§ 3.43 p.m.
§ Amendment No. 669 proposed [1st February]: In page 24, line 26, leave out subsection (2).—[Mr. Heffer.]
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 261, Noes 294.1469
|Division No. 114.]||AYES||[3.44 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Crawshaw, Richard||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.|
|Albu, Austen||Cronin, John||Gourlay, Harry|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Alldritt, Walter||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Dalyell, Tam||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Davidson, Arthur||Hamling, William|
|Ashley, Jack||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Ashton, Joe||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hardy, Peter|
|Atkinson, Norman||Davies, S.O. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith|
|Barnes, Michael||Deakins, Eric||Hattersley, Roy|
|Barnett, Joel||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Beaney, Alan||Delargy, H. J.||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Hilton, W. S.|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Dempsey, James||Horam, John|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Doig, Peter||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Bishop, E. S.||Dorman, J. D.||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Booth, Albert||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Dunn, James A.||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Dunnett, Jack||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Bradley, Tom||Eadie, Alex||Hunter, Adam|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Edelman, Maurice||Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Janner, Greville|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Buchan, Norman||Ellis, Tom||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||English, Michael||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Evans, Fred||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Fernyhough, E.||John, Brynmor|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Cant, R. B.||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Carmichael, Nell||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Foley, Maurice||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Foot, Michael||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Ford, Ben||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Forrester, John||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Judd, Frank|
|Coleman, Donald||Freeson, Reginald||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Concannon, J. D.||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kelley, Richard|
|Conlan, Bernard||Garrett, W. E.||Kinnock, Neil|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Gilbert, Dr. John||Lambie, David|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Ginsburg David||Lamond, James|
|Latham, Arthur||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Silverman, Julius|
|Lawson, George||Moyle, Roland||Skinner, Dennis|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Small, William|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Murray, Ronald King||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Leonard, Dick||O'Halloran, Michael||Spearing, Nigel|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Oram, Bert||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Orbach, Maurice||Stallard, A. W.|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Orme, Stanley||Steel, David|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Oswald, Thomas||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Padley, Walter||Strang, Gavin|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Loughlin, Charles||Pardoe, John||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Swain, Thomas|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Pavitt, Laurie||Taverne, Dick|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|McBride, Neil||Pendry, Tom||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Pentland, Norman||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|McElhone, Frank||Perry, Ernest G.||Tinn, James|
|McGuire, Michael||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||Tomney, Frank|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Prescott, John||Torney, Tom|
|Mackie, John||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Price, William (Rugby)||Urwin, T. W.|
|Maclennan, Robert||Probert, Arthur||Varley, Eric G.|
|McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Rankin, John||Wainwright, Edwin|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|MacPherson, Malcolm||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Wallace, George|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Richard, Ivor||Watkins, David|
|Marks, Kenneth||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Weitzman, David|
|Marquand, David||Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy(Caernarvon)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Robertson, John (Paisley)||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Mayhew, Christopher||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Whitehead, Philip|
|Meacher, Michael||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Whitlock, William|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Roper, John||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Mendelson, John||Rose, Paul B.||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Mikardo, Ian||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Millan, Bruce||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Molloy, William||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)||Woof, Robert|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Sillars, James||Mr. John Golding|
|Adley, Robert||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Eyre, Reginald|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)||Farr, John|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Carlisle, Mark||Fell, Anthony|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy|
|Astor, John||Cary, Sir Robert||Fidler, Michael|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Channon, Paul||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)|
|Awdry, Daniel||Chapman, Sydney||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Chichester-Clark, R.||Fortescue, Tim|
|Balniel, Lord||Churchill, W. S.||Foster, Sir John|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Fowler, Norman|
|Batsford, Brian||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Fox, Marcus|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Clegg, Walter||Fry, Peter|
|Bell, Ronald||Cockeram, Eric||Galbraith, Hn. T. C.|
|Bennett, Sir Fredric (Torquay)||Coombs, Derek||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Cooper, A. E.||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)|
|Benyon, W.||Cormack, Patrick||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Costain, A. P.||Glyn, Dr. Alan|
|Biffen, John||Critchley, Julian||Goodhart, Philip|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Crouch, David||Goodhew, Victor|
|Blaker, Peter||Crowder, F. P.||Gorst, John|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Curran, Charles||Gower, Raymond|
|Boscawen, Robert||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gray, Hamish|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack||Green, Alan|
|Bowden, Andrew||Dean, Paul||Grieve, Percy|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Braine, Bernard||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Grylls, Michael|
|Bray, Ronald||Dixon, Piers||Gummer, Selwyn|
|Brewis, John||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Gurden, Harold|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Drayson, G. B.||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Dykes, Hugh||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Bryan, Paul||Eden, Sir John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Buck, Antony||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Burden, F. A.||Emery, Peter||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Hastings, Stephen||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|Havers, Michael||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Miscampbell, Norman||Sharples, Richard|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Heseltine, Michael||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Hicks, Robert||Moate, Roger||Simeons, Charles|
|Hilley, Joseph||Molyneaux, James||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Money, Ernle||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Smith, Dudley (W 'wick & L'mington)|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Monro, Hector||Soref, Harold|
|Hordern, Peter||Montgomery, Fergus||Spence, John|
|Hornby, Richard||More, Jasper||Sproat, Iain|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Stainton, Keith|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Mudd, David||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh W.)|
|Hunt, John||Murton, Oscar||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Stokes, John|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Neave, Airey||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|James, David||Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Sutcliffe, John|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Tapsell, Peter|
|Jessel, Toby||Normanton, Tom||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Nott, John||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Onslow, Cranley||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N. W.)|
|Jopling, Michael||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Temple, John M.|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Osborn, John||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Page, Graham (Crosby)||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Kilfedder, James||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Tilney, John|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Peel, John||Trew, Peter|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Percival, Ian||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Kitson, Timothy||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Knox, David||Pink, R. Bonner||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Lambton, Antony||Pounder, Rafton||Waddington, David|
|Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Lane, David||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Wall, Patrick|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Walters, Dennis|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Warren, Kenneth|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Raison, Timothy||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Longden, Gilbert||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Loveridge, John||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|MacArthur, Ian||Redmond, Robert||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|McLaren, Martin||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Wilkinson, John|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Madel, David||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Maginnis, John E.||Ridsdale, Julian||Worsley, Marcus|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Marten, Neil||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Mather, Carol||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Maude, Angus||Rost, Peter||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Royle, Anthony||Mr. Keith Speed and|
|Mawby, Ray||Russell, Sir Ronald||Mr. Hugh Rossi.|
§ Mr. John Nott (St. Ives)
On a point of order, Sir Robert. Would it be possible for the appropriate authorities to investigate the possibility of placing some kind of zebra crossing between St. Stephen's entrance and the Parliamentary offices on the other side of the road? It is almost impossible to get here in time for Divisions from the parliamentary offices at Abbey Gardens because of the weight of traffic on the road. Could this matter be investigated?
§ The Chairman
All that may well be so. but I cannot take the point as Chair- 1470 man of Ways and Means. However, the hon. Gentleman may try me another time as Deputy Speaker.
§ Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester. Blackley)
I beg to move Amendment No. 670, in page 24, line 41, leave out subsection (3).
In his speech yesterday, the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) told us with great conviction and sincerity that Clause 34(2) applied only to freely negotiated contracts. With the frenzied haste imposed by the guillotine. 1471 I cannot blame him for the fact that he obviously had not read beyond subsection (2) to subsection (3), with which this Amendment deals. It was apparent from yesterday's debate that, in regard to the words "reasonably practicable", the Secretary of State had not read the evidence submitted to the Donovan Commission by the Inns of Court Conservative and Unionist Association, which made it clear that it intended that shop stewards and trade union officials should fine or expel, or suspend, or sue their members in order to do what was "reasonably practical" in policing these agreements.
It is this that we find repugnant in the Clause and quite unenforceable within the context of a democratic society. Clause 34 (3) applies these policing powers, together with the concept of an unfair practice, to Clause 39, which contains the ultimate embodiment of the most astonishing departure from freedom of contract ever imposed by Statute upon our legal system. Whatever else the Government may have had a mandate to do, it was not this. It applies the abhorrent to the obnoxious and the result is the most remarkable intrusion upon free collective bargaining—perhaps the most remarkable intrusion on trade union law since the 1875 Act. It attempts to make trade unionists responsible for policing fictitious procedure agreements into which they never wished to enter in the first place.
It is inconceivable that anyone will wish to enforce the ultimate folly, which is the duty on an official of a union to discipline someone, purporting to do so on behalf of the union, who does not belong to the union, in respect of an agreement into which the union did not wish to enter. That is taking us into realms we have never known before. The N.I.R.C. is to impose procedures even where employers and employees may resist them, and by virtue of subsection (3) they become collective agreements for the purpose of the policing and unfair practices provision.
This is ample evidence that procedural agreements are not the stuff of which enforceable contracts are made in any event. Perhaps the most authoritative study on this subject was made by Mr. Marsh in his two research papers pro- 1472 duced for the Royal Commission. It is significant that not one hon. Member opposite yesterday quoted Mr. Marsh and the evidence which he gave and the conclusions he found with regard to procedures in British industry. If he had it would have destroyed the case. Only those who share the doctrinaire stubbornness of the Solicitor-General's arid legalism would dispute the conclusions found in practice by Mr. Marsh. He observed in relation both to the compulsory arbitration method and to the prosecution method of enforcement in the court the following which appears in paragraph 100 of his report:There is no room for dispute about the general failure of both these approaches.He referred to Order 1305, and we all remember that. He said that while it had its uses:… in extending the conventional notion, of arbitration, its enforcement in practice proved to be extremely difficult, in part because it was legally and from the more purely industrial relations point of view impracticable to apply legal sanctions through the court to large numbers of workers and in part because any legal victory was likely to be a pyrrhic one". The second approach was also unsuccessful, not only because trade union members were inclined to argue that non-enforcement of the employer's rights should be a condition of a return to work but also because individual employers were not prepared to face the consequence of worsening relations with their workers by insisting upon its rigid application.4.0 p.m.
It is rather remarkable that the Solicitor-General is able to dismiss all of that evidence in bringing forward these provisions. Here the intervention is not in respect of an agreement but in respect of an imposed procedure. It is in respect of something that is not assented to by one party or the other or perhaps by both. It is not enforced by the normal means of enforcement but by this as yet unexplained "reasonably practicable" action on the part of trade union officials.
The right hon. Gentleman cannot get out of this. He has not told us what "reasonably practicable" means. Does it mean what his right hon. and learned Friends said when they gave evidence to the Donovan Commission or does it not, as he said yesterday? He cannot answer this because it is one of the many tangles which will have to be sorted out by the N.I.R.C. or the industrial tribunals.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)
Why does the hon. Gentleman pursue this point? That phrase is common form in almost every legal document today. It has a real meaning, it is understood by the courts and the layman signing a lease understands it.
§ Mr. Rose
The reason I pursue this is because in the context of industrial relations "reasonably practicable" could mean merely that the shop steward or trade union official exhorts his members not to come out on strike at a mass meeting but it could equally be decided that it meant, as the Inns of Court Unionist and Conservative Association thought it meant, that a union should sue or expel its members. This is a value judgment being left to a court of law and not being decided by us. It is an abdication of the responsibility of the right hon. Gentleman, vested in a court of law and something which is quite unacceptable in industrial relations.
§ Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)
Is it not a fact that in this instance every case will be different? It is not the same as a legal contract between two people because every case will be different. Who will judge these words?
§ Mr. Rose
The reasonable man on top of the Clapham omnibus, often quoted in law cases, does apply his mind to a whole host of different problems. The point is that ultimately the court has to decide what is reasonable. We do not feel that it is right, as Donovan did not feel it to be right, and all the evidence agrees with this view, that it should be left to a court of law without experience in this area to define what it is reasonable practicable for a trade union official to do in given circumstances.
This is our objection. The position is that the trade unions will suffer fines if they fail to police the very thing that they have refused to accept. They are not being fined for refusing to police what they have agreed to but for refusing to police what they have not accepted. If the Secretary of State, incredibly, asks trade unions to accept that responsibility by law, he is bringing into disrepute, not the trade unions as was hinted at last night, but unfortunately the law itself.
The argument applies even more strongly to works and domestic proce- 1474 dure. Yet we know, again from Marsh's studies, paragraph 103:… it is widely acknowledged that full-time trade union officials are seldom found to act unconstitutionally, and that current arrangements for keeping procedures intact are quite sufficient to impress upon them the need for constitutional behaviour.It was obvious from the conduct of hon. Gentlemen opposite yesterday that their vision of a shop steward or trade union official was a caricature based on the assumption that these were men who went around deliberately fomenting strikes, instead of, as the evidence shows, being men who day by day prevent strikes in industry.
§ Sir Edward Brown (Bath)
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that because a person joins a union and is therefore bound by the rules of that union he should totally disregard those rules for the purposes of this Clause?
§ Mr. Rose
I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has followed the argument. If he and some of his hon. Friends would read the Bill they will find that this Clause applies subsection (2) to Clause 39. This is nothing to do with the rules of the trade union, this is policing something which the trade unions have never agreed to enter into and this is the objection. The argument must gain strength not only when it is applied to voluntary procedures but to enforced procedures. This is the point I am trying to make to the hon. Gentleman, even if I was a little uncharitable to him.
It is clear that the tones of these proposals carry the hallmark of pre-Donovanian thinking, although as far as I know the Government have never had the courage—certainly the Solicitor-General did not give his evidence to Donovan in that way—to say that procedure agreements could be enforced against the wishes of the parties. It is like trying to build some viable defence strategy on the assumption that the tank has not yet been invented. Dig his trenches and build his Maginot Line as he may, the Solicitor-General will fail to beat off the attack that must be mounted on this legal nonsense. I appeal to him to read paragraph 109 of that Report because it is so vital to understanding the problem. It says:Among practitioners of industrial relations in the workplace there exists a profound 1475 misgiving about the appropriateness or practical value of the application of legal sanctions in procedure. In the main, the advocates of such methods are to be found among those who are not immediately associated with workplace problems and among those who believe that there ought to exist quick and ready answers to the relatively few areas of industry in which unconstitutional action is endemic. In general, practitioners in the industrial field, while acknowledging that unconstitutional action is a problem, would tend to turn attention less to the development of new sanctions than to the task of improving the operation of conciliatory processes.The right hon. Gentleman should reflect that that applies not only to matters which may be agreed but to matters which have not been agreed. What we face is an order compelling unions to risk their funds to police recommendations, whether or not they or the employers want it. It is a remarkable proposal not merely in industrial relations but in ordinary human affairs. It may or may not be vicious in intent, but it certainly will be unworkable in practice and will be a sure recipe for industrial conflict.
Subsection (2) is based on the curious non sequitur that the trade unions are too powerful and therefore they should have more power to police their members. We all know, with the exception it would seem of the Government, that decentralised plant bargaining and customary procedures are the real problems to which we should be turning our attention. The exercise of the function to be imposed here will weaken the authority of trade union officials and will encourage breakaways just as do some of the other provisions of the Bill.
I conclude by referring the Solicitor-General to some more evidence. I ask him to look at the British Journal of Industrial Relations of last July the article of Fox and Flanders:First, it does not tally with the facts; second, it contains inherent contradictions; third, it rests on an inadequate and erroneous view of collective bargaining.It is because the Government are imposing the most incredible obligation that I have yet discovered in this shoddy and shabby Bill on to these fictitious agreements, that my right hon. and hon. Friends will be dividing on what I consider to be one of the most important matters of principle in the Bill.
§ Mr. David Waddington (Nelson and Colne)
The Opposition yesterday made 1476 heavy weather of Amendment No. 669, and some extraordinary arguments were advanced by the hon. Member for Coventry, North (Mr. Edelman), which I suppose if they were valid then must be equally valid on Amendment No. 670. If my recollection is correct, he went so far as to say that it was only in Communist or Fascist states that one man could be held to be responsible for the misdeeds of another, and that such a concept was completely foreign to a democratic country such as ours. This is absolute bunk. Vicarious liability is a well-known concept in English law. Every day of the week employers are held responsible for the failings of their employees, both in the civil courts in actions for damages and in the criminal courts—
§ Mr. Maurice Edelman (Coventry, North)
The hon. Gentleman is obviously not making a distinction between someone who acts as agent for another and someone who is totally irresponsible to the first person. In talking about vicarious responsibility he is talking about those who act as agent for the prime mover.
§ Mr. Waddington
The hon. Member for Coventry, North has exposed the whole fallacy of his argument. He is now saying, that a trade union has no responsibility whatsoever for its membership. I simply do not accept that to be either common sense or indeed the legal position. There can be nothing wrong in principle in a trade union in certain circumstances being responsible for the misdeeds of its members, even though that is not what is said in the Clause.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) seemed to think that it would be possible to decide whether a trade union had taken all reasonable and practicable steps to prevent the various activities set out in Clause 34(2)(a), (b) and (c). He advanced fanciful ideas of what the trade union leadership might have to do to meet their obligations, even suggesting at one stage that it might be necessary to bring in water cannon to force the membership back to work.
That is absolute nonsense. The truth is that every day of the week the courts have the task of deciding what is and what is not reasonable; and what is and what is not reasonably practicable. If courts of law can manage that task in 1477 the present day, why on earth should not properly constituted courts—different from ordinary courts of law because they will be composed of a High Court judge and two people with special knowledge and experience of industrial relations—be capable of coming to a conclusion on what is reasonable and what is reasonably practicable in all the circumstances?
The Amendment would have the effect of deleting subsection (3) of Clause 34. It is a necessary subsection if one accepts —and I admit that one is entitled to take the opposite view—that there can be special circumstances where power should be given to a body to impose a collective agreement. As can be seen from reading all the Clauses, this is intended as a reserve power to be used sparingly. The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) in moving the Amendment did not point out that this power is surrounded by safeguard after safeguard.
First, the Industrial Court has to be satisfied that there is no procedural agreement in existence or that the procedural agreement which is in existence is so unsatisfactory and so unworkable as to cause serious industrial trouble. Secondly, the C.I.R. has to be satisfied that those same defects exist and that it is possible to do something about it. Thirdly, the C.I.R. has to make recommendations, after first promoting and assisting in discussions between both sides involved in the matter. It is only in default of agreement and after all those safeguards have been exercised that the Industrial Court can make an order.
In moving the Amendment, the hon. Member for Blackley should have been more careful to make it plain that the Bill does not provide for the imposition of an agreement against the wishes of the parties, unless and until three separate things have first happened. Those safeguards make it as plain as a pikestaff to anyone who has read the Bill that this is a reserve power which it is intended should be used only in the most exceptional circumstances. I cannot see how any hon. Gentleman opposite can look upon this as a tyrannical attack on the trade unions. There is no question here of imposing agreements as to terms and conditions of employment. We are here dealing with procedural agreements and not with agreements concerned with terms and conditions of employment.
1478 Anyone who recognises the real problem that we are faced with in industry today should be looking for a way of tackling the problems which arise in those sections of industry where there are effective procedural agreements. The subsection is a sensible and moderate way of dealing with those comparatively rare cases where collective agreements either are non-existent or so defective that they are incapable of preventing strife. I urge hon. Gentlemen opposite to think again and to recognise that the proposal contained in subsection (3) is a sensible one.
§ Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)
I had not intended to take part in this discussion until I heard the speech by the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington). It is not possible to talk about Clause 39 without referring to the Clause that leads up to it, namely, Clause 35(1)(a) and (b). Here we run into a swamp land where a degree of legality and stupidity will enter into British industrial relations.
I do not know a great deal about Parliament and I have listened with some interest to lawyers being referred to as "honourable and learned". However, I am now convinced that in our discussions on this Bill we should abandon that practice and refer to all trade unionists as "honourable and learned". What has come out of these debates is that the lawyers do not know very much about industrial relations and that trade unionists know a great deal about them. If the Government have their way the situation in British industry as a whole in certain units of employment, to use the wording in the Bill, will be such that, with the imposition of Clauses 35 to 40, we will be plunged into the courts and the coercive Commission will be in a position to dictate industrial policy to management and unions whether they like it or not.
In the process of the implementation of the Clauses a great deal of the time of management and unions will be absorbed in various applications and appearances before the courts and in arguments with the Commission in the consultative stages as well as in the period when the Commission formulates its proposals to be laid before the Industrial Relations Court. This will absorb 1479 a great deal of time which managements and trade unions should be devoting to the job of making industry more productive. Therefore, to some extent this will all be a waste of time.
Both the Industrial Relations Court and the Commission are given wide, sweeping, undemocratic and legally objectionable powers in the Bill, powers which will involve crucial decisions, but these bodies are not to be given any responsibility. They will decree and then go off and leave management and unions in a situation which they did not want in the first place, and they will have to wrestle with the problems set up for them by the Court and the Commission.
A situation could arise under Clause 35(1)(a) and (b) in which a collective agreement could be voluntarily agreed between men and management which, in the view of both management and workers, was a sound agreement. Perhaps the agreement might be aimed at flexibility. The management's attitude may be that no procedure agreement is perfect and cannot hope to take account of every eventuality since most industrial situations are often fluid. Management may agree with the trade unions that such a document should not be legally binding. The two sides may after negotiation reach an agreed position in which the management is happy with a non legally binding agreement. It may be a sensible management which does not get hysterical about an occasional unofficial strike. Therefore, if management and men are satisfied with such an agreement, they will have some degree of confidence in each other's integrity, they will have gone through the constitutional processes and will realise the weaknesses and strengths of both sides and will know where they stand. Yet it is into such a situation that the Secretary of State may decide to step.
An unofficial strike may blow up in an industry when the silly season is upon the country. The newspapers may be looking for a good story and could pick on that unofficial strike, give it headline treatment and start to beat the anti-trade union drum, as newspapers sometimes do. The Secretary of State may well make a bad error of judgment under the pressure that builds up in such a situa- 1480 tion and may decide to intervene in the conflict.
§ Mr. Sillars
The hon. Gentleman says that it could come to an end before that stage. In making that remark he destroys the basis of the Secretary of State's Bill because, the Secretary of State having intervened, Clause 39 envisages an agreement being imposed on both management and men which neither wanted in the first place.
§ Mr. Waddington
Is the hon. Gentleman saying that in his view the Secretary of State should in no circumstances take power to refer a case to the C.I.R.?
§ Mr. Sillars
No. I believe in the use of the C.I.R. as a persuasive organ, but we are talking about the C.I.R. in the context of the Bill. It will be an entirely different Commission once the Bill is passed—if ever it gets to that stage. A situation could arise from Clause 39 involving an agreement which has the effect of being legally enforceable as if it had been made between both parties. I find this quite absurd and unbelievable. Both sides may not want that situation and yet it is to be imposed upon them. They are the people who are on the spot and who will have to deal with the situation seven days a week on a 24-hour basis.
§ Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)
Does my hon. Friend not recall that the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne said —and I agree with him—that it would be sensible and encouraging to discuss these proposals, arid though they might appear to be? Would my hon. Friend not agree that in the context of discussions under the Clause to allow both sides to examine the situation the fallacy of this legislation is revealed by the fact that the Secretary of State was not prepared to talk to the Trades Union Congress about the Bill before he presented it to Parliament?
§ Mr. Sillars
The Secretary of State's statement that he would only discuss detail and not principle is something he will live to regret as this Committee stage continues. It may be that a procedure agreement will be imposed on the parties which neither wants. It may be that in 1481 the process of arguing in the light of the provisions from Clause 34 to 40 a great deal of suspicion and anger will be generated between management and men because both have been required, unwillingly, to submit themselves to the court, to cross-examination, and all the rest of it.
It may be that after a procedure agreement is imposed both parties may decide to ignore it. They will then both become liable for unfair industrial practices. We could hardly blame trade unions and managements for ignoring this law because they are entitled to have contempt for a very bad law indeed.
I suggest that the Conservative Party has no mandate for the introduction of this particular piece of policy. I should like to refer to what was said in "Fair Deal At Work"—and we are told that that document was in circulation long before the General Election—in regard to enforceability. The Conservative Party wanted to alter the Trade Union Act 1871 toput collective agreements on a par with any other type of contract—no more and no less.The document continues a little later:We believe it would be wrong to accord to collective agreements the quite exceptional status of a contract which must"—I emphasise the word "must"—be enforceable—regardless of the wishes of the parties.It says that it would be wrong to impose such a provision.
§ Mr. Sillars
This is a valuable document and no doubt my hon. Friend will have good cause to refer to it later. Explaining why they are opposed to this exceptional way of imposing collective agreements it says:Such a situation would create new tensions and suspicions and put the conduct of industrial relations into a straitjacket.I can find no better answer against their point of view today. They go on to say:But this is something to be settled in the course of bargaining.That point of view contained in "Fair Deal at Work" was surely the point of view portrayed during the General Election. The Government have no mandate for this partciular proposition.
1482 4.30 p.m.
This is probably one of the stupidest Bills we have ever had before the House and, by far, the Clauses to which I refer are the stupidest part of this stupid Bill, which has oscillated between the absurd and the dangerous.
§ Sir Derek Walker-Smith (Hetfordshire, East)
I have followed the argument of the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) with attention and, I hope, understanding. He referred to the imposition of an agreement, under this group of Clauses, possibly against the will of both parties. In that context, will he deal with subsection (1) of Clause 39, which says:… any of the parties to the reference may apply to the Industrial Court for an order under this section.Does it not follow that the condition precedent to a Section 39 order is an application by one of the parties which the hon. Gentleman will see defined in Clause 37(2)?
§ Mr. Sillars
We are entitled to a reply from the Secretary of State on that point.
Fair points have been made, and it is for the Government to answer them in considerable detail. I hope that we shall not be told that all they will do is produce a leaflet in due course.
§ The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Robert Carr)
Many of the arguments just used by the hon. Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) apply to Clauses 35–39 which we are coming to. It would probably be for the convenience of the Committee if I do not go into all those in detail now. May I just get one or two brief points on the record while they are fresh in the Committee's mind? The hon. Gentleman is quite incorrect in saying that the Secretary of State would have power to go to the court to have an order made binding. Under the Bill, the Secretary of State has power to start off the thing by going to the court, but he does not have power to complete it by going to the courts to have the order enforced. Only one of the 1483 parties can do that. That is an important point, and a very big difference from what the hon. Gentleman and hon. Members who supported him were saying.
We must remember that we are dealing with what is a very exceptional procedure. It is something which I shall want to go into at greater length when we reach the full debate on these Clauses. We still maintain absolutely what we said in "Fair Deal at Work" about it being wrong to accord collective agreements the quite exceptional status of a contract which must be enforceable without the consent of the parties. As a general rule, we stand by that absolutely and we have maintained that in the Bill. What I admit we have added since "Fair Deal at Work" is that some emergency procedure is needed to deal with exceptionally stubborn cases which are damaging the national interest and the company concerned. That is a controversial matter which we shall have to discuss. But it is important that the Committee should bear in mind that we are dealing in this area with exceptional cases.
We should realise that this applies both to managements and to unions. We are hearing, for example, in the engineering industry today, how apparently the A.E.U. have for many, many years now been unsuccessfully pressing the employers' federation to enter into negotiations to modernise what, we are told, is a 50-years out-of-date procedure agreement. Perhaps the A.E.U. might have been glad to have been able to stick some pins into the employers' federation to get on with the job, if that version of the situation is correct.
§ Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)
Would not the right hon. Gentleman agree that until the Bill was introduced agreement had been reached to alter the York Agreement and that it was the introduction of the Bill that made the employers perform a volte-face?
§ Mr. Carr
If it was the introduction of the Bill which made the employers perform a volte face and get on with what we are told they have been refusing to get on with for 50 years, it has done some good. Here we have a situation in which the unions have for many years, 1484 we are told, been wanting to get a new procedure agreement negotiated and have not been able to get the employers to address their minds to it. The procedure which they are so objecting to would enable the union, in that case, to ensure that the employers got on with the job.
§ Mr. Joseph Ashton (Bassetlaw) rose——
§ Mr. Carr
The hon. Gentleman said that I have made a provocative point. With respect, the hon. Gentleman and others made provocative points in referring to the section, and I am justified in briefly replying to them. I will reply later at greater length, and we shall have the full argument.
It is said that the sort of agreement we are dealing with in subsection (3) of Clause 34 imports an entirely novel situation into British law, in that we are dealing with an imposed agreement. I ask hon. Members opposite what they think of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act, 1959. That is an Act under which terms and conditions can be imposed on employers who have not had any party in the agreement. It is the same principle, in that case being imposed on employers only, and in this area capable of being imposed on both employers and unions. It is not right to argue that this process of imposing an agreement on people is new in principle, even in industrial relations law.
Many of the arguments about the way in which subsection (3) is brought into this Clause, and the unfair industrial practice angle of it, made by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) were largely made last night by his hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and were dealt with last night. I will only deal with them briefly now. The hon. Gentleman once again repeated the charge that his hon. Friend made last night, that one of the wickednesses we were imposing here was that we were 1485 seeking to make unions act as policemen over their members. That may or may not be, but, whoever else claims that, it really cannot be the party opposite, because that is their policy, enunciated by their Leader when he was Prime Minister.
§ Mr. Carr
When the Leader of the Opposition tells the House and the country that he eats the words that he uttered in this House on 19th June, 1969, perhaps we will believe it. I will not bother the Committee with the words used by the right hon. Gentleman when he was Prime Minister, which I quoted yesterday, except to recall that the right hon. Gentleman's justification for giving up the legislation that he was proposing in return for the T.U.C.'s solemn and binding agreement specifically interpreted that solemn and binding agreement as putting on the unions and the T.U.C. the duty to police their members and, if necessary, to use their rule books, including fines and suspensions, in the process of policing. To the best of the country's knowledge, that is still the official policy of the party opposite. It has never been retracted.
§ Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)
The policing of a voluntary organisation which says that it accepts responsibility for running its own affairs, which is what everyone has said that we want the trade unions to do, is entirely different from coming along with a law and putting an obligation on people against which they are protesting and then saying, "What is more, we will fine you if you do not police our law to which you object." The right hon. Gentleman cannot pretend that the two are the same.
§ Mr. Carr
Clearly the right hon. Lady has not yet taken on board the principles of the Bill. As she has just described it, it is a complete travesty of what the Bill says. In this connection, all that we ask is that union officials shall use their best endeavours or take such steps as are reasonably practicable to ensure that their members keep to the terms of en-forcible collective agreements. That is very different from fining union officials for not succeeding in getting their members to maintain laws imposed upon them.
We are discussing collective agreements and the duty of union officials which, as 1486 the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, said yesterday, union officials are most of the time doing. What we want them to do is to take all reasonable steps. The suggestion that we expect them to fine and expel members of their unions is a lot of nonsense——
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)
Surely the point is that we face a situation where, I agree, union officials are doing this all the time. But, precisely because the Bill does not define what is "reasonably practicable", eventually a judge will have to decide. His decision will become the precedent. On that basis, it may be quite different from what the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting.
§ 4.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Carr
We must wait and see. We are setting up special industrial tribunals and courts, and we seek to obtain the services on each of them of two independent people who are experienced in the affairs of industry to sit with the judge. If we invite trade unionists to serve on 1487 such tribunals and they deliberately refuse, I believe that the country will know what to make of that. If through that obstinate and, if it ever happens, irresponsible refusal the courts were denied the detailed living experience of trade unionism and trade union procedures, it would be no one's fault but the trade unions' themselves.
§ Mr. Carr
Apparently some hon. Members opposite think that the rest of us, whether we be private citizens or company directors, in the last resort should be obliged to appear before a court so as to allow the court to judge whether what we did was reasonable in the circumstances, but that trade union officials should be exempted. They are saying that that is reasonable for everyone in the community except trade union officials. I do not believe that it is the wish of the majority of people that trade unionists and trade union officials should be set apart. I am sure that would not be fair, and I do not think that that is the general wish.
It is clear that very few cases will ever come to it, but we say that, in the last resort, a judge assisted by people expert in these matters should decide whether such steps as were reasonably practicable were taken to achieve the ends to which names were signed and promises were made. I refuse to believe that that is oppressive, tyrannical, or out of tune with the majority wish of the people, including the majority wish of trade unionists.
§ [Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]
§ Mr. Thomas Torney (Bradford, South)
I have listened to the right hon. Gentleman say on numerous occasions that so many Clauses are not likely to be needed or to be used that I wonder why we need the Bill at all. It is apparent that the Government intend to make little use of it.
I want to spend a few moments on these words "reasonably practicable". The right hon. Gentleman talked about the trade union movement "policing" its members—
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
On a point of order. I do not know whether this speech comes under the heading of tedious repetition, but this point was debated for hours yesterday evening and has occupied the whole of today's proceedings so far. Will my right hon. Friend be accused of not giving hon. Members sufficient time for other detailed matters to be discussed?
The Deputy Chairman
The Chair has not heard these points before. However, I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's concern and the Chair will guard against it.
§ Mr. Torney
I do not intend to waste the Committee's time but, in view of the Minister's remarks, I felt that I should say a few words about the phrase "reasonably practicable". After all, the point was raised by the right hon. Gentleman not by any of my right hon. and hon. Friends.
In my view, it is one thing for a democratic organisation like the trade union movement to discipline some of its members who may be acting wrongly or not in accordance with its rules. It is quite another thing to bring in the power of the law. I cannot see that any such comparison can be made.
The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) referred to the common law position of an employer who is responsible for the actions of his workers. Trade union officers have a great deal of experience of making employers face their responsibility for employees whose actions cause accidents and so on to other people at common law. An employer pays a salary or wages to a worker; therefore, he must carry responsibility in law for the actions of that employee. But it is very different with a trade union. The great mass of trade unionists receive no wages or salaries from their trade unions; they in fact pay money to keep them in existence. There cannot be any comparison in suggesting that there is a responsibility on a trade union in the way that there is a responsibility on an employer. I think that matter should be made clear.
§ Mr. Torney
I will not give way. I do not want to waste the time of the Committee. That is why I do not give way. 1489 I believe that the Bill makes a mockery of the situation when it talks about procedural agreements and having to enforce them by an act of law. My considerable experience of the trade union movement is that a proper working procedural agreement cannot be obtained until confidence has been established on both sides of the fence. The trade union side must have confidence in the employers' side and, vice versa, the employers' side must have confidence in the trade union side. That is the way to establish a proper, sound procedural agreement. This is how procedural agreements have been established over the years.
The trade union movement, having pioneered for good procedural agreements over the years, has been responsible for avoiding many disputes. It should be clearly understood that the trade union movement has probably avoided far more strikes than it has ever created, because striking is virtually the last weapon to be used. All procedures are investigated and followed before that stage is reached.
I believe that proper procedural agreements can be established only by this rule of agreement between the parties. We will never get proper, decent working procedural agreements by bringing in the force of law and demanding that both sides must have a certain agreement whether they like it or not.
§ Mr. Rose
The speeches of my hon. Friends—particularly the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars)—show that we ought to be moving on to Clauses 34 to 39. Because of the interrelation of these Clauses, these matters have, quite rightly, been brought in.
I want to deal with some of the points which have been made by hon. Gentlemen opposite. First, the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington), who is not present, mentioned the analogy of vicarious responsibility—the responsibility of one man for another who is usually his employee.
A trade union organiser is not an agent or employee of fellow members of his trade union. His obligations to police an agreement should be no higher than those of, say, a bus driver to police the agreement made by a passenger authority. It really is not a good analogy to use vicarious liability to illustrate this point, 1490 more particularly as subsection (2) contains the words "purports to act". That would make a man responsible for somebody not only acting on behalf of the union but purporting to act on its behalf. That is a very strange concept into which I hope the Solicitor-General will look.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that the court would be different from other courts. It will not. There are many courts which sit with assessors who are not legally qualified. We shall have a High Court judge—we know the tradition of the courts with regard to trade union cases—sitting with a representative of the employers and an academic who is likely to be biased towards the employer, because others are plainly not going to co-operate with legislation with which they cannot possibly agree.
§ Sir W. Walker-Smith
The hon. Gentleman has referred to assessors. As the hon. Gentleman knows, but as all hon. Members may not know, an assessor is not a member of a court; he is merely a technical adviser. In this Bill the other persons will be full members of the court on the precise analogy which I gave yesterday of the Restrictive Trade Practices Court which has worked so well.
§ Mr. Rose
I think that we all accept that. There are three distinct types of tribunal. There is the industrial tribunal which has a representative from both sides of industry. That is entirely acceptable because of the class of case with which it has to deal. But the injection of legalism into industrial relations via a High Court judge with these two members of the court—I accept the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point—is not acceptable, first, because it will sabotage the Commission on Industrial Relations —it has already, in view of the resignations—and, secondly, because it will be weighted two-to-one at least, if not three-to-nil, against the employee.
§ Mr. R. Carr
Is the hon. Gentleman really saying—it is a serious matter if he is—that a High Court judge is so prejudiced that he cannot take an impartial view of a case coming before him? The hon. Gentleman should weigh his words before saying that from that Box.
§ Mr. Rose
I weighed my words very carefully. I made speech in the middle 1491 of the night, which unfortunately lasted 45 minutes, when we dealt with the court. If the right hon. Gentleman refers to that speech he will find that I said that judges are fair men trained in a particular discipline, but that they are ill suited to deal with problems in industry, just as the Marsh quotation showed and just as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne showed in his speech. It was a perfectly logical and fair speech in a vacuum, away from the shop floor and away from any real knowledge of what happens in industry. On that occasion I quoted Lord Wright's famous speech—and although wrongly reported in HANSARD, I said "not a radical judge"—in relation to Lord Scrutton to the effect that the judges, because of their particular position in society, fair as they may be, are more likely to understand the problems of employers and the class of people with which they mix than those of employees. This is an accepted point.
§ Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)
Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that it is possible for there to be honest people in this world? Does the hon. Gentleman not also understand that if a judge, for instance, feels that he may be accused of being partial to one side, the very thing which he will not do is to come down against the workers' side in this argument. The hon. Gentleman has just claimed that the bias will be three-to-nil against the workers. That is an astonishing claim. I have never heard such rubbish in my life.
§ Mr. Rose
The hon. Gentleman really must try to follow what I said. I did not say that there was any question of partiality or of dishonesty. I should claim that our judicial system and judiciary, for all that has been said, gives me cause for pride.
What I am saying is that the class of people from whom the higher judiciary is drawn, let alone the Bar itself, is such that that might be the case, and I refer the hon. Gentleman to the quotation from a judge of the High Court who said that he found it difficult to place himself in the position of the working man because his knowledge and his associations were 1492 such that he was dealing with somebody from a different class.
Nobody was more eloquent about this than my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) because, honourable as Members opposite may be, and honest as they may be, and kindly though the Minister is, with all the good will in the world, hon. Gentlemen opposite do not understand the practical points which are understood by my hon. Friends the Members for South Ayrshire and Salford, West (Mr. Orme) because of their day-to-day experience on the shop floor, and they descend into the arid vacuum of legalism, as the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. Waddington) did.
One would think that Taft Vale had never happened, that Osborne had never happened, that Rookes v. Barnard had never happened, that Stratford v. Lindley had never happened, and that all these things are inventions by this side of the Committee.
Hon. Gentlemen opposite should look at the history of the intrusion of the courts into industrial relations and see how, on several occasions, it has been left to the legislature to correct the inadequacies of the judiciary, not because of malice or unfairness, but because of the lack of understanding of the real problems.
I now want to deal with the Secretary of State's reference to the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. There is no policing of that Act in this way, and the analogy used by the right hon. Gentleman was unfair. That Act deals with something that is initially agreed. We are dealing in this subsection with something that is not agreed by the parties, and the employers would want it anyway.
§ The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)
The essence of the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act provisions is surely that an employer who is not in any sense a party to a collective agreement can be brought before an industrial court and required to observe the terms of that agreement which had been arrived at by the unions and other employers in the industry. That employer can have the terms of the agreement imposed on him 1493 without his having been consulted or involved in the negotiations about it. It can be policed against him by unilateral arbitration. The terms of the agreement can he applied to him by unilateral determination of the terms and conditions which he must observe.
That is a clear example, as the Donovan Commission acknowledged, of the imposition of an agreement in a case by case process in a situation to which the person concerned may never have been a party.
§ Mr. Rose
The Solicitor-General is confusing the words "enforce" and "police". We are talking about policing by trade union officials, or trade union members. The point at issue is not whether trade union officials should act as policemen, but whether policemen should carry guns. The point is whether they should be vested with powers which the Solicitor-General suggested they should have in his evidence to Donovan, a view which apparently is rejected by his colleague sitting next to him, who presumably holds a different view. Whichever view is held, it will ultimately be for the court to decide, and it is not within the realms of possibility for the Front Bench opposite to answer this question about what "reasonably practicable" means. Nor can we accept that we should give this provision carte blanche.
The Minister should not say that it is nonsense when my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) or I refer to expulsion or to sanctions, such as suing members. He has only to turn up the evidence given by the Solicitor-General to the Donovan Commission. He was asked:How would you suggest the unions should go about it? Sue its members?Counsel for the Unionist and Conservative Inns of Court Association said, yes:Sue its members, yes.What do you say about the men themselves?I would think one of the things the union would have to say was that it was intending to suspend or expel them",and the evidence goes on in that vein.
I ask my right hon. and hon. Friends today to say that we shall not apply what we found to be an obnoxious provision under subsection (2) to an even more 1494 obnoxious provision under Clause 39. We shall not compound the damage which these two Clauses will do to industrial relations in this country.
§ Sir E. Brown
I just want to come in on the last point about policing a trade union organisation. If someone joins the Labour Party, as hon. Gentlemen opposite obviously have, or the Conservative Party, or a local tennis club, he is given a set of rules in return for the payment of a sum of money, and he is bound by those rules to observe them. If he disobeys them, he must expect to be hauled before the executive committee—and unions have such committees—and asked to account for his actions.
I do not see why right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite are claiming a special position for the trade unions in this respect, because in a voluntary organisation—and cricket clubs, tennis clubs and trade unions are voluntary organisations—one pays a sum of money and gets a book of rules in return. If someone breaks the rules, he must not grumble about being disciplined, and if one talks about policing, the elected officers of the union must do the job.
Their job must be to haul these people before the appropriate body and deal with them, otherwise we shall not get any discipline in the trade unions. We shall not get that discipline unless we give the trade union leadership the responsibility to act responsibly. I do not dissent from this part of the Bill. I hope that trade union leaders will set a good example to the rank and file of their unions and see that agreements made on behalf of their members are honoured in full.
§ Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)
I am particularly concerned to comment on some trends of the debate, because it is my view that most of the trade unionists whom I represent do not make their fear of a biased court the main reason for their opposition to the Clause.
I accept some of the argumentation of the right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East (Sir D. Walker-Smith), who is not here at the moment, but who has been present for most of the time, and I am not complaining about his absence now. I think that where we 1495 started going wrong was when the right hon. and learned Gentleman was trying to change the whole trend of our law on industrial relations while making it appear that we were doing nothing very important. I know that everything that has flowed from then is profoundly objected to by the trade unions.
Long before there is any question of the attitude of a High Court judge, or that of the other members of the court, what worries the trade unions is the way in which decisions concerning the management of the unions by their members, with the help of the officers whom they had elected, will come to be a matter for decisions by the court. Their objection is to the phrase about "acting reasonably" or with "reasonable practicability" or whatever it is. They say that there is no value in attempting to enforce discipline, or in calling for reasonableness on the part of a trade union official—local, national or regional —or a shop steward, or branch secretary as a result of a legal decision in a court.
That is the crux of the matter. Let me give the Committee a single example. It may be that a manager who has insufficient experience, having held the appointment for only a short time in a department—not a general manager—finds himself in conflict with someone who does not act as he, the manager, wants him to act. The local trade union officials must make a quick decision and that decision may not be the right one in the eyes of the national officials. Anyone familiar with industry will know that this is typical. None the less, 58 of the 60 men in that section would be determined to do what they decided to do at that moment, which may be at two o'clock in the morning, because there is a good deal of shift work in my area.
What trade unionists deeply oppose is making subsequent efforts by union officers have anything to do, however remotely, with the courts. They argue, I think rightly—this is far more important an argument than a long discussion of who will sit on a court—that the worst possible aid to any union officers is the pressure of a remote decision by a court of law.
§ Sir Harmar Nicholls
Who would be the umpire if it is not a properly con- 1496 stituted court with all the authority of an impartial group?
§ Mr. Mendelson
When the hon. Gentleman disagrees, he usually at least follows the argument. I am talking past him. The trade unions are saying something different. They say that it is nonsensical to bring the courts into that situation.
It is no good quoting people. The Secretary of State substitutes quotation for argument and he cannot be surprised if some of us think that he and the Leader of the Opposition are both wrong. The Secretary of State must produce arguments for his Bill. We cannot part with the Clause because it governs many things which are to come later. This is a crucial debate.
§ The Solicitor-General
I take the point that the Committee is interested in arguments in support of the proposed content of the Bill, but would the hon. Gentleman not acknowledge that the fact that his right hon. Friend and others of his party for some period at least agreed with some of the substantive provisions of the Bill is an argument of which the Committee and the country are entitled to take account?
§ Mr. Mendelson
The hon. and learned Gentleman has helped my argument. What I object to is that this sort of general political statement was quite justified on Second Reading and perhaps once at the start of the Committee stage, when it was right for the Secretary of State to say that the Leader of the Opposition wanted to do something of the same kind. But he should not waste time with quotations when his job is to produce arguments—[Interruption.] Hon. Members may shout, but in the end the Secretary of State's argument will not be tested by the cheers or jeers of either side but by the solid opinion of people at work every day.
It is their opinion that I am quoting. They take the view that it is nonsensical to introduce a court of law into a union's internal relations, with all the difficult problems that its officers face, even in the last resort. The Amendment is even more far-reaching. This is a crucial debate. It foreshadows an obligation in the same terms, which is legally binding, under Clause 39. One cannot 1497 argue on a later Amendment or Clause that one thought that it could be discussed under another heading.
The right hon. and learned Member for Hertfordshire, East, gave us a wrong lead yesterday when he made it appear that this tremendous change in the direction of our law was a simple difference in wording. That is incorrect. If this comes into force and is not quickly amended or repealed, the task of our most responsible trade union officers will be made much more difficult. The unions are therefore deeply opposed on this ground.
They also fear that, in those shops and factories where union organisation is not so strong, a legal threat will be made a substitute for good management, which British industry most needs. What is wrong is the shifting of emphasis to legal enforcement, however remote, and away from the urgent need for improved management and trade union organisation. Although I oppose the most important provision dealing with penal clauses, one of the most beneficial results of the argument by this side, on which no reasonable contribution was made by hon. Members opposite, was that the T.U.C. and the Leader of the Opposition both agreed that there is need for improved management, but also improved union organisation. That is an achievement which no jeering can hide. So let us have done with these political points and with the dangerous provisions of this Clause. My hon. Friends are right to oppose them and I hope the party will vote against them.
§ Mr. Raymond Gower (Barry)
I regret that the validity of the judicial process has been questioned so often recently. Although I can understand some people outside the Committee questioning the value of a court's judgment in this kind of material, I should have hoped that the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Paul B. Rose) would not be one of them. As a member of the legal profession, he must concede that, in this country at any rate, the courts have
§ repeatedly shown themselves capable of judging matters of which they did not necessarily have very intimate knowledge before.
§ Should one argue that the courts must never consider the plight of, for example, small shopkeepers because the judges have never been small shopkeepers? The courts have shown themselves to be admirably adjusted to achieve justice, based on the facts and expert advice. They acquire expertise in new matters quickly. Whatever other arguments hon. Gentlemen opposite adduce, I trust that they will not press this one too hard.
§ In an earlier discussion both sides of the Committee accepted the basis of a legally enforceable contract. We took the view that it would be little use our accepting the importance of such a contract if the principals to it did not accept responsibility for it. We now consider that the wording of this provision is a natural corollary of that view.
§ In discussing the question of the order of the court, hon. Gentlemen opposite appear to think that this will embrace a whole range of cases but it will not. It is limited to the procedural aspects, and some of the most damaging problems in recent years have been in this sphere, many of them relating to petty points. Hon. Geneltmen opposite accuse us of over-estimating the importance of the enforceability of contracts. I suggest that they have underestimated the difficult job we have industrially to meet the problems which we face in overseas markets.
§ It is against this background that I hope that, in the long run, hon. Gentlemen opposite will take a more balanced view of the importance of this part of the Bill. Most of these arrangements will still be achieved by negotiation and agreement. Only in a small number of cases will this final part of the provision be invoked.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The Committee divided: Ayes 261, Noes 303.1503
|Division No. 115.]||AYES||[5.24 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Barnes, Michael|
|Albu, Austen||Ashley, Jack||Barnett, Joel|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Ashton, Joe||Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood|
|Alldritt, Walter||Atkinson, Norman||Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Bagier, Gordon A.||Bidwell, Sydney|
|Bishop, E. S.||Hardy, Peter||Orbach, Maurice|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Orme, Stanley|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Oswald, Thomas|
|Booth, Albert||Hattersley, Roy||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Padley Walter|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Heffer, Eric S.||Palmer, Arthur|
|Bradley, Tom||Hilton, W. S.||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Horam, John||Pardoe, John|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Buchan, Norman||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Pendry, Tom|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Pentland, Norman|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Hunter, Adam||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Irvine, Rt.Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.|
|Cant, R. B.||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Prescott, John|
|Carmichael, Neil||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Probert, Arthur|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||John, Brynmor||Rankin, John|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Cohen, Stanley||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Coleman, Donald||Johnston, Russell (Inverness)||Richard, Ivor|
|Conlan, Bernard||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Jones, Rt.Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)||Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Cronin, John||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Roper, John|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Judd, Frank||Rose, Paul B.|
|Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Kaufman, Gerald||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Kelley, Richard||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Kinnock, Neil||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Davidson, Arthur||Lambie, David||Short, Rt.Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Lamond, James||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Latham, Arthur||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Lawson, George||Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)|
|Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Leadbitter, Ted||Sillars, James|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Silverman, Julius|
|Deakins, Eric||Leonard, Dick||Skinner, Dennis|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Lestor, Miss Joan||Small, William|
|Delargy, H. J.||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Dempsey, James||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Doig, Peter||Lipton, Marcus||Stallard, A. W.|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lomas, Kenneth||Steel, David|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Loughlin, Charles||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Driberg, Tom||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Strang, Gavin|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Dunn, James A.||McBride, Neil||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Durrett, Jack||McCartney, Hugh||Swain, Thomas|
|Eadie, Alex||McElhone, Frank||Taverne, Dick|
|Edelman, Maurice||McGuire, Michael||Thomas, Rt.Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Mackenzie, Gregor||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Mackie, John||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Ellis, Tom||Mackintosh, John P.||Tinn, James|
|English, Michael||Maclennan, Robert||Tomney, Frank|
|Evans, Fred||McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)||Torney, Tom|
|Fernyhough, E.||McNamara, J. Kevin||Tuck, Raphael|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||MacPherson, Malcolm||Urwin, T. W.|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Mahon, Simon (Bootle)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Marks, Kenneth||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Foley, Maurice||Marquand, David||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Foot, Michael||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Wallace, George|
|Ford, Ben||Mayhew, Christopher||Watkins, David|
|Forrester, John||Meacher, Michael||Weitzman, David|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Wellbeloved, James|
|Freeson, Reginald||Mendelson, John||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Mikardo, Ian||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||Millan, Bruce||Whitlock, William|
|Ginsburg, David||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Golding, John||Molloy, William||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Gourlay, Harry||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Moyle, Roland||Woof, Robert|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Moyle, Ronald||Woof, Robert|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Murray, Ronald King||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Hamling, William||Ogden, Eric||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||O'Halloran, Michael||Mr. Ernest Armstrong|
|Adley, Robert||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Longden, Gilbert|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Fidler, Michael||Loveridge, John|
|Aliason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||MacArthur, Ian|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||McCrindle, R. A.|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||McLaren, Martin|
|Astor, John||Fookes, Miss Janet||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Fortescue, Tim||McMaster, Stanley|
|Awdry, Daniel||Foster, Sir John||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Fowler, Norman||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||Fox, Marcus||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)|
|Balniel, Lord||Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Maddan, Martin|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Fry, Peter||Madel, David|
|Batsford, Brian||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Maginnis, John E.|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Gibson-Watt, David||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest|
|Bell, Ronald||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Marten, Neil|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Mather, Carol|
|Benyon, W.||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Maude, Angus|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Goodhart, Philip||Maudling Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Biffen, John||Gorst, John||Mawby, Ray|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Gower, Raymond||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Blaker, Peter||Gray, Hamish||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Green, Alan||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Body, Richard||Grieve, Percy||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Boscawen, Robert||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Miscampbell Norman|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Grylls, Michael||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Gummer, Selwyn||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Moate, Roger|
|Braine, Bernard||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Molyneaux, James|
|Bray, Ronald||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Money, Ernie|
|Brewis, John||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Monks, Mrs. Connie|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)||More, Jasper|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Bryan, Paul||Haselhurst, Alan||Mudd, David|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Hastings, Stephen||Murton, Oscar|
|Buck, Antony||Havers, Michael||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hawkins, Paul||Neave, Airey|
|Burden, F. A.||Hayhoe, Barney||Nicholls, Sir Harmar|
|Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Heseltine, Michael||Normanton, Tom|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hicks, Robert||Nott, John|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Higgins, Terence L.||Onslow, Cranley|
|Cary, Sir Robert||Hiley, Joseph||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Channon, Paul||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Orr. Capt. L. P. S.|
|Chapman, Sydney||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Osborn, John|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Holland, Philip||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Chichester-Clark, R.||Holt, Miss Mary||Page, Graham (Crosby)|
|Hordern, Peter||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hornby, Richard||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia||Peel, John|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Percival, Ian|
|Clegg, Walter||Howell, David (Guildford)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John|
|Cockeram, Eric||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Pike, Miss Mervyn|
|Cooke, Robert||Hunt, John||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Coombs, Derek||Hutchinson, Michael Clark||Pounder, Rafton|
|Cooper, A. E.||Iremonger, T. L.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Cordle, John||James, David||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Cormack, Patrick||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Costain, A. P.||Jessel, Toby||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Critchley, Julian||Johnson, Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Crouch, David||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Raison, Timothy|
|Crowder, F. P.||Jopling, Michael||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Curran, Charles||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Redmond, Robert|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Reed, Laurence (Bolton, E.)|
|d'Avigdor-Goldsmid Maj.-Gen. Jack||Kershaw, Anthony||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Dean, Paul||Kilfedder, James||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Dixon, Piers||Kinsey, J. R.||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kitson, Timothy||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Drayson, G. B.||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Knox, David||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Eden, Sir John||Lambton, Antony||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Lane, David||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Langford-Holt, Sir Harry||Rost, Peter|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Emery, Peter||Le Marchant, Spencer||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Eyre, Reginald||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.|
|Farr, John||Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fell, Anthony||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Sharples, Richard||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)||Walters, Dennis|
|Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Shelton, William (Clapham)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)||Warren, Kenneth|
|Simeons, Charles||Tebbit, Norman||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Sinclair, Sir George||Temple, John M.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Skeet, T. H. H.||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Soref, Harold||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Speed, Keith||Tilney, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Spence, John||Trafford, Dr. Anthony||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Sproat, Iain||Trew, Peter||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Stainton, Keith||Tugendhat, Christopher||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Stanhrook, Ivor||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard||Worsley, Marcus|
|Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)||Vickers, Dame Joan||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.||Waddington, David||Younger, Hn. George|
|Stokes, John||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Stuttaford, Dr. Tom||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Sutcliffe, John||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|Tapsell, Peter||Wall, Patrick||Mr. Victor Goodhew.|
|Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
§ Question put, That the Clause stand Part of the Bill:—1507
|Division No. 116.]||AYES||[5.35 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Cordle, John||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Cormack, Patrick||Harrison, Brian (Maldon)|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Costain, A. P.||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Critchley, Julian||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Crouch, David||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Astor, John||Crowder, F. P.||Hastings, Stephen|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Curran, Charles||Havers, Michael|
|Awdry, Daniel||Dalkeith, Earl of||Hawkins, Paul|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmith, Sir Henry||Hay, John|
|Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Balniel, Lord||Dean, Paul||Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Heseltine, Michael|
|Batsford, Brian||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hicks, Robert|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Dixon, Piers||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Bell, Ronald||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Hiley, Joseph|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Drayson, G. B.||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)|
|Benyon, W.||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Eden, Sir John||Holland, Philip|
|Biffen, John||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)||Hordern, Peter|
|Blaker, Peter||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Hornby, Richard|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Emery, Peter||Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn. Dame Patricia|
|Body, Richard||Eyre, Reginald||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)|
|Boscawen, Robert||Farr, John||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Fell, Anthony||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Bowden, Andrew||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Hunt, John|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Fidler, Michael||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Braine, Bernard||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Bray, Ronald||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||James, David|
|Brewis, John||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fookes, Miss Janet||Jessel, Toby|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Foster, Sir John||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Fowler, Norman||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Bruce-Gardyne, J.||Fox, Marcus||Jopling, Michael|
|Bryan, Paul||Fraser, Rt.Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M)||Fry, Peter||Kaberry, Sir Donald|
|Buck, Antony||Galbraith, Hn. T. G.||Kellett, Mrs. Elaine|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Gibson-Watt, David||Kershaw, Anthony|
|Burden, F. A.||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Kilfedder, James|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)|
|Campbell, Rt.Hn. G. (Moray&Nairn)||Glyn, Dr. Alan||King, Torn (Bridgwater)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Goodhart, Philip||Kinsey, J. R.|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Goodhew, Victor||Kitson, Timothy|
|Cary, Sir 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.)||Grylls, Michael||Le Merchant, Spencer|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Gummer, Selwyn||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)|
|Clegg, Walter||Gurden, Harold||Lloyd, Rt.Hn. Geoffrey (Sut'nC'dfield)|
|Cockeram, Eric||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)|
|Cooke, Robert||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Longden, Gilbert|
|Coombs, Derek||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Loveridge, John|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||MacArthur, Ian|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|McLaren, Martin||Peel, John||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Percival, Ian||Stokes, John|
|McMaster, Stanley||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Pike, Miss Mervyn||Sutcliffe, John|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Pink, R. Bonner||Tapsell, Peter|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Pounder, Rafton||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Maddan, Martin||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Taylor, Edward M. (G'gow, Cathcart)|
|Madel, David||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Maginnis, John E.||Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Tebbit, Norman|
|Marten, Neil||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Temple, John M.|
|Mather, Carol||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Maude, Angus||Raison, Timothy||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)|
|Mawby, Ray||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Redmond, Robert||Tilney, John|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Trew, Peter|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Moate, Roger||Ridsdale, Julian||Waddington, David|
|Molyneaux, James||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Money, Ernie||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Monks, Mrs. Connie||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Monro, Hector||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Wall, Patrick|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Rost, Peter||Walters, Dennis|
|More, Jasper||Russell, Sir Ronald||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Warren, Kenneth|
|Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Scott, Nicholas||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Mudd, David||Scott-Hopkins, James||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Murton, Oscar||Sharples, Richard||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Wilkinson, John|
|Neave, Airey||Shelton, William (Clapham)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Nicholls, Sir Harmar||Simeons, Charles||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Sinclair, Sir George||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Normanton, Tom||Skeet, T. H. H.||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Nott, John||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Onslow, Cranley||Soref, Harold||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Speed, Keith||Younger, Hn. George|
|Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Spence, John|
|Osborn, John||Sproat, Iain||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Stainton, Keith||Mr. Tim Fortescue and|
|Page, Graham (Crosby)||Stanbrook, Ivor||Mr. Bernard Weatherill.|
|Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Abse, Leo||Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)||Dunnett, Jack|
|Albu, Austen||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Eadie, Alex|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Edelman, Maurice|
|Alldritt, Walter||Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)|
|Allen, Scholefield||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Edwards, William (Merioneth)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Cohen, Stanley||Ellis, Tom|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Conlan, Bernard||English, Michael|
|Ashley, Jack||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Evans, Fred|
|Ashton, Joe||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Fernyhough, E.|
|Atkinson, Norman||Crawshaw, Richard||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Cronin, John||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)|
|Barnes, Michael||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)|
|Barnett, Joel||Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Dalyell, Tam||Foley, Maurice|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Darling, Rt. Hn. George||Foot, Michael|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Davidson, Arthur||Ford, Ben|
|Bishop, E. S.||Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Forrester, John|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Fraser, John (Norwood)|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Freeson, Reginald|
|Booth, Albert||Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil)||Galpern, Sir Myer|
|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||Golding, John|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Delargy, H. J.||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Gourlay, Harry|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Dempsey, James||Grant, George (Morpeth)|
|Buchan, Norman||Doig, Peter||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dormand, J. D.||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Driberg, Tom||Hamling, William|
|Cant, R. B.||Duffy, A. E. P.||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Dunn, James A.||Hardy, Peter|
|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)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Meacher, Michael||Sillars, James|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Silverman, Julius|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Mendelson, John||Skinner, Dennis|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Mikardo, Ian||Small, William|
|Hunter, Adam||Millan, Bruce||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Irvine, Rt.Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Spearing, Nigel|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.)||Molloy, William||Stallard, A. W.|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Steel, David|
|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. C. 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||Taverns, 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||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Oswald, Thomas||Tinn, James|
|Kelley, Richard||Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)||Tomney, Frank|
|Kinnock, Neil||Padley, Walter||Torney, Tom|
|Lambie, David||Palmer, Arthur||Tuck, Raphael|
|Lamond, James||Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles||Urwin, T. W.|
|Latham, Arthur||Pardoe, John||Varley, Eric G.|
|Lawson, George||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Leadbitter, Ted||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)|
|Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Pavitt, Laurie||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Leonard, Dick||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Wallace, George|
|Lestor, Miss Joan||Pendry, Tom||Watkins, David|
|Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Pentland, Norman||Weitzman, David|
|Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Perry, Ernest G.||Wellbeloved, James|
|Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Lipton, Marcus||Prescott, John||Whitehead, Philip|
|Lomas, Kenneth||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Whitlock, William|
|Loughlin, Charles||Price, William (Rugby)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Probert, Arthur||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford E.)||Rankin, John||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|McBride, Neil||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|McCartney, Hugh||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|McElhone, Frank||Richard, Ivor||Woof, Robert|
|McGuire, Michael||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Roberts, Rt.Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Mackie, John||Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)||Mr Joseph Harper and|
|Mackintosh, John P.||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Mr. Donald Coleman.|
|Maclennan, Robert||Roper, John|
§ Clause 34 ordered to stand part of the Bill.