HC Deb 28 January 1971 vol 810 cc944-87

The following Amendment stood upon the Order Paper: No. 101, in page 7, line 22, leave out 'one month' and insert 'two weeks'.

The Deputy Chairman (Miss Harvie Anderson)

Mr. Archer, to move Amendment No. 101.

Mr. Peter Archer (Rowley Regis and Tipton)

I set down Amendment No. 101 because I thought that it was one of a number of points which required discussion. I thought that even an industrial lawyer had some qualifications to make a contribution to the discussions in Committee. Unhappily, we on this side of the Committee are now in the frustrating position of having to decide which of the many imperfections in the Bill are more intolerable than the others and to confine ourselves to them.

Lest it be thought that by our silence we are endorsing the Bill and its imperfections, I want to place on record, when in due course the other imperfections manifest themselves, as inevitably they must if the Bill becomes law, and we are asked why the industrial lawyers did not point them out in Committee, that our answer is that we remained silent because we were silenced. Regretfully, Mr. Deputy Chairman, I refrain from moving my Amendment.

Mr. David James

I beg to move Amendment No. 534, in page 7, line 27, after 'order', insert: 'or as seamen in a sea-going ship registered in the United Kingdom'.

The Deputy Chairman

It would be for the convenience of the Committee to discuss at the same time Amendment No. 535, in Clause 11, page 9, line 40, at end add: (4) In this section 'employer' includes an organisation of employers of merchant seamen.

Mr. James

These Amendments relate to shipping. I take up part of the speech made by the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) yesterday, when he said, quite rightly, that we are different. By that he meant the shipping industry. The hon. Gentleman and myself have something in common because we have both served at sea for periods of time. I do not think that either of us is a shipowner, unless we include the 14-foot dinghy that I owned before the war, but we are both interested in the future of sailors.

Amendment No. 534 refers to Clause 8 which deals with the appropriate contribution to a trade union in lieu of membership. The Explanatory Memorandum explains that the Clause empowers the Secretary of State to prescribe shorter periods in respect of workers in the construction industry. It is our contention that the shipping industry is in exactly the same position as the construction industry in this respect, and that unless seamen can be eligible on the basis of shorter voyages there will be that which the right hon. Lady would so resent—free riders—who would incur the resentment of their fellow crew members.

Amendment No. 535 jogs forward to Clause 11. My right hon. Friend has down an Amendment to Clause 11 which refers to "employers" in the plural. Sailors make a voyage with one company, come home on leave and then make a voyage with another company, and it is therefore inappropriate to envisage a par- ticular shipowner as the employer. One needs to envisage the Federation of Shipowners vis-é-vis the pool. It is uncertain whether the reference to "employers" means a group of employers or a federation of employers. I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will enlighten me on this and say whether there is a legal as opposed to a semantic distinction between these concepts.

The Amendment is essential, first, because sailors enjoy moving from company to company and varying their voyages. Secondly, they are represented by a common pool of supply which is extremely important to the industry. Thirdly, the pool of supply enables them to enjoy maximum employment and at the same time enables the employers to enjoy the maximum use of labour. In this connection the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East said that the union also stands for stable employment in an industry where casual labour is almost essential to keep the industry going. Although I do not have the honour of being a member of his union, my proposal might well suit the book of his union.

A large number of seamen are paid on a general service contract, which in itself leads to the full manning of ships. In short, there would be chaos if firms differed in their practice over the operation of an agency shop agreement. This decision must be reached by the Shipping Federation as a whole.

I have, I hope, been practical and not polemical, and I have not wasted the time of the Committee. My object is to bring this proposal to the attention of Ministers. I hope the fact that I have spoken for three minutes and not for 30 minutes will not weaken but rather strengthen my case, which is so important for the shipping industry.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)

I shall speak only for a limited time in view of the pressing desire on these benches to get to the important Clauses concerned with the agency shop. It has been difficult for us on this side of the Committee to listen to the debate on the closed shop and not to intervene. This has been due to the exercise of the guillotine and not because of the lack of argument on this side of the Committee. Whilst we are trying to argue the case for an exemption we must bear in mind that the Amendments are an attempt to deal with an impossible situation. In dealing with the destruction of trade unions under the Bill, it is tempting to say that we hope this will not happen and to move Amendments to help prevent it happening, but these Amendments do not help a great deal. The Clause exempts an employee for one month or three months, but even if the period were one week and two weeks a ship may still have sailed and we should be left with the same problem. The Clause also encourages the development of non-trade unionism by its classification of two categories of people who contribute to the union. Even if the periods were altered, the maintenance of the trade union structure would still be seriously threatened.

Amendment No. 535 refers to an organisation of employers, such as the Shipping Federation. As I explained yesterday, there are 400 companies. These organisations will not be trade unions as defined in the Bill but organisations which will not have to comply with the regulations and prohibitions contained in the Bill. In America, in the shipping industry, companies have developed their own trade unions, as they will be able to do under the Bill. There is in this country one organised set of employers, the Shipping Federation, but that is maintained only because the union holds the sanction of the closed shop. That is why there is one collective body of employers. It is likely that there will be a fragmentation and that those who do not want trade union recognition will develop through organisations of this kind.

Although the Amendment is moved with the best intentions, it is an attempt to deal with an impossible situation created by the Bill.

10.15 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I do not wish to follow the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott) in an anlysis of the problems which were discussed yesterday, save only to say that it is not the intention, nor will it be the effect, of this legislation to destroy or threaten the destruction of the union of which he speaks or of any other. He raised all these points yesterday and my right hon. Friend then indicated that they would remain open for discussion.

It is not the case, for example, that the legislation opens the way to the establishment of company unions and to the requirement by employers of membership of those company unions to the exclusion of any other. That is expressly excluded by Clause 5, and company unions of that kind would not qualify for protection under the legislation.

I wish to come specifically to the Amendment of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North (Mr. David James). My hon. Friend's points go very near to meeting some of the more substantial problems in this area. The suggestion in Clause 8(6) that seamen or those employed in the shipping industry should be covered so that a shorter period of employment should be necessary before membership of the union was required is something my right hon. Friend has well in mind, and indeed may well have in mind over a broader front. There was an Amendment in the name of the hon. Member for West Ham, North (Mr. Arthur Lewis) suggesting that the word "construction" should be removed from the Clause, which would meet the point put by my hon. Friend and my right Friend will have in mind something along those lines which may serve a wider and fuller purpose.

The other Amendment, the substitution of "an organisation of employers" in Clause 11 is confined only to the one industry. The same problem arises in some other industries. For example, it relates to the industry with which Equity is concerned and Amendments No. 494 and No. 495 which my right hon. Friend hopes to move in a few moments to Clause 11, go along the same road to meet my hon. Friend's point, but over a wider field. If it turns out that some express provision is necessary in any further sense to be sure that the points put by my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North were met, my right hon. Friend will look at the matter to ensure that they are met.

In those circumstances, with the undertaking that the points raised will be looked at so as to ensure that in so far as they are not met by Amendments already tabled they will be taken into account, I hope that my hon. Friend will not press the matter any further at this stage. The points that he made are important and will certainly be considered hereafter.

Mr. Ronald Brown (Shoreditch and Finsbury)

The hon. and learned Gentleman appears to be saying that Clause 5 would not permit an employer to have a house association. Would he like to pursue that point? Looking back at Clause 1, I can see nothing that precludes any employer from establishing a house association if he so desires.

The Solicitor-General

I would rather not pursue that point now. We have discussed it on Clause 5. The house association or house union would not qualify under the later provisions of the Bill as a union entitled to registration and an employer could not insist on or attempt to compel his employees to join a house union, whether it was independent or not. We have discussed that matter on Clause 5, and I do not wish to go back on that because the Committee wishes to get on to the subsequent Clauses.

Mr. Simon Wingfield Digby (Dorset, West)

Could my right hon. and learned Friend explain a little further the Amendment in the name of his right hon. Friend to Clause 11? That Amendment speaks of an employer or employers or group of employers. My point is that the Shipping Federation is not itself an employer.

The Solicitor-General

I should like to make that matter clear. There is a deficiency, with respect, in the Amend- ment in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Dorset, North because it is confined to only one industry. An organisation making an agreement in the manner visualised by my hon. Friend would not necessarily bind the members of that organisation to comply with the agency shop. The important point is that each of the employers should be bound to observe the conditions of the agreement. It is probably more effectively dealt with than in the way suggested by my right hon. Friend's Amendment.

What we want to achieve is that an agreement made by a union or unions through or with a federation, such as the Shipping Federation, is effective so as to apply to and bind all the members of that Federation—and not only in the shipping industry. There is some room for doubt whether an agreement made by the federation necessarily made members. Both my right hon. Friend and my hon. Friend have the same purpose in mind. We shall ensure that when the matter comes forward again, the points are taken into account—and not only points in relation to the shipping industry.

Mr. David James

Probably both my hon. and learned Friend and I to a certain extent suffer from legislative indigestion. It is difficult to reach a rapid decision on these things, but with the assurance that we shall have an opportunity, if the hon. Gentlemen's Amendments are not satisfactory, to look at this matter again on Report, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

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

Mr. Harold Walker

The whole of Clause 8 is linked inextricably with the provisions dealt with in some detail later in the Bill for the establishment of the agency shop. This is the second of the two fundamental issues with which, in this part of our proceedings, we have sought to deal in more detail. These are two of what the right hon. Gentleman described on one occasion as the eight pillars of his edifice. I should like to say something about the agency shop.

First, it appears that this is an American import—probably the product of a couple of weeks spent in the United States on a parliamentary delegation by one of the hon. Gentlemen on the Government Front Bench. It introduces a remarkable change in British trade union history.

We have been successfully exporting British trade unionism for a long time. Now we are apparently to import instead.

It is even more remarkable that what will present the most formidable challenge to our industrial relations system is yet another example of the Government's contradiction in insisting that their proposals are based on the recommendations of the Royal Commission. I pointed out yesterday how Clause 5 contradicted the Royal Commission. I cannot find a hint of this proposal in the whole of that very lengthy report.

Ascribing the best motives to the right hon. Gentleman, I think that he is tilting at a problem which undeniably exists—a problem which arises from a multiplicity of unions, the conflicts of interests between them, and the areas of those interests.

I seriously doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman's proposals will make any contribution to their improvement, and I am equally convinced that, in many ways, the right hon. Gentleman's proposal to establish agency shops will do irreparable damage to our industrial relations system.

We are entitled to ask whether the Government have seriously thought this thing through. I wonder whether they have looked at the practical problems in the way of its effective operation. and, furthermore, the new problems which it will create.

We cannot divorce this matter from the subject of our debate yesterday. Indeed, during that debate the Government went out of their way to show the link between the two—the provisions of Clause 5 and the agency shop proposal. The Bill links the two.

The right hon. Gentleman proposes that where an employer does not readily accede to a request for an agency shop, the matter can be decided by a ballot and the union must secure a majority of the votes of those eligible to vote.

Some of my hon. Friends have pointed out the glaring inconsistency between the criteria which are imposed on a union to establish a mandate in their industrial relations and the kind of mandate which the Government have for what they are putting before the House and the country. By implication, in their proposals, those who do not vote for, vote against. The Bill imposes a requirement that, in order to get a mandate to establish an agency, a union has to get a majority of the votes of those eligible to vote. We have pointed out that the Tory Party had at least two-thirds of the country not voting for it at the General Election. I think that only 32 per cent. of those eligible to vote voted for the Tory Party. Therefore, under their own standards, we are entitled to say that the remaining 60 odd per cent. who did not vote for them, voted against them.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer (Louth)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walker

Perhaps I may finish this point. I think that I can anticipate what the hon. Gentleman is going to say: that 46 per cent. of those who voted voted for the Conservative Party. But 54 per cent. voted against and, therefore, against what the Government are doing.

Mr. Archer

I was not going to put that point. I was going to say that this was the main platform of our election manifesto. If that percentage had felt—[Interruption.] We produced "Fair Deal at Work" long before the General Election—[Interruption.] Perhaps I may be allowed to put this point. If they felt that strongly about the Bill, why did they not turn out at the General Election and vote for the Labour Party which was not going to allow it to become law?

Mr. Walker

More people voted against what is being proposed than for it. When we come to debate that narrow point in the Bill I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apply the same criteria to his right hon. Friend's proposals, because his right hon. Friend is moving in a contrary direction to that implied in the hon. Gentleman's remarks.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer rose——

Mr. Walker

No. Many of my hon. Friends want to take part in the debate, and I want to be brief.

If the union does not secure a majority of the votes of those eligible to vote, it has to wait for two years before having another go. During those two years, why should any worker retain his union membership? To do so in that situation would be an ineffective gesture of loyalty——

Mr. Ashton

Is my hon. Friend aware that in almost every Division on the Bill the Government have not received 51 per cent. of the votes in the House, never mind in the country? They need 316 votes in the House to achieve that percentage but they are not getting like that figure.

Mr. Walker

My hon. Friend is right, and what he says illustrates the hypocritical double standards which we have come to expect from the Government—

Mr. Jeffrey Archer rose——

Mr. Walker

No. It is legitimate to say to the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends, "Physician, heal thyself".

I come back to the two years for which, having failed to secure election, the union will have to wait before having another bite at the cherry. Why should we believe that people will want to continue what, in that situation, will be nothing more than an ineffective gesture of loyalty to the union, an expression of faith in the future, or a diminishing safeguard of employment elsewhere when, under this provision and that in Clause 5(1)(b), the odds are that at the end of the two-year period the union will be less likely to secure a majority than it was the first time?

But even if the union is successful, that success can be thwarted by the Tory fifth-column—the legion of non-unionists—the growth of which will undoubtedly be encouraged by the provisions of Clause 5, because while it takes a majority of those eligible to vote to secure any agency, one-fifth of the workers covered by the agency can frustrate it. It seems an extraordinary and highly dubious proposition that non-unionists should be given a right by law to say which union shall negotiate, or if any union shall negotiate, in a particular establishment.

I believe that the fundamental point which has been ignored by the Government is that union recognition usually precedes, and does not follow, trade union recruitment. Before people join the union they have to be satisfied that they are doing so to good purpose, and that is that the union they are joining will be able to represent them and negotiate on their behalf.

What the Government equally ignore, and what is ignored by the hirsute Gentleman below the Gangway, is that under the provisions of Clause 5 it will be icreasingly difficult for unions to secure the minimum membership that is necessary for recognition under the agency shop provisions.

Our debate yesterday was dominated by that issue, and whilst we debate the closed shop, we debated also the more typical shop in which trade union membership falls short of 100 per cent. and which, under this Bill, will be progressively less likely to establish the qualifications needed for an agency.

I think that we ought to consider one or two situations that will arise even when a union has the necessary strength to put in its bid for an agency. I ask the right hon. Gentleman to tell us what he thinks will happen when, for example, in my railway workshops in Doncaster where the N.U.R. and my own union the A.E.U.W. seek to recruit the same grades of worker from the same areas and one or other union puts in a bid to establish an agency, either for part, or for the whole of the establishment.

[Sir ROBERT GRANT-FERRIS in the Chair]

Let us say that one of them is not successful. What does the right hon. Gentleman expect will happen, once one of those two unions has established an agency, about the members of the other union? Under these requirements, it seems that those who have lost out will have to seek employment elsewhere or will have to transfer their union membership or take out additional member-ship——

Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South) rose——

Mr. Walker

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have his opportunity later. I should not have given way in the first place.

Mr. Bell

On a point of Order. We are on the Question, I think, That the Clause stand part of the Bill. The Clause is about contributions in lieu of union dues. All these questions about ballots and withdrawal of recognition would appear to arise under later Clauses altogether.

The Chairman

I think that the hon, Member is in order.

Mr. Walker

I was asking the right hon. Gentleman what happened to the individual union member in that situation, when his own union had lost out. The Government have overlooked, among many other things, one unique difference between the British trade union movement and that of most other countries. Few other union movements have this deep involvement in the provision of friendly benefits, including superannuation.

If I were a member of the A.E.U.W. and I were a fitter at the Doncaster railway workshops, and the N.U.R. established an agency, is the Secretary of State telling me that, in that situation, I would have to transfer to the N.U.R.? But I have been paying for over 20 years to my union superannuation fund. [Interruption.] If the hon. and hirsute Member for Worcestershire, South (Sir G. Nabarro) is not interested in our debate, he should continue his discussion where he was having it before he came in.

The Secretary of State thinks that it is as easy as that to transfer union membership. He may give me the reply which he gave one of my hon. Friends earlier, that, if, as it does, it conflicts with union rules and the T.U.C. Bridlington Agreement, the rules and the Agreement will have to be changed. But if it were as easy as that to change trade union rules and structure, I am sure that they would have been changed long since.

We know the formidable efforts of the T.U.C. and individual unions, particularly in recent years, to reform their structure and bring about a more rational movement. But it cannot be done overnight or quickly without counter-productive disruption. I am sure that because the right hon. Gentleman is trying to foist change on the union movement, disruption is inevitable. The slower evolutionary methods of the T.U.C. will in the long term bring the only effective and reliable process of reform.

I doubt whether the problems, the existence of which I acknowledged at the outset, will be resolved by some blueprint dreamed up on a planner's table in St. James's Square or Smith Square. This is an attempt to graft an alien concept on to the body of British industrial relations. It will be rejected by that body and I am sure will be rejected by the House.

Mr. James Sillars (South Ayrshire)

It is difficult for us to discuss the ramifications of the agency shop in the time available under the guillotine. Earlier we discussed for one and a half hours an Amendment relating to Equity. I do not object to that because the 20,000 people involved in that issue are entitled to 90 minutes of our time. However, between now and midnight we must dispose, under the guillotine, of Clauses 8 to 31, and with them the many issues that we would like to raise affecting 10 million trade unionists affiliated to the T.U.C.

There are essential differences between Labour and Conservative policy and practice relating to the agency shop, but because so many of my hon. Friends still wish to speak, I will not develop this part of my argument. So far the Secretary of State has projected himself as being fair and reasonable, and that is the image the country has of the Bill. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] We are used to hon. Gentlemen opposite projecting themselves through the ad. men—[Interruption.] The representative of commercial radio on the benches opposite should keep his mouth shut. He might learn something.

Tory policy on industrial relation is clear. It is to break the trade union organisation and stunt its growth. [HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] This is not nonsense. Hon. Gentlemen opposite will find Amendments appearing which will test their sincerity. We will then discover whether they really want to see the trade unions strengthened.

Last night the Secretary of State showed his real colours when he made an absurd statement about industrial democracy. He tried to show that the close-down of the closed shop meant an extension of democracy and that what was happening was equivalent to what was happening in politics. That is wrong. Whereas people generally have a way of influencing what happens in politics, the decision-taking in industry occurs in the board room, and we know what hon. Gentlemen opposite think about worker-participation in those decisions.

Sir John Rodgers (Sevenoaks)

To which Clause is the hon. Gentleman speaking?

Mr. Sillars

Does it matter at this stage? We have till 12 o'clock to discuss from Clause 8 to Clause 31.

Knowledge and interest in trade unionism often occurs some time after a person joins a trade union. It is not surprising, therefore, that trade union organisers often find difficulty in getting people to realise the benefits of trade union membership, particularly in view of the constant denigration of the trade union movement by hon. Gentlemen opposite and their friends. If hon. Gentlemen opposite do not believe that, they should read the record of the last Tory Party conference at Blackpool. It is all there. There is a natural aversion to trade unionism which has been inculcated in the population by their friends.

The Government have designed their so-called agency shop method as a way of stunting our organisational growth. They call into play an apparently fair and reasonable apparatus, of applications, examinations by referees, and even involve the ballot box——

An Hon. Member

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Sillars

There is nothing wrong with the ballot box. What is wrong is the formula which has been chosen, including the extraordinary requirements of a majority of 51 per cent. of those eligible to vote. In percentage terms, I have the greatest number eligible to vote in Scotland behind me. Some of that lot opposite have as little as 24 per cent. But even in South Ayrshire, the heart of the Labour movement, I have only 47 per cent. That is what is wrong with the provision involving the ballot box.

When practising trade unionists look at the Government's agency shop, they see it as a very ominous proposition. In a situation where a trade union is relatively weak and struggling to establish itself, an employer can forestall its progress by pre-empting an application to the court for an agency shop agreement, knowing that the union is unlikely to get it, and probably the union does not want to make an application at that time, anyway. Where a union is in the ascendancy and makes application, the employer can block it simply by refusing to recognise. This is a key provision in the Clause dealing with the agency shop. If the employer recognises, but only if, then an application can be made.

We have had a recent experience in Scotland. When a bad employer wants to break a trade union, he fights on the basic issue of recognition. I have in mind the B.S.R. conflict in East Kilbride. It took weeks of trade union agitation, picketing and campaigning to get recognition in that factory.

Mr. R. Carr

The hon. Gentleman will realise that, had the Bill been in operation, that would not have been necessary. The workers could have gone to the court and the C.I.R. and had a ballot. They would have got their recognition.

Mr. Sillars

As I understand it—[HON. MEMBERS: "You don't."] I am open to correction from the right hon. Gentleman—the Clause provides that if the employers recognises, an application can be made. In the B.S.R. conflict, the employer refused to recognise. That is the essence of our case against the right hon. Gentleman.

Even if the union is recognised, there are other obstacles to overcome: the 51 per cent. of those eligible, the constant threat of the two-yearly recall for the trade union, and then there may be the problem of the licensed blackleg which has been created by the Bill. I do not expect the Secretary of State to see our point of view. His philosophy on industrial relations is different from ours. We believe in persuasion. One of the reasons why the T.U.C. welcomed the Commission on Industrial Relations was that it believed that it could act as a salve to the wounds sometimes opened up as a result of necessary conflicts of interest which arise in an industry. We welcomed the C.I.R. because of its persuasive influence, not its coercive influence in industrial relations.

One of the mistakes too often made in examining industrial relations is that it is forgotten that they concern people. People are not perfect. People will erupt, will lose their tempers. It happens here, never mind outside in industry. It happens here, in reasonable working conditions, never mind down the pit. [An HON. MEMBER: "Reasonable working conditions here?"] I hear one of my hon. Friends say that working conditions here are not reasonable. They are far better than down the pit.

Sometimes, men need a safety valve, and sometimes, when the safety valve blows, there is an unofficial strike, and there are bad feelings. But recourse should be had not to the courts but to commonsense and reason, or, in the larger problem, to the Commission on Industrial Relations.

I shall say no more now. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] If there had been no guillotine, many of us would have said a great deal more. There are two reasons for the guillotine. One is that hon. Members opposite cannot stand the night shift. The second—my hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) was quite right—is that we are now down to the meat and detail of the Bill, and Tory ignorance of the industrial situation in Britain is plain to see every minute of every day on which we debate the Bill.

[Sir ALFRED BROUGHTON in the Chair]

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

I have had some experience on the night shift, so I feel that I can follow the hon. Gentleman the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars). I have listened carefully to the debates so far, but I have not intervened before, being aware of the time limit. I did not intervene in the debate on the closed shop, although I should have liked to do so, believing firmly in the need for strong trade union membership. I firmly believe, also, as we all do on this side, in the right of the individual on conscientious grounds not to join a trade union. This is where the agency shop provisions come in, because they are a compromise between the closed shop and the individual conscience.

The hon. Member for South Ayrshire spoke of the situation under a closed shop agreement having to be altered when the Bill becomes law. Why? Where the individual employer has previously agreed with the union to implement a closed shop agreement, the employer will immediately agree with the trade union concerned to implement an agency shop agreement. So they will continue with 99 per cent. trade union membership, the only exception being the individual with a conscientious objection. We can expect the 750,000 or more members of closed shops to continue as members of agency shops, and their unions will not be disrupted in any way.

Opening the debate, the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) spoke of the situation in the workshops in his constituency. Before discussing the point which he raised, I wish to make clear that I regard the agency shop provisions as some of the most important, if not the most important, provisions in the Bill. This is why I am, perhaps, going out of order in discussing the subject on Clause 8, to which it is not directly relevant. I am conscious that we have only an hour and 10 minutes left, so I hope that I shall be excused if I deal a little further with the question of the agency shop.

The hon. Member for Doncaster is possibly under the same misunderstanding as many trade unionists. This may have arisen from the wording in the Consultative Document that the agency shop agreement involved only one trade union and an employer. This is not so, as can be seen from line three at the beginning of Clause 11. This refers to one or more trade unions forming an agreement with the employers. In that situation the two unions that the hon. Gentleman mentioned would, I suggest, form part of the agency shop agreement.

Mr. Orme

If the employer agrees.

Mr. Butler

Yes. If he does not there are procedures in the Bill for taking the matter to N.I.R.C. and the C.I.R.

Mr. Harold Walker

I do not want the hon. Gentleman to misunderstand my point. I could have been misunderstood because of the noise that was going on below the Gangway. I am anticipating the hypothetical situation that could arise whether one or other of the unions, thinking that if it made its bid it could establish a sole agency, made that bid and was successful. What happens then to the excluded union's members?

Mr. Butler

This may be a point that my right hon. Friend will cover. Where the employer did not agree, the C.I.R. would be called in and in such a situation I believe that it would establish that the two unions should jointly form part of the agency shop agreement.

Many of the trade union leaders to whom I have talked about the Bill——

Hon. Members

Name them.

Mr. Butler

We do have a number of points of contact with the trade unions —more than Labour Members may realise.

What those trade union leaders are concerned about, among other things, is the danger of the proliferation of unions, that is, the switching of members from one union to another under the agency shop provisions. They fear that a poaching union, by offers of better conditions and pay, may attract the members from their more moderate and responsible unions. If hon. Members study the Bill they will note the deliberately difficult process needed to alter an agency shop agreement, the need first of all for 20 per cent. of those involved in the agreement to challenge the agreement in writing. This must be followed by a ballot which requires over 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote to change the agreement, and then there can be no change for a further period of two years if that ballot is not in favour of a change. This allows change if change is needed, but slow change. If there is support for the agreement for over 50 per cent. of those eligible to vote there is no change. These are adequate safeguards in most circumstances.

However, in some places of work where there are very few employees it would only require possibly one or two of the workers to be persuaded to change by a poaching union. In spite of the two-year delay provision, this could bring about a proliferation of trade unions.

Here I want to refer particularly to agriculture, and to declare my interest as a member of the National Farmers' Union. I believe in union solidarity in farming as elsewhere. The industry is made up of literally thousands of small units. Ninety-five per cent. of farmers employ four men or fewer. In this situation I can see opportunity for poaching, so I ask my right hon. Friend to consider a limit to the size of firm, the size of unit of work, which is to be covered by the agency shop agreement. I suggest that the minimum employed in such a unit should be 10.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) say that he stood for a strong trade union membership, echoing the sentiments expressed by the Secretary of State. He knows perfectly well that hon. Members opposite will be in their constituencies this weekend making speeches about cutting the trade unions down to size. They will be saying that the trade union movement is too big for its boots. They will be blaming the trade union movement for inflation and many other of the evils from which we are suffering.

The hon. Gentleman says that the nub of the Clause, the agency shop, will not disrupt the ability of trade union organisers to negotiate. It is apparent that he knows nothing about what happens on the shop floor during negotiations. I will give him an example of the sort of situation that will arise under the agency shop provision.

Let us take the case of a factory with 1,000 employees. It would be possible for a ballot to be taken, with 499 people voting for an agency shop and one voting against. There could not then be an agency shop because there must be, as my hon. Friend the Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) said, a majority of the employees in favour and not only a majority of those voting.

But supposing 501 employees vote for an agency shop and the other 499 opt to pay their contributions but not belong to the union. The trade union officials and shop stewards will have to negotiate with the management for half the employees. Has anyone said anything about the rights of people who are not members of a union to opt out of the agreement negotiated by the union's officials? These people will say, "We are obliged by law to pay union contributions but we are not obliged to accept what the union is negotiating for." As a consequence, the employer will be faced with the fact that he is dealing with one section of his employees who are in the union and subject to its rules, and another section paying the equivalent of the union contribution but are not subject to its rules. It will be an impossible situation in which friction will arise. There will be more industrial disputes, not fewer.

The trade unions will fight this provision tooth and nail because the great element that has united the movement has been the drive for unity. Anyone who has seen the great trade union demonstrations will have noted that the slogan is, "Unity is strength". Trade unionists have fought all their working lives for it because they have said, "United we stand, divided we fall". It is no accident that they call their headquarters "Unity Hall". They know that the trade union movement is their only shield against rapacious profit-hungry employers; they know that unity is essential to build up the movement.

The trade union movement will not tolerate a situation where the trade unions are defeated on the factory floor. If hon. Members opposite wish to impose this provision by law, then the trade unions will fight on the factory floor. Many hon. Members opposite have had no experience of what happens in a factory. Every week, 10,000 agreements are entered into between rate-fixers and shop stewards. They are mutually agreed between trade union officials and representatives of the management.

11.0 p.m.

What will be the position in an agency shop? Will the shop steward negotiate, say, for piece work prices for people who pay the trade union contribution but are not members of his union? Of course he will not. We shall get division in the workshops, and people will disregard whatever agreements a trade union negotiates. The agency shop will be a recipe for unofficial strikes; for people to say: "I don't have to submit to any discipline from the trade union leaders or the district office because I am not a member of the union."

We all know that from time to time workers have disputes with their unions. It may well happen that workers, members of a trade union, will believe that their district committee is too militant or, more often perhaps, not militant enough. The district committee may decide, if a large number of members are unemployed, to restrict overtime in a certain factory to 16 hours a month. Some dissidents might say in future, "We are not prepared to accept the committee's decision, and we are now empowered by law to leave the movement and not accept trade union directives." The result will be friction on the factory floor. The idea of the agency shop will disrupt trade union activities.

We all know the reason for introducing the agency shop. I speak as one who has spent a good deal of his life as a shop steward and a full-time union official, and I know that when I have had to negotiate for my members I have been in a very weak position if I have not had 100 per cent. membership behind me. The result of the agency shop will be that union leaders will have to negotiate without the unity of the trade union behind them. Employers will tell them that they represent only 52 per cent. or 54 per cent. or 60 per cent. of the employees, and they will blow up the non-unionist in the shop against the unionists, and so create disunity within the trade union ranks.

Those outside the trade union movement cannot realise that unity is at its very heart. Without unity, we are nothing; we have no strength with which to combat the employers. It is because the agency shop strikes a blow against that unity that the trade union movement will fight it to the death.

Mr. Ronald Bell

We seem to have embarked on a general debate on the agency shop, so I invite my right hon. Friend to consider some of the impact of the agency shop on employees. He will perhaps realise that this proposal is a corollary and a complementary part of the operation of prohibiting the closed shop. I can assure him that this operation has my full support and, I should have thought, the full support of every hon. Member who values individual liberty in its most essential form.

One would think that any member of a union would not wish someone to join it who did not wish to join. However, since the Bill incorporates the prohibition of the closed shop in that sense, there is brought forward, starting with this Clause but maturing a little later in the Bill—though I fear we shall never reach that maturity—this device of the agency shop. The effect of this device will be to extend trade union membership, or certainly the pressure for trade union membership, rather higher up the scale of skill, or even management function, than is the case now. There is no doubt that a good many people who will be affected in this way are worried about the prospects.

I am thinking particularly of professional people. Nowadays a good many professional people are in employment. I suppose that there are many more professional people in employment than in private practice because in the limited liability company everyone is an employee. The employer is an abstraction. Perhaps one day we shall find that even abstractions are forced to join trade unions, but for the moment it is only living human beings.

Since these people are employees, even though they are performing professional functions, the Bill will bring considerable pressure upon them to join a trade union. This is because of the way in which it is shaped. Many of these people feel that this is quite wrong. It is not that they feel any particular hostility towards a trade union, it is rather, perhaps, that they would like to be represented by what they regard as their own trade unions, that is by their professional bodies. I hope that as the Bill proceeds on its fairly long and tortuous way we shall find some way in which to improve these Clauses so that people who are in effect discharging a professional function are not driven against their will into organisations which are not really congenial to them.

It is not a question of hostility, it is a question of being congenial and appro- priate. I am thinking, for example, of the architect or engineer—the professional engineer—who is employed, the doctor or lawyer and so on. These, it will be widely recognised, are not particularly apt members of some trade unions.

Mr. Ashton

Why not?

Mr. Bell

If I may complete my remarks the hon. Gentleman may see why not. These people may be driven to joining such unions because the professional employee is, almost by definition. always in a minority in almost every category.

Mr. Arthur Palmer (Bristol, Central)

Does the hon. and learned Gentleman not appreciate that there have been for many years a considerable number of professional workers' trade unions—the National Union of Local Government Workers, the Institution of Professional Civil Servants, the Electrical Power Engineers Association—which organise professional people of high qualifications, up to a high salary level, and which are at the same time affiliated to the T.U.C.?

Mr. Bell

The hon. Gentleman has mentioned bodies, such as the Institution of Professional Civil Servants and so on, which I am bound to say I would consider more of the kind of professional body of which I am speaking. They may be affiliated to the T.U.C.; there is nothing to prevent them affiliating if they want to. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman has understood my argument. What I am seeking to protect people against is being forced to join unions which are not professional unions, unions such as A.S.T.M.S. and D.A.T.A., which everyone knows are highly militant unions and which have, through the organisation of the closed shop, been forcing professional people into membership of them against their will and even forcing them sometimes, out of employment because they will not join these militant unions, which are not professional unions.

It is surely right that the remuneration, conditions of work, and so on, of professional people should be negotiated by associations which are themselves professional and which understand the nature of the work which those people are performing—bodies which have the same attitude to the work, the same traditional concepts of public service which are sometimes clearly opposed to the militant approach of certain unions——

Mr. Ray Carter (Birmingham, Northfield)

The doctors?

Mr. Bell

Yes, indeed. The doctors would take a very different view from, say, the A.S.T.M.S. over many aspects——

Mr. Pavittrose——

Mr. Bell

There are many other hon. Members who wish to take part in the debate on the agency shop which appears to be the last debate tonight, and it would be wrong for me to give way to these informal interruptions. Hon. Gentlemen opposite are so sensitive about this, because they know that they are on a thoroughly bad case——

Mr. Ashton

On a point of order. We may be under the guillotine, but the hon. and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) is repeating arguments which were thoroughly discussed yesterday at a time when he was not in the Chamber. This is the first time he has taken part in the debates. Is it not tedious repetition to repeat all these arguments at this late hour?

The Temporary Chairman (Sir A. Broughton)

I had not thought that it was tedious repetition.

Mr. Bell

I do not think the hon. Gentleman is following the tenor of my argument— because we have reached the question of the agency shop—I am slightly surprised that we have reached it at all. Some hon. Members opposite are sensitive about this because they know that there has been the most blatant buccaneering in this professional field by certain militant trade unions. In introducing here a compulsory mechanism which will force union membership much higher up the scale, it is right that we should give, by way of guidance to the Commission and to the Industrial Court, some protection for these people to ensure that they are given the sort of representation that they want and that is appropriate to their professional status. I hope my right hon. Friend when he replies will be able to tell us that in some way at a later stage he will be able to meet this just case of the professional employee.

The Temporary Chairman

Mr. Eadie.

Dame Irene Ward

Might I have just one intervention? My hon. Friend generously gave way to hon. Gentlemen opposite.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. We had better get on with the debate.

Dame Irene Ward

I was getting on with the debate.

The Temporary Chairman: Mr. Eadie. Dame Irene Ward rose——

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I call Mr. Eadie.

Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)

Rumours abound in the Chamber that, because of the unreasonable provisions about the procedure of ballots and voting percentages in the Clause dealing with the agency shop, the Government would have second thoughts and introduce an Amendment. Many of my hon. Friends were sceptical about this, since during the debates very little has been given by the Government. The Government intend to drive through this conception of democracy, which will mean that ballots of trade unions will be treated differently from parliamentary and municipal elections.

11.15 p.m.

Great exception will be taken in the trade union movement if this Clause goes through, a Clause that requires 51 per cent. of those eligible to vote in the ballot. The right hon. Gentleman has been paid many compliments for having been fair and reasonable. Indeed, one reads in the Press that at one time he was a shop steward. If he has been a shop steward, he should appreciate the ire and resentment that this provision will stir up among trade unionists. We are supposed to believe that this Clause will be helpful to the trade union movement. Last Saturday morning I spoke at a demonstration in Edinburgh where 3,000 trade unionists marched to the Usher Hall. Many things were said at that demonstration about this Bill, but one of the aspects of the Bill that aroused most ire was the fact that trade unionists are being singled out for a different concept of democracy. The Government have never produced a reason for treating trade unions differently on this question of 51 per cent. of eligible voters.

When we say that this is a blacklegs' charter, we mean that the blacklegs will be able to decide whether or not there shall be an agency shop. At election times, candidates go before the electorate and speak to them as good democrats. Whatever opinions we may hold in this House, we try to be good democrats. We say to the people, "For goodness' sake, even if you do not vote for me, remember to vote and make a decision at the election." But here we have a provision whereby the absentee, the person who is not going to vote, the drop-out, will decide whether there will be an agency shop or not. The right hon. Gentleman should be ashamed of himself for not saying in this House, "This was a mistake. We do not want to treat the trade unions differently from the rest of the people." The trade union movement is entitled to have the same standards of democracy in relation to the ballot as any other body. I am convinced that this Clause will arouse considerable ire among trade unionists all over the country.

The right hon. Gentleman has been very generous in giving way to me when I have wished to intervene in the debate.

I went to the Library and I asked for the percentage votes of all hon. Members elected at the last election. Not one candidate in the whole of Scotland had a majority of the people eligible to vote. I myself have the second highest Labour vote in the whole of Scotland in my constituency of Midlothian, but I do not have the majority of the people eligible to vote. My hon. Friend the Member for South Ayrshire (Mr. Sillars) has the highest percentage vote, but he does not have the majority of the people eligible to vote. Therefore, I would suggest to the Front Bench that an analysis of all the constituencies shows that there are only 17 in the whole of Britain in which the votes represent a majority of the people eligible.

I have been an active trade unionist since I was in my teens, and I must confess that the whole of my experience in the trade union movement has been in the mining industry. If the right hon. Gentleman thinks there is any provision in the Bill that will make any difference to trade union membership in the mining industry, he has another think coming. I suggest that if there is any attempt by any of the Clauses in the Bill to break the membership in the mining industry, this Government will try it at their peril.

I have been a full time trade unionist and I have had few problems with the National Coal Board. We have not had a closed shop. We do not say before a man gets a job, "You must have a union card". We say, "When you come into the mining industry, you will become a member of the union", and the man will join the union gladly, because the position in the mining industry is one of solidarity. "To injure one is to injure all", is the slogan in the mining industry.

When I was a miner in the National Coal Board I never had any problems. My problems were mostly involved in dealing with privately-licensed mines. I was always going to see the private mine owners and trying to persuade them to bring their conditions up to those laid down in the legislation so that they would not be injurious to the health of the miners. They did not observe the agreements which had been arrived at in relation to concessions, and so on, with the miners' unions.

I anticipate that the Clause to some extent will provide a wonderful escape Clause for some of the private mine-owners. If the miners working in those private mines are to be penalised and brutalised by those owners, then the miners working in adjoining National Coal Board pits will hardly stand by and watch. It has been said during the debate that there is no brutality in industry in regard to the trade unions. I can remember my father coming into the house bleeding because he wanted to go to a pit to organise a trade union movement. And that was not all that long ago.

The concept of democracy which this Bill envisages is 100 per cent. wrong and the right hon. Gentleman owes it to the trade union movement to bring forward an Amendment to provide that the trade unions will be treated in the same way as other people are in the country and no differently.

Dame Irene Ward

I want to add my support to the remarks made by my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) about the protection of professionals in regard to the agency shop issue. I have lived in a big trade union area all my life. Although I have always been an ardent Tory, sometimes I have argued for the trades unions, sometimes for the employer, but always, I hope, for my country.

I should like to describe something which happened recently on Tyneside. C. A. Parsons, a well-known firm on Tyneside, decided to establish as its negotiating body the trade union known as D.A.T.A. It then told its professional engineers that if they did not join D.A.T.A. by 31st May this year they would lose their jobs. This is the kind of thing against which I want the Bill to protect professional people. Those professional engineers would not, of course, have joined D.A.T.A. They had determined to leave the service of C. A. Parsons, and rightly so.

It was a great shame that a company of such high standard and contribution to this country should have behaved in that way to one section of its employees. Professional engineers want protection, with all the other professional people, so that they cannot be treated by employers in the way in which these professional engineers were treated.

I was absolutely furious. However, I want to thank my right hon. Friend for the sympathetic answers which he gave when I asked him whether he could find a way in the Bill to protect those who want to do their work properly, to belong or not to belong to trades unions, and to maintain standards.

I hope that, in replying to this last debate, my right hon. Friend will undertake, on Report, to consider professionals in all sections of industry and to see that in the Bill they get as much right to safeguards as trade unionists and employers who have the right to reasonable protection.

I was horrified that a body of people who had served a company well with high standards of work should have been told by that company that if they did not join that militant union, D.A.T.A., they would lose their jobs. That is not British.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

My hon Friend the Member for Midlothian (Mr. Eadie) has spoken out of his experience, but I think that the hon and learned Member for Buckinghamshire, South (Mr. Ronald Bell) spoke out of his fears and fantasies. As the hon. and learned Gentleman was talking about the so-called problems of the professional worker, I wondered whether he realised that in unions affiliated to the T.U.C. there are members whose incomes are probably greater than that of any hon. Member of this House. There are many members of unions, too, whose incomes are below the subsistence level. This is not a reflection on the trade union movement; this is a reflection upon our jungle society which hon. Gentlemen opposite are dedicated to make worse.

Mr. Ronald Bell

Does the hon. Gentleman realise that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) gave an illustration of just how those people have been coerced into union membership?

Mr. Jenkins

Perhaps the hon. and learned Gentleman will allow me to point out that the tales about D.A.T.A. are matters to which my hon. Friends who are members of that organisation will respond later.

The right hon. Gentleman, in reply to an earlier debate, suggested that the agency shop proposal was a possible solution to these problems. I do not think that the hon. and learned Gentleman understands how difficult, indeed, how impossible, of application the agency shop situation can be. If I speak from the point of view of what happens in the industry I know, it does not mean that there is anything special about it, or anything particular about it, but it illustrates problems which will be found throughout industry, and in every trade union.

The reason why I produce the two examples which I propose to place before the Committee is that the hon. and learned Gentleman spoke of the position of the employers. I propose to give the Committee, not my words, but the words of the Film Production Association, which is the organisation of employers, to illustrate the difficulty of applying the agency shop in this industry. Referring to the agency shop proposals they say: This provision appears to mean that in the context of the Film Industry, each Production Company would be required to conclude a separate agency shop agreement with each Trade Union every time a film goes into production. A film production company is formed for every film, and exists for about three weeks. That is the duration of its life, and within this period of three weeks this company has to form an agency shop with each of the trade unions working in the film industry. As the association says: This would require both a multiplicity of Agreements and of negotiations and, in our opinion, would cause confusion and a worsening of industrial relations. The FPA requests, therefore, in the strongest possible terms, that provision should be made for 'Agency Shop Agreements' to be concluded on behalf of an Employer or Employers by an organisation of employers and one or more Trade Unions. It is primarily a matter for the Trades Unions concerned to make their own case for the retention of arrangements which, inter alia, seek to regulate and control entry into an Industry which suffers a substantial degree of under-employment. Nevertheless, unrestricted entry for artists in particular would tend to become an embarrassment for the Employers. There is a statement of the enormous difficulty that would be experienced in attempting to operate an agency shop situation in this area, because not even the members of the employers' association are permanent. The production company is ephemeral, and the agreement is with the employers' association as a whole, including and speaking on behalf of employers who do not exist at the time that the agreement exists, but who will come into existence and to whom the agreement will apply. I do not see how the agency shop could be adapted to that position.

It has been suggested by the right hon. Gentleman that casting agreements concluded with theatrical managers could be adapted to the agency shop provision. Could they? I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider whether the agreement which I shall now read can be fitted into an agency shop situation. The association has agreed the following with Equity:

  1. "(a) To cast their productions in the normal course of events from among full Equity members.
  2. (b) if any manager wishes to cast a provisional member of Equity, a newcomer, or other person who is not a member of Equity at the time of casting, the manager will write to the Equity Office, giving his reasons for going outside the existing experienced ranks of the profession.
  3. 974
  4. (c) The Equity Office will reply within one week … and will say either
    1. (i) that they will accept an application for membership from the person concerned; or
    2. (ii) that they do not consider that the manager has made out his case …".
If the manager does not accept the Equity argument, it goes to the joint council, and if the joint council then decides that the person should be admitted, Equity undertakes to admit that person into the union. Can a situation like that be adapted to the agency shop requirements?

Those situations are typical of the complexity which exists throughout the trade union movement, and if the right hon. Gentleman is suggesting that the agency shop situation set out in this and later Clauses can be adapted to the complexity of the trade union movement, I believe that he is living in cloud-cuckoo land.

Mr. R. Carr

May I quickly reply to the hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) by saying that we debated that subject earlier? I then said that we doubted whether in the example of the industry which he mentioned the agency shop, even with the Amendments which we have in mind, would be adequate; but I have promised to look into that matter.

I believe that Opposition Members are making the agency shop proposal into an unnecessary bogey. The agency shop is a means by which we can provide the stable and effective organisation which unions need and which hitherto, at least in some industries, they have been able to achieve only by means of a closed shop of the old-fashioned kind. We believe that the agency shop provides the essential security and stability and effectiveness of the closed shop without the illiberality which is sometimes associated, so far as minorities of individuals are concerned, with the true closed shop.

We can only repeat our belief that, whatever may have been true in the past, the strength of the union movement in this country today and the extent of the strength of the unions, not only in members, but in their recognition in society and by Governments and in the economy, are such that they no longer need, as perhaps they have done in the past, to press the rights of the majority to the point of severe illiberality towards the minority. I want to remind the Committee of what in fact the agency shop is, because it is not the animal which some hon. Members seem to think it is. In an agency shop agreement, an employer will undertake with the union or unions with which he has made that agreement that he will make it a normal condition of employment that his employees shall belong to that union or those unions. As I said yesterday, we hope that he will be prepared to bind himself to use his best endeavours to persuade all his employees freely to join that union or those unions with which he has made the agreement, but there is the provision that if he fails to persuade all his employees to join the appropriate union or unions, they will be free instead to make an equivalent contribution to the union as an agency fee, or, as a final fall-back position, if they have a conscientious objection—and I agree that this is not much of a problem —if, for example, an employee is a Plymouth Brother, or something of that kind, employees will be able to make the equivalent contribution to some agreed charity. This, first, completely outlaws the free rider, the worker who in the past has got away with all the benefits without paying anything, and we understand the natural irritation, as well as the actual weakness, which has caused the situation. That is absolutely excluded under our proposals.

We believe that an employer bound by the agency shop agreement of the kind I have described will normally succeed in freely persuading an enormous majority of his employees to become members of the union of their own volition. We believe that this is what will happen and certainly if it does there is no ground for the fears which hon. Members have been discussing.

I should like to deal with one or two specific matters raised by the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) and other hon. Members. First, let me make it clear that there is no need to have a ballot in order to establish an agency shop. If there is agreement, an agency shop can be established without a ballot. It is provided only as a fallback position for the orderly resolution of disputes about whether there should be an agency shop. But in more cases than not there will be no such dispute, and the agency shop will come about freely without a ballot.

I understand the point about the percentage of those eligible to vote and I should like to explain how this came about. Hon. Members may not agree but, when I have explained it, I think that they will see that it is not quite as bad as they fear at the moment.

We set up, in the Clauses in the 40s, that the basic requirement for recognition should be a majority of those voting—not of those eligible. But the agency shop is something far beyond simple recognition and therefore requires, we believe, a stronger affirmation than a simple recognition right. If one looks at many other things—the rules of some unions or the rules of some companies—one finds that it is very common in our institutions that differing degrees of majority are required for different purposes.

What we are saying here is that a simple majority of those voting is sufficient for basic recognition but that for the agency shop something more than a simple majority is required. We could have provided for a higher percentage of those voting, but we thought that it was simpler to say a simple majority of those eligible.

I am not saying that hon. Members will agree with it, but that was the reasoning which led to this eligibility. I still maintain that it is right that the acquisition of the agency shop provisions should require some stronger sign of approval than the mere simple recognition right, and that is the point on which we stick.

The hon. Member for Doncaster has nothing to fear on his example of the railway workshops. First, the Bill does not cause anything at all to happen if people do not want it. Second, it would be perfectly possible for two unions to go together and ask for a joint agency shop. Third, if they fail to agree about that, Clause 12(1) provides that the Commission could not proceed with the establishment of an agency shop if there were reason to think that there was an inter-union dispute about who should have it, or failure to agree on a joint one.

Finally, a few words about the problems of professional workers. I recognise the problem here, and the sincere and understandable feeling, which is not easy to resolve. I would say to my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) that her point about professional engineers at Parsons is, of course, dealt with by the Clause which we were debating yesterday, which gives them the right not to join a union if they feel as she describes.

What my hon. Friends want here is an automatic right to a separate bargaining agent for any group of professional workers. First, it is very difficult to define professional workers. I know that my ton. Friends have tried this in a later Amendment. I have obtained advice about their proposal, and I am afraid that, for example, it is more than likely that their definition would not include either nurses or—to take a quite different example —Merchant Navy officers. We do not believe that it is possible to define professional workers with sufficient accuracy.

But apart from that, what we are dealing with here is a minority of one type of worker embedded in a much larger number. This is a problem which we must tackle, and we shall attempt to tackle it. The way to tackle it is not so much through the agency shop as through the sole bargaining agent provisions, and the way to do it is perhaps when we come to Clauses 42 and 48, where we shall be dealing with the terms of reference of the C.I.R. and the way in which it will look at a claim for bargaining rights.

I cannot go into more detail now, but I assure my hon. Friends that I have the point in mind. It is when we come to those Clauses that I believe that we must look for the solution.

11.45 p.m.

Mrs. Castle

The way in which the Secretary of State had to gabble through his remarks because of lack of time was a sad commentary on the appalling conditions under which we must debate this important matter. Those few words from him represented his answer not only to the questions that have been asked about this Clause but to those asked about nine Clauses which deal with different aspects of the subject.

All hon. Members who have wished to take part in this discussion have had to gabble their speeches. They would have liked to develop their arguments in depth, but that has been impossible, and many of the Amendments which we would have debated have not even been mentioned. I am under an equal disability. It is impossible for me, in the time available, to deal with many aspects which are of far-reaching importance.

We are discussing not only the right hon. Gentleman's general intention but the whole question of the effectiveness of the means which he is employing to carry out that intention. That was the purpose of a number of our Amendments. Consider—leaving aside the principle for for a moment and dealing with the means —the ballot. The right hon. Gentleman knows that many people, including even those who accept the principle of the agency shop, are appalled by the principle of the ballot as the right hon. Gentleman proposes it and by the idea of there having to be a majority of those eligible to vote.

All we had from the right hon. Gentleman were a few sentences about this. He did not even effectively attempt to justify this undemocratic principle. [Interruption.] He is not even listening to me now, though I have only a few minutes to speak. What appalling discourtesy to the Committee!

He made some sort of hurried answer which I could not begin to understand. He said something about agency shop rights being more far-reaching than recognition rights and that, therefore, one needed a bigger majority. He said something of that sort, but he did not have time, under the threat of the guillotine, to explain the position properly.

Donovan did not link the recognition of trade unions to any automatic ballot, any more than we did in our White Paper or Bill. Donovan argued, rightly, that as a matter of practical—[Interruption.] I wish that hon Gentlemen opposite would make less noise and listen. They are not bothering to listen because they know the chopper will shortly be falling. They do not care. They will exercise power rather than thought.

As a matter of practical effect on the shop floor, everyone knows that union recruitment follows recognition. It does not precede it. That is why Donovan said, and we agree, that it is absurd to link the statutory rights of recognition to some system of balloting. It is certainly absurd to do so by this iniquitous principle of a majority of those eligible to vote.

This is intolerable because the right hon. Gentleman is mobilising the law of inertia against the expansion of trade unionism. Everything we have heard reinforces our belief and confirms our fear that the agency shop is a formula designed to accommodate the Govern ment's philosophic belief in non-unionism, even if that formula does not accommodate the needs of industry. The hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) admitted as much in his speech.

This is what the agency shop is designed to be. It is a charter for non-unionism and when the right hon. Gentleman said, in effect, "Under these provisions it will be my intention, and this will be the effect, to have employers freely persuading people to join trade unions voluntarily," he must know, as my hon Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) said yesterday, that already the imminence of the Bill coming into operation is being used as a charter for non-unionism.

I have before me a notice issued by the senior telecommunications superintendent at Colchester Post Office, dealing with the union's industrial action. It says: It has been reported that some staff have been threatened that, if they do not strike, they will be expelled from the union and will lose their employment if a closed shop is introduced. Under the Government's Industrial Relations Bill, now in Committee stage, 'closed shops' would be illegal. 'Agency shops' would be allowed, and staff would have the legal right not to join a union, provided they pay the equivalent of the subscription for union services. Therefore, it is absurd for the right hon. Gentleman to disguise the reality behind this proposal.

The whole concept of the right hon. Gentleman's agency shop is a formula for accommodating the rights of non-unionists. But hon. Gentlemen opposite should be more careful, because, on this issue, they are not even speaking for the people whom they are supposed to represent. Certainly they are not the voice of intelligent employers.

It is essential for the Committee to get one matter clear. We have had a lot of confused argument about the loose use of the words "closed shop". We are dealing with three quite different types of situation, and it is important to bear them in mind. First, there is the pre-entry closed shop, under which union membership is a condition even of applying for a job. The second is the post-entry closed shop, which is the same as the 100 per cent. union shop. The third is the agency shop, whose dominant characteristic is that union membership is not compulsory.

Under the right hon. Gentleman's formula, even if a union or unions successfully overcome all the obstacles in the way of securing recognition as an agency shop, including the obstacle of the ballot and the fact that they have to win a majority of all those eligible to vote in the ballot, they are still not entitled to claim the right to speak for all the workers in that shop. This is the profound difference that we are discussing.

Employers who know what they are talking about are appalled to see the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] Once again, the right hon. Gentleman is not even doing me the courtesy of listening. This is the first time today that I have got to this Dispatch Box, because we on this side have been exercising a self-denying ordinance so that we should have time to deal with this issue. Here, we are dealing with it in these few hurried moments. Employers who know what they are talking about are appalled to see the right hon. Gentleman coming here with the light of fanaticism in his eyes, waving a banner with this strange device, this unique device of the agency shop.

Sensible employers—[Interruption.] I suggest that hon. Gentlemen opposite should listen to this. They are supposed to care about industrial peace. Sensible employers want to strengthen union authority as the basis of greater stability in industrial relations. But they know that that cannot be done without strengthening trade unionism. They also know that to give an equal right to people in a closely integrated shop not to belong to a union is to mobilise the law of inertia against unionisation and, therefore, that it weakens the strength of trade unionism, as it is intended to do.

The trouble is that the right hon. Gentleman, while importing the concept of the agency shop from the United States, has grafted on to it the historical Conservative hostility to trade unionism——

Sir J. Rodgers


Mrs. Castle

I will give the hon. Gentleman the evidence, and it is conclusive. What the right hon. Gentleman and the Solicitor-General have not done is to import into their legislation Section 8 of the American National Labour Relations Act. That Act, while banning the pre-entry closed shop, adds that a preentry closed shop shall only be an unfair industrial practice or labour practice— Provided, That nothing in this Act … shall preclude an employer from making an agreement with a labor organization to require as a condition of employment membership therein … In other words, the pre-entry closed shop is outlawed only save where union membership is required as part of a collective agreement. Therefore, under United States law, there is no provision similar to that which the right hon. Gentleman is asking us to accept tonight.

We are asking for unions and employers to have the right, such as they have in many States in the United States, to conclude collective agreements which insist upon 100 per cent. unionisation, but it is that right which the right hon. Gentleman would take away.

There are some situations in industry which can be dealt with only by a pre-entry closed shop—we have been given some examples tonight—but they are exceptions. As my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, only about 750,000 workers are covered by such pre-entry closed shop agreements in this country, and it is done for particular reasons. But in most situations in British industry the right answer is the 100 per cent. union shop. Many employers have already negotiated such agreements, because they believe that that is the way, and the only way, to underpin the union's authority.

These agreements will now be at risk. There are employers throughout the country who are at the moment intensely concerned about that risk because they have stable relations with their unions, they have 100 per cent. union shop agreements or they are about to negotiate such agreements, believing that they can get good bargains in return and that, having a 100 per cent. union shop, they will be in a position to secure some kind of control over conditions in their enterprises.

When the Bill becomes law, however, a new element—[HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] Hon. Members will not be cheering for long, when they realise, "My heavens, is that really what we voted for?", when they see the new element of instability, the new fluidity in relations with the trade unions, the new undermining of the authority of trade unions, some of which may at the present time be effectively conducting leadership and control over their membership.

All that will be at risk, and at risk in a way not found under United States law except in those backward States which still have right-to-work clauses. It will be at risk in obedience not to something for which British industry has asked. The C.B.I. has not asked for this, the Engineering Employers have not asked for it, the British Leylands of this country have not asked for it, and certainly the trade union movement has not asked for it. This is the brain-child of the right hon. Gentleman's theories. That is all. We are being asked tonight to vote on dangerous theories which can undermine what stability we already have in British industry, undermining it in obedience to a dogma directed more to the Conservative Party Conference than to intelligent students of industrial relations.

The right hon. Gentleman has not given any explanation of the industrial reasons for what he proposes. He has not given us—and none of us has had the chance to ask him to give them—detailed explanations of how his theories will work out in practice. We have had no real discussion of the machinery, of how this theory——

It being Twelve o'clock, The CHAIRMAN proceeded, pursuant to the Standing Order (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th and 27th January], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair.

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

Division No. 88.] AYES [12 midnight
Adley, Robert Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Emery, Peter King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Eyre, Reginald Kinsey, J. R.
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Farr, John Kirk, Peter
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Fell, Anthony Knight, Mrs. Jill
Astor, John Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Knox, David
Atkins, Humphrey Fidler, Michael Lambton, Antony
Awdry, Daniel Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Lane, David
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Langford-Holt, Sir John
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Balniel, Lord Fookes, Miss Janet Le Marchant, Spencer
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Fortescue, Tim Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Batsford, Brian Foster, Sir John Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fowler, Norman Longden, Gilbert
Bell, Ronald Fox, Marcus Loveridge, John
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) McAdden, Sir Stephen
Benyon, W. Fry, Peter MacArthur, Ian
Berry, Hn. Anthony Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McCrindle, R. A.
Biffen, John Gardner, Edward McLaren, Martin
Biggs-Davison, John Gibson-Watt, David Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Blaker, Peter Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) McMaster, Stanley
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Body, Richard Glyn, Dr. Alan McNair-Wilson, Michael
Boscawen, R. T. Goodhart, Philip McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Bossom, Sir Clive Goodhew, Victor Maddan, Martin
Bowden, Andrew Gorst, John Madel, David
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gower, Raymond Maginnis, John E.
Braine, Bernard Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Bray, Ronald Gray, Hamish Marten, Neil
Brewis, John Green, Alan Mather, Carol
Brinton, Sir Tatton Grieve, Percy Maude, Angus
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Mawby, Ray
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Grylls, Michael Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Bryan, Paul Meyer, Sir Anthony
Buchanan-Smith, Allck(Angus,N&M) Gummer, Selwyn Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Buck, Antony Gurden, Harold Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Bullus, Sir Eric Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Miscampbell, Norman
Burden, F. A. Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire.W)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mitcheil, David (Basingstoke)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Hannam, John (Exeter) Moate, Roger
Carlisle, Mark Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Molyneaux, James
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Channon, Paul Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Money, Ernie D.
Chapman, Sydney Haselhurst, Alan Monks, Mrs. Connie
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hastings, Stephen Monro, Hector
Chichester-Clark, R. Havers, Michael Montgomery, Fergus
Churchill, W. S. Hawkine, Paul Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hayhoe, Barney Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Heseltine, Michael Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Cockeram, Eric Hicks, Robert Mudd, David
Cooke, Robert Higgins, Terence L. Murton, Oscar
Coombs, Derek Hiley, Joseph Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Cooper, A. E. Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Neave, Airey
Cordle, John Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Corfield, F. V. Holland, Philip Normanton, Tom
Cormack, Patrick Holt, Mica Mary Nott, John
Costain, A. P. Hooson, Emlyn Onslow, Cranley
Critchley, Julian Hordern, Peter Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Crouch, David Hornsby, Richard Osborn, John
Crowder, F. P. Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Curran, Charles Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Dalkeith, Earl of Howell, David (Guildford) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Pardoe, John
d'Avigor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hunt, John Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
d'Avlgdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. Jack Hutchison, Michael Clark Peel, John
Dean, Paul Iremonger, T.L. Percival, Ian
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. James, David Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Digby, Simon Wingfield Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Dixon, Piers Jessel, Toby Pink, R. Bonner
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Pounder, Rafton
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Jopling, Michael Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Drayson, G. B. Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Price, David (Eastleigh)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Kaberry, Sir Donald Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Dykes, Hugh Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Proudfoot, Wilfred
Eden, Sir John Kershaw, Anthony Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kilfedder, James Quennell, Miss J. M.
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Kimball, Marcus Raison, Timothy
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Spence, John Vickers, Dame Joan
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Sproat, Iain Waddington, David
Redmond, Robert Stainton, Keith Welder, David (Clitheroe)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Stanbrook, Ivor Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Rees, Hn. Peter (Dover) Steel, David Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Rees-Davies, W. R. Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper) Wall, Patrick
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Walters, Dennis
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Stokes, John Ward, Dame Irene
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Warren, Kenneth
Ridsdale, Julian Sutcliffe, John Weatherill, Bernard
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tapsell, Peter Wells, John (Maidstone)
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Wiggin, Jerry
Rost, Peter Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Wilkinson, John
Royle, Anthony Tebbit, Norman Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Russell, Sir Ronald Temple, John M. Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
St. John-Stevas, Norman Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Scott, Nicholas Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) Woodnutt, Mark
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Thomas, Rt. Hn, Peter (Hendon, S.) Worsley, Marcus
Shelton, William (Clapham) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Wylle, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Simeons, Charles Tilney, John Younger, Hn. George
Sinclair, Sir George Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Skeet, T. H. H. Trew, Peter TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Tugendhat, Christopher Mr. Jasper More and
Soref, Harold Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Mr. Walter Clegg.
Speed, Keith Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Abse, Leo Deakin, Eric Hilton, W. S.
Albu, Austen de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Horam, John
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Delargy, H. J. Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Allen, Scholefield Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Dempsey, James Huckfield, Leslie
Armstrong, Ernest Doig, Peter Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Ashley, Jack Dormand, J. D. Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Ashton, Joe Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Atkinson, Norman Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Driberg, Tom Hunter, Adam
Barnes, Michael Duffy, A. E. P. Irvine,Rt.Hn.SirArthur(Edge Hill)
Barnett, Joel Dunn, James A. Janner, Greville
Beaney, Alan Dunnett, Jack Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Eadie, Alex Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Edelman, Maurice Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Bidwell, Sydney Edwarde, Robert (Bilston) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Bishop, E. S. Edwards, William (Merioneth) John, Brynmor
Blenkinsop, Arthur Ellis, Tom Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) English, Michael Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Booth, Albert Evans, Fred Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Fernyhough, E. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,LadywoOd) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Bradley, Tom Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W.Ham, S.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Proven) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Kaufman, Gerald
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Kelley, Richard
Buchan, Norman Foley, Maurice Kerr, Russell
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Foot, Michael Kinnock, Neil
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Ford, Bed Lambie, David
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Forrester, John Lamond, James
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Fraser, John (Norwood) Latham, Arthur
Cant, R. B. Freeson, Reginald
Carmichael, Neil Galpern, Sir Myer Leadbitter, Ted
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Garrett, W. E. Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Gilbert, Dr. John Leonard, Dick
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Ginsburg, David Lestor, Miss Joan
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Golding, John Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Cohen, Stanley Gourlay, Harry Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Concannon, J. D. Grant, George (Morpeth) Lipton, Marcus
Conlan, Bernard Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Lomas, Kenneth
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Loughlin, Charles
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Crawshaw, Richard Hamilton, Jame (Bothwell) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Cronin, John Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Hamling, William McBride, Neil
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) McCartney, Hugh
Dalyell, Tam Hardy, Peter McElhone, Frank
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Harper, Joseph McGuire, Michael
Davidson, Arthur Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mackenzie, Gregor
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mackie, John
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hattersley, Roy Mackintosh, John P.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Maclennan, Robert
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Heffer, Eric S. McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
McNamara, J. Kevin Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
MacPherson, Malcolm Pendry, Tom Strang, Gavin
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Pentland, Norman Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Perry, Ernest G. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Marquand, David Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Swain, Thomas
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Prescott, John Taverne, Dick
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.)
Meacher, Michael Price, William (Rugby) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Probert, Arthur Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Mendelson, John Rankin, John Tinn, James
Mikardo, Ian Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Tomney, Frank
Millan, Bruce Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Torney, Tom
Miller, Dr. M. S. Rhodes, Geoffrey Tuck, Raphael
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Richard, Ivor Urwin, T. W.
Molloy, William Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Varley, Eric G.
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon) Wainwright, Edwin
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Robertson, John (Paisley) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Wallace, George
Moyle, Roland Roper, John Watkins, David
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Rose, Paul B. Weitzman, David
Murray, Ronald King Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Wellbeloved, James
Ogden, Eric Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
O'Halloran, Michael Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) White, James (Glasgow, Po11ok)
O'Mailey, Brian Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne) Whitehead, Phillip
Oram, Bert Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Whitlock, William
Orbach, Maurice Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Orme, Stanley Sillars, James Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Oswald, Thomas Silverman, Julius Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Skinner, Dennis Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Padley, Walter Small, William Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Paget, R. T. Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Palmer, Arthur Spearing, Nigel
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles Spriggs, Leslie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Parker, John (Dagenham) Stallard, A. W. Mr. Kenneth Marks and
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Mr. Donald Coleman.
Pavitt, Laurie Stoddart, David (Swindon)

Clause 8 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

The CHAIRMAN then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock, including the Questions on Amendments moved by a Member of the Government.

Clause 9 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to