HC Deb 02 February 1971 vol 810 cc1507-617
Mr. Harold Walker (Doncaster)

I beg to move Amendment No. 672, in page 25, line 8, after 'may', insert: 'after consultation with the parties'.

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Order. It might be for the convenience of the Committee if we were to discuss with it Amendment No. 672, in line 8, leave out 'Industrial Court' and insert: 'Commission on Industrial Relations'. No. 674, in line 17, leave out from 'action' to end of line 18.

No. 675, in line 30, leave out 'Industrial Court' and insert 'Commission'.

and No. 676, in line 38, leave out from first 'the' to end of subsection and insert: 'Commission should put to the representative bodies in the industry proposals for reform and seek to obtain their implementation by voluntary agreement'.

Mr. Walker

We now come to the Clause which proposes remedial action where procedure agreements are either non-existent or defective. The way in which it is interwoven with the subsequent Clauses compels the debate to spill over. I shall confine myself to the Clause, but it is inevitable, because we are discussing yet another of what the Secretary of State referred to as the pillars that support this edifice of his, that the debate will tend to widen, and it will be difficult to confine it strictly to the narrow confines of the Clause.

I would be the first to agree about the need to take remedial action in the kind of situation about which the Clause hypothesises, but I reject the remedy prescribed by the right hon. Gentleman. The Amendments change the Clause radically, fundamentally and in a way that I think makes irrelevant and redundant the subsequent Clauses to which I have just referred. We propose them so that the Clause will conform more closely to the realities of industry, so that what is purely an industrial relations matter is disentangled from the odious judicial machinery that the Bill seeks to establish, and so that the Commission on Industrial Relations is saved from the perversion and prostitution to which the Government's proposals are subjecting that body.

Mr. Orme

Where are the Ministers?

Mr. Walker

The Secretary of State told me that he had to leave the Chamber for a short period because of a crucial meeting. I am sure that we all understand that, even if we equally understand that his very pressing problems are mainly of his own creation.

Mr. Orme

Where is the Solicitor-General?

Mr. Walker

I have had no such apology from the hon. and learned Gentleman. I am sorry—[Interruption.]—I am not supposed to be able to see him. Having acknowledged the marginal presence of the Solicitor-General, I shall return to the Clause.

Rightly, it brings together two of the major elements in my right hon. Friend's drive, when at the Department of Employment and Productivity—now the Department of Employment, productivity having been dropped by the Government —for a major reform of industrial relations. The reform or creation of procedures and the establishment of the C.I.R. were linked in her White Paper. I think that getting them launched in the way which is now showing positive results is amongst her achievements—achieve- ments which have received recognition almost everywhere except among hon. Members opposite, achievements wholly for the good of industrial relations but which are now placed in jeopardy by the proposals we are now discussing.

The right hon. Gentleman is fond of referring to "In Place of Strife". I hope that he has studied with great care the parts of that White Paper that deal with the importance of procedures and the rôle of the C.I.R. I regret that the Bill shows little sign that he has done so. The same strictures might equally apply to the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), who seemed to think that part of our attitude towards the Bill was one that did not go with the recognition of the need to establish remedy procedures. We went into this in considerable detail and set up all the signposts in "In Place of Strife". I refer to that White Paper not to quote it but to draw attention to the totally different approach it reflected on these two points, because there is a fundamental difference of philosophy between us on the whole broad question of the reform of industrial relations.

Whereas the Government concentrate on treating and suppressing the symptoms, we sought in our White Paper to identify the underlying causes of the problems and to remove or mitigate them at least. I hope that the Committee will study carefully paragraphs 19 to 35, because there my right hon. Friend did what the Government have not done. She highlighted the precise nature of the defects. She showed what reforms were necessary in detail and how they could be brought about, where necessary with the aid of the C.I.R. She also laid down criteria that agreements ought to aim at meeting, seeking above all to establish the procedures as speedy, effective and equitable.

In an earlier debate, I referred to the International Harvester agreement, partly because I am familiar with it through its association with my constituency, but also because in many ways it was a model of what we were hoping to achieve. I do not apologise for referring to it again, because it is an exemplar not only of what we were trying to achieve but showing what can be achieved in future, given the opportunities for the C.I.R. to go on its course unfettered in the way the Government propose. In a leader on 17th September, the Financial Times, referring to the report by the C.I.R., on the agreement, said: Yesterday's report by the Commission on Industrial Relations about ways of improving institutions and procedures at International Harvester is interesting not only in itself but as an example of the function which the Donovan Commission had principally in mind when it recommended that a CIR should be established. It was one of the great strengths of the way in which my right hon. Friend created the C.I.R. that she followed the pattern and path set and prescribed by the Royal Commission. It is interesting to note that those comments by the Financial Times were written on the occasion of the report, because the major achievement of the C.I.R. was not the identification of the problems—which it did—but the way in which it followed this through and brought in an agreement which has been hailed as one of the most comprehensive plant procedure agreements we have.

In an earlier debate, when I referred to the International Harvester agreement, I hope I made it clear that it was achieved only because from start to finish everything was done on a voluntary basis. I can say, from my own close if not intimate knowledge of the situation and of the personalities involved, that, had the provisions of this Bill been in operation, the agreement would not and could not have come into existence. It could not have done so in the order and ambience which the Bill seeks to create.

Unfettered, the C.I.R. would have gone on to add more battle honours to its banner. I have chosen the past tense deliberately because I believe that already the Bill has started to wield its evil influence. The distinguished team my right hon. Friend brought together to create the C.I.R.—men with profound understanding of what they were about, based on a long experience of problems in industrial relations—has already started to break up. Mr. Allen and Mr. Paynter have gone. Mr. Paynter was the man who brought the International Harvester agreement into existence. For many years he fitted precisely into the category so readily condemned by hon. Members opposite—that of "industrial militant". But on the basis of his profound experience, as a father he brought into existence this tremendously important and constructive agreement, and having done so immediately resigned because of the introduction of the Consultative Document and all that is associated with it in this Bill.

Mr. Gower

Can the hon. Gentleman seriously suggest that there is anything in these proposals which could inhibit or prevent persons of good will on both sides of industry working in future for good and helpful agreements?

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Mr. Walker

I promise the Committee that I will be brief but, despite my brevity, I hope to make it clear that indeed I do believe that there are provisions in the Bill with that effect. Why does the hon. Gentleman think that Mr. Allen and Mr. Paynter resigned? Such men do not do such things lightly.

At the time of publication of the Consultative Document, there was a report in The Guardian that the C.I.R. had considered the Consultative Document and had concluded that its proposals would not be constructive either to the Commission's work or to the improvement of industrial relations. Not only the members of the Commission but the staff are affected. The staff are already being demoralised and are departing. The White Paper said that the C.I.R. would be a completely independent body. We believe that the right hon. Gentleman, in this Clause, is seeking to make it a tool of his Industrial Court.

We said the C.I.R. should be: a disseminator of good practice and a focus of reform by example. 6.0 p.m.

The right hon. Gentleman instead makes it an instrument for the implementation of the odious and pernicious provisions of his Bill. In doing so he degrades the C.I.R. We created it in an atmosphere of voluntarism, confident that its personalities would succeed by winning confidence and co-operation on both sides of industry. The right hon. Gentleman makes it a part of his machinery for ramming down the throats of industry what both sides have already rejected—no doubt he thinks of this as the industrial relations counterpart of forced feeding. We believe that attempted solutions imposed on industry in the teeth of opposition from both sides start without the remotest chance of success. What people will not do voluntarily they are hardly likely to do well or effectively when subjected to coercion or sanction—except possibly when they are in the Army. There are too many people who seem to think of the lads in the workshops in terms of a platoon in the Army.

I quoted the opening words of a Financial Times editorial. Let me conclude by quoting the final words of the same piece when it said: In so far as the Government's proposals are controversial however, the C.I.R. may well prefer not to be associated with them too closely. Its job is essentially one of persuasion and to do it effectively it must obtain and keep the confidence of both sides of industry. It is hardly likely today, in the atmosphere that has been created and with the new burdens and obligations which the Government are placing upon it that it will be able to do that job. The Financial Times ended by saying: The C.I.R. is too young and operates in too delicate a field to be loaded with new functions. Let me add to that the pertinent remarks of Mr. John Gretton in New Society on 26th November last. Hon. Members will note that I said New Society and not New Statesman. This is what Mr. Gretton said, and it is a perceptive remark: It is to the credit of Robert Carr that he has decided to keep the C.I.R., and even to expand its functions. It would be even more to his credit were he to realise how irrelevant this report in particular"— that was the report on Hoover— shows how much of the proposed Industrial Relations Bill to be. That is absolutely right and I could not have put it better myself.

The Chairman

I had better make it clear before we go any further that with this Amendment we are debating Amendment No. 673 with which we are taking 674, 675 and 676, all of which are on two sheets in front of hon. Members.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

I have a great deal of sympathy with some of the comments made by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) but I have no sympathy with the way in which he made them. He is rather out of date. I tabled Amendment No. 720, which was not selected, the effect of which was to leave out from this Clause any reference to the Industrial Court. This would be an advantage and ought to be done. I am still of that opinion and the reason I say that the hon. Gentleman is out of date is that he will no doubt have noticed that my right hon. Friend has tabled Amendment No. 711 which goes some way towards doing what I sought to do. If my right hon. Friend had not tabled that Amendment my speech might have been different. I would assume that that Amendment will be accepted.

This Clause is one of the most important in the Bill. Other Clauses may or may not be operated, they are permissive. We may or may not have agreements legally binding, we may or may not have final sanctions brought in in any given circumstance when the Bill becomes law. The legal sanctions in the Bill are standoff in any case but there is nothing standoff about this Clause. This Clause and the next two deal with the heart of our industrial relations, conciliation. Even if we bring the law into industrial relations it is necessary to conciliate throughout and the hope is to solve problems through conciliation. We have said nothing contrary to that.

Hon. Members


Mr. Lewis

We have said all along that conciliation is the basis——

Mr. Orme

You do not believe it.

Mr. Lewis

Of course I do, otherwise I would not be standing up saying it. I was prepared to take a very strong line on this Clause if it had not been modified. Conciliation should be used before sanctions or the industrial court.

The hon. Member for Doncaster said that we had not been very complimentary to the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) and the C.I.R. This is not true. We have always said that it was basically good, with a potential for good. If we have criticised it it has been because it has not done enough, it has not been used sufficiently, not been operated widely enough by the right hon. Lady when she was in office. If she complains that we are bedevilling the issue with this Bill then she certainly bedevilled the issue and the working of the C.I.R. with the proposals in "In Place of Strife".

[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair] The C.I.R. can go a long way towards bringing together the two sides of industry in procedure agreements and in difficulties arising through disputes over wages and so on. It is important that the Industrial Court does not get involved until all else has failed. It is important to try every possible method, both conciliation by the Ministry and the Minister and the effective expertise of the C.I.R. until a situation is reached when it can be said, "We have gone thus far, we cannot get any further. There is no possibility of agreement because someone is being unduly difficult, awkward or destructive." It is because there are such people that we bring this Bill forward and that the Industrial Court is given the right to impose penalties.

To suggest that the C.I.R. would be affected if the Industrial Court is taken out at an early stage when conciliation is taking place seems entirely wrong. Providing conciliation procedures go forward before the Industrial Court is brought in, we shall be writing into the Bill the good industrial relations practice which has been accepted over many years by unions and by the best employers and which, until it recently became bedevilled by all kinds of other activities, used to be the purview of the Minister of Labour. The Clause will give the C.I.R. an opportunity to expand its work and go further than it was permitted to go by the right hon. Lady when she set it up. It will develop within the context of the Bill to the advantage of industry as a whole.

Clause 36 (2)(a) says— the Commission shall— (a) transmit the proposals to the Industrial Court, and". As a consequence of my right hon. Friend's Amendment No. 711, it will be necessary to amend that paragraph. My right hon. Friend will either have to change "shall" to "may" or substitute "or" for "and" after "the Industrial Court". He may also have to make a matching Amendment in Clause 37.

I believe that the C.I.R., despite the precipitate resignations which have occurred, can develop to the advantage of good industrial relations. If the C.I.R. is successful, the Clauses which seek to bring in sanctions will not be necessary. One thing which should be obvious from our debates is that my party would be delighted if, as the result of the Bill, industry was so well ordered that it was not necessary to implement the sanctions. If the C.I.R. does that, we shall all applaud it.

Mr. Molloy

The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) said that he believed that the Bill was intended to deal with the tiny irascible minority who caused strikes. It is a shame that he was not in the Committee when my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) demolished that argument and called the Bill nothing more than a Trotskyist's charter. His argument was so irrefragable that it was not challenged either by the Solicitor-General or by the Secretary of State.

It is not sufficiently realised by the Secretary of State and the Solicitor-General that, whilst there is outright opposition on the trade union side to the Bill and to these Clauses, grave and serious apprehension is being voiced by the C.B.I. and by notable figures on the management side of industry about how the Clauses can function. To follow this to its logical conclusion, everyone will be submitting a complaint to somewhere or other and spending time arguing about it instead of getting on with production. The Government are in danger of becoming the most serious impediment to production since the war as the result of this remarkable Bill.

When, with the best will in the world, we tried to point out that sometimes even judges do not wholly understand what goes on in industry and that this is a specialised subject, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) gave vent to expressions of horror. One would think that our judges are all-knowing, that they know about every mortal thing. When judges retire and write books about one another, it is very revealing. If hon. Gentlemen opposite want to get an inkling of how learned judges can misguide the courts they should go to the Library and get a book written by Mr. Du Cann on the art of advocacy, from which they will see that even the most brilliant advocate can come unstuck before a judge who does not know what the issues are about.

Mr. Roland Moyle (Lewisham, North)

Does not my hon. Friend agree that the memoirs of judges who retire at a normal age are very interesting but that it is also very interesting when judges retire well before retiring age and secure lucrative employment with industry, in view of the effect that it might have on their attitude to the job?

The Temporary Chairman

It is very interesting to listen to this story about memoirs. Although I have allowed the debate to run wide, that is a little too wide.

Hon. Members

Hear, hear.

Mr. Molloy

It is all right for hon. Members to cheer your rebuke, Mr. Jennings, but they did not make a noise when the argument was initiated by no less person than the Secretary of State when you were not in the Chamber.

The Temporary Chairman

I was not then in the Chair. My attitude might have been quite different.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I do not ask the hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) to admit that judges are all-knowing, but would he not be prepared to concede that in this country at any rate they are impartial?

Mr. Molloy

In accordance with your Ruling, Mr. Jennings, I will not be drawn too far into that, but I certainly do not accept that they are all perfect. My point is that even in the normal course of their work eminent Q.C.s and judges have criticised one another for not knowing enough about the case in question, and this could happen here. Their impartiality is impaired by their ignorance.

In this debate we are negotiating on behalf of the British trade union movement. The blunt truth is that the Government have taken a stand on behalf of the employers. They have set out by saying to trade unionists, "Sit round the table, let us negotiate and have no rash industrial action", but when we try to negotiate on the Bill on behalf of working men, the response of the Government is to bring down the chopper and to have no negotiation and no discussion. Instead we have to go through the lobbies all night, with no right to speak, simply taking the opportunity to register our votes. This sort of atmosphere can do the country no good and the Government have no right to introduce such a measure in a democratic system.

I hope that hon. Members opposite will concede that we on this side of the Committee have a right to oppose this measure. Indeed some hon. Gentlemen have put down Amendments. The hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford has even said that if a certain form of words are not laid down he will make a more hostile speech on another occasion. If he looks at these Clauses closely, he may be persuaded to come and join us on this side of the House because that is his proper place.

Certain sections of knowledgeable management have made known their apprehension about Clause 35 and the provisions with which he dealt last night. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) made the serious accusation that certain trade unions were keen to whip up small minorities to cause industrial unrest and to have unofficial disputes. When challenged to provide evidence, he produced the HANSARD proceedings of a Committee and quoted what had been said on the same lines by an hon. Member on this side of the Committee. If this is the way Members of Parliament are to submit evidence, it is not difficult to understand that trade unionists outside will say that people who advance such arguments are not worthy of being listened to.

My hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman) spoke about the action of informers who would whisper to the bosses in the initiation of complicated negotiations. This is a practice we have never experienced in Britain, except in a few exceptional minority cases. I find it particularly loathsome that this sort of behaviour is now to be given official status.

I would ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he has considered the possibility of grave difficulties in the structure of the Civil Service in regard to the effects of Clause 35 on the Whitley Council. The Whitley Council machinery is somewhat complicated and was introduced by a famous Speaker of the House of Commons. It has worked remarkably well, particularly in the Civil Service. I feel that had it been adopted more seriously and widely, it could have made a great contribution to industry. We all know that some of the Civil Service trade unions, such as the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, the Society of Civil Servants, the Civil and Public Services Association, and the Civil Service Union are all different unions working for the same employer, namely, the State, as applied to different Departments, whether they be the Home Office, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, or wherever it may be.

In such a hierarchy of the Whitley Council it is possible for a chief executive officer to be the chairman of the Official Side in meeting representatives of the Civil Service Union and the Civil and Public Services Association. It may be that that officer at a later stage, as a member of a union, is involved in negotiations a step further up the hierarchy. Many voluntary officers of these civil service unions are apprehensive whether they could be charged under these provisions if any actions were viewed as part of the disciplinary code.

Mr. R. Carr

I will put the hon. Gentleman out of his rather complicated worries. He seems to forget that the procedure can be put into operation only if there is either absence of a procedure agreement or if the procedure agreement obviously is seriously defective. I should not have thought that either of these conditions would apply within the Whitley Council system.

Mr. Molloy

It is all very well for the Secretary of State to make clever remarks about this complicated system. [Interruption.] I agree that it is complicated, but I am asking that the Minister should look at the matter again. I believe he will find that there is something in what I have said which is worthy of examination and which needs to be cleared up. We are trying to be helpful. The Minister appears sometimes to get an idea in his head that something is wrong and it sticks there. This happened on a previous Clause when we were discussing contracts between management and unions when in every case the pejorative accent was put on the unions. The Secretary of State reminds me of the three university professors who had a few nights out. On one night they drank gin and water, on another brandy and water, and on the third night whisky and water. They came to the conclusion that water was inebriat- ing. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is in a similar situation.

I am asking the right hon. Gentleman to listen to the arguments submitted to him by the Civil Service in regard to the provisions of this Clause and I hope that he will give them the attention which they deserve. The provisions of this Bill will, of course, apply within the British Civil Service, and it will be a serious matter involving the whole structure of the National Whitley Council and the Civil Service trade unions. I hope that the Secretary of State will examine some of the points I have made to see that he is not in danger of creating a situation that he might regret in the near future.

Several Hon. Members rose——

6.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I realise that a number of hon. Members opposite wish to intervene, but it may be convenient for me to speak at this point. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will have an opportunity to deal with arguments deployed later if he considers it right to do so.

The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) suggested that this was an illustration of the philosophic, fundamental difference underlying the approach of the two parties. I accept that there is a difference from Clause 35 onwards, but I want to make one thing clear. We on this side of the Committee subscribe to all that the hon. Gentleman said about the importance of encouraging the voluntary resolution of disputes and the importance of the rôle of the C.I.R. My right hon. Friend has said time and again that we want improved and effective voluntary procedures to take effect. It is set out in the consultative document. We value and recognise the rôle which the C.I.R. has played and will play in future. The hon. Member for Doncaster was intimately concerned with this matter and understands it. We shall discuss later the rôle which the Commission can play in relation to recognition questions.

Clause 106 provides for general references to the Commission of the kind which the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) made and which my right hon. Friend has made since. We recognise and endorse the Commission's rôle and the rôle of the voluntary improvement of procedures. There are many places in the Bill where this is underlined.

My hon. Friend the Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) drew attention to Amendments Nos. 711, 712 and 713 standing in the name of my right hon. Friend. Their object is to make it clear that the Commission shall be approached through the court subject to the condition that every attempt has been made to promote agreement between the parties and by my right hon. Friend offering advice and assistance to the parties—in other words, to prevent people from believing that they can rush through the court to the C.I.R. and back to the court as a short cut to solving their problems. It is essential for the Committee to appreciate the way in which the matter operates.

Amendment No. 672 proposes to insert in line 8 on page 25 of the Bill "after consultation with the parties". I cannot advise the Committee to accept it as it stands, but in so far as it conveys the thought which goes beyond what is in the Amendments to be moved by my right hon. Friend—in other words, in so far as it conveys the thought that even the Secretary of State may not invoke these procedures for reference through the court to the C.I.R. without having attempted to consult the parties and to advise and conciliate on the same lines as are suggested in Amendment 711—that is a thought to which we willingly subscribe. We cannot accept the Amendment as it stands.

Mr. Arthur Lewis (West Ham, North)

Why not?

The Solicitor-General

Because it is not properly tailored to the needs. I assure the Committee that we wish to embody this thought and we shall try to embody, it alongside or perhaps as part of Amendment No. 711. This emphasises the intention of my right hon. Friend to make clear that the Commission is not to be regarded as the tool of the court.

There is a difficult balance which we have tried to work out correctly and effectively. On the one hand, it can be said that the Commission is the tool of the court. On the other hand, it can be said—and I echo the criticisms which we have heard—that the court is a rubber stamp for the Commission. Neither is true. The court must be satisfied that certain tests and criteria have been fulfilled as a matter of fact as a result of an inquiry judicially conducted. That is the court's function. If those gateways are passed through and if those tests are satisfied, the industrially sophisticated, consultant, advisory, expert, conciliatory rôle, whether in recognition cases or in an endeavour to produce a working procedure agreement, is in the hands of the Commission.

There is that clear distinction between two very important functions and it would do a disservice to each body—the court and the Commission—to seek to dress up one of them as a kind of serving man or tool of the other. They have important constitutionally distinct functions to perform, and we have tried to produce that result.

Mr. Dan Jones (Burnley)

Does the Solicitor-General believe that the C.I.R. will attract people of sufficient distinction to work in the capacity outlined with the Industrial Court virtually breathing down its neck? Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman wish to go on record as saying that?

The Solicitor-General

I do not wish to go on record as saying that the Industrial Court will be breathing down its neck. For that reason, among others, the Amendment in the name of my right hon. Friend has been tabled—to emphasise that these two creatures, the Commission and the court, have different functions and operate independently of each other, with the Commission bringing the special expertise which it is already developing and which it will develop further as the provisions take effect, to bear on essentially industrial questions.

It would have been easy for us to have plucked solutions from other countries where the industrial and judicial functions are blurred into one agency, but we have not done that. We have recognised the value of the rôle suggested for the Commission by the Donovan Report and acknowledged by the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. This is a special kind of agency—to bring the minds of men together in the conciliatory procedural bargaining process. The court is distinct, to be given tests and facts to be found before the Commission comes into play. We may not have got it right, but I hope that the Committee acknowleges that we have made a genuine attempt to separate the functions and to leave the rôle of the Commission unimpaired and capable of functioning properly.

Mrs. Castle

Has the C.I.R. indicated to the Government that it welcomes even this association it is given with legal enforceability, or has it informed them that it feels that this statutory backing to its actions will weaken its effectiveness?

The Solicitor-General

Perhaps the right hon. Lady will allow me to leave it to my right hon. Friend to deal with that matter. I should like my right hon. Friend to deal with the consequences of some of the points made by the hon. Member for Doncaster. I shall explain the machinery as we have tried to put it before the country and the Committee. I submit that the rôle of the Commission has been plainly defined and that our Amendments are of importance in defining it.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

The Solicitor-General

I would rather not. I do not want to take up a great deal of time. [HON. MEMBERS: "Give way."] The Committee cannot complain that I am normally unwilling to give way. Certain questions have been put to me and I have endeavoured to deal with them.

I propose to move on to the next stage of the argument. Having established this view which we took of the importance of the Commission, we nevertheless come on to the provisions which we regard as important in Clause 35, which would be removed by the Amendments which we are discussing now, namely those which lay the way to selective enforceability of procedures where they are nonexistent or defective. When we put it in the Bill and before the Committee, we took account of the argument which the Donovan Commission laid out in paragraphs which have been referred to already. It is important that this should be understood. This is not an idea conjured out of the air or some whim following on the original production of "Fair Deal at Work". In paragraph 510 of the Donovan Commission Report, the Commission indicates: … how in our opinion the legal enforcement of procedure agreements may, if the need arises, be made to fit into a system of collective bargaining reformed in accordance with our recommendations. The Report continues in paragraph 511: If legal sanctions have to be applied this will have to be done ad hoc." They commend the "case by case" approach analogous to that adopted under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, and so on. The Report suggests that: Before applying to the Industrial Court …"— I am not saying that Clause 35 and so on is precisely modelled on this, but there are many common elements which are important— … for an order the Secretary of State would have to consult both sides of the industry concerned and the Industrial Relations Commission. Then the Secretary of State would have to be satisfied as to certain matters.

In paragraph 515 the report continues: The Industrial Court would have to hear the two sides of industry, the employer and the shop stewards or other representatives of those employed in the enterprise or establishment. If it found that the conditions listed in the previous paragraph were fulfilled, it would by order, declare the procedure agreement to be legally binding on the employer and on all those employed by him in the enterprise or establishment to which the order applies. This is the foundation of the case, which we recognise, that in certain circles where difficulties persist, there is justification for allowing an agency to try to bring the parties together, and, in the last resort, for making a procedure agreement binding on both sides in the unit.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Harold Walker

Ought not the Solicitor-General, in fairness to the Committee, to quote the parts of the passage which he has omitted? I am not suggesting that he is trying to mislead the Committee. I understand his anxiety to be brief in order to make progress. But we ought to point out that in paragraph 511 the Royal Commission said: In both cases we hope and expect that the work of the Industrial Relations Commission will make the use of legal sanctions unnecessary, that is, that the persuasive influence of the Industrial Relations Commission will suffice to produce the necessary improvements. In both cases we envisage the use of legal enforcement machinery only as an emergency device…

The Solicitor-General

I am extremely grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that is exactly the philosophy underlying the approach here set out. If one looks at the first sentence which the hon. Member quotes and then at Clause 37(3) of the Bill, one will find in Clause 37(3): The Commission shall thereupon promote and assist discussion between the parties to the reference with a view to obtaining their agreement on new or revised provisions… Subsection (4) goes on to say: If, at any time after the Commission have made a determination under subsection (1) of this section, the Commission are satisfied that the purposes for which the reference was made have been or will be adequately fulfilled without continuing the proceedings on that reference, the Commission shall make a report to that effect to the Industrial Court… We have here precisely this concept. Let the Commission, once the situation has been referred to them, act to try to bring the parties together. If it can bring them together, then no longer need it go through the enforcement procedure. It is only in a situation where the criteria set out in Clause 35 are fulfilled that this question arises—that the unit suffers from the defects in or absence of a procedure agreement, or recourse to industrial action … contrary to the terms…of that agreement or the development or maintenance of orderly industrial relations in that unit has been seriously impeded, or there have been substantial and repeated losses of working time in that unit. It is a narrow set of gateways through which the parties applying here have to march. There may be some employers up and clown the land who think that they have been given a ready answer to the difficulties with trouble-makers. This is not their charter. It is designed to help in the case where real strife has persisted and where conciliation has failed to produce the solution, and where these narrow conditions can be established. We have not responded to the blandishments of some people in industry to make this extensive or industry-wide and to make enforceability attach automatically.

The hon. Member for Ealing, North (Mr. Molloy) suggested that there were some employers who were concerned about what we were doing. But there are many employers who say that we have not gone far enough. We have resisted their blandishments. There will be no automatic attachment of enforceability to widespread, nationwide, industry-wide agreements. What we have is a procedure designed to move from case to case, where the case for its use is plainly established. It is a procedure within the framework of which the Commission on Industrial Relations can continue to play a part.

Mr. John Fraser (Norwood)

The right hon. Gentleman was praying in aid the appropriate paragraph of Donovan. But surely the point about the Donovan recommendations was that the disputes procedure would have to be agreed between the employer and the trade unions, and that it must have been broken on several occasions. What the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting in this set of Clauses is the imposition of a procedure when a procedure is completely non-existent. That goes a great way from what Donovan suggests.

The Solicitor-General

I hope that I have not misled the Committee by saying that this is completely parallel. But there is a clear foundation. What we have to establish—not far from Donovan—is that it is either through the inadequacy or non-existence of disputes procedures that there has been trouble. That is the kind of situation for which the 28 day conciliation pause was suggested in "In Place of Strife", which acknowledged that the absence of procedure, or inadequate procedure, or failure to regard procedure can be a cause for intervention.

Mrs. Castle

The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the provision in "In Place of Strife" had nothing to do with the work of the C.I.R. What he totally fails to mention every time he trots out this piece of past history is that the first order on the conciliation pause was to be on the employer to restore the status quo. If this Government were to introduce something of that kind, they would find that they would make much more impact on the situation in industry.

The Solicitor-General

The conciliation pause was to be used either where the strikes were unconstitutional, that is, in breach of procedure, or when no procedure existed or for other reasons. What we propose is broadly the same pattern of situations, with this distinction. The right hon. Lady's proposal was a more narrow, more short-term fire-fighting exercise. I accept that. We propose that issues like the status quo would be one of those which the C.I.R. would consider between the parties when trying to produce an agreement on this procedure. It would not impose something unjust, unfair or harsh on either side if it produced an agreement which it would hope the parties would accept and it would do its best to be just.

I do not want there to be any misunderstanding. I hope that the Committee will appreciate the central propositions, first, that we value the voluntary system and the C.I.R. and, second, that this Clause is a carefully designed procedure to deal with emergency situations. It is on that basis that I commend it and urge the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Orme

On the last point dealt with by the hon. and learned Gentleman, perhaps I might return to Donovan. After all, it was his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State yesterday who criticised hon. Members on this side of the Committee for praying Donovan in aid.

The Solicitor-General has just taken a hypothetical situation posed by but not accepted by Donovan in its findings on collective bargaining. The hon. and learned Gentleman has misquoted the Report and used it as the basis for introducing Clause 35. However, paragraph 509 of Donovan says: … the threat of legal penalties can create a counter-motive that may influence men's minds and acts, and the use of such penalties may command the support of many of the other workers. Everyone knows that Donovan can be quoted both ways. We accept that. However, in our view the final recommendations on collective bargaining cannot be accepted.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has quoted "In Place of Strife". Perhaps I might remind him that those of us who were not in favour of "In Place of Strife" use exactly the same argument against him. It is impossible to set up a voluntary system backed by sanctions, because it is no longer voluntary. That is one of the fundamental points of difference between us. Either a system is voluntary or it is compulsory, and the Secretary of State cannot have it both ways. The right hon. Gentleman is saying that he wants a voluntary system, that he wants to see collective agreements arrived at voluntarily He goes on to say that, if they cannot be arrived at voluntarily, they will be referred to the C.I.R. which has powers to refer them to the Industrial Court which, at the end of the day, can impose a collective agreement. If that happens, the agreement can no longer be described as "collective".

Mr. R. Carr

I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument. He is saying that it is impossible to have a voluntary system which is backed by a system of law with sanctions. Whenever any of my hon. Friends says, I believe wrongly, that there is no framework of law at the moment, the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends immediately deny it. I agree that there is a framework of law at the moment. We believe that it is antiquated and inadequate, but it is there. There are already sanctions in the background, but we have a voluntary system. The present situation disproves the hon. Gentleman's argument.

Mr. Orme

I accept that the trade unions are not above or beyond the law. They are within the law. If they violate the law as it exists at the moment, they can be brought before the courts in just the same way as they can go to law themselves if they want an outside opinion.

This Clause brings the law directly into collective bargaining. To some extent, the law exists, but the Clause is directly imposing it on procedure agreements and on the machinery operating in industry where no law has existed before.

It is a difference of philosophy, but it is a fundamental difference between the two sides of the Committee. The Government take the other point of view, and we shall have to leave it there for the moment. We see that there is real disagreement and that there are two points of view. Clause 35 says: The Secretary of State, or any other party to whom this section applies, may make an application to the Industrial Court … In the preceding debate, the right hon. Gentleman said that by "referring" he was not imposing an agreement but only exercising his right to say that a case could go to the Industrial Court. However, it is a distinction without a difference—

Mr. R. Carr


Mr. Orme

The right hon. Gentleman says, "Nonsense" but, if he does the referring, he has the backing and support of the Government and his Department and, in consequence, any reference by him must carry considerable weight. He says that, at the end of the day, the Industrial Court could reject it. However, I object to the Secretary of State having the right at all, because, in effect, he is brought directly into industrial relations and the sensitive areas where the Government have no right to be.

Clauses 34 to 39 deal with collective bargaining and negotiations between employers and trade unions. The difference between the two sides is fundamental. We say that this is a matter for those bodies. They have to resolve their difficulties. If there are voluntary organisations like the C.I.R., they can look at a situation and make voluntary recommendations, but they should have no penal sanctions. It is our argument that these matters are purely for the bodies concerned. They are not for outside judicial authorities or for the Government.

That brings me to my next point, which concerns procedure agreements. In the last debate, the Secretary of State referred to the engineering agreement and said that this Bill would have been of assistance in the past to the trade unions which were anxious to reform the York Memorandum, which he said was outdated having been created in 1922.

We in this House talk about the York Memorandum as if there had been a battle to amend it for the last 50 years. It was imposed on the unions at the time of the national lock-out. The unions objected to it strongly, but they worked under it. They have wanted it changed. It is only in the current climate, where the argument has been that many dis- putes have been the result of bad agreements, that other people, who until recently had never heard of the York Memorandum and did not know what it was about, have been saying that it should be reformed. The trade unions recognised this, but whenever they negotiated with employers in the past they had all their work cut out to improve the wages and conditions of the workers whom they represent. There has been a long period of delaying tactics.

At the end of the day, without Clauses 34 to 39, an agreement has been reached in all but signature between the Engineering Employers Federation and the Confederation of Shipbuilding and Engineering Unions. Much of the argument has been about status quo and the problem of mutuality within the industry which, as the right hon. Gentleman will know, is a vital point in the view of the trade unions. However, we have reached the stage where the whole procedure is to be streamlined. The long traipse to York is to be discontinued. There will be more immediate and local negotiations and, except on major points, national officials will no longer be involved. All that has been agreed round the table after a great deal of argument between the two sides. The irony of the situation is not that Clause 35 would have helped. The Bill is preventing it being implemented now because the employers want to write into it the legally enforceable point.

7.0 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr

I thought that the unions were trying to insist that the reverse clause should be written in, which is rather different. It is also totally unnecessary, because, as has been made clear, the Bill is not retrospective. Therefore, the unions could sign that agreement straight away without anything like that in it because, until the Bill becomes an Act, the presumption in Clause 32 does not apply.

Mr. Orme

I see the force of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. It sounds extremely logical and easily acceptable to both sides of industry. But the Bill is bedevilling industrial relations. Trade unions are not prepared to sign anything at the moment because they are worried about the Bill's implications. They see every word being put under a legal microscope. The right hon. Gentleman cannot sidestep this issue. It is absolutely vital. The engineering industry agreement is a classic example in this argument.

Mr. Carr

I do not wish to interrupt unduly, but the hon. Gentleman's argument is standing on its head. If what the hon. Gentleman says is true, surely the unions should be trying to put their signatures to as many agreements as possible before the Bill is brought into being.

Mr. Orme

The trade unions, having learned their lesson—they have had their fingers burned a little recently—are extremely cautious. We cannot blame them. The Bill has made them cautious. They are not prepared to be put in a position which could mean this agreement at some later date being referred to the Commission which could insist on this point going in. It is not as simple as the right hon. Gentleman makes out. It is causing a great deal of trouble in the engineering industry and the right hon. Gentleman should recognise it.

Mr. Sillars

Does my hon. Friend agree that the trade union side is attempting to get an escape clause written into the new agreement but that the employers refuse to have it, because, if the trade union side signs an agreement without an escape clause, when the Bill becomes law the Employers' Federation can take them to the court under Clauses 35 to 40?

Mr. Carr


Mr. Orme

The Minister says "No". But the uncertainty within the industry is such that the unions will not allow their situation to be jeopardised.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

My hon. Friend says that the Minister says "No". In fact there are three legal opinions opposite and each gives a different opinion. If three legal gentlemen give different opinions, what about the poor chap on the shop floor?

Mr. Orme

My hon. Friend has underlined the anxiety within industry which I am trying to express.

The right hon. Gentleman dealt rather harshly with me when I intervened earlier. The Minister does not usually call hon. Members names to that extent. Still, my shoulders are broad enough to take it. I think that the right hon. Gentleman should take serious cognisance of the composition of the C.I.R. and the industrial court. We have had the resignations of Mr. Paynter and Mr. Allen. Who knows how long Mr. Woodcock will be able to maintain the situation. Is the Secretary of State going to stuff this body, as it were—[Interruption.]—I will use that word again—stuff this body with supporters of the Government's policy and who will obviously give the impression that it is not independent? It is bad enough that it should have legal sanctions, but to balance it in favour of the Government makes it absolutely unacceptable to the trade union movement. From where is the right hon. Gentleman to get people of standing and quality in the trade union movement to sit on this body or to man the Industrial Court?

The side note to Clause 35 is, Application to Industrial Court relating to procedural provisions. It is not fully recognised that the trade union movement has no bias against the law; it just does not trust it. People say that the trade union movement is beyond the law. That is not so. It has a great deal of experience of going to law and feeling that it has not had fair judgments. It therefore feels that the last person to adjudicate on matters concerned with industrial relations is a high court judge or legal luminary. We do not say that such a person bends the law or is not honest; it is just that his nature and background do not qualify him to understand work people. If I did not reflect this view I should not be honest with the Committee or with the people I represent. This feeling exists.

If we are to have a high court judge as the chairman of the Industrial Court and possibly a legal authority, a professor, as one of the two assessors, and the Minister cannot get a trade union leader or trade union man of some standing and responsibility as the second assessor, because the trade union movement does not nominate or accept someone for that position, it will not be satisfactory to say, "We shall bring in academics for this position." The Minister will face a difficult situation. The credibility of what he is trying to do will be destroyed, because he will not be seen to do justice. It is important, as the right hon. Gentleman will recognize, that in British law not only must justice be done, but it must be seen to be done. It certainly will not be seen to be done in this situation.

Those are the important points which I wish to put forward. Others of my hon. Friends will want to make further points. I think that Clauses 34 to 39 are central to the argument. It is bad enough that the principle should be spelt out in Clause 34, but to go on and find that Clauses 35 to 39 are aimed against the trade union movement by introducing the legal enforceability of agreements by the Industrial Court and by the C.I.R. is something which will not be accepted by the trade union movement. The right hon. Gentleman must realise and face that situation.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I concede one point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West(Mr. Orme), and that is that whenever any new legislation is going through the House people involved in negotiations and talks about arrangements which may be affected by that legislation to some extent slow up to see what the possible outcome may be. If that is happening because this Bill is going through the House, I should have thought that the job of this Committee and of Parliament was to get this Measure on to the Statute Book pretty quickly, so that all concerned know where they stand and can make their arrangements in the full knowledge of the law.

Mr. Moylerose——

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I shall give way later with pleasure, but I have only just started.

The hon. Member for Salford, West has endeared himself to the Committee by the tenacious way in which he has put his case during our discussions on the Bill. The hon. Gentleman is in a favoured position. He is sitting pretty. He is in the position of having disagreed completely right from the start with what his right hon. Friends and his Government were doing. The hon. Gentleman can therefore disagree with this Government, just as he disagreed with his own, and say, "Whatever they did, you cannot tag that on to me. I contracted out of it". Thus, when we are defending the Bill we cannot say a lot to the hon. Gentleman, because he has been consistent, and we know where he stands. But because the hon. Gentleman is in that position, it does not mean that we do not have a duty to point out that, I do not want to use the word hypocrisy, I do not feel like that now——

An Hon. Member

Try it.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

Not before dinner. We have a duty to point out to the Front Bench opposite, with the possible exception of the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) who has been put on it to give it some respectability—

Mr. Rose

As legal adviser.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The managers have worked hard to get a decent average on that Front Bench, but the right hon. Lady and her right hon Friend the ex-Prime Minister were committed so completely that the chances against that are pretty high, despite the balancing appearance of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and the hon. Member for Blackley.

There is no doubt that the extravagant language which has been used, bearing in mind what hon. Gentlemen opposite intended to do and tried hard to do, is most unsatisfactory. The real purpose of my intervening at this stage—[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) has only just come in.

Mr. John Mendelson

I have been here all day.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

The hon. Gentleman has been out for a long time. Perhaps I may ask the hon. Gentleman to be quiet for a few minutes, now that he is here.

My real objection to the debate on this Amendment arises from the extravagant words which have been used. I think that they have been criminally extravagant. The hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) is usually one of the most delightful and amenable of debaters—[Interruption.]—The hon. Gentleman is never delightful, and he certainly is never amenable, so he is excluded from that remark, but the hon. Member for Doncaster—

7.15 p.m.

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings)

Order. I wish that we could get rid of some of the badinage, good natured as it is, and get back to the wording of the Amendment.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

You are absolutely right, Mr. Jenkins.

The Temporary Chairman


Sir Harmar Nicholls

In order to put the record straight, may I change that to Mr. Jennings?

The Temporary Chairman

Thank you. We do not want any confusion of identity.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I can understand the embarrassment.

The extravagant language which has been used is detrimental to what we all hope to achieve at the end of the day. The hon. Member for Doncaster referred to the "odious judicial procedure". I do not think that even he meant that. The judicial procedures outlined here may not be liked by some hon. Gentlemen opposite, but I do not think that the procedures deserve the term "odious".

Nor do I believe that hon. Gentlemen opposite ought to use such terms as the C.I.R. "being a tool of the court". My point is that by using that kind of emotive, extravagant language hon. Gentlemen opposite interfere with what we are doing in the Clause, and all I ask is that in discussing the Clause and the Amendment to it we consider also the Amendment put in by my right hon. Friend, Amendment No. 711.

What we are discussing in this Clause makes it quite clear that conciliation procedures are expected to be used right to the end. There is no question of having the matter decided to start with by the High Court judge who understands the feelings of the workers, or by one who does not. The whole purpose of the Clause, as shown by the Amendment added to it, is that nothing shall go to the court until every effort has been made to conciliate and get to the point where there is a voluntary agreement.

There will be no short cut to the court. It will come to the Secretary of State, who in turn will put it to the C.I.R. Every effort will be made to see that it is a voluntary agreement, because everybody concedes that an agreement based upon a voluntary decision is bound to be stronger and more lasting than one that is forced upon people, even if only to a limited degree.

The idea of the sanction of the court is very much a long-stop. I envisage it being used but very rarely, and I believe that if we discuss the Clause and the Amendment without emphasising that the court procedure will be used but rarely, and that the whole emphasis will be on conciliation, we shall be failing in our duty to present the words in the way in which they ought to be presented if we really want to get the desired results.

Mr. McNamara

I am grateful to you, Mr. Jennings, for calling me to speak.

The noble Baronet the Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls)—I hope that I have not got my adjectives confused—cannot understand the extravagant language being used about the Clause. It is this same lack of understanding which runs through the whole Bill. I say that because to me the Clauses in this group represent the most heinous part of the whole Bill and, considering how I regard the Bill as a whole, that must mean that they are very bad, indeed. The long-run effect of putting into operation the procedures contained in the Bill will be that a working man could have conditions of employment imposed upon him——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Some working men —the under-privileged.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. These little conversations are very pleasant, but they are not in order.

Mr. McNamara

Thank you, Mr. Jennings. No only are they not in order, but they are not particularly relevant. As I was saying, a person may have conditions of work imposed on him, and he will have had no opportunity, either as an individual, or as a member of an organisation——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. McNamara

No. My hon. Friend must let me finish what I want to say, and then I shall give way. That person may be one of a group of workers not registered as a trade union for the purpose of the Bill. In those circumstances, he need not at any time be given a hearing under the procedures outlined in the Bill.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I apologise to my hon. Friend, and to you, Mr. Jennings, for making a remark from a sedentary position. My hon. Friend said that workers would be penalised. He knows that this will apply only to some workers. It will not apply to company directors, to highly paid civil servants, and to many others. These provisions will apply to the poor type of worker, to the organised worker, but not to the selected few whom the Tories represent. They will not be affected by the Bill.

Mr. McNamara

If a director is a member of A.S.S.E.T., he could be affected by the Clause.

I make the point because it is of fundamental importance and relates to the whole principle underlying what we are discussing in these Clauses. A person can he forced to work under circumstances over which he has no control, other than giving his notice. It has been said that the Bill owes a lot to America. There was in force in America a statute which provided that if a slave escaped from the territory in which he was a slave and crossed into another State, even a free State, it was the duty of that State, if it apprehended the slave, to send him back to the State from whence he came and put him to work under conditions of employment which he had never negotiated. I suspect that the Solicitor-General while in Amercia has picked up some aspects of the Fugitive Slaves Act and introduced them into the procedure laid down in the Bill, because this is a most heinous principle.

When questioned earlier in the last debate about the Clause, the Secretary of State said that a reference would be made only when it was in the national interest or in the interest of the company concerned to do so. What does he mean by the national interest, and by the interest of the company concerned? What comprises the national interest? What comprises the interest of the company concerned?

If that is to be the approach to this Clause, it means that a dispute about what is called a procedure agreement can go on for a long time but, because it is not important, because it is just a matter of the national interest, nothing is done about it. The Secretary of State can decide in this situation what is or is not important and can refer it to. the Industrial Court. It is not a question of equity.

Again, the Secretary of State can make these applications off his own bat. The hon. Member for Peterborough suggested that before the parties go to the Industrial Court, there would be a long procedure of conciliation. He should read his own party's Amendment, which is merely a window-dressing operation. It says that, when they go to the court, they must inform the Secretary of State, who will then bring them together. But having given notice: nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given. That is two remedies being brought into existence.

We know about the remedy of the fine, whereby an employer or a union can get from the court a penalty extracted from the union or employer and punish the union or employer. It was argued that employers would not use this procedure because it would sour industrial relations in the plant. But under this procedure, all an employer has to do, either directly or with the Secretary of State's consent, is say to the Industrial Court that he is having difficulty. Once the Industrial Court comes into operation and goes through the procedures, it is contempt of court if what is being introduced is not honoured: it is no longer merely a dispute between the employer and employee. The employer can then say that he referred it to the Commission but that it is now the court and not he himself that is enforcing it.

So the main objection of many employers to the Bill is that the job which they wanted the State to do was not being done, and was being forced upon them, can be done through this Clause.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has quoted Amendment No. 711 correctly. It is true that they can put in their claim, but the first part says: The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application …", although it has been put in, until it has been put to the Secretary of State, and the C.I.R. and the conciliation that I mentioned have been used.

Mr. McNamara

The Amendment says: the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the parties giving the notice —the employer or the trade union, since he would scarcely advise himself, although he might well on occasion do so— and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement"——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. J. C. Jennings)

Order. The hon. Member should be a little careful. Although it is in order to refer to the next Amendment, No. 711, we are digressing too much. Reference is all right, because I know that this is tied up with the debate, but let us get away from explanations of and long quotations from other Amendments and back to the original Amendments.

Mr. McNamara

With the greatest respect, the burden of the Solicitor-General's case when defining these provisions and arguing against the Amendments was on the reference to this Amendment——

The Temporary Chairman

Order. The hon. and learned Gentleman very skilfully addressed himself to the Amendments which we were discussing. There are ways and means of getting around rules of order and referring to Amendment No. 711, without directly quoting from it. I have recognised that these Amendments and No. 711 are tied up, but we cannot at the moment discuss No. 711 because we are on No. 672. Let us go ahead.

Mr. McNamara

With the greatest respect to you, Mr. Jennings, I was not quoting the whole Amendment, only part of it to illustrate the point——

The Temporary Chairman

Order. It is not a question of whether the part is greater than the whole or vice versa. We are discussing Amendment No. 672 and that is what I have ruled we shall discuss. A passing reference to No. 711 is in order, but not a long discussion.

Mr. McNamara

As a passing reference to No. 711, I beg to suggest that the hon. Baronet's interpretation of it is not the same as mine. This shows another of the difficulties in the Bill and on this occasion perhaps I may be right——

The Temporary Chairman

Then honour is satisfied all around.

Mr. McNamara

But somehow the umpire always has the advantage.

We were talking about the parties who may apply to the Industrial Court, and there is a severe limitation. For example, there is a limitation: an employer may do it, or a trade union which an employer recognises, or a union which is party to a procedure agreement. But what happens about a union which, first, is not recognised by the employer, second, is not party to the procedure agreement, or, third, is in that sort of limbo of organised sections of workers not yet qualified or semi-qualified to be unions for the purposes of the Bill? This, again, is quite unsatisfactory.

A "unit of employment" is defined as an undertaking or part of an undertaking, and in the definition Clause in page 103, I see that "undertaking" includes a business and, in relation to any body of persons (whether corporate or unincorporate) whose activities would not, apart from this provision, be regarded as constituting an undertaking, includes the aggregate of those activities; which I interpret as meaning that a unit of employment is an undertaking, and an undertaking is an undertaking. I should be grateful for some further elucidation on that.

The whole of the procedures under the Bill and particularly under this Part of it goes to the root of our objection to the Measure, for we believe that to bring in the big stick either as a long stop or as an emergency procedure, with all the connotations that that has, will be particularly distasteful.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

7.30 p.m.

Mr. Derek Coombs (Birmingham, Yardley)

I shall be mercifully brief, for there is only one point of importance I wish to raise at this stage.

I believe that this whole element of having adequate procedure methods is the key to our industrial relations, and while know that the C.I.R. can ultimately investigate, at the instigation of the Secretary of State or one of the parties concerned, it seems that this discretion will inevitably be used rarely, for certainly its impartiality will be questioned if it is initiated either, as is proposed, by the Government, or by one of the parties concerned, without the general consent of the other.

This is not to suggest that these reserve powers should not be retained, but rather that they should be used infrequently to keep their credibility. Indeed, it is likely that the smaller unit will escape any investigation, precisely for that reason. These small component suppliers, particularly in the engineering industry, can be crucial and can result in the lay-off of many thousands of workers.

This is why I suggest that the C.I.R. regional supervisory boards, which could investigate at their own instigation in a given area the effectiveness of the existing procedure and conciliation machinery, would be invaluable, as I pointed out in my maiden speech, for they would concern themselves only where either the existing procedures were non-existent or were not being properly used. Where these were confirmed to be inadequate, they could recommend to both sides how best to put their house in order, and if that advice was ignored, the matter could be referred to the Industrial Court, as mentioned in the Bill.

The fact that it would be a routine investigation would lend credibility to their impartiality in that they would not have been called in by the Secretary of State, the employer or the union. Obviously it is essential that the Bill has as much impact as possible in the short term as well as in the long term. This would be a step in that direction and I therefore commend it to my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ashton

I wish to bring the Committee down to earth and to consider the practicalities of the Amendment, particularly as I do not believe that they were taken into account when this part of the Bill was drafted.

My union is the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association. The allied technicians'part of the union is open-ended in that those two words cover a multitude of jobs. Indeed, considering the multifarious activities which are represented by the members of my union, this association must be unique.

I do not believe that either side of the industry which my association covers wants this part of the Bill, particularly in view of the "Voluntary non-agreements", as they are called, that exist. We have so many classes of worker that an incredible number of small difficulties could arise if this part of the Bill became law in its present form. For example, some firms could recognise "electronic duplicators' mates", while others do not. Some firms pay a minimum rate of £32 10s. a week while others will not pay them that sum. It all depends on how strong the union representation is in the firm concerned.

The present state of affairs in this industry creates advantages and disadvantages for both sides. For example, while a job may not be recognised by one employer, it may be recognised by another. In the present set-up, one does not have to go through all the procedures that one would have to go through under this Measure when there is a dispute. Indeed, my union is not particularly unhappy if an employer says, "I will not recognise a rate-fixer as being eligible to join your union". The union simply says, "We will have a strike as from Monday" without there being the necessity to go through local, central and London conferences. As a result, the dispute is quickly settled.

The Committee might be interested to learn that the Draughtsmen and Allied Technicians' Association does not have unofficial strikes. This is one union which can be relied on not to go in for that sort of thing. Perhaps the reason is because we give strike pay of £27 10s. a week. Any employer knows that when we go on strike we mean business. It is not long before the parties are round the table negotiating. I wish that other unions would take note of these facts. One does not need procedure agreements when talking about matters like recognition when one is paying £27 10s. a week strike pay, because disputes are settled quickly, usually within a couple of days. There are no long drawn out disputes and perhaps this is a point which should be considered further. Equally, often the employer does not want to recognise certain jobs because of changes that occur in the industry. A technician may be called a cost-control engineer one day and become a budgetary analysis man the next. Indeed, it would be hard for any employer to put a name to many of the jobs that his employees do, particularly when a technician with a Higher National qualification can have more than one string to his bow, as it were. He may be an estimator this month and a planner the next.

The employer is not anxious, therefore, to adopt a procedure which is legal, so frequently may he be changing the terms of the procedure. A draughtsman, electronics engineer, control man or value analysis operative may be something totally different within a matter of weeks or months. Indeed, some may have had pay increases, which would make it necessary for the employer to go through the whole procedure again.

If these difficulties are multiplied by the number of firms and technicians in the industry, one begins to see the sort of problem that one runs into with thousands of different recognition points; and this happens with a comparatively small union with about 100,000 members.

Once the courts are brought into this, further complications arise. One firm will say that a stress engineer should be recognised and given the minimum wage of £32 10s. Other firms will say that the agreement should not apply to stress engineers because in their firm they serve only six months training and receive not more than £18 10s. because they are no more than qualified clerks. One can easily imagine the chaos that could arise.

When we have no procedure and a quick one-day strike, with the chaps on full pay, the dispute is settled without delay, though it never reaches the headlines. For this reason I repeat that my union does not have unofficial strikes.

My fear is that once the courts are brought into this, we will find firms in one part of the country saying that only 13 grades in a certain category will be recognised, compared with other firms in other parts of the country recognising ten or 16 grades. Complete chaos could result, whereas under the present free and easy set up everything works perfectly well.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

I do not want to interrupt the powerful recruiting effort the hon. Gentleman is conducting on behalf of his union. I am sure that his hon. Friends have been impressed by his remarks. Is he aware that if the interests concerned are happy with the present arrangements, there will be nothing to prevent the employers and the union side from continuing them?

Mr. Ashton

That may be so, but under this part of the Bill the court comes into it and a non-recognition provision could affect some workers. My fear is that the Secretary of State might bring in the legal provisions when nothing of the sort is necessary. This constant reference in the Bill to the framework of law is too open-ended.

I urge the hon. Gentleman to consider this in another context, from the point of view of abortion. This is legal in this country. Doctors cannot be forced to perform abortions, even though abortions are within the framework of the law. If it is sought to apply such a parallel and to say that the law can force unions to do certain things, men will say that they cannot.

The same principle applies with regard to the registration of procedures. Thousands of different procedures are laid down with regard to different types of negotiation, all of which would never be used except as a long stop. The trouble starts when the long stop is invoked. When someone asks, "Who turned the handle at Girlings? Did the rate fixer have it down in writing?", one begins to come into the legal jungle which neither the C.I.R. nor the law courts will be able to settle. The ultimate reaction of the man on the shop floor will be, "To hell with this. There is only one way to get action from these people and that is to down tools". The men will still down tools and disputes will not be prevented.

These are some of the practical difficulties which are solved every day without strikes, without recourse to the courts, and without reaching the headlines; and union men do not want to see them become the subject of court disputes.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

I have not intervened in the debates on the Bill for about three days. The debate on this narrow Amendment has again inflamed the prejudices of many hon. Members opposite. I always think that the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) speaks from the heart and I listen carefully to what he says. It is the inconsistencies in his argument that make me realise that he speaks from the heart. The hon. Member accepts that the law is in industrial relations. All he does not want is to have the law made into a frame. This is extraordinary.

The other prejudice which hon. Members opposite consistently trot out is that my hon. Friends and I have no knowledge of industrial relations, no knowledge of business, no knowledge of procedures, and no knowledge of negotiations. My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) is probably more actively concerned with the modern trade unionist and has more understanding of these matters than any hon. Member opposite, because my hon. Friend is continually in touch with trade unionists; whereas on the benches opposite there are many extinct volcanoes who from the bottom of the caverns are still producing the same old tape recordings that they were using 10, 20 and 30 years ago.

7.45 p.m.

What I am about to say might be considered to be controversial. I believe—this is what is so important in weighing the value of the arguments advanced by hon. Members opposite—that the ordinary trade unionist in the factory has his views more realistically and credibly expressed by the Institute of Directors than by the T.U.C.

I said that my words might be considered to be controversial, but what the modern trade unionist in the factory is interested in are his wages, his conditions, his holidays, his motor car, his home, and his fringe benefits. He is no longer interested in the old shibboleths which so many hon. Members continue to pour out in his name. Nor is he afraid of the courts, in my view. On the whole, he is more afraid of the kangaroo courts. My impression is that the majority of ordinary trade unionists are longing to have protection from many of their unofficial leaders who do not represent their point of view.

I believe that during this debate hon. Members opposite are doing everything they can to stir up bad relations between employer and employee. The hon. Member for Bassetlaw (Mr. Ashton) said that he is not here to improve the Bill; he is not interested in improving it; he is merely here to oppose. The hon. Gentleman is not using the time of the Committee by putting the knowledge which I believe he has to seeking to improve the Bill, by advancing arguments on later Clauses which might improve the Bill and make it more acceptable in his eyes for trade unionists. He is merely opposing it blindly. He said he did not care about improving it.

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

On a point of order. Sir Robert, just before you took the Chair the then Chairman, Mr. Jennings, ruled my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) out of order for making a passing yet constructive reference in the discussion on Amendment No. 711. So far the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) has made absolutely no reference to any Clause or Amendment. Is he in order?

The Chairman

I think that there is substance in that point of order. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) must not be quite so general in his terms, If he comes a little closer to the Amendment he will be more effective and achieve his purpose.

Mr. Page

I regret to say that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) interrupted me in the middle of my peroration. I was arguing that the Opposition support the Amendment because they say that trade unionists are afraid of the new Industrial Courts. I have said that I do not think that hon. Members opposite represent the opinion of trade unionists. I believe that ordinary people are willing and hopeful that their cases, if they should ever reach the courts, will be heard impartially by a British court set up by my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

Someone once said that in any great drama there is an element of farce. We have just had it. The hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. John Page) is the best argument I know for introducing the television cameras into the Chamber. The public would then see the irresponsible approach of some hon. Members to what is a fundamentally serious subject for millions of trade unionists. I want to deal specifically with the Clause and the Amendment because the question of procedure agreements is possibly the most important question for trade unionists. It is even more important than wage negotiations, because trade union officials cannot negotiate for increased wages or better conditions unless they have a good procedure agreement. Therefore, we must examine the Bill very closely, in so far as it affects the establishment of good procedure agreements within industry.

A good procedure agreement is much more difficult to negotiate than a good wage agreement, because there are two opposing points of view. The trade union wants a procedure agreement that will enable it to bring its grievance to the attention of management as quickly as possible, but management wants a protracted procedure agreement so that it can stall on problems for as long as possible.

Those of my hon. Friends who are in the engineering industry know that on many occasions we have been to Broadway House to talk to the Engineering Employers' Federation representatives. I have been among the negotiators. We might have a wage application. We are told at the end of presenting our case, "We shall give very careful consideration to your application. We shall let our constituent associations and individual member firms know of the case, and we shall resume our negotiations when we have their views." Weeks and weeks go by, and nothing happens. There was once a one-day token strike of nearly three million engineering workers in protest against the long delays, which are quite deliberate, because if the application is for an increase of 10s. a week for three million engineering workers, every week that the employers can stall negotiations they save £1½ million.

As a result of such ridiculous procedure agreements, trade unions are obtaining a settlement of their claims and immediately putting in a new application, because they say, "Months and perhaps years will pass before we reach the point where we can negotiate and have a decision on our application." That was what happened under the York Memorandum. It lays down an elaborate procedure, which I have had to follow as a trade union official. The agreement says that if there is a dispute in a factory every endeavour must be made to settle it on the spot, on the factory floor. If that is not possible, the next step is to hold a works conference with local trade union officials, and if there is failure to agree there is a local conference at which shorthand notes are taken and the district committee officials are present. If agreements still cannot be reached, there is a national conference at York or in London to discuss the matter, and months elapse before comparatively simple issues are decided.

Mr. Orme

And then it can be referred back to the factory floor.

Mr. Fletcher

My hon. Friend is correct. Is it any wonder that if something happened in a factory, such as a shop steward being unfairly dismissed or someone being victimised, the men will say, "To hell with this. We are going out until that shop steward is retained in the firm's employment."? They take that attitude because they know that it would take months to go through the procedure.

Many trade union officials—I have done it myself—look with a blind eye on this sort of thing. There have been occasions when some of my shop stewards have been unjustly dismissed and I have told my members that they must stay at work and allow me to take up the matter under the procedure agreement. Week passes week and conference passes conference. The matter comes back to the shop floor, and nothing happens. Meanwhile, the man affected obtains another job. Therefore, when such a thing happens a second time at a factory and I am telephoned to be told, "All our members have walked out, because we cannot get satisfaction", I reply, "I, as an official, must apply the agreement, but I know what I would do if I were in your position." And a wink is as good as a nod to a blind horse. As a result, many unofficial strikes take place because the procedure agreements are obsolete, because grievances cannot be discussed within as short a time as possible.

Therefore, a good procedure agreement is essential to a trade union. What are the obstacles that the Clause places in the path of securing such agreements? As I have said, the negotiations are bound to be protracted, because the employers want a long-drawn-out agreement. It suits their book to stall demands for wage increases or for improvements in working conditions. As a consequence, a period will be approached when there is failure to agree and then one or other of the parties can refer the matter to the Secretary of State or to the Commission. It is in those circumstances that the Commission can impose a procedure agreement on the parties without their agreement. That raises a new principle in English law, that organisations can be parties to agreements with which they do not agree.

Mr. R. Carrrose——

Mr. Fletcher

Is the right hon. Gentleman denying that under the procedure in the Clause organisations can be parties to agreements with which they disagree?

Mr. Carr

I was only going to point out, as has been pointed out before, that so can employers under the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, which I believe the hon Gentleman supports.

Mr. Fletcher

But here we have an entirely new situation, and the right hon. Gentleman is contradicting the policy of his own party. During the election campaign the Tories said, "We believe that voluntary contracts should be enforced by law". Many people said that it was quite reasonable to enter into contracts and hope that they would be honoured, but the Tories never said during the election that irrespective of the views of one side in a dispute an agreement would be imposed, even though one side disagreed. As a result, we are having procedure agreements forced on to reluctant trade unionists in factories.

How does the right hon. Gentleman think that will work? Does he think that the trade unions will work through a procedure agreement with which they disagree? The provision will stimulate them to take unofficial action, because they will say, "This agreement has been imposed on us. Therefore, we have no regard for it. We have no reverence for an agreement imposed by law, and so we shall take matters into our own hands".

There is other action, apart from strike action, that they can take. I was very interested to read a recent book on the strike at Pilkington by two Liverpool university lecturers, Lane and Roberts. who said: What does our study suggest? It suggests in the first place that none of the proposals in current circulation would have made any difference to the Pilkington strike. They add: If it were possible to use the law to intimidate the potential striker then we could expect his attention to be drawn to other methods of protest, for the strike is only one weapon in the arsenal: there remain the work-to-rule, the overtime ban, the go-slow, the sit-down strike, the sit-in or factory occupation, and sabotage. Would those who would like to legislate against the unofficial striker really like to encourage the alternatives? This might well happen in a situation where a procedure agreement has been imposed from outside and where it has no respect whatever from the workers who have to work to that agreement. Might not they take action that at the moment they are restrained from taking by their present voluntarily agreed procedure agreement?

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Tom King

If a voluntary agreement is possible, it will be reached. The hon. Gentleman is now talking about the long-stop position, as we have called it—that of finally having an imposed agreement. What is the alternative? What is to be done in future? It is no good saying that this would not have worked in the Pilkington dispute. What could possibly have worked in that?

Mr. Fletcher

The claim is constantly being made that this is a long-stop. The attitude is, "It may be unfair but only a few people will suffer." It is like saying, "We must have hanging but only a few people will be hanged, which will be unfortunate." The situation is quite plain to the trade unionists in the shop. They say that they are prepared to negotiate with management a procedure agreement that is mutually agreed. Probably neither trade unionists nor management will get everything each wants. Compromise will have to be reached on procedure as well as on wages. In the last analysis, if it is to work it must be mutually agreed.

The point I am making, which has escaped the attention of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King), is that if an agreement is not mutually agreed, it will not work, whether one goes to the Commission or whether one is legally bound to enforce it. The point is that the workers will not enforce it and therefore it is a waste of time. In this situation it is farcical that Parliament should be wasting its time in suggesting legal remedies which will not be carried out in the workshop.

I speak from a life time of experience as a shop steward among work people. I know their psychology. They are fundamentally honest. They know that if they can reach a compromise with the employers they will do it. We have been told that traders in the olden days could shake each other's hands, that an Englishman's word was his bond, that once an agreement as reached it was respected, and so on, but that unhappily does not happen these days. One only has to read the financial columns about the City to understand that business men would apparently rather stab each other in the back. Nevertheless, these agreements are still, in the vast majority of cases, honoured in the workshop. Thousands of voluntary agreements are reached every day between shop stewards and employers. Nothing is written down. The employers say, "We will give so much for this job". We accept their word and they accept ours. It is a mutual agreement. It is done all the time.

There are, of course, rare instances when one side or the other breaks a verbal contract. Hon. Members opposite should be pleased at the number of agreements we have reached, not astounded by the very few cases where agreements break down. This is the central theme of a procedure agreement. There must be mutual agreement. The pattern which the right hon. Gentleman is setting is the path that will lead to disruption in industry because the trade unions will not regard the imposition of a law for which they have no respect as an inducement to them to obey it.

This sort of thing has happened before. A few years ago, the law was that street betting was illegal. However, millions of people placed their bets at street corners with bookmakers. Parliament in the end had to say, "Everyone is breaking the law. We shall have to change it and make bookmaking legal". The Government are creating now a situation where thousands of people in factories will have no regard for a law imposed on them in the interests of the employers and against their interests.

I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider very carefully where he is going. He has betrayed the pledge he made to the country that this would not be introduced. He has reneged on the promise he made during the election in that we are to get the element of compulsion which was not included in the Conservative Party election manifesto. It is no good his claiming that the Government have a mandate to carry this thing out. There was no mention of it in his party's policy at the election. I warn him that if the Bill is carried and this procedure is adopted in the factories, it will make it increasingly difficult to reach procedure agreements. As such agreements are central to the stability of industry and to good industrial relations, it is essential that the Clause be deleted.

Mr. Fell

I have listened to all of this debate. There is, of course, recognition on this side of the enormous wealth of practical experience among hon. Members opposite which naturally, in the very nature of things, is lacking to a degree on this side of the Committee. Particularly of course, one is enormously influenced by the sort of speech we have just heard from the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher). I have been influenced, in spite of myself, by speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer), particularly since he was given his new position. It is also impossible not to have been influenced by the speeches which have been made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others of his ilk.

A lot of trade union Members, and even a lot of hon. Members who are not in the House at the moment who are paid trade unionists as well—there is nothing wrong with that—are putting a view. The view that has just been put by the hon. Member for Darlington is a view with which most of us would agree to this extent—that he knows what he is talking about through experience. But although he knows what he is talking about through experience, particularly about procedure agreements, it appears that he gives no thought at all to the fact that my right hon. Friend has spent—a point on which the Opposition must agree, if on nothing else—many years in working out how the situation of employment can be improved.

We now have a situation where so many hon. Members opposite are damning outright anything said by the Government on the question of industry. Why? Why do not the Opposition think about this? It is a fact that no one can deny that the vast majority of the people in this country want to see the problems of industry solved—and if anyone thinks there is no problem, let him look at Ford's at the moment. The Ford dispute appears to be nothing short of disgraceful. My right hon. Friend is putting the Bill forward in the most reasonable fashion. We all believe that he will accept an Amendment to Clause 35 which will meet the case, from an Opposition point of view. This is what they are arguing for and yet they do not have one iota of confidence in the Minister and disregard the fact that he will move that Amendment.

The Chairman

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman but he must deal with the group of Amendments we are discussing.

Mr. Fell

I am on the right group of Amendments—I think I am—I am referring to Amendment 711 which has already been discussed.—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] It has been referred to by the Minister and it is important in relation to this Clause. It is also true that the Solicitor-General will meet the Opposition on another point. Of course the hon. Member for Darlington knows that there are problems. Everything he said showed that while there are a large number of procedure agreements reached during the course of a year, there are unfortunately a number which are wrongly framed. This Clause is based upon the improvement of procedure agreements.

Mr. Moyle

indicated dissent.

Mr. Fell

The hon. Gentleman shakes his head but it says: Remedial action where procedure agreement non-existent or defective If that is not expressing a will to have procedure agreements where they do not exist or to improve faulty procedure agreements, I do not know what is.

Mr. Moyle

The hon. Gentleman was referring to Amendment 711. This is adding another stage to the procedure which has to be gone through to acquire a procedure agreement and the end result will be more delays, more frustration on the shop floor and probably more strikes.

The Chairman

Order. Before the hon. Gentleman resumes his speech we must be quite clear about Amendment 711. Maybe the Minister has referred to it, but I am sure that it was in passing. We have not reached it yet. We must try to keep to the Amendments we are discussing, which mainly concern consultation with the parties.

Mr. Fell

I accept your Ruling at once, Sir Robert, but, with the greatest respect, I have sat through the whole of this debate, in so far as it is possible without having a cup of tea from time to time. I have not intervened once, but I have heard hundreds of speeches which have been Second Reading speeches on Amendment after Amendment. I would ask for just a little bit of latitude.

My fundamental point is: why cannot the Opposition listen to the appeals and try to co-operate in some way with the Government in making this a better Bill instead of bitching all the time and making the sort of unreasonable speeches that we have had from the Opposition Front Bench time and again? I appeal to hon. Members such as the hon. Member for Darlington and other trade union members to try to help, because the vast majority of people are determined that this Bill shall take proper and good shape.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. John Fraser

The hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has just given vent to an hysterical outburst which adds nothing to industrial relations. It is not in issue that both parties are concerned with what is a major industrial problem. What is in dispute in discussing the Amendment is the right way to solve that particular kind of problem. The question is whether we use an industrial relations court to solve the problem or whether we use the device of the C.I.R. which was set up by my right hon. Friend. I do not join in the criticism of the judiciary made by some of my hon. Friends. The difference is that it is right for a judge to give judgments in cases involving claims for damages in industrial accidents but it is wrong to ask a judge in effect to legislate for the relations between an employer and a union.

The Secretary of State must have in mind some particular industrial situation. So much of the discussion about this kind of Clause is far too abstract. He must have in mind some kind of industrial situation to which he intends the Clause to apply and I hope that he will give the Committee one or two examples. Does he intend it to apply to the sort of situation that occurred at Girlings or the British Steel Corporation or Lucas? Is this Clause directed at the situation when there is a continuous outbreak of strikes or irregular industrial action?

It is not a one-strike situation at which it is aimed, it is meant to deal with the sort of situation which arose at Girlings where there was a series of irregular actions and where people said something ought to be done. The difference of opinion over such a situation is whether that matter should be referred to the C.I.R., which was our solution, to try to achieve a settlement—the sort of thing done by my right hon. Friend on the Harvester agreement—or whether it should go to the courts.

Let us take the Girling situation, because this must be the kind of situation that the right hon. Gentleman has in mind. What will he do? He has a choice. If he accepts the Opposition Amendment he can refer the problem to the C.I.R. In fact he can do that under a later part of the Bill. He has, alternatively, the choice of referring it to the court. He appears before the court, with the trade union or unions and the employer. There is argument to the effect that there is a situation where strikes keep breaking out because of difficulties over procedure. The court may be convinced that that is the case so it refers the matter to the C.I.R.

The Commission—and this is the criticism of this provision—is then inextricably bound up in the way in which the court works. First the Commission has to formulate the legally enforceable contract and therefore it must have a lawyer, it must have a judicial view in try- ing to draw up such a contract. Secondly the Commission, when it has formulated this contract, must get drawn into court proceedings when the matter is argued afterwards by trade union and employer. The argument against using this kind of procedure is that it devalues the good work which can be performed by the C.I.R. in many other situations and leaves people ambivalent about the attitude of the Commission.

Let us continue with the example of Girling. The Secretary of State has argued before the court, the matter has been referred to the C.I.R. The Commission might, in the interests of better procedures, suggest something that runs contrary to the earlier provisions of the Bill. What will the Secretary of State do if the Commission suggests that the enforceable agreement should be on the basis of 100 per cent. unionism, and that the disputes have occurred because there is multi-unionism? What if the Commission suggests that the trouble has arisen because people are entitled to join any trade union they choose? What if the recommendations of the Commission run against the principles which are set out almost as a religious formula at the beginning of the Bill?

Let us assume that an agreement which does not run contrary to the general principles comes back to the court. At that point, I think I am right in saying—although the Bill is not clear—that only the trade union or the employer can apply to the court within six months to enforce the agreement which has been drawn up by the C.I.R., the Secretary of State not being a party to the proceedings. That is only under Clause 35 and not under Clauses 38 and 39. So something like six months will have gone by.

Does the Secretary of State think that Girling or a similar firm will then apply to the court to make a procedure agreement legally binding on the trade union involved? Even if the firm did that, about a year would have gone by, and what is there at the end of it? The sanction is that the employer then has to sue the trade union for damages in order to enforce it. That is what has happened at the end of the day. About a year has been wasted and the only sanction at the end is that the employer has to be involved in legal proceedings against the trade union. This happens only by definition. It happens that the employer will have to sue the trade union only where there has already been a long history of industrial disruption or strife. Is the Secretary of State suggesting that the solution in those difficult cases is to allow the employer to sue the trade union? Will that really improve the Girling situation, or similar situations?

The Secretary of State should re-read carefully the suggestions made by Donovan on this. Donovan suggested first that this kind of action should be subject to parliamentary control, and secondly, that the enforcement of legal sanctions should take place—and I do not even accept Donovan on this—only where it was likely to cause a diminution in the number of stoppages.

The Opposition are suggesting that in these difficult situations with which every Secretary of State for Employment has to concern himself and which deeply concern the country, this judicial process, this process of the enforcement of damages, is not the right way to do it, and that the suggestions contained in my right hon. Friend's Bill, which the Secretary of State has copied in later Clauses of his Bill, are the most sensible and sane way to deal with difficult and sometimes almost intractable situations. Bringing the law into it will only make matters worse.

8.30 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr

I will come to some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) in the course of my remarks. May I say first to the Committee that, in considering this Clause and these Amendments, we must remember a number of things which go to form the essential background. First, we have to remember the national interest. Many hon. Members have been discussing what it is right for the employers, trade unionism, trade union officials or trade unions as corporate bodies to put up with, but someone has to ask, what is it right for the public to put up with? There are certain circumstances where we have an over-riding duty even above the particular parties in industrial relations. There has been a tendency through these debates—not only on this Clause, but it has been particularly apparent in this debate—to imagine that somehow industrial relations and those who take part in them on both sides are so esoteric, so different, so specialised and so unlike anything else that happens in life that they have to be put all on one side and nobody else must ever have a look in, let alone a "say in". This has to be borne in mind.

The right hon. Lady realised this, and she felt at one stage that she must propose conciliation pauses. We, in somewhat different though not all that dissimilar circumstances, propose this remedy. I am sure that the right hon. Lady and I could agree at least that we were proposing, reluctantly, measures to deal with emergency situations—not measures for the normal regular conduct of industrial relations, but emergency procedures which might need to be imposed because of a difficult situation causing damage not only to a particular company but to the community at large.

Emergency procedures are always difficult; there are always objections to them. It is always doubtful how well or otherwise they will operate, but there are different points of view. First the Labour Government and now the Conservative Government are saying to the country that we need to have available emergency procedures to deal with some awkward situations which are causing loss not only to a particular company and a group of workers in that company but to the community at large.

That brings me straight into the second point which we must remember, namely, that these are emergency procedures only to be used in rare circumstances where there is the absence of a procedure agreement or where a procedure agreement although in existence is clearly defective. When this procedure is to be used, it can be initiated by the Secretary of State, or one of the parties, in which case the court has to be satisfied either of the absence of a procedure agreement or that it is defective, that that absence or defectiveness is holding back the development or maintenance of orderly industrial relations in the plant concerned, or that there have been substantial and repeated losses of working time in that unit.

In other words, it will not just be brought in, and the court will not allow it to be used if it is an isolated instance. Therefore, first of all, there are barriers to make sure that this can be used only, I will not say in an emergency as a statutory concept, but rather in the sense of in emergency circumstances.

Mr. Murray

The right hon. Gentleman has mentioned two examples of what will happen when Clause 35 is in operation. He did not mention examples under paragraph (b) where a procedure agreement is in existence and industrial action follows. There the paradox is complete when there is already an existing agreement and one is trying to foist another agreement on the people concerned. In that connection paragraph (b) as it stands does not have a principal verb. It is difficult when reading it to discover who may have recourse to what. The paragraph as it stands is fundamentally defective.

Mr. Carr

I will look at the syntax or grammar, or whatever it is I ought to look at, but it is a long time since I had lessons in English grammar. In regard to the substance of the hon. and learned Member's point, I am sorry if I omitted anything, but if I have, I accept the responsibility.

The point I was trying to make is that first of all the Secretary of State or any party has to go to the court and to convince it either that there is no procedure agreement or that, although there is a procedure agreement, there has been industrial action. That is the first gateway through which anybody wishing to use the procedure has to pass.

The second gateway is that, before anything further can happen, the Secretary of State then has to satisfy the court that the absence of that procedure agreement is impeding the development or maintenance of orderly industrial relations in that unit, or that there have been substantial and repeated losses of working time in that unit. This applies to the second condition as much as to the first. In other words, where there is a procedure agreement and there has been industrial action, it would have to be shown that there had been substantial and repeated losses of working time as a result of that industrial action. This is a narrow set of gates through which anybody who wishes to use the procedure has to pass.

Mr. Dan Jones

Although the analysis might be sound, is the Minister satisfied that it is better to go to the court to seek a solution rather than to trust the T.U.C.?

Mr. Carr

I will come to that in a moment.

Mr. Jones

The point is worthy of a reply.

Mr. Carr

Let me reply to the point in my argument in the way I should like to follow. In these emergency cases there will be a big effort to promote a voluntary solution. There have already been long and sustained efforts to obtain voluntary solutions in the normal course of industrial working before this process happens at all. It will only be in cases in which the normal system is not working and in which there are conditions such as those which I have described that this will come into being. But even when this comes into operation, there will still be efforts to promote voluntary action before we get to any question of imposing a compulsory agreement.

The Committee must remember that I have down an Amendment which we shall discuss in greater detail a little later—I realise that I must only refer to it in passing—by which, before any of the parties other than the Secretary of State can even begin to operate this provision, they must come to the Secretary of State and report it to him to give him an opportunity at conciliation by voluntary methods before the parties go to the court. There is that provision to be borne in mind. But even supposing that the parties have gone to the court and either have not used my conciliation or my conciliation has not been successful, and that the court accepts that the tight conditions which I have described exist and the matter goes to the C.I.R., under Clause 37(3) and (4) the Commission is still specifically charged to try to bring the parties to voluntary agreement.

It is only when all that has been done, when all these efforts have been made to bring the parties to voluntary agreement, that the C.I.R. can report to the court an agreement which, in their opinion, can if necessary be legally enforced and, if the Committee likes, imposed on the parties. Then one of the parties can apply to the court to have such an agreement registered and made legally binding. Some hon. Members thought that this involved a distinction without a difference. I do not so regard it. It is necessary in the national interest that a Secretary of State should have the right to initiate this whole procedure causing this further inquiry, but it is not right that the Secretary of State himself should ever have the right to impose an agreement on parties by his own direct action. If anybody wishes to do that, it must be one of the parties.

This is in line with the resistance which I have always shown—and this is at least one thing about which I can agree with the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn. To put it crudely, I will not have the Secretary of State doing the employers' or anybody else's dirty work. If they wish to have it they must take the responsibility of asking for it and not expect somebody else to do it for them.

It has been said by hon. Members opposite that all this is a waste of time and that a year might have gone by. A year will have gone by presumably only when several previous years have been spent attempting, through all the normal channels, but, alas, failing to achieve the desired situation. What we propose will not replace the normal procedure. It will operate only when the normal procedures have, alas, failed and the situation is serious.

Another point which I hope the Committee will try impartially to remember is that the procedure certainly need not be one-sided. People discuss this as if it were specifically an anti-union instrument. The hon. Member for Darlington(Mr. Ted Fletcher) nods in agreement. I was interested in his speech. He spoke from personal experience of the effect which the absence of a procedure agreement or which a bad procedure agreement could have on a trade union and its members and all the employees in a works and of the difficulty which trade unions sometimes had in getting employers to turn bad procedures into good procedures. He said that it was the absence of a good procedure or the fact that an employer obstinately refused to improve a bad procedure which drove men to go on strike in desperation, or, because they knew that it would take a year to decide the matter, forced them to put in a new claim the day after the previous settlement.

The hon. Gentleman said that those things often flowed from a bad procedure agreement which the trade unions could not get an employer to change. In those circumstances, let the trade union use the procedure we propose. Let it put pressure on the employer, as this procedure would allow, if, after persistent voluntary effort, it has failed to get the employer to mend his ways and to make a better procedure agreement. That course will be open to the union. This procedure could be of value to both sides.

That is the background against which we must consider the Clause. I admit that this proposal was not contained in "Fair Deal at Work" and that we have added it since the Election. I make no secret of that; I cannot do so. We added it after very careful consideration of all the circumstances. But I emphasise that it is an emergency procedure. The general rule to be applied is precisely that laid down in "Fair Deal at Work". This procedure is entirely for emergency use.

Hon. Members opposite—and I will repeat this point only once more—cannot say that this is an entirely novel legal principle in law, let alone in industrial relations law, because the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, can and does impose unilaterally on an employer terms and conditions which he had no part in negotiating. He had no part in making the agreement. Somebody else wanted it to be made.

I agree with the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, but one cannot deny that it imposes on a party unilaterally terms and conditions in an agreement in which he had no part.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

Mr. Moyle

I am very interested to hear what the right hon. Gentleman is saying about the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959. Would he also agree in principle with the National Arbitration Tribunal Order, 1950, for example, which imposed that sort of term on all employers and which the British Employers Federation moved to have repealed, and which his Government—I think that he was a member at the time —repealed?

Mr. Carr

I remember that condition, although I think that I had just left the Government when that happened. I am not making a point of that. That Order, while it worked, did a great deal of good. But it depended on both sides of industry going along with it, because when either side of industry seriously objected to it, it was not sustained. It was replaced by the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959, and absence of that Order was one of the reasons which made that Act necessary. Whether it is a parallel or not, in any direct sense, the 1959 Act to which I am referring is another example of an Act of Parliament which imposes an agreement on parties who have not participated in reaching that agreement. Therefore, the principle is not a new one.

Mr. Harold Walker

The right hon. Gentleman is being unfair to the Committee. Surely there is a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, the provision of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, which seeks to extend to recalcitrant employers that which has been voluntarily and freely negotiated and agreed in the first place, and, on the other hand, the provision of the Bill, which seeks to impose on both employers and unions alike that to which they are not prepared to agree.

Mr. Carr

Whatever else one may say, that difference did not commend itself to the Donovan Commission in the procedure which my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General mentioned, although as he made clear, it is not directly comparable or a pattern for that which we are introducing in this group of Clauses. Nevertheless, it is related to them. But the method of enforcement we are speaking of is the same as in Donovan, which drew the parallel of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959 in the paragraphs to which my hon. and learned Friend referred. I am not resting on that comparison, but on the merits of the case we put forward. There is that other example, so it is not true to say that this is a unique case of an Act which imposes terms and conditions on someone who is not party to an agreement.

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

The right hon. Gentleman went through the whole of the procedures in which one can attempt to enforce sanctions against either a trade union or an employer. Having gone through all the procedures, and assuming that the Industrial Court gives a decision against the trade union, presumably the employer then has to sue the union for compensation in the event of the union not applying the decision of the Industrial Court. Am I correct in that respect?

Mr. Carr

That is not a question to which there is a simple "Yes" or "No". First, the concept of the Industrial Court finding against the union is a false one. All that the court would be asked to do would be to confirm the terms of agreements prepared not by the employers but by the C.I.R. That would not be finding against the union. Second, supposing that the court confirmed a legally binding agreement, the hon. Gentleman asks whether the employer would have to sue the union. Of course not. It would be up to the employer to decide whether he thought, in all the circumstances, that it would be beneficial to do so. The very fact that we do not always decide to use our legal, civil rights does not mean that their existence is without influence or benefit. It is not always necessary to go to court to make the law of value. Hon. Gentlemen opposite to seem to forget that.

In any case, there is another remedy open to the employer or the union—for it could be a case in which the employer was not fulfilling the conditions. It is to go to court and to ask for an order that the party not doing what it should, in fact should do so in future. That is another possibility. But the number of cases which go to court will be very few and far between. For one thing, to make it worth suing, the employer would have to be able to prove to the court that he had suffered substantial damage, and so on. This talk of suing is not tremendously important. Certainly it is not important in the minds of those who support the Bill.

Against that background, I make my remarks about these Amendments. No. 672 wishes to include early in the Clause that the Secretary of State should act only "after consultation with the parties." As my hon. and learned Friend said, we cannot accept that wording. But we are not out of sympathy with the idea, and I believe that the Government Amendment on the Notice Paper to some extent meets that limited point in that we say that the parties cannot go to the court without having first come to the Secretary of State.

Perhaps this would be a convenient moment for me to reply to the right hon. Lady's question about the position of the C.I.R. The Commission as such, of course, has not pronounced on the Bill one way or the other. In view of its position, it would be most improper if it did. However, I have had what I regard as fruitful and valuable discussions with Mr. Woodcock and his colleagues on the role that the C.I.R. will play under Clauses 35 to 50.

One of the results of those discussions has been Amendments Nos. 711 and 714 which emphasise the view we share with the Commission that the use of the enforceable powers should be a last resort where efforts to resolve problems by conciliation and, where appropriate, by voluntary references to the Commission have failed—but only as a last resort. I believe that the approach in Clauses 35 to 50, as modified by these Amendments, commends itself to the Commission as achieving a reasonable balance between voluntary reform and special statutory provisions for dealing with these difficult problems after, but only after, voluntary methods have clearly failed. I think that the Amendments have gone a long way to meet the points that the Commission wished to make on this part of the Bill and have been welcomed by it.

Amendments Nos. 673, 675 and, effectively, 676 all wish to substitute "Commission" for "court". There is not a great deal that I can add to what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said. As he explained, this is a deliberate separation. We believed that it was right to have this filter before getting to the C.I.R. Normally, the filter is the Secretary of State. I hope that that traditional voluntary reference will continue to play a substantial part in the work of the Commission. The more the better. The more the references to the C.I.R. which come about in that way the better I shall be pleased, because that is the best way to work it.

Where we might have emergency situations to deal with—we must prepare for having them—there must be some slightly more obtrusive right to go to the C.I.R. If they were to go direct, the C.I.R. might not only have an uncomfortable amount of work to do other than its main task of investigation, inquiry and persuasion, a lot of unnecessary sifting work, but it might get involved in what could become highly controversial points about deciding whether such and such a case merits this treatment.

We genuinely believe that the C.I.R. is better insulated from what could be the uncomfortable task of deciding whether a particular case did or did not merit, in the national interest, the treatment which we have described. Therefore, the C.I.R., in all its work, would be involved in the persuasive and investigatory processes which it is designed, and has shown its ability, to carry out.

Finally, I turn to Amendment No. 674, the purpose of which is to leave out "irregular action". We cannot agree with this. We believe that "irregular action", as defined in the Bill, can be as damaging as a strike. If we are to be able to look at anything, we ought also to be able to look at "irregular action".

Therefore, we cannot accept these Amendments, although we are in considerable sympathy with the thought behind Amendment No. 672. I hope our Amendments show that. I therefore ask the Committee to reject the Amendments, but to think about them against the background of the need for and the merits of the Clause which I have outlined.

Mrs. Castle

It would be out of order for me to reply to the comments made by the right hon. Gentleman about Amendments Nos. 711 and 712, because they are the subject of a separate debate and have not been called by the Chair as part of the group of Amendments under discussion. For reasons which my hon. Friends will be deploying later, we frankly think that the Amendments to which the right hon. Gentleman attaches so much importance really do not make the slightest difference to the principle with which we are concerned. Paragraph (b) of Amendment No. 711 certainly goes out of its way to reinforce the validity of the principle behind Clause 35 which we are challenging.

It is necessary at this stage to point out that the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to have grasped the key point of the group of Amendments which we have been discussing. The right hon. Gentle. man referred to all except the vital Amendment No. 676. I do not want to sound discourteous, but when the right hon. Gentleman says that he is in sympathy with Amendment No. 672, in page 25, line 8, after 'may', insert: 'after consultation with the parties', I say "Thank you for nothing". Frankly, the parties will not be frightfully excited if they are consulted about when and how a procedure agreement is to be imposed upon them.

What we are seeking is embodied in Amendment No. 676. We are not only wishing to substitute the C.I.R. for the industrial court at an earlier point; we are saying that the C.I.R., having examined the defective procedure situation, should then proceed to try to find a remedy. The crucial words are, the Commission should put to the representative bodies in the industry proposals for reform and seek to obtain their implementation by voluntary agreement. This is the great divide between us on this Clause.

Mr. R. Carr

I am sorry if I did not refer to the Amendment in detail, but I thought that the right hon. Lady had taken the point that Clause 37(3) charges the Commission to do just what she is talking about.

Mrs. Castle

We are in a difficulty in discussing this complex Bill, because everybody has to get his cross-references right. One almost needs a computer to do it. The trouble with Clause 37 is that the right hon. Gentleman's attempt to get a voluntary agreement is merely an interim stage, and that at the back of it lies the threat of the ultimate sanction of Clause 39 if a voluntary agreement is not reached, and the Clause which we are debating now is the launching pad for this whole succession of Amendments embodying what we think is one of the most obnoxious provisions in an obnoxious Bill.

In saying that, I want to assure the right hon. Gentleman that he has no monopoly of concern for the national interest. We get a little tired of these sermons interjected into the middle of what is really a pretty tyrannical piece of legislation. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that the workers about whom we are talking are part of the nation. They are 25 million people worth of it. These are the people about whom we are talking.

The right hon Gentleman may say that the country is behind the Government, and that trade unionists want these reforms carried through, but what he is forgetting is that we are not talking about a great monolithic piece of stone which can be moved about in favour of one thing, or against another. I shall tell the right hon. Gentleman what the country, or at least these 25 million people who are part of it, think. They think that if it is their grievance, and their dispute, they are in the right, and that any action they take is justified, but if it is the other chap's grievance and dispute which is inconveniencing them, then the Government ought to be doing something about this industrial anarchy. This is human nature.

When we talk about serving the national interest, ought not we to stop and analyse it a bit? I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that our definition of the national interest is that it lies in achieving greater human fulfilment in industry as the only basis for industrial peace. One cannot build industrial peace by creating a sense of outrage. That is something that I learned, and it is something which I believe the right hon. Gentleman will learn in the course of time.

Nor is it possible to achieve human fulfilment in industry by imposing on people laws which they feel are intrinsically unjust, and I say to the right hon. Gentleman quite seriously that Clause 35, and the complex of Clauses that goes with it, are doing just that, because they are compelling people to observe agreements which they have not made.

It used to be a central Conservative principle that it was intolerable to interfere with people's freedom in that way, and the right hon. Gentleman has quoted the Contracts of Employment Act. He did not quote it in aid in "Fair Deal at Work" where, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) said, the Government stated categorically that it would be wrong in principle to accord to collective agreements the quite exceptional status of a contract which must be enforceable regardless of the wishes of the parties. We say that there is a major point of principle here which we will fight with all our strength, because it is a gross invasion of individual human rights and liberty.

9.0 p.m.

This is the fictitious agreements part of the Bill, dealing with the procedure for imposing a so-called agreement by law on parties who have not agreed to it, and culminating in the fantastic phraseology of Clause 39, which says that, when all these procedures have been followed and all these gateways have been passed, in the end, the provisions drawn up as a result of this procedure shall have effect as a legally enforceable contract as if a contract consisting of those provisions had been made between those parties.

But it has not been made: that is the simple point of principle. Right hon. Gentlemen are distorting the law of contact when they say that an agreement should have the force of contract as if it were a contract when it is nothing of the kind. I believe that it is a very bad principle to embody in our law that, as the Duchess in "Alice in Wonderland" said, words in this law shall mean what the Government say they mean. So they say that there is a contract here, and the law must be mobilised behind what they say.

Then, to add insult to injury, the unions are told that they have a legal obligation to police agreements that they never made. Clause 34 imposes more stringent obligations on people who are not parties to a contract than the ordinary law of contract imposes on people who are. I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman had the honesty to admit that this is not the policy on which the Government fought the election, so it is a policy on which they have no mandate. Indeed, this principle is the very opposite of that on which the election was fought, and on which the whole of their industrial relations policy was to be built.

If, only a short while ago, it was still wrong to accord to agreements this exceptional status, why is it right now, a few months after we and the electorate were told that the Government's policy was embodied in "Fair Deal at Work"?

Of course, some people, like the hon. Member for Peterborough (Sir Harmar Nicholls), can swallow anything. He said that we were using extravagant language when we said that the judicial procedure embodied in these Clauses was odious. But I wonder whether even he did not feel the slightest twinge of concern when he heard the right hon. Gentleman say, as he said in an earlier part of our debate, that the Government were not really going back on their election policy, because there were three gateways which had to be gone through before the non-agreement could be imposed as if it had been agreed.

The right hon. Gentleman dismissed this, saying that it was only a little one, an exceptional one, an emergency one. We are all told on this side that we are being extravagant if we say that it is an obnoxious principle to which we will never subscribe, but would we not all have a different view if a contract were to be imposed on one of us? There is a practical parallel. Consider what would happen if the Minister wanted to buy my house and I did not want to sell. Suppose the Government had passed a law saying that I could be compelled to sell against my will because the right hon. Gentleman desperately needed a home. The Minister might then say that his latest Measure was justified, because he would have to go to the Industrial Court and satisfy it that he was without a house and that the lack of a house was leading to matrimonial disputes in his family.

The right hon. Gentleman might go on to argue that if that court was satisfied, it could refer the matter to an expert body of estate agents to recommend whether the right hon. Gentleman's need was serious and whether my house was the most suitable for his purpose. He might then argue that if that expert body was satisfied on all those points, it could call the two of us together to see if we could agree on the sale; and, failing that, the right hon. Gentleman could go to the court and get an order.

The Solicitor-General

The right hon. Lady has been describing almost exactly the procedure that has existed for many years under the compulsory purchase provisions. I was concerned at one stage in a case in the Borough of Brent in which people who had had homes built to their own design and had purchased them with their own money—these were quite new houses—had to go through exactly the procedure which she has described because their homes were being expropriated to provide homes for other people. The right hon. Lady has given a good illustration of the way in which society intervenes for the better of the community as a whole.

Mrs. Castle

I am glad that we have got that clear because the hon. and learned Gentleman is now saying that compulsory provisions are being put into the heart of what has been called a voluntary system of industrial relations reform. We now have his admission that what he and his colleagues have called "the disease of British industrial relations" requires, in their view, the equivalent of compulsory powers in a slum clearance situation.

This is their definition of the industrial relations scene. I am glad that I brought the hon. and learned Gentleman to his feet to define his stand on this, because that attitude is totally incompatible with all the fine words that we have heard from the Government on this issue. We have been told how the Government want to get voluntary reform through the C.I.R. and how they are anxious to retain this provision only as a kind of reserve power.

The fact, of course, is that this is an additional tyrannical dimension which has been wheeled in only at the last minute. Hon. Gentlemen opposite have made great play with what was to be achieved by making collective agreements legally enforceable with the consent of both sides. It is now obvious that this is an irrelevant piece of legislation that will not work and that, instead, compulsory powers are now being wheeled in.

Although we have been told that this will be an emergency procedure to be used as a reserve power, the Minister can give no such guarantee because he is taking away from the control of Parliament the use of this power and putting it into the hands of the independent courts. This is another of the great divides between us, for we believe that he should be responsible to the House of Commons for the powers he takes.

We have had from the Minister the usual tape recording to show how, in his view, this is all justified by "In Place of Strife". It is time that the Minister ceased hiding behind a woman's skirts and had the courage of his Bill. The truth is that in relation to all these matters, "In Place of Strife" said the exact opposite, and I suggest that we settle this, at any rate on this issue, by examining a few quotations. On page 14 we have the rôle of the C.I.R., and paragraph 37 states: Its contacts with trade unions, employers' associations and individual firms will be regular and continuous. It will need to gain their confidence and co-operation while remaining an independent and candid critic. It would be handicapped if at the same time it had juridical authority …". As to the attitude on the legal enforceability of collective agreements, paragraph 43 of "In Place of Strife" says this: There are those who argue that one of the main causes of unofficial strikes is the fact that collective agreements in this country are not legally enforceable contracts … This would not only be ineffectual; it could prove a deterrent … 44. There are those who go even further and would make all collective agreements legally binding whatever the wishes of the parties. Here again the Government believes such a step would hinder, not help … Paragraph 89 of the document contains these words: …some … would like to see the Government, or an independent agency such as the C.I.R., with statutory powers. taking from employers the responsibility for negotiating good procedure agreements, by imposing them if necessary on both sides and then ensuring that they are enforced. For reasons given in paragraphs 37 and 45 the Government rejects this approach. Therefore, it is impossible for right hon. Gentlemen to call "In Place of Strife" in aid of this, just as it is impossible for them to call on Donovan, whose whole theme was that we must concentrate first on the reform of voluntary procedure. Give the C.I.R. a chance— by heavens, it has been in existence for only a few months—and do nothing—this was Donovan's theme—to hinder that voluntary development.

In paragraph 501 of its Report the Donovan Commission said this: This is our central recommendation. We cannot recommend anything that may jeopardise its success. That is our stand tonight. We believe that these proposals are not only inquitous in principle but will be counterproductive and will put back the clock of voluntary reform.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 264, Noes 307.

Strang, Gavin Varley, Eric G. Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Wainwright, Edwin Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Swain, Thomas Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Taverne, Dick Wallace, George Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) Watkins, David Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Weitzman, David Woof, Robert
Tinn, James Wellbeloved, James
Tomney, Frank Wells, William (Walsall, N.) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Torney, Tom White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) Mr. Joseph Harper and
Tuck, Raphael Whitehead, Phillip Mr. James Hamilton
Urwin, T. W. Whitlock, William
Adley, Robert Dixon, Piers Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hunt, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Drayson, G. B. Hutchison, Michael Clark
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Iremonger, T. L.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Eden, Sir John James, David
Astor, John Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Atkins, Humphrey Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Jessel, Toby
Awdry, Daniel Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Emery, Peter Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Eyre, Reginald Jopling, Michael
Balniel, Lord Farr, John Kaberry, Sir Donald
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Fell, Anthony Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Batsford, Brian Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Kershaw, Anthony
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fidler, Michael Kilfedder, James
Bell, Ronald Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Kimball, Marcus
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Benyon, W. Fookes, Miss Janet Kinsey, J. R.
Berry, Hn. Anthony Foster, Sir John Kitson, Timothy
Biffen, John Fowler, Norman Knight, Mrs. Jill
Biggs-Davison, John Fox, Marcus Knox, David
Blaker, Peter Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) Lambton, Antony
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Fry, Peter Lane, David
Body, Richard Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Boscawen, Robert Gardner, Edward Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bossom, Sir Clive Gibson-Watt, David Le Marchant, Spencer
Bowden, Andrew Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Braine, Bernard Glyn, Dr. Alan Longden, Gilbert
Bray, Ronald Goodhart, Philip Loveridge, John
Brewis, John Gorst, John MacArthur, Ian
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gower, Raymond McCrindle, R. A.
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Gray, Hamish McLaren, Martin
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Green, Alan Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Grieve, Percy McMaster, Stanley
Bryan, Paul Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. McNair-Wilson, Michael
Buck, Antony Grylls, Michael McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Bullus, Sir Eric Gummer, Selwyn Maddan, Martin
Burden, F. A. Gurden, Harold Madel, David
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Maginnis, John E.
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Hall, John (Wycombe) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Carlisle, Mark Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Marten, Neil
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mather, Carol
Cary, Sir Robert Hannam, John (Exeter) Maude, Angus
Channon, Paul Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mawby, Ray
Chapman, Sydney Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Chichester-Clark, R. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Meyer, Sir Anthony
Churchill, W. S. Haselhurst, Alan Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hastings, Stephen Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Havers, Michael Miscampbell, Norman
Clegg, Walter Hawkins, Paul Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)
Cockeram, Eric Hay, John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Cooke, Robert Hayhoe, Barney Moate, Roger
Coombs, Derek Heseltine, Michael Molyneaux, James
Cooper, A. E. Hicks, Robert Money, Ernie
Cordle, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Higgins, Terence L. Monks, Mrs. Connie
Cormack, Patrick Hiley, Joseph Monro, Hector
Costain, A. P. Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Montgomery, Fergus
Critchley, Julian Hill, James (Southampton, Test) More, Jasper
Crouch, David Holland, Phillip Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Crowder, F. P. Holt, Miss Mary Mongan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Curran, Charles Hooson, Emlyn Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Dalkeith, Earl of Horder, Peter Mudd, David
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hornby, Richard Murton, Oscar
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Neave, Airey
Digby, Simon Wingfield Howell, David (Guildford) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Rodgers, Sir, John (Sevenoaks) Temple, John M.
Normanton, Tom Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Nott, John Rost, Peter Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Onslow, Cranley Royle, Anthony Thomas, Rt Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Russell, Sir Ronald Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Osborn, John St. John-Stevas, Norman Tilney, John
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Page, Graham (Crosby) Scott, Nicholas Trew, Peter
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Scott-Hopkins, James Tugendhat, Christopher
Pardoe, John Sharples, Richard Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Peel, John Shelton, William (Clapham) Vickers, Dame Joan
Percival, Ian Simeons, Charles Waddington, David
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Sinclair, Sir George Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Pike, Miss Mervyn Skeet, T. H. H. Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Pink, R. Bonner Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wall, Patrick
Pounder, Rafton Soref, Harold Walters, Dennis
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Speed, Keith Ward, Dame Irene
Price, David (Eastleigh) Spence, John Warren, Kenneth
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Sproat, Iain Wells, John (Maidstone)
Proudfoot, Wilfred Stainton, Keith White, Roger (Gravesend)
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stanbrook, Ivor Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Quennell, Miss J. M. Steel, David Wiggin, Jerry
Raison, Timothy Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Wilkinson, John
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Redmond, Robert Stokes, John Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Woodnutt, Mark
Rees, Peter (Dover) Sutcliffe, John Worsley, Marcus
Rees-Davies, W. R. Tapsell, Peter Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Younger, Hn. George
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Ridsdale, Julian Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Mr. Victor Goodhew and
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tebbit, Norman Mr. Bernard Weatherill.
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

I beg to move Amendment No. 711, in page 25, line 28, at end insert: (2A) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section by a party other than the Secretary of State unless that party, before making the application, has given notice to the Secretary of State of the proposal to make it; and, where such a notice has been given

  1. (a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party giving the notice, and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate, and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but
  2. (b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.
It might be convenient, Sir Alfred, to consider at the same time the following Government Amendments:

No. 712, in page 25, line 29, at beginning insert: 'Subject to the last preceding subsection'. No. 713, in Clause 36, page 26, line 1, leave out '35' and insert '35(3)'.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton)

If the Committee agrees.

Mr. Dudley Smith

We come to the Government Amendment which was foreshadowed in the previous debate. It was referred to obliquely by a number of hon. Members who kept skilfully in order, and also by my right hon. Friend. The right hon. Lady—and I was sorry to hear it—said that this Amendment contributed nothing to the Clause, as she saw it, in mitigation of its provisions.

I should like to stress what my right hon. Friend said when he referred to the whole of the provisions of Clause 35, that these are emergency procedures, to be used only in rare circumstances. That has to be borne in mind. We are strengthening the Clause by the introduction of the Amendment. My right hon. Friend referred to the value of the discussions he had with Mr. Woodcock, Chairman of the C.I.R. One of the results of those valuable discussions is this Amendment It is fair to say that the Commission was anxious that the recourse to statutory procedure should be a matter of last resort. All along that has been the Government's view about the Bill, despite some of the allegations made by hon. and right hon. Members opposite. This element of Clause 35 will be a valuable provision because it will ensure that any party who makes application will have, first of all, to approach the Secretary of State and thereby the process of conciliation will immediately come into operation. We have maintained that there is conciliation built into every part of the Bill because this is a Bill to improve industrial relations. We are prepared to admit that originally it was lacking from Clause 35, and we are happy to bring this Amendment forward.

Those hon. Members who over the years have had contact with the Department of Employment, the old Ministry of Labour, know that it has experts within it, as well as excellent manpower services and conciliation officers who always do what they can to resolve problems, often with a great degree of success. In this case, before there is recourse to law these conciliation officers can have a marked impact upon the cases before them.

I know that the right hon. Lady objected to this, but it is fair to emphasise paragraph (b) of the Amendment which maintains the right of the individual who is applying for access to the court, however strongly, however mistakenly, although he must give notification to the Secretary of State.

We think that this provision must be maintained. Every chance will have been given to voluntary means of resolving difficulties, even in the exceptionally persistent and serious trouble spots with which Clauses 35–40 are designed to deal. In all the circumstances, bearing in mind the consultations which we have had with the C.I.R., the worth while tributes which have been paid to the C.I.R. and the fact that we shall be doing a signal service by including this Amendment which strengthens those procedures that enable conciliation to take place, I ask the Committee, with a good deal of confidence, to support the Amendment.

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Carter

I reject the Amendment principally because it gives to the Secretary of State rather more selective powers. In the preceding debate the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said that the Opposition were making no effort to concede that the Government were trying to deal fairly and properly with industrial relations and the matter of pro- cedure. If the Government are prepared to be more all-embracing on procedure, why are they so selective in looking at those cases where procedure is found to be at fault? I reject the notion that the Secretary of State can be given powers by the House of Commons to decide whether to look at a particular area of procedure——

Mr. Fell

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to be misled. I was trying to say that, although many hon. Members on the Labour back benches have been constructive, by and large the Front Bench has condemned the Bill out of hand.

Mr. Carter

I do not separate myself from anything that my Front Bench has said or any of my hon. Friends. There is a fair degree of unanimity among us.

The car industry plays a major part in my constituency. About 25,000 of my constituents work in it. Procedure is the root cause of the vast majority of problems in the car industry, and if we had a better form of procedure there would be no need for the Bill. During the summer I spent a fortnight in the industry and everyone I met complained about the procedure.

We are looking at the problem in a negative way. We see procedure as being concerned simply with disputes, whereas it is really a two-way exercise. If management wants to introduce a new system of working, a change in the pattern of working or a variation in the labour force, the procedure should be there to enable the workpeople who are affected to be fully informed. Yesterday the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) ended his speech by saying that there was a tremendous amount of good will in industry and there was consultation and negotiation, but this is not so.

Just before Christmas Lord Stokes and the board of British Leyland summoned to Berkeley Square the shop stewards of the whole British Leyland combine. He told them that 5,000 workers were to be made redundant. There was no consultation, no effort to give the workers prior warning of the decisions the company had to take. Because of that sort of incident, we on this side of the Committee reject the notion that there can be any real sincerity and intention by the Government to deal adequately with the problems of procedure, joint consultation, negotiation, and so on, in industry.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

How long after the meeting of Lord Stokes with the trade unions were the 5,000 men to leave the company's employment?

Mr. Carter

The first started to leave on 1st January.

Mr. Mitchell

What about the rest?

Mr. Carter

The rest have probably gone by now. As a matter of principle, it would not have made the decision any more palatable to the people involved if they had known that they were not going for six months. The principle with which we are concerned is the fact that there was no consultation.

The problem of procedure is all the more important when one considers that the manufacturing industry accounts for 85 per cent. of all disputes and that half of those 85 per cent. are attributable to causes other than disputes about wages. It is commonly believed on the Conservative benches, in the Press, and also in the country, that industrial disputes are principally about wages. This is not so. They relate to working conditions, job continuity and bad supervision, all of which constitute industrial difficulties which often lead to disputes. Procedure has to cope with a wide variety of problems, not just wages. Half the time procedure is concerned with human problems.

What does the Secretary of State propose to do to meet this situation? The Government intend to introduce the law. They have said it is merely a long-stop. People who are working day by day in industry will have at the back of their minds that any misadventure could land them and their colleagues in the court. I suggest that in dealing with human problems, the less recourse one has to the law and the big stick the better.

I regard this provision as insidious and a violent intrusion into the way in which we in Britain over the last 50 years have conducted our industrial life. There is the possibility under this Clause that a worker may be compelled to stay at his place of work. The Government may say that this is not so, and that this is still a long-stop. But if it is such a wild improbability, why have it in? The Government have conceded that the Bill may compel men to stand by their benches and work under orders.

The Solicitor-General

If there is one thing plain about this Bill, in contrast to the proposals in "In Place of Strife"—[Interruption.] Hon. Members opposite must forgive me for pointing out the contrast, although they may be embarrassed or disquieted by it. Clause 114 expressly provides that no court can compel an employee to do any work or to attend at any place for the purpose of doing any work. It is a misconception to suggest that these provisions will, can or conceivably might oblige someone to stand by his bench and work. That is a misunderstanding.

Mr. Carter

Hon. Members on this side of the Committee have as much accumulated wisdom at their elbow as hon. Members opposite, but it is interesting that whenever we come to a critical point we are accused of misconception. It is not right for the Solicitor-General to refer to "In Place of Strife" because that was superseded by a Bill. If it is proposed that we should talk about what the Labour Government would have done, we should be talking about that Bill.

I do not intend to intervene often, and perhaps not again, during the debates on the Bill, but I want to refer to the problems in the car industry which is probably not typical of British industry but will be very typical of industry of the future. We are moving into an age of automation and mechanisation when it will be necessary for industries to work without stopping. I ask the Committee to consider the demands which will be placed on ordinary men and women. This is the age, not of the craftsman, but of the semi-skilled or unskilled man doing four or five operations 20 times an hour in assembling a motor car. The pace of life on an assembly line is extremely fast. We should consider in a human way the problems which arise from that situation and not treat men merely as parts of machinery. The procedures which govern the working conditions of men and women should have some relevance to the job that they are doing.

It is of vital importance that the procedure in the car industry should work quickly. To give some indication of the pattern of procedure obtaining in the car industry, I hold up for hon. Members to see an example of the procedure which must be gone through when a dispute arises. It is quite a lengthy process. It is often not possible to settle a dispute for six, nine or 12 months.

If the Government had wanted sincerely and earnestly to do something constructive about the problems of procedure, they would, in advance of the Bill, have had deep, profound and lengthy discussions with the C.B.I. and with employers.

Mr. Dudley Smith

The hon. Gentleman held up an example of a procedure agreement which might be a model agreement; I would not know whether it was without taking expert advice. But in this Clause we are dealing with defective or non-existent procedure agreements. It is for that reason that the Government are doing something about the matter.

Mr. Carter

In part I accept that, for the minority of cases which the Secretary of State will ever refer to the court. If the Government intend to take a sweeping look at procedure, why does the Secretary of State have to examine every case which comes before the court? That is why I level the charge of insincerity at the Government. Why do they have to examine them? If either an employee or an employer came to the Government with a case where it found that procedure was inadequate, why would the Government have to vet it? Would the Minister like to comment on that? He would not.

In the engineering industry we work to an agreement signed in 1922 when the trade unions were at their weakeest. With the introduction of the Bill, the chances of getting that altered in the immediate future are negligible. It will stop any further attempt to get to grips with problems arising from outdated procedural agreements.

That Clause is unacceptable principally because it gives rather sweeping powers to the Secretary of State. The problems associated with the introduction of the law have been adequately dealt with. I believe in voluntary negotiating agreements and relationships between workers and employers, and the Government have run well in the face of that principle. For that reason, I ask the Committee to reject the Amendment.

Mr. Gower

I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) referred to the motor car industry and the engineering industry. I recognise that he has particular knowledge of the latter and no doubt a good deal of constituency experience of both of them. I should like to impress upon him that we on these benches, like no doubt most of his colleagues, are not doing any of these things in any sort of foolish manner or with a desire to hammer any particular side of industry.

I visited the Geneva motor show about a year ago and inquired about the delivery times of different cars. I was appalled to find out that whereas Volkswagen, Fiat and most of the Continental cars could be delivered in a matter of days, most British cars sometimes involved waiting times of weeks. This is the measure of the competitive challenge which faces our industry. I should be the last to attribute the delays to a single reason. I do not attribute them to labour relations or to any particular reason. In every respect, in our industrial management and efficiency, the modernisation of our plant, investment, and labour relations, we have to be better than the rest of the world.

Mr. Carter

Does not the hon. Gentleman appreciate that Volkswagen was established under the most ideal of conditions, that as employers they are far superior to any in this country, and that they have within their industry procedural agreements which are heaven-like in terms of the agreements in our motor industry?

Mr. Gower

I accept a good deal of what the hon. Gentleman says about Volkswagen. I only emphasise that, in all these different facets of our industrial production, we need to be as good as if not to excel our competitors, and labour relations is one of many facets.

The hon. Gentleman also referred to a case concerning British Leyland. I do not know the exact facts, and I do not question what he said, but I am sure that I speak for all of my right hon. and hon. Friends when I say that this side of the Committee would not uphold any management which gave inadequate notice of a change of policy of that kind. This Clause, together with the Government Amendment, will enable employees to make application in the prescribed manner to remedy such defects.

The proposed machinery is available for all parts of industry to amend and improve procedural deficiencies——

Mr. Robert Edwards (Bilston)

Not for the postmen.

Mr. Gower

I wish that the hon. Member for Bilston (Mr. Robert Edwards) would not introduce irrelevancies when I am dealing with the points raised by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter). The hon. Member for Bilston has referred to another service. In any industry or service, the Government's proposed machinery, if used properly, could improve existing procedural defects.

The hon. Member for Northfield, for some strange reason, said that he opposed the Government's Amendment. But if it is accepted, it can only improve the Government's proposed machinery. Earlier, Amendment No. 672 was moved from the benches opposite asking for the insertion of the words …after consultation with the parties".

Sir Harmar Nicholls

They will get that.

Mr. Gower

My hon. Friend is right. The Government Amendment embodies the sort of consultation for which right hon. and hon. Members opposite ask. I can understand the hon. Gentleman's objection to the main Clause, but I cannot understand why he objects to the Amendment. Whatever objections he has to the Clause, the acceptance of the Amendment is bound to make it better and less objectionable to him.

Mr. Carter

Why is it necessary for the Secretary of State to be selective? If he is sincere in his intention to make procedural agreements and arrangements across the board in industry as near perfect as possible, why does he introduce this sieve?

Mr. Gower

If the hon. Gentleman looks at the wording of the Clause, he will see that it lays down merely that no application shall be entertained from either party other than the Secretary of State unless that party gives notice to the Secretary of State, who thereupon "shall"—he has the duty— … offer such advice and assistance to the party giving the notice, and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement… In other words, we are back to the main objective of achieving agreement before resorting to the long-stop powers on which right hon. and hon. Members opposite have commented so adversely.

By giving another requirement for the Secretary of State to be consulted, the Amendment is laying a duty on my right hon. Friend which is liable, in the small number of cases likely to arise, to lessen the resort to the final long-stop powers.

As my hon. Friend the Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) said earlier, we have all admired the interventions of the hon. Members for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher), Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and others who have spoken with a great deal of personal knowledge about these matters. If they have any faults, it is that they seem to feel that, ultimately, there is very little wrong and that our labour relations will get better if we take no action. However, the history of the last 15 or 20 years has been that of a series of Ministers, from Sir Walter Monckton and Iain Macleod down to my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State, trying to avoid legislation of this sort. We have all tried, in successive Parliaments, to achieve these things by blissful agreement, cajolery and persuasion. It is only after a long history of trying that we have, most reluctantly, against all our disposition in the past, felt compelled to introduce these long-stop provisions. In no way will they remove the need for decent, proper negotiation.

Concerning labour relations and procedural defects, I think that it would be a very foolish manager or employer who did not co-operate with his unions and employees to achieve good procedural agreements. I would not prophesy for such an employer or industrialist a great future. In this enlightened age we should be working together to achieve something better for our industry because it is faced with a tremendous challenge overseas. Our rivals are tremendously efficient and we shall not easily win.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson (Montgomery)

I disagree with the hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower) on one point. Unfortunately there are some stupid employers, and we have very defective procedural arrangements.

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) spoke with considerable experience about the defectiveness of procedures in British industry in general and in the car industry in particular. However, I did not follow his argument that that should be a reason for speaking against the Amendment. Comparing the industrial relations history of British Leyland with that of the Leyland Motor Company, before amalgamation, one can see a vast difference. The hon. Gentleman may be correct in illustrating some of the complicated procedures which have been laid down and putting a good deal of the blame on procedures adopted by British Leyland. I do not know whether that is right.

I agree that recourse to law should be the last resort. I think that everybody would agree about that. It is a trite saying—we have heard it so often, from this side particularly—that we are all in favour of voluntary agreements. Who is not, if they can be achieved?

I have already spoken of what I think are the gross deficiencies of Clauses 32 to 34, but we are dealing with different Clauses now. The whole point seems to be to deal with the hard core of cases which are a disgrace to British industry. We get examples, year after year, of the difficulty of getting any kind of agreement adhered to. It may be because the procedures are bad or because management is stubborn and refuses to advance with the times. It may also be because of recalcitrant trade unionists. I do not know. However, it is a hard core minority, and we should all be doing less than our duty if we did not face the problem.

The hon. Member for Northfield, speaking against the Amendment, is saying that it puts too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State. I do not regard it in that light. There is much expertise in the Department; its officers have long experience of conciliation. I regard this proposal as an extra sieve put in before getting to the stage of resorting to the law and, in particular, to the C.I.R. Resort to the C.I.R., after the conciliation officers' services have been invoked, is probably the most promising part of the procedures. I think that the controversial part of the Bill, Clauses 32 to 34—the valid enforcing of collective agreements—will be the least effective. It is in the expertise that will be developed over the years, through the C.I.R., and so on, that the value of the Bill will eventually be seen.

10.0 p.m.

I think that the Clause must be read in conjunction with Clauses 36–39. Clause 39, which is the long-stop, and which has the eventual compulsory power, is necessary, because we must face the fact that there are a few industries, and the motor car industry, or part of it, may be one of them, in respect of which, in the end, there will have to be recourse to the C.I.R. and to the Industrial Court. This will have to be done to deal with the situation where stubborn managements and stubborn union representatives are facing each other, and the public interest can go to blazes. I agree that this will apply in only a small minority of cases, but the Committee would be doing less than its duty if it did not face this problem and deal with it somehow.

If I were dealing with the problem, 1 should prefer to tackle it in the way in which German industry did, with a works constitutional law. I should prefer to tackle it from the other end, not from the top. I should prefer to tackle it from the works end itself. That would be my approach. But I am in favour of the Clause, and of the Amendment, because the problem has to be tackled somehow, and it is far better to have this procedure than to continue with the situation as it is today.


Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) referred to procedure being the biggest cause of disputes, but the Donovan Report makes it clear that about 50 per cent. of disputes are concerned with it, and 50 per cent. are concerned with matters directly in line with what the hon. Gentleman has been talking about. It seems to me that the Minister is taking power to apply the provisions of subsection (3) by reference to a substantial and repeated loss of working time in a particular unit. I should like to draw the Minister's attention to the possible need to redefine that phrase, because it seems to me that we are concerned not so much with a loss of working time, as with a loss of production, and I personally should have liked to have seen the phrase "production" used there.

One has to recognise that if one puts a limitation on the power to use the Clause it will be possible for a group of men deliberately to fall outside the limitations imposed by ensuring that by means of a go-slow or work to rule they achieve the same effect but do not bring themselves within the provisions of the Clause.

The other thing which struck me was the hon. Gentleman's view that men will have at the back of their minds the fact that their behaviour might lead them to an action in court. The hon. Gentleman said that as though it is a major disaster that people should find themselves in that situation.

Mr. Carter

It is.

Mr. Mitchell

I am a motorist and, like most hon. Members, I am frequently in a hurry. When that happens, I am tempted to exceed the speed limit and to drive at 60 miles an hour when it would appear safe to do so, but I have at the back of my mind the thought that if I drive at that speed I may find myself faced with an action in court. What influences my decision not to drive at 60 miles an hour in a 30-mile-an-hour limit area is not the fact that I shall be dragged into the court, but the fact that I may face an action in court, and I am sure that other hon. Members find themselves in a similar position.

The hon. Member for Northfield has put his finger on something that is important. That is exactly and precisely what ought to be at the back of people's minds. They ought to remember that if they continually flout the accepted standards there will be some pressure on them to comply with those standards. I therefore believe that it is important to have this Clause in the Bill.

Mr. Carterrose——

Mr. Mitchell

I should like to try to complete a brief intervention without having to give way two or three times.

My point was even more forcefully illustrated when the hon. Member spoke of British industry, particularly the motor industry, of which he has an expert knowledge, moving increasingly into a period of non-stop production. If that is so, it will be even more important to have the right procedures. Where there has been a complete breakdown in the procedures and a continual series of stoppages damaging to the point at which this Clause will operate, it must be right that something is done for the benefit not just of those involved in the disputes but for the far larger number of people, in the motor industry particularly, who cannot work although they are not involved in the dispute.

This kind of situation leads to good trade unionists being sent home. In the case of Vauxhall, 10 men, I think, went on strike and 5,700 were sent home. and another 4,000 put on short time. There was the case of British Leyland, in which five flow-control operators were on strike and 8,000 men were sent home.

It is in the interests of the trade unionists and the workers far more often that there should be effective procedures, so I support the Clause and the addition of the Amendment to ensure an added check that the Clause does not come into operation without all alternatives having been explored.

I put it to my right hon. Friends that there may be a misunderstanding in the Committee. Clarification would be helpful. Hon. Members opposite—the hon. Member for Northfield, I think—may be under the same impression as I was when I first read the Clause. I want to be certain that I am right now. The Clause refers to imposing "provisions". "Provisions", to me and to many hon. Members, implies something more than procedures. The word implies an ability to enforce a rate of pay or a set of working conditions related to a rate of pay, and does not simply mean procedures.

If it means only procedures, may I suggest that many hon. Members will feel much happier with this part of the Bill if the Minister can give us that assurance.

The Solicitor-General

On that point, Clause 35 has in the side notes a reference to "procedural provisions". The word "provisions" appears in fact in Clause 36, which we have not yet reached. But I entirely take my hon. Friend's point that this could lead some people to think that "provisions", particularly in Clause 39, might mean substantive provisions. The intention is that the power of the court should relate only to procedural provisions as recommended by the C.I.R. I think that is right, but in the light of this point, we will look at the matter to make sure that it is set clear beyond doubt.

Mr. Mitchell

I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. Both I and, I think—from the nods of approval which I saw—some hon. Members opposite, are grateful for the clarification. It would be enormously helpful if the drafting could be altered on Report. Although it may be clear to members of the legal profession, certainly, to those of us who are not and to trade unionists who seek to interpret the Bill it would be a great help to have that clarification. It is clear to me that the hon. Member for Northfield was under a misapprehension in the case which he put.

Mr. Heffer

In this and the previous discussion we have had an extensive review of the whole question of the enforcement of procedure agreements under certain conditions. Before coming to the specific points which were raised by the Under-Secretary, I have some general remarks to make on this subject.

The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), like most of his hon. Friends, does not appreciate the deep anxiety that is felt on this side of the Committee about the introduction of law into industrial relations. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) recently pointed out that my hon. Friends and trade unionists throughout the country feel a sense of deep offence at what the Government are doing. I will not labour this point, except to emphasise the revulsion which we feel at the introduction of law into this sphere of industrial relations.

Mr. David Mitchell rose——

Mr. Heffer

I will not give way. I wish to make progress.

Some hon. Gentlemen opposite seem to believe that procedure agreements can, by themselves, solve all the problems of industry. I wish that were true. I am all in favour of improving procedure agreements, but there are special circumstances in each industry which arise from time to time which even the best procedure agreement cannot solve.

Consider the docks. A special type of dirty cargo might arrive and it is possible for such a cargo not to be covered by any agreement. A trade union official will endeavour to negotiate an agreement with the employers, but no agreement may be reached and the workers may refuse to continue working until one is reached. It would not matter in these circumstances what procedure agreement existed urging a continuation of work; work would not be resumed until the matter was settled. This goes to show that in industry we are dealing with human relationships, and this must be borne in mind because it goes to the heart of industrial relations.

We are intrigued by what the Government have called their "long and valuable discussions" with Mr. George Woodcock and other members of the C.I.R. It is as a result of those discussions that this Amendment has been tabled. This must mean that Mr. Woodcock and his colleagues showed a great deal of anxiety about this part of the Bill, obviously because of the introduction of law affecting the whole position of the C.I.R. Obviously they objected to that. After all, they would probably not have taken their jobs had matters been arranged as they will be under the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

As the discussions have been mentioned, I express my regret that we could not have had a transcript of the discussions so that we could know what was said, why the discussions took place, and why ultimately an Amendment was tabled. It seems clear that this is a compromise Amendment arising from the discussions. The fact that members of the Commission felt they had to accept a compromise Amendment does not mean that we must do so.

The Under-Secretary made it clear that paragraph (b) was necessary to give people the right still to make an application to the Industrial Court at any time after notice had been given; he said that that right must continue. If that right must continue, it destroys the hon. Gentleman's whole previous argument.

The Amendment says: The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section by a party other than the Secretary of State unless that party, before making the application, has given notice to the Secretary of State of the proposal to make it … If notice is given, the Secretary of State can invoke his conciliation machinery.

Paragraph (b) says: nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given. It does not matter what efforts are being made by the Department, the party can still go to the court. Therefore, nothing is being given.

We cannot accept the Amendment. It does not make any real improvement. It has been tabled merely to placate some of the members of the C.I.R. who expressed genuine concern. It does not placate us. It does not solve the problem. I therefore ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against it.

Mr. Dudley Smith

We have had a valuable debate. I welcome the comments made by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) in another of his very effective speeches in these proceedings. It is pleasing to hear such good sense coming from the benches opposite, although we appreciate the feelings of other hon. Gentlemen who speak with equal sincerity.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heifer) spoke about the discussions with the C.I.R. Obviously the discussions my right hon. Friend has had must be confidential, as would be discussions held by any Minister in any Government, because it would be intolerable if such discussions were published: nobody would have detailed discussions with a Minister unless there were that understanding. We welcome the advice of and opportunity for consultation with any organisation, including the C.I.R.

My hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) asked me whether in subsection (3)(b) the word "production" should be substituted for "working time". "Unit" need not be a production unit. It could be a service unit, which would probably not be covered. However, my hon. Friend may have a point here. Without any commitment, we will examine the point.

Mr. Sillars

What do the Government mean by "notice"? Is it 24 hours, 48 hours, two months, three months or what?

Mr. Smith

I imagine that it is sufficient time to notify what is going on. I would have thought that was reasonably clear.

The debate underlines that the Amendment is needed. If it is made, it will impose an important condition, that conciliation processes should be first attempted as a condition of any reference to the C.I.R. This is important in view of all the parties that will be affected by the provisions of the Bill. Therefore, I recommend to hon. Members, even hon. Members opposite who are not in favour of the Bill as a whole, that the Amendment is a useful provision, bearing in hope that they will find it in their hearts not to vote against it.

Mr. Robert Edwards

Far be it from me to hold up the Divison on the Amendment, but one or two points that have arisen in the debate should be studied.

We have been asked why we oppose an Amendment which looks quite reasonable. We know that legislation like this operates in many countries and does not stop industrial disputes there; in all those countries they have more industrial disputes than we have. I remember a case in Southern Ireland only last year when a shop steward was sacked and the convenor of the shop stewards told the management, "You cannot sack Bill Jones". The management replied that he was sacked, and the convenor said, "We have a strike in this factory". He was dragged before the courts under legislation of this kind and was fined £40. In fact he went to prison instead, but his employers paid the fine because they said, "We cannot do without this man, because no work is being done in the factory". That is what will happen all over this country if the Government try to impose legislation of this kind.

Why are we opposed to the Bill and the Amendment? Because we do not believe in the Government's sincerity. They do not believe in consultation. What are they doing about the postal strike if they believe in consultation?

An Hon. Member

What about agreements?

Mr. Edwards

We have had a postal strike for 14 days and no one is trying to end it. That is why we doubt the Government's sincerity.

The hon. Member for Barry (Mr. Gower), for example, talked about the Government's wanting to help the trade unions. He told us that he went to an international motor show in Geneva and found that the delivery of British cars was late, while the marvellous German workers in Volkswagen were providing delivery on the spot. What the hon. Gentleman did not say was that the German car workers get £60 a week,

Division No. 118.] AYES [10.26 p.m.
Adley, Robert Coombs, Derek Gurden, Harold
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Cooper, A. E. Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hall, John (Wycombe)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Cormack, Patrick Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Costain, A. P. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Astor, John Critchley, Julian Hannam, John (Exeter)
Atkins, Humphrey Crouch, David Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
Awdry, Daniel Crowder, F. P. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Curran, Charles Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Dalkeith, Earl of Haselhurst, Alan
Balniel, Lord Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hastings, Stephen
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Havers, Michael
Batsford, Brian d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Hay, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Dean, Paul Hayhoe, Barney
Bell, Ronald Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Digby, Simon Wingfield Heseltine, Michael
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Dixon, Piers Hicks, Robert
Benyon, W. Dodds-Parker, Douglas Higgins, Terence L.
Berry, Hn. Anthony Drayson, G. B. Hiley, Joseph
Biffen, John du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hill, John E. R. (Norfolk, S.)
Biggs-Davison, John Eden, Sir John Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Blaker, Peter Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Holland, Philip
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Eliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Holt, Miss Mary
Body, Richard Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hooson, Emlyn
Boscawen, Robert Emery, Peter Hordern, Peter
Bossom, Sir Clive Farr, John Hornby, Richard
Bowden, Andrew Fell, Anthony Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Brain, Bernard Fidler, Michael Howell, David (Guildford)
Bray, Ronald Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Brewis, John Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Hunt, John
Brinton, Sir Tatton Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Hutchinson, Michael Clark
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Fookes, Miss Janet Iremonger, T. L.
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fortescue, Tim James, David
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Foster, Sir John Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Bryan, Paul Fowler, Norman Jessel, Toby
Buchan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Fox, Marcus Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Buck, Antony Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Johnson, Russell (Inverness)
Bullus, Sir Eric Fry, Peter Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Burden, F. A. Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Jopling, Michael
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gardner, Edward Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Gibson-Watt, David Kaberry, Sir Donald
Carlisle, Mark Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Kershaw, Anthony
Cary, Sir Robert Glyn, Dr. Alan Kilfedder, James
Channon, Paul Goodhart, Phillip Kimball, Marcus
Chapman, Sydney Goodhew, Victor King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Gorst, John King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Chichester-Clarke, R. Gower, Raymond Kinsey, J. R.
Churchill, W. S. Gray, Hamish Kitson, Timothy
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Green, Alan Knight, Mrs. Jill
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Grieve, Percy Knox, David
Clegg, Walter Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Lambton, Antony
Cockeram, Eric Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Lane, David
Cooke, Robert Grylls, Michael Langford-Holt, Sir John
Cooke, Robert Gummer, Selwyn Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry

twice as much as the British car workers, and they control the factory, because they have co-determination. If we want proper delivery we must give the motor car workers some participation in the industry.

Those are the relevant points in a debate like this. We do not believe in the Government's sincerity. We think that they are trying to undermine the unions to keep down the real incomes of the British people.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 311, Noes 264.

Le Marchant, Spencer Pardoe, John Steel, David
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Longden, Gilbert Peel, John Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Loveridge, John Percival, Ian Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
MacArthur, Ian Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Stokes, John
McCrindle, R. A. Pike, Miss Mervyn Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
McLaren, Martin Pink, R. Bonner Sutcliffe, John
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Pounder, Rafton Tapsell, Peter
McMaster, Stanley Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Price, David (Eastleigh) Taylor, Edward M, (G'gow, Cathcart)
McNair-Wilson, Michael Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Proudfoot, Wilfred Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Madden, Martin Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Tebbit, Norman
Madel, David Quennell, Miss J. M. Temple, John M.
Maginnis, John E. Raison, Timothy Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Marten, Neil Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Mather, Carol Redmond, Robert Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Maude, Angus Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Tilney, John
Mawby, Ray Rees, Peter (Dover) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Rees-Davies, W. R. Trew, Peter
Meyer, Sir Anthony Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Tugendhat, Christopher
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Miscampbell, Norman Ridsdale, Julian Vickers, Dame Joan
Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshlre,W) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Waddington, David
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Moate, Roger Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Molyneaux, James Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Wall, Patrick
Money, Ernie Rost, Peter Walters, Dennis
Monks, Mrs. Connie Royle, Anthony Ward, Dame Irene
Montgomery, Fergus Russell, Sir Ronald Warren, Kenneth
More, Jasper St. John-Stevas, Norman Weatherill, Bernard
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Scott, Nicholas White, Roger (Gravesend)
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Scott-Hopkins, James Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Mudd, David Sharples, Richard Wiggin, Jerry
Murton, Oscar Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wilkinson, John
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Shelton, William (Clapham) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Neave, Airey Simeons, Charles Wood, Rt. Hn. Sir Richard
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Sinclair, Sir George Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Skeet, T. H. H. Woodnutt, Mark
Normanton, Tom Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Worsley, Marcus
Nott, John Soref, Harold Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Onslow, Cranley Speed, Keith Younger, Hn. George
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Spence, John
Osborn, John Sproat, Iain TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Stainton, Keith Mr. Hector Monro and
Page, Graham (Crosby) Stanbrook, Ivor M. Paul Hawkins.
Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Abse, Leo Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Albu, Austen Carter Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Driberg, Tom
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Duffy, A. E. P.
Allen, Scholefield Clark, David (Colne Valley) Dunn, James A.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Dunnett, Jack
Armstrong, Ernest Cohen, Stanley Eadie, Alex
Ashley, Jack Coleman, Donald Edelman, Maurice
Ashton, Joe Concannon, J. D. Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Atkinson, Norman Conlan, Bernard Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Corbet, Mrs. Freda Ellis, Tom
Barnes, Michael Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) English, Michael
Barnett, Joel Crawshaw, Richard Evans, Fred
Beaney, Alan Cronin, John Fernyhough, E.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Bidwell, Sydney Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bishop, E. S. Dalyell, Tam Foley, Maurice
Blenkinsop, Arthur Darling, Rt. Hn. George Foot, Michael
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Davidson, Arthur Ford, Ben
Booth, Albert Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Forrester, John
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Fraser, John (Norwood)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Freeson, Reginald
Bradley, Tom Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Galpern, Sir Myer
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Garrett, W. E.
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Deakins, Eric Gilbert, Dr. John
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Ginsburg, David
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Delargy, N. J. Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Gourlay, Harry
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Dempsey, James Grant, George (Morpeth)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Doig, Peter Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Cant, R. B. Dormand, J. D. Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Carmichael, Neil Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mackenzie, Gregor Robertson, John (Paisley)
Hamling, William Mackie, John Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mackintosh, John P. Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Hardy, Peter Maclennan, Robert Roper, John
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Rose, Paul B.
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith McNamara, J. Kevin Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Hattersley, Roy MacPherson, Malcolm Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Heffer, Eric S. Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Hilton, W. S. Marks, Kenneth Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Horam, John Marquand, David Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Huckfield, Leslie Mayhew, Christopher Sillars, James
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Meacher, Michael Silverman, Julius
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Skinner, Dennis
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mendelson, John Small, William
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mikardo, Ian Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Hunter, Adam Millan, Bruce Spearing, Nigel
Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur(Edge Hill) Miller, Dr. M. S. Spriggs, Leslie
Janner, Greville Milne, Edward (Blyth) Stallard, A. W.
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Molloy, William Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Morris, Alfred (Wythenchawe) Strang, Gavin
Jenkins, Rt, Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
John, Brymor Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Moyle, Roland Swain, Thomas
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Taverne, Dick
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Murray, Ronald King Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Janes, Barry (Flint, E.) Ogden, Eric Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) O'Halloran, Michael Tinn, James
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) Oram, Bert Tomney, Frank
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Orbach, Maurice Torney, Tom
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Orme, Stanley Tuck, Raphael
Judd, Frank Oswald, Thomas Urwin, T. W.
Kaufman, Gerald Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Varley, Eric G.
Kelley, Richard Padley, Walter Wainwright, Edwin
Kinnock, Neil Palmer, Arthur Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lambie, David Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Lamond, James Parker, John (Dagenham) Wallace, George
Latham, Arthur Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Watkins, David
Lawson, George Pavitt, Laurie Weitzman, David
Leadbitter, Ted Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Wellbeloved, James
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Pendry, Tom Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Leonard, Dick Pentland, Norman White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)
Lestor, Miss Joan Perry, Ernest G. Whitehead, Phillip
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg Whitlock, William
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Prescott, John Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Lipton, Marcus Price, William (Rugby) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Lomas, Kenneth Probert, Arthur Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Loughlin, Charles Rankin, John Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Woof, Robert
McBride, Neil Rhodes, Geoffrey
McCartney, Hugh Richard, Ivor TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McElhone, Frank Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Mr. Joseph Harper and
McGuire, Michael Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Mr. John Golding.

Further Amendment made: No. 712, in page 25, line 29, at beginning insert: Subject to the last preceding subsection".—[Mr. Dudley Smith.]

Amendment No. 676 proposed: In page 25, line 38, leave out from first 'the' to end of subsection and insert:

Division No. 119.] AYES [10.38 p.m.
Abse, Leo Barnett, Joel Bradley, Tom
Albu, Austen Beaney, Alan Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven)
Allen, Scholefield Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Bidwell, Sydney Buchan, Norman
Armstrong, Ernest Bishop, E. S. Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Ashley, Jack Blenkinsop, Arthur Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Ashton, Joe Boardman, H. (Leigh) Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James
Atkinson, Norman Booth, Albert Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Cant, R. B.
Barnes, Michael Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Carmichael, Neil

"Commission should put to the representative bodies in the industry proposals for reform and seek to obtain their implementation by voluntary agreement".—[Mrs. Castle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 263, Noes 311.

Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Padley, Walter
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Palmer, Arthur
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Hunter, Adam Parker, John (Dagenham)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cohen, Stanley Janner, Greville Pavitt, Laurie
Coleman, Donald Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Concannon, J. D. Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) Pendry, Tom
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pentland, Norman
Corbel, Mrs. Freda Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Perry, Ernest G.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) John, Brynmor Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Crawshaw, Richard Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Prescott, John
Cronin, John Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Price, William (Rugby)
Cunningham, G. (Ilington, S.W.) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Probert, Arthur
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rankin, John
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Davidson, Arthur Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Judd, Frank Richard, Ivor
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kaufman, Gerald Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Kelley, Richard Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Kinnock, Neil Robertson, John (Paisley)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lamble, David Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Deakins, Eric Lamond, James Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Latham, Arthur Roper, John
Delargy, H. J. Lawson, George Rose, Paul B.
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Leadbitter, Ted Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Dempsey, James Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Doig, Peter Leonard, Dick Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Dormand, J. D. Lestor, Miss Joan Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Driberg, Tom Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lipton, Marcus Sillars, James
Dunn, James A. Lomas, Kenneth Silverman Julius
Dunnett, Jack Loughlin, Charles Skinner, Dennis
Eadie, Alex Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Small, William
Edelman, Maurice Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McBride, Neil Spearing, Nigel
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McCartney, Hugh Spriggs, Leslie
Ellis, Tom McElhone, Frank Stallard, A. W.
English, Michael McGuire, Michael Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Evans, Fred Mackenzie, Gregor Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Fernyhough, E. Mackie, John Strang, Gavin
Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Mackintosh, John P. Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Maclennan, Robert Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Swain, Thomas
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McNamara, J. Kevin Taverne, Dick
Foley, Maurice MacPherson, Malcolm Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Foot, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Ford, Ben Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Tinn, James
Forrester, John Marks, Kenneth Torney, Tom
Fraser, John (Norwood) Marquand, David Tuck, Raphael
Freeson, Reginald Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Urwin, T. W.
Galpern, Sir Myer Mayhew, Christopher Varley, Eric G.
Gilbert, Dr. John Meacher, Michael Wainwright, Edwin
Ginsburg, David Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mendelson, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Gourlay, Harry Mikardo, Ian Wallace, George
Grant, George (Morpeth) Millan, Bruce Watkins, David
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Miller, Dr. M. S. Weitzman, David
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wellbeloved, James
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Molloy, William Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Hamling, William Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Whitehead, Phillip
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Whitlock, William
Hardy, Peter Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Moyle, Roland Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Hattersley, Roy Murray, Ronald King Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Healey, R. Hn. Denis Ogden, Eric Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Heffer, Eric S. O'Halloran, Michael Woof, Robert
Hilton, W. S. Oram, Bert
Horam, John Orbach, Maurice TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Orme, Stanley Mr.Joseph Harper and
Huckfield, Leslie Oswald, Thomas Mr. John Golding.
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Adley, Robert Astor, John Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Atkins, Humphrey Balniel, Lord
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Awdry, Daniel Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Batsford, Brian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maginnis, John E.
Bell, Ronald Glyn, Dr. Alan Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Goodhart, Philip Marten, Neil
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Goodhew, Victor Mather, Carol
Benyon, W. Gorst, John Maude, Angus
Berry, Hn. Anthony Gower, Raymond Mawby, Ray
Biffen, John Gray, Hamish Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Biggs-Davison, John Green, Alan Meyer, Sir Anthony
Blaker, Peter Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Body, Richard Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Miscampbell, Norman
Boscawen, Robert Grylls, Michael Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W.)
Bossom, Sir Clive Gummer, Selwyn Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gurden, Harold Moate, Roger
Braine, Bernard Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Molyneaux, James
Bray, Ronald Hall, John (Wycombe) Money, Ernie
Brewis, John Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Monks, Mrs. Connie
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monro, Hector
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hannam, John (Exeter) Montgomery, Fergus
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Bryan, Paul Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Haselhurst, Alan Mudd, David
Buck, Antony Hastings, Stephen Murton, Oscar
Bullus, Sir Eric Havers, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Burden, F. A. Hawkins, Paul Neave, Airey
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hay, John Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Hayhoe, Barney Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Carlisle, Mark Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Normanton, Tom
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Heseltine, Michael Nott, John
Cary, Sir Robert Hicks, Robert Onslow, Cranley
Channon, Paul Higgins, Terence L. Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Chapman, Sydney Hiley, Joseph Osborn, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Chichester-Clark, R. Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Churchill, W. S. Holland, Philip Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Holt, Miss Mary Pardoe, John
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hooson, Emlyn Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Clegg, Walter Hordern, Peter Peel, John
Cockeram, Eric Hornby, Richard Percival, Ian
Cooke, Robert Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Coombs, Derek Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cooper, A. E. Howell, David (Guildford) Pink, R. Bonner
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Pounder, Rafton
Cormack, Patrick Hunt, John Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Costain, A. P. Hutchison, Michael Clark Price, David (Eastleigh)
Critchley, Julian Iremonger, T. L. Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Crouch, David James, David Proudfoot, Wilfred
Crowder, F. P. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Curran, Charles Jessel, Toby Quennell, Miss J. M.
Dalkeith, Earl of Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Raison, Timothy
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Jopling, Michael Redmond, Robert
Dean, Paul Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees, Peter (Dover)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dixon, Piers Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kilfedder, James Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Drayson, G. B. Kimball, Marcus Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ridsdale, Julian
Eden, Sir John King, Tom (Bridgwater) Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kinsey, J. R. Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kitson, Timothy Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Knight, Mrs. Jill Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Emery, Peter Knox, David Rost, Peter
Eyre, Reginald Lambton, Antony Royle, Anthony
Farr, John Lane, David Russell, Sir Ronald
Fell, Anthony Langford-Holt, Sir John St. John-Stevas, Norman
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Fidler, Michael Le Marchant, Spencer Scott, Nicholas
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott-Hopkins, James
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Sharples, Richard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Longden, Gilbert Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fookes, Miss Janet Loveridge, John Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fortescue, Tim MacArthur, Ian Simeons, Charles
Foster, Sir John McCrindle, R. A. Sinclair, Sir George
Fowler, Norman McLaren, Martin Skeet, T. H. H.
Fox, Marcus Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) McMaster, Stanley Soref, Harold
Fry, Peter Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Spence, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McNair-Wilson, Michael Sproat, Iain
Gardner, Edward McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Stainton, Keith
Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin Stanbrook, Ivor
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Madel, David Steel, David
Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Tilney, John Wells, John (Maidstone)
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Trafford, Dr. Anthony White, Roger (Gravesend)
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Trew, Peter Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Stokes, John Tugendhat, Christopher Wiggin, Jerry
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wilkinson, John
Sutcliffe, John Vaughan, Dr. Gerard Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Tapsell, Peter Vickers, Dame Joan Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Waddington, David Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart) Walder, David (Clitheroe) Woodnutt, Mark
Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) Worsley, Marcus
Tebbit, Norman Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Temple, John M. Wall, Patrick Younger, Hn. George
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Walters, Dennis
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) Ward, Dame Irene TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) Warren, Kenneth Mr. Jasper More and
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Weatherill, Bernard Mr. Keith Speed.
Mr. Tom Normanton (Cheadle)

I beg to move Amendment No. 716, in page 25, lin 44, at end add: 'or a number of undertakings all of which are members of one employers' association, or part of those undertakings'. In moving my Amendment, I do not detract a word from my support for the Bill presented by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, and I support not only the principles of the Bill but the objectives which my right hon. Friend is determined to achieve.

Our present industrial relations legislation is more related to the conditions of the Tolpuddle Martyrs than many people would have us believe. It is natural and logical that the legislative proposals in the Bill should be seen by many people, and certainly by hon. Members opposite, as at best novel and at worst revolutionary, but I suggest to my right hon. Friend that he should not, and would not wish to, throw overboard such industrial relations practices as are relevant and seen to operate successfully in the context of collective bargaining.

As a relatively new Member of the House, I feel it incumbent on me to comment on the kind of observations made by hon. Members opposite in the context of their experience of industrial relations and to say that I and my hon. Friends take the strongest possible exception to the way they have assumed with arrogance that they and they alone have any experience in industrial relations. This is not a true reflection, and they know it.

It is essential that I should, briefly and with sincere modesty, present my credentials for moving this Amendment. I do so on the basis of a lifetime spent in the industry I continue to serve. I have served in the cotton and man-made textile industry from the shop floor where I learnt my technical skills and practical knowledge of contact with men and women and served as chairman of the local employers' association. I have served and still serve at national level as chairman or president of the employers' association covering my industry. I say this, I repeat, with modesty, by way of pointing out the arrogance which is coming from the other side of the Committee and which is totally irrelevant and will be ignored on these benches.

I also wish to place on record, because I am sure my trade union friends—and I choose that word advisedly—will appreciate it, that my industry's record in industrial relations has for generations been the envy of bigger and more important industries in this country. It is one of which the employers' and trade union representatives for the industry responsible for negotiations, are justifiably proud. The keynote of the basis of our success in industrial relations and the total absence of strikes in our industry for many years—and that is relevant to Clause 35—is that we have continued and feel bound to continue the practices of central negotiation which apply throughout all member firms covered by our association and also cover the whole membership of the trade unions with which we negotiate. I am certain that that is a major contributory factor to the peace in my section of industry.

The coming into operation of the Industrial Relations Bill is no ground, as can be seen, either by responsible trade union leaders, with whom I am in the closest contact, or by employers in my industry, for fear, panic, or, indeed, strike or major dissention. But I suggest that it is essential that procedures for dealing with problems should preferably be effective and simple to operate—[Interruptionj—I know that words along those lines, "simple to operate and to understand", have been voiced not only from this side, but from the other side of the Committee.

Clause 35 deals with action to be taken where procedural agreements prove defective. I do not consider that my industry has any evidence of procedural agreements being non-existent.

Mr. Orme

Then why is the hon. Gentleman moving the Amendment?

Mr. Normanton

I note that all references to negotiations in Clause 35 relate to "the undertaking". About 120,000 men and women are employed in my industry, and procedural agreements are negotiated by the Textile Employers' Association. It therefore seems illogical and highly undesirable that the same employers should not be in a position to call in aid the remedial procedures outlined in the Clause.

Mr. McNamara

The hon. Gentleman has used the word "undertaking". In the last debate I asked the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend what "undertaking" meant. As the hon. Gentleman is now referring to and developing an argument on "undertaking", perhaps he will tell us what he means by it and perhaps his right hon. Friend will tell him whether he is right or wrong?

Mr. Normanton

I certainly will, in the course of what I propose to say in moving the Amendment. If I fail to do so, the hon. Gentleman will be at liberty to come back to me and ask me to comment specifically if he considers it an omission with intent or indeed a failure on my part for one reason or another.

Sir D. Walker-Smith

If my hon. Friend will refer his interrogator to the interpretation Clause, Clause 148, he will see that that gives the definition of "undertaking".

Mr. Normanton

I thank my right hon. and learned Friend for intervening on my behalf. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will take note of it.

The Secretary of State clearly and, I suggest, logically is anxious to find and use a form of wording for the Clause which he regards, and hopes will be seen, as universally applicable to all industries in Britain. The term "undertaking", I presume, is therefore appropriate within the context of the Clause and will fulfil the requirements of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General when he seeks to use a word of universal applicability.

The cotton and man-made fibre textile processing industry, the wool industry, and the pottery industry are three examples of British industry, not inconsiderable in size compared with most British industry, which have certain characteristics which single them out from the general run of industry. They are made up of small units. They are small units technically, and in terms of numbers, employing between 150 and 300 men and women in each of these independent separate units. They also have in common the fact that they are large in number. There are a large number of these small units, or undertakings, whichever choice of words is appropriate under the circumstances, throughout the whole of any one section of the industry. They are small firms by commercial standards. The units, or, as I prefer to call them, and as the Bill refers to them in my context, undertakings, have the characteristic of homogeneity in the respect that technically they are alike. They have the same structure of machinery and system of processing. They have the same staffing, the same system of wages, payments and bonuses. They have the same system for the employment and deployment of all persons employed on the premises, and they have the same trade union representation at national level.

11.0 p.m.

They have a fifth characteristic which we feel is relevant to the Amendment. If difficulties or problems arise at one of these plants or undertakings, invariably in practice that is reflected, as it were, at plants through the length and breadth of the industry as a whole at that section of the staffing or the structure of the organisation. Under those conditions, I suggest that some co-ordination is surely desirable to remedy these defects.

Mr. Orme

Why is the hon. Gentleman so worried about plant bargaining taking place in the industry about which he is talking? This is happening in industry at the moment. Is the hon. Gentleman afraid that if plant bargaining was allowed this would lead to higher wages than those being paid collectively at the moment?

Mr. Normanton

If I may reply obliquely to the hon. Gentleman, I suggest that that is not relevant to the Amendment, for the good reason that the procedural agreements which are in existence are effective in operation and are welcomed by the trade unions and employers' associations alike, and it is for that reason that I am asking the Committee to accept the Amendment in the terms in which it is couched.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs (St. Helens)

The hon. Gentleman has made a speech during which he has proved conclusively that his right hon. Friend is wrong in bringing forward trade union legislation. He has proved that in the textile and fibre industry no such legislation has ever been necessary. Will the hon. Gentleman's right hon. Friend take note of what he has said?

Mr. Normanton

I thank the hon. Gentleman for that comment. I am sure that he must have ignored the opening remarks of my speech, which made it abundantly clear that I wholeheartedly support the principles and the objectives of the Bill, and in so doing I assure the Committee that there is more widespread support for this Measure amongst employers and trade union members than hon. Gentlemen opposite would have the Committee believe.

I can illustrate my point by saying that in the weaving section of the industry there are 350 separate undertakings or units, all with identical qualities or characteristics. At each mill there are overlookers, twisters and drawers. For the benefit of the right hon. Member the Leader of the Opposition, I should point out that they have no connection with the travel agency to which he referred the other day. All these mills have reachersin. There are also about 150 spinning mills in operation. All have strippers and grinders—who have no relevance to the West End of London but are of tremendous technical and industrial importance in the North-West. All are in craft unions, and are responsible men.

Under the Clause any remedial action required to be taken in connection with procedures—and that has no connection with stripping or grinding—would, in practice, have to be taken by as many as 200 or 200 separate employers. I strongly suggest that the making of such references would inundate the Secretary of State and the Industrial Relations Court, and would certainly swamp the Commission in Industrial Relations. I submit that the Amendment is the only practicable way in which we can deal with the special situation to which I have referred—special in the sense that all three industries enjoy the characteristics of homogeneity.

In terms of subsection (4) the Amendment would be permissive and not mandatory for the Secretary of State and the Industrial Relations Court. It would be highly undesirable if such an Amendment were allowed to open a gate through which the whole of British industry could pass.

I submit that there are four main reasons to justify the acceptance of the Amendment. First, the Bill aims to promote and facilitate collective bar- gaining, and I assure the Committee that the Amendment would enable the employers' associations, in close collaboration with their trade union opposite numbers, to promote effective collective bargaining. Second, the Amendment would leave absolute discretion, in terms of further references, in the hands of the Secretary of State and, through him, the Industrial Relations Court. They would not go as of right through the Industrial Relations Court to the Commission.

Third, the Amendment will not impose a procedure on an unwilling group of employers or unionists in the industries to which I refer. Fourth, the Amendment will strengthen, not weaken, the existing long-standing prudent proceedings for efficient collective negotiations and would deal with defects in the application of centrally-negotiated agreements which must continue for the benefit of the trade unions, the employers' associations and union members.

I hope that the Solicitor-General will at least give further thought to this. I know that he has already given considerable thought to it, but I hope that, on reflection, he will be prepared to try to find some means of achieving this object, to the advantage of three identifiably important sections of industry, without prejudicing the effectiveness of Clause 35.

The Solicitor-General rose——

Mr. Ian Mikardo (Poplar)

On a point of order. Would it be possible for you, Sir Robert, with your authority, to arrange that the speech to which we have just listened be transmitted direct to the Cheadle and Gatley Courier and the Textile Weekly Gazette, without being processed through HANSARD?

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

The hon. Gentleman is as good a Parliamentarian as any in the House, and knows quite well that that is not a point of order.

The Solicitor-General

My hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Norman-ton) has underlined the value and importance of industry-wide agreements, unenforceable but honoured and respected as they are. But he has not made out a case for enforcing these—[Laughter.] I am glad that I have the support of hon. Members opposite. The provisions of this Clause are designed to be used in special cases according to exacting criteria and in situations where voluntary agreements have broken down. They cannot and need not be extended to wider ranges than the particular units we are suggesting they apply to.

It cannot be accepted by the Committee that something which is designed to apply by reference to specific and exacting criteria should be applied across the whole breadth of an employers' association, in particular if the situation is such as my hon. Friend describes, where a voluntary system is working well. If a situation were to develop in any industry where the provisions of Clause 35 have not been invoked, it could be extended thereafter if it proved necessary. But I cannot commend the Amendment to the Committee.

11.15 p.m.

Mr. James Lamond (Oldham, East)

I congratulate the Solicitor-General on refusing to accept the Amendment and I rise simply to correct a point which the hon. Member for Cheadle (Mr. Norman-ton) made on at least two occasions during his remarks.

Nobody would challenge the credentials of the hon. Gentleman to speak on behalf of the employers' organisation in the textile industry. On the other hand, I want to know why he thinks he can speak on behalf of trade unionists in this industry. I am sure that he would not wish to mislead the Committee, certainly not knowingly. I will, therefore, quote two passages from the submissions made by the National Union of Textile and Allied Workers about the Bill. The hon. Member for Normanton gave the impression that many responsible trade unionists in this industry supported not only his Amendment but also the Bill in its entirety. At the end of its submissions, this union commented: The general feeling of this trade union is that this attempt to resolve the problems of industry by legislation would be harmful in general but particularly to this union. In other words, not only does it object to the Bill in general, but it objects also because of the harm it would do to the union in particular. It went on: We do not see the present Bill as suitable to meet the problem, and very much regret the need to spend so much time of too many people on this abortive approach to the very wide problems of industrial relations. No condemnation of mine could refute more accurately the statements which the hon. Member for Normanton made, no doubt unwittingly, but which may have mislead the Committee.

Sir Harmar Nicholls

This short intervention will not be popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite—[Interruption.]but I am not concerned with them, and if they will be quiet and listen for a moment they will realise why, including the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle).

The contribution of the hon. Member for Oldham, East (Mr. Lamond) was entirely proper, because he gave an answer to a case which had been made out by my hon. Friend the Member for Cheadle (Mr. Normanton). I have no complaint with that. However, I have real complaint—and I could not sit silently without commenting on it—with the superior, arrogant and intolerant way in which hon. Gentlemen opposite received my hon. Friend's speech.[Interruption.]

My hon. Friend came here to put a case [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."]—I said that my intervention would not be popular with hon. Gentlemen opposite—and he went to a great deal of trouble to see that it was put in a proper form. But the whole demeanour of hon. Gentlemen opposite was that my hon. Friend was intruding. But, feeling as my hon. Friend does about this, he was entitled to put his case, and he did so. The superior arrogance of hon. Gentlemen opposite is no compliment to Parliament.

Mr. Ashton

I, too, will be brief, mainly because the guillotine is about to fall. It annoys us when hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not taken part in our proceedings for several days finally come here, as the guillotine is about to fall, and spend our valuable time moving Amendments which the Government reject.

Mr. Normanton

If the imputation is that I have come here just for the purpose of moving this Amendment, that is inaccurate, as hon. Members who have been here throughout the Committee stage on the Bill will confirm. What the hon. Gentleman said is a slander and is far from the truth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] I make it clear that this is a matter which I have sought and will continue to seek to present to the Committee within the context of the Bill. I have on several other occasions tabled Amendments which have not been called. It ill behoves any hon. Member opposite to make that kind of comment.

Whilst expressing considerable disappointment at the response of my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General

Division No. 120.] AYES [11.24 p.m.
Adley, Robert Critchley, Julian Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Crouch, David Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Crowder, F. P. Haselhurst, Alan
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Curran, Charles Hastings, Stephen
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Dalkeith, Earl of Havers, Michael
Astor, John d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hawkins, Paul
Atkins, Humphrey d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Hayhoe, Barney
Awdry, Daniel Dean, Paul Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Heseltine, Michael
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Digby, Simon Wingfield Hicks, Robert
Balniel, Lord Dixon, Piers Higgins, Terence L.
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hiley, Joseph
Batsford, Brian Drayson, G. B. Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Bell, Ronald Dykes, Hugh Holland, Philip
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Eden, Sir John Holt, Miss Mary
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Hooson, Emlyn
Benyon, W. Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hordern, Peter
Berry, Hn. Anthony Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hornby, Richard
Biffen, John Emery, Peter Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia
Biggs-Davison, John Eyre, Reginald Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Blaker, Peter Farr, John Howell, David (Guildford)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Fell, Anthony Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Body, Richard Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Hunt, John
Boscawen, Robert Fidler, Michael Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bossom, Sir Clive Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Iremonger, T. L.
Bowden, Andrew Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) James, David
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Braine, Bernard Fookes, Miss Janet Jessel, Toby
Bray, Ronald Foster, Sir John Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Brewis, John Fowler, Norman Johnston, Russell (Inverness)
Brinton, Sir Tatton Fox, Marcus Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) Jopling, Michael
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Fry, Peter Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Kaberry, Sir Donald
Bryan, Paul Gardner, Edward Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Gibson-Watt, David Kershaw, Anthony
Buck, Antony Gibson-Watt, David Kilfedder, James
Bullus, Sir Eric Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Kimball, Marcus
Burden, F. A. Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Glyn, Dr. Alan King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn) Goodhart, Philip Kinsey, J. R.
Carlisle, Mark Godhew, Victor Kitson, Timothy
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Gorst, John Knight, Mrs. Jill
Channon, Paul Gower, Raymond Knox, David
Chapman, Sydney Gray, Hamish Lambton, Antony
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Green, Alan Lane, David
Chichester-Clark, R. Grieve, Percy Langford-Holt, Sir John
Churchill, W. S. Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Le Marchant, Spencer
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Grylls, Michael Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Clegg, Walter Gummer, Selwyn Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Cockeram, Eric Gurden, Harold Longden, Gilbert
Cooke, Robert Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Loveridge, John
Coombs, Derek Hall, John (Wycombe) MacArthur, Ian
Cooper, A. E. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. McCrindle, R. A.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) McLaren, Martin
Cormack, Patrick Hannam, John (Exeter) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Costain, A. P. Harrison, Brian (Maldon) McMaster, Stanley

in reply to my Amendment, in view of discussions which have obviously built up I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

The Chairman (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Is it your pleasure that the Amendment be withdrawn?

Hon. Members


Amendment negatived.

Question put, That the Clause, as amended, stand part of the Bill:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 311, Noes 264.

Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Pike, Miss Mervyn Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
McNair-Wilson, Michael Pink, R. Bonner Stokes, John
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest) Pounder, Rafton Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Maddan, Martin Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Sutcliffe, John
Madel, David Price, David (Eastleigh) Tapsell, Peter
Maginnis, John E. Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Proudfoot, Wilfred Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)
Marten, Neil Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Mather, Carol Quennell, Miss J. M. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Maude, Angus Raison, Timothy Tebbit, Norman
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Temple, John M.
Mawby, Ray Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Redmond, Robert Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Meyer, Sir Anthony Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Mills, Peter (Torrington) Rees, Peter (Dover) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Rees-Davies, W. R. Tilney, John
Miscampbell, Norman Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Trew, Peter
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Tugendhat, Christopher
Moate, Roger Ridsdale, Julian Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Molyneaux, James Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Money, Ernie Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Vickers, Dame Joan
Monks, Mrs. Connie Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Waddington, David
Monro, Hector Rost, Peter Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Montgomery, Fergus Royle, Anthony Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
More, Jasper Russell, Sir Ronald Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) St. John-Stevas, Norman Wall, Patrick
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Sandys, Rt. Hn. D. Walters, Dennis
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Scott, Nicholas Ward, Dame Irene
Mudd, David Scott-Hopkins, James Warren, Kenneth
Murton, Oscar Sharples, Richard Weatherill, Bernard
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Neave, Airey Shelton, William (Clapham) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Simeons, Charles Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Normanton, Tom Sinclair, Sir George Wiggin, Jerry
Nott, John Skeet, T. H. H. Wilkinson, John
Onslow, Cranley Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Soref, Harold Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Osborn, John Speed, Keith Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Spence, John Woodnutt, Mark
Page, Graham (Crosby) Sproat, Iain Worsley, Marcus
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Stainton, Keith Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Stanbrook, Ivor Younger, Hn. George
Peel, John Steel, David TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Percival, Ian Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Mr. Hugh Rossi.
Abse, Leo Clark, David (Colne Valley) Edelman, Maurice
Albu, Austen Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cohen, Stanley Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Allen, Scholefield Coleman, Donald Ellis, Tom
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Concannon, J. D. English, Michael
Armstrong, Ernest Conlan, Bernard Evans, Fred
Ashton, Joe Corbet, Mrs. Freda Fernyhough, E.
Atkinson, Norman Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Crawshaw, Richard Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Barnes, Michael Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Barnett, Joel Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Beaney, Alan Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Foley, Maurice
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Dalyell, Tam Foot, Michael
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Darling, Rt. Hn. George Ford, Ben
Bidwell, Sydney Davidson, Arthur Forrester, John
Bishop, E. S. Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Fraser, John (Norwood)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Freeson, Reginald
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Galpern, Sir Myer
Booth, Albert Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Garrett, W. E.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Gilbert, Dr. John
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Deakins, Eric Ginsburg, David
Bradley, Tom de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Delargy, H. J. Gourlay, Harry
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Grant, George (Morpeth)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Dempsey, James Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Buchan, Norman Doig, Peter Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Butchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Dormand, J. D. Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hamling, William
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Driberg, Tom Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Cant, R. B. Duffy, A. E. P. Hardy, Peter
Carmichael, Neil Dunn, James A. Harper, Joseph
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Dunnett, Jack Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Eadie, Alex Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Hattersley, Roy McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Roper, John
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis McNamara, J. Kevin Rose, Paul B.
Heffer, Eric S. MacPherson, Malcolm Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Hilton, W. S. Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Horam, John Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Marquand, David Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Huckfield, Leslie Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Mayhew, Chirstopher Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Meacher, Michael Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Sillars, James
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mendelson, John Silverman, Julius
Hunter, Adam Mikardo, Ian Skinner, Dennis
Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Millan, Bruce Small, William
Janner, Greville Miller, Dr. M. S. Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Milne, Edward (Blyth) Spearing, Nigel
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) Molloy, William Spriggs, Leslie
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Stallard, A. W.
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
John, Brynmor Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Strang, Gavin
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Moyle, Roland Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Murray, Ronald King Swain, Thomas
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Ogden, Eric Taverne, Dick
Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham,S.) O'Halloran, Michael Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Oram, Bert Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Orbach, Maurice Thomson, Rt. Hn, G. (Dundee, E.)
Judd, Frank Orme, Stanley Tinn, James
Kaufman, Gerald Oswald, Thomas Torney, Tom
Kelley, Richard Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Tuck, Raphael
Kinnock, Neil Padley, Walter Urwin, T. W.
Lambie, David Palmer, Arthur Varley, Eric G.
Lamond, James Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Wainwright, Edwin
Latham, Arthur Parker, John (Dagenham) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lawson, George Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Leadbitter, Ted Pavitt, Laurie Wallace, George
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Watkins, David
Leonard, Dick Pendry, Tom Weitzman, David
Lestor, Miss Joan Pentland, Norman Wellbeloved, James
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Perry, Ernest G. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Prescott, John Whitehead, Phillip
Lipton, Marcus Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Whitlock, William
Lomas, Kenneth Price, William (Rugby) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Loughlin, Charles Probert, Arthur Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Rankin, John Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
McBride, Neil Rhodes, Geoffrey Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
McCartney, Hugh Richard, Ivor Woof, Robert
McElhone, Frank Roberts, Albert (Normanton) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
McGuire, Michael Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Mr. John Golding and
Mackenzie, Gregor Robertson, John (Paisley) Mr. Kenneth Marks.
Mackie, John Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Mackintosh, John P. Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Maclennan, Robert

Clause 35, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Forward to