HC Deb 16 March 1971 vol 813 cc1297-371
5 (1) For the purposes of the application of section 90(1)(c) of this Act to a complaint that action specified in the complaint constituted an unfair industrial practice in accordance with section (Pressure on employer to infringe rights of worker) (3)(a) of this Act, the reference in section 90(1)(c) to the person against whom the action was taken shall be construed as a reference to the employer and not to the worker.
10 (2) For the purposes of the application of section 90(1)(c) of this Act to a complaint that action specified in the complaint constituted an unfair industrial practice in accordance with section 87 of this Act, the reference in section 90(1)(c) to the person against whom the action was taken shall be construed as a reference to either of the following, that is to say—
(a) the person who was induced to break the contract to which the complaint relates or who was prevented from performing that contract, and
(b) the party to the industrial dispute in question with whom that contract was made.
15 (3) Where the action specified in a complaint presented under section 90 of this Act consists of a threat made by the respondent, or consists of action carried out by means of a threat, the remedies available to the Industrial Court under subsection (3) of that section shall (instead of that specified in paragraph (c) of that subsection) include either or both of the following, that is to say—
20 (a) an order directing the respondent to refrain from making or continuing to make that threat or any other threat of a like nature against the complainant;
(b) an order directing the respondent to refrain from taking or continuing to take action in accordance with the threat and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant.
25 (4) In relation to a complaint falling within subsection (3) of this section, section 90(5)(a) of this Act shall apply as if, for the words 'paragraph (b) or paragraph (c) of subsection (3) of this section' there were substituted the words 'subsection (3)(b) of this section or section (Special provisions as to certain complaints to Industrial Court) (3) of this Act'.
30 (5) Where, on a complaint under section 90 of this Act, the complainant is a trade union or a joint negotiating panel of trade unions, and the complaint relates to action constituting an unfair industrial practice by virtue of section 51(2)(b) of this Act, the remedies specified in subsection (3) of section 90 of this Act shall not be available to the Industrial Court, but the Court may, if it considers that it would be just and equitable to do so, make an order—
35 (a) authorising the presentation of a claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board under section 112 of this Act, and
(b) specifying the date on which, in accordance with the finding of the Court, the action constituting the unfair industrial practice first occurred.
—[The Solicitor-General.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Solicitor-General

I beg to move, That the Clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson)

With the new Clause it will be convenient to discuss Amendment (nnnn), in line 28, leave out subsection 5.

The Solicitor-General

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I think that it may also be convenient to say something about the following:

Amendment No. 77, in page 65, line 10 [Clause 90], leave out from 'is' to end of line 12 and insert: 'the person against whom the action was taken'. Amendment No. 78, in line 31, leave out subsection (4).

Amendment No. 79, in page 68, line 14 [Clause 94], leave out paragraph (c) and insert: (c) where the complaint relates to dismissal, the complainant is the person who was dismissed, or, in any other case, the complainant is the person who was prevented or deterred from exercising his rights, or was penalised or otherwise discriminated against, or was refused engagement, as the case may be. Perhaps I may also remind the House that this new Clause is in some ways linked with new Clauses 2 and 4 which we have already discussed.

The structure of the Bill as it now stands is that Clause 94 ensures to the individual a means of asserting his right of making a complaint of unfair dismissal against his employer. New Clauses 2 and 4 ensure in such case the employer's right to a contribution, if his claim is established, from those who have procured an unfair dismissal or discrimination.

The new Clause deals in the first place with making clear the employer's remedy against the organisers of industrial action organised with a view to procuring an unfair dismissal or discrimination. In addition, it makes two other qualifications to the remedies available under Clause 90; first of all, to the remedies available under Clause 87, which the House discussed at some length arid, secondly, to the remedies available to a trade union under Clause 51 where it complains, and the complaint has been established, that an employer has failed to recognise that trade union.

To Clause 90 (1) (c) as it stands there are Opposition Amendments attracting attention to the phraseology that, the complainant is a person against whom, or to whose detriment, the action was taken or who has suffered or who is likely to suffer loss in consequence of it. The Opposition seek to replace the first two words "or" by "and", on the basis that the remedy would be too widely available under the Clause as it stands.

My right hon. Friend has tabled Amendment No. 77 to Clause 90, making a corresponding change with a corresponding intention, because the complainant, in the light of my right hon. Friend's Amendment, has to be the person against whom the action was taken", and there is no question of putting in the alternatives relating to people who suffer or are likely to suffer loss in consequence. I draw attention to that because it underlies what new Clause 3 does in relation to Clause 90.

Similarly, Amendment No. 79 makes a corresponding Amendment to Clause 94, because Clause 94 (1) (c) also could be said to go too wide. Accordingly, Amendment No. 79 would limit the qualified complainants who may complain under Clause 94.

The House will have those changes in mind. They both effect a limitation on the kind of person who can claim under Clauses 90 and 94.

Against that background, I now invite the House to look back to new Clause 3 itself. Subsection (1) makes plain that only an employer, not an employee or a worker, is able to claim under these provisions for an order to restrain industrial action intended to produce unfair dismissal or discrimination. It confines that right in that way as part of the package which the House has just been discussing.

The dismissed or discriminated-against individual secures his remedy from the employer, who may then either seek a contribution under the provision we have just discussed or have the possibility under this subsection of presenting a complaint and seeking an order against those seeking to induce the wrongful discrimination or wrongful dismissal.

Mr. Orme

May we try to put this in non-lawyer's language? Is the Solicitor-General, in other words, trying to redress the damage which the Bill does by abolishing Section 3 of the 1906 Act, and trying to prevent a Taff Vale judgment if, for example, a person tried to sue an air transport company because there was a strike, or something like that? Is that the reality of it? Is that what the Solicitor-General is trying to circumscribe?

The Solicitor-General

I am trying not to go too far into the discussion on the Amendments to Clause 90. I have pointed out that Clause 90(1)(c) and Clause 94(1)(c) both identify too widely the people entitled to claim in consequence of unfair industrial action and, as the hon. Gentleman put it, would have left it open, on one view at least, for someone incidentally suffering loss, for example, as a result of the non-appearance of an aircraft because of an industrial dispute, to be entitled to claim under Clause 90.

For that reason, the Opposition have put down their Amendments to change "or" to "and", which are directed to the same end, but my right hon. Friend's Amendment is intended to make plain that it is only the person against whom the action is taken who can seek a remedy under Clause 90—and with variations similarly under Clause 94.

I do not want the House to think that that narrows it unduly. It still remains possible for the person who suffers loss as a result of unfair industrial practice, if it is aimed at him, to claim under the various provisions, but not the incidental sufferer of the sort about whom the hon. Gentleman was concerned.

8.45 p.m.

Mr. Orme

I thank the Solicitor-General for that explanation, but even with the rewording proposed—and he has said that there is a chance that some action may be taken—will not then the final adjudicator in this matter be the Industrial Court?

The Solicitor-General

The final adjudicator as to the person against whom the action is directed will be the industrial court. But one would then have to see whether he was or was not entitled to claim under that provision. But it is intended to exclude the person incidentally injured or who could establish that in consequence of industrial action he had suffered damage. Again, some people have urged us that we should have gone that far. Within the narrow category, the Clause is effective for our purpose, which the hon. Gentleman would still regard as a poor one, but at least it is a clearly defined one.

I have dealt with subsection (1) of new Clause 3. Subsection (2) is for the purpose of defining the remedies available and the persons to whom they would be available in respect of a secondary boycott, to use the phrase used in earlier debates, where an unfair industrial action is being committed under Clause 87. Again, the House will have seen the competing Amendments on the Order Paper in respect of Clause 87. There are some from the Opposition, and there are Amendments 75 and 76 in the name of my right hon. Friend which are designed to narrow the originally too wide provisions of Clause 87, not in the same way as those tabled by the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends, but as they are set out. I shall not trouble the House by dealing with them. It may be that I should be out of order if I did. However, I draw the House's attention to them.

Against that background, the purpose of subsection (2) of new Clause 3 is to give a remedy in respect of an unfair industrial practice under Clause 87 to one of two parties.

Paragraph (a) refers to: the person who was induced to break the contract to which the complaint relates … and paragraph (b) refers to: 'the party to the industrial dispute in question with whom that contract was made …'. The effect of those provisions is to enable either the primary employer, who is indirectly threatened or harmed by industrial action directed against a third party—he is dealt with by paragraph (b)—or that third party who is extraneous to the dispute and who is threatened or damaged, as a means of putting pressure on the primary employer, to bring a complaint under Clause 90 and to seek a remedy against an unfair practice under Clause 87. Each of those people is entitled to bring a complaint by virtue of this subsection. Those are the objectives.

Mr. Loughlin

I want to be sure of what the hon. and learned Gentleman means. He referred to the person in paragraph (a) and then said "or" the person in paragraph (b). As I read the wording, surely it says "(a) and (b)". I take it that "each", and not "either", has the right to claim.

The Solicitor-General

That is right. I do not quite follow the hon. Gentleman's distinction between "each" and "either". It means one or other or both.

Mr. Loughlin


The Solicitor-General

That is right—one or other or both. It depends upon which of them chooses to or seeks to, and both might. There is no doubt about its meaning.

The two people about whom we are talking are, first, the man against whom the primary strike or industrial action has been called and who is then being threatened or damaged by an attempt to cut off supplies from a secondary supplier who is not supporting the action, and, second, that external supplier who is not supporting and who is extraneous to it. Those are the people who are identified. That is no doubt one of the reasons why the other Amendment to the Clause deals with the definition of "associated employer".

Subsection (3) is designed to make clear and to extend the remedies available under Clause 90(3) in the following situation. Where the unfair practice being complained of is a threat to procure industrial action for an unfair objective, under the Bill as drafted the Industrial Court could only make an order restraining the threat and not its implementation. Again, hon. Members opposite may not accept with enthusiasm the idea that such an order may be made, but they can see that there is little logic in giving power to make an order to restrain repetition of the threat if the Court cannot at the same time restrain fulfilment of the threat. The effect of the subsection is to enable the Court either to restrain repetition of the threat or to restrain implementation of the threat so as to make both halves of the package hang sensibly together.

Mr. Sillars

Is the Solicitor-General saying that a court could order people who had withdrawn their labour to return to their work?

The Solicitor-General

The underlying principle running right the way through these provisions is that there is nothing in any place or in any way that can enable a court to order people to return to work. There is no provision for a court order directing people who have left work and gone on strike to return to work. The provisions as they stand enable the court to say to somebody or some organisation that is threatening to call industrial action for an unfair objective, "Do not go on threatening to do that and do not in fact organise that action".

Mr. Orme

If they do?

The Solicitor-General

An order can be made against that organisation or the people responsible telling them not to do it.

Mr. Sillars

It was stated earlier today that the Ford workers came out spontaneously. What would happen if a court order was made against those workers who had come out spontaneously?

The Solicitor-General

It cannot be emphasised too often that the Bill does not contain any provisions whereby those people can be ordered or required to return to work. This is the distinction between this kind of approach and the one I might call the Betteshanger Colliery approach; because we have never asserted or believed that it is possible, sensible or wise for a court or any other institution to try to make orders requiring individuals as such to return to work.

Mr. Paul B. Rose (Manchester, Blackley)

Does the Solicitor-General agree that this is a distinction so fine as not to be capable of being understood by a trade unionist? What the hon. and learned Gentleman is saying is that the attitude will be, "We will not order you back to work, but unless you return to work you are in contempt of court and the inevitable consequences will follow", because there is a labour injunction against a person striking or threatening to strike.

The Solicitor-General

This is the point. I am astonished that at this stage in the day the hon. Gentleman has not appreciated that this is the point. The labour injunction, as he chooses to call it, would not be capable of being made against someone taking part in a strike. This is a fundamental asserted in the Consultative Document. [Interruption.] Perhaps hon. Members will allow me to explain, because this is an important aspect, what remedies are available. They are available only against either people or organisations calling, organizing—

Mr. Rose

Hear, hear.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman must be patient if he wants me to explain the matter more fully. What is made absolutely clear is that participation in a strike, withdrawal of labour, the mere taking part in a strike, does not give rise to any kind of remedy. The remedy is available against those who are seeking or threatening to organise, finance—

Mr. Rose

The same people.

The Solicitor-General

The distinction is clear.

Mr. Heffer

They are the same.

The Solicitor-General

I was coming to the other aspect which is set out in subsection (4).

No such order could be made against a trade union official acting within the scope of his authority, so that if a strike is organised, called, or threatened and it is in pursuit of an unfair objective, an order can be made against the organisation whose officials are procuring that and it can be made against someone who is acting wholly outside the scope of his authority, not on behalf of any organisation, but it cannot be made against the people who are merely participating in the strike. This is the essential distinction and the effect is to expose the organisation, and not its officers acting within the scope of its authority, to remedies against it if the strike is called or organised for an unfair purpose.

Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)

The person promoting and encouraging the strike may be the person who is on strike.

The Solicitor-General

That may be so, but he would not be in any jeopardy of any kind merely for taking part in the strike. This is a principle which runs through the Bill. It is only organisations or people who organise or promote strikes, and then only those seeking to promote a strike in pursuit of an unfair objective. This is the very core of the Bill.

Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East) rose

The Solicitor-General

I will give way to the hon. Gentleman in a moment. He is assiduous and I tend to succumb to his charms from time to time.

It could be argued by some harsh people—not the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), to whose charms I succumb from time to time—that a set of legislative proposals designed to prevent undue industrial strife and undue industrial action which did not enable orders to be made against individuals was not likely to be as effective as those harsh folk would like. We have not succumbed to that argument. We do not contemplate the possibility or desirability of pursuing remedies against people who are merely taking part in a strike. It would be wrong to try; it would be ineffective to try. We have limited our proposals to orders against those who organise and only those who organise unfair strikes, and to the organisations on behalf of which they act if they are acting in the course of their authority from those organisations.

Mr. Prescott

I thank the Solicitor-General for giving way. He is attempting to explain the distinction between what he is now proposing and the Betteshanger case. He is saying that those who participate in a dispute will not have an action against them, but that those who encourage a strike will be liable to prosecution in certain circumstances, and this has been the theme all the way through the argument. In the Betteshanger case they all committed an offence and all could be brought before the courts. In this case, only one or two people would actually be committing the offence, inducing or encouraging them to take that action. In practice it is likely that only one or two would go to gaol, as in the Bettershanger case, where only about 10 went to gaol and the rest of the workers involved refused to co-operate or to work. There will be exactly the same effect, and the practical distinction becomes meaningless.

9.0 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

We are going back over ancient history. The distinction goes a great deal further. There is no question of men being sent to gaol. We have all moved a very long way since the Disputes Order of 1940. We are not in that kind of situation. The remedy would be sought from the Industrial Court. If the right to it was established and it was claimed that the industrial action was being organised in pursuit of an unfair objective, then, subject to all the rest of the defence, an order could be made against the organisation whose officials were procuring or organising the unfair industrial action. It could be enforced against that organisation in the last resort as a result of contempt of court. The remedies against any individual would arise only if he was acting outside the scope of a registered organisation or of his authority from that organisation.

It is that provision that is repeated in subsection (4) of the new Clause. I commend the whole of that package to the House as a reasonable balance, with the remedies being directed against organisations which are and can be held responsible in respect of unfair industrial actions.

Subsection (5) is to be read together with Amendment 78, which removes the existing Clause 90(4). Subsection (5) takes its place. This set of provisions is designed to provide a remedy for the trade union which has secured a recognition order against an employer and which the employer is failing to recognise and to negotiate with. It is an order that can be made under Clause 51. Clause 51(2) deals with the situation where an employer is required to recognise a trade union or joint panel of trade unions. It provides for two different unfair practices by the employer. It is unfair for him then to begin negotiating with any other organisation of workers, and not to take all such action by way of bargaining with the recognised union as should be taken by a ready and willing employer. That is the kind of situation for which a remedy was provided in the right hon. Lady's Bill, and for which a remedy was recommended by Donovan and "Fair Deal at Work It is one of the unusual points at which all three of those source documents combine. All three suggested that where an employer declines to recognise a union that he has been required to recognise the effective remedy and sanction against him is that he should be taken before what is still known as the Industrial Court but will hereafter be known as the Industrial Arbitration Board, and that that body should be entitled to lay down the terms and conditions of employment which should be regarded as reasonable by the employer. So the employer is exposed to the risk of unilateral arbitration if he declines to bargain properly and effectively with the trade union, as he is required to do under Clause 51.

Subsection (5) of the new Clause makes a drafting change to Clause 90(4) to make it clear that the order for reference to the Industrial Arbitration Board is available only when the employer is failing to bargain seriously with the union which he must recognise under Clause 51(2)(b). The second is to require the Court, when it is referring a claim in that way, to specify the date on which the action constituting the unfair industrial practice first occurred. In other words, after the Industrial Court is confronted with a claim that the employer is not bargaining seriously with the union which he is required to recognise it can refer the claim to the Industrial Arbitration Board, and shall specify the date on which the employer failed to negotiate with the union which he had to recognise. When the matter goes to the Board under Clause 112, the Board will be able to make an order against the employer laying down terms and conditions which he will have to observe, and which will then be incorporated, as under the 1959 Act, with the terms and conditions of employment of all the employees. The Board will have power to back-date that unilaterally arbitrated award against the employer in favour of all the employees to the date on which he first failed to recognise and bargain seriously with the union.

This is a tidying-up provision to make plain how the union can get that effective remedy and the date to which the award can be back-dated. I am sure that the House will agree that this is the only effective compensation for a union which has won the right to be recognised and which the employer still declines to recognise. This remedy enables each employee covered by the union to receive effective compensation for the employer's failure to bargain with it. That effective compensation can be written into the terms and conditions of each member of the union that has not been recognised, and can be back-dated to produce an effective remedy for those members whom the employer had been failing to bargain with as he ought to have done.

On that basis, I commend the new Clause to the House and invite it to say that there is no case for accepting Amendment (nnnn). That Amendment would seem to remove the remedy that is intended to be available for the non-recognised union under the provisions of this Bill.

Mr. Loughlin

May I come back to the point which I put to the hon. and learned Gentleman, when he said that both parties referred to in subsection (2)(a) and (b) can seek redress against the union or organisation involved in the dispute or which is inducing people to be involved in the dispute? I take it that if a contract is broken by A, then B has redress against A. Does that mean that B has got the normal rights of civil recovery and at the same time has additional rights against the organisation?

The Solicitor-General

If the contract is broken as a result of an inducing by means of industrial action of an unfair kind, then the party who suffers damage as a result would have the right against either the party who broke it with him or the organisatoin which induced it.

Mr. Loughlin

Or both.

The Solicitor-General

Not both, because he could not recover both. He could not establish that he had suffered loss to the extent of both. In either case he would be entitled to recover his loss, but if he recovered his loss from B he could not then establish loss from the other organisation. In other words, he could not have his remedy twice.

Mr. Rose

This is undoubtedly the most complex of the new Clauses, and the greater part of it, with the Amendments to it, are the result of bad draftsmanship. We are discussing the practical consequences which are arising from many of the deficiencies pointed out by my hon. Friends at earlier stages of the Bill. There is perhaps a lesson here with regard to the operation of the guillotine. A great deal more might have come to light had we had an opportunity of debating the three-quarters of the Bill which we were not allowed to debate.

It is not surprising, for example, that new Clause 3(1) and the Amendments to it seek to qualify Clause 90(1)(c), because the latter was so widely drawn originally, as I think the hon. and learned Gentleman now sees, that any member of the public in certain cases could take action when inconvenienced by an industrial dispute. Where an industrial dispute was held to constitute an unfair industrial practice, any person inconvenienced would have had the right to sue. Our earlier proposal, with its simple expedient of substituting "and" for "or", would have avoided all the paraphernalia we now see in subsection (1) of the new Clause.

We understand that certain consequences must flow from outlawing pressure upon employers of a nature which has hitherto always been accepted as a perfectly reasonable practice and which we have been debating on other Clauses. That is, of course, pressure with regard to the closed shop. I cite again what Mr. Justice Sargent said in Reynolds and the Supply Federation 47 years ago. He said: For many years past no one has questioned the right of a Trade Union to insist, if they are strong enough so to do, under penalty of a strike, that an employer or group of employers shall employ none but members of the Trade Union. For many years no one had questioned the right. Now the hon. and learned Gentleman outlaws it and has to redraft this provision to give effect to it.

One consequence is that the hon. and learned Gentleman has to decide whether the employee affected should have the right to sue. It is perhaps logical according to the Government's thinking that they place the onus not upon the employee to sue but upon the employer. What is unacceptable to us is the principle itself, which allows the employer entirely to reverse the Trade Disputes Act, 1965, in the teeth of Donovan. Apparently the Government seem to have been undecided on this point or, as is usual, were split as to who should have the right to sue. "Fair Deal at Work" said: The individual employee has virtually no legal redress if he loses his job or is otherwise victimised because he is a non-unionist. It asserted: Any individual should have the right to appeal to the Industrial Court against coercive action from any quarter. This new Clause does not fulfil the promise given in "Fair Deal at Work". Apparently the Government have decided in their wisdom that the right should be given to the employer rather than to the employee. There is little value in talking about theology to non-believers, but I draw attention to this inconsistency since it seems to me that it is the employer rather than the individual non-unionist whom the Government seek to protect by reason of subsection (1).

9.15 p.m.

I do not believe they are interested in the freedom of the non-unionist; they are interested in weighting the scales in favour of the employer. The redrafting here illustrates this because often the unions will go before a tribunal with no legal aid, when the financial scales will be weighted against individual trade unionists, who will be the defendants, in favour of the employer suing because of the so-called unfair pressure.

We come to subsection (2) and the associated Government Amendment. It is right that Clause 87 will be more tightly drawn as a result of Amendment No. 76. This is a minor concession but it is one of the few tangible examples of the Solicitor-General actually honouring one of his undertakings given earlier. We have to be thankful, on this Bill, for small mercies. He realised, after the discussions, that incidental to any strike action must be the risk of a breach of contract with a third party by the employer involved in the dispute.

I suspect that the Clause has now been redrawn to the state in which the Solicitor-General intended it to be originally, before his attention was called to the fact that as it was drawn it destroyed almost entirely the right to strike in virtually every conceivable set of circumstances.

Committee stages can be educational even for the most arrogant of governments, like this one. Occasionally they learn and on this occasion we have the right to say that the Solicitor-General has here embodied what was suggested by some of my hon. Friends, in particular by my hon. Friend the Member for Kensington, North (Mr. Douglas-Mann). I remember when he quoted Lord Reid's dictum in Stratford and Lindley and the Solicitor-General then acknowledged the force of the argument by tabling the Amendment.

At the second attempt the Solicitor-General has been able to limit the right of redress, formerly under Clause 90(1,c) given virtually to all and sundry. It is now given to those directly affected under Clause 70. Yet we are denied the opportunity of debating Clause 90 in its entirety. The only way in which we have been able to amend the Clause has been through the existence of the new Clause and the Amendments. We are denied the opportunity of debating Clause 90 as it stands, and I believe that the Government will regret this later.

I come to subsection (3), which certainly extends certain remedies. The Solicitor-General, as usual—and we expect this from him now—told us that no one is forced to go to work and that we are not penalising the strikers, but what he fails to recognise is that the very people who induce the strike may well be strikers and, more often than not, are strikers. The shop steward who induces the strike which the Solicitor-General describes as an unfair industrial action will probably be on strike himself, so it is wrong to suggest that striker will not be penalised.

If he is penalised, then someone else will plug the gap, and march into the breach—and he will be penalised. We may not have a Betteshanger but we shall have a series of picking-off actions which will ultimately be no different, except in degree.

The hon. and learned Gentleman is less than fair when he denies that what this subsection does is to allow for labour injunctions to restrain action which is threatened or indeed the implementation of the threatened action and also, therefore, to prevent the party concerned from even uttering a threat. We debated fairly thoroughly in Committee the whole question of contempt, and it is pertinent to ask the Solicitor-General what happens to the employee or shop steward who induces the strike, against whom an injunction is made and who still utters remarks which the employer may regard as a threat?

Surely the only remedy is to commit him for contempt and he will ultimately go to prison. I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will explain if this is correct and that he would resort to what can only be termed a labour injunction. What happens when, after an injunction, employees continue to picket an extraneous party under Clause 87? What happens to the union funds if the individuals are not at risk?

It would seem that both union members and officials could be held in contempt in certain circumstances if they were thought not to be acting with authority and might well be eligible for imprisonment. Much of what we have been told about the protection of individuals from imprisonment, if it had not evaporated in Committee, is fast evaporating now.

I come, in stark contrast, to subsection (5). The Solicitor-General says that it is mainly a question of drafting. The principle is that, instead of adding remedies, as in subsection (3), which is directed against the employee, we are refusing to give remedies when the defendant is the employer, the paymaster of the Government, and when the employer refuses to bargain in good faith. Far from being a concession to the Opposition, it is a capitulation to the interests of employers and the remedies in Clause 90(3) for compensation, orders concerning rights and mandatory injunctions are stripped away when the employer is at the wrong end of the Industrial Court. Now he is no longer at the wrong end of the Industrial Court. He is before a different body altogether. It seems that employers are sacrosanct. There is greater leniency for them in the Clause but greater harshness for the workers and unions.

The Clause is a genuflexion to the deity of draftsmanship and practicability, because even the Solicitor-General, with all his legal sleight of hand and the addition of new labour injunctions for threatened action by employers, cannot legislate for something which is not capable of being legislated for. He knows that certain things are impracticable. That was pointed out in Committee, and he has frankly recognised it in the first two subsections. These are not improvements but rectifications of errors presented to the Committee. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to oppose the new Clause and to support the Amendment.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I understood what my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General said much better than the new Clause. I agree with the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) that the new Clause is extremely complex, although I have no doubt that it will be understood by those who have to understand it and by the courts.

We are used to being given very little credit by the Opposition for what we provide and to being beaten with a stick somewhat unfairly for what is in the Bill, but the hon. Member for Blackley was extremely slanted in his criticism of my right hon. Friend. He said that the new Clause would help the employers much more than it would help workers. I was interested to hear my right hon. Friend say that if an employer refuses to bargain with a trade union or group in, presumably, an agency shop, the award can be backdated. This is a salutary concession. It has not occurred before. The trade union movement has constantly complained that in wage negotiations there is a slowing up in order to delay the eventual wage award and that therefore workers lose. We have had a lot of sympathy for this in the past, although recently wage awards have been coming too quickly, certainly in the last year or two. But there is no doubt that there have been times when there has been a certain slowing up in order to cut down the amounts which have to be paid by employers at the end of the day.

By virtue of this Clause, an employer can be told by the Court that he has to back-date the award. Surely this is a great advantage. We should be given credit for it. We have not been given it. I hope that the trade unions will make this clear to the general public when they discuss the Bill, though I fear that that is a vain hope.

The Clause has been criticised because of its effect upon individual employees, whether or not they be leaders of trade unions. Right hon. and hon. Members opposite criticise the Clause because it would create a situation in which the employee found himself before the court being directed one way or the other, and, if he did not obey that direction, there would be an injunction and, at the end of the day, he might be subject to civil proceedings.

The fact is that there is no leader of any trade union, at a high or low level, who is likely to be in that situation if he acts within the authority of his union. If right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite support the wild boys who do not accept the authority of their unions or those in unions who from time to time disobey their own rules, they are on the side of anarchy. When one listens to some of their speeches, that is precisely the position in which they put themselves.

Frequently we hear the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friend attacking us for daring to bring the courts into industrial relations. They say very little about their own courts in the trade union movement. Have they read tonight's newspapers? Have they seen how the Amalgamated Engineering and Firemen's Union—[Interruption.]—or whatever it is called now, run by Mr. Hugh Scanlon—

Mr. J. D. Concannon (Mansfield)

The hon. Member does not even know the name.

Mr. Lewis

It is not surprising. Amalgamations are taking place so fast nowadays. That union has caned a strike for 18th March and we have heard about it today in the House. However, arising out of the strike on 1st March, 60 men employed at Hucknall have been each fined £5 for refusing to go on strike. They work for Rolls-Royce—

Mr. Orme

What has this to do with it?

Mr. Lewis

Hon. Gentlemen opposite, apparently, can go as wide as they like in expressing their extreme views—

Mr. Orme

The hon. Gentleman has been brought in to filibuster. What has this to do with the Clause?

Mr. Lewis

I will show the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Orme

They were fined for breaking the rules.

Mr. Lewis

Each of them was fined £5 because he refused to join a strike which was said to be against this Bill. They work for Rolls-Royce. They believe that the company, the country and their jobs are more important than going on strike.

Mr. Orme

Where is this in the Bill?

Mr. Lewis

I will tell the hon. Gentleman in a moment.

Mr. Harold Walker

Whatever the merits of the decision of the A.E.U. or the A.E.F.—and I think that this is hardly the time to discuss them—does the hon. Gentleman recognise that the strike was not called by Mr. Scanlon but by the properly constituted and authorised policy-making body of the union, the national committee? Is not that doing precisely that which has been demanded from the Government benches throughout our proceedings on the Bill? Is not the union taking action to compel its members to adhere to the policy of the union?

9.30 p.m.

Mr. Lewis

There is considerable doubt whether the leader of that union, Mr. Hugh Scanlon, acted within the rules. He acted outside the rules of the union. The rules of that union lay down that he should have had a ballot to call this strike.

Mr. Orme

What has this to do with the new Clause?

Mr. Lewis

When Mr. Hugh Scanlon does not have a ballot, he has a private court and fines people.

Mr. Orme

On a point of order.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think the Chair has wisely been fairly tolerant throughout the debate. The hon. Gentleman must bring his argument within the terms of the new Clause.

Mr. Lewis

I respect your restraint, Mr. Speaker. However, we are talking about industrial courts and I am simply pointing out that hon. Gentlemen opposite are complaining about a court which is not a private court but a public court where people can put their cases. Furthermore, it is a court which bites only against those who are acting unconstitutionally. It deals only with people who seek to disrupt industry against the rules of their own union. Times out of number we hear hon. Gentlemen opposite give support to those who are prepared to disrupt industry in this way. The strike which is to take place on 18th March is disruptive.

Mr. Orme

What has this to do with the new Clause?

Mr. Lewis

It is a strike which, according to the Bill, is outlawed.

Mr. Rose

On a point of order. I have listened with rapt attention to the hon. Gentleman's speech, but I think that you, Mr. Speaker, ought perhaps to ask him to which subsection of the new Clause, which sentence, or even which word his speech relates.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I should also add that there are many hon. Members wishing to take part in the debate on the new Clause. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will, therefore, come fairly closely to the terms of the new Clause and get on.

Mr. Lewis

This is an attempt on the part of hon. Gentlemen opposite to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I am going outside the terms of the new Clause because they do not like the argument.

Hon. Members


Mr. Speaker

Order. Whether hon. Gentlemen like it or not is irrelevant. This is a question of order.

Mr. Lewis

I was not referring to you, Mr. Speaker. I said that hon. Members opposite were making a fuss because they do not like my argument.

Hon. Members


Mr. Lewis

I repeat, it is obvious that they do not like it.

Mr. Speaker

Order. There is no question of referring to the Industrial Court the comments of hon. Gentlemen. I ask the hon. Member to keep to the terms of the new Clause.

Mr. Lewis

The fact is that the Industiral Court, to which the new Clause refers, seeks to determine order in industry as against disorder. There is too much disorder in industry today. One can see it all around. No one could suggest that it is industrial order when a union calls a political strike against the wishes of the T.U.C., the members of the union and the people of the country as a whole. We are introducing the Bill—

Mr. Ted Fletcher

On a point of order. Will it be in order for hon. Members on this side of the House to refer to the dispute on Thursday? If these accusations are to be made by hon. Gentlemen opposite, we shall expect the same tolerance from you, Mr. Speaker, when we speak from this side.

Mr. Speaker

Order. I think that it would be unwise to widen the debate. I ask the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) either to come very close to the terms of the new Clause or to draw his remarks to an end.

Mr. Lewis

I should have thought it reasonable to mention the context in which the Bill and the Clause are being debated in this House. The Bill and the Clause are being debated in a context of disruption of industry. We believe that the Bill and the Clause will help to bring order into industry. That is what the people voted for and what many union members support, despite the protestations of hon. Members opposite, who con- sistently talk as if the Bill would be to the disadvantage of industrial relations. We would not bring it in if we thought that.

The Industrial Court will be able to discipline those who go against the unions and who stir up trouble for employers who are carrying out their proper functions. But no one who is seeking to improve industrial relations or to maintain peaceful conditions in a factory can be brought before the court. Hon. Members know this, but they are arguing the opposite. That is why it is in keeping with the situation outside for hon. Members opposite to know that there are some unions led by moderate men and others which are not led by moderate men—

Mr. Orme

Mr. Speaker, what has this to do with the Clause?

Mr. Lewis

The Jones-Scanlon axis—

Mr. Orme

On a point of order—

Mr. Speaker

Order. I do not need this help from sedentary positions. I have told the hon. Member that he must bring his remarks close to the Clause or resume his seat.

Mr. James Tinn (Cleveland)

How long, oh Lord, how long?

Mr. Lewis

I have listened to most of these debates and I have been in the Chamber for long periods and have contributed to them. Whenever there is a slight widening of the debate—the Bill is being debated in the context of what is happening outside—there is a complaint from hon. Members opposite—

Mr. Speaker

Order. This is the Report stage, and this kind of general Second Reading speech is not in order. The question is whether this new Clause be read a Second time. That is much more restricted than a debate on Second Reading. The hon. Member has been speaking for 15 minutes. I must ask him to bring his remarks to a conclusion.

Mr. Lewis

I will conclude. I have probably said as much as I want to say on this subject. The hon. Member for Blackley admitted that this Clause had been pressed for by hon. Members opposite, just as the Clause yesterday was pressed for—

Mr. Speaker

Order. We are not debating the Clause which was debated yesterday.

Mr. Lewis

In both cases, hon. Members opposite can at least take comfort from the fact that the Government made a concession to their point of view. I should have hoped for more evidence of gratitude for that. I believe that the Clause is a good one and I hope that my hon. Friends will support it.

Mr. Orme

Whatever difficulties we have encountered in debating this issue, my hon. Friends have not tried to be obstructive or restrictive. Certainly we have not wandered into the Chamber merely to make an explosive speech.

Mr. Lewis

On a point of order. On what grounds does the hon. Gentleman say that I wandered in simply to make an explosive speech?

Mr. Speaker

Order. Whether or not the hon. Gentleman wandered in and whether or not his speech was explosive are not matters for the Chair.

Mr. Orme

I leave hon. Members to judge whether what I said about the hon. Gentleman's contribution was fair.

When I intervened earlier to try to get some clarity about the Clause the Solicitor-General indicated that subsection (1)(c) completely abolished the law arising out of the Taff Vale judgment, by which it was possible to sue for loss of goods or production. The hon. and learned Gentleman described this as a complicated legal provision. If he finds it difficult to describe to the House of Commons, how much more difficult will it be for the nation's 185,000 shop stewards to comprehend?

What will be the position if there is a dispute in, say, the motor car industry and, because of a strike at a subsidiary company supplying parts to a major car firm, the latter must stop production? If the Industrial Court deems the action of the subsidiary company to have been an unfair industrial practice or involving the breaking of a contract, will it be possible for the firm to sue the union or members of it for loss of production?

Although the Solicitor-General said that subsection (1)(c) had been narrowed, the Clause is so complex that we cannot envisage its final outcome. The same can be said of subsection (3)(a) and (3)(b). Indeed, the same comments can be made about Clauses 87 to 91.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

As the Solicitor-General spoke I wondered whether he had thought of a situation in which, although a majority of the workers—as a result, perhaps, of a sudden dangerous condition or contingency—favoured a walk-out against which shop stewards counsel, such action would qualify as unfair industrial action. How could a court of law interpret the shop stewards' counsel as constituting the organisation of that walk-out? Yet those men would be strikers.

The hon. and learned Gentleman has said that the Government are not disposed to empower the court to order workers, either individually or collectively, to go to work. In a society such as ours that is not possible, as it would be tantamount to putting the workers in absolute and complete bondage. But although not completely removing the right of workers to take the type of action I have described, the Solicitor-General has made it almost legally impossible for them to exercise it. The 185,000 shop stewards, the cream of the trade union movement, the men who are often responsible for order in industry and not disorder, the men to whom workers go for advice, are the kind of people whom the Solicitor-General by this Clause seems to be after. He seems to think that most of them are irresponsible and the kind of people for whom, at the drop of a hat, the rest of the workers walk out unthinkingly on the spur of the moment. That is an absolutely false picture, and one over which the Government will come unstuck.

The new Clause raises more questions than it answers. As the Bill proceeds the unions will continue to get the utmost legal advice and will meet these provisions with all the guile, ingenuity, skill and know-how that they have acquired over many years. Many unions will accord to the stewards the right to take industrial action—some unions do so already.

If it is thought to be the best way to proceed, the central authority can be devolved. A union may decide that action taken by the stewards is at once constitutional under its rules so that there is no need for a long wait for district and then national recognition. The unions can easily meet the point by not tightening up on central authority but, instead, spreading that authority to those in their lower ranks—the shop stewards. I want the Solicitor-General to turn his mind to that possibility.

If workers are hardly able to move legally in the sort of situation which I mentioned a moment or two ago, that is, where dangerous working conditions arise, what will they do? Let us not forget that industrial disputes and industrial action do not always stem from the thought that one is not getting enough wages from the employer. A large proportion, probably 95 per cent., of the disputes alluded to earlier by the Secretary of State arise out of what the workers consider to be adverse working conditions.

As a Member of Parliament, I am not exposed to these dangers, but I understand very well that, if workers feel that they have no normal or legal room for movement because of restrictions of this kind, they may think in terms—I put it as no more than a speculation—of going back to the ideas of the Luddites. If they fear that they are seriously exposing their elected shop steward or other comrades in whom they have faith, they may end up taking not strike action but other measures to make their point, especially when their dispute arises out of dangerous working conditions.

The House of Commons and the British people are beginning to understand more about this Bill and Clauses of this kind. They are entitled to an answer to that genuine fear which exists now among the working class.

Mr. Loughlin

I think that the Solicitor-General genuinely tried to give the fullest possible explanation of the implications of each subsection of the new Clause, but I am not sure that his explanation was adequate. I do not criticise him for that because the more one looks at the new Clause together with Clauses 87 and 90 and the other related provisions, the more one finds oneself in a tangled web out of which it is almost impossible to fight one's way.

My hon. Friend the Member for Southall (Mr. Bidwell) spoke of the possibility of unions transferring their power from the centre outwards to the areas and branches. But he seems to forget that a union's rules will be subject to scrutiny and amendment by the Registrar. If it were as easy as that for a union to avoid responsibility under the Bill, that would be all very well, but it is not as easy as that. Indeed, this new Clause, like several other parts of the Bill, imposes an almost impossible task upon the central office of any trade union, because compensation can be claimed against a union for the actions of one of its officials.

A union's branch secretary in Aberystwyth or Towyn may take unconstitutional action, but, as I understand the Bill, the union itself, that is, the central officials, would be responsible for the action of the official in some remote part of the country. Taking into account the number of officials from branch secretary, branch chairman and shop steward level—my union, for example, has about 2,000 branches—one can see the impossible task facing the central officials of any union and the extent to which the union will be exposed in the matter of compensation. But many of us have been criticised for alleging that people can go to gaol under the Bill.

The Solicitor-General attempted very deftly to dodge that issue. I do not mean that he deliberately tried to be dishonest with the House, but he wanted to dodge it because it is implicit in the Clause. Under subsection (3), the Industrial Court will be able to impose upon individuals

  1. (a) an order directing the respondent to refrain from making or continuing to make that threat or any other threat of a like nature against the complainant;
  2. (b) an order directing the respondent to refrain from taking or continuing to take action in accordance with the threat and to refrain from taking any other action of a like nature in relation to the complainant.
In the main, when we talk in terms of people who are on strike, it will be an unofficial strike that will be affected by the Clause. I would draw the House's attention to the words … from taking any other action of a like nature …". That can be pretty widely drawn in an industrial dispute. But let us even assume that these people are unofficially strikers and that the conditions have been imposed upon them and that they decide, "All right, we shall carry on doing what we have been doing." The Solicitor-General has not yet convinced me that in a contempt of that kind certain persons have no sanctions against them. There must certainly be some sanctions, even if it is a matter of compensation for the action that they have already taken. If it is a question of an injunction against them, there is no point in having an injunction unless it can be enforced. The only way to enforce an injunction would be for a prison sentence to be imposed on the striker. Given those circumstances, I assure the Solicitor-General that, whether the strike be unofficial or official, there would be no solution to that industrial dispute until the lads came out of prison, in the same way as they had to be brought out of prison in the Betteshanger dispute.

The hon. and learned Gentleman ought to look at this problem again. He is imposing a very onerous burden upon the responsible officials of the union, and he is exposing people who are engaged in any industrial dispute to the possibility of imprisonment. In so doing, he will not obtain a solution to any industrial problems.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Ted Fletcher

This is a highly complex Clause. It appears on our agenda during Report stage because the Government have had to think again in two directions. First, it is now obvious to the Government that a horse and cart could have been driven through the previous Clause, which, in effect, would have meant that anyone who conceivably had any action against a trade union, could bring that action through the civil courts. Consequently, the new Clause attempts to tighten matters so that only aggrieved parties—employers—have the right to seek compensation against trade unions.

The Government have also learned lessons from the Betteshanger Colliery dispute during the war, when under Order No. 1305 the Government were able to regard every man who came out on strike as subject to penalty. Most hon. Members have read the delightful appendix to the Donovan Report which sets out the Permanent Secretary's report on the strike of the Kent miners. He pointed out that the Kent Miners' Association was kind enough to agree that only its officials should be taken to court: the country would have been in a devil of a mess had it decided that all those who were at fault should opt to go to prison, because there was not sufficient prisons in Kent to hold all those who were out on strike.

So the Government have decided to restrict the penal provisions of the Clause to those who instigate strikes and those who are responsible for leading strikes. Those who will be regarded as instigating strikes which are regarded as unfair industrial practices will be those who are at risk.

We can see how this will apply if we forget the legal jargon and consider the effects of one or two cases. Clause 87 makes sympathetic strikes illegal. Let us assume that there is a strike in the London Docks. The London dockers recognise that for their strike to be successful they must get dockers at other ports to come out, otherwise ships would be sent from London to unload at Bristol, Liverpool, Hull and elsewhere. If a dispute that concerned only the London Docks were followed by a sympathetic strike at Liverpool and elsewhere, anyone who threatened to bring out the dockers in support of their London colleagues—members of the same union—would be at risk under this Clause, because they would be regarded as leading a strike in what is regarded as an unfair industrial practice.

For 150 years the sympathetic strike has been part of the unions' armoury. The Bill for the first time imposes restrictions on such activities. What will happen if workers disobey Clause 87 and sympathetic strikes and unofficial stoppages arise spontaneously on the factory floor? Who is to discover the culprits? How are the employers to notify the Industrial Court of where responsibility lies? If it is by means of the stool-pigeon or company spy who informs the management, "I have heard the shop steward threatening to take unfair industrial action. In confidence, I give you his name so that you can report him to the Industrial Court", that will create such an atmosphere in workplaces that it will be impossible for people to work together as mates and comrades.

This is a particularly dangerous Clause which offers nothing to the unions. The Solicitor-General keeps on saying that in the last analysis no one will be sent to prison, but that is untrue. The Solicitor-General is bound to admit that at the end of the day if people disregard the orders of the Industrial Court, they may be held to be in contempt of court and sent to prison. He has frequently said that no one would be sent to prison, but I hope that he will now publicly admit that if people defy the Court, they may be sent to prison. If we could end this debate by getting that admission from the Solicitor-General, instead of his constantly evading the issue, I should be very pleased.

Mr. Harold Walker

My hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) has summed up a substantial part of our main concern about the new Clause. If I had cause earlier to complain about the complexity of the Bill, I now have double and even treble reason. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have mentioned the complexity. I have so far counted at least nine cross-references to other Clauses which the new Clause involves. It refers to Clauses 90, 51, 112 and 87 directly and, by implication, to Clauses 85 and 86.

May I give an example to illustrate our concern? If the members of the A.E.F. at establishment A are involved in a dispute with their employer and, in order to fulfil an urgent contract, the work is sub-contracted to establishment B, where there are also members of the A.E.F., and the shop steward at the latter recognises the work as "black" and directs his members not to do it, those members would be caught by the new Clause. The Industrial Court would be empowered to make an order directing that shop steward and his fellow workers to refrain from refusing to do the work. In other words, they would be ordered by the court to do blacked work whether they liked it or not, and thus to betray the first principles of trade union solidarity. To add insult to injury, their fellow union members, their brothers, at establishment A, might be getting strike benefit for which workers at establishment B would be paying contributions.

The Solicitor-General again insists that the only people who would be exposed to action would be those responsible for organising the strike, not those participating in it. The right to strike, he says, would proceed unimpaired. However, as my hon. Friends pointed out, in the kind of situation which I have instanced they are almost invariably the same people.

I return to one of our debates in Committee, when the Solicitor-General failed to give us an adequate reply, in the hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will give an adequate reply tonight. I draw his attention again to the hypothetical shop steward caught by the provisions of Clause 85 in this kind of situation. The Solicitor-General says that if he is acting within the scope of the authority bestowed on him by the union, he is all right. But the rules of the union which bestow authority on him, in this example, the A.E.F., say that the shop steward shall not, without the prior approval of the district committee, sanction any change of practice by the employer in the establishment.

Here we have a change of practice. The members are being compelled to do new work which is black. The shop steward, in accordance with his mandate under the union rules, is presumably acting within the authority bestowed on him in telling the chaps not to work on it. But the same rule also says that he shall not sanction any stoppage of work until he has secured approval from the district committee, so he is in a dilemma. Let us assume that he holds a meeting, the democratic thing which is usually done—

Mr. Kenneth Lewis


Mr. Walker

I must say to the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford (Mr. Kenneth Lewis) that if we want to talk about contradictions we should refer to his speech. He demanded that unions should discipline their members, to make them more subservient to their policy, and said that the Clause sought to achieve that object—God knows where he got that from—and that therefore he welcomed it, at the conclusion of a speech which started with denunciations of a union for doing precisely what he asked it to do.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis rose

Mr. Walker

I hope that the hon. Gentleman will wait until I have finished the point with which I am dealing. I want to follow it through to its conclusion in the hope that at last we shall have a reply from the Solicitor-General.

If the shop steward whom I have described sanctions a stoppage on behalf of the lads, he has committed an unfair industrial action and can be ordered to withdraw under the Clause. But suppose that the district committee subsequently approves his action. Are the committee and the union aiding and abetting unfair action under Clause 86, or have they bestowed sanctity on what was originally a sin and washed it clean?

The final absurdity results from the fact that my union, to meet the kind of requirement the hon. Member for Rutland and Stamford would like it to meet, requires the district committee to submit its minute book every week to the executive council for approval or disapproval. It is not unusual in the A.E.F. for the executive council to reverse the district committee's decision. So the poor old shop steward sins on Monday, has his sin washed away on Wednesday and by the next week is back in the dog house, all under the provisions of the Bill. Perhaps the Solicitor-General will explain the shop steward's position and that of the union in such a situation. He may choose to evade the question by saying, "You had better alter the rule book."

I am sorry to have kept the hon. Gentleman waiting so long. If he wants to intervene now, I give way.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis

I have almost forgotten what I was going to say. The hon. Gentleman said that when there was a call for a strike there was usually a democratic vote, and I expressed surprise, because many strikes take place without a vote. One is taking place now without a vote.

The hon. Gentleman finished by saying that sometimes the national committee reversed the district committee decision. A factory in the Midlands has voted by 46 to about six not to go on strike on 18th March. It has been reversed by the national committee of the A.E.F.

Mr. Walker

I am sorry that I gave way to the hon. Gentleman, Mr. Speaker, because you have several times ruled that line of discussion out of order.

I speak as an ex-chairman and ex-convener of shop stewards. For the best part of my adult life I have been a shop steward. The invariable situation in which a shop steward finds himself is not one in which he brings the men out by sheer force of personality. I have never met the wonderful people who can lead thousands of men by the nose with a few magic words. Almost invariably the position is the other way round, with the shop steward swept up from below by men saying, "Stand aside. We are out". The shop steward is vainly trying to hold them back. Conservative hon. Members shake their heads in disagreement, but both the Pilkington and Sankey strikes, two particularly serious strikes within the past 12 months, occurred as a result of a spontaneous upsurge from the shop floor in defiance of the shop stewards and the trade union officials.

The Solicitor-General tried to make a point of subsection (5), saying that it pursued the same approach to the problem of recognition as was embodied in my right hon. Friend's Bill. Perhaps the light is getting through at last. I only regret that instead of pinching a part and presenting it as a policy he had adopted the whole. It might then have attracted a little more sympathy from this side. But he has pinched only one part of my right hon. Friend's proposals, and in an entirely different context.

As a brief example of the difference of approach between the two Front Benches, we started off on this recognition point with admittedly a lengthy and elaborate procedure which imposed an obligation on the Government to consult the T.U.C. and C.B.I. It is a matter of reproach of the Government that throughout our debates on the Bill they have made no acknowledgment of the positive role which the T.U.C. and C.B.I. could and do play in industrial relations.

But perhaps the more important point is that our proposals were presented in an entirely different context and, unlike the Bill, did not rest on a broad legal armoury that in the main is turned against and will be turned against the trade unions.

When we see that the change here is one that withdraws from the unions recourse to orders, we cannot help noting the contrast between the readiness with which the Government dish out orders in the Bill to be applied against unions and the very different treatment for the employers. The Government have now clearly defined in the new Clause those to whom the provisions of Clause 67 apply, and in that way perhaps they have improved the Bill. But this cannot in any way diminish the fundamental opposition we have always expressed to the policy and the principle on which it rests, and we must, therefore, oppose it in the Lobby.

The Solicitor-General

By leave of the House, I will reply to the debate. It is odd that both the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) and the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) seek to point out that the Government have had to come back to the House and make changes in the Bill. They suggest that that indicates incompetence. Yet the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) in the previous debate made a positive virtue of saying how frequently she was assailed by denunciations from all sides and constantly responded to representations.

We have been listening and responding to the debate. I resent the innuendo in the remarks of the hon. Member when he said that this was one of the few examples of the Solicitor-General keeping an undertaking. I repudiate entirely any suggestion of neglect in any undertakings I have given to the House. Every undertaking that has been given has resulted in the closest possible reconsideration by me. I acknowledge that not all these reconsiderations have led to the conclusion that we were wrong. It would have been odd if they had. But there have been a large number of changes as a result of our undertakings and our responses to debates.

The approach of the Opposition to the new Clause was astonishingly exemplified, not for the first time, by the hon. Gentleman when he quoted again what Mr. Justice Sargent said 47 years ago. That exemplified the immobility of the attitude of the Opposition—their suggestion that a position once arrived at in this sector of our society and of our law but in no other should be maintained until kingdom come. It is that attitude that we reject.

A number of hon. Members, including the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin), suggested that I had not fully expounded the position about liability of people in respect of contempt proceedings when an order was made against them. Again, I suspect that he could not have been here during some previous debates when that matter was dealt with. The position is clear. Where action is taken or authorised by a union, the order can only be made against the union. The official acting under that umbrella is protected. A person taking part in a strike but taking no part in calling or organising it is under no liability. Of course, in the case of any person calling or organising a strike which is unfair in pursuit of any unfair objective, be he a union official outside the scope of his authority or with no official standing at all—a wildcat strike leader—an order can be made against that person because he is promoting or provoking an unfair industrial action.

As we have made plain time and again, at the end of the day, as the hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Ted Fletcher) said, in that situation, as in a thousand others in this country, the order is something which the court is able to enforce, and in the last resort no doubt a committal order can be made as a means of enforcing it. There has never been any concealment of that. My right hon. Friend has said it time and again.

We have also made plain the other provisions, which I repeat. A trade union official acting within the scope of his authority from his union faces no such risk and an individual who is taking part in a strike faces no kind of penalty or sanction whatever. But in a narrow sector, as has been made plain, the ordinary remedies are available at the end of the day.

Mr. Orme

I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for outlining the method by which finally a person could be sent to prison. If that is so, why did the Secretary of State at the weekend say that the trade unions were distorting this issue by claiming that members could be sent to prison?

The Solicitor-General

I do not want to go back again over the whole ground but my right hon. Friend was entirely right in what he said. There is the world of difference between the presentation I have just made of the limited scope involved and the presentation that is being made in a number of quarters about the effects of the Bill and the impression that is being created that almost every worker will walk and speak at the peril of the policeman's boot as part of the legislation, and that he will have all his basic freedoms taken away. Nothing could be more fanciful or grotesque as a description of the principles of the Bill.

Mr. Tom Driberg (Barking)

The hon. and learned Gentleman said that an individual simply participating in the strike would not be at risk, but would not an individual be likely to try to incite his workmates to come out on strike with him and would he not then be liable if he was inciting others?

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman has not been here earlier. I have been over the ground before in this debate and I do not want to go back over it. But the distinction is quite clear. Participation in a strike involves no risk of remedy at all but the organisation and calling of a strike outside the scope and the authority—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ah."]—of a registered trade union does. This is the part of the package we have explained time and time again. It is part of an approach to restore reasonable rules within industry.

I think that the House accepts that the provisions in subsection (5) are an effective way of securing that a union which has gained an order that it shall be recognised obtains a genuine and effective remedy on behalf of all its members in the form of backdated unilateral arbitration by the Industrial Arbitration Board. We acknowledge that that appeared in the Bill which the hon. Member for Doncaster (Mr. Harold Walker) was responsible.

Since he has from time to time thought fit to question the length and complexity of some of these provisions perhaps I may point out that it took his Bill about four steps and nine Clauses to get from the original recognition order, through the Commission back to the complaints tribunal, back to the Commission and finally for a reference by the Secretary of State, I think, to the Industrial Court. Under his provisions of great complexity and length numerous hoops had to be gone through. We have arrived at a simple remedy, and one which, as has been pointed out, is all the more effective because it can be backdated.

The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked me about the situation which would arise if there was a strike at a subsidiary company and as a result loss is suffered at an associated company in the group, specifically I think the parent company which has a contract for goods to be supplied by the subsidiary company. Does that, he asked, give rise to a remedy under Clause 87 or any other provision of the Bill?

The answer is to be found not only in the Amendments to Clause 90 but in the Amendments to Clause 87, too, Amendment 76 specifically. This is one designed to limit the scope of a remedy in respect of a secondary strike. It follows from Amendment No. 76 that the associated company suffering loss as a result of the strike at the subsidiary would only have a remedy, even under this Clause, if it could show that the strike at the subsidiary was being called with the principal purpose of causing a breach of contract with the parent company. It is much more narrow than it was and there would be no liability on the part of the shop stewards in such a contract in any event if they were acting on behalf of the union.

Mr. Orme

I make no apology for the matter being complicated. Anyone who has followed the Clauses knows how difficult it is. Let us forget that the company is a subsidiary, let us take a small firm supplying parts as an individual firm, in no way connected with that major firm other than through the supply of goods. Does the same situation apply?

10.30 p.m.

The Solicitor-General

It could be a practice which could be complained of under Clause 87 only if the complainant company, be it associated or independent, could show that the unfair action had been called in the knowledge of a contract of which the people calling the strike had wanted to secure a breach. It makes no difference whether the companies are associated or not. If they are supporting each other and cease to be extraneous a different situation arises.

I come back to the example given by the hon. Member for Doncaster of a shop steward who organises a strike because he observes blacked goods being processed in the company or plant where he is at work. If the goods being processed that he seeks to black are ones which would ordinarily be processed or manufactured by the other employer against whom the primary strike has been called and the goods are being diverted to the plant where the shop steward calls the strike, that plant will not be extraneous. His own employers are supporting the company which originally manufactured the goods, and it will not be open to them to complain that they are being unfairly struck. If they act in support of the primary employers, they make themselves party to the original dispute, so that will not give rise to liability.

The hon. Gentleman also came back several times to an example which, I think, springs from the complexity of the rules of his own union. He almost acknowledged this. He described the situation of a shop steward who calls a strike within the scope of his authority at that moment. It is then countermanded by a local or divisional executive of some kind, so that the strike ceases to be one which can be called by the shop steward in the rules of the union. Then it is counter-countermanded by the national executive—

Mr. Harold Walker

In the first place, he calls a meeting which results in a strike where the rules of the union prohibit him to do so until that strike has been approved by the district committee, in which case it seems to me that he commits an unfair industrial action under Clause 85. We follow it then with the position that he and the district committee are in, where -they condone it under Clause 86.

The Solicitor-General

That is a different example. The central point is that, if the steward himself is acting at each point in accordance with the rules of the union and the authority conferred upon him, however that may vary—even if the rules provide for order, counter-order, disorder, as it were—as long as he sticks to his rules, he is under no liability. Nevertheless, the union may be. If the shop steward, outside his rules, calls an unofficial, unconstitutional strike which is unfair under Clause 85, he would be himself liable in respect of that. But if the union then made it official, it would not be under liability under Clause 86 because it would not be aiding and abetting the initial strike which would already have been called and would be in effect. The shop steward himself, of course, would have been liable originally under Clause 85, and he would not be able to escape that at that point.

Mr. Harold Walker

His liability would continue, even though the district committee had approved his action?

The Solicitor-General

It would continue for so long as his liability continued. But if the strike was at an end so far as he was concerned and became official, his liability would be no longer effective.

I am torn between the desire to answer the questions of hon. Gentlemen opposite and the apparent impatience of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heller). He cannot expect his hon. Friends to have it both ways, and a number of questions have been put to me.

Perhaps I might come back to the central, simple point put to me by the hon. Member for Southall. It is an important one. If shop stewards advise against a strike and, nevertheless, the strike happens because their advice is rejected by the group of people at the work place, they themselves are under no liability, because they cannot be regarded as having organised or procured the strike. If the leadership of the strike is taken over by unofficial leaders who reject the official shop stewards, then those unofficial leaders may be under liability, but not the shop stewards.

On the other hand, if within the rules of the union the branch, by a majority vote, rejects the shop stewards' advice and decides to have a strike and the shop stewards do no more than transmit that which they are told to do by their members by saying to the person against whom they are directing the strike, "Look, we advised against the strike, but we have been overruled by the vote of the branch and, accordingly, by our rules we must tell you that there will be this strike", the shop stewards will face no difficulty, because they are doing no more than transmitting what they have been told to do by their branch. But if the strike is unfair, then liability would attach to the union.

Mr. Bidwell

The hon. and learned Gentleman will have heard of the round robin which arose when workers started things and, in order not to disclose who the leaders were, put their signatures in a circle. Does the hon. and learned Gentleman think that it is highly desirable to go back to this page of history, which is what we might be going back to?

The Solicitor-General

I am not suggesting that we are going back to it, because this is not the pattern in which modern industrial relations are likely to be conducted.

Perhaps I may now deal with some of the other examples given by the hon. Member for Southall. It is not right to suggest that any of these changes prevent or impede the opportunity of trade unions, their officials, and, indeed, workers, whether organised or not, to take or threaten industrial action to challenge unsafe or dangerous working conditions.

I have said in this House on a number of occasions that the Bill provides no way out for the employer who creates dangerous or unsafe conditions or tolerates a dangerous or unfair system of work. No strike against that kind of thing will be in any danger. I was glad to see a restatement of this in The Times today: A management will have to do its job properly, in accordance with the law, to have any redress from its workers' representatives. The Solicitor-General made this point so frequently during the committee stage in the House of Commons that it is surprising that so many managements have not taken the implied responsibilities seriously. So there need be no fear along the lines expressed by the hon. Member for Southall that a strike induced against adverse working conditions will be unfair.

The last and perhaps most important point was raised both by the hon. Member for Southall and by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West. They asked what happens if the authority to take strike action is decentralised to the grass roots, the lowest level, of the union structure. The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West sought to suggest that this could not happen because the Registrar would not allow it to happen. That is quite wrong. All that paragraph 10 of Schedule 3 says is that the rules of the union must say who in the union has got authority to give instructions for industrial action. It does not attempt to say, nor does it attempt to give the registrar the authority to say, that that authority must be kept at any given level in the union. The union may decide for itself, and the rules must simply say to whom that authority can be given. But—this is important—if the authority to call industrial action has been delegated to the lowest level, and if they act with that authority and call for industrial action, with the full authority and within the rules of the union, in pursuit of an unfair objective, they are under no liability, but the union can be under liability.

Mr. Loughlin

It is a double-headed penny.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Gentleman says that it is a double-headed penny, but he is trying to have it both ways. If the union chooses to organise itself in that way, at least it makes certain that the officials who act with this generally delegated authority do so in the general protection of the Bill and cannot be liable, but the union itself then accepts liability if an unfair industrial action is taken or threatened. If the union thinks that that is exposing it to greater risk of liability, it can limit the authority it delegates, or—this is perhaps the most important thing of all—it can do what almost everyone who has considered the structure of British industrial relations has said should happen, and improve communication between its headuarters and its officials and between its officials and the men whom it is meant to represent.

This is one of the most important objectives of this legislation and why my right hon. Friend has said so often that it is designed to make for stronger and more responsible trade unionism. They will know where they stand and for what they will have to accept responsibility and they will have every incentive so to organise themselves as to put themselves in closer touch with their members.

Mr. Loughlin

I am getting tired of being waved down by my own Front Bench. They should recognise that it is a breach of privilege to try to intimidate a Member of Parliament. It is no good the Solicitor-General talking about improving communications, when about 5,000 or 6,000 people spread over the length and breadth of Great Britain are involved.

The Solicitor-General

I appreciate the hon. Member's difficulties, particularly with his own union, which is a much more difficult one to organise than others, which have compact work groups in compact work places. He has a valid distinction, but, as a result of the Bill, operat

ing by rules which they make for themselves in accordance with Schedule 3, there will be increased reason for unions so to organise themselves that they are in closer touch upwards and downwards with their members. If that is one of the by-products of the Clause, I commend it to the House.

Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 290, Noes 248.

Division No. 243.] AYES [10.43 p.m.
Adley, Robert d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen. Holland, Philip
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Dean, Paul Holt, Miss Mary
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Hooson, Emlyn
Astor, John Digby, Simon Wingfield Hordern, Peter
Atkins, Humphrey Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hornby, Richard
Awdry, Daniel Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Homsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffery (Reigate)
Balniel, Lord Eden, Sir John Howell, David (Guildford)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Batsford, Brian Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hunt, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tuffon Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Emery, Peter Iremonger, T. L.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Eyre, Reginald James, David
Benyon, W. Farr, John Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Jessel, Toby
Biffen, John Fidler, Michael Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Biggs-Davison, John Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Jopling, Michael
Blaker, Peter Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Joseph, Rt Hn. Sir Keith
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kaberry, Sir Donald
Body, Richard Fookes, Miss Janet Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Boscawen, Robert Fortescue, Tim Kershaw, Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive Foster, Sir John Kilfedder, James
Bowden, Andrew Fowler, Norman Kimball, Marcus
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Fox, Marcus King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Braine, Bernard Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Bray, Ronald Fry, Peter Kinsey, J. R.
Brewis, John Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Kirk, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gardner, Edward Knight, Mrs. Jill
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Gibson-Watt, David Knox, David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Lambton, Antony
Bryan, Paul Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lane, David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Glyn, Dr. Alan Langford-Holt, Sir John
Buck, Antony Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Bullus, Sir Eric Goodhart, Philip Le Marchant, Spencer
Burden, F. A. Goodhew, Victor Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gorst, John Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn) Gower, Raymond Longden, Gilbert
Carlisle, Mark Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Loveridge, John
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Gray, Hamish McAdden, Sir Stephen
Channon, Paul Green, Alan McCrindle, R. A.
Chapman, Sydney Grieve, Percy McLaren, Martin
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Grylls, Michael Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Chichester-Clark, R. Gummer, Selwyn McMaster, Stanley
Churchill, W. S. Gurden, Harold Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) McNair-Wilson, Michael
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hall, John (Wycombe) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Clegg, Walter Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maddan, Martin
Cockeram, Eric Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Madel, David
Cooke, Robert Hannam, John (Exeter) Maginnis, John E.
Coombs, Derek Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Cooper, A. E. Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Marten, Neil
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Haselhurst, Alan Mather, Carol
Cormack, Patrick Hawkins, Paul Maude, Angus
Costain, A. P. Hay, John Mawby, Ray
Critchley, Julian Hayhoe, Barney Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Crouch, David Heseltine, Michael Meyer, Sir Anthony
Crowder, F. P. Hicks, Robert Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Curran, Charles Higgins, Terence L. Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Dalkeith, Earl of Hiley, Joseph Miscampbell, Norman
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W.)
d'Avigdor-Coldsmid, Sir Henry Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Moate, Roger Rees, Peter (Dover) Tebbit, Norman
Molyneaux, James Rees-Davies, W. R. Temple, John M.
Money, Ernie D. Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Monks, Mrs. Connie Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Montgomery, Fergus Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
More, Jasper Ridsdale, Julian Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tilney, John
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Mudd, David Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Trew, Peter
Murton, Oscar Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Tugendhat, Christopher
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Rost, Peter Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Neave, Airey Russell, Sir Ronald van Straubenzee, W. R.
Nicholls, Sir Harmar St. John-Stevas, Norman Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Scott, Nicholas Vickers, Dame Joan
Normanton, Tom Scott-Hopkins, James Waddington, David
Nott, John Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'h & Whitby) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Onslow, Cranley Shelton, William (Clapham) Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Simeons, Charles Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Sinclair, Sir George Wall, Patrick
Osborn, John Skeet, T. H. H. Walters, Dennis
Owen, Idris (Stockport, M.) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Ward, Dame Irene
Page, Graham (Crosby) Soref, Harold Wells, John (Maidstone)
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Speed, Keith White, Roger (Gravesend)
Pardoe, John
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Spence, John Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Peel, John Sproat, Iain Wiggin, Jerry
Percival, Ian Stainton, Keith Wilkinson, John
Pink, R. Bonner Stanbrook, Ivor Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Pounder, Rafton Steel, David Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Stewart-Smith, D. G.(Belper) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Woodnutt, Mark
Proudfoot, Wilfred Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Worsley, Marcus
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Stokes, John Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Quennell, Miss J. M. Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Raison, Timothy Sutcliffe, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Tapsell, Peter Mr. Bernard Weatherill and
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Mr. Hector Monro.
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Abse, Leo Crawshaw, Richard Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Albu, Austen Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Allen, Scholefield Dalyell, Tam Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Davidson, Arthur Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Armstrong, Ernest Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Hamling, William
Ashley, Jack Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Ashton, Joe Davies, Ifor (Gower) Hardy, Peter
Atkinson, Norman Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Deakins, Eric Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Barnes, Michael de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Hattersley, Roy
Barnett, Joel Delargy, H. J. Healey, Rt. Hn. Dennis
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Heffer, Eric S.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Dempsey, James Horam, John
Bidwell, Sydney Doig, Peter Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Bishop, E. S. Dormand, J. D. Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Huckfield, Leslie
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Booth, Albert Driberg, Tom Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Duffy, A. E. P. Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Dunn, James A. Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Bradley, Tom Dunnett, Jack Hunter, Adam
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Eadie, Alex Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Brown, Hugh D. (C'gow, Provan) Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Janner, Greville
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Buchan, Norman Ellis, Tom Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St. P'cras, S.)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) English, Michael Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Evans, Fred John, Brynmor
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham, Ladywood) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Cant, R. B. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Carmichael, Neil Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Carter, Ray(Birmingham, Northfield) Foot, Michael Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Forrester, John Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Eiwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Fraser, John (Norwood) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Galpern, Sir Myer Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Garrett, W. E. Judd, Frank
Cohen, Stanley Gilbert, Dr. John Kaufman, Gerald
Coleman, Donald Ginsburg, David Kelley, Richard
Concannon, J. D. Golding, John Kerr, Russell
Conlan, Bernard Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. Kinnock, Neil
Corbet Mrs. Freda Gourlay, Harry Lamond, James
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Grant, George (Morpeth) Latham, Arthur
Lawson, George Oram, Bert Stewart, Donald (Western Isles)
Leadbitter, Ted Orbach, Maurice Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Orme, Stanley Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Leonard, Diek Oswald, Thomas Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Strang, Gavin
Lipton, Marcus Palmer, Arthur Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Lomas, Kenneth Parker, John (Dagenham) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Loughlin, Charles Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Swain, Thomas
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Pavitt, Laurie Taverne, Dick
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Pendry, Tom Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
McBride, Neil Pentland, Norman Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
McCartney, Hugh Perry, Ernest G. Tinn, James
McElhone, Frank Prescott, John Tomney, Frank
McGuire, Michael Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Torney, Tom
Mackenzie, Gregor Price, William (Rugby) Tuck, Raphael
Mackie, John Probert, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
Maclennan, Robert Rankin, John Varley, Eric G.
McNamara, J. Kevin Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Wainwright, Edwin
MacPherson, Malcolm Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Rhodes, Geoffrey Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Mallalineu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.) Richard, Ivor
Marquand, Rt. Hn. Richard Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wallace, George
Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Roberts, Rt. Hn. Coronwy (Caernarvon) Watkins, David
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Robertson, John (Paisley) Weitzman, David
Meacher, Michael Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor) Wellbeloved, James
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Mendelson, John Roper, John White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Millan, Bruce Rose, Paul B. Whitehead, Phillip
Miller, Dr. M. S. Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Whitlock, William
Milne, Edward (Blyth) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Molloy, William Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Morris, Alford (Wythenshawe) Sillars, James Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Silverman, Julius Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon) Skinner, Dennis Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Moyle, Roland Small, William Wilson, William (Conventry, S.)
Murray, R. K. Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Woof, Robert
Ogden, Eric Spearing, Nigel
O'Halloran, Michael Spriggs, Leslie TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
O'Malley, Brian Stallard, A. W. Mr. Joseph Harper and
Mr. Alan Fitch.

Clause accordingly read a Second time.

Mr. Rose

I beg to move Amendment (mmmm) to the proposed Clause, in line 11, after '(a)', insert 'unless that person is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute or is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member, except where he has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief in respect of losses incurred or to be incurred in consequence of the dispute where the fund was established and his contribution was paid with or without specific reference to that industrial dispute'. Before I proceed further, Mr. Deputy Speaker, it may be for the convenience of the House for me to say that the Government Front Bench and the Speaker's Office were informed before the commencement of this debate—and I must say that the Government Front Bench accepted very graciously—that due to a printing error the words "except where he" at the end of the third line were wrongly included. It will be seen that if the word "or" is substituted, the Amendment gives full effect to the intention to exclude the so-called "extraneous party" of the type defined in Clause 87(3) from taking action under the new Clause. In our submision, that extraneous party may be far from uninvolved in an industrial dispute.

The Solicitor-General acknowledged that Clause 87 was intended to deal with a strike designed and intended to procure breach by an innocent extraneous third party to a commercial contract … when it can be shown that somebody has intentionally set about securing or organising industrial action in order to induce a breach by another to produce the non-performance of a commercial contract".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971; Vol. 811, c. 1934.] But the innocent party, as the Solicitor-General termed him, may be an associated employer, he may be a member of an employers' federation to which the employer in dispute also belongs, and he may be a person financing the employer through payments to a fund which is being drawn upon during a dispute by the employer in dispute.

These employers, therefore, will be given the same kind of right as exists under Taft-Hartley, as amended by Landrum-Griffin, in the United States. Although the new subsection corrects the Government's former mistake and now rules out the possibility of a multitude of outside people taking action, it still permits an extraneous third party, as he is termed, though a person closely involved in the dispute, to take action against employees.

The use of the word "innocent" by the Solicitor-General in that context is astonishing. It is culled from American terminology, no doubt. The word "extraneous" is used in the Bill, not "innocent". There is a great difference between the words which the Solicitor-General uses at that Box and the words which he puts in the Bill. This is another example of those intellectual expedients and legal sleights-of-hand—we saw examples earlier today—for which the hon. and learned Gentleman is now well known and which to a large extent, unfortunately, have destroyed his credibility with many of my hon. Friends.

The concept of the extraneous party has caused a great deal of litigation in the United States. What is innocent about the employer who is a sub-contractor, say, deliberately and knowingly helping to break a strike by accepting sub-contract work? What is innocent or extraneous about the firm which is associated with the employer in the dispute? What is innocent about the employer who pours money into a fund which may well be depleted in order to allow an employer to go on fighting trade unionists who are out on strike—remembering all the time that a sympathy strike is outlawed under the Bill?

All these, the Government say, are innocent. They are termed extraneous. Action against them will be unfair, yet they may take action under the Clause. Once again, the tilting of the balance is exposed, as my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) so clearly pointed out in the debate on Clause 87.

If new Clause 3 is not amended, it will give to the so-called extraneous party of the kind defined in Clause 87(3) the right to restrict what has been an accepted trade union right for many years. A company which controls a corporation with which employees are in dispute will now have a right to prevent its premises from being picketed by employees of that corporation so as to interrupt supplies. This has been a commonplace, a necessary weapon in a free society for workers in dispute. Now employers may stand united but workers must remain divided. Every time there is a breach a fine of £100,000 is to be imposed, not once but on each occasion, if the size of the union allows a fine of that size.

11.0 p.m.

So now we have an outlawing of the secondary boycott where the primary intention was to effect such a boycott and it is not merely consequential. Here I acknowledge that the Solicitor-General has met a point made by one of my hon. Friends in Committee. But he has merely put this into language which expresses his original intention of outlawing the secondary boycott, even though it is taken against employers who are associated with the employer in dispute. This is an incitement, perhaps more now than before, for corporate entities under common control carefully to ensure that a union lawfully can strike at one time against only one section of what may be a conglomerate empire. We are all aware from reading the book reviews last weekend of what are now termed the juggernauts. We are living in the age of the juggernaut.

The new Clause does nothing to meet the points made by this side on the problem. All it does is to clarify the Solicitor-General's earlier expressed intention to outlaw the use of the secondary boycott, but to do it now in precise terms instead of the imprecise terms before. Even though the extraneous party is helping to fight a strike through for example the E.E.F. indemnity fund, it may now take action against an employee or a union. This is a charter for strike-breaking in the engineering industry.

Profits in the industry are now to be set aside not to increase wages and not to increase investments, although we have been told why there cannot be increased wages in certain sections of the engineering industry and why we cannot have more investment in it, but into a strike fund to bolster up employers fighting their own employees and their unions. Therefore, it is strange that these are to he regarded as innocent, extraneous parties and given the right of action under the subsection.

Only those employers affected can sue under the subsection when action is taken, and there is only that difference in principle between the Clause as we see it and the position we faced in Committee. A strike for a secondary boycott is not protected. The worker who seeks to induce such a strike is in breach of his obligations. It is not difficult to see how a contract can be so framed as to make a deliberate strike-breaker a regular supplier of a company.

Perhaps in the light of the new subsection the Solicitor-General will now answer the question I put to him late in the evening in Committee about the case of Thompson v. Deakin. Is it his view that as a result of Clause 87 as amended and in the light of the new Clause the decision would stand or be reversed? Are we seeing a change in the law by preventing associated employers, those assisting the employer in dispute, and those financing him, from taking action under subsection (2)? Our Amendment seeks to mitigate some of the harmful effects of Clause 87 upon what hitherto have been normal pressures exerted by trade unions in a free society.

That is why I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support the Amendment—to recognise that an extraneous party cannot be taken to include those parties in Clause 87(3) who are far from being innocent and extraneous but are directly involved in the outcome of a dispute, who are therefore wrongly termed and given a right of action. I am sure that my hon. Friends will give many examples from their experience in industry where people have legitimately sought to take action for a secondary boycott which will be unlawful under the Bill and, in particular, under the Government's new Clause.

The Solicitor-General

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) has acknowledged that Clause 87, as proposed to be amended, meets the objectives which the Government had in mind and that new Clause No. 3 is in line with the modified objectives. The intention of Clause 87 and of the new Clause is as the hon. Gentleman has outlined it—to protect the innocent employer who is unwillingly drawn into and made the victim of an industrial dispute to which he is not a party.

Some of the examples which the hon. Gentleman gave were not accurate. He suggested that a sub-contractor who deliberately accepted work to break a strike would be regarded as innocent and was not entitled to be struck.

Mr. Rose

The Solicitor-General has misunderstood me. I said, not that a person carrying out his normal duties, but a person accepting additional work, would be so defined. My point was that a contract could be so framed as to allow him to do that additional work and that he would therefore obtain the protection, although he might well be strikebreaking.

The Solicitor-General

It would not follow, because if the contract was so formulated as to make it possible for such a sub-contractor to take supporting action but it was nevertheless plain that the action taken was supporting the original employer against whom the strike was called, he would cease to be extraneous and would become involved. It could not be concealed or achieved by any formulation of the contract. If the employer who is seeking a remedy from the court can be shown to have taken supporting action, he would no longer be external.

Mr. Keith Stainton (Sudbury and Woodbridge)

I am not altogether with the Solicitor-General. Contracts can be made variable for all kinds of imprecise and different reasons. I wish that my hon. and learned Friend would be more specific.

The Solicitor-General

I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me for talking to some extent in shorthand because we have dealt with this Clause and its implications on many days at many different stages. The person would be entitled to bring proceedings under Clause 87, as amended, and under Clause 90 if he was an extraneous party and by subsection (2) he would be extraneous if he were not a party to the original dispute and he had not in contemplation or furtherance of that dispute taken action in material support of a party to it. The contract could be infinitely variable. He might be under an open obligation to do any order which came along, but if it was shown that he had taken action in contemplation of the dispute to support the primary employer he would no longer qualify for relief under the provision.

Mr. Stainton

It is the infinite variability which must be faced.

The Solicitor-General

Certainly. But one cannot, in the complex territory where parties take industrial action against each other, so define the matter as to be able to identify with crystal clarity which person is external and which person is not external to the dispute. It is the infinite variability and the factors which can affect that variability to which the Amendment is directed.

The Opposition seek to suggest, if one follows the Amendment, that a company which is associated with the primary employer is, by reason of that association, as defined in the Bill, to be regarded as supporting and therefore fair game to be struck. Clause 87(3) merely says that an employer who is an associated employer—that is, part of the same conglomerate group—should not for that reason alone be regarded as giving support and as being open to industrial attack when he is, in reality, quite innocent of the original dispute.

It is for the same reason that we say that an employer who is a member of an organisation, or contributing to a strike fund, should not for that reason alone be regarded as involved in the original dispute.

The hon. Member for Blackley seems not to have accepted that the principles applied are exactly the same. An employer is legitimately open to industrial pressure and can bring no claim under Clause 87 if he takes any action or does anything to support a party to the dispute. But if he remains free from that, he remains innocent.

Employees, organisations of employees and unions, have a greater freedom to support industrial action without themselves being under any liability. The sympathy strike remains a fair strike if it is taken in support of a fair objective, and so long as it is not a deliberate attempt to involve an innocent extraneous party.

So the scales remain tilted in favour of organised labour. It is right that they should, to that extent, remain so. The sympathetic strike becomes unfair only if it is supporting the primary strike that is unfair, or if it is a deliberate attempt to involve an innocent outside employer, whereas the employer becomes liable to industrial pressure if he does anything at all to support a party to another dispute.

It is upon that basis that I commend the Clause as it stands and invite the House to reject the Amendment.

Mr. David Stoddart (Swindon)

I support the Amendment in spite of the Solicitor-General's explanations. It still seems that the scales are weighted against employees and are definitely in favour of employers. Nothing that the Government say to the trade unions will convince them otherwise.

Members of Parliament and trade union members will have great difficulty in understanding exactly what they can and cannot do, and when they would be in accordance with the law and when they would be outside the law.

The Clause and many parts of the Bill are sheer gobbledygook. The man on the shop floor, who is at risk under the Bill, will be in extreme difficulty and will certainly want to resort to other kinds of action, than perhaps are described as being legal and justifiable action under the Bill.

11.15 p.m.

There are many occasions when action by one body of workers in support of another body of workers would be legitimate, particularly as other Clauses equate the right of a person not to belong to a union with the right of a person to belong to a union and engage in collective action. It has been pointed out that, because of the right given to a non-unionist not to belong to a union, a situation could well arise in which ordinary workers who were striking in support of their legitimate demands were being under-mined by non-unionists in another firm, but the striking workers would be precluded by the provisions of the Bill from taking any action. This is why I hope that the House will support the Amendment.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

The Solicitor-General, in indicating that the fault with the Amendment is that the exclusion from the category of people who can take the remedy involved in the new Clause—as defined in Clause 87(3)—is not a reasonable exclusion, reflected an incoherence which the drafting of Clause 87(3) itself displays. Our objection is not that being an associated employer means taking any action of any kind, nor that being a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member means taking any action of any kind. Our complaint is that his being an associated employer virtually makes him a party.

Clause 149(5) contains the definition of "associated employer". It clearly means a subsidiary or a unit which is part of a larger body. The definition is as follows: For the purposes of this Act any two employers are to be treated as associated if one is a company of which the other (directly or indirectly) has control, or if both are companies of which a third person (directly or indirectly) has control; and in this Act 'associated employer' shall be construed accordingly. That provides that "associated employer" means a connection so intimate—for instance, that both are subsidiaries of one company or that one is of another—that the two are virtually the same person and, therefore, if one is a party the other must be. That is the criticism which we express in the Amendment.

Clause 87(3)b) says: is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member". Our complaint is that for a man to be associated in an organisation of workers which is doing something unfair is sufficient to taint a man. To be attached to a union which is conducting an unfair industrial practice may be sufficient to bring a man into disrepute under the provisions of the Bill and render him liable to a penalty thereunder. On the workers' side it is guilt by association. On the employers' side the obvious examples of guilt by association are excluded. That is our complaint about Clause 87(3). We seek by the Amendment to exclude such people from having the remedy which the new Clause would give them.

I point the incoherence one stage further. There seems to have been a drafting error in Clause 87. It is only fair to point out that the Government propose an Amendment to the Clause which would greatly improve its effect. It narrows the provision in a way which we can only regard as satisfactory. This kind of provision is not satisfactory at all, of course, but, granted that it must be included in the Bill and that the secondary boycott is being struck at, the Government Amendment narrows the provision satisfactorily.

Clause 87 has a direct bearing on this new Clause and on the Amendments to it. Subsection (2) says: For the purpose of this section a person shal be regarded as an extraneous party in relation to an industrial dispute if (a) he is not a party to that dispute, and (b) he has not, in contemplation of furtherance of that dispute taken any action in material support of a party to it. Paragraph (a) goes more naturally with paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (3). What subsection (2) contemplates is somebody not being a party to the dispute and excluded from the category of party, in order words, an extraneous person who is not a party to the dispute, someone who would otherwise be regarded as so closely related to that person as to be a party. That is the first exception under paragraph (3)(a). That provision is concerned with people who might otherwise be regarded as parties to the dispute. Therefore, the reference is to subsection (2)(a) and not to subsection (2)(b), because the latter deals with the positive action of associating oneself, so that that is guilt by participation and not by mere association.

Subsection (3)(a) is concerned with directly contributing to funds which may be available in a dispute. That takes one back to subsection (2)(b)— he has not, in contemplation of furtherance of that dispute, taken any action in material support of a party to it. The Solicitor-General is continuing the incoherence already exposed in Clause 87 and if the Amendment does nothing else, it will have served to bring that out. Perhaps something will be done to remedy it.

I support the Amendment because anything we can do to remedy the obvious unfairness of putting those mentioned in Clause 87(3) into a specially favoured category in contrast with the treatment of workers in an association or trade union organisation who may be engaged in unfair industrial practices should be done. The contrast must be countered in some way and the Amendment would help to redress the balance.

Mr. David Mitchell

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Murray) is making a great commotion about nothing. The hon. and learned Gentleman suggests that associated employers will be favoured. Does anybody seriously suggest that in a conglomerate in industry, with a holding company with firms in many diverse trades under its umbrella, there should be the right to strike against another of the firms in the group merely because it happens to be under the same financial umbrella? That is taking the dispute right out of the trade and right out of the locality and allowing the right to call a sympathetic strike in a firm with no practical relation to the original dispute. The hon. and learned Gentleman cannot expect to carry the House with him in that contention.

The hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. Rose) accused my hon. and learned Friend of sleight of hand. That is a gross distortion considering how hon. Members opposite have been indulging in misrepresentation of the Bill.

Mr. Rose

The hon Gentleman has made a statement. Will he now substantiate it by telling us any single instance in which I have misled the public about the Bill? Will he give chapter and verse?

Mr. Mitchell

I was referring to spokesmen on the Opposition side but I am happy to say that the hon. Gentleman's speeches have not been reported where I have managed to read them in the national Press, and for that reason I cannot give chapter and verse. But I assure him that there are repeated occasions, both in my constituency and in reports in the national Press and in interviews on television, when hon. Members opposite and trade union leaders, who must know better if they are able to read, write and listen to my right hon. Friends, know that they are peddling gross distortions of the Bill.

Mr. Tom King

Have any hon. Members opposite attacked the statements by the T.U.C. and certain trade unions that the Bill outlaws sympathy strikes although it has been clearly stated again by my right hon. Friend that this is yet another distortion?

Mr. Mitchell

Hon. Members opposite talk about a member of an employers' association giving financial assistance to another member of the association by contributing to a fund which may be used to resist a strike and strengthen the employer's ability to stand up to strikes. Do they want to have one law for the employers' associations and another for the trade unions? In the Post Office dispute, substantial sums of money were given by other unions to the Union of Post Office Workers.

I have sympathy with the hon. Member for Swindon (Mr. David Stoddart), who spoke of "gobbledygook". I do not go as far as that, but it is true that the parliamentary draftsmen have excelled themselves in making it difficult for ordinary laymen like ourselves to understand what is meant. I am delighted that my right hon. Friend is to issue a simple explanation as soon as the Bill is on the Statute Book so that ordinary trade unionists, shop stewards and others involved in industry can understand what it is all about.

The hon. and learned Member for Leith referred to the Bill as equating the right to belong with the right not to belong. I do not think it does, because Amendment No. 151 will provide the right for an employer to encourage people to join a union. One cannot write that into the Bill and at the same time claim that it is an equal right to belong and not to belong. Much of the case put by the Opposition and the case put by myself and some of my hon. Friends on this matter is being met by that Amendment.

To suggest that non-unionists in another firm could use this provision to strike break is extraordinary. There is no difference between the circumstances under the Bill and the circumstances which exist now, in that men who object to a strike and do not want to take part in it, or non-unionists working for a nonunion firm, may have their activities and production used to thwart a strike. My hon. and learned Friend has persuaded us that there is no strength in that case.

11.30 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

One thing we can always be assured of is that the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) will provide a certain amount of provocation, if not to this side of the House then to his hon. Friends. One or two of his points ought not to be allowed to go unanswered. He said that in this Amendment we are suggesting that employers' associations ought not to be allowed to give financial aid to other employers who have been involved in a dispute. We are not saying that.

We are saying that if an associated employer gives financial aid to other members in that association who may be involved in a trade dispute then he cannot be regarded as an innocent extraneous party. It is not a question of us proposing, to use the hon. Member's words, to outlaw these associations. All we are saying is that if there are employers who are members of an associated organisation and they make a contribution, as, for example, the engineering employers do, to an indemnity fund, then it is not fair—and hon. Members opposite are always saying how fair they are—for the employers to assist one another and then to say that workers cannot do the same.

Mr. David Mitchell

Is the hon. Gentleman suggesting—he mentioned the engineering industry—that when a strike breaks out in one firm, throughout the whole of that industry there should be an automatic right for sympathetic strikes?

Mr. Heffer

The first point is: why have this fund? If it is there to assist it is clear that if one of the members of the association gets involved in a dispute and is then supported by fellow members of that association then they are obviously not extraneous, innocent parties. To that extent they are supporting each other through sympathetic action, in the same way as trade unions support each other. What is happening is that the balance is being tilted in favour of the employer. It is apparently all right for the employers to assist one another but not all right for the trade unions to do so.

It was said that it was not true that the sympathetic strike was being outlawed and that the T.U.C. was wrong in issuing material to this effect. The Solicitor-General made it absolutely clear that the sympathetic strike certainly could be used, provided the primary strike was a fair one. If the primary strike was unfair then any sympathetic action would be unfair and outlawed. This comes back to a point raised by several of my hon. Friends. What is regarded as fair on that side of the House may not be regarded as fair on this side, or by the trade union movement.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

It is in the Bill.

Mr. Heffer

I am not interested in what it is in the Bill, because, as one of my hon. Friends said earlier, it is made up in the main of legal gobbledygook. It will take more than a Philadelphia lawyer to understand it, and a lot more than the average trade unionist, who will be blundering from one unfair industrial practice to another. He will be like hon. Members were during the recent dispute of the electricity workers. He will be going round with a candle and, if it is blown out from time to time, he will be in real trouble.

This Amendment is a fair one, and I am surprised that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite cannot see the fairness of it. They talk constantly about their fairness and how amenable they are. Here is an opportunity for them to be genuinely fair. This is a fair Amendment. All that it says is: … unless that person is an associated employer in relation to an employer who is a party to the industrial dispute or is a member of an organisation of employers of which a party to the industrial dispute is also a member, except where he has contributed to a fund which may be available to such a party by way of relief. … and so on. What is wrong with that? It says clearly that if an employer is being assisted by another employer through a fund which is there because he is a member of an employers' organisation and he is involved in a trade dispute with a trade union or organisation of workers, obviously he cannot be regarded as the innocent party and therefore he cannot be extraneous to that dispute. That is what we say in the Amendment, and I think that is reasonable.

If hon. Gentlemen opposite reject the Amendment, they reveal that they are totally unreasonable and that their motives are, as we have always said, to tilt the balance against the trade union movement and in favour of employers. They have told us that we cannot have it both ways. Neither can they. They cannot put their hands on their hearts and say that they are in favour of a strong and responsible trade union movement and at the same time reject Amendments of this kind. If they do, they expose the hollowness of their arguments.

Mr. Tom King

It is difficult to resist the blandishments of right hon. and hon. Members opposite. We have had one appeal to our virility. We have been invited to act like men and go into the Division Lobby with the Opposition. Now we have an appeal to our fairness. To put the record straight, will the hon. Gentleman answer the question put to him by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell)?

Mr. Concannon

Which one?

Mr. Heffer

Certainly I have never questioned the virility of hon. Members opposite. I do not question whether they are men. That has been proved time and time again by the fact that none of them has shown the ability to act contrary to the wishes of their Front Bench, no matter how strongly they feel about issues. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have been a pillar of individual conscience in this House, and it is about time that some hon. Members opposite were prepared to make a stand on an issue about which they feel strongly, and try to convince their Front Bench that there is another case than the one put forward by the Government.

Mr. David Mitchell

Answer the question.

Mr. Heffer

I am not sure to which question the hon. Gentleman is referring.

Mr. Mitchell

It was the simple question whether, because an employer in the engineering industry was involved in a dispute, as all the employers in the engineering industry contributed to this insurance fund which the hon. Gentleman has described, the Amendment would permit the whole of the industry to be brought to a halt on a sympathetic strike.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman has asked me to reply to that question. I have already replied to it. The answer is clear. If there is an indemnity fund and all the employers are contributing to it, they cannot be extraneous parties when there is a dispute in the engineering industry. The answer is clear: yes, in the same way that the hon. Gentleman would regard the trade unions when they assist each other by sympathetic action in a trade dispute. Let us have no dubiety about it. I think that the hon. Gentleman should be thanked for making the position clear. We want to

make it crystal clear and we do that in the Amendment.

I hope that, having heard the case for this reasonable and fair Amendment, hon. Gentlemen opposite will accept it. If not, then I invite my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote for it in the Lobbies.

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 287.

Division No. 244.] AYES [11.42 p.m.
Abse, Leo Dunn, James A. Kerr, Russell
Albu, Austen Dunnett, Jack Kinnock, Neil
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Eadie, Alex Lamond, James
Allen, Scholefield Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Latham, Arthur
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lawson, George
Armstrong, Ernest Ellis, Tom Leadbitter, Ted
Ashton, Joe English, Michael Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Atkinson, Norman Evans, Fred Leonard, Dick
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Barnes, Michael Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Barnett, Joel Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lipton, Marcus
Beaney, Alan Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lomas, Kenneth
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Foot, Michael Loughlin, Charles
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Forrester, John Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Bidwell, Sydney Fraser, John (Norwood) Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Bishop, E. S. Galpern, Sir Myer Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Blenkinsop, Arthur Garrett, W. E. McBride, Neil
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Gilbert, Dr. John McCartney, Hugh
Booth, Albert Ginsburg, David McElhone, Frank
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McGuire, Michael
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Courlay, Harry Mackenzie, Gregor
Bradley, Tom Grant, George (Morpeth) Mackie, John
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Maclennan, Robert
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) McNamara, J. Kevin
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) MacPherson, Malcolm
Buchan, Norman Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Hamling, William Marquand, David
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hannan, William (C'gow, Maryhill) Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Hardy, Peter Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Cant, R. B. Harper, Joseph Meacher, Michael
Carmichael, Neil Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Mendelson, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hattersley, Roy Millan, Bruce
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Miller, Dr. M. S.
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Heffer, Eric S. Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Hooson, Emlyn Molly, William
Cohen, Stanley Horam, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Coleman, Donald Houghton Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Concannon, J, D. Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Conlan, Bernard Huckfield, Leslie Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Conlan, Bernard Huckfield, Leslie Moyle, Roland
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Murray, R. K.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Ogden, Eric
Crawshaw, Richard Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) O'Halloran, Michael
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Hughes, Roy (Newport) O'Malley, Brian
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hunter, Adam Oram, Bert
Cunningham, C. (Islington, S.W.) Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Orbach, Maurice
Dalyell, Tam Janner, Greville Orme, Stanley
Davidson, Arthur Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.) Oswald, Thomas
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Davies, Ifor (Cower) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Palmer, Arthur
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, c.) John, Brynmor Parker, John (Dagenham)
Deakins, Eric Johnson, Carol (Lcwisham, S.) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Pavitt, Laurie
Delargy, H, J. Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Pendry, Tom
Dempsey, James Jones, Dan (Burnley) Pentland, Norman
Doig, eter Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Perry, Ernest G.
Dormand, J. D. Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Prescott, John
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Judd, Frank Price, William (Rugby)
Driberg, Tom Kaufman, Gerald Probert, Arthur
Duffy, A. E. P. Kelley, Richard Rankin, John
Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Stallard, A. W. Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Steet, David Wallace, George
Rhodes, Geoffrey Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Watkins, David
Richard, Ivor Stoddart, David (Swindon) Wertzman, David
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John Wellbeloved, James
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Strang, Gavin Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Robertson, John (Paisley) Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. White, James (Gasgow, Pollok)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Whitehead, Philip
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Swain, Thomas Whittock, William
Roper, John Taverne, Dick Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Rose, Paul B. Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Shone, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Tinn, James Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Sillars, James Torney, Tom Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Silverman, Julius Tuck, Raphael Woof, Robert
Skinner, Dennis Urwin, T. W.
Small, William Varley, Eric G. TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Wainwright, Edwin Mr. John Golding and
Spearing, Nigel Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Mr. Alan Fitch.
Spriggs, Leslie
Adley, Robert d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ, Gen. Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Dean, Paul Holland, Philip
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Holt, Miss Mary
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Digby, Simon Wingfield Hordern, Peter
Astor, John Dodds-Parker, Douglas Hornby, Richard
Atkins, Humphrey Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia
Awdry, Daniel du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Eden, Sir John Howell, David (Guildford)
Balniel, Lord Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Batsford, Brian Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Hunt, John
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Hutchison, Michael Clark
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Emery, Peter Iremonger, T. L.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Eyre, Reginald James, David
Benyon, W. Farr, John Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Berry, Hn. Anthony Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Jessel, Toby
Bitten, John Fidler, Michael Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Biggs-Davison, John Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Jopling, Michael
Blaker, Peter Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kaberry, Sir Donald
Body, Richard Fookes, Miss Janet Kellett, Mrs. Elaine
Boscawen, Robert Fortescue, Tim Kershaw, Anthony
Bossom, Sir Clive Foster, Sir John Kilfedder, James
Bowden, Andrew Fowler, Norman Kimball, Marcus
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Fox, Marcus King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Braine, Bernard Fry, Peter King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Bray, Ronald Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Kinsey, J. R.
Brewis, John Gardner, Edward Kirk, Peter
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gibson-Watt, David Knight, Mrs. Jill
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Knox, David
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lambton, Antony
Bryan, Paul Glyn, Dr. Alan Lane, David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Buck, Antony Goodhart, Philip Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry
Burden, F. A. Goodhew, Victor Le Marchant, Spencer
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gorst, John Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Naim) Gower, Raymond Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Carlisle, Mark Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Longden, Gilbert
Channon, Paul Gray, Hamish Loveridge, John
Chapman, Sydney Green, Alan MacArthur, Ian
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Grieve, Percy McCrindle, R. A.
Chichester-Clark, R. Grylls, Michacel McLaren, Martin
Churchill, W. S. Gummer, Selwyn Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Gurden, Harold McMaster, Stanley
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)
McNair-Wilson, Michael
Cockeram, Eric Hall, John (Wycombe) McNair- Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Cooke, Robert Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maddan, Martin
Coombs, Derek Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Madel, David
Cooper, A. E. Hannam, John (Exeter) Maginnis, John E.
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Cormack, Patrick Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Marten, Neil
Costain, A. P. Haselhurst, Alan Mather, Carol
Critchley, Julian Hawkins, Paul Maude, Angus
Crouch, David Hayhoe, Barney Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Crowder, F. P. Heseltine, Michael Mawby, Ray
Curran, Charles Hicks, Robert Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Dalkeith, Earl of Higgins, Terence L. Meyer, Sir Anthony
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Hiley, Joseph Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Raison, Timothy Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Miscampbell, Norman Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Tebbit, Norman
Mitchell, Lt. Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W.) Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Temple, John M.
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Moate, Roger Rees, Peter (Dover) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Molyneaux, James Rees-Davies, W. R. Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Money, Ernle Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Monks, Mrs. Connie Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Titney, John
Monro, Hector Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Montgomery, Fergus Ridsdale, Julian Trew, Peter
More, Jasper Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tugendhat, Christopher
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Mudd, David Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Vaughan, Dr. Cerard
Murton, Oscar Rest, Peter Viekers, Dame Joan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald Russell, Sir Ronald Waddington, David
Neave, Alrey St. John-Stevas, Norman Walder, David (Chitheroe)
Nicholls, Sir Harmar Scott, Nicholas Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Scott-Hopkins, James Wall, Patrick
Normanton, Tom Sharpies, Richard Walters, Dennis
Nott, John Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Ward, Dame Irene
Onslow, Cranley Shelton, William (Clapham) Weatherill, Bernard
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Simeons, Charles Wells, John (Maidstone)
Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Sinclair, Sir George White, Roger (Gravesend)
Osborn, John Sheet, T. H. H. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L'mington) Wiggin, Jerry
Page, Graham (Crosby) Soref, Harold Wilkinson, John
Page, John (Harrow, W.) Spentce, John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Sproat, Iain Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Peel, John Stainton, Keith Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Percival, Ian Stanbrook, Ivor Woodnutt, Mark
Pink, R. Bonner Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Betper) Worsley, Marcus
Pounder, Rafton Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. Younger, Hn. George
Price, David (Eastleigh) Stokes, John
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Stuttaford, Dr. Tom TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Proudfoot, Wilfred Suteliffe, John Mr. Walter Clegg and
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Tapsell, Peter Mr. Keith Speed.
Quennell, Miss J. M. Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)

Amendment (nnnn) proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 28, out subsection 5.—[Mrs. Castle.]

Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—

The House divided: Ayes 248, Noes 292.

Division No. 245.] AYES [11.54 p.m.
Abse, Leo Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Edwards, William (Merioneth)
Albu, Austen Clark, David (Ceine Valley) Ellis, Tom
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) English, Michael
Allen, Scholefield Cohen, Stanley Evans, Fred
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Coleman, Donald Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Armstrong, Ernest Concannon, J. D. Fisher, Mrs-Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Ashton, Joe Conlan, Bernard Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Atkinson, Norman Corbet, Mrs. Freda Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Foot, Michael
Barnes, Michael Crawshaw, Richard Ford, Ben
Barnett, Joel Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Fraser, John (Norwood)
Bcaney, Alan Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Calpern, Sir Myer
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Garrett, W. E.
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Dalyell, Tarn Gilbert, Dr. John
Bidwell, Sydney Davidson, Arthur Ginsburg, David
Bishop, E. S. Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Colding, John
Blenkinsop, Arthur Davies, G. Eifed (Rhondda, E.) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Gourlay, Harry
Booth, Albert Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Grant, George (Morpeth)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Deakins, Eric Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) de Freltas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Bradley, Tom Delargy, H. J. Griffiths, Will (Exchange)
Brown, Bob (N'c'He-upon-Tyne, W.) Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Dempsey, James Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Doig, Peter Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Buchan, Norman Dormand, J. D. Hardy, Peter
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'bum) Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Harper, Joseph
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Driberg, Tom Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Duffy, A. E. P. Hattersley, Roy
Cant, R. B. Dunn, James A. Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Carmichael, Neil Dunnett, Jack Heffer, Eric S.
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Eadie, Alex Horam, John
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Edwards, Robert (Bitston) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfied, E.) Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Huckfield, Leslie Marquand, David Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Mason, Rt Hn. Roy Sillars, James
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Meacher, Michael Silverman, Julius
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Skinner, Dennis
Hunter, Adam Mendelson, John Small, William
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Millan, Bruce Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Janner, Creville Miller, Dr. M. S. Spearing, Nigel
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Milne, Edward (Blyth) Spriggs, Leslie
Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n&St.P'cras, S.) Molloy, William Stallard, A. W.
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Stoddart, David (Swindon)
John, Brynmor Morris, Charles R. (Openshow) Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Morris, Rt Hn. John (Aberavon) Strang, Gavin
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Moyle, Roland Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Murray, R. K. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Ogden, Eric Swain, Thomas
Jones, Dan (Burnley) O'Halloran, Michael Taverne, Dick
Jones, Rt Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.) O'Malley, Brian Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Oram, Bert Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Orbach, Maurice Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Judd, Frank Orme, Stanley Tinn, James
Kaufman, Cerald Oswald, Thomas Torney, Tom
Kelley, Richard Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Tuck, Raphael
Kerr, Russell Palmer, Arthur Urwin, T. W.
Kinnock, Neil Parker, John (Dagenham) Varley, Eric G.
Lamond, James Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Wainwright, Edwin
Latham, Arthur Pavitt, Laurie Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Lawson, George Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Leadbitter, Ted Pendry, Tom Wallace, George
Leonard, Dick Pentland, Norman Watkins, David
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Perry, Ernest G. Weitzman, David
Lewis, Ron. (Carlisle) Prescott, John Wellbeloved, James
Lipton, Marcus Price J. T. (Westhoughton) Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Lomas, Kenneth Price William (Rugby) White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Loughlin, Charles Probert, Arthur Whitehead, Phillip
Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Rankin, John Whitlock, William
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Roes, Mertyn (Leeds, S.) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
McBride, Neil Rhodes, Geoffrey Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
McCartney, Hugh Richard, Ivor Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
McElhone, Frank Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
McGuire, Michael Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Mackenzie, Gregor Robertson, John (Paisley) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Mackie, John Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor) Woof, Robert
Maclennan, Robert Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
McNamara, J. Kevin Roper, John TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
MacPherson, Malcolm Rose, Paul B. Mr. Alan Fitch and
Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Mr. William Hamling.
Adley, Robert Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Allason, James (Hemet Hempstead) Bruce-Gardyne, J. d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaj.-Gen,
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Bryan, Paul Dean, Paul
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N&M) Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Ashley, Jack Buck, Antony Digby, Simon Wingfield
Astor, John Burden, F. A. Dodds-Parker, Douglas
Atkins, Humphrey Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
Awdry, Daniel Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray&Nairn) du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Carlisle, Mark Eden, Sir John
Balnied, Lord Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Batsford, Brian Channon, Paul Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Chapman, Sydney Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Emery, Peter
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Chichester-Clark, R. Eyre, Reginald
Benyon, W. Churchill, W. S. Farr, John
Berry, Hn. Anthony Clark, Wiliam (Surrey, E.) Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Biffen, John Carke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Fidler, Michael
Biggs-Davison, John Cockeram, Eric Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Blaker, Peter Cooke, Robert Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Coombs, Derek Fletcher-Cooke, Charles
Body, Richard Cooper, A. E. Fookes, Miss Janet
Boscawen, Robert corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Fortescue, Tim
Bossom, Sir Clive costain, A. P. Foster, Sir John
Bowden, Andrew Cormack, Patrick Fowler, Norman
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Critchley, Julian Fox, Marcus
Braine, Bernard Crouch, David Fry, Peter
Bray, Reginald Crowder, F. P. Galbraith, Hn. T. G.
Brewis, John Curran, Charles Gardner, Edward
Brinton, Sir Tatton Dalkeith, Earl of Gibson-Watt, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Mac Arthur, Ian Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) McCrindle, R. A. Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Glyn, Dr. Alan McLaren, Martin Rodgers, Sir John (Sevettoakt)
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Goodhart, Philip McMaster, Stanley Rost, Peter
Coodhew, Victor Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Russell, Sir Ronald
Gorst, John McNair-Wilson, Michael St. John-Stevas, Norman
Gower, Raymond McNair Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Scott, Nicholas
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Maddan, Martin Scott-Hopkins, James
Gray, Hamish Madel, David Sharpies, Richard
Green, Alan Maginnis, John E. Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Grieve, Percy Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Shelton, William (Clapham)
Grylls, Michael Marten, Neil Simeons, Charles
Gummer, Selwyn Mather, Carol Sinclair, Sir George
Gurden, Harold Maude, Angus Skeet, T. H. H.
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Maudting, Rt. Hn. Reginald Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Hall, John (Wycombe) Mawby, Ray Soref, Harold
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Spence, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Meyer, Sir Anthony Sproat, Iain
Hannam, John (Exeter) Mills, Peter (Torrington) Stainton, Keith
Harrison, Cot. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Stanbrook, Ivor
Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere Miscampbeil, Norman Steel, David
Haselhurst, Alan Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)
Hastings, Stephen Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Hawkins, Paul Moate, Roger Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Hayhoe, Barney Molyncaux, James Stokes, John
Heseiltine, Michael Money, Ernie Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Hicks, Robert Monks, Mrs. Connie Sutcliffe, John
Higgins, Terence L. Monro, Hector Tapsell, Peter
Hiley, Joseph Montgomery, Fergus Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) More, Jasper Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Tebbit, Norman
Holland, Philip Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Temple, John M.
Holt, Miss Mary Mudd, David Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Hooson, Emlyn Murton, Oscar Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Hordern, Peter Nabarro, Sir Gerald Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hornby, Richard Neave, Airey Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Nicholls, Sir Harmar Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Noble, Rt Hn. Michael Tilney, John
Howell, David (Guildford) Normanton, Tom Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Nott, John Trew, Peter
Hunt, John Onslow, Cranley Tugendhat, Christopher
Hutchison, Michael Clark Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.
Bremonger, T. L. Orr, Capt. L. P. S. van Straubenzee, W. R.
James, David Osbom, John Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.) Vickers, Dame Joan
Jessel, Toby Page, Graham (Crosby) Waddington, David
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grimtead) Page, John (Harrow, W.) Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Jopling, Michael Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.) Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Peel, John Wall, Patrick
Kaberry, Sir Donald Percival, Ian Walters, Dennis
Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Pink, R. Bonner Ward, Dame Irene
Kershaw, Anthony Pounder, Rafton Weatherill, Bernard
Kilfedder, James Powell, fit. Hn. J. Enoch Wells, John (Maidstone)
Kimball, Marcus Price, David (Eastleigh) White, Roger (Gravesend)
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M, L. Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
King, Tom (Bridgwater) Proudfoot, Wilfred Wiggin, Jerry
Kinsey, J. R. Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Wilkinson, John
Kirk, Peter Quennell, Miss J. M. Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Knight, Mrs. Jilt Raison, Timothy Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Knox, David Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Lambton, Anthony Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Woodnutt, Mark
Lane, David Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Worsley, Marcus
Langford-Holt, Sir John Rees, Peter (Dover) Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rees-Davies, W. R. Younger, Hn. George
Le Marchant, Spencer Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Mr. Walter Clegg and
Longden, Gilbert Ridsdale, Julian Mr. Keith Speed.
Loveridge, John

It being after twelve o'clock Mr. SPEAKER processed, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], to put forthwith the Question necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Special provisions as to certain complaints to Industrial Court).

Question put, That the clause be added to the Bill:

The House divided: Ayes 292, Noes 246.

Division No. 246.] AYES [12.6 p.m.
Adley, Robert Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Longden, Gilbert
Allason, James (Heme! Hempstead) Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Loveridge, John
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Fookes, Miss Janet MacArthur, Ian
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Fortescue, Tim McCrindle, R. A.
Astor, John Foster, Sir John McLaren, Martin
Atkins, Humphrey Fowler, Norman Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Awdry, Daniel Fox, Marcus McMaster, Stanley
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fry, Peter Macmillan, Maurice (Famham)
Balniel, Lord Galbraith, Hn. T. G. McNair-Wilson, Michael
Batsford, Brian Gardner, Edward McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Gibson-Watt, David Maddan, Martin
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Madel, David
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Maginnis, John E.
Benyon, W. Glyn, Dr. Alan Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Berry, Hu, Anthony Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Marten, Neil
Biffen, John Goodhart Philip Mather, carol
Biggs-Davison, John Gorst, John Maude, angus
Blaker, Peter Gower, Raymend Maudling, Rt. Hu. Reginald
Boardmen, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Mawby, Ray
Gray, Hamish Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Body, Richard Green, Alan Meyer, Sir Anthony
Boscawen, Robert Grieve, Percy Mills, Peter (Torrington)
Bossom, Sir Clive Grylls, Michael Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Bowden, Andrew Gummer, Selwyn Miscampbell, Norman
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John Gurden, Harold Mitchell,Lt.-Co1.C.(Aberdeenshire, W)
Braine, Bernard Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Bray, Ronald Hall, John (Wycombe) Moate, Roger
Brewis, John Hail-Davis, A. G. F. Molyneaux, James
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Money, Ernie
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Harnnam, John (Exeter) Monks, Mrs. Connie
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Montgomery, Fergus
Bryan, Paul Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere More., Jasper
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Haselhurst, Alan Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Buck, Antony Hastings, Stephen Morrison, Charles (Devizes)
Burden, F. A. Hawkins, Paul Mudd, David
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Hayhoe, Barney Murtom, Oscar
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Heseltine, Michael Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Carlisle, Mark Hicks, Robert Neave, Airey
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Higgins, Terence L. Nicholls, Sir Warmar
Channon, Paul Hiley, Joseph Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Chapman, Sydney Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Normanton, Tom
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Nott, John
Chichester-Clark, R. Holland, Philip Onslow, Cranley
Churchill, W. S. Holt, Miss Mary Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Hooson, Emlyn Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Hordem, Peter Osbom, John
Clegg, Walter Hornby, Richard Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Cockeram, Eric Homeby-Smith,Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Page, Graham (Crosby)
Cooke, Robert Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Coombs, Derek Howell, David (Guildford) Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)
Cooper, A. E. Howel, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Peel, John
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick Hunt. John Percival, Ian
Cormack, Patrick Hutchison, Michael Clark Pink, R, Bonner
Costam, A. P. Iremenger, T. L. Pounder, Rafton
Critchley, Julian James, David Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Crouch, David Jenkim, Patrick (Woodford) Price, David (Eastleigh)
Crowder, F. P. Jessel, Toby Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.
Curran, Charles Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Proudfoot, Wilfred
Dalkeith, Earl of Jopling, Michael Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith Quennel, Miss J. M.
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Knox, David Raison, Timothy
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, JamesMaJ. Gen. Kaberry, Sir Donald Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Dean, Paul Kellett, Mrs. Elaine Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Kershaw, Anthony Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kilfedder, James Rees, Peter (Dover)
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Kimball, Marcus Rees-Davies, W. R.
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alee King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward King, Tom (Bridgwater) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Eden, Sir John Kinsey, J. R. Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Kirk, Peter Ridsdale, Julian
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshatton) Knight, Mrs, Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Lambton, Antony Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Emery, Peter Lane, David Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Eyre, Reginald Langford-Holt, Sir John Rossi, Hugh (Homsey)
Farr, John Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Rost, Peter
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Le Marchant, Spencer Russell, Sir Ronald
Fidler, Michael Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Scott, Nicholas Sutcliffe, John Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Scott-Hopkins, James Tapsell, Peter Wall, Patrick
Sharples, Richard Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Walters, Dennis
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Ward, Dame Irene
Shelton, William (Clapham) Tebbit, Norman Weatherill, Bernard
Simeons, Charles Temple, John M. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Sinclair, Sir George Thatcher Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret White, Roger (Gravesend)
Sheet, T. H. H. Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) Wiggin, Jerry
Soref, Harold Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Wilkinson, John
Speed, Keith Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy Worrige-Gordon, Patrick
Spence, John Tilney, John Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Sproat, Iain Trafford Dr. Anthony Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Stainton, Keith Trew, Peter Woodnutt, Mark
Stanbrook, Ivor Tugendhat, Christopher Worsley, Marcus
Steel, David Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H. Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Stewart-Smith, D. C. (Helper) van Straubenzee, W. R. Younger, Hn. George
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M, Vickers, Dame Joan TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Stokes, John Waddington, David Mr. Hector Monro and
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Walder, David (Clitheroe) Mr. Victor Goodhew.
Abse, Leo Dormand, J. D. Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Albu, Austen Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Douglas-Mann, Bruce Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W.Ham, S.)
Allen, Scholefield Driberg, Tom Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Duffy, A. E. P. Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Armstrong, Arnest Dunn, James A. Judd, Frank
Ashton, Joe Dunnett, Jack Kaufman, Gerald
Atkinson, Norman Eadie, Alex Kelley, Richard
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Kerr, Russell
Barnes, Michael Edwards, William (Merioneth) Kinnock, Neil
Barnett, Joel Ellis, Tom Lamond, James
Beaney, Alan English, Michael Latham, Arthur
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Evans, Fred Lawson, George
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. Leadbitter, Ted
Bidwell, Sydney Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B 'ham, Ladywood) Leonard, Dick
Bishop, E. S. Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold
Blenkinsop, Arthur Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Foot, Michael Lipton, Marcus
Booth, Albert Forrester, John Lomas, Kenneth
Bottomley, Rt. Hn, Arthur Fraser, John (Norwood) Loughlin, Charles
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Gatpern, Sir Myer Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Bradley, Tom Garrett, W. E. Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,W.) Gilbert, Dr. John Mahon, Dr. J. Dickson
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Cinsburg, David MoBride, Neil
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Golding, John McCartney, Hugh
Buchan, Norman Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McEIhone, Frank
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Gourlay, Harry McGuire, Michael
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Grant, George (Morpeth) Mackenzie, Gregor
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mackie, John
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightsde) Maclennan, Robert
Cant, R. B. Griffiths, Will (Exchange) McNamara, J, Kevin
Carmichael, Neil Hamilton, James (Bothwell) MacPherson, Malcolm
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hardy, Peter Marquand, David
Clark, David (Coine Valley) Harper, Joseph Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mason, fit. Hn. Roy
Cohen, Stanley Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Meacher, Michael
Coleman, Donald Hattersley, Roy Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Concannon, J. D. Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Mendelson, John
Conlan, Bernard Heffer, Eric S. MiMan, Bruce
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Horam, John Miller, Dr. M. S.
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Milne, Edward (Blyth)
Crawshaw, Richard Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Molloy, William
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Huckfield, Leslie Morgan, Etystan (Cardiganshire)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Hughes, Rt Hit. Cledwyn 'Anglesey) Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Dalyell, Tarn Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Morris, fit. Hn. John (Aberavon)
Davidson, Arthur Hughes, Roy (Newport) Moyle, Roland
Davies, Denzil (Llanelli) Hunter, Adam Murray, Ronald King
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Irvine,RtHn.SirArthw(Edge Hill) Ogden, Eric
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Janner, Greviile G'Halloran, Michael
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Jay, Rt. Hn, Douglas O'Malley, Brian
Deakins, Eric Jeger,Mrs.Lena(H'b'n'St.P'cras,S.) Oram, Bert
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Orbach, Maurice
Delargy, H. J. Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Orme, Stanley
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund John, Brynmor Oswald, Thomas
Dempsey, James Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Doig, Peter Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Palmer, Arthur
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Parker, John (Dagenham)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney) Vartey, Eric G.
Pavitt, Laurie Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford) Wainwright, Edwin
Peart, At. Hn. Fred Sillars, Jame Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, ATI Saints)
Pendry, Tom Silverman, Julius Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Pentland, Norman Skinner, Dennis Wallace, George
Perry, Ernest G. Small, William Watkins, David
Prescott, John Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.) Weitzman, David
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Spearing, Nigel Wellbeloved, James
Price, William (Rugby) Spriggs, Leslie Wells, William (Walsal, N.)
Probert, Arthur Stallard, A. W. White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Rankin, John Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham) Whitehead, Philip
Reed, D. (Sedgefield) Stoddart, David (Swindon) Whitlock, William
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.) Stonehouse, Rt. Hon. John Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey Strang, Gavin Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Richard, Ivor Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Roberts, Albert (Normanton) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon) Swain, Thomas Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)
Robertson, John (Paisley) Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Woof, Robert
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Roper, John Tinn, James TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Rose, Paul B. Torney, Tom Mr. Alan Fitch and
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock) Tuck, Raphael Mr. William Hamling.
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne) Urwin, T. W.

Mr. SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.

Forward to