
Doughty, Charles	McMaster, Stanley	Tilney, John
Drayson, G. B.	Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)	Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward	Maddan, Martin	van Straubenzee, W. R.
Eden Sir John	Maginnis, John E.	Vaughan-Morgan, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)	Marten, Neil	Vickers, Dame Joan
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)	Maude, Angus	Walker, Peter (Worcester)
Emery, Peter	Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald	Wall, Patrick
Errington, Sir Eric	Mawby, Ray	Walters, Dennis
Farr, John	Maxwell-Hystop, R. J.	Webster, David
Fisher, Nigel	Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.	Wells, John (Maidstone)
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles	Mills, Peter (Torrington)	Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Fortescue, Tim	Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)	Williams, Donald (Dudley)
Foster, Sir John	Miscampbell, Norman	Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone)	Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)	Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)
Gibson-Watt, David	Monro, Hector	Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gilmour, lan (Norfolk, C.)	Montgomery, Fergus	Woodnutt, Mark
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)	More, Jasper	Worsley, Marcus
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.	Morrison, Charles (Devizes)	Wylie, N. R.
Goodhart, Philip	Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles	Younger, Hn. George
Goodhew, Victor	Munro-Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Gower, Raymond	Murton, Oscar	TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Grant, Anthony	Neave, Airey	Mr. Reginald Eyre and
Grant-Ferris, R.	Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael	Mr. Bernard Weatherill
NOES
Abse, Leo	Bence, Cyril	Brooks, Edwin
Albu, Austen	Bennett, James (G'gow, Bridgeton)	Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Alldritt, Walter	Binns, John	Brown,Bob(N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)
Allen, Scholefield	Bishop, E. S.	Brown, Rt. Hn. George (Belper)
Anderson, Donald	Blackburn, F.	Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Archer, Peter	Blenkinsop, Arthur	Brown, R. W. (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Armstrong, Ernest	Boardman, H. (Leigh)	Buchan, Norman
Bacon, Rt. Hn. Alice	Boston, Terence	Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.	Boyden, James	Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Barnes, Michael	Bradley, Tom	Cant, R. B.
Barnett, Joel	Bray, Dr. Jeremy	Carmichael, Neil

Carter-Jones, Lewis	Hunter, Adam	Palmer, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara	Irvine, Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)	Park, Trevor
Coe, Denis	Jackson, Colin (B'h'se & Spenb'gh)	Parkyn, Brian (Bedford)
Coleman, Donald	Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)	Pavitt, Laurence
Conlan, Bernard	Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)	Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Corbet, Mrs. Freda	Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)	Pentland, Norman
Crawshaw, Richard	Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)	Perry, Ernest G. (Battersea, S.)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard	Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull W.)	Prentice, Rt. Hn. R. E.
Dalyell Tam	Jones, Dan (Burnley)	Price, Christopher (Perry Barr)
Davidson, Arthur (Accrington)	Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)	Price, William (Rugby)
Davies, Dr. Ernest (Stretford)	Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, West)	Probert, Arthur
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)	Judd, Frank	Randall, Harry
Davies, Harold (Leek)	Kenyon, Clifford	Rees, Merlyn
Davies, Ifor(Gower)	Kerr, Dr. David (W'worth, Central)	Richard, Ivor
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey	Lawson, George	Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Dell Edmund	Ledger, Ron	Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy
Dempsey, James	Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick (Newton)	Roberts, Gwilym (Bedfordshire, S.)
Dewar, Donald	Lee, Rt. Hn. Jennie (Cannock)	Robertson, John (Paisley)
Dobson, Ray	Lestor, Miss Joan	Robinson,Rt.Hn.Kenneth(St.P'c'as)
Doig, Peter	Lever, Harold (Cheetham)	Robinson, W. O. J. (Waith'stow, E.)
Dunn, James A.	Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)	Rodgers, William (Stockton)
Dunnet, Jack	Lomas, Kenneth	Roebuck, Roy
Dunwoody, Mrs. Gwyneth (Exeter)	Loughlin, Charles	Rose, Paul
Dunwoody, Dr. John (F'th & C'b'e)	Luard, Ean	Ross, Rt. Hn. William
Eadie, Ales	Lyon, Alexander W. (York)	Rowlands, E. (Cardiff, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston)	Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)	Shaw, Arnold (Ilford, S.)
	Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson	Sheldon, Robert
Edwards, William (Merioneth)	McBride, Neil	Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Ellis, John	McCann, John	Short,Mrs.Renée(Whampton,N.E.)
English, Michael	MacColl, James	Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Ennals, David	MacDermot, Niall	Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Ensor, David	Macdonald, A. H.	Silverman, Julius (Aston)
Evans, Ioan L. (Birm'h'm, Yardley)	McGuire, Michael	Skeffington, Arthur
Fernyhough, E.	Mckay, Mrs. Margaret	Slater, Joseph
Fitch, Alan (Wigan)	Mackenzie, Gregor (Rutherglen)	Small, William
Foley, Maurice	Mackie, John	Snow, Julian
Foot, Rt. Hn. Sir Dingle (Ipswich)	Mackintosh, John P.	Spriggs, Leslie
Ford, Ben	Maclennan, Robert	Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael
Forrester, John	McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)	Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Fowler, Gerry	McNamara, J. Kevin	Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fraser, John (Norwood)	MacPherson, Malcolm	Swingler, Stephen
Freeson, Reginald	Mahon, Peter (Preston, S.)	Taverne, Dick
Gardner, Tony	Mahon, Simon (Bootle)	Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Garrett, W. E.	Mallalieu, J.P.W.(Huddersfield,E.)	Tinn, James
Ginsburg, David		Urwin, T. W.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.	Manuel, Archie	varley, Eric G.
	Marks, Kenneth
Gray, Dr. Hugh (Yarmouth)	Marquand, David	Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Greenwood, Rt. Hn. Anthony	Marquand, David	Wallace, George
Grey, Charles (Durham)	Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy	Watkins, David (Consett)
Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)	Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert	Watkins, Tudor (Brecon & Radnor)
Griffiths, Eddie	Millan, Bruce	Wellbeloved, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell)	Miller. Dr. M. S.	Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hamling, William	Milne, Edward (Blyth)	white, Mrs. Eirene
Hannan, william	Mitchell, R.C. (S'th'pton, Test)	Whitlock, William
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)	Molloy, William	Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith	Moonman, Eric	Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Haseldine, Norman	Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)	Williams, Alan Lee (Hornchurch)
Hattersley, Roy	Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)	Williams, Clifford (Abertillery)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis	Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)	Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Henig, Stanley	Morris, John (Aberavon)	Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Herbison, Rt. Hn. Margaret	Moyle, Roland	Willis Rt. Hn. George
Hilton, W. S.	Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick	Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas	Murray, Albert	Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Howarth, Harry (Wellingborough)	Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)	Winnick, David
Howarth, Robert (Bolton, E.)	Ogden, Eric	Woof, Robert
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)	O'Malley, Brian	Yates, Victor
Howie, W.	Oram, Albert E.
Hoy, James	Oswald, Thomas	TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Huckfield, Leslie	Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, S'tn)	Mr. Joseph Harper and
Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)	Page, Derek (King's Lynn)	Mr. J. D. Concanoon.