HC Deb 28 January 1971 vol 810 cc897-929

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

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

Clause 6 creates two unfair Practices, first in relation to calling, organising, procuring or financing a strike and, secondly, a completely new concept, irregular action short of a strike. I intend to show that this relates directly to Clause 5, in other words, to action in favour of a union shop. Clause 6 applies not merely to action taken by people, but to words that are uttered or printed and even to something which may be said unguardedly in the heat of the moment on the shop floor. This Clause makes such utterances into unfair practice. It may be that a newspaper article might lead to the same result.

We can see from subsection (1)(b) that refusing overtime may well be an unfair practice short of a strike. This may affect, for example, teaching, because there may be occasions of dispute when the union wishes to impose sanctions upon the employing authority by withholding administrative duties, and at the same time wish to ensure the continued education of the children in the schools. As the Clause stands, such action would undoubtedly be an irregular industrial action. This applies also to nurses who want to go on nursing but wish to make their weight felt—a cause which I would support. On the shop floor in an engineering firm, for example, a group of workers who together decide to bang their machines with spanners are guilty of an unfair practice if they do so when the foreman comes in. An unimaginable variety of practices may be encompassed by the second limb of Clause 6(1)(b).

The Government tell the Committee that the Bill is in favour of and meant to assist the trade union movement. It is therefore remarkable that it does not mention action short of a lockout. On the one hand, it mentions action short of a strike but, on the other hand, it does not mention action short of a lock-out. There is nothing to stop the unfair inducement of a person not to strike. Nothing in the Bill prevents an employer from paying double time or promoting a man because he happens to be a blackleg, or, to use the more appropriate word which I was brought up with when I worked in factories, a scab. Let us not be afraid to use that word. The ramifications of the Clause are astonishingly wide.

In Clause (5)(2) there is no definition of the words "deter", "penalise" or "discriminate against". Yet it is to that particular subsection that Clause 6 applies. I ask my hon. Friends to forgive me if they get lost in a tangled mass of cross-references at a later stage. Although the Bill lacks these definitions, I remember that when I served on the Committee dealing with race relations it was thought fit to define the term "discriminate against". This is typical of the sloppy drafting of the Bill and explains why the Government were so anxious to allow two more days on Report, not to allow greater freedom of debate, but to correct their own sloppy drafting and mistakes in preparing the Bill.

What I am particularly concerned about is that in applying Clause 6(1) as defined by Clause 6(2) to Clause 5(2), we then look at Clause 5(2)(a), which in turn applies to Clause 5(1). If that sounds rather difficult for hon. Gentlemen to understand, perhaps they can understand the difficulties that employers and trade unionists will encounter when they have to deal with these legal complexities which are injected into the Bill.

What it boils down to is that it becomes illegal to prevent, or even deter, a person from being a free-rider—the sort of person I described yesterday as somebody who rides on the backs of his fellow workers—by one of the actions indicated in the Clause. In other words, its effect will be to overrule the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, by the back door; it will fly in the face of the Donovan Report, as in these debates we have seen the Government are intent in doing; and it will go beyond the decision in Rookes v. Barnard in making a breach of fair industrial practice what today would not be a breach of law even if done through a strike. The 1906 Act will become meaningless as a defence, because we are not dealing here with torts but with unfair industrial practices.

The Donovan Report said, in paragraph 852: We think that this last statute"— referring to the Trade Disputes Act, 1965— was necessary for the protection of trade union officials in the reasonable performance of their functions and do not recommend its repeal. Donovan went further than that and leaned the opposite way to what is now being proposed by the Government, since in paragraph 854 it said: …it has been suggested that liability for civil conspiracy might arise where a number of persons agreed together, in contemplating or furtherence of a trade dispute, to break their contracts of employment in combination, since they would be parties to an agreement to do an 'unlawful' act … This possibility is one which we think should be removed by legislation. Once again we have the Secretary of State deciding policy on the basis of a scrawny pamphlet brought out in the darkness of the pre-Donovan era. He has admitted, as did the Solicitor-General yesterday, that the work on this subject was done long before the Donovan Report. One wonders why Royal Commissions are set up if they are merely ignored and if the Government act in an opposite direction to their recommendations. Therefore, they are intent on overruling the Trade Disputes Act, 1965. This is important because Rookes v. Barnard is to be reincarnated in a new form to by-pass the 1965 Act by creating these unfair industrial practices.

7.45 P.m.

I put the matter to the Solicitor-General in a practical way. If as the members of the same profession, assuming that we were members of the same trade union, the Solicitor-General might —understandably after some of the remarks I have made about his Bill—say in a moment in indignation "That chap Rose ought not to be allowed to be a member of the Bar" or the union to which we might belong, that would be an offence under this Clause. It would be an offence merely to state an opinion if that were interpreted as organising, procuring or calling a strike or threatening to do so, or constituting irregular action short of a strike.

More seriously, there is a restriction not of the right to strike, which itself would be a restriction against all our international obligations, but on the right to speak in such a manner that workers may do in industry in taking some action even short of a strike to try to deter somebody from not joining a union. In other words, it is a gag, an intrusion into free speech which Rookes v. Barnard taken to extremes could not envisage. It would embrace other forms of intimidation and censorship, the like of which would be more fitting in Prague or Posnan, Burgos or Barcelona. It is astonishing that a man as kindly as is the right hon. Gentleman dedicated to freedom of speech should contemplate such a proposal as is embodied in this Clause. It is an infringement of human rights which nobody on this side of the Committee—and I hope that this goes for the representative of the Liberal Party who is present—could possibly support.

It defies the I.L.O. Convention on the right to strike, but goes far beyond that in suppressing strongly held feelings on the shop floor or indeed in the classroom. It is intended to deter, penalise and discriminate against ordinary free men and women in what we all thought was a free society.

It is not only aimed at the shop floor workers but basically at trade union officials trying to do their job. It is aimed at journalists and at politicians and at political commentators. We know that the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) sees a red on every cathode ray tube, be it coloured or black and white; and this could be applied even to a commentator of the B.B.C. or I.T.V. if his words were interpreted in this way. This could lead to a form of censorship. But it also deals with financing, so that the £5 that my hon. Friends and I gladly donate towards the cause of the postmen in a strike forced upon them by this Government would probably be brought before an industrial tribunal or the N.I.R.C. because of our actions, because we would be financing a strike.

I am sure that everyone of my hon. Friends and I who contributed in this way would be guilty of an offence under this Bill. Mr. Silverthorne in Rookes v. Barnard had no contract to break, not being an employee, but he was a trade union official inducing others to break their contract. Mr. Justice Sargant in that case called the right of a trade union to strike to enforce a 100 per cent. membership something enshrined in our legal system.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

My hon. Friend has mentioned that in looking at Clauses 5 and 6 there is a reference back from Clause 6 to Clause 5 and he gave an illustration. Would he agree that in regard to Clause 6 one could have an irregular industrial action short of a strike spontaneously on the shop floor relating to the dismissal of a worker under Clause 5(2)(b) who under Clause 5(1)(a) had joined an organisation of workers which was not a trade union? He is not given a right under Clause 5(1)(a) to do that. Therefore, it would not be unfair if the employer dismissed him under Clause 5(2)(b) and an irregular industrial action short of a strike would not be an industrial action. Is this not an invitation to irregular industrial action and would this not undermine the strength of trade unions?

Mr. Rose

My hon. and learned Friend is making a very good point on the legality of the closed shop. "Trade union" in the Bill means a registered trade union. I think my hon. Friend has in mind that, enshrined in this so-called charter of rights for workers, is the right not to belong to a trade union, but what is not protected is the right to belong to a trade union which is not registered. What my hon. Friend said must follow if one reads it in the light of the cross-references from Clause 6 to Clause 5 and then to Clause 5(1)(b). When one gets into those kind of technicalities one understands why the trade union movement, and indeed all those persons who are concerned at the chaos which this will inject into industry, are concerned about this kind of drafting in a Bill of such major importance.

The protection afforded by the 1906 Act against inducing breach must now be rendered valueless in the light of this Clause in respect of those matters set out in Clause 5. It is one of the many inroads which will be made by Parliament despite the courts, into the protection, long built up over the years, regarding liabilities and immunities. At a later stage we shall be debating Clauses 85 to 87 which virtually nullify the protection afforded to trades unions and their servants and which virtually puts unregistered trade unions outside the law.

So the guillotine is to fall not only on this Committee, but upon everyone remotely concerned with problems in industry who may wish to advocate a closed shop because he may fear that what he says will lead him to being charged with threatening—that is all one needs to do —to procure or, indeed, procuring some action which workers may take towards that end even if that action is not a strike.

I really think that the right hon. and learned Gentleman must understand the far-reaching nature of the Clause. We know how difficult it is to retract when one has made a mistake, but, even at this late stage, if the right hon. and learned Gentleman will not accept deletion of the Clause, I ask him at least to undertake to reconsider it on Report. The right hon. and learned Gentleman must know that the Clause is offensive to anybody with a liberal conscience because it is not basically dealing with strikes or action short of a strike; it is dealing with the right to speak, the right to advocate action—indeed, the right to pay money to somebody or the right merely to make a statement that may result in, say, teachers refusing to take dinner money. There will be a lot more dinner money to take very shortly, and nobody will blame the teachers if they refuse to take it.

In the interests of harmony in industry, I appeal to the right hon. and learned Gentleman to understand that what he is doing will impose a gag upon the worker on the shop floor or in the office in the way that his right hon. Friend has imposed a gag upon right hon. and hon. Members.

Mr. Orme

I want to make a brief intervention to underline what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose).

Clause 6 introduces a new concept into industrial relations which will be enforceable by law. It is concerned not merely with whether a worker has gone on strike but if he even threatens to take such action, or if he decides, because of pressures within an industry, to go slow or not to co-operate with the employer. In such circumstances the employer can use the provisions in the Clause to threaten a worker whom he feels is not working hard enough.

In the engineering industry there is a worker—a most peculiar animal— who is classified as of average ability. I have never found him. Whether he works hard or not so hard, in the middle we have the anonymous worker called the worker of average ability. I can see the provisions in the Clause being used as a means of pressurising workers not only in the classic go-slow case which we had recently in the electricity supply industry but in any factory where a decision is taken to go slow.

To write into the Bill provisions affecting a worker's virtual liberty to stand up for himself and to disagree with his employer and for the employer to be able to say to him, "You are taking unfair industrial action and I can take action against you through the industrial court for this", does not, in my opinion, auger well for industrial relations.

A new concept has been written into the Bill. Not only do the Government want an open-and-shut case on withdrawal of labour; they want to close every door. They want to encompass the whole trade union movement with legislation governing go slow, threatening to go slow, threatening not to co-operate, and so on.

We do not want to prolong the debate —my hon. Friends and I are making brief speeches—but we regard this as a point of major principle.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I, too, will be brief.

This is one of the most shocking Clauses in the Bill. I have heard hon. Members—indeed, I heard the late Sir Winston Churchill on one occasion—say that it must be the right of every free man or woman to withdraw his or her labour if for any reason he or she feels that to be necessary. What have we here? Not only will they not be entitled to withdraw their labour, but even the threat of withdrawing their labour will be liable to penal action.

I do not know whether the lawyers who drafted the Bill have worked in factories, such as Fords, or in the docks. Do they really not understand that when workers get hot under the collar and lose their tempers they may say that they will call the workers out, but that at that moment it is the last thing they mean? But if the employer responds a little too aggresively, the whole thing can go up and, under the Bill, action can he taken immediately.

I want to illustrate the point by what has happened in this House. We have a strike in this House——

Mr. David James (Dorset, North)

A go slow.

Mr. Lewis

No, not a go slow. We are going very fast. The Government have broken their word to have discussions and negotiations. Because of their lack of understanding and appreciation they have forced through a guillotine and they now have the audacity to say that we, who are not in control of the affairs of the House, have brought about a strike, or the equivalent, in this House, because of the action which we have had to take.

The Government are now going to impose penal actions upon the ordinary workers and trade unionists of this country. The Government can do what they like. They can bring in anything they like. However, I prophesy that they will never stop strikes, because workers are far too clever to be caught by these highly-paid lawyers.

I ask the Solicitor-General to consider this point. I speak with experience. I am the only Member of Parliament present who, whilst an M.P., has called, taken part in, and led strikes one after the other for many weeks on end. Some of my hon. Friends will remember the Savoy Hotel strike, the Ritz, the Dorchester and the Mayfair, when I had the employees out for weeks on end. Indeed, some of them were not members of the union originally, but they all joined. There are 101 different ways of going about things.

What will happen? I may say to my workers, "Look, boys, you must not strike. I am telling you that you must not strike because it is against the law. Nor must you threaten to strike." If it happens to be Ascot week and all these Tory Ministers and hon. Gentlemen and company directors are going to Ascot, I may say, "Boys, do not strike. If you want to go to Ascot, spend a week there, but do not say that I said so, because I am saying that you must not go." They all go to Ascot and see all the company directors and the millionaire supporters of the Tory Party there.

I might even suggest that it is grouse shooting day, but they must not take time off to go grouse shooting. I tell them that they must not strike, and that I am not threatening a strike. I say to the boys that they must all decide whether they want to go grouse shooting and when they get there they find a number of Tories who are wasting their time. The official statistics of days lost never include all these Tories who go to the Derby, to Ascot, or to play in golf tournaments.

It may, on the other hand, be a day when some Tories are at work and not attending horse race meetings——

Mr. David Jamesrose——

8 p.m

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Wait a moment. Do not be so impatient.

Perhaps all the boys decide that they have headaches. Perhaps they all decide to go and see their doctors. They all decide to have a medical examination. I tell them not to strike. I tell them that I happen to be going to see my doctor at twelve o'clock, and suddenly all my workmates in the factory decide that they will go to see their doctors at the same time. Is that a strike? I can imagine what will happen at Fords. The shop stewards at Fords will have some fun with this provision. I can imagine what will happen when Arsenal are playing at home. They will say to the lads, "You must not strike, but we have a few tickets and we are going to see the match".

Mr. David James

As one of those wicked Tories who would die of boredom if he went to Ascot, may I ask the hon. Gentleman why should anyone who works in any capacity not take his leisure in the manner that he likes?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman has asked me that. Why should not workers go to see a football match? The Solicitor-General will no doubt say that they are striking, but they are not going on strike. I am saying that this Clause is absurd, that it is ridiculous. It will not achieve what the Government want. I could drive a horse and cart through this provision. I shall have all the time off that I want. This provision will not stop me.

By carrying through this provision the Government will get the backs of the workers up, and responsible trade union leaders will find that workers on the factory floor will get round this provision. The Government will cause a lot of bitterness, for no reason, and defeat their own objective.

Mr. Kevin McNamara (Kingston upon Hull, North)

It is important to realise the tremendous attack that is being made on the freedom of speech. It is a fundamental right to express an opinion, but the only people who will be able to express an opinion about an industrial dispute after the Bill becomes law will be Members of Parliament, who are protected by privilege.

In a great speech to the Labour Party Conference my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) urged the miners to vote in favour of strike action. Under the Bill his speech would have been illegal because my hon. Friend had no direct interest other than as one trade unionist speaking to another. I should regard that as a direct interest, but under the Bill he would be regarded as having no direct interest.

Anyone outside the House who counsels, advises or suggests means of doing things will be guilty of an irregular industrial action. When the nurses came to the House last year—or it may have been the year before—to petition hon. Members I said to them, "If you are serious you should go further than merely raising hell". I was advising them to take irregular industrial action. This is a tremendous attack upon an important principle.

Mr. Tom King

The hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends have drawn attention from the second part of this provision. No one would be putting himself at risk in encouraging any dispute. The point would be whether it was in furtherance of an unfair industrial action. If it comes at the end of a procedure agreement, or a regular agreement, the person concerned will not be putting himself at risk.

Mr. McNamara

The great point about irregular industrial action is that it generally takes place towards the end of an agreement. When I was talking to some teachers last week they asked me, "What will happen if we refuse to mark examination papers?" I said that that would be irregular industrial action. I told them that even if they were carrying out the main purpose of their contract—which is to educate children and see that they are well cared for in school—and, even if they were doing all the other jobs which they were called upon to do, if they refused to mark examination papers, or refused to supervise examinations, or refused to take part in extra curricular activities, they would be guilty of irregular industrial practice.

I do not want to delay the Committee, and therefore I shall not go into the various contracts of service for teachers which I have here, but the wide and sweeping powers given to local education authorities, as the employers of teachers, make almost any action that they take wrongful industrial action. Our concern about this provision is that we shall not at any particular time know what is or is not an irregular industrial action.

Mr. Woodhouse

The hon. Gentleman is a lawyer, and I am not. I am following his argument with interest. As I understand Clause 6, it is concerned only with industrial action to procure a result contrary to Clause 5. Is that not so?

Mr. McNamara

Yes. We have debated Clause 5. Many of the provisions in that Clause have been debated in detail. We have objected in principle to matters which it will be possible to regard as irregular action. An example of this is enforcing the closed shop. I say no more, because I am sure that the Committee wants to make progress.

Mr. Dan Jones

I have a great deal of practical experience of the engineering industry. When people talk about agreements, they usually have in mind twelvemonth or three-year agreements. It ought to be realised that in the engineering industry agreements are made every day, and every week. What would be the position if a group of people, who were being given a new job and were to be paid at what are called estimated time rates decided not to work under those conditions? It is known that estimated time rates are very much lower than the eventually agreed time rates. If they were to say that they were not prepared to accept the estimated rates, would they be regarded as being on strike?

Yesterday the Minister said that he had had consultations with the Engineering Employers' Federation. Has that matter been discussed? I assure the Committee that piece-rate times are always a matter of great argument, and eventual compromise, and that very often while these arguments are taking place means are found of accommodating the workers.

Will the Minister say that in those circumstances the people concerned are invoking a strike? Does the Minister intend to create a situation in which the amount of discussion on serious issues will be curtailed? Does the Minister think that by this process he is introducing anything that is remotely connected with industrial peace?

Mr. J. R. Kinsey (Birmingham, Perry Barr)

Hon. Members opposite are at variance with the Clause as I understand it. It seems that this Clause gives effect to the previous Clause which has already been approved. We have listened to the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) saying that trade unionists would unite to defeat those rights. This Clause will prevent that taking place.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright (Dearne Valley)

Any Bill dealing with industrial relations should be aimed at improving them. This Clause will cause more trouble in industry. Anyone who has any knowledge of agreements or conditions knows that no matter how well the case is put, if an employer is stubborn and adamant, then the trade union leader will fail to get what he wants. What happens? The trade union leader goes to his branch and his members are dissatisfied. They are moaning, and anyone in that mood who can be accused of procuring or threatening industrial action would be liable under this Clause.

If this is so, what will happen to industrial relations between employer and employee? It is said that management in this country is of a low standard compared with other countries. That is where the stubborn management comes in. When managements refuse to be reasonable they create militancy and when they fail to deal with the fair-minded unionists the militants step in and threaten a strike. Within 24 hours there is an increase in wages or conditions are improved, or both. That is tantamount to inviting the militants to take over. The stubbornness and foolishness of the employers has created this position which is detrimental to the trade union movement.

This Bill will cause more disruption throughout industry. This Clause is disgraceful. It will encourage people to find ways and means of fighting the obdurate and stubborn manager—and industry is full of them. I am surprised that any Government has the audacity to bring forward such a Clause thinking that it will improve industrial relations when it will make them worse.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards (Pembroke)

I have listened with increasing bewilderment to the debate. The Amendment was introduced by a lawyer and I am not a lawyer. We have heard some eloquent descriptions of the effects which the Clause might have, but as I read it, it refers to Clause 5(2) and appears to be protecting the unions from an unfair industrial action by the employer.

Mr. Rose

The hon. Gentleman should understand that Clause 5(2) refers in turn to Clause 5(1), which means that it refers to the right not to join a union and enshrines that right. The action envisaged is in relation to opposition and those people who want to act as free riders.

Mr. Edwards

I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman, who has narrowed the debate to a situation in which an employer might be induced to sack his employees. It seemed that the debate had been widened well beyond that point towards industrial situations which could not possibly be covered by the Clause. I hope that my right hon. and learned Friend can clarify this.

8.15 p.m.

Mr. Barry Jones (Flint, East)

There are about 500,000 teachers in England and Wales controlling the lives and destinies of 5 million or more children. As I understand the Clause, it will eliminate all industrial action short of a strike and, in effect, make the strike the only sanction in the event of a dispute. When teachers have disputes with their local education authorities, they do not necessarily want to have a strike. They would rather operate sanctions such as refusal to collect dinner money, refusal to participate in out-of-doors activities after school hours, refusal to do marking, collect savings, take the children on holiday or on weekend activities.

Mr. Patrick McNair-Wilson (New Forest)

The hon. Gentleman has not explained how any of these examples get within Clause 5.

Mr. Barry Jones

I want to be brief.

Mr. McNamara

Hon. Members opposite have referred to the reference in line 22 of Clause 5(2) of the Bill as though that were limiting subsection (2) of Clause 6. This is the definition Clause of the Bill containing the definition of irregular industrial practice, and this is the time to show up some of the absurdities which exist.

Mr. Barry Jones

This is a myopic Clause and an incitement to members of the teaching profession to strike.

Mr. John Mendelson (Penistone)

I anticipate that the Solicitor-General's argument will be that the Clause is narrowly drawn, and this is also my reading of the main substance of Clause 6. Also, subsection (2) attempts a definition which will be valid throughout the Bill. So there are two aspects which have not been clarified until recently and it would create common ground if they could be accepted and we proceeded from there.

This general definition is obnoxious to us and to the unions, who are not prepared to accept it. This subsection refers back to Clause 5 and this narrower part of its purpose is just as obnoxious. Now there should be no more disagreement about what we are attacking.

I deeply object to what is being done in the narrower subsection (1). We must refer back to the text of Clause 5, from which hon. Members on this side tried to remove the words from "or" in line 17 on page 4 to the words "other such organisations". The Government objected to that and called on their supporters, so these words are part of the Clause. Therefore, the far-reaching definition of unfair industrial action in Clause 6 will come fully into operation if any of these words are acted against or if anyone believes that this is happening and brings a charge. This puts workers and unionists into the greatest jeopardy and this is what we are all concerned about.

Mr. Tebbit

May we be clear that this would not have applied in the circumstances of the recent calls for a strike in the mining industry?

Mr. Mendelson

It is not my purpose to adjudicate in a brief debate on matters which would have to be decided by an industrial court. We are discussing the importance of these two Clauses and pointing out why this narrower part of the Clause would put many union officials and members into great jeopardy.

It is evident from the words which have remained in Clause 5(2)(c) that, if work people or a union section objected to the way in which an employer was approaching the membership in his plant, under this new and wide definition, they would not have to proceed to a strike. All they would have to do is talk about these matters clearly and frankly, as British workers normally do, to their employer. Under the provision of the narrower part of Clause 6, they would then be committing an unfair industrial practice, with all the consequences.

Mr. Tom King

At that point they can talk about anything they like and discuss the situation they face. The only time when they would be put at risk is if they started considering what action they might take in breach in an agreement.

Mr. Mendelson

That intervention is of no value, because it will be up to the new courts to determine whether the way in which the workers got together and conducted the interview with their employer constituted an offence under this definition. It would not be left to the hon. Gentleman, who will have nothing to do with it at that stage, to say what these people were doing or not doing. This has to be interpreted, which is why we should have more time for these matters in Committee and why it is absurd not to have a fair amount of time for each of these vital clauses.

We now have a chance as legislators to ask for the Government's interpretation, but even that is not binding on the courts—only the text is. When the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) has more experience of these debates, he will realise that this is the vital stage of the debate, for which we need most time. What is the situation if this group or any other group of work people were to decide not to accept something, and then asked for a meeting with the employer and told him that they could not guarantee that, if he persisted in what they regarded as an irresponsible course, there would not be a very strong feeling, with all the consequences?

As anyone knows who knows anything of industry, these interviews are common practice among normal human beings. This absurdly wide definition will put work people into great jeopardy. The Solicitor-General should justify this monstrous departure from custom and practice in British industry.

Nothing that my hon. Friends have said is invalidated by some confusion which might have existed as to the legal provisions. Everything that they have said from their knowledge of industry, of the mines and the factories, is wholly valid, although the first part of the construction is narrow and the second part is wide.

Mr. Eddie Griffiths

Would my hon. Friend not agree that most branch meetings and shop stewards will fall foul of this Clause? When a problem arises on the shop floor, the workers discuss it, see the manager, and report back that he will not budge because he is as reactionary as the Conservative Party, with a completely closed mind. The next logical step is to ask where they go from there, and at that stage they would be in contravention of this Clause.

Mr. Mendelson

I agree with my hon. Friend on the general definition in Clause 6. The industry which he knows best, the steel industry, for instance, is also likely to be in jeopardy under the narrower part of the Clause. In the steel industry there is a great deal of consultation with the unions on promotion, on the workers in the plants, their qualifications, and matters of that kind. It is certain that that will be in jeopardy under the general definition and under the narrower part of that Clause.

Everything advanced by my hon. Friends in this important debate, whatever may have been the legal contusion in earlier parts, remains wholly valid because under the wide definition this kind of jeopardy will certainly arise

8.30 p.m.

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

The Clause is particularly worrying to me because I used to work in an industry where there was more or less a pre-entry closed shop and an industrial union, to boot. I was a trade union official, albeit in a minor capacity. Part of my duties on behalf of the people I represented was to be what was termed "a pit inspector". People who know anything about the mining industry know that we have been covered by devices, laws, orders and agreements, all relating to safety, for well over 100 years. These have to be policed firmly. A lot of policing is done by union officials and members. As a pit inspector, that was my duty.

I have called, organised and procured irregular industrial action. I have not financed it, but I have threatened to do so. Under the Bill, I should have been guilty of unfair industrial practices. I have prevented, reduced or otherwise interfered with the producition of goods, not for money, but for my members, to ensure that safety regulations were observed, or to deal with anything else which happened in the mining industry which was unsafe or unwarranted or could damage the health of the workers.

Mr. Daniel Awdry (Chippenham)

What is there in Clause 5 which deals with safety?

Mr. Concannon

It is the definition of the pre-entry closed shop in Clause 5. To ensure that safety regulations are observed in the mining industry, it is more or less imperative to have a Pre-entry closed shop.

When I joined the industry, it was not the trade union that wanted me to join the union. The management instructed me to do so. It was wise to do that, as anyone who has worked long enough in the industry would agree.

Ministers referring to strikes always omit to mention the mining industry. It is no coincidence that it has been a pre-entry closed shop for 20 years. Under the Bill, how will these people be fixed when they carry out their normal duties and look after the safety of the men whom they represent? They are on call 24 hours a day and seven days a week at the behest of their members. If the management or anyone else refuses to take these recommendations into consideration, the only way to enforce the observance of safety precautions is to threaten a strike. These people, doing their job of saving life and limb, will be penalised under the Bill.

Sir Edward Brown (Bath)

It seems that the Opposition have misread the whole Clause. It says: … to induce, or attempt to induce an employer, or a person acting on behalf of an employer, to do anything which, in accordance with section 5(2) of this Act, is or would be an unfair industrial practice… In Clause 5(2), one finds that the definition of "unfair industrial practice" arises from Clause 5(1), where we establish the rights of workers to join or not to join a union. All that Clause 6 does is to define the protection and the right either to join or not to join a union.

If some force is brought to bear upon an employer to prevent or deter a worker from his freedom to belong or not to belong to a union, that is "irregular industrial practice".

The Opposition are introducing a red herring. It is clear that the Bill intends to confer rights upon the worker. However, I am sure that the Solicitor-General will clarify this matter.

Mr. John Fraser

What hon Gentlemen opposite fail to appreciate is that Clause 5(2) is a definition Clause which runs throughout the Bill. Secondly, we are changing the nature of industrial action——

The Solicitor-General

Perhaps I might intervene to ensure that both sides of the Committee are clear about the central questions of fact. Clause 6(1) says that it shall be an unfair industrial practice to call or threaten a strike or irregular action short of a strike for certain purposes and only for those purposes. Clause 6(2) defines for the purposes of the entire Measure the meaning of "irregular industrial action". The two points open for discussion are whether it is legitimate to extend industrial action to irregular industrial action short of a strike, and whether it is legitimate to proscribe both when they are directed to a given purpose.

Mr. Fraser

I am grateful for the Solicitor-General's assistance.

As I was saying, we are changing the nature of industrial action, and the Committee is being forced to consider this matter in a very few minutes. That is little better than rule by Fascist decree.

My third point is that the Solicitor-General has spent some time in the D.E.P. offices. Was the power workers' disruption "irregular industrial action"? Was the action of the airline pilots, when they went through their rigorous safety schedules and caused a good deal of disruption, "irregular industrial action"? Is careful checking, according to Statute, of safety regulations which causes disruption "irregular industrial action"? We would like an answer.

The Solicitor-General

It may be for the convenience of the Committee if I intervene in the debate at this stage.

Perhaps I might begin by dealing with the examples which the hon. Member for Norwood (Mr. John Fraser) put to me, before coming to the more substantial parts of the debate.

The Clause contains the two concepts, and it is right that they should be both considered. However, they both stand on this premise of principle that, from the point of view of the Government, my hon. Friends and many people outside the House, quite apart from a number of hon. Members opposite, whatever form industrial action takes it is a weapon which is formidable and is to be regarded as a weapon of last and not of first resort. I do not wish to overstate it, but it can inflict damage on individuals, groups of individuals and society on a scale which is hard to justify. But we are balancing these matters all the way through.

There is a difference between the two sides of the Committee. We believe that there are certain areas where industrial action goes beyond what can be justified. I do not want to be provocative, but I ought to point out that in "In Place of Strife" the phrase "coercive action" is regarded——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

It was never a Bill.

The Solicitor-General

I am sorry, but I wish to establish a certain community of ground before moving to——

Mr. McNamara

We objected to that as well.

The Solicitor-General

I am aware that certain hon. Gentlemen opposite disagreed with that——

Mr. Arthur Lewis

It was never a Bill.

The Solicitor-General

I am clear about that. I am aware that that White Paper was brought before the House by the right hon. Lady in March, 1969, and secured approval——

Mr. Heffer

May I make a point on this?

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. We are under the guillotine. Two or three valuable minutes have been taken up with what was or was not in "In Place of Strife". We are not debating that. We are debating whether the Clause shall stand part.

The Temporary Chairman (Sir Alfred Broughton)

That is not a point of order.

The Solicitor-General

I do not wish to stir up contention.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

That is what the hon. and learned Gentleman is doing.

The Solicitor-General

I am sorry if hon. Gentlemen opposite react with such sensitivity.

Mr. John Mendelson

It is a matter of the time.

The Solicitor-General

If hon. Members allowed me to make my speech we should have advanced a good deal further.

In that document which we scarcely dare mention in the Committee, with which the country is familiar, there were identified certain coercive actions that could be taken by way of industrial action, in respect of which it was legitimate, in the judgment of the right hon. Lady, for the community to intervene.

Mr. Mendelson

Which is why we buried it.

The Solicitor-General

Which is why a minority of the party opposite did not support it when it was debated. In contrast, our party, supported in some respects by the Liberal Party, suggest that there arc certain areas where industrial action, however defined, should be restrained unless the objective can be justified by fair and reasonable standards. That is the first, central proposition.

The second proposition is that in certain cases irregular industrial action short of a strike can have the same effect, can be just as damaging and just as disproportionate to the objective, as full-scale industrial action. It is for that reason that we include that in the Clause. Irregular industrial action short of a strike becomes disqualified throughout the Bill by subsection (2) only if it is taking place in breach of the contract of employment of those concerned.

The question of the power workers' dispute was raised. No more than anyone else can I advise without an analysis of the facts in great detail. If the proposition is that workers in that dispute did not break their contracts of employment, it was not irregular industrial action short of a strike. If that produces a situation somewhat less full of light than we should have liked, that may suggest that there was something wrong with the contracts of employment. The same applies to the airline industry. The hon. Member for Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones) spoke about the teachers' rôle. Many of his examples were of activities that do not fall within the contracts of employment of teachers. The collection of dinner money, I believe, is still expressly proscribed by the Education Act. Participation in after-school and holiday activities, again, is outside the contract. In other words, not all the things mentioned amount to breaches of contracts of employment.

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

The hon. and learned Gentleman ran through a list, and said that collecting money might not come under the contracts of teachers. Would he be good enough to explain the following situation involving doctors and nurses, particularly those in the National Health Service? They have to perform all sorts of duties, some of which are offensive to their religious beliefs and their conscience but which, under their contract, they must carry out. For example, some nurses feel that by their contract it is incumbent upon them to work on abortions, but they do not wish to do so. Under the Whitley Council system the nurses in every hospital have their spokesman, usually one of the staff nurses or a sister, and they can have meetings. The management of the hospital might say, "We know that you have strong feelings about being involved in abortions", or, "You are a West Indian, Indian, Pakistani or Catholic nurse"—[Interruption.] This is the real point of the Clause, that the nurse might have objections to doing something, and a reactionary person in charge of the hospital could use the Clause and damage the whole system. That sort of thing could spread very quickly. This is a very serious point, and I am sure that the Solicitor-General will take it seriously.

[Mr. J. C. JENNINGS in the Chair]

8.45 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

I wonder whether the Committee can recall what point we had reached before the hon. Gentleman's intervention. I was giving illustrations of matters that could or could not amount to breaches of contracts of employment. The hon. Gentleman takes the question a stage further. The central point that I want to get across first is that to qualify at all an action must be in breach of the contracts of employment. Beyond that——

Mr. McNamararose——

The Solicitor-General

I must be allowed to finish a point or two before giving way yet again.

We are not suggesting that irregular industrial action short of a strike is wrong. [Interruption.] Let me make the second part of the argument. We are saying that there are certain objectives in respect of which such action should not be pursued. The Clause applies only in that very limited way. A number of points put by hon. Members opposite were illustrations of objectives that would not be proscribed by the legislation. It was suggested that a union official calling, or seeking to call, industrial action on a safety matter would be in jeopardy. That is not so. The ordinary right of the ordinary union official in general terms to induce industrial action, or threaten it, over a matter of interest such as a safety question, about anything except those matters which are proscribed by the Bill, is unimpaired by the Bill. That is the central point, which applies to many of the examples given. To induce the present Post Office workers' strike in support of a legitimate dispute of interest is not unfair. Many of the examples were not realistic.

The hon. Member for Dearne Valley (Mr. Edwin Wainwright) gave a general and useful example of a day-to-day dispute in the factory or work place whether it was thought that the management was reacting intolerably or unreasonably. If the union official in that situation tells his branch meeting, "I am not getting anywhere. Let's take this further, and if I can't get what I want I shall tell the management that I shall call you out", he is not acting in pursuit of an unfair objective. It is not, therefore, proscribed by this legislation. This is the central limited concept and it is a fundamental importance.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright

But it would not be the trade union official who would be taking action but a branch member, because the trade union official had failed to obtain from the management what was thought to be fair and just.

The Solicitor-General

As the hon. Gentleman puts it, the point is that the trade union official reported ineffective action and a discussion took place, with the result that the branch members decided that they should do something further and ceased to work. This brings me back to the point raised by the hon. Member for Salford, West, because this is the other central feature.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) said that we had taken no account of paragraph 854 of the Donovan Report, which said that, if a group of people collectively agreed to break their contracts of employment, that could, under the law as at present, amount to actionable conspiracy. We have taken account of it. In a later part of the Bill, such an agreement is expressly excluded from being actionable. Such an agreement by members of a union or workers together to quit work, to withdraw their labour, is in no sense obscured. The right to withdraw labour is not assailed here.

The target is limited to industrial action, as prescribed, in pursuit of an unfair objective if it is induced in pursuit of that objective. The remedies proposed are against those who call or organise or provoke or procure industrial action, as defined, to secure the limited objective. Over the rest of the field, the right of individual workers to withdraw their labour and the right of trade unions to organise and take part in strikes are unimpaired. It is a limited but legitimate objective that we pursue here.

I hope that I have set the perspective. In the context of the Clause, the area we are concerned with is the organisation of industrial action to bring pressure to bear on an employer to infringe a worker's rights as set out in the Clause. Of course it is linked with the concept of our previous debate on the purpose of Clause 5 and is something on which a difference on principle divides the Committee. It is a principle we have tried to assert and we believe that we have got the right balance. I invite the Committee at least to acknowledge that there is no monopoly of the liberal conscience in the Committee. I am as concerned for freedom of speech as any hon. Member.

Mr. John Mendelson

At least we agree that, in reference to Clause 6, we are also referring to the whole of Clause 5, as now passed by the Committee. But does not the Solicitor-General realise that, by retaining the words which the Opposition were seeking to remove, the whole disagreement, not only between the two sides of the Committee but between the trade union movement and the country in the approach to the closed shop, the union shop, is now brought into new and novel jeopardy by relating it to Clause 6(2), whereby workers do not have to go on strike to prevent the employer taking on non-union labour? All they have to do is have a discussion, meet their employer, engage in normal frank talk, as British workers are accustomed to doing, and they find themselves in jeopardy through the connection——

The Temporary Chairman (Mr. Jennings)

Order. Interventions should not be speeches. They should not be so long.

Mr. Mendelson

I am just finishing, Mr. Jennings—through the connection between Clause 5 and Clause 6.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman is taking me back over ground I had already covered and I do not want to go back. But it is quite wrong to say that participation of a group of workpeople in a discussion with a view to meeting the employer is the sort of situation that comes within the provisions of Clause 6. This is why I want the Committee to understand the extent to which the case is being overstated and why it is important for me to make it clear.

I come back to the point that it is the person who organises, and with that organisation threatens, the pursuit of this particular objective, and only that, who is here got at. I come back on that limited framework to the purpose of Clause 5. Here we do have a difference of principle between us. It would be futile to say that it was wrong for an employer to discriminate against someone because he declined to join a union, or coerce someone into membership against his will, and at the same time to leave it free to the union to act. It is for that reason that we arrived at this conclusion. There is a balance which we believe we have struck correctly, in the name of liberalism, in the belief that, as society is changing, so the values of which the hon. Member for Birmingham, All Saints (Mr. Brian Walden) spoke yesterday should change and the belief of union members in restraint in the exercise of industrial power at the expense of an individual's liberty should be given greater weight.

It is wrong to suggest that all those who support solidarity and mass action are on the opposite side of the Committee and all those who stand for individual freedom and care nothing for anything else are on this side of the Committee. Whether in the working class or the middle class of society, as the hon. Member for All Saints tried to divide it, we all share the desire to pursue both objectives, loyalty and solidarity when it is right and respect for the rights of the individual in the last resort when that is right.

It is in pursuit of the right balance of those interests that we put before the Committee and the country this reasonable, fair and retrained attempt to check industrial action when it threatens to over-ride and crush the individual who, in the last resort, deserves to be saved.

On that basis, I invite the Committee to endorse the Clause and allow it to stand part of the Bill.

Mr. Rose

I do not think that the Solicitor-General can be allowed to escape from the perceptive clarity of my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. John Mendelson) who divided this Clause into its essential parts. He cannot escape from this new definition, introducing an entirely new concept, so well described by many of my hon. Friends including my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) and Flint, East (Mr. Barry Jones), who referred to teachers who refused to undertake certain administrative duties. This applies throughout the Bill, in, for example, Clause 16(2).

This is a wide-ranging definition which applies right across the board. The nub is the first limit applying to actions to further the closed shop. The right hon. and learned Gentleman has dodged the issue, because it does overturn Rookes v. Barnard, it goes in the opposite direction. He knows this and he knows that it is flying in the face of Donovan. He has not dealt with the vital matter which my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) dealt

with, the matter of freedom of speech and opinion, the fact that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone said, an expression of view to a manager, a threat, would in itself be an offence under the Clause.

This may be a spontaneous outburst of anger on the shop floor. How is the management to know when a man working with a machine makes a remark such as to procure others of his colleagues to come out on strike? There is only one way and that is by the spy on the factory floor, the man who goes to the boss and tells what has happened. It is perhaps too late now for the Solicitor-General to tell us about this, perhaps he will do so on Report.

What happens when that someone is not a person working on the factory floor but a politician or a journalist? When my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) spoke at that Labour Party conference, although his speech did not have a bearing on a strike of this nature, it might have done and that is the point my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull was making. If his speech had referred to a strike of this nature, he would be guilty of an offence although he would not be the person working on the shop floor. Under this Clause the journalist or politician or the broadcaster on the B.B.C., may well be guilty of an offence.

It is an example of bad drafting, a complete misunderstanding and rejection of freedom to organise, to speak and to act. There are two concepts with which this side of the Committee takes issue. First is the importation of a new concept of action short of a strike and second, the ending of freedom of speech on the factory floor. Therefore, I urge my hon. and right hon. Friends to join me in the Lobby and vote against the Clause.

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

The Committee divided: Ayes 297, Noes 262.

Division No. 87.] AYES [9.0 p.m.
Adley, Robert Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Berry, Hn. Anthony
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Biffen, John
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Balniel, Lord Biggs-Davison, John
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Batsford, Brian Blaker, Peter
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Astor, John Bell, Ronald Body, Richard
Atkins, Humphrey Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Boscawen, Robert
Awdry, Daniel Benyon, W. Bossom, Sir Clive
Bowden, Andrew Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Monks, Mrs. Connie
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Grylls, Michael Monro, Hector
Brain's, Barnard Gummer, Selwyn Montgomery, Fergus
Bray, Ronald Gurden, Harold Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Brewis, John Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mudd, David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Hannam, John (Exeter) Murton, Oscar
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Bryan, Paul Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Neave, Ainey
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Buck, Antony Haselhurst, Alan Normanton, Tom
Bullus, Sir Eric Hastings, Stephen Nott, John
Burden, F. A. Havers, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hayhoe, Barney Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Heseltine, Michael Osborn, John
Carlisle, Mark Hicks, Robert Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Higgins, Terence L. Page, Graham (Crosby)
Channon, Paul Hiley, Joseph Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Chapman, Sydney Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Pardoe, John
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Chichester-Clark, R. Holland, Philip Peel, John
Churchill, W. S. Holt, Miss Mary Percival, Ian
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hooson, Emlyn Pike, Miss Mervyn
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hornby, Richard Pink, R. Bonner
Clegg, Waiter Hornsby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Pounder, Rafton
Cockeram, Eric Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Cooke, Robert Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Coombs, Derek Hunt, John Proudfoot, Wilfred
Cooper, A. E. Hutchison, Michael Clark Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Cordle, John Iremonger, T. L. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick James, David Raison, Timothy
Cormack, Patrick Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Costain, A. P. Jessel, Toby Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Critchley, Julian Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Redmond, Robert
Crouch, David Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Crowder, F. P. Jopling, Michael Rees, Peter (Dover)
Curran, Charles Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Rees-Davies, W. R.
Dalkeith, Earl of Kaberry, Sir Donald Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kershaw, Anthony Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. Jack Kilfedder, James Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Dean, Paul Kimball, Marcus Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Digby, Simon Wingfield King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Dixon, Piers Kinsey, J. R. Rost, Peter
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kirk, Peter Russell, Sir Ronald
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Knight, Mrs. Jill St. John-Stevas, Norman
Drayson, G. B. Lambton, Antony Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Lane, David Shelton, William (Clapham)
Eden, Sir John Langford-Holt, Sir John Simeons, Charles
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Sinclair, Sir George
Elliot, Capt, Walter (Carshalton) Le Marchant Spencer Skeet, T. H. H.
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Smith, Dudley (W' wick & mington)
Emery, Peter Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Soref, Harold
Eyre,Reginald Loveridge, John Speed, Keith
Farr, John McAdden, Sir Stephen Spence, John
Fell, Anthony MacArthur, Ian Sproat, Iain
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy McCrindle, R. A. Stainton, Keith
Fidler, Michael McLaren, Martin Stanbrook, Ivor
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) McMaster, Stanley Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Stokes, John
Fookes, Miss Janet McNair-Wilson, Michael Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Fortescue, Tim McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Sutcliffe, John
Foster, Sir John Maddan, Martin Tapsell, Peter
Fowler, Norman Madel, David Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Fox, Marcus Maginnis, John E. Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Fraser,Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford & Stone) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Fry, Peter Marten, Neil Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Mather, Carol Tebbit, Norman
Gardner, Edward Maude, Angus Temple, John M.
Gibson-Watt, David Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mawby, Ray Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan Meyer, Sir Anthony Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Goodhart, Philip Mills, Peter (Torrington) Tilney, John
Goodhew, Victor Mills, Stratton, (Belfast, N.) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Gorst, John Miscampbell, Norman Trew, Peter
Gower, Raymond Mitchell,Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Tugendhat, Christopher
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Gray, Hamish Moate, Roger Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Green, Alan Molyneaux, James Vickers, Dame Joan
Grieve, Percy Money, Ernle D. Waddington, David
Walder, David (Clitheroe) Wells, John (Maidstone) Woodnutt, Mark
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester) White, Roger (Gravesend) Worsley, Marcus
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Wall, Patrick Wiggin, Jerry Younger, Hn. George
Walters, Dennis Wilkinson, John
Ward, Dame Irene Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Warren, Kenneth Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard Mr. Jasper More and
Weatherill, Bernard Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher Mr. Paul Hawkins.
NOES
Abse, Leo English, Michael Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Albu, Austen Evans, Fred Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fernyhough, E. Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Allen, Scholefield Fisher, Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) McBride, Neil
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) McCartney, Hugh
Armstrong, Ernest Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McElhone, Frank
Ashley, Jack Foley, Maurice McGuire, Michael
Ashton, Joe Foot, Michael Mackenzie, Gregor
Atkinson, Norman Ford, Ben Mackie, John
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Forrester, John Maclennan, Robert
Barnes, Michael Fraser, John (Norwood) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Barnett, Joel Freeson, Reginald McNamara, J. Kevin
Beaney, Alan Galpern, Sir Myer MacPherson, Malcolm
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Garrett, W. E. Mahon, Siman (Bootle)
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Gilbert, Dr. John Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Bidwell, Sydney Ginsburg, David Marks, Kenneth
Blenkinsop, Arthur Golding, John Marquand, David
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mason Rt. Hn. Roy
Booth, Albert Gourlay, Harry Meacher, Michael
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Grant, George (Morpeth) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mendelson, John
Bradley, Tom Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mikardo, Ian
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Millan, Bruce
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Brown, Ronald (Shoredith & F'bury) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Buchan, Norman Hamling, William Molloy, William
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hardy, Peter Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Cant, R. B. Hattersley, Roy Moyle, Roland
Carmichael, Neil Heffer, Eric S. Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hilton, W. S. Murray, Ronald King
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Horam, John Ogden, Eric
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas O'Halloran, Michael
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) O'Malley, Brian
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Huckfield, Leslie Orbach, Maurice
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Orme, Stanley
Coleman, Donald Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oswald, Thomas
Concannon, J. D. Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Conlan, Bernard Hughes, Roy (Newport) Padley, Walter
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hunter, Adam Paget, R. T.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Irvine,Rt.Hn.Sir Arthur(Edge Hill) Palmer, Arthur
Crawshaw, Richard Janner, Greville Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Cronin, John Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parker, John (Dagenham)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n&St.P'cras,S.) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Pavitt, Laurie
Dalyell, Tam John, Brynmor Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Pendry, Tom
Davidson, Arthur Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pentland, Norman
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Jones, Dan (Burnley) Prescott, John
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn(W. Ham, S.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Deakins, Eric Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Price, William (Rugby)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Kelley, Richard Rankin, John
Delargy, H. J. Kerr, Russell Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Kinnock, Neil Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Dempsey, James Lambie, David Rhodes, Geoffrey
Doig, Peter Lamond, James Richard, Ivor
Dormand, J. D. Latham, Arthur Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lawson, George Roberts,Rt.Hn.Gororrwy(Caernarvon)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Leadbitter, Ted Robertson, John (Paisley)
Driberg, Tom Lee, Rt. Hn, Frederick Roderick, Gaerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Duffy, A. E. P. Leonard, Dick Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Dunn, James A. Lestor, Miss Joan Roper, John
Dunnett, Jack Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Rose, Paul B.
Eadie, Alex Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Edelman, Maurice Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Lipton, Marcus Shorn, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lomas, Kenneth Short,Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Ellis, Tom Loughlin, Charles Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Swain, Thomas Weitzman, David
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich) Taverne, Dick Wellbeloved, James
Sillars, James Thomas,Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff,W.) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Silverman, Julius Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Skinner, Dennis Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Whitehead, Phillip
Small, William Tinn, James Whitlock, William
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Tomney, Frank Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Spearing, Nigel Torney, Tom Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Spriggs, Leslie Tuck, Raphael Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Stallard, A. W. Urwin, T. W. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Varley, Eric G. Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Stoddart, David (Swindon) Wainwright, Edwin Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Strang, Gavin Walker, Harold (Doncaster) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Wallace, George Mr. Joseph Harper and
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Watkins, David Mr. Alan Fitch.

Clause 6 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Back to
Forward to