HC Deb 16 November 1972 vol 846 cc731-65
Mr. Eric S. Heffer (Liverpool, Walton)

I beg to move Amendment No. 104, in Clause 5, page 3, line 28, leave out subsection (1) and insert: `(1) A person who contravenes any of the provisions of section 2 of this Act, other than subsections (2) and (5)(b), shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400 and on conviction on indictment to a fine'

The Temporary Chairman

With this Amendment we are to discuss the following Amendments:

No. 100, in page 3, line 29, after "2" insert: '(1), (3), (4), (5)(a) and (5)(c)'. No. 45, in page 3, line 29, after "Act" insert 'except subsection (2)'.

No. 41, in page 3, line 30, leave out '£400' and insert: '£4,000, and not less than £400'. No. 42, in page 3, line 32, at end insert: 'not less than £5,000, nor in excess of £50,000'. No. 88, in page 3, line 33, leave out subsection (2) and insert: '(2) If an employer contravenes the provision of section 2(2) of this Act he shall be liable to pay a sum equal to the increase in his wage and salary bill which results from such contravention as a surcharge on his employees' National Insurance contributions, such surcharge to be deducted from his employees' pay'. No. 56, in page 3, line 34, leave out from 'person' to second 'a' in line 35 and insert: 'aids, abets, counsels or procures'. No. 101, in page 3, line 36, after '2', insert: '(1), (3), (4), (5)(a) and (5)(c)'. No. 46, in page 3, line 36, after 'Act', insert 'except subsection (2)'.

No. 89, in page 4, line 11, leave out subsection (4).

No. 90, in page 4, line 23, leave out subsection (5).

No. 91, in page 4, line 28, leave out subsection (6)'.

No. 92, in page 4, line 36, leave out subsection (7)'.

No. 105, in page 4, line 40, leave out from 'conspiracy' to end of line 42 and insert: 'or to any other liability in tort'. No. 93, in page 4, line 43, leave out subsection (9).

Mr. Heffer

This will probably be the last debate in this Committee stage.

The Government's introduction of the guillotine, curtailing our debates, has led to a very serious situation for this Committee. During the last few days following our experience with the European Communities Bill and now this one, on which we were guillotined even before the Bill went into Committee, many hon. Members have begun to think that our activities in the House are largely a waste of time because the Government have decided to railroad through their legislation without proper debate or discussion. They want this Parliament to be merely a rubber stamp for the legislation. The House and the country must take note of this in the forthcoming period.

In this amendment we accept the control of prices while we argue against the control of freely-negotiated wages. This raises the important question of the wage element in inflation. To put it another way, is it true that the trade unions cause inflation with their wage demands? The Government and some economists argue that this is the basis of the present inflation. Conversely many economists in this country, amongst them some well-known Conservatives, argue and have argued in the pamphlet "Memorial to the Prime Minister": There is no evidence that the power of the trade unions has caused or can cause continuing inflation without a concomitant increase in the money supply. One can argue that the point about money supply is one that we obviously have to go into in greater depth.

I do not accept all of the argument advanced by the hon. Member for Oswestry (Mr. Biffen) and the right hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-West (Mr. Powell), but the pamphlet goes on to say: Trade unionism no matter how militant or monopolistic cannot do much to change the percentage of the national income that goes on net wages and salaries. Appendix 2 shows how little the percentage has changed. In fact, according to a chart in the document, the take-home percentage in wages of the national income has declined since the years 1956, 1957 and 1958.

Again, the pamphlet "Do Trade Unions Cause Inflation", by Dudley Jackson, Professor Turner and Frank Wilkinson argues that whereas the unions contribute to the inflationary process to a certain extent, almost everything causes inflation in the modern economly.

These introductory remarks are related to Amendment No. 104. The point is that despite the fact that a series of economists, both Left-wing and Right-wing, have said that there is no hard evidence to suggest that trade unions and wage demands cause inflation, the Government claim to know better. They have argued consistently for a number of years that the present inflation has been based on wage demands by the unions. They claim to know the position. In reality, they have never produced any evidence to support that claim.

Mr. Gower

Does not the hon. Gentleman agree that the remark "One man's wage increase is another man's price increase" did not stem from this side of the Committee?

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Heffer

The hon. Gentleman is referring to the speech of my right hon. Friend the former Prime Minister. It is well known that I have not always agreed with my right hon. Friend. I do not claim to defend everything that was said or done during the period 1964–70. We are now discussing the present Government. Neither they nor any other Government have provided hard evidence that inflation has been caused by trade union demands for increased wages. In this connection I shall refer to three factors, all of which contain little wage element, that have been responsible in the past for inflation and price increases.

The first factor is rent increases. Those increases, whether or not they amount to £1 or, taking into account a mythical rebate, to 50p, were the deliberate policy of the present Government. Thus, they alone are responsible for the resultant inflation.

The second factor concerns house prices, land speculation and the problem of old houses, some of which were built 50, 60, 100 or even 200 years ago. There is little or no wage element in relation to those house prices, because the joiners, bricklayers and plasterers concerned in building them are long since dead. It cannot therefore be argued that their wage increases are responsible for housing or land speculation.

Food prices have gone up by 21.7 per cent. since the Government came into office. Is that due to the inflationary pressure of the farm workers? They were awarded a wage increase, which they will not now receive until the end of the freeze, which was to enable them to catch up with the increased cost of living. They have not forced up the cost of food.

It might be argued that there have been external factors. I have heard it said in the House of Commons that inflation is due entirely to external factors. If that is so, and if the price of food has gone up because of world increases in food prices, our farm workers cannot be blamed. Nor can the higher wage earners be blamed. Therefore, it is clear that the three aspects I have mentioned are all factors in the inflationary spiral. The wages element has been introduced by the Government to blame their own failures on the trade unions, so that they themselves could escape the just criticism of the British people.

Our Amendment No. 100 is designed to ensure that subsection (2) of the Clause is removed. The subsection is aimed at the trade unions and employers' organisations which may seek to grant increased wages and other conditions that have been freely negotiated. A trade union or, since the Industrial Relations Actan organisation of workers or organisation of employers or any other organisation"— whatever that may mean; it is a vague statement and opens up the widest possible interpretation— or person who takes, or threatens to take, any action with a view to compel, induce or influence a person to contravene any of the provisions of section 2 of this Act could be fined either £100 or an unlimited fine on conviction.

There is no doubt that it is the trade union movement, the organised working-class movement, which is likely to be the greatest sufferer under that provision. We could ask whether the Government will be stupid enough to take action against workers who might become involved in strikes or other forms of industrial action. I ask that question because it has a definite relevance to a number of situations that are developing. I cite two examples, one in South Wales and the other in Liverpool. Both these difficult situations are arising out of productivity agreements

In Liverpool there is a factory which has had very little industrial strife. It has a progressive productivity scheme which is applied to every section of the factory except the toolroom. That section will not have it applied—it was to come into operation in two weeks' time—because of the Bill. Yet the workers in the other parts of the factory and the toolroom are doing similar jobs requiring similar skills. Thus the toolroom workers are likely to take industrial action. If they do so, under the clause those workers can become liable for fines. If they refuse to pay the fine they are liable for imprisonment.

In South Wales there is a highly productive factory with a good export record. Seventy per cent. of the workers in that factory have gone over to an agreement; the other 30 per cent., caught as a result of the freeze, are on the production line. One can imagine the effect on the production line when they realise they are caught under the Act.

The legislation the Government have brought in is a further example of the repressive legislation to which we have become accustomed since they came into office. Their whole philosophy seems to be based on forcing people, especially working people, to accept the Government's dictates. It has not always been like that. This Government have faced different situations. The hon. Member for Oswestry said the other night that quoting past speeches did not help very much. It certainly did not help the Government very much.

The Prime Minister made a speech on 3rd August, 1966, to which I must refer, because it shows how the leader of the country is standing on his head and that he is totally politically dishonest. The Prime Minister said: These provisions cannot be justified in ordinary peace-time conditions, … we are utterly opposed to it. It is not in that direction that greatness for this country lies. This is the divide between us …". He said that the freeze would lead to compulsion, to the complete control of the economy … and to increasing restrictions on personal liberty, to a freeze on everything, including, above all, a freeze on progress."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 3rd August, 1966; Vol. 733, c. 502.] That is proof that the Government are a bunch of political hypocrites. When they are out of office right hon. and hon. Members opposite say that they are not prepared to introduce statutory legislation and then they try to slide it in, pretending that they have always believed in such legislation, without any real justification for what they are doing. It is no good the hon. Member for Birmingham, Edgbaston (Mrs. Knight) shaking her head. I do not know whether the hon. Lady was in the House at that time.

Mrs. Jill Knight (Birmingham, Edgbaston) rose—

Mr. Heffer

I withdraw my implied invitation to the hon. Lady to intervene. [HON. MEMBERS: "Disgraceful!"] Right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite do not like it when they are reminded of what they said and did.

I conclude my remarks by drawing attention to the type of wording that we are trying to eliminate. It is reminiscent of parts of the Industrial Relations Act. It contains the same phraseology, the same legal language. The other day the Daily Telegraph said that the former Solicitor-General was the legal linkman—and he is certainly the legal linkman between the Industrial Relations Act and this Measure. We are faced with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's rather mean, uncompromising, relentless legalistic attitude. I am referring not to the present Solicitor-General, but to the previous one; I am talking of the ex-Solicitor-General. So we will get used to the same sort of attitudes with this that we got during that period.

9.30 p.m.

I have long believed that if one introduces compulsory penal legislation undermining the whole basis of freely negotiated trade union agreements, one takes the country towards the corporate State concept. One would be trying to slip the trade unions into a slot, where their position is clearly marked out, where the employer's position is clearly marked out, where the trade unions became nothing but an organ of the State, instead of carrying out their proper function of fighting for wage increases as free trade unionists.

That is what is happening. I am not saying anything different from what I have often said. The Government are saying that the Bill is a temporary measure. Every Government which has undermined democracy has always done this kind of thing as a temporary measure. Governments say that it will last for only a short time, but it builds up. It is made worse because we know the second phase is coming. This is the first phase. If some Government supporters who believe as we do had the guts, courage and determination to fight the Bill, as some of us were prepared to argue against some Labour Government legislation, there would not be the same danger to the democratic process.

I ask the Committee to support the amendments. We must have a free trade union movement and we must have free bargaining. The Bill takes them away, temporarily or permanently. It is a serious blow to the democratic rights and principles of the people.

Mr. Michael Grylls (Chertsey)

Listening to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) one might have imagined that his was the only signature on the amendment. If it had been—and I make this point in all seriousness—one would have listened to him with more respect. However, it has five signatures of members of the Labour Government.

When the hon. Gentleman tries to convince us that there is no relationship between wages and prices, he is on extremely shaky ground. The fact that there is a direct correlation in both directions, between prices and wages and wages and prices, was accepted by Labour Members when they were in office.

To illustrate that I should like to quote from their own White Paper, Cmnd. 3590. On page 7, concerning incomes, it states: … substantial restraint is required over the next two years, and the Government propose to take power to delay increases … up to 12 months. That is fairly good proof that the right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), who has also signed the amendment, as a member of the previous Government, thought that there was a direct connection between the two; otherwise why put that into the White Paper?

Paragraph 41 of the White Paper states: Pay increases based on a rise in the cost of living are not justified under the criteria, and should not be conceded. The Prime Minister's proposals to the TUC and the CBI were to be linked with a threshold agreement which would have covered the rise in the cost of living.

The White Paper goes on to say: Not only would this be self-defeating since it would result in further increases in costs and prices, but it could set off a wage-price spiral that would damage our competitive position. That seems to be absolute proof that, whatever the hon. Gentleman—I respect his individual position in the last Parliament on this matter—now says from the Opposition Front Bench, it was certainly not the view of his party. The Labour Party accepted this, and any right-thinking person, irrespective of party, must see that there is a connection. This is the problem facing the country now. The difference between 1969 and now is that the economy is expanding. There is a real increase in the national wealth and we have managed to reduce taxes substantially.

The hon. Gentleman mentioned the issue of land prices. Of course, they are a worry to everybody, but it is very easy to describe something as disgraceful and not put forward any proposal to deal with it. The fact is that, although land and house prices have risen fast since the end of the war, the only way to deal with the problem is to see that more land is released and more houses are built so that the demand is satisfied.

Is the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton suggesting that land prices should be permanently controlled? He posed a problem which we all understand and appreciate. He has not told us whether they should be controlled. If he wants to control land prices, what does he think the result would be? I should be very interested to hear whether he has a solution.

Mr. Heffer

I do not want to waste the Committee's time, but the Opposition's attitude was clearly explained by my right hon. Friend the Member for Grimsby (Mr. Crosland) this afternoon in the debate on the question of housing and land. If the hon. Gentleman had been here, he would have heard what my right hon. Friend said.

Mr. Grylls

I was not here, but I am still eager to hear from the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton whether he thinks that land prices should be controlled.

The Temporary Chairman

Order. I hope that the Committee will not pursue the argument of land prices. I am having a little difficulty in seeing in which amendment land prices are specifically mentioned.

Mr. Grylls

I accept your admonition, Miss Quennell, but I was led into this channel by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton, who spoke about land prices early in his speech.

I believe that the majority of the members of the CBI and TUC and the vast majority of the people in this country want to get on with the Bill so that the freeze can be over as quickly as possible.

The fines and penalties for people who do not observe the Act are perfectly properly put in as they are because the vast majority of those in the CBI and TUC—employers and employees alike—will respect the national interest and show self-restraint. Employers and a vast number of trade unionists understand the problem, they understand why the Government have taken decisive action, and they look forward to the moment when the freeze ends so that an agreement can be negotiated to allow wages to go ahead and the cost of living kept down.

Mr. Loughlin

There is one statement by the hon. Member for Chertsey (Mr. Grylls) with which we all agree—we are all concerned about inflation and its effect on the nation. There is no argument about that; we differ only on the cause of inflation. It has been the emphasis that has been laid upon wage cost inflation by the Government that has created the difference between us. Every hon. Member must recognise that Britain is not a high wage economy. Although there has been a degree of improvement in wages in Great Britain compared with EEC countries, they are still 25 per cent. lower. That calculation is based on the hourly labour costs—the total labour costs including insurance—according to an independent and objective survey carried out on average wages in Europe.

It is the constant emphasis by the Tory Party on high wages as a cause of inflation that creates the difference between the parties. Later I shall seek to show some of the wage rates that apply and about which people will be prosecuted.

There has been a whole series of debates today. From them have emerged two observations. The greater proportion of hon. Members who have listened to the debates could not have escaped the conviction that it would be nigh impossible for the Government to implement any policing or action against increases in prices. Even listening to Front Bench spokesmen one has had the impression that the Government want voluntary action in respect of prices. The hon. Gentleman on the Front Bench nods his head in agreement, that when it comes to wage restraint by trade unions and workers voluntary action is not good enough.

We have had an admission from the Government that under this legislation it would be impossible to catch builders, whether or not they were speculators; it was impossible to curb the activities of land speculators, irrespective of how they abused a situation. We now have the position clearly defined. The Bill allows for only a voluntary price freeze. It allows for no freeze in house and land prices.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Or food.

Mr. Loughlin

I shall come to that in a moment.

Mr. Grylls

The penalties are exactly the same if people contravene the provisions about prices as if they contravene those about wages. Incidentally, that is also true about dividends: if a company declares a higher dividend, it will be committing an offence.

[Mr. E. L. MALLALIEU in the Chair]

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Loughlin

Technically that may be so. But the Committee has examined how to ensure policing and action on prices. It has been almost freely admitted, even by Front Bench spokesmen, that there cannot be any guarantee that the Bill will control prices except by voluntary action on the part of the organisations concerned, which applies to land prices and those of houses.

The Bill excludes foodstuffs. I am glad to see the new Under-Secretary of State for Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the Front Bench. I have already congratulated her in private; and I now congratulate her in public. She knows that meat, fish, vegetables, fruit and a great amount of other food is excluded and so will not be controlled.

When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) referred to Clause 5(2) I said, "We have been here before", because this is similar to the Section in the Industrial Relations Act. Clause 5(2) says: If an organisation of workers or organisation of employers, or any other organisation or person"— that was excluded from the Industrial Relations Acttakes, or threatens to take, any action with a view to compel, induce or influence a person to contravene … Subsection (6) imposes similar conditions upon people who are alleged to be defined, but who could be described as a secretary? What is a secretary? Is a secretary a general secretary of a union or a secretary of a branch? I cracked a gag about the Solicitor-General because I felt that my hon. Friend was accusing him of something he had never done. But precisely how will he have the audacity to try to implement these provisions? I declare an interest. I am an official of the Union of Shop Distributive and Allied Workers. Yesterday, we had many speeches about the agricultural workers, and I agree that they should have a wage increase. Is the hon. and learned Gentleman to apply either of these two provisions to a person who induces agricultural workers to try to obtain an increase in wages? It is an offences to try not only to obtain a block increase in wages, but to induce a person.

If an agricultural worker says to an employer, "If you do not give me another £2 I shall leave", will the Government prosecute him? If it happens to be a general secretary of a union who is doing the inducing or the influencing, will the Government prosecute him, even though he might be acting outside his official capacity? How many people does the hon. and learned Gentleman think will go to gaol if this part of the Bill is implemented? We shall have a situation precisely similar to the situation we had with the Industrial Relations Act. People will be put into goal, as I said would happen under the Industrial Relations Act, even though the Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, then Solicitor-General, said that it would not happen.

Which Minister would apply the Bill to the 120,000 of my union's members who are engaged in the multiple grocery trade? We have an agreement applicable to all provincial towns. It is known as "Provincial 'A' grade". It is for £14 per week at 22 years of age. It provides that within the first six months of the employment of an individual that £14 may be reduced by 50p.

Some Government supporters represent similar constituencies to mine, with a country area and a multiplicity of townships and villages. In title towns of 5,000 and 6,000, Provincial 'A' does not apply; Provincial 'B' applies in those towns, and the rate is £13.65, with a similar provision that for the first six months it may be reduced by 50p. What hon. Member would have the audacity to prosecute someone for inducing me to get an increase in wages for a man whose wage was £14 a week, and who was living in a large town, or earning £13.65 and living in a small town?

It is no good hon. Members on the Government side talking about the family income supplement and rent rebates. I remember the incident during yesterday's debate when it was pointed out to a rich hon. Member that it is the poor who do not challenge and that it is the poor who do not want to let anyone know they are poor. One of the reasons why there is such a low take-up of family income supplement and a low take-up, if one discounts supplementary benefit, of rent rebates is precisely that. The members of my union do not want anyone to know that they are poor. They would rather suffer their poverty than the indignity of going cap in hand to someone else.

I do not want to be personal—I have as many vices as anyone has—but I remind the Committee that there are hon. Members who would spend more than £13.65 on taking the wife out for a meal. What is more, they take the wife out for a meal not once every six months but, more likely, once a week, spending that amount on each meal. I do not criticise them—I take my wife out and we have a good meal sometimes—and I am not being personal in any way. But how can we as Members of Parliament put into effect legislation designed to impose penalties on those who attempt to influence or induce someone to give a working person an increase on the rates to which I referred a moment ago?

Mr. Tom King (Bridgwater)

The hon. Gentleman is making a powerful case on behalf of the lower-paid. Can he honestly envisage any group in our society who have suffered more than that group from the effects of inflation, and can he wish for them anything other than the set of measures which could have been reached, but which sadly were not, to establish a voluntary agreement specifically designed to help the lower-paid?

Mr. Loughlin

I saw the antics of the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) on the Industrial Relations Bill. I do not believe that he has the slightest sympathy—

Mr. Gower

Answer the question.

Mr. Loughlin

I shall answer it. I have never yet failed to answer a question from the hon. Gentleman. I do not believe he has the slightest sympathy for the working classes. If he had been listening, he would have heard the answer in the first three minutes of my speech: that the difference between the two sides is that hon. Members on the Government side argue that we have a high wage-cost inflation, whereas we know that is not so. That is his answer

Mr. King

It is no answer.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Who caused the inflation? It was the Tory Government.

Mr. Loughlin

I do not want to be prompted, because if we get on to that track I shall point out who will be causing further inflation next year with VAT, food price increases, rent increases and the rest.

Any Minister who introduces legislation of this kind threatening to put into prison—that is what it comes to—men who seek to influence or induce an improvement in the standard of life of the people to whom I have referred is not even worth looking at, let alone listening to.

10.0 p.m.

Mr. Gower

I can hardly believe that the hon. Members for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) and Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) would ask the Committee to accept that they believe there is no connection between increases in earnings and the inflationary tendency from which we have suffered in recent years. That has not been the belief of their party over the last 10 years, including the last seven years when they were in office. They introduced the most elaborate system of detailed controls to deal with increases of that kind.

The hon. Member for Walton knows perfectly well that what happened under the last Labour Government has happened under the present Government, that annually, or at shorter intervals, certain groups have come forward and asked for more. I make no invidious distinctions between those groups, which have included airline pilots earning fairly large salaries, railway workers and coal miners. There have been various degrees of need in these claims. The hon. Gentleman knows that within a few months of such increases, perhaps six months, the employers including the Post Office, British Rail and all kinds of organisations, nationalised industries as well as private industry, have said that they must increase their prices as they have bigger outgoings because of the last wage claim.

I do not know what the Opposition think, but my impression is that people are fed up with these annual claims. They are completely fed up with inflation, which has existed for many years and is not always set-off by the needs of particular elements. The Opposition may boast that they did many things when in Government to ease the social conditions of the lower-paid. They may say that they took steps to introduce benefits to lessen the impact of claims for increases, but they had singularly little impact on the claims which were made.

The hon. Member for Walton does not realise what a nonsense he would make of the Bill if Amendment No. 104 were incorporated. There is to be a standstill for a limited period, but the hon. Gentleman was talking as though this was a permanent measure to prevent any improvement in the position of the lower-paid. The hon. Gentleman knows that it is not such a measure. It is a temporary and, I hope, relatively short-lived measure, which includes terms and provisions for the temporary ending of price increases in certain phases of the retailing of goods and services. It also includes provisions for a period when there shall be no increase in dividends and no increase in the price of certain goods. As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it includes provisions for a period during which there shall be no increase in certain earnings.

If the Amendment No. 104 is carried, we shall have the ridiculous situation that if a person increases the price of certain goods he will have the sanction of the law against him. Likewise, if a person increases dividends he will have against him the sanction of the law. But if a person breaks the provisions of the Bill and puts up the earnings of a group of people, he will not have against him the sanctions of the law. That would make an absolute nonsense of the Bill.

The second amendment gees further. It proposes to take out of the Bill that part which places an embargo for a limited time on increases in certain earnings. If the amendment were accepted it would restore the position we have had during the last 12 months or so, when we have had, across a fairly wide range, a voluntary control of certain prices by the CBI.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

Is not the hon. Gentleman aware that the Government themselves are the biggest culprit in this respect? I believe that they have already decided to break the Bill when it becomes an Act, because the present Parliamentary Commissioner, the ombudsman, will have an increase in salary, but it will not be given until after this measure is enacted. It will then be given on the excuse that he has had extra work put on him by having to deal with the National Health Service. If this had been done by the workers, the Bill would have had its effect on them, but in the other case the Government can do this.

Mr. Gower

We know that the Bill is not perfect, and we have already admitted that it is a very rough and blunt instrument, but the increase in the salary of one individual like the ombudsman could have no effect at all—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—but the whole range of increases in the prices of commodities, goods and earnings referred to in the Bill can have a cataclysmic effect. The purpose of the Bill is to deal with the main problem that has faced the country for many years, and I believe that acceptance of either amendment would destroy its credibility.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West was most unfair in suggesting that my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) or any of my hon. Friends hoped to preserve the unhappy position of some of the lower-paid workers. The truth is that the worst thing that could happen for these workers is a continuation of the inflation from which we have suffered, and the best thing that could happen for them is the ending of inflation.

The lowest-paid will be the prime and first beneficiaries of the Bill's success. They will benefit more than will the higher-paid. Whatever the merits of the proposals put forward a little while ago by the Prime Minister, they had the supreme merit, from the point of view of a Socialist, that they would have conferred a much greater benefit on the lower-paid than on the higher-paid. Those proposals would have conferred a proportionately much larger benefit on the man earning £20 a week than on the company director earning £3,000 a year. I am astonished that a Labour Opposition could have opposed, or appear to oppose, a provision so eminently favourable to the lower-paid.

I sincerely hope that the need for this kind of Bill will be relatively short lived. I hope that the legislation which will be designed to supersede it or fortify it will not have some of the imperfections of these temporary provisions. But I am astonished that Labour Members should speak in such terms of a measure which will be of the greatest benefit to the very people, the lowest-paid, whose cause they plead.

Mr. William Hamilton (Fife, West)

We are discussing what is probably the most serious problem facing the country today, and it would be foolish and dishonest for anyone on this side to pretend that there is not a relationship between prices and incomes of all kinds. I am a passionate believer in obeying the law, no matter how offensive it may appear to one section of the community or another. If the House makes a law, that law should be obeyed, but if we are to accept that proposition we must treat offenders against the law with much more seriousness than the Bill appears to treat them. That is why I have put down two Amendments relating to the fines for offences against the prices and incomes control. There have been very few speeches directly related to the Amendments so far and I wish to confine my remarks to my Amendments.

Clause 5(1)(a) says in specific reference to prices that a company on summary conviction for fraud for defying the law is subject to a fine not exceeding £400. We have only to look at the newspapers to see the enormous companies in this country, companies like Cadbury-Schweppes or Boots. Such companies are being told that if they flout the law it will cost them a maximum fine of £400. Either the Government are serious or they are not serious about their intentions. My Amendment contains a purely arbitrary figure of £4,000 fine, and that would take account of the very inflation at which the Bill is aimed.

The Government err in the opposite direction. Clause 5(2)(b) says that offenders shall, on conviction on indictment, be liable to a fine of unspecified quantity. That fine may be £10, because there might be mitigating circumstances, or it might be £500,000. We should be more precise about such things if we are to be serious.

I object very much to the tripartite talks between the three establishment sections of the community—the TUC, the CBI and the Government—from which the House of Commons is excluded. Now it is our turn to come in and clean up the process after those three have gone through the motions of trying to achieve a phoney agreement. Not one of those three could deliver the goods without ultimately coming to Parliament. The Government knew that neither the TUC nor the CBI could deliver and they knew that they themselves could not deliver unless and until they came to the House. That is what they are doing now.

The talks were bound to fail and the Government knew it. This covers the point raised by the hon. Member for Bridgwater (Mr. Tom King) who intervened in the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin). My brother is an organiser in the union to which he referred and he knew that if they had accepted the £2 flat-rate increase, which was allegedly to help the lower-paid workers, hundreds of thousands of those workers would have been worse off in the event.

Government intervention in this sphere is inevitable on an increasing scale and if the Minister were to be consistent he would read his speech tonight standing on his head, because that is what the Government have done for the last two years after telling people to stand on their own feet and that the free market would solve all the problems.

The Government have now come to face the realities and we in the Labour Party will have to face them if we become the Government again, despite all that our Front Bench says now. I would not have the nerve, if I had been a member of the Labour Government, now to oppose the principle of what is being done. We must face the fact that Government intervention in large measure will solve this problem, not the free play of the market—whether it be on the trade union side or the employers' side.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Pardoe

The speech of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) was a most remarkable performance. I felt rather like Oscar Wilde, who said of someone or other, "I only wish I could be as certain of anything as that man is of everything." The hon. Gentleman clearly stated his belief that there is no connection between wage levels and inflation. He said quite categorically that trade unions cannot cause inflation, and he quoted some Conservative pamphleteers—

Mr. Heffer

Let us have absolute honesty. I said nothing of the sort. I quoted a group of economists who argued that wage demands and trade unions were not responsible for inflation. I then quoted another group of economists, Left-wing economists, who admitted that there was a connection between wages and inflation but said that in our modern society inflation was caused by just about everything, and that the basic, underlying reason was not wages alone. I said that the Government were certain, because they said that it was wages alone.

Mr. Pardoe

I shall be very interested to read the hon. Gentleman's speech in HANSARD tomorrow, unless he has changed it in the meantime. I listened to it very carefully and honestly did not think that anyone who heard it could possibly believe the interpretation the hon. Gentleman has now put upon it.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I think that I deserve the protection of the Chair in the interests of the House. I never change my speeches. I never go up to the HANSARD office to see whether they are correct. In fact, the other day my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) drew my attention to an obvious slight misinterpretation of something I had said. Therefore, the hon. Gentleman should withdraw the imputation that I go up to the office to change my speeches or even to attempt to change them.

Mr. Pardoe

I do not suppose that the hon. Gentleman ever goes to read his speeches. Some of us would wish that he did.

Mr. Heffer

On a point of order—

The Second Deputy Chairman (Mr. E. L. Mallalieu)

Order. Can the hon. Gentleman assure me that it is a point of order?

Mr. Heffer

I am asking for the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the imputation that I was prepared to change my speeches in the HANSARD office. I want a withdrawal from the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Pardoe

What I have now from the hon. Gentleman is a categorical assurance that he will not change his speech; I only wish that he would.

Mr. Arthur Lewis

On a point of order. I have been a Member for long enough to know that there is a number of rules and regulations in the Standing Orders as well as the customs and practice of the House. As you know, Mr. Mallalieu, the custom and practice is that no one, but no one, can alter the OFFICIAL REPORT, though it is permissible to have the text corrected in draft. Therefore, what the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) has said contains a reflection upon the HANSARD reporters and the officials of the House, in suggesting that anyone can alter a speech. I ask you, Mr. Mallalieu, to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw what he said, because no hon. Member is allowed to alter a speech. This I can say on the basis of 28 years' experience.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I did not notice any such reflection.

Mr. Pardoe rose—

Mr. Michael Foot (Ebbw Vale)

On a point of order. Surely there could be no greater imputation against an hon. Member than to suggest that he would go from this Chamber and alter what is to appear in HANSARD. I do not know whether hon. Members would regard such a charge against them as grave, but I should regard it as such. I submit, Mr. Mallalieu, that it is your duty to call upon the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) to withdraw the charge, if he has any honour at all.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I think that most hon. Members go up to the HANSARD office to alter their speeches. Which sense of the world "alter" was intended was by no means plain. I heard nothing unparliamentary.

Mr. Robert Hughes (Aberdeen, North)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu. I feel that on reflection, Mr. Mallalieu, you will feel that the words used by the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) were disgraceful. He was not suggesting that slight alterations in the text would be made but that following his speech my hon. Friend would go upstairs to the OFFICIAL REPORT and substantially change the body of the speech. For that imputation to be made by anyone who claims to be liberal is quite disgraceful.

The Second Deputy Chairman

I do not think that the hon. Gentleman made that imputation.

Mr. William Price (Rugby)

Further to that point of order, Mr. Mallalieu.

Mr. Pardoe

In order to—

Mr. Price

Further to that point of order.

Mr. Pardoe

In order to save this situation continuing longer, may I say to the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) that I did not for a moment suggest that he would change the whole content of his speech. Of course, many hon. Members change the punctuation.

Mr. Price

That is not what the hon. Gentleman said.

Mr. Pardoe

I certainly withdraw any implication that the hon. Gentleman has ever changed his speeches. As he has said, he does not go upstairs to read his speeches.

One of the extraordinary things about the debate is that the speeches on prices and incomes over the last four years have all been the same. They have remained obstinately on the two sides of the Chamber, although the parties have moved backwards and forwards. The only consistent speeches about prices and incomes have come from the Liberal benches, because we have been in favour of a prices and incomes policy since I have been a Member of the House.

There is nothing new in the link between incomes and inflation. It surely is a link that nearly all of us in the House and surely all sane trade unionists accept. It is a link which was the basis of Keynesian economics. For anyone to suggest that there is not a link between trade union power and inflation they have to answer why it is that real wage rates are 17 per cent. up on the level of a year ago while prices are only 8 per cent. up. They have to answer why there is demand for 17 per cent. more money in order to pay for 8 per cent. more on prices.

Again, what is the limit to the bargaining power of a group of workers such as the power workers? In a modern industrial society it is virtually unlimited. No Government could bring in the troops, even if they wanted to do so. Heaven forbid that the Government would want to do that. But one could not bring troops into power stations for there would be a black-out immediately. They could not run the stations. This closely knit, small group could, if so minded, hold the country to total ransom. Therefore, there has to be some kind of Government control on this sort of unlimited bargaining power.

I do not wish to enter into that argument as I have already made my position perfectly clear in previous debates. I want to address myself to the specific question of fines and to draw the Government's attention to the amendments, which are linked with the main amendment, standing in the name of my hon. Friends and myself. We aim to remove the whole question of fines from the prices and incomes policy. Sooner or later this will be done, and one Government or another will accept a tax on inflation. It has already become widely accepted—not in the pamphlets of right-wing Conservative economists, but, nevertheless, in fairly moderate circles—that it is perfectly possible to tax inflation, as Amendment No. 87, which has not been selected, suggests. It is possible to increase corporation tax for those companies which increase their prices above the norm, which is in this case a zero norm, as is chosen in the Bill. Similarly, it is perfectly possible to increase National Insurance contributions to cancel out any increases in wages above the norm.

What one would be saying to the trade union leaders is not, "We shall send you to gaol or fine you if you do your job by exerting your bargaining power to the utmost of your ability", but rather, "Go ahead and exert your bargaining power; but, if you get more than the economy can stand, we shall take it back from your members in increased taxes." That is the way to a sane and sensible prices and incomes policy.

I put this suggestion forward on this late occasion only because it seems that it ought to be introduced into our prices and incomes debates at this stage. It is a policy to which the Liberal Party is already committed. I am convinced that, together with a larger number of other Liberal policies, it will become widely accepted in time.

Finally, regarding Amendment No. 93, will the Solicitor-General explain why subsection (9) is necessary? Why is it necessary to reserve the right of prosecution under this or, indeed, any other Bill to the Attorney-General?

I gave evidence in the Peter Hain trial. I do not know whether it did either Peter Hain or myself any good. Anyway, I gave evidence and made it clear throughout that I believed in private prosecution. I believed in Francis Benyon's right to bring that prosecution, although I disagreed fundamentally with his reasons for doing so. It is wrong to pass legislation in which we reserve the right of prosecution solely to the Attorney-General. I suspect that we do it because the legislation is acknowledged by the Government introducing it to be seriously defective and capable of a wide range of interpretation. If that is the reason, I suggest we ought to pass better legislation.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Michael Havers)

I listened with impatience for a while to the opening speech by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer). Having looked at his amendments, I did some work anticipating that a serious case would be put forward in their support. Unfortunately, all we got was really another Second Reading speech—the usual knockabout stuff which I quite enjoyed when I first came to the House, but which, after repetition, becomes rather boring. Indeed, instead of anything substantial, we get little more than a snuffle in a thunderstorm.

The amendment goes back to the fundamental problem of the difference between the Government and the Opposition whether there is to be any control of wages. It must be wrong to exclude wages from the operation of the Bill. This matter was discussed at length yesterday, and, indeed, was dealt with by the vote at the end of the debate.

The only effect of this group of amendments is to raise again the issue of compulsory statutory control upon prices and companies' dividends, but leaving out wages. I think the policy has been absolutely clear from the beginning: that both sides of industry must bear their share of the burden in the fight against inflation. If that policy were not included in the Bill, it would be seriously defective.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West (Mr. Loughlin) raised an important point when he said that the Bill would mean people being sent to gaol. I hope the hon. Gentleman noticed that Clause 5 contains only monetary penalties. There is no question of a gaol sentence.

Mr. Loughlin

What about default?

The Solicitor-General

What would happen to a man if a fine was not paid has become clearer over past years. This would not apply to any unincorporated organisation of workers. Fines by magistrates' courts in England and Wales can be enforced under the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, by a warrant of distress. Under Section 46 of the Criminal Justice Act, 1967, a magistrates' court can make an attachment of earnings order. A fine can also be enforced by the high court or the county court under the Criminal Justice Act by certain similar methods which would in some cases amount to the attachment of a bank balance or of dividends by charging order.

I must emphasise the point that, except in certain special circumstances—for example, where a man is already in prison—the court must allow the offender time to pay the fine and thereafter, before committing him to prison, must have inquired into his means and found other methods of enforcement were inappropriate or unsuccessful. A Crown Court has the same power to order imprisonment where a fine is unpaid, but again must take into consideration the same matters as a magistrate's court before committing to prison. What arises here is not whether the Government or the Attorney-General—using the rather loose language of the hon. Gentleman—will send one of his union members to prison. That would only happen if the man was determined to be a martyr, which is a very different matter indeed.

10.30 p.m.

The hon. Member for Gloucestershire, West, who referred to 120,000 union members of the multiple retail trade living on the low wages that he described, used the phrase "audacity to prosecute." One wonders what would be the reaction of himself and of any of those 120,000 members of his union if 120,000 retailers put up their prices. This again is an indication of why it can only be right that it should be applied right across the board. It cannot be right to have it one sided.

Coming to the amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Fife, West (Mr. William Hamilton), who, with the frankness that I have come to expect from him, accepted the relationship between wages and prices, said that the restriction of the penalty in the magistrates court to £400 was too small a limitation, and named a number of very large public companies which, he said, would be completely unconcerned by a fine of that kind. Let me tell him this. The sum of £400 is the maximum under the law for a fine in the magistrates court. It would be quite wrong to have a minimum because a minimum would mean that the court could not make an order for less. Every case must not only depend on the facts of the case, which may involve an offence of a very minor character when a fine of £400 would be much too large, but the court has to bear in mind the financial circumstances of the offender.

This increase proposed by the hon. Member for Fife, West would apply across the board to individuals, to ordinary working men, as well as to the big corporations. In a serious case, involving a very large company, the prosecution would have the right to say "We will not have this case tried summarily. It will go for trial." If it went for trial the fine would be at large. There would be no limit. It has always been the policy of the courts and of Parliament to try not to restrict or fetter the discretion of the courts particularly by imposing a minimum fine or sentence, because there are so many cases where it would be an injustice to the accused to have so large a fine imposed, not only by reason of the nature of the offence but in particular by reason of the financial circumstances of the accused.

Then there were the interesting amendments in the name of the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Pardoe) which I admit have caused me a great deal of hard work and interest during the past two days. They are attractive in this sense, that they seek to avoid any penal consequences arising out of the Bill. In fact, one has to have a penal provision in order to make the Bill bite quickly. But what is proposed here would mean that all that would be lost by the person who contravened the measure would be an amount governed by the extent to which he had contravened it. That would not be enough, in my view, when one considers what sort of offences might be committed.

There would be difficulties in any event because of the vast administrative set-up that would be required. There would inevitably be a time lag, and the recovery of the surcharge would continue for a long time after the Act had expired. By operating on the overall wages and salary bill, the proposals would open the way to evasion by de-manning, because the amendment is based on the overall wage bill and uses it as a yardstick. Evasion could easily be achieved by firms paying fewer workers more money, and that would create a major enforcement difficulty.

There would be another problem in that payment by way of surcharge on national insurance contributions would distort the national insurance scheme. A great deal of thought would be required in determining how it would eventually be dealt with.

My feeling from the debate is that several hon. Members seem to think that the Bill and its provisions will be with us for ever. It is a short-term Bill designed to work for 90 days and, if necessary, for a further 60 days. What is required in the Bill is a simple and effective means of enforcement such as is provided by the criminal courts.

Mr. Heffer

The Committee understands that it is a short-term Bill, but will the Solicitor-General give an assurance that the penal provisions will not be included in the longer-term Bill that will follow?

The Solicitor-General

I may be very green, having been in Parliament only for two years, but the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton knows very well that I can give no such assurance.

A consideration arising on subsection (7) is the difficulty involved with rents. Rents have been left out of subsection (7) and put into the schedule because they fall into a special category. It is difficult to include rents in the general provisions of Clause 5, and it is much better for the Minister to have power to make the specialised orders necessary to cover the special cases that might arise.

For the reasons which I have put forward in the short time allowed to me, and particularly because the Bill must be applied fairly and right across the board so that the benefits are felt generally, I advise the Committee to vote against the amendment.

Mr. Reg Prentice (East Ham, North)

We extend to the new Solicitor-General our congratulations on having reached this eminent office so early in his parliamentary career, and our sympathies with him on having to make such a bad case at the Dispatch Box so soon after assuming office. I am not being personal, but merely saying that he has, on behalf of his right hon. Friends, to defend a bad Bill.

In a debate so pregnant with the subject of industrial relations, we might have had at the Dispatch Box the Secretary of State for Employment or one of the Ministers from that Department, none of whom has taken part in the Committee. We are, unhappily, accustomed to Solicitors-General taking part in industrial relations debates. We recall the part played by the previous Solicitor-General in the Industrial Relations Act and in the orders that flowed from it.

The Solicitor-General's presence underlines the warning given by my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr. Heffer) of the parallel between the penal provisions of Clause 5 and the provisions of the Industrial Relations Act.

There are differences, and it is interesting to note that in drafting the Bill the Government have taken care, in subsection (8), to preclude actions under the Industrial Relations Act arising from the provisions of the Bill. Nevertheless, the parallel will clearly be seen by trade unionists and by the general public, in the sense that the Bill, like the Industrial Relations Act, can lead to prosecutions of trade unionists, to fines being imposed upon them and, in certain circumstances, to their being sent to gaol.

The Solicitor-General was careful to explain that a gaol sentence would be avoided in a whole series of circumstances, and we accept that, but he said that "some men might be determined to be martyrs". There are sometimes situations in industrial conflicts when men are prepared to be martyrs, and we have recent experience of that. Whether they are right or wrong in their determination to be martyrs is not what we are debating. We are debating whether the Government are wise to create these situations.

Because of the recent memory of the dock strike in the summer I should have thought that the Government would not want to legislate in this way, because it could lead to the kind of situation that arose over Midland Cold Storage, where the original argument concerned one place and a few dozen men but it escalated into a national industrial crisis. The clause contains the seeds for a conflict of that kind, and it poses a question which the Committee ought seriously to consider. It is the question that has been posed to a greater or lesser extent in most of the amendments that we have debated during the last three days.

The question is whether the Government really want to resume talks with the TUC on these matters. They say that they do, but if they want us to believe that they ought to recall that the industrial crises during the summer led to deep feelings within the trade union movement which very nearly made it impossible for the TUC to join in the talks that took place with the Government and the CBI. When the TUC members were invited to the talks many trade unionists took the view that a Government whose policies had led to the Industrial Relations Act and all that flowed from it were not the kind of Government with whom trade union leaders ought to have serious talks about the management of the economy. Wiser counsels prevailed, to the extent that the talks did take place, but Ministers ought to recognise the facts of life.

If the Bill leads to trade unionists being prosecuted and sent to gaol it will be difficult, if not impossible, for trade union leaders, in the foreseeable future, to resume talks with the Government on the problem of inflation. By persisting in getting the clause through as it stands the Government are causing people to question how far they want an agreed solution to the problem. The Government say that that is what they want, but by their attitude to this and other amendments they seem determined to pursue a course that will lead to more divisiveness and, in the long run, to more inflation.

Question put, That the Amendment be made:—

The Committee divided: Ayes 255, Noes 290.

Division No. 14.] AYES [10.45 p.m.
Abse, Leo Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston) Maclennan, Robert
Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.) Fletcher, Ted (Darlington) McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis) Foley, Maurice McNamara, J. Kevin
Ashley, Jack Foot, Michael Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Ashton, Joe Ford, Ben Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Atkinson, Norman Forrester, John Marks, Kenneth
Bagier, Gordon A. T. Fraser, John (Norwood) Marquand, David
Barnes, Michael Freeson, Reginald Marsden, F.
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich) Galpern, Sir Myer Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton) Garrett, W. E. Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Beaney, Alan Gilbert, Dr. John Mayhew, Christopher
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury) Meacher, Michael
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton) Golding, John Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Bidwell, Sydney Gourlay, Harry Mendelson, John
Bishop, E. S. Grant, George (Morpeth) Millan, Bruce
Blenkinsop, Arthur Grant, John D. (Islington, E.) Miller, Dr. M. S.
Boardman, H. (Leigh) Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside) Milne, Edward
Booth, Albert Griffiths, Will (Exchange) Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur Hamilton, James (Bothwell) Molloy, William
Boyden, James(Bishop Auckland) Hamilton, William (Fife, W.) Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Bradley, Tom Hamling, William Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.) Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill) Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan) Hardy, Peter Moyle, Roland
Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch & F'bury) Harrison, Walter (Wakefield) Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Buchan, Norman Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith Murray, Ronald King
Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn) Hattersley, Roy Oakes, Gordon
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green) Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis Ogden, Eric
Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.) Heffer, Eric S. O'Halloran, Michael
Cant, R. B. Horam, John O'Malley, Brian
Carmichael, Neil Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas Oram, Bert
Carter, Ray (Birmingham, Northfield) Huckfield, Leslie Orbach, Maurice
Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey) Orme, Stanley
Clark, David (Colne Valley) Hughes, Mark (Durham) Oswald, Thomas
Cocks, Michael (Bristol, S.) Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.) Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)
Cohen, Stanley Hughes, Roy (Newport) Padley, Walter
Coleman, Donald Hunter, Adam Paget, R. T.
Concannon, J. D. Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill) Palmer, Arthur
Conlan, Bernard Janner, Greville Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles
Corbet, Mrs. Freda Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas Parker, John (Dagenham)
Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.) Jenkins, Hugh (Putney) Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)
Cronin, John Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford) Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred
Pendry, Tom
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg.
Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony John, Brynmor Prescott, John
Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.) Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.) Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.) Price, William (Rugby)
Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven) Johnson, Walter (Darby, S.) Probert, Arthur
Dalyell, Tam Jones, Barry (Flint, E.) Reed, D. (Sedgefield)
Darling, Rt. Hn. George Jones, Dan (Burnley) Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)
Davidson, Arthur Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.) Rhodes, Geoffrey
Davies, Denzil (Llanelly) Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen) Richard, Ivor
Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.) Kaufman, Gerald Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Davies, Ifor (Gower) Kelley, Richard Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&R'dnor)
Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.) Kerr, Russell Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy (Caernarvon)
Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove) Kinnock, Neil Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)
Deakins, Eric Lambie, David Roper, John
de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey Lamborn, Harry Rose, Paul B.
Boss, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)
Delargy, Hugh Lamond, James Rowlands, Ted
Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund Latham, Arthur Sandelson, Neville
Dempsey, James Lawson, George Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)
Dormand, J. D. Leadbitter, Ted Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)
Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.) Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick Short, Rt.Hn.Edward(N'c'tle-u-Tyne)
Douglas-Mann, Bruce Leonard, Dick Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)
Duffy, A. E. P. Lestor, Miss Joan Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)
Dunn, James A. Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.) Sillars, James
Dunnett, Jack Lewis, Ron (Carlisle) Silverman, Julius
Eadie, Alex Lipton, Marcus Skinner, Dennis
Edelman, Maurice Lomas, Kenneth Small, William
Edwards, Robert (Bilston) Loughlin, Charles Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)
Edwards, William (Merioneth) Lyon, Alexander W. (York) Spearing, Nigel
English, Michael Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.) Spriggs, Leslie
Evans, Fred Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson Stallard, A. W.
Ewing, Harry McBride, Neil Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)
Faulds, Andrew McCartney, Hugh Stoddart, David (Swindon)
Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E. McGuire, Michael Strang, Gavin
Fisher, Mrs. Doris(B'ham,Ladywood) Mackenzie, Gregor Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.
Mackie, John Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley
Fitt, Gerard (Belfast, W.) Mackintosh, John P. Swain, Thomas
Thomas, Rt. Hn. George (Cardiff, W.) Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints) Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery) Walker, Harold (Doncaster) Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)
Thomson, Rt. Hn. G. (Dundee, E.) Watkins, David Williams, W. T. (Warrington)
Tinn, James Weitzman, David Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)
Tomney, Frank Wellbeloved, James Woof, Robert
Torney, Tom Wells, William (Walsall, N.)
Tuck, Raphael White, James (Glasgow, Pollok) TELLERS FOR THE AYES:
Urwin, T. W. Whitehead, Phillip Mr. Joseph Harper and
Varley, Eric G. Whitlock, William Mr. Ernest G. Perry.
Wainwright, Edwin Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Adley, Robert du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward Jessel, Toby
Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash) Dykes, Hugh Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Allason, James (Hemel Hempstead) Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke) Jopling, Michael
Archer, Jeffrey (Louth) Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tle-upon-Tyne,N.) Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Astor, John Emery, Peter Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Atkins, Humphrey Eyre, Reginald Kershaw, Anthony
Awdry, Daniel Farr, John Kilfedder, James
Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone) Fell, Anthony Kimball, Marcus
Baker, W. H. K. (Banff) Fenner, Mrs. Peggy King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord Fidler, Michael King, Tom (Bridgewater)
Barber, Rt. Hn. Anthony Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead) Kinsey, J. R.
Batsford, Brian Fletcher-Cooke, Charles Kirk, Peter
Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton Fookes, Miss Janet Knight, Mrs. Jill
Bell, Ronald Fortescue, Tim Knox, David
Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay) Foster, Sir John Lambton, Lord
Benyon, W. Fowler, Norman Lamont, Norman
Bitten, John Fry, Peter Lane, David
Biggs-Davison, John Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D. Langford-Holt, Sir John
Blaker, Peter Gardner, Edward Le Marchant, Spencer
Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.) Gibson-Watt, David Lewis, Kenneth (Rutland)
Body, Richard Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.) Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Boscawen, Hn. Robert Glyn, Dr. Alan Loveridge, John
Bossom, Sir Clive Godber, Rt. Hn. J. B. Luce, R. N.
Bowden, Andrew Goodhart, Philip MacArthur, Ian
Braine, Sir Bernard Goodhew, Victor McCrindle, R. A.
Bray, Ronald Gorst, John McLaren, Martin
Brinton, Sir Tatton Gower, Raymond Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.) McMaster, Stanley
Brown, Sir Edward (Bath) Gray, Hamish Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Maurice (Farnham)
Bryan, Sir Paul Green, Alan McNair-Wilson, Michael
Buchanan-Smith, Alick(Angus,N & M) Grieve, Percy McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)
Buck, Antony Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds) Maddan, Martin
Bullus, Sir Eric Grimond, Rt. Hn. J. Madel, David
Burden, F. A. Grylls, Michael Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest
Butler, Adam (Bosworth) Gummer, J. Selwyn Marten, Neil
Campbell, Rt.Hn.G.(Moray & Nairn) Gurden, Harold Mather, Carol
Carlisle, Mark Hall, Miss Joan (Keighley) Maude, Angus
Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert Hall, John (Wycombe) Mawby, Ray
Cary, Sir Robert Hall-Davis, A. G. F. Maxwell-Hyslop, R. J.
Channon, Paul Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury) Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)
Chapman, Sydney Hannam, John (Exeter) Miscampbell, Norman
Harrison, Brian (Maldon) Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)
Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye) Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)
Chichester-Clark, R. Haselhurst, Alan Moate, Roger
Churchill, W. S. Hastings, Stephen Molyneux, James
Clark, William (Surrey, E.) Money, Ernie
Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe) Havers, Michael Monks, Mrs. Connie
Clegg, Walter Hayhoe, Barney Monro, Hector
Cockeram, Eric Heseltine, Michael Montgomery, Fergus
Cooke, Robert Hicks, Robert More, Jasper
Coombs, Derek Higgins, Terence L. Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Cooper, A. E. Hiley, Joseph Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Cordle, John Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.) Morrison, Charles
Corfield, Rt. Hn. Sir Frederick Mudd, David
Cormack, Patrick Hill, James (Southampton, Test) Murton, Oscar
Costain, A. P. Holland, Philip Neave, Airey
Holt, Miss Mary Noble, Rt. Hn. Michael
Critchley, Julian Hordern, Peter Nott, John
Crouch, David Hornby, Richard Onslow, Cranley
Crowder, F. P. Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate) Orr, Capt. L. P. S.
Davies, Rt. Hn. John (Knutsford) Osborn, John
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.) Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)
d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Maj.-Gen.Jack Hunt, John Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)
Dean, Paul Hutchison, Michael Clark Page, John (Harrow, W.)
Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F. Iremonger, T. L. Pardoe, John
Digby, Simon Wingfield Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye) Parkinson, Cecil
Dixon, Piers James, David Peel, John
Dodds-Parker, Douglas Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford) Percival, Ian
Drayson, G. B. Jennings, J. C. (Burton) Pike, Miss Mervyn
Pink, R. Bonner Simeons, Charles Trew, Peter
Pounder, Ration Sinclair, Sir George Tugendhat, Christopher
Price, David (Eastleigh) Skeet, T. H. H. Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L. Smith, Cyril (Rochdale) van Straubenzee, W. R.
Proudfoot, Wilfred Smith, Dudley (W'wick & L'mington) Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis Soref, Harold Vickers, Dame Joan
Raison, Timothy Speed, Keith Walder, David (Clitheroe)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James Spence, John Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
Rawlinson, Rt. Hn. Sir Peter Sproat, lain Wall, Patrick
Redmond, Robert Stainton, Keith Walters, Dennis
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.) Stanbrook, Ivor Ward, Dame Irene
Rees, Peter (Dover) Steel, David Warren, Kenneth
Rees-Davies, W. R. Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper) Weatherill, Bernard
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.) Wells, John (Maidstone)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon Stoddart-Scott, Col. Sir M. White, Roger (Gravesend)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas Stokes, John Wiggin, Jerry
Ridsdale, Julian Stuttaford, Dr. Tom Wilkinson, John
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey Sutcliffe, John Winterton, Nicholas
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff, N.) Tapsell, Peter Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick
Roberts, Wyn (Conway) Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne) Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks) Taylor, Frank (Moss Side) Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey) Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.) Woodnutt, Mark
Rost, Peter Tebbit, Norman Worsley, Marcus
Russell, Sir Ronald Temple, John M. Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.
St. John-Stevas, Norman Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret Younger, Hn. George
Scott, Nicholas Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Scott-Hopkins, James Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.) TELLERS FOR THE NOES:
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh & Whitby) Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.) Mr. Paul Hawkins and
Shelton, William (Clapham) Tilney, John Mr. Marcus Fox.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 5 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clauses 6 to 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule agreed to.

It being Eleven o'clock, The CHAIRMAN, pursuant to Order [14th November], left the Chair to report the Bill, without Amendment, to the House.

Bill reported, without Amendment; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Back to
Forward to