HC Deb 29 July 1971 vol 822 cc933-48

Lords Amendment: No. 33, in page 13, line 17, leave out "section" and insert "Act".

Mr. Dudley Smith

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

This is a drafting Amendment which I hope will commend itself to the House. As it stands, the definition of "approved closed shop agreement" applies only to Clause 16. It is, of course, intended to apply throughout the Bill in the same way as the definition of the "agency shop agreement" in Clause 10(1) applies throughout the Bill. The Amendment puts that matter right. I hope that it will be accepted.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 34, in page 13, line 20, leave out "employers' association" and insert "organisation of employers".

Mr. Dudley Smith

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

I suggest, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that it might be for the convenience of the House to discuss at the same time Lords Amendments Nos. 288, 294, 295 and 297, which are in the same terms.

The Amendment will enable an approved closed shop agreement to be made between one or more trade unions and an organisation of employers which is not registered. We accepted the argument advanced in another place that it is chiefly a handicap that a union should require an employers' organisation to be registered before it may be a party to an approved closed shop agreement. The Amendment removes that particular requirement.

Amendments on similar lines were moved originally in Committee in another place by Baroness White and Lord Archibald, who are members of the Labour Opposition. The Amendments were looked at sympathetically by the Government side and were eventually adopted on Report. That is why we commend them to the House. We believe that, in the narrow sphere of the approved closed shop agreement, we can make the concession without undermining the basic philosophy of the Bill on registration.

These Amendments will enable an organisation of employers which is not registered under the Bill to be a party to an approved closed shop agreement, and this will overcome the objection that was made in another place that the requirement of an employers' organisation to register before it could become a party to a closed shop agreement was essential. I think that it is very much in the interests of those who support the approved closed shop concept, which we have debated on previous occasions, that these Amendments should be made, and I hope that they will be accepted by the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 35 in page 13, line 26, leave out from beginning to "and" in line 28, and insert if he is not already a member of that trade union or of one of those trade unions, as the case may be, must become such a member unless specially exempted".

Read a Second time.

11.45 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

I beg to move, as an Amendment to the Lords Amendment, in line 4, at end add '(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)' I think it might be convenient if we take at the same time Amendment No. 290 to Schedule 1, in page 123, line 42, at end insert— () In this paragraph, 'effective application' means any application which is not precluded by paragraph 10 of this Schedule from being entertained by the Industrial Court.

The two Amendments seek two different objectives, but they are a part of a whole and, therefore, it is perhaps appropriate that they should be taken together.

This is the "approved closed shop agreement" Clause. It was introduced by the Government partly in answer to arguments put forward on behalf of Equity, but the ironic thing is that the Clause as it stands is of no value to Equity—for reasons which I shall give in a moment—though it may be of help to some other unions. I think that this proves the argument that I have made throughout, that there are no particular arguments to be made on the Bill on behalf of paricular trade unions. Any argument about the Bill is a general argument and is applicable to the entire trade union membership.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but I want to help him. I think it might be for the convenience of the House, and I do not doubt that the Solicitor-General has this in mind, to take at the same time his Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290, at end add 'but notwithstanding paragraph 7(2) and paragraph 10 of this Schedule where an approved closed shop agreement is in force any one or more employers who are not parties to such agreement may with the trade union or trade unions concerned apply to the Industrial Court for any order that such employer or employers be made a party or parties to such agreement and the Industrial Court, if it is satisfied that the existing parties to the agreement consent to the applicant or applicants becoming parties to the agreement shall order that such applicant or applicants shall forthwith be parties to such agreement.' Perhaps the hon. Member would address himself to that Amendment, too, if he feels so inclined.

Mr. Jenkins

I think, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that while you were in consultation I had tried to make it clear that it was my intention to follow the advice which you have subsequently given.

I was about to say that there are no particular arguments to be made on this Bill. Any argument made on behalf of one trade union is an argument on behalf of all trade unions, and it is a little ironic that the consequence of the argument put forward is an Amendment which is of no value to the union on whose behalf it was argued.

The reason for that is that the type of control exercised by Equity is control of entry, which the Bill defines as pre-entry, and against which the Government have set their face. We say that this is not pre-entry but point of entry. We seek to limit the number of people entering into the entertainment business, and it is this which the Government say they cannot permit because, if they did, it would undermine the broad principles of the Bill.

To prove the need for the Amendment proposed to the Lords Amendment, I must first show that the Bill will not work. To show that, it is necessary to refer to the casting agreements now operated by Equity. These are different in various parts of the entertainment business. In the West End theatre, for example, productions have to be cast from full members of Equity—people who have been in the business for 40 weeks and have been provisional members of the trade union for 40 weeks. There is an appeal procedure. If a manager wants to cast a newcomer, he can go through an appeals procedure. If he manages to persuade his fellow managers, they might impose their decision upon the trade union, and the trade union accepts into membership the newcomer. Therefore, it is a hurdle, but it is not a door. The manager can ultimately do his own casting but he has to go over this hurdle in order to do it. Similarly in the touring companies and among principals in pantomimes, they have to be cast from among existing members of the union. Therefore, technically under this Bill, even in its altered state, it is impossible for Equity to function as it now does.

The alterations made in the Bill, therefore, are of little value to the union on whose behalf to some extent, at any rate, they were introduced. I think this illustrates the sad part about this Bill, that it will not succeed in doing what it seeks to do but will achieve other ends. From the point of view of the entertainment world, this is a thoroughly bad Bill.

I will not go through the whole entertainment industry, but in most branches of entertainment, including the cinema and television, there are provisions under which, in the first instance, casting is made from among existing members of the trade union. It is only when that source has been fully explored that the manager is entitled to go outside and bring in a newcomer.

In subsidised repertory there is a limit of 130 new entrants every year. Once the managers have cast their 130 in a year, nobody else comes in. The shutter comes down. This will no longer be permitted under this Bill. This procedure may seem harsh, but it is done by agreement by the managers. It recognises the necessity to limit entry, and they have argued in favour of the maintenance of the shop.

Right hon. and hon. Members opposite in their doctrinaire fashion—I have never come across such a doctrinaire Government as this lot—are completely obsessed with the doctrine of Conservative so-called freedom, which has shown itself, for instance, in the proposed destruction of the National Film Finance Corporation, which it would be out of order for me to deal with now. This doctrinaire bunch is bent upon destroying the entertainment industry with which I have been associated for many years.

My proposed Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to add at the end: '(but such specially exempted worker shall nevertheless not be excluded from conformity with the rules and discipline of the trade union)'. It provides that in the event of a worker being specially exempted, the consequence of such special exemption shall not be that he escapes from the discipline of the union. It means, therefore, that even if he pays his contributions to a charity or other organisation he still has to comply with the rules of the union. This is important, and I hope the right hon. Gentleman will accept it because it will provide an opportunity for a man who objects to paying to a trade union to pay his contributions elsewhere, but will ensure that he does not escape from the general obligations of trade unionists.

However, the Amendment does not make it possible for Equity to control the delinquent manager. Those powers are hopelessly lost under this iniquitous Bill, and if I had time I would quote chapter and verse relating to the case I mentioned the other day, in which a distinguished theatre manager said that he had been totally misled by hon. Gentlemen opposite into believing that it was the intention of the Government to do something to rescue the theatrical world from the plight into which this Measure is casting it, but no such rescue has occurred and it will not occur unless the Amendment is accepted.

Some of my hon. Friends say that the Bill will not work and so it will do little harm. That may be so in the industries they represent, but in acting it has already begun to do harm. For example, for the first time for many years, employment has begun to take place on a non-union basis. In Bognor, for the first time in years, a group of actors was engaged on a non-Equity basis at below minimum rates. When asked why this was happening for the first time since Equity was established, the manager said, "I no longer have to bother with Equity because of the Industrial Relations Bill." That statement, by Miss Brenda Ross, is on the record. In this case, she was made to bother.

Elsewhere, in summer shows in various parts of the country, managers are considering whether they can now undercut the Equity rates, whether they still need to use Equity contracts or as a result of this Bill will be free to do exactly as they please.

Unfortunately, what is believed often proves to be the case. If it is believed throughout the entertainment business that Equity's shop is universal and operates generally, that will be the case. If, on the other hand, the opposite is believed to apply, it may begin to apply. The Bill is already undermining the situation and undermining a form of control that has been valuable to managers and to the entertainment business as a whole. I have with me a letter from a very distinguished British actor which says: Artistic standards rest on the economic foundations that Equity has created and which the Industrial Relations Bill seeks to undermine. As the Bill is drafted, the procedure for obtaining a closed shop agreement is so cumbrous that even when both the trade union and the employer are willing, it cannot be achieved without tremendous delay. There is the initial delay of one month, the process of the Industrial Court, the ballot procedure and all the rest.

For this reason the second Amendment says, in effect, that if a trade union and employer agree to adhere to an existing closed shop agreement, that shall be done without having to go through this procedure. In other words, the lengthy procedure provided by the Bill will be waived if they so agree.

I urge hon. Members, and particularly hon. Gentlemen opposite, not to talk about amending legislation. If we do not take this opportunity to block up the gaps, it will be too late. Although it is now too late to conduct much of a rescue operation in the context of the Bill, it would be possible to rush through the House a new entertainment employers' registration Measure. That might do something to stop the rot.

In the other House Lord Olivier pleaded with the Government in a gentlemanly fashion. I am not an actor but a trade union official. Unlike some actors, I suffer from no illusions about hon. Gentlemen opposite. Those illusions were also held on this side. It was believed by some hon. Members on this side that the Government intended to offer Equity a special deal, but no such special deal has been offered.

Unless these two Amendments are accepted, even this minor rescue operation is prevented. The two Ministers in charge of the Bill are two polite monsters and they are doing grave damage to the entertainment industry. The nation will regret this and I believe that the right hon. Gentlemen will also live to regret it.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. R. Carr

If one of the monsters may be allowed to reply, perhaps I could say a few words about these Amendments.

The hon. Member for Putney (Mr. Hugh Jenkins) pursues the cause of Equity and of the profession in which Equity is involved with great passion and sincerity and we respect him for it, even if we may not always agree with him.

The hon. Gentleman realises, and the House must realise, in considering these Amendments that they apply to the whole field and not just to Equity. Even if I admitted—which I do not—that they were necessary, for the special cases of Equity, it would not be the way of dealing with that, because what is proposed would apply over the whole field of employment.

I will explain why these Amendments are unacceptable. Amendment No. 35 would make a conscientious objector subject to union rules and discipline, even though he is specially exempted from the general requirement to join a union under an approved closed shop agreement. That would be like going back to Army service, with a man being exempted by a conscientious objection tribunal and then being told to join up just the same.

The whole purpose of conscientious objection, whether we agree with it or not, is that a man or woman should not be subject to the discipline and rules of a union. That is what conscientious objection means. Hitherto, it has often carried with it the advantage that the man or woman concerned was better off, per week or per month, than everyone else, and we are putting an end to that at least by providing that he shall contribute the equivalent of union dues to charities, so that the person concerned does not benefit financially by his objection. But if that objection is tested and accepted by a tribunal, it is unacceptable that, that having been sustained, he should be subject to the rules and discipline of the union. I do not believe that anyone who sustains the principle of conscientious objection at all can look at the Amendment for two minutes without realising that it must be rejected.

The purpose of the second Amendment, to Lords Amendment 290, is to enable employers or associations which are not parties to a closed shop to operate such an agreement as though they were parties to it, provided that that is acceptable to both parties. This, too is unacceptable because it would allow the widespread and unsupervised introduction of closed shops. There may be a difference of philosophy between the two sides of the House.

While we wish to encourage union membership and see it rising voluntarily, we are philosophically opposed to the principle of a compulsory closed shop.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

The right hon. Gentleman would not wish to mislead the House involuntarily. The Amendment advocates a facility to adhere to an existing closed shop and not a facility to create new ones.

Mr. Carr

That is what I was coming to. We are opposed in principle to a compulsory closed shop. We have said, however, and we moved Amendments accordingly when the Bill was at an earlier stage in this House before it went to another place, that we recognised that there might be a few cases where, without a closed shop, the temporary nature of employment, the great surplus of potential or actual employees or workers in the trade or profession and many other circumstances might justify an approved closed shop because it would genuinely be the case that without an approved closed shop reasonable terms and conditions could not be maintained in that employment.

Therefore, while maintaining our general principle of opposition to the closed shop, we moved Amendments to make additions to the Bill to allow an approved closed shop in special circumstances. The essence was, however, that the circumstances were special and that each case should have to be approved.

The hon. Member's Amendment to Lords Amendment No. 290 would vitiate the whole of that principle, because if we accepted his Amendment we would first get a particular position examined and approved as an exceptional case justifying a closed shop. The hon. Member then says that if we accepted his Amendment, anybody who wanted to join, as long as the two parties to it did not object, could join absolutely without limit. In this way, one could get a growth, not only in Equity but anywhere throughout industry, of people joining an approved closed shop ad lib, with no control, no supervision and no passing of special principles.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins

What is wrong with that?

Mr. Carr

This may be a genuine difference between the two sides of the House. What is wrong with it from our point of view, and absolutely contrary to the principle of the Bill, is that while we are prepared to encourage union membership, to outlaw the free rider and have an agency shop, we are opposed in principle to the compulsory closed shop but, because we recognise that there may be very special circumstances in which that is the only way that reasonable circumstances and conditions of employment can be maintained, we are prepared in those special circumstances to allow an approved closed shop. It is, however, on the basis of special circumstances.

The hon. Member wants us to accept the proposition that, having got one small area of closed shop approved because the circumstances are special, anybody who wants to do so, provided that it is not objectionable to the parties concerned, can adhere to that and so make the closed shop bigger and bigger. Even if that were necessary for Equity—and I will say a word presently about the general points— it simply could not be accepted as a general proposition.

Having made the provision for the approved closed shop—the two industries we have particularly in mind which might need it, although there could be others, are Equity and shipping—we believe that we have done all that is necessary. We do not accept that membership of Equity is the only test of entry that can reasonably apply to this profession. We think that other tests of entry can be applied.

We believe that as long as a major number of the most important figures, both on the managerial and the production side of the entertainment industry, on the one hand, and among the actors and performing side, on the other hand, remain loyal to Equity, any coming actor or actress, any coming manager or promoter, who wishes to make substantial progress in the profession will not be able to do so unless he adheres to the reasonable conditions, because he will know that unless he does he will never get the support of the big people in the trade, the big names in the profession, whose support will be essential to his progress.

We believe that in allowing the approved closed shop without free entry— or, as has been said, the pre-entry closed shop—we have provided what is necessary. But if in the event our confidence is disproved and the hon. Gentleman's fears are proved, we shall consider taking special action to deal with the matter. It will not be action in industrial relations law but regulatory action of another kind. I have given that undertaking to the profession. I must advise my hon. Friends to reject the Amendment.

Amendment to the Lords Amendment negatived.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Lords Amendment No. 35 seeks to remove an ambiguity in Clause 16 of the Bill which was identified by my hon. and learned Friend for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke). I undertook to consider the point and have done so. He suggested that the drafting of the Clause, as it stood, could be construed to suggest that the closed shop could be approved even if it were a pre-entry closed shop. That was not the Government's intention.

We came to the conclusion that there might be some substance in this point. We have proposed this alteration to make it plain that an approved closed shop cannot be a pre-entry closed shop where the worker concerned has already got to be a member of a union. The point made by my hon. and learned Friend has been taken in another place, and I invite the House to agree with this Amendment.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 36 in page 14, line 10, leave out from "not" to "a".

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker

It would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendments No. 37, in page 14, line 13, after "made" insert: and has refused to become or has been excluded from being such a member". No. 38, in line 17, leave out "and has refused to become".

No. 39, in line 19, at end insert: and refuses to become or has been excluded from being such a member".

The Solicitor-General

These also are Amendments to Clause 16 moved in response to points raised on Report in this House by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kingston-upon-Thames (Mr. Boyd-Carpenter) my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Darwen (Mr. Fletcher-Cooke), and the hon. Member for Cleveland (Mr. Tinn). They were drawing attention to certain ambiguities in the provisions of Clause 16 (5).

We considered the matter and Amendments to meet those ambiguities were accepted in another place. They should be considered alongside Amendment No. 41, which inserts new Clause B after

Clause 16—(Supplementary provisions as to approved closed shop agreements).

11.15 p.m.

The effect of the Amendments is to make plain what is or is not unfair for employers in an approved closed shop situation. It is clear from subsection (5) that in certain circumstances an employer may either dismiss or refuse to engage a worker who is not complying with the terms of the approved closed shop agreement. These Amendments make clear the circumstances in which the employer can do those things. He may dismiss a non-member who has refused to join, or a man who has been excluded from the union, or a specially exempted worker—a charity contributor who has refused or failed to pay his charity contribution. The meaning of a man who has been excluded from the union can be dealt with on Amendment No. 41. As a parallel, the employer may refuse to engage a non-member who refuses to join the union and may refuse to engage a man who has been excluded from the union. The provisions are in line with each other and consistent with the principles of the Bill. I invite the House to agree with these Amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 40, in page 14, line 19, at end insert— () Where a worker to whom the agreement applies, and who is specially exempted, has agreed to pay appropriate contributions to a charity, and requests his employer to deduct the contributions from his remuneration and pay them on his behalf, then so long as that request remains in force—

  1. (a) he shall not be regarded for the purposes of subsection (5)(a) of this section as having refused to pay the contributions to the charity, and
  2. (b) any failure on the part of the employer to comply with the request shall not be regarded as a failure on the part of the worker to pay the contributions."

Motion made, and Question put, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 221.

Division No. 448.] AYES [11.15 p.m.
Adley, Robert Atkins, Humphrey Balniel, Lord
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Awdry, Daniel Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Astor, John Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Batsford, Brian
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Benyon, W. Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hannam, John (Exeter) Peel, John
Biffen, John Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Percival, Ian
Biggs-Davison, John Haselhurst, Alan Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Blaker, Peter Havers, Michael Pink, R. Bonner
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Body, Richard Hay, John Price, David (Eastleigh)
Boscawen, Robert Hayhoe, Barney Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Bossom, Sir Clive Heseltine, Michael Proudfoot, Wilfred
Bowden, Andrew Hicks, Robert Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Higgins, Terence L. Quennell, Miss J. M.
Braine, Bernard Hiley, Joseph Raison, Timothy
Bray, Ronald Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Redmond, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Holt, Miss Mary Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hordern, Peter Rees, Peter (Dover)
Bryan, Paul Hornby, Richard Rees-Davies, W. R.
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Homsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buck, Antony Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Burden, F. A. Howell, David (Guildford) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Carlisle, Mark Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Ridsdale, Julian
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hunt, John Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Channon, Paul Iremonger, T. L. Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Chapman, Sydney James, David Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Chichester-Clark, R. Jessel, Toby Russell, Sir Ronald
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Jopling, Michael Scott, Nicholas
Clegg, Walter Kershaw, Anthony Scott-Hopkins, James
Cockeram, Eric Kilfedder, James Sharples, Richard
Cooke, Robert King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Coombs, Derek Kinsey, J. R. Shelton, William (Clapham)
Cooper, A. E. Kirk, Peter Simeons, Charles
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Knox, David Skeet, T. H. H.
Cormack, Patrick Lane, David Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Costain, A. P. Langford-Holt, Sir John Soref, Harold
Critchley, Julian Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Speed, Keith
Crouch, David Le Marchant, Spencer Spence, John
Crowder, F. P. Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Stanbrook, Ivor
Curran, Charles Lloyd, Lan (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Longden, Gilbert Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Loveridge, John Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Dean, Paul Luce, R. N. stokes, John
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. McAdden, Sir Stephen Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Digby, Simon Wingfield McCrindle, R. A. Sutcliffe, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas McLaren, Martin Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward McMaster, Stanley Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Dykes, Hugh Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Tebbit, Norman
Eden, Sir John McNair-Wilson, Michael Temple, John M.
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Thomas, John stradling (Monmouth)
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Maddan, Martin Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Madel, David Tilney, John
Emery, Peter Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Farr, John Marten, Neil Trew, Peter
Fell, Anthony Mather, Carol Tugendhat, Christopher
Fidler, Michael Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Mawby, Ray van Straubenzee, W. R.
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Meyer, Sir Anthony Vickers, Dame Joan
Fookes, Miss Janet Mitchell, Lt-Col.C. (Aberdeenshire, W) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Foster, Sir John Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Fowler, Norman Moate, Roger Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Fox, Marcus Molyneaux, James Wall, Patrick
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh (St'fford &Stone) Money, Ernle Ward, Dame Irene
Fry, Peter Monks, Mrs. Connie Warren, Kenneth
Gardner, Edward Montgomery, Fergus Weatherill, Bernard
Gibson-Watt, David More, Jasper Wells, John (Maidstone)
Glyn, Dr. Alan Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) White, Roger (Gravesend)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Goodhart, Philip Mudd, David Wiggin, Jerry
Goodhew, Victor Murton, Oscar Wilkinson, John
Gorst, John Nabarro, Sir Gerald Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Gower, Raymond Neave, Airey Woodnutt, Mark
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Normanton, Tom Worsley, Marcus
Green, Alan Nott, John Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Grieve, Percy Onslow, Cranley Younger, Hn. George
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Grylls, Michael Orr, Capt. L. P. S. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Gummer, Selwyn Osborn, John Mr. Tim Fortescue and
Gurden, Harold Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Mr. Reginald Eyre.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Page, Graham (Crosby)
Hall, John (Wycombe)
NOES
Albu, Austen Hamling, William Moyle, Roland
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Hardy, Peter Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Harper, Joseph Murray, Ronald King
Ashton, Joe Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) O'Hailloran, Michael
Atkinson, Norman Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith O'Malley, Brian
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Hattersley, Roy Oram, Bert
Barnes, Michael Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Orme, Stanley
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Heffer, Eric S. Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Barnett, Joel Horam, John Padley, Walter
Beaney, Alan Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Paget, R. T.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Palmer, Arthur
Bidwell, Sydney Huckfield, Leslie Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Bishop, E. S. Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Peart, Rt. Hon. Fred
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hughes, Mark (Durham) Pendry, Tom
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Pentland, Norman
Booth, Albert Hughes, Roy (Newport) Perry, Ernest G.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hunter, Adam Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Irvine, Rt.Hn.SirArthur (Edge Hil) Prescott, John
Bradley, Tom Janner, Greville Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Probert, Arthur
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Jeger, Mrs.Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) John, Brynmor Richard, Ivor
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Coleman, Donald Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Roper, John
Concannon, J. D, Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rose, Paul B.
Conlan, Bernard Jones, Rt.Hn.SirElwyn (W.Ham, S.) Sandelson, Neville
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, c.) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Kaufman, Gerald Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Kelley, Richard Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Davidson, Arthur Kerr, Russell Silverman, Julius
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Kinnock, Neil Skinner, Dennis
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Latham, Arthur Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Leadbitter, Ted Spearing, Nigel
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Spriggs, Leslie
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Leonard, Dick Stallard, A. W.
Deakins, Eric Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Delargy, H. J. Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Storehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Lipton, Marcus Strang, Gavin
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lomas, Kenneth Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Loughlin, Charles Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Driberg, Tom Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Taverne, Dick
Duffy, A. E. P. Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)
Durnnett, Jack Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Eadie, Alex McBride, Neil Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) McGuire, Michael Tinn, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Mackenzie, Gregor Torney, Tom
Ellis, Tom Mackie, John Tuck, Raphael
English, Michael Mackintosh, John P. Urwin, T. W.
Evans, Fred Maclennan, Robert Varley, Eric G.
Faulds, Andrew McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Wainwright, Edwin
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. McNamara, J. Kevin Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Fitch, Alan (Wigan) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Wallace, George
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Watkins, David
Foot, Michael Marks, Kenneth Weitzman, David
Ford, Ben Marquand, David Wellbeloved, James
Forrester, John Marsden, F. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Fraser, John (Norwood) Marshall, Dr. Edmund Whitehead, Phillip
Freeson, Reginald Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Garrett, W. E. Meacher, Michael Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Gilbert, Dr. John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Ginsberg, David Mendelson, John Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Golding, John Milne, Edward (Blyth) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Woof, Robert
Grant, George (Morpeth) Molloy, William
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Mr. James A. Dunn and
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Mr. Ernest Armstrong.