HC Deb 08 February 1972 vol 830 cc1271-99

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I beg to move, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 36), dated 17th January 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled. This order, unlike the previous Commencement Orders Nos. 1, 2 and 3, comes into operation on 28th February, so that if we can muster sufficient strength my hon. Friends and I can stop this part of the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, coming into operation.

Sir Harmar Nicholls (Peterborough)

Where are they?

Mr. Heffer

They will all be here to take part in the vote.

The order under discussion brings into operation some of the most vital and, to the trade union movement, most detested parts of the Act. It brings into action 46 Sections, four parts of Sections, two whole Schedules and three parts of Schedules. It is obvious, therefore, that we are dealing with a comprehensive Instrument.

One of the most important parts of the Act with which the order is concerned is the Section relating to unfair dismissal. While we have certain reservations about that part of the Act—believing, for example, that the right of reinstatement should have been included in the Measure—we are not opposed to it and we did not object to it when it was going through Parliament. It is just about the only part of the Act which, with reservations, we find reasonably acceptable, though we would have preferred it to have been strengthened. We shall not therefore be arguing tonight about the Section dealing with unfair dismissal.

The Order activates Part V of the Act which makes it legal for a worker not to belong to a trade union. It is, in effect, the British equivalent of the United States right-to-work laws that operate in 19 States in America, although it is not part of the Taft-Hartley Act.

My right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham, North (Mr. Prentice) referred recently to the Code of Industrial Prac- tice in connection with Section 5 and it is obvious that the Government had a struggle to reconcile that code with that Section. It is also undoubtedly the reason why, in terms of workers joining trade unions, the word "welcome" was used rather than "encourage".

We are also concerned tonight with Section 7 of the Act, which makes the pre-entry closed shop illegal. Sections 5 and 7 are already having an effect on industrial relations. For example, in 1970 the Supervisory Section of the A.U.E.W. reached agreement with C. A. Parsons of Newcastle—this matter has been discussed in the House—accepting the condition of trade union membership for working on the technical staff of Parsons. The firm has notified D.A.T.A. that because of the Act that agreement will cease——

Dame Irene Ward (Tynemouth)


Mr. Heffer

I am glad that the hon. Lady said "Hurrah". She and many of her hon. Friends have argued in the House that trade union organisation should be strengthened, yet when there is an opportunity to do just that by not supporting a professional organisation such as the United Kingdom Association of Professional Engineers, which is not a trade union, which has only 6,000 members and is not financially viable, they say "Hurrah". The reason is that they do not want bona fide trade unions to strengthen themselves.

Dame Irene Ward

Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that because professional engineers are members of a trade union which is not as big as D.A.T.A. they should not have the right to belong to that union or have freedom of choice? Parsons made the agreement with D.A.T.A. and started sacking men who belonged to their own union. Why should these men be sacked simply because D.A.T.A., the most militant trade union in the country wants to impose its will on them? I shall not have it.

Mr. Heffer

I do not care very much what the hon. Lady will have. The fact is that the professional body is not a bona fide trade union.

Dame Irene Ward


Mr. Heffer

The hon. Lady has explained the position. D.A.T.A. is a militant trade union, and the object of the Act is to weaken the organised trade union movement. It is no good the hon. Lady or anybody else trying to get away from the realities of the Act. I have given a concrete example of what it means, and Sections 5 and 7 of the Act are beginning to create difficulties where previously there were none.

It is quite clear and understandable why the trade union movement refers to Sections 5 and 7 as the blackleg's charter.

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)


Mr. Heffer

I shall give way in a moment.

The order contains a number of provisions dealing with so-called unfair industrial practices. Section 65 of the Act, which is already in operation, deals with the guiding principles for organisations of workers. It is the Section which, in one way or another, represents a direct interference with the internal affairs of trade unions. In a sense it is the British equivalent of the Landum Griffin amendment of the Taft-Hartley Act in the United States of America.

Section 66 of the Act is brought into effect by this order. It is that Section which makes it an unfair industrial practice for any official or person to take action against any member of an organisation or other persons in contravention of Section 65. I ask hon. Members to look closely at Sections 65 and 66. That unfair practice is only one of many activated in the order. I want to concentrate on Sections 96, 97 and 98, which together make up Part V of the Act, known as "Other Unfair Industrial Practices", all of which, if the order goes through, will be activated on 28th February.

Dame Irene Ward


Mr. Heffer

They are of real relevance to the coal dispute and to any other large dispute and even to disputes which are not of that size and magnitude. When we discussed these provisions during the passage of the Act through the House, they were at that stages Clauses 85, 86 and 87. The Bill grew like Topsy and they are now Sections 96, 97 and 98.

Section 96 states: It shall be an unfair industrial practice, for any person in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, knowingly to induce or threaten to induce another person to break a contract to which that other person is a party, unless the person so inducing or threatening to induce…

  1. (a) is a trade union or an employers' association, or
  2. (b) does so within the scope of his authority on behalf of a trade union or employers' association".
The operative words there are "trade union", and a trade union under the Act means a registered trade union. If it is not a registered trade union, then under the Act it is not a trade union but an organisation of workers. If a trade union is not registered, my contention is that it loses the protection of subparagraphs (a) and (b) and therefore those provisions do not apply.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

indicated assent.

Mr. Heffer

I am glad to see that the Under-Secretary of State agrees. The Transport and General Workers' Union and others connected with the coal strike, if they have not already deregistered, intend to do so. They have no intention of being on the register as it is. That is the decision of the T.U.C. and they are abiding by it. It seems to me, therefore, that after 28th February the pickets and officials could be, on a strict interpretation of the Act, acting illegally within its terms. I do not think that the Government, stupid as they are, are quite as stupid as to use the Act in this way, but nevertheless it could be so used on a strict interpretation.

Section 97 makes it an unfair industrial practice to call, organise, procure or finance a strike or any irregular industrial action or a lockout if that action is in support of an unfair industrial practice, but it adds that if such action is taken by a trade union or its officials on its behalf, …it shall not be an unfair industrial practice". Again the Act specifies a trade union, which means a registered trade union and not an organisation of workers. This is a point of the utmost importance.

During a debate on 17th February, 1971, when we discussed these provisions, the Solicitor-General dealt with the relationship between what are now Sections 97 and 98.

Section 98 is of greatest importance because it raises the question of the third party or, as the Act calls it, the extraneous party. There was considerable discussion on the Bill of the precise meaning of "extraneous party". No definitive answer was given. Section 98 says: It shall be an unfair industrial practice for any person, in contemplation or furtherance of an industrial dispute, to take or threaten to take any of the steps specified in section 97(2) of this Act if—

  1. (a) he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing that another person has entered into a contract (not being a contract of employment) with a party to that industrial dispute;
  2. (b) his purpose or principal purpose in taking or threatening to take those steps is knowingly to induce that other person to break that contract or to prevent him from performing it; and
  3. (c) that other person is an extraneous party in relation to that industrial dispute."
Subsection (2) partially defines an extraneous party.

In the debate on Clause 87, which is now Section 98, the Solicitor-General said that the Clause can attach itself to situations where the primary strike is fair but the nature of the damage sought to be inflicted by the strike at which Clause 87 is directed is one which Parliament, if it accents the Clause, regards as unfair."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 17th February, 1971, Vol. 811, c. 1902.] The Section is directed at a particular kind of secondary strike whether the original strike was fair or unfair. The only situation in which Section 98 is designed to bite is when someone sets out to procure breaches of a commercial contract undertaken by someone in no sense connected with the original dispute.

Let us see how this applies to the miners' dispute so that the House will realise the enormity of what could happen as a result of putting the Section into effect. The miners are carrying out pickets in the traditional sense by picketing coal haulage depots, power stations and gas plants and attempting to stop oil, coal and other fuels from entering industrial concerns. The Transport and General Workers' Union has told its members not to transport fuels and break the picket lines. If the Section is brought into operation they will be breaking a commercial contract or threatening to induce others to break a commercial contract.

Every time we discuss this, hon. Gentlemen opposite clearly reveal that that is what they want. They want the miners and other trade unionists to be weakened in their fight for decent conditions and better wages.

Mr. Russell Kerr (Feltham)

They do not deny it.

Mr. Heffer

Of course they do not deny it; they cannot. That is what is behind the whole Act although we are told that it is designed to help the trade unions and to be fair. We are also told that the Act will strengthen the hand of responsible trade union leaders, and so on. Yet under the Act's provisions if Jack Jones, Mr. Jack Gormley and others—[An HON. MEMBER: "And Lord Cooper."] Yes, and Lord Cooper as well. It does not matter who they are. The more responsible they are, the more difficult it will be for them. All these people can be affected in one way or the other as a result of the Act.

It is clear that the Government's basic intention is to weaken the trade union movement in its struggle for better wages and conditions and to destroy the traditional rights which the workers have had since 1871. When the veil is pulled aside, one sees that this is what is involved in the provisions of the Act. If my interpretation is wrong or unfair, then the Government should say so tonight. If I am wrong, let the Under-Secretary say so. Let him say that after 28th February workers will be able to carry out the same sort of picketing and do the same sort of things they are doing now.

There are many other parts of the order which we could mention and to which we object but I think I have mentioned the most important issues. I have detected a slight change in the Government's attitude. I was sympathetic with the Minister for Industry earlier in the evening in struggling through a half-hour speech, which he could have made in 20 minutes since the last 10 minutes of the speech contained hardly anything at all. I hope that tomorrow we shall at least learn something of the Government's thinking. If they do not prove to good thoughts, we shall have to be more careful than we have been up to now.

If the Government continue with the present trend of industrial relations and push on with the provisions of the Act, if they encourage firms like Parsons and similar firms to operate the Act, this will lead to industrial suicide and it will be a very bad day for this country. For all the reasons I have outlined, I shall ask my right hon. and hon. Friends to vote against the order. I hope that the Government will have sufficient intelligence to have second thoughts about their industrial relations policy.

10.40 p.m.

Mr. Robert Redmond (Bolton, West)

The hon. and gallant Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer)——

Mr. Charles Loughlin (Gloucestershire, West)

He is as entitled to the title as anyone else.

Mr. Redmond

He told us all that yesterday. He has said that we are bringing into operation by orders some of the most detestable Sections of the Industrial Relations Act. He went on to give grudging support to the Section which deals with unfair dismissals. If the hon. Gentleman supports part of it, how can he pray against the whole lot?

The main tenor of the hon. Gentleman's remarks was critical of the legislation in respect of the closed shop. He spoke of the problems which have been created at Parsons. I think that my hon. Friend the Member for Tynemouth (Dame Irene Ward) dealt with that very effectively.

On Second Reading and in Committee we crossed swords many times on the subject of the closed shop. I cannot support what I call the tyranny of the closed shop. I can name several people who have suffered as a result of it. One sad case in my constituency——

Mr. William Molloy (Ealing, North)

What does the Solicitor-General say?

Mr. Redmond

I can speak only for myself. I cannot support the principle of the closed shop. I was about to give an example, not for the first time in this Chamber, of a man in my constituency who fell out with his trade union in the 1930s and who, because of the closed shop, never worked again in his trade. During our debates on the Industrial Relations Bill, whenever an hon. Member on this side of the House spoke about the tyranny of the closed shop, hon. Members opposite shouted the question "How many?" I have always been of the view that one is quite enough to explain why the closed shop is despicable to those who value the freedom of the individual.

Then we find the Opposition praying against Section 5 of the Act, which deals with the rights of workers in respect of trade union membership. The objection seems to be that someone might be free not to join a union if he does not want to. But why object to giving everyone the right to join a union? We all recognise that there are employers who say they will not recognise trade unions and will not have trade union members working for them. Surely people who believe in the trade union movement welcome an opportunity to give everyone the right to say that he wants to join a trade union and for his employer not to be able to do anything about it. I believe that that Section alone must tend to increase the membership of trade Unions.

The Opposition told us in a debate on a similar order last week that they would repeal the Act. Will they repeal this part of the Act, which gives to everyone the right to join a trade union if he wants to? We all know of employers who say that they will not have trade unionists in their factories. I always feel how stupid they are, but they exist. We are making employers toe the line with this order, but here are the Opposition praying against it.

Then we come to Section 19. The Opposition are praying against minimum periods of notice to terminate contracts of employment. I should have expected trade unionists to welcome such a provision. Again I ask the Opposition whether they will repeal it if they have an opportunity, which I doubt.

Mr. Heffer

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Redmond

No. I have not finished asking questions. I hope that another hon. Member will answer for the Opposition.

Mr. Heffer

Why waste our time?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris)

Order. The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was heard in complete silence. Each side has the right to be heard.

Mr. Loughlin

On a point of order. All that I can assume from that remark, Mr. Deputy Speaker, is that you must have a defect of hearing in your right ear. We had to rebuke hon. Members opposite several times while my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was speaking.

Mr. Deputy Speaker

If that is so, it may be that I have a little deficiency. But certainly I did not hear interruptions to anything like this extent. If we are to have a full debate, we must keep ourselves in good temper. I hope that hon. Members will listen.

Mr. Loughlin

You must learn to rebuke hon. Members on the Government side as well.

Mr. Redmond

I must be touching a raw nerve. I am merely asking an hon. Member opposite, when I have finished asking my questions, to say whether, if they get the chance, which I doubt, the Opposition will repeal this Section.

Mr. Molloy

When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) tried to answer, the hon. Gentleman would not give way.

Mr. Redmond

I had not finished asking my questions.

Section 21 concerns written particulars of terms of employment. Surely it is good industrial relations for every worker to know where he stands, with a properly drawn-up contract of service. I ask the same question. If the Opposition have the chance, will they repeal that Section? I do not think they will.

We then come to unfair dismissal, with which the hon. Member for Walton dealt at great length. I cannot see that there is anything wrong with the principle of this Section. I find it difficult to see how the Opposition could possibly pray against it.

One of the most relevant parts of the order relates to Section 134 which deals with peaceful picketing. The law on picketing is fairly clear but we want to be certain that we get the whole thing into perspective, particularly in the light of what we have been seeing recently. Irrespective of what people think about the miners' strike, there is grave concern throughout the country about what is being seen on television regarding picketing. Therefore, I am very surprised that there should be a Prayer against that Section.

We are going through the old routine of the same speeches against an Act which the Opposition seem to have to pray against purely as a matter of form. I know that hon. Members on this side will vote solidly against the Prayer.

10.46 p.m.

Mr. Stanley Orme (Salford, West)

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), dealing with the implementation of that part of the Act regarding compensation for unfair dismissal, asked why we were objecting to it. That section is highly unsatisfactory because, although there are forms on which workers can claim compensation, there is no right to reinstatement which is the basic trade union demand in this regard.

If a worker is unfairly dismissed and a firm can buy off the situation by giving him a certain amount of compensation, then it can get rid of a worker who has been playing an active trade union part within that particular establishment. I have witnessed many struggles in industry over many years. The very basis of trade union organisation stems from the right of workers to protect other workers within an establishment. If they do not have that basic right, the trade union movement can easily be destroyed by a management which sets out to destroy it.

Much play has been made by the hon. Member for Bolton, West on the right to belong or not to belong to a trade union. We are already seeing the effects of this proposal, which, in my opinion, will be speeded up when the sections relating to this matter are made law on 28th February.

What has the Under-Secretary got to say about the letter which has been sent from the Conservative Central Office to trade unionists urging them to resign from bona fide trade unions and form breakaway organisations? I should like to point out, as the Secretary of State for Employment is now present, that he made great play of the fact that he wanted to see strong trade unions, but he was not in favour of a proliferation of trade unions. What has the right hon. Gentleman got to say about this letter which has gone out from the Conservative Central Office? Mr. Jack Jones has raised this matter very pertinently, but I do not notice the right hon. Gentleman saying anthing about this letter. It only goes to underline what we said in the debates on the Bill time and again; namely, that the Government are not concerned.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme

No, I will not.

Hon. Members

Give way.

Mr. Orme

I am addressing my remarks to the Secretary of State. If the right hon. Gentleman would like to reply——

Mr. Mitchell

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme

No, I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman. I did not address my remarks to the hon. Gentleman, and I have not mentioned him in my speech. [Interruption.] I hope that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, will conduct——

Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. Lest there should be any mistake about this, all remarks must be addressed to me.

Mr. Orme

Yes, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and through you I was asking the Secretary of State whether he condoned the letter from the Conservative Central Office.

Mr. Molloy


Mr. Orme

It is no good the Secretary of State shaking his head. We want a reply tonight.

Mr. Mitchell


Mr. Deputy Speaker

Order. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) obviously will not give way.

Mr. Mitchell

On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it in order for the hon. Gentleman to address the House on the subject of a letter which hon. Members on this side of the House have not seen or heard of? Should not it be laid on the Table or shown to us before it can be referred to?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

No, I am afraid that I cannot help the hon. Member. Nothing which the hon. Member for Salford, West has said so far is out of order.

Mr. Molloy

Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If what the hon. Member for Basingstoke (Mr. David Mitchell) said is correct, why does the Secretary of State not answer my hon. Friend's challenge, go to the Dispatch Box and say what his hon. Friend has said?

Mr. Deputy Speaker

That is interesting, but nothing to do with me.

Mr. Orme

It is obvious—[Interruption.]—that hon Gentlemen opposite do not want me to be heard. If they do not like it, they can lump it. My argument is based on fact. The letter can be produced. It is in the hands of the General Secretary of the Transport and General Workers Union. I am prepared to send a copy of the letter to the Secretary of State. But I think he is aware of this, and we are entitled to an answer.

Mr. Kenneth Lewis (Rutland and Stamford)

Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Orme

No, I want to keep this matter on a serious note.

Mr. Lewis

Put a copy in the Library.

Mr. Orme

I move to the question of the Sections to which my hon. Friend drew attention; namely, Sections 96, 97 and 98, and Section 134, which deals with peaceful picketing. I want to deal with the question of extraneous organisations or bodies which take action in support of a particular industrial dispute.

The miners' strike is the classic example. For instance, under the Act it would be illegal for dockers to refuse to unload coal at the ports, or for the N.U.R. not to transport coal, or for lorry drivers of a trade union to refuse to take oil or other fuel into a power station. In those circumstances, and knowing that the Government have introduced this and from 28th February will be able to implement this part of the Act, everyone in the House knows that in no circumstances will the Government invoke these Sections of the Act against the miners' union if the strike is continued at that time, because they know that it would be counter-productive.

An Hon. Member

They have not got the guts.

Mr. Orme

They know that it would heighten the situation and not improve it, and that perhaps it would bring millions of trade unionists into direct conflict with the Government. Therefore, the terms of the Act are provocative. We all know that on some future dispute which may arise and which the Government consider suitable, and which they feel may be unpopular with the public, the Government will perhaps seek to implement Sections 96, 97 and 98. I want to put on the record now that the Government have no intention at some future date of invoking those Sections of the Act against the N.U.M. Therefore, that makes that part of the Act a political part. In consequence, when the Government seek to implement it they may feel that they have chosen the right issue, but they may find when the trade union movement reacts that they have again misjudged the situation, as they appear to be misjudging every industrial dispute.

The issue of peaceful picketing is dealt with in Section 134. There was a great deal of debate about peaceful picketing and the rights of pickets during our consideration of the Bill. Many of us on this side challenged the Government to give us evidence of intimidation or trouble during very difficult industrial disputes, whether the dockers' strike, the National Union of Seamen's strike or whatever. No such evidence could be given.

It is a great pity that the deterioration in industrial relations should have taken place under this Government, with the mining dispute, through the Government's refusal to take any initiative to bring the dispute to an end.

Section 134 speaks of the right to stop, argue and discuss. Today we see lorry drivers being paid to drive through picket lines, and in certain areas—not all—there seems to be an unfortunate alliance between the police and certain industrial companies importing stuff. [HON. MEMBERS: "Shame. Withdraw."] The coke plant at Birmingham is one instance My hon. Friend the Member for Nuneaton (Mr. Leslie Huckfield) witnessed the incidents there. I am not saying that that is the case in the majority of instances. I have seen pickets in operation where they have had the co-operation of the police and where there is a great deal of comradeship between many of the pickets and the police. These have been continuous pickets. Good relations have existed in a large part of the coalfields, but there have been places where that is not so. There was the unfortunate death of one picket who was knocked down by a lorry that did not stop when it was entering a plant.

No Act will resolve such a situation. It can be resolved only by the good common sense of the trade unionists and the negotiators. In refusing to take action until now, the Government and the Secretary of State for Employment have allowed the situation to deteriorate in the way that it has. I hope that the Secretary of State will make a different speech when he meets the representatives of the Coal Board and the N.U.M. tomorrow from that which he made this afternoon. Public opinion has overwhelmingly demanded a settlement in the interests of the miners. Editorials in the Daily Express, the Daily Mirror and many other popular organs have called for a settlement.

We face a difficult industrial situation, and the issue of peaceful picketing is being challenged. Nothing in the Act can improve the situation in a way that cannot be achieved by free collective bargaining and unfettered negotiations between the trade unions and the employers, without the Government leaning on the employers as they are on the National Coal Board.

For those reasons—I could give many more—the proposals before us, which will become law on 28th February, are irrelevant to the main industrial issue facing the nation and can do nothing to help mitigate or resolve many of the problems, just as the Act is irrelevant to industrial relations.

11.0 p.m.

Mr. David Mitchell (Basingstoke)

I have listened with considerable care to the hon. Gentleman's peroration. In the difficult industrial situation which has arisen with the coal strike, I would hardly have thought that his remarks were particularly helpful. Certainly, the suggestion that there should be unfettered negotiation—if by that he means total disregard by the parties of the consequences of a highly inflationary settlement on the rest of the community—is a selfish atttitude which I believe this House would not endorse.

I turn to the speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) from the Front Bench. In the second playthrough of this act, the hon. Gentleman seems to have lost some of his conviction as well as losing his way through the Act. We have had a tired rehash of some of the earlier speeches, and they did not gain much.

The hon. Gentleman told the House, and it is within the recollection of my hon. Friends, that he was not opposed to the right of appeal against wrongful dismissal and that the Opposition did not vote against that provision, while we had the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) telling us that he is opposed to it.

One can take one's choice, but it is a pity that the Opposition are, as usual, split. It is, however, somewhat unusual to find the hon. Member for Walton, now on the Front Bench, not in the same camp as his hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West. On this occasion, the hon. Member for Walton, is correct. No sensible member of the Opposition could conceivably tramp through the Lobby tonight to vote for a Prayer against the right of appeal against wrongful dismissal. The trade union movement has long called for this in this country, which is behind other countries in not providing a right of appeal.

The hon. Member for Salford, West, who says there should be an automatic right of compulsory reinstatement, must know the realities, especially in small-scale businesses where it is not within the realm of reality that a man can be made to go back to his job and work.

If the hon. Gentleman dismissed his secretary having found he could not work with her and then found he had wrongfully dismissed her, he could not conceivably carry on his work as an hon. Member properly if he were forced to employ someone with whom he could not work.

Then we had the hon. Member for Walton talking about the Parsons dispute. Let me give him the case of Englehard Industries, which is an interesting situation. It is a case where the engineering union was seeking recognition and the C.I.R., in its proper function, awarded that union recognition, but, because of the instructions of the T.U.C., even though the union was given what it was asking for there was no fulfilment because the T.U.C. and the union leadership prefer to play politics rather than get on with the industrial negotiations for things for which they had been striving for a long time. That is another regrettable example of their failing to represent the best interests of their members because they are more concerned with playing politics. [Interruption.] It is all very well for the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) to mutter from a seated position on the Opposition Front Bench. He knows that this is just the sort of case which ought to have been of benefit to the union and its members. There was a refusal to take advantage of the Act, to the detriment of the union and its members.

Mr. Sydney Bidwell (Southall)

The hon. Gentleman has frequently come before the House posing as an expert on trade union affairs. He has just said that the T.U.C. "instructed" a union, when the T.U.C. can never do that and would never attempt such a thing.

Mr. Mitchell

That is the most remarkable example of hair-splitting that we have ever heard in this Chamber. The "instructions" from the T.U.C. to member unions not to register were as near to instructions as any organisation can come to issuing. It is not worthy of the hon. Member to split hairs in this way.

We are asked to vote against an order introducing rights for workers in respect of trade union membership and activities. This order introduces the agency shop with all the advantages that embodies for the trade unions. It raises the standards of conduct of trade unions and employers to the best which now exist. The agency shop is nothing more nor less than a humanised closed shop, accepting standards many closed shops now accept, saying that enforced membership will not apply to those holding strong objections. The Quakers and others have been catered for in present closed shops. as they will be under the agency shop arrangements. Hon. Members opposite supported the Labour Government which signed the United Nations Codicil on Human Rights in 1948 in Paris saying that no one may be forced to join an organisation against his wishes.

The order provides for long periods of notice for long-service employees—something for which unions have long asked. It provides redress against wrongful dismissal. In view of that list of substantial benefits I do not know how hon. Members opposite can troop through the Lobby against the order.

From the speeches made by hon. Members opposite it is clear that, regretfully, some unions and some union leadership—[Interruption.]—I used to be a member of the Transport and General Workers' Union, and that union is, regretfully, in the same boat—are more concerned with playing politics than with getting the necessary good will on both sides of industry for the benefit of union members as well as for the good of the country.

11.9 p.m.

Mr. Ronald King Murray (Edinburgh, Leith)

Hon. Members opposite do not seem to realise that the Opposition are opposing this order and the Act comprehensively. This was made amply clear by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). It is therefore beside the point to say that part of the order may be good.

The hon. Member for Bolton, West (Mr. Redmond), who cannot survive the argument and has departed, said in the most platitudinous way that the right to join a trade union is affected by the order. What he ignores, no doubt because he did not follow the proceedings on the Act, is that this so-called right gives the trade unions less than they have fought for throughout the centuries.

In discussing this penultimate commencement order, we should recollect that from the Statute of Labourers 1349 to the Combination Act, 1800, combinations of workers to enforce agreements on wages and conditions were illegal. They had no rights, and throughout the nineteenth century they had to fight for them. In the twentieth century it needed the Trade Disputes Act, 1906, the Trade Union Act, 1913, and the 1946 and 1965 Acts, and we are still fighting to obtain rights to enforce reasonable conditions and wages. The workers have obtained the right to have legitimate orgainsations. We object that the Act takes away that right of legitimacy which the workers fought for and obtained.

Article 5 reduces the rights of workers. All they have is the right to join a registered trade union. The Opposition can never support an Act the basis of which is to divide the trade unions, to reduce them into legitimate and illegitimate unions. We will not stand for an Act of that kind but will oppose it root and branch.

11.13 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray) has given us a lot of noise and enthusiasm but he has not contributed much to our short debate. However, I am at least grateful to him for allowing me two or three minutes before my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary replies.

The hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to the miners' strike, to picketing and to my hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General's interpretation of Clause 98, which the hon. Gentleman says will weaken trade unions involved in a strike. He should take account of the way in which the public will react to what he is saying and to what is happening in some cases in the miners' strike. The public are asking, not "Is this weakening the trade union involved?" but "Why should not individuals who are not involved in the strike be allowed earn a fair living and protect the public and the economy at the same time?"

Although there may be no need for picketing a man's home, and although there has been no intimidation before, because of what we have seen in the past few days I welcome this safeguard.

Section 5 of the Act is the main point of discussion tonight. It has been referred to as a blacklegs' charter. But there is only 40 per cent. union membership. Is the hon. Member for Walton saying that 60 per cent. of workers are blacklegs? People who are not at present trade unionists appreciate Section 5 either because it gives them the right, freely defined, not to join a union or, if they wish to become unionists but could not, so to join; and under the agency shop provisions they have the right, where a majority want it, to establish a union for the first time.

Any rational man will accept this as a step forward compared with the previous situation. That rational man sees the agency shop provisions under Section 6 as a necessary compromise between the rights of free men to join or not to join a union and the need which the Government and most employers see for responsible organised labour. For this reason I shall support my hon. Friend the Minister in the Lobby to enable this order to become law.

11.16 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Huckfield (Nuneaton)

I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) for being brief, thereby enabling me to contribute to the discussion, and I do so with the specific purpose of referring to the Sections of the Act which deal with peaceful picketing.

I was at the Saltley gas works this morning and witnessed some very ugly picketing scenes. They certainly threw some light on the total inadequacy of these provisions to cover occurrences of that kind. Both today and yesterday we witnessed peaceful pickets of the N.U.M. and the T. & G.W.U., acting jointly, being prevented by the police from talking to lorry drivers. How will these provisions deal with that sort of situation?

Then we saw examples of non-union lorry drivers in action. They drew up at the Saltley coke depot having been told by their employers that if they came away with a full load they would be given a bonus. How will these provisions deal with provocation of that kind? We were also confronted by lorry drivers who had been told by their employers that if they came out of the coke depot without a load they would be without a job. How will these provisions deal with that provocation?

How will this legislation cope with the deliberate provocation of the West Midlands Gas Board and the Department of Trade and Industry in keeping this coke depot open? The situation I have described and which I witnessed confronted 1,500 pickets and 500 policemen. How on earth will these provisions help peaceful picketing in such circumstances?

11.18 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Dudley Smith)

This is perhaps the most important order under the Industrial Relations Act, 1971, that we shall discuss. We dealt with two similar orders last week but this one is particularly important because with it comes into operation at the end of this month virtually the whole of the Act—that is, except for the provisions regarding the disclosure of information by employers to trade union representatives and by major employers in annual statements to their employees.

The hon. and learned Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Ronald King Murray), who usually makes erudite contributions to our discussions, was rather out of character tonight. I equated him with some of his more vociferous colleagues, particularly when he made the extraordinary statement that these provisions will reduce the rights of workers Exactly the opposite will be the case.

This order is a historic step—[Interruption.]—and I put it as high as that because it firmly establishes the rights of individuals in relation to trade union membership and activity, and this has been rightly stressed by some of my hon. Friends in their rather more constructive contributions compared with those of hon. Gentlemen opposite.

Mr. Hugh Jenkins (Putney)

Will the Minister explain how it is that the rights of trade unionists are increased by the removal of the pre-entry closed shop?

Mr. Smith

The rights of the individual are increased because, as the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) said, this order and this part of the Act establish a man's right to belong or not to belong to a trade union.

Mr. Russell Kerr

A blacklegs' charter.

Mr. Smith

It is not a blacklegs' charter, because it provides for redress where a man—or woman—has been unfairly dismissed, which is a new departure in British law. It enables the industrial tribunal to consider any infringements of the essential rights of individuals.

I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Bosworth (Mr. Adam Butler) that the order is a definite step forward and one that will be welcomed by many workers. Let us not underestimate one point about this. It establishes the right to belong to a union. Hon. Gentlemen opposite almost exclusively tend to deal with the fact that it is a blacklegs' charter for the individual who does not want to belong to a trade union, but there are many instances of firms having said to an employee, "If you are a member of a union we shall not employ you". That goes by the board under this order. A man can now establish his right to work as a member of a union if he wishes. That is an important concept and one which has to be borne in mind.

If a man joins an organisation which has banned unions and finds that he has the support of his fellows and they become a majority, they can establish themselves in the situation of an agency shop and become fully operational as trade unionists. That cannot happen under the present law. There is, therefore, an advance here as a result of these provisions, but hon. Gentlemen opposite conveniently disregard that because it does not suit their book and their arguments against the Act.

The order makes it an unfair industrial practice, which is an important new concept, for an unregistered organisation to further an industrial dispute by inducing someone to break his contract; unfair also for any organisation or person to promote industrial action to impose a boycott on the supply of goods or services by an extraneous party to a party involved in a dispute, and also unfair to promote industrial action in support of another unfair practice.

Mr. Molloy

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for the help he gave me yesterday in dealing with the situation of a number of men having been refused wages for a week's work which they had done, because of a possible take-over of their firm. May I tell them tomorrow morning that they can go on strike and do all the things set out by the hon. Gentleman because the withholding of their wages is an unfair industrial action?

Mr. Smith

I think that the hon. Gentleman would be ill-advised to say that, because this provision is not yet law. It does not become law until 28th February. If anyone has any doubts about a situation, I can tell him that my right hon. Friend's Department is there to help. [Interruption.] It is shameful for anyone to query the independence of the expert civil servants. They are there to assist in the interpretation of the Act and they will give the necessary advice.

I should have thought it was important to realise that where trade union membership is concerned in reality the Act is saying that the individual worker has a right not to be compelled to join a union if he does not want to. I remind the House of something very fundamental about this provision. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights—[Interruption.] Hon. Gentlemen opposite may deride the declaration, but many people place a great deal of reliance upon it. It says that no one may be compelled to belong to an Association. The order establishes that position and gives powerful support to my argument about the right to belong or not to belong to a union.

We believe that the strength of a union must not depend on compelling workers to join. We believe that it is possible to strengthen union authority and increase union membership more effectively in other ways without sacrificing the individual's right to choose whether or not to join a union. The recruiting can be done by example rather than by coercion, and naturally I have, in dealing with this point, turned to the handbook which has been a source of great inspiration to me and to my hon. Friends in many respects. I know that this annoys hon. Members opposite because, despite the political propaganda, it contains valuable information. What I have just said is well supported by the T.U.C. handbook, paragraph 8 of which says: Notwithstanding the provisions of the Act, in the future, as in the past, trade union organisation will essentially depend upon the capacity of unions to recruit members on a voluntary basis.

Mr. Kerr

It always has.

Mr. Smith

It always has and I hope it will continue to do so. The stress is on the word "voluntary", and I agree with what the T.U.C. says. I will not weary the House with a long dissertation from the handbook but it goes on to draw the conclusion that the unions have to put themselves on a viable basis and win their members by consent rather than by going forward in closed shops, which will be prohibited under the Act.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman is taking us miles away from the subject of the debate. Will he now tell us whether, after 28th February, strikers like the miners, who are picketing places like gas works and power stations, will be acting legally or illegally and what will be the attitude of the Government in that sort of situation?

Mr. Smith

I will deal with that. It is a hypothetical situation where the miners are concerned under these provisions because the order does not come into operation until 28th February. Here again it is a question of interpretation in due course, but I can tell the hon. Gentleman that as regards picketing—we must always bear in mind that the law refers to "peaceful persuasion" and there is a large variety of peaceful persuasion—where legitimate picketing goes on, whether the union is registered or not, it will still be able to indulge in picketing, and certainly from that point of view it is all right.

The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Orme) asked quite fairly about a letter he alleges has been sent out by the Conservative Central Office. I tell him genuinely and sincerely that I have not seen it. I have merely seen a passing reference to it in a newspaper. I will get hold of a copy, and my right hon. Friend and I will consider it when

we see it. The hon. Gentleman will not expect me to commit myself now or go into detail because it would be quite wrong of me to do so in these circumstances.

Mr. Kerr


Mr. Smith

The hon. Member for Feltham (Mr. Russell Kerr) is a distrustful person and we must agree to differ. I have not seen the letter.

I am amazed that the Opposition are to vote against this order, particularly as it contains unfair dismissal provisions. But it makes hypocrisy of what they have said in the past about this part of the Act. The order establishes basic rights. It protects the individual. It does not undermine the efficient and progressive unions. The Act, through this order, becomes a reality at the end of the month and both sides of industry must learn to live with it. That is the lesson that must come out of this debate. That lesson has come out tonight. I remain convinced that both sides of industry can benefit substantially from the Act. It is an Act of Parliament which is for the public good and because of that it will succeed.

Question put, That an humble Address be presented to Her Majesty, praying that the Industrial Relations Act 1971 (Commencement No. 4) Order 1972 (S.I., 1972, No. 36), dated 17th January 1972, a copy of which was laid before this House on 27th January, be annulled:—

The House divided: Ayes 266, Noes 300.

Division No. 55.] AYES [11.30 p.m
Abse, Leo Buchan, Norman Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Albu, Austen Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Deakins, Eric
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Allen, Scholefleld Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Delargy, H. J.
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Cant, R. B. Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Armstrong, Ernest Carmichael, Neil Dempsey, James
Ashton, Joe Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Doig, Peter
Atkinson, Norman Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Dormand, J. D.
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Clark, David (Colne Valley) Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Barnes, Michael Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Cohen, Stanley Driberg, Tom
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Coleman, Donald Duffy, A. E. P.
Beaney, Alan Concannon, J. D. Dunn, James A.
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Conlan, Bernard Dunnett, Jack
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Corbet, Mrs. Freda Eadie, Alex
Bidwell, Sydney Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Edelman, Maurice
Bishop, E. S. Crawshaw, Richard Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
Blenkinsop, Arthur Cronin, John Ellis, Tom
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony English, Michael
Booth, Albert Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Evans, Fred
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Ewing, Harry
Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland) Dalyell, Tam Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Bradley, Tom Darling, Rt. Hn. George Fisher, Mrs. Doris (B'ham, Ladywood)
Broughton, Sir Alfred Davidson, Arthur Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Brown, Bob (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, W.) Davies, Denzil (Lianelly) Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Davies, Ifor (Gower) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Foley, Maurice
Foot, Michael Lipton, Marcus Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Ford, Ben Lomas, Kenneth Rhodes, Geoffrey
Forrester, John Loughlin, Charles Richard, Ivor
Fraser, John (Norwood) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Freeson, Reginald Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Galpern, Sir Myer Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Br'c'n&R'dnor)
Garrett, W. E. McBride, Neil Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Gilbert, Dr. John McCann, John Roper, John
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) McCartney, Hugh Rose, Paul B.
Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C. McElhone, Frank Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Gourlay, Harry McGuire, Michael Sandelson, Neville
Grant, George (Morpeth) Mackenzie, Gregor Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Mackie, John Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Mackintosh, John P. Short, Rt. Hn. Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Maclennan, Robert Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton, N.E.)
Hamilton, James (Bothwell) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.) Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Hamling, William McNamara, J. Kevin Sillars, James
Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Silverman, Julius
Hardy, Peter Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Harper, Joseph Marks, Kenneth Skinner, Dennis
Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Marquand, David Small, William
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Marshall, Dr. Edmund Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N)
Spearing, Nigel
Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy Spriggs, Leslie
Heffer, Eric S. Mayhew, Christopher Stallard, A. W.
Horam, John Meacher, Michael Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Stoddart David (Swindon)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath) Mendelson, John Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John
Huckfield, Leslie Mikardo, Ian Strang, Gavin
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Millan, Bruce Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Hughes, Mark (Durham) Miller, Dr. M. S. Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Milne, Edward Swain, Thomas
Hughes, Roy (Newport) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen) Taverne, Dick
Hunter, Adam Molloy, William Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.)
Irving, Rt. Hn. SirArthur (Edge Hill) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire) Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)
Janner, Greville Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe) Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw) Tinn, James
Jeger, Mrs. Lena Moyle, Roland Tomney, Frank
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick Torney, Tom
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Murray, Ronald King Tuck, Raphael
John, Brynmor Oakes, Gordon Urwin, T. W.
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Ogden, Eric Varley, Eric G.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) O'Halloran, Michael Wainwright, Edwin
O'Malley, Brian
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Oram, Bert Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Orbach, Maurice Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Jones, Dan (Burnley) Orme, Stanley Wallace, George
Jones, Rt. Hn. Sir Elwyn (W. Ham, S.) Oswald, Thomas Watkins, David
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton) Weitzman, David
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.) Paget, R. T. Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Judd, Frank Palmer, Arthur White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)
Kaufman, Gerald Parker, John (Dagenham) Whitehead, Phillip
Kerr, Russell Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange) Whitlock, William
Kinnock, Neil Pavitt, Laurie Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Lambie, David Pendry, Tom Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Lamond, James Pentland, Norman Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Latham, Arthur Perry, Ernest G. Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Lawson, George Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Leadbitter, Ted Prescott, John Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Leonard, Dick Price, J. T. (Westhoughton) Woof, Robert
Lestor, Miss Joan Price, William (Rugby)
Lever, Rt. Hn. Harold Probert, Arthur TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Rankin, John Mr. James Wellbeloved and Mr. John Golding.
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Adley, Robert Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Campbell, Rt. Hn. G. (Moray & Nairn)
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Body, Richard Carlisle, Mark
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Boscawen, Robert Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Bossom, Sir Clive Channon, Paul
Astor, John Bowden, Andrew Chapman, Sydney
Atkins, Humphrey Braine, Bernard Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Awdry, Daniel Bray, Ronald Chichester-Clark, R.
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Brewis, John Churchill, W. S.
Balniel, Lord Brinton, Sir Tatton Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Batsford, Brian Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Clegg, Walter
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Bruce-Gardyne, J. Cockeram, Eric
Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport) Bryan, Paul Cooke, Robert
Benyon, W. Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus N&M) Coombs, Derek
Berry, Hn. Anthony Buck, Antony Cooper, A. E.
Biffen, John Burden, F. A. Corfield, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Biggs-Davison, John Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Cormack, Patrick
Costain, A. P. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Critchley, Julian Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Raison, Timothy
Crouch, David Jopling, Michael Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Crowder, F. P. Kaberry, Sir Donald Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter
Curran, Charles Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Redmond, Robert
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Kershaw, Anthony Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Kilfedder, James Rees, Peter (Dover)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen. James Kimball, Marcus Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Dean, Paul King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. King, Tom (Bridgwater) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Digby, Simon Wingfield Kinsey, J. R. Ridsdale, Julian
Dixon, Piers Kirk, Peter Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey
Drayson, G. B. Knight, Mrs. Jill Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Knox, David Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Dykes, Hugh Lambton, Lord Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Eden, Sir John Lane, David Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Langford-Holt, Sir John Rost, Peter
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Legge-Bourke, Sir Harry Royle, Anthony
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne, N.) Le Marchant, Spencer Russell, Sir Ronald
Emery, Peter Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) St. John-Stevas, Norman
Eyre, Reginald Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Sandys, Rt. Hn. D.
Farr, John Longden, Gilbert Scott, Nicholas
Fell, Anthony Loveridge, John Scott-Hopkins, James
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Luce, R. N. Sharples, Richard
Fidler, Michael McAdden, Sir Stephen Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) MacArthur, Ian Shelton, William (Clapham)
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) McCrindle, R. A. Simeons, Charles
Fletcher-Cooke, Charles McLaren, Martin Sinclair, Sir George
Fookes, Miss Janet Maclean, Sir Fitzroy Skeet, T. H. H.
Fowler, Norman McMaster, Stanley Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Fox, Marcus Macmillan, Maurice (Farnham) Soref, Harold
Fraser, Rt. Hn. Hugh (St'fford & Stone) McNair-Wilson, Michael Speed, Keith
Fry, Peter McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Spence, John
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. Maddan Martin Stainton, Keith
Gardner, Edward Madel, David Stanbrook, Ivor
Gibson-Watt, David Maginnis, John E. Steel, David
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.) Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Glyn, Dr. Alan Marten Neil Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Goodhart, Philip Mather, Carol Stokes John
Goodhew, Victor Maude, Angus Stuttaford Dr Tom
Gorst John Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald
Gower, Raymond Mawby, Ray Sutcliffe, John
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Tapsell, Peter
Gray, Hamish Meyer, Sir Anthony Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Green, Alan Mills, Peter (Torrington) Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow, Cathcart)
Grieve, Percy Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Miscampbell, Norman Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Grylls, Michael Mitchell, Lt.-Col. C.(Aberdeenshire, W) Tebbit, Norman
Gummer, Selwyn Mitchell, David (Basingstoke) Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Gurden, Harold Moate, Roger Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Molyneaux, James Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Money, Ernle Tilney, John
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Monks, Mrs. Connie Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Hannam, John (Exeter) Monro, Hector Trew, Peter
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Montgomery, Fergus Tugendhat, Christopher
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) More, Jasper Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Haselhurst, Alan Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Hastings, Stephen Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. Vickers, Dame Joan
Havers, Michael Morrison, Charles Waddington, David
Hawkins, Paul Mudd, David Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Hay, John Nabarro, Sir Gerald Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)
Hayhoe, Barney Neave, Airey Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Hicks, Robert Nicholls, Sir Harmar Wall, Patrick
Higgins, Terence L. Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael Walters, Dennis
Hiley, Joseph Normanton, Tom Ward, Dame Irene
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Nott, Jonn Warren, Kenneth
Onslow, Cranley
Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally Weatherill, Bernard
Holland, Philip Orr, Capt. L. P. S. Wells, John (Maidstone)
Holt, Miss Mary Osborn, John White, Roger (Gravesend)
Hooson, Emlyn Owen Idris (Stockport, N.) Whitelaw, Rt. Hn. William
Hordern, Peter Page, Graham (Crosby) Wiggin, Jerry
Hornby, Richard Paget, John (Harrow, W.) Wilkinson, John
Hornsby-Smith. Rt. Hn. Dame Patricia Parkinson, Cecil Winterton, Nicholas
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Peel, John Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Howell, David (Guildford) Percival, Ian Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John Woodnutt, Mark
Hunt, John Pike, Miss Mervyn Worsley, Marcus
Hutchison, Michael Clark Pink, R. Bonner Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Iremonger, T. L. Pounder, Rafton Younger, Hn. George
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
James, David Price, David (Eastleigh) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Mr. Tim Fortescue and Mr. Oscar Murton.
Jessel, Toby Proudfoot, Wilfred
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
  1. ADJOURNMENT 12 words
Forward to