HC Deb 12 July 1972 vol 840 cc1584-94

3.49 p.m.

Mr. Roy Hughes (Newport)

I beg to move, That leave be given to bring in a Bill to repeal the Industrial Relations Act, 1971. It is wrong to say that we had no framework of law on trade unions or on collective bargaining before the Industrial Relations Act. We had a framework. Though not perfect, it worked. In its ability both to reconcile and give expression to the various interests involved, it was probably ahead of anything in the western world.

What did the Industrial Relations Act set out to do in changing the legal framework? To reduce strikes? Everyone knows that strikes are bigger today than ever before and the number of working days lost through them in the first five months of this year was 14,401,000, which is more than in any previous full year since the General Strike in 1926.

Again, inter-union and intra-union disputes had, thanks to the TUC initiatives since the Donovan Report, become things of the past. Today, thanks directly to the new Act, they are on the increase again.

It is true that we have fewer strikes, but it is obvious that if there are bigger, longer strikes, there will be fewer strikes. The short, sharp "downer", which lasted a day or two and often focused attention on serious discontent and got something done about it, has given way to marathon confrontations involving hundreds of thousands of people who have never been on strike before. I am not saying that these big strikes are all due to the Act. I am saying that there can be no improvement in industrial relations whilst the Act remains.

Did the Act set out, as Ministers claimed, to strengthen trade unions? If so, why should every trade union oppose the Act, even those which are often spoken of as right wing and so-called "responsible"? It would be odd indeed for all trade unions to oppose their own strengthening.

Did the Act set out to cut the bargaining power of workpeople? This is what trade unionists genuinely believe, although it has never been stated by the Government. This is what the Press believes and, I suspect, what hon. Members opposite in their hearts believe. But the Act has, paradoxically, united trade unionists against employers, turned moderates into militants, made every industrial relations issue into a political issue, and made popular those who seek to disrupt for the sake of disruption.

Do we want to cut trade union bargaining power? Do we want to increase profits at the expense of wages? Or do we want that high-wage high-productivity enonomy that can come only from integrative bargaining between equals? Certainly the people we represent, whether they vote Conservative, Liberal or Labour, do not want to see wages cut for the sake of higher profits.

The Act rests upon two concepts. The first is the registration of trade unions, and the second is legally enforceable collective agreements. Before the Act came in the majority of trade unions were registered. Today, out of 10 million trade unionists affiliated to the TUC, 8,362,030 have already de-registered and a further 353,855 are taking steps to de-register. Only 8 per cent. are still in trade unions that intend to remain registered. When those trade unions lose the protection of the Bridlington Agreement their numbers may well dwindle further.

None of the 10 million trade unionists is working under legally enforceable collective agreements. Most of the country's leading employers—ICI, Ford, Unilever, British Leyland, Shell, and many more—have publicly agreed that their collective agreements should not be legally enforceable. The nationalised industries and the Civil Service have also agreed to what is becoming known as the Tina Lea clause, which means "This Is Not A Legally Enforceable Agreement". So, on its two legs, the Industrial Relations Act is already crippled. It is already "on ice". There is not the slightest indication that this position will alter in any way.

But the acrimony which the Act induced remains. What is really disastrous about the Act is that it is leading the law into contempt. No reform, however benevolent, is worth that. Prohibition did it in America and unleashed the disastrous period of gangsterism in the early 'thirties. Ordinary men and women in my constituency and up and down the country are being driven against the law; and they are right, because the law is wrong; but that is the road to anarchy.

The Act is literally poisoning industrial relations in Britain. Industrial relations will continue to be poisoned—I do not think we have yet seen the worst—until the Act is repealed and we turn over a new leaf. Only the lawyers are doing well out of it.

We were indeed, prior to 1971, making good progress in more enlightened collective bargaining. Trade union research departments were beginning to provide information that had never before been made available to trade unionists. Look, for example, at the positive agreements submitted to ICI last year. I have a copy in my hand. Today those same research departments are busy reading law books and court reports. Shop stewards were beginning to participate in raising productivity. Today they are busy reading law books. Personnel managers were beginning to get a major voice in industrial management and improving communications from and to the shop floor. Today they, too, are busy reading law books. Privately, every personnel manager I know thinks the Act is a disaster, and the advice of the Institute of Personnel Management on the consultative document appears to have been completely ignored.

The Government are obviously in a difficult position and will oppose this Motion. But there are hon. Members opposite, as on this side of the House, who have often stated that they will put their consciences and the interests of the nation above party politics.

Mr. John Page (Harrow, West)

Where are they?

Mr. Hughes

I ask those hon. Members to examine their consciences now and ask themselves: is the Industrial Relations Act, as things stand and in the foreseeable future, in the country's interest? I ask them honestly to support the Bill.

There are some who say that there are some good things in the Act which should be retained, even if the bad things should be repealed. I should like to see statutory protection against arbitrary dismissals, for example. Even in this regard, however, the Act is sadly behind the best practices in many countries. Much more important, any Clause, however benevolent, that comes in the cover of the detested Industrial Relations Act will get scant attention or support from the majority of trade unionists. So why not wipe the slate clean and start again? It would be a simple measure to legislate against arbitrary dismissals after this Bill is passed. In fact, in the last Parliament I made two attempts under the Ten Minutes Rule to introduce a Bill to do this very thing.

Anyone can make a wrong decision for the right reasons. Anyone can find that measures which he honestly believed would improve a situation end up by making that decision disastrously worse. But a big man, having found that he has taken the wrong advice, admits it. Only little men persist in perpetuating a mistake after experience has proved that the situation is daily deteriorating. Britain takes kindly to big men, even if she does not always agree with them on all matters.

Many years ago the late Sir Winston Churchill, in this House, said: It is not good for trade unions that they should be brought in contact with the courts, and it is not good for the courts. The courts hold justly a high and, I think, unequalled prominence in respect of the world in criminal cases, and in civil cases between man and man, no doubt, they deserve and command the respect and admiration of all classes in the community, but where class issues are involved…it is impossible to pretend that the courts command the same degree of general confidence. On the contrary, they do not, and a very large number of our population have been led to the opinion that they are unconsciously, no doubt, biased…We know perfectly well that the trade union movement ought to develop, ought not to be stereotyped, ought to have power to enter a new field, and to make new experiments…We wish to set the trade unions free to develop their efforts, to build up in this country a minimum standard of life and labour, and to secure the happiness of the people."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 30th May, 1911; Vol. xxvi, c. 1022–4.] Britain takes kindly to big men, but it does not take kindly to fools.

Mr. Speaker

Order. The Bill is being introduced under what is called the Ten Minutes Rule. The hon. Member has spoken for 11 minutes. The Standing Order says that "if he thinks fit" Mr. Speaker may permit a brief explanatory statement. I sometimes wonder what would happen if I did not think fit.

Mr. Hughes

The Bill would restore the legal position to what it was before the Industrial Relations Act became law. On that day sterling stood at $2.60. Today, sterling has dropped more than 8 per cent., and the financial Press has widely stated that the cause of the run on sterling was the threatened imprisonment of three dockers under the Industrial Relations Act.

If we could turn over a new leaf, if we could restore the confidence of ordinary working people in Government, if we could encourage the TUC really to get down to business with the CBI in working out new methods of arbitration and conciliation for the avoidance of disputes, reductions in strikes, increases in productivity and the will to work together, this would have an electrifying effect on sterling. I believe that we would see sterling back not at $2.60 but at $2.80. The prices of imported food and raw materials would fall. Exports, without the current wave of industrial unrest, would boom. Even more important, I believe that Britain would be a happier place in which to live.

According to an opinion poll in this week's Investors Chronicle & Stock Exchange Gazette of 7th July, 1972, only 38 per cent. of a sample of stock brokers——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I must ask the hon. Member to move his Motion.

Mr. Hughes

—investment trust managers, merchant bankers and investment advisers thought that the Industrial Relations Act "will work", 57 per cent. thought that it should either be changed now or scrapped altogether and the other 5 per cent. "didn't know". When I find myself in agreement with the late Sir Winston Churchill and the Investors Chronicle & Stock Exchange Gazette, then I know that we cannot all be wrong.

No Member on this side of the House——

Mr. Speaker

Order. I now ask the hon. Member for the third time to move his Motion.

Mr. Hughes

I ask the House to support the Bill and accept the Motion.

4.2 p.m.

Mr. Adam Butler (Bosworth)

I rise to oppose the introduction of the Bill, briefly, I hope, but it is a matter of great consequence, although that is not entirely clear from the shortage of hon. Members on the benches opposite.

The speech of the hon. Member for Newport (Mr. Roy Hughes) was predictable and the usual mixture of fallacy, misrepresentation and threat. I question whether he was not wasting the time of the House, since an Opposition Motion for the same purpose was defeated contemptuously in the House only 10 days ago.

The hon. Gentleman's charge is that the Act is disliked by everybody and is not working. Let me tell him the facts. Recent polls have shown that the majority of people in this country welcome the Act. They want the same sort of civil law in industrial relations as that to which they are accustomed in their everyday life which protects them from the antisocial behaviour of the neighbours. They want that same civil law to operate at their place of work, and that is the principle of the framework of law established by the Industrial Relations Act.

During the recent rail dispute, without question commuters welcomed the cooling-off period. It prevented massive disruption to our train services and a great deal of inconvenience to themselves. All workers are benefiting from longer periods of notice and improved contracts of employment under the Act. Do they reject it? Further, 2,000 individual workers with complaints about unfair dismissal and infringement of their trade union rights have been glad to make use of the tribunals and the conciliation services under the Act. Do they reject it? Other groups of workers have used the Act to gain recognition. Do they reject it? The 60 workers at Chobham Farm—members of the hon. Gentleman's own union, the TGWU—saw the new law and the courts as a last resort in trying to save their jobs.

What of the trade union movement as a whole? The hon. Gentleman tried to make some play of this, but unions representing 2½ million workers are still registered, of whom more than 1½ million are affiliated to the TUC. Despite the strongest pressure brought on them and the demands of union solidarity, they have their names on the permanent register. These include the shopworkers, the seamen, the Association of Scientific, Technical and Managerial Staffs, by a vote of members, and the Electrical and Plumbing Trades Union, by the vote of executive. All these see the benefits which come for their membership from the Act.

Would the hon. Gentleman repeal the Code of Practice, which is based on the best practices in industry? The Act has brought the spotlight to bear on our industrial relations problems and it is already activating improvements. Its effect will be long term, but it is clearly working; yet the Bill is attempting to repeal it.

I refute absolutely the allegation that the content of the Industrial Relations Act is responsible for the present state of industrial relations. The charge which I lay at the door of members of the Labour Party is that by deliberate misrepresentation and distortion and through blind political prejudice they have used the Act, through their opposition to it, to frustrate and obstruct that very move on the part of the trade union movement towards co-operation with the Government in solving the nation's problems which is now, at last, taking place. Hon. Gentlemen opposite would do well to quench their hostility and, with a little humility, try to understand what the Act is about. They should encourage their trade union friends to co-operate with it, to the advantage of their members and the nation.

In putting forward the Bill the hon. Gentleman is, unfortunately, doing just the opposite, and apparently he is supported by his hon. Friends. They are creating uncertainty when there should be firm intent. They are stimulating hostility where there should be co-operation. In the words of the hon. Gentleman, they are encouraging anarchy when there should be the rule of law. I must ask the House not to give leave for the Bill to be introduced.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 13 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of Public Business):—

The House divided: Ayes 203, Noes 228.

Division No. 287.] AYES [4.10 p.m.
Abse, Leo Freeson, Reginald Miller, Dr. M. S.
Albu, Austen Gilbert, Dr. John Milne, Edward
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Allen, Scholefield Golding, John Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Gordon Walker, Rt. Hn. P. C Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Armstrong, Ernest Gourlay, Harry Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Atkinson, Norman Grant, George (Morpeth) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Murray, Ronald King
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Oakes, Gordon
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Griffiths, Will (Exchange) O'Halloran, Michael
Baxter, William Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. O'Malley, Brian
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Oram, Bert
Bennett, James (Glasgow, Bridgeton) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Orbach, Maurice
Bidwell, Sydney Hamling, William Oswald, Thomas
Blenkinsop, Arthur Hardy, Peter Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Harper, Joseph Padley, Walter
Booth, Albert Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Paget, R. T.
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hattersley, Roy Palmer, Arthur
Bradley, Tom Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Broughton, Sir Alfred Heffer, Eric S. Pardoe, John
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne, W.) Horam, John Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Pavitt, Laurie
Brown, Ronald (Shoreditch & F'bury) Huckfield, Leslie Pentland, Norman
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Callaghan, Rt. Hn. James Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Prescott, John
Carmichael, Neil Hughes, Roy (Newport) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield) Hunter, Adam Price, William (Rugby)
Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles) Jeger, Mrs. Lena Probert, Arthur
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Rankin, John
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) John, Brynmor Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Cohen, Stanley Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Coleman, Donald Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.) Roberts,Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Concannon, J. D. Johnston, Russell (Inverness) Robertson, John (Paisley)
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Rodgers, Wiliam (Stockton-on-Tees)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Jones,Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Roper, John
Crawshaw, Richard Judd, Frank Ross, Rt. Hn. Wiliam (Kilmarnock)
Cronin, John Kaufman, Gerald Rowlands, Ted
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony Kelley, Richard Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Kerr, Russell Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Lambie, David Short,Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Dalyell, Tam Lamborn, Harry Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Lamond, James Sillars, James
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Latham, Arthur Skinner, Dennis
Davis. Clinton (Hackney, C.) Lawson, George Small, William
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Leadbitter, Ted Spearing, Nigel
Deakins, Eric Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Steel, David
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Leonard, Dick Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Dell. Rt. Hn. Edmund Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Strang, Gavin
Dempsey. James Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Doig, Peter Lipton, Marcus Tinn, James
Dormand, J. D. Lomas, Kenneth Torney, Tom
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Loughlin, Charles Urwin, T. W.
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Varley, Eric G.
Driberg, Tom McCartney, Hugh Wainwright, Edwin
Duffy, A. E. P. Mackenzie, Gregor Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)
Dunnett, Jack Mackie, John Walker, Harold (Doncaster)
Eadie Alex Mackintosh, John P. Watkins, David
Edwards, Robet (Bilston) Maclennan, Robert Wellbeloved, James
Edwards, William (Merioneth) McNamara, J. Kevin Whitehead, Phillip
English, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle) Whitlock, William
Evans, Fred Marks, Kenneth Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Ewing, Henry Marquand, David Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Faulds, Andrew Marsden, F. Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)
Fisher.Mrs.Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Marshall, Dr. Edmund Woof, Robert
Fitch Alan (Wigan) Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Meacher, Michael TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert Mr. Alec Jones and
Foley, Maurice Mendelson, John Mr. Neil McBride.
Foot, Michael Millan, Bruce
Forrester, John
Adley, Robert Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Atkins, Humphrey
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Awdry, Daniel
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Astor, John Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Gorst, John Neave, Airey
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Gower, Raymond Nicholls, Sir Harmar
Batsford, Brian Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Gray, Hamish Normanton, Tom
Bell, Ronald Green, Alan Nott, John
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Grylls, Michael Onslow, Cranley
Benyon, W. Gummer J. Selwyn Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Berry, Hn. Anthony Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
Biffen, John Hall, John (Wycombe) Page, Rt. Hn. Graham
Biggs-Davison, John Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Peyton, Rt. Hn. John
Blaker, Peter Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Pink, R. Bonner
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Hawkins, Paul Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch
Boscawen, Robert Higgins, Terence L Price, David (Eastleigh)
Bowden, Andrew Hiley, Joseph Proudfoot, Wilfred
Braine, Bernard Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk. S.) Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis
Bray, Ronald Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Quennell, Miss J. M.
Brewis, John Holland, Philip Raison, Timothy
Brinton, Sir Tatton Hordern, Peter Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Redmond, Robert
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)
Bruce-Gardyne, J. Hunt, John Rees, Peter (Dover)
Bryan, Sir Paul Hutchison, Michael Clark Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N&M) Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Ridley, Hn. Nicholas
Buck, Antony James, David Ridsdale, Julian
Bullus, Sir Eric Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Roberts, Wyn (Conway)
Burden, F. A. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray&Nairn) Jessel, Toby Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)
Carlisle, Mark Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.) Russell, Sir Ronald
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Jopling, Michael St. John-Stevas, Norman
Cary, Sir Robert Kaberry, Sir Donald Scott-Hopkins, James
Chapman, Sydney Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine Sharples, Sir Richard
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Kershaw, Anthony Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby)
Chichester-Clark, R. Kimball, Marcus Shelton, William (Clapham)
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.) Skeet, T. H. H.
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington)
Clegg, Walter King, Tom (Bridgwater) Soref, Harold
Cockeram, Eric Kinsey, J. R. Speed, Keith
Cooke, Robert Kirk, Peter Spence, John
Coombs, Derek Kitson, Timothy Stainton, Keith
Cordle, John Knox, David Stanbrook, Ivor
Cormack, Patrick Lambton, Lord Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Costain, A. P. Lamont, Norman Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M.
Critchley, Julian Lane, David Stokes, John
Crouch, David Langford-Holt, Sir John Tapsell, Peter
Crowder, F. P. Le Marchant, Spencer Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Dalkeith, Earl of Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland) Taylor,Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.James Longden, Gilbert Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Loveridge, John Tebbit, Norman
Digby, Simon Wingfield Luce, R. N. Temple, John M.
Dixon, Piers MacArthur, Ian Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec McCrindle, R. A. Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward McLaren, Martin Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Dykes, Hugh Macmillan,Rt.Hn.Maurice (Farnham) Tilney, John
Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John McNair-Wilson, Michael Trew, Peter
Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) McNair-Wilson, Patrick (NewForest) Tugendhat, Christopher
Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton) Madel, David Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Marten, Neil Vickers, Dame Joan
Emery, Peter Mather, Carol Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Eyre, Reginald Mawby, Ray Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Farr, John Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J. Walters, Dennis
Fell, Anthony Meyer, Sir Anthony Ward, Dame Irene
Fenner, Mrs. Peggy Mills, Peter (Torrington) Warren, Kenneth
Fidler, Michael Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W) Weatherill, Bernard
Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton) Moate, Roger Wiggin, Jerry
Fookes, Miss Janet Money, Ernle Wilkinson, John
Fortescue, Tim Monks, Mrs. Connie Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Fowler, Norman Monro, Hector Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Fox, Marcus Montgomery, Fergus Worsley, Marcus
Fry, Peter More, Jasper Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
Gibson-Watt, David Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm. TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Glyn, Dr. Alan Morrison, Charles (Devizes) Mr. Adam Butler and
Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Mudd, David Mr. John Page.
Goodhew, Victor Murton, Oscar

Question accordingly negatived.