§ Lords Amendment: No. 134, in page 53, line 12, leave out "casting his vote" and insert "voting".
§ Mr. Dudley Smith
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment. It rephrases part of Clause 63(6) which establishes the right of members of an organisation of workers to vote "without interference or constraint". Although we did not think that the present drafting of the subsection would lead to serious difficulties of interpretation, we had no objection to the revised drafting which was suggested by Lord Diamond in another place. We certainly fully intend that the opportunity to vote without interference or constraint should be given whatever method of voting is used, whether by 1728 ballot, a show of hands or by any other method. If the term "casting his vote" could be taken to refer only to voting in a ballot, we are glad to remove any doubt in this matter by replacing it with the word "voting.".
§ Question put and agreed to.
Lords Amendment: No. 135, page 53, line 23, leave out from "to" to end of line 26 and insert—
take part in a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, or in such circumstances as, in accordance with any provision of this Act, to constitute an unfair industrial practice on the part of the organisation or of that person, or
(c) to take part in any irregular industrial action short of a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has organised, procured or financed as mentioned in paragraph (b) of this subsection".
§ The Solicitor-General
I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
§ It may be convenient to the House if with this Amendment we take the following Lords Amendments:
§ No. 278, in page 118, line 9, after first "a" insert "concerted",
No. 279, in line 10, leave out "which is concerted by them", and No. 280, in line 12, at end insert:
whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and conditions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".
It is more convenient to start with an explanation of Amendments Nos. 278, 279 and 280. These are all Amendments to the definition Clause, Clause 158. They are Amendments to the definition of "a strike". Amendments Nos. 278 and 279 have the effect of removing from that definition the phrase
which is concerted by them
and replacing it by the simple adjective "concerted". It has to be a concerted stoppage of work by a group of workers.
Amendment No. 280 adds at the end of the definition:
whether (in the case of all or any of those workers) the stoppage is or is not in breach of their terms and condidtions of employment, and whether it is carried out during, or on the termination of, their employment".
The effect of those two definitions is to remove the rather odd necessity for
demonstrating by whom the stoppage was concerted and to make it plain that a concerted stoppage of a group of workers
in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute
at whatever point of time it occurs, and whatever the circumstances, provided it is a concerted, collective action, amounts to a strike in the context of the legislation.
§ On that footing, I come back to the earlier Amendment, No. 135, which is probably the most important. It applies to Clause 63, which contains the guiding principles for workers' and ememployers' organisations. Subsection (7) provides that no member of the organisation should be subject to any unfair disciplinary action, in particular because of his refusing or failing to take any action which would constitute an unfair industrial practice. So far, the matter is unchanged. The provision would have made it unfair for an organisation to discipline a member for declining to take action which would itself be unfair, which meant declining to induce, call or procure a strike or lock-out in certain circumstances. That part is unchanged.
§ Paragraph (b) provided that no action should be taken against a member who refused or failed to participate in an unfair practice. That probably added nothing to paragraph (a). Someone participating in an action would still be participating in the calling, inducing or procuring. The intention was to make it unfair for an organisation to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in a strike or lock-out called by the organisation if it was itself an unfair industrial practice.
§ The intention is clear and is now set out in Amendment No. 135. It becomes an unfair practice for an organisation to take disciplinary action against a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike which the organisation or any other person has called, organised, procured or financed, and which amounts to an unfair industrial practice. Similarly, it is unfair to discipline someone for refusing or failing to take part in other irregular industrial actions of the same kind. The other point which the Amendment makes clear is that it will be unfair for an organisation to discipline a member who has refused or failed to take part in a strike or irregular industrial action organised otherwise than in 1730 contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute; in other words, a refusal to take part in an industrial action directed towards political or other non-industrial ends.
§ If someone declines and is thereafter disciplined, he can complain of an unfair industrial practice. It is probable that such action would be regarded as con trary to common law now in any event, but it was urged upon the Government in another place that the matter should be set beyond doubt, that it was unfair for a worker to be disciplined for re fusing to take part in a political strike. The urging in that direction came from, among others, members of the Liberal Party in another place. At least one member of the Labour Party went on record as saying that nobody on his side of the Committee supported poli tical strikes—
§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think I can, should or need identify any action that motivated it. [Interruption.] It is almost certainly the position that political strikes and disciplinary action taken against someone for declining to take part in a political strike are not capable of being upheld at common law.
§ The Solicitor-General
But the matter is in some doubt. What is not in doubt is the general feeling of the overwhelming majority of people that it is wrong and unfair for workers to be disciplined for declining to support a political strike.
§ Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)
The hon. and learned Gentleman said, I think, inadvertently, that political strikes and action taken against a person participating in them are not against the common law. Did he, perhaps inadvertently, make a slip there?
§ The Solicitor-General
I said the probability was that action taken against someone for not taking part in a political 1731 strike was contrary to the common law. I do not want to go further than that on this point because I understand that there may be a case coming before the courts in which that point will be decided.
This point could be argued in many different ways. The argument has been conducted by reference to the General Strike, and the view of Lord Simon is on the record, as are the views of Professor Goodhart and Sir Stafford Cripps. As I say, I do not want to say more on this point because the matter may be coming before the courts.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw)
What will be the position if the reverse happens—for example, when dockers from the T. & G.W.U. took part in an unofficial march in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell) a couple of years ago and were reprimanded by the executive of their union? This is exactly the reverse of what the hon. and learned Gentleman has been discussing. If their union disciplined them for doing that, would that constitute an unfair industrial practice?
§ The Solicitor-General
The hon. Gentleman's question is in two halves. He asks, first, whether it would be an unfair industrial practice. The answer is "possibly not" in the present state of the law. As for the position under the Bill, if the union were taking or projecting disciplinary action against someone for taking part in a political strike, it would not then be disciplining someone for refusing or failing to take part in it. It would, therefore, be doing exactly the opposite of that prescribed in the Bill. So the answer to his question is that it would not be an unfair industrial practice.
I suggest that the Amendment represents the desire and wish of the overwhelming majority of fair-minded people that it is not right for someone who declines to take part in industrial action on the instructions of an organisation in pursuit of an objective to be disciplined for his failure to take part in that action. It is to make that clear in response to representations from many parties and people, in line with the Opposition in another place—[Interruption.]—with at least one member of the Labour Opposition in another place—and with the general wish of the country, and I therefore 1732 commend the Amendment to the House.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Heffer
We believe this to be a curious and very dangerous Amendment. It was never introduced, or even proposed to be introduced, in this House, but was inserted on the fifth day of the Report stage in another place. On the surface, as one listens to the hon. and learned Gentleman the Solicitor-General, it appears, as does so much of the Bill, to be reasonable. Its apparent object, as he said, is to safeguard the worker from any discipline by his organisation in the event of that organisation, or a group of individuals, organising, procuring or financing a strike other than as industrial action.
The hon. and learned Gentleman has to some extent been torpedoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton), from whose first-class question we discovered that if the dockers, or anyone else, act contrary to their union in a political action and are disciplined by their union for so doing, that is not an unfair industrial practice, but that if it goes the other way, and the organisation determines, or a group of individuals determines and the union backs them at some stage, to discipline a member who fails to become involved that is an unfair industrial practice. We all know that this hits at political strikes of any kind.
My hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Orme) asked why this provision was introduced on the fifth day day of the Report stage in another place, but I think that the reason is pretty clear. We had a situation where a number of unions—some of the printing unions, the A.U.E.W., the boilermakers, and others—called out their members not in a continuous strike but as a protest against the Bill. Contrary to what many people believe, the Transport and General Workers Union did not call out its members, but said that if those members acted it would back them. Incidentally, it is interesting to note that that day of protest did not lead to any disciplinary action by the unions against any worker who did not take part.
§ Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)
Can my hon. Friend say whether the Prime Minister is on strike today, whether official or unofficial, for he has not been 1733 here all day? I think that he is sailing on "Morning Cloud.".
§ Mr. Heffer
One thing is quite clear; the Prime Minister has not gone to meet the workers at U.C.S. If he had, he would not have received the support which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition had when he met the U.C.S. workers and discussed their problems with them.
The question is whether that day of protest was an industrial or political action. There is no doubt that that is arguable, but that illustrates that it is not easy to define the line between political and industrial action. There is a good argument for saying that any legislation which directly affects the conditions of employment of workers, in addition to being a political act, is basically an industrial act. It is equally true that a struggle against legislation concerned with conditions of employment, and sometimes wages, is equally an industrial action, even though directed against the Government.
That clearly brings out the dangers of the State becoming involved in matters which should be left to voluntary agreement between employers and trade unions. Once the State begins to become involved in the regulation of conditions of employment and the rules of trade unions, saying that unions must have a licence to operate, such as registration, there is a thin dividing line between industrial and political action.
Communist and Fascist countries have experience of the regulation of the conditions of workers by the State. Strikes become illegal and, by its very nature, every strike becomes a political strike, whether intended or not. Even the smallest industrial action begins as an economic struggle and ends as a political strike. Defining the difference between political and industrial action is much more complicated than hon. Members opposite even begin to think.
The Lords Amendment does not make political strikes illegal and no one suggests that it does, but it is the thin end of the wedge—as, indeed, is the whole Bill—for the State regulation of trade unions. If a trade union does not register, it will suffer a series of disabilities which do not now exist.
The Government are embarking upon dangerous seas over this question of 1734 political strikes. We have already seen that because of the Government's action in introducing the Bill workers have become involved in industrial action which the Government have immediately said was political. We shall see more of this once the Bill becomes an Act and is operating. No doubt that is what is intended. There could be a situation six months from now when a flashpoint occurs and workers take industrial action against this Measure and become involved in unfair industrial practices. The argument will be that it is political action, and the Government will seek to use this Amendment and also seek to widen the whole issue.
In another place my noble Friend, Lord Diamond, said of this Amendment;
This is a most important Amendment which affects the liberty of the subject and goes beyond the purpose of this Bill. …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 8th July 1971; Vol. 321, c. 1169.]
I think that he is absolutely right. Democracy is something more than elections every five years, something more than elections to local authorities. It is the involvement of the mass of the people at all levels in society. We could easily reach a situation in which workers take some industrial action to press some point of view upon their elected representatives. Instead of saying that the people should be involved in the democratic process, the answer of the Government would be that it was a political move and ought not to be allowed. This Amendment is the first step in making all political strikes illegal. It is the first shot in a campaign which will grow over the years. I want to draw attention to the present situation. I do not think that many people know of this but the trade union movement has long argued that in certain circumstances it is the right of workers to withdraw their labour, to use their industrial strength to influence political decisions. That is not my statement; it is a rule of the Trades Union Congress. I will read out the applicable rule.
Rule 8 (k) says:
In order that the Trade Union movement may do everything which lies in its power to prevent future wars, the General Council shall, in the event of there being a danger of an outbreak of war, call a special Congress to decide on industrial action, such Congress to be called, if possible, before war is declared.
That is the rule of the Trades Union Congress and it has existed for 50 years. Subsection (d) says:
They shall promote common action by the trade union movement on general questions, such as wages and hours of labour, and any matter of general concern that may arise between trade unions and trade unions, or between employers and trade unions or between the Trade Union movement and the Government, and shall have power to assist any union which is attacked on any vital question of trade union principle.
Rule 8 (f) states:
They shall also enter into relations with the Trade Union and Labour movements in other countries with a view to securing united action.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Rules which have existed in the T.U.C. for 50 years are not lightly used. The T.U.C. like my party, is dedicated to the principles of political democracy. We believe that we should change Governments by politically democratic methods. But we recognise that in certain special circumstances the need for trade unions to act in an industrial way for political purposes can arise. There are examples of this.
§ In 1920 the dockers refused to load arms on the "Jolly George" to be used against Soviet Russia. I can bring matters nearer home. The dockers of Liverpool refused to load a ship going to Nigeria because they thought that the cargo would be used against the Biafran people. Recently, the shipyard workers in Belfast marched, quite wrongly in my opinion, from the shipyards to Unionist headquarters demanding action to put the I.R.A. behind bars, and in the process a number of people who may have sympathised with the I.R.A. or been pro-Catholic were intimidated by other sections of the workers involved.
§ Mr. R. Carr
The hon. Gentleman gave the example of dockers refusing to load a ship because of their belief in the Biafran cause. Since that was an issue on which very strong feelings were held about both sides, it is possible that some members of the union in question felt very strongly about the other side's cause. If it was perfectly right for those who believed strongly in the Biafran cause to do what they did, would it have been right to have disciplined those who believed in the opposite side's cause for refusing to join in?
§ Mr. Heffer
I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman has made that point, because it refers to the point that I intended to make—that this is a much more complex issue than it would appear to be from the black and white terms used by right hon. and hon. Members opposite, who do not even begin to understand the complexities of industrial life and political struggle in relation to industrial events. It is up to the Government to give us chapter and verse showing where the trade unions have disciplined the workers for involving themselves in political action. They cannot give chapter and verse.
The Government are proceeding along an extremely dangerous course. How would they deal with the complex situation which has developed on Upper Clyde where the workers have taken a form of political action by industrial means? We do not know the outcome. This is not a strike. The men are working. It may well be that they should have been sacked. This is a peculiar new situation. All sorts of developments can take place in the industrial and political world. Hon. Members opposite need to be very careful.
§ Mr. Loughlin
I am very glad that my hon. Friend has raised the question of the U.C.S. I wanted to ask the Solicitor-General to give some information in connection with paragraph (c) in this Amendment, but he scuttled to his seat. There are the words:to take part in any irregular industrial action".That is not defined, but it could apply to the present situation in the U.C.S. yards.
§ Mr. Heffer
Yes, that is industrial action. If certain workers decided that they did not want to involve themselves in it and disobeyed the trade union, refused to be involved and were brought before a disciplinary committee, what would be the position under this Bill? One has only to look at these possibilities to see the absurdity into which the Government are getting.
I was pleased to read on the tapes tonight that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has said on behalf of the British Labour movement that he is up on Clydeside to associate us with the shipbuilding workers in the right to work. Although this Amendment does not make political strikes illegal—
§ Mr. Heffer
—the danger is that it is the first step. It means that the Govern-men are moving in the direction of building a totalitarian State. [HON. MEMBERS: ["Oh!"] Oh, yes; the corporate State is inherent in this document. It goes much beyond the Taft-Hartley Act; it is not just American law but much more. It is typical class legislation. It is designed as part of the overall class strategy that this Government are adopting in their fight against the British working people. It is no good hon. Members opposite suggesting that that is not so. This is one prong of the attack. Attacks are being made on thinks like school meals. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh !"] Yes, that affects our people, my class. It may not affect your class, but it affects my class.
§ Mr. Heffer
I am very glad to hear it, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because some hon. Members opposite are not classless.
Attacks of this sort being made on ordinary working-class people; the three working days in connection with sickness benefit and short-term benefits being removed from those in short-term unemployment.
This Government are a vile Government which have brought in a vile Bill. I put on record that when the Labour Party gets returned to power we shall remove this Bill from the Statute Book at the earliest possible moment.
§ Mr. Bidwell
The Solicitor-General may recall that some time ago in these proceedings I asked him whether the political strike was outlawed under the Bill. He had to admit that as such it is not outlawed, but that is not to say that he would not like to outlaw it by means of the Bill. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) has said, the Bill takes a dangerous step towards that concept.
The fabric of the Bill should be seen, particularly by my hon. Friends who have not been so heavily involved in the detail of this massive, revolutionary incursion of law into industrial relations in the ludicrous situation where the right to strike is considerably diminished—certainly the right to strike unofficially 1738 —which has always been regarded as a cherished freedom of trade unionists because of the cumbersome machinery, which has not been of their choosing but has been mostly arranged by employers through the passage of history and needs considerable improvement. If we had before us that kind of proposal, we would consider rationally the way in which State agencies or courts and how the idea of the C.I.R. could be used in order to assist the process of building the classless society which you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, claim you seek to belong to.
This Amendment arises from the single-day stoppages which were but veritable skirmishes compared with what is the likely outcome of the Bill, allied to the other measures the Government are taking in their attack on the people's social services which have been so carefully built up since the war. The purpose has been exploded by my hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) in reference to the case of the dockers who marched to Parliament. This was not the first time that matter had been raised in the House; I raised it myself on another occasion. As far as we are concerned, this is not an argument about whether it is nice or nasty to discipline workers who refuse to take part in an industrial action or a particular action which goes beyond what can be described in the Bill, without this Amendment, as an "industrial dispute". That is not what the argument is about. It is not about the morals of the situation.
As much as I detested the outbreak of racialism evidenced by the march of the Smithfield meat porters and the 200 dockers from the Royal Docks, I would not have proposed that the Transport and General Workers' Union, of which I am a member, should take disciplinary action against those workers. I preferred a more rational approach, and it is beginning to pay off because when we had another racialist outburst by the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell)—pushed out by Tory Central Office, as most of his speeches are, whether they on this tack or any other, whether they be to a junior chamber of commerce or to the old ladies of Wolverhampton or some other meeting—there was not another march.
1739 The Amendment must be seen in the light of what is practicable. How is it supposed to put things right? This is the wrong way to do it. It reminds one of the old saying, "Fools rush in where angels fear to tread", because this is purely a question of the various organisations and the methods they have for disciplining their own members. The trade union movement responded to the national demonstration with mixed feelings. In some establishments, only a few stopped work; some of those who did stayed at home while others turned up for the outdoor demonstrations. At other establishments, there was complete or almost complete stoppage of work. Many workers did not join in what was hardly an official strike or national political demonstration. Many people participated at district level. One has to see the reality of this, that it is much better to leave the situation as it is.
The characteristic of the British trade union movement is evidenced by the mighty T.U.C. peaceful demonstration, the mightiest outdoor demonstration within our memory. It was amazing in view of the tremendous number who came into the sunshine of Hyde Park and marched to Trafalgar Square.
When we go to the earlier pages of trade union history, to the 1926 General Strike and the vicious anti-trade union Measure which came out of it—the Trade Disputes Act, 1927—that situation was not characterised at all by the violence we have seen in other countries but it is to that that the Solicitor-General has gone for guidance in trying to make changes in industrial relations.
That is why at this eleventh hour before this Measure becomes law, we sound notes of warning. This is not just a move towards changes; it is not a cautious step, but a gigantic leap—a leap into the darkness.
I do not relish this, but if shop stewards and shop-floor workers feel that normal and traditional means of dealing with matters of discipline of their fellow workers cannot be used and that they cannot demonstrate peacefully in the manner to which they have been accustomed about dangerous working conditions, or about a massive rise in the 1740 cost of living and their inability to keep pace with it, many will—whether it is correct or not and whether or not they can read this Bill, soon to be enacted—reach for other means of struggle. Those will not be the usual industrial practices, like the go-slow or the work-to-rule. I do not know how the Government, the C.I.R., and the Industrial Court will deal with workers for obeying the rule book. That is part of the imponderable.
I fear that we might go back to the days of the Luddites when the workers feared the machines. If it is the case that one would jeopardise one's family by engaging in a short-lived unofficial strike or unfair industrial practice, it might be easier to resort to other means. There are other means of stopping the industrial machine than walking outside the gate, and that is my genuine fear.
It is not possible to take the whole tradition of conventions and the enormous build-up which has taken place through the years and turn the system upside down overnight. The industrial situation cannot suddenly be guided into the paths laid down by these provisions.
As we on this side of the House—with our considerable fund of knowledge of industrial relations gained from our backgrounds before we came to this house—have looked at the provisions of this Bill to reveal the many holes that exist and have pointed to the yards of legal jargon in which the Bill is shrouded, the Solicitor-General has run around trying to stop up these gaps. Indeed, this very provision is another attempt to stop up a gap in the Bill. But it will not work.
If one looks at the matter in a humorous way—and it is difficult to do so since this is a serious subject—one might be better advised to go back to the workers and say "If in future you want to demonstrate against your employer, do not say you are demonstrating against the employer or are striking in connection with an industrial dispute. Say that you are striking because you do not like the Government." So far the political strike has not been caught by legislation. However, I would not put it past hon. Members opposite to come forward in future with some extra legislation to cope with such a situation. But, before that happens, the people will have spoken loudly on 1741 many other matters, and the days of the present Government are numbered anyway.
The Conservatives thought they were on a winner and could win the middle ground of politics by bringing forward a Measure of this kind. But people make up their own minds on these matters and are showing what they feel in local elections and by-elections—as they will in the General Election, which will happen more quickly than many people expect, for a variety of reasons. The longer these debates go on, the more will the Government's failings be exposed.
§ Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)
The Solicitor-General said that an overwhelming majority of people desired to see these provisions on the Statute Book. That is an assertion, not a fact. This Government have made many political miscalculations. One outstanding miscalculation was that this Measure would mean a political bonanza in the winning of votes. But the Conservative record at the polls has clearly demonstrated how the Government have seriously miscalculated the effect of this Bill on the electorate.
This political miscalculation has spread to other matters. The right hon. Gentleman in his reply has a responsibility to explain the effect of this Amendment on the trade union movement. The unemployment figure in Scotland is now running at the disgraceful total of 134,000, a figure which has not been paralleled at this time of the year since pre-war days. The Scottish Trades Union Congress has decided to hold a special conference in August to discuss the problem of unemployment. No one can predict what that conference will decide, but, as their members are being subjected to political attack after political attack by the Government—school meals, school milk, unemployment among school leavers, and the rest—it may well be that the trade unions will determine that, in defence of their members and to demonstrate that the Government can no longer inflict the agony of unemployment on the Scottish people, they will take strike action.
What will be the effect of this Amendment in such circumstances? The Scottish Trades Union Congress is a very respectable body, with access to the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Prime Minister of every Government. If its members 1742 decide to take industrial action, will it be illegal, and will they as a consequence be prosecuted?
§ Mr. R. Carr
The answer is "No". Nothing in the Amendment has anything to do with what the hon. Gentleman is talking about.
§ Mr. Eadie
I know the Bill, and I have taken part in debates on many of its provisions. We had a long discussion about the closed shop provision. Does the right hon. Gentleman say that will have no effect in relation to what I am suggesting? Of course it will.
I turn to the question of financial support. We have had references to the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Is what they are doing now illegal? How is it affected by the Bill? My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition was up there today. The workers on the Clyde are conducting a sort of work-in, and one would hope that the proposals put forward by the Leader of the Opposition will not lead to serious industrial action as a result of what the Government are doing. But if it is the Government's policy to try to starve people into submission in spite of the constructive action which the Upper Clyde workers are taking, and if there were industrial action taken as a result, would the Transport and General Workers' Union and the National Union of Mineworkers be caught for financing a strike?
The Secretary of State may not be aware that yesterday morning the Scottish Area of the National Union of Mine-workers donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers. Will that be construed as the action of an organisation abetting and assisting the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers if they should decide to come out on industrial 1743 action? Finance is mentioned in the Clause.
The right hon. Gentleman should give us an answer, because the miners in Scotland are anxiously awaiting his verdict about the implementation of the Bill. Who will be prosecuted? Who will be affected? Will it be the miners' leaders or the miners' executive in Scotland who will be affected because they have donated £1,000 to the fight of the Upper Clyde shipbuilding workers? Will the Transport and General Workers' Union in Scotland be placed in a similar position? It is a ridiculous situation.
The slogan of the miners—indeed, of workers everywhere—concerning industrial disputes has always been, "If you injure one, you injure all." The right hon. Gentleman may not be aware whether the passing of the Bill on to the Statute Book means that not only a trade union, its leaders and members will be prosecuted but that other trade unionists and their leaders who give help and sustenance to their trade union brothers will be prosecuted.
If that should happen, the right hon. Gentleman and his Government will make the biggest blunder they have ever made. Their Bill will be a prescription not for industrial peace but for industrial anarchy, and instead of its helping and assisting the country, we shall be in for a long, hard, gruelling time.
§ Mr. Waddington
Some hon. Members opposite seem to have lost sight of the subject that we are supposed to be debating. As I understand it, we are not debating whether political strikes should or should not be lawful. We are debating the very different question whether a person who refuses to joint a strike which is avowedly political should be disciplined by his union.
We are debating a subject which has been debated, I am sorry to say, for very many hours already during the passage of the Bill. I remember speaking on this subject, and I merely repeat—
§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. and learned Member must not mislead the House. We have never had a discussion on political strikes on the Bill in this House because that subject was not introduced into the Bill until the fifth day of the Report stage 1744 in the House of Lords. It was not even done as an Amendment by the Government. Therefore, to say that we have discussed it in this House is totally untrue.
§ Mr. Waddington
The hon. Member cannot have been listening to the argument I was advancing. We are not now discussing whether political strikes are lawful, because that is not the subject which is before the House. What hon. Members opposite have been discussing during the last few minutes is the very different subject, which I am prepared to discuss if hon. Members opposite are still prepared to discuss it, of whether members of unions should be disciplined by their unions if they refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political. This is a subject which has been debated for many hours during the passage of the Bill.
§ Mr. Heffer indicated dissent.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the House is entitled to expect better parliamentary manners from the Opposition Front Bench.
§ Mr. Waddington
If the hon. Member will bear with me, I am sure that I am not misconstruing what hon. Members opposite have said during the last 10 minutes when I say that they have been arguing that it is an affront to the rights of the trade unions if they are forbidden and prohibited by law from disciplining members who refuse to take part in strikes which are avowedly political.
I merely remind hon. Gentlemen opposite of what has taken place over the last few months. It seems absolutely absurd that any hon. Member of this House should try to support the argument that a man who has joined a union in order that that union might look after his conditions of employment, his pay, and all other conditions of work should find that he is required by that union to go on strike in protest against 1745 a political Measure, such as this Bill, of which he may be in favour.
I have mentioned in this House on many previous occasions that we know from our own experience that there are many perfectly loyal trade unionists who want to be members of and to take an active part in trade unions so that they may look after their pay and conditions of work, but find that those unions are obliging them to go on strike in protest against political measures, such as this Bill.
Some of the arguments which have been advanced by hon. Gentlemen opposite have been bizarre in the extreme. At one stage the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), who taxed me a few minutes ago over my argument, advanced, in quite lyrical language, an argument which I think takes some sustaining in today's political climate. He said that there was a marked absence of genuine trade union activity in Russia and in Fascist States. He talked of the evils of the corporate State, as if inviting us to assume that the antagonism towards the Bill of Messrs. Jones and Scanlon was due to their antagonism towards Communism.
We should keep our feet on the ground. Where is the great antagonism to the Bill coming from? It is coming from people like Mr. Jones and Mr. Scanlon who, to the best of my knowledge, until a few moments ago were members of the Communist Party. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the nerve—
§ Mr. Waddington
Let me finish my sentence. Yet the hon. Gentleman has the neck to talk about the Bill being a move towards a corporate State. I think that this House is entitled to take note of the fact that many of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are—
§ Mr. Waddington
Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will wait until I complete this argument. I think that hon. Members are entitled to take note of the fact that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State.
§ Mr. Rose
Will the hon. and learned Gentleman now withdraw his allegation that two highly respected trade union leaders in this country are members of the Communist Party? Is he aware that neither of them is a member of the Communist Party? Is he further aware that the argument advanced against the Bill by people such as Lord Robens is that it plays into the hands of those who want to use the trade union movement for other purposes? Will he now withdraw that allegation?
§ Mr. Waddington
I am certainly prepared to say, if such be the case, that neither of them is now a member of the Communist Party.
§ Mr. Waddington
But we know, as I have said, that some of the most vehement opponents of the Bill are the most vehement exponents of the corporate State. It is absurd for the hon. Member for Walton to advance as one argument against the Bill that if it becomes law we shall have taken one notable step towards the corporate State.
The Bill, to my mind, is a most remarkable advance towards greater freedom for the individual—[Interruption.] I cannot see how any right-minded person can seriously say that it is not a most marked advance towards greater freedom for the individual if, by passing legislation, we say that no man shall suffer disadvantage as a result of opposing a strike which is called for an avowedly political purpose; namely, to protest against a Measure passed by the democratically-elected representatives of the people.
§ Mr. Neil McBride (Swansea, East)
Listening to the hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), I was struck by the fact that he used the French maxim in the colonial days of "Divide and rule". May I remind him that the French lost an empire in the Far East, as his party will lose the next General Election.
I would not seek to interfere in any personal matter, but if I were associated with the legal profession my first maxim would be to check my facts before villifying members of the trade union movement. The Amendment is clearly directed against any trade union which may be involved in an industrial dispute with 1747 political overtones. The Amendment is directed towards that end—a so-called political strike. For a long time the trade union movement has been an estate of the realm. It is inevitable, therefore, that in industrial stoppages we shall be more and more concerned with social, economic and political overtones.
This Amendment—I am speaking calmly but it is hard to keep emotion out of it—indicates the hatred of this Tory Government of the trade unions and their political associations, and for the Amendment the Government clearly have no mandate. The responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for Employment who, despite his appearance of sweet reasonableness, is always able to follow the hard-line doctrinaire Tory political philosophy. Two cardinal points in the Amendment show that the Tory Government policy is meant to repress the trade unions and seeks to effect a divorce between them and the Labour Party. The Tory Party fears this alliance; it fears it as it fears nothing else.
In propounding this Amendment the right hon. Gentleman has forgotten that many of the great reforms in the United Kingdom have taken place as a result of strikes which have been political and industrial, and it would be foolish of the Tory Party to ignore it. Millions of trade unionists have taken part in strikes in contravention of the legislation proposed in this Amendment, and to declare as illegal the act of taking partin a strike which the organisation, or any other person, has called, organised, procured or financed otherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial disputeis to misjudge the mood of 10 million trade unionists.
The operative words on which my hon. Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) was basing his argument wereotherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute".My hon. Friend's argument has been proved, while the right hon. Gentleman has been proved wrong. The people of the United Kingdom have no liking for regimentation or legal oppression or the minimising of the rights of free association. This is a lesson of history. This Amendment seeks close relationship with another Tory brain child of late 1748 and unlamented memory, the Trade Disputes and Trade Unions Act, 1927, which was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell), and which in 1927 caused massive demonstrations of protest. The numbers attending those protests were only exceeded by the greatest demonstration in history, which was staged against this Bill this year. The opposition in 1927, as in 1971, was industrial and political.
What legal definition is there in the wordsotherwise than in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute"?As I told the right hon. Gentleman last night, he is no legal theoretician. Neither is he. But it is his job to explain this. It is his brain child. Perhaps I should say that the paternity should be shared equally between him and the Solicitor-General. The United Kingdom owes much to the mass protests and strikes which have helped to change attitudes. The Amendment is designed to kill the social and political overtones and feelings with which the people are imbued. They will shortly be mocking the "defeat" of this Bill—which will never work.
The Amendment has been bypassed by the development in Upper Clyde Shipbuilders. That action, which is "irregular", is suported by thousands of unionists and is the opposite of a strike. It is organised and financed in terms unrelated to paragraph (c). It is a phenomenon of the times, supported by every section of opinion in my native land. Such an event makes nonsense of the Amendment, which reintroduces in different words the provisions of the 1927 Act, which dealt with strikes with an object other than the furtherance of a dispute or designed to coerce the Government, either directly or by inflicting hardship on the community.
This attitude towards the unions is of long standing, as one can see from the pamphlet "A Grant Strength", published in 1958 by the Conservative Society of the Inns of Court. It said:We therefore consider that the political strike should be clearly pronounced to be illegal—and by illegal in this context we mean a criminal offence.The power to strike sympathetically, socially, politically or economically is 1749 justified if without it employees have insufficient bargaining power. When workers have a great part to play in modern economic life, the fact that this matter has not been discussed in this House shows a regrettable lack of consideration by this Government for the democratic process.
As a result of modern conditions and the trade unions' rightful desire for a fair deal and the right to work, methods will be adopted of bypassing the Amendment. No one knows the futility of this more than the right hon. Gentleman. The Government have misjudged the mood of the times, the mood of the British people, and the resilience of the opposition of the unions to this unwanted Bill.
§ Mr. Orme
At the outset I asked the Solicitor-General why these proposals, which were not in the Bill when we spent long nights in Committee discussing the Measure, had suddenly been introduced, but he did not give a satisfactory reply.
It is clear that they arose out of the 1st and 18th March stoppages in which my union was supported by the boiler-makers and the unions in the newspaper industry. Was that political action? The unions demonstrated on those days against this Bill to defend their industrial democracy and bargaining power in British industry. In other words, they were taking industrial action against an attempt by the Tory Government to impose political solutions affecting the unions' activities.
There can be no doubt that this is the first political step towards direct interference by the Government in union affairs. It is designed not only to prevent unions from disciplining their members but to deflect those members from taking action, and so to place a complete ban on the industrial action of unions.
We have not heard much from hon. Gentlemen opposite about the action of the N.F.U. in Cardiff when some of its members jostled one of my right hon. Friends when we were in Government. Those demonstrations represented political action to bring the views of the N.F.U. to bear on the then Labour Government. We did not suggest that they should be disciplined or put into prison.
§ Mr. R. Carr
Can the hon. Gentleman give an example of the N.F.U. trying 1750 to discipline any of its members fur refusing to jostle the then Prime Minister?
§ Mr. Orme
The right hon. Gentleman knows that that is not the argument. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] The argument goes far beyond the disciplining of members. This proposal is aimed directly at unions which take action which the right hon. Gentleman or the Government consider to be political. The Solicitor-General did not have the grace or honesty to admit that this arises out of the 1st and 18th March demonstrations against the Bill.
It is not far from here to a corporate State situation. After all, reference has been made to action taken by workers which could have political overtones. One can think of the "Jolly George" and the action of the Lancashire cotton workers. What about the American revolution—[interruption.] I do not know why hon. Gentlemen opposite think this is funny.
§ Mr. Orme
No. I will not give way.
This is a very important issue for democracy. We have seen what has happened in Greece. I was in Czechoslovakia at the time of the Dubcek situation, when one of the first things demanded was a free and independent trade union movement. We have seen what has happened in South Africa, where the trade union movement has been divided into black and white, and political action or real industrial action is forbidden. We have seen what happened recently in the Sudan. We can go all over the world, and the one place where there is a real, free, independent trade union movement—until the Bill gets the Royal Assent tomorrow—is Great Britain.
But we are present this evening at the removal of some of our basic liberties—liberties for which we have fought for 1751 generations, and for which people will continue to fight. This Clause has overtones of some of the most unpleasant aspects of the Bill. Has anyone ever known of legislation being amended as it has been going through Parliament because of action outside Parliament just a matter of days away?
I warn the right hon. Gentleman that he will not get away with this sort of intimidation or threats or legislation. The trade union movement will fight, and, whether the Secretary of State calls it political action or industrial action, the freedoms we have had in the British trade union movement will continue under this Measure as before it, regardless of penalties or restrictions until the Measure itself is removed from the Statute Book.
§ Mrs. Castle
It is very appropriate that we should end our debates on the Bill with this Amendment, because it has the same Alice-in-Wonderland quality as has permeated all the debates from start to finish. As I listened to the Solicitor-General explaining the purpose of the Amendment, I wondered how hon. Gentlemen opposite could retain enough enthusiasm for this legislation even to go through the Division Lobby tonight.
In the first place, the hon. and learned Gentleman admitted that the Amendment was not really necessary. He said, with disarming frankness, that it was probable that disciplinary action against a union member who refused to take part in a political strike would in any case be contrary to the common law. If that is so, what we are engaged on is pro vision of litigation for litigation's sake. The Solicitor-General could not give one reason why we needed this Amendment or one example of the sort of situation with which it is supposed to deal. There is no legal or political necessity for it. He just got—I was about to say the seven-year itch, and it seems like seven years that we have been dealing with the Bill—
§ Mr. David Mitchell
I have been listening to the right hon. Lady with great care. Does she realise that, although there is an existing right of redress for someone who is disciplined by his union for not taking part in a political strike, it can cost the members a great deal of 1752 money? It involves his getting a High Court writ. The costs may run to over £1,000, and this is well beyond the pocket of an ordinary trade unionist who finds himself in that position.
§ Mrs. Castle
I must congratulate the hon. Member on being more ingenious than the Solicitor-General who, when we asked him why, if the right is there at common law, we needed the Amendment, replied that we might as well make it clear; and when we asked for an example or a case, all we got was silence. I repeat that with this Amendment, as during the course of a large part of the Bill, we have been engaged in the provision of litigation for litigation's sake.
The hon. and learned Gentleman is absolutely obsessed by the idea that everything can be tied up by some neat legal formula. I tremble to think what will happen to the hon. and learned Gentleman when our discussions on the Bill come to an end. It will be like taking away his necessary drug which has inspired all his activity. He will be wandering around like a lost spirit when he does not have a Clause to draft or redraft, or another Amendment, for perhaps years and years. We may have a serious situation with the psychological collapse of the hon. and learned Gentleman, and I am anxious for his health.
We turn to the second limb—if I may get as legalistic as we shall all have to get—of the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. Even if it is necessary, what does the Amendment do? My hon. Friend the Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) made a telling intervention asking the hon. and learned Gentleman whether it would be an unfair industrial practice to discipline dockers who downed tools in support of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), and we know that his views are highly political.
Irreverent voices were heard calling out from this side of the House, "That got you, Geoffrey." But we underestimated the ingenuity and rationality of the hon. and learned Gentleman. He said, "Not at all, because dockers who demonstrated in favour of the racist views of the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West, were taking political action, and it is an unfair industrial practice only to 1753 discipline them for refusing or failing to do so." If the Gilbertian essence of this situation does not strike hon. Gentlemen opposite, they are beyond redemption.
This means that it is not an unfair industrial practice for workers to take political action against the advice of their trade union; there is nothing wrong with that; all this talk about political strikes is totally irrelevant to the hon. and learned Gentleman's argument. It is not wrong to take political action against the union's advice but it is wrong—it is this naughty thing, an unfair industrial practice—for the union to discipline members who refuse to take part in a collective decision of the union.
I should have thought that that was turning the whole philosophy of the Bill on its head in any case, for I thought that the only thing the right hon. Gentleman wanted to do was to get at the wild cats, at the mad hats who did not obey their union. I thought that that was what the whole exercise was about and that the right hon. Gentleman so loved the trade unions that what he wanted to do was to underpin their authority. By the hon. and learned Gentleman's admission, the Government are doing exactly the opposite by this Amendment.
It is extremely appropriate that we should be having this swan song at this stage of the Bill on this Amendment. The witching hour is drawing near and at midnight the guillotine falls. Tomorrow the Government will be rushing with all speed to get the Queen's Assent to this Bill. "Look" they will be chanting, "we have done it. We have kept one election pledge. We forced the Bill through the House of Commons in the time limit we set ourselves. We did not mind what we sacrificed to get the Bill on the Statute Book before the Summer Recess." This had become the sole aim of the right hon. Gentleman's industrial relations policy, the sum total of this Government's contribution to this controversial problem. They did not mind what they sacrificed so long as they hit the deadline; they did not mind whether they sacrificed a proper examination of the Bill, they did not mind whether they sacrificed the rights of Parliament, they did not mind whether Parliament was stopped from voting, if they stopped Parliament, as they will be stopping it shortly, from saying whether it wants to 1754 accept or reject a series of Amendments which are very different in character.
That does not matter. They say, "Our gauleiter gets things done." Here it is: this Government's one and only contribution to the solution of this country's economic difficulties! Unemployment may be at its highest peak for 30 years but at least they say they have outlawed the politico-sympathetic action of unemployed workers on the Upper Clyde. "That would be political action, would it not? It is that which would ruin the country." The number of working days lost through strikes during the miserable months under this Government and the loss of production may have doubled, but "Ah", says the right hon. Gentleman, "we have halved the number of those little strikes that last only three days and we always intended to 'go American, didn't we?".
The trade unionists have marched off the Commission on Industrial Relations to a man. Not only Mr. George Woodcock, but Mr. Alf Allen, and Mr. Will Paynter have walked out, and the right hon. Gentleman is incapable of finding any trade unionist in any part of the political spectrum to serve on the Commission because of the rôle that he has given it under this Bill.
"Yet," says the right hon. Gentleman, "there it is—our instrument for reforming procedure agreements and improving industrial relations." It will be busy doing that in the absence of the trade unions, in the absence of half of the industrial parties concerned. If the trade unions do not like the agreements which the Commission draws up for them, then the employer can impose those agreements upon them, as if, to use the tendentious words of this Bill they were "a contract freely negotiated." This is the level of debasement we have reached in the language of industrial relations.
We talk about the sanctity of contract, about the extension of freedom. The hon. and learned Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) talked about the extension of freedom under the Bill—[Interruption.]—the essence of contract. Yes, words mean what hon. Gentlemen opposite decide they shall mean. A contract, if it means anything, means a bargain freely struck, and yet the right hon. Gentleman is to impose procedure 1755 agreements and make them legally enforceable as if they were a contract. If words can lose their meaning in this way, there will be no language in which management will be able to talk to unions in industry.
Tonight, when the Guillotine falls, I have not the slightest doubt that hon. Members opposite will repair to the Smoke Room and roll out the champagne again, celebrating the most successful take-over bid in Ministerial history. The Solicitor-General has moved in on industrial relations like the cuckoo in the nest, and the Secretary of State has not so much been pushed out of the nest as jumped out of it. We have watched him during the stages of this Bill crowded out of the discussion of one Clause after another for the simple reason that the Bill was incomprehensible to anybody but the Solicitor-General. Therefore, conciliation and common sense have abdicated in favour of the court room.
As a result of this Bill we face a wave of bitterness among organised workers greater than this country has known for many a long year. What a commentary it is on this Bill that as part of its grand finale we should find it necessary for the first time in our history to be legislating about political strikes; what a commentary that is on the Government's policies; what a commentary on their unemployment policies; what a commentary on their "lame ducks" policy; what a commentary on their industrial relations policy. [Interruption.] Having been steam-rollered at every stage of this Bill, we on this side of the House have the
§ right, before the steam-roller of the votes of the majority subservient party silences our protest, to be heard to the end, and we intend to be heard.
§ We leave hon. Members opposite to enjoy their pyrrhic victory. They may have won the parliamentary battle; power, they have proved, is more powerful than argument. But have they won the industrial relations battle? Does any right hon. or hon. Member opposite seriously believe that? Any body who is honest and informed will admit that the industrial relations battle will be won only in men's minds. The supreme and sublime irony of this Bill is that the Government's only hope is that no one will take the slightest bit of notice of it. That is the Secretary of State's hope. That is what he is counting on—that the powers will not be used; that the legal paraphernalia will be ignored; that the trade union movement will forget the insults; that perhaps he will be able to retract. Perhaps eventually he will be able to win them back into consultation and to the conciliation table again. This is the net result of all these months of argument. There is not an hon. Member—
§ It being Twelve o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to the Order [28th July], to put forthwith the Question already proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 259, Noes, 222.1759
|Division No. 466.]||AYES||[12.00 m.|
|Adley, Robert||Bossom, Sir Clive||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Bowden, Andrew||Clegg, Walter|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Cockeram, Eric|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Braine, Bernard||Coombs, Derek|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Bray, Ronald||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Awdry, Daniel||Brewis, John||Cormack, Patrick|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Costain, A. P.|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Critchley, Julian|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Crouch, David|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Curran, Charles|
|Batsford, Brian||Bryan, Paul||Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Bell, Ronald||Buck, Antony||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Bullus, Sir Eric||Dean, Paul|
|Benyon, W.||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.|
|Berry, Hn, Anthony||Carlisle, Mark||Dixon, Piers|
|Biffen, John||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Dodds-Parker, Douglas|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Channon, Paul||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec|
|Blaker, Peter||Chapman, Sydney||Drayson, G. B.|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Chichester-Clark, R.||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Body, Richard||Churchill, W. S.||Eden, Sir John|
|Boscawen, Robert||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Emery, Peter||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Ridley, Hon Nicholas|
|Farr, John||Kilfedder, James||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Fell, Anthony||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Kinsey, J. R.||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Fidler, Michael||Kirk, Peter||Rost, Peter|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Kitson, Timothy||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Knox, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lambton, Antony||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Fortescue, Tim||Lane, David||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Foster, Sir John||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Fowler, Norman||Le Marchant, Spencer||Simeons, Charles|
|Fox, Marcus||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Longden, Gilbert||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Fry, Peter||Loveridge, John||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Soref, Harold|
|Gardner, Edward||MacArthur, Ian||Speed, Keith|
|Gibson-Watt, David||McCrindle, R. A.||Spence, John|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||McLaren, Martin||Sproat, Iain|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)|
|Goodhart, Philip||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Stodart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Goodhew, Victor||Maddan, Martin||Stokes, John|
|Corst, John||Madel, David||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Gower, Raymond||Marten, Neil||Sutcliffe, John|
|Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||Mather, Carol||Tapsell, Peter|
|Gray, Hamish||Maude, Angus||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Green, Alan||Mawby, Ray||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Grieve, Percy||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Grylls, Michael||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Tebbit, Norman|
|Gummer, Selwyn||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Temple, John M.|
|Gurden, Harold||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Moate, Roger||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Money, Ernle||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Tilney, John|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Montgomery, Fergus||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Hannan, John (Exeter)||More, Jasper||Trew, Peter|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin|
|Hastings, Stephen||Mudd, David||van straubenzee, W. R.|
|Havers, Michael||Murton, Oscar||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Hawkins, Paul||Neave, Airey||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Hay, John||Normanton, Tom||Waddington, David|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Nott, John||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Onslow, Cranley||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Hicks, Robert||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Osborn, John||Wall, Patrick|
|Hiley, Joseph||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Hordern, Peter||Peel, John||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Hornby, Richard||Percival, Ian||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Pink, R. Bonner||Wilkinson, John|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Pounder, Rafton||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Hunt, John||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Worsley, Marcus|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Redmond, Robert|
|James, David||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Jessel, Toby||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Mr. Reginald Eyre and|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Mr. Hugh Rossi.|
|Jopling, Michael||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Albu, Austen||Bishop, E. S.||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Booth, Albert||Cohen, Stanley|
|Ashton, Joe||Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Coleman, Donald|
|Atkinson, Norman||Bradley, Tom||Conlan, Bernard|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Barnes, Michael||Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Crawshaw, Richard|
|Barnett, Joel||Buchan, Norman||Cronin, John|
|Beaney, Alan||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cant, R. B.||Dalyell, Tam|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Carmichael, Neil||Darling, Rt. Hn. George|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Paget, R. T.|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||John, Brynmor||Palmer, Arthur|
|Davics, Ifor (Gower)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|de Fraias, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Pendry, Tom|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Pentland, Norman|
|Devlin, Miss Bernadette||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Doig, Peter||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Probert, Arthur|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Judd, Frank||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Driberg, Tom||Kaufman, Gerald||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Kelley, Richard||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Dunnett, Jack||Kinnock, Neil||Richard, Ivor|
|Eadie, Alex||Lambie, David||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Latham, Arthur||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lawson, George||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Leadbitter, Ted||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Ellis, Tom||Leonard, Dick||Roper, John|
|English, Michael||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Rose, Paul B.|
|Evans, Fred||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Faulds, Andrew||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Lipton, Marcus||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Loughlin, Charles||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Silkin, Hn, S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Silverman, Julius|
|Foley, Maurice||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Skinner, Dennis|
|Foot, Michael||McBride, Neil||Small, William|
|Ford, Ben||McCartney, Hugh||Spearing, Nigel|
|Forrester, John||McGuire, Michael||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Stallard, A. W.|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mackie, John||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Maclennan, Robert||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Strang, Gavin|
|Golding, John||McNamara, J. Kevin||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Marks, Kenneth||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Marquand, David||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Marsden, F.||Tinn, James|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Tomney, Frank|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Meacher, Michael||Torney, Tom|
|Hamling, William||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Tuck, Raphael|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Mendelson, John||Urwin, T. W.|
|Hardy, Peter||Millan, Bruce||Varley, Eric G.|
|Harper, Joseph||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Molloy, William||Wallace, George|
|Hattersley, Roy||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Watkins, David|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Weitzman, David|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Whitehead, Philip|
|Horam, John||Morris, Rt. Hn, John (Aberavon)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Moyle, Roland||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Murray, Ronald King||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Ogden, Eric||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||O'Halloran, Michael||Woof, Robert|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Hunter, Adam||Oram, Bert||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Janner, Greville||Orme, Stanley||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Oswald, Thomas||Mr. Alan Fitch.|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)|
§ Mr. Speaker
I am now required to designate those of the remaining Lords Amendments which appear to involve Privilege. They are Amendments Nos. 139, 140, 144, 145, 149, 170, 171 and 177.
§ Motion made, That this House doth agree with the Lords in all the remaining Lords Amendments except those so designated by Mr. Speaker.—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]1760
§ Mr. Speaker
First I have to put the general Question and then put the Question afterwards on each designated Amendment. [Interruption.]
§ Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER, pursuant to the Order [28th July], put forthwith the Question thereon:—1762
§ The House divided: Ayes 254, Noes 217.1765
|Division No. 467.]||AYES||[12.11 a.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Fortescue, Tim||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Foster, Sir John||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Fowler, Norman||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Fox, Marcus||Maddan, Martin|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Madel, David|
|Awdry, Daniel||Fry, Peter||Mather, Carol|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Maude, Angus|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Gardner, Edward||Mawby, Ray|
|Balniel, Lord||Gibson-Watt, David||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Batsford, Brian||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)|
|Bell, Ronald||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)||Goodhart, Philip||Moate, Roger|
|Benyon, W.||Goodhew, Victor||Money, Ernle|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Gorst, John||Monks, Mrs. Connie|
|Biffen, John||Gower, Raymond||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)||More, Jasper|
|Blaker, Peter||Gray, Hamish||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicaster, S.W.)||Green, Alan||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Body, Richard||Grieve, Percy||Mudd, David|
|Boscawen, Robert||Griffiths, Elden (Bury St. Edmunds)||Murton, Oscar|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Grylls, Michael||Neave, Airey|
|Bowden, Andrew||Gummer, Selwyn||Normanton, Tom|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Gurden, Harold||Nott, John|
|Braine, Bernard||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Onslow, Cranley|
|Bray, Ronald||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Brewis, John||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Osborn, John|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Blocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Page, Graham (Grosny)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Page, John (Earrow, W.)|
|Bruce-Gardyno, J.||Haselhurst, Alan||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|Bryan, Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Peel, John|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Havers, Michael||Percival, Ian|
|Buck, Antony||Hawkins, Paul||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hay, John||Pounder, Rafton|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Hayhoe, Barney||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Carlisle, Mark||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.|
|Carr, Rt Hn. Robert||Hicks, Robert||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Channon, Paul||Higgins, Terence L.||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Chapman, Sydney||Heffey, Joseph||Redmond, Robert|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Holt, Miss Mary||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hordern, Peter||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Clegg, Walter||Hornby, Richard||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Cockeram, Eric||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Coombs, Derek||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Howell, David (Guildford)||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Howell, Ralph (Norfok, N.)||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Costain, A. P.||Hunt, John||Rost, Peter|
|Critchley, Julian||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Ruseell, Sir Ronald|
|Crouch, David||Iremonger, T. L.||Scott, Nicholas|
|Curran, Charles||James, David||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)||Jessel, Toby||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.James||Jopling, Michael||Simeons, Charles|
|Dean, Paul||Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Kilfedder, James||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Dixon, Piers||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kinsey, J. R.||Soref, Harold|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Kirk, Peter||Spence, John|
|Drayson, G. B.||Kitson, Timothy||Sproat, Iain|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Knox, David||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Eden, Sir John||Lambton, Antony||Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lane, David||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Stokes, John|
|Emery, Peter||Le Marchant, Spencer||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sutcliffe, John|
|Farr, John||Longden, Gilbert||Tapsell, Peter|
|Fell, Anthony||Loveridge, John||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||McAdden, Sir Stephen||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Fidler, Michael||MacArthur, Ian||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||McCrindle, R. A.||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||McLaren, Martin||Tebbit, Norman|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Temple, John M.|
|Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret||Waddington, David||Wilkinson, John|
|Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Tilney, John||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Trafford, Dr. Anthony||Wall, Patrick||Worsley, Marcus|
|Trew, Peter||Ward, Dame Irene||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. A.|
|Tugendhat, Christopher||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|van Straubenzee, W. R.||White, Roger (Gravesend)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Vaughan, Dr. Gerard||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William||Mr. Keith Speed and|
|Vickers, Dame Joan||Wiggin, Jerry||Mr. Bernard Weatherill.|
|Albu, Austen||Foot, Michael||Marsden, F.|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Ford, Ben||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Archer, Peter (Rowey Regis)||Forrester, John||Meacher, Michael|
|Armstrong, Emest||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Ashton, Joe||Freeson, Reginald||Mendelson, John|
|Atkinson, Norman||Galpern, Sir Myer||Millan, Bruce|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Gilbert, Dr. John||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Barnes, Michael||Golding, John||Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)|
|Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Molloy, William|
|Barnett, Joel||Gourlay, Harry||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Beaney, Alan||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Benn, Rt. Hon. Anthony Wedgwood||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Moyle, Roland|
|Bishop, E. S.||Handing, William||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Murray, Ronald King|
|Booth, Albert||Hardy, Peter||Ogden, Eric|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Harper, Joseph||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Bradley, Tom||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||O' Malley, Brian|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Oram, Bert|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Hattersley, Roy||Orme, Stanley|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Oswald, Thomas|
|Buchan, Norman||Heffer, Eric S.||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Horam, John||Palmer, Arthur|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Cant, R. B.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Huckfield, Leslie||Peart, Rt. Hn. Feed|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Pendry, Tom|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Pentland, Norman|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Cohen, Stanley||Hunter, Adam||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Coleman, Donald||Janner, Greville||Prescott, John|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Probert, Arthur|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Cronin, John||John, Brynmor||Richard, Ivor|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Roberts, John (Paisley)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Roper, John|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Rose, Paul B.|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Sandelson, Neville|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanclly)||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Judd, Frank||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Kaufman, Gerald||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Kelley, Richard||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)||Kinnock, Neil||Silverman, Julius|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Lambie, David||Skinner, Dennis|
|Delargy, H. J.||Latham, Arthur||Small, William|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lawson, George||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Devlin, Miss Bernadette||Leadbitter, Ted||Spearing, Nigel|
|Doig, Peter||Leonard, Dick||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Stallard, A. W.|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Driberg, Tom||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Lipton, Marcus||Strang, Gavin|
|Dunnett, Jack||Loughlin, Charles||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Eadie, Alex||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Edelman, Maurice||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||McBride, Neil||Tinn, James|
|Ellis, Tom||McCartney, Hugh||Tomney, Frank|
|English, Michael||McGuire, Michael||Torney, Tom|
|Evans, Fred||Mackenzie, Gregor||Tuck, Raphael|
|Faulds, Andrew||Mackie, John||Urwin, T. W.|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Maclennan, Robert||Varley, Eric G.|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Wallace, George|
|Foley, Maurice||Marks, Kenneth||Weitzman, David|
|Whitehead, Phillip||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)||Mr. James Hamilton and|
|Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)||Woof, Robert||Mr. Alan Fitch.|
|Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|