HC Deb 09 February 1971 vol 811 cc297-311
The Chairman

We come now to Amendment No. 198, in page 28, line 24, leave out 'shall' and insert 'may'.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

This Amendment, too, is destined to fall a victim to the guillotine. Like Danton, it deserved a better fate, but I suspect that it shares its tumbrel with many even worthier arguments. A new abbreviation has entered the parliamentary vocabulary: "U.P.N.M." — "under protest, not moved". Under protest, I refrain from moving this Amendment.

Question put, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

We have discussed at some length the principles and the proposals which are consummated in the Clause and which we on this side of the Committee have described throughout as the fictitious agreement Clause; because what is proposed by means of this very tortuous procedure through Clauses 35–38 is that in the last analysis two parties are compelled to enter into a binding agreement against the clear intention of one of them. It must be the clear intention, otherwise there would be no need to go through this procedure and obtain an order of the court. In the event of the default of one of the parties, a substantial amount of compensation may fall to be paid.

Because this is so plainly an outrageous intrusion into the principle of freedom of contract and an entirely novel post-election proposal, it is now at the eleventh hour being sold by the Secretary of State as an emergency procedure. This is what we have been told. That may well be the Secretary of State's intention; but if it was, why was this not included in that part of the Bill which is headed "Emergency Procedures" instead of it finding its way into this Part of the Bill?

There is no guarantee, even if we are assured by the Secretary of State that it is intended to be used only in emergency, that once it is on the Statute Book that is how it will be used. In any event, it does not alter the principle to which this side of the Committee is entirely opposed and it does not detract from the points which have been made in the debates on the other Clauses—that there will be a duty upon trade unionists and others who do not wish to enter into one of these fictitious agreements to police it and take quite drastic action against their own colleagues and members to enforce it.

The interaction of C.I.R. and N.I.R.C. here is such that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) in a very telling speech pointed out, the whole intention of the C.I.R. will be undermined. This has been shown, not merely by the action of Alf Allen and Will Paynter, but by the action only a day or two ago of a very eminent professor displaying his contempt for the C.I.R. in the new context of the N.I.R.C. One wonders just how long it will be before this is followed by other resignations on the part of those serving on the C.I.R.

Also, as an appeal lies only on a question of law, it will not be possible to appeal from a decision of N.I.R.C.; because these are purely factual matters in these agreements.

Above all, we on this side have emphasised throughout the continuous and the changing nature of procedure agreements and the fact that they rely ultimately on voluntary co-operation.

The problem about procedures is not obtaining an agreement. The problem is seeing that an agreement is kept. This point is entirely missed by this Clause and by the preceding Clauses. We are concerned that we should obtain procedures which, when they are obtained, will be kept.

Even when parties voluntarily agree to a procedure, it is virtually impossible to enforce this satisfactorily by law. Heaven knows what will occur when, as in this case, we have to enforce a fictitious agreement upon an unwilling, non-consenting party.

It is not good enough for the Solicitor-General, as he did in last week's debate, to throw the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act at us as a precedent. That Act is not enforced in this way by a union policing its own members. It operates so as to bring the terms and conditions in an industry up to those which are voluntarily agreed by the majority in that industry. It does not single out, as the Bill does, a particular employer for special treatment with regard to a case and problem particular to him. It is socially acceptable to industry, whereas the Clause, as we on this side continually point out, is not socially acceptable; and that which is not socially acceptable will ultimately be unenforceable.

This is an alien concept—an idea perhaps more at home in the realm of the 1930s than in Britain in the 1970s. What the Government should be doing now is encouraging parties voluntarily to move forward to mutually acceptable procedure agreements. The Government should stop taking Donovan out of context in the way the Solicitor-General did. I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to read again paragraphs 475 and 507 of the Donovan Report and put Donovan in its context instead of putting odd sentences that appear to support his views.

The secret of harmony in industry is not enforceability but agreement in co-operation, and certainly not the enforcement of things that are not agreed between the two sides of industry.

Finally, we arrive at these conclusions. First, even if procedure agreements are to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, as they are under the Bill, the Clause still remains utterly repugnant and unacceptable to this side of the Committee. Second, if procedure agreements are not to be enforceable, the Clause would be an irrelevancy, anyway.

Therefore, as this is a most provocative Clause which has caused dismay and bitterness throughout the trade union movement and among a great many academics who are concerned with the law of contract and a great many lawyers, and as it is already contributing in great measure to the upsurge of bitterness on the part of industry provoked by the Government, we on this side will oppose the Clause and will throughout the stages of the Bill oppose any attempt to enforce upon unwilling parties agreements into which they have not entered and which they cannot be expected to enforce against their own members.

4.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Geoffrey Howe)

The Committee has heard the arguments on this part of the Bill rehearsed in many debates and I do not want to take up time on them now, but I must reply to the general assertion again repeated by the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) denouncing the provisions when they are a fair and reasonable attempt to solve what is by common acknowledgment one of the greatest difficulties on the industrial relations scene.

It may be said that these are provocative provisions. The fact is that other people—academics and practical people of all kinds—have urged us to extend the concept of enforceability to pre-existing agreements. They have said that we should disregard the difficulties or practical facts of particular cases and that we should make the provision for enforceability universally applicable. We have not done that. We have proceeded from the premise, as the Donovan Commission pointed out—and there is no room for argument about this—that most of our troubles spring from the inadequacy of procedure agreements and that the urgent need is to improve those agreements. [HON. MEMBERS: "On a voluntary basis."] Hon. Members say, "On a voluntary basis." But society has been waiting for management to get off its backside and for union leaders to improve procedures on a voluntary basis. Society asks, "How long must we wait before these improvements come about on a voluntary basis?"

For that reason, successive Governments have become increasingly impressed with the urgency of trying to do something to accelerate progress towards the making of the kind of agreement which everyone regards as desirable. We are not making a general intrusion into freedom. We are designing selected, precise, case-by-case procedures which will exert pressure upon management and union leaders to improve procedures in given situations.

The rôle of the C.I.R. will be to act as honest broker and conciliator in those cases which the court has identified as causing persistent trouble, as set out in Clause 35. It must be plain beyond argument that some kind of outside guidance, help and treatment is desirable. It is only in that narrow situation that we arrived at the remedies proposed. It is beside the point and unimpressive for statements to be made about comparisons between these proposals and anything which may be found in Rome, ancient or modern. Society acknowledges that we have a problem. Everyone has acknowledged the necessity to try to raise standards, and this is a method carefully designed to achieve that end. It involves no contempt of the C.I.R., whose rôle will be to do what it can to bring about the necessary improvements.

We believe that the general tide of progress must be voluntary but that the law can and should exert pressure in the direction of selected cases to try to achieve the result that society wants.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

The Solicitor-General keeps telling us about society's opinion. Can he say when society gave an opinion on this matter, seeing that the point at issue was never discussed as a matter of controversy between the main parties at the election?

The Solicitor-General

The general conclusion that unofficial, unconstitutional strikes, either in breach of good procedures or, more frequently, because of the non-existence of good procedures, are at the heart of our troubles was endorsed by the Donovan Commission and by the last Government. This is the diagnosis and society has accepted the efforts of Labour and Conservative Governments to find a solution for it.

The Donovan Report argued that when procedures had been improved we must look again at the case for selective enforceability on a case-by-case basis. We have waited for three years. There is not sufficient evidence that improvement is taking place voluntarily as fast as we should like and I am sure that society supports our attempts to create more quickly machinery for the improvement of agreements and, in these special selected cases, for such agreements to be enforced. I am sure that we all share that objective, and I commend the view that this is a legitimate and reasonably balanced way to try to achieve it.

The parallel with the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act remains. If society wishes to see an improvement in the standard of procedures, it is not unreasonable to select a method of the kind we suggest, just as in the context of the 1959 Act it was decided that it was sensible to bring the standards of collective bargains up to those generally agreed and, in those circumstances, to impose the conclusion upon selected firms. It is in that way, and not in any extravagant way, that I commend the Clause, already debated in principle, as one which the Committee should accept.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

It is important to point out that Clause 39 does two things. It imposes something upon people who, according to the Donovan Report, would be preferably left to their own devices. There is an element of imposition there, and I think wrongly there, from the beginning. The second element about which we complain is the method of imposition. This is where the paradox is highlighted at its most extreme. The cutting edge of the enforceability of collective agreements is in Clause 39.

The paradox which highlights it is the fact that in Clause 35 there are examples of three kinds of procedure agreement which can lead to imposition by the Industrial Court. The first is when there is no procedure agreement. Whether one agrees with the Government's remedy or not, one can well understand that the diagnosis is probably relevant—that there will be trouble in industry if there is no procedure agreement. Similarly, one can understand the second example—the unsuitability of procedure agreements such as exist. One may acknowledge the diagnosis but not the cure.

But one then comes to the third example which is illustrated in Clause 35(1)(b), namely, a procedure which is in existence, with both parties being satisfied with the agreement. The paradox is that, despite the fact that the parties have reached agreement and have a genuine contract, the Industrial Court can, under Clause 39, impose other terms of agreement upon them. It can not merely impose something on them; it can impose it on the fiction that it is an agreement. One is taking, not one, but two strange new steps and providing for a system of enforceability based on the fiction that the parties are agreed about the thing to be enforceable.

For that reason, among others, I think that the Clause is in error and goes in the wrong direction.

Mrs. Barbara Castle (Blackburn)

We all want to make progress on the Bill, but this is one of the points in it at which a vital principle is involved. We cannot stress too strongly how iniquitous we find the principle in the Clause. We are totally at a loss to understand the complacency of hon. Members opposite, and particularly of hon. and learned Gentlemen opposite, because they must know that everyone connected with and experienced in the administration and operation of the law is deeply perturbed by the proposed new principle.

Although, as the Solicitor-General said, we on this side of the Committee have ventilated our anxieties, we have had a completely contemptible answer from the Government. The Solicitor-General even justified the Government breaking their mandate on their industrial relations legislation by the fact that the Government had not done certain things which they had been urged to do. In particular, he said, "Look how liberal we are, because we have been urged to make pre-existing contracts legally enforceable. So all that we are doing is to make not only post-legislation contracts legally enforceable but to impose agreements that were never agreed." It reminds me of the girl who justified her illegitimate baby on the ground that it was not twins. It will not do for the right hon. Gentleman to quote in aid Donovan and the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act. It is vital for us to place on record once and for all that in this, as in other matters, the Government are distorting Donovan and going in exactly the opposite direction to that which Donovan advocated.

The Solicitor-General made great play on that section of Donovan which discusses what might be the rôle that law could play when the voluntary reforms had been carried through. He said that Donovan had quoted the Terms and Conditions of Employment Act as an analogy. Donovan did nothing of the kind. It was not quoting that Act as a justification for imposing procedure agreements here. In paragraph 511, Donovan was merely quoting this as an example of ad hoc application of the law. But the Donovan attitude is made completely clear in paragraph 514 when, having discussed the sort of legal sanctions which might, if all else failed, be considered, and having discussed the possibility of the Secretary of State giving legal backing to particular procedure agreements, in exceptional situations, Donovan went on to say: To proceed further, the Secretary of State would, on the basis of this consultation, have to be satisfied: (a) that the disputes procedure has been agreed between the employer and the union or unions concerned; Even in this ultimate resort, where Donovan considered that it might be necessary at some distant future point, if voluntary reform had failed, to consider bringing in the law, they were only prepared to give legal backing to procedure agreements which had been negotiated by both sides.

Therefore, once again the Government are wrong about Donovan. Once again, the Government are manufacturing a new and illiberal principle entirely of their own.

It is not only lawyers who are outraged by this Clause. It is not only the trade unions who protest and will continue to protest that they are expected, under this group of Clauses, to police agreements which they did not voluntarily enter into—a new form of tyranny in our law—but the ordinary person in this country.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)


Mrs. Castle

The hon. Gentleman has consoled himself very easily through earlier stages of our debate. I am not surprised that he is consoling himself very easily now.

Mr. Anthony Fell (Yarmouth)

I was laughing at the fact that the right hon. Lady is saying that the whole country

is against the Bill, and so on. In Yarmouth on Sunday we had a great march to protest against the Bill, which was advertised in the Press and elsewhere, and 45 people turned up.

Mrs. Castle

I cannot answer for Yarmouth, particularly as it returns the hon. Gentleman, which I should have thought was a measure of the need for enlightenment in that area.

Hon. Gentlemen opposite are labouring under a very dangerous illusion if they think that there is not intense bitterness against the Bill, which will grow as the full implications of its provisions come home. The Government are coasting along at present by a widespread ignorance of the public as to what the Bill involves.

I quote a letter which I received the other day, a second letter from someone who had written to me violently supporting the Bill and violently criticising what I had written about it. The tenor of the letter was to say how unreasonable I was being about this reasonable Government. Part of it reads as follows: You of all people must know that the chances of an employer forcing any agreement on a reluctant Trade Union are negligible. The Unions are far too strong for this to be possible. In any event if a Union did not sign an agreement it would not be an agreement so how could a Union be mulcted for damages for breaking something which did not exist. In this Clause we are deciding that something shall exist which did not exist, and that it will have the full rigour of the law behind it. When that principle comes home to people, their reaction against the Bill and the Government will be still more bitter.

Question put:

The Committee divided: Ayes 303, Noes 257.

Division No. 130.] AYES [4.47 p.m.
Adley, Robert Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Brinton, Sir Tatton
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Benyon, W. Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Berry, Hn. Anthony Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Biffen, John Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Astor, John Biggs-Davison, John Bryan, Paul
Atkins, Humphrey Blakey, Peter Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M)
Awdry, Daniel Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Buck, Antony
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Body, Richard Bullus, Sir Eric
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Boscawen, Robert Burden, F. A.
Balniel, Lord Bossom, Sir Clive Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Bowden, Andrew Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn)
Batsford, Brian Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Carlisle, Mark
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Braine, Bernard Carr, Rt Hn. Robert
Bell, Ronald Bray, Ronald Cary, Sir Robert
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Brewis, John Channon, Paul
Chapman, Sydney Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Chichester-Clark, R. Holland, Philip Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Churchill, W. S. Holt, Miss Mary Peel, John
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hordern, Peter Percival, Ian
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hornby, Richard Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Clegg, Walter Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Pike, Miss Mervyn
Cockeram, Eric Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Pink, R. Bonner
Cooke, Robert Howell, David (Guildford) Pounder, Rafton
Coombs, Derek Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cooper, A. E. Hunt, John Price, David (Eastleigh)
Cordle, John Hutchison, Michael Clark Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Iremonger, T. L. Proudfoot, Wilfred
Cormack, Patrick James, David Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Costain, A. P. Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Critchley, Julian Jessel, Toby Raison, Timothy
Crouch, David Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Curran, Charles Jopling, Michael Redmond, Robert
Dalkeith, Earl of Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kaberry, Sir Donald Rees, Peter (Dover)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rees-Davies, W. F.
d-Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Kershaw, Anthony Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dean, Paul Kilfedder, James Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Digby, Simon Wingfield King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ridley, Ho. Nicholas
Dixon, Piers King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridsdale, Julian
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kinsey, J. R. Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Kirk, Peter Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Drayson, G. B. Kitson, Timothy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Knox, David Rost, Peter
Dykes, Hug Lambton, Antony Royle, Anthony
Eden, Sir John Lane, David Russell, Sir Ronald
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Langford-Holt, Sir John St. John-Stevas, Norman
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Legge-Bourke Sir Harry Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Le Marchant, Spencer Scott, Nicholas
Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Scott-Hopkins, James
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd,Rt.Hn Geoffrey(Sut'nC'dfield) Sharples, Richard
Farr, John Lloyd Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Fell, Anthony Longden, Gilbert Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Loveridge, John Simeons, Charles
Fidler, Michael McAdden, Sir Stephen Skeet, T. H. H.
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead MacArthur, Ian Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) McCrindle, R. A. Soref, Harold
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaren, Martin Speed, Keith
Fookes, Miss Janet Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Spence, John
Fortescue, Tim McMaster, Stanley Sproat, Iain
Foster, Sir John Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Stainton, Keith
Fowler, Norman McNair-Wilson, Michael Stanbrook, Ivor
Fox, Marcus McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Fry, Peter Maddan, Martin Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Madel, David Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Gardner, Edward Maginnis, John E. Stokes, John
Gibson-Watt, David Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Marten, Neil Sutcliffe, John
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Mather, Carol Tapsell, Peter
Glyn, Dr. Alan Maude, Angus Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Goodhart, Philip Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Gorst, John Mawby, Ray Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Cower, Raymond Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Meyer, Sir Anthony Tebbit, Norman
Gray, Hamish Mills, Peter (Torrington) Temple, John M.
Green, Alan Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Grieve, Percy Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Grylls, Michael Moate, Roger Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Gummer, Selwyn Molyneaux, James Tilney, John
Gurden, Harold Money, Erie Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Monks, Mrs. Connie Trew, Peter
Hall, John (Wycombe) Monro, Hector Tugendhat, Christopher
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Montgomery, Fergus van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Hannam, John (Exeter) Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Vickers, Dame Joan
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mudd, David Waddington, David
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Murton, Oscar Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Nabarro, Sir Gerald Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Haselhurst, Alan Neave, Airey Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Hastings, Stephen Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wall, Patrick
Havers, Michael Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Walters, Dennis
Hawkins, Paul Normanton, Tom Ward Dame Irene
Hayhoe, Barney Nott, John Warren, Kenneth
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward Onslow, Cranley Weatherill, Bernard
Heseltine, Michael Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Wells, John (Maidstone)
Hicks, Robert Orr, Capt. L. P. S. White, Roger (Gravesend)
Higgins, Terence L. Osborn, John Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hiley, Joseph Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Wiggin, Jerry
Wilkinson, John Worsley, Marcus TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R. Mr. Jasper More and
Woodnutt, Mark Younger, Hn. George Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Abse, Leo Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McNamara, J. Kevin
Albu, Austen Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) MacPherson, Malcolm
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Foley, Maurice Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Allen, Scholefield Foot, Michael Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Ford, Ben Marquand, David
Armstrong, Ernest Forrester, John Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Ashley, Jack Fraser, John (Norwood) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Ashton, Joe Galpern, Sir Myer Mayhew, Christopher
Atkinson, Norman Garrett, W. E. Meachor, Michael
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Gilbert, Dr. John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Barnes, Michael Ginsburg, David Mendelson, John
Barnett, Joel Golding, John Mikardo, Ian
Beaney, Alan Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Milian, Bruce
Berm, Rt, Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Gourlay, Harry Miller, Dr. M. S.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Grant, George (Morpeth) Molloy, William
Bishop, E. S. Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Booth, Albert Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Murray, Ronald King
Bradley, Tom Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Ogden, Eric
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Hardy, Peter O'Halloran, Michael
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Malley, Brian
Browns, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Hart, Rt. Hn, Judith Oram, Bert
Buchan, Norman Hattersley, Roy Orbach, Maurice
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burm) Heffer, Eric S. Orme, Stanley
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hilton, W. S. Oswald, Thomas
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Horam, John Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonskire, W.) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Palmer, Arthur
Cant, R, B. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Carmichael, Neil Huckfield, Leslie Parker, John (Dagenham)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Pavitt, Laurie
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Pendry, Tom
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Hughes, Roy (Newport) Pentland, Norman
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Hunter, Adam Perry, Ernest G.
Cohen, Stanley Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg
Coleman, Donald Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Prescott, John
Concannon, J. D. Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Conlan, Bernard Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Price, William (Rugby)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Probert, Arthur
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) John, Brynmor Rankin, John
Crawshaw, Richard Jonnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cronin, John Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Jones, Dan (Burnley) Richard, Ivor
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Dalyell, Tam Jones, T. Alec (Rhodda, W.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Judd, Frank Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R.dnor)
Davidson, Arthur Kaufman, Gerald Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Kelley, Richard Roper, John
Davies, G. Ellett (Rhondda, E.) Kinnock, Neil Rose, Paul B.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Lambie, David Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Davies, S. O. (Merthyr Tydvil) Lamond, James Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Latham, Arthur Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Deakins, Eric Lawson, George Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Leadbitter, Ted Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dempsey, James Leonard, Dick Sillars, James
Doig, Peter Lestor, Miss Joan Silverman, Julius
Dormand, J. D. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham N.) Skinner, Dennis
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Small, William
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Lipton, Marcus Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Driberg, Tom Lomas, Kenneth Spearing, Nigel
Duffy, A. E. P. Loughlin, Charles Spriggs, Lesile
Dunn, James A. Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Stallard, A. W.
Dunnett, Jack Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Steel, David
Badly, Alex Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Edelman, Maurice McBride, Neil Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McCartney, Hugh Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McElhone, Frank Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Ellis, Tom McGuire, Michael Strang, Gavin
English, Michael Mackenzie Gregor Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Fernyhough, E. Mackie, John Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Mackintosh, John P. Swain, Thomas
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Taverne, Dick
Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardift,W.) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Tinn, James Wallace, George Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Tomney, Frank Watkins, David Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Torney, Tom Wellbeloved, James Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Tuck, Raphael Wells, William (Walsall, N.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Urwiny T. W. White, James (Glasgow, Po1lok)
Varley, Eric G. Whitlock, William TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Wainwright, Edwin Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick Mr. Kenneth Marks and
Mr. Joseph Harper.

Clause 39 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

[Miss HARVIE ANDERSON in the Chair]

Forward to