|(1) An application may be made to the Industrial Court for the reference to the Commission, for examination by them, of the following two questions relating to the employees of an employer, or to the employees of two or more associated employers, that is to say—|
|5||(a) whether a specified group of those employees should, as a whole, be recognised (or, if already recognised, should continue to be recognised) by the employer or employers as a bargaining unit, or a part or parts of such a specified group should be so recognised (or should continue to be so recognised) as a separate bargaining unit or separate bargaining units; and|
|10||(b) whether, for any bargaining unit which is or should be so recognised, a sole bargaining agent should be recognised by the employer or employers and, if so, what organisation of workers or what joint negotiating panel (whether already in existence or to be formed for the purpose) should he the sole bargaining agent for that bargaining unit.|
|15||(2) Subject to the next following subsection, an application under this section relating to the employees of one or more employers may be made—|
|20||(a) by one or more trade unions, or|
|(b) by the employer or (as the case may be) by any of the employers, or|
|(c) by the employer, or (as the case may be) any of the employers, jointly with one or more trade unions, or|
|(d) by the Secretary of State.|
|(3) Before making an application under this section with respect to a group of employees, the Secretary of State shall consult—|
|25||(a) their employer or employers, and|
|(b) any organisation of workers or joint negotiating panel appearing to him to be directly concerned in the matters to which the proposed application would relate.|
|30||(4) The Industrial Court shall not entertain an application made under this section otherwise than by the Secretary of State unless, before the application was made, notice of the proposal to make it had been given to the Secretary of State; and where such a notice has been given—|
|(a) the Secretary of State shall offer such advice and assistance to the party or parties giving the notice, and to such other parties as appear to him to be directly concerned, as he may consider appropriate with a view to promoting agreement|
|35||between them with respect to the matters to which the application would relate, and for that purpose may refer any question relating to those matters to the Commission for examination by them, but|
|(b) nothing in the preceding paragraph shall prevent the party or parties giving the notice from making an application under this section at any time after the notice has been given.|
|40||(5) In this section and in section 43 of this Act 'group', in relation to an application relating to the employees of an employer or of two or more associated employers, means a group consisting either of all those employees or of such of them as fall within one or more descriptions specified in the application.—[The Solicitor-General.)|
§ Brought up, and read the First time.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I think that it would be convenient to discuss at the same time Amendmentrrrr,in line 1, leave out "to the Industrial Court for the reference"; Amendmentssss, in line 5, after "whether", insert "it would be appropriate if"; Amendmenttttt, in line 5, leave out "should" and insert "were"; Amendmentuuuu, in line 5, after "whole", insert "to"; Amendmentwwww, in line 7, leave out "should" and insert "were to"; Amendmentyyyy, in line 10, leave out "should" and insert "were to"; and Amendmentaaaaa, in line 27, leave out subsection (4). We will also discuss Government Amendments Nos.26 to 57, 228, 229 and 230.
§ The Solicitor-General
The consequential Amendments, going as far as Clause 45, are Nos. 27 to 44, with three additional groups—No. 45, Nos. 46 and 47 and Nos. 49 to 51.
The main object of the new Clause is to make more flexible and appropriate the provisions of Clause 42, which it will replace, and which contains a basic provision, whereby questions about recognition and the scope of a bargaining unit and the identity of a bargaining agent can be referred to the Industrial Court and, if appropriate, from the Court to the C.I.R. These are among the most important parts of the Bill, because they provide a new and peaceful machinery for the resolution of recognition disputes and for the establishment of effective bargaining arrangements and structures.
Clause 42 specifies rather narrowly the grounds for application, in slightly different form according to whether an application is by a union, an employer or the Secretary of State. I hope that the House will agree that the new Clause covers the same ground much more flexibly and effectively.
1544 At the end, the word "group" is defined in this context, relating to the employees of an employer or of two or more associated employers, as meaning a group consisting of all of them or such as are described—in other words, in whatever way as is most appropriate to the particular question to be raised before the Court.
Subsection (1) is the subject of most of the Labour Party's Amendments. The shape and effect of subsection (1) of the Clause sets out the questions that can be the subject of disputes and that may arise in connection with recognition or bargaining disputes. First we have the questionwhether a specified group of … employees should … be recognised … as a bargaining unit, or a part or parts of such a specified group should be so recognisedand then we have the questionwhether, for any bargaining unit which is or should be so recognised, a sole bargaining agent should be recognised by the employerThe situation with which we are dealing here is where there is a dispute as to the group of employees in respect of whom a union or panel of unions should be recognised or where there is a dispute as to which union or which panel of unions should be recognised to bargain on their behalf.
§ Mr. Orme
If this is designed to get rid of friction which exists when difficulties arise between unions, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to explain what the position will be when there are normal negotiations? Will those involved in those normal negotiations be brought within the ambit of this part of the Bill?
§ The Solicitor-General
I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has asked that question because it raises an important point with which I must deal.
The object of these proposals about bargaining structure and recognition disputes is to provide a machinery which is 1545 to be available when disputes arise. This is not intended to be an all-embracing new solution applied right across the board to disturb existing stable bargaining structures. That is far from being the intention of the Government. This is to provide a machinery by which either a union or employer, or a union and employer in a joint application, or the Secretary of State, can go to the court and, if the court accepts it, through the court to the C.I.R., to get recommendations in respect of the disputes and difficulties. It is not intended to be, and it is hard to see why anybody would want to use it as, a means for upheaving and disturbing existing arrangements which are working well.
The hon. Gentleman will know from experience that there are situations where there may be a competing recognition conflict—it may be a conflict that more intelligent management could resolve—which is producing strife for everyone concerned. It is, nevertheless, a conflict. There are occasions when a union is simply asserting its right to be recognised and a management is truculently refusing to recognise it, although the majority of people in the plant or factory want it to be recognised. That may not be described as a recognition dispute, but it is a real recognition dispute, though not between unions.
The House has discussed a number of examples of the kind where all that is necessary is for a union to be given an opportunity of going through the court and establishing its right to be recognised by the employer. That, again, is the sort of conflict with which these provisions are intended to deal. As I say, subsection (1) identifies the questions that can arise, and it refers to whether a group of employees should be a bargaining unit or whether a particular union should be recognised as the agent to bargain on their behalf.
Subsection (2) sets out the people by whom an application under the new Clause may be made, and it refers to a union or group of unions, an employer or associated employers, or there may be a joint applicationby the employer, or … any of the employers, jointly with one or more trade unions1546 and the provision then refers to the Secretary of State. These are repetitions of the qualifying applicants who appeared in the original Clause.
A union can apply, if it wishes, to obtain its right in this way to be recognised. An employer can apply if he wishes to resolve a dispute. There can be a joint application, and I will come later to the probable circumstances in which a joint application would arise. On the other hand, the Secretary of State could seek to refer the question to the court through this machinery. The Secretary of State would, of course, come in if there was a situation running on critically from bad to worse with neither side apparently taking steps to refer it to the court and, hopefully, from the court to the commission.
Subsection (3) of the new Clause is a new provision—it was not in the old Clause 42—corresponding to a provision which is to be inserted in Clause 35 as a result of Government Amendment No. 21. Both the Amendment to Clause 35 and this, which is in effect an amendment to old Clause 42, are included as a result of points made by hon. Members opposite in Committee and of an undertaking which I then gave.
Hon. Members opposite said that it was right that, before the Secretary of State made a reference through this machinery, he should consult with the parties in respect of whom he was making the reference so that they should not, as it were, be taken by surprise by a reference to the Court in that way.
§ Mr. Sillars
I am not "nit-picking", as the phrase used by hon. Members opposite goes, but under subsection (3) is not the Secretary of State in duty bound to consult with the trade unions, although the words used areorganisation of workers or joint negotiating panel",which cover unregistered organisations?
§ The Solicitor-General
Yes, that is right, but "organisation of workers" includes a trade union. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that this is part of the machinery intended here. Although, at the end of this procedure, the right to enforce a recognition order is confined to a registered trade union, we think it right that in the early stages of the procedure the Secretary of State 1547 should consult with any organisation of workers, whether registered or not, which appears to be on the scene in a bargaining dispute situation. Moreover, we think it right, as I shall explain later, that the C.I.R. could recommend that the sole bargaining agent should be an unregistered organisation or a panel including an unregistered organisation, but for that to be effectively enforced the organisation should be registered. I think that the hon. Gentleman will understand that the intention here, from his point of view and from ours, is benevolent rather than anything else. An organisation of workers includes a trade union; a trade union is a registered organisation of workers.
As I say, the Secretary of State will have to consult before making a reference, and the same is true for a Clause 35 reference for enforceability.
§ Mr. Murray
I think that what the Solicitor-General has said is helpful, but may I press him a little further? Does he mean by his reply that "any organisation of workers" would cover all organisations or workers, whether trade unions or not? In other words, would the aim be to be comprehensive and interview all the organisations which might be concerned?
§ The Solicitor-General
As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, an organisation of workers is defined as being any organisation of workers setting out to pursue the regulating of relations between employers and workers.
§ The Solicitor-General
I shall come to that. Certainly, an organisation of workers may include an unregistered or a registered organisation or a company union. I know that hon. Members opposite, or some of them at least, have no enthusiasm for company unions, but they will see when I mention some of the other matters that we have taken account of the points which they made in this respect in certain other Amendments. But they will acknowledge that it is at least right for the Secretary of State, before he makes a reference, to consult any workers' organisation, even a company union, because it is on the ground representing workers and it is entitled to have its views taken into 1548 account, like an unregistered organisation. It would be absurd to disregard that kind of organisation in the circumstances.
Subsection (4) of the new Clause is an inclusion of what was subsection (5) of the old Clause, and the House will recall that subsection (5) of the old Clause was introduced by Amendment in Committee. Again, the intention was to require that any application which was on the way to the Industrial Court be notified first to the Secretary of State for him to have an opportunity to give conciliation, advice and assistance, in other words, to try to resolve the matter by a further attempt at voluntary agreement before it went on to the next stage of the court. That is a provision corresponding to that which appeared in the old Clause.
These provisions are more flexible than those which they replace. For example, they allow a claim to be made by unions for inclusion in a joint negotiating panel, a union which had previously been excluded, but which was seeking concurrent bargaining rights. Under the old Clause, it could appear before the courts on that claim only if it were claiming sole rights, and that was an undue restriction. Here the union may seek to be included as part of the panel.
The Clause is more flexible in that it allows a joint panel to be suggested as a solution to a bargaining dispute even if it were not originally sought when the matter first came before the Court. The application, in other words, need not specify the kind of solution which has to emerge. The C.I.R. will have the maximum discretion, once the question comes before it, to propose any kind of solution which seems sensible.
Finally, the new provisions require and permit the C.I.R. in any situation of this kind to consider both questions: first, whether it is an appropriate unit for collective bargaining, whether it covers the right group or groups of people, and, secondly, what is the most appropriate bargaining agent to recommend in that situation.
§ Mr. David Mitchell
Can my hon. and learned Friend confirm that the C.I.R. also has the duty to consult organisations of workers and groups of workers, because there may well be a broad range of workers with a special interest which 1549 is different from the others and who ought, therefore, to be included?
§ The Solicitor-General
I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that matter. He has followed these provisions with close care. The C.I.R. has an obligation to consult in that kind of way. He will see from Amendment No. 45 that an additional obligation is being imposed upon the C.I.R. in that respect, but that can be discussed later.
I continue to illustrate the additional flexibility conferred by this formulation of the Clause. It is now possible for a joint application to be made by employer and union for the resolution of a dispute. As I have already explained, the Secretary of State cannot refer an application without first consulting the people or organisations who appear to be concerned. The effect of the joint application provison will meet the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell); perhaps not meet it, because it probably did not need to be met but make rather clearer the answer to the problem which he mentioned.
He asked earlier whether this procedure would be effective to meet what he called the simple case where the employer and union agreed that there was a bargaining unit and the question was whether that unit was sufficiently organised for the employer to be obliged on any sensible view to recognise a trade union claiming recognition, in other words, where the shape of the unit was agreed and the question in doubt was the support for the union.
That kind of situation would clearly be a case for a joint application of that kind. It would go in the first instance by way of notification to the Secretary of State under subsection (4) and it would be possible for him, through his Departmental officers, to give such advice and assistance for the resolution of that as was required, and no doubt such advice and assistance could be directed to the organisation of a simple ballot, as is already done in some cases. In that kind of simple way, that kind of simple dispute would be advanced towards resolution.
§ The Solicitor-General
I do not think that there is an express provision for another group to arrive, as it were, to ask to be joined, but the C.I.R. has to consider whether there are any other organisations whose members appear to be affected and to consult them. I will give my hon. Friend the precise subsection in a moment. The intention is that there should be a wide-ranging power for the C.I.R. Plainly it would be pointless for the C.I.R. to emerge with a recommendation in ignorance of the existence of another competing union on the scene.
The two points are those affected by Amendments No. 46 and No. 47. They are Amendments to Clause 45 and, in particular, to Clause 45(3). Hon. Members opposite suggested that Clause 45(3) as it stood enabled the Commission to recommend for recognition an organisation of workers that was not independent. This is the point made by the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme), that the C.I.R. could recommend the dreaded house union, if I may adopt his tone of voice. Clause 45(3) is now being amended, if these Amendments are accepted, so that any organisation that is recommended is an independent organisation of workers. That is the effect of Amendment No. 46. The C.I.R. has to be satisfied that the organisation, or, if it is a joint negotiating panel, every organisation represented on it, is an independent organisation of workers. That point has been met by those two Amendments.
Amendments Nos. 49, 50 and 51 are Amendments to Clause 46. Clause 46 states:
Where in a report … the Commission have recommended that a particular trade union, or a joint negotiating panel of trade unions, should be recognised by an employer as sole bargaining agent … then, at any time before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which that report is transmitted by the Commission to the Industrial Court, either—
(a) the employer, or …
subject to the following subsection, the organisation of workers, or a joint negotiating panel, as the case may be,
… may make an application to the Industrial Court under this section.
The subsection which is written in is in Amendment No. 51:
No application … shall be made—
The effect of that is to allow the C.I.R. to recommend recognition of an unregistered organisation if it finds one on the scene. It may be that there is some local group which has not acquired registration but which commands the full support of workers in a unit. If the C.I.R. reaches the conclusion that that is the right bargaining agent, and if it is endorsed by the subsequent ballot under these provisions, provided that the organisation seeks registration it can apply to enforce the recognition order against the employer in accordance with the recommendations. Those are the effects of this Clause.
§ Mr. Orme
The Solicitor-General has mentioned the joint negotiating panel. He has not told us very much about how this will operate. For instance, in an industry at present where there may be 20 unions working in a works committee but where the unions, for example, the A.S.T.M.S. or the A.U.E.W., want to negotiate separately on conditions affecting themselves, they may negotiate separately though they are in a works committee at present. In a joint negotiating panel, who does the negotiating, and are these separate negotiations possible?
§ The Solicitor-General
Suggestions have been made to the effect that we should here create some new magic machinery for resolving the sort of difficult balance which arises in the kind of case that the hon. Gentleman raises so as to produce a single union to sweep the field. That is not the intention. The idea is that the Commission should be able to recommend, if it seemed likely to produce an effective bargaining structure, a joint panel. Plainly such a panel might include the A.U.E.W. and the A.S.T.M.S., to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, but it would be effective only if it came into existence by agreement and was to represent all the work people in the unit concerned.
There is no power here for the Commission or anyone else to persuade two 1552 or more unions which are unwilling to make a joint panel negotiate together as one bargaining agent. But no doubt the Commission would try to produce that solution if it seemed likely to make sense. If at the end of the day it was not likely to produce a sensible bargaining structure and the more sensible solution was likely to be the A.U.E.W. for one group of workers and the A.S.T.M.S. for another group, the Commission would recommend those two unions being recognised in respect of those two bargaining units.
§ The Solicitor-General
That is right. This represents the kind of arrangement which exists in some situations now, as hon. Gentlemen will appreciate. It depends to some extent on the traditional bargaining structure. There may be places where one union in effect has sole bargaining rights for process workers, another union for maintenance workers, and so on. There may be a dispute about the border, about where a category of workers comes. The Commission might well propose the reallocation or redistribution of the border to try to arrive at an acceptable solution. It may be that the best solution would be the construction of a joint panel whereby the border territory disppeared. But the intention is that the Commission, as it does already on references of this kind, should try to produce the most effective solutions for the problems in that plant. Those solutions should be capable of being enforced against the employer and of being supported by the restraining of what has been described previously as coercive action to disturb a recommended solution
Although we may differ on a number of other points, I hope that right hon. and hon. Members opposite will accept that this formulation of these matters at least provides a sensible foundation for the reference of this kind of question through the court to the Commission.
§ Mr. Heffer
I find myself in some difficulty because the list of Amendments which I have been given is not completely accurate. My list reads, "Government Amendments 26–57". In preparing for this debate, I referred to Amendments 26, 57, 228, 229 and 230, and discovered, meantime, that apparently I had missed a 1553 group of Amendments to which I should have referred. However, it does not alter what I am about to say very much. It merely puts me at a slight disadvantage in replying to the points that the Solicitor-General has made.
It is quite obvious that although the Government, by substituting this new Clause for Clause 42, have made a number of concessions—and I am the first to accept that they have made a number of genuine concessions—they have not conceded the principle, and we are now discussing the same principle as we debated in Committee. Before dealing with specific points I want to repeat one or two arguments against the whole idea of the sole bargaining agency.
The Solicitor-General in an interesting speech said that the objective of the proposal was to sort out what might be called the overlapping situation that might arise even within the existing structure, where tension or competition arises between unions in respect of membership and bargaining rights. The hon. and learned Gentleman has completely ignored the whole policy now adopted by the Trades Union Congress and embodied in the Bridlington Agreement. We recognise that in our complex industrial society from time to time there is competition between unions for membership.
These conflicts arise particularly in respect of whether white collar workers—foremen and so on—should be in industrial workers' unions or in a union of their own. Many hon. Members opposite preach industrial unionism, but if we have industrial unionism we very largely eliminate the white collar workers, who end up in the same union as the industrial workers. The hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) should not shake his head, because in the United States, which we are told he has visited, the automobile workers had precisely this problem, and overcame it by creating a special section for white collar workers within the same union.
The Solicitor-General has completely ignored how these problems are sorted out nowadays. The trade union movement itself solves them by applying the Bridlington Agreement. We argue that the Government's proposals do not help to solve this competition between unions 1554 but have the opposite effect. They will lead to competition between unions where it does not now exist. That is our basic argument.
The other point is that it must inevitably lead to unstable industrial relations. Union will be set against union—or could be. The experience of the United States proves beyond doubt that a tremendous amount of competition grows up between trade union organisations to enrol members into their own unions. That is why, for example, the Teamsters, outside the C.I.O. and the A.F.F.L., became the fastest-growing trade union in the United States for a time. Why? Because under the scheme there, similar to that proposed here, the Teamsters moved into all sorts of activities which had absolutely nothing to do with their industry. The same sort of thing could develop in this country.
§ Mr. Heffer
It may be, but when there is any difficulty it is sorted out by the trade union movement. In America they go to the courts, and it creates great problems, many more than it solves. That is the basic difference between what is proposed by the Government and what happens now.
The other point is that this will lead to immense fragmentation of bargaining—
§ Mr. Heffer
The hon. Gentleman keeps looking up and shaking his head. His head will come off if he keeps on doing it, with that expression of surprise on his face. The facts—he ought to know this if he has just been to the United States—prove this.
Take the post office industry, if it can be called that. In this country there are three Post Office unions catering for three or four different grades. In the United States, because of the sole bargaining agency system, there is practically a different union in every town. If there was a situation there when there was a great struggle over wages and conditions similar to that which took place here there would not be a complete turn-out of workers at one stage and a complete return at another. There would be a 1555 guerrilla warfare over the whole of the industry.
So when hon. Gentlemen opposite say, as they do so often, that this Bill will lead to strikes which are less fragmented, what they are looking for really is bigger and better strikes—not so frequent, but bigger when they do take place. With these proposals there is the possibility of more fragmented strikes through a whole series of unions being involved as sole bargaining agents when at present only one union caters for an industry. These facts have to be taken into consideration. This proposal is no panacea for achieving industrial peace and could be the very reverse.
The Solicitor-General said that he was much persuaded by the blandishments of this side on the question of the concept of consultation between the parties and the Secretary of State. I wish that he had been persuaded on other things, too. He went only part of the way. The argument we put in Committee was that consultations should be on the basis of an application to the C.I.R. and that the Industrial Court would be eliminated entirely, and application to the C.I.R. should be made only when there were recognition problems. The Solicitor-General says, "We have been persuaded by what the Opposition have said." The Government have not been persuaded. If they had been, they would have dropped the whole concept of the Industrial Court and would have accepted the principle that the matter could go to the C.I.R., as matters do now when there are recognition problems, to be looked at voluntarily by the Commission with recommendations to the parties concerned. I cannot accept the Solicitor-General's statement that we have persuaded him to accept our doctrine. I wish that he had been persuaded. If he had been, we could have accepted the new Clause because it would have been along the lines we have proposed.
The Solicitor-General said that the machinery would be used only when disputes arose and that it would not disturb stable arrangements. We constantly hear this said. In other words, all this paraphernalia of legal machinery is only a longstop. If it is to be only rarely used, why have it at all? Why not retain the existing trusted machinery which the trade union movement has to 1556 solve problems of internal competition; namely, the Bridlington Agreement? What is the object of the machinery? We have had no answer to that.
It is said that the Government have made another concession relating to the joint application. It is a concession in certain circumstances. The other day it was said that it was not possible to have an approved closed shop unless there was a joint application. On this occasion it is said that it is possible to have a joint application, but we can also have individual applications. The union can apply, but when it comes to the approved closed shop it cannot apply on its own; there must be a joint application.
When we say that the machinery is tilted in favour of the employers, that is precisely what we mean. Every proposition is definitely tilted in their favour.
The Solicitor-General stressed that in certain circumstances there would be consultation, not necessarily with trade unions but with what we call company unions. He said that Amendment No. 46 covered the point. I cannot understand what he means. The principle is this. The Secretary of State might have consultations with a company union. The matter could then be referred to the C.I.R. In certain circumstances, especially if there are no trade unionists on the C.I.R.—and there is none at the moment except the ex-chairman of the T.U.C.; others have left, and it might well be that in certain circumstances they will all leave—the C.I.R. could recommend that that body, after a ballot and if it got a majority, could become the sole bargaining agent if it was prepared to become a registered trade union.
But suppose that the majority of workers were in a bona fide trade union affiliated to the T.U.C. and said, "We are not prepared to continue to work alongside these people who may register and become a trade union under this Act but are still a company union."
§ 10.15 p.m.
§ The Solicitor-General
Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such an organisation can register and become a trade union under the Bill only if it shows that it is independent and is not subject to employer domination or control? The object of Amendments Nos. 46 and 47 is 1557 to ensure that only an independent organisation — one which is not dominated and is not a company union —can be recommended. The hon. Gentleman must not look a gift horse in the mouth. We have met the point and made it clear that the house union which remains employer dominated cannot be recommended; to be recommended it must be registered and independent.
§ Mr. Heffer
The point I am making is that the hon. and learned Gentleman contradicted himself. He talked about the company union which the Secretary of State could consult, but on the other hand said that once the C.I.R. had looked at it, there had been a ballot and it registered, it could be a trade union in the accepted sense under the Bill.
1558 I do not want to refuse a gift horse. Any crumb of comfort will be gladly accepted. A minor concession is better than none. I said in opening that there were concessions here that we gladly accepted, but we did not consider that they in any way altered the principle, and I argued against the principle. I hope that this matter will be cleared up in the reply to the debate.
We are opposed to the whole principle of the sole bargaining agency. Although there are a number of concessions in the Clause and the Amendments, the basic principle remains. The concessions in no way change it. They will not assist the industrial relations scene. Therefore, we cannot give the Clause a Second Reading.
§ Mr. David Mitchell
I was delighted by the frankness of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) when he explained that he had been misled as to what was on the Orden Paper, that he had not had an opportunity to examine the Government's Amendments, but that that would make no difference to his speech. Clearly, it has not done so.
The hon. Gentleman started by explaining the dangers of industrial trade unionism and accusing me of being an advocate of it, which I certainly have not been. He then complained of the dangers of fragmentation. I find it difficult to understand how in the same speech he can expect the House to agree with him in attacking both those allegedly opposite evils at the same time.
Like the hon. Gentleman, when I was in the United States I noticed the dangers of industrial trade unionism. But in the case of the United Automobile Workers there was a pressure group of skilled men who felt that they did not have sufficient differential, that they were being lost in the mass of votes in support of the unskilled. They therefore put pressure on the union to give them a special separate part of the agreement. They were able to do that only because they had the power under the U.S. legislation to go to the N.L.R.B. and ask to be treated as a separate union, to seek separate representation. It was the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends who opposed the Government when they provided a right for a new union to appear. They vigorously attacked the idea of democracy operating in trade unionism to the extent that new unions could break in.
§ Mr. Alex Eadie (Midlothian)
I am amazed by the hon. Gentleman's argument. Is he arguing that he is perfectly happy with the situation in America, which results from legislation similar to that which the Government are introducing, where there are more than 24,000 unions dealing with the post office structure? Does he want to see that position in this country?
§ Mr. Mitchell
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for making that point, because I was coming to it next. In preparing the Bill my hon. and learned Friend has recognised that danger and, 1560 therefore, has not provided for the straight industrial democracy that there is in the United States, where any union has the right to put itself in for a ballot. Having shown that one-fifth of the workers in an area want it to appear on the ballot, it has an absolute right on a knock-out ballot, winner takes all, to secure representation.
But here, under the Bill, there must be a recommendation from the C.I.R. By putting in managed democracy, putting in the C.I.R. as a buffer, we ensure that we do not get 24,000 post office unions, one for each separate post office. The Government have taken into account the danger that the United States system could bring to this country, and have inserted the C.I.R. as a deciding factor to recommend which union should secure representation. That ensures that the danger foreseen by the hon. Gentleman does not arise.
I am glad that the Government have accepted the case for a simple resolution of a straight recognition claim. But I wish that the machinery were a little simpler than it appears on reading through the text of the Bill. I am most grateful that my right hon. Friend accepts my case that groups of workers with different interests should have the right to be excluded from a bargaining unit and to be heard in the decision as to what the bargaining unit should cover.
What is the exact meaning ofassociated employersin subsection (5)? Must they be companies associated financially, or can they be companies engaged in the same trade, in competition with each other but in the same locality? In the case of the Birmingham transport drivers there was an overwhelming problem of a union picking on individual small employers one by one. Had they been in a bargaining unit together, the employers would have been strong enough to stand up to the union there on more equal terms. I would be very anxious to see that nothing is done by the Bill to prevent small employers from getting together to ensure that a powerful union does not blackmail them by taking them one at a time. So I put that question to the Solicitor-General.
The second question that I wish to put to him is whether there will now be a 1561 right of an application for the defining of the bargaining unit and the defining of the sole bargaining agent to be withdrawn. I ask because I think the Solicitor-General will recognise that there may be circumstances in which once a competing union has started the machinery for the Bill it achieves a situation in which it is clear from the way the boundaries, the constituencies, have been drawn by the C.I.R. that the union is going to win. It may then be better that the parties should accept the status quo than agree under threat of what would happen if there were a ballot. It would be a more peaceful solution for that situation than if there were a ballot and one union which has many members is the sole agent. I should like an assurance that it will then be possible, even though the machinery has started, for an approach to be made to the C.I.R. to allow the matter to drop on the basis of its initial recommendation without going through the legally binding provisions in which the sole bargaining agent has been appointed and, with it, the danger that the aggrieved party will lose out.
§ Mr. Hugh McCartney (Dunbartonshire, East)
I want to raise a specific point which, so far as I am aware, has not been referred to at any time during the discussions on the Bill, on Second Reading or since. It is about the bargaining unit as referred to in the new Clause.
I wonder whether the Government have taken into account those industries in which large numbers of part-time employees are engaged. I wonder—for there is nothing that I can see about it, nor has there been anything which I have heard said about it—whether there is anything to indicate that there is any differentiation between part-time and full-time workers.
I am thinking of what happens, for instance, in the licensed catering industry and other sections of the catering industry where there are large numbers of part-time employees who are drawn from other industries and who look upon this occupation, their second occupation, as a means of getting pin money or extra earnings from which they can buy tobacco or cigarettes, or take their wives to the cinema, or, perhaps, improve the amenities of their homes to some extent.
1562 Are these people to be allowed to decide the future and welfare of the permanent workers in the industry? Some of these part-time workers are trade unionists, members of other trade unions, but most of them do not in any way have any influence on or interest in the catering trade, and some of them may be non-unionists. Is it being said by the Government that these people, either individually or as trade unionists in one union, even though not having a direct interest in the catering industry, are to be allowed to influence decisions in relation to that industry?
The same applies to the transport industry, to both the public and the commercial sectors. The same applies, to some extent, to the building trades. Consider what happens at weekends at department stores like Woolworth's, where schoolgirls go for a few hours on Saturdays for pocket money. Is it suggested by the Government that these young people, in mini-skirts or hot pants, should be allowed to determine the well being or otherwise of the people permanently employed in department stores?
These are things which are worrying people who have full-time engagements in these occupations, and I should like to hear from the Government, before the end of the debate, what their intention is in relation to this group of workers.
§ 10.30 p.m.
§ Mr. Ronald Bell (Buckinghamshire, South)
My hon. Friend is a little unfair to King Canute. He was quite aware that he could not send the sea back, but he had bad courtiers, and that may be the trouble on the hon. Gentleman's side.
§ Mr. Gower
The matter under discussion is analogous to our earlier discussion on new Clause 5. We are all concerned about industrial strife, whatever its causation, but we recognise that there is some which is inevitable. We merely want to make less likely industrial strife which can be easily avoided, 1563 and this is one danger which can be minimised.
I hope the hon. Member for Walton will accept that, as the Solicitor-General said, this procedure is not designed to disturb existing bargaining arrangements. Rather is it designed to provide adequate machinery for dealing with disputes. The hon. Gentleman says, rather blithely, that we have the Bridlington agreement, but can he assert that this has always been perfect? From the hon. Gentleman's remarks one would imagine that our procedures are infinitely better than those of any other country, but anyone who thinks that must be very short-sighted. There are good features in our system, but there are also deficiencies.
§ Mr. Heffer
When we discussed Clause 43 I said—and it is worth reiterating—that in the past 30 years the T.U.C. had dealt successfully with more than 1,000 inter-union disputes through the application of the Bridlington Agreement.
§ Mr. Gower
Nevertheless, disputes may arise and, after careful consideration of the points made by the Opposition in Committee, the Government have produced machinery for the determination of recognition disputes. This is not lined up, as the hon. Member for Walton suggested, against the employee. Application can be made by a trade union, by other bodies of employees, by the employer, by employers jointly or by the Secretary of State. How he can describe it as biased I cannot imagine. I sincerely hope that the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will look at it in that light and reconsider their attitude.
§ Mr. R. Carr
I shall try to answer some of the points which have been raised. First, in reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell), an associated employer is indeed one who is associated in the financial sense. I believe that this is right.
Secondly, employers can join together in an employers' association for the purposes of collective bargaining. But what we are talking about is the use of special machinery to solve a demarcation or, rather, a recognition dispute. I do not believe that a recognition dispute can be solved across an employers' association 1564 consisting of entirely separate companies. So, concerning the use of this machinery, we envisage that it must be done either through an individual company or through associated companies, using the term "associated" in what I might call the Companies Acts sense. I shall certainly give further thought to my hon. Friend's point; but it would be wrong to say that and leave him feeling that I had much hope of meeting it.
My hon. Friend also asked whether it would be possible to stop a reference to the C.I.R. once it was under way. In the procedures which we envisage, the C.I.R., if it obtains the agreement of the parties to a particular course, can and would, I imagine, not make a report. I think that that is the most likely event in circumstances where the parties went to the C.I.R. and said, "We have agreed that this is what we would like to do." Since the whole purpose of the machinery is to solve a dispute, if the dispute were to cease to exist because the parties had reached agreement there would be no point in the C.I.R. going ahead with it.
The parties cannot force a withdrawal, but the C.I.R. can take the initiative in refusing to go ahead on its own. In the circumstances postulated by my hon. Friend, I think that the most likely course where there was agreement would be that the C.I.R. simply would not proceed.
If the C.I.R. proceeded, the parties could refrain from going to the court and seeking an order to enforce the C.I.R.'s recommendation. I do not think that my hon. Friend need have much fear of anything coming from the C.I.R., least of all being enforced, which the parties themselves do not wish to have. If the parties reach agreement the need to resolve their dispute ceases because, almost by definition, the matter has been solved.
The hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mr. McCartney) raised a point which has considerable force. Throughout the Bill in all these matters we have asked that the C.I.R. should be responsible, if not for actual supervision of the voting, at least for the ballot. We believe that there will need to be careful investigation not only in defining the area of the bargaining unit but in defining the workers eligible to vote. The best answer which I can give is that eligibility to vote 1565 is a matter which the C.I.R. will take into account in every case. However, I shall give the matter further consideration and write to the hon. Gentleman, because he has raised a point to which I am not prepared at this moment to give a categorical answer for permanent record.
§ Mr. Heffer
Is the Minister aware that the Opposition have some Amendments down relating to the hours worked by part-time workers which we think should be taken into consideration when considering eligibility to vote? Will the right hon. Gentleman give us an assurance that he will look at that as well?
§ Mr. Carr
I shall certainly look at that. There is a difficulty here if transient workers could come in and swamp the vote. On the other hand, where there are part-time workers with some real permanency and stake in the industry, if a ballot is provided it would be wrong to rule them out automatically.
§ Mr. McCartney
I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that answer and I appreciate his difficulty. But, assuming that he decided that there is need for a change in legislation, how will he promote this? What machinery is left for him now to do this?
§ Mr. Carr
If we decided that an Amendment was needed, it is oven not only for the Government but also—as I am sure hon. Gentlemen opposite are well aware—for the Opposition to move Amendments in another place. I undertake to write to the hon. Gentleman, and perhaps it would be convenient to send a copy to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer).
The hon. Member for Walton mentioned the company union. I believe that my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General made this clear, but let me try again. We say in the new Clause that, initially, it is right that any organisation of workers, including a company union, can be brought in and consulted. Whatever one may think of company unions, they are real live organisations of workers, and we believe that their views should be heard. But we say—I should have thought that this would satisfy hon. Gentlemen—that an employer-dominated union cannot be recommended by the C.I.R. It would have to prove its independence, and if it could not do so, it could not be recommended.
§ Mr. Ted Fletcher (Darlington)
Why is it necessary to consult company unions or staff associations in the first place, when from what the right hon. Gentleman said it appears that they would in no circumstances get sole bargaining rights?
§ Mr. Carr
There are two reasons. First, such a staff association might decide to change its constitution and become independent and even registered: it may then satisfy the C.I.R. and the Registrar that it is independent and, therefore, put itself in the field for recommendation. But if it did not choose to do that, it could not be recommended.
The second reason is twofold. First, however much people may dislike staff associations, they will not get up and go away: they are a factor in the situation. So far as I know, the C.I.R. with its present procedures, would be prepared and able to take their existence into account. Second, the C.I.R. may decide, as the Bill allows, to make no recommendation about a sole bargaining agent if it cannot see a suitable agent to recommend.
§ 10.45 p.m.
§ Mr. Heffer
How will one decide that it is not a company union and whether it is employer-dominated? The term "company union" means, in the trade union accepted sense, a union inside a company which receives financial assistance from that company. To that extent it is dominated by the company. If there is a union of that kind and it is obviously not independent, why consult it in the first place?
§ Mr. Carr
I thought I had dealt with the final part of that intervention, but I shall obviously have to repeat my remarks.
Such an organisation is a factor to be taken into account. Whether or not one likes it, if there is a staff association with a membership, then it is a reality. Its members are real live people working in the undertaking involved. Whether or not one agrees with their point of view, those people must be taken into account.
It is extraordinary to suggest that just because here is an organisation which one does not like the look of, it should be of no account and its views should not be considered. It is proper, and it meets a proper point made by hon. Gentlemen 1567 opposite, to say that if such an organisation chooses not to change its status and if the C.I.R. cannot see a more suitable body to recommend as a sole bargaining agent, then that body may be recommended.
The answer to the first part of the hon. Gentleman's intervention is that the meaning of "independent" is already defined in the Bill. In the normal circumstance when a union wishes to register, the registrar will have to determine whether it is independent, and in the case in point the C.I.R. will have to satisfy itself. If anybody is doubting the bona fides of a union which is claiming to be independent, then I cannot believe that its status as an independent will go unchallenged.
At some point one must trust somebody to be able to judge the circumstances of the case, and that is the whole principle of this combination of an adjudicating authority like the Court and an investigating and recommending authority like the C.I.R., both of which are industrially sophisticated and experienced bodies by virtue of their membership.
We believe that the C.I.R. will in this case be able to determine satisfactorily whether an organisation of workers is independent and whether it is employer-dominated, because if there is any doubt about it I am sure that those who wish to challenge it will not be backward in coming forward to put their point. I can only repeat that we are making it absolutely clear that an employer-dominated union cannot be recommended under this procedure as a sole agent.
§ Mr. John Prescott (Kingston upon Hull, East)
The right hon. Gentleman has pointed out that the C.I.R. will decide this point. It is relatively easy to see what an employer-dominated union is, particularly if it is a staff organisation, but of the many organisations some are more militant than others. The employer will have a clear preference for one type of organisation over another, and while a union may seem to be independent—certainly independent enough to meet the requirements about which the right hon. Gentleman has been speaking—it may not be so independent, and some such organisations may be more willing to meet the employers' demands than the more militant unions.
§ Mr. Carr
That could be the very nature of a dispute that requires a solution. We are here discussing the means of resolving disputes. If one type of solution has failed, we come on to the C.I.R., which will look into the matter not only with integrity but with knowledge and skill. I believe that one can trust a body like the C.I.R. to do that job faithfully and well, and certainly as faithfully and as well as any other institution of which one can think in this sphere. It will be not for the employer but for the C.I.R. to decide. The C.I.R. will, no doubt, have to listen to what the employer's preferences may be but it will have to listen also to what other people's preferences are, form its own independent opinion, and make its recommendation accordingly. That is the proper place to leave it.
Coming to the basic principle here, the hon. Member for Walton felt that the matter should be left entirely to the T.U.C. and the associated T.U.C. machinery. I believe that the T.U.C. and the machinery associated with it can, and, I hope, will, solve the great majority of problems about recognition when the recognition dispute is of an inter-union character. But I doubt that we can say with certainty, that it is capable of solving all of them.
The hon. Gentleman will recall, for example, that there was great difficulty a year or two ago in solving the recognition problems of the white-collar workers in the steel industry. Although that was eventually settled in an uneasy way, after a lot of batting to and fro, it certainly was not settled with ease or, I should say, with a real feeling of satisfaction on the part of at least one or two of the main white-collar workers' unions involved.
I do not want to do it in the way that, perhaps, it is sometimes done in our debates, but I feel that I must quote the views of the Labour Government when they were considering this matter. The right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle) recognised, and said quite clearly in "In Place of Strife", that certain machinery would be needed, and that there might be cases in which the T.U.C. could not persuade the parties, within a reasonable time, to accept a settlement. In such cases, she saidthe Secretary of State will refer the dispute to the C.I.R. In some cases the C.I.R. may 1569 only be able to produce a durable solution by recommending the exclusion of one or more unions from recognition. In such a situation the Government will look to all the parties involved to accept the recommendations of the C.I.R. If they do not, the Industrial Relations Bill will propose a power for the Secretary of State where necessary to give effect by Order to the C.I.R.'s recommendations.So at least we can claim, without, I hope, going into controversy about method, that the right hon. Lady and her hon. Friends realised, however keen they were to leave these sorts of dispute for resolution by the normal T.U.C. machinery, that there might be cases which failed to be resolved, or failed to be resolved in a reasonable time, by that machinery and there must be some additional machinery as well. We have put forward ours. She put forward hers. It is a matter of judgment between them. Naturally, we prefer our machinery. We have put it forward only after a great deal of thought. In our judgment, ours is the best machinery available which we can think of for dealing with this sort of matter.
I was very surprised to hear the hon. Member for Walton say—I think I heard him aright—that he was opposed to the whole principle of the sole bargaining agent. I thought that this was part of the analysis—not the prescription but the analysis—of the Donovan Commission about the desirability of moving towards
§ a situation in which there was one negotiating authority for each homogeneous and identifiable group of workers.
§ Surely, if one is to have good, effective and stable collective bargaining, we should move towards a situation in which there is one bargaining authority for one group of workers. We do not believe in, and have not tried to impose, the idea that the bargaining authority should always be a single union, because we consider that multi-unionism is so firmly established in this country that to try to reach a situation in which a number of established unions had to withdraw in favour of one would cause a great deal of strife.
§ We admit, therefore, the correctness and satisfactory nature of the possibility of having a single bargaining authority but as a joint panel of a number of unions. We believe that the ideal at which we must aim is one negotiating authority for one group of workers, and I find it difficult to understand why the hon. Gentleman should oppose that principle, although I understand that we can have differing views about how to arrive at it.
§ Question put, That the Clause be read a Second time:
§ The House divided: Ayes 289, Noes 243.1573
|Division No. 252.]||AYES||[10.55 p.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N &M)||Dixon, Piers|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Buck, Antony||Dodds-Parker, Dougias|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Bullus, Sir Eric||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward|
|Astor, John||Campbell, Rt. Hn. G.(Moray &Nairn)||Dykes, Hugh|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Carlisle, Mark||Eden, Sir John|
|Awdry, Daniel||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Chapman, Sydney||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)|
|Balniel, Lord||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Eyre, Reginald|
|Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Chichester-Clark, R.||Farr, John|
|Batsford, Brian||Churchill, W. S.||Felt, Anthony|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy|
|Bell, Ronald||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffre)||Fidler, Michael|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Clegg, Walter||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)|
|Benyon, w.||Cockeram, Eric||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Cooke, Robert||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles|
|Biffen, John||Coombs, Derek||Fookes, Miss Janet|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Cooper, A. E.||Foster, Sir John|
|Blaker, Peter||Corfleld, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Fowler, Norman|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Cormack, Patrick||Fox, Marcus|
|Body, Richard||Costain, A. P.||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & stone)|
|Boscawen, Robert||Critchley, Julian||Fry, Peter|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Crouch, David||Gardner, Edward|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Crowder, F. P.||Gibson-Watt, David|
|Braine, Bernard||Curran, Charles||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)|
|Bray, Ronald||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)|
|Brewis, John||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Glyn, Dr. Alan|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj,-Gen. James||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Dean, Paul||Goodhart, Philip|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Goodhew, Victor|
|Bryan, Paul||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Gorst, John|
|Gower, Raymond||McLaren, Martin||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Gray, Hamish||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Green, Alan||McMaster, Stanley||Sandys, Rt. Hn, D.|
|Grieve, Percy||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Scott, Nicholas|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)||Sharples, Richard|
|Grylts, Michael||Maddan, Martin||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Glimmer, Selwyn||Madel, David||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Gurden, Harold||Maginnis, John E.||Simeons, Charles|
|Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Marten, Neil||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Maude, Angus||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Mawby, Ray||Soref, Harold|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Speed, Keith|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Spence, John|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Sproat, Ian|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Stainton, Keith|
|Hastings, Steven||Miscampbell, Norman||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Hawkins, Paul||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)||Steel, David|
|Hay, John||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Moate, Roger||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Heseltine, Michael||Molyneaux, James||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Hicks, Robert||Money, Ernle||Stokes, John|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Monks, Mrs. Connie|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Montgomery, Fergus||Stuttaord, Dr. Tom|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||More, Jasper||Sutcliffe, John|
|Holland, Philip||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Tayiur, sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Hooson, Emlyn||Mudd, David||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Hordern, Peter||Murton, Oscar||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Hornby, Richard||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Tebbit, Norman|
|Hernsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Neave, Airey||Temple, John M.|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Normanton, Tom||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Nott, John||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Onslow, Cranley||Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Tilney, John|
|James, David||Orr, Capt. L. P. S.||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Osborn, John||Trew, Peter|
|Jessel, Toby||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Joplin, Michael||Peel, John||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Percival, Ian||Waddington, David|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Pink, R. Bonner||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Kilfedder, James||Pounder, Rafton||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Kimball, Marcus||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Wall, Patrick|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Walters, Dennis|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Kirk, Peter||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Kitson, Timothy||Raison, Timothy||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Knox, David||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Lambton, Antony||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Wilkinson, John|
|Lane, David||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Renton, Rt. Kn. Sir David||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Le Marchant, Spencer||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Worsley, Marcus|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Ridsdale, Julian||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Longden, Gilbert||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, M.)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Loveridge, John||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|McAdden, Sir Stephen||Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|MacArthur, Ian||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Mr. Hector Monro and|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Rost, Peter||Mr. Tim Fortescue.|
|Abse, Leo||Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James|
|Albu, Austen||Bidwell, Sydney||Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Bishop, E. S.||Cant, R. B.|
|Allen, Scholefield||Blenkinsop, Arthur||Carmichael, Neil|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)|
|Armstrong, Ernest||Booth, Albert||Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara|
|Ashley, Jack||Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Clark, David (Colne Valley)|
|Ashton, Joe||Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Bradley, Tom||Cohen, Stanley|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Coleman, Donald|
|Barnes, Michael||Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Concannon, J. D.|
|Barnett, Joel||Buchan, Norman||Conlan, Bernard|
|Beaney, Alan||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Corbet, Mrs. Freda|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pendry, Tom|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Pentland, Norman|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||John, Brynmror||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Dalyell, Tam||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Prescott, John|
|Davidson, Arthur||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Probert, Arthur|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Rankin, John|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Deakins, Eric||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Delargy, H.J.||Judd, Frank||Richard, Ivor|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Kaufman, Gerald||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Dempsey, James||Kerr, Russell||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Doig, Peter||Kinnock, Neil||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Lamond, James||Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n & R'dnor)(|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Latham, Arthur||Roper, John|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Lawson, George||Rose, Paul B.|
|Driberg, Tom||Leadbitter, Ted||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Duffy, A. E, P.||Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Dunn, James A.||Leonard, Dick||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Dunnett, Jack||Lestor, Miss Joan||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N' c' tle-u-Tyne)|
|Eadie, Alex||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Short, Rt. Mrs.Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham. N.)||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Silverman, Julius|
|Ellis, Tom||Lomas, Kenneth||Skinner, Dennis|
|English, Michael||Loughlin, Charles||Small, William|
|Evans, Fred||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Spearing, Nigel|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||McBride, Neil||Stallard, A. W.|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||McCartney, Hugh||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||McElhone, Frank||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Foot, Michael||Mackenzie, Gregor||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Forrester, John||Mackie, John||Strang, Gavin|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Maclennan, Robert||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Freeson, Reginald||McNamara, J. Kevin||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Swain, Thomas|
|Garrett, W. E.||MacPherson, Malcolm||Taverne, Dick|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|Ginsburg, David||Marquand, David||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Golding, John||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Thomson, R. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Meacher, Michael||Tinn, James|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Torney, Tom|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Mendelson, John||Tuck, Raphael|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Millan, Bruce||Varley, Eric G.|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Molloy, William||Wallace, George|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Watkins, David|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Weitzman, David|
|Hardy, Peter||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Moyle, Roland||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Hattersley, Roy||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Murray, Ronald King||Whitlock, William|
|Heffer, Erie S.||Ogden, Eric||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Horam, John||O'Halloran, Michael||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||O'Malley, Brian||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Huckfietd, Leslie||Oram, Bert||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Orbach, Maurice||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Orme, Stanley||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Oswald, Thomas||Woof, Robert|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Palmer, Arthur|
|Hunter, Adam||Parker, John (Dagenham)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Mr. Joseph Harper and|
|Janner, Greville||Pavitt, Laurie||Mr. William Hamling.|
|Jay, Rt. Hon. Douglas|
§ Mr. Heffer
On a point of order. As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, we are labouring under a guillotine. The debate which has just concluded lasted 1 hour and 25 minutes. Of that time, Government spokesmen took 27 minutes and 24 minutes to open and close the debate, and, with the speeches of two hon. Members on the back benches opposite, the Government side took 1 hour and 1574 1 minute of the total of 1 hour and 25 minutes. In view of that, I appeal through you to the Front Bench opposite—
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. I think that the House will be aware of the point that the hon. Gentleman is trying to make. He will be aware that it is not a point of order for the Chair. I am sure that his point will be taken.
§ Mr. R. Carr
Since the hon. Gentleman was allowed to get as far as he did, perhaps I might be allowed to remind the House that, in my reply, I did nothing but answer specific questions which had been raised in the debate. It took a long time, because I was interrupted on several occasions, and I thought that it was courteous to give way to hon. Members who wished to interrupt me.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
Order. All this goes to prove that leniency on the part of the Chair always results in delay. Mr. Orme.
Mr. Deputy Speaker
I understand that it is the wish of the House to discuss with it Amendment (xxxx), in line 8, leave out '(or should continue to be so recognised)'; and Amendment (zzzz), in line 17, after 'unions', insert or one or more independent organisations of workers'.
§ Mr. Orme
This Amendment carries a stage further the debate that we have just concluded. In effect, it removes the right of the Secretary of State, an ememployer or a union to make an application to the Industrial Court to recognise a sole bargaining agent if an agreement on it exists at the present time.
As I understood the Consultative Document and the speeches made at the time here and elsewhere, the Government's original intention was to work towards a sole bargaining agent in a plant. That was their idealistic approach. The purpose was to cut down the number of unions with bargaining power. The Government have found that, although many parts of the Bill are contradictory, this provision really is unworkable.
We have already pointed out that in a single engineering plant there can be the A.U.E.W. with skilled engineering workers, the Transport and General Workers' Union with semi-skilled or unskilled workers, and the A.S.T.M.S. with a membership of technical and supervisory staff. The original idea was that for all those unions, and perhaps others, 1576 there should be a sole bargaining agent. That is now recognised to be not possible and, as the Minister said, we shall be able to have two or more "sole" bargaining agents. All this is to be governed through the Industrial Court and administered by the Commission on Industrial Relations.
We as trade unionists say that this is absolute nonsense, and that the issue of collective bargaining and consultation in industry is a matter for discussion and voluntary agreement between unions and employers. We believe that it is quite ridiculous to have a situation in which, when there is an agreement between unions and the employer in a plant, the employer can himself, or jointly with a union which was not then a party to that agreement, seek in the Industrial Court to overturn the current agreement and create an entirely different sole bargaining agent.
There was a good deal of discussion between the Minister and my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) about the company union. It is worth noting that the Minister said: "We have tried to close this door. The company union would be consulted though the C.I.R. would not have to take it into account, because of the Amendments made to Clause 46." The Minister tells us, "It does not matter whether the union is an organisation of workers, or a registered independent union or a company union; it must be taken into account. It cannot go away; we must recognise it."
It is odd that the Government should take this attitude, because if we look at subsection (2) it says:Subject to the next following subsection, an application under this section relating to the employees of one or more employers may be made—(a) by one or more trade unions".That does not say "organisation of workers." We come back to what is a registered trade union? This is very important. The right hon. Gentleman said that the Government deliberately left this open so that an organisation of workers could be consulted and that that was justifiable, whether it be a registered trade union, an independent organisation or a company union.
When we look at Clause 52 we see that where it suits the Government only 1577 registered trade unions are to be consulted. There are different standards in different parts of the Bill to suit the Government's philosophy. It is absolutely contradictory; if they want a registered trade union they put that in; when they want to give preference to a non-registered union they leave others out, and if they want to bring in a company union they give power for that union to be consulted.
There will be conflict, with unions striving for recognition, and employers will try to get sole bargaining agencies from the militant union to the quasi-company union or the non-militant union. We all know of the problems there have been over recognition in the trade union movement. We know of the recent difficulties in the steel industry, and we recall the demarcation dispute in the shipbuilding industry some years ago. These have been ironed out without any industrial court, not by compulsion but by the good sense of the trade unions which, in ironing them out, have brought about better industrial relations, removing many of the frictions within industry. At the same time the T.U.C. has reduced the number of affiliated unions, through amalgamations, from something like 184 to 150, with amalgamations still going on.
I can remember the Secretary of State when he was in Opposition time and again criticising the proliferation of unions, saying that we needed fewer unions so that negotiations could be conducted in a more organised way. I could quote chapter and verse from HANSARD if necessary. When he gets into office he produces a Bill which will create strife on the factory floor and increase competitiveness. It will assist those unions bargaining on militancy, and in other cases it will assist those unions which will try to get recognition and which will be less militant.
These Amendments seek to delete the worst aspects, but we do not accept any of this Clause or its philosophy. It would be absolutely outrageous to allow unions which have come to proper collective bargaining arrangements on a freely negotiated basis to be dragged before the Industrial Court because a dispute may have arisen in a factory and a small group of workers in a small union are in a position, collectively with the employer, to ask the C.I.R. to rewrite the 1578 collective bargaining arrangements in that plant. Will that lead to good industrial relations? Is that the sort of situation which the Secretary of State wants?
Today at the Dorchester lunch the Secretary of State talked about misrepresentation and the industrial action taking place at the moment. Does he think that the proposals in the Bill will improve industrial relations? No. He hopes that by all this paraphernalia and all the obstacles and hoops which people w 11 be forced to jump through he will deter trade unionism, shop stewards and organisation on the shop floor.
This Clause, rather than improving the situation, makes it worse. To try to rewrite a bad Clause and a bad policy in the way proposed by the Solicitor-General and the Secretary of State does not help the situation. I therefore ask my hon. Friends to support the principles behind the Amendments.
§ Mr. R. Carr
The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) has enlarged the moving of his Amendments into one more speech of general principle and, by implication, has once more invited me to reply. This is the difficulty in which I constantly find myself. The hon. Gentleman knows that he has raised a number of points which call for a long speech in reply. If I make a long speech I am in trouble, and if I do not I am accused of not replying to the debate.
A point which the hon. Gentleman seems constantly to forget is that we are talking about machinery to resolve disputes. We are not talking about machinery for the general conduct of good industrial relations day by day. Let the general conduct of good relations day by day take place in the way recommended by the hon. Gentleman. If it does not throw up insoluble disputes, this machinery need never be used. Its purpose is to deal with disputes which fail to be resolved by the type of procedures and methods which the hon. Member advocates. As long as the methods he advocates continue to produce the results and do not throw up disputes which cannot be resolved, all will be fine and we shall all be happy.
Two of the Amendments have the same purpose. They seek to prevent the C.I.R., when looking into a recognition dispute, from considering whether any of 1579 the unions already recognised should continue to be recognised. It would be nonsense to get the Commission to look into a situation in which by definition there is a dispute or there is not harmony and to prevent it from looking at unions which are there already. Would the white-collar workers dispute in the steel industry have been resolved by tying the hands of the Commission and saying, "The one thing you cannot do is to consider the position of any union which is recognised?"
Nobody knew that better than the right hon. Lady the Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle), who said clearly in her White Paper:In some cases the C.I.R. may only be able to produce a durable solution by recommending the exclusion of one or more unions from recognition.That is what she felt when she was in my position. The overwhelming majority of hon. Members opposite—I except those who did not agree with their Government on this matter—have no right to vote for the Amendment, as presumably they will.
The second separate Amendment concerns subsection (2). It wishes the privilege of application for this machinery to be granted to an independent organisation of workers as well as to registered trade unions. In spite of what has been said, this is a principle on which we have been completely consistent throughout, that the principle of access to the new machineries and procedures which we are providing is only for trade unions, for registered bodies. When it comes to the question of who should be consulted, whose views should be taken into account, then an unregistered body should certainly be considered, and we have said so. But as for the right to use the machinery, it is our consistent view that this and the other machineries should he limited to a registered trade union, and I must ask the House to reject the Amendment.
§ Mr. Ted Fletcher
The Secretary of State's reply was most unsatisfactory. He has not answered directly the points raised by my hon. Friend.
§ Mr. Fletcher
I ask the right hon. Gentleman to consider the position that will arise where agreements on recognition already exist. Let us get away from legal jargon and look at the situation in a factory where there is a company union or staff association, with 50 per cent. of the clerical staff being its members and the other half being in a trade union that has an agreement with the employers. It is possible under the Clause for a trade union—which would not in this case make an application—the employers or the Secretary of State to ask for bargaining rights for the company union or staff association. That cannot be denied. When we questioned the right hon. Gentleman closely about this he agreed that the Secretary of State would consult the staff association or the company union, but they would not be recognised in the last analysis unless they severed their connection with management—that is, there was no direct financial contribution. But at a time when he suggests that we have too many unions he is creating a situation in which new unions could arise. Our point with reference to the American system was that we are likely to have unions arising in dozens of establishments if the provision goes through. It seems to me inconceivable that in this situation the Government can press the Clause.
The Secretary of State says that it is a more flexible way of rewriting Clause 42. But the matter becomes more complex every time we listen to him or his hon. and learned Friend.
The trade union movement has resolved thousands of disputes on recognition between unions through its own Bridlington Agreement. This is done in an entirely voluntary way. The decisions are not agreeable to some unions, but they recognise that they belong to the trade union movement and accept any advice given them by the T.U.C.
We may have a situation—I want the Secretary of State to listen to this, because this is another weakness in his new Clause—where there is a joint negotiating committee in a factory, a joint negotiating committee composed of a dozen individual unions, and this joint negotiating committee may negotiate on 1581 questions which have an overall effect on the employees, on questions affecting holidays, overtime payments, general working conditions, safety in the factory, and so on. Moreover, there may be 12 different procedural agreements affecting each individual union.
So we ask, what does the Secretary of State mean by "bargaining rights"? Under this new Clause we may have a situation where staff unions are given opportunities of becoming bargaining units, and those staff associations may evolve into trade unions in competition with existing trade unions but will not be affilated to the T.U.C. because the T.U.C. will not take them under its umbrella because it is catering for the same type of employees as the existing unions. In consequence, we shall find a proliferation of unions.
§ Mr. R. Carr
The hon. Gentleman is forgetting that these are all matters for the C.I.R. to consider and to take into account and to make recommendations about. These are exactly the points which the C.I.R. is there to consider and to make sensible recommendations about in the interests of good, orderly, voluntary industrial relations.
§ Mr. Fletcher
I am quite aware of that. I am saying that the application must be initiated either by the Secretary of State or a trade union or an employer, and I am saying that this machinery and this new Clause will be utilised by the employers for starting their own company trade unions. That is the point I am making. The Secretary of States does not seem to be convinced that this could possibly happen, but I know from my own experience that this does actually happen. There are many industries in which employers encourage staff associations, and unscrupulous employers do all they can to encourage staffs—clerical workers, foremen, and executives—to make breakaway unions, and they encourage their staffs to join company unions. I am saying that under this new Clause which the Secretary of State is proposing those employers will encourage their staff associations to get the same status as trade unions.
In these circumstances I hope that the House will accept the Amendment or reject the new Clause.
§ Mr. Heffer
Before we proceed any further, let me say that the admonition from this side of the House in relation to length of speeches in the last debate should not have led the right hon. Gentleman to be so brief as not to answer any of the points which were made by my hon. Friends.
§ Mr. Heffer
All we ask is that Government Front Bench speakers, particularly when making opening speeches, should keep their speeches to reasonable length. That is all. If they will look through the OFFICIAL REPORT of the speeches on this Bill they will find that the Opposition Front Bench speakers have consistently kept to a reasonable time [Interruption.] I am not filibustering, I am just getting the record straight. We are under the guillotine, and we have been restricted because of this guillotine situation. We have not been able to have a proper discussion on some of the most fundamental Clauses because of the guillotine. Yet today the right hon. Gentleman wonders why workers go on strike. I can tell him. It is the actions of the Government which are responsible for the outburst of industrial activity by the workers. If there is an upsurge of industrial activity, the responsibility lies firmly at the door of the Government and in particular of the right hon. Gentleman—
§ The Solicitor-General
Will the hon. Gentleman acknowledge one fact and answer one question? If he is talking about the length and frequency of speeches, he may recollect that he made 22 speeches in Committee—more than any other hon. Member on the Opposition side save the right hon. Member for Blackburn (Mrs. Castle)—at an average length of 23 column-inches per speech. Since the hon. Gentleman is accusing my right hon. Friend of being responsible for the industrial action now taking place, and in particular that taking place tomorrow, I ask the hon. Gentleman to say, one way or the other, whether he endorses the somewhat equivocal repudiation of his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition of tomorrow's strike. Where does the hon. Gentleman stand?
§ Mr. Heffer
The first point I should like to make is on the length of the hon. 1583 and learned Gentleman's intervention—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] Every-one knows that in replying to or opening a debate I have spoken for only five or seven minutes, quite deliberately, so that my hon. Friends may make a contribution.
My main argument is that it is all very well the right hon. Gentleman going out into the country and being concerned about the strike, but the full responsibility for that strike rests on the Government and on the right hon. Gentleman—
§ Mr. Heffer
It is the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends who, by curtailing democratic discussion on the Bill, are basically responsible for the frustration of the workers about the Bill. Do not let us have any hypocritical statements by the right hon. Gentleman on this matter. As I said yesterday, by the mere introduction of the Bill the right hon. Gentleman has created an industrial relations situation not known since before the second world war, and that is basically the responsibility of the Government.
§ Mr. R. Carr
Since the hon. Gentleman accuses me of a number of things, above all of being the cause of tomorrow's strike, will he say whether or not he agrees with his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition in condemning it, or does he support it? Let us have a clear "Yes" or "No" answer to that.
§ Mr. Heffer
Exactly. The right hon. Gentleman is in the dock, not myself. The position is quite clear—[Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman—[Interruption.]
§ Mr. Heffer
Exactly. But it has something to do with the Amendment in the 1584 sense that right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite, by their proopsals, are basically responsible, I repeat, for the present industrial unrest.
§ Mr. Heffer
I should not make statements of that kind if I were the hon. and learned Gentleman, especially to me. The basic point is that right hon. Gentlemen will go out into the country constantly attacking workers who take industrial action and never accepting responsibility for it. It is the old trick, the old smear tactic, which we are not prepared to accept.
§ Mr. Norman Atkinson (Tottenham)
Does my hon. Friend agree with myself and the majority of hon. Members on this side of the House that we shall, like good democrats, endorse whatever decision is taken by the T.U.C. tomorrow?
§ Mr. Heffer
I understand that tomorrow's dispute is official. It has been called by the Amalgamated Engineering Union and by the shipbuilding unions. It is also officially backed by the lay executive of the Transport and General Workers' Union. These decisions were arrived at, as I understand it, on the basis of democratic action—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—and democratic machinery within the trade union movement.
I do not expect right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite to accept a position with which they do not agree. That is understandable. But I repeat my charge that if there is an outburst of activity by workers in this country the right hon. Gentleman is basically responsible for it. —[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] It is no use the right hon. Gentleman trying to duck it or get away from it. The right hon. Gentleman is responsible, his hon. Friend is responsible, and his hon. Friend is responsible, and his supporters are responsible for the present industrial unrest.
1585 It is interesting to note that when people who support the Conservative Party take what might be considered political action there is no criticism by hon. Gentlemen opposite. I did not hear any hon. Gentleman opposite complain about the blocking of the roads by the farmers when they were involved in their dispute. No one said that that was irresponsible action and ought not to have taken place. Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite have a double standard in these matters—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] I am now going to deal with the points which have been raised—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."] My hon. Friend, in his excellent opening speech, made it quite clear that the Amendment is designed to do two things. First, it is designed to ensure that those trade unions which already have a bargaining agency, or are themselves the bargaining agents, should continue and that there is no necessity for them to come within the Clause. As my hon. Friend put it, our
§ object is to delete the worst aspects of the Clause.
§ The second important point is that trade unions which are not registered should have the right to make an application. Despite what the hon. Gentleman says, members of the T.U.C. will be deciding tomorrow whether to register under the Bill. Possibly the majority, perhaps all, will refuse to register. These bona fide unions, to which the working men and women of this country belong, have the right to continue to be the bargaining agents in their industries. But the hon. Gentleman said that they could have the so-called privileges of the Bill only if they register. On that basis, I ask my hon. and right hon. Friends to support these Amendments.
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 242, Noes 283.1589
|Division No. 253.]||AYES||[11.46 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Dalyell, Tam||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)|
|Albu, Austen||Davidson, Arthur||Hardy, Peter|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Davies, Dcnzil (Llanelly)||Harper, Joseph|
|Allen, Scholefield||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, B.)||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith|
|Ashton, Joe||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Hattersley, Roy|
|Atkinson, Norman||Dsakins, Eric||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Heffer, Eric S.|
|Barnes, Michael||Delargy, H. J.||Horam, John|
|Barnett, Joel||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)|
|Beaney, Alan||Dempsey, Junes||Huckfield, Leslie|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Doig, Peter||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Dormand, J. D.||Hughes, Mark (Durham)|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)|
|Bishop, E. S.||Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Hughes, Roy (Newport)|
|Blenldnsop, Arthur||Driberg, Tom||Hunter, Adam|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Duffy A. E. P.||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Booth, Albert||Dunn James A||Janner, Greville|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Dunnett, Jack||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Eadie, Alex||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b,n & St. P' cras, S.)|
|Bradley, Tom||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.)||Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Ellis, Tom||John, Brynmor|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||English, Michael||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)|
|Buchan, Norman||Evans, Fred||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B,ham, Ladywood)||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Jones, Dan (Burnley)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham. S.)|
|Cant, R. B||Foot, Michael||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Forrester, John||Jones, T. Alee (Rhondda, W.)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Fraser, John (Norwood)||Judd, Frank|
|Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara||Freeson, Reginald||Kaufman, Gerald|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Galpern, Sir Myer||Kerr, Russell|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Garrett, W. E.||Kinnock, Nell|
|Cohen, Stanley||Gilbert, Dr. John||Lamond, James|
|Coleman, Donald||Ginsburg, David||Latham, Arthur|
|Concannon, J. D.||Golding, John||Lawson, George|
|Conlan, Bernard||Gordon, Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Gourlay, Harry||Leonard, Dick|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Gram, John D. (Islington, E.)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold|
|Cronin, John||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Grossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Hamling, William||Louglin, Charles|
|Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Palmer, Arthur||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|McBride, Neil||Pavitt, Laurie||Strang, Gavin|
|McCartney, Hugh||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|McElhone, Frank||Pendry, Tom||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Mackenzie, Gregor||Pentland, Norman||Swain, Thomas|
|Mackie, John||Perry, Ernest G.||Taverne, Dick|
|Maclennan, Robert||Prescott, John||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)|
|McNamara, J. Kevin||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|MacPherson, Malcolm||Price, William (Rugby)||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Probert, Arthur||Tinn, James|
|Marquand, David||Rankin, John||Torney, Tom|
|Marsh, Rt. Hn. Richard||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)||Tuck, Raphael|
|Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Meacher, Michael||Rhodes, Geoffrey||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Richard, Ivor||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Mendelson, John||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)||Wallace, George|
|Millan, Bruce||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)||Watkins, David|
|Miller, Dr. M. S.||Robertson, John (Paisley)||Weitzman, David|
|Milne, Edward (Blyth)||Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'cn &,R'dnor)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Molloy, William||Roper, John||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Rose, Paul B.||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Whitlock, William|
|Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Moyle, Roland||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Short, Mrs. Renee (W'hampton, N.E.)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Murray, Ronald King||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Ogden, Eric||Silverman, Julius||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|O'Halloran, Michael||Skinner, Dennis||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|O'Malley, Brian||Small, William||Woof, Robert|
|Oram, Bert||Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)|
|Orbach, Maurice||Spearing, Nigel||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Orme, Stanley||Spriggs, Leslie||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Oswald, Thomas||Stallard, A. W.||Mr. Ernest Armstrong.|
|Adley, Robert||Cooke, Robert||Goodhart, Philip|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Coombs, Derek||Goodhew, Victor|
|Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Cooper, A. E.||Gorst, John|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Gower, Raymond|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Cormack, Patrick||Gray, Hamish|
|Astor, John||Costain, A. P.||Green, Alan|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Critchley, Julian||Grieve, Percy|
|Awdry, Daniel||Crouch, David||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Crowder, F. P.||Grylls, Michael|
|Balniel, Lord||Curran, Charles||Gummer, Selwyn|
|Batsford, Brian||Dalkeith, Earl of||Gurden, Harold|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)|
|Bell, Ronald||di'Avigdor-Goldemid, Maj.-Gen. James||Hall, John (Wycombe)|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Dean, Paul||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.|
|Benyon, W.||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Hamilton, Michael (Satisbury)|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Digby, Simon Wingfield||Hannam, John (Exeter)|
|Biffen, John||Dlxon, Piers||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere|
|Blaker, Peter||Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Haselhurst, Alan|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||Hasting, Stephen|
|Body, Richard||Dykes, Hugh||Hawkins, Paul|
|Boscawen, Robert||Eden, Sir John||Hayhoe, Barney|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Heseltine, Michael|
|Boyd-Carpenter Rt. Hn. John||Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Hicks, Robert|
|Braine, Bernard||Emery, Peter||Higgins, Terence L.|
|Bray, Ronald||Eyre, Reginald||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)|
|Brewis, John||Farr, John||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Holland, Philip|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Fidler, Michael||Holt, Miss Mary|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Hooson, Emiyn.|
|Bryan, Paul||Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Hordern, Peter|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)||Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Hornby, Richard|
|Buck, Antony||Fookes, Miss Janet||Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Fortescue, Tim||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Foster, Sir John||Howell, David (Guildford)|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)||Fowler, Norman||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)|
|Carlisle, Mark||Fox, Marcus||Hutchison, Michael Clark|
|Carr, Rt Hn. Robert||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (st'fford & Stone)||Iremonger, T. L.|
|Chapman, Sydney||Fry, Peter||James, David|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Gardner, Edward||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Gibson-Watt, David||Jessel, Toby|
|Clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)|
|Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)|
|Clegg, Walter||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Jopling, Michael|
|Cockeram, Eric||Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.||Spence, John|
|Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Sproat, Iain|
|Kershaw, Anthony||Mudd, David||Stainton, Keith|
|Kilfedder, James||Murton, Oscar||Stanbrook, Ivor|
|Kimball, Marcus||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Steel, David|
|King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Neave, Airey||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Kinsey, J. R.||Normanton, Tom||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Kirk, Peter||Nott, John||Stokes, John|
|Kitson, Timothy||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Stuttaford, Dr. Tom|
|Knight, Mrs. Jill||Osborn, John||Sutcliffe, John|
|Knox, David||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||Tapsell, Peter|
|Lambton, Antony||Page, John (Harrow, W.)||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Lane, David||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Langford-Holt, Sir John||Peel, John||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Percival, Ian||Tebbit, Norman|
|Le Merchant, Spencer||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Temple, John M.|
|Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Pink, R. Bonner||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Pounder, Rafton||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Longden, Gilbert||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Loveridge, John||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Tilney, John|
|MacArthur, Ian||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|McCrindle, R. A.||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis||Trew, Peter|
|McLaren, Martin||Quennell, Miss J. M.||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Raison, Timothy||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|McMaster, Stanley||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|McNair-Wilson, Michael||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)||Waddington, David|
|McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Rees, Peter (Dover)||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Maddan, Martin||Rees-Davies, W. R.||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Madel, David||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Maginnis, John E.||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon||Wall, Patrick|
|Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas||Walters, Dennis|
|Marten, Neil||Ridsdale, Julian||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Maude, Angus||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Mawby, Ray||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Rost, Peter||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Meyer, Sir Anthony||Russell, Sir Ronald||Wilkinson, John|
|Mills, Peter (Torrington)||St. John-Stevas, Norman||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Scott, Nicholas||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Miscampbell, Norman||Scott-Hopkins, James||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdoenshire, W.)||Sharples, Richard||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)||Worsley, Marcus|
|Moats, Roger||Shelton, William (Clapham)||Wylic, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Molyneaux, James||Simeons, Charles||Younger, Hn. George|
|Money, Ernie||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Monks, Mrs. Connie||Skeet, T. H. H.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Monro, Hector||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)||Mr. Bernard Weatherill and|
|Montgomery, Fergus||Soref, Harold||Mr. Keith Speed.|
Amendment (zzzz) proposed to the proposed Clause, in line 17, after 'unions' insert:
'or one or more independent organizations of workers'.—[Mrs. Castle.]
§ Question put, That the Amendment be made to the proposed Clause:—
§ The House divided: Ayes 240, Noes 282.1593
|Division No. 254.]||AYES||[11.58 p.m.|
|Abse, Leo||Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Albu, Austen||Buchan, Norman||Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Dalyell, Tam|
|Allen, Scholefield||Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Davidson, Arthur|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)|
|Ashton, Joe||Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Cant, R. B.||Davies, Ifor (Gower)|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Carmichael, Neil||Davis, Clinton (Hackney, G.)|
|Barnes, Michael||Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)||Deakins, Eric|
|Barnett, Joel||Castle, Rt. Hn, Barbara||de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Delargy, H. J.|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Cohen, Stanley||Dempsey, James|
|Bishop, E. S.||Coleman, Donald||Doig, Peter|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Concannon, J. D.||Dormand, J. D.|
|Booth, Albert||Conian, Bernard||Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)|
|Bottomiey, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Douglas-Mann, Bruce|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Driberg, Tom|
|Bradley, Tom||Crawshaw, Richard||Duffy, A. E. P.|
|Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne. W.)||Cronin, John||Dunnett, Jack|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Eadle, Alex|
|Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Kinnock, Neil||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Edwards, William (Merioneth)||Lamond, James||Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Ellis, Tom||Latham, Arthur||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|English, Michael||Lawson, George||Richard, Ivor|
|Evans, Fred||Leadbitter, Ted||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Leonard, Dick||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Lestor, Miss Joan||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold||Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n&R'dnor)|
|Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)||Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)|
|Foot, Michael||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)||Roper, John|
|Forrester, John||Lomas, Kenneth||Rose, Paul B.|
|Fraser, John (Norwood)||Loughlin, Charles||Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)|
|Freeson, Reginald||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)||Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)|
|Galpern, Sir Myer||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)||Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)|
|Garrett, W. E.||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson||Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N 'c'tle-u-Tyne)|
|Gilbert, Dr. John||McBride, Neil||Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)|
|Ginsburg, David||McCartney, Hugh||Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)|
|Golding, John||McElhone, Frank||Silverman, Julius|
|Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||Mackenzie, Gregor||Skinner, Dennis|
|Gourlay, Harry||Mackie, John||Small, William|
|Grant, George (Morpeth)||Maclennan, Robert||Smith, John (Lanarkshire)|
|Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||McNamara, J. Kevin||Spearing, Nigel|
|Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Macpherson, Malcolm||Spriggs, Leslie|
|Griffiths, Wiff (Exchange)||Mallaiieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)||Stalfard, A. W.|
|Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Marquand, David||Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)|
|Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy||Stoddart, David (Swindon)|
|Hamling, William||Meacher, Michael||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John|
|Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert||Strang, Gavin|
|Hardy, Peter||Mendelson, John||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.|
|Harper, Joseph||Millan, Bruce||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley|
|Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Miller, Dr. M. S.||Swain, Thomas|
|Hart, Rt. Hn. Judit||Molloy, William||Thomas. Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff. W.)|
|Hattersley, Roy||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)|
|Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)||Thomson, Rt, Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)|
|Heffer, Eric S.||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)||Tinn, James|
|Horam, John||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)||Torney, Tom|
|Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Moyle, Roland||Tuck, Raphael|
|Huckfield, Leslie||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Varley, Eric G.|
|Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||Murray, Ronald King||Wainwright, Edwin|
|Hughes, Mark (Durham)||Ogden, Eric||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)|
|Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||O'Halloran, Michael||Wallace, George|
|Hughes, Roy (Newport)||O'Malley, Brian||Watkins, David|
|Hunter, Adam||Oram, Bert||Weinman, David|
|Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)|
|Janner, Greville||Orbach, Maurice||Wellbeloved, James|
|Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Orme, Stanley||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Oswald, Thomas||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Palmer, Arthur||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Parker, John (Dagenham)||Whitlock, William|
|John, Brynmor||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Pavitt, Laurie||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Pendry, Tom||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Pentland, Norman||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Perry, Ernest G.||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Prescott, John||Woof, Robert|
|Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Price, William (Rugby)||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Judd, Frank||Probert, Arthur||Mr. Alan Fitch and|
|Kaufman, Gerald||Rankin, John||Mr. Ernest Armstrong.|
|Adley, Robert||Body, Richard||Churchill, W. S.|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Boscawen, Robert||Clark, William (Surrey, E.)|
|Allason, James (Heme) Hempstead)||Bossom, Sir Clive||Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Cockeram, Eric|
|Archer, Jeffry (Louth)||Braine, Bernard||Cooke, Robert|
|Astor, John||Bray, Ronald||Coombs, Derek|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Brewis, John||Cooper, A. E.|
|Awdry, Daniel||Brinton, Sir Tatton||Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Cormack, Patrick|
|Balniel, Lord||Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Costain, A. P.|
|Batsford, Brian||Bryan, Paul||Critchley, Julian|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton||Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N & M)||Crouch, David|
|Bell, Ronald||Buck, Antony||Crowder, F. P.|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Bullus, Sir Eric||Curran, Charles|
|Benyon, W.||Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Dalkeith, Earl of|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Campbell, Rt.Hn.G. (Moray & Nairn)||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry|
|Biffen, John||Carlisle, Mark||d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj-Gen. James|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Dean, Paul|
|Blaker, Peter||Chapman, Sydney||Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)||Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Digby, Simon Wingfield|
|Dixon, Piers||Kershaw, Anthony||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||Kilfedder, James||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Kimball, Marcus||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Dykes, Hugh||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Eden, Sir John||Kinsey, J. R.||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Kirk, Peter||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Kitson, Timothy||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Emery, Peter||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|Eyre, Reginald||Knox, David||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Farr, John||Lambton, Antony||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Lane, David||Rost, Peter|
|Fidler, Michael||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Le Marchant, Spencer||Scott, Nicholas|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Sharples, Richard|
|Fortescue, Tim||Longden, Gilbert||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Foster, Sir John||Loveridge, John||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Fowler, Norman||MacArthur, Ian||Simeon, Charles|
|Fox, Marcus||McCrindle, R. A.||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||McLaren, Martin||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Fry, Peter||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Gardner, Edward||McMaster, Stanley||Soref, Harold|
|Gibson-Watt, David||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)||Spence, John|
|Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||McNair-Wilson, Michael||Sproat, Iain|
|Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)||Stainton, Keith|
|Glyn, Dr. Alan||Madel, David||Steel, David|
|Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B.||Maginnis, John E.||Stewart-Smith, D. G. (Belper)|
|Goodhart, Philip||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest||Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)|
|Goodhew, Victor||Marten, Neil||Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.|
|Gorst, John||Maude, Angus||Stokes, John|
|Gower, Raymond||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald||Stokes, John|
|Gray Hamish||Mawby, Ray||Sutcliffe, John|
|Green, Alan||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.||Tapsell, Peter|
|Grieve, Percy||Meyer, Sir Anthony||Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)|
|Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Mills, Peter (Torrington)||Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)|
|Gummer, Selwyn||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)||Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)|
|Gurden, Harold||Miscampbell, Norman||Tebbit, Norman|
|Half, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C(Aberdeenshir, W)||Temple, John M.|
|Hall, John (Wycombe)||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret|
|Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Moats, Roger||Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)|
|Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Molyneaux, James||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)|
|Hannam, John (Exeter)||Money, Ernie||Tilney, John|
|Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||Monks, Mrs. Connie||Trafford, Dr. Anthony|
|Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Monro, Hector||Trew, Peter|
|Haselhurst, Alan||Montgomery, Fergus||Tugendhat, Christopher|
|Hastings, Stephen||More, Jasper||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.|
|Hawkins, Paul||Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard|
|Hayhoe, Barney||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)||Vickers, Dame Joan|
|Heseltine Michael||Mudd, David||Waddington, David|
|Hicks, Robert||Murton, Oscar||Walder, David (Clitheroe)|
|Higgins, Terence L.||Nabarro, Sir Gerald||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)|
|Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Neave, Airey||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael||Wall Patrick|
|Holland, Philip||Normanton, Tom||Walters, Dennis|
|Holt, Miss Mary||Nott, John||Ward, Dame Irene|
|Hcoson, Emlyn||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Hordern, Peter||Osborn, John||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Hornby, Richard||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Hornsby-Smith, Rt. Hn. DamePatricia||Page John, (Harrow, W.)||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Parkinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Howell, David (Guildford)||Peel, John||Wilkinson, John|
|Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Percival, Ian||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Hutchison, Michael Clark||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John||Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard|
|Iremonger, T. L.||Pink, R. Bonner||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|James, David||Pounder, Rafton||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch||Worstey, Marcus|
|Jcssel, Toby||Price, David (Eastleigh)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Proudfoot, Wilfred||Younger, Hn. George|
|Jones, Arthur (Northants, S)||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Jopling, Michael||Quennell, Miss J. M.||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Raison, Timothy||Mr. Walter Clegg and|
|Kaberry, Sir Donald||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James||Mr. Keith Speed.|
|Kellett, Mrs. Elaine|
§ It being after Twelve o'clock, Mr. SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Standing Order No. 43 (Business Committee) and the Orders [25th January and 15th March], to put forthwith the Question 1594 necessary to complete the proceedings on the new Clause (Application to Industrial Court for reference as to recognition of sole bargaining agent).1595
§ Question put, That the Clause be added to the Bill:—1596
§ The House divided: Ayes 281, Noes 239.1599
|Division No. 255.]||AYES||[12.8 a.m.|
|Adley, Robert||Fowler, Norman||Maclean, Sir Fitzroy|
|Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)||Fox, Marcus||McMaster, Stanley|
|Allison, James (Hemel Hempstead)||Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone)||Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham)|
|Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian||Fry, Peter||McNair-Wilson, Michael|
|Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)||Gardner, Edward||McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest)|
|Astor, John||Gibson-Watt, David||Maddan, Martin|
|Atkins, Humphrey||Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)||Madel, David|
|Awdry, Daniel||Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)||Maginnis, John E.|
|Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)||Glyn, Dr. Alan||Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest|
|Batsford, Brian||Godber, Rt. Hn. J, B.||Marten, Neil|
|Beamish, Col. Sir Tuftcn||Goodhart, Philip||Maude, Angus|
|Bell, Ronald||Goodhew, Victor||Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald|
|Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)||Gorst, John||Mawby, Ray|
|Benyon, W.||Gower, Raymond||Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.|
|Berry, Hn. Anthony||Gray, Hamish||Meyer, Sir Anthony|
|Biffen, John||Green, Alan||Mills, Peter (Torrington)|
|Biggs-Davison, John||Grieve, Percy||Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)|
|Blaker, Peter||Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)||Miscampbell, Norman|
|Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S. W.)||Grylls, Michael||Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C. (Aberdeenshire, W)|
|Body, Richard||Gummer, Selwyn||Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)|
|Boecawen, Robert||Gurden, Harold||Moate, Roger|
|Bossom, Sir Clive||Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley)||Molyneaux, James|
|Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hn. John||Hall, John (Wycombe)||Money, Ernle|
|Braine, Bernard||Hall-Davis, A. G. F.||Monks, Mrs. Connie|
|Bray, Ronald||Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)||Monro, Hector|
|Brewis, John||Hannam, John (Exeter)||Montgomery, Fergus|
|Brinton, Sir Tatton||Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)||More, Jasper|
|Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher||Harvey, Sir Arthur Vere||Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.|
|Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)||Haselhurst, Alan||Morrison, Charles (Devizes)|
|Bryan, Paul||Hastings, Stephen||Mudd, David|
|Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus, N & M)||Hayhoe, Barney||Murton, Oscar|
|Buck, Antony||Heseltine, Michael|
|Bullus, Sir Eric||Hicks, Robert||Nabarro, Sir Gerald|
|Butler, Adam (Bosworth)||Higgins, Terence L.||Neave, Airey|
|Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)||Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)||Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael|
|Carlisle, Mark||Hill, James (Southampton, Test)||Normanton, Tom|
|Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert||Holland, Philip||Nott, John|
|Chapman, Sydney||Holt, Miss Mary||Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally|
|Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher||Hooson, Emlyn||Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)|
|Churchill, W. S.||Hordern, Peter||Page, John (Harrow, W.)|
|clark, William (Surrey, E.)||Hornby, Richard||ParKinson, Cecil (Enfield, W.)|
|Clarke Kenneth (Rushcliffe)||Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia||Peel, John|
|Cockeram, Eric||Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)||Percival, Ian|
|Cooke, Robert||Howell, David (Guildford)||Peyton, Rt. Hn. John|
|Coombs, Derek||Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)||Pink, R. Bonner|
|Cooper, A. E.||Hutchison, Michael Clark||Pounder, Rafton|
|Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick||Iremonger, T. L.||Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch|
|Cormack, Patrick||James, David||Price, David (Eastleigh)|
|Costain, A. P.||Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)||Proudfoot, Wilfred|
|Critchiey, Julian||Jessel, Toby||Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis|
|Crouch, David||Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)||Quennell, Miss J. M.|
|Crowder, F. P.||Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)||Raison, Timothy|
|Curran, Charles||Jopling, Michael||Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James|
|Dalkeith, Earl of||Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith||Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter|
|d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry||Kaberry, Sir Donald||Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)|
|d' Avigdor-Goldsmid, Ma).-Gen. James||Kellett, Mrs. Elaine||Rees, Peter (Dover)|
|Dean, Paul||Kershaw, Anthony||Rees-Davies, W. R.|
|Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.||Kilfedder, James||Ronton, Rt. Hn. Sir David|
|Digby, Simon Wingfield||Kimball, Marcus||Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon|
|Dixon, Piers||King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)||Ridley, Hn. Nicholas|
|Dodds-Parker, Douglas||King, Tom (Bridgwater)||Ridsdale, Julian|
|Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec||Kinsey, J. R.||Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)|
|du Carni, Rt. Hn. Edward||Kirk, Peter||Roberts, Wyn (Conway)|
|Dykes, Hugh||Kitson, Timothy||Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)|
|Eden, Sir John||Knight, Mrs. Jill||Rost, Peter|
|Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)||Knox, David||Russell, Sir Ronald|
|Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.)||Lambton, Antony||St. John-Stevas, Norman|
|Emery, Peter||Lane, David||Scott, Nicholas|
|Eyre, Reginald||Langford-Holt, Sir John||Scott-Hopkins, James|
|Fair, John||Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry||Sharples, Richard|
|Fenner, Mrs. Peggy||Le Marchant, Spencer||Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)|
|Fldler, Michael||Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)||Shelton, William (Clapham)|
|Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)||Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)||Simeons, Charles|
|Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)||Longden, Gilbert||Sinclair, Sir George|
|Fletcher-Cooke, Charles||Loveridge, John||Skeet, T. H. H.|
|Fookes, Miss Janet||MacArthur, Ian||Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)|
|Fortescue, Tim||McCrindle, R. A.||Soref, Harold|
|Foster, Sir John||McLaren, Martin||Speed, Keith|
|Spence, John||Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret||Weatherill, Bernard|
|Sproat, Iain||Thomas, John Strading (Monmouth)||wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Stainton, Keith||Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)||White, Roger (Gravesend)|
|Stanbrook, Ivor||Tilney, John||Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William|
|Steel, David||Traftord, Or. Anthony||Wiggin, Jerry|
|Stewart-Smith, O. G. (Belper)||Trew, Peter||Wilkinson, John|
|Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, w.)||Tugendhat, Christopher||Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick|
|Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.||Turton, Rt. Hn. R. H.||Wood, At. Hn. Richard|
|Stokes, John||Vaughan, Dr. Gerard||Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher|
|Stuttaford, Dr. Tom||Vickers, Dame Joan||Woodnutt, Mark|
|Sutcliffe, John||Waddington, David||Worsley, Marcus|
|Tapsell, Peter||Walder, David (Clithcroe)||Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.|
|Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)||Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)||Younger, Hn. George|
|Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)||Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek|
|Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)||Wall, Patrick||TELLERS FOR THE AYES:|
|Tebbit, Norman||waiters, Dennis||Mr. Walter Clegg and|
|Temple, John M.||Ward, Dame Irene||Mr. Paul Hawkins.|
|Abse, Leo||Dunnett, Jack||Lawson, George|
|Albu, Austen||Eadie, Alex||Leadbitter, Ted|
|Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)||Edwards, Robert (Bilston)||Leonard, Dick|
|Allen, Scholefield||Edwards, William Merioneth)||Lestor, Miss Joan|
|Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)||Ellis, Tom||Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold|
|Armstrong, Ernest||English, Michael||Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)|
|Ashton, Joe||Evans, Fred.||Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)|
|Atkinson, Norman||Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.||Lomas, Kenneth|
|Bagier, Gordon A. T.||Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)||Loughlin, Charles|
|Barnes, Michael||Fitch, Alan (Wigan)||Lyon, Alexander W. (York)|
|Barnett, Joel||Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)||Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)|
|Beaney, Alan||Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)||Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson|
|Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood||Foot, Michael||McBride, Neil|
|Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton)||Forrester, John||McCartney, Hugh|
|Bidwell, Sydney||Fraser, John (Norwood)||McElhone, Frank|
|Bishop, E. S.||Freeson, Reginald||Mackenzie, Gregor|
|Blenkinsop, Arthur||Galpern, Sir Myer||Mackie, John|
|Boardman, H. (Leigh)||Gilbert, Dr. John||Maclennan, Robert|
|Booth, Albert||Ginsburg, David||McNamara, J. Kevin|
|Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur||Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C.||MacPherson, Malcolm|
|Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)||Gourfay, Harry||Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)|
|Bradley, Tom||Grant, George (Morpeth)||Marquand, David|
|Brown, Bob (N'c"tle-upon-Tyne,W.)||Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)||Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy|
|Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)||Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)||Meacher, Michael|
|Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury)||Griffiths, Will (Exchange)||Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert|
|Buchan, Norman||Hamilton, James (Bothwell)||Mendelson, John|
|Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)||Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)||Millan, Bruce|
|Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)||Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)||Miller, Dr. M. S.|
|Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James||Hardy, Peter||Milne, Edward (Blyth)|
|Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)||Harper, Joseph||Molloy, William|
|Cant, R. B.||Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)||Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)|
|Carmichael, Neil||Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith||Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)|
|Carter-Jones, Lewis (Ecoles)||Hattersley, Roy||Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)|
|Castle, Rt Hn. Barbara||Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis||Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)|
|Clark, David (Colne Valley)||Heifer, Erie S.||Moyle, Roland|
|Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.)||Horam, John||Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Cohen, Stanley||Howell, Denis (Small Heath)||Murray, R. K.|
|Coleman, Donald||Huckfield, Leslie||Ogden, Eric|
|Concannon, J. D.||Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)||O'Halloran, Michael|
|Conlan, Bernard||Hughes, Mark (Durham)||O'Malley, Brian|
|Corbet, Mrs. Freda||Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)||Oram, Bert|
|Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)||Hughes, Roy (Newport)||Orbach, Maurice|
|Crawshaw, Richard||Hunter, Adam||Orme, Stanley|
|Cronin, John||Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)||Oswald, Thomas|
|Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony||Janner, Greville||Palmer, Arthur|
|Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard||Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas||Parker, John (Dagenham)|
|Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)||Jeger, Mrs. Lena (H'b'n & St. P'cras, S.)||Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)|
|Dalyell, Tam||Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)||Pavitt, Laurie|
|Davidson, Arthur||Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)||Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred|
|Davies, Detail (Llanelly)||John, Brynmor||Pendry, Tom|
|Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)||Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)||Pentland, Norman|
|Davies, Ifor (Gower)||Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)||Perry, Ernest G.|
|Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)||Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)||Prescott, John|
|Deakins, Eric||Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)||Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)|
|de Freitas Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey||Jones, Dan (Burnley)||Price, William (Rugby)|
|Delargy, H. J.||Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)||Probert, Arthur|
|Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund||Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)||Rankin, John|
|Dempaey, James||Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)||Reed, D. (Sedgefield)|
|Doig, Peter||Judd, Frank||Reee, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)|
|Dormand, J. D.||Kaufman, Gerald||Rhodes, Geoffrey|
|Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)||Kerr, Russell||Richard, Ivor|
|Douglas-Mann, Bruce||Kinnock, Neil||Roberts, Albert (Normanton)|
|Driberg, Tom||Lamond, James||Roberts, Rt. Hn. Goronwy (Caernarvon)|
|Duffy, A. E. P.||Latham, Arthur||Robertson, John (Paisley)|
|Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Br'c'n & R'dnor)||Stewart, Rt. Hn, Michael (Fulham)||Weitzman, David|
|Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)||Stoddart, David (Swindon)||Wellbeloved, James|
|Roper, John||Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John||Wells, John (Maidstone)|
|Rose, Paul B.||Strang, Gavin||Wells, William (Walsall, N.)|
|Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)||Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.||White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)|
|Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)||Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley||Whitehead, Phillip|
|Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)||Swain, Thomas||Whitlock, William|
|Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)||Taverns, Dick||Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick|
|Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)||Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)||Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)|
|Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)||Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)||Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)|
|Silverman, Julius||Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)||Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)|
|Skinner, Dennis||Tinn, James||Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)|
|Small, William||Torney, Tom||Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)|
|Smith, Dudley (W' wick & L'mington)||Tuck, Raphael||Woof, Robert|
|Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)||Varley, Eric G.|
|Spearing, Nigel||Walker, Harold (Doncaster)||TELLERS FOR THE NOES:|
|Spriggs, Leslie||Wallace, George||Mr. William Hamling and|
|Stallard, A. W.||Watkins, David||Mr. John Golding.|
§ Clause added to the Bill.
§ Mr. Speaker
I will direct that the hon. Member's name be added and the numbers corrected in the last Division.
§ Mr. SPEAKER
then proceeded to put forthwith the Question necessary for the disposal of the Business to be concluded at Twelve o'clock.